Register    Login    Forum    Search    FAQ    Contact Us  Your donations are greatly appreciated! Donate  Chat Room

Board index » NET NATION COMMUNITY CENTER » [ THE ARCHIVES ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 146 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Should Matt be traded/released or moved to back up?
 Post Posted: Thu May 13, 2010 4:46 pm 
NET Veteran
Online

Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:51 am
Posts: 2407
Tech Worlds wrote:
Anyone ever see a dog chase it's tail?


Not here, mine spends most of his time licking his balls!


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Should Matt be traded/released or moved to back up?
 Post Posted: Thu May 13, 2010 6:59 pm 
* NET Radish *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:18 pm
Posts: 18002
Location: Spokane, Wa.
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
The SuperB owl ladys have left the building with our thanks.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Should Matt be traded/released or moved to back up?
 Post Posted: Thu May 13, 2010 7:03 pm 
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?


Top 
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Should Matt be traded/released or moved to back up?
 Post Posted: Thu May 13, 2010 7:42 pm 
NET Rookie
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:20 pm
Posts: 110
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:


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Should Matt be traded/released or moved to back up?
 Post Posted: Thu May 13, 2010 8:24 pm 
NET Bench Warmer
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:18 pm
Posts: 18
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.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Should Matt be traded/released or moved to back up?
 Post Posted: Fri May 14, 2010 2:55 pm 
*GOLD SUPPORTER*
*GOLD SUPPORTER*
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:10 am
Posts: 3295
Location: Sammamish, WA
warner28 wrote:
JohnnyB wrote:
Quote:
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.


Top 
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 146 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

Board index » NET NATION COMMUNITY CENTER » [ THE ARCHIVES ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

 

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Seahawks.NET is an independent fan site and not associated with the Seattle Seahawks or the NFL (National Football League).
All content within this Seahawks fan page is provided by, and for, Seattle Seahawks fans. Copyright © Seahawks.NET.