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.
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.
xxrighteous1xx wrote:and Charlie Whitehurst is now the best answer? Ha yeah right!!
Zowert wrote:xxrighteous1xx wrote:and Charlie Whitehurst is now the best answer? Ha yeah right!!
Ding ding ding!
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.
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.
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.
Zowert wrote:
You honestly believe Charlie Whitehurst can lead this team better than Hasselbeck?!?!
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.
I'd rather find out than go 8-8 with Matt.
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.
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.
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.
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...).
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.
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.
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.
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
Zowert wrote:You honestly believe Charlie Whitehurst can lead this team better than Hasselbeck?!?!
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.
xxrighteous1xx wrote:The long term answer is in future drafts. Why would they let him bow gracefully that doesn't make sense.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Throwdown wrote:question, what is our goal here? winning the division or winning a Superbowl in the future.
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
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
kidhawk wrote:WE don't need to see what Whitehurst has, THEY do, and they see himi day in and day out. Nuff Said
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.
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.
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.....
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.....
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
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.
Jesus man... If Hass threw 10 TDs you would complain because he didnt throw 11...
xxrighteous1xx wrote:So we should trow in the towel now, for the benefit of later?
It is currently Mon Apr 23, 2018 3:27 am