Seahawks Insider

Monday Morning QB chat transcript

Post by Eric Williams on Nov. 29, 2010 at 10:14 am with 36 Comments »
November 29, 2010 12:18 pm

Lots to talk about. We’ll get started at 11 a.m.

Leave a comment Comments → 36
  1. Week 13 Guestimated Season Results
    Current Standing; Remaining Games; Final Record; Draft Slot
    STL: 5-6; @AZ-W, @NO-L, vKC-L, vSF-W, @SEA-T; 7-8-1; #21 (1L in playoffs)
    SEA: 5-6; vCAR-W, @SF-T, vATL-L, @TB-L, vSTL-T; 6-8-2; #12
    SF: 3-7; @AZ-W, @GB-L, vSEA-T, @SD-L, @STL-L, vAZ-W; 5-10-1; #9
    AZ: 3-7; vSF-L, vSTL-L, vDEN-T, @CAR-W, vDAL-L, @SF-L; 4-11-1; #6

    Teams with Current Higher Draft Slotting
    CAR: 1-10; @SEA-L, vATL-L, vAZ-L, @PIT-L, @ATL-L; 1-15; #1
    BUF: 2-9; @MIN-L, vCLE-L, @MIA-L, vNE-L, @NYJ-L; 2-14; #2
    DET: 2-9; vCHI-L, vGB-L, @TB-L, @MIA-L, vMIN-L; 2-14; #3
    CIN: 2-9; vNO-L, @PIT-L, vCLE-T, vSD-L, @BAL-L; 2-13-1; #4
    DEN: 3-8; @KC-L, @AZ-T, @OAK-L, vHOU-L, vSD-L; 3-11-1; #5
    DAL: 3-8; @IND-L, vPHI-L, vDC-W, @AZ-W, @PHI-L; 5-11; #7
    (AZ or SF 3-8 or 4-7 tonite)
    CLE: 4-7; @MIA-L, @BUF-W, @CIN-T, vBAL-L, vPIT-L; 5-10-1; #10
    MIN: 4-7; vBUF-W, vNYG-L, vCHI-W, @PHI-L, @DET-W; 7-9; #13
    OAK: 5-6; @SD-L, @JAX-L, vDEN-W, vIND-L, @KC-L; 6-10; #11
    TEN: 5-6; vJAX-W, vIND-L, vHOU-W, @KC-L, @IND-L; 7-9; #14
    HOU: 5-6; @PHI-L, vBAL-L, @TEN-L, @DEN-W, vJAX-W; 7-9; #15
    DC: 5-6; @NYG-L, vTB-L, @DAL-L, @JAX-L, vNYG-L; 5-11; #8
    6-5: MIA, JAX, IND, SD,
    7-4: KC, TB, GB, NYG, PHI,
    8-3: PIT, BAL, NO, CHI
    9-2: ATL, NYJ, NE

  2. yakimahawk says:

    Ok Bobby K I know your pissed at Hass and he is NOT the QB of the future. But how in your right mind could you even have a thought that a 3rd string QB in San Diego who got zero playing and is currently 28 and cant even hit open players in practice yet alone in a game can be our QB now or in the future? He has stunk and still stinks and unless a minor miracle happens will continue to stink.. IMO, we need to Draft a QB 4th-5th and build up the offensive line and D line and go from there and let Hass train him for a year…But come on CW ??

  3. bulldog80 says:

    We still haven’t seen enough of CW to make a judgement. If you’ve already got your mind set on him I would dare say it’s due to some other bias. Look at Peyton Mannings first season for crying out loud. Heck, look at Hasselbeck’s. he got replaced with Trent Difler man.

  4. yakimahawk says:

    I will give whitehurst one more game. But with all due respect,Peyton to Charlie comparison. Peyton was 22-23 year old rookie. Whitehurst is 28 and been in the league 5 years! He was a 3rd string QB for goodness sakes. At this point in his career is he was the deal he would be starting..We need a long term solution not a 28 year old project!

  5. Dukeshire says:

    yakimahawk – That wasn’t BobbyK. That was someone posting under his name. He’s on board for signing Hass to a 2 year extension.

  6. bulldog80 says:

    yakima I understand what you’re saying but keep in mind that he was always playing behind Drew Brees and then Rivers. Unless they sucked or got injured, he was never going to see the field there no matter how good he is.

    Even though he’s 28, he hasn’t had game experience is still very much a rookie in that regard. I’m not even saying that he is going to be good. But we need to give the guy a fair chance to be sure.

  7. We need to see Charlie play a couple of complete games. Just 1 1/2 quarters is not enough time to evaluate anything.

    Why did Norv Turner keep him around for so long?

    Why did Carroll go after him, trade a 3rd rounder, and keep him on the team? I think the rumor of him missing wide open players in practice is grossly over exaggerated.

    I’m sure Matt has never missed his target. Oh, yeah…how about a wide-open Butler in the corner of the end-zone? It happens.

    Give the dude a chance to prove what he’s got…or not.

  8. Dukeshire says:

    He was never behind Brees, but you’re right, he was never going to unseat Rivers. But now he’s in a similar situation where it appears only injury will get him his snaps. I would be surprised if Seattle didn’t pursue a QB in the draft.

  9. yakimahawk says:

    My appologies to BobbyK !!.. Like I said I will give CW another game but personally would rather take my lumps with a 22-23 rookie with more promise and upside potential. And I think we need to resign Hass for couple of years..FYI though his skills have diminished he has a very,very good football mind and is a willing teacher.

  10. yakimahawk says:

    He was a 3rd string QB. He was never EVER the backup to any of those QB’s..He was a bachup to the backup..And though he played somewhat behind very good ALL-PRO QB’s..That is what we are looking for! Not ajust good QB – but a great ALL-PRO QB that will be here for years to come!!

  11. Whitehurst wouldn’t unseat Philip Rivers, but anyone who knows anything about the Chargers knows that Billy Volek is no slouch and is in fact one of the most talented back-ups in the league.

    He’s had back-to-back 400 yard games and actually holds the NFL record for 918 yards for those two games.

    San Diego drafted CW drafted in the 3rd round in 2006. His only problem is that there was a lot of talent and a lot more experience in front of him.

    We gave up a 3rd rounder for him…after he had 4 years of tutelage in a Norv Turner offense behind two solid QBs.

    He deserves more than 1 1/2 quarters to prove himself. Imagine waiting your whole life to play in an NFL game and you finally get the chance for 20 minutes…think he might have the jitters?

    He needs time to gain a bit of confidence and to settle down. Only then will we know what we’ve got. You don’t just throw players away and especially a QB who’s nervous, anxious, and misses a couple of targets or throws a couple of picks.

  12. Forget Rivers – CW could never get past Volek!!!! and they tried to get him there and he never did.

    I am for Drafting a new guy yes – but I think if CW was going to be the guy, Carroll would have found a way to get him in. i.e. hold Hass out for another week with the concussion, or not let him come back with a broken wrist, etc.

    Didn’t like the trade when we made it and I don’t like it now. but that is what we have to deal with.

  13. So many fans have a Madden Mentality. This isn’t a video game. We’re talking about actual people and to suggest you end a QBs career after watching him for a few minutes is…well, Maddening.

  14. ” I would be surprised if Seattle didn’t pursue a QB in the draft. ”

    I totally get Audible’s point, and basically agree with it, but I also agree with the above – and my guess is that it comes down to what Carroll has seen (or hasn’t seen) in the practices and limited gametime experiences. While it seems absolutely true to me as a fan that there is not substitute for game experience, I do have some faith in PC’s ability to judge talent in this case.

  15. yakimahawk says:

    Audible says:
    So many fans have a Madden Mentality. This isn’t a video game. We’re talking about actual people and to suggest you end a QBs career after watching him for a few minutes is…well, Maddening.

    That’s Funny..Anyways never said end the career now, we should give him another shot, but keep in mind we are not looking for a starter..We are looking for someone who can WIN a Superbowl and hopefully more than one..That is what we all want isn’t it ? I have been a Hawks fan for 30 years and believe the way to get there is un-relenting Defense and a super QB!
    My goodness I am sick of the Hawks sucking so bad!

  16. I’m not for keeping a guy around just out of loyalty either. In fact, a reason we’re in this situation is because Holmgren indulged Seneca’s delusional fantasy of becoming a good QB. He never had no will ever have the intellect to play QB in the NFL. His decision making is lousy.

    I arrived at that conclusion after watching him in several games. But, Holmgren wouldn’t let go.

    If Charlie stinks it up I say we release him like we should have Seneca Wallace.

    All the reps and effort that Holmgren put into him could have been spent on a young QB with upside…instead he left us with an aging QB, and a guy who just didn’t have the chops to make it at QB.

    The real shame is that Holmgren is legendary for his ability to develop great QBs. It would have been nice legacy to leave behind.

    Holmgren did this team and Seneca a disservice by allowing him to pursue something he wasn’t cut out to do. Hey may as well have wanted to be a Left Tackle.

    It’s tough to find a QB who has the tools to be an All-pro QB. They don’t just fall out of the sky…Either you gotta draft high and still get lucky (e.g., Leinert). Or, you have to spot raw talent and help them develop into a great player.

    Hasselbeck never would have had a chance in this league if it weren’t for Holmgren. He never had the physical talent of Seneca Wallace but he had the other intangibles that made him good.

    There’s no reason to believe CW is capable of any less. And, in fact, he has more physical talent than Hasselbeck has ever had.

  17. bulldog80 says:

    This CW scrutiny is about laughable. You’ll give him one more game? Give me a break with that. Hass was 26 when we traded for him and he sucked so bad he was supplanted by Dilfer. He didn’t regain the starting job until he was 28.

    Are you telling me that 1 more game is gonna tell you if he’s any good? Jimminy Christmas!! By your standard, Tom Brady and Dan Marino are the only QB’s that would ever have been good enough.

    EVERY QB needs some time to develop. And if CW can do that and give us 7 great years then I’m all for it. If not I’m ok with that too but his opportunity has to be a realistic one.

  18. yakimahawk says:

    OK then how long would you give CW? And as the coaches do at least the good ones there needs to a timetable so what is it? 1 game, 3 games, 1 year ?? Believe me I would Love it CW were the man..we could draft other positions. But there is no fliipin way I cut Hass loose and see what he has for a whole year..

  19. Whoever used “BobbyK” on that chat is a fool and a coward. People who use other identities on those chats are childish and then some. I wasn’t free to chat at that time. Based on who was posting and who stopped when “I” started talking makes it a bit easier to figure out who was actually using my handle. Still, no way to know for sure.

    For the record, I’ve been in Matt’s corner for a long time and people know that I wouldn’t say those things. Sure, I want a QB coming up, but I do want Hass resigned too. At least people can’t lie and say things on this handle (only in live chats).

  20. And, while we’re at it…why not mention Rick Mirer. He was laughed out of town but you know what…the dude had mad talent.

    He was rookie of the year in 1993 and set several NFL records for a rookie. His problem….Crappy coaching and a crappy team. Remember Ken Behring and Tom Flores?

    Coaching can make or break a QB. You gotta create an environment where a QB can be successful, and this means you have to help him suffer through a few growing pains.

    CW is going to have a few lousy games and make a lot of rookie mistakes.

    Look at Walter Thurmond and Earl Thomas. Nobody wants to dump them after they’re way out of position and give up touchdowns or totally whif on tackles.

    The problem is the QB is the most visible player on the field. As such, every mistake is put out there to be scrutinized.

  21. bulldog80 says:

    That’s just the thing, we can’t just put a time table on it. I think you have to have steady progress and regular improvement with greatness in sight. That being said, I agree with pdway that Pete is a pretty good evaluator and I trust him to decide on it. My point is that you can’t already have some preconceived notion or he’ll never be good enough.

    I do completely agree with you yakima that the target we should be aiming for should be very high and not just a “serviceable” QB. I’m ready for a stud QB too.

  22. yakimahawk,

    Exactly. You gotta have the best plan a, b, and c that you can pull together.

    If the Seahawks collapse and fall out of the playoff hunt, I think you gotta turn it over to CW, so we can get a better idea of what we have in him.

    If he shines, we keep him and Hass, and then draft the best prospect we can find in the mid rounds.

    If Charlie unravels, we keep Hass, try to get Kolb, and if that’s not possible, we draft the best QB we can find, even if that means trading up in the 1st.

    One “problem” is that barring injury, we’re still competing, so we need to play Matt. That means CW is not going to get a fair chance to sink or swim until next year. So, we’re not going to have answers right away.

    In that scenario, you gotta keep Matt and CW…then work on strengthening the position through the draft and hope CW shines when he gets his chance…or we strike gold with our draft pick.

    But, that’s not going to satisfy everyone because a lot of fans want to oversimplify the process and turn it into a black and white, he’s in and he’s out decision. Unfortunately, in the real world, a lot of problems just cannot be solved that way. And, this is one of those cases.

    Unless we get really lucky, this QB transition is going to take awhile.

  23. “And, while we’re at it…why not mention Rick Mirer. He was laughed out of town but you know what…the dude had mad talent”

    You’ve lost me there. Best line I ever heard re Mirer (and I forget who said it): “He wasn’t a 7-year QB, he was a 1st year QB, 7 times in a row”

  24. BobbyK,

    What is your assessment of the state of our Oline.

    In the live chat, Eric said he believes that Okung will be the only carryover to next year. Three new starters on the OL? That’s discouraging.

  25. Rick Mirer in a Holmgren coached system = First Year HOF.

  26. Here’s a stat that should surprise none of us, Hawks are dead last in the league in converting 3rd and 1, or 4th and 1:

    At least there’s nowhere to go but up . .

  27. Audible,

    LT — We both know Okung is going to be rock solid for almost a decade (I’m not scared off, yet, about the ankles).

    LG — We need to go out and acquire a real player at this position in free agency. I’m not talking about some crap band-aid. Our offensive line has been given so many band-aids that it’s time for a real cure for the interior. Give me a free agent splash in either Carl Nicks or Logan Mankins and give us a good left side. At least it’ll give us a good side for an offensive line.

    C — I would like to see Ryan Kalil acquired in free agency to play Center. He played for Mr. Happy so I think there’s a real chance this could happen. If it’s not Kalil, I hope it’s Max Unger. This is not a debate about who is better now between Spencer and Unger. It’s about paying Spencer market value for what some think he’ll be worth or paying Unger his 2nd round rookie contract and having money left over for other positions (where we wouldn’t have that money if Spencer were resigned).

    RG — As much as I like Unger at Center, I don’t want him starting at right guard (so maybe Kalil isn’t fully necessary, but it would be nice to have his legit Pro Bowl type talent though). We need a bigger guy. Hey, Andre Smith has been a bust as the 6th pick last year and Curry has been a bust as the 4th pick in the same draft. Why not propose a bust for a bust? Smith could play RT or RG. The Bengals will probably have a new coach and those guys want “their” guys. You never know.

    RT — Could Andrews be a solid RT b/c we know he’s not a solid RG? Like Unger being better suited for C than G, Andrews is better suited for RT than RG. Still, I’m not sure I’d be too thrilled to watch him being off-sides as a RT again next season.

    There are many more scenarios (Duke love them) that involve the draft, trades, or free agency, but I would like to see 4 new starters next season. I don’t want any old stopgap players either. I want a unit of 5 who we all can pencil in for 5 years. I’m so sick of an old fossil playing next to a rookie, who’s playing next to a guy in the middle of his career, that I could puke. People b!tch and moan about continuity on the offensive line but they hardly ever do anything about it. Get a group of players who are only 5-6 years apart and let them play together for a half decade! Okung – Mankins would be the biggest difference in age (23 and 28 respectively) that I would want and that’s part of the reason I’d rather have Nicks (26) instead.

    I have more trade ideas/scenarios, but you get the idea.

  28. freedom_X says:

    Rick Mirer in a Holmgren coached system – waiver wire in 2 years. Despite what Bill Walsh thought.

    If Mirer were salvagable, he’d have been salvaged by somebody. He was all about physical tools and lacked accuracy, and worse,didn’t take coaching and criticism well. Holmgren would never have tolerated that.

    Dennis Erickson ran a very QB friendly offense that many QB’s did well in, and Erickson benched Mirer, later getting rid of him. Mirer couldn’t even do well in the looser Erickson regime, let alone the strict Holmgren program.

  29. Hass was a huge pain in Holmgren’s ass in the beginning. It took quite a while to instill some discipline so Hass would practice the fundamentals. That’s exactly what Mirer needed. Problem is he got throw to the wolves right away and didn’t have a chance to develop in a good system with good coaching on a good team.

  30. freedom_X says:

    I wonder how closely Seattle is adhering to the zone blocking system concepts. A lot of big name free agent OL’s are not necessarily good fits for the ZBS. Though, Andrews isn’t a ZBS type and they traded for him.

    The curious factor is that the pass protection seems to be far better than the abysmally atrocious run blocking. Typically run blocking is the easier task to master. So I wonder how much ZBS has to do with this, if anything. They wouldn’t be necessarily driving defenders off the ball with ZBS, but they’d be (if they were doing a good job) chopping people down and getting defenders on the ground, and I just don’t see that at all. So I don’t know that there’s any hope the ZBS concepts (if still in play) will click in and we could see better run blocking.

  31. Do we at least have depth on the OL with some of the current players?

    I thought Spencer was playing well and that we could get by with Unger at Guard…How is Lock doing at RT? How old is Andrews?

    Now, it sounds to me like Unger is a bust too. We don’t really want him to play Center and he’s not good at Guard.

    Curry is improving a lot this season, so I’m not crazy about Andre Smith idea. How about Leroy Hill for Smith?!

  32. freedom_X says:

    Hasselbeck has always been a hard worker though, and even then, was coachable in terms of technique and footwork, and precision. Where he was a pain for Holmgren was, Hasselbeck thought he completely understood the nuances of the offense and would skip reads and change plays, thinking he knew what was going on better than he did. That’s where Holmgren had to re-educate him.

    Mirer was a mediocre worker in practice (and that’s saying a lot considering he ticked off Erickson) and didn’t work on his fundamentals. So his mechanics and footwork were sloppy, and he didn’t seem very interested in fixing it.

    Didn’t Holmgren have Mirer for a year in Green Bay? Well, Green Bay apparently didn’t think he had much promise, because they got rid of Mirer in 1999, and as far as I know Holmgren had no interest in bringing Mirer to Seattle even though he’d had him for a year in 1998.

  33. freedom_X says:

    So, before concocting trade and player personnel scenarios, we have to figure out what Seattle’s OL blocking scheme really is. Without that, we’re spending $$$$ on square pegs to pound into round holes.

  34. Damn, Eric Williams, you burned Frenchman. Hilariously.

  35. Yes, Eric, that was a great response.

    Love the chats, by the way. Keep up the good work.

  36. SandpointHawk says:

    Can’t you make the chat require a registration like the comments do?

    OK, I’ll admit the Leroy Hill / Kelly Jennings was funny.

    But the whole BobbyK string was just ridiculous.

    When any bozo who doesn’t have a valid point to make can just change their handle and use a respected handle, receive instant credibility and then high jack the chat….Waste of everyone’s time.


We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0