Quick Cap: Cowboys 34 - Seahawks 9
by John Morgan
on Nov 27, 2008 4:57 PM PST
in Game Recap
These are the seasons that test our fandom. If you're still reading this site, you're obviously hardcore.
So what can we take from today?
Being fired up doesn't make a player play better. Sorry for the thousands who bought into some moronic revenge angle and started Julius Jones this week.
I'll leave the rest for another day. Happy Thanksgiving all.
Game Ball: John Carlson is an exceptional tight end. If he makes a second year jump typical of tight ends, he should contend for the Pro Bowl next season. When I watched him in college, I had no questions about his hands. So when he had a string of drops a few weeks back, I was sure it was a hiccup on the way to becoming a great tight end. Excluding a tip, Carlson converted six of six targets. His performance, especially in light of Seattle's terrible pass offense, is something special.
Feel Good Performance: Baraka Atkins with a tackle for a loss, a hustle tackle after eleven and hit on Tony Romo. He's coming along.
Discussion: Can Seattle properly give experience to and audition its young offensive talent with anyone under center other than Matt Hasselbeck?
0 recs |
40
comments
Read Related
Email
PrintComments
As you said,
Holy belly diving Christ on a Slip and Slide the Seahawks are bad.
by Hawkfan_77 on Nov 27, 2008 5:58 PM PST 0 recs
Feel bad performance of the game:
Holmgren’s insistence on being the nicest loser in the NFL by not calling timeouts and sustaining the Seahawk’s last opportunity to score with 2 minutes left in the game.
Yeah, Holmy, let’s “finish strong” by feeling like crap for being unable to score a touchdown and held back when one that would make everyone on the team feel alot better was within reach. You’re sending me mixed signals, baby. When we win, we made mistakes and we can improve, but when we lose, you say we played well and deserve the win. I don’t know whether to love or hate you but you leave a sour taste in my mouth. Leave me to my scotch and cohiba.
by Hawkfan_77 on Nov 27, 2008 6:10 PM PST 0 recs
At least the hawks now have a week and a half
to prepare for their next tanking.
Can't wait for Ruskell to knock this one out of the park.
by abender20 on Nov 27, 2008 8:06 PM PST 0 recs
Hasselbeck schools critics, almost perfect
Hopefully even those with their egos invested in Hasselbeck being washed up could see that with a little better performance from the WRs today, Hasselbeck was back to Probowl level. Highly accurate, not one errant pass and maybe only one or two bad decisions all game. He played better than Romo, that’s for sure.
by VBJohnson on Nov 27, 2008 9:16 PM PST 0 recs
I wouldn't go as far as saying Hasselbeck was playing at a Pro bowl level today.
Furthermore, you have been taking this week’s analysis of ’Beck’s last game very personally. Take it easy.
by BrianL on
Nov 27, 2008 9:43 PM PST
up
0 recs
Not personally
I just don’t like things that are wrong. Sorry if I’ve been over the top about it.
And when I say “Pro bowl level” I guess that’s a bit of an exaggeration. They don’t send losing team’s QBs to the Probowl even if they are playing better with what they have than most everyone else.
by VBJohnson on
Nov 27, 2008 9:49 PM PST
up
0 recs
What you've done is create a false dilemma and have used that to label John's analysis as "wrong."
When someone here points out that ‘Beck is 34, aging, and has an injury history and THEN mentions that he has also played poorly this season, you’ve gone and assumed that person is saying ’Beck is definitively washed up.
In reality what many people here are actually saying is that ’Beck is 34, aging, has an injury history and is showing symptoms that might indicate a decline in performance (which would obviously be a cause for concern).
There’s a difference here. The first scenario is “’Beck Bashing.” The second scenario is a realistic assessment of what is going on right now.
by BrianL on
Nov 27, 2008 9:57 PM PST
up
0 recs
Also, this was written at the end of John's last entry analyzing Beck's game on Sunday:
I think Hasselbeck’s lost touch and arm strength are symptomatic of his ailing back. If he’s recovering, that will begin to return to normal over the remainder of the season.
by BrianL on
Nov 27, 2008 10:04 PM PST
up
0 recs
Disc injuries
don’t return to normal in four days. Actually Hasselbeck really didn’t play that badly last week. What we saw last week was most of the rest of the team playing poorly, making the QB look worse than he really was. That’s common in football. Unfortunately John missed that, IMO.
by VBJohnson on
Nov 27, 2008 10:24 PM PST
up
0 recs
I'm convinced that we weren't watching the same game last week
because ’Beck looked bad.
Clearly there’s nothing we can do to sway you from your opinion, so I’d just like to ask you to cool your jets.
by BrianL on
Nov 27, 2008 10:25 PM PST
up
0 recs
What's the problem?
I apologized. I still disagreed of course, but what’s wrong with that? Is everyone forced to agree with John around here or something? Other than disagreeing with the OP, what am I doing wrong?
by VBJohnson on
Nov 27, 2008 10:33 PM PST
up
0 recs
`
Hopefully even those with their egos invested in Hasselbeck being washed up could see that with a little better performance from the WRs today, Hasselbeck was back to Probowl level.
Just be careful moving forward. Disagreeing is fine, but don’t be mean about it.
by BrianL on
Nov 27, 2008 10:38 PM PST
up
0 recs
What he said
“When someone here points out that ‘Beck is 34, aging, and has an injury history and THEN mentions that he has also played poorly this season, you’ve gone and assumed that person is saying ’Beck is definitively washed up.”
No, look again. He said that there was a “small chance Hasselbeck would bounce back” from last week’s performance. In other words, probably washed up. Well, he was wrong, right?
by VBJohnson on
Nov 27, 2008 10:21 PM PST
up
0 recs
One game is an extremely small sample size.
I’m not going to say ‘Beck is back because of today, and neither should you. There’s still too many red flags to contend with.
Back injuries are frightening, frightening things.
by BrianL on
Nov 27, 2008 10:24 PM PST
up
0 recs
I'll agree with you there
We don’t really know what’s going on with his back.
On the plus side though, good QBs have come back from seemingly worse back injuries. But if Hasselbeck really was slipping or weak due to his back or something else then he would not have been capable of what he did today. I contend that due to the extremely poor WR corps, Hasselbeck has looked worse than he really is this season, and the very first time the WRs showed up a little, he shined.
by VBJohnson on
Nov 27, 2008 10:30 PM PST
up
0 recs
i agree with VBJ
after a ton of people on this blog including yourself john trash hasselbeck the whole week his strong performance doesn’t even get a mention in your post game wrapup. i don’t want to sound mean and i really do appreciate the blog, what you do, and how well you are able to do analysis, etc, etc. i just want some recognition that hass played well and isn’t washed up like some people seem to be hoping for. i don’t know what it is about this fan base and city in general, but to me it seems like seattle has very little loyalty to teams, players, and so on. we booed the husky band at the cardinals game for chrissake.
by Woodinville_12thMan on Nov 27, 2008 11:02 PM PST 0 recs
`
i just want some recognition that hass played well and isn’t washed up like some people seem to be hoping for.
Do you think anyone here is actually hoping ’Beck is washed up?
by BrianL on
Nov 27, 2008 11:10 PM PST
up
0 recs
I do
People who like to be seen as experts make predictions and then hope their predictions come true, don’t they?
by VBJohnson on
Nov 27, 2008 11:29 PM PST
up
0 recs
I'm glad you're pointing out
The fallacy that you, John and others have fallen into.
Your sample is the 5 games in which Hasselbeck played poorly this season. It is far too small, and is taken from the population of the 110 games he has played for the Seahawks.
And your conclusion (that Hasselbeck is in decline) is drawn from the sample you’re using that is less than 5% of Hasselbeck’s resume.
Just to show how ridiculous that is, it would be like making an assumption about Albert Pujols’ future based on about 200 nonsequential at bats during a span in which he was at least partially injured.
by Right on
Nov 28, 2008 3:02 AM PST
up
0 recs
Just to show you how ridiculous this is
Would you pick Ken Griffey Jr. because he is one of the leaders in most statistical categories, or let him slide because he can’t brush his teeth without injuring himself now? How about Marc Bulger? Daunte Culpepper? Hell, he has Passing Career to date: 21,091 Passing yards, 137-TD, 89-INT, QB Rating 90.8! AND HE’S ONLY 31!! Lets go get him!
Once a player starts to show that his injuries are catching up with him, it only makes sense to look towards a replacement.
by vanrijn on
Dec 1, 2008 10:54 AM PST
up
0 recs
And you think someone here is that person?
Who here staked their reputation on a prediction about Hasselbeck? Who said, "based on what we just saw, he’s just done? Finished, cooked, whatever you want to use.
I understand you are defending your argument but don’t take it too far the other direction. Name the person who made predictions based on last week, please. While you are at it a quote wouldn’t be too much to ask for would it?
by cashless on
Nov 28, 2008 1:05 AM PST
up
0 recs
To be honest,
I DO NOT think Hass is washed up, but I kinda hope he is. Not because I’m a “person who likes to be seen as experts make predictions and hope their predictions come true.” But, because even if all our parts are healthy for the next few years, I consider us a playoff caliber team and NOT a Super Bowl winning team. I’d rather Hass be washed up now so our rebuilding process is hastened.
And yes, I understand that everybody is going to call me impulsive and stupid and reactionary (not the correct usage, but i think John’s gone over that before), but I just don’t see a Super Bowl team here.
by SeaTownBlueDevil on
Nov 28, 2008 6:05 AM PST
up
0 recs
Instead of "reactionary," overreactive is the word that y'all should use in that context.
Oddly enough, though, its frequent misusage here caused me to make that exact same mistake once when posting at another SportsBlogs Nation website.
It amused the fuck out of me, however.
by AK1984 on
Nov 28, 2008 6:50 AM PST
up
0 recs
Childish.
This discussion is ridiculous. No one is saying Matt is ‘washed up’. You are lazily slapping a label on the more cogent argument that was put forth. Saying “Matt played well last week IMO” without any evidence to back it up is childish. John went through every pass play in that game and broke it down and showed how Matt played poorly and the playbook was softened for him.
Stop talking about ‘loyalty’. It’s pointless. There is zero reason to be loyal to a player when his effectiveness is lost. This is very Shaun Alexander like. Shaun had tons of supporters here in Seattle through to the very end. They were all crying about loyalty and pro-bowls.
No one wants Matt to fail, or thinks he is washed up. Shaun was washed up. He was well past the point of being able to be an effective player for any team ever. There was two full seasons of evidence to back that up.
Matt is 34, and has a significant injury history. This was not something we were very focused on coming into the season. It is important for us, as a community, to revise our projections of Matt being around for a few more years. We need to look at him as a question mark. He is likely to be the starter here for the rest of this season and next, barring injury. We need to think about issues like:
1) If his back is screwed up, perhaps we should save him for next year.
2) When and how will we acquire the next QB for this team,
Compounding the issue is that there may be a lot of turnover in this coaching staff. Matt won’t be a great fit if we are going to emphasize more downfield passing. He also has a very big cap number for a team that may be trying to go through a multi-year makeover to a new era.
The discussion was not supposed to be, do you think we should figure Matt in for the next 3 seasons or not? I think that is a ridiculous thing to argue about and we have one side saying:
Matt isn’t washed up!
and the other side saying:
I know! All I am saying is that he is on the decline and we need to assess where he is at and what he has left and think long-term. You don’t want to wait until you have no QB to draft one.
So grow up.
I think it is a very good question, can we try to preserve Matt for next season and get a good look at if Frye or Wallace can ever be the starting QB for us without ruining the opportunity for Vallos, Willis, Carlson, etc. to gain experience?
I think it is safe to say we won’t have to worry about this though. This coaching staff has proven itself time and time again to be totally unwilling to screw with the preseason depth chart EVER. Matt will start as long as he can walk.
by michaelfox99 on Nov 28, 2008 7:04 AM PST 0 recs
I'm just going to bookmark this particular response for future use.
Well put.
by BrianL on
Nov 28, 2008 9:04 AM PST
up
0 recs
The problem with this is
The side that’s saying that he is “on the decline” is using a tiny sample size (5 games) from which to make that assumption. 34 is not that old for a quarterback, and any decline that would be experienced would not be significant enough to merit bringing in a new quarterback in the immediate future (this offseason).
Gus Frerotte (37), Jeff Garcia (38), Kurt Warner (37), Brett Favre (39) and Kerry Collins (35) are the quarterbacks in the NFL who are regular starters and older than Hasselbeck, and guess what: their teams are all in playoff contention. There’s no real reason to think that Hass can’t give another 3-4 more years at a level higher than any young QB would likely be able to produce.
Let’s play a fun game and look at another small sample size, 5 games from player X’s season:
106/171 (62%), 1234 YARDS , 9 TDs, 2 INT.
Pretty good numbers. If they were sustained over the course of an entire season, they’d be almost certain Pro Bowl stats. If continued over the course of an entire career, this guy could end up in Canton. This guy, however, is Kyle Orton. Beware the sample size.
by Right on
Nov 28, 2008 2:21 PM PST
up
0 recs
Frerotte has been bad, Collins has been mediocre
Out of the list you’ve provided only Garcia, Warner, and Favre are playing at a high level. I’m inclined to think these three are the exceptions to the rule. For the most part, quarterbacks don’t tend to improve once they hit this age. They might level off for a while, but it’s not unreasonable to expect some degree of decreased performance moving forward. Their bodies aren’t getting any younger.
And yes there’s plenty of reason to think that Hass can’t give another 3-4 more years at a high level, and that is his injury history. Just ignore his age and look at the injuries he’s sustained over the past decade. I just cannot grasp why so many people are ignoring this.
Yes it’s possible that ‘Beck can play at a high level four years down the line, but it’s foolish to bank on that. His back injury is extremely alarming. What is it? Do you want to wait until ‘Beck definitively proves he’s washed up before going after a new franchise quarterback?
by BrianL on
Nov 28, 2008 2:48 PM PST
up
0 recs
Frerotte has been bad, Collins has been mediocre
Which is exactly what they’ve been for their entire careers.
The exception to what rule? The one that older quarterbacks don’t perform well? That isn’t a rule. 5 out of 5 QB’s older than Hasselbeck are playing at about the level they always have. Doesn’t seem like any sort of exception.
by Right on
Nov 28, 2008 3:18 PM PST
up
0 recs
I'm really curious where the disconnect is
The train of thought for the people saying Hasselbeck is declining is this:
1. Hasselbeck is 33. In general QB’s at and above his age are no longer considered to be in their prime.
2. Matt has had a few chronic injuries including his back and his non-throwing shoulder along with several other nicks and scrapes. His back injury caused him to miss significant time.
3. In a terrible season he’s been, for prolonged stretches, as terrible as anyone. The excuses for his poor play are consistency in personnel (legitimate) and his back (legitimate, but see 2).
4. It’d be surprising if he didn’t bounce back next year but it’s a stretch to assume he’ll bounce all the way back to his 2007 form (see 1 and 2).
What is so outlandish about that? Obviously you have a problem with number one, and while you’re able to provide exceptions (3 of which were back ups entering the year, one of which was benched for poor play) it’s certainly not a crazy idea.
by Nate Dogg on
Nov 28, 2008 3:06 PM PST
up
0 recs
Am I missing something?
Player A: 22/38, 287, 0 TDs 1 INT
Player B: 21/33, 303, 2TDs 1 INT
The superior line is from Shaun Hill against the Dallas Cowboys less than one week ago. I hardly see how yesterday’s contest proves or disproves anything. Matt Hasselbeck played better yesterday and doing so pushed his season completion percentage to 52.2%.
by John Morgan on Nov 28, 2008 8:17 AM PST 0 recs
Maybe they only watched the first Quarter like I did
You may gain some yards on the ground, but eventually Lofa will end up biting you in the ass.
by Scruffy Lefty on
Nov 28, 2008 9:42 AM PST
up
0 recs
Perhaps we can all agree
that it at least doesn’t make sense to leave a still ailing Beck out there in a game that is over and having him run PLAY ACTION with two minutes left in the game just so he can get creamed. I just want to get out of this season with no more injuries, get rid of Russell and move the fuck on.
by HuskyJosh on Nov 28, 2008 11:50 AM PST 0 recs
The young talent question is interesting
I think the answer is no, they would need Hasselbeck out there to give any decent evaluation of talent. I think that Hasselbeck needs to be out there though too, it’s important for the front office to see just where Matt is right now when they go to make their decisions in the off season.
One thing about Matt that hasn’t been argued here is the Hawks needing to bring in a young QB, the question is just where and how aggressively do they get that new QB. The debate has ranged from he’s done and we should sign Cassel to looking at project quarterbacks like Painter or some of the small school guys. Letting Matt play out the rest of the season would give the developmental guys meaningful playing time and give Ruskell some insight into next year.
by Nate Dogg on Nov 28, 2008 2:36 PM PST 0 recs
Hilarious.
Yep, could’ve guessed that everyone strapped to Hass’ jockstrap would wait half a season for him to put on a good game, then come and tell JM how wrong he is. Lmao.
“The side that’s saying that he is "on the decline" is using a tiny sample size (5 games) from which to make that assumption.”
And your argument that he’s not on the decline stems from how many game this season? This cowboys game?
by Hawkfan_77 on Nov 28, 2008 5:08 PM PST 0 recs
THIS IS GETTING RIDICULOUS
the offensive line and his receivers have missed a ton of time, he’s been throwing to receivers that aren’t even NFL caliber (colbert), and he has been injured with a back issue that the beck doubters are just ignoring, including to a point the writer of this blog. nobody understands the significance of a bulging disc. most people have to go significant treatment to correct the problem. that hasselbeck is even playing with that injury and is even completing passes in the NFL is pretty damn astounding. should the hawks have put him on IR? YES. just don’t tell me that these are ideal conditions under which a QB can flourish.
by Woodinville_12thMan on Nov 28, 2008 7:11 PM PST 0 recs
That back injury is a big reason why we're so alarmed.
Quarterbacks typically don’t get better after they hit 33-34. They might plateau for a bit, but there’s a better chance than not that their performance will decline. It’s not a knock against ‘Beck, it’s reality.
I swear, there are a lot of people who are taking this very, very personally. Settle down, folks.
by BrianL on
Nov 28, 2008 8:16 PM PST
up
0 recs
New FanPost
