The W
Views: 97654480
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
24.7.07 2250
The 7 - Football - Mr. Vick, meet Mr. Hasselbeck... Register and log in to post!
(1092 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (8 total)
MARTYEWR
Kishke
Level: 43

Posts: 21/420
EXP: 564467
For next: 584

Since: 15.10.02

Since last post: 202 days
Last activity: 202 days
#1 Posted on 29.12.02 1924.05
Reposted on: 29.12.09 1927.47
Yeah, it's almost playoff season, but different discussions are always open, right?

Anyways, am I the only one who thinks that the Seahawks' Matt Hasselbeck is getting seriously overlooked as far as future quarterbacks go? Don't get me wrong, I love Michael Vick as much as the next guy, but Hasselbeck just had another 400+ yard game today against the Chargers, not to mention that he brought them back from a 28-14 deficit to win 31-28 in overtime. And yet, despite the Seahawks' pretty awesome run for the last month and a half, this guy isn't getting near the press that a lot of other quarterbacks are getting. Maybe I'm wrong (heck, I like in Ottawa, Canada, which is nowhere near Seattle) but I hardly hear many people (press or fans) talk about this guy. Am I wrong?

Heck, Seattle's looking like they're building something special for the future team-wise too.
Promote this thread!
evilwaldo
Lap cheong
Level: 78

Posts: 1002/1597
EXP: 4305189
For next: 77056

Since: 7.2.02
From: New York, NY

Since last post: 3317 days
Last activity: 3097 days
AIM:  
#2 Posted on 29.12.02 1947.54
Reposted on: 29.12.09 1949.25
Seattle is looking good. Unfortunately, they started out the season missing their left tackle and had some injuries to the offensive line. The switch from the AFC West to the NFC West did not help either. The Seahawks are not a bad team and if Holmgren is still around next year they should be a force in the NFC and contend for a wildcard spot.

drjayphd
Scrapple
Moderator
Level: 115

Posts: 884/3937
EXP: 16527515
For next: 283900

Since: 22.4.02
From: Long Island

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#3 Posted on 30.12.02 0052.49
Reposted on: 30.12.09 0053.59
I think the thing with Hasselbeck was that he was such a flameout before, maybe because he was so hyped. But he's certainly acquitted himself nicely lately.
redsoxnation
Scrapple
Level: 151

Posts: 1378/7534
EXP: 43296231
For next: 345

Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 389 days
Last activity: 389 days
#4 Posted on 30.12.02 0923.00
Reposted on: 30.12.09 0923.17
Actually, I think Hasselbeck is more like Jeff Blake in Cincinnati: Once the threat of making the playoffs is gone, start having great games.
MARTYEWR
Kishke
Level: 43

Posts: 23/420
EXP: 564467
For next: 584

Since: 15.10.02

Since last post: 202 days
Last activity: 202 days
#5 Posted on 30.12.02 1012.53
Reposted on: 30.12.09 1014.40
I think it's too soon to tell that, since Trent Dilfer started for Seattle, and Hasselbeck got the job once he got hurt. Plus, Seattle hasn't been much of a playoff threat all year. Next year might tell a different story though.
Big Bad
Scrapple
Level: 145

Posts: 688/6712
EXP: 37234211
For next: 369961

Since: 4.1.02
From: Dorchester, Ontario

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 19 hours
#6 Posted on 30.12.02 1052.29
Reposted on: 30.12.09 1053.46

    Seattle is looking good. Unfortunately, they started out the season missing their left tackle and had some injuries to the offensive line. The switch from the AFC West to the NFC West did not help either.


Are you kidding? Seattle would much rather play twice against the Cardinals and the now-weak Rams than have to battle Oakland, Denver, San Diego and KC twice each.
Texas Kelly
Lap cheong
Level: 76

Posts: 299/1493
EXP: 3906485
For next: 99594

Since: 3.1.02
From: FOREST HILLS CONTROLS THE UNIVERSE

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 16 hours
ICQ:  
#7 Posted on 30.12.02 1330.00
Reposted on: 30.12.09 1333.37
Only thing I'll say is that Matt Hasselbeck's play probably saved Mike Holmgren's job. Looks as if poor Trent Dilfer is going to get cast aside yet again. The guy deserves better.
James F'n X
Bockwurst
Level: 51

Posts: 352/603
EXP: 1002787
For next: 11158

Since: 2.1.02
From: Seattle, WA

Since last post: 2995 days
Last activity: 2962 days
AIM:  
#8 Posted on 4.1.03 0855.12
Reposted on: 4.1.10 0859.01
Let's take a closer look at this, shall we?

Hasselbeck had three great games in a row. I don't think anyone's gonna question that. His performances vs. the Falcons, Rams, and Chargers was one of the best three-game stretches of the year by any QB...

HOWEVER, let's take a closer look at the three opponents, starting with the most glaring case -

San Diego, 32nd vs. Pass (268.4 YPGA), 7.46 yards per attempt allowed. Allowing an 87.2 QB rating on average, 26th in the league.

St. Louis, the 2nd least thrown on team in the league (461 attempts, 2nd to Cincy at 454). 12th vs. Pass (200.6 YPGA), 7.48 yards per attempt allowed. Allowing an 86.0 QB rating on average, 24th in the league.

Atlanta. Now we get to a good defense. 16th vs. Pass (205.4 YPGA), with the 4th best QB Rating allowed in the league at 72.8. Add 24 picks and 47 sacks for the team, and Hasselbeck's performance against them is a LOT more meaningful than either of the other wins.

When you get confidence beating a good team, it's easy to play well against two of the worst defenses in the league. The flashes of brilliance to close out the season will have to be tempered by consistency in 2003, if Hasselbeck wins the starting job, if we can start calling him a really good quarterback.
ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE
Thread ahead: Impressive game of the weekend...
Next thread: Eddie solves the NCAA Football championship problem...
Previous thread: Attorney for disabled activist asks court to block Super Bowl
(1092 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Related threads: Seattle, where quarterbacks go to die. - Ryan Leaf Retires - Ryan Leaf - More...
The 7 - Football - Mr. Vick, meet Mr. Hasselbeck...Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.153 seconds.