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
Wed Sep 22, 2010 9:56 am
  • and Charlie Whitehurst is now the best answer? Ha yeah right!!
    xxrighteous1xx
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 302
    Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:55 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 9:56 am
  • JSeahawks 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:


    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.


    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.
    User avatar
    hawkfan68
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 4193
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:10 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 9:58 am
  • xxrighteous1xx wrote:and Charlie Whitehurst is now the best answer? Ha yeah right!!


    Ding ding ding!
    ~ The Stache'
    User avatar
    Zowert
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1990
    Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 2:29 pm
    Location: Seattle


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:01 am
  • Zowert wrote:
    xxrighteous1xx wrote:and Charlie Whitehurst is now the best answer? Ha yeah right!!


    Ding ding ding!


    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.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:01 am
  • After 11 pages, the real question now is: Would anyone like a cookie?
    Super Bowl Champions XVLIII

    RIP Radish: Check your PMs. Upper right corner.
    User avatar
    Sarlacc83
    * NET Philistine *
     
    Posts: 15788
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:02 am
    Location: Portland, OR


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:02 am
  • warner28 wrote:
    Zowert wrote:
    xxrighteous1xx wrote:and Charlie Whitehurst is now the best answer? Ha yeah right!!


    Ding ding ding!


    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.


    You honestly believe Charlie Whitehurst can lead this team better than Hasselbeck?!?!
    ~ The Stache'
    User avatar
    Zowert
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1990
    Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 2:29 pm
    Location: Seattle


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:02 am
  • Zowert wrote:
    I am not bothered by anyone being critical of Matt, I am just tired of the same old crap every time the man makes a mistake. I think everyone gets it by now. Move on.

    Instead of blaming Matt every sunday, tell us what you would do? Sorry for being a prick, just tired of armchair quarterbacks telling a real QB what he did wrong.



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


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:03 am
  • 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.
    xxrighteous1xx
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 302
    Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:55 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:06 am
  • xxrighteous1xx wrote: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! :sarcasm_on:
    ~ The Stache'
    User avatar
    Zowert
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1990
    Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 2:29 pm
    Location: Seattle


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:08 am
  • Zowert wrote:
    You honestly believe Charlie Whitehurst can lead this team better than Hasselbeck?!?!



    Did I say that?

    I don't see where I said that.

    What I said in a nutshell.

    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.


    and

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



    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.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:11 am
  • Zowert wrote:
    warner28 wrote:
    Zowert wrote:
    I am not bothered by anyone being critical of Matt, I am just tired of the same old crap every time the man makes a mistake. I think everyone gets it by now. Move on.

    Instead of blaming Matt every sunday, tell us what you would do? Sorry for being a prick, just tired of armchair quarterbacks telling a real QB what he did wrong.



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

    And BTW, no one is making you read these threads.


    Its like a car wreck, you just can't help reading/looking. Hasselbeck has one bad game and all of a sudden he's not the man for the job. I would love to see him have a breakout season just to shut you up.



    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).
    Last edited by MARTYREDwarner on Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:15 am
  • warner28 wrote: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.


    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'
    User avatar
    Zowert
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1990
    Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 2:29 pm
    Location: Seattle


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:15 am
  • 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...).
    Last edited by nsport on Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
    Image
    User avatar
    nsport
    * NET Sports Handicapper *
     
    Posts: 1477
    Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 9:13 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:15 am
  • 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.
    xxrighteous1xx
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 302
    Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:55 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:17 am
  • Zowert wrote:@ warner28. I didn't accuse you of saying anything. I asked you a question. I didn't see the post you made earlier about Charlie.

    Anyway, I think you've lost touch with reality IF you think Charlie would do better than Hass. A guy that hasnt played a single snap in the NFL regular season.



    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.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:21 am
  • nsport wrote: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...).


    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'
    User avatar
    Zowert
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1990
    Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 2:29 pm
    Location: Seattle


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:23 am
  • warner28 wrote:
    Zowert wrote:@ warner28. I didn't accuse you of saying anything. I asked you a question. I didn't see the post you made earlier about Charlie.

    Anyway, I think you've lost touch with reality IF you think Charlie would do better than Hass. A guy that hasnt played a single snap in the NFL regular season.



    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.


    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'
    User avatar
    Zowert
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1990
    Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 2:29 pm
    Location: Seattle


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:25 am
  • Zowert wrote:
    nsport wrote: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...).


    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.


    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.
    Image
    User avatar
    nsport
    * NET Sports Handicapper *
     
    Posts: 1477
    Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 9:13 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:28 am
  • Zowert wrote:
    warner28 wrote:
    Zowert wrote:@ warner28. I didn't accuse you of saying anything. I asked you a question. I didn't see the post you made earlier about Charlie.

    Anyway, I think you've lost touch with reality IF you think Charlie would do better than Hass. A guy that hasnt played a single snap in the NFL regular season.



    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.


    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.


    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.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:28 am
  • 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
    xxrighteous1xx
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 302
    Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:55 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:32 am
  • xxrighteous1xx wrote: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


    Guess it depends, I am taking a long term view of the QB position into account and frankly for me the long term view is more important than what happens in 2010.

    I know not all fans think that way but that is the angle I am coming from.


    Matt is not here past 2010 (if you sign him to an extension based on 2010 that is a mistake, IMO they would have given him an extension if they truly believed he was the answer). At this point I think they are just letting him bow out gracefully. My opinion but its what I think is happening.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:40 am
  • Zowert wrote:You honestly believe Charlie Whitehurst can lead this team better than Hasselbeck?!?!


    We will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, EVER actually know the answer to this unless Whitehurst gets playing time. People will continue to make assumptions one way or the other, but those assumptions will lack ANY evidence until we actually see Whitehurst play in a stretch of regular season games to see what he can do.

    He had some good preseason games and some bad preseason games. You know who else has had some good preseason games and bad preseason games? Hasselbeck. Bad preseason games are not a guarantee of bad regular season play. They just aren't.

    I don't advocate a change to Whitehurst because of Hasselbeck's play in the Denver game or even because of his play at the end of last season. I advocate the change because Hasselbeck turns 35 in 3 days and he is NOT the future of this team. I do not believe in waiting, putting off the development of our next franchise QB until Hasselbeck is well past his expiration date as a starter. I think we need to see what we have in Whitehurst - and no, I will not accept the "expert" opinions of those here who have already declared him a bust before seeing him take one regular season snap as a Seahawk - so we can decide whether we need the franchise QB in the 2011 draft, or if we can plug other holes with those early picks and draft the franchise QB in 2012 or 2013.

    In the end, my answer to the above question is that yes, I believe Whitehurst CAN lead the team better. I do not, however, believe that he WILL or WON'T because we have zero evidence one way or the other. But more importantly, I do believe that a younger franchise QB can lead the team better in 2012, when I expect us to contend, than Hass can in 2012.
    Image

    Super Bowl XLVIII Champions
    User avatar
    volsunghawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 8489
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:20 am
    Location: Right outside Richard Sherman's house


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:40 am
  • warner28 wrote:
    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.


    Just because he under throws one pass means his arm strength is an issue?

    He also over threw on a couple deep passes, including the 50+ yarder to John Carlson. He had a 50 yard pass to Golden Tate.

    http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/201009190 ... #tab:watch

    You are right about him throwing under pressure, which is how the second pick happened. I dont think it was because of his arm strength at all. He shouldnt have thrown that pass, period. Not many QB's can throw a solid bomb with that kinda heat on them.

    Hass still has an arm and he can throw deep when he wants to. To say that his arm strength is questionable because he cant throw a thirty yard pass in a split second with a DE about to destroy him is kinda ridiculous.

    Why not bring up some of his nice plays if you're gonna post the bad? Like this beauty to Golden Tate:

    http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/201009190 ... #tab:watch
    ~ The Stache'
    User avatar
    Zowert
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1990
    Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 2:29 pm
    Location: Seattle


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:43 am
  • The long term answer is in future drafts. Why would they let him bow gracefully that doesn't make sense. If we are 1-4 at the trade deadline, he could easily be moved for something. There will be teams in need. Now if he is at 3-1 at the bye, he will likely get an extension, especially if he can show he can protect the ball. That way they can take and sit the future. The draft has one lock at QB and 3 projects. So the projects are gonna have to sit a couple. With this division in up in the air every year MH is gonna be the guy.
    xxrighteous1xx
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 302
    Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:55 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:51 am
  • xxrighteous1xx wrote:The long term answer is in future drafts. Why would they let him bow gracefully that doesn't make sense.


    Why haven't they given him an extension?

    That makes no sense to me. If you believe in him beyond 2010, why wait?

    Sorry but I don't get that so because that makes no sense to ME, I assume that their is another reason he is starting. The NFL is a business, it is entertainment, I do believe that sometimes that side of things does play a role. Fans would have been incredibly angry if Matt were benched or traded and Charlie was not perfect. To me it makes sense from a PR standpoint to stay with him.

    Either that or they want to win in 2010 so bad that they are not worrying about 2011 and beyond.


    Both seem possible because I don't think its because they see him as a long term answer.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:53 am
  • Zowert wrote:
    warner28 wrote:
    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.


    Just because he under throws one pass means his arm strength is an issue?

    He also over threw on a couple deep passes, including the 50+ yarder to John Carlson. He had a 50 yard pass to Golden Tate.

    http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/201009190 ... #tab:watch

    You are right about him throwing under pressure, which is how the second pick happened. I dont think it was because of his arm strength at all. He shouldnt have thrown that pass, period. Not many QB's can throw a solid bomb with that kinda heat on them.

    Hass still has an arm and he can throw deep when he wants to. To say that his arm strength is questionable because he cant throw a thirty yard pass in a split second with a DE about to destroy him is kinda ridiculous.

    Why not bring up some of his nice plays if you're gonna post the bad? Like this beauty to Golden Tate:

    http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/201009190 ... #tab:watch


    Just because I don't mention a play does not mean I did not see it or am ignoring it. Again, I said he can make the throws if he has time, you don't think any QBs make that throw to Carlson, I think many (including Whitehurst) could.

    Rather Whitehurst would, not sure but I think he has the arm to make that throw. Matt doesn't.

    And despite some very nice deep balls I have NEVER trusted Matt to throw a deep ball, its just not his strength and never was.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:55 am
  • Jesus watching those highlights again it's unbelievable how bad Tatupu looked on that screen play. Unacceptable.
    cesame
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1671
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:36 pm


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:56 am
  • xxrighteous1xx wrote: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.


    Through the first two games our OL has pass blocked very well. The first half against Denver showed our revamped OL could create running lanes. However, it's hard to run the ball if the scoreboard shows 2+ touchdown deficit. If that game stayed close we would have run the ball at will by the end of the game, and won.

    When opposing teams compress the field- they win. Hasselbeck can't turn the ball over 2+ times a game and have fans and the team expect to win. No quarterback can. It might happen sometimes, but everyone gets lucky - sometimes. His lack of arm, and indecisiveness allows safeties to cheat closer to the line of scrimmage. That hurts the running game and puts more pressure on the passing game. San Fran got beat in part because of their defensive aggressiveness and our WRs use of double moves, which made Matt look great. Love the team, not the player.
    "You don't always get to play playoff games at home, or conference championships at home, or superbowls at home. You have to have the mindset that you can play to your potential wherever you are." - Pete Carroll
    User avatar
    nwHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 554
    Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2009 11:14 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:57 am
  • xxrighteous1xx wrote:Now if he is at 3-1 at the bye, he will likely get an extension, especially if he can show he can protect the ball. That way they can take and sit the future. The draft has one lock at QB and 3 projects. So the projects are gonna have to sit a couple. With this division in up in the air every year MH is gonna be the guy.


    Compare the length of time that Bulger survived in STL. He definitely had the guts and experience to play that position, but eventually just too many mistakes combined with a poor record landed them Sam Bradford. However, the division winners the past several years have not been dominant, so Bulger hung around. Sound familiar??

    MH's mechanics have deteriorated and his mistakes have increased dramatically over the past several games - but you can't replace the experience and guts. He's #1 on our team in those categories. At some point, the guy has to take a seat...
    Image
    User avatar
    nsport
    * NET Sports Handicapper *
     
    Posts: 1477
    Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 9:13 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:06 am
  • question, what is our goal here? winning the division or winning a Superbowl in the future? i hope its the latter

    an extension to Hass at any point would be stupid.
    Image
    3elieve
    User avatar
    Throwdown
    * NET Baller *
     
    Posts: 19361
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:02 am
    Location: Graham, WA


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:08 am
  • Zowert wrote:
    warner28 wrote:
    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.


    Just because he under throws one pass means his arm strength is an issue?

    He also over threw on a couple deep passes, including the 50+ yarder to John Carlson. He had a 50 yard pass to Golden Tate.

    http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/201009190 ... #tab:watch

    You are right about him throwing under pressure, which is how the second pick happened. I dont think it was because of his arm strength at all. He shouldnt have thrown that pass, period. Not many QB's can throw a solid bomb with that kinda heat on them.

    Hass still has an arm and he can throw deep when he wants to. To say that his arm strength is questionable because he cant throw a thirty yard pass in a split second with a DE about to destroy him is kinda ridiculous.

    Why not bring up some of his nice plays if you're gonna post the bad? Like this beauty to Golden Tate:

    http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/201009190 ... #tab:watch


    I'm glad you linked this video, because you need to watch it again. Notice how long Tate had to WAIT for the ball. Heck, we're lucky that pass didn't get picked off. If that pass is thrown properly, Golden is celebrating his first touchdown.

    :th2thumbs:
    "You don't always get to play playoff games at home, or conference championships at home, or superbowls at home. You have to have the mindset that you can play to your potential wherever you are." - Pete Carroll
    User avatar
    nwHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 554
    Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2009 11:14 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:10 am
  • Throwdown wrote:question, what is our goal here? winning the division or winning a Superbowl in the future? i hope its the latter

    an extension to Hass at any point would be stupid.


    Exactly. I think it was warner28 who said this in the offseason, you can't even really sign Matt to a backup contract after this year. If you keep him around, whoever the new QB is, the fans are always going to clamor for MH if the new QB has a bad game. Best just to let him walk off into the sunset.
    cboom wrote:Wilson is the worst QB I have seen as a Hawks fan. And I have been around long enough to see them all.
    User avatar
    HawksFTW
    * NET E-Knight *
     
    Posts: 4157
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 10:06 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:12 am
  • Throwdown wrote:question, what is our goal here? winning the division or winning a Superbowl in the future.


    Taking stock of our team, I'd say plugging in Whitehurst is a drop in "guts & experience" but an upgrade in talent - and would have a net overall positive effect on our season. Semantics on which is more important (playoffs or Super Bowl). That's our long-time chicken-egg argument that I don't think ever gets solved. :)
    Image
    User avatar
    nsport
    * NET Sports Handicapper *
     
    Posts: 1477
    Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 9:13 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:37 am
  • Everyone seems to think that we the fans have to see whitehurst play so we can know what we have. The coaches see him practice everyday. They know what they have. PC has his plan to move forward with this team. Just because you the fan don't know what the plan is doesn't mean it's not in full effect right now. WE don't need to see what Whitehurst has, THEY do, and they see himi day in and day out. Nuff Said
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 14947
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:37 am
  • True enough about the chicken-egg argument, but it's a point of emphasis this year because of the depth "potentially" available in the next draft.

    Carroll is here for the long term, and his short term impact has been good so far, IMO. All I know is that I won't be surprised to see a Vertical-Pro Style QB starting next year over a seasoned West Coast offense QB.
    "You don't always get to play playoff games at home, or conference championships at home, or superbowls at home. You have to have the mindset that you can play to your potential wherever you are." - Pete Carroll
    User avatar
    nwHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 554
    Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2009 11:14 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:44 am
  • kidhawk wrote:Everyone seems to think that we the fans have to see whitehurst play so we can know what we have. The coaches see him practice everyday. They know what they have. PC has his plan to move forward with this team. Just because you the fan don't know what the plan is doesn't mean it's not in full effect right now. WE don't need to see what Whitehurst has, THEY do, and they see himi day in and day out. Nuff Said


    True enough... If you cobble together my points - I am certain that Hasselbeck is the best option to win. I just don't know if he's the best QB on this team. Talent-wise, I think CW is higher (can scramble and can make the throws that MH lacks). At some point in time, they have to place value on what's more important: Play the guy that gives you the best chance for winning, or take a gamble on the higher talent player who might raise the play of your team.

    Of course the plan is to win now, so as long as we are near the top of the NFC West standings, that's Matt Hasselbeck. The PC/JS plan clearly includes other players - so this is not the definitive choice for how competitive our team can be this year. It does remain to be seen - and I think we can all agree that this year's low bar is much higher than last year's high bar.
    Image
    User avatar
    nsport
    * NET Sports Handicapper *
     
    Posts: 1477
    Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 9:13 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:45 am
  • kidhawk wrote:Everyone seems to think that we the fans have to see whitehurst play so we can know what we have. The coaches see him practice everyday. They know what they have. PC has his plan to move forward with this team. Just because you the fan don't know what the plan is doesn't mean it's not in full effect right now. WE don't need to see what Whitehurst has, THEY do, and they see himi day in and day out. Nuff Said


    And the coaches also know that Hasselbeck has been the face of the franchise for a long time now and can't jettison him the same way they could Deon Grant. They've made a ton of changes this offseason, but they also know which situations they have to deal with more tactfully. I don't see Hasselbeck's starting as a condemnation of Whitehurst, but rather a respect for what Hasselbeck has meant to the franchise and a willingness to allow him to play out his final contract year.
    Image

    Super Bowl XLVIII Champions
    User avatar
    volsunghawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 8489
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:20 am
    Location: Right outside Richard Sherman's house


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:51 am
  • kidhawk wrote:WE don't need to see what Whitehurst has, THEY do, and they see himi day in and day out. Nuff Said


    Nobody is saying they should start Whitehurst because he is better than Hass, they are saying we should start Whitehurst to give him valuable in game experience and see if he has what it takes to be the future of this team, because Hass is most likely done as a Hawk after this year.
    I hate Tim Ruskell.
    User avatar
    Trrrroy
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2880
    Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 9:24 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 12:34 pm
  • nwHawk wrote:
    I'm glad you linked this video, because you need to watch it again. Notice how long Tate had to WAIT for the ball. Heck, we're lucky that pass didn't get picked off. If that pass is thrown properly, Golden is celebrating his first touchdown.

    :th2thumbs:


    Jesus man... If Hass threw 10 TDs you would complain because he didnt throw 11...
    ~ The Stache'
    User avatar
    Zowert
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1990
    Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 2:29 pm
    Location: Seattle


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 12:39 pm
  • Trrrroy wrote:
    kidhawk wrote:WE don't need to see what Whitehurst has, THEY do, and they see himi day in and day out. Nuff Said


    Nobody is saying they should start Whitehurst because he is better than Hass, they are saying we should start Whitehurst to give him valuable in game experience and see if he has what it takes to be the future of this team, because Hass is most likely done as a Hawk after this year.



    So we should trow in the towel now, for the benefit of later? Hawks are on top of division, they have already won a game they were not suppose to and lost a game they were suppose to. This is a premature conclusion to this season. One good game one bad game for the guy. Give him some games to find some sort of trend for this year. Really at the time of the bye week we should make some sort of opinion, not after week 2 of a division we have a share of the lead.
    xxrighteous1xx
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 302
    Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:55 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 12:45 pm
  • No way in hell we start Whitehurst right now, not when we have a legitimate shot at the division and playoffs.

    Whitehurst has been 2nd and 3rd string his entire career for a reason. Hass is the starter, for a reason. One bad game doesn't mean we should bench him. He may not be the 2005 Matt Hasselbeck, but he's certainly our best option.

    How about this, Matt Hasselbeck added to the ring of honor...? lol
    ~ The Stache'
    User avatar
    Zowert
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1990
    Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 2:29 pm
    Location: Seattle


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 1:04 pm
  • Whats really sad about this, MH could toss 4TD and 0 Ints. Win the game, beating there second division favorite, and still he wouldn't get any dues. People will find anywhere to give the credit but MH.
    xxrighteous1xx
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 302
    Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:55 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 1:14 pm
  • Old man hasselbeck has 2 rushing TD's and as many 20+ yd rushes as Frank Gore....too bad he's past his prime, just imagine what he could do.....
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 14947
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 1:17 pm
  • kidhawk wrote:Old man hasselbeck has 2 rushing TD's and as many 20+ yd rushes as Frank Gore....too bad he's past his prime, just imagine what he could do.....


    Yeah, he's getting old. Back in 2002, who would've though Hass would be in Seattle at age 35?!
    ~ The Stache'
    User avatar
    Zowert
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1990
    Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 2:29 pm
    Location: Seattle


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 1:20 pm
  • kidhawk wrote:Old man hasselbeck has 2 rushing TD's and as many 20+ yd rushes as Frank Gore....too bad he's past his prime, just imagine what he could do.....


    Good. Let's put him at RB, then.
    Image

    Super Bowl XLVIII Champions
    User avatar
    volsunghawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 8489
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:20 am
    Location: Right outside Richard Sherman's house


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 2:17 pm
  • Zowert wrote:
    warner28 wrote:
    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.


    Just because he under throws one pass means his arm strength is an issue?

    He also over threw on a couple deep passes, including the 50+ yarder to John Carlson. He had a 50 yard pass to Golden Tate.

    http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/201009190 ... #tab:watch

    You are right about him throwing under pressure, which is how the second pick happened. I dont think it was because of his arm strength at all. He shouldnt have thrown that pass, period. Not many QB's can throw a solid bomb with that kinda heat on them.

    Hass still has an arm and he can throw deep when he wants to. To say that his arm strength is questionable because he cant throw a thirty yard pass in a split second with a DE about to destroy him is kinda ridiculous.

    Why not bring up some of his nice plays if you're gonna post the bad? Like this beauty to Golden Tate:

    http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/201009190 ... #tab:watch


    I know you want to convince people Matt still has a gun, but how much of those passes were RAC? the 52 yarder to Tate was about a 20 yard pass. The rest was him running.

    Last week, Matt said he felt disrespected by Clements on the interception to start the game. Clements bailed on a deep route to undercut a softly thrown 24 yard pass. Point being, Clements was sitting on the route because he doesn't think Hass can throw deep either. Hass may have made a fool of him as the game wore on, but it was not by chucking a 50 yarder over his head.

    I understand you liking Hass, even wanting him to start. I like Hass too. But to try and pretend he still throws a nice deep ball is delusional. He never was good at the deep stuff. Not when he was going to Pro Bowls, and certainly not now. When he was at his very best, his arm strength was adequate.
    SEAHAWKS.NET. We All We Got, We All We Need
    User avatar
    Scottemojo
    *Scott of Smacksville*
    *Scott of Smacksville*
     
    Posts: 12000
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:14 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 2:42 pm
  • ENOUGH already with the hater-calling.

    And enough already with the thinly veiled insults about "revisionist history", "selective memory", "living in reality", etc. Those comments do nothing but condescend, paint the other debater in a poor light, and inflame things way more than they need to be.

    Limit your comments to the Seahawks, not posters, or don't make comments at all.
    GO HAWKS!!!

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

    Follow me on Twitter at @17power
    User avatar
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 11602
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 2:44 pm
  • Zowert wrote:
    nwHawk wrote:
    I'm glad you linked this video, because you need to watch it again. Notice how long Tate had to WAIT for the ball. Heck, we're lucky that pass didn't get picked off. If that pass is thrown properly, Golden is celebrating his first touchdown.

    :th2thumbs:


    Jesus man... If Hass threw 10 TDs you would complain because he didnt throw 11...



    Wrong. I love watching all of our Hawks enjoy success.

    I referred back to this because of your comment ..."Like this beauty to Golden Tate" Don't miss understand that I love the connection, but Matt's pass wasn't a beauty. Heck Golden had easily beaten his man. That play showed some of the problems we've be pointing out. Matt's never been particularly strong at hitting a man in stride on a deep vertical route. And in this offense, he needs to be able to do it.
    "You don't always get to play playoff games at home, or conference championships at home, or superbowls at home. You have to have the mindset that you can play to your potential wherever you are." - Pete Carroll
    User avatar
    nwHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 554
    Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2009 11:14 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 2:54 pm
  • xxrighteous1xx wrote:So we should trow in the towel now, for the benefit of later?


    Yes! That is exactly what I'm saying. I think we can all say with nearly 100% accuracy that the Hawks lack the talent and continuity to win a superbowl this year (which is the point of the NFL, not lucking into playoff games), so why not begin auditioning QB's for the future?
    I hate Tim Ruskell.
    User avatar
    Trrrroy
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2880
    Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 9:24 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 3:18 pm
  • Aw Jeez - the only way we're going to solve this is if Rock can get JS on another live-chat and we can ask him directly. :)
    Image
    User avatar
    nsport
    * NET Sports Handicapper *
     
    Posts: 1477
    Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 9:13 am


PreviousNext


It is currently Sat Dec 20, 2014 2:37 pm

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE ARCHIVES ]




Information
  • Who is online
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests