Postgame: New York Giants: Bazillion - Seahawks: One Long Reception
Charlie Whitehurst finished with 1.4 adjusted net yards an attempt. If interceptions are worth 60 yards, as Brian Burke concluded, that falls to 0.1. Projected Matt Hasselbeck would have finished with 3.4 ANY/A, and so we can say Whitehurst performed worse than projected Matt. Which doesn't mean a ton, but puts his performance in perspective. One of those interceptions was not Whitehurst's fault, but that's upholding a double standard. According to raw stats, Whitehurst was pretty terrifically awful. We don't know how good either quarterback could be in another offense, but plenty of good quarterbacks succeed without the best surrounding talent, see Philip Rivers for instance, and so neither quarterback is really excused of their poor play. This wasn't a cogent defense of anyone so much as further evidence that Seattle is desperate for a quarterback.
Though Whitehurst played poorly, the most practical decision would be to stick with him for the rest of the season. I know that won't happen. If Hasselbeck is the better quarterback, he earns the start, and that's how football works. Which is good, ethically. But unless Seattle wants to re-sign Matt and believes Matt will re-sign, there just isn't much utility to continuing to start him. This shouldn't be judgment day in the career of Charlie Whitehurst, starting quarterback.
Of course, quarterback play hardly factored into the outcome of this game. The defense collapsed. The blitzes didn't work and both Leos failed to factor. The secondary collapsed. Eli Manning picked on Marcus Trufant all day, and Tru had one of those games that reminds you he isn't elite and he's not getting any younger. I think he suffered the complete lack of pass rush, because he was often close in single coverage on long developing routes, but even accepting the conditional aspect of cornerback play, I didn't see much to like about Tru's play. Mario Manningham and Steve Smith were losing him out of the break over and over again.
I think if I proposed the same kind of question after this week's game as I did after last week's game, whether winning the West is in the best interest of the team long term, it would not be met with such hostility, but that's all said. The question I ask this week is, why has this team not improved? Rock bottom is supposed to be cathartic, but I am starting to wonder if the Seahawks have yet to bottom out. Their record notwithstanding, there is no logical argument I can make that this team is much better than it was in 2008 or 2009.
Here's my quick and dirty estimation of why this team continues to be bad.
Free Agent Talent Lost and Traded
Nate Burleson left through free agency, T.J. Houshmandzadeh was cut and Deion Branch was traded. All those moves thinned and weakened the wide receiver corps. I would have liked if Burleson stuck around, but he had some major warts: drops, dropped routes and he was about to become very expensive. Losing Housh didn't make much sense, but it wasn't a head scratcher really. Just a move that didn't seem to have a clear reason, outside of bad press. I like the Branch trade.
So, it's not an indictment of Carroll or Schneider that those players were lost, but it has probably made the team worse. Seattle also lost Cory Redding, but that paved the way for Red Bryant. No problems there.
Young Talent Traded Away
Assuming Seattle could not have or did not want to re-sign Josh Wilson, Rob Sims or Darryl Tapp, a loss like today's only supports the FO's decision to trade away talent for picks. Each would have been a valuable player in some capacity, but even in total, Wilson, Sims and Tapp probably wouldn't have made much of a difference to the outcome of today's game. So, we might call this a small step back with the hope that maybe one of the picks attained in return will turn into someone valuable.
Injury
Every team suffers injury, and I do not assume Seattle has been particularly unfortunate. Maybe the Seahawks have been, but injuries like penalties create a kind of myopia in fans. We always assume our team is screwed worse than others, because we don't follow that kind of information about other teams. The most costly injury has been to Russell Okung, and the offensive line has really suffered without him. The line didn't look terrible today, but though I stopped taking notes partway through the second, it did look like Seattle used a lot of six and seven blocker packages. Sacks and pressure are not the only cost of a weak offensive line.
Losing Colin Cole, Brandon Mebane and Red Bryant greatly weakened the run defense and that set up the play action game. That in turn led to a deadly passing attack by the Giants. Like I said, it looked like Trufant was on an island all game, and that's a hard assignment.
Lack of Development
Here's the bad one. One reason Seattle was not better in 2009 than it was in 2008 was that its big, early draft pick, Aaron Curry, failed to contribute. It's early second round pick failed to contribute, Max Unger. Deon Butler did not contribute in 2009, but is contributing some in 2010. The only other player that remains from the 2009 class is Cameron Morrah.
When we look back farther, we can see class after class not contributing. The 2010 class is not contributing a whole ton outside of Earl Thomas. The 2008 class was decent, but Lawrence Jackson was schemed out and traded. After Wilson was traded away, Mebane and Will Herring carry the flag of the 2007 class, and Mebane has missed a good portion of the season.
If you go all the way back to 2005, it's pretty easy to see that the combination of bad picks and good picks traded away has led to a team that's more or less starting over. No quarterback of the future was developed. No pass rushing defensive end was retained or developed. Kelly Jennings is the lone remaining defensive back drafted -- excluding 2010 draftees Thomas and Walter Thurmond -- and that sort of speaks for itself. This is presumably Jennings' last year in Seattle.
Tim Ruskell's failures still hurt this team and his successes were mostly lost in a shift of styles, and so the Seahawks are truly and excruciatingly rebuilding. Games like today are part of the process, and they suck, and they don't promise future success, and there's not much positive that can be taken away from them, but they're unavoidable. They are part of being a fan.
So the Seahawks are pretty bad this season, but if we can get some consistency of coaching and management, it should be easy enough to recover over the next few seasons. Ruskell resigned to avoid being fired, and I have to say deservedly, though I don't see Ruskell as the demon so many Seahawks fans do. When he left, Seahawks fans were guaranteed to suffer the pains of a team in transition, and this was one of the more painful of the pains.
Game ball: I can't say for certain whether Chester Pitts had a Tyler Polumbus good game or something more like an actual good game, but it looked like he handled himself, at position he doesn't know, against one of the league's premier defensive ends, Osi Umenyiora, and that's a hell of an accomplishment. It's so good, I don't even have to qualify it.
If you're a Seahawks fan, and you're the kind that doesn't turn the game off even in the face of the blackest of defeats, this is the kind of performance that makes you feel a little bit happy, a little bit hopeful, and a little bit optimistic. Pitts could have quit but he didn't. Game ball.
292 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Pretty ironic that the game ball goes to a player whose name we're all in right now.
by Coach Owens on Nov 7, 2010 5:12 PM PST reply actions 2 recs
all the receivers cant catch the ball, the QB is old and there is no quality replacement, the defense in on the field for waaaay too long. The secondary is a complete joke x5. the o-line looks like it it was an after thought in this “rebuilding”. oh yea, special teams plays ok once in a while.
funny enough the 49ers are most likely a better team than Seattle. they just need a solid coach. The Rams are coming out of their sleep. and the cardinals … well they suck too. but their receivers are top notch.
how come every time Seattle gets a high pick in the draft they turn out to be big flops? (yo aaron curry, calling out to the Boz, and every other shit stain we’ve had playing for us.)
how come teams like pittsburg can start 6th round, 7th round, and even undrafted talent and win superbowl after superbowl?
how embarassing, just totally 100% embarassing. im not expecting superbowl and playoff runs every year, but we look like the new raiders. i cant wait to draft our very own jamarcus russel so we can further watch this franchise implode.
im selling my hawks jersey on ebay, im tired of watching a team that obviously doesnt care about improvement. these guys suck bad… and pete carrol is a sneaking lying bastard. thats why he ran from USC after they found out USC was paying its players (gee really?… duh)
and FU Tim Ruskell for driving holmgren out of town… you dont replace a football god! moron! i hope you kill the bears like you did us.
and if youre not sure our receivers suck and drop passes like scared lil girls, just look at San Diego, it doesnt matter who Rivers is throwing to. great talent makes others great around you. hopefully we sign Brett Farve next year and commit mass suicide on the 50 yard line for the opening game. GAG! I Hate the SEAHAWKS!
Wrong site, Xabulba.
I think you want: http://forums.seattletimes.nwsource.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=14
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 8, 2010 7:08 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Also
ESPN forums
TNT
SeahawkAddicts
etc…
Did you realize that the World Series is going on? Yeah, me neither. Zzzzzzzz...
by Wayward Llama on Nov 8, 2010 7:11 AM PST up reply actions
Wow.
Utter failure on every level of this post.

Did you realize that the World Series is going on? Yeah, me neither. Zzzzzzzz...
by Wayward Llama on Nov 8, 2010 7:11 AM PST up reply actions
Can't use waffle images here?
Guess I’ll just use the old standby.

Typing, typing, typing….and boom post
Did you realize that the World Series is going on? Yeah, me neither. Zzzzzzzz...
by Wayward Llama on Nov 8, 2010 9:31 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
is it possible for most the team to tear their ACLs? cant be any more impossible than 2 TDs in one game for the seafags. get your brown bags ready, hopefully the fans will go green and reuse the jimmy mora bags.
dirt bags… yes….. and guess who we could have drafted instead of “lost on the field” aaron curry…. mark sanchez! an acual real QB of the future. way to go, im sure aaron curry is going to win plenty of games for us…. what did they think, hasselbeck would play at a high level until hes 40??!!!!
im just saying what everyone else is thinking……. powder puff football team… maybe they can compete in the puppy bowl during the superbowl halftime show.
i wonder what our next draft picks are gonna be… i know lets draft a few more tiny corners without ball skills, or better yet how about another often injured offensive line man……. oh i got it, this is the best, we re-sign hasselshit and draft a few new late round receivers that get lost on anyone depth chart
fuck
You really think this FO won't draft a QB? Or will waste picks?
From the last draft we’ve gotten: Okung, ET, Thurmond, Chancellor (looked promising yesterday), Tate,
& Leon Mutha Fuckin’ Washington.
QPM will get it done.
by hazbro24 on Nov 8, 2010 8:43 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Your right. Sanchez looked GREAT last year as a rookie.
He of the strong running game, strong OLine, strong defense, and 12 to 20 TD to Int ratio.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 8, 2010 9:49 AM PST up reply actions
You're. Ugh.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 8, 2010 9:50 AM PST up reply actions
Okung and Pitts
I hope to see this combination on the left soon and for a long time to come. As for the right side we need help!
Stick a fork in him - HE IS THROUGH
"For a long time to come"?
Pitts is 31, has already had one catastrophic knee injury and plays at a position where knee injuries are common. Even if he has success this year, I doubt he plays for much longer.
For a Seattle lineman, 6 games is a "long time to come".
by DJ C-Raig on Nov 7, 2010 5:42 PM PST via mobile up reply actions 2 recs
IF (big if) he recovers, 31 isn't that old for a lineman. That's a couple more seasons of high level play.
That is, if that knee holds up. Maybe it will?
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 7, 2010 5:49 PM PST up reply actions
I thought Pitts did very well.
I look forward to seeing him and Okung on the line at the same time. I have a question, why can’t the O-Line run block? It seemed as if every time Marshawn got the ball in his hands, the defense was in the backfield immediately. No pass rush also made Tru look bad, Eli had all day back there.
by PhoneHomeET29 on Nov 7, 2010 5:17 PM PST via mobile reply actions
"Tim Ruskell's failures still hurt this team"
Agree fully to this statement and the rest of the Ruskell stuff. I was piss and vinegar when the transition to Schneider/Pete began but I’m on board now even after games like today. Their draft picks have done well when on the field and they’ve gotten some great performances from some not so great players. I’d really like to see an above average QB fall into their lap and another off season to tweak the lines with some better depth.
From The Hawks Nest - Seahawks Podcast
http://www.http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/from-the-hawks-nest/id385227705
Me too
But it depresses me that even though the team is in first place, I’m almost in a wait-till-next-year mode already.
by somethingwitty on Nov 7, 2010 5:24 PM PST up reply actions
I refuse to acknowledge tiebreakers right now.
4-4, #1 damn it.
by somethingwitty on Nov 7, 2010 5:46 PM PST up reply actions
I like your style. First place it is.
by DJ C-Raig on Nov 7, 2010 5:49 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
The Northwest Iowa Miss Dairy Bowl?
by DJ C-Raig on Nov 7, 2010 5:30 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Pat Tillman approving of the US Army is "not cool"?
Have you recently watched The Pat Tillman Story or something?
by DJ C-Raig on Nov 7, 2010 5:48 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
You could probably just assume 60% of everything I say is sarcastic and you ahould be fine.
by DJ C-Raig on Nov 7, 2010 5:53 PM PST via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
No worries
Good guy who has been exploited from all sides.
In the end. He was a good guy. I wish it could just be left at that
Politics is a no-no here.
Polite reminder from a less frequent poster to the above thread. If it were allowed, fire and brimstone would rain from the heavens. Let’s keep it to municipal tax dollars and stadiums.
by THolt on Nov 7, 2010 7:29 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
I don't think that was political, and I'm fairly sure it was an okay thread.
Seeing as how we spoke/reached a resolution like Gents, free of name-calling. Brian is pretty good about shutting down the thread equivalent to a shifty-eyed dog. But good call in any event.
Charlie Whitehurst is who (some of us) thought he was!
Charlie Whitehurst is who (some of us) thought he was!
Beware what you ask for. You guys can all go ape shit and stat me to death about how bad Matt is. He is our best option. Not debatable. Should never have been. We need a new QB. It’s not Charlie.
Okay.... I'm in.
Matt is probably our best option for winning this year, I agree with that and took that stance a few weeks back.
But at the time I thought this team had a chance for 10-6 and maybe a 1st round bye, now I don’t. The difference between Matt and CW is so small that it makes sense to go with the player that has more of a future with the team. Matt might be slightly better, but I don’t see any games where is would make a big difference and it’s time to see what CW can do.
by MFAN on Nov 7, 2010 5:30 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
I see no reason to turn this into an argument, because I know how it would go, but nothing happened today that proves Hasselbeck is the best option.
I have no idea where this conclusion is coming from.
He's a winner John.
He just wins games. Gunslings!
by DJ C-Raig on Nov 7, 2010 5:32 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
I just think to myself, what would people pushing this argument say if I said Hasselbeck's performance in Oakland proves "not debatable" that Whitehurst is the best option.
How bout a question instead.
Should this team be looking to win now? We’re in by FAR the weakest division in football, have some guys returning from injury and have yet to have our second crack at the Niners, Rams and Cards, all mediocre on their best collective days. Maybe not the Niners.
by THolt on Nov 7, 2010 7:32 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
And how can you be sure that Charlie doesn't give us the best chance of that.
Matt has maxed out and is fading fast.
Charlie has the potential for improvement, and let’s be honest, how many of our wins have come because of vs. in spite of Hasselbeck??? How does our team winning in spite of him mean he’s the best chance to win going forward? Because when he’s the QB the defense has had some monster games, the special teams has single handedly won a game vs. SD?
Because realistically, if the Special Teams and D didn’t terrorize San Diego, San Francisco (when Matt had an okay game), Chicago and Arizona, we’d be sitting at maybe 2 wins right now. Perhaps one "on Hasselbeck’s performance.
So why not take a chance on a guy with some upside. Perhaps Leon will get two return TD’s in one of his games, or the D will hold a team to 6 points, and then he’ll be a brilliant QB who “just gives us the best chance to win.”
You realize the thin line from which we’ve been winning, right? I can’t see how a mediocre at best QB serves us anymore than a guy who is a little worse right now but could be far better 2 or 3 games from now.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 7, 2010 7:42 PM PST up reply actions
Along the same lines...
…what is worth considering is the possibility that CW significantly improves over the next half dozen games or so, and the team ends up with competent play at the position. With that, assuming the injuries heal (Mebane, Cole, Okung specifically) the team can make a respectable showing.
We all know Hass’s limitations, and they will do nothing but grow in the coming games/weeks/months. Zero future there.
It's kind of a silly questuon, no offense, because an NFL team should always be looking to win now.
But this team isn’t going to find sustainable wins the way it’s constructed. So I can’t find any fault in it’s attempts to win the division but it shouldn’t be sacrificing the future to do it.
If winning championships is really the goal this team needs to set it’s sights higher than an NFC West title.
We lost 33-3 WITH Hasselbeck last week, and 41-7 today WITHOUT him.
At least we scored a touchdown today. Whitehurst made his first NFL start today, and he’ll need more playing time to get better. Anyone remember Hasselbeck’s first few seasons starting for us? I remember him getting benched, people wondering why he was on the field at all. One game does not make a quarterback. If I remember right, Payton Manning’s last college game had everyone calling him a choke artist.
by Kittrick on Nov 7, 2010 11:32 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
And what's more, this was against a much better team!
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 8, 2010 12:07 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
much better team is quite the understatement as well!
And we still had most of our defensive line in that game.
From The Hawks Nest - Seahawks Podcast
http://www.http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/from-the-hawks-nest/id385227705
by Hancock.Brett on Nov 8, 2010 12:34 AM PST up reply actions
Hopefully Pitts
can be our new RT once Okung returns. I wish Locklear would work out but it appears he has run his course.
by m_b on Nov 7, 2010 5:32 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
I'd rather he just play LG instead.
We still have some trouble there. Even if Gibson played well today, he’s still an iffy candidate to do well in any one game.
Lock ran his course 2 years ago....
That man has been laughing all the way to the bank since his extension.
by Seahawks4life on Nov 8, 2010 3:13 AM PST up reply actions
Who else secretly hopes Nice Steve Smith breaks his leg in 5 places?
by DJ C-Raig on Nov 7, 2010 5:33 PM PST via mobile reply actions
Is 12th man celebration
And I don’t like his face.
by DJ C-Raig on Nov 7, 2010 5:37 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
I can't see rooting for injuries
and felt his beer shower was a pretty good reaction.
by m_b on Nov 7, 2010 5:39 PM PST up reply actions
It's not rooting when you secretly hope.
I just blame it on my Dark Passenger.
by DJ C-Raig on Nov 7, 2010 5:40 PM PST via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
I thought the beer throwing
was the one black mark on an otherwise stellar 12th man effort. ANy other stadium would’ve bitched out early. Fans stayed strong as long as anyone could.
FREE FREEBRADSHAW!!!
by Simms-McConkey on Nov 8, 2010 6:24 AM PST up reply actions
What? What's wrong with dousing an opposing player who just scored a TD with beer when he jumps into your stands?
I’m sure that happens at most stadiums. He jumped into the stands, he’s gotta be ready for anything.
Didn't hear about this.
But I’m sad someone had to lose a 12 dollar beer, regardless of circumstance.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 8, 2010 8:08 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
he didn't jump into the stands.
it’s just really unclassy and in poor sportsmanship.
Point I’m making though, is that it reflects poorly on what’s otherwise probably the best home crowd in the NFL.
FREE FREEBRADSHAW!!!
by Simms-McConkey on Nov 8, 2010 8:28 AM PST up reply actions
I'd agree with this.
While you can’t be too surprised if something like that happens when you gloat right by the opponents, it’s still pretty bush league.
true, and thanks
gloating is asshattish.
FREE FREEBRADSHAW!!!
by Simms-McConkey on Nov 8, 2010 9:01 AM PST up reply actions
Agreed, I'd rather not see beer being thrown
On the other hand, players that taunt frustrated fans shouldn’t be surprised at angry or childish reactions.
With lube.
Like a gentleman.
Tangled up in blue.
by Seahawka 12th on Nov 7, 2010 8:38 PM PST up reply actions
I didn't turn the game off because it's rare to get Hawks' games way out east here
But man that was tough
I remember week 17 was taken away in 2008, and I was irate.
Losses suck, but I love watching this team.
Haha
I paid for Sunday ticket last year, whoops!
by ungoreatstefan on Nov 7, 2010 5:49 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah
I mean it sucks, but I’m glad I get to see them and commune with all you Seahawks fans via the internet makes me feel at home instead of surrounded by Steeler’s fans.
by ungoreatstefan on Nov 7, 2010 5:49 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah, I live in New York...
…so had to watch.
Perhaps it has already been said somewhere, but CW did a nice job avoiding the rush. He has a quick release, and far more range, and one of the main differences I noted was how he remained upright the entire game, while in previous contests everytime Hass dropped back I cringed, waiting for the tuck and roll sack.
We didn't learn much of anything except
Our OL is beat up and can’t run block and our D will break if you don’t give it a little help. It is injured so it breaks quicker than normal.
I wish Charlie had taken over and done something big, but he didn’t. Given the run game and the D, I didn’t expect him to.
Ruskell fucked this thing up
It’s a simple fact that you can’t fuck up that many first round picks. You can’t have a bunch of first round picks that turn into Kelly Jennings, Chris Spencer, Lawrence Jackson, Deion Branch (trade), and Aaron Curry (being the best of the bunch, serious, not sarcasm). Now, I’m not saying all 1st rounders need to turn into Haloti Ngata’s and Patrick Willis’, but you need to get production out of them.
In all seriousness, outside of the Raiders (who at least gamble on physical freaks), is there a team that has royally fucked up first rounders like Tim Ruskell did?
Now, I love the new FO and where they are headed and their proactive approach. Sadly, this thing is going to take awhile to turn around and we need to stick with them. And I do agree, that eeking into the playoffs could be very detrimental to the long term success of this team. I hate losing and don’t want to lose, but I’d rather suck for 2 years and build something special (potentially), over continually watching mediocrity being re-defined by our football team. No more fucking band aids on bullet holes.
Chris Spencer
Is a good first round pick, he’s been playing well and unfairly maligned for so many of the line’s problems. Center takes so long to develop in the NFL and I think he’s coming into his own and I hope we resign him.
by ungoreatstefan on Nov 7, 2010 5:52 PM PST up reply actions
I'm going to make an unfair comment
but someone forgot to tell that to Alex Mack and Maurkice Pouncey. My problem is, if you are not drafting cornerstone positions in the first round (ie LT, DE, QB, DT), then you better being getting better than league average more often than not. Curry (still young), Jennings, Branch (trade), Spencer would apply to this (personally).
by MTJ on Nov 7, 2010 5:57 PM PST up reply actions
So quote rare exceptions to the rule, then expect the same from our guy.
Instead of appreciating the fact that he is a good center who was slowed early on by shoulder issues but appears to have overcome them.
He’s a solid above average NFL starter. If each of Ruskell’s picks were that good, you wouldn’t be having this conversation. Don’t lump him with the others. Curry is a disappointment due to the lofty place he was drafted, but it is too early to give up on him. Jennings is a below average contributor, I agree. Branch’s career was derailed by injuries (just as his resurrection in NE is falling prey to the same thing.) Jackson was… a bad pick.
But bottom line, Spencer wasn’t a bad pick, and is NOT a problem today, but is part of the solution. Let it be at that and quit holding his past years against him. He’s better now. Enjoy that instead.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 7, 2010 6:10 PM PST up reply actions
Mack and Pouncey were the last 2 centers to go 1st round
Which is why I brought them up in regards to Center being a very tough transition. I agree it is.
My point is, if Spencer is the best we’ve done, then that really confirms the idea that TR did quite poorly in the 1st round, which hurts us today.
I already stated that I don’t expect every 1st round pick to become an All-Pro, but by avoiding/whiffing on cornerstone positions in the first round, and getting a few “solid-average” supporting position type players (ie center, LB, etc), we find ourselves where we are at today. And that is major holes at vital positions.
by MTJ on Nov 7, 2010 6:22 PM PST up reply actions
Good lord dude...
I was just making a comment that I PERSONALLY think TR’s botched first rounders, hurts us today. Calm down duder.
by MTJ on Nov 7, 2010 6:23 PM PST up reply actions
Sorry, I've seen a lot of undeserved Spencer hate... from Hawk fans, even from Jim Fucking Ass Suck Mora.
And I think he’s pretty damn solid, so I put in on his side when these things come up.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 7, 2010 7:23 PM PST up reply actions
No worries...
And I don’t think he is bad and I’m not trying to “hate” on Spencer. My bottom line point was that out of 5 first rounders, the best we have is Spencer and Curry. Now, that doesn’t mean they are bad players, but I wouldn’t classify those as “good” picks. Doesn’t mean they are not of value and cannot be contributors.
Maybe I portrayed this poorly, but my concern with TR’s draft is the fact that if you are not drafting a premium position (QB, LT, DE), you have to get more than average production more times than not.
It’s tantamount to drafting a WR in the first round who is a nice #2, complimentary ceiling type of player. Doesn’t make sense. My overall point was the fact that TR left the cupboard pretty bare and especially at vital positions that you need on a football team if you wish to succeed. Last draft we HAD to draft an LT, and I like Okung. But you are handcuffing yourself as a franchised if you enter drafts with the mindset that you HAVE to make a certain move. Hopefully Schneider has brought that philosophy from the Packers.
by MTJ on Nov 7, 2010 7:39 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah, I really wish we would have made some different draft decisions several years in a row.
I like talent guys before character guys myself. A nice mix of both is ideal, but when you’re lacking one, let it be the character, unless your team is already loaded and talented and you need complimentary pieces. I think part of the problem is that we’ve been pretending since 2005 that we only need complimentary pieces and we need some gawd damn horses.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 7, 2010 7:44 PM PST up reply actions
Exactly
When Hass got into his 30s and started getting injured (likewise with Walt), that was the time to address those positions so you don’t have to rush a rookie or a young player who isn’t ready.
I’m not saying a 1st rounder necessarily, but it would have been nice to have picked a QB and an OT in the second round who had upside but needed time to develop, and subsequently giving them the time to do so.
Once again, much like LT, we are in a position where we have no idea what is going to happen with the QB position next year.
by MTJ on Nov 7, 2010 8:36 PM PST up reply actions
I think Spencer was a great pick at the time, who didn't immediately find success, but is an above average NFL starter now.
That IS success in the late first round.
But yeah, the others? Not so much, due to one thing or another.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 7, 2010 5:53 PM PST up reply actions
Above average? He's still disappointing to me.
by jacobstevens on Nov 7, 2010 6:07 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Would be nice to have some kind of standard to reference.
Spencer certainly makes mistakes, but I don’t watch every other center in the league and so I don’t really know how he compares.
Not that it means much...
but Scouts.inc on ESPN considers Spencer in the lower tier of starting Centers in the NFL. 67 Rating. 21st overall.
Like I said, doesn’t mean much, but that’s the outside perception.
by MTJ on Nov 7, 2010 6:54 PM PST up reply actions
Chris Spencer
is clearly average.
Why can't my higher than average expectations ever be met in the football world? Why?
I don't even...
Yes. No.
Why can't my higher than average expectations ever be met in the football world? Why?
I dunno, he seems to be kind of unique.
Inconsistent execution — a mix of blown execution, with some superb execution — keeps him from being average, to me. Still has tremendous physical potential, and much of it in a way is realized already. He has a definite hand in making the offense sputter, though, and like John recently pointed out, a successful block is a successful block no matter how beautiful or powerful it is. Too many failed blocks, and it’s not mental, it’s not mistakes or assignment or awareness issues. Just failed execution.
Ruskell is an awful evaluator of offensive talent
He took an elite offense with the best O-line in the league and completely dismantled it over the years. He took offensive linemen for granted, which was obvious from the Hutchinson fiasco and the draft. Couldn’t judge offensive skilled positions like WR properly in the draft so he dumped a 1st rounder for Branch and gave a hefty contract to Housh. Injuries piled up over the years due to age, and the lack of quality depth was exposed.
by aerozeppelin on Nov 7, 2010 11:21 PM PST up reply actions
John, I'm curious when you break things down if you can look at Whitehurst quarter by quarter.
First was a debacle, but hey, first NFL start, nerves are gonna be an issue. However, after that I did think he settled down and played relatively well, to be honest.
I just think the start was so putrid that people will look only at that.
For those that still think Hasselbeck is the best option THIS year, I just don’t know. I don’t know that first quarter excluded, he’s looked any better (and often worse) than Charlie. And Charlie is at least an exciting new version of suck, instead of the same old suck.
Also, as I pointed out in the game thread— Matt Hasselbeck’s first 3 starts were simply terrible, and he got benched for them, and nobody outside of Mike Holmgren, who traded for Matt, believed in him as a legitimate NFL starter. I really wish Charlie would get two more starts in a row, even though I doubt that will happen.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 7, 2010 5:57 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
Good luck with the rest of your season guys
it was fun chatting with you guys this week. Thanks for the back and forth.
Let's Go Giants!!!!
I'm more doubtful about Whitehurst now, because of the accuracy problem.
But it doesn’t change much of the discussion. One game, poorly played, but too few meaningful snaps. Played so hurried even the pass rush didn’t have much time to develop. It’s unreasonable to see this in a static way and think this is what Charlie’s play has to offer.
by jacobstevens on Nov 7, 2010 6:31 PM PST via mobile reply actions
I thought as the game went on he settled down and was far more accurate.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 7, 2010 7:24 PM PST up reply actions
I said this in the game thread.
But shades of Mike Teel. Fairly bad.
Why can't my higher than average expectations ever be met in the football world? Why?
The Huskies and Seahawks are in sync right now
and that sucks
Sounders following along nicely as well
Seattle Sports……..yup.
From The Hawks Nest - Seahawks Podcast
http://www.http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/from-the-hawks-nest/id385227705
by Hancock.Brett on Nov 7, 2010 6:43 PM PST up reply actions
Whitehurst is toolsy
I like his arm quite a bit. Accuracy left something to be desired. Could be nerves of his first NFL start or just a sign of things to come. Who knows?
Problem is, if Whitehurst doesn’t get any more regular season time/evaluation, we have to get a QB in the 2011 draft. That issue is 2 years overdue. We cannot end up in a situation like we had at LT.
What I’d like to see is finishing off the season very competitively and still picking in the top 12 or 15 allowing us to have a chance at a QB.
Free agent QB's
There will be free agent QB’s this off season. We act like it’s Hasselbeck/Whitehurst or draft. But it’s possible the front office sees valuable upcoming free agents.
by Snuffleupagus on Nov 7, 2010 6:45 PM PST up reply actions
Kyle Orton
To name one. If we don’t like the draft class, there are options.
by Snuffleupagus on Nov 7, 2010 7:57 PM PST up reply actions
Ugh.
Poor man’s Matt Hasselbeck. Dink dink dink DUNK.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 7, 2010 7:59 PM PST up reply actions
I don't want to wager the team's future rooting for Neckbeard
Regardless of how well he’s played this year.
Michael Robinson leads the Seahawks in completion percentage, yards-per-attempt, and QB rating.
I think Kyle Orton is a great example
of fitting the right player to the right scheme. Nobody expected him to put up the sort of numbers he has this year before Denver had their scheme installed.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 7, 2010 8:01 PM PST up reply actions
I don't really want him anyway but
He already signed an extention through next year with Denver.
The point is that no one lets QB talent that is worth anything go for nothing.
Tarvaris Jackson
This game is fun. Jackson has the potential of a draft pick, for probably a lot less money (if we’re talking first round)
by Snuffleupagus on Nov 7, 2010 8:03 PM PST up reply actions
Free Agent QBs
Are Free Agents for a reason. Thinking that’s going to solve our problems is not something I’d be comfortable with.
by MTJ on Nov 7, 2010 6:49 PM PST up reply actions
Not Solve
But tide us over. We don’t have to force a draft pick.
by Snuffleupagus on Nov 7, 2010 8:17 PM PST up reply actions
Obviously don't force a pick
but QB is way too important to keep pushing off. I’m all for trading the farm to get the QB we want. If the FO likes someone in the draft or a guy like Kevin Kolb, then go get him.
Hass is done and who knows what we got in CW.
by MTJ on Nov 7, 2010 8:38 PM PST up reply actions
We looked into Kolb over the off season
The asking price was too high so we went with Charlie.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 7, 2010 8:42 PM PST up reply actions
Things change
I don’t think anybody expected Vick to be playing like this. Even if it is expensive, we NEED a QB.
by MTJ on Nov 7, 2010 8:54 PM PST up reply actions
We didn't rule out getting a QB in 2010 either
I think the FO sees Charlie as a guy with upside but not someone they’re going to put all their trust in. If we see a guy we want in the 2011 draft I think we’ll go for him, whether or not Charlie is playing well.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 7, 2010 7:16 PM PST up reply actions
After Bradford
There wasn’t much hope in the 2010 draft. Not many appealing developmental guys either. This year should at least provide some upside guys who need time.
by MTJ on Nov 7, 2010 7:27 PM PST up reply actions
Although...
I think that Max Hall could be the next Kurt Warner! :
by MTJ on Nov 7, 2010 7:28 PM PST up reply actions
Was I the only one who felt like Charlie looked 'good'?
Where ‘good’ is better than what we’ve had at QB this year.
I know what the state line says, but I liked some of his throws, and maybe part of it is that I felt like if he had more opportunities with the ball some of the timing/accuracy issues would settle down.
It was nice to see that long attempt to Butler, the first interception was a nice throw. His pocket awareness seemed much improved over the pre-season.
No SACKS
I also like the fact that under pressure he moved away from it instead of going into the fetal position to lessen the impact of the sack.
Stick a fork in him - HE IS THROUGH
by eohawkfan on Nov 7, 2010 6:47 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
That should be the norm for a QB
Matt lowered our expectations so much.
Michael Robinson leads the Seahawks in completion percentage, yards-per-attempt, and QB rating.
I'm not really sure you can put that all on Charlie
in the post game comments Pete mentioned that the success of the pass protection was due in large part to scheming.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 7, 2010 7:28 PM PST up reply actions
So why the fuck haven't we schemed to protect Mr. Sackelbeck the other 7 games of the year?
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 7, 2010 7:45 PM PST up reply actions
The more blockers you have (as Sando said, the Seahawks almost always had at least two TEs today)
the less receivers you can have on the field.
I know this.
I’m just wondering why we roll out the max protect schemes on the QB who appears more aware in the pocket, and most certainly more mobile once the pocket collapses.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 8, 2010 7:09 AM PST up reply actions
That's Charlie's fault though.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 8, 2010 3:49 PM PST up reply actions
maybe
but he stares down his recieveers way way too much. He looks where he is going to throw from moment one, and if the db sees it, he plays under/close to the receiver, making cw way too easy to defend or intercept.
Or perhaps he shows us something Hasselbeck hasn't.
That the first read IS open, if you have the arm to get it there.
Why NOT lock on and make a throw if it is there, and unlock and use progressions if it is not. Isn’t that the goal and nature of the beast. I think it’s been such a long time since we saw a QB who COULD make the first read throw that we think it’s a bad thing when we see the QB not glancing every which way when preparing to throw.
And with that in mind, perhaps his issues weren’t with the “lock on” but with accuracy due to first game jitters— as I did think he did a nice job of adjusting and gaining accuracy as the game went on.
Also, the TD was to his what, 4th WR? If he is locking on, why would he have locked there?
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 7, 2010 7:28 PM PST up reply actions
I like your thinkin'...
Why can't my higher than average expectations ever be met in the football world? Why?
I thought he looked decent.
His TD throw he did a good job looking off the safety. Even in the replay you can see his eyes start left then move over to Obo. Some of the throws were bullets on the money. Accuracy consistency is a issue.
by Scruffy Lefty on Nov 7, 2010 8:34 PM PST up reply actions
That first interception was a hair away from glorious.
Why can't my higher than average expectations ever be met in the football world? Why?
by Cheddar28 on Nov 7, 2010 11:35 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I thought so, too
At least, with similar caveats.
He didn’t take any sacks, completed just over 50%, and hit seven different receivers.
One interception was unfortunate (Williams in the end zone). The other was bad, but it was at least close, and not the sort of thing I’d call a “horrible” throw.
He had good pocket awareness. His decision-making was better than I expected. He looked for more options as the game went on, and generally found the open man.
What killed his production & stats was his accuracy, which certainly is a fatal flaw, but a flaw that (we hope) can be corrected. At least, I think it’s more correctable than an inability to read coverage, failure to sense pressure, or a weak arm.
I didn't think so
I didn’t see any hard throws that were completed, but I saw several easy throws that were missed, and a few that just weren’t anywhere near the receiver.
That said, I can’t imagine that his total misses are a problem he’ll normally have. I don’t know how to explain them, but obviously a QB at any level (high school, pro, intramural flag football) has to be able to get the ball within a yard or so of the receiver. He had several that weren’t anywhere close, and one sideline pass that was 20 yards out of bounds.
I don’t think he showed us anything.
We see missed receivers every week with Matt!
But that must not be a problem!
Stick a fork in him - HE IS THROUGH
Its not so much that we have more injuries than other teams
As where the carnage is concentrated. Name one team that could withstand the loss of three starting DL. Mebane, Bryant and Cole all have unique, specialized roles, and with all of them missing the whole scheme falls apart.
OL wise, we need Okung. Period. See how I typed out period, even after using the proper punctuation? Thats how super serious I am. Dude’s a difference maker. Here’s to his speedy recovery from this second ankle. I’m hoping to see an Okung – Pitts – Spencer – Andrews – Polumbus line moving forward.
by miracle_max on Nov 7, 2010 6:44 PM PST reply actions 5 recs
Rec'd for seriosity.
Why can't my higher than average expectations ever be met in the football world? Why?
I was thinking exactly this.
I’ve heard the “good teams have depth” angle… but what teams (as you said) could survive the loss of 3/4 of their defensive line? How many of the guys on our current OL were at those spots at the start of the season… one?
The numbers may not be so bad, but the location of those numbers is. Think of 2008’s WR situation… it wasn’t that our whole team was that injured, but we were down to our sixth-string WR at one point.
commentary
sorry, but the statement that QB play doesn’t factor in to this loss is not accurate. Charlie had the chance to make several throws early in the game to get us yards from scrimmage that he totally missed— prior to his receivers dropping the ball. those changed the tone of the game, and if anything showed the defense that they may as well give up cuz the offense was even worse w/o old man Matt in there.
I agree matt is odne, and it would be best that he retire after the season.
However, we need to win this year, if nothing else to show guys like marshawn and tate that winning is fun. Keep losing w/ or w/o Matt and you risk turning those guys into me first guys, instead of team guys. one and done in the playoffs/little taste of success might go a long way….
I'm not sure about that
I’m fairly certain that there is only one game this year where ‘old man Matt’ has scored in the first Quarter. We haven’t exactly been a hot starting offense. The fact that this was a defensive loss was capped off nicely by the Giants’ 13 minute drive to finish off the game. 13 minute drive! Could the QB play been better? of course. but the QB play didn’t factor into the loss because our defense was so epically terrible, the level to which our offense factored in the loss was minimal.
I’m confident this will be demonstrated by the win percentage chart.
by Snuffleupagus on Nov 7, 2010 7:19 PM PST up reply actions
Seattle has not been a fast starter for 3 years.
Michael Robinson leads the Seahawks in completion percentage, yards-per-attempt, and QB rating.
That's gotta be Charlie's fault.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 7, 2010 7:32 PM PST up reply actions
Please look up Matt Hasselbeck's first 3 games as Seahawks starter
Thank you.
Michael Robinson leads the Seahawks in completion percentage, yards-per-attempt, and QB rating.
by SSreporters on Nov 7, 2010 7:22 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I have
and the score was never as lopsided coming out of the first qtr as it was today.
bottom line, is CW had some opportunities to make plays, and he overthrew butler on one of them (granted butler jumped a bit early) and then missed a flat out wide open tight end on the trickery play.
he could have at least slowed down the giants attack by getting first downs in those situations. doesn’t mean I think we would have won, or that I’m saying we would have one with matt.
But CW had plenty of chances to show that he should clearly take over matt’s role as starter, and I saw little that convinced me of that today.
The score is almost irrelevant to individual performance
Charlie Whitehurst was not solely or mostly responsible for a 35-0 deficit
Michael Robinson leads the Seahawks in completion percentage, yards-per-attempt, and QB rating.
IN HIS FIRST NFL START.
I recall Hasselbeck throwing an incredibly stupid INT in his first game with Housh last year, the season opener.
Apparently Charlie isn’t allowed first game EVER jitters???
As the game went on, he looked better, but the defense looked worse… it’s a shame really, as one more stop by the D, even on the 4th down, and we perhaps could have seen Charlie run a 2 minute drill and even have us leave with a smile on our faces, thinking, “Hey, the new guy got better as the game went on, maybe he can do something here.”
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 7, 2010 7:34 PM PST up reply actions
Completely agree
We can’t start judging CW off one game, especially his first start.
by MTJ on Nov 7, 2010 7:41 PM PST up reply actions
some judgements
you can make some judgements. like the fact that he stares at his primary receiver way too long, something he has done since pre season.
Also the fact that he missed wide open guys a couple of times — doesn’t matter if it’s your first start, if the guy is wide open, and you aren’t super pressured, you need to make the throw.
Go look at matt ryan, mark sanchez, joe flacco’s first games, they made some plays they needed to make. CW didnt today, hopefully he will in the future.
Look at Obamanu’s quote below, the fact that they were playing under is due in part to CW staring down the primary — they know he isn’t just looking off the defense, he’s staring where he’s going to throw.
I’d like CW to do well, I’d like to think we have our QB of the next 3-4 yrs on the team, but I didn’t see it today. Maybe next time, but right now matt is still the best option to win.
Matt Ryan, Mark Sanchez, and Joe Flacco are not the norm
Whitehurst does stare down his receiver but that is a coachable thing that can be fixed.
He hasn’t thrown a pass in an NFL game pre-season/reg. season in over 2 months so of course he is not going to be as accurate as we’d like him to be.
Michael Robinson leads the Seahawks in completion percentage, yards-per-attempt, and QB rating.
maybe
if it was a coachable thing, then why after 5 years in the league, with the people that coached drew brees and phillip rivers, and the guys that coached sanchez, ands cutler, has cw not fixed it?
isn’t that something you can work on in pracitce, and don’t need real time game experience to improve upon?
again, I’m rooting for CW to work out, and be great, I just would’ve liked to see a bit more today,first start or no
We can't make too many definitive statements
Seeing as we couldn’t get the ball.
Michael Robinson leads the Seahawks in completion percentage, yards-per-attempt, and QB rating.
Mark Sanchez is still a lousy QB on a good team
He can’t make NFL reads on his own, stairs down his receivers and can’t make all the throws he needs to.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 7, 2010 8:02 PM PST up reply actions
He might stair down his receivers
But the team elevates his play.
Oh that’s terrible…
Michael Robinson leads the Seahawks in completion percentage, yards-per-attempt, and QB rating.
by SSreporters on Nov 7, 2010 8:04 PM PST up reply actions 3 recs
Looking for the "Bad Pun" flag . . .
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 7, 2010 8:05 PM PST up reply actions
I was gonna say elevators but that was too obvious.
Michael Robinson leads the Seahawks in completion percentage, yards-per-attempt, and QB rating.
one at a time
I was trying to take it one “step” at a time since this is my first time on this site.
by dt dt on Nov 7, 2010 8:10 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Welcome to Field Gulls
Our door is always open when you reach the top of the steps.
Michael Robinson leads the Seahawks in completion percentage, yards-per-attempt, and QB rating.
agree
I’m not one that thinks we should’ve drafted sanchez, I was wanting crabtree instead of curry
Damn I hit cancel
I wanted to say I would’ve picked Stafford if he fell to us.
Michael Robinson leads the Seahawks in completion percentage, yards-per-attempt, and QB rating.
You do realize that Matt's biggest "success game" was against SF, who did the exact same thing, jumping routes?
And we made them pay with an up-and-out.
Joe Flacco’s first game, in 2008, he was 15-29 with 129 yards (4.4. average.) He had zero TD throws.
Notice his Defense gave up 10 points, allowing him to win.
Matt Ryan’s first game, also 2008. 9 for 13, 161 yards, 1 TD.
His team won 34-21. Against Detroit. Wow. 0-16 Detroit. Way to blow us away, Mr. Ryan.
And Sanchez? He was 18-31, 272 yards with 1 TD 1 Int. A solid game. Of course, he had a world of difficulty later, as he finished the year with 12 TD’s and 20 INT’s, and it was only a great line, a great running game and a great defense that helped him win. His team won in spite of him last year, not because of him.
But then, I’m sure you looked up all those numbers first before posting, didn’t you. And you have some true analysis of how much worse Whitehurst is then those 3 examples, in their very first game. Right?
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 7, 2010 8:14 PM PST up reply actions
Didn't mean for that to sound so harsh, if it did.
But Whitehurst’s first start was similarly ineffective to a lot of other guys, but because they’ve gone on to more success, people look at the later success and equate it with their beginnings, which simply isn’t true as they’ve all had quite humble beginnings.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 7, 2010 8:24 PM PST up reply actions
no worries
but point being, those guys still made some plays when they needed/had to.
Charlie had the chance to make some early plays, and he didn’t take adavantge of that. that’s what I wanted to see. I wanted a QB controversy, and I don’t feel like I got one today.
In no way did I expect CW to win today, and I’m more than content that we didn’t draft sanchez, I was never a fan of that idea.
when lookng at stats tho, I think you have to look at when you get them — Did all of those QB’s miss open receivers on third downs early in the game, or did they efrfectively manage the game by making plays when they needed too. CW could’ve made a positive difference early in this game, and he wasn’t able to do so.
Regardless, this game doesn’t mean too much. if we win next week we are still in good shape
Those guys also had good teams.
We had a patchwork OL and a broken down D with receivers that were equally making mistakes. Plus those guys were first round picks, not back up QB’s. Those other QBs practiced from the beggining with 1st stringers, so they had plenty of time to be on the same page. Also the QBs were “last link” pieces with good OL and supporting casts.
by PhoneHomeET29 on Nov 7, 2010 9:00 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
still
doesn’t change the fact that charlie missed more throws than he made.
he didn’t do enough to win the starting job.
Obviously
But he played like a 3rd round 3rd string QB for 5 years that is now a backup getting his first ever NFL start should. Did you have expectations of him performing like Matt Ryan? I didn’t, but I did see some good throws, some bad throws, some good receiver play, some bad receiver play, a good run play and horrible run blocking (which helps out the QB).
by PhoneHomeET29 on Nov 7, 2010 10:10 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
A run game helps out the QB.
There wasn’t one.
by PhoneHomeET29 on Nov 7, 2010 10:11 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Need to show Marshawn that winning is fun?
Everybody knows winning is fun, but he came from the Bills. He thinks Dave and Busters is fun.
by hazbro24 on Nov 8, 2010 8:34 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Rec'd. That's funny.
And a bag full of awesome!
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 8, 2010 9:51 AM PST up reply actions
I feared
That the 2009 draft from Ruskell would not only be his last but it’d be his worst. Right now it’s shaping up to be that way.
Michael Robinson leads the Seahawks in completion percentage, yards-per-attempt, and QB rating.
Unger will develop....!
Yyyyyeah….
Why can't my higher than average expectations ever be met in the football world? Why?
I was at this misserable pile of a game
But even in the face of such a crushing defeat; I still enjoyed myself and had a good time
"Tell my tale to those who ask. Tell it truly, the ill deeds along with the good and let me be judged accordingly. The rest is silence." ~ Dinobot
by beastwarking on Nov 7, 2010 7:18 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
GOOD. Glad to hear, with the cost of a game.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 7, 2010 7:35 PM PST up reply actions
The game was even more miserable than my low expectations
…but I would like to see Charlie start another game or two. I don’t like his tendency to lock onto his primary read, but the velocity on the throws was refreshing. It was hard to tell from the broadcast how many receivers were out in routes vs. max protect, etc.
Am I the only one who misses Kevin Vickerson? I was very surprised when we parted ways with him. Sure seems like he could have helped today.
They were jumping Charlie's routes today:
WR BEN OBOMANU
(On his touchdown reception) "It was one of those things where they press-bailed a lot and they were jumping some of my inside routes. I think we had thrown a little skinny post to Mike Williams early in the red zone and the ball got intercepted. Deon Butler ran the same route and it got jumped inside. So we had already game-planned a little bit and said, ‘OK, they’re going to jump that route, we’re going to double-move.’ I just happened to be in the game, my one play of the game too on offense, and they threw me the ball. Charlie just made a good play. It wasn’t that hard, it was just one of those things where they were so aggressive because they were up in the scoreboard they were going to jump routes and try to get picks and interceptions. It was just a double-move to the back corner of the end zone."
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 7, 2010 7:34 PM PST reply actions
We've scored 1 offensive touchdown in 5 different games
QB and offensive line should be the only focus on offense in 2011.
Michael Robinson leads the Seahawks in completion percentage, yards-per-attempt, and QB rating.
Or we could get BMW some stickum
Second game in a row that he’s dropped the ball within 5 yards of the endzone.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 7, 2010 8:08 PM PST up reply actions
I want to see some more throws to Stokley
We are really lacking white man hustle.
Michael Robinson leads the Seahawks in completion percentage, yards-per-attempt, and QB rating.
Kinda makes you want Peyton Hillis.
Drool.
Why can't my higher than average expectations ever be met in the football world? Why?
How about some credit to the big show....
Snagging hillis for trash brady quinn and a 7th….. GENIUS
by Seahawks4life on Nov 8, 2010 3:21 AM PST up reply actions
Despite everything, I really like these coaches.
Maybe Bates gets a little too cutsiepie on third downs, but does anyone worry about how prepared this team is going into a week.
I was really pissed when Carroll was hired. And I still don’t know how I feel about the amount of power he was given. But that dude is an NFL coach, and I believe 100% that if you give him any talent at all he’ll be able to win a game. For everything that is wrong, Pete Carroll is still right with this team.
by Nate Dogg on Nov 7, 2010 8:19 PM PST reply actions 6 recs
That 3rd and 1 toss pissed me so much
Because Whitehurst’s target was freaking Chris Baker and he overshot him by miles, and the fact we needed to run it just to get a yard.
Games like this make me miss Weaver.
Michael Robinson leads the Seahawks in completion percentage, yards-per-attempt, and QB rating.
It was a great play that failed due to execution
They’d run in practice successfully and it should have worked during the game but Charlie missed the throw. The problem with that play was the players, not the coach.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 7, 2010 8:22 PM PST up reply actions
I like the play
I don’t understand running it on 3rd and 1. Maybe to catch them by surprise? And even if the pass was converted we just ran a 15 yard trick play.
Michael Robinson leads the Seahawks in completion percentage, yards-per-attempt, and QB rating.
I'm wondering if the ball was wet/slippery? Like in the simple handoff wasn't enough to get it wet, but after a handoff AND throw it got wet.
Then he had to deal with that when throwing?
He blew the throw regardless, but I wonder if there was a problem there too.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 7, 2010 8:28 PM PST up reply actions
Because they were expecting a run on 3rd and short
and we had real problems running the ball.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 7, 2010 8:33 PM PST up reply actions
Play-action to Carlson
Or have Charlie on a QB draw where he would get a 60 yard gain by moving Giants out of the way.
Michael Robinson leads the Seahawks in completion percentage, yards-per-attempt, and QB rating.
That throw really looked like Charlie wanted to let it go to Mike Williams but realized too late Baker was open
And just split the difference.
by Scruffy Lefty on Nov 7, 2010 8:35 PM PST up reply actions
Or it was supposed to go to Baker
and he saw Williams open for a longer gain with fewer defenders behind him.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 7, 2010 8:36 PM PST up reply actions
Either way, it was a mistake
Now, don’t get me wrong, I was rooting for Charlie on every pass he threw and expected him, in his first NFL start, to make some mistakes. I understand, though, that he made mistakes and everything can’t be explained away as someone else’s fault.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 7, 2010 8:41 PM PST up reply actions
I wasn't trying to put the blame on anyone else.
Even Charlie said he made a awful throw.
by Scruffy Lefty on Nov 7, 2010 8:44 PM PST up reply actions
Sorry, I wasn't trying to say that you were
I was trying to make a general comment in the context of discussing a mistake Charlie made.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 7, 2010 8:47 PM PST up reply actions
I kind of though the same thing.
He had two receivers and didn’t know where to go, and the ball just ended up somewhere exactly between them.
True -- Mike Williams was wide open deep -- he had his man beat by a few yards
…and the safety was a mile away. If Charlie would have thrown deep anywhere in the area, it may have been six. sigh
I didn’t like that play on 3rd and 1 either though. Fine on most any other down/distance though.
Funny, that was my impression at the time.
Your brain says one thing (BMW) and just before you release it says something different (Baker) and thus the terrible miss.
As someone already pointed out, why settle for 15 on the trick play? Surely designed to go for much more.
Agreed.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 8, 2010 6:19 PM PST up reply actions
Offense, Offense, Offense
We need to truly blow our load on the offensive side of the ball in the 2011 draft. We still need a QB, OL, and a big time WR (tall, fast, can catch).
Our defense truly has no chance because of the time of possession and the fact that everybody in the world knows our O can’t score.
Good GD we could use about 3 first rounders and a few more 2nds. Think the Patriots are feeling charitable?
Time of Posession: Giants 42:34, Seahawks 17:26
We had the ball just over 1 quarter, Giants had for almost 3 FULL QUARTERS. Our offense killed our defense, but I don’t really think it was much of Charlie’s fault, because the run game never let the passing game get going.
I've been clammoring for Charlie but I don't think he looked good.
Regardless, I’d still keep him starting. I want to see him get more reps, because his good passes were very encouraging. Yeah, he sucked, and the line even gave him time, but he seemed to have zip on his throws. I’d like to see him get some more game time so we can see if his inaccuracy is just jitters, or a real problem that makes him no more than a back up.
I'd keep starting him too. he has all the tools that Mat simply has lost or never had to begin with.
As far as reads go, he’ll get better with playing time. What did he throw, two picks? One of them was on the receivers’ hands. Chalk that one up to Williams.
John Hancock
so we can say Whitehurst performed worse than projected Matt.
EXCEPT, Matt would have sacked himself a dozen times and been out for the year.
John Hancock
Well last time we lost to the Giants at Quest was 2008
We lost by 44-6. So we scored one more point and gave up three less! I think that counts as improvement.
Hasselbeck by the way? 11-21-105 with 1 int
So things are looking up!
seems like
they let us score though. Of all the sweet ironies: that was the one part of the game I missed.
Good Job Chuck
I for one thought it was great seeing the ball thrown with something on it. He needs to be playing. NOW ! Get the man a few hundred reps with these young, fast receivers. With Okung and Pitts Things will improve 100% for the Q.B. put Chuck in NOW!!! Love you Matt ,but it’s time to start coaching.
I can't call him Chuck.
That just seems wrong.
Did you realize that the World Series is going on? Yeah, me neither. Zzzzzzzz...
by Wayward Llama on Nov 8, 2010 10:44 AM PST up reply actions
I can't help but to wonder--
Whitehurst was 12-23, 113 yards, 1 TD/2INT.
If Mike Williams caught a TD instead of donated an interception at the goal line, and Whitehurst’s line was
13-23 for 130 yards, 2TD/1INT how different perception would be of him and his performance??
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 8, 2010 10:04 AM PST reply actions
And on top of that thought--
what if the D made a single stop in the 4th quarter instead of letting them run the clock out— a 12+ minute drive.
And he got one more possession in which to play, and did okay in that possession, even to score again. Suddenly he has a 19-31, 180 yard 3 TD 1 INT game. It isn’t far from reality. One dropped pass not being dropped and one stop (on say, 4th and 2, which we couldn’t get). Then a mop-up drive against 2nd teamers for some stat padding.
While I don’t think he did anything to make us definitively say he should be our QB going forward, I would also say Hasselbeck has done nothing this year to gain the same allowance, and all things being equal, move toward the future not stay stalling in the past.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 8, 2010 10:27 AM PST up reply actions
Agreed. We need to see more of CW
Hasselbeck had a few games to get his legs under him when he got his start in the league (which were horrible, btw). CW deserves the same. I think this season is over in terms of playoffs for the Hawks, and we need to start building the future. Better we take our lumps with Charlie now, rather than waiting until next season, when we are healthy again, and have a better shot at building toward the postseason. We may be 4-4, but we have very little chance at the postseason this year the way we are playing and with all the injuries.
If we somehow go into Arizona Sunday next week and come out with a victory (which is a long shot, but they have no QB), then we can talk about a playoff run this year, though, as our division is so incredibly weak (see Sando’s blog today). I would still rather continue to start CW, in any case, but the writing is on the wall that PC likes Matt as his starter.
Two more games!
Give us two more games of Whitehurst! I want to see him play teams we play every year and know what to expect on defensive packages. See if he can put his clipboard wisdom or knowledge on the field.
That's exactly what Hasselbeck got, and he was less than inspiring in those initial 3 starts...
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 8, 2010 1:14 PM PST up reply actions
And not to make excuses for Charlie, but
our O-line was so patched together in this game (facing the fearsome NYG front four), that we kept in two and three tight ends most of the game, so it wasn’t exactly like there were a plethora of WRs to target all over the field. I’d like to see CW get a chance against an average front four with a reasonable O-line before passing final judgement on his career.
Matt didn't face the Giants front four on Sunday though
Matt has faced some decent d-lines, but not the Giants.
Holy Jeez!
This isn’t the apocalypse! We’re a team that went 9-23 in the past two seasons. Injuries are part of the game. The elite teams find a way to win even in spite of serious injuries. Hasselbeck is clearly on the back-nine of his career (this will hopefully serve as the understatement of the day). And Obviously We’re not an elite team. But that’s okay.. It was brutal watching the game yesterday although the blowout loss was expected. Whitehurst can’t be judged after one game. You have to evaluate Whitehurst as if he’s a rookie. Elite College and Pro defenders make better plays on the ball than what Whitehurst is likely accustomed to only having played in the pre-season and Collegeball many years ago. Yes, the Seahawks were absolutely and completely embarassed yesterday. The Giants are a good team, if not the best team in the NFC. Our patchwork defense simply wasn’t good enough to contend with a stellar offense. These games happen. We’ll probably have a few more games extremely similar to yesterday’s game this year like when we go to New Orleans in a couple of weeks. The only thing we can do is continue to root for the team and hope that they show signs of improvement by the end of next season. This season would be a complete write-off if we were in any other division, however being in the NFC West, we still, despite our horrendously bad play over the past two weeks, have a serious chance at winning this god-awful division. Whitehurst hopefully learned a few things yesterday which will hopefully serve us well next season when he will likely be the starter and then depending on his performance, we either further develop him into a solid starter like a poor Man’s Dave Krieg minus the fumbles (hopefully), or we start seriously grooming an elite QB prospect with one of our first 3 picks. However, true Seahawks fans should know that this is a scary thought considering how bad we are historically regarding drafting quarterbacks. My fiancee asked me yesterday why I put myself through this pain. It’s because this franchise is the perennial underdog (except for maybe the 2005-06 Season) and the team absolutely symbolizes the Pacific Northwest. Beautiful, ignored, disrespected and still awesome!. Forget the pundits and ignorant individuals who just dismiss the Seahawks with a “They’re not very good”. The media wants the Seahawks to be bad because it’s a small market which is extremely geographically inconvenient. The Seahawks are our team and will come back and compete on another day. I truly hope it’s next week and that we’re healthier and that the team brings the right mind set. We can still win this division. Admittedly, the team needs a lot of work, but, I’m willing to suffer by watching every week because this is a team that I love simply because they’re almost unbelievably less pretentious than all of those smug and arrogant fan bases that don’t appreciate their team when things go bad. Stay strong Seattle, and don’t lose any sleep over this one, otherwise you’re just a bad Tom Hanks movie.
I feel like your name should be Marleyhawk instead...
I feel stoned after reading that string of consciousness.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 8, 2010 10:23 AM PST up reply actions
*This is not meant to be confrontational*
Reading this thread made me realize just how frustrating it must been for the guys that wanted to see Charlie listen to the pro-play-Matt faction (including myself) try to apologize for/explain away/defend poor QB play.
I feel like this debate is going to continue because both QB’s are terrible… but in their own ways. I saw absolutely nothing out of Charlie yesterday that made me think any different of him. I still don’t want to see him play. It’s not fair that he had to play against that team with our offense and defense “supporting” him. Life isn’t fair. I don’t think either of our current QB’s will be in the league after next year.
In a perfect world… Matt’s concussion lingers and they start Charlie two more times while on the road and then are done with him so I don’t have to see him at Qwest again. Either that or he lights the world on fire and I’m on the Charlie bandwagon. Through my admittedly jaded view, he took all the air out Qwest. Even the the drunk morons 3 rows behind me that were clamoring for him all year turned on him by the end of the 2nd quarter. They seem to know what they are talking about when they are not throwing up…. so I’m going to use them as my proof that Charlie isn’t an NFL QB.
Okay.... I'm in.
Perfect.
Drunk guys that give up on a guy before even the end of the first half of his first start in the NFL ever are your baseline for a knowledgeable fan base.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 8, 2010 1:20 PM PST up reply actions
ABOUT THE FUCKING COIN TOSS!!!!
KICK THE FUCKING BALL AWAY AT HOME AND LET THE FANS DO WHAT THEY CAME TO DO!
That’s all.
Okay.... I'm in.
It's okay to be angry about that right?
It really sets me off. I don’t want to be the angry guy, but this is something that I’m passionate/positive about. Taking the kick with a rookie starter, newb O-line, and against the best defense in the NFC was a really poor decision.
Throw in the fact that NY has melted down under the Qwest crowd in the past and it’s borderline inexcusable.
Okay.... I'm in.
by The Manchild on Nov 8, 2010 10:41 AM PST up reply actions
I'm angry, too
If they’d deferred, Seattle would have been able to take the better side of the field, which was a big factor in the 1st quarter. The sun was low and directly in Whitehurst’s eyes. But it should have dipped behind the scoreboard and been a non-factor sometime in the 2nd quarter.
An excellent point. Would have been nice to let the crowd potentially lead to our first success of the day, instead of the high likelihood of being lulled by the typical 3 and out that comes with conservative "first start ever" playcalling.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 8, 2010 1:23 PM PST up reply actions
I'm skeptical of the crowd not having the same energy after just one 3-and-out.
The crowd couldn’t muster a false start the whole game – I doubt that’s due to the first drive failing. The wind and sun, however, do seem like valid issues. Getting the ball first just didn’t seem worth having to drive into the breeze, which was healthy.
I hear you, but the point is also to help a first time starter to relax a little.
Perhaps having the D make a stop and not making him immediately take the field could help with that a little?
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 8, 2010 3:51 PM PST up reply actions
If that happened, yes it would be better.
On the other hand, if the Giants score on their first possession, it would be even worse I would think. So I think it’s a tossup in that regard.
Still think we go 8-8!
Which will be an improvement from last couple of seasons. We have a tough schedule this year. I don’t care what the media says about it. We play Tampa, Falcons, KC, NO tell me those teams arent tough this year.
We're better than last year, no question.
When we’re playing well this year, we’ve got a tough run defense at least. That keeps us in games with offenses much better than ours. Our running game isn’t fantastic but it is often respectable enough to open up short completions. The glimpses of the running game with Okung in and a guard like Hamilton when he was semi-healthy are encouraging. We definitely need a quarterback foremost but with a couple of good picks on both lines, we will be able to grind the ball and force other teams to pass. If we do it right, we’ll build our offense just like the Giants did.
by BurtonOerney on Nov 8, 2010 11:18 AM PST up reply actions
I regret losing Seneca Wallace.
I understood the move to get Whitehurst as a response to our need for a better backup than Seneca Wallace. The price was high but qb talent is hard to come by right now. Anderson would have been better. Actually, in hindsight, sticking with Wallace would have been the best thing to do, considering how he did with Cleveland before getting hurt. At the time, though, I understood the reasoning.
Of course, because, you know, we've seen all we need to see of Whitehurst, and can make a fully educated decision.
Everyone is SO jumping the gun!
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 8, 2010 1:32 PM PST up reply actions
Lets not give up on Clipboard Jesus yet!
I know he miss fired some passes but I caught glimpses of a gunslinger. That boy can throw a nice ball. We don’t know if it was first game jitters or what. I would love to see two more games. Hell, even one full season. Lets go after Kellen Moore from Boise St.
To me Kellen Moore is the anti-Whitehurst.
It’s odd that you like both. Kellen Moore is listed at 6 foot 191. That means he is probably 5 foot 4 and 125lbs.
Whitehurst looks like an NFL QB and has a cannon. I think he is a sheep in wolves clothing….. but that has been discussed.
Okay.... I'm in.
by The Manchild on Nov 8, 2010 11:09 AM PST up reply actions
I'm not saying Kellen Moore can't be good.
Not that I think using the exception to the rule (Brees) means a whole lot. I was just saying that liking Whitehurst (all-tools) and Kellen Moore (all-production) seemed a little bit odd in the same post.
Okay.... I'm in.
by The Manchild on Nov 8, 2010 11:21 AM PST up reply actions
Whitehurst's problems are real problems.
Whitehurst does ok at getting the ball out quickly. I couldn’t see why that was at first. He squats low under the center and it seems like it takes him extra time to get up and drop back. Whitehurst didn’t seem to move away from pressure very well. I think he makes up time by not reading the defense while he’s in the pocket. It really looks like he gives the secondary a hard look before the snap but once he takes the ball, he’s on autopilot. Any zone defense is going to know where Whitehurst is going to throw the ball before he makes the throw.
Nobody expected Whitehurst to win the game today but it was pretty disappointing that he wasn’t even able to complete short passes on first and third downs on a defense that was leading 35-0 at the half. That qb rating of 40 is very low and extra concerning considering the double-extra-pass-blocker scheme we ran and the amount of garbage time he had to pad his stats. Not that he should have been thinking about his stats; just that the Giants would have given us short completions in the second half. That would have been better than not moving the ball at all.
My favorite player today was Lynch. That single 7-yard run carrying 21 guys on his back was amazing. If we can ever give him a hole, (Okung) he must be able to exploit it.
by BurtonOerney on Nov 8, 2010 11:11 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
Jeramy Bates
What is his deal? I thought he was a decent OC? To run a trick play on 3 and 1 instead of giving it to the Beast. Lynch is a power back. He doesnt need very large holes to move the pile. Lets draw up some plays that will utilize our best features. Chester was in the game and was taking care of business on his side of the ball. Lets run it that way. That’s one broken tackle that can get us a yard or two.
I guess I'm alone in that I loved the play. It worked like it was supposed to.
Up until the point that it failed. :)
Okay.... I'm in.
by The Manchild on Nov 8, 2010 11:23 AM PST up reply actions
The Giants were stacking the box and expecting run on that play.
I honestly think a hand off to Lynch would of lost us 1-2 yards there. That play should of worked, but Whitehurst got caught in between throwing it to BMW and Baker and just tossed it in between the two of them. Funny enough, it’s probably a throw Matt makes, but whatever.
Bates is suffering the same problem that Knapp did, not enough talent to really run the offense he wants. Luckily Bates isn’t being blamed for the losses the way Knapp was.
Focus needs to start going his way
This isn’t the QB’s fault. We’ve had what, 3 games now where we’ve scored a touchdown or less? Bates is not a dynamic play caller and he needs to start game planning better. Kudos for preventing Charlie from getting sacked, but perhaps after going down 21-0 we could have seen more risks being taken. According to Sando we had 2 TE’s blocking on the majority of pass plays. Let’s open it up a little more. Also, where is the run game?
Where is the run game?
Why do we give up on the run so quickly? Not every run will breakout. But we need to get the backs the ball atleast 20 times a game. Shouldnt that open the passing game up more? Run the ball on 1st or 2nd down.
because the running game has been crap the last two weeks
and I can’t think of more then 1-2 runs where we didn’t have defensive linemen 4 yards deep in the backfield. Just playing devils advocate because I would have preferred a QB sneak or something but what can you do.
From The Hawks Nest - Seahawks Podcast
http://www.http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/from-the-hawks-nest/id385227705
by Hancock.Brett on Nov 8, 2010 11:33 AM PST up reply actions
It is premature to be expecting a much better product on the field..
We have been in win-now mode for years. We have frequently plugged holes with older vets (Kerney, Wahle, Lucas, Housh, Edge, etc.). We will get better when improvements due to new additions and developments by recent additions dominate the rate at which older players decline or retire.
Most of that “development” is still occurring through Curry, Jennings, Mebane, etc. In other words, players drafted by the previous regime. At the same time, over-reliance on older guys is making the decline side of the equation bigger. If we agree that TR didn’t draft all that well the last few years, then we should not expect the team to be getting better yet. At best, we can hope that we are getting worse slower and that the trend may reverse in the future.
As for the 2010 draft. Most of us were pretty excited about that draft. I think the enthusiasm is warranted. Okung has been hurt, but looks nothing like a bad selection. Thomas and Thurmond both look like good selections. Tate has been a bit of a disappointment, but it is still tough to argue with that pick.
If we finish the year winning 7-8 games I think that is pretty promising. When we get to see the current regimes picks in the OL and DL, then we should start expecting to see some improvement.
For those who are absolutely sold on giving up on Whitehurst so quickly, can we look just a hair closer?
I see a ton of people discounting first NFL start jitters. C’mon people. That’s a HUGE deal, particularly for a guy who waited so damn long to get his chance.
We’re talking a mediocre game, but even a SINGLE non-drop turned into TD instead of INT and his numbers would have looked a little better. But let’s look a little closer—
His first 10 passes he was 3-10 for 5 yards and an interception. It doesn’t get much worse than that.
He was also 7-15 for 37 yards and 2 interceptions.
How you couldn’t attribute a significant portion to nerves I have no idea, nor am I willing to abandon ship after a single incredibly crappy half. Hasselbeck’s had going on 3 crappy years now. Let’s try a different texture and smell for our crap!!!
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
Perhaps it's confirmation bias for everyone when it comes to our bad QB's.
Some of us never wanted to see Charlie Whitehurst in a meaningful game. I was done with him before he choked/jittered yesterday. For 5 years now his coaches have agreed. The most telling agreement is the PC agreement. The fact that he wants Matt in there after the past 3 years of film is telling. I get that you can say there is no shame in not beating out Rivers. I even buy the fact that Volek is a pretty solid back-up. We are not talking about backing up the back-up for Manning and Brady. It’s still Billy Volek….perennial back-up.
1. Backing up Rivers and Volek forever.
2. Losing out to Matt when the coaches clearly favored cleaning out the old.
3. Watching him in preseason.
4. Watching him yesterday.
How can you take those 4 things and say anyone gave up on him too quickly?
If Matt throws a ball like Charlie did on the 3rd and 1 trick play I really doubt you question whether or not the ball was wet. That was my favorite post of the whole thread….. well until you said “let’s try a different texture and smell for our crap”. That was quality. I would love my crap with a different texture and smell, but after we are out of the playoffs.
Okay.... I'm in.
This
Its one thing to say that Charlie had a bad day but that most NFL QBs start slow. Its a another thing entirely to rail on Matt while digging for excuses to exculpate Charlie.
Charlie had a bad game. He can probably play better, given more favorable circumstances and a lucky break or two. The same thing could be said for Matt.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 8, 2010 2:31 PM PST up reply actions
Charlie's circumstances were far more worse than Matt has had to face this year.
The Giants are by far better than any team we’ve played, we had no defensive line and were thus down by 21 before you could say BOO, and the offensive line was utter patchwork.
Charlie did not play well. Trust me, I’m as hopeful for this guy as anyone, and he looked awful as far as I was concerned. But in no way can we say much of anything that is conclusive until he’s had a few games under his belt and at least one or two in which we aren’t obviously going to get destroyed.
by djafrot on Nov 8, 2010 2:40 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
This is true
but I’m hearing the excuses from people that put the blame for all of our offensive woes from 2008 and 2009 on Matt’s shoulders. It just makes no sense to give Charlie a pass for poor play when Matt gets pilloried for poor play under similar circumstances.
And like I said earlier, I’m a Charlie supporter for every snap he takes behind center.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 8, 2010 2:59 PM PST up reply actions
In fairness, I don't put all the blame on Matt.
But we do know he isn’t good under these circumstances. Outside Aaron Rodgers, I’m not sure who IS good in those circumstances of piecemeal lines and random WR’s out there, but that being said, maybe, just maybe, Charlie is a little better than Matt in such a scenario.
(And we know he can’t be much worse.)
That’s essentially the crux of my argument.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 8, 2010 4:04 PM PST up reply actions
How did I rail on Matt?
Or am I incorrect and he HASN’T sucked for three years now?
Are we watching the same team?
And also, “He can probably play better, given more favorable circumstances and a lucky break or two. The same thing could be said for Matt.”
Matt has gotten breaks— like great defensive efforts against SF, Chicago and Arizona, and great special teams against SD. Charlie got two straight scores against him by the D and alternate universe sucky Leon— all in the first quarter.
He deserves a longer look, and barring amazingness from everyone BUT the QB, we aren’t going anywhere with Matt anyway, except perhaps a limp into the playoffs and a drubbing once there. Yep, that’ll be fun. Especially since it will lead to no further knowledge about Charlie’s game capability.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 8, 2010 4:01 PM PST up reply actions
I'm not saying it wasn't a terrible throw, I was mainly wondering about the potential for a wet ball.
And if it was, then that of course goes back to Bates for asking his first time starter QB to catch a pass in the rain AND throw it too.
I am absolutely NOT of the belief that the coaches “clearing favored cleaning out the old” if you put Hasselbeck into the “cleaning out the old” category. Coaches have a funny way of holding onto experienced vets who are deteriorating. (See Gray, Chris; Hamilton, Ben as recent Hawk guards.)
And if Matt threw that bad ball, I would have screamed at the TV— just like I did when Charlie threw it.
After we are out of the playoffs? And what, pray tell, are we gonna do to get to the playoffs right now? Rely on Matt to lead us there, as he so capably has the past two seasons with essentially the same situation around him as this year?
Yeah.
That’s gonna work.
C’mon. Let the old guy go and hope to God the new guy brings something to the table, cause the old guy doesn’t.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 8, 2010 3:57 PM PST up reply actions
I agree that coaches often let veteren players linger too long.
That seems much more likely to happen if the player and the coach have a history. It’s flawed to suggest that Pete Carrol has done anything but put the players on the field that he thinks gives the team the best chance to win. Matt and Pete had no history. They even paid an amount for Charlie suggesting he was going to get more than a fair shot at competing for the job.
They cleaned house when they got here. Brought in a record amount of players to try and upgrade the shitty team that Matt (whose stats you love to post) had to play with the past 3 years.
I know I’m too comfortable with Matt playing, I’ve heard all of your arguments and most are well thought out and sound. The only thing we differ on is whether or not Charlie has the potential to be the guy or not and how we should go about finding out.
Okay.... I'm in.
Well said.
The only way to find out, though, is to play him and see. At least then we’ll know… we already know what we know about Matt— he isn’t taking us anywhere new, nor anywhere near where he’s taken us in the past.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 8, 2010 6:24 PM PST up reply actions
That sentence about Manning and Brady is confusing.
It was meant to read that it would be different if Whitehurst was third on the depth chart behind Manning and Brady.
Okay.... I'm in.
Volek was the backup, Charlie was the developmental prospect
They kept Charlie because they still thought he had some upside. They kept Billy because he could play a more consistent, “backup-type” game when Rivers went down.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 8, 2010 2:20 PM PST up reply actions

by 


































