| Author |
Message |
|
Blitzer88
|
Post subject: Re: Charlie Whitehurst TRADED TO SEATTLE.  Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 2:32 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
 |
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:47 am
Posts: 8208
Location: Pasco, WA
|
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... _________________ 
|
|
  |
|
 |
|
OneLofaTatupu
|
Post subject: Re: Charlie Whitehurst TRADED TO SEATTLE. Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 2:32 pm |
|
| * NET Shrink * |
 |
|
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 10:04 pm
Posts: 1518
Location: Seattle, 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.  (from Seahawks Draft Blog) at least if he does do well, Jake Gyllenhal can star as him in the movie
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TheHawkster
|
Post subject: Re: Charlie Whitehurst TRADED TO SEATTLE. Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 2:32 pm |
|
| * NET Bad Ass * |
 |
|
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:00 am
Posts: 1572
Location: Puyallup
|
I'll be all for this if he goes full mullet! 
_________________
GET YOUR EAR PLUGS READY!!!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SundayNiteBlackout
|
Post subject: Re: Charlie Whitehurst TRADED TO SEATTLE. Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 2:33 pm |
|
| National Guard 09-Present |
 |
|
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2009 12:43 pm
Posts: 1036
Location: Seattle, WA
|
|
Or even the douchey blonde guy from LOST
_________________ 80% of Planet Earth is covered by water.....The rest is covered by EARL THOMAS!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Fox0r
|
Post subject: Re: Charlie Whitehurst TRADED TO SEATTLE. Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 2:35 pm |
|
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 6:30 pm
Posts: 1852
Location: Lynnwood, 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. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nanomoz
|
Post subject: Re: Charlie Whitehurst TRADED TO SEATTLE. Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 2:36 pm |
|
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 1:20 pm
Posts: 4219
Location: UT
|
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
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nsport
|
Post subject: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 2:37 pm |
|
| * NET Sports Handicapper * |
 |
|
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 9:13 am
Posts: 980
|
|
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...
_________________ 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
AbsolutNET
|
Post subject: Re: Charlie Whitehurst TRADED TO SEATTLE. Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 2:37 pm |
|
| * NET X's & O's Guru * |
 |
 |
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 11:24 am
Posts: 6864
Location: PNW
|
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 _________________ 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MontanaHawk05
|
Post subject: Re: Charlie Whitehurst TRADED TO SEATTLE. Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 2:39 pm |
|
| * 17Power Blogger * |
 |
|
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am
Posts: 9789
|
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
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CurryNation
|
Post subject: Re: Charlie Whitehurst TRADED TO SEATTLE. Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 2:40 pm |
|
| NET Rookie |
 |
|
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:49 am
Posts: 163
|
|
The Scroll bar on ESPNNEWS says that we get san diegos 2011 3rd rounder
_________________ 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
iigakusei
|
Post subject: Re: Charlie Whitehurst TRADED TO SEATTLE. Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 2:40 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
|
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 6:14 am
Posts: 711
|
|
I can't wait to hear the press conference
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MontanaHawk05
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 2:40 pm |
|
| * 17Power Blogger * |
|
|
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am
Posts: 9789
|
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
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SundayNiteBlackout
|
Post subject: Re: Charlie Whitehurst TRADED TO SEATTLE. Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 2:41 pm |
|
| National Guard 09-Present |
|
|
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2009 12:43 pm
Posts: 1036
Location: Seattle, WA
|
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!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nanomoz
|
Post subject: Re: Charlie Whitehurst TRADED TO SEATTLE. Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 2:42 pm |
|
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 1:20 pm
Posts: 4219
Location: UT
|
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. 
_________________
“We need to be challenged, ... and we need to be under the gun to respond.” --Pete Carroll
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wizofwest
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 2:44 pm |
|
| NET Rookie |
 |
|
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:06 pm
Posts: 163
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mckinja
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 2:44 pm |
|
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:31 am
Posts: 2797
Location: Auburn, WA
|
|
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.
_________________ 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MontanaHawk05
|
Post subject: Re: Charlie Whitehurst TRADED TO SEATTLE. Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 2:44 pm |
|
| * 17Power Blogger * |
|
|
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am
Posts: 9789
|
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. 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
|
|
| |
|
|
|
seattlesetters
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 2:45 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 3:45 pm
Posts: 564
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HawkFan72
|
Post subject: Re: Charlie Whitehurst TRADED TO SEATTLE. Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 2:45 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
|
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:50 am
Posts: 8189
Location: Antioch, CA
|
|
Guys like Hardesty are looking a lot better for the hawks now that we are at 60.
_________________ 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
hawkfan68
|
Post subject: Re: Charlie Whitehurst TRADED TO SEATTLE. Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 2:46 pm |
|
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:10 am
Posts: 2663
Location: Sammamish, WA
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests |
| |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
|
