PDA

View Full Version : I am Matt Hasselbeck!!



Captain Planet
11-24-2010, 05:01 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=773Qj6ncVXA


take that haters!!

338 against the cards

366 against the saints...

Whitehurst fans where are you now!!!


No other qb can play like he did against the saints with that broken hand, altered snaps and new hand off motion!!! NEVER GIVE UP MATT!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SU3B0ftp4kk


where da hawks where da hawks where da hawks at!!!

bruser23
11-24-2010, 08:44 AM
He played two good games, I hope for our playoff chances he can keep it up.

but sir I'm still here.

Schadie001
11-24-2010, 10:36 AM
When Matt has time to throw the ball he is as good or better than most in the NFL. For whatever reason there are those in this forum that just don't like the guy. He could throw 50 great passes, and a few off the mark and all we hear is that he is terrible. Did you see the almost interception he threw? It was only 2 games...blah, blah, blah.
Whatever...they need to resign the guy for 3 years and use the draft to find his replacement, not some 3rd string SD garbage.

Ian.
11-24-2010, 10:44 AM
Come back when he wins us a superbowl.

Matt brings stability and limited upside. That's not winning us a Super Bowl.

Baller1
11-24-2010, 12:29 PM
:laugh2: It's funny, but also like two years old.

NateyB24
11-24-2010, 12:46 PM
Donno why your trying to slam this down peoples throats but i have given up on Charlie before he even threw a pass. He has the same problem since Clemonson accuracy i doubt he will ever be anything more then a backup.

Schadie001
11-24-2010, 01:02 PM
Come back when he wins us a superbowl.

Matt brings stability and limited upside. That's not winning us a Super Bowl.

Guess taking us to our "only" superbowl counts for nothing. Dan McGuire never won us a superbowl either, I see his second coming in Whitehurst.

FWBrodie
11-24-2010, 01:16 PM
Gotta score touchdowns to win games. Matt's not getting it done and hasn't for 3 years. As long as he is QB the Seahawks will not compete with the best teams in the NFL.

House
11-24-2010, 01:30 PM
For the MILLIONTH time, I don't HATE Matt, I just know he isn't our future. There comes a certain time when a team has to move on from a player and we're getting to that point with Matt. We're giving him his due and he has had some productive games. I will say that the concussion has knocked something loose and had he played like this consistently, not many would have ever had a reason to doubt him.

What do the past 5 Superbowl winning teams have? A QB who takes over a game and WINS it. Not a QB who sticks around and keeps it close. Matt hasn't commanded anything in quite some time.

I haven't given up on Charlie, but I will say he hasn't impressed. Neither did Matt in his first 4 starts. We more than likely will be taking a QB in this draft, if not the following year and Matt would be a HUGE help with bringing the rookie along. I don't see Matt being our starter anymore, but if we kept him around in a MENTOR capacity, I'd love it...

House
11-24-2010, 01:34 PM
Guess taking us to our "only" superbowl counts for nothing. Dan McGuire never won us a superbowl either, I see his second coming in Whitehurst.

That was then... We also had a MONSTER O-line and an MVP RB in Alexander.

We're talking about today and tomorrow and he just doesn't have it anymore. Everyone who thought Matt was going to ride off into the sunset with a Superbowl ring on his finger put a little TOO much of something in their Kool-Aid. I'd love the notion, but it ISN'T going to happen!

NateyB24
11-24-2010, 01:35 PM
For the MILLIONTH time, I don't HATE Matt, I just know he isn't our future. There comes a certain time when a team has to move on from a player and we're getting to that point with Matt. We're giving him his due and he has had some productive games. I will say that the concussion has knocked something loose and had he played like this consistently, not many would have ever had a reason to doubt him.

What do the past 5 Superbowl winning teams have? A QB who takes over a game and WINS it. Not a QB who sticks around and keeps it close. Matt hasn't commanded anything in quite some time.

I haven't given up on Charlie, but I will say he hasn't impressed. Neither did Matt in his first 4 starts. We more than likely will be taking a QB in this draft, if not the following year and Matt would be a HUGE help with bringing the rookie along. I don't see Matt being our starter anymore, but if we kept him around in a MENTOR capacity, I'd love it...

In my opinion hes going to start for 2 more years in Petes press conference he seems to have alot of faith in Hasselbeck.


Gotta score touchdowns to win games. Matt's not getting it done and hasn't for 3 years. As long as he is QB the Seahawks will not compete with the best teams in the NFL.

We can't run the ball in the end zone which makes scoring harder in the red zone imo. We tryed to run it twice i woulda rather tryed the run once the pass twice because the pass was working so well on sunday the run game was terrible.

However i do agree with House that we have to move on from Matt but move on to what? This draft class is pretty weak at 1st round QB selections Matt is our best option to win until then. You draft Locker/Mallet/Newton your going to need a stop gap like Matt anyways because these guys aren't going to step in day 1.

bruser23
11-24-2010, 06:58 PM
Guess taking us to our "only" superbowl counts for nothing. Dan McGuire never won us a superbowl either, I see his second coming in Whitehurst.

What have you done for me lately?

07 does not equal 10.

Matt's future is on a coaching staff, Charlie's hasn't been written yet.

Ian.
11-24-2010, 07:10 PM
He took us to the superbowl five years ago.

If only we had Curtis Martin this year! We might have a beastly run game.

NateyB24
11-24-2010, 07:20 PM
What have you done for me lately?

07 does not equal 10.

Matt's future is on a coaching staff, Charlie's hasn't been written yet.

Are you still on the Charlie Whitehurst wagon? Ive seen enough myself to write him off he reminds me of Derek Anderson maybe a tiny bit better but Derek does the excact same things shooting the ball over WR that are open etc...

I seriously think the coaching staff would cut him right now if not for his contract our new QB is either coming from this draft or next one.

I mean seriously how can people still want the backup after watching the 1 game he played in then the series he played for Matt when he got hurt.

Captain Planet
11-24-2010, 09:21 PM
Come back when he wins us a superbowl.

Matt brings stability and limited upside. That's not winning us a Super Bowl.

come back when you can name a single seahawks QB that took us to a superbowl other than Hasselbeck!

Captain Planet
11-24-2010, 09:22 PM
Are you still on the Charlie Whitehurst wagon? Ive seen enough myself to write him off he reminds me of Derek Anderson maybe a tiny bit better but Derek does the excact same things shooting the ball over WR that are open etc...

I seriously think the coaching staff would cut him right now if not for his contract our new QB is either coming from this draft or next one.

I mean seriously how can people still want the backup after watching the 1 game he played in then the series he played for Matt when he got hurt.

^ This

Captain Planet
11-24-2010, 09:23 PM
Gotta score touchdowns to win games. Matt's not getting it done and hasn't for 3 years. As long as he is QB the Seahawks will not compete with the best teams in the NFL.

I will take Matts game management over Charlies turnovers!

Ian.
11-24-2010, 09:33 PM
come back when you can name a single seahawks QB that took us to a superbowl other than Hasselbeck!

How is that remotely relevant today? That was five goddamn years ago, dude.

How many players from that team are still here?

Please come back when you've got a better argument. We're not living in 2005 anymore.

House
11-24-2010, 11:22 PM
Yes, Matt was our QB when we went to the Super Bowl... What does that mean now? Nothing!

Inconsistency and injuries have been the issues for Matt and that's why there have been questions for the past 2 years. I don't know what that concussion did to him, but it woke him up!

I still haven't seen enough of Charlie to throw him away. Matt looked horrible his first 4 games and Charlie hasn't even seen that many. I'm sure nerves and confidence are huge factors with him right now.

This is something that came out today talking about the situation. I don't hate Matt... I am a SEAHAWKS fan and I want to see us succeed, whoever the QB is...

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcwest/post/_/id/28180/when-might-seahawks-re-sign-hasselbeck

hawks4life
11-25-2010, 12:11 AM
^ I agree. First of all, Matt was our QB when we had our only appearance at a Superbowl but we were a top team that year because of our O-line and RB. Shaun ran for 28 TD's that year (if I'm not mistaken). I think even Nate can agree with that our O-line was unbelievable. Also, we had unreal defense we went 3 (???) years with 50+ sacks in that era. Matt was good, but it was our team that took us there... Not just Matt!

Secondly, Brett Favre is (in some critics eyes) the best QB of all time. Is he the best now? No! He's horrible! My point is that Matt is old. He isn't as good as he used to be. He comes out firing for 2 games and everyone thinks he's going to win MVP. Matt has had 4 good games this year out of 10. That isn't that good.

I would rather have Whitehurst develop as a QB and lose the rest of the year, than to make it to the playoffs by default (because the NFC West Sucks) only to get slaughtered in the first round and come out with a mediocre pick (probably lose our chances on a top QB prospect).

NateyB24
11-25-2010, 03:35 AM
^ I agree. First of all, Matt was our QB when we had our only appearance at a Superbowl but we were a top team that year because of our O-line and RB. Shaun ran for 28 TD's that year (if I'm not mistaken). I think even Nate can agree with that our O-line was unbelievable. Also, we had unreal defense we went 3 (???) years with 50+ sacks in that era. Matt was good, but it was our team that took us there... Not just Matt!

Secondly, Brett Favre is (in some critics eyes) the best QB of all time. Is he the best now? No! He's horrible! My point is that Matt is old. He isn't as good as he used to be. He comes out firing for 2 games and everyone thinks he's going to win MVP. Matt has had 4 good games this year out of 10. That isn't that good.

I would rather have Whitehurst develop as a QB and lose the rest of the year, than to make it to the playoffs by default (because the NFC West Sucks) only to get slaughtered in the first round and come out with a mediocre pick (probably lose our chances on a top QB prospect).

Yea i do agree with you on the line part. But i wouldn't go as far as blowing the season to let Charlie devolop Charlie had 5 years in San Diego to devolop. If Matt plays like this through the rest of the year and he can stay healthy i say sign him to a stop gap contract but let him know hes here to start only until the rookies ready.

I really don't care were we wind up picking the QB class this year just isn't that interesting.

Baller1
11-25-2010, 03:38 AM
You guys have a hard time deciphering the difference between loyalty and reality.

Matt is not some HOF QB that will go down in history. Maybe Seahawks history, but that's about it. He's awesome, and I'll always appreciate everything he's done for this franchise, but it was him who led us to the Super Bowl. It was our offensive line.

He's a great person, a Seahawk icon, and will go down as one of the best Seahawks ever. Leave it at that. He's done in terms of leading us anywhere, learn to accept it.

House
11-25-2010, 04:39 AM
You guys have a hard time deciphering the difference between loyalty and reality.

Matt is not some HOF QB that will go down in history. Maybe Seahawks history, but that's about it. He's awesome, and I'll always appreciate everything he's done for this franchise, but it wasn't him who led us to the Super Bowl. It was our offensive line.

He's a great person, a Seahawk icon, and will go down as one of the best Seahawks ever. Leave it at that. He's done in terms of leading us anywhere, learn to accept it.

Thank you. I appreciate what he has done for the team, but its time to move on.

I can see him serving as a MENTOR or Ambassador for the team, but continuing to start him after this season will be hinder the team as a WHOLE!

NateyB24
11-25-2010, 05:12 AM
Thank you. I appreciate what he has done for the team, but its time to move on.

I can see him serving as a MENTOR or Ambassador for the team, but continuing to start him after this season will be hinder the team as a WHOLE!

Bringing back Hasselbeck will not hold the team back if its a 2 year deal the QBS in this draft are all devolopmental anyways. I seriously don't want to put my eggs in 1 basket and think Whitehurst after 5 years is going to put it all together. We just watched why he was a 3rd stringer and never moved up to being a 2nd stringer accuracy and i don't think after 5 years its going to improve at all i may be wrong but hes had this very same problem since Clemson.

House
11-25-2010, 06:06 AM
Bringing back Hasselbeck will not hold the team back if its a 2 year deal the QBS in this draft are all devolopmental anyways. I seriously don't want to put my eggs in 1 basket and think Whitehurst after 5 years is going to put it all together. We just watched why he was a 3rd stringer and never moved up to being a 2nd stringer accuracy and i don't think after 5 years its going to improve at all i may be wrong but hes had this very same problem since Clemson.

Do you know how much of Jeremy Bates' Offense Matt is capable of? Roughly 35-40%. Bates has had to taper his playbook for Matt cause Matt can't make the throws and doesn't have the rollout abilities. I understand this is Matt's first year in this new offense, but he just doesn't have the attributes to fit. Sure, he's had some games where he's put up some good numbers, but he doesn't COMMAND our offense, he's just there. Not saying we wouldn't bring Matt back, but I can see him coming back as a Backup and MENTORING a rookie (if we draft one this year). He'd have to accept that role and he'd be helping the franchise in a big way...

Not saying that Charlie will be our future, but his game vs the Giants is hardly enough of a data sample to say he couldn't be...

We won't be limited to JUST Matt Hasselbeck. There are going to be a few QBs on the free agent market/trade market that could be good fits. Tyler Thigpen will be an UFA (I personally like the dude and think he'd be a good fit). We've already talked about Kevin Kolb. I'm going to say "HELL NO" to Carson Palmer or Vince Young.

One interesting thing could be what happens in CAR. John Fox is out after this year. CAR more than likely will have the #1 pick and grabbing Luck and hiring Harbaugh as their new HEAD COACH would make PERFECT sense. What happens to Jimmy Clausen? I personally think JC is a D-Bag, but I know Pete loves the guy... What if becomes available?

bruser23
11-25-2010, 09:03 AM
Are you still on the Charlie Whitehurst wagon? Ive seen enough myself to write him off he reminds me of Derek Anderson maybe a tiny bit better but Derek does the excact same things shooting the ball over WR that are open etc...

I seriously think the coaching staff would cut him right now if not for his contract our new QB is either coming from this draft or next one.

I mean seriously how can people still want the backup after watching the 1 game he played in then the series he played for Matt when he got hurt.

First things first, I don't jump on and off band wagons. Next -- Thank you scout.com and John Clayton.

How can I want to see Charlie play again? A better question is --
How can you want to see Matt play again after performances like (rhetorical red flag!)

2010 week 08 - QB Rating 44.1 - Completion% 40.6 - Avg 5.1 - TD/INT 0/1
2010 week 02 - QB Rating 51.3 - Completion% 57.1 - Avg 6.7 - TD/INT 1/3
2009 week 16 - QB Rating 36.6 - Completion% 51.4 - Avg 5.4 - TD/INT 1/4
2009 week 15 - QB Rating 45.2 - Completion% 58.7 - Avg 5.6 - TD/INT 1/4
2009 week 06 - QB Rating 32.5 - Completion% 34.5 - Avg 3.9 - TD/INT 0/1
2008 week 12 - QB Rating 54.7 - Completion% 50.0 - Avg 4.3 - TD/INT 2/2
2008 week 02 - QB Rating 42.5 - Completion% 50.0 - Avg 5.3 - TD/INT 0/2
2007 week 05 - QB Rating 44.7 - Completion% 48.1 - Avg 4.3 - TD/INT 0/1
2006 week 16 - QB Rating 39.1 - Completion% 45.9 - Avg 5.1 - TD/INT 0/2
2006 week 04 - QB Rating 39.7 - Completion% 45.7 - Avg 5.6 - TD/INT 0/2
2004 week 10 - QB Rating 45.1 - Completion% 41.7 - Avg 4.8 - TD/INT 0/1
2004 week 07 - QB Rating 18.1 - Completion% 34.1 - Avg 4.6 - TD/INT 1/4

I'll stop in 2004.

Like I said earlier, He played two good games, I hope for our playoff chances he can keep it up.

How about a direct comparison of Charlie's stats and Matt's stats? Done.




http://a.espncdn.com/i/headshots/nfl/players/65/1575.jpg (http://espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?playerId=1575) http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/getty/headshot/W/H/I/WHI646241.jpg (http://www.nfl.com/players/charliewhitehurst/profile?id=WHI646241)
Matt Hasselbeck Charlie Whitehurst
Year | Week | Comp | Att | Pct | Yds | YPA | TD | Int | Sck | SckY | Rate |
1999 | 08 | 2 | 6 | 33.3 | 32 | 5.3 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 9 | 52.1 |
2010 | 10 | 4 | 6 | 66.7 | 53 | 8.8 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 54.9 |

How can you honestly write a player off when he's played 1 game and 2 series, and call yourself a Mike Williams fan?
I say this to all the Whitehurst haters, Give him a chance. 1 game and 2 series, doesn't make a career.

FWBrodie
11-25-2010, 12:35 PM
I will take Matts game management over Charlies turnovers!

Yeah because Matt makes such great decisions and is disciplined right? WRONG. Matt makes terrible decisions on a consistent basis. He probably should have been picked off three times in the first half last Sunday and he's thrown more picks than TD's over a 3 year span. That's terrible. Hasselbeck currently shows up at 26th in the NFL in QB rating among starting QB's.

Charlie Whitehurst has started ONE GAME.

This isn't about Whitehurst being better than Hasselbeck. I'd be an idiot to bet on Whitehurst ever being better than Hasselbeck in his prime, it just isn't good odds. This is about being fed up with mediocrity, facing the fact that Matt is on the other side of the hill, and buying into Whitehurst's potential while also understanding that becoming a successful starting QB absolutely requires game experience no matter who you are.

FWBrodie
11-25-2010, 12:40 PM
Are you still on the Charlie Whitehurst wagon? Ive seen enough myself to write him off he reminds me of Derek Anderson maybe a tiny bit better but Derek does the excact same things shooting the ball over WR that are open etc...

I seriously think the coaching staff would cut him right now if not for his contract our new QB is either coming from this draft or next one.

I mean seriously how can people still want the backup after watching the 1 game he played in then the series he played for Matt when he got hurt.

How can someone be THAT ignorant? What a stupid thing to say.

Seattle4Ever
11-25-2010, 01:06 PM
^ Haha, get 'em Brodie.

NateyB24
11-25-2010, 01:08 PM
How can someone be THAT ignorant? What a stupid thing to say.

Well explain to me if Whitehurst was better then Hasselbeck at his age why he is not starting. Because Charlies talents are wasting away on the bench then i guess? Never was and never will be on the Charlie bandwagon theres a reason hes a backup. Ill take the experts word who go to the Seahawks practice and say that he is no competition for Matt.


Do you know how much of Jeremy Bates' Offense Matt is capable of? Roughly 35-40%. Bates has had to taper his playbook for Matt cause Matt can't make the throws and doesn't have the rollout abilities. I understand this is Matt's first year in this new offense, but he just doesn't have the attributes to fit. Sure, he's had some games where he's put up some good numbers, but he doesn't COMMAND our offense, he's just there. Not saying we wouldn't bring Matt back, but I can see him coming back as a Backup and MENTORING a rookie (if we draft one this year). He'd have to accept that role and he'd be helping the franchise in a big way...

Not saying that Charlie will be our future, but his game vs the Giants is hardly enough of a data sample to say he couldn't be...

We won't be limited to JUST Matt Hasselbeck. There are going to be a few QBs on the free agent market/trade market that could be good fits. Tyler Thigpen will be an UFA (I personally like the dude and think he'd be a good fit). We've already talked about Kevin Kolb. I'm going to say "HELL NO" to Carson Palmer or Vince Young.

One interesting thing could be what happens in CAR. John Fox is out after this year. CAR more than likely will have the #1 pick and grabbing Luck and hiring Harbaugh as their new HEAD COACH would make PERFECT sense. What happens to Jimmy Clausen? I personally think JC is a D-Bag, but I know Pete loves the guy... What if becomes available?


I don't care how deep Charlie can throw hell if im DB im playing deep because he sucks at intermediate to short throws which you need to make. His accuracy is bad and for sitting for 5 years its not like hes some rookie playing.

Not a fan of Palmer theres a reason the Bengals are ditching him and you think Hasselbeck can't make deep throws were you watching that Dolphins game against the bears? He never threw one deep ball once.

bruser23
11-25-2010, 01:26 PM
Well explain to me if Whitehurst was better then Hasselbeck at his age why he is not starting. Because Charlies talents are wasting away on the bench then i guess?
:facepalm:



This isn't about Whitehurst being better than Hasselbeck. I'd be an idiot to bet on Whitehurst ever being better than Hasselbeck in his prime, it just isn't good odds. This is about being fed up with mediocrity, facing the fact that Matt is on the other side of the hill, and buying into Whitehurst's potential while also understanding that becoming a successful starting QB absolutely requires game experience no matter who you are.


Read that again, if you don't understand, read it again.

The big draw to Charlie isn't that overall better than Matt. It's that the things he's good at right now, he's better at them than Matt. Give him time to develop the stuff Matt is better at, he could grow and learn and be better than he is now. I'm not, Brodie isn't, saying that 100% chance he's going to be overall better than Matt every was. We're saying that he can be better than Matt is now.

Why would you waste a 1st round draft pick on a QB, if you could have an NFL starting caliber QB on the bench? We know Matt isn't a probowler anymore, he doesn't have the piece or ability at this age, Charlie could be -- Derek Anderson was.

FWBrodie
11-25-2010, 01:30 PM
A Well explain to me if Whitehurst was better then Hasselbeck at his age why he is not starting. B Because Charlies talents are wasting away on the bench then i guess?



I don't care how deep Charlie can throw hell if im DB im playing deep because he sucks at intermediate to short throws which you need to make. His accuracy is bad and for sitting for 5 years its not like hes some rookie playing.


A) No one said Charlie Whitehurst is better than Matt at the same age, future age, past age, etc. The point is that it isn't possible to evaluate the potential of a QB based on one game, especially a first game, and even more especially against arguably the best pass rush in the NFL with a patchwork O-line. Matt is evaluated and he gets maybe a C- at best. He's holding on by a thread, but he's leading the division by somewhere just north of default and thusly keeping the job that he's held for 10 years.

B) Yes. He needs experience more than anything. He has tools, they're being wasted along with a pretty solid draft pick and $10 mil.

If you're a DB "playing deep" Charlie will learn to beat you underneath. That's the exact type of experience he needs. Whitehurst's accuracy can and will improve. Hasselbeck's deep ball can't and won't.

House
11-25-2010, 01:47 PM
Well explain to me if Whitehurst was better then Hasselbeck at his age why he is not starting. Because Charlies talents are wasting away on the bench then i guess? Never was and never will be on the Charlie bandwagon theres a reason hes a backup. Ill take the experts word who go to the Seahawks practice and say that he is no competition for Matt.

I don't care how deep Charlie can throw hell if im DB im playing deep because he sucks at intermediate to short throws which you need to make. His accuracy is bad and for sitting for 5 years its not like hes some rookie playing.

Not a fan of Palmer theres a reason the Bengals are ditching him and you think Hasselbeck can't make deep throws were you watching that Dolphins game against the bears? He never threw one deep ball once.

Prime example of a perfect fit is Jay Cutler... Look how he flourished under Bates in DEN and look at his struggles in CHI. Again, not saying Charlie would be better than Matt, I'm just pointing out he got MORE upside from this point on and we won't know how good/bad he can be if he's on the bench.

Palmer sucks, I already said it. Thigpen doesn't fit in MIA and did you notice how good CHI's DEF was? Go back and look at his time in KC, the kid can play

NateyB24
11-25-2010, 04:55 PM
:facepalm:




Read that again, if you don't understand, read it again.

The big draw to Charlie isn't that overall better than Matt. It's that the things he's good at right now, he's better at them than Matt. Give him time to develop the stuff Matt is better at, he could grow and learn and be better than he is now. I'm not, Brodie isn't, saying that 100% chance he's going to be overall better than Matt every was. We're saying that he can be better than Matt is now.

Why would you waste a 1st round draft pick on a QB, if you could have an NFL starting caliber QB on the bench? We know Matt isn't a probowler anymore, he doesn't have the piece or ability at this age, Charlie could be -- Derek Anderson was.

So Charlie goes from backup to starting QB tell me how is he a starting caliber QB? I seriously want to know his accuracy sucks like ive been saying he can't hit a wide open target like i said the NYG was not all over the recievers.

You can't compare Matt to Charlie by the way Holmgren worked with Matt in GB he had some success in preseason what has Charlie done to proof that he is a NFL starting QB? Excactly nothing in 5 years he was a 3rd stringer in San Diego he should have been able to beat out Volek. Holmgren pretty much knew what he was getting.

Bates was annoyed with the way he threw the ball that he wasn't supposed to throw in the Cardinal game. I just don't see it.

NateyB24
11-25-2010, 04:57 PM
Prime example of a perfect fit is Jay Cutler... Look how he flourished under Bates in DEN and look at his struggles in CHI. Again, not saying Charlie would be better than Matt, I'm just pointing out he got MORE upside from this point on and we won't know how good/bad he can be if he's on the bench.

Palmer sucks, I already said it. Thigpen doesn't fit in MIA and did you notice how good CHI's DEF was? Go back and look at his time in KC, the kid can play

Cutlers problems stem from the offensive line and the Marts offense. Excactly my point Cutler showed ability in Denver what has Whitehurst shown that he is a starting caliber QB. I wouldn't say Cutler is doing bad at all since leaving Denver though hes leading those Chicago Bears down the field and putting up points to win games. Of course he doesn't have a Brandon Marshall type reciever so hes not going to have the same success he had in Denver though.

Im not trying to persuade any of you though i just don't see what you guys see in him.

House
11-25-2010, 05:42 PM
Cutlers problems stem from the offensive line and the Marts offense. Excactly my point Cutler showed ability in Denver what has Whitehurst shown that he is a starting caliber QB. I wouldn't say Cutler is doing bad at all since leaving Denver though hes leading those Chicago Bears down the field and putting up points to win games. Of course he doesn't have a Brandon Marshall type reciever so hes not going to have the same success he had in Denver though.

Im not trying to persuade any of you though i just don't see what you guys see in him.

You made my point. Charlie has played ONE GAME vs the NY GIANTS!!! You say Jay is leading the Bears up and down the field, how many bad decisions/INTs has he made/had? They aren't going to give on him. Pete and John KNOW what he had to face that game. Yes, he overthrew Chris Baker. Yes He threw a bad INT in that game. He was nervous!!! He will get some more starts before its all said and done. His UNKNOWN/UNPROVEN is what helps him. A QB can be refined, you can't turn back age/injuries.

We don't know what we'll get from Charlie. We KNOW what Matt brings and its just enough to win the young/developing NFC West, but not enough to compete elsewhere! Matt will NEVER lead us to another Super Bowl. I'd love to be proven wrong, but it WON'T happen!

NateyB24
11-25-2010, 06:58 PM
You made my point. Charlie has played ONE GAME vs the NY GIANTS!!! You say Jay is leading the Bears up and down the field, how many bad decisions/INTs has he made/had? They aren't going to give on him. Pete and John KNOW what he had to face that game. Yes, he overthrew Chris Baker. Yes He threw a bad INT in that game. He was nervous!!! He will get some more starts before its all said and done. His UNKNOWN/UNPROVEN is what helps him. A QB can be refined, you can't turn back age/injuries.

We don't know what we'll get from Charlie. We KNOW what Matt brings and its just enough to win the young/developing NFC West, but not enough to compete elsewhere! Matt will NEVER lead us to another Super Bowl. I'd love to be proven wrong, but it WON'T happen!

Not really. Usally QBS will flash something he really didn't flash much except he can throw a deep ball but i still don't care about a deep ball if he can't make smart decisions like Matt and make those short/intermediate throws accurately. When we traded for Hasselbeck he was also younger then Whitehurst.

Also yes Cutler was forcing stuff but he has shown the ability to be a starting QB Whitehurst never has.

House
11-25-2010, 08:22 PM
Not really. Usally QBS will flash something he really didn't flash much except he can throw a deep ball but i still don't care about a deep ball if he can't make smart decisions like Matt and make those short/intermediate throws accurately. When we traded for Hasselbeck he was also younger then Whitehurst.

Also yes Cutler was forcing stuff but he has shown the ability to be a starting QB Whitehurst never has.

CW has played ONE game!!!

NateyB24
11-25-2010, 08:42 PM
CW has played ONE game!!!

So? Why can't i judge him off of one game his throws are excactly why he will never start and his decision making is very questionable. People are acting like hes a rookie and forget that he has had 5 years to devolop in San Diego and never was a 2nd stringer he was a 3rd stringer. I don't expect him to beat out Rivers obviously but he wasn't even backing Rivers up.

If he was as good as people are trying to sell to me im not buying. He would be starting if he was better then Matt. Its obvious to me that PC and Bates prefer a accurate QB to one who just has a big arm. Sure its great to have a big arm and have athleticism but that means nothing if you can't accurately throw the ball.

House
11-25-2010, 09:08 PM
So? Why can't i judge him off of one game his throws are excactly why he will never start and his decision making is very questionable. People are acting like hes a rookie and forget that he has had 5 years to devolop in San Diego and never was a 2nd stringer he was a 3rd stringer. I don't expect him to beat out Rivers obviously but he wasn't even backing Rivers up.

If he was as good as people are trying to sell to me im not buying. He would be starting if he was better then Matt. Its obvious to me that PC and Bates prefer a accurate QB to one who just has a big arm. Sure its great to have a big arm and have athleticism but that means nothing if you can't accurately throw the ball.

I understand the arguement you're making. I DON'T know what Charlie IS/ISN'T capable of. I am simply stating ONE game isn't enough to gauge his worth. If people wrote off Matt Hasselbeck when he made his first start in SEA, where would we be? I get Matt was 26 when he first started and Charlie was 28, what difference does that really make?

I'd think someone who is such a BIG supporter of BMW would have some optimism/hope Whitehurst could do something...

Yendil
11-25-2010, 09:40 PM
You made my point. Charlie has played ONE GAME vs the NY GIANTS!!! You say Jay is leading the Bears up and down the field, how many bad decisions/INTs has he made/had? They aren't going to give on him. Pete and John KNOW what he had to face that game. Yes, he overthrew Chris Baker. Yes He threw a bad INT in that game. He was nervous!!! He will get some more starts before its all said and done. His UNKNOWN/UNPROVEN is what helps him. A QB can be refined, you can't turn back age/injuries.

We don't know what we'll get from Charlie. We KNOW what Matt brings and its just enough to win the young/developing NFC West, but not enough to compete elsewhere! Matt will NEVER lead us to another Super Bowl. I'd love to be proven wrong, but it WON'T happen!

That's all it can take is one game. Certain things you learn by starting like reading blitzes, audibles, seeing the defense. Things you learn by practicing are mechanics. Charlie throws with a wide stance which makes his arm come at a greater angle upwards which is why we see him overthrowing on crossing routes and over the middle. 5 years he has had practice throwing a football and his capabilities while throwing are what concern me, there is alot wrong with how he delivers the ball, if he hasn't figured it out in 5 years of throwing a football, then I don't put too much hope in him "figuring it out" with game experience. Game experience will not be the solution to fix that problem.

NateyB24
11-25-2010, 09:58 PM
I understand the arguement you're making. I DON'T know what Charlie IS/ISN'T capable of. I am simply stating ONE game isn't enough to gauge his worth. If people wrote off Matt Hasselbeck when he made his first start in SEA, where would we be? I get Matt was 26 when he first started and Charlie was 28, what difference does that really make?

I'd think someone who is such a BIG supporter of BMW would have some optimism/hope Whitehurst could do something...

BMW is different he showed the ability in college that he could go up and get the ball and dominate if he was focused. His problem was when he came out he was suspended and balooned up and did not care about football whatsoever he seems more focused now.

I don't have hope in Whitehurst because he hasn't shown me anything hes still throwing the ball like he did at Clemson and he still hasn't fixed it after 5 years of being in San Diego.

shen
11-25-2010, 10:45 PM
It is not possible to get an accurate read on a player after 1 game. If you look at history then you have many big time players who would have never been known if gone by 1st game. Nothing can be taken from first game, nothing. Nerves prevent any valuable take from being had. You get players who do great in first game then no one ever remembers them. Then you have people that take a long time to get chance and trip out the gate but end up doing really freaking good.

As for decision making, Matt is horrible at it. Even in 05 he constantly made decisions that would make people physically ill. Yes back several years ago he did good for us overall but his decision making has always been bad. Please don't pretend he is or was good at decision making.

I am sorry but Cutler is more to blame for his issues then the O-line. When you get sacked like 9 times in one half then replacement gets sacked once in second half, then you are the issue. People just trying to make excuses for Cutler to explain why after several years he is becoming worse and is not near what people claimed he would be. He has had tons of int's wiped away this year alone, he is the problem.

I honestly don't want Whitehurst do to age in large part. However it is not right to stand up and yell he is garbage and Matt is great after 1 game against best pass rush in the league. Seahawks are building and I want um to get a QB that will last in Seattle for next 10-15 years. So that can have consistency and so players know "Hey I am gonna be with this guy a long time". I don't want QB that players are gonna say "So we getting his replacement yet?".

I honestly don't know about the others but Mallet could step in and do far better then Matt after about 6 games. He would need a little while to get to know everyone and sink up, and to know that no one is getting traded at that point. These QB's are not mulit year projects like you make it sound. Teams do not take multi year projects in first round let alone top 10 of draft.

I don't have a clue how CW will pan out but saying after 1 game that know enough to dump him is a lie.

NateyB24
11-25-2010, 11:19 PM
It is not possible to get an accurate read on a player after 1 game. If you look at history then you have many big time players who would have never been known if gone by 1st game. Nothing can be taken from first game, nothing. Nerves prevent any valuable take from being had. You get players who do great in first game then no one ever remembers them. Then you have people that take a long time to get chance and trip out the gate but end up doing really freaking good.

As for decision making, Matt is horrible at it. Even in 05 he constantly made decisions that would make people physically ill. Yes back several years ago he did good for us overall but his decision making has always been bad. Please don't pretend he is or was good at decision making.

I am sorry but Cutler is more to blame for his issues then the O-line. When you get sacked like 9 times in one half then replacement gets sacked once in second half, then you are the issue. People just trying to make excuses for Cutler to explain why after several years he is becoming worse and is not near what people claimed he would be. He has had tons of int's wiped away this year alone, he is the problem.

I honestly don't want Whitehurst do to age in large part. However it is not right to stand up and yell he is garbage and Matt is great after 1 game against best pass rush in the league. Seahawks are building and I want um to get a QB that will last in Seattle for next 10-15 years. So that can have consistency and so players know "Hey I am gonna be with this guy a long time". I don't want QB that players are gonna say "So we getting his replacement yet?".

I honestly don't know about the others but Mallet could step in and do far better then Matt after about 6 games. He would need a little while to get to know everyone and sink up, and to know that no one is getting traded at that point. These QB's are not mulit year projects like you make it sound. Teams do not take multi year projects in first round let alone top 10 of draft.

I don't have a clue how CW will pan out but saying after 1 game that know enough to dump him is a lie.

We are not basing this off of 1 game or atleast im not im basing this off his college career and what i read about him from training camp and now from practicies. Thats what im basing it off of.

Also no ones asessing this off of Matts performance. Saying Mallet will step in and do better then Matt after 6 games is your opinion though ive seen him play in college and yes he is a devolopmental QB. Besides i don't know how you can say that when he hasn't even taken a snap at the pro level yet. Thats like you telling us we can't assess Charlie after 1 game.

Don't know how we are lieing this is just our opinion of Whitehurst.

House
11-25-2010, 11:55 PM
It is not possible to get an accurate read on a player after 1 game. If you look at history then you have many big time players who would have never been known if gone by 1st game. Nothing can be taken from first game, nothing. Nerves prevent any valuable take from being had. You get players who do great in first game then no one ever remembers them. Then you have people that take a long time to get chance and trip out the gate but end up doing really freaking good.

As for decision making, Matt is horrible at it. Even in 05 he constantly made decisions that would make people physically ill. Yes back several years ago he did good for us overall but his decision making has always been bad. Please don't pretend he is or was good at decision making.

I am sorry but Cutler is more to blame for his issues then the O-line. When you get sacked like 9 times in one half then replacement gets sacked once in second half, then you are the issue. People just trying to make excuses for Cutler to explain why after several years he is becoming worse and is not near what people claimed he would be. He has had tons of int's wiped away this year alone, he is the problem.

I honestly don't want Whitehurst do to age in large part. However it is not right to stand up and yell he is garbage and Matt is great after 1 game against best pass rush in the league. Seahawks are building and I want um to get a QB that will last in Seattle for next 10-15 years. So that can have consistency and so players know "Hey I am gonna be with this guy a long time". I don't want QB that players are gonna say "So we getting his replacement yet?".

I honestly don't know about the others but Mallet could step in and do far better then Matt after about 6 games. He would need a little while to get to know everyone and sink up, and to know that no one is getting traded at that point. These QB's are not mulit year projects like you make it sound. Teams do not take multi year projects in first round let alone top 10 of draft.

I don't have a clue how CW will pan out but saying after 1 game that know enough to dump him is a lie.

Nicely written. People think because I have stuck up for Charlie that I "HATE" Matt and that isn't the case. I along with so many others just realize Matt has come to the end of his road. Matt's ceiling is dropping by the day. I want to see better out of our QB play, regardless if it Charlie or not... I just think he deserves a chance and the one game vs the Giants couldn't have been it.

Your boy (Mallett) plays this weekend. I'll make sure I watch him. I've looked at several different mock drafts and he in a pretty general consensus is going in the Top 10 to either ARI or MIN. Don't think we'll have a shot at him...

shen
11-26-2010, 01:44 AM
When said Mallet I was just meaning he can play next season and is not a project as NateyB24 keeps repeating. He has said all of them are projects and was just using Mallet as example because I have seen him and have seen little of the others.



We are not basing this off of 1 game or atleast im not im basing this off his college career and what i read about him from training camp and now from practicies. Thats what im basing it off of.

Also no ones asessing this off of Matts performance. Saying Mallet will step in and do better then Matt after 6 games is your opinion though ive seen him play in college and yes he is a devolopmental QB. Besides i don't know how you can say that when he hasn't even taken a snap at the pro level yet. Thats like you telling us we can't assess Charlie after 1 game.

So you get to decide if player can do good based off College but others can't? Mallet has what it takes. Only thing that has been raised as a big concern was his work ethic/desire and he silenced that this year, at least for anyone that watches him and reads his comments.

House
11-26-2010, 03:00 AM
When said Mallet I was just meaning he can play next season and is not a project as NateyB24 keeps repeating. He has said all of them are projects and was just using Mallet as example because I have seen him and have seen little of the others.




So you get to decide if player can do good based off College but others can't? Mallet has what it takes. Only thing that has been raised as a big concern was his work ethic/desire and he silenced that this year, at least for anyone that watches him and reads his comments.

Before talking to someone like you, Mallett (for me) was the 3rd best coming out. I heard about the work ethic/just showing up for games and that scares me. After hearing you talk him up, I started looking into him more and I like what I see. Preferably, he'd sit one year just to absorb the offense and lingo, but he could start right away. I will put him @ #2 behind Luck and if he's available, hearing his name called would be awesome.

NateyB24
11-26-2010, 03:03 AM
Shen...Im not the only one saying this the experts are to before you say i am the only one i am not. The only QB i feel safe starting right away is Luck and hes going to be gone. The rest of them all have risks this QB class isn't that strong.

By the way what are you talking about?? I said Mallet hasn't seen a pro snap yet how can you say hes better then Matt? You can't because he did more in his pro career then Mallet has sure he probaly won't take us to the Superbowl but hes still the best option.

Also im not just basing Whitehurst off what he did in college well yes partly i am he was a very inaccurate QB with a terrible release nothing has changed in the past 5 years i can judge him now if he was a rookie who didn't have time to sit and work on things of course im not going to be criticizing him.

Im not really sold on Mallet as a prospect hes a giant and sometimes that can be a bad thing look at Dan Mcgwire for example you don't want a QB thats shorter then 6'0 but you don't want a 6'7-6'8 QB takes longer for them to release the ball.

By the way i don't like any of the QBS coming out if you know what i suggested infact id rather go elsewere and wait till 2nd round im not risking a pick on Mallet/Locker/Newton until then.

Kinda funny though we see Whitehurst play and people think its bad to make fun of him yet when people stick up for Matt its always "Oh there just making excuses"....

shen
11-26-2010, 03:49 AM
Charlie playing bad in his one game does not deserve to get ripped to bits. Matt being horrible the last couple years on a consistent basis then pointing to 05 for main argument is just making excuses. When use reasons for Matt such as new system and receivers then you refuse to let those be used for Charlie, again means you are just looking for excuses.

Charlie sat behind two QBís one of them being a top 5 QB easy. The second was a starter who was fairly good and sought after Titans. I canít see how you blame a guy for getting stuck behind those two. Even when #3 QB is good you rarely see hear of them getting looked at even in own practices, especially when everyone knows who top guy is.

Analysts saying wonít start week one is not the same thing as saying they are projects. From what I have seen you take things to literal and often out of context. I use to think you were just trying to manipulate what people are saying but who knows; maybe you just do not understand things the way people mean them.

Mallet is 6í6/6í7 depending on who you talk to. However he uses it to his advantage, he does not let it be a hindrance. I remember a problem with Wallace was he was just not tall enough. He could not see over O-line sometimes. Well that problem will never happen with Mallet.

Mallet reminds me of Ben in that uses his size to shake off defenders and stay upright. I do believe however Mallet has some advantages over Ben such as he is a fair bit more athletic and not an idiot when comes to his life and off duty activities.

Would I start him week one, would rather not if have another option. I think he will be a really solid pro-bowl caliber QB for years to come. However I am also a believer in the let them sit for at least half a season preferably an entire one to absorb the change in culture and the plays. Do I think he could be effective week 1 of his rookie year, yeah, might not win the game but he will keep from doing stupid stuff to lose it.

NateyB24
11-26-2010, 04:23 AM
Charlie playing bad in his one game does not deserve to get ripped to bits. Matt being horrible the last couple years on a consistent basis then pointing to 05 for main argument is just making excuses. When use reasons for Matt such as new system and receivers then you refuse to let those be used for Charlie, again means you are just looking for excuses.

Charlie sat behind two QB’s one of them being a top 5 QB easy. The second was a starter who was fairly good and sought after Titans. I can’t see how you blame a guy for getting stuck behind those two. Even when #3 QB is good you rarely see hear of them getting looked at even in own practices, especially when everyone knows who top guy is.

Analysts saying won’t start week one is not the same thing as saying they are projects. From what I have seen you take things to literal and often out of context. I use to think you were just trying to manipulate what people are saying but who knows; maybe you just do not understand things the way people mean them.

Mallet is 6’6/6’7 depending on who you talk to. However he uses it to his advantage, he does not let it be a hindrance. I remember a problem with Wallace was he was just not tall enough. He could not see over O-line sometimes. Well that problem will never happen with Mallet.

Mallet reminds me of Ben in that uses his size to shake off defenders and stay upright. I do believe however Mallet has some advantages over Ben such as he is a fair bit more athletic and not an idiot when comes to his life and off duty activities.

Would I start him week one, would rather not if have another option. I think he will be a really solid pro-bowl caliber QB for years to come. However I am also a believer in the let them sit for at least half a season preferably an entire one to absorb the change in culture and the plays. Do I think he could be effective week 1 of his rookie year, yeah, might not win the game but he will keep from doing stupid stuff to lose it.

The last 2 years Matt had to play behind an atrocious offensive line you put Peyton Manning behind that line and he wouldn't perform to his usual self. Who cares if Whitehurst only played 1 game he was a 3rd stringer in San Diego and like i said he couldn't beat Volek out the coach had no trust in Whitehurst whatsoever with good reasoning.

Your probaly goona come back and tell me im making excuses but still if were allowed to judge Matt unfairly i say free shots at Charlie if Matt gets them. You still don't get the fact that he is not beating Matt out at practice that 1 game you could see his mechanics were terrible, His decision making was terrible. So again i ask if were goona judge Matt i don't care if hes had 2 years Whitehurst has had 5 to learn why can't we rip Charlie to shreds to? Fairs fair in my book and its clear Matts better. We have to replace Matt but im not putting my eggs in 1 basket Charlie has shown me nothing that he could beat Matt out. Charlie has shown me why we need to keep Matt more then Charlie being our future.

shen
11-26-2010, 06:07 AM
I have not said Charlie is better, House has not said Charlie is better. We have been saying Matt is done for and we donít know what we got in Charlie yet. Charlie might be horrible but the fact is we just donít know. Someone showed first game comparison between Charlie and Matt, neither was exactly impressive. You are just so determined to keep Charlie on the bench that you ignore the fact that Matt is horrible and does not give us a chance to win most the time.


You preach about how canít talk about Matt struggling because new system and players and all that yet conveniently forget Charlie is doing it as well. Charlie makes a throw to a receiver he shouldnít and gets castrated, yet Matt has done that countless times. I fail to see how point out that Matt is not a good QB is treating him unfairly. If I see him shoot some old lady am I not allowed to tell cops because would be treating him unfairly? When do we get to point out when someone screws up?


You talk about Charlie being behind Volek as if Volek is garbage. Few yearsí back he was highly sought after because was a good solid QB who could win games. Chargers had no need to find out what Charlie could do because had a top 3 QB starting and someone better then at very least 10 starters for other teams as back up. How often do you think a 3rd stringer is going to get looked at by coaches when got that kind of set up?


Depending on what is on board at our picks I would prefer us draft a QB. I have always been a fan of getting players at same young age so they can spend good 10 years with each other and know what they getting from one another. Love the continuity, when players know each other so well they donít even got to tell one another the adjustments or anything, they just know what is going to happen. I donít see that happening when Charlie is already as old as he is.

NateyB24
11-26-2010, 12:58 PM
I have not said Charlie is better, House has not said Charlie is better. We have been saying Matt is done for and we don’t know what we got in Charlie yet. Charlie might be horrible but the fact is we just don’t know. Someone showed first game comparison between Charlie and Matt, neither was exactly impressive. You are just so determined to keep Charlie on the bench that you ignore the fact that Matt is horrible and does not give us a chance to win most the time.


You preach about how can’t talk about Matt struggling because new system and players and all that yet conveniently forget Charlie is doing it as well. Charlie makes a throw to a receiver he shouldn’t and gets castrated, yet Matt has done that countless times. I fail to see how point out that Matt is not a good QB is treating him unfairly. If I see him shoot some old lady am I not allowed to tell cops because would be treating him unfairly? When do we get to point out when someone screws up?


You talk about Charlie being behind Volek as if Volek is garbage. Few years’ back he was highly sought after because was a good solid QB who could win games. Chargers had no need to find out what Charlie could do because had a top 3 QB starting and someone better then at very least 10 starters for other teams as back up. How often do you think a 3rd stringer is going to get looked at by coaches when got that kind of set up?


Depending on what is on board at our picks I would prefer us draft a QB. I have always been a fan of getting players at same young age so they can spend good 10 years with each other and know what they getting from one another. Love the continuity, when players know each other so well they don’t even got to tell one another the adjustments or anything, they just know what is going to happen. I don’t see that happening when Charlie is already as old as he is.

Are you trying to tell me Matt has looked done the last couple of games? By the way im going to turn that on you quit making excuses for Charlie hes had the same amount of time as Hasselbeck to learn the offense remember we traded for him before the draft...

Don't use excuses for Charlie if your going to give us an opinion of Matt then i think its fair that we all can give an opinion of what Charlie looks like. I don't care if he only played in 1 game either i have seen enough and it wasn't just one game quit saying it was one game hes been being evaluated at practice and what i read he has not been doing good at all.

Id love to draft a QB to replace Matt but this draft class of QBS coming out. But it really isn't as good as the one when Flacco and Ryan came out . Like i said i wouldn't mind Mallet but i do think he needs to sit and learn. Other teams just throw there rookies out because they don't have another option look at the Packers Rodgers sat behind Favre and learned thats what i think these guys need to do.

Baller1
11-26-2010, 01:38 PM
I feel like this argument has determined the age difference of us fellow fans.

The younger ones who don't understand the difference between loyalty and reality, and then the mature fans who understand it's time for a change.

Seattle4Ever
11-26-2010, 02:04 PM
^ Billy Volek is probably the best backup in the league.

bruser23
11-26-2010, 02:38 PM
^ Billy Volek is probably the best backup in the league.

So true.


And I don't think it's about age difference as much as blind ignorance.
There is no way someone can make an accurate assessment of a player after seeing him throw 29 career passes.

I don't care how much you've watched a player in college, it's a different game my friend. Just ask any great college QB/NFL bust. What players do in college, especially quarterback, doesn't necessarily dictate how well, or how poorly, they will play in the pros.

NateyB24
11-26-2010, 03:11 PM
So true.


And I don't think it's about age difference as much as blind ignorance.
There is no way someone can make an accurate assessment of a player after seeing him throw 29 career passes.

I don't care how much you've watched a player in college, it's a different game my friend. Just ask any great college QB/NFL bust. What players do in college, especially quarterback, doesn't necessarily dictate how well, or how poorly, they will play in the pros.

What are you excactly trying to say that what QBS do in college means nothing come draft day? Are you kidding? Thats where you evaluate players. I don't care that you don't think college means anything because it does mean something. How do you think players are evaluated???

Whitehurst has never had accuracy since his college days and he still doesn't that does mean something...

FWBrodie
11-26-2010, 03:28 PM
^ Billy Volek is probably the best backup in the league.

I'd probably take Kolb, but yeah he's solid.

FWBrodie
11-26-2010, 03:34 PM
What are you excactly trying to say that what QBS do in college means nothing come draft day? Are you kidding? Thats where you evaluate players. I don't care that you don't think college means anything because it does mean something. How do you think players are evaluated???

Whitehurst has never had accuracy since his college days and he still doesn't that does mean something...

He completed 67.5% of his passes senior year. Peyton Manning completed 60.37% of his passes his senior year. Kiss that BS argument goodbye.

shen
11-26-2010, 03:41 PM
I know Charlie and Matt have had same time to learn offense that is my point. There are several posts from you saying needed to give Matt a break because he was learning new offense and had new receivers. Then if someone tried to use that on Charlie you completely ignored it.

Honestly what a player does in college doesnít mean crap once get to pros. Why do you think got so many freaking busts? You know why, because teams get so caught up with 1 play somewhere in the guyís career that they ignore his issues. History is filled with players that were gods in college who never did a thing in pros and guys who were nobodyís in college who were great in pros. get over it.

If we got someone like Mallet in the draft or even Mallet himself I would prefer he sit for first year or at the very least the first 8 games. Do I think it is 100% necessary for them to do well? No. I just prefer the old style of let them sit and soak it all in.

This is not an age thing; donít have to be old to know what needs to happen. I knew a guy who had been painting cars for 40 years and had a body shop for many of those. He was working with a guy who had painted a hand full of cars over couple years. The old guy messed up and young guy showed him how, Old guy thought as did his friends that because he had been doing it longer that he must know better. Fact is it aint about age or experience, sometimes just got a knack for it.

shen
11-26-2010, 03:43 PM
He completed 67.5% of his passes senior year. Peyton Manning completed 60.37% of his passes his senior year. Kiss that BS argument goodbye.

Well Natey?

Beginning to wonder if have looked into this at all. Might this be one those things where said something without checking and are just so determined not to lose that wont bother to look at facts?

NateyB24
11-26-2010, 03:51 PM
Well Natey?

Beginning to wonder if have looked into this at all. Might this be one those things where said something without checking and are just so determined not to lose that wont bother to look at facts?

Wow are you not understanding that im not basing what QBS do in college off of productivity because that would be a stupid thing to do. There are QBS who are to short who can be productive because of there athleticism there are QBS with a very talented team that carries a QB and makes him look better. I mean seriously do you still not get what im judging a QB off of? You can look at Mechanics in college and Whitehurst didn't have the accuracy. But by what your saying i guess we shouldn't look at Mallet in college maybe we should look elsewere because what he does in college really doesn't matter now does it?

NateyB24
11-26-2010, 04:13 PM
He completed 67.5% of his passes senior year. Peyton Manning completed 60.37% of his passes his senior year. Kiss that BS argument goodbye.

Charlie Whitehurst threw a total of 49 TDS in his career at Clemson he also threw 46 INTS yep he sure is accurate. Besides i don't look at Completion % like i said i look at a QBS mechanics why i don't look at that i might add? Because its meaningless in a way Bruser was right in a way you can't judge a player off of college because you may have a better team then the team your playing again i look at mechanics you can make dumb throws in college and get away with them it doesn't work in the pros.

One could almost argue Peyton played in the SEC a much tougher conference.

bruser23
11-26-2010, 04:15 PM
What are you excactly trying to say that what QBS do in college means nothing come draft day? Are you kidding? Thats where you evaluate players. I don't care that you don't think college means anything because it does mean something. How do you think players are evaluated???

Whitehurst has never had accuracy since his college days and he still doesn't that does mean something...

Thanks Brodie for that input.

No, I'm not trying to say it means nothing. If you read my words -- "What players do in college, especially quarterback, doesn't necessarily dictate how well, or how poorly, they will play in the pros."

That means College is a poor way to judge a player. Although college stats and draft position do hold some weight, players break the mold way to often for it to be a good scale.

FWBrodie
11-26-2010, 05:15 PM
Nate, you're full of ****.

NateyB24
11-26-2010, 05:16 PM
Nate, you're full of ****.

Lol that the best you got? You come at me with completition % like it means something you don't just look at that....Peyton Manning threw 85 TDS in college couldn't find his interception ratio if i do i will post them.

The game doesn't tell a whole story just because Peyton doesn't have a high completion percentage doesn't always mean its on the QB there could be other reasons i mean to judge him off of that i would have to had watch him in college back in the 90s or find games of him in college.

I do know this if Whitehurst had 49 TDS and 46 INTS hes almost tied with his TD ratio for INT ratio while at college thats not a good sign if you ask me.

Seattle4Ever
11-26-2010, 05:20 PM
I'd probably take Kolb, but yeah he's solid.

I mean... I don't know if I'd call him a backup. He is, but he was starting... and starting good. Vick is just AMAZING.

Seattle4Ever
11-26-2010, 05:22 PM
Let's not fight about Whitehurst and Hass. As of right now, I can look at like this... Whitehurst, to my knowledge, is ******. Hass, is good enough to keep us floating, but folds under pressure. We need a QB, because Whitehurst is 29 next year, not a great to start.

Seattle4Ever
11-26-2010, 05:22 PM
^ Btw, I say that because we'll be playoff competitive next year.

bruser23
11-26-2010, 05:31 PM
How will we be playoff competitive next year if we don't have a QB? Matt peaked a few years ago and all the injuries haven't helped slow his regression down. We don't know who Charlie Whitehurst is, from what we've seen he isn't a QB who's going to lead us anywhere good -- We need more data. There's no real sure thing QBs in this draft.

NateyB24
11-26-2010, 05:31 PM
Let's not fight about Whitehurst and Hass. As of right now, I can look at like this... Whitehurst, to my knowledge, is ******. Hass, is good enough to keep us floating, but folds under pressure. We need a QB, because Whitehurst is 29 next year, not a great to start.

I agree. Im not a loyalist to Hass though if we find a better player in the draft ship him out but right now hes the best we got so we have to ride him until then.

I didn't try to start an argument by saying Whitehurst isn't starter material by the way thats just my opinion if anyone thinks he is then good for you. You are allowed to have that opinion. If Pete does decide to start Charlie next year and im wrong and he plays great well then i will apologize and say i was wrong because i can admit when im wrong about something.

bruser23
11-26-2010, 05:39 PM
I agree. Im not a loyalist to Hass though if we find a better player in the draft ship him out but right now hes the best we got so we have to ride him until then.


Okay Nostradamus.

Keeping Hass in is like playing 6 king offsuit. Playing Charlie is like playing 6 King suited. Both may not be the best options but if I had to, give me Charlie.

For those of you who don't know Hold 'em. Six King is a bad hand to play, playing them suited gives you a flush chance.

Seattle4Ever
11-26-2010, 05:41 PM
How will we be playoff competitive next year if we don't have a QB? Matt peaked a few years ago and all the injuries haven't helped slow his regression down. We don't know who Charlie Whitehurst is, from what we've seen he isn't a QB who's going to lead us anywhere good -- We need more data. There's no real sure thing QBs in this draft.

You can't argue the fact that Whitehurst, FROM WHAT WE'VE SEEN, has made stupid *** throws (i.e. throwing the pick to Williams, threw to his inside shoulder) the only good decision he has ever made with us was the audible in the preseason, TD to Williams, not a hard throw.

bruser23
11-26-2010, 05:51 PM
You can't argue the fact that Whitehurst, FROM WHAT WE'VE SEEN, has made stupid *** throws (i.e. throwing the pick to Williams, threw to his inside shoulder) the only good decision he has ever made with us was the audible in the preseason, TD to Williams, not a hard throw.

First I don't really care what happened in preseason, good or bad. Players half it during preseason games and it's just not a good baseline to judge.

Yes he had bad throws, The 2 interceptions, the over throw on the toss back, to name some. what about his TD throw, he didn't miss Obo.

How many throws have you seen Hasselbeck make that have just made you shake your head. News flash, they are both human.

I'm said "from what we've seen he[Charlie] isn't a QB who's going to lead us anywhere good -- We need more data." I admitted that I don't like what I've seen of him, but I like everyone else has only seen a limited amount of him. Which I believe is not enough to make an accurate prediction, if he will be a good quarterback.

Seattle4Ever
11-26-2010, 06:02 PM
First I don't really care what happened in preseason, good or bad. Players half it during preseason games and it's just not a good baseline to judge.

Yes he had bad throws, The 2 interceptions, the over throw on the toss back, to name some. what about his TD throw, he didn't miss Obo.

How many throws have you seen Hasselbeck make that have just made you shake your head. News flash, they are both human.

I'm said "from what we've seen he[Charlie] isn't a QB who's going to lead us anywhere good -- We need more data." I admitted that I don't like what I've seen of him, but I like everyone else has only seen a limited amount of him. Which I believe is not enough to make an accurate prediction, if he will be a good quarterback.

Ok, take out preseason, and I've just seen him make stupid decisions and errant throws.

Ian.
11-27-2010, 12:12 PM
Okay Nostradamus.

Keeping Hass in is like playing 6 king offsuit. Playing Charlie is like playing 6 King suited. Both may not be the best options but if I had to, give me Charlie.

For those of you who don't know Hold 'em. Six King is a bad hand to play, playing them suited gives you a flush chance.

That was a godamn spot on metaphor. :clap:

shen
11-27-2010, 01:19 PM
Ok, take out preseason, and I've just seen him make stupid decisions and errant throws.

In his 1 game Charlie did what Matt has perfected over the course of his career. Matt is best known for making stupid decisions. Matt has only actually had two really good years, those being 05 and 07. It is one of those things where you expect for him to have had many really good years. Then when you sit back and look you notice, aint as good as thought.

jwalk777
11-27-2010, 07:20 PM
If we can keep Matt upright he can ball well into his late thirties. He can still be an elite QB with the right cast around him.

House
11-27-2010, 07:43 PM
If we can keep Matt upright he can ball well into his late thirties. He can still be an elite QB with the right cast around him.

He's surviving and playing decent football. You can't put "ELITE" and Matt in the same sentence unless you are saying, "The Seahawks are looking for their ELITE QB because they don't have one in Matt."

FWBrodie
11-27-2010, 09:21 PM
If we can keep Matt upright he can ball well into his late thirties. He can still be an elite QB with the right cast around him.

He's never been elite. He topped out at fringe pro bowler.