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.

_________________
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.

Matt should be the starting QB in 2010.

Period.

_________________

Man up, stand in line.

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.

_________________
"Est autem fides credere quod nondum vides; cuius fidei merces est videre quod credis."
Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe.
(St. Augustine of Hippo)

"Perfer et obdura; dolor hic tibi proderit olim."
(“Ovid”)

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.

_________________

Official Tharold Simon Fan Club Member

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.

_________________
"Go for Broke" - 442nd Japanese-American Battalion

Shaun Alexander #37 for the HoF - 119 Games 2176 Att 9429 Yards 4.3 YPC 100 TDs (112 TDs total) 2005 MVP

"YOU POST...TO WIN...thethread." JesterHawk

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.

_________________


Okay, so maybe that pass rush is still an issue. Lather, rinse, repeat.

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.

_________________
Put Matt Hasselbeck in the Ring of Honor!!

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.

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

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.

_________________


Okay, so maybe that pass rush is still an issue. Lather, rinse, repeat.

/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!!!!!

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.

_________________
"Go for Broke" - 442nd Japanese-American Battalion

Shaun Alexander #37 for the HoF - 119 Games 2176 Att 9429 Yards 4.3 YPC 100 TDs (112 TDs total) 2005 MVP

"YOU POST...TO WIN...thethread." JesterHawk

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.