Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization

A collection of NET's best and most memorable threads. Predictions, debates, laughs, and X's & O's. Rating: PG to NC-17
  • theENGLISHseahawk wrote:
    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?



    So what?

    Seriously - let's just give the guy a chance. It won't 'make or break' the new regime. It's a calculated gamble with greater potential upside than what we gave up. Don't get all the negativity.


    I'm with you here, we all think we could have received more and given less to get him. If San Diego was really that fond of him to tender him a 3rd rounder then I'm sure this risk was worth it, at least I hope it was... :180670:
    Image Image
    User avatar
    AF_Hawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2134
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:18 pm
    Location: Marysville, WA


  • theENGLISHseahawk wrote:
    So what?

    Seriously - let's just give the guy a chance. It won't 'make or break' the new regime. It's a calculated gamble with greater potential upside than what we gave up. Don't get all the negativity.


    $5mil is a lot for an unproven rookie. This guy is an unproven pro. Seriously, just seems like a lot of money for a guy who wasn't even someones SECOND string QB. How do people not see the negativity in that. Believe me, I hope this guy is the next Favre that ATL didn't want and traded to GB. I just don't get why SEA gave so much for this guy and let Wallace walk for SO MUCH less. I just don't get it.
    Image

    My nickname for Wilson....Silent Russassin. He's calm and collective and will KILL you silently. No smack talk, no warning, kills you silently while getting the job done!
    depecheSeahawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 634
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 5:22 am
    Location: Lacey, WA


  • 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.


    Good for them, they should be happy. Their team stockpiled some very good QB's, and other teams(us) who are desperate for QB's came calling. They got some value for a player that was buried on the depth chart. Good for the Chargers. Their fans should be happy.

    But you know what? Good for us as well. We potentially got a good QB who might start for us for a drop down in the second round and a 3rd. If CW plays well, it's a steal for us too. Right? I would hope as fans of the Seahawks we can be excited to see what this guy can do, he has all the potential in the world. Have some faith.

    Not all trades have to be one sides, this could be beneficial for both teams down the road.
    So you think you can tell Heaven from Hell, blue skies from pain. Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail? A smile from a veil?
    User avatar
    twisted_steel2
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5545
    Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 9:41 am
    Location: Ballard


  • HAWKNUTZ wrote:I find it hard to believe that the eagles would not have taken this years 2nd and next years 3rd for kolb but I could be wrong but if they would have I would much rather had kolb!! What a joke of a deal!!! I wonder if we are in neg. with the peirce county bengals now to land a couple of there guys LMAO!

    A friend of mine once said that his chances of winning the lottery are only slightly less than someone who actually plays. It seems to me that that's about the difference between Kolb and Whitehurst -- or at least, the difference between their respective available NFL film.

    WHY on earth are you still pimping Kolb as the would-have-been deal to save our franchise, yet in a roundabout way comparing Whitehurst to Pierce County Bengal players?
    49ers webzone: Win or lose, i hope you injure Sherman. Like a serious career ending injury. I don't want him to get paid.
    49ers webzone: noise should not be the overwhelming reason a team is favored. they need to spray noise-damping foam onto the ceiling of that place.
    User avatar
    BlueTalon
    * NET Curmudgeon *
    * NET Curmudgeon *
     
    Posts: 7453
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:06 am
    Location: Eastern Washington


  • depecheSeahawk wrote:
    theENGLISHseahawk wrote:
    So what?

    Seriously - let's just give the guy a chance. It won't 'make or break' the new regime. It's a calculated gamble with greater potential upside than what we gave up. Don't get all the negativity.


    $5mil is a lot for an unproven rookie. This guy is an unproven pro. Seriously, just seems like a lot of money for a guy who wasn't even someones SECOND string QB. How do people not see the negativity in that. Believe me, I hope this guy is the next Favre that ATL didn't want and traded to GB. I just don't get why SEA gave so much for this guy and let Wallace walk for SO MUCH less. I just don't get it.


    I don't think 5 million a year for a QB that they think is starter quality is too much. I really don't.

    We paid for CW because we think he has potential. That commands a higher trade value.

    Wallace has no potential, everyone has seen what he can do, you're not going to win games with that guy. As a full time starter he is not going to get a team into the playoffs. The only value he had was to Holmgren because he knows his offense. And from the trade value we got from him, Holmgren didn't care that much even then.

    I just don't get the confusion here.
    So you think you can tell Heaven from Hell, blue skies from pain. Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail? A smile from a veil?
    User avatar
    twisted_steel2
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5545
    Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 9:41 am
    Location: Ballard


  • depecheSeahawk wrote:
    theENGLISHseahawk wrote:
    So what?

    Seriously - let's just give the guy a chance. It won't 'make or break' the new regime. It's a calculated gamble with greater potential upside than what we gave up. Don't get all the negativity.


    $5mil is a lot for an unproven rookie. This guy is an unproven pro. Seriously, just seems like a lot of money for a guy who wasn't even someones SECOND string QB. How do people not see the negativity in that. Believe me, I hope this guy is the next Favre that ATL didn't want and traded to GB. I just don't get why SEA gave so much for this guy and let Wallace walk for SO MUCH less. I just don't get it.


    $5million is a FRACTION of what we would have paid for a top rookie QB. As for the third stringer comments, please get over it. He was behind one of the best QBs in the league, and a pretty damn good veteran. What do you want him to do about it, he didn't get to pick where he was drafted. The reason why Seattle gave what the did for Whitehurst, and got so little for Seneca is....someone actually wanted Whitehurst, no one wanted Seneca. I don't get why people keep comparing the two deals, they are miles apart. Seneca had no value to us, and obviously no value to anyone else.
    cboom wrote:Wilson is the worst QB I have seen as a Hawks fan. And I have been around long enough to see them all.
    User avatar
    HawksFTW
    * NET E-Knight *
     
    Posts: 4157
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 10:06 am


  • prelag wrote:
    volsunghawk wrote: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?

    If we need to draft a franchise QB in the not-too-distant future, there's a good chance we'll be doing it with a predetermined rookie salary structure or rookie salary cap in place.
    49ers webzone: Win or lose, i hope you injure Sherman. Like a serious career ending injury. I don't want him to get paid.
    49ers webzone: noise should not be the overwhelming reason a team is favored. they need to spray noise-damping foam onto the ceiling of that place.
    User avatar
    BlueTalon
    * NET Curmudgeon *
    * NET Curmudgeon *
     
    Posts: 7453
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:06 am
    Location: Eastern Washington


  • Some people have turned this into a debate about whether Clausen or Whitehurst will be the better QB. IMO, it's not really a relevant question unless one of them ends up really sucking. The predominant question going into the draft was how we were going to address our QB situation -- regardless of the deal, the fact is that we addressed the situation before the draft, rather than taking a chance in the draft that a QB we would want (Clausen) would be available at #6. If Clausen and Bradford were both gone by #6, we would have been scrambling to find someone else worthwhile in a later round that we would likely be forced to rely on, sooner rather than later. As it is, the Seahawks were proactive in addressing the situation, and I find comfort in that. Besides, we could still draft someone like Canfield.

    One other thing. We have discussed Clausen ad nauseum on this board, including the fact that Pete Carroll scouted him for a long time and tried to recruit him. The same could very well be true of Whitehurst. He started his college career during Carroll's reign at USC, so there's a good chance that Carroll is actually more familiar with Whitehurst than most NFL coaches are.


    twisted_steel2 wrote:Good for them, they should be happy. Their team stockpiled some very good QB's, and other teams(us) who are desperate for QB's came calling. They got some value for a player that was buried on the depth chart. Good for the Chargers. Their fans should be happy.

    But you know what? Good for us as well. We potentially got a good QB who might start for us for a drop down in the second round and a 3rd. If CW plays well, it's a steal for us too. Right? I would hope as fans of the Seahawks we can be excited to see what this guy can do, he has all the potential in the world. Have some faith.

    Not all trades have to be one sides, this could be beneficial for both teams down the road.

    Well stated!
    49ers webzone: Win or lose, i hope you injure Sherman. Like a serious career ending injury. I don't want him to get paid.
    49ers webzone: noise should not be the overwhelming reason a team is favored. they need to spray noise-damping foam onto the ceiling of that place.
    User avatar
    BlueTalon
    * NET Curmudgeon *
    * NET Curmudgeon *
     
    Posts: 7453
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:06 am
    Location: Eastern Washington


  • Since Whitehurst would have been an UFA next year anyway (when we could have pursued him without having to trade anything), our staff has got to either think he'll compete for the starting job this year or will get significant time due to Hasselbeck sucking/being injuried.

    Right? Or is there some element of this equation I'm not getting. I guess there's a chance we just want him around for a year (learning offense, etc.) before he gets his shot.
    “We need to be challenged, ... and we need to be under the gun to respond.” --Pete Carroll
    User avatar
    nanomoz
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 4717
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 1:20 pm
    Location: UT


  • HawksFTW wrote: $5million is a FRACTION of what we would have paid for a top rookie QB. As for the third stringer comments, please get over it. He was behind one of the best QBs in the league, and a pretty damn good veteran. What do you want him to do about it, he didn't get to pick where he was drafted. The reason why Seattle gave what the did for Whitehurst, and got so little for Seneca is....someone actually wanted Whitehurst, no one wanted Seneca. I don't get why people keep comparing the two deals, they are miles apart. Seneca had no value to us, and obviously no value to anyone else.


    Get over it? So, we should just shut this message board down and post picks, trades etc and have a "In Pete we trust" emoticon for everyone to use. :roll:

    I'm not stupid. I KNOW a top rookie would be a lot more money. I just don't see why he is worth the money. Is SD the capitol of QB World? Billy Volek isn't that great of a QB. Shoot, he was aquired for a 6th round pick.

    I know this is all moot with the comparisons. I just don't understand what our front office sees in this guy. Can anyone tell me? Just because they tender him as a 3rd rounder doesn't mean he is that to everyone but us. They were just trying to get what they could and we bit. Even their fans didn't think anyone would. All I keep reading about is how SEA traded for a guy who hasn't played any real snaps in his NFL career.

    And Twisted, I know I know $5mil would be cheap for a starter. But again, why do we think he will be? What have our guys seen?

    Don't get me wrong. I hope this is a steal. I'm not even saying this is a bad deal. Just wondering what warranted us thinking he's starter material with all the money he's being paid.
    Image

    My nickname for Wilson....Silent Russassin. He's calm and collective and will KILL you silently. No smack talk, no warning, kills you silently while getting the job done!
    depecheSeahawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 634
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 5:22 am
    Location: Lacey, WA


  • depecheSeahawk wrote:
    HawksFTW wrote: $5million is a FRACTION of what we would have paid for a top rookie QB. As for the third stringer comments, please get over it. He was behind one of the best QBs in the league, and a pretty damn good veteran. What do you want him to do about it, he didn't get to pick where he was drafted. The reason why Seattle gave what the did for Whitehurst, and got so little for Seneca is....someone actually wanted Whitehurst, no one wanted Seneca. I don't get why people keep comparing the two deals, they are miles apart. Seneca had no value to us, and obviously no value to anyone else.


    Get over it? So, we should just shut this message board down and post picks, trades etc and have a "In Pete we trust" emoticon for everyone to use. :roll:

    I'm not stupid. I KNOW a top rookie would be a lot more money. I just don't see why he is worth the money. Is SD the capitol of QB World? Billy Volek isn't that great of a QB. Shoot, he was aquired for a 6th round pick.

    I know this is all moot with the comparisons. I just don't understand what our front office sees in this guy. Can anyone tell me? Just because they tender him as a 3rd rounder doesn't mean he is that to everyone but us. They were just trying to get what they could and we bit. Even their fans didn't think anyone would. All I keep reading about is how SEA traded for a guy who hasn't played any real snaps in his NFL career.

    And Twisted, I know I know $5mil would be cheap for a starter. But again, why do we think he will be? What have our guys seen?

    Don't get me wrong. I hope this is a steal. I'm not even saying this is a bad deal. Just wondering what warranted us thinking he's starter material with all the money he's being paid.


    Le sigh. Take a look at what Volek did in the regular season in 2004 for Tennessee when he was given the opportunity to start. You should be able to find it at NFL.com or at pro-football-reference.com. He was had for a low pick because he was disgruntled with the Titans for bringing Kerry Collins in, and San Diego took advantage of that. Volek is a whole lot better than most of you seem to understand. And San Diego has a top 5 in the league QB as their first string.

    The point is that "3rd string" in San Diego is not "3rd string" everywhere else in the league. SD happened to have the strongest set of QBs in the entire NFL. Just because Whitehurst couldn't crack the top two in that situation doesn't mean he's a worthless scrub. The Chargers saw potential in Whitehurst when they drafted him. Carroll and Schneider saw potential in Whitehurst when they traded for him. And I, for one, am glad they decided to take a flier on this guy to see if he can be our starter rather than commit a massive contract to one of the garbage QBs in this year's draft (who - guess what - are even MORE unproven than Whitehurst).
    Image

    Super Bowl XLVIII Champions
    User avatar
    volsunghawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 8329
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:20 am
    Location: Right outside Richard Sherman's house


  • volsunghawk wrote: Le sigh. Take a look at what Volek did in the regular season in 2004 for Tennessee when he was given the opportunity to start. You should be able to find it at NFL.com or at pro-football-reference.com. He was had for a low pick because he was disgruntled with the Titans for bringing Kerry Collins in, and San Diego took advantage of that. Volek is a whole lot better than most of you seem to understand. And San Diego has a top 5 in the league QB as their first string.

    The point is that "3rd string" in San Diego is not "3rd string" everywhere else in the league. SD happened to have the strongest set of QBs in the entire NFL. Just because Whitehurst couldn't crack the top two in that situation doesn't mean he's a worthless scrub. The Chargers saw potential in Whitehurst when they drafted him. Carroll and Schneider saw potential in Whitehurst when they traded for him. And I, for one, am glad they decided to take a flier on this guy to see if he can be our starter rather than commit a massive contract to one of the garbage QBs in this year's draft (who - guess what - are even MORE unproven than Whitehurst).


    A big Charlie (no pun intended) Brown UUUUUHHHHGGGG.

    Has anyone read what I asked? I said I know a rookie would be more $ but at least he'd have credentials that would let me know why he was making so much.


    AGAIN, I am just wondering where/when SEA (NOT SD) saw potential in Whitehurst? In college four years ago? In preseason? That's ALL I want to know. Forget the trade blah blah blah. DOES ANYONE KNOW MORE ABOUT HIM OTHER THAN HE WAS A GOOD QB ON A TEAM THAT ALREADY HAD TWO GOOD QBs. Believe me, I understand one third for a team can be a first for us. Just WHY do we think so. That's all. My gosh, I'm not against the guy. (As stated before).
    Last edited by depecheSeahawk on Fri Mar 19, 2010 1:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    Image

    My nickname for Wilson....Silent Russassin. He's calm and collective and will KILL you silently. No smack talk, no warning, kills you silently while getting the job done!
    depecheSeahawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 634
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 5:22 am
    Location: Lacey, WA


  • Depeche,

    They worked him out. They watched him throw passes. THey discussed X's and O's with him. Bates and Carrrell know what they need a in a QB. Just as Holmgren knew what he needeed in a QB. You can't always get that from film. The QB may play in a different system for example. He may not be asked to make the types of throws needed in a different system. Doesnt mean he can't do it.. That's why they work him out. Bottom line Pete is going to get the players he wants to play in his system.. If he needs to justify every move to the fans then we're screwed. In the end the results will speak..
    redeye81
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1259
    Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 9:58 pm
    Location: Boise


  • depecheSeahawk wrote:
    volsunghawk wrote:.
    Le sigh. Take a look at what Volek did in the regular season in 2004 for Tennessee when he was given the opportunity to start. You should be able to find it at NFL.com or at pro-football-reference.com. He was had for a low pick because he was disgruntled with the Titans for bringing Kerry Collins in, and San Diego took advantage of that. Volek is a whole lot better than most of you seem to understand. And San Diego has a top 5 in the league QB as their first string.

    The point is that "3rd string" in San Diego is not "3rd string" everywhere else in the league. SD happened to have the strongest set of QBs in the entire NFL. Just because Whitehurst couldn't crack the top two in that situation doesn't mean he's a worthless scrub. The Chargers saw potential in Whitehurst when they drafted him. Carroll and Schneider saw potential in Whitehurst when they traded for him. And I, for one, am glad they decided to take a flier on this guy to see if he can be our starter rather than commit a massive contract to one of the garbage QBs in this year's draft (who - guess what - are even MORE unproven than Whitehurst).


    A big Charlie (no pun intended) Brown UUUUUHHHHGGGG.

    Has anyone read what I asked? I said I know a rookie would be more $ but at least he'd have credentials that would let me know why he was making so much.

    AGAIN, I am just wondering where/when SEA (NOT SD) saw potential in Whitehurst? In college four years ago? In preseason? That's ALL I want to know. Forget the trade blah blah blah. DOES ANYONE KNOW MORE ABOUT HIM OTHER THAN HE WAS A GOOD QB ON A TEAM THAT ALREADY HAD TWO GOOD QBs. Believe me, I understand one third for a team can be a first for us. Just WHY do we think so. That's all. My gosh, I'm not against the guy. (As stated before).[/quote]

    I don't understand the logic here. A rookie would have credentials over a veteran? Don't get that at all. Especially when that rookie has yet to set foot in the NFL. While the vet has been in the league and practicing with NFL players for the past 4-5 years. Please explain your rationale because I must be missing something here.
    User avatar
    hawkfan68
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 4079
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:10 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


  • hawkfan68 wrote:
    depecheSeahawk wrote:
    volsunghawk wrote:.
    Le sigh. Take a look at what Volek did in the regular season in 2004 for Tennessee when he was given the opportunity to start. You should be able to find it at NFL.com or at pro-football-reference.com. He was had for a low pick because he was disgruntled with the Titans for bringing Kerry Collins in, and San Diego took advantage of that. Volek is a whole lot better than most of you seem to understand. And San Diego has a top 5 in the league QB as their first string.

    The point is that "3rd string" in San Diego is not "3rd string" everywhere else in the league. SD happened to have the strongest set of QBs in the entire NFL. Just because Whitehurst couldn't crack the top two in that situation doesn't mean he's a worthless scrub. The Chargers saw potential in Whitehurst when they drafted him. Carroll and Schneider saw potential in Whitehurst when they traded for him. And I, for one, am glad they decided to take a flier on this guy to see if he can be our starter rather than commit a massive contract to one of the garbage QBs in this year's draft (who - guess what - are even MORE unproven than Whitehurst).


    A big Charlie (no pun intended) Brown UUUUUHHHHGGGG.

    Has anyone read what I asked? I said I know a rookie would be more $ but at least he'd have credentials that would let me know why he was making so much.

    AGAIN, I am just wondering where/when SEA (NOT SD) saw potential in Whitehurst? In college four years ago? In preseason? That's ALL I want to know. Forget the trade blah blah blah. DOES ANYONE KNOW MORE ABOUT HIM OTHER THAN HE WAS A GOOD QB ON A TEAM THAT ALREADY HAD TWO GOOD QBs. Believe me, I understand one third for a team can be a first for us. Just WHY do we think so. That's all. My gosh, I'm not against the guy. (As stated before).


    I don't understand the logic here. A rookie would have credentials over a veteran? Don't get that at all. Especially when that rookie has yet to set foot in the NFL. While the vet has been in the league and practicing with NFL players for the past 4-5 years. Please explain your rationale because I must be missing something here.[/quote]


    I agree, your missing something. All of us are..
    User avatar
    hawksmode
    *SILVER SUPPORTER*
    *SILVER SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 1140
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:31 am
    Location: Washington


  • Whitehurst is better than any quarterback in this draft and if Hasselbeck gets hurt like he always do then this guy can play right away. The best thing about him to me is his arm strength one pass on the highlight youtube of him he threw a pass from the 10 yard line and the guy caught it on the other side of the fields 30 yard line, the ball was in the air for 60 yards and it looked like he barely flicked his arm, now that is arm strength. He has a quick high and tight release great feet and mobility and he looks like he will be hard to tackle. I am sure that they will trade back and try to get a 3rd and or another second. This team needs playmakers and C.J.Spiller would be great at a trade back from 6 and Charles Brown in a trade back from 14.
    bighawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 556
    Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 11:44 am


  • redeye81 wrote:Depeche,

    They worked him out. They watched him throw passes. THey discussed X's and O's with him. Bates and Carrrell know what they need a in a QB. Just as Holmgren knew what he needeed in a QB. You can't always get that from film. The QB may play in a different system for example. He may not be asked to make the types of throws needed in a different system. Doesnt mean he can't do it.. That's why they work him out. Bottom line Pete is going to get the players he wants to play in his system.. If he needs to justify every move to the fans then we're screwed. In the end the results will speak..


    I also read that they watched every snap of his on film. Schneider also scouted him coming out of college.

    "We took our time, now. We didn't rush through this judgment at all. We looked at everything. We've seen every snap he's had about three different times."

    Schneider referred to scouting Whitehurst at a workout in 2005 at Clemson and watching him play against Georgia Tech a year later.

    "When you see somebody like this, you've got to take your shot," Schneider said.
    So you think you can tell Heaven from Hell, blue skies from pain. Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail? A smile from a veil?
    User avatar
    twisted_steel2
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5545
    Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 9:41 am
    Location: Ballard


  • bighawk wrote:Whitehurst is better than any quarterback in this draft and if Hasselbeck gets hurt like he always do then this guy can play right away. The best thing about him to me is his arm strength one pass on the highlight youtube of him he threw a pass from the 10 yard line and the guy caught it on the other side of the fields 30 yard line, the ball was in the air for 60 yards and it looked like he barely flicked his arm, now that is arm strength. He has a quick high and tight release great feet and mobility and he looks like he will be hard to tackle. I am sure that they will trade back and try to get a 3rd and or another second. This team needs playmakers and C.J.Spiller would be great at a trade back from 6 and Charles Brown in a trade back from 14.


    Why was he the 3rd QB then? I think that is what is baffling us that are a little bothered by this...If Norv Turner is the great mind..maybe he knows Whitehurst is not that great. I think if AZ did this, we would laugh at them.

    I am looking at this like Obama..I did not want him as pres. but will support him and hope he does well...wait, that is not a good example and might scare some cause he is doing a horrible job!
    User avatar
    hawksmode
    *SILVER SUPPORTER*
    *SILVER SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 1140
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:31 am
    Location: Washington


  • hawksmode wrote:
    bighawk wrote:Whitehurst is better than any quarterback in this draft and if Hasselbeck gets hurt like he always do then this guy can play right away. The best thing about him to me is his arm strength one pass on the highlight youtube of him he threw a pass from the 10 yard line and the guy caught it on the other side of the fields 30 yard line, the ball was in the air for 60 yards and it looked like he barely flicked his arm, now that is arm strength. He has a quick high and tight release great feet and mobility and he looks like he will be hard to tackle. I am sure that they will trade back and try to get a 3rd and or another second. This team needs playmakers and C.J.Spiller would be great at a trade back from 6 and Charles Brown in a trade back from 14.


    Why was he the 3rd QB then?


    Again, this has been explained over and over.

    Do I really have to type it again?

    This board is going to make me insane! AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!! Where's the little icon that shows me losing my mind?

    :dummy: :dummy: :dummy: :dummy: :dummy:
    So you think you can tell Heaven from Hell, blue skies from pain. Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail? A smile from a veil?
    User avatar
    twisted_steel2
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5545
    Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 9:41 am
    Location: Ballard


  • I think some just don't want to get it.

    I understand if you don't like the move. I can understand that.

    But to not understand why he is a 3rd stringer in San Diego, or why we had to trade so much is just plain laziness.

    San Diego had 3 quality QB's. Whitehurst had the least experience of all of them. We traded what we had to cuz it was a bidding war and we wanted him.

    It's really not that hard to get.
    Hawks are 4-0 when Lynch gets atleast 20 touches.

    Scottemojo wrote:As for the rest of your post, well...you convinced me. You know more than everyone else. I bow to your superior knowledge
    User avatar
    Unsilent_Majority
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1121
    Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:52 am


  • Thanks twisted steel2 i don't have to explain myself again.
    bighawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 556
    Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 11:44 am


  • Right...it's laziness...couldn't possibly be that the explanations about why he was 3rd have been heard and still don't quite make everyone feel happy about what we gave up for a 3rd stringer.

    San Diego had 2 quality QBs and one that nobody knows anything about (the one we got). The bidding war definitely jacked the price up, I get that.

    Arizona liking him is better than no one else liking him I suppose. I'm happy the FO worked the guy out and watched tape. Neither of those two things invalidate the point that we gave up what we gave up and are paying what we're paying salary-wise for a guy that nothing (real) is known about other than he wasn't good enough to see the field, for 5 years, in San Diego. Rivers is good, and Volek is also good. Those are mitigating factors, they do not change what is and isn't known about the guy.

    I don't mind taking chances and I don't think we killed ourselves taking this particular one but it was a chance and we gave up more than teams usually give up to throw a dart, that's all, that's why people dislike it, it's reasonable.
    hawk45
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 5467
    Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 1:08 pm


  • twisted_steel2 wrote:
    hawksmode wrote:
    bighawk wrote:Whitehurst is better than any quarterback in this draft and if Hasselbeck gets hurt like he always do then this guy can play right away. The best thing about him to me is his arm strength one pass on the highlight youtube of him he threw a pass from the 10 yard line and the guy caught it on the other side of the fields 30 yard line, the ball was in the air for 60 yards and it looked like he barely flicked his arm, now that is arm strength. He has a quick high and tight release great feet and mobility and he looks like he will be hard to tackle. I am sure that they will trade back and try to get a 3rd and or another second. This team needs playmakers and C.J.Spiller would be great at a trade back from 6 and Charles Brown in a trade back from 14.


    Why was he the 3rd QB then?


    Again, this has been explained over and over.

    Do I really have to type it again?

    This board is going to make me insane! AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!! Where's the little icon that shows me losing my mind?

    :dummy: :dummy: :dummy: :dummy: :dummy:



    Explained over and over? But who is explaining it? You,and others speculating?...that makes me feel better.

    The thing is you are not understanding what I mean...I think him being a 3rd option is why people are concerned...why did we not go for their second then :sarcasm_on: and :sarcasm_off: ...

    a lot of people are explaining why THEY think it was a smart move...those of us that DO NOT think it was, CAN question it...I just hate when people on this board criticize someone that does or does not agree with them.....gets old.
    User avatar
    hawksmode
    *SILVER SUPPORTER*
    *SILVER SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 1140
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:31 am
    Location: Washington


  • hawk45 wrote:Right...it's laziness...couldn't possibly be that the explanations about why he was 3rd have been heard and still don't quite make everyone feel happy about what we gave up for a 3rd stringer.

    San Diego had 2 quality QBs and one that nobody knows anything about (the one we got). The bidding war definitely jacked the price up, I get that.

    Arizona liking him is better than no one else liking him I suppose. I'm happy the FO worked the guy out and watched tape. Neither of those two things invalidate the point that we gave up what we gave up and are paying what we're paying salary-wise for a guy that nothing (real) is known about other than he wasn't good enough to see the field, for 5 years, in San Diego. Rivers is good, and Volek is also good. Those are mitigating factors, they do not change what is and isn't known about the guy.

    I don't mind taking chances and I don't think we killed ourselves taking this particular one but it was a chance and we gave up more than teams usually give up to throw a dart, that's all, that's why people dislike it, it's reasonable.


    Like I said above you don't have to like it. I get that.

    You seem to understand though why he was 3rd string and why we chose to give up what we had to get him.

    Personally I get a good laugh at the people already saying this is a bad move. How do you know? Dude hasn't even taken a snap yet. I guess I'd like to take my time evaluating this. No reason to rush to judgment yet.
    Hawks are 4-0 when Lynch gets atleast 20 touches.

    Scottemojo wrote:As for the rest of your post, well...you convinced me. You know more than everyone else. I bow to your superior knowledge
    User avatar
    Unsilent_Majority
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1121
    Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:52 am


  • I will also admit that I do not like the idea of Clausen or Bradford. I much prefer dropping 20 spots to burning the 6 and a gajillion dollars on guys who I really don't feel are the types of prospects that deserve that sort of investment. It's inarguable that gambling and losing on that sort of move can definitely be a franchise-killer, something the Whitehurst move will never be regardless of outcome.

    I wish we'd have had the third, but we didn't. For me this move comes down to pursuing a true stopgap QB for lesser compensation or taking a bit of a leap at a guy who we think has a little bit of a chance to be more than a stopgap. A middle of the road move.

    I'm tentatively okay with the overpayment under these circumstances. I don't wish to see this approach with other positions but I don't think we have seen that yet. I was okay with the Tapp/Wallace moves. I do give GMs some license to not squeeze too hard when dealing players from a former regime and I thought those deals were fair to us. We didn't hoodwink anyone but I don't have that expectation although I wouldn't mind seeing a hoodwink or two here.
    hawk45
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 5467
    Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 1:08 pm


  • twisted_steel2 wrote:
    Again, this has been explained over and over.

    Do I really have to type it again?

    This board is going to make me insane! AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!! Where's the little icon that shows me losing my mind?

    :dummy: :dummy: :dummy: :dummy: :dummy:


    No, you don't have to explain it again. I think EVERYONE knows why he was a third in SD. Because THEY think freak'n Billy Volek is a great QB too. Like I said before, "Someones 3rd could be our 1st". Some also DON'T think Volek was that good and Whitehurst was "worse" than him. (Hey, it could be they thought he just wasn't ready. But really, they have Rivers. Did they really care?! LOL!)

    For the record, I don't want SEA to go out and sell the farm for a high QB pick either. People on here are acting like the contribitors of this topic string are the only ones that think SEA overpaid in compensation to SD and to Whitehurst himself. Check the papers/internet and you'll see. Whitehurst is a no name to most.

    Seriously, I feel the same way Twisted. Seems the yays and nays aren't understanding eachother. (You think? LOL!) Yays say give him a chance. He was only a 3rd because of the team he was on. Nays say it's too much for an unproven guy (the argument is about what Whitehurst got. Not what Clausen/Bradford will get) and the Volek isn't that good. (and Whitehurst was behind him)

    *Not calling you out Twisted. Just quoted you to show the "yays".
    Image

    My nickname for Wilson....Silent Russassin. He's calm and collective and will KILL you silently. No smack talk, no warning, kills you silently while getting the job done!
    depecheSeahawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 634
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 5:22 am
    Location: Lacey, WA


  • hawksmode wrote:
    Explained over and over? But who is explaining it? You,and others speculating?...that makes me feel better.

    The thing is you are not understanding what I mean...I think him being a 3rd option is why people are concerned...why did we not go for their second then :sarcasm_on: and :sarcasm_off: ...

    a lot of people are explaining why THEY think it was a smart move...those of us that DO NOT think it was, CAN question it...I just hate when people on this board criticize someone that does or does not agree with them.....gets old.


    I know you're being scarcastic. This is just a guess but to answer your question about why they didn't go after SD's 2nd option, Billy Volek, is that Volek is 33 years old. They are looking to get younger at QB. Going after Volek doesn't solve that issue. If they went after him, then they would have 2 aging QBs on the roster.

    http://www.nfl.com/players/billyvolek/profile?id=VOL083057

    That would have made no sense, almost like the talk about trading for Donovan McCrabb (intentionally mispelled). That's the most ridiculous rumor floating around, IMO. McNabb ain't even worth a 2nd rounder much less giving up a 1st round pick for the guy.
    User avatar
    hawkfan68
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 4079
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:10 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


  • Was listening to Brock and Salk talking to Peter King and he starts by saying how befuddled he was by the trade, so I'm thinking okay now I'm gonna hear some good analysis, and he goes on to say McNabb made tons more sense, to which Salk I think said...er...okay but we'd have had to give up a lot more for McNabb right and Peter waves that off saying yeah but he'd have been worth our 14, that we'd have the QB position locked up for 5 years and then could use the 6 and the 40 to best advantage.

    Which is when I threw everything else he said completely out the window, my goodness. I can't stand McNabb for goodness sake, I think old Pete did more to sell me on Whitehurst by arguing against Whitehurst so poorly than anything else I've heard today.

    The only good point he made was that Whitehurst hasn't done anything on the field, yeah that one's been made a million times and it's a good one, but you can't argue about the waste of 20 draft spots on one hand and then suggest throwing away our first for McNabb of all people. Philly doesn't even like McNabb. King's rationale for McNabb was that if we got a top 12 QB (really? McNabb? now?) we could take the NFCW while we were rebuilding...eh...no thanks to sinking a bunch of money and a first into a guy thereby hampering a real rebuilding process for the sake of a couple NFCW titles and getting bounced in the first round likely if we did win the division.

    He said a few other silly things. The only thing of interest was speaking of AJ Smith and that he read between the lines that Smith just told the Hawks what it would take and we just gave it up. His take was that it wasn't even that Arizona drove the price up but that we just rolled over. However, he based this on his interpretation of Smith's comments and it sounded like wild speculation to me.

    I was prepared to be a sympathetic listener and was already suspicious our FO didn't drive a hard bargain but the reasons HE gave for thinking that did not impress.
    hawk45
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 5467
    Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 1:08 pm


  • Some of these people who write about football don't know what they are talking about, why go after McNabb when Hasselbeck is in the same position as him. That would be stupid to give up a 1 for him when all they did was swap 2nds and gave up a third. I will not be shocked if they trade back from 6 and or 14 and get an extra second or third. When he becomes the QB Carroll and Schneider thinks he will be everyone who is hating now will be eating crow.
    bighawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 556
    Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 11:44 am


  • hawk45 wrote:Was listening to Brock and Salk talking to Peter King and he starts by saying how befuddled he was by the trade, so I'm thinking okay now I'm gonna hear some good analysis, and he goes on to say McNabb made tons more sense, to which Salk I think said...er...okay but we'd have had to give up a lot more for McNabb right and Peter waves that off saying yeah but he'd have been worth our 14, that we'd have the QB position locked up for 5 years and then could use the 6 and the 40 to best advantage.

    Which is when I threw everything else he said completely out the window, my goodness. I can't stand McNabb for goodness sake, I think old Pete did more to sell me on Whitehurst by arguing against Whitehurst so poorly than anything else I've heard today.

    The only good point he made was that Whitehurst hasn't done anything on the field, yeah that one's been made a million times and it's a good one, but you can't argue about the waste of 20 draft spots on one hand and then suggest throwing away our first for McNabb of all people. Philly doesn't even like McNabb. King's rationale for McNabb was that if we got a top 12 QB (really? McNabb? now?) we could take the NFCW while we were rebuilding...eh...no thanks to sinking a bunch of money and a first into a guy thereby hampering a real rebuilding process for the sake of a couple NFCW titles and getting bounced in the first round likely if we did win the division.

    He said a few other silly things. The only thing of interest was speaking of AJ Smith and that he read between the lines that Smith just told the Hawks what it would take and we just gave it up. His take was that it wasn't even that Arizona drove the price up but that we just rolled over. However, he based this on his interpretation of Smith's comments and it sounded like wild speculation to me.

    I was prepared to be a sympathetic listener and was already suspicious our FO didn't drive a hard bargain but the reasons HE gave for thinking that did not impress.




    Peter King is always writing about how Hasselbeck is finished and Seattle needed to find a QB. Now the Seahawks have made a deal for a QB, he says it makes no sense. Based on the fact the guy hasn't started a game with Philip Rivers and one of the best #2's in the business in front of him.

    The Seahawks will have done their homework... something King neglects. His over reaction to this almost makes it seem like Seattle just pulled a name out of a hat. Seattle made a splash for a guy they think could start down the line. Can we really say that about Derek Anderson?

    If it doesn't work out Seattle lost 20 places in a deep draft. If it does work out - people will call it a steal. I hardly think that warrants his negative stance.

    And as for McNabb - why the hell would you spend the #14 pick on a guy well into his 30's? Five years seems a bit optomistic to say the least from McNabb at this stage in his career. Even then, at #14 you're really hoping for what? 6-8 years out of a guy minimum in a perfect world? How does that add up? If he was saying Kevin Kolb I could understand, but McNabb?

    But then every time I've listened to that radio station online this week, there's somebody complaining about the Whitehurst deal. Some guy even pouted because it meant we couldn't get Tebow or McCoy at #40. I can only predict that was a suggestion made without any real dedication to look into what Tebow or McCoy bring to the table. But then - they're big name rookies! And they don't cost top ten money! That must be good! Let's forget how much of a major project Tebow is or the fact that... actually... as a passer he doesn't make good enough progressions, he misses open guys, he isn't that accurate. As for McCoy - I don't say this lightly, but having literally watched hours of McCoy... if he makes it in the NFL I'll be very surprised.

    (McCoy is another guy Peter King really likes if I remember correctly).
    User avatar
    theENGLISHseahawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 8163
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:13 am


Previous


It is currently Wed Nov 26, 2014 1:45 pm

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE ARCHIVES ]




Information
  • Who is online
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests