Hasselbeck or Whitehurst- A Sports Blog Divided
by 12thman on Sep 24, 2010 12:40 PM PDT
Email
PrintThere are good arguments for each being the starter Week 3. What is the measuring stick used? I see it, in no particular order of importance, as being:
-Accuracy
-Arm Strength
-Mobility
-Leadership
-Durability
-Decision Making
-Intangibles? Other Catch Words? Dirt Bag-ness?
I'm interested in seeing where Field Gulls comes out on this issue. We've heard from the vocal few for the past week. I'd like to see a larger sampling of opinions.
50 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
And got his chance while this guy was on the bench
by Snuffleupagus on Sep 25, 2010 11:22 PM PDT up reply actions
I already called Kelly Stouffer! I'm the most sane one here!
by Joshua Kasparek on Sep 24, 2010 1:36 PM PDT reply actions
Much of the argument is about the future of the organization
Not so much about our best option in week 3. That said, i’d be more inclined to vote for Hasselbeck being better this year if we had a clue what Whitehurst would do if given the chance.
You have it backwards.
My decision is influenced by wanting to know what Whitehurst offers. This makes me strongly support Hass being benched.
Though it’s not relevant to my point, I disagree with your extrapolation too, as the fear of the unknown is a perfectly legitimate variable in decision making.
You may not know how they will perform any given week.
But I think we have a good idea how Matt will perform over an entire season.
Yeah, I am going to disagree. I don't read tea leaves and this game is completely dynamic in it's outcome.
Unless you are the Lions or Raiders, then you know your fate.
My poll, my question
My line of thinking revolves more around what’s best for the team right now is what’s best for the team in the future.
I am more concerned about the team suceeding this season and buying into Pete Carroll’s system through the confidence that success brings. The point of my poll was to discover who the readers feel is our best option- now. You could say that the Raiders and the Eagles are taking the same approach. Win now. Right or wrong my observations tell me the Seahawks have the same mentality.
by 12thman on Sep 24, 2010 3:50 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Well, "wrong" might an ill-chosen term
It’s a leading question, it only really has one answer, unless you really have given up on Hasselbeck to an inordinate degree.
by Thomas Beekers on Sep 24, 2010 4:07 PM PDT up reply actions
Ill-chosen?
Once I revealed my underlying motive it became a leading question to you. But to the 40-odd voters who cast their opinions before I posted, it was a cut and dry question. Now, did the voters have their own underlying motives for their choices? Some, maybe. My hope was to get the general feel of who can win more games this season, regardless of future motives. I hope many if not most voted that way.
It isn't cut and dry
Regardless of future motives
The question people are asking is about potential vs. experience (or future success vs. present success, or stability vs. change, or many other similar arguments). You are asking the question by ignoring anything beyond the next few weeks. The future is a critical component to those in the Whitehurst camp. Many fans (including myself, I’m not very arbitrary) are looking ahead to when Hass is gone. Omitting that aspect makes it a leading question.
Awesome
Let other people ask those questions. I asked who can win more games this season. Those in the Whitehurst camp want him to play regardless of wins this season.
Many in the Whitehurst camp, you mean.
As tempting as is it is to lump the opposition together, it’s leading you to incorrect statements.
As for the poll, at this point I would say I think Whitehurst actually gives us the better chance to win. Of course, that’s with so little information on how Charlie might perform, so it’s nothing I would ever put money on.
Huh?
Why would some (those not part of the many) of the Whitehurst camp not want him to start this season? I took that liberty because it looks fairly obvious. Correct me please.
You said "Those in the Whitehurst camp want him to play regardless of wins this season."
I don’t think it’s universally true that Whitehurst fans want him to play regardless of wins. Some want to do it BECAUSE of wins this season.
Cool
Those people wanting the wins this season through Whitehurst would have voted for him in the poll. Thanks for playing.
No doubt. I wasn't talking about your poll.
I was talking about your blanket statement that all Whitehurst fans are not interested in whether we win or lose this year. Which is wrong. Thanks for playing.
Thanks for playing*
Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion...
Dude, stop biting people's heads off here
We’re just having a conversation, no need to snap at everyone.
by Thomas Beekers on Sep 25, 2010 6:07 AM PDT up reply actions
They did . . .
Lots of people voted for him.
Then there are people like me who are in the ‘Whitehurst camp’ but voted for Hasselbeck in your poll, because of its limitation.
by Snuffleupagus on Sep 25, 2010 8:59 PM PDT up reply actions
Because Whitehurst gives us a risk/reward scenario.
Might be worse. Might be substantially better. I’d rather not settle.
by Scruffy Lefty on Sep 24, 2010 6:25 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Fair 'Nough
Great answer Scruffy. Now that this has become a “leading question” that is the first good response I’ve seen.
Scruffy's answer is the conclusion most people came to a week ago.
However, you tried forcing people to answer Matt Hasselbeck with your question. This is why it is called a leading question. And after the eleventy billion other threads on the debate, we really didn’t need to have this poll. It has been discussed and Hasselbeck is not the right answer, even though you want to believe otherwise.
How did I force people to answer with Hasselbeck?
Also, how do you know what I believe? Where in this post did I explicitly say who I prefer?
You constructed the question in a narrow way.
I don’t know who gives us a better chance this season, but I know I’d be okay TRYING Whitehurst. I’m not that thrilled about entering the playoffs 8-8 going nowhere and still not knowing a thing about the future QB of the Hawks.
Whitehurst may not give us a better chance to win, but can you really assume he gives us a worse one? Hasselbeck has been terrible for 2+ years now, and if it wasn’t for 2005, people would be calling for his head right now! :)
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Sep 27, 2010 2:10 PM PDT up reply actions
There was a time when Trent Dilfer gave us the best chance to win now
And Hasselbeck started anyway. I’d say most Seahawks fans feel that worked out pretty well.
At the time, I remember being pissed we weren’t playing Dilfer. I have learned my lesson. We need to know if Whitehurst is the QB of the future, and we can’t answer that question if he doesn’t start.
Actually, I remember it like this
Matt Hasselbeck was named starter. Sucked. Got benched in favor of Dilfer. Dilfer emerges as the quarterback who gave the Seahawks the best chance to win.
Dilfer is the starter the following season. Injured his knee in the preseason. Matt gets the start. He blows goat nuts for the first game or two. Dilfer comes back for a few games. Plays rather solid at times, but loses a bunch of games, and it is not clear whether he really gave Seattle the best chance to win now, and then he blows out his achilles. Hasselbeck starts the rest of the season and in the last four games of the season, emerges as the player that gave Seattle the best chance of winning.
Hasselbeck only got his second chance because Dilfer got hurt. It wasn’t like Matt was thrown in there to see if he could do better than Dilfer. Holmgren had no choice.
Golden!
by Carl Shinyama on Sep 26, 2010 11:02 AM PDT up reply actions
Same answer I gave to another fanpost
The only reason I see Hasselbeck as a fit starter right now.
Is because this offense is about improvising on the run, and the only player I have seen engineer plays out of nothing but Veteran Savvy and pure confidence better than Hass is Brett Favre. Either you have it or you don’t which is why I am iffy on Whitehurst he has the one thing Matt lacks but we don’t know if he has any of the many good qualities Matt does have. Now I don’t know about you but I have never been able to watch him play much so I don’t know if hes a Brady or Romo in waiting or just another shitty QB with a decent arm.
I think I'd rather see whether Whitehurst was a shitty QB with a decent arm
As opposed to flinching every time a decent QB with a shitty arm takes the field.
Hasselbeck isn't playing very well at all...
Is it really a stretch to think Whitehurst can play just as bad, and get better with experience?
- has thrown 32 interceptions in his last 24 games, he’s 35, has a weak arm, and sacks himself.
He is killing drives and giving away points.
We are 2-1 because we’ve had big plays on defense and special teams. We cannot count on 100yd kickoff returns and forcing 5 turnovers per game.
Trade his ass to Cleveland.
by grinch11 on Sep 27, 2010 8:37 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
I'm pretty sure Whitehurst can match Matt intercetpion for interception.
I’m also pretty sure the Carrol knows he has to get a QB in the draft next year when there’s some talent available. It’d be quite a gamble to go on and wait another year .
The real question is how many wins we get vs. how far we have to trade in the draft and what we have to give up to do it.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Former high-school star Brian Banks does serious time on trumped-up charge, now hopes for an NFL shot
- Former ‘idiot kicker’ Mike Vanderjagt in trouble after accosting junior-high heckler
- Adrian Peterson blows teammates away in footraces; appears to be on the mend
- UPDATE: Charlie Sheen didn’t buy Lawrence Taylor’s Super Bowl ring
- Alex Smith gets blown up by Jon Beason over Cam Newton comments
