Scottemojo wrote:The sentimentality in this thread is nauseating.
HawkWow wrote:RichNhansom wrote:The idea of getting someone (outside the draft) who can step in and run our offense is not going to happen. It's an insult to Wilson to think you could. The option part of the read/option is where most athletic QB's fail. It is why this offense is so new. It takes a special QB to be able to execute it and even then requires time in the system in real game situations to become proficient at it.
If Wilson goes down we will revert to a traditional style of offense that functions best with a knowledgeable vet who can get the ball out quickly while reading defenses and can get comfortable with a new set of receivers quickly. He doesn't need to be super durable because he wouldn't see more than spot duty.
Give me a guy who can execute a traditional offence, can motivate the team, is happy to be here as our backup and is a true team leader all day long. Throw in a history of being at his best come playoff time and if the money is reasonable, you do it in a second.
Absolutely. We have the perfect environment for Hass. Behind Jake, he's likely going to see too much playing time in Tenn. Bring him home, let him retire a Hawk and let him run the victory formation in the superbowl.
Hawk4lyfe wrote:some of you dont like him, or think he cant play, and thats fine, he wouldnt be here for that necessarily.
RichNhansom wrote:I keep seeing the "we want someone who can run Wilson's offense but that is not going to happen. There is a reason athletic QB's are rare in the league. This isn't a simple scheme that even Russell Wilson can run, it is a scheme developed to RW's strengths. Finding a QB that can run this system with any efficiency would be a stroke of luck. Did Philly go out and find a backup that could run Vick's system? It's rare for a reason and a pipe dream to think we are going to find someone we can just drop in and they will be able to do even a little of what Wilson is doing.
RichNhansom wrote:I'm not suggesting a victory formation or bringing him back for nastalga sakes, I've seen Pete and John's idea of a mobile/strong armed QB in Tarvaris Jackson and I don't believe for a second if Wilson were to get injured we would run any pistol or Option type plays because you don't want to run the risk of losing your backup also, not to mention the obvious reason that it isn't as simple as just being mobile and strong armed.
My opinion is if you could get Matt here on the cheap he would be better than anything else available 38 years old or not. We didn't ask Wilson to throw the ball hardly at all this year until the Atlanta game. That is what you are going to hope for from your backup as well. Just like every other team with a mobile QB, your backup is going to be asked to play it safe and take what is given while you rely on your running game and defense to hold the game in check.
I know Juhn made a statement in regards to finding a backup more in Wilson's mold but reading between the line a little, I suspect that was his way of saying we are open for trades for Flynn and not that he actually thinks he can find Wilson 2.0 to keep things rolling as is. Any backup we bring in will be asked to stay in the pocket and not take risks.
Hawk4lyfe wrote:if your frustrated we are talking about it "again" (some of us have never talked about it) then hey, dont read this topic genuis. its pretty clear in the title whats its about. if this annoys you, or frustrates you, move on. fact is, having hasselbeck on this roster is not going to hold this team back. If wilson goes down for any length of time, the season is likely shot anyways. Its really just a what-if question to pass the time, and maybe reflect on some of peoples fav players of the past. some of you are taking it waaaay to seriously. Matt has been to a SB and many playoff games, to think/say he would have nothing to offer this team is just stupid imo. its not like we are brining him in to start. but, its likely not going to happen anywayz, just something to talk about
AbsolutNET wrote:Hass never played for this coaching regime, so his connection to the organization right now is the same as any other aging veteran QB. I love the guy but the only reason we could bring him back is for sentimental reasons to the fans.
Tech Worlds wrote:I think if we lost Wilson for the season and we rolled out 38 year old Hasselbeck we would be screwed.
Dude is just old. This isn't 2005 here people. I saw the pill bug impersonation way too many times his last few years here to want to see that again. And oh let's not forget the turnovers.
Maybe if we had a time machine.....
theENGLISHseahawk wrote:Hawk4lyfe wrote:if your frustrated we are talking about it "again" (some of us have never talked about it) then hey, dont read this topic genuis. its pretty clear in the title whats its about. if this annoys you, or frustrates you, move on. fact is, having hasselbeck on this roster is not going to hold this team back. If wilson goes down for any length of time, the season is likely shot anyways. Its really just a what-if question to pass the time, and maybe reflect on some of peoples fav players of the past. some of you are taking it waaaay to seriously. Matt has been to a SB and many playoff games, to think/say he would have nothing to offer this team is just stupid imo. its not like we are brining him in to start. but, its likely not going to happen anywayz, just something to talk about
Whateverz i is goin to talkz wivout gramma in this post. itz not happenin anywayz bruva.
RichNhansom wrote:theENGLISHseahawk wrote:Hawk4lyfe wrote:if your frustrated we are talking about it "again" (some of us have never talked about it) then hey, dont read this topic genuis. its pretty clear in the title whats its about. if this annoys you, or frustrates you, move on. fact is, having hasselbeck on this roster is not going to hold this team back. If wilson goes down for any length of time, the season is likely shot anyways. Its really just a what-if question to pass the time, and maybe reflect on some of peoples fav players of the past. some of you are taking it waaaay to seriously. Matt has been to a SB and many playoff games, to think/say he would have nothing to offer this team is just stupid imo. its not like we are brining him in to start. but, its likely not going to happen anywayz, just something to talk about
Whateverz i is goin to talkz wivout gramma in this post. itz not happenin anywayz bruva.
Nice response there English. Well thought out and formulated. You gotta love .NET for bringing intelligent conversation to the forefront and it is posts like yours that really help this place be the leader of the blogisphere (is that a word?) . Thank you for your well thought out input.
SacHawk2.0 wrote:AbsolutNET wrote:Hass never played for this coaching regime, so his connection to the organization right now is the same as any other aging veteran QB. I love the guy but the only reason we could bring him back is for sentimental reasons to the fans.
You must not remember the Beast Quake game where Hass threw for 4 TDs
volsunghawk wrote:If Hass hadn't played for the Seahawks before and attained the status he did with this team, there is not a SINGLE ONE of you who would be suggesting we bring him in. Think about that. Think about what that means for the value he would represent to the team.
volsunghawk wrote:If Hass hadn't played for the Seahawks before and attained the status he did with this team, there is not a SINGLE ONE of you who would be suggesting we bring him in. Think about that. Think about what that means for the value he would represent to the team.
MontanaHawk05 wrote:volsunghawk wrote:If Hass hadn't played for the Seahawks before and attained the status he did with this team, there is not a SINGLE ONE of you who would be suggesting we bring him in. Think about that. Think about what that means for the value he would represent to the team.
Well, there is the occasional weird one.
"Bring in Kerry Collins? Can't hurt."
"Bring in Mark Brunell? Can't hurt."
"Bring in Marc Bulger? Can't hurt."
volsunghawk wrote:MontanaHawk05 wrote:volsunghawk wrote:If Hass hadn't played for the Seahawks before and attained the status he did with this team, there is not a SINGLE ONE of you who would be suggesting we bring him in. Think about that. Think about what that means for the value he would represent to the team.
Well, there is the occasional weird one.
"Bring in Kerry Collins? Can't hurt."
"Bring in Mark Brunell? Can't hurt."
"Bring in Marc Bulger? Can't hurt."
Yeah, I forgot about those folks.
Hey, guys, I hear that Daunte Culpepper is available. He's younger than Hass, has a similar injury history, has a better career completion rate, has a better career passer rating and a higher TD percentage, and has thrown for more yards per game over his career than Hass has. Anybody want HIM?
AbsolutNET wrote:SacHawk2.0 wrote:AbsolutNET wrote:Hass never played for this coaching regime, so his connection to the organization right now is the same as any other aging veteran QB. I love the guy but the only reason we could bring him back is for sentimental reasons to the fans.
You must not remember the Beast Quake game where Hass threw for 4 TDs
You mean when we had a different offensive coordinator, QB coach, and offensive system? Yeah I remember that.
At least you used a large sample size over the past few years to form your argument.
It is currently Tue Apr 24, 2018 8:52 am
Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]