The Difference Between Matt Hasselbeck and Charlie Whitehurst
by John Morgan on Nov 4, 2010 3:28 PM PDT
Email
PrintCharlie Whitehurst will start in place of Matt Hasselbeck this Sunday at home against the New York Giants. It's pretty big news. It's easy enough to hail this as a significant milestone in the pursuit of the Seahawks next franchise quarterback, but that may be getting ahead of ourselves. Pete Carroll has been steadfast in his praise of Hasselbeck and though Hasselbeck is a free agent after this season, that doesn't mean he will not be re-signed.
Step back from that ledge.
Whitehurst offers a barometer for how bad Hasselbeck has become. Football stats can not isolate the performance of one player, and so though it seems improbable that Hasselbeck would struggle for season after season with different combinations of surrounding talent and not himself be responsible for those struggles, it is possible.
If that seems difficult to swallow, okay then. If Hasselbeck is the major reason the Seahawks offense has been so bad for so long, Whitehurst will not have to be great to be a significant improvement. By DYAR, Matt has been one of the worst quarterback in football in 2008, 2009 and 2010.
So, the first difference between Whitehurst and Hasselbeck is, unless Hasselbeck is truly unfortunate or Whitehurst is truly bad, Whitehurst should be a good bit better than Hasselbeck. Seattle's passing offense should improve, as should its run offense, and though neither may be great, they may be able to pick themselves off the cellar floor. It wouldn't take much. Seahawk luminaries Jon Kitna, Trent Dilfer and John Friesz spit on Matt's 2008-2010 statistics.
Hasselbeck 2008-2010: -22.6% DVOA
Kitna 1999: 2.1% DVOA
Dilfer 2001: 6.4% DVOA
Friesz 1996: 8.9% DVOA
...
Apart from probably being better than Hasselbeck, in what ways is Whitehurst a different quarterback?
He is less skilled at making reads
Hasselbeck was once great like Whitehurst probably will never be, and when Matt Hasselbeck was great, his ability to distribute to receivers and move the chains was unparalleled in Seahawks history. He didn't lose that ability. It might have suffered from a change of schemes, but Matt is a smart guy, a hard worker and ultra competitive, and though he's not flawless, he generally makes sound decisions.
Whitehurst isn't likely to be as keen or as perspicacious as Hasselbeck. He will lock onto a single target more and depend more on his pre-snap reads, and offensive coordinator Jeremy Bates' ability to design passes in which the primary read is also the best read. Whitehurst will make more mistakes, but hopefully much of that will be balanced out by being able to target a greater range of receivers. In recent years, Matt made a good read, or maybe saw an attractive target, but spoiled his read with a poor pass or opted against targeting a receiver because of a tight window. Hasselbeck could make the reads but could not always execute the reads he made.
He is likely less trusted than Matt
Like third and long draws? Bates should keep the kid gloves on. That means more high percentage passes short, more conservative play calling in bad down and distance, and probably more max protect looks with fewer targets and a longer time in the pocket to find them. Some of this won't seem too terribly new, because Bates has implemented more third and long draws and max protect looks recently as the offense has sputtered, but substituting a backup should only increase those tendencies.
More moving pocket
Seattle runs some show-me roll outs, but in 2008, with Jay Cutler and the Denver Broncos, roll outs were a major part of Denver's offense. Whitehurst is more mobile than Matt, better able to throw on the run and better able to transition from roll out to scramble. That means Bates should be able to run the Seahawks offense as I presume he has always wanted to. Expect more roll outs, more naked roll outs opposite play action, and a greater emphasis on pure zone blocking run plays like stretches. The moving pocket is one way Bates attempts to spread the field horizontally, but hasn't been able to so far with the Seahawks.
More deep targets
Bates learned under Mike Shanahan and the two share an emphasis on the deep passing game. Reportedly, Shanahan's offense actually orders deep, or targets of 15 yards or more, as the first read on a play. It hasn't looked like that so far for the Seahawks, who have been about middle of the pack when it comes to deep targets, but with Whitehurst taking the reins, that should change.
...
I don't expect instant success for Whitehurst. The Giants have allowed the second fewest adjusted net yards per attempt in the NFL at 4.1. Hasselbeck has averaged 4.2 ANY/A. To put that into perspective, Matt is performing at 83% of league average. If Whitehurst matched Matt's average performance, he would only achieve 3.4 ANY/A against the Giants.
Which is a line like:
| Passing | CP/AT | YDS | TD | INT |
| C. Whitehurst | 12/24 | 210 | 0 | 2 |
With three sacks for a combined -28 yards. Bad, basically.
In fact, if this Sunday afternoon, Whitehurst posts a line much better than the above, we can be pretty stoked.
114 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Will this be in the stadium on Sunday?
Talents I covet: Akeem Ayers, Leonard Hankerson, Knile Davis, DeMarcus Love
Thanks for the perspective
I hope for better than that, but I’m a glass half full guy.
How good do you think he will have to be to keep Matt on the bench?
I don't think there's any circumstance
where Charlie would start next week with a healthy Hasselbeck on the bench.
Yeah, I don't get this...
How can you be so supremely confident of this? What if Charlie looks great? Pete Carroll is supportive of Matt Hasselbeck, but it’s not like the guy is his son-in-law or something.
I don't know if that's possible.
Matt is out because of injury, and so assuming that is factual, he should return when he’s healthy. If Whitehurst is particularly good and Matt continues to be particularly bad, then Whitehurst will overtake him at some later point. But I think even the very best showing from Whitehurst will not lead to Hasselbeck losing his job.
If Whitehurst is average or better
Does that create a short leash, or will it take multiple Matt standards to make the switch? I still don’t have a good read on PC and how he will handle things. Every other position he has done whatever it takes to get the win.
"Short leash" is probably apt.
Whitey kills this Sunday, Matt returns next Sunday, and if he sucks, he won’t finish the game.
I don't know.
It’s difficult for me to imagine Carroll going back to Beck if (a) Whitehurst plays a competent game; (b) the offense moves the ball noticeably better than it has of late; and © the Seahawks win. I think even (a) and (b) might be sufficient to keep Whitehurst starting, but © would sure help. Granted, I think all of those conditions are unlikely, with (a) being the most likely of the three.
Give ’em hell, Charlie.
I've already been wondering about concussions...
“assuming that is factual”
With the new emphasis on extra caution surrounding concussions, I’ve been wondering when it would develop into an easy way for coaches to experiment with quarterback changes (or changes at other positions, even).
One of the major factors in QB changes is how the move will be perceived by the starter, the backup, the rest of the team, the fans, and the media. There’s a general perception that once you pull a guy for performance-related issues, you can’t stick him back in there again without seriously messing with your team’s faith and chemistry. But if you pull him for injury, well that’s obviously another issue.
10 years ago, if a starting QB was pulled for concussion, it was because he got knocked out cold or otherwise obviously destroyed. These days, a player will be benched if the doctors merely suspect head trauma.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m am strongly in favor of the new cautionary approach… it’s barbaric not to be cautious, knowing what we know now about the long term effects of head trauma. But the NFL is hyper-competitive, and it there’s an advantage to be found somewhere, coaches will find it. Crying “concussion!” could be the new fake injury, one reporters are hesitant to openly question, because of the seriousness of head trauma. I first wondered this when I saw Jay Cutler benched in that Sunday night debacle against the Giants. It’s pure, unadulterated specualtion, but could Matt’s concussion be a phantom? Or rather, more likely, half-phantom, half-real?
I'm pretty sure concussion tests
are done by 3rd party doctors and not anyone employed by the NFL.
I may be wrong, but I suspect that I’m not.
But thats not what has been reported
No one is saying which of the tests, or at what phase he has failed.
Its just that he is not ready. Every other case they seem to be more specific about weather its persistant symptoms or something else wrong. It makes me wonder.
short passes would help
It would also keep him upright
I'm fucking excited.
If he doesn’t curl up into the fetal position and sack himself, I’ll be doubly fucking excited.
We better be running
a shit ton of screens, and proper ones and not Forsett helped with one blocker.
Michael Robinson leads the Seahawks in completion percentage, yards-per-attempt, and QB rating.
I'm in a Stats class
So this may sound stupid, but what is DVOA and DYAR?
by PhoneHomeET29 on Nov 4, 2010 3:56 PM PDT via mobile reply actions
They're stats developed by Football Outsiders
DVOA
Created by Aaron Schatz, the original Football Outsiders statistic is known as DVOA, which is an acronym for Defense-adjusted Value Over Average. . The statistic measures the success of a given play compared to the league-average level of success for that play given the situation at the time (score, time remaining, down and distance to go, location on the field, caliber of opponent, and so on). The formula is calculated using every play of the season, and provides rankings for teams, individual units (offense, defense, special teams), and individual players. Schatz updates the formula every offseason, keeping only the changes that improve DVOA’s predictive ability.
A DVOA rating of 0% is equivalent to league average performance. An above-zero number represents an above-average offensive performance, and a below-zero number represents an above average defensive performance. Since the baseline for “league average performance” is calculated over multiple seasons, the aggregate DVOA for the NFL will not necessarily equal 0% for any given season.
DPAR/DYAR
DPAR (Defense-adjusted Points Above Replacement) and DYAR (Defense-adjusted Yards Above Replacement) are statistics that measure a player’s total contribution over the course of all plays in a game or season. The increment of DPAR is the number of additional points a player adds for his team. For example, if a player worth 3.0 DPAR in a given game had not played that week, and had been replaced in the lineup by a typical back-up player, his team would (ostensibly) have scored 3 fewer points. This increment is cumulative — where DVOA for each play is averaged together, DPAR is compiled over time. In addition, a player is not compared to the league average, but to the expected performance of a replacement-level player, defined as being about 13.3% less valuable than the expected contribution of a league-average player (i.e. -13.3% DVOA).
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 4, 2010 4:00 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I can talk myself into the Chaz Whitehurst era
if he plays like the QB equivalent of Golden Tate.
I can deal with mistakes, but he needs to sprinkle in some explosive plays to let us know that we’ve got a legit prospect on our hands.
by Culter on Nov 4, 2010 4:07 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Well said. I totally agree
"Pass rushers enter the world of Okung but never leave." - JM
http://seahawksblog.wordpress.com
by Nick Andron on Nov 4, 2010 5:29 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I disagree.
Considering he has not taken the hits a lot of other quarterbacks his age have, there’s no reason to think he could not play at a high level for the next 5-6 years (if he has that potential, anyways).
He is certainly old
but he was kept on the Chargers’ roster for 3 years as a developmental prospect, not as a backup QB. Obviously, the Chargers felt Charlie was valuable enough to take up a roster spot but not dependable enough to take over when Rivers went down. I think this says that the Chargers (and Arizona and PeteJohn) think he still has an upside and isn’t a finished product. The fact that he’s old just may mean he’s a slow starter or needs some game reps to mature as a player (or he may never be “ready”).
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 4, 2010 7:15 PM PDT up reply actions
What's "old"
Like Obama, I wanna see Jesus’ birth certificate. The last one didn’t really hit his stride until 30.
Jesus didn't begin his ministry until the age of 30 (approximately).
Just sayin’.
by ty540 on Nov 4, 2010 9:09 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
He also had a pretty short career
To improve, they should try to become the musical southern cal of the west. - bRuins Nation poster on the Stanford band.
by bluemax on Nov 5, 2010 9:25 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
This looks like it's for the best.
We get a chance to see Whitehurst do his thing and keep Hasselbeck from being blitzed, sack, and hit hard by the New York Football Giants. They are obviously known for their pass rush. Maybe a more mobile Whitehurst can escape and throw on the run or for short screen plays that go the distance. Who knows? This game is on the offensive line’s shoulders.
I wish he was starting behind a healthy o-line.
Did you realize that the World Series is going on? Yeah, me neither. Zzzzzzzz...
Unger has been pathetic
Okung and Jones would be badass if we could play two LTs.
Michael Robinson leads the Seahawks in completion percentage, yards-per-attempt, and QB rating.
Jumbo sets every down.
Why can't my higher than average expectations ever be met in the football world? Why?
Who needs Mike Williams when you have
BMF Ruvell Martin?
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 4, 2010 4:19 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
John
This is a bold statement: If Hasselbeck is the major reason the Seahawks offense has been so bad for so long, Whitehurst will not have to be great to be a significant improvement. By DYAR, Matt has been one of the worst quarterback in football in 2008, 2009 and 2010.
But if Whitehurst does suck, it will probably lead to more questions than answers. Specifically, we could have a situation of both QBs sucking (prob true); Oline and/or WRs sucking (prob true as well). Frankly, I think this team is a long way away from a third string QB coming in a creating much more of a chance to win.
Your scenario of both QBs sucking isn't all that concerning
because it means we’re drafting a QB in the first round of the 2011 draft.
Right
but it doesn’t help assess the situation at all. I contend that the offense sucking is equal parts WR, Oline, and QB.
by m_b on Nov 4, 2010 4:25 PM PDT up reply actions
How does this not help from an evaluation standpoint?
A dynamic offense isn’t necessary to determine a players long term future with the team.
Game tape reveals who is consistently winning/losing their blocks, and the coaches more or less know what they have in the WRs. It’s harder to assess QB play when the offensive line doesn’t play well, but it doesn’t really matter with Hasselbeck, as he’s not part of our long term plans. It would be nice if Whitehurst got a little time to throw the ball on Sunday, but even if he doesn’t, there will still be plenty of revealing moments.
Not to speak for too many others
But my reasoning for wanting to see Whitehurst was not necessarily that he’d be THAT much better than Hasselbeck. More that I wanted to see how he was in actual game situations to know what we had. If he did happen to be better than Hasselbeck, then we’re set. If not, then we know that we need to grab a QB in the draft.
We need a QB in the draft anyway
I think it would be prudent to get a QB in the 1st round even if Chollie avg 300 yards a game.
Not if there's some amazing pass rusher
or guard available.
Why can't my higher than average expectations ever be met in the football world? Why?
I don't think it's that bold.
I say, if Hasselbeck is the reason the Seahawks offense has failed, then Whitehurst would not have to be particularly good to be better.
I wish I could make a bold statement, but it’s hard to know exactly how good a quarterback is independent of surrounding talent.
by John Morgan on Nov 4, 2010 4:46 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Maybe I'm overreacting a little
but I take that statement as: Hasselbeck is so incompetent that all Whitehurst has to do is not suck and the offense will drastically improve. Granted, I’m embellishing a little, but I don’t expect to see a potent Seahawks offense, much less a productive one.
I honestly feel like we have one of the worst WR corps in the entire NFL. Potential? Yes. Young? Obviously. Good? not right now.
Not to mention Whitehurst has a cadre of build-in excuses already. If he performs better than Max Hall consider it a gift from God….his father.
by m_b on Nov 4, 2010 5:57 PM PDT up reply actions
Whitehurst's father is
Nick Reed? News to me.
I think the Seahawks WR corps isn’t that bad honestly. ‘Sides the success of a WR is heavily, in ways I can’t even comprehend, dependent upon the QB throwing to him. Just ask Larry Fitzgerald.
by jubelthebear on Nov 4, 2010 6:05 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
There are two basic arguments regarding Hasselbeck
One, that Hasselbeck is fine but the pieces around him are so bad that he looks awful. If he had an offensive line/ receivers that could catch balls / a better coaching staff he would be able to produce at an adequate level.
The other, that the pieces around Hasselbeck are adequate and that they look bad because Hasselbeck isawful.
So, if Whitehurst is able to produce at a level above Hasselbeck than we know that it’s at least not completely on the surrounding cast (what Whitehurst could do week in and week out could still be debated, obviously). Hasselbeck’s production has been so low that Whitehurst would only have to have a line similar to the one John listed to be considered better by ANY/A. Or he would only need to have a -10% DYAR to beat out the -22% Hasselbeck has posted the last three years. So it’s not that Whitehurst has to just not suck horrifically, it’s that he has to outproduce Hasselbeck, which essentially is just not sucking horrifically.
by Nate Dogg on Nov 4, 2010 6:12 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
There's also the argument that all the parts aren't interchangable
OL issues aside, its likely that Matt would have his best success with different types of receivers than Charlie would. For instance, Matt probably has more success with WRs that run reliable and precise routes while Charlie might be able to better make use of receivers with that stretch the field or have sure hands. Charlie probably wouldn’t be able to make Stokely shine like Matt would. And the reverse could probably be said about Butler.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 4, 2010 6:51 PM PDT up reply actions
week in and week out
is a good point. The opposition DC is having to actually not take the week off for a SEA game for the first time in a couple of years. But if Jesus stays in that will change.
I think painting a false dichotomy is conducive to more argument
and FG polarization. It’s more of a spectrum. I think we’ve suffered enough through this, in the community here and as fans period, that the diversity of views ought to be recognized, and the fact that bright, reasonable people can differ.
I get what you’re saying, and the relevance to the overreaction you’re responding to. I agree with you, I feel the same way, I just think this needs to be said because I’ve seen a lot of people talking past each other.
by jacobstevens on Nov 5, 2010 11:55 AM PDT up reply actions
WRs may have had one bad week...
but they haven’t sucked consistently. Not by any stretch.
O-line is admittedly a problem. It was beautiful after the bye, when everyone was healthy. But it needs to be deep enough that people can recover from their injuries, and it simply isn’t. An injury or two and the whole line falls apart, ergo the whole offense falls apart.
The which-is-the-better-QB question hardly even matters at this point. We need to see what we’re working with, and so far we haven’t seen it. Had to start him sooner or later. So they try out their untested goods behind a 2nd-string o-line, against the best team in the NFC, one with a history of injuring QBs… should be, um, interesting. I just hope he makes it through the game without getting hurt!
by Bisquick McBob on Nov 4, 2010 4:51 PM PDT up reply actions
Even if Whitehurst is really bad, he is hopefully bad in a different enough way as to give the coaching staff a stick with which to measure Hasselbeck.
If he rolls away from sacks, opens the defense up by looking further down the field, and still makes bad decisions or misses receivers, that would be enough for me. I don’t need to know that Whitehurst is better than Hasselbeck only that his failings are due are to a different reason than Matt’s. He has the chance to make the offensive line look comparatively better and aid the run game while still being a pile of suck.
by abender20 on Nov 4, 2010 5:25 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
TOTALLY agree with this...
I want to use a basketball analogy (because most have us have played pickup 3 on 3 before).
When you are playing 3 on 3 on a regular basis and see the same types of guys regularly you tend to adjust the way you guard them based on that history. When your side comes up against a guy that has bombed 3’s at will, you MUST go out beyond the arc and guard that guy. This of course opens up the lane and makes your defense more susceptible to penetration.
*********************
I think (and I am hoping for exactly the same thing you are abender)… that CW challenges those deep thirds and rockets passes into the seam routes. The defense (whether CW succeeds or not) MUST account for this. The running game should improve immediately if he is able to show a respectable command of his location with the deep ball.
At that point… CW doesn’t have to be impressive to help the Hawks win games. The simple threat of our WR’s speed and the arm of CW can help the offense. Our running game (without 9 in the box on a routine basis) should be improved immediately.
If an opposing defense thinsk they can cheat?….. thats when a single pass can alter the game.
-Charlie doesn’t need 60% completion. Whereas Matt needs 6 to 7 completions on a drive to score, CW needs only 1.
-Everything stays in front of the DB’s for a Matt led offense. A DB cant get deep enough to guarantee this with CW.
We don't know what Charlie needs.
Just because he’s better than Matt at the long ball doesn’t mean he’s Philip Rivers or John Elway.
Why can't my higher than average expectations ever be met in the football world? Why?
Pretty tough 1st NFL start for a backup QB
Against arguably the best team in the NFC, one of the most fearsome D-lines, and our 0-line in the worst shape of the season. Our O-line have been a collection of turnstiles. I hope Charlie has sense enough to not hold the ball too long.
Good luck, Charlie. You will need it.
As others have said, I will take a few interceptions and getting pummeled for a few beautiful long pass plays.
So what do we do if Charlie is awful?
Like. . . not just Matt bad but really horrible.
Then we know what we only guessed at before
, know that we’re sitting on a dud, and start giving serious thought toward next year’s draft. Only now we do so with confidence that we’re not dropping serious money on a high 1st round pick when we’re possibly sitting on a star.
can that solidly be determined after one game?
I mean I know the guy has been around watching some great quarterbacks, but if he has a bad first game does that really mean he’s a dud?
Abender...I think it could go either way.
Whether he’s Max hall…or Joe Montana on Sunday, it just isn’t enough to go off of yet (based simply on results). I love what you said above and I agree.
I too will be looking at the types of successes and failures that occur.
Stretching the field and challenging seams is critical for my eyeball test (regardless of outcome). What I would hate to see is Whitehurst using his arm strength to try and do what Hass does (just with more zip). I think for CW to truly have a shot to succeed, he’s going to have to do the thing that Matt CANNOT and does not try.
I'll use this game to evaluate two things using Whitehurst.
The degree to which Hasselbeck’s specific failings hinder the offense vs. a likely bad (but entirely different) QB, and Whitehurst himself. I don’t have an awful lot of faith in Whitehurst as the answer for the future.
Given the injury status of our O-line, I'll be evaluating two different things:
How fast he can get rid of the ball, and how fast he can run.
by Bisquick McBob on Nov 4, 2010 9:38 PM PDT up reply actions
Great Point here Abender -- man your on a roll today...
…and this is a critical point in the evaluation.
Whitehurst succeeding or failing has absolutely NO correlation to Matt’s successes or failures in our system. It’s impossible to isolate either QB’s performance in a vacuum and come to any meaningful determination.
What IS key however, is how the dynamics of the offense will change with CW in the game. This is important because it could very well determine the direction we go in the draft or FA next year (should we decide on a QB). Seeing how our offense operates with the contrasting style will go along way in determining what type of QB to go after should CW not be the answer.
-Pocket guy with a canon
-Ultimate game manager
-Crafty QB… etc.
Keep in mind though.
That personnel changes could alter the face of our offense significantly next year – the hypothetical drafted QB is not necessarily going to be behind Okung, Unger, Spencer, Lock/Willis or alongside BeastForce or throwing to Butler and Carlson. Will we go with larger or smaller linemen? Who gets traded? Does Bates even stay? etc.
Why can't my higher than average expectations ever be met in the football world? Why?
During Charlie's press conference
Pete said that he hadn’t ruled out drafting a 1st-round QB (in 2010). Charlie isn’t a guy that PeteJohn expects to be perfect or mistake-free the first game out (especially against an elite defense behind a banged-up line full of backups.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 4, 2010 7:18 PM PDT up reply actions
I was hoping that Matt would play this game and turn things over to Whitehurst next week.
I fully expect a slaughter on Sunday with the offensive line and QB being smashed into submission. That defensive front 7 of the Giants is far better than Oakland’s which caused 8 sacks of the 2nd-most sacked QB, Hasselbeck, just last week. I only hope Charlie survives the game well enough to continue starting for the balance of the season.
Go get ’em, Chuck!
Start Charlie Whitehurst. / #24 = Beast Mode! Welcome, Marshawn
I am slowly understanding all of the stats mentioned above....
but I wouldn’t want to be taking snaps this weekend. I think this game will be ugly, and whoever starts at QB, is going to get snot slobbered.
I have hope that Whitehurst will succeed
Partially because of our home-field defense
I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul - Invictus
Have fun, Charlie. No pressure. Make a little wine. Walk on a little water and
hit Butler in stride at their goal line.
by broadbill birdwatcher on Nov 4, 2010 9:17 PM PDT reply actions
Did anyone mention the smoking hole scenario?
Emergency QB Michael Robinson – according to Greg Johns at the PI – but he’ll need to be elevated to the 53 man roster by Sunday.
MRob is already on the 53
Zac Robinson is on the PS and would need to be elevated to the 53.
You might have your Robinson’s mixed up.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 4, 2010 9:32 PM PDT up reply actions
It's easy to get confused...
because Michael Robinson has actually completed a pass in the NFL.
by Bisquick McBob on Nov 4, 2010 9:41 PM PDT up reply actions
One thing that may help Whithurst is...
the Giants won’t have much film on him. He could potentially benefit from (1) Bates being able to run plays from formations he could not with Matt, but also (2) that the Giants film study may not be all that useful with Whitehurst.
That alone could keep the Giants fairly vanilla on defense, which would be some kind of boon for the offensive line.
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
And Deon Grant would be more familiar with Matt than Chuck
Deon’s insight could have helped the secondary (when the DL wasn’t crushing Matt into a powder).
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 4, 2010 10:18 PM PDT up reply actions
This is what gives me hope for this game
We’re going to see some wholly new wrinkles in this offense hitherto unseen all year. Bates and co. have been designing packages and playcalls for Charlie for 3-4 months now, and Sunday will be their first live fire exercise. There’s a good chance we can get New York on their heels just because they wont know what to expect.
Or the offensive line gets mauled, the running game stalls, and Charlie plays like someone who hasnt made it on the field in five years for a reason. At this point I’m just excited to know more about where this team is at, exactly.
Film on whitewurst no, but OL yes
I say PC mixes is up a bit … put in jesus and then swap the rest across the ball …. you know, Clemons at TE, Curry LT, Cole LG, Tats at RB, … Tate at FS, Butler at CB, Lynch at MLB, BMW is the other corner, Balmer RG, Hawthorne RT …. you get the idea, and before you rec this one you know that if nothing else it will crash the whole DPAR/DYAR algorythm.
But they have had the week to prepare and they do know his basic scouting profile just as much as we do.
I agree with you, and I’m hopeful, just pointing out a mitigating factor. They may well go vanilla but not in pass rush. In fact I’ll be surprised if they don’t go with some permutation of the basic rookie QB gameplan, which is apply extra pressure.
by jacobstevens on Nov 5, 2010 11:59 AM PDT up reply actions
I wanted Whitehurst to have a start this year, so we could see what we have.....
But this not going to be a fair evaluation with the mess our offensive line is in.
exactly....
Whitehurst is being thrown into the fire against the Giants. I hope he is able to escape getting carted off the field this Sunday. The cards aren’t in his favor. The 12th man can only do so much.
Why is it not a fair evaluation?
We will get a chance to see how he responds to a good NFL football team. Would you rather see the Bills as his “fair” eval. ?
A beat up team vs. a healthy team is why I think it might not be a fair eval.
I hope he defies the odds though. If he does poorly you can’t blame him considering the shape the hawks are in.
I wonder if that's what Pete and co. have in mind.
It gives him a game to get the jitters out without too much pressure to actually win. I know they want to win, but to even do well under these circumstances is good.
I doubt it Jason
I would assume that at this level of play (NFL)…. your always expect to be ready to go.
If CW were a “green” rookie that the FO was banking on as a franchise QB…. your idea would have to be a factor….
…but as a 28 year old who has seen NFL game speed…. I would assume, that the FO would assume he’s gotta be ready to go.
(tons of ‘ass’ es in that last statement of mine)
I just hope the
Giants don’t crucify Clipboard Jesus. We’re going to need him down the stretch.
John Hancock
Hey, G-men suck at Qwest. Always.
And the first three games of the year they looked like a jay v team in meltdown. They are a paper tiger. Eli will choke and there will be many offsides and bad penalties on them.
They will lose the game on their own. Their 4 game growth spurt is over.
Past results are not an indicator of future performance.
by jacobstevens on Nov 5, 2010 12:00 PM PDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Donald Driver compared winning ‘Dancing With The Stars’ to winning Super Bowl
- Report: Most NFL players would have no problem with an openly gay teammate
- Donald Driver wins ‘Dancing With the Stars’
- Student has diploma withheld after Tebowing at graduation
- NFL to mandate knee and thigh pads for players
