2008 Seattle Seahawks Season Retrospective: Matt Hasselbeck
by John Morgan on Jul 27, 2009 11:33 AM PDT
Email
Print
Overview: Matt Hasselbeck started week one of the preseason, completed seven of eight passes for 70 yards and a touchdown and then was held out the rest of the season with lingering back pain. On the eve of week one, Chris Mortensen reports that Hasselbeck has a bulging a disc in his back. He starts in week one, but starts only seven games all season. It is his worse season of his career. Hasselbeck completes 52.2% of his passes for 1,216 yards, throws five touchdowns and 10 interceptions, and is sacked 19 times for a loss of 119 yards.
What went right: Matt Hasselbeck is a smart man -- and not just football smart. Mike Holmgren opened the playbook when Hasselbeck started and trusted him to call audibles. He did a better job protecting the ball under pressure and only fumbled once. Unexpectedly, he also rushed for a higher yards per attempt than at any other time in his career.
What went wrong: Hasselbeck was skittish in the pocket and shied from pressure to a fault. He took bad sacks. He couldn't consistently make his bread and butter mid-range throws and that, along with game situation, inflated his interception rate to a career high. Hasselbeck's short pass that served him well in 2007, vanished. His already vanishing deep pass was written out of the playbook. Hasselbeck's long completion in 2009 was just 34 yards. He was below average, significantly below average, across the board in Pro Football Reference's index stats. Stats that compare basic stats like interception percentage and yards per attempt against the league average. He became a liability executing late game drives, ending final possession drives in weeks 11 and 12 with first pass, game-losing interceptions. Seattle was trailing by less than a touchdown in both games.
Outlook: Coming to terms with how bad Hasselbeck was in 2008 is essential to deciding how good he can be in 2009. He was season-altering bad. If we could imagine the Hasselbeck that took the field for seven weeks could have somehow taken the field for 16 weeks, then we can make an educated guess about how many wins his decline cost Seattle. Brian Burke estimated every adjusted yard per attempt above average equals about 1.8 wins in the standings. In 2007, the NFL averaged about 6.5 A/YA. Hasselbeck averaged 7.1. Hasselbeck, working within Seattle's system and without great receiving talent, was worth about 1.1 wins over average. In 2008, the NFL averaged about 7 A/YA. Hasselbeck averaged 4.1. Hasselbeck, working within Seattle's system and without great receiving talent, was worth about 5.2 wins below average. That's a 6.3 win swing.
Hasselbeck didn't play all season, but you can't just average Hasselbeck and Seneca Wallace. It's too messy. Wallace played in a different system and his limitations affected the play of Seattle's rushing attack. Nevertheless, we can say with some confidence, had the injured Hasselbeck of 2008 been replaced with the healthy Hasselbeck of 2007, Seattle would have been in the thick of the playoff hunt.
So what's left for the man that bears northwest professional football on his shoulder pads?
If he's healthy, 2007 is not just possible, it's surmountable. Hasselbeck has his best collection of receiving talent, top to bottom, of his career. T.J. Houshmandzadeh is the single best, from terms of productivity, talent and health, wide receiver Hasselbeck has ever thrown to. Deion Branch is the most talented and should prove it if he stumbles into fourteen healthy weeks. Nate Burleson has long longed for the slot and can do more doing less. Deon Butler might not light up the box score, but he will disrupt coverages. John Carlson is the single best tight end Hasselbeck has ever thrown to and one of the best young tight ends in football. And Julius Jones can catch the ball.
The line has strong potential for solid pass blocking. A healthy Walter Jones gives Seattle three plus pass-blockers at the three essential pass-blocking positions: both tackles and center. Rob Sims is a brick in the middle and whoever mans the left guard position shouldn't undermine the line. Jones is strong at engaging the blitz and Carlson isn't good, but is developing.
Greg Knapp's system is less demanding and less pass-centric.
Matt Hasselbeck said he was 100% entering week one of 2008. Maybe that was a lie. Maybe he was. Hasselbeck took five sacks against Buffalo. Sims dangling pectoral apologizes. Whatever he was after that, he wasn't 100%. If Hasselbeck started last season at full strength but his back was just to far gone to retain it, or if Hasselbeck's current 100% resembles the tenuous, fragile and perhaps false health he had to start 2008, we might see glimpses of the great Matt Hasselbeck, but they will be between extended viewings of frustration and failure. And when April of 2010 breeds lilacs out of dead land, mixing memory and desire, Seahawks fans will crowd their TVs and PCs late Thursday afternoon and watch Seattle begin anew.
62 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
A+
I enjoyed this. The outlook was particularly insightful. The YPA info was great. Thanks again. We are spoiled as Seahawk fans in search of meaningful information. This is it. There is certainly some hope for this season, and it’s even better when fortified with factual analysis. Sweet.
Early prospect watch: RB C.J. Spiller, QB Jevon Snead, OT Ciron Black, DT Gerald McCoy, S Eric Berry, DT Ndamukong Suh, CB Ras-I Dowling 6'2, 200, RB Jonathan Dwyer
I just hope that
Good season or crappy one, the Seahawks need to take a serious look at a first round QB in 2010. Part of me is very scared that Ruskell thinks Teel is the future at QB.
Ruskell thinks we've got time to take fliers on 6th-round QBs
If he thought Teel would be “the guy”, then he’d probably use a higher pick than a 6th. Timmah is willing to take a gamble on later-round QBs like Teel and Frye and Greene (in the 3rd) until he thinks he’s out of time. I think we’re probably getting close, though, and the second 1st-rounder will make it easier for him to grab a play-caller next year.
As far as taking a QB higher than 6th
Thanks to the great trade for Denver’s future 1st and the subsequent trades for Unger and Butler, the Seahawks 1st pick after round 3 was the pick they used for Teel.
Additionally, the 2009 draft was remarkably barren for mid round QB’s. That is why a 2nd round (and very raw) prospect like Freeman was pushed all the way into the mid 1st round, and why White, a guy that is similar to Seneca Wallace, went in the first half of the 2nd round. Even if you think those guys deserved to be drafted where they were, after White there was a massive talent dropoff. No QB’s were taken in the 3rd, only 1 taken in the 4th, and when Rhett Bomar was picked with the 151st pick in the draft, he was only the 6th QB taken to that point. To put that in perspective, David Greene was the 6th QB taken in a horrific draft for talent (2005), and he was the 85th overall pick.
After passing on Sanchez, and considering the trades they made to fill out roster needs, the 6th round was pretty much the earliest they could have drafted a QB, and even if they had maneuvered a little differently and drafted a QB in the 4th or 5th, the talent pool was basically about the same as the 6th round. Its very possible that Ruskell drafted Teel thinking that in relative terms, this was his “mid round” flier QB. That’s what terrifies me. If we had a slightly more rational GM (in terms of the QB position), I’d just assume that Teel is a roster filler (because the Seahawks did need a 3rd QB) and not a long term solution. But ever since Ruskell’s minor coup from drafting Schaub, he thinks he can strike gold with any mid/late round scrub, and we’ve seen the results for ourselves.
Hopefully he’s learned his lesson, but until he drafts a 1st round QB, I’ll remain skeptical.
"1st pick after round 3"? It was a 6th round pick. Nothing more, nothing less.
That’s when 3rd-tier QBs are often picked. Lots of teams pick late-round QBs. No one has any higher expectations for Mike Teel than we had for Charlie Frye last year . No matter how dumb you think Ruskell is, he’s not going to depend on a 6th-round QB to lead the franchise. If Mike Teel works out, great. If he doesn’t, we’ll probably pick a 1st-rounder in the next year or two.
Ruskell knows that Hasselbeck is nearing his twilight years as a QB and that we need a QB of the future. While many of would want him to take a QB earlier rather than later (and some want Matt Lienart v2.0), he’s going to pick a QB when he feels he can get value and before he thinks Matt is done.
Tim Ruskell
is selectively honest/dishonest, which is something I like about him- but he has said repeatedly that he shies away from 1st round QB’s. After all, very early in his career he was burned badly by drafting Trent Dilfer in the early 1st round, and Dilfer was horrific in Tampa.
Maybe he’s lying again and he really does have a secret plan to draft a QB early in 2010. But my gut doubts it. He drafted Greene in the 3rd round. When that didn’t work out, he traded for Frye, who was taken in the same round in the same draft as Greene. He could have drafted Sanchez or traded for Stafford, but didn’t. Safety was one of the teams biggest needs entering draft day but it was prioritized lower than acquiring Teel.
If Hasselbeck plays well this season, it removes the urgency to draft a QB (even though it shouldn’t), and most likely, Ruskell will spend that bought extra time to see how Teel does.
Of course, I hope you are right, and the team drafts a 1st round QB next year. I just don’t possess your confidence.
I don't know.
I would hope Timmy is smart enough to not base his decisions off of a sample size of one. If you make 8 first round picks a few of them will turn out to be busts. Do you say, the ones that were busts, you’re never going to draft again in the first round? No.
Haha
Ruskell bases his decisions off a tremendous wealth of information. I worry more that he OVER thinks things.
by Hawkhammer19 on Jul 29, 2009 8:08 PM PDT up reply actions
i like the approach
of taking fliers on guys hoping for tom brady or matt hasslebeck, but now with two first rounders we are almost certainly taking a QB in 2010.
I highly doubt we take a QB at any point in the 2010 draft
Both Matt and Seneca become FAs in 2011. I would think we are set with what we got until then. If somehow Matt stays pretty healthy over the next two years and looks like he keep it going a few more years then we’ll resign him. If he’s done then I think it’s fair to give Seneca an honest look if he continues to improve. By then we’ll also have a better idea of what kind of QB Teel is and have given him some time to learn the system behind a very intelligent Hasselbeck.
If Teel shows promise then we let him compete for the job with whichever older QB we bring back. As it stands right now, Matt’s the man until he’s not. I hate teams like the Packers and Chargers who put their team through the turmoil of having multiple starting quality QBs. We’ll look at QBs early when Matt is done or in his 36+ twilight years, and not before giving Teel a look. Remember, if the Teel experiment doesn’t work then we’ll be bad and get our high pick to be used on a QB.
Drafting a first round QB is like picking a peach from the tree in my back yard. Too early and it’s sour. Too late and it’ll spoil. TR is setting up perfectly in my opinion. We need the Denver pick for Mays or Berry. With the other picks we’ll go best value possible.
by Hawkhammer19 on Jul 27, 2009 6:58 PM PDT up reply actions
If matt has another injury riddled year
we definitively probably take a QB in 2010. We might anyway and give the rook a year or two to learn. I think picking one and expecting him to start from day one may not be the best idea. But who knows. It hinges a lot on what happens this year and what QB is available at the time we pick.
by B.B.Finnegan on Jul 27, 2009 7:16 PM PDT up reply actions
Too early to tell.
If Matt is horrible or only plays 8 games, and we have the 8th pick, and McCoy, Snead, or some other QB is available, Timmy would to think long and hard about getting a QB. I’d rather go for Berry and the best DT available, but that’s if Matt bounces backs.
Matt has another injury riddled season
BUT Seneca does well again in Matt’s absence, what then? Things would be similarly unclear as they were this year. I like TR’s approach this year with taking the best player available at a position of relative need and give the QB under contract the green light. I don’t see much reason or chance for TR to react differently next year.
I’d probably hold off in face of all but a complete collapse of all three of our present QBs for me to support us taking a QB with our top pick. I very much doubt that is going to happen, I think Matt is going to bounce back in a big way but I’m still strongly considering what happens if he doesn’t. However, if somehow the clouds part and one of the top QBs is available and looks to be a steal with our second pick then I can hardly dispute.
by Hawkhammer19 on Jul 27, 2009 7:54 PM PDT up reply actions
Seneca's success last season was unsustainable.
He’s a solid backup quarterback, but we probably shouldn’t bank on him to be a starting caliber player for any length of time.
Teel is a late round project QB that may pan out, but we probably shouldn’t bank on that either. If we’re looking for a QB of the future, the best bet will likely be to take the first QB in next year’s draft. We’ll likely have the resources to get that QB that we may not have for a long time.
"Bank" on Seneca and Teel?
No no no. I’d just rather wait one year for when Matt and Seneca are FAs and we have a ton more flexibility at QB to decide on the future face of the franchise. If Teel’s shown flashes of being starter caliber then I see no reason to not give him one season to step up and win the starting job from a respectable veteran QB Seneca Wallace.
If that plan fails then we’ll have a bad record and probably have a pretty good look at that first round QB. This QB will be in a much better situation than if we brought him in next year when he runs the risk getting lost behind a resurgent veteran who has some how found how to stay healthy since the drafting of his competition (Leinart). It’d be better to let the kid come in with competition but a long term vote of confidence (like Stafford and Sanchez).
On the other hand, we could replace the bane of our defense (Brian Russell) with a beast (Mays) or a playmaker (Berry). That difference makes a questionable secondary for an otherwise dangerous defense look to be a dangerous secondary for an elite defense. A lot can change in a year but right now it seems better to hope for other things.
by Hawkhammer19 on Jul 27, 2009 9:44 PM PDT up reply actions
...besides a first round QB.
Because that could really only indicate a complete failure of what we have presently. We’re treading in dangerous waters right now but thus far I’m pleased with how TR has kept his head about the QB situation.
It’s also a reputation of confidence in high paid veterans that helps attract FAs like Housh. QB is the most important position on the field and therefore easy to misinterpret the reality of the present situation. Despite the failure of David Green, I feel we are in capable hands from a personnel perspective at QB.
by Hawkhammer19 on Jul 27, 2009 9:59 PM PDT up reply actions
With two first round picks for the next draft the Seahawks could find themselves in a position to take the first overall QB in the draft.
That’s a position they may not find themselves in for a long, long time. After the first QB taken, there’s a steady dropoff in quality at that position.
QB is a position where there is a marked scarcity of talent. I’m not sure it’s wise to mess around by experimenting with late-round QBs when our incumbent starter has been seriously injured in two of the past three seasons and is a free agent in two seasons. In my mind it seems prudent to act sooner rather than later.
Are you so confident in Bradford, McCoy, Tebow, Snead... (There's a scarcity of QBs in the right situation to succeed)
Drafting a QB next year will completely strangle any renegotiations with Seneca and Matt. With a top pick around for competition, why would either of them stay? Is anyone that confident in Teel to be the backup? I’d rather restrain for a year to see how it turns out before committing.
We have an aging banged up star, a decent and exciting backup , and a young flier with some good qualities. We’re really in a pretty good spot. We’re not being forced to act immediately and we have some time to get the rest of the team together before we name it’s future general.
I’m not against taking a QB with a high pick. However, Timing is essential. Time it right and things like Matt Ryan happen. Even Peyton struggled as a rookie but a top 10 pick should be the type that learns and perseveres. I want him competing for the job from day one.
by Hawkhammer19 on Jul 28, 2009 1:12 AM PDT up reply actions
In all honesty, negotiations are the last thing the FO should be worried about.
Hasselbeck knows that his time is nearly up. Seneca is not a starter. Taking a QB in the next draft would give the rookie a year to sit and learn.
You know, I lost my father. Ah, he'll turn up. Have you checked the dumpster out back? He used to like to take a nap in there."
-George Carlin
by Wayward Llama on Jul 28, 2009 4:16 AM PDT up reply actions
I disagree.
The fact that Seneca and Matt are FA’s in 2011 makes it even more important to look at drafting a quarterback, especially early, when the draft will be deeper in QB’s than this past year.
That QB, if selected can ride the bench and learn, provided that Matt is healthy.
I think the Seahawks will look at quarterbacks next year, not when Matt is 36+. That’s a ridiculously long time to wait. The time is now. It would be irresponsible not to take a look during next year’s draft. Heck, you mentioned the Packers. Guess what? They drafted Aaron Rodgers in Brett Favre’s age 35 year. Matt will be 35 next year.
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Jul 28, 2009 7:05 PM PDT up reply actions
QB does look pretty deep next year.
All the more reason to not use the top pick on one. QB is the most influential position, but it’s also the most influenced by the other positions. I see lots of young QBs in the league with good qualities. I see a lot fewer in a good position to be successful. Of course they will look at the QBs but I don’t see us taking one unless it’s a total steal from where we’re drafting.
The Packers’ and Chargers’ situations were horrible. Have people already forgotten the stink those controversies created?
The Chargers selected Rivers with the 4th pick of the 2004 draft. Then Brees has a huge season and the Chargers go 12-4. They lost in the Wild-Card game 17-20 in OT. Don’t you think they would’ve been more successful if they had taken someone else? But they didn’t, dropped off, and gave away arguably the best QB in football.
Aaron Rodgers was admittedly a steal to be taken with the 24th pick but the Pack suffered as well. They proceed to go 4-12 and 8-8 the next two seasons. After reemerging in 2007 but coming up short (another first rounder could have helped), they kill their momentum by removing their starting QB. The betrayal to one of the true heroes of the franchise was much publicized and got pretty ugly for everyone.
The QB sit-and-learn is a nice idea but it often creates more problems than it solves. I like both Rivers and Rodgers but despite their successes, their teams still struggle to hit their stride(Chargers 8-8 and Packers 6-10 last year). I’d say they’d have been better off waiting on a QB and using the top pick for something else.
I can maybe somehow kinda see the logic in taking Rivers and Rodgers with Brees and Favre around because there weren’t any other viable options behind them. But the Seahawks DO have some talent behind Hasselbeck, even if it isn’t the dream-boat franchise QB you nancies dream about. Waiting two or three years is hardly a long time in the grand scheme of things and there’s always first round talent at QB. Let’s give our future QB another top pick around him.
by Hawkhammer19 on Jul 28, 2009 10:55 PM PDT up reply actions
Nancies? Really?
Are we members of a B-25 bomber crew swigging beers after a particularly rough mission over Dusseldorf?
by djafrot on Jul 29, 2009 3:00 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Getting Rivers was a brilliant move by the Chargers
They traded the rights to Eli Manning for the rights to Rivers + 3 more draft picks, which they used on Shawne Merriman, Nate Kaeding and Roman Oben. (I also think it’s a stretch to say that Brees is the best QB in football, but you did say “arguably.”)
I know there are a lot of people clamoring for one of our first-round picks to be a QB, or Mays, or Berry, or __. The bottom line is that Ruskell and his minions will assess the team’s needs once the evidence is in. If Matt is back to form this year, drafting a QB isn’t a priority. If (miracle of miracles) the Gritmaster turns into Ed Reed then we can concentrate on other areas. I guess what I’m saying is: Patience, Grasshopper. Let’s at least get a few games under our belts before we start thinking about the draft.
Drew Brees is like the Greg Jennings of QBs.
Puts up the most meaningless stats of anyone at the position.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 29, 2009 2:55 PM PDT up reply actions
A billion yards through the air
and no wins in the win column.
You know, I lost my father. Ah, he'll turn up. Have you checked the dumpster out back? He used to like to take a nap in there."
-George Carlin
by Wayward Llama on Jul 30, 2009 2:24 PM PDT up reply actions
There's a steady dropoff in talent and production after the first QB taken in the draft.
Long story short, if you need a franchise QB, don’t sit around and wait.
"if you need a franchise QB, don't sit around and wait."
I couldn’t agree more. But we don’t need a franchise QB, we already have one. Whether Matt gets injured this year or not, we won’t cut him and that makes him a lock as the starting QB next year.
Let’s assume Matt is done after next year (by no means a sure thing). If Teel has showed promise and development then give him one year to make it happen. One year, no more. If he doesn’t excel in our offense or doesn’t look like he’ll turn out, he gets the ax. If this is the case then it’s all the more important that we resign Matt or Seneca to be the back-up. That won’t happen if we draft a top QB next year.
The Chargers’ trade with the Giants to get out of the first pick WAS brilliant. The actual selection of Rivers was not.
I don’t mean to convince everyone there’s no chance we’ll draft a QB next year. I simply wish to shake people from any blind following of the must-always-have-a-franchise-QB-on-hand paradigm. Matt is indeed getting old, and an answer for the future must be found somewhere. I just happen to feel that right now there are considerably more possible outcomes for this year that would discourage a high QB draft choice.
I don’t feel bad about downplaying QBs in next years draft. That’s becase there’s only one course of events that would result in my support of a first round QB… a career ending injury to Matt.
by Hawkhammer19 on Jul 29, 2009 1:15 PM PDT up reply actions
Matt has been injured in two of his last three seasons and is a free agent after 2011.
It’s time to go get a new QB.
I really hope you don't think it's as simple as that.
by Hawkhammer19 on Jul 29, 2009 8:02 PM PDT up reply actions
When Matt IS healthy for 16 games:
2003: 3841 yds, 26 TD, 15 INT, 88.8 rating
2005: 3,459 yds, 24TD, 9 INT, 98.2 rating and an SB trip
2007: 3,966 yds, 28 TD, 12 INT, 91.4 rating
Woah… a trend here… 2009 will look something like this:
2009: 3,852 yds, 25 TD, 10 INT
I can’t wait :D
"The right place is usually the endzone." Over'n'out.
2007 was awesome.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 30, 2009 1:49 PM PDT up reply actions
Why isn't it?
Hasselbeck is getting old, fragile, and expensive, just like a lot of QBs do around his age.
You know, I lost my father. Ah, he'll turn up. Have you checked the dumpster out back? He used to like to take a nap in there."
-George Carlin
by Wayward Llama on Jul 30, 2009 2:28 PM PDT up reply actions
Because
when he is healthy, he has dominated.
2008 isn’t a good indicator of how well he can still play – you can’t fairly evaluate him given the injury circumstances. There are plenty of QBs who stay productive after 33. As for fragility, his workout this off-season has been intense.
His high price is linked to his being an integral part of the franchise – he’s got the loyalty/faith of fans and teammates.
Glenn Beck likes argument, but has a deap-seated hatred for logic.
Great work, just a question
Brian Burke estimated every adjusted yard per attempt above average equals about 1.8 wins in the standings. In 2007, the NFL averaged about 6.5 A/YA. Hasselbeck averaged 7.1. Hasselbeck, working within Seattle’s system and without great receiving talent, was worth about 1.1 wins over average. In 2008, the NFL averaged about 7 A/YA. Hasselbeck averaged 4.1. Hasselbeck, working within Seattle’s system and without great receiving talent, was worth about 5.2 wins below average. That’s a 6.3 win swing.
Hasselbeck didn’t play all season, but you can’t just average Hasselbeck and Seneca Wallace. It’s too messy. Wallace played in a different system and his limitations affected the play of Seattle’s rushing attack.
I presume that the ratio of wins to above-average A/YA is averaged across all (or almost all) of the 32 NFL teams with their various systems and various QBs. Why, then can’t you compare him with a QB on the same team, with the same personnel?
In the Brian Burke post on The Fifth Down blog you linked, he uses this rule of thumb (derived from multivariate regression) to compare the relative performance of Jay Culter and Kyle Orton:
So for Cutler and the Broncos, 5.8 AdjYPA equates to +2.1 wins above average. Since Orton’s 4.6 AdjYPA was exactly average, his performance was neutral with +0.0 wins. We could say that: Historically, all else being equal — with an otherwise average running game, defense, and special teams — a team would have won eight games with Orton’s numbers and would have won around 10 with Cutler’s numbers.
Later, you use this metric to assign a value to Hasselbeck (which should give you a relative estimate of his performance compared to Cutler and Orton). Surely, a rule-of-thumb that allows you to compare Cutler, Orton and Hasselbeck would allow you to compare Hasselbeck and Wallace, right?
Pro Football Reference gives a value of A/YA for Seneca of 6.7 for 2008 and 7.5 for 2007 (albeit with a small sample size).
I didn't do because I knew how much the offense changed under Wallace
and how those changes affected the running game and total passing attempts.
I was hoping you would explain what those changes were
(maybe you will in a future 2008 Season Retrospective) and why those differences are more significant than the differences between the 2008 Broncos, the 2008 Bears, the 2007 Hasselbeck-led Seahawks (the one with the anemic run game) and the 2008 Hasselbeck-led Seahawks.
Also, would it be possible for the differences in play week-to-week due to variation in offensive personnel playing with Hasselbeck be nearly as significant as a differences in the play style between Wallace and Hasselbeck?
Holy Christ, your tweet scared the crap out of me
I read the line “Matt Hasselbeck may be done.” and my bowels instantly evacuated. Then I read the next sentence and realized you simply painted each end of the spectrum.
Then I was angry because I only have one pair of pants at work :*(
The demise of the Broncos in '09 is our future. Pray hard.
I have never seen you misspell a word.
Was “skiddish” deliberate?
The Skiddish word for skittish
is “yizitsch.” Oy Gvald.
by jacobstevens on Jul 27, 2009 2:36 PM PDT up reply actions
John has the psychic power of precognition
…and “skiddish” was a reference to Nick Andron’s underwear.
;-P
Let's not rehash that
That’s a memory I’m trying hard to erase
The demise of the Broncos in '09 is our future. Pray hard.
I think we'll have an idea about Matt's health towards the beginning of the season
Matt missed a lot of training camp to rest his back last year, but claimed to be 100% as the season started. If Matt is able to make it through the whole camp and play a preseason game, then I think the back thing is probably straightened-out and he’ll play more than he did in 2008.
On the other hand, if Matt has to sit out a couple of weeks of preseason camp and claims to be 100% going into the regular season, I’d be skeptical.
The 'vacation' is almost over
I dunno how much store anyone puts into the outlook of Seahawks.com writers (the Mailbag seemed too optimistic to me at times) but this article articulates (hehe..heh….) that Hasselbeck has been all work and no play getting ready for ’09. Barring any disasters in pre-season/camp that seems like a great indicator to me.
Lets hope.
If Matt is 100% and plays say 14 or 15 games (plus lets hope some playoffs games) then myself, along with every Seahawks fan will be happy. Matt is WAYYYYY better than he played last year, and I really think it had much less to do with age (just look at QB’s much older than Matt: Warner, Favre, Collins, Garcia, and even further back Moon, Elway, Young, etc who played well into their 30’s), and more to do with the bad back and poor O-line play at times, along with all of the interchanging WRs. When you’re a QB and your getting hammerd everytime you drop back (before and after you get rid of the ball) your going to get a little gun shy. I really think Matt will be ok, if he, the O-line and the WRs can all stay mostly healthy this year.
Stats are stats, and they tell a portion of the truth, but at the end of the day most Seahawks fans know if Matt is 100% this year and the rest of the players play up to their skill or potential, then this team can challenge the Cards for the division (and maybe more). But if Matt is hurt again, and the rest of the team falls apart (like some of last year) then the Seahawks will be lucky to win 5 or 6 games.
One last thing, I would love to think Rowe or Teel are the future (which they could be), but I would still love to see the Sehawks use one of those three picks in the first two rounds next year on a QB. Matt can’t go forever and there are some very good prospects coming out next year. If Matt is good to go for this year and maybe another year (or two) then the Sehawks will be in good shape if they draft a “future” QB with one of those picks next year.
Personally, I would rather not have this man leading the Seahawks in the future:
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 27, 2009 4:40 PM PDT up reply actions
What optimism!
I usually come here to enjoy the critical eye John turns on our players. This post was something else. The most optimistic post I think I’ve read here.
“Hasselbeck has his best collection of receiving talent, top to bottom, of his career.”
That’s true, of course. After last year, its just hard to fathom. I’m going to put that on my bulletin board and look at it every day until the season starts. Damn I like reading that.
All we need now is a white baller receiver to establish himself like Joe Jurevicius and we're set.
Go Mike Hass or Logan Payne!
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 27, 2009 7:52 PM PDT up reply actions
I just rewatched the SEA/NYG game from 05
Man, I wish we would of had Jurevicius the last couple of years.
You know, I lost my father. Ah, he'll turn up. Have you checked the dumpster out back? He used to like to take a nap in there."
-George Carlin
by Wayward Llama on Jul 28, 2009 4:17 AM PDT up reply actions
I hope we're healthy
A healthy Seahawks is an elite team, especially with a healthy Hass. It’s been a long time since we’ve had a season roll our way whether healthy or injuries. I sure hope we have a good year this year.
Ah, JM
And when April of 2010 breeds lilacs out of dead land, mixing memory and desire, Seahawks fans will crowd their TVs and PCs late Thursday afternoon and watch Seattle begin anew.
What a great way to say that the season would be over. Seriously, your writing keeps getting better over time.
I tried to google that, assuming it was a reference to something.
But it’s original. YAY!
Props to "shams" for catching it.
“APRIL is the cruellest month, breeding
Lilacs out of the dead land, mixing
Memory and desire, stirring
Dull roots with spring rain.”
— T. S. Eliot, The Waste Land
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Field Gulls
Related FanShots on Field Gulls
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Former high-school star Brian Banks does serious time on trumped-up charge, now hopes for an NFL shot
- Former ‘idiot kicker’ Mike Vanderjagt in trouble after accosting junior-high heckler
- Adrian Peterson blows teammates away in footraces; appears to be on the mend
- UPDATE: Charlie Sheen didn’t buy Lawrence Taylor’s Super Bowl ring
- Alex Smith gets blown up by Jon Beason over Cam Newton comments
