| Author |
Message |
|
VegasSeaHawk
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization  Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:54 pm |
|
| NET Rookie |
 |
 |
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 10:30 pm
Posts: 186
|
Wow this is bad news, I guess it means were out of the hunt for Tebow. 
_________________
Audentes Fortuna Juvat
Proud Member of Al Qaeda Hunting Club Since Sept 11 2001
|
|
  |
|
 |
|
theENGLISHseahawk
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:59 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
|
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:13 am
Posts: 6400
|
 I've just realised he looks a lot like Barry Gibb.  Being in my 20's I don't know this... but did you guys have the BeeGee's?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DrinkinTheLimerade
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:02 pm |
|
| NET Rookie |
 |
|
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 7:52 am
Posts: 103
Location: Seattle
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bigpumpkin
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:03 pm |
|
| *GOLD SUPPORTER* |
 |
|
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:13 pm
Posts: 3472
Location: Puyallup, WA USA
|
|
A reincarnation if I've ever seen one!!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Thunderhawk
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:07 pm |
|
| NET Rookie |
 |
|
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2009 6:44 pm
Posts: 276
|
|
Either you believe in the guy, in which case you try to sign him to longer than a two year deal - or you don't believe in the guy in which case you don't give up such high compensation.
Bad deal.
_________________ 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JSeahawks
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:08 pm |
|
| * NET Moderator * |
 |
 |
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 2:35 pm
Posts: 15460
Location: Milwaukie, Oregon
|
theENGLISHseahawk wrote: I've just realised he looks a lot like Barry Gibb. Being in my 20's I don't know this... but did you guys have the BeeGee's? Pete Carroll started a joke, now the whole world is laughing.... if only he'd seen that the joke was on him.... _________________ 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
kearly
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:10 pm |
|
| * Mr Random Thought * |
 |
|
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:44 am
Posts: 7250
|
 Saw that at fieldgulls. _________________  "I believe there’s merit to the idea that once something in life becomes conventional, it’s no longer the safest path to success." -Matt Waldman "If everyone's thinking alike, no one's thinking." -Bill Walsh
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JSeahawks
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:11 pm |
|
| * NET Moderator * |
|
|
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 2:35 pm
Posts: 15460
Location: Milwaukie, Oregon
|
kearly wrote: Saw that at fieldgulls. Hey, if he turns into Jesus in shoulder pads i think it's us who ripped off the Chargers. _________________
|
|
| |
|
|
|
kearly
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:12 pm |
|
| * Mr Random Thought * |
|
|
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:44 am
Posts: 7250
|
IIRC, didn't Jesus come out of nowhere right at age 30?  _________________ "I believe there’s merit to the idea that once something in life becomes conventional, it’s no longer the safest path to success." -Matt Waldman "If everyone's thinking alike, no one's thinking." -Bill Walsh
Last edited by kearly on Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Scottemojo
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:12 pm |
|
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:14 am
Posts: 7356
|
|
Kearly, that is classic.
_________________
SEAHAWKS.NET. We All We Got, We All We Need
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MysterMatt
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:18 pm |
|
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:12 am
Posts: 5987
|
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. Who says we are treating him like a "franchise" QB? 1) We didn't trade a #1 for him 2) We didn't sign him to a huge/long contract You've made up your mind and it is pointless for me to try and change it, but at least stay in a little place I like to call "reality". Whether you agree or not, the Org has decided that none of the QB's that may be available to us are what we are looking for, so we've decided to take a small gamble on Whitehurst. We still have a veteran backup and next year's QB class looks better. In the meantime, we can focus on other problem areas.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nanomoz
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:55 pm |
|
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 1:20 pm
Posts: 4207
Location: UT
|
|
I would absolutely love to eat crow on this. As it stands now, if I'm a Charger fan, I'm laughing hysterically and dancing--and haven't yet cracked the champagne--my team just moved up 20 spots in a draft stocked in that range and aqcuired a likely high 3rd rounder next year for a guy that probably would never have done a thing on my team's roster.
The more I think about it, the more I think we got bent over and broom handled.
_________________
“We need to be challenged, ... and we need to be under the gun to respond.” --Pete Carroll
|
|
| |
|
|
|
pepoandart
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:57 pm |
|
| NET Practice Squad |
|
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 8:57 pm
Posts: 55
|
|
I'm really kinda of confused by all this. Hell I don't even know what the deal is. Does anyone? I mean between this and trading Tapp it seems like the masses wanna burn down Qwest or something
|
|
| |
|
|
|
prelag
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 8:21 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
|
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:17 pm
Posts: 571
Location: Las Vegas, NV
|
MysterMatt wrote: 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. Who says we are treating him like a "franchise" QB? 1) We didn't trade a #1 for him 2) We didn't sign him to a huge/long contract You've made up your mind and it is pointless for me to try and change it, but at least stay in a little place I like to call "reality". Whether you agree or not, the Org has decided that none of the QB's that may be available to us are what we are looking for, so we've decided to take a small gamble on Whitehurst. We still have a veteran backup and next year's QB class looks better. In the meantime, we can focus on other problem areas. We didn't sign him to a huge contract? Guy is getting 10mil for 2 years. Considering he has done nothing IN the NFL for the past 3 years, I'd say that is a large sum. Forget money though, we dropped 20 spots in the 2nd round, and lost our 3rd for next year. That alone is more then I can swallow. _________________ 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 8:31 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
|
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:20 am
Posts: 6185
Location: Surrounded by Elway, Tebow, and Manning jerseys
|
prelag wrote: MysterMatt wrote: 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. Who says we are treating him like a "franchise" QB? 1) We didn't trade a #1 for him 2) We didn't sign him to a huge/long contract You've made up your mind and it is pointless for me to try and change it, but at least stay in a little place I like to call "reality". Whether you agree or not, the Org has decided that none of the QB's that may be available to us are what we are looking for, so we've decided to take a small gamble on Whitehurst. We still have a veteran backup and next year's QB class looks better. In the meantime, we can focus on other problem areas. We didn't sign him to a huge contract? Guy is getting 10mil for 2 years. Considering he has done nothing IN the NFL for the past 3 years, I'd say that is a large sum. Forget money though, we dropped 20 spots in the 2nd round, and lost our 3rd for next year. That alone is more then I can swallow. Yes, that's much worse than spending a high 1st round pick on a complete unknown quantity.  _________________  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 8:42 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
|
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:17 pm
Posts: 571
Location: Las Vegas, NV
|
Quote: Yes, that's much worse than spending a high 1st round pick on a complete unknown quantity. Yet teams do it every draft. Wonder why?  By your logic, we should never spend a 1st round pick. If we were to use one, we would be investing in a complete unknown quantity. Unless of course, you specifically meant the QB position. If so, is there some information about Whitehurst you'd care to share with the rest of us? _________________ 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 8:53 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
|
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:20 am
Posts: 6185
Location: Surrounded by Elway, Tebow, and Manning jerseys
|
prelag wrote: Quote: Yes, that's much worse than spending a high 1st round pick on a complete unknown quantity. Yet teams do it every draft. Wonder why? By your logic, we should never spend a 1st round pick. If we were to use one, we would be investing in a complete unknown quantity. Unless of course, you specifically meant the QB position. If so, is there some information about Whitehurst you'd care to share with the rest of us? No, by my logic, we shouldn't get all worked up over spending a late 2nd/early 3rd round on a prospective starting QB just because he has no NFL regular season experience precisely because teams do it all the time. And they often do it with higher stakes, spending earlier picks and more guaranteed money. _________________ 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 8:59 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
|
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:17 pm
Posts: 571
Location: Las Vegas, NV
|
volsunghawk wrote: prelag wrote: Quote: Yes, that's much worse than spending a high 1st round pick on a complete unknown quantity. Yet teams do it every draft. Wonder why? By your logic, we should never spend a 1st round pick. If we were to use one, we would be investing in a complete unknown quantity. Unless of course, you specifically meant the QB position. If so, is there some information about Whitehurst you'd care to share with the rest of us? No, by my logic, we shouldn't get all worked up over spending a late 2nd/early 3rd round on a prospective starting QB just because he has no NFL regular season experience precisely because teams do it all the time. And they often do it with higher stakes, spending earlier picks and more guaranteed money. Examples of teams that have given up as much or more then we have for a 3rd string QB, in our case, one with no game experience I might add. Hell, has there been a team this year to use anything higher then a 3rd on a FA QB? Also, how is the #40 a late second? Its an early 2nd. Early enough to draft a stud RB or safety. _________________ My hair is a banshee, your argument is invalid. http://www.seahawknation.net
|
|
| |
|
|
|
dentonmorganjay
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 9:20 pm |
|
| NET Bench Warmer |
|
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:42 pm
Posts: 2
|
|
I don't think this was a bad move Matt had virtually no experience when Seattle traded for him and we gave up Ahman Green. Worst case scenario we get a back up QB with more upside that Wallace until next season when we could possibly draft the Kid from Washington. I think there was more pressing needs than quarterback that need to be addressed first like our line running game defense and wideout. With none of these things getting fixed quarterback wont matter.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
hawkcrazzed
|
Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 9:21 pm |
|
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 8:55 am
Posts: 857
Location: Toronto Canada
|
Im Sorry but good god dude. I know your not drinking the cool-aid but don't pee in it eather some draft picks never work out and if you can get some one with half decent skills you go for it. He was on san deigo. not like he was the third stringer on the rams or lions. Come on Yes draft picks are important but they can also set your franchise back decades too look at the lions 
_________________
God Bless America and God Bless the SEATTLE SEAHAWKS - TEZ
|
|
| |
|
|
|
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
|
|
