logo

Does Hasselbeck Still Have Value For The Seahawks?

Written by William P. Tomisser | 28 January 2010

I've been doing some soul searching concerning Hass and his usefulness to the Seahawks. He definitely has some game left if he's healthy and could be the right ingredient for a team who has everything else in place. Unfortunately, that's not the Seahawks. If you figure that he has a couple of good years left, the Seahawks will most likely be in a building process while going through more than one learning curve with yet another set of coaches, schemes, and once again, a brand new playbook. All indications are that Pete Carroll is going to be given the time to build the franchise for the long run and so I don't think we're going to be legitimate contenders for a year at best or more likely two as Pete is constructing the team, adjusting players and attitudes, and thoroughly teaching his system while having a couple of drafts and free agency periods to acquire more good players. I look for this team to have a chance to be a real contender in 2012.

This off-season, many knowledgeable fans have been speculating that the Seahawks will need at least a couple of years to get things sorted out and patch some serious holes before they'll be ready to really compete for a title again. If that's a true forecast (and I somewhat concur with it), Hasselbeck really doesn't have much value left for the Seahawks as their starting quarterback. Unless a miracle happens, the team just won't be able to work it's way up to being a contender in the short time Hasselbeck has left and that makes him something of a lame duck quarterback. Every snap he takes is one snap less the true quarterback of the future (whoever that turns out to be) gets before needing to be ready to take over the team in a couple of years at best, or, whenever Hass gets injured at worst. That could be in the season opener.

Does it really make sense to play Hass for the next two years and build the team around him knowing his playing days are limited and he's more fragile than ever? In two years, just when the team will be coming together, becoming competitive, and establishing good chemistry, they'll have to replace their veteran quarterback with an inexperienced player and go through the process of gelling again with their new quarterback and waiting for him to gain enough experience to be effective. To continue reading press "Read more.....".

Of course, there's more than one way Hasselbeck might become useful to the Seahawks and probably as many reasons to trade him. Hasselbeck certainly could be a great mentor for a young quarterback over the next two years perhaps even starting the season in 2010 with the idea that when the new gun is ready, Hass moves to the backup role and continues to mentor the Seahawks new quarterback. That would be a good scenario if we draft a quarterback this year who we're serious about developing.

That may not be how Hass wants to go out.

Like Farve, Hass may rather move around and be the starter for as long as he can before age or injury catch up to him. Matt would be a good choice for a team who has all their pieces in place but lacks that quarterback to bring it all together. He might be a good choice for Mike Holmgren in Cleveland where he could become the starter right away in Holmgren's system. He might bring in a good draft choice which would give us that extra pick we need to draft a quarterback and still patch some holes. Hass will be a tough call this off-season.

I don't advocate giving Hasselbeck away for nothing but he's definitely nearing the end of his usefulness to the Seahawks as a major player. Given that we might be trying to find our quarterback of the future in the draft this year, Hass would be valuable to us first as the starter so we don't have to start a rookie quarterback and throw him to the wolves until he's ready. After that, he could tutor the rookie and be the backup quarterback. I wouldn't advocate trading Hass for less than a second round pick given that set of circumstances because of his value to us in grooming our new quarterback and being able to start until the rookie is ready. To a rookie quarterback, that kind of support from an experienced quarterback could spell the difference between getting ruined for life and coming out of his first season with a good basic understanding of the NFL game and ready to take the next step as the game slows down for him.

That dynamic could change though if we were to pick up an experienced quarterback in free agency or through a trade. In that case, Hasselbeck's tutoring wouldn't be of such great value and trading him for another draft choice might make more sense. If we were to trade for an experienced quarterback like Leinart as an example (not a suggestion), he would become our starter immediately as we start building our new team around our new quarterback. Although Hasselbeck would make a great backup, I would imagine he'd rather go somewhere where he could start for the last two or three years of his career. For what he's given us, I would be more than happy to see him go someplace and start particularly if it was a program where he might get back to the Super Bowl one more time and get one more shot at it.

How much value Hasselbeck brings to the Seahawks this year is going to depend on what happens in free agency and the draft. If we draft a quarterback, I would expect to see serious consideration given to using Hass for a couple more years as the initial starter and then transitioning him to the backup role as the rookie moves into the starting spot. If we don't acquire a quarterback this off-season, Hasselbeck will once again be the man and we'll find ourselves in the same place next year at this time only with increased pressure to resolve the situation. If we acquire an experienced quarterback, I think Hasselbeck could be traded unless there is no interest around the league in which case, he'll make an excellent backup for us as long as he still wants to play.

Although some fans are advocating that we wait until next year to get our quarterback of the future, the clock is ticking louder and louder and we're just one big Hasselbeck injury from being in desperation mode with our quarterback situation. I'm sure Pete Carroll knows that Hasselbeck won't be his quarterback except as an initial stop-gap measure and would prefer to identify his franchise quarterback as soon as possible and not spend unnecessary time developing his offense around a quarterback with only a couple of years left. Better to get the new quarterback in there asap and get the learning process under way. We may not look so good next year but two years down the road, we'll be much better off with our quarterback entering his third year in Pete's offense along with the rest of his teammates instead of being in the process of replacing Hass with a still untested quarterback with a learning curve in front of him instead of behind him. While you don't want to throw a new quarterback to the wolves, you don't want to make him wait when he's ready to play either especially if he's the quarterback of the near future.

I think you have to take a longer view of the process as opposed to trying quick and dirty fixes to try and be competitive next year to the detriment of the long term success of the franchise. Whether Hasselbeck stays with the team or not, I think the focus has to now shift to the next quarterback who's going to be leading our team. First, we need to identify that prospect, then determine how much support and tutoring he needs to get up to speed, and finally, make the moves that will put that quarterback on the field of play as soon as possible. Within that context lies Hasselbeck's future with the Seahawks. Hass's greatest value to the team as we enter the Pete Carroll era might very well be to help us prepare the next Seahawk starting quarterback to be ready to lead this team on the field as ungrateful as that may sound.

It's doubtful Hass will much like it either so I wouldn't be surprised to see him look for a trade if he can find a starting job elsewhere given the alternative of being a mentor to the guy who took his job and second string quarterback to the same. I don't know where Hass's head is on that one. What happens to Matt will be a story we'll follow all off-season but right now, it looks like he'll be leaving with the titles and records he now owns with the Seahawks. It's a shame he didn't get his ring here but when he does leave, he leaves as the best quarterback the franchise ever had. Over a 34 year span, that's still an impressive thing.

What do you Addicts think we should do with Hass given the different scenarios? What if we don't get another quarterback this off-season? What if we draft one or get someone in free agency or a trade? How does Hass fit in with a rookie verses a quarterback with some experience? What's the lowest draft pick you would take for Hass? Would you take a lower draft pick if we acquired an experienced quarterback to be our quarterback of the future now? Go for it Addicts! Let's talk Hasselbeck.

Hasta,

BillT

Comments (114)Add Comment
...
written by Highlander, January 28, 2010
The problem is, Leinart has been a huge bust in AZ with the best receiving corps in the NFL and on a team that's been deep into the playoffs the last couple of years and to the superbowl once. If he can't succeed on that team he's not going to with the Hawks. Now I realize you were just tossing out his name, not suggesting him, but he is an example of the problem. Which is...there aren't any desirable solutions for QB on free agency and this years draft class is not very attractive. Maybe a few might pan out to be servicable or maybe even a rough and hidden gem, but they will take some real patience and nurturing over time. Even Montana sat the bench his first year. All of the top prospects this year have witch sized warts. Maybe taking two QB's later in the draft might be a safer route with a bigger chance for success.
A couple of later rounders that might be interesting: Jevan Snead, Dan LeFevour, Rusty Smith, Bill Stull.
...
written by sean m, January 28, 2010
I HAVE BEEN THINKING ALONG THE SAME PATH....
HE IS GETTING A NEW SYSTEM INSTALLED FOR NEXT YEAR
NEW CODES AND ETC.....WE DO NEED A VET AT QB THOUGH
MAYBE TRADE HIM TO THE BROWNS ...FOR EITHER QUIN OR ANDERSON....HE WOULD FIT HOLMIE/MANGINI STYLE OF PLAY....I THOUGHT THEY SHOULD HAVE MAYBE PUT TEEL IN FOR A COUPLE OF GAMES...JUST TO SEE WHAT YOU GOT......I KNOW WITH OUT DOUBT ...PUT HIM IN THE RING OF HONOR......JUST MY OPINION FROM A HAWK FAN FROM NEW YORK.......LET THE RIBBING BEGIN
...
written by MontanaMike, January 28, 2010
Another good post Bill. I think Hass is the greatest qb the team ever had but it took a little while for him to develop into Holmgrens style. Then came Mora, then Pete Caroll......
I wouldn't trade him for junk, but that's a lot of philosophy changes in a short amount of time.
Maybe we should pick up a young veteren qb for the future. I haven't heard a word about Teel all year long? Is he a bust or future investment?
...
written by JHawk, January 28, 2010
There is wild speculation that if Favre retires, the Vikes may look to McNabb. McNabb, by all indications, is staying put. If you are correct that we are rebuilding, would we consider trading him to the Vikes for either picks or youth? We could try to Rosenfels (sic) as a gap filler QB and also get picks.
...
written by Riggle, January 28, 2010
I say keep Hasselbeck while developing a young QB. You need to win now in the NFL, not in two years. I think Matt Hasselbeck brings the best chance for this team to win.

If our priority was to build a strong offensive line that could protect and establish a running game, Hasselbeck would be a very good QB.

Eventually Hasselbeck will fall to injury or old age. The new guy will come in, and we can debate his worth and try to predict his effectiveness.
Agree and Disagree
written by CWEH, January 28, 2010
I do not believe we are two years away from being a contender. There has been so many teams, that have gone from the cellar to top in one year. Are we worse then 1-15 Miami (Which had no QB and went into the Playoff next year)? Also, we are in NFC West, which is horrible. With one good draft and couple nice free agent pick ups this team will be competing next year (especially if warner goes away). If our division was hard i would agree and say let's depart from Matt, but this would be a mistake. We have the chance to have a smart qb mentor our future.

This Question is for the guys that want Matt cut or traded. Can you look me in the eye and tell me that you are willing to sit every Sunday and watch your young Qb get killed and throw interception after interception? I hope your not expecting a winning team with a rookie qb (Matt Ryan is rare). I know for a fact you, after each loss you guys will be on this forum bitching about how the rookie sucks " why did he do this, why did he do that". I dont care if we are rebuilding, I still want to win! I don’t want to give up my season tickets, but I also dont want to pay over 1K for a team that will lose 75% of their games.


**The idea of getting a QB in free agency is retarded. Look at the list; are you honestly going to tell me any of these mofo's are better option then Matt? (might have considered Carr, if Holmgren was still here).

Charlie Batch

Josh McCown

Kyle Boller
Matt Moore

Mark Brunell

Kyle Orton

Jason Campbell
Chad Pennington

David Carr
Patrick Ramsey

Kellen Clemens
Chris Redman

Brodie Croyle
Ben Roethlisberger

Daunte Culpepper
D.J. Shockley


A.J. Feeley

Troy Smith

Charlie Frye
Brian St. Pierre

Jeff Garcia
Charlie Whitehurst

Bruce Gradkowski

Rex Grossman
Matt Gutierrez

Tarvaris Jackson

J.P. Losman


Lienert
written by Texashawk, January 28, 2010
Ok I am saying it! I think that Leinert will still prove to be a good starter in this league. Call me crazy but I think he will be more mature this time around and I think he has the tools.
...
written by mb23oly, January 28, 2010
I think trading Hass only makes a bad situation worse. Our priority is to build an offensive and defensive line that can carry the team. I don't think playing a rookie quarterback does any good in terms of development. If we draft a QB this year, unless we can get a 3rd or higher pick for Matt, keep him, let the rook watch from the sidelines and give him time to learn. It doesn't matter if that's not going to sit well with Hass...it's part of the business and just as we can all hear the clock ticking, so can he. I doubt we'd get any compensation worth considering therefore keep him around and allow the rest of the team to gain from his experience and leadership.
BoiseHawk
written by BoiseHawk, January 28, 2010
There are two ways to look at a QB change. First you pick one in the draft and let him play behind Matt for a year and learn the system. The other would be to play the player the first year. The Jets selected to play Mark Sanchez this year and he did well. Why did he do well, He had maybe the best OL in the league, very good backs and a great Defense. A very good environment for a new QB. Now Seattle has one of the worst OL in the league, they do not have a RB that scares anyone and their defense is just ok to poor. I feel with this said if we throw our new qb in the heat things he will get killed and will become gun shy and turn out to be a bust. Draft a QB, OL and RB and build up our offense. Play the QB the following year after he has a real good grasp of the Offense and the OL/RB situation is better.

GO Hawks
...
written by Griffin, January 28, 2010
Billt,

I don't think we'll get rid of Hasselbeck, and here is why:

Our new GM came from GreenBay...what did GreenBay do with their quarterback situation? They let Rodgers mature behind Favre for two years before he saw playing time, and sitting on the bench really helped him. I would assume that since that worked for Schneider before, why not go that way again?
...
written by B., January 28, 2010
Does it really make sense to play Hass for the next two years and build the team around him knowing his playing days are limited and he's more fragile than ever?

Answer: Not no but HELL NO! We need to pick our next QB at #6 then begin the process of grooming him to be our next starter. Next year we may not have the luxury of having such a high draft pick.
...
written by Beercan, January 28, 2010
Trade Hass to Cleveland for the browns 2nd round pick

Trade Hass to Minnesota for 2nd round pick

Sign Micheal Vick in FA, have him and Seneca compete for starting job.
or
Sign either Jason Cambpell or Chad Pennington

It wouldn't matter if any of these were a lateral move or even a slight downgrade, due to the value we would receive from Cleveland. Holmgren loves Matt Hassleback, and I think he would be willing to trade at least a 3rd round pick, if not a 2nd rounder, for a QB he knows will produce.
Long ass write up, to sum it up in a word-
written by HawksfanMSVL, January 28, 2010
Yes.

Hass is better than anyone else out there available. this includes any rookie or veteran qb on the block or at the end of their contract. Let the haters hate. If we pick up a qb with one of our 1st rounders, it'll be one of the biggest busts in seahawks history. All the quarterbacks available in the draft have very little upside and what you see is what you'll get. He'll finish out his contract and retire as a starter for the Seahawks.
On the other hand....
written by B., January 28, 2010
Too bad we didn't see more of Teel last year. We may already have our next QB. I say let Teel and the #6 pick battle for the position, keep the one who losses as our back-up, then trade Matt next year.
...
written by Griffin, January 28, 2010
Billt,

My bad, Rodgers was drafted in 2005, which means he sat for FOUR years, before he played. This tells me that IF we draft our QB of the future this year he definitely won't play next year, and then it will depend on how Hasselbeck is doing in the new system. If Hasselbeck seems to be doing pretty well, the rookie stays on the bench, if Hasselbeck doesn't do well, then maybe we start the rookie.
...
written by pawleec, January 28, 2010
Keep Hass...build the offense around him ( O -line and a COUPLE OF PLAYMAKERS!!!) and see if he can have a re-birth. In the meantime draft, QB's in the lower rounds and groom his replacement. Once the peices are in place that groomed replacement will be able to have success.
B....Beercan
written by CWEH, January 28, 2010
You two are what I call fair weather fan. Why the hell would you stick a rookie out there to get murdered? Texans did it to Carr, 49ers did it to Alex smith, the chargers did it to leaf. Where did that get them? 98% of the time Rookie QB are not ready for the NFL. Even, the good ones played behind someone.

Beercan - why would make a comment like "get vick in free agency". what is Vic going to do for us? show the new QB how to run and miss wide open receivers? Please think about the solution before offering your opinion. If Vic, Seneca or Campbell were worth anything, they would be starting. they are a major down grade from Matt.
...
written by Leif Long, January 28, 2010
no way should we get rid of matt hasselbeck...he is the leader of this football team and a very smart quarterback he has only done bad because his offensive line was A) hurt and B) not very good to begin with anyway. he will still be here and be the starter at least the next two years. and if you play your cards right it onloy takes one offseason to turn a franchise around we were in the playoffs only two years ago and injuries and poor personel costed us two years. with better coaches more depth and talent and less injuries with the new strength and conditioning coach we could easily be a contender next year, and it only helps tht kurt warner is retiring the nfc west is up for grabs and the only way we get that title is with hasselbeck. we will be a contender next year you can count on that and when the time comes ill be back like all other seahawkaddicts and ill be saying i told you so. this isnt a seahawks fan being hopeful, its whts going to happen...GO HAWKS!!!!!
Hass is 35...he's not Favre, he's not Warner, and he's not Manning
written by SSReporters, January 28, 2010
Hass has (heh heh) built up an injury history and his arm is weak. A good QB can overcome a bad offensive line. This isn't a historically bad offensive line. Look at how Peyton Manning destroyed the Jets despite getting plenty of pressure in his face. It's not the Texans line with David Carr or the current Steelers o-line. It seems that fans are getting played by the "appeal to emotion" card by saying Hass has a few years left in him because he led us to a Super Bowl.

I don't think we're getting rid of Hasselbeck this year, but it's possible he loses his starting job either in training camp or during the season if we do get a QB from the draft in the early rounds.

The offensive line is not responsible for throwing into double coverage continuously, or chucking 5 yard clunkers to the fullback.

His decision making is terrible when he does have time to throw. The magic isn't there anymore and he is part of the problem on offense.


And before the usual "YOU ARE A HASS HATER" crowd swarms me, I love Hasselbeck liked I loved Shaun......but these last two years have convinced me that I don't want to see them play ever again.
Fair weather fan?
written by Beercan, January 28, 2010
I have been a Hawks fan for 20 plus years. I have followed them through all the dark years, and know what value Hass has brought to them. that being said, his best value right now is as a trading piece, while he still has value. he is proving to be injury prone these past few years, and his injuries affect how he plays. Sometimes you need to know when to move on. and given the fact that Mike Holmgren is now in Cleveland, and needs a QB, He would be willing to trade for Hass, given the fact that he drafted him and alredy traded for him once...

Beercan - why would make a comment like "get vick in free agency". what is Vic going to do for us? show the new QB how to run and miss wide open receivers? ---
did you just describe Vick, or Hassleback? Sorry, but hass has been missing deep receivers for years. I don't think Vick would add a lot, but he is a QB with starting talent and credentials, who would come relatively cheap and play hard to earn a contract and redeem himself in the eyes of the public. maybe not the best option, but an option nevertheless. I would actually prefer Pennington or Cambpell to vick, but i do think Hass offers more value as trade-bait now, when he is relatively healthy, and still considered a good QB. trust me, he doesn't have much longer to be considered in that category.
...
written by roby, January 28, 2010
keep Hasselbeck and develop a new qb. i think this is the right way. Matt has leadership, charisma and experience that will help the team develop next year. Leinart is a bust. this year started 2 games, lost both and threw 3 int and no TD. he is a lot worse than Matt
To put it simply...
written by DownwithHasselchuck, January 28, 2010
No, he doesn't.
...
written by S.TTBM, January 28, 2010
Caroll has stated that he doesnt see any reason to throw next year away as a rebuilding year. While he most likely will bring in many new players, and jettison dead weight, he claims we will be going after the division.

IF Hass comes in and adapts well to the new system in camp, I dont see how keeping him around takes away opportunity for the qb of the future. Unless we allready had a young qb waiting in the wings who was ready to start (a-la Aaron Rogers), it makes no sense to dump a player that by all accounts will perform at a high level--far higher than his backups are likely to.

Seneca Wallace, though a fine backup, is not ready to outplay Hasselbeck as a starter. Teel is most likely still 2-4 years away from being ready to play, and dropping him into the frying pan is not a good way to help him develop.

Niether would it make sense to dump Hass, draft a qb high, and place him in the fire. Again, not a good way to develop a young qb. Most great qb's sat for an average of 4 years before they were ready to play. Many talented qb's have been ruined by just such a rush to play.

If Seattle is indeed in a total rebuild mode (which I dont buy), it makes even less sense to put a young qb in as starter or bring in some sub-Hasselbeck veteran talent. If we are in a major rebuild and wont come close to competing in the playoffs, a veteran qb with leadership like Matt is invaluable. While the other groups struggle to gel, a qb like Hass can be, and should be, the glue that holds the team together, bringing a young team together. A rudderless ship is not what you want during this time.

As for Hass perhaps crapping out just when our team gets itself together, thats the risk everyone takes. Every team is one play away from starting thier backup, two plays away from thier third stringer.

And as I said, with Hass as leader and glue, the other personnell groupings will reach thier peak faster with him at the helm. If he gets them to peak performance, then is injured, he will be turning a better performing unit over to his backup/successor--and how is that a bad thing? The perfect scenario for any backup or young qb is to come into a team that is firing on all cylinders around him, where he doesnt have to be a savior (Flacco last year)--and Hass can get us there.

To me at least, it makes a lot more sense to keep Hasselbeck as long as he is playing at a higher level than his backups and can stay relatively healthy.

While his successor needs to be found, it doesnt have to be immediately. Too many teams panic and end up wasting a pick on someone they reached for. If the staff trusts Wallace to lead the team for a year or so after Hass eventual end, that would give us even more time. (All that matters is what they think of Wallace--not what some fans want).

Green Bay is a classic case of finding the hier apparent years before necessary and developing him right. However, Favre held on playing extremely well and put them in a bind. With Hass, I dont think we have to worry about that.

I would love to see Seattle find Hass' replacement in the next year or two, but this draft doesnt have to be the one. Nor do we have to draft a qb high to find a good one. And while its somewhat urgent to find one (IF Teel/Wallace arent considered possible answers by Carroll), I dont see how dumping Hass would help the situation at all. All that would do is immediately drop us into the cellar for several years, and it could endanger the development of whatever young qb we choose as his successor by putting too much pressure on him.

While a few qb's have had success recently in thier rookie years, it is still an anomaly. Far more qb's are ruined by that then do well. And one thing the teams with good rookie qb performances have in common is that they were solid across the board. Atlanta fixed itself in one year, and Baltimore had a solid team in place. Add to that the fact that many are underwhelmed with this years qb class makes it imperitive not to reach for a qb in panic.

Add to that the desperate need for a LT and a beastly G, the holes at RB and D-line, the weak secondary, and there would seem to be little room for a risky luxury pick like qb.

I feel the Hawks need to revamp, not utterly rebuild in one year. Like Atlanta two years ago, I think we can and will go from Cellar-Dweller to playoff contender. But unlike Atlanta, we have a veteran qb to lead us, and so we can afford to spend our top picks on other positions that will help us immediately.
...
written by Beercan, January 28, 2010
And any QB we signed would only be as a 1 - 2 year rental, here just long enough for a potential replacement to be drafted and prepared. and i presented my argument as an alternative to drafting a guy and starting him immediately, which almost always fails.
I would be a big fan of keeping Hassleback if i felt that we were close to contending now, but we aren't. This roster needs a significant overhaul to become a Super Bowl contending team. Making the playoffs isn't enough. we should build a team that would be capable of beating any team at any time. and if you think the seahawks are close to that, you are deluding yourself.
...
written by CWEH, January 28, 2010
SSReporter………

Lets put Matt aside for now, all I want to ask is what game are you watching. Please do not compare our O-line to Colts and yes our line is worse then Texans when Carr was getting jacked around.

Do you know that LT is one of the most important positions on the football team? Well guess what buddy, we were playing 3rd string players there. Even with Payton, we would be trash. Sure Matt throw into double coverage’s, but that’s because of your horrible receiver core. None of our receivers are true number 1!

Branch – Short, slow and not strong enough
TJ – true flanker or Y receiver
Burlinson – another flanker receiver

Where is our X? We don’t have one! None of these receivers can separate them self from D-backs! So the guy is forced to throw to his 4th or 5th option (if he in not killed by a blitz by that time).

Our decision making and work ethic would be greatly impacted, if we were routinely hit! Remember that!
...
written by S.TTBM, January 28, 2010
As for trade value, I cant imagine anyone trading a second rounder for Hass. And it makes no sense to trade him for only a third or fourth round pick. If he has a good year this next year, and Coach feels like Teel or Wallace or someone else is ready, we might get a little more for him.

But as it stands right now, Matt is 35 years old, coming off two poor injury riddled seasons, and his value to us is far more than to anyone else.

Unless of course Favre retires and Minnesota wants him. Which would be funny. Even with Ruskell gone, I doubt Seattle will ever trade with Minny unless we're sure we're ripping them off.
...
written by S.TTBM, January 28, 2010
PS Great article Billt. Its sure to get everyone talking! So thank you for giving us something to discuss.smilies/smiley.gif
...
written by HawksfanMSVL, January 28, 2010
God I hate Hasselbeck nay-sayers.
...
written by Beercan, January 28, 2010
Trade him for the right package. like a 3rd this year and a 2nd next. or a 2nd and 5th... etc
We're talking about holmgen here. He would trade a 2nd rounder for Hass. Didn't he trade Ahman Green AND a 2nd round pick for Hass?
Even Cleveland's 3rd round pick would be good. the difference between cleveland's 3rd round and minnesota's 2nd round pick is 8 picks.
...
written by Beercan, January 28, 2010
scratch that, the hasslebeck and ahman green trades were seperate
...
written by pawleec, January 28, 2010
the hawks have SO many pressing needs, QB is not one of them. Would it be great to have a young Payton Manning? Yes. Would a young stud fail with a crappy line and no playmakers. Yes.
QB's
written by LouieLouie, January 28, 2010
The one vetran QB that has a high potential upside is David Carr. He was thrown to the wolves in an expansion Texas team with a horrible O-Line and players.

After picking himself up off the turf over and over again, getting injured over and over again, he was cut. The same thing happened to Jim Plunket, who eventually took the Raiders to two Superbowl wins.

career gamble
written by sherminator, January 28, 2010
I have no qualms about jettisoning Hasselbeck, IF WE GET THE RIGHT GUY! We shouldn't draft or trade for a QB just because Hass isn't the long term solution. PC will be betting his career on the next franchise QB. If he isn't THE GUY, PC is going to go down in the flames of history. If he identifies the right guy, glory is in PC's future. Hass can buy a year, or maybe two, to identify the franchise QB of the future. I don't believe Bradford or Clausen is the right pick. Leinart is questionable, too, but PC knows his potential better than any of us.
...
written by Highlander, January 28, 2010
sherminator: I don't believe Bradford or Clausen is the right pick. Leinart is questionable, too, but PC knows his potential better than any of us.

This is pretty much the same point I'd made previously, but you also bring up something that has me a bit worried. PC is new in Seattle so I/we don't know him very well, but I'm concerned that he may place too high a value on a prospect because he'd coached him at USC. In your post you mentioned Leinart and that PC had coached him. You are correct, PC should know him fairly well, but we can only hope that he can detach enough to be fully objective. Another case in point is Taylor Mays. He's said to be a physical specimen but the NFL isn't a pose down, it's a game and he's said to be struggling a bit at the senior bowl practices. Berry may be a better option at Safety for example...but will Mays be marked up because he's a USC alum?
...
written by USAFANARC, January 28, 2010
One thing on PC. This year he started a freshman QB at USC. How'd that work out for him? Not good. I wonder if that will influence him at all. He may have learned his lesson about throwing a rookie to the wolves. I think he will draft a QB, because at USC he has always (until this year) developed a stable of skill players behind experienced guys and brought them out when they are ready. I see that repeating itself this year. The only thing that would change that is if we got an offer that we could not refuse, like a first round pick (which won't happen).

I do see Minnesota as a good spot for Hass to land, though. Same system and a strong running game to fall back on....all that is if Favre retires of course.
KEEP Hassellback!
written by Farmer Paul, January 28, 2010
There is no reason to trade the man. His value is here in Seattle. Why? Because he has been here. He is comfortable here and he wants to be here. I disagree with all you who say he can't play anymore. He was playing for Jim Mora and had to listen to Gregg Knapp call plays!!! Who can play through that SHIT! Matt will build a solid rapport with Carroll. Matt needs protection, a running game, John Carlson out in the field, and most of all Matt and T.J need to connect. Sending Matt packing will only hurt T.J, Burleson, etc. Everyone knows that T.J. will have a tantrum if a rookie QB is having issues throwing the ball. C'mon people! There is know way Pete Carroll is sending Matt to another team, not this season. Now, if Arizona wants to get rid of Matt Leinart through a trade I would jump on it depending on what we would have to trade. I believe Pete Carroll can get more out of Leinart then Ken Whisenhunt.
TRADE w/ Vikings
written by LV Hawker, January 28, 2010
If Farve retires like he's suppose to, then I say we trade Hasselbeck to Vikings for John Wayne Booty who did a nice job at USC for Carroll.
...
written by Max Spector, January 28, 2010
Hass has merit as trade bait. I also think that Wallace needs to be traded as well since there are teams that would give him a starting shot, which I think he'd like. Rookie QB? Make the comparisons between Detroit and the Jets and you see the case for one to be successful and one to not, and it's the solidity of the team - ours being suspect across the board. Let's rent a QB while the rest of the team learns the system and the coaches, then find our QB of the future. If Teel is 2+ years more out then why are we hanging on to him?? A lot of the veterans need to either step up or step off. Walt, love you man, you're HOF for sure, but you need to go. Trust me, my knees are shot from 40 years of playing indoor and outdoor soccer, you need your knees big guy!! (is Mays our next Kenny Easely??? I wish..)
Trent Edwards
written by Hawkdude, January 28, 2010
I think Edwards can be had for a reasonable price. Hass for Edwards straight up. If they want more, throw in Seneca.
...
written by cts, January 28, 2010
I totally agree with you STTBM. You can't just throw the leader of the team away when you are in rebuild mode and certainly not for a rookie.

We don't have a team that can support a rookie coming in here and doing well. Look at Stafford for example.

Aside from all of that, there really is just one question you can ask yourself whether or not you think drafting a QB this year is a good idea. IS there a suitable QB in this years draft capable of becoming our cornerstone for the next decade or so? I liked Bradford, but coming in injury proned and not being able to see him in his senior year to determine if 2008 was really representative of who he is as a QB raises a red flag in the 1st round. Clausen is a one year wonder and has the potential of Sanchez. I know some of you like him but 12 TD's, 20 INT's and being ranked the 28th QB this year, eventhough he was on one of the BEST teams is not a remotely even average year. He WAS a BUST in 2009. I've never been a fan on one year wonders and wouldn't waste a 1st round pick on one.

The only value I see would be in the mid rounds with prospects like Skelton, LaFavour, canfeild or Pike. These rounds are where you get value out of the one year wonders.
...
written by S.TTBM, January 28, 2010
Trent Edwards?! Seriously?! You have got to be kidding! There is no way he oupterforms Hasselbeck over the next couple years.

Trading Hass for a lower-talent veteran, even a young one, also makes little sense to me.

Leadership is also important, and Matt is the team leader. Leadership is probably the only reason Nate Burleson is still on the team with all his inconsistency.
...
written by S.TTBM, January 28, 2010
LV Hawker--Um, I believe his name is John David Booty. At least get the name right if you want to trade a Pro Bowl qb for him.

One other thing to consider: When Tom Flores took over, he spouted off about "stretching the defense" and promptly informed Dave Kreig he was not wanted. How did dumping our veteran qb work out? We went through something like 13 qb's (including spending the 2nd pick in the draft on one) before Hass took the reins and saved us.

Meanwhile Kreig played for years and years, and put up one of the best years of his career in Detroit (13TD's, 2 INT's in 8 games subbing for Scott Mitchell) and taking them to the NFC Title Game.

Funny thing is, we never stretched anything except the imaginations of those wishing we were fielding an actual NFL-caliber offense.

With Kreig, we would have been a playoff contender with Chris Warren and the Tez led defenses of the early 90's. Instead, 9-7 was to be so far off as to be a moon of Neptune.

Personally, I think dumping your veteran qb before you are sure he's done is insanity. Especially when you have no sure-fire backup. (I like Wallace, but who knows if he will be as good in Caroll's system as he was in Holmgren's.)
...
written by omar little, January 28, 2010
I'm personally hoping that Clausen falls to #6 and we can take him there. He is the real deal, put aside your biases and you'll see this as obvious. He played for the guy that devloped Tom Brady, didn't play in some goofy college offense like Pike, Tebow or McCoy, has a great arm, and his work ethic is one of the best from such a young QB.

True, Clausen is cocky and arogent but so are Phil Rivers and Jay Cutler, and they're both good QBs. Personality shouldn't be an issue with a guy as dedicated and competive as Clausen.
Taylor Mays and Adrian Wilson
written by Farmer Paul, January 28, 2010
After doing some research on Adrian Wilson collegiate past and draft status I was amazed by the comparison of Adrian and Taylor Mays. Both are talked about as just being "Big Hitters" with no cover skills. Adrian was ranked to be in the 1st round, but dropped in the 3rd because most did not think he had true cover skills. Both Adrian and Taylor are awe-jaw dropping physical specimens at 6'3 230lbs. Adrian Wilson proved the critics what he could do at the next level. The only difference between them both is Adrian Wilson clocked a time of 4.55 in the 40. It's being said that Taylor Mays could be at 4.3 no more than a 4.4. So, in defense to my favorite safety coming in to the 2010 draft I believe if Adrian Wilson can prove many wrong surely Taylor Mays can also.
Divisive Topic
written by Riggle, January 28, 2010
Let's have a topic that unites us like:

Should we bring Brian Russell back?
These responses prove my point
written by SSReporters, January 28, 2010
Of appeal to emotion. Step back and think it logically. How many times can a 35 year old QB bounce back from numerous injuries and be successful? Not many times.

The dude who posted Seattle having a worse line than Houston is using irrational opinion and not fact. I highly doubt a team that was 7th or 8th in sacks allowed this year (bumped up by Seneca sacking himself) is worse than the 2002 Texans.

Quick question, how many of you thought Shaun Alexander should have been released after our last playoff season?


You can't just try and gamble on Hasselbeck being healthy and a star every year, especially now that he's aging. Learn to let go and look at the future. It won't be Matt anymore.

Let's find our own Matt Ryan or Joe Flacco.

...
written by S.TTBM, January 28, 2010
Omar--Personality is always an issue when choosing a franchise qb. Especially when doing that. Thats the leader of the entire team.

Look what happened with Cutler. He mouthed his way out of Denver, and looks awful in Chicago.

If Clausen is anything like Rivers (taunts the opposing teams Undiagnosed-Diabetes riddled qb from the sidelines), then he can go to the Rams for all I care.

My concern with him is the one-year thing. Guarantee'd to take 4 years and 40 million dollars of capspace to get him ready to play. You wanna pay that much money and wait that long? Thats a huge risk.

Im no qb guru, thats for sure, but the guy screams RISK louder than loud.
...
written by omar little, January 28, 2010
I see what you are saying STTBM, while he does not have the ideal personality as a QB I also think those traits make him very attractive. We could have a firey young QB teamed with a firey coach to lead this team for the next era in seahawk history. I'm all for retaining Hass BTW but we need to make a legit attempt at finding a replacment NOW. No more long term projects at QB, we need a guy that can start as a rookie Matt goes down again. This is the same deal with Ruskell with WRs and OLs.

Also some would say that Matt had a very similar personallity to Clausen when he first arrived, and he grew into a very good leader for this team.
No we don't
written by JohnnyB, January 28, 2010
we need to make a legit attempt at finding a replacment NOW. No more long term projects at QB, we need a guy that can start as a rookie Matt goes down again


Yeah, no we don't. Why does it have to be "NOW?" The Seahawks aren't desperate. Not only might their Pro Bowl QB be great for another three or four years, they have one of the best backups in the NFL, who is better than one of the QBs who took his team to the AFC championship game.

When teams get desperate at a position, they reach. They often end up with a Rick Mirer, Kelly Stouffer, or Dan McGwire. No thanks. If there is a good value QB at any pick, take him. If not, wait til next year.
...
written by Highlander, January 28, 2010
Let's approach this question from a different angle. The best pick the Hawks are likely to get for Hass is a 2nd, and that's not a guarantee. And the cost for obtaining that 2nd (or lower) would be to lose one of the leaders of the team and the only starter quality QB on the team. I know some seem to like Wallace, but if I see him run out of bounds for another 10 yd loss when he could have thrown the ball out of bounds before stepping out and save those yards I'm going to scream.


But back to Hass and the theoretical 2nd rd pick...what do we get for a 2nd round pick? Maybe 4th or so QB taken in the draft (depending on where in the 2nd round). 3rd rated safety? 4th or 5th rated RB?
Are any of those options better than having a mid round QB sit behind Hass for a year?
...
written by cts, January 28, 2010
Well put JohnnyB. It's the teams who get desperate that draft the busts and Clausen fits that mold to a "T". I would be all for Bradford if he didn't miss last year and if it wasn't his throwing arm. He may get approval from a Orthopedic, but the over use of an arm that has already had surgery is a liability. Not to mention that it will NEVER be 100% again. It may heal, but it won't be to the point that it was.

I'm all for drafting a QB, but not until the 3rd or 4th unless Bradford drops to our #40.
...
written by omar little, January 28, 2010
Hey Johnny B, do you think years of waiting till next year for a QB made us "reach" for guys like Mirer? Maybe if we actually attempted to grab a QB sooner we would have had more success in the years between Kreig and Hasselbeck...
He already did.
written by JohnnyB, January 28, 2010
Step back and think it logically. How many times can a 35 year old QB bounce back from numerous injuries and be successful? Not many times.


Hasselbeck already did bounce back. His back issue from the previous season did not trouble him at all this season. His one time shoulder/rib injury is healed by all accounts. He'll be in fine shape at the start of the coming season. The guy you are arguing against has already refuted your argument.
What?
written by SSReporters, January 28, 2010
No no I meant bounce back as in have a decent season.

The people who think Hasselbeck has 3-4 years left in him are the same ones who thought Shaun's sucking was the offensive line's fault.

What evidence does anyone see in Hasselbeck having 3-4 years left in him when he's just had his 3rd bad season in 4 years with all 3 of those involving injuries?
fighting spirit...
written by rocko, January 28, 2010
wow no wonder the rest of the nfl considers us soft... we have a couple bad years, for a lot of reasons and here we are discussing trading our franchise 3 time pro bowler qb. Hass has been the leader of this team, who has given everything he can into every play, and this is how we as fans appreciate that? i know i might be in the minority here, but give me a qb who isnt afraid to dive for a td against a division rival. give me a qb who isnt afraid to block a safety and a cb at the same time.(last year) or have broken ribs and still throw a block on a busted play(this year.) where is the pride? Hass has given his all to see this team be great. we as seahawk fans should take pride in that fact. our qb doesnt cry and look for a flag everytime he gets hit. he gets up, talks some crap back and does all he can to get the next play right. and besides, who the hell we gonna get that will replace him? matt is the right choice for next year.
Being brave sometimes
written by SSReporters, January 28, 2010
Is also stupid. People assume being brave is a positive all the time. He's done some brave things that I love the same way I loved Elway for the helicopter.

Diving for a TD in week 2 which knocked him out helped wreck this season.


2005 is over. It's time to move on. Players get old and you start to build for a new era, not hang on to the past.
Based on no data
written by GnarlyHawks, January 28, 2010
B/C data doesn't always fly on the addicts site.

I'd like Hass to be traded for picks. We need more youth and that means we need a way to get it.

I'm also tired of watching Hass. You can't measure that, or debate it. As a fan, who pays money, I do not pay for Hass. I will buy tickets next year to see youth and the new coaching staff. Matt will not put my butt in a seat. I've seen his best. I'm ready for something new. I'm ready for anything, anyone other than Hass. It's my perogative as a fan. It's my currency in the decision process.

You like Matt, great for you. You think he has then enjoy watching him, buy his stuff and cheer him on.

Me, I'd rather us get anything we can for him on the market and move on. I'm thinking about 2011,12,13,14,15+. I see opportunity lost from last year. We didn't get picks and we didnt get a replacement for him and we last a ton of games. I don't blame Matt for that, I just consider him a factor, bigger than most.

If you tink Matt has ; If you think PC says things like we are going after the division next year b/c he isnt rebuilding and can quick fix things then you have fallen for the marketing and hype generator that PC excels at outside coaching. We hired him for hope and to mitigate declining sales and TV ratings. If you think these things, you have given me all the evidence I need on the value of your opinion.

Here's to a rebuild. HEre's to seeing Hass; on someone elses team.
...
written by S.TTBM, January 28, 2010
SSR--We all should get down on our knees and thank Hasselbeck for getting hurt on that play. While I doubt we would have won more than another game or two, Hass going out exposed just how inept and clueless Greg Knapp and Jim Mora are.

Without that play, we may have been stuck with Mora and staff for another year at least. And we may have had Ruskell too--though I think he was gone no matter what.

Plus we got the 6th pick, instead of 7-10. Makes me happy that all that hell was worth a little something now that its in the past.
oops
written by GnarlyHawks, January 28, 2010
^^^ If you tink Matt has ;
dammit
written by GnarlyHawks, January 28, 2010
You can't use certain berackets on this site, it hides the text...

^^^ If you tink Matt has upside or potential for ROI...


Sorry for the post spam, kinna ruined my attempt at a point.
My 2 cents
written by Texashawk, January 28, 2010
STTBM,

I agree with you 98%. The only issue I have is with your opinion of Wallace. Wallace is not and will not ever be a good starting QB. He is a back up or stop gap at best.

Anyone who thinks we can do better then Hasslebeck next year is smoking krack. As some of you have stated he is the leader of our offense as Tatupu is the leader of our defense, which is another person everyone seems to want to trade and prove they are smoking krack. Take Tatupu for example who did not play much last year but still managed to help lead the defense. Why did Hawthorne do so well? Answer: Beacause Tatupu spent every chance he could with him in the film room and on the sideline coaching him up and helping him succed so that you guys can demand to trade him! The team is better with Hasslebeck under center. Period.

As for drafting another QB with a high pick, Fine. However we need to remember that they will need time to develop.

I for one would rather get some real talent at skill positions then spend a high pick on a QB. However I can see the logic IF the right guy is available.
...
written by JohnnyB, January 28, 2010
No no I meant bounce back as in have a decent season.


By watching film and knowing the plays, the coaches have determined that Hasselbeck's "bad seasons" were caused by the poor performance by other parts of the offense, not him, and that when you see what he's doing, he's playing well. That's why they are keeping him and "building the offense around him."
...
written by Mr Fish, January 28, 2010
As always, the decision to trade a player should depend on what the other team is offering in the exchange. I don't think the Seahawks are or should be anxious to get rid of Hasselbeck, but I wouldn't be upset to hear they are shopping him around to see what they can get for him. My guess is that, unless Holmgren really wants him, nobody's going to make a compelling offer.

Next year is the last one of his contract, however, and I don't expect it to be renewed. So put me in the camp wanting to see the QB of the future drafted this year and given a year under Hasselbeck's wing. If that means the first pick goes for Clausen, I'm good with it.
...
written by Mr Fish, January 28, 2010
... and yes, I'm dithering over the need for our draft to emphasize the offensive line, just like I did last year.

I was committed to o-line in the first round, but then we got Alex Gibbs and everything changed. smilies/tongue.gif
...
written by JohnnyB, January 28, 2010
Hey Johnny B, do you think years of waiting till next year for a QB made us "reach" for guys like Mirer? Maybe if we actually attempted to grab a QB sooner we would have had more success in the years between Kreig and Hasselbeck...


The point is to not try to jam a square peg into a round hole like a team who is desperate when we are not desperate. Yes, get a good value QB prospect now if one falls, but don't reach for a guy in the first round or free agency as if the Seahawks future depends upon finding the guy this year. It doesn't.
...
written by cts, January 28, 2010
Again, I agree JohnnyB and that is what my arguement is. Clausen and Bradford BOTH have huge "?'s" by their names and could easily be seen by many, myself included, as a reach especially when we have more glaring needs. We have an opportunity to pick up 2 great players in need positions that are much less of a risk. Next year is a better QB class and I do believe in taking a QB this year but not until the 4-6 rounds.

SSReporters-

Everyone did attribute SA's decline to poor OL play, but they also attributed it to his hesitancy as well. He went down at the first sign of contact and that is why he got shipped out. He never recovered from his injury mentally and that drastically affected his play, Hass has. So yes, the OL had a big part in that but answer one question. Since 2005 has our run game ever been even average? NO!! Proving that we have had inadequate line play.

So answer another question. Have we had a good passing game since 2005? The answer is yes and it wasn't due to good OL play, it was average and Hass did the rest. The common denominator here is the poor play of the OL and Hass has been good despite their insufficiency, which is something our run game never did with SA or any other RB we've had.

I'm saying his down years are a direct result of poor protection, lack of time and a collapsing pocket aside from a poor run game. What you are saying is, in a nutshell, if we had the Cards WR core, but had Rowe throwing the ball and calling for an overhaul of our WR core because they weren't putting up the numbers. To most people it would be obvious that Rowe was the problem and you are using his injuries (caused by his OL) and age as a scapegoat. His back was not an issue this year and a broken rib has never and will never be a nagging injury. Nor will it continue to bother him once healed. A re-injury to the same rib would only be a coincidence.

Point I'm trying to make is that there are little stats with to judge the OL except for sacks allowed and the numbers produced in the run game and pass game. ALL of those stats are pitiful showing how inadequate our OL is. So why aren't you clammering for an overhaul with ALL our WR's and RB's too? Their stats are just as poor.

This year we need to focus on rebuilding our trenches and obvious needs. Once our OL has been fortified we can then see where our true holes are. Again, I agree we need to look for Hass's successor, BUT it shouldn't be out of desperation and definitely doesn't HAVE to be this year if a guy the FO is targeting isn't there. That's my point.
...
written by omar little, January 28, 2010
Hey CTS what are these huge a glaring question marks that you keep mentioning Clausen has? I'm just wondering what your beef with him is.

I get the questions surrounding Bradford, mainly his shoulder but to me Clausen does not have as many question marks as a lot of recent guys.
Tis made me chuckle a bit
written by GnarlyHawks, January 28, 2010
Another stat to consider when thinking about our current QB... From fieldgulls.com

"Did some quick math using those numbers and compared how often Matt was hit/sacked per drop back to other successful QBs.

Brady - 9.95%
Hasselbeck - 14.1%
Favre - 14.1%
Warner - 14.6%
Romo - 13.9%
Schaub - 14.2%
Rodgers - 14.7%

Remind me again why Matt struggled. "


"Remind me again why Matt struggled."
written by JohnnyB, January 28, 2010
Perfect illustration of how bozos like Morgan who throw around stats lead people astray so much. You can't take isolated stats out of context and expect them to solve questions like this.

So, into those stats factor in: actual time each QB had to pass (for example,how many more/less quick passes did Hass throw? or how many did he have to throw away or were rushed passes without him being hit), already everything is all fubared with the stats, but wait, factor in Hass playing in new system and having to learn it after missing games and playing a big chunk of the season with a fractured rib. Factor in the massive trouble with the run blocking and lack of any running game most of the season.

Morgan of course doesn't wanted to be reminded of any of those things. He wants to be a football guru who nobody questions in his phony little world over there. Add in those factors and Morgan's point is blown out of the water, like most of his points would be if he allowed it.
...
written by Patches Pal, January 28, 2010
Send Matt to Cleveland along with the #14 pick. The Browns send Seattle #7, #38 and #92. Holmgren gets the veteran he wants and needs and keeps a first round selection. Matt gets a starting job on a team that can protect him in an offense he knows. The Hawks get a bunch of picks to reload with. Everyone wins.

Then the Hawks could start Seneca. They need someone that can run for his life behind this line. They could draft Clausen and an OT at #6 and #7. In the second round they add a big RB like Gearhart or Dwyer and a DE. In the third they could pick up a big CB for the secondary.

Of course, I would perfer Locker but I doubt he will be available next year unless we are the worst team in the league.
Two-Year Extention For Matt
written by Tomahawker, January 28, 2010
It seems a pretty even mixture of thoughts - Mine is an emotional opinion, but I'd like to think it has some rational expression too..

I said it before and I'll say it again... Give Hass a two year extension. I will take an experienced Quarterback over a rookie anytime... Besides, I want him to finish out as a SEAHAWK.

A protected Matt (insert draft linemen here) is more likely to perform better than someone who is not up to speed on the NFL tempo.

Definitely draft a quarterback - but don't toss him to the wolves year one. MAKE him sit and learn.... The team will be the better for it in the long run. Yes, we are building for the future, but it does not prohibit us from being competitive now. Sure, could struggle some, but I'd rather struggle a bit than fail out right. Tossing the new lamb to the wolves has lasting affects.. (Insert 49'ers here...)

I say do lets do this right, not rushed.

GO HAWKS!!
...
written by Highlander, January 28, 2010
Patches Pal, nobody, Cleveland included is going to give the hawks a first, second and third round pick for a lower first round pick and Hass. If you can swing the deal I'd say go for it in a half a heartbeat, but it's dreaming.

Still, no one has answered my earlier question. Assuming the price one can get for Hass is about a 2nd round pick, what 2nd round pick is going to be a greater addition to the team over a very experienced QB who has played to pro-bowl level providing a year or two for a rookie QB?
...
written by Patches Pal, January 28, 2010
Highlander,

I think they would do the deal. Hass fits Holmgrens system perfectly. He knows him. He needs a veteran QB. They are really only moving down 7 spots in the first round. It is likely they want to do that anyway for salary reasons. They give up a late third and a second for the QB of their dreams. Matt is a Pro Bowler in that system. Give him an O Line and he will be successful again. Unfortunately, in Seattle he has little value because we cannot really use him to his full potential. Your attitude that they do not value him is really a reflection of how Seattle fans no longer value him because you realize he is not going to succeed in Seattle the next two years no matter how well he plays. In one year he will be a FA. They will not pay him the money in Seattle.

From Holmgrens point of view the deal is like getting two firsts for a first, second and third.
...
written by Highlander, January 28, 2010
Patches Pal, as I said, if you can get a move up from 14 to 6 in the first and pick up a 2nd and 3rd to boot for Matt then I'd trade him in a flash. He has just 1 year left on his contract and that's quite a price. I've essentially been arguing that Matt is far more valuable (even for just a year or two) to give time to groom a replacement, but if you can pick make the deal you suggest the Hawks would be crazy not to go for it.
Holmgren's system?
written by JohnnyB, January 28, 2010
What makes you think the Browns are running Holmgren's offense? Holmgren isn't the coach. You think the entire offense is going to learn a new system because they got a new GM?

And furthermore, people always come up with pie-in-the-sky trades for the Seahawks that never happen. Why? Because if Holmgren gave up all that for a QB he could get one season later without giving up any draft picks, he would be fired for being an idiot.
...
written by nightwulf, January 28, 2010
SSR,
This isn't a historically bad offensive line.
Dude, what games were YOU watching? Forget stats like sacks...Matt was savvy enough to get rid of the ball and avoid a couple dozen of those this year. I recall seeing a graphic from one game:
Drop backs: 20
QB Hurries: 8
QB hits: 8
QB Sacks: 1
That's 17 out of 20 plays where Matt realistically didn't have a chance...In 40 years of watching football, I haven't seen a line that was so CONSISTENTLY awful. The poor guy almost NEVER had a pocket to throw from...The line collapsed around him on damn near EVERY play (except for SL and JAX, where he played well)His only chance to make ANY sort of play was to get rid of the ball as quickly as possible, and doing that leads to "poor decisions". Good lord, man, he got sacked ON A ONE STEP DROP! Play after play after stinking play he never had a chance. Last year, the line was better, but he was throwing to people like Keary Colbert, for god's sakes...He had no real receiving corps in '08, and the worst line I've ever seen in '09, and you want to put the blame on the QB?

Slave,
Loved your "voice of reason" so far...you've said almost everything I would have said, (had I not been at work while all this was going on)
...
written by nightwulf, January 28, 2010
For that matter, putting ANY young QB behind this line is a way to insure them having a short and forgettable career...Keep Matt for a couple more years, give the line a chance to gel, and let the "heir apparent" ride the pine...Personally, I just don't see Clausen, Tebow, McCoy, Bradford or Pike as ready to face what they'd have to face without Hass...ANd on Clausen, name me one other good QB out of ND other than Joe Montana...anybody?
...
written by BillT, January 29, 2010
Of course, I would perfer Locker but I doubt he will be available next year unless we are the worst team in the league.


Two years ago I would have laughed at that statement snickering about being the worst team in the league but the last two years have wiped that smirk off my face.

Needing a quarterback in the near future makes this something like Russian Roulette. For two years in a row we've had high draft picks and been in position to get a highly rated quarterback. If we continue to pass saying that we don't see anyone good enough, who knows what the next season is going to bring. Some fans believe that Carroll is going to come in here and turn things around right away. If so, we may find that we don't see another pick inside the top 15 for another decade or longer.

If you think that picking a successful NFL quarterback is iffy in the first round (which it is) try finding one in the 5th or 6th rounds. Now before you say "Hasselbeck" was a 6th round choice, go tally how many quarterbacks were picked in the 6th round over say the last 20 years and count the ones who had a successful career as a starter in the NFL. Convert it to a percentage. Then count the quarterbacks taken in the first round and do the same analysis. You'll find that even though picking quarterbacks is just risky business in any situation, like other critical positions, the odds are better the higher you pick.

If you remember when Dave Kreig was let go, the Seahawks floundered for years tring to find a quarterback. Gilbert, Mathison, Kemp, Gelbaugh, McGuire, Stouffer, Meier, and Friesz. 8 quarterbacks in 10 years before Warren Moon came here in the twilight of his career and played a couple of years. Erickson found Jon Kitna whom Holmgren discarded and then Holmgren went through Foley, Huard, and Dilfer before finally settling on Hasselbeck. That's 13 quarterbacks in the 15 years between Dave Kreig and Matt Hasselbeck. Kreig played 10 years for the Seahawks and Hasselbeck is entering his 10th year. That 15 year stretch in-between those two quarterbacks who held the starting quarterback position for the longest tenure of any Seahawk QB's was the worst time in Seahawk history between the bad ownership, worse coaching, and underperforming players particularly at the QB position.

Except for a couple of seasons, during that 15 years the Seahawks were just mired in mediocrity always winning enough games to draft out of the top 12 to 15 players but never quite getting into the playoff's either. Watching other teams hit rock bottom and get a couple of top draft choices in a couple of years to rise up and make it back to the playoff's was hard to take. We did hit rock bottom for the franchise when we went 2 - 14 during that stretch under Flores but it never brough us the player we needed to make it to contender status. Finally, with new ownership, a great head coach and the best quarterbadk the franchise has ever had starting for them, they made it out of the muck.

I don't want to see the Seahawks end up back in that never never land when they can't quite make the playoffs or just barely with no real chance to advance yet not be in a position to acquire the kind of players needed to raise the level of play and take it to the next step. If we can't find a franchise quarterback when Hass is finished, we'll have a very hard time being what we want to be as the Seattle Seahawks. Chuch Knox and Dave Kreig and then Mike Holmgren and Matt Hasselbeck are the two coach/QB combinations in the history of the Seahawks that worked and brought success. Out of 34 years, they are the only successful ones. Two head coaches and not coincidentally the two best quarterbacks in franchise history. I hope We can later add the Carroll/?????? combination to the list but that's not going to happen if we end up in a perpetual hunt for our next franchise QB.

To me, it seems imperative that we find someone with talent that we can develop or pay the big bucks for a proven commodity who has lots of gas left in the tank and get the new set of players on the field as soon as possible. I wouldn't rush a young inexperienced quarterback if that's the direction we go and I would then definately use Hass as a mentor, tutor, and starter until the kid is ready but I do see an urgency in identifing the next quarterback and getting him on the team. The percentages will be much greater the higher you select him in the draft but if we have a talent evaluator who can identify a bonafied candidate in the later rounds, I can get on board with that but we can't wait much longer to get that player identified and working with the team preparing to take over. If we decide to go with lower a round pick either this year or next year because we don't have as high a pick, whoever is doing the evaluation better score because he is facing much longer odds in finding our man that way. No quarterback can really equal no joy.
...
written by Highlander, January 29, 2010
BillT: If you remember when Dave Kreig was let go, the Seahawks floundered for years tring to find a quarterback. Gilbert, Mathison, Kemp, Gelbaugh, McGuire, Stouffer, Meier, and Friesz. 8 quarterbacks in 10 years before Warren Moon came here in the twilight of his career and played a couple of years. Erickson found Jon Kitna whom Holmgren discarded and then Holmgren went through Foley, Huard, and Dilfer before finally settling on Hasselbeck.

In general I actually agree with you, although I believe our point of seperation is you seem to be advocating for using one of the two 1st round picks on a QB whereas I believe they are too risky coupled with much better prospects and equal or greater need in other positions.
That being said, your list of QB's prompted me to do a little research as you appeared to be using this list to suggest the Hawks should use a higher rather than lower pick for QB. So this is the rounds your list were drafted at:
Dave Kreig: Undrafted FA
Gale Gilbert: Undrafted FA (I believe)
Bruce Mathison: Round 10 by San Diego
Jeff Kemp: Undrafted FA
Stan Gelbaugh: 6th Rd by Dallas who released him
Dan McGwire: 1st Rd
Kelly Stouffer: 1st Rd
Rick Meier: 1st rd
John Friesz: 6th rd by San Diego
Warren Moon: Undrafted FA
Jon Kitna: Undrafted FA
Glenn Foley: 6th Rd NY Jets
Brock Huard: 3rd Rd
Trent Dilfer: 1st Rd Tampa Bay
Matt Hasselbeck: 6th Rd Green Bay

So there you have it. So you were utilizing this list to suggest that it's better to draft a higher QB than lower, and yet the only QB's the Hawks have selected that have been any good at all did not come in the first round. The only first rounder that was any good for the Hawks was Dilfer, and he was drafted 6th overall by Tampa Bay and was obtained through free agency.
The Hawks track record for selecting QB's high is abominable. And remember, some of those early QB's went undrafted back when there were 12 rounds so they were REALLY undrafted compared to today.
Now ultimately, this is history and fun and all but what is critical is if the top 2 QB's will pan out for the Hawks using a 6 or 14 pick.
There are only 2 that are fairly likely to be gone by the Hawks 2nd rd pick and they are Sam Bradford and Jimmy Clausen. Bradford has had 2 shoulder injuries in the last year. Do you risk a 6th pick on someone that may be prone to injury, especially given the Hawks line? That leaves Jimmy Clausen. It is very possible that he may be gone by the time the Hawks pick and the issue will be moot, but assuming he's available is he the franchise QB for the Hawks? The debate still rages on that one and I'm sure it'll be a point of debate and discussion on this board in the weeks to come. Bottom line, in my opinion, the Hawks either have to buy into Clausen and hope he's not taken, or they will have to select a QB later in the draft rather people like the option or not.




...
written by cts, January 29, 2010
Well, put BillT, but again we shouldn't draft a QB in the 1st unless there is someone the FO really likes.

Omar,

Bradford is a proven, accurate stud QB. You can't say that he's not the top commodity when he tossed up 88 TD's and only 16 INT's with an average rating of roughly 165 in 3 years DESPITE only playing 3 games in his senior year. If it wasn't for his shoulder I'd be on the Bradford bandwagon and I'm not completely off of it at #14.

My big argument against Clausen is that he is a one year wonder. He was just okay in 2008 and really his stats weren't all that impressive last year. Pike had similar numbers and is 3 inches taller. Why isn't everyone clammering for Pike? Is it because Clausen comes from a pro style offense? Not that there's really a point to the comparison but it makes you wonder.

My point is the whole one year wonder. Sanchez was the same thing last year and he had a much better year except Sanchez is more athletic and bigger than Clausen. I compare these two because he is a decent representation and look how well, or poor more like it, Sanchez did in the NFL this year. 12 TD's with 20 INT's with the best D and one of the top run games and OL. Look what Ryan and Flacco did with worse teams overall statistically. Statistically speaking, Sanchez should have had a very very good season and what happened? He wound up #28 overall just ahead of Stafford, Freeman (also a one year wonder), Delhomme and Russell. 2 rookies thrown in before they were ready, Russell who was in the same situation when he was a rookie and an over the hill bum who shouldn't have been starting for years.

I'm not saying Sanchez or Clausen will never develop into a good QB, but it's MUCH less of a risk to take a proven QB who has more that one adequate year of experience (i.e. Bradford minus the shoulder). Find me some one year wonders that have been taken early in the 1st round that have proven to be worth their draft position and MAYBE I'd consider (probably not) Clausen at #14. Bottom line, he is not a proven QB and until someone has proven themselves, I don't think they are worthy of a 1st round pick.

We have too many needs that are more pressing such as OL, DL, RB, and DB to be drafting that high of a risk on Clausen at #6 or #14 for that matter in my opinion. I'd rather take a risk on Bradford's shoulder and his proven status over Clausen, his health and unproven status. That's just me.
...
written by BillT, January 29, 2010
I'm not really advocating anything specific except to say somehow they need to get it done before we get into the quarterback turnsile situation again. If they can find a suitable prospect in the later rounds who can be developed with Hass's help, I can live with that. If Teel can be developed, I can live with that once again especially with Matt's help.

My only crevat was that drafting quarterback is still riskier in the later rounds than the earlier rounds. When finding a new quarterback is really necessary, how much risk are we willing to take to hit the jackpot with a minimum of time and effort lost going down dead ends? How much importance does the front office put on having that quarterback in place when he's needed?

That's what got Ruskell in trouble was not having replacements ready when players who were known risks were being counted on heavily to get the job done and didn't or were out with predictable injuries. With no suitable replacements in sight, everything went to hell in a handbasket and fast.

How fast will this team swirl down the toilet if we lose our quarterback to age or injury and we don't have anyone ready to step in knowing as we do now that Matt is slowing down some and that injuries are catching up with him as well as the real fact that he's getting old? We think he might have a couple of years. That's about the most optimistic projection for taking a lower round quarterback (if we don't want to spend a higher pick and get a more polished product) and getting him ready to play even working behind a good mentor. If we wait until next year, we might only have a year to groom him which will make him even more raw when he does step in. After that, time's up.

Senaca's not the answer and he would only be another stop-gap. The team will never gel and get to playing at an elite level until they have some stability at the most critical positions. Musical quarterbacks doesn't cut it. I want to see the next guy after Hass be a genuine prospect who is being played with idea he's going to be the man. If he fails, so be it but I don't want to start seeing a succession of old QB's on their last year or two and and a bunch of lower round draft choices who we're rotating through trying to find someone who fooled the scouts and can really play. Find him however you can but find someone with an upside and chance to succeed.
...
written by gsavage, January 29, 2010
I'm not really advocating anything specific except to say somehow they need to get it done...

As usual, when challenged with facts, his 5K words go limp.
...
written by S.TTBM, January 29, 2010
I hear what youre saying, Billt. I dont see it exactly as you, but I hear where youre coming from.

Personally, I thought youre comments were very well spoken.

And thanks again for the chewy subject matter. Its fun to debate in the dry spell between the season and Free Agency.

Nightwulf--Thanks for the kind words.
...
written by omar little, January 29, 2010
So I'm hearing you'd rather take a risk on a frail noodle armed QB who comes from a spread offense over a prospect like Jimmy clausen. I fail to see the logic behind your reasoning since comparing numbers in college is not a good way to judge players.
Hasselbeck sighting
written by Papahawk, January 29, 2010
I saw him today. He was with his kids in Bellevue. His head is really shiny. He looks younger in person than on TV. I hope he is our QB next year. IMHO he did never buy into the Knapp system completely this past season. He will be more likely to succeed with Bates than Knapp. He's got more football to give.
In defense of Bill's point and the "facts"
written by GnarlyHawks, January 29, 2010
Bills point was made based on percentages, league wide. The selections of the Hawks was offered in a rebuttal. While a convenient debate point, and somewhat relevent - these are not apples to apples.

Good to great QB's can come from any round.
Same for bad.

I look at the data of the Hawks, and instead see poor selections. There were other teams who picked during those drafts, in the first who yielded better success.

A QB drafted in 1991, along with Dan McGwire (at 16) was a guy named Brett Favre (at 33). Hind sight is 20/20, so who knows what it was like in that draft when those two were evaluated.

To me, Bill's point stands. Highlanders rebuttal is instead better for showing just how bad the hawks have been at selecting QB's. Not so good at suggesting where a team should look, based on percentages.


Side note: above fieldgulls link was not a Morgan post. It was a fan post. Check the links and the articles before jumping to conclusions and making assumptions. It will help your credibility on arguments. Yes, those are isolated stats and the argument was valid. Still it was not complete. What failed to be conveyed by the rebuttal, was how defenses defend matt the QB, not the o-line. He can't throw deep and will check down often. Their field of defense is short - hence they can easily load the box w/out worry of a deep threat. This, in turn, causes more pressure on the oline, making pressure on Matt easier. Matt is not innocent here, It's hard to understand why so many fans can not look at his play w/out bias for defending him.
draft info source
written by GnarlyHawks, January 29, 2010
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_NFL_Draft
additional note, above comparision to Favre, Favre was a high second rounder. Personally, I'm an advocate of finding the value in the late 1st to high 2nd for QB. It seems quality top tier talent can situationally fall late in the 1st early second, simply b/c of teams well stocked at QB. This seems to be the bargain, lower risk range for those picks. Caveat, I have not researched this and am making an assumption based on what I see, not know.
...
written by cts, January 29, 2010
I'm not advocating Pike as I've stated earlier, I would only consider him in the 4-6 rounds, and yes that is a bad comparison.

If you read my post again, I was only really comparing him to Sanchez as Sanchez had a better year, has a better arm, is a bigger QB and a better athlete. He was a better prospect than Clausen and in a similar situation. So my comparison was what he would do on a poor team as opposed to what Sanchez did on an elite team.

I've said it before, if Favre had stayed, they would have had a great chance of going 14-2 as they lost 5 games by a total of 17 points. The biggest loss in those 5 games was by 5 points and the senior leadership and experience that Favre would have given, along with that good of a team around him, probably would have given them the edge. And I gauruntee that Favre's stats would have been much better than 12 TD's to 20 INT's.

BillT-

I know what you were saying and I still agree with that, but you don't have to reach on a guy you aren't sold on. In my opinion, Clausen would only be considered at #40 as Bradford is the only real option in the 1st round and not at #6. He is really the only complete, proven QB minus the shoulder.

My top 2 midround options are Skelton and LaFavour. Skelton has all the measurables you are looking for in a QB. He has ideal size, good arm strength, decent accuracy and is athletic. He is very raw and the kind of guy that would benefit sitting behind Hass for a couple years.

All I'm saying is that the teams who panic and reach are the ones who waste top picks on busts. I'm all for drafting a QB, but not a wrong one and not one of poor value at the position we draft them.
Lower risk QBs
written by JohnnyB, January 29, 2010
The solution to getting your franchise QB with lower round picks is to try more of them. Don't just get one QB prospect, get three, add up their odds of success and you have a better chance of finding the guy than by taking the high risk, first round pick.
JohnnyB
written by GnarlyHawks, January 29, 2010
Great point. I also heard a comment (not sure of source) about Schnieder stating they plan on, or would expect to draft QB's often.

Will be interesting, personal desires aside, to see what these new folks do. It's possible they do go lower round at volume and retain Matt. I won't like that and would rather see some fresh faces on the field, but then again, if we win with that model - I'll be quick change my mind smilies/smiley.gif
Whose Bias?
written by JohnnyB, January 29, 2010
It's hard to understand why so many fans can not look at his play w/out bias for defending him.


That's because you have the bias, not us. You're the one who can't see that he is still good. You'll get evidence of this when a third set of coaches (first Holmgren, then Mora, now Carroll) decide he is good. You really think it's them and us with the bias, and not you?

Here's more proof, with a thought experiment for you: Why do you blame Hasselbeck for not being able to complete deep passes when the Seahawks haven't had a deep threat receiver since he's been here?
...
written by JohnnyB, January 29, 2010
Side note: above fieldgulls link was not a Morgan post. It was a fan post. Check the links and the articles before jumping to conclusions and making assumptions


Morgan reposted it and supported it. It doesn't matter who posts over there, him or one of his sycophants. They all parrot him. Morgan has been a Hasselbeck detractor for years. His reasoning for it is either absent or idiotic.
...
written by omar little, January 29, 2010
Bradford was the injury prone noodle armed spread offense QB I was talking about. To me there is almost no difference between Pike and Bradford in terms of potential at the next level.
...
written by CWEH, January 29, 2010
Trent Edwards? J.D. Booty? Vic? Party boi ML? what the hell happened to the smart hawk fans... enough said.
...
written by cts, January 29, 2010
Fair enough, that's your opinion other than he has proven himself and his arm strength is underrated. My opinion is that Clausen has bust potential all over him and will amount to just an average QB. Maybe a slight chance of above average, but in no way an elite QB. It's all about opinion at this point and I will agree to disagree.

Schneider never came out and said that we would take a QB often. Someone on here posted that it has been a staple of the Green Bay organization to do that. Whether or not that is a straight up Schneider thing to do will remain to be seen. I for one am not against it as long as you're not reaching or wasting a 2nd or 3rd on a guy if you have a top tier QB with one in the waiting like GB did with Favre and Rodgers. Rounds 4-6 in that scenario, go hog wild.
...
written by Highlander, January 29, 2010
GnarlyHawks:
Bills point was made based on percentages, league wide. The selections of the Hawks was offered in a rebuttal.

Actually, the list of Hawk QB's I posted I took FROM BillT's post. I was responding with the same list he utilized.

Now your point is well taken, obviously GM's wouldn't regularly take QB's disproportionately high in the first round if it was such a crapshoot that it didn't matter which round one took a QB in the chances of a hit was the same. I wouldn't argue against that, I was just pointing out that the argument BillT seemed to be presenting was that it was a better option for the Hawks to take a QB higher up.

There are 2 QB's that are likely to be taken in the first round and the top half the round is most likely. One or maybe even both may be gone before the Hawks get to pick. But the question remains, are either Bradford or Clausen too risky to utilize a high round pick on. I'd contend yes, they both have a level of risk I wouldn't take at either 6 or 14...but that's just my evaluation. Now if either of them drop to the 2nd round I'd probably take the shot at them.

JohnnyB made a point that is similar to something I'd written earlier and I believe bears repeating. To reduce the chance one fails in selecting a QB later than the first round one can take more than one QB. He suggested 3, although I'd suggested two simply because I think it'd be hard for a team to come up with play time to obtain a valuable evaluation for 3 QB's. Afer all, we don't really even know what we have in Teel and he's not competing with 2 other rookie QB's for face time. For all we know, he could be the answer at QB for the Hawks, we simply haven't seen enough to make an evaluation. Persumably the Hawks have a better evaluation given the time of sitting with him in meetings and practices.

...
written by Texashawk, January 29, 2010
actually i think schnieder did say it on Serius radio.
...
written by cts, January 29, 2010
Oh, I didn't hear of that. I just remember someone pointing out that it was something the Packers did regularly. Then coaching them up and trading them away. Either way, I stand by my statement of being okay with it as long as we aren't wasting a 2nd or 3rd on one if we have our starter and potential future starter behing him.

Highlander-

The only problem I see with your logic is that we already have 3 QB's on our roster, we only carry 3 on our roster and drafting 2 means that 2 are going to get cut (Wallace and Teel) or a combo of the 2 we draft and Teel be placed on the practice squad. That's something you do with late rounders/UFA. If you draft 2 mid-rounders then try to stick them on the practice squad you run a higher risk of them getting picked up on waivers. So unless the Hawks don't value Teel and Seneca very high and are okay shipping Seneca out completely leaving inexperienced QB's as Hass's back up then it isn't that viable of an option.

I will agree to your theory if it includes one midrounder and how many other QB's you take as long as they are late rounders/UFA's.
...
written by cts, January 29, 2010
I just think that 2 midrounders lead to wasted picks if either get picked up on waivers.
...
written by Highlander, January 29, 2010
cts: I just think that 2 midrounders lead to wasted picks if either get picked up on waivers.

I do agree with you. I guess it depends on what the Hawks think of Teel and Seneca. If they think Teel is the QB of the future then don't draft a QB at all, or just one since Seneca's contract is up next year...maybe trade him if they think highely enough of Teel.

If they don't think Teel is the answer then cut him, draft one or two QB's...if two then play them against each other for the 3rd slot and keep the best of the two...or if they are both showing to be good trade off Seneca and drop Teel and keep them both. It really hangs on what the team believes they have in Teel. I am convinced that Seneca isn't going to be the long term answer. He's barely the short term answer.
Teel
written by Hawksince77, January 29, 2010
Highlander makes a good point. So often the desire is to see a QB drafted and sit behind a veteran like Matt. Well, that's what Teel has done for the past year, so he should be first on the list for consideration.

Based on what I have read, I don't see a first round QB-worthy pick, but some interesting later round possibilities that might fit with the notion of drafting one or two of them to see who might work out.

Back to Teel. We have no idea how he rates with the new organization, and if he is even a viable option to compete for the position, but I hope so. If nothing else, that means using only one pick in the next draft on a QB, not more.

As far as Hasselbeck goes, as a fan I would love to see a trade with Cleveland for something like a 3rd or 4th round pick (higher if it can be had). As someone pointed out above, it's tough to watch him play when there is no chance for a passing play more than 10 yards down the field. In fact, based on cap limitations, I hope he gets traded, Walt retires along with Kerney (unless his deal is restructured). I am ready for a complete make-over and 2010 being a year to move on.

Hass might be very successful in Cleveland, and that would be a win-win. I'd like to see some young talent with a live arm on the field, surrounded by a better O-line and some offensive fire-power.

It's a bit pointless
written by GnarlyHawks, January 29, 2010
to continue debating the merits of Matt. There are obviously division b/w our ranks here regarding his value to the team. An I back your point about it being good I'm not calling shots smilies/wink.gif but that applies to all of us not justme. I've been dead right on some things and not on others...

Re: Morgan and the happless followers on fieldgulls (paraphrasing). I'm not going to support the guy or his fans. I got banned for getting lippy over there the second day after Carrolls hiring. I guess they didn't like my directness for calling them out for hating on Carroll so hard that day. I got accused of trolling and banned. Still, the link was a fan post not Morgans and I happen to agree w/ the general opinion about Matts contribution to the poor offense in 08 & 09.

On this topic, I suggest we all agree to disagree and not try to convinence each other otherwise. We are clearly not going to concede. I think this is ok and healthy. It helps us all see other perspectives and become more enlightened; even if we don't always come to the same conclusions.

I think we can all agree, we want the best for the Hawks and we want wins again.

Respectfully,
GnarlyHawk
Simple
written by JohnnyB, January 29, 2010
You pick up two (or more) rookie QBs in mid/low rounds... Them and Teel fight it out in preseason. That gives them more than enough looks to see if they are duds or have potential. You keep Hass and Wallace. The best one of the three (or four or five) rookies sticks on the active roster. The next one or two or three go on practice squad. The others are cut.

Based upon the actual odds of rookie QBs being successful in the NFL, you have a better chance of finding the guy this way than with the 60% failure rate of first round QBs.

And oh yeah, Congrats again BillT on another provocative post. You've got to be the SA leader in average comments per post, right?
OK I couldn't resist a response
written by GnarlyHawks, January 29, 2010
"Here's more proof, with a thought experiment for you: Why do you blame Hasselbeck for not being able to complete deep passes when the Seahawks haven't had a deep threat receiver since he's been here? "

Well, I did consider Butler a deep threat. That preseason completion he got, which was underthrown by Matt, was pretty nice. It was the only deep ball I recall seeing - maybe it was that shoulder/back injury from the SF game. (I won't be rude at how poor of a decision that play Matt made was, it was a bad play from a vetern QB) It seemed Butler was only was brought out as a decoy and most teams didn't try to defend him b/c Matt never tried him deep. Thats loose memory there and perhaps selective, I don't know the numbers/situations of plays. Maybe someone can dispell that for me?

Re: deep threat. I don't believe Matt has the arm strength to leverage a deep threat. I don't seem him accurately completing 15 yard passes either. I'm open to the idea that there are non Matt factors for this, like poor routes, coverages. seperation issues etc. But to my "fan" eye, he looks like he has a weak arm. He's never been referred to in his career as a big armed QB. Outside Seattle, Matt doesn't get the love either. Theres probably many thngs fans can point to in order to defend Matt. Me? I just keep it simple. Defenses don't respect him, his arm or his legs, they load the box, pressure him, bump his receivers off their timing routes and don't worry about covering past 15 yards.

Please, I'm not suggesting you Matt supporters are wrong, I'm only stating I don't see it that way and disagree. I'm no pro or scout, I only know what I know from the TV watching Marino play through the 80's against guys like Kelly and Elway. I think of them when I think of good QB's -
Matt just isn't that great of a QB to me.

Sure I'm biased, but thats akin to the pot calling the kettle black. smilies/wink.gif
Banned
written by JohnnyB, January 29, 2010
I got banned for getting lippy over there the second day after Carrolls hiring. I guess they didn't like my directness for calling them out for hating on Carroll so hard that day. I got accused of trolling and banned.


Congrats. Fight the ridiculous cult of falsehood they have going over there. The more we can put the screws to people like Morgan who don't know what they don't know, the better.
To clarify my position,
written by BillT, January 29, 2010
I'm not so much advocating that we spend a high first round pick on a quarterback as saying we really need to get the job done however we go about it and soon. I've said more than once I can get onboard with drafting a lower round QB and having Hass start at first and mentor him until he's ready to step in. That presumes that the QB you drafted has the goods.

Whoever is leading this new enterprise has to be aware of the urgency to identiry our next quarterback and get him preparing to take over. Just like Ruskell should have been preparing for life after Walter Jones and had a LT in place instead of Locklear, the new front office needs to understand that Hass is almost done and that Seneca isn't going to be the answer.

Rather than be floundering like we were when Kreig left, we need to have a quarterback ready to step in even if he's still got a lot to learn. The quicker we get him in the fold, the more preparation he'll have time for before he gets the reins.

The decision of whether to use a high round pick or go for a lower round prospect carries with it the risk that either way you go, you might select a bust. It's more likely in the lower rounds, however, all that is just data that is averaged from all the teams in the league and doesn't take into account who's a better talent evaluator and other important factors.

If the Seahawks talent evaluation team can accurately identify good quarterback prospects in the later rounds, I say that's great and probably the way to go. Ultimately, I totally agree that the Seahawks have to be comfortable with whom they choose and it needs to be a good fit for the team.

I'm not so sure about the draft 2 or 3 quarterbacks in the lower rounds for a couple of years and try to find your quarterback through sheer weight of numbers. For one thing, it causes you to ignore other team needs as other positions are ignored. Better to have good talent evaluators and let them do their job.
...
written by cts, January 29, 2010
I don't think you have to have a bust in the early or later rounds if you know what you are looking for.

One year wonders often bust because he has one good year of experience, people jump on the bandwagon and then he is taken high and thrown to the wolves when he is clearly not ready.

Guys bust in the middle rounds because they either had good college careers but don't translate well to the NFL or they simply don't have the physical and/or mental measurables to develop into a quality QB. Chase Daniels and Graham Harrel are good examples of guys that had good college careers but don't translate well and don't have the physical measurables. I'm not saying these guys won't develop, I'm just stating they fit the mold.

The guys that should be looked at in the early rounds are the prototypical QB's that have a unique skill of arm, mentality, size, speed and proven college careers. Of course not everyone will fit that mold exactly, but you get what I'm saying.

The mid-rounders you look at are the projects that have all the measurables but are raw. Maybe they need work on their accuracy, reading, footwork, etc. but all of their flaws are coachable. One year wonders work better here too as they should be looked at as developmental players.

Guys like Skelton and LaFavour fit this mold to a T. I actually have a bit of a mancrush on Skelton. Kid has a great arm, prototypical size, good speed/athleticism, has shown steady progression throughout his career and is an accurate thrower. His downfalls are more mechanical and reading D's. He also comes from a smaller school and would have to adapt to level of play. He reminds me a lot of Stephen McGee from Texas A&M last year only minus the injury. McGee was a guy I though would be great for the Hawks as a developmental guy last year and I even advocated him a lot last year. He was a 5-6 round pick and went first in the 4th round.

Obviously this is not an exact science and there are obviously exceptions to every rule. I'm obviously not an expert so take it with a grain of salt, but my point is if a QB is a project pick then don't waste a high pick on him, hence my hesitancy with Clausen. And if you are going to take a project pick, take one with all the measurables an elite QB possesses and who's flaws are coachable issues. You can't teach size, you can't teach natural athletic ability and you can't teach arm strength. Again, there are exceptions to every rule.
...
written by Highlander, January 30, 2010
BillT: I'm not so much advocating that we spend a high first round pick on a quarterback as saying we really need to get the job done however we go about it and soon.

Well, no one in their right mind could argue against getting the job done right. How that specifically gets done given the free agent and draft class is the bigger question. Or maybe even a trade, although no names come to mind of QB's I'd want from other teams that are sitting the bench.
...
written by Highlander, January 30, 2010
CTS: One year wonders often bust because he has one good year of experience, people jump on the bandwagon and then he is taken high and thrown to the wolves when he is clearly not ready.

Guys bust in the middle rounds because they either had good college careers but don't translate well to the NFL or they simply don't have the physical and/or mental measurables to develop into a quality QB.
=============
Excellent points, and exactly why I don't feel comfortable with clausen or Bradford in the first round. If they fall to the 2nd that lowers the cost of the risk and I'm ok with them...but not likely to happen.

My experience with some of the later options is not extensive, but I have been impressed with the bit I've seen from LaFavour.

And one attitional comment on selecting post first round QB picks...in addition to the measurables I'd look for someone who has shown an ability to read defenses, who is decisive, accurate and the faster the release he has the better...and I'd be willing to take a little less in strength or some other big time stat for those skills that are very hard to teach.
...
written by cts, January 30, 2010
Yeah, I like LaFavour too. You should read up on Skelton some, he's an animal and the kind of guy you'd love to get your hands on based on the potential he has. I don't know much about his intelligence, but if it's pretty good I'd be willing to bet we'll hear his name in a few years.

I love Bradford, but the shoulder thing really threw a wrench in this whole thing. He really does have an underrated arm. If you watch him closely it is more of a "touch" thing opposed to a lack of arm strength. Just because you have a good arm doesn't mean you have to use it and using the right amount of arm makes it easier on everyone. Hence his insane accuracy. Kid didn't average almost 69% his first 2 years because he had a weak arm, he did it cuz he used just enough. He's not flashy and that's a good thing. Only reason his accuracy wasn't as good this year was because he tried playing on it hurt 2 of the 3 games he actually did play in.
Hass is the QB next year
written by the painful life of a seahawk fan, January 30, 2010
Pretty clear if you listen to Pete's rambelings, Matt is the QB next year. What I like about Caroll so far is that he obviously thinks the OL last year was a big pile of dog shit. And he wants to run the ball effectively, so see ya later J Jones. Get an OL and a decent run game and Matt will be just fine.
...
written by Hawksfan80, January 31, 2010
It's a real shame the o-line is getting all the blame for Matt's deteriorated skills, weak arm strenght, slowness and inability to find even good receivers. Matt would still just be average behind Indy's great o-line and I bet Sanchez and other quarterbacks would have won more games this season with the Hawks current o-line. We will be losers again next season with Hass-Been under center. I'm sure a smart coach like Carroll is already planning a QB change, the question of when will be answered soon enough. I'm sorry I have been so hard on #8, he is a great guy and I know the die hards will defend him to the end and put the blame elsewhere no matter how bad he does. Our Seahawks are overdue for a quarterback change and the sooner we get a new arm in there the sooner the new QB1 will start hitting our good receivers more often, even with the current o-line. Hass is worth a #4 draft pick and will make a good backup for any team.
...
written by cts, January 31, 2010
Hawksfan80-

You agree that Carroll is a smart guy? Cuz he already said he's building this team around Hass. I agree he's a smart guy. He's not just gonna throw away the leader of this team until someone is ready to step in and take the reins and especially not when Hass still is good enough to contribute.

Yes, he's declining, but he's still above average and we are puting the blame where blame is deserved. THE OL!! When your QB spends half his time on his back, is consistantely flushed out of the pocket, has NO time to throw the ball let alone allow for routes to develop and is having to play through injuries due to lack of protection I fail to see how you can back the OL and put blame on Hass. That is just blind ignorance.

I'm all for grooming a QB, but not reaching for one. If an adequate fit comes along then go for it, otherwise, use that pick for another need of better value. And grooming a QB doesn't mean dumping Hass and throwing a rookie to the wolves. That is a recipe for disaster. A rookie needs to sit and develop.

If you think Sanchez would have done better than Hass then you obviously have no football intelligence. Sanchez was on a dominant team and did WORSE than Hass, in EVERY catagory. Sanchez LOST games for the Jets with his inaccuracy, poor decisions and piss poor TD:INT ratio. They lost 5 games to mediocre teams by a total of 17 points in those 5 games. Even an average QB would have won those games. They should have been 13-3 or 14-2 last year, but your wonder boy Sanchez single handedly put them at 9-7.

I can tell you have personal bias towards Sanchez which tells me that either you are a big USC fan/supporter or you were one of his biggest advocators on here last draft and are just holding your ground. If you honestly believe he played well last year and was a leader of that team then I want what you're smoking.
...
written by ugg boots, September 18, 2010
i like this website

Write comment
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.

busy
< Prev   Next >