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.

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.

_________________
I hate Tim Ruskell.

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

_________________

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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

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”)

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

_________________

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).

_________________


Okay, so maybe that pass rush is still an issue. Lather, rinse, repeat.