Seahawks Trade For Charlie Whitehurst
by BrianL on Mar 17, 2010 2:54 PM PDT
683 comments
Says John Clayton who is on right now on 710 ESPN with Mike Salk and Brock Huard. Also reported via their twitter
Hold on to your seats and brace yourselves, everyone.
John Clayton: Seahawks acquire Charlie Whitehurst from SD for 2011 3rd RD pick, swap 2010 2nd Rd picks. Then sign him for 2 yrs/$10 Mil. WOW
So, we dumped a 2011 third round pick, moved from the 40 overall pick to the 60 overall pick, and dropped ten million dollars over two years to acquire San Diego's third-string quarterback that's heading into his 28-year-old season.
Who wants to defend this move?
0 recs |
683 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
...he has awesome hair?
Man that’s steep. I guess it does mean he’s the starter so…yay?
We can only dream they’ve seen something in him that makes him worth it. But even then…really guys? You couldn’t negotiate that down?
I don't. I really, really liked that #40 pick. I mean, we wll all love this if
Whitehurst ends up being a stud after all… but we won’t know for sure. I say fuck it and just trade Hasselbeck now. Stock up on more 2010 draft picks.
Honestly, I think that is the next move.
There is no logic whatsoever to this move under the team’s current setup. There doesn’t appear to be a plan.
Unless that plan involves trading Hasselbeck. Seriously, from where I’m sitting, it’s the only logical subsequent move.
Wouldn't be surprised if Holmgren
trades for both Sims and Hasselbeck. I wonder if we can get a 2nd rounder for Hass and a 3rd rounder for Sims. CLE has the picks to move.
Considering the value we've been getting for players so far
I wonder what’s keeping up this optimism on getting really good value for players. I could get it if we had a GM known for high-way robbery trades, like – I dunno – Ruskell, but I’d be hard-pressed to picture this FO negotiating a second for Hasselbeck now.
(not that anyone could, realistically, that’s way too much)
I have no words.
http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i162/nepasavoirpu/Stuff/worffrustrated.gif
It's Great to be a Florida Gator!
The Arizona Cardinals' plan for success:
-Lose all talent on team to retirement and free agency.
-Call it a day.
there we go.
Well, there goes that awesome #40.
It's Great to be a Florida Gator!
The Arizona Cardinals' plan for success:
-Lose all talent on team to retirement and free agency.
-Call it a day.
by Wayward Llama on Mar 17, 2010 2:57 PM PDT up reply actions 7 recs
We could only dream of having Worf
carrying the ball in a goal line set.
It's Great to be a Florida Gator!
The Arizona Cardinals' plan for success:
-Lose all talent on team to retirement and free agency.
-Call it a day.
by Wayward Llama on Mar 18, 2010 5:01 AM PDT up reply actions
Worf is all game.
Worf: “I am not concerned with pleasure, Commander. I am a warrior.”
Riker: “Even Klingons need love now and then.”
Worf: “For what we would consider love, sir, I would need a Klingon woman.”
Riker: “What about plain old basic sex? You must have some need for that.”
Worf: “Of course, but with the females available to me, sir, Earth females, I must restrain myself too much. They are quite fragile, sir.”
Riker: “Worf, if anyone else had said that, I’d suspect he was bragging.”
Worf: “Bragging, sir?”
by jacobstevens on Mar 18, 2010 11:29 AM PDT up reply actions 4 recs
So
That equals a 4th this year and moving down 20 spots in the 2nd round. I can’t say I’m excited.
How bout dealing Tapp for that 4th round pick so we could flip that for Whitehurst?
Brilliant stuff, eh?
Good thing we undersold on Tapp!
We really needed that 4th to make this happen!
That wasn't my argument.
But rubbing things in to other people and their arguments is certainly showing your shining personality, and has no connection to the mod-rules we’re supposed to follow. This sounds a bit like “fault finding.” Of course, so is this. _
But I guess we didn't.
So there goes that theory. But I wonder if San Diego and/or Arizona didn’t pull a fast one on these unversed fools after they showed how dead-set they’d become with Whitehurst. It’s still fishy enough that I’m not 100% convinced that the Tapp and Whitehurst moves weren’t connected.
by jacobstevens on Mar 17, 2010 3:20 PM PDT up reply actions
By the way
Sando calculates the worth of our picks as equivalent to the last pick of the 2nd round.
For someone tendered at a 3rd.
Nice?
That's a lot to pay for a backup.
It's Great to be a Florida Gator!
The Arizona Cardinals' plan for success:
-Lose all talent on team to retirement and free agency.
-Call it a day.
...for a 3rd string, not a spring chicken, QB
Wow. Just wow. And many of us were happy to see Ruskell leave. There was always the chance that we could do worse.
28 isn't terrible for a QB's age.
He could have 5+ good seasons given he hasn’t taken a beating yet in his career.
We paid for the hair! It must be the hair!
As great as it is having a 2nd rounder, turning it into such a late second rounder is pretty close to us “getting our third rounder back” at the expense of our second rounder.
As Sando pointed out, all of our pick swapping and trades basically equals a late second rounder (in points.)
So, next year we’re without a third rounder again. I don’t like it. Nope.
If Whitehurst is better than we suspect, and there was a market for him because he was that great, fine. But I can’t help but think he wasn’t worth the equivalent of a 64th pick. It sounds fine in theory, but it actually makes a bigger dent than just trading the 64th pick would.
Again, not going to burn anything down, but there had better be some huge upside here.
I think I'd prefer Whitehurst if he could have been had for the same price.
Since he was a lot more expensive, in terms of picks, I’d say I just MIGHT have preferred Derek Anderson.
That would be a steal
And thus unlikely, considering which end of “steal” trades we’ve been on so far
wow
Somebody in the Tapp thread said something to the effect of “if Carroll completely bombs this off season and we finish worse it only speeds up his departure.”
That was John, but I agree with what Nate Dogg said in that thread, Carroll is gonna get 4 years no matter what.
Especially after firing Mora after 1 season, I think they’re going to give Carroll plenty of time and 4 years of damage could put the team back another 5 years.
I just can't believe that
Allen will figure it out in 2012 after we fail to eclipse 5 wins in the previous two seasons.
by Hancock.Brett on Mar 17, 2010 3:04 PM PDT up reply actions
With the NFC west you never know.
This is what worries me the most, Seattle isn’t good but lucks out against some weak opponents and finished strong to a couple 7-9 seasons, the FO thinks they’re going in the right direction and Carroll keeps getting one more chance, sort of like the 2006 and 2007 Mariners.
And while I don't trust this FO they're most likely going to end up with 3 pretty solid players with the 6th, 14th and 60th picks.
Also they have enough money in free agency to grab a few aging veterans that have one more season left in them.
agreed
but they are trading young players and good draft picks for those aging veterans.
by Hancock.Brett on Mar 17, 2010 3:16 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, that's kind of what I'm getting at.
Whitehurst might be better than a Jimmy Clausen next year and Clemons might even be better than Tapp next season, those players won’t be great but in the NFC west they could be good for 7 or so wins.
You say that like that's a bad thing.
This hasn’t been a fun couple of offseasons?
Looks like
It’s suicide for me again.
by ungoreatstefan on Mar 17, 2010 3:01 PM PDT reply actions 2 recs
I'm going to remain optimistic...
Really. I am. But I think we’re slowly becoming conditioned (like Pavlov’s dogs)— every time a trade is made our guts will hurt and we’ll brace for bad news.
But still— optimistic. Take some drugs and let’s see how we do in the draft and on the field.
Why is it only 2 years?
Is that a good or bad thing?
I think the contract is ok. 1 year isn't enough time because he's probably going to be a back-up and I don't think you want to give Whitehurst 3+ years with his lack of experience.
If he does become a starter and does well I’m sure he’ll be extended.
Seems like a bad thing to me
…given what we gave up. I am not expert on free agency, but if Charlie turns out to be a solid starter, than we may have a hard time resigning him. If he turns out to be a bench warmer and terrible pickup, then we just threw away our draft picks.
I agree with this....
it’s like we had zero cards in the game, but wanted to see the hand anyway. I just don’t get it.
At least 3 year his ass, if you’re gonna pay through the teeth to get him…
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Mar 18, 2010 3:24 AM PDT up reply actions
The good thing (and only good thing)
Is that when I heard the news on 710, I was driving back from the grocery store with beer.
I'd gladly part with money
instead of moving down 20 fucking spots in the 2nd round.
by Hancock.Brett on Mar 17, 2010 3:06 PM PDT up reply actions
No kidding.
No matter how crappy the offseason has been, I’ve been heartened by the fact that we had 3 picks in the top 40.
It's Great to be a Florida Gator!
The Arizona Cardinals' plan for success:
-Lose all talent on team to retirement and free agency.
-Call it a day.
by Wayward Llama on Mar 17, 2010 3:07 PM PDT up reply actions
This really puts a lot on the draft.
And what’s up with Hasselbeck? 5 million is a lot of paper to ride the bench. I’m also curious to see what ahppens with Sims, since he’s about ready to be traded. I was seriously thinking we would trade the 4th and Sims for Whitehurst.
It's Great to be a Florida Gator!
The Arizona Cardinals' plan for success:
-Lose all talent on team to retirement and free agency.
-Call it a day.
We have become the Oakland Raiders (north)
Hard being a Hawks fan these days. Put up with a few terrible seasons to get some great draft picks and acquire talent… only to see the talent leave and the draft picks squandered
The sky isn't falling.
There really isn’t a player on this team who is untouchable. We haven’t given up much in the way of talent either. We might have mortgaged a few draft picks, but hopefully there is a bigger picture that just isn’t clear yet.
Front office personnel all around the NFL think highly of Charlie Whitehurst. Obviously, as talent evaluators, so did Pete Carroll and John Schneider. This move didn’t cost us near as much as not making it. If we hope that Clausen makes it to us at #6, we still have to use a much higher valued draft slot, plus pay an absurd amount of money to someone who DOESN’T have the clipboard/preseason experience of Charlie Whitehurst.
Field Gulls is a site full of in-depth football analysis. Not to appeal to authority but you are in minority regarding trusting the FO
I do like to hear multiple points of view, but the Queen and PM have been overpaying on deals and we are dealing away draft picks left and right, while losing starters (e.g. Grant, Tapp) and emerging young talent (Tapp). This is not how one rebuilds a team. Generally, you want to get younger and better, not create more holes.
On Charlie Whitehurst, if we truly think he is our future Tom Brady or Peyton Manning, then it seems to make sense to lock him up for a longer deal than two years. If he is seen as depth++ to a Clausen or McCoy, then we likely overpaid. See John’s latest analysis for more detail about what we are giving up. As you can read in many posts here, this process is stinky, and the process matters. Trusting a murky, unknown “Big Picture” isn’t for me, sorry, and I can’t justify individual poorly executed tactical moves in the meantime.
First, I've been reading this blog (and commenting) since long before it got popular.
So spare me the bullshit.
Second, Tapp isn’t young emerging talent. Your credibility was shot as soon as you typed that line of crap.
What part of 4-12 and 5-11 says “great talent” to you?
Yeah, I read it.
I actually like Darryl Tapp. More as a human being than as a football player, but that’s beside the point.
But let’s not christen him just yet. He wasn’t a cornerstone player, and most likely never will be. He’ll always be a serviceable NFL player, and a great, great teammate, but there is better talent out there. And to win, you need better talent, always.
This team didn’t do shit the last two years. Is everyone forgetting that?
Really?
I think he’ll look more talented, but 10+ sacks (presumably coming from the OLB position) usually means you’re the best player of the front seven and one of the best pass rushers in the game. Tapp is talented for a young rotation player and still has potential to grow, but do you really think he is (right now) one of the best pass rushers in the game?
by SeaTownBlueDevil on Mar 18, 2010 3:34 AM PDT up reply actions
26 is an age when pass rushers are still improving.
Letting him go right when he is nearing his prime and still getting better is a mistake.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Mar 18, 2010 3:34 AM PDT up reply actions
So he's "above average" with the 'Hawks, but
put him with the talent in Philadelphia and he’ll be revealed as another Leonard Weaver. Total bust.
I assume that's sarcasm, seeing how they love Weaver up in Philly?
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Mar 18, 2010 12:54 PM PDT up reply actions
We've reached the point now where everything is actually sarcasm.
Everything. Schneider, you seriously traded two thirds for Whitehurst?
No, man, I was being sarcastic.
by jacobstevens on Mar 18, 2010 1:10 PM PDT up reply actions
If you don't recognize Tapp as one of our better young defensive talents
…then my conversation with you is finished. If you have been reading this blog as you say, then clearly you wouldn’t be confused between the team’s record and which players contribute. Take your BS and “crap” comments to another board, along with your strawman that the Hawks record equals Tapp’s value.
Tapp isn't one of the better DE's in the league. Simple as that.
He looked good, sometimes, here, compared to the alternatives. But he got swallowed up – a lot.
If you want to say
that Tapp isn’t a good DE because he rarely makes it to the QB, that would be understandable. I had been high on Tapp, but not as high as John was, and reading what John would say about him I would sometimes question it. I’d think, John, I know what you mean, and I see what you see, but ultimately the vast majority of snaps he doesn’t quite get there. I wonder if he just doesn’t have enough juice to bring pressure in today’s game.
I think on a good team, and with him reaching his prime, those close cigars will turn to a lot of sacks and disruption. But I definitely acknowledge that that could be wrong.
But if you want to say he got swallowed up, all I can say is I watched the games and that is fantastically inaccurate. Tapp got around and through blockers into the pocket with high regularity. For good starting ends in the NFL, high regularity. He also disrupted by shaping the pocket to the benefit of the defense (and sometimes other rushers) often when he didn’t get through, also. But sorry, man, that is way off the mark. He didn’t get all the way home, and that may be a sign that he’s not going to be good enough, even in his prime. But he didn’t not get home by being swallowed up with any inordinate frequency.
by jacobstevens on Mar 18, 2010 11:44 AM PDT up reply actions
If FO all around the league think highly of Whitehurst
that’s news to me. I think some think somewhat highly of him, but it’s very easy to overstate.
by jacobstevens on Mar 18, 2010 11:38 AM PDT up reply actions
Carrol and Schneider must really like him.
Is the 2 year contract good news or bad news for Hasselbeck?
I half expect Matt to be released or traded in the coming weeks because holy hell that's a lot to give up for Whitehurst.
Then again who the hell knows what’s going on here.
Didn't Hasselbeck just receive a roster bonus?
by SeahawkSammy on Mar 17, 2010 3:07 PM PDT up reply actions
Didn't Senior Alexander get the same treatment?
Shanghai Kelly's on Polk St. in San Francisco is the worst bar on the face of the earth (at least on Sunday mornings).
The more I think about it, the more I think you're right.
Not even so much the money, but the fact his contract is only two years. No way this guy’s sitting on the bench.
6/14/40. Sweet.
Look on the bright side
at least you won’t be stuck with Clausen for five years.
by Palace of Good Play's Golden Toilet on Mar 17, 2010 3:07 PM PDT reply actions
Who says we still won't draft Clausen or McCoy if one of them falls?
I wouldn’t be surprised at anything the Queen and PM do at this point
What's wrong with Jimmy Clausen?
No one can give me solid reasons. It’s so weird, but everyone still hates the guy.
His arm is only so-so and his deep ball is atrocious
and though I think he can be excellent, I do not think he fits what Bates wants.
Atrocious?
It never looked great to me, but I wouldn’t go that far. I hadn’t really been thinking about Bates, I suppose he might want something different. I’m just tired of people bashing him without saying why, it’s getting really old. And I think that people really over-emphasize arm strength. Accuracy is way more important. I mean, a QB that can’t throw a deep ball at all has a ceiling of Kyle Orton, but you don’t have to be Jamarcus Russell to be successful either. In fact, being Jamarcus Russell seriously hurts your chances of being good, but you know what I mean.
Also, I know that you weren’t suggesting that arm-strength is the most important tool a quarterback can possess, just venting a little. These moves by our front office have me frazzled.
Ha! Jeff George!
Great arm. He was, ironically, “can’t miss”…
shoot me in the face
what a terrible deal
by jacobcda on Mar 17, 2010 3:09 PM PDT via mobile reply actions
I'm just waiting to see Aaron Curry traded for a 2010 3rd rounder + 2012 7th rounder.
by twocolorcrayon on Mar 17, 2010 3:10 PM PDT up reply actions
No.
But we realistically could give up #6 for Marshall still. You know. So we can win now.
there is this saying in deal making
“don’t come to the table with your wet panties at your ankles”
I think you can fill in the rest – “because, if so, you are going to get ….”
Shanghai Kelly's on Polk St. in San Francisco is the worst bar on the face of the earth (at least on Sunday mornings).
I'm not a Brady Quinn fan
But didn’t Denver give up less for a guy who was 1st round pick and never played much because of injuries and being part of a dysfunctional organization. And we get the 3rd rounder who’s 28 and was a 3rd stringer last year.
by Badmotostinkfinger on Mar 17, 2010 3:12 PM PDT reply actions
All true.
Of course, Quinn couldn’t beat out Derek Anderson. Part of me thinks a guy who can’t beat Philip Rivers and Billy Volek might be better than the guy who can’t beat Derek Anderson. Or Seneca Wallace, for that matter.
Once upon a time, Hasselbeck could not beat out Trent Dilfer
Shaun Alexander could not beat out Ricky Watters. Brandon Mebane could not beat out Chuck Darby. Coaches start inferior players.
Well this goddamn better be true with Whitehurst too
by B.B.Finnegan on Mar 17, 2010 3:22 PM PDT up reply actions
Not beating Rivers for a job doesn't mean he isn't bad
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Mar 17, 2010 3:23 PM PDT up reply actions
or good for that matter
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Mar 17, 2010 3:23 PM PDT up reply actions
And same re: Volek.
But there needs to be a tangible reason why he hasn’t become something, by this point, and hasn’t shown the kind of promise to generate Matt Schaub kind of buzz — actually, Billy Volek buzz is probably more accurate. That’s a substantial thing, and if he can be that good, the reasons why he hasn’t shown something significant yet have to be identifiable and confirmable. Not necessarily quantifiable.
by jacobstevens on Mar 17, 2010 3:35 PM PDT up reply actions
That's true.
I have been bad at forming arguments lately. I recognize that there are many things connected to why a player plays, and I know that players of better talent or ability sit while other players start.
I was just looking at one aspect. And that was an incomplete aspect. I think that Whitehurst is a better prospect than Quinn and Anderson, but we won’t know whether or not he’s a good player until he plays. He has no pro-game experience that matters, so until he gets it, he’s sort-of untested. I was partially just throwing out one part of my opinion because—you may be surprised to hear this—I tend to be long-winded, write way too much, and would accidentally dominate the whole post. Instead, I throw out incomplete opinions. So, obviously, I need to work on that.
In his Chicago penthouse
Ruskell is laughing his ass off.
It's Great to be a Florida Gator!
The Arizona Cardinals' plan for success:
-Lose all talent on team to retirement and free agency.
-Call it a day.
JESUS MOTHER FUCK CHRIST IN HELL
he better turn into Tom Mother Fucking Brady or this will be one of the worst fucking trades ever.
Look at it this way.
When we have a terrible season next year, it puts the Seahawks in great contention for the Jake Locker sweepstakes. As a former FHS alum, I would be ecstatic about that.
Upon being drafted by Seattle, Locker will immediatly demand a trade and refuse to play for the Seahawks
by B.B.Finnegan on Mar 17, 2010 3:17 PM PDT up reply actions
Gel?
He so lets his hair fly in the breeze.
It's Great to be a Florida Gator!
The Arizona Cardinals' plan for success:
-Lose all talent on team to retirement and free agency.
-Call it a day.
by Wayward Llama on Mar 17, 2010 3:20 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Herbal Essence
He could probably just borrow some of the Cheerleaders though
by B.B.Finnegan on Mar 17, 2010 3:21 PM PDT up reply actions
No, Breeze was traded...
Now his hair flies in the Rivers
by Kryten on Mar 17, 2010 7:44 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Seriously, fuck Jake Locker.
We need a QB this year, not next year.
It's Great to be a Florida Gator!
The Arizona Cardinals' plan for success:
-Lose all talent on team to retirement and free agency.
-Call it a day.
by Wayward Llama on Mar 17, 2010 3:19 PM PDT up reply actions
I'd like to see Jake graduate early and force a supplemental draft...
I don’t see any of the 5 teams ahead of us picking him after this draft (as long as WA and StL takes their qbs)… Maybe KC, but they are still invested in Cassell.
Okay, I'm going to consider jumping.
Who wants to hold hands with me to do a tandem jump?
This team is an embarrassment. I knew we would do something dumb with the #40.
"BANG!" - Jim Lampley's first word as a child
Can we burn Qwest Field to the ground first?
Is that the light at the end of the tunnel, or the headlights of an oncoming train?
I can think of ways it could be worse
But I won’t mention them lest I tempt the gods.
[DELETED ZOMG NO POLITICS]
I suspect we strongly believe (or know) that both Bradford and Clausen will be gone by #6.
We have positioned ourselves to skip the rookie-QB development process which reduces the age factor, which isn’t a huge deal given the position, IMO. Charlie has experience learning a very good passing offense.
We have positioned ourselves to select the top-rated DE or S according to need. It’s possible we could have a shot at an elite DT or OT, as well.
Finally, I think It’s a remote possibility that we use Whitehurst to prevent a team from trading ahead of us as part of a deterrent-type plan to still draft a QB should one fall to 6.
That deterrent plan.
Would be one stupid plan.
We are prepared either way.
If Bradford and Clausen are gone, we have Hass and Witehurst. If one is still available, we could still take one: Whitehurst is signed only for 2 years at 5 mil per.
No, I see your point.
I just meant that if he were acquired soley as a deterrent to stop teams from trading in front of us so we could get our REAL QB OF THE FUTURE, then that would indeed be a stupid plan.
I think if the team solely wanted a deterrent, they would have found an easier target and not had to compete w/ Arizona.
Furthermore, I have to believe the team felt confident neither Bradford or Clausen were either a) going to be available without an expensive or impossible trade-up or b) not sold on either as a potential franchise QB.
Whitehurst better be starter quality either this year or next year
Because there is no reason for something like this to cost us two draft picks for someone who will likely start the season as a backup.
"BANG!" - Jim Lampley's first word as a child
What teams could use Hasselbeck's sesrvices? Anyone know?
by twocolorcrayon on Mar 17, 2010 3:22 PM PDT up reply actions
Cleveland.
Really. He’s better than Seneca and better than Delhomme and Cleveland has a superior offensive line. It couldn’t hurt but it’s too late for that.
"BANG!" - Jim Lampley's first word as a child
I don't think Cleveland would pay for Hass and Delhomme.
It's Great to be a Florida Gator!
The Arizona Cardinals' plan for success:
-Lose all talent on team to retirement and free agency.
-Call it a day.
by Wayward Llama on Mar 17, 2010 3:24 PM PDT up reply actions
I was also "too late" in reading that park.
Oy.
It's Great to be a Florida Gator!
The Arizona Cardinals' plan for success:
-Lose all talent on team to retirement and free agency.
-Call it a day.
by Wayward Llama on Mar 17, 2010 3:26 PM PDT up reply actions
Steve Smith will be pissed off when his deep routes are rendered ineffective
By Hasselbeck’s squirt gun.
"BANG!" - Jim Lampley's first word as a child
Ssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
They don’t need to know that. Hopefully we’ll just resend them a video of the 2005 NFC Championship so they can get excited and somehow give us their 2010 2nd rounder for Hasselbeck. I wish.
by twocolorcrayon on Mar 17, 2010 3:28 PM PDT up reply actions
Hass is still better than Delhomme
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Mar 17, 2010 3:27 PM PDT up reply actions
I think in a twisted way
Delhomme’s ridiculous contract extension is why Fox stayed. If Carolina didn’t sign him long term and Fox still felt obligated to play him even though he sucked then I think he’s gone.
"BANG!" - Jim Lampley's first word as a child
It cost one draft pick, net. Swap 2nd rounders, lose 2011 3rd rounder.
I’m all for voicing negative opinions, but could people please slow down, stop crying and get their facts right?
Trading down that far is equivalent to a 3rd rounder
by Palace of Good Play's Golden Toilet on Mar 17, 2010 3:46 PM PDT up reply actions
My reply is to SSreporters comment that he cost us two draft picks.
Which is false. We have one less pick than we had before.
That is true.
But if we traded our 2nd rounder for a pair of 7th rounders and netted a draft pick, nobody would be excited about it.
Your point is valid, for what it is. The rest of are concerned with the quality of our draft picks, rather than the quantity.
At any rate, I figured SSreporters did not mean specifically that we had lost two picks.
Only that it was the equivalent. But that might not be what he intended at all. shrugs
Yeah you got me there.
Still, you’ve dropped 20 spots in the 2nd round and gave up a 3rd rounder. Picking #60 is almost the same as going to a 3rd.
"BANG!" - Jim Lampley's first word as a child
Yes. Not picking on you. We'd expect to get a lesser player at 60 than 40, but not an enormously lesser player.
60 still has significant value and should not be treated as valueless.
I have to think...
That the team’s draft-board will target a player available at 60 to fill a position different from the one that would be targeted at 40. Perhaps we are targeting a “2nd-round Guard or OT” that has a league-wide 4th-round grade but not on our board. The move’s effect will have been minimized and we still get the player we could have taken at 40 but would have been a reach. (like that theory, perhaps)
We can’t see the plan in it’s entirety right now. It will be hard to judge this move based only on the events of today. If we have a starting QB that performs at a high level wouldn’t it be worth what we gave up? What would we have done if both Bradford and Clausen were gone? If they were there and we didn’t like one of them, we just saved a 6th overall pick from a reach on a QB (though Bradford to me would not be a reach to me). Perhaps the team is dying to draft Morgan or JPP and consider one of them an elite DE? We don’t know what the team is thinking. On the surface, I like the move even though the price may look steep right now.
I’m convinced Clausen and Bradford won’t make it to 6.
Assuming Hasselbeck isn't traded/released...
Do any of you actually think Whitehurst can beat Matt in a QB competition? Based on what I saw from Hasselbeck in training camp last year, he’s still going to look like a very good QB.
until he starts getting knocked around, anyway.
It's Great to be a Florida Gator!
The Arizona Cardinals' plan for success:
-Lose all talent on team to retirement and free agency.
-Call it a day.
by Wayward Llama on Mar 17, 2010 3:28 PM PDT up reply actions
If Whitehurst beats out Matt in training camp then I think you release Matt.
I’m still not against Seattle taking Bradford or Clausen at 6, cutting Matt and letting Whitehurst start for a couple seasons.
No, I think he'll be an injury replacement.
And then will hold the starting position next year.
by jacobstevens on Mar 17, 2010 3:36 PM PDT up reply actions
If they're going to do this, I want Hass gone then.
You can’t give up this much for a guy just to have him do the same thing Seneca did.
Completely agree.
My feeling now is that Hass won’t last until draft day. Sucks. But it’s the only thing that makes any sense at this point.
I agree, but
I want a good pick in return. Formerly, I thought it was great he was here for at least another year for whatever new quarterback we brought to the fold. Given the age of this quarterback is 28 and draft position has been sacrificed though… just get some picks for Hasslebeck. Though a move like that would really only be damage control for 2011 and beyond it would satisfy me at this point. I hope Paul Allen reads fieldgulls. Has a f.o. ever been cleaned out before finishing a season?
At some point we have to get some draft picks back.
If Sims ends up being traded, hopefully we could get a 3rd rounder for him. Cleveland???
I'm now definitely with BrianL
I miss Tim Ruskell. The last few days have not exactly been encouraging. Or well done. Or showing anything resembling how a solid NFL team should be built.
Charlie Whitehurst better be awesome.
"Hey, guess what? Nobody cares who would win in a crazy fantasy fist-fight between Anne Frank and Lizzie Borden." The Monarch
by crushedoptimist on Mar 17, 2010 3:31 PM PDT reply actions
I do miss Ruskell.
But then realizing that if Ruskell had stayed, we’d have Julius Peppers and Aaron Kampman.
"BANG!" - Jim Lampley's first word as a child
Who knows? Maybe at least a shred of what could appear to be competence.
"Hey, guess what? Nobody cares who would win in a crazy fantasy fist-fight between Anne Frank and Lizzie Borden." The Monarch
by crushedoptimist on Mar 17, 2010 3:33 PM PDT up reply actions
I mean, Ruskell wasn't bad with signing FAs and he was decent with the draft
But I think after the Mora debacle he was gone.
"BANG!" - Jim Lampley's first word as a child
Performance of the current front office should not change your opinion of Ruskell as GM.
It’s reactionary and irrelevant. Unless your original opinion of Ruskell was also reactionary, in which case, carry on :)
Next up, we draft Dan McGwire
"Hey, guess what? Nobody cares who would win in a crazy fantasy fist-fight between Anne Frank and Lizzie Borden." The Monarch
by crushedoptimist on Mar 17, 2010 3:32 PM PDT up reply actions
I'd miss Ruskell
But he was the same guy that thought Jim Mora was the right man to lead our franchise. That decision never made sense to me.
How dare you not spend the majority of the day
refreshing nfl news sites?
It's Great to be a Florida Gator!
The Arizona Cardinals' plan for success:
-Lose all talent on team to retirement and free agency.
-Call it a day.
by Wayward Llama on Mar 17, 2010 3:34 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
....Is what I want to say to Pete right now. Or at least at the end of January 2011.
"BANG!" - Jim Lampley's first word as a child
Probably true.
They’ve told him to stay away from offseason workouts, just like they did Tapp.
It's Great to be a Florida Gator!
The Arizona Cardinals' plan for success:
-Lose all talent on team to retirement and free agency.
-Call it a day.
by Wayward Llama on Mar 17, 2010 3:33 PM PDT up reply actions
PFT's a pretty credible source in general.
"Hey, guess what? Nobody cares who would win in a crazy fantasy fist-fight between Anne Frank and Lizzie Borden." The Monarch
by crushedoptimist on Mar 17, 2010 3:33 PM PDT up reply actions
I feel like we overpaid for Whitehurst and undersold for Seneca
There cannot be that much disparity in their values.
Honestly I didn't care what we got in return for Seneca.
Solely because I just wanted him gone.
But this is too much for Whitehurst.
"BANG!" - Jim Lampley's first word as a child
It's hard to believe anything else than that.
"Hey, guess what? Nobody cares who would win in a crazy fantasy fist-fight between Anne Frank and Lizzie Borden." The Monarch
by crushedoptimist on Mar 17, 2010 3:38 PM PDT up reply actions
This is like the opposite of Zduriencik
After we hired him, every move he made seemed brilliant.
Everyone move we’ve made so far this off season has been a head scratcher.
Pete Carroll: "I CAN'T GET PUMPED AND JACKED ABOUT A BALD QB ...
… GET ME SOMEONE WITH A MANE OF HAIR!"
6/14/40. Sweet.
by Nick Andron on Mar 17, 2010 3:33 PM PDT reply actions 2 recs
you may need to change your "6/14/40" now.
It’s 6/14/60 for the time-being. And whether or not you keep the “Sweet” will be a matter of opinion. Ack.
Guess who needs a new tag line?
"Hey, guess what? Nobody cares who would win in a crazy fantasy fist-fight between Anne Frank and Lizzie Borden." The Monarch
by crushedoptimist on Mar 17, 2010 3:34 PM PDT up reply actions
6/14/DAMN YOU PETE CARROLL
"Hey, guess what? Nobody cares who would win in a crazy fantasy fist-fight between Anne Frank and Lizzie Borden." The Monarch
by crushedoptimist on Mar 17, 2010 3:36 PM PDT up reply actions
One possible outcome of this trade could be
that we seriously try to trade back from either the #6 or #14 picks. Since we just flushed Tapp down the toilet we’re presumably going to use a pick on a new DE, so picking up even more picks seems ideal at this point.
Maybe we'll swap those out for a whole bunch of 7th rounders
by B.B.Finnegan on Mar 17, 2010 3:39 PM PDT up reply actions
Well, if the Seahawks FO is going to screw up
I’d rather they screw up with draft picks that don’t require such high salaries as the #6 & #14 draft picks.
i'd rather they spend more of Paul Allen's money
then he is more likely to notice and freak out about it.
by Hancock.Brett on Mar 17, 2010 4:05 PM PDT up reply actions
Can this front office trade the 12th man?
I, for one, wouldn’t mind a change of scenery.
Should get good value on in this market
a couple gatorade tubs and one set of ass-warming benches (good for all of those “cold” games)
Shanghai Kelly's on Polk St. in San Francisco is the worst bar on the face of the earth (at least on Sunday mornings).
maybe a compensatory pick in 2011 as well
Shanghai Kelly's on Polk St. in San Francisco is the worst bar on the face of the earth (at least on Sunday mornings).
Everyday it gets a little bit easier to watch Seattle
destroy themselves.
Well done, Wisenhunt. Well done, sir.
It is what it is...
Lol @ Cliff Lee being suspended 5 games for throwing a ball at a guy during an exhibition game
by twocolorcrayon on Mar 17, 2010 3:44 PM PDT up reply actions
Five games for a starting pitcher only means pushing his first start back a few days, and perhaps less after his appeal
by lemonverbena on Mar 18, 2010 1:07 PM PDT up reply actions
1/30 of your season being gone is more significant than you think.
Not a huge deal, but kind of a bummer.
by DrunkAmerican on Mar 18, 2010 4:23 PM PDT up reply actions
I'll defend it
There was talk of trading from 14 to 28 (1100-660=440 pts) and picking up a 3rd (130pts) for a total cost of 310 pts (440-130) and most people were ok with that concept. Well, this deal (at 270 pts per Sando) is actually is a better deal than that one by 40 pts, which is a like a late 4th-early 5th rounder. Put another way, it is like moving from 14 to 28 and getting SDs 3rd and 4th round picks and Whitehurst.
Seattle must not have seen a solution in the draft for next year’s QB either in talent or in availability so then it makes perfect sense. Personally, I hope they find a taker for Hass, drop down from 6 (unless a DT falls to them) and/or 14 and pick up a few more picks as well.
Not bad.
I am not as down on the trade as most. I think we’re shellshocked about all of this in sum. This is overpaying, but it’s not that bad.
So not a bad job here, but I do have a couple things: despite the NFL considering next year’s 3rd to be the value of a 4th, it’s not. It’s a 3rd. There’s a 32-spot range, but it’s a 3rd. So this is more costly than the calculation.
The other item is, not all drops in pick spots are equal. Depends on how the talent level slopes. Our top 3 fit in nicely with this draft. There are 6 great prospects so we’ll get one. Unless we fuck it up.
1st round talent extends a ways past pick 32. Pick 40 was more valuable than the static draft chart would calculate. Pick 60 is a bit different, though.
Lastly, like batters protecting the spot in the lineup before them, 6/14/40 provided incredible latitude for what we could do at each one. There’s now a mile between 14 and 60, and it substantially changes the dynamics of those 2 picks.
Or would. We’ll trade one of them away I’m sure.
by jacobstevens on Mar 17, 2010 3:47 PM PDT up reply actions
A late 4th rounder?
That doesn’t make sense, we gave up what I assume will be a high 3rd rounder next year, so that’s like a high 4th round pick this year by itself, then we traded down 20 spots in the 2nd. That’s more like a late second/early third value than a fourth/fifth.
the 40 point difference
is like getting back a late 4th from SD. Reread the post, it should make sense.
Two trains leave two different stations at the same time... :-)
All I am doing is comparing what they actually did with the ficticious trade of moving back from 1.14 to 1.28 as some had suggested. For anyone who liked that trade, the trade they made offers the equivalent value PLUS a late 4th round pick (ie- the Chargers 4th). If that still doesn’t make sense, I don’t know how else to explain it.
When the Seahawks traded for Hasselback they gave up a lot more
They moved from the 10th overall pick to the 17th overall pick and gave up their current 3rd round pick.
They must really believe in this Whitehurst guy. He must really have an arm and they must feel that he learned a ton.
by Roy Weaver Stuckey on Mar 17, 2010 3:41 PM PDT reply actions
Hasselbeck was 25, though.
If Whitehurst was 3 years younger I wouldn’t have any issue with this trade.
Holmgren knew Hasselbeck. Groomed him. Hass was his guy.
Holmgren wasn’t making a trade in a blind alley. He had spent enough time with Hass to feel that he would be a quality NFL starter.
Who in the Seahawks FO today has the same kind of relationship with Whitehurst to be giving up the kind of value they have for him?
USC was in SoCal, maybe Carroll worked out with him?
nah, doubt it
I'm from Oregon.
Tell your friends to stay down there and quit mucking up our nature.
It's Great to be a Florida Gator!
The Arizona Cardinals' plan for success:
-Lose all talent on team to retirement and free agency.
-Call it a day.
by Wayward Llama on Mar 18, 2010 5:05 AM PDT up reply actions
Hasselbeck was younger so it kind of evens out.
It seemed like they overspent for Hasselbeck though at the time.
I'd feel a lot better about this
if either Carroll or Bates had coached him personally the way Holmgren coached Hasselbeck.
by Mind of no mind on Mar 17, 2010 3:45 PM PDT up reply actions
Same here.
This is much more of a shot in the dark. There’s no obvious insight into this guy other than readily available game tape (and very little of it).
6/14/40. Sweet.
Fuck it, I'm too busy being pissed about Tapp to be pissed about this too.
COME PLAY FOOTBALL FOR MY FAVORITE TEAM YOU WONDERFUL HEAD OF HAIR.
by Nate Dogg on Mar 17, 2010 3:42 PM PDT reply actions 2 recs
... and please don't suck.
"Hey, guess what? Nobody cares who would win in a crazy fantasy fist-fight between Anne Frank and Lizzie Borden." The Monarch
by crushedoptimist on Mar 17, 2010 3:46 PM PDT up reply actions
As long as he keeps the dreamy locks.
He’ll be our very own Samson. His hair will sustain him and us.
"Hey, guess what? Nobody cares who would win in a crazy fantasy fist-fight between Anne Frank and Lizzie Borden." The Monarch
by crushedoptimist on Mar 17, 2010 3:51 PM PDT up reply actions
I don't think I have ever anticipated one of John's scouting reports more
than I do with Whitehurst.
I'm not sure I care right now...
this is the worst st. patrick’s day ever. You sure its not April Fools Month?
No
It will be April Fool’s month when we news says we actually made a good trade.
by Blake Jensen on Mar 17, 2010 3:50 PM PDT up reply actions
I want somebody to preform a 69th trimester abortion on my brain.
by Robert on Mar 17, 2010 3:46 PM PDT reply actions 3 recs
They're going to trade Carlson next for no good reason. I just know it.
"BANG!" - Jim Lampley's first word as a child
I just had an epiphany
Maybe we will sign Anderson and trade Hasslebeck. Turns out our only strategy was to cock block the cards.
Anderson signed with the Cards.
I think it’s more likely Seattle still drafts a QB, cuts Matt and Whitehurst starts for 2 seasons.
When I was a kid I would cheat on Madden
by choosing two ‘human’ teams and doing trades between the two heavily weighted in favor of the Seahawks. I would usually decide who the other ‘donor’ team was by picking one that had the players or draft picks I wanted as well as enough cap room to take any of my unwanted contracts etc.
The last two days, the Seahawks have been acting exactly like one of those donor teams I used to fleece.
Is this guy Morman?
Why was he 24 when he was drafted? He was born in August so he should have been 21 when he graduated from college in 4 years. 1 more year to red-shirt so 22. He go on a 2 year mission or something?
by Roy Weaver Stuckey on Mar 17, 2010 3:50 PM PDT reply actions
He was at Clemson 5 years
2001-2005. Here is an old draft profile on him.
[DELETED ZOMG NO POLITICS]
Not LDS as far as I can tell
he did redshirt though. He’s 27, currently. Graduated HS the same year I did.
[DELETED ZOMG NO POLITICS]
I wonder if this trade is karmic payback for Ryan Leaf.
by Mind of no mind on Mar 17, 2010 3:54 PM PDT reply actions
The actions of a Cougar should not efffect Seattle, IMO
by seattle_since_81 on Mar 17, 2010 6:56 PM PDT up reply actions
What about Tyler Schmitt?
I say we’re even.
I'll leave it at this
The current Seahawks FO looks like Glen Sather’s management of the NY Rangers. Any hockey fan should know that is not good.
Cue the hatred: I like Whitehurst and I like this trade
I thought it would actually take more than this. What did you expect to get a QB with upside for in a QB-starved league? You have to give up something to get something, and the Chargers had all the leverage because we didn’t have a 3. Our team went 4-12 and 5-11 the last two years and was regressing. The coach and front office were replaced. A major roster shakeup was guaranteed, and needed. The new leadership concluded on different valuations than those in this community, started making moves, and… Ding Ding Ding! Cue the FG meltdown.
Call me crazy, but I’ll wait until they’ve at least had one draft before declaring Carroll and Schneider the worst football front office EVAR
Are you forgetting yesterday's trade?
Or the trade for Seneca?
Or the mostly needless cutting of Grant?
It’s not each move in a vacuum. Each of them, added togethers, begins to sum a worrisome pattern of shaky decision-making.
6/14/40. Sweet.
Nope
Seneca is no loss at all, getting anything for him is fine with me.
Grant was due $19m over the next three years and was destined to be cut.
Tapp…ok, I don’t get that one.
by lemonverbena on Mar 17, 2010 4:05 PM PDT up reply actions
Seneca was worth more than a 2011 7th and you know it.
Anyone that’s being “sought after” by another team is.
Cutting Grant when we did was meaningless. A roster trim down to 53 men is a LONG way from now.
6/14/40. Sweet.
I don't know.
Cutting Grant saves the team a good amount of money and going by most people’s opinion here on Seneca I’m surprised people are upset about that trade. I will admit it would be nice to have more safety depth before cutting Grant.
It's pretty evident Q/PM can't drive a hard bargain.
I mean common … a 7th in 2011?!
40→60 / 2011 3rd round for Whitehurst?
We’re getting fucked left and right.
6/14/40. Sweet.
I agree that our Q/PM have not shown much in the trade/bargaining department.
I’d like to see them get some better deals, or not deal.
I think Whitehurst has more value than Seneca.
Seneca has played and looked average at best, yeah I think Seattle could have gotten a 5th rounder for him, but I also wouldn’t have been surprised if Seneca was flat out released. He just didn’t have any value to Seattle and they got something for him.
I respect your opinion and do fear the future under these guys
But we had to go in a new direction, and am willing to see the whole picture before passing judgement.
by lemonverbena on Mar 17, 2010 4:15 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
What do you think they could have gotten for Seneca?
Wallace destroyed his own value around the league last year.
And Tapp had promise. Undelivered promise. I like the kid, but I don’t think he’s nearly the playmaker the last 24 hours on FG have made himout to be.
Grant is eminently replaceable. Again I like him and he’s solid, but there are many similar players in the NFL that can be had for cheaper.
by G'd Up on Mar 17, 2010 6:37 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I'm just afraid the draft will be them trying to dig themselves out of a hole they created.
And it might be really deep.
I actually agree with you though, I’m okay with Whitehurst as our QB for the next few years. His upside and not being Seneca Wallace makes me feel some relief.
Still think the value of the trades sucked though.
...
The draft will be them trying to dig them out of a hole that the previous regime created
by Roy Weaver Stuckey on Mar 17, 2010 4:07 PM PDT up reply actions
If that is true
They are not helping themselves now. Will you still defend them when they take a DE at 60?
Then Carroll seems to enjoy making it deeper
If Ruskell had a shovel, Carroll has a pack of dynamite.
I have no problem with Whitehurst the player, I'm disturbed by what it cost to acquire him.
This seems like a Bavasi blunder. Get locked into a specific player instead of a specific kind of player and overspend to get said player.
Only problem I have with a baseball comparison here is.
There isn’t a surplus of good QB’s in the league.
by Scruffy Lefty on Mar 17, 2010 4:32 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Can you name one?
People keep throwing around Derek Anderson as a available comparison but he is awful. Quinn got traded. Delhomme? Kellen Clemens?
by Scruffy Lefty on Mar 17, 2010 4:42 PM PDT up reply actions
Not that it really matters but Clemens is shorter by 2 inches.
by Scruffy Lefty on Mar 17, 2010 4:44 PM PDT up reply actions
I don't want to know how you knew that about Clemens
by lemonverbena on Mar 17, 2010 4:48 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
I suppose even if there wasn't someone (and I'm sure there is, I just can't seem to get my brain working)
this still seems like an overspend. It’s almost like the front office either doesn’t know how to value players or are caving on negotiations at the first sign of a potential impasse.
I'm not going to say we didn't overspend.
But we can’t compare these types of moves to baseball ones. Because baseballs available talent pool is 100x bigger so when you lock onto a player in baseball its really running some tunnel vision.
by Scruffy Lefty on Mar 17, 2010 4:48 PM PDT up reply actions
My bigger point is that Bavasi would stick to his guns and wouldn't walk away until he outbid himself.
That’s what this is feeling like.
But Bavasi had other available talent that we knew about.
We have no idea what other “good” QB’s are available.
by Scruffy Lefty on Mar 17, 2010 4:52 PM PDT up reply actions
Who else was available when he sold the farm for Erik Bedard?
By that point Bedard was the only top-of-the-rotation lefty that appeared to be available ont he market.
I think your still missing the point.
Bavasi could’ve gone after a minor leaguer, less of a pitcher, a non lefthander etc… One pitcher in baseball won’t make a team. This was Bavasi’s prolem. He had all sorts of options to make the team better that didn’t involve adding a lefthanded pitcher.
A good QB on the other hand will make a NFL team. The new NFL revolves around what your QB can do with his arm. And the available talent pool for those QB’s is very small. Whitehurst may suck. But we need a good QB.
by Scruffy Lefty on Mar 17, 2010 5:00 PM PDT up reply actions
I kind of get the sense that we're arguing about two different things.
Yes I recognize the talent pool in the NFL is smaller, but my issue is that, like Bavasi, this administration seems unwilling to walk away from an overspend.
But I don't get that feeling after this transaction.
Because I feel in this case we needed to target the right QB.
by Scruffy Lefty on Mar 17, 2010 5:06 PM PDT up reply actions
I just don't know, at 28 Whitehurst doesn't feel like the right QB.
I need to find out more about him though, but on first glance I’m wary.
I think its like John said.
They need someone for when this defense is in its prime. But this is still a 3-4 year stop gap QB.
This is like us getting Jason Campbell.
by Scruffy Lefty on Mar 17, 2010 5:10 PM PDT up reply actions
Wasn't the assumption with Campbell that he was going to only cost salary
Then it became apparent that Washington was going to hang onto him after all?
Right but it the sense of he's really just here to keep the seat warm.
With a moveable body.
by Scruffy Lefty on Mar 17, 2010 5:15 PM PDT up reply actions
I think we'll get that 2011 pick back somehow.
Probably at the cost of Josh Wilson.
by Scruffy Lefty on Mar 17, 2010 5:19 PM PDT up reply actions
I'll have to give this some thought.
But I can’t think of anyone, either. Clemens is possible. Tarvaris Jackson? Sage Rosenfels? Brett Ratliff? Brian Brohm? I’m not sure about franchise or long-term, but maybe short-term? Any of them that might be cheaper, or worth a damn? shrugs
I distinctly remember John being annoyed that Brohm could have been had something like twice last season
and the Seahawks ignored him both times.
I believe so, yes.
Man, I can’t help but wonder what it would cost to pry him away from them.
Brohm would of been nice, and he was basically free at the end of the season, but that's not on Q/PM.
I’d say Clemens and Kolb would of been the best options, but also a lot more expensive.
Troy Smith
Could have probably been had for nothing. Not that he’s necessarily any good, but he’s cheap, young, and we know almost exactly as much about his potential as an NFL QB as we know about Whitehurst’s.
Is there?
An under 30 QB available for mid round picks with unknown upside? Top of my head — can’t come up with anyone.
In the Senior Bowl
Zac Robinson of Oklahoma St. was slinging it pretty good. He struck me as a developmental prospect to keep an eye on.
i have a man-crush on Robinson
I’ve watched him a bit and I think he’ll end up a decent NFL starting QB. I’d love for Seattle to spend a 4th round pick on him
But spending the #6 overall for Clausen would have been good value?
It’s a judgement call either way. I like this move because we still have 6 and 14 overall.
by lemonverbena on Mar 17, 2010 4:42 PM PDT up reply actions
Looks like I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue.
Isn’t this SS reporters movie? Where is he?
by Blake Jensen on Mar 17, 2010 4:06 PM PDT up reply actions
after much therapy I was convinced to go on anti depressants
took them for 3 days and then stopped……on Monday morning. Fuck :(
by Hancock.Brett on Mar 17, 2010 4:07 PM PDT up reply actions
I can see the conversation now
Schneider: Master, there has been a trade!
Carroll: A trade? What is it?
Schneider: It’s when the Seahawks do something stupid for minimal return, but that’s not important right now.
"BANG!" - Jim Lampley's first word as a child
by SSreporters on Mar 17, 2010 4:08 PM PDT up reply actions 5 recs
Carroll: Schneider, we have to get this trade done as quickly as possible.
Schneider: I’m not sure when I can get this trade done, sir.
Carroll: Well can’t you take a guess?
Schneider: Well, not for another 2 hours.
Carroll: You can’t make a guess for another 2 hours?
Schneider: Can I go back to Green Bay?
"BANG!" - Jim Lampley's first word as a child
by SSreporters on Mar 17, 2010 4:15 PM PDT up reply actions 4 recs
There's no reason to become alarmed, and we hope you'll enjoy the rest of the season.
By the way, is there anyone here who knows how to run an NFL franchise?
by B.B.Finnegan on Mar 17, 2010 4:41 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Schneider (hands Carroll a piece of paper with a brilliant trade idea): Pete, what do you make of this?
Carroll: This? Oh I could make a hat! Or a broach! Or a Pterodactyl…..(throws it in the trash).
"BANG!" - Jim Lampley's first word as a child
by SSreporters on Mar 17, 2010 4:43 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I am serious
And don’t call me Shirl…
Sorry.
Bummer eh!
I was hoping to see what he could do to top fumblerooskie against Tampa.
It is what it is...
That reminds me of Tecmo Bowl
offensive linemen standing around
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Mar 18, 2010 2:20 PM PDT up reply actions
Same Here
For real though, I am gonna miss the guy.
by Blake Jensen on Mar 17, 2010 4:13 PM PDT up reply actions
I like him.
I like his chutpah, or however you spell it. I loved him promising that we’d get the ball and score. I hated the outcome, but loved the spirit.
Same here
I sometimes feel Alexander got too much flak at the end of his career. I hope we won’t bury what Hasselbeck did as a Seahawk in his waning years.
That reads awkwardly
I mean not bury what he did over his entire career by focusing too much on his waning years
Ugh. It appears the Hawks now have their Bavasi regime
Jettisoning talent and picks in the name of filling roles and “getting their guy”. I pray to God this will be quick and relatively painless, perhaps two seasons max? Please? Ruskell appears to have been a genius in comparison to this. Hell, Holmy the GM appears to have been a genius in comparison to this.
Anton Chigurh for GM!
Watch Whitehurst throw for 100 touchdowns.
341 of them to Nick Reed.
75% of people account for 3/4 of the worlds population.
by Pessimistic Optimist on Mar 17, 2010 4:16 PM PDT reply actions
Although your football math is sound,
I don’t believe 75% is 3/4 of the world’s population, sir.
by Blake Jensen on Mar 17, 2010 4:20 PM PDT up reply actions
He's coming, Seattle.
Are we ready? And doesn’t he just look like a steal? I mean, let’s not worry about getting “scientific.” Use your eyes!
He looks like the next Tom Brady to me
Once his gaze meets a defender’s their knees go weak and everyone’s open
It was meant to have a double meaning.
Glad someone caught it.
I sort of wish I HADN'T caught it.
Whatever it was, I got it from Tom Brady, who got it from Giselle, who got it from Leonardo DiCaprio, who probably got it from James Cameron. WHATEVER it is.
Or their hearts flutter
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Mar 17, 2010 6:27 PM PDT up reply actions
This is totally going to be like The Replacements
by Scruffy Lefty on Mar 17, 2010 4:29 PM PDT reply actions 3 recs
That's a good thing right?
Also, is it legal to put glue on Deon Butler’s hands? I mean he is fast, but his hands…
by Blake Jensen on Mar 17, 2010 4:30 PM PDT up reply actions
Deon Butler is a like a one man cold.
He is the only one catching it – He is the only one coming down with it.
by Scruffy Lefty on Mar 17, 2010 4:31 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah yeah
I didn’t have anyone else to compare. I mean, we don’t have a 400 lb. Chinese guy on our Offensive Line… yet.
by Blake Jensen on Mar 17, 2010 4:32 PM PDT up reply actions
there's a wang or a chang
who plays OT coming out in the draft this year. A couple of years on the PS and a shitload of Taco Bell should get him ready.
I was hoping he'd be our Paul Blake.
And could we get Kathy Ireland (or the 2010 equivalent) as our kicker, please?
Best line in a football movie, ever:
shitty quarterback talking to receiver he just missed by a mile:
“I thought you were going to do one of these”
(does approximation of a post pattern with his arm)
Carla WAS the prom queen.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Mar 18, 2010 2:08 PM PDT up reply actions
I don't know Brenda, but that's a quote from The Rock, and Carla was Nic Cage's wife...
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Mar 18, 2010 2:18 PM PDT up reply actions
Brenda and Eddie, popular steadies.
King and the Queen at the prom.
Oh shit....
scenes from an italian diner?
I’m not gonna google it. just refresh my reference list!
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Mar 19, 2010 2:15 AM PDT up reply actions
Sorry I didn't get it.. I was thinking solely of the movie quote.
But, nice reference. Thank you.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Mar 19, 2010 2:15 AM PDT up reply actions
I told a Sports Professional two weeks ago that we'd trade Hasselbeck
She told me I was nuts.
I have a feeling I’m right.
In the meantime, this deal is crap. IMHO, of course.
Fuck this administration
I’m terrified what kind of brilliant trades Pete Carroll will pull on draft day.
Perhaps we need some kind of alcohol sponsorship for Draft Day
One thing’s for sure, more moves like today’s, and I know I won’t be anywhere near sober.
by Seahawks Blue on Mar 17, 2010 4:34 PM PDT up reply actions
DAMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMIT
I have remained cool until now. Godammit, giving away Tapp for backups and now giving up or lowering our future and present picks for a backup QB, I am so disappionted. At this point I am fearfull of what I will read next. First round pick for marshall! Wheee! Draft Taylor Mays! Damn P.C. you mindless moron.
The evolution of Whitehurst - The best is yet to come.
????
????
by Mind of no mind on Mar 17, 2010 4:34 PM PDT reply actions 31 recs
He'll be bigger than Jesus in a couple of years.
Wouldn’t you trade a future 3rd rounder for Jesus?
Yes,
but if we were gonna do that, why not just take the shortcut and draft Tebow?
by Mind of no mind on Mar 17, 2010 8:42 PM PDT up reply actions
It depends who we're negotiating with.
Who owns the rights to Jesus? Because if it’s God, we might be able to get away with a conditional 7th and still be forgiven our trespasses. Or something like that, I haven’t had a chance to take a closer look at the new Collective Bargaining Agreement yet.
by SeaTownBlueDevil on Mar 18, 2010 3:45 AM PDT up reply actions
Awesome
This has to be the best football site ever.
Just because Seattle has made these trades
Doesn’t mean you have to resort to drugs.
"BANG!" - Jim Lampley's first word as a child
by SSreporters on Mar 17, 2010 5:19 PM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
If he has a good first few games
I’m just going to start calling him Jesus. Or Fabio.
Now with more lemon bars!
The middle picture he looks an little like Wolverine
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Mar 17, 2010 6:29 PM PDT up reply actions
We have turned Christianity from monotheism to pantheism.
TWO Jesus’s on one team?
26 recs has to be a record
It's Great to be a Florida Gator!
The Arizona Cardinals' plan for success:
-Lose all talent on team to retirement and free agency.
-Call it a day.
by Wayward Llama on Mar 18, 2010 5:06 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I hadn't thought about that one
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Mar 17, 2010 5:22 PM PDT up reply actions
Two days in a row of cruddy trades has all a bit delirious
I really really hope these guys have a plan and come training camp it all makes sense.
I look at it like this, and I think this is what the FO is thinking too
Moving down from 40 to 61 mostly hurts the team’s ability to pick “their guy”. It’s broadly speaking the same range of talent, but for a team with specific needs, drafting earlier is much more valuable because it allows them to be picky. A team drafting at 61 gets the leftovers. Those players might be similarly rated, but the team selecting can no longer be picky about fit or need. They must take the best player.
If Carroll and Schneider think this team needs many players to succeed, they have not lost all that much, because they are at the “advantage” of being thin enough to need almost any player at any position.
by John Morgan on Mar 17, 2010 4:57 PM PDT reply actions 3 recs
If Tebow and his motion
mean he’s the one above all other broadly speaking similar range of talents, that drops to 60, that complicates things, no?
by jacobstevens on Mar 17, 2010 5:00 PM PDT up reply actions
Whitehurst.
Aragorn.
BeeGee.
Johnny Damon.
Jesus.
5th Beatle.
I can’t decide which of these is richest.
This brings up a cosmological question that needs to be answered
Is there an parallel universe in which Charlie Whitehurst is a starting quarterback in the NFL? And if there is: how and when did Carrol and Schneider visit this alternate plane of reality?
Seahawks-4-Life
So you're saying that Carroll and Schneider were on Oceanic Flight 815?
by seattle_since_81 on Mar 17, 2010 7:09 PM PDT up reply actions
One of them.
I’m not sure which. POST nuke? PRE nuke?
I don't even understand what any of these posts are saying anymore.
Including my own. I don’t understand why or how football moves are made or what makes them good. The fabric of time and space itself
I don't get it I am such a good GM on Madden
I got Whitehurst and Marcus McNeil for a 4,4,5,6, and 7.
At least we aren't the Raiders?
The Carlson "White Jesus" comments
are going to get confusing with this guy throwing to him.
Just wait till we draft Tebow
All armageddon’s gonna break loose
by B.B.Finnegan on Mar 17, 2010 5:35 PM PDT up reply actions
Just wait until we get Tebow. We will run the TriniCat
Get it? Trinity. Wildcat. Uh sorry guys. [hangs head in shame]
Excuse my French
Tabernac esti. How does somebody go from 500 grand to 5 million per year by holding a fucking clipboard for four years. He must have taken very good notes on that clipboard.
Loud Angry Noises
I have to believe that they really think that he is the answer at QB, which makes me question the two year contract. Either way, this is PCs signature move. He will be permenantly tied to this move and either be and idiot or a genius. No sense losing sleep though, cause its already done.
It does by him a little time
He can shrug his shoulders and say there wasn’t a QB available and he now has three years. I suppose if it works out where we get Houston at 60 then I am okay with it.
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Mar 17, 2010 6:01 PM PDT up reply actions
I wouldn't mind moving out of one to get two 1st round picks and two 2nd round picks
Imagine getting a good OT like Brown, a DE, DT, and WR. I think we would be singing the praises of the Queen and Prime Minister.
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Mar 17, 2010 6:16 PM PDT up reply actions
PCs signature move?
What makes you think he’s done. The party has just started and he’s got 2 first round picks to play with. I think the theatre of the absurd has just finished Act I.
I don't think that he is done
But this is the move that everyone will always measure him off of. Even if he turns us into a winner in the next couple of years, if this move flops people will say, yeah but remember that terrible trade. If this works and we just found the franchise, then he will be praised as the greatest talent scout ever.
He has shown he knows talent
I hope that it translates to the NFL.
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Mar 17, 2010 6:08 PM PDT up reply actions
I don't know how it works.
I always assumed that a new coach or GM could stick with an old QB for a year, and then say, “Well, that didn’t work, let’s get a new guy!” and then be given an extra year to develop that guy. But everything I read says, “new regimes mean new QB’s” (which really bugs me) and apparently new regimes, like, take new QB’s.
Why not wait and then complain about your bad luck to get an old QB who can no longer play? I haven’t figured it out yet. Does anyone know why people take a new QB right away, and why waiting a year wouldn’t give you an extra year to work?
Because you want him to be a backup for a year
Have him learn from the coaches and Matt for a year and then take over.
If he succeeds, you sign him to a long term deal. If he sucks, you draft a QB.
But the other thing I think is that Whitehurst is the QB of the future and the backup QB of now.
Hard to find that mix in one player.
Falcons, Seahawks, Huskers!
But we paid enough for him now, that we are already committed
Might as well make it a 4-5 year deal.
Reminds of me of the outcry when Jack Z traded Putz, Green and Reed.
What is he thinking? Who is Endy Chavez? Franklin Gutierrez? But Putz is a proven closer. What, we signed Aardsma? He’s terrible! Fail.
Ignorance.
Am I equating these moves to those moves in an ‘established value’ sense? No, of course not, it’s not even the same sport. But until the vision of the GM is realized, it’s pretty stupid to declare failure.
If Whitehurst turns out to be the answer at QB for the next 8 years, I’m sure no one will cop to hating this move.
Obviously you weren't reading LL after that trade.
by Scruffy Lefty on Mar 17, 2010 6:21 PM PDT up reply actions
Of course I was reading LL!
But knowledgeable baseball fans are an entity of themselves. If there were an equivalent in football, it wouldn’t be found in this thread.
I was referring to co-workers and friends who don’t know who Bill James, or even Jeff Sullivan, is..
I see, so because Carroll and Schneider like him then he must be good.
How could I have been so ignorant.
That;s cool
It’s like he implanted the flag himself into his lower spine to show what a trooper the Whitehurst is.
Comparing contracts
I realize that contracts have gone up in 9 years but since the trades are so similar I thought I would throw this in:
Hasselbeck’s contract: 2 years 3.5 million including signing bonus ($500,000 year one, $1,000,000 year two)
Whitehurst’s contract: 2 years 10 million (not official, rumored at $5 million per year)
Keep in mind Hasselbeck was a #2 QB at the time and had played a bit more playing time in the regular season. I’m still trying to wrap my head around this size of the contract handed to Whitehurst considering that he has proven nothing.
Compare it to the size of Stafford's contract instead.
In that scenario, Whitehurst has the advantage with regards to experience.
I don't think the number #2 or #3 QB thing is in play here.
Only because of Volek being “Mr Backup”
by Scruffy Lefty on Mar 17, 2010 6:34 PM PDT up reply actions
If Whitehurst had been on another team I think there's a good chance he would have actually gotten snaps by now.
They love Volek down in San Diego.
And Phillip Rivers hasn't missed a game in 4 seasons.
Obviously, just by what he was tendered at, he isn’t thought of around the league as the typical 3rd string QB.
I see your point.
$5million per year though. Have contracts really gone up that much in 9 years? More than double for QB’s of similar value.
Not worth the space it is written on
But I’d take Sanchez over Curry and Whitehurst.
But who knows. I guess that is the carrot. Whitehurst has nothing to damn.
It is what it is...
Yes.
If only Pete Carroll had a time machine and could get Ruskell fired a year earlier.
Charlie Whitehurst has better career stats than Brett Favre had at the time he was traded to Green Bay.
Ron Wolf was told he was out of his mind trading a 1st round pick for Favre, especially after Favre technically failed his physical.
Favre had played the same amount of NFL snaps as Whitehurst. Four.
Shit you mean the lottery is not a good investment strategy?
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Mar 17, 2010 11:25 PM PDT up reply actions
Favre sat for one year
Whitehurst sat for FOUR YEARS.
by B.B.Finnegan on Mar 17, 2010 10:49 PM PDT up reply actions
then he will be really really ready
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Mar 17, 2010 11:26 PM PDT up reply actions
By the time Whitehurst throws his first NFL pass
Favre would have already have thrown 1,579 attempts for 983 completions racking up 10,412 yards and 70 TD’s
by B.B.Finnegan on Mar 18, 2010 12:13 AM PDT up reply actions
I don't think he will be the QB of the future
just the immediate future. I am not thrilled about these moves but
Also Norv Turner knows offense and has developed a few QBs, not on the level of Holmgren and Reid but if he kept him around then maybe…
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Mar 18, 2010 8:58 AM PDT up reply actions
His 09 preseason numbers are markedly better than his previous three years
And even then it’s unlikely he was playing with the first team offense.
If it’s true that he wasn’t playing with the first team offense and put 57% completion and 6.4 YPA, then that’s somewhat encouraging.
I can’t wait to see John’s tape analysis.
6/14/40. Sweet.
by Nick Andron on Mar 18, 2010 10:10 AM PDT up reply actions
isn't that when they try out new plays too?
with the 3rd string guys in there when nobody is watching?
I mean I do when I am playing Madden – so it has to be the same.
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Mar 18, 2010 10:36 AM PDT up reply actions
Anyone see Glanville's reason for trading Favre?
Bret couldn’t stay sober. Jerry traded him to GB (where it closed up early) basically to give him a chance to succeed. He said if he had sent him to NY no one would know who he is today.
I wouldn't disagree with that
It is harder to get in trouble in Green Bay where everyone is watching you.
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Mar 18, 2010 1:21 PM PDT up reply actions
as I was cleaning up my office a garbage bag ripped open
and out came used tissue paper, sunflower seed shells, and old coffee cups spilling all over the floor. As I was picking it up I thought about how things could be worse………then I looked up to see that I still had this news story open.
liar
It's a Casio on a plastic beach
by Roy Weaver Stuckey on Mar 18, 2010 12:59 AM PDT up reply actions
it happened
I had fired up field gulls when I got home at 7 and returned to my office ~4 hours later when I posted that.
by Hancock.Brett on Mar 18, 2010 10:10 AM PDT up reply actions
Wow.
Off fieldgulls for a week, and I come back to this shit-storm. I feel like we should all make a suicide pact.
Seahawks add QB of the future without giving up a pick this year
That’s how I would defend it first and foremost.
You’re a new GM and you know that you want to toss aside a bunch of players.
You want to get a QB who can start in a year or two. Maybe you know Matt only wants to play another year or maybe you can read the injury reports pretty well.
You’ve looked at this year’s QBs and there is maybe one you like in a weak QB draft and the Redskins will probably take him (Clauson).
You know you can’t win without a QB down the road. You look at Seneca Wallace and like most fans you say, What? Really?
You are adding picks this first year in what will be the deepest draft since 1983 because of all the juniors who are out to avoid the rookie salary cap. (Bye, bye, Seneca, Daryl, etc).
So to preseve your picks for this season, you move down 20 spots in a deep second round and trade away a pick next year (when you’re planning to be better even if that’s just a pipe dream).
Whitehurst is probably the 3rd best QB in this “draft” and you just got him without losing a pick until next season.
Falcons, Seahawks, Huskers!
I agree
But because JM hasn’t fully scouted the new QB and blessed it no one on here will approve of it. I promise you that if JM gave a glowing scouting report and said that it was a good deal that everyone of these sky is falling people would say that PC was a genius.
The fact is that people who get paid for evaluating talent and have a history of being right have looked at this guy and they think that he is our QB of the future and the best option that we have. Its a huge risk, so it scares me, but I have to give the smart guys a chance.
I'm not sold on Clausen
If he sucks we are tied to them for 6 years at 35.
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Mar 18, 2010 8:41 AM PDT up reply actions
err million
I don’t think
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Mar 18, 2010 8:45 AM PDT up reply actions
So you toss aside Darryl Tapp.
And keep a load of expensive, old garbage like Kerney and Cole.
It's Great to be a Florida Gator!
The Arizona Cardinals' plan for success:
-Lose all talent on team to retirement and free agency.
-Call it a day.
by Wayward Llama on Mar 18, 2010 5:09 AM PDT up reply actions
Wayward
I’m not saying that I would make the Tapp deal.
BUT, Pete Carrol has coached this scheme before and he know exactly what he wants at each position.
Compare that move to the Aaron Kaumpman release and signing from Green Bay. Last offseason, they could have traded Kaumpman and gotten something for him.
People knew he was going to struggle in that scheme, but GB wanted to force him into a position where he didn’t fit and then lost him for next to nothing this year.
Regardless of what we like, Seahawks management has looked at these guys and said they do or down’t fit our scheme and has the balls to take action to back up those decisions.
Falcons, Seahawks, Huskers!
by Seadogs on Mar 18, 2010 5:46 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
ESPN saying 2 yrs, $8MM
with $2MM in incentives
This is the funniest fucking thread I've read in a looooong time.
In the face of… questionable moves, you guys sunshine out of black holes.
Talents that I covet:
Ndamukong Suh, Gerald McCoy, Sam Bradford, Mike Iupati, Golden Tate, Earl Thomas, and Freddie Barnes
I'm just tired of the purely emotional posts
This move has some risk, but it isn’t that much different from the one that brought us Hasselbeck. It could work. It might flop. But we are still only talking about giving up a 2nd or 3rd round pick for someone who our FO thinks is the next starter. It looks like Tapp wouldn’t work in the new system well, so get some value for him.
How are these moves that much of a black hole.
FG has an over emotional attachment to the #40 pick and Tapp, the sky really isn’t falling.
by stufr on Mar 18, 2010 8:55 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Now but he was a fan favorite
They probably could have gotten more from him. I would have preferred they got a third that we then used that to sign Whitehurst, and keep #40. That would have been a best cast scenario.
That being said Calvin Pace was a bum at DE and became a pretty good LB.
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Mar 18, 2010 9:06 AM PDT up reply actions
Dealing Tapp is pretty indefensible, dealing Tapp for what we did is borderline insane.
This trade, while not as bad, appears to be an overpay and given the front office’s spotty track record thus far, people are rightfully asking questions.
Asking questions is great
Just saying that it sucks or droping the F-bomb just shows ignorance.
I would have loved to have gotten a 3rd for Tapp, but the market is tight. If he wouldn’t have done well in the system his value would have dropped even farther next year. They got what they could and yes I agree it sucks.
The more I think about the QB situation the better I like it. They just got somebody that they clearly like better than anyone in the draft for a third round pick. Everyone here wanted them to risk the #6 pick on a QB. They could have traded up to ensure getting one of the guys on the board, but they decided that this guy is better. We have so little data on his NFL abilities that we can’t say that they are wrong. So they only used a 3rd roundish pick and they have probably just a good of chance of having a franchise QB as either Bradford or Clausen.
I just don’t see that their record is spotty. I think people need to analyze, but based on all of the other signings and trades, they are doing ok, its just hard to analyze since we don’t know their systems or exactly why they are doing everything.
If the front office didn't get an offer that matched Tapp's value, they needed to retain him.
You don’t have to deal someone if you don’t get a fair deal, and the Seahawks didn’t get fair value in return for him. Really, the fact that Tapp was even on the market to begin with is a damning indication of how this front office is operating.
Based on all of their other signings and trades, this team is not doing all that well. Most decisions have ranged from questionable to terrible.
Value is in the eye of the buyer
If the new system would have been the opposite of a showcase and not really used him well then why retain him? Its like buying a new car and having an old set of snow tires that don’t fit it. They used to have great value to you, but even if you can’t get what you think you should get for them, you sell them for what you can get because they are no longer usefull. I’m not saying Tapp wouldn’t be useful, but with the new system he might not have even been a starter. So he would have been little value to us to keep.
Besides these two moves name another one that is that bad?
If Seattle's value of Tapp and the buyer's didn't meet, Seattle should have retained him.
A 4th round pick and a significantly older, lesser player is not worth chucking the opportunity to sign a talented young player to a longer contract.
Isn't stufr saying that Seattle's value of Tapp
and the buyer’s did meet or at least weren’t as far apart as you make it sound? A 2nd round tender does not mean they valued him as a 2nd round trade piece. I kind of like the snow tire example. Sure, those snow tires were expensive and would work really well, if you could use them. However, if you have determined they are just not going to work for you, and they were going to decompose in a year anyway with only a chance that you could stop them from decomposing, then it might not be too bad to get some money for them now, even if its less than most people think they are worth.
Wow, that analogy took longer than I was expecting.
by purplepansy on Mar 18, 2010 10:45 AM PDT up reply actions
Either Carroll and company caved on negotiations
or Carroll and company have no idea what Tapp is really worth.
Neither of these options are good.
I hope it's the latter and not the former.
Valuing players is a difficult process and a lot of intricacies go into it. Caving on negotiations is just a lack of negotiating skill. Honestly, I will give them a pass if they simply graded Tapp lower than Field Gulls did. If they are bad negotiators, I will simply be sad.
by purplepansy on Mar 18, 2010 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions
also depends on if they Eagles knew we didn't need snow tires
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Mar 18, 2010 10:56 AM PDT up reply actions
It feels like some of you think that we were compelled to trade Darryl Tapp at all costs.
I don’t get that.
we don't know what Tapp's end in this was
he wasn’t treated well under the old regime, he did have to fight for everything, it could leave someone with a bad taste in their mouth.
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Mar 18, 2010 11:01 AM PDT up reply actions
We don't know that.
Based on what we do know, this trade was clearly a bad move. Should some exceptional news appear that Tapp demanded his way out of Seattle, we’ll go back and reasses, but based on what we do know this was not a smart trade.
How are you getting that?
From what I see, no one said we had to trade Tapp. It’s simple. I hope that PC valued Tapp differently than you, and wasn’t interested in any chance to sign him long term. If those are true, then the trade to get what he could now was good. You can complain about the valuation all you want in that case, but, for me, the process seems fine.
by purplepansy on Mar 18, 2010 11:01 AM PDT up reply actions
IF PC valued Tapp at that low of a level then I'm incredibly concerned about his ability to eveluate talent.
by BrianL on Mar 18, 2010 11:02 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
There's no way to spin this into a good thing.
The process leading into this trade was bad no matter how you look at it.
Like I said, that's perfectly fine if you want to bitch about the valuation skills.
Talent evaluators make mistakes constantly on valuation. If Carroll missed Tapp’s true valuation by 1 or 2 rounds, that sucks. But I’m not ready to crucify him for it. I guess that’s simply the difference in our positions.
by purplepansy on Mar 18, 2010 11:07 AM PDT up reply actions
Just ... stop.
Save your breath. Some people will argue in the face of reason for ever and ever.
6/14/40. Sweet.
I think this trade wasn't that bad
I didn’t like losing Tapp and would have liked to have gotten more out of him, but stufr makes a good point. It is similar to losing Mo and keeping Julius Jones. I loved Mo but he was hardly effective in Detriot this year. We can’t really judge these moves until next year. If we win the division and build off that success these moves won’t be so bad.
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Mar 18, 2010 9:40 AM PDT up reply actions
The best way to learn is to look at what you have done and adjust what you do next time
No trades/drafts/FA signings etc can’t be judged fully when they are made. If that is your proccess then you will never build a winner.
typo
I got a double negative in there.
No trades/drafts/FA signings etc can be judged fully when they are made. If that is your proccess then you will never build a winner
I care more about the process that went into a trade than the results.
If, at the time, a good process was used but the result was poor, I’ll be bummed but I won’t be discouraged. Tough breaks happen, but so long as the organization continues to use the same smart process, good things will happen more often than not.
If the process is bad but the result was good, I’ll be happy with the result but be discouraged as a whole. One good result likely can’t cover up a bad organizational philosophy, because that bad philosophy will result in personnel moves trending towards “bad result” more often than not.
Dealing Tapp was a move that screamed bad process. That’s why people are up in arms.
I'll post this again here. I know that the article you are basing this arguments on argued for non-results based evaluation of trades. But,
He does admit that the trade evaluation method he advocates has a couple problems as well though.
1. We don’t have all of the information; in fact, we have very little information about the background of this — Carroll’s thinking, the Eagles thinking, what else was done to trade/not trade Tapp.
2. The results DO matter — and though they may not be the best way to evaluate trades, they tell us a lot more than some people are willing to give credit for.
That’s right from that article — so as much as process matters, the results can tell us a lot too.
by purplepansy on Mar 18, 2010 10:51 AM PDT up reply actions
Just because we don't have detailed call logs and paperwork from the front office doesn't mean we can't evaluate personnel moves.
Based on what we know, and that’s what Tapp has shown game after game, he’s a good player that happens to be young. Based on that, we know he is the kind of player that a rebuilding team should hang on to. Just because we don’t know what is running through Pete Carroll’s head does not mean we should excuse sloppy decision making.
And yes, the results can tell us something, but you’re giving the results more weight than they are worth.
Well
Those aren’t my arguments, they’re just from that article on trades. It just seems that as soon as anyone makes any sort of results based analysis, somebody here is ready to jump down their throat about how it’s completely inappropriate. But, it’s not. Sure, the full weight can’t be on results — but they sure can tell us more than some are saying.
by purplepansy on Mar 18, 2010 11:04 AM PDT up reply actions
The argument to not value results and only look at the process is rediculous
Yes I want a good process that is repeatable, but if you don’t look at the results and adjust the process you might have a crappy process. I agree you don’t change the process based on one data point, you have to look at the overall trend of the results and determine if the process should be refined. Does anyone have a link to the article, because unless its being missrepresented, it seems ridiculous.
The FO has a process, you don’t like it based on what you are seeing now. At the end of next season they should go back and see what they did and what the results were. From that they can determine what they should do better or different. Blindly sticking by a process is one of the dumbest things that I ever heard and quick way to not have a job or a company depending on your situation.
I'm not saying completely ignore the results, I'm saying value the process more than the results.
The process, based on what we know thus far, has been bad. Should more details emerge, you reassess the process but as things stand, concern is absolutely justified.
A process is nothing without results.
If it doesn’t produce positive results it has no value.
You think that the results will be bad therefore you don’t like their process. You can’t possibly hate the process by itself because it is possible that we win the Super Bowl next year. I say that we don’t have results yet, or even the full picture of the process, so I can’t pass any sweeping judgements yet.
Like you said
You don’t throw out a process because of one data point. We have to wait until at least the start of the season and look at everything before we can even begin to know what the process was. Then we will see the results and analyse the process. Yeah I’ll agree that Tapp appears to be undervalued and we didn’t get a great deal, but I’m not going to throw down my jump to conclusions matt and call the new FO a failure because of my perceptions of one trade.
I haven't called the new FO a failure.
I have said that the moves they have made are questionable and the process is worrisome.
And it's not like this is the first one.
The franchise tag could have been used better, Sims only tendered at a four, and cutting Grant were all been head scratchers before we knew about Tapp and Whitehurst.
We don't have to wait at all.
We know what situation the Hawks are in, we know how teams historically have pulled themselves out of these situations, we know about Tapps value and we’re aware of what a player like him should be worth in a trade.
Going from there we can assume three things. Pete Carroll is stupid. Pete Carrol doesn’t understand talent evaluation or how to rebuild. Or, Pete Carroll knows something everyone here doesn’t. That last on is more likely in football than baseball but the preponderance of evidence available to us says the middle.
If Carroll keeps making trades over the next few years and I keep looking at them and saying “Buh??” and the team keeps making the playoffs I’ll reevaluate what I think I know. Until then I have very little reason to think he’s the second coming of Belichick.
by Nate Dogg on Mar 18, 2010 11:56 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
extremely well said
I’m really struggling to understand the 4-5 people in these last few days that have defended these moves. If Pete Carroll had relevant NFL experience this entire discussion would be a lot different.
by Hancock.Brett on Mar 18, 2010 12:07 PM PDT up reply actions
As long as you will recocnize that there is more than one outcome to the current situation
Then you are at least looking at it rationally. Your justifiably unahappy, but rational.
People recognize that there are multiple possible outcomes.
And like Nate said, if Carroll keeps making bizarre trades that work out, eventually we have to accept that maybe he knows something we don’t. But usually that isn’t the case in sports, and so we have to be concerned. Because if it is bad process, then the Seahawks are in trouble.
Now with more lemon bars!
I probably sound like an apologist but I don't think a bad trade will ruin the franchise
I didn’t like the Tapp trade and it makes me concerned. I am saving judgment/freaking out until the draft and the new season begins. I am thinking about the end goal and I am hoping that is what they are working towards.
This will be the first year that I will actually watch preseason games.
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Mar 18, 2010 1:19 PM PDT up reply actions
No, it would be hard to have one trade cripple a franchise
Short of trading Peyton Manning for a half-eaten candy bar, anyways.
But, this is another in a list of roster decisions that have been anywhere from questionable to bad. This front office hasn’t done much if anything to earn trust, and most if not all of the moves they have made have only made it harder to justify any kind of trust.
The Vikings acquiring Walker, the Saints acquiring Ricky Williams...
Off the top of my head…
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Mar 18, 2010 2:16 PM PDT up reply actions
Falcons & Vick?
Not quite. Two good years. Plus it took the Peerless Price trade to make it really hurt.
by jacobstevens on Mar 18, 2010 2:24 PM PDT up reply actions
In baseball and the metrics of baseball this process is a lot easier
You can calculate WAR and do a lot more process wise and not worry about when people over and under perform, because in the long run it should work out.
Football doesn’t work that way. Schemes and systems play into it so much more, plus in baseball pitchers are dependent on the D behind them, but in football every players performance is so much more dependant on one another.
I really like it for baseball though.
The underlying concept is the same.
And even though the games are different and baseball is easier to quantify, we still have evidence to look at in football and with the personnel. That evidence points to many of this front office’s moves being questionable or outright bad.
But the evidence is subjective
There is no objective stat like WAR to quantify a player’s value. The concept doesn’t translate well.
Agree 100%
Player evaluations in football, no matter how in-depth, are still subjective.
To me the market is a much more reliable indicator of a player’s value.
I'm assuming what you mean by that is because this is what they were able to get for Tapp this is what Tapp is worth.
Thats not even close to true. Teams negotiate trades. Had the Hawks gotten two first round picks for Tapp that wouldn’t be fair value and the Hawks getting a throw in player and a throw in pick doesn’t mean thats fair value either. Also, we also have no idea what other offers were on the table and which teams were approached.
What I mean is, they offered Tapp around the league
and nobody offered anything better. Philadelphia did not have exclusive negotiating rights. Besides that, any team could have signed him and given up a 2nd rounder – and none did. To me that pins his value as a 3rd rounder at best.
I think that other teams had him as a 3rd rounder at best
may be a reasonable assumption. I just think that he is/was worth more than that to the Hawks, given that Cole sucks, Kearney is old, Redding may be gone shortly, leaving us with little talent to build on going forward besides inconsistent (and somewhat disappointing so far) LoJack and ‘Bane. In that case, we should just not pull the trigger on a trade. Mebane can’t be a one man D-line. (Well, maybe we could pair him with Reed in a 2-4-5, but I digress — [kidding])
Anyway, I sure hope Carroll and co aren’t confusing motion and action for progress, as it seems to many of us that we are moving in the wrong direction. Better to sit pat than pull a bunch of rookie moves. It is not as if we are a bunch of impossible to please rabid fans, we just all want the team to be in a position to compete in the next five years sometime. It has been hard to watch the team get blown out time and again the last few years. To have many in the media spotlight (e.g. Peter King) mocking the trades is insult to injury. The faithful on this board aren’t the only ones thinking we are getting fleeced.
We definitely need more talent on the DL
but that doesn’t mean part of the upgrade can’t come at Tapp’s position. The new regime (or new/old, since we have the same D-coordinator and D-line coach) obviously aren’t all that high on Tapp – and Carroll has strongly hinted that Curry will get a shot at playing weakside DE/Elephant.
So I don’t necessarily agree that he should be worth more to the Hawks. He’s worth LESS to the Hawks if they’ve determined he doesn’t fit their scheme and/or they have someone they favor over him as the starter.
As has been argued ad-nauseum, a team can always use a good, young, talented pass rusher
Are you arguing that Curry is the upgrade of Tapp? I would tend to project that as well (although it isn’t assured). But if so, we just created a net new hole in the LB corps, where we do have decent depth. But it is a zero sum game. We lost a good young player and that will hurt in the future. He wasn’t great, and wouldn’t start for most teams, but he was one of our better DEs the past three years, whether Carroll agrees or not.
It would make more sense to deal Redding or Kearney, unless for some reason, Carroll and company think we are in “win now” mode and will go deep in the playoffs. Most were expecting rebuilding mode.
The last time we sent a player to the Eagles who “didn’t fit our scheme”, it didn’t work out so well. As was said elsewhere, it was just painful to watch Justin Griffith catch passes for us while Weaver went to the Pro Bowl. For a west coast offense.
We didn't create a new hole at LB
We made use of a surplus, by allowing Lofa, Hawthorne and Hill to be on the field at the same time.
Also, just because our other defensive ends were mediocre doesn’t mean we should keep Tapp because he was the best of a bad bunch. The Seahawks were 30th in the NFL in pass defense. Dramatic changes are necessary.
So.... depth and rotations don't matter? Keep the worst of a bad bunch? Keep the older guys?
We aren’t deep enough at end or linebacker to justify this, especially considering our recent injury trends.
Sorry, but it feels like grasping at straws in your defense of this deal at this point — [no disrespect intended]
I can, however, agree that dramatic changes are necessary.
Tapp out...
Curry, Foley and Clemons in. That’s a net gain of 2 players on the DL. And we still have free agency and of course the draft ahead of us. They are building depth despite trading Tapp away.
Linebacker certainly WAS deep. Moving Curry to the front four changes that obviously, but we still have a capable backup in Will Herring, and we have also added Matt McCoy.
None of the guys brought in are as good as Tapp.
If Tapp went to the CFL he’d lead the league in sacks. He’s better than Clemons right now, and still getting better, as opposed to declining and not healthy.
More depth is fine, but not at the expense of an emerging talent.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Mar 20, 2010 6:17 PM PDT up reply actions
Also, where are you getting this "Curry to the DE" thing?
That’s great. We take the 4th pick in the draft, and in year 2 determine he isn’t good enough at his drafted position.
Or, put it another way— if he was listed at DE last year, would he have been the “can’t miss safest pick in the draft” or would he have gone around 10-20 like Maybin, Orakpo or Ayers? And if he would have dropped, then what the hell are we doing other than decreasing the value in our own guys and removing elite/upper tier talent and replacing it with depth.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Mar 20, 2010 6:21 PM PDT up reply actions
Oh, Fuck.
That’s… disappointing.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Mar 21, 2010 2:45 AM PDT up reply actions
with off season moves you have to
really what matter is your record and at this point we are a bad team looking to get better. My guess is Carroll would have cut everyone the way the Cowboys did in 1990 and completely start over.
Clemons doesn’t seem like a good DE but he maybe able to make the transition to linebacker.
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Mar 18, 2010 10:05 AM PDT up reply actions
If your record matters, why was Tapp dealt?
The record suggests the team needs to be in rebuild mode, and Tapp is not the kind of player you jettison for marginal value when you’re rebuilding.
This is the underlying problem that's causing people to panic.
Whatever process the team is using, it makes absolutely no sense given the situation the team is in.
I'm not going to panic until we are 0 - 6.
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Mar 18, 2010 10:38 AM PDT up reply actions
no; panicking now would be utterly appropriate
where’s my anxiety medication
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZDUh9yboqI
Your culture is primitive; yet so funky!
by jubelthebear on Mar 18, 2010 11:40 AM PDT up reply actions
They could be making all the right moves and we could still end up
at 0-6. I’m going to hold off my panic until after the draft.
Now with more lemon bars!
I wish this whole front office would blow it's brains out all over the floor.
What the fuck are they doing? Fuck, Caroll and anybody else with executive powers letting this happen. Unless of course we’re preparing to tank for the 2011 draft
LOCKER!!!
I don't think Carroll is in a win now mode
I think Carroll is building his team for the future, we probably will be in the Locker sweepstakes next year.
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Mar 18, 2010 1:08 PM PDT up reply actions
Completely agree.
We wouldn’t have let go of Tapp (young, cheap, promising talent) nor would he have spent all those resources drafting a completely unproven TWENTY EIGHT year old QB. They would have drafted one instead that was 5ish years younger.
They would retain young, talented players nearing their prime (Tapp, Sims, etc) and dumped pricey veterans/oldies like Hasselbeck, Kerney, Branch, Jones, etc. And traded, for valuable draft picks, valuable guys in their prime that wouldn’t last until the ‘newly rebuilt Hawks’ were in their own prime. Players like Housh, Trufant, Hill, Tatupu, etc.
THAT would make sense if you’re trying to “rebuild”. Assemble as much young talent within a 1-2 year period so they all grow and mature together and reach their prime together.
6/14/40. Sweet.
He just got on the job, it's not desperation
incompetence maybe, but I don’t think desperation.
by B.B.Finnegan on Mar 18, 2010 1:56 PM PDT up reply actions
YEEEAaaaaaaaaahhhhhh.
Cause, you know, that’s so much better. Heheh.
I HATE being a Hawk fan right now.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Mar 18, 2010 2:17 PM PDT up reply actions
Yep, and thats how all these teams are fleecing our ass.
They’re letting their desperation show and paying for it deeply.
I can't believe you guys gave up so much for him.
Lifelong Arizona Cardinals/Chicago Bears fan.
I can't stand fair-weather/bandwagon fans, stick with your team, throughout the good and the bad.
I'm posting this to failblog
I think this might merit it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZDUh9yboqI
Your culture is primitive; yet so funky!
This may have been talked about already
But I don’t blame the FO on this one. I blame Arizona for being in the running for this, especially if it turns out they upped the ante a little. I mean I’d rather pay too much for Whitehurst and have him be a reasonable starter for awhile than have the Cardinals be a lot better because they have a decent QB with good surrounding talent. Not that Leinart is bad, but….Whitehurst COULD very well be better.
Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion...
At some point
we should have become suspect of their intent to offer more than the 3rd round tender would have required, though, right?
I will concede that if each of us were serious about getting this project QB, the value of him not going to the division rival does make him marginally more valuable. Marginally. And hell, they just turned around and signed Derek Andersen, I mean did it even cause more than a shrug, if they really were trying to beat us out?
by jacobstevens on Mar 18, 2010 2:27 PM PDT up reply actions
The funny thing is that no one here knows crap about Charlie Whitehurst's potential to become a starting QB.
The panic here over signing Charlie Whitehurst seems hysterical to me.
Who here has watched Whitehurst practice in the past four years? Who here has worked him out?
Pete Carroll, Jeremy Bates, and John Schneider watch the guy work out and they see a QB they want. Is there someone on this blog who knows more about quarterbacks than Pete Carroll? Is there someone on this blog who has BCS trophies and Pac-10 trophies on his mantle? Is there someone here who has scouted QBs more effectively than John Schneider has?
I didn’t think so.
The funny thing is that no one here knows crap about Charlie Whitehurst’s potential as a starting QB. Also, no one has any idea whether the guy picked at #40 this April will going to be a player or a bust. Let’s see what happens. The hand-wringing really should stop.
"Football players are temperamental. That's 90 percent temper and 10 percent mental." - Doug Plank
People here are complaining about the cost of acquiring Whitehurst, not his ability.
It’s almost like you’re making big, sweeping generalizations about everyone without actually reading anything.
Out of curiosity...
Who here has watched Whitehurst practice in the past four years? Who here has worked him out?
Pete Carroll, Jeremy Bates, and John Schneider watch the guy work out and they see a QB they want.
I’m curious how you arrived at this. Honestly.
Ignoring for a moment how much you can even know about a pro quarterback by watching him work out… when, in the last four years, do you suppose any of those three people had the chance to watch Charlie Whitehurst work out? During pre-game warmups?
I wouldn't want to do that
Ha, well ok. Big, sweeping generalizations happen to be fun to make, after all. But you’re right, I should refrain since I lots of people here take their football very seriously, as I do.
Reading between the lines, the Seahawks planned to draft a QB at 6, 14, or 40, or trade for one. Their evaluation says Whitehurst will be a better QB than the draftees available at 40. As for overpaying… If the Hawks wanted Whitehurst and SD would not let him go for less than a 2nd rounder, then that is the market value for a QB prospect this year. Its not high if the Seahawks are right about him.
We’ll see if their evaluation proves correct or not, but I don’t think anyone here has the information needed to argue they overpaid.
As for all the other moves going on this past week, I’m trying to take a deep breath and wait to see how the roster looks in May.
"Football players are temperamental. That's 90 percent temper and 10 percent mental." - Doug Plank
We overpaid, whether he turns out to be good or not.
We bought at high price, when we didn’t need to, when there wasn’t really a market for him outside AZ, who while interested immediately went a different direction.
SD didn’t have a choice, we GAVE them one, and we didn’t have to.
Good teams don’t overpay. They get the guy they want as cheaply as possible, and play hardball to NOT overpay. Just because they were willing to draft one (you assume here, but that’s okay, it’s a safe assumption) at 6, 14 or 40, that doesn’t mean they should pay the 40th (and more) for the guy. If the guy was available for less, there’s no need to pay more just because you can.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Mar 20, 2010 6:33 PM PDT up reply actions
SD did have a choice.
SD was under no obligation to accept only a third round draft pick. They had right of first refusal. That means they could have simply paid Whitehurst what we offered him, unless they received the compensation they were looking for. The third round tender is merely the minimum allowable compensation set by league rule. SD successfully bargained for more because – in this year’s market – Seattle was willing to pay more to get him. The player’s value is set by the current market and by the negotiation, not by the tender.
"Football players are temperamental. That's 90 percent temper and 10 percent mental." - Doug Plank
yeah
u gm’s makes denver look like new enland lol i wouild have only gave up
a 3-round pick
okay i have cerebral palsy arthris and chronic fatigue as well i have a great life and loveing folks some days are better than other days i got a make-a-wish in 2001 and saw my favorite team the broncos it was the trip of a lifetime i wish everyone couild have gotten to enjoy that with me i know some of u hate the broncos and that okay but i bleed organ and bule for my mnr fans but i bleed orange and blue denver will rise again resident broncos fan for every blog resident broncos for stampede bule thanks shvd98z24
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Field Gulls
Related FanShots on Field Gulls
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
