Matt Hasselbeck Slings to Deon Butler for 32 and Game Winning Field Goal Range
Matt Hasselbeck gets the game ball.
The NFL Draft is designed to assist weaker teams and create parity. Bad teams get better players and become better teams. The very worst teams can pick any player to help rebuild their franchise around. That intent has been disputed by research conducted by Massey and Thaler. Common wisdom is that rookies are overpaid and the strict salary structure punishes bad teams by awarding them potentially crippling investments.
Two things are true: High salaries in the top ten punish bad teams by increasing how much is risked. The best players are usually drafted early.
The San Francisco 49ers started eight picks selected in the top fifty: Alex Smith (1), Vernon Davis (6), Michael Crabtree (10), Patrick Willis (11), Manny Lawson (22), Joe Staley (28), David Bass (33) and Chilo Rachal (38). It took a lot of ass football to assemble that cast. If not for the 90s Niners spilling into the early 2000s, San Francisco would have a dog in the race for worst team of the new millennium.
Smith looked like a competent if unsexy quarterback. Dilfer with a better arm. He's 25.
Davis ran a 4.38 forty. Match him against Aaron Curry on a crossing route and Curry is probably going to get burned.
Crabtree is athletic and explosive and-Oh shit! Lawyer Milloy!
I won't continue fawning. My point is that Seattle beat a better team than itself today. It beat a younger team with far greater resources invested in that youth. It beat that team because the 49ers are better than Seattle, but not significantly.
Josh Wilson was the best all around cornerback playing today. He is a fiend against the wide receiver screen, aware and responsive to his surroundings like a Shaolin Monk. Wilson isn't a stride-for-stride, Asomugha-like shutdown corner. He's a zone corner, but a hell of a zone corner, and drafted to play in a zone scheme. He was supposed to be Ronde. He's supposed to bury the screen, intercept the bounce, jump the route and find the fumble and fly.
Brandon Mebane is an incredible machine. He's a backloaded piston; a battering ram shaped like candy corn. The day Mebane synced to NFL snap counts he became a great young defensive tackle. Mebane is quick, powerful and hard to block. Seattle doesn't need Suh to showcase Mebane, just someone better than Rocky Bernard, Colin Cole, Craig Terrill and the whole sick crew. Like, motile matter -- ambulatory would be an upgrade.
Jordan Babineaux is a young, cheap and functional free safety.
Tim Ruskell never did rebuild but he added some talent while the core rotted. Seattle's next GM inherits a heck of a fine position. I hope he realizes it.
. . .
Two years ago I faced the Shaun Alexander dilemma. Alexander was no longer a good running back. On his best days rushing, he was still a liability as a receiver and pass blocker. But he was beloved even by we who hated watching him. I never feared a miraculous recovery disproving all my theories. I cringed because others saw a miraculous recovery every time he rushed for five.
Hasselbeck isn't there. Quarterbacks do not fall like running backs fall. Losing a little arm strength is not like losing the first gear that got you the job. Hasselbeck can toss a nice pass when he needs. The bender over the defender to Deion Branch was indefensible pass at its best. He threw another high-arcing bomb to Branch that Branch lost behind the defender. It was pretty for a second. Real pretty.
Unlike seeing Shaun sprinting for fourteen, I never cringed seeing Hasselbeck spark to life. It was thrilling. Hasselbeck was never a great quarterback. Well, screw that. Matt Hasselbeck is one of the greatest quarterbacks to ever play American football. Any quarterback that's made a Pro Bowl can claim that. Hasselbeck is not Manning or within the discussion. He's not Fouts or Unitas or Tarkenton or Marino or-
But HE's THE BEST GODDAMN QUARTERBACK WE'VE EVER HAD!!
Game ball guy. I hope you find a team to make your last few millions in the league with. And I hope that team is not the Seattle Seahawks.
0 recs |
143 comments
|
Comments
I still love you, Matt and you're grenn jersey is still being purchased.
The last throw to Butler was a nice glimpse of the past (Matt) and the future (Butler).
SEA!
by MFAN on Dec 6, 2009 5:26 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I love Matt.
He had me at “We’re gonna score”.
by DJ C-Raig on Dec 6, 2009 5:28 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Matt, I love you more than I've loved any other Seahawk
but I hope next season your heir apparent is on the roster.
by BrianL on Dec 6, 2009 5:30 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
7 and 9 puts us at 11-13 ish in the draft
I’m feeling pretty good about competitive football this month. That + Denver’s pick would put us in pretty good shape in avoiding financial risk while having flexibility to get who we want.
by Will Kier on Dec 6, 2009 5:32 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I find myself somewhat in disagreement
I don’t think its a positive to draft lower. It may present lower risk and higher value, but the Seahawks need a franchise QB, and as the draft process shakes out, it may be that like most years, the draft only has a couple candidates deemed realistic and they both go in the top 10 picks. This draft is pretty stacked at DL, and the higher it picks, the better its chance to catch a falling star who drops from a stacked position.
I love Matt for his career but other than his last couple passes, I continued to see a troubling lack of zip. One such pass resulted in a critical incompletion on 3rd down when Burleson was wide the fuck open for 20-30 yards. The pass looked like a whiffle ball, and the defender closed 5+ yards on the downslope to earn a PD. I don’t mind Hasselbeck coming back for his final year if he’s mentoring a young QB, but I don’t think he will ever lead a team to the playoffs again and should not be a Seahawk in 2011.
Mebane doesn’t need Suh, but the better his partner, the more devastating the combination.
I slightly disagree on Babineaux. He’s decent, but I think the team can do better and should try to. Good safeties can be had without expending major resources. The team needs to add depth anyway unless they think a 37 year old Milloy in 2010 will still cut it.
I agreed with everything else. Especially Wilson. I can’t believe how under the radar he is for how well he’s played and how many big plays he’s generated.
by kearly on Dec 6, 2009 5:39 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I never said Seattle is better off drafting in any specific range
that was Will Kier.
by John Morgan on Dec 6, 2009 5:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I was reading between the lines in your 2nd paragraph
but re-reading it, I see you were careful not to directly draw a conclusion.
by kearly on Dec 6, 2009 5:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
elaborating
if we go 0-4 over the rest of the season we’re 5+ in the order and should be feeling pretty good about nabbing that franchise QB
if we go 2-2 we’re still in good shape with less financial risk and a serious contention
and if we go 4-0 then WTF we’re contending for a playoff spot sweet
so, in short, I’m feeling pretty win-win right now.
by Will Kier on Dec 6, 2009 7:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
But HE's THE BEST GODDAMN QUARTERBACK WE'VE EVER HAD!!
After the first two series of yesterdays’ game I was ready to shitcan him. He looked horrible. He looked old, slow and he looked scared. But he managed a fine game over all and made plays when he had to make them. I wish him nothing but the best in his future career with whatever team that may be.
by mrcoffee1969 on Dec 7, 2009 2:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And Babineaux is probably the better safety as of this season
so if the Seahawks want to shake someone, I’d rather Grant.
by John Morgan on Dec 6, 2009 5:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Completely agree
The demise of the Broncos in '09 is our future. Pray hard.
by Nick Andron on Dec 7, 2009 12:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Hass is signed through 2010?
That’s going to be a tough call at the end of next season.
"Football players are temperamental. That's 90 percent temper and 10 percent mental." - Doug Plank
by Stevo's on Dec 6, 2009 5:45 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Jon Ryan had a good game.
I don’t hate him anymore, seems like he’s been good this year.
SEA!
by MFAN on Dec 6, 2009 5:46 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Think a lot of what we attribute the punter is not in fact under his control.
by John Morgan on Dec 6, 2009 5:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, good point. He probably can't control the way the ball bounces.
SEA!
by MFAN on Dec 6, 2009 5:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
My problem was with him overkicking his coverage
but not that Obomanu is playing gunner like a monster, that isn’t happening.
by John Morgan on Dec 6, 2009 5:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That can be controlled to some level...
much more than can a complete and utter lack of punt coverage gunners.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 6, 2009 9:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I just realized we eclipsed last year's win total
Has the team improved or is it just healthier?
by Anticitizen_One on Dec 6, 2009 5:52 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
This year is actually a reflection of getting healthier, better in some areas, but overall, there is a decline from 2007.
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Dec 6, 2009 5:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Rebuttal:
2009 has 100% less Brian Russell.
by Anticitizen_One on Dec 6, 2009 6:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You win
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Dec 6, 2009 7:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
We'll see him next week!
Watch him bounce off Force again….
by thebyron on Dec 7, 2009 8:41 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Improved because its healthier
people hate blaming wins and losses on injuries, even though they are one of the biggest reasons for wins and losses.
"Football players are temperamental. That's 90 percent temper and 10 percent mental." - Doug Plank
by Stevo's on Dec 6, 2009 6:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Just my opinion
But I really felt the 2008 Seahawks were a good team before that season started. The injuries completely destroyed that season and we never truly got to see what the 2008 team looked like when healthy. Even when Branch and Engram finally came back full time, the OL saw all five of its opening day starters hit the IR. Kerney also missed more than half the season, John Marshall over-compensated, and it had a huge impact on the pass rush and secondary effectiveness.
The 2009 team, we’ve had several weeks now of the team being almost completely healthy, and the team has looked decidedly mediocre and clearly in a collapse phase. QB wsa not truly addressed last offseason and Hasselbeck has become a game manager in the meantime. Despite the record, the end of 2009 feels farther from the Superbowl than the end of 2008 did. At least at the end of 2008, we felt the Seahawks could potentially make 1 more run if they stayed healthy and fixed a few areas. Now, the team needs almost a complete make-over and should take a long term approach to this offseason.
by kearly on Dec 6, 2009 6:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think we all have the same impression
I get your point. But I think its more perception than reality. Injuries ruined both seasons. The biggest difference is we never got to see how bad the 2008 team would be when healthy. That said, the talent of our 53 is better in 2009 than in 2008. At DE, DT, WR, and CB we are better.
I think in 2008 our talent was never as good as we thought it was. In 2009, our talent level might not be quite as bad as we think it is right now. If our offensive line had been healthy through October this might have turned into a very different season.
"Football players are temperamental. That's 90 percent temper and 10 percent mental." - Doug Plank
by Stevo's on Dec 6, 2009 6:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think the injuries early in 2009 were even worse than 2008
But as a whole, 2008 had injuries that continued the whole year, while in 2009 the injuries dried up about halfway.
Despite this, Seattle entered today’s game on pace for 5.24 “estimated wins” (football outsiders). Seattle may actually win 7 or 8 games this year due to an easy upcoming schedule, but they’ve played like a 5-11 team. Last year’s team won 4 games, but had 5.6 estimated wins. The 2009 Seahawks have an adjusted DVOA of 17.9%. 2008: 18.0%. So despite being injured all year and never getting to strut their stuff, they were still about as good as this years team.
We are better at WR this year, maybe CB, maybe DE, but not DT. Bernard was decent last year and Mebane was a monster at the 1. Cole has been pretty bad this year while Mebane has shown a lot less value playing the 3.
by kearly on Dec 6, 2009 10:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Whoops, DVOA values should be negative
by kearly on Dec 6, 2009 10:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think its not worth an argument
comparing two teams both brought down from so many injuries that their offenses fell apart, and then charting statistics to see “which one was better” seems silly to me. Both teams fell apart after injuries reduced the offensive lines to rubble. THe 2009 might be recovering now. But I think charting stats on the past year-and-a-half is just charting noise.
"Football players are temperamental. That's 90 percent temper and 10 percent mental." - Doug Plank
by Stevo's on Dec 7, 2009 8:15 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think I proved though that the two teams have basically played at about the same level
Despite 2009 being having some small window of health.
by kearly on Dec 7, 2009 6:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd rather win the last 4 games then have a top 10 draft pick
Hasselbeck is still our guy but indeed a replacement is needed. We are still alive in the wild card hunt and essentially the NFC West Championship if we keep winning and Arizona losing. Let’s just hope our Hawks can keep it up and Julius Jones had a pretty good game coming back from an injury.
by Seahawksfan23 on Dec 6, 2009 5:52 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Just Win. Good players will be there in the draft if you just look for them
Just ask the Patriots, Colts, and Steelers.
"Football players are temperamental. That's 90 percent temper and 10 percent mental." - Doug Plank
by Stevo's on Dec 6, 2009 6:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd be rooting for meaningless wins if I felt this team had something to build on
but instead, I see a fairly substantial turnover in the next 3 offseasons, especially if the team goes a radical new direction with its new GM.
by kearly on Dec 6, 2009 6:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
This team doesn't have anything to build on?
by John Morgan on Dec 6, 2009 7:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Every person on the 53-man is a bum I tell ya.
by BrianL on Dec 6, 2009 7:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think it does
This team has no elite talent at cornerstone positions (Mebane and Wilson are very good though) and a lot of players that are fuzzy scheme fits. And the team has no answer at QB. And we have a new GM coming in which could mean new coaches, new schemes (vertical offense? man blocking scheme? 3-4?), good players being jettisoned because they were part of the old regime, etc. I think by the next time this team sees the playoffs, we’ll have at least 80% roster turnover.
by kearly on Dec 6, 2009 10:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You really think we'll have a new coach at an important position sometime soon?
Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion...
by Cheddar28 on Dec 6, 2009 10:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
When Parcells joined Miami
The coaching staff had been there only 1 year, and he gutted it anyway.
I’m not making predictions, but yes I do think at least some coaching changes will be made. And at the very least, the team should probably replace Dehaven.
by kearly on Dec 6, 2009 10:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Moot point
Their record had nothing to do w/ why the coach let go. He was let go, b/c the new President of Football operations wanted his own people. Kearly’s point makes light of this. We don’t know who will be president and/or GM. Anything can happen.
by GnarlyHawk on Dec 7, 2009 2:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well yeah, assistant coaches and the like.
But surely at least Knapp, Bradley, and Mora won’t have warranted replacement by next year in anyone’s eyes.
Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion...
by Cheddar28 on Dec 7, 2009 1:21 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Its not about deserving to be let go
Ruskell didn’t deserve to be let go, he was essentially an above average GM in most respects. We can only speculate on the reason, but my own opinion is because fans/ownership were not pleased with the direction the team was going. I think the team decided to take a clean break and opt for a new direction.
A new GM will likely want his own set of tools to work with. It might not happen right away, but I think it will. When Ruskell joined, it was just a matter of time before he completely turned over the coaching staff to fit his own mold.
Its important that a coach and GM be cut from the same cloth. For example: Kraft/Belichick. If the next GM is in the same mold as Mora/Knapp, then they could stay. But that seems unlikely to me, because if that happened, why was Ruskell let go in the first place?
Allen has two companies working on what figures to be an exhaustive search. I think the best candidate will get the job, and I doubt they’d take an inferior GM prospect because he’d be a better fit with the personnel. When they hired Ruskell, he was substantially different from his predecessors, but they did it anyway because he came highly recommended and they felt he was the best hire. If the hire is not a fit, we can expect wholesale changes, most within the first few years and some changes would be immediate.
by kearly on Dec 7, 2009 7:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If Holmgren comes back
I think Mora and co are finished. I’m pretty ambivalent about that. I like Knapp’s playcalling, and it would really shine with a power back and a QB who can throw 15+ yards with any zip. Bradley’s defensive schemes seem good, but with people like Colin Cole, Patrick Kerney, Neck Reed, Craig Terrill, and Kelly Jennings, who needs enemies? Mora the head coach? Again, apathy.
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 7, 2009 3:41 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You could be right...
I hate to see the whole roster turned over but a lot does have to go for us to take a step forward.
by Mr. Blache III on Dec 6, 2009 10:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't want the roster to be turned over neccessarily
I just think it will be. Seattle will not be a serious contender again until it finds a QB and undergoes a complete overhaul of the offense. That will most likely take many years. Lets say it takes 4 years. What does the 2009 roster look like in comparison to 2005? About 80% different.
by kearly on Dec 6, 2009 10:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think we need more playmakers on Offense.
I actually think next year we can contend. The O-line gave Matt time to throw today and his WR’s could not get open. The one playmaker we do have hardly played…That being Forsett…and when he did play we was productive. Hass has struggled but I don’t think he’s been aided by his WR corps. Kolb would be nice but I still think with Matt we can contend next year with the right FA signs and draft.
by Mr. Blache III on Dec 6, 2009 11:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I just don't know what to make of our WRs
It seemed like such a solid corps coming into the season. Obviously a big setback was having to use Carlson to block but even when he’s targeted he hasn’t been exactly a weapon – with an exception or two. Are Branch, Housh, Burleson really all that slow?
Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion...
by Cheddar28 on Dec 7, 2009 1:23 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Branch and Housh are.
Burly hasn’t slowed as much but he doesn’t run discipline routes for the WCO..I think that’s where Ruskell went wrong. Our WR’s looked solid on the surface but when you really examine it we had many holes. Two WR coming off knee surgeries (Branch/ Burly) and two WR who haven’t been in the WCO offense at all (Butler/Housh).
The Offense is based on timing and rythm and it’s obvious Matt does not have that with this corp. I think we missed the boat in not drafting Crabtree to help this corp. Even aafter coming into the 49ers Offense in the middle of the season, it’s amazing how much of a grasp of the Offense Crabtree has. He’s a smart polished WR and would’ve a been a great fit for our Offense. I think Butler can become a solid #3 or at best a #2 option but what we have now doesn’t scare anyone. That’s why Defenses sit on our short routes and play so close up to our WR’s. Not to mention Matt’s arm isn’t at full stregnth too. But we still need a legitimate #1 option at WR.
by Mr. Blache III on Dec 7, 2009 7:40 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That isn't at all in line with what Leiweke (sp?) said
He’s looking for a GM that will be “joining the organization”, which was read as “you’re going to continue on with what’s developing” re: coaching staff, schemes, etc.
The demise of the Broncos in '09 is our future. Pray hard.
by Nick Andron on Dec 7, 2009 12:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ruskell wasn't pushed out because he was a bad GM
The team wants a new direction of some sort. If they aren’t, then why the fuck did they let Ruskell go? For what they currently run, they won’t find a better GM.
by kearly on Dec 7, 2009 6:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry, the way my response reads is confusing
I tried to make a short reply and it didn’t connect to your objection very well.
Anyway, this is the quote you were referring to:
Leiweke said the Seahawks are a desirable franchise and won’t be begging someone to take the job, meaning the Seahawks won’t have to drastically change the way they do business based on their hire.
"We’re not going to join them," he said. "They’re going to join us."
“They’re going to join us” is vague and could be interpreted a few ways. John Boyle of the Herald, who broke this story, interprets this language as meaning the Seahawks “won’t be begging someone to take the job.” In other words, its alpha dog language. They want whoever they hire to understand his place in the pecking order.
Your interpretation, that the team wants someone who fits the existing personnel, is a valid interpretation. This led to my initial response above, in which I posed the question of why a team would let a good GM go if only to replace him with the same thing, only less qualified? If the team really wants to build a team off of Mora/Knapp/Bradley, then why release Ruskell when he is most likely the best GM available for that personnel? It wouldn’t make any sense.
I think more likely, a substantial change is coming. The team has a QB on his last NFL legs with no handpicked successor, an OL that is still early in its transition to ZBS (only Unger would potentially struggle moving back to man), and the skill positions are mostly old and lack a long term foundational piece, other than maybe Forsett in a limited sense. If the team wants to give up on the WCO and try something else, the timing could not be better. Similarly, the defense is not perfectly suited for the Tampa 2, which is beginning to look like an outdated system anyway. A lot of resources will need to be added to fit that system before it will truly work. So the timing to change defensive philosophies could make sense as well.
For that reason, combined with the fact that Ruskell wasn’t let go for being a bad GM, I think the team will likely go a new direction with their new GM, and if they do, Mora and company will have their days numbered, whether they deserve it or not.
by kearly on Dec 7, 2009 7:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
John, I'm confused
I read your post twice now, and you seem to be making a case for Hasselbeck not declining like a running back and being capable, even good. You point to the Niners having spent higher draft picks on players, including a #1 on Smith. Smith is only 25 but is not yet better than Hasselbeck, and he may never be. Then you wish Hass well making his final millions on another team, NOT the Seahawks. I do cringe when I see Matt continually throw short to his outlet receiver, or throw the ball away even when he’s not under pressure. I don’t think he’s a great QB. He was very, very good, but never great, and certainly far from great now. At the same time, as you point out, he’s the best we’ve ever had and until I see a capable replacement on the roster (clearly not Seneca and we don’t know about Teel), I don’t concur with your desire to send him packing. I say be careful what you wish for. We could be in for years of poor QB play with a rash decision such as made by too many teams to list here.
by diehard82 on Dec 6, 2009 6:55 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I'd rather Seattle endured a failed quarterback than hold on to Hasselbeck and hope for the almost impossible.
Hasselbeck had about as good a game as I think he can have. He helped Seattle beat a mediocre team at home. Seattle needs someone young to grow with the young talent that must be drafted for Seattle to contend again. Hasselbeck deserves to play for a semi-built team like Cleveland and not getting sacked to ruin while Seattle rebuilds.
by John Morgan on Dec 6, 2009 7:03 PM PST up reply actions 3 recs
Cleveland?!?
I thought you liked Matt. You want to send him to football purgatory?!?
He deserves a better place to ride off into the sunset.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 6, 2009 9:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It's time to make a deal for Kolb..
With two 1st Rd picks next year it gives us flexiblity to address the Hass situation the way Holmgren addressed the Kitna situation. Swap our early 1st Rd pick with the Eagles 1st Rd Pick and throw in a 3rd to get the QB of the future Hawks. Kolb knows the WCO and we will utlimately just be losing a 3Rd pick to get a guy we won’t have to develop as much as rookie out of the Draft. We can use our latter 1st Rd picks on a OL and a playmaker..young WR would be nice.
by Mr. Blache III on Dec 6, 2009 10:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm starting to think Kolb makes a ton of sense
There isn’t a QB in this draft that screams WCO QB and is also a legit 1st round prospect. Bradford is the closest, but he comes from the spread and its starting to look like Seattle won’t draft high enough to have a realistic shot at him.
by kearly on Dec 6, 2009 10:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think we have a third this year.
Personally, I think a first round pick is PLENTY for Kolb. No reason to give away our entire draft. If anything, give them the first and Colin Cole.
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 7, 2009 3:43 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He said to swap picks, not give them a 1st ropunder ouright.
It’d involve moving down around 15 spots in the first.
by redwolf75 on Dec 7, 2009 10:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, that makes more sense.
It was early.
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 7, 2009 1:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You'd have to give up more for Kolb.
The difference is that Hasselbeck was a 6th round pick that had spent time on the practice squad and had never started and had thrown 29 regular season passes in garbage time. Kolb is a high 2nd round pick with 2 starts (one of them a win) and 130 regular season passes.
If Kolb is even available, I think the best we could hope for is to get him for one of our 1st round picks straight up.
by Mind of no mind on Dec 7, 2009 12:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think the swap is enough along with a 2nd Round pick..
But instead of moving back I think our 2nd 1st RD pick should be enough to swing Kolb. It would make less sense to move back and give up a 2nd RD pick when we could just trade Philly our late 1st Round pick and keep the early 1st RD pick and our 2nd Rd (which wouldn’t be that far behind the pick we would trade to Philly anyway). Either way we need to get Kolb on this team. McNabb is due is big contract and he will get it in Philly.
I would then draft Tate and sign Boldin and release some of the bad contracts we have. Even if Hass starts next year the ground work would be laid for the new wave of Hawks once Hass is gone. Kolb, Force, Boldin, Tate, Housh, and Butler is a huge upgrade at skill positions for our team. One offseason can mean so much.
by Mr. Blache III on Dec 7, 2009 2:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Am I the only who DOESN'T want Kolb?
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Dec 7, 2009 7:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
why don't you?
I don’t have strong feelings, just wondering.
by kearly on Dec 7, 2009 7:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Simply because of what it would cost to get him.
And he’s not a proven performer.
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Dec 8, 2009 7:52 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I still like Matt, sorry.
I know Matt is at the end of the road in a year or two, but as long as he is the Hawks QB I know this team at least has a chance in most games. Do the Hawks need to look at QB in the draft this year, yes, but from what I have seen from the QB’s in college, none are NFL ready coming out (and from what alot of scouts have said). So if Matt playes well next year and the team drafts a QB this year, then I say re-sign Matt to a two year deal and let the rookie take over (if ready) in 2011 and have Matt as the veteran backup QB (if the rookie is ready to win the job).
Sorry, I still like the guy and he can still play when the O-line is not falling all over themselves, and the running game, well, runs (by the way where was Forsett today). With time, things will shake out, but at this time I’m still on Matts side until this team drafts someone better, end of story.
by JustinWF on Dec 6, 2009 7:37 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Forsett wasn't fully healthy
And Jones was.
Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion...
by Cheddar28 on Dec 6, 2009 10:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I like Matt as well
But it’s time to let Matt go … He clearly doesn’t have the zip needed for the WCO too many times he is let getting the ball to the receivers. I would LOVE for the Hawks to trade/cut Hasslebeck and sign Campbell and pick up a QB in the draft.
by cthunder on Dec 7, 2009 9:37 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
What a game. Babs gets my game ball.
Matt was good but shouldn’t have taken that hit. Forsett should have played a lot more.
"Superhero like even"
by censor1979 on Dec 6, 2009 8:34 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
He was partially injured
going into the game.
by Fear on Dec 6, 2009 10:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I feel like I'm going
to be saying this a lot over the next week.
by Fear on Dec 6, 2009 10:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Justin doesnt make the calls
He Just-in Force-etts em
by somepnoy9189 on Dec 6, 2009 10:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He looked alright to me, but whatever.
"Superhero like even"
by censor1979 on Dec 7, 2009 9:47 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
John mentioned that he motioned to the sidelines several times during the game indicating he needed to step off.
I’m doubtful he was healthy enough to play more snaps than he did.
by BrianL on Dec 7, 2009 10:10 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Butler's grab scared the shit out of me.
I kept waiting and waiting and waiting for the ref to throw the offensive pass interference flag. But it never came. That’s when I celebrated.
I will smash your face into a jelly.
by Phildopip on Dec 6, 2009 8:36 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
You too huh?
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Dec 6, 2009 9:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
More Butler!
That was an exciting moment. It was the unknown. Had that receiver been Courtney Taylor or some other wannabee NFL player disguised as a Seattle wideout, I’d have been bracing myself for the inevitable drop or foot out of bounds. Butler made the play in a big spot. Wonderful. :)
by Misfit74 on Dec 6, 2009 9:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Not so fast!
Gameball goes to Babs IMO. 9 tackles, half a sack and a game saving forced fumble.
by the777joker777 on Dec 6, 2009 9:31 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
he may have had his best game this year
"Football players are temperamental. That's 90 percent temper and 10 percent mental." - Doug Plank
by Stevo's on Dec 7, 2009 8:08 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Watching Hass this year is giving me brain damage
but I still love the guy. It’s not his fault we have failed to put his successor on the bench for the last 2-3 years.
by Hancock.Brett on Dec 6, 2009 9:50 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I like Matt
But this year he hasn’t played very well. I attribute some of it to our o line, but doesn’t it seem like he really goes down early to protect himself? Also, his lack of zip on passes limits what kind of throws he can make. I vote for a new QB, a young one from the draft, using one of our 1st rounders.
by TheSteelersRuinedMyBirthday on Dec 6, 2009 9:56 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
It's a weird mix!
At times I find myself blaming Hass for not making good throws or finding open WR’s when he has time to throw. I feel that every completion he makes is usually a breadown in the play that’s called or when Matt has to scramble and WR’s are freelancing….that makes for inconsistant Offense. But the weird mix is it’s not always Matts fault….Several times today his WR’s were not getting separation. I think our new GM may be inhereting some good pieces on Defense but our WR corps leaves more to be desired.
Ruskell put this WR group together and there is no rythm between Hass and this group. I felt that Hass had that rythm with D-Jack, Engram, Vicious, Hackett, and even K-Rob…He does not look in sync with this group or this group lacks the speed or agility to get good separation. It forces Matt to be perfect with every throw, more than the avg QB. So I find myself upset with Matt but also upset with our WR’s corps. I don’t know if both need an upgrade or just one or the other. I’m more on the WR’s upgrade fence now but that could change with the next pass I see from Matt.
Also, why was Forsett not used more in this game. I really think that forced the game to be closer then it needed to be.
by Mr. Blache III on Dec 6, 2009 9:56 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Golden Tate! Golden Tate! Golden Tate!
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Dec 6, 2009 10:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh.. and I'm beginning to think maybe Forsett's injury was a little more serious than previously thought.
5 carries???? I’m sorry, but he’s proven that he deserves a lot more carries than that.
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Dec 6, 2009 10:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Hell yes!
I love Tate…he’s the kind of tough playmaker we need. He should fall to us late in the draft to.
by Mr. Blache III on Dec 6, 2009 10:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He might fall into the 2nd.
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Dec 6, 2009 10:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That makes two of us!
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Dec 7, 2009 7:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Wouldn't Kolb and Golden Tate help!
Those two with Forsett as our feature back would usher this team into the next Seahawk dynasty. WE NEED KOLB! Free Agent sign of Boldin too. Release Branch, W.Jones (well maybe not Jones), JJ, Kerney, and Burly.
QB-Kolb
RB- Forsett
WR- Boldin, Housh, Tate, Butler
TE-Carlson
Now we have palymakers.
by Mr. Blache III on Dec 6, 2009 10:34 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Who is Kolb?
I don’t recognize his name. Where is he from?
I would take
1a Spller
1b OL
2 QB
5 Blount
We need playmakers with speed on offense.
by blazerbill on Dec 6, 2009 11:31 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
He's the third string QB for the Eagles
though he’s essentially 2nd in line of succession since Vick isn’t going to take over primary QB duties.
by Fear on Dec 6, 2009 11:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, he's really the 2nd guy in line there.
Essentially we would swap 1st RD Picks (with Philly getting our earlier 1st RD and us getting the Eagles late 1st Rd Pick) and then give them our 3rd Rd pick. We will still have two 1st Rd picks but only lose a 3rd Rd pick in the deal. That’s worth a back up of Kolb’s potential.
That’s what we gave up for Matt. We moved from 10th to 17th in the 1st Rd and gave them our 3rd Rd pick and got their 7th Rd pick. We got Matt and drafted Hutch with the 17th pick.
by Mr. Blache III on Dec 6, 2009 11:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
We don't have a 3rd round pick this year
In fact, IIRC the Eagles have our 3rd rounder.
by chrees on Dec 7, 2009 8:18 AM PST via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
We could give the 3rd rounder from 2011.
by redwolf75 on Dec 7, 2009 10:41 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And keep doing it
It worked so well for the economy.
Our next ten first round picks, cash em in. We’ll sweep the top 10 and make a splash.
by jacobstevens on Dec 7, 2009 10:45 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The next Matt Schaub apparently.
abender20 hates freedom.
by Scruffy Lefty on Dec 7, 2009 11:00 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
MOTHER FUCKING PLAYOFFS HERE WE FUCKING COME
HASS HASS HASS
by Robert on Dec 7, 2009 12:01 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
"Seattle beat a better team than itself today"
What the heck does that mean? The players proved who the best team was by who won. That’s how it works. I don’t care who is supposed to be better on paper.
The 49ers came into our stadium with all the incentive to win. We had no incentive but self-respect. They had physically beaten us in the first matchup this season, injured our QB, and ruined our season in only its second game. After that first game, the 49ers crowed about being the best team in our division. This game was a grudge match. The 49ers needed the win to stay in playoff contention; they had all the incentive to win.
And we beat them. We are the better team.
"Football players are temperamental. That's 90 percent temper and 10 percent mental." - Doug Plank
by Stevo's on Dec 7, 2009 8:21 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
How are we the better team when we spit this year with them?
Using your theory we be equal then.
by Mr. Blache III on Dec 7, 2009 8:31 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
From a pure talent perspective the 49ers are a better team.
We beat a team with better talent, ergo we beat a better team.
by BrianL on Dec 7, 2009 8:57 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yep.
The 49ers pretty much had the Vikings beat (in Minneapolis) and nearly pulled one out w/ the Colts (in Indianapolis). The Hawks can’t even come close to that.
The demise of the Broncos in '09 is our future. Pray hard.
by Nick Andron on Dec 7, 2009 12:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
True, and yet both teams are 5-7
Don’t forget that the Seahawks were raped by injuries in the 1st half of the season, too.
If you broke down the teams by position and depth, would the 49ers really have more talent? How many people here would have said that back in August? Other than Brendan Scolari.
I would agree that SF has more elite talent, but overall talent, I’d say its very, very close.
by kearly on Dec 7, 2009 7:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Fooch?
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Dec 7, 2009 7:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I suppose you think the Raiders are a better team than the Steelers?
Or that the Rams are almost better than the Saints?
I will smash your face into a jelly.
by Phildopip on Dec 7, 2009 9:03 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
We play again, we don't necessarily win
The 49ers are better. Not just talent. They deliver in more ways, more often, on the field. We caught some real breaks with the referees, I didn’t agree with most of what went our way.
by jacobstevens on Dec 7, 2009 10:21 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Sometimes the better team loses. That happens, too
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Dec 7, 2009 7:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
From the stands, Hass didn't look so great. I enjoyed that he could throw a deep ball, but from the 300 level, it looked like he maybe had a few more guys open down field than he threw to.
by BrettJMiller on Dec 7, 2009 10:07 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I really wish I had a better angle on TV to see plays from.
Did the receivers look like they were having trouble getting separation yesterday?
by BrianL on Dec 7, 2009 10:12 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Not too much.
One throw that really stood out to me was the deep throw to a wide-open Burleson, but it was so underthrown Burly had to basically stop and wait for it, and then the DB ran in front and knocked it down. In general, it seemed like his pocket awareness wasn’t superb, and he did fumble twice…he also seemed reluctant to throw anything too far past 10 yards most the time. It seemed like he had some guys open over the middle or on the sidelines a few times, but he’d then just dump it off.
I was encouraged that he managed a few deeper passes, but as much as Matt has been my favorite Seahawk, he just doesn’t look right anymore. The shoulder has gotta be more of an issue than he’s letting on.
by BrettJMiller on Dec 7, 2009 12:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Agree w/ the shoulder comment
The demise of the Broncos in '09 is our future. Pray hard.
by Nick Andron on Dec 7, 2009 12:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I noticed several times
he sacked himself. He seemed to either want to stand still in the pocket, or scramble out of it. He wasn’t moving around with the pocket. I think he’s still got trust issues with the line, though they seem to be giving him adequate protection. Every time he got sacked, I think he had at least 3 seconds to throw (except the one where the LG completely blew his assignment).
by Fear on Dec 7, 2009 1:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He did mention on the radio post-game that there were some pass pro issues early on.
I didn’t really see them, it looked more like Hass was hesitant.
by BrettJMiller on Dec 7, 2009 1:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
There were times it felt like he was hanging onto the ball for an eternity.
by BrianL on Dec 7, 2009 1:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I felt the same way. A few people in my section, me included at times, couldn't help but yell "Just throw the damn ball already!"
by BrettJMiller on Dec 7, 2009 1:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I started counting from the snap
because I wasn’t sure if it was my imagination or not. Sure enough, Hass seemed to hold onto the ball for 4 seconds, 5 seconds, 6 seconds. 3 seconds I believe is the amount of time an offensive line is expected to hold off the DL, any longer and it’s on the QB because he should have gotten rid of the ball by then.
by Fear on Dec 7, 2009 2:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
See, to me
one of the biggest issues with Hasselbeck has become not taking the extra second or two to see if the play will develop late, on the few occasions that extra time is available. I think he’s always stuck religiously to the internal clock, and that clock ticks faster now after a few years of poor protection.
by jacobstevens on Dec 7, 2009 2:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
There's taking an extra second to make your reads
and then there’s sitting in the pocket for way, way too long.
by BrianL on Dec 7, 2009 2:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And you've been seeing that?
I haven’t. A small handful of plays yesterday, he got a lot of protection. One really stood out but by second 5 he threw it out of the back of the end zone. No one was close to him, might as well wait to see if/how the coverage breaks down. I haven’t seen him let a play last to the point that he held the ball too long.
by jacobstevens on Dec 7, 2009 3:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He seems to be checking down to quickly.
by Scruffy Lefty on Dec 8, 2009 11:00 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That's what I was getting at
thanks for the succinctness.
by jacobstevens on Dec 8, 2009 11:05 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You are probably correct
I admit its not something I noticed though. What I did notice is that ever since he returned in the Jacksonville game, 90% of his passes look like he’s throwing whiffle balls. I’m guessing his passes take an extra quarter second to arrive than a normal NFL QB’s would.
by kearly on Dec 7, 2009 7:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, he seems hesitant to make longer throws
by TheSteelersRuinedMyBirthday on Dec 7, 2009 12:46 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Because he can't
make the longer throws.
by GnarlyHawk on Dec 7, 2009 2:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
For those of you wondering
Mora confirmed during today’s press conference that Forsett was limited yesterday because of the quad.
by BrianL on Dec 7, 2009 2:24 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
There is why
he is not the answer. Two games as a starter and he’s unable to take carries.
by GnarlyHawk on Dec 7, 2009 2:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It's not because he was the starter for two games that he got hurt.
It happened in practice, just so you know.
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Dec 7, 2009 7:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd been suspecting that.
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Dec 7, 2009 7:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

by 

















