| Author |
Message |
|
AF_Hawk
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization  Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 5:11 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
 |
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:18 pm
Posts: 1336
Location: Marysville, WA
|
|
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.
_________________  
|
|
  |
|
 |
|
volsunghawk
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 5:22 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
|
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:20 am
Posts: 6165
Location: Surrounded by Elway, Tebow, and Manning jerseys
|
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. _________________  Okay, so maybe that pass rush is still an issue. Lather, rinse, repeat.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tech Worlds
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 5:24 pm |
|
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:40 am
Posts: 6897
Location: Granite Falls, WA
|
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! _________________ 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spokane
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 5:27 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:35 am
Posts: 680
|
|
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!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
AF_Hawk
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 5:27 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
|
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:18 pm
Posts: 1336
Location: Marysville, WA
|
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!!!! _________________
|
|
| |
|
|
|
prelag
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 5:28 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
|
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:17 pm
Posts: 571
Location: Las Vegas, NV
|
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. _________________ My hair is a banshee, your argument is invalid. http://www.seahawknation.net
|
|
| |
|
|
|
seedhawk
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 5:28 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:51 am
Posts: 2257
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spokane
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 5:28 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:35 am
Posts: 680
|
|
We can suger coat this all day...its a bad move!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
cesame
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 5:30 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:36 pm
Posts: 1437
|
|
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.
Last edited by cesame on Wed Mar 17, 2010 5:32 pm, edited 2 times in total.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tech Worlds
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 5:31 pm |
|
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:40 am
Posts: 6897
Location: Granite Falls, WA
|
Spokane wrote: We can suger coat this all day...its a bad move! THE SKY IS FALLING!! THE SKY IS FALLING!! _________________
|
|
| |
|
|
|
AF_Hawk
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 5:31 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
|
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:18 pm
Posts: 1336
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!
_________________
|
|
| |
|
|
|
prelag
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 5:32 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spokane
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 5:33 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:35 am
Posts: 680
|
|
thats the problem, we don't know anything yet - outside of we lost some major draft pick ground.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
prelag
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 5:34 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
|
|
|
volsunghawk
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 5:35 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
|
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:20 am
Posts: 6165
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. _________________ Okay, so maybe that pass rush is still an issue. Lather, rinse, repeat.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mojambo
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 5:37 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2009 12:38 pm
Posts: 635
|
Quote: "Whitehurst is a 3rd string QB until proven otherwise." By this same standard Clausen isn't even an NFL player.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
volsunghawk
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 5:37 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
|
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:20 am
Posts: 6165
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. _________________ Okay, so maybe that pass rush is still an issue. Lather, rinse, repeat.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
prelag
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 5:37 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ninerguy
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 5:41 pm |
|
| NET Starter |
 |
|
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 11:28 am
Posts: 370
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. _________________ 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
prelag
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 5:42 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 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
|
|
