A Backup's Progress and Why Seattle's Quarterback Problem Can No Longer Be Solved
Bad teams start backup quarterbacks. Good teams stick with their starter. It's more than a rule of thumb; It's common sense. But let's not mistake the flow of cause and effect. Sticking with the starter doesn't make the team good. But if the quarterback is good, the team tends to be good, and the backup quarterback sits.
Charlie Whitehurst has hardly set the world afire in his 45 pass attempts, but should we really expect him to? How good is an average backup in his first start? How good can we expect a quarterback to be subbing from the bench? Does the "week's worth of first-team reps" actually make any impact? How about the following week, since we're talking about Whitehurst -- does starting consecutive games help a quarterback "play into a rhythm?"
It's a difficult set of questions to answer in any meaningful way. Sample sizes are sure to be small. Level of competition will vary. As a substitute, a backup can be entering almost any game situation, and it's almost impossible to adjust expectations for that. Is the opposing team still blitzing, attacking and ensuring the win, or is it resting starters and killing clock? As a first-time starter, a backup might face a great defense, and then in his second start, play a rotten defense, and how do we account for that? We could use a kind of opponent adjustment, but opponent adjustment applied to a single start can be wildly misleading. How do we account for injuries to the opposing defense? How do we account for matchups?
If we can't attempt anything approaching science, we can at least attempt something approaching a survey. Of all the backups that took the field this year, against different levels of opposition and surrounded by different levels of talent, how has each fared as a substitute? In their first start? In their second consecutive start? Their third?
Well, I ended up with this list*.
It includes only players that started the season as a backup. It includes players that oscillated back and forth from starter and backup like Jimmy Clausen. It's not a handsome list. It begins to include the best work of Jon Kitna, as Kitna rounded into shape in his third consecutive start. Some players never took the field as a substitute. Some players never started a second game.
There is virtually no trend, as this set of graphs indicates.
(Click for larger)
This shows all backup quarterbacks with five or more pass attempts by adjusted net yards per attempt as recorded over weeks starting. The Y axis is ANY/A. The X axis is weeks starting with 1 = fill in, and 2-4 equaling first start, second consecutive start and third consecutive start.
Quarterbacks seem to be at their worst as a substitute. Ten of 16 quarterbacks that substituted one week, improved as the starter the next week. Subs on the whole averaged only 3.56 ANY/A. Players with a week to prepare averaged a comparatively better 4.92 ANY/A. From there, it's all a wild guess. Some players improve. Some decline, especially players entering a third consecutive start. It isn't clear if this is a process of the quarterback being "figured out" from game tape, or just variation without explanation. Actually, to be truly skeptical, all of this could be variation without clear explanation, but I thought I would add a little research to some wildly held assumptions.
For the 2010 season, 5.8 ANY/A is the league average, and so almost no backup performed well.
There are a lot of complications, of course. Complications even beyond quality of opponent. Do players that show something as a substitute have a better chance to start the next week? Presumably, but then depth charts are pretty fixed.
What to make of truly terrible performances by Todd Collins and Max Hall? Collins is nearing 40 and at the end of his career. Hall is 25 and at the end of his NFL career.
Some of the backups are bad players on bad teams without better options. I'm looking at you, Jimmy Clausen.
Kitna's performance is the most hope inspiring for the pro-Charlie Whitehurst camp. He struggled for weeks until he hit his groove but is now one of the more valuable per-play quarterbacks in the NFL.
What about players like Kerry Collins that presumably have nothing to learn and who subbed and began streaks of starting more than once. Should I have only counted Collins once? Is a kind of momentum created from starting in consecutive weeks? Intuitively, I would think so, but it's pretty hard to know.
Everything accounted for, I would guess that if Seattle wanted to see the best Whitehurst had to offer, he would need a week's worth of practice with the first team. That gives him an honest shot to show what he's capable of instead of fighting through someone else's mess; executing someone else's game plan. If the Seahawks then wanted some idea of who Whitehurst truly is, he would need to start at least three consecutive games. Troy Smith ruled for consecutive starts and then fell to Earth in a major way against Tampa Bay. Three consecutive starts still isn't enough, but it would be a fruitful beginning.
It says something about how the Seahawks quarterback situation has been handled that Whitehurst could fail in the opportunities he has been given, mostly as a substitute, and that failure would tell us very little about him as a quarterback. Whitehurst could succeed for the rest of the season, and that success would tell us very little about him as a quarterback. The Seahawks brought in Whitehurst to compete, but he hasn't been given the chance, and now the Seahawks are barreling towards week 16 without any future at quarterback and any way to fix that.
*Fill in
T. Collins: 4/11 36 yards INT (-0.07 ANY/A)
K. Kolb: 22/35, 201 yards, 1 TD, 1 INT, 1 Sack -7 (4.69 ANY/A)
K. Collins: 17/25, 149, 1 TD, 1 INT, 2 Sack -5 (4.41)
K. Collins (2): 11/16, 110 yards, 1 TD (8.12)
K. Collins (3): 8/15, 52 yards (3.47)
D. Stanton: 19/34, 222 yards, 1 TD, 1 INT, 2 Sacks -11 (5.17)
Sh. Hill: 9/19, 88 yards, 1 INT, 1 Sack -9 (1.7)
B. Gradkowski (1): 11/21, 162 yards, 1 TD, 1 INT (6.52)
B. Gradkowski (2): 13/24, 98 yards, 1 INT, 2 sacks -15 (1.46)
J. Clausen (1): 7/13, 51, 1 INT (0.46)
J. Clausen (2): 8/18, 47, 1 INT, 2 sacks -21 (-0.95)
D. Carr: 5/13, 67 yards, 1 INT, 1 sack -5 (1.31)
J. Kitna: 16/33, 187, 2 TDs, 3 sacks -13 (5.94)
R. Grossman: 4/7, 44 yards, 1 sack -13 (3.88)
C. Batch: 5/11, 25 yards, 2 sacks -6 (1.46)
M. Hall: 8/14, 82, 6 sacks -39 (2.15)
J. Skelton: 3/6, 45 yards, 1 Sack -10 (5.00)
1st Start
Collins: 6/16, 32 yards, 4 INT, 2 sacks -15 (-9.01)
Troy Smith: 12/19, 196, 1 TD (11.37)
K. Kolb: 21/31, 253 yards, 1 TD, 4 sacks -26 (7.01)
K. Collins: 17/31, 276 yards, 3 TDs, 2 INTs, 3 Sacks -23 (6.56)
K. Collins (2): 9/20, 51 yards (2.38)
K. Collins (3): 14/32, 169, 2 INTS, 1 sack -6 (2.21)
D. Stanton: 16/24, 178, 1 TD, 2 sacks -10 (7.23)
Sh. Hill (1): 25/45, 335, 2 TD, 2 INT, 2 Sacks -6 (5.94)
Sh. Hill (2): 29/50, 323, 1 TD, 1 Int, 1 Sack -9 (5.67)
R. Fitzpatrick: 20/28, 247, 2 TD, 2 INT, 1 sack -7 (6.55)
B. Gradkowski (1): 17/34, 255, 1 TD, 1 INT, 3 sacks -24 (5.57)
B. Gradkowski (2): 17/32, 252, 1 TD, 2 INT, 1 sack -5 (5.36)
J. Clausen (1): 16/33, 188, 1 INT, 1 Sack -8 (3.97)
J. Clausen (2): 16/29, 191, 2 sacks -9 (5.87)
J. Clausen (3): 16/28, 195, 1 sack -3 (6.62)
B. Croyle: 7/17, 40 yards, 4 sacks -29 (0.52)
B. St. Pierre: 13/28, 173, 1 TD, 2 INTS, 3 sacks -23 (2.42)
J. Kitna: 34/49, 379, 1 TD, 4 INTs, 2 sacks -14 (4.02)
C. McCoy: 23/33, 281, 1 TD, 2 INT, 5 sacks -23 (4.82)
S. Wallace: 16/31, 229, 1 TD, 1 INT, 1 sack -3 (6.28)
R. Grossman: 25/43, 322, 4 TDs, 2 INTs, 5 sacks -36 (5.75)
C. Batch: 12/17, 186, 3 TDs, 2 INTs (9.18)
M. Hall: 17/27, 168, 1 INT, 4 sacks -21 (3.29)
J. Skelton: 15/37, 146 (3.95)
2nd Start
T. Smith: 17/28, 356, 1 TD, 5 sacks -33 (10.39)
K. Kolb: 23/29, 326 yards, 3 TDs, 1 Int, 1 sack -6 (11.17)
K. Collins: 28/39, 244, 3 TDs (7.85)
D. Stanton: 10/22, 117 yards, 1 TD, 2 INT, 2 sacks -21 (0.67)
Sh. Hill (1): 29/43, 237, 1 TD, 2 INT, 1 Sack -5 (3.68)
Sh. Hill (2): 32/47, 289 yards, 2 TDs, 1 INT, 3 Sacks -26 (5.16)
R. Fitzpatrick: 12/27, 128, 2 TDs, 3 Sacks -19 (4.97)
B. Gradkowski: 24/39, 278 yards, 2 TD, 2 INTS, 4 sacks -33 (4.07)
J. Clausen (1): 11/21, 146, 1 TD, 3 sacks -13 (6.38)
J. Clausen (2): 18/34, 169, 1 INT, 3 sacks -17 (2.89)
J. Kitna: 19/30, 183, 1 TD, 2 INTs, 4 sacks -17 (2.82)
C. McCoy: 9/16, 74 yards, 1 sack -2 (4.23)
S. Wallace: 18/24, 141 yards, 1 TD, 2 sacks -10 (5.81)
C. Batch: 12/21, 141 yards, 1 INT, 2 sacks -15 (3.52)
M. Hall: 4/16, 36 yards, 1 INT, 2 sacks -18 (-1.5)
J. Skelton: 17/33, 196, 1 INT, 3 sacks -21 (3.61)
3rd Start
S. Wallace: 18/30, 184, 1 TD, 1 INT, 1 sack -5 (4.97)
C. McCoy: 14/19, 174 (9.16)
K. Kolb: 26/48, 231, 1 TD, 2 INTs, 1 sack -4 (3.20)
M. Hall: 8/16, 71, 1 TD, 2 INTs (0.06)
T. Smith: 16/31, 148, 1 INT, 6 sacks -30 (1.97)
R. Fitzpatrick: 20/30, 220 yards, 3 TDs, 3 sacks -24 (7.76)
K. Collins: 14/24, 237, 2 TDs, 1 INT, 3 sacks -25 (7.67)
D. Stanton: 23/37, 252, 1 TD (7.35)
Sh. Hill (1): 34/54, 331, 2 TD, 2 INTs, 3 Sacks -23 (4.53)
Sh. Hill (2): 27/46, 285, 1 TD, 2 INT, 2 Sacks -8 (4.31)
J. Clausen (1): 9/22, 61, 1 INT, 5 sacks -34 (-0.67)
J. Clausen (2): 14/24, 107, 1 INT, 5 sacks -31 (1.15)
J. Kitna: 13/22, 327, 3 TDs, 1 INT (15.55)
387 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
That doesn't surprise me.
About halfway through this, it occurred to me that PFR probably looked at this at some point.
Interesting...
any data on 2nd and 3rd consecutive starts?
Is that 0.15 within or outside of the margin for error?
One of the reason why I put little stock in these type of stats is because serious statisticians would declare a margin of error, especially given the lower sample size. A differential that low between performances might fall outside of a 95% confidence level and thus be considered non-significant. No conclusion would be drawn from the analysis.
I guess the best conclusion would be simply that
there is no evidence a quarterback benefits from substituting against a defense that has game planned for a different quarterback.
Or the benefits are outweighed by reduced prep time and "jitters"
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 21, 2010 6:14 PM PST up reply actions
'No evidence' is not the same as 'evidence against',
in the context of that comment.
You are right. That would be the conclusion.
I’m not going to go dust off my old Stats textbooks and break out the calculator but I’m pretty sure a difference of 0.15 would not be significant given that the sample size is only 73.
I totally agree that we can't judge Charlie on <2 games worth of snaps,
and assume that Charlie will be in the mix next year, but that the FO can’t, shouldn’t and won’t depend on Charlie to be the starter next year. We either grab a QB early or pick up a Bates-compatible vet and go from there. If Charlie looks good and the new guy(s) look good, then the biggest problem is figuring out which one to flip for picks.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 21, 2010 5:43 PM PST reply actions
Maybe. It really depends on who's available when we draft.
If Charlie turns out to do well for a couple of games (not that we’ll see… grumble), and the team ends up picking around 24, there very likely might not be a QB around that’s worth it. This team needs talent at a lot of areas… someone (hopefully a CB, DE, or DT) slips hard.
I also don’t know that there will be a “Bates-compatible vet” that will be much better than Charlie. Who would we be talking about? If they’re that great it’ll mean a draft pick in compensation.
McNabb.
I can’t think of any other “veteran.” Someone like Drew Stanton is compatible, but he would presumably begin the process behind Whitehurst.
McNabb seems reasonable to me (big arm, mobile)
but he washed out of a similar system in DC and Danny ONeil mentioned that he didn’t draw any interest from the FO in the offseason.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 21, 2010 6:12 PM PST up reply actions
Washington is a mess
He can make Seattle’s receiving talent work and stretch the field.
Accustomed to mediocrity.
He pissed off Shanahan something fierce
Bates is a Shanahan protege.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 21, 2010 6:14 PM PST up reply actions
Shanahan is a power-hungry moron who has done this before
By starting rookie Jay Cutler in the middle of a playoff run in place of Plummer in 2006.
Accustomed to mediocrity.
That was a big mistake, huh?
I don’t like what I know of Shanahan the boss, but I don’t blame him at all for trying out the kids.
McNabb can suck it up.
In long-term it worked out
But it essentially took them out of the race.
McNabb will suck it up by signing a Seahawks contract.
Accustomed to mediocrity.
Since Denver benched Jake Plummer for Cutler they've not made the playoffs.
They were in first place in the AFC West when they did it, and the timing was terrible.
They had a midwinter home game against then proud Seattle in 10 degree weather for the kid from Vanderbuilt’s first start. (I was there, and cheered my ass off when we pulled the W) and then a game against primary division rival San Diego. Really, Tanningman’s timing couldn’t have been worse.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 21, 2010 9:08 PM PST up reply actions
It was setting him up to fail.
Kind of like starting Charlie one game, against the NYG, and using it as the full extend of the measuring stick.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 21, 2010 9:09 PM PST up reply actions
Which is kinda the opposite of what we're doing now.
Staying in the race with Hasselbeck vs starting the younger more promising player.
Sure, there’s hopes for playoffs this year, but it might just be killing our future to come.
by B.B.Finnegan on Dec 21, 2010 8:46 PM PST up reply actions
I'm pretty sure the McNabb benching was more than just trying out the youngsters
It looks like a situation of irreconcilable differences that led to Shanahan having to play the next guy in line.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 21, 2010 6:29 PM PST up reply actions
He didn't generate interest because it would have required a trade.
If Washington opts out and all it takes to sign him is money, they might consider it.
McNabb is not so mobile anymore.
Nor is his arm as big as it used to be, though it is still plenty strong in comparison to our last 5 years.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 21, 2010 9:00 PM PST up reply actions
Stanton just separated his right shoulder
That’s 3 QBs injured for the Lions. Can’t catch a break.
Accustomed to mediocrity.
I don't know who sucks more...
Matt or McNabb. But they are both in the pile of “Over the hill QBs we don’t need”.
I’d rather stick with Whitehurst all next year than go with a proven loser.
Carson Palmer
May become available.
by stallz on Dec 21, 2010 11:11 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
But yes to McNabb?
Could not disagree more.
by stallz on Dec 22, 2010 7:21 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
I'd rather play Charlie than sign one of those two old farts.
"Pass rushers enter the world of Okung but never leave." - JM
Author of The Seahawks Asylum: http://seahawksblog.wordpress.com
by Nick Andron on Dec 22, 2010 7:50 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I don't think we'll have to worry about Donovan.
He’ll be a Viking, they’re closer to a contender, and he’ll want to go that route instead.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 22, 2010 8:26 AM PST up reply actions
McNabb has declined, but Palmer fell off a cliff.
He’s been terrible lately. I would pick McNabb over him instantly; though I’d rather skip the whole “veteran” route altogether.
McNabb's cliff came this year.
As soon as he left a talented team.
Now he’s on a team almost as bad as Palmer’s has been. I promise you Palmer’s stats would’ve better than McNabb’s was last year if he was on a team with incredible young talent like McNabb’s was. Is this not obvious? Look at Vick this year with that talent.
by stallz on Dec 22, 2010 8:14 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Is there any doubt...
that if we weren’t looking at the prospect of a post season that Charlie would be starting?
Coaches get fired and backups get snaps
when teams are mathematically eliminated from the playoffs. Seldom before.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 21, 2010 5:51 PM PST up reply actions
I can think of two exceptions to that just in Seahawks history.
Dave Krieg and Matt Hasselbeck.
Backups get snaps when starters struggle. Seattle being in contention is just the latest in a litany of excuses for terrible roster management. Last year, Seattle totally out of the hunt, benching Hasselbeck was “giving up” or whatever.
Maybe the Seahawks have accepted a losing culture, and fans really are okay cheering for a terrible team as long as the faces are familiar.
by John Morgan on Dec 21, 2010 5:56 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Throw Kitna into that mix too
Seattle wasn’t mathematically eliminated when Moon was benched in favor of Kitna.
I have my theory of why Seattle fans are so willing to stick by their veterans.
I think it has to do with the fact that Seattle teams have been (generally) unsuccessful for so long. We’ll scramble at anything that gets us respectablity… and big names are respectability. It took the Seahawks forever to let Shaun Alexander go, and that was with his “me-first” attitude clearly in focus. Now here we are with Matt, who hasn’t been quite as successful as Shaun, but is a charismatic guy who works hard and desperately wants to win. It’s tough to move on.
It only took two bad years
But Holmgren’s complete stubbornness to play MoMo did not help matters in 2007. The offense completely changed mid-season when Alexander was injured and MoMo was in the offense.
Accustomed to mediocrity.
Shaun looked real ugly in 2007
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 21, 2010 6:15 PM PST up reply actions
Nothing tops that Panthers game that year
Where Alexander had a loss of 7 on 3rd and 1.
I think John wrote after that “If Mike Holmgren can’t distinguish Morris is the clearly better RB then he should be fired”. Something like that but it was funny.
Accustomed to mediocrity.
But Krieg had played already due to injury.
Going back and forth is different than bringing in an unknown commodity while the starter is healthy. The Krieg-Zorn situation was more like the Philly situation the last 2 years.
You are correct, but I was only responding to backups getting snaps when a team is out of contention. That isn't true. Good teams take chances.
I always agree with you, John.
I cite you in football arguments with my friends. But “good teams always take chances” doesn’t fly with me. Are you specifically referring to QBs? Good teams make the playoffs and although I can’t cite it—if I’m wrong, call me out—you have said that playoff teams traditionally “play not to lose.” Granted, it is a different environment, but how much difference do you suppose that makes? I’m asking as an inferior football mind.
Love the game, love the beer, love your team.
by THolt on Dec 22, 2010 2:26 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
We should draft K2...
The next DK… Kellen Moore.
Not that their play is all that similar...
Neither are ideal size for an NFL QB, but I’ll bet Kellen plays well in this league (when he gets here).
He is one I never thought could succeed in the NFL.
But has quickly become the one QB I’m most interested in seeing if he can succeed. Hes just so damn smart.
by Scruffy Lefty on Dec 22, 2010 1:34 PM PST up reply actions
Hasselbeck is playing Seattle out of a playoff spot
Might as well try something new instead of Matt finishing the job.
Accustomed to mediocrity.
I agree 100%
which is why I am scratching my head about this whole ordeal. I thought Pete was a risk taker. Certainly there is more to lose from a ‘political’ standpoint by starting Charlie over Hass than there is to gain by having Charlie start. As far as the long term view this decision is quite terrible. Some in the media are suggesting that this is a reflection on the FO’s doubts about Charlie, which is just total rubish.
There's more to this that we won't ever know
I don’t want to know the reasoning. I’ve been so fatigued from the season I feel like tanking it is a benefit. Winning hurts the Seahawks.
Accustomed to mediocrity.
The part of me that hopes we lose out is glad that Matt is the starter
So when we lose there won’t be any excuse or woulda, coulda, shoulda. The Matt era will be done for good.
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
I think the Matt era is done for good regardless (Pet Peeve: People who say "irregardless")
This is no different than last year when he had a monstrous December collapse and with that so did the team.
Accustomed to mediocrity.
I don't buy this.
Better, more accomplished and more beloved players that Matt Hasselbeck have been benched, cut or traded.
A leader makes hard decisions. And fans don’t abandon a team because their favorite player is past his prime.
Not sure if you're responding to the point I intended to make...
My point is that for whatever reason the coaching staff thinks Matt gives the team the best chance to win. I’m not sure why, but then I don’t see practice. Carroll’s made his call on a QB.
I’ll be rooting my ass off for wins, but logic tells me that Tampa and St. Louis are better. Naming Matt the starter isn’t going to make us lose, but probably lowers the likelihood of a fluke game where a backup comes in and bombs away a team that has little film on him.
I’m not going to abandon the team, nor do I wish Matt ill. But, there’s little reason to think he won’t be awful again. If that’s the case, and we’re going to likely lose, I’d rather do it with Matt at the helm to dramatize—if nothing else—how much we need a change at QB.
Once he’s done, I’ll be first in line to put him in the Ring of Honor the day he’s eligible. But for now, it’s just that Matt remains at the helm of this sinking ship.
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
TB is looking rough right now
They’ve given up a ton of yards on the ground recently and they’ve IR’d some key players in the secondary. They’re far from unbeatable.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 21, 2010 6:21 PM PST up reply actions
Far from unbeatable
but it would require far better play than we have a right to expect. St. Louis is more beatable if we can play from in front, but again, if you had to bet your house…
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
If I had to be my house, I would bet on Hasselbeck performing better against the Bucs.
The defense has been worse than St. Louis throughout the season and has recently been ravaged by injuries.
Forget being a man, John. BE YOUR HOUSE!
=)
"Pass rushers enter the world of Okung but never leave." - JM
Author of The Seahawks Asylum: http://seahawksblog.wordpress.com
I don't know about that.
I thought the team showed a lot of spunk this weekend. Defense played OK, the WR’s were back, Beefmoe was getting 5 ypc… but Matt was fucking abysmal in the second half.
He looked solid and then it looked like he flipped a switch
and kept making errors upon errors as we fell behind.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 21, 2010 8:13 PM PST up reply actions
He looked solid because he threw an assortment of short passes
He fell apart the moment he started throwing mid-range passes.
Accustomed to mediocrity.
"Short" is being generous.
I think one of them went past the line of scrimmage.
I guess he flipped that switch starting with the second drive.
After the opening scoring drive, Seattle finished with three consecutive three and outs, then a fumble TD recovery, then an interception
and so forth.
The first drive was the aberration. Hasselbeck didn’t fall apart because Seattle fell behind. Seattle fell behind because Hasselbeck fell apart. At the two-minute warning in the second quarter, the Falcons and Seahawks were tied 10-10. Shortly after Hasselbeck threw his third quarter interception, the Seahawks were down 27-10.
This is what I disagree with:
If that’s the case, and we’re going to likely lose, I’d rather do it with Matt at the helm to dramatize—if nothing else—how much we need a change at QB.
I don’t see how Matt’s performance over the next two weeks can possibly prove anything.
If he fails, he’s already done that and it hasn’t mattered.
If he does okay, then how do we interpret that in light of the last three years.
If he has the fluke good game—especially in light of how bad the Bucs defense currently is—that could actually save Hasselbeck’s job.
I can not see what can be gained from continuing to start him. If Carroll does not see that Hasselbeck is cooked, two additional weeks of struggles is not likely to change that. The only thing left to be done is for Matt to “turn it around” against a couple bad teams, “lead his team into the playoffs” “prove the doubters wrong” and be re-signed.
I see your point, but I don't know if I think Carroll still believes Matt can play
I have always felt like most of this is about Whitehurst more than Matt. Matt has always been a bad fit for this offense. No way Carroll doesn’t see this. (?)
Perhaps I am in denial here, but there just doesn’t seem to be any way for any coach to look at film and not see Matt as a guy with limited tools, being careless with the ball and aging rapidly. The only thing that makes any sense to me is that Carroll hates Whitehurst.
It has honestly never really occurred to me that Carroll would be considering sticking with Hasselbeck beyond this year. My head would explode.
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
The "Whitehurst is terrible" and "Carroll hates Whitehurst" defense
strikes me as fans hoping against hope that Carroll isn’t part of the problem. It is possible that Whitehurst is terrible or that Carroll hates him, but there is little to support that. Carroll has been pretty non-stop in his praise of Hasselbeck. Hasselbeck was barely challenged through the pre-season. Seattle could have traded Hasselbeck, but refused.
For all we know, Whitehurst was attained just because Seattle wanted a competent backup. Matt has not been healthy the past two seasons. It seems to me that I have heard and read that explanation a few times, now that the lip service to “always compete” is fading away.
I think the simplest explanation is that Carroll likes something about Hasselbeck, believes in Hasselbeck, and that is why Hasselbeck continues to start.
It should be said, no one can say for sure that Hasselbeck truly is the problem. Despite all his struggles, Hasslebeck still commands respect. Carroll himself has continually deflected blame away from Hasselbeck. It is possible that the line and running backs and wide receivers are the problem, and if it is possible, it is not far-fetched that Carroll could believe that is the case.
by John Morgan on Dec 21, 2010 7:33 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Thank you for at least acknowledging that point
I still maintain our WR corps is possibly the worst in the NFL. Hasselbeck is washed up, but he doesn’t have any help either.
Have we had a 100yd rusher this year? Have we even had 100yds rushing in one game total?
They're middle of the pack with potential.
Williams, Obo, Stokely and Tate make a solid receiving corps and Carlson, Baker and Morah make up one of the better tight end group in the league.
And Branch, Housh, Burleson and Weaver have all gone on to play well for other teams.
The receivers are bad excuse doesn’t hold up.
Branch isn't on the Hawks (?)
I’m confused. I would agree we had a solid receiving corps with Housh and Branch in the mix (less so Housh). Williams and Branch would have made a nice one-two punch. I’m just not sold on Butler. Tate has potential but I seriously wonder if he has the motivation to take his game to the next level. I get the impression he is lazy and needs someone to light a fire under his ass. Stokley is Stokley, I believe Matt actually makes him better – as in the Engram mold.
The point is that we've had a bunch of receivers who looked awful here
suddenly look good elsewhere. Biggest change? The person throwing to them.
Burleson hasn't materially improved
from last year – despite having a legit #1 to take focus away from him.
The last time Branch was healthy as a Hawk was this season and he looked awful.
The time before that was with Seneca at quarterback.
So basically a "whole bunch"
is one – Branch. Who has this strange rapport with Tom Brady that makes Branch magically gifted. Everyone else who has left has performed the same or worse.
Matt doesn't make Stokley better.
Stokley’s been doing the same thing for years. Run 10 yards – Find the zone – Turn around – Catch ball.
by Scruffy Lefty on Dec 22, 2010 10:40 AM PST up reply actions
I'd think he would roughly be the same anywhere he goes.
Seriously he never runs farther then 10 yards from the Qb.
by Scruffy Lefty on Dec 22, 2010 10:44 AM PST up reply actions
He probably wouldn't be with another team
if he wasn’t with the Seahawks. Maybe after having a decent 4- weeks here. You do realize he was a free agent in the middle of the season.
Lynch had a 100 yard game
Then Locklear took it away by holding (and I don’t think the holds really helped the run at all from what I recall).
Accustomed to mediocrity.
It would be "not bad" if it weren't totally destroyed by injuries.
As for running games… it seems to be showing signs of life, but it’s tough when you can’t throw the ball for more than five yards.
We've had 100 yards rushing in 5 games, but no individual 100-yard rusher.
Week 2 we had 109 (thanks to 21 from Hass), week 6 we had 101 in BeastForce’s debut, week 7 we had 144, week 10 we had 110 and week 13 we had 161.
“Worst” is very subjective, but I’d take our WRs over (at least) Carolina, Chicago, Cleveland, Jacksonville, Oakland, St. Louis and Tampa Bay.
I'd disagree on Chicago, Oakland, Tampa and maybe Cleveland
but throw in Washington. They have to be the worst.
All of the reasoning is speculative, you are right.
I would like to think that Pete has his fingers on the pulse of the team and that they want Matt’s leadership in these final games. To outsiders like us it is easy to discount the importance of a playoff push. To the young players on the team it can pay huge dividends down the road.
Experience
That’s how players improve. You can’t fix a roster with a single draft. You can improve the play and cohesion of a team.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 21, 2010 8:19 PM PST up reply actions
Can I ask why you think that?
You don’t think the mental psyche and confidence has anything to do with professional sports?
I think confidence withstands failure and guessing at the psyche of strangers is disrespectful and fruitless.
by John Morgan on Dec 21, 2010 8:26 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Ackowleding that it may be an active factor is
by jacobstevens on Dec 22, 2010 5:38 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Not disrespectful
Life experience gas reconfirmednfpr me
Over and over in several arenas that capability doesn’t always come with confidence and confidence does not always withstand failure.
I have failed so much in my life. I’d love to say I have never been a big baby about it but I can’t. My self esteem has reached dangerous, dangerous depths before and I was not the one to pull myself from the miry clay though all along I remained very capable of so much.
Sorry to get all soap opera about it. I am convinced it’s an active factor for young unproven men in hyper competitive environments whose self worth is often built on dominance over peers who then encounter a significantly raised bar of competition.
by jacobstevens on Dec 22, 2010 5:44 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
The experience of playing the game
You can’t build a team on pure talent. You need unit cohesion. Playoff experience helps build that. Football players aren’t just robots with fixed attributes you can just program to play the game.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 21, 2010 8:24 PM PST up reply actions
So many assumptions to make this argument work, and none of them supported
How does making the playoffs build “cohesion?”
What exactly is the innate good of a unit’s cohesiveness? Like Andrews and Locklear?
If a team can not build on “pure talent,” how do you explain Okung and Thomas being two of the Seahawks best players?
Someone arguing that making the playoffs improves the team bears the burden of proof.
The Niners are a lot more talented than we are
The Cowboys have often have often been one of the more talented teams in the league. Teams need more than just “talented” players to play well. Players need to communicate and work effectively as a group to succeed. This isn’t baseball.
I probably can’t “prove” any of this, but there’s not much you can predictively “prove” in football. The fact that something doesn’t have a number attached to it doesn’t mean it has no value.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 21, 2010 8:41 PM PST up reply actions
So your response to my saying the experience of winning is bogus
is to say a team needs more than talent to win?
This endlessly evolving arguments do not seem to follow any kind of logic.
And your response to my saying that you need some kind of evidence is to say no evidence is possible?
Then explain why the 49rs and the Cowboys weren't better all year long?
Especially the Cowboys. There are things happening behind the seens that you can’t explain. Squishy fungible psychology kinda things that have a lot to do with win or loss. I can’t quantify it, but that doesn’t make it any less real.
The Cowboys' bad head coach was replaced with an offensive whiz and their points per game jumped from 20 to 32.
Theres not much squishy or intangible about that.
But...
that offensive whiz was running the offense the entire time, right? So it sounds a little squishy and intangible to me.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 22, 2010 10:34 AM PST up reply actions
Office politics squishy and intangible maybe.
Certainly nothing to do with cohesion or playoff experience though.
What did Wade have to do with the offense?
Football isn't baseball.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 22, 2010 10:54 AM PST up reply actions
I don't really think that was the case here as "head coach in waiting" was the O.C.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 22, 2010 12:59 PM PST up reply actions
Office politics?
So if office politics can have such a significant effect on play, why can’t playoff experience or increased unit cohesion (“being on the same page”, “understanding scheme”, etc) play an even more significant role?
Football isn't baseball.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 22, 2010 10:53 AM PST up reply actions
The Cowboys, by in large
were the same team at the start of the season as the team that won the NFC East last year and won a home playoff game.
The Minnesota Vikings, by in large, were the same team this year as the team that was 1 game away from the Super Bowl.
The Cincinati Bengals were, by in large, the same team this year as the team that won the NFC North that year.
3 teams, all with recent playoff experience, that should be “on the same page,” “understand scheme” “have unit cohesion,” etc. All 3 have failed to live up to expectations, have had 2 head coaches fired (and likely the 3rd at the end of the season).
by SmartAssCoug on Dec 22, 2010 11:01 AM PST up reply actions
Because attitude goes both ways.
Those are teams that aren’t hungry. They are filled with attitudes who have shown they don’t want to work hard. They have the talent, but they don’t put it together.
The Vikings were ravaged by injuries.
They looked like a 2006-2008 Seahawk team in that regard.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 22, 2010 1:00 PM PST up reply actions
Yet the biggest changes that the coach made when success started was what the team was wearing to games and how meetings were run
Definitely an attitude change in Dallas is what has made them win.
Or maybe a scheme change because Phillips was predictable with his blitzes and overly conservative with his offensive coordinator.
But no, definitely an attitude change. Definitely.
And what I'm trying to say is that taking a losing team to a winning team is never one thing
You can’t just assemble talent, it won’t win games by itself, its the best thing you can do, but not by itself.
You can have to have great coaches with both great schemes and the ability to create a winner. Sometimes it takes more than talking to change attitude. Playoffs help
Except this example doesn't show that at all.
Playoffs and winning had nothing to do with why the Cowboys improved. Improving the talent at head coach did.
The Niners have a terrible quarterback and the Cowboys' talent is generally over rated and they had a bad coach.
On the other hand the Patriots and Colts are constantly cycling players in and out, the Jets bought a team in free agency two years ago and the Chargers completely retooled their offense. All of these teams are still among the best in the NFL.
circular reasoning...
You have not shown any proof for your argument here, you have simply reworded the same argument.
The fact that Okung and Thomas are two of Seattle's best players
Just goes to show how talentless this team is. We need a lot of help . . . and it should start at the quarterback position.
by B.B.Finnegan on Dec 21, 2010 8:52 PM PST up reply actions
I whole heartedly disagree
The “experience” of winning, especially late in the season and in the playoffs is something that needs to be learned. It is not an x and o thing, its an attitude. It is the ability to close out the big game. You may not have ever experienced the difference between a team that knows its going to win and one that isn’t sure, but its real and not something that just happens.
Its all wrapped up
No attitude by itself doesn’t win games, but it contributes. No I can’t quantify it, but its real. If you haven’t been on a team that has experienced this, then I am sorry, because it is an impressive thing to be a part of. yes we obviously need talent and good coaching, but there is more to winning then just those two things. There are examples every year in every sport, you just can’t explain why.
Teams shouldn't build around attitude or intangible.
They’re impossible to quantify and predict.
You can quantify talent.
And yet, strangely, they continue to.. and I simply don't understand why.
Frustrating, really.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 22, 2010 10:35 AM PST up reply actions
So then we definitely shouldn't make the playoffs because the team will likely be blown out and they'll only learn how to lose big games, not how to win them.
Right?
by Nate Dogg on Dec 22, 2010 10:15 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Zing!
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 22, 2010 10:35 AM PST up reply actions
Or motivation
Here’s an example (albeit from another sport):
Robinson says he understands exactly what Rivers is looking for and credits the playoff experience with teaching him to be a better professional.
"When it’s practice time, I want to focus on practice," said Robinson. "When we have our breaks, we can clown around and do our thing. That’s something I’m improving on, just getting more mature. That comes with time. I’m 26 years old and I’m not getting any younger."
http://www.projo.com/celtics/content/projo-20100930-nate-robinson.149281923.html
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 21, 2010 8:33 PM PST up reply actions
An example of what?
A player interpreting playoff experience as a good thing?
I don’t think that’s what is being debated.
Didn't you just say that there's no evidence of the value of playoff experience?
I’m confused by your counterargument. If playoff experience is helpful for individual players and unit cohesion, why wouldn’t it be good for the team (everything else being equal)? Is it the drop in draft order that you’re most concerned about?
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 21, 2010 8:43 PM PST up reply actions
A player saying he credits some nebulous quality to his experience in the playoffs is hardly evidence.
I am sure players love going to the playoffs and learn quite a bit, but that doesn’t mean making the playoffs makes a team better.
I totally agree that the playoffs have costs
In increased risk of injury and a loss of draft capital, but I don’t know how you can just dismiss, out of hand, the value to a team of more motivated, more experienced players.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 21, 2010 8:49 PM PST up reply actions
Because there is no evidence that making the playoffs improves motivation
and no evidence that the experience of making the playoffs is particularly valuable.
I dismiss it out of hand because it’s a totally unsupported assumption.
I was referring to the fact that you think this team would be better suited with a high draft pick.
It is not an unrealated argument
It increases the chance of finding the talent they need
Other teams are competing for the same talent we need.
Accustomed to mediocrity.
It very much is.
The psychological value of making the playoffs and the value of a high draft pick to a team desperate for a quarterback can maybe be tied in together, but they are clearly entirely separate arguments. Attempting to argue the value of high draft picks doesn’t really tell us anything about the value of playoff experience.
by John Morgan on Dec 21, 2010 9:07 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
You're assertion that playoff experience does not help a team is tied to the fact that you think this team would be better served with a higher pick.
My argument is that since talent at the top of the draft is not assured, the benefit of the high pick does not necessarily outweigh the playoff experience
Everything else is immaterial
attempting to negate the benefit of a high draft pick doesn’t succeed in making playoff experience valuable.
If we're going to work from unsupported assumptions
then I will counter that being the first team ever with a losing record to make the playoffs will hurt team morale and set the Seahawks back.
Maybe I didn't make this clear
But this whole time I have based making the playoffs on finishing 8-8. I agree that I don’t like the idea of finishing under .500
Maybe making the playoffs at 7-9 would be the ultimate morale boost
because the team would be so desperate to prove itself.
I am not trying to be unkind, but there has to be some kind of support for these premises or they are literally endless.
Is this court? I thought this was a blog for Hawks fans?
Every opinion has to be backed up with hard evidence? I understand what you are saying but the idea that winning can speed up improvement and help with free agency and other management issues is not far-fetched.
What if we win the Super Bowl?
What has Seattle shown that they can be competitive against a playoff caliber team?
That hasn’t happened since October and obviously Chicago and SD got a lot better.
Accustomed to mediocrity.
by SSreporters on Dec 22, 2010 10:59 AM PST up reply actions
Playoff experience doesn't have any predictable value.
I agree with what you’re saying here but I do think you’re overstating your point a bit. A lack of evidence is not proof something does not exist, and all that.
My assertion that playoff experience does not help a team is tied to the fact that when challenged, no one has provided any kind of evidence that it does.
Has anyone provided any evidence it doesn't?
Because it’s an assumed “truth” that playoff experience is valuable in almost every sport. Players, coaches, executives, and writers all talk about it.
All things being equal (i.e. no “proof” either way), unless we are to assume that some party has vested interest in promoting playoff experience’s value, I’d have to argue that it probably does. Maybe some party does have that interest…
I hate arguing about intangibles like this.
It always goes the same way.
Someone says that teams shouldn’t overvalue things like grit, chemistry, veteranocity, playoff experience, or winningness because it’s impossible to quantify and it’s debatable whether or not it actually has any impact on a team. Focusing on actual talent itself should be the priority.
Someone else then takes offense to that. They posit that intangibles are important, usually citing some sort of unprovable cliché or adage to back their point. This person then asks if you can prove that intangibles don’t actually help a team.
Of course that’s not the point. The point is you cannot possibly prove that intangibles are useful because there’s no objective way to measure it. Talent, on the other hand, you can measure.
The overall point the first person is trying to make is that talent wins. Talent trumps everything. Talent being stockpiled creates great teams. Not veteran savvy. Not playoff experience. Not chemistry.
So that's it? Stockpiling talent creates great teams?
I think I am done with this site, honestly. I don’t mind having someone argue against my point but to have my opinions called “bogus” and “magical thinking” and then told by one of the moderators that the first persons point of view is the correct one? I have enjoyed this site but sometimes I feel like I am talking to hipsters about indie bands. There are ways to be hosts and there are ways to push out anyone who doesn’t agree with John or the majority opinion. I know you will think I am being irrational but honestly I have spent too much time on here being told I am wrong by people that I still don’t know how much I value their expertise. Good luck to everyone the rest of the season.
To be fair
One of the mission statements of this blog and others like it is to attempt to use statistics to better understand the sports that we love. John’s point, which isn’t really meant to shit on your opinions but rather attempt to push the conversation in a productive direction, is that this playoff experience concept (man I am tired of reading that phrase!) is not worth discussing if we can’t measure it or quantify it. It may exist, but even if it does, how do we talk about it? How do we unpack it, deconstruct it, and compare it point-for-point with Andrew Luck’s very measurable impact on a football team? What’s the point of speculating about how a team might rally around a playoff victory, when you can just as easily speculate about how a team might rally around a disappointing season?
I think it’s important that you don’t take it personally that the idea is rejected here. It isn’t “your opinions are fairy tales”, it’s “let’s revisit this once we can actually measure it against something like talent”.
by jhmg16 on Dec 22, 2010 12:09 PM PST up reply actions 3 recs
I saw Warren Friedrichs, who coached basketball at Whitworth for years, at a coaching clinic.
He listed three things you need to have to be successful.
IIRC, the first was a sound philosophy.
The second was “espirit de corps”—- i.e. chemistry/intangibles.
The third, and he said, “This is most important, you gotta have horses. You can’t take a jackass to the derby.”
I’ve also heard it said, “You can’t make chicken salad out of chicken shit.”
Nobody debates there is value in chemistry and intangibles, the problem is, this team spent 5 or so years under Ruskell adding “chemistry/intangible” guys without focusing enough on the rule that, “You gotta have horses.”
We need some fucking stallions!!!!
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 22, 2010 9:00 AM PST up reply actions
Hmm.
How is the statement “talent trumps everything” quantifiable? Do you have statistics that show winning teams run the fastest, lift the most weights, have the highest IQ’s? Are there scientific, peer-read studies that show this?
That said, how do you measure talent? Not arguing you can’t… I’m just curious.
You can scout, you've got metrics.
There are ways to evaluate talent.
There’s no way to figure out how intangibles are going to help you. There’s no way to gauge how attitude or chemistry is going to help or hurt a team.
You can see talent. You can see how a player moves in space. You can see how a quaterback can zip a ball.
You can’t see how intangibles improve the on field product. Trying to build around it is a fool’s errand.
So yes. Talent trumps everything.
That doesn't prove it "trumps everything" at all.
Just because you can prove one thing exists doesn’t mean all other factors become moot.
I’ve coached football, and played football (and soccer, and rugby, for that matter). You can’t tell me that team chemistry isn’t important… it’s essential. Absolutely, having more talent on the team helps, but having someone who’s been there before and knows the emotions and fears of the “big game” is a big help.
I agree with you that talent is a huge factor, and the only one we can “measure”. I agree that improving the talent level of your team increases the chances of it winning. But to argue that it’s the ONLY thing is simply exaggeration.
And the Patriots.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 22, 2010 1:03 PM PST up reply actions
Players, coaches, executives, and writers
all talk about it because it makes for good entertainment.
Getting a high draft pick also boosts team moral.
Players get pumped when they see good young talent coming in.
No?
Probably depends if that good young talent is completing for your job
instead of some other guy’s job.
by SmartAssCoug on Dec 23, 2010 9:59 AM PST up reply actions
If you really think that making the playoffs doesn't improve motivation, then you have never done it yourself
Getting a taste of success is a huge motivator. It may not translate into anything substantial, but every playoff losing team interview has the same theme, I want to get back there and win.
I'm pretty sure all of these players are familiar with winning.
High school, college, hell they even did some winning professionally – six games just this year! I doubt your supposition that professional athletes might not realize the positives related to winning until they go the playoffs.
Intellectually, maybe
But motivation is about emotion.
Football isn't baseball.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 22, 2010 11:53 AM PST up reply actions
No, not just intellectually.
There is not a single NFL player who doesn’t know how good it feels to win, and I would wager that the vast majority of them feel those emotions more than you, I, or any other average Joe.
There are also financial motivators for most of these guys, such as contract incentives.
Winning is a drug
If you haven’t had a hit lately you are itching for another one. Once you have the next one its only as good until you can see the next one. You don’t quench the appetite, you only feed it more.
So the Seahawks should have the shakes by the time next year rolls around.
I don’t think this supports your argument.
Then you don't get it and me writing here won't ever make you get it
I’m sorry for you cause its a fun drug
Yes, because I have never won anything.
This is obviously the only reasonable conclusion.
You’re probably right – I don’t think I will ever get what you think you are saying.
You just haven't seen what I've seen
You just don’t know what I know.
You obviously just don’t understand.
These are all bad arguments.
The last line wasn't an argument
It was an acknowledgment that he wasn’t going to listen or begin to acknowledge my side of the argument, so I’m done talking to him
Listen to you tell him what he has and hasn't experienced?
I don’t know if that constitutes as a side.
After the last 3 years, we should be Leif Garrett by this point.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 22, 2010 1:04 PM PST up reply actions
God help us if Matt wins two games and gets the Seahawks into the playoffs.
We end up re-signing Matt because of his “grit” and “veteranosity”.
We draft at 24 or something. Not a QB, even if someone slips, because we still have Charlie at the helm.
We end up having to watch Matt stink it up again next year, then see Charlie in backup time and he’s just as bad.
MULLIGAN 2011
So now everyone is predicting the future?
At this time last year most Hawks fans had never heard of Whitehurst. I understand the doom and gloom on this site because Matt is getting the start but we have no idea what this front office has in mind for the QB position this offseason.
Um, yes we do.
We spent a lot on Whitehurst.
Pete and co. have said that despite this, they may take a QB in the draft.
Also, Pete seems to go out of his way to support Hasselbeck at every turn.
Hmm… so maybe we don’t know anything.
Schneider likes to collect QB's
and I think they’d be damn fools to not look for a franchise QB in this upcoming draft.
by jubelthebear on Dec 22, 2010 9:44 AM PST up reply actions
Let's not.
Accustomed to mediocrity.
by SSreporters on Dec 21, 2010 7:38 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
I strongly disagree with this.
Selfishly, I want to go to a playoff game. From the teams perspective it is similar to how UW was desperate to get to a bowl, even at 6-6. The benefit to the young players on the team is substantial.
Colleges don't draft and get extra practices and revenue for going to a bowl game.
The two situations can’t be compared.
No offense, but I think that's magical thinking.
I have never seen any evidence to support ideas like “a culture of winning” or the value of “having been there.”
Seattle needs talent.
I think it is magical thinking to assume that all high draft picks work out.
By that time you have gone through more coaches and become the Detroit Lions. I don’t see how it is unreasonable to want to jump at a chance to make the playoffs.
You said the team needs talent, I am assuming you mean it needs talent through better draft positioning.
High draft picks increases your chance of finding great talent
Making the playoffs for an empty blowout trip is pointless and an insult to paying fans to be out of it in an instant.
Accustomed to mediocrity.
As one of those paying fans I want them to make it.
You can assume they will be blown out, it doesn’t mean it will happen.
If Seattle is blown out, will you still be happy the Seahawks made it?
Not a load question, just curious.
Yeah, I will. Especially if they finish 8-8 to get there.
It would be a step in the right direction. Losing 8 of their last 10 would not be.
Well, we agree then that we both hope that they win and finish 8-8.
We disagree about making the playoffs.
If 2009 is any indication, finishing 8-8 won’t help the Seahawks in 2011 (see the 2009 Broncos, 49ers, Panthers, Giants and Titans), but I certainly do not pull for defeat.
Macro level: I hope Seattle is brutally honest with itself and makes sweeping changes.
Micro level: I never say die on Sunday.
Blowing up the defense
And fixing the line (well, adding to Okung and maybe Spencer), and getting a new QB.
Accustomed to mediocrity.
Starting quarterback, probably LCB, SS,
I’m not really wild about the configuration of the DL. MLB should probably be looked into. RCB. Some competition at RB. Dime and nickelback.
… off the top of my head.
"Some competition at RB"
Is this implying one of Lynch or Forsett could be gone?
Accustomed to mediocrity.
Which would suck
Amazing how since Shaun’s 2005 season this team has not shown any ability of properly splitting carries. MoMo and Forsett have gotten too few carries.
Accustomed to mediocrity.
Lured by another team?
Or simply not re-signed by current FO? I saw a quote recently from Washington (forgive, I’m not quite sure were) that stated he wants to return to Seattle and really enjoys playing with Carroll.
"Pass rushers enter the world of Okung but never leave." - JM
Author of The Seahawks Asylum: http://seahawksblog.wordpress.com
And why the hell is this not Forsett?
Grumble. Reason #31 I am pissed at Carroll.
To paraphrase what I keep hearing elsewhere
Forsett has been given to show he deserves more carries, but he has failed to impress the coaches. Forsett isn’t very good/sucks/is horrible. He can’t beat out Lynch in practice. Lynch gives us our best chance to win and go to the playoffs.. etc, etc.
by SmartAssCoug on Dec 22, 2010 10:54 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
fail
*given opportunities to show he deserves more carries.
by SmartAssCoug on Dec 22, 2010 10:54 AM PST up reply actions
I haven't heard that Forsett's failed to impress the coaches
He doesn’t seem to want to be a feature back, he’s failed to excel as a feature back and the coaches want to use him as a part of a platoon. They just don’t want to run him into the ground and break him.
Football isn't baseball.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 22, 2010 10:56 AM PST up reply actions
More than two carries a game is not "breaking" him.
I don’t understand the obsession with forcing the ball down Lynch’s throat when he’s constantly running up the backs of his offensive lineman.
I'm just being snarky
Replace “Forsett/Lynch” with “Whitehurst/Hasselbeck.”
For the record, I think Forsett does well and deserves more carries. He’s not going to be a feature back, but should be spelling Lynch a bit more than he has lately.
by SmartAssCoug on Dec 22, 2010 11:08 AM PST up reply actions
And that can't be done if you make the playoffs?
There will still be at least half of this roster that will be looking to build off finishing 2-0 and playing in a playoff game regardless of the outcome of that game.
Missing the playoffs makes it more justifiable
To fix the roster. Especially when you go from 4-2 to 7-9 or 6-10.
Accustomed to mediocrity.
I guess I am of the opinion that Carroll still sees the deficiencies.
He doesn’t seem like he is content with sneaking into the playoffs thru a bad division.
There was no possible way
for Pete and John to “fix” the roster in one year. The fact that it has problems is borderline nitpicking. They performed triage and fixed what they could with the resources they had. The fact that there are holes or weak spots just means that the resources weren’t available to do it all in one offseason.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 21, 2010 8:28 PM PST up reply actions
I was responding to SSReporters
arguing that the Pete and John don’t realize that there are positions that should be upgraded.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 21, 2010 8:44 PM PST up reply actions
No one is saying the roster should be fixed in 1 year
But short-term “success” at the expense of long-term building is not worth it.
Accustomed to mediocrity.
St. Louis is far more talented (and younger)
They built from the ground up. Seattle’s playoff team crumbled.
Accustomed to mediocrity.
Not entirely
Because there’s no need to rebuild. Playoffs or not they’ve exceeded expectations, have found their franchise QB, possibly their franchise LT, and will continue to build to possibly an elite team.
Seattle is declining and needs to stock the team with talent, something the rest of the NFC West has (Arizona has talent, just not at QB or RB).
Accustomed to mediocrity.
St. Louis has amassed enough big contracts
it actually might benefit from a later first round pick.
Seattle is clearing expensive players and needs talent.
Seattle has not had a "close loss" since
The Titans game. And if Tennessee was not hell bent on getting Chris Johnson a record they probably would’ve blown us out.
Accustomed to mediocrity.
And if we win the division the opponent
Will be a team we’ve faced before (Giants, Falcons, Saints) and we’ve been destroyed in all 3 games.
Accustomed to mediocrity.
So you hope we lose these next two?
Diminish our chances of re-signing players that we want to keep, and provide an upstart to the Rams?
I hate to say it, but in a way yes.
The organization will obviously want to make the playoffs but knowing the furthest we’ll get is a wild card loss makes it empty. Would you really want to be a 7-10 team and say you made a playoff game just for the sake of it?
The Rams are an upstart team and we’d only delay it for a year. It’s a cyclical thing. When the NFC West re-aligned the 49ers and Rams were the top teams and the Seahawks and Cardinals were bottom feeders. That flipped for the last few years and now we’re back to where we started. We have no choice but to build through the draft and get young talent and making the playoffs doesn’t do much if you aren’t competitive.
Accustomed to mediocrity.
And honestly, who are we to say it would be pointless?
If it was truly pointless then every team with out a chance would roll over. If it is pointless why do so many teams scratch and claw to try and get in every year?
It's pointless when 16th passing offense is your best ranking
And 15 points is the closest margin of defeat. It’s pointless when you’ve lost to a 3-11 team decisively. It’s pointless when you will win the worst division in football with almost certainly a 7-9 record.
In theory yes every team has a chance. This year, Seattle has shown nothing to suggest they have a chance against any of the wild card teams.
Accustomed to mediocrity.
Ok fine John, you win.
I am sorry for insinuating that you think all high draft picks work out. I just was pointing out that having high draft picks does not assure added talent.
Would you at least agree that it improves the odds?!?
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 22, 2010 1:06 AM PST up reply actions
It improves the odds of finding a franchise QB or LT
But we already have a LT and can anyone honestly say there’s much QB talent in this draft beyond Luck and that’s if he comes out at all?
Punks jump up to get beat down.
And Lo Pann, every year there are successes and failures at every position.
And this statement is made in context to the draft itself, and not the repurcussions of picking first (i.e., means your team sucks!) That being said, talking about draft position is like talking about poker.
It always pisses me off when someone says “I hate getting (fill in blank here)” with blank always being pocket jacks, queens, kings, aces, or ace king.
Because believe me, I would be fucking thrilled to get those cards every damn hand instead of this bullshit 58offsuit I keep getting. I would happily take my chances with Jack Jack every hand, I promise you I would win more than I lose.
And I would much rather pick first every year and take my chances with the problems that come from that, then to pick mid-20’s and hope the right piece falls to me, instead of another LoJack or Kelly Jennings, the first round equivalents of a 3 8 offsuit.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 22, 2010 9:07 AM PST up reply actions
You can say that the team has been losing because it isn't talented enough.
Is that a culture of losing? Can’t really say.
There's no point in having been there if it's 31-0 at halftime to the Saints.
Accustomed to mediocrity.
I'd love to see you walk up to
Earl Thomas and ask him – “hey, take it easy out there and try to not make the playoffs this year.”
These guys are busting their asses to make the playoffs.
You are dragging this discussion away from the original point
Of course THEY’LL try and make the playoffs, but realistically what are they going to do? Get destroyed again?
Accustomed to mediocrity.
by SSreporters on Dec 22, 2010 11:16 AM PST up reply actions
I'm not dragging this discussion anywhere
you just said let’s not make the playoffs – which says you are routing for the team to not make the playoffs. I was only saying I’d love for someone to walk up to a player and tell them that.
I'd never tell a player to miss the playoffs
But as a fan and fantasy GM I do not think fabricated success of winning the division does the team any good.
Accustomed to mediocrity.
by SSreporters on Dec 22, 2010 11:29 AM PST up reply actions
I'd love to see one of the "gotta get to the playoffs to get a taste and understanding for winning people say to him,
“Hey, if you don’t make the playoffs, it’s because you are a loser and don’t understand what it takes to win.”
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 22, 2010 1:06 PM PST up reply actions
That last paragraph was a thing of nightmares.
"Pass rushers enter the world of Okung but never leave." - JM
Author of The Seahawks Asylum: http://seahawksblog.wordpress.com
We should make the Ring Of Honor MEAN SOMETHING!
By having it accidentally dislodge and fall on the opposing team, taking them out for at least our game.
I've seen this decision pretty universally panned by the local media
Steve Kelley, Eric Williams, Danny O’Neil, Mike Sando all were flabbergasted that its happening. It also sounds like the Qwest faithful were pretty excited to see Charlie take the field. I don’t think Pete is doing this because he’s trying to make the local media or fanbase happy.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 21, 2010 6:20 PM PST up reply actions
Losing out...
…which seems to me likely with Hasselbeck starting, means the Seahawks could draft as low as 7, more likely in the 10-11 range, which puts them in position to maybe get one of the top 3 QBs, or one of the top two CBs (at least based on my preliminary analysis).
Making the playoff puts them something like ten spots lower, taking them out of contention for a truly elite player.
I have never felt this way before, but as long as PC continues to start Matt, its definitely not worth winning. If CW started the rest of the year, and won both games by playing well and making those around him better, making the playoffs could be interesting, as it would be an utterly different team than we have seen this year.
With Matt, not, so I would rather see a top ten pick.
Drafting position
Is extremely overrated – no? Would you really want to not make the playoffs for 5-8 better positioning?
No, it really isn't
The drop from the beginning of the first round to the end is pretty precipitous, and few quality quarterbacks are available in the 20s.
It’s like, Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees, and then J.P. Losman, Jason Campbell, Rex Grossman, Brady Quinn, Patrick Ramsey, Jim Drunkenmiller, Tommy Maddox, etc.
There are not too many 6’3"+, 230+ lb guys that can read a defense, move, take hits and sling a football. It’s arguably the rarest collection of skills and talent in any professional sport.
5-8 spots in the first round is huge.
Theres a reason why draft trade charts are a hyperbola. The drop from 10 to 21 is the same difference in value as the drop from 21-60.
It's not 5-8 spots. It's a drop of 9 to 13.
If we lose out (6-10), we’ll pick around 10th, give or take a couple. If we make the playoffs, it’s 21.
Matt Flynn
Played pretty damn good in his first start – I’m assuming that was his first start. Like to see that guy on our team. He’s way too good to be a backup and with Rodgers there for the long-haul he seems like a reasonable bargaining chip.
Flynn has lead for feet
And being a Les Miles protege means we can assure there’s know way we’ll have a proper 2 minute drill. :(
He’s acceptable but that’s it.
Accustomed to mediocrity.
Forgot about Flynn
good stats—looked terrible.
He performed a lot better in his first start than as a sub. I could update the above, but it wouldn’t really change anything.
If I remember correctly
You suggested we trade a 4th-5th rounder for Flynn a year or two ago. Is your opinion on him still the same?
by Pessimistic Optimist on Dec 21, 2010 8:26 PM PST up reply actions
I don't think I did.
Flynn was a crappy starter at LSU that eventually lost out to JaMarcus Russell.
Got confused with LSU for some reason
Damn Louisianans!
by Pessimistic Optimist on Dec 21, 2010 10:02 PM PST up reply actions
I thought he wasn't bad in preseason games.
I know, it’s preseason, but he looked confident and able to do the job.
You like Flynn but despise Whitehurst?
by Scruffy Lefty on Dec 22, 2010 9:18 AM PST up reply actions
Ya - He looked like a stone footed Whitehurst.
by Scruffy Lefty on Dec 22, 2010 11:54 AM PST up reply actions
What defense is that? I thought you were talking about the Patriots?
They have one of the worst pass defenses in the league.
How does point per game help prove that their "Pass defense" isn't bad?
by Scruffy Lefty on Dec 22, 2010 12:28 PM PST up reply actions
I wasn't trying to
their defense, according to points-per-game, is middle of the pack. I didn’t comment on pass defense at all. Did I?
No.
I just assumed you meant the pass defense, since that would be the relevant measuring stick to evaluating the QB’s performance.
Green Bay is significantly better than Seattle.
He was okay for a backup.
Accustomed to mediocrity.
by SSreporters on Dec 22, 2010 11:56 AM PST up reply actions
I've just declared a football team to be better than another
And you’re focusing on the receivers?
And I like Seattle’s receiving corp but Jennings, Nelson, Driver, and Jones is a better one.
Accustomed to mediocrity.
by SSreporters on Dec 22, 2010 12:11 PM PST up reply actions
I do it all the time
We were talking about rib roast, right?
Accustomed to mediocrity.
by SSreporters on Dec 22, 2010 12:15 PM PST up reply actions
I'm just trying to combine different agruments
into one – and I’m hungover and have drank too much coffee.
My only point is that I thought Flynn played a hell of a game for a first starter. Watch the highlights, he made some spectacular throws (and one horrible one). I’m not comparing him to Whitehurst, Hasselbeck, Dave Kreig or OJ Simpson.
The great Q.B hunt of the 90s
The thought of watching Curry,Okung,Thomas, all these talents grow & die while we search for a Q.B. spooks me.
Whitehurst had every opportunity to impress the coaches leading up to the season.
Both John Clayton and Mike Sando talked about it. Matt even told reporters that he came out of that pre season taking the least snaps in camp and in some of the prep for the games. You can pretend like Charlie’s been given nothing, but this is inaccurate. He took the majority of snaps in training camp had a chance to impress in pre-season and did not. He then had a shot despite being down to the giants to at least look capable and did not.
Seneca Wallace packed away several nice preseason games that at least told you he was a solid back up. Nothing Charlie has done up until last week even showed he could put up numbers against second string players. Again he’s had opportunity and chances and couldn’t stand out.
by Joshua Kasparek on Dec 22, 2010 1:18 AM PST reply actions
Well it seems people are continuing to twist the details and facts to suit their own narrative
If you took the facts in this article at face value you’d think Charlie has nothing under his belt has shown nothing because he has had zero opportunity, or that the only opportunity of value is in the regular season. It dismisses entirely that he’s had many many many snaps to show something before these “less than 2 quarters”. However, I realize I’m a bit of broken record here and that we only frame conversations in limited scope of blog narrative so I’ll stop posting on these topics.
by Joshua Kasparek on Dec 22, 2010 2:26 AM PST up reply actions
And Matt has had many many game time snaps to show that he's not a capable starter.
If Matt is continually winning the practice battle but all he has to show for it is a 58% completion percentage and 10 picks to 4 touchdowns then what do the practice snaps really mean? Maybe it’s only by default but Charlie has earned a chance to show he can perform better than Matt on Sunday.
Practice battles are designed for veterans to win out.
Brian Russell!
And everything that anyone needs to know about the capabilities of players can be witnessed during games.
Advanced statistics!
Football isn't baseball.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 22, 2010 10:55 AM PST up reply actions
Scruffy's charts = Advanced Statistics
Accustomed to mediocrity.
by SSreporters on Dec 22, 2010 11:02 AM PST up reply actions
Here
Teams shouldn’t build around attitude or intangible.
They’re impossible to quantify and predict.
What else are we “quantify(ing) and predict(ing)”? What are you complaining about but the idea that you have access to as much information and more insight into the players than the coaches do?
Football isn't baseball.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 22, 2010 11:41 AM PST up reply actions
It's not that we have as much access to information as coaches do, it's that coaches have not shown that they're any better at predicting this stuff than anyone else is.
You can’t predict how well two people will get along, you can’t predict how they’ll then react to adversity or success, you can’t predict whether one person “wants it more” than another or how much that want will make up for a talent difference.
You can’t predict whether a playoff lose will turn we want the ball and we’re going to score into a mantra that fans will rally around or if it will turn into a fumbled hold on a last minute field goal that loses a game and gives a player a complex that will haunt them in big games forever. You can’t predict whether he’s actually haunted by big games forever of if he’ll learn from losing two super bowls by a combined score of 97-20 and turn that into back to back super bowl wins to end his career.
No one knows how any of this stuff is going to play out. There are potential positives and negatives in any situation and attempting to predict how any idividual will react is pointless.
Very few things in football are predictive
Including roster moves, scheme adjustments, draft picks, coaching and facets of the game. The fact that we can’t know with certainty their possible affects doesn’t make them pointless..
Football isn't baseball.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 22, 2010 1:41 PM PST up reply actions
Brian Burke says ST play isn't predictive and doesn't have an effect on wins
Does that mean that teams should invest as little as possible in ST play?
Football isn't baseball.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 22, 2010 1:43 PM PST up reply actions
Correct me if I'm wrong
but Brian Burke excludes ST play from his stuff because no one has really figured out a decent way to work it in yet. He’s never at any point said that ST play doesn’t have an effect on wins.
Well FO keeps all their stuff under covers so that doesn't really help Brian much.
More to the point, if Brian Burke could work special teams into his stuff I imagine he would do it in a heartbeat.
We know that if the Seahawks make the playoffs they will pick 21st or higher
and that if they miss the playoffs they’ll draft about 16th or lower. We know that a higher draft pick is more valuable than a lower draft pick and that it provides a better opportunity to draft a more talented player.
We have no idea if playoff experience will help, hurt or have no impact on the team.
And even if playoff experience was some quantifiable boon
with free agency and particularly with this team, which is rebuilding and can be expected to turn over a good portion of it’s roster, it’s value would be even less to the team. There isn’t a young core that can learn together and bond through these experiences.
by Nate Dogg on Dec 22, 2010 2:03 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
And while we can't quantify playoff experience, or even know if it exists, we can roughly quantify the difference in value between the picks Seattle stands to get.
Per the NFL trade chart, which is out dated but not useless, the difference in value between 16 and 21 is 200 points. Thats equivalent to the 78th pick in the draft. Right now they stand to pick 13th in the draft, which would be the difference of 350 points or a later second round pick.
Are you willing to trade a second or third round pick for the Hawks to make the playoffs?
Really it's more than that, because obviously it isn't just the first round pick that improves.
All the picks improve. As you point out, the dropoff in the first round is obviously the most significant, but the others shouldn’t be discounted by anyone considering the relative value of making the playoffs.
I did not mention DVOA, DYAR or any advanced stat.
I was talking about evaluating physical ability over intangibles, be that done through metrics or by visual scouting.
You don't mention them by name
but what else would “quantification” and “prediction” refer to? What are “metrics” if not statistics? How do you quantify without statistics? How is a prediction without statistics more than just a “gut feeling”?
Football isn't baseball.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 22, 2010 1:36 PM PST up reply actions
I'm still having a hard time
figuring out what a non-statistical “metric” that is “predictive” would be. I guess you might be to.
Football isn't baseball.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 22, 2010 1:44 PM PST up reply actions
Let me put this into the macro for you, because this is my larger point.
Teams shouldn’t actively build around chemistry and intangibles. Teams should build around talent.
Physical scouting, advanced metrics. Things that tell you how well a player performs at playing the game of football itself will create a better team. Seeing how well a player can move in space. Observing how much zip and accuracy a quarterback can throw the ball with. Noting how quickly a back can get into the second level. These things are what good teams build around.
Trying to piece together how well players will get along and making that a huge part of your evaluation process isn’t the way. Making chemistry and veteranocity or playoff experience your yardstick won’t yield nearly as great of results. This stuff is volatile. One guy can be great in one lockerroom but a cancer in another. Trying to build a team around these intangibles is a failing proposition.
You are hung up on advanced statistics. I get it, you don’t like them. Advanced statistics are only a small portion of what I am talking about in terms of the talent versus intangibles argument, though. You’re trying to argue something that I’m not arguing.
Sure
The idea that talent trumps everything else in a team sport like football completely ignores the importance of chemistry, communication, cohesion and motivation.
Football isn't baseball.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 22, 2010 11:39 AM PST up reply actions
Mike Holmgren would disagree with you completely.
When addressing Seneca Wallace as the better QB he said this on KJR last year. “The trouble with a switch is, it isn’t a simple as a switch, particularly at this position. You need a lot more to happen around the QB for success to happen. The players have to believe in the guy’s ability to help you win, or you do yourself a tremendous amount of damage. It’s a hard thing when injuries hit there because then your stuck and that’s what you spend time fighting for from the players is belief from them that this guy can help them win.”
If the players don’t trust Charlie do you suggest Carroll takes the risk of losing the players confidence? I’m not saying he would, but that is also a pretty big risk if Players aren’t showing signs that they want a switch making it and then costing the seahawks a post-season sport for the sake of a switch. Telling all 52 other players that their work all season means nothing because the Seahawks have long term goals. It seems like a pretty “Big Dick” move instead of “Big Balls”
If you come at me with ‘Pull Charlie if he sucks at Tampa Bay.’ then, why even make the switch at all?
by Joshua Kasparek on Dec 22, 2010 6:36 PM PST up reply actions
Players having confidence in Matt hasn't gotten them any success.
This isn’t a matter of a mediocre Matt at the end of the road. Matt is terrible, he is maybe the worst quarterback in the league. Charlie should start because the Seahawks need to do something to try to upgrade the position, not just to see what they have for next year.
It’s not a switch for the sake of making a switch. It’s a switch in an attempt to improve the team, because what they have right now is unacceptable.
I don't know what Charlie is supposed to have "shown" for you.
He’s had to come into games either completely cold, and while we were getting hammered, or against Teams against whom we had absolutely no shot.
Even then, his numbers aren’t that far off of a lot of quarterbacks that went on to be good given time (see: Hasselbeck).
He’s played what, almost two games? With almost no practice time with the first unit?
Going by your reasoning, your favourite player Matt Hasselbeck would never have become the Seahawk he did.
And again, for the 4000th time… Charlie is probably not good, if only for the fact that most college quarterbacks do not turn out to be good. If so, we need to find out right goddamn now.
80% of this thread is predicated on the psychological aspect of making the playoffs
So ask yourself this – Do you want this team to make the playoffs because the team “deserves” it and it will build “team cohesion” when there is no concrete evidence that this is true? Or do you want to “lose to win” in order to win more in the future?
Accustomed to mediocrity.
Miss the playoffs? Awesome better draft pick.
Make the playoffs? Awesome we have the worst chance at the SB – but at least we have a chance.
by Scruffy Lefty on Dec 22, 2010 11:39 AM PST up reply actions
I'd feel better making the playoffs if this team was 7-7
Having lost squeakers to one of the Falcons, Saints, hell even the Raiders is acceptable. I just don’t want to see a continuation of this team’s struggles go into January.
However if Whitehurst can channel his Jesus Mode and put up kickass numbers in the next two games and we win I’ll be the happiest man alive.
But since that isn’t happening and the man who has thrown 8 interceptions in 3 games is still with us….tank it and don’t give us any chance Hasselbeck is back.
Accustomed to mediocrity.
by SSreporters on Dec 22, 2010 11:42 AM PST up reply actions
I think its kind of hand in hand
No way we make the playoffs with Matt QB’ing the way he has been.
by Scruffy Lefty on Dec 22, 2010 11:52 AM PST up reply actions
This is the stance I've taken.
If Matt is truly the best we have at QB, we stand no shot at making the playoffs. Might as well play Charlie and see if he can help you next season or maybe he plays well enough and gets the team into the playoffs.
No matter what happens
you cannot consider it “leading us into the playoffs”. This is a pure and simple case of tripping over yourself and falling into the playoffs.
A chance at the SB means that a loss in the playoffs (at some point) is likely
Why are you (and fans of 10 other NFL teams) so satisfied with losing (in the playoffs)?
Football isn't baseball.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 22, 2010 11:42 AM PST up reply actions
Where did I say that I am satisfied with losing in the playoffs?
by Scruffy Lefty on Dec 22, 2010 11:50 AM PST up reply actions
I was just trying to be facetious
Most playoff teams don’t win the SB. Most playoff teams don’t have a great chance at winning the SB. The fact that teams root for their teams to make the playoffs doesn’t mean that they’re engaging in some selfish endeavor that could cost the team in draft capital.
Football isn't baseball.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 22, 2010 11:55 AM PST up reply actions
I want this team to make the playoffs because I'm a Seahawks fan.
There’s no point in playing the game if you don’t play to win.
Punks jump up to get beat down.
by Lo Pann on Dec 22, 2010 11:38 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I want us to get significantly higher draft picks because...
I’m not only a fan of the 2010 Seahawks, but the 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, (etc) Seahawks.
In three years will we look back and say it was good to miss out on (whoever it is we’ll miss out on) just so we could bring the national spotlight on how crappy we were and how we didn’t deserve a playoff spot, and now they have a new rule (called the Seahawk Rule) that prevents playoff teams with losing records from hosting a playoff game?
Sorry, as a fan of the team, I want to lose out this year and pick around 10th or better. My future self will be happier.
I don't give a rat's ass about either right now.
I want Charlie to start because he might be a part of the short term future when Matt clearly isn’t.
What I See Here...
Fear. This thread is reeking of it. Field Gulls has been showing subtle signs of it for the last 3 months. The overarching question on everyone’s mind is-
Is Pete Carroll the right coach long term?
I’ve known that underneath the Hasselbeck hate has been a subtle current of fear that, if he performs well enough, or doesn’t, but still commands the respect of Pete, he could be re-signed in the offseason. In that case, can we still trust Carroll and Schneider to run the team? That Hasselbeck is still starting flies in the face of normal convention, goes against the “always compete” mantra, and takes away the oppurtunity to see what our new, younger quarterback can do. I understand that fear and share it to a degree. This isn’t about Hasselbeck vs Whitehurst so much as it is about what this decision says about the coaching staff and front office.
I have been a Hasselbeck supporter, but at halftime of the 49ers game 2 weeks ago, I thought he should have been benched and his Seahawks career over. The Arizona and New Orleans games were magical, but ultimately an aberration. I had wanted Hasselbeck to perform well this season, then ride off to another city. I don’t want another Griffey Jr episode to happen to the Hawks.
Here’s my deal. I’m jealous of teams that have drafted and immediately started their early round QB’s. Flacco, Matt Ryan, Freeman, Sanchize, Bradford. If not starting right away, they are definitely in the mix (see Colt McCoy). Now are all of those guys truly franchise quarterbacks? No, but they have the time to develop. Whitehurst will be 29 years old at the beginning of next season. Because he hasn’t played or taken hits will prolong his health and strength more than your average signal caller, but for how long? Hasselbeck was 26 in his first almost-full year with the Hawks, and took his lumps that season. That’s not even good enough for me. In my ideal world, we’d have a 22 or 23 yr old in the fold next season. I want a 10-12 year starter for our team, and I don’t see Whitehurst fulfilling that. There’s my fear.
"Is Pete Carroll the right coach long term?" From what I've seen, no.
I know people are all excited because the Seahawks have won more games than they did last year, but the numbers say they’re a worse team.
Now I can understand “getting worse to get better”… but how does the jettisoning of so many young players in favour of mediocre-to-awful veterans make your team better? How does hanging on to the fading glory of a now-broken quarterback – in lieu of the younger guy you actually spent a third-round pick on – make your team get better?
Pete was not particularly successful in his last run in the NFL. John, along with myself and others, was pretty skeptical about his hiring as Seahawks’ coach. I was buoyed for a while by the acquisitions of some quality players, but overall I am really pissed about the purge of young talent and the total fuckup of the Hass/Whitehurst scenario.
I could be wrong; Pete could turn out to be exactly what this team needs. But right now, in my opinion, I am not optimistic. Change my mind, Petey.
I have less concern about Pete as the right coach.
I definitely feel more comfortable with having Pete as a coach than having Mora in there, and I actually think he can do a good job with this team, it’s just a matter of getting the right players in here.
I’m willing to give him another year or two to get the players he wants/needs before making that judgment. But for now, I definitely have confidence that Pete is the right coach.
by splintrdmind on Dec 22, 2010 2:07 PM PST up reply actions
I just saw, for the first time, Donnie Darko last night.
I’m quite sure we’re on the fear spectrum not the love spectrum. Hope nobody here is into arson, or kiddie porn. Arson exposing kiddie porn is okay though, for the greater good.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 22, 2010 5:35 PM PST up reply actions
I think arson and kiddie cancel each other out
Leaving porn being for the greater good.
by MT Olson on Dec 22, 2010 10:08 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I'm fine with him
He’s demonstrated the ability to make pretty good trades, and with Schneider I can forsee a sucessful few seasons ahead of us.
An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.
by Corax --Nevermore-- on Dec 22, 2010 3:30 PM PST up reply actions
I still trust Pete and John, pretty much.
If it turns out they really are trying to win at all costs now, then forget it. But I don’t get that sense— despite the talk.
I think early on they couldn’t get a QB they really liked, so they went with Matt and overspent for Whitehurst. They got a great look at Claussen, and passed.
I suspect the plan out of training camp was to target one next year. They can’t be happy with Matt and who knows what they really think of Charlie. Seems like they thought more highly of him before they accepted him as their… uh, saviour.

by 





































