Player Spotlight: D.J. Hackett (1 Viewer)

[BGP]

The Seattle Seahawks were founded in 1976. And ever since their inception, perhaps no other club in the NFL has been more consistent in fielding a competitive team. There is no long stretch where they just stink for years. They might dip for 2 years but then they bounce right back and are in the mix again.

The club record for consecutive losing seasons is just 3. 80-82 and 92-94.

 

[BGP]

Ok, I just looked it up.

There is a 4-way tie for shortest club record for consecutive losing seasons. 4 teams have a record of 3 straight years.

Seahawks: 80, 81, 82, and 92, 93, 94.

Panthers: 00, 01, 02.

Ravens: 96, 97, 98.

Vikings: 61, 62, 63.

Every other NFL club has had a losing record for at least 4 straight years, if not more.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Lastly, your entire premise about management forcing Branch into too large of a role at the cost of winning games is absurd. Tim Ruskell sure as hell doesn't tell Mike Holmgren what to do, and Holmgren isn't about to tailor his game plan around a player that doesn't deserve it or isn't capable of the role. Nate Burleson was another one of Ruskell's key pickups last year, and Holmgren barely played him. Bottom line: Politics has nothing to do with this. Good old fashioned talent and hard work will decide the Branch vs Hackett battle.

The Seawawks gave Burleson a nice contract (which can always be restructured and already has once), and they gave up a 3rd round pick. The Seahawks gave up their 1st rounder for Branch. Those two investments aren't close. The club has invested a ton more in Branch than in Burleson.

Their investment in Branch was nothing compared to what the Lions invested in Charles Rogers and Mike Williams. Yet Corey Bradford and Mike Furrey, both of whom are presumably less talented than Hackett, are the guys that saw the work.Guys with "large investments" see less production and/or playing time than guy with "lesser investments" all the time.

 

[proninja]

The Seattle Seahawks were founded in 1976. And ever since their inception, perhaps no other club in the NFL has been more consistent in fielding a competitive team. There is no long stretch where they just stink for years. They might dip for 2 years but then they bounce right back and are in the mix again. The club record for consecutive losing seasons is just 3. 80-82 and 92-94.

I suppose it depends on your definition of success.

1990 9 7 0 3rd AFC West --1991 7 9 0 4th AFC West --1992 2 14 0 5th AFC West --1993 6 10 0 5th AFC West --1994 6 10 0 5th AFC West --1995 8 8 0 3rd AFC West --1996 7 9 0 4th AFC West --1997 8 8 0 3rd AFC West --1998 8 8 0 3rd AFC West --1999 9 7 0 1st AFC West Lost Wild Card Playoffs (Dolphins) 20-17

Record - 70-90Playoff Appearances - 1Playoff Wins - 0# of finishes over 3rd in their division - 1I don't care if you finish 8-8 or finish 4-12 - if you finish 3rd or worse in your division in 9 of 10 years, it was a pretty craptastic decade, with pretty much zero hope at any point in time. In 1999, they lost 5 of their last 6 games, backing into the playoffs about as much as you can with a team that nobody thought was going to make any noise, and then got throttled by Miami's defense. I was in the Kingdome for that game, and we just got flattened in the 4th quarter - it was embarassing.Ruskell was hired before the 2005 season. Total playoff wins from 1985 to 2004 - 0Total playoff wins from 2005-present - 3Total conference championships pre 2005 - 0Total conference championships since 2005 - 1He has drafted the following players in 2005 and 2006 - all of whom are projected starters come opening day in year 3Lofa TatupuChris SpencerLeRoy HillKelly JenningsRob SimsRyan PlackemeierYou can talk about lack of losing streak seasons all you want, and talk about how apparently good we were in the '90's, but the fact is that before Ruskell showed up we'd acomplished nothing in 20 years. 1988 was a fun year, other than that, the few years that we did actually have hope ended terribly. See 1999. Were we the worst team in football? No. Did we acomplish any more than the worst team in football? Absolutely not.My point in all this isn't to debate the awesomeness of the 1990's Seahawks. My point is that Ruskell has earned a few mistakes. He's been consistently good since he's been here, and he's turned a team that acomplished absolutely jack squat in almost two decades into a Super Bowl contender. The idea that he tells Holmgren to make sure to throw more to Branch so he can look good is absolutely crazy. Completely nuts. Beyond stupid. This roster has Ruskell's fingerprints all over it, he is winning with his players, and I can't imagine he's insecure enough to cost the team two wins in order to get Branch on the field.

 

[mad sweeney]

The Seattle Seahawks were founded in 1976. And ever since their inception, perhaps no other club in the NFL has been more consistent in fielding a competitive team. There is no long stretch where they just stink for years. They might dip for 2 years but then they bounce right back and are in the mix again. The club record for consecutive losing seasons is just 3. 80-82 and 92-94.

I suppose it depends on your definition of success.

1990 9 7 0 3rd AFC West --1991 7 9 0 4th AFC West --1992 2 14 0 5th AFC West --1993 6 10 0 5th AFC West --1994 6 10 0 5th AFC West --1995 8 8 0 3rd AFC West --1996 7 9 0 4th AFC West --1997 8 8 0 3rd AFC West --1998 8 8 0 3rd AFC West --1999 9 7 0 1st AFC West Lost Wild Card Playoffs (Dolphins) 20-17

Record - 70-90Playoff Appearances - 1Playoff Wins - 0# of finishes over 3rd in their division - 1I don't care if you finish 8-8 or finish 4-12 - if you finish 3rd or worse in your division in 9 of 10 years, it was a pretty craptastic decade, with pretty much zero hope at any point in time. In 1999, they lost 5 of their last 6 games, backing into the playoffs about as much as you can with a team that nobody thought was going to make any noise, and then got throttled by Miami's defense. I was in the Kingdome for that game, and we just got flattened in the 4th quarter - it was embarassing.Ruskell was hired before the 2005 season. Total playoff wins from 1985 to 2004 - 0Total playoff wins from 2005-present - 3Total conference championships pre 2005 - 0Total conference championships since 2005 - 1He has drafted the following players in 2005 and 2006 - all of whom are projected starters come opening day in year 3Lofa TatupuChris SpencerLeRoy HillKelly JenningsRob SimsRyan PlackemeierYou can talk about lack of losing streak seasons all you want, and talk about how apparently good we were in the '90's, but the fact is that before Ruskell showed up we'd acomplished nothing in 20 years. 1988 was a fun year, other than that, the few years that we did actually have hope ended terribly. See 1999. Were we the worst team in football? No. Did we acomplish any more than the worst team in football? Absolutely not.My point in all this isn't to debate the awesomeness of the 1990's Seahawks. My point is that Ruskell has earned a few mistakes. He's been consistently good since he's been here, and he's turned a team that acomplished absolutely jack squat in almost two decades into a Super Bowl contender. The idea that he tells Holmgren to make sure to throw more to Branch so he can look good is absolutely crazy. Completely nuts. Beyond stupid. This roster has Ruskell's fingerprints all over it, he is winning with his players, and I can't imagine he's insecure enough to cost the team two wins in order to get Branch on the field.

Add to his (with Reinfeld's help) accomplishments the long term deals for Hass, Jones (who had problems for 3 years doing a contract with the old FO), Alexander, and some good FA pickups like Peterson. The Furrey example is a good one to illustrate this point. When Hass is dropping back with huge linemen coming after him and the playoffs on the line he's not going to care about Ruskell's rep when he's deciding who to throw to. And neither is Holmgren or Paul Allen. If the Seahawks picked a WR at 23 (the pick given to the Pats) what more could they ask of the pick than to be the WR1, like Branch is? Are the Lion's going to make kitna force the ball to CJII just because of all his hype (especially with the WRs picked first by the Lions). Or is Kitna going to throw the ball to ROY or Furrey or Bell or whoever is open? Branch has fulfilled the investment already by being the starter with the added bonus of several year's experience. Who cares if he is the highest producer on the team as long as he produces at starting NFL wr level. With the Hutchinson fiasco, I highly doubt Ruskell is worried about his rep if Branch ends the season with #2 numbers instead of #1.

 

[Lash]

man, i was almost for sure i cliked on this thread to read about DJ hackett

 

[BGP]

I suppose it depends on your definition of success.

Well that's a different subject than what I'm responding to. You said.

Nobody knows crappy football like Seattle fans from the '90's.

And I'm pointing out that fans of the Seattle Seahawks have actually had a pretty decent, respectable and competitive franchise.

 

[proninja]

I suppose it depends on your definition of success.

Well that's a different subject than what I'm responding to. You said.

Nobody knows crappy football like Seattle fans from the '90's.

And I'm pointing out that fans of the Seattle Seahawks have actually had a pretty decent, respectable and competitive franchise.

Ok, so you're responding to one statement that had nothing to do with the reason I disagreed with you in the first place. And you made that big of a deal about it why? Ruskell's job is not on the line at all, I've outlined the reasons why above. Holmgren is going to put the best players on the field. If that's Branch, it's Branch. If that's Hackett, it's Hackett. If that's Obomanu, it's Obomanu.Feel free to go after posts that really aren't the point, but your original point was wrong, and I belive I've successfully refuted it.

 

[Binky The Doormat]

You know I am suprised not to have seen anything about how Hasselbeck and Branch stuck around Seattle and have been working together in the off season ...ala Manning-Harrison in the old days. I thought I read that ...anyone else? If this is true I would take Hackett's potential down closer to the 5-6 TDs and 700-900 - still not bad; but I would like to hear from some others about the Branch-Hasselbeck working relationship.

 

[This_Is_Not_VRR]

You know I am suprised not to have seen anything about how Hasselbeck and Branch stuck around Seattle and have been working together in the off season ...ala Manning-Harrison in the old days. I thought I read that ...anyone else? If this is true I would take Hackett's potential down closer to the 5-6 TDs and 700-900 - still not bad; but I would like to hear from some others about the Branch-Hasselbeck working relationship.

Here's what I wrote in this thread:http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...t&p=7130886

5. Deion Branch-- I'm not sure where to even to begin about this guy. Talented? Yes. Way over touted? Absolutely. The guy has made a name for himself over one tremendous super bowl effort. Give him props because in thee game, he was money. However, if he's your #2 and possibly #3, you are losing money. Do you realize that he's never had a season of over 1,000 yards or even scored more than 5 TDs in a single season????? He's undersized and if you watched any of Seattle games last year, DJ Hackett was pwning Branch as far as targets were concerned and he wasnt' even a starter yet. He will be this year. Do the math.

I did the math and it doesn't add up.Some things to consider:

1-Branch had 725 yards and 4 TD's last season in just 13 starts.

2-Hasselbeck was only on the field throwing him the ball for 8.5 of those 13 starts.

3-Branch didn't have the benefit of training camp last year so he,

a) didn't know the offense

b) didn't get a chance to work on his chemistry with Hasselbeck

4-Branch was playing out of position. He was stuck playing the "X" position, which is on the weak side of the formation (non-tight-end side) and normally reserved for bigger, stronger receivers in the West Coast offense.

Now fast forward to this year:

1-Branch is finally comfortable with the playbook.

2-Branch and Hasselbeck have been putting in long hours working on their chemistry (both players stayed in Seattle during the off-season).

3-Jackson is gone and Branch is moving to the "Z" position, an outside spot on the tight-end side that will allow him to better utilize his speed and quickness.

4-The Seahawks offense figures to be much more high powered than it was last year when everything that could go wrong, did go wrong.

If that doesn't convince you that Branch will put up excellent numbers this season, perhaps these quotes will:

"I expect his TDs to go way up," Seahawks quarterback Matt Hasselbeck said.

"You'd watch one of our practices and it was almost unfair, Darrell Jackson was catching almost every ball," Hasselbeck said. "It's how the [West Coast] system was designed and you look back at those who played there in Green Bay and San Francisco: Robert Brooks, Sterling Sharpe, Antonio Freeman, Jerry Rice. I think there are certain plays Mike Holmgren likes to call because it reminds him of good plays when he was coaching in Green Bay and San Francisco. He loves to say, 'Z-in.' He doesn't love to say 'X-in' as much."

Offensive coordinator Gil Haskell said that it's unfair to expect any player to catch a lot of passes based purely on his position. He pointed out that, while Jackson caught a lot of balls as the flanker, there have also been also plenty of receptions that went to slot receiver Bobby Engram and Seattle's split ends.

But Haskell did admit that a receiver with Branch's talent can really thrive as a flanker in the West Coast system.

"In this position, if you're good, you'll catch a lot," Haskell said. "With the 49ers, Jerry Rice caught a lot of passes. Sterling Sharpe in Green Bay. When I was with the Panthers, Muhsin Muhammad had a great year.

"It's important to (have) a go-to receiver or a leading receiver," coach Mike Holmgren said. " Typically, our flanker sees the ball a little bit more. Deion's been fine in practice, and I'm hopeful that he'll be that guy."

You couldn't wipe the smile off of Branch's face when talking about how much more comfortable he is now because he totally understands the Seattle playbook and had a full off-season with Hasselbeck under his belt. And the rapport was on display during practice as the pair hooked up on several pretty plays. But what was most impressive was how the duo stayed after practice to work for half an hour.

I fully expect Branch to finish the season with 6-9 TD's and close to 1,200 rec. yards.

 

[Penguin]

From what I've seen and read to date, Branch is the #1 WR on the Hawks. As far as the #2 spot, both Hackett & Burleson were invisible tonight.

 

[Hooper31]

You know I am suprised not to have seen anything about how Hasselbeck and Branch stuck around Seattle and have been working together in the off season ...ala Manning-Harrison in the old days. I thought I read that ...anyone else? If this is true I would take Hackett's potential down closer to the 5-6 TDs and 700-900 - still not bad; but I would like to hear from some others about the Branch-Hasselbeck working relationship.

Considering that Hasselbeck wasn't able to throw the ball all summer because of his shoulder, I think the offseason bonding between these two was minimal.

 

[Hooper31]

...2-Branch and Hasselbeck have been putting in long hours working on their chemistry (both players stayed in Seattle during the off-season)...

Same response as above. Shoulder surgery for Hasselbeck. He and Branch weren't putting in any hours together.

 

[Hooper31]

From what I've seen and read to date, Branch is the #1 WR on the Hawks. As far as the #2 spot, both Hackett & Burleson were invisible tonight.

Branch and Hackett were each targeted once. Burleson didn't see a pass come his way. However, Burleson did return two kicks.

 

[This_Is_Not_VRR]

You know I am suprised not to have seen anything about how Hasselbeck and Branch stuck around Seattle and have been working together in the off season ...ala Manning-Harrison in the old days. I thought I read that ...anyone else? If this is true I would take Hackett's potential down closer to the 5-6 TDs and 700-900 - still not bad; but I would like to hear from some others about the Branch-Hasselbeck working relationship.

Considering that Hasselbeck wasn't able to throw the ball all summer because of his shoulder, I think the offseason bonding between these two was minimal.

...2-Branch and Hasselbeck have been putting in long hours working on their chemistry (both players stayed in Seattle during the off-season)...

Same response as above. Shoulder surgery for Hasselbeck. He and Branch weren't putting in any hours together.

Uh, no. You're wrong. Hasselbeck was throwing balls to Branch at the very first mini-camp in early may.

Matt Hasselbeck-QB- Seahawks May. 8 - 9:39 am et Matt Hasselbeck (shoulder) threw in the 7-on-7 part of practice Monday.

Matt Hasselbeck-QB- Seahawks May. 10 - 5:21 pm et Matt Hasselbeck (shoulder) began lifting weights on Monday.Another positive sign. Hasselbeck also threw passes in the Seahawks' most recent minicamp and is well on his way to be starting in Week 1.

Matt Hasselbeck-QB- Seahawks Jun. 4 - 4:44 pm et Matt Hasselbeck is no longer being limited following surgery to repair a torn labrum in his non-throwing shoulder.Hasselbeck took part fully in Seattle's recent two-week round of minicamps. He says his timing isn't all the way back but called the injury a "non-issue."

Matt Hasselbeck-QB- Seahawks Jun. 16 - 12:22 pm et Matt Hasselbeck has been cleared for all football activities, but he worries about the lack of strength in his non-throwing shoulder.

Hasselbeck and Branch have been putting in long hours together--often staying after practice. That's a fact.

 

[Penguin]

From what I've seen and read to date, Branch is the #1 WR on the Hawks. As far as the #2 spot, both Hackett & Burleson were invisible tonight.

Branch and Hackett were each targeted once. Burleson didn't see a pass come his way. However, Burleson did return two kicks.

So what is your take on the Seattle WR situation Hooper31? Are you saying that DJ Hackett is the #1? I'm not sure what to make of your response to my point.

 

[Hooper31]

From what I've seen and read to date, Branch is the #1 WR on the Hawks. As far as the #2 spot, both Hackett & Burleson were invisible tonight.

Branch and Hackett were each targeted once. Burleson didn't see a pass come his way. However, Burleson did return two kicks.

So what is your take on the Seattle WR situation Hooper31? Are you saying that DJ Hackett is the #1? I'm not sure what to make of your response to my point.

Just pointing out the facts. I don't believe there's much that should be read into one target each on one drive. Do Branch owners feel better that he scored? Sure. Would Hackett owners feel better if he hadn't been mauled and made a reception? Sure. Perhaps when the first team plays an entire half we might have something tangible to ponder. However, until then I think the multiple games we saw at the end of last season are much more reliable evidence to bet on. Sometimes we can take a bit of information from preseason and call it reliable evidence, but we're not there yet, and we may not get there.

 

[Hooper31]

Hasselbeck and Branch have been putting in long hours together--often staying after practice. That's a fact.

A solid effort, but nowhere in that mis-mash of quotes does it mention long hours together--often staying after practice. Believe what you will, but stating "that's a fact" is just folly. Hasselbeck had shoulder surgery. That's a fact. He's been limited during the offseason. That's also a fact. Again, believe what you will. I will choose to believe different until I have evidence that proves otherwise.

 

[This_Is_Not_VRR]

Hasselbeck and Branch have been putting in long hours together--often staying after practice. That's a fact.

A solid effort, but nowhere in that mis-mash of quotes does it mention long hours together--often staying after practice. Believe what you will, but stating "that's a fact" is just folly. Hasselbeck had shoulder surgery. That's a fact. He's been limited during the offseason. That's also a fact. Again, believe what you will. I will choose to believe different until I have evidence that proves otherwise.

You're the last person who should be deciding what's factual. You've been spreading nothing but misinformation in this thread.You said and I quote,"Hasselbeck wasn't able to throw the ball all summer because of his shoulder, I think the offseason bonding between these two was minimal." That's blatantly false. If you're going to run your mouth, at least do some research.

The fact of the matter is, Hasselbeck had shoulder surgery to his non-throwing shoulder. That limited what he could do in the weight room and Holmgren kept him out of drills where he had to hand the ball off in order to protect his shoulder, but he was never limited in terms of throwing the ball. He was throwing passes in 7 on 7 drills from the very first day of mini-camp in early May. Again, that's a fact.

And I already included proof that Hasselbeck and Branch have been staying after practice to work on their chemistry. But I guess you couldn't be troubled to read it before you spouted off.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/7101714

You couldn't wipe the smile off of Branch's face when talking about how much more comfortable he is now because he totally understands the Seattle playbook and had a full off-season with Hasselbeck under his belt. And the rapport was on display during practice as the pair hooked up on several pretty plays. But what was most impressive was how the duo stayed after practice to work for half an hour.

More proof:http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/football/325745_hawk31.html

While it's one thing to know the routes as they're diagrammed in the playbook, it's the ability to improvise and still connect when those plays break down that allows Hasselbeck and the passing game to be at their best.

That's why the three weeks leading up to the start of camp were so important for Hasselbeck and Branch. On days when they could have been coveting what little free time they had left, Hasselbeck and Branch were on the practice field.

Not just running routes, but delving into what goes into those routes. What is Hasselbeck thinking on a certain play? In a certain situation? What will Branch do if he's unable to run the route as it's designed? Or, Hasselbeck simply doesn't have the time to wait for the route to develop?

"We talked through a lot of stuff, versus coming out and running a route," Branch said. "We all know how to run a route. Now, it's all about: 'Where do you want me to be? What are you thinking? Here's what I'm thinking.'

"That's the only way to get that communication, get on the same page."

 

[Hooper31]

And I already included proof that Hasselbeck and Branch have been staying after practice to work on their chemistry. But I guess you couldn't be troubled to read it before you spouted off.

I read what you quoted. I disagree as to what constitutes "long hours". There's no need to talk down to me (or anyone else for that matter). Trying to get personal is a waste of time on a message board. You can lock it up that just about every typed word is going to be read with the worst possible tone even when its not intended. Like I said, you'll be believe what you want to believe. Three weeks doesn't equate to all summer and long hours in my book. I guess we'll agree to disagree.I read those quotes just like I do all other training camp and mini camp fodder. They're just nonsensical drivel that beat writers offer up to make their fan base feel better. Nothing more, nothing less. They rank right up there with "He's dropped weight and is now faster", "He's added ten pounds of muscle and is now stronger", and my personal favorite..."We're committed to running the ball more this season". I believe what I see and evaluate on the field. Putting stock in those sorts of quotes happen because people need to reinforce their hopes with anything they can latch on to. Can we agree about that?

 

[This_Is_Not_VRR]

I read what you quoted. I disagree as to what constitutes "long hours".

Just admit when you're wrong and move on. You're grasping at straws here.

There's no need to talk down to me (or anyone else for that matter).

Fantasy football is difficult enough as it is. The last thing this forum needs is people posting faulty information. If you don't like getting called out for being wrong (Hasselbeck wasn't able to throw all summer because of his shoulder, he and Branch weren't putting in any hours together), check your facts before you post.

Three weeks doesn't equate to all summer and long hours in my book. I guess we'll agree to disagree.

Let's see here...Branch caught passes from Hasselbeck at mini-camps in May (do you want me to post pictures?), they practiced together on their own time for the three weeks leading up to training camp, and training camping goes until September. Call me crazy, but that sounds like all summer, and long hours.

I read those quotes just like I do all other training camp and mini camp fodder. They're just nonsensical drivel that beat writers offer up to make their fan base feel better. Nothing more, nothing less. They rank right up there with "He's dropped weight and is now faster", "He's added ten pounds of muscle and is now stronger", and my personal favorite..."We're committed to running the ball more this season". I believe what I see and evaluate on the field. Putting stock in those sorts of quotes happen because people need to reinforce their hopes with anything they can latch on to. Can we agree about that?

Enough with the lying.You're the same guy who said:

"Shoulder surgery for Hasselbeck. He and Branch weren't putting in any hours together."

"Considering that Hasselbeck wasn't able to throw the ball all summer because of his shoulder, I think the offseason bonding between these two was minimal."

Those remarks don't sound like they came from someone keeping up with the "training camp and mini camp fodder." They sound like they came from someone who was totally in the dark.

The bottom line is that Hasselbeck has been throwing the ball all summer (again, the injury was to his non-throwing shoulder), and he and Branch have been practicing together quite a bit. That's not up for debate. It's not "nonsensical drivel" from beat writers. It's the truth.

But what is up for debate is whether all of the practicing will do them any good.

Your guess is as good as mine.

 

[Hooper31]

Enough with the lying.

Who's lying? We see things differently. Hasselbeck wasn't allowed to practice fully until minicamps in May. That's two month's ago. He's been limited this off season.

You're the same guy who said:

"Shoulder surgery for Hasselbeck. He and Branch weren't putting in any hours together."

"Considering that Hasselbeck wasn't able to throw the ball all summer because of his shoulder, I think the offseason bonding between these two was minimal."

Was I wrong? Sure. I spotted your hyperbole and responded with a piece of my own. My error. He has thrown some this summer, but its nowhere near what you're trying to characterize it as. That's where belief steps in. I don't believe it, you do. More power to you. I think your extrapolating a beat writer's quote into what you want to see. So again, we'll disagree.I apologize to anyone that wants more Hackett information in this thread. I didn't intend for it to turn into a pissing contest with regard to interpreting a beat writers comments.