The Matt Hasselbeck roller coaster rides again
Posted by Danny O'Neil
The last time we addressed Matt Hasselbeck's future here on the blog, I was perched on a soapbox. You might remember. I was all peeved at ESPN's coverage of the question, confessing that while I had never seen a snake eat its own tail, I assumed this was the journalistic equivalent.
• Creating a dead horse to beat
By Danny O'Neil, The Seattle Times, May 11, 2011
Now, I'm not climbing back up on that soapbox to write this. I promise.
But Hasselbeck's future is still a question. That hasn't been answered, and I think that question is going to come down to what Hasselbeck wants. The fact that he's not signed can be simplified to the point that the Seahawks' offer doesn't match what Hasselbeck wants or feels he can get on the open market.
Enter Sports Illustrated's Peter King. Count him among the people who believe Hasselbeck will be elsewhere. He said so during a late-night Q&A on Twitter in which he answered more than 65 questions ranging everything from Mary Anne or Ginger -- King opted for Mrs. Howell -- to the future of the Seahawks QB:
RT @danluceroshow: Seattle's starting quarterback for the next NFL game is _________? ... Whitehurst.
RT @lvnthenw: it will not be Charlie in Seattle! Matt will be back! ... You are incorrect sir!
Now, this usually a cue for reader complaints about the national coverage of Seattle whether it's King in particular or the media in general, so let me just say that Peter King is one of my favorite writers to read in the NFL. He doesn't broker so much in the minutiae of roster movement so much as he provides a look at the personalities and opinions of some of the game's most important power brokers.
And King has been pretty consistent in his opinion Hasselbeck will be elsewhere, something that emerged during the draft.
Is his forecast right? We'll see, but for all the signs that Hasselbeck will return, the fact that he isn't signed is evidence of a disconnect between Seattle's offer and what Hasselbeck wants in terms of security.
That's a cue to ask whether that's a matter of money or length of contract. The length of the contract -- whether it's two or three years -- is not as important of how much of that contract is guaranteed whether it's half of the three-year deal that's guaranteed or a full two seasons is a potentially divisive issue.
Dec 24 - 6:10 AM Looking back: Revisiting Sunday's scouting report
Dec 24 - 1:09 AM Seahawks' scoring binge
Dec 24 - 1:01 AM Video: Summing Seattle's victory
Dec 24 - 12:58 AM Video: Russell Wilson post-game comments
Dec 24 - 12:21 AM Rookie passing roll call