Letting Go of Jason Campbell
by John Morgan on Dec 29, 2009 4:41 PM PST
148 comments
As it turns out, I have time today.
Jason Campbell: Campbell had another trademark performance on Sunday night. His team could barely start a drive before it was all over but the crying. Then, in the waning moments of the game, he check-mastered his stat line towards respectable. Redskins fans discount Campbell's stats and somewhat rightfully. Winning is what matters, and there's cognitive dissonance when a quarterback's stat line looks solid, but the offense he leads never looks competitive. One tends to throw out one or the other. Either Campbell is good and his team is throwing him to the wolves or Campbell sucks and his stats immaterial.
It sounds like Campbell will be under team control for another season. That makes the Campbell debate a lot less relevant for Seahawks fans. He was the most promising name in an otherwise weak free agent class for quarterbacks. Seattle badly needs a bridge between now and its next shot at being competitive. If a franchise is too bad for too long, it not only risks amassing burdensome rookie contracts, it risks misevaluating its talent.
It wasn't long ago that Roddy White and Michael Jenkins were bums that couldn't catch a pass. Matt Ryan fixed that perception. The same problem arises less directly at other positions. Teams like Seattle that cannot create or hold a lead can mask otherwise emerging talents. Consider Darryl Tapp. He only has 2.5 sacks this season, but is winning matchups and busting his ass on every damn play. Look deeper and you'll see, he also has a career best seven tackles for a loss. He only had 10 in three seasons prior. The abilities are similar, but when Seattle is losing, Tapp faces a lot of runs, but few downs where he can "pin his ears back", i.e. rush the passer on a passing down that the opponent needs to convert.
In that situation, quarterbacks are vulnerable, because they must take their time to find an open receiver and are therefore much more likely to take a sack. A sack is an acceptable outcome when a team is behind and desperate to convert. Commentators, a font of nonsense but nevertheless guarded football wisdom, will even criticize a quarterback that checks down on third and long and quip they'd have been better taking the sack. They would not be, but minus the risk of a fumble, a sack, an incompletion and a five-yard gain on third and 13 all have about the same value. For a trailing team, it is better to risk the sack than accept the inadequate completion. For a winning team, especially a team up by multiple scores, a failed conversion is minor -- an acceptable outcome.
Even an otherwordly talent like Jared Allen suffers when his team isn't competitive. The 2007 Kansas City Chiefs won only four games, but Allen recorded 15.5 sacks. He did not record a single sack when his team was behind by 10 or more points. 15.5 sacks, and not one when the 4-12 Chiefs were losing a blowout. I picked ten because of its obvious human significance and its significance as the meaningful threshold of a two-score lead. You might think I'm cooking the stats, and I'm surprised to see such a clean result myself, but Allen was the very first name and only name I looked at. I remembered his monster showing in 2007, 15.5 sacks in just 14 games played, and thought it an apt test. Well, I might have to contact Brian Burke and run this research proper, because the reality aligning so perfectly with the theory seems almost too good to be true. Are sacks a product of game situation as much or more than talent? It wouldn't surprise me.
The larger point is that Matt Hasselbeck makes the Seattle Seahawks impossible to easily evaluate. Seattle needs a league average quarterback in 2010, but that player is seemingly unavailable. Campbell was the best candidate, but not anymore. Chris Redman is a possibility. He's never been too bad and is likely better, and certainly cheaper, than Hasselbeck. David Carr could be available, but Carr could be satisfied collecting backup quarterback checks until retiring into broadcasting. Chad Pennington should be available, and he is 9/10ths the problem Hasselbeck is, but cheaper and proven better at throwing short passes. Still not much of an upgrade.
That puts Seattle in a pickle. The CFL is bear. NFL Europe is gone. The UFL was dominated by Brooks Bollinger and J.P. Losman. I'm sure some eyes are starting to roll. Proposing that a CFL or UFL player could be an upgrade over Matt Hasselbeck is sure to seem like pointed irreverence and shock tactics to some, but I see it more simply: Replacement value. Hasselbeck has fallen below replacement value, is thought otherwise only because of his reputation, and like Shaun Alexander before him, can be improved upon with freely available talent. Alexander could no longer accelerate into the hole and so his vision and ability to follow blockers was immaterial. Hasselbeck can no longer throw an NFL pass, and so his decision making, timing and accuracy is immaterial. He can make the best read, time the pass perfectly and throw into a vanishing window, but if his passes hover, the window closes and Hasselbeck is exactly like Alexander in the hole. He makes the right decision, but it looks wrong when the ball arrives. The window has vanished, the timing is off, and, too often, the pass intercepted.
Campbell was not intended to win Seattle a Super Bowl. He just had to be average. Who else is possible? Kellen Clemens, Brian St. Pierre, Charlie Whitehurst, Troy Smith and ...
0 recs |
148 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Brodie Croyle is a possibility
I know i’m probably going to get a lot of hate and bashing on this one but Croyle still has something to prove IMO. He was looking good when he had a chance to start against a good Baltimore Defense on opening weekend.
hahaha
Yeah well obviously he has a lot of potential and could be our guy soon if the front office looks into him.
by Seahawksfan23 on Dec 29, 2009 4:55 PM PST up reply actions
...Seneca Wallace?
Wallace at least looked average in 2008. Obviously Wallace isn’t the long term answer, but if another QB can’t be found and if we don’t wanna throw Skelton (or whoever) to the wolves right away then Wallace would at least be an upgrade over Matt.
Starting Mike Teel this week would be a smart idea, but we know that’s not gonna happen. Why take a look at a player that might contribute something in the future?
by MFAN on Dec 29, 2009 4:52 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
Seneca should be cut or traded by training camp
Seneca can only regress even more than he already has.
FIRE JIM MORA NOW!
If we're debating QB's that are upgrades over Matt then Seneca should be mentioned.
Cause sadly, he is better than Matt at this point. Who knows, maybe Knapp can do some good with Seneca.
by MFAN on Dec 29, 2009 4:57 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Knapp probably won't be here next season.
To be frank, Seneca is to football intelligence as Richard Simmons is to heterosexuality. It’s not there, no matter how you try and cut it.
FIRE JIM MORA NOW!
True about Knapp and I certainly agree in Seneca.
However in terms of “Campbell was not intended to win Seattle a Super Bowl. He just had to be average. Who else is possible?”
Seneca is possible.
by MFAN on Dec 29, 2009 5:04 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Not true, not the only possible outcomes.
He’s right, Seneca is better right now. Considering all the options I can think of, I would probably go with the Seneca and draft a guy this year plan.
by jacobstevens on Dec 29, 2009 5:03 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
"Scramble for minus 5" Seneca is better than...
In what way exactly has Seneca been better this year than Matt? I guess you could argue that he doesn’t take as many sacks, but that’s only because he scrambles around long enough to find a sideline 5 yards short of the line of scrimmage.
If you want to run some variant of the Vick in Atlanta wildcat offense that Knapp ran, then Seneca has better tools than Matt… but he would still need to be completely retrained to use his legs aggressively to advance the ball rather than running to save his own hide (not that I blame him for that after watching our O-Line the last two years).
Seneca doesn't have to have been better this year than Hasselbeck, to be better next year than Hasselbeck.
But since you asked:
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/qb
This is a quantitative stat, not a qualitative stat. Though you can cumulate negatively as well, and not climb up the list simply by tenure. Which is exactly what Hasselbeck has done, is cumulate negatively.
Don’t conflate the SeneCat Wallace with replacement starter Wallace. He was worse this year as a starter than last year. But even this year he’s been better than what Hasselbeck has become.
All of which, is not really relevant because the discussion is, assuming that Hasselbeck won’t be the starter next year, what would be the best plan for replacement? Seneca, being a suggestion option, should be compared against other replacement options, to be found a fit replacement, not against Hasselbeck.
I really don’t think Seneca will ever do more than he has, and I don’t even have faith that he could deliver even the best of what he already has, with any regularity. But if there’s someone to replace Hasselbeck, briding the gap to the next QB that we’ll draft, I think he is the best alternative.
by jacobstevens on Dec 30, 2009 10:49 AM PST up reply actions
This might be one of the most depressing things I've ever read.
I love Matt. He might be my favorite Seahawk ever, but…
Hasselbeck has fallen below replacement value, is thought otherwise only because of his reputation, and like Shaun Alexander before him, can be improved upon with freely available talent.
That’s what really hurts. My favorite Seahawk has fallen to a level where he could be outplayed by some random arm taken off of the scrap heap. It kills me to think that there’s a chance we could see sub-replacement level Matt for a bunch of games next season.
So, I love all this.
One question: What changed about Campbell’s availability? Or is it just the epiphany that comes from watching him play against the Cowboys?
I have to comment about the tangent on cherry picking stats. You sound more concerned about what folks might think, than John Morgan should. Though still it made a great narrative. But if it’s something you were concerned about, I don’t think you need to be. I think reasonable readers can discern when a stat is used to exemplify an assertion, rather than being used to empirically prove a hypothesis.
Dennis Dixon?
He might be cheap and could be the “Mike Vick” in the Knapp offense
and he didn’t look horrible in his one game, considering the minimal practice and preparation time he had for that game.
What would make Dennis Dixon cheap?
He’s the primary backup to a quarterback that gets hammered repeatedly. He’s young and he didn’t embarrass himself in his start earlier this year.
When Seattle lost in the Super Bowl, it gave Charlie Batch a Super Bowl ring.
The world is not right.
FIRE JIM MORA NOW!
Seattle never lost a superbowl.
//1972 USA Basketball
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 29, 2009 6:58 PM PST up reply actions
Troy Smith and Dennis Dixon have appeal.
Definitely. But they’re prospects, not stopgaps.
Which doesn’t have to be a problem. But it can cloud matters, when looking for the next franchise QB.
by jacobstevens on Dec 29, 2009 5:25 PM PST up reply actions
Feel free to hammer me on this, but what about Garcia?
I know he’s 57 years old, but he appears to be in good shape and would come cheap. He’s a proven winner, no matter where he goes.
Even if he only plays one season he’s still a decent stopgap until 2011 when the QB we draft in April becomes ready or we find another free agent answer. Should that drafted QB turn starter quality right away I doubt Garcia would have any problem shifting to backup.
He'd certainly be worth a look
His inability to stick with a team for longer than a week isn’t encouraging but it’s not like you’d have to invest anything in him to take a look.
But he could be a good for a week, signed, be good for a month, win the starting spot, and then suffer injuries and play like a 40 year old.
It’s a very lateral step with big downside and no upside.
Sure, if he gets Darby'ed then it would backfire
I guess I’m assuming the coaching staff is smart enough to avoid that but I probably shouldn’t.
I never saw him as one of those frequently injured types.
And he plays successfully despite not having the biggest arm or best legs. He’s just smart. He doesn’t freak out in the pocket and he knows how to find an outlet receiver.
The upside is that he doesn’t cost squat, he doesn’t expect to win a superbowl (I’m guessing), and he’s had a lot of experience in different systems. If we’re looking at adding a future “franchise” player in the draft anyhow, I don’t know why you’d want someone who expects to be the starter for years and years.
I'm pretty sure Joey Harrington is available.
by jeager on Dec 29, 2009 6:34 PM PST via mobile reply actions
I heard Jim Zorn is looking for a job...
He used to throw passes as the QB coach, I remember Hass commenting on it at one point a couple years back. He’s got to have at least as much juice left in the tanks as Hass and Garcia…
But seriously, how can we evaluate a QB replacement for Matt a well above average WCO QB who has suddenly been thrust into the run and shoot or whatever Knapp calls his scheme, without adequate tools to execute (either in his legs, his receivers or is Linemen)?
I am not sure that any QB could excel in this offense with the current personnel. We have a bunch of average to above average possession receivers (Burleson, TJ, Branch), one prospect (Butler) and one Special teamer (Obo), a fantastic offensive line (yes sarcasm is intended) and a coaching staff that can decide what it wants to do with the ball.
The ’Hawks really need to figure out what they are cooking before heading to the grocery store.
Hasselbeck is terrible.
The rest of the offense is not. It’s pretty close to average. Line, receivers, running backs, tight ends and coaches: average.
by John Morgan on Dec 29, 2009 6:56 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Knapp runs a WC
It looks like an abomination because Hasselbeck struggles to throw the ball fifteen yards without it getting picked off.
by John Morgan on Dec 29, 2009 6:57 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
But....but that's because the line is bad and the receivers don't get separation!!!
Matt has been sensational!
FIRE JIM MORA NOW!
Matt has been terrible...
No argument here… just pointing out that the problem is deeper than Matt.
I guess you can argue that we are average at most offensive positions, the interior of the offensive line seems to be shaping up, TJ and Burleson both have had solid years statistically (we’ve all seen some very underwhelming plays from both of them though). Carlson is a very good receiving tight end and a terrible blocker.
Matt is getting older and has been dinged up the last few years (no reasonable expectation that won’t continue into next year). He has played awful the last three games at least. So why hasn’t the scheme been adjusted or a different QB sent onto the field? Because if Matt is really that bad (and I can’t argue the hasn’t been) then either the scheme needs to be adjusted so that Matt is trying to throw farther than 15 yards, or they need to put a healthy QB on the field. For those reasons alone I’d have to argue the coaching isn’t average. Not even close.
Knapp’s offense doesn’t look West Coast at all, it features a much more vertical passing attack. It moves the pocket more and it actually uses the run game for the run game instead of substituting the short passing game. Additionally a West Coast system requires the receivers to run a precise route and the QB to hit them in their break rather than relying on raw athletic ability of the individual receivers to beat coverage. The QB basically throws to a spot on the field vice trying to hit the receiver after the route develops. Knapp’s offense does not seem to work that way and if it is intended to, then either the coaching has failed to adequately train the receivers, has failed to recognize that the QB isn’t capable of playing at this time, or the scheme is just bad.
Thanks for the responses!
Maybe the scheme IS adjusted, and maybe the fact that the other QB's are even worse is why Matt is still out there.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 30, 2009 9:34 AM PST up reply actions
Possibly... heck evn probably
But how bad do they (Seneca, Teel or some too old, under talented FA) have to be to be actually worse than 10 turnovers in 3 games all of which were complete blow outs?
Bleh I better stop this rant before I start… needless to say you’ve got a fair point, but if Matt is the best option shouldn’t they be letting him rehab his various wounds rather than risking further injury?
by HawkSoop737 on Dec 30, 2009 10:52 AM PST up reply actions
I don't believe for a second-- even if he gets healthy-- that he is the best answer anymore.
He’s just too likely to get NOT healthy again far too quickly.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 30, 2009 11:52 AM PST up reply actions
It's kind of too little too late, with scheme adjustments.
But see below for one thought, I asked John about. But that’s in principle; I think that could only help so much, that we’d still be below average and wouldn’t win more games. And since the Houston game, what else is there to do? At least the rest of the team can keep getting reps and further familiarize and fine tune within the scheme, that’s got more value than trying to be slightly less crippled.
by jacobstevens on Dec 30, 2009 11:09 AM PST up reply actions
Also, I think our description of Knapp's offense, and WCO, are basically correct.
He came from the WCO system, under Walsh. His does seem to be one of the more radically departed of them.
He bases it all on the run game. Establishes the run first, not because it’s essential to winning, but to build play action off of it. He uses formations, and unconventional positional alignments within the formations, to try and create mismatches or isolate weaker coverage. From there, he is more bold and aggressive in taking downfield shots. It seems to me the precise routes and timing are still active elements that dictate what and when passes are thrown, rather than, say, Bruce Arians’ system.
The achilles heel is that it’s an enormously contingent system. From run to play action to deeper passing. The stuff on top doesn’t work without the stuff underneath being established and effective. But we saw what it could do in the preseason. That was preseason, and the lack of gameplanning doesn’t enable pass rush much. But the competition doesn’t matter. We saw the mismatches created by swinging backs and ends out into the slot, saw the aggressiveness built off the play action.
Probably the most universal element to proficient, high-scoring passing games, aside from being run by a great QB, is they create potential for mismatches and isolations and then let the QB attack whatever comes out. Sean Payton and Tom Moore/Peyton Manning’s offenses are like this. McDaniels’ system is from the spread, but even he uses the spread like Knapp uses play action and short-range personnel alignment stuff, to get defenses to adjust so that isolations can be attacked deep. Payton probably has more traditional variety in formations, which is what the WCO was always big on, but the Colts and McDaniels never used a lot of formations to try and win.
So in that regard, I like Knapp’s system a lot. It’s not going to be Air Coryell vertical, but it can be a fantastically great system.
by jacobstevens on Dec 30, 2009 11:42 AM PST up reply actions
I made this comment elsewhere
but I wanted to know your thoughts on it. I think playcalling is rarely justifiably criticized; people look to it for a remedy, but it’s a pretty blunt object as a remedy, it usually can’t make a huge difference and can’t make up for so many problems. But one valid criticism is that Knapp isn’t providing a robust system of hot routes, and doing so would alleviate the crippling that Hasselbeck’s play has had, more than playcalling adjustments usually can make. At least that’s how I feel, but do you think so?
by jacobstevens on Dec 30, 2009 11:03 AM PST up reply actions
While we are wildly speculating about 2010 Seahawk QBs...
…and I am all about not using a top pick on a rookie, why not Mike Vick? Ruskell is gone, Vick has done okay in Phili, and will be available.
Just thinking a bit outside the box…
Vick hasn't done anything in Philadelphia
He has 13 passing attempts as a wildcat quarterback. Seattle might as well sign Ronnie Brown.
I'd pay to see Vick
Perhaps more interesting to watch. He’d be good for 3-4 wins, add in a couple luck victories, and we avoid cellar and sell tickets.
It is what it is...
If we signed that piece of shit
I wouldn’t watch all year long. I think the Seahawks organization has some semblance of pride that would keep them from bringing in Dog Killer.
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 31, 2009 6:04 AM PST up reply actions
Vick to Desean Jackson...
Didn’t Vick complete a pass over 30 years to Jackson? What was Hass’s longest completion this season?
Now that's a PASS!!!!
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 29, 2009 7:47 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
I've come to terms with Matt being awful
but I struggle to see how a league average QB would help back toward SB contention. It would seem that would simply further suspend us in mediocrity. I just can’t see us being better than average next year no matter what we do.
I’m starting to think an approach like the Rams took last year might be the best course of action to bounce back. Clean house and get what value we can for our veterans in an attempt to position ourselves for a franchise QB in next year’s draft.
It’s tough to stomach but I just don’t see a much better option.
I agree
Instead of drafting/signing FAs to ‘win now’ (Housh for example) the org can take a longer view and re-build the team. Lots of good players, but they really need a new head coach (Mora has already proven is lack of ability, both in prepping the team and managing the game), and a solid draft (OT/DE/S, in that order) and a good RB.
Average is useful.
I think people are failing to comprehend just how bad being “below replacement level” is, especially at a skill position like quarterback.
Ok
but “bad” is what we’d want with this approach next year. Average next year would just leave us average in the long term IMO.
by Hawkhammer19 on Dec 29, 2009 7:38 PM PST up reply actions
If we brought in an non Matt Hasselbeck quarterback, it's a stopgap move.
None of the names mentioned in the post are long-term solutions.
No
but wouldn’t there be risk of further suspending us in mediocrity. If we’re going to be bad, the let’s be BAD so that one day we can be GOOD instead of just good.
by Hawkhammer19 on Dec 29, 2009 7:50 PM PST up reply actions
There's of course the risk of becoming perpetually bad
like the Lions but I don’t think we’ll be drafting a receiver in the first three years in a row.
by Hawkhammer19 on Dec 29, 2009 7:52 PM PST up reply actions
There are risks to being bad.
Inability to draw free agents, lowered attendance, significantly more expensive draft picks.
Sounds like the new CBA will solve the 3rd issue there...
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 29, 2009 8:01 PM PST up reply actions
Jim Plunkett was a stopgap for the Raiders... Johnny Unitas for the Colts.
SOMETIMES a stopgap turns into something better.
Hasselbeck is a known fading commodity—check that— liability. Better to try SOMETHING and go from there than it is to accept the mediocrity that is the status quo. Our current situation does not show any “sure things” so we might as well TRY something new.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 29, 2009 8:01 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I can't wait to find out the answer to our QB problems.
At least we’ve taken the first step: admitting that we have QB problems. I hope the team doesn’t stay in denial about it.
This.
by Misfit74 on Dec 29, 2009 7:50 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
Hello, my name is Whiskey C., and I have a problem.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 29, 2009 8:02 PM PST up reply actions
Step two
We need to release control to a GM greater than ourselves to restore us to sanity.
by somethingwitty on Dec 29, 2009 9:34 PM PST up reply actions
Seem like we've done step four
Based on every Mora interview, we’ve done a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves after every loss this season.
by somethingwitty on Dec 29, 2009 9:35 PM PST up reply actions
Just wanted to say
the most intelligent Seahawks posters are here in this forum, I post on other sites quite a bit %85 of the people on those sites still think Matt has " 3 – 4 more good years " or " Things are not Matt’s fault not even Peyton could win behind this line ect ect "
It’s like trying to get someone to change religions or something they just won’t let go what they want to believe.
Props to John Scruffy and the mods for running this ship right, and keeping the topics informative and well thought out.
by A'Seahawks_Warriors on Dec 29, 2009 8:06 PM PST reply actions
I believe even Peyton Manning would struggle.
Just not as bad as Hasselbeck has.
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Dec 30, 2009 7:42 PM PST up reply actions
Peyton had several years behind a crappy line.
It’s only been the last 3-4 years that he got an above average line.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 30, 2009 10:06 PM PST up reply actions
False.
Longer, much longer. With the exception of 2007, you have to go back to 2001 to find the last year that Peyton didn’t get sacked more than 4% of his passing plays, and in 2001, he got sacked on 5.5% of his passing plays. In 2000, he only got sacked on 4.2% of his passing plays, same as he was in 2007.
I don’t know where you got this notion that Peyton has only had a good O-line until these last few years. He’s had amazing protection, which is a large reflection of his O-line, for the entire decade. His line has, indeed, been above average during that time.
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Dec 31, 2009 8:27 PM PST up reply actions
I was under the impression that like Dan Marino, a lot of his success in not getting sacked was his quick release and progressions, not the quality of the OL.
But whatever. I don’t believe for a second Peyton would struggle behind our line anyway. I believe Matt struggles because Matt can no longer throw a football effectively. Saying Peyton would struggle is a convenient way to avoid addressing the fact that our franchise’s greatest QB now sucks.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 31, 2009 8:46 PM PST up reply actions
.... But I have addressed the fact that Matt Hasselbeck isn't Matt Hasselbeck.
I have already said on several occasions that he is part of the problem. You can have the quickest release in the world, but when a defensive lineman gets the jump on your offensive lineman right off the snap, and is hitting you on half of your passing plays, like has happened to Hasselbeck in a certain game this year, you’re going to struggle.
Matt’s struggles are not as simple as his ability to no longer throw the ball above average like he has in the past. To say so is myopic.
I believe that to say that Manning doesn’t get sacked because of his quick release and his progression is to detract from the quality of his OL. I believe you simply cannot hold on to your assertion that Manning has played several years behind a crappy O-line before the last 3-4 years. In fact, I would question how much you’ve actually watched him between ‘01-’05. He’s my favorite player, but even I would say that he’d struggle behind Seattle’s O-line, only not as bad as Hasselbeck has.
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Dec 31, 2009 10:09 PM PST up reply actions
If Matt Hasselbeck isn't Matt Hasselbeck, who exactly is he?
He is the GREATEST part of the problem.
And if the defensive linemen are getting the jump on the offensive linemen off the snap, is that the fault of the OL or the QB?
Fine. I’ll grant you Peyton’s line is better than I gave it credit for. That doesn’t change the fact that Peyton could win a hell of a lot more games with our offense around him than Matt could… You can say I’m delusional, and that’s fine, but I believe we’d be playing a game that matters this Sunday if we had Peyton and not Matt.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Jan 1, 2010 12:42 AM PST up reply actions
This Matt Hasselbeck is a Matt Hasselbeck we haven't really met before this season: Matt Hasselbeck in the twilight.
I won’t call you delusional. I just disagree. But your opinion is actually defensible. But so is mine.
I would say that it would be the fault of the OL if the defensive linemen is beating the OL right off the snap.
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Jan 1, 2010 4:04 AM PST up reply actions
I meant on the OL/DL thing, the QB's snap counts, cadences, etc.
Of course the fact that the team is always behind doesn’t do Hass or the DL any favors either.
Being behind, passing becomes more likely, and the DL gets to pin their ears back and go full bore.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Jan 1, 2010 12:09 PM PST up reply actions
Tavaris Jackson?
He’s only 27 years old and could maybe possibly still develop. Plus he’s got a lot of game experience and I’m not sure he’s too happy with how Minnesota has treated him first with Sage and then Favre. He’s not great, but considering the other options….
Also, I’m sure Denver will look to resign him but isn’t Kyle Orton a free agent?
I think
I just threw up in my mouth a little bit. Twice.
by somethingwitty on Dec 29, 2009 9:44 PM PST up reply actions
U havent seen them play much
Or u wouldn’t say that – these guys make wallace look good.
by paul2 on Dec 29, 2009 10:10 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
He's far from a solution, but we are talking desperation stop gaps here and its very slim pickings
2010 UFAs (assuming a new CBA):
Kyle Orton (DEN 27), Jason Campbell (WAS 28), Chad Pennington (MIA 34), Tavaris Jackson (MIN 27), Kellen Clemons (NYJ 27), Kyle Boller (STL 29), Davis Carr (NYG 31), Brodie Croyle (KC 27), Rex Grossman (HOU 30), Joey Harrington (NO 31), Chris Redman (ATL 33), Jon Kitna (DAL 37), Daunte Culpepper (DET 33), Charlie Batch (PIT 35)
I cant go into a season knowing I get 16 games of Seneca. I prefer the unknown, even if it has a high probability of suck.
Troy Smith, Seneca Wallace, Tavaris Jackson, Tyler Thigpen, Dennis Dixon
This sounds like a game of musical chairs with the prize being a 3-13 season.
I say do what it takes to draft Bradford. Then bite your lower lip for 3 seasons and pray he doesn’t bust as the talent around him solidifies.
by kearly on Dec 29, 2009 9:18 PM PST reply actions 2 recs
Yes take Bradford
But if the line play is bad for some reason let Seneca play while Sammy learns.
by A'Seahawks_Warriors on Dec 29, 2009 10:11 PM PST up reply actions
There's a sort of deus ex machina at worth there, though
You are assuming Bradford is available and worth Seattle’s pick. If he is, then it seems very sound, but neither of those two essential details are known. Bradford is just a name for a solution. Last year the name was Mark Sanchez.
by John Morgan on Dec 29, 2009 10:20 PM PST up reply actions
kearly says " do what it takes to draft Bradford "
Which I agree with even if that means trading up, I didn’t want Sanchez but I’ve watched a lot of Bradford and think as long as he is healthy which would be something the Seahawks staff has to look into you move up to get him if need be.
by A'Seahawks_Warriors on Dec 29, 2009 10:30 PM PST up reply actions
I wouldn't say 'anything', but I'm not against trading up.
We need a QB bad. This is a decent QB class. I like Bradford. We have two first round picks. It could certainly be a formula that works. We have the means to accomplish a trade up, by most accounts. If our guy is there and we have the chance to do it I think it’s a risk that has to be carefully considered.
This.
Like a Troy Aikman...
who got the crap beat out of him for two years before winning.
I'm simply not enamored of trading 2 picks for 1.
We have an opportunity to build a solid base and there are a ton of QB’s out there this year. I’d still rather use the picks to build that OL and general foundation and use a 2nd on whatever QB looks the best in the combine of that 2nd tier of guys.
Do you really think Sam Bradford can take the kind of pounding that has been occurring while our OL develops? He’s not the right guy to put behind a suspect OL. He’s rather thin and not real big and thus far has not proven he can withstand a pounding. And NFL DE/OLB are a lot bigger stronger and tougher than the Big 12’s.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 30, 2009 1:02 AM PST up reply actions
I'm not a fan either
Unless you have a QB or DT prospect that is truly elite. There is one elite DT, and no elite QB prospects.
by Attylathehawk on Dec 30, 2009 6:34 AM PST up reply actions
I am strongly open to trading up
but the guy has to be right. I have no idea if Bradford can take the pounding, can develop, will be worth it. if we have to wait until the combine before these QBs really start to look like superstar-calibre prospects, then it’s probably not worth it.
And it can’t be going from pick 10 to 1st overall, or anything. From 8th to 4th, or so, swapping picks and throwing in our second, would give us the QB we want, and still leave a 1st rounder. If the QB class ends up looking like Tier 1A Clausen/Bradford, and then Tier 2 McCoy & the rest, and we can have McCoy the best of the rest, by sitting, or get one of the guys with super potential, we’re already investing a lot in the guy and I’m more interested in going farther to make the right pick, the safer bet and the bigger potential than doubling down to take a guy here, a guy there, as they come to us.
I am generally against trading up, but this is a bit of an uncommon circumstance.
by jacobstevens on Dec 30, 2009 2:24 PM PST up reply actions
I was a fan of Sanchez too
Actually, I’d still make that pick. I thought he wasn’t ready and needed to take the Rivers/Rodgers development path (which the Seahawks could have offered). The Jets disagreed and the results: not pretty. Of course, ugly, terrible play is a common symptom for starting rookie QBs. I’m going to wait another year or two before I judge him. He’s still very much a prospect.
Its true that Bradford is “a name for a solution,” currently he is the best name for the biggest problem. As more information becomes available, that could change. But I don’t think it will. Bradford would have likely been the #1 overall had he declared last year. Other than his shoulder, nothing has changed since then. I think the likelihood of him being picked before Seattle is greater than the likelihood of his not being worth the pick at the time of the draft. Bradford is risky, but given the alternatives (including a 2011 QB class that isn’t really any better), that’s a risk I’d gladly take.
I’m fine with picking up a replacement level QB. It would cost substantially less money than Hasselbeck and the result would be the same: missing the playoffs. However, none of those options are franchise QBs, which is what Seattle’s future SB contending team will almost certainly require. That is why the Seahawks can’t afford to pass on a franchise QB prospect. The longer they delay, the longer the team will fail to revive offensively. If that means taking a risk, so be it- should we be so lucky for the opportunity to present itself.
I am not sold on Bradford
In fact, as far as the top 5 qbs are concerned, one could pretty much throw a blanket over all of em and they’d be indistinguishable from one another. Sanchez was a reach last year, considering he played a single season and had the advantage of having vastly superior talent on his team.
by Attylathehawk on Dec 30, 2009 6:37 AM PST up reply actions
Seahawks are currently sitting at the 7th pick.
I actually see no reason why trading up for Bradford will be necessary, especially if Washington keeps Campbell.
If Washington keeps Campbell, then the Rams will be the only team that is in the market for a quarterback who is picking ahead of the Seahawks, unless Cleveland opts to start over at quarterback again (which wouldn’t surprise me with Holmgren now on board).
With talents like Clausen, Berry, Suh, Gerald McCoy, Okung, and Campbell available, it is realistically possible that Bradford will be available for the Seahawks.
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Dec 30, 2009 7:49 AM PST up reply actions
I'd be stunned if Washington didn't draft a QB
They might put a tender on Campbell because it makes financial sense, but he’s playing out his time in DC.
I don't see your evaluation as "shock tactics" at all.
For 10 millions greenbacks you better be getting a guy that can prop an offense on his shoulders every other week. Matt isn’t that guy at 10 million.
Quick question: What cap figure do you see as a realistic hit to accept for having him on the roster next year? What figure turns a Hass discussion from “good lord the world is imploding”…. into “eh… take it or leave it”?
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
Quick clarification
Matt can’t prop an offense on his shoulders but 1-2 times a year at this point; however, I wasn’t implying his cap figure has any bearing on that ability. Just curious as to what cap figure makes retaining him tolerable.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
by iverson2169 on Dec 30, 2009 12:26 AM PST up reply actions
He isn't that expensive for a QB
But he is expensive for a bad QB.
by michaelfox99 on Dec 30, 2009 5:48 AM PST up reply actions
I posted this above, but incase you miss it...
Sando posted on his blog a couple of days ago that Matt cost $6.75M this year and $0 if we cut him before March 11th ($1 million roster bonus). I posted the link above.
by Mind of no mind on Dec 30, 2009 4:09 PM PST up reply actions
I don't understanding spending the future for a stop gap
We are rebuilding and in need of a stop gap. We have one. He won’t help us win and since we are likely to suck for the next couple of seasons, he will only mildly contribute to our suckiness. We only have so much capital to use in gaining quality players for the good team that we field in a couple of year. Why would we spend some of that on a stop gap quarter back, who isn’t the answer to the future, when we have Seneca?
If we can get D. Dixon or somebody like him with a chance at a future, great, otherwise its not worth the cost.
Seneca has proven he is LESS than a stopgap, with no upside to boot.
You want someone a little better for more than a game or two option, AND you want some upside on your stopgap— a guy who could develop into something solid.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 30, 2009 9:38 AM PST up reply actions
I can get behind a current backup with potential
But thats not really a stop gap. Thats getting someone who at the worst is a stop gap, but has the potential to be the guy. In that case whoever you draft you let develop and then trade eventually. Like I said, D. Dixon or the like would be great. But only if he has the potential to part of the winning team in a couple of years. If he has no potential to be that then stay with the current suck cause it doesn’t cost anything.
No, Hasselbeck and remaining upside is an oxymoron.
Stopgap with upside does happen from time to time, albeit infrequently.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 30, 2009 12:57 PM PST up reply actions
A player perceived as a stopgap can turn into upside, but
But if someone truly is a stopgap (example: Seneca Wallace), they can’t have upside. Otherwise they’re not a true stopgap. Hehe.
The demise of the Broncos in '09 is our future. Pray hard.
That's how I see it, too.
Stopgap = stopgap (Garcia, Hasselbeck, Todd Collins, Chris Redman, etc.)
Prospect or talented unproven = upside (Campbell, Kolb, Rookie QB, etc)
This.
Fair enough...
I was lumping the Campbell/Thigpen/Tavaris Jackson group together with the Culpepper/Garcia group.
Hell, at this point if Oakland does draft a QB, I’d love to throw a 6th rounder to them for JaMarcus, and see if we can get him to develop. He’s still young, I still love his arm strength if not accuracy, and maybe with a change of scenery and the right coaching he could become a solid pro.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 30, 2009 10:14 PM PST up reply actions
Misfit made my point in a much cleaner way
sometime i dont right good.
If all we care about is a stop gap then you draft for the future and use some combination of Beck and Seneca. They don’t cost us anything and if you do it right you won’t alienate the part of the fan base that still thinks that they can contribute.
If you can work a deal to get one of the young backups with potential, then you draft for the future, but QB is not as scary or important to draft this year.
I like the second option.
If we're talking about acquirng a stop gap
then I kind of like the idea of going after Derek Anderson. A big reason he played well in Cleveland in 07 was because Frye got traded and he wasn’t worried about losing his job. Maybe we could talk to Mike about bringing him to Seattle and he could play that way again here.
Is it at all possible that Matt's shoulder injury is the cause for his lack of zip?
The demise of the Broncos in '09 is our future. Pray hard.
From my modestly trained eye (in football and not in medicine)
when I see how he’s throwing, and the results, if there is an injury contributing, it’s the back. He can move the shoulder and throw the ball the way he’s supposed to, it’s just the ball is made of lead.
But like Brian said, it doesn’t matter.
by jacobstevens on Dec 30, 2009 2:35 PM PST up reply actions
Matt is done.
I don’t like it but its true. You could use him as part of the gap fill, but he is done and needs to leave or become trent dilfer
listen to you crazy people !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
you guys are wrong for bashing matt. What the hell is wrong with you guys matt is so much better then those clowns josh listed… really …. REALLY ? What kind of hawk fans are you guys. If matt had 3- 4 seconds like every other GOOD QB IN THE LEAGUE OUR RECORD WOULD BE BETTER…. i love matt he is a winner. i ve Matt wathced over the years that man competes to win, plain and simple. iI would rather have matt and a young o-line than some " average qb" … sounds like blasphomy. You guys call yourselves fans but you sound like a lynch mob. MY vote matt stays and we bring some young talent and they at least learn from him .. Matt Hasslebeck is and always will the man.
Hi, welcome to Field Gulls.
A few notes.
First off, proper grammar is encouraged here. That includes capitalization, punctuation, and spelling to the best of your abilities, as well as being a bit more gentle with the ellipses.
Second, you are not the judge of anyone’s fandom and accusations that anyone here is not a fan of the Seahawks is frowned upon. Further hostility will result in warnings or a ban.
Have a nice day.
As a follow up
I would ask that you read this before commenting further.
Uhm.... I think I might lead FieldGulls in ellipses...
So I’m biased, but I vote a pass of the ellipses. However, there were some other serious flaws that made them stand out in a negative way.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 30, 2009 10:17 PM PST up reply actions
Yes, let's re-sign him for another 10 years!
Why do we ever need to draft another quarterback? Matt Hasselbeck is incapable of growing old or losing physical skills!
After Matlock and a nap, Matt Hasselbeck dinked and dunked the Seahawks to a victory in Super Bowl LXXV
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 31, 2009 6:21 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I bet Hasselbeck could revive Sea Galley
Maybe Matt can’t throw the ol’ pigskin anymore, but Seattle should definitely keep him around. He and Sam Adkins could shill all-you-can-eat snow-crab legs. It’d be just like old times.
The link function is funky.
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 31, 2009 6:22 AM PST up reply actions
Not bad, not bad.
That’s a dashing young Steve Pool after the break!
by jacobstevens on Dec 31, 2009 11:36 AM PST up reply actions
Mike f'n Teel
If the team is going to suck next year anyways (and it will) then let’s at least have it be an exciting suckfest. My fantasy seahawks offense next year;
QB – Teel, Wallace, Bradford(draft) RB – Forsett, FB – Owen Schmitt, WR 1. Butler, 2. Burleson, 3. T.J. 4 Obamanu
Line? LT – Walt if he can, LG Spencer, C – Unger, RG Draft, RT – Locklear but in the meantime, even if Walt comes back next year, #2 pick in the first round should be the best LT available.
What? No SOUL?
You know what, I don't mind seeing Hasselbeck play on Sunday.
Why? It might be the last time we get to watch the organization’s greatest QB play.
Agreed.
A week 17 game for Teel doesn’t do a whole lot, the season is over. Let’s pay our respects to a great QB who reached the end of the line…
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 31, 2009 10:42 AM PST up reply actions
Wouldn't mind seeing Teel a few series if the game is out of hand
But yeah, I see no reason to start him.
rather than watch a glorified preseason game, I’d like to have the chance to cheer my ass off for Hass (and a few other guys) who are probably coming out that tunnel for the last time. That, IMO, is about the only feel-good opportunity left in this dismal season.
"I'm tired of chasing after my dreams. I'll just find out where they're going, and catch up later." - Hedberg
Pretty funny wayward llama, it really was but about the draft....
I think we should draft highest LT available first( Okung, Davis). Then with our second pick pick up Mike Iupati G 6’6 330 pounds. Check seahawks draft blog. That’ll shore up the line for a while(like ten years). Then (if he declares)Ryan Mallet Arkansas Qb. Ryan will be a project but he really has the tools and mindset to be a first rate Qb.
Unfortunately, Seattle is in a predicament in which multiple areas on both sides of the ball could make good
use of our #1 picks. My personal opinion is that there is no way the FO misses O-line again this year. I think we go OT with our #1. As for the others, it’s impossible to say. We don’t know where we will be picking, and we don’t know what’s going to happen with the team’s makeup. Will Hasselbeck be brought back? Walter Jones? How many of the receivers will be purged?
I hope we get a QB, first round. We need it.
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 31, 2009 11:20 AM PST up reply actions
You're high on Iupati too?
I like him too. But I think he’ll be available in the 2nd round.
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Dec 31, 2009 8:29 PM PST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Field Gulls
Related FanShots 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.
