No, it makes more sense to assume Matt is going to turn into the Hall of Famer he's never been.

The problem is, we don't know any of this. One reporter made a small blurb about Hass "tightening his grip" with no attribution, no quotes from anyone who matters, nothing. It could have very well just been the opinion of a reporter (who has never played the game), and nothing more.

I've thought all along that PC knows CW is the man, but also knows the fan politics involved with having him win the position outright.

I believe PC knows in the back of his head CW will get the starting nod sooner rather than later, and that Hasselbeck will lose the job on the field either though injury or, most likely, stinking the place up as he has over the last couple of years.

With Hass honestly losing the job in front of his adoring fans, it becomes much easier for the FO to avoid a QB controversy and get their guy in with 100% support behind him. I feel this is very smart thinking. CW will be replacing a fan favorite and he doesn't have very many ways to successfully endear himself to the 12th Man. If he inherits the job because there is no other choice, it will make a much smoother transition and the fan base will be behind Touchdown Jesus from day one.

Matt Hasselbeck is no Kurt Warner. He's not even close, never has been, never will be.

And this falsehood is why you're wrong about his future too.

-Hasselbeck's QB rating last season? 75.1
-Warner's rating the two years before he was cut by the Rams for being old and washed up at age 32? 67.4 and 72.9
-Hasselbeck's best rating? 98.2 in '05
-Warner's best rating with the Cardinals? 96.9 in '08

So after Warner was cut for two bad seasons of being "washed up," he came back at age 37 to lead his team to the Super Bowl and played well enough at age 38 for them to be there, if only the rest of his team had been good enough.

The point is nothing at all about who is the better QB, but whether or not we should expect QBs to decline in their mid thirties the way running backs do when they hit 30. No, we shouldn't. Scores of QBs in the NFL have proven it, including one guy who has been doing right in our faces.

_________________
"Unless you were in that meeting room and know what we're supposed to do, don't assume!" -T.J.H.

Like you said the team was not good enough, so who cares if the 38 year old QB might be?

Lets assume the Cardinals were an up and coming roster, not quite ready to win titles but heading into 2010 the roster looks ready except the 38 year old QB has decided to hang it up.

Guess what? Now that roster that has been developing and might just be ready to win a title will be taking a few steps back while the team finds its next QB.

Wouldn't make more sense to find that QB before the team is ready to compete so when it is the QB is not holding it back?


Lets say Matt is good in 2010, plays all the way through 2012 at a high level (just for the sake of argument), I'd expect this team to truly be ready (if Carroll and Schneider do an excellent job) to compete for titles in 2012 so they'd get 1 shot with Matt, then he retires and now Seattle spends 2013 and 2014 being held back by a developmental QB who by 2015 is ready to play but now several other positions are aging/hitting free agency which can sometimes be a difficult storm to weather.


That is my fear and I don't see Matt lasting till 2012 much less beyond.


IMO, the championship window of the roster that Carroll is building will most likely be 2012-2015 maybe extended a couple seasons if they replenish the roster well. I hate the idea of wasting any of those years developing a QB when the rest of the roster is ready which means after Matt leaves onto another stopgap.


It has nothing to do with rather Matt is done or not, even if he has 2-3 good seasons left, he simply does not fit this rosters window.

Because he's not the guy. He's competing to be the guy. He could be the guy. He's young enough to be the guy for four more years. The FO would be idiots to sign him before seeing if he is the guy.

_________________
"Unless you were in that meeting room and know what we're supposed to do, don't assume!" -T.J.H.

One addition, like maybe Haynesworth, to the defensive line and this team has a shot to go all the way this season (I'll explain how if anyone wants). Add the guy after the season, plus a couple more here or there and they have a great chance the following season. That gives the team a realistic possible three year window while Matt is 36,37, and 38. Plus when Matt's done, a QB can develop on the bench (in other words, in practice) and step right in, like Brady and countless others have.

_________________
"Unless you were in that meeting room and know what we're supposed to do, don't assume!" -T.J.H.

everything you said makes perfect sense and i would agree but the trade tells us otherwise. what they traded in picks and the contract they gave him tells us, he was brought in to be the starter and not for 1 yr. thats why the trade doesn't make any sense because matt is still here. the length of the contract told us that they weren't sure if CW would be the guy longterm yet. the fact that hasselbeck wasn't given an extention tells us he's gone after this yr unless he has a pro-bowl yr. he's a lame duck but they're not ready to hand over the keys to CW quite yet. and let me clear something up, matt isn't the face of this franchise anymore. PC is now the face of the seahawks. i agree that it's inevitable we draft a #1 QB this yr. as for them saying matt was starter from beginning, very true and i never believed it for a second. the minute hasselbeck falters by week 5, it will be the quickest hook you ever saw. they feel they owe matt a chance at leading this team but he's not "their guy". they respect him but owe him nothing and have no tie to him. CW was their first major move and they're tied to him. he will be given every opportunity to win the job and he wasn't brought in to be a backup. that's my opinion and i could be wrong. your points are very valid and make alot of sense. but this trade just doesn't add up if CW was brought in to be a backup, i just don't buy it.

Countless others have stepped right in?

List them please, I beg you.

And feel free to tell me the formula for winning this year, better yet email it directly.

Let's start with the QBs who did well their very first year starting five games or more in the NFL. All these actually started 10+.

Kurt Warner himself had a 109.2 rating his first year starting.
Ken Stabler 88.3
Roger Staubach 104.8
Mark Rypien 88.4
Matt Ryan 87.7
Tony Romo 95.1
Ben Roethlisberger 98.1

So that's just in R,S,T, and W and picking a choosing a few names here and there that I recognized. The exhaustive list would be very long.

I'll do my formula for the Seahawks challenging for the title this year in a new thread. All the scenarios for why Hasselbeck should be gone assume as a given that a new QB needs a season or two of starting in the NFL before they can be any good, but that just aint so.

_________________
"Unless you were in that meeting room and know what we're supposed to do, don't assume!" -T.J.H.

Guarantee the list of guys who struggled is much much much much much much longer.

Its nice to cherry pick and ignore trends and likelyhoods though, isn't it?


New QBs do need a season or 2, just because you can pick a handful of guys does not change this.

Look at Elway, Aikman, Young, Manning (both of them), Rodgers (who got to sit several years), Hasselbeck himself (whom also got to sit several years).

The list of guys who could not step right in and play is much much longer.


But whatever, QBs can step right in and lead teams to titles, happens all the time, its actually the expectation, wow, I never knew.

yeah those guys are exceptions to the rule. QBs take about 2 full years to become good. of the examples you gave of guys that i saw play: romo sat for yrs, roethlisberger had terrible numbers and they were a running team his 1st yr, matt ryan was decent, and warner was a journeyman veteran but was great right away. that is by no means proof of your theory.

Well its obviously easy to discredit someone else's post. He went out and gave some examples, just like you asked, yet you simply want to dismiss his post, even though it was exactly what you begged of him to do.

Theres always factors in how and why a QB has success. But many of those examples have as much to do with learning the system, as learning the game speed of the NFL.

Its actually proven that QB's who don't start in they're 1st season have a higher rate of success. That sounds like a great stat, but it doesn't account for the QB's that were high draft picks because the team they were going to was horrid the previous year and likely needs more than just a QB to succeed.

I'd provide examples, but you would probably just dismiss them anyway.

_________________
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.

Countless others was his claim, I can easily count his. Also since when is providing a counter point (which is all I did) discounting a list? You are awful sensitive, did Hasselbeck buy you a ice cream cone at Dairy Queen once or something?

BTW, I think Warner fails to fit, the guy played professionally for 2 years, sure it was the Arena League but I think that massively helped his development (especially the accuracy which made him so great).

Not discounting so much as finding the list to be very very small and far from countless.

If you guys want to believe that QBs can step right in and dominate and that this is anywhere near the norm, feel free. I will continue to live in reality and understand that well it can happen, counting on it is a mistake.



Also, I understand the 1st year thing, you do realize that I have already stated (about a million times) that if Hasselbeck were starting over a rookie QB (or even a 2nd year QB) it would make perfect sense, Whitehurst is entering his 5th season, he needs to see the field to continue his development, he has done all he can do from the bench. If you weren't going to start him, you should not have traded for him pure and simple.

Um, I only gave those I recognized whose names start with R,S,T or W. By doing so I proved that it is not uncommon for QBs to step right in and do well. I didn't even look in the rest of the alphabet. I'm not going to go through the entire alphabet because there are too many! So it is patently false to presume that the only way the Seahawks can contend in the future is by planning for a QB to start and fail to play well for a year or two before he can do well. So it is false that the team has to start playing the QB now who they expect to be the guy five years from now. Hasselbeck can play for four more years. The next guy can step right in after that.

_________________
"Unless you were in that meeting room and know what we're supposed to do, don't assume!" -T.J.H.

We aren't going to agree on this, you believe they can step right in, I believe there will be a drop off.

Of course you believe Matt can play 4 more years, I'd have to be high to even consider that.


Drop offs are the norm, of course all you used was QB rating.

What about won/loss record compared to previous year? How bout playoff wins and Super Bowl appearances in that first year?

Some guys have stepped right in, no doubt, I never said it never happened, its not the norm however. What percentage do you think step right in and improve/maintain the team? I think its less than 25% (based on perception), your opinion?

There is more to a QB than their rating IMO.

Pete has preached the credo of competition, and if he wants to truly be bought into by the players, he better play the guy who wins the job. Not the guy he brought in, not the incumbent, but the guy who earns the reps. If he preaches competition to his players, then starts a qb who did not earn the job, he will be seen as a hypocrite by veterans especially.

I am pretty sure that Carroll and Schneider understand that Whitehurst is a low cost (compared to selecting a first rounder) homerun swing that has a high probability of swing and miss. Are they going to stake their future on making sure he sees the field to begin the season? Not likely. Hass will probably be the day 1 starter, just because he will look better in camp and pre-season, and if he stinks it up, Whitehurst will get his chance. And if Charlie stinks it up for an extended slide of multiple games, Hass will see the field again. Or even Teel or Reilly.

When Pete says they brought Whitehurst in to compete for the job, I believe him. No decision has been made yet. We may even see 3 different quarterbacks start pre-season games.

_________________
SEAHAWKS.NET. We All We Got, We All We Need

Romo sat for however long he sat, then, in his first year starting he did well. Many Many Many QBs have done the same. It refutes the claim that he needed to start and play a lot for a year or two before he could play well. Yeah, the majority probably get better after starting for a year or two (more like 65%-45%), but it can happen either way. You don't plan your entire team's future around a type of losing and failure that doesn't even have to happen.

Not to mention, a smart coach doesn't need Pro Bowl play from the QB to contend. The Jets contended and Sanchez had a QB rating in the sixties. So it would be stupid to ship off a very good QB like Hasselbeck because of some speculative type of failure that doesn't have to happen. Whitehurst is a great backup plan, just like Scottemojo said. Lets give the team as many different ways to succeed as we can and go with the one that's working.

_________________
"Unless you were in that meeting room and know what we're supposed to do, don't assume!" -T.J.H.

to the fullest extent. And if they all suck we go and draft one, which i'm personally all for.

_________________

Official Tharold Simon Fan Club Member

Preach competition all you want, if Whitehurst busts and they wait till 2011 to find that out (passing on options in the 2011 draft) this franchise is set back dramatically.

If they draft someone in 2011 and Whitehurst is a stud, they wasted massive resources.


Believe it or not (and I know lobos and johnny won't), I don't hate Matt, I just can't wrap my head around the Whitehurst deal if we aren't going to find out what he has in 2010 (counting on him beating Matt out or getting hurt is a foolish way of doing this IMO). Charlie needs to play unless they truly did just trade for a back up in which case they wasted massive resources for a back up when they could have just signed Derek Anderson.

I don't care how many ways people try to justify the move, it only makes sense if he plays. I don't know why thinking that forces some to become so defensive and put me in the "Hasselbeck hater" camp but so be it.

If Matt is your guy, he needs to be your guy for the next few seasons at a minimum and letting him hit free agency (in such a case) makes no sense whatsoever. If you believe in Matt, you extend him now, not after this season.


I guess I am just stunned (given how much I like everything else they have done) at how they have handled the most important position on the roster.

They seem to be making moves for the long term but then they sit their with QBs that are only planned for the short term. Its just odd.


Johnny, on the Sanchez thing, you say they coached around him (true, I agree), what did it get them? A 9-7 record, a wildcard berth, and a failed playoff run. Is that what we are building for? I personally don't feel 9-7 and getting hot in the postseason to be a sound strategy, more like counting on luck (both to get into the postseason at 9-7 and to than win 2 road playoff games are something you can't count on doing on a regular basis).

Don't know about you but I want 12-4, division titles, bye weeks, and Super Bowls.