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
Thu Sep 23, 2010 8:37 am
  • Warner........can't argue with you because you apparently don't read well...I never said winning is more important than the team, I said (and it's so plain that you obviously are just spinning words to try to make it look different like usual) The team winning and playing in the playoffs is better for the team in the future. If hasselbeck is here or not, winning is better for the team and Hasselbeck gives us that best chance in both leadership and on the field ability. If he wasn't the best player at the position he wouldn't be out there right now. If nothing else, watching the roster moves this offseason is proof of that, anything else is just conjecture on your part to try to spin your opinion into something more realistic

    Rat...if you think that Carroll isn't playing the best player at the position then that's fine, it's your opinion, but who's opinion counts? yours or his? Not knowing either of you, should I listen more to experts and our coaches and use that as a gauge or should I just go by the handful of bad plays and say Hasselbeck sucks? Well you can if that makes you feel better, but I see all the plays and he has a lot more good than bad. You, me, any other fan, we have no idea what happens on every play. Too many ignorant fans just assume every bad play is on the qb. Some are, but too many blame the qb for them all when that's just not the case. I have watched Hass play a long time now and the game he's always had, he still has.


    Lawhawk...What's the point of looking back at last year? We canned the coaches, changed the front office and over half the team. This is not last years seahawks. This is this years seahawks and there's no comparison. We were a sucky team. There are lots of factors that could have contributed to last years end of the season games that mean nothing today. Judge him on this year........this year he's had one good game one bad game and did NOT lose that game on his own. He had plenty of help by a defense that couldn't stop the other team on third down. Let's see how this team does by the bye week and see where we are at then. This is just way to early to even judge this team
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 13487
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 8:38 am
  • 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.



    The biggest difference between Jake Delhomme and Matt is Jake has had a true number 1 to throw the ball to his whole career. So take SS out of the formula and Jake doesn't even come close. Matt 167 TD - 115 Int. Jake 124 TD - 92 Int with a number 1 WR. TD ratio/ INT mat 3 to 2 Jake 5 to 4. Not even a close comparison. Delhomme has always been a int machine back in their glory days he had numerous seasons of 15 INTs or more.
    xxrighteous1xx
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 302
    Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:55 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 8:42 am
  • xxrighteous1xx 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.

    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.



    The biggest difference between Jake Delhomme and Matt is Jake has had a true number 1 to throw the ball to his whole career. So take SS out of the formula and Jake doesn't even come close. Matt 167 TD - 115 Int. Jake 124 TD - 92 Int with a number 1 WR. TD ratio/ INT mat 3 to 2 Jake 5 to 4. Not even a close comparison. Delhomme has always been a int machine back in their glory days he had numerous seasons of 15 INTs or more.



    What's the bigger advantage? Having Steve Smith, or Walter Jones?
    User avatar
    Rat
    * NET Cynic *
     
    Posts: 3519
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:42 pm
    Location: St. Louis, MO


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 8:49 am
  • Probably Walt but that said Carolina didn't have a bad O-line so.. But I see the point. Well made
    xxrighteous1xx
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 302
    Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:55 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 9:07 am
  • kidhawk wrote:Warner........can't argue with you because you apparently don't read well...I never said winning is more important than the team, I said (and it's so plain that you obviously are just spinning words to try to make it look different like usual) The team winning and playing in the playoffs is better for the team in the future. If hasselbeck is here or not, winning is better for the team and Hasselbeck gives us that best chance in both leadership and on the field ability. If he wasn't the best player at the position he wouldn't be out there right now. If nothing else, watching the roster moves this offseason is proof of that, anything else is just conjecture on your part to try to spin your opinion into something more realistic



    I understood exactly what you said, I simply disagree.

    Winning with players that won't be here long term does nothing for the development of the team IMO.

    If Seattle goes 8-8 and loses in the divisional round of the playoffs with Matt at QB, Matt then leaves in the offseason and Charlie takes over then Seattle goes 5-11 while he develops, how exactly is that 8-8 season helping in 2012?

    Now if Seattle goes 5-11 in 2010 with Charlie, then goes 8-8 in 2011 with Charlie, now I would say both 2010 and 2011 have helped the development of the TEAM.


    Again, its not about Matt or Charlie, its about the TEAM. And for the record, I have NEVER said Matt is not better than Charlie right now (and you claim I can't read), I have said I don't think the development of the TEAM is the reason Matt is starting. I stand by that.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 9:30 am
  • your what if scenario is one of a thousand different possibilities.....what if we go 8-8 and lose in the playoffs and we re-sign matt? what if we fall out of the play off hunt by week 12 then play Charlie? what if we don't think Charlie is the answer and we draft a qb? what if we sign a Free agent qb? there's a lot of scenarios that can change between now and next year. What if we do the best we can with what we have? This is what I think we are currently doing and this is what matters. Whoever is at qb, the more we win, the better off the other 10 guys on offense will be. Whoever is qb only really matters in development of the qb. There's plenty of offseason and practice time for the receivers to work with whoever the qb will be on timing issues and such. Let's try to put out the best team possible and win today, and get Pete's players experience playing football how it's meant to be played every sunday, and that's putting on the field the players that give you the best chance to win TODAY.

    Anyone here think that Golden Tate isn't something special when he gets the ball? He didn't play in week 1 because he isn't what gave us the best chance to win that day. Matt gives us the best chance to win this week, that's realy all that needs to be said
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 13487
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 9:31 am
  • I just don't have the time to read through 15 pages of arguments, but after last week (and you simply must take the past two years into account as well), Matt is making the argument that this team's most pressing need is a QB. Now ABSOLUTELY Matt has been my favorite Seahawk for a long time, and I certainly don't think he should be benched for his Denver performance. That said, if he would simply accept a little more of a "game manager" discipline, meaning that he has to stop thinking that he has to carry the team on his back, then I think he can be very effective again. Matt seems incapable of letting the rest of the team do its job and is making both terrible decisions and poor throws as a result.

    The question I keep asking myself now is not just "who is our best QB", but because that is still #8. My question is, "who has the best upside and can help the team more in the long run"?

    Obviously I'm not the coach, but if Matt were on my team he would be on the proverbial hot seat. I'd give him 2-3 more games, but if he can't demonstrate that he can settle down and consistently make smart decisions and plays at critical moments (opening drives, red zone, etc) then given where the rest of the team is, I'd put in Charlie.

    My hope is that the smart and efficient Matt Hasselbeck will return and we'll keep him for another 2-3 years while he mentors his heir, but at this point I just don't know.
    User avatar
    MysterMatt
    *TOP 5 SUPPORTER*
    *TOP 5 SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 6863
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:12 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 9:32 am
  • warner28 wrote:
    Again, its not about Matt or Charlie, its about the TEAM. And for the record, I have NEVER said Matt is not better than Charlie right now (and you claim I can't read), I have said I don't think the development of the TEAM is the reason Matt is starting. I stand by that.


    Someday, I hope Carroll/Schneider explain the decision. It's one glaring spot where they're markably going against their overall philosophy. Could be that they think Hasselbeck could pull it together for 8/9 wins for the division title, and they'd like to install a winning culture with the young guys. Or it could be that they think that, in the short term, he gives the team a better shot at developing the young receivers and keeping the defense off the field for longer stretches. It's definitely not about the QB in 2011, because he won't be here.
    User avatar
    Jac
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 678
    Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 11:50 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 9:35 am
  • kidhawk wrote: Whoever is at qb, the more we win, the better off the other 10 guys on offense will be. Whoever is qb only really matters in development of the qb. There's plenty of offseason and practice time for the receivers to work with whoever the qb will be on timing issues and such. Let's try to put out the best team possible and win today, and get Pete's players experience playing football how it's meant to be played every sunday, and that's putting on the field the players that give you the best chance to win TODAY.

    Anyone here think that Golden Tate isn't something special when he gets the ball? He didn't play in week 1 because he isn't what gave us the best chance to win that day. Matt gives us the best chance to win this week, that's realy all that needs to be said


    I agree with this post. Eerily similar to my last post. :)

    For our starting QB to be successful and help this team, he simply needs to reverse the trend of boneheaded decisions and lackluster throws. Then, he is supporting the rest of the team from his position. In other words, he needs to play like a smart old vet, not like some half-witted rookie. If he continues his current trend, we probably don't stand a chance - the majority of issues have come from those poor throws and dumb decisions. It doesn't matter who we start if that doesn't get solved.
    Last edited by nsport on Thu Sep 23, 2010 9:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
    Image
    User avatar
    nsport
    * NET Sports Handicapper *
     
    Posts: 1436
    Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 9:13 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 9:41 am
  • kidhawk wrote:your what if scenario is one of a thousand different possibilities.....what if we go 8-8 and lose in the playoffs and we re-sign matt? what if we fall out of the play off hunt by week 12 then play Charlie? what if we don't think Charlie is the answer and we draft a qb? what if we sign a Free agent qb? there's a lot of scenarios that can change between now and next year. What if we do the best we can with what we have? This is what I think we are currently doing and this is what matters. Whoever is at qb, the more we win, the better off the other 10 guys on offense will be. Whoever is qb only really matters in development of the qb. There's plenty of offseason and practice time for the receivers to work with whoever the qb will be on timing issues and such. Let's try to put out the best team possible and win today, and get Pete's players experience playing football how it's meant to be played every sunday, and that's putting on the field the players that give you the best chance to win TODAY.

    Anyone here think that Golden Tate isn't something special when he gets the ball? He didn't play in week 1 because he isn't what gave us the best chance to win that day. Matt gives us the best chance to win this week, that's realy all that needs to be said



    You are right, there are many scenarios, the worst possible scenario is to learn nothing about Charlie and/or re-signing Matt.

    We just are not going to agree on this, playing Matt does nothing for the development of this franchise unless you have already decided Matt is your QB in 2011 and 2012. Since they have not locked him up for those seasons, playing him is a waste.


    (And re-signing a 35 year old QB with 10 years of tape based on 2010 alone is a huge error, so the 'wait and see' attitude is something I can never support. If Matt is your guy, that was a decision that needed to already be made)
    MARTYREDwarner
     


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 9:50 am
  • You're saying warner, that the rest of the team (51 other players) can't get better with Matt Hasselbeck over Charlie Whitehurst?
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 13487
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 10:03 am
  • kidhawk wrote:Lawhawk...What's the point of looking back at last year? We canned the coaches, changed the front office and over half the team. This is not last years seahawks. This is this years seahawks and there's no comparison. We were a sucky team. There are lots of factors that could have contributed to last years end of the season games that mean nothing today. Judge him on this year........this year he's had one good game one bad game and did NOT lose that game on his own. He had plenty of help by a defense that couldn't stop the other team on third down. Let's see how this team does by the bye week and see where we are at then. This is just way to early to even judge this team


    The point of looking back at last year is that it helps us decide whether the guy is good or not. 90% or more of his career is behind him. Those years tell us lots about how good he is. It would tell us lots about how good he is even if he were playing for an entirely different team. Last year's team was bad, I agree, but Hasselbeck was bad too. It was not just protection. It was not just WRs. He was bad. "There are lots of factors that could have contributed to last years end of the season games..." Yes, and one of those factors is Hasselbeck throwing the ball to the other team.

    "This is just way to early to even judge this team..." Yes, but it's not too early to judge Hasselbeck! I'm looking at the last two years and two games and I find sufficient evidence to say he stinks.
    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 10:04 am
  • Jac wrote:
    warner28 wrote:
    Again, its not about Matt or Charlie, its about the TEAM. And for the record, I have NEVER said Matt is not better than Charlie right now (and you claim I can't read), I have said I don't think the development of the TEAM is the reason Matt is starting. I stand by that.


    Someday, I hope Carroll/Schneider explain the decision. It's one glaring spot where they're markably going against their overall philosophy. Could be that they think Hasselbeck could pull it together for 8/9 wins for the division title, and they'd like to install a winning culture with the young guys. Or it could be that they think that, in the short term, he gives the team a better shot at developing the young receivers and keeping the defense off the field for longer stretches. It's definitely not about the QB in 2011, because he won't be here.


    It's really very simple. All you have to do is realize the false ideas you harbor. First of all, Hasselbeck gives the team the best chance to win now. He won the competition with Whitehurst hands down and has proven himself far better now. Secondly, Hasselbeck is playing at close to his best, which is Pro Bowl level and one of the top five QBs in the NFL. Fans shouldn't judge their QB based upon how they feel after he makes mistakes in a loss. If you do, you are almost guaranteed to misjudge him. Third, as numerous QBs have shown over the years in the NFL, Hasselbeck has a real chance to play at this level for another three or four years, plenty of time to contend for the Super Bowl. Of course, there is no guarantee so the team should have solid backup plans in place, and they do.

    Now all you have to do is figure out why you don't understand the above and you'll understand why the team has put Hasselbeck where he is.
    "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
Thu Sep 23, 2010 10:04 am
  • kidhawk wrote:You're saying warner, that the rest of the team (51 other players) can't get better with Matt Hasselbeck over Charlie Whitehurst?


    Where did I say that?

    I said the team development is better served with long term solutions at positions even if it means more losses than winning with short term solutions.

    And for the record, its not just Matt, any player that is not going to be here in 2012 and is blocking the development of someone who might be should not be playing. The team should develop together, not with stopgaps. Matt just happens to be the most glaring example of a stopgap blocking a potential long term answer.

    Playing Matt is not about the development of the team, its about winning in 2010 which is something they should be trying to do but it should be done with an eye on finding long term solutions.

    I would rather go 5-11 and find out more about Charlie (and other young players) than lose in the playoffs, I think it gets the Seahawks closer to the ultimate goal (winning the Super Bowl) and frankly that is all there is to it.

    You think winning in 2010 is more important.


    We have a difference of opinion.


    (Also, I think Seattle can win the division with Charlie at QB anyway which would be the best of both worlds).
    MARTYREDwarner
     


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 10:07 am
  • JohnnyB wrote:
    Jac wrote:
    warner28 wrote:
    Again, its not about Matt or Charlie, its about the TEAM. And for the record, I have NEVER said Matt is not better than Charlie right now (and you claim I can't read), I have said I don't think the development of the TEAM is the reason Matt is starting. I stand by that.


    Someday, I hope Carroll/Schneider explain the decision. It's one glaring spot where they're markably going against their overall philosophy. Could be that they think Hasselbeck could pull it together for 8/9 wins for the division title, and they'd like to install a winning culture with the young guys. Or it could be that they think that, in the short term, he gives the team a better shot at developing the young receivers and keeping the defense off the field for longer stretches. It's definitely not about the QB in 2011, because he won't be here.


    It's really very simple. All you have to do is realize the false ideas you harbor. First of all, Hasselbeck gives the team the best chance to win now. He won the competition with Whitehurst hands down and has proven himself far better now. Secondly, Hasselbeck is playing at close to his best, which is Pro Bowl level and one of the top five QBs in the NFL. Fans shouldn't judge their QB based upon how they feel after he makes mistakes in a loss. If you do, you are almost guaranteed to misjudge him. Third, as numerous QBs have shown over the years in the NFL, Hasselbeck has a real chance to play at this level for another three or four years, plenty of time to contend for the Super Bowl. Of course, there is no guarantee so the team should have solid backup plans in place, and they do.

    Now all you have to do is figure out why you don't understand the above and you'll understand why the team has put Hasselbeck where he is.



    Wow, just wow.

    Playing at close to his best?

    Top 5 QB in the NFL?

    Pro Bowl level?

    Real chance to play 3-4 more years?


    Just wow, talk about living outside reality. Seriously, any other fans agree with Johnny? Any?


    More importantly if the Seahawks believed even 1 of those things, why has he not gotten an extension?
    Last edited by MARTYREDwarner on Thu Sep 23, 2010 10:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 10:11 am
  • I would rather go 5-11 and find out more about Charlie (and other young players) than lose in the playoffs, I think it gets the Seahawks closer to the ultimate goal (winning the Super Bowl) and frankly that is all there is to it.


    I don't think this decision (play CW and other young players) by the FO takes place until the team is mathematically eliminated (or close to it). Fact is, #8 is statistically bad enough to get us to 5-11. I think he needs at least a couple more games to prove/disprove that he's still the same QB of the past several years (poor throws, poor mechanics, bone-headed plays). Until then he proves otherwise, the idea of winning now will always be valued over developing a player. So CW can't move up until he: a) Proves he is better or b) MH continues to falter - hopefully when the decision comes it's more about a) than b), but I'm sure it'll be a bit of both.
    Image
    User avatar
    nsport
    * NET Sports Handicapper *
     
    Posts: 1436
    Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 9:13 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 10:25 am
  • This one's pretty simple in my mind.

    Pete does not feel that Charlie is ready... Matt's game (howbeit definitely not at a Pro Bowl level after two games) is better than Charlie's and Pete wants "to win now".

    I also believe that the FO would consider a year or two (at most) extension for Matt but his play would have to improve dramatically for that to be a possibility.

    Matt's career as a starting QB is in jeopardy... not in a game or two, imo... but definitely by the end of the season if his INTs are about equal with his (passing) TDs.
    EastCoastHawksFan posted... "Trading for Harvin is by far the worst move John S has ever made." (March 18, 2014)

    your World Champion Seattle Seahawks.. how sweet is that!!
    User avatar
    onanygivensunday
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3090
    Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 8:59 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 10:25 am
  • warner28 wrote:

    Wow, just wow.

    Playing at close to his best?

    Top 5 QB in the NFL?

    Pro Bowl level?

    Real chance to play 3-4 more years?


    Just wow, talk about living outside reality. Seriously, any other fans agree with Johnny? Any?



    "Nope"
    "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
Thu Sep 23, 2010 10:27 am
  • warner28 wrote:More importantly if the Seahawks believed even 1 of those things, why has he not gotten an extension?


    That's easy Warner. Matt has declined all offers by the FO for an extension because he knows that once he's named MVP this season his price will skyrocket.
    Last edited by Trrrroy on Thu Sep 23, 2010 10:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
    I hate Tim Ruskell.
    User avatar
    Trrrroy
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2853
    Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 9:24 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 10:28 am

  • Again, its not about Matt or Charlie, its about the TEAM. And for the record, I have NEVER said Matt is not better than Charlie right now (and you claim I can't read), I have said I don't think the development of the TEAM is the reason Matt is starting. I stand by that.


    Someday, I hope Carroll/Schneider explain the decision. It's one glaring spot where they're markably going against their overall philosophy. Could be that they think Hasselbeck could pull it together for 8/9 wins for the division title, and they'd like to install a winning culture with the young guys. Or it could be that they think that, in the short term, he gives the team a better shot at developing the young receivers and keeping the defense off the field for longer stretches. It's definitely not about the QB in 2011, because he won't be here.


    It's really very simple. All you have to do is realize the false ideas you harbor. First of all, Hasselbeck gives the team the best chance to win now. He won the competition with Whitehurst hands down and has proven himself far better now. Secondly, Hasselbeck is playing at close to his best, which is Pro Bowl level and one of the top five QBs in the NFL. Fans shouldn't judge their QB based upon how they feel after he makes mistakes in a loss. If you do, you are almost guaranteed to misjudge him. Third, as numerous QBs have shown over the years in the NFL, Hasselbeck has a real chance to play at this level for another three or four years, plenty of time to contend for the Super Bowl. Of course, there is no guarantee so the team should have solid backup plans in place, and they do.

    Now all you have to do is figure out why you don't understand the above and you'll understand why the team has put Hasselbeck where he is.[/quote]

    Wow, just wow.

    Playing at close to his best?

    Top 5 QB in the NFL?

    Pro Bowl level?

    Real chance to play 3-4 more years?


    Just wow, talk about living outside reality. Seriously, any other fans agree with Johnny? Any?
    [/quote]

    Of course, how many people agree with me has zero bearing on whether it is true. No matter. As I have said, before the season is over you will see what I mean, the stats will probably support it, and just for you (but again no proof whatsoever), most fans will agree with me.

    More importantly if the Seahawks believed even 1 of those things, why has he not gotten an extension?



    I (and others) have answered this question for you so many times, and the answer is so obvious, there's no point in trying again, is there?
    "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
Thu Sep 23, 2010 10:30 am
  • JohnnyB wrote:
    More importantly if the Seahawks believed even 1 of those things, why has he not gotten an extension?



    I (and others) have answered this question for you so many times, and the answer is so obvious, there's no point in trying again, is there?



    Yeah, NFL teams always wait for top 5 Pro Bowl QBs to reach free agency before talking extension, you are right, so obvious. :roll:


    There is not a chance in hell Matt is ever one of the 5 best QBs in the NFL again, not a chance in hell.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 10:33 am
  • warner28 wrote:I said the team development is better served with long term solutions at positions even if it means more losses than winning with short term solutions.


    How does Whitehurst make the rest of the team better? Is it not completely feasible that the rest of the team gets better on the field while the coaches decide the future of the qb situation, while we still put the best qb on the field of play?


    warner28 wrote:I would rather go 5-11 and find out more about Charlie (and other young players) than lose in the playoffs, I think it gets the Seahawks closer to the ultimate goal (winning the Super Bowl) and frankly that is all there is to it.

    You think winning in 2010 is more important.

    We have a difference of opinion.


    Yes we have a difference of opinion, because you seem to think that there is no other possibility for the future of this team besides Whitehurst at QB and that the team around the qb can't improve on the path without Whitehurst at qb. You don't have to look far for an example....Minnesota is a fine example. They built their team up but didn't have the qb they needed until they signed favre and nearly went all the way with him. My point isn't that we are going to go sign favre next year, that's ludicrous, but my point is that you can build a team up without the qb of that future team being on the field today. We, as a team can improve more with the best players playing.
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 13487
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 10:41 am
  • Kidhawk,

    I have NEVER said I think Charlie is the ONLY future, I am actually fairly certain that he is NOT the future (and have said so many times), I would just prefer to find that out as soon as possible.

    You are right, you can build the team up first, bring in a hired gun (if you are able to find one, they aren't available every offseason) and take a 1-2 year shot at winning (just hope things go perfectly which has not happened in Minnesota since they have no ring so far) or you can do everything in your power to set your team up to have a 5-6 year run which involves building from the QB out.

    There is a reason teams take QBs in the top 5 and its a very good reason.


    Whitehurst probably is not the answer, how fast this team figures that out is ESSENTIAL. Maybe that decision has already been made and that is why Matt is starting but I have a feeling Seattle will let Matt leave and insert Charlie in 2011, we will then find out he is not the guy and have to go back to the drawing board in 2012.


    You can always point to exceptions to the rule (and Minnesota is not even that since they have won NOTHING) but how many teams have signed a proven veteran QB and won the Super Bowl within 3 years? They'd be the exception, not the rule. Most teams that win the Super Bowl develop the QB along with the team. And they do it that way for a reason, it the time tested successful way to do it.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 10:44 am
  • warner28 wrote:
    JohnnyB wrote:
    More importantly if the Seahawks believed even 1 of those things, why has he not gotten an extension?



    I (and others) have answered this question for you so many times, and the answer is so obvious, there's no point in trying again, is there?



    Yeah, NFL teams always wait for top 5 Pro Bowl QBs to reach free agency before talking extension, you are right, so obvious. :roll:


    You are obviously struggling mightily with this and I thought of an explanation that might help you. Here is your argument in a form that makes it obvious how false it is:

    "The only reason NFL teams and players fail to reach early contract agreements is when the team thinks that the player isn't going to be good enough, therefore the team can't think much of Hasselbeck's future."

    There is not a chance in hell Matt is ever one of the 5 best QBs in the NFL again, not a chance in hell.


    Stay tuned, grab some crow soup to go with it, and get ready to eat those words before the season is over.
    "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
Thu Sep 23, 2010 10:53 am
  • JohnnyB wrote:
    You are obviously struggling mightily with this and I thought of an explanation that might help you. Here is your argument in a form that makes it obvious how false it is:

    "The only reason NFL teams and players fail to reach early contract agreements is when the team thinks that the player isn't going to be good enough, therefore the team can't think much of Hasselbeck's future."


    Please, stop making crap up, that is not even close to what I said, I said they do not wait to re-sign top 5 Pro Bowl QBs, you said Matt IS (present tense) that, teams don't wait for that.

    As for eating crow, considering Matt has been to 3 Pro Bowls in a decade and has been a top 5 QB maybe 2-3 years out of his whole career I am reasonably certain he will never reach that level again.

    And frankly its incredibly unrealistic to think that is that level or will be again.


    Seattle has not re-signed him for 1 of 2 reasons:

    1) they have no intentions of re-signing him

    2) they do not believe he is a top 5 Pro Bowl level QB playing at his best which you claimed he IS (again present tense).


    If they believed anything close to what you believe, they would be doing everything in their power to extend his deal, no reason why they would wait.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 10:54 am
  • Warner,

    How do you know the team hasn't figured that out? I mean he's not playing now, and PC has said that it's not his time, so as far as we know, they may have already decided that he's not the future. We don't know what the front office is going to do and this is why I think we play the player who deserves to play, it gives us the best shot at winning and it shows the other players that the team is committed to winning which is good for moral, which, a winning attitude is a must on a team you want to become a winner
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 13487
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 10:55 am
  • JohnnyB wrote:
    warner28 wrote:

    There is not a chance in hell Matt is ever one of the 5 best QBs in the NFL again, not a chance in hell.


    Stay tuned, grab some crow soup to go with it, and get ready to eat those words before the season is over.


    So when we get to the end of the year and talking heads bring up Brady, Manning, Brees, Rodgers, Schaub as a sample Top-5...there's going to be somebody that steps up and says "Wait, we have to include Hasselbeck in this conversation..."?
    User avatar
    Jac
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 678
    Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 11:50 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 10:56 am
  • kidhawk wrote:Warner,

    How do you know the team hasn't figured that out? I mean he's not playing now, and PC has said that it's not his time, so as far as we know, they may have already decided that he's not the future. We don't know what the front office is going to do and this is why I think we play the player who deserves to play, it gives us the best shot at winning and it shows the other players that the team is committed to winning which is good for moral, which, a winning attitude is a must on a team you want to become a winner



    I don't know, its what I believe is happening, its my opinion (really more my fear).


    As for the winning attitude thing, I believe you can do that while developing a QB, Carroll just needed to sell Whitehurst to the team, its the coaches job to do this. And it happens all the time.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 10:57 am
  • kidhawk wrote:
    Yes we have a difference of opinion, because you seem to think that there is no other possibility for the future of this team besides Whitehurst at QB and that the team around the qb can't improve on the path without Whitehurst at qb. You don't have to look far for an example....Minnesota is a fine example. They built their team up but didn't have the qb they needed until they signed favre and nearly went all the way with him. My point isn't that we are going to go sign favre next year, that's ludicrous, but my point is that you can build a team up without the qb of that future team being on the field today. We, as a team can improve more with the best players playing.


    Minnesota made the playoffs with Gus Frerotte and Tarvaris Jackson shuttling at QB in 2008 and lost their first playoff game. Minnesota made the playoffs with Brett Favre at QB in 2009 and lost their second playoff game. Yeah, that was worth it. Instead of allowing Jackson (for example) to develop another year and see if he could improve, the Vikings mortgaged his future and the team's future for a shot at the SB and failed. And now, this year, Favre looks like garbage. So next season, when Favre is done and Minnesota still has a decent roster, what do you think their options at QB are? Do they apologize to Jackson and try to develop him a year late? Do they bring in a rookie QB and suffer through his growing pains as their window closes? In my view, Minnesota is a fine example of what we absolutely should NOT do at the QB position.
    Image

    Super Bowl XLVIII Champions
    User avatar
    volsunghawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 8084
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:20 am
    Location: Right outside Richard Sherman's house


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 11:00 am
  • volsunghawk wrote:
    kidhawk wrote:
    Yes we have a difference of opinion, because you seem to think that there is no other possibility for the future of this team besides Whitehurst at QB and that the team around the qb can't improve on the path without Whitehurst at qb. You don't have to look far for an example....Minnesota is a fine example. They built their team up but didn't have the qb they needed until they signed favre and nearly went all the way with him. My point isn't that we are going to go sign favre next year, that's ludicrous, but my point is that you can build a team up without the qb of that future team being on the field today. We, as a team can improve more with the best players playing.


    Minnesota made the playoffs with Gus Frerotte and Tarvaris Jackson shuttling at QB in 2008 and lost their first playoff game. Minnesota made the playoffs with Brett Favre at QB in 2009 and lost their second playoff game. Yeah, that was worth it. Instead of allowing Jackson (for example) to develop another year and see if he could improve, the Vikings mortgaged his future and the team's future for a shot at the SB and failed. And now, this year, Favre looks like garbage. So next season, when Favre is done and Minnesota still has a decent roster, what do you think their options at QB are? Do they apologize to Jackson and try to develop him a year late? Do they bring in a rookie QB and suffer through his growing pains as their window closes? In my view, Minnesota is a fine example of what we absolutely should NOT do at the QB position.



    Agree 100000% with this.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 11:02 am
  • Minnesota was a superbowl contender, that's what we all want. if you go by superbowl wins, what are we all doing rooting for seattle? It's about the ride. My point with Minnesota isn't that they are the end all be all, my point is that you can build a quality team without sacrificing the here and now. One position, even the qb position isn't worth tanking a season. If you have a shot at the playoffs you take that shot now and you develop players on the practice field where they should be
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 13487
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 11:03 am
  • nsport wrote:
    I would rather go 5-11 and find out more about Charlie (and other young players) than lose in the playoffs, I think it gets the Seahawks closer to the ultimate goal (winning the Super Bowl) and frankly that is all there is to it.


    I don't think this decision (play CW and other young players) by the FO takes place until the team is mathematically eliminated (or close to it). Fact is, #8 is statistically bad enough to get us to 5-11. I think he needs at least a couple more games to prove/disprove that he's still the same QB of the past several years (poor throws, poor mechanics, bone-headed plays). Until then he proves otherwise, the idea of winning now will always be valued over developing a player. So CW can't move up until he: a) Proves he is better or b) MH continues to falter - hopefully when the decision comes it's more about a) than b), but I'm sure it'll be a bit of both.



    For those that watch baseball, KEN GRIFFEY JR comes to mind. A beloved fan favorite on the downside of his career. One in which he was part of something special. For Jr. it was the '95 season and bringing hope to Seattle. For Hasselbeck, he quarterbacked our lone Super Bowl appearance and many excellent years of running Holmgren's WC offense and division titles.

    However, JR's second year back in Seattle was a disaster and a black eye for the Mariners. But if they hadn't brought him back (after a somewhat successful previous season) and the team sucked the fans would have blasted the organization for letting JR go. They held on too long and paid the price for it.

    The Seahawks have to let this year play out and see what happens. If Matt continues to fail (this season) and it costs us more games then the team will have the necessary justification to make a change without bucking the fans over one of the most popular players in team history. I don't want to get rid of Hasselbeck, he reminds me of the past glory. But his play is what stirred up the fans, not the other way around. Win now, win forever starts with having the right pieces to the puzzle. Matt's not the right fit anymore.
    "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
Thu Sep 23, 2010 11:04 am
  • warner28 wrote:As for the winning attitude thing, I believe you can do that while developing a QB, Carroll just needed to sell Whitehurst to the team, its the coaches job to do this. And it happens all the time.



    Carroll's job is to build a winner. His stated philosophy is to compete to bring out the best in every player and to put the best team on the field to compete week in and week out. His job is not to sell a lesser player to the team.
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 13487
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 11:04 am
  • Wow Johnny. I've seen optimists before, but...wow. Hell, I am an optimist, but that doesn't mean I believe that just because I want something really bad it will actually happen. Look, I don't agree with everything warner says, meaning that I think the starting QB job is still Matt's to lose and he might...just might...become a very effective game manager, which would extend his career a few years. That said, I think you're mistaking "effectiveness" for "Top 5" or "Pro Bowl" caliber.

    Matt has demonstrated all too well that every time he tries to take over a game his effectiveness declines. This means that he is overreaching, which hurts the team. Smart QBs know their limitations and work to maximize the opportunities where they can be successful or minimize the damage when they know they just can't make a certain type of play. It is always better to throw the ball away, dump it off, or even scramble for a few yards rather than turn the ball over. We've seen Matt do the opposite many times, as recently as last Sunday. Matt is good, but he just isn't good enough and he needs to accept that.

    BTW, your explanation for why the team hasn't extended Hass is inept. In fact, it sorta justifies why warner doesn't understand why the team keeps playing Matt. If, as you suggest, the team thinks Matt is just not that good, then why not put Charlie in and see how he develops? Yes, Matt is better than Charlie right now, but if he keeps killing us with turnovers, who cares?
    Last edited by MysterMatt on Thu Sep 23, 2010 11:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
    User avatar
    MysterMatt
    *TOP 5 SUPPORTER*
    *TOP 5 SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 6863
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:12 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 11:05 am
  • JohnnyB wrote:
    There is not a chance in hell Matt is ever one of the 5 best QBs in the NFL again, not a chance in hell.


    Stay tuned, grab some crow soup to go with it, and get ready to eat those words before the season is over.


    Wow. just, wow.

    What has Matt showed you to make you think that he's going to be a top 5 QB this year? A 170 yard game?

    And what makes you think he's going to get resigned? Its like you completely ignore the fact that the FO was interested in Clausen, Kolb, and gave up second round value for Whitehurst. You don't give up second round value for someone that you think is going to be a backup, you just don't. If all they wanted was a backup they would have signed Redman, or Carr, or some other experienced journeyman QB, not pay as much as they did for a third-stringer who's never thrown a meaningful NFL pass. An experienced journeyman would have made much better "competition" for Hass as well, so please don't bring up the "they signed him for competition" argument.

    So they obviously thought of Whitehurst as a potential starter, yet only signed him for two years. Why would they sign someone who they think of as a future starter to only two years if they plan on keeping Matt around for three? It doesn't make sense unless 1) they're really stupid and overpayed for a backup, or 2) they don't plan on resigning Hass.

    I'd bet on #2.
    Last edited by Trrrroy on Thu Sep 23, 2010 11:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
    I hate Tim Ruskell.
    User avatar
    Trrrroy
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2853
    Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 9:24 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 11:06 am
  • kidhawk wrote:
    warner28 wrote:As for the winning attitude thing, I believe you can do that while developing a QB, Carroll just needed to sell Whitehurst to the team, its the coaches job to do this. And it happens all the time.



    Carroll's job is to build a winner. His stated philosophy is to compete to bring out the best in every player and to put the best team on the field to compete week in and week out. His job is not to sell a lesser player to the team.


    Then why did he get rid of Housh, Wilson, Sims, and Tapp. They would have given us the best team to win.
    I hate Tim Ruskell.
    User avatar
    Trrrroy
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2853
    Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 9:24 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 11:06 am
  • MysterMatt wrote:Matt has demonstrated all too well that every time he tries to take over a game his effectiveness declines. This means that he is overreaching, which hurts the team. Smart QBs know their limitations and work to maximize the opportunities where they can be successful or minimize the damage when they know they just can't make a certain type of play. It is always better to throw the ball away, dump it off, or even scramble for a few yards rather than turn the ball over. We've seen Matt do the opposite many times, as recently as last Sunday. Matt is good, but he just isn't good enough and he needs to accept that.


    This paragraph should be etched in bronze. Spot on.
    RIP Les. We will miss you.
    User avatar
    Happy
    * NET Lead Admin *
     
    Posts: 8593
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:47 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 11:09 am
  • sadhappy wrote:
    MysterMatt wrote:Matt has demonstrated all too well that every time he tries to take over a game his effectiveness declines. This means that he is overreaching, which hurts the team. Smart QBs know their limitations and work to maximize the opportunities where they can be successful or minimize the damage when they know they just can't make a certain type of play. It is always better to throw the ball away, dump it off, or even scramble for a few yards rather than turn the ball over. We've seen Matt do the opposite many times, as recently as last Sunday. Matt is good, but he just isn't good enough and he needs to accept that.


    This paragraph should be etched in bronze. Spot on.


    Yes, I agree...this was particularly good analysis.
    User avatar
    Jac
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 678
    Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 11:50 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 11:11 am
  • kidhawk wrote:Minnesota was a superbowl contender, that's what we all want. if you go by superbowl wins, what are we all doing rooting for seattle? It's about the ride. My point with Minnesota isn't that they are the end all be all, my point is that you can build a quality team without sacrificing the here and now. One position, even the qb position isn't worth tanking a season. If you have a shot at the playoffs you take that shot now and you develop players on the practice field where they should be


    Look at Jackson's performance in 2008. He started off poorly, but when given the chance late in the season as the Vikes ran at the playoffs, he actually performed pretty well (including a road win over the SB-bound Cardinals). His numbers for the season were actually pretty good - the completion percentage was low (though he kept it above 60% his last 3 games as a starter) and he was safe with the ball (9 TDs to 2 INTs) and had a good YPA. The team made the playoffs. Had they stuck with him, there was every reason to believe that he could have improved on that good showing and made the team a SB contender (outstanding D, outstanding run game, good QB... sounds like a winning combo). In other words, there's no reason to believe that they couldn't have been SB contenders with Jackson at QB. Instead, they went with the big name and essentially stated that they had no faith in Jackson - even with his solid performances. Look what it got them.

    What I don't understand is this idea that playing Whitehurst is necessarily "sacrificing the here and now." What evidence do you have that he CAN'T do what Hasselbeck has done thus far this season? I'm pretty sure he can throw for TDs, run for TDs, and throw picks just as well as Hass has.
    Image

    Super Bowl XLVIII Champions
    User avatar
    volsunghawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 8084
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:20 am
    Location: Right outside Richard Sherman's house


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 11:13 am
  • Tech Worlds wrote:
    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.


    You couldn't be more right. But do you think most Hawks fans can stomach a Charlie Whitehurst experiment? Think about it; If Charlie starts blowing games, throwing pick after pick and Pete decides to ride it out to see if CW settle's down. Then people will be calling for Carroll's head. I realize most people in here are realists and we know a Superbowl isn't on the horizon, but that's not the case for a lot of others, especially the fair weather fans who bought in after week 1.

    We can barely take a bad game from our aging franchise QB, the guy who took us to our first Superbowl. What makes everyone think we'll be more accepting if this were CW throwing games? I don't think we want to see the reality, that we wasted a draft pick on him.

    Does anyone really see Charlie Whitehurst as our next franchise QB? I mean honestly. The only thing CW has on #8 is arm strength, and probably a little more mobility. Everything else, forget about it. No experience, nothing.
    ~ The Stache'
    User avatar
    Zowert
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1990
    Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 2:29 pm
    Location: Seattle


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 11:14 am
  • warner28 wrote:Kidhawk,

    I have NEVER said I think Charlie is the ONLY future, I am actually fairly certain that he is NOT the future (and have said so many times), I would just prefer to find that out as soon as possible.

    You are right, you can build the team up first, bring in a hired gun (if you are able to find one, they aren't available every offseason) and take a 1-2 year shot at winning (just hope things go perfectly which has not happened in Minnesota since they have no ring so far) or you can do everything in your power to set your team up to have a 5-6 year run which involves building from the QB out.

    There is a reason teams take QBs in the top 5 and its a very good reason.


    Whitehurst probably is not the answer, how fast this team figures that out is ESSENTIAL. Maybe that decision has already been made and that is why Matt is starting but I have a feeling Seattle will let Matt leave and insert Charlie in 2011, we will then find out he is not the guy and have to go back to the drawing board in 2012.


    You can always point to exceptions to the rule (and Minnesota is not even that since they have won NOTHING) but how many teams have signed a proven veteran QB and won the Super Bowl within 3 years? They'd be the exception, not the rule. Most teams that win the Super Bowl develop the QB along with the team. And they do it that way for a reason, it the time tested successful way to do it.



    Whitehurst was never, ever drafted to be anything but a competent backup. He replaced Seneca. Pretty simple equation. Next move would be Hass to retire or traded and we draft a QB and bring him up in the system. Or HAss sticks around to help the kid.

    There is no way I can see ever naming Whitehurst the starter over Matt - he's just not good enough. It would be a huge step backwards imo.
    My Tapatalk for Ipad is bigger than yours. Size matters.
    User avatar
    MeanBlueGreen
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1121
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:56 pm
    Location: Redwood City, California


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 11:15 am
  • warner28 wrote:
    JohnnyB wrote:
    You are obviously struggling mightily with this and I thought of an explanation that might help you. Here is your argument in a form that makes it obvious how false it is:

    "The only reason NFL teams and players fail to reach early contract agreements is when the team thinks that the player isn't going to be good enough, therefore the team can't think much of Hasselbeck's future."


    Please, stop making crap up, that is not even close to what I said, I said they do not wait to re-sign top 5 Pro Bowl QBs, you said Matt IS (present tense) that, teams don't wait for that.

    As for eating crow, considering Matt has been to 3 Pro Bowls in a decade and has been a top 5 QB maybe 2-3 years out of his whole career I am reasonably certain he will never reach that level again.

    And frankly its incredibly unrealistic to think that is that level or will be again.


    Seattle has not re-signed him for 1 of 2 reasons:

    1) they have no intentions of re-signing him

    2) they do not believe he is a top 5 Pro Bowl level QB playing at his best which you claimed he IS (again present tense).


    Ha ha. That's the same as my paraphrase. You give only two reasons, both of which due to the team not thinking he is good enough and therefore denying there can be any other reason (like maybe they have been trying to sign him, but Hass is waiting until he is in a better negotiating position). So since you deny that could be possible, or that anything beside your two reasons could be possible you are saying:


    "The only reason NFL teams and players fail to reach early contract agreements is when the team thinks that the player isn't going to be good enough, therefore the team can't think much of Hasselbeck's future."

    If they believed anything close to what you believe, they would be doing everything in their power to extend his deal, no reason why they would wait.


    So unless you have some information that the Seahawks definitely have not approached Hass's agent, you're saying what I said you are saying.
    "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
Thu Sep 23, 2010 11:18 am
  • Zowert wrote:
    Tech Worlds wrote:
    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.


    You couldn't be more right. But do you think most Hawks fans can stomach a Charlie Whitehurst experiment? Think about it; If Charlie starts blowing games, throwing pick after pick and Pete decides to ride it out to see if CW settle's down. Then people will be calling for Carroll's head. I realize most people in here are realists and we know a Superbowl isn't on the horizon, but that's not the case for a lot of others, especially the fair weather fans who bought in after week 1.

    We can barely take a bad game from our aging franchise QB, the guy who took us to our first Superbowl. What makes everyone think we'll be more accepting if this were CW throwing games? I don't think we want to see the reality, that we wasted a draft pick on him.

    Does anyone really see Charlie Whitehurst as our next franchise QB? I mean honestly. The only thing CW has on #8 is arm strength, and probably a little more mobility. Everything else, forget about it. No experience, nothing.


    This can't be said enough, but we will never know if Whitehurst can be a franchise QB until he plays. That "no experience" criticism? How the hell do you think you get experience? Not by sitting on the bench. Hass is NOT the long-term answer for us, so why not find out as soon as we can whether Whitehurst can be? If he isn't no big deal, we draft the next QB in 2011. If he is, there's no excuse for sitting him on the bench to stroke the fans who can't accept that 2005 was half a decade ago and that Hass isn't the same QB he was then.
    Image

    Super Bowl XLVIII Champions
    User avatar
    volsunghawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 8084
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:20 am
    Location: Right outside Richard Sherman's house


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 11:19 am
  • Zowert wrote: The only thing CW has on #8 is arm strength, and probably a little more mobility. Everything else, forget about it. No experience, nothing.


    Matt Hasselbeck had less on Dilfer than Whitehurst has on Hass. And no, most people don't think that he is our future franchise QB, but at least he has a chance to be, which is more than anybody can say about Hass.
    I hate Tim Ruskell.
    User avatar
    Trrrroy
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2853
    Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 9:24 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 11:19 am
  • MeanBlueGreen wrote:Whitehurst was never, ever drafted to be anything but a competent backup.



    Sounds like Hasselbeck (Favre) once upon a time.
    "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
Thu Sep 23, 2010 11:20 am
  • warner28 wrote:
    kidhawk wrote:
    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?



    3 points:

    A) I don't think playing in the wildcard round of the playoffs is as important as developing a QB.

    B) I think Seattle has just about as good of a chance to 'win' the West with a developing QB as they have with an aging QB. The division is terrible, I don't think switching to Charlie severely hampers the possibility of winning the division.

    C) Just to repeat, developing a QB is more important to the long term playoff success of a team than playoff experience.


    You know why Hass is the starting QB right now? Because he outplayed Charlie Whitehurst at training camp and the preseason. Meaning, good days or bad, CW is not as good as Matt Hasselbeck. You think Matt's bad game was awful, imagine how awful Charlie's bad games would be.

    Face it. Hass is the starter for a reason. I'm sure Pete Carroll knows a little more about football than the armchair quarterbacks in here.
    ~ The Stache'
    User avatar
    Zowert
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1990
    Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 2:29 pm
    Location: Seattle


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 11:21 am
  • kidhawk wrote:Minnesota was a superbowl contender, that's what we all want. if you go by superbowl wins, what are we all doing rooting for seattle?



    Because I believe they will one day win a Super Bowl and for me it is about Super Bowl wins, I root for the Seahawks because I want to watch them win Super Bowls (plural).

    The ride part of the process and each week is fun but at the end of the day it comes down to getting to and winning Super Bowls.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 11:28 am
  • kidhawk wrote:You're saying warner, that the rest of the team (51 other players) can't get better with Matt Hasselbeck over Charlie Whitehurst?


    It doesn't matter what you say, he is hell bent on starting Charlie Whitehurst. Which is fine, if that's what he thinks is better for the team in the long run, then cool. He's entitled to his opinion.

    I just think Hasselbeck is the obvious choice in our situation. If we were 1-8 right now, I would say "go ahead!"

    Where was the 17 page "objective" thread on Hasselbeck after week 1?
    ~ The Stache'
    User avatar
    Zowert
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1990
    Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 2:29 pm
    Location: Seattle


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 11:32 am
  • Zowert wrote:Where was the 17 page "objective" thread on Hasselbeck after week 1?


    You act like we just suddenly formed our opinions since watching Matt suck last game. I've been for starting Whitehurst ever since they payed second round value to acquire him. Matt could have thrown for 300 yards and 4 touchdowns last week and my opinion wouldn't change.
    Last edited by Trrrroy on Thu Sep 23, 2010 11:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
    I hate Tim Ruskell.
    User avatar
    Trrrroy
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2853
    Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 9:24 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 11:33 am
  • Zowert wrote:
    kidhawk wrote:You're saying warner, that the rest of the team (51 other players) can't get better with Matt Hasselbeck over Charlie Whitehurst?


    It doesn't matter what you say, he is hell bent on starting Charlie Whitehurst. Which is fine, if that's what he thinks is better for the team in the long run, then cool. He's entitled to his opinion.

    I just think Hasselbeck is the obvious choice in our situation. If we were 1-8 right now, I would say "go ahead!"

    Where was the 17 page "objective" thread on Hasselbeck after week 1?


    Buried under the 5000 "Hahaha, Hasselhaters, time to eat crow!" posts from people who thought he was the key to the win.
    Image

    Super Bowl XLVIII Champions
    User avatar
    volsunghawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 8084
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:20 am
    Location: Right outside Richard Sherman's house


PreviousNext


It is currently Wed Oct 01, 2014 8:29 pm

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE ARCHIVES ]




Information
  • Who is online
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests
cron