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
  • I think Matt is done, but holy crap, that's a hefty price for a journeyman QB. The difference between early second round and late second round is huge in this draft.
    GO HAWKS!!!

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

    Follow me on Twitter at @17power
    User avatar
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 11527
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am


  • We traded a 4th rounder (equivalent to a 3rd next year) and dropped 20 spots in the second (a difference of 200 points per the value chart = to the 78th pick overall, which is a 3rd rounder). I think we overpaid considering this guy is completely unproven.
    Image
    User avatar
    Mckinja
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 2805
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:31 am
    Location: Covington, WA


  • Wonder how this affects us still chasing Marshall since we have now ridded ourselves of our near 1st round pick.
    User avatar
    DrinkinTheLimerade
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 105
    Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 7:52 am
    Location: Seattle


  • I'm baffled.
    _______________________
    Remember, it's all for fun.
    User avatar
    Hawkstorian
    * NET Staff *
     
    Posts: 2919
    Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 11:19 am
    Location: Spokane


  • not pleased with this deal whatsoever...
    _____________________

    Where can I find Seahawks98.com???
    User avatar
    Barthawk
    *Bacon Eating Crusader*
    *Bacon Eating Crusader*
     
    Posts: 2632
    Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 9:17 am
    Location: San Antonio, TX by way of Kalispell, MT


  • Matt will have to compete to start now. :thfight7:
    I like the player and I want to bring him in,,
    ,,just show me the Starfax.
    User avatar
    woofu
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 575
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 3:11 am


  • Seems a bit steep for someone to backup Matt, so I'm gonna assume that he's the starter.
    I hate Tim Ruskell.
    User avatar
    Trrrroy
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2873
    Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 9:24 am


  • It's a big risk to put this kind of investment in a guy when he hasn't shown it on the field, but I think it's exciting to finally have the guy that our front office thinks will be our next franchise QB on the roster. It'll be fun to see what happens with this.
    User avatar
    Rat
    * NET Cynic *
     
    Posts: 3592
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:42 pm
    Location: St. Louis, MO


  • I agree Matt is done with this franchise. This move doesn't make any sense unless Whitehurst is coming to be the starter. Guys like Lefevour and Tebow could have been had for less as developmental QBs.
    Tall men come down to my height when I hit 'em in the body.

    Jack Dempsey
    User avatar
    Fuzzman55
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1578
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 3:10 pm


  • If he isnt the starter in Week 1 - Carroll and Schneider should be fired.
    User avatar
    iigakusei
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 905
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 6:14 am


  • smh booooooooooo this guy better be the second coming or imma hate him til hes off the team
    Image
    3elieve
    User avatar
    Throwdown
    * NET Baller *
     
    Posts: 19292
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:02 am
    Location: Graham, WA


  • The good news is that we still have the same number of picks this year. The bad news is that's a pretty steep price. Seems to suggest to me that they're seriously looking at Whitehurst as starter material. I'm starting to think that they'll be quietly shopping Hass around between now and the draft.
    Image

    Super Bowl XLVIII Champions
    User avatar
    volsunghawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 8329
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:20 am
    Location: Right outside Richard Sherman's house


  • Agreed with everyone, way too much compensation, what were they thinking.
    User avatar
    the ditch
    *TOP 5 SUPPORTER*
    *TOP 5 SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 1610
    Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 8:05 am
    Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada


  • The thing that is particularly strange with this is the report that we are signing him to a 2-year deal. If they think he is the future QB for the team, why would this only be a 2-year deal?
    User avatar
    chihawk
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 369
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:38 pm


  • This guy better be the 2nd coming of Dan Marino.

    I much would've preferred we give up say, our 4th and 5th round picks this year. I seriously think they overpaid.
    Image
    Sturm
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2345
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 3:11 pm


  • Yeah, really... if we gave up this much with the intentions of Hasselbeck being our starter... I won't go as far as to say I lost all trust in PC/Schneider, but it'd be hanging by a thread.

    I am excited to get someone new in there. Hopefully he's the right guy.
    User avatar
    ErikG803
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 978
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 2:53 pm


  • chihawk wrote:The thing that is particularly strange with this is the report that we are signing him to a 2-year deal. If they think he is the future QB for the team, why would this only be a 2-year deal?


    That is the biggest question...it makes no sense for a two year deal.
    User avatar
    iigakusei
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 905
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 6:14 am


  • chihawk wrote:The thing that is particularly strange with this is the report that we are signing him to a 2-year deal. If they think he is the future QB for the team, why would this only be a 2-year deal?


    That's the thing. We've given up high draft picks for only 2 years of a guy who won't even start the first year.
    _______________________
    Remember, it's all for fun.
    User avatar
    Hawkstorian
    * NET Staff *
     
    Posts: 2919
    Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 11:19 am
    Location: Spokane


  • Mckinja wrote:We traded a 4th rounder (equivalent to a 3rd next year) and dropped 20 spots in the second (a difference of 200 points per the value chart = to the 78th pick overall, which is a 3rd rounder). I think we overpaid considering this guy is completely unproven.


    According to Sando's article we gave up approx 270 points, which he puts as a end of the Second round pick. So low 2nd to mid-3rd is the range. Looking worse case, the team gave up to 2nd round value for Charlie's rights. At this point either is steep considering, so it doesn't bode well for the FO so far. I dread what the Marshall deal will end up looking like.
    Image
    Leon Washington 2010-2012 Red Bryant 2008-2013 Chris Clemons 2010-2013 Golden Tate 2010-2013
    Brandon Browner 2011-2013 Breno Giacomini 2011-2013 - Gone but not forgotten.
    R.I.P Les "PithyRadish" Norton 9/13/2014
    User avatar
    drdiags
    * The Doc *
    * The Doc *
     
    Posts: 9420
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:33 am
    Location: Covington, Washington


  • the ditch wrote:Agreed with everyone, way too much compensation, what were they thinking.


    They were probably thinking that Hass sucks, and Whitehurst has the ability to be a starter. I hope they're right, at least about Whitehurst.
    I hate Tim Ruskell.
    User avatar
    Trrrroy
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2873
    Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 9:24 am


  • Man, most of these moves look really suspect.

    I really hope Carroll and Co. know what they're doing. I'm willing to give them a shot, see how this all looks on the field... But these moves are head scratchers.
    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



  • Trrrroy wrote:
    the ditch wrote:Agreed with everyone, way too much compensation, what were they thinking.


    They were probably thinking that Hass sucks, and Whitehurst has the ability to be a starter. I hope they're right, at least about Whitehurst.


    Fair enough. I guess we'll find out if he has the ability to be a starter or not.
    User avatar
    the ditch
    *TOP 5 SUPPORTER*
    *TOP 5 SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 1610
    Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 8:05 am
    Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada


  • Un-proven and hes not that young... I don't get it.
    User avatar
    RodeoChihuahua
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 30
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 12:57 am
    Location: Seattle


  • With a 2 year deal they don't think he is the future. They are taking a flyer out on him, but they aren't committing to him. They paid to much to get him. Starting to wonder if these guys know what they are doing. At this rate we will probably get trade our 6th and a pick next year for Marshall.
    User avatar
    razor150
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1854
    Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 8:22 am


  • The more I think about it, the more I think we've been utterly hosed.

    Man, that's expensive as hell. Wow. Dropping from 40 to 60 seems huge if we were going to wait for an OT or a safety.

    :vomit:
    “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: 4717
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 1:20 pm
    Location: UT


  • Hawkstorian wrote:
    chihawk wrote:The thing that is particularly strange with this is the report that we are signing him to a 2-year deal. If they think he is the future QB for the team, why would this only be a 2-year deal?


    That's the thing. We've given up high draft picks for only 2 years of a guy who won't even start the first year.


    Maybe it's a two-year extension to the tender he signed...making it at least a three-year deal. If not and Matt ends up starting this year, they plan on handing it over to Charlie when he has one year left....This makes no sense whatsoever.
    User avatar
    chihawk
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 369
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:38 pm


  • It is only 2 years to make sure he is as good as they think and if he is he will get a new deal. I love the trade because they are gonna trade Rob Sims for another draft choice. :3-1:
    bighawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 556
    Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 11:44 am


  • nanomoz wrote:The more I think about it, the more I think we've been utterly hosed.

    Man, that's expensive as hell. Wow. Dropping from 40 to 60 seems huge if we were going to wait for an OT or a safety.

    :vomit:


    Or a DT.

    Our offseason position is getting worse all the time.
    GO HAWKS!!!

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

    Follow me on Twitter at @17power
    User avatar
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 11527
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am


  • I wonder if this could be a sign that we're looking to trade back in the 1st since apparently we've given up on getting Bradford or Clausen with the 6?
    Image
    User avatar
    Mckinja
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 2805
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:31 am
    Location: Covington, WA


  • Well.. He certainly looks the part. 27 isn't that old for a QB. I have a feeling we might be pleasantly surprised here, folks. He's big AND mobile. Great combination.

    Image

    (from Seahawks Draft Blog)
    Last edited by SmokinHawk on Wed Mar 17, 2010 2:06 pm, edited 2 times in total.
    Feel free to contact me if you need legal assistance. I have a great lawyer that helped me with an ex who violated my privacy and kept harassing me on MySpace and Facebook. He's very good. And there is legal precedent. - linuxpro

    He is hold back the legion of boom - skater18000
    User avatar
    SmokinHawk
    *PLATINUM SUPPORTER*
    *PLATINUM SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 5740
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:29 am
    Location: Back in Seattle


  • drdiags wrote: I dread what the Marshall deal will end up looking like.


    Probably six draft picks, three of our starters, a key to the city, and someone's first born.
    User avatar
    TripHawk
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 466
    Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 8:31 am


  • Look at the bright side, we'll be getting tons of trade offers.

    Of course, they'll all be expecting to hose us.
    I hate Tim Ruskell.
    User avatar
    Trrrroy
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2873
    Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 9:24 am


  • Mckinja wrote:I wonder if this could be a sign that we're looking to trade back in the 1st since apparently we've given up on getting Bradford or Clausen with the 6?


    Hopefully that's the case.

    Could you imagine the backlash if we traded a 1st rounder for Marshall at this point? :stirthepot:
    User avatar
    ErikG803
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 978
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 2:53 pm


  • Mckinja wrote:I wonder if this could be a sign that we're looking to trade back in the 1st since apparently we've given up on getting Bradford or Clausen with the 6?


    ...or they are pretty sure Bradford goes 1 (Rams) and Clausen goes 4 (Redskins).
    User avatar
    chihawk
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 369
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:38 pm


  • I'm hoping this 2 year part has some how been incorrectly released, makes absolutely no sense to give that up for a 2 year contract. Hell, his first starting year with us could be his contract year.
    User avatar
    DrinkinTheLimerade
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 105
    Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 7:52 am
    Location: Seattle


  • MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    nanomoz wrote:The more I think about it, the more I think we've been utterly hosed.

    Man, that's expensive as hell. Wow. Dropping from 40 to 60 seems huge if we were going to wait for an OT or a safety.

    :vomit:


    Or a DT.

    Our offseason position is getting worse all the time.


    The advantage to this is that it relieves a lot of the pressure to take a QB this year.

    I have no clue if Whitehurst is the answer. But he's a talented QB who has been well coached for several years. At least there is a shot he is our answer. I would be a lot more comfortable passing on the QBs in this draft now...
    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


  • bighawk wrote:It is only 2 years to make sure he is as good as they think and if he is he will get a new deal. I love the trade because they are gonna trade Rob Sims for another draft choice. :3-1:


    They'll trade him for a 6th, book it.
    User avatar
    razor150
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1854
    Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 8:22 am


  • razor150 wrote:What a rip off. I'm sorry, but it is. We get a 7th for Wallace next year, a guy who while not great has actual game experience and is a decent game manager. Then we trade this much for a guy he hasn't even played a down? This team is buying high and selling low.



    Completely agree. My thoughts exactly!
    I'm not a Sunday only 'Hawks Fan

    Are you really a 'Hawks fan if you are not a .Net member?
    User avatar
    LeMec
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 202
    Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:43 am


  • Here are my general thoughts:

    1) If you compare with the Seneca trade, this deal sucks. Otherwise, it really isn't that bad...especially if he turns our to be starter-caliber.
    2) The two year deal is to minimize risk. I mean, what if he doesn't pan out? It won't cost that much to let him go.
    3) I'd take what we paid for Whitehurst (draft picks and $$$) over what we'd have to pay for Clausen. The FO clearly wasn't sold on Clausen, yet they understand they need to find a QB, so seeing if Whitehurst can pan out is a way of doing that while minimizing overall risk.
    4) If Locker or some other true elite QB is available to us in the 2011 draft, we can still take him because we aren't totally married to Whitehurst.
    User avatar
    MysterMatt
    *TOP 5 SUPPORTER*
    *TOP 5 SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 6976
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:12 am


  • On a lighter note, this is probably karma for ripping off Denver last year for their #1 so it was the Seahawks turn in the barrel with a new GM/Head coach taking over. So far seems the new tandem rates other teams assets higher than they regard the ones they have.

    Come on Whitehurst!!!
    Last edited by drdiags on Wed Mar 17, 2010 2:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    Image
    Leon Washington 2010-2012 Red Bryant 2008-2013 Chris Clemons 2010-2013 Golden Tate 2010-2013
    Brandon Browner 2011-2013 Breno Giacomini 2011-2013 - Gone but not forgotten.
    R.I.P Les "PithyRadish" Norton 9/13/2014
    User avatar
    drdiags
    * The Doc *
    * The Doc *
     
    Posts: 9420
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:33 am
    Location: Covington, Washington


  • I don't have anything against Whitehurst. He has above average athleticism and a good arm, though accuracy is still unproven. But I agree with a comment earlier that it seems we are selling low and buying high with every move we make. It smacks of a desperate deal to get a starting QB. Those can be great if they pan out, but the FO better be right about this one. Their tenure will be defined by this.
    Tall men come down to my height when I hit 'em in the body.

    Jack Dempsey
    User avatar
    Fuzzman55
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1578
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 3:10 pm


  • Snohomie wrote:Man, most of these moves look really suspect.

    I really hope Carroll and Co. know what they're doing. I'm willing to give them a shot, see how this all looks on the field... But these moves are head scratchers.


    Man when Snohomie starts to question moves I know we are in trouble....crap!
    Image
    User avatar
    Blitzer88
    * NET Eeyore *
     
    Posts: 11266
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:47 am
    Location: Pasco, WA


  • Does anyone sense that the pre-draft wheeling and dealing is done for the team? Neither do I.

    Those picks we just exchanged with the Chargers could be back within a day or two if not sooner via other trades and transactions we are involved in...

    By trading down from #6 alone we could load up with a few real nice picks...

    my two cents worth...
    User avatar
    heffmanhere
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 752
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:17 pm
    Location: North Vancouver,. BC


  • 40 to 60 AND a third rounder next year?!?!

    What... the... hell...
    Image
    User avatar
    DHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1677
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 3:50 pm
    Location: Phoenix, AZ


  • could someone help me understand how a third next year is considered like trading a 4th, or however you say it?
    User avatar
    gonzhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 742
    Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 10:27 am
    Location: Yelm, WA


  • He has amazing physical attributes and is a great fit for the system Jeremy Bates runs. I think this could end up being a very good move.

    Giving the keys to the franchise to somebody based on physical attributes rather than he has done on the field is a big risk though. It'd be like using our first pick on Bruce Campbell or Taylor Mays.

    I'm happy about this overall. About time we took some risks. I got tired of our only moves being for low-ceiling guys like Deion Branch.
    User avatar
    Rat
    * NET Cynic *
     
    Posts: 3592
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:42 pm
    Location: St. Louis, MO


  • I am so confused. We are creating a team full of backups and paying heavily to do it.
    Image
    Radish and Cheinhill — Gone, but not forgotten
    User avatar
    HawkFan72
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 11934
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:50 am
    Location: Antioch, CA


  • Trrrroy wrote:Look at the bright side, we'll be getting tons of trade offers.

    Of course, they'll all be expecting to hose us.

    :laugh:
    Image
    Leon Washington 2010-2012 Red Bryant 2008-2013 Chris Clemons 2010-2013 Golden Tate 2010-2013
    Brandon Browner 2011-2013 Breno Giacomini 2011-2013 - Gone but not forgotten.
    R.I.P Les "PithyRadish" Norton 9/13/2014
    User avatar
    drdiags
    * The Doc *
    * The Doc *
     
    Posts: 9420
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:33 am
    Location: Covington, Washington


  • gonzhawk wrote:could someone help me understand how a third next year is considered like trading a 4th, or however you say it?


    From what I understand, a pick this year is worth the same pick, only a round earlier next year. For example, we traded a 2nd last year to Denver for their first this year.
    Image
    User avatar
    Mckinja
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 2805
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:31 am
    Location: Covington, WA


Next


It is currently Fri Nov 28, 2014 4:15 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE ARCHIVES ]




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