Who Should The Starting QB Be To Open The 2012 Season?

Hasselback gets the blame for not sustaining drives with the 31st ranked rushing offense in the league? C'mon.

The one thing that wasn't wrong with our offense last season was the passing game. Hasselback had the fourth most yards in a season by any QB in this franchise's history. If you want to condemn Hasselback for playing poorly when he was hurt towards the end of the season I have no problem with that, but he shouldn't have been playing period. I put that on the coaches. When Hasselback was healthy he was he great.

Hasselback should lose the job because he's bad in the preseason or Locker wins it because he's better. A change shouldn't be made because it will "eventually" happen.

We will see Jake Locker get the starting job at some point this season either way, I'm sure of that. Hasselback is never healthy. Last season was the first time in a while he started 16 games, and he probably shouldn't have. I just don't think you hand someone the job when the guy who's getting replaced is playing pretty well.

 

Again, all of this "he" talk. Hasselback was not the problem last season. Our offensive line and the running game were the problems on offense. How many times did the offense face a 3rd and 8 because the first two plays were wasted giving the ball to CJ? How many times were third down plays telegraphed to the defense because the offense was in an unmanageable situation?

The best QB play this team has seen in about seven years was in 2011.

 

I'm not even opposed to Locker starting, I just want him to WIN THE JOB. What's so terrible about someone needing to be the better player at the most important position on the field?

If Hasselback is better he should be playing. If Locker is better he should be playing. Just don't hand someone the job because of economics or "future" gains that might not even exist if Locker ends up sucking something fierce.

 

It was average play by Hasselbeck any way you look at it, if you compare his play to the rest of the league. The fact that you have to make this many excuses for Hasselbeck should tell you something.

I'd prefer us not having to make the switch at mid season. Our record probably won't look very good at that point. But if you're fine with that, that's fine I guess. I just hope our coaches are not thinking that way. I'd prefer not going in to the 2012 season waiting on Hasselbeck to falter. Realistically we all know that will happen at some point. What is debatable is at what point will it happen? I personally think that if we were to make the switch mid season, it would be around wk. 5 at the Vikings ( i'm sorry, but I'm seeing an 0-4 start with Hasselbeck).

I personally don't think that's best way to go about this situation. Maybe teams thought that was the best way to go about the situation years ago, but you don't see that happening very much, if at all anymore.

 

The thing is, if this team is ever going to contend for titles, we need an elite QB. Yes, I know, it CAN be done with an elite defense, but that is not the best way anymore.

Hasselbeck is not an elite QB. He is not going to become one. He is not EVER going to lead this team to a superbowl.

Will Locker? Who knows. But its time to find out.

If he, as you say, "sucks something fierce" we need to find that out ASAP so that we can begin the process of acquiring someone else.

Hass merely puts this team in limbo for a year. We don't move forward into the Locker era. We don't even find out if the Locker era is plausable. We merely do what we've always done... field a mediocre to good team. Maybe make the playoffs, if so bow out early. Rinse repeat.

We drafted a guy to lead this team and be the QB. We need to put in the kind of offense that suits Locker. We need to give him the offseason to work with the offense as the man. And we need to see what he can do.

He showed enough last season to merit that. Hass by no means showed us enough to keep him as the starter. The only way it makes sense to start Hass is if you think he can lead this team to a super bowl. He cannot.

 

How are they excuses? Nothing that happened last year was conducive for Hasselbeck having success. No offseason to learn a new system. No Kenny Britt for 13 games. No running game. Hasselbeck still played well last year when he was healthy, there's no way anyone who's objective can't see that.

 

It is the QB's job to lead the team. Not the OLine, not the RB. Not all QBs are good enough to put a team on their shoulders and lead a team, but those are also the same QBs that aren't winning SBs. Hass will never be able to lead this team to the playoffs without a strong supporting cast. People keep saying that IF he has better running game, and IF he has a good Defense then he could make the playoffs ... well most QBs could do that.

The Elite QBs don't need to have those things to win games and make the playoffs. Of course it would help, but they don't need it. When was the last time the Pats had a good run game? Or the Colts? How was the Packer's run game last year? Hass is not going to put this team on his shoulders and win games period.

The fact that Hass was "pretty good" last year is a terrible reason to make him the starting QB. Why do people want to settle for "pretty good"? I for one am getting very tired of "pretty good". I want ELITE. Hass is not ELITE. The jury is still out on Locker, but we sure as heck no Hass won't be ELITE.

I wonder what Pats fans would do if you told them that they were gonna have to start a "pretty good" QB that will most likely be injured by season's end. I bet they would be freaking out. But not the people here. Here being Okay is just dandy.

I don't know that Locker will be better, or even as good, but what I do know is that you don't get anywhere by starting the same average players year after year. With Locker at QB we could go 4-12 or we could go 12-4, I would much rather take that risk than the sure bet of Hass taking us to an 8-8 season. You don't get rich without taking some risks at some point.

And I really wish people would stop with the "oh but he played good for the 1st half of the season" ... when the season is only 8 games long, let me know and I will support Hass starting, but last time I checked the season was still 16 games long, and even longer if you are in the POs. Having a QB for half a season gets us nowhere.

 

There's a lot of subjective factors here. Depends on how you define "well" and "healthy". For instance, is a calf strain an excuse for playing poorly? Do we need some kind of shoulder injury to give him a pass? As far as i'm concerned, if he's on the field, meaning the training staff, coach and player are in aggreance that his injury will not be at the detrement of the team, then excuses are moot. This is the NFL and every player gets injured to some extent, and still play at a high level. Problem is, most players aren't 37 yr. old QBs. It is just more apparent in a 37 yr. old QB. How often is a 37 yr. old QB, especially Matt Hasselbeck, "healthy"? Not very often....I think it's time to move on to a promising #8 overall pick, as opposed to making excuses for an often injured, average in every way, 37 yr. old QB. It will happen, I hope it happens prior to week 1, and not week 5.

 

For a guy who makes no one better we won quite a few games for a team who can't run the ball or rush the passer, huh?

He did that a couple of times last year.

Do you have the ability to read? I'm not saying Hasselback should be the starter. I'm saying the best QB should be the starter. I've said that in just about every Hasselback vs Locker thread in existence. If Locker is clearly steps behind Hasselback because he's missing WRs by three feet there's no reason to have in there.

Ideally Locker wins the job in camp and this doesn't even matter.

 

Stop being argumentative for the hell of it. He was playing well before his injuries. If you can't admit that I might as well give up.

I think it's pretty clear in the Indy game he shouldn't have been playing. Hell, it only took the first snap of the game to see he should have been on the bench. That goes on the coaching staff and the trainers. The player is always going to say he can go out there, especially if it's a guy who has a leg injury who doesn't run often. When a guy can barely make the handoff on a stretch play he shouldn't be playing.