The Top Ten Seahawks Stories That Weren't: #2: Matt Hasselbeck is 100 Percent
by John Morgan on Jan 5, 2009 3:09 PM PST
in Commentary
88 comments
ESPN's Chris Mortenson [sic] reported this morning that Matt Hasselbeck has a bulging disc in his back. What Seahawks pr is telling us is this:
Matt does have a bulging disc that was revealed on the MRI that was taken when he initially injured the back. But the disc, we are told by Pr, is not the reason he missed the time in the preseason. That was because he was suffering from back spasms. He did receive an injection for that, we are told by pr, which calmed down the back. The bulging disc, pr tells us, is the result of wear and tear and age and is not affecting his ability to play. When we asked why this was not revealed before, pr told us that Matt is very protective of information regarding his health, though this does go against him saying that he is "100 percent." --Seahawks Insider
Seven supremely vexing starts later, Matt Hasselbeck is done.
Okay, that's overstatement. I don't really know Hasselbeck's future. I left my amateur-MD spurs with Marcus Tubbs. I do know that Matt Hasselbeck's career is a lot like Mark Brunell's career. Hasselbeck was drafted in the sixth round; Brunell in the fifth. Both started their career backing up Brett Favre. Both were traded to another team before ever starting. Hasselbeck has a 60.1% career completion percentage; Brunell has a 59.6% career completion percentage. Hasselbeck has a career 5.4 adjusted net yards per attempt; Brunell has a career 5.3 adjusted net yards per attempt. Hasselbeck has played behind top left tackle Walter Jones; Brunell played behind top left tackles Tony Boselli and Chris Samuels. Both were elected to the Pro Bowl three times. Both have had labrum surgery, though Hasselbeck to his non-throwing shoulder. Hasselbeck has averaged 11.7 games started over the last three seasons; Brunell averaged 11 games started his age 31-33 seasons. Hasselbeck has been injured; Brunell was benched.
It's hard to objectively evaluate a fan favorite, the best quarterback in the history of the franchise, so let's not. Let's instead evaluate retro-Mark Brunell. In his age 33 season, Brunell was benched in favor of Byron Leftwich. Brunell was then traded to the Redskins. He was awful in Washington, completed 49.8% of his passes, was benched after nine games and replaced by Patrick Ramsey. Ramsey flunked out the following season, was benched after a minor injury in week one and replaced by Brunell. Brunell would play much of the next two seasons and play reasonably well. The key was a system designed around short passes not unlike Seattle's passing attack of 2007. In 2007, Hasselbeck threw 48% of his passes short, 32% mid; In 2006, Brunell threw 54% of his passes short, 30% mid.
Brunell outplayed the first two rookies drafted to replace him. He didn't have their tools, but he could still find the open man. But the Redskins were never very good under Brunell, nor was their offense and nor really was Brunell. He was mediocre to above average in a limited offense. Eventually Washington replaced Brunell with Jason Campbell and if Campbell's yet a superstar, he's certainly a better quarterback than the aged Brunell. If Seattle attempts to replace Hasselbeck, it's realistic to think the rook they wager their future on won't outplay the once great vet. Six year runs like Hasselbeck had from 2002 to 2007 are rare and special. With a declining arm, shaky health, and two years left on his current contract, it's realistic to think Hasselbeck won't outplay himself either.
0 recs |
88 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
It's hard to imagine this team without Hass
but the time is fast approaching. And like Brunell, he has taken a pounding and keeps getting up. The thought of watching the development of his replacement makes me cringe. Can we go back a year and trade up for Matt Ryan?
by Dukeshire on Jan 5, 2009 3:22 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Much like opinions (except Mayock)
many are skeptical of the potential QB’s this year. Of course, they will be the same QB’s talked about next year.
How do I say this in positive light:
A QB that is worth #4 in 2010 ought to be a #4 this year; given the proper guidance and time to mature, it is a wise investment.
But then again, there may never be another Ryan. We can always draft Teel from Rutgers in the 7th. Hey, he’s tall and has a strong arm.
It is what it is...
by kidder95 on Jan 5, 2009 7:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
My God
how can I say so much, yet never get to the point:
Point: We can all be skeptical of any QB every year… and most are… OR, we can suck it up and take the risk of greatness or suck for a few years.
Great teams have great QB’s. Name one offensive linemen from the top 10 on the Giants or the Steelers… or the Colts… or the Chargers… yadda yadda yadda.
It is what it is...
by kidder95 on Jan 5, 2009 7:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Okay.
Giants: Seubert. O’Hara, Snee
Steelers: None, but their offense correspondingly sucks too. Roethlisberger is overrated and the defense saves that team.
Colts: Ugoh is rising, Saturday, Diem.
Chargers: Dielman, Hardwick, Goff.
All are top 10 at their respective positions. I’d also question Eli or Roethy being ‘great QBs’.
by Fearless Frog on Jan 5, 2009 7:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Were any of them
top 10 picks?
It is what it is...
by kidder95 on Jan 5, 2009 7:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Steelers used to be
Alan Faneca and Marvel Smith.
by LantermanC on Jan 5, 2009 7:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
There top 15 QB
looking pretty good too :)
Steelers do not do what they do without the heart of Rothlesberger.
Great teams pay top money for top QB’s.
We have the NFL’s richest owner, there is no cap issues with paying two players big money, and we will eventually need a new QB.
That said, I have no idea why I feel so passionately about this… so I’ll drop it :)
Nice counter point.
It is what it is...
by kidder95 on Jan 5, 2009 7:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Mike Teel is awful.
I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!! I DRINK IT UP!!
by abender20 on Jan 6, 2009 8:31 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Wow, that's an amazingly high amount of similarities.
I remember Brunell being just god awful when we faced him in the playoffs some years ago (Might’ve been the superbowl year, time flies). I hope Matty’s career peak isnt’ over, and he still has a few good years left.
That being said, I’m fine with almost anything we do in the draft. We can always wait a year and pray for Sanchez/McCoy in next year’s draft.
by LantermanC on Jan 5, 2009 3:36 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I think that...
The first step, and best option, is getting Matt healthy for the 2009 season with the intention of him starting a full 16-game schedule and performing well. He’ll turn 34 during next season and there’s no reason that he can’t continue to perform at a decent to high level so long as he’s healthy and the WR corps stabalizes. Looking at him as stock, the object at this point would be to sell high with thoughts to who his replacement is going to be. If he passes a physical with flying colors and some other team is willing to give up something for him now (which I think is unlikely), then I would take it. More likely it would take a good season out of him in 2009 to net a decent draft pick from some stupid “win now” organization.
As much as I like Matt, I hope that the Seahawks aren’t the stupid “win now” organization trying to surround him with talent. He’s on the wrong side of 30 and has a history of missing starts. I would love to see him as the QB of a Super Bowl winner, but I think that ship has sailed (and landed in Pittsburgh).
by Azimeir on Jan 5, 2009 3:45 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Additionally...
I’m willing to get behind whatever the plan is – so long as there is a plan.
by Azimeir on Jan 5, 2009 3:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You're right.
I know you’re not supposed to draft based upon need, but if Matt is ‘fully healthy’ by May or so, we probably shouldn’t look at QBs too hard unless we really think Stafford or Bradford (or Sanchez if he comes out) is definitely a pro QB. It’s a fairly good assumption that we’ll have picks 10-20 next year, so if we can always draft a QB then.
Like some of the other people here, I don’t want to pay top dollar fo ra guy to sit for 3 (or 2.5 years), unless I’m absolutely (more than 50%) sure he’s a great QB, I’m more than fine with trading down, and perhaps using the extra picks we get to trade up next year, so we have a young guy who can sit for .5 to 2 years.
by LantermanC on Jan 5, 2009 3:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Hasselbeck is signed through 2010
A draft pick would sit one maybe two seasons.
by John Morgan on Jan 5, 2009 3:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
As a guy that...
once upon a time had his athletic career derailed or sidetracked at times by back issues, I can tell you that there is nothing but risk here. You can’t anticipate the whims of the back.
Now that being said, there is hope. I read something recently Hass commented about a different strength training in the offseason that could not only help with the back but actually increase arm strength. While often these types of offseason commentaries are simple optimism, with the way the back is and if he hasn’t truly focused on core strength to improve it prior, there is some hope.
He isn’t that old for a qb who does not have to throw the deep ball, and given the current team construction I don’t see Mora changing that in the near future and going away from the West Coast or some variation.
You really think I'll become a bronco fan if I live in Denver long enough? Why, when it is so much fun watching your team suck and mine rock!!!
by whiskey chainsaw on Jan 5, 2009 3:51 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Walter Jones and Hasselbeck's joint health issues should absolutely drive our draft.
I think we may get a decent idea as to which the organization is more confident about being healthy by who we draft at #4.
All that said, I sure hope Hass gets healthy. He was/has been a lot of fun to watch play.
"Hey, guess what? Nobody cares who would win in a crazy fantasy fist-fight between Anne Frank and Lizzie Borden." The Monarch
by crushedoptimist on Jan 5, 2009 4:01 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Really, the key element here is the offensive line.
If we can put together a good-to-dominant OL, Hass will be protected enough to probably not get bashed around quite as much as he has been.
Look at Delhomme over in Carolina… having a pretty damned good season with one good WR and a dominant running game… and how old is he?
This doesn’t mean I think we shouldn’t draft a QB. If a good one is available at #4 I say take a shot.
by djafrot on Jan 5, 2009 4:34 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
One good WR and one dominant running game
is understating it a bit. They’ve got the 4th and 25th best receivers in DYAR, the 1st and 18th best rushers in DYAR, and their offensive line ranks 7th in adjusted line yards and 9th in adjusted sack rate. Seattle is not going to be able to assemble that kind of talent in one off season.
by Nate Dogg on Jan 5, 2009 6:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Comparable numbers for Carolina in 2007?
I’m cheap, so I don’t have premium FO numbers (although our new overlord Farrar does), but I’m going to take a stab and assume that Carolina didn’t exactly have the type of DYAR numbers for receivers, running backs (especially running backs), and offensive line numbers a year ago. I don’t exactly recall their offensive line being all kinds of dominant last year.
"Hey, guess what? Nobody cares who would win in a crazy fantasy fist-fight between Anne Frank and Lizzie Borden." The Monarch
by crushedoptimist on Jan 5, 2009 7:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
those aren't premium
And last years numbers would be moot since they had Testeverde and Matt Moore quarterbacking their teams
by Nate Dogg on Jan 5, 2009 9:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think those numbers are misleading a little...
…though to be fair DYAR means absolutely nothing to me, I don’t understand it.
I assume it compensates for the team’s overall talent, but if anyone here is going to tell me that Williams is actually the best RB in the league they’re up their ass.
Their O-line is the key here. A good OL makes every other position look so much better (see our 2005 team… made up of pretty similar talent outside of Shaun).
I stand by my statement: focusing on solidifying the Seahawk OL will do more for this team than an upgrade at any other position.
by djafrot on Jan 5, 2009 7:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Williams is easily one of the best running backs in football.
by John Morgan on Jan 6, 2009 9:43 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't see why Williams production is a shock to anyone
He was easily the best RB in the country when he was in College.
by Jo-Jo on Jan 6, 2009 1:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know...
I imagine the fact that he did THAT well for the last half of the season must have shocked (or surprised) Carolina a bit, otherwise, they wouldn’t have used a 1st round pick on Stewart.
by LantermanC on Jan 6, 2009 2:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, he did ave 5 yards a carry last season
and out performed DeShaun Foster as his backup. And I don’t think that anybody is really convinced that this multiple back running game really works for anyone anyway. They probably did draft Stewart so they could just let Williams ride the pine. Oh, but that wouldn’t make any sense, since Williams was the starter for every single game this year. Hmmm… maybe they they had a hunch. Looks pretty obvious to me.
by Jo-Jo on Jan 7, 2009 8:27 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I wonder what they'd take for Stewart.
There’s our franchise RB.
by redwolf75 on Jan 7, 2009 10:03 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Here's a question.
Why is it assumed that ‘littler’ backs can’t handle a full load? Is there any reasoning or data to back this up, or is it just a myth? It seems like it takes a long time for guys like Warrick Dunn, Sproles, and DeAngelo Williams to get a chance to get more than 10 carries in a game.
by LantermanC on Jan 6, 2009 2:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't see it as not being able to "handle the load," necessarily
I see it as maximizing their potential. I haven’t put any research into it, but as assumption I would prefer seeing two backs split 35 carries a game rather than driving one dude into the ground, regarless of their size. I know that there are those guys out there that really want 25-30 carries a game, but for me, a qualitative approach makes more sense than a quantitative approach.
by Jo-Jo on Jan 7, 2009 8:33 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Those stats are not indicative
of individual talent. Football is a team sport. Sometimes when one big cog is missing it dimishes the stats of the entire team. The missing WR corps (on an offense that thrives on setting up everything with the pass) was responsible for much of the decrease in QB, RB and OL stats. One good WR and the return to health of the rest of the team, including the WRs, could easily make the team contenders again.
by VBJohnson on Jan 5, 2009 9:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Carolina fans
are miserable with the idea of facing Ryan for the next 10-12 years. Think John Elway.
That said, Jake is a gambler, who benefits from one the most dominant 5’9 dudes you’ll ever meet: 3rd round I believe :)
Most of Carolina would love to draft a new QB. Most feel we win in spite of him… did you happen to see the garbage he threw up to win the NO game… Steve Smith saves his butt every week.
It is what it is...
by kidder95 on Jan 5, 2009 7:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Delhomme vs. Hasslebeck
Delhomme also has a track record of needing a quality team around him to be at all effective, while Hasslebeck has largely succeeded with journeyman wide receivers. ’Beck also had a great year in 2007 with journeyman wide receivers, no TE, a so-so pass blocking line, and a dodgy running game.
Delhomme turns 34 in 5 days.
by Azimeir on Jan 5, 2009 7:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If we are going to build the Giants or the Panthers
we will need to retool anyway…
It is what it is...
by kidder95 on Jan 5, 2009 7:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
We were 4-12...
A lot can be attributed to injuries (I knew we led the league in something!), but no one goes 4-12 and is breaking in a new coach that doesn’t need to re-tool.
As it applies to this specific blog, Hasselbeck’s role in the Seahawks’ future, I don’t see any reason not to go into next season with Hasselbeck penned into the starting lineup. If the ’Hawks think that one of these high-profile, big-school QBs is going to be the next Peyton Manning and available at the 4-pick, by all means, take the son-of-a-beach. The point is that, while I have faith that Mr. Hasselbeck can be our guy in 2009 and maybe even 2010, I think it would be foolish to go any further without acknowledging that we are in the market for the 2011 opening day starting QB of the Seattle Seahawks right now.
Should we acquire a QB who has to/gets to sit for two years and learn behind a healthy and productive Matt Hasselbeck, I don’t see that as wasted time. If this fantasy QB of which I speak is believed to be ready in 2010 and ’Beck has a good 2009, then we can shop for one of those desperate “we really need a QB to win right now” teams to trade away an aging but still useful Hasslebeck. Shoud it be determined that the Vikings (or whomever) is desperate this year and the Seahawks think that whatever QB available at the 4-pick is Rick Mirer, then by all means, trade the pick away, and eyeball QBs for the later rounds.
by Azimeir on Jan 5, 2009 8:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
exactly, good quarterbacks don't have to have loads of talent around them
another reason why if the right QB is sitting at #4 Seattle should take him
by Nate Dogg on Jan 5, 2009 9:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Good QBs *do* need to have loads of talent around them
John Elway never won a Superbowl until his team had a dominant running game. And he always had very good WRs
by VBJohnson on Jan 5, 2009 9:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No, Elway went to 3 superbowls before the TD years
His leading receivers in those 3 years were
’86 – Gerald Willhite (FB) and Steve Watson
’87 – Vance Johnson and Ricky Nattiel
’89 – Vance Johnson
His running backs were Sammy Winder and Bobby Humphrey. He did not have a ton of talent around him.
by Nate Dogg on Jan 5, 2009 10:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And his team lost miserably
They clearly had no hope of winning the championship until he got a better team around him.
by VBJohnson on Jan 5, 2009 10:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
ya, they could only go to 3 super bowls in 4 years
what a chump.
by Nate Dogg on Jan 5, 2009 10:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry, but that argument is patent BS.
3 superbowls in 4 years shows that the team had a hope winning the championship. You don’t get that kind of sustained success without an overall great team.
by redwolf75 on Jan 6, 2009 11:15 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That's the thing. There is no 'right' QB in this draft.
Unless you’re a Bradford fan, in which case I must respectfully disagree with your opinion.
by Fearless Frog on Jan 5, 2009 10:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If you were to take a QB this year, in any round,
who would it be?
It is what it is...
by kidder95 on Jan 6, 2009 2:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Eh, I wouldn't be opposed to a mid-round flyer on Sanchez
He doesn’t particularly impress me, but I do like his confidence and poise (having a ridiculous D like USC’s does that to people), and he might be decent if he sat and learned for a bit. Problem is, I don’t think he’s declaring, and unless Sarkisian and Holt really were crucial to USC, his draft stock will probably rise.
by Fearless Frog on Jan 6, 2009 9:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Either Colt McCoy isn't playing to well
or OSU’s defense is a lot more than just Laurinatis and Malcom Jenkins.
by LantermanC on Jan 5, 2009 8:07 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I have been underwhelmed by Colt McCoy in this game.
by Azimeir on Jan 5, 2009 8:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Quan Cosby looks good
but he’s 26 since he spent 4.5 years in minor league ball.
by LantermanC on Jan 5, 2009 8:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He hasn't played great
but he still went 41/58. If he declares I’d do everything in my power to draft him.
by Nate Dogg on Jan 5, 2009 9:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
didn't he lead the league in comp. %? I thought he wasn't declaring for sure, though.
by Misfit74 on Jan 5, 2009 10:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ya, with a 77.6% completion percentage
no, thats not a typo.
I’ve heard the same thing, that he said he’s going back to Texas for his senior year. I’m allowed to dream though, at least until the cut off date.
by Nate Dogg on Jan 5, 2009 10:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
How are you supposed to write that?
it’s redundant to say 77.6% percentage, but it seems naked without it. 77.6 completion percentage?
by Nate Dogg on Jan 5, 2009 10:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know.
I still say ATM Machine.
by LantermanC on Jan 6, 2009 8:53 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I usually write,
77.6% completions. Not sure that flows correctly either.
by cashless on Jan 6, 2009 11:26 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Give credit to OSU's D, they really stepped up
I’m more concerned with all those shotgun snaps.
by Fearless Frog on Jan 5, 2009 10:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It doesn't concern me
the shotgun isn’t so much the issue as the spread option offense is. Ryan and Flacco both worked out of the shotgun a ton. Manning and Brady last year both work out of the shotgun a ton in the pros. Its when you start relying on screens, YAC, and option hand offs that it becomes an issue.
by Nate Dogg on Jan 5, 2009 10:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Oregon State?
Yeah, their defense let up 0 points.
All kidding aside, I wasn’t actually as impressed with Ohio State’s defense as I was shocked by some of Colt’s passes. His overall line was good, but his red zone INT was the dumbest pass ever. I don’t know if it slipped out of his hand, but I don’t know what he was thinking. He also didn’t seem to be under THAT heavy of a pass rush, and almost fumbled the ball while trying to throw it while getting sacked, a big Seneca-Wallace-like no no in my book.
That being said, if he goes out now, I don’t see why he won’t be the first overall pick.
by LantermanC on Jan 6, 2009 8:56 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I haven't watched him a ton so maybe somebody else can answer this
Obviously his completion percentage indicates that he has great accuracy. But watching him some last night, it seemed like he’s the type of guy who just always makes the right reads and puts the ball where the open guy can get it; in other words, I didn’t see anything uncanny like I expected. (Except for that ugly underthrow in the red zone, but that was obviously uncanny for the wrong reason. I digress…)
Not that it’s fair to compare him to Peyton Manning, but Manning is the quarterback I think of when I think of pass accuracy. I can’t watch him for more than three passes without seeing at least one “how on earth did he get the ball in that exact spot at that exact time?!” throw. Anyway, I didn’t see much of that from McCoy last night; he just kept consistently hitting those ins and slants and outs.
Here’s my long-awaited point: there’s obviously legit value in a guy who makes accurate reads, but is that the same thing as making accurate throws at the NFL level, when guys aren’t so open? I don’t watch tons of college football, but I feel like I’ve seen better passing out of Sanchez and Bradford than I have from McCoy. Do I just need to watch more of McCoy to get the big picture, or does his completion percentage actually overstate his ability?
by busplunger on Jan 6, 2009 9:35 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I liked that McCoy seemed comfortable with all his throws (except maybe the deep ball).
He passed equally well when it came to slants and curls, whether it was over the middle or toward the sideline, and he almost always placed it well (I just remembed another play, he was looking right to fool the defense, then he passes to the guy 10 yards in front of him in the middle, but overthrew him because he spent so long looking toward a covered receiver, he didn’t bother to actually look at the guy he was throwing to, minor detail though).
McCoy seems to be the real thing, he runs when he has to (when no passing throw is available and an open lane is available), and he has the speed to outrun lineman, whereas Tebow runs as much as he passes, and is slow and uses his size to get extra yards which will a) not work in the NFL and b) get him injured.
by LantermanC on Jan 6, 2009 10:03 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh yeah, I forgot
Does anyone know why Todd Boeckman i think, OSU’s captain and starting QB last year was semi-benched this year for Terrell Pryor besides Pryor being an athletic freak? Did anyone see the last pass of the Fiesta Bowl? That sucker went 70 yards I think. He looked pretty ok to me last year as well, sort of like a Matt Flynn (LSU’s QB last year).
It’s usually a dumb idea to take a guy who can’t even start consistently in college, but I might take a late round flyer on him (seemed to work for Orton and Cassel).
by LantermanC on Jan 6, 2009 3:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
70 yards, but man did it float
Think Bledsoe, the Cowboy years. Thats Todd Boeckman.
by Nate Dogg on Jan 6, 2009 3:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It was a Favre-esque throw...
Someone blew past the center and was getting pressure right up the gut on that play. The designed play wasn’t bad but he badly underthrew it because of his backpedal to avoid the sack. Obviously the correct move would be to either throw it away or roll out, but it’s a mistake I wouldn’t be too worried about. What I especially liked was the touch he put on his passes. He really placed the ball where it needed to be.
by Fearless Frog on Jan 6, 2009 11:14 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Superstars of Dance is horrible
This is so off-topic.
I just cannot believe how stupid this show is.
by aerozeppelin on Jan 5, 2009 11:30 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Wasted First Round QB picks
For the longest time I’ve felt that if you take a QB in the first half of the first round, and he doesn’t pan out, that your team is screwed. I have plenty of evidence to prove this- simply uttering the names: Heath Shuler, Rick Mirer, Todd Marinovich, Cade McNown, Ryan Leaf….the list goes on. Anyhow, the Titans of 2008 and the Cardinals are interesting to me. Both of them took QB’s top ten with the past three seasons, who did not make significant contributions to their team this year. Vince Young was being relied upon. Based on his contributions this year- you would say he’s a bust. But the Titans had a great season. How have they built their team in such a strong way they they’ve been able to overcome this?
I would love to see how.
They have a strong offensive line- anchored by former Seahawk Kevin Mawae and E.WA product and former project, Michael Roos.
Is it simply great player development and coaching? Mawae was a great FA signing, no doubt. But the d-line in Tennessee is awesome. Where did those guys come from. IMHO I think that the reason Tennessee is strong is because of the front lines- both offense and defense. Their secondary players aren’t any better than the Hawks are- they just look better due to d-line play. Their LB’s are nice, but not as great as the Hawks- again- d-line play is helping them a lot. Sure, they add a speed freak in their rookie RB, and they have a bulldozer in White, but Chris Johnson isn’t nearly as effective without that line.
I think that’s the model the Hawks need to follow. At least from a team structure- strong lines both ways, then build around it.
by Section 128 on Jan 6, 2009 11:28 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Something to think about
When a team has a top 10 pick they have a great draft position through all rounds. The are getting better player (theoretically) than at least 20 other teams each round. That is why I would disagree that if that high qb pick doesn’t pan out that the organization is “screwed.” Eventrually that draft position pans out talent, even if the first rounder busts.
That is actaully the thing about this draft that excites me more than just the #4 pick. It’s that the ‘Hawks are picking their second player withing about 10 picks of when they’ve had the chance to pick their first rounder over the past few years. Hell, they even had to wait all the way till the end of the second round the year they acquired Branch.
All that to be said, it just means that the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th round picks should have more of an impact then they’ve have over the past few years. And so being the case, use the #4 to get your hands on the best player possible, and if you have that chance to get a QB, roll the dice baby.
by Jo-Jo on Jan 6, 2009 1:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Expand the Analysis
John’s post reminded me of something:
Shouldn’t our analysis of the Future Seahawk QB include folks who are in (or will be in) the position that Hass was in when we got him? In other words, a young backup, who has great potential, riding the pine behind an “in-their-prime” veteran. I understand it’s harder for us as fans to evaluate these prospects since there’s generally little NFL film on backups (that’s why they’re backups), and most of us don’t have access to team practices to see folks in action for ourselves. It’s far easier to wax on about college QBs and whether or not they’ll be a a superstar or a bust.
I’d commented earlier about Seahawk QB history, and one of the interesting facts is that Rick Mirer is the only QB the Seahawks have drafted who has also become our starting QB. So clearly we have a team history of getting our QBs somewhere other than the draft. It just seems we should think about that.
Btw, I am thinking of Matt Cassel when I write this. But not that the ‘Hawks should get him. He’s a known quantity now, Brady’s comeback is questionable etc. What I’m talking about is Matt Cassel before Brady went down.
I just think it merits some discussion and analysis.
by Kumar on Jan 6, 2009 2:23 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Cassell makes a nice Derek Anderson...
so, is DA the answer?
Sage Rosenfels anyone?
Byron Left which?
Maybe NE will trade O’Connell for a 2nd?
How about Luke McCown of Carolina?
We could trade SF a 2nd for Smith…
or a 6th to St. Louis for Gradkowski…
Drew Stanton or Dan Orlovski?
Or… maybe… Seneca Wallace :)
It is what it is...
by kidder95 on Jan 6, 2009 2:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Why take a retread?
The only interesting name is O’Connell and you want to trade a second round pick for him when he was drafted at the end of the third? Why not just grab our own O’Connell in this years draft.
by Nate Dogg on Jan 6, 2009 3:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Why isn't trade for Tuiasasopo or pick up Cody Pickett an option?
Whatever happened to John Freisz?
by LantermanC on Jan 6, 2009 4:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Salary Cap...
just too much talent… we just cannot afford that type of talent ;)
It is what it is...
by kidder95 on Jan 6, 2009 5:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It's definitely an option
But I think a lot of things have to break right for it to happen.
First, other teams really like to hang on to their “QB of the future” as long as possible. So those guys really don’t become available that often, an when they do the price can be pretty high. If a team’s willing to let him go for cheap, then he’s more likely to be a Charlie Frye instead of a Matt Hasselbeck.
Second, like you said, it’s hard to get a read/scout those guys when there’s not much game film available. So I think trades like that are more likely to happen between teams hat have close organizational ties – i.e., they run similar schemes, they’ve been working under a coaching staff that you feel would’ve developed him the same way your own team would’ve, etc.
If you don’t have that inside intel on him, he’s just as much of a risk as any college QB, so your probably just better off to take your chances with your own pick in the draft.
If we don’t get our own development prospect this year, here are some names I’d keep an eye on for next offseason -
If McNabb is re-signed, Philly might think about dealing Kolb.
If things click for Campell, the Skins might try and flip Brennan
Green Bay might deal off one of the Flynn/Brohm combo.
That’s assuming all of those guys have decent preseasons, add bulk, etc. But they’d be coming from systems similar to ours, working with good QB coaches, and have 2 years of training under their belt.
by jteckmann on Jan 7, 2009 4:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
AHHHHHHH!!
We could trade SF a 2nd for Smith…
My brain hurts. O’Connell is intriguing to me, I see Cassel going for some nice $$ and them retaining O’Connell as the new Cassel incase Brady is screwed.
by vanrijn on Jan 6, 2009 3:34 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I was hoping we would grab O'Connell
in the 5th… NE likes to use a talented coaching scheme to oversell marginal talent… and why not… what they don’t sell is Mr. B.
It is what it is...
by kidder95 on Jan 6, 2009 5:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Another thing that has yet to be mentioned...
At least not in this particular blog, is the effect of good coaching on draftees. I think that it’s possible, bordering on likely, that the New England Patriots coaching staff is more responsible for helping make Brady (and Cassel) than Brady made them.
My point is that there are plenty of QBs that could be successful that tank because of bad coaching and plenty that would tank but succeed due to good coaching. Maybe instead of being overly concerned with finding the ready-made superstar QB, the ’Hawks should concern themselves with finding a superstar QB coach.
by Azimeir on Jan 6, 2009 4:57 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Amen Brother!
Now we are on to something… funny how talent in the secondary tends to follow talent at DC… and QB’s with the OC or HC.
It is what it is...
by kidder95 on Jan 6, 2009 5:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
QB developer, you say?
SURPRISE Holmgren rides off in to the sunset. lol
by Fearless Frog on Jan 6, 2009 9:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, Bill Lazor's resume doesn't exactly set the world on fire.
OTOH, if you write off the Vick disaster in ATL, Knapp is a little more encouraging. He got Garcia off the CFL scrap heap and turned him into a Pro-Bowler. And Matt Schaub was drafted and developed under him in ATL.
by jteckmann on Jan 7, 2009 4:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
