Hasselbeck again

Based on what I have seen on recent Sundays, I would start Charlie Whitehurst in Tampa Bay tomorrow if I were coaching the Seahawks.

However, Coach Carroll is giving another start to Hasselbeck. Matt has been a choke machine and a turnover factory over the last several weeks. He makes bad decisions when he's playing from behind. He tries to do too much, to take the whole offense on his shoulders.

To his credit, Caroll recognizes that it takes teamwork to lose the way Seattle has lost since October. Since starting 4-2, the Seahawks have gone 2-6.

Hasselbeck generally plays well when the Seahawks are still in games, when we hold a lead or trail by just one score. But when we play from far behind--after our defense surrenders too many points, and after our running game stalls--that's when Hasselbeck really starts sucking.

But he has help. Offensive coordinator Jeremy Bates continues to set up Matt for failure. Defensive backs play the odds, and when Bates keeps it predictable (too many deep passes, too many vanilla routes underneath), that makes it easy for opposing corners and safeties to grab interceptions.

Carroll and his staff know their quarterbacks better than we do. They see them in practice. They know what Hasselbeck and Whitehurst can do. They know how much of the playbook each quarterback has mastered.

So, I don't question Carroll's decision to keep Hasselbeck in the game.

He says that Matt gives us the best chance to win.

Carroll should want to win even more than the fans do. If Seattle loses out and finishes 6-10, his first year will have been a failure by every reasonable measure. If Paul Allen were going to be satisfied with such a modest rate of improvement, he would have kept Jim Mora. (Carroll won't get fired for losing out, but it would put him on the hot seat next year.)

On the other hand, if Seattle wins out and makes the playoffs, then it would make the decision to hire Carroll look wise. Moreover, it would implicitly vindicate the many, many questionable personnel decisions made by Schneider and Carroll.

Speaking of personnel decisions, the team needs to decide whether to re-sign Hasselbeck. Perhaps giving Matt another start will help Carroll decide.

If I were trying to decide the future of our quarterbacks, I would feel like I had enough information about Hasselbeck. I would want to know more about how Whitehurst performs in game situations.

If I were Carroll and Schneider, I would offer Matt a contract right now. His stock has never been lower, so I'd seize the opportunity to lock him down at bargain rates, offering him a modest long-term contract loaded with performance incentives. Even if Hasselbeck becomes Hasselbackup, he'd be one of the best backups in the league, so it would be a good investment.

Anyway, I'm OK with Matt starting this week.

However, if I were coaching the Seahawks, I would be quicker with the hook. I would have benched Hasselbeck sooner in San Francisco and swifter against Atlanta. I don't subscribe to the school of coaching that says, "Quarterbacks are different; you don't treat them like other players."

Quarterbacks aren't different. They're football players. When any football player doesn't perform, he needs to ride the pine for a while so someone else can get a shot. Getting benched makes a real competitor hungry to re-enter the game. If a quarterback's fragile ego can't handle competition, he doesn't belong in organized football. If anything, quarterbacks should be more mentally tough than other football players, not less so. Because they're supposed to be leaders.

Matt Hasselbeck is a leader, and a competitor. I hope he rises to the occasion, and I hope the Seahawks fight tomorrow. Beating Tampa Bay is the only way to stay in playoff contention with dignity, with any prospect of finishing at .500.