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

A collection of NET's best and most memorable threads. Predictions, debates, laughs, and X's & O's. Rating: PG to NC-17
  • If they draft someone in 2011 and Whitehurst is a stud, they wasted massive resources.

    Doesn't Schneider (and his mentor Wolf) preach that quarterbacks are stockable assets, meaning that you can never have enough good ones? They seem to have a philosophy that good quarterbacks, even parked on the bench, are an excellent way to store future draft picks, at least more so than any other position on the field. A commodity of sorts.

    I agree, Whitie will see the field in 2010. Just not to start the season, unless he kicks Matt's ass in camp and pre-season, which I think is unlikely.
    SEAHAWKS.NET. We All We Got, We All We Need
    User avatar
    Scottemojo
    *Scott of Smacksville*
    *Scott of Smacksville*
     
    Posts: 11266
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:14 am


  • Sure, drafting a QB in rounds 2-7 is a stockable asset. How many times did Wolf draft QBs in round 1?

    Drafting a QB in the top 15 means passing on another position and you will not recoup that value in a trade.


    That is what I am talking about, passing on a 1st round QB. If they just plan to give Charlie the job in 2011 and take a QB in round 4, fine. But they damn well better be right about Charlie (or get lucky with that 4th round pick) otherwise the franchise be screwed.
    Last edited by MARTYREDwarner on Thu May 13, 2010 11:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


  • Fanboy,

    I advocated the current approach to the QB position before Carroll/Schneider were even hired (in other forums) so maybe that's why I understand it. Instead of betting the whole farm on one guy, a high draft pick QB like JaMarcus Russell, you accumulate lower risk guys and let them compete. Instead of being taken down for five years like the Raiders were, you get high upside, low downside guys like Whitehurst, see if they pan out and cut them if they don't. If you happen to accumulate too many good QBs you trade them for high draft picks.

    Don't know about you but I want 12-4, division titles, bye weeks, and Super Bowls.


    The Jets were strong enough to win the Super Bowl. Anyone watching them saw how close they came. That's all you can ask from your team. Contending for the title. '05 was a successful year for the Seahawks. If we would have had a few more like that, they probably would have won the Super Bowl. The point is that, again, there are many different formulas for contending. Too many people get caught up in one formula and then tear their own team a new one when they don't follow it. That's misguided.
    "Unless you were in that meeting room and know what we're supposed to do, don't assume!" -T.J.H.
    User avatar
    JohnnyB
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 358
    Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 9:36 pm


  • What formula did the Jets use? Didn't they spend a 1st on a QB?

    The Jets barely made the playoffs, how well they did in the playoffs does not demonstrate a formula, it took luck just to have the chance to make the run (only about 25% of 9 win teams even make the playoffs), I ain't counting on those odds, you can, I ain't.


    If you want to let a bunch of guys compete fine, it will still take a few years to find the guy.

    Johnny, I think you are counting on lightning in the bottle way too much.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


  • What formula did the Jets use? Didn't they spend a 1st on a QB?


    Yeah, and they tossed him right in without any years sitting on the bench. Why? Because they had spent all their resources on other positions and the team was strong enough to contend without needing a Pro Bowl QB.

    Contention at the end of the season is what you want in the NFL. Many teams start the season weakly and get better. That was the Jets. The true test of a team's real strength is how they play against other playoff teams. The Jets definitely proved themselves in that regard. I'll take their level of play in the last playoffs every season. Wouldn't you?

    Lightning in a bottle? That's what you need when you bank everything on one specific way of doing things. Instead, why not give your team twenty different ways to succeed? Why bank everything on one player like the Raiders did? There's better ways.
    "Unless you were in that meeting room and know what we're supposed to do, don't assume!" -T.J.H.
    User avatar
    JohnnyB
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 358
    Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 9:36 pm


  • Sorry but 9-7 is not a formula for success, it just isn't.

    Would I take what they did in the playoffs? Sure.

    The problem? 3 out of 4 years, they would not have even gotten that chance. That is a massive problem.


    I have no desire to bank on one player, I'd say its the Hasselbeck camp that is banking on 1 player, Matt needs to return to 2007 form for this team to have a chance, that is the very definition of banking on 1 player. Worst of all even with him playing that well this is probably an 8 to 9 win team so in addition to banking on that one player you are banking on a 1 in 4 shot (at best) of even making the playoffs, then you are banking on getting really hot in the playoffs.

    I am recognizing that the odds of a Super Bowl title in 2010 are long (at best) and while I am not punting the season I am going to try to compete while also finding the answers for 2011 and beyond. Again as I have said before if you believe in Matt you should already be trying to sign him to an extension, since they have not done this I can only assume that even the front office is questioning his long term effectiveness. Why would you go into a season trying to catch lightning in the bottle with a player that you are unsure will even re-gain his form?

    It makes no sense to me, sorry it just doesn't. And it has nothing to do with hating Matt Hasselbeck, its just an odd way to go about roster construction.


    I'd have traded Matt for a 3rd (although I still don't buy that such a deal was offered but it is rumored), gone with Whitehurst, probably drafted Clausen or Tebow (or some other QB/kept Teel if I liked neither), and added another youngish veteran (probably jumped into the Campbell sweepstakes after Washington added McNabb), let those 3 compete for the job and done my best to try to win in 2010 and beyond.

    I just gave myself 3 chances to find my long term answer and personally do not feel that such a move would have been giving up on 2010 (especially if you made the move for Campbell), lightning in the bottle could still hit with 1 of those 3 options.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


  • I'd have traded Matt for a 3rd (although I still don't buy that such a deal was offered but it is rumored), gone with Whitehurst, probably drafted Clausen or Tebow


    Since you certainly couldn't have counted on getting either of them in the second round, you would have had to use at least the 14 pick. This means that the QB would have had a huge contract. No way are you going to have any serious competition for the position without this high draft pick QB getting many many more opportunities than anyone else to start and play. You just can't invest those huge dollars (30-50 million) for a guy sitting on the bench unless there really is going to be no salary cap. So you don't really have 3 chances, you can't afford Campbell and the high draft pick QB either pans out or loses you a lot of games, while costing you valuable cap dollars you could have used on making the rest of the team stronger.
    "Unless you were in that meeting room and know what we're supposed to do, don't assume!" -T.J.H.
    User avatar
    JohnnyB
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 358
    Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 9:36 pm


  • OK, lets do it Warners way,

    We start CW and make Matt the back up. Now per your formula, we need for CW to either do very good or very bad, otherwise you don't know what you have and you are sure to lose Matt.

    So now its the 2011 offseaon, you won 6 games and Charlie had an OK year, nothing spectacular, just OK, Not bad, Just OK. This by the way is the most likely scenario.
    Now what do you do?

    So what if CW looks terrible, but the defense and running game, combined with a weak schedule muster you up, 6 or 7 wins?

    Matts gone, CW is a loss, and you don't have a top 10 pick. What do you do? This scenario (IMO) has the highest percentage of locking us into mediocrity for years to come.

    You can bet, the fans would be screaming for Pete and Johns head.

    What if Pete and John don't believe 35 is to old to play QB and like many here, question if Matt (with the proper tools and good coaching) still has some pro bowl level skills still left in the tank?

    I could see not going after an extension just yet, as you want to see him perform in your system with better weapons.
    I could also still see bringing in Charlie to 1) be competition for Matt 2) be a viable back up if you don't believe Wallace or any other QB that was available in FA to be and you think Charlie may have the tools to develop.

    Its a pretty rare scenario, like you have said, to be able to make a true assessment of a QB in 1 year, unless they are either lights out or horrid. So now you have sunk yourself into pit. Should you go after the best available QB? If you do, should he be the immediate starter? Do you keep Charlie on if you determined he is not going to be able to become a viable back up?

    Worms I tell you, a big ol can of worms.
    Last edited by lostlobos on Thu May 13, 2010 11:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
    Quoting Montanahawk05:
    the foremost reason, by a long margin, of Seattle's continued struggles the last three years is Matt Hasselbeck. Hass's arm strength has declined to the vanishing point. [b]They're stacking the line and jumping routes because they don't respect Hasselbeck's arm.
    User avatar
    lostlobos
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1691
    Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 2:46 pm


  • JohnnyB wrote:
    I'd have traded Matt for a 3rd (although I still don't buy that such a deal was offered but it is rumored), gone with Whitehurst, probably drafted Clausen or Tebow


    Since you certainly couldn't have counted on getting either of them in the second round, you would have had to use at least the 14 pick. This means that the QB would have had a huge contract. No way are you going to have any serious competition for the position without this high draft pick QB getting many many more opportunities than anyone else to start and play. You just can't invest those huge dollars (30-50 million) for a guy sitting on the bench unless there really is going to be no salary cap. So you don't really have 3 chances, you can't afford Campbell and the high draft pick QB either pans out or loses you a lot of games, while costing you valuable cap dollars you could have used on making the rest of the team stronger.


    While of course Clausen/Tebow are you long term solution (at least that is the plan) but you can sit them early (pick 14 would not have been 30-50 million). Freeman got 26 million last year as a QB in the teens over 5 years (36 million with incentives), not sure how much was guaranteed but hardly a franchise killing investment.


    You can do both, teams just are rarely willing, most teams (even in a cap years) have 5-6 million of wiggle room, few are truly right against the cap (this becomes especially easy but cutting some dead weight this offseason). It could have been done.


    Campbell would have been more of a "wow, this guy is available for so little, lets get him" move.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


  • lobos,

    First off, that would not have been my way, that is just the position Carroll and Schneider have put themselves in. I would have handled the QB position much much differently (as I described above) but this is where we are so now you have to ask, what is the best long term scenario?

    If they believe its Matt, extend him.

    If they believe its Charlie, play him.


    If they believe its neither, what they hell are they doing? Waiting till the 2011 draft? Are they in the "lose for Locker" camp?


    Coaches often have to take a leap of faith at QB, these guys are hedging their bets and leaving the team with no long term options, that is why I am so bothered.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


  • warner28 wrote:Believe it or not (and I know lobos and johnny won't), I don't hate Matt, I just can't wrap my head around the Whitehurst deal if we aren't going to find out what he has in 2010 (counting on him beating Matt out or getting hurt is a foolish way of doing this IMO). Charlie needs to play unless they truly did just trade for a back up in which case they wasted massive resources for a back up when they could have just signed Derek Anderson.

    I don't care how many ways people try to justify the move, it only makes sense if he plays.


    Yeah. That's the thing. At this point, I kinda think that is what they did. Traded for a quality back up as the floor value to the trade. With the slight upside of "Hey, if he beats out our guy, all the better." And if he's able to turn out to be the guy of the future, they got a bargain.

    Yes, I agree that it's a lot to give up if the guy only is a back up. And I prob wouldn't have done it myself. But I think with all the factors, they seem to be fine with that.

    I don't think they are going into the season with the mindset of "We have to play Whitehurst otherwise we made a terrible trade." I think they are more than happy with things, even if he just gives them a better back up option than they had in Seneca.

    The only way that is not case is if they cut or trade Matt. Or if it's obvious that Charlie is the preferred choice in camp. If it's purely a fair, honest competition. I don't see how one could possibly look at the trade from their opinion as being anything but for a back up/possible starter.
    Last edited by SeaTown81 on Thu May 13, 2010 1:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    User avatar
    SeaTown81
    * NET Alumni *
     
    Posts: 4641
    Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 9:35 am
    Location: Seattle, WA


  • 7 pages of the same rhetoric, over, and over again.

    None of it even matters, it is simple, you can't fix everything in 1 year.

    But you can argue over it for a lot longer than that. :zzzzz:
    Image

    R.I.P. Brother Les
    User avatar
    Largent80
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 24268
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:38 pm
    Location: Freddy's favorite song?....Dream On


  • warner28 wrote:lobos,

    First off, that would not have been my way, that is just the position Carroll and Schneider have put themselves in. I would have handled the QB position much much differently (as I described above) but this is where we are so now you have to ask, what is the best long term scenario?

    If they believe its Matt, extend him.

    If they believe its Charlie, play him.


    If they believe its neither, what they hell are they doing? Waiting till the 2011 draft? Are they in the "lose for Locker" camp?


    Coaches often have to take a leap of faith at QB, these guys are hedging their bets and leaving the team with no long term options, that is why I am so bothered.


    I read your previos post, about what you would have done, but the thread is what should we do now. Not what should they have done.

    As for extending Matt nowl, maybe you didn't read my whole post, so I will say it again.

    Its is very possible, John and Pete, don't think matts age, 34 almost 35, is over the hill and therefore they think he may be able to obtain his old form, with better weapons around him. But even if they think that, they would be smart to wait until they actually see what Matt has remaining, before offering a new contract. QB contracts, even for 34 yr old QB's aint gonna be cheap.

    You also have to question, does Matt even want to sign a new contract right now? Based on his last couple years, I can't imagine the club is willing to offer up much and Matt likely believes he still is a top level QB, so why would he sign for cheap?

    So the question of the thread is what would you do NOW. I haven't reread all your post's, but I am pretty sure, you previously stated, you would start Charlie. If thats the case, what do you do if either of the scenarios I posted above actually happen?
    Quoting Montanahawk05:
    the foremost reason, by a long margin, of Seattle's continued struggles the last three years is Matt Hasselbeck. Hass's arm strength has declined to the vanishing point. [b]They're stacking the line and jumping routes because they don't respect Hasselbeck's arm.
    User avatar
    lostlobos
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1691
    Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 2:46 pm


  • warner28 wrote:Believe it or not (and I know lobos and johnny won't), I don't hate Matt, I just can't wrap my head around the Whitehurst deal if we aren't going to find out what he has in 2010 (counting on him beating Matt out or getting hurt is a foolish way of doing this IMO).

    From your point of view, counting on Matthew or a rookie or an untested Whitehurst (in a year or two) is dumb, basically because the odds of stuggles and failure are higher than the odds of success, right? So why would it be foolish to play the odds on Whitehurst seeing the field this year due to an injured Hasselbeck? The last few years have seen him miss time, and given the state of transition the rest of the team is in, it seems reasonble to expect him to miss some time this year as well.
    49ers webzone: Win or lose, i hope you injure Sherman. Like a serious career ending injury. I don't want him to get paid.
    49ers webzone: noise should not be the overwhelming reason a team is favored. they need to spray noise-damping foam onto the ceiling of that place.
    User avatar
    BlueTalon
    * NET Curmudgeon *
    * NET Curmudgeon *
     
    Posts: 7444
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:06 am
    Location: Eastern Washington


  • Gahhhhhh!!! My eyes!!!!
    User avatar
    MysterMatt
    *TOP 5 SUPPORTER*
    *TOP 5 SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 6914
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:12 am


  • I actually did read what your post, it just does not make sense to me. These are pro coaches, they should be able to look at the film and feel pretty good about what Matt can/cannot do.

    As for why Matt not wanting an extension, if true he is somewhere between a fool and getting bad advice. With a lock out an near certainty next year free agency may be delayed till who knows when (very likely at least after the draft) so he could be putting himself in a terrible position.


    Yes, I would start Charlie, trust myself to evaluate him over 16 games (instead of practice and a few games) and re-evaluate at the end of the season. If he is okay, I evaluate that and weigh the value of his okay vs. other options next offseason. But at least I have given myself 16 games of film to evaluate and make as informed a decision as possible. Instead of flying blind if Matt does not return to form.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


  • BlueTalon wrote:
    warner28 wrote:Believe it or not (and I know lobos and johnny won't), I don't hate Matt, I just can't wrap my head around the Whitehurst deal if we aren't going to find out what he has in 2010 (counting on him beating Matt out or getting hurt is a foolish way of doing this IMO).

    From your point of view, counting on Matthew or a rookie or an untested Whitehurst (in a year or two) is dumb, basically because the odds of stuggles and failure are higher than the odds of success, right? So why would it be foolish to play the odds on Whitehurst seeing the field this year due to an injured Hasselbeck? The last few years have seen him miss time, and given the state of transition the rest of the team is in, it seems reasonble to expect him to miss some time this year as well.


    Personally, Because if Matt is not my guy long term, I'd want to maximize development and evaluation time.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


  • Let the best man start. Pretty easy, IMO.
    Image
    User avatar
    Mckinja
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 2805
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:31 am
    Location: Covington, WA


  • Mckinja wrote:Let the best man start. Pretty easy, IMO.


    It's not that simple. This team is bad now, and because of that it needs to try and become better in the future, even at the expense of letting a young player develop on the field while the older (and oftentimes better) player sits.

    This is a lost year, lets take advantage of it by developing young player and letting them work out their kinks. And we can let them do that without having the expense of losing a playoff spot, because we never had the chance of one in the first place.
    Last edited by Trrrroy on Thu May 13, 2010 1:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    I hate Tim Ruskell.
    User avatar
    Trrrroy
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2867
    Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 9:24 am


  • Anyone ever see a dog chase it's tail?
    Image
    User avatar
    Tech Worlds
    * Capt'n Dom *
    * Capt'n Dom *
     
    Posts: 9712
    Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:40 am
    Location: Granite Falls, WA


  • Tech Worlds wrote:Anyone ever see a dog chase it's tail?


    Not here, mine spends most of his time licking his balls!
    seedhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2556
    Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:51 am


  • MysterMatt wrote:Gahhhhhh!!! My eyes!!!!




    It must be an eye thing Matt because I feel the same way. I keep thinking that maybe someone will suggest waiting and seeing what happens in training camp but doubtful.

    I think people get real and fantasy football mixed up and imagine they can talk something into being when it isn't.

    :141847_bnono:
    Image
    On to week two. Week one was not a fluke!
    User avatar
    The Radish
    * NET Radish *
     
    Posts: 18655
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:18 pm
    Location: Spokane, Wa.


  • The Radish wrote:
    MysterMatt wrote:Gahhhhhh!!! My eyes!!!!




    It must be an eye thing Matt because I feel the same way. I keep thinking that maybe someone will suggest waiting and seeing what happens in training camp but doubtful.

    I think people get real and fantasy football mixed up and imagine they can talk something into being when it isn't.

    :141847_bnono:



    Based on this logic we might as well just shut this site down, is a discussion, no one thinks we can change anything but what is the point of a message board if you can't even discuss stuff?
    MARTYREDwarner
     


  • PC's whole system is competition at every position including QB, that's why DW was brought in....So- seeing as how we still have to go thru all the work outs, training camp and then the pre-season, it is impossible to say who will win the job.Give PC time- He'll figure it out. I'm in.

    :0190l:
    User avatar
    TVHAWK
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 111
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:20 pm


  • the whole problem with this QB situation is that "the guy" isn't on the roster yet. he won't be this season. i think its safe to say this is a lost season. now we wasted a yr where we could've developed our future QB. neither CW or matt is our future QB whether you like it or don't. we lost our chance to possible get that guy when we passed on sanchez and clausen. its too late now, so where do we go from here? we have no other choice but to draft a 1st round QB, then use 2-3yrs to develop them, meaning we aren't winning til that happens. its the ugly truth. expect 4yrs of losing. i'd rather that than being mediocre for the next 10. they dragged their feet on drafting a franchise QB, now we'll pay the price. as much as i love what PC/JS has done overall so far, the CW trade and following up that mistake without drafting a QB will set us back for yrs. it probably will spell doom for them and they wont be around to see the whole rebuild take shape unless this owner is ok with losing for the next 4yrs. if any of you believe different, i respect your optimism but i don't believe its reality the way the nfl is now. for all the matt believers, its over. he might be servicable but we'll never get back to SB contention again with him, so we have to part ways.
    ctbullets
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 18
    Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:18 pm


  • warner28 wrote:
    JohnnyB wrote:
    I buy the 'competition' thing. Just don't get why Hasselbeck is part of it. A Clausen/Whitehurst competition would have made tons of sense, a Hasselbeck/Clausen battle makes some sense since rookie QBs should sit. Hasselbeck/Whitehurst makes none IMO.


    That's because you weren't paying attention when a 38 year old Warner played more than well enough for his team to win a Superbowl. And maybe you weren't around when the scores of other QBs have done the same over the years in the NFL. Hasselbeck won't be 38 for three more years.


    Scores of other QBs?

    Okay.


    If you believe Matt Hasselbeck will play anywhere near the level of an age 37 Warner (he was 37 not 38 when he took them to the Super Bowl), fine. But Matt has NEVER had that kind of season, even in his prime. Hasselbeck's best season (either 2005 or 2007 depending on how you look at it) does not even compare to what Warner did in 2008. Also if he played "more than well enough for them to win the Super Bowl" where is the trophy? He played good enough to put them in position to win, maybe he was good enough but the team around him was not and now they will most likely take a step back while finding the next guy good enough.

    Seattle is unlikely to have enough talent to win a Super Bowl (even if Matt played like Warner circa 2008) before he is done playing that good so what is the point?

    And if Matt is the long term plan, where is the contract extension?


    I am pretty sick of the "look at Kurt Warner" line of reasoning, Warner was significantly better throughout his career and outside of a 6 game stretch at age 31 never played as poorly has Matt has over the last 2 years.

    If Matt is the guy, give him a damn extension, why wait?


    Has Matt had Torry Holt and Larry Fitzgerald type of receiver to work with? How was Warner doing when he wasn't playing with those receivers? Yeah, he was performing quite a bit lower than Matt. Where were the Cards in 2005-2007? At the bottom of the division.

    What makes Warner a HOF QB? IMO, he's not and I hope he doesn't get in. Joe Montana won a Super Bowl without Jerry Rice. Joe Montana willed his team to win. Warner couldn't even take his team to a .500 winning percentage without a Torry Holt or Larry Fitzgerald. That's why Warner isn't a HOF material.
    User avatar
    hawkfan68
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 3811
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:10 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


Previous


It is currently Sat Oct 25, 2014 3:54 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE ARCHIVES ]




Information
  • Who is online
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests