JohnnyB wrote:

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?

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.

warner28 wrote: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.

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?

warner28 wrote: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.

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.

warner28 wrote:

JohnnyB wrote:

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?

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

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."

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.

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

JohnnyB wrote:
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."

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

JohnnyB wrote:

warner28 wrote:

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.

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

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..."?

kidhawk wrote: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

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.

kidhawk wrote:
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.

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.

volsunghawk wrote:

kidhawk wrote:
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.

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.

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

nsport wrote:

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.

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.

warner28 wrote: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.

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?

JohnnyB wrote:

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.

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

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.

kidhawk wrote:

warner28 wrote: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.

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.

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

MysterMatt wrote: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.

This paragraph should be etched in bronze. Spot on.

sadhappy wrote:

MysterMatt wrote: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.

This paragraph should be etched in bronze. Spot on.

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

kidhawk wrote: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

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.

Tech Worlds wrote:
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.

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.

warner28 wrote: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.

Whitehurst was never, ever drafted to be anything but a competent backup. He replaced Seneca. Pretty simple equation. Next move would be Hass to retire or traded and we draft a QB and bring him up in the system. Or HAss sticks around to help the kid.

There is no way I can see ever naming Whitehurst the starter over Matt - he's just not good enough. It would be a huge step backwards imo.

warner28 wrote:

JohnnyB wrote:
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."

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).

Ha ha. That's the same as my paraphrase. You give only two reasons, both of which due to the team not thinking he is good enough and therefore denying there can be any other reason (like maybe they have been trying to sign him, but Hass is waiting until he is in a better negotiating position). So since you deny that could be possible, or that anything beside your two reasons could be possible you are saying:


"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."

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.

So unless you have some information that the Seahawks definitely have not approached Hass's agent, you're saying what I said you are saying.

Zowert wrote:

Tech Worlds wrote:
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.

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.

This can't be said enough, but we will never know if Whitehurst can be a franchise QB until he plays. That "no experience" criticism? How the hell do you think you get experience? Not by sitting on the bench. Hass is NOT the long-term answer for us, so why not find out as soon as we can whether Whitehurst can be? If he isn't no big deal, we draft the next QB in 2011. If he is, there's no excuse for sitting him on the bench to stroke the fans who can't accept that 2005 was half a decade ago and that Hass isn't the same QB he was then.

Zowert wrote: The only thing CW has on #8 is arm strength, and probably a little more mobility. Everything else, forget about it. No experience, nothing.

Matt Hasselbeck had less on Dilfer than Whitehurst has on Hass. And no, most people don't think that he is our future franchise QB, but at least he has a chance to be, which is more than anybody can say about Hass.

MeanBlueGreen wrote:Whitehurst was never, ever drafted to be anything but a competent backup.

Sounds like Hasselbeck (Favre) once upon a time.

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?

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.

You know why Hass is the starting QB right now? Because he outplayed Charlie Whitehurst at training camp and the preseason. Meaning, good days or bad, CW is not as good as Matt Hasselbeck. You think Matt's bad game was awful, imagine how awful Charlie's bad games would be.

Face it. Hass is the starter for a reason. I'm sure Pete Carroll knows a little more about football than the armchair quarterbacks in here.

kidhawk wrote: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?

Because I believe they will one day win a Super Bowl and for me it is about Super Bowl wins, I root for the Seahawks because I want to watch them win Super Bowls (plural).

The ride part of the process and each week is fun but at the end of the day it comes down to getting to and winning Super Bowls.

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?

It doesn't matter what you say, he is hell bent on starting Charlie Whitehurst. Which is fine, if that's what he thinks is better for the team in the long run, then cool. He's entitled to his opinion.

I just think Hasselbeck is the obvious choice in our situation. If we were 1-8 right now, I would say "go ahead!"

Where was the 17 page "objective" thread on Hasselbeck after week 1?

Zowert wrote:Where was the 17 page "objective" thread on Hasselbeck after week 1?

You act like we just suddenly formed our opinions since watching Matt suck last game. I've been for starting Whitehurst ever since they payed second round value to acquire him. Matt could have thrown for 300 yards and 4 touchdowns last week and my opinion wouldn't change.

Zowert wrote:

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?

It doesn't matter what you say, he is hell bent on starting Charlie Whitehurst. Which is fine, if that's what he thinks is better for the team in the long run, then cool. He's entitled to his opinion.

I just think Hasselbeck is the obvious choice in our situation. If we were 1-8 right now, I would say "go ahead!"

Where was the 17 page "objective" thread on Hasselbeck after week 1?

Buried under the 5000 "Hahaha, Hasselhaters, time to eat crow!" posts from people who thought he was the key to the win.

volsunghawk wrote:
This can't be said enough, but we will never know if Whitehurst can be a franchise QB until he plays. That "no experience" criticism? How the hell do you think you get experience? Not by sitting on the bench. Hass is NOT the long-term answer for us, so why not find out as soon as we can whether Whitehurst can be? If he isn't no big deal, we draft the next QB in 2011. If he is, there's no excuse for sitting him on the bench to stroke the fans who can't accept that 2005 was half a decade ago and that Hass isn't the same QB he was then.

Why do you think he has 'no experience' in the first place? The guy is 28 years old. If he were meant to be a starter by now then he probably wouldn't be here. People think we picked CW up to be our next stud under center. WRONG! The guy is a career backup. If you watched him play in SD, training camp and preseason, then you would realize just that. Using him for anything other than emergency situations would be throwing a game away.

When it comes to Matt Hasselbeck, we're fair weather fans. He plays good, we shut up. He plays bad, we start 5,000 page threads on how bad he sucks and why we need a new QB.

Trrrroy wrote:

Zowert wrote:Where was the 17 page "objective" thread on Hasselbeck after week 1?

You act like we just suddenly formed our opinions since watching Matt suck last game. I've been for starting Whitehurst ever since they payed second round value to acquire him.

And i have been saying it ever since i saw Matt give us NO CHANCE TO WIN by throwing all those interceptions during the last 4 games of the year. I like him, but without Holmgren to steady him he is not what he used to be.

JohnnyB wrote:So unless you have some information that the Seahawks definitely have not approached Hass's agent, you're saying what I said you are saying.

Please, if they believe Matt was what you claimed, we would have heard about Seattle trying to extend him, just like we hear about every major negotiation.

This believe that no one would have heard whispers about an offer, please.

Trrrroy wrote:

Zowert wrote:Where was the 17 page "objective" thread on Hasselbeck after week 1?

You act like we just suddenly formed our opinions since watching Matt suck last game. I've been for starting Whitehurst ever since they payed second round value to acquire him. Matt could have thrown for 300 yards and 4 touchdowns last week and my opinion wouldn't change.

No I act like you guys aren't being OBJECTIVE at all, because you're not.

I'm not saying Hasselbeck is the best QB in the league right now. I'm not even saying we should keep him around next year. The man is on the decline. But to be "objective" you need to look at all sides of the scenario and argument. You're suggesting we go against Pete's plan and put CW in, at a time when we have a legit shot at winning the division.

If you think experimenting with CW is better for the team than making it to the wild card, then you've lost your mind.

I know you hate Hasselbeck, and you all have good reason to. Fine. I'm disappointed in him as well. But he gives us the best chance to win right now.

Zowert wrote:

Trrrroy wrote:

Zowert wrote:Where was the 17 page "objective" thread on Hasselbeck after week 1?

You act like we just suddenly formed our opinions since watching Matt suck last game. I've been for starting Whitehurst ever since they payed second round value to acquire him. Matt could have thrown for 300 yards and 4 touchdowns last week and my opinion wouldn't change.

No I act like you guys aren't being OBJECTIVE at all, because you're not.

Fine but stop acting like you are because you aren't either.


Objectivity left long ago, go back to page 1 if you want my objective opinion but please stop acting like you are somehow being objective and no one else is.

I'm somehow drawn to this multi-car accident and can't help rubbernecking because the carnage is so... well, you know.

Here's the rub guys - this whole MH vs. CW has nothing to do with anything, including getting to the Super Bowl. Yes - simple fact is MH is declining and if you count the last several games, there is enough empirical data to bench the guy and put CW in for that real-game experience. However...

I agree with the idea that it's Super Bowl or bust - and that should be our thought going forward. If not, we are all just wasting our time and money if we don't prioritize that achievement for our team.

What this is about is the roster. Aside from these two QB's, there are 51 other players on the team. Of which (IIRC) about 25 or so are holdovers from last year. Holy crap. That means that the new 25 or so players are valued as upgrades in those positions over their counterparts from last season. Boil that down a little deeper and you can see that we have close to half of our regulars on offense and defense are different than last year. If you believe in the FO, they value those players as improvements over last year's squad. Don't think for a second that if someone fails that they're not scouring our team and the waiver wire for a guy that will be .001% better than the guy they will cut.

My belief system is that if MH continues to trend towards INT's and mental mistakes, then it hampers the development of the other 52 players on the team. And I don't explicitly see #8 as being the de-facto reason as whether this team can win or lose this year. I do think that if MH can minimize these mistakes, it is GOOD for the other 52. You can't know how good those guys can be if MH keeps chucking the ball to the other team. You can't measure if we have enough capabilities to be successful in the playoffs if you can't get there in the first place... Trust me on this, the FO is not measuring this team based solely on the performance of the QB. And I'd hazard a guess that we see another 10-20 players gone next year as the talent continues to be evaluated and developed on this team.

warner28 wrote:
Fine but stop acting like you are because you aren't either.


Objectivity left long ago, go back to page 1 if you want my objective opinion but please stop acting like you are somehow being objective and no one else is.

How am I not being objective? Oh thats right because I dont agree with you...

All I'm saying is we go with whatever Pete Carroll chooses. How's that wrong?

Zowert wrote:

volsunghawk wrote:
This can't be said enough, but we will never know if Whitehurst can be a franchise QB until he plays. That "no experience" criticism? How the hell do you think you get experience? Not by sitting on the bench. Hass is NOT the long-term answer for us, so why not find out as soon as we can whether Whitehurst can be? If he isn't no big deal, we draft the next QB in 2011. If he is, there's no excuse for sitting him on the bench to stroke the fans who can't accept that 2005 was half a decade ago and that Hass isn't the same QB he was then.

Why do you think he has 'no experience' in the first place? The guy is 28 years old. If he were meant to be a starter by now then he probably wouldn't be here. People think we picked CW up to be our next stud under center. WRONG! The guy is a career backup. If you watched him play in SD, training camp and preseason, then you would realize just that. Using him for anything other than emergency situations would be throwing a game away.

When it comes to Matt Hasselbeck, we're fair weather fans. He plays good, we shut up. He plays bad, we start 5,000 page threads on how bad he sucks and why we need a new QB.

Oh, you mean like how Kurt Warner was a NFL Europe scrub and career backup until he started his first game when he was 28? If Warner can be thrown out as evidence that Hass can play until he's 40, then he damn sure can be thrown out as evidence that sitting on the bench until your late 20s is evidence that Whitehurst has a Pro Bowl career ahead of him.

I've seen Whitehurst put up good performances and bad performances in preseason. I've also seen Hass do the SAME DAMN THING. I don't expect Whitehurst to be a stud, but I do think that the team brought him in because they felt he COULD be a starting QB and could buy the franchise time to groom a long-term solution. Hass simply doesn't buy the franchise that same amount of time due to his age (not due to his playing ability). I have at no point said that Hass sucked. But he is in decline. He's not the guy to lead us next season or the season after, when our team should be rising to contender status. That's why I think that this year, when so much else is in flux and we have so much turnover, should be the year when we find out what our future at QB will be, and that starts with Whitehurst (but doesn't necessarily end with him).

Zowert wrote:

warner28 wrote:No I act like you guys aren't being OBJECTIVE at all, because you're not.

Fine but stop acting like you are because you aren't either.


Objectivity left long ago, go back to page 1 if you want my objective opinion but please stop acting like you are somehow being objective and no one else is.

How am I not being objective? Oh thats right because I dont agree with you...

All I'm saying is we go with whatever Pete Carroll chooses. How's that wrong?[/quote]


Did I say it was wrong?

I said you weren't being objective and you aren't.


Look at your posts in this thread, if you can honestly claim they are objective you need to get a dictionary.


And for the record, if all we are going to do is "Go with what Pete says" this .net might as well shut down operations.

warner28 wrote:
Did I say it was wrong?

I said you weren't being objective and you aren't.


Look at your posts in this thread, if you can honestly claim they are objective you need to get a dictionary.


And for the record, if all we are going to do is "Go with what Pete says" this .net might as well shut down operations.

I amitted Hasselbeck is on the decline. I said he probably won't be here next season. I'm not acting like a Hasselbeck is the only answer, he's just the best option right now. I know you dont care about winning this season, but I kinda do.

Tell me in your honest opinion. Do you think we have a better chance of winning with Hass or CW?

volsunghawk wrote:Oh, you mean like how Kurt Warner was a NFL Europe scrub and career backup until he started his first game when he was 28? If Warner can be thrown out as evidence that Hass can play until he's 40, then he damn sure can be thrown out as evidence that sitting on the bench until your late 20s is evidence that Whitehurst has a Pro Bowl career ahead of him.

I've seen Whitehurst put up good performances and bad performances in preseason. I've also seen Hass do the SAME DAMN THING. I don't expect Whitehurst to be a stud, but I do think that the team brought him in because they felt he COULD be a starting QB and could buy the franchise time to groom a long-term solution. Hass simply doesn't buy the franchise that same amount of time due to his age (not due to his playing ability). I have at no point said that Hass sucked. But he is in decline. He's not the guy to lead us next season or the season after, when our team should be rising to contender status. That's why I think that this year, when so much else is in flux and we have so much turnover, should be the year when we find out what our future at QB will be, and that starts with Whitehurst (but doesn't necessarily end with him).

So now you're comparing CW to a future hall of famer? Ha. Ah ha ha.... HAHAHAHAHAHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAA!!!!!! This is one hilarious post.

I think we should run the Seahawks in whatever fashion Dom sees fit.

bestfightstory wrote:I think we should run the Seahawks in whatever fashion Dom sees fit.

Championship!

bestfightstory wrote:I think we should run the Seahawks in whatever fashion Dom sees fit.

He actually has the most reasonable opinion here.

Zowert wrote:
Tell me in your honest opinion. Do you think we have a better chance of winning with Hass or CW?

I know you're asking Warner, but I'll answer it, too.

I don't think there's much difference at this point in Hass' career. If the comparison was the Hass of 3-5 years ago, then he'd easily be worth several wins over an untested Whitehurst. As it stands this year? No, not really.

Zowert wrote:

bestfightstory wrote:I think we should run the Seahawks in whatever fashion Dom sees fit.

He actually has the most reasonable opinion here.

That is no surprise whatsoever. He is a reasonable man.

Zowert wrote:

volsunghawk wrote:Oh, you mean like how Kurt Warner was a NFL Europe scrub and career backup until he started his first game when he was 28? If Warner can be thrown out as evidence that Hass can play until he's 40, then he damn sure can be thrown out as evidence that sitting on the bench until your late 20s is evidence that Whitehurst has a Pro Bowl career ahead of him.

I've seen Whitehurst put up good performances and bad performances in preseason. I've also seen Hass do the SAME DAMN THING. I don't expect Whitehurst to be a stud, but I do think that the team brought him in because they felt he COULD be a starting QB and could buy the franchise time to groom a long-term solution. Hass simply doesn't buy the franchise that same amount of time due to his age (not due to his playing ability). I have at no point said that Hass sucked. But he is in decline. He's not the guy to lead us next season or the season after, when our team should be rising to contender status. That's why I think that this year, when so much else is in flux and we have so much turnover, should be the year when we find out what our future at QB will be, and that starts with Whitehurst (but doesn't necessarily end with him).

So now you're comparing CW to a future hall of famer? Ha. Ah ha ha.... HAHAHAHAHAHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAA!!!!!! This is one hilarious post.

That's the point. Some people believe that Matt will play until he's 40 because a couple Hall of Famers have done it, which is equally as far-fetched.

Zowert wrote:

warner28 wrote:
Did I say it was wrong?

I said you weren't being objective and you aren't.


Look at your posts in this thread, if you can honestly claim they are objective you need to get a dictionary.


And for the record, if all we are going to do is "Go with what Pete says" this .net might as well shut down operations.

I amitted Hasselbeck is on the decline. I said he probably won't be here next season. I'm not acting like a Hasselbeck is the only answer, he's just the best option right now. I know you dont care about winning this season, but I kinda do.

Tell me in your honest opinion. Do you think we have a better chance of winning with Hass or CW?

I have already given that honest opinion, I think Seattle is just as likely to win the division with Whitehurst as Hasselbeck. Whitehurst is probably the best QB in the division if he is starting, that is how bad everyone else is.

And I do care about winning this year, I am just realistic and understand that anything more than a really weak division title and quick playoff exit is unrealistic. I think Seattle can do both with Whitehurst and it would be far more beneficial long term without sacrificing 2010.


Basically I think Seattle is a 5-9 win team regardless of rather Charlie or Matt starts but I do think Charlie is more likely to explode and actually think he has more potential to lead a playoff run if Seattle sneaks in but he needs to play first.


That is my honest stance.

Zowert wrote:

volsunghawk wrote:Oh, you mean like how Kurt Warner was a NFL Europe scrub and career backup until he started his first game when he was 28? If Warner can be thrown out as evidence that Hass can play until he's 40, then he damn sure can be thrown out as evidence that sitting on the bench until your late 20s is evidence that Whitehurst has a Pro Bowl career ahead of him.

I've seen Whitehurst put up good performances and bad performances in preseason. I've also seen Hass do the SAME DAMN THING. I don't expect Whitehurst to be a stud, but I do think that the team brought him in because they felt he COULD be a starting QB and could buy the franchise time to groom a long-term solution. Hass simply doesn't buy the franchise that same amount of time due to his age (not due to his playing ability). I have at no point said that Hass sucked. But he is in decline. He's not the guy to lead us next season or the season after, when our team should be rising to contender status. That's why I think that this year, when so much else is in flux and we have so much turnover, should be the year when we find out what our future at QB will be, and that starts with Whitehurst (but doesn't necessarily end with him).

So now you're comparing CW to a future hall of famer? Ha. Ah ha ha.... HAHAHAHAHAHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAA!!!!!! This is one hilarious post.

Sure am, based on just as tenuous an argument as people use to compare Hass to Favre and Warner. When people point to Favre and Warner as evidence that Hass can still play into his late 30s, that's JUST as ridiculous an argument, because Hass has NEVER been on the same level as those guys. Not even in 2005. Hass has been good. Hass has even been really good. But he's never been an elite guy, or shown the durability of Favre and Warner.

volsunghawk wrote:

Zowert wrote:
Tell me in your honest opinion. Do you think we have a better chance of winning with Hass or CW?

I know you're asking Warner, but I'll answer it, too.

I don't think there's much difference at this point in Hass' career. If the comparison was the Hass of 3-5 years ago, then he'd easily be worth several wins over an untested Whitehurst. As it stands this year? No, not really.

Well, i'm in no position to tell you you're wrong. You may very well be right. But I just feel that Hass is the better QB. Regardless of his embarrassing performance last week. I think he'll bounce back this sunday and everyone will shut up until he throws a couple more picks and we lose the game, collectively.