| Author |
Message |
|
hawksmode
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization  Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:22 pm |
|
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:31 am
Posts: 1083
Location: Washington
|
|
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?
|
|
  |
|
 |
|
SeaTown81
|
Post subject: Re: Charlie Whitehurst TRADED TO SEATTLE. Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:23 pm |
|
| * NET Alumni * |
 |
 |
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 9:35 am
Posts: 4047
Location: Seattle, WA
|
|
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.
_________________ LET'S RALLY TO BUILD A NEW HOME
FOR THE SEATTLE SUPERSONICS!SonicsArena.com | #SonicsArena Like on Facebook & follow on Twitter to show support! http://www.facebook.com/sonicsarenahttp://www.twitter.com/sonicsarena
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LAMike1
|
Post subject: Re: Charlie Whitehurst TRADED TO SEATTLE. Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:25 pm |
|
| * NET Sage * |
 |
|
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 10:22 am
Posts: 158
Location: Southern California
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SeaTown81
|
Post subject: Re: Charlie Whitehurst TRADED TO SEATTLE. Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:26 pm |
|
| * NET Alumni * |
|
|
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 9:35 am
Posts: 4047
Location: Seattle, WA
|
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. _________________ LET'S RALLY TO BUILD A NEW HOME
FOR THE SEATTLE SUPERSONICS!SonicsArena.com | #SonicsArena Like on Facebook & follow on Twitter to show support! http://www.facebook.com/sonicsarenahttp://www.twitter.com/sonicsarena
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HAWKNUTZ
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:26 pm |
|
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 4:55 pm
Posts: 558
Location: Puyallup
|
|
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!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
hawkfan68
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:26 pm |
|
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:10 am
Posts: 2642
Location: Sammamish, WA
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
A-Dog
|
Post subject: Re: Charlie Whitehurst TRADED TO SEATTLE. Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:27 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 12:11 pm
Posts: 605
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
hawkfan68
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:28 pm |
|
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:10 am
Posts: 2642
Location: Sammamish, WA
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HAWKNUTZ
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:30 pm |
|
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 4:55 pm
Posts: 558
Location: Puyallup
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TriCHawk
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:30 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
 |
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:52 pm
Posts: 966
Location: Tri-Cities, WA
|
|
...I'm really scared and confused right now...
I don't like this deal.
_________________
"I don't know what you're talking about." GT
|
|
| |
|
|
|
seedhawk
|
Post subject: Re: Charlie Whitehurst TRADED TO SEATTLE. Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:34 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:51 am
Posts: 2257
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sprfunk
|
Post subject: Re: Charlie Whitehurst TRADED TO SEATTLE. Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:34 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 6:57 pm
Posts: 527
|
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
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Thunderhawk
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:37 pm |
|
| NET Rookie |
 |
|
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2009 6:44 pm
Posts: 276
|
|
I am starting to miss Tim Ruskell...
_________________ 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DrinkinTheLimerade
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:38 pm |
|
| NET Rookie |
 |
|
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 7:52 am
Posts: 102
Location: Yelm, WA
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HawksFTW
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:39 pm |
|
| * NET E-Knight * |
 |
|
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 10:06 am
Posts: 3526
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HAWKNUTZ
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:41 pm |
|
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 4:55 pm
Posts: 558
Location: Puyallup
|
|
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
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DrinkinTheLimerade
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:42 pm |
|
| NET Rookie |
|
|
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 7:52 am
Posts: 102
Location: Yelm, WA
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HAWKNUTZ
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:43 pm |
|
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 4:55 pm
Posts: 558
Location: Puyallup
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DrinkinTheLimerade
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:45 pm |
|
| NET Rookie |
|
|
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 7:52 am
Posts: 102
Location: Yelm, WA
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HAWKNUTZ
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:46 pm |
|
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 4:55 pm
Posts: 558
Location: Puyallup
|
|
let's see cleavland gave up a 7th for wallace and almost nothing for JD so how do you compare the 2 deals?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests |
| |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
|
