Seahawks.NET AMAZON STOREFRONT

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. LANGUAGE RATING: PG to NC-17
Charlie Whitehurst TRADED TO SEATTLE.
Wed Mar 17, 2010 1:44 pm
  • SEA and SD swap 2010 2nd round picks. (40 to 60)

    SEA sends a 2011 3rd round pick to SD.

    SEA recieves QB Charlie Whitehurst.
    Dr Spaceman
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 14
    Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 11:19 pm


  • Source?
    Hawkstorian
    * NET Staff *
     
    Posts: 3973
    Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 11:19 am
    Location: Spokane


  • Clayton and company are discussing on 710 ESPN as we speak.
    Dr Spaceman
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 14
    Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 11:19 pm


  • That's a pretty stiff price. A 3rd rounder for a 3rd string QB is more than usual. Add in dropping 20 spots in round 2 and that's an awful lot of value the Bolts just got.

    He better compete for the starting job....and win.
    Last edited by seattlesetters on Wed Mar 17, 2010 1:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    seattlesetters
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 564
    Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 3:45 pm


  • Ouch....
    the ditch
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1645
    Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 8:05 am
    Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada


  • Bummer on the compensation. Arizona did a nice job driving up the price on us, considering all the other cheap QB movement this year. But if the Hawks front office doesn't see any QBs in the draft worth taking, which I agree with for the most part, and think Whitehurst can be a starter so be it. I just think San Diego has to be tooting their horn after this move..
    Fuzzman55
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1604
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 3:10 pm


  • Wow. I expected a better deal.
    ErikG803
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1003
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 2:53 pm



  • so what does this mean for Matt
    AshamanMat
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 320
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 12:42 am
    Location: Utah


  • OMG, here comes a bunch of new Mocks! :mrgreen:
    woofu
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 575
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 3:11 am


  • Wow, well another year without a 3rd rounder.
    Seahawksfan425
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1267
    Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:32 pm
    Location: Kenmore, WA


  • Ugh, I was really enjoying the fact we had pick 40. We dropped a ton of slots down to nearly Round 3.
    SundayNiteBlackout
    National Guard 09-Present
     
    Posts: 1073
    Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2009 12:43 pm
    Location: Puyallup, WA


  • Man I like Whitehurst, but man did we give up a lot and only a 2 year deal...
    Blitzer88
    * NET Eeyore *
     
    Posts: 12764
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:47 am
    Location: Seattle, WA


  • What a rip off. I'm sorry, but it is. We get a 7th for Wallace next year, a guy who while not great has actual game experience and is a decent game manager. Then we trade this much for a guy he hasn't even played a down? This team is buying high and selling low.
    razor150
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2073
    Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 8:22 am


  • I don't mean to be a cynic, I really don't, but I hope our coaches/FO know stuff about Whitehurst that we don't.

    Moving from 40-60 is kinda big in this draft (IMO) and trading a 2011 3rd seems hefty for a guy that's taken 4 snaps in the regular season.

    Oh well. Hopefully it ends up being a bargain.
    nanomoz
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5793
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 1:20 pm
    Location: UT


  • if they really expected him to take over for matt after this year or even this year it should have been longer than 2 years.
    Osprey12
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 118
    Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 7:52 am
    Location: Seattle


  • this deal sounds like prison sex.
    OneLofaTatupu
    * NET Shrink *
     
    Posts: 1644
    Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 10:04 pm
    Location: Seattle, WA


  • If he becomes a successful starting QB for the Seahawks, then the price is fine (could even be a great price), but that's a big IF. From the Charger's side, they got a great price for him....and we got a 7th round pick for trading our backup.
    chihawk
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 380
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:38 pm


  • and we get shafted yet again.
    hburn21
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1486
    Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 3:50 pm
    Location: Ft. Bragg, NC


  • Don't like it. The 3rd rounder in 2011 seems like enough. I hate moving back 20 picks in round 2 this year.
    G-Money
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 64
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:58 am


  • I think Matt is done, but holy crap, that's a hefty price for a journeyman QB. The difference between early second round and late second round is huge in this draft.
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 16456
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am


  • We traded a 4th rounder (equivalent to a 3rd next year) and dropped 20 spots in the second (a difference of 200 points per the value chart = to the 78th pick overall, which is a 3rd rounder). I think we overpaid considering this guy is completely unproven.
    Mckinja
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 2804
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:31 am
    Location: Covington, WA


  • Wonder how this affects us still chasing Marshall since we have now ridded ourselves of our near 1st round pick.
    Osprey12
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 118
    Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 7:52 am
    Location: Seattle


  • I'm baffled.
    Hawkstorian
    * NET Staff *
     
    Posts: 3973
    Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 11:19 am
    Location: Spokane


  • not pleased with this deal whatsoever...
    Barthawk
    *Bacon Eating Crusader*
     
    Posts: 2920
    Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 9:17 am
    Location: San Antonio, TX by way of Kalispell, MT


  • Matt will have to compete to start now. :thfight7:
    woofu
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 575
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 3:11 am


  • Seems a bit steep for someone to backup Matt, so I'm gonna assume that he's the starter.
    Trrrroy
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3279
    Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 9:24 am


  • It's a big risk to put this kind of investment in a guy when he hasn't shown it on the field, but I think it's exciting to finally have the guy that our front office thinks will be our next franchise QB on the roster. It'll be fun to see what happens with this.
    Rat
    * NET Cynic *
     
    Posts: 5142
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:42 pm
    Location: Grand Rapids, MI


  • I agree Matt is done with this franchise. This move doesn't make any sense unless Whitehurst is coming to be the starter. Guys like Lefevour and Tebow could have been had for less as developmental QBs.
    Fuzzman55
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1604
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 3:10 pm


  • If he isnt the starter in Week 1 - Carroll and Schneider should be fired.
    iigakusei
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1584
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 6:14 am


  • smh booooooooooo this guy better be the second coming or imma hate him til hes off the team
    Throwdown
    * NET Baller *
     
    Posts: 20664
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:02 am
    Location: Graham, WA


  • The good news is that we still have the same number of picks this year. The bad news is that's a pretty steep price. Seems to suggest to me that they're seriously looking at Whitehurst as starter material. I'm starting to think that they'll be quietly shopping Hass around between now and the draft.
    volsunghawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 8860
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:20 am
    Location: Right outside Richard Sherman's house


  • Agreed with everyone, way too much compensation, what were they thinking.
    the ditch
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1645
    Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 8:05 am
    Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada


  • The thing that is particularly strange with this is the report that we are signing him to a 2-year deal. If they think he is the future QB for the team, why would this only be a 2-year deal?
    chihawk
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 380
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:38 pm


  • This guy better be the 2nd coming of Dan Marino.

    I much would've preferred we give up say, our 4th and 5th round picks this year. I seriously think they overpaid.
    Sturm
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2326
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 3:11 pm


  • Yeah, really... if we gave up this much with the intentions of Hasselbeck being our starter... I won't go as far as to say I lost all trust in PC/Schneider, but it'd be hanging by a thread.

    I am excited to get someone new in there. Hopefully he's the right guy.
    ErikG803
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1003
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 2:53 pm


  • chihawk wrote:The thing that is particularly strange with this is the report that we are signing him to a 2-year deal. If they think he is the future QB for the team, why would this only be a 2-year deal?


    That is the biggest question...it makes no sense for a two year deal.
    iigakusei
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1584
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 6:14 am


  • chihawk wrote:The thing that is particularly strange with this is the report that we are signing him to a 2-year deal. If they think he is the future QB for the team, why would this only be a 2-year deal?


    That's the thing. We've given up high draft picks for only 2 years of a guy who won't even start the first year.
    Hawkstorian
    * NET Staff *
     
    Posts: 3973
    Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 11:19 am
    Location: Spokane


  • Mckinja wrote:We traded a 4th rounder (equivalent to a 3rd next year) and dropped 20 spots in the second (a difference of 200 points per the value chart = to the 78th pick overall, which is a 3rd rounder). I think we overpaid considering this guy is completely unproven.


    According to Sando's article we gave up approx 270 points, which he puts as a end of the Second round pick. So low 2nd to mid-3rd is the range. Looking worse case, the team gave up to 2nd round value for Charlie's rights. At this point either is steep considering, so it doesn't bode well for the FO so far. I dread what the Marshall deal will end up looking like.
    drdiags
    * The Doc *
     
    Posts: 10682
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:33 am
    Location: Kent, Washington


  • the ditch wrote:Agreed with everyone, way too much compensation, what were they thinking.


    They were probably thinking that Hass sucks, and Whitehurst has the ability to be a starter. I hope they're right, at least about Whitehurst.
    Trrrroy
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3279
    Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 9:24 am


  • Man, most of these moves look really suspect.

    I really hope Carroll and Co. know what they're doing. I'm willing to give them a shot, see how this all looks on the field... But these moves are head scratchers.
    Snohomie
    * NET Draft Guru *
     
    Posts: 3591
    Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 5:06 pm
    Location: Bellingham, WA



  • Trrrroy wrote:
    the ditch wrote:Agreed with everyone, way too much compensation, what were they thinking.


    They were probably thinking that Hass sucks, and Whitehurst has the ability to be a starter. I hope they're right, at least about Whitehurst.


    Fair enough. I guess we'll find out if he has the ability to be a starter or not.
    the ditch
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1645
    Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 8:05 am
    Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada


  • Un-proven and hes not that young... I don't get it.
    RodeoChihuahua
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 30
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 12:57 am
    Location: Seattle


  • With a 2 year deal they don't think he is the future. They are taking a flyer out on him, but they aren't committing to him. They paid to much to get him. Starting to wonder if these guys know what they are doing. At this rate we will probably get trade our 6th and a pick next year for Marshall.
    razor150
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2073
    Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 8:22 am


  • The more I think about it, the more I think we've been utterly hosed.

    Man, that's expensive as hell. Wow. Dropping from 40 to 60 seems huge if we were going to wait for an OT or a safety.

    :vomit:
    nanomoz
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5793
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 1:20 pm
    Location: UT


  • Hawkstorian wrote:
    chihawk wrote:The thing that is particularly strange with this is the report that we are signing him to a 2-year deal. If they think he is the future QB for the team, why would this only be a 2-year deal?


    That's the thing. We've given up high draft picks for only 2 years of a guy who won't even start the first year.


    Maybe it's a two-year extension to the tender he signed...making it at least a three-year deal. If not and Matt ends up starting this year, they plan on handing it over to Charlie when he has one year left....This makes no sense whatsoever.
    chihawk
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 380
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:38 pm


  • It is only 2 years to make sure he is as good as they think and if he is he will get a new deal. I love the trade because they are gonna trade Rob Sims for another draft choice. :3-1:
    bighawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 828
    Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 11:44 am


  • nanomoz wrote:The more I think about it, the more I think we've been utterly hosed.

    Man, that's expensive as hell. Wow. Dropping from 40 to 60 seems huge if we were going to wait for an OT or a safety.

    :vomit:


    Or a DT.

    Our offseason position is getting worse all the time.
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 16456
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am


  • I wonder if this could be a sign that we're looking to trade back in the 1st since apparently we've given up on getting Bradford or Clausen with the 6?
    Mckinja
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 2804
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:31 am
    Location: Covington, WA


Next


It is currently Mon Feb 18, 2019 12:10 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE ARCHIVES ]




Information
  • Who is online
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests