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.

IMO we have got to be the laughing stock of the NFL right now...Just my opinion

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

ludakrishna, I think you might have to change your sig now ;(

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Is this true, or did ESPN just make a typo?

I need a drink.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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?

why do we want this guy? hes barely taken any regular season snaps at all if any

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

Is that beer "rave green"?

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

Its green, but Rave green?.....maybe

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.

my bar today was putting food coloring in beer. lol

Zeppe wrote: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.

Even if we get their 3rd this year, it's a high price to pay for a guy who hasn't thrown a pass in the NFL let alone a 3rd string QB. Carroll is either a genius or moron -- I guess we'll only know this time next year.

49thHawk wrote:

Zeppe wrote: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.

Even if we get their 3rd this year, it's a high price to pay for a guy who hasn't thrown a pass in the NFL let alone a 3rd string QB. Carroll is either a genius or moron -- I guess we'll only know this time next year.

I'll take that deal over the originally announced one ANYDAY! I really hope the Seahawks got a third in return, especially if they didn't give up their third from next year...

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

If we get a 2010 3rd round pick out of this deal then I retract 2 of the 3 pukeface emoticons.

49thHawk wrote:

Zeppe wrote: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.

Even if we get their 3rd this year, it's a high price to pay for a guy who hasn't thrown a pass in the NFL let alone a 3rd string QB. Carroll is either a genius or moron -- I guess we'll only know this time next year.

You know what's an even higher price to pay? A high first rounder and a $70 million contract.

volsunghawk wrote:

49thHawk wrote:

Zeppe wrote: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.

Even if we get their 3rd this year, it's a high price to pay for a guy who hasn't thrown a pass in the NFL let alone a 3rd string QB. Carroll is either a genius or moron -- I guess we'll only know this time next year.

You know what's an even higher price to pay? A high first rounder and a $70 million contract.

Absolutely! you guys think we paid alot for Curry, how about a QB taken 2 picks earlier in the draft a year later.

volsunghawk wrote:

49thHawk wrote:

Zeppe wrote: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.

Even if we get their 3rd this year, it's a high price to pay for a guy who hasn't thrown a pass in the NFL let alone a 3rd string QB. Carroll is either a genius or moron -- I guess we'll only know this time next year.

You know what's an even higher price to pay? A high first rounder and a $70 million contract.

This.

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 we did get there third then that makes this deal a lot better. Please let it be true!

I'm not buying into any of the 3rd round stuff until I see it. Nobody online is reporting this. Not often that the ESPN ticker scoops all the internet reporters.

If it were to be the case, that definitely changes my thoughts on the trade. Still is a risky deal as Whitehurst is still entirely unproven. But it wouldn't be nearly as big a screw job trade.

But like I said. I'll believe it when I see it. Already got my hopes up with that stupid Julius Jones rumor earlier today. Fool me once...

Blitzer88 wrote:

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 we did get there third then that makes this deal a lot better. Please let it be true!

I don't buy this for a second. Remove Whitehurst, and that's still a trade that's pretty fair value.

volsunghawk wrote:

49thHawk wrote:

Zeppe wrote: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.

Even if we get their 3rd this year, it's a high price to pay for a guy who hasn't thrown a pass in the NFL let alone a 3rd string QB. Carroll is either a genius or moron -- I guess we'll only know this time next year.

You know what's an even higher price to pay? A high first rounder and a $70 million contract.

Your right. We should just trade our 1st round picks away and go after some practice squad players -- they'll come cheap. Sorry not to be a jerk but just challenging the thinking that we shouldn't build the team through the draft.

Also, the difference between Whitehurst and a draft pic is Whitehurst has been in the league for a few years and is still sitting at 3rd string and hasn't thrown as pass in the NFL. And we still paid a lot for him -- not 1st round dollars -- but still big bucks for a 3rd stringer.

Just saw an insider report from John Clayton that states the Seahawks aren't impressed with the QB's in this draft. Don't have insider access but that was the title.

49thHawk wrote:

volsunghawk wrote:
You know what's an even higher price to pay? A high first rounder and a $70 million contract.

Your right. We should just trade our 1st round picks away and go after some practice squad players -- they'll come cheap. Sorry not to be a jerk but just challenging the thinking that we shouldn't build the team through the draft.

Also, the difference between Whitehurst and a draft pic is Whitehurst has been in the league for a few years and is still sitting at 3rd string and hasn't thrown as pass in the NFL. And we still paid a lot for him -- not 1st round dollars -- but still big bucks for a 3rd stringer.

At what point did I suggest we shouldn't build the team through the draft? If you need a QB, though, and the draft presents you with a load of crappy QB prospects, why not look elsewhere? And if we swing and miss on Whitehurst, then it's a hell of a lot cheaper to cut losses and move on afterward than it would be to have to lick the wounds we'd have gotten had we drafted Clausen and watched him turn into Rick Mirer.

Whitehurst has been in the league for a few years, right. He's had the benefit of going through camps, learning from NFL coaches, including a guy known as a QB guru. Just because he's not ranked ahead of Rivers and Volek (who people here seem to criminally underrate as a way to dig at Whitehurst) doesn't mean there's no talent there.

If you're concerned that we paid big bucks to a 3rd stringer, just wait around a bit. He'll be a starter soon enough. I don't get the philosophy that says it's okay, and even exciting, to blow massive tons of money on rookies because of what they did in college, yet turn around and blast spending smaller amounts on an NFL backup because he hasn't proven anything. Guess what? Neither has that college kid you want to give $40mil guaranteed to.

volsunghawk wrote:
If you're concerned that we paid big bucks to a 3rd stringer, just wait around a bit. He'll be a starter soon enough. I don't get the philosophy that says it's okay, and even exciting, to blow massive tons of money on rookies because of what they did in college, yet turn around and blast spending smaller amounts on an NFL backup because he hasn't proven anything. Guess what? Neither has that college kid you want to give $40mil guaranteed to.

Freaking Spot on!

Right now we are the joke of the NFL!!! We gave up so much for a proven 3rd string guy. Flat out embarrassing! Please take the controls out of PC's hands...he has no clue what he is doing!

I really hope I get to eat my words!

Spokane wrote:Right now we are the joke of the NFL!!! We gave up so much for a proven 3rd string guy. Flat out embarrassing! Please take the controls out of PC's hands...he has no clue what he is doing!

I really hope I get to eat my words!

THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!

volsunghawk wrote:

49thHawk wrote:

volsunghawk wrote:
You know what's an even higher price to pay? A high first rounder and a $70 million contract.

Your right. We should just trade our 1st round picks away and go after some practice squad players -- they'll come cheap. Sorry not to be a jerk but just challenging the thinking that we shouldn't build the team through the draft.

Also, the difference between Whitehurst and a draft pic is Whitehurst has been in the league for a few years and is still sitting at 3rd string and hasn't thrown as pass in the NFL. And we still paid a lot for him -- not 1st round dollars -- but still big bucks for a 3rd stringer.

At what point did I suggest we shouldn't build the team through the draft? If you need a QB, though, and the draft presents you with a load of crappy QB prospects, why not look elsewhere? And if we swing and miss on Whitehurst, then it's a hell of a lot cheaper to cut losses and move on afterward than it would be to have to lick the wounds we'd have gotten had we drafted Clausen and watched him turn into Rick Mirer.

Whitehurst has been in the league for a few years, right. He's had the benefit of going through camps, learning from NFL coaches, including a guy known as a QB guru. Just because he's not ranked ahead of Rivers and Volek (who people here seem to criminally underrate as a way to dig at Whitehurst) doesn't mean there's no talent there.

If you're concerned that we paid big bucks to a 3rd stringer, just wait around a bit. He'll be a starter soon enough. I don't get the philosophy that says it's okay, and even exciting, to blow massive tons of money on rookies because of what they did in college, yet turn around and blast spending smaller amounts on an NFL backup because he hasn't proven anything. Guess what? Neither has that college kid you want to give $40mil guaranteed to.

I like how you say that Whitehurst will be a starter soon enough, then in the same breath say that Clausen might become Rick Mirer.

Seems like you are a bit biased.

I think Whitehurst will be a backup and nothing more. Clausen has the potential to be a starter.

Personally, I'd rather gamble on Clausen.

What I like about this also is, Whitehurst is 3-4 years ahead of Teel, whom we know nothing about, but I think this helps Matt also as he knew he had no problems with Seneca. Lets hope Charlie push's Matt and Teel push's Charlie. It is possible that in a couple years we could have a dynamic couple of QB's.

We can suger coat this all day...its a bad move!

In the end I think I'll take this over selecting Clausen. I liked Clausen, but admit I'm intrigued by Whitehurst and can't wait tp see how he does here. Plus who knows if Clausen would have been there anyways.

I also think you can now spend one pick on the line and one on defense. McCoy would be great.

Spokane wrote:We can suger coat this all day...its a bad move!

THE SKY IS FALLING!! THE SKY IS FALLING!!