Matt Hasselbeck's Bad Day: Passes One through Eight
What if I told you Matt Hasselbeck played worse than his numbers indicate? He did through the first half. After all, six for eleven for 38 yards and a score isn't that bad, it's positively Trent Dilfer-esque. But the writing was on the wall. Hasselbeck was playing very poorly and it was only a matter of attempts before he results caught up with ability. As you'll soon see, his successes were largely not his own, but he owned every failure.
This is a break down of the first eight passing plays. Twenty four passing attempts, three days until Dallas, eight attempts a day - makes sense, right? I've done my best to provide as much relevant information as possible.
Play One:
2-4-WAS 44 (12:47) 8-M.Hasselbeck pass incomplete deep left to 18-K.Robinson (24-S.Springs).
Seattle sets 2 WR (left), 2WR (right), RB. All four receivers are tight.
Inside receivers run flats, outside receivers run corner routes.
Koren Robinson beats Shawn Springs.
Hasselbeck underthrows.
Springs defenses the pass.
Prognosis: Hasselbeck has little deep strength. Add in the additional distance to the sideline and this ball is sorely underthrown.
Play Two:
![]() |
| Image 1 |
3-4-WAS 44 (12:42) 8-M.Hasselbeck pass incomplete short right to 83-D.Branch.
Seattle sets WR (left), 2 WR (right), I formation.
Washington in a 4-2 nickel.
Robinson runs a go.
Bobby Engram runs into the flat.
Deion Branch runs a fifteen yard square in.
Hasselbeck throw.
Hasselbeck overthrows (Image 1).
Prognosis: Well, Branch is hardly Randy Moss, so it's not exactly hard to overthrow him, but Hasselbeck needs to bring the ball down. The pass also has a ton of zip behind it. The combination makes for a very hard catch.
|
|
Image 2 |
Play Three:
2-10-WAS 16 (7:35) 8-M.Hasselbeck pass incomplete deep right to 84-B.Engram [99-A.Carter].
Seattle sets WR (left), 2 WR (right), TE (left), Rb.
Washington has four DL, it looks like a 4-3, but it's unclear.
Washington blitzes six.
Engram and Koren Robinson are running crossing routes (Image 2).
Matt Hasselbeck takes a five step drop, fakes play action to Morris, and overthrows a wide open Bobby Engram running to the right corner of the end zone.
Engram is covered by Shawn Springs.
Robinson's route is a little lax.
Hasselbeck targets Engram almost immediately after the play action. It looks like a designed play. Play action, no read and pass.
Hasselbeck is hit by Carter after the pass, but his throw is unaffected by pressure.
Prognosis: Hasselbeck overthrows a wide open Engram costing Seattle a touchdown.
![]() |
| Image 3 |
![]() |
| Image 4 |
Play Four:
3-10-WAS 16 (7:29)8-M.Hasselbeck pass incomplete deep right. PENALTY on SEA-8-M.Hasselbeck, Intentional Grounding, 10 yards, enforced at WAS 16.
Seattle sets 2 WR (left), 2 WR (right) Rb.
Washington is in a 3-2 Dime. The linebackers are in the "A" gaps and the corners are walked up outside the defensive ends.
Washington blitzes the nickel and dime cornerback, but drops both linebackers and the nose tackle. It's a four man pass rush. (Image 3)
Seattle's pass routes look like this (Image 4):
They're mirrored.
Washington doesn't attain pressure.
Hasselbeck throws it out of the right side of the end zone and is flagged for intentional grounding.
Prognosis: The Redskins call the right coverage, the Obejectivist doesn't look for an open man and throws it away. Seahawks charged for intentional grounding on a throw away.
Play Five:
3-13-SEA 30 (1:50) 8-M.Hasselbeck pass short left to 43-L.Weaver to SEA 36 for 6 yards (96-C.Griffin).
Seattle sets 2 WR (left), 2 WR (right) Rb.
Washington in a 4-1 Dime.
The receivers clear, all running deep.
Walter Jones pulls left.
Leonard Weaver fakes block and curls under Jones.
Floyd Womack does not release from his defender.
Hasselbeck dishes to Weaver, Weaver follows Jones, but is caught from behind by Griffin.
Prognosis: Conservative play call almost works.
|
| Image 5 |
Play Six:
Play action.
Routes (Image 5 (Koren Robinson not pictured)):
One read, pass targets Branch (?), but is five yards wide right.
Play Seven:
2-10-SEA 20 (11:46) PENALTY on SEA-8-M.Hasselbeck, Delay of Game, 5 yards, enforced at SEA 20 - No Play.
Seattle sets 2 WR (left), 2WR (right), RB. All four receivers are tight, right inside receiver is tight end John Carlson.
Washington breaks in 3-2, with Jason Taylor defensive left, standing.
Skins show a bunch of presnap looks. Walk the strong safety down, position London Fletcher over the left "A" gap and also drop Taylor down into a three point.
Seattle motions outside-right receiver Deion Branch wide right. Then it moves Carlson into a true tight end position offensive right. Inside-left receiver Koren Robinson is most the way into motioning wide left when Seattle is called for a delay of game.
Prognosis: Hasselbeck is playing spooked. Jim Zorn has his number.
Play Eight (A):
![]() |
| Image 6 |
False start Leonard Weaver.
Prognosis: Why the hell is Weaver in the slot?
Play Eight (B):
Time out.
Prognosis: Seattle is split in a rare five wide. The Redskins are in a 4-2 nickel with wide splits between the tackles and ends, the linebackers walked into those splits and the strong safety challenging the outside right. Hasselbeck sees blitz and calls time out. That's...troubling.
Play Eight (C):
3-10-SEA 20 (10:28) 8-M.Hasselbeck pass incomplete short right to 83-D.Branch.
Seattle switches out of that zany five receiver set and instead splits 2 WR (left/right), TE (left), split backs.
Washington breaks in a 4-2 nickel with the nickelback challenging outside left.
Left WR Deion Branch motions in.
Snap.
Here's the routes (Image 6).
Springs blitzes, Weaver throws a nice block.
Branch runs a drag, good shallow route, maintains speed while working through traffic.
He has about a half a step on DeAngelo Hall.
Branch is five yards before the first down marker.
Hasselbeck throws the ball to Branch's back shoulder, Branch slows, attempts to catch, Hall closes and Branch cannot hold on.
Punt
Prognosis: Bad read, bad throw; Branch drops a pass that wouldn't have converted the first.
Read Related
Comments
This is a lost year
Clearly, Hasselbeck’s played poorly, although it is also clear that Wallace is not ready to be a starting QB. I want to hold my breath on declaring Seneca a bust, because Holmgren stuck with Hasselback when we all thought he sucked, and he is sticking with Seneca as well… but when a guy isn’t allowed to throw the ball more than 5 yards downfield, that’s a problem.
I’d advise Matt to shut it down this year. I’m certain we’re mathematically eliminated at this point, and if not, only a complete miracle would allow us the opportunity to lose a road playoff game. Matt’s got 2 or 3 solid years left (if that?) and I don’t want to see him toiling in futility the rest of this season – what’s to gain.
We clearly have a weakness at the O-line right now, really ever since Hutchinson ruined his career by leaving (how’s that working out for him? The money was the same, IIRC). Walter Jones is getting old, and we need to retool. I hope Holmgren sticks around long enough to help with the draft, because I feel like he’s been able to pick out a good number of valuable players.
M, period. Fresh, comma.
by manzell on Nov 24, 2008 8:02 PM PST 0 recs
Steve Hutchinson has been a complete bust.
All he has done the last two years is make two Pro-Bowls (out of two possible) and help the Vikings be the number one rushing offense in the NFL (that’s all of football) in 2007. They are currently in 5th this year. All of this is despite not having a quarterback to keep teams from stuffing the box. Steve Hutchinson has been as much of a bust as LeBron.
Can't wait for Ruskell to knock this one out of the park.
by abender20 on
Nov 24, 2008 8:25 PM PST
up
0 recs
what I mean was
Er, what’s his record in playoff games in Minnesota?
I think players should always take the money, but if I remember, he was a restricted free agent and Seattle could have matched any cash offer the Vikings made, but the “poison pill” rider made it impossible. Basically, he took the same money, but less wins and a poorer organization. The Vikings don’t contend and don’t appear to be on the road to contention.
M, period. Fresh, comma.
by manzell on
Nov 25, 2008 9:40 AM PST
up
0 recs
What exactly are we then?
The Vikings don’t contend and don’t appear to be on the road to contention.
With all due respect to Hutch because he’s an incredible guard, he wouldn’t be the difference between 2-9 and 8-3 for us. The Vikings are in a much better position than us to contend.
by SeaTownBlueDevil on
Nov 25, 2008 9:57 AM PST
up
0 recs
You're judging an O-lineman based on playoff wins? Seriously?
Let it go. I’m tired of talking about Hutchinson.
Every day I hear about Seattle sports' failures. Every night I fall asleep to the sound of my own tears.
by Benne on
Nov 25, 2008 10:19 PM PST
up
0 recs
why
do we have to have a hass hate fest? really? the guy is the best quarterback that we’ve ever had. he can have a bad game or a few, especially if he’s injured. this group has really surprised me with its hate of our leader, i’m pretty disappointed in all of the reactionary thinking . last year he was a pro bowler and now many of you turn on him? show some loyalty.
by Woodinville_12thMan on Nov 24, 2008 10:12 PM PST 0 recs
You're reacting emotionally and defensively to criticism.
Criticism of bad play isn’t “hate”. Also mentioning the guy is 34 and injury prone isn’t “hate”. Pointing out he had a bad game isn’t “hate”. He isn’t going to play forever, its time to start looking for other options.
by scotthawk on
Nov 24, 2008 10:23 PM PST
up
0 recs
Yes. Definitely not hate.
He’s played pretty horribly, but I legitimately hope he’ll bounce back next season.
by redwolf75 on
Nov 24, 2008 11:03 PM PST
up
0 recs
It's one thing if John says it, but quite another if it's some douchebag net-troll-bandwagoner.
Criticism of Matt is fine, as long as it’s backed up with evidence and (most importantly) put into context.
by djafrot on
Nov 24, 2008 11:33 PM PST
up
0 recs
Go back and replace every reference in Woodinville's post to Hasselbeck
with “Shaun Alexander” and suddenly it’s deja vu.
by katal on
Nov 25, 2008 5:56 AM PST
up
0 recs
But then again, we knew Shaun was done. We don't know
that about Matt.
by redwolf75 on
Nov 25, 2008 10:01 AM PST
up
0 recs
Hasselbeck
Could still turn it around. I don’t think shutting him down is such a great idea unless he is hurt, which doesn’t seem to be the case (at least not more than usual). I think the remainder of the season gives us a chance to see what Matt has left, and determine if we need to reach for a QB in this draft, or if we can hold off for another year. I don’t think Wallace or Frye really have what it takes to be long-term starters for this team so sitting Matt to play them doesn’t make much sense.
If we can reload through the draft and dramatically improve the running game and defense Matt may be useful as a game manager, buying us time to find a new QB. He is still a ‘name’ that will be a useful bargaining chip for bringing in offensive talent.
As far as loyalty is concerned… it is not a concern to me whatsoever. My loyalty is to the fans and the city. Hasselbeck didn’t do me a favor by playing football for the Seahawks. He was compensated quite well for his services, and no one other than Mike Holmgren was giving him serious consideration at the time. I don’t care if he won 100 superbowls for us, when he’s done he’s done.
by michaelfox99 on Nov 25, 2008 6:37 AM PST 0 recs
Whoops, accidentally hit post..
We also might want to consider cutting Hasselbeck if we really want to retool this team. Since I don’t think we are proceeding with a WCO, I don’t see much of a future for Matt here. I am really excited to see what will happen here this offseason. Ruskell will finally have freedom to really mold this team.
Matt’s contract info from Rotoworld:
2/22/2005: Signed a six-year, $47 million contract. The deal included a $16 million signing bonus. 2008: $5.75 million, 2009: $5.25 million, 2010: $5.75 million, 2011: Free Agent. Cap charge: $9.5 million (2009).
So basically, since the signing bonus is amortized over the contract term, we would eat the whole bonus next year if we cut him, but we would save 11 million in salary over the next two years! (If I understand right)
by michaelfox99 on
Nov 25, 2008 6:44 AM PST
up
0 recs
Well,
If we were to retool and draft a QB high this year, I would still want Hass on the roster and I’d still want him playing full-time the first year. I’m not a huge fan of throwing a young QB out there with a crap O-line. If we had a good O-line (like ATL, or NE), I wouldn’t mind, but I think Hass should still stay with the team for at least two more years, rebuilding or not.
by SeaTownBlueDevil on
Nov 25, 2008 7:45 AM PST
up
0 recs
We would still have Seneca or Frye to start next year..
Not spectacular QB’s but potentially a better bet than a rook. I am not sure those guys would be better in an Air Coryell anyways.
by michaelfox99 on
Nov 25, 2008 8:15 AM PST
up
0 recs
IIRC, signing bonus is pro-rated over a max of 5 yrs.
So next year is the last year of his bonus cap hit. According to Adam Schefter’s post on his nfl.com blog: there’s $3.2 of dead bonus money in ’09 if we cut him, but the team frees $6.3M in salary.
Personally, I don’t think Hass will be released. But I can easily see them reworking his deal – it’d be pretty easy to craft an extension that turns his high salary into bonus money, and locks him up for 2-3 years at a salary that’s decent for a starter and doesn’t look that bad if he turns into a vet mentor/back-up a year or two down the road.
For a long time, I had hoped that Matt’s early career path – limited college use, practice squad, back-up in the pros – would help him avoid the typical QB aging curve. Unfortunately, I’m starting to come to grips with the probability he’ll age like a Mark Brunell (a good career comparison, IMO) – hitting the injury wall, then maybe managing to eek out a comeback season and couple more years as a back-up.
So I do think it’s imperative that we get his protege on the roster this offseason, because I think at best we can expect 1-2 starting quality seasons from hass before he’s ready to graduate to clipboard duties.
But I don’t see many reasons to suspect the team will be completely overhauling Offensive philosophies – nothing as drastic as switching to a classic Coryell based attack. No need to re-invent the wheel. IMO, most evidence points to a continuation of the WCO – albeit a modified one that’s more run heavy, utilizes more OL zone blocking, and takes a few more shots downfield … similar to what Mora tried to install in Atlanta, or what Green Bay is currently trying to run under McCarthy. And I think a system like that would be the perfect match for trying to squeeze the last couple of productive seasons out of Matt.
by jteckmann on
Nov 25, 2008 3:36 PM PST
up
0 recs
A couple clarifications
Hasselbeck doesn’t turn 34 until September 25, 2009.
The idea that there’s a “small chance the he bounces back” means there’s a small chances he bounces back to what he was. Improving upon his play this season is a virtual lock. He’s been so bad, he’s either going to improve or placed on the IR.
I am able to have a fondness for Hasselbeck the player without being dishonest about his play. I understand Hasselbeck’s historical significance for Seattle. Short of a first round prodigy, Seattle couldn’t have asked for a better quarterback, but we can’t just excuse away this season. Hasselbeck is completing 50.9% of his passes over 171 attempts. That’s a 10% drop from his career average before this season. Somethings not right, and it’s not smart to assume it will simply figure itself out.
by John Morgan on Nov 25, 2008 9:54 AM PST 0 recs
That's a great way to put it
He WILL improve as his injury heals (hopefully) or as he gets his timing back.
However, the gap between where he is and where he needs to be for this offense to be an average unit is pretty large right now. The case that Hass can close this gap rests on the assumption that he’s been injured – first in the preseason, and then in the Giants game. That’s possible – the odds are above zero that after these injuries heal, he can return to something like 90-95% of his 2006-7 self.
But we’re talking about a guy who will be 34 next year, who sustained a back injury that hasn’t really been fully explained (even to Hass himself), and who was putting up a passer rating of about 50 BEFORE the Giants game. The injury excuse cuts two ways – it means he might return to form, but it also shows he’s at a point where playing with a knock renders him a replacement-level QB.
Something really isn’t right, and hasn’t been right all year. This isn’t “piling on” or hating on ‘Beck, and it’s not to say I want to cut him – this is data, and it’s something we all need to look at/explain.
by marc w on
Nov 25, 2008 10:20 AM PST
up
0 recs
my problem is
that everybody is saying he won’t be good again and tossing him aside like he’s brian russell or something. he says when asked if he is feeling good that “he feels alright to play”. we all should know (but judging by the reactions of some “hawks fans” we might not) that all NFLers play hurt, by this point in the year most are about 50% – 60% as healthy as they were to start the year. when matt says that he’s alright to play after being beat up and playing with a bulging disc (which a lot of people seem to be underestimating) it means that he’s realistically playing at much less than that percentage. he shouldn’t even be on the field with this injury. i think that that has to account for a lot of this.
by Woodinville_12thMan on
Nov 25, 2008 7:19 PM PST
up
0 recs



















