There seems to be multiple different opinions about Matt and whether he is the best choice to lead the team right now.

Some feel he hurts our chance of moving forward in finding our next franchise QB and others simply think he is either over the hill, or is injury prone and will never make it through the season and some even feel he was never good to begin with.

My feeling is Matt is our best QB and gives us the best chance to win now, along with the best chance to instill a winning attitude while giving PC and JS a chance to evaluate the talent on hand, both new and old.

We don't know how much Matt has left and there are many examples of QB's making strong come backs after having a spell of looking like they're career might be over.

In my opinion, Matt has earned the right to see if he still has what it takes. No one will ever convince me that under anything near normal circumstances, Matt would have a super bowl ring to accompany his MVP trophy.

Additionally we don't know what we have in CW yet and there are no other QB's in FA that come close to Matts upside.

This thread is not meant to be condesending, so please, if you feel you need to be, bypass it without comment.

Matt should be the starting QB in 2010.

Period.

I think whoever is performing the best by the end of the preseason should be the starting QB.

I see no benefit at all to releasing Matthew, and it would have to be a pretty damn good trade offer for me to consider it.

A lot has been written about whether it’s time to cut, trade, or bench Matt Hasselbeck. Some say his future is not what the Seahawks need and it’s time to turn the page and look forward NOW and not waste time before the inevitable. It’s a very ,very strong argument given his last two years performances, age, and health record.

I would point out though, he’s a proven probowl starting QB and has what no other QB on this roster has (and most QB’s on other NFL teams roster as well) playoff/Superbowl experience. This alone is reason enough, whether he sits or plays, not to cut him. He’s a valuable player if he can start or come off the bench.
He has injuries but, aside from the back (which didn’t appear to bother him last year) they have all been acute; one shoulder, bruised rib, and a Hyper-extended knee.
He’s long of tooth but, certainly not pass the age to be a viable NFL quarterback.


We can trade him but, his age, injuries, and mostly the fact he’s on the last year of his contract would preclude us from receiving more than he’s worth to this team. Not to mention we would be left with no proven starter to play this year, no veteran back-up, or future plan (outside a rookie draft pick) should Charlie Whitehurst prove not to live up his expectations. Even if Charlie does prove himself worthy to be the next Seahawk franchise QB, we still have no veteran back-up should he be injured.


We can bench him but, if Charlie can’t beat him out during training camp why have a training camp? If you‘re not going to put the best players on the field, get out of the game. It’s not fair to the team to ask them to do their best and hold out on them for some “hopeful” future reason, it’s not fair to the hard working, money paying, fans to not try to win every game possible, and I’m sure it’s against some NFL rule to not try to win all the games you can (OK, I’m lying about the last one, but I’d personally feel licentious and downright dirty throwing games for a future draft pick, but that’s just me)

If Charlie does beats out Matt I doubt he’d have any problem backing him up, provided he doesn’t have to watch him make blatant mistake after blatant mistake (that is to say having no reason to believe he wasn’t beat out at all), considering he’d be a free agent next year.


I say let the competition begin and may the best man win. Meanwhile carry on evaluating your back-up QBs for your next franchise player and then make your move.

IMO, Matt should start the season, but if they don't stay within a game or two of the division lead by game 10, then Matt should be pulled for Whitehurst regardless of how well he's playing. That gives CW a 6 game tryout to see if he's the man for 2011. Once there's no chance to win the division and make the playoffs, I don't see any reason Hass should continue playing.

SC27 wrote:IMO, Matt should start the season, but if they don't stay within a game or two of the division lead by game 10, then Matt should be pulled for Whitehurst regardless of how well he's playing. That gives CW a 6 game tryout to see if he's the man for 2011. Once there's no chance to win the division and make the playoffs, I don't see any reason Hass should continue playing.

Isn't training camp and preseason considered a try out? If Whitehurst can't beat out Matt in TC and PS, would he actually deserve getting the nod as a starter because our TEAM can't win enough to stay in the hunt? Makes no sense.

he should have to battle, thats all i'm saying. After the last two years and especially the last three games he needs to prove himself IMO. Nothing should be garunteed to anyone on this team, especially the players we saw a piss poor effort from last year.

I am for trading Hasselbeck away... but unfortunately that time has passed unless they do it mid-season (which seems highly unlikely unless some team gets desperate).

I think we are all in agreement that Hasselbeck gives us the best chance to win now, but I think that sacrifices too much of our future. We traded for Whitehurst, he's only locked in for 2 years, we need to see what we have.

Going back to the very beginning of the Hasselbeck/Dilfer duo, Holmgren went with the inexperienced QB over the proven vet. Barring injury, Dilfer wasn't going to see any playing time but it was the best move for the future (which I was totally against because I wanted to win now).

Now we are in almost the exact same position and I find myself on the otherside. I don't think winning now is the answer when we are depending on a team of rookies (we have a chance for 1/3 of the team on offense/defense to be rookies or 1st-time Seahawks). I don't want to sacrifice our future for one year of Matt to win 6-8 games.

I think it comes down to whether you think this year's Seattle team can seriously compete for the division title and make it into the postseason. If you think they can (or will), then I imagine you're going to go with Hasselbeck because of his experience. If you don't think so, then all we're doing is wasting a year in which we can see whether or not Whitehurst is capable of being our starter.

Personally, I think we will improve from last year, but I don't think we have a hope of winning the division or of winning in the postseason if we somehow managed to sneak in. There are still too many holes on the team, and while all of this offseason's moves have great potential, they would ALL need to pan out for us to be thinking of anything above .500. I look at this season, instead, as a transition year. The new offense is being installed, and new defensive concepts are being emphasized. There's a bunch of roster turnover. The team needs this year so they can build the foundation of what it is they want to do, rather than relying on all of the old pieces of Holmgren's team. And looking at the team this way, I think it makes the most sense to start Whitehurst if he's even close to Hasselbeck in camp. We have him on a 2-year contract, and it will be difficult to truly evaluate him based off of one season as the starter. I think we need to see what he can do sooner rather than later, or we're going to be facing 2011 with nothing but question marks at the QB position.

Oy. And the offseason doldrums return...

I got heat for saying that Whitehurst would be the starter by the end of the year but I'm going to stick with my comment. Sometimes you have to let go of the fan favourite to do what is best for the team. Guess we will see how the Eagles do without McNabb this year.

Well, first of all let me say that I believe that Hass will win the starting job, and he deserves the starting job if he proves he is better than CW.

However, I believe with what we have invested in CW and the fact that CW is not a 23-24 year old QB, we really should have traded Matt prior to the draft and gotten as much as possible for him. We need to find out what we have in CW. I would have been fine bringing him in for a look as the #2 QB and maybe a two or three year buffer after Matt is done if we hadn't included the 3rd rd pick from next year.

I just think it is impossible to approach this subject without talking about what we gave for CW. It was a poor deal.

Now, if we are setting that aside and just talking about who is better for us for this year then I believe that #8 is, and personally, I don't think it is close if he is healthy.

Mckinja wrote:

SC27 wrote:IMO, Matt should start the season, but if they don't stay within a game or two of the division lead by game 10, then Matt should be pulled for Whitehurst regardless of how well he's playing. That gives CW a 6 game tryout to see if he's the man for 2011. Once there's no chance to win the division and make the playoffs, I don't see any reason Hass should continue playing.

Isn't training camp and preseason considered a try out? If Whitehurst can't beat out Matt in TC and PS, would he actually deserve getting the nod as a starter because our TEAM can't win enough to stay in the hunt? Makes no sense.

I don't think SC27's comment was meant to say "Matt will be a bad QB if he doesn't win", but that if we're not a competitive team, we gain very little by playing a 34 year old QB on the last year of his contract.

Whether or not you like the Whitehurst deal, we invested a fair bit in him. Both in money and draft picks. Next offseason, we're going to be deciding whether we need to draft our QB of the future or if Whitehurst is the guy. I'd feel much better if we made that evaluation off of games than if we decided it based on TC or PS.

Starrman wrote:I just think it is impossible to approach this subject without talking about what we gave for CW.

I'd disagree. The draft is over, the deal is done, and we didn't spend nearly enough in draft picks on Whitehurst that we absolutely HAVE to start him because of the investment.

In my opinion, what drives the need to see if Whitehurst is starter material is a couple of things... Whitehurst's contract and Hasselbeck's contract.

Hass's contract is done after 2010. He's aging, has a history of injury, has a couple of pretty bad seasons to his name recently, and is clearly on the downslope of his career (though some here would say he's already reached the bottom of the slope). At the same time, he's also the face of the franchise... he's not a guy that Seattle is going to sign to another deal after this one is done so he can hold a clipboard and mentor the next guy. His shadow is too large because of what he accomplished as the Seahawks QB. So this is his last season in Seahawk blue, meaning we HAVE to find the answer at QB and we have to find it quickly.

Whitehurst's contract goes for 2 years, and then the team is forced to make a decision. Do they see him as a solid starter that can take them to the SB, or do they see him as a capable backup? We're not going to really know until we see him play in some real games, games that have meaning. Now, it's possible that the team intends to let Hasselbeck be the starter in 2010 and then send him off with a nice parting ceremony and gold watch, and then let Whitehurst start 2011 and make their judgments based on what he shows in practice this year and in regular season games next year. Maybe because he's been in the league for a long time, the team figures he'll need less seasoning and they'll be able to determine his value based on 16 games. I'd hope they'd give him more time than that to prove his worth, but they're running the show.

BlueTalon wrote:I think whoever is performing the best by the end of the preseason should be the starting QB.

/THREAD

There should be no other comments to the contrary of this. Its an open comp, if he wins, he wins, if he sucks, they're not going to start him just because he's been around here so long.

Thanks Snohomie, That clarifies exactly what I meant.

Let's see...do we bench a pro-bowl QB in order to start a guy who's never actually played in a regualr season NFL game. Hmmmm....

NO!!!!!

FLhawkfan wrote:Let's see...do we bench a pro-bowl QB in order to start a guy who's never actually played in a regualr season NFL game. Hmmmm....

NO!!!!!

And how many years removed is he from being anything close to a Pro-Bowler?

It's not like we're talking about someone in their prime.

If you want to win this year, you go with Hasselbeck.

If you want to plan for the future, you go with Whitehurst.

That's how it plays out for me.

FLhawkfan wrote:Let's see...do we bench a pro-bowl QB in order to start a guy who's never actually played in a regualr season NFL game. Hmmmm....

NO!!!!!

I wouldnt call # 8 a pro bowler a" FORMER" pro bowler yes but in recent not so much.

Should Matt be traded, released or moved to back up?

Yes. Any of those will work.

Snohomie wrote:

Mckinja wrote:

SC27 wrote:IMO, Matt should start the season, but if they don't stay within a game or two of the division lead by game 10, then Matt should be pulled for Whitehurst regardless of how well he's playing. That gives CW a 6 game tryout to see if he's the man for 2011. Once there's no chance to win the division and make the playoffs, I don't see any reason Hass should continue playing.

Isn't training camp and preseason considered a try out? If Whitehurst can't beat out Matt in TC and PS, would he actually deserve getting the nod as a starter because our TEAM can't win enough to stay in the hunt? Makes no sense.

I don't think SC27's comment was meant to say "Matt will be a bad QB if he doesn't win", but that if we're not a competitive team, we gain very little by playing a 34 year old QB on the last year of his contract.

Whether or not you like the Whitehurst deal, we invested a fair bit in him. Both in money and draft picks. Next offseason, we're going to be deciding whether we need to draft our QB of the future or if Whitehurst is the guy. I'd feel much better if we made that evaluation off of games than if we decided it based on TC or PS.

I get what you're saying, Kyle. But I would ask you this: Pretend you're a Seahawk. If Matt gets pulled mid way through the season (presuming he's performing adequately) for no other reason than the team is out of contention and the coaches want to give Charlie a tryout, what does that do to the whole notion of "the best player at each position will start"? In my mind it would undercut that philosophy.

We did give up quite a bit for Chuck. The coaching staff must see something in him, otherwise they wouldn't have brought him in for the price we paid. If Matt isn't brought back next year, Whitehurst will have the whole year to prove himself as a legitimate NFL QB or confirm his previous position on the SD depth chart. Regardless, I think next offseason, we'll be getting a QB whether CW is the guy or not.

He went to the pro bowl in 2007. So that was three years ago. In 2008, he missed 3/4 of the season because of a bad back. Hard to consider his play awful that year because he didn't play much. Last year, yes, he had an awful year. He also had a subpar (injury riddled) year in 2006 but bounced back in 2007 to have his best year of his career (numbers wise). The age is always an issue (can't turn back the clock). What can change and possibly help him is to devise a scheme that allows him to play to his strength and build the team around him. He hasn't had a consistent run game since 2005. Last year, it took a long time to establish a running game, by then the season was all but over. Even with Forsett or Jones, neither of those guys scared defenses like SA did in his prime or even Ricky Watters before him. The OL with no run attack has added pressure to Matt. Matt does an excellent job at managing the game, reading defenses, and accurate short-mid range passes. He get's in trouble when he feels he needs to take the team on his shoulders and then starts to force the action. That's what happened last year. The coaches, scheme (lack thereof), may have factored into a lot of what went wrong last year. Hopefully, he can turn it around. If not, Whitehurst, Teel, Reilly or someone else will take over. NFL is also an acronym for "Not For Long". SA experienced it and if Matt doesn't improve, he will too. With that said, I like Matt and in the right scheme with right players around him can do well. He's intelligent but one has to create plays and offense that use his strengths. The coaches couldn't do that last year. Maybe Bates/PC can. We'll see.

I'd trade Hasselbeck if there were an offer on the table, and I think it's better for our long-term future if Whitehurst starts (even if it results in a few less wins this season), but at the very least, there needs to be an open and honest QB battle. I don't like that it seems to be a "Hasselbeck's job to lose" situation. Forget what they've done in the past; whoever shows in camp/preseason that they can run the offense more effectively starts the year.

lostlobos wrote:
No one will ever convince me that under anything near normal circumstances, Matt would have a super bowl ring to accompany his MVP trophy.
.

So you think Matt Hasselbeck has MVP type ability? I just want to make sure i read that correctly.

He has had some good seasons, been our best QB ever. But i wouldnt go so far as to say that he is MVP quality.

Not by a long shot.

Matt's the leader of this franchise and is the glue that will hold things together on offense as all the pieces come together, that alone is enough to have him inserted as the starter for a team that will have a learning curve. As far as injurys go when you have a seive for a line I don't care who is back there they will get beat up, Matts toughness in itself going thru that is an example of competitiveness and never say die menatality, something the rest of the team will follow by example and take on as the identity of the team.

He's not old really, a lot of QB's if they stay in the system are very good thru their mid 30's. Farve, Gannon, Warner, Plunkett, Jourgenson, are just a few examples, Doug Williams also that played at a high level. Matts asked to manage the games and make smart decisions, he gets in trouble when he tries to put the team on his back and do more. Thats just his desire to win and try to compensate for others.

Whitehurst being a direct line to mentor and learn from Matt will only benefit, he will get reps, he will be the QB in waiting presumably. He will have time to learn the system, earn the respect of the team and learn to lead. This will help him greatly if Matt goes down, or is not brought back next year.

Only thing I see possible at this point is Minnesota making a trade for him if Farve does not come back, and they will pay for him. Why because he's a winner, knows the system, is not goint to be a one year wonder and a problem, and with that team can get them where they want to go.

Farve has not cleaned out his locker in Minnesota yet so thats a reach, but if there was anyplace Matt would end up this late that would be it.

Pete Carroll said from the beginning - you get your QB and you build around him. So far, this appears to be happening. Improved O-line, improved running game, and more options at receiver. PC is putting Hass in a position to succeed. Ruskell and company obviously didn't do that.

SO, with the improved O-line, better run support, more options at receiver, AND competition from CW, Matt is poised for a comeback year. He's going to battle, and he's not going to go away quietly. If he loses the job, then clearly, CW is our best bet at QB.

But given the current circumstances, I don't think he'll lose this battle. We've seen the spazzlebeck when he's hurt or has no protection, but we've also seen the Hasslebeck-led, 4th-quarter, 2-minute offense comeback for the win.

Mckinja wrote:

Snohomie wrote:I don't think SC27's comment was meant to say "Matt will be a bad QB if he doesn't win", but that if we're not a competitive team, we gain very little by playing a 34 year old QB on the last year of his contract.

Whether or not you like the Whitehurst deal, we invested a fair bit in him. Both in money and draft picks. Next offseason, we're going to be deciding whether we need to draft our QB of the future or if Whitehurst is the guy. I'd feel much better if we made that evaluation off of games than if we decided it based on TC or PS.

I get what you're saying, Kyle. But I would ask you this: Pretend you're a Seahawk. If Matt gets pulled mid way through the season (presuming he's performing adequately) for no other reason than the team is out of contention and the coaches want to give Charlie a tryout, what does that do to the whole notion of "the best player at each position will start"? In my mind it would undercut that philosophy.

We did give up quite a bit for Chuck. The coaching staff must see something in him, otherwise they wouldn't have brought him in for the price we paid. If Matt isn't brought back next year, Whitehurst will have the whole year to prove himself as a legitimate NFL QB or confirm his previous position on the SD depth chart. Regardless, I think next offseason, we'll be getting a QB whether CW is the guy or not.

If the season is lost, that philosophy isn't doing us any good anyways. Tell everyone that they are competing for their jobs next year and go with youth. Tell the players you want to mix it up to see if different combination of players will win more games (my favorite, it shows that the coaching staff isn't just keeping the status quo, they're trying new things to win). Hell, shelve Matt with an injury (cause you know by the halfway mark something or another will be bothering him) and use that as your excuse. Any of those work. Let's be honest - coaches make plenty of mistakes evaluating players - Chuck Darby vs Mebane, JJ vs Forsett (JJ vs anyone?), Kelly Herndon vs Kelly Jennings, etc. (Yes, they're not this coaching staff, but we see backups outperforming the initial starters all the time on lots of teams) Letting a young guy play may not even make the team worse, it could prove beneficial.

I'd rather give myself an improved chance of making the playoffs in 2011 than possibly an improved chance of winning meaningless games (and I don't buy momentum, I haven't heard one person here talk about how we have to fight the negative momentum of last year, why should positive momentum exist but not negative? Besides, every player says "it's 0-0 right now" when it's time to start the season) in 2010.

Waiting until after 2011 to make a decision on a QB would be a big mistake. Matt will almost assuredly be gone and Whitehurst's contract will be up. Whoever we bring in will be under a ton of pressure to start right away, and likely it'd be a rookie QB. QBs who start as rookies tend to fail at a higher rate than those who spend a year or two learning things, and the ones who succeed usually do so with a great running attack (Pitt with Big Ben, Baltimore with Flacco, Atlanta with Ryan). Even with a great running attack, I still believe it'd be smarter to pick your QB in 2010 and let him learn the ropes - because a rookie QB with a great running attack might make the playoffs by protecting the QB, but if the QB is capable of helping the offense (as opposed to not screwing the offense) it could really improve the team.

Taking a QB in 2010 without seeing Whitehurst in a game would be almost as big an error. While it may not screw things up like starting a rookie QB, it would be a poor use of resources. I'd much rather have a realistic idea of what Whitehurst brings to the table than go into the draft blind. Maybe Whitehurst is actually a darn good QB, and you just took a QB in the first round because you let Matt go 16 (well, that's unlikely... 13?) games. You can't go just off practice either, IMO. Some guys practice at a different level than they play, not due to effort or anything but practice does not simulate an actual game.

Tech Worlds wrote:

lostlobos wrote:
No one will ever convince me that under anything near normal circumstances, Matt would have a super bowl ring to accompany his MVP trophy.
.

So you think Matt Hasselbeck has MVP type ability? I just want to make sure i read that correctly.

He has had some good seasons, been our best QB ever. But i wouldnt go so far as to say that he is MVP quality.

Not by a long shot.

My comment was refering to SBXL and had the Seahawks been allowed to play (thus the anything near normal circumstances) we would have won and Matt would have definatley been the super bowl MVP.

I will say, if Matt comes in healthy and a few things go right, like Mike Williams provides a Jurevicous type reciever and Tate/Housh,Branch and Butler perform well and not only run the right routes, but finish them, along with better pass protection and a decent running game, If Matt perfrormed at the level he did in 05 or 06, I wouldn't be suprised.

It may sound like alot, but IMO, it should be expected including the defense playing well enough to keep average teams from running the score up on us.

Matt has proven he can perform with a half way decent WR core and an average level defense, he did it in 06 when Holmgren announced to the NFL, we're gonna throw the ball, and throw the ball we did. That year was also a year with a below average running game (thus the, we're gonna throw the ball) and no above average recievers.

The only question is, how much does he still have? 34 is not ancient for a QB and many QB's have made stellar comebacks past that age.

Snohomie wrote:Taking a QB in 2010 without seeing Whitehurst in a game would be almost as big an error. While it may not screw things up like starting a rookie QB, it would be a poor use of resources. I'd much rather have a realistic idea of what Whitehurst brings to the table than go into the draft blind. Maybe Whitehurst is actually a darn good QB, and you just took a QB in the first round because you let Matt go 16 (well, that's unlikely... 13?) games. You can't go just off practice either, IMO. Some guys practice at a different level than they play, not due to effort or anything but practice does not simulate an actual game.

I have a feeling we'll see Whitehurst in "real" action this coming season whether it be him beating out Matt for the #1 job, Matt getting injured, garbage time, etc. Regardless of whether Whitehurst turns out to be nothing, a hidden super star, or something in between; IMO we need another QB, especially if Matt is not re-signed.

Man, you guys are crazy!

Matt is only two seasons removed from a Pro Bowl season (his third). One of those seasons he was injured for most of the season (like everyone else on the offence that year) and the other he was stuck in a stupid system run by that moron Greg Knapp. Last year he tried (and failed) to put the team on his back because everyone and everything else about that offence was awful.

Give him a decent system, decent targets, a running game to draw attention away from him, keep him upright and Matt will LIGHT IT UP. So long as he isn't thrust into a position where he feels he has to play "gunslinger" to make something happen, Matt is a great QB. I predict he wins the comeback player of the year, or is at least part of the conversation.

CW was brought in to be a capable back up (ie: not Seneca) and a fire under Matt's ass.

For the past two offseasons we have heard that Matt (if healthy) will light it up and win the comeback player of the year award. Even if we assume that he is 100% healthy, he still can't make all the throws. He had trouble with some of the deeper outs and flies with Holmgren here and he will have even more trouble in Bates' system. It hurst to say it because I'm a huge MH fan, but even if Matt is 100% healthy, he still isn't good enough for this system, imo.

MeenReen wrote:For the past two offseasons we have heard that Matt (if healthy) will light it up and win the comeback player of the year award. Even if we assume that he is 100% healthy, he still can't make all the throws. He had trouble with some of the deeper outs and flies with Holmgren here and he will have even more trouble in Bates' system. It hurst to say it because I'm a huge MH fan, but even if Matt is 100% healthy, he still isn't good enough for this system, imo.

Hmm so did a guy named Montana, or Dave Kreig, or Bob Greise, Matt can throw the ball adequetly down field, I mean you could have Joe Gilliam, J Russell, Ryan Leaf and others if ya just want to chuck it down field but then you have to worry about game management, and making the right decisions.

Besides most of the games receivers make their yards on RAC. Home run balls happen but you can't base an offense on them specifically.

I'll take Matt thank you very much.

hoxrox wrote:Pete Carroll said from the beginning - you get your QB and you build around him.

This is the best reason I've seen so far for getting rid of Hasselbeck. Why would you build around a QB who is only going to be here for one year at most?

It really is too bad we can't get anything for him in trade. With the way our FO handled the draft, we may have plucked another starter if we could have got a 4th round pick for him.

I say we just make him the #2 man and let him play out his contract. No need to release him, as I'm not sold on Teel as a primary backup.

We need to see what we have in Charlie. We really haven't given up much to get him...if he ends up a capable #2 we've paid about right, if he ends up starter quality, we've stolen him. But we really need to find out if we have to draft Mallet or Luck next year.

seattlesetters wrote:
We need to see what we have in Charlie. We really haven't given up much to get him... if he ends up a capable #2 we've paid about right, if he ends up starter quality, we've stolen him. But we really need to find out if we have to draft Mallet or Luck next year.

I'm pretty sure the equivalent of a 3rd and a 4th is pretty steep for adequate backup. I mean, we gave up Seneca (who can't possibly be considered less than a capable #2) for, what, a 2011 7th? 2011 6th?

Snohomie wrote:I don't buy momentum

Me neither. At least not on a team level, especially with the overhaul of a typical offseason. Individual momentum? Sure, in some cases. But that just lends itself even more to giving Whitehurst meaningful reps this year instead of having him carry a clipboard in favor of an on-the-outs 35 year old (in Sept.) QB.

Snohomie wrote:I'm pretty sure the equivalent of a 3rd and a 4th is pretty steep for adequate backup. I mean, we gave up Seneca (who can't possibly be considered less than a capable #2) for, what, a 2011 7th? 2011 6th?

Not to mention the Raiders acquired a superior prospect in Jason Campbell for a 2012 conditional 4th rounder that they will only have to pay if Campbell leads his team to the playoffs or makes a pro-bowl.

On topic:

I think the chance to trade Hass has come and gone. Holmgren offered the Hawks one of his 3rd rounders, but Seattle turned it down. Since then, he's added 3 QBs, including Jake Delhomme who is basically Hasselbeck-lite and on a similar contract. Not a lot of other teams could make use of Hasselbeck, who would need a great OL and a precision offense. The only other reasonably possible suitor is Minnesota if Favre actually retires and leaves the Vikings holding the bag (don't count on it).

Hass will remain a Seahawk and the way things are going, he will start as long as he is physically able to. Seattle has an outside shot at winning the division so this isn't a completely idiotic idea, but I'd rather start Whitehurst, even if it means blowing a chance for an 8-8 playoff berth. Without getting into the draft implications (which would be significant) of such a scenario, I just think that for the sake of not wasting a big investment, Seattle needs to get Whitehurst some real reps. I can easily imagine a scenario where Seattle passes on Ryan Mallett or Jake Locker next year because they still want to see more from Whitehurst, and they have a DE/WR that they rate as highly. That would be a fatal mistake.

As such, starting Hasselbeck this year could lead to a domino effect that damages the team long term at the QB position, (especially if he plays well enough to get an extension). We can look back and see how trading a future 3rd last year for Butler may very well have cost the team the ability to draft Clausen at #40 (since not having that 3rd this year complicated the CW deal).

I've accepted that Hass will be the starter, but if I was running this team, he wouldn't be. Of course, I'll root for him like I always do, but I will root harder for Whitehurst this preseason.

Kearly,

Where does that 3rd round offer come from? Heard it a few times but never seen a source. Hard for me to believe it. If true and they turned it down, I want both fired immediately.

I think that Pete Carroll and John Schneider should be fired and Matt should take over as GM/Head Coach. John Schneider could be the team mascot and Pete Carroll can join the cheerleaders.

Woooo!! Go Seahawks!

Snohomie wrote:

seattlesetters wrote:
We need to see what we have in Charlie. We really haven't given up much to get him... if he ends up a capable #2 we've paid about right, if he ends up starter quality, we've stolen him. But we really need to find out if we have to draft Mallet or Luck next year.

I'm pretty sure the equivalent of a 3rd and a 4th is pretty steep for adequate backup. I mean, we gave up Seneca (who can't possibly be considered less than a capable #2) for, what, a 2011 7th? 2011 6th?

I think you are wrong there. Obviously some people do consider Seneca to be less than a capable #2 QB. Probably most of the league.

BlueTalon wrote:

Snohomie wrote:

seattlesetters wrote:
We need to see what we have in Charlie. We really haven't given up much to get him... if he ends up a capable #2 we've paid about right, if he ends up starter quality, we've stolen him. But we really need to find out if we have to draft Mallet or Luck next year.

I'm pretty sure the equivalent of a 3rd and a 4th is pretty steep for adequate backup. I mean, we gave up Seneca (who can't possibly be considered less than a capable #2) for, what, a 2011 7th? 2011 6th?

I think you are wrong there. Obviously some people do consider Seneca to be less than a capable #2 QB. Probably most of the league.

Or, the price of a #2 is pretty darn low... That was my intent in bringing up Seneca...

I think Hass will win the QB competition and be the starter. However, Whitehurst should be able to get enough playing time as a non starter to allow PC et. al. to "see what he's got". As I recall in years past there have even been a few situations where 2 QB's pretty much shared the QB duties. That may not be a bad option this year because it would allow "old Man" Hass to get some rest and perhaps extend his career (and have less injuries)while at the same time allowing Whithurst the opportunity for some "on the job training". Also, I assume we'll have some "blow out" games (both ways) this year and PC can let the young dude run the show to reduce Hass's work load.

kearly wrote:As such, starting Hasselbeck this year could lead to a domino effect that damages the team long term at the QB position, (especially if he plays well enough to get an extension). We can look back and see how trading a future 3rd last year for Butler may very well have cost the team the ability to draft Clausen at #40 (since not having that 3rd this year complicated the CW deal).

Have you not paid any attention to the Panthers team thinking Clausen is full of him self, and Steve Smith basically saying Clausen is a punk. I would have watched him in Seattle ruin our organization.

Hasselbeck has gotten way to little credit, everyone complains about the WR and OL situations as glaring holes. Tell me if Peyton Manning couldn't get 3 seconds in the pocket and even if he did his WR screwed up half the time, would he would put up good numbers in the league? I thought so. Matt has been an average QB with little help. Imagine what he can do with good help.

Hasselbeck waited 2 years behind a future HOF in Brett Favre. Whitehurst has sat three years behind Phillip Rivers one of the leagues premier QBs. I am confident in his ability to play, an become a leader. Saying that though, Matt is already a leader and has played average football with little help, with the help he will receive this year, i am even confident in his ability to be a top 10 QB this year. Im calling it right now, He will get a 2 year deal after this year.

I think anyone who thinks we are gunna take Locker or a QB period in the top half of the draft(rounds 1-3) is crazy! If it is Matt's last year than ofcourse we will aim for a second or third stringer.

Im way more interested on if Mike Teel or Mike Reilly gets cut, or if they both stay. If they both remain i guarantee no QB will be taken next year.

Logical Seahawk wrote:

kearly wrote:As such, starting Hasselbeck this year could lead to a domino effect that damages the team long term at the QB position, (especially if he plays well enough to get an extension). We can look back and see how trading a future 3rd last year for Butler may very well have cost the team the ability to draft Clausen at #40 (since not having that 3rd this year complicated the CW deal).

Have you not paid any attention to the Panthers team thinking Clausen is full of him self, and Steve Smith basically saying Clausen is a punk. I would have watched him in Seattle ruin our organization.

Have you paid any attention? That rumor was bogus from day 1. You could smell it a mile away with the "we're told" as its source. Anyone who believes what they read on PFT, and bleacher report for that matter as truth is gulible. And when that douche Florio who started that rumor was expected to go on the air with Steve Smith he tucked his slimey little tail and ran like a bitch yesterday. This hate on Jimmy Clausen and love fest for Tim Tebow is a joke. Here's a link to Steve Smiths actual opinion.

http://wfnz.cbslocal.com/2010/05/07/ste ... #more-3446

ah ha cats still hate Clausen? this is ridiculous. When Clausen tears it up in Carolina, don't say i told ya so

Pete Carroll has a pretty good track record of turning very young QBs into NFL quality QBs. Whether they start and play for four years, start for a short time, or come off the bench he always seemed to have adequate players to run his offense.

If this equates to the NFL or not remains to be seen, at the very least we can say, he has an eye for talent and apparently knows what he’s looking for to run his offensive schemes. Should he see someone in the draft next year, my only hope would be the FO doesn’t reach to take him and does what they did this year, take value at each round.

But back to topic, if Charlie Whitehurst is a “franchise type” QB his talent should show through during training camp, preseason, practice, and field play when he’s needed. If he’s not the right fit, it makes no difference what you traded to get him you’re only throwing good money after bad to prove you didn’t make a mistake (something I hope this FO never does).

IMO, you start the best players at each position, each regular season game, whether they’re a ten year veteran, free agent, first round draft pick, or a UFA. No exception.

If you recall Hass was Mr. August for Green Bay when he got a chance to play, where it was not starter caliber players he was able to tear them up, an indication he was able to pick apart teams, play smart and show his potential.

If Whitehurst is that good it will show.

Oh and as far as Pete and QB's, they were coached a lot by a guy on the other side of the lake, Sark worked with them much more the Pete, possibly why you seen a drop off last year at USC in QB play.

The best man will compete for the job, Matt will be assumed starter, but they will be testing the CW waters (not just in camp).

The reality of our Oline might be a better litmus ...
If you think our Oline's going to magically and imediately improve overnight...well, it's "possible" but not realistic. Teams/coaches had our number long enough now, "bring 'em in, and keep bringing them in and watch the Hawks fold". That's how it went down last year especially.

One is an experienced QB in his final contract yr, but one with wheels/scramble ability of molasses (yes, even compared to CW), a developed problem telgraphing now (uugh), and an arm that I question (forget the long ball...I'm just talking 6-10yrd outs), ...on top of a history of some of the most boneheaded ints seen in the league.
I trust his reads at the line however.

The other is unproven as of yet. I don't expect him to "light it up" his first yr with this nominally revamped team...but more consistent play from him is more plausible then the QB above overcoming the issues I see and listed.

The Hass days are closing (being nice here, I think they closed already), it's time to think about the future. Play Whitehurst as much as possible, if he supercedes...he's now your starter and likely QB candidate to move fwd with.

Unsilent_Majority wrote:

Logical Seahawk wrote:

kearly wrote:As such, starting Hasselbeck this year could lead to a domino effect that damages the team long term at the QB position, (especially if he plays well enough to get an extension). We can look back and see how trading a future 3rd last year for Butler may very well have cost the team the ability to draft Clausen at #40 (since not having that 3rd this year complicated the CW deal).

Have you not paid any attention to the Panthers team thinking Clausen is full of him self, and Steve Smith basically saying Clausen is a punk. I would have watched him in Seattle ruin our organization.

Have you paid any attention? That rumor was bogus from day 1. You could smell it a mile away with the "we're told" as its source. Anyone who believes what they read on PFT, and bleacher report for that matter as truth is gulible. And when that douche Florio who started that rumor was expected to go on the air with Steve Smith he tucked his slimey little tail and ran like a bitch yesterday. This hate on Jimmy Clausen and love fest for Tim Tebow is a joke. Here's a link to Steve Smiths actual opinion.

http://wfnz.cbslocal.com/2010/05/07/ste ... #more-3446

Maybe Logical is the unnamed source?

BlueTalon wrote:Maybe Logical is the unnamed source?

Might as well be. I'm not against reading the site with a grain of salt, but if you read anything that is from an unnamed source or similar word usage don't believe it. Imo unless Adam Shefter, Jay Glazer, or Jason La Canfora are standing by the rumor I don't believe it. And yes I left Peter King and John Clayton off that list cuz imo half of what they say is speculation these days. Shefter, Glazer, and La Canfora just report what they hear and have awesome inside sources.

chris98251 wrote:
Oh and as far as Pete and QB's, they were coached a lot by a guy on the other side of the lake, Sark worked with them much more the Pete, possibly why you seen a drop off last year at USC in QB play.

True, but I feel USCs drop off at QB (if you want to call 9-3 a drop off) had more to do with Sanchez leaving as a junior and having to start Barkley as a true freshman, before he was ready, than anything else.

Perhaps not that much different than the QB situation for the Seahawks now.