AbsolutNET wrote:If youre going to look at the way Warner played when he was 38, you have to look at the way Brunell, George and Rypein all played when they were Hass' age.

No, it makes more sense to assume Matt is going to turn into the Hall of Famer he's never been.

ctbullets wrote:you may be right about that but then why is hasselbeck still on the team? because they believe he's better than CW right now. i buy the competition thing also but not at QB. my theory is that they brought CW in to be "the guy", "their guy" like holmgren did with hasselbeck. they wanted CW to win the job and thought he would. now they got him and have seen what he has in camp and oops, he's not ready to be the guy or can't be the guy which we all knew coming in. now they know hasselbeck gives them the best chance to win now.

The problem is, we don't know any of this. One reporter made a small blurb about Hass "tightening his grip" with no attribution, no quotes from anyone who matters, nothing. It could have very well just been the opinion of a reporter (who has never played the game), and nothing more.

I've thought all along that PC knows CW is the man, but also knows the fan politics involved with having him win the position outright.

I believe PC knows in the back of his head CW will get the starting nod sooner rather than later, and that Hasselbeck will lose the job on the field either though injury or, most likely, stinking the place up as he has over the last couple of years.

With Hass honestly losing the job in front of his adoring fans, it becomes much easier for the FO to avoid a QB controversy and get their guy in with 100% support behind him. I feel this is very smart thinking. CW will be replacing a fan favorite and he doesn't have very many ways to successfully endear himself to the 12th Man. If he inherits the job because there is no other choice, it will make a much smoother transition and the fan base will be behind Touchdown Jesus from day one.

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.

Matt Hasselbeck is no Kurt Warner. He's not even close, never has been, never will be.

seattlesetters 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.

Matt Hasselbeck is no Kurt Warner. He's not even close, never has been, never will be.

And this falsehood is why you're wrong about his future too.

-Hasselbeck's QB rating last season? 75.1
-Warner's rating the two years before he was cut by the Rams for being old and washed up at age 32? 67.4 and 72.9
-Hasselbeck's best rating? 98.2 in '05
-Warner's best rating with the Cardinals? 96.9 in '08

So after Warner was cut for two bad seasons of being "washed up," he came back at age 37 to lead his team to the Super Bowl and played well enough at age 38 for them to be there, if only the rest of his team had been good enough.

The point is nothing at all about who is the better QB, but whether or not we should expect QBs to decline in their mid thirties the way running backs do when they hit 30. No, we shouldn't. Scores of QBs in the NFL have proven it, including one guy who has been doing right in our faces.

Like you said the team was not good enough, so who cares if the 38 year old QB might be?

Lets assume the Cardinals were an up and coming roster, not quite ready to win titles but heading into 2010 the roster looks ready except the 38 year old QB has decided to hang it up.

Guess what? Now that roster that has been developing and might just be ready to win a title will be taking a few steps back while the team finds its next QB.

Wouldn't make more sense to find that QB before the team is ready to compete so when it is the QB is not holding it back?


Lets say Matt is good in 2010, plays all the way through 2012 at a high level (just for the sake of argument), I'd expect this team to truly be ready (if Carroll and Schneider do an excellent job) to compete for titles in 2012 so they'd get 1 shot with Matt, then he retires and now Seattle spends 2013 and 2014 being held back by a developmental QB who by 2015 is ready to play but now several other positions are aging/hitting free agency which can sometimes be a difficult storm to weather.


That is my fear and I don't see Matt lasting till 2012 much less beyond.


IMO, the championship window of the roster that Carroll is building will most likely be 2012-2015 maybe extended a couple seasons if they replenish the roster well. I hate the idea of wasting any of those years developing a QB when the rest of the roster is ready which means after Matt leaves onto another stopgap.


It has nothing to do with rather Matt is done or not, even if he has 2-3 good seasons left, he simply does not fit this rosters window.

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

Because he's not the guy. He's competing to be the guy. He could be the guy. He's young enough to be the guy for four more years. The FO would be idiots to sign him before seeing if he is the guy.

warner28 wrote:Like you said the team was not good enough, so who cares if the 38 year old QB might be?

Lets assume the Cardinals were an up and coming roster, not quite ready to win titles but heading into 2010 the roster looks ready except the 38 year old QB has decided to hang it up.

Guess what? Now that roster that has been developing and might just be ready to win a title will be taking a few steps back while the team finds its next QB.

Wouldn't make more sense to find that QB before the team is ready to compete so when it is the QB is not holding it back?


Lets say Matt is good in 2010, plays all the way through 2012 at a high level (just for the sake of argument), I'd expect this team to truly be ready (if Carroll and Schneider do an excellent job) to compete for titles in 2012 so they'd get 1 shot with Matt, then he retires and now Seattle spends 2013 and 2014 being held back by a developmental QB who by 2015 is ready to play but now several other positions are aging/hitting free agency which can sometimes be a difficult storm to weather.


That is my fear and I don't see Matt lasting till 2012 much less beyond.


IMO, the championship window of the roster that Carroll is building will most likely be 2012-2015 maybe extended a couple seasons if they replenish the roster well. I hate the idea of wasting any of those years developing a QB when the rest of the roster is ready which means after Matt leaves onto another stopgap.


It has nothing to do with rather Matt is done or not, even if he has 2-3 good seasons left, he simply does not fit this rosters window.

One addition, like maybe Haynesworth, to the defensive line and this team has a shot to go all the way this season (I'll explain how if anyone wants). Add the guy after the season, plus a couple more here or there and they have a great chance the following season. That gives the team a realistic possible three year window while Matt is 36,37, and 38. Plus when Matt's done, a QB can develop on the bench (in other words, in practice) and step right in, like Brady and countless others have.

volsunghawk wrote:

ctbullets wrote:
you may be right about that but then why is hasselbeck still on the team? because they believe he's better than CW right now. i buy the competition thing also but not at QB. my theory is that they brought CW in to be "the guy", "their guy" like holmgren did with hasselbeck. they wanted CW to win the job and thought he would. now they got him and have seen what he has in camp and oops, he's not ready to be the guy or can't be the guy which we all knew coming in. now they know hasselbeck gives them the best chance to win now. like you said, this competition makes no sense. if you brought CW in to be the guy, then you trade matt(too late now) and go with CW. you use this season to see what you have and if you need to draft a QB in '11(we know the answer and could've told them before they wasted the money and picks on CW). ida drafted sanchez last yr and even after that mistake, ida used 14 on clausen this yr. that's just my opinion.

Actually, they said before minicamps started that there would be competition, but that Hass is in line to be the starting QB. They never said otherwise. They claimed that Whitehurst is what they want in a backup right now. The competition angle allows for the possibility that Whitehurst outperforms Hass in training camp (and I'm fairly sure that they will actually make their judgments based off of all they see in training camp, and not just off of 6 days of minicamp).

I'll agree with you in one area: If they brought Whitehurst in to definitely be THE guy, then they should have traded Hasselbeck as soon as they found a decent offer. Of course, had they brought Whitehurst in to be THE guy, then it would seem odd for them to give him a 2-year contract. Based off of the facts, it looks as if...

1. They were convinced that Wallace wasn't someone they could use in any capacity.
2. They wanted a backup with potential to start.
3. They aren't ready to jettison the face of the team, but they are preparing for life after his contract is up (at the end of this season).

I think when you combine all of those factors, then we're looking at drafting a QB in the 2011 draft, guaranteed... how high a pick we use on the QB will be determined by what Whitehurst shows the team throughout this season, both in practice and in real games (assuming trends hold true and Hass misses time to injury).

everything you said makes perfect sense and i would agree but the trade tells us otherwise. what they traded in picks and the contract they gave him tells us, he was brought in to be the starter and not for 1 yr. thats why the trade doesn't make any sense because matt is still here. the length of the contract told us that they weren't sure if CW would be the guy longterm yet. the fact that hasselbeck wasn't given an extention tells us he's gone after this yr unless he has a pro-bowl yr. he's a lame duck but they're not ready to hand over the keys to CW quite yet. and let me clear something up, matt isn't the face of this franchise anymore. PC is now the face of the seahawks. i agree that it's inevitable we draft a #1 QB this yr. as for them saying matt was starter from beginning, very true and i never believed it for a second. the minute hasselbeck falters by week 5, it will be the quickest hook you ever saw. they feel they owe matt a chance at leading this team but he's not "their guy". they respect him but owe him nothing and have no tie to him. CW was their first major move and they're tied to him. he will be given every opportunity to win the job and he wasn't brought in to be a backup. that's my opinion and i could be wrong. your points are very valid and make alot of sense. but this trade just doesn't add up if CW was brought in to be a backup, i just don't buy it.

Countless others have stepped right in?

List them please, I beg you.

And feel free to tell me the formula for winning this year, better yet email it directly.

warner28 wrote:Countless others have stepped right in?

List them please, I beg you.

And feel free to tell me the formula for winning this year, better yet email it directly.

Let's start with the QBs who did well their very first year starting five games or more in the NFL. All these actually started 10+.

Kurt Warner himself had a 109.2 rating his first year starting.
Ken Stabler 88.3
Roger Staubach 104.8
Mark Rypien 88.4
Matt Ryan 87.7
Tony Romo 95.1
Ben Roethlisberger 98.1

So that's just in R,S,T, and W and picking a choosing a few names here and there that I recognized. The exhaustive list would be very long.

I'll do my formula for the Seahawks challenging for the title this year in a new thread. All the scenarios for why Hasselbeck should be gone assume as a given that a new QB needs a season or two of starting in the NFL before they can be any good, but that just aint so.

Guarantee the list of guys who struggled is much much much much much much longer.

Its nice to cherry pick and ignore trends and likelyhoods though, isn't it?


New QBs do need a season or 2, just because you can pick a handful of guys does not change this.

Look at Elway, Aikman, Young, Manning (both of them), Rodgers (who got to sit several years), Hasselbeck himself (whom also got to sit several years).

The list of guys who could not step right in and play is much much longer.


But whatever, QBs can step right in and lead teams to titles, happens all the time, its actually the expectation, wow, I never knew.

JohnnyB wrote:

warner28 wrote:Countless others have stepped right in?

List them please, I beg you.

And feel free to tell me the formula for winning this year, better yet email it directly.

Let's start with the QBs who did well their very first year starting five games or more in the NFL. All these actually started 10+.

Kurt Warner himself had a 109.2 rating his first year starting.
Ken Stabler 88.3
Roger Staubach 104.8
Mark Rypien 88.4
Matt Ryan 87.7
Tony Romo 95.1
Ben Roethlisberger 98.1

So that's just in R,S,T, and W and picking a choosing a few names here and there that I recognized. The exhaustive list would be very long.

I'll do my formula for the Seahawks challenging for the title this year in a new thread. All the scenarios for why Hasselbeck should be gone assume as a given that a new QB needs a season or two of starting in the NFL before they can be any good, but that just aint so.

yeah those guys are exceptions to the rule. QBs take about 2 full years to become good. of the examples you gave of guys that i saw play: romo sat for yrs, roethlisberger had terrible numbers and they were a running team his 1st yr, matt ryan was decent, and warner was a journeyman veteran but was great right away. that is by no means proof of your theory.

Well its obviously easy to discredit someone else's post. He went out and gave some examples, just like you asked, yet you simply want to dismiss his post, even though it was exactly what you begged of him to do.

Theres always factors in how and why a QB has success. But many of those examples have as much to do with learning the system, as learning the game speed of the NFL.

Its actually proven that QB's who don't start in they're 1st season have a higher rate of success. That sounds like a great stat, but it doesn't account for the QB's that were high draft picks because the team they were going to was horrid the previous year and likely needs more than just a QB to succeed.

I'd provide examples, but you would probably just dismiss them anyway.

Countless others was his claim, I can easily count his. Also since when is providing a counter point (which is all I did) discounting a list? You are awful sensitive, did Hasselbeck buy you a ice cream cone at Dairy Queen once or something?

BTW, I think Warner fails to fit, the guy played professionally for 2 years, sure it was the Arena League but I think that massively helped his development (especially the accuracy which made him so great).

Not discounting so much as finding the list to be very very small and far from countless.

If you guys want to believe that QBs can step right in and dominate and that this is anywhere near the norm, feel free. I will continue to live in reality and understand that well it can happen, counting on it is a mistake.



Also, I understand the 1st year thing, you do realize that I have already stated (about a million times) that if Hasselbeck were starting over a rookie QB (or even a 2nd year QB) it would make perfect sense, Whitehurst is entering his 5th season, he needs to see the field to continue his development, he has done all he can do from the bench. If you weren't going to start him, you should not have traded for him pure and simple.

Countless others was his claim, I can easily count his.

Um, I only gave those I recognized whose names start with R,S,T or W. By doing so I proved that it is not uncommon for QBs to step right in and do well. I didn't even look in the rest of the alphabet. I'm not going to go through the entire alphabet because there are too many! So it is patently false to presume that the only way the Seahawks can contend in the future is by planning for a QB to start and fail to play well for a year or two before he can do well. So it is false that the team has to start playing the QB now who they expect to be the guy five years from now. Hasselbeck can play for four more years. The next guy can step right in after that.

JohnnyB wrote:

Countless others was his claim, I can easily count his.

Um, I only gave those I recognized whose names start with R,S,T or W. By doing so I proved that it is not uncommon for QBs to step right in and do well. I didn't even look in the rest of the alphabet. I'm not going to go through the entire alphabet because there are too many! So it is patently false to presume that the only way the Seahawks can contend in the future is by planning for a QB to start and fail to play well for a year or two before he can do well. So it is false that the team has to start playing the QB now who they expect to be the guy five years from now. Hasselbeck can play for four more years. The next guy can step right in after that.

We aren't going to agree on this, you believe they can step right in, I believe there will be a drop off.

Of course you believe Matt can play 4 more years, I'd have to be high to even consider that.


Drop offs are the norm, of course all you used was QB rating.

What about won/loss record compared to previous year? How bout playoff wins and Super Bowl appearances in that first year?

Some guys have stepped right in, no doubt, I never said it never happened, its not the norm however. What percentage do you think step right in and improve/maintain the team? I think its less than 25% (based on perception), your opinion?

There is more to a QB than their rating IMO.

Pete has preached the credo of competition, and if he wants to truly be bought into by the players, he better play the guy who wins the job. Not the guy he brought in, not the incumbent, but the guy who earns the reps. If he preaches competition to his players, then starts a qb who did not earn the job, he will be seen as a hypocrite by veterans especially.

I am pretty sure that Carroll and Schneider understand that Whitehurst is a low cost (compared to selecting a first rounder) homerun swing that has a high probability of swing and miss. Are they going to stake their future on making sure he sees the field to begin the season? Not likely. Hass will probably be the day 1 starter, just because he will look better in camp and pre-season, and if he stinks it up, Whitehurst will get his chance. And if Charlie stinks it up for an extended slide of multiple games, Hass will see the field again. Or even Teel or Reilly.

When Pete says they brought Whitehurst in to compete for the job, I believe him. No decision has been made yet. We may even see 3 different quarterbacks start pre-season games.

romo sat for yrs,

Romo sat for however long he sat, then, in his first year starting he did well. Many Many Many QBs have done the same. It refutes the claim that he needed to start and play a lot for a year or two before he could play well. Yeah, the majority probably get better after starting for a year or two (more like 65%-45%), but it can happen either way. You don't plan your entire team's future around a type of losing and failure that doesn't even have to happen.

Not to mention, a smart coach doesn't need Pro Bowl play from the QB to contend. The Jets contended and Sanchez had a QB rating in the sixties. So it would be stupid to ship off a very good QB like Hasselbeck because of some speculative type of failure that doesn't have to happen. Whitehurst is a great backup plan, just like Scottemojo said. Lets give the team as many different ways to succeed as we can and go with the one that's working.

Scottemojo wrote:Pete has preached the credo of competition, and if he wants to truly be bought into by the players, he better play the guy who wins the job. Not the guy he brought in, not the incumbent, but the guy who earns the reps. If he preaches competition to his players, then starts a qb who did not earn the job, he will be seen as a hypocrite by veterans especially.

I am pretty sure that Carroll and Schneider understand that Whitehurst is a low cost (compared to selecting a first rounder) homerun swing that has a high probability of swing and miss. Are they going to stake their future on making sure he sees the field to begin the season? Not likely. Hass will probably be the day 1 starter, just because he will look better in camp and pre-season, and if he stinks it up, Whitehurst will get his chance. And if Charlie stinks it up for an extended slide of multiple games, Hass will see the field again. Or even Teel or Reilly.

When Pete says they brought Whitehurst in to compete for the job, I believe him. No decision has been made yet. We may even see 3 different quarterbacks start pre-season games.

to the fullest extent. And if they all suck we go and draft one, which i'm personally all for.

Preach competition all you want, if Whitehurst busts and they wait till 2011 to find that out (passing on options in the 2011 draft) this franchise is set back dramatically.

If they draft someone in 2011 and Whitehurst is a stud, they wasted massive resources.


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. I don't know why thinking that forces some to become so defensive and put me in the "Hasselbeck hater" camp but so be it.

If Matt is your guy, he needs to be your guy for the next few seasons at a minimum and letting him hit free agency (in such a case) makes no sense whatsoever. If you believe in Matt, you extend him now, not after this season.


I guess I am just stunned (given how much I like everything else they have done) at how they have handled the most important position on the roster.

They seem to be making moves for the long term but then they sit their with QBs that are only planned for the short term. Its just odd.


Johnny, on the Sanchez thing, you say they coached around him (true, I agree), what did it get them? A 9-7 record, a wildcard berth, and a failed playoff run. Is that what we are building for? I personally don't feel 9-7 and getting hot in the postseason to be a sound strategy, more like counting on luck (both to get into the postseason at 9-7 and to than win 2 road playoff games are something you can't count on doing on a regular basis).

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Gahhhhhh!!! My eyes!!!!

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.

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.

Let the best man start. Pretty easy, IMO.

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.

Anyone ever see a dog chase it's tail?

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

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.