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

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!

_________________

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'

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"

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.

_________________

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.

_________________

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).

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.

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.

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

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 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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

_________________

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.

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".

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.