Seahawks Free Agency: The Quarterback Conundrum
by Danny Kelly on Jun 29, 2011 11:30 AM PDT
in Seahawks Player Analysis
Email
PrintThe question that is on the forefront of most Seahawk fans' minds is undoubtedly, "who will be our starting quarterback in 2011?" It is an impossible question to answer at the moment because the lockout has eliminated the ability to sign or trade and the fans remain in limbo just like the players. The main options that have been talked about are Matt Hasselbeck, Charlie Whitehurst, Kevin Kolb, Kyle Orton, and Carson Palmer.
Pete Carroll and John Schneider have indicated that they have a several contingency plans in place: Plan A, Plan B, Plan C, Plan D and down the line. My personal hope is that they have Plan A listed as a trade for Carson Palmer.
Now, obviously, the idea of bringing in Palmer seems to be a bit of a longshot so I'll explore their other options a bit. If Palmer is unattainable as so many people believe, I think the next best choice is to go with Charlie Whitehurst. Here's why: he's already on your roster and thus will cost you no more draft pick capital - something that will be important for this team in the next year or three. He has been learning the offense all summer, has a strong arm, and is mobile. He's extremely raw and untested so we really don't know what he brings to the table yet.
This is a young team and expectations will be fairly tempered coming into the season (meaning, not many people expect that if Matt is our QB we will be headed to the Super Bowl). It will be a perfect opportunity for Whitehurst to sink or swim and the Seahawks organization will get a chance to see what he can do. If he stumbles badly, we'll know we need to trade for or sign another option. If he succeeds or at least provides consistently effective play (unlike Matt Hasselbeck has), we will have a quarterback for the next 2-4 years that can bridge the gap while the Hawks draft their QBOTF and develop him. Most importantly, we have not given up a first or second round pick in 2012 for him and we can continue to develop this young team.
Here's what we got:
On the roster:
Charlie Whitehurst
Possible options via trade or free agency:
Matt Hasselbeck
Carson Palmer
Kyle Orton
Kevin Kolb
Vince Young
Matt Moore
Matt Flynn
Matt Leinart
JP Losman
Possible undrafted free agent signings:
Adam Froman
Pat Devlin
Adam Weber
Scott Tolzien
Mike Coughlin
Josh Portis
The Lowdown:
If it were me, like I said above, I'd attempt the trade for Carson Palmer. If that were impossible I would go with Charlie Whitehurst, sign Matt Leinart or Matt Moore as your #2, and sign Adam Froman or Pat Devlin as a developmental #3 quarterback.
Mike Coughlin is another very intriguing, albeit very unknown UDFA that I would possibly bring in for camp as well.
Matt Hasselbeck will be very expensive and his money demands could prohibit the Seahawks from signing other key free agents with more upside and future here - this includes Davin Joseph, Johnathan Joseph, Robert Gallery and/or a key 3-tech defensive lineman like Cullen Jenkins or Barry Cofield. I understand the argument for why to bring Matt back but I simply believe that it's time to move on and develop talent for the future. Make no mistake - THIS IS A REBUILD - we have seen nearly a complete roster turnover in the last year - only about 20 or so pre-Carroll/Schneider players remain and that number could decrease significantly - and the odds tell us Matt will have nowhere to go but down in his production.
Let me further elaborate my position: We have seen what Hasselbeck can do these last few seasons and the on-field result, plain and simple, has been bad. In the 2010 regular season - 12 TDs to 17 interceptions and 5 lost fumbles. 12 touchdowns and 22 turnovers. That, ladies and gentlemen, is right there near the bottom of the list for all starting quarterbacks in the league, and if Matt didn't have the history that he has here ABSOLUTELY NO ONE WOULD WANT HIM BACK. Think about that for a minute. If a guy like Donovan McNabb, who also led his team to the Super Bowl in the past mind you, came in last year and put up those numbers, do you think that ONE person would be hoping the Seahawks re-sign him?
Yes, Hasselbeck offers legitimate leadership skills and knows the offense that Bevell plans to install. I have to think that at the end of the day, leadership can only go so far and on-field play HAS to be more important. Apart from a few games this last season, he has not proven to me that he still has the skills and physical ability to play at a high level. I know that many of you feel completely opposite of this, but in this case it's a situation where we will have to agree to disagree. Chris Sullivan, formerly of Seahawk Addicts and currently of 30AcreFortress (a great new Hawks blog), said it as well as I could have: "I'd rather lose with the unknown than continue to lose with the known." In other words - it's not working, time to try something new. Like Chris, I'm not a Hasselbeck hater - I love the guy and he's an all-time great Seahawk, has done more for the organization and city than pretty much any other player -, but I'm simply trying to be realistic here.
If Matt Hasselbeck were to walk - he'd leave a hero. Much like the Mariners are doing, I'd like to see what our young players are capable of - and maybe they'll surprise us. Hasselbeck MAY give the Seahawks a chance to compete this year but that's a putting an awful amount of faith in someone with such poor numbers this last season (and the season before that... and the season before that). He does provide veteran leadership and commands respect because of the person he is, both for the Seahawks and the city, but now would be a perfect chance for him to ride away into the sunset, legacy intact.
All that being said, I've basically resigned myself to the belief that Matt Hasselbeck will probably be the starting QB for the Seahawks in 2011. Here's why:
Kyle Orton will be too expensive. Same with Kevin Kolb. I don't believe that Pete Carroll will sign Vince Young to be his starting QB (though I am not against it). It seems unlikely the Carson Palmer trade will go through. Matt Flynn could become an option in free agency could be traded for, but he is very unproven and doesn't impress me any more than Charlie Whitehurst does. Hasselbeck will probably not get the money he's hoping for on the open market and will return to the Hawks in what comes down to a marriage of convenience.
Conclusion:
I would attempt to trade for Carson Palmer. I believe Palmer still has the potential to be a top-10 quarterback and at the absolute worst would be an excellent option for a game-managing QB that would distribute the ball and point guard the offense- something that Pete Carroll has mentioned as his ideal QB. Palmer can still make the throws downfield on play action that would keep the defense honest. He would be a legitimate, even *GASP* good quarterback option for the next 2-4 seasons that would alleviate pressure on John Schneider and Pete Carroll find their QBOTF. They could draft/trade for whoever that is in the next year or two, start developing him, and by the time he's ready to start, Palmer will be ready to retire. This is what I want. Also, while I'm at it, I'd like a pony.
If Mike Brown holds his ground and refuses to trade him or the cost is too prohibitive (seems more likely now than ever, but maybe I'm just tempering my hopes) I would go into camp with Charlie Whitehurst as my #1 QB. I would sign Matt Leinart, Adam Froman, and/or Mike Coughlin to come in and compete for the backup positions. I would kick the tires on Vince Young as well.
If you think I'm crazy for wanting to see what Whitehurst can do, I suggest you read Eric Williams' pretty convincing take on the subject and see if he can change your mind. I recognize CBJ couldn't overtake Hass' job last season, but his physical abilities, mobility, arm strength, and poise (yes, he had poise in the St. Louis win-or-go-home game) make him a better option in my mind than sticking with Hasselbeck for another year and hoping he bucks a three-year trend and produces better than bottom of the barrel numbers.
Here's my final thought, and it's something that Eric Williams emphasized in his take as well: Pete Carroll's NUMBER ONE offensive rule, mantra, philosophy, requisite, demand- whatever you want to call it - is TAKE CARE OF THE BALL. Whitehurst may not be flashy and may not impress you, but he may be better a better option because he's more capable of limiting turnovers and avoiding sacks. He plays within himself and is even keeled. Hasselbeck is not - he's fiery, streaky, emotional, and when he forced things in 2010 it had disastrous results for the Seahawks.
With Whitehurst's mobility it allows the Seahawks to release their tight ends downfield instead of leaving six or seven men in for pass protection. This opens up the passing attack and gives you more options because you're not looking at three receivers being marked by six or seven defenders.
Whitehurst can escape pressure more effectively and the Hawks can work him into the run game with roll-outs and boot-legs, something the front office repeatedly stated they want to do. Tom Cable did this with Jason Campbell in Oakland, Darrell Bevell did this with Tarvaris Jackson and Joe Webb in Minnesota, and Pete Carroll has said all along that is what he looks for in his QB. We saw Whitehurst do this in the pivotal Week 17 win over St Louis. For the most part, they avoided this with Hasselbeck and were subsequently near league-leaders in the amount of personnel left on the line for pass-pro.
83 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
OMG!
Somebody gets it … well said my friend, well said! I will be very disappointed if Hasselbeck comes back. With the on going strike and the return of Hasselbeck would definitely end my football season.
I don't think Orton would be expensive.
I think a 3rd rounder could net him. And I’d be all for it. I think Orton is terribly underrated.
Always up for some Twitter action @nandron. I only talk NW sports, though.
I like Orton too
But I don’t know if he’d be that cheap. The Broncos don’t really have anyone outside Tebow and that’s a scary thing for them. Not sure they’re sold on Brady Quinn.
Proactive-like-Nonstop
FIELDGULLS
Palmer
or Orton…I don’t know, and actually would be happy with either if it was a 3rd rounder or cheaper.
by Stay Off the Flowers on Jun 29, 2011 1:36 PM PDT up reply actions
Orton no question I think.
Stats for Orton: http://www.nfl.com/player/kyleorton/2506444/profile
Stats for Palmer: http://www.nfl.com/player/carsonpalmer/2505245/profile
Palmer’s numbers weren’t great in 2009 even with Cedric Benson playing really well. He had about 3900 yards this last year but that was with TO and Ochocinco.
Orton is 3 years younger than Palmer, was successful in his last season starting in Chicago (18 TD, 12 INT, imagine if Hass had done that this year…) and was very successful the last two years in Denver. Palmer is getting older, is more likely to be injured, and you might say he has an attitude issue if he is threatening to retire rather than play for his team.
Earl Thomas + Mark Legree = Earl Gree. A new flavor of safety coming to you on Sunday's this Fall. They're gonna wake you up!
TO and Ocho Cinco were NOT good receivers last year.
That put up a lot of numbers because (a.) Palmer threw the ball nearly 600 times last year, and (b.) the Bengals had NO ONE else to start in place of either of them.
Now, if the price were equal I’d still choose Orton over Palmer because Orton is younger and doesn’t have any kind of injury history, but pure stats don’t account for the bad offense the Bengals ran last season.
I agree with you almost entirely.
Matt Flynn already looks better than Charlie.
Yeah... i actually hesitated when I wrote that. But at the end of the day are you going to give up a 2nd or 3rd rd pick for a guy that's marginally better than Charlie?
Proactive-like-Nonstop
FIELDGULLS
I think he's a lot better than Charlie, personally, but a 2nd or 3rd seems like a lot.
A 4th, yes, I would. Depending on who else we bring on board.
wait, scratch that. He might be a free agent...
In that case, it changes my opinion a little bit. I forgot about that, if the 4-year rules are in place I think he becomes unrestricted.
Proactive-like-Nonstop
FIELDGULLS
Nope. He's a 3-year vet, and was signed to a four-year contract originally
So he has one year left in his contract. UFA next offseason.
by Thomas Beekers on Jun 29, 2011 1:58 PM PDT up reply actions
well, you'd have to give that up for Palmer...
And he’s not much better the last few years than the other names we’re discussing, and is older and already talking retirement.
I’m also completely lost on why anyone would want anything to do with V. young…he’s a terrible passer, aside from being a horrible leader, a known quitter, and a cancer, at the games most important position. (But that’s aside your main point.)
I do agree with your main thrust of this thread.
Personally, I think it’s just a terrible idea to trade ANY high round pick for ANY of the potentially available QB’s period.
I don’t want ANY of them for a 1st,or 2nd, maybe Orton for a third, but absolutely no higher.
We need all the picks we can get.
Most importantly, the very slight improvement that bringing in someone like Palmer would make, would still be a LONG way from being enough to make us a legitimate contender. Peyton Manning wouldn’t be enough to do that.
Since we won’t be contenders anyway, and not omne single QB available could make us one, we’re far better off just going with what we have and rebuilding with draft picks. High draft picks. The kind that can get you Andrew Luck for example (which we have a better shot of getting than a Superbowl win).
Trying to win now when we just don’t have the talent on either line, at Qb, at Rb, at Wr, or anywhere else, is a bad idea, and it cost us big time in last draft.
by fargomonkey on Jun 29, 2011 2:18 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I'm sorry but Peyton Manning would absolutely make us a legitimate contender as would any other elite QB
I think people underestimate what an elite QB does for a team and I hate this belief that all the other areas of the team have to be built up first
by hawksfan1401 on Jun 29, 2011 2:35 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I "hate" the belief that there's one magic formula
As if all teams that brought in a QB first succeeded and all the teams that built up first failed, or vice versa. That’s just not the case. Different styles succeed or fail for different reasons.
But imagine Whitehurst does work out well enough to be a decent stopgap. Then we draft a young guy. He can sit a year, which is already way unusual in the NFL, and when he does get a start he is leading a team with a great O-line, a great pack of RBs and some decent receivers. It’s lovely. So I get the plan PC has been leading up to for this team, especially since we haven’t had a shot at a legit pro QB in his tenure, and I feel fairly confident in waiting where he’s taking us.
by Thomas Beekers on Jun 29, 2011 2:47 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I'm not saying that having a franchise QB is the 'ONE' formula but it is definitely A proven formula for success
by hawksfan1401 on Jun 29, 2011 3:27 PM PDT up reply actions
I wasn't arguing that
I don’t think we’re in an age where you can expect to compete without a franchise QB, or at best incidentally. But you mentioned you hate the belief other areas come “first”. That’s another issue. You still need a franchise QB after building up a team he can join with less of a road bump than many young QBs have had, it’s just changing the order in which you do things.
Hell, I’m not even sure this was an absolute one-option-only plan for PC. Like, if some franchise QB had been available at any point, wouldn’t he have jumped on it? But the opportunity never came up, so instead he has built up the rest of the team. I dunno, but it’s possible.
by Thomas Beekers on Jun 29, 2011 3:40 PM PDT up reply actions
Wrong on Palmer and Young.
Palmer would instantly turn this team into a contender for the NFC West crown (not exactly a big deal). His numbers are quite consistently decent.
Young wins games and has all sorts of talent. He wouldn’t be expensive, and Carroll is a player’s coach. He’s worth the little it would take to get him.
So by saying Palmer instantly turns the team into a contender for the NFC West crown
you are saying there is a small chance he could be as good as Whitehurst, because Charlie didn’t make us a contender, he clinched the damn thing. I say stick with Touchdown Wookie.
Smashmouth is the new sexy!
Last year's schedule was nothing compared to (apparently) this year's.
Charlie clinched it, but sure as hell wasn’t starting all season.
I was a fan of Hasselbeck coming back for one more shot
Then I read this, and it changed my mind. I’m down for Charlie and letting the extra money (~$40m) go towards building a team around him. Another O-lineman, a DB, and Cullen Jenkins would be my top 3 acquisitions. I think we’re players in the market and in for a pre-season of unbridled optimism to win the West – again.
by Stay Off the Flowers on Jun 29, 2011 1:39 PM PDT reply actions
Rhubarb rhubarb RHUBARB RHUBARB
Basically what I’ve been thinking too. There’s nothing to gain from bringing back Hasselbeck, he doesn’t have enough left in the tank to be a bridge QB, and Palmer would likely come at too high a price pick-and-money wise.
Go Whitehurst, put a veteran behind him, and an UDFA rookie. The season will be as like to tank as anyway, but unlike in other plans, at least it won’t derail our rebuild.
Could tank but,
No one knows what CBJ could do with multiple games under his belt.
by spokahawk on Jun 29, 2011 2:04 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
If you go down the roll out game mgr.Qb,,,
,,,direction (Charlie, TJack, etc.), then how can you place Palmer in that role?
Answer,can’t.
I continue to hope they pick a Qb style and stack them up like O’Hare to the point that they get it right. I already got out on the Pryor limb once before for a 3rd in the SDraft, I’d do it, he fits the Game Mgr. Qb roll out scheme does he not?
,,,a need for speed>>>>
just to clarify...
what is a game manager QB? I always assumed they were a less skilled quarterback (eg. Trent Dilfer) who “managed” the offense (handing off/passing the ball to playmakers) rather then say Manning, or Brees who does not merely manage the offense but fully run it? I don’t know its hard to put the description in words and your post makes me think a game manager is a mobile QB (T Jack, Vick, Pryor, etc.) so just wondering which it is?
Sorry, didn't even introduce myself
Name is Miles and I’m a hawks fan from Southern Ontario, long time blog reader from JM to DK but this is my first, well I guess second post! Danny you read my mind with this article; too much money/not enough production from hass compared too too many unanswered questions about Charlie’s position on the depth chart. I’d be fine with bringing in Vince, Leinart WHOEVER as long as they don’t cost picks. Orton over Palmer for a third or less, but I’d be happy with neither or either, and none of this ridiculous 1st or 2nd talk (we need our picks, this is a rebuild!)
A "Game Manager" QB is one that doesn't make mistakes.
There’s no real definition; it’s more of a general description of a QB that plays it safe, and produces just enough to not get benched.
Please read the rules on posting
It is very hard to read your posts due to grammatical and punctuation errors.
Think it was meant for Woofu
The commas inserted instead of ellipses get a little confusing.
Proactive-like-Nonstop
FIELDGULLS
is using ,,,
,,, a valid reason to flag a post? if so, flag away!
Smashmouth is the new sexy!
Welcome! Come on in and make yourself at home.
Helpful hint: If you’re unsure about which comment is being replied to you can hit the “up” button located to the right of the timestamp. Your screen will automatically jump to the appropriate comment.
This article contains other useful info.
On the Seahawks 2011 QB...
Big NO on Hasslebeck, for all the stated reasons.
I don’t believe any of the QBs on the block (Kolb, Palmer, Flynn) are worth what they will cost in picks. None of them will be a great QB for very long (if ever). I would rather spend the picks in other ways.
If CW starts in 2011, all the criticism of the trade go away. Paying a future 3rd and moving down 20 spots in the second is cheap for a starting NFL QB.
Having said that, I don’t believe CW is the future either. I believe he is a very good back-up QB, and hopefully that is the main role he fulfills in 2011. But if he does start, I am fine with that, considering the alternatives.
If I read PC/JS correctly, they won’t spend a thought on Young. He doesn’t have the character they seek.
Ultimately Seattle’s long-term QB is likely in next year’s draft class.
My dark-horse pick for starting QB in 2011: Leinert. He comes free (in terms of picks). My sense is that his upside is Hasselbeck at his best (not the best of arms, not terribly mobile, but accurate). If he gets signed, I don’t expect him to be handed the starting job – instead, I predict he beats out CW for it.
One of the UDFA’s as the 3rd QB.
So that means going into camp with CW, Leinert and a developmental QB. Maybe another FA I haven’t considered.
Bottom line: season opens with Leinert at the top of the QB depth chart, followed by CW.
I don't see it.
Leinart goes against everything Pete and John have touched on when describing the position.
You may be right, but the following quote from PC seems to fit Leinert really well:
"We’re always looking for a guy that can manage the offense, really," says Carroll. "We’ve always said, even way back with Heisman Trophy winners (at USC), we were never structuring the offense to be carried by one guy. We always wanted to have a guy that would be very understanding of the system and of the people and the assets around him that could mix and move the football about. With that, we’ve always liked a quarterback that could move. We’ve always liked the ability to move because it fits with our running game and the style of complimentary throwing game that we like to match up with it. So the movement quarterback is – we don’t need to have a guy that’s a pure runner. We’re not talking about that.
"But a guy that has the ability to move and get out of the pocket and give us the variety of sets where we want to get that quarterback to slow down the pass rush and stuff. That’s always been part of it. That hasn’t always been what we’ve had but that’s always been something that we’ve looked for in the ideal."
Very conflicted on this subject....
That is probably why I enjoyed reading it.
1- I would love to get Palmer and would probably trade a 2nd round pick. A good QB option for 4 years is easily worth that, right?
2- I would trade a 3rd round pick for Kyle and sign Matt Flynn to challenge for the spot.
3- If I can get a decent LG and a legitimate #1 posession receiver, then I would keep Charlie and give him a chance to succeed. Sign Flynn to challenge Charlie
4- If I can’t achieve the pre-conditions on number 3 then I would resign Hasslebeck since we are re-building and I think he is better for player development. Sign Flynn and challenge Charlie and Matt.
Mike Brown may let go of Palmer as the offers come in, that is what has hurt Palmers chances of a trade.
I was very impressed with Flynn and the game he had against the patriots. I think he earned a good shot at starting somewhere with that one game performance.
Charlie had 2 fairly underwhelming starts last year and I would love to give him 4 starts out of the gate this year to see what he can do but I also feel like we have to have a solid backup plan. I think he also needs a better WR corp and run game (o-line) to really show us what he can do.
Kyle is solid and will not lose any games but he will be another “Average” player on a team full of average offensive players.
Hasslebeck, what can I say. Most people have made up their minds (one way or another). I would love to have him back and I would be fine with seeing him go. I think we need a solid developmental plan behind Hasselbeck if we keep him but unfortunately the cupboards are bare. If Hasselbeck was back, I would push hard to get Matt Flynn and work him in mid season.
Sorry guys..
But what has Matt Flynn done to warrant such interest? I saw his “highlights” and really wasn’t very impressed. Same goes for Kolb, in the sense that the team around these QB’s was borderline elite, so no reason an average QB couldn’t look extraordinary.
Put Whitehurst on the Packers right now and I bet he’d have a crazy game with that line/receivers/running game.
Put an average backup QB in as starter on a struggling team, and good luck…
Ka-Kaaa!
The Patriots?
There’s a laugh. The Patriots were the 3rd-worst team against the pass by traditional stats, allowing 258 passing yards per game, worse than the Hawks and much worse than the Rams. Going by advanced stats, they’re still middle of the pack, ranked 18th in defensive DVOA and 15th in pass defense DVOA.
Their secondary in particular was a danger zone, especially considering a weak pass rush. McCourty was impressive for a rookie but still a rookie, and Meriweather’s pro bowl berth is one of the biggest pro bowl jokes in years.
So yeah. Leading the #1 offense in the NFL against a middle-of-the-pack defense? I’d need more evidence than that.
by Thomas Beekers on Jun 30, 2011 4:11 AM PDT up reply actions
Flynn does things in that game I've never even seen Charlie think of doing.
He’s already a headier player. Charlie looks lost almost every moment he’s on the field.
I’m not ready to annoint Flynn already, but at this point in his career I think he’s shown more potential than Charlie has over what, four seasons?
In my opinion...
Playing the Pats in an exhibition game vs. playing your division rival for the conference title are a bit different…A little more pressure on Charlie, wouldn’t you agree?
Ka-Kaaa!
What do you mean by exhibition game?
Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t Flynn play the pats in the regular season?
I'd like to see Charlie given the opportunity
If we traded for Palmer I’d probably be happy despite thinking it’s a poor long-term move. I don’t think anyone that mentions letting a season play out with youngsters with the view to securing a high draft pick is really thinking about how frustrating a season that would be. Come next April I’d be giddy as a schoolgirl about the prospect of Luck or Barkley but having to suffer through 16 games of mediocrity is hard going, leading to 16 Monday mornings that are far shittier than they need to be. Palmer gives us a legitimate chance at another divisional championship, and any negative impact that has on draft position means little when you’re watching the Hawks in the post-season (see: Beastmode raping the entire Nyawlins secondary).
It's not just Mondays that suck when we lose.
It’s the whole week…
Mondays especially rock after we win. Makes work way better.
Earl Thomas + Mark Legree = Earl Gree. A new flavor of safety coming to you on Sunday's this Fall. They're gonna wake you up!
With Charlie
For me the defining moment of his Seahawk career is HORRIBLY underthrowing a wide-open Ruvell Martin in that Rams game at the end of the season. I mean, he under threw him by probably 10-15 yards on the play. The guy who’s supposed to have the cannon, to be younger, bigger, faster, stronger than our aging veteran.
I contrast that with Matt hitting wide open WRs in stride against the Saints and I just don’t see what there is to be excited about. Not that I necessarily want Hass back, I’m with the vast majority of people that have waited for the Hawks to grab a QBOTF for about 6 years now and would kill to at least try and fail on some young guy. But man, I just don’t see Charlie being anything other than depth at best.
Maybe His Hand Slipped Cuz He Had Clammy Hands
This was the first drive remember. Maybe he got Romo’s Sticky Palm Syndrome.
I’ve also thrown footballs that have left the grip or came out wrong that went WAY shorter than they were supposed to.
One under-thrown deep ball is pretty hard to judge a guy by. I’m struggling to think of another ball that was this under-thrown.
I mean, it’s like comparing the Saints game where Matt was on fire vs the host of under-thrown passes that we know has been an issue for Matt’s whole career. And on the issue of arm strength a ball can be under-thrown simply if it has too much air under it and the receiver has to slow down. The ball still traveled 60 yards, it just didn’t get there anytime soon.
Check game tape of Seahawks 07-09 for reference.
Win Forever: Live, Work and Play Like a Champion
Really
One throw defined him for you? Is he dead to you now?
Good thing all pro QBs never have bad throws.
Sure, there's a hundred reasons it could have happened
And it’s one bad throw, I realize that.
I went back and watched the game last night to refresh my memory about the rest of the game, and Charlie actually made more “good” (purely subjective) throws than I thought, so maybe I’m more intrigued than I thought I was.
Maybe I’m just jealous of his hair.
Pete Carroll not trying to win just don't sound natural
If they want one of those guys at Q.B. they can trade up next year easy enough
Vince Young would be interesting.
I am not really a fan of Vince, but it would be interesting to see how he does in a different setting. Going by most stats I would not want him. The one stat that stands out to me is he is 30-17 in games started according to pro-football-reference.com. He wins football games. Or at least just doesn’t lose them. To me that the most important stat.
He’s the type of QB it sounds the Hawks are looking for and I think he might respond better to Pete Carroll than Jeff Fisher. I’m pretty sure the owner forced Young on Fisher which probably makes working together difficult. If they do bring him in I trust PC to get rid of him if he is the head case he seems like and does not buy in.
I don’t want the Hawks to trade for him, but if he is available on the open market why not? Could be fun training camp with Leinart and Vince competeing again.
Matt is still the best option.
1. The last few years Matt has been playing behind a horrible line on a talent poor team.
2. Schneider and PC offered him $7M to return
3. The Hawks could have drafted the QBOTF if they wanted to replace him. They had that chance in round 1 and 2.
4. CW hasn’t shown much.
5. Anybody else is going to be more expensive. They will want a multi year deal and cost us several draft picks.
6. Arizona and Tennessee are rumored to want him if Seattle doesn’t.
IMO, we go into the season with Matt, CW and a backup on the practice squad. This is pretty much what we had last year. This year is all about rebuilding the roster thru free agency. The QBOTF will be selected in the draft next year. Matt’s $7M salary will be used in 2012 for the new QB. CW’s contract will also be done in 2012. If we put a decent O Line on the field Matt and CW can get it done.
OK
1. This line, despite everything has not been horrible in pass blocking.
2. So what? That doesn’t make him good.
3. So what? That doesn’t make him good.
4. So what? Give him the shot to start for more than two games, and if he’s horrible, move on without him. With Matt in the fold, Charlie just hangs around.
5. Not really that much more expensive, other than Kolb. Young, Leinart, etc. will cost almost nothing, if anything. Matt will cost us at least 7 million this year.
6. Great. Have you seen him play lately?
by djafrot on Jun 29, 2011 5:19 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Good call
Patches Pal – a lot of your points don’t pass the smell test. Did you watch Matt in the regular season? Or how about all of 2008-2009? TERRIBLE decision making, and tiny windows of awesome. I watched games live where he singlehandedly killed the game due to his stubbornness when things weren’t going well.
The best option is Carson Palmer (very likely). In his worst year, he still threw for 28 TD’s. Ask Matt how many times he threw for 28 TD’s in a season?
I love Hass, but am starting to realize that his days as a Hawk may be winding down. Give me Palmer and Leinart as a backup, and I’ll be feeling great. GO HAWKS!
Ka-Kaaa!
1. WTF?!? the last 3 years have seen the worst pass blocking the seahawks have had in the 30+ years I've been watching them!!!
The OL the last 3 years has easily been in the bottom 5 in the league in all aspects, regardless of what some stupid stat from PFF says (seriously, their stats argue that Jennings is a good tackler???? HAHAHAHAHAHA). The team basically converted Carlson to OL the last two years, and he would have been our best receiving option during that time. Teams consistently get pressure on our QB (and stop the run) with only 3 or 4 rushers, so they are dropping 7 or 8 players into coverage. Yeah, Hasselback doesn’t get sacked much when we have 5 OL, Carlson, and Forsett blocking 4 rushers, but then Matt is looking for 3 receivers covered by 7 defenders – and he has had receivers who can’t get open. I mean seriously? Housh and Branch? TERRIBLE! I mean Housh is SOOO bad Kelly Jennings could shut him down. Matt was throwing to Billy “who dat” McMullen (as in “who the hell is that?”) for 4 games in 2008! We were starting a FIFTH string left tackle in 2009!
Honestly, in the last three years the only thing in the NFL that has been more of a mess that the Seahawks OL was the Arizona QB situation last season!
Not that Matt doesn’t make mistakes, or isn’t old, or hasn’t left his best days on the field, but honestly, you put Peyton Manning or Brady behind the Seahawks OL in 2009 and odds are 50/50 of a career ending injury. Look what happened to Kurt Warner when he got shellshocked playing behind a questionable OL in 2001 and 2002.
This line has been horrible at everything, especially pass blocking. Just Sayin’.
Rant off.
Smashmouth is the new sexy!
Hasselbeck certainly did lack a surrounding cast
But that’s not actually changing. Our offensive line this season will be young and lack coaching and unity due to the shortened off-season. So if we generally recognize that’s not ideal for Hasselbeck, we should recognize he shouldn’t come back.
Also, advanced stats don’t agree with you (and I don’t mean PFF, PFF is a joke, I’m referring to FBO). The Seahawks’ 2010 line ranked 14th in pass blocking. Before that, 21st and and 22nd. Bad, but not bottom-of-the-league bad, and last year actually had some decent-to-good pass blocking. That’s how I saw it and advanced stats agrees with me. You seem to be ignoring this past season in your arguments, even though Hass’ supporting cast improved while his performance dropped.
by Thomas Beekers on Jun 30, 2011 4:24 AM PDT up reply actions
re: 1) FBO pass protection and 2) Hass' supporting cast improved
I would like to argue that the FBO pass protection stat probably has very little to do with how good an OL performs in pass protection. 2009 might have been the worst OL in the NFL in the last decade, done in by the double whammy of Ruskell and injuries. At one point we were playing a left tackle and left guard who had both been signed from practice squads. FBO rated the 2009 OL 21st in the league in pass protection, meaning there were 11 teams in the league with worse pass protection than the hawks – chew on that while you read on…
FBO pass protection doesn’t account for how many blockers the team is using to protect the QB, nor does it assess the number of rushers required to achieve the sack or intentional grounding. A good OL of 5 players should be able to consistently block a rush of 3 or 4 players. In 2010, Seahawks consistenly used 6 or 7 blockers to stop those same 3 or 4 rushers, meaning less targets in the pass game.
FBO pass protection also ignores pressure induced but legal throwaways and forced throws into coverage that result in incompeletions or interceptions (Hasselback can’t win here, he throws it away people groan, he forces it in people moan). You’ll note that many of the teams with the higher pass protection ratings have savvy veteran (brady, manning, and yes, hass) or smart young (ryan, bradford) QBs who have wily ways to avoid sacks…
Take this great, almost perfect, example of how flawed the “stat” can appear. NE Patriots from 2007 -2009 essentially started the exact same offensive line of Light, Mankins, Koppen, Neal, and Kaczur for three straight seasons (between all 5 players there were totals of 10, 9,and 15 games missed due to injury):
2007, Brady at QB, Patriots OL pass pro was rated 4th
2008, Brady’s injury season, Cassell plays, Patriots OL pass pro drops to 26th
2009, Brady returns, Patriots pass pro was rated was rated 2nd
during these 3 years, Patriots run blocking was rated 1st ,3rd, and 4th – no change.
By all rights, the Patriots OL did not get any better or worse during 2008, but the FBO pass protection sure says they did. The reality is that the QB has as much effect on this stat as the OL. BAM!
Contrary to you, what I saw in the 2009 Seahawks does not remotely agree with “advanced stats.” Nor do they agree with me in 2010.
Did Hass’ supporting cast improve from 2009 to 2010?
Team offensive yards dropped from 5069 to 4765
Rushing yds dropped from 1566 with a 4.0 avg to 1424 with a 3.7 avg
Offensive TDs were stable at 27, FG dropped by 1
Offensive TDs surrendered were stable at 44
In summary, our run game was worse, our pass game was worse, our offense scored no more, and our defense gave up just as many TDs. I don’t think you can say that Hasselback’s supporting cast was really any better (I agree more long term hope). After all, the 2010 OL performed worse in the run game than the 2009 OL, and 2009 was effing miserable. Our pass protection was not much better than 2009, the reality is that Hasselback just avoided a few more sacks, and Whitehurst did too.
Smashmouth is the new sexy!
If you're going to dismiss stats this will just become a he said she said
So yeah, believe what you will. The original argument was about the 2010 Oline having “horrible” pass blocking. I just don’t see it. The stats don’t see it. If you see it, that’s fine, but you’re not going to convince me just by saying “it’s just so”. As for your “consistently used 6 or 7 blockers” argument, I’d note that the Seahawks used 3+ WR packages 45% of the time, which is pretty atypical of the kind of team you’re claiming us to be.
One thing I’m still not getting from your arguments. Considering the mess our Oline was in 2009, and you stress this multiple times, are you seriously arguing it was “not much better” last season? It had its fair share of having to reach into depth and the pre-season chaos sure hamstrung it, but a significant improvement seems almost a given by definition.
Quoting overall offensive stats with rather minimal differences doesn’t really tell me much at all. All I see is Hasselbeck getting even worse. He moved from throwing to Housh and Branch, who you derided, to BMW and (later in the season) Obomanu. He went from an absolute chaos at the Oline to a vastly improved Oline. Yet he regressed statistically. At that point, the whole “surrounding cast” argument starts carrying a lot less weight to me.
By all rights, the Patriots OL did not get any better or worse during 2008, but the FBO pass protection sure says they did. The reality is that the QB has as much effect on this stat as the OL. BAM!
And yet you argued Tom Brady, arguably the quarterback with the greatest pocket presence/feel in the history of the NFL, would “have a 50/50 chance” of having a career ending injury behind 2009’s line (even though Hasselbeck did not). I’m missing some consistency in your line of reasoning.
by Thomas Beekers on Jun 30, 2011 7:06 AM PDT up reply actions
in fair rebuttal
i said that the QB has as much effect on this stat as the OL. [{sacks+intentional grounding} / pass plays] is not a remotely adequate assessment of OL quality. IF it was, then the 2008 NE patriots would have performed as well as the 2007 and 2009, or rather, the 2007 and 2009 NE patriots would have performed as poorly as the 2008 team.
6 blockers = 5OL+TE, or 5OL+RB, with the TE or RB almost always committed to assisting with blocking/not being able to peel out for the dump off.
7 blockers = 5OL+2TE or 5OL+TE/RB, still leaves room for 3WR.
You say you can use “FBO pass protection” to say our OL improved, but then you argue that I can’t use “total yards” or “yards per rush avg” to say they aren’t much better. You say as bad as they were in 2009, “by definition” there must be “significant improvement”. But you refuse to accept that the 2010 raw stats show a 0.3 YPA decrease from 2009. *I’m missing some consistency in your line of reasoning.* If we had instead increased the YPA by 0.3, our rushing attack would be tied for 10th in the league, instead it is tied 2nd to last – to me that seems like the “definition of getting badder”. I’ll admit, there were times in 2010 where our OL looked like it was making strides, especially in the last 3 games, I think it is even more promising after our recent draft, and I am very optimistic about where it is going. But I am not fooling myself into thinking that it was anything but a miserably bad bottom 5 or 6 OL in 2010, and it WAS 31st in rushing. And just because Matt knows how to not take a sack (even if it is by throwing a horrible interception), it doesn’t mean that there was “significant improvement” in our OL play. There is a reason the OC was canned at the end of the year – it’s because the OL sucked and the run game sucked – just about as much as they sucked in 2009. I think it’s also a wake-up call for Bradley that the defense better not suck so much at the end of next year.
You say the OL was hamstrung by the preseason chaos and injuries, but you don’t seem to give Matt the same benefit of the doubt. His receiving corps was basically replaced, he was learning a somewhat new offense, with another OL that had no continuity and couldn’t open up the pass game with any success running, and his only remaining reliable target in Carlson was asked by the team to basically spend the year as a small OL who was downfield eligible. Before Matt broke his wrist the team was 5-3. 4 of his 5 multi INT games came playing with a broken left wrist, and the coaches still felt he was the best option.
Tom Brady … well ok, maybe hyperbole, but I’m honestly surprised Matt survived the last two years without a career ender, and I’m surprised, genuinely shocked even, that Whitehurst survived the Giants game with the 2010 OL.
You say Matt regressed statistically. I look at the last 3 games where we did see a bit of more consistent OL play, and what happens? Hasselback has QB ratings of 89.6, 113, and 94.2 playing @TB, NO, and @Chi – teams ranked 13th, 9th, and 5th in Pass Defense Efficiency by FBO. Give the man an OL and a healed wrist, and maybe he can win you some playoff games.
Smashmouth is the new sexy!
In fairer rebuttal
Using a TE to block or a RB to chip any free rusher is very regular practice. That’s not exactly in indictment against the line.
Those are some random ass stats to use. How is total yards a reflection on the O-line? And YPA? Seriously. Explain to me how those stats reflect on the O-line. Not to mention you keep bringing up rushing even though this discussion is about pass protection, two issues that can be separated.
Matt Hasselbeck know not to take a sack? The Hasselsack man? You must be watching a different QB. Ben Roethlisberger this is not. Also, Matt stayed, the Oline changed, so how can you explain a difference in sacks by the factor that actually stayed the same? There is no rhyme or reason to this.
The OC was canned because the OL coach retired prior to the season? Yeah, that makes a ton of sense, not like it could be because he wasn’t a good play-caller and ended up not fitting with Carroll’s vision.
I don’t have to give Matt the benefit of the doubt because this isn’t the first season this has been the case. Matt Hasselbeck has not been a good quarterback for three years now. Incidental games don’t change a sub-60% completion 52 to 34 TO-to-TD ratio.
by Thomas Beekers on Jun 30, 2011 9:18 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
in fairerest rebuttal
she don’t use honey, she don’t use butter, she don’t use jam, she uses vasilli! she uses vasilli!!!…sorry, joyful on a bourbon and coke and couldn’t pass it up.
a chip block is one thing, having Carlson stay in on downs with his only responsibility to block at the line on a pass play is a waste of a really talented receiver – but I guess at least hes on the field. putting forsett in the backfield to block rushers is typical, but usually the RB peels out for the outlet pass. Forsett would get so deep in the pass protection he either couldn’t peel out on time or even at all. I saw both of these things a lot – granted subjectively – I don’t keep stats while I am watching the game.
YPA is more dependent on OL than the RB for all but the elite RBs. again, certainly YPA is a combination of OL and RB ability. but as you have seen, if your OL breeds with elderberry and smells hamsters and is otherwise useless, your RB will be ineffective. So yeah, YPA is more useful in assessing quality of OL than sacks are in evaluating quality of OL.
Rothlesburger gets sacked almost twice as much as Hass. nuff said. The discussion isn’t who escapes more sacks, but rather who gets sacked less, and it is hasselback by far. Matts line quality in pass defense was pretty poor, he recongizes that, knows that hes not as spry anymore, and so to avoid the sack, he finds ways to throw the ball at receivers where there is no way the ball can be touched, throws it out of bounds, and sometimes tries to force the ball (usually a really bad decision). Rothlesburger is a big dude and lets guys crawl all over him hoping he can make a game changeing play and then takes the sack. two different philospohies. Matt has still quite limited receiving corps, so tends to throw it away. Rothie had Santonio Holmes, has Mike Wallace, Hines Ward and is confident they will do him right if he fights to the last second to get the pass away, and it pays off. If matt tries the same thing, he gets crushed and his receivers changing last year don’t always know what the are supposed to do. Total rhyme and reason. Matt doesn’t take the sack because with his limited receivers, it is not worth the risk of a sack to throw to a receiver who isn’t on the same page. Roth risks the sack because he has receivers he trusts, so stands in the pocket until hell or high water.
The OC was canned because after the OL coach quit, the OL became even more his responsibility. The OC is responsible for the OL, for the QB, for the WR, for the RB, and the TE. If his TE coach leaves during the season, it is the OCs job to get the TE in the right place. The OC was fired because his offense sucked top to bottom.
I don’t have to give Matt the benefit of the doubt either, because any way you slice it, this team couldn’t run the ball for 3 years, couldn’t catch the ball for three years, couldn’t get open on routes for 3 years, and couldn’t run or pass block for 3 years.
The guy plays tough, he plays to win, he does the work, when he has been given time (NO game) he has had some phenomenal games among many stinkers, he can still throw a hard ball (see the NO game again) – on that note I think he has started stepping into his throws during the NO game again, getting the lower flight and higher velocity. Probably the best sign the line is starting to get it together. I think with an improved line he land in a solid 8-12th best qb in the league next year, although this is more likely to happen in 2012.
Smashmouth is the new sexy!
All kinds of subjective goin' on in here.
In particular, I love how you attribute Matt’s good game against New Orleans to some kind of mystically-improved offensive line play.
Matt's terrible bro.
Not saying Charlie can get it done, but handing the job back to Matt Hasselbeck is giving up.
by FWBrodie on Jun 29, 2011 11:48 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Leinart is the worst QB in the NFL!!!!
in 29 games with one of the top 5 receiving corps from 2006-9, his passer rating is a woeful 70.8. He has thrown 3 TDs in his last 218 pass attempts compared to 8 interceptions, 1 TD in his last 106 attempts – and he has been throwing to Fitzgerald, Boldin, Breaston, and Doucet. Those guys are touchdown machines.
Seriously, Whisenhunt spent a lot of time thinking about it (3 years!) and decided that it was better to start Skelton, Hall or Anderson than Leinart.
Smashmouth is the new sexy!
Doesn't matter how great your receiving corp is if you have no o-line or running game...
Placing a perennial HOF QB in there vs. an unproven talent is a no-brainer.
Ka-Kaaa!
It's easy to throw out a 70.8 career rating for Leinart
but if this makes him the “worst QB in the the NFL!!!!” then Matt wasn’t far off with a 73.2 last year. Plus, the Cards QB’s managed to put up ratings as sky-high as 65.9 (DA), 62.3 (Skelton) and 35.7 (Hall) with those same “touchdown machines”. Leinart wasn’t cut because he lacked talent, he was cut because he’d gone into Arizona thinking of himself as a star and the veterans in the organisation resented him. He went to Houston where he seems to have grown up a bit, Kubiak had nothing but good things to say about his effort and work-rate last year. If he’s grown up and ready to knuckle down, I don’t see any harm in bringing him in and seeing if playing under PC again can revive his career.
Sure, it can't hurt to give him a chance, and it might pan out, but he really
has done absolutely nothing with his 4 year chance to do something. Honestly, I think Kelly Jennings has been a better pro football player than Leinart so far, and thats pretty damning.
Smashmouth is the new sexy!
It's all about the future, and not Leinert's past.
There is reason to believe (as cirarannh points out) that Leinert may be ready to make a career for himself. If he and PC have a good relationship (and I have no idea one way or the other) then it makes sense to bring him into Seattle and see.
On the otherhand, perhaps PC knows better, and doesn’t want anything to do with him. I haven’t seen any indication one way or another, other then folks on the outside recommeding the signing because of Seattle’s need and their history.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Field Gulls
Related FanShots on Field Gulls
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
