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.



(from Seahawks Draft Blog)

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.

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

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

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?

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).

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.

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...

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.

They'll trade him for a 6th, book it.

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!

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.

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!!!

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.

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!

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...

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

What... the... hell...

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

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.

I am so confused. We are creating a team full of backups and paying heavily to do it.

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.

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.

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

If you cant use it now, its considered devalued.

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:

Don't see why we're going to have to wait for an OT. We've still got the 6 and 14, and we're damn sure not spending them on a QB. And as McKinja pointed out, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see us move back in the 1st round to pick up extra picks for the continuing rebuilding process.

The contract itself makes sense to me. They're going to give him the reins, no doubt, but they're not going to give him a big, long-term deal until he proves them right on whether he can be a solid starter. Once he does (IF he does), then the big contract will follow.

The only part that bugs me is the pick value we gave up. I think we could have gotten by with just moving back in the 2nd. Then again, if Carroll and Schneider are right and this guy can be our long-term solution at QB, then the price will be justified.

Mass hysteria, dogs and cats living together, real old testament stuff,,,,,,

My buddy just called me and said that Brock Huard is just going off about this deal.....

HawkFan72 wrote:I am so confused. We are creating a team full of backups and paying heavily to do it.

Considering we started with a team of backups, I think we're doing alright. We've added depth to this point. Whitehurst, as a backup, is as good or better than Wallace in the same spot. I just think we gave too much away with this.

That price tag sure stings, but if he turns out to be a quality starter for us, then it will be worth it. I guess you have to take a leap of faith at some point, and I think we just took ours. At least we still have 3 picks in the top 60.

Blitzer88 wrote:My buddy just called me and said that Brock Huard is just going off about this deal.....

Probably because Brock was holding out hope that the Hawks would sign him back as their #3 behind Teel.

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

Well for one, that coach might not be there next year so a 3rd round pick next year isn't as valuable as the 3rd round pick this year, because by trading away pics this year, it makes it harder to succeed as a coach this year, thus putting his job in jeopardy.

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

It's just a weird NFL thing. Apparently, everyone is Al Davis and expects their supply of human blood to run out before the next draft, so they're fine trading next year's first for this year's second, or this year's third for next year's 2nd, etc.

It doesn't really make sense to me, but that's how the league seems to work. Weird, huh?

Blitzer88 wrote:My buddy just called me and said that Brock Huard is just going off about this deal.....

He thinks it's good or bad?

SmokinHawk wrote: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.



(from Seahawks Draft Blog)

I very well could work out great for the Seahawks, but as of right now, he only looks the part exactly where he stands in the picture...on the sidelines.

I agree with the other poster that said this will very likely help define the Carroll era at the Seahawks. If this succeeds, it's a great move. If he doesn't become the long-term QB answer, then this will be a huge failure.

Another potential failure could be that he succeeds as the starting QB, but the seahawks fail to extend him and he ends up leaving after two years to be the starter somewhere else....we take the risk to see what this guy can do and then someone else sweeps in and gets him long-term.

Earlier in the day I was going to give Pete & Co. the benefit of the doubt with the direction of our team after trading away the likes of Tapp and Seneca. But this trade just hit me like Tiger Woods in his Escalade...WTH is going on at the VMAC?!?

Prove me wrong, Whitehurst. I hope you hold that clipboard with high regard.

usually to move up in the drat you have to give the other team a pick the followin year included with maybe a player....BUT INSTEAD...seattle decides...Hey! san diego you give us your 3rd string QB and you can move up 20!!!!! spots in the draft and to say thank you we will also give you our third rounder next year!!!.....I can hear the City of San Diego laughing at us!

SmokinHawk wrote: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.



(from Seahawks Draft Blog)

Man, we hosed those stupid San Diego nit-wits. That hair is worth a late first rounder at least.

TheHawkster wrote:

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

If you cant use it now, its considered devalued.

Much Obliged! still don't don't if I agree with this course of action, but I am not a millionaire coach or NFL so withhold judgment right?

Wow-here we go, hang on!!!!!

Before the deal was announced Brock thought Whitehurst was worth no more than a couple million and a late draft pick. I don't know if this is just me, but I seem to get the feeling that some of these retired QBs with ties to Hass, (aka Tim Hasselbeck and Huard), are threatened by a move for a new starter. It would certainly sever some strong ties they have with the team. Maybe I'm off, but could be a reason for their impassioned dislike.

I'm not going to get too upset over this. I'm willing to give Whitehurst a shot the same I did with Matt back in the day. That said, this trade sure feels like a lot to give up for the guy.

Why does it feel that the Hawks are on the crap end of every trade they make. Whether it be them trading away a player or trading for one. A 7th for Seneca. Tapp gets a 2nd round tender and is traded for a 4th. And Whitehurst gets a 3rd round tender and the Hawks have to give up 20 sports in the 2nd round and next years 3rd? Ugh.

Yet another year in which we aren't going to have a 3rd round pick. And I don't even want to be on this board during the 2nd round for picks 20-39 and hear all the teeth gnashing that is going to go on about all the players taken that the Hawks could've had.

I don't know what to think in regards of this Carroll/Schneider FO we got going. I don't know if they just are being out-negotiated or if they just really want to do certain moves to the point that they don't care about getting fair value. Color me a good deal less optimistic about the future from what I was this time last month.

Oh well. At the very least, it's interesting.

Oh, and whoever started the rumor about Julius Jones being involved in the deal. I hate you.

whys he look like billy ray cyrus? JESUS CHRIST CUT THE HAIR!

It feels like someone spiked my cool-aid with a dog turd.

Touche Kyle: To me, the bottom line is our staff didn't want to spend (or trade up and spend) a high pick on a QB this year.

No doubt--If he turns out to be a quality starter, great deal. Ditto for any unknown quarterback that's traded for. But it's not like Whitehurst is Schaub, there was at least some sample size of his work in this league when Houston traded for him. Hasselbeck was a different case too--Holmgren had seen Hasselbeck in practice every day for 2 years.

He's been well coached for a couple of years, great, but I don't think that justifies the cost. Didn't Whitehurst look terrible in the preseason last year against us?

This stings, at least, for now.

Brock couldn't play a lick i don't know why he is trippin, Charlie will be a better quarterback than Brock ever was. I like this deal third next year is a bit much but it also says how much San Diego thinks he is worth. If he comes here and leads the Seahawks to the Superbowl then They will be kicking themselves saying we should have kept him. I think they will trade back from 6 unless McCoy drops to them.

SeaTown81 wrote:Oh, and whoever started the rumor about Julius Jones being involved in the deal. I hate you.

co-sign i was excited.

This is less than we gave up for Hass, no?

Well, all of you who thought this free agency period was too boring, hope you're happy now.

I can wait to see if Whitehurst develops, but quite frankly, I really wanted Lamarr Houston at #40.

One thing about Whitehurst: he's a tough SOB. I remember the first preseason game in San Diego last year when the Chargers had one last chance to drive down and win the game. The Hawks were blitzing on every play and Whitehurst kept getting the crap beat out of him every single time he dropped back to pass. But he'd get back up and call another play like nothing had happened. Looked pretty good on that drive, though of course it was against our 3rd stringers.

I don't mind that we traded for him but despise the fact that we dropped 20 spots in the second round and traded next year's 3rd. I've never been a fan of Carroll and Schneider and so far they are doin nothing to change my opinion.

At least we didn't move too slow on this deal. Missing out on Dwan Edwards kept me up last night.

Whitehurst looks like the offspring of Billy Ray Cyrus and a Baldwin brother.

Well i hate saying i told you so......but now all you people who said getting whitehurst wouldn;t be a big deal well i hope your happy......that 40th pick could of got us Marshall maybe and now we get a third stringer who never played in one game as a pro yet and we give up next year's third ..........so i believe my post was perfect .... worse not better....god i hope he pans out or we dropped the ball on this one ..........well welcome aboard Whitehurst you better do good really fast or i'll be showing you ur exit just as quick........

woofu wrote:Mass hysteria, dogs and cats living together, real old testament stuff,,,,,,

a Ghostbusters reference into a football conversation, nice