| Author |
Message |
|
prelag
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization  Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:13 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
 |
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
|
|
  |
|
 |
|
volsunghawk
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:14 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
|
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:20 am
Posts: 6167
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. _________________  Okay, so maybe that pass rush is still an issue. Lather, rinse, repeat.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
seedhawk
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:15 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:51 am
Posts: 2257
|
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! 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
hawkfan68
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:16 pm |
|
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:10 am
Posts: 2640
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
prelag
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:19 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CHawks4L
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:21 pm |
|
| NET Rookie |
 |
|
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 7:01 am
Posts: 246
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"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mojambo
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:23 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2009 12:38 pm
Posts: 635
|
|
They weren't the only team to express significant interest in Whitehurst.
There's something there.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
volsunghawk
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:24 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
|
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:20 am
Posts: 6167
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. _________________ Okay, so maybe that pass rush is still an issue. Lather, rinse, repeat.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HAWKMANINVANCOUVER
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:26 pm |
|
| NET Bench Warmer |
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
hawkfan68
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:29 pm |
|
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:10 am
Posts: 2640
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=PAL249055Charlie 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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HAWKMANINVANCOUVER
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:31 pm |
|
| NET Bench Warmer |
|
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  HM
|
|
| |
|
|
|
hawkfan68
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:36 pm |
|
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:10 am
Posts: 2640
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 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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tech Worlds
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:38 pm |
|
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:40 am
Posts: 6897
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.
_________________ 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bigpumpkin
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:40 pm |
|
| *GOLD SUPPORTER* |
 |
 |
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:13 pm
Posts: 3464
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?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bigpumpkin
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:41 pm |
|
| *GOLD SUPPORTER* |
|
|
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:13 pm
Posts: 3464
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?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tech Worlds
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:41 pm |
|
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:40 am
Posts: 6897
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. _________________
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Seanhawk
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:44 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
|
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 2:04 pm
Posts: 1343
|
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?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bigpumpkin
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:45 pm |
|
| *GOLD SUPPORTER* |
|
|
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:13 pm
Posts: 3464
Location: Puyallup, WA USA
|
Is the Pope Catholic? 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
bighawk
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:50 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 11:44 am
Posts: 555
|
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. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TDOTSEAHAWK
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:52 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
|
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 12:16 pm
Posts: 2605
Location: Hamilton
|
|
Teel is irrelevant. Let's see what this kid Whtehurst can do.
_________________ Beast Mode...try BORG MODE Driver of the PC/JS Bandwagon since 2010
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 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
|
|
