 |
| Author |
Message |
|
bestfightstory
|
Post subject: Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck Posted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 9:11 am |
|
| * Glitter over Knives * |
 |
 |
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:13 pm Posts: 6433
|
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
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
kidhawk
|
Post subject: Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck Posted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 9:23 am |
|
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm Posts: 10256 Location: Anchorage, AK
|
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.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Rat
|
Post subject: Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck Posted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 9:35 am |
|
| * NET Cynic * |
 |
 |
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:42 pm Posts: 3492 Location: St. Louis, MO
|
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.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Largent80
|
Post subject: Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck Posted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 9:40 am |
|
| NET Pro Bowler |
 |
 |
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:38 pm Posts: 16400 Location: SoCal
|
|
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.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Sarlacc83
|
Post subject: Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck Posted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 9:43 am |
|
| * NET Philistine * |
 |
 |
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:02 am Posts: 10337 Location: Portland, OR
|
|
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.
_________________ My single greatest contribution to the board: "42-13" (formerly 24-14)
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
kidhawk
|
Post subject: Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck Posted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 9:46 am |
|
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm Posts: 10256 Location: Anchorage, AK
|
|
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
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Largent80
|
Post subject: Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck Posted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 9:53 am |
|
| NET Pro Bowler |
 |
 |
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:38 pm Posts: 16400 Location: SoCal
|
|
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?
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
bestfightstory
|
Post subject: Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck Posted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 10:06 am |
|
| * Glitter over Knives * |
 |
 |
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:13 pm Posts: 6433
|
|
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
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
kidhawk
|
Post subject: Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck Posted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 10:26 am |
|
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm Posts: 10256 Location: Anchorage, AK
|
|
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.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Everett Hawk
|
Post subject: Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck Posted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 10:41 am |
|
| NET Rookie |
 |
 |
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 10:27 am Posts: 100 Location: Everett, WA
|
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.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
LymonHawk
|
Post subject: Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck Posted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 10:45 am |
|
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm Posts: 4745 Location: Skagit County, WA
|
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
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
JohnnyB
|
Post subject: Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck Posted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 10:57 am |
|
| NET Starter |
 |
 |
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 9:36 pm Posts: 358
|
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.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Trrrroy
|
Post subject: Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck Posted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 11:12 am |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
 |
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 9:24 am Posts: 2676
|
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.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
JohnnyB
|
Post subject: Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck Posted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 11:24 am |
|
| NET Starter |
 |
 |
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 9:36 pm Posts: 358
|
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.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Largent80
|
Post subject: Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck Posted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 11:30 am |
|
| NET Pro Bowler |
 |
 |
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:38 pm Posts: 16400 Location: SoCal
|
|
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
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
SalishHawkFan
|
Post subject: Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck Posted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 11:33 am |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
 |
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:39 pm Posts: 2682
|
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.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Trrrroy
|
Post subject: Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck Posted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 11:48 am |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
 |
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 9:24 am Posts: 2676
|
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.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
JohnnyB
|
Post subject: Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck Posted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 11:57 am |
|
| NET Starter |
 |
 |
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 9:36 pm Posts: 358
|
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.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
JohnnyB
|
Post subject: Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck Posted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 12:07 pm |
|
| NET Starter |
 |
 |
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 9:36 pm Posts: 358
|
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.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
muxpux
|
Post subject: Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck Posted: Tue Sep 21, 2010 12:27 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
 |
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:26 pm Posts: 2344 Location: Longview, WA
|
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. 
_________________ 
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests |
| |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
 |
Seahawks.NET is an independent fan site and not associated with the Seattle Seahawks or the NFL (National Football League).
All content within this Seahawks fan page is provided by, and for, Seattle Seahawks fans. Copyright © Seahawks.NET.
|