Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: NFL Players Ready To Welcome Gay Teammate

The Time Is Now to Start Charlie Whitehurst

In the earliest days of Christianity, believers thought Jesus would be revived within their lifetime. 2,000 years later, some still do, but most have adopted a more practical outlook. There is faith and then there is sitting on your hands, waiting for a miracle.

I have declared Matt Hasselbeck dead and buried too many times to count. I'm half right.

The Season Is Not Over: Seattle is in first place in the division. No other team in the NFC West appears to be a legitimate contender. Maybe the 49ers turn it around or turn it on and run away with the West, but that seems very unlikely. If it does happen, it will happen regardless of who starts for Seattle.

The Seahawks are not dependent on Matt Hasselbeck to win the NFC West. The formula, as it has been since this team was constructed, is: good run defense, an opportunistic secondary, good special teams and a functional offense. The Seahawks run defense has been superb, ranking third in yards per attempt allowed, 2.0, and allowing only nine first downs (11th tied) in 57 attempts. The secondary converted two interceptions into touchdowns against the 49ers. Marcus Trufant returned one pick for an instant score. Jordan Babineaux returned another pick to the 13, and Seattle scored on the next play. Olindo Mare is still booting them, and Golden Tate has the look of a superstar return man. The formula is in place, and the formula is in no way dependent on Hasselbeck.

Benching Matt Hasselbeck is not an admission of defeat.

The Offense Is Talented: In the past four seasons, every player that has played alongside Hasselbeck has been targeted for blame. Some have been old. Many have been injured. Some have been ineffective. Many have been unpopular. Matt may not play on Warner's Cardinals, but the reflexive excuse that Seattle lacks talent around Hasselbeck, and that he can not hope to succeed because of that talent, seems as thin and old and indefensible as Hasselbeck himself.

Does, for instance, Kyle Orton have better surrounding talent than Hasselbeck? A gimpy left tackle, albeit a talented one; a rebuilt offensive line; a receiving corps led by Brandon Lloyd; a running back committee split between Knowshon Moreno and Correll Buckhalter; Daniel Graham -- or Chicago, San Diego; is San Diego better because of Antonio Gates alone? Vincent Jackson has held out. Ditto: Marcus McNeill. LaDainian Tomlinson is gone, and Ryan Matthews missed much of yesterday's game. The line isn't special. The corps is depleted. Philip Rivers finds a way. Kyle Orton finds a way. Not luminaries. Not Manning, Brady or Brees, Rivers, Orton, make the players around them better.

The Seahawks have talent. They have talent on their line, if not a ton. They have talent in their backfield. They have talent at tight end and wide receiver. If Hasselbeck wasn't Hasselbeck, wasn't the quarterback so many once booed, that led the Seahawks to the Super Bowl, that is always classy and astute and competitive, it would be almost impossible to look at this team, its roster and its performance and not blame the quarterback.

Sacks have not been a problem. Seattle's starting back, Justin Forsett, is averaging 5.8 yards per carry, and as a team, Seattle is averaging 4.3 yards per carry. The run is there. The offensive line, though patched together, has held. Do we dismiss Mike Williams, Deion Branch, Golden Tate, Deon Butler, Ben Obomanu, John Carlson, Chris Baker, and Cameron Morrah as the problem? Again? How many receivers must Seattle run through before it looks elsewhere? And why is it good quarterbacks on other teams find ways to work with their receivers, even the Austin Collies and Legedu Naanees, and every receiver that runs through Seattle, be they first round pick, second round pick, third round pick, Super Bowl MVP or expensive free agent, is dead on arrival?

Even the most stubborn person must admit, after years of trying one thing and only one thing, that maybe they have misidentified the problem. The denial fostered by the Seahawks front office, past and current, the Seahawks coaching staff, past and maybe current, and so many Seahawks fans is like that of an addict. Hasselbeck is the constant, why must we change, compromise and deny everything else to continue that fix?

Now Is the Time to Find Out: Matt Hasselbeck has one year remaining on his contract. Seattle would have to be out of its collective mind to re-sign Hasselbeck. Charlie Whitehurst is signed through 2011. Seattle could limp through 2010 starting Hasselbeck, maybe back into the playoffs, start new with Whitehurst in 2011, discover he is either A) terrible, and suffer a lost season, or B) good, and wonder why the hell it didn't start Whitehurst last season.

If Whitehurst is terrible, and let's face it, he probably will be, then let's find out. Let's find out now, when San Francisco is starting Alex Smith, Arizona is starting Derek Anderson, St. Louis is starting a rookie Sam Bradford, and not next year, when the division might be better, the schedule might be tougher, and Seattle's rivals might be a year closer to contention. What if Bradford develops? What if either San Francisco or Arizona add competent quarterbacks to their talented rosters? Give Whitehurst every possible chance to prove his worth. Enter the 2011 off-season with an honest understanding of his ability and potential. Otherwise, in a division in transition, Seattle could lose a vital step and turn a two-year down turn into a five-year rebuild.

If Whitehurst is good, or even promising, Seattle can attempt to build around him while running through younger, developmental talent. If not, let's know. Let's know for sure.

Now Is the Time to Find Out II: Ryan Mallett is killing it. Short of a total collapse, it's hard to see the 22 year old junior sticking around for another season. Maybe he does, but I wouldn't bet on it. He risks decline. He risks injury. He risks Sam Bradford becoming living proof to not lock into a quarterback that accomplishes nothing in the season prior to declaring.

Factor in Andrew Luck, who is surrounded by senior talent, including his center, one guard, one tackle, both starting wide receivers and his fullback, and 2011 could be one of the most loaded draft classes for quarterbacks in years. The Seahawks could pick from Mallett, Luck, Christian Ponder, Jake Locker and Pat Devlin. The Seahawks could grab that elusive franchise quarterback that it's nearly impossible to win a Super Bowl without.

The Seahawks invested in Whitehurst. 2011 might be an excellent quarterback class. It can either excuse Whitehurst without hardly a chance to prove himself, it can wait until 2011 to give him his shot and skip a very talented looking class, or it can start him now, know what it has, go into 2011 with a clear understanding of its needs and finally break this endless cycle of mediocrity.

Mediocrity is the best Seattle can hope for from Hasselbeck. Whitehurst may never even achieve that. A first round pick may bust. A year from now, two years from now, Seahawks fans may look back to Hasselbeck and feel longing. He was once good. He was once great, greatest ever in franchise history, but Hasselbeck will not recapture that greatness.

Maybe in 2008, Seattle could confidently say that a revival from Matt would give the Seahawks their best chance to compete in 2009. And maybe, as the season collapsed in 2009, Seattle could believe that a revival from Matt would give the Seahawks their best chance to compete in 2010. But in 2010, that hope is over. There is no 2011 season for Hasselbeck. No next year. Seattle made baby steps toward change by acquiring Whitehurst. Matt had his shot. Matt earned the honorary first snap of the season. He is not injured. He is not playing with midget receivers. His line is not a mess. His running back is not an easy target. Matt had his shot and he failed. Again. Seattle must embrace the future, however scary, however likely to fail, because committing to the past, as the Seahawks have done for so, so many years following 2005, is committing to failure with a chance of mediocrity. Committing to the future is committing to failure with a chance of greatness. Failure is always possible. Greatness is why anyone worth a damn gets up in the morning.

Comment 435 comments  |  10 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

You know Bella picks the vampire, right?

I hope PC isn’t like Bella. Go young, Pete!

by Lanky on Sep 20, 2010 1:49 PM PDT up reply actions  

True that.

I don’t like writers who say, “Bella’s smart!” and then proceed to show me how not-smart she is. Bad writing. Bad, bad writing.

by Chirp on Sep 20, 2010 3:37 PM PDT up reply actions  

I don't like writers who say "Bella's smart!"

It’s worse than just bad writing, it’s lazy writing. You can be descriptive and lead me to the characterization you want, rather than just outright telling me what you think I should know.

by SmartAssCoug on Sep 20, 2010 3:52 PM PDT up reply actions  

What we have is the textbook "Anti Sue"

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AntiSue

Is that the light at the end of the tunnel, or the headlights of an oncoming train?

by Benne on Sep 20, 2010 3:59 PM PDT up reply actions  

I'm torn.

On the one hand this subthread is about Twilight. On the other, it produced a TV Tropes link.

by BrianL on Sep 20, 2010 4:27 PM PDT up reply actions  

please tell me

you didn’t just ruin the whole story arc for me…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZDUh9yboqI

Your culture is primitive; yet so funky!

by jubelthebear on Sep 20, 2010 1:56 PM PDT up reply actions  

DUDE!

hello!!?! Post SPOILER in the head? Gosh…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZDUh9yboqI

Your culture is primitive; yet so funky!

by jubelthebear on Sep 20, 2010 1:58 PM PDT up reply actions  

Supposedly they'll keep all that in the movie.

I think they’re lying. There’s now way they show the busted vag.

by Chirp on Sep 20, 2010 3:37 PM PDT up reply actions  

What's there to comb?

An autumn Sunday,
Perched in front of the big screen,
Beer in white knuckles.

by Neoplatonist Bolthead on Sep 20, 2010 3:01 PM PDT up reply actions  

Who would Zach Robinson be?

Lets throw another curve ball into the mix!!

Fly Leon! Fly!

by BleedGreenandBlue on Sep 20, 2010 3:14 PM PDT up reply actions  

Vampire baby?

The one Jacob falls in love with? That would make quarterback meetings a bit awkward, right?

by SmartAssCoug on Sep 20, 2010 3:54 PM PDT up reply actions  

I've always been team Jacob.

Well, really, Team Alice, because she’s kinda hot, but if I have to be on one of these two teams…yeah, Jacob.

I love Matt, and I want to say he’s the man. But I don’t think he’s the man anymore. Whitehurst probably isn’t the man either, but he’s the man for now.

by Chirp on Sep 20, 2010 3:36 PM PDT up reply actions  

Awww....Matt looks so happy with hair

He must look into the mirror and dream about having Whitehurst-like locks flowing from his scalp. At least for one photoshopped JPEG he can attain true happiness.

by J.L. White on Sep 20, 2010 5:59 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

If Whitehurst proves to be worse than Hasselbeck, that could also improve our draft position.

Theoretically, if Matt played out the year, you could have a preseason competition between Charlie and the new draft pick. But I like this plan better.
I’d just like to point out, again, that beating this division and getting to the playoffs is great, but our chances of an early exit are so high that I don’t see the point. I’m familiar with the “anything can happen” argument, but surely there’s a limit to what you can expect from a team that could barely beat the worst division in the NFL.

by Lanky on Sep 20, 2010 1:33 PM PDT reply actions  

0-3....

An autumn Sunday,
Perched in front of the big screen,
Beer in white knuckles.

by Neoplatonist Bolthead on Sep 20, 2010 3:02 PM PDT up reply actions  

What's this about the Steelers?

I totally agree. Eff them. They knocked my team out of the playoffs in ’08.

An autumn Sunday,
Perched in front of the big screen,
Beer in white knuckles.

by Neoplatonist Bolthead on Sep 20, 2010 3:14 PM PDT up reply actions  

Those teams were much stronger than the rest of the division, weren't they?

We’re talking about the Seahawks being slightly better, and/or getting lucky. The ’05 and ’10 Seahawks do not similar talent.

by Lanky on Sep 20, 2010 3:03 PM PDT up reply actions  

If you give the Seahawks a home playoff game

even this version of the Seahawks, they will probably win. I don’t care how weak the division is- a home playoff win and a trip to the divisional round = I’m a happy Twelve.

by Johnny Peel (DKSB) on Sep 20, 2010 3:05 PM PDT up reply actions  

I didn't realize anyone was THAT optimistic.

I thougth the best we were hoping for was sneaking in at 8-8, 9-7 tops.

by Lanky on Sep 20, 2010 3:11 PM PDT up reply actions  

What's the diff?

If the Seahawks win the division, they get a home playoff. Statistically, they’re a little over 60% likely to win that game.

In ’08, the Chargers won the AFCW at 8-8, then took out the Colts at home. The Cards went 9-7 and made it to the SB that same year. Seattle got a home playoff win off 9-7 too, recently: was it ’06 or ’07?

An autumn Sunday,
Perched in front of the big screen,
Beer in white knuckles.

by Neoplatonist Bolthead on Sep 20, 2010 3:17 PM PDT up reply actions  

I'm not sure what statistic you're looking at, but my point is I don't think us winning is all that likely.

I think the Falcons could be a likely opponent. Maybe the Redskins? I have trouble imagining a scenario where we win that game. But that could just be the pessimist in me.

by Lanky on Sep 20, 2010 3:21 PM PDT up reply actions  

Yup, it's the pessimism :)

This division is still sitting here for the Seahawks to take, and I think they will… at 9-7, like I’ve been saying since the draft.

by Johnny Peel (DKSB) on Sep 20, 2010 3:23 PM PDT up reply actions  

Didn't the Redksins just shit the bed against the Texans?

There aren’t too many teams that look totally unbeatable at this point in the season, and I’d bet most (if not all) that are really good won’t be playing on the road in the 1st playoff team. Even if the Seahawks back into the playoffs, playing at Qwest Filed will surely level the playing field.

by J.L. White on Sep 20, 2010 6:05 PM PDT up reply actions  

I think losing to the Texans will be pretty common this year.

But I see the rest of your point. I had forgotten that division winners automatically receive homefield advantage.

by Lanky on Sep 21, 2010 8:01 AM PDT up reply actions  

Bravo!

Thank you John,, that was well written. And I couldn’t agree with you more. Sure the team as a whole made costly mistakes. But how many times are we going to suffer at the hands of Hasselbeck? That pass to Carlson in the Red zone was pathetic, he was wide open. And his last interception reminded me of his infamous quote “we want the ball first and we are gonna score” Man was that last INT reminiscent of the playoff game vs Green Bay.

It’s time to see what Charlie Whitehurst can do. Well maybe after the Charger game :P

by cthunder on Sep 20, 2010 1:35 PM PDT reply actions  

Y'all crazy

We’ve seen what CW can do… against third string defenses in the preseason. It was a little encouraging and a lot of gawd awful. He’s just not ready. I want to see players that give us the best chance of winning. When Charlie is that guy, then play him.

by DJT on Sep 20, 2010 4:06 PM PDT up reply actions  

My thinking before reading all this

was that this is the big game for Hass… win and get another game. Lose, and suck, and you’re done.

by Strictnine on Sep 22, 2010 8:49 AM PDT up reply actions  

Need more detailed analysis of Hasselbeck's flaws

He was good against the Niners, and made 2 mistakes in 120 degree heat, 5280 feet above sea level. Hasselbeck is still the man.

by Galitsky on Sep 20, 2010 1:35 PM PDT reply actions  

Hasselbeck

made more than 2 mistakes. He threw 3 INTS and missed open receivers.

by cthunder on Sep 20, 2010 1:37 PM PDT up reply actions  

I would debate whether Hasselbeck was really all that good against SF.

He started with an INT. His receivers completely fooled the coverage a couple of times. I mean, those passes to Williams and Butler were pretty damn easy. His throw to Branch worked, but I don’t know how much credit he gets, how much Branch gets, and how much blame the coverage takes for not turning around and swatting that ball out of the air.

I certainly don’t think the final score should be viewed as a reflection of Matt’s performance.

by Lanky on Sep 20, 2010 1:41 PM PDT up reply actions  

I'm on board

The only reason stopping me from fully embracing this idea is this feeling that starting Matthew gives us our best chance at winning our next game which, in the context of the state of our delicate franchise, doesn’t seem like much of a reason.

by DrunkAmerican on Sep 20, 2010 1:35 PM PDT reply actions  

Look at it this way

Matt hasn’t proven that he is helping us win, just not hurting us on a good day.
CW at least has a chance to help us win. He might hurt us too as he grows, or doesn’t, but at least there is a chance for him to help us.

by stufr on Sep 20, 2010 2:23 PM PDT up reply actions  

I'd rather they hold this decision off till after the bye

If he shits the bed against San Diego, I’m all for the change

by G-Mo on Sep 20, 2010 1:37 PM PDT reply actions  

Revenge for finding him a starter's job?

Or revenge for letting him mature behind Philip Rivers and Billy Volek?

Somehow I doubt it.

An autumn Sunday,
Perched in front of the big screen,
Beer in white knuckles.

by Neoplatonist Bolthead on Sep 20, 2010 3:03 PM PDT up reply actions  

Very few yards, and those he did get seemed to be a product of YAC. Sure, his completion percentage was good...

But throwing screens and dumpoffs makes that pretty easy. Double moves won’t work forever, and Matt looked “Ok”, not “good” against SF. It’s not like facing SF on the road is a big task, anyway.

by BrettJMiller on Sep 20, 2010 1:52 PM PDT up reply actions  

THis was my thought after the last interception.

That was Holmgren’s staple. Short passes and decent runs to eat clock and score enough to get ahead. His over-conservative approach to a game once we had a lead was my major complaint about his coaching style.

If Bates reworks the offense to be a more full throttle sort of machine with no first gear at all, and Matt can deliver in that offense, I am for keeping him. On the other hand, if all we see from him vs SD is more 4 yard completions and INTs, then maybe a change is warranted.

I thought a couple of times in the SF game that he checked down to the underneath guy a little prematurely, and why we were throwing underneath with less than 2min in the game in Denver was making me hurt my vocal cords.

I blame Bates too. Rework the game plan and let’s see if Matt can keep up. If not THEN try Whitehurst.

Good god, I hate change.

by Tigloki on Sep 20, 2010 3:25 PM PDT up reply actions  

You can buttress your argument

By considering the performance of Seneca Wallace over the last two seasons. Seneca threw 362 passes (!) in 08 and 09 combined and had MUCH better results than did Matt, and that is without going through camp with the first team.

I don’t think anyone is gonna argue that Seneca is anyone’s answer for anything. That said, Seneca had to play with the same OL and skill position players and outplayed Matt over quite a large sample.

You gotta decide what the priority is though because if you want to maximize our Wins this year, i can see the argument for Matt. Big picture, Whitehurst.

by michaelfox99 on Sep 20, 2010 1:40 PM PDT reply actions  

Seneca's probably about as replacement level as it gets

which really puts Matt’s struggles into perspective.

by BrianL on Sep 20, 2010 1:45 PM PDT up reply actions  

I dunno if I would go that far..

Seneca is worth a roster spot as a #2 QB on a very good number (probably most) of teams. A lot of teams keep three QB’s. This would indicate he is not replacement level. He might even be like the 25th best starter…

Matt is above replacement level too. If we cut him he is definitely catching on somewhere.

by michaelfox99 on Sep 20, 2010 2:05 PM PDT up reply actions  

There is no evidence Seneca is worth a roster spot on ANY teams

…not run by Mike “as long as I have a job, you have a job” Holmgren.

inside of a dog it's too dark to read.

by shams on Sep 20, 2010 2:27 PM PDT up reply actions  

Sure there is.

Jim Mora / Tim Ruskell kept him on the roster after Holmgren departed. Nevertheless, only Belichick has ensured Tom Brady a roster spot during his career. Your method is clearly not appropriate.
Seneca’s career line: 349/587 (59.5%), 3776 yards (6.4 avg), 26 TD, 15 INT

… with the vast majority of those passes thrown in more recent years. I am not saying the guy is great, but he is clearly not a replacement level player. He is a solid backup QB. At the very least, he has the stats for at least some FO’s to consider him a solid backup QB.

by michaelfox99 on Sep 21, 2010 6:17 AM PDT up reply actions  

Man does that hurt to read,

but you are probably right. As much as Hasselbeck has been the cornerstone of this organization for so long, now is the time for the Seahawks to put themselves into a position to find the next cornerstone.

by gongawz on Sep 20, 2010 1:43 PM PDT reply actions  

No way the change happens before the bye

If we are 1-3 after the STL game, I think Whitehurst gets the ball. 2-2 or better? Beck stays at QB until he is injured or we are out of playoff contention.

by Johnny Peel (DKSB) on Sep 20, 2010 1:43 PM PDT reply actions  

Unfortunately, this is true.

But I will maintain my hope that, barring a miracle resurgence by Matt, someone on the coaching staff will catch PC’s ear and drill him with the evidence until he makes the decision to switch out of common sense.

Chad Brown for the Ring of Honor!

by Big Seahawk Loser on Sep 20, 2010 5:31 PM PDT up reply actions  

Very true..

I am very optimistic about the future of this franchise. All the receivers have excellent hands and superb play making abilities. The running game is better than expected.

If we get our franchise QB and a stud DT/DE next year, the future will only get brighter.

Anyone else think we’re stacking 4th round picks in hopes of moving up in the first? I would LOVE Locket/Mallet/Luck on this squad. The homer in me of course wants Locker over the rest..

Ka-Kaaa!

by JerryNice on Sep 20, 2010 1:43 PM PDT reply actions  

Me too

and I had almost none to begin with…

by Johnny Peel (DKSB) on Sep 20, 2010 1:47 PM PDT up reply actions  

Tebow

2.0?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZDUh9yboqI

Your culture is primitive; yet so funky!

by jubelthebear on Sep 20, 2010 2:10 PM PDT up reply actions  

Locker has functional mechanics

Why he seems to be regressing this season? I don’t know. Possible problems with scheme, as well as attempting to showcase him for the heisman trophy seem to be causing issues.

by chrees on Sep 20, 2010 2:12 PM PDT up reply actions  

Mirer

2.0?… Jamarcus Russell 2.0?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZDUh9yboqI

Your culture is primitive; yet so funky!

by jubelthebear on Sep 20, 2010 2:16 PM PDT up reply actions  

Yeah right..

Locker will be a good pro. given the right kind of coach and scheme. He would be a stud in a west coast offense, which is already run at UW. Great accuracy, mechanics, build, and decision-making.

I have confidence in the kid and think he will be great at the next level.

Not Tebow – He never registered to be a solid pro to begin with. Bad mechanics, and to short.

Not JaMarcus – Really? That guy smelled of bust the second he declared. Probably the worst personality you can invest big money into and hope it pans out. Same goes for Leaf.

I’ll take a division title this year, and Jake Locker losing stock in the first round (where we can nab him) ANY day of the week.

Ka-Kaaa!

by JerryNice on Sep 20, 2010 2:22 PM PDT up reply actions  

Locker is the opposite of Matt

No matter what talent has been around Matt he has brought them down. No matter what garbage is around Jake, he has given them a chance. He is capable of raising people around him, something Matt can’t do.

by stufr on Sep 20, 2010 2:25 PM PDT up reply actions  

No.

Matt has brought them down? Jake has given them a chance? Neither of those is historically accurate.

by Lanky on Sep 20, 2010 2:28 PM PDT up reply actions  

Are you kidding

The Husky’s have sucked in a large and powerful way the last few years. In nearly every win he has put them on his back and carried them. He has very little if any NFL level talent around him.
I will agree with John’s point above, Matt brings talent around him down.

by stufr on Sep 20, 2010 2:34 PM PDT up reply actions  

You're underrating the running game.

And although I didn’t see it, I’m not sure what chance Locker gave them to win on Saturday.

by Lanky on Sep 20, 2010 3:04 PM PDT up reply actions  

I will completely give you that Sat was the worst game he has played probably in college

It was terrible.
But unlike Matt, look at last year and the first two weeks this year.

by stufr on Sep 20, 2010 3:09 PM PDT up reply actions  

I didn't realize you were limiting your criticisms and praise to just this year and last.

I thought you were comparing Hasselbeck’s career to Locker’s. I totally agree that Matt is no longer helping. I don’t necessarily agree that Locker has proven to be capable at all the relevant abilities of a NFL franchise QB (if that’s what you’re suggesting).

by Lanky on Sep 20, 2010 3:14 PM PDT up reply actions  

There is no college player who has done that before they are done with their senior year

I was arguing, that given the relative talen around them, Locker elevates talent. Matt may have done that five years ago, but he doesn’t come close to it anymore.

by stufr on Sep 20, 2010 3:16 PM PDT up reply actions  

Disagree.

D-Jack – Stud while with Seattle. Sucked the second he left for SF.

Engram – Would not have had the career he did without Hass.

Hackett – See point #1

Now, if that’s not mediocre talent surrounding a good QB, then I’ve gone crazy.

Hass carried this team on his back to the Super Bowl without true play makers..

Ka-Kaaa!

by JerryNice on Sep 20, 2010 2:49 PM PDT up reply actions  

That was 5 years ago

What are the excuses for the last two or three years?

by stufr on Sep 20, 2010 2:50 PM PDT up reply actions  

Last two years..

2008 – NOBODY on our team. No line, WR’s, RB’s, etc.

2009 – Terrible Offensive play calling and bad overall coaching form Mora.

It was one game gentlemen, with a million more things to be excited about in 2010 and beyond. Give him a couple more games to figure it out before calling for his head.

Ka-Kaaa!

by JerryNice on Sep 20, 2010 2:52 PM PDT up reply actions  

It's not just one game, it's been 2 years.

In those two years he was no better, and probably worse, than Seneca Wallace.

by Nate Dogg on Sep 20, 2010 2:55 PM PDT up reply actions  

Its been three years of this

Its always one more game.
I think the most important part of JMs article is the fact that there is no future with the Seahawks for Matt. It will be CWs team next year. The only question is do we spend a first rounder cause it will only be his team for a year or so. The only way to find out is to play him.

by stufr on Sep 20, 2010 2:56 PM PDT up reply actions  

Or if not CW's team next year

It would be useful to find out now when we can address the position in the off season by drafting/trading for a potential franchise guy and signing the teacher/mentor vet.

by SmartAssCoug on Sep 20, 2010 2:59 PM PDT up reply actions  

I believe..

What Carroll is hoping for at the best is for Hass to have a Warner type revival. At worst, being able to mentor CW.

It’s really hard to think that Carroll is thinking “Hasselbeck stinks and is going to be canned after this year.” Obviously, from what we’re learned from this regime, they have NO problem dumping guys that don’t fit their design..

Still think we’re stacking 4th rounders to nab a stud QB in the 1st..

Ka-Kaaa!

by JerryNice on Sep 20, 2010 3:01 PM PDT up reply actions  

There is no such thing as a Warner type revival.

Kurt Warner had a career, it was atypical in every respect. It did not create a trend or provide a blueprint for how to become a Hall of Fame quarterback.

by Nate Dogg on Sep 20, 2010 3:04 PM PDT up reply actions  

So when..

Warner was on the Giants, or was the backup on the Cards he was as good as he’s been the past 2 years?

That is what you call a revival in my book..

Ka-Kaaa!

by JerryNice on Sep 20, 2010 3:22 PM PDT up reply actions  

Warner never lost his arm strength

If Matt had Warner’s arm we wouldn’t be having this discussion. In his prime Matt’s arm wasn’t as strong as Warner’s when he retired. He just can’t physically do what his mind wants him to do anymore.

by stufr on Sep 20, 2010 3:24 PM PDT up reply actions  

Game plan..

That’s my concern with the Denver game plan…Why not do EXACTLY what Kyle Orton was doing?

You know, dumping it for 5 yards in hopes of good YAC? That 4th and 2 was ridiculous!

Ka-Kaaa!

by JerryNice on Sep 20, 2010 3:27 PM PDT up reply actions  

You don't get yards after carry if the safeties can cheat in.

If they’re not worried about a deep throw, they are closer to the line of scrimmage, yes?

by Lanky on Sep 20, 2010 3:28 PM PDT up reply actions  

Matt decided on the 4th and 2

It was supposed to be a short under almost screen. When that wasn’t there, Matt went long. It was probably the best given that it was 4th down, but it wasn’t the gameplan.

by stufr on Sep 20, 2010 3:28 PM PDT up reply actions  

He should have...

tucked and ran then! He IS the best running back on our team right?

Why don’t we just put Robinson at QB and have Matt run HB? Come on Pete!

Ka-Kaaa!

by JerryNice on Sep 20, 2010 3:32 PM PDT up reply actions  

agreed

and rec’d for rationality

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZDUh9yboqI

Your culture is primitive; yet so funky!

by jubelthebear on Sep 20, 2010 5:07 PM PDT up reply actions  

No doubt..

But someone had to throw the ball right? We dominated a division with a very equal pass/rush ratio that makes both Hass and Alexander top 10 talent in the NFL for their respected positions.

Our WR corp back then was not on the same caliber as most teams in the NFL during our 2005 run..

Ka-Kaaa!

by JerryNice on Sep 20, 2010 3:26 PM PDT up reply actions  

There is a difference between being a good quality QB

and elevating players above the level that they could normally play at.

by stufr on Sep 20, 2010 3:27 PM PDT up reply actions  

Are you guys serious?

I know we’re giving up on Hasselbeck now but are we going to dump on his career? No.

by Thomas Beekers on Sep 20, 2010 4:33 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

Why?

I have never felt confident in his ability to be a professional quarterback. I can see how some people might like the results he has had, but I have never once felt comfortable with him at the helm.

by d0nkey on Sep 20, 2010 4:36 PM PDT up reply actions  

Matt Hasselbeck in his prime was as a tremendous QB.

He had enough physical tools to play well into Holmgren’s system and knew how to get the most out of it.

The last few years have been painful, but that has been a product of physical decline. For a long stretch of time preceding that he was an exceptional QB.

by BrianL on Sep 20, 2010 4:45 PM PDT up reply actions   2 recs

This is where my eyes don't agree.

I will agree we had some success earlier in his career, but my eyes told me another story. I never felt confident in his ability to pass the ball.

What I saw was good pass defense that would get results for almost any decent QB. I could be wrong though, I don’t pay too much attention to the numbers in football.

by d0nkey on Sep 20, 2010 4:50 PM PDT up reply actions  

Go back and watch some 2005 video.

He was capable of putting pretty good zip on the ball and get it to his receivers.

Seriously, it’s worth looking at some video. I’d completely forgotten how good he looked under center.

by BrianL on Sep 20, 2010 4:54 PM PDT up reply actions  

Also remember that Hass essentially dragged the rotting corpse of Shaun Alexander to the playoffs

That version of Matt Hasselbeck was really good….and we’re never going to see it again.

by J.L. White on Sep 20, 2010 6:21 PM PDT up reply actions  

Oops..

In reply to stufr’s above remark..

Ka-Kaaa!

by JerryNice on Sep 20, 2010 2:50 PM PDT up reply actions  

That's what I'm asking.

It’s Jerry’s qualifier, not mine.

by Lanky on Sep 20, 2010 2:30 PM PDT up reply actions  

The greats..

Are a perfect combination of coaching/scheme and talent.

Am I wrong?

Ka-Kaaa!

by JerryNice on Sep 20, 2010 2:53 PM PDT up reply actions  

I was being sarcastic

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZDUh9yboqI

Your culture is primitive; yet so funky!

by jubelthebear on Sep 20, 2010 2:49 PM PDT up reply actions  

Believing that Locker is an NFL caliber starter is risky at best.

Kyle Boller looked pretty good as an NFL QB prospect. Better than Locker, in fact.

I’m sensing some heavy UW homerism here, which is fine … but I’ve been watching college football a long time and I’ve seen some highly touted players be total busts as pros.

Discounting Tebow and hyping Locker at the same time only shows lack of objectivity.

by xteve on Sep 20, 2010 3:47 PM PDT up reply actions  

"Will be" means in the future, not currently.

He’s not arguing that Locker should starting in the NFL right now. He has confidence in him as a prospect, which is clearly a worthy opinion, objective or not. To be objective is to not hype at all.

It’s easy to discount Tebow anyway since we sure as hell aren’t drafting him.

by MT Olson on Sep 20, 2010 5:03 PM PDT up reply actions  

I wonder if it's homerism, though.

I mean, the national talking heads have been singing his praises too.

by Lanky on Sep 21, 2010 8:04 AM PDT up reply actions  

Same here

I leaning towards Folk, Mallet, Moore or Luck.

by cthunder on Sep 20, 2010 1:49 PM PDT up reply actions  

Ponder

Punks jump up to get beat down.

by Lo Pann on Sep 20, 2010 2:04 PM PDT up reply actions  

Really?

Saturday was bad. But against Syracuse was the first time I thought he would have no trouble as a pro.

by Scruffy Lefty on Sep 20, 2010 2:09 PM PDT up reply actions  

But isn't Syracuse lousy?

Against good competition he was bad. Against Nebraska he was an absolute disaster. Not that my expectations were high, but 4 for 20 with 2 INTs is extreme.

by Lanky on Sep 20, 2010 2:12 PM PDT up reply actions  

Ya Syracuse is lousy.

But it was the way he threw the ball. Set his feet put touch on the ball when he had to. Drop it over LB etc….

by Scruffy Lefty on Sep 20, 2010 2:37 PM PDT up reply actions  

I saw that on maybe two plays

But mostly I saw a guy who still telegraphs his reads, doesn’t know how to look off the safety and ran into a couple of bad spots … talent level around him doesn’t really factor into those skills.

Fifth year seniors should not be making those kinds of mistakes, especially ones touted to be top ten or top 5 draft picks as QBs and those playing in a pro style offense.

Much like Tebow did, Locker seems more comfortable operating from the shotgun rather than under center, but we’ll see how the rest of the year plays out.

by xteve on Sep 20, 2010 3:55 PM PDT up reply actions  

Hawks Fans

I am SO GLAD that the Broncos-Seahawks game is over. Now I can cheer for both the Broncos and Seahawks again. I hope you guys smack Felipe and the San Diego Super Sparklers at Qwest Sunday! I’ll be cheering for you and the Broncos in the late window Sunday.

Brad James

by the new Bradfather on Sep 20, 2010 1:47 PM PDT reply actions   1 recs

Just a thought

Carrol/Schneider seem fairly cut-throat in terms of remaking the roster. They brought in their own QB in Whitehurst. If they had ANY notion that CW would give the team a better chance to win, do you think they’d hesitate for a second to put Buddy Christ under center?

by Johnny Peel (DKSB) on Sep 20, 2010 1:54 PM PDT reply actions  

I would expect a Hasselbeck "in game" benching

Before a full shift.

But I don’t think Pete will hesitate when the time comes.

by Scruffy Lefty on Sep 20, 2010 1:56 PM PDT up reply actions  

exactly

which leads me to think that PC isn’t quite ready to hand the ball to CW, even though the guy is Carrol’s hand-picked QB. I doubt PC is leaving Beck in there out of loyalty, because Pete clearly doesn’t give a fuck what players did before he became the Sheriff.

by Johnny Peel (DKSB) on Sep 20, 2010 1:59 PM PDT up reply actions  

If he sucks against SD, then I hope that the benching happens then

Giving him the game against the Rams to look good will only make fan backlash worse when the change happens.

If he looks bad against the Rams, then… we’d lose against the Rams.

Ugh…

by chrees on Sep 20, 2010 1:59 PM PDT up reply actions  

Which is why I think a change would come at the bye

losing to SD, even at home, that is at least explicable. Losing to STL? Twelves will be screaming for a change.

by Johnny Peel (DKSB) on Sep 20, 2010 2:01 PM PDT up reply actions  

Not sure it would be fair to Whitehurt for him to start before the bye

If he comes out of the tunnel on Sunday instead of Matt he won’t have a lot of room for error before the casual fans in the stadium boo him an start calling for Matt to come back. Matt’s going to either have to play horrible for the first half, necessitating a change mid-game, get injured during the game, or Charlie’s going to get his first start on the road. It would be considerably less pressure to start on the road in STL than it would at home, weird as that sounds.

by SmartAssCoug on Sep 20, 2010 2:52 PM PDT up reply actions  

Not new ones

I’m by no means an authority on this topic, but I feel that a fan base not hating you is integral to the success of a blossoming front office.

by DrunkAmerican on Sep 20, 2010 2:42 PM PDT up reply actions  

If they don't... huh?

If they don’t win they won’t get a chance to win later? Actually, it’s the opposite. The more you lose the better players you can draft.

Or do you mean you’ll lose some fans permanently if you lose and get rid of your sentimental favorites? Screw that! Fans love winners. If we win, the fan base will love us and we’ll pick up some bandwagonners along the way.
Winning means fans and money (in this area, at least). People will get new favorites.

by Kryten on Sep 20, 2010 3:04 PM PDT up reply actions  

If the front office starts Charlie and he fails, a lot of fans are going to see that as a stupid gamble by the front office

The upside is great. The downside is something that the front office might not be willing to weather.

by DrunkAmerican on Sep 20, 2010 3:47 PM PDT up reply actions  

It's true. What they have going for them is a very long leash for failure.

If this was their third year struggling, it might be different. But in the beginning only an idiot would expect no growing pains. And while the Hasselbeck apologists are a vocal bunch, I think they’re quickly becoming a minority.

For a new regime, change is good as long as a plan is in place. I’ll gladly lose 20 games for two years if it’s followed by a decade of success. They’d just have to keep pushing that the future is bright. Yes, it’d be a PR disaster, but eventually people will recognize that talent trumps nostalgia.

by MT Olson on Sep 20, 2010 5:09 PM PDT up reply actions  

The fans don't make that choice, Paul Allen does

I think PC has at least 3 years, barring a complete collapse.

by B.B.Finnegan on Sep 20, 2010 3:53 PM PDT up reply actions  

I think

they both felt like Hasselbeck was the QB to give them the best chance to win. Think about it, he is the only veteran QB starting in the West with any experience. But he is still making the same mistakes from last season and if it continues I betcha Carrol/Schneider would have NO problem pulling Matt. This isn’t Jim Mora.

by cthunder on Sep 20, 2010 2:14 PM PDT up reply actions  

Yeah, but.

Not sure if anyone has mentioned this, but isn’t the foundational tenet of the Carroll era “always compete”? And hasn’t Hasselbeck continually competed better and looked like the better quarterback in practice? I’m not saying I disagree that Whitehurst should be given a shot. But it seems to me that Pete would be taking apart the culture he’s trying to build by going with Whitehurst unless Whitehurst actually beats out Matt for the starting position in practice. Seems to me that would devalue the spirit of competition he’s seemingly (successfully?) fostering on the rest of the roster.

I’ll be honest — I’m a huge Hasselbeck guy. But I’m willing to accept that I may be blinded by some emotional, unreasonable attachment to him. Just wanted to point out the Carroll philosophy factor.

by Pete_ on Sep 20, 2010 2:12 PM PDT reply actions  

Agreed

I doubt PC would bench Hasselbeck just to “make a change” or “provide a spark.” Whitehurst has to be the demonstrably better option. In a couple more weeks he might be… we’ll find out soon enough.

by Johnny Peel (DKSB) on Sep 20, 2010 2:15 PM PDT up reply actions  

The way I see it

If J. Campbell and V. Young can be yanked, then Hasselbeck surely can. Especially since Philly is benching Vick next week for Kolb who is coming off a concussion and didn’t look good before it.

by cthunder on Sep 20, 2010 2:16 PM PDT up reply actions  

That's the way you see it.

But that’s not the point I’m making.

by Pete_ on Sep 20, 2010 2:19 PM PDT up reply actions  

This is a fair point.

If Hasselbeck is getting the only meaningful practice reps, what chance does Whitehurst have to win the competition? I’ll admit I have very little experience running an NFL practice…

by Pete_ on Sep 20, 2010 2:23 PM PDT up reply actions  

The Always Compete thing has already been violated a few times

Wilson was not Seattle’s worst corner. Tapp was not Seattle’s worst end. The front office made moves because it thought it could turn players into value. Moves that looked towards the future. Playing Whitehurst is a move that looks towards the future.

by John Morgan on Sep 20, 2010 2:28 PM PDT up reply actions  

Exactly

Always compete is a short term motto.
Building a team for a couple of years from now takes different steps

by stufr on Sep 20, 2010 2:29 PM PDT up reply actions  

Absolutely, they were the better players.

But trading them certainly didn’t mean they’d lost the competition. It wasn’t “you lost, you’re traded”. They were traded because they could get value in return.

Seems like a weird comparison… not the same at all.

If they traded Matt that would be entirely different. Benching him assumes Whitehurst won the competition.

by Pete_ on Sep 20, 2010 2:52 PM PDT up reply actions  

Alert- the following message brought to you by a Matt Lover

This message also blinded by emotional and unreasonable attachment.

He captained our Seahawks to the SUPER BOWL. That was Super. I mean it was really great. I don’t want him forced out if we are still in contention. Don’t be mean to Matt. :)

I think there is one thing that most of you have in common that want to see Charile…..no season tickets. I have news for you guys. It’s a long frigging day going to Qwest and the fun factor is reduced to squa-douche when we lose. The fans at the games always want the best players on the field (not saying they all agree on who that is). I’m not saying that makes perfect sense. I say we get better in the off season. If I thought there was more than a 5% chance Whitehurst was the future I’d be on board…. until then…. I’m backing Matt until this season is out of reach.

If I was a Mariner season ticket holder I would think the same thing. I’m not… so I want to see the box score of the young guys and get a whiff of the future.

P.S. I’m a Matt Lover

P.S.S. Let the “I have had season tickets since 1982 and I think we should change QB’s” replies begin.

Okay.... I'm in.

by The Manchild on Sep 20, 2010 2:15 PM PDT reply actions  

straight from

the Seattle Times Seahawks comments section

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZDUh9yboqI

Your culture is primitive; yet so funky!

by jubelthebear on Sep 20, 2010 2:17 PM PDT up reply actions  

What he did five years ago doesn't help us win now or moving forward.

And honestly, benching or dumping Matt isn’t going to put a very big dent into season ticket sales.

As for the Mariners analogy, I know a ton of season ticket holders that were thrilled to see Griffey go away.

by BrianL on Sep 20, 2010 2:18 PM PDT up reply actions  

That's what I'm saying

By the time Griffey left I think the majority had turned on him.

Okay.... I'm in.

by The Manchild on Sep 20, 2010 2:30 PM PDT up reply actions  

a full season late

I think that is the nature of the beast unfortunately.

Olerud
Buhner
Boone
Alexander

We have not had many winners in Seattle. Former Winners stay on rosters for business purposes. Don’t forget that’s what this “team” we love is… a business.

Okay.... I'm in.

by The Manchild on Sep 20, 2010 2:35 PM PDT up reply actions  

That's more truly of the mis-managed teams.

The best teams are callous. They do not keep players for nostalgia’s sake. You know what all those players you mentioned have in common? Once they declined, the team would have won more without them, and fans would have been happy to win. Plenty of other teams cut players like that. The fact that the M’s haven’t is not an indicator of industry-wide behavior.

by Lanky on Sep 20, 2010 2:41 PM PDT up reply actions  

Season Tickets?

Thats about the stupidest reason to claim your reason better than another fan, just saying

Fly Leon! Fly!

by BleedGreenandBlue on Sep 20, 2010 2:18 PM PDT up reply actions   2 recs

Poll

Where are you getting this info from? You believe you are representative of every season ticket holder and thats stupid logic

Fly Leon! Fly!

by BleedGreenandBlue on Sep 20, 2010 2:23 PM PDT up reply actions  

So as a fan, we start based on who we get a warm fuzzy feeling from

Youve stayed in some bad relationships Im guessing ;)
 I find this article to have good reasons behind starting whitehurst. and the only reason you want to keep matt starting is because a warm fuzzy feeling 5 years ago

I want whats best for the organization and winning in the future if Matt makes decisions like he did against the Broncos on a consistent basis its stupid to hold onto something thats fading.

Fly Leon! Fly!

by BleedGreenandBlue on Sep 20, 2010 2:30 PM PDT up reply actions  

second that

My family has eight. I got squadushe. All of us want a winner. Matts nice, but win some fucking games.

by stufr on Sep 20, 2010 2:31 PM PDT up reply actions  

Hey, season ticket sales are way down because we're bad. You can buy them without a waiting list now.

If we win again, people will have to be put back on a waiting list. It’s not like Matt sells tickets. If Charlie wins, people will buy, because hey, good team. People care about wins, not washed-up franchise icons when it really comes down to it.

by BrettJMiller on Sep 20, 2010 2:29 PM PDT up reply actions  

I agree with you 100%

I don’t think people who put their butts in seats think Charlie is the present or the future.

Okay.... I'm in.

by The Manchild on Sep 20, 2010 2:31 PM PDT up reply actions  

Yeah, but they don't know yet, and sometimes you have to try something new when the old formula doesn't work.

There is no evidence that Qwest won’t sell out when Charlie starts. Qwest sold out for Charlie Frye and Seneca Wallace. The team could probably suck for 5 years and still sell out every home game. This is not as big of an issue as you are making it out to be.

by BrettJMiller on Sep 20, 2010 2:33 PM PDT up reply actions  

I think you can look at how long it has taken the M's to sink to their current low attendance levels to support that point.

Fans are much more patient than they’re given credit for, I believe. Perhaps this uniquely Mariners fans, but my guess is it is more generally Seattle fans.

by Lanky on Sep 20, 2010 2:35 PM PDT up reply actions  

Absolutely

People were happy and pissed when Kreig took over for Zorn. People loved Zorn. But it was time and very quickly, after some winning, people loved Krieg.

by stufr on Sep 20, 2010 2:37 PM PDT up reply actions  

Matt Lover!

No I don’t have season tickets. But I will be flying from Long Beach, Ca. for the game vs the Chargers. I am not the type that wants to go to a game and watch our QB make the same mistake over and over again. For me, I rather see a rookie QB or 2nd string QB come in and make mistakes than an aging veteran.

by cthunder on Sep 20, 2010 2:19 PM PDT up reply actions  

Do you think that the majority of the fans are?

It’s going to be the same thing that happened with SA. He is at the tail end of his career. Eventually the fans will turn on him and we will have a new QB. I think you guys are in for a little wait though.

Okay.... I'm in.

by The Manchild on Sep 20, 2010 2:24 PM PDT up reply actions  

Well why wouldn't you want what's best for the long-term of the franchise?

Teams should never make decisions thinking about how their fans might react to it. They should make decisions thinking “will this help us win?” And Charlie may, or may not, but we’ll never know until we put him on the field.

by BrettJMiller on Sep 20, 2010 2:34 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

I think we all want the team to win

and we have different paths in mind to get us to that goal. I still say give Matt until the bye, but I grant he won’t (and shouldn’t) be the Seahawks QB in 2011. As a Beck lover, that’s hard for me to admit. :(

by Johnny Peel (DKSB) on Sep 20, 2010 3:02 PM PDT up reply actions  

As a season ticket holder,

this is an absolutely ridiculous argument.

by gongawz on Sep 20, 2010 2:20 PM PDT up reply actions  

8 year season ticket holder and I love Matt to

but the day he doesn’t start a game will be a day to celebrate. Not to throw his previous accomplishments under the bus but I’m tired of watching his antics when Spazzlebeck rears his ugly head.

From The Hawks Nest - Seahawks Podcast
http://www.http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/from-the-hawks-nest/id385227705

by Hancock.Brett on Sep 20, 2010 2:32 PM PDT up reply actions  

Just like Shaun Alexander carried us on his back for the 05 season.

Didn’t stop us from booing the shit out of the poor guy for being terrible the next couple of years.

by Scruffy Lefty on Sep 20, 2010 2:49 PM PDT up reply actions  

Let's note

that this all gets way more complicated if Beck plays well against the Chargers and the Seahawks win (which is way more possible than many people are willing to admit).

by Johnny Peel (DKSB) on Sep 20, 2010 2:18 PM PDT reply actions  

Not really

Because simply beating the Chargers is not going to suddenly regenerate a dead arm.

I would expect DBs and safeties across the league to be sitting on Matt’s fade routes until he shows he can put some zip on the ball.

by xteve on Sep 20, 2010 2:20 PM PDT up reply actions  

Yes

If the team is winning, I think it makes it WAY harder to make this change. In my heart, I know it will probably happen this year, either due to injury or ineffectiveness. Personally, I’d love to see Matt wring 8 more wins out of that right arm, but if he simply cannot make the throws anymore, he’s gotta go. Bye week seems to be logical time to do it, but that only works if the team has completely hit the skids.

by Johnny Peel (DKSB) on Sep 20, 2010 2:27 PM PDT up reply actions  

Agreed

Seems reasonable to wait for the bye before making a change.

I would hate to see the Hawks or any other team for that matter hesitate to make changes based on what the casual fan/watercooler talk might be.

That’s exactly how the Mariners operate and it’s a chicken$%^ way to run an organization.

by xteve on Sep 20, 2010 2:29 PM PDT up reply actions  

I was tempted to disagree with you about the Mariners

and add a qualifier that that’s how they used to be run, but then I remembered the Griffey/Wakamatsu and Lueke situations…

Chad Brown for the Ring of Honor!

by Big Seahawk Loser on Sep 20, 2010 5:50 PM PDT up reply actions  

I bagged his groceries once in Cheney.

I came away from that 5 min exchange with a sour taste of who Matt really is. I have never been a fan of his and never will. He puts on a good show for interviews and seems likeable however, for me this has been a long time coming. I truly hope to see it happen next week.

But from simply a football perspective, Pete does have a good point.

by unitispat on Sep 20, 2010 2:23 PM PDT via mobile reply actions  

Not his wife

Punks jump up to get beat down.

by Lo Pann on Sep 20, 2010 2:27 PM PDT up reply actions  

Out here in the midwest

I’m bombarded with fans of The View who ask me, every time I’m wearing my Hasselbeck jersey: “Oh, is that Elizabeth’s husband?”

(facepalm)

by Johnny Peel (DKSB) on Sep 20, 2010 2:29 PM PDT up reply actions  

I was 16.

Huge hawks fan since I was 4. He came in and instantly I knew who they were. We only had one line open so I stayed put waiting for them to come thru. When he did he hassled the cashier (jokingly?) but then he started to brag about his new contract and how he could buy the whole store. To me it was a slap in the face from my quarterback. Cheney Trading Co. Was the store. I dont know if it’s still there I moved to south Texas 6 years ago.

by unitispat on Sep 20, 2010 2:35 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions  

I dont mind the word hate.

But i dont hate him. I just dont like the guy, you can think it’s irrational but when I was in the Navy, when we would go to a different port they would tell us that we dont just represent ourselves we represent the US. The same goes for Matt, when he walked in to that grocery store he did not just represent Matt he was representing the Seahawks to a group of fans (albeit small). Who as we know pay a part of his salary. He did not conduct himself in a manner I would want my QB to conduct himself. Thats it.

by unitispat on Sep 20, 2010 3:13 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions  

I can only imagine Matt and Steve making a late night beer run at the Taj

right before running off to LA Hall for a panty raid.

"I call the big one Bitey."-Homer J. Simpson

by Willie Mays Haze on Sep 20, 2010 3:12 PM PDT up reply actions  

Down the road more.

It’s on Cheney Spokane road I believe. Going off of memory. It’s the store that shares a building with Ben Franklins.

by unitispat on Sep 20, 2010 3:19 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions  

Love the Taj

went to school and lived in Cheney for 5 years- and painted the Hawks practice fields one summer for training camp…was a pretty cool experience.

But back to the Taj- great place for buying alcohol when underage;)
And Cheney Trading Company is still there- somehow.

by sdoebele on Sep 20, 2010 4:09 PM PDT up reply actions  

The owners were not fun to work for.

Rumor was they won the lottery and opened up some grocery stores. And if the Taj is the C store Im thinking of, I too enjoyed a few cold ones from them back in the day. Did you go to EWU? CHS class of 04 myself then Navy.

by unitispat on Sep 20, 2010 4:27 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions  

Oh, please.

Everybody gets to have a bad day. Do you want to be judged as “who you really are” from a sour five minutes?

inside of a dog it's too dark to read.

by shams on Sep 20, 2010 2:33 PM PDT up reply actions  

Grocery Shopping is a Full contact sport

Those Lines can get brutal if they dont have enough cashiers

Fly Leon! Fly!

by BleedGreenandBlue on Sep 20, 2010 2:36 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

True and I dont disagree.

But everyone is welcome to form their own opinions on people and he did not help himself either. Hell all he had to do was shut his mouth and smile. I woulda loved him. Most of the players who came thru the store did just that and I have no negative opinions on them what so ever.

by unitispat on Sep 20, 2010 2:38 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions  

Meh, I can never understand this complaint about celebrities

I’m not famous and I’m already annoyed with people who randomly try chatting my ear off, can’t imagine having to deal with it all day. At least he humored you for 5 minutes

by G-Mo on Sep 20, 2010 2:35 PM PDT up reply actions  

They did tell us.

Dont talk to the players. My mother was a manager so i had to follow the rule or make us both look bad.

by unitispat on Sep 20, 2010 2:43 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions  

I had a different experience.

The dude agreed to do an interview with me for a school project when I was in the 8th grade… and he kept the appointment even though he had a daughter born the day before. I can’t support him more on a personal level, but I completely agree with John’s assessments of this current football capabilities.

Chad Brown for the Ring of Honor!

by Big Seahawk Loser on Sep 20, 2010 5:53 PM PDT up reply actions  

I'm going to trust the coaches

because I have absolutely no way to evaluate Whitehurst based on the evidence provided to us.

by Matthew on Sep 20, 2010 2:26 PM PDT reply actions  

I woke up this morning thinking Matt should start.

But over the course of my day I’ve slowly been second guessing myself.

Punks jump up to get beat down.

by Lo Pann on Sep 20, 2010 2:28 PM PDT reply actions  

Reality

Matt WILL start against the Chargers. We all just have to hope for the best this week, frankly.

by Johnny Peel (DKSB) on Sep 20, 2010 2:30 PM PDT reply actions  

What would get Hasselbeck benched after this week?

I think it would have to be a blowout home loss, coupled with multiple Hasselbeck turnovers, don’t you think?

by Johnny Peel (DKSB) on Sep 20, 2010 2:34 PM PDT up reply actions  

o you mean like last year

Lions game(almost a loss) and the Bucs debacle.

From The Hawks Nest - Seahawks Podcast
http://www.http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/from-the-hawks-nest/id385227705

by Hancock.Brett on Sep 20, 2010 2:35 PM PDT up reply actions  

Carrol aint Mora

If Beck plays as bad against SD as he did against Denver, and the Seahawks lose, he’ll get the hook.

by Johnny Peel (DKSB) on Sep 20, 2010 2:39 PM PDT up reply actions  

Which is unlikely

and a foolish standard. What if Hasselbeck is serviceable against San Diego? What if he’s good? How does that change Hasselbeck or Seattle’s situation?

by John Morgan on Sep 20, 2010 2:47 PM PDT up reply actions  

Is it bad I sort of hope he starts the game the same way he did against the 49ers

in hopes of ushering in the Whitehurst era a bit sooner? I have a tough time stomaching Matt’s completely noodle arm anymore.

by twocolorcrayon on Sep 20, 2010 2:42 PM PDT up reply actions  

You don't have to hope

Its will happen. Its just a matter of when.
I guess you can hope to speed up the process

by stufr on Sep 20, 2010 2:43 PM PDT up reply actions  

Pete's press conference just ended.

He said it’s not Charlie’s time yet.

by Alec_Mac on Sep 20, 2010 2:44 PM PDT reply actions  

I still want Hasselbeck to succeed

because I want the team to win THIS Sunday. But it’s getting harder to watch him every week. The change will come- I just hope it’s after the season, after Beck bounces back a bit, leads us to the NFC West title, and gracefully retires.

Yes, I know that sounds batshit crazy at the moment.

by Johnny Peel (DKSB) on Sep 20, 2010 2:46 PM PDT reply actions  

WTF is wrong with you

You’re sounding batshit crazy at the moment

;)

by chrees on Sep 20, 2010 2:47 PM PDT up reply actions  

Yup.

Which is why I should never be allowed anywhere near the decision-making structure of a pro sports franchise. :)

by Johnny Peel (DKSB) on Sep 20, 2010 2:52 PM PDT up reply actions  

Damn.

I didn’t use my own blood, that’s why she didn’t write back.

That, and she thinks facebook’s for chicks, and men should stay away from it. How can I facebook her if she hates on men facebooking? I mean, at least it’s not MySpace…

by Chirp on Sep 20, 2010 6:53 PM PDT up reply actions  

m sure my common O+ blood type was a total turn-off

Anyway, try following her on Twitter; I’m sure tweeting “i think ur hawt! LOL” will totally moisten her panties.

by J.L. White on Sep 20, 2010 7:13 PM PDT up reply actions  

I think you are correct in your timing

But how bad does he have to be to take away that hope?
I’m at the point where the best Matt can do is not hurt us more than the reduced game plan does.

by stufr on Sep 20, 2010 2:48 PM PDT up reply actions  

Why would Matt Retire?

His arm his weak but he is one of those feisty guys who never gives up. He will be like delhomme and catch on with another team.

Fly Leon! Fly!

by BleedGreenandBlue on Sep 20, 2010 2:49 PM PDT up reply actions  

I'd be nice to see him retire as a Seahawks at the end of this season.

Not having to speculate about the hawks resigning him or seeing him sucking in another city.

by Alec_Mac on Sep 20, 2010 2:49 PM PDT up reply actions  

The next two weeks

will shape this season and the decision at QB. 3-1? Beck probably plays out the season or until he gets injured. 2-2? Matt starts until injury or elimination from playoff contention. 1-3? Whitehurst starts at Chicago.

by Johnny Peel (DKSB) on Sep 20, 2010 3:03 PM PDT up reply actions  

If Matt wasn't so likeable this would be easier, huh?

But it’s Charlie time. Give Charlie time to grow is my vote. Many reasons why as John elucidated. As far as competition goes, Charlie beat Matt in preseason on passes over fifteen yards. In time, Charlie may learn how to read coverage better, the only way he can learn, in real game conditions.
We played Denver close, but lost big. Matt was the main reason for that. I think this Sunday will be Matt’s last hurrah. Or more likely, last whoopsy doodle display of a once damn good quarterback grown old. Then we start Charlie against the Rams.

by broadbill birdwatcher on Sep 20, 2010 3:05 PM PDT reply actions  

I think you're wrong about this week

Matt will play better, and the Seahawks will win. Yeah, that will fuck up the “Bench Beck” strategy, but so be it.

Before anyone says this Sunday is hopeless, kindly go back and read the doom and gloom preceding the Niners game… Let’s not act like somehow that game “doesn’t count” now.

by Johnny Peel (DKSB) on Sep 20, 2010 3:08 PM PDT up reply actions  

True

but this still a very winnable home game against a Chargers team that is for shit on the road in September…

by Johnny Peel (DKSB) on Sep 20, 2010 3:19 PM PDT up reply actions  

That dropped punt return was huge,

and there were some bad play calls. Not only was it a road game but im sure the conditions were miserable with the heat + elevation.

by talofox on Sep 20, 2010 3:16 PM PDT up reply actions  

John - good analysis

and agrument. But my issue with this is, why is this result surprising? I follow your reasoning but why would they make a change now? It seems like if the front office took your view this would have been done during preseason and Whitehurst would have started to begin the season. Now, we are 1-1 and hopefully be 2-2 when we reach the bye week. We’ll be close to first place in the division. I just don’t see this change coming unless he is hurt or plays horrid against San Diego.

by m_b on Sep 20, 2010 3:05 PM PDT reply actions  

Who knows for sure if a Charlie Whitehurst led Seahawks couldn't beat San Diego?

And by the way, this worthless sentiment needs to get off my back, chest and brain pan: Thank you very little again, Timmy, for passing on Sanchez.

by broadbill birdwatcher on Sep 20, 2010 3:18 PM PDT reply actions  

I wonder...

if we get Sanchez, but still struggle mightily last year causing Mora to get fired.

Do we still end up being able to hire PC?

by chrees on Sep 20, 2010 3:22 PM PDT up reply actions  

Jury is still out on Sanchez.

At this point, I would have preferred we traded that pick, but Curry may yet become awesome.

by Kryten on Sep 20, 2010 3:23 PM PDT up reply actions  

I suppose...

and the Jets gave up peanuts for the next pick, so their offers probably were crappy.

by Kryten on Sep 20, 2010 4:04 PM PDT up reply actions  

I don't get why everyone thinks this is such a black and white decision.

I want the team to win. I think the best chance for the team to win is with Matt. I think right now there are two conclusions that a reasonable person could come to supporting not changing QB’s.

1. Matt is better than Whitehurst RIGHT NOW (PC seems to agree with that)
2. There will be a QB available next year that can replace Matt and is better than Whitehurst.

I’m not saying those are irrefutable statements but you can’t convince me they are wrong either. Throw in the fact that Whitehurst has impressed neither his old coaches or his new coaches and I’m even more convinced that a 1-1 team in a winnable division needs to bench their signal caller for an unknown underwhelming back-up.

John makes some good points… HE ALWAYS DOES. That doesn’t mean that it’s clearly the right decision.

Okay.... I'm in.

by The Manchild on Sep 20, 2010 3:22 PM PDT reply actions  

But shouldn't you find out if you need to replace Whitehurst?

We don’t yet know what he can do as a starter for this team. I’d rather we play him and have definitive proof. If he proves he can help the team win now and in the future, we’ve given ourselves draft flexibility to pick up DT/DE, which seems to be our other glaring weakness.

by SmartAssCoug on Sep 20, 2010 3:31 PM PDT up reply actions  

If he's anything like Whitehurst in my Madden Franchise - he should be replaced ASAP ;)

He’s a career backup :D

Of course Madden is highly unrealistic. I made Hasselbeck league MVP before drafting the QB of the future.

by fender on Sep 20, 2010 3:37 PM PDT up reply actions  

You know how bad those Madden player ratings are though..

I mean, Housh only had a 91! He’s TJ Houshmandzadeh! Where does EA get off rating him less than a trillion-million-gazillion?

by SmartAssCoug on Sep 20, 2010 4:00 PM PDT up reply actions  

I don't agree with #2

Mainly that said drafted QB will be better than Whitehurst next year. Development, mechanics, etc. He might be ready, he might not, but it certainly isn’t a cut and dry decision. Our reality is it’s just as likely that Charlie starts next year. Wouldn’t you want to see him this year and see if he’s a viable stopgap?

by MT Olson on Sep 20, 2010 5:20 PM PDT up reply actions  

Just being realistic. I fucking LOVE football.

I also have really high hopes for this season still as well.

I’m talking about the contract/union issue that will probably result in a lockout next year.

by fender on Sep 20, 2010 3:36 PM PDT up reply actions  

I think you're wrong about the lockout

I think there will be some sort of work stoppage, but the number of games wiped out, if any, will be minimal.

by Johnny Peel (DKSB) on Sep 20, 2010 3:40 PM PDT up reply actions  

Almost 300 comments in just under 2 hours.

I think this Matt thing is kind of a touchy subject among Seahawks fans.

Is that the light at the end of the tunnel, or the headlights of an oncoming train?

by Benne on Sep 20, 2010 3:46 PM PDT reply actions  

Then again, 30% of those comments are about Twilight, so who knows.

Is that the light at the end of the tunnel, or the headlights of an oncoming train?

by Benne on Sep 20, 2010 3:47 PM PDT up reply actions   3 recs

I laughed all the way through the first one

It’s one of those unintentionally awful and hilarious movies.

by B.B.Finnegan on Sep 20, 2010 5:09 PM PDT up reply actions  

I MST3000'ed the heck out of the second one.

Everyone I saw it with enjoyed it. Those who watched it again didn’t like it the second time.

by Chirp on Sep 20, 2010 6:46 PM PDT up reply actions   2 recs

Oh yeah!

I’ll wreck that post for an MST3K reference!

by Kryten on Sep 20, 2010 8:28 PM PDT up reply actions  

It's Harry Potter all over again.

You won’t ever catch me watching those movies.

by Wilder. on Sep 20, 2010 6:31 PM PDT up reply actions  

Really not Harry-Potter like.

Unless you mean “based on a book” and “has a cult following.” Then, yeah, there are similarities. Potter books are better written, have better characters, but still not good writing.

by Chirp on Sep 20, 2010 6:48 PM PDT up reply actions  

So much for this site being the rational and objective Seahawk fan site.

The pass rush and pass defense wasn’t just bad, it was embarrassing. If people want to point fingers and whine, it might be better directed at that portion of the defense. How many long third downs did they allow Orton to convert?

All these emotional rants are over-reaction. Come on, people. Seriously?

Did Hasselbeck play poorly? Of course he did. Does this game represent sort of microcosm for the entire seasons to come? No. Stop with the hyperbole and get a grip.

by Hooper31 on Sep 20, 2010 3:59 PM PDT reply actions  

Oddly enough,

The defense had the means to get themselves off the field. Many many times.

by Hooper31 on Sep 20, 2010 5:00 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

Oddly enough,

The defense is likely to fail when they are tired. We saw it in 2009 and we saw it again Sunday.

by Wilder. on Sep 20, 2010 6:38 PM PDT up reply actions  

Yes, the defense wasn't perfect.

That doesn’t change the fact that Hasselbeck played poorly, and has consistently played poorly over the last few seasons.

by ty540 on Sep 20, 2010 4:53 PM PDT up reply actions  

I don't understand why people keep throwing around words like "objective"

Like the only intelligent opinions have no bias whatsoever. We’re fans and we’re biased towards our team’s success. This isn’t a rational math problem you can solve, there are a number of co-dependent moves and decisions that can be made to improve or hurt the team. And we have opinions on them. Emotional, reactionary, completely subjective opinions that are probed through detailed writers and community discussion so they can become factual, coherent arguments.

Trust me, it’s those who think they’re objective that are the real problem.

by MT Olson on Sep 20, 2010 5:31 PM PDT up reply actions  

Glad you skipped 2008-2009.

Mo Johnston finally fired. Let the house cleaning and road to success begin.

by SSreporters on Sep 20, 2010 5:41 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

Here's some rational points:

1 – Matt didn’t defeat the niners – the defense did, with lots of help from Smith and Singletary, so he gets little credit for the win. He was adequate at best.

2 – every excuse used in the past to defend Matt’s performance are gone: the o-line protected him, he has awesome skilled players around him, and the running game was very good. Matt lost the game on Sunday, period. A decent performance at the position makes it an entirely different game, one most likely a win againts a medicocre Denver team.

3 – Sunday’s performance was nothing new. We have seen it many times over the past couple of years.

4 – Whitehurst can throw the ball down the field, opening up Bate’s playbook, and allowing other aspects of the game to succeed.

5 – the offense is potentially explosive – with Whitehurst.

6 – as far as fan support, even if Whitehurst makes mistakes, and even if he loses games, yet the offense makes plays and plays competitvely, we will be more than happy.

7 – there is a chance that Whitehurst succeeds, with some support and experience, and now is the time to give it to him.

8 – amazingly, the Seahawks are one good QB and one good pass-rusher from being a very good team, perhaps even excellent. Let’s see if that QB is currently on the roster. Now. This week against San Diego.

(Okay, that wasn’t all entirely rational, but purely sincere, if that counts.)

by Hawksince77 on Sep 20, 2010 6:09 PM PDT up reply actions   2 recs

Is your glass half full or empty?

LINK

Sando says your glass should be half full. I tend to agree with him. As a fan, I’m okay with the direction I see this team taking so far. Time will tell.

by Hooper31 on Sep 20, 2010 4:06 PM PDT reply actions  

To quote Maury Ballstein from Zoolander:

“This stings me like a fissure in my ass, but you’re right. He’s ready.”

by ErictheHawksFan on Sep 20, 2010 4:11 PM PDT reply actions  

To quote Einstein....

“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results.”

by sdoebele on Sep 20, 2010 4:14 PM PDT reply actions  

einstein didn't say that

and flexibility follows persistence.

by roddychops on Sep 20, 2010 4:47 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

Thank you.

I don’t want to be the only one who hates hearing people use that mis-attributed quote to poorly describe something.

by cashless on Sep 20, 2010 4:49 PM PDT up reply actions  

and don't get me started with

“a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds”…

by roddychops on Sep 20, 2010 4:54 PM PDT up reply actions  

What about it?

Do you hear people actually quoting that?

by suppiluliuma on Sep 20, 2010 5:11 PM PDT up reply actions  

not in this discussion, thankfully

but it’s another typical quote that’s often used out of context to support a point.
just a peeve.

by roddychops on Sep 20, 2010 5:27 PM PDT up reply actions  

I could post some sarcastic remark about how the internet is always right.

But yes, it is mis-attributed to Einstein. Franklin. Even Mark Twain. It’s one of the biggest quotes that’s mis-attributed.

by cashless on Sep 20, 2010 5:30 PM PDT up reply actions  

and whether it was Einstein, Franklin or Rita Mae Brown (first in print)

doesnt matter does it. Much like other ideas thrown out there we could make a quote for every situation. I was just adding to the quote posts following ErictheHawksFan Zoolander

by sdoebele on Sep 20, 2010 5:03 PM PDT up reply actions  

Props for actually looking.

Not sure what you mean “we could make a quote for every situation.”

But I understand if this was a reply fail to the Zoolander. If your purpose was to say we need to make a chance because starting Hasselbeck was the insanity in the quote (as I had interpreted) then I disagree.

by cashless on Sep 20, 2010 5:25 PM PDT up reply actions  

the quote for every situation

is saying we could find some sort of quote for any circumstance we find ourselves in to support a decision/change in any direction. and i put the quote up following the zoolander quote not as keeping Hass as the starter as insane or crazy…perhaps i should have put it as a reply as you said to remove confusion and 10 uneeded replies by us all.

by sdoebele on Sep 20, 2010 5:30 PM PDT up reply actions  

I guess you're right.

Misunderstanding cleared.

Ironically, the last time I got into a discussion about this quote also had to do with Whitehurst.

by cashless on Sep 20, 2010 5:34 PM PDT up reply actions  

I am sure with a little time searching i could find a quote

to fit the ironry of your last 2 discussions about the quote- but neither you or I would appreciate it.
 But I am curious- for the sake of my own knowing…is the reason Brown is credited with the quote due to the fact it was in print since it came well after Franklin, Einstein, and Twain would have made such quote?

by sdoebele on Sep 20, 2010 5:42 PM PDT up reply actions  

I think that she is credited simply the first known reference in print.

But that it was a saying that had been around.

A sad reality of our culture is that if something is believable, many people often do not question it. Einstein is often quoted, Ben Franklin’s writings are often quoted, and the same with Mark Twain. It is not that hard to believe that one of those cultural figureheads for conventional wisdom would say something like that, so people believe it.

How many speeches have included “And Albert Einstein/Mark Twain/Ben Franklin said…blah” and influenced even more people incorrectly? Who knows? But I only know what you know, because when that idiot used it last time I looked and learned about it then. Which is what people should do. Instead of trusting what they hear, check up on it.

by cashless on Sep 20, 2010 5:52 PM PDT up reply actions  

I thought Einstein said everything?

Except “I before E except after C.”

by Chirp on Sep 20, 2010 6:49 PM PDT up reply actions  

I fully understand the idea of starting Charlie Whitehurst...

but as much as it may improve the future of the franchise, looking through the business aspects I don’t think the Seattle front office is willing to risk the potential hit in revenue that comes with losses. Before the season (when I thought we had no chance at the playoffs) I told my friends that the best way to improve for the long run would be to trade Housh and Branch, cut Jones, and start Charlie and our other young talents. As much as I love Hasselbeck, I thought that the worst case scenario would be if we never even got the chance to evaluate CW as a starter. Ironically this seems to be the exact circumstances we are in. I think our best plan for now is to wait at least till halfway through the season to re-evaluate the situation. If we are really out of the playoffs then it makes sense to start Whitehurst from that point on. Starting CW now (2 games into the season) although probably the best move for the franchise is gambling with the ticket sales and support from the common fan. Matt has been the face of this franchise and probably the most recognizable member of the team, to replace him with Charlie would appear to most fans like we have given up on him and the season.

by jyellow865 on Sep 20, 2010 5:08 PM PDT reply actions  

Unless the team completely loses its marbles, Matt is gone after this season is up.

Which means that his supposed impact on ticket sales will be limited to the remainder of this season.

I just can’t see benching Matt causing that big of an impact on sales for such a small window.

by BrianL on Sep 20, 2010 5:13 PM PDT up reply actions  

That is a good point.

But remember when Josh Wilson (clearly the more favorable corner to jennings) was traded and the pandemonium generated amongst fans. Now imagine the magnitude that benching Matt (the “Superbowl qb,” the one that led us to consecutive playoffs) might have on the fans and even the locker room. Players may even lose the motivation to win knowing that their leader won’t even be playing with them. On the other hand, maybe it will motivate them to play even harder knowing that no one, not even Hasselbeck, is safe from being cut or benched. Tough situation…

by jyellow865 on Sep 20, 2010 5:41 PM PDT up reply actions  

The fiercest reaction to Wilson getting traded was probably here

and I imagine most of us are still more than willing to buy tickets to Seahawks games.

by BrianL on Sep 20, 2010 5:42 PM PDT up reply actions  

The magnitude

from benching our superbowl QB will be less than you think. Not only on this form are Hawks fans feed up with Hasselbecks questionable INTS and lack of arm strength. From the casual fan to the most die hard fan, fans are tired of losing games tha are win able because of stupid mistakes. The fans can handle watching a rookie make a mistake but it gets old when veterans (Locklear, Hasselbeck) constantly make mistakes.

And I seriously doubt the players would lose motivation if Matt was benched. Especially with cheaty pete at the helm. This is a new team and a new regime.

by cthunder on Sep 21, 2010 7:09 AM PDT up reply actions  

Good point

Expectations do play here. We expect Charlie to throw stupid interceptions as long as he is getting better. We don’t expect the boneheaded interceptions we see from Matt the past couple seasons.

by IslandHawk on Sep 21, 2010 9:52 AM PDT up reply actions  

I think we're still learning about the new regime.

Until we’ve had more time to observe them, it’s very difficult to predict how they’ll handle this situation. They’ve shown a pragmatism to date, mixing a desire to win now with a willingness to part with established players that don’t fit their long term plans. Hasselbeck doesn’t seem like a player with much trade value, so I would guess they keep him as the QB until the season is up. If he’s resigned, it’s to a backup contract, and it’s probably not a deal that gets done until after the draft.

by HawksInBklyn on Sep 20, 2010 5:34 PM PDT reply actions  

Sifting through these comments

I’m willing to bet some of you were blaming the line for Shaun Alexander sucking when Mo Morris was succeeding the same way it’s not Matt’s fault he’s useless now.

This is Shaun 2.0 but 10 times worse. Why? Because when a running back is ineffective the backup can come in with ease. The QB position is the most important in football and it’s a lot harder to yank a QB mid-game than a RB. At this point, I hope Whitehurst is Matt Schaub or something. Fact of the matter is, Matt needs to retire and anyone who thinks there is some sort of revival coming for Hasselbeck is in denial and blinded despite facts.

I’m working on something where I’ve noticed a trend at how quickly Hasselbeck has ended drives with interceptions. I mean, he’s throwing INTs on the opening series!! He’s a detriment to this team and if someone like Donovan McNabb was QB for the Seahawks I contend this is a playoff caliber team.

Should Whitehurst start this weekend? Not sure, but he has to start this season.

Mo Johnston finally fired. Let the house cleaning and road to success begin.

by SSreporters on Sep 20, 2010 5:35 PM PDT reply actions  

Shaun 2.0

I like that. Good analogy

by stufr on Sep 20, 2010 5:45 PM PDT up reply actions  

Fucking eh right!

That said, marketing just called. They want you to put a Sprint ad up with Hasselbeck’s number underneath it (NOTE: for you serious folks, that is “sarcasm”). Oh yeah, almost forgot. Football is really about money. Too bad. Image is everything. That is damn sure in this case.

Much thanks again for a great post.

It is what it is...

by kidder95 on Sep 20, 2010 5:39 PM PDT reply actions  

I put up a Saints/49ers open thread.

Mo Johnston finally fired. Let the house cleaning and road to success begin.

by SSreporters on Sep 20, 2010 5:41 PM PDT reply actions  

We don't know as much as the coaches do about Whitehurst.

The coaches should know whether or not he is the guy they will groom to be the future by now. I think the fact that he isn’t starting is telling. We turned over half the roster, overpaid this guy, and overpaid for the right to do that… and he isn’t playing. That is all I need to know about who is the better player right now.

This is not the point where you kick the tires on a QB. If Matt is as washed up as it appears Charlie is going to get his chance this year anyway.

Everyone is clamoring for a former 3rd string QB (with an extended stay at 3rd string) to get his shot. We are 1-1 in a crummy division. I’d rather not risk a run at the playoffs just to test drive Charlie frigging Whitehurst.

Okay.... I'm in.

by The Manchild on Sep 20, 2010 6:36 PM PDT reply actions  

To your point...

…PC just said Hasslebeck gives the team the best chance to win. Not Charley time yet.

I don’t know if that is coach speak – according to Hasslebeck PC came down pretty hard on him – but if he means it, then yeah, stick with Hasslebeck.

But if it’s true – and right now, Matt is the better QB, then the team is totally screwed this year, because without several miracles a game, Seattle won’t be winning many.

by Hawksince77 on Sep 20, 2010 6:55 PM PDT up reply actions  

I wonder where Hasselbeck fans go when he finally retires

Does Seattle begin a saga of blackouts due to people protesting Beck’s retirement?

I mean, seriously, this era is going to end. Check that. It’s OVER!

I think it would be surprising to find any other team start Hasselbeck this year save Seattle. Perhaps Arizona would, but not much would change.

It may not be over now, but the end is near. Let the tears come now, for when it ends, it will be swift.

It is what it is...

by kidder95 on Sep 20, 2010 6:50 PM PDT reply actions  

I'm also in the "Start Whitehurst" camp

Yeah, maybe it’s possible that Hasselbeck’s career here can be salvaged, and Bates/Carroll can gameplan around his weak arm…..but it’s not probable. I agree with John on how the rest of the offense seems to be playing well, and accept the premise that Hasselbeck is the problem (and it might be more than just a premise at this point).

We could surely benefit from some youth and arm strength at the QB position, and it’s not like Matt is guaranteed to last 16 games. I’d rather go with Whitehurst now rather than wait for the inevitable injury.

by J.L. White on Sep 20, 2010 7:10 PM PDT reply actions  

I love Hasselbeck the sound bite.

I love Hasselbeck the pre-2008 QB.

I love whoever has the vision to see that the above two statements are not reasons to keep running him out there.

Anybody who didn’t see Hass version 2003-2007 making the players around him better needs to see an optometrist.

Anybody who sees him still having an NFL arm needs to tag along.

by trippsixxes on Sep 20, 2010 8:47 PM PDT reply actions   1 recs

Not that anyone cares ;-) but I agree, you guys need Whitehurst

Hasselbeck just looks too ineffective and I know Whitehurst can be dangerous and is younger. They have enough other weapons and young players he can grow with, I think it makes sense. Be curious to see what Carroll does.

Btw, just a sort of nitpick buut re the Broncos, “a receiving corps led by Brandon Lloyd”
- have to say that’s not true. I get the larger overall point but Broncos WRs include Lloyd but are led by Gaffney and Royal and yes, now Demariyus Thomas and Lloyd is just part of that mix. I love Orton but he does have some weapons to throw to.

Anyway… cheers.

There's no need to fear, Underdog is here! / Broncos/Dodgers/Lakers fan in Niners/Raiders/Giants/Warriors country, and damned proud of it.

by underdog on Sep 20, 2010 9:05 PM PDT reply actions  

Not on board yet

All arguments for starting CW are still true half way into the season. The best case for starting him now is that he is better, or will become better than MH. Eight games seems to be a more than adequate trial period. If Matt continues to stink it up, start CW then. If Matt holds steady, and gives us a chance to make the playoffs; then you have to cling to that.

If CW was younger, the argument to start him would be more compelling. He’s too old, and hasn’t shown enough to warrant this kind of risk. We need to draft a QB next year (I’ve argued this the past two years), regardless of what happens.

Lastly, if Matt is atrocious the next two weeks then he’s pretty much dead to me.

by ColumbiaRob on Sep 20, 2010 10:00 PM PDT reply actions   1 recs

Seconded
All arguments for starting CW are still true half way into the season.

by Jason_D on Sep 21, 2010 1:29 PM PDT up reply actions  

Well you clearly didn't read the post.

Nowhere does it say Whitehurst WILL be better. It just says that Hasselbeck WILL be bad, which we have two plus years of history to back up, and that we DON’T KNOW if Whitehurst will be good or bad. Hell, John even assumes bad. But because we don’t know what Whitehurst is, and we do know what Hasselbeck is, now is the time to find out. Since we know Matt sucks now, why not take a gamble on a guy who possibly, but NOT probably doesn’t suck?

by BrettJMiller on Sep 21, 2010 12:32 AM PDT up reply actions  

Matt is adequate enough to possibly backpedal into the playoffs

Why not see where this takes us before taking a big and unnecessary risk on Whitehurst? Give it a little more time, if Matt stinks then replace him. We don’t need a full season audition of Whitehurst; you can learn what you need to in half a season. I know people are impatient with him, but nothing about the way CW has played leads me to believe he’s a better option than Matt. It’s imperative that we draft a QB this offseason anyway.

by ColumbiaRob on Sep 21, 2010 7:19 AM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

No, I did read it, and I regret not clarifying that this was not intended as a reply to John's assessment...

… but to those who might presume Whitehurst is an immediate improvement. Read this comment from Nate Dogg: “He is a demonstably better option, but I don’t think thats been sold to the team to the point where he can go against everything they did in the off season and bench Hasselbeck.”

I happen to agree with benching Hasselbeck towards the bye, allowing the club to save some face. But, like John, we’ve got to recognize the high risk if we want that big playoff seed reward.

by Anticitizen_One on Sep 21, 2010 11:33 AM PDT up reply actions  

Realize that benching Matt at this point, in terms of the season, is an all-in move

Whitehurst will likely be here next year, but Matt is not going to improve, nevermind by holding a clipboard, and if Whitehurst sucks, then we have found out, and for what it’s worth, that’s fine, but we may also lose precious time that Matt may have been serviceable to win the division.

by Anticitizen_One on Sep 21, 2010 11:39 AM PDT up reply actions  

It has become quite a low bar, unfortunately

As I posted in another thread, Matt hasn’t been exactly tearing up the league after his Superbowl performance, judging by his QB rating over the past five years (which as others have said is flawed, but somewhat indicative when taken in the context of the rest of the team, etc.):

2010/11……..74.1 (so far)
2009/10……..75.1
2008/09……..57.8
2007/08……..91.4
2006/07……..76.0

If Charlie is such a bad gamble to put up ~75 QB rating, then the Q/PM blundered in the trade earlier.

I realize that Whitehurst is likely worse than Matt today, but at least he has a possible upside and may improve. Hasselbeck’s history and statistics for most QBs his age say he likely won’t get better. The biggest, swiftest and strongest don’t always finish first in a race, but the smart money bets that way. I say bet on the future, or at least let’s find out what we have.

by IslandHawk on Sep 21, 2010 2:05 PM PDT up reply actions  

John, your beautifully crafted argument leaves me with nothing

I fully revoke my defense of Hasselbeck, and agree with you on all points. Charlie Whitehurst is freakin’ 28 years-old. It’s now or never. If he can’t lead the team, then let’s just abandon ship and draft a quarterback.

by aerozeppelin on Sep 20, 2010 11:51 PM PDT reply actions  

I've been wondering...

How does a QB lose his arm? Maybe it isn’t so odd for it to happen, but did Warner lose his? How about Fahhvray? Maybe Favre has been on the sauce, but Matt’s only ~35… It kind of blows my mind to think that a dude that is in the workout programs that Matt has access to would ‘lose’ strength by such a relatively young (albeit not NFL young) age. Or is it that he never really had it to begin with?

by dassler10 on Sep 21, 2010 7:46 PM PDT reply actions  

Favre had so much in the way of physical tools that his decline looked a lot more graceful than Matt's.

In essence, Favre’s arm declined into the rough approximation of Good Hasselbeck. Since Matt never had that kind of a ceiling, he declined into Replacement Level Oblivion.

by BrianL on Sep 22, 2010 9:02 AM PDT up reply actions  

While everyone has a bad day from time to time

While everyone has a bad day from time to time, Matt has had a bad few years. Sure he’s tough and he appears for all intents and purposes to be one heck of a leader but I believe that his age and injuries have caught up to him. He is and will remain the best QB that this organization ever employed (thank you, Mike Holmgren) however, unless he can turn this thing around and all of a sudden revert back to something resembling athletic competency for the remainder of this year, the calls for Charlie will only get louder and lets face it folks, Charlie is just not going to be the guy. He’s there in case of (yet another) Hassleback injury and while he’s got a stronger arm than Seneca Wallace, I don’t see much more potential in him than Seneca had. No, I think that this will be Matt’s final season and I for one will miss him. I also hope that Pete drafts a fine young rookie QB next year, perhaps Mr. Hallet from Arkansas?

Read more: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2010/09/21/1350268/still-the-guy-in-seattle.html#ixzz10Hj2okJM

John Hancock

by mrcoffee1969 on Sep 22, 2010 11:40 AM PDT reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

SEA!

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
Help Me Understand How Irvin Will be Used
Turbin_game_uni_small
Hand Size and Quarterbacks
Einstein_www-txt2pic-com_small
On Pete Carroll and Previous QB Competitions

Recent FanPosts

Small
Just How Much Do Close Games Matter Anyway?
Horsey_small
Results from the 2012 Armchair GM Championship
Tasb_logo_small
Consider it Spun: The 5 Worst Moves of Carroll and Schneider Era in Seattle
Small
Plaxico Burress: viable option, or over the hill?
Small
Portland Seahawks Fans: Where You Be?
Small
Should Seattle Go After Kellen Winslow?
Small
Football where the head is sacred
Horsey_small
What Doug Baldwin Had to Say About Seahawk QBs (or How DB Throws MF Under the Bus)

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Managing Editor/Lead Writer

Screen_shot_2012-05-04_at_10 Danny Kelly

Staff Writers/Editors

Screen_shot_2011-01-05_at_9 Scruffy Lefty

Small BrianL

Avatar_small Benne

Olympiabeer_small Tyler Jorgensen

Madhatter_small Thomas Beekers

Profilepic_small DJ C-Raig

897267_o_small Kenneth Arthur

Sbn_pic_small Jacson Bevens

Photo__1__small Charlie Todaro

Staff Writers

Small Joshua Kasparek

Photo_small Matt Erickson

Davis_small Davis Hsu

Profile2_small Rob Staton

208114_505637750968_23709013_30160241_9483_n_small Scott Enyeart

Elephant_pink_clothes_small Chris Sully

Seattle_seahawk_white_1600_reasonably_small_small Derek Stephens

Ace_small Ben Harbaugh

Bu_fb_2_small Daniel Hill

Rob_small Rob Davies