| Author |
Message |
|
Zowert
|
Post subject: Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck  Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 11:49 am |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
 |
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 2:29 pm
Posts: 1950
Location: Seattle
|
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.
_________________
~ The Stache'
|
|
  |
|
 |
|
bestfightstory
|
Post subject: Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 11:49 am |
|
| * Glitter over Knives * |
 |
|
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:13 pm
Posts: 8511
|
|
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)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tech Worlds
|
Post subject: Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 11:50 am |
|
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:40 am
Posts: 8627
Location: Granite Falls, WA
|
bestfightstory wrote: I think we should run the Seahawks in whatever fashion Dom sees fit. Championship! _________________ 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zowert
|
Post subject: Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 11:50 am |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
|
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 2:29 pm
Posts: 1950
Location: Seattle
|
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'
|
|
| |
|
|
|
volsunghawk
|
Post subject: Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 11:52 am |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
|
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:20 am
Posts: 6943
Location: Surrounded by Elway, Tebow, and Manning jerseys
|
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. _________________  12 > 49
|
|
| |
|
|
|
bestfightstory
|
Post subject: Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 11:52 am |
|
| * Glitter over Knives * |
|
|
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:13 pm
Posts: 8511
|
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)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jac
|
Post subject: Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 11:54 am |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
|
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 11:50 am
Posts: 583
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MARTYREDwarner
|
Post subject: Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck Posted: 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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
volsunghawk
|
Post subject: Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 11:54 am |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
|
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:20 am
Posts: 6943
Location: Surrounded by Elway, Tebow, and Manning jerseys
|
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. _________________ 12 > 49
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zowert
|
Post subject: Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 11:55 am |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
|
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 2:29 pm
Posts: 1950
Location: Seattle
|
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.
_________________
~ The Stache'
Last edited by Zowert on Thu Sep 23, 2010 11:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zowert
|
Post subject: Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 11:56 am |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
|
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 2:29 pm
Posts: 1950
Location: Seattle
|
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'
|
|
| |
|
|
|
volsunghawk
|
Post subject: Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 11:57 am |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
|
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:20 am
Posts: 6943
Location: Surrounded by Elway, Tebow, and Manning jerseys
|
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. _________________ 12 > 49
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zowert
|
Post subject: Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 11:59 am |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
|
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 2:29 pm
Posts: 1950
Location: Seattle
|
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'
|
|
| |
|
|
|
volsunghawk
|
Post subject: Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 12:11 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
|
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:20 am
Posts: 6943
Location: Surrounded by Elway, Tebow, and Manning jerseys
|
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? _________________ 12 > 49
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zowert
|
Post subject: Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 12:14 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
|
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 2:29 pm
Posts: 1950
Location: Seattle
|
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'
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zowert
|
Post subject: Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 12:19 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
|
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 2:29 pm
Posts: 1950
Location: Seattle
|
|
When Kurt Warner was given the opportunity, he took advantage of it. CW hasn't.
_________________
~ The Stache'
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MARTYREDwarner
|
Post subject: Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck Posted: 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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rat
|
Post subject: Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 12:21 pm |
|
| * NET Cynic * |
 |
|
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:42 pm
Posts: 3493
Location: St. Louis, MO
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
volsunghawk
|
Post subject: Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 12:21 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
|
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:20 am
Posts: 6943
Location: Surrounded by Elway, Tebow, and Manning jerseys
|
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. _________________ 12 > 49
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rat
|
Post subject: Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 12:21 pm |
|
| * NET Cynic * |
|
|
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:42 pm
Posts: 3493
Location: St. Louis, MO
|
|
Warner28 beat me to it, stupid slow internet at my apartment...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests |
| |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
|
