Don't know about you but I want 12-4, division titles, bye weeks, and Super Bowls.
What formula did the Jets use? Didn't they spend a 1st on a QB?
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
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
Mckinja wrote:Let the best man start. Pretty easy, IMO.
Tech Worlds wrote:Anyone ever see a dog chase it's tail?
MysterMatt wrote:Gahhhhhh!!! My eyes!!!!
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.
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?
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?