
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?
kearly wrote:
Saw that at fieldgulls.
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.
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.
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.
prelag wrote: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?
volsunghawk wrote:prelag wrote: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.
rjdriver wrote:You guys checked out the Chargers forums for the hell of it?
Kind of interesting, got on http://www.bolttalk.net/forums/showthread.php?t=21809 and was checking out SD's forums. In a nut shell;
Started out with posts like this:
"I seriously doubt a 3rd round tender would be gotten for Charlie.
I mean seriously we just traded a former pro-bowl CB in Cromartie for a 3rd round tender. The thought of a guy who has taken a handful of snaps at the pro level after 4 years, doesn't really add up to getting a 3rd rounder for him.
Not saying some desperate team wouldn't just saying it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY."
and
"I would gladly give him up for a 3rd.
I din't think that it will happen though."
and
"Maybe we get a fifth or sixth rounder. Maybe a fourth next year."
Most current posts looks like this:
"Suck on that all you AJ doubters.""
and
"A.J. SMITH IS GOD !!!!!!
ALL WHO DOUBT WILL BE CAST DOWN INTO THE BOWELS OF THE FORUM
POSTERS SHOULD GET ON THEIR KNEES !!!"
And....wait for it.....
"HAHAHAHAHA OMG
Its a great feeling to come home after a long day and see that AJ moved us up 20 spots in the 2nd, and got us an extra 3rd next year for a guy who has never thrown a pass in the NFL."
Enough said. What does it mean? Nothing of course....I just wish ONE of our threads could share even a resemblance to theirs. First Seneca, then Tapp, Now this....
God, I hope my frustrations are unfounded.
prelag wrote:volsunghawk wrote:
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.
volsunghawk wrote:prelag wrote:volsunghawk wrote:
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.
You keep calling Whitehurst a 3rd-string QB, but rookies in the draft are NO string QBs until they're brought in. They haven't even proven they can make an NFL roster.
The total value of the picks traded for Whitehurst is worth a late 2nd/early 3rd. It's not like we just tossed our 2nd round pick away. We got #60 in return, which is a late 2nd. Combine that with the 2011 3rd, and the value comes out to around the 2nd round/3rd round border. And by the way, you can still get "stud" players at the end of the 2nd, just as easily as you can get a bust early in the 1st.
Bigpumpkin wrote:A reincarnation if I've ever seen one!!
Yeah, Whitehurst will be 28yo at the start of season! He's older then Aaron Rodgers also!
SeaTown81 wrote:Schefter retweeted this from some random user:Yeah, Whitehurst will be 28yo at the start of season! He's older then Aaron Rodgers also!
The Hawks are taking a beating on this deal from everyone all around. It really isn't helping me be more positive about it.
SeaTown81 wrote:The Hawks are taking a beating on this deal from everyone all around. It really isn't helping me be more positive about it.
depecheSeahawk wrote:What the french.....toast! Seriously, why are we giving players away for cheap and paying so much for others?!
What's wrong with Teel? How is this guy any different than him?
This is wrong in so many ways. Obviously we all hope this turns into another Hass (of '04-'07 with an OL) and it turns out to be a steal. But, right now it's ridiculous!
theENGLISHseahawk wrote:Maybe this is the states for you... but in England, when a coach gets fired he either gets another job or he just keeps his head down. He doesn't go on the radio talking about what his replacement is doing with a critical eye.
depecheSeahawk wrote:Is he really getting $5mil a year? What the hell has he done to derserve that much?! Did Charlie come here wearing a Favre costume?
theENGLISHseahawk wrote:Oh my god - now JIM MORA is sticking his oar in. 'Matt Hasselbeck deserves better'. Maybe this is the states for you... but in England, when a coach gets fired he either gets another job or he just keeps his head down. He doesn't go on the radio talking about what his replacement is doing with a critical eye.
What a crock.
theENGLISHseahawk wrote:The worst case scenario is seattle gave up a bit of draft stock. The best case scenario is - QB position sewn up. The potential pro's far outweigh the con's.
LawHawk wrote:theENGLISHseahawk wrote:The worst case scenario is seattle gave up a bit of draft stock. The best case scenario is - QB position sewn up. The potential pro's far outweigh the con's.
I agree that best-case scenario here is much more good than worst-case scenario is bad. But what are the odds of each? The odds that we lose draft currency is 100%. The odds that we get a good QB (I'm not even saying Pro Bowl, just above average) are what, 25% at best? I don't think anyone has any evidence that this guy has a 50-50 chance of being a good starting QB.
Tech Worlds wrote:When you draft a player you lose that draft currency too, with no assurances that the player will work out for you.
So what is your point?
It is currently Fri Apr 20, 2018 8:30 pm