Popular Opinion is Just That
by abender20 on Dec 23, 2009 9:42 AM PST
146 comments
If you look to assign blame for the crumbling of the Seahawks, the potential targets are plentiful. Perhaps when everything falls apart this markedly, there's enough blame to hand out to each and every player, coach, and executive. What bothers me is the seemingly pervasive public notion that the offensive line and the defense are to blame. Case in point. Jim Moore decided that Mora and Hasselbeck should be absolved.
When you call out Olindo Mare after the Bears game and the offensive line after the Houston game when the defense should have been called out even more, you don't build a good case for yourself as a leader of men. It's possible that he's lost the team.
But then I think, wait a minute, could Bill Belichick do a better job with the Hawks? It's hard to gauge the quality of the coaching when the players aren't very good.
If that sequence doesn't bother you, you didn't pay close enough attention. Suddenly the whole team is garbage and so Mora gets a pass on his admittedly poor leadership because of it? That's the sort of logic that brings us to my point.
Assuming the defense is bad means you haven't paid close enough attention to the failings of the offense. The offense has failed primarily because of poor quarterback play. Very poor quarterback play. Yes, the line was not very good in the early portion of the season. The last several games, however, have seen pretty good protection and still the offense sputtered. Yet people cling to Hasselbeck. Read towards the bottom of the article and see the author's recommendations for the new GM. Among them:
Publicly support Hasselbeck. If you think he's part of the Seahawks' problems, you're out of your mind.
I'm out of my mind. Around much of the Seahawks fandom and even on here on Field Gulls, there are some that would prefer to scrap most of the team instead of finding a new quarterback. Change is difficult. As you read articles or listen to the radio or talk to your friends about the Seahawks, don't allow yourself to be swayed by the excuses being bandied about for the failings of the team. Separate your love for a player and their value to a team. Oh, and the failures of the team don't somehow excuse the antics of the head coach. Articles like this drive me bonkers.
2 recs |
146 comments
Email
Print
Comments
And another thing
I’m going to flip the fuck out if someone else says that Peyton Manning would struggle as badly as Matt behind our line.
by BrianL on Dec 23, 2009 10:10 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I can't believe someone said that...
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 23, 2009 10:16 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Believe it.
However, I said something LIKE this. I said that I think that he would have trouble finding success. Not that he’d be as bad, but that he would find it to be significantly more difficult.
by DrunkAmerican on Dec 23, 2009 10:57 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Were you drunk at the time?
Peyton is only recently getting better lines, and much of his career had an inferior line.
I was at the gym last night and the NFL Network was playing the Jacksonville Indy replay. I saw him hit Reggie Wayne about 35-40 yards deep in perfect stride. I couldn’t help but to think, “Damn, I wish we had a QB that could hit a receiver deeper than 15 yards out in stride.”
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 23, 2009 11:13 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Completely agree.
But I think that changes when you’re dropping back behind a line that has repeatedly let guys like DeMarcus come free at you leaving your only option to be curling up in the fetal position. (This effect is further enhanced when your core is so vulnerable to injuries). I think, on some fundamental level, that is the root of the reason why you see Matt action nervous before he has even dropped back and seen the rush.
And yes, quite drunk.
by DrunkAmerican on Dec 23, 2009 11:20 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If another QB is behind center, chances are opposing defenses don't get past the linemen nearly as often.
by BrianL on Dec 23, 2009 11:22 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Not to mention that Hasslebeck has the tendency to curl up in the fetal position when he feels pressure
… rather than stepping up into the pocket.
by nut_house on Dec 23, 2009 11:34 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I've said that Peyton Manning would struggle behind Seattle's O-line.
I will wholeheartedly admit that, and I will still stand behind it. It is, as John has said, a defensible opinion.
However, I also believe that Matt Hasselbeck is part of the problem. While I think Manning would struggle, I do not think he’d struggle as bad as Matt Hasselbeck has this season.
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Dec 23, 2009 8:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I can agree with that, sort of.
While I still think that Peyton Manning would be a top 3 QB in the league behind this line, I do think his overall numbers wouldn’t be as good as they are in Indy this year.
The key in this comparison, in my opinion, is admitting that Matt would still be bad behind Indy’s line, just not AS bad.
by BrettJMiller on Dec 24, 2009 11:07 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So you are saying the Manning is a better QB than Hasselbeck.
Brilliant! ;)
I kid. Happy Holidays!
This.
by Misfit74 on Dec 24, 2009 12:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Not wanting to get another QB is madness.
Hasselbeck is 35, entering the last year of his contract, and has missed substantial time over the last three years due to injury. What do these people want? Re-sign him for another couple of years? Insanity. I love Matt Hasselbeck, but his time has come and gone.
If this were a player on another team, it would be a “no-brainer.” But since he’s a Seahawk, we should hang on? I think we learned our lesson with Shaun Alexander.
It's Great to be a Florida Gator!
"I never met a llama I didn't like." - TJ Duckett
All I want for Christmas is Joe Haden, Eric Berry, and Nandamukong Suh in Seahawks blue.
by Wayward Llama on Dec 23, 2009 10:17 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
The entire premise is absurd.
He’s old. He’s oft injured.
More importantly? Set aside his (terrible) performance for a moment. His freaking contract runs out in a year. Why in the world shouldn’t this team address the position now? Hell, even if the front office extended an offer for a new contract there’s no guarantee Matt would take it. At this stage in his career, I think it’s likely Matt would try to sign elsewhere to get himself into the playoffs.
Do something about the QB situation.
by BrianL on Dec 23, 2009 10:35 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree completely...
I think this is the big reason Ruskell was shown the door – this was the year to do it. Let the new guy work with Knapp, learn the system and let the other two get beaten up.
by Generzal Zod on Dec 23, 2009 1:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
To be fair,
Ruskell did make that trade for Frye and I believe was turned down by Carr.
by Bad Mayo on Dec 23, 2009 1:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
GREAT article, Bender. Rec'd.
I LOVE Hasselbeck, and the day he leaves Seattle is the day I want his name in the Ring of Honor. But thinking he is a legitimate option for the future is completely unreasonable. The near future of the Seahawks and the near future of Matt Hasselbeck should no longer be intertwined.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 23, 2009 10:18 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
We just have to face it
our core group of guys are done and need to go. It’s like a relationship that need to end some time ago, some fans just don’t want to see Hass go.
by PoolNinja on Dec 23, 2009 10:56 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
We didn't have this much trouble divorcing ourselves from Shaun did we?
by BrianL on Dec 23, 2009 11:00 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Shaun wasn't ever well liked
He was accepted when he was putting up MVP numbers but there was always talk about him being too soft.
by Nate Dogg on Dec 23, 2009 11:02 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think a few things played into that.
The 2007 team was good and it was pretty obvious that Shaun was the weakest link. Morris was running well behind the exact same line and it was obvious Shaun was cooked.
I think Matt is pretty much done, but not quite as done as Shaun and the team is bad, so it’s hard for fans to point the finger at one player.
by MFAN on Dec 23, 2009 11:18 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It's because Shaun's black, right?
We only doing this because Shaun is black!!!
BTW this was a very underrated movie.
FIRE JIM MORA NOW!
by SSreporters on Dec 23, 2009 11:53 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Gonna mention what the movie is, for those of us that missed it.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 23, 2009 12:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Hangin' With the Homeboys (1991)
With John Leguizamo, Mario Joyner, Doug E. Doug, and Nestor Serrano.
FIRE JIM MORA NOW!
by SSreporters on Dec 23, 2009 1:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn't get too worked up about a Jim Moore article.
by waldo rojas on Dec 23, 2009 10:22 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I read that same article...
the guy is as clueless about what needs to be done as Mora’s coaching against the Bucs.
by PoolNinja on Dec 23, 2009 10:45 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
What a nice surprise!
You may have picked the more sane pieces out of that article to criticize.
It’s amazing to me that people are willing to blame every other player to avoid blaming Matt. To so many it’s easier to blame Housh, Burleson, Branch, JJ, the offensive line and the defense than it is to say that Hasselbeck isn’t getting it done.
by Nate Dogg on Dec 23, 2009 11:02 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I think that there needs to be a distinction made
between people who want Matt Hasselbeck to be QB in the future because they like him and those that want him to be QB because they like him AND there’s no better choice. We’re in a rebuild (or crumble) phase, so we need someone to carry us through it. Seneca isn’t a clear enough option to make him the favorite, I haven’t seen anything to make me think Mike could do a better job than Matt, and the odds are that a rookie isn’t going to perform as well. If the debate is that giving a rookie (or Mike for that matter) playing time is better than giving it to an easily injured vet, I’ll buy that, but I don’t think that we should dismiss everyone who thinks Matt should continue to play quarterback for the Seahawks.
by DrunkAmerican on Dec 23, 2009 11:02 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
There's this thing called "free agency" and "trades" and the "draft" where it's often possible to acquire talent.
There may not be better options on the roster, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t better options at the Seahawks disposal.
by BrianL on Dec 23, 2009 11:07 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
In short, our choices are not limited to Matt, Seneca, and Teel.
by BrianL on Dec 23, 2009 11:09 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Right, but our immediate choices are.
I think the organization should always be pursuing veteran talent at any position where it’s not getting its money’s worth, which is why I’d be all for getting someone even arguably better than Matt (circa now). But there’s not a whole lot of guys on the FA list that I’d be willing to give a shot, and without a GM and a clear direction for this team I’m not expecting us to get a QB in FA. Then again, Jon Kitna anyone?
by DrunkAmerican on Dec 23, 2009 11:33 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think anyone cares too much what we do over the course of the next two games.
We’re all talking about the macro. We can’t afford to bank on Matt Hasselbeck so we have to do something this offseason.
by BrianL on Dec 23, 2009 11:37 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And as for free agents John has covered one potential FA that looks intriguing.
by BrianL on Dec 23, 2009 11:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Did you WATCH the game on Monday?
by DrunkAmerican on Dec 23, 2009 11:42 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Try to seperate QB play from the rest of the team
It still wasn’t a great showing for Campbell but it wasn’t god awful.
by Nate Dogg on Dec 23, 2009 12:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think if he gets away from that joke of an organization he could really make some big strides.
by BrianL on Dec 23, 2009 12:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The only problem with Jason
that I have is that whenever I watch him he seems to make the same fundamental, eye-rolling mistakes I’m used to only seeing the Seahawks make (e.g. consistently missing wide open targets down the field, running out of bounds instead of throwing it away, and checking down on critical 3rd downs to name a few). I’m not saying he always makes these mistakes, but he seems to be the only one (again, outside the hawks) that ever makes them.
On an unrelated note, is there anyway to make “Seahawks” recognized as a correctly spelled word on this site?
by DrunkAmerican on Dec 23, 2009 12:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Type it.
See if a red line doesn’t appear.
by DrunkAmerican on Dec 23, 2009 12:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That isn't a Field Gulls setting, that's a setting within your browser
and I have no idea how to alter the built-in dictionary.
by BrianL on Dec 23, 2009 12:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I've read the posts but I don't remember if this was mentioned
but why would Jason want to come here?
by DrunkAmerican on Dec 23, 2009 12:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Because it is the farthest pro team from Dan Snyder
by about 30 miles.
by Bad Mayo on Dec 23, 2009 12:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
His value is depressed, might be the best offer he gets.
by BrianL on Dec 23, 2009 12:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, true.
Another thing though is that before and after the MNF game, they reported that the skins’ new GM really likes Jason, and given that he’s a restricted free agent, I find it unlikely that they’ll dislike him enough to let him go.
by DrunkAmerican on Dec 23, 2009 1:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
We can hope a new CBA is signed--
then he’s unrestricted. He’s only restricted if the agreement is not signed (which unfortunately is likely.) That means they can TRY to keep him, but they are not guaranteed to be able to keep him. All things being equal, I think there’s a strong chance he chooses to walk if an intriguing opportunity arises.
They do have an option— if they slap a high qualifying offer dollar wise that would equal a first round tag on him they’ll be running the risk of overpaying him, which is the last thing they want or can afford to do given their perception of his track record being spotty.
They’re really in a tough spot here (of their own doing.) The only way we give up a 1st round pick for him is if they basically give him an overpaying offer, we give him an offer that he chooses instead and they then get the draft pick. But if nobody decides to give him an offer and give up the high draft pick, they’re stuck with him taking that offer from them. Care to imagine how that will go over with their already upset fanbase if they “overpay” for a QB half the fans want gone anyway?
Anything below a 1st round offer, and we have to consider signing him anyway given the relative affordability for a guy who can start at QB for us the next few years for relatively inexpensive salary and a 2nd or later draft pick.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 23, 2009 1:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know if it frightens or depresses me
that people here are hoping to get Jason Campbell, even as some kind of interim solution.
by Mr Fish on Dec 23, 2009 3:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Lead the way to a better choice if you can see one...
I’m all ears.
If you say keep Hasselbeck you’ll depress me equally.
I’m terrified of using a 1st round pick on a QB and having it be a failure… I’ll take a somewhat limited ceiling with some upside ahead of a rapidly collapsing ceiling or a floor that could fall out day one. The Giants seem happy with Eli, there’s definitely some good comparable stats between the two of them, and frankly, I think you can do a lot worse than Campbell.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 23, 2009 3:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I got nothing, except hopes for the draft.
No quick fixes from me.
No safe solutions either. I think risk-avoidance is what got us into this mess.
by Mr Fish on Dec 23, 2009 5:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Drafted QBs almost never produce
at any kind of decent level until after a year or two. I think they tend to play somewhere around ~50% of their maximum potential in their rookie seasons? I can’t remember the exact numbers if someone can link them (it’s age based, not number of seasons based, but rookies tend to be 23-24, sometimes 22). So don’t pin too much hopes on the draft either (not for this year anyway), though 3 years from now we could be sitting pretty if we draft the right QB now.
by Fear on Dec 23, 2009 5:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And if he wants a little familiarity
We have his former QB coach. After changing O schemes so often in his career, the thought of going to a WCO-derived system with a position coach he’s worked with may be very appealing.
"I'm tired of chasing after my dreams. I'll just find out where they're going, and catch up later." - Hedberg
by jteckmann on Dec 23, 2009 1:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not convinced a rookie wouldn't out perform Matt and this team shouldn't be looking to maximize production right now
by Nate Dogg on Dec 23, 2009 11:08 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You also assume Matt would be capable of "carrying us through" the "crumble phase."
Seems like he’s part of the crumble, not part of the post-crumble future. For 10 mil a year, we can do better.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 23, 2009 11:16 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
THAT
…is exactly the point. It is far more about the 10M price tag, than the production.
Hasselbeck at 4M is a no brainer… you keep him.
Hasselbeck at 10M is also a no-brainer… you cut him.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
by iverson2169 on Dec 23, 2009 2:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Hasselbeck is simply not playing very well
The example of 2007 brought up by a commenter a few days ago has really stuck with me. Everything was worse then, the line, the skill position players, and Hass thrived. This year he has been one of the worst QBs in the league.
Rams fans thought it was only the offensive line that was the issue, and once taken care of Marc Bulger would go back to being awesome. Let’s not make the same mistake.
At least let’s ask Matt to restrucure his contract so that he isn’t killing our cap at the same time as our season.
"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 Dec 23, 2009 11:35 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
To be honest
I don’t think Hasslebeck is playing very well at all, but I don’t necessarily trust Knapp to put him in favorable situations. However, I don’t think many players are really playing at a high level this year and I don’t think anyone on the coaching is coaching particularly well. We seem to be a team that is regressing each and every week.
by nut_house on Dec 23, 2009 11:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think there are many favorable situations for a quarterback who can't throw beyond seven or eight yards.
by BrianL on Dec 23, 2009 11:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I was struck by how Lynch kept mentioning that the Hawks were Hasselbeck was having trouble completing passes because the DBs were pressing and sitting on short routes.
He failed to mention that this was occurring because the probability of a pass happening within that distance is exceedingly high.
by abender20 on Dec 23, 2009 11:43 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Wonder why safeties aren't biting when Branch or Butler run deep fly routes?
That might have something to do with it.
by BrianL on Dec 23, 2009 11:46 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well Branch doesn't have the speed nor the size to threaten deep.
by nut_house on Dec 23, 2009 11:47 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It doesn't matter if the ball can't et there.
by abender20 on Dec 23, 2009 11:49 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
et tu?
"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 Dec 23, 2009 11:51 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He also looks off his primary receiver extremely quickly
So as to not give the receiver a chance to break said press coverage. And then “presto” another short pass to Justin Griffith!
"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 Dec 23, 2009 11:47 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Not that I like the check down, but
So far this year the FB has been targeted ~4.6%, while last year it was ~6.8% of all attempts. Was this a complaint last year too.
by Bad Mayo on Dec 23, 2009 12:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No
because leonard weaver is a play maker at the FB position.
by DrunkAmerican on Dec 23, 2009 1:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, that is true
So if Matt had Weaver to check down to, would we be having this argument? Fire Rusk…, oh wait we can’t.
by Bad Mayo on Dec 23, 2009 1:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I still don't really understand the decision to let him go.
He would have been pretty useful this year in the “West Coast Checkdown Offense”.
"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 Dec 23, 2009 1:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You can explain and excuse away some of Ruskell's bigger blunders
but letting Weaver go was unequivocally stupid.
by Nate Dogg on Dec 23, 2009 1:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
My guess is Mora/Knapp didnt want him,
they only wanted Griffith.
by Strictnine on Dec 24, 2009 8:15 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
One of my favorites
Glad to see he is doing well in Philly even though that was a pretty dumb delay in last weeks game. Oh well, good fodder for the blooper reel.
by Bad Mayo on Dec 23, 2009 1:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
Between JP, Leonard, and then Tru getting hurt, this offseason made me sadder than the 08 regular season.
by DrunkAmerican on Dec 23, 2009 1:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If a couple of those checkdowns turned into 30 yd TDs that ended up winning us games
Then probably not.
by DrunkAmerican on Dec 23, 2009 1:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Thats interesting, where did you get that info from?
by Nate Dogg on Dec 23, 2009 1:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Quick math
I took the amount of Griffith/Weaver targets and divided by QB attempts for the year.
by Bad Mayo on Dec 23, 2009 1:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Pretty interesting
I would guess that the combination of wide receiver injuries, line injuries, Weavers talent and Seneca at QB would explain that. But no, it wasn’t a complaint last year.
by Nate Dogg on Dec 23, 2009 1:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think the overall complaint was the same, though.
That back injury was sapping Matt’s throwing strength and that made all of us very, very sad.
by BrianL on Dec 23, 2009 1:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ya, I could care less if Seneca dumps off to the full back because Hey! Not a pick!
But Hasselbeck :(
by Nate Dogg on Dec 23, 2009 1:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Doesn't Seneca have the franchise records for most attempts without a pick?
by DrunkAmerican on Dec 23, 2009 1:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
4th and 2, game on the line
Against Chicago…
Seneca: YO JULIUS CATCH THIS SON OF A……
FIRE JIM MORA NOW!
by SSreporters on Dec 23, 2009 1:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Skewed by the fact Matt missed almost half of the season.
And yes, we were complaining about Matt’s throwing strength last season as well.
by BrianL on Dec 23, 2009 1:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
"seven or eight yards" only gives credit for vertical distance.
Hasselbeck’s not throwing downfield, but that’s not to say he’s not hurling it. A lot of his passes travel 20 or more yards, only to culminate in a tackle or run out-of-bounds for loss for Julius Jones.
I’m one of those who thinks Hasselbeck really truly stinks this year, but I don’t extrapolate from that to say he’s lost it for good. He may have (we can’t know until his shoulder heals—or doesn’t—from all the hits it’s taking), but then again, who amongst us didn’t scream at Holmgren through our TV sets, imploring him to admit that Hasselbeck was a lost cause, way back in 2002? I’d like to see him compete for the job next year and play the Dilfer role to whoever the young buck is going to be.
by dagraham on Dec 23, 2009 3:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Hey may not have lost it for good, he may still have a chance to be good
but the odds of that are very slim. He’s on the wrong side of thirty and has a frightening injury history.
No one is saying that Matt can’t be good again. We’re saying that it’s foolish for the Seahawks to bank on him rebounding.
by BrianL on Dec 23, 2009 3:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It was foolish to bank on him this year
Given his injury history. Likewise with Big Walt and Kerney, but that’s a different topic.
@ dagraham – comparing 2002 Hass to 2009 Hass is apples and oranges. In 2002 he was unproven, but at this point he has a proven injury history and as BrianL pointed out, is also on the wrong side of 30. The only recent QB to make a late-career recovery after several years of lackluster, injury-riddled performance is Kurt Warner, and Hass’ peak was much lower.
Also, what the heck does the “a lot of his passes travel 20 or more yards” argument prove? If he can’t make downfield throws, he can’t make downfield throws. That said, I agree it would be ideal to keep him on the roster as a mentor and backup, but it’s doubtful he’d accept that kind of demotion or pay cut. Particularly when there are other lower-tier teams who need a QB and can presumably offer him a starting position.
by Camarostache '77 on Dec 23, 2009 6:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
A Hasselbeck spody?
@BrianL and Camarostache: Good points there by both you guys. A few things:
1. I agree the Seahawks shouldn’t bank on his being healthy/good again next year, but at the very least, if our future QB is someone we draft next April, he’s insurance against having to either live with Seneca or turn our huge new investment into the next Alex Smith (or Rick Mirer?) by throwing him to the wolves right away. Which is why I say make Hass do the Dilfer thing for a year (he’s on contract anyway, right?). It’s worth the money if he can guarantee we get our money’s worth out of the new guy. FWIW, I heard it mentioned during the Oakland game telecast last weekend that Charlie Frye credits Hasselbeck with having taken Frye’s mental game to a much higher level.
2. If we presume that other teams’ FOs have personnel who know their jobs at least as well as we do, I don’t think we should presume they’ll give up anything of worth for ol’ Matt.
3. I love apples and oranges. Which raises an important question: Does anyone outside of the Pacific Northwest know what a spody is, or is that term specific to Cascadia?
by dagraham on Dec 24, 2009 1:17 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
vague pronoun
Where I write, “he’s insurance against…,” I’m referring to Hasselbeck, not the hypothetical 1st-day draft-pick rookie QB.
by dagraham on Dec 24, 2009 1:19 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Is there any evidence that a quarterback who starts his rookie year is more likely to bust?
by Nate Dogg on Dec 24, 2009 1:29 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I believe there's at least anecdotal evidence
or maybe it’s unsubstantiated “conventional wisdom,” but the idea is out there that rookies who get thrown into the fire run the risk of getting a fatal case of lost confidence. I would think a lot would depend both on the constitution of the individual QB and also the quality of his supporting cast. Given the Seahawks’ current condition (OL, e.g.), I think there’s a risk.
by dagraham on Dec 24, 2009 10:25 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
To expand...
While individual statistics in football are still being worked on blah blah blah…
Matt Hasselbeck
DYAR: -135 (Rk: 31)
DVOA: -15.7 (Rk: 28)
This means Hass is playing worse than Chad Henne, Chris Redman, Brady Quinn, Marc Bulger, and Bruce Gradkowski, for example. And one wonders why the offense is sputtering…
"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 Dec 23, 2009 11:46 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Henne has also been handed the caretaker role in the offense.
The difference is that he has a good arm and has been making throws. (He’s also expanded his role a good bit with Ronnie Brown out)
by abender20 on Dec 23, 2009 11:50 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
AND Henne has terrible WR's.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 23, 2009 12:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I mentioned this on Monday
Seattle sports media needs to grow a pair. Take a lesson from Boston, New York, Philly, maybe scale it down a bit from those three. When the star player or the fan favorite is stinking it up don’t blame everyone else around him. When Eli Manning sucks then the New York Daily News is all over him.
When Matt Hasselbeck and Shaun Alexander are sucking we say it’s the o-line that’s the problem. The people around them are the problem.
Running backs age and Shaun’s injury was impossible to recover from and be effective. Matt is 35, oft-injured, and is just about one of the most inept QBs to start this year.
I call out Moore, Kelley, Brewer, and all of these media hacks to wake up, stop living in the past, and admit that maybe, just maybe, that Hasselbeck is a part of the problem.
FIRE JIM MORA NOW!
by SSreporters on Dec 23, 2009 11:57 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Or, even better
Not look for easy targets and instead grow a brain and produce informative, engaging content. How hard would it be, for instance, to ask DeCosta to chat for a few segments?
by John Morgan on Dec 23, 2009 1:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
But he's not Mike Holmgren. Big problem there.
FIRE JIM MORA NOW!
by SSreporters on Dec 23, 2009 2:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That's crazy talk!
And pretty much what’s wrong with news as a whole.
by B.B.Finnegan on Dec 23, 2009 2:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I hate to do it, but I gotta add Raibs to that list...
Heard him on KIRO today talking about how we need to get a GM in here who will get Mora the guys he needs to win. Always been a fan of Steve, but he lost some credibility with me today.
These are the same players minus Walt and plus Unger from 2 years ago, and better receivers and a real TE. The change is in the staff, not the players.
What we need is to hire someone who will replace the current losers with intelligent, winning football minds.
by Kryten on Dec 23, 2009 4:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Just to clarify...
He thinks Mora’s doing a great job…
I’ve been wanting him to succeed and giving him every benefit of doubt, but it’s clear we suck. Actually I’m okay with keeping him one mora year and getting the first pick in 2011 so we can get our franchise QB (-hate that term but you get it).
by Kryten on Dec 23, 2009 4:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I read the entire article (from which you quoted) this morning
And I was borderline angry that someone could provide SUCH POOR ANALYSIS for such a large media outlet.
When I read “If you think he’s part of the Seahawks’ problems, you’re out of your mind” I nearly flipped the fuck out. Seriously. What an idiot.
The demise of the Broncos in '09 is our future. Pray hard.
by Nick Andron on Dec 23, 2009 12:02 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
This post sheds light on an ignorant perception of the team.
The only sense I can make of it would be the start of pre-draft ’we’re not drafting or in the market for a QB because ours is fine’ smokescreen. I really don’t think that idea is very plausible at this time. The author of that article clearly doesn’t have the pulse of the team.
This.
by Misfit74 on Dec 23, 2009 12:06 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Could it be?
that Jim Moore’s top priority isn’t proper sports analysis and that it is in fact to effectually spread propaganda that puts the only marketable part of the Seahawks in a good light?
by DrunkAmerican on Dec 23, 2009 12:13 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
BUY CAMPBELL'S!!
"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 Dec 23, 2009 12:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I definitely think Matt's performance has been profoundly awful
and this isn’t to mitigate his performance in any way. But I don’t think the line has been performing notably better in pass blocking. Cutting on the backside of run plays and blocking for screens has gotten better, but that’s pretty much it.
by jacobstevens on Dec 23, 2009 12:31 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I don't think anyone thinks that the line isn't at least partly to blame
but it’s this notion that Matt isn’t to blame at all that has everyone in a tizzy.
by DrunkAmerican on Dec 23, 2009 12:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, and as one of the earlier people to think Matt needs to be replaced (I wanted to draft a QB last year)
even I can see it’s gotten just a bit out of hand by this point, here at Field Gulls.
by jacobstevens on Dec 23, 2009 1:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It's very hard for a line to pass block when they're down 24-0 in the second quarter
and the defense can blitz without the faintest threat of a big play.
by John Morgan on Dec 23, 2009 1:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That's very true
and I think the same can be said on a more general basis, as the season progresses, when there’s no passing threat. When there’s no running threat. So in that regard, I suppose it’s fair to suggest that modest improvement at all may be more of an improvement than is visible.
Not that I care to try to measure out the blame between the two components, QB or line. I just saw Aaron’s statement about improved line being used to further support the case that Hasselbeck is playing poorly slash refute the case that he only looks bad because the line is bad. And felt compelled to respond that there’s been no real improvement to speak of. But considering this point, I can see a case that there’s been more than I’d caught on.
by jacobstevens on Dec 23, 2009 2:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That article was extremely poorly written.
It’s like he was just thinking out loud.
by DetectiveM on Dec 23, 2009 12:57 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I hated it when Mora called out Mare
but considering Mare hasn’t missed a kick since should I consider this more of a genius motivational tactic on Mora’s part than a gutless knee jerk reaction to losing a game?
by Kevaru on Dec 23, 2009 2:21 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I'm not sure if motivation is a factor at all for kickers
Its mostly skill and concentration. If anything, threatening a kickers job would add pressure to his kicks and make it harder to concentrate. If I was an NFL coach, I wouldn’t publicly throw player’s under the bus, but if I did, I think kicker would be the last position I’d threaten or berate.
by kearly on Dec 23, 2009 2:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Mare missed what, 3 kicks all of last year?
This has nothing to do with tactics.
FIRE JIM MORA NOW!
by SSreporters on Dec 23, 2009 2:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I wasn't being serious
You should have concluded that from the placement of the words genius, motivational, tactics and Mora in the same sentence.
by Kevaru on Dec 23, 2009 2:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I hope as soon as our next GM is chosen, his first act as team president
is to get Mike Holmgren on the phone about acquiring Hasselbeck. You know he’d be interested with his QB situation in Cleveland. He’s also been quoted as thinking Hasselbeck has 4 years left. Also, it would save a big chunk of money.
Just my armchair GM, (feel free to scoff) but I could see a deal where the Seahawks and Browns swap 1sts (Currently #4 and #7) to send Hasselbeck to re-unite with Holmgren. Depending on how Holmgren feels about the draft class, I could really see this happening. A trade like that would give Seattle a real shot at the #1 QB taken, and an outside shot at Suh or McCoy.
by kearly on Dec 23, 2009 2:21 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I doubt Hasselbeck has that much value, even for Holmgren.
Be happy if we can get a 7th for him. Seriously.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 23, 2009 2:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think he's worth more than that.
OK, let me be specific. He may not REALLY be worth a 7th, but in terms of the perception of him around the league he’s certainly has the “value” of more than a 7th. I think a lot of GM’s out there (our old one included) see him as a starter, and what kind of starter isn’t worth a 7th round pick?
I’m betting we could swindle someone out of a 5th or even 4th for him. The latter, maybe only in the case of Holmgren.
by djafrot on Dec 23, 2009 2:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
10 million dollar contract tells me otherwise, terminology of starter or not.
That is a huge contract for a potential starter when other potential starters will also be available as FA’s, and Hass could even be available (and for cheaper) if we unceremoniously cut him.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 23, 2009 3:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Contract restructure is also an option.
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Dec 23, 2009 8:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Very true...
however— would you rather have Hass at, say, 5 million, or Campbell at 5?
To me, unless Hass takes a cut to like 3 mil total (assuming there IS a cap) he isn’t worth it, and even then I want him as a backup and not the starter…
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 24, 2009 1:37 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Neither.
lol.
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Dec 24, 2009 7:47 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Campbell will sign with a team that overpays him vs. his worth.
He’s a starting NFL QB. Being that alone, he won’t come cheap.
This.
by Misfit74 on Dec 24, 2009 12:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I would be happy for just a 7th
However I think Hasselbeck has more value than that. Most of the NFL, hell, even most Seahawks fans still think Hasselbeck is a franchise QB if he gets healthy and has a good OL in front of him. They are probably mistaken, but that is a misconception that works in our favor if we decide to trade him.
by kearly on Dec 23, 2009 6:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Site note:
Podcast tomorrow. I’m still researching, but out of time. My wife works on Christmas Eve and Christmas and this is our last chance to get some shopping, chores, and celebration done.
Thanks everyone for the patience. On the plus side, the longer I think about the podcast, the better it’s likely to be.
by John Morgan on Dec 23, 2009 2:46 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
The Seahawks are in crisis and all you can think about is Christmas Celebration?
Where are your priorities John?
Celebrating important holidays with the family…… or podcast?
Celebrating or podcast?
… and you choose celebrating Christmas? …. pfft
jokes of course…. enjoy!
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
by iverson2169 on Dec 23, 2009 2:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Jim "Go2Guy" Moore is not my go-to guy.
He’s my least favorite Seattle-area sports writer by a long shot. And not just because he’s been nursing a tiresome Cougar-fan schtick for the past umpteen years. Folks give Steve Kelley grief over his short paragraphs and his sentiment, but I’ll take that over Go2Guy any day.
by dagraham on Dec 23, 2009 3:11 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Jim Moore is my favorite Seattle writer.
It’s cuz he’s entertaining to read.
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Dec 23, 2009 8:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, I guess it makes sense that he appeals to some.
by dagraham on Dec 24, 2009 1:28 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I loved his articles when he used to write about Amber the Seagal.
I wonder what she’s been up to…?
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Dec 24, 2009 7:48 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
LOL Belichick bombed in clevland in and wasn't great until Tom Brady emerged. He had veteran leadership on defense.
Tony Dungy was part of a rebirth of talent in tampa bay, but didn’t bring a defense to the colts and finally manning shouldered the entire 2006 superbowl run once the pats were down talent wise.
The Headcoach of any organization is a first and foremost a facilitator of his staff, but doesn’t really get his hands dirty in terms of game plans. Holmgren, Bill Parcells. They all function as good coaches and head coaches, because they are good facilitators and directors. Not play callers or team builders.
by Krazyleggs on Dec 23, 2009 4:15 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I'm really curious as to what Holmgren thinks Hasselbeck is worth.
It just seems like such a logical scenario, considering the past between the 2. Holmgren is ridiculously loyal to his players… And the Browns have what, 13 picks in next years draft? I’ll take any one of those picks, please.
by twocolorcrayon on Dec 24, 2009 7:50 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
It would be nice to get something useful
for having to suffer through this dismal football season. Ugh.
Not encumbered by the thought process.
by Bart's Evil Twin on Dec 24, 2009 5:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Field Gulls
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
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.
