Why the Seahawks Offense Fails: It's Not Just Hasselbeck
I noticed last night that Tezlin preemptively assumed this series of posts was another novel way of arguing that Seattle should bench Matt Hasselbeck. That's not the case. Quick fixes are attractive but treacherous. Nor is this a protracted way of pointing out that Hasselbeck lacks arm strength. Arm strength and deep passing, though connected, are not one and the same. Hasselbeck can clearly throw the ball 40 yards in the air, and so he can certainly, from a physical standpoint, complete a deep pass. However, it would be disingenuous of me to deny arm strength is a factor. But let's get back to that in the next post.
This series of posts is not a call to bench Matt. If Seattle wanted to bench Matt, it would have had to do it earlier in the season, when the Seahawks were 1-1 rather than in the thick of a playoff run. It's hard to bench Hasselbeck now. If murmurs hold any truth, Charlie Whitehurst has done nothing to push Hasselbeck for starter. And so, benching Matt would, again if murmurs are to be believed, be making a critical and unearned substitution for the sake of change. That might fly early in the season, when the team is taking shape and moves can be made for the betterment of the future, but it's a pretty hard sell in the locker room when you're 4-3 and in first place in the division. If Whitehurst is sucking up practice, and every coach, player, executive and member of the media can see it, how do you sit Matt without tacitly suggesting that winning this season is not the team's highest priority?
It would be a moronic waste of time to write an entire series of posts and conclude only that Hasselbeck is physically incapable of being a successful NFL quarterback. One of the more pernicious elements of that argument is how it excuses Hasselbeck from play-to-play mistakes, as if we should pity him. And if this series of posts was to conclude only that Seattle is screwed as long as Hasselbeck is the quarterback, I would be very disappointed. I can't say for sure it will not conclude that, because that's the nature of the beast. It's difficult to construct an offense around a terrible quarterback, and Seattle doesn't have that kind of firepower.
But though I am by no stretch a Hasselbeck supporter, and though I am three years deep into my frustration with Seattle for not investing in a legitimate quarterback of the future, Matt and the Seahawks offense can perform better than it has. Elite may be off the table and maybe we should discard good while we're at it, but how about better. Wouldn't it be nice if there was hope hidden in the tape?
Maybe we can find some in the second quarter.
27 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
It all starts and ends with the O-Line.
When Okung was healthy and played a full game agaisnt Chicago we had our all around best offensive performance. While we’re shuffling in and out a succesion of stop-gaps, also-rans, and never should’ve been’s on the offensive line we will be subjected to such maddening inconsistency offensively. A healthy Okung and Chester Pitts should go a long way to making the Offense play a lot better. As long as we can get through the Giants game with Matt still on two feet I think the we have a good shot at the playoffs.
Shawn Bates will never die....so long as we remember THE penalty shot!
Quote of the day...
“…though I am by no stretch a Hasselbeck supporter, and … I am three years deep into my frustration with Seattle for not investing in a legitimate quarterback of the future…”
Ugh. Yep. Well said.
Safe to say I’m in the anti-Hasselbeck crowd, but it isn’t even that I’m anti-Matt. I’m anti-anti-progress, and this bullshit stasis of hope that an old beat up and fading QB can lead a future resurgence of the team is just preposterous. Hence I’d rather wash my hands of mediocrity and either slip into shittiness temporarily while searching for “next” or be pleasantly surprised by the result. Either way, it isn’t the present path, and the present path is apparently set in stone.
What’s more— this is what I fear most. The long term repurcussions— the sooner you finally cut the tie and break away, the better off you are in regard to the future.
What if we don’t find out about Charlie, and what if Matt finishes the year and we just skim into the playoffs and get crushed, or we barely miss them at, say 7-9? And then, the team doesn’t know what they have in Charlie, and they have too much temptation to bring Matt back, and we draft a rook who “isn’t ready yet” and sits behind Hasselbeck for yet another year, and we get stuck in this giant vortex of suck yet again, watching Matt do the exact same thing NEXT year too.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 4, 2010 12:22 PM PDT up reply actions
Don't know why that was a reponse... should have been on it's own line...
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 4, 2010 12:22 PM PDT up reply actions
If only the seahawks had a game were the clear winner was decided by the start of the fourth quarter.
I think that’s the only time we’ll see Whitehurst on the field. It seems like most games we played in there was a chance we could win. Even in the last game I felt like we had a chance to win especially since how good our special team has played.
Eat shit bum!
If only...
I don't hate many things, but i do hate Boise State.
by spokanistan22yuh on Nov 4, 2010 12:16 PM PDT up reply actions
Uhm, yeah. "If only the seahawks had a game were the clear winner was decided by the start of the fourth quarter."
We did. Last week. You can pretend our special teams could magically snap victory out of the jaws of defeat every week. I prefer not.
We were, however, fortunate enough to see Charlie get three snaps to hand off. Yay.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 4, 2010 12:37 PM PDT up reply actions
I disagree.
In a very basic way, the score dictates the state of the game. However unlikely it is that our offense would suddenly start working, the score did not indicate a clear winner of the game at the start of the 4th quarter.
I am going to come into your house at night and rec up the place.
The score did not.
But they way we were playing sure as hell did.
I don't hate many things, but i do hate Boise State.
by spokanistan22yuh on Nov 4, 2010 1:09 PM PDT up reply actions
Win Probability had us about what I would have thought with my eyes... less than a 10% chance.
That’s pretty damn low. I know it is imperfect, but it gives a solid range of variability.
Plus, if ever there was an opportunity to say, “Hmmm. Current guy not getting it done, maybe new guy can start a rally!” — that game with a non-moving offense was precisely that.
New rule— if a mediocre opponent’s RB outgains your team by himself by the end of the 4th quarter despite the defense playing relatively well, the backup QB automatically gets to play the 4th quarter on principal.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 4, 2010 1:18 PM PDT up reply actions
Win probability is based almost entirely on score differential and time remaining
though field position and possession also play a role:
http://wp.advancednflstats.com/winprobcalc1.php
It doesn’t really make any sense to cite Win Probability as a refutation to score difference and time remaining.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 4, 2010 4:10 PM PDT up reply actions
Those are the 6 variables, there are complex and well tested equations that turn those numbers into win probability.
I really don't understand your problem with win probability.
Teams down by 10 at half go on to win about 20% of the time. How is that hard to accept?
by Nate Dogg on Nov 4, 2010 5:33 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
I don't have a problem with WP
I have a problem who use it as a cudgel in an argument when they don’t use it properly. WP is a years-long, league-wide average is a very crude tool to use when discussing the possible outcome of a single game. It shouldn’t be touted as a superior alternative to point differential and time remaining because those factors are the major determinants of the stat.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 4, 2010 7:00 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I really need to learn to write in English
Historically, the averages hold true. That doesn’t mean, though, that its rare for a team down two scores to come back with 15 minutes remaining. Especially when the Seahawks had so many chances at points that were lost due to fluky mistakes. WP ignores that context. It also would treat a defense-free 42-49 game the same as an offense-free 0-7 game. Burke probably doesn’t differentiate between these two scenarios because they don’t matter but rather that they are technically challenging to model.
This isn’t to say that the WP is a bad stat. Rather that the problem is using the stat in a bad way (as some sort of oracular black box rather than a simple equation that depends on a small number of variables).
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 4, 2010 7:08 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Well Whitehurst has his start this sunday. At least Hasselbeck isn't injured that bad.
Eat shit bum!
I know nothing about him.
Is he any good?
I don't hate many things, but i do hate Boise State.
by spokanistan22yuh on Nov 4, 2010 1:17 PM PDT up reply actions
Does anyone know anything about him?
It still baffels me that we are paying him 5 mill a year.
Eat shit bum!
yay! Adam Morrison!
I don't hate many things, but i do hate Boise State.
by spokanistan22yuh on Nov 4, 2010 1:22 PM PDT up reply actions
Well if you want to assume that the Seahawks will loose every time they fall behind thats fine.
I choose to be optimistic, even if it isn’t warrented.
Eat shit bum!
That's not how I read that statistic.
If the graph doesn’t flunctuate but only moves on direction, it isn’t showing us anything to be hopeful about… and when it nears flat-line status, well, that’s just bad.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 4, 2010 1:20 PM PDT up reply actions
Thanks for the clarification.
Mostly my comment from last night was just me officially changing my opinion and recognizing that our future probably doesn’t include Matt. I was still living in the past so I wanted to recognize the largest influence in helping me understand the game better, as well as changing my opinion in that regard. The article above though does help me gain a better understanding of what the organizations mindset might be.
I hope you take a close look at Whitehurst
which is an obvious. But furthermore, I really wonder if our WR’s are any good. BMW has shown some good ability, but the others are big question marks.
If Whitehurt does well
In what is likely to be one of the toughest games remaining on the schedule, how does that bode for the QB rotation heading down the stretch? Hasselbeck has turned in passable (no pun intended) games, but nothing yet that anyone could really define as ‘good’. Assuming a lower standard for what is, essentially, a rookie QB with little on-field mileage, what happens if Whitehurst turns in at least an average game against a strong pass defense? Do we do the Kolb/Vick shuffle where every lineup is decided by a coin toss? Do we start sneaking Whitehurst in on plays where we’re looking (or want to make opponents think) for the long ball. If he shows that he’s capable of turning in at least as good a game as Hasselbeck has so far this season, with the added benefit of mobility and a stronger arm, do we end up hitching our wagon to the unicorn?

by 





































