and Charlie Whitehurst is now the best answer? Ha yeah right!!

JS, I agree about Matt. I know it's a technicality but it wasn't Andrews that was called for holding, it was Locklear. Andrews got called for a false start a play earlier. They had the ball at the one yard line, the false start brought it back to the 6, and then the holding call on Lock took back to 21. Thus, the reason why Hass was throwing in the first place.

Ding ding ding!

_________________
~ The Stache'

I'd rather find out than go 8-8 with Matt.

And for the record, I am far from convinced that Seattle will end up with a better record with Matt starting, we will never know since Matt is starting but its possible (unlikely but possible) that Whitehurst comes out and is incredible. Most likely he is average to slightly below average and the team finishes roughly exactly where they will finish with Matt starting and at least we know what to do at the QB position going forward.

After 11 pages, the real question now is: Would anyone like a cookie?

_________________
My single greatest contribution to the board: "42-13" (formerly 24-14)

You honestly believe Charlie Whitehurst can lead this team better than Hasselbeck?!?!

_________________
~ The Stache'

Pretty sure I have said what I would do many many many many times.

Not only is Hass the best option for winning games for us, hes the best QB in this division hands down. Lets say that has has a bad game 1 out of every 3 games but guys like Smith and Anderson crap out 1 of every 2. We are still way ahead of the teams in our division at the position. Charlie at this gives you the same chance or less then an AS, or DA. So to say you just want to win games and state Hass doesn't give us the best chance, is foolish hope in Whitehurst.

You don't get it though, Hass CAN'T have a bad game because we are on our way to the Superbowl remember!

_________________
~ The Stache'

Did I say that?

I don't see where I said that.

What I said in a nutshell.



and




Missed where I claimed he WOULD do better, said might (although clarified that I thought it was doubtful).


I do honestly believe that at the end of the day this team would finish roughly the same with Charlie or Matt starting. At this point I don't think Matt is capable of taking over a game and winning it for Seattle (I know you disagree) and I do think he is capable of falling apart and costing Seattle games (I know you disagree), I'd expect Whitehurst to be about the same, better physically but will make mistakes due to inexperience (Matt is making those mistakes despite experience because he is limited physically IMO).


Better? No

Not sure he'd be worse though.


And again, I'd rather find out about Whitehurst in 2010 (when the Super Bowl ain't happening anyway) than wait and find out he sucks when the rest of the team is built.


Call it unreasonable if you want but I think its the correct way to approach 2010.

Yeah, this game is the only reason, the only reason.

Shutting me up is easy (I already said how), give Matt an EXTENSION so we know he is the guy going forward. Give him an EXTENSION and I will stop asking for Whitehurst to play (I will still call Matt on games he blows however) but what you don't get is that Matt does not bother me (he is an average NFL QB), what bothers me is wasting 2010 on a QB that won't be here long term, that makes no sense because Seattle is NOT winning the Super Bowl in 2010.

I have been quite clear with my stance, 2010 is pretty unimportant to me, sure I hope Seattle wins and think they can win the division (with Charlie or Matt starting) but I am more concerned with 2011 and beyond when this team is closer to complete and might be able to make a deep playoff run since that is the goal, division titles are neat but hollow if the team has no chance in the playoffs (and IMO Seattle has no chance in the playoffs in 2010).

Why give him an extension now? Lets wait and see how well he performs. If he plays well this season then sign him for 2 more years. He obviously wont be here THAT long since hes 35 years old. It would be nice to keep him for 2 more years while bringing in a rookie that can learn. So by the time Hass retires, he'll be ready to take over.

_________________
~ The Stache'

OMG... just reading page 12 here and seeing circular logic and lots of over-reaction. Can't help but think that going back to work instead of cruising the forums might be a better option for me right now.

So PC is a politician - he was outright clear in saying that CW is not ready and the MH is the starting QB and gives the best chance to win.

I see it this way: PC the politician will most likely start MH as long as we are within arms reach of 1st place in our division. If we fall back a few games, and MH continues to throw 2 picks per game average, I'll give you 1 guess as to who the starting QB will be. Because at that point, MH is NOT our best option to win. (remember, "win" is subjective and has a changing meaning - I honestly think that term is tied to our likelihood of winning our division as of today, tomorrow "win" could mean something entirely different...).

_________________

Hass will be fine, We will win the division and at seasons end we will be fine. Heads always have to roll after a loss. Just sucks that its always on Matts back every game. I mean the fact we cant run the ball the past couple years has nothing to do with it, or hes had new offense installed the last 2 years, or completely decimated by injury or whatever the reason. Get this team a Legit RB, a legit DE, and one more high caliber OL and this conversation is not even taking place.

Again, never said he would do better.

I am soundly living in reality, I expect Charlie to struggle, I'd rather him struggle in 2010 (when the division is up for grabs but the Super Bowl is unrealistic) and find out what we have than struggle in 2011 when the team is more complete overall.

I don't think that stance is losing touch with reality or unreasonable in anyway.


I do think that Matt is not physically capable of running all of Bates offense (his 2nd pick last Sunday was a pass that a Bates QB needs to make), Charlie is. So IMO there is a chance that at the end of the day Matt's physical limitations will hurt Seattle as much as Charlie's inexperience. Not saying that would be the case, saying there is a chance. I am also concerned that recently (last season and last Sunday) Matt often seems to make what I would consider to be rookie mistakes that a veteran leader should not make, that concerns me.

Solid point. Before our Niner ass kicking, I didn't think we had a chance in hell of winning the division. But here we are rolling into week 3 and we're 1st place in the NFC West. A win this Sunday would mean we have a legitimate shot at the playoffs. Especially if the Niners lose, they'll be 0-3 and won't be much of a threat anymore.

_________________
~ The Stache'

I never said you did, that's why I capitalized "IF".. Basically it was speaking hypothetically.

Keep in mind that Matt has two rushing TDs already this year. That kind of lays any "physical limitations" to waste.

_________________
~ The Stache'

To be fair, I think none of the NFC West teams has much of a shot at winning more than 7 games - unless somebody toughens up and goes 4-2 or 5-1 in the division. So SF at 0-3 probably only puts them in a tough to escape hole, but I wouldn't count them out. 0-3 could have them with a new head coach. Let's hope not - he's kind of like the Ozzie Guillen of the NFL.

_________________

No it doesn't, arm strength is also an issue.

I don't recall many claiming he could not move, arm strength is an issue (it was an obvious issue on the 2nd pick last Sunday IMO).


If he gets set and has protection he can make the throws but if he is disrupted in anyway it becomes questionable.

This is really a topic for during the bye the team has a good chance of being 3-1 while SF is looking at 1-3. maybe then this topic should be looked at