Views: 15977
Comments: 52

08:02 AM ET 08.22 | The fact Charlie Whitehurst had a stronger showing against the Vikings still wasn't enough. Tarvaris Jackson hasn't done much to quiet those who doubted the decision of Seahawks coach Pete Carroll to name Jackson his starting quarterback. Of course, nobody else is doing much to help him out, either. And that's why Carroll said after Saturday's 20-7 preseason loss to the Minnesota Vikings that he's "not in any way disappointed" with the way Jackson performed. ... So Carroll said afterward that despite a strong showing by backup Charlie Whitehurst (14-19, 97 yards and the team's only touchdown) in the second half, there does not exist a quarterback controversy -- or even a battle at this point -- in Seattle.

Pete Carroll, Getty Images

Comments (48) Add A Comment

August 22, 2011 08:03 AM ET

Report Abuse | QUOTE

Why not?!? LOL.

B.R.

Total Comments (1030)

August 22, 2011 08:10 AM ET

Report Abuse | QUOTE

Jackson is the better QB.

DJRoxalot

Total Comments (108505)

August 22, 2011 08:14 AM ET

Report Abuse | QUOTE

No controversy at all.

They both suck.

Otis B. Driftwood

Total Comments (30605)

August 22, 2011 08:19 AM ET

Report Abuse | QUOTE

Do we want to start 3 stringer number 1, or 3rd stringer number 2? either will get them to the promise land of one Mr.Luck- starting them both alternating games might REALLY gurantee that.

RocktownUSA

Harrisonburg, VA

Total Comments (168)

August 22, 2011 08:20 AM ET

Report Abuse | QUOTE

QUOTE(#4):

Originally posted 08:19 AM ET 08.22 by RocktownUSA

Do we want to start 3 stringer number 1, or 3rd stringer number 2? either will get them to the promise land of one Mr.Luck- starting them both alternating games might REALLY gurantee that.

Seattle has enough talent to 6-10 or even 7-9. Not in the Andrew Luck sweepstakes.

DJRoxalot

Total Comments (108505)

August 22, 2011 08:21 AM ET

Report Abuse | QUOTE

*to go 6-10 or even 7-9*

DJRoxalot

Total Comments (108505)

August 22, 2011 08:23 AM ET

Report Abuse | QUOTE

These guys are going straight down to the bottom of the division and what about all that money they thru at Whitehurst to come to Seattle? Is that a write-off?

B.R.

Total Comments (1030)

August 22, 2011 08:25 AM ET

Report Abuse | QUOTE

QUOTE(#3):

Originally posted 08:14 AM ET 08.22 by Otis B. Driftwood

No controversy at all. They both suck.

BANG!!!

TxHeat

Total Comments (13646)

August 22, 2011 08:25 AM ET

Report Abuse | QUOTE

QUOTE(#5):

Originally posted 08:20 AM ET 08.22 by DJRoxalot

Seattle has enough talent to 6-10 or even 7-9. Not in the Andrew Luck sweepstakes.

I'm lost on all this talent- they do have a decent back- but both QB's are mediocre on thier very best day- they caught lightening in a bottle last year- that won't happen twice. You can go ahead and count them as fighting it out with San Fran for the bottome of that division- and by that I mean seeing who can lose the most!

RocktownUSA

Harrisonburg, VA

Total Comments (168)

August 22, 2011 08:31 AM ET

Report Abuse | QUOTE

T Jack seems like a good guy so I feel bad for him but he's just not the answer...but I don't get why Sidney Rice chose Seattle when he could have signed pretty much anywhere he wanted. He was one of the most coveted FA WRs this year...granted the pickings were kinda slim at that position but he would have been better off staying in Minnesota even....it's not like he and Jackson lit it up when they were together with the Vikings.

Vikingfan

Total Comments (81)

August 22, 2011 08:34 AM ET

Report Abuse | QUOTE

What were Rice's numbers like Pre-Favre as compared to the Favre Era- I know that they had a great on field chemistry but was Rice all that dominant before ?

RocktownUSA

Harrisonburg, VA

Total Comments (168)

August 22, 2011 08:37 AM ET

Report Abuse | QUOTE

They are so screwed. Not good enough to be a playoff team, and not bad enough to get Lucky.

Debbie Does

Total Comments (19962)

August 22, 2011 08:37 AM ET

Report Abuse | QUOTE

I wonder what they saw in Jackson that no one else did...

Robataille

Total Comments (54143)

August 22, 2011 08:39 AM ET

Report Abuse | QUOTE

I thought you actually needed a legit QB to consider it a battle. These dudes are clearly the worst tandem in the NFL.

And to quote an old sage... "when you got two or three QBs, you ain't got one."

joec

Total Comments (592)

August 22, 2011 08:50 AM ET

Report Abuse | QUOTE

"No QB in Seattle ... yet."

Fixed the headline.

Devi8ed

Total Comments (9196)

August 22, 2011 08:56 AM ET

Report Abuse | QUOTE

Is seattle even relevent?

Darth Bane

Wilmington, DE

Total Comments (707)

August 22, 2011 08:57 AM ET

Report Abuse | QUOTE

Gee, maybe Hasselbeck wasn't that bad...

Mangler.

Total Comments (11433)

August 22, 2011 09:18 AM ET

Report Abuse | QUOTE

All I know from watching T-Jack for years is...He's like a deer in the headlights in that pocket. and he has a hard time reading defenses. so this really isn't news!