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.

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.

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.

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.

MeanBlueGreen wrote:Whitehurst was never, ever drafted to be anything but a competent backup.

Sounds like Hasselbeck (Favre) once upon a time.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

volsunghawk wrote:
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.

Why do you think he has 'no experience' in the first place? The guy is 28 years old. If he were meant to be a starter by now then he probably wouldn't be here. People think we picked CW up to be our next stud under center. WRONG! The guy is a career backup. If you watched him play in SD, training camp and preseason, then you would realize just that. Using him for anything other than emergency situations would be throwing a game away.

When it comes to Matt Hasselbeck, we're fair weather fans. He plays good, we shut up. He plays bad, we start 5,000 page threads on how bad he sucks and why we need a new QB.

Trrrroy wrote:

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.

And i have been saying it ever since i saw Matt give us NO CHANCE TO WIN by throwing all those interceptions during the last 4 games of the year. I like him, but without Holmgren to steady him he is not what he used to be.

JohnnyB wrote: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.

Please, if they believe Matt was what you claimed, we would have heard about Seattle trying to extend him, just like we hear about every major negotiation.

This believe that no one would have heard whispers about an offer, please.

Trrrroy wrote:

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.

No I act like you guys aren't being OBJECTIVE at all, because you're not.

I'm not saying Hasselbeck is the best QB in the league right now. I'm not even saying we should keep him around next year. The man is on the decline. But to be "objective" you need to look at all sides of the scenario and argument. You're suggesting we go against Pete's plan and put CW in, at a time when we have a legit shot at winning the division.

If you think experimenting with CW is better for the team than making it to the wild card, then you've lost your mind.

I know you hate Hasselbeck, and you all have good reason to. Fine. I'm disappointed in him as well. But he gives us the best chance to win right now.

Zowert wrote:

Trrrroy wrote:

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.

No I act like you guys aren't being OBJECTIVE at all, because you're not.

Fine but stop acting like you are because you aren't either.


Objectivity left long ago, go back to page 1 if you want my objective opinion but please stop acting like you are somehow being objective and no one else is.

I'm somehow drawn to this multi-car accident and can't help rubbernecking because the carnage is so... well, you know.

Here's the rub guys - this whole MH vs. CW has nothing to do with anything, including getting to the Super Bowl. Yes - simple fact is MH is declining and if you count the last several games, there is enough empirical data to bench the guy and put CW in for that real-game experience. However...

I agree with the idea that it's Super Bowl or bust - and that should be our thought going forward. If not, we are all just wasting our time and money if we don't prioritize that achievement for our team.

What this is about is the roster. Aside from these two QB's, there are 51 other players on the team. Of which (IIRC) about 25 or so are holdovers from last year. Holy crap. That means that the new 25 or so players are valued as upgrades in those positions over their counterparts from last season. Boil that down a little deeper and you can see that we have close to half of our regulars on offense and defense are different than last year. If you believe in the FO, they value those players as improvements over last year's squad. Don't think for a second that if someone fails that they're not scouring our team and the waiver wire for a guy that will be .001% better than the guy they will cut.

My belief system is that if MH continues to trend towards INT's and mental mistakes, then it hampers the development of the other 52 players on the team. And I don't explicitly see #8 as being the de-facto reason as whether this team can win or lose this year. I do think that if MH can minimize these mistakes, it is GOOD for the other 52. You can't know how good those guys can be if MH keeps chucking the ball to the other team. You can't measure if we have enough capabilities to be successful in the playoffs if you can't get there in the first place... Trust me on this, the FO is not measuring this team based solely on the performance of the QB. And I'd hazard a guess that we see another 10-20 players gone next year as the talent continues to be evaluated and developed on this team.

warner28 wrote:
Fine but stop acting like you are because you aren't either.


Objectivity left long ago, go back to page 1 if you want my objective opinion but please stop acting like you are somehow being objective and no one else is.

How am I not being objective? Oh thats right because I dont agree with you...

All I'm saying is we go with whatever Pete Carroll chooses. How's that wrong?

Zowert wrote:

volsunghawk wrote:
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.

Why do you think he has 'no experience' in the first place? The guy is 28 years old. If he were meant to be a starter by now then he probably wouldn't be here. People think we picked CW up to be our next stud under center. WRONG! The guy is a career backup. If you watched him play in SD, training camp and preseason, then you would realize just that. Using him for anything other than emergency situations would be throwing a game away.

When it comes to Matt Hasselbeck, we're fair weather fans. He plays good, we shut up. He plays bad, we start 5,000 page threads on how bad he sucks and why we need a new QB.

Oh, you mean like how Kurt Warner was a NFL Europe scrub and career backup until he started his first game when he was 28? If Warner can be thrown out as evidence that Hass can play until he's 40, then he damn sure can be thrown out as evidence that sitting on the bench until your late 20s is evidence that Whitehurst has a Pro Bowl career ahead of him.

I've seen Whitehurst put up good performances and bad performances in preseason. I've also seen Hass do the SAME DAMN THING. I don't expect Whitehurst to be a stud, but I do think that the team brought him in because they felt he COULD be a starting QB and could buy the franchise time to groom a long-term solution. Hass simply doesn't buy the franchise that same amount of time due to his age (not due to his playing ability). I have at no point said that Hass sucked. But he is in decline. He's not the guy to lead us next season or the season after, when our team should be rising to contender status. That's why I think that this year, when so much else is in flux and we have so much turnover, should be the year when we find out what our future at QB will be, and that starts with Whitehurst (but doesn't necessarily end with him).

Zowert wrote:

warner28 wrote:No I act like you guys aren't being OBJECTIVE at all, because you're not.

Fine but stop acting like you are because you aren't either.


Objectivity left long ago, go back to page 1 if you want my objective opinion but please stop acting like you are somehow being objective and no one else is.

How am I not being objective? Oh thats right because I dont agree with you...

All I'm saying is we go with whatever Pete Carroll chooses. How's that wrong?[/quote]


Did I say it was wrong?

I said you weren't being objective and you aren't.


Look at your posts in this thread, if you can honestly claim they are objective you need to get a dictionary.


And for the record, if all we are going to do is "Go with what Pete says" this .net might as well shut down operations.

warner28 wrote:
Did I say it was wrong?

I said you weren't being objective and you aren't.


Look at your posts in this thread, if you can honestly claim they are objective you need to get a dictionary.


And for the record, if all we are going to do is "Go with what Pete says" this .net might as well shut down operations.

I amitted Hasselbeck is on the decline. I said he probably won't be here next season. I'm not acting like a Hasselbeck is the only answer, he's just the best option right now. I know you dont care about winning this season, but I kinda do.

Tell me in your honest opinion. Do you think we have a better chance of winning with Hass or CW?

volsunghawk wrote:Oh, you mean like how Kurt Warner was a NFL Europe scrub and career backup until he started his first game when he was 28? If Warner can be thrown out as evidence that Hass can play until he's 40, then he damn sure can be thrown out as evidence that sitting on the bench until your late 20s is evidence that Whitehurst has a Pro Bowl career ahead of him.

I've seen Whitehurst put up good performances and bad performances in preseason. I've also seen Hass do the SAME DAMN THING. I don't expect Whitehurst to be a stud, but I do think that the team brought him in because they felt he COULD be a starting QB and could buy the franchise time to groom a long-term solution. Hass simply doesn't buy the franchise that same amount of time due to his age (not due to his playing ability). I have at no point said that Hass sucked. But he is in decline. He's not the guy to lead us next season or the season after, when our team should be rising to contender status. That's why I think that this year, when so much else is in flux and we have so much turnover, should be the year when we find out what our future at QB will be, and that starts with Whitehurst (but doesn't necessarily end with him).

So now you're comparing CW to a future hall of famer? Ha. Ah ha ha.... HAHAHAHAHAHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAA!!!!!! This is one hilarious post.

I think we should run the Seahawks in whatever fashion Dom sees fit.

bestfightstory wrote:I think we should run the Seahawks in whatever fashion Dom sees fit.

Championship!

bestfightstory wrote:I think we should run the Seahawks in whatever fashion Dom sees fit.

He actually has the most reasonable opinion here.

Zowert wrote:
Tell me in your honest opinion. Do you think we have a better chance of winning with Hass or CW?

I know you're asking Warner, but I'll answer it, too.

I don't think there's much difference at this point in Hass' career. If the comparison was the Hass of 3-5 years ago, then he'd easily be worth several wins over an untested Whitehurst. As it stands this year? No, not really.

Zowert wrote:

bestfightstory wrote:I think we should run the Seahawks in whatever fashion Dom sees fit.

He actually has the most reasonable opinion here.

That is no surprise whatsoever. He is a reasonable man.

Zowert wrote:

volsunghawk wrote:Oh, you mean like how Kurt Warner was a NFL Europe scrub and career backup until he started his first game when he was 28? If Warner can be thrown out as evidence that Hass can play until he's 40, then he damn sure can be thrown out as evidence that sitting on the bench until your late 20s is evidence that Whitehurst has a Pro Bowl career ahead of him.

I've seen Whitehurst put up good performances and bad performances in preseason. I've also seen Hass do the SAME DAMN THING. I don't expect Whitehurst to be a stud, but I do think that the team brought him in because they felt he COULD be a starting QB and could buy the franchise time to groom a long-term solution. Hass simply doesn't buy the franchise that same amount of time due to his age (not due to his playing ability). I have at no point said that Hass sucked. But he is in decline. He's not the guy to lead us next season or the season after, when our team should be rising to contender status. That's why I think that this year, when so much else is in flux and we have so much turnover, should be the year when we find out what our future at QB will be, and that starts with Whitehurst (but doesn't necessarily end with him).

So now you're comparing CW to a future hall of famer? Ha. Ah ha ha.... HAHAHAHAHAHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAA!!!!!! This is one hilarious post.

That's the point. Some people believe that Matt will play until he's 40 because a couple Hall of Famers have done it, which is equally as far-fetched.

Zowert wrote:

warner28 wrote:
Did I say it was wrong?

I said you weren't being objective and you aren't.


Look at your posts in this thread, if you can honestly claim they are objective you need to get a dictionary.


And for the record, if all we are going to do is "Go with what Pete says" this .net might as well shut down operations.

I amitted Hasselbeck is on the decline. I said he probably won't be here next season. I'm not acting like a Hasselbeck is the only answer, he's just the best option right now. I know you dont care about winning this season, but I kinda do.

Tell me in your honest opinion. Do you think we have a better chance of winning with Hass or CW?

I have already given that honest opinion, I think Seattle is just as likely to win the division with Whitehurst as Hasselbeck. Whitehurst is probably the best QB in the division if he is starting, that is how bad everyone else is.

And I do care about winning this year, I am just realistic and understand that anything more than a really weak division title and quick playoff exit is unrealistic. I think Seattle can do both with Whitehurst and it would be far more beneficial long term without sacrificing 2010.


Basically I think Seattle is a 5-9 win team regardless of rather Charlie or Matt starts but I do think Charlie is more likely to explode and actually think he has more potential to lead a playoff run if Seattle sneaks in but he needs to play first.


That is my honest stance.

Zowert wrote:

volsunghawk wrote:Oh, you mean like how Kurt Warner was a NFL Europe scrub and career backup until he started his first game when he was 28? If Warner can be thrown out as evidence that Hass can play until he's 40, then he damn sure can be thrown out as evidence that sitting on the bench until your late 20s is evidence that Whitehurst has a Pro Bowl career ahead of him.

I've seen Whitehurst put up good performances and bad performances in preseason. I've also seen Hass do the SAME DAMN THING. I don't expect Whitehurst to be a stud, but I do think that the team brought him in because they felt he COULD be a starting QB and could buy the franchise time to groom a long-term solution. Hass simply doesn't buy the franchise that same amount of time due to his age (not due to his playing ability). I have at no point said that Hass sucked. But he is in decline. He's not the guy to lead us next season or the season after, when our team should be rising to contender status. That's why I think that this year, when so much else is in flux and we have so much turnover, should be the year when we find out what our future at QB will be, and that starts with Whitehurst (but doesn't necessarily end with him).

So now you're comparing CW to a future hall of famer? Ha. Ah ha ha.... HAHAHAHAHAHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAA!!!!!! This is one hilarious post.

Sure am, based on just as tenuous an argument as people use to compare Hass to Favre and Warner. When people point to Favre and Warner as evidence that Hass can still play into his late 30s, that's JUST as ridiculous an argument, because Hass has NEVER been on the same level as those guys. Not even in 2005. Hass has been good. Hass has even been really good. But he's never been an elite guy, or shown the durability of Favre and Warner.

volsunghawk wrote:

Zowert wrote:
Tell me in your honest opinion. Do you think we have a better chance of winning with Hass or CW?

I know you're asking Warner, but I'll answer it, too.

I don't think there's much difference at this point in Hass' career. If the comparison was the Hass of 3-5 years ago, then he'd easily be worth several wins over an untested Whitehurst. As it stands this year? No, not really.

Well, i'm in no position to tell you you're wrong. You may very well be right. But I just feel that Hass is the better QB. Regardless of his embarrassing performance last week. I think he'll bounce back this sunday and everyone will shut up until he throws a couple more picks and we lose the game, collectively.

volsunghawk wrote:
Sure am, based on just as tenuous an argument as people use to compare Hass to Favre and Warner. When people point to Favre and Warner as evidence that Hass can still play into his late 30s, that's JUST as ridiculous an argument, because Hass has NEVER been on the same level as those guys. Not even in 2005. Hass has been good. Hass has even been really good. But he's never been an elite guy, or shown the durability of Favre and Warner.

I would NEVER compare Matt Hasselbeck to Brett Favre, Kurt Warner or any future hall of famer.

Maybe a Marc Bulger.

Zowert wrote:

volsunghawk wrote:
Sure am, based on just as tenuous an argument as people use to compare Hass to Favre and Warner. When people point to Favre and Warner as evidence that Hass can still play into his late 30s, that's JUST as ridiculous an argument, because Hass has NEVER been on the same level as those guys. Not even in 2005. Hass has been good. Hass has even been really good. But he's never been an elite guy, or shown the durability of Favre and Warner.

I would NEVER compare Matt Hasselbeck to Brett Favre, Kurt Warner or any future hall of famer.

Maybe a Marc Bulger.

Marc Bulger's been done for years, too, and I sure as hell don't think he'd be the right solution for us, either.

volsunghawk wrote:

Zowert wrote:

volsunghawk wrote:
Sure am, based on just as tenuous an argument as people use to compare Hass to Favre and Warner. When people point to Favre and Warner as evidence that Hass can still play into his late 30s, that's JUST as ridiculous an argument, because Hass has NEVER been on the same level as those guys. Not even in 2005. Hass has been good. Hass has even been really good. But he's never been an elite guy, or shown the durability of Favre and Warner.

I would NEVER compare Matt Hasselbeck to Brett Favre, Kurt Warner or any future hall of famer.

Maybe a Marc Bulger.

Marc Bulger's been done for years, too, and I sure as hell don't think he'd be the right solution for us, either.

No no, I meant comparing Matt Hasselbeck to Marc Bulger, instead of Warner or Favre...

Zowert wrote:
Marc Bulger's been done for years, too, and I sure as hell don't think he'd be the right solution for us, either.

No no, I meant comparing Matt Hasselbeck to Marc Bulger, instead of Warner or Favre...

I got what you meant. I agree that it's a better comparison, and I'm saying that I wouldn't want Bulger as our QB right now, either. He's in serious decline, feels phantom pressure because of the hits he's taken behind a bad O-line for years, and got into the habit of trying to win by himself due to the lack of talent around him. Sound familiar?

volsunghawk wrote:

Zowert wrote:
Marc Bulger's been done for years, too, and I sure as hell don't think he'd be the right solution for us, either.

No no, I meant comparing Matt Hasselbeck to Marc Bulger, instead of Warner or Favre...

I got what you meant. I agree that it's a better comparison, and I'm saying that I wouldn't want Bulger as our QB right now, either. He's in serious decline, feels phantom pressure because of the hits he's taken behind a bad O-line for years, and got into the habit of trying to win by himself due to the lack of talent around him. Sound familiar?

Well.. I'm sure there are a few people who would take Bulger over Hasselbeck. Bulger is 33, Hass 35. So maybe he has another year left in the tank. Besides, Bulger is signed by Baltimore.

When Kurt Warner was given the opportunity, he took advantage of it. CW hasn't.

Zowert wrote:When Kurt Warner was given the opportunity, he took advantage of it. CW hasn't.

CW has gotten the opportunity?

When was this?


Warner got his because Green was injured, after that Warner played with the starters, Whitehurst has played with the starters how many times?


Its pretty hard to argue that Charlie has gotten an opportunity yet.

Zowert wrote:When Kurt Warner was given the opportunity, he took advantage of it. CW hasn't.

When was this alleged opportunity Whitehurst had? Kurt Warner got his opportunity when Rodney Harrison took out Trent Green's knee. CBJ hasn't gotten that "lucky" yet.

Zowert wrote:When Kurt Warner was given the opportunity, he took advantage of it. CW hasn't.

Kurt Warner didn't win the starting QB job in Rams camp, either. He was given the opportunity in real games because Trent Green got injured. In other words, when given the opportunity to show something in real games, he performed better than he had in preseason or in camp against the incumbent starter.

Warner28 beat me to it, stupid slow internet at my apartment...

warner28 wrote:

JohnnyB wrote: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.

Please, if they believe Matt was what you claimed, we would have heard about Seattle trying to extend him, just like we hear about every major negotiation.

This believe that no one would have heard whispers about an offer, please.

Where did you get the idea that we hear about every attempt leading to major negotiations? Are you serious? The agents and players actually have a strict gag rule they employ and rarely do early attempts get any press. We sometimes hear about negotiations when they start getting close, but you can't really believe the public knows about every offer going between team and agents.

JohnnyB wrote:

warner28 wrote:

JohnnyB wrote: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.

Please, if they believe Matt was what you claimed, we would have heard about Seattle trying to extend him, just like we hear about every major negotiation.

This believe that no one would have heard whispers about an offer, please.

At this stage it would not be "early" attempts if they believed Matt to be a top 5 QB, it would be the "we need to get this done now" kind of attempts, those go public.

Where did you get the idea that we hear about every attempt leading to major negotiations? Are you serious? The agents and players actually have a strict gag rule they employ and rarely do early attempts get any press. We sometimes hear about negotiations when they start getting close, but you can't really believe the public knows about every offer going between team and agents.

I don't believe the public knows about EVERY offer but if Seattle had come to Matt with some kind of reasonable offer (the kind you would expect if the team believed he was a top 5 QB) one of the beat writers would have heard about it and mentioned it.

That is how it works now, we hear about negotiations when players and teams aren't close all the time.

Honestly you are lying to yourself if you think that the team and Hasselbeck have talked about a deal (the kind of deal a team would offer a top 5 QB) and it never got out to the press.


Now its possible they offered him some kind of 1 year extension (which is not the kind of deal you offer a QB you believe is a top 5 QB) and we did not hear about it but we would have heard about the type of deal that top 5 QBs get offered.


We heard about Brees, Manning, and Brees (you know top 5 QBs) long long long before they reached deals, it was national sports news (because top 5 QBs are national news).

warner28 wrote:

JohnnyB wrote:

warner28 wrote: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.

Please, if they believe Matt was what you claimed, we would have heard about Seattle trying to extend him, just like we hear about every major negotiation.

This believe that no one would have heard whispers about an offer, please.

At this stage it would not be "early" attempts if they believed Matt to be a top 5 QB, it would be the "we need to get this done now" kind of attempts, those go public.

Where did you get the idea that we hear about every attempt leading to major negotiations? Are you serious? The agents and players actually have a strict gag rule they employ and rarely do early attempts get any press. We sometimes hear about negotiations when they start getting close, but you can't really believe the public knows about every offer going between team and agents.

I don't believe the public knows about EVERY offer but if Seattle had come to Matt with some kind of reasonable offer (the kind you would expect if the team believed he was a top 5 QB) one of the beat writers would have heard about it and mentioned it.

That is how it works now, we hear about negotiations when players and teams aren't close all the time.

Honestly you are lying to yourself if you think that the team and Hasselbeck have talked about a deal (the kind of deal a team would offer a top 5 QB) and it never got out to the press.


Now its possible they offered him some kind of 1 year extension (which is not the kind of deal you offer a QB you believe is a top 5 QB) and we did not hear about it but we would have heard about the type of deal that top 5 QBs get offered.


We heard about Brees, Manning, and Brees (you know top 5 QBs) long long long before they reached deals, it was national sports news (because top 5 QBs are national news).

So you admit they might have made him an offer without us knowing about it. Now all you have to do is understand that no good negotiator starts with their high offer, especially when Hass hasn't been able to show what he can do for two years now, due to the team around him. Of course they would have lowballed him to start, even if they really want him.

I NEVER said they absolutely 100% have not made him an offer.

You said he IS (again present tense) a top 5 QB, if the team believes as you believe we would not be in "Lets try to lowball him" territory.

It would be "Holy @#$% we need to get this done" time.


Of course its possible they went to him and said "how bout a 1 year 2 million dollar extension" although I doubt it since they aren't idiots and know he would not take such an offer so why offer it?


Now you are trying to back off what you said earlier which was in case you forgot:

"Hasselbeck is playing at close to his best, which is Pro Bowl level and one of the top five QBs in the NFL."

IMO, if the Seahawks had the same view you have of Matt (that he IS playing close to his best which IS Pro Bowl and top 5 level) negotiations would not be at the "lets try to lowball him and keep it out of the press" stage.


For the record, I do think we would have heard about any reasonable extension proposals by now and we would have definitely heard about an offer if they viewed him the way you do. The fact that we haven't means they either have not made an offer or they are incompetent and made such a joke of an offer Matt would have never considered it.

I am betting on the former.


BTW, top 5 QBs make the guys around them look better, they don't look like crap simply because they are surrounded by less talent but that is for another time.

warner28 wrote:BTW, top 5 QBs make the guys around them look better, they don't look like crap simply because they are surrounded by less talent but that is for another time.

true story. Peyton Manning can take guys like Pierre Carcon and Austin Collie and make 'em look like starters. Drew Brees has done the same in New Orleans. Brady did it before they just overloaded and they went 16-0 when they got those players.

No Seahawks fan in his right mind has ever, ever, ever believed that Matt Hasselbeck is, was, or will ever be a Top QB.

Good? Yes. Top QB? 'Fraid not.

MontanaHawk05 wrote:No Seahawks fan in his right mind has ever, ever, ever believed that Matt Hasselbeck is, was, or will ever be a Top QB.

Good? Yes. Top QB? 'Fraid not.

You mean the Pro Bowl isn't for top players at their positions? WTF!? I've been voting it wrong all these years

long in tooth, rebuttal built upon pure fantasy:

MH has won "the competition" at QB, Pete knows best, Matt won and should be starting.

* regardless of the fact his INT record has been off the charts (and as other have correctly interjected, would have been grounds for benching a year ago btw).
Good grief. What and where was this competition? Practice time? or just as worse some would argue...preseason?

Some are taking this comPETEition stuff a bit too far here. It's obvious that Matt, the face of the Hawks, coming up on his last year (as we know it) is given this year by default. It was his from the get go (and I'd have to admit and add - rightfully so, BECAUSE of his time and Hawk status here). Do you really think PC could come in first year and bench/cut Matt in his last contract year?
Really? (love to hear an HONEST and SANE reply here).

IMO, no way in h*ll. Not without an onslaught of concerned press and neverending raving press/fan lashback from hawk camp day 1.
At the QB position there was NEVER a true competition.
But I can't help but think PC does wish he could have started just as clean at the QB position.

Did the "idea" of competition at all positions help put some focus back into this team in regard to stepping things up? IMO - you bet.
Does it "sound" good coming from our new coach? imo - you bet.
Does it then sound like great press having it reiterated? IMO - you bet.
Is it 100% HONEST "competition", and did I expect it to be 100% honest competition across the board? IMO - h*ll no. QB position being the glaring reason (no waaaaaay was Matt gone his last contract year. no. way. in. h*ll).


I side with the MANY here who place valid reasons they are bothered with having to put up with another year of so-so play at the QB position that moreso "wastes" a 2010 season.

*and still: the HassHater comebacks are past annoying and now becoming offensive. I believe this is a Hawks forum, not a Matt H fansite.


btw Stash: not picking on you but there's page after page of you interjecting why you feel Matt "is the man" here, all other opposing thoughts are from "nutjobs". And IMO - all of these replies from you are triple-dipped in emotion I'm afraid.

Yeah-yeah, so you "see him at the bank" every so often. "He's a nice guy", "he's funny" to you (really? - not to me. Not in the slightest actually)...etc. etc.
Can you ease up a bit an let the other "pro-hass" repliers chime in? One reason being I'd like to see how many of them actually exist here.
I think after the 25 repostings of the same stuff from you, it's fair to ask for a little more than you're giving and ask to hear from more than the small number of others who are arguing tooth and nail alongside you.

My gut is telling me even Matt's mother...without outright saying it...wouldn't mind seeing what we have in CW very soon (ain't gonna happen "soon" though, the QB position was Matt's all along.

kidhawk wrote:

MontanaHawk05 wrote:No Seahawks fan in his right mind has ever, ever, ever believed that Matt Hasselbeck is, was, or will ever be a Top QB.

Good? Yes. Top QB? 'Fraid not.

You mean the Pro Bowl isn't for top players at their positions? WTF!? I've been voting it wrong all these years

3 times he has made the Pro Bowl.

I'd agree that he has had a few seasons where he was a top 5 QB for that season but overall for his career, he has not been a top 5 QB and its very very very doubtful he reaches such a level ever again.

kidhawk wrote:

MontanaHawk05 wrote:No Seahawks fan in his right mind has ever, ever, ever believed that Matt Hasselbeck is, was, or will ever be a Top QB.

Good? Yes. Top QB? 'Fraid not.

You mean the Pro Bowl isn't for top players at their positions? WTF!? I've been voting it wrong all these years

I guess I mean "Top QB" as in "Hall of Fame" type QB. He's never been that.