Yeah, NFL teams always wait for top 5 Pro Bowl QBs to reach free agency before talking extension, you are right, so obvious.


There is not a chance in hell Matt is ever one of the 5 best QBs in the NFL again, not a chance in hell.

How does Whitehurst make the rest of the team better? Is it not completely feasible that the rest of the team gets better on the field while the coaches decide the future of the qb situation, while we still put the best qb on the field of play?




Yes we have a difference of opinion, because you seem to think that there is no other possibility for the future of this team besides Whitehurst at QB and that the team around the qb can't improve on the path without Whitehurst at qb. You don't have to look far for an example....Minnesota is a fine example. They built their team up but didn't have the qb they needed until they signed favre and nearly went all the way with him. My point isn't that we are going to go sign favre next year, that's ludicrous, but my point is that you can build a team up without the qb of that future team being on the field today. We, as a team can improve more with the best players playing.

Kidhawk,

I have NEVER said I think Charlie is the ONLY future, I am actually fairly certain that he is NOT the future (and have said so many times), I would just prefer to find that out as soon as possible.

You are right, you can build the team up first, bring in a hired gun (if you are able to find one, they aren't available every offseason) and take a 1-2 year shot at winning (just hope things go perfectly which has not happened in Minnesota since they have no ring so far) or you can do everything in your power to set your team up to have a 5-6 year run which involves building from the QB out.

There is a reason teams take QBs in the top 5 and its a very good reason.


Whitehurst probably is not the answer, how fast this team figures that out is ESSENTIAL. Maybe that decision has already been made and that is why Matt is starting but I have a feeling Seattle will let Matt leave and insert Charlie in 2011, we will then find out he is not the guy and have to go back to the drawing board in 2012.


You can always point to exceptions to the rule (and Minnesota is not even that since they have won NOTHING) but how many teams have signed a proven veteran QB and won the Super Bowl within 3 years? They'd be the exception, not the rule. Most teams that win the Super Bowl develop the QB along with the team. And they do it that way for a reason, it the time tested successful way to do it.

You are obviously struggling mightily with this and I thought of an explanation that might help you. Here is your argument in a form that makes it obvious how false it is:

"The only reason NFL teams and players fail to reach early contract agreements is when the team thinks that the player isn't going to be good enough, therefore the team can't think much of Hasselbeck's future."



Stay tuned, grab some crow soup to go with it, and get ready to eat those words before the season is over.

_________________
"Unless you were in that meeting room and know what we're supposed to do, don't assume!" -T.J.H.

Please, stop making crap up, that is not even close to what I said, I said they do not wait to re-sign top 5 Pro Bowl QBs, you said Matt IS (present tense) that, teams don't wait for that.

As for eating crow, considering Matt has been to 3 Pro Bowls in a decade and has been a top 5 QB maybe 2-3 years out of his whole career I am reasonably certain he will never reach that level again.

And frankly its incredibly unrealistic to think that is that level or will be again.


Seattle has not re-signed him for 1 of 2 reasons:

1) they have no intentions of re-signing him

2) they do not believe he is a top 5 Pro Bowl level QB playing at his best which you claimed he IS (again present tense).


If they believed anything close to what you believe, they would be doing everything in their power to extend his deal, no reason why they would wait.

Warner,

How do you know the team hasn't figured that out? I mean he's not playing now, and PC has said that it's not his time, so as far as we know, they may have already decided that he's not the future. We don't know what the front office is going to do and this is why I think we play the player who deserves to play, it gives us the best shot at winning and it shows the other players that the team is committed to winning which is good for moral, which, a winning attitude is a must on a team you want to become a winner

So when we get to the end of the year and talking heads bring up Brady, Manning, Brees, Rodgers, Schaub as a sample Top-5...there's going to be somebody that steps up and says "Wait, we have to include Hasselbeck in this conversation..."?

I don't know, its what I believe is happening, its my opinion (really more my fear).


As for the winning attitude thing, I believe you can do that while developing a QB, Carroll just needed to sell Whitehurst to the team, its the coaches job to do this. And it happens all the time.

Minnesota made the playoffs with Gus Frerotte and Tarvaris Jackson shuttling at QB in 2008 and lost their first playoff game. Minnesota made the playoffs with Brett Favre at QB in 2009 and lost their second playoff game. Yeah, that was worth it. Instead of allowing Jackson (for example) to develop another year and see if he could improve, the Vikings mortgaged his future and the team's future for a shot at the SB and failed. And now, this year, Favre looks like garbage. So next season, when Favre is done and Minnesota still has a decent roster, what do you think their options at QB are? Do they apologize to Jackson and try to develop him a year late? Do they bring in a rookie QB and suffer through his growing pains as their window closes? In my view, Minnesota is a fine example of what we absolutely should NOT do at the QB position.

_________________


12 > 49

Agree 100000% with this.

Minnesota was a superbowl contender, that's what we all want. if you go by superbowl wins, what are we all doing rooting for seattle? It's about the ride. My point with Minnesota isn't that they are the end all be all, my point is that you can build a quality team without sacrificing the here and now. One position, even the qb position isn't worth tanking a season. If you have a shot at the playoffs you take that shot now and you develop players on the practice field where they should be

For those that watch baseball, KEN GRIFFEY JR comes to mind. A beloved fan favorite on the downside of his career. One in which he was part of something special. For Jr. it was the '95 season and bringing hope to Seattle. For Hasselbeck, he quarterbacked our lone Super Bowl appearance and many excellent years of running Holmgren's WC offense and division titles.

However, JR's second year back in Seattle was a disaster and a black eye for the Mariners. But if they hadn't brought him back (after a somewhat successful previous season) and the team sucked the fans would have blasted the organization for letting JR go. They held on too long and paid the price for it.

The Seahawks have to let this year play out and see what happens. If Matt continues to fail (this season) and it costs us more games then the team will have the necessary justification to make a change without bucking the fans over one of the most popular players in team history. I don't want to get rid of Hasselbeck, he reminds me of the past glory. But his play is what stirred up the fans, not the other way around. Win now, win forever starts with having the right pieces to the puzzle. Matt's not the right fit anymore.

_________________
"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

Carroll's job is to build a winner. His stated philosophy is to compete to bring out the best in every player and to put the best team on the field to compete week in and week out. His job is not to sell a lesser player to the team.

Wow Johnny. I've seen optimists before, but...wow. Hell, I am an optimist, but that doesn't mean I believe that just because I want something really bad it will actually happen. Look, I don't agree with everything warner says, meaning that I think the starting QB job is still Matt's to lose and he might...just might...become a very effective game manager, which would extend his career a few years. That said, I think you're mistaking "effectiveness" for "Top 5" or "Pro Bowl" caliber.

Matt has demonstrated all too well that every time he tries to take over a game his effectiveness declines. This means that he is overreaching, which hurts the team. Smart QBs know their limitations and work to maximize the opportunities where they can be successful or minimize the damage when they know they just can't make a certain type of play. It is always better to throw the ball away, dump it off, or even scramble for a few yards rather than turn the ball over. We've seen Matt do the opposite many times, as recently as last Sunday. Matt is good, but he just isn't good enough and he needs to accept that.

BTW, your explanation for why the team hasn't extended Hass is inept. In fact, it sorta justifies why warner doesn't understand why the team keeps playing Matt. If, as you suggest, the team thinks Matt is just not that good, then why not put Charlie in and see how he develops? Yes, Matt is better than Charlie right now, but if he keeps killing us with turnovers, who cares?

Wow. just, wow.

What has Matt showed you to make you think that he's going to be a top 5 QB this year? A 170 yard game?

And what makes you think he's going to get resigned? Its like you completely ignore the fact that the FO was interested in Clausen, Kolb, and gave up second round value for Whitehurst. You don't give up second round value for someone that you think is going to be a backup, you just don't. If all they wanted was a backup they would have signed Redman, or Carr, or some other experienced journeyman QB, not pay as much as they did for a third-stringer who's never thrown a meaningful NFL pass. An experienced journeyman would have made much better "competition" for Hass as well, so please don't bring up the "they signed him for competition" argument.

So they obviously thought of Whitehurst as a potential starter, yet only signed him for two years. Why would they sign someone who they think of as a future starter to only two years if they plan on keeping Matt around for three? It doesn't make sense unless 1) they're really stupid and overpayed for a backup, or 2) they don't plan on resigning Hass.

I'd bet on #2.

_________________
I hate Tim Ruskell.

Then why did he get rid of Housh, Wilson, Sims, and Tapp. They would have given us the best team to win.

_________________
I hate Tim Ruskell.

This paragraph should be etched in bronze. Spot on.

_________________
Ohh, I wish you hadn't said that.

Yes, I agree...this was particularly good analysis.

Look at Jackson's performance in 2008. He started off poorly, but when given the chance late in the season as the Vikes ran at the playoffs, he actually performed pretty well (including a road win over the SB-bound Cardinals). His numbers for the season were actually pretty good - the completion percentage was low (though he kept it above 60% his last 3 games as a starter) and he was safe with the ball (9 TDs to 2 INTs) and had a good YPA. The team made the playoffs. Had they stuck with him, there was every reason to believe that he could have improved on that good showing and made the team a SB contender (outstanding D, outstanding run game, good QB... sounds like a winning combo). In other words, there's no reason to believe that they couldn't have been SB contenders with Jackson at QB. Instead, they went with the big name and essentially stated that they had no faith in Jackson - even with his solid performances. Look what it got them.

What I don't understand is this idea that playing Whitehurst is necessarily "sacrificing the here and now." What evidence do you have that he CAN'T do what Hasselbeck has done thus far this season? I'm pretty sure he can throw for TDs, run for TDs, and throw picks just as well as Hass has.

_________________


12 > 49

You couldn't be more right. But do you think most Hawks fans can stomach a Charlie Whitehurst experiment? Think about it; If Charlie starts blowing games, throwing pick after pick and Pete decides to ride it out to see if CW settle's down. Then people will be calling for Carroll's head. I realize most people in here are realists and we know a Superbowl isn't on the horizon, but that's not the case for a lot of others, especially the fair weather fans who bought in after week 1.

We can barely take a bad game from our aging franchise QB, the guy who took us to our first Superbowl. What makes everyone think we'll be more accepting if this were CW throwing games? I don't think we want to see the reality, that we wasted a draft pick on him.

Does anyone really see Charlie Whitehurst as our next franchise QB? I mean honestly. The only thing CW has on #8 is arm strength, and probably a little more mobility. Everything else, forget about it. No experience, nothing.

_________________
~ The Stache'