Isn't the point of getting rid of Flynn to save money and get a player who can run the same things as Russell Wilson. We save 3.5 million in cap space by trading Flynn, why waste the cap space on a aging vet, who doesn't improve the team in the short term or long term. Its not like Wilson needs a mentor

We need to move on and stop clinging to the past.

Scottemojo wrote:The sentimentality in this thread is nauseating.

One man's vomit is another man's dinner.

Bring the old guy back! He's just the inspiration we need to get to the SB. It will be a trip down memory lane with a different outcome!

I'm for it. He has the football smarts, plain and simple.

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.

Seriously? We make it to the Superbowl, get in position to take a knee then you DON'T let the QB who guided you there take the knee? Hass was a great Seahawk, but if Wilson got the team into that position it'd be a great insult to let Hass take the knee

yeah, you wouldnt let hass take the victory formation knee. that'd be wrong. But having hass here as our 2nd or 3rd wouldnt hurt the team. some of you dont like him, or think he cant play, and thats fine, he wouldnt be here for that necessarily. if he wanted to sign a contract for vet min and be 2nd or third on the depth, and just wanted one more chance to win a SB in seattle, since he was robbed of his, i would welcome him. im not saying set the franchise back years by letting him come back. Fwiw, i dont see him coming back here, unless its a 1 day contract just to retire. But i would support him if he did. Great seahawk and class act, good for the locker room and the community

Hasselbeck is not a fit for this offense .......... any more than Largent would have been a fit for a Hasselbeck offense.

Largent and Zorn.

I wonder if there is a young Steve Largent out there somewhere that they could pair up with Russell Wilson.

Hawk4lyfe wrote:some of you dont like him, or think he cant play, and thats fine, he wouldnt be here for that necessarily.

1. Nobody 'doesn't like' Matt Hasselbeck. Everybody likes Matt Hasselbeck. What some people don't like is clinging to the past. It's time to move on. He's 38 this year and the offense would have to shift considerably to accommodate him. It makes sense to bring in a backup who can at least run a lot of the plays Wilson can. I might be mistaken, but I think John Schneider already made this point in his post-season interviews.

2. If he isn't here to play what is he here for? This idea that Hasselbeck warrants a place on the roster to hang off the coat-tails of a possible Super Bowl run is ridiculous. Should we also save a roster spot for Walter Jones and Shaun Alexander? Were they robbed too?

This is what those one-day signing/retire as a member of your main team type deals are for.

We sling the ball deep all the time with Russell Wilson. I bet this year alone we have completed more deep passes then we ever did with Hasselbeck.

Why in gods name would we want to bring back a dink and dunk offense? You guys are acting like mariner fans.

The Hasselbeck era is over people.

Tech you have been saying that for years but the truth is Hasselbeck was #3 in the league on the deep ball his first year with the Titans and among the top with completions and bottom for Int's on those throws.

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.

Realistically I kind of doubt the Titans will let him go. Yes he is scheduled for a pretty big payday if they don't but Locker has yet to prove hes is the franchise guy and yet to stay healthy. They also don't currently have another suitable backup to replace him.

I know English wants to say nobody dislikes Matt but I don't believe that is true. Matt for some reason brings out the hate is some. My brother who knows little about football would openly tell you he hated Matt. Didn't have a reason other than to make the standard "he has a weak arm blah blah blah. I took it with a grain of salt from him because if you ask him who Matt was throwing to he would get that deer in the headlights look and try to change the subject but for whatever reason, he couldn't stand Matt and I have seen the same type of opinions from others.

It always blows e away that Tarvaris Jackson got more respect from some even in here and the guy never did anything to deserve it yet he had followers from other teams and members here that give him more respect than the guy that took us to a super bowl.

If everyone is so anxious to have him back sign him to a one day conract and retire him. In no way does he fit the direction this team is headed.

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.

Nobody is claiming the team needs to acquire an exact replica of Russell Wilson. The point is more about having to change as little as possible. Having Hasselbeck as the backup means a complete sea change in approach, whether that's coming in mid-game or for 2-3 weeks. A quarterback with a stronger arm and greater mobility means less change. It's not a pipe dream to expect there's a QB out there who can be more elusive, throw a nice deep ball off play action and run a little read-option or pistol better than a 38-year-old Matt Hasselbeck.

It's all about making life as easy as possible. Not about guaranteeing there won't be any drop off if Wilson gets injured or misses time.

And even if there are a few weirdo's out there like your brother who 'hate' Matt Hasselbeck, the majority definitely don't feel that way. However, there probably are a lot of people very frustrated that once again we're talking about him on this forum, with people making such ridiculous suggestions like he should take the victory formation at the Super Bowl or should take up a roster spot as the #3 because he was 'robbed' in XL and deserves a free ride. We're not a charity, here to give Hasselbeck, Walter Jones or Shaun Alexander Super Bowl rings. This is a new era of Seahawks football and it's time... to... move... on.

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.

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

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.

+1

if matt plays, the experience would be invaluable, and we would likely run the ball alot and rely on our defense. no he isnt as mobile, but he's still pretty accurate, and he gets the ball out quick, which i love

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.....

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.

IMO if Wilson goes down we're screwed no matter who is his back up.

This could be moot as Mort keeps saying that other NFL teams do not appear to have interest in Matt Flynn as a starter.

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.

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

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.....

uploadfromtaptalk1360486374049.jpg

Well then who is it you think we wouldn't be screwed with if we had to run them out there for an entire season?

I love the pill bug statement. One of the things Wilson is praised for is his ability to avoid the big hit, IE: a different form of the pill bug. You can't have it both ways. If you don't like a QB who avoids contact then you must not like Wilson either, I guess? PS" I think our O-line might be a little bit better than the gang of crap Matt was playing behind and we also aren't relying on Charlie Martin and Julius Jones as options either. Matt can still get the ball out quickly and accurately so with decent targets and an actual running game, especially if our defense doesn't put us in dire need to force huge plays, we probably wouldn't require any backup to try and carry the team. At least that is the goal, so if you are wanting your backup to come in and keep things rolling who do you suggest

This is just a conversation of what if's, it is not the new direction we want the team to go. We are talking about a guy we hope doesn't see the field but if he has to can come in he does not completely kill the team. When Locker went down Matt was still able to win games and that was with a much worse team surrounding him. Here we are looking for a backup that wouldn't be required to carry the team but rather could keep it functioning. I believe Matt could do that better than most any backup QB that is available right now. If you disagree please tell me who you think could be a safer bet. Keep in mind some want Tarvaris Jackson to come back as our back up. If you wanna see a team screwed if the starter goes down for any time, that is the best suggestion I could think of. I would rather have Curtis Painter here than Jackson.

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.

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.

I think you'll find it made an equal amount of sense as the post I was replying to.

I've made my points on this issue and don't feel the need to repeat myself.

Shall we tip-toe through the tulips?

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.

Lol! Matt Hasslebecks pill bug impersonation is no way comparable to Wilson's escapability. Lol

One can't get away or sense the pressure in time, the other is a master at it.

Lol. Whatta homer for Hasselbeck you are.

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.

I completely disagree.

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."

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?

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?

Can't hurt to kick the tires!

I interviewed Daunte Culpepper the week of the Super Bowl and he sounded like he was in great shape. His voice could definitely run a 4.53.

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.

Yeah but to be fair you said "this regime". The head coach is implied when you talk about coaching regimes.