Objective look at Hasselbeck

A collection of NET's best and most memorable threads. Predictions, debates, laughs, and X's & O's. Rating: PG to NC-17
Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 10:04 pm
  • cknoxxhawk wrote:wow. people here putting hass in column with breese, farve? there's more than koolaide in that koolaide.

    people who have said many times over there is no hate are correct, and I too agree with love the team, not the player. good luck telling some bullish fans that though. it's unreal.

    no hate, just fact.

    the SF win - first, you can thank your defense for the majority of that game win. Matt was average and serviceable that day at best ( because , really he's an average qb overall ). defense wins games and that was shown that day.
    add to this it was season game 1 in our incredibly tough stadium (awesome btw) and that SF was not playing like the SF that should have been there.

    enter the reverse of this with Denver game unfortunately. our qb stunk it up to high heaven, our PR compiled it with a fumble and our d was called upon in mile high 120 degree weather far too much. Denver's o is tough, but even so the d eventually wore down.

    Lot's of factors but none of it points to signs Hass is honestly a top tier qb I'm afraid, and that's what some are insinuating. I sure like the guy but when it's said it's time to look into our next qb to lead a rebuilding team, I'd have to agree. other than obvious and consistent frustration with the situation (it's kind of sad I'll admit), just as the rest of the team is a rebuild , it's time it applies to the qb position. whether it's CW or not is completely unknown, but the problem is known IMO. 35 is a very real number I'm afraid. :(

    speaking of CW, it's complete BS saying the guy cannot be a solid qb. i wont listen to a word of that nonsense. nobody here knows anything about that I'm afraid. the only thing you can do is put him in the pit and go to work in finding out. if worse after given proper time, you now know and you move on in finding it. but talk of preseason? really? too funny.

    oh well, there is a lot to be excited about though withthis new team. this topic is a bit sad in comparison. like Matt but think it's time.



    not really picking on you here, but this is basically what all the hass detractors (haters) have been saying through this whole thread, and for quite a while actually. The problem with this theory is that you all say that it's time for Whitehurst and Hass isn't the man to win the games, but I didn't know that the fans on a message board knew better about who was the best quarterback on the field and in practice. How is it that we haven't seen enough of Whitehurst to judge him not good enough but you have seen enough to judge him ready to play over the man the COACHES have said is the clear starterand that it's not Charlie's time yet? Funny how one side is pre judging without knowledge and the other side thinks they know better than the coaches that he is ready to play now with the same set of (or lack of) knowledge. How does that work? Bottome line is that our coaches, our players, alot of the fans and most of the NFL experts believe that Hasselbeck is the best qb on our team and that trumps the sad arguments of emotional fans after a bad game
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 14045
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 1:00 am
  • kidhawk wrote:
    cknoxxhawk wrote:wow. people here putting hass in column with breese, farve? there's more than koolaide in that koolaide.

    people who have said many times over there is no hate are correct, and I too agree with love the team, not the player. good luck telling some bullish fans that though. it's unreal.

    no hate, just fact.

    the SF win - first, you can thank your defense for the majority of that game win. Matt was average and serviceable that day at best ( because , really he's an average qb overall ). defense wins games and that was shown that day.
    add to this it was season game 1 in our incredibly tough stadium (awesome btw) and that SF was not playing like the SF that should have been there.

    enter the reverse of this with Denver game unfortunately. our qb stunk it up to high heaven, our PR compiled it with a fumble and our d was called upon in mile high 120 degree weather far too much. Denver's o is tough, but even so the d eventually wore down.

    Lot's of factors but none of it points to signs Hass is honestly a top tier qb I'm afraid, and that's what some are insinuating. I sure like the guy but when it's said it's time to look into our next qb to lead a rebuilding team, I'd have to agree. other than obvious and consistent frustration with the situation (it's kind of sad I'll admit), just as the rest of the team is a rebuild , it's time it applies to the qb position. whether it's CW or not is completely unknown, but the problem is known IMO. 35 is a very real number I'm afraid. :(

    speaking of CW, it's complete BS saying the guy cannot be a solid qb. i wont listen to a word of that nonsense. nobody here knows anything about that I'm afraid. the only thing you can do is put him in the pit and go to work in finding out. if worse after given proper time, you now know and you move on in finding it. but talk of preseason? really? too funny.

    oh well, there is a lot to be excited about though withthis new team. this topic is a bit sad in comparison. like Matt but think it's time.



    not really picking on you here, but this is basically what all the hass detractors (haters) have been saying through this whole thread, and for quite a while actually. The problem with this theory is that you all say that it's time for Whitehurst and Hass isn't the man to win the games, but I didn't know that the fans on a message board knew better about who was the best quarterback on the field and in practice. How is it that we haven't seen enough of Whitehurst to judge him not good enough but you have seen enough to judge him ready to play over the man the COACHES have said is the clear starterand that it's not Charlie's time yet? Funny how one side is pre judging without knowledge and the other side thinks they know better than the coaches that he is ready to play now with the same set of (or lack of) knowledge. How does that work? Bottome line is that our coaches, our players, alot of the fans and most of the NFL experts believe that Hasselbeck is the best qb on our team and that trumps the sad arguments of emotional fans after a bad game



    I hear ya, but I'm not saying pull him for the chargers here, just that it is time I'm afraid and this will likely be his last go.
    but none of us really know.
    cknoxxhawk
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 474
    Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 6:05 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 4:56 am
  • When it was Dilfer vs Hass, I supported Hass. I think history has proven that the right call. Today I support Whitehurst. I think that Hass still has the requisite skills to be an effective starter, but he is gun shy. When a player loses their nerve, it's over. He is checking down against phantom rushes. It's time to give Charlie a chance. Perhaps Charlie is no better, but he deserves the same opportunity to develop that Hass deserved 10 years ago.

    While the division is still in play - and it definitely is - I understand the desire to play the vet. But I am no longer sure that Matt gives us the best chance to win the division. Matt Hasselbeck will always be one of my favorite Seahawks and it really sucks to see what's happened to him, but it is time to move on.
    "It was so loud Derrick Coleman heard it."
    User avatar
    Thunderhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 501
    Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2009 6:44 pm


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 6:10 am
  • When Coach Carrol decides Hasselbeck's time is done as our starter QB, then and only then will I be cool with it, he is the better of the two between him and Whitehurst right now, and if he pulls the plug prematurely he could lose a lot of support, in a rebuild he needs all the support he can get...The team looks promising so far minus the few key mistakes made in the Broncos game, those will not be in every game obviously, and we have a good shot to take our division this year, we need to compete to win, and we are doing just that by fielding the best players, not by fielding possible future hopefuls...Our pass rush on defense is the primary focus imo at this point, it needs to be more consistent if at all possible, our offense needs more time to gel and make plays, a good game should truly not be lost by two or three turnovers, because a good all around team can make up for the mistake, although, clearly from a disadvantage point.
    Seahawksfan10
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 361
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 11:12 am
    Location: Houston, Tx


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 6:26 am
  • Trrrroy wrote:
    JohnnyB wrote: The apparently difficult to understand part is about how all QBs have bad stretches and it doesn't make them bad QBs.


    The problem is that Matt's "bad stretch" is going on three years.


    You're proving my point. In order to make this statement you have to completely forget just 7 days prior when he had a 105 QB rating and had a string of 10 for 11 completions.
    "Unless you were in that meeting room and know what we're supposed to do, don't assume!" -T.J.H.
    User avatar
    JohnnyB
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 358
    Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 9:36 pm


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 6:30 am
  • JohnnyB wrote:
    Trrrroy wrote:
    JohnnyB wrote: The apparently difficult to understand part is about how all QBs have bad stretches and it doesn't make them bad QBs.


    The problem is that Matt's "bad stretch" is going on three years.


    You're proving my point. In order to make this statement you have to completely forget just 7 days prior when he had a 105 QB rating and had a string of 10 for 11 completions.


    sun shines on a dogs ass once in a while
    Image
    3elieve
    User avatar
    Throwdown
    * NET Baller *
     
    Posts: 19218
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:02 am
    Location: Graham, WA


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 6:53 am
  • warner28 wrote:
    Trrrroy wrote:
    warner28 wrote:I would love to see these dozen Pro Bowl QBs that have had a 5 game stretch with 13 picks after their 3rd year in the league, I ain't looking but I'd love to see it if true.


    Just did a quick check. Even Favre in his worst years didn't have a stretch that bad.

    EDIT: I guess I'm wrong, lol.


    Nope, I was wrong, got TDs and INT mixed up on the football reference page.

    He had 15 TDs in 5 games in 2007.


    After re-checking the proper column for Favre the worst I could find was 11 in 5 games in 2005, 5 of those came in 1 game


    Just a quick glance and not exhaustive but it appears that even the ultimate gunslinger never had this bad of a stretch.


    You better check a fourth time, and then a fifth and sixth. And then maybe just give up and listen to what I'm saying. As a fan you need a scapegoat, you want something to be true so you only see what you want to see. This is no condemnation. I'm sure I do the same thing.

    So first of all Matt has not thrown 15 in five games, he's thrown 13 in five games. Favre threw 14 in a stretch of five games in 98. Just in the 'F's there's Dan Fouts, one of the most consistent passers I have ever seen and a perennial Pro Bowler, threw 16 in a five game stretch in 1986. Plenty more can be found.
    "Unless you were in that meeting room and know what we're supposed to do, don't assume!" -T.J.H.
    User avatar
    JohnnyB
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 358
    Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 9:36 pm


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 7:17 am
  • Throwdown wrote:
    JohnnyB wrote:
    Trrrroy wrote:The problem is that Matt's "bad stretch" is going on three years.


    You're proving my point. In order to make this statement you have to completely forget just 7 days prior when he had a 105 QB rating and had a string of 10 for 11 completions.


    sun shines on a dogs ass once in a while


    Actually, I think there's something worth looking at there.

    It's interesting how the flow of a game can cause a QB to look really good or really bad. what I mean by that is football is a little like poker in that everything is about the situation, and playing your best hand given the situation.

    For example, if your team has controlled the game and is up by 3 scores in the 3rd quarter, the opposing defense is going to be a little more passive because they don't want to give up the big play and have the game put out of reach. with little to no pass rush and soft zone coverage, the QB can just sit back there and pick the defense apart at his leisure. He's going to have some nice looking numbers at the end of the day.

    Opposite example: playing on the road, down 3 scores by the second half. you're going to have to throw the ball to get back into the game and the opposing defense can afford to give up some big gains, and they don't have to respect the run so much. they're going to blitz, jump routes, try to keep your offense on it's heels. situation is ripe for poor quarterback play.

    What I guess I'm trying to say here is when things are going well and the offense can get into a rthyhm, matt tends to play well. When faced with adversity, he has a tendency to try and do too much and hand the ball over. On that opening drive in denver, what happened when the wheels started to come off a little and the offense got pushed back after having 1st and goal at the 1? ???? bueller? bueller? anyone?
    RIP Les. We will miss you.
    User avatar
    Happy
    * NET Lead Admin *
     
    Posts: 8598
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:47 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 7:26 am
  • If you're talking multiple pro bowl QB's, then yea I can see your point, but the most obvious was Cutler last year. His whole year stunk, he's playing well now, and went to at least 1 pro bowl prior.
    Hawks46
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3740
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:01 pm


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 7:27 am
  • Throwdown wrote:The apparently difficult to understand part is about how all QBs have bad stretches and it doesn't make them bad QBs.


    The problem is that Matt's "bad stretch" is going on three years.[/quote]

    You're proving my point. In order to make this statement you have to completely forget just 7 days prior when he had a 105 QB rating and had a string of 10 for 11 completions.[/quote]

    sun shines on a dogs ass once in a while


    But of course you can't deny that it really hasn't been a long stretch of nothing but bad play, like it would be with someone who actually wasn't a good player. Even the Denver game was mostly good play by Hasselbeck, interrupted by the interceptions and a string of about five passes where his accuracy left him (again, the same thing happens to every QB at times).

    All you Mattractors, or whatever you want to call yourselves, will soon be eating your words anyway. After what we saw from the Oline in Denver, I expect the offense to do very well this year, with Hasselbeck leading the way.
    "Unless you were in that meeting room and know what we're supposed to do, don't assume!" -T.J.H.
    User avatar
    JohnnyB
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 358
    Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 9:36 pm


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 7:39 am
  • JohnnyB wrote:All you Mattractors, or whatever you want to call yourselves, will soon be eating your words anyway. After what we saw from the Oline in Denver, I expect the offense to do very well this year, with Hasselbeck leading the way.


    Why do you insist on lumping everyone that has concerns about matt into one group and labeling them with a derogatory term? What purpose does that serve anyway?
    RIP Les. We will miss you.
    User avatar
    Happy
    * NET Lead Admin *
     
    Posts: 8598
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:47 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 7:52 am
  • JohnnyB wrote:You better check a fourth time, and then a fifth and sixth. And then maybe just give up and listen to what I'm saying. As a fan you need a scapegoat, you want something to be true so you only see what you want to see. This is no condemnation. I'm sure I do the same thing.

    So first of all Matt has not thrown 15 in five games, he's thrown 13 in five games. Favre threw 14 in a stretch of five games in 98. Just in the 'F's there's Dan Fouts, one of the most consistent passers I have ever seen and a perennial Pro Bowler, threw 16 in a five game stretch in 1986. Plenty more can be found.



    You are correct, found those, and am not surprised. Again, I just took a quick look. Still not sure you could find a dozen such stretches but maybe you can.

    The interceptions really are not the reason I view Matt in a poor light, its his entire game. Interceptions happen, the problems with Matt are timing of those interceptions and not stepping up when needed.

    On Sunday the Seahawks needed Matt, who is their veteran leader and captain, to step up and keep them in a winnable game and instead he played like a deer in the headlights.

    Sorry, you can excuse it all you want, you can claim its just emotion all you want, the facts speak for themselves, Seattle had a chance last Sunday if Matt plays better, Matt failed to step up when a leader needed to step up.

    That is the fact, even Matt admits it.

    Not sure why you have to bad mouth people that simply agree with Matt.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 7:54 am
  • Hawks46 wrote:If you're talking multiple pro bowl QB's, then yea I can see your point, but the most obvious was Cutler last year. His whole year stunk, he's playing well now, and went to at least 1 pro bowl prior.


    I think that's a perfect example. I think you have to evaluate a QB's play in the context of a large number of factors and that's what can make it so hard to figure out if some guy is really good, a bum, or more likely something in between. Certianly provides lots of material for interesting discussions though right?
    RIP Les. We will miss you.
    User avatar
    Happy
    * NET Lead Admin *
     
    Posts: 8598
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:47 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 8:48 am
  • Stretch of bad play? This is the argument? Bad play on a team that has been purged or over half the roster from last season's final snap? We have been a horrible team over the past several years. Who has been consistently good on our team in that span? who? They've all ben consistently bad (by all I will allow that there may be the odd exception but most starters have not looked great over the past few years). Now PC has come in and cleaned house, cutting players that weren't good enough to play for him and keeping others, making some starters into backups etc. With all that, it's a new team, a new regime with new schemes. Matt's had two games, one where he started poorly but overall had a pretty good outing, another where he started well (and you all weren't bitching when he was driving down the field) and made some mistakes. Every player has bad games. Matt is our starter today and that is all that matters. Those who want to call for whitehurst right now when the team is still tied for first in the division with actually a chance at making the playoffs need to chill out and let the coaches coach and stop all the bitching and moaning. If Charlie was so great he'd be playing. When Charlie is ready, he'll be playing. Right now Matt is playing so support the man for F's sake
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 14045
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 9:05 am
  • It doesn't matter who our QB is, if he has a bad game then everyone will complain about terrible he is. Good games they'll be praising him.

    If Hasselbeck has a good game this sunday, the haters will disappear and wait till he has another bad game. When the Seahawks win, its not because of Hass, even if he accounts for more than half the points like week 1 vs the Niners. Nah, its the team that won. But when the Seahawks lose, its Hasselbeck's fault.
    ~ The Stache'
    User avatar
    Zowert
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1990
    Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 2:29 pm
    Location: Seattle


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 9:14 am
  • Zowert wrote:It doesn't matter who our QB is, if he has a bad game then everyone will complain about terrible he is. Good games they'll be praising him.

    If Hasselbeck has a good game this sunday, the haters will disappear and wait till he has another bad game. When the Seahawks win, its not because of Hass, even if he accounts for more than half the points like week 1 vs the Niners. Nah, its the team that won. But when the Seahawks lose, its Hasselbeck's fault.


    This is just silly.

    Matt got credit for week 1, he played a good game. Was he the difference in that game? Not in my opinion (looking at week 1 objectively and Matt was not the difference in that game, he played a role but was not the difference) but he got credit.

    Disagree with me all you want but a very very sound argument can be made that the difference in the game last Sunday was Matt's play.

    Its not just making stuff up, look at the stats, remember how the game was played, the difference was not our defense sucking (which they did) because Denver's defense also sucked, the difference was QB play. That is not some emotional hatred of Matt coming to the surface, it is a very very very reasonable opinion based on the facts of the game that was played last Sunday.

    The Matt 'supporters' crowd are ignoring what they saw and going off emotions, not the other way around.

    Seriously, bring up the defense all you want but Seattle punted less than Denver so the defense was NOT the difference. The difference was QB play last Sunday.

    Deal with it.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 9:19 am
  • disagree.

    Special teams turned the ball over after the defense got a stop early in the game. Some very questionable play calling on defense at times, one leading directly to a walk in TD. leaving points on the field on the 4th and 2 conversion attempt. carlson not adjusting his route on what would have been a big play.

    lots of blame to spread around. matt shot himself in the foot early which was totally his bad, but like I mentioned above, being down three scores makes your offense one dimensional and it's very difficult to overcome.
    RIP Les. We will miss you.
    User avatar
    Happy
    * NET Lead Admin *
     
    Posts: 8598
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:47 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 9:36 am
  • warner28 wrote:
    Zowert wrote:It doesn't matter who our QB is, if he has a bad game then everyone will complain about terrible he is. Good games they'll be praising him.

    If Hasselbeck has a good game this sunday, the haters will disappear and wait till he has another bad game. When the Seahawks win, its not because of Hass, even if he accounts for more than half the points like week 1 vs the Niners. Nah, its the team that won. But when the Seahawks lose, its Hasselbeck's fault.


    This is just silly.

    Matt got credit for week 1, he played a good game. Was he the difference in that game? Not in my opinion (looking at week 1 objectively and Matt was not the difference in that game, he played a role but was not the difference) but he got credit.

    Disagree with me all you want but a very very sound argument can be made that the difference in the game last Sunday was Matt's play.

    Its not just making stuff up, look at the stats, remember how the game was played, the difference was not our defense sucking (which they did) because Denver's defense also sucked, the difference was QB play. That is not some emotional hatred of Matt coming to the surface, it is a very very very reasonable opinion based on the facts of the game that was played last Sunday.

    The Matt 'supporters' crowd are ignoring what they saw and going off emotions, not the other way around.

    Seriously, bring up the defense all you want but Seattle punted less than Denver so the defense was NOT the difference. The difference was QB play last Sunday.

    Deal with it.


    So you think if Matt didn't run that heroic TD then the game would've turned out the same? Nah, that got the team all jacked and pumped.

    You say you're looking at this "objectively" but there is an obvious bias, especially since you have a history of Hassel-hating. You're just waiting for every little mistake he makes so you can some in here and say, "SEE! I told you so." If it wasn't Matt, it would be someone else. There always has to be a scapegoat.
    Last edited by Zowert on Wed Sep 22, 2010 9:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
    ~ The Stache'
    User avatar
    Zowert
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1990
    Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 2:29 pm
    Location: Seattle


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 9:36 am
  • sadhappy,

    No one is claiming Matt is the ONLY one that gets the blame but again, look at it objectively.

    The Broncos defense sucked too so the defenses canceled each other out from a 'game changing' perspective.

    The 4th and 2 play, Matt did not give the team a chance to make a play, Matt (not the coaches, not anyone else) threw the ball out of the endzone.



    No one is making the claim that everyone else was perfect but just about everything but the QB play was even between the teams yet the team was blown out. Sorry but objectively speaking QB play was the difference last Sunday.

    Deny it if you choose but the tale of the tape says it was QB play.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 9:42 am
  • Zowert wrote:So you think if Matt didn't run that heroic TD then the game would've turned out the same? Nah, that got the team all jacked and pumped.



    Maybe, you can't prove that factually though, it may be true, may not be.

    Again Matt got credit for that game anyway.


    You can prove factually that Denver's defense also sucked last Sunday and that the difference in the game was turnovers, Matt was directly responsible for 2 of the 3 big ones, its not like Denver's defense made great plays, they were just terrible throws.


    Oh well, you have already proved you are going on nothing but emotion with the joke of a post you made earlier.

    I will stick to the tale of the tape and it shows that Matt played a miserable game last Sunday that cost Seattle a chance to win. Even Matt admits as much (as a leader should).
    MARTYREDwarner
     


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 9:56 am
  • and Charlie Whitehurst is now the best answer? Ha yeah right!!
    xxrighteous1xx
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 302
    Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:55 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 9:56 am
  • JSeahawks wrote:
    muxpux wrote:you guys do realize that without Andrews' holding penalty, the pick on the opening drive never happens, and who knows how the game goes after that.

    just checking. :th2thumbs:


    And without the trade for Andrews he wouldnt have been here to hold.
    And without losing Hutch our line might still be good.
    And we can go on and on, but regardless the interception did happen and it was a bad play.

    Personally i think Matt will still be good for us this year, we shall see.


    JS, I agree about Matt. I know it's a technicality but it wasn't Andrews that was called for holding, it was Locklear. Andrews got called for a false start a play earlier. They had the ball at the one yard line, the false start brought it back to the 6, and then the holding call on Lock took back to 21. Thus, the reason why Hass was throwing in the first place.
    User avatar
    hawkfan68
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 3812
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:10 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 9:58 am
  • xxrighteous1xx wrote:and Charlie Whitehurst is now the best answer? Ha yeah right!!


    Ding ding ding!
    ~ The Stache'
    User avatar
    Zowert
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1990
    Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 2:29 pm
    Location: Seattle


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:01 am
  • Zowert wrote:
    xxrighteous1xx wrote:and Charlie Whitehurst is now the best answer? Ha yeah right!!


    Ding ding ding!


    I'd rather find out than go 8-8 with Matt.

    And for the record, I am far from convinced that Seattle will end up with a better record with Matt starting, we will never know since Matt is starting but its possible (unlikely but possible) that Whitehurst comes out and is incredible. Most likely he is average to slightly below average and the team finishes roughly exactly where they will finish with Matt starting and at least we know what to do at the QB position going forward.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:01 am
  • After 11 pages, the real question now is: Would anyone like a cookie?
    Super Bowl Champions XVLIII

    RIP Radish: Check your PMs. Upper right corner.
    User avatar
    Sarlacc83
    * NET Philistine *
     
    Posts: 15453
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:02 am
    Location: Portland, OR


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:02 am
  • warner28 wrote:
    Zowert wrote:
    xxrighteous1xx wrote:and Charlie Whitehurst is now the best answer? Ha yeah right!!


    Ding ding ding!


    I'd rather find out than go 8-8 with Matt.

    And for the record, I am far from convinced that Seattle will end up with a better record with Matt starting, we will never know since Matt is starting but its possible (unlikely but possible) that Whitehurst comes out and is incredible. Most likely he is average to slightly below average and the team finishes roughly exactly where they will finish with Matt starting and at least we know what to do at the QB position going forward.


    You honestly believe Charlie Whitehurst can lead this team better than Hasselbeck?!?!
    ~ The Stache'
    User avatar
    Zowert
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1990
    Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 2:29 pm
    Location: Seattle


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:02 am
  • Zowert wrote:
    I am not bothered by anyone being critical of Matt, I am just tired of the same old crap every time the man makes a mistake. I think everyone gets it by now. Move on.

    Instead of blaming Matt every sunday, tell us what you would do? Sorry for being a prick, just tired of armchair quarterbacks telling a real QB what he did wrong.



    Pretty sure I have said what I would do many many many many times.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:03 am
  • Not only is Hass the best option for winning games for us, hes the best QB in this division hands down. Lets say that has has a bad game 1 out of every 3 games but guys like Smith and Anderson crap out 1 of every 2. We are still way ahead of the teams in our division at the position. Charlie at this gives you the same chance or less then an AS, or DA. So to say you just want to win games and state Hass doesn't give us the best chance, is foolish hope in Whitehurst.
    xxrighteous1xx
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 302
    Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:55 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:06 am
  • xxrighteous1xx wrote:Not only is Hass the best option for winning games for us, hes the best QB in this division hands down. Lets say that has has a bad game 1 out of every 3 games but guys like Smith and Anderson crap out 1 of every 2. We are still way ahead of the teams in our division at the position. Charlie at this gives you the same chance or less then an AS, or DA. So to say you just want to win games and state Hass doesn't give us the best chance, is foolish hope in Whitehurst.


    You don't get it though, Hass CAN'T have a bad game because we are on our way to the Superbowl remember! :sarcasm_on:
    ~ The Stache'
    User avatar
    Zowert
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1990
    Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 2:29 pm
    Location: Seattle


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:08 am
  • Zowert wrote:
    You honestly believe Charlie Whitehurst can lead this team better than Hasselbeck?!?!



    Did I say that?

    I don't see where I said that.

    What I said in a nutshell.

    Most likely he is average to slightly below average and the team finishes roughly exactly where they will finish with Matt starting and at least we know what to do at the QB position going forward.


    and

    I'd rather find out than go 8-8 with Matt.



    Missed where I claimed he WOULD do better, said might (although clarified that I thought it was doubtful).


    I do honestly believe that at the end of the day this team would finish roughly the same with Charlie or Matt starting. At this point I don't think Matt is capable of taking over a game and winning it for Seattle (I know you disagree) and I do think he is capable of falling apart and costing Seattle games (I know you disagree), I'd expect Whitehurst to be about the same, better physically but will make mistakes due to inexperience (Matt is making those mistakes despite experience because he is limited physically IMO).


    Better? No

    Not sure he'd be worse though.


    And again, I'd rather find out about Whitehurst in 2010 (when the Super Bowl ain't happening anyway) than wait and find out he sucks when the rest of the team is built.


    Call it unreasonable if you want but I think its the correct way to approach 2010.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:11 am
  • Zowert wrote:
    warner28 wrote:
    Zowert wrote:
    I am not bothered by anyone being critical of Matt, I am just tired of the same old crap every time the man makes a mistake. I think everyone gets it by now. Move on.

    Instead of blaming Matt every sunday, tell us what you would do? Sorry for being a prick, just tired of armchair quarterbacks telling a real QB what he did wrong.



    Pretty sure I have said what I would do many many many many times.

    And BTW, no one is making you read these threads.


    Its like a car wreck, you just can't help reading/looking. Hasselbeck has one bad game and all of a sudden he's not the man for the job. I would love to see him have a breakout season just to shut you up.



    Yeah, this game is the only reason, the only reason.

    Shutting me up is easy (I already said how), give Matt an EXTENSION so we know he is the guy going forward. Give him an EXTENSION and I will stop asking for Whitehurst to play (I will still call Matt on games he blows however) but what you don't get is that Matt does not bother me (he is an average NFL QB), what bothers me is wasting 2010 on a QB that won't be here long term, that makes no sense because Seattle is NOT winning the Super Bowl in 2010.

    I have been quite clear with my stance, 2010 is pretty unimportant to me, sure I hope Seattle wins and think they can win the division (with Charlie or Matt starting) but I am more concerned with 2011 and beyond when this team is closer to complete and might be able to make a deep playoff run since that is the goal, division titles are neat but hollow if the team has no chance in the playoffs (and IMO Seattle has no chance in the playoffs in 2010).
    Last edited by MARTYREDwarner on Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:15 am
  • warner28 wrote:Yeah, this game is the only reason, the only reason.

    Shutting me up is easy (I already said how), give Matt an EXTENSION so we know he is the guy going forward. Give him an EXTENSION and I will stop asking for Whitehurst to play (I will still call Matt on games he blows however) but what you don't get is that Matt does not bother me (he is an average NFL QB), what bothers me is wasting 2010 on a QB that won't be here long term, that makes no sense because Seattle is NOT winning the Super Bowl in 2010.


    Why give him an extension now? Lets wait and see how well he performs. If he plays well this season then sign him for 2 more years. He obviously wont be here THAT long since hes 35 years old. It would be nice to keep him for 2 more years while bringing in a rookie that can learn. So by the time Hass retires, he'll be ready to take over.
    ~ The Stache'
    User avatar
    Zowert
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1990
    Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 2:29 pm
    Location: Seattle


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:15 am
  • OMG... just reading page 12 here and seeing circular logic and lots of over-reaction. Can't help but think that going back to work instead of cruising the forums might be a better option for me right now.

    So PC is a politician - he was outright clear in saying that CW is not ready and the MH is the starting QB and gives the best chance to win.

    I see it this way: PC the politician will most likely start MH as long as we are within arms reach of 1st place in our division. If we fall back a few games, and MH continues to throw 2 picks per game average, I'll give you 1 guess as to who the starting QB will be. Because at that point, MH is NOT our best option to win. (remember, "win" is subjective and has a changing meaning - I honestly think that term is tied to our likelihood of winning our division as of today, tomorrow "win" could mean something entirely different...).
    Last edited by nsport on Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
    Image
    User avatar
    nsport
    * NET Sports Handicapper *
     
    Posts: 1446
    Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 9:13 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:15 am
  • Hass will be fine, We will win the division and at seasons end we will be fine. Heads always have to roll after a loss. Just sucks that its always on Matts back every game. I mean the fact we cant run the ball the past couple years has nothing to do with it, or hes had new offense installed the last 2 years, or completely decimated by injury or whatever the reason. Get this team a Legit RB, a legit DE, and one more high caliber OL and this conversation is not even taking place.
    xxrighteous1xx
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 302
    Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:55 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:17 am
  • Zowert wrote:@ warner28. I didn't accuse you of saying anything. I asked you a question. I didn't see the post you made earlier about Charlie.

    Anyway, I think you've lost touch with reality IF you think Charlie would do better than Hass. A guy that hasnt played a single snap in the NFL regular season.



    Again, never said he would do better.

    I am soundly living in reality, I expect Charlie to struggle, I'd rather him struggle in 2010 (when the division is up for grabs but the Super Bowl is unrealistic) and find out what we have than struggle in 2011 when the team is more complete overall.

    I don't think that stance is losing touch with reality or unreasonable in anyway.


    I do think that Matt is not physically capable of running all of Bates offense (his 2nd pick last Sunday was a pass that a Bates QB needs to make), Charlie is. So IMO there is a chance that at the end of the day Matt's physical limitations will hurt Seattle as much as Charlie's inexperience. Not saying that would be the case, saying there is a chance. I am also concerned that recently (last season and last Sunday) Matt often seems to make what I would consider to be rookie mistakes that a veteran leader should not make, that concerns me.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:21 am
  • nsport wrote:OMG... just reading page 12 here and seeing circular logic and lots of over-reaction. Can't help but think that going back to work instead of cruising the forums might be a better option for me right now.

    So PC is a politician - he was outright clear in saying that CW is not ready and the MH is the starting QB and gives the best chance to win.

    I see it this way: PC the politician will most likely start MH as long as we are within arms reach of 1st place in our division. If we fall back a few games, and MH continues to throw 2 picks per game average, I'll give you 1 guess as to who the starting QB will be. Because at that point, MH is NOT our best option to win. (remember, "win" is subjective and has a changing meaning - I honestly think that term is tied to our likelihood of winning our division as of today, tomorrow "win" could mean something entirely different...).


    Solid point. Before our Niner ass kicking, I didn't think we had a chance in hell of winning the division. But here we are rolling into week 3 and we're 1st place in the NFC West. A win this Sunday would mean we have a legitimate shot at the playoffs. Especially if the Niners lose, they'll be 0-3 and won't be much of a threat anymore.
    ~ The Stache'
    User avatar
    Zowert
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1990
    Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 2:29 pm
    Location: Seattle


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:23 am
  • warner28 wrote:
    Zowert wrote:@ warner28. I didn't accuse you of saying anything. I asked you a question. I didn't see the post you made earlier about Charlie.

    Anyway, I think you've lost touch with reality IF you think Charlie would do better than Hass. A guy that hasnt played a single snap in the NFL regular season.



    Again, never said he would do better.

    I am soundly living in reality, I expect Charlie to struggle, I'd rather him struggle in 2010 (when the division is up for grabs but the Super Bowl is unrealistic) and find out what we have than struggle in 2011 when the team is more complete overall.

    I don't think that stance is losing touch with reality or unreasonable in anyway.


    I do think that Matt is not physically capable of running all of Bates offense (his 2nd pick last Sunday was a pass that a Bates QB needs to make), Charlie is. So IMO there is a chance that at the end of the day Matt's physical limitations will hurt Seattle as much as Charlie's inexperience. Not saying that would be the case, saying there is a chance. I am also concerned that recently (last season and last Sunday) Matt often seems to make what I would consider to be rookie mistakes that a veteran leader should not make, that concerns me.


    I never said you did, that's why I capitalized "IF".. Basically it was speaking hypothetically.

    Keep in mind that Matt has two rushing TDs already this year. That kind of lays any "physical limitations" to waste.
    ~ The Stache'
    User avatar
    Zowert
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1990
    Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 2:29 pm
    Location: Seattle


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:25 am
  • Zowert wrote:
    nsport wrote:OMG... just reading page 12 here and seeing circular logic and lots of over-reaction. Can't help but think that going back to work instead of cruising the forums might be a better option for me right now.

    So PC is a politician - he was outright clear in saying that CW is not ready and the MH is the starting QB and gives the best chance to win.

    I see it this way: PC the politician will most likely start MH as long as we are within arms reach of 1st place in our division. If we fall back a few games, and MH continues to throw 2 picks per game average, I'll give you 1 guess as to who the starting QB will be. Because at that point, MH is NOT our best option to win. (remember, "win" is subjective and has a changing meaning - I honestly think that term is tied to our likelihood of winning our division as of today, tomorrow "win" could mean something entirely different...).


    Solid point. Before our Niner ass kicking, I didn't think we had a chance in hell of winning the division. But here we are rolling into week 3 and we're 1st place in the NFC West. A win this Sunday would mean we have a legitimate shot at the playoffs. Especially if the Niners lose, they'll be 0-3 and won't be much of a threat anymore.


    To be fair, I think none of the NFC West teams has much of a shot at winning more than 7 games - unless somebody toughens up and goes 4-2 or 5-1 in the division. So SF at 0-3 probably only puts them in a tough to escape hole, but I wouldn't count them out. 0-3 could have them with a new head coach. Let's hope not - he's kind of like the Ozzie Guillen of the NFL.
    Image
    User avatar
    nsport
    * NET Sports Handicapper *
     
    Posts: 1446
    Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 9:13 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:28 am
  • Zowert wrote:
    warner28 wrote:
    Zowert wrote:@ warner28. I didn't accuse you of saying anything. I asked you a question. I didn't see the post you made earlier about Charlie.

    Anyway, I think you've lost touch with reality IF you think Charlie would do better than Hass. A guy that hasnt played a single snap in the NFL regular season.



    Again, never said he would do better.

    I am soundly living in reality, I expect Charlie to struggle, I'd rather him struggle in 2010 (when the division is up for grabs but the Super Bowl is unrealistic) and find out what we have than struggle in 2011 when the team is more complete overall.

    I don't think that stance is losing touch with reality or unreasonable in anyway.


    I do think that Matt is not physically capable of running all of Bates offense (his 2nd pick last Sunday was a pass that a Bates QB needs to make), Charlie is. So IMO there is a chance that at the end of the day Matt's physical limitations will hurt Seattle as much as Charlie's inexperience. Not saying that would be the case, saying there is a chance. I am also concerned that recently (last season and last Sunday) Matt often seems to make what I would consider to be rookie mistakes that a veteran leader should not make, that concerns me.


    I never said you did, that's why I capitalized "IF".. Basically it was speaking hypothetically.

    Keep in mind that Matt has two rushing TDs already this year. That kind of lays any "physical limitations" to waste.


    No it doesn't, arm strength is also an issue.

    I don't recall many claiming he could not move, arm strength is an issue (it was an obvious issue on the 2nd pick last Sunday IMO).


    If he gets set and has protection he can make the throws but if he is disrupted in anyway it becomes questionable.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:28 am
  • This is really a topic for during the bye the team has a good chance of being 3-1 while SF is looking at 1-3. maybe then this topic should be looked at
    xxrighteous1xx
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 302
    Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:55 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:32 am
  • xxrighteous1xx wrote:This is really a topic for during the bye the team has a good chance of being 3-1 while SF is looking at 1-3. maybe then this topic should be looked at


    Guess it depends, I am taking a long term view of the QB position into account and frankly for me the long term view is more important than what happens in 2010.

    I know not all fans think that way but that is the angle I am coming from.


    Matt is not here past 2010 (if you sign him to an extension based on 2010 that is a mistake, IMO they would have given him an extension if they truly believed he was the answer). At this point I think they are just letting him bow out gracefully. My opinion but its what I think is happening.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:40 am
  • Zowert wrote:You honestly believe Charlie Whitehurst can lead this team better than Hasselbeck?!?!


    We will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, EVER actually know the answer to this unless Whitehurst gets playing time. People will continue to make assumptions one way or the other, but those assumptions will lack ANY evidence until we actually see Whitehurst play in a stretch of regular season games to see what he can do.

    He had some good preseason games and some bad preseason games. You know who else has had some good preseason games and bad preseason games? Hasselbeck. Bad preseason games are not a guarantee of bad regular season play. They just aren't.

    I don't advocate a change to Whitehurst because of Hasselbeck's play in the Denver game or even because of his play at the end of last season. I advocate the change because Hasselbeck turns 35 in 3 days and he is NOT the future of this team. I do not believe in waiting, putting off the development of our next franchise QB until Hasselbeck is well past his expiration date as a starter. I think we need to see what we have in Whitehurst - and no, I will not accept the "expert" opinions of those here who have already declared him a bust before seeing him take one regular season snap as a Seahawk - so we can decide whether we need the franchise QB in the 2011 draft, or if we can plug other holes with those early picks and draft the franchise QB in 2012 or 2013.

    In the end, my answer to the above question is that yes, I believe Whitehurst CAN lead the team better. I do not, however, believe that he WILL or WON'T because we have zero evidence one way or the other. But more importantly, I do believe that a younger franchise QB can lead the team better in 2012, when I expect us to contend, than Hass can in 2012.
    Image

    Super Bowl XLVIII Champions
    User avatar
    volsunghawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 8206
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:20 am
    Location: Right outside Richard Sherman's house


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:40 am
  • warner28 wrote:
    No it doesn't, arm strength is also an issue.

    I don't recall many claiming he could not move, arm strength is an issue (it was an obvious issue on the 2nd pick last Sunday IMO).


    If he gets set and has protection he can make the throws but if he is disrupted in anyway it becomes questionable.


    Just because he under throws one pass means his arm strength is an issue?

    He also over threw on a couple deep passes, including the 50+ yarder to John Carlson. He had a 50 yard pass to Golden Tate.

    http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/201009190 ... #tab:watch

    You are right about him throwing under pressure, which is how the second pick happened. I dont think it was because of his arm strength at all. He shouldnt have thrown that pass, period. Not many QB's can throw a solid bomb with that kinda heat on them.

    Hass still has an arm and he can throw deep when he wants to. To say that his arm strength is questionable because he cant throw a thirty yard pass in a split second with a DE about to destroy him is kinda ridiculous.

    Why not bring up some of his nice plays if you're gonna post the bad? Like this beauty to Golden Tate:

    http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/201009190 ... #tab:watch
    ~ The Stache'
    User avatar
    Zowert
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1990
    Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 2:29 pm
    Location: Seattle


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:43 am
  • The long term answer is in future drafts. Why would they let him bow gracefully that doesn't make sense. If we are 1-4 at the trade deadline, he could easily be moved for something. There will be teams in need. Now if he is at 3-1 at the bye, he will likely get an extension, especially if he can show he can protect the ball. That way they can take and sit the future. The draft has one lock at QB and 3 projects. So the projects are gonna have to sit a couple. With this division in up in the air every year MH is gonna be the guy.
    xxrighteous1xx
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 302
    Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:55 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:51 am
  • xxrighteous1xx wrote:The long term answer is in future drafts. Why would they let him bow gracefully that doesn't make sense.


    Why haven't they given him an extension?

    That makes no sense to me. If you believe in him beyond 2010, why wait?

    Sorry but I don't get that so because that makes no sense to ME, I assume that their is another reason he is starting. The NFL is a business, it is entertainment, I do believe that sometimes that side of things does play a role. Fans would have been incredibly angry if Matt were benched or traded and Charlie was not perfect. To me it makes sense from a PR standpoint to stay with him.

    Either that or they want to win in 2010 so bad that they are not worrying about 2011 and beyond.


    Both seem possible because I don't think its because they see him as a long term answer.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:53 am
  • Zowert wrote:
    warner28 wrote:
    No it doesn't, arm strength is also an issue.

    I don't recall many claiming he could not move, arm strength is an issue (it was an obvious issue on the 2nd pick last Sunday IMO).


    If he gets set and has protection he can make the throws but if he is disrupted in anyway it becomes questionable.


    Just because he under throws one pass means his arm strength is an issue?

    He also over threw on a couple deep passes, including the 50+ yarder to John Carlson. He had a 50 yard pass to Golden Tate.

    http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/201009190 ... #tab:watch

    You are right about him throwing under pressure, which is how the second pick happened. I dont think it was because of his arm strength at all. He shouldnt have thrown that pass, period. Not many QB's can throw a solid bomb with that kinda heat on them.

    Hass still has an arm and he can throw deep when he wants to. To say that his arm strength is questionable because he cant throw a thirty yard pass in a split second with a DE about to destroy him is kinda ridiculous.

    Why not bring up some of his nice plays if you're gonna post the bad? Like this beauty to Golden Tate:

    http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/201009190 ... #tab:watch


    Just because I don't mention a play does not mean I did not see it or am ignoring it. Again, I said he can make the throws if he has time, you don't think any QBs make that throw to Carlson, I think many (including Whitehurst) could.

    Rather Whitehurst would, not sure but I think he has the arm to make that throw. Matt doesn't.

    And despite some very nice deep balls I have NEVER trusted Matt to throw a deep ball, its just not his strength and never was.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:55 am
  • Jesus watching those highlights again it's unbelievable how bad Tatupu looked on that screen play. Unacceptable.
    cesame
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1661
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:36 pm


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:56 am
  • xxrighteous1xx wrote:Hass will be fine, We will win the division and at seasons end we will be fine. Heads always have to roll after a loss. Just sucks that its always on Matts back every game. I mean the fact we cant run the ball the past couple years has nothing to do with it, or hes had new offense installed the last 2 years, or completely decimated by injury or whatever the reason. Get this team a Legit RB, a legit DE, and one more high caliber OL and this conversation is not even taking place.


    Through the first two games our OL has pass blocked very well. The first half against Denver showed our revamped OL could create running lanes. However, it's hard to run the ball if the scoreboard shows 2+ touchdown deficit. If that game stayed close we would have run the ball at will by the end of the game, and won.

    When opposing teams compress the field- they win. Hasselbeck can't turn the ball over 2+ times a game and have fans and the team expect to win. No quarterback can. It might happen sometimes, but everyone gets lucky - sometimes. His lack of arm, and indecisiveness allows safeties to cheat closer to the line of scrimmage. That hurts the running game and puts more pressure on the passing game. San Fran got beat in part because of their defensive aggressiveness and our WRs use of double moves, which made Matt look great. Love the team, not the player.
    "You don't always get to play playoff games at home, or conference championships at home, or superbowls at home. You have to have the mindset that you can play to your potential wherever you are." - Pete Carroll
    User avatar
    nwHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 551
    Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2009 11:14 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:57 am
  • xxrighteous1xx wrote:Now if he is at 3-1 at the bye, he will likely get an extension, especially if he can show he can protect the ball. That way they can take and sit the future. The draft has one lock at QB and 3 projects. So the projects are gonna have to sit a couple. With this division in up in the air every year MH is gonna be the guy.


    Compare the length of time that Bulger survived in STL. He definitely had the guts and experience to play that position, but eventually just too many mistakes combined with a poor record landed them Sam Bradford. However, the division winners the past several years have not been dominant, so Bulger hung around. Sound familiar??

    MH's mechanics have deteriorated and his mistakes have increased dramatically over the past several games - but you can't replace the experience and guts. He's #1 on our team in those categories. At some point, the guy has to take a seat...
    Image
    User avatar
    nsport
    * NET Sports Handicapper *
     
    Posts: 1446
    Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 9:13 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:06 am
  • question, what is our goal here? winning the division or winning a Superbowl in the future? i hope its the latter

    an extension to Hass at any point would be stupid.
    Image
    3elieve
    User avatar
    Throwdown
    * NET Baller *
     
    Posts: 19218
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:02 am
    Location: Graham, WA


PreviousNext


It is currently Sat Oct 25, 2014 10:39 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE ARCHIVES ]




Information
  • Who is online
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests