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
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: 8083
    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: 1630
    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: 547
    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: 1435
    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: 19153
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:02 am
    Location: Graham, WA


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:08 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


    I'm glad you linked this video, because you need to watch it again. Notice how long Tate had to WAIT for the ball. Heck, we're lucky that pass didn't get picked off. If that pass is thrown properly, Golden is celebrating his first touchdown.

    :th2thumbs:
    "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: 547
    Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2009 11:14 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:10 am
  • Throwdown wrote: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.


    Exactly. I think it was warner28 who said this in the offseason, you can't even really sign Matt to a backup contract after this year. If you keep him around, whoever the new QB is, the fans are always going to clamor for MH if the new QB has a bad game. Best just to let him walk off into the sunset.
    cboom wrote:Wilson is the worst QB I have seen as a Hawks fan. And I have been around long enough to see them all.
    User avatar
    HawksFTW
    * NET E-Knight *
     
    Posts: 4157
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 10:06 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:12 am
  • Throwdown wrote:question, what is our goal here? winning the division or winning a Superbowl in the future.


    Taking stock of our team, I'd say plugging in Whitehurst is a drop in "guts & experience" but an upgrade in talent - and would have a net overall positive effect on our season. Semantics on which is more important (playoffs or Super Bowl). That's our long-time chicken-egg argument that I don't think ever gets solved. :)
    Image
    User avatar
    nsport
    * NET Sports Handicapper *
     
    Posts: 1435
    Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 9:13 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:37 am
  • Everyone seems to think that we the fans have to see whitehurst play so we can know what we have. The coaches see him practice everyday. They know what they have. PC has his plan to move forward with this team. Just because you the fan don't know what the plan is doesn't mean it's not in full effect right now. WE don't need to see what Whitehurst has, THEY do, and they see himi day in and day out. Nuff Said
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 13440
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:37 am
  • True enough about the chicken-egg argument, but it's a point of emphasis this year because of the depth "potentially" available in the next draft.

    Carroll is here for the long term, and his short term impact has been good so far, IMO. All I know is that I won't be surprised to see a Vertical-Pro Style QB starting next year over a seasoned West Coast offense QB.
    "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: 547
    Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2009 11:14 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:44 am
  • kidhawk wrote:Everyone seems to think that we the fans have to see whitehurst play so we can know what we have. The coaches see him practice everyday. They know what they have. PC has his plan to move forward with this team. Just because you the fan don't know what the plan is doesn't mean it's not in full effect right now. WE don't need to see what Whitehurst has, THEY do, and they see himi day in and day out. Nuff Said


    True enough... If you cobble together my points - I am certain that Hasselbeck is the best option to win. I just don't know if he's the best QB on this team. Talent-wise, I think CW is higher (can scramble and can make the throws that MH lacks). At some point in time, they have to place value on what's more important: Play the guy that gives you the best chance for winning, or take a gamble on the higher talent player who might raise the play of your team.

    Of course the plan is to win now, so as long as we are near the top of the NFC West standings, that's Matt Hasselbeck. The PC/JS plan clearly includes other players - so this is not the definitive choice for how competitive our team can be this year. It does remain to be seen - and I think we can all agree that this year's low bar is much higher than last year's high bar.
    Image
    User avatar
    nsport
    * NET Sports Handicapper *
     
    Posts: 1435
    Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 9:13 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:45 am
  • kidhawk wrote:Everyone seems to think that we the fans have to see whitehurst play so we can know what we have. The coaches see him practice everyday. They know what they have. PC has his plan to move forward with this team. Just because you the fan don't know what the plan is doesn't mean it's not in full effect right now. WE don't need to see what Whitehurst has, THEY do, and they see himi day in and day out. Nuff Said


    And the coaches also know that Hasselbeck has been the face of the franchise for a long time now and can't jettison him the same way they could Deon Grant. They've made a ton of changes this offseason, but they also know which situations they have to deal with more tactfully. I don't see Hasselbeck's starting as a condemnation of Whitehurst, but rather a respect for what Hasselbeck has meant to the franchise and a willingness to allow him to play out his final contract year.
    Image

    Super Bowl XLVIII Champions
    User avatar
    volsunghawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 8083
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:20 am
    Location: Right outside Richard Sherman's house


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:51 am
  • kidhawk wrote:WE don't need to see what Whitehurst has, THEY do, and they see himi day in and day out. Nuff Said


    Nobody is saying they should start Whitehurst because he is better than Hass, they are saying we should start Whitehurst to give him valuable in game experience and see if he has what it takes to be the future of this team, because Hass is most likely done as a Hawk after this year.
    I hate Tim Ruskell.
    User avatar
    Trrrroy
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2853
    Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 9:24 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 12:34 pm
  • nwHawk wrote:
    I'm glad you linked this video, because you need to watch it again. Notice how long Tate had to WAIT for the ball. Heck, we're lucky that pass didn't get picked off. If that pass is thrown properly, Golden is celebrating his first touchdown.

    :th2thumbs:


    Jesus man... If Hass threw 10 TDs you would complain because he didnt throw 11...
    ~ 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 12:39 pm
  • Trrrroy wrote:
    kidhawk wrote:WE don't need to see what Whitehurst has, THEY do, and they see himi day in and day out. Nuff Said


    Nobody is saying they should start Whitehurst because he is better than Hass, they are saying we should start Whitehurst to give him valuable in game experience and see if he has what it takes to be the future of this team, because Hass is most likely done as a Hawk after this year.



    So we should trow in the towel now, for the benefit of later? Hawks are on top of division, they have already won a game they were not suppose to and lost a game they were suppose to. This is a premature conclusion to this season. One good game one bad game for the guy. Give him some games to find some sort of trend for this year. Really at the time of the bye week we should make some sort of opinion, not after week 2 of a division we have a share of the lead.
    xxrighteous1xx
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 302
    Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:55 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 12:45 pm
  • No way in hell we start Whitehurst right now, not when we have a legitimate shot at the division and playoffs.

    Whitehurst has been 2nd and 3rd string his entire career for a reason. Hass is the starter, for a reason. One bad game doesn't mean we should bench him. He may not be the 2005 Matt Hasselbeck, but he's certainly our best option.

    How about this, Matt Hasselbeck added to the ring of honor...? lol
    ~ 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 1:04 pm
  • Whats really sad about this, MH could toss 4TD and 0 Ints. Win the game, beating there second division favorite, and still he wouldn't get any dues. People will find anywhere to give the credit but MH.
    xxrighteous1xx
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 302
    Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:55 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 1:14 pm
  • Old man hasselbeck has 2 rushing TD's and as many 20+ yd rushes as Frank Gore....too bad he's past his prime, just imagine what he could do.....
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 13440
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 1:17 pm
  • kidhawk wrote:Old man hasselbeck has 2 rushing TD's and as many 20+ yd rushes as Frank Gore....too bad he's past his prime, just imagine what he could do.....


    Yeah, he's getting old. Back in 2002, who would've though Hass would be in Seattle at age 35?!
    ~ 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 1:20 pm
  • kidhawk wrote:Old man hasselbeck has 2 rushing TD's and as many 20+ yd rushes as Frank Gore....too bad he's past his prime, just imagine what he could do.....


    Good. Let's put him at RB, then.
    Image

    Super Bowl XLVIII Champions
    User avatar
    volsunghawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 8083
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:20 am
    Location: Right outside Richard Sherman's house


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 2:17 pm
  • 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


    I know you want to convince people Matt still has a gun, but how much of those passes were RAC? the 52 yarder to Tate was about a 20 yard pass. The rest was him running.

    Last week, Matt said he felt disrespected by Clements on the interception to start the game. Clements bailed on a deep route to undercut a softly thrown 24 yard pass. Point being, Clements was sitting on the route because he doesn't think Hass can throw deep either. Hass may have made a fool of him as the game wore on, but it was not by chucking a 50 yarder over his head.

    I understand you liking Hass, even wanting him to start. I like Hass too. But to try and pretend he still throws a nice deep ball is delusional. He never was good at the deep stuff. Not when he was going to Pro Bowls, and certainly not now. When he was at his very best, his arm strength was adequate.
    SEAHAWKS.NET. We All We Got, We All We Need
    User avatar
    Scottemojo
    *Scott of Smacksville*
    *Scott of Smacksville*
     
    Posts: 11074
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:14 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 2:42 pm
  • ENOUGH already with the hater-calling.

    And enough already with the thinly veiled insults about "revisionist history", "selective memory", "living in reality", etc. Those comments do nothing but condescend, paint the other debater in a poor light, and inflame things way more than they need to be.

    Limit your comments to the Seahawks, not posters, or don't make comments at all.
    GO HAWKS!!!

    Visit my Seahawks blog at 17power.blogspot.com!

    Follow me on Twitter at @17power
    User avatar
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 11270
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 2:44 pm
  • Zowert wrote:
    nwHawk wrote:
    I'm glad you linked this video, because you need to watch it again. Notice how long Tate had to WAIT for the ball. Heck, we're lucky that pass didn't get picked off. If that pass is thrown properly, Golden is celebrating his first touchdown.

    :th2thumbs:


    Jesus man... If Hass threw 10 TDs you would complain because he didnt throw 11...



    Wrong. I love watching all of our Hawks enjoy success.

    I referred back to this because of your comment ..."Like this beauty to Golden Tate" Don't miss understand that I love the connection, but Matt's pass wasn't a beauty. Heck Golden had easily beaten his man. That play showed some of the problems we've be pointing out. Matt's never been particularly strong at hitting a man in stride on a deep vertical route. And in this offense, he needs to be able to do it.
    "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: 547
    Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2009 11:14 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 2:54 pm
  • xxrighteous1xx wrote:So we should trow in the towel now, for the benefit of later?


    Yes! That is exactly what I'm saying. I think we can all say with nearly 100% accuracy that the Hawks lack the talent and continuity to win a superbowl this year (which is the point of the NFL, not lucking into playoff games), so why not begin auditioning QB's for the future?
    I hate Tim Ruskell.
    User avatar
    Trrrroy
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2853
    Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 9:24 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 3:18 pm
  • Aw Jeez - the only way we're going to solve this is if Rock can get JS on another live-chat and we can ask him directly. :)
    Image
    User avatar
    nsport
    * NET Sports Handicapper *
     
    Posts: 1435
    Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 9:13 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 3:39 pm
  • Trrrroy wrote:
    xxrighteous1xx wrote:So we should trow in the towel now, for the benefit of later?


    Yes! That is exactly what I'm saying. I think we can all say with nearly 100% accuracy that the Hawks lack the talent and continuity to win a superbowl this year (which is the point of the NFL, not lucking into playoff games), so why not begin auditioning QB's for the future?


    And here I thought it was ok to enjoy the run....so my 35 years as a hawks fan I have NOTHING to show for it? If I'd known the whole point to this was to have a sb winner I'd have picked a different team to root for.
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 13440
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 3:48 pm
  • kidhawk wrote:
    Trrrroy wrote:
    xxrighteous1xx wrote:So we should trow in the towel now, for the benefit of later?


    Yes! That is exactly what I'm saying. I think we can all say with nearly 100% accuracy that the Hawks lack the talent and continuity to win a superbowl this year (which is the point of the NFL, not lucking into playoff games), so why not begin auditioning QB's for the future?


    And here I thought it was ok to enjoy the run....so my 35 years as a hawks fan I have NOTHING to show for it? If I'd known the whole point to this was to have a sb winner I'd have picked a different team to root for.



    Enjoying the run can still be done but in order to enjoy the run for me, I must believe they are doing everything they can to win the Super Bowl. Sometimes that means moving away from veterans.

    That said, going to Whitehurst does not equal quitting on 2010, its simply a different way to try to win in 2010 and beyond.

    I'd argue the only chance Seattle has to go beyond the 8-8 division title they are currently destined for is to have an 'out of nowhere' play from a player. IMO, Whitehurst is the most likely guy to do that, doesn't mean I expect it but Matt ain't going to do it so might as while give it a shot.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 4:23 pm
  • This is outside the parameters of objective discussion, but it seems as though this thread is designated for all Hasselbeck debate. If I had to compare Hass to one other QB of the last 10 years I'd say Jake Delhomme without hesitation. Delhomme is a solid leader, a knowledgeable QB, an extremely likeable guy and a horribly inconsistent passer.

    Both had moderately successful primes and were favorites of their fanbases, but Delhomme fell off the map once his skills diminished even slightly. He started throwing picks at an alarming rate and Carolina realized it could win...just not big, with Delhomme.

    I think we're getting to that point. We can win, but I don't believe we can win in January and February with Hasselbeck. I watch games at a sports bar and friends/fans of other teams noticed long before I was willing to admit, that Hasselbeck isn't as good as I was giving him credit for. Last year a friend made the Delhomme comparison and I when I sat down and thought about it I could see where he was coming from.

    I'll cheer for the guy all year and hope he proves me wrong, but I wouldn't shed a tear if Carroll decided to give Whitehurst a shot.
    User avatar
    endzorn
    *TOP 5 SUPPORTER*
    *TOP 5 SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 1842
    Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 6:14 pm


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 4:51 pm
  • put in the new guy he might be better this guy we have now isn't perfect....PC traded for him...PC likes him...PC says it's not Whitehursts time....
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 13440
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 4:55 pm
  • endzorn wrote:This is outside the parameters of objective discussion, but it seems as though this thread is designated for all Hasselbeck debate. If I had to compare Hass to one other QB of the last 10 years I'd say Jake Delhomme without hesitation. Delhomme is a solid leader, a knowledgeable QB, an extremely likeable guy and a horribly inconsistent passer


    Except that he's not horribly inconsistent at all. If you compare him to all the best quarterbacks in NFL history, he is probably more consistent that than the average Pro Bowl QB. He comes up short in other ways, but consistency is not one of them.

    Now if you take any of those QBs, including him, and put a new team and system around them, or take away all their good recievers, or their pass protection, and while we're at it, their running game; they will lose their consistency and production. Expecting any of them to maintain Pro Bowl level production and expecting them not to press or force passes to try to win is really beyond ludicrous, isn't it? It's a function of not understanding QB play and how much the QB relies on the rest of the offense. The QB is the one who is out front and looks like he is making most of the mistakes, but it often turns out that someone else on the O made the mistake.

    Joe Montana going to KC toward the end of his career is the perfect example. Check out that drop off in stats.
    "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 5:06 pm
  • When Shaun declined people had tons of excuses for him, too. People said anyone critical of Shaun was a hater and that Shaun would get scooped up immediately and rush a team into the playoffs and Shaun would definitely have several more Pro Bowl years. I distinctly remember witnessing those arguments. How did that end up?

    I will say, also, that our running game has sucked since Shaun left as well, to be sure-but it ain't cause those haters jettisoned Shaun too soon.
    "Some people here have been groomed to accept mediocrity and lame ducks, I'm on board with the vibrato!" -SouthSoundHawk
    "BFS is kicking ass in here." -kearly (8/9/2013)
    User avatar
    bestfightstory
    * Glitter over Knives *
     
    Posts: 8511
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:13 pm


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 5:42 pm
  • endzorn wrote:Take your emotions and team loyalty out of this thread and tell me how far you think this team can go with Hasselbeck.

    He had plenty of time to throw the ball, but missed open receivers, threw behind guys who actually caught the ball and tossed some inexplicable interceptions.

    I love the guy, always will...but when I watch him play it is painfully obvious that he is not the answer. At some point we need to find out what we have in Whitehurst.


    Man, it pains me to say this, but you're right. I knew it before the season. No way can any QB take the kind of punishment Hass has over the years here, and still be in top form at that age. The guy has gotten massively beat up the last few years, averaging something like 38-40 sacks a year. I think that explains a lot about what we're seeing.

    Of course, we all knew Matt was done. So do the coaches. The thing is, he's our best QB right now, and we need him to stick around until we can find a replacement. That might be Whitehurst, maybe not.

    In the meantime, I think Hass still has that heart of a champ, and can take us to a SuperBowl win, with the right team around him. I don't expect that to happen, but it could. I think as long as Hass is in the game, he's got a damn good chance to force a win.

    One thing is for sure - it will be a sad day for the Seahawks and fans when Matt finally does retire. I only hope he retires as a Seahawk. Will they retire his number? Probably not, but I would.
    User avatar
    linuxpro
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 757
    Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 9:53 am
    Location: Pioneer Square


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 6:24 pm
  • JohnnyB wrote:
    endzorn wrote:This is outside the parameters of objective discussion, but it seems as though this thread is designated for all Hasselbeck debate. If I had to compare Hass to one other QB of the last 10 years I'd say Jake Delhomme without hesitation. Delhomme is a solid leader, a knowledgeable QB, an extremely likeable guy and a horribly inconsistent passer


    Except that he's not horribly inconsistent at all. If you compare him to all the best quarterbacks in NFL history, he is probably more consistent that than the average Pro Bowl QB. He comes up short in other ways, but consistency is not one of them.

    Now if you take any of those QBs, including him, and put a new team and system around them, or take away all their good recievers, or their pass protection, and while we're at it, their running game; they will lose their consistency and production. Expecting any of them to maintain Pro Bowl level production and expecting them not to press or force passes to try to win is really beyond ludicrous, isn't it? It's a function of not understanding QB play and how much the QB relies on the rest of the offense. The QB is the one who is out front and looks like he is making most of the mistakes, but it often turns out that someone else on the O made the mistake.

    Joe Montana going to KC toward the end of his career is the perfect example. Check out that drop off in stats.


    Another example is Kurt Warner after he left the Rams. He ws unsuccessful with the Giants (new system) and then initially with the Cardinals. As a matter of fact, he had a difficult time until Wisenhunt took over and improved their OL and running game. Warner struggled even with having the luxury of playing with Anquan Boldin and Larry Fitzgerald as WRs. I'm not comparing Kurt to Matt. Kurt is HOF and Matt is not. What I'm saying is that even HOF QBs struggle while trying to work with young players or with new systems. Favre had some really lean years in GB. In 2005, they went 4-12, in 2006, they were 8-8. In 2005, Favre threw for 20 TDs and 29 INTs. Hasselbeck hasn't come close to throwing 29 INTs in any year plus he had a QB rating of 70.9. In 2008, with the Jets he threw for 22 TDs and 22 INTs. A HOF QB. Here's the link - http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/F/FavrBr00.htm. Once again, not comparing Favre to Hass. Just making a point that QBs do struggle and HOF aren't immune from it.

    QBs can also bounce back if they get a good supporting cast around them. Two games is too early to make a QB change. If the Seahawks are 1-3 going into their bye, (that means they lose to the Rams) then it may be time to see CBJ but until then, MH should start. Just my 2 cents.

    I think Warner's extension argument is weak and I'm not buying into it. Maybe the Seahawks offered MH an extension and he refused it. We don't know what type of discussions have taken place behind closed doors, so to assume that nothing is being done is not entirely accurate. Teams do negotiate without mentioning it to the public. I believe that not signing MH to extension right now doesn't signify anything other than they haven't done so yet. It doesn't mean they don't feel he's capable of leading the team the next 2-3 years. It just means that they haven't done so today.
    User avatar
    hawkfan68
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 3646
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:10 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 7:28 pm
  • Scottemojo wrote:
    I know you want to convince people Matt still has a gun, but how much of those passes were RAC? the 52 yarder to Tate was about a 20 yard pass. The rest was him running.

    Last week, Matt said he felt disrespected by Clements on the interception to start the game. Clements bailed on a deep route to undercut a softly thrown 24 yard pass. Point being, Clements was sitting on the route because he doesn't think Hass can throw deep either. Hass may have made a fool of him as the game wore on, but it was not by chucking a 50 yarder over his head.

    I understand you liking Hass, even wanting him to start. I like Hass too. But to try and pretend he still throws a nice deep ball is delusional. He never was good at the deep stuff. Not when he was going to Pro Bowls, and certainly not now. When he was at his very best, his arm strength was adequate.


    I saw him throw some deep passes at training camp this year. But in all honestly, that's nothing like a real game. I believe he can still throw deep, just doesn't have the confidence either in himself or his receivers. I know he can physically throw the ball deep for a fact, just don't know if he cant do it in a game situation.

    You gotta take into account that the Seahawks have a new playbook this year. They had a new playbook under Mora too. It seemed as though the height of his deep passing prime was during the Holmgren era, when he had the same playbook for years. He knew the routes so well that passing on them had become muscle memory, he could anticipate where his receivers would be on deep routes. Now hes had to learn a whole new set of routes on different of formations with pretty much all new recievers except Butler and Branch. I don't count Obo. This really cuts into a QB's confidence.

    It seems as though Pete likes to use his TE's in different routes. I've seen John Carlson in places that I would've never seen him under Mora, like down on the weakside sideline?! Carlson has been having a tough time I think, running the wrong routes on several occausions. He looks out of his element. That's also another contributing factor.
    ~ 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 8:05 pm
  • Zowert wrote:
    Scottemojo wrote:
    I know you want to convince people Matt still has a gun, but how much of those passes were RAC? the 52 yarder to Tate was about a 20 yard pass. The rest was him running.

    Last week, Matt said he felt disrespected by Clements on the interception to start the game. Clements bailed on a deep route to undercut a softly thrown 24 yard pass. Point being, Clements was sitting on the route because he doesn't think Hass can throw deep either. Hass may have made a fool of him as the game wore on, but it was not by chucking a 50 yarder over his head.

    I understand you liking Hass, even wanting him to start. I like Hass too. But to try and pretend he still throws a nice deep ball is delusional. He never was good at the deep stuff. Not when he was going to Pro Bowls, and certainly not now. When he was at his very best, his arm strength was adequate.


    I saw him throw some deep passes at training camp this year. But in all honestly, that's nothing like a real game. I believe he can still throw deep, just doesn't have the confidence either in himself or his receivers. I know he can physically throw the ball deep for a fact, just don't know if he cant do it in a game situation.

    You gotta take into account that the Seahawks have a new playbook this year. They had a new playbook under Mora too. It seemed as though the height of his deep passing prime was during the Holmgren era, when he had the same playbook for years. He knew the routes so well that passing on them had become muscle memory, he could anticipate where his receivers would be on deep routes. Now hes had to learn a whole new set of routes on different of formations with pretty much all new recievers except Butler and Branch. I don't count Obo. This really cuts into a QB's confidence.

    It seems as though Pete likes to use his TE's in different routes. I've seen John Carlson in places that I would've never seen him under Mora, like down on the weakside sideline?! Carlson has been having a tough time I think, running the wrong routes on several occausions. He looks out of his element. That's also another contributing factor.

    Of course Hasselbeck can throw the deep ball still. He could probably throw 50+ yards still, in fact even the QBs with the weakest arms can at least throw 50 yards. What I'm worried about is the zip he puts on the ball. All of his deep passes are high arching rainbows. If you noticed during preseason Whitehurst's balls were not high arching rainbows, they were much smaller archs that reached the receiver before the DBs could even get their heads turned around. Hasselbecks passes give DBs much more time to react to the ball. Now I'm by no means a hater but it's obvious Hass doesn't have a great deep ball or even a good arm.

    Interesting fact... in week one hasselbeck didn't throw the football over 20 yards, and he only threw over 10 a couple of times. (DOes not factor in RAC)
    Spin Doctor
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1401
    Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 1:31 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 8:17 pm
  • kidhawk wrote:put in the new guy he might be better this guy we have now isn't perfect....PC traded for him...PC likes him...PC says it's not Whitehursts time....


    I think Whitehurst will fail miserably, I just would prefer to waste 2010 finding out instead of 2011.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 8:24 pm
  • endzorn wrote:This is outside the parameters of objective discussion, but it seems as though this thread is designated for all Hasselbeck debate. If I had to compare Hass to one other QB of the last 10 years I'd say Jake Delhomme without hesitation. Delhomme is a solid leader, a knowledgeable QB, an extremely likeable guy and a horribly inconsistent passer.

    Both had moderately successful primes and were favorites of their fanbases, but Delhomme fell off the map once his skills diminished even slightly. He started throwing picks at an alarming rate and Carolina realized it could win...just not big, with Delhomme.

    I think we're getting to that point. We can win, but I don't believe we can win in January and February with Hasselbeck. I watch games at a sports bar and friends/fans of other teams noticed long before I was willing to admit, that Hasselbeck isn't as good as I was giving him credit for. Last year a friend made the Delhomme comparison and I when I sat down and thought about it I could see where he was coming from.

    I'll cheer for the guy all year and hope he proves me wrong, but I wouldn't shed a tear if Carroll decided to give Whitehurst a shot.


    Ok - now the thread can be locked. :) Endzorn's post is a great way to make the point that I think most people can easily agree with. The circular logic on MH#8 over the past 15 pages is mind numbing to say the least. Can he win? Sure. Likely that he elevates our team to a new level? Probably not. Remember that there are a number of changes that happened on this team and all doesn't succeed or fail with #8 at the helm. The Delhomme analogy fits like a glove. Nice job!
    Image
    User avatar
    nsport
    * NET Sports Handicapper *
     
    Posts: 1435
    Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 9:13 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 8:31 pm
  • warner28 wrote:
    kidhawk wrote:put in the new guy he might be better this guy we have now isn't perfect....PC traded for him...PC likes him...PC says it's not Whitehursts time


    I think Whitehurst will fail miserably, I just would prefer to waste 2010 finding out instead of 2011.


    I never thought you were a hater, just figured you wanted to waste this season by experimenting on an unproven QB. We're 1-1, the season isnt over yet. Lets see what our record is by mid season, then we can try Whitehurst. I am more than sure he'll get a shot this season.
    ~ 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 8:34 pm
  • Don't consider it "wasting the season"

    I consider a prudent use of a season you aren't going to win a Super Bowl in.

    If Seattle had a shot at a ring it would be different, they don't so IMO what they are doing is closer to "wasting the season"
    MARTYREDwarner
     


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 8:41 pm
  • Statistically they have every right to bench #8 at this point. The guy's record as a starter and statistical vomit over the past several games are enough to land a guy on the free agent highway. That being said, bailing on #8 this early is not the message the fans want to hear, and would be a complete knee jerk reaction by the FO - #6 has not overtaken #8 yet on the practice field - I don't think moving him above #8 is how to sell to your fans you are trying to win. If they started #6 after one more bad week by #8, the lynching mob would be out and people would want their $$ returned to them. However.... fall a few games out of first, and this is an entirely different discussion. More losses and inevitably more poor performances from #8 should drop him on the depth chart. Until then, we will have to wait and see.
    Image
    User avatar
    nsport
    * NET Sports Handicapper *
     
    Posts: 1435
    Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 9:13 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 8:49 pm
  • Zowert wrote:
    warner28 wrote:
    kidhawk wrote:put in the new guy he might be better this guy we have now isn't perfect....PC traded for him...PC likes him...PC says it's not Whitehursts time


    I think Whitehurst will fail miserably, I just would prefer to waste 2010 finding out instead of 2011.


    I never thought you were a hater, just figured you wanted to waste this season by experimenting on an unproven QB. We're 1-1, the season isnt over yet. Lets see what our record is by mid season, then we can try Whitehurst. I am more than sure he'll get a shot this season.


    Yes but how much of a shot should we give Whitehurst? Hasselbeck needed more then a few games starting before we knew we had something in him.

    IMO to objectively evaluate Whitehurst you need to roll him out week in and week out all year this year and watch and observe his progress. Had we pulled the plug on Hasselbeck after only a few starts we would have made a big mistake.
    Image
    User avatar
    Tech Worlds
    * Capt'n Dom *
    * Capt'n Dom *
     
    Posts: 9471
    Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:40 am
    Location: Granite Falls, WA


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:40 pm
  • While Holmgren was still here I had always thought Hasselbeck might end up being the next Dilfer as his career wound down. Can't draw up a better personality for it, undoubtedly knows the value of a mentor for a new starter, just seemed a natural transition. Not sure if Pete's competition based roster can 'afford' a mentor, but worth a thought in the coming year(s).
    Ambivilant
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 24
    Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2010 2:22 pm


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 6:00 am
  • One way or the other, Hasselbeck has 14 games left in a Seahawk uniform. Then the debate moves from here to the draft forum. English has started his homework, and I'm eager to see who might be available with a first rounder for a team in the 7-8 win range.
    User avatar
    Jac
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 678
    Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 11:50 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 6:37 am
  • I am in favor of giving the ball to Whitehurst, and here's my reason: he can't be much worse than Hasselbeck. He cannot significantly worsen our chances. Hasselbeck was #27 in the league last year in yards per attempt at 6.21. Let's say Whitehurst is "bad," as bad as Jake Delhomme. That would put him at 6.28 ypa, better than Hass. Let's say he's as "bad" as Josh Freeman. 6.40 ypa.

    You're probably right that if we put Whitehurst in we wouldn't have a good QB and our QB won't win any games for us. We don't have a good QB now! It is not our QB that is winning games for us now! Yes, Hass had a 108.3 rating against SF, but that was with a whopping 170 yards. He had a couple of good passes, but our defense won that game for us. If our QB had been Whitehurst we still would have won that game.

    Yes he had a couple good games last year where he really, genuinely, was a good QB. So did Kevin Kolb (one game with 120.6 QB rating). So did Alex Smith (one game with 118.6 QB rating). So did Jake Delhomme (one game with 115.8 QB rating). So did Ryan Fitzpatrick (one game with 120.8 QB rating). Anyone saying those guys will take us on a deep playoff run?

    So in summary,
    Whitehurst at QB does not increase our chances of losing because Hasselbeck is already losing games for us.
    Whitehurst at QB does not decrease our chances of winning because Hasselbeck is not winning games for us.
    Hasselbeck has had good games, but all QBs have at least some good games.
    Hasselbeck has had bad games, and there are far too many to call them anomalies. They were the norm.
    We want the ball and we're gonna score.
    User avatar
    LawHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3143
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 2:04 pm


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 7:43 am
  • warner28 wrote:Don't consider it "wasting the season"

    I consider a prudent use of a season you aren't going to win a Super Bowl in.

    If Seattle had a shot at a ring it would be different, they don't so IMO what they are doing is closer to "wasting the season"


    So you don't think that playoff experience is important?
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 13440
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


PreviousNext


It is currently Tue Sep 30, 2014 1:58 pm

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE ARCHIVES ]




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