Is Matt Flynn an instant QB upgrade for the Seahawks?

[quneur]

No deer in headlights. I said Whitehurst was not the solution when we traded for him. I also said Hasselbeck was done when Holmgren left us.

When TJack was with the Viks, his first year was a wash as he only started one game. His second year; a five game winning streak. His third year went to the playoffs. Then Viks got Farve. With the Seahawks, a different system even though with the same coordinator, different system.

The last season, the oline was horrible in first third of the season. There was no pocket for him to throw in so, I will only consider the last third of the season. Yes, he does a lot of deficiencies, dropping back way too far, taking too long to see the field, and his jump passing but those can be worked on. If we won the last two games (SF game their kicker had like 6 field goals? Seahawks concentrated on the running game. Cards game went into OT.) we would be in the playoffs - tie breaker with Giants.

[Garanddad]

He has had 6 years and has shown no inprovement in any of the areas you mentioned - how many more years does he get? And why - what do you see that makes him have such potential? What is there that, after 6 YEARS and NO growth makes you see him as a top-tier QB? Wasn't his (non-existant) scrambling ability one of the reasons that we needed him over Matt - so if the O-line stuttered he could get away? The O-line was problematic last year but still better than the last few years (not saying much, I know). Jackson answered answered the situation by running around in the backfied, getting sacked and throwing interceptions. Where is the potential you see? And yes, I think "deer in the headlights" describes his on field play very well. Also, if Hasslebeck is done why is he still playing - and playing better than Jackson?

[mthawks]

I really need to take a class on reading between the lines. I have read the last few posts and don't understand some of the replies. I think we are all passionate about the Seahawks. We are all on the same side here. Differences of opinion are always going to happen but facts are facts. Seattle was winning ball games at the end of the year by running the ball. The dumbed down the play action reads so that TJack could operate the offense. I won't deny that TJack was much better than CW but I wasn't that high on CW when we got him. If Seattle's running game is working this season, then Flynn will be able to use play action and be successful. If the running game isn't working, I think he will suffer as well.

[quneur]

If Jackson was a starter for all six years then I would say replace him but he started one game in his rookie year. In his second year started 12 games (8 wins - 4 losses) and started 6 games (2-4) in his third year. The next two years he played behind Farve and only started 3 games (1-1, injured). Hence, he's 11 - 10 in five years with the Viks. He's never had a full season there. The closest he came to a full season was his second year after that his playing time was sporadic.

How bad was the Seahawks offensive line at the beginning of the last season? 50 sacks throughout the season. Remember, the line played better later part of the year so many of those sacks came in the beginning. 5 sacks against 49er and Steelers each, 4 sacks against AZ, 6 sacks against Giants, ...

I'm not saying he's going to be our savior or lead us to a championship but I won't judge a player unless he allowed to play consistantly. But I did see was a close games (Atlanta, both 49ers game - first game ST lost if for us, and Cards - last OT game) and winning five out of six games later in the year. How much up side do I put in him? With a good QB coach - 9 or 10 wins.

[mthawks]

I will be the first one to admit that he played better than I thought TJack played better than I thought he would towards the latter part of the season. However, in two of the games you spoke on, last games with Arizona and San Francisco, his holding on to the ball way to long hurt them at the end of the game. That being said, for all of the people that think Seattle would have won more games with Hasselback last year need to look at the amount of sacks Seattle gave up in the first quarter of the season and realize Matt would not have been standing.

[Garanddad]

Don't forget that a lot of the sacks were on Jackson - he holds the ball forever, unable to figure out what to do with it. That has not changed in his carreer. His much vaunted "scrambling ability" is as non-existant as his ability to read a play.

[seahawksflow]

Yes, he is solid and hes our guy going forward.

[quneur]

I think (dangerous) it comes down to the offensive line. The ideal pocket is a horseshoe shape about a yard from the line of scrimmage. The QB sets at around 4-5 yards from the line. Early last season, the offense line couldn't hold the pocket so the QB had to run in order to get a chance to make a play. That was when everyone was complaining TJ had no pocket presence. That was the downfall of Whitehurst.

Whitehurst tried or was use to stepping up into the pocket which was non existent or on the verge of collapsing. His throws were pressured and inaccurate with everyone too close and defenders hands in the air.

TJack's solution was to back up; way up, Five to seven yards back behind everyone. Towards the later part of the season, the 'U' shaped pocket started to look like a spearhead or an ' i ' with Unger at the bottom and the dot being TJack. That is why I liked Unger's play so much, he anchored himself and wasn't pushed that far from scrimmage. Everyone else was strung out along five to six yards back. It also made it easier to protect as all they had to do was prevent penetration - north/south. But being so far behind the line, the QB has to make up those 5-7 yards and he has to see before throwing. With everyone in line in front of him, he had to jump throw or throw towards the sides. TJ did rather well considering.

No QB is going to do well unless the OLine can create and protect a pocket.

[tahuyaman]

Yes if Whitehurst had been given the chance he would have been a better starter than TJ.

Uh.....No.

[tahuyaman]

I will start off by stating, Alex Smith is much better not top notch QB, but way better than Matt Flynn.

Alex Smith was a one year wonder as a college QB and he will be a one year wonder as a pro too. If he is such a solid QB why was SF trying so hard to replace him in the off season? His career had been a huge disappointment except for part of one season. He's the biggest liability the 49ers have right now. Alex Smith isn't "way better" than anyone else in the NFL.