Seahawks Insider

Poll: Who starts at quarterback?

Post by Eric Williams on Jan. 3, 2011 at 11:29 am with 29 Comments »
January 3, 2011 11:29 am

Seahawks head coach Pete Carroll said that at this point Matt Hasselbeck and Charlie Whitehurst will split reps at practice this week, leaving some question as to who will start on Saturday.

What quarterback gives the Seahawks the best chance to win against New Orleans?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
Leave a comment Comments → 29
  1. Speaking of QB’s

    Which QB’s will early commit to the NFL? I think we are in trouble finding a new guy if some of the Jr’s don’t come out.

    Luck – I think he will come out if Harbuagh leaves but if the coach stays I think there is a high chance the QB stays

    Newton – I think he goes. Why give the NCAA a chance to dig more into the problems that should have gotten him banned for the rest of the season.

    Pryor – yeah he said he was coming back – but lets be real – is he really going to sit back and take a 5 game suspension?

    Obviously a lot of people on here would like Luck, but what about Newton and/or Pryor – are they worth a 1st round pick and will they fit with what Carroll and Co are trying to do? I hope whoever they draft is a guy that “fits” if you know what I mean

  2. williambryan says:

    First let me say that although I have been a Whitehurst supporter all season, I think that the chances of winning against New Orleans do not hinge on which QB plays.

    But I don’t accept the phrase “Hasselbeck gives the team the best chance to win.”

    Why? He is definitely more confident in the system but all that has gotten this team is a performance that warrants being benched. I love Hasselbeck as a person, as a QB that has done great things with the seahawks, but everything that I have seen recently is that Hasselbeck has been the biggest reason the team has struggled. And thats because of the interceptions. He has thrown a lot this year, he threw a lot last year. Throwing INT’s is not the best chance to win. I don’t imply that CW won’t throw INT’s because he will just as all QB’s do, but to what extent? CW has played very carefully just as Carroll has wanted his QB’s to do this year. I don’t really care which QB starts but I just don’t want to hear “he gives the team the best chance to win” and not have that backed up with anything of substance. Yes Whitehurst has made just two starts in his career but he helped win the biggest game of the year so far for this team. Maybe Matt would have too, maybe not.

  3. Audible says:

    Did anyone notice last night, during the player intros, that Aaron Curry identified himself as a graduate of EE Smith HS instead of Wake Forest? That seems like a slap in the face to Wake Forest?

  4. mocarob says:

    Hawks/Rams on NFL Replay tomorrow.

    Matty should start becuz he can hit the RB out of the backfield and Baker/Morrah down the middle.

    There were WR’s open last night but about 98% of the time CW just looked to one person. The closest. WE can’t play that way saturday.

  5. CW was mobile and careful with his throws. His long throws OB need some credit given to his WRs. He does stare at his receivers some. He does lack a little distinguishing between time to stay in the pocket and time to bail. But the main concern is lack of ability distinguishing defensive personnel and sets, knowing what to audible to verify what they’re doing, and changing protections and calls at the LOS prior to the snap to put their offense into position to counter or take advantage. Sadly, Hawks need a QB with Matt’s head and CW’s body. Maybe mount a tiny video camera on CW’s helmet to go with the audio headset to let Matt tell him what to call?

  6. “I don’t really care which QB starts but I just don’t want to hear “he gives the team the best chance to win” and not have that backed up with anything of substance.”

    In a nutshell, I think the argument is that Hass reads defenses better, can better deal with the more complicated coverages and pass-rush schemes we’re likely to see from N.O. Also, the idea that we’ll need more than 16 points to beat the Saints, and Hass’ success in the N.O. game earlier this season.

    Now, I say, ‘the argument is’, rather than ‘I think’, b/c I’m a little torn on this decision. You’re very right that Hass’ turnovers killed us in the last several games. And I also think I’d forgotten the benefits of a mobile QB. To me, it’s not an easy call – which is a credit to CW’s play.

  7. Dukeshire says:

    “But the main concern is lack of ability distinguishing defensive personnel and sets…”

    I don’t know about that. While I think you have the second part of that thought right; being able to audible out of a play or protection based on what he sees, is a concern facing a Gregg Williams D. Or where to attack a certain look. But that’s not quite the same as recognizing a defensive set. The Saints do so many different things out of the same packages it really does take an experienced QB to decipher it all. But in general terms, I agree.

  8. Mallet = McGuire?

  9. GeorgiaHawk says:

    Based on Matts first performance against the Saints, having played very well, I would stick with what works.

    Is there anyone out there that honestly thinks that 16 points is enough to win against the Saints?

  10. seahawklovertoo says:

    Next week is a bonus that none of us expected two months ago (some of us secretly hoped for…).I vote for Charley to start against the Saints . BUT, if we win (fingers crossed) and go to Chicago again, I’d start Hass simply b/c he has played and can play in the freezing cold. That game will be for far more marbles and I would not like to find out Chucky can’t handle the cold. I am not 100% sure we can whack the Saints but, I feel good about playing the Bears.
    GO HAWKS !

  11. Palerydr says:

    I liked that the coaching staff gave CW some easy throws to start the game got his confidence up early which was good. I didn’t agree with about 9mns to go in the game they threw the ball 3 times in a row for a 3 and out. They did however come back and run the ball almost every down after that when they got it back. For me it’s a tough call Matt did throw for 366 and a score. The reason we lost that game is Chris Ivory running all over us. When the Saints get the run game going they are tough to beat. CW is more mobile and with the inj problems on the Oline a mobile QB might give us a better chance to win. In the end I believe Matt’s experience gives him the edge getting the ball out quickly is gonna be a key. Also getting the run game going is a must.

  12. Audible says:

    If you guys remember, we really killed ourselves in the Saints game earlier this year. If we can play a clean game, and get a couple of breaks, the game is winnable at home. Stranger things have happened, so there is hope.

  13. Audible says:

    I think we’ll start Hasselbeck next week…and for the first time since he’s been the starter, he has serious competition at QB. If the pass rush is too much, and we need more mobility, or if he starts throwing picks again, they can bring CW off the bench…so we really have the best of both worlds.

  14. williambryan says:

    I ackowledge that Matt can audible to better plays and read Williams’ defense better than CW. But what good does it do if you still throw to many INT’s? Again I like Hasselbeck but he just makes me much more nervous than CW at this point. This may just be me but when I’m watching CW play I’m thinking maybe he might stink it up but maybe he will play really well. But when I watch Hass play, all to often I’m thinking ‘oh god here comes another INT… please run the ball (with forsett not lynch)…”

  15. GriffinNW says:


    Positive steps!

  16. If we’re trying to win the game and score more points than the Saints, I think we have to go with Matt.

    I thought the Rams were simply outcoached last night. I see no scenario where Jeremy Bates outcoaches Gregg Williams. We’re not going to get as vanilla (surprising) looks with as bad of players (not that the Rams suck on defense). We’re going to be going against a more well coached defense with more talented players.

    It was nice being able to run the ball better last night. Basically, after that first drive (and that first drive was great/huge) the offense didn’t do much but any QB looks better when the running game is more effective too.

    The comment is noted that Charlie dropped back, looked at one and only one person most of the time, and then either threw it or took off. When NFL defenses get even more film on one player it’s really going to get taken advantage of even more and a stud DC like Williams will really be able to take advantage of a Whitehurst in that regard too.

    I do love the fact that Charlie played a mistake free game and the fact that he can get out and run and make plays with his feet. He does have his attributes over Matt. There’s no mistake about that.

    However, I think Matt is the guy who should play if he’s 100%. If Matt is 80%, then that’s a different ball game. Matt needs to play a mistake free game though! Easier said than done! And I know you can throw ‘turnover’ stats back where he simply hasn’t gotten it done. We need the Matt of a month and a half ago and that nice 3-game stretch he put together. Matt of a few weeks ago or Charlie in general probably won’t get the job done against the defending champs. I know Charlie has just come out of a mistake free game but I’m pretty sure he’ll have a mistake or two going against Gregg Williams and his complicated defensive schemes. Just my opinion…

    klm — Mallett does NOT = Dan McGwire

  17. GeorgiaHawk says:

    I think if we win it will come down to If we can run, and if we can stop the run better than the saints. Unlike last time we played them.

  18. GeorgiaHawk says:

    It wasn’t Matt that let the team down in the last game against the Saints.

  19. GeorgiaHawk says:

    Wow! I’m exited. We get to play the Superbowl champs in the playoffs at home!

  20. Just checked some stats – Rams D had 43 sacks this year; Saints D had 33; and they are near identical in the amount of rushing yards given up.

    Are we maybe overrating the Saints D a little?

  21. Beat the Champs at HOME.

    Beat the Bears on the road, AGAIN.

    Beat the Packers/Eagles at HOME (after one of them beats the Falcons in Atlanta).

    Super Bowl Bound!!!

  22. pdway – if we could have all of the players on only one defense, and our choice was b/w StL and NO, which defensive players would you rather have for the Seahawks? The one with better players or the one with not as good players (we’ve had the “stats” discussion before, too).

  23. bobby – not sure that’s such an easy call. The Rams DE’s Long and Hall – were pretty clearly a better pair than the Saints this year.

    Saints (and their defense) won the super bowl, and Rams are nowhere close to that obviously; but in a conversation mostly about pass rush – I think the stats are relevant; esp. when you have to assume that the Saints were playing with a lead much more often than the Rams this year, which always helps the pass rush.

  24. I don’t want Chris Long and his near $10 million contract.

  25. Duke – that

    “lack of ability distinguishing defensive personnel and sets, knowing what to audible to verify what they’re doing, and changing protections and calls at the LOS prior to the snap to put their offense into position to counter or take advantage”

    stuff was meant as one thing, like a bunch of dependent clauses that all go together. CW calls the play Bates gave him, takes the snap, looks at his receiver(s), then if he’s (they’re) covered he takes off. MH calls the play, looks at the defense, then adjusts the call (especially to the run if he thinks it’s there). That way, it’s Lynch or Force totin the ball instead of Matt (or CW) and supposedly, the OL is in synch and properly run-blocking. That’s also something that Matt & crew could have a better chance of doing @ Qwest instead of the Superdome.

  26. Is there anyone out there that honestly thinks that 16 points is enough to win against the Saints?”

    Matt hasn’t done much better scoring points recently. If it were up to me, I’d start CW and see how he does. Hass can come off the bench if CW falters (that’s what I said about the Rams game too).

    CW’s mobility is a major plus — as long as he doesn’t run after the first read. And if he plays well, even in a loss, we can be very optimistic about next season.

  27. Dukeshire says:

    klm008 – I know what you meant. I know you meant that as one thing, but it’s not. There’s no question he can recognize the packages and sets the defense is in. Hell, I can do that. But understanding if the play you have called will work or understanding what the D is going to do out of those sets and how to audible into a better play or protection are things we agree that CW is not going to have the experience doing that Matt does. These things can all be taught on a chalkboard, but having the poise to recall all that information in the heat of battle and quickly under pressure is another story all together, as we know.

  28. Dukeshire says:

    … then there’s the matter of execution.

  29. Seahawkgo says:

    Suck QB like Matt will throw big game away for sure. Pete, let’s start CW for best of Seahawks.

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