PDA

View Full Version : Week 17: Seattle Seahawks VS St. Louis Rams



Pages : 1 [2]

shen
01-02-2011, 10:36 PM
Nice pass, maybe throw to Martin more often.

shen
01-02-2011, 10:37 PM
Okung is hurt:(

shen
01-02-2011, 10:38 PM
Wow he had to get rid that soon as it hit his hands.

shen
01-02-2011, 10:42 PM
Not desired outcome however he made good decision in dumping ball to Williams and giving him a shot instead of forcing it or taking sack.

shen
01-02-2011, 10:44 PM
Good job 12th man!

shen
01-02-2011, 10:45 PM
Bradford sacked!!!!!

shen
01-02-2011, 10:48 PM
oh man, would have preferred at least one deep shot before half.

BIG DREW
01-02-2011, 11:01 PM
man you guys division sucks. lol

shen
01-02-2011, 11:01 PM
30 minutes till victory!

furmat60
01-02-2011, 11:07 PM
2nd half! Whitehurst is looking pretty good right now. Just a week with the first team offense? Wow. Sucks to have Okung out AGAIN with an ankle injury. we have to get our offense going again! WAY TOO MANY PUNTS!

shen
01-02-2011, 11:09 PM
We had what, one or two handoffs on the TD drive. Then we started handing it off way to much.

shen
01-02-2011, 11:10 PM
Man Charlie is good at avoiding the sack, just wish Lynch didn't lose the FRACKING BALL!

furmat60
01-02-2011, 11:10 PM
****! Nice escape by Charlie though.

shen
01-02-2011, 11:11 PM
Don't give up a first down, force a FG and take out RB and replace it with another o-linemen. Similar to what NO does.

shen
01-02-2011, 11:14 PM
3rd and goal on the 9, lets stop them here. Good time for that pick 6 I asked for earlier.

shen
01-02-2011, 11:15 PM
Sack would have been nice but either way it is a field goal. Need to do something on Offense though.

furmat60
01-02-2011, 11:16 PM
Well, we're still winning. Lets get a TD drive!

shen
01-02-2011, 11:20 PM
Lynch, I accept your apology for the fumble!

shen
01-02-2011, 11:22 PM
Forsett!!!!!!!

shen
01-02-2011, 11:23 PM
Pitts is out for rest the game.

furmat60
01-02-2011, 11:24 PM
Some good runs right there. Charlie is making pretty good decisions. Need to get this on 3rd and 4.

furmat60
01-02-2011, 11:24 PM
Yeah!

shen
01-02-2011, 11:24 PM
first down on pass to Mike, keep the chains moving and give our D a rest.

shen
01-02-2011, 11:25 PM
Man, just about 3 inches to far out.

furmat60
01-02-2011, 11:25 PM
Leon!

shen
01-02-2011, 11:26 PM
Good job, waited till ready to throw before even looked at Washington.

shen
01-02-2011, 11:29 PM
Yeah if Williams stays in another yard and he get's a TD.

furmat60
01-02-2011, 11:31 PM
Sweet. A field goal. Couple of bad decision by Charlie, but we got 3 points. Man, he sure is mobile!

shen
01-02-2011, 11:31 PM
Would have preferred 7 points but gave D a good rest and got some momentum on offense. Let's keep it up, only 18 minutes and we win!

shen
01-02-2011, 11:32 PM
The second one to Williams was Williams fault, though the first one was on Charlie, and not running in that hole on third down was mistake.

furmat60
01-02-2011, 11:33 PM
Et! Et! Et! Damn! ****! ****!

shen
01-02-2011, 11:33 PM
Thomas!

(please get the pick now, not even needed to be a pick six)

furmat60
01-02-2011, 11:34 PM
Thomas!

(please get the pick now, not even needed to be a pick six)

lol

furmat60
01-02-2011, 11:34 PM
Sam Bradford lol. Gotta love that kid lol.

shen
01-02-2011, 11:35 PM
That was pure luck on our part.

furmat60
01-02-2011, 11:36 PM
Let's get a TD!!!!!!!!!

furmat60
01-02-2011, 11:37 PM
Martin! Yeah! We better resign him!

shen
01-02-2011, 11:38 PM
Every time he has gone to Martin we have gotten a first down. They just seem to be linked mentally.

shen
01-02-2011, 11:39 PM
Lynch could have had a huge run but he hesitated before trying to take off.

shen
01-02-2011, 11:41 PM
Charlie has completed passes to 10 different people and has 3 receptions to five receptions. Good job of spreading ball around and not forcing the ball to one guy.

shen
01-02-2011, 11:41 PM
oops, Forsett messed that one up.

furmat60
01-02-2011, 11:43 PM
What the **** just happened?

shen
01-02-2011, 11:45 PM
3rd and 8, lets stop um and get ball back.

shen
01-02-2011, 11:45 PM
Pass tipped then dropped, Rams gonna punt!

shen
01-02-2011, 11:46 PM
We get ball near where we had it when we punted. That timeout thing is gonna cost us the game, just got that feeling.

shen
01-02-2011, 11:48 PM
Carlson could not get there because defender was in his way.

shen
01-02-2011, 11:50 PM
I am very happy with Whitehurst in this game. Think if has another week with first team offense what he can do.

furmat60
01-02-2011, 11:50 PM
Damn it Charlie.

shen
01-02-2011, 11:51 PM
That was weird, looked like Forsett tripped and lost track of ball. Might have been pushed.

shen
01-02-2011, 11:52 PM
Forsett dropped that one.

furmat60
01-02-2011, 11:52 PM
Damn Forsett :(

FG.

shen
01-02-2011, 11:53 PM
Least we up by 7 again. I have bad feeling that Rams are gonna score and because we only have the one time out that this game ends in OT with a loss.

jbeezy
01-02-2011, 11:53 PM
Lets go Seahawks get the W :clap:

shen
01-02-2011, 11:55 PM
Amendola got stopped by his own blocker on that return.

furmat60
01-02-2011, 11:56 PM
Don't say that! We are NOT losing the ****ING GAME!

furmat60
01-02-2011, 11:57 PM
We were REALLY lucky right there.

jbeezy
01-02-2011, 11:57 PM
Oh **** :faint:

shen
01-02-2011, 11:57 PM
Wow, that was lucky for us. Then Jennings actually does something right.

jbeezy
01-02-2011, 11:57 PM
that would have been an awesome catch

furmat60
01-02-2011, 11:57 PM
Sweet! Jennings is hurt! (just for him not playing purposes, people getting hurt isn't good)

shen
01-02-2011, 11:58 PM
Jennings is hurt, this isn't good. As long as can use up a bit of clock and get a FG then we should win this game.

shen
01-02-2011, 11:59 PM
Jennings might suck in general but he has done pretty good tonight.

shen
01-03-2011, 12:02 AM
Now we are stalling.

shen
01-03-2011, 12:03 AM
That was Williams fault, he bobbled it, if had not released it then could have gotten it.

shen
01-03-2011, 12:05 AM
Need to throw to Martin couple more times. He has gotten the ball on what, all three of our scoring drives. He and Charlie are just on same page. Stop trying to get Williams involved and throw to this guy.

furmat60
01-03-2011, 12:06 AM
Herring! Interception!

shen
01-03-2011, 12:07 AM
INTERCEPTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Dude might be ugly as heck but he just drained Rams of all emotion.

shen
01-03-2011, 12:08 AM
Lynch starting to seal the victory. If only get one good drive out of him then this is the one we want.

furmat60
01-03-2011, 12:08 AM
It isn't over yet.

shen
01-03-2011, 12:09 AM
Charlie!

shen
01-03-2011, 12:10 AM
He went to slide, if only not so clunky looking would have been more yards.

furmat60
01-03-2011, 12:10 AM
Whitehurst baby! WHITEHURST! I really want him to get the start next week.

shen
01-03-2011, 12:12 AM
I like these refs, wish had them every game:)

House
01-03-2011, 12:13 AM
If we WIN this game and Charlie doesn't start next week, I'll be PISSED OFF. There would be no reason to break RAPPORT/CONNECTIONS that came tonight...

furmat60
01-03-2011, 12:15 AM
If we WIN this game and Charlie doesn't start next week, I'll be PISSED OFF. There would be no reason to break RAPPORT/CONNECTIONS that came tonight...

Agreed. At the same time though, Pete loves Matt.

shen
01-03-2011, 12:15 AM
Before the game Pete built in the Matt option but after first half said he envisioned no chance of Matt coming in. Think Charlie just won the starting job. Seeing Charlie do so good in first half in game with so much meaning, he is finally completely comfortable with Charlie and Matt might as well start clearing out his locker.

shen
01-03-2011, 12:16 AM
Thank you 12th man and thank you Charlie!

Captain Planet
01-03-2011, 12:16 AM
Seahawks nfc west champs baby!! Bring on the saints!!!

shen
01-03-2011, 12:19 AM
Gibson with a hold.

NateyB24
01-03-2011, 12:19 AM
Man Whitehurst has played good today...

furmat60
01-03-2011, 12:19 AM
Saints at home......well, at least we're at home.

NateyB24
01-03-2011, 12:20 AM
He even had a couple of nice passes not caught.

shen
01-03-2011, 12:21 AM
Including two that was on Williams and one by Forsett.

furmat60
01-03-2011, 12:26 AM
PLAYOFFS! Woo! Gonna miss that 7th pick though :(

shen
01-03-2011, 12:26 AM
Bradford eating turf!

shen
01-03-2011, 12:27 AM
Bradford fumbles, but Rams recover.

furmat60
01-03-2011, 12:27 AM
SACKS BABY! **** YES! I'M SO PUMPED! Bring on them damn AINTS!

shen
01-03-2011, 12:28 AM
Seahawks v. Saints in wild card!!!!!!!!!!!

Captain Planet
01-03-2011, 12:28 AM
Officially a charlie fan!!!!!!

shen
01-03-2011, 12:29 AM
This game is going to give Charlie so much confidence. This confidence and another week of first team offense and Charlie could be dangerous next week.

furmat60
01-03-2011, 12:30 AM
This game is going to give Charlie so much confidence. This confidence and another week of first team offense and Charlie could be dangerous next week.

That's if he gets the start. Hopefully they give it to him. He looked damn good out there.

shen
01-03-2011, 12:31 AM
Mike Williams few points is just enough to also get me my league championship. Easily my favorite Seahawks game all year!

shen
01-03-2011, 12:32 AM
Listening to difference in Pete's talk about Matt and Charlie from before game to halftime and I can't see any chance of Matt getting the start.

ccg34
01-03-2011, 12:32 AM
The run game was the key to our offense today. Whitehurst did a great job at qb. Saints vs Seahawks, this is a going be a great game. Anything can happen at Qwest!!!!!!!!!

drew_ellis_23
01-03-2011, 12:34 AM
Charlie better get the ****ing start. He is the man next season so let him have the post season!

drew_ellis_23
01-03-2011, 12:34 AM
Charlie 0 sacks, and 0 turnovers! When has Matt done that?

shen
01-03-2011, 12:36 AM
Matt has never done that. Dungy just said we have a real chance at beating the Saints next week. We will prob get blown out but nice to see how one win gives us some good talk.

Captain Planet
01-03-2011, 12:39 AM
To all of the Fake *** Seahawks fans who wanted us to lose for a draft pick...HA HA HA **** OFF!!!!

chonbon
01-03-2011, 12:40 AM
congrats

ccg34
01-03-2011, 12:40 AM
If we beat the Saints, we might play the Bears in the next round in Chicago. Just sayin......

shen
01-03-2011, 12:40 AM
lol,
could you all imagine a Seahawks Steelers rematch? I can def see it just because seems like every couple of years you get that team no one thinks has a chance at making it get into the Superbowl.

A.Mopp
01-03-2011, 12:40 AM
Whitehurst was awesome. It was fun to watch him and lead us to that win

shen
01-03-2011, 12:41 AM
If we win then we play the Falcons. NFL already said that few minutes ago.

furmat60
01-03-2011, 12:41 AM
Matt has never done that. Dungy just said we have a real chance at beating the Saints next week. We will prob get blown out but nice to see how one win gives us some good talk.

Quit being so damn negative all the time! ****!


If Charlie plays, we have a good chance. Playing at home, Charlie (if he plays) gets a lot of confidence from this win and another week practicing with the starters. I'm looking forward to the game next week! GO HAWKS! DIVISION CHAMPS AGAIN!

shen
01-03-2011, 12:43 AM
I prefer to stay closer to the negative part of realism as that way if it shakes out that way I don't get as angry/disappointed. Trust me I am already looking up all the match ups and everything.

mikemakesnoise
01-03-2011, 12:45 AM
WOO HOO!!!

I don't post in the Seahawks forum at all since I'm mainly on this site to post in the hockey forums.... but I've been a huge Seahawks fan since I was little and I am extremely happy to see the Seahawks in the playoffs again.

I don't know how far we'll go, but there's no reason we shouldn't expect a good playoff run. All it takes is a good game to move on to the next round.

House
01-03-2011, 12:47 AM
Charlie better START... This "Matt gets another 6 days rest" is ********! Charlie WON us this game and he didn't do anything wrong to give the keys back to Matt. Let Charlie ride...

shen
01-03-2011, 12:47 AM
Apparently Jenkins is hurt for NO and that would be a huge blow to there D.

shen
01-03-2011, 12:48 AM
Yeah we went into this saying "just don't lose the game" but he went and won the game.

furmat60
01-03-2011, 12:50 AM
Charlie better START... This "Matt gets another 6 days rest" is ********! Charlie WON us this game and he didn't do anything wrong to give the keys back to Matt. Let Charlie ride...

Agreed. I'll be ****ing pissed if he doesn't start. I guess we'll find out next week who gets the start or not.

drew_ellis_23
01-03-2011, 12:51 AM
Simple as this. We lost 7 of our last nine with Matt. Our defense was pretty bad but Matt was horrible and kept the D on the field. He threw 10 INTS in his last 4 starts, oh and the fumbles! Whitehurst earned another start with todays performance. Matt starts next week, we lose. Charlie kept the offense on the field and when the play wasnt there he ran and kept the chains moving. He brings that element to the game and I am excited to see 16 games of that next season if he doesnt get the nod next week.

drew_ellis_23
01-03-2011, 12:54 AM
Agreed. I'll be ****ing pissed if he doesn't start. I guess we'll find out next week who gets the start or not.

If Matt starts he wont finish. I will be praying for a Sharper sack to knock his *** out. I have been done with his *** since last season. Go Charlie

shen
01-03-2011, 12:54 AM
Simple as this. We lost 7 of our last nine with Matt. Our defense was pretty bad but Matt was horrible and kept the D on the field. He threw 10 INTS in his last 4 starts, oh and the fumbles! Whitehurst earned another start with todays performance. Matt starts next week, we lose. Charlie kept the offense on the field and when the play wasnt there he ran and kept the chains moving. He brings that element to the game and I am excited to see 16 games of that next season if he doesnt get the nod next week.

Perfectly said!

House
01-03-2011, 12:55 AM
Let's go CHARLIE... Let's go CHARLIE... Let's go CHARLIE... Let's go CHARLIE... Let's go CHARLIE... Let's go CHARLIE... Let's go CHARLIE... Let's go CHARLIE... Let's go CHARLIE... Let's go CHARLIE... Let's go CHARLIE... Let's go CHARLIE... Let's go CHARLIE... Let's go CHARLIE... Let's go CHARLIE... Let's go CHARLIE... Let's go CHARLIE... Let's go CHARLIE... Let's go CHARLIE... Let's go CHARLIE... Let's go CHARLIE... Let's go CHARLIE... Let's go CHARLIE... Let's go CHARLIE... Let's go CHARLIE... Let's go CHARLIE... Let's go CHARLIE... Let's go CHARLIE... Let's go CHARLIE... Let's go CHARLIE...

ccg34
01-03-2011, 12:56 AM
Agreed. I'll be ****ing pissed if he doesn't start. I guess we'll find out next week who gets the start or not.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/boxscore?gameId=301121018

I wouldn't mind if Hasselbeck starts he threw for 32/44, 366 yds, 1 td and 0 int. ,and a 104.9 passer rating against the Saints, but if Charlie starts he deserves it he played his heart out and had 0 turnovers.

shen
01-03-2011, 12:57 AM
For the Saints game cane we have a game preview thread then on game day start the game thread? It's just leading to this game we had 10 pages of posts before the day had started.

shen
01-03-2011, 12:58 AM
I wouldn't mind if Hasselbeck starts he threw for 32/44, 366 yds, 1 td and 0 int. ,and a 104.9 passer rating against the Saints, but if Charlie starts he deserves it he played his heart out and had 0 turnovers.

Matt did that in middle of season though and his body is no where near that ability at this point in the year. He could have two weeks off and still could not do that.

drew_ellis_23
01-03-2011, 01:01 AM
http://espn.go.com/nfl/boxscore?gameId=301121018

I wouldn't mind if Hasselbeck starts he threw for 32/44, 366 yds, 1 td and 0 int. ,and a 104.9 passer rating against the Saints, but if Charlie starts he deserves it he played his heart out and had 0 turnovers.

We were behind and they were playing prevent most of the game. Saints play that bend but dont break defense and just wait for a big play on defense like a Sharper pick 6. The more Charlie plays, the better he will get. This was a playoff like atmosphere and there was a ton of pressure on him and he delivered like he has done this before.

furmat60
01-03-2011, 01:05 AM
Charlie better get the start. I'm just gonna leave it at that.

So...........do we draft a QB or address other needs next year? To early to tell? What are your opinions.

shen
01-03-2011, 01:07 AM
Stick with Charlie next year and get other needs. Solidify the o-line and then if turns out Charlie is not option then draft a QB in 2012 that way they come in with an already built line.

drew_ellis_23
01-03-2011, 01:08 AM
Charlie better get the start. I'm just gonna leave it at that.

So...........do we draft a QB or address other needs next year? To early to tell? What are your opinions.

I would like to see us use the early picks on OL and CB. Take a flyer on a QB later and if Charlie flops next season with a improved line and WR core (cause you know V Jax is a future Hawk) then we burn a 1st rounder on a QB. Charlie needs more time with BMW. More he plays and gets familiar with him, the better. Took Matt a while to find him. Charlie will find him more often.

furmat60
01-03-2011, 01:15 AM
All Hail Vladimir Von Whitehurst!

IMO, get a CB and a RT in the first 2 rounds....then worry about getting a DE and a QB (for depth, unless Moore, Dalton, or Devlin are here). Charlie looked good, and could be GREAT with an offense built around him and a good offensive line to get a great running game going. I'm excited.

drew_ellis_23
01-03-2011, 01:17 AM
All Hail Vladimir Von Whitehurst!

IMO, get a CB and a RT in the first 2 rounds....then worry about getting a DE and a QB (for depth, unless Moore, Dalton, or Devlin are here). Charlie looked good, and could be GREAT with an offense built around him and a good offensive line to get a great running game going. I'm excited.

YES:clap:

shen
01-03-2011, 01:18 AM
Run game nearly lost this game, other then like 4 big runs nearly every run was for a loss or no gain. Imagine if he an o-line and running game for support.

furmat60
01-03-2011, 01:28 AM
Both Lynch and Forsett managed 3.8 yards per carry....just .1 more yards than our season average. It comes down to the offensive line. Plain and simple.

MattColby
01-03-2011, 01:58 AM
Great game. Can't believe they didn't attack our secondary. Superbowl here we come at 7-9!!!!

Baller1
01-03-2011, 02:14 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_zaiHHIdME

furmat60
01-03-2011, 02:24 AM
Great game. Can't believe they didn't attack our secondary. Superbowl here we come at 7-9!!!!

Now now.......going to the Super Bowl is a LONG SHOT. Let's not get ahead of ourselves lol.

MattColby
01-03-2011, 03:05 AM
Now now.......going to the Super Bowl is a LONG SHOT. Let's not get ahead of ourselves lol.

LOL. One can hope. Dream big. I didn't think we were going to get past this game so I'm ecstatic.

furmat60
01-03-2011, 03:11 AM
LOL. One can hope. Dream big. I didn't think we were going to get past this game so I'm ecstatic.

If Charlie plays and Okung is healthy, we have a decent shot. We are playing at QWEST BABY! WOO!

GO HAWKS!

Seattle4Ever
01-03-2011, 03:43 AM
I can't believe Whitehurst did that good. I expected the practice would make him do a little better, but wow! Hopefully Hass doesn't start.

Okung has glass ankles :facepalm:

Boozerguy47
01-03-2011, 04:16 AM
Great game, but Charlie wasn't that impressive if you ask me. How many passes did he throw over 10 yards through the air? Three? Only one or two were actually caught?

Don't get me wrong, he did great with ball security... But no way in hell we can throw those classic Mike Holmgren passes and compete against the Saints.

So the question is, who starts next week?

FWBrodie
01-03-2011, 04:17 AM
Will Herring and Raheem Brock and Russell Okung and CHARLIE WHITEHURST!

ccg34
01-03-2011, 04:35 AM
Great game, but Charlie wasn't that impressive if you ask me. How many passes did he throw over 10 yards through the air? Three? Only one or two were actually caught?

Don't get me wrong, he did great with ball security... But no way in hell we can throw those classic Mike Holmgren passes and compete against the Saints.

So the question is, who starts next week?

I think Matt is going to start. They had Matt warming up in the 3rd quarter in case Charlie messed up. I believe Pete wanted to rest Matt for the playoffs.

House
01-03-2011, 05:20 AM
Great game, but Charlie wasn't that impressive if you ask me. How many passes did he throw over 10 yards through the air? Three? Only one or two were actually caught?

Don't get me wrong, he did great with ball security... But no way in hell we can throw those classic Mike Holmgren passes and compete against the Saints.

So the question is, who starts next week?

If that keeps Drew Brees off the field, anything's possible...

SEAbeliever
01-03-2011, 08:33 AM
The Rams didn't attack our secondary because they couldn't. They have no receivers to speak of...The one shot I remember seeing to Danario Alexander went through his arms like he was trying to tackle the ball instead of catch it, hilarious!!! And we also did a good job knocking down balls at the line.

Charlie/Matt will start...make them prepare for both of them. BRILLIANT! :cheers:

hawks4life
01-03-2011, 09:00 AM
The Rams didn't attack our secondary because they couldn't. They have no receivers to speak of...The one shot I remember seeing to Danario Alexander went through his arms like he was trying to tackle the ball instead of catch it, hilarious!!! And we also did a good job knocking down balls at the line.

Charlie/Matt will start...make them prepare for both of them. BRILLIANT! :cheers:

I thought Kelly Jennings did a great job last night. Jennings stayed with his man all game long and never gave him an inch of breathing room. I can't remember Amendola catching a pass all game long. I hope he keeps it up next week.

Collingsworth and Michaels kept talking about the running game and how great it was. Althought I did think it was much improved, I thought our d was the reason why we won that game. When Lynch fumbled on our own 20, it was our d that prevented them from scoring a TD. I hope they come out like that next week.

Schadie001
01-03-2011, 10:32 AM
Thank God our running game showed up... I am not a Charlie fan to say the least but I will give him props, he didn't do anything to lose this game. He protected the ball and ran pretty well. There were more times than not that I found myself yelling for him to throw the dang ball, but not a bad performance.

I did think that it was pretty funny that after the game when Pete and Charlie were getting interviewed Pete was asked how he what he thought about Charlie's performance, and he said Charlie did a good job and then went on to praise Matt for his work to get ready. Even my wife (who doesn't follow the Seahawks) commented.... "You could tell he likes Matt more than Charlie."

House
01-03-2011, 10:48 AM
Thank God our running game showed up... I am not a Charlie fan to say the least but I will give him props, he didn't do anything to lose this game. He protected the ball and ran pretty well. There were more times than not that I found myself yelling for him to throw the dang ball, but not a bad performance.

I did think that it was pretty funny that after the game when Pete and Charlie were getting interviewed Pete was asked how he what he thought about Charlie's performance, and he said Charlie did a good job and then went on to praise Matt for his work to get ready. Even my wife (who doesn't follow the Seahawks) commented.... "You could tell he likes Matt more than Charlie."

Charlie did what he needed to do. I hope we continue to develop him and see where it goes. Matt ISN'T going to improve on where he currently is.

I do wonder if Pete is trying to sell Matt up... "The guy's trying so hard to come back and play. Thank GOD he didn't blow this one for us." :)
At halftime they asked Pete about Charlie and he said he was "Outstanding".

Thebudler
01-03-2011, 11:18 AM
Charlie played a decent game against a BAD football team. He missed wide open guys, but it was nice to see him get out of trouble and scramble for 3-4 yards. If Hasselbeck plays, those are easy sacks and instead of 2nd and 6 it's 2nd and 15. WHithurst admitted he was real nervous, but he needs to be more accurate. He did what he needed to do to beat the rams, but he's going to have to do more if he plays against the Saints. Who do you guys start, Matt or Charlie? I am 50/50 right now.

Thebudler
01-03-2011, 11:43 AM
Charlie did what he needed to do. I hope we continue to develop him and see where it goes. Matt ISN'T going to improve on where he currently is.

I do wonder if Pete is trying to sell Matt up... "The guy's trying so hard to come back and play. Thank GOD he didn't blow this one for us." :)
At halftime they asked Pete about Charlie and he said he was "Outstanding".

Pete Carroll is just saying what he is supposed to say. Whitehurst was no where near "outstanding!" He missed a lot of wide open guys, and even under threw Ruvell Martin on the first drive. I give a lot of props to Jeremy Bates. He called plays that played to Charlie's strength.

Reminder, Matt threw for 366 yards against this Saints defense! I will gladly take that... He wouldn't need to improve on that! Matt doesn't have the arm Charlie does, but what he lacks in arm strength he makes up in accuracy. If I had to make a decision today and Matt is healthy, I would start him. He's been there and done that.

House
01-03-2011, 12:07 PM
Pete Carroll is just saying what he is supposed to say. Whitehurst was no where near "outstanding!" He missed a lot of wide open guys, and even under threw Ruvell Martin on the first drive. I give a lot of props to Jeremy Bates. He called plays that played to Charlie's strength.

Reminder, Matt threw for 366 yards against this Saints defense! I will gladly take that... He wouldn't need to improve on that! Matt doesn't have the arm Charlie does, but what he lacks in arm strength he makes up in accuracy. If I had to make a decision today and Matt is healthy, I would start him. He's been there and done that.

Possibly... Not saying Charlie was ELITE or anything, but in the eyes of where the team was at halftime, we looked good. Our 1st game vs STL, halftime was 3-10 them. This game was 7-3 us. Charlie managed the game and kept the DEF rested.

You'll take Matt's 366 yards in a loss VS Charlie's 192 yards in a WIN? That's smart... One of the most SKEWED, INSIGNIFICANT doesn't tell the game's story stats ever.

NO is another bend/not break DEF. They also lead most of the game and we threw the entire time trailing... We rushed for 58 yards... You can't run the ball when you're down by 2 TDs before halftime. Time of possession: NO 33:45, SEA 26:15. The only reason it was that close was because NO scores at will, QUICKLY!

Last night Charlie threw for 192 yards. I get it, not the sexiest #. He's still building rapport with his guys. How many yards on the ground last night? 141... Time of possession: STL: 25:15, SEA 34:45. I will take lower #'s if that means a "W".

Matt did that in a LOSS with us behind the whole game...

drew_ellis_23
01-03-2011, 01:06 PM
Possibly... Not saying Charlie was ELITE or anything, but in the eyes of where the team was at halftime, we looked good. Our 1st game vs STL, halftime was 3-10 them. This game was 7-3 us. Charlie managed the game and kept the DEF rested.

You'll take Matt's 366 yards in a loss VS Charlie's 192 yards in a WIN? That's smart... One of the most SKEWED, INSIGNIFICANT doesn't tell the game's story stats ever.

NO is another bend/not break DEF. They also lead most of the game and we threw the entire time trailing... We rushed for 58 yards... You can't run the ball when you're down by 2 TDs before halftime. Time of possession: NO 33:45, SEA 26:15. The only reason it was that close was because NO scores at will, QUICKLY!

Last night Charlie threw for 192 yards. I get it, not the sexiest #. He's still building rapport with his guys. How many yards on the ground last night? 141... Time of possession: STL: 25:15, SEA 34:45. I will take lower #'s if that means a "W".

Matt did that in a LOSS with us behind the whole game...

Swear I said this earlier LOL. So true. Some people just dont get it. Hope Matt never sniffs the playing field for us again.

House
01-03-2011, 01:10 PM
Swear I said this earlier LOL. So true. Some people just dont get it. Hope Matt never sniffs the playing field for us again.

I agree! He can play somewhere next season and maybe he'll land us a 6th/7th rd comp pick.

NateyB24
01-03-2011, 01:10 PM
Matt would have got killed anyways, Once Okung was hurt 4 guys were getting free on the left side and Charlie was mobile enough to run away from it.

drew_ellis_23
01-03-2011, 01:12 PM
Charlie played a decent game against a BAD football team. He missed wide open guys, but it was nice to see him get out of trouble and scramble for 3-4 yards. If Hasselbeck plays, those are easy sacks and instead of 2nd and 6 it's 2nd and 15. WHithurst admitted he was real nervous, but he needs to be more accurate. He did what he needed to do to beat the rams, but he's going to have to do more if he plays against the Saints. Who do you guys start, Matt or Charlie? I am 50/50 right now.

If Matt plays those are sacks, and fumbles my friend. Saints are one of the best at forcing TO's and one armed old man Matt is no match. Charlie made a few bad throws but his completion % was solid he had no turnovers, AND NO SACKS. The only time I was yelling is on a few second and short yardage plays where they were a little conservative and ran the ball. I was upset with some play calling but not Charlie. I would have liked to see Bates call a few more downfield plays for Williams. Maybe as Charlie gets more reps with him, that will be dialed up more.

Thebudler
01-03-2011, 01:59 PM
Possibly... Not saying Charlie was ELITE or anything, but in the eyes of where the team was at halftime, we looked good. Our 1st game vs STL, halftime was 3-10 them. This game was 7-3 us. Charlie managed the game and kept the DEF rested.

You'll take Matt's 366 yards in a loss VS Charlie's 192 yards in a WIN? That's smart... One of the most SKEWED, INSIGNIFICANT doesn't tell the game's story stats ever.

NO is another bend/not break DEF. They also lead most of the game and we threw the entire time trailing... We rushed for 58 yards... You can't run the ball when you're down by 2 TDs before halftime. Time of possession: NO 33:45, SEA 26:15. The only reason it was that close was because NO scores at will, QUICKLY!

Last night Charlie threw for 192 yards. I get it, not the sexiest #. He's still building rapport with his guys. How many yards on the ground last night? 141... Time of possession: STL: 25:15, SEA 34:45. I will take lower #'s if that means a "W".

Matt did that in a LOSS with us behind the whole game...

I obviously would take a hawks win over any stats ever. Don't be a smart @#$. I know Charlie did a good job rushing, but he is SOOOO inaccurate. He had Mike Williams open all he needs to do is put the ball up in play and it's a TD, instead he throws the ball out of bounds. Like I said, he did a good enough job to beat the rams, but if he has that same game, it isn't going to be good enough to beat the Saints. He did what he needed to do. With the rams anemic offensive unit, Charlie knew he just couldn't screw up and he did it. In the saints game you are going to need more! You need accuracy!!! Charlie, doesn't have the accuracy!

Thebudler
01-03-2011, 02:26 PM
Oh and FYI, the long pass to Ruvell Martin (which was under thrown) was Charlies only completion where the ball traveled over 10 yards. You think that would be good enough to beat the saints?

steelie
01-03-2011, 02:48 PM
Matt would have got killed anyways, Once Okung was hurt 4 guys were getting free on the left side and Charlie was mobile enough to run away from it.

Yeah I liked what Charlie did last night. The only thing I thought he could improve on is some of his reads. We didn't see a lot of quick slants to pick up 5-6 yards. I did like the fact that when the blitz came he could get out of it unlike Matt. Charlie has got legs and is a tough SOB. I loved how when he ran and got popped he jumped right back up. I think last night was a huge game for him and now his confidence is going to soar. Another week with the #1 offense under his belt and he should be even better.

Seattle King
01-03-2011, 03:10 PM
Yeah it was very nice to see the Hawks get back to the playoffs. Even at 7-9.

Seattle Sports (http://www.seattlesportscentral.com/2011/01/03/my-thoughts-on-the-seahawks/)


What a great win for the Seahawks last night! I’m sure people are waking up this morning and their throats are sore, some have headaches, but the overall joy of having our team in the playoffs is still fresh in their minds.

Charlie Whitehurst played a great game of what I call, Trent Dilfer football vs the rams. He didn’t lose us the game. He wasn’t trying to be Payton Manning out there. He did enough to win and nothing to lose. The one touchdown to Mike Williams and three field goals were enough to win it and we are fine with that performance right!? Here are my thoughts on the game...

House
01-03-2011, 03:28 PM
I obviously would take a hawks win over any stats ever. Don't be a smart @#$. I know Charlie did a good job rushing, but he is SOOOO inaccurate. He had Mike Williams open all he needs to do is put the ball up in play and it's a TD, instead he throws the ball out of bounds. Like I said, he did a good enough job to beat the rams, but if he has that same game, it isn't going to be good enough to beat the Saints. He did what he needed to do. With the rams anemic offensive unit, Charlie knew he just couldn't screw up and he did it. In the saints game you are going to need more! You need accuracy!!! Charlie, doesn't have the accuracy!

Just calling it the way I see it.


Oh and FYI, the long pass to Ruvell Martin (which was under thrown) was Charlies only completion where the ball traveled over 10 yards. You think that would be good enough to beat the saints?

If long-timed drives keeps the Saints OFF off the field, **** yes it's enough. Jenkins is key to their secondary and even if he plays, he's dinged up. Those short intermediate passes can freeze a DEF like NO. They'll be looking for the HR Pick 6's that won't be there!!!

hawks4life
01-03-2011, 03:37 PM
Pete Carroll is just saying what he is supposed to say. Whitehurst was no where near "outstanding!" He missed a lot of wide open guys, and even under threw Ruvell Martin on the first drive. I give a lot of props to Jeremy Bates. He called plays that played to Charlie's strength.

Reminder, Matt threw for 366 yards against this Saints defense! I will gladly take that... He wouldn't need to improve on that! Matt doesn't have the arm Charlie does, but what he lacks in arm strength he makes up in accuracy. If I had to make a decision today and Matt is healthy, I would start him. He's been there and done that.

Matt threw 366 yards agains a team with a depleted secondary at the time. I doubt he can repeat that performance. I also diagree with Matt's accuracy. He has been terrible this year. Matt does, however, have the knowledge and experience on every drive. He knows what play to run and when to use it at all times and all circumstances.

shen
01-03-2011, 03:56 PM
Williams is responsible for two of the misses to him. One he bobbled that was completely catchable. Then on the other all he needed to do was come over another foot but he let the D direct him away. Charlie only had two or three bad passes all night. Anyone saying otherwise are just people that are unable to admit they were dead freaking wrong about Charlie. The run game nearly lost the freaking game for us but Charlie kept us going. For like the first three quarters Charlie had more rushing yards then everyone else combined. Charlie made smart passes and did not force it, was easily two or three Matt int's and another couple fumbles and half dozen sacks if Matt played. Matt is garbage and Charlie gives us best chance to win. Be a man admit you had not clue what talking about!

Canada26
01-03-2011, 03:58 PM
Possibly... Not saying Charlie was ELITE or anything, but in the eyes of where the team was at halftime, we looked good. Our 1st game vs STL, halftime was 3-10 them. This game was 7-3 us. Charlie managed the game and kept the DEF rested.

You'll take Matt's 366 yards in a loss VS Charlie's 192 yards in a WIN? That's smart... One of the most SKEWED, INSIGNIFICANT doesn't tell the game's story stats ever.

NO is another bend/not break DEF. They also lead most of the game and we threw the entire time trailing... We rushed for 58 yards... You can't run the ball when you're down by 2 TDs before halftime. Time of possession: NO 33:45, SEA 26:15. The only reason it was that close was because NO scores at will, QUICKLY!

Last night Charlie threw for 192 yards. I get it, not the sexiest #. He's still building rapport with his guys. How many yards on the ground last night? 141... Time of possession: STL: 25:15, SEA 34:45. I will take lower #'s if that means a "W".

Matt did that in a LOSS with us behind the whole game...

This is true. However, with all that said, Charlie did it against the Rams. The Saints are a team, that if you get down against them, can you rely on Charlie in a shootout? Its a tough situation to be in. I liked what I saw from Whitehurst last night, but Im not he presents the downfield threat that Hasselbeck does.

One thing to remember too, is that the run game was on last night. We've seen Charlie struggle, just as bad as Hasselbeck has, when the run game wasn't on. That is the key to the success. If they can run the ball, Charlie can move the chains and play the game he did last night. If they don't run well, you will need to get Hasselbeck to take chances downfield. Its a tough call for Pete to make, going to be an interesting one.

shen
01-03-2011, 04:12 PM
The run game was NOT on last night, did you all fall and hit your collective heads? The first three quarters Charlie had more yards then everyone else combined. All but about 4 runs went for no gain or negative yardage. Charlie kept this team going and got run game a chance to get head out of crapper.

Matt does not give a down field threat what so ever in any since of the word. Charlie has a WAY stronger arm. Charlie also showed better decision making last night then Matt has last three seasons. Charlie won us that game, if Matt had played we lose twenty points. Again, the run game was crap last night until the 4th quarter when still was not good except for 4 or 5 runs. Stop pretending that because end result was not horrendous that it actually was good during the game.

shen
01-03-2011, 04:16 PM
In fact just to show how little you know (Canada) Charlie did his best when the entire team (minus him) had a total 3 yards running (first half the game). He had a 140 something QB rating. Was 20 of 25 for hundred and something yards and a TD. Was not till started getting a couple big runs that he stumbled down the stretch. Matt has never given us a deep threat and have no idea where you got that ridicules thought from. Chad Pennington is more of a deep threat then Matt. Charlie moved the chains last night, look at the first downs, he had two running and more passing then we had running anyways.

FWBrodie
01-03-2011, 04:59 PM
Oh and FYI, the long pass to Ruvell Martin (which was under thrown) was Charlies only completion where the ball traveled over 10 yards. You think that would be good enough to beat the saints?

How long was Matt's longest pick when he was turning the ball over 13 times in 4 games? Is 3.25 TO's going to beat the Saints?

FWBrodie
01-03-2011, 05:17 PM
I obviously would take a hawks win over any stats ever. Don't be a smart @#$. I know Charlie did a good job rushing, but he is SOOOO inaccurate. He had Mike Williams open all he needs to do is put the ball up in play and it's a TD, instead he throws the ball out of bounds. Like I said, he did a good enough job to beat the rams, but if he has that same game, it isn't going to be good enough to beat the Saints. He did what he needed to do. With the rams anemic offensive unit, Charlie knew he just couldn't screw up and he did it. In the saints game you are going to need more! You need accuracy!!! Charlie, doesn't have the accuracy!

Matt Hasselbeck is completely inaccurate at this point except he throws the ball so softly that when he misses it floats through the air like he's playing Flyers Up on the playground. Everyone gets a chance to run it down.

Charlie opens the offense with his legs and with his arm. With his mobility he's sucking linebackers down toward the line of scrimmage and with his arm he keeps DB's honest and raises the top of the defense. Anybody would be stupid to assume Charlie isn't going to turn the ball over against the Saints, but Matt puts the Seahawks at such a disadvantage with his lack of athleticism and deteriorating arm (and not to mention broken hand) that you have to go with the guy who at least starts on a level playing field in terms of physical capability.

The other factor is that coming off that win a lot of momentum was built and that's something that I know Pete Carroll believes in. The offense has begun to build a confidence with Charlie that has the potential to snowball into some very good chemistry. Much the same, Charlie has thrown some big passes and had his receivers make the play. He won't hesitate to give those guys a chance to do it again as they feel more comfortable together and even test their limits even further.

Canada26
01-03-2011, 05:25 PM
The run game was NOT on last night, did you all fall and hit your collective heads? The first three quarters Charlie had more yards then everyone else combined. All but about 4 runs went for no gain or negative yardage. Charlie kept this team going and got run game a chance to get head out of crapper.

Matt does not give a down field threat what so ever in any since of the word. Charlie has a WAY stronger arm. Charlie also showed better decision making last night then Matt has last three seasons. Charlie won us that game, if Matt had played we lose twenty points. Again, the run game was crap last night until the 4th quarter when still was not good except for 4 or 5 runs. Stop pretending that because end result was not horrendous that it actually was good during the game.

Look, you don't understand and you seem blinded. Your saying that Charlie won the game? Because he played so well in the first half and they had taken such control of the game, right? Your naive to say Charlie won the game, when we all know the defense won the game for the Seahawks. He hit a lucky deep ball, that he was almost late on, and under threw the ball, while Martin was wide open for a good 3 seconds. Did you also know, that aside from that lucky deep ball, he put together one other drive that lasted longer than 3 minutes and 25 yards. So yeah, he really handled the game well without a run game right?


In fact just to show how little you know (Canada) Charlie did his best when the entire team (minus him) had a total 3 yards running (first half the game). He had a 140 something QB rating. Was 20 of 25 for hundred and something yards and a TD. Was not till started getting a couple big runs that he stumbled down the stretch. Matt has never given us a deep threat and have no idea where you got that ridicules thought from. Chad Pennington is more of a deep threat then Matt. Charlie moved the chains last night, look at the first downs, he had two running and more passing then we had running anyways.

He did his best? He hit one pass, that like I said, was blown coverage, which he under threw and almost didn't get the ball off, while Martin was open for a while. That was it. He didn't do anything else in the first half. He "lead" the Seahawks to 163 first half yards, 61 of which came on ONE play. That leaves 102 yards for the remaining 34 plays that were run in the first half. I'll do the math, it equals 3 yards a play, aside from the 61 yard pass he threw.

Once, the run game got going, in the second half, it took pressure of Charlie and they had 3 scoring drives. Two drives that lasted 13 combined minutes. Are you going to tell me that it was all Charlie's doing? Or that it was the threat of his downfield ability that opened runs for Lynch and co? Come on, be realistic here.

Im not nagging on Charlie, because he did not play bad. He played mistake free football, but didn't win the game for the Seahawks. The run game and the defense won it for them. Charlie had one big pass, he threw for 131 yards on 21 other completions. Not that great, and definitely no shots downfield. Im not saying Im against him starting the next game, but Hasselbeck threw for 3000 yards this season, while missing two games and attempting 4 passes in another one. The difference between the two, is that Hasselbeck will take chances, Charlie won't. It is like a high risk, high reward type of situation. Take what you want, but either way, the key to this team's success against New Orleans will be running the ball and keeping the Saints offense off the field. I wouldn't be pissed if Charlie started, for the record.

Seattle King
01-03-2011, 07:19 PM
Seattle Sports (http://www.seattlesportscentral.com/2011/01/03/seattle-seahawks-win-16-6-and-become-first-playoff-team-with-losing-record/)


Charlie Whitehurst has redeemed himself to a degree.

While I still don’t necessarily view him as our future, he is a stable performer as evidenced by his solid passing tonight in not throwing an interception and allowing us to march down field.

However, for the second time in these last few days it was great defensive play—and a few lucky breaks—that helped guide Seattle to victory as Sam Bradford failed to throw a touchdown and was even picked off by Will Herring.

Next week we will play the New Orleans Saints here at Qwest Field in the Wild Card round and it remains to be seen as to who will start at Quarterback for us.

While Matt Hasselbeck tore up the Saints in our earlier meeting this season he really sort of fell off a cliff and gave way to Whitehurst’s performance tonight.

shen
01-03-2011, 08:41 PM
The run game did not win that game, we won that game in spite of it. I am willing to concede the D played biggest part in our win as it is fact. However the run game was garbage for the first three quarters and still only had 3 or 4 good runs other then Charlies.

seahawks509
01-03-2011, 10:11 PM
if whitehurst starts/ plays i see no way the hawks win this game. I would rather see losman play!


charlie couldn't hit obamanu 10 yards away! Bates put him in a good position to build confidence and he had two horrible throws that any qb in the nfl could complete! There was no excuse. I know hasselbeck hasn't played well, but he does give the hawks the best chance to win. He can read defenses and check off plays if need be. Charlie seems like a deer in headlights. He hasn't shown me anything at all! If he starts, i give the hawks a 10% chance of winning the game.

???lol

seahawks509
01-03-2011, 10:14 PM
Gibson with a hold.

My dads name is Mike Gibson. LOL. I remember watching him when he played for Cal.

seahawks509
01-03-2011, 10:15 PM
I almost gurantee that Hass starts next week. It's total BS and im going to p/o.

Captain Planet
01-03-2011, 11:59 PM
My dads name is Mike Gibson. LOL. I remember watching him when he played for Cal.

My name is Mel Gibson....yes..I AM THE REAL MEL GIBSON!!:D

Captain Planet
01-04-2011, 12:00 AM
I am a huge Hass Fan but if he starts over Charlie I am going to rip my tv off the wall, walk to my neighbors who is a Niner fan and throw it through his F'n Window!!

furmat60
01-04-2011, 05:34 AM
I am a huge Hass Fan but if he starts over Charlie I am going to rip my tv off the wall, walk to my neighbors who is a Niner fan and throw it through his F'n Window!!

Please post pictures.

Captain Planet
01-04-2011, 05:57 AM
Please post pictures.

haha ok :mad:

Thebudler
01-04-2011, 10:07 AM
???lol

Charlie managed the game well. But let's be honest the defense won us that game. Charlie missed WIDE OPEN receivers. He doesn't seem to go through his progressions, he seems to look down field for .2 seconds and then throw it to the flat. It worked against the Rams, but no way that would be good enough to beat the Saints and Greg Williams! Greg Williams will eat Charlie alive. If Matt is healthy, I would be VERY surprised if he doesn't start. I still think he gives us the best shot to win this game.

Boozerguy47
01-04-2011, 01:26 PM
^ My thoughts exactly.

furmat60
01-04-2011, 03:01 PM
I'm slowing turning to the idea that we need Matt to start this game.....

Thebudler
01-04-2011, 03:52 PM
Someone just texted into 710 on Brock and Salk show and it's my thoughts exactly. They said "Matt give you the best shot to throw for 350 yards and 4TD's... He also has the best shot to throw 4INT's but you have to take that risk when you are playing a better team." Hasselbeck has gone against many Greg Williams defenses and is able to read them pretty well. You can not convince me Charlie "dump it to the flat" Whitehurst has a better chance of leading the Hawks to victory. If we had a better TEAM than the Saints and he just needed to go through the progressions and 14-17 points was good enough to win I would say go with the safe choice in Charlie. That simply isn't the case!

drew_ellis_23
01-04-2011, 03:58 PM
Charlie managed the game well. But let's be honest the defense won us that game. Charlie missed WIDE OPEN receivers. He doesn't seem to go through his progressions, he seems to look down field for .2 seconds and then throw it to the flat. It worked against the Rams, but no way that would be good enough to beat the Saints and Greg Williams! Greg Williams will eat Charlie alive. If Matt is healthy, I would be VERY surprised if he doesn't start. I still think he gives us the best shot to win this game.

If Matt is 100% and has both arms, and our line is healthy, then yes. If he has that cast on still then no his turnovers from not being able to avoid the rush will cost us.

FWBrodie
01-04-2011, 04:46 PM
Charlie managed the game well. But let's be honest the defense won us that game. Charlie missed WIDE OPEN receivers. He doesn't seem to go through his progressions, he seems to look down field for .2 seconds and then throw it to the flat. It worked against the Rams, but no way that would be good enough to beat the Saints and Greg Williams! Greg Williams will eat Charlie alive. If Matt is healthy, I would be VERY surprised if he doesn't start. I still think he gives us the best shot to win this game.

You've now repeated yourself like 4 times instead of responding to what other people have said back to you. Charlie hits the flat? Matt Hasselbeck hits defensive backs in the numbers. Where are you going with this? If Matt throws anywhere on the field further than 10 yards the ball is floating up for grabs. F that. Matt Hasselbeck can't even grip the ball out of the snap for crying out loud. His ability is in an absolute free fall. You start Matt, you strip the team of all of it's confidence and there's no chance.

FWBrodie
01-04-2011, 04:53 PM
Someone just texted into 710 on Brock and Salk show and it's my thoughts exactly. They said "Matt give you the best shot to throw for 350 yards and 4TD's... He also has the best shot to throw 4INT's but you have to take that risk when you are playing a better team." Hasselbeck has gone against many Greg Williams defenses and is able to read them pretty well. You can not convince me Charlie "dump it to the flat" Whitehurst has a better chance of leading the Hawks to victory. If we had a better TEAM than the Saints and he just needed to go through the progressions and 14-17 points was good enough to win I would say go with the safe choice in Charlie. That simply isn't the case!

Who do you think you're talking about? Matt has thrown for more than 2 TD's in a game twice in the past 3 seasons. No F-ing way he does that against the Saints. By the way he's turned the ball over 3 or more times in 7 games over that same time span.

crzyhawk
01-04-2011, 05:02 PM
To all of the Fake *** Seahawks fans who wanted us to lose for a draft pick...HA HA HA **** OFF!!!!

We lose vs the saints 45-3 and you won't be singing that same tune. We have a week to enjoy this win, and pray we can beat the Saints...or at least lose with dignity.

You rag on people who wanted the team to improve...and for what? A single playoff game that no sane analyst gives us a snowball's chance in hell of winning? Sure there is reason to have hope we can win, but it's slim. Any REALIST will admit that.

I can tell you that I wouldn't have been here saying HAHA F off to the guys who wanted to win had we lost the game and gotten a much better draft pick, and I was certainly cheering on the Seahawks once the game started.

Now though, I guarantee that if we get blown out by the Saints I'll make sure to drop by PSD and ask you how you'd feel about that draft pick now.

Boozerguy47
01-04-2011, 06:42 PM
You've now repeated yourself like 4 times instead of responding to what other people have said back to you. Charlie hits the flat? Matt Hasselbeck hits defensive backs in the numbers. Where are you going with this? If Matt throws anywhere on the field further than 10 yards the ball is floating up for grabs. F that. Matt Hasselbeck can't even grip the ball out of the snap for crying out loud. His ability is in an absolute free fall. You start Matt, you strip the team of all of it's confidence and there's no chance.

Matt had two or three great games in a row earlier this year. What do you mean when he throws it deep it's up in the air for grabs? If anything the deep ball for those couple games were his strengths.

You can't honestly tell me you think Charlie is more capable of leading this team in the clutch than Matt... Sure, Matt played horribly the past few games, but why do you think Charlie and his check-down throws for 3-4 yards will win against the Saints? Rams' offense is no where near the Saints', so those 0-4 yard passes won't get you far. Makes zero sense to me.

You somewhat defended Matt in the Saints - Seahawks thread in the NFL forum, in the sense you're statement of saying he threw for 366 yards against the Saints the first time was a good thing.

House
01-04-2011, 07:52 PM
The DEF had a good game last week because they weren't on the field for 36+ minutes. NO is a FAST scoring OFF. Eat the clock and a 16-14 game vs the Saints is EXACTLY what we need. Neither of our QBs is going to win a shootout with Brees. You go with the QB who turns the ball over less AND the guy that got you there. Start CHARLIE!!!

Seattle4Ever
01-04-2011, 10:57 PM
Matt had two or three great games in a row earlier this year. What do you mean when he throws it deep it's up in the air for grabs? If anything the deep ball for those couple games were his strengths.

You can't honestly tell me you think Charlie is more capable of leading this team in the clutch than Matt... Sure, Matt played horribly the past few games, but why do you think Charlie and his check-down throws for 3-4 yards will win against the Saints? Rams' offense is no where near the Saints', so those 0-4 yard passes won't get you far. Makes zero sense to me.

You somewhat defended Matt in the Saints - Seahawks thread in the NFL forum, in the sense you're statement of saying he threw for 366 yards against the Saints the first time was a good thing.

He DOES throw a floater. It wobbles up there, LOL. The deep ball has NEVER been his strength. He WAS the definition of a West Coast QB. Now he's the definition of a mentor/2nd stringer.

Thebudler
01-04-2011, 11:28 PM
You've now repeated yourself like 4 times instead of responding to what other people have said back to you. Charlie hits the flat? Matt Hasselbeck hits defensive backs in the numbers. Where are you going with this? If Matt throws anywhere on the field further than 10 yards the ball is floating up for grabs. F that. Matt Hasselbeck can't even grip the ball out of the snap for crying out loud. His ability is in an absolute free fall. You start Matt, you strip the team of all of it's confidence and there's no chance.

I understand you love Charlie and HATE Hasselbeck. Hasselbeck has turned the ball over, but he runs the offense so much better than Charlie. HE CAN THROW THE BALL 10 YARDS DOWN FIELD AND COMPLETE A PASS!!! Do you agree that Charlie does not go through his progressions? To me he seems to panic and dump the ball or run for 3 or 4 yards. Charlie was serviceable, but the defense kept us in the game. If everything is going well, Charlie can win you the game, but if it isn't, the game will end up like the Giants game! You can't tell me Charlie can lead the Hawks to a victory in a shoot out. Hasselbeck has!!!!!! For the fifth time I will say YES Hasselbeck COULD throw INT's but he does give you the best chance. It isn't just me that thinks this man the "experts" like Mike Sando, John Clayton, Hugh Millen and Brock Huard all think hasselbeck gives the Hawks their best chance to win!

furmat60
01-04-2011, 11:36 PM
I'm starting to lean more to Matt. He just has WAY more experience in the playoffs, and he knows the entire playbook. For me, it doesn't matter who starts. I'm going to be screaming my *** off either way.

Thebudler
01-04-2011, 11:36 PM
The DEF had a good game last week because they weren't on the field for 36+ minutes. NO is a FAST scoring OFF. Eat the clock and a 16-14 game vs the Saints is EXACTLY what we need. Neither of our QBs is going to win a shootout with Brees. You go with the QB who turns the ball over less AND the guy that got you there. Start CHARLIE!!!

After the first drive the following drives were as follows

TIME PLAYS YARDS RESULTS
03:14 7 27yards Punt
01:38 3 9 yards Punt
01:20 3 1 yard Punt
02:48 6 16 yards Punt
02:05 6 24 yards Punt
00:35 1 -1 yard End of Half
00:00 1 0 yards Fumble Recovery

Does this look like Charlie and the Hawks offense is managing the clock well? Imagine what a real offense and not what the rams have will do with all those short drives!!!!!!!

furmat60
01-04-2011, 11:54 PM
After the first drive the following drives were as follows

TIME PLAYS YARDS RESULTS
03:14 7 27yards Punt
01:38 3 9 yards Punt
01:20 3 1 yard Punt
02:48 6 16 yards Punt
02:05 6 24 yards Punt
00:35 1 -1 yard End of Half
00:00 1 0 yards Fumble Recovery

Does this look like Charlie and the Hawks offense is managing the clock well? Imagine what a real offense and not what the rams have will do with all those short drives!!!!!!!

If we have drives like that against the Saints, they are going to steamroll us. Plain and simple.

House
01-05-2011, 01:14 AM
After the first drive the following drives were as follows

TIME PLAYS YARDS RESULTS
03:14 7 27yards Punt
01:38 3 9 yards Punt
01:20 3 1 yard Punt
02:48 6 16 yards Punt
02:05 6 24 yards Punt
00:35 1 -1 yard End of Half
00:00 1 0 yards Fumble Recovery

Does this look like Charlie and the Hawks offense is managing the clock well? Imagine what a real offense and not what the rams have will do with all those short drives!!!!!!!

I can see what your point is, just looking at that. What did the 2nd half look like?

Boozerguy47
01-05-2011, 02:18 AM
He DOES throw a floater. It wobbles up there, LOL. The deep ball has NEVER been his strength. He WAS the definition of a West Coast QB. Now he's the definition of a mentor/2nd stringer.

So what would you call those two or three solid games this year where he went...

Rating - Yards - Long - Opponent
106.6 - 333 - 63 - @ AZ
104.9 - 366 - 68 - @ NO
74.4 - 282 - 87 - KC

That was right before his major down-slide... My point was our offense was playing well during this stretch and Matt was a major factor. For those three games we had the big-play threat. Charlie hasn't shown anything close to this. The fact is Charlie would have to play the game of his life, while playing out of his mind to compete with the Saints. At least with Matt you know what he can do... Only thing that scares me is Matt playing like he did down the stretch.

I'm also curious to see what starting two straight games and getting the majority of the snaps would do for Charlie... So part of me wants him to start.

Regardless of who goes out there I'll figure we have a shot at an upset. Whoever starts for us will be important to the off-season decision-making... If Matt starts and plays horribly, chances are we'll let him walk this off-season. If Charlie starts and plays well, maybe we don't need a QB in the draft.

House
01-05-2011, 02:47 AM
So what would you call those two or three solid games this year where he went...

Rating - Yards - Long - Opponent
106.6 - 333 - 63 - @ AZ
104.9 - 366 - 68 - @ NO
74.4 - 282 - 87 - KC

That was right before his major down-slide... My point was our offense was playing well during this stretch and Matt was a major factor. For those three games we had the big-play threat. Charlie hasn't shown anything close to this. The fact is Charlie would have to play the game of his life, while playing out of his mind to compete with the Saints. At least with Matt you know what he can do... Only thing that scares me is Matt playing like he did down the stretch.

I'm also curious to see what starting two straight games and getting the majority of the snaps would do for Charlie... So part of me wants him to start.

Regardless of who goes out there I'll figure we have a shot at an upset. Whoever starts for us will be important to the off-season decision-making... If Matt starts and plays horribly, chances are we'll let him walk this off-season. If Charlie starts and plays well, maybe we don't need a QB in the draft.

I can agree with what you're saying. The problem I have is in those 3 games, we got our *** kicked TWICE, not to mention we were down big.

I'll never discredit what Matt HAS done in the past. The stretch of HORRIBLE games is enough for me to not have him out there.

I think Charlie's confidence is building and he's developing a little "Swagger". You could just see the boost/confidence in his interview. Let's see how far he takes it. He wins, we may not have to draft a QB right away. If he loses, he's that scrub 3rd stringer (not my opinion) that everyone has doubted anyways and we'll work the QB angle...

Canada26
01-05-2011, 03:07 AM
The DEF had a good game last week because they weren't on the field for 36+ minutes. NO is a FAST scoring OFF. Eat the clock and a 16-14 game vs the Saints is EXACTLY what we need. Neither of our QBs is going to win a shootout with Brees. You go with the QB who turns the ball over less AND the guy that got you there. Start CHARLIE!!!

Truth. This is the key to the win right here. The defense has been inconsistent all year, so the best way they can minimize the damage done is to keep them off the field. I guarantee, if the front 3 or 4 can create pressure like they did last week vs the Rams, the Hawks will be in this one. The Saints starting TB has been ruled out, placed on the IR, so that bodes well for them. But, they are going to need 7 and 8 guys in coverage and the deep help is a must. Brees IS GOING to take his shots deep and they can't bite on the underneath stuff. Thats why rushing 4 and getting a hurried throw is key.

As far as the Charlie vs Matt debate, its almost a toss up. I agree that Charlie has a little swag to him and I like it, but what I don't like is that he seems to get happy feet and rattled at the first sight of pressure. You better also believe that Gregg Williams will have twists and stunts set up to take away the roll out expansion of the pocket that Charlie likes to make.

Regardless of who is in, as well, the run game is going to need to be on. I'd give Okung time off and put him in the ice bath for most of the week so he can be healthy. They will need him. Use the run game to kill time, keep NO's offense on the bench, getting cold in the cold weather, and open up lanes in the pass game. They can't get in a shootout, period.

House
01-05-2011, 03:43 AM
Truth. This is the key to the win right here. The defense has been inconsistent all year, so the best way they can minimize the damage done is to keep them off the field. I guarantee, if the front 3 or 4 can create pressure like they did last week vs the Rams, the Hawks will be in this one. The Saints starting TB has been ruled out, placed on the IR, so that bodes well for them. But, they are going to need 7 and 8 guys in coverage and the deep help is a must. Brees IS GOING to take his shots deep and they can't bite on the underneath stuff. Thats why rushing 4 and getting a hurried throw is key.

As far as the Charlie vs Matt debate, its almost a toss up. I agree that Charlie has a little swag to him and I like it, but what I don't like is that he seems to get happy feet and rattled at the first sight of pressure. You better also believe that Gregg Williams will have twists and stunts set up to take away the roll out expansion of the pocket that Charlie likes to make.

Regardless of who is in, as well, the run game is going to need to be on. I'd give Okung time off and put him in the ice bath for most of the week so he can be healthy. They will need him. Use the run game to kill time, keep NO's offense on the bench, getting cold in the cold weather, and open up lanes in the pass game. They can't get in a shootout, period.

Brees may also be missing both his TEs (Graham and Shockey) and WR Colston is still limited after a minor knee surgery. These things could help us after them losing Ivory. Pass rush with hands up... Knock those balls down!!!

Charlie's feet created some plays. I do agree he seemed a little rattled at times, but thats our OL for you... Need frontline help BAD!!!

FWBrodie
01-05-2011, 04:55 AM
After the first drive the following drives were as follows

TIME PLAYS YARDS RESULTS
03:14 7 27yards Punt
01:38 3 9 yards Punt
01:20 3 1 yard Punt
02:48 6 16 yards Punt
02:05 6 24 yards Punt
00:35 1 -1 yard End of Half
00:00 1 0 yards Fumble Recovery
11:40 TOP.....27 plays.....76 yards....5 Punts
Does this look like Charlie and the Hawks offense is managing the clock well? Imagine what a real offense and not what the rams have will do with all those short drives!!!!!!!
After Matt Hasselbeck's first drive against Atlanta...

Time...Plays....Yards....Result
2:02.....3..........8........Punt
0:24.....3..........0........Punt
1:55.....4..........7........FG
0:19.....19........-1.......Half
0:00.....1.........-4.......Fumble, ATL TD
1:47.....6.........12.......INT
1:03.....3..........12......INT
7:30 TOP.....39 Plays.........34 Yards......3 TO's, a FG, an ATL TD
Same number of drives. What do you think the Saints cash that in for? Keep in mind Matt was behind and Charlie was protecting a lead.

Boozerguy47
01-05-2011, 03:10 PM
Atlanta's D is 'slightly' better than the Rams...

I don't care who starts anymore. If we lose people are going to point fingers saying we should have started the other.

furmat60
01-06-2011, 02:06 AM
Atlanta's D is 'slightly' better than the Rams...

I don't care who starts anymore. If we lose people are going to point fingers saying we should have started the other.

Agreed.

Seattle4Ever
01-06-2011, 03:17 AM
I just think Charlie brings more to the table with his feet, and cannon. At this point in his career, Matt does not. I'm sick of the inconsistency.

Boozerguy47
01-06-2011, 07:15 PM
^ I hear what you're saying, but you have to keep it in mind that it was only one game and Charlie basically was only told not to turn the ball over -- ie plenty of 0-5 yard passes...

furmat60
01-06-2011, 08:25 PM
I'm glad Matt is starting. I've thought about it. He really does give us the best chance to win. He knows he's done after this year (probably), and he's been in the playoffs before. He knows this is it. He has to win this game.

Seattle4Ever
01-07-2011, 03:33 AM
^ Eh, say it after his 100 yards and 2 picks. LOL.

shen
01-07-2011, 03:43 AM
I have serious doubts he gives us best chance of winning. Alright almost certain he doesn't. However emotions can be a powerful tool and the emotions of playing last game at quest field and having it be a playoff game might be enough to push him to not completely screw things up.

furmat60
01-07-2011, 11:38 AM
^ The both of you sound so negative. I know he hasn't been great with the turnovers, but is pass completion percentage is good, and he's thrown for over 3 thousand yards. He just can't make stupid decisions with the football. All of the experts believe he gives us the best chance to win, why don't you guys believe it? I was for Charlie earlier in the week, but I've realized that Matt starting is for the best. Plus, you can always put in Charlie if Matt screws up.

House
01-07-2011, 11:56 AM
^ The both of you sound so negative. I know he hasn't been great with the turnovers, but is pass completion percentage is good, and he's thrown for over 3 thousand yards. He just can't make stupid decisions with the football. All of the experts believe he gives us the best chance to win, why don't you guys believe it? I was for Charlie earlier in the week, but I've realized that Matt starting is for the best. Plus, you can always put in Charlie if Matt screws up.

Because of the stupid decisions and TOs. They are such a big PART of Matt. I'll be optimistic about the game and hopefully Matt plays well.

Side note: Does anyone know if Stokley will be back for this game?

Thebudler
01-07-2011, 12:48 PM
Charlie turns the ball over too. In the Giants game he had two picks and a fumble! That was by far the worst game I have seen in Qwest in my life.

shen
01-07-2011, 02:15 PM
Matt is most known around the league for bad decisions, turn overs, and that unfortunate GB fiasco. Those three things are what people not complete homers think of when they hear his name. Matt is garbage and has been for several years. Part of me wants someone to take a bat to his knees so he wont have chance to kill the game. However willing to put hope that the emotions of last game in Seattle will power him to have a slightly below average game. Which is about the best can hope for from Matt.

FWBrodie
01-07-2011, 05:19 PM
Because of the stupid decisions and TOs. They are such a big PART of Matt. I'll be optimistic about the game and hopefully Matt plays well.

Side note: Does anyone know if Stokley will be back for this game?

He's playing.

Baller1
01-07-2011, 05:25 PM
He's playing.

Thank god.

Boozerguy47
01-07-2011, 06:26 PM
Matt is most known around the league for bad decisions, turn overs, and that unfortunate GB fiasco. Those three things are what people not complete homers think of when they hear his name. Matt is garbage and has been for several years. Part of me wants someone to take a bat to his knees so he wont have chance to kill the game. However willing to put hope that the emotions of last game in Seattle will power him to have a slightly below average game. Which is about the best can hope for from Matt.

And you're sold on Charlie after his one game where all he did was throw two yard passes?

I'm sure people won't let it go if we lose and keep saying 'should have started Charlie'...

furmat60
01-07-2011, 07:17 PM
Good think Stokley is playing. Matt likes to throw to him, and he's a guaranteed catch. He doesn't drop passes, and he's a smart route runner.

shen
01-07-2011, 08:00 PM
No I am not sold on Charlie. However at this point Charlie has more going for him. At least with Matt starting will be able to sit back and say told ya so when he has multiple picks and fumbles.

furmat60
01-08-2011, 12:18 AM
No I am not sold on Charlie. However at this point Charlie has more going for him. At least with Matt starting will be able to sit back and say told ya so when he has multiple picks and fumbles.

Why do you just automatically assume he is just going to have a ****** game? Be optimistic. Everyone said he was going to have a ****** game against them the last time we played, and he put up damn good numbers. Yeah, I know we scored 1 TD......blame that on the whole team. Our WHOLE TEAM sucks inside the redzone. Seriously, I'm not trying to be a dick or anything, but ****.....I'm sick of all the negativity coming from you and some of the other members.

Seattle4Ever
01-08-2011, 02:00 AM
I just want Charlie to play :shrug: if Matt goes out there and proves us wrong, then great. But either way, Cholly!

shen
01-08-2011, 02:44 AM
I am sorry if think am being negative. However history indicates Matt will get eaten alive. Can only go off what see. I trusted in Matt like I do all players till they give reason not to and Matt did that long ago. I believe in loyalty but I also believe in being realistic and Matt has not shown enough to believe a realistic chance he will do anything but turn the ball over. I will still root for him every down he is on field. I will still jump up and down and hurt my hand slamming it onto my table. Just not going to pull blinds over my eyes and pretend Matt is the QB from 5 years ago when at this point there are at least 10 backups on other teams that would easily be improvements over him.

Boozerguy47
01-08-2011, 04:53 PM
^ I am still failing why people believe Charlie is the better option... For all of you who want Charlie, think of it this way. If Matt plays poorly, there is probably no chance he'll be back next year so then you can enjoy watching Charlie.

House
01-08-2011, 05:22 PM
^ I am still failing why people believe Charlie is the better option... For all of you who want Charlie, think of it this way. If Matt plays poorly, there is probably no chance he'll be back next year so then you can enjoy watching Charlie.

IMO, Charlie has progressively built more confidence from the coaching staff, teammates and himself each and everytime he has been on the field. He has showed he has guts with his runs, staying in the pocket and NOT creating turnovers.

Matt's inconsistency is what scares me... You never know which Matt shows up, or in the TB game, how long he'll be on the field. Although Charlie is far from great, I'm willing to bank on his 65-80% vs the difference of Matt's 45-90%. Matt brings a MUCH better window for error.

Either way, I am a SEAHAWKS fan, not a Matt-hater or a Charlie-lover. Hopefully the team made the right decision in starting Matt... I'd be happy to be proven wrong here if it means a "W"!!!

GO SEAHAWKS!!!

shen
01-08-2011, 06:05 PM
Matt is extremely consistent, he consistently loses games.

ElFuturoDeESPN
01-08-2011, 09:31 PM
Matt is extremely consistent, he consistently loses games.

:laugh: Care to change your mind while you can?

shen
01-08-2011, 09:53 PM
I will admit he is not as bad as I thought, or at least he did not do as bad. Remember I said I thought was real chance that the emotions of the game could carry Matt to old form. Now lets see if he can follow up with another game or at the very least not lose next week.

shen
01-08-2011, 09:54 PM
Let me be clear, If Matt wins or at least does not lose game next week or plays ball in a manor that if we lose then at least was not on him. Then I will gladly say I was completely wrong on Matt.