Should Matt be traded/released or moved to back up?

A collection of NET's best and most memorable threads. Predictions, debates, laughs, and X's & O's. Rating: PG to NC-17
  • FidelisHawk wrote:
    chris98251 wrote:
    Oh and as far as Pete and QB's, they were coached a lot by a guy on the other side of the lake, Sark worked with them much more the Pete, possibly why you seen a drop off last year at USC in QB play.


    True, but I feel USCs drop off at QB (if you want to call 9-3 a drop off) had more to do with Sanchez leaving as a junior and having to start Barkley as a true freshman, before he was ready, than anything else.

    Perhaps not that much different than the QB situation for the Seahawks now.


    USC actually played very well last year considering they lost Sanchez and 3 NFL Caliber linebackers. That kind of talent is impossible to replace and the fact that they went 9-3 with not a lot of talent speaks to Pete's coaching prowess.

    Carroll knows how good Matt can be when he's not getting abused by opposing defenses who know he HAS to throw. I was surprised to even see the topic broached but apparently there are a lot of people with strong and varying opinions on the matter.

    My prediction, Matt will come damn close to making the Pro Bowl this year. It's rare for anybody to have a bad year then make the Pro Bowl no matter how well they play.


    Just to add to that, on NFL Access they were talking about Karlos Dansby going to Miami and then showed Hasselbeck getting sacked by FOUR Cardinals! That's the kinda blocking he had to put up with all season and people call him injury prone...if that's the case then Matt Stafford is also injury prone and should be traded, released or moved to backup right away.
    "God Bless the Seattle Seahawks" Cortez Kennedy
    User avatar
    ivotuk
    * NET Nobody *
     
    Posts: 8070
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:29 pm


  • Unsilent_Majority wrote:
    BlueTalon wrote:Maybe Logical is the unnamed source?


    Might as well be. I'm not against reading the site with a grain of salt, but if you read anything that is from an unnamed source or similar word usage don't believe it. Imo unless Adam Shefter, Jay Glazer, or Jason La Canfora are standing by the rumor I don't believe it. And yes I left Peter King and John Clayton off that list cuz imo half of what they say is speculation these days. Shefter, Glazer, and La Canfora just report what they hear and have awesome inside sources.

    Definitely not haha, now if i was ever asked about his HS play, i could be a credible source. I just think you guys think to much about somebody "we could have got". I doubt Clausen will tear it up, and i wouldn't be surprised if Matt Moore has a good year, sealing his spot the next year. It "could" be 3-5 years till we see him start.
    Image
    User avatar
    Logical Seahawk
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 108
    Joined: Sun May 02, 2010 4:56 am
    Location: Los Angeles, CA


  • Smurf wrote:Matt should be the starting QB in 2010.

    Period.



    :13: At least until someone wins it.
    Image

    My nickname for Wilson....Silent Russassin. He's calm and collective and will KILL you silently. No smack talk, no warning, kills you silently while getting the job done!
    depecheSeahawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 632
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 5:22 am
    Location: Lacey, WA


  • Wow. Didn't even look at the posts...just responding to the title.
    Let's just soot him and put him out to pasture...
    Would the season PLEASE hurry up and get here!
    Image
    Image
    "Make good teams look bad and make bad teams look terrible!" -Michael Robinson
    User avatar
    BlueTalons
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1120
    Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 11:36 am
    Location: Spanaway, WA


  • BlueTalons wrote:Wow. Didn't even look at the posts...just responding to the title.
    Let's just soot him and put him out to pasture...
    Would the season PLEASE hurry up and get here!
    Image


    But what about all our speculation?
    Quoting Montanahawk05:
    the foremost reason, by a long margin, of Seattle's continued struggles the last three years is Matt Hasselbeck. Hass's arm strength has declined to the vanishing point. [b]They're stacking the line and jumping routes because they don't respect Hasselbeck's arm.
    User avatar
    lostlobos
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1691
    Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 2:46 pm


  • lostlobos wrote:
    BlueTalons wrote:Wow. Didn't even look at the posts...just responding to the title.
    Let's just soot him and put him out to pasture...
    Would the season PLEASE hurry up and get here!
    Image


    But what about all our speculation?

    Yes! haahhaha
    Image
    User avatar
    Logical Seahawk
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 108
    Joined: Sun May 02, 2010 4:56 am
    Location: Los Angeles, CA


  • I think i should start another thread asking if Hasselbeck should be the backup or not.
    Image
    User avatar
    Tech Worlds
    * Capt'n Dom *
    * Capt'n Dom *
     
    Posts: 9296
    Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:40 am
    Location: Granite Falls, WA


  • Maybe start a thread about Running Backs or something we don't have statistical evidence behind lol
    Image
    User avatar
    Logical Seahawk
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 108
    Joined: Sun May 02, 2010 4:56 am
    Location: Los Angeles, CA


  • Tech Worlds wrote:I think i should start another thread asking if Hasselbeck should be the backup or not.

    How about infecting every single new thread by talking/bickering about it instead - keeping it to it's own topic(s) would make too much sense.
    Championships are forever.
    User avatar
    Happy
    * NET Lead Admin *
     
    Posts: 8574
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:47 am


  • ivotuk wrote:
    My prediction, Matt will come damn close to making the Pro Bowl this year. It's rare for anybody to have a bad year then make the Pro Bowl no matter how well they play.



    That's pretty lame. What does that prediction even mean and how is it quantifiabe?
    "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


  • i personally think hasselbeck is done as far as being a probowl QB in this league. could he be an effective, winning QB still? maybe. the way i see it, whitehurst should be given every opportunity to win the job in training camp. if he can't, then hasselbeck should start the season as the starter. if he doesn't perform in the first 5 games, he should be benched. either way you look at it, whitehurst needs to get alot of playing time this season or what was the point in trading for him? here's the problems i have with the QB situation: 1) they should've made a definitive decision in the offseason on who was going to be their future franchise QB, play them immediately, and dispose of the others. to me, they didn't do that. 2) they traded for a QB who nobody knows what he can do and they payed alot for him with picks and money. that QB then needed to be named the starter and the other veteran should have been traded while he still had good value. 3) they decided against drafting a QB in the draft assuming the top guys wouldn't be available to them and the rest weren't as good as whitehurst. by doing that, they missed out on arguably the best QB in the draft and they could've gotten him later than expected at a much cheaper price.


    the mistake they made was not making a decision between going with the veteran or going with the new QB brought in. you have to go with one or the other. then if your choice was matt, then you stand pat until next yrs draft or you draft one in this draft and groom him to be the QB of the future. now they have the problem of if matt fails, you go with whitehurst. if he's not any good, you have to still draft a future QB, give them a ton of money and you wasted a year. i would've passed on whitehurst, let matt be the QB for the year, and left the option open of drafting a QB in this draft or next yrs draft if the guy we wanted was available this yr.
    ctbullets
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 18
    Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:18 pm


  • Hass should start.
    I'm In!


    What attracted you to the Seahawks?
    “It’s a combination of what I believe the coaches are doing here, the atmosphere and what I think we’re going to do here in the future. I think we’re going to win and win a lot and be a championship team.” – Zac Miller, August 4, 2011
    User avatar
    Seafan
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3418
    Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 2:30 pm
    Location: Helotes, TX


  • ctbullets wrote:i personally think hasselbeck is done as far as being a probowl QB in this league. could he be an effective, winning QB still? maybe. the way i see it, whitehurst should be given every opportunity to win the job in training camp. if he can't, then hasselbeck should start the season as the starter. if he doesn't perform in the first 5 games, he should be benched. either way you look at it, whitehurst needs to get alot of playing time this season or what was the point in trading for him? here's the problems i have with the QB situation: 1) they should've made a definitive decision in the offseason on who was going to be their future franchise QB, play them immediately, and dispose of the others. to me, they didn't do that.

    How is it you know they didn't do exactly what you just said? They definitely could have decided there was no good option in this years draft and Seneca wasn't (with his learning disability) going to learn this system before he retires. Considering Matts injury history, the last few years, it makes sense to find the best possible option (per they're evaluation of who is available) and that could be why they only offered a 2 year deal. Maybe Charlie (while being the best option) still leaves big question as to his leadership ability. Yes he has a large contract for a back up, but its only two mil this year and only escalates to full value, if CW becomes the starter, I believe both seasons.

    2) they traded for a QB who nobody knows what he can do and they payed alot for him with picks and money. that QB then needed to be named the starter and the other veteran should have been traded while he still had good value.

    See note #1


    3) they decided against drafting a QB in the draft assuming the top guys wouldn't be available to them and the rest weren't as good as whitehurst. by doing that, they missed out on arguably the best QB in the draft and they could've gotten him later than expected at a much cheaper price.

    If they thought Clausen was the answer, do you think they would have passed on him at 6? and again at 14? Thinking he would be available at 40? It doesn't add up. Most experts expected him to be gone before our first pick. To me, this only leans more towards the argument, they didn't believe Clausen to be the answer and weren't willing to invest 40+ Mill and multiple years in him. That makes CW look like a hell of a deal if that was they're belief.


    the mistake they made was not making a decision between going with the veteran or going with the new QB brought in. you have to go with one or the other. then if your choice was Matt, then you stand pat until next yrs draft (Unless you have no faith in Seneca and consider Matts recent injury history)or you draft one in this draft and groom him to be the QB of the future(again, unless you don't like who you think will be available). now they have the problem of if matt fails, you go with whitehurst. if he's not any good, you have to still draft a future QB, give them a ton of money and you wasted a year ( which is way better than wasting the next 4 years, because you drafted a guy you don't believe will succeed). i would've passed on whitehurst, let matt be the QB for the year, and left the option open of drafting a QB in this draft or next yrs draft if the guy we wanted was available this yr.
    Quoting Montanahawk05:
    the foremost reason, by a long margin, of Seattle's continued struggles the last three years is Matt Hasselbeck. Hass's arm strength has declined to the vanishing point. [b]They're stacking the line and jumping routes because they don't respect Hasselbeck's arm.
    User avatar
    lostlobos
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1691
    Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 2:46 pm


  • How is it you know they didn't do exactly what you just said? They definitely could have decided there was no good option in this years draft and Seneca wasn't (with his learning disability) going to learn this system before he retires. Considering Matts injury history, the last few years, it makes sense to find the best possible option (per they're evaluation of who is available) and that could be why they only offered a 2 year deal. Maybe Charlie (while being the best option) still leaves big question as to his leadership ability. Yes he has a large contract for a back up, but its only two mil this year and only escalates to full value, if CW becomes the starter, I believe both seasons.

    i understand the intent of the whitehurst trade sort of..it makes sense if you believe he is your starter. but not if he's the backup even for 1 season. youre not right about the contract. his deal is 2yrs 8mil guarenteed with 2mil in incentives. is that a backup deal or even a 1yr starter, contract alone?? he made 535K last season. then on top of that you give up a 3rd and 20spots in 2nd rd? that tells me, we got this guy to be our starter now, not a backup to compete with the incumbent. it makes no sense, you cant have it both ways. then when you make that trade, you then should trade hasselbeck.

    If they thought Clausen was the answer, do you think they would have passed on him at 6? and again at 14? Thinking he would be available at 40? It doesn't add up. Most experts expected him to be gone before our first pick. To me, this only leans more towards the argument, they didn't believe Clausen to be the answer and weren't willing to invest 40+ Mill and multiple years in him. That makes CW look like a hell of a deal if that was they're belief.

    i understand that, but if you dont trade for whitehurst, you then have the option of drafting a QB if one you like falls in your lap in 2010 or draft one next yr. if you kept hasselbeck and said he is your starter for 2010, you then groom a drafted guy or wait til 2011. we are paying for 2 starting QBs is my point.

    (Unless you have no faith in Seneca and consider Matts recent injury history)

    they couldn't stand pat with seneca and matt. if they were concerned about matts injury history, they should've traded him while he had value.

    (again, unless you don't like who you think will be available)

    then you wait to draft your guy next yr and keep matt. if you believed this, you don't make the whitehurst trade.

    ( which is way better than wasting the next 4 years, because you drafted a guy you don't believe will succeed)

    so you waste 2yrs with whitehurst plus picks, and money while still keeping around your current 35yr old starter? if that doesnt work, you then have to draft a QB, and wait 2-3 years while he develops and lose in the meantime?

    my point is you either A) keep matt, draft a QB in '10 or '11..OR.. B) trade for whitehurst believing he is your starter and trade hasselbeck...if whitehurst flops, you can then scrap him and draft your guy in '11. you cant possibly do both and have it be a success. you're paying 2 starting QBs and possibly neither are the answer. you create animosity in the locker room and between both guys. in the NFL you have to one direction with the QB position.
    ctbullets
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 18
    Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:18 pm


  • I guess I'm not in as big of a hurrry as some. The way I see it, Matt still gives us the best chance to win now and unless you are attempting to dump the season to be in place for a high draft pick, you try and win every game. I could see the logic, after watching Seneca last year, in thinking, if Matt gets hurt, we are doomed and CW looks like he could be a steal for a Bates style offense, so bringing him in and letting the chips fall were they may, seems logical to me.

    I could see this playing out well if Matt doesn't play the whole season or doesn't perform to expectations, CW will have had some time to learn the new offense and become familiar with the guys he will be throwing to.

    I think you can open a bigger can of worms rolling the dice and trying to predict the future.

    We watched as PC and JS patiently waited to see who was availabe with each pich, rather than trying to trade up to grab someone, who may have been there anyway.

    I think its always a smart strategy to go with what you know and see howw things fall.

    But we will see.
    Quoting Montanahawk05:
    the foremost reason, by a long margin, of Seattle's continued struggles the last three years is Matt Hasselbeck. Hass's arm strength has declined to the vanishing point. [b]They're stacking the line and jumping routes because they don't respect Hasselbeck's arm.
    User avatar
    lostlobos
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1691
    Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 2:46 pm


  • ctbullets wrote:[color=#FFFF00]
    my point is you either A) keep matt, draft a QB in '10 or '11..OR.. B) trade for whitehurst believing he is your starter and trade hasselbeck...if whitehurst flops, you can then scrap him and draft your guy in '11. you cant possibly do both and have it be a success. you're paying 2 starting QBs and possibly neither are the answer. you create animosity in the locker room and between both guys. in the NFL you have to one direction with the QB position.


    The problem with your point though, is the FO didn’t trade Matt, they traded Seneca.

    It’s painfully obvious to me they feel Matt can run their offense and Charlie is a sizable upgrade over Seneca. Now their opinion could change the closer they get to regular season, or by year’s end, and if that happens so be it.

    For the time being, the fact we have six running backs, six tight ends, and fourteen wide receivers in camp may suggest our offensive wows last year may be linked to something other than our QB play.

    However all this shakes out, this year’s, training camp, preseason, even the regular season should be one of the most interesting (and debated I should think) since Mike Holmgren blew up Dennis Erickson’s 8 and 8 team.
    "Est autem fides credere quod nondum vides; cuius fidei merces est videre quod credis."
    Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe.
    (St. Augustine of Hippo)

    "Perfer et obdura; dolor hic tibi proderit olim."
    (“Ovid”)
    User avatar
    FidelisHawk
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 327
    Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 7:39 am


  • lostlobos-

    i understand your position as well but why trade for whitehurst and pay him as a starter? it makes zero sense. if you were ok with matt being the starter, fine, but then why the trade for another starter? my point was the organization needs to make a decision on who "the guy" is. i'd be livid if we traded picks and gave starter money for whitehurst if the guy starts 1 yr and flops. in the meantime, we could've drafted and developed a QB by then for 1 draft pick. basically if whitehurst isn't a better than average starter or even worse doesn't get on the field, this trade is a colossal disaster and could set us back yrs. this new regime could be a failure before it even starts. you said you were'nt in a hurry but if you think about it, you really should be.
    ctbullets
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 18
    Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:18 pm


  • FidelisHawk wrote:
    ctbullets wrote:[color=#FFFF00]
    my point is you either A) keep matt, draft a QB in '10 or '11..OR.. B) trade for whitehurst believing he is your starter and trade hasselbeck...if whitehurst flops, you can then scrap him and draft your guy in '11. you cant possibly do both and have it be a success. you're paying 2 starting QBs and possibly neither are the answer. you create animosity in the locker room and between both guys. in the NFL you have to one direction with the QB position.


    The problem with your point though, is the FO didn’t trade Matt, they traded Seneca.

    It’s painfully obvious to me they feel Matt can run their offense and Charlie is a sizable upgrade over Seneca. Now their opinion could change the closer they get to regular season, or by year’s end, and if that happens so be it.

    For the time being, the fact we have six running backs, six tight ends, and fourteen wide receivers in camp may suggest our offensive wows last year may be linked to something other than our QB play.

    However all this shakes out, this year’s, training camp, preseason, even the regular season should be one of the most interesting (and debated I should think) since Mike Holmgren blew up Dennis Erickson’s 8 and 8 team.


    my goodness, no offense whatsoever to you, but you're not getting it. we traded wallace for a 7th rd pick. we gave up a 3rd, 20 spots in rd 2, and 2yrs 8mil contract for whitehurst to be a backup! how do you justify that? whitehurst wasn't brought in to be the backup for a year. do you understand what i mean? they have to make a decision at QB or we're not going anywhere.
    ctbullets
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 18
    Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:18 pm


  • ctbullets wrote:lostlobos-

    i understand your position as well but why trade for whitehurst and pay him as a starter? it makes zero sense. if you were ok with matt being the starter, fine, but then why the trade for another starter? my point was the organization needs to make a decision on who "the guy" is. i'd be livid if we traded picks and gave starter money for whitehurst if the guy starts 1 yr and flops. in the meantime, we could've drafted and developed a QB by then for 1 draft pick. basically if whitehurst isn't a better than average starter or even worse doesn't get on the field, this trade is a colossal disaster and could set us back yrs. this new regime could be a failure before it even starts. you said you were'nt in a hurry but if you think about it, you really should be.


    What's being left out is pretty significant detail here. Seattle wasn't the only team involved for CW's services. The Cards were also a factor. This is probably why the contract is as high as it is and the reason for overpayment. IMO, CW chose his team and agreed to terms before the Chargers and the Seahawks settled the trade. Without the initial agreement between the Seahawks and CW the trade doesn't take place. CW was brought in to compete with Matt H for the QB position and also be an upgrade as a backup. If CW unseats Matt in TC then he deserves to start. I agree with the philosophy that the best players should be on the field. If CW turns out better than Matt H, then he should play. Based on history, Matt is the superior player currently. It's his job at this point to lose.
    User avatar
    hawkfan68
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 3517
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:10 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


  • I would like to point out that Paul Allen wipes his ass with more money than Whitehurst is paid. Also, in a year where there is no salary cap and a desire to improve the QB position, I think the trade was reasonable both in draft picks exchanged and salary.
    <--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--> GO SEAHAWKS <--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><-->
    User avatar
    CamanoIslandJQ
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 907
    Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 9:11 am
    Location: Camano Island, WA


  • CamanoIslandJQ wrote:I would like to point out that Paul Allen wipes his ass with more money than Whitehurst is paid. Also, in a year where there is no salary cap and a desire to improve the QB position, I think the trade was reasonable both in draft picks exchanged and salary.


    how exactly did we improve the position? we got a better backup? and our starter is beat up and a year further from his prime. how can you ppl be comfortable with this? this isn't 5 yrs ago when matt was a pro-bowler. let me spell this out the best i can: in the nfl today, if you don't have a franchise QB, you are going nowhere. matt isn't a franchise QB anymore and whitehurst was a franchises 3rd QB. with all due respect, if you don't understand this, i'm sorry, you're not in touch with reality.
    ctbullets
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 18
    Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:18 pm


  • warner28 wrote:Kearly,

    Where does that 3rd round offer come from? Heard it a few times but never seen a source. Hard for me to believe it. If true and they turned it down, I want both fired immediately.


    You asked this question about a month ago, and I linked it back then. I guess you missed it. Anyway, it was Danny O'Neil who mentioned it offhand in a chat session.
    User avatar
    kearly
    * Mr Random Thought *
     
    Posts: 10684
    Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:44 am


  • Yeah I must have, I just don't buy it even still.

    O'Neil had to have misheard.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


  • warner28 wrote:Yeah I must have, I just don't buy it even still.

    O'Neil had to have misheard.


    No disrespect (I think you are a great poster), but I hate it when people doubt reporters or question their credibility just because. Its not just you, a lot of people do this. I mean if you are secretly John Clayton or Adam Schefter and have the cred, that's one thing, but we're all just joes who follow the game from our computer monitors, whereas these guys have conversations and sources we can only dream about, and mis-reporting is a big deal that could affect their livelihood. As such I don't make accusations of inaccuracy against them easily, and I tend to trust them.

    Do they make mistakes? Sure, but its rare. O'Neil's assertion was very matter of fact, and typically if its just a rumor, a reporter won't do that.

    As to the Seahawks turning the offer down, its a mistake, but its not shocking. Carroll wants to win now if possible, and without Hasselbeck, the odds of winning the (very winnable NFC West) division next year approach 0. Would I have made that trade? Absolutely. But I can understand why the Seahawks decided not to. Its also possible that they felt 3rd round compensation was not enough after the deal Philly got in division for McNabb.

    I think its also probable that Hasselbeck's status as a bit of a legend here in Seattle had to have played a part in the decision as well. You don't want your brand new administration with the youngest GM in the NFL to come out of the gate dealing away a former great QB for what some fans and radio commentators might see as pocket change. It would have taken some serious stones to trade Hasselbeck, and though it would have been the right thing to do, I get why they opted not to.
    User avatar
    kearly
    * Mr Random Thought *
     
    Posts: 10684
    Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:44 am


  • I'm not questioning O'Neil.

    I just refuse to believe they'd pass on the deal, maybe they did but I refuse to believe it.

    It's called denial and I'm in it on this.

    If that were on the table and they said no, I have little hope for this administration so I have to go into denial.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


  • I'm fine with Hasselbeck starting because Whitehurst will probably be starting by midseason due to an injury to Hasselbeck. Whitehurst will have more time to learn the offense.
    Spin Doctor
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1401
    Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 1:31 am


  • ctbullets wrote:
    my goodness, no offense whatsoever to you, but you're not getting it. we traded wallace for a 7th rd pick. we gave up a 3rd, 20 spots in rd 2, and 2yrs 8mil contract for whitehurst to be a backup! how do you justify that? whitehurst wasn't brought in to be the backup for a year. do you understand what i mean? they have to make a decision at QB or we're not going anywhere.


    Thank you and I take no offence; I do disagree with the whole concept of valuing players by draft picks. The NFL draft maybe the world biggest lottery, with only slightly better odds than the one we play. If you follow that philosophy Chad Pennington should be a starting QB not Tom Brady. But that’s a discussion for another time.

    The Seahawks traded for Whitehurst to compete with Hasselbeck, something they felt Wallace couldn’t do. The fact they traded second round slots and a third round pick doesn’t make Charlie a franchise QB or even a starting NFL QB.

    Now, I have a lot more faith in Pete Carroll and John Schneider since the draft than I had before, but I’ve been around long enough to see some of the best management teams make mistakes. Perhaps they stole Whitehurst (ala Drew Brees) or just maybe they overpaid for a backup QB, only time and competition will tell.

    This I do know for sure, if you improve your roster every year and play your best players every year, your odds to win a championship improve every year.

    So far, I think Pete and John have improved the roster over last year, I believe they’ll start the best players they have, and I hope they do the same thing next year.
    "Est autem fides credere quod nondum vides; cuius fidei merces est videre quod credis."
    Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe.
    (St. Augustine of Hippo)

    "Perfer et obdura; dolor hic tibi proderit olim."
    (“Ovid”)
    User avatar
    FidelisHawk
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 327
    Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 7:39 am


  • bestfightstory wrote:
    ivotuk wrote:
    My prediction, Matt will come damn close to making the Pro Bowl this year. It's rare for anybody to have a bad year then make the Pro Bowl no matter how well they play.



    That's pretty lame. What does that prediction even mean and how is it quantifiabe?


    Easy, count the Pro Bowl votes he gets. And how is it lame? It's my prediction that he is going to do a very good job, unfortunately a lot of people that make it to the Pro Bowl do so a year after they played lights out.

    If you want more "quantification" I'll speculate he completes better than 60% of his passes, has a minimum of 1.5 TD to INT ratio, holds a better than 5.0 ypc average rushing and holds on to more than half of his fumbles. How else do you get Pro Bowl votes? *shrug*
    "God Bless the Seattle Seahawks" Cortez Kennedy
    User avatar
    ivotuk
    * NET Nobody *
     
    Posts: 8070
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:29 pm


  • Thank you and I take no offence; I do disagree with the whole concept of valuing players by draft picks. The NFL draft maybe the world biggest lottery, with only slightly better odds than the one we play. If you follow that philosophy Chad Pennington should be a starting QB not Tom Brady. But that’s a discussion for another time.

    The Seahawks traded for Whitehurst to compete with Hasselbeck, something they felt Wallace couldn’t do. The fact they traded second round slots and a third round pick doesn’t make Charlie a franchise QB or even a starting NFL QB.

    Now, I have a lot more faith in Pete Carroll and John Schneider since the draft than I had before, but I’ve been around long enough to see some of the best management teams make mistakes. Perhaps they stole Whitehurst (ala Drew Brees) or just maybe they overpaid for a backup QB, only time and competition will tell.

    This I do know for sure, if you improve your roster every year and play your best players every year, your odds to win a championship improve every year.

    So far, I think Pete and John have improved the roster over last year, I believe they’ll start the best players they have, and I hope they do the same thing next year.[/quote]


    very well said. we're in agreement on that philosophy. i guess im just impatient and want to settle this QB situation and dont want it to be a distraction as the season progresses. i believe you'll see what i mean when you hear about a "QB contriversy" all season long. its annoying to fans and the team as you know.i completely disagree with the whitehurst trade. you're first major trade cant be a colossal disaster. that usually spells bye-bye to the new admin. especially if it involves the QB. i agree with the rebuilding thru the draft and it will take awhile but you know the nfl. they preach patience but they don't have any. its win soon or you're gone. im afraid that if this trade is a disaster, PC and JS wont get the time they need to complete the rebuild then its back to square one. we shall see but i guarantee you that all you'll be hearing all season long is about the QB situation and we
    'll all be tortured with QB controversy talk. i surely hope im wrong.
    ctbullets
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 18
    Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:18 pm


  • ctbullets wrote:
    CamanoIslandJQ wrote:I would like to point out that Paul Allen wipes his ass with more money than Whitehurst is paid. Also, in a year where there is no salary cap and a desire to improve the QB position, I think the trade was reasonable both in draft picks exchanged and salary.


    how exactly did we improve the position? we got a better backup? and our starter is beat up and a year further from his prime. how can you ppl be comfortable with this? this isn't 5 yrs ago when matt was a pro-bowler. let me spell this out the best i can: in the nfl today, if you don't have a franchise QB, you are going nowhere. matt isn't a franchise QB anymore and whitehurst was a franchises 3rd QB. with all due respect, if you don't understand this, i'm sorry, you're not in touch with reality.


    If you read my post again you may see that I said "a desire to improve the QB position". I think that desire was predicated on the need to replace Seneca Wallace with a promising young QB that better fits Bates system and has the potential, unlike Wallace, to start after learning the system and being tutored by Hasselbeck. Pete Carroll obviously thinks that Whitehurst was his guy because his talents fit better than other FA's available and also has better potential than any QB's in the draft.

    I understand your statement that "without a franchise QB, you are going nowhere." However, the bottom line IMO is that franchise QB's do not grow on trees and as such must be found early, before they become a franchise QB. If you go after an established franchise QB you'll pay a mint in draft picks and cash. To obtain a future franchise QB (before he becomes a franchise QB) obviously requires exceptional ability to research and evaluate all options available. I think this is what PC and JS did and based on their evaluations, Whitehurst was their guy. I believe they felt he was probably better than what the draft picks traded to aquire him would have brought and they didn't see a draftable QB to their liking. I would be interested to know what your solution for the Hawks not having a franchise QB might be.
    <--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--> GO SEAHAWKS <--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><-->
    User avatar
    CamanoIslandJQ
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 907
    Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 9:11 am
    Location: Camano Island, WA


  • FidelisHawk wrote:
    This I do know for sure, if you improve your roster every year and play your best players every year, your odds to win a championship improve every year.


    Disagree, sometimes you have to let the younger (maybe lesser) player develop otherwise your roster gets old and stagnant leading to sharp sharp sharp declines.

    It sounds great to say "you just play the best guy every year" but in the real world that is in fact sometimes a mistake because guys need time to become the "best guy"

    Some times you need to play potential over current production. Tough choices need to be made.

    You have 2 options at QB:

    Keep signing veteran stop gaps (which is all Matt is at this point)

    or

    Go with a young guy (which is what Whitehurst is at this point) and commit to their development.


    As much as some of us may want to believe otherwise, guys can't complete their development (and become the best player) till they see the field (and usually till they see the field for a full season or more).


    Think of it another way:

    Does 2005 ever happen if Holmgren does not commit to Hasselbeck in 2001 and go back to him after Dilfer got hurt in 2002? I've said it before and I'll say it again, Mike Holmgren got damn lucky that Trent Dilfer got hurt in 2002 otherwise 2005 very likely never happens.

    Who is the better NFL QB? Dilfer or Hasselbeck? Who was better in 2001? Who played in 2001? Matt needed time even though he was not better than Dilfer, without that time he may have never become better than Dilfer but Seattle needed him to become better than Dilfer so he got the time.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


  • Does 2005 ever happen if Holmgren does not commit to Hasselbeck in 2001 and go back to him after Dilfer got hurt in 2002? I've said it before and I'll say it again, Mike Holmgren got damn lucky that Trent Dilfer got hurt in 2002 otherwise 2005 very likely never happens.

    Who is the better NFL QB? Dilfer or Hasselbeck? Who was better in 2001? Who played in 2001? Matt needed time even though he was not better than Dilfer, without that time he may have never become better than Dilfer but Seattle needed him to become better than Dilfer so he got the time.


    I see that logic but it could work both ways. If the Cards kept Leinart (their developmental QB) instead of Warner (their better QB that year), they don't make the SB.

    Yes they were a more complete team than us, but who knows what might happen this year. We might get lucky, somehow make the playoffs and get hot at the right time. Hass gives us a better chance at doing that until CW proves otherwise.
    User avatar
    hoxrox
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1207
    Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 5:29 pm


  • hoxrox wrote:
    Does 2005 ever happen if Holmgren does not commit to Hasselbeck in 2001 and go back to him after Dilfer got hurt in 2002? I've said it before and I'll say it again, Mike Holmgren got damn lucky that Trent Dilfer got hurt in 2002 otherwise 2005 very likely never happens.

    Who is the better NFL QB? Dilfer or Hasselbeck? Who was better in 2001? Who played in 2001? Matt needed time even though he was not better than Dilfer, without that time he may have never become better than Dilfer but Seattle needed him to become better than Dilfer so he got the time.


    I see that logic but it could work both ways. If the Cards kept Leinart (their developmental QB) instead of Warner (their better QB that year), they don't make the SB.

    Yes they were a more complete team than us, but who knows what might happen this year. We might get lucky, somehow make the playoffs and get hot at the right time. Hass gives us a better chance at doing that until CW proves otherwise.


    Warner barely took the Cards to the playoffs and he had waaaaay better recievers, a better defense, and a better offensive line than Matt. Hass will have to play like Peyton Manning (or better) to get this team to the Superbowl, and I think we both can agree that won't happen.
    Last edited by Trrrroy on Tue May 11, 2010 1:22 pm, edited 2 times in total.
    I hate Tim Ruskell.
    User avatar
    Trrrroy
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2819
    Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 9:24 am


  • Trrrroy wrote:
    Warner barely took the Cards to the playoffs and he had waaaaay better recievers, a better defense, and a better offensive line than Matt. Hass will have to play like Peyton Manning (or better) to get this team to the Superbowl, and I think we both can agree that won't happen.


    No , he may not agree. Many of the Hass Fans on this board think Matt is just as good as Peyton Manning.
    Image
    User avatar
    Tech Worlds
    * Capt'n Dom *
    * Capt'n Dom *
     
    Posts: 9296
    Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:40 am
    Location: Granite Falls, WA


  • hoxrox wrote:
    Does 2005 ever happen if Holmgren does not commit to Hasselbeck in 2001 and go back to him after Dilfer got hurt in 2002? I've said it before and I'll say it again, Mike Holmgren got damn lucky that Trent Dilfer got hurt in 2002 otherwise 2005 very likely never happens.

    Who is the better NFL QB? Dilfer or Hasselbeck? Who was better in 2001? Who played in 2001? Matt needed time even though he was not better than Dilfer, without that time he may have never become better than Dilfer but Seattle needed him to become better than Dilfer so he got the time.


    I see that logic but it could work both ways. If the Cards kept Leinart (their developmental QB) instead of Warner (their better QB that year), they don't make the SB.

    Yes they were a more complete team than us, but who knows what might happen this year. We might get lucky, somehow make the playoffs and get hot at the right time. Hass gives us a better chance at doing that until CW proves otherwise.



    I somewhat agree.

    If you believe this team has a realistic shot at winning the Super Bowl than you go with Matt.

    I just don't see how anyone could believe that.


    I'd also say there is a difference between Leinert and Whitehurst:

    Leinert has a 6 year contract and came to the Cardinals as a 23 year old rookie so sitting behind Warner for a few years and learning is actually been proven to be a smart strategy for developing a player, now he either gets on the field or I'd say the Cardinals have officially given up on him.

    Whitehurst has a 2 year contract and has already sat for 4 seasons (same amount of time and same age as Leinert), its time for him to get on the field if you believe him to be a starter long term.


    Had this team drafted Clausen instead of trading for Whitehurst, believe it or not I'd be on the opposite side of this debate. I'd want Matt to start for this year at least and maybe 1-2 more while Clausen gets his feet wet. Whitehurst is 27 its time to throw him in the deep end and see what he has.


    Even separating the level of talent differences, Seattle is in a completely different situation than Arizona was
    MARTYREDwarner
     


  • CamanoIslandJQ wrote:
    ctbullets wrote:
    CamanoIslandJQ wrote:I would like to point out that Paul Allen wipes his ass with more money than Whitehurst is paid. Also, in a year where there is no salary cap and a desire to improve the QB position, I think the trade was reasonable both in draft picks exchanged and salary.


    how exactly did we improve the position? we got a better backup? and our starter is beat up and a year further from his prime. how can you ppl be comfortable with this? this isn't 5 yrs ago when matt was a pro-bowler. let me spell this out the best i can: in the nfl today, if you don't have a franchise QB, you are going nowhere. matt isn't a franchise QB anymore and whitehurst was a franchises 3rd QB. with all due respect, if you don't understand this, i'm sorry, you're not in touch with reality.


    If you read my post again you may see that I said "a desire to improve the QB position". I think that desire was predicated on the need to replace Seneca Wallace with a promising young QB that better fits Bates system and has the potential, unlike Wallace, to start after learning the system and being tutored by Hasselbeck. Pete Carroll obviously thinks that Whitehurst was his guy because his talents fit better than other FA's available and also has better potential than any QB's in the draft.

    I understand your statement that "without a franchise QB, you are going nowhere." However, the bottom line IMO is that franchise QB's do not grow on trees and as such must be found early, before they become a franchise QB. If you go after an established franchise QB you'll pay a mint in draft picks and cash. To obtain a future franchise QB (before he becomes a franchise QB) obviously requires exceptional ability to research and evaluate all options available. I think this is what PC and JS did and based on their evaluations, Whitehurst was their guy. I believe they felt he was probably better than what the draft picks traded to aquire him would have brought and they didn't see a draftable QB to their liking. I would be interested to know what your solution for the Hawks not having a franchise QB might be.


    my solution cant happen now. i wanted mark sanchez last draft and this yr i wanted clausen at 14 and after we passed, i wanted to trade up in 2nd to get him. now i dont see how we can justify not starting whitehurst. what exactly can we possibly win with matt as qb? we mine as well start developing CW and if he fails, we draft a qb in 1st rd like we should've done 2 yrs ago.
    ctbullets
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 18
    Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:18 pm


  • So this subject is so beaten to death it hurts, but I really have a crush on warner28 so I have to ask a question. Given the logic that Matt is just a stopgap, what does that make Jesus? A sub-stopgap? What is Carrol thinking?
    User avatar
    MysterMatt
    *TOP 5 SUPPORTER*
    *TOP 5 SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 6841
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:12 am


  • I honestly have no idea what they are doing with Whitehurst, that is why I am concerned.

    When the deal for him was made I assumed Hasselbeck would be dealt too, now I have no idea. Maybe some are right and he was brought in to be nothing more than a back up I just can't see how that makes sense.

    We will find out. I like Carroll and 90% of what he has done so far but I fear the way they are handling the QB situation will delay the development of this team if not outright stunt it completely.

    We will see.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


  • warner28 wrote:I honestly have no idea what they are doing with Whitehurst, that is why I am concerned.

    When the deal for him was made I assumed Hasselbeck would be dealt too, now I have no idea. Maybe some are right and he was brought in to be nothing more than a back up I just can't see how that makes sense.

    We will find out. I like Carroll and 90% of what he has done so far but I fear the way they are handling the QB situation will delay the development of this team if not outright stunt it completely.

    We will see.


    that's been my point exactly! i've loved almost every move and it all makes sense but this whitehurst trade. i've been saying it doesn't make any sense unless the plan was to trade matt. there is no way possible they made this trade with the belief CW would be the backup. PC/JS were even open to drafting clausen even after we made the trade! i think they realize the CW trade was a mistake and now they don't know what to do with him. now the QB situation is still unresolved for this year and the future. we will have to draft a #1 QB and pay him 40-50mil guarenteed and wait a couple yrs to develop them. this is going to be a major problem and alot of hawks fans don't see it.
    ctbullets
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 18
    Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:18 pm


  • I don't think a willingness to draft Clausen indicates they believe the Whitehurst deal was a mistake.

    Jimmy Johnson took Steve Walsh with a 1st round pick in the supplamental draft the same year he took Aikman #1 overall in the regular draft, did that mean he thought the Aikman pick was a mistake?


    I buy the 'competition' thing. Just don't get why Hasselbeck is part of it. A Clausen/Whitehurst competition would have made tons of sense, a Hasselbeck/Clausen battle makes some sense since rookie QBs should sit. Hasselbeck/Whitehurst makes none IMO.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


  • Or, perhaps they really do believe CW will work out, all the Hass has tightened his grip stuff is BS, and they figured that everyone would look at the CW trade and think we are patsies, then they swing the White and Washington switch position deals.

    How will you look at it if they do in fact start CW, and he does middle of the road with a glimpse of potential to be special? I think Matt's role this season is the same as Dilfers was when we signed him. Mentor, teach, be ready if something happens.

    If CW has trouble, is Matt a good enough second option to go with until CW's light either goes on or we decide to draft someone else? Who knows, maybe Teel or Reilly develope into something.
    seedhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2511
    Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:51 am


  • The difference between Matt and Dilfer is that Dilfer was brought in to be the back up and only after Matt got hurt did he start, as of now Matt is the starter. Whitehurst is closer to the Dilfer role right now.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


  • "Hasselbeck is getting the majority of the repetitions during the practices, but Whitehurst is getting a healthy chunk, too. Mike Teel isn't seeing much time at all during the 11-on-11 team drills."

    "But watching the two minicamps, it was very clear there was a difference in the way starter Matt Hasselbeck went through his progressions, came off his first read, and the way Whitehurst did. Whitehurst had many more instances in which he ended up throwing the ball away, neither finding nor forcing a spot to throw the ball."

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/s ... essio.html
    User avatar
    Jville
    * NET Alumni *
     
    Posts: 3330
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:49 pm


  • warner28 wrote:Disagree, sometimes you have to let the younger (maybe lesser) player develop otherwise your roster gets old and stagnant leading to sharp sharp sharp declines.

    It sounds great to say "you just play the best guy every year" but in the real world that is in fact sometimes a mistake because guys need time to become the "best guy"

    Some times you need to play potential over current production. Tough choices need to be made.

    You have 2 options at QB:

    Keep signing veteran stop gaps (which is all Matt is at this point)

    or

    Go with a young guy (which is what Whitehurst is at this point) and commit to their development.


    As much as some of us may want to believe otherwise, guys can't complete their development (and become the best player) till they see the field (and usually till they see the field for a full season or more).


    Think of it another way:

    Does 2005 ever happen if Holmgren does not commit to Hasselbeck in 2001 and go back to him after Dilfer got hurt in 2002? I've said it before and I'll say it again, Mike Holmgren got damn lucky that Trent Dilfer got hurt in 2002 otherwise 2005 very likely never happens.

    Who is the better NFL QB? Dilfer or Hasselbeck? Who was better in 2001? Who played in 2001? Matt needed time even though he was not better than Dilfer, without that time he may have never become better than Dilfer but Seattle needed him to become better than Dilfer so he got the time.


    Warner28, I love you man! Always precise, to the point, and composed, but sadly, I must disagree as well.

    Not to rewrite history but who’s to say Holmgren did it right? Dilfer was indeed the better QB in 2001, no argument there. But Matt’s improvement after he was benched and watched how a veteran QB handles a game was enormous. Had Mike truly had an open competition and played Matt in a backup role in 2001, the Seahawks may have won more games in both years.

    Alas we can only speculate if it was the watching as a backup or the beating as a starter that caused him to turn his game around.

    I feel, since his improvement coincided with his benching, it was the watching, reps with his receivers, and coaching his mistakes that made that change, opposed to losing games, booing fans, and sideline tirades. Of course that’s only my speculative opinion, feel free to disagree.

    But more to the point of this discussion, why start a player who is by the definition of this dialogue inferior and unproven? If the superior proven player is getting older and slower, the younger faster player with more potential will beat him out in due time. I see no need to hasten the procedure with an inferior product in the name of development.

    There are always opportunities to play these guys, people get hurt, you’re getting your “Gatorade” handed to you, you’re doing the handing, or let him play some downs if you just have to see what he can do. You get real game experience, game film to coach mistakes, and still have your “better” veteran to play another day and not forfeit games in the process.

    If the guy with all the potential turns out to never fulfill that promising career, you still have the “better” veteran version to hold down the fort until you can find someone who CAN beat him out.

    The “best guys” show their skills no matter what, in camp, preseason, and their opportunities during games. Good coaches spot it, cultivate it, and then exploit it, not the other way around.

    I think Carroll’s a good coach and perhaps Charlie’s the answer for the future. I’m just not ready to throw away ANY chances for wins for a peek into that future.
    "Est autem fides credere quod nondum vides; cuius fidei merces est videre quod credis."
    Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe.
    (St. Augustine of Hippo)

    "Perfer et obdura; dolor hic tibi proderit olim."
    (“Ovid”)
    User avatar
    FidelisHawk
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 327
    Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 7:39 am


  • warner28 wrote:I don't think a willingness to draft Clausen indicates they believe the Whitehurst deal was a mistake.

    Jimmy Johnson took Steve Walsh with a 1st round pick in the supplamental draft the same year he took Aikman #1 overall in the regular draft, did that mean he thought the Aikman pick was a mistake?


    I buy the 'competition' thing. Just don't get why Hasselbeck is part of it. A Clausen/Whitehurst competition would have made tons of sense, a Hasselbeck/Clausen battle makes some sense since rookie QBs should sit. Hasselbeck/Whitehurst makes none IMO.


    you may be right about that but then why is hasselbeck still on the team? because they believe he's better than CW right now. i buy the competition thing also but not at QB. my theory is that they brought CW in to be "the guy", "their guy" like holmgren did with hasselbeck. they wanted CW to win the job and thought he would. now they got him and have seen what he has in camp and oops, he's not ready to be the guy or can't be the guy which we all knew coming in. now they know hasselbeck gives them the best chance to win now. like you said, this competition makes no sense. if you brought CW in to be the guy, then you trade matt(too late now) and go with CW. you use this season to see what you have and if you need to draft a QB in '11(we know the answer and could've told them before they wasted the money and picks on CW). ida drafted sanchez last yr and even after that mistake, ida used 14 on clausen this yr. that's just my opinion.
    ctbullets
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 18
    Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:18 pm


  • I buy the 'competition' thing. Just don't get why Hasselbeck is part of it. A Clausen/Whitehurst competition would have made tons of sense, a Hasselbeck/Clausen battle makes some sense since rookie QBs should sit. Hasselbeck/Whitehurst makes none IMO.


    That's because you weren't paying attention when a 38 year old Warner played more than well enough for his team to win a Superbowl. And maybe you weren't around when the scores of other QBs have done the same over the years in the NFL. Hasselbeck won't be 38 for three more years.
    "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


  • No , he may not agree. Many of the Hass Fans on this board think Matt is just as good as Peyton Manning.


    And all the Hass detractors on this board are unable to tell the differrence between Hass's failings and the failings of the offense around 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


  • JohnnyB wrote:
    I buy the 'competition' thing. Just don't get why Hasselbeck is part of it. A Clausen/Whitehurst competition would have made tons of sense, a Hasselbeck/Clausen battle makes some sense since rookie QBs should sit. Hasselbeck/Whitehurst makes none IMO.


    That's because you weren't paying attention when a 38 year old Warner played more than well enough for his team to win a Superbowl. And maybe you weren't around when the scores of other QBs have done the same over the years in the NFL. Hasselbeck won't be 38 for three more years.


    Scores of other QBs?

    Okay.


    If you believe Matt Hasselbeck will play anywhere near the level of an age 37 Warner (he was 37 not 38 when he took them to the Super Bowl), fine. But Matt has NEVER had that kind of season, even in his prime. Hasselbeck's best season (either 2005 or 2007 depending on how you look at it) does not even compare to what Warner did in 2008. Also if he played "more than well enough for them to win the Super Bowl" where is the trophy? He played good enough to put them in position to win, maybe he was good enough but the team around him was not and now they will most likely take a step back while finding the next guy good enough.

    Seattle is unlikely to have enough talent to win a Super Bowl (even if Matt played like Warner circa 2008) before he is done playing that good so what is the point?

    And if Matt is the long term plan, where is the contract extension?


    I am pretty sick of the "look at Kurt Warner" line of reasoning, Warner was significantly better throughout his career and outside of a 6 game stretch at age 31 never played as poorly has Matt has over the last 2 years.

    If Matt is the guy, give him a damn extension, why wait?
    MARTYREDwarner
     


  • If youre going to look at the way Warner played when he was 38, you have to look at the way Brunell, George and Rypein all played when they were Hass' age.
    Image
    User avatar
    AbsolutNET
    * NET X's & O's Guru *
     
    Posts: 8693
    Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 11:24 am
    Location: PNW


  • ctbullets wrote:
    you may be right about that but then why is hasselbeck still on the team? because they believe he's better than CW right now. i buy the competition thing also but not at QB. my theory is that they brought CW in to be "the guy", "their guy" like holmgren did with hasselbeck. they wanted CW to win the job and thought he would. now they got him and have seen what he has in camp and oops, he's not ready to be the guy or can't be the guy which we all knew coming in. now they know hasselbeck gives them the best chance to win now. like you said, this competition makes no sense. if you brought CW in to be the guy, then you trade matt(too late now) and go with CW. you use this season to see what you have and if you need to draft a QB in '11(we know the answer and could've told them before they wasted the money and picks on CW). ida drafted sanchez last yr and even after that mistake, ida used 14 on clausen this yr. that's just my opinion.


    Actually, they said before minicamps started that there would be competition, but that Hass is in line to be the starting QB. They never said otherwise. They claimed that Whitehurst is what they want in a backup right now. The competition angle allows for the possibility that Whitehurst outperforms Hass in training camp (and I'm fairly sure that they will actually make their judgments based off of all they see in training camp, and not just off of 6 days of minicamp).

    I'll agree with you in one area: If they brought Whitehurst in to definitely be THE guy, then they should have traded Hasselbeck as soon as they found a decent offer. Of course, had they brought Whitehurst in to be THE guy, then it would seem odd for them to give him a 2-year contract. Based off of the facts, it looks as if...

    1. They were convinced that Wallace wasn't someone they could use in any capacity.
    2. They wanted a backup with potential to start.
    3. They aren't ready to jettison the face of the team, but they are preparing for life after his contract is up (at the end of this season).

    I think when you combine all of those factors, then we're looking at drafting a QB in the 2011 draft, guaranteed... how high a pick we use on the QB will be determined by what Whitehurst shows the team throughout this season, both in practice and in real games (assuming trends hold true and Hass misses time to injury).
    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


PreviousNext


It is currently Fri Aug 29, 2014 4:26 pm

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE ARCHIVES ]




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