Register    Login    Forum    Search    FAQ    Contact Us  Your donations are greatly appreciated! Donate  Chat Room

Board index » NET NATION COMMUNITY CENTER » [ THE ARCHIVES ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 380 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 5:31 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:18 pm
Posts: 2065
Location: Marysville, WA
No one knows anything, let it play out and then we can judge. On the surface (initial reports of no 3rd rounder for the Hawks) I don't like it either, but for all we know we just got the next Joe Montana. WE DON'T KNOW ANYTHING YET!

_________________
Image Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 5:32 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:17 pm
Posts: 571
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Spokane wrote:
We can suger coat this all day...its a bad move!


Agreed. I don't know how losing 20 spots in the 2nd round for a 3rd string QB is a good move. I don't care how people try to sugar coat it, Whitehurst is a 3rd string QB until proven otherwise.

_________________
My hair is a banshee, your argument is invalid.

http://www.seahawknation.net


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 5:33 pm 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:35 am
Posts: 700
thats the problem, we don't know anything yet - outside of we lost some major draft pick ground.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 5:34 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:17 pm
Posts: 571
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Spokane wrote:
thats the problem, we don't know anything yet - outside of we lost some major draft pick ground.


We know the GM in Arizona is smarter the PC and Schneider combined.

_________________
My hair is a banshee, your argument is invalid.

http://www.seahawknation.net


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 5:35 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:20 am
Posts: 7726
Location: Surrounded by Elway, Tebow, and Manning jerseys
prelag wrote:
volsunghawk wrote:

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.


Seems like you are, as well. For the record, I don't like Clausen one itty bitty bit. And as I pointed out, if Whitehurst proves to be a bust, it's a lot easier to move on from the Whitehurst experiment than from a kid you gave 6 years and $70 million. I say Whitehurst will be a starter soon enough because Hasselbeck's contract is done in one year and he's not getting any younger. Plus, he has an injury history a mile long. Isn't that why we were looking for a QB in the first place? As of right now, the only damn thing we're talking about is potential. You're betting on a guy who's proven even less than Whitehurst has, at significantly higher stakes.

_________________
Image

Super Bowl XLVIII Champions


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 5:37 pm 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2009 12:38 pm
Posts: 775
Quote:
"Whitehurst is a 3rd string QB until proven otherwise."


By this same standard Clausen isn't even an NFL player.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 5:37 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:20 am
Posts: 7726
Location: Surrounded by Elway, Tebow, and Manning jerseys
prelag wrote:
Spokane wrote:
thats the problem, we don't know anything yet - outside of we lost some major draft pick ground.


We know the GM in Arizona is smarter the PC and Schneider combined.


Bull. Arizona signed Anderson because they lost out on Whitehurst. Not the other way around. Reports were that both teams had Whitehurst ranked higher than Anderson.

_________________
Image

Super Bowl XLVIII Champions


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 5:37 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:17 pm
Posts: 571
Location: Las Vegas, NV
volsunghawk wrote:
prelag wrote:
volsunghawk wrote:

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.


Seems like you are, as well. For the record, I don't like Clausen one itty bitty bit. And as I pointed out, if Whitehurst proves to be a bust, it's a lot easier to move on from the Whitehurst experiment than from a kid you gave 6 years and $70 million. I say Whitehurst will be a starter soon enough because Hasselbeck's contract is done in one year and he's not getting any younger. Plus, he has an injury history a mile long. Isn't that why we were looking for a QB in the first place? As of right now, the only damn thing we're talking about is potential. You're betting on a guy who's proven even less than Whitehurst has, at significantly higher stakes.


How costly will it be if the Whitehurst experiment doesn't pan out? Will we become the Cleveland Browns forever intertwined in a QB carousal?

_________________
My hair is a banshee, your argument is invalid.

http://www.seahawknation.net


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 5:41 pm 
NET Starter
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 11:28 am
Posts: 375
Location: Vancouver, WA
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.



Actually, Smith DID grab the starting spot from Hill in '09.
Smith finished the season completing 60% of his passes for 2350 yds, 18 TDs against 12 INTs and an 81 QB rating. There is hope for the 25 yr old yet imho. A full offseason and training camp with V Davis, Crabtree, Morgan, Hill and Jones will help the young man as well I believe.

This will also be his 1ST season of his Niner career he will have the same offensive coordinator for the following season.

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 5:42 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:17 pm
Posts: 571
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Mojambo wrote:
Quote:
"Whitehurst is a 3rd string QB until proven otherwise."


By this same standard Clausen isn't even an NFL player.


Yeah, and Whitehursts ass hasn't even been warming the bench the past few seasons for the San Diego chargers. From what I heard today, the guy didn't even dress. That in itself says a lot.

_________________
My hair is a banshee, your argument is invalid.

http://www.seahawknation.net


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 5:45 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:20 am
Posts: 7726
Location: Surrounded by Elway, Tebow, and Manning jerseys
prelag wrote:
volsunghawk wrote:

Seems like you are, as well. For the record, I don't like Clausen one itty bitty bit. And as I pointed out, if Whitehurst proves to be a bust, it's a lot easier to move on from the Whitehurst experiment than from a kid you gave 6 years and $70 million. I say Whitehurst will be a starter soon enough because Hasselbeck's contract is done in one year and he's not getting any younger. Plus, he has an injury history a mile long. Isn't that why we were looking for a QB in the first place? As of right now, the only damn thing we're talking about is potential. You're betting on a guy who's proven even less than Whitehurst has, at significantly higher stakes.


How costly will it be if the Whitehurst experiment doesn't pan out? Will we become the Cleveland Browns forever intertwined in a QB carousal?


Oh, so Whitehurst not panning out leads to a Browns-type carousel, but Clausen not panning out doesn't?

_________________
Image

Super Bowl XLVIII Champions


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 5:47 pm 
NET Starter
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 11:28 am
Posts: 375
Location: Vancouver, WA
prelag wrote:
Mojambo wrote:
Quote:
"Whitehurst is a 3rd string QB until proven otherwise."


By this same standard Clausen isn't even an NFL player.


Yeah, and Whitehursts ass hasn't even been warming the bench the past few seasons for the San Diego chargers. From what I heard today, the guy didn't even dress. That in itself says a lot.


I was listening to pat Kirwin/Tim ryan today on sirius radio and they broke this Whitehurst news. Kirwin didnt even think the Whitehurst was active for a single game in the last 3 seasons. He also wondered how the Kid could not beat out Billy Volek for at least the 2nd string job.

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 5:50 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:17 pm
Posts: 571
Location: Las Vegas, NV
I
Quote:
was listening to pat Kirwin/Tim ryan today on sirius radio and they broke this Whitehurst news. Kirwin didnt even think the Whitehurst was active for a single game in the last 3 seasons. He also wondered how the Kid could not beat out Billy Volek for at least the 2nd string job.


Further solidifies my argument. This guy hasn't played a real game since college.

Yeah.... Yeah... He'll be better then Clausen.... :34853_doh:

_________________
My hair is a banshee, your argument is invalid.

http://www.seahawknation.net


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 5:54 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:20 am
Posts: 7726
Location: Surrounded by Elway, Tebow, and Manning jerseys
prelag wrote:
I
Quote:
was listening to pat Kirwin/Tim ryan today on sirius radio and they broke this Whitehurst news. Kirwin didnt even think the Whitehurst was active for a single game in the last 3 seasons. He also wondered how the Kid could not beat out Billy Volek for at least the 2nd string job.


Further solidifies my argument. This guy hasn't played a real game since college.

Neither has Clausen.

_________________
Image

Super Bowl XLVIII Champions


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 5:57 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 12:27 pm
Posts: 849
The thing that Whitehurst has going is that he at least has been around the NFL and has practiced against a solid defense. Clausen has never seen anything of that caliber. I really like the move.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 5:57 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:17 pm
Posts: 571
Location: Las Vegas, NV
volsunghawk wrote:
prelag wrote:
I
Quote:
was listening to pat Kirwin/Tim ryan today on sirius radio and they broke this Whitehurst news. Kirwin didnt even think the Whitehurst was active for a single game in the last 3 seasons. He also wondered how the Kid could not beat out Billy Volek for at least the 2nd string job.


Further solidifies my argument. This guy hasn't played a real game since college.

Neither has Clausen.


Clausen will be a starter for an NFL team before age 27. Care to disagree?

_________________
My hair is a banshee, your argument is invalid.

http://www.seahawknation.net


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:00 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:17 pm
Posts: 571
Location: Las Vegas, NV
PascoHawk wrote:
The thing that Whitehurst has going is that he at least has been around the NFL and has practiced against a solid defense. Clausen has never seen anything of that caliber. I really like the move.


Yeah, Manning, Brady, Rivers, etc... had never seen anything of that caliber either. I am sure if any of them were coming out in this draft you would still like that move and use this same retarded argument.

_________________
My hair is a banshee, your argument is invalid.

http://www.seahawknation.net


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:01 pm 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2009 12:38 pm
Posts: 775
"Clausen will be a starter for an NFL team before age 27. Care to disagree?"

With the money he's going to be guaranteed, he'll have to be. Whether he's any good or not.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:02 pm 
* Capt'n Dom *
* Capt'n Dom *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:40 am
Posts: 8836
Location: Granite Falls, WA
prelag wrote:
PascoHawk wrote:
The thing that Whitehurst has going is that he at least has been around the NFL and has practiced against a solid defense. Clausen has never seen anything of that caliber. I really like the move.


Yeah, Manning, Brady, Rivers, etc... had never seen anything of that caliber either. I am sure if any of them were coming out in this draft you would still like that move and use this same retarded argument.


Dude you need to chill before you have a heart attack.

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:03 pm 
NET Starter
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 4:02 am
Posts: 328
Location: Evanston, WY
Doesn't Clausen lack ideal arm strength for Bates' offense? I thought that was Whitehurst's appeal for this coaching staff.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:03 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:17 pm
Posts: 571
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Mojambo wrote:
"Clausen will be a starter for an NFL team before age 27. Care to disagree?"

With the money he's going to be guaranteed, he'll have to be. Whether he's any good or not.


If Whitehurst was any good, he would be the #2 QB in San Diego. Or am I just on drugs?

_________________
My hair is a banshee, your argument is invalid.

http://www.seahawknation.net


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:04 pm 
NET Bench Warmer
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 2:32 pm
Posts: 38
Something I just have to get off my chest. I have listened to all my Hawk brethern bitch and complain since the season ended about us not having a sucessor for Hass and now that our new FO has made a deal for Whitehurst most of you guys are crying that we paid too much. I would rather pay what we did then to waste one of our 1st rounders on any of the QB's coming out in the draft. I hear you guys say we are buying too high and selling too low. I agree they should have gotten more for Seneca, but moving down 20 spots in the 2nd round and giving up a late 3rd next year is not that steep of a gamble for a guy who has all the tools to be a FRANCHISE QB!!! Look on you tube and check out the skills this kid has, on the real ITS SICK!!

We gained another pick in the Tapp deal and will probably get another when we ship Sims off to Cleveland, so lay off of Pete and Schnide atleast they are trying to rebuild effectively. So I guess what I am saying is be a true fan and get on board and give these guys a chance or pick another set of colors and cry about their moves, PERIOD!!!!


HM


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:04 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:17 pm
Posts: 571
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Tech Worlds wrote:
prelag wrote:
PascoHawk wrote:
The thing that Whitehurst has going is that he at least has been around the NFL and has practiced against a solid defense. Clausen has never seen anything of that caliber. I really like the move.


Yeah, Manning, Brady, Rivers, etc... had never seen anything of that caliber either. I am sure if any of them were coming out in this draft you would still like that move and use this same retarded argument.


Dude you need to chill before you have a heart attack.


Sure thing dude! :0190l:

_________________
My hair is a banshee, your argument is invalid.

http://www.seahawknation.net


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:05 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 9:41 am
Posts: 5090
Location: South End
Ninerguy wrote:

I was listening to pat Kirwin/Tim ryan today on sirius radio and they broke this Whitehurst news. Kirwin didnt even think the Whitehurst was active for a single game in the last 3 seasons. He also wondered how the Kid could not beat out Billy Volek for at least the 2nd string job.


I like how people say, ''couldn't even beat out Volek".

Volek is a very good experienced QB, who should have been the starter in Tenn. He probably even at this point could start for a lot of teams in this league.

I mean we might as well say, "why couldn't he beat out Rivers for the starting job?" What a loser. :roll:

_________________
"We ran into a buzz saw," - John Fox, Super Bowl XLVIII


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:06 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:17 pm
Posts: 571
Location: Las Vegas, NV
HAWKMANINVANCOUVER wrote:
Something I just have to get off my chest. I have listened to all my Hawk brethern bitch and complain since the season ended about us not having a sucessor for Hass and now that our new FO has made a deal for Whitehurst most of you guys are crying that we paid too much. I would rather pay what we did then to waste one of our 1st rounders on any of the QB's coming out in the draft. I hear you guys say we are buying too high and selling too low. I agree they should have gotten more for Seneca, but moving down 20 spots in the 2nd round and giving up a late 3rd next year is not that steep of a gamble for a guy who has all the tools to be a FRANCHISE QB!!! Look on you tube and check out the skills this kid has, on the real ITS SICK!!

We gained another pick in the Tapp deal and will probably get another when we ship Sims off to Cleveland, so lay off of Pete and Schnide atleast they are trying to rebuild effectively. So I guess what I am saying is be a true fan and get on board and give these guys a chance or pick another set of colors and cry about their moves, PERIOD!!!!


HM


Answer me this, because it seems that everyone can't give a straight forward answer, If this kid is so good, why has he been a 3rd string QB since entering the league.

_________________
My hair is a banshee, your argument is invalid.

http://www.seahawknation.net


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:07 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:20 am
Posts: 7726
Location: Surrounded by Elway, Tebow, and Manning jerseys
prelag wrote:
Mojambo wrote:
"Clausen will be a starter for an NFL team before age 27. Care to disagree?"

With the money he's going to be guaranteed, he'll have to be. Whether he's any good or not.


If Whitehurst was any good, he would be the #2 QB in San Diego. Or am I just on drugs?


If Whitehurst wasn't any good, he wouldn't have drummed up any interest from anyone. Yet 3 teams with QB questions had him in for a visit, and two of those teams talked contract with his agent.

_________________
Image

Super Bowl XLVIII Champions


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:08 pm 
* NET Moderator *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 2:35 pm
Posts: 18457
Location: Milwaukie, Oregon
prelag wrote:
HAWKMANINVANCOUVER wrote:
Something I just have to get off my chest. I have listened to all my Hawk brethern bitch and complain since the season ended about us not having a sucessor for Hass and now that our new FO has made a deal for Whitehurst most of you guys are crying that we paid too much. I would rather pay what we did then to waste one of our 1st rounders on any of the QB's coming out in the draft. I hear you guys say we are buying too high and selling too low. I agree they should have gotten more for Seneca, but moving down 20 spots in the 2nd round and giving up a late 3rd next year is not that steep of a gamble for a guy who has all the tools to be a FRANCHISE QB!!! Look on you tube and check out the skills this kid has, on the real ITS SICK!!

We gained another pick in the Tapp deal and will probably get another when we ship Sims off to Cleveland, so lay off of Pete and Schnide atleast they are trying to rebuild effectively. So I guess what I am saying is be a true fan and get on board and give these guys a chance or pick another set of colors and cry about their moves, PERIOD!!!!


HM


Answer me this, because it seems that everyone can't give a straight forward answer, If this kid is so good, why has he been a 3rd string QB since entering the league.


Because hes been behind 2 other pretty good quarterbacks. Straight forward enough?

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Charlie Whitehurst TRADED TO SEATTLE.
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:10 pm 
NET Starter
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:38 pm
Posts: 362
bighawk wrote:
msnbc.com says that Pete and John has been watching a lot of his film. So they have been doing there homework and i am sure they talked to Norv Turner about him. 8)


Since PC has spent a lot of time in the southern california area over the past years, does he have any connections to the Chargers staff? I'm just hoping he has some better insight into this player since the most recent game film is his college games.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:11 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:20 am
Posts: 7726
Location: Surrounded by Elway, Tebow, and Manning jerseys
prelag wrote:
HAWKMANINVANCOUVER wrote:
Something I just have to get off my chest. I have listened to all my Hawk brethern bitch and complain since the season ended about us not having a sucessor for Hass and now that our new FO has made a deal for Whitehurst most of you guys are crying that we paid too much. I would rather pay what we did then to waste one of our 1st rounders on any of the QB's coming out in the draft. I hear you guys say we are buying too high and selling too low. I agree they should have gotten more for Seneca, but moving down 20 spots in the 2nd round and giving up a late 3rd next year is not that steep of a gamble for a guy who has all the tools to be a FRANCHISE QB!!! Look on you tube and check out the skills this kid has, on the real ITS SICK!!

We gained another pick in the Tapp deal and will probably get another when we ship Sims off to Cleveland, so lay off of Pete and Schnide atleast they are trying to rebuild effectively. So I guess what I am saying is be a true fan and get on board and give these guys a chance or pick another set of colors and cry about their moves, PERIOD!!!!


HM


Answer me this, because it seems that everyone can't give a straight forward answer, If this kid is so good, why has he been a 3rd string QB since entering the league.


When he entered the league, the Chargers had Rivers as their starter, and Whitehurst was to be his backup. But San Diego was uncertain about a rookie backup and traded for Billy Volek, who had experience. Volek has done nothing to lose his backup job (and is underrated by people here). What's your argument for Clausen's worth?

_________________
Image

Super Bowl XLVIII Champions


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:11 pm 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2009 12:38 pm
Posts: 775
prelag wrote:
HAWKMANINVANCOUVER wrote:
Something I just have to get off my chest. I have listened to all my Hawk brethern bitch and complain since the season ended about us not having a sucessor for Hass and now that our new FO has made a deal for Whitehurst most of you guys are crying that we paid too much. I would rather pay what we did then to waste one of our 1st rounders on any of the QB's coming out in the draft. I hear you guys say we are buying too high and selling too low. I agree they should have gotten more for Seneca, but moving down 20 spots in the 2nd round and giving up a late 3rd next year is not that steep of a gamble for a guy who has all the tools to be a FRANCHISE QB!!! Look on you tube and check out the skills this kid has, on the real ITS SICK!!

We gained another pick in the Tapp deal and will probably get another when we ship Sims off to Cleveland, so lay off of Pete and Schnide atleast they are trying to rebuild effectively. So I guess what I am saying is be a true fan and get on board and give these guys a chance or pick another set of colors and cry about their moves, PERIOD!!!!


HM


Answer me this, because it seems that everyone can't give a straight forward answer, If this kid is so good, why has he been a 3rd string QB since entering the league.


Because he has been playing behind one very, VERY good starting QB and one of the more respected veteran backup QB's in the game.

Seriously. San Diego has some of the best QB depth in the game. It's probably one of the only organizations in the game where Whitehurst would be a #3.

He's not a third stringer here, that's for damn sure.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:13 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:17 pm
Posts: 571
Location: Las Vegas, NV
JSeahawks wrote:
prelag wrote:
HAWKMANINVANCOUVER wrote:
Something I just have to get off my chest. I have listened to all my Hawk brethern bitch and complain since the season ended about us not having a sucessor for Hass and now that our new FO has made a deal for Whitehurst most of you guys are crying that we paid too much. I would rather pay what we did then to waste one of our 1st rounders on any of the QB's coming out in the draft. I hear you guys say we are buying too high and selling too low. I agree they should have gotten more for Seneca, but moving down 20 spots in the 2nd round and giving up a late 3rd next year is not that steep of a gamble for a guy who has all the tools to be a FRANCHISE QB!!! Look on you tube and check out the skills this kid has, on the real ITS SICK!!

We gained another pick in the Tapp deal and will probably get another when we ship Sims off to Cleveland, so lay off of Pete and Schnide atleast they are trying to rebuild effectively. So I guess what I am saying is be a true fan and get on board and give these guys a chance or pick another set of colors and cry about their moves, PERIOD!!!!


HM


Answer me this, because it seems that everyone can't give a straight forward answer, If this kid is so good, why has he been a 3rd string QB since entering the league.


Because hes been behind 2 other pretty good quarterbacks. Straight forward enough?


So, essentially, we just traded for a guy who is not as good as San Diego's franchise QB, or their 2nd string QB, who has starting potential, yet, he will somehow magically come to Seattle and become a franchise QB?

_________________
My hair is a banshee, your argument is invalid.

http://www.seahawknation.net


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:14 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:20 am
Posts: 7726
Location: Surrounded by Elway, Tebow, and Manning jerseys
prelag wrote:
JSeahawks wrote:

Answer me this, because it seems that everyone can't give a straight forward answer, If this kid is so good, why has he been a 3rd string QB since entering the league.


Because hes been behind 2 other pretty good quarterbacks. Straight forward enough?


So, essentially, we just traded for a guy who is not as good as San Diego's franchise QB, or their 2nd string QB, who has starting potential, yet, he will somehow magically come to Seattle and become a franchise QB?[/quote]

Yes, because our existing QBs aren't even in the same league as San Diego's.

_________________
Image

Super Bowl XLVIII Champions


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:15 pm 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:51 am
Posts: 2411
Reading Prelags posts gives me empathy for Charlie. Here we all are stuck behind a prolific poster with bad hair, we hardly see the field and many question wether or not we have enough brains to pour piss ot of a boot!

Gee, we mirror our FO!

:mrgreen:


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:16 pm 
*GOLD SUPPORTER*
*GOLD SUPPORTER*
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:10 am
Posts: 3297
Location: Sammamish, WA
prelag wrote:
Mojambo wrote:
Quote:
"Whitehurst is a 3rd string QB until proven otherwise."


By this same standard Clausen isn't even an NFL player.


Yeah, and Whitehursts ass hasn't even been warming the bench the past few seasons for the San Diego chargers. From what I heard today, the guy didn't even dress. That in itself says a lot.


How many games in the NFL has Clausen dressed for? At least Whitehurst had the opportunity to practice with Rivers and other NFL players. Plus, learn from one of the top offensive minds in the NFL - Norv Turner. In that respect, he's above Clausen. Clausen hasn't even made a NFL team yet. A 3rd stringer on the SD Chargers has made the NFL team. Who knows if Clausen will or will not be on PS in beginning of his career. There's a possibility he could stub his toe again, break his pinky nail, etc.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:19 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:17 pm
Posts: 571
Location: Las Vegas, NV
I thought up until the train-wreck that was last year, Hasselbeck was a top 10 QB and Seneca was a solid backup. My gripe with the situation is that Whitehurst is being treated as a franchise QB. If he was coming in here to backup Hasselbeck, we could have just signed Derek Anderson and kept our 2nd and 3rd round picks.

So, if we treat him like a franchise QB, then we need to compare him to other starting QB's in the league. The fact that he is no where near as good as Philip Rivers, and cant beat out a vet like Volek for the #2 job, tells me Seattle is either stupid, or insanely brilliant.

_________________
My hair is a banshee, your argument is invalid.

http://www.seahawknation.net


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:21 pm 
NET Rookie
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 7:01 am
Posts: 268
Location: Gig Harbor, WA
My, my, my... IMO, some of these arguments are moot. Claussen nor Bradford will be available when we pick #6. Real options would be Tebow, McCoy, Pike, or... and they are all bigger and more expensive gambles than Whitehurst is. I hate moving down in the draft in the 2nd, but our only other option was Anderson but he'd be nothing more than a backup while Whitehurst, given an opportunity, could be a long term answer.

_________________
"Hard work beats talent when talent fails to hard work"


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:23 pm 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2009 12:38 pm
Posts: 775
They weren't the only team to express significant interest in Whitehurst.

There's something there.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:24 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:20 am
Posts: 7726
Location: Surrounded by Elway, Tebow, and Manning jerseys
prelag wrote:
I thought up until the train-wreck that was last year, Hasselbeck was a top 10 QB and Seneca was a solid backup. My gripe with the situation is that Whitehurst is being treated as a franchise QB. If he was coming in here to backup Hasselbeck, we could have just signed Derek Anderson and kept our 2nd and 3rd round picks.

So, if we treat him like a franchise QB, then we need to compare him to other starting QB's in the league. The fact that he is no where near as good as Philip Rivers, and cant beat out a vet like Volek for the #2 job, tells me Seattle is either stupid, or insanely brilliant.


Not many starting QBs in the league are on Rivers' level. As for Volek, he could start for about half the teams in the league, easy, but San Diego has him under contract and no need to move him.

_________________
Image

Super Bowl XLVIII Champions


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:26 pm 
NET Bench Warmer
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 2:32 pm
Posts: 38
Because he has been playing behind one very, VERY good starting QB and one of the more respected veteran backup QB's in the game.

Seriously. San Diego has some of the best QB depth in the game. It's probably one of the only organizations in the game where Whitehurst would be a #3.

He's not a third stringer here, that's for damn sure.[/quote]


Exactly!!

Rivers is hands down one of the best QB's in the league and Volek's career stats Comp % = 60.0 27 T.D's 15 int's not bad, besides Charlie has had a chance to learn the game behing them and Norv Turner who knows a little bit about developing QB's, remember Aikman? So if we are going to take a chance on any teams back up I want it to be him.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:29 pm 
*GOLD SUPPORTER*
*GOLD SUPPORTER*
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:10 am
Posts: 3297
Location: Sammamish, WA
prelag wrote:
I thought up until the train-wreck that was last year, Hasselbeck was a top 10 QB and Seneca was a solid backup. My gripe with the situation is that Whitehurst is being treated as a franchise QB. If he was coming in here to backup Hasselbeck, we could have just signed Derek Anderson and kept our 2nd and 3rd round picks.

So, if we treat him like a franchise QB, then we need to compare him to other starting QB's in the league. The fact that he is no where near as good as Philip Rivers, and cant beat out a vet like Volek for the #2 job, tells me Seattle is either stupid, or insanely brilliant.


Could it be that the coaches felt that Derek Anderson didn't fit the style of offense they plan to run? Maybe it was that Whitehurst showed more attributes they are looking for than Anderson did. Just because Derek had one good year doesn't mean he could come in and fit with the Seahawks. If Cleveland who has issues at QB dropped Anderson, how good was he?

On a side note - Carson Palmer has about the same size as Whitehurst. Carson is arguably the best QB that Carroll has put in the NFL. What if, a big what if, Whitehurst is half as good as Palmer? That would be tremendous. Not saying it will happen, but it could.

Carson Palmer - http://www.nfl.com/players/carsonpalmer/profile?id=PAL249055

Charlie Whitehurst - http://www.nfl.com/players/charliewhitehurst/profile?id=WHI646241


Last edited by hawkfan68 on Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:31 pm 
NET Bench Warmer
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 2:32 pm
Posts: 38
By this same standard Clausen isn't even an NFL player.[/quote]

Yeah, and Whitehursts ass hasn't even been warming the bench the past few seasons for the San Diego chargers. From what I heard today, the guy didn't even dress. That in itself says a lot.[/quote]


Hey Hawkfan68,

Just goes to show how much you know, no NFL team ever dresses 3 QB's :lol:

HM


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:36 pm 
*GOLD SUPPORTER*
*GOLD SUPPORTER*
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:10 am
Posts: 3297
Location: Sammamish, WA
HAWKMANINVANCOUVER wrote:
By this same standard Clausen isn't even an NFL player.


Yeah, and Whitehursts ass hasn't even been warming the bench the past few seasons for the San Diego chargers. From what I heard today, the guy didn't even dress. That in itself says a lot.[/quote]


Hey Hawkfan68,

Just goes to show how much you know, no NFL team ever dresses 3 QB's :lol:

HM[/quote]

First of all, neither of the quotes you are referencing is what I posted. Those were by another poster, not me. You may want to re-read the posts to be clear on what is stated and who stated it.

Secondly, Where did I say that a NFL team dresses 3 QBs? I never said that.

Obviously, you seemed to have missed my point. I was merely pointing out that Clausen hasn't dressed up for a NFL game. Which is a fact, at this point in time.

Nice try though. ;)


Last edited by hawkfan68 on Wed Mar 17, 2010 8:35 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:38 pm 
* Capt'n Dom *
* Capt'n Dom *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:40 am
Posts: 8836
Location: Granite Falls, WA
San Diego has been in the playoff hunt the last few years. It makes sense for them to want an experienced backup to Rivers instead of allowing that job to fall on Whitehurst. Good teams cant afford the growing pains of relying on an inexperienced QB to get them thru a few games while their starter is out.

We are going to go thru some growing pains with Whitehurst. Lets hope we see enough positive to make us believe he will develop.

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:40 pm 
*GOLD SUPPORTER*
*GOLD SUPPORTER*
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:13 pm
Posts: 4631
Location: Puyallup, WA USA
Mojambo wrote:

He's not a third stringer here, that's for damn sure.


Really? I thought that we already had two quarterbacks....that makes him #3 doesn't it? Explain how he "leapfrogs" Teel without a down played in Training Camp?


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:41 pm 
*GOLD SUPPORTER*
*GOLD SUPPORTER*
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:13 pm
Posts: 4631
Location: Puyallup, WA USA
Mojambo wrote:

He's not a third stringer here, that's for damn sure.



Really? I thought that we already had two quarterbacks....that makes him #3 doesn't it? Explain how he "leapfrogs" Teel without a down played in Training Camp?


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:41 pm 
* Capt'n Dom *
* Capt'n Dom *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:40 am
Posts: 8836
Location: Granite Falls, WA
Bigpumpkin wrote:
Mojambo wrote:

He's not a third stringer here, that's for damn sure.


Really? I thought that we already had two quarterbacks....that makes him #3 doesn't it? Explain how he "leapfrogs" Teel without a down played in Training Camp?


10 million over 2 years says so.

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:44 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 2:04 pm
Posts: 1861
Tech Worlds wrote:
Bigpumpkin wrote:
Mojambo wrote:

He's not a third stringer here, that's for damn sure.


Really? I thought that we already had two quarterbacks....that makes him #3 doesn't it? Explain how he "leapfrogs" Teel without a down played in Training Camp?


10 million over 2 years says so.


Man, you are going to have egg on your face when Carroll and company sign Teel to a 3 year, 15 million dollar extension.

Seriously though, bigpumpkin, was your comment serious?


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:45 pm 
*GOLD SUPPORTER*
*GOLD SUPPORTER*
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:13 pm
Posts: 4631
Location: Puyallup, WA USA
Is the Pope Catholic? :roll:


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:50 pm 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 11:44 am
Posts: 556
Oh the great whining that is going on i could get drunk off of it, all these folks are complaining will be the first to say what a steal once Whitehurst wins his first game, its amazing how people sour when the front office obviously did not see anyone worth drafting in the first round. They swapped 2nd rounders and gave up a 3rd maybe it was too much but he is here, he could be our Tom Brady or Matt Schaub u never know but to down him before he plays a game is outrageous. Aaron Rodgers sat behind Brett Favre did that mean he was bad no, he got valuable time to learn and now look how he is playing. Whitehurst will do well and who is to say that Seattle won't trade back and get another second rounder, i believe if Spiller is not there at 14 then they will. :1:


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:52 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 12:16 pm
Posts: 2914
Location: Hamilton
Teel is irrelevant. Let's see what this kid Whtehurst can do.

_________________
Driver of the PC/JS Super Bowl wagon since 2010
Image
Sherman looks like a ballet master in grand jeté –
a trash-talking, dreadlocked Baryshnikov suspended
impossibly above the turf – pro football's paean to
wanton human destruction slips into the sublime.


Top 
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 380 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Board index » NET NATION COMMUNITY CENTER » [ THE ARCHIVES ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 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

Search for:
Jump to:  
Seahawks.NET is an independent fan site and not associated with the Seattle Seahawks or the NFL (National Football League).
All content within this Seahawks fan page is provided by, and for, Seattle Seahawks fans. Copyright © Seahawks.NET.