So, are you happy now? All you Hasselbeck haters, where are you? "Hasselbeck sucks." "They should put in Charlie, he can’t be as bad as Hasselbeck." Isn’t that what you kept saying?
Well now we know. Yes, Whitehurst is not only bad, he’s worse. He only managed to complete 12 passes on 23 attempts for 113 total yards, including two interceptions and a very late touchdown throw to Ben Obomanu for 36 yards. Subtract that consolation and Whitehurst put up a paltry, an abysmal 77 yards.
Now, I can hear you people saying, yeah, true enough but Hasselbeck was horrible against Oakland and the Giants have a world class defense that knocks quarterbacks out of games with appalling regularity. The offensive line is missing Russell Okung and his backup Tyler Polumbus. Even Tom Brady would have gotten killed against the Giants behind that line.
True, you are right there. Besides the fact that now all the sudden you’ve woken up to recognize that the offensive line plays a major role in quarterback play, which I find ironic since before it was always Hasselbeck’s fault and not the line, tell me how the line did against the Raiders and then against the Giants?
I’ll tell you how they did. It was night and day for the line. Against Oakland they gave up eight, count them, eight sacks. Hasselbeck got hit so many times he thought he was in a rock polisher. Against the Giants, Whitehurst didn’t get sacked once. No, not once against a team that leads the league in sacks per pass attempt.
So, now tell me how Whitehurst is the future, how Seattle traded a second round pick and spent a ton of money on a guy that overthrows his open tight end by 10 yards on a 3rd-and-1 play. Tell me about a guy whose first completion, the first in his career, is for a loss of three yards. Explain to me how I’m supposed to feel good about Charlie Fucking Whitehurst when his first series, when Qwest Field is primed to explode, when we don’t expect to win but By God We Are Going To Make Them Hurt, when the first series is a three-and-out for a negative six yards!
Article comments
1 - FCS
So, what are you actually trying to say? That we would win yesterday if Matt was playing. Charlie was not worse than Matt yesterday .
2 - win4ever?
I disagree, even with his weakness in throwing the long ball, every analyst, including Carroll, has seen that there were several short routes open all game long. Matt would've hit 'em.
3 - Russ Evenhuis
Thanks for your comments!
I'm sorry for any confusion, I wasn't saying that Matt would have won that game. I am saying he would have given us a better chance at winning given that the offensive line didn't give up a sack.
I have always gotten annoyed when people place all the blame squarely on the quarterback. I think Sunday showed clearly that Matt is a much better quarterback than Charlie and that the blame has to be shared with the whole offense.
I recall several plays where Whitehurst had great pocket protection and missed his receiver or just threw it out of bounds. Just look at that flea flicker play on 3rd and 1 early in the game. That pass fell in between the two Seahawks, missing both of them so badly you can't tell who Charlie was throwing the ball to.
Thanks again and keep rooting for the Seahawks!
4 - Loud and Proud
Thank You. Hawk fans need to learn to call a turd what it is. Being super-possitive all these years have helped the Hawks win how many Superbowls? It's time to be REAL fans and let the team know that we don't have your backs if your gonna lay an egg.