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 11:49 am
  • 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. :mrgreen:

    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.
    ~ 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 11:49 am
  • I think we should run the Seahawks in whatever fashion Dom sees fit.
    "Some people here have been groomed to accept mediocrity and lame ducks, I'm on board with the vibrato!" -SouthSoundHawk
    "BFS is kicking ass in here." -kearly (8/9/2013)
    User avatar
    bestfightstory
    * Glitter over Knives *
     
    Posts: 8511
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:13 pm


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 11:50 am
  • bestfightstory wrote:I think we should run the Seahawks in whatever fashion Dom sees fit.



    Championship!
    Image
    User avatar
    Tech Worlds
    * Capt'n Dom *
    * Capt'n Dom *
     
    Posts: 9289
    Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:40 am
    Location: Granite Falls, WA


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 11:50 am
  • bestfightstory wrote:I think we should run the Seahawks in whatever fashion Dom sees fit.


    He actually has the most reasonable opinion 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 11:52 am
  • 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.
    Image

    Super Bowl XLVIII Champions
    User avatar
    volsunghawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7978
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:20 am
    Location: Right outside Richard Sherman's house


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 11:52 am
  • 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.
    "Some people here have been groomed to accept mediocrity and lame ducks, I'm on board with the vibrato!" -SouthSoundHawk
    "BFS is kicking ass in here." -kearly (8/9/2013)
    User avatar
    bestfightstory
    * Glitter over Knives *
     
    Posts: 8511
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:13 pm


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 11:54 am
  • 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. :mrgreen:

    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.
    User avatar
    Jac
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 678
    Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 11:50 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 11:54 am
  • 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.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 11:54 am
  • 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. :mrgreen:

    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.
    Image

    Super Bowl XLVIII Champions
    User avatar
    volsunghawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7978
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:20 am
    Location: Right outside Richard Sherman's house


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 11:55 am
  • 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.
    Last edited by Zowert on Thu Sep 23, 2010 11:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
    ~ The Stache'
    User avatar
    Zowert
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1990
    Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 2:29 pm
    Location: Seattle


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 11:56 am
  • 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.
    ~ 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 11:57 am
  • 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.
    Image

    Super Bowl XLVIII Champions
    User avatar
    volsunghawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7978
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:20 am
    Location: Right outside Richard Sherman's house


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 11:59 am
  • 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...
    ~ 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 12:11 pm
  • 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?
    Image

    Super Bowl XLVIII Champions
    User avatar
    volsunghawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7978
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:20 am
    Location: Right outside Richard Sherman's house


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 12:14 pm
  • 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.
    ~ 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 12:19 pm
  • When Kurt Warner was given the opportunity, he took advantage of it. CW hasn't.
    ~ 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 12:20 pm
  • 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.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 12:21 pm
  • 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.
    User avatar
    Rat
    * NET Cynic *
     
    Posts: 3512
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:42 pm
    Location: St. Louis, MO


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 12:21 pm
  • 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.
    Image

    Super Bowl XLVIII Champions
    User avatar
    volsunghawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7978
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:20 am
    Location: Right outside Richard Sherman's house


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 12:21 pm
  • Warner28 beat me to it, stupid slow internet at my apartment...
    User avatar
    Rat
    * NET Cynic *
     
    Posts: 3512
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:42 pm
    Location: St. Louis, MO


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 12:22 pm
  • 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.
    "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 12:28 pm
  • 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).
    MARTYREDwarner
     


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 12:52 pm
  • 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.
    "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 1:03 pm
  • 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.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:18 pm
  • 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.
    Image
    3elieve
    User avatar
    Throwdown
    * NET Baller *
     
    Posts: 19064
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:02 am
    Location: Graham, WA


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:20 pm
  • 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.
    GO HAWKS!!!

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

    Follow me on Twitter at @17power
    User avatar
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 11247
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:38 pm
  • 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
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 13032
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:38 pm
  • 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.
    Last edited by cknoxxhawk on Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    cknoxxhawk
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 474
    Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 6:05 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:40 pm
  • 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.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:42 pm
  • 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.
    GO HAWKS!!!

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

    Follow me on Twitter at @17power
    User avatar
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 11247
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:43 pm
  • you know cknoxxhawk, you and the other detractors are all correct, there is no way that we sign Whitehurst to a two year deal and expect him to compete for a starting position right now. Of course we want him to come in next year then have to re-sign him to an extension next season because he's been annointed the man. I just don't know why I couldn't see it before now, it's so obvious it's brilliant. Yup, Hasselbeck isn't the better of the two, it's just a farce because pete's afraid if he was to release him or trade him that he'd lose his job. God I owe all the haters my sincerest apologies for not "getting it" sooner
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 13032
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:54 pm
  • kidhawk wrote:you know cknoxxhawk, you and the other detractors are all correct, there is no way that we sign Whitehurst to a two year deal and expect him to compete for a starting position right now. Of course we want him to come in next year then have to re-sign him to an extension next season because he's been annointed the man. I just don't know why I couldn't see it before now, it's so obvious it's brilliant. Yup, Hasselbeck isn't the better of the two, it's just a farce because pete's afraid if he was to release him or trade him that he'd lose his job. God I owe all the haters my sincerest apologies for not "getting it" sooner


    This kind of rebuttal belongs in the HassleHate bin, the smack shack or in the sandbox. Take a look at the OP's thread subject again. What does it say?
    I'm saying to me you aren't capable of being objective with this.
    cknoxxhawk
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 474
    Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 6:05 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:59 pm
  • See warner, we can agree on some things...I never said he was a top 5 qb but I see the posts of some claiming Matt's never been all that good and I have to remind them, makes me wonder if they are new fans or what cuz for a few years there Hass was a top tier qb. I still think he's above average and better than whitehurst and this is where we seem to disagree, but I wouldn't put him in an elite category right now by any means.
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 13032
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 2:00 pm
  • 19 pages is more than enough
    Image
    User avatar
    AbsolutNET
    * NET X's & O's Guru *
     
    Posts: 8692
    Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 11:24 am
    Location: PNW


PreviousNext


It is currently Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:20 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE ARCHIVES ]




Information
  • Who is online
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest