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
  • 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: 4038
    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: 2134
    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: 4648
    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: 1996
    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: 4712
    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: 4038
    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: 5528
    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: 3593
    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: 3395
    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: 1140
    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: 2631
    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: 11466
    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: 11466
    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: 2244
    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: 8822
    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: 4648
    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: 1140
    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: 8822
    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: 2584
    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: 1140
    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: 4648
    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: 4648
    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: 4038
    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: 4038
    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: 1357
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:52 pm
    Location: Tri-Cities, WA


  • SeaTown81 wrote:
    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.


    IIRC there is just about 1 full round of picks of extra juniors who declared this year. Ergo, this years draft is packed and next years will be short about 1 full round of would have been seniors. Giving a pick next year in a weakened draft makes sense.
    seedhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2584
    Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:51 am


  • AbsolutNET wrote: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.

    Absolute, that is a good way to looks at it. I am not sold on this years crop of qb's, and would be upset if we spent a first on one.
    "When is the NFL going to start fining receivers for running routes across KAM’S MIDDLE?!?!"
    -bpup33
    User avatar
    Sprfunk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 747
    Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 6:57 pm


  • I am starting to miss Tim Ruskell...
    "It was so loud Derrick Coleman heard it."
    User avatar
    Thunderhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 502
    Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2009 6:44 pm


  • HAWKNUTZ wrote: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.



    Holmy so far has added Delhome and Wallace, I like our chances better. At least we don't know what were getting, I know what the browns are getting. Delhome has shown that he is done and Wallace has shown he's a career backup.
    User avatar
    DrinkinTheLimerade
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 105
    Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 7:52 am
    Location: Seattle


  • HAWKNUTZ wrote: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!


    Considering they consider Kolb to be their next franchise QB, and wanted two first round picks for him, I doubt they would have done a deal like this.


    For what it is worth, really like what the front office is doing so far. I know people are confused, but they are tearing things down and building it back up, with their guys. Rather than trying to appease hold overs, and fit them into the system, they are getting guys they want from the start. Yes some of our well liked players may be on the way out, and some of the compensation packages may seem steep but...In the end all that matters is putting together a successful team. If Whitehurst winds up starting and doing well, the price they paid is a steal. If Whitehurst is a bum, they didn't give up the farm for him anyway. Much better than drafting a rookie QB, paying him a ton of money, and passing on a lot of other quality talent that CAN start right away (LT, S, RB, etc etc). Kudos to the FO for thinking outside the box.
    cboom wrote:Wilson is the worst QB I have seen as a Hawks fan. And I have been around long enough to see them all.
    User avatar
    HawksFTW
    * NET E-Knight *
     
    Posts: 4157
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 10:06 am


  • So I am assuming this means Hass is gone if it is a 2 year deal other wise why only sign him to a 2 year deal? to bench him? hmmm
    User avatar
    HAWKNUTZ
    *SILVER SUPPORTER*
    *SILVER SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 573
    Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 4:55 pm
    Location: Puyallup


  • Thunderhawk wrote:I am starting to miss Tim Ruskell...



    wow, already? Tim Ruskell did not wrong eh? not saying you have to enjoy the new staff but we are dismissing them before the draft even happens? not to say the draft is going to fix it all but just saying that they have been in power for what a month or so now and you are already resorting back to wanting a team full of deion branches? oh well, at least our team would be nice guys.
    User avatar
    DrinkinTheLimerade
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 105
    Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 7:52 am
    Location: Seattle


  • Yeah but what did he have to give up to get them hmmm
    DrinkinTheLimerade wrote:
    HAWKNUTZ wrote: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.



    Holmy so far has added Delhome and Wallace, I like our chances better. At least we don't know what were getting, I know what the browns are getting. Delhome has shown that he is done and Wallace has shown he's a career backup.
    User avatar
    HAWKNUTZ
    *SILVER SUPPORTER*
    *SILVER SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 573
    Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 4:55 pm
    Location: Puyallup


  • HawksFTW wrote:
    HAWKNUTZ wrote: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!


    Considering they consider Kolb to be their next franchise QB, and wanted two first round picks for him, I doubt they would have done a deal like this.


    For what it is worth, really like what the front office is doing so far. I know people are confused, but they are tearing things down and building it back up, with their guys. Rather than trying to appease hold overs, and fit them into the system, they are getting guys they want from the start. Yes some of our well liked players may be on the way out, and some of the compensation packages may seem steep but...In the end all that matters is putting together a successful team. If Whitehurst winds up starting and doing well, the price they paid is a steal. If Whitehurst is a bum, they didn't give up the farm for him anyway. Much better than drafting a rookie QB, paying him a ton of money, and passing on a lot of other quality talent that CAN start right away (LT, S, RB, etc etc). Kudos to the FO for thinking outside the box.



    I agree, I like the idea of not handicapping the organization with a bad long term QB contract ( ala alex smith, jamarcus russel) but I would have liked to seen at least one more year on the contract, 2 years seems very difficult to see what he is made of before we renegotiate a long term contract with him, especially if Matt starts this year then Whitehurst wouldn't even get his start until his contract year.
    User avatar
    DrinkinTheLimerade
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 105
    Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 7:52 am
    Location: Seattle


  • let's see cleavland gave up a 7th for wallace and almost nothing for JD so how do you compare the 2 deals?
    User avatar
    HAWKNUTZ
    *SILVER SUPPORTER*
    *SILVER SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 573
    Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 4:55 pm
    Location: Puyallup


  • A-Dog wrote:
    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.


    Uh, ok.

    Dude, we all can have our opinions. But "WRONG" isn't the way to say you disagree. Your logic isn't any more exact than mine.

    It's arguable what is considered giving up more, 7 spots in the first round or 20 in the 2nd round. I myself rather drop 7 spots in the first round. I don't see it that big a difference. But dropping from the beginning of the 2nd round all the way to the entire (nearly an entire round) is a decent drop.

    And I could care less about the amount of money for the contract. I'm strictly concerned with draft pick compensation with what I was talking about.

    At best I'd say it's a negligible difference. But one that comes down to personal preference. The way you put it, it's not. That thinking I think is more "wrong" than anything.
    User avatar
    SeaTown81
    * NET Alumni *
     
    Posts: 4648
    Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 9:35 am
    Location: Seattle, WA


  • IMO we have got to be the laughing stock of the NFL right now...Just my opinion
    User avatar
    HAWKNUTZ
    *SILVER SUPPORTER*
    *SILVER SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 573
    Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 4:55 pm
    Location: Puyallup


  • I compare that with even though they gave up nothing they got nothing, I would not want JD or Wallace starting next year. Yes Whitehurst hasn't proven anything either but he also hasn't proven that he's a career backup like Wallace or a int machine on the downhill like Delhomme. Yes, Whitehurst is an unknown quantity but what say you about something you get out of the draft? they aren't proven either and could hurt an organization for 5 years or more. I'm hoping we get a Schaub out of the deal, but honestly in 6 months I could very well be regretting giving him the chance.
    User avatar
    DrinkinTheLimerade
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 105
    Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 7:52 am
    Location: Seattle


  • We have a ton of needs in this draft and prob. next years draft so to give up a 2nd and a 3rd next year imo seems steep.
    User avatar
    HAWKNUTZ
    *SILVER SUPPORTER*
    *SILVER SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 573
    Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 4:55 pm
    Location: Puyallup


  • This is fantastic, none of us have a clue about Whitehurst or his value around the NFL, sure he was tendered with a 3rd rounder, does not mean SD wouldn't have matched an offer that gave them a 3rd only.

    I for one will admit I do not even come close to knowing enough about Whitehurst to pretend to judge this deal.

    I am relatively certain that Hasselbeck will not be starting though.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


  • Trade Hasselbeck to the Vikings. Hasselbeck knows the WCO similar to what Minnesota runs. It makes them not worry about Favre and we can get the best value for Hasselbeck with the Vikings as they have the most to gain.
    Wazzu Sucks, Oregon Swallows!!!!
    ludakrishna
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 885
    Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 9:40 am
    Location: Philadelphia, PA


  • HAWKNUTZ wrote:We have a ton of needs in this draft and prob. next years draft so to give up a 2nd and a 3rd next year imo seems steep.



    I absolutey agree with you here, I just have to hope that in 5 years from now we look back at this and say that we got the steal of the decade. Honestly, with this one i'm just going to let them decide if he's whats best for the team because i'm sure between the coaches and scouts they have hopefully done enough research to decide that he's worth a risk.
    User avatar
    DrinkinTheLimerade
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 105
    Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 7:52 am
    Location: Seattle


  • ludakrishna, I think you might have to change your sig now ;(
    User avatar
    DrinkinTheLimerade
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 105
    Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 7:52 am
    Location: Seattle


  • Per the ESPN Ticker. This is what we gave up.

    Seattle - 2010 2nd round pick AND 2011 3rd

    for

    San Diego - 2010 2nd round pick, 2010 3rd round pick, Charlie Whitehurst

    This doesn't seem all that bad.
    Wazzu Sucks, Oregon Swallows!!!!
    ludakrishna
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 885
    Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 9:40 am
    Location: Philadelphia, PA


  • Hey PC/JS, you're doing it wrong! Make trades then smoke crack!!

    :pukeface: :pukeface: :pukeface:
    Football Outsiders wrote:The Seahawks have a third-and-long defensive DVOA of -102.1%. Seriously, when Seattle knows you have to pass, you are completely terribly, violently screwed.
    User avatar
    Chapow
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1311
    Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 4:38 pm


PreviousNext


It is currently Sat Nov 22, 2014 9:13 pm

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE ARCHIVES ]




Information
  • Who is online
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests