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.
Sarlacc, on comparing .NET to Soccer: And why not? It's a bunch of people running around in circles, feigning pain, and never scoring.