 |
| Author |
Message |
|
Zowert
|
Post subject: Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 12:45 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
 |
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 2:29 pm Posts: 1718 Location: Seattle
|
|
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'
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
xxrighteous1xx
|
Post subject: Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 1:04 pm |
|
| NET Starter |
 |
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:55 am Posts: 302
|
|
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.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
kidhawk
|
Post subject: Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 1:14 pm |
|
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm Posts: 10265 Location: Anchorage, AK
|
|
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
|
Post subject: Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 1:17 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
 |
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 2:29 pm Posts: 1718 Location: Seattle
|
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'
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
volsunghawk
|
Post subject: Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 1:20 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
 |
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:20 am Posts: 6178 Location: Surrounded by Elway, Tebow, and Manning jerseys
|
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.
_________________ Okay, so maybe that pass rush is still an issue. Lather, rinse, repeat.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Scottemojo
|
Post subject: Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 2:17 pm |
|
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:14 am Posts: 7339
|
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:watchYou 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:watchI 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
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
MontanaHawk05
|
Post subject: Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 2:42 pm |
|
| * 17Power Blogger * |
 |
 |
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am Posts: 9702
|
|
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
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
nwHawk
|
Post subject: Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 2:44 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
 |
Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2009 11:14 am Posts: 529
|
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... 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
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Trrrroy
|
Post subject: Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 2:54 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
 |
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 9:24 am Posts: 2676
|
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.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
nsport
|
Post subject: Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 3:18 pm |
|
| * NET Sports Handicapper * |
 |
 |
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 9:13 am Posts: 969
|
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. 
_________________ 
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
kidhawk
|
Post subject: Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 3:39 pm |
|
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm Posts: 10265 Location: Anchorage, AK
|
Trrrroy wrote: 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? And here I thought it was ok to enjoy the run....so my 35 years as a hawks fan I have NOTHING to show for it? If I'd known the whole point to this was to have a sb winner I'd have picked a different team to root for.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
MARTYREDwarner
|
Post subject: Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 3:48 pm |
|
|
|
kidhawk wrote: Trrrroy wrote: 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? And here I thought it was ok to enjoy the run....so my 35 years as a hawks fan I have NOTHING to show for it? If I'd known the whole point to this was to have a sb winner I'd have picked a different team to root for. Enjoying the run can still be done but in order to enjoy the run for me, I must believe they are doing everything they can to win the Super Bowl. Sometimes that means moving away from veterans. That said, going to Whitehurst does not equal quitting on 2010, its simply a different way to try to win in 2010 and beyond. I'd argue the only chance Seattle has to go beyond the 8-8 division title they are currently destined for is to have an 'out of nowhere' play from a player. IMO, Whitehurst is the most likely guy to do that, doesn't mean I expect it but Matt ain't going to do it so might as while give it a shot.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
endzorn
|
Post subject: Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 4:23 pm |
|
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 6:14 pm Posts: 1732
|
|
This is outside the parameters of objective discussion, but it seems as though this thread is designated for all Hasselbeck debate. If I had to compare Hass to one other QB of the last 10 years I'd say Jake Delhomme without hesitation. Delhomme is a solid leader, a knowledgeable QB, an extremely likeable guy and a horribly inconsistent passer.
Both had moderately successful primes and were favorites of their fanbases, but Delhomme fell off the map once his skills diminished even slightly. He started throwing picks at an alarming rate and Carolina realized it could win...just not big, with Delhomme.
I think we're getting to that point. We can win, but I don't believe we can win in January and February with Hasselbeck. I watch games at a sports bar and friends/fans of other teams noticed long before I was willing to admit, that Hasselbeck isn't as good as I was giving him credit for. Last year a friend made the Delhomme comparison and I when I sat down and thought about it I could see where he was coming from.
I'll cheer for the guy all year and hope he proves me wrong, but I wouldn't shed a tear if Carroll decided to give Whitehurst a shot.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
kidhawk
|
Post subject: Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 4:51 pm |
|
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm Posts: 10265 Location: Anchorage, AK
|
|
put in the new guy he might be better this guy we have now isn't perfect....PC traded for him...PC likes him...PC says it's not Whitehursts time....
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
JohnnyB
|
Post subject: Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 4:55 pm |
|
| NET Starter |
 |
 |
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 9:36 pm Posts: 358
|
endzorn wrote: This is outside the parameters of objective discussion, but it seems as though this thread is designated for all Hasselbeck debate. If I had to compare Hass to one other QB of the last 10 years I'd say Jake Delhomme without hesitation. Delhomme is a solid leader, a knowledgeable QB, an extremely likeable guy and a horribly inconsistent passer Except that he's not horribly inconsistent at all. If you compare him to all the best quarterbacks in NFL history, he is probably more consistent that than the average Pro Bowl QB. He comes up short in other ways, but consistency is not one of them. Now if you take any of those QBs, including him, and put a new team and system around them, or take away all their good recievers, or their pass protection, and while we're at it, their running game; they will lose their consistency and production. Expecting any of them to maintain Pro Bowl level production and expecting them not to press or force passes to try to win is really beyond ludicrous, isn't it? It's a function of not understanding QB play and how much the QB relies on the rest of the offense. The QB is the one who is out front and looks like he is making most of the mistakes, but it often turns out that someone else on the O made the mistake. Joe Montana going to KC toward the end of his career is the perfect example. Check out that drop off in stats.
_________________ "Unless you were in that meeting room and know what we're supposed to do, don't assume!" -T.J.H.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
bestfightstory
|
Post subject: Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 5:06 pm |
|
| * Glitter over Knives * |
 |
 |
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:13 pm Posts: 6444
|
|
When Shaun declined people had tons of excuses for him, too. People said anyone critical of Shaun was a hater and that Shaun would get scooped up immediately and rush a team into the playoffs and Shaun would definitely have several more Pro Bowl years. I distinctly remember witnessing those arguments. How did that end up?
I will say, also, that our running game has sucked since Shaun left as well, to be sure-but it ain't cause those haters jettisoned Shaun too soon.
_________________ "Some people here have been groomed to accept mediocrity and lame ducks, I'm on board with the vibrato!" -SouthSoundHawk
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
linuxpro
|
Post subject: Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 5:42 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
 |
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 9:53 am Posts: 757 Location: Pioneer Square
|
endzorn wrote: Take your emotions and team loyalty out of this thread and tell me how far you think this team can go with Hasselbeck.
He had plenty of time to throw the ball, but missed open receivers, threw behind guys who actually caught the ball and tossed some inexplicable interceptions.
I love the guy, always will...but when I watch him play it is painfully obvious that he is not the answer. At some point we need to find out what we have in Whitehurst. Man, it pains me to say this, but you're right. I knew it before the season. No way can any QB take the kind of punishment Hass has over the years here, and still be in top form at that age. The guy has gotten massively beat up the last few years, averaging something like 38-40 sacks a year. I think that explains a lot about what we're seeing. Of course, we all knew Matt was done. So do the coaches. The thing is, he's our best QB right now, and we need him to stick around until we can find a replacement. That might be Whitehurst, maybe not. In the meantime, I think Hass still has that heart of a champ, and can take us to a SuperBowl win, with the right team around him. I don't expect that to happen, but it could. I think as long as Hass is in the game, he's got a damn good chance to force a win. One thing is for sure - it will be a sad day for the Seahawks and fans when Matt finally does retire. I only hope he retires as a Seahawk. Will they retire his number? Probably not, but I would.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
hawkfan68
|
Post subject: Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 6:24 pm |
|
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:10 am Posts: 2642 Location: Sammamish, WA
|
JohnnyB wrote: endzorn wrote: This is outside the parameters of objective discussion, but it seems as though this thread is designated for all Hasselbeck debate. If I had to compare Hass to one other QB of the last 10 years I'd say Jake Delhomme without hesitation. Delhomme is a solid leader, a knowledgeable QB, an extremely likeable guy and a horribly inconsistent passer Except that he's not horribly inconsistent at all. If you compare him to all the best quarterbacks in NFL history, he is probably more consistent that than the average Pro Bowl QB. He comes up short in other ways, but consistency is not one of them. Now if you take any of those QBs, including him, and put a new team and system around them, or take away all their good recievers, or their pass protection, and while we're at it, their running game; they will lose their consistency and production. Expecting any of them to maintain Pro Bowl level production and expecting them not to press or force passes to try to win is really beyond ludicrous, isn't it? It's a function of not understanding QB play and how much the QB relies on the rest of the offense. The QB is the one who is out front and looks like he is making most of the mistakes, but it often turns out that someone else on the O made the mistake. Joe Montana going to KC toward the end of his career is the perfect example. Check out that drop off in stats. Another example is Kurt Warner after he left the Rams. He ws unsuccessful with the Giants (new system) and then initially with the Cardinals. As a matter of fact, he had a difficult time until Wisenhunt took over and improved their OL and running game. Warner struggled even with having the luxury of playing with Anquan Boldin and Larry Fitzgerald as WRs. I'm not comparing Kurt to Matt. Kurt is HOF and Matt is not. What I'm saying is that even HOF QBs struggle while trying to work with young players or with new systems. Favre had some really lean years in GB. In 2005, they went 4-12, in 2006, they were 8-8. In 2005, Favre threw for 20 TDs and 29 INTs. Hasselbeck hasn't come close to throwing 29 INTs in any year plus he had a QB rating of 70.9. In 2008, with the Jets he threw for 22 TDs and 22 INTs. A HOF QB. Here's the link - http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/F/FavrBr00.htm. Once again, not comparing Favre to Hass. Just making a point that QBs do struggle and HOF aren't immune from it. QBs can also bounce back if they get a good supporting cast around them. Two games is too early to make a QB change. If the Seahawks are 1-3 going into their bye, (that means they lose to the Rams) then it may be time to see CBJ but until then, MH should start. Just my 2 cents. I think Warner's extension argument is weak and I'm not buying into it. Maybe the Seahawks offered MH an extension and he refused it. We don't know what type of discussions have taken place behind closed doors, so to assume that nothing is being done is not entirely accurate. Teams do negotiate without mentioning it to the public. I believe that not signing MH to extension right now doesn't signify anything other than they haven't done so yet. It doesn't mean they don't feel he's capable of leading the team the next 2-3 years. It just means that they haven't done so today.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Zowert
|
Post subject: Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 7:28 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
 |
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 2:29 pm Posts: 1718 Location: Seattle
|
Scottemojo wrote: 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.
I saw him throw some deep passes at training camp this year. But in all honestly, that's nothing like a real game. I believe he can still throw deep, just doesn't have the confidence either in himself or his receivers. I know he can physically throw the ball deep for a fact, just don't know if he cant do it in a game situation. You gotta take into account that the Seahawks have a new playbook this year. They had a new playbook under Mora too. It seemed as though the height of his deep passing prime was during the Holmgren era, when he had the same playbook for years. He knew the routes so well that passing on them had become muscle memory, he could anticipate where his receivers would be on deep routes. Now hes had to learn a whole new set of routes on different of formations with pretty much all new recievers except Butler and Branch. I don't count Obo. This really cuts into a QB's confidence. It seems as though Pete likes to use his TE's in different routes. I've seen John Carlson in places that I would've never seen him under Mora, like down on the weakside sideline?! Carlson has been having a tough time I think, running the wrong routes on several occausions. He looks out of his element. That's also another contributing factor.
_________________ ~ The Stache'
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Spin Doctor
|
Post subject: Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 8:05 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 1:31 am Posts: 1367
|
Zowert wrote: Scottemojo wrote: 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.
I saw him throw some deep passes at training camp this year. But in all honestly, that's nothing like a real game. I believe he can still throw deep, just doesn't have the confidence either in himself or his receivers. I know he can physically throw the ball deep for a fact, just don't know if he cant do it in a game situation. You gotta take into account that the Seahawks have a new playbook this year. They had a new playbook under Mora too. It seemed as though the height of his deep passing prime was during the Holmgren era, when he had the same playbook for years. He knew the routes so well that passing on them had become muscle memory, he could anticipate where his receivers would be on deep routes. Now hes had to learn a whole new set of routes on different of formations with pretty much all new recievers except Butler and Branch. I don't count Obo. This really cuts into a QB's confidence. It seems as though Pete likes to use his TE's in different routes. I've seen John Carlson in places that I would've never seen him under Mora, like down on the weakside sideline?! Carlson has been having a tough time I think, running the wrong routes on several occausions. He looks out of his element. That's also another contributing factor. Of course Hasselbeck can throw the deep ball still. He could probably throw 50+ yards still, in fact even the QBs with the weakest arms can at least throw 50 yards. What I'm worried about is the zip he puts on the ball. All of his deep passes are high arching rainbows. If you noticed during preseason Whitehurst's balls were not high arching rainbows, they were much smaller archs that reached the receiver before the DBs could even get their heads turned around. Hasselbecks passes give DBs much more time to react to the ball. Now I'm by no means a hater but it's obvious Hass doesn't have a great deep ball or even a good arm. Interesting fact... in week one hasselbeck didn't throw the football over 20 yards, and he only threw over 10 a couple of times. (DOes not factor in RAC)
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
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.
|