In case you don't follow the NFL, one of the eight 4-team divisions in the league is 4/4 with terrible teams. By NFL rule, the winner of each division is guaranteed a playoff spot, no matter the record. The NFC West is taking this rule to its limits, with 7-8 St. Louis playing at 6-9 Seattle Sunday night with the winner moving on to the playoffs.
As of Monday morning, the Seahawks were stating that backup QB Charlie Whitehurst would start the game, with Matthew Hasselbeck sidelined with a mysterious hip/lower back/butt injury (in other words, he's old). Hasselbeck has been Seattle's quarterback since partway through the 2002 season, and has led the team to heights they had never reached before (the Super Bowl). In past years, news that Hasselbeck would be missing the biggest game of the season would be cause for concern, but 2010 has not been like past years.
2010 has been a season of turnover. Notably, those turnovers have come from Matthew's hands, be they interceptions (17) or fumbles (6). Before this season started, the Seahawks traded a pretty bounty for the former 3rd stringer of the Chargers: Charlie Whitehurst.
Whitehurst is everything Hasselbeck isn't. Where Hasselbeck needs a running start to get the ball to travel 20 yards, Whitehurst can flick his wrist and uncork a beautiful 40+ yard spiral. Where Matthew runs like a duck (or 2005-era Drew Bledsoe), Whitehurst can move with some degree of urgency. Where Hasselbeck is accurate on the short throws, having been schooled in the west coast offense, Whitehurst is not, having been schooled in the sit on the bench and hold this clipboard offense. Where we know Hasselbeck can read an NFL defense, we're still not sure whether or not Whitehurst can progress past read #1.5 on any given play. And where Matthew is 35, and old QBs are like old dogs (no new tricks), Chazz is 28, and a relatively blank canvas.
Hasselbeck is also a free agent after this season (likely tomorrow circa 11:30 PM), while Whitehurst has one more year on his contract (assuming 2011 isn't erased by a lockout). If Seattle re-signs Hasselbeck after this season, I may firebomb Seattle HQ. Hasselbeck is a terrible fit for the offense Seattle wishes to run, with it's many deep throw looks, rollouts and bootlegs. I assumed (and the plan may very well have been), that Hasselbeck would start the season as the starter, and then as Seattle fell out of the playoff race, Whitehurst would get an opportunity to show what he had in the skill department.
The problem was, Seattle never fell out of the playoff race (see my previous point about the terrible NFC West). As such, Carroll never felt he could change his quarterback to someone who had never started a game before, and now Seattle is facing entering an offseason where they have no idea what they have at quarterback, and Whitehurst will be a free agent after next season, a season which may not even happen, and (as Arizona fans can confirm), quarterback is kind of an important position. Would it be the end of the world if Whitehurst leaves after next season as a bust? Well, Seattle did spend the equivalent of a mid-first round pick on obtaining him, so yes. Yes it would be a bad thing.
So that's what made this week exciting: Whitehurst was going to be the starter in a winner-takes-the-NFC West week 17 game, with a full week of practice. It wouldn't be as good as seeing Whitehurst get 8-10 weeks to ply his wares, but it's something. And given that Seattle has lost 5 of their last 6 by more than 2 touchdows, there's not a lot to get excited about surrounding this team.
Then this starts leaking out: ...that Hasselbeck did practice (somewhat) and that he could play this weekend. I immediately thought 3 things:
1) NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!
2) You just cannot trust Pete Carroll when it comes to injuries. Usually Pete's just overly hopeful. But this time he full-180's us, and sets it up for us to see someone screw up the QB position in a new way, rather than the same old, noodle-armed bad decisions.
3) Is Whitehurst really this bad that he can't beat out Hasselbeck, despite all of the losses and turnovers? SHould I be angry at Carroll and his staff? Or Whitehurst himself?
Is Hasselbeck the better option? Probably. But if he's giving Seattle a 5% better chance to win, is it worth it to forego a chance to see what the QB the coach and GM chose to bring in can do? If it's a 50% better chance, sure, go with baldy. But it can't be that much of a difference. It just can't be. I hope.
It's also not that much fun as a fan to hope the best QB in your team's history is too hurt to go. To see him falter as age, injury, and the supporting cast around him betray him. I grew up hearing the stories about Willie Mays hanging on too long and how his stint with the Mets was hard to watch, and I'm starting to understand it now. I own a Matthew Hasselbeck jersey, and I loved watching him during the 2002-2007 seasons, but that time is over and isn't coming back. I'd rather pop in my 2005 Seahawks DVD and watch that Hasselebck than subject myself to the 2010 version.
But instead, 2010 Matthew will likely be on my television tomorrow night at 8:30 PM, trying to stave off the end of his Seahawks career for one more game. I'm not hopeful, but I'll be sitting on my couch tomorrow night, hoping against hope that I'm wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment