Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Hasselbeck unlikely to play again soon (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter gbill2004
- Start date
mad sweeney
Footballguy
I don't know how you get "unlikely" out of that. The writer of the blog puts a lot of his own "insight" into his posts. Lacking any Holmgren quotes or medical info, using the word unlikely is very inappropriate. It's something to keep an eye definitely but don't put too much stock in Hughes' so called analysis of the situation.
buck naked
Footballguy
I heard the words "bone bruise" today in regard to his knee. If that is true, it will take a LONG time to heal. My nephew is a QB who had a bone bruise. He could barely walk for a few weeks, and it took a full six months to heal.
Doctor Detroit
Please remove your headgear
I don't think they can win a game without him, gonna be a long year.
Sweetness_34
Footballguy
The Seahawks have never been more than an avg team playing in a pathetic division. Finally, the division is getting better (though they still have the Rams) and the Seahawks are getting exposed. Not to mention their injury situation is terrible this year.
Ministry of Pain
Footballguy
I try to stay away as of late form a lot of confrontation...but seriously? The only thing you posted IMHO that was correct is the injury part...what team do you know that has their WR1, WR2, and WR3 all go down before they barely get thru 1 game? And then thye lost WR4, WR5...it is just ridiculous. I don't think they are being exposed, but look more like Sheriffs that brought knives to a gunfight...they don't have anything close to a starting roster for a passing game, and Holmgren runs the WCO which requires a lot of passing where you almost need 3-4 topline WR to make that thing really work. I'll stop there
Jack Burton
Footballguy
What I want to know is... why does NFL.com/injuries have him listed as questionable. In my league I cant move him to IR if he is questionable. I have to drop a player to pick up a replacement. Same goes for Winslow. Its a screwball system.
mad sweeney
Footballguy
At the beginning of the season they had the best record for an NFC team (total record, not just in the NFC) for the past 5 years. Sure they had a weak division but in those 5 years they played every team several times and won a good number of playoff games. Calling them average means that the rest of the NFC is below average for the last 5 years.
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
[scooter]
Footballguy
Sounds like your league has the screwball system. Get your rules changed.
Jack Burton
Footballguy
I was refering to my league. We voted on it just prior to this years draft that in order to put a player on IR he had to be doubtful or out. We have an active roster of 18 and two IR spots. There are many things screwy about the league I'm in. Nevertheless the NFL should have Hass listed as doubtful at the very least. He was wearing a track suit and lying sideways on the bench. What more do they need.
Doctor Detroit
Please remove your headgear
They've won more games than any other NFC team the past five years, won four playoff games the past three years and had a good chance to win two they lost vs the Bears and Steelers. I think you just exposed yourself as an unknowledgeable football fan.
Hasselbeck knee injury to get another look
By GREGG BELL – 3 hours ago
SEATTLE (AP) — Matt Hasselbeck's knee injury needs more tests.
The Seahawks' three-time Pro Bowl quarterback was inactive for Sunday's 27-17 loss to Green Bay, after being listed as questionable. That forced Seattle to use No. 3 quarterback Charlie Frye for his first start in two seasons, because backup Seneca Wallace is also hurting with a calf injury.
After Frye completed 12 of 23 throws for just 83 yards with two touchdowns, two interceptions and three sacks, coach Mike Holmgren said his team (1-4) will evaluate Hasselbeck's knee on Monday.
Hasselbeck said last week he has a bone bruise from getting hit early in the loss at the New York Giants on Oct. 5. He returned to play deep into the third quarter.
The Seahawks have been calling it a hyperextended knee, and Holmgren has said there is no structural damage — at least none revealed in an MRI taken early last week.
"There is some more tests that he needs to take, apparently. It's hard to put a finger on it," Holmgren said.
He then turned his attention, without being asked, to getting Wallace back for this weekend's game at Tampa Bay (4-2).
"I think Seneca will improve day-to-day. So I would suspect he would be available to play next week," Holmgren said.
Hasselbeck was the lowest-rated passer in the NFC entering Sunday, after having six receivers hurt in the season's first month.
Both he and Holmgren thought he'd be fine to start on Sunday, but he did not practice all week while walking stiffly and wearing a leg wrap. And Holmgren said on Friday he did not want to put Hasselbeck in further jeopardy by playing if he was not fully ready.
So he missed his first game since Nov. 19, 2006, standing on the sideline in a white team pullover and neon green cap. He occasionally joined Frye for sideline discussions.
Seattle is 1-4 for the first time since 2002, its last losing season, and tied with St. Louis at the bottom of the NFC West.
"We're not used to being in the situation we are in. It's been a long time, but here we are. So how do we deal with it, as players and coaches?" Holmgren asked. "It's easy to slap people on the back and coach and play when things are going well. It becomes a little more difficult when it is not going so well."
By GREGG BELL – 3 hours ago
SEATTLE (AP) — Matt Hasselbeck's knee injury needs more tests.
The Seahawks' three-time Pro Bowl quarterback was inactive for Sunday's 27-17 loss to Green Bay, after being listed as questionable. That forced Seattle to use No. 3 quarterback Charlie Frye for his first start in two seasons, because backup Seneca Wallace is also hurting with a calf injury.
After Frye completed 12 of 23 throws for just 83 yards with two touchdowns, two interceptions and three sacks, coach Mike Holmgren said his team (1-4) will evaluate Hasselbeck's knee on Monday.
Hasselbeck said last week he has a bone bruise from getting hit early in the loss at the New York Giants on Oct. 5. He returned to play deep into the third quarter.
The Seahawks have been calling it a hyperextended knee, and Holmgren has said there is no structural damage — at least none revealed in an MRI taken early last week.
"There is some more tests that he needs to take, apparently. It's hard to put a finger on it," Holmgren said.
He then turned his attention, without being asked, to getting Wallace back for this weekend's game at Tampa Bay (4-2).
"I think Seneca will improve day-to-day. So I would suspect he would be available to play next week," Holmgren said.
Hasselbeck was the lowest-rated passer in the NFC entering Sunday, after having six receivers hurt in the season's first month.
Both he and Holmgren thought he'd be fine to start on Sunday, but he did not practice all week while walking stiffly and wearing a leg wrap. And Holmgren said on Friday he did not want to put Hasselbeck in further jeopardy by playing if he was not fully ready.
So he missed his first game since Nov. 19, 2006, standing on the sideline in a white team pullover and neon green cap. He occasionally joined Frye for sideline discussions.
Seattle is 1-4 for the first time since 2002, its last losing season, and tied with St. Louis at the bottom of the NFC West.
"We're not used to being in the situation we are in. It's been a long time, but here we are. So how do we deal with it, as players and coaches?" Holmgren asked. "It's easy to slap people on the back and coach and play when things are going well. It becomes a little more difficult when it is not going so well."
Teezee
Footballguy
They have always been a different team on the road. The real good teams win on the road. Even the year they went to the SB, they were bailed out by having all home games throughout the playoffs. While Seattle has compiled a great record vs. the NFC the last 5 years, most of those wins have been at home. When you get to play those 3 teams in the NFC West twice a year, your record will look better than you really are. Now they are playing tough teams in the NFC, have 4 games vs. the NFC East, it's going to be a long season for Seattle.
Mental toughness has always been their Achilles Heel. If you are mentally tough, you can win on the road. Also, they have always been pretty soft up front and their run defense has always been suspect. The injuries on offense has just magnified those weaknesses in my opinion.
Mental toughness has always been their Achilles Heel. If you are mentally tough, you can win on the road. Also, they have always been pretty soft up front and their run defense has always been suspect. The injuries on offense has just magnified those weaknesses in my opinion.
Last edited by a moderator:
mad sweeney
Footballguy
The second part is spot on. Marcus Tubbs was a great run stopper but could never stay healthy and for some reason they don't like to get big men for the middle. Their current new big draft choice is still injured. You're wrong about the first part. They have the best record of any NFC team over the past five years. Not against other NFC teams, the best record of any NFC team versus the entire league. Since they play half their games on the road, "most" of their can't come home. More home wins than away wins for sure, but not "most". They've beaten the NFCE soundly before, including playoff wins vs WAS (x2) and DAL. They were a kick away from beating CHI in Chicago on their way to the SB. They weren't healthy on O in 06 or this year and that's leading to the D not being able to play it's game. Plus they've sent a slew of players to the ProBowl for those 5 years. They're pretty bad now, but they have been a very above average team for the past 5 years.
Doctor Detroit
Please remove your headgear
Unwrap the mental toughness part a little more. That should be good.
Record vs AFC teams:2003: 2-2 2004: 1-32005: 3-12006: 2-22007: 2-2Road wins:2003: 22004: 42005: 5 (including wins @ Phily, Tenn, and a throw away loss in week 17 vs GB. So I guess they were "lucky" to have all home games in the playoffs after a 13-3 season) 
2006: 4 (wins @ Denver and Tampa)2007: 3In 2003 they lost in OT @ GB in the playoffsIn 2005 they lost in the Super Bowl in 2006 they lost in OT @ ChicagoGo ahead and list for me the records of other NFC teams vs the AFC over this time period. Also why is it a crime to be good at home? Isn't that what you should be doing in the NFL? Good teams should win 6 or seven at home and as many as they can on the road and Seattle is 18-22 on the road the past five years, that's not that bad. .500 on the road should be every NFL team's goal for the year shouldn't it? And what does "tough teams" in the NFC mean? Are you saying this is the first year the NFC has been tough since 2002? Good argument. 
ETA: Are you a Rams fan?
Last edited by a moderator:
identikit
Footballguy
Neither the Seahawks or the Browns want to move those players to IR because they'd be finished for the year.The NFL 'system' is fine; sorry that doesn't fit into your FF wants and desires.
I think he's saying they should have been "out" or "doubtful" not Q. It does seem like 75-100% not likely to play is/was more accurate. I agree with the notion that teams mess up and don't necessarily update the report when it's turned toward a negative. Many times, but not all the time. I figure they think they have more important things to do. As I understood it though, the NFL was supposed to be harder on injury report designations and try and get teams to be more accurate this year. They did stop making the teams give a designation earlier in the week, with one less you'd think they could be more accurate on Friday. Their opponent is going thru a walk thru on Saturday and on a plane, it won't change the prep too much then.
Jack Burton
Footballguy
Try it this way...I want to move Hass and K2 to IR in my fantasy league. It has nothing to do with Sea/Cle moving anyone to IR. If I can move them to my IR, that will open two spots on my active roster. In order to do that I need the NFL to list both players as out or doubtful for this week on the injury report. Its pretty clear neither player had much chance of playing this week so I dont understand the hold up.
get it.
[scooter]
Footballguy
Sounds to me like you should lobby to get your league rules changed. Seriously injured players get listed as questionable ALL THE TIME.
enfuego
Footballguy
I disagree. If Seneca Wallace were healthy (which he's not 100%), he's better than a banged-up Hass... I wouldn't be surprised to see Wallace win a few with his athleticism while he's in there.
BassNBrew
Footballguy
You do realize that .500 v. the AFC and sub .500 on the road aren't helping your case? Add in beating up on STL/ARI/SF six times a year and you have a slighty above average team posting a great overall record.I also expect them to win a few games this year.Unwrap the mental toughness part a little more. That should be good.Record vs AFC teams:2003: 2-2 2004: 1-32005: 3-12006: 2-22007: 2-2Road wins:2003: 22004: 42005: 5 (including wins @ Phily, Tenn, and a throw away loss in week 17 vs GB. So I guess they were "lucky" to have all home games in the playoffs after a 13-3 season)
2006: 4 (wins @ Denver and Tampa)2007: 3In 2003 they lost in OT @ GB in the playoffsIn 2005 they lost in the Super Bowl in 2006 they lost in OT @ ChicagoGo ahead and list for me the records of other NFC teams vs the AFC over this time period. Also why is it a crime to be good at home? Isn't that what you should be doing in the NFL? Good teams should win 6 or seven at home and as many as they can on the road and Seattle is 18-22 on the road the past five years, that's not that bad. .500 on the road should be every NFL team's goal for the year shouldn't it? And what does "tough teams" in the NFC mean? Are you saying this is the first year the NFC has been tough since 2002? Good argument.
ETA: Are you a Rams fan?
Krewe
Footballguy
On another thread last week someone asked about the value of Bobby Engram moving forward and I said AVOID.
I assume for most folks over the next few weeks the big question isnt over whether to pick up Wallace and start him (ugh) but what his presence will mean to other typically more reliable options in the Seattle offense.
That said, to me it means Julius Jones=okay, Carlson = okay, K. robinson= meh and Engram= avoid.
Hasselbeck has a special relationship with Bobby E, and Seneca has a special relationship with...the clipboard.
Until this shakes down the 'Hawks will be a fantasy train wreck in general. just my .02 as a longtime hawks watcher.
I assume for most folks over the next few weeks the big question isnt over whether to pick up Wallace and start him (ugh) but what his presence will mean to other typically more reliable options in the Seattle offense.
That said, to me it means Julius Jones=okay, Carlson = okay, K. robinson= meh and Engram= avoid.
Hasselbeck has a special relationship with Bobby E, and Seneca has a special relationship with...the clipboard.
Until this shakes down the 'Hawks will be a fantasy train wreck in general. just my .02 as a longtime hawks watcher.
Neil Beaufort Zod
Footballguy
If a guy is listed as inactive, can't you argue that he's been listed as "out" and therefore eligible for your IR? What is inactive if not "out?"
Jack Burton
Footballguy
It wont do any good. Half the guys in my league wouldnt respond to lobbying. A couple owners dont have internet and other owners never log onto the website for weeks at a time. The rule just changed this year, it was voted in at this years draft. In years past "questionable" was all that was required to move a player to IR. Why we changed it?... I dont know. Our league is run by fanball and they determine a players status by NFL injuries listing. Just for the record I voted no to change the rule.
Doctor Detroit
Please remove your headgear
List me the road records of other NFC teams on the road over the same period. Also you make it seem like the Rams have been a 3-13 team for the last five years, that would be incorrect.BassNBrew said:You do realize that .500 v. the AFC and sub .500 on the road aren't helping your case? Add in beating up on STL/ARI/SF six times a year and you have a slighty above average team posting a great overall record.I also expect them to win a few games this year.Unwrap the mental toughness part a little more. That should be good.Record vs AFC teams:2003: 2-2 2004: 1-32005: 3-12006: 2-22007: 2-2Road wins:2003: 22004: 42005: 5 (including wins @ Phily, Tenn, and a throw away loss in week 17 vs GB. So I guess they were "lucky" to have all home games in the playoffs after a 13-3 season)
ETA: Are you a Rams fan?
Similar threads
