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.

_________________
My Tapatalk for Ipad is bigger than yours. Size matters.

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."



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.

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

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.

_________________


Okay, so maybe that pass rush is still an issue. Lather, rinse, repeat.

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.

_________________
I hate Tim Ruskell.

Sounds like Hasselbeck (Favre) once upon a time.

_________________
"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

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.

_________________
~ The Stache'

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.

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?

_________________
~ The Stache'

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.

_________________
I hate Tim Ruskell.

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

_________________


Okay, so maybe that pass rush is still an issue. Lather, rinse, repeat.

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.

_________________
~ The Stache'

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.

_________________

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.

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.

_________________
~ The Stache'

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.

_________________

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?

_________________
~ The Stache'

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).

_________________


Okay, so maybe that pass rush is still an issue. Lather, rinse, repeat.

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.

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?

_________________
~ The Stache'