Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization

A collection of NET's best and most memorable threads. Predictions, debates, laughs, and X's & O's. Rating: PG to NC-17
  • SundayNiteBlackout wrote:
    Blitzer88 wrote:My buddy just called me and said that Brock Huard is just going off about this deal.....


    He thinks it's good or bad?


    I believe he sees it as bad...
    Image
    User avatar
    Blitzer88
    * NET Eeyore *
     
    Posts: 11049
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:47 am
    Location: Pasco, WA


  • SmokinHawk wrote:Well.. He certainly looks the part. 27 isn't that old for a QB. I have a feeling we might be pleasantly surprised here, folks. He's big AND mobile. Great combination.

    Image

    (from Seahawks Draft Blog)



    at least if he does do well, Jake Gyllenhal can star as him in the movie
    User avatar
    OneLofaTatupu
    * NET Shrink *
     
    Posts: 1560
    Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 10:04 pm
    Location: Seattle, WA


  • I'll be all for this if he goes full mullet!


    Image
    GET YOUR EAR PLUGS READY!!!
    DROPPIN' THE NOISE HAMMER AT THE SOUTH ALASKA INSANE ASYLUM
    User avatar
    TheHawkster
    * NET Bad Ass *
     
    Posts: 1969
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:00 am
    Location: Puyallup


  • Or even the douchey blonde guy from LOST
    80% of Planet Earth is covered by water.....The rest is covered by EARL THOMAS!
    Image
    User avatar
    SundayNiteBlackout
    National Guard 09-Present
     
    Posts: 1070
    Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2009 12:43 pm
    Location: Seattle, WA


  • Let's Draft CJ Spiller and Jacoby Ford and then we can rename the team Clemson U when Whitehurst and Spiller take us to the promised land. :sarcasm_off:
    User avatar
    Fox0r
    * NET News Scoop *
    * NET News Scoop *
     
    Posts: 1874
    Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 6:30 pm
    Location: Lynnwood, WA


  • volsunghawk wrote:We did. We moved down from 10 to 17 and gave up a 3rd. Based on the value chart, we gave up the #33 pick for Hass.


    Indeed. I corrected, ^above^, but this thread's like wild fire.

    Moving from 40 to 60 in this draft seems huge to me. Really huge. I loved that high 2nd round pick--at 60, guys like Lamarr Houston, Branond Ghee and Chad Jones are likely gone.
    “We need to be challenged, ... and we need to be under the gun to respond.” --Pete Carroll
    User avatar
    nanomoz
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 4611
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 1:20 pm
    Location: UT


  • Still sitting here a bit shell shocked that we may be looking at the successor starting QB in Seattle with Charlie Whitehurst. Of course there are tons of question marks - but when you really think about it - this is a strong and sound move for the Seahawks.

    First - take a look at the other three teams in our division:
    - Alex Smith - HUGE contract, nothing to show for it
    - Matt Leinart - HUGE contract, nothing to show for it
    - Sam Bradford - will be a HUGE contract, and has NO experience

    At least with this move, you are taking a very well calculated risk that Charlie Whitehurst could be your heir apparent without screwing up your salary structure and you can use those picks you have left to fill some gaping holes. I think it's obvious that Matt Hasselbeck is not in competition for the #1, but one injury and/or ripe opportunity for a substitution to CW is forthcoming. Hence the VERY logical reasoning to dump Seneca Wallace in favor of finding a more future-proof backup.

    Anyway, just thoughts...
    Image
    User avatar
    nsport
    * NET Sports Handicapper *
     
    Posts: 1435
    Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 9:13 am


  • nanomoz wrote:Oh, ya, you're right. My bad. Hass was probably more expensive then.

    However, if we had the option of moving back from 6 to 17, I'd like that better than 40-60.


    I know what you mean, but the 2 first rounders softens the blow quite a bit for me. Thats still 3 picks in the top 60. We will find 3 good prospects in 2 rounds
    Image
    User avatar
    AbsolutNET
    * NET X's & O's Guru *
     
    Posts: 8748
    Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 11:24 am
    Location: PNW


  • nanomoz wrote:
    volsunghawk wrote:We did. We moved down from 10 to 17 and gave up a 3rd. Based on the value chart, we gave up the #33 pick for Hass.


    Indeed. I corrected, ^above^, but this thread's like wild fire.

    Moving from 40 to 60 in this draft seems huge to me. Really huge. I loved that high 2nd round pick--at 60, guys like Lamarr Houston, Branond Ghee and Chad Jones are likely gone.


    ...Damien Williams, Arrelious Benn, Jermaine Gresham, Brandon Lafell, Jahvid Best, Ryan Matthews...
    GO HAWKS!!!

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

    Follow me on Twitter at @17power
    User avatar
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 11264
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am


  • The Scroll bar on ESPNNEWS says that we get san diegos 2011 3rd rounder
    Image
    User avatar
    CurryNation
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 163
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:49 am


  • I can't wait to hear the press conference
    User avatar
    iigakusei
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 872
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 6:14 am


  • Good stuff, but Matt Leinart had a Super Bowl QB to sit behind, and Alex Smith has Rocky Bernard to thank for his career struggles. ;)
    GO HAWKS!!!

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

    Follow me on Twitter at @17power
    User avatar
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 11264
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am


  • jerseyhawk wrote: and second i don;t need to pleasure myself your girlfriend took care of me earlier today , could you plese tell her i want my money back...........


    hahahaha, 1970's, '80's and '90's called......They want their "comeback" back.
    80% of Planet Earth is covered by water.....The rest is covered by EARL THOMAS!
    Image
    User avatar
    SundayNiteBlackout
    National Guard 09-Present
     
    Posts: 1070
    Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2009 12:43 pm
    Location: Seattle, WA


  • MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    nanomoz wrote:
    volsunghawk wrote:We did. We moved down from 10 to 17 and gave up a 3rd. Based on the value chart, we gave up the #33 pick for Hass.


    Indeed. I corrected, ^above^, but this thread's like wild fire.

    Moving from 40 to 60 in this draft seems huge to me. Really huge. I loved that high 2nd round pick--at 60, guys like Lamarr Houston, Branond Ghee and Chad Jones are likely gone.


    ...Damien Williams, Arrelious Benn, Jermaine Gresham, Brandon Lafell, Jahvid Best, Ryan Matthews...


    Were you adding to my list, or naming guys that will be there at 60? I can't tell. :D
    “We need to be challenged, ... and we need to be under the gun to respond.” --Pete Carroll
    User avatar
    nanomoz
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 4611
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 1:20 pm
    Location: UT


  • I guess it seems to be a fair deal. Just appears we got completely pilfered at first look. I don't think I understand the, next year a 3 round.... equals a 4th round today deal, but that seems to hinge on us getting better or worse. Not so matter of fact.
    He better breakout like Schaub did. He isn't 23, he will be 28 when the season starts.
    User avatar
    Wizofwest
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 175
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:06 pm


  • I don't think you can count either Smith or Leinart out yet. Smith is only 25 and made some strides last season. Leinart has been playing behind Warner his entire career. Both could still pan out.
    Image
    User avatar
    Mckinja
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 2804
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:31 am
    Location: Covington, WA


  • nanomoz wrote:
    MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    nanomoz wrote:
    Indeed. I corrected, ^above^, but this thread's like wild fire.

    Moving from 40 to 60 in this draft seems huge to me. Really huge. I loved that high 2nd round pick--at 60, guys like Lamarr Houston, Branond Ghee and Chad Jones are likely gone.


    ...Damien Williams, Arrelious Benn, Jermaine Gresham, Brandon Lafell, Jahvid Best, Ryan Matthews...


    Were you adding to my list, or naming guys that will be there at 60? I can't tell. :D


    Adding. :(

    Two months of stimulating "Second-round RB" draft forum arguments wasted...
    GO HAWKS!!!

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

    Follow me on Twitter at @17power
    User avatar
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 11264
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am


  • I think Hass is in very real competition for #1.

    I'm aslo glad we probably won't be drafting Jimmy Clausen. This move, if for no other reason, has me stoked.
    seattlesetters
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 564
    Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 3:45 pm


  • Guys like Hardesty are looking a lot better for the hawks now that we are at 60.
    Image
    Radish and Cheinhill — Gone, but not forgotten
    User avatar
    HawkFan72
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 11468
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:50 am
    Location: Antioch, CA


  • This deal is an act out of desperation, IMO. SD came away the winners and the Seahawks lost. The Seahawks gave up too much. They should have parted with 4th rd this year and 2nd rounder next year. Instead they move down 20 spots which doesn't make the choice attractive for Denver re: Marshall. There's a big difference between #40 pick and 60. Also it takes them out of many options - Ryan Matthews, Jahvid Best, Damian Williams, etc may not be there at #60 (as mentioned previously by others). I guess they got the QB they wanted hopefully he pans out.
    Last edited by hawkfan68 on Wed Mar 17, 2010 2:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    User avatar
    hawkfan68
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 3627
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:10 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


  • seattlesetters wrote:I'm aslo glad we probably won't be drafting Jimmy Clausen.


    Agreed. This team's luck with 1st Rd QB's has been abysmal over it's history... I even bought a Rick Mirer jersey. The shame.
    Image
    User avatar
    nsport
    * NET Sports Handicapper *
     
    Posts: 1435
    Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 9:13 am


  • Yeah, you don't sound like a "complete doucher" at all...
    Sarlacc, on comparing .NET to Soccer: And why not? It's a bunch of people running around in circles, feigning pain, and never scoring.
    Snohomie
    * NET Draft Guru *
     
    Posts: 3591
    Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 5:06 pm
    Location: Bellingham, WA


  • Okay. Now let's trade him to Denver for Marshall.
    "Some people here have been groomed to accept mediocrity and lame ducks, I'm on board with the vibrato!" -SouthSoundHawk
    "BFS is kicking ass in here." -kearly (8/9/2013)
    User avatar
    bestfightstory
    * Glitter over Knives *
     
    Posts: 8511
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:13 pm


  • Blitzer88 wrote:
    SundayNiteBlackout wrote:
    Blitzer88 wrote:My buddy just called me and said that Brock Huard is just going off about this deal.....


    He thinks it's good or bad?


    I believe he sees it as bad...


    He's also against drafting Clausen and Bradford with the #6 or #14 picks. In that sense, if picking up Whitehurst changes that philisophy, it's good. However, the Seahawks got mauled in this deal. They gave up too much for Whitehurst. Not a good start, Schneider, Carroll, and Co.
    User avatar
    hawkfan68
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 3627
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:10 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


  • Okay. Now let's trade him to Denver for Marshall.
    "Some people here have been groomed to accept mediocrity and lame ducks, I'm on board with the vibrato!" -SouthSoundHawk
    "BFS is kicking ass in here." -kearly (8/9/2013)
    User avatar
    bestfightstory
    * Glitter over Knives *
     
    Posts: 8511
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:13 pm


  • HawkFan72 wrote:Guys like Hardesty are looking a lot better for the hawks now that we are at 60.



    Still loads of options at #60. Ben Tate, Major Wright, Reshad Jones, Corey Wootton... etc etc.

    Not the end of the world unless you really wanted Marshall without spending 6 or 14.
    User avatar
    theENGLISHseahawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7975
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:13 am


  • Okay. Now let's trade him to Denver for Marshall.
    "Some people here have been groomed to accept mediocrity and lame ducks, I'm on board with the vibrato!" -SouthSoundHawk
    "BFS is kicking ass in here." -kearly (8/9/2013)
    User avatar
    bestfightstory
    * Glitter over Knives *
     
    Posts: 8511
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:13 pm


  • bestfightstory wrote:Okay. Now let's trade him to Denver for Marshall.


    Just as riveting the second time!
    Sarlacc, on comparing .NET to Soccer: And why not? It's a bunch of people running around in circles, feigning pain, and never scoring.
    Snohomie
    * NET Draft Guru *
     
    Posts: 3591
    Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 5:06 pm
    Location: Bellingham, WA



  • If we trade Sims, I hope we net a third, doesn't Cleveland have a bunch of them?
    “We need to be challenged, ... and we need to be under the gun to respond.” --Pete Carroll
    User avatar
    nanomoz
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 4611
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 1:20 pm
    Location: UT


  • Snohomie wrote:
    bestfightstory wrote:Okay. Now let's trade him to Denver for Marshall.


    Just as riveting the second time!


    That was actually the third time! Sheesh Einstein, can't you do simple arithmetic? ;)
    GO HAWKS!!!

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

    Follow me on Twitter at @17power
    User avatar
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 11264
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am


  • It is a QB driven league. The FO identified a player they feel can been the QB of the franchise for the next 5-8 years and did what they had to to get him. Did they overpay? Who am I to say, but the people that get paid to run the team feel he was worth the cost so I'll believe he is worth it. Bradford will be gone by our first pick, and Clausen was never going to be a Seahawk. Colt? Back up in this league most likely. Who else do you have behind Hass after this year? They had to get someone to get some time behind Hass before next year. And as for next year's QB crop, who knows who would be available when the Seahawks pick.
    As for the contract length, it is a hedge in case the Seahawks are wrong about Whitehurst so the cap isn't screwed up a few years from now with a bunch of dead money for a player they have since cut. If they are correct about him like they think they will be, that contract will be extended without worry. Money is never an issue for Mr Allen, just so long as it doesn't hose the cap with a bad contract. 2010 is a get out of jail card for a lot of teams with their contracts. The Seahawks are trying to avoid making the same mistakes with contract hits like they did with TR when a player is fading or didn't hit like he was expected to.
    Last edited by The12thMan on Wed Mar 17, 2010 2:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    User avatar
    The12thMan
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 75
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:29 pm
    Location: Seattle


  • Hmmm... the last time we spent a 3rd rounder on a QB didn't work out so well, either... Though I think the "team history" argument is worthless unless the same people are doing the drafting.

    I like that we're no longer completely desperate for a QB... but I really hope CW is the answer there, because if he doesn't end up being a good starter for us we got ripped off...
    Sarlacc, on comparing .NET to Soccer: And why not? It's a bunch of people running around in circles, feigning pain, and never scoring.
    Snohomie
    * NET Draft Guru *
     
    Posts: 3591
    Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 5:06 pm
    Location: Bellingham, WA


  • I like this move way better than drafting one of the QB's in this years draft. At least if he doesn't work out they aren't on the hook for 50 million guaranteed!
    The only people that really know what they got are the Chargers...But I'm confident that the GM and coach know something the rest of us don't.
    They are going to cull more of Ruskells mistakes before they are done, I believe they will get more picks before the draft.
    Now if they had signed McNabb or Vick to this same deal I would be pissed!
    No one on here really knows what will happen, but I like these moves better than over paying for washed up, broken down players from other teams...
    Like has been done the last five years.
    User avatar
    Wartooth
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 999
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 12:29 pm


  • bestfightstory wrote:Okay. Now let's trade him to Denver for Marshall.


    That sure makes a whole lot of sense, since Denver traded for Brady Quinn earlier in the week. They still have Kyle Orton on the roster. So why would they want Charlie boy?

    On a side note, I hope Charlie W. is better than the last Charlie the Hawks had at QB. You know, Charlie Frye.
    User avatar
    hawkfan68
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 3627
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:10 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


  • MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    Snohomie wrote:
    bestfightstory wrote:Okay. Now let's trade him to Denver for Marshall.


    Just as riveting the second time!


    That was actually the third time! Sheesh Einstein, can't you do simple arithmetic? ;)


    My Econ final says no.
    Sarlacc, on comparing .NET to Soccer: And why not? It's a bunch of people running around in circles, feigning pain, and never scoring.
    Snohomie
    * NET Draft Guru *
     
    Posts: 3591
    Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 5:06 pm
    Location: Bellingham, WA


  • nanomoz wrote:If we trade Sims, I hope we net a third, doesn't Cleveland have a bunch of them?


    Sims was a 4th round pick. That's what the Hawks would receive if he signed elsewhere and the Hawks didn't match. Sims had a good year (last year) but I doubt anyone would give anything higher than a 4th rounder for him.
    Last edited by hawkfan68 on Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    User avatar
    hawkfan68
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 3627
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:10 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


  • Rob Sims deal is looking good right about now, three trades in one week? lets get it done
    Image
    3elieve
    User avatar
    Throwdown
    * NET Baller *
     
    Posts: 19137
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:02 am
    Location: Graham, WA


  • Throwdown wrote:Rob Sims deal is looking good right about now, three trades in one week? lets get it done


    I don't care how stupid I look, I will be seriously tempted to start the "Official Fire Pete Carroll Bandwagon" if PC insists on opening up another hole. Must we have a team that is 90% rookies?
    GO HAWKS!!!

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

    Follow me on Twitter at @17power
    User avatar
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 11264
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am


  • I don't like it, I think the Seahawks gave up way too much for him. Hopefully he turns out to be great but my initial thoughts are that I don't like it (not him but what what the Hawks had to give up for him).

    I think this also means that Charlie may be the starter, even though the FO will state that Hass still is, they will say "Charlie will challenge for the starting spot".
    Image Image
    User avatar
    AF_Hawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2076
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:18 pm
    Location: Marysville, WA


  • AF_Hawk wrote:I don't like it, I think the Seahawks gave up way too much for him. Hopefully he turns out to be great but my initial thoughts are that I don't like it (not him but what what the Hawks had to give up for him).

    I think this also means that Charlie may be the starter, even though the FO will state that Hass still is, they will say "Charlie will challenge for the starting spot".


    Maybe Whitehurst pushes Hasselbeck, which he hasn't had since 2004. A QB behind him that can push him to be at his best.
    User avatar
    hawkfan68
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 3627
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:10 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


  • hawkfan68 wrote:
    AF_Hawk wrote:I don't like it, I think the Seahawks gave up way too much for him. Hopefully he turns out to be great but my initial thoughts are that I don't like it (not him but what what the Hawks had to give up for him).

    I think this also means that Charlie may be the starter, even though the FO will state that Hass still is, they will say "Charlie will challenge for the starting spot".


    Maybe Whitehurst pushes Hasselbeck, which he hasn't had since 2004. A QB behind him that can push him to be at his best.



    I'm all for that, but either way I think the Hawks gave up too much to not have him start.

    But let me just say I will definitely give him a chance before I jump too far into anything.
    Last edited by AF_Hawk on Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    Image Image
    User avatar
    AF_Hawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2076
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:18 pm
    Location: Marysville, WA


  • AbsolutNET wrote:This is less than we gave up for Hass, no?


    Not exactly. That trade was Hass for a 3rd rounder and swapping of 1st rounders. The Hawks dropped from 10 to 17 and gave up their 3rd that year (pick 72).

    The trade essentially ended up Hass & pick 17 (Steve Hutchinson) for pick 10 (Jamal Reynolds) and pick 72 (Torrance Marshall).

    So actually, it's somewhat comparable. But to me dropping 20 spots in the 2nd round is worse than dropping 7 spots in the 1st round. Add to that the fact that you're trading a future 3rd, which is going to hit you doubly a year from now (I HATE TRADING FUTURE PICKS). I'd take the Hass trade over this one. Not to mention the fact that Holmgren knew a lot more about what he was trading for. That, and the fact that Hass actually looked quite good in preseason.
    Last edited by SeaTown81 on Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    User avatar
    SeaTown81
    * NET Alumni *
     
    Posts: 4629
    Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 9:35 am
    Location: Seattle, WA


  • If the Hawks dont the 1st round QB's in the draft this year, its alot less risk than spending it on #6 or #14 and $30 million.
    GET YOUR EAR PLUGS READY!!!
    DROPPIN' THE NOISE HAMMER AT THE SOUTH ALASKA INSANE ASYLUM
    User avatar
    TheHawkster
    * NET Bad Ass *
     
    Posts: 1969
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:00 am
    Location: Puyallup


  • hawkfan68 wrote:
    nanomoz wrote:If we trade Sims, I hope we net a third, doesn't Cleveland have a bunch of them?


    Sims was a 4th round pick. That's what the Hawks would receive if he signed elsewhere and the Hawks didn't match. Sims had a good year (last year) but I doubt anyone would give anything higher than a 4th rounder for him.


    Der. I knew that. No way we'll get more than a 4th. In fact, after looking at the Tapp trade, we'll probably get a 6th (Tapp was a 2nd round tender).
    “We need to be challenged, ... and we need to be under the gun to respond.” --Pete Carroll
    User avatar
    nanomoz
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 4611
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 1:20 pm
    Location: UT


  • Mckinja wrote:I don't think you can count either Smith or Leinart out yet. Smith is only 25 and made some strides last season. Leinart has been playing behind Warner his entire career. Both could still pan out.


    You can't count them out because they are still young. However, both Leinart and Smith had opportunities to grab the starting spot and failed to do so.
    User avatar
    hawkfan68
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 3627
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:10 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


  • Wizofwest wrote:I guess it seems to be a fair deal. Just appears we got completely pilfered at first look. I don't think I understand the, next year a 3 round.... equals a 4th round today deal, but that seems to hinge on us getting better or worse. Not so matter of fact.
    He better breakout like Schaub did. He isn't 23, he will be 28 when the season starts.


    True he isn't 23, but he's young enough that if he does work out and become a legitimate starter, he buys the organization time(4-6 years maybe) to find another young QB to groom.

    Schneider is already on record as saying his philosophy is drafting lower round QB's every year, some will work out, some will be traded. It buys them time to start this system, I just think when they got here, they were like, "Whoa, Hass is about done, Seneca is not going to work, and who is this Teel guy?"

    Maybe in 5 years, teams will be trading for our backup QB's that we groom. Maybe CW is that bridge we need.
    Last edited by twisted_steel2 on Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    So you think you can tell Heaven from Hell, blue skies from pain. Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail? A smile from a veil?
    User avatar
    twisted_steel2
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5357
    Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 9:41 am
    Location: Ballard


  • hawkfan68 wrote:
    Mckinja wrote:I don't think you can count either Smith or Leinart out yet. Smith is only 25 and made some strides last season. Leinart has been playing behind Warner his entire career. Both could still pan out.


    You can't count them out because they are still young. However, both Leinart and Smith had opportunities to grab the starting spot and failed to do so.


    And both of them are going into 2010 as starters...

    Pretty sure both are younger than Whitehurst, too, for that matter.
    Sarlacc, on comparing .NET to Soccer: And why not? It's a bunch of people running around in circles, feigning pain, and never scoring.
    Snohomie
    * NET Draft Guru *
     
    Posts: 3591
    Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 5:06 pm
    Location: Bellingham, WA


  • Grading this move either way is premature. If Whitehurst is a bust then it was a bad deal. If he is successful it will be a brilliant move. I do know that no QB that will be picked in the first round has thrown a pass in the NFL and would have cost us a ton.
    User avatar
    v1rotv2
    *TOP 5 SUPPORTER*
    *TOP 5 SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 3385
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:32 am
    Location: The Open Road


  • The FO..( whoever made the decision ) has to look like idiots right now to the rest of the league ( and most of us ). :pukeface:

    $10 mil for an unproven player?

    But...if they were to get Claussen, they would have paid an unproven rookie closer to $30 mil. So we could look at it like that and this is an uncapped year.

    I think swapping the 2nd round pick ( which is close to a 1st ) makes me mad the most...and then a 3rd next year ( which will be in the top 5 of the 3rd round ) NICE :evil:

    I do not agree with one move they have done this offseason. ( so far ) :shock: Tapp was one thing...but this gets a big :187734:
    User avatar
    hawksmode
    *SILVER SUPPORTER*
    *SILVER SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 1138
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:31 am
    Location: Washington


PreviousNext


It is currently Tue Sep 23, 2014 2:41 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE ARCHIVES ]




Information
  • Who is online
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests