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
  • 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: 1138
    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: 4629
    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: 4629
    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: 3613
    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: 3613
    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: 1341
    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: 2529
    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: 717
    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: 500
    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: 4629
    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: 863
    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: 863
    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: 1283
    Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 4:38 pm


  • A-Dog wrote: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.


    I disagree for one reason: Steve Hutchinson.

    When you compare what Seattle gave up in 2001 to what they gave up in 2010, you need to take into account the quality of the player taken with the lower pick. We dropped from the 10th pick to the 17th and got a steal. Hutchinson could have been drafted 10th overall and nobody would have batted an eye, yet we traded down and still wound up with a HOF offensive lineman. The trade cost less than it would have otherwise because Seattle ended up with a d@mned good player.

    Now, maybe Seattle is going to find a steal of a player at the 60th pick, someone who would have been worth taking at #40. Odds are, however, they won't. We struck gold 9 years ago and we aren't as likely to this year, and unless we do I think we gave up more this year than 2001 as a result.

    EDIT: unless the ESPN ticker is right and we got SD's 3rd this year as part of the deal, in which case this year's trade looks a lot better.
    User avatar
    Shadowhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 1266
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:05 am


  • if we got a 3rd this year out of it as well then that totally changes everything. I'm absolutely for it if that is the case.
    User avatar
    DrinkinTheLimerade
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 105
    Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 7:52 am
    Location: Seattle


  • DrinkinTheLimerade wrote:if we got a 3rd this year out of it as well then that totally changes everything. I'm absolutely for it if that is the case.


    I agree. I just saw it again on the bottom ticker. Waiting for it to be in writing before I get all excited.
    Wazzu Sucks, Oregon Swallows!!!!
    ludakrishna
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 863
    Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 9:40 am
    Location: Philadelphia, PA


  • It's quite clear from this trade that Tim Ruskell never left VMAC. No, what happened was that he got some cosmetic surgery to make himself look like Pete C. Next, TR and Lewieke (yes, he's in on this too -- might have even masterminded the whole thing) lured the poor coach Pete up to Seattle, knocked him out and they are now holding him in a cell underneath VMAC while TR pretends to be Carroll.

    Do they honestly think we're dumb enough to fall for the old switch the bad GM with beloved coach from LA routine? I say we call the FBI right now and blow the lid off this thing right now. Maybe that we we'll get our high second rounder and next year's third back.
    Northhawk
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 197
    Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 10:34 am


  • SeaTown81 wrote: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.

    There are some generally accepted value principles ("The Chart") that I was going by - it wasn't my own logic or opinion.

    Also, with Hass we gave up a current year #3 which the NFL - whether you think they should or not - values a round higher than a future #3 pick.
    A-Dog
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 617
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 12:11 pm


  • Shadowhawk wrote:
    A-Dog wrote: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.


    I disagree for one reason: Steve Hutchinson.

    When you compare what Seattle gave up in 2001 to what they gave up in 2010, you need to take into account the quality of the player taken with the lower pick. We dropped from the 10th pick to the 17th and got a steal. Hutchinson could have been drafted 10th overall and nobody would have batted an eye, yet we traded down and still wound up with a HOF offensive lineman. The trade cost less than it would have otherwise because Seattle ended up with a d@mned good player.

    Now, maybe Seattle is going to find a steal of a player at the 60th pick, someone who would have been worth taking at #40. Odds are, however, they won't. We struck gold 9 years ago and we aren't as likely to this year, and unless we do I think we gave up more this year than 2001 as a result.

    EDIT: unless the ESPN ticker is right and we got SD's 3rd this year as part of the deal, in which case this year's trade looks a lot better.

    The quality of the player(s) chosen is irrelevant, as far as the value of draft picks goes. The value is based on the picks, not the quality of the scouting departments. If you're going to make that argument then these kinds of trades can't be evaluated until 10 years down the road when we know how good all the players are going to turn out.
    A-Dog
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 617
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 12:11 pm


  • DrinkinTheLimerade wrote:ludakrishna, I think you might have to change your sig now ;(


    Is this true, or did ESPN just make a typo?
    Image Image
    User avatar
    AF_Hawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2075
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:18 pm
    Location: Marysville, WA


  • I need a drink.
    Remembering rookies will play like rookies, since 2012.
    User avatar
    JerHawk81
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1460
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:13 am
    Location: Portland, OR


  • Alright well knowing now that we get there 3rd this year I guess it doesn't seem so bad, I just hope we fill those needs and don't piss them away. I'm still curious what's going to happen with the starting job with Hass still around.
    User avatar
    HAWKNUTZ
    *SILVER SUPPORTER*
    *SILVER SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 573
    Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 4:55 pm
    Location: Puyallup


  • ahh looks like he was quick about changing it now what I said doesn't make sense, he had a pic of clausen in his sig.
    User avatar
    DrinkinTheLimerade
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 105
    Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 7:52 am
    Location: Seattle


  • If the Seahawks did get a third in return then that totally changes my opinion on the trade. Wait and see I guess till everything is final...
    Image Image
    User avatar
    AF_Hawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2075
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:18 pm
    Location: Marysville, WA


  • warner28 wrote:sure he was tendered with a 3rd rounder, does not mean SD wouldn't have matched an offer that gave them a 3rd only.


    This is the key - had SD matched, and there's no saying they wouldn't - we'd have squat right now. At least our FO got the guy they wanted.

    As the details are firmed up on the deal, still having a 2nd this year and still having a 3rd next year isn't too shabby for getting the guy the organization showed the most interest in. Had SD matched the offer, we would have been in a much more uncomfortable position come draft day.
    Last edited by nsport on Wed Mar 17, 2010 4:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    Image
    User avatar
    nsport
    * NET Sports Handicapper *
     
    Posts: 1435
    Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 9:13 am


  • ludakrishna wrote: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.


    If that is true I change my opinion and say it was a decent trade, not great, but not bad either.
    User avatar
    razor150
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1815
    Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 8:22 am


  • I'm watching ESPNews right now, but not seeing anything on the bottomline about this trade either way.

    Really hoping that report about getting back a 2010 3rd is accurate, but that one report is all I'm hearing that from at this time. Anyone know what pick that would be in the 3rd this year?
    User avatar
    Joshoeuh
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 145
    Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 3:53 pm
    Location: Pikeville, KY


  • why do we want this guy? hes barely taken any regular season snaps at all if any
    Image
    User avatar
    Minne
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1118
    Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 2:30 pm
    Location: Camano Island


  • ha....its amazing what happens when you go for a beer on st, patties day.
    Last edited by Largent80 on Wed Mar 17, 2010 4:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    Image

    R.I.P. Brother Les, I'll always know you as Pithy Radish.
    User avatar
    Largent80
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 23529
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:38 pm
    Location: NFL WORLD CHAMPIONS 2013-2014


  • Is that beer "rave green"?
    Image
    User avatar
    nsport
    * NET Sports Handicapper *
     
    Posts: 1435
    Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 9:13 am


  • Largent80 wrote:ha....its amazing what happens when you go for a beer on st, patties day.


    Its green, but Rave green?.....maybe
    Last edited by Largent80 on Wed Mar 17, 2010 4:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    Image

    R.I.P. Brother Les, I'll always know you as Pithy Radish.
    User avatar
    Largent80
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 23529
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:38 pm
    Location: NFL WORLD CHAMPIONS 2013-2014


  • Well now on ESPN News side bar (not seeing anything on the scroller) it says we swapped 2nd rounders and WE get the Chargers 2011 3rd rounder...so basically I don't think they know what's really going on. I really hope we get their 3rd rounder this year though. It would make this a bit more palatable.
    Zeppe
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 12
    Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 2:37 pm


  • my bar today was putting food coloring in beer. lol
    Image
    User avatar
    Minne
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1118
    Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 2:30 pm
    Location: Camano Island


PreviousNext


It is currently Sun Sep 21, 2014 4:10 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE ARCHIVES ]




Information
  • Who is online
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest