Matt Hasselbeck Testing his Potential in San Diego
by John Morgan on Aug 14, 2009 4:50 PM PDT
25 comments
Matt Hasselbeck won't be on the field long, but he will give us something to think about. Hasselbeck was unequivocally bad last year. Hasselbeck was unequivocally badly hurt last year, too. It's easy to connect the two. Believe his decline was caused by his ailing back and weakened knee, but if the idea is sensible, it is not yet proven. It is human nature, perhaps the driving force behind human innovation and engineering, to make connections between phenomena and to see patterns. But it can lead to incorrect conclusions. In fact, our own intuition can make it hard to understand something perfectly logical.
Not to open a can of worms, but what if Matt Hasselbeck did not decline solely or even partly because of his injuries and instead declined because of his age? He was 33 last season. Pro Football Reference created a model that shows that a quarterback at 33 is about as effective as that same quarterback at 26. Hasselbeck was 26 in 2001. Last season he managed to underperform his 26 year old self, but not too badly. In 2001, Hasselbeck completed 54.8% of his passes for 4.3 ANY/A. He was at 52.2% and 3.3 in 2008. He turns 34 this September, and 34 splits the difference between 26 and 25. Hasselbeck was a backup and a Packer at 25.
I don't bring this up because I think applying a general rule to Hasselbeck is the best method for projecting his 2009 season, but to shine light on a few sometimes forgotten facts. Hasselbeck's career is short and has existed almost entirely within a quarterback's peak seasons. From 27 to 32, a quarterback is expected to perform at greater than 90% of his potential. Last season was the second season outside his peak and the third season ever he has averaged fewer than 5.9 ANY/A. The other is 2006. He was expected to perform at 88.9% last season, 83.2% this season and 76.8% next season. If Hasselbeck has no specific disadvantages this season, but instead plays at the average level for quarterbacks of his age, draft position and career production, he will be among the worst quarterbacks in football. In March, Nate Dogg used PFR's model to project Hasselbeck's expected production.
Hasselbeck's 2009 using that projection system?2510 yards, 16 TDs, 11 INTs, 57.5 completion%.Thats going back far enough to include his 2005 season, using a standard 3 year projection would make those numbers slightly worse.
Herein lies the value and trap of stereotypes. If Hasselbeck were a free agent, I wouldn't sign him. But, we must assume, the Seahawks organization better understands how to project Hasselbeck than a crude model. Well, we must assume until tomorrow, when the veil is lifted and we can see what remains of our once great quarterback. He is playing with the best receiving talent of his career, and that talent will be on the field. The offensive line is not in peak form, but it doesn't look like a liability. It's somewhat important what Hasselbeck does, but it's more important how he does it. He must be accurate, show enough zip on his passes and regain his focus in the pocket. I am not going to pretend we will see something unequivocal tomorrow night, but it will give us something to think about.
0 recs |
25 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
I think most fans are so focused on the condition of his back,
the idea that under the best of circumstances his career would likely be angling downward may be lost. Reading things such as – " If Hasselbeck has no specific disadvantages this season, but instead plays at the average level for quarterbacks of his age, draft position and career production, he will be among the worst quarterbacks in football." is like a dose of tough love. Here’s hoping Hass turns historical context on it’s ear.
I'm gonna go calm submissive on your ass.
by Dukeshire on Aug 14, 2009 6:11 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Over thinking?
I see stats, stats and more stats. I like your breakdown, and you are right, at this point in Matts career I would not take him as a free agent (unless I was a team like Vikings), but at the end of the day, I know what a HEALTHY Matt Hasselbeck brings the Seahawks and that would be, (drum roll) consistency. He has had one real bad season since 2002 (last year), with that said, I’m willing to give Matt the benifit of the doubt and I will see what happens on the field (that is the only place that counts). He has been the BEST QB in Seahawks history and I’m fine with him at QB THIS YEAR.
With all this being said, the Seahawks need to draft a QB next year, so in a year or two when (if?) Matts done, the Hawks are set at QB, and there won’t be a dead spot in Seahawks history, with another joker as the Seahawks QB.
Lets get this year started, so we can stop talking about what if, and just see what is.
by JustinWF on Aug 14, 2009 6:18 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Very Good Head's Up
There is no question that every franchise QB has a shelf life. Injuries over the past three years and even during 2005 give us an indication that no athlete is immune to the impact of age, decline and succumbing to injury.
Just as I’m writing this, Jimmy Zorn comes on the NFL N and does a 30 second spot on what greatness is about. From ‘76 to ’79 he seemed invincible. By 1980 (Krieg’s first year, ironically), the “Z – man” was showing signs of wear and the beating had taken a toll (particularly on his deep ball accuracy).
West Coast Offense does not call for a steady diet of deep passes, but we know that passing deep is part of the package for the present regime, moreso than the previous one.
Whether or not your observations actually apply to Hass this year, one thing is clear: A transitioning franchise will be looking for a future QB very soon, and as long timer, I have learned to say goodbye to invincible heroes when necessary.
I just hope that it will be more of the Dave Krieg type of shelf life than the Zorn one.
by Hawksince76 on Aug 14, 2009 6:22 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Even if he becomes a Kurt Warner, Garcia, Montana, or Moon
He’s going to need a strong supporting cast. Seattle gives up quite a few sacks, i don’t know if that’s due to the scheme or what, when a team like New Orleans gives up an amazingly few, but if he keeps getting sacked 30-40 times a year we’d better find his replacement sooner then later.
That list in the header just kept on growing, some of the better QB’s do seem to keep on ticking, but it is probably a rarity.
by B.B.Finnegan on Aug 14, 2009 9:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm shocked how little Peyton Manning
gets sacked. I know it’s a combination of a great O-line and Mannings ability to know when to get rid of the ball, but it’s still amazing. P. Manning really knows how to make his reads and get that ball clear before he takes a big hit. I hope Matt can get some of that going considering he has such a solid group of receivers.
I can see why Matt was tense in the past. He has never really had a sure handed set of receivers. Not even in 2005. Now he has good hands just about everywhere. The man should be in heaven. If I were a QB with this set of receivers, I’d be itching to get to the real games.
by ASeahawkfan on Aug 15, 2009 12:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Joe Jurevicius and Bobby Engram were pretty sure-handed.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Aug 15, 2009 12:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And Jerramy Stevens and D-Jack were not
Now he has Housh, Branch, Burleson, and Carlson. Not a single one with below average hands and Housh and Carlson way above average hands. Even Branch has very good hands when healthy.
That 2005 team of receivers were not this good. If we had had this group of receivers in 2005, we would have won the Super Bowl.
by ASeahawkfan on Aug 15, 2009 2:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
D-Jack missed a lot of the season with injury.
So basically during the Superb Owl season his only target with really bad hands was Stevens, although even he was decent throughout the season.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Aug 15, 2009 10:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And the year we had both
was 2005 and the only year of the 00’s that the Seahawks gave up less then 30 sacks (27)
Although you could also make the connection that it had more to do with the run game and Shaun Alexander.
So why is Seattle usually so poor at it? You’d think a quick passing offense would have fewer sacks. And then, for giggles, I looked at the Falcons from 04-06 and they were even worse. 40-50 sacks a year. That may not bode well.
by B.B.Finnegan on Aug 15, 2009 9:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
To me, I think a scrambling quarterback tends to get sacked more.
I’m not sure if there are numbers to support this, but all appearances seem to point that way for me.
Michael Vick was allowed liberal freedom to run around, and with defenses going with QB spy against him, he didn’t always break off runs for a gain.
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Aug 15, 2009 1:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
One thing you should mention is how Hass started the year. Look at the receivers he was throwing to. The offense we run isn’t a “I’m going to look at the receiver and lead him,” it’s a west coast precision offense. So we have guys like Keary Colbert and tons of green as grass rooks on the field contributing to his “decline.” 2008 is not a fair assessment and you’d be hard-pressed to argue your point after he had career highs in 2007. Why the massive career lows after a record setting year? Well, it’s pretty obvious – injures. Arguing anything but injuries is just trying to stir a pointless pot.
by C-addleCHox on Aug 14, 2009 10:20 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Hasselbeck threw game-ending interceptions in 2 consecutive games if I remember correctly,
those balls being targeted towards Koren Robinson and Deion Branch, who aren’t bad receivers.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Aug 14, 2009 10:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Which is not to say I agree with the proposal that Hasselbeck is finished,
but that to worry about his decline in 2008 is certainly not without merit and definitely worth looking at.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Aug 14, 2009 10:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's definitely an interesting point though:
That Hass went from his peak to an all-time low. The question that next comes to mind is how much of his 07 performance can be attributed to ability and how much to the players around him?
Also, how does the aging-QB model (“crude” as it is) adjust if the player started their career at a later age? Matt wasn’t a starter til he was what, 26, 27? I see what you’re getting at though: we shouldn’t so hastily rule out his age as a factor in his 2008 performance or be surprised if he’s not gunnin’ it like Clint Eastwood in the coming months – but I more readily agree with your closer: We’ll just have to see.
Glenn Beck likes argument, but has a deap-seated hatred for logic.
by Cheddar28 on Aug 15, 2009 2:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"how much of his 07 performance can be attributed to ability and how much to the players around him?"
What? I’m not going to give Rob Sims, Bobby Engram, Marcus Pollard, or Shaun Alexander any credit for Hasselbeck’s 2007. He almost entirely put the offense on his back.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Aug 15, 2009 10:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He's only 33
People are talking about him like he’s 38. He could still produce for quite a few more years.
And yes, 2007 was a perfect way to gauge his skills. He made Bobby Engram a star and carried the team to the divisional round. Teams knew we would throw it but couldn’t stop it.
by C-addleCHox on Aug 15, 2009 12:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
His age, while potentially troublesome, isn't as concerning as his frequent injury history.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Aug 15, 2009 2:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I didn't intend any rhetoric in there
It was a sincere question. I mean I only just started following the Hawks very closely sooo yeah! that answers my question!
Glenn Beck likes argument, but has a deap-seated hatred for logic.
by Cheddar28 on Aug 15, 2009 4:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hasselbeck's 2007 season was nothing short of miraculous.
I’ll get into details tomorrow.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Aug 15, 2009 11:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I thought the same thing about Shaun Alexander.
During the time he had injuries(2 seasons) it masked the decline he also went through, as did a weakening offensive line. But then he sucked, horribly and completely.
by cashless on Aug 15, 2009 10:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I remember the koren robinson one, can you job my memory on the Branch pick?
He wasn’t as phenomenal in the two-minute drills last year that’s for sure.
Although the Cardinals game where he threw a game ending interception… he was all drugged out that game and hadn’t played in a few weeks. Rule of thumb in the NFL is it takes a quarter to get your rhythm back for each game you’ve missed. He was not sharp that game.
by C-addleCHox on Aug 15, 2009 12:08 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Please use the reply button, so it's more easier to know who you are responding too.
The Cardinals game where threw the INT in the 4th quarter after we miraculously stopped them with enough time to win the game was targeted towards Branch.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Aug 15, 2009 12:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thoughts since the SD game?
Only a couple drives, but I was hoping for more. If protection holds up better this next game, I expect he’ll try to make some better plays, send the ball more than 6 yards downfield, but that wasn’t encouraging. If he ends up developing the habit of going underneath within 3 seconds every time, the passing game won’t be close to a strength.
by jacobstevens on Aug 17, 2009 12:26 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
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.
