Objective look at Hasselbeck

A collection of NET's best and most memorable threads. Predictions, debates, laughs, and X's & O's. Rating: PG to NC-17
Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Sun Sep 19, 2010 7:25 pm
  • So it has been since 2004 that Hasselbeck has won a significant road game?
    Image
    User avatar
    Tech Worlds
    * Capt'n Dom *
    * Capt'n Dom *
     
    Posts: 9075
    Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:40 am
    Location: Granite Falls, WA


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Sun Sep 19, 2010 7:26 pm
  • kearly wrote:2003: Beat the favored SF team at the end of 2003, to make the playoffs.
    2004: The Saints and Bucs were supposed to be good opponents early in 2004, and Seattle won both of those. They beat the the 8-8 Vikings and the 11-5 Falcons on the road that year too.
    2005: Won 5 straight road games, but none of them finished with a winning record.
    2006: Beat one team with a winning record on the road. Denver.
    2007: Terrible season for playing on the road. Did beat Philly though, who finished 8-8. Philly didn't have McNabb though.


    My goodness kearly. How many gigabytes of information do you have on the Seahawks. You are all over it. LOL
    User avatar
    Jville
    * NET Alumni *
     
    Posts: 3224
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:49 pm


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Sun Sep 19, 2010 7:27 pm
  • niveky wrote:the first interception should never have been thrown because two plays before there should have been a rushing td by forsett...those two bungled o-line moves prior to the pick weren't his fault and the hold, which did nothing to change the outcome of the play, brought that td back..i do peg the 2nd and 3rd one on him--on the last one i really don't hold too much anger because they were pretty much forced to pass pass pass and so that is usually a disaster waiting to happen to any team that far down with that little time left.



    First off, this does not excuse Matt for throwing a ball he should not have thrown and its a silly argument to make.

    Second, Locklear's hold is what sprung Forsett for the TD.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Sun Sep 19, 2010 7:29 pm
  • cknoxxhawk wrote:I hate to say it but I too would like to find out what we have in cbj before we beat this horse and gloss over looking for the magical draft pick. btw if you think it's Locker you're not sober........


    Oh man, how much coin did Locker cost himself yesterday. Really brutal. He may not even go first round at this rate. Agree with you on CBJ too.
    From the white sands
    To the canyon lands
    To the redwood stands
    To the barren lands

    Image
    User avatar
    hawksfansinceday1
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 10764
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:38 am
    Location: Vancouver, WA


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Sun Sep 19, 2010 7:43 pm
  • Its not that Hass is obsessed with those plays, those were the cards he was delt. Hass isnt necessarily allowed to call audibles like he used to under Holmgren. He gets the play calls and tries to execute them, that's all he can do. Most of the completions Hass made were up the middle anyway, so I dont know what youre talking about.[/quote]

    I'm talking about the fact that the majority of Matt's throws are to the sidelines on either swing passes or fade routes. I don't know what game you were watching today, but the one I saw today had him constantly challenging Brian Dawkins for some reason.
    [/quote]

    His TD pass, was up the middle. Two of his Branch passes, up the middle. 4/5 of Carlson's receptions were up the middle and William's sole catch, was towards the middle.[/quote]

    Nope. Not even close to reality. http://sports-ak.espn.go.com/nfl/playby ... =300919007

    Check out how many "middle" passes there were. Like I said earlier - he seems to have a problem throwing over the middle. everything is short right, short left, deep right, deep left. There were no slants, crossing patterns, picks etc. Either a swing pass in the flat or fade route...
    My Tapatalk for Ipad is bigger than yours. Size matters.
    User avatar
    MeanBlueGreen
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1114
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:56 pm
    Location: Redwood City, California


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Sun Sep 19, 2010 9:08 pm
  • Matt did exactly what Alex Smith did last week. Kill momentum and not putting his team in a position to win. His arm strength is suspect and love him or hate him that is a big liability in today's NFL. That is the unbiased truth. We will not amount to anything in this rebuilding effort if we continue to utilize a QB in regression. I am not a Matt hater at all but I am ready for the next iteration of our franchise QB. Its time!
    Image
    User avatar
    rastahawk
    * Just Chillin' *
     
    Posts: 943
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:51 am
    Location: Los Angeles


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Sun Sep 19, 2010 9:29 pm
  • Mjolnir wrote:There is something to say about QB/WR familiarness in a different offensive scheme.

    Hass hasn't really developed a chemistry with this receiving core....and with Carlson, both Hass and John are in new offensive schemes. The pre-season just wasn't enought time to develop the chemistry...and hell...with the front office continually changing things, it didn't help things any (NOT that I am complaining....I think the FO did what they needed to do...huge kudos to them for having the cojones to do it).

    I think the "long" reads are basically Hass not comfortable with the WR's and their pattern running. He just doesn't seem confident in them, even though they appear to be catching almost anything catchable that is thrown their way.

    This is just my opinion, and what I think I'm observing. I think after the 4th game (I know, I know.....we shouldn't have to wait that long) we should see some improvement.

    How muchtime does a Franchise QB need to mesh with his receivers, gottdammit, this is getting to be all too a familiar repeat with Matt??, he gets rattled way to easy, and his focus has deminished substantially, TIME to move on Pete, time to start working for the future of his offense, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it, well, It's BROKE Pete, time to check out the future, and if it isn't CW?, let's find the answer.
    He's a seasoned Vet gotdammit, he shouldn't need more time to get on the same page with his receivers, I mean, Dave frikken Krieg adapted a hell of a lot quicker to his newbie receivers, and he was'nt blessed with as good an O-line as Hasselbeck, I mean C'mon!, Jones, Hutchinson, Robbie Tobeck, Alexander, and even Locklear etc.,it's time to take this joker off his pedistal.

    Hasselbeck is being touted with being the best QB the Seahawks has ever had, you keep on sellin, but, I ain't buyin'.

    I mean pound for pound, "Mud Bone" was by far the better adaptor, had better arm too.
    scutterhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3361
    Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 8:48 pm


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Mon Sep 20, 2010 12:16 am
  • Had time to throw ? Yes. Has good WR's and TE's ? Yes. Is Healthy ? Yes. Still stinks with a weak arm and poor decisions YES YES YES Time to see what we have in Whitehurst we KNOW Matty stinks.
    User avatar
    SuperFreak
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 417
    Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 3:35 pm


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Mon Sep 20, 2010 7:49 am
  • kearly wrote:2003: Beat the favored SF team at the end of 2003, to make the playoffs.
    2004: The Saints and Bucs were supposed to be good opponents early in 2004, and Seattle won both of those. They beat the the 8-8 Vikings and the 11-5 Falcons on the road that year too.
    2005: Won 5 straight road games, but none of them finished with a winning record.
    2006: Beat one team with a winning record on the road. Denver.
    2007: Terrible season for playing on the road. Did beat Philly though, who finished 8-8. Philly didn't have McNabb though.



    The 2004 Atlanta game was at Qwest. Last game of the year, it was a must win to take the West. Atlanta had the #2 seed locked up and played there backups most of the game. We almost had it go to OT if Isaiah Kascevinski doesn't stop a 2 point conversion attempt with no time left on the clock.
    Ballz
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 156
    Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 7:56 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Mon Sep 20, 2010 8:24 am
  • Either QB's - Mallett, Locker or Pounder, in that order should be 2011 first round Seahawks pick.
    <--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--> GO SEAHAWKS <--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><-->
    User avatar
    CamanoIslandJQ
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 905
    Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 9:11 am
    Location: Camano Island, WA


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Mon Sep 20, 2010 10:18 am
  • Whoever our next QB is i want him to have a CANNON arm. its so demoralizing when we are down to know that we cant come back, since dink and dunk passes and the occational "deep" lob are the only throws hass can make :(
    Swedishhawkfan
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1141
    Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 9:31 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Mon Sep 20, 2010 2:53 pm
  • Hideeho folks,
    I want to qualify my next statement with this...I've never been a Hasselbeck fan*. That being said...
    Even when healthy, Matthew goes into "Spazzelbeck" mode about twice a year...every year. And mostly, early in the year. So, he will probably have one more of these "stinkers" at some point this year. But, the rest of the year (when healthy) he's fairly consistent and productive. And a very good leader.
    So, I guess that I'll just ride out this speedbump and hope for the best. :snack:
    That is all,
    BillA

    *No, I'm not Tabs ;)
    Never use a quiet tool, when a loud one will do
    User avatar
    Bill Assumpcao
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 364
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 6:33 am
    Location: Port Angeles, WA


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Mon Sep 20, 2010 10:53 pm
  • endzorn wrote:Take your emotions and team loyalty out of this thread and tell me how far you think this team can go with Hasselbeck.

    He had plenty of time to throw the ball, but missed open receivers, threw behind guys who actually caught the ball and tossed some inexplicable interceptions.

    I love the guy, always will...but when I watch him play it is painfully obvious that he is not the answer. At some point we need to find out what we have in Whitehurst.


    Holy Shneikey, you guys need to just face the fact that you are fans, not football analysts. Hasselbeck did numerous great things in the game. Like all QBs do from time to time, he lost his accuracy for a few passes and combined with numerous other mistakes other players made, cost them the game, but his performance was nowhere close to any indication that he's done or is not the answer. In fact in his first two games, he's shown exactly and completely the opposite. He hasn't lost anything from his best years. He can lead a team to a championship and if he has enough horses around him, that's exactly what he will do. You heard it here first.
    "Unless you were in that meeting room and know what we're supposed to do, don't assume!" -T.J.H.
    User avatar
    JohnnyB
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 358
    Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 9:36 pm


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 5:42 am
  • Hasselbeck has bad days just like the rest, even Drew Breeze was throwing poorly this week, same can be said for Farve...As for a big arm, sure it is nice for an occasional deep ball, but it does NOT guarantee success in a NFL QB obviously, just look to lets say J. Russel for an example...Hasselbeck is getting older, he is a few years out from retirement, he is a pro bowl QB that has taken our team to the highest level (Superbowl), he should be allowed to play until he wants to retire unless he really stinks it up for multiple games in a row showing he truly has lost the it factor, he has things NO unproven QB is going to have which are experience, leadership, knowledge of the game both offense and defense, he knows how to fake out defenders an not lead with his eye's, etc. If we are in it to be competitive and win now, he is our best and only real option available, if you think his few interceptions this year are bad, just imagine how many the unproven Whitehurst would have against starting defenses that will quickly realize he locks on to his targets and occasionally floats it out there with poor accuracy...I re-watched the Denver game, Bailey jumped a mile high to make that first pick, it was an amazing play on his part (wish we had that next to TRu), but we truly should not have been in that situation to start with (was not Hasselbeck's fault), as for the pick that happened near a wide open Carlson, Hasselbeck was under pressure and made a poor throw, that is life in the NFL, it happens, even Romo makes bad throws occasionally, they all do....I am not a Hasselover per se, I do respect his talent and what he has achieved for our team, dishonoring him would be equal to dishonoring Alexander of which our running game has still yet to recover from...Careful what you wish for as an emotionally driven fan, just imagine multiple years of NO passing attack to go along with no running game! :34853_doh:
    Seahawksfan10
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 361
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 11:12 am
    Location: Houston, Tx


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 7:28 am
  • Matt Hasselbeck 2010 = Jake Delhomme 2009
    User avatar
    Rat
    * NET Cynic *
     
    Posts: 3512
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:42 pm
    Location: St. Louis, MO


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 7:52 am
  • JohnnyB wrote:
    Holy Shneikey, you guys need to just face the fact that you are fans, not football analysts. Hasselbeck did numerous great things in the game. Like all QBs do from time to time, he lost his accuracy for a few passes and combined with numerous other mistakes other players made, cost them the game, but his performance was nowhere close to any indication that he's done or is not the answer. In fact in his first two games, he's shown exactly and completely the opposite. He hasn't lost anything from his best years. He can lead a team to a championship and if he has enough horses around him, that's exactly what he will do. You heard it here first.


    He hasn't lost ANYTHING from his best years...... Really? Have you seen his last six games? I'm still waiting for that great deep ball we have heard so much about from those with his poster on the ceiling above their bed.
    "Some people here have been groomed to accept mediocrity and lame ducks, I'm on board with the vibrato!" -SouthSoundHawk
    "BFS is kicking ass in here." -kearly (8/9/2013)
    User avatar
    bestfightstory
    * Glitter over Knives *
     
    Posts: 8511
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:13 pm


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 8:13 am
  • JohnnyB wrote:He hasn't lost anything from his best years.


    Yes, he has. He's lost Walter Jones, Steve Hutchinson, Mack Strong, Robbie Tobeck, Bobby Engram, and even Shaun Alexander.

    I don't see anyone who's replaced any of these folks that isn't a big downgrade.
    Jase
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 324
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 12:34 pm


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 8:54 am
  • Swedishhawkfan wrote:Whoever our next QB is i want him to have a CANNON arm. its so demoralizing when we are down to know that we cant come back, since dink and dunk passes and the occational "deep" lob are the only throws hass can make :(


    Well then perhaps you should go play with Jemarcus Russell and his cannon arm....Hasselbeck has shown himself to be a pro bowl caliber quarterback who still gets props from the majority of NFL analysts. People on this board seem to run with how bad he is because he has a bad game from time to time or he can't carry the team on his back. This is a team effort and Hasselbeck has proven time and time again that when the team around him is playing well, he almost always follows suit. When we have a team not playing well he has difficulties. Anyone who thinks Whitehurst can win with the team we have needs to have their head examined
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 12822
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 9:01 am
  • And anyone who thinks Whitehurst would have outsucked Hass in Denver needs to take the Hass poster off the ceiling above their bed.
    Last edited by bestfightstory on Tue Sep 21, 2010 9:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
    "Some people here have been groomed to accept mediocrity and lame ducks, I'm on board with the vibrato!" -SouthSoundHawk
    "BFS is kicking ass in here." -kearly (8/9/2013)
    User avatar
    bestfightstory
    * Glitter over Knives *
     
    Posts: 8511
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:13 pm


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 9:03 am
  • Whitehurst is not now, never has been, and never will be the answer at qb. Putting in Whitehurst says two things, one we aren't trying to win and two we are looking to actually lose so we can draft higher.
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 12822
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 9:11 am
  • kidhawk wrote:Whitehurst is not now, never has been, and never will be the answer at qb..


    The very same thing was once said about Favre, Warner, Brady and even Hasselbeck... And to hear some here tell it they are ALL Hall of Famers. Now I don't pretend to know the truth about Whitehurst (fortunately I have you to tell me). But I do know Hass has hurt more than helped this team with his play in the last year-at least-and I want to move on.
    "Some people here have been groomed to accept mediocrity and lame ducks, I'm on board with the vibrato!" -SouthSoundHawk
    "BFS is kicking ass in here." -kearly (8/9/2013)
    User avatar
    bestfightstory
    * Glitter over Knives *
     
    Posts: 8511
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:13 pm


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 9:23 am
  • bestfightstory wrote:
    kidhawk wrote:Whitehurst is not now, never has been, and never will be the answer at qb..


    The very same thing was once said about Favre, Warner, Brady and even Hasselbeck... And to hear some here tell it they are ALL Hall of Famers. Now I don't pretend to know the truth about Whitehurst (fortunately I have you to tell me). But I do know Hass has hurt more than helped this team with his play in the last year-at least-and I want to move on.


    And thankfully we have PC as coach who knows better then you, of that I'm sure, and still knows that Hasselbeck is the best qb on this team and the only one to play if you are trying to win now.
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 12822
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 9:35 am
  • kidhawk wrote:
    bestfightstory wrote:
    kidhawk wrote:Whitehurst is not now, never has been, and never will be the answer at qb..


    The very same thing was once said about Favre, Warner, Brady and even Hasselbeck... And to hear some here tell it they are ALL Hall of Famers. Now I don't pretend to know the truth about Whitehurst (fortunately I have you to tell me). But I do know Hass has hurt more than helped this team with his play in the last year-at least-and I want to move on.


    And thankfully we have PC as coach who knows better then you, of that I'm sure, and still knows that Hasselbeck is the best qb on this team and the only one to play if you are trying to win now.

    Yep, coaches are never wrong.

    I don't know why we even went to Carroll in the first place since Jim Mora knows more than all of us.
    User avatar
    Rat
    * NET Cynic *
     
    Posts: 3512
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:42 pm
    Location: St. Louis, MO


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 9:40 am
  • Until Whitey gets time in real games, I can't beleive that any of US here have any idea of his worthyness as a starter. It's obvious that the coaches think Matt is better, and thats from his experience and reads.

    Matt had tremendous growing pains, and the same can be said for any QB.

    Even PC doesn't know what Whitey can really accomplish, because there is no record of it.

    I'm sure he feels he owes it to the fans and organization to "win now" and Matt is the best choice, To me if Hass can't get something good going by the Bye week, put Whitey in and lets take a look.
    Image
    User avatar
    Largent80
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 22135
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:38 pm
    Location: NFL WORLD CHAMPIONS 2013-2014


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 9:43 am
  • I don't think we'll see Whitehurst before the bye week, but not because of Matt's play. I have a feeling that Bates is still getting Whitehurst a little more comfortable with the playbook and that by about week 6 when he's had time to digest, they'll throw him into the fray and see what they have.
    Super Bowl Champions XVLIII
    User avatar
    Sarlacc83
    * NET Philistine *
     
    Posts: 14382
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:02 am
    Location: Portland, OR


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 9:46 am
  • What is it with all this "let's see what he's got" bs? We have a shot at the worst division in football. Now do we seem to be superbowl contenters? No we don't, but I'd argue, neither did Arizona the year they went. As long as we have a shot at the playoffs we best be playing the players that give us out best shot at winning. Whitehurst didn't show anything in the preseason to show me he was a better option than matt and it's not like he is a rookie, he's been practicing at an NFL level for 4 years now. Hasselbeck is the man until we have no shot at the playoffs. After that, I really don't care who starts
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 12822
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 9:53 am
  • It's not BS Kidhawk, we all know Matt is done here, most likely after this year.

    The NFL is all about passing, we have got to be thinking of the future as well as the present. I personally don't see this team, this year, as making any dent in a playoff run, and I would rather think long term.

    hell, we have Tate (rookie) Butler (year 2), Williams (basically an experienced rookie) to build with in the receiving corps. We have to be able to win on the road, and history has shown us it is not getting done now, so why not at least entertain the thought?
    Image
    User avatar
    Largent80
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 22135
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:38 pm
    Location: NFL WORLD CHAMPIONS 2013-2014


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 10:06 am
  • I wonder what the NFL record is for "most interceptions thrown in opening possession of consecutive games by a veteran starting NFL quarterback with Super Bowl experience and a team captain".....
    "Some people here have been groomed to accept mediocrity and lame ducks, I'm on board with the vibrato!" -SouthSoundHawk
    "BFS is kicking ass in here." -kearly (8/9/2013)
    User avatar
    bestfightstory
    * Glitter over Knives *
     
    Posts: 8511
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:13 pm


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 10:26 am
  • It is BS because football is a game of winning while you build. There is no reason why we can't succeed with a playoff berth in carroll's first season. Playing playoff games with the younger talent we have now is tenfold better for this team then getting Whitehurst reps on gameday. I am so glad the team isn't playing with the mentality some of the so-called fans have that it's ok to lose now as long as it means we'll win someday. I want to see my team competing at the highest level possible each and every week, that is what we pay to see. Putting in the second best qb on the team is not how you win games.
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 12822
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 10:41 am
  • Hawk Strap wrote:
    zhawk wrote:i don't disagree that he had a horrible day.... i also don't expect him to have another game like that. it felt like he was trying to make up for his mistakes and just made it worse


    THAT is THE problem with Matt Hasselbeck


    I know I'm new here, but QFT. Hasselbeck plays as if he could just complete one of those lobs down the sideline, Al Harris' interception would be wiped off of the memory banks and he could be the hero on ESPN.
    User avatar
    Everett Hawk
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 100
    Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 10:27 am
    Location: Everett, WA


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 10:45 am
  • kidhawk wrote:It is BS because football is a game of winning while you build. There is no reason why we can't succeed with a playoff berth in carroll's first season. Playing playoff games with the younger talent we have now is tenfold better for this team then getting Whitehurst reps on gameday. I am so glad the team isn't playing with the mentality some of the so-called fans have that it's ok to lose now as long as it means we'll win someday. I want to see my team competing at the highest level possible each and every week, that is what we pay to see. Putting in the second best qb on the team is not how you win games.


    I with ya on this one.

    I love the way some fans give it the old, "I've always liked Hass..." but forget they've been after his head for the last three years! That's right, the same "fans" who screamed for Saint Seneca to save us. "Hey, Seneca can jump over tall buildings, he gives us more options, etc., etc., etc." How many times have we heard that line?

    But ya know what? IIRC, pehawk was the only one of those fans, who actually came back and 'fessed up.
    If you're walking on thin ice, you might as well dance.................................................Mom
    User avatar
    LymonHawk
    * El Primo *
    * El Primo *
     
    Posts: 5475
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Skagit County, WA


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 10:57 am
  • Largent80 wrote:It's not BS Kidhawk, we all know Matt is done here, most likely after this year.

    The NFL is all about passing, we have got to be thinking of the future as well as the present. I personally don't see this team, this year, as making any dent in a playoff run, and I would rather think long term.

    hell, we have Tate (rookie) Butler (year 2), Williams (basically an experienced rookie) to build with in the receiving corps. We have to be able to win on the road, and history has shown us it is not getting done now, so why not at least entertain the thought?


    In the Broncos game Hasselbeck threw numerous strong and accurate passes. Why completely ignore those, as if they simply didn't happen? Why focus in on soft touch passes that were left short, ignoring his obvious attempt to loft a ball over defenders which requires a touch pass instead of putting heat on it? "Lessee, he left it short. Umm...His arm is gone! His arm it gone!" Why completely forget the Pro Bowl level performance a mere seven days earlier during which he was close to as accurate and consistent as it gets in the NFL, again with plenty of zip on the ball when required?

    Why do all of you take your hatred of losing out on the easiest target instead of looking objectively at what is actually going on? Matt is a great QB right now and probably will be for three or four more years, plenty of time to develop the team 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


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 11:12 am
  • JohnnyB wrote: Matt is a great QB right now and probably will be for three or four more years, plenty of time to develop the team around him.


    Not in this offense. Matt is a terrible fit. Matt may (a huge may), be able to have a decent two or three more years left in a offense like Holmy's were arm strength isn't necessary.

    And do you really think that Carroll and Schnieder plan on developing this very young offense around a 35 year old Hass, who is a terrible fit for Bate's system? I sure don't, and if they did, I'm pretty sure Matt's contract would have been extended by now. Why risk letting him hit free agency when you already know he's the guy you want behind center for the next four years?
    I hate Tim Ruskell.
    User avatar
    Trrrroy
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2802
    Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 9:24 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 11:24 am
  • Trrrroy wrote:
    JohnnyB wrote: Matt is a great QB right now and probably will be for three or four more years, plenty of time to develop the team around him.


    Not in this offense. Matt is a terrible fit. Matt may (a huge may), be able to have a decent two or three more years left in a offense like Holmy's were arm strength isn't necessary.

    And do you really think that Carroll and Schnieder plan on developing this very young offense around a 35 year old Hass, who is a terrible fit for Bate's system? I sure don't, and if they did, I'm pretty sure Matt's contract would have been extended by now. Why risk letting him hit free agency when you already know he's the guy you want behind center for the next four years?


    You say he's "a terrible fit" yet you provide no reason. You ignore seven days ago when he was a perfect fit and proved it. And how do you know they haven't already tried to resign him? Hass and his agent would be idiots to sign until Hasselbeck proves how good he can consistently be in this offense. By the way, he will do just that and the Seahawks will make the playoffs and all those who can't see how good he is will be eating crow.
    "Unless you were in that meeting room and know what we're supposed to do, don't assume!" -T.J.H.
    User avatar
    JohnnyB
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 358
    Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 9:36 pm


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 11:30 am
  • This thread is utterly useless, you got a handful of people on one side, saying Hass is good to great, you have the others that don't think he is worth a shit anymore, and others like me that realize the future is where we are headed and not the present or past.

    Later Gators
    Image
    User avatar
    Largent80
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 22135
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:38 pm
    Location: NFL WORLD CHAMPIONS 2013-2014


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 11:33 am
  • JohnnyB wrote:
    Largent80 wrote:It's not BS Kidhawk, we all know Matt is done here, most likely after this year.

    The NFL is all about passing, we have got to be thinking of the future as well as the present. I personally don't see this team, this year, as making any dent in a playoff run, and I would rather think long term.

    hell, we have Tate (rookie) Butler (year 2), Williams (basically an experienced rookie) to build with in the receiving corps. We have to be able to win on the road, and history has shown us it is not getting done now, so why not at least entertain the thought?


    In the Broncos game Hasselbeck threw numerous strong and accurate passes. Why completely ignore those, as if they simply didn't happen? Why focus in on soft touch passes that were left short, ignoring his obvious attempt to loft a ball over defenders which requires a touch pass instead of putting heat on it? "Lessee, he left it short. Umm...His arm is gone! His arm it gone!" Why completely forget the Pro Bowl level performance a mere seven days earlier during which he was close to as accurate and consistent as it gets in the NFL, again with plenty of zip on the ball when required?

    Why do all of you take your hatred of losing out on the easiest target instead of looking objectively at what is actually going on? Matt is a great QB right now and probably will be for three or four more years, plenty of time to develop the team around him.
    First off, can the hatred crap. This isn't an emotional analysis, it's not about hate.

    Second, I like how you say we should look objectively at what is actually going on and in the next breathe say Matt is a great QB right now.

    Great QB's don't throw 13 INTs in 5 games. If he keeps this pace up, he'll throw 40 INTs in one season. NO QB has ever done that. You know why? He gets BENCHED.
    Richard Sherman doesn't just wanna get in your head, he wants to build a vacation home there.

    R. Sherman: "I don't want to be an island. I want to be a tourist attraction. You come, I take your money & you go."
    User avatar
    SalishHawkFan
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4488
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:39 pm


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 11:48 am
  • JohnnyB wrote:You say he's "a terrible fit" yet you provide no reason.


    He's a terrible fit because he has a terrible arm. Bates offense is catered to guys with good arms. All the QB's brought in this year had good arms. Cutler, who Bates called the plays for in Denver had a good arm. Besides, If Hass who they want to mold thier QB's after, they would have picked up a guys a lot more like him, and a lot less like Whitehurst and Losman.
    I hate Tim Ruskell.
    User avatar
    Trrrroy
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2802
    Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 9:24 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 11:57 am
  • SalishHawkFan wrote:
    JohnnyB wrote:
    Largent80 wrote:It's not BS Kidhawk, we all know Matt is done here, most likely after this year.

    The NFL is all about passing, we have got to be thinking of the future as well as the present. I personally don't see this team, this year, as making any dent in a playoff run, and I would rather think long term.

    hell, we have Tate (rookie) Butler (year 2), Williams (basically an experienced rookie) to build with in the receiving corps. We have to be able to win on the road, and history has shown us it is not getting done now, so why not at least entertain the thought?


    In the Broncos game Hasselbeck threw numerous strong and accurate passes. Why completely ignore those, as if they simply didn't happen? Why focus in on soft touch passes that were left short, ignoring his obvious attempt to loft a ball over defenders which requires a touch pass instead of putting heat on it? "Lessee, he left it short. Umm...His arm is gone! His arm it gone!" Why completely forget the Pro Bowl level performance a mere seven days earlier during which he was close to as accurate and consistent as it gets in the NFL, again with plenty of zip on the ball when required?

    Why do all of you take your hatred of losing out on the easiest target instead of looking objectively at what is actually going on? Matt is a great QB right now and probably will be for three or four more years, plenty of time to develop the team around him.
    First off, can the hatred crap. This isn't an emotional analysis, it's not about hate.

    Second, I like how you say we should look objectively at what is actually going on and in the next breathe say Matt is a great QB right now.

    Great QB's don't throw 13 INTs in 5 games. If he keeps this pace up, he'll throw 40 INTs in one season. NO QB has ever done that. You know why? He gets BENCHED.


    Uh, yeah, great QBs do go through periods of bad play. Not just some of them. All of them. 13 INTs in 5 games? I guarantee you at least a dozen Pro Bowl QBs have amassed such stats and worse. Start with Favre and go from there. That's why I say emotions have to be involved. I've seen both Mannings, Brees, I mean you name it, throw away games repeatedly and go through stretches of games where they are inaccurate. Emotions cause people to focus in too closely and magnify what they are looking at out of proportion because they are looking for who to blame. Then they miss the big picture.

    Now this is all just conjecture on my part. Maybe I'm the one stuck in an emotional out of proportion view. I'm a big fan too. But if so then there has to be a reason Hass is bad besides him going through short stretches of bad play because that happens to the best of QBs. If the defense would have played better Hass would have had more chances and the Seahawks could easily have won.
    "Unless you were in that meeting room and know what we're supposed to do, don't assume!" -T.J.H.
    User avatar
    JohnnyB
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 358
    Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 9:36 pm


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 12:07 pm
  • Trrrroy wrote:
    JohnnyB wrote:You say he's "a terrible fit" yet you provide no reason.


    He's a terrible fit because he has a terrible arm. Bates offense is catered to guys with good arms. All the QB's brought in this year had good arms. Cutler, who Bates called the plays for in Denver had a good arm. Besides, If Hass who they want to mold thier QB's after, they would have picked up a guys a lot more like him, and a lot less like Whitehurst and Losman.


    This is a huge myth totally unsupported by what we can all see in every game. Two days ago he threw at least three passes that required major zip to complete. He zip and they were completed. Same the previous week. You don't see him throwing a majority of rifle passes because you can't throw those over defenders as easily. What Bates requires is *accuracy.* Hasselbeck has that in spades.
    "Unless you were in that meeting room and know what we're supposed to do, don't assume!" -T.J.H.
    User avatar
    JohnnyB
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 358
    Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 9:36 pm


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 12:27 pm
  • you guys do realize that without Andrews' holding penalty, the pick on the opening drive never happens, and who knows how the game goes after that.

    just checking. :th2thumbs:
    Image
    User avatar
    muxpux
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2786
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:26 pm
    Location: Longview, WA


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 12:31 pm
  • muxpux wrote:you guys do realize that without Andrews' holding penalty, the pick on the opening drive never happens, and who knows how the game goes after that.

    just checking. :th2thumbs:


    And without the trade for Andrews he wouldnt have been here to hold.
    And without losing Hutch our line might still be good.
    And we can go on and on, but regardless the interception did happen and it was a bad play.

    Personally i think Matt will still be good for us this year, we shall see.
    Image
    User avatar
    JSeahawks
    * NET Moderator *
     
    Posts: 18499
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 2:35 pm
    Location: Milwaukie, Oregon


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 12:35 pm
  • muxpux wrote:you guys do realize that without Andrews' holding penalty, the pick on the opening drive never happens, and who knows how the game goes after that.

    just checking. :th2thumbs:



    This is one of my favorites.

    So because someone else did something dumb (and it was Locklear that held not Andrews) the veteran captain of the team is excused when he makes an even bigger blunder (and that int is much worse than the hold)?

    I just don't get that line of reasoning.


    Matt should be the calming force that keeps the offense going after a penalty, that is what captains do, not throw a joke of a ball for a pick on the next play.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 12:43 pm
  • warner28 wrote:
    muxpux wrote:you guys do realize that without Andrews' holding penalty, the pick on the opening drive never happens, and who knows how the game goes after that.

    just checking. :th2thumbs:



    This is one of my favorites.

    So because someone else did something dumb (and it was Locklear that held not Andrews) the veteran captain of the team is excused when he makes an even bigger blunder (and that int is much worse than the hold)?

    I just don't get that line of reasoning.


    Matt should be the calming force that keeps the offense going after a penalty, that is what captains do, not throw a joke of a ball for a pick on the next play.



    Exactly. At that point in the game the Denver crowd was silent. Matt had completed several very nice third down completions and drove us into scoring position. A 3-spot on the board would have looked nice at that stage.

    Instead, we get the second opening drive interception in as many games.
    "Some people here have been groomed to accept mediocrity and lame ducks, I'm on board with the vibrato!" -SouthSoundHawk
    "BFS is kicking ass in here." -kearly (8/9/2013)
    User avatar
    bestfightstory
    * Glitter over Knives *
     
    Posts: 8511
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:13 pm


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 1:09 pm
  • Whitehurst will be starting on October 24th against Arizona at the latest.
    User avatar
    iigakusei
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 850
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 6:14 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 3:36 pm
  • JohnnyB wrote:This is a huge myth totally unsupported by what we can all see in every game.


    C'mon Johnny, even the staunchest Hass supporters recognize that he has a weak arm. If you don't believe me, look at tape of Hass throwing a 50 yard pass, then look at any other QB with a legit arm do that same pass, be it Whitehurst, Losman, Flacco, either one of the Manning bros, Brees.... heck, even Seneca had a better deep pass.

    What Bates requires is *accuracy.* Hasselbeck has that in spades.


    Well duh. What offensive scheme doesn't require accuracy?

    Seriously, if Hass was a perfect fit for this offense, then why have they been bringing in his polar opposites in Whitehurst and Losman? Why not bring in guys that are in Hass' mold?
    I hate Tim Ruskell.
    User avatar
    Trrrroy
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2802
    Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 9:24 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 3:49 pm
  • JohnnyB wrote:This is a huge myth totally unsupported by what we can all see in every game.


    If you're talking about distance, I must point out that "throwing deep" doesn't just mean being able to get the ball 50 yards downfield. We've seen Hasselbeck do that, and I've seen high school girls do it too. Throwing deep is the ability to get the ball downfield quickly and powerfully in such a way that it doesn't float for an hour and give DB's time to react to it.

    A "deep ball" is not the hanging-for-a-million-years, off-the-top-of-the-TV-screen, pretty-pretty-beautiful-happy-flower-children rainbow pass that Matt usually throws, the kind that requires a WR to completely beat coverage or else the DB will turn around, idly pick his nose, and then casually pull the ball out of the air. A real deep ball is the freakin' BULLET that Drew Brees throws that slices between double coverage and that doesn't need a ton of height because DB's don't even have time to see it coming. THAT'S a damn deep ball. And by that definition, Matt has never thrown a deep ball in his life.

    What Bates requires is *accuracy.* Hasselbeck has that in spades.


    He used to have that in spades, sure. But it's getting worse and worse as time goes on. He's missing Carlson like a disease now, and I'm noticing that WR's are having to go UP for more and more of his passes, instead of them coming straight to the numbers on their jerseys.
    GO HAWKS!!!

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

    Follow me on Twitter at @17power
    User avatar
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 11233
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 3:53 pm
  • LOL at BULLET
    Image
    User avatar
    Largent80
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 22135
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:38 pm
    Location: NFL WORLD CHAMPIONS 2013-2014


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 4:27 pm
  • MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    JohnnyB wrote:This is a huge myth totally unsupported by what we can all see in every game.


    If you're talking about distance, I must point out that "throwing deep" doesn't just mean being able to get the ball 50 yards downfield. We've seen Hasselbeck do that, and I've seen high school girls do it too. Throwing deep is the ability to get the ball downfield quickly and powerfully in such a way that it doesn't float for an hour and give DB's time to react to it.

    A "deep ball" is not the hanging-for-a-million-years, off-the-top-of-the-TV-screen, pretty-pretty-beautiful-happy-flower-children rainbow pass that Matt usually throws, the kind that requires a WR to completely beat coverage or else the DB will turn around, idly pick his nose, and then casually pull the ball out of the air. A real deep ball is the freakin' BULLET that Drew Brees throws that slices between double coverage and that doesn't need a ton of height because DB's don't even have time to see it coming. THAT'S a damn deep ball. And by that definition, Matt has never thrown a deep ball in his life.

    What Bates requires is *accuracy.* Hasselbeck has that in spades.


    He used to have that in spades, sure. But it's getting worse and worse as time goes on. He's missing Carlson like a disease now, and I'm noticing that WR's are having to go UP for more and more of his passes, instead of them coming straight to the numbers on their jerseys.


    Sheesh. He's not getting any worse at all. It's amazing that the entire SF game (except for his one interception) is entirely erased from your memory, along with all the completed passes and virtual unstoppable offense in the Denver game. Selective thinking, IMHO. The result is you are unable to see how good this team (including the QB) actually is. You can't see that this team has a very real chance of making the playoffs this season, with the only remaining big question mark being the pass rush by our defense. But you'll see soon enough.

    You heard it here first!! :)
    "Unless you were in that meeting room and know what we're supposed to do, don't assume!" -T.J.H.
    User avatar
    JohnnyB
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 358
    Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 9:36 pm


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 4:46 pm
  • Trrrroy wrote:
    JohnnyB wrote:This is a huge myth totally unsupported by what we can all see in every game.


    C'mon Johnny, even the staunchest Hass supporters recognize that he has a weak arm. If you don't believe me, look at tape of Hass throwing a 50 yard pass, then look at any other QB with a legit arm do that same pass, be it Whitehurst, Losman, Flacco, either one of the Manning bros, Brees.... heck, even Seneca had a better deep pass.


    You're getting confused because you clipped out what I was calling a huge myth. Here is is again:

    He's a terrible fit because he has a terrible arm.


    He doesn't have a terrible arm. His arm strength is just as good as when the Seahawks won the Super Bowl (on the field). His arm strength is just as good as some of the best QBs who ever played the game, like Montana, Staubach, Unitas, and Tarkenton. That doesn't mean Hasselbeck is a strong armed QB. But no offense actually needs a strong armed QB. It can be an advantage in some situations, but it's accuracy that matters far more. Hasselbeck has more than enough of that to take this team all the way with a good enough team 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


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 5:00 pm
  • Donk70 wrote:His passes lacked zip and he underthrew alot. I question his going deep on 4th and 2.

    UMMMMM Yeah. why the hell do you go to the back of the endzone on 4th and 3. especially to Deion Branch
    hawksman53
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 814
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 11:27 pm


PreviousNext


It is currently Tue Jul 29, 2014 12:41 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE ARCHIVES ]




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