The Future of Matt Hasselbeck is the Future of the Seattle Seahawks, Pt. 3
by John Morgan on Dec 10, 2009 4:59 PM PST
185 comments
I hope Mike Holmgren signs with Cleveland. I have selfish interest, namely Seattle not re-signing Holmgren, but I have more noble interests as well. Cleveland has one of the youngest, most talented offensive lines in the NFL. It starts Joe Thomas at left tackle, Eric Steinbach at left guard and Alex Mack at center. Right guard Hank Fraley and right tackle John St. Clair are interchangeable organizational soldier types. It doesn't have great skill position talent, but that's where Holmgren shines. He finds scheme appropriate players that can excel behind a dominant offensive line. Holmgren is also an expert at developing young quarterbacks.
Why start with a tangent? In this scenario, Seattle ditches Matt Hasselbeck and signs free agent Jason Campbell. Tim Ruskell is out and his departure hints at a potential rebuild, but if Seattle can win some down the stretch, and especially if Seattle can win some down the stretch because of its Ruskell built defense, the Seahawks might adapt certain Ruskell ideals even without Ruskell.
Ruskell was risk adverse. He had a narrow definition of "his guy". His aversion to risk may have served him well, but his narrow definition did not. Consider Deon Butler. Ruskell traded into the third round to select Butler because Butler was "his guy". Butler dripped Ruskell: Four-year starter at a major conference powerhouse, undersized but fast, coachable, hard working and quietly productive. Ruskell conflated "his guy" with risk aversion and overpaid for a risky player. Despite his track record and accolades, Butler could bust because he is overmatched by NFL competition.
Ruskell spent big to get his guy, but his guy was never less risky than Juaquin Iglesias, Mike Thomas, Brian Hartline, Louis Murphy, Austin Collie or Johnny Knox - the six receivers selected after Butler. And only Iglesias has underperformed Butler. Ruskell projected his internal bias on the players he drafted. It rarely conflicted with his risk aversion, but when it did, it often spelled failure.
Campbell is a prime target for any risk adverse general manager. His connections to Auburn's unbeaten season might have spoken to Ruskell's personal bias, but his standing as a young, established NFL quarterback speaks to rational roster construction. Campbell has the tools of an NFL quarterback - arm strength, size, mobility - and those tools are NFL tested. He has adapted to multiple playbooks and played near league average football on some very poorly constructed offenses. As we've seen in Chicago and Denver, the quarterback may be the center and most essential part of any NFL offense, but it is not more important than the other ten men that take the field.
This Plan Might Be Enacted Thus:
Seattle trades or cuts Hasselbeck. It wishes him well, gives lip service to rebuilding and is satisfied to see him sign with Cleveland. Hasselbeck joins muscle milk buddy Brady Quinn and assumes the Trent Dilfer role.
Walter Jones retires.
Seattle cuts Patrick Kerney, Deion Branch and Seneca Wallace.
That gives the Seahawks money to burn. Seattle signs Campbell to a frontloaded contract with a third-year buyout clause. Campbell is playing through the last year of his rookie contract and though he's rich, he's not quarterback rich. Seattle buys maneuverability and Campbell's services by stacking his 2010 salary with zeroes.
Seattle could still be a player in free agency after signing Campbell. It will attempt to fill holes and free itself to draft best available talent throughout the draft.
Signing Campbell and cutting dead weight frees Seattle to make a big splash in the NFL draft. It has money to afford another early first round prospect and the picks to trade up. It could take a centerpiece player on defense like Ndamukong Suh. By releasing Hasselbeck and signing Campbell, the burden falls off the offense. Seattle buys itself time. If Campbell struggles in Seattle's still wrecked 2010 offense, he's young and can be released. Campbell has a bad reputation. He hasn't earned Seahawks fan loyalty and we are unlikely to experience the same kind of revulsion and outrage watching him battered to bones as we do watching Hasselbeck torn asunder.
Campbell is signed as a stopgap+. The Seahawks compliment the signing with a project quarterback selected sometime in 2010's epic quarterback draft. A looming correction to the onerous rookie pay scale is encouraging players to declare, and while the draft lacks a Matt Ryan or Peyton Manning, it might be the deepest quarterback draft in modern history. Colt McCoy, Zac Robinson, Sean Canfield, Ryan Mallett, Dan LeFevour, Pat Devlin and Tony Pike will all likely fall deep into the second day. Seattle will have an established starter for 2010 to test its system and offense, and a talented young quarterback developing behind the scenes.
How it works: Seattle successfully moves into the top of the draft and selects a once in a generation defensive talent. That helps push Seattle's cheap, young and talented, but by no means dominant, defense from potential to production. The team is not a contender again in 2010, but it's close.
Campbell outperforms Hasselbeck. He's younger and healthier and continues to play like a league average quarterback. Campbell could also breakout. Seattle is set for either possibility. It builds its offense towards the future by continuing Ruskell's habit of drafting late and mid-round offensive talent and seeing who shakes out. The major rebuild will wait until next offseason. 2010 is about seeing what they have and what they need, something a diminished Hasselbeck has made difficult to impossible this season.
The young defense provides excitement and gives the team a direction and identity. Campbell's arm opens the run game and Seattle executes the grind and smother attack Jim Mora and Greg Knapp seek. The team takes a flier on another young back (or two) and someone sticks, filling out a balanced and productive if unspectacular committee of backs. It's Ground Chuck all over again.
How it fails: Seattle cuts Hasselbeck but doesn't sign Campbell, or Seattle retains Hasselbeck and projects to have one of the worst offenses in football in 2010, or Seattle signs Campbell but Campbell performs no better than Hasselbeck and Seattle's young quarterback is prematurely forced into action. The meat of this is that Seattle does not spend enough on its offense and that offense again undermines the defense.
Contrarily, the defense never steps up. It continues to stifle the run but still cannot stop the pass. Seattle's defensive savior is a rookie and like Aaron Curry, more potential than player. The defense is average, but no better and as the offense putters towards the bottom of the league, the not-good-enough defense shoulders the consequences. Seattle changes the face of its failures but not its failures and what little can be salvaged from Ruskell's roster is older, more expensive and closer to free agency. Campbell is signed to stave off a full rebuild and does. He plays two seasons of league average football and is cleared when Seattle must clean house in 2012.
0 recs |
185 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
CBA
Unless there is a new CBA, Campbell will be a restricted FA. Snyder and Cerrato might be bitter enough to let Campbell go for nothing, but if there’s any brain left between those two, we will give him a first round qualifying offer. That would mean a salary of about $2 million which is good even if Campbell is just our backup next year. I doubt you’d be willing to give up your first rounder for him.
Thanks. Noted.
This hypothetical functions under the assumption that something will be done to allow for active free agency.
On a side note: What do you think of Campbell?
Longwinded answer
I was his biggest supporter up through this offseason. Then the beginning of this season, even though Campbell’s stats looked good, most of them were piled on when the game was already out of reach. NFL.com has splits that showed when we were losing by more than 8 points he was great, and he was absolutely terrible the rest of the game. So, I gave in and decided he wasn’t the long term solution. Then, the last three weeks he’s been playing much better due to better protection, better playcalling, shorter drops, and (at least according to Cooley) 2 wristbands that made it so he didn’t have to memorize as much. So, I’m back on the fence. I think it would be crazy not to at least give him the second round qualifying offer and see how he does next year behind a hopefully improved offensive line. But I suspect Cerrato and Snyder just want to be rid of him.
I should add
That it’s impossible not to root for him. He’s the consummate professional, and made Snyder and Cerrato look like whiny little children this offseason when through all the trade talk, he just kept showing up to Redskins Park every day to look at film and work out. If he doesn’t succeed with us, I hope he really sticks it to Snyder by winning somewhere else.
As much as I hate to suggest this for any player
Campbell seems like the kind of player who could really benefit from a change of scenery. I’d love to see what would happen with him if he were to sign elsewhere if the Skins choose not to retain him.
I don't think Campbell is the answer at Quarterback.
he is a lateral move from Mat not an improvement,
"Superhero like even"
I think the QB of the future can be developed under Hasselbeck
But having a capable NFL caliber backup, unlike Seneca, would help in case Hass is subject to injury.
I mostly agree with Censor on Campbell.
"If, now this is a hypothetical, If I were offered the job, I would start with the offensive line" Mike Holmgren on KJR
The other way it fails...
Holmgren signs in Cleveland. Seattle, who is planning to release Hasselbeck, is pressured into doing so prior to firming up a suitable replacement. A small market develops for Jason Campbell’s tools and close-to-league-average production—boosting his price. There is no plan B for a young QB and the team is stuck seriously considering entering the draft with Seneca Wallace as the presumptive starter.
The front office entertains signing Jeff Garcia.
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
Just out of curiosity John, do you WANT Campbell to be a Seahawk?
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
Not sure.
I can see the virtues and risks. I would pursue Campbell if I felt confident Seattle could draft Suh.
It's a tired cliche but appropriate
I look at constructing a roster like constructing an attack in chess. You don’t plan every move, but you do identify smart moves, you identify goals, and you adapt to what’s possible.
if I had a nickle for every time I've heard this
I’d have a nickle.
I don't see how we could draft Suh without trading up.
And for a team with supposedly so many needs, this seems silly.
Unless Suh is the next Tez.
To be fair to myself...
… I don’t really feel this way myself that much. But it’s such a widely assumed position that it’s hard to get away from sometimes.
I think we have to accept that it will take years to rebuild the Seahawks back into contenders
It’s not going to be done over one offseason. If it takes trading up for Suh, I say do it. You take talent where you can get it.
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Dec 10, 2009 9:50 PM PST up reply actions
On the subject of needs, I'd have to agree with you that the amount of needs are overblown.
I only see three, at least where I desire elite talent:
- Quarterback
- Offensive Tackle
- Defensive Tackle
That’s it. If Seattle can come away with elite talent at all of those positions within the next 2 or 3 drafts or so, I’d get really excited over their prospects in returning as contenders, provided that they keep the nucleus of their younger core and/or supporting players.
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Dec 10, 2009 10:12 PM PST up reply actions
Not really.
You already know that I want Golden Tate in Seahawks blue ( thought that’s not to say that I’m calling him an elite talent, but I view him as a can’t-miss prospect), but the Seahawks, at this point, do not have any real need at WR, much less an elite WR, unless they create that need this offseason (i.e. cutting Branch, trading Housh, etc.)
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Dec 10, 2009 10:24 PM PST up reply actions
Though*
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Dec 10, 2009 10:26 PM PST up reply actions
We have to cut Branch.
But don’t you think even with Housh and company we need a true #1 at WR? Tate has Steve Smith (from Carolina) written all over him.
by Mr. Blache III on Dec 10, 2009 10:31 PM PST up reply actions
Steve Smith is exactly who I think of when I watch Tate.
But no, I do not believe the Seahawks need a #1 WR.
But if Tate is available, I have no problems with the Seahawks picking him up.
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Dec 10, 2009 10:39 PM PST up reply actions
Why not?
Our WR’s don’t seem to get much separation from DB’s. Butler is really our only deep threat but he’s a #3 at best. I actually think a #1 that demands double teams makes our running game better and would allow Housh to flourish over the middle.
by Mr. Blache III on Dec 10, 2009 10:56 PM PST up reply actions
I agree that we need a true #1 receiver.
Suh would be nice to bad he is going 1st overall. I believe this years first round picks should be used on O-line talent, look at Jacksonville. They started slow but are in the hunt with two rookie tackles.
"Superhero like even"
Michael Oher was supposed to go #1 at this point last year.
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Dec 11, 2009 7:29 AM PST up reply actions
And no one this time last year
projected us to take a LB at #4
Anything could, and usually does happen at the draft.
Anyone could drop to us, or we could get a bust that looks really good until he gets here and Leaf’s out.
You're focusing too much on a corps in terms of an idealistic talent level. It doesn't work like that.
Seattle didn’t have what most people view as a true #1 receiver when they went to the Super Bowl.
They did, however, have a dominant O-line and a solid defense.
Just imagine that this year, the O-line was on par with the O-line that the Seahawks had in 2005. John Carlson would not be used to block as much as he has been this year, which means that in the passing game, defenses will have to account for him. That’s going to be quite a bit more one-on-one match ups for the WR’s.
The only real problem that I see with the WR’s is that there doesn’t seem to be a WR with whom Matt Hasselbeck has developed a chemistry with like he had with Bobby Engram (and even Darrell Jackson, to name another).
Besides, you can have all the double teams you want in the world. How will the ball get to the open receiver when the protection generally provides you too little time? The Cards had Fitzgerald and Boldin for several years and their offense didn’t really click until their O-line developed into a pretty damn good pass-protecting unit last year.
At this point, given Seattle current talent on the roster, I just don’t see WR nearly as high a priority as I see QB, OT, and DT (though not necessarily in that order).
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Dec 11, 2009 7:48 AM PST up reply actions
You make a very good point.
The same could be said about DT, though. We could very well be more set at DT than we are at receiver.
I’m OK with receiver not being a top priority. But I think our needs are greater than they normally are, greater than more teams than not. Sure you could say it’s overblown, but relatively speaking we simply have a lot of needs. QB, tackle (if not two), and an upgrade at RB & WR. At least one upgrade, in both cases. We need pass rush, though maybe not additional personnel. But those are actual positional needs.
We could definitely use a shot in the arm at DT, Safety & punter, as well. Not established needs. Could make a nice difference. But it’s not the same.
by jacobstevens on Dec 11, 2009 1:04 PM PST up reply actions
But we had a #1 RB
Even though we didn’t have a true #1 WR (even though D-Jack could qualify) we had a feature back that Defenses had to game plan for. When Defenses would 8 and a Box us we could make them pay with play action or just take advantage with our one on one mismatches on the outside. Right now teams can 8 and a Box us and still stop the pass because our WR are no threat.
You’re right about Carlson having to stay in and block but our O-Line in the last 3 games have given Hass plenty of time to throw the ball and no one is gettin open.
Maybe I’m in the minority here but usually the teams with the most explosive players win…on both sides of the ball. I just feel were lacking more explosion on the Offensive side then the Defensive side now.
I would love for us to trade for Kolb, draft Tate, and sign Boldin. Off course cut Branch and Kerney, and we could do without Redding or Cole but they’ll be in a Seattle uniform next year.
by Mr. Blache III on Dec 11, 2009 2:30 PM PST up reply actions
You overestimate Hasselbeck's ability to hit said receivers.
He is Captain Checkdown these days.
I think you can make an argument that our receiving group right now top to bottom might be the best Seattle has ever had.
I agree we always want more explosive players when possible, and I doubt anyone would debate that fact.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 11, 2009 3:38 PM PST up reply actions
On Paper
Coming into the season I liked our WR (though I still wanted Crabs) even though we didn’t have a true #1 but it seems as though Hass is checking down because his WR’s aren’t open down field. I don’t think top to bottom this is the best though. Pretty good but not our best.
He went deep last week to Branch and he dropped a perfect throw…Hass can still sling it. But Branch still didn’t have that much separation. It forces Matt to have to make perfect or near perfect throws to complete it to our WR’s. Warner has the luxury to just throw the ball up to Fitz and Boldin or even Breaston and they have the ability to make a play on the ball even when covered. I don’t see that with the guys we have.
by Mr. Blache III on Dec 11, 2009 3:48 PM PST up reply actions
You only see that one though...
How many times has it happened the other way around, where Branch ran down the field and was open but Hass either didn’t throw it to him due to pocket pressure or he didn’t think he could sling it into the window, or he did throw it and missed?
I know this— I play PG on my basketball team, and I have a pretty good court sense on where to throw a pass on the break or to an open guy, and I don’t turn the ball over very often. However, there are guys that can get the ball to people when you don’t even see an opening. A buddy on my team is one of those guys, but he also turns the ball over more when trying to thread those needles.
Hass used to be a little bit more like Mike, the gunslinger mentality trying to wing it in there. Now, with reduced arm strength and a more conservative nature he isn’t making those throws nearly as often… he plays it safer.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 11, 2009 4:03 PM PST up reply actions
Mabye he doesn't have confidence that his WR's can pull down those type of throws?
by Mr. Blache III on Dec 11, 2009 4:28 PM PST up reply actions
For every time there's a throw like
the one to Branch, there’s a throw like the one to Burleson. Except the Burleson throw was so obviously late and poorly thrown that even the announcers knew it was Matt’s fault.
Hmmm. But, he DID have confidence
when Darrell Jackson and Koren Robinson were leading the league in drops?!?
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 11, 2009 5:51 PM PST up reply actions
Matt has never
been as good as ppl thought/claim he is. He used to throw his balls early, too hard and never had “touch”. Many of those drops were on Matt.
Hasselbeck got sacked 5 times against San Francisco.
And I seem to remember that he got sacked 4 or 5 times against Minnesota. He has not has the amount of time that he needs.
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Dec 11, 2009 8:19 PM PST up reply actions
Should mentioned that yes, some of those sacks are his fault.
But I don’t think anyone can argue that he’s been getting the protection that he needs.
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Dec 11, 2009 8:20 PM PST up reply actions
Is the protection he's been getting since the line got healthy really as bad as it's made out to be?
Serious question, I just don’t think it’s been all that awful.
Let me be clear. It's not horrible. But it is below average, as in, it is in the bottom third in the league.
It really does need to improve.
Note: I just looked at FO. Statistically, Seattle’s offensive line’s adjusted sack rate is 6.9%, 21st in the league.
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Dec 11, 2009 9:51 PM PST up reply actions
It doesn't.
But it is still indicative of the team’s ability to avoid sacks. Which brings me back to: I don’t think anyone can say that Matt is getting the protection that he needs.
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Dec 12, 2009 10:29 AM PST up reply actions
You're absolutely right about this.
I am not one of Matt’s defenders, here. I am convinced he’s become part of the problem, as much as he’s still the central piece and majority of our solution right now, as well. But he’s a part of the problem, overall, and regarding sacks.
But yeah, the Cardinals game, the Vikings, the 49ers, there was an incredibly small amount of time per pass play, it was just lightning fast. I couldn’t believe it. Even against the Rams, I’d say there just wasn’t a lot of time, relatively speaking.
by jacobstevens on Dec 12, 2009 11:07 PM PST up reply actions
I'd be interested in seeing what that would look like
if the Kyle Williams and Steve Vallos Comedy Hour game were eleminated.
I don't see why we need to cut Branch instead of restructuring his contract.
In my book a #1 stud WR is a want, not a need. While I’d like Tate and think he’ll be solid, I’d rather have us draft an OT/RB/QB. (If the Campbell thing happens, I’d be down with getting Tate if he falls to us in the second.)
This is exactly it.
If you have a chance to get a once in a decade (possibly) player at a key position, you take it. I can only imagine what Suh with Mebane would do for our line and Defense as a whole.
Also a die-hard Hawks fan.
by Hopefulmsfan on Dec 11, 2009 12:40 AM PST up reply actions
If this is the case
and you make a good case, then you don’t trade up, you just gather talent. I would trade up for a QB. But only if I feel despite the glut of QB prospects, there’s a disparity between the top guys and the available guys. I don’t know if that will be the case, but I’m prepared to accept it as a fan.
But other than that, if we’re not just re-stocking at a couple positions, then don’t trade up.
by jacobstevens on Dec 11, 2009 12:56 PM PST up reply actions
Suh should be better than Tez if he transitions well to the NFL
The film on this guy is unbelievable. He created havok in the Title game against Texas.
If we sing Suh and get a late 1st round OT or early 2nd round OT I would be happy with Campbell coming to Seattle. The offensive line needs to be addressed long before the QB position in my eyes. If you have a bad line you set your new QB up for failure.
We should be able to retain a second round pick or our second first rounder with some trade bait already on the roster.
"If, now this is a hypothetical, If I were offered the job, I would start with the offensive line" Mike Holmgren on KJR
I would think Ruskell's departure makes Campbell less likely.
I think most of the league sees Campbell as a guy who has had several chances in different systems with different coaches but never quite turned the corner. Yes he’s been hampered by having to learn a new system just about every year since he entered the league, but that just means many of his years as a young, moldable quarterback are gone. He’s now a veteran QB who has flashed ability at times but lost an awful lot of football games. He doesn’t look so much like a QB-of-the-future as a decent stand-in until a real franchise QB can be found.
Campbell will be 28 at the end of the month. If the argument is that he hasn’t developed yet because it takes a year or two to learn a new system, Campbell won’t be performing well until he’s 30. IF he develops, you’ve got a few years peak production before the statistical decline hits. Yeah, he’s cheap, but you get a short window for success in return. Wouldn’t you rather draft a young QB with similar skills and potential, and get him for the long haul?
I pretty much agree.
If Seneca isn’t going to develop into in an effective starter, I have a hard time believing Campbell will, either.
The demise of the Broncos in '09 is our future. Pray hard.
I think the argument is to sign Campbell and draft a QB in the 2nd or 3rd round.
That way you get both the stopgap and the future QB in the same offseason.
Also a die-hard Hawks fan.
by Hopefulmsfan on Dec 11, 2009 12:42 AM PST up reply actions
I have to call myself out for something...
Undeservedly so, I have always tossed Campbell into the list of NFL QB’s that are just bidding their time between draft day, and retirement. There is certainly no foundation for my thought process, but after years and years of watching NFL QB’s come and go, sometimes I tend to “file” the prospects away without any real reasons.
“This guy just doesn’t seem like an NFL QB”… it’s really unfair. Then something hit me…
We all know that a big factor in a QB succeeding is getting his offensive teammates to “buy-in” to his abilities (leadership).
Without that trust, I would assume that it could hurt a QB’s overall effectiveness.
Does anybody think this could have an effect on the careers of not only a guy like Campbell, but other guys that have all the tools, but aren’t able to get the most out of them? Could this be one of those proverbial “intangibles” we hear about? The ability to subconsciously “sell yourself” to your teammates?
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
That seems reasonable.
It’s speculation since I don’t follow the Titans, but the new and improved Vince Young seems to be an example of a QB benefiting from the confidence of his team. The team’s confidence in their QB would most likely be linked to his own confidence as well….
Pleaase, please, please, please no.
Although he has been a class act, transitioning through 42 straight different Offensive Coordinators, he has not shown himself to be capable of leading a franchise to success.
Yes he can throw a deep ball.
No he can not gro an adult mustache.
I have watched every skins game for the past 6+ seasons, this is not the Seahawks best option.
Not disagreeing with you, but...
…so who IS Seattle’s best option?
Michael Vick!!
totally joking…
Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion...
We need to find out.
I really think this guy is the one we need. With two #1’s this year it’s our chance to trade for him. We could then still use our other draft picks to address other needs.
by Mr. Blache III on Dec 10, 2009 10:22 PM PST up reply actions
Not a chance in hell he's worth a #1.
Plus McNabb’s future in Philly is uncertain so they will definitely avoid trading Kolb.
ME! BANE!
by SSreporters on Dec 11, 2009 12:36 PM PST up reply actions
Philly Just signed Reid...McNabb's future is tied to him.
He’s worth one of our #1’s. I’d rather trade a 1st Rd pick for a QB we’ve seen on film in the NFL with the WCO then using a 1st Rd Pick on an unkown College commodity that we’ll have to groom.
Because we have two #1’s it’s worth doing this year. Most Organizations would use their 1st RD pick for their franchise QB so I feel this would be in the same vein. But were gaining someone with NFL experience. That’s a huge advantage.
by Mr. Blache III on Dec 11, 2009 2:35 PM PST up reply actions
Still
You are assuming that Kevin Kolb’s stock went up (he was a 2nd round pick) by starting a grand total of 2 games (he went 1-1 facing the best team in football and one of the worst teams in football).
Based on that alone I think you’re overvaluing an unproven product.
ME! BANE!
Yes...1-1 has nothing to do with it. 31-51 374 yd and 24-34 327 yd
Kolb had two starts. Against the Saints (12-0) he went 31-51 374 yds 2TD’s and 3 Int against the best team in Football. Against a lesser opponent KC he went 24-34 for 327 yds 2TD’s 0 Int.
Trading a 1st Rd pick in my book just like drafting one. Most GM’s would use their 1st RD Pk on a Franchise QB out of College with NO NFL Experience. He was a 2nd RD pick before any snapshot of what he could do. He’s played himself in my opnion into a 1st Rd consideration.
I think playing behind McNabb and learning the WCO saves us losses and anguish in the short run. Developing a QB is hit or miss. Kolb comes from a guy who knows QB’s like Reid does and we get him without having to deal with the growing pains rookie QB’s give you.
There will still be some adjustment but it usually takes at least 2 years for Rookie Qb’s to start rounding into form. I look at Schaub and even Hass as examples that worked out. Even Aaron Rodgers (though he wasn’t traded) sat and worked behing Favre for a few years and now in full control of GB’s offense with them having only 1 season of growing pains. And last years GB teams offense was good with Rodgers, it was the defense that had problems. All in all…I say Yes, Yes, and Yes…he’s young would be here for another 10 years giving us stability. Give up one of our #1’s.
by Mr. Blache III on Dec 11, 2009 3:39 PM PST up reply actions
Your logic isn't bad...
if Kolb IS that guy. However, I’m still not sure two games prove it.
The Saints may be the “best team in football” but their D isn’t mind blowing, and as you point out, he did throw 3 picks against them. KC is pretty weak right now as well.
Kelly Stouffer threw for 370 yards in his 4th ever start.
Rick Mirer was 20-27 in his first start.
I would want a larger sample size to prove the guy is worthy of a 1st round pick, after all, he wasn’t deemed worthy of one when he was drafted. What, since then, has proven now he is? 2 games with a lot of yards, 5 TD’s and 3 Int’s.
I’m just not sold on a 1st for him…
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 11, 2009 3:56 PM PST up reply actions
Do you get a larger sample size when you draft a 1st Rd QB out of College?
by Mr. Blache III on Dec 11, 2009 4:19 PM PST up reply actions
No.
But there was a reason he wasn’t drafted in the first round before. Now, suddenly, after 2 games, you are saying he IS worth a first rounder.
I don’t see enough proof of that yet.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 11, 2009 5:52 PM PST up reply actions
So if he were drafted in the 1st Rd instead of the 2nd it would change your mind?
by Mr. Blache III on Dec 11, 2009 5:54 PM PST up reply actions
Okay, you're strawmanning again.
Whiskey was talking about NFL sample sizes, and now you’re redirecting to when a player was drafted to deflect the argument and avoid the points he brought up.
You’ve got a bad habit of this. Be aware of that and stop.
But Brian L.
My point is that a sample size is still more then what you get from a 1st RD pick right out of College with no NFL experience.
by Mr. Blache III on Dec 11, 2009 6:13 PM PST up reply actions
The reason he wasn't drafted in the 1st Rd....
was because Philly traded out of the 1st Rd with the Cowboys and took Kolb with their 1st pk in the draft which then happened to be in the 2nd Rd. Philly went from pk 26 to pk 36 when they traded back. No other QB’s were taken between pk 22 (which was Quinn) and pk 36 (which was Kolb). Kolb was the third QB taken after J. Russell and Brady Quinn…my point being is that Philly could’ve taken him at 26 and made him a 1st Rounder but Philly knew no one else wanted a QB and traded back for the player they wanted. Kolb was pick 36, only 3 picks from being in the 1st Rd. Our late 1st Round pick will probably be equivalent to an early 2nd Rd pick. Personally if Philly would take our 2nd RD pick I would be happy but we won’t be picking 36th this in next years draft. To pry him from Philly I think it will take a 1st RD pick.
by Mr. Blache III on Dec 11, 2009 7:53 PM PST up reply actions
Our second 1st Round Pick will likely be around 24.
I’m not sure how that becomes “the equivalent to an early 2nd round pick.” It isn’t. It’s likely 10 spots from the 2nd round, and at worst 5. Regardless though, this draft is considered very deep but perhaps without top tier talent in the top 5. Even Suh has some people questioning him…
In addition, there will likely be a very high number of underclassmen coming out due to the rumblings that the league will tighten the rookie pay scale.
Just because Kolb was the 3rd QB drafted (and could have gone late in the first round in a weak QB draft) does not mean that one of our 1st round picks THIS year is worth giving away for him.
And again, you say “to pry him from Philly I think it will take a 1st round pick.” I’m saying I don’t know that I want to PRY him from Philly. Two games haven’t been enough for me to anoint him “Savior.” Hence, the cost is quite high. Too high.
Heck, if we were going to overpay for a QB, for just one more 1st rounder and a 3rd, we could have had Jay Cutler. He may be struggling with a bad offense, low talent and a crappy scheme, but he at least had numbers (in a West Coast-ish Offense) that are proven at the NFL level.
Typically a player’s pick value is highest right as they are being picked, and it goes down from that point onward, unless they prove out to be distinguishing themselves on the NFL field. Kolb hasn’t done this yet, therefore he is not yet worth a 1st round pick.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 12, 2009 1:43 AM PST up reply actions
Brady 21 -36 0TD's 2 INT's vs. the Saints.
by Mr. Blache III on Dec 11, 2009 4:25 PM PST up reply actions
And he may not cost a pick to sign...
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 12, 2009 1:43 AM PST up reply actions
And in this tight contest...starting the 2nd half,
after watching NO score on the opening drive to go up 14 when Philly really needed a sustained drive and some points on the board, Kolb threw an INT first possession.
He then went 3 and out in the second possession, and saw his team go down 17 more points before he mounted a drive.
There just isn’t enough there for me to say, “Damn, this guy we NEED, and we need to do whatever we can to get him…”
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 12, 2009 1:49 AM PST up reply actions
I really like this plan as it is laid out
Campbell’s RFA status could be troublesome, but if he’s available without a hitch, I think he makes sense. He’d be a better stopgap for the next 4 years than Hasselbeck.
I’m totally in favor of trading both 1sts for Suh, assuming the other party is willing. Denver’s pick is currently 27th, and the crop of players likely to be available in that area is looking pretty bad. I worry though that if Seattle continues to win and finishes 8-8 or so, that 2 firsts simply won’t be enough ammunition to land Suh.
What I Like Most About This Plan
I love the attempt at making the defense elite while giving it a “won’t mess the defense” up option on offense. I realize that no draft pick is certain to thrive but I like the idea of having the defense in place while a QB is found.
I like this plan even without Suh (although I'd love to get him)
I think the biggest reason I want this so much is that when I heard that the Skins wanted Sanchez I immediately thought that they were making a mistake and that I’d love to see Campbell with the Hawks. Then hearing John Morgan point out that he thought it might be a good idea, and then a month later Aaron Schultz from football outsiders says according to their data he’s a league average starting QB at worst and and could shock the NFL next year if he leaves that mess in DC and joins a decent team. Now just a week or two ago Bill Simmons said that he’s been watching Campbell closely for the last month since talking to Aaron Schultz and now he’s board with saying that Campbell looks like the real deal.
So that’s 3 people who’s opinions on football I really respect reinforcing something that I already thought to be a good idea. So I’ll probably be pounding the table for Campbell till he signs a new contract next offseason.I’m also encouraged by his improvements since Zorn was stripped of playcalling duties.
I’d be surprised if we cut Wallace though. He’s still not that expensive ($1.5 million for 2010) and I think he could still have trade value due to his Senecat abilites. I’m sure some team will want him in the Micheal Vick roll as 3rd string QB that comes in for the wildcat throughout the game, especially considering his 2010 salary is $125k less than Vick got this year, and $3.75 million less than Vick is due next year if he’s not cut.
Even if it’s just a 5th or 6th rounder. The Dolphins spent a 2nd round pick on Pat White, and most people thought he’d go no later than the 3rd or 4th round, so why not spend a 5th or 6th rounder on Wallace? Personally at $1.5 million I’d like him to be a 3rd string QB for the Seahawks and to keep running the Senecat next year.
by Mind of no mind on Dec 11, 2009 12:15 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
Senecat!!!
Awesome.
It makes a lot of sense to have a mobile backup.
by Michael Scott on Dec 11, 2009 9:57 AM PST up reply actions
Thinking about it more,
wouldn’t this statement;
Campbell is a prime target for any risk adverse general manager.
Kind of preclude that same GM from trading up to a top 2 pick which would be required to land Suh? Especially 1 year after the team spent #4 money on Curry and not having him live up to expectations as quickly as many expected. I’m not saying it wouldn’t be a good move, but it just sounds like a high profile, high risk, high reward type move that a risk adverse GM would shy away from.
I think I’d be in favor of cutting Kerney and Branch and trying to bring in a guy like Richard Seymour or Tony Brown to play DT or someone like Aaron Kampman to play DE (all of them are 29, but you could sign them to Kerney like deals that allow you to cut them after 3 years). Then use the 1st round draft picks to draft an explosive player on offense like Spiller or a LT or both, to give Campbell a decent chance to make the GM look smart for making what would probably be an unpopular decision in signing him.
Besides just wanting to see my team win, being able to draft Spiller without reaching is another big reason I’d like to see the Seahawks finish at least 7-9.
by Mind of no mind on Dec 11, 2009 12:44 AM PST reply actions
Suh means trading up to No1
I just don’t see the team at the top of the draft actually wanting to do anything but draft Suh. It’s not hard even for a layman to see how he’s a generational pick. Regardless of what other needs they have they all need a Suh. Would Seattle’s two first rounders even get you near the No1 slot? Maybe if we were just a bit more crappy..
Well the track record would be one reason
Since 1990.
Maryland 1991
Emtman 1992
Wilkinson 1994
Courtney Brown 2000 (if you need to use the whole name, you know you’re a bust)
Super Mario 2006
Really, the only player who has somewhat lived up to the pick is Mario Williams and that’s not saying much. Maryland enjoyed success, but was a mediocre DL talent in a very poor draft — not even the 3rd best DL on his own team.
Wilkinson and Emtman probably had as much anticipation/hype as Suh. One just sucked as a pro, the other was good for the 15 games he wasn’t crippled. The record of actual success by picking a DL #1 overall is absolutely terrible.
by Attylathehawk on Dec 11, 2009 7:53 AM PST up reply actions
You nailed it.
I hate the idea of giving up both 1st rounders to draft one player. That’s a lot of eggs in one basket, especially for a team like us that has more pressing needs then DT. We need a DE more then DT. It seems like DL’s bust more then QB’s anyway. ..(don’t know the stat on that, but just saying)….I like the idea of using both our 1st picks on 1st round talent our team could use…I aslo like trading one of those 1st Rd picks for Kolb and then using our other 1st Rd pick to draft a player that can contribute right away. In either scenario we get two players for both our 1st Rd Pks and not just one.
by Mr. Blache III on Dec 11, 2009 2:42 PM PST up reply actions
Could work?
Who knows, this plan could work out. My only issue is I have seen quite a few Redskins games, and I will never get what people see in Jason Campbell. He seems like an average QB, that is nothing bettter than a strong backup on a team that runs a WCO (think of a little less athletic Seneca Wallace), but I get where you are going with all the money being freed up.
I’m still fine with Matt for another year, and the team drafting a QB in the 2-5 round somewhere (there will be some interesting prospects in that area). I also think the team needs to work on the O and D lines in the draft and also work on the DB’s, RB and TE depth in free agency and the draft as well. I’m just not sure about Campbell as anything other than a backup.
If we have Matt another year then this is Shaun Alexander Part II. We're in denial that
The best players in franchise history in their respective positions are in so much decline that we choose keeping them over building towards replacements.
ME! BANE!
by SSreporters on Dec 11, 2009 12:35 PM PST up reply actions
I've been saying this
On other boards and here since 08 about Matt people cannot take off their fan hat and be objective about the guy.
by A'Seahawks_Warriors on Dec 11, 2009 1:12 PM PST up reply actions
Ugh!
“Fan hat”, I hate when people just go there, and don’t make a point. Plain and simple if the Seahawks can find a better option other than Matt next year, I would be 100% behind it, but if fans really think Jason Campbell is the answer, they can feel free to get behind it, I WON’T. The guys is a ok player at best and he needs a QB coach to really help get the best out of him, and I don’t see that in Seattle. Hell Zorn has had two years to work with him (much like he did with Matt, Seneca, Dilfer, etc) and he still can’t get him to play half as good as Matt when both guys are healthy.
Find someone that can run whatever offense Knapp runs and get him behind center, but he better be as good as what you have. That is why I want the team to draft someone this year, and keep Matt and have that pick ready for 2011. That is just me, no “fan hat” on here.
If you want to find someone that can run Knapp's offense, Campbell is probably a better fit than Matt.
Campbell is more mobile and has a stronger arm.
Wouldn't those two things in abundance over Matt potentially make him an upgrade?
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 12, 2009 1:50 AM PST up reply actions
The biggest difference between Campbell and Wallace is
that while Campbell is less athletic than Wallace, he’s also 6’5 instead of 5’11. Both have cannon arms, but Wallace can’t ever seem to throw downfield unless he runs away from the pocket so he can either see, or get the ball over the much taller lineman without losing his accuracy. This really hurts Wallace because he usually rolls right (at least it seems to me to always be right) which pretty much takes away all his options on the left half of the field.
Personally, if we can get the defense going a bit, and use an early pick on the OL and an explosive RB like Spiller, I’d be totally content with a young average starting QB entering his prime. Plus there’s always a chance that he could end up being a above average QB once he gets away from that mess in DC.
by Mind of no mind on Dec 11, 2009 1:46 PM PST up reply actions
Wallace also makes
some of the dumbest decisions you will ever see a QB make. I mean, the guy sacks himself at least 3 times a game if he starts. And I mean literally just runs out of bounds for no reason instead of throwing the ball out of bounds.
Hard to show off your cannon arm
when you’re running out of bounds with the ball, a few yards behind the LOS
Maybe cannon arm is overstating it,
but most reports I’ve read on him have said he has a strong arm. Maybe that’s just in comparison to Hasselbeck though. Either way, Campbell would be a definite upgrade.
by Mind of no mind on Dec 11, 2009 3:35 PM PST up reply actions
He does, he has an adequate arm.
Above average deep ball accuracy, that lends to thinking it’s remarkably strong. But yeah, it’s decently strong.
by jacobstevens on Dec 11, 2009 3:37 PM PST up reply actions
I've heard Suh projecting well for a 3-4 DE.
I had envisioned him as a potentially great 3-tech DT. Maybe he can play in any defense, but at least one source thinks otherwise:
I scouted Suh in the summer and was incredibly impressed, the one thing he isn’t is explosive. He’s extremely good with his hands, very strong, a good athlete, has a high motor, gets his hands up… but off the snap he isn’t that quick. Kyle Rota
This makes me more curious about Gerald McCoy. We’ll have a better shot at him (conceivably). Maybe he’s a 3-tech through and through, not that I’d really have to think too much if both were on the board.
Back to the topic: Kolb, Campbell, etc are valid possibilities. I like Kolb a bit more than Campbell. I just don’t see Campbell being an elite QB. He seems limited mentally at times watching games. His indecision leads to turnovers (15TD to INT/FUM). I like his physical traits – height, arm, mobility. Maybe on a new team he could take a leap up. I don’t know. I prefer the idea of drafting an heir at QB in the early part of round 1.
This is almost as ridiculous as Sean Locklear moving to L Tackle
Hold it he is our L tackle!
I cant see the Redskins giving up Jason Campell unless they use their early pick on a Jimmy Clausen, Jake Locker or Sam Bradford and go back to Todd Collins for a temp starter.
Still Campell could have a future here with some other improvements as in OL. (had to say it)
The Idea doesn’t suck
yea dude
Please God, All I Want for Christmas
Is for Seattle to blow it up like Denver. Suh is a great collegiate defensive player. Please, no more high round defensive picks. Denver made a great defense out of used parts. We can do the same.
Offensive skill players move the NFL. And thus, I am all for the Campbell move, but I seriously doubt D.C. will let him go for free.
Assuming Suh will dominate is a major stretch, with his average size for the NFL. Paea shows similiar explosion, yet he will be a rotation pass rush specialist, similar to Terrill.
Ask KC how drafting highly touted DL early in the darft has worked out for them
For the love of God Seattle, stop ignoring the offense. I cannot think of one defense, beyond Baltimore’s that sells tickets.
If last week’s game against SF is an indicator of where this team is headed, it is a boring, perhaps classically tragic future you draw.
It is what it is...
Agreed
ideally, we want to do a partial rebuild, add some pieces and make it all magically work. Drafting a DL high doesnt transform your team into an instant SB contender.
Taking two middle 1st round guys might do just that.
Cortez was awesome but he did not transform a horrible Hawks team into a winner.
We could use a killer safety and a killer O lineman.
Get someone at QB maybe, but I’m not sold Hass is ‘done’. Age doesnt make you ‘done’. Anyone think 40 year Favre is ‘done’? Injuries and a bad OL makes you ‘done’
Why cant Hass be an anomaly?
Farve (I’m hooked on phonics) and Warner both had spells of suckmostiestness and came out of it to renewed success.
Farve and Warner have been remarkably healthy
at ages older than Hass… and Hass can’t seem to play five games without getting hurt. Every game he gets nailed, falls to the turf, and we all collectively go OH SHIT.
Back injuries do not go away.
Warner was elite before injury...
Hasselbeck has never been elite. Very good but never elite.
ME! BANE!
Okay take three
Warner was a part of The Greatest Show on Turf. He could light anyone up because the Rams had a dream offense that was virtually unstoppable for 3-4 seasons.
Now he’s in Arizona and has Early Doucet as his 5th WR. That’s not even fair.
Warner has been a part of dynamic offenses. Favre has as well and he’s never missed a game.
Hasselbeck is on a terrible offense and he’s part of the problem.
ME! BANE!
I get your point.
But Hass has had a very good career and was not asked to do the things that Warner and Favre were. Or had the weapons Warner has had either. Hass has directed us to 6 Playoff appearances. That means something.
by Mr. Blache III on Dec 11, 2009 6:16 PM PST up reply actions
I know I was being facetious
He’s had a very good career but he doesn’t hold a patch on the other two QBs.
ME! BANE!
True...I knew you were.
Hass doesn’t…but I do think if we can get him some WR and more protection I think he has good stuff left in his tank.
by Mr. Blache III on Dec 11, 2009 6:20 PM PST up reply actions
You think he's got good stuff left, but what are you basing this on?
Statistical evidence shows that it’s likely he’s going to continue to decline.
I just remeber when Favre was being counted out. NO stat eveidence
I remember when Favre was throwing picks around with Sherman and towards the end of his time in Green Bay there were questions…Even last year with the Jets he was being counted out and left for dead by the way he finshed the season…He played hurt with a damaged bicep but he kept playing when he shouldn’t have. After a great start with the Jets he couldn’t buy a win. They missed the playoffs and he wasn’t asked to come back. Yet, now that he’s healthy and with the Vikes it looks like the fountain of youth is on his side.
I suspect that Hass is playing with multiple injuries now. A busted shoulder, broken ribs and a line that doesn’t protect him long enough or WR’s that get open quick enough. He’s not supported by a consistant running game either. I think if he’s healthy and we change the factors around him he’ll be fine. I remember when Warner was here in NY, the team around him was suffering and he was still hurt with them. Kurt gets healthy and goes to the Cards and the rest is history. Matt didn’t look bad before he was hurt this year. I think we should see what he has left.
by Mr. Blache III on Dec 11, 2009 7:36 PM PST up reply actions
Favre is Favre.
I think we’ve learned that by now. He was having a Pro Bowl season the first 12 games with the Jets. He had something left.
In 2007, final year with the Packers, he was part of a top NFC program he was performing very well.
ME! BANE!
Hope vs. belief.
Here’s the crux of the matter, as I see it: I hope that Matt does bounce back and tears the rest of the league a new one, but I don’t expect it to happen. Stats and history give me a strong basis for this expectation. You do seem to expect him to rebound significantly, and (although I may be assuming too much here) you seem willing to wager a shitty season next year on him doing so. I don’t want the QB position to remain as it is this offseason. Whether it’s drafting someone or trading for Campbell/Kolb/whoever, I think we need Matt’s heir apparent onboard. I’d like nothing more than for Matt to defy the odds and have Pro Bowl worthy seasons until he’s fifty, but I don’t think it’s going to happen.
Playoff apperances is also a bad evaluation metric.
There’s more than a Quarterback on the field. The only thing you can derive from that is Matt played on teams that had enough cumulative talent to make six playoff appearances.
But don't you want a QB who can get you there?
Ultimately that’s where you want your QB to take you. There have been flashy QB’s that have great stats but don’t manage to get their teams to the playoffs.
by Mr. Blache III on Dec 11, 2009 6:24 PM PST up reply actions
I think you're missing my point.
You can’t evaluate a player based on the number of times they’ve been to the playoffs. There’s too many factors outside of that player’s control to make that any sort of an indicator of talent.
When you’re evaluating individual talent, you have to isolate that player from his team as much as possible.
Yeah but so many factors affect one players numbers.
Unlike Basketball…Football requires everyone to contribute. Matt needs his offensive line to protect him, players that get open and catch the ball and a running game to keep defenses honest. He can’t just be like Jordan and go for 40 every night. You need all these factors to help you at QB. Think about how much better Fitz and Boldin look when Kurt is in the game…as talented as they are, they do not produce the same way when Lineart is in.
by Mr. Blache III on Dec 11, 2009 7:39 PM PST up reply actions
Obviously you can't perfectly isolate a player, which is why I clearly said you have to isolate that player "as much as possible."
I see you’re attempting to redirect the discussion, so let’s bring this back to the original point.
By using playoff appearances as an evaluation metric, you’re using a small number that does absolutely nothing to separate that player from his teammates, making it a poor method of evaluation.
I understand..
you make a good point…I just think when a player repeatedly takes his team to the playoffs it demonstrates something that can’t be factored numerically. But your point is well taken.
by Mr. Blache III on Dec 11, 2009 7:59 PM PST up reply actions
We can't quantify intangibles.
Trying to build a sports team by trying to guess who has what intangibles is what led the Seattle Mariners to ruin under Bill Bavasi’s watch.
And yes, Matt has been to numerous playoff appearances.
Many of those came several years ago. When he was a younger quarterback. Those past playoff appearances aren’t going to magically make him younger.
Several?
We just missed the playoffs last year.
by Mr. Blache III on Dec 11, 2009 10:38 PM PST up reply actions
Some stats
Comp Att Pct Yds Avg TD Int Sck SckY Rate Superbowl ring
5,998 9,683 61.9 68,276 7.1 490 315 494 3,287 86.4 1
2,221 3,687 60.2 25,702 7.0 160 101 270 1,645 84.4 0
2,600 3,961 65.6 31,594 8.0 205 125 252 1,625 94.1 1
Guess who’s who. Favre, Hasselbeck, Warner
I mean so, but Warner has..
Warner has missed games but still has proven himself capable of being a good QB for his age.
by Mr. Blache III on Dec 11, 2009 6:05 PM PST up reply actions
Kurt Warner has started 101 games in the nfl
Hasselbeck has started 103. Warner managed one game in 2003 and 7 in 2006. So who’s been more durable. It’s not even close to the worst year for Hass stats wise. More like in the upper quartile. Rumors of his demise can’t be based on numbers but more on the feel of watching games. Although I admit my fanboy hat for No8 is a tight fit I don’t know why it’s worth using a 1st round pick on a guy that was originally a 2 rounder and shown very little (Kolb) or a contract on a guy who’s never looked that great (Campbell). Hey ho.
Stats were drunkenly abused from Pro Foootball reference.com.
Like others have pointed out, Warner is the exception to the rule.
If you’re banking on Matt’s career to progress like Warner’s, you’re probably in for some hurt. What we know is that Matt is in the decline years of 30 and has a significant injury. That stacks the odds heavily against him.
Good Points Brian...
I always look at things like this in terms of risk assessment.
The part of us that roots for “Rudy” & “Rocky Balboa” wants the underdog to succeed. At this point Matt regaining pro-bowl caliber is unlikely and therefore must be considered an underdog. Historically, the great thing about an underdog is that the risk reward is so great. Look at Vegas for example. You can win alot of money betting 200 to 1 odds on an underdog…
but (very big but)….
In vegas you lay 1 dollar for a chance that the underdog pays off 75, 100, 300 times that. The risk is very small compared to the massive rewards. With Matt Hasselbeck, we are still paying him “favorite” money, even though he is clearly a “heavy underdog” in terms of regaining championship form. It’s poor risk assessment.
Can Matt regain his form?…. well sure. It’s certainly possible. I just dont like the idea of paying him “top tier” money for the right to find out if he can buck the odds.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
What is Matts form?
Statswise it’s on a par or better with every year other than than 2005. It’s not likely he’ll get better but why is it a cert that he can’t play this year and next at the same level. Other posts are comparing with players that have never got near tht QB play.
Was he worth the contract any year other than 2005?
We're not saying it's impossible that Matt will play to his 2005 and 2007 form this year and next.
We’re saying that given his age and injury history, it’s rather unlikely.
Matt's numbers are not as good as they've ever been
His 2006, 2008 and 2009 numbers are the 3 worst years of his career since his first season in Seattle in terms on ANY/A.
Hasselbeck is on the decline
If we absolutely must keep him then I would either sign Campbell or draft a QB in the first 2 rounds.
Seneca is out of the equation because he’s a helpless mental midget under center. Traded or cut.
Quarterback’s job for 2010 is open and if Hass ABSOLUTELY has to prove he has something left then he beats out Campbell/Draft Pick and he’s the starter come next September. Best possible scenario is he loses the job but gets to tutor Campbell/Draft Pick for a whole season.
Otherwise if Hasselbeck royally sucks in training camp and preseason then cut him or trade him for a mid-to-late round draft pick.
ME! BANE!
I'm hip to the suggestion John put out.
I hope Holmgren winds up in Cleveland and gives us something marginally shiny for Matt.
How can we pay him
$10 million against the cap if there is one next season to be a mentor ? I’d rather have Wallace as the bridge QB then pay that much for Matt.
by A'Seahawks_Warriors on Dec 12, 2009 2:53 PM PST up reply actions
OK, I'm a complete homer. I just watched the Locker highlite video
and if he is not McCoy on steroids… OMG. If we keep Knapp, then Locker is perfect. He is McCoy with an arm. He is actually further along than McCoy, to be honest. He plays under center, reads defenses, played against top flight talent, and played with little.
Yes, I’m all for trading up; to get Locker. Give me an offense and a new Ruskell to tweak a so-so defense in 3 years. I’ll enjoy the Super Bowl.
Give me more defense, and I’ll toast mediocrity with ya!
It is what it is...
Don't be so eager to usher out Hass....any of you youngins remember Dave Kreig?
I’ve been a Seahawks fan for a long time. I remember Zorn scrambling around for his life and wondering who the hell Dave Kreig was and why he was playing instead of Zorn. Well Kreig turned out to be a great find and took us to the playoffs several times under Chuck Knox (I loved that guy). Well towards the end of Kreig’s career in Seattle, the Seahawks had an old OL and an inconsistant running game that virtually got Kreig killed every week. Tom Flores decided to let Kreig go and Kreig went on to KC and then took them to the Playoffs. Meanwhile Seahawks fans were excited (facetiously) for every new starter we had before we landed Matt Hasselbeck. Here are the names fellas.
Kelly Stouffer
Dan McGwire
Stan Gelbaugh
Rick Mirer (He was suppose to be the 2nd coming of Joe Montana)
John Friesz ( I actually thought the suffering was over….Wrong!)
Warren Moon
John Kitna
Brock Huard
Trent Dilfer (even though Matt was there and didn’t nail down the job)
Matt Hasselbeck
We went 60-84 during that stretch. A lot of mediocrity in those seasons. I watched it all. Maybe that’s why I appreciate the Holmgren/Hass years more than others..maybe I just witnessed more suffering. For every Locker or McCoy there was a Gelbaugh and Mirer that got drafted too. I hope we’re very careful about what we (meaning some of you) wish for.
by Mr. Blache III on Dec 11, 2009 11:49 PM PST reply actions
I'll take an old cheap Warren Moon
that did enough for us to get to the playoffs ( Jets game and their phantom TD ) then pay Matt $10 Million vrs the cap next season to be injured and play at half speed and impede this team from moving forward.
Also our O line was horrid in the early 90’s and hurt Stouffer, McGwire and Mirer’s chances to develop into good QB’s
I think who ever is our next QB has to have an upgraded line to play behind, even if Matt stayed he won’t be healthy with this unit blocking for him instead use that cap space to sign a veteran or two on the line and pay your next QB.
by A'Seahawks_Warriors on Dec 12, 2009 2:58 PM PST up reply actions
That phantom TD was a killer...But Moon was pretty much done.
You’re right about the offensive line…but that’s been my point. If we change the factors (that being OL and WR talent) around Matt he may perform close to his old form and give us a few more years. Evaluating him hurt with a suspect OL I think is presumptious and unfair.
My thought is this…if were going to keep Matt as our starter next year then we have to draft a QB in the first 2 rounds and address the talent around him on Offense, but if we don’t plan on keeping Matt next year or if we want him to have some competition then I’m in favor of trading for Kolb as opposed to signing Campbell. Personally, I’m more in favor of trading for Kolb then holding on to Matt if he’s going to continue to get beat up. He’s already familiar with the WCO and that’s the hardest thing to teach a young QB out of College.
But I did like me some Moon though. To bad he turned us down for the Oilers early in his career.
by Mr. Blache III on Dec 12, 2009 3:16 PM PST up reply actions
Campbell is familiar with the WCO
Although Zorn’s version of the WCO is rather interesting.
We trade value for Kolb when he has barely been on the field. And when he has he has been more bad than good.
We sign Campbell, who has been up and down but showing signs of improvement over the last few weeks, and he is familiar with teh WCO.
ME! BANE!
More bad than good? 2 starts 718 yds 4Td's 3 Int's Comp 65%...huh..
I don’t see Campbell as a good option. He lacks anticipation with his throws and if you think Matt checks down a lot then you’ll be in love Campbell.
Philly making Kolb “untouchable” and McNabb more expendable tells you what Philly really thinks of Kolb. This reminds me of Rodgers and Favre. In hindsight, no one would ridicule a team trading a 1st Rounder for Rodgers based on what we’ve seen now. There was a buzz about Rodgers when he was sitting behind Favre just like there is about Kolb. And all people saw from Rodgers was his relief appearance against the Dallas Cowboys, which is much less than what we’ve seen of Kolb.
by Mr. Blache III on Dec 12, 2009 5:47 PM PST up reply actions
Hmmm nice to know you picked stats from this year only
Did the last two years not exist?
He hasn’t done anything to:
A.) Prove he’s worth trading a FIRST ROUND PICK for other than the fact that he was the 3rd QB taken in the 2007 NFL Draft.
B.) Prove he’s starting material.
Now…suppose Kolb were a FA. Sure I’d go after him. Why not give it a shot?
But you are overvaluing Kolb based on 2 starts.
ME! BANE!
Relief Appearances are not fair to include.
He never got practices with the 1st team to include his relief stats…Come on now lets be serious.
by Mr. Blache III on Dec 12, 2009 6:11 PM PST up reply actions
You still fail to recognize....
Kolb is very likely NOT available without extreme overpayment. I would get him out of your head as soon as possible— he isn’t available. A sentiment echoes several times by the Eagles fans are that Donovan is likely more available.
Again, the receiving corp isn’t that bad. There aren’t more than AT MOST 8 teams in the league with better top to bottom receiving corps, and probably fewer. Expending more money there is a waste, and most likely Branch is going to be released or restructured, giving at most one available slot. What’s more there are even playoff contenders that would KILL for our WR core. Have you seen Baltimore lately? Miami? Jacksonville?
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 12, 2009 5:00 PM PST up reply actions
Would you draft Locker with our First 1st RD Pick?
by Mr. Blache III on Dec 12, 2009 5:49 PM PST up reply actions
LOL...Whiskey has expressed that he would use a 1st RD pick on Locker...
My point being, what do you consider overpayment for Kolb? That’s my point…not strawman by any stretch…nice photo though..lol..
If your willing to draft Locker with a 1st RD pick why would you consider it overpayment when trading that same 1st RD pick to Philly for Kolb.
by Mr. Blache III on Dec 12, 2009 5:56 PM PST up reply actions
Overpayment for Kolb
Is anything regarding trading him for a first round pick. 130 career throws doesn’t equate to a first round pick. It just doesn’t.
If the Eagles are going to trade Kolb then they wasted a 2nd round pick because that was supposed to be their potential future if McNabb goes. Michael Vick isn’t a professional QB.
ME! BANE!
But if they get a 1st Rd pick in return it's not a waste.
If McNabb stays and they get a 1st RD pick in return for Kolb, it turns out to be a win for the Eagles. Are you in favor of us drafting a QB in the 1st Rd?
by Mr. Blache III on Dec 12, 2009 6:06 PM PST up reply actions
YES!
If we don’t get Campbell then I would love to get a QB in the draft.
There is nothing to justify trading our first round pick because Kolb played in the WCO (which, under Andy Reid, involves a ton of passing) and had 130 throws. That makes no sense.
ME! BANE!
I am.
Anyone who is familiar with my posts knows that I want Bradford over all college quarterbacks this year. Yes, even with that injury.
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Dec 13, 2009 12:08 AM PST up reply actions
Were actually ranked 14th in Receiving.
Baltimore is actually ranked 13th and Jacksonville is ranked 15th. Miami really doesn’t matter
by Mr. Blache III on Dec 12, 2009 6:04 PM PST up reply actions
Mr. Blache III you make a lot of good points
My feeling is this that we need help along our offensive line at safety and at CB and also a power back, if we use the draft for those needs these incoming players will take a year or two before we are seasoned enough to make a legitimate run again deep into the playoffs.
So with that in mind I’d rather change guard at QB now then sit and wait because in 2011 or 2012 when we are ready for another run at the top of the NFC west Matt will be pretty old and may have more of an injury history.
I like getting Kolb at the right price or drafting someone in the first round like Bradford and I hope that is what happens, we can move Matt for what value we can get out of him maybe a 3rd round pick.
by A'Seahawks_Warriors on Dec 13, 2009 12:16 AM PST up reply actions
Nailed it...
Mr Blache,
This is the first answer that actually puts historical perspective in this argument. You get rid of a known commodity and you’re left with the certain uncertainty that follows. Matt can still make the throws. He’s got weapons downfield that can be effective.
The problem is O-line, O-line, O-line. I’m not sure why there is even any discussion of what QB can do better than Matt as long as the O-line is crap. Why is Matt constantly checking down? Because he’s going to get killed if he waits the extra 2 seconds for Housh or Nate to get open downfield.
Drafting Matt’s successor is not a bad idea. But he will be the starter in 2012 at best. The revolving door at QB is the worst thing you could do to this team.
With a dominating running game, and solid D even Trent Dilfer wins the Superbowl. You guys are all nuts.
Um, no.
He doesn’t appear to be able to make the throws. He’s not as bad as some here would tell you, but it’s pretty clear to me that he’s lost a ton of zip and is not willing to push the ball downfield. I’m not talking about deep throws, though it looks like whatever accuracy he had (which wasn’t much) on those has dwindled significantly… I’m talking about 15-20 yard passes.
The o-line isn’t great, but it sure isn’t “crap”. It may have been back before the core group of Sims/Spencer/Unger got together, but since then it’s been quite decent. Some of Matt’s recent sacks have come purely from him getting all skittish in the pocket and stepping right up into pressure.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Field Gulls
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Five unanswered preseason questions
- Preseason Confidential: Forsett and Seahawks still have concerns
- This is why we don't wear huge diamond earrings to practice
- The Shutdown Eleven: The most interesting footballers of 2010. #10: LaDainian Tomlinson
- Reports: Cardinals now want to trade Leinart; Giants interested
Certain photos copyright © 2010 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.
