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
  • 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: 1446
    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: 3802
    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: 8062
    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: 4686
    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: 11322
    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: 77
    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: 3802
    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: 3802
    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: 19208
    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: 11322
    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: 2128
    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: 3802
    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: 2128
    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: 4639
    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!!!
    User avatar
    TheHawkster
    * NET Bad Ass *
     
    Posts: 1980
    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: 4686
    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: 3802
    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: 5437
    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: 3391
    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: 1139
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:31 am
    Location: Washington


  • they gave Hass more money than that BTW (and that was 9 years ago with a cap in place)... that being said, I still don't like it..
    _____________________

    Where can I find Seahawks98.com???
    User avatar
    Barthawk
    *Bacon Eating Crusader*
    *Bacon Eating Crusader*
     
    Posts: 2593
    Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 9:17 am
    Location: San Antonio, TX by way of Kalispell, MT


  • msnbc.com says that Pete and John has been watching a lot of his film. So they have been doing there homework and i am sure they talked to Norv Turner about him. 8)
    bighawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 556
    Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 11:44 am


  • v1rotv2 wrote: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.


    I am forced to agree that a "wait and see" approach is needed, mostly because this is a QB we're talking about. But hoo boy, I'm gonna miss that #40.
    GO HAWKS!!!

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

    Follow me on Twitter at @17power
    User avatar
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 11322
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am


  • bighawk wrote:msnbc.com says that Pete and John has been watching a lot of his film. So they have been doing there homework and i am sure they talked to Norv Turner about him. 8)


    Mora watched a lot of film on Colin Cole, too.
    GO HAWKS!!!

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

    Follow me on Twitter at @17power
    User avatar
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 11322
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am


  • MontanaHawk05 wrote:That was actually the third time! Sheesh Einstein, can't you do simple arithmetic? ;)


    Arithmetic? What the hell? Are you posting from a 'Little House on the Prairie' episode?
    User avatar
    Seanhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2146
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 2:04 pm


  • SeaTown81 wrote:
    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.


    Yeah you make good points, but like i said earlier, we have to make a move at some point, we still have 3 picks in 2 rounds and now we can use all 3 picks to go somewhere other than QB. Assuming Whitehurst is our starter, anyway. But I cant imagine he wont be
    Image
    User avatar
    AbsolutNET
    * NET X's & O's Guru *
     
    Posts: 8796
    Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 11:24 am
    Location: PNW


  • I would've been cool with swapping 2nd's OR trading next year's 3. And you can throw in some later round crap. But both just seems like overkill. Even had they only given up one, it still would've been a risk due to Whitehurst's unproven nature. SD jobbed the Hawks on this one.

    I just really do not know what the FO is thinking right now. The Brandon Marshall talk to start off FA really made it seem like they wanted to get better now. But every single move since then has been thinking they are in hard core rebuild mode.
    User avatar
    SeaTown81
    * NET Alumni *
     
    Posts: 4639
    Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 9:35 am
    Location: Seattle, WA


  • bighawk wrote:msnbc.com says that Pete and John has been watching a lot of his film. So they have been doing there homework and i am sure they talked to Norv Turner about him. 8)


    practice film? preseason film? or the film Rudy?

    ( my anger is not directed at you btw :th2thumbs: )
    User avatar
    hawksmode
    *SILVER SUPPORTER*
    *SILVER SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 1139
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:31 am
    Location: Washington


  • The other option probably would have been giving up this years 4th and next years 3rd, so something along those lines. I am happy we got him and managed to keep 3 picks in the first two rounds. 20 spots is a long way, but we did get our next QB and didnt have to spend a #6 overall for it. Now we can focus on filling 3 additional spots.
    Image
    User avatar
    AbsolutNET
    * NET X's & O's Guru *
     
    Posts: 8796
    Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 11:24 am
    Location: PNW


  • Well, the reported salary is one thing, however, swapping seconds and a next years third, hmmmmmmm. The swap is really not that onerous to me as this years draft is deep because of all the juniors who declared. Giving a 3rd next year is really like a 4th as next years draft will be watered down as there wont be as many good seniors. In effect we gave up just about what we did when we selected Greene. Correct?
    seedhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2555
    Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:51 am


  • if it is true, why did we swap 2nd rounders on a 3rd round tender? Yeah we do not have one this year but we gave them next years. So why not swap the 2nd if it has to be this year in lieu of the 3rd?
    User avatar
    hawksmode
    *SILVER SUPPORTER*
    *SILVER SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 1139
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:31 am
    Location: Washington


  • Not saying I'd rather have Derek Anderson. Because I wouldn't. But both him and Whitehurst were being looked at by the Hawks and Cardinals. Each got a guy. And the Cardinals didn't give up a single draft pick.

    Three deals now (Seneca, Tapp, Whitehurst), and I really feel that Schneider is getting schooled in these trades. Everybody always falls in love with the idea of hiring a young up and comer to be their GM. But never do they consider the thought of the guy potentially being out of his league when he first takes over.
    User avatar
    SeaTown81
    * NET Alumni *
     
    Posts: 4639
    Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 9:35 am
    Location: Seattle, WA


  • All of this sounds like the same jabber that was going on around here when we "wasted" a second rounder on Tatupu.

    If Whitehurst turns out to be better than Bradford or Claussen this year, we will have gotten a steal. As it is, we've got our QB of the future and we're still holding three picks in the first two rounds. I've got no problem with this. The player we get in the bottom of the second should still be a very good player.
    User avatar
    LAMike1
    * NET Sage *
     
    Posts: 178
    Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 10:22 am
    Location: Southern California


  • seedhawk wrote:Well, the reported salary is one thing, however, swapping seconds and a next years third, hmmmmmmm. The swap is really not that onerous to me as this years draft is deep because of all the juniors who declared. Giving a 3rd next year is really like a 4th as next years draft will be watered down as there wont be as many good seniors. In effect we gave up just about what we did when we selected Greene. Correct?


    HUH? What kind of logic is that? How is dropping an entire round plus a 3rd round draft choice equivalent to one single 3rd rounder? Even if your highly convenient assumptions (juniors can declare next year as well btw) were to prove true. No. Just no.
    User avatar
    SeaTown81
    * NET Alumni *
     
    Posts: 4639
    Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 9:35 am
    Location: Seattle, WA


  • I find it hard to believe that the eagles would not have taken this years 2nd and next years 3rd for kolb but I could be wrong but if they would have I would much rather had kolb!! What a joke of a deal!!! I wonder if we are in neg. with the peirce county bengals now to land a couple of there guys LMAO!
    User avatar
    HAWKNUTZ
    *SILVER SUPPORTER*
    *SILVER SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 573
    Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 4:55 pm
    Location: Puyallup


  • Snohomie wrote:
    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.


    True. The point I was trying to make was that the Mckinja said the Leinart was "behind Warner". IIRC, he did start ahead of Warner in a few games. I believe it was 2006 season. I could be wrong. He then got benched. Same with Smith, who started as a rookie and then was benched. Whitehurst hasn't had an opportunity to start or even be the #2 backup. So the jury is still out on him. Yes, I agree the Seahawks gave up too much to get him.
    User avatar
    hawkfan68
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 3802
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:10 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


  • SeaTown81 wrote:
    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.

    Wrong.

    What we gave up for Hass was equivalent to a late first/early second round pick.

    What we gave up for Whitehurst was equivalent to a late second/early third round pick.

    So we gave up significantly more for Hass. We also gave him more money.

    We didn't have a 3rd so San Diego had leverage here - they were gonna get a third from Arizona already so they had no motive to deal with us for anything less than that. We ended up giving them pretty much close to what they would have gotten if we still had our original 3rd round pick.
    A-Dog
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 617
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 12:11 pm


  • twisted_steel2 wrote:
    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.


    Wasn't Schneider in GB when they drafted Aaron Rodgers in the 1st round? He may not have chose the pick but he was there as part of the management who did.
    User avatar
    hawkfan68
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 3802
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:10 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


  • So I wonder if Paul has the last say on these deals or if he is in the loop and if not then I wonder if he is crappin his pants right now wondering wth was he thinkin not signing holmgen.
    User avatar
    HAWKNUTZ
    *SILVER SUPPORTER*
    *SILVER SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 573
    Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 4:55 pm
    Location: Puyallup


  • ...I'm really scared and confused right now...

    I don't like this deal.
    "I don't know what you're talking about." GT
    User avatar
    TriCHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1351
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:52 pm
    Location: Tri-Cities, WA


PreviousNext


It is currently Wed Oct 22, 2014 2:32 pm

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE ARCHIVES ]




Information
  • Who is online
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests