Register    Login    Forum    Search    FAQ    Contact Us  Your donations are greatly appreciated! Donate  Chat Room

Board index » NET NATION COMMUNITY CENTER » [ THE ARCHIVES ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 380 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:13 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

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


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:14 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:20 am
Posts: 7707
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.

_________________
Image

Super Bowl XLVIII Champions


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:15 pm 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:51 am
Posts: 2407
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!

:mrgreen:


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:16 pm 
*GOLD SUPPORTER*
*GOLD SUPPORTER*
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:10 am
Posts: 3295
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.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:19 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

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


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:21 pm 
NET Rookie
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 7:01 am
Posts: 267
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"


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:23 pm 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2009 12:38 pm
Posts: 774
They weren't the only team to express significant interest in Whitehurst.

There's something there.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:24 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:20 am
Posts: 7707
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.

_________________
Image

Super Bowl XLVIII Champions


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:26 pm 
NET Bench Warmer
Offline

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.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:29 pm 
*GOLD SUPPORTER*
*GOLD SUPPORTER*
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:10 am
Posts: 3295
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=PAL249055

Charlie 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.

Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:31 pm 
NET Bench Warmer
Offline

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 :lol:

HM


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:36 pm 
*GOLD SUPPORTER*
*GOLD SUPPORTER*
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:10 am
Posts: 3295
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 :lol:

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.

Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:38 pm 
* Capt'n Dom *
* Capt'n Dom *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:40 am
Posts: 8822
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.

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:40 pm 
*GOLD SUPPORTER*
*GOLD SUPPORTER*
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:13 pm
Posts: 4628
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?


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:41 pm 
*GOLD SUPPORTER*
*GOLD SUPPORTER*
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:13 pm
Posts: 4628
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?


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:41 pm 
* Capt'n Dom *
* Capt'n Dom *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:40 am
Posts: 8822
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.

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:44 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 2:04 pm
Posts: 1855
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?


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:45 pm 
*GOLD SUPPORTER*
*GOLD SUPPORTER*
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:13 pm
Posts: 4628
Location: Puyallup, WA USA
Is the Pope Catholic? :roll:


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:50 pm 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 11:44 am
Posts: 556
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. :1:


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:52 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 12:16 pm
Posts: 2909
Location: Hamilton
Teel is irrelevant. Let's see what this kid Whtehurst can do.

_________________
Driver of the PC/JS Super Bowl wagon since 2010
Image
Sherman looks like a ballet master in grand jeté –
a trash-talking, dreadlocked Baryshnikov suspended
impossibly above the turf – pro football's paean to
wanton human destruction slips into the sublime.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:54 pm 
NET Rookie
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 10:30 pm
Posts: 201
Wow this is bad news, I guess it means were out of the hunt for Tebow. :229031_faint:

_________________
Audentes Fortuna Juvat

Proud Member of Al Qaeda Hunting Club Since Sept 11 2001


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:59 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:13 am
Posts: 7849
Image


I've just realised he looks a lot like Barry Gibb.


Image


Being in my 20's I don't know this... but did you guys have the BeeGee's?


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:02 pm 
NET Rookie
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 7:52 am
Posts: 105
Location: Seattle
Lmao, that is identical


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:03 pm 
*GOLD SUPPORTER*
*GOLD SUPPORTER*
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:13 pm
Posts: 4628
Location: Puyallup, WA USA
A reincarnation if I've ever seen one!!


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:07 pm 
NET Starter
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2009 6:44 pm
Posts: 493
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.

_________________
"It was so loud Derrick Coleman heard it."


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:08 pm 
* NET Moderator *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 2:35 pm
Posts: 18457
Location: Milwaukie, Oregon
theENGLISHseahawk wrote:
Image


I've just realised he looks a lot like Barry Gibb.


Image


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....

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:10 pm 
* Mr Random Thought *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:44 am
Posts: 9819
Image

Saw that at fieldgulls.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:11 pm 
* NET Moderator *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 2:35 pm
Posts: 18457
Location: Milwaukie, Oregon
kearly wrote:
Image

Saw that at fieldgulls.



Hey, if he turns into Jesus in shoulder pads i think it's us who ripped off the Chargers.

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:12 pm 
* Mr Random Thought *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:44 am
Posts: 9819
IIRC, didn't Jesus come out of nowhere right at age 30? ;)


Last edited by kearly on Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:12 pm 
*Scott of Smacksville*
*Scott of Smacksville*
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:14 am
Posts: 10044
Kearly, that is classic.

_________________
SEAHAWKS.NET. We All We Got, We All We Need


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:18 pm 
*TOP 5 SUPPORTER*
*TOP 5 SUPPORTER*
User avatar
Online

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:12 am
Posts: 6750
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.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:55 pm 
*GOLD SUPPORTER*
*GOLD SUPPORTER*
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 1:20 pm
Posts: 4509
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


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:57 pm 
NET Practice Squad
Offline

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


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 8:21 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

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


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 8:31 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:20 am
Posts: 7707
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. :roll:

_________________
Image

Super Bowl XLVIII Champions


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 8:42 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

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. :roll:


Yet teams do it every draft. Wonder why? :229031_shrug:

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


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 8:53 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:20 am
Posts: 7707
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. :roll:


Yet teams do it every draft. Wonder why? :229031_shrug:

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.

_________________
Image

Super Bowl XLVIII Champions


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 8:59 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

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. :roll:


Yet teams do it every draft. Wonder why? :229031_shrug:

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


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 9:20 pm 
NET Bench Warmer
Offline

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.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 9:21 pm 
*GOLD SUPPORTER*
*GOLD SUPPORTER*
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 8:55 am
Posts: 917
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



:179422:

_________________
God Bless America and God Bless the SEATTLE SEAHAWKS - TEZ

Mike Bullene ‏@12thManM1ke 45m
@TDESPN Though, you did say the other night you cannot win the SB riding a defense. Even though you are literally the poster child for that. --twittered back at dilfer after he tried to slam hawks fans.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 9:27 pm 
* NET Alumni *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:49 pm
Posts: 2977
Well ...... Seattle has had a much better day than San Francisco.

Looks like they have lost their general manager which could really upset their draft >>> viewtopic.php?f=4&t=12756


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 10:01 pm 
* NET Alumni *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 9:35 am
Posts: 4588
Location: Seattle, WA
Image

HA!

_________________
http://twitter.com/EJZ206


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 10:23 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:11 am
Posts: 1018
Location: Utah
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.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 10:34 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:17 pm
Posts: 571
Location: Las Vegas, NV
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.


It's not. Only the sheep on this forum are out sugar coating the deal.

I would be partying if I was a Chargers fan as well. It was a total coupe by their GM.

_________________
My hair is a banshee, your argument is invalid.

http://www.seahawknation.net


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 10:54 pm 
NET Rookie
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 11:03 pm
Posts: 166
Location: Longview
It's only natural for the SD fans to be stoked; they flat-out didn't need the guy. They have a stud at starting QB and a more than capable #2 still on the roster. I don't believe those comments are an indictment of Whitehurst's abilities.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 11:33 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:20 am
Posts: 7707
Location: Surrounded by Elway, Tebow, and Manning jerseys
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.

_________________
Image

Super Bowl XLVIII Champions


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 11:44 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 3:10 pm
Posts: 1548
The Hawks overpaid. Very few would dispute that. But the FO obviously identified QB as a need and weren't satisfied with any of the guys in the draft. Seeing all the question marks covering their grades I can easily agree with Carroll and company. There just isn't anyone there to get excited about, especially for a 1st round pick. So the question becomes, should they ignore the hole and wait until next year, or try to fill it with the guy they like the most and can get.

The FO obviously likes Whitehurst, and I haven't seen enough yet to judge their evaluation skills one way or another. As I said is a previous thread, this move will go along ways in defining this regime. But those who want to call Whitehurst a bum are not giving the move a fair shake. Let's see what he looks like in a Hawks uniform before condemning the pickup.

_________________
Tall men come down to my height when I hit 'em in the body.

Jack Dempsey


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 12:05 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:17 pm
Posts: 571
Location: Las Vegas, NV
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.


Thats all fine and dandy, but you avoided my question.

Post some QB's that have gone for 2nd round picks in the past 5 years.

_________________
My hair is a banshee, your argument is invalid.

http://www.seahawknation.net


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 12:12 am 
NET Bench Warmer
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:42 pm
Posts: 2
I say we bring back Alexander anyone else notice that we didnt start losing till we booted him out the door. And how come LT can have a few injured seasons and he still gets picked up and Shaun didnt. I really hope Carrol can right the ship but I already miss the Holmgren era and its only been one season. Seattle fell too hard too fast.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whitehurst vs. Draft QB of the Future Rationalization
 Post Posted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 1:08 am 
* Mr Random Thought *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:44 am
Posts: 9819
Great post RJDriver. I was looking for some Chargers fans reaction. That is priceless.


Top 
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 380 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Board index » NET NATION COMMUNITY CENTER » [ THE ARCHIVES ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DynoHawk and 2 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

Search for:
Jump to:  
Seahawks.NET is an independent fan site and not associated with the Seattle Seahawks or the NFL (National Football League).
All content within this Seahawks fan page is provided by, and for, Seattle Seahawks fans. Copyright © Seahawks.NET.