Whats wrong with Matt Hasselbeck?

[ZoneBlitz]

All this talk everywhere of Seattle taking Mark Sanchez...why? Hasselbeck is a pro-bowl caliber QB and is only 33, not old by QB years.

 

[Primetime]

I wondered the same thing. He had the best year of his career before getting hurt last year throwing for almost 4,000 yards and 28 touchdowns. Those numbers are just off the top of my head but I think they are accurate. Instead of a new QB, give Matt some help on the offensive side of the ball. Hasselbeck can produce for at least a few more years so why not wait until next year at the earliest? If they can score a nice pick, Bradford, Harrell, and others are out there waiting to get picked up. I don't think they need the QB now, but they definitely need a project QB for the future.

 

[ZoneBlitz]

If they take Sanchez, who's to say he'll get the starts? Hass is getting older, so why wouldn't you draft a young QB you like to take control after he leaves?

Because 'Beck still should have plenty years left in the tank. QB's last into and past their mid-30's pretty frequently. Why use up a great pick just to sit him for 3/4 years?

 

[Primetime]

Because 'Beck still should have plenty years left in the tank. QB's last into and past their mid-30's pretty frequently. Why use up a great pick just to sit him for 3 or 4 years?

Aaron Rodgers? Seems to have worked out well with the Packers so far.

 

[ZoneBlitz]

Aaron Rodgers? Seems to have worked out well with the Packers so far.

Favre was 35 when they drafted Rodgers, not 33...

 

[Primetime]

Favre was 35 when they drafted Rodgers, not 33...

Favre had also started 300 consecutive games in his career making it obvious he was a durable QB. As age rises, Hasselbeck may continue to get nagging injuries leading to the need for Sanchez. That may be what the Seahawks see for a reason to pick up Sanchez. Favre could play until he was in a wheelchair and he'd still be out there to start every game.

 

[FirstTimer]

Aaron Rodgers? Seems to have worked out well with the Packers so far.

And the Packers took Rodgers late in the 1st Rd, 24th overall. Which means the Packers were a good team with the luxury of being able to take a QB some had as the best QB in the draft when he fell into their laps at 24. They didn't have any pressing needs that year and could take Rodgers knowing they could sit him.


The Seahawks are drafting 4th overall and are not a good team and have a lot of holes to fill. That's why they are drafting 4th. You take what you think will be an immediete impact guy at #4. Not a guy that won't see the field for 2-3 seasons.

The situations aren't even close to being the same.

 

[Sven Draconian]

Only reason that makes sense, to me, would be health concerns. Otherwise its a complete waste IMO.

 

[Bomberooski]

Hasselbeck is injury prone which is a concern.

I still really think the Sanchez interest by the Seahawks is a front. Trying to get teams to move up (maybe a team that wants Sanchez moves up to 3 and leaves Curry available for the Seahawks), or just trying not to let the real pick out of the bag so no one moves up and snags someone before the Seahawks get pick 4.

I actually wouldn't mind seeing Sanchez in Seattle (not my first choice). Hass is a concern with the injury bug.

 

[Hasselbeck]

To answer the question. Nothing is wrong with him.

However, when the season begins.. he'll be 34. He is owed a lot of money the next couple of years.. Over the past 3 seasons, he's missed 13 games and has played hurt in many more than that. So there's a concern the injuries are catching up to him.

We have no real heir to his throne, and the talk of Sanchez arises from the fact it's extremely rare for us to be a 4-12 team picking 4th overall in the draft. In fact the last time we picked in the Top 10 was 8 years ago.. and that was following the year Holmgren completely overhauled the roster.. before that we hadn't picked in the Top 10 without a trade up since 1997.

So when you pick in the Top 10 twice in about 13 years.. your chances at landing a blue chip, franchise QB are very very rare. That's why we're linked to Sanchez, and for that matter thats why we are linked to Jason Smith and Eugene Monroe as well.

Even if Hasselbeck plays til he's 36.. 37.. Mark Sanchez will still be only 24 or 25.. I agree we have more immediate needs, but addressing a long term one isn't a bad idea either.

Now.. the problem is, if Sanchez flops, that sets your franchise way back.. but you can make that argument about a lot of the teams picking high in the draft.

 

[Hasselbeck]

I love Matty, one of my favorite players. But I wouldn't be surprised if they take Sanchez. He'd definitely sit for a while and I think that'd be best.

Plus you have to remember that Holmgren isn't in charge anymore. Mora may not be as high on Matty as The Walrus was.

Mora and Knapp are on record of saying how highly they think of Hasselbeck.. I think if a move is made, it's more for his heavy salary than anything else.

 

[PP]

Doest the Hass have back problems?

 

[Bomberooski]

Hasselbeck, where's your mock??

 

[celtsxpatsxsox]

Matt Hasselback has just been injury prone as of late. Correct me if I am wrong but it was his back that was hurt this year and a back injury is not something that you can come back form and be 100% soon. Sanchez would learn a lot from Hasselback if he was drafted by the Seahawks.

I also feel last year was a fluke for the Seahawks because they came down with so many injuries.