clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

Hamdan's Cut Raises Eyebrows

    He'll be Amsterdammed.

Turns out I'm not the only one who thought the Seahawks' waiving of QB Gibran Hamdan was a little perplexing. Ordinarily the competition for the spot of third-string QB would be about as enthralling as a speed origami contest, but there have been several unusual angles to the Seahawks' riff on the story.

The Seahawks made some casual glances around the league for a veteran backup in the off-season, in the hopes that an experienced QB on the bench would free up Seneca Wallace to make some plays at wide receiver. (Say, how's Seneca at tight end? Ha. Yes, that was grim laughter.)

There's the shaky incumbent David Greene, who last Saturday answered the question of whether or not he could scramble. (Answer: another grim laugh, only a bit louder.)

And there's Hamdan, who had a stellar year in 2006 with the (this one's for phildopip) "Amsterdam Admirals." It was also thought that Hamdan appeared to have the edge over Greene in camp, and not a few people predicted Hamdan would be taking over the position as a result.

I'm not sure anybody had Hamdan being cut in the first round of roster slashes, but that's what happened. And although it's not the most pressing issue in the Seahawks' preseason drama, it is a matter of great curiosity: If Hamdan so thoroughly outgunned Greene for the job, why was he cut?

Holmgren's answer, according to Sando, is "they thought Hamdan was closer to being a finished product, whereas they hadn't seen Greene play enough to know what his potential might be." Sando remarks that Holmgren feels Greene had more "upside."

Doug Farrar at jumps in with some interesting observations. Hamdan outperformed Greene in nearly every aspect in camp: arm strength, poise, execution. Combined with last season and what we've seen so far this year, nobody is ready to compose epic poems about the greatness of David Greene's NFL career.

Farrar raises some possibilities: Was it Hamdan's history with injuries? Not wanting to give up on Greene because it would make Ruskell's draft selection look bad? (I don't think that's it.) Holmgren's hope to craft yet a fifth great quarterback from a mound of putty with joy buzzers for feet?

I suppose those are all valid ideas, but the timing of the move is what I can't figure out: using the first roster cut to release a superior player, letting the inferior player remain a Seahawk.

And that's when I thought: Maybe the Seahawks aren't done looking for a veteran backup. Or maybe they have a beeline on one that might become available during the season. In the interim, until that search is done, they might as well use a roster spot on Greene so they could work on aspects of his game.

Reading that theory back just now, it seems batty. Why would a professional team, a shoe-in contender, allot one valuable spot out of 53 for a re-education project? Even temporarily? It doesn't make sense.

But then again, releasing Hamdan a week early doesn't make total sense either -- not when it's agreed he's closer to being a leader than Greene. So maybe there is something going on in the boardroom that's affecting this situation.

I suppose that if somebody puts up a sign saying "This Space Reserved for Tim Rattay" in the Seahawks' parking lot this autumn, we'll have our answer.