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 3:39 pm
  • 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.
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 12777
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
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.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 4:23 pm
  • 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.
    User avatar
    endzorn
    *TOP 5 SUPPORTER*
    *TOP 5 SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 1747
    Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 6:14 pm


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 4:51 pm
  • 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....
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 12777
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 4:55 pm
  • 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.
    User avatar
    JohnnyB
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 358
    Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 9:36 pm


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 5:06 pm
  • 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
    "BFS is kicking ass in here." -kearly (8/9/2013)
    User avatar
    bestfightstory
    * Glitter over Knives *
     
    Posts: 8511
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:13 pm


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 5:42 pm
  • 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.
    User avatar
    linuxpro
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 757
    Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 9:53 am
    Location: Pioneer Square


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 6:24 pm
  • 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.
    User avatar
    hawkfan68
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 3396
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:10 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 7:28 pm
  • 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'
    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 8:05 pm
  • 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)
    Spin Doctor
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1396
    Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 1:31 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 8:17 pm
  • kidhawk wrote: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....


    I think Whitehurst will fail miserably, I just would prefer to waste 2010 finding out instead of 2011.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 8:24 pm
  • 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.

    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.


    Ok - now the thread can be locked. :) Endzorn's post is a great way to make the point that I think most people can easily agree with. The circular logic on MH#8 over the past 15 pages is mind numbing to say the least. Can he win? Sure. Likely that he elevates our team to a new level? Probably not. Remember that there are a number of changes that happened on this team and all doesn't succeed or fail with #8 at the helm. The Delhomme analogy fits like a glove. Nice job!
    Image
    User avatar
    nsport
    * NET Sports Handicapper *
     
    Posts: 1416
    Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 9:13 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 8:31 pm
  • warner28 wrote:
    kidhawk wrote: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


    I think Whitehurst will fail miserably, I just would prefer to waste 2010 finding out instead of 2011.


    I never thought you were a hater, just figured you wanted to waste this season by experimenting on an unproven QB. We're 1-1, the season isnt over yet. Lets see what our record is by mid season, then we can try Whitehurst. I am more than sure he'll get a shot this season.
    ~ 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 8:34 pm
  • Don't consider it "wasting the season"

    I consider a prudent use of a season you aren't going to win a Super Bowl in.

    If Seattle had a shot at a ring it would be different, they don't so IMO what they are doing is closer to "wasting the season"
    MARTYREDwarner
     


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 8:41 pm
  • Statistically they have every right to bench #8 at this point. The guy's record as a starter and statistical vomit over the past several games are enough to land a guy on the free agent highway. That being said, bailing on #8 this early is not the message the fans want to hear, and would be a complete knee jerk reaction by the FO - #6 has not overtaken #8 yet on the practice field - I don't think moving him above #8 is how to sell to your fans you are trying to win. If they started #6 after one more bad week by #8, the lynching mob would be out and people would want their $$ returned to them. However.... fall a few games out of first, and this is an entirely different discussion. More losses and inevitably more poor performances from #8 should drop him on the depth chart. Until then, we will have to wait and see.
    Image
    User avatar
    nsport
    * NET Sports Handicapper *
     
    Posts: 1416
    Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 9:13 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 8:49 pm
  • Zowert wrote:
    warner28 wrote:
    kidhawk wrote: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


    I think Whitehurst will fail miserably, I just would prefer to waste 2010 finding out instead of 2011.


    I never thought you were a hater, just figured you wanted to waste this season by experimenting on an unproven QB. We're 1-1, the season isnt over yet. Lets see what our record is by mid season, then we can try Whitehurst. I am more than sure he'll get a shot this season.


    Yes but how much of a shot should we give Whitehurst? Hasselbeck needed more then a few games starting before we knew we had something in him.

    IMO to objectively evaluate Whitehurst you need to roll him out week in and week out all year this year and watch and observe his progress. Had we pulled the plug on Hasselbeck after only a few starts we would have made a big mistake.
    Image
    User avatar
    Tech Worlds
    * Capt'n Dom *
    * Capt'n Dom *
     
    Posts: 9070
    Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:40 am
    Location: Granite Falls, WA


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:40 pm
  • While Holmgren was still here I had always thought Hasselbeck might end up being the next Dilfer as his career wound down. Can't draw up a better personality for it, undoubtedly knows the value of a mentor for a new starter, just seemed a natural transition. Not sure if Pete's competition based roster can 'afford' a mentor, but worth a thought in the coming year(s).
    Ambivilant
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 24
    Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2010 2:22 pm


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 6:00 am
  • One way or the other, Hasselbeck has 14 games left in a Seahawk uniform. Then the debate moves from here to the draft forum. English has started his homework, and I'm eager to see who might be available with a first rounder for a team in the 7-8 win range.
    User avatar
    Jac
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 675
    Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 11:50 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 6:37 am
  • I am in favor of giving the ball to Whitehurst, and here's my reason: he can't be much worse than Hasselbeck. He cannot significantly worsen our chances. Hasselbeck was #27 in the league last year in yards per attempt at 6.21. Let's say Whitehurst is "bad," as bad as Jake Delhomme. That would put him at 6.28 ypa, better than Hass. Let's say he's as "bad" as Josh Freeman. 6.40 ypa.

    You're probably right that if we put Whitehurst in we wouldn't have a good QB and our QB won't win any games for us. We don't have a good QB now! It is not our QB that is winning games for us now! Yes, Hass had a 108.3 rating against SF, but that was with a whopping 170 yards. He had a couple of good passes, but our defense won that game for us. If our QB had been Whitehurst we still would have won that game.

    Yes he had a couple good games last year where he really, genuinely, was a good QB. So did Kevin Kolb (one game with 120.6 QB rating). So did Alex Smith (one game with 118.6 QB rating). So did Jake Delhomme (one game with 115.8 QB rating). So did Ryan Fitzpatrick (one game with 120.8 QB rating). Anyone saying those guys will take us on a deep playoff run?

    So in summary,
    Whitehurst at QB does not increase our chances of losing because Hasselbeck is already losing games for us.
    Whitehurst at QB does not decrease our chances of winning because Hasselbeck is not winning games for us.
    Hasselbeck has had good games, but all QBs have at least some good games.
    Hasselbeck has had bad games, and there are far too many to call them anomalies. They were the norm.
    We want the ball and we're gonna score.
    User avatar
    LawHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3143
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 2:04 pm


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 7:43 am
  • warner28 wrote:Don't consider it "wasting the season"

    I consider a prudent use of a season you aren't going to win a Super Bowl in.

    If Seattle had a shot at a ring it would be different, they don't so IMO what they are doing is closer to "wasting the season"


    So you don't think that playoff experience is important?
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 12777
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 7:58 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

    Doesn't mean the coaches are right. Were those who questioned Mora's decisions wrong? Would Rams have been wrong to question Scott Linehan? Would Lions fans have been wrong to question Marty Morhenweig?

    The "we have to beleive everything the coaches say and think" arguments are such lame cop-outs, that require no thought whatsoever. These guys are wrong all the time, even guys like Bill Belichick and Sean Payton.
    User avatar
    Rat
    * NET Cynic *
     
    Posts: 3512
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:42 pm
    Location: St. Louis, MO


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 8:01 am
  • LawHawk wrote:So in summary,
    Whitehurst at QB does not increase our chances of losing because Hasselbeck is already losing games for us.
    Whitehurst at QB does not decrease our chances of winning because Hasselbeck is not winning games for us.
    Hasselbeck has had good games, but all QBs have at least some good games.
    Hasselbeck has had bad games, and there are far too many to call them anomalies. They were the norm.


    So in summary,
    Whitehurst at QB does not increase our chances of losing because Hasselbeck is already losing games for us.

    Hass didn't lose that game by himself. We were consistently bad, no not bad, horrific on 3rd downs on defense. We can't win games like that, just won't happen. this was a team effort.

    Whitehurst at QB does not decrease our chances of winning because Hasselbeck is not winning games for us.
    Same answer here, it's a team game, but the only difference is leadership and on the field knowledge, and respect of the players gives hass something on the field that Whitehurst doesn't have.

    Hasselbeck has had good games, but all QBs have at least some good games.
    All Qb's have good games, all qb's have bad games, it's why they play on sunday. They are all human. This season started 2 games ago and Hass has one good and one bad. Emotions have everyone calling for his head here when a lot didn't say a word aftert he Niner game.

    Hasselbeck has had bad games, and there are far too many to call them anomalies. They were the norm
    We had 22 guys out there having bad game after bad game after bad game, nothing matters before this season, right now, hass has practiced and played in the same system as Whitehurs and has outplayed him and is still the leader on our offense. Changing him now is not smart and at least we can be thankful that most fans and analysts and most imortantly our coaching staff can see that and Hass is stil our starter.
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 12777
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 8:04 am
  • kidhawk wrote:
    warner28 wrote:Don't consider it "wasting the season"

    I consider a prudent use of a season you aren't going to win a Super Bowl in.

    If Seattle had a shot at a ring it would be different, they don't so IMO what they are doing is closer to "wasting the season"


    So you don't think that playoff experience is important?



    3 points:

    A) I don't think playing in the wildcard round of the playoffs is as important as developing a QB.

    B) I think Seattle has just about as good of a chance to 'win' the West with a developing QB as they have with an aging QB. The division is terrible, I don't think switching to Charlie severely hampers the possibility of winning the division.

    C) Just to repeat, developing a QB is more important to the long term playoff success of a team than playoff experience.
    Last edited by MARTYREDwarner on Thu Sep 23, 2010 8:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 8:04 am
  • Rat wrote:
    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

    Doesn't mean the coaches are right. Were those who questioned Mora's decisions wrong? Would Rams have been wrong to question Scott Linehan? Would Lions fans have been wrong to question Marty Morhenweig?

    The "we have to beleive everything the coaches say and think" arguments are such lame cop-outs, that require no thought whatsoever. These guys are wrong all the time, even guys like Bill Belichick and Sean Payton.


    So then just say it. You don't think PC is doing a good job of running the team. Go ahead. I would like it for the record so when it turns out that he does a great job we know who to rub it into later
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 12777
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 8:08 am
  • warner28 wrote:
    kidhawk wrote:
    warner28 wrote:Don't consider it "wasting the season"

    I consider a prudent use of a season you aren't going to win a Super Bowl in.

    If Seattle had a shot at a ring it would be different, they don't so IMO what they are doing is closer to "wasting the season"


    So you don't think that playoff experience is important?



    2 things:

    A) I don't think playing in the wildcard round of the playoffs is as important as developing a QB.

    B) I think Seattle has just about as good of a chance to 'win' the West with a developing QB as they have with an aging QB. The division is terrible, I don't think switching to Charlie severely hampers the possibility of winning the division.

    C) Just to repeat, developing a QB is more important than playoff experience.


    As to "A"...If we win our division, we will have a 50/50 chance at a home playoff game and as we all know, a home playoff game for the hawks is a huge advantage, so we'd have a reasonable chance to advance into the divisional round.

    "B" This is your biggest mistake, you think it's just about his arm. Playing qb takes a lot more than physical attributes. Right now Matt has leadership and team support. If you yank a guy out with team support, it's likely that there may not be the team support and even much more likely that Whitehurst won't have the on field leadership that Matt has to work with the team around him

    "C" You think devoloping a qb is important while I think that developing a team is more important. Just to be clear I think we need to develop a TEAM you want to develop a PLAYER.
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 12777
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 8:10 am
  • kidhawk wrote:
    Rat wrote:
    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

    Doesn't mean the coaches are right. Were those who questioned Mora's decisions wrong? Would Rams have been wrong to question Scott Linehan? Would Lions fans have been wrong to question Marty Morhenweig?

    The "we have to beleive everything the coaches say and think" arguments are such lame cop-outs, that require no thought whatsoever. These guys are wrong all the time, even guys like Bill Belichick and Sean Payton.


    So then just say it. You don't think PC is doing a good job of running the team. Go ahead. I would like it for the record so when it turns out that he does a great job we know who to rub it into later



    You do realize that you can disagree with one thing and still think someone is doing good things overall, right?
    MARTYREDwarner
     


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 8:14 am
  • kidhawk wrote:
    Rat wrote:
    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

    Doesn't mean the coaches are right. Were those who questioned Mora's decisions wrong? Would Rams have been wrong to question Scott Linehan? Would Lions fans have been wrong to question Marty Morhenweig?

    The "we have to beleive everything the coaches say and think" arguments are such lame cop-outs, that require no thought whatsoever. These guys are wrong all the time, even guys like Bill Belichick and Sean Payton.


    So then just say it. You don't think PC is doing a good job of running the team. Go ahead. I would like it for the record so when it turns out that he does a great job we know who to rub it into later


    These arguments are frustrating to read.

    There is enough statistical evidence to bench Hasselbeck NOW. But they won't until we fall a few games out of first place because of his intangibles of leadership and experience. Remember, this team has 21 other guys who start on both sides of the ball that factor into this team winning and losing. Having your 35yo QB tossing 2+ picks per game and making boneheaded plays is not validating those 21 other players' accomplishments or talents. A new QB who can make throws and has more upside will likely reduce the turnover statistic and allow those other 21 guys to be measured better and perform better overall. This is not a MH vs. CW argument, it's a team argument in my humble opinion.
    Image
    User avatar
    nsport
    * NET Sports Handicapper *
     
    Posts: 1416
    Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 9:13 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 8:16 am
  • kidhawk wrote:
    As to "A"...If we win our division, we will have a 50/50 chance at a home playoff game and as we all know, a home playoff game for the hawks is a huge advantage, so we'd have a reasonable chance to advance into the divisional round.
    So? Is getting to the divisional round the goal in the NFL now?


    "B" This is your biggest mistake, you think it's just about his arm. Playing qb takes a lot more than physical attributes. Right now Matt has leadership and team support. If you yank a guy out with team support, it's likely that there may not be the team support and even much more likely that Whitehurst won't have the on field leadership that Matt has to work with the team around him
    This would be an argument if Matt was playing like a leader and its not about arm, its about developing a team, the team needs to learn to play with Charlie (who may be here long term), not Matt who will be gone after this season.


    "C" You think devoloping a qb is important while I think that developing a team is more important. Just to be clear I think we need to develop a TEAM you want to develop a PLAYER.
    No, I want to develop both, Matt ain't going to be here next year, how is he part of developing the 'team'?




    Teams move on at positions (QB or otherwise) in order to develop the TEAM all the time, stop pretending its about 1 player. You are wrong, I want to develop a TEAM, Matt starting delays the development of the TEAM because he won't be part of the TEAM when they are contenders again.

    Developing the TEAM is my goal when I decide to move on at QB.


    The only reason to start Matt is because you think 2010 is more important than the development of the TEAM.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 8:19 am
  • kidhawk wrote:So then just say it. You don't think PC is doing a good job of running the team. Go ahead. I would like it for the record so when it turns out that he does a great job we know who to rub it into later

    He's been alright so far. I'm not just going to take everything he says and does as gospel, and nobody should. Carroll will be wrong on many things, and I see no problem with speculating what those things are. I believe his handling of the QB situation is one of those things.

    You can record whatever you want. I don't care about having to eating crow, which is why I don't take the safe stance on everything with lame responses like "the coach did this, and he knows best, so obviously he's right".
    User avatar
    Rat
    * NET Cynic *
     
    Posts: 3512
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:42 pm
    Location: St. Louis, MO


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 8:22 am
  • kidhawk wrote:So in summary,
    Whitehurst at QB does not increase our chances of losing because Hasselbeck is already losing games for us.

    Hass didn't lose that game by himself. We were consistently bad, no not bad, horrific on 3rd downs on defense. We can't win games like that, just won't happen. this was a team effort.

    Whitehurst at QB does not decrease our chances of winning because Hasselbeck is not winning games for us.
    Same answer here, it's a team game, but the only difference is leadership and on the field knowledge, and respect of the players gives hass something on the field that Whitehurst doesn't have.


    In 3 of the last 5 games (Denver, Green Bay, Tampa Bay) Hasselbeck was so bad that he, individually, was the difference between "we're in the game" and "we're not in the game." Of course, it's a team sport, hall-of-fame play by a RB or a WR or a DB could have won the game for us. But Hasselbeck throwing 3-4 key interceptions means we are not going to compete. So he didn't lose the game by himself but if he had played even just "below average" as opposed to "awful" we would have been in the game in each of those three.

    You are right that leadership and knowledge and experience count for something and you are right that Hasselbeck has the clear advantage in each of those. But you can't let that decide if the skills are lacking. Otherwise you would never change QBs. And it is incorrect to say "the only difference is leadership and on the field knowledge" because there are lots of other differences. The one really important difference is "the last 2 years show us Hasselbeck is definitely bad, Whitehurst might not be bad."
    We want the ball and we're gonna score.
    User avatar
    LawHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3143
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 2:04 pm


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 8:37 am
  • Warner........can't argue with you because you apparently don't read well...I never said winning is more important than the team, I said (and it's so plain that you obviously are just spinning words to try to make it look different like usual) The team winning and playing in the playoffs is better for the team in the future. If hasselbeck is here or not, winning is better for the team and Hasselbeck gives us that best chance in both leadership and on the field ability. If he wasn't the best player at the position he wouldn't be out there right now. If nothing else, watching the roster moves this offseason is proof of that, anything else is just conjecture on your part to try to spin your opinion into something more realistic

    Rat...if you think that Carroll isn't playing the best player at the position then that's fine, it's your opinion, but who's opinion counts? yours or his? Not knowing either of you, should I listen more to experts and our coaches and use that as a gauge or should I just go by the handful of bad plays and say Hasselbeck sucks? Well you can if that makes you feel better, but I see all the plays and he has a lot more good than bad. You, me, any other fan, we have no idea what happens on every play. Too many ignorant fans just assume every bad play is on the qb. Some are, but too many blame the qb for them all when that's just not the case. I have watched Hass play a long time now and the game he's always had, he still has.


    Lawhawk...What's the point of looking back at last year? We canned the coaches, changed the front office and over half the team. This is not last years seahawks. This is this years seahawks and there's no comparison. We were a sucky team. There are lots of factors that could have contributed to last years end of the season games that mean nothing today. Judge him on this year........this year he's had one good game one bad game and did NOT lose that game on his own. He had plenty of help by a defense that couldn't stop the other team on third down. Let's see how this team does by the bye week and see where we are at then. This is just way to early to even judge this team
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 12777
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 8:38 am
  • 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.

    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.



    The biggest difference between Jake Delhomme and Matt is Jake has had a true number 1 to throw the ball to his whole career. So take SS out of the formula and Jake doesn't even come close. Matt 167 TD - 115 Int. Jake 124 TD - 92 Int with a number 1 WR. TD ratio/ INT mat 3 to 2 Jake 5 to 4. Not even a close comparison. Delhomme has always been a int machine back in their glory days he had numerous seasons of 15 INTs or more.
    xxrighteous1xx
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 302
    Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:55 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 8:42 am
  • xxrighteous1xx 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.

    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.



    The biggest difference between Jake Delhomme and Matt is Jake has had a true number 1 to throw the ball to his whole career. So take SS out of the formula and Jake doesn't even come close. Matt 167 TD - 115 Int. Jake 124 TD - 92 Int with a number 1 WR. TD ratio/ INT mat 3 to 2 Jake 5 to 4. Not even a close comparison. Delhomme has always been a int machine back in their glory days he had numerous seasons of 15 INTs or more.



    What's the bigger advantage? Having Steve Smith, or Walter Jones?
    User avatar
    Rat
    * NET Cynic *
     
    Posts: 3512
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:42 pm
    Location: St. Louis, MO


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 8:49 am
  • Probably Walt but that said Carolina didn't have a bad O-line so.. But I see the point. Well made
    xxrighteous1xx
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 302
    Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:55 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 9:07 am
  • kidhawk wrote:Warner........can't argue with you because you apparently don't read well...I never said winning is more important than the team, I said (and it's so plain that you obviously are just spinning words to try to make it look different like usual) The team winning and playing in the playoffs is better for the team in the future. If hasselbeck is here or not, winning is better for the team and Hasselbeck gives us that best chance in both leadership and on the field ability. If he wasn't the best player at the position he wouldn't be out there right now. If nothing else, watching the roster moves this offseason is proof of that, anything else is just conjecture on your part to try to spin your opinion into something more realistic



    I understood exactly what you said, I simply disagree.

    Winning with players that won't be here long term does nothing for the development of the team IMO.

    If Seattle goes 8-8 and loses in the divisional round of the playoffs with Matt at QB, Matt then leaves in the offseason and Charlie takes over then Seattle goes 5-11 while he develops, how exactly is that 8-8 season helping in 2012?

    Now if Seattle goes 5-11 in 2010 with Charlie, then goes 8-8 in 2011 with Charlie, now I would say both 2010 and 2011 have helped the development of the TEAM.


    Again, its not about Matt or Charlie, its about the TEAM. And for the record, I have NEVER said Matt is not better than Charlie right now (and you claim I can't read), I have said I don't think the development of the TEAM is the reason Matt is starting. I stand by that.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 9:30 am
  • your what if scenario is one of a thousand different possibilities.....what if we go 8-8 and lose in the playoffs and we re-sign matt? what if we fall out of the play off hunt by week 12 then play Charlie? what if we don't think Charlie is the answer and we draft a qb? what if we sign a Free agent qb? there's a lot of scenarios that can change between now and next year. What if we do the best we can with what we have? This is what I think we are currently doing and this is what matters. Whoever is at qb, the more we win, the better off the other 10 guys on offense will be. Whoever is qb only really matters in development of the qb. There's plenty of offseason and practice time for the receivers to work with whoever the qb will be on timing issues and such. Let's try to put out the best team possible and win today, and get Pete's players experience playing football how it's meant to be played every sunday, and that's putting on the field the players that give you the best chance to win TODAY.

    Anyone here think that Golden Tate isn't something special when he gets the ball? He didn't play in week 1 because he isn't what gave us the best chance to win that day. Matt gives us the best chance to win this week, that's realy all that needs to be said
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 12777
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 9:31 am
  • I just don't have the time to read through 15 pages of arguments, but after last week (and you simply must take the past two years into account as well), Matt is making the argument that this team's most pressing need is a QB. Now ABSOLUTELY Matt has been my favorite Seahawk for a long time, and I certainly don't think he should be benched for his Denver performance. That said, if he would simply accept a little more of a "game manager" discipline, meaning that he has to stop thinking that he has to carry the team on his back, then I think he can be very effective again. Matt seems incapable of letting the rest of the team do its job and is making both terrible decisions and poor throws as a result.

    The question I keep asking myself now is not just "who is our best QB", but because that is still #8. My question is, "who has the best upside and can help the team more in the long run"?

    Obviously I'm not the coach, but if Matt were on my team he would be on the proverbial hot seat. I'd give him 2-3 more games, but if he can't demonstrate that he can settle down and consistently make smart decisions and plays at critical moments (opening drives, red zone, etc) then given where the rest of the team is, I'd put in Charlie.

    My hope is that the smart and efficient Matt Hasselbeck will return and we'll keep him for another 2-3 years while he mentors his heir, but at this point I just don't know.
    User avatar
    MysterMatt
    *TOP 5 SUPPORTER*
    *TOP 5 SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 6826
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:12 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 9:32 am
  • warner28 wrote:
    Again, its not about Matt or Charlie, its about the TEAM. And for the record, I have NEVER said Matt is not better than Charlie right now (and you claim I can't read), I have said I don't think the development of the TEAM is the reason Matt is starting. I stand by that.


    Someday, I hope Carroll/Schneider explain the decision. It's one glaring spot where they're markably going against their overall philosophy. Could be that they think Hasselbeck could pull it together for 8/9 wins for the division title, and they'd like to install a winning culture with the young guys. Or it could be that they think that, in the short term, he gives the team a better shot at developing the young receivers and keeping the defense off the field for longer stretches. It's definitely not about the QB in 2011, because he won't be here.
    User avatar
    Jac
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 675
    Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 11:50 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 9:35 am
  • kidhawk wrote: Whoever is at qb, the more we win, the better off the other 10 guys on offense will be. Whoever is qb only really matters in development of the qb. There's plenty of offseason and practice time for the receivers to work with whoever the qb will be on timing issues and such. Let's try to put out the best team possible and win today, and get Pete's players experience playing football how it's meant to be played every sunday, and that's putting on the field the players that give you the best chance to win TODAY.

    Anyone here think that Golden Tate isn't something special when he gets the ball? He didn't play in week 1 because he isn't what gave us the best chance to win that day. Matt gives us the best chance to win this week, that's realy all that needs to be said


    I agree with this post. Eerily similar to my last post. :)

    For our starting QB to be successful and help this team, he simply needs to reverse the trend of boneheaded decisions and lackluster throws. Then, he is supporting the rest of the team from his position. In other words, he needs to play like a smart old vet, not like some half-witted rookie. If he continues his current trend, we probably don't stand a chance - the majority of issues have come from those poor throws and dumb decisions. It doesn't matter who we start if that doesn't get solved.
    Last edited by nsport on Thu Sep 23, 2010 9:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
    Image
    User avatar
    nsport
    * NET Sports Handicapper *
     
    Posts: 1416
    Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 9:13 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 9:41 am
  • kidhawk wrote:your what if scenario is one of a thousand different possibilities.....what if we go 8-8 and lose in the playoffs and we re-sign matt? what if we fall out of the play off hunt by week 12 then play Charlie? what if we don't think Charlie is the answer and we draft a qb? what if we sign a Free agent qb? there's a lot of scenarios that can change between now and next year. What if we do the best we can with what we have? This is what I think we are currently doing and this is what matters. Whoever is at qb, the more we win, the better off the other 10 guys on offense will be. Whoever is qb only really matters in development of the qb. There's plenty of offseason and practice time for the receivers to work with whoever the qb will be on timing issues and such. Let's try to put out the best team possible and win today, and get Pete's players experience playing football how it's meant to be played every sunday, and that's putting on the field the players that give you the best chance to win TODAY.

    Anyone here think that Golden Tate isn't something special when he gets the ball? He didn't play in week 1 because he isn't what gave us the best chance to win that day. Matt gives us the best chance to win this week, that's realy all that needs to be said



    You are right, there are many scenarios, the worst possible scenario is to learn nothing about Charlie and/or re-signing Matt.

    We just are not going to agree on this, playing Matt does nothing for the development of this franchise unless you have already decided Matt is your QB in 2011 and 2012. Since they have not locked him up for those seasons, playing him is a waste.


    (And re-signing a 35 year old QB with 10 years of tape based on 2010 alone is a huge error, so the 'wait and see' attitude is something I can never support. If Matt is your guy, that was a decision that needed to already be made)
    MARTYREDwarner
     


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 9:50 am
  • You're saying warner, that the rest of the team (51 other players) can't get better with Matt Hasselbeck over Charlie Whitehurst?
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 12777
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 10:03 am
  • kidhawk wrote:Lawhawk...What's the point of looking back at last year? We canned the coaches, changed the front office and over half the team. This is not last years seahawks. This is this years seahawks and there's no comparison. We were a sucky team. There are lots of factors that could have contributed to last years end of the season games that mean nothing today. Judge him on this year........this year he's had one good game one bad game and did NOT lose that game on his own. He had plenty of help by a defense that couldn't stop the other team on third down. Let's see how this team does by the bye week and see where we are at then. This is just way to early to even judge this team


    The point of looking back at last year is that it helps us decide whether the guy is good or not. 90% or more of his career is behind him. Those years tell us lots about how good he is. It would tell us lots about how good he is even if he were playing for an entirely different team. Last year's team was bad, I agree, but Hasselbeck was bad too. It was not just protection. It was not just WRs. He was bad. "There are lots of factors that could have contributed to last years end of the season games..." Yes, and one of those factors is Hasselbeck throwing the ball to the other team.

    "This is just way to early to even judge this team..." Yes, but it's not too early to judge Hasselbeck! I'm looking at the last two years and two games and I find sufficient evidence to say he stinks.
    We want the ball and we're gonna score.
    User avatar
    LawHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3143
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 2:04 pm


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 10:04 am
  • Jac wrote:
    warner28 wrote:
    Again, its not about Matt or Charlie, its about the TEAM. And for the record, I have NEVER said Matt is not better than Charlie right now (and you claim I can't read), I have said I don't think the development of the TEAM is the reason Matt is starting. I stand by that.


    Someday, I hope Carroll/Schneider explain the decision. It's one glaring spot where they're markably going against their overall philosophy. Could be that they think Hasselbeck could pull it together for 8/9 wins for the division title, and they'd like to install a winning culture with the young guys. Or it could be that they think that, in the short term, he gives the team a better shot at developing the young receivers and keeping the defense off the field for longer stretches. It's definitely not about the QB in 2011, because he won't be here.


    It's really very simple. All you have to do is realize the false ideas you harbor. First of all, Hasselbeck gives the team the best chance to win now. He won the competition with Whitehurst hands down and has proven himself far better now. Secondly, Hasselbeck is playing at close to his best, which is Pro Bowl level and one of the top five QBs in the NFL. Fans shouldn't judge their QB based upon how they feel after he makes mistakes in a loss. If you do, you are almost guaranteed to misjudge him. Third, as numerous QBs have shown over the years in the NFL, Hasselbeck has a real chance to play at this level for another three or four years, plenty of time to contend for the Super Bowl. Of course, there is no guarantee so the team should have solid backup plans in place, and they do.

    Now all you have to do is figure out why you don't understand the above and you'll understand why the team has put Hasselbeck where he is.
    "Unless you were in that meeting room and know what we're supposed to do, don't assume!" -T.J.H.
    User avatar
    JohnnyB
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 358
    Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 9:36 pm


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 10:04 am
  • kidhawk wrote:You're saying warner, that the rest of the team (51 other players) can't get better with Matt Hasselbeck over Charlie Whitehurst?


    Where did I say that?

    I said the team development is better served with long term solutions at positions even if it means more losses than winning with short term solutions.

    And for the record, its not just Matt, any player that is not going to be here in 2012 and is blocking the development of someone who might be should not be playing. The team should develop together, not with stopgaps. Matt just happens to be the most glaring example of a stopgap blocking a potential long term answer.

    Playing Matt is not about the development of the team, its about winning in 2010 which is something they should be trying to do but it should be done with an eye on finding long term solutions.

    I would rather go 5-11 and find out more about Charlie (and other young players) than lose in the playoffs, I think it gets the Seahawks closer to the ultimate goal (winning the Super Bowl) and frankly that is all there is to it.

    You think winning in 2010 is more important.


    We have a difference of opinion.


    (Also, I think Seattle can win the division with Charlie at QB anyway which would be the best of both worlds).
    MARTYREDwarner
     


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 10:07 am
  • JohnnyB wrote:
    Jac wrote:
    warner28 wrote:
    Again, its not about Matt or Charlie, its about the TEAM. And for the record, I have NEVER said Matt is not better than Charlie right now (and you claim I can't read), I have said I don't think the development of the TEAM is the reason Matt is starting. I stand by that.


    Someday, I hope Carroll/Schneider explain the decision. It's one glaring spot where they're markably going against their overall philosophy. Could be that they think Hasselbeck could pull it together for 8/9 wins for the division title, and they'd like to install a winning culture with the young guys. Or it could be that they think that, in the short term, he gives the team a better shot at developing the young receivers and keeping the defense off the field for longer stretches. It's definitely not about the QB in 2011, because he won't be here.


    It's really very simple. All you have to do is realize the false ideas you harbor. First of all, Hasselbeck gives the team the best chance to win now. He won the competition with Whitehurst hands down and has proven himself far better now. Secondly, Hasselbeck is playing at close to his best, which is Pro Bowl level and one of the top five QBs in the NFL. Fans shouldn't judge their QB based upon how they feel after he makes mistakes in a loss. If you do, you are almost guaranteed to misjudge him. Third, as numerous QBs have shown over the years in the NFL, Hasselbeck has a real chance to play at this level for another three or four years, plenty of time to contend for the Super Bowl. Of course, there is no guarantee so the team should have solid backup plans in place, and they do.

    Now all you have to do is figure out why you don't understand the above and you'll understand why the team has put Hasselbeck where he is.



    Wow, just wow.

    Playing at close to his best?

    Top 5 QB in the NFL?

    Pro Bowl level?

    Real chance to play 3-4 more years?


    Just wow, talk about living outside reality. Seriously, any other fans agree with Johnny? Any?


    More importantly if the Seahawks believed even 1 of those things, why has he not gotten an extension?
    Last edited by MARTYREDwarner on Thu Sep 23, 2010 10:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 10:11 am
  • I would rather go 5-11 and find out more about Charlie (and other young players) than lose in the playoffs, I think it gets the Seahawks closer to the ultimate goal (winning the Super Bowl) and frankly that is all there is to it.


    I don't think this decision (play CW and other young players) by the FO takes place until the team is mathematically eliminated (or close to it). Fact is, #8 is statistically bad enough to get us to 5-11. I think he needs at least a couple more games to prove/disprove that he's still the same QB of the past several years (poor throws, poor mechanics, bone-headed plays). Until then he proves otherwise, the idea of winning now will always be valued over developing a player. So CW can't move up until he: a) Proves he is better or b) MH continues to falter - hopefully when the decision comes it's more about a) than b), but I'm sure it'll be a bit of both.
    Image
    User avatar
    nsport
    * NET Sports Handicapper *
     
    Posts: 1416
    Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 9:13 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 10:25 am
  • This one's pretty simple in my mind.

    Pete does not feel that Charlie is ready... Matt's game (howbeit definitely not at a Pro Bowl level after two games) is better than Charlie's and Pete wants "to win now".

    I also believe that the FO would consider a year or two (at most) extension for Matt but his play would have to improve dramatically for that to be a possibility.

    Matt's career as a starting QB is in jeopardy... not in a game or two, imo... but definitely by the end of the season if his INTs are about equal with his (passing) TDs.
    EastCoastHawksFan posted... "Trading for Harvin is by far the worst move John S has ever made." (March 18, 2014)

    your World Champion Seattle Seahawks.. how sweet is that!!
    User avatar
    onanygivensunday
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2999
    Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 8:59 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 10:25 am
  • warner28 wrote:

    Wow, just wow.

    Playing at close to his best?

    Top 5 QB in the NFL?

    Pro Bowl level?

    Real chance to play 3-4 more years?


    Just wow, talk about living outside reality. Seriously, any other fans agree with Johnny? Any?



    "Nope"
    "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: 547
    Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2009 11:14 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 10:27 am
  • warner28 wrote:More importantly if the Seahawks believed even 1 of those things, why has he not gotten an extension?


    That's easy Warner. Matt has declined all offers by the FO for an extension because he knows that once he's named MVP this season his price will skyrocket.
    Last edited by Trrrroy on Thu Sep 23, 2010 10:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
    I hate Tim Ruskell.
    User avatar
    Trrrroy
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2801
    Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 9:24 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Thu Sep 23, 2010 10:28 am

  • Again, its not about Matt or Charlie, its about the TEAM. And for the record, I have NEVER said Matt is not better than Charlie right now (and you claim I can't read), I have said I don't think the development of the TEAM is the reason Matt is starting. I stand by that.


    Someday, I hope Carroll/Schneider explain the decision. It's one glaring spot where they're markably going against their overall philosophy. Could be that they think Hasselbeck could pull it together for 8/9 wins for the division title, and they'd like to install a winning culture with the young guys. Or it could be that they think that, in the short term, he gives the team a better shot at developing the young receivers and keeping the defense off the field for longer stretches. It's definitely not about the QB in 2011, because he won't be here.


    It's really very simple. All you have to do is realize the false ideas you harbor. First of all, Hasselbeck gives the team the best chance to win now. He won the competition with Whitehurst hands down and has proven himself far better now. Secondly, Hasselbeck is playing at close to his best, which is Pro Bowl level and one of the top five QBs in the NFL. Fans shouldn't judge their QB based upon how they feel after he makes mistakes in a loss. If you do, you are almost guaranteed to misjudge him. Third, as numerous QBs have shown over the years in the NFL, Hasselbeck has a real chance to play at this level for another three or four years, plenty of time to contend for the Super Bowl. Of course, there is no guarantee so the team should have solid backup plans in place, and they do.

    Now all you have to do is figure out why you don't understand the above and you'll understand why the team has put Hasselbeck where he is.[/quote]

    Wow, just wow.

    Playing at close to his best?

    Top 5 QB in the NFL?

    Pro Bowl level?

    Real chance to play 3-4 more years?


    Just wow, talk about living outside reality. Seriously, any other fans agree with Johnny? Any?
    [/quote]

    Of course, how many people agree with me has zero bearing on whether it is true. No matter. As I have said, before the season is over you will see what I mean, the stats will probably support it, and just for you (but again no proof whatsoever), most fans will agree with me.

    More importantly if the Seahawks believed even 1 of those things, why has he not gotten an extension?



    I (and others) have answered this question for you so many times, and the answer is so obvious, there's no point in trying again, is there?
    "Unless you were in that meeting room and know what we're supposed to do, don't assume!" -T.J.H.
    User avatar
    JohnnyB
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 358
    Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 9:36 pm


PreviousNext


It is currently Mon Jul 21, 2014 11:34 pm

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE ARCHIVES ]




Information
  • Who is online
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests