Update: After working out 4, Seahawks to sign Brady Quinn

The Essential Online Seahawks Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute. RATING: PG-13
  • ErikG803 wrote:1. Thigpen
    2. Quinn
    3. Leinart
    4. Wallace


    After going to U-Tube and watching highlights of Wallace?
    1. Seneca Wallace
    2.thigpen
    3. Quinn



    4. Leinart
    scutterhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3770
    Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 8:48 pm


  • scutterhawk wrote:
    ErikG803 wrote:1. Thigpen
    2. Quinn
    3. Leinart
    4. Wallace


    After going to U-Tube and watching highlights of Wallace?
    1. Seneca Wallace
    2.thigpen
    3. Quinn



    4. Leinart


    Good call :th2thumbs: None of those guys can compete with Seneca when it comes to the read-option except for maybe Thigpen. But Wallace has a much better completion percentage and TD/INT ratio. I would prefer Seneca as you can also put him in the backfield ala Percy Harvin, albeit a bit slower and less elusive, it would still make defenses think. "Is DangeRuss going to run it, throw it, hand it off, what about when Seneca gets it, will he run it, throw it back to Russell, or maybe short toss to BeastMode? Who the hell knows? :waah:
    "God Bless the Seattle Seahawks" Cortez Kennedy
    User avatar
    ivotuk
    * NET Nobody *
     
    Posts: 8896
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:29 pm
    Location: North Pole, Alaska


  • I'd rather draft a young prospect, God forbid something happen but a rookie did ok last year. Seneca does not excite me, 34 years old and never proven he can be a starter. If he could have been he would have.
    Last edited by garrylt4 on Sun Apr 07, 2013 12:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    User avatar
    garrylt4
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 115
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 6:19 pm


  • theENGLISHseahawk wrote:All these people saying 'NO' to all of these guys...

    You do realise we're holding a backup QB work out don't you?

    One of these guys probably gets signed and wins the opportunity to compete with Portis and a rookie to be the backup during camp.

    We're not looking for a franchise quarterback here. We're looking for a guy who can pull off a cap & clipboard combo.


    Curtis Painter was supposed to hold a clipboard and then Peyton got hurt and Polian got fired.
    User avatar
    CALIHAWK1
    *PLATINUM SUPPORTER*
    *PLATINUM SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 9342
    Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 7:00 pm
    Location: Is Everything


  • garrylt4 wrote:I'd rather draft a young prospect, God forbid something happen but a rookie did ok last year. Seneca does not excite me, 34 years old and never proven he can be a starter. If he could have he would have.


    He's 32, and we're not looking for a starter.

    People who say they're not "excited" about any of these guys are being ridiculous. Who gets excited about backup QB signings? Fans of bad teams with lousy starters... that's who. We aren't in that position if you haven't noticed.
    User avatar
    DavidSeven
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4070
    Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 9:15 am


  • garrylt4 wrote:I'd rather draft a young prospect, God forbid something happen but a rookie did ok last year. Seneca does not excite me, 34 years old and never proven he can be a starter. If he could have been he would have.


    That would be great but this is not the year of the QB via the draft. But I'm sure Pete will do all of the above, there is a reason he is bringing these guys in it is most likely that the odds of finding our best back up will not favor a QB from the 2013 draft. But rest assured, we will draft a prospect, and he will have every shot at becoming the 2nd in charge.

    edit: The argument here is not rookie vs veteran but rather which of these veterans would you prefer?
    "God Bless the Seattle Seahawks" Cortez Kennedy
    User avatar
    ivotuk
    * NET Nobody *
     
    Posts: 8896
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:29 pm
    Location: North Pole, Alaska


  • sutz wrote:
    jammerhawk wrote:Every available QB will get a look or at least be linked to Seattle who may then just draft a guy. It's all good and not unexpected as JS keeps the talking heads talking, while rolling over all the rocks.

    Why "may then?" Why not both?. We're talking wa-a-a-ay pre camp here. Starting camp with 4 QBs is hardly unheard of. In fact, I think it's common. We have two now. Sign a FA and draft a rook.

    :229031_shrug:


    Bingo.
    "The life you lose may be your own" - Drunk dude at the bar
    User avatar
    loafoftatupu
    I'M JIMMY!
     
    Posts: 5899
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:17 pm
    Location: Auburn, WA


  • I don't think we are just adding a vet. I am sure the #3 will be a young draftee , FE or maybe even Portis

    I would lean towards Wallace myself. He moves well has a good arm and we even hade him play a bit as a wide.
    User avatar
    Happypuppy
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1911
    Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 5:40 pm


  • Then its thigpen. Still no thanks to Seneca even at 32
    User avatar
    garrylt4
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 115
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 6:19 pm


  • All of these players suck so i really don't care.
    User avatar
    General Manager
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2260
    Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 11:04 pm


  • None of the above please.
    From the white sands
    To the canyon lands
    To the redwood stands
    To the barren lands

    ImageImage

    Proud member of the 38 club
    User avatar
    hawksfansinceday1
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 12775
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:38 am
    Location: Vancouver, WA


  • CALIHAWK1 wrote:
    theENGLISHseahawk wrote:All these people saying 'NO' to all of these guys...

    You do realise we're holding a backup QB work out don't you?

    One of these guys probably gets signed and wins the opportunity to compete with Portis and a rookie to be the backup during camp.

    We're not looking for a franchise quarterback here. We're looking for a guy who can pull off a cap & clipboard combo.


    Curtis Painter was supposed to hold a clipboard and then Peyton got hurt and Polian got fired.



    Is Russell Wilson a 36-year-old with a bad neck?

    It's a redundant comparison. I could just as easily point at Graham Harrell and say... "Oh look, Green Bay didn't need him."

    People need to stop getting their panties in a twist about the backup role.

    hawksfansinceday1 wrote:None of the above please.


    What would you propose then?

    Not even have a veteran backup competing in camp? Because this is what's available.
    User avatar
    theENGLISHseahawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 8162
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:13 am


  • scutterhawk wrote:
    BlueTalon wrote:I'd be OK with bringing Seneca back. I agree with NYCoug, he drove me nuts by running the ball out of bounds for a loss of yards. And let's not forget he has a learning disability of some sort. That said, he did a good job taking over for an injured Matt in 2008 I believe, and he is a great athlete. I wouldn't have a problem with him coming in as a backup the same way I wouldn't have a problem with T-Jack coming in as a backup.

    Wasn't it T-Jack in 2011 that ran out of bounds and losing a bunch of yards on a 4th down also?


    He didn't run out of bounds, he threw it out of bounds on the last play of the game down less than a TD, when at the very least he could of chucked it to the end zone for a slim chance at a victory. I'm SO glad those days are behind us...
    User avatar
    PlinytheCenter
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2878
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:47 pm
    Location: In Bruges


  • You guys realize that a "great" backup doesn't usually stay on the team for that long, right? If a backup excels at his job, then eventually another team will want him and then we begin the cycle again.
    Image
    "I'm not the type to let a sleeping giant lie. I wake up the giant, slap him around, make him mad and beat him to the ground. I talk a big game because I carry a big stick." --- All-Pro Stanford Graduate
    User avatar
    Hawken-Dazs
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 600
    Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 5:50 pm


  • garrylt4 wrote:I'd rather draft a young prospect, God forbid something happen but a rookie did ok last year. Seneca does not excite me, 34 years old and never proven he can be a starter. If he could have been he would have.

    Well hell, if we're just throwing numbers out there willy-nilly, then why not say Seneca's 54 years old, and was only good enough to be a backup in a non-fitting WCO.
    Truth is, he is a gamer, who keeps his wheels oiled up (stays in shape), he isn't all beat up, (at age 32) doesn't have the WCO down pat, and never did, THAT is the reason that he wasn't ever considered for being the "Starter".
    Wallace does have the tendency to play with a style that better matches the system that RW is playing.
    Too bad that the NFL came up with a system about 6 years too late for Wallace's skillset.
    No, he's not as fast anymore, but he vying for the Seahawks QB BACKUP position.
    All this teeter-tottering over this issue will be ironed out by Bevel, Schneider, and Carroll, and I'm sure they are considering all their candidates, and will make the right choices, and whoever gets the nod, will still have to "Compete"
    Even if they sign one of these guys, I think they just MIGHT be looking to draft a QB also.
    PS. Seneca still throws an accurate ball, has a nice touch on his passes, and is a great route runner with good hands, and if he can still jump like he did while with the Seahawks? well, let's just say that with all the variables that he brings, that Pete won't overlook what he can mean for trick plays either.
    Last edited by scutterhawk on Sun Apr 07, 2013 2:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    scutterhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3770
    Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 8:48 pm


  • theENGLISHseahawk wrote:
    CALIHAWK1 wrote:
    theENGLISHseahawk wrote:All these people saying 'NO' to all of these guys...

    You do realise we're holding a backup QB work out don't you?

    One of these guys probably gets signed and wins the opportunity to compete with Portis and a rookie to be the backup during camp.

    We're not looking for a franchise quarterback here. We're looking for a guy who can pull off a cap & clipboard combo.


    Curtis Painter was supposed to hold a clipboard and then Peyton got hurt and Polian got fired.



    Is Russell Wilson a 36-year-old with a bad neck?

    It's a redundant comparison. I could just as easily point at Graham Harrell and say... "Oh look, Green Bay didn't need him."

    People need to stop getting their panties in a twist about the backup role.

    hawksfansinceday1 wrote:None of the above please.


    What would you propose then?

    Not even have a veteran backup competing in camp? Because this is what's available.



    Is Jay Cutler?
    User avatar
    CALIHAWK1
    *PLATINUM SUPPORTER*
    *PLATINUM SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 9342
    Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 7:00 pm
    Location: Is Everything


  • theENGLISHseahawk wrote:
    CALIHAWK1 wrote:
    theENGLISHseahawk wrote:All these people saying 'NO' to all of these guys...

    You do realise we're holding a backup QB work out don't you?

    One of these guys probably gets signed and wins the opportunity to compete with Portis and a rookie to be the backup during camp.

    We're not looking for a franchise quarterback here. We're looking for a guy who can pull off a cap & clipboard combo.


    Curtis Painter was supposed to hold a clipboard and then Peyton got hurt and Polian got fired.



    Is Russell Wilson a 36-year-old with a bad neck?

    It's a redundant comparison. I could just as easily point at Graham Harrell and say... "Oh look, Green Bay didn't need him."

    People need to stop getting their panties in a twist about the backup role.

    hawksfansinceday1 wrote:None of the above please.


    What would you propose then?

    Not even have a veteran backup competing in camp? Because this is what's available.

    Jason Campbell, but sadly it's too late for that. Colt McCoy is better than any of those guys too IMO. But again, too late (and it bugs me that the Whiners beat us to him). I also proposed Matt Moore before Miami re-signed him. In fact he was my first choice. I get that this is the backup we're discussing and if Russ stays healthy it's irrelevant but I would like to have seen a more proactive approach to trading Flynn and getting a better option for the backup in sooner. Since that didn't happen, at this point I am more interested in a rookie that's ready for the role than these other guys. If I absolutely MUST choose from that list, it would be Thigpen.
    Last edited by hawksfansinceday1 on Sun Apr 07, 2013 4:05 pm, edited 3 times in total.
    From the white sands
    To the canyon lands
    To the redwood stands
    To the barren lands

    ImageImage

    Proud member of the 38 club
    User avatar
    hawksfansinceday1
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 12775
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:38 am
    Location: Vancouver, WA


  • I would gladly take T-Jack over any of these clowns. Too bad he isn't available right now.
    User avatar
    CALIHAWK1
    *PLATINUM SUPPORTER*
    *PLATINUM SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 9342
    Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 7:00 pm
    Location: Is Everything


  • No matter who Seattle picks at backup, nobody's going to be able to get anywhere near mitigating Russell Wilson's importance to this offense. If he goes down, we're hosed, to a much greater degree than most teams. The backup QB will simply be the guy who hands off to Lynch while it happens, so frankly this isn't worth getting worried about for me.
    GO HAWKS!!!

    Visit my Seahawks blog at 17power.blogspot.com!

    Follow me on Twitter at @17power
    User avatar
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 11517
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am


  • CALIHAWK1 wrote:I would gladly take T-Jack over any of these clowns. Too bad he isn't available right now.

    T-Jack wasn't even in consideration, and for a good reason.
    scutterhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3770
    Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 8:48 pm


  • Smelly McUgly wrote:This is all well and good, but I hope that these workouts and the Portis signing aren't indicating that Seattle has no interest in EJ Manuel or Matt Scott. I really want one of those two guys in the draft.

    Probably, it's just Schneider doing his due diligence on these guys.


    No, I'd say that there is a high likelihood that one of those 4 IS going to be Wilson's back-up this year. That's not to say that Seattle isn't going to draft E.J. Manuel or Matt Scott either. I believe they are and that once Flynn was traded that finding a quarterback with a similar skillset to Wilson just shot up to #1 on the draft priority list. It's just that you really, honestly and truly don't want a rookie as your back-up for this Seahawks team this year.

    In general, Rookie QB's who are drafted out of the top 10 picks of the 1st Round simply aren't ready to step in and lead an NFL team. They just aren't. Their heads are usually swimming due to the complexities of the offense they are still learning ... getting used to the speed of the NFL ... learning what to do (and what not to) in certain situations, etc. What we saw out of Russell Wilson last season speaks to just how special of a player he truly is. Guys drafted outside of the top 10 in the 1st Round (in general) just don't step in and do what Russell did. Joe Montana (drafted in the 3rd Round in 1980), Brett Favre (drafted in the 2nd Round in 1991), and even Tom Brady (drafted in the 6th Round in 2000) -- NONE of those guys started in their rookie year. Generally, rookie QB's just aren't ready until 2 or 3 years down the road.

    When you're looking for a back-up QB ... I'd say that ideally you're looking for a guy who can keep the ship together and moving in the right direction in case the unthinkable happens ... and your starting QB goes down for an extended period of time (say 4 to 6 games). If I'm the Seahawks, I just don't see anyone in this year's rookie class who I can say definitively, "Yep. He can be the man" in case Wilson goes down. And I'd say that a lot of teams certainly have that opinion, as we've seen how they've been scrounging for whatever viable back-up options they can find.

    Personally, I'm thinking that Manuel and Scott are the two the Hawks are targeting ... and if Scott is still there in the 3rd Round when the Hawks select that he will be the choice there (the most likely scenario IMO). I'm looking at the re-signing of Portis as competition for the 3rd QB spot for whomever the Hawks end up with in this year's draft. Just my take.
    User avatar
    Hawkscanner
    * NET Sage *
     
    Posts: 983
    Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 7:28 am


  • scutterhawk wrote:
    CALIHAWK1 wrote:I would gladly take T-Jack over any of these clowns. Too bad he isn't available right now.

    T-Jack wasn't even in consideration, and for a good reason.



    You are blinded by unjust biased. Look at the records of those in consideration compared to T-Jack. Then ask teammates what they think.
    User avatar
    CALIHAWK1
    *PLATINUM SUPPORTER*
    *PLATINUM SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 9342
    Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 7:00 pm
    Location: Is Everything


  • Seneca Wallace was woefully mis-cast in Holmgren's more pure version of the WCO. He's actually more suited to our current offense IMHO. Mobile, strong armed, he has the physical tools. Mentally, well, that's why he'll be competing for the backup slot if he is signed.

    Hey, it's not that we don't take this search seriously, it's that it's nice to actually not be worried about who starts next year.

    Funny, after all those seasons with people complaining about QB threads, here we have another one, about the #2-3 slots. :laugh:
    Talent can get you to the playoffs.
    It takes character to win when you get there.

    SUPER BOWL XLVIII CHAMPIONS
    User avatar
    sutz
    USMC 1970-77
     
    Posts: 10383
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:41 am
    Location: Monroe, WA


  • The 3 Stooges. Oop's (4)
    The new Santa Clara stadium name?..........Dungaree Dump
    User avatar
    Largent80
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 25025
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:38 pm
    Location: Yes, that is a Bacon Wrapped Turkey


  • CALIHAWK1 wrote:
    scutterhawk wrote:
    CALIHAWK1 wrote:I would gladly take T-Jack over any of these clowns. Too bad he isn't available right now.

    T-Jack wasn't even in consideration, and for a good reason.



    You are blinded by unjust biased. Look at the records of those in consideration compared to T-Jack. Then ask teammates what they think.



    Unjust Biased would also be ignoring that Jackson was on two playoff caliber teams that were capable of winning games in spite of QB play. It is unfair and biased to only want to compare the win/loss record. Farve at an advanced age made pretty much the same Vikings team one of (if not the) best teams in football. Wilson as a rookie did pretty much the same. Based on that you could also ask how many games did Jackson cost the Vikings and Seahawks.

    It's not just about win/loss totals unless your going to count the should haves also.
    The Lion has no interest in the opinion of the sheep.
    RichNhansom
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3027
    Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 7:26 am


  • I'm not crazy about a guy that has lost his job to Jackson in both Minnesota and Buffalo.

    Leinart I think is a waste but Carroll did make him look pretty good once before.

    Wallace I think might be the best overall with obvious limitations but I am actually a little intrigued with the Quinn idea. He is still young enough that he could potentially be developed and with Wilson as a mentor and setting the example of what a real NFL QB looks like, if he was in our system which IMO is very QB freindly, there is a chance we could get him some respect and work him into a trade scenario. I haven't watched anough of his games to know how good or bad he really is but he has been in some pretty bad situations while trying to learn. If he is not shell shocked beyond repair I could see us maybe doing what we did with Jackson and getting some value out of him later. If they can do it with Jackson then anything is possible.
    The Lion has no interest in the opinion of the sheep.
    RichNhansom
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3027
    Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 7:26 am


  • Hawkscanner wrote:
    Personally, I'm thinking that Manuel and Scott are the two the Hawks are targeting ... and if Scott is still there in the 3rd Round when the Hawks select that he will be the choice there (the most likely scenario IMO). I'm looking at the re-signing of Portis as competition for the 3rd QB spot for whomever the Hawks end up with in this year's draft. Just my take.


    Good take on this whole thing. I would be inclined to agree with you except that Portis got a two-year deal. I don't know how it's structured, to be sure, but that indicates that the Seahawks have plans for him to at least some degree. If so, there is only one spot left on this team at QB. I would prefer rolling with Manuel or Scott over any of the guys listed in the subject line of this thread. Heck, Washington got Kirk Cousins coached up enough to do fine taking over for RGIII in limited duty.

    Of course, this is all conjecture pending the next few weeks, but I am desperate to talk Seahawk football and so this is my theory on the freaking QB2 position. :lol:
    "If given the opportunity without fear of incarceration, I would honestly beat the living **** out of Jerry Rice."

    --Internet tough guy HawkWow being a MAN on the internet
    User avatar
    Smelly McUgly
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3754
    Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:30 pm
    Location: God's Country AKA Cascadia AKA The Pacific Northwest


  • Smelly McUgly wrote:Good take on this whole thing. I would be inclined to agree with you except that Portis got a two-year deal. I don't know how it's structured, to be sure, but that indicates that the Seahawks have plans for him to at least some degree. If so, there is only one spot left on this team at QB.


    A lot of camp fodder guys get two or three year deals. Doesn't mean much in the NFL where the non-guaranteed contracts are simply torn up if the player is cut. I don't think the length means anything for Portis one way or the other. He'll still have to compete for a roster spot.
    User avatar
    DavidSeven
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4070
    Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 9:15 am


  • RichNhansom wrote:
    CALIHAWK1 wrote:
    scutterhawk wrote:[quote="CALIHAWK1"]I would gladly take T-Jack over any of these clowns. Too bad he isn't available right now.

    T-Jack wasn't even in consideration, and for a good reason.



    You are blinded by unjust biased. Look at the records of those in consideration compared to T-Jack. Then ask teammates what they think.



    Unjust Biased would also be ignoring that Jackson was on two playoff caliber teams that were capable of winning games in spite of QB play. It is unfair and biased to only want to compare the win/loss record. Farve at an advanced age made pretty much the same Vikings team one of (if not the) best teams in football. Wilson as a rookie did pretty much the same. Based on that you could also ask how many games did Jackson cost the Vikings and Seahawks.

    It's not just about win/loss totals unless your going to count the should haves also.[/quote]

    I won't take to this argument as we won't change each others opinions. Wallace, Lienart, Quinn and Thigpen are not Jacksons caliber but if you want to ignore the obvious that's on you.
    User avatar
    CALIHAWK1
    *PLATINUM SUPPORTER*
    *PLATINUM SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 9342
    Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 7:00 pm
    Location: Is Everything


  • CALIHAWK1 wrote:I won't take to this argument as we won't change each others opinions. Wallace, Lienart, Quinn and Thigpen are not Jacksons caliber but if you want to ignore the obvious that's on you.


    I don't really have anything against TJack, but he and Thigpen were on the same team last year and Thigpen was higher on the depth chart. That being said, I'd also probably rather have Jackson, but I just found the notion of "Jackson caliber" kind of funny. He was a third stringer last year and will likely be third string next year.
    User avatar
    DavidSeven
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4070
    Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 9:15 am


  • DavidSeven wrote:
    CALIHAWK1 wrote:I won't take to this argument as we won't change each others opinions. Wallace, Lienart, Quinn and Thigpen are not Jacksons caliber but if you want to ignore the obvious that's on you.


    I don't really have anything against TJack, but he and Thigpen were on the same team last year and Thigpen was higher on the depth chart. That being said, I'd also probably rather have Jackson, but I just found the notion of "Jackson caliber" kind of funny. He was a third stringer last year and will likely be third string next year.



    It is what it is. I didn't say Super Bowl caliber. I said Jackson caliber. Quinn, Lienart and Wallace arent that. You point out that that Thigpen was higher on t he depth chart last year yet the coach that made that decision was fired, Jackson was resigned and Thigpen was let go, so what does that really mean?
    User avatar
    CALIHAWK1
    *PLATINUM SUPPORTER*
    *PLATINUM SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 9342
    Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 7:00 pm
    Location: Is Everything


  • Smelly McUgly wrote: If so, there is only one spot left on this team at QB.

    Come September, yes. Now? Not so fast. Russ, one-of-the-above FA, Portis, and draftee enter camp. Three men (maybe only two) come out with a job. You can't argue now using September-post final cutdown-logic.

    Many teams go into camp with 4 QB.
    Talent can get you to the playoffs.
    It takes character to win when you get there.

    SUPER BOWL XLVIII CHAMPIONS
    User avatar
    sutz
    USMC 1970-77
     
    Posts: 10383
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:41 am
    Location: Monroe, WA


  • I think Wallace is a definite upgrade to Jackson, He played ok when asked to fill in, pretty close to around 500 for us and that was with a far inferior team to what Jackson had last year. He's no starter but in a simple system with good weapons surrounding him and a stingy defense I think he would do decent if needed.

    If you weren't around when Wallace was here you should o watch his highlights. He's got some skills just not the workaholic student of the game like Wilson.
    The Lion has no interest in the opinion of the sheep.
    RichNhansom
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3027
    Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 7:26 am


  • CALIHAWK1 wrote:
    scutterhawk wrote:
    CALIHAWK1 wrote:I would gladly take T-Jack over any of these clowns. Too bad he isn't available right now.

    T-Jack wasn't even in consideration, and for a good reason.



    You are blinded by unjust biased. Look at the records of those in consideration compared to T-Jack. Then ask teammates what they think.

    Oh hell no,,,, Jackson couldn't beat out Flynn last Year, and Portis has already been re-signed, +, the Seahawks are bringing in a bunch of QB's for tryouts for RW's back-up.
    IF, T-Jack were all that, they'd have kept him last Year, and let Portis walk.
    Just because I don't prefer Jackson over those others, doesn't mean that I don't admire his toughness, and desire to fight through adversities.
    I just don't believe that he's a TD machine, and he took way too long to decide when to get rid of the ball, so long in fact, that he was sacked way more than he should have been.
    scutterhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3770
    Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 8:48 pm


  • scutterhawk wrote:
    CALIHAWK1 wrote:
    scutterhawk wrote:[quote="CALIHAWK1"]I would gladly take T-Jack over any of these clowns. Too bad he isn't available right now.

    T-Jack wasn't even in consideration, and for a good reason.



    You are blinded by unjust biased. Look at the records of those in consideration compared to T-Jack. Then ask teammates what they think.

    Oh hell no,,,, Jackson couldn't beat out Flynn last Year, and Portis has already been re-signed, +, the Seahawks are bringing in a bunch of QB's for tryouts for RW's back-up.
    IF, T-Jack were all that, they'd have kept him last Year, and let Portis walk.
    Just because I don't prefer Jackson over those others, doesn't mean that I don't admire his toughness, and desire to fight through adversities.
    I just don't believe that he's a TD machine, and he took way too long to decide when to get rid of the ball, so long in fact, that he was sacked way more than he should have been.[/quote]


    So who of the 4 named back ups mentioned would you take over Jackson?
    User avatar
    CALIHAWK1
    *PLATINUM SUPPORTER*
    *PLATINUM SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 9342
    Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 7:00 pm
    Location: Is Everything


  • scutterhawk wrote:Oh hell no,,,, Jackson couldn't beat out Flynn last Year, and Portis has already been re-signed, +, the Seahawks are bringing in a bunch of QB's for tryouts for RW's back-up.
    IF, T-Jack were all that, they'd have kept him last Year, and let Portis walk.
    Just because I don't prefer Jackson over those others, doesn't mean that I don't admire his toughness, and desire to fight through adversities.
    I just don't believe that he's a TD machine, and he took way too long to decide when to get rid of the ball, so long in fact, that he was sacked way more than he should have been.

    They were not going to pay TJack his salary + Flynn's, especially with Russell proving himself so early on. Flynn's guaranteed money meant TJack was gone from the get go.
    User avatar
    pinksheets
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2836
    Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2011 3:47 pm
    Location: Seattle


  • if this is REALLY as big a deal as people are making it.
    lets trade up in the draft and get Geno, he'd be a good back up behind RW...
    *sarcasm off*
    NOW
    i know back up qb is important.
    But this offense....not too hard to get the ball to Harvin, Tate, or Rice, Dont feel like that? Give it to lynch...not confident to hand it off or throw deep, Mr. Miller will find his way to the ball around the middle or the sidelines.
    With this team, i think just a capable QB could keep them going.
    so i dont think there is necessarily as wrong choice.
    Find the most capable, make them be handcuffed to RW watching game film. and let them enjoy the ride.
    Shadyhawk182
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 352
    Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 12:57 am


  • Regardless who they swoop up, this team is screwed if Wilson goes down (if it's for the season) Hopefully they can get someone who can win a couple games if he goes out for a few weeks.
    60 percent of the time..........it works........every time
    User avatar
    SoulfishHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3090
    Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:59 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


  • Might get lucky with a
    n undrafted free agent? that's my pick. Then we can trade him to the Chiefs in three years when Andy Reid gets fired and they bring in a new staff.
    Image
    Cassius Marsh is my 2014 Adopt a Pro Bowl Rookie
    User avatar
    Atradees
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2583
    Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 7:22 pm
    Location: South of Heaven


  • Wallace is the best of the 4. Thigpen is the most interesting (which isn't saying much). Leinart has no drive, even Joey Harrington thinks Matt Leinart is a quitter who's too eager to be a career backup (I'm joking). But I think I'd rather have Leinart over Brady Quinn. Quinn was abysmal last season, and if not for an extreme fluke game against Carolina, he would have finished with numbers worse than Ryan Lindley, and Lindley was historically bad. Like Curtis Painter, Brady Quinn is the kind of backup you want if you are hoping for a #1 pick (which hey KC, mission accomplished!).
    User avatar
    kearly
    * Mr Random Thought *
     
    Posts: 11395
    Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:44 am


  • Smelly McUgly wrote:Good take on this whole thing. I would be inclined to agree with you except that Portis got a two-year deal. I don't know how it's structured, to be sure, but that indicates that the Seahawks have plans for him to at least some degree. If so, there is only one spot left on this team at QB. I would prefer rolling with Manuel or Scott over any of the guys listed in the subject line of this thread. Heck, Washington got Kirk Cousins coached up enough to do fine taking over for RGIII in limited duty.

    Of course, this is all conjecture pending the next few weeks, but I am desperate to talk Seahawk football and so this is my theory on the freaking QB2 position. :lol:


    To the idea of going in to the season (a season as a serious Super Bowl contender) with a rookie as your back-up I'd say, "be careful what you wish for."

    Kirk Cousins saw all of 3 regular season games. He went ...

    5 for 9 passes ... 111 yards ... 1 TD ... 2 INT's ... against the Falcons (Lost 17-24)
    2 for 2 passes ... 26 yards ... 1 TD ... against the Ravens (Redskins Won 31-28 in OT)
    26 for 37 passes ... 329 yards ... 2 TD ... 1 INT ... against the Browns (Won 38-21)

    but against us (the Hawks) in the playoffs he went ...

    3 for 10 passes ... 31 yards ... 0 TD ... 0 INT's (Lost 14-24)

    In other words, his team went 1-2 in games he saw any real significant time in ... and really he's the exception to the rule. Rookie QB's (in general) tend to lose far more games than they win.

    I was going to say that a Russell Wilson comes along once every 20 years or so ... but that really and truly isn't accurate. In fact, it's more accurate to say that someone like him has never come along and did what he did ...

    Best Seasons by a Rookie QB All Time (Sorted by TD’s Thrown) [Final 2012 Stats]
    NameYearCompAttComp%YardsTD’sINT’sQB Rating
    1. Russell Wilson201225239364.1%3,1182610100.0
    1. Peyton Manning199832557556.7%3,739262871.2
    2. Cam Newton201131051760.0%4,051211784.5
    3. Andrew Luck201233962754.1%4,374231876.5
    4. Robert Griffin III 201224937566.4%3,100205104.1
    5. Dan Marino198317329658.4%2,21020696.0
    6. Andy Dalton201130051658.1%3,398201380.4
    7. Tom Brady2001*26441363.9%2,84318 1286.5
    8. Sam Bradford201035459060.0%3,512181576.5
    9. Ben Roethlisberger200419629566.4%2,621171198.1
    10. Matt Ryan200826543461.1%3,440161187.7
    11. Joe Montana1980*17627364.5%1,79515987.8
    12. Joe Flacco200825742860.0%2,971141280.3
    13. Brandon Weeden 201229751757.4%3,385141772.6
    14. Ryan Tannehill201228248458.3%3,294121376.1
    15. Warren Moon1984*25945057.6%3,338121476.9
    16. Rick Mirer199327448656.4%2,833121767.0
    17. Charlie Batch199817330357.1%2,17811683.5
    18. Troy Aikman198915529352.9%1,74991855.7
    19. John Elway198312325947.5%1,66371454.9


    *Montana started 1 game in 1979, so while he wasn’t technically a rookie, 1980 was his first season as a starter. Same thing goes for Tom Brady, as he started 1 game in 2000. Warren Moon technically was a rookie by NFL standards, but he had played 6 seasons in the CFL and powered the Edmonton Eskimos to 5 Grey Cup victories.

    Technically, the record books will have Russell Wilson and Peyton Manning tied for most TD's. However, check out his interception numbers and the number of attempts it took him to get to 26 TD's. Fairly impressive body of work there by Wilson. That table also highlights just how special of a rookie QB class this truly is ... and just how much of a passing league this has become.

    Sure it SOUNDS good the idea of bringing in E.J. Manuel or Matt Scott to be Wilson's back-up ... but the reality of it is that IF (and I know it's a Big IF) Wilson goes down for any length of time a rookie will lose far more of those starts than a veteran would. In general, if given 6 starts, a rookie QB (given this Seahawks offense) probably wins only 2 or 3 of those.

    A veteran QB on the other hand (like a Thigpen for example) ... probably wins 4 of those [to say nothing of playoff football games].

    No amigo, I'm totally comfortable with the idea of a Manuel or Scott as our 3rd QB (with an eye on them being the back-up in a year or 2). As the back-up though? I'm feeling a lot more queesy about that idea.


    BTW what David Seven said regarding Camp Fodder contracts is exactly correct. I know a lot of people are all a-twitter over TE David Fells for example. The reality of that is that he MIGHT make the practice squad this year.
    User avatar
    Hawkscanner
    * NET Sage *
     
    Posts: 983
    Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 7:28 am


  • warden wrote:Isn't Grossman available


    That suggestion is gross, man.

    I'd like Wallace out of that group. He is a proven back up QB. I would love EJ Manuel in the Draft but chances are we would have to use a 3rd round pick on him. If he fell to the fourth I would snatch him up in a heart beat. If we don't add through the Draft then I hope whoever we add through FA gets beat out by a much improved Portis in camp/preseason.
    Image

    Anyone want to make me a new signature? I've held out hope long enough.
    95% of the time I'm viewing here and/or posting is being done on a mobile device. Pardon any spelling, punctuation, or grammar mistakes.
    User avatar
    The Yugoslavian
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 879
    Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 9:45 am
    Location: Bellevue, WA


  • Keep in mind that backup QB(s) also have the role of playing the opposing team's starter against OUR starting defense.

    You know, in between decorating their clipboard and modelling headwear for the Pro Shop.

    ____________________________________________________________________________
    "When I became a man I put away childish things. Including the desire to be very grown up."
    ~C.S. Lewis
    User avatar
    HagFaithful
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 169
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:10 am


  • Think about it from this perspective: Percy Harvin is good at compensating for a so so quarterback and Golden Tate is starting to 'get it' when it comes to bailing out his QB. With the weapons at their disposal, I think Bevell could water down the offense and still have a good chance to win. If you thought our O was beastly last year, wait till this group starts to click.
    "I cannot believe this............ I am stunned right now. This is now a rebuilding year for us. Our offense is crap now"

    Blitzer88 regarding trading Percy to the Jets
    User avatar
    HawKnPeppa
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2783
    Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2009 8:01 pm


  • Wallace, Lienart, Quinn, and Thigpen walk into a bar, and the bartender says...
    Image
    User avatar
    SNDavidson
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1442
    Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 3:22 pm


  • Korean Robinson beat you guys by three hours?
    The Lion has no interest in the opinion of the sheep.
    RichNhansom
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3027
    Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 7:26 am


  • Not sure what's up with all the seneca wallace hate.

    The guy did what he could with the team deteriorating around him when he was here before.

    He'd be near the top of my list.
    Image
    User avatar
    Hawknballs
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2877
    Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 10:51 am


  • If they wanted to pay for one of these players why didn't they sign them instead of Portis. Most of those so called QB's are going to want over a million dollars a year and none of them are worth it. Pass on all of them.
    User avatar
    General Manager
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2260
    Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 11:04 pm


  • Pickup Wallace and draft a guy.

    Four into camp - Wilson, Wallace, Portis, and Rookie.

    Can at least one before opening day.

    Rookie is the 'extra' here - not really needed.
    User avatar
    ChiefHawk
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 374
    Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 7:08 am
    Location: Auburn, WA


  • sutz wrote:Seneca Wallace was woefully mis-cast in Holmgren's more pure version of the WCO. He's actually more suited to our current offense IMHO. Mobile, strong armed, he has the physical tools. Mentally, well, that's why he'll be competing for the backup slot if he is signed.

    Hey, it's not that we don't take this search seriously, it's that it's nice to actually not be worried about who starts next year.

    Funny, after all those seasons with people complaining about QB threads, here we have another one, about the #2-3 slots. :laugh:


    I agree with this. Watching Wallace replace Hass in Holmgren's last season was painful, and not Wallace's fault. Holmgren was so stubborn that he tried to make Wallace play the WCO just like Hass instead of being flexible and playing to his strengths.
    Machine-wrapped, with butter?

    Yes, machine-wrapped, WITH BUTTER
    User avatar
    cdallan
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 893
    Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 1:08 am
    Location: Scotland


Next


It is currently Mon Nov 24, 2014 4:48 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Information
  • Who is online