Putting Names to Numbers: Determining What Seattle Spent to Sign Charlie Whitehurst
by John Morgan on Mar 17, 2010 4:31 PM PDT
226 comments
We can assign an abstract value to Seattle moving from the 40th overall pick or we can try and see exactly what players it might cost us. I would rather do the latter. Seattle is only truly set at two positions, linebacker and center, so we can be pretty sure it would have targeted the best available talent at 40. 40 is widely considered one of the most valuable picks in the draft, because it is very close in quality to latter first round picks, but cheaper. 60 is similarly cheap, but gives a team less flexibility when it comes to matching scheme and matching need.
Predicting the draft is difficult because one is attempting to predict a sequence. It is a lot easier to predict what picks will be drafted in what round, rather than who will draft them and at exactly what pick. Basically, by this point in the draft process, we have a good idea about a player's value.
40 should be populated by players that are valued as late-first round picks and early to mid-second round picks. I figure late is broadly the final third, since we describe it as late, mid and early, and so the range of players that could reach the 40 pick, but almost certainly will not reach the 61 pick are players ranked ~21-43. Who are these players? Well, let's look at one draft sites to form an educated guess.
The following is a list of players rated from 23 to 40 on the site NFL Draft Scout. If anyone has another site they respect and would like to suggest, feel free. I grouped them by position.
DB
Kyle Wilson
Devin McCourtey
Kareem Jackson
DE/OLB
Sergio Kindle
Carlos Dunlap
Jerry Hughes
Daryl Washington
DT
Brian Price
Jared Odrick
ILB
Brandon Spikes
OL
Maurkice Pouncey
Charles Brown
Bruce Campbell
QB
Colt McCoy
Tim Tebow
RB
Ryan Matthews
Jahvid Best
TE
Jermaine Gresham
Ron Gronkowski
WR
Golden Tate
DeMaryius Thomas
Of the above, I would say it's highly unlikely the Seahawks target Anthony Davis, Brandon Spikes, Sergio Kindle or Daryl Washington. Everyone else fills a need and theoretically fits. Pouncey is a center but could play guard. It is possible one of the above slips to 61, but unlikely. It is likely that even more players will be gone, but that is much harder to predict. The above players should no longer factor into the Seahawks plans.
1 recs |
226 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
On the other hand, NFL Draft Scout has Houston at 65
And many of us felt quite good to with the idea of the Hawks drafting him 40. Imagine drafting him at 60.
Still, that list emphasizes how “good” the chance is of a 1st-round talent slipping to 40.
Unless of course we trade down out of 14
I realize this is dangerously close to rosterbation (drafterbation?), but there’s still a chance that someone else wants #14 enough to trade up with us, depending on how the first 13 picks play out, that we pick up a lower 1st and a 3rd rounder to boot. The QB Who Shall Not Be Named had an apparently swell pro day today.
This doesn’t change the fact that the above players you mentioned are likely gone by #60, but perhaps we get better value for a guy like Charles Brown in rd1, and enables us to grab another player we like in the 3rd that otherwise would not be there in the 4th. I know, I know – that’s a lot of ifs. Just trying to put a dollop of whipped cream on manure.
I've been thinking about reasoning behind this deal...
Carroll is reluctant to tie his fate to a rookie QB. A first round QB bust almost inevitably leads to a firing. A mid round project will take a few years and if he fails, management will be reluctant to let Carroll start over.
If Whitehurst busts but the rest of the rebuild goes smoothly, Carroll will likely get another shot a QB two years from now.
A rookie QB bust is common and comes with some inherent understanding.
These things can’t be predicted.
If Whitehurst busts he’s blackballed from the league, guaranteed.
by jacobstevens on Mar 17, 2010 5:03 PM PDT up reply actions
Which makes me wonder about the true potential of Clausen
Clausen is young and an asshole to boot so I am glad that we have an option. I am a little bummed about Brown and Campbell possibly being unavailable. I had this fantasy where McCoy falls to 6, we got Spiller at 14, and Anthony Davis/Charles Brown at 40.
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Mar 17, 2010 5:47 PM PDT up reply actions
Actually
The Seahawks spent between 244 to 312 draft points on Whitehurst (depending on what the 3rd round draft pick end’s up being and if you prescribe to next year’s 3rd is worth this year’s 4th).
Going from 40th overall to 60th overall is worth 200 points.
Next year’s 3rd is worth this year’s 4th in value points, so that is anywhere from 44 to 112 points.
The Seahawks spent 570 points to get Hasselback.
by Roy Weaver Stuckey on Mar 17, 2010 5:01 PM PDT reply actions
And every Seahawk fan
should prescribe to next year’s pick is discounted by a round because we wouldn’t have the 14th overall pick if it wasn’t for that.
by Roy Weaver Stuckey on Mar 17, 2010 5:05 PM PDT up reply actions
Why do you only think some teams believe that?
by Roy Weaver Stuckey on Mar 17, 2010 5:16 PM PDT up reply actions
There's definitely been front offices that I respect.
That have traded a future pick for a round lower current pick. Colts did it in 2007 — I love they way they run their team.
Not saying I necessarily agree, but it’s not only the stupid teams doing it.
I have read that.
It has nothing to do with trading a second round pick for a first round pick. It is about wage discrepancy and teams getting locked into their own guys and overspending. The findings controversial, because the valuation method—starts, roster, pro bowls, etc—is extremely broad.
I've only read the abstract, but I will love to get to it later.
But I’m wondering if their assertion (unless it somehow isn’t an assertion) of overconfidence is overstated. I don’t think teams run personnel or games with much confidence.
Or an outright false positive. It sounds like the valuation of being able to choose a player in the draft is part of why they take it as overconfidence — in their ability to choose, I spose.
by jacobstevens on Mar 17, 2010 5:31 PM PDT up reply actions
I didn't say it had anything to do with trading a 2nd round pick for a 1st round pick.
The paper’s major finding is that it is better to have late 1st round picks than early ones because of how much money is guaranteed to those early pick. I was merely pointing out that there would be more people trading down if there was critical thinking at the next level.
by Roy Weaver Stuckey on Mar 17, 2010 5:32 PM PDT up reply actions
So, then
the question remains, what relevance does this have in whether we ought to de-value future draft picks?
by jacobstevens on Mar 17, 2010 5:33 PM PDT up reply actions
I dunno how many do
but all 32 could believe it and it wouldn’t convince me.
by jacobstevens on Mar 17, 2010 5:19 PM PDT up reply actions
Sometimes it's done because a team really wants a certain player in the current draft
And will give up more (mortgage the future) just to get them.
by B.B.Finnegan on Mar 17, 2010 5:29 PM PDT up reply actions
My friends just jumped off a cliff, Mom.
What should I do?
by jacobstevens on Mar 17, 2010 5:10 PM PDT up reply actions
The simplest positive spin I've considered (and posted in the other thread) is this:
The move’s effect will have been minimized if we still get the player we could have taken at 40 (and could have been considered a reach) is still available at 60.
Also, we now have the flexibility to move up in the round since we added an extra 4th-rounder. There is still time for the FO to make moves and get it right when all is said and done.
Several players on that list I strongly believe will be gone by #40, though as mentioned, others would then be available. I suspect we have a 3rd or 4th round player (or players) that are considered that by generally league-wide standards and on our board we have him (or them) much, much higher: We could value the player available at 60 enough to have taken at 40.
Now that you mention it
I’m certain we will be told that the player we do pick is the player that they were already targeting with 40 anyway. Thanks.
by jacobstevens on Mar 17, 2010 5:11 PM PDT up reply actions
If Seattle's valuation of a player was that out of line with their peers, they could trade down.
However, I think you are right in that Seattle might have looked at the list of players they would consider at 40 and realized that it is 20 or more players long. In that case, they did not lose a player only flexibility.
I was thinking, if we get rid of Hasselbeck we still need another QB
So, I think either Hass stays or there’s still the possibility of drafting someone. Unless they believe Teel will be ready within at least two years, and ready to be number two next year (highly doubt it)
True.
If Pike, McCoy, or another ‘mid-to-late-round QB’ we are very high on is still around at 60, moving down from 40 won’t feel so expensive if that ends up being our plan all along. Though I don’t want McCoy, I’d feel okay about a flier on Pike. More likely, we use another later-round pick for a prospect, but again it depends on who falls to 60.
This also assumes that the list is accurate.
I think we’ve seen enough mock drafts and “Top 100” player lists to know that non-team created draft lists have plenty of errors.
Not saying this isn’t an interesting exercise, just that it has to have a large caveat. We simply can’t know where these players are rated by every team.
All but seven teams in the NFL employ either BLESTO or the National to assign draft grades.
Now, there is wiggle room, preferences and the eccentric, but value range is not nearly as unpredictable as draft order.
Wow, more of this please.
Complete ignorance on this stuff. Which 7 teams? what is BLESTO and the National, and where can I read more about them?
by jacobstevens on Mar 17, 2010 5:21 PM PDT up reply actions
I feel like I've just been told about a secret
I had no idea they outsourced their draft grades. There goes my notion all 32 teams figure all this on their own.
If I read you correctly, you seem to be implying valuation of need causes the variance
In other words, if all teams had uniform needs, there BLESTO grades would essentially pick the draft accurately.
That seems a bit difficult to swallow given that 1) the scoring mechanism probably has a fairly standard variance (or error if you will), and 2) that as the marginal value of each pick decreases and eventually crosses the “error bounds” the confidence in order declines signfiicantly. Applying a normal random walk tends make the outcome paths of such a selection order look something like the silhouette of a trumpet where the top 30 are pretty similar and then all goes to hell after that.
Granted, I think this pales in comparison to valuing team need, which is probably way more difficult to predict. I also think position need has an ordering effect – compounding benefits to fill holes – and therefore leads teams pick largest needs first. Granted, this seems easily proven by “obviousness” but I do this stuff for living and the math is pretty interesting and has some non-obvious outcomes.
Shanghai Kelly's on Polk St. in San Francisco is the worst bar on the face of the earth (at least on Sunday mornings).
No I think he's saying
projecting where a player will be drafted, by thirds of rounds, is not very hard, and it’s not terribly inaccurate. The reason being the somewhat uniformity of valuation methodology.
In comparison, exact draft order is much more unpredictable. But where most all teams rank/grade a player, is somewhat predictable. There will be some exceptions due to wiggle room of each team, needs (reaching), preference, and “the eccentric” (Al Davis), but it’s not terribly unpredictable.
And certainly not unpredictable because projecting where they are drafted is based on attempting to predict the exact draft order, because that’s not how they get projected, but from the valuation method.
by jacobstevens on Mar 18, 2010 10:32 AM PDT up reply actions
Well (moslty playing Devil's advocate here) the 12 hours between Round 1 and 2 means a lot of mobility in picks
depending on how the first round shakes out people will be looking to move back.
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Mar 17, 2010 5:54 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
I mean, how similar is this to the Matt Hasselbeck trade? I'd like a better judge than I to evaluate that.
I guess I didn’t pay close enough attention back then to know what kind of a WTF that created in Seattle. I just knew I was hoping we’d get Trent Green.
Hasselbeck’s success story isn’t without a couple of years of anguish before he turned out well.
Both Whitehurst and Hasselbeck have former NFL dads. And Seattle specializes in that, right? And it worked for Archie’s kids so Whitehurst will be great, right?
Some positive opinions...
I know its important to form our own opinions blah, blah, blah but has anyone come across a single prominant NFL reporter/commentator/guru etc who has anything positive to say about the Whitehurst trade and sign? I see that Peter King called it lunacy (bash away if you want) but its just an example.
I would hesitate to conflate perplexed with saying it's a bad move.
I think people are just perplexed. The cost indicates we’re serious about Charlie. I don’t think people were expecting that, and he’s such an unknown, we need time to go back and look at the little there is to evaluate him, to decide how much merit there is to this move.
Also we’d like to know more about the process that led these guys to commit to Charlie like this.
by jacobstevens on Mar 17, 2010 6:09 PM PDT up reply actions
On the bright side
Watching the franchise crumble has probably brought Ruskell and Mora closer together.
by DJ C-Raig on Mar 17, 2010 6:17 PM PDT via mobile reply actions
Somebody already changed David Whitehurst's Wikipedia page
by Roy Weaver Stuckey on Mar 17, 2010 6:21 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
What did you expect?
I think we’ve pretty much proven that Seattle sports fans own the internet. Hell, we took down twitter!
Now with more lemon bars!
Ok!
I was the one who changed it originally.
But it’s been changed again.
Now, he’s our 3rd stringer and he is unlikely to start in the NFL ever.
WRT Bruce Campbell
I’ll bet anybody a paycheck he goes before #40.
(He tells a bunch of strangers.)
Seahawks-4-Life
I could see us take him at 14
and I would be excited about it.
by jacobstevens on Mar 18, 2010 10:34 AM PDT up reply actions
How is 20 spots in the 2nd and a future third the equivalent to
a third this year? 10 million for 2 years? for what? What has he proved?
He hasn't but this trade reminds me a lot of how we acquired Matt Hasselbeck from Green Bay
I think we gave up a 2nd round pick to get Hasselbeck in 2001. Holmgren saw something in Hasselbeck and he was definitely right. Carroll sees something in Whitehurst and I hope this trade pays off. I’m not gonna bash this trade till we actually see what Whitehurst is capable of in the regular season.
by Seahawksfan23 on Mar 17, 2010 6:46 PM PDT up reply actions
Whitehurst is still relatively young for a QB at 27 years old.
by Seahawksfan23 on Mar 17, 2010 7:39 PM PDT up reply actions
Whitehurst years are like 3/4 of human years
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Mar 17, 2010 9:29 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Where did Carroll see this something in Whitehurst?
In preseason. In the NCAA? That’s what’s puzzling.
by Palace of Good Play's Golden Toilet on Mar 17, 2010 6:56 PM PDT up reply actions
Wasn't Whitehurst like Mr. Preseason or something like that?
by Seahawksfan23 on Mar 17, 2010 7:39 PM PDT up reply actions
Nope.
2006 – 25/47 53.2% 1TD 4INT 37.4 rating
2007 – 19/37 51.4% 1TD 1INT 62.4 rating
2008 – 26/53 49.1% 1TD 0INT 69.0 rating 3Fum 1Lost
2009 – 34/60 56.7% 2TD 2INT 73.3 rating 3Fum 2 Lost
by Mind of no mind on Mar 17, 2010 9:06 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Alright, what the fuck.
I’m waiting for April and hoping all this shit is a fucking joke.
by aerozeppelin on Mar 17, 2010 10:14 PM PDT up reply actions
Yes.
I think people who know and have watched have kind of liked what they’ve seen. Not to generate a buzz, really, and not to overstate how much they liked what they’ve seen, but more or less. Not “Mr. August,” though.
by jacobstevens on Mar 18, 2010 10:37 AM PDT up reply actions
There's also the issue of being "inactive" for game days.
Which means when Sunday came, he was pretty much watching TV with the rest of us, saying “Run, LT, run!”
Don't they at least get good seats?
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Mar 18, 2010 2:13 PM PDT up reply actions
I want to know also
Is there some connection between Carroll and Whitehurst? I can’t google anything such as he tried to recruit him to USC or any other path crossing.
The money has nothing to do with "proved" and everything to do with "potential."
And before you say spending money on potential is stupid, note that every dollar spent on a draft pick is the same thing.
Point taken but...
You have to draft players and thus pay them. You don’t have to pay a 27-year old QB with no NFL regular season experience $5 million per year. Regarding the money, if this year remains uncapped (no absolute guarantee an agreement isn’t reached and includes these signings) then Seattle should have made the contract much more lopsided than $5 mill, $5 mill. Either way, in my opinion, this shows the inexperience of the Seahawks front office and I imagine more than a few GMs around the league are having a good laugh this evening.
They can't lopside the contracts
I don’t have the foggiest idea what the rules for this “uncapped year” are, but what I have heard is that there is some rule in place by which teams can’t just lay the preponderance of the contract on this year and pay peanuts for the duration. Now if I can just find the actual rule.
Also, with those lopsided contracts...
What’s to keep a player from bombing after the first year, and getting traded? They’ve already received the bulk of their money, so what is the motivation to earn more?
And, yes, I know some players care about winning. I’m talking about the “other” ones.
I was talking more like a...
7-3 split. If he couldn’t get motivated over $3 million then there’s a lot more wrong with him than just inexperience.
That's true.
That’d be like guaranteeing JaMarcus Russell $29 million in his six-year, $61 million deal. Surely he’ll be motivated to get that other $32 million, right? Er…right?
Was he motivated to
get any of it in the first place?
That's a good point.
Russell isn’t the rule, he’s the exception. But he highlights the “worst” of the reasons teams are afraid of stacking a contract at the front. And players are afraid of backloading them because they know they’ll probably get cut before they get to the big money. So, that’s part of why contracts tend to be a compromise of the two.
Actually I think they can
Peppers, for example has a base salary of $20 mil this year which is drastically reduced after this year. The rule you are thinking of might be the one that stops base salaries from rising more than a certain percentage from year to year. That prevents teams from giving out a big signing bonus, low salaries for the first few years, and then high salaries. It essentially stops teams from prorating signing bonuses over more years than the player will be there for (since the team will cut him when his salary rises dramatically).
Chirp is correct about incentive issues though.
by Palace of Good Play's Golden Toilet on Mar 17, 2010 7:14 PM PDT up reply actions
No the rule I'm thinking of was one made just for this year
to stop teams from taking advantage of the uncapped year to help them in 2011 and 2012 and so on by reducing base salaries to minimums after the initial year and thus counting little against the cap once it is reinstated.
I can't find any rule limiting contract salaries per year
So I guess you are right. In that case I hope 90% of Whitehurst’s contract is this year so we can send him packing in year 2 without taking a sizable hit if the cap is reinstated.
It's referred to as the 30% rule, IIRC.
Check out J.I. HALSELL at FO or his blog: http://insidethecap.blogspot.com/
I realize that Derek Anderson kinda sucks but
he has been to a pro bowl and has boatloads of playing experience (relative to Charlie) on a crappy team and is a year younger. How does Whitehurst get $10 million compared to Anderson’s $7 millon?
Not even kinda.
He had a fluke Scott Mitchell like year.
Anderson was cheaper because they’re not banking on him being the QB of the future.
"BANG!" - Jim Lampley's first word as a child
say John you got any game tape of Whitehurst you could breakdown for us?
… oh wait, nevermind
I am hearing different stories on the terms of the trade...
…some question about who is getting what 3rd round pick(s). Does anyone listening (reading) know for certain?
I don't like getting snidely mocked by Schefter
via twitter:
“Seahawks gave QB Charlie Whitehurst a two-year, $10 million contract — unprecedented for a veteran who never has started an NFL game.”
He’s laughing at us behind his tweets, I know it.
Peter King was more up front...
He said it was lunacy in his tweet.
King is such a douche
He’ll be his convinced he is on his way to being the best QB in the league and Pete Carroll is a genius for finding talent.
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Mar 17, 2010 9:34 PM PDT up reply actions
That was a joke
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Mar 17, 2010 9:36 PM PDT up reply actions
King can't stop mocking us.
Tweeted:
Unless Seattle’s convinced Whitehurst has great chance to be QB of future, AJ Smith just took Carroll to the cleaners.
I say we cut off his supply of Starbucks.
Whoa that is cool
someone should go and kick his ass.
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Mar 17, 2010 9:35 PM PDT up reply actions
Charles Brown and Anthony Davis will be strongly considered in round one by Seattle, particularly Brown who is worthy of a top twenty pick and fits scheme perfectly. He won’t last into round two. Davis isn’t an obvious scheme fit, but he has huge upside and could similarly figure in the ZBS like Ryan Clady did.
Why would they even do that?
Hell the team still let Shaun work out at the VMAC after they signed Duckett and Jones.
Wow, if true, this is really surprising -- I would have thought Carroll more savvy
It is not like the rest of the players are stupid and in the dark. They will see this kind of treatment and it can have a real effect on motivation (and FA recruiting, for that matter). Sure, the NFL is a business, but this will serve to lose some leadership grip and respect Carroll may have on the team, as a “player’s coach”. Guys may think twice about playing injured, etc. Small things, but they do add up, especially on a losing team. I am a firm believer in the golden rule and treating people with respect. Karma can be rough. It is not like Pete is at USC anymore, with a depth chart four deep at all positions, brimming with talent compared to the competition, based on a competitive advantage situation in recruiting.
I'm shocked that many are saying that the thought process is flawed.
Had PC/JS done this for a safety, I’d be quaking in my boots. They didn’t. They are rolling the dice on the most important position in football.
Whether or not Whitehurst pans out or not is somewhat irrelevant in analyzing the merits of the thought process for me. Should Charlie turn out to be good, the investment is tiny. Should he not pan out, the investment is substantially hedged from what a busted first round choice would bring.
The issue to me is not in rolling the dice on a backup QB with upside. That thought process to me is sound. The question I ask, is how did this coaching staff/FO evaluate Whitehurst? Until I hear the thought process behind it, I will reserve judgment.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
Yeah, unless they had an insider working at SD, how do you evaluate a guy who has sat on the bench for 4 years?
And how can they be convinced that he’s that much better than Brady Quinn, Derek Anderson, or Rex Grossman, two of which were freely available talent, all of which around the same age.
Those three QBs have largely proven to be bad QBs.
Whitehurst isn’t proven. ‘Unproven with upside’ or ‘proven mediocre or worse’? As far as how they evaluated him, I have no idea. They can evaluate the other three and tell that they are not a solution, I’d have to think. Those three may have found their niche in the NFL and it doesn’t include ‘viable starting QB’. At least with Whitehurst, who has all the physical tools and experience in learning a top passing offense, albeit from the sidelines and in practice, his ceiling hasn’t been seen yet. Perhaps he is an All-Pro if given an opportunity? We can for the most part rule that out of the other three – though there is a chance, it’s proven to be unlikely.
I wouldn't have minded that, either.
Though, I think there is sufficient tape on Quinn to have evaluated him enough to make the decision not to bring him in.
I feel the same way.
And if he did happen to throw it further downfield, it would be a terribly inaccurate pass, more than likely.
Wait a minute--
shouldn’t the passer match up with the receiver’s ability to get downfield? Maybe a guy who throws short to medium is perfect for this team.
Most QBs don't play well in their first 'full year' of starting,
so I give Quinn a bit of a free pass. Especially with coaching changes.
As for Grossman and DAnderson, they’ve had a successful season or two, but even if they’re worse, they’re much cheaper.
I have to ask myself if Holmgren/Heckert have a good opinion of Quarterbacks.
Since I think Holmgren does, especially, if they were willing to let Quinn walk it speaks loudly to me.
He may have been cutting his loses
I don’t think Alex Smith will ever be a good QB, too much instability, maybe he saw something similar with Quinn.
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Mar 18, 2010 10:10 AM PDT up reply actions
McDaniels thinks he can turn garbage into stars
we will praising his genius when Quinn throws for 4000 yards.
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Mar 18, 2010 10:10 AM PDT up reply actions
I wondered that his last few years in Seattle
He was a big part of the games evolution and have thought the same thing about Reid.
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Mar 18, 2010 12:32 PM PDT up reply actions
This is what's bothering me, too
How could the FO possibly know anything about this guy?
Unless they’ve been secretly videotaping him running the Chargers’ scout team for the last four years, then all they have to go by are a few preseason snaps and his apparently stellar reputation around the league.
Of course, the only entity that can credibly conjure up any marketing momentum behind Whitehurst is the Chargers themselves, and I’m a little skeptical (a lot skeptical) that they aren’t inflating his value for their own benefit. Add in a bidding war between two division rivals and the Chargers come out looking brilliant.
I will also point out that
Just because the Chargers are biased doesn’t make them inherently wrong about Charlie Whitehurst.
I’m just pointing out that they have no motivation whatsoever to give any other franchise an honest evaluation of Charlie Whitehurst.
He was a former 3rd round pick.
He now has several seasons experience in one of the better passing offenses and watching one of our game’s elite quarterbacks play. We didn’t pay a ton more than that 3rd rounder. He’s far less expensive and perhaps also less risky than a QB in Clausen who may not even be available at 6. If he turns out to be our starting QB, we will probably all be grateful.
We know he was a former 3rd round pick, as does the front office
But do they know anything that we can’t look up on wikipedia? That’s what I’m wondering: how much more objective information could they possibly have on this guy? The fact that he’s been running the scout team and holding a clipboard tells us nothing about his development as an NFL quarterback.
Sure, he could be a potential star blocked by two entrenched veterans. Or he could be David Greene behind a brilliant marketing strategy. That’s the problem: nobody knows. Except, probably, the team that just traded him to the Seahawks.
Nothing is official yet...
The terms of the trade as it first had been reported seemed way out of whack to me, until I read that the Hawks are sending their 2011 3rd round pick and switching second round picks for Whitehurst and the Chargers 2010 3rd round pick. Essentially we would be picking up a quarterback at the cost of moving down 20 (?) spots. Again, we won’t know until tomorrow when things go through the league office.
As for the $10 million for the next two years, we don’t know the terms or how much is guaranteed. Besides, how many contracts in the NFL actually pay out completely?
There's two reports out there.
710ESPN tweeted that we were sending a 2011 third to San Diego, which backed up what I heard Clayton say on the radio. Now ESPN is saying on their ticker that we’re getting a 2011 third instead.
Not sure what to think anymore.
I guess I’ll have to wait until either team tell all of us what is going on.
by SeahawkSammy on Mar 17, 2010 9:40 PM PDT up reply actions
So are they idiots for doing this or not?
I will hold my melt down until then.
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Mar 17, 2010 9:42 PM PDT up reply actions
Wait,
they are saying we are switching 2nds and getting San Diego’s third? Because that would be a pretty decent deal in that case. But it also wouldn’t make any sense.
Now with more lemon bars!
eat it now bitches we got Ganther!
I still think he is an upgrade to Julius Jones
At least we aren't the Raiders?
Please no? Really?
Oh fuck it better be for PT fullback or special teams ‘ace’ because I want no part of him carrying the rock.
Fuck it's true.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/seahawksblog/2011372969_quinton_ganther.html
Please not make the roster somehow.
Wow, he gained OVER 200 yards last season
He was a free agent, right? So no draft picks were given for him? What a concept.
Terrific.
Now we don’t have to worry about drafting a quality running back. After all, 3 shitty backs equal one good one, right?
Ganther won't prevent us from drafting a running back.
He’s depth, clearly.
Yet still I prefer him to Julius Jones
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Mar 18, 2010 8:25 AM PDT up reply actions
I have officially nicknamed Whitehurst "Candy Mountain".
Shun the non-believer. Shuuuuuuuuuuun.
by fender on Mar 17, 2010 9:41 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
That's a good one.
But couldn’t we just call him “Charlie” before he gets his kidney stolen by the Letter Y? He didn’t even want to GO to Candy Mountain.
Has anyone seen this BS?
Suh dropping to 8 and 4 OTs picked above him?
It's a Casio on a plastic beach
by Roy Weaver Stuckey on Mar 17, 2010 10:00 PM PDT reply actions
Pete Carroll picking Anthony Davis when Ndamukong is on the board?
Yes, that’s very much possible at this point.
by aerozeppelin on Mar 17, 2010 10:17 PM PDT up reply actions
I would love to be in the thread when that happens
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Mar 17, 2010 11:22 PM PDT up reply actions
SBN would spontaneously combust.
Yep, the entire thing.
by purplepansy on Mar 17, 2010 11:37 PM PDT up reply actions
I think it would be unlikely, but...
it does seem that there is a run of picks of the same position every once in a while. Though I don’t recall one happening that early in a draft.
by SeahawkSammy on Mar 17, 2010 10:18 PM PDT up reply actions
I need page clicks!
Help! Check out my so very different mock draft! It’s different! It’s improbable! It’s unique! Did I mention that I need readers?
I can’t believe I fell for that link.
The draft never goes the way most people think it will
but I have a feeling a DT will be there when Seattle picks. Most likely scenario to make that happen is if CLE trades up with TB to select a QB. McCoy would probably get by WAS and KC in that scenario and land in Seattle’s lap. One can dream.
Oddly enough, Whitehurst was selected 18 slots down from Daryl Tapp
Gosh, if we’d have just selected him them!
Sounds rediculous
You might trade a third next year to move up 20 spots this year as a deal all on its own, but to throw in an illustrious enigmatic star QB like Whitehurst as well?
Actually, come to think of it since Seneca was had for a 7th, that would make too much damn sense.
by B.B.Finnegan on Mar 17, 2010 11:16 PM PDT up reply actions
Way too much sense
#40=500 points
#60=300 points
so a trade up equals 200 points
Now think about this, the Cardinals 3rd is 145 or 140 points. 60 points less then what Seattle would be offering with a simple 2nd round swap. Is it possible we got the 3rd next year to swing us ahead, or even, in the deal (A third next year is supposed to (to some teams) equal a fourth this year, or 60 or so points)? Or did the Chargers get us to up the ante even more then our already better deal than what the Cards were offering?
This is of course assuming a 3rd was all the Cards were offering.
by B.B.Finnegan on Mar 18, 2010 12:07 AM PDT up reply actions
Hmmmmmm
I sure hope you’re right. I would feel so much better. Still perplexed about Tapp. I guess we could still draft a QB. If true, and we’re all flipping out about overpaying, including the national guys Schefter and PK and stuff, wouldn’t you think the team would surface, er, “proactively” to put a stop to all the ridicule due to the incorrect report?
by jacobstevens on Mar 18, 2010 11:00 AM PDT up reply actions
OK, back to reality.
we are not getting a San Diego pick. They are getting ours. They did not disclose what it is. The report was 2011 3rd, still have to go with that until we hear otherwise.
by jacobstevens on Mar 18, 2010 11:02 AM PDT up reply actions
However, the Whitehurst contract is modestly cheaper.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/seahawksblog/2011373572_charlie_whitehu_1.html
$8m/2 years with $2m in incentives. Eh.
by jacobstevens on Mar 18, 2010 11:03 AM PDT up reply actions
Agreed...
There is no way the Hawks FO couldn’t have played this better both in regards to the money and trade. People honestly believe San Diego would have held onto their 3rd string QB as opposed to accepting a 3rd next year or just the swap from 40 to 61? I mean he’s been there for 3 years and never played, its not like he’s been needed. Once Arizona announced the signing of Anderson, the Hawks FO should have waited this out until closer to the draft.
unless they signed Anderson because we were the highest bidder.
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Mar 18, 2010 8:18 AM PDT up reply actions
Point well taken...
Although it doesn’t hide the fact that we overpaid. I find it hard to believe San Diego wouldn’t have taken less if Carroll had waited. The best they were getting from Arizona was this years 3rd.
Arizona could have signed him and avoided us - we had to keep Whitehurst from going there with trade talks
If stuck it out lost Whitehurst and had to go for Clausen; we would have had to move up to get him, it would have cost more than this deal, his contract would be huge, agents know rookie salaries are going to drop. The worst thing would be for Clausen to miss camp because his agent wants to take advantage of an uncapped year. What if he missed 5 weeks of the regular season we have just nulled his entire rookie season and the scenario gets worse from there.
One implication that hasn’t really been discussed of this year being uncapped is a lot of hold outs that will go well into the preseason among some of the of first round picks.
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Mar 18, 2010 8:25 AM PDT up reply actions
The 2nd round swap is worth more then a third
That should’ve been enough, but to throw in next years 3rd on top of it? That’s twice what Arizona could’ve got him for.
by B.B.Finnegan on Mar 18, 2010 9:00 AM PDT up reply actions
If we had a 3rd we wouldn't be in this situation
we had to have something that Arizona didn’t
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Mar 18, 2010 10:12 AM PDT up reply actions
Swapping 2nd's was something Arizona couldn't do
again,
#40=500 points
#60=300 points
so a trade up equals 200 points
The Cardinals 3rd is 145 or 140 points. Swapping our 2nd was a better deal then what Arizona could’ve given up for an offer sheet.
by B.B.Finnegan on Mar 18, 2010 10:19 AM PDT up reply actions
You mean worse, right?
couldn’t have played this worse? Worser?
by jacobstevens on Mar 18, 2010 11:04 AM PDT up reply actions
One problem I have with your list of available players is that 75% of those will be gone by the time you would have picked at # 40.
I know, it is almost impossible to tell which of them would be available and you wanted to show the maximum value you were giving up.
A more conservative valuation range might have been # 26 to # 55 rated players. But that is nit picking. I like your methodology for trying to get a handle on what was given up. Nice post.
Now that we have three QB's
of admittedly questionable value, what is the liklihood that Pete drafts a LT at 6 and an OG at 14? If you can keep him upright, Matt might not suck as bad as the last two years, right?
What? No SOUL?
I hope slim to none.
1) Alex Gibbs.
2) BPA
3) I don’t think any LT warrants a 6th pick, and I don’t think any LG warrants a 14th pick.
I think we go DT at 6
and make movements with 14 to try to get an OT, DE – having Gibbs means that we have people who can fit into his system. He may try to move Willis back to Guard and move Locklear back to RT. It may be good enough for next year and then upgrade again next year. Gibbs and the ZBS requires that personnel stay together as a cohesive unit, so only adding one piece a year makes sense?
I also suspect Carroll will take Ne’o in the 4th, he was pretty good in the USC game last year.
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Mar 18, 2010 10:22 AM PDT up reply actions
If either of the two elite DTs are there at 6, which I highly doubt,
I think that choice would supersede my top-rated DE thinking (below).
Yes, we are going to draft Alex Gibbs with our 6th round pick.
Goodell: "With the 6th pick in the 2010 NFL Draft, the Seattle Seaha— … … "ahem, the, uh … “… Petehawks select … Alex. Gibbs. Offensive line coach already under contract with the team. With that team. The Seahawks. The 6th pick. Overall. There it goes. No other team is now on the clock because time has just stood still.”
by jacobstevens on Mar 18, 2010 11:08 AM PDT up reply actions
Ah, bummer
my gesture and action descriptions in <> angle brackets didn’t go through in that post. Cross-site scripting meta-character escaping enabled in the web.config, I’m sure. My lovely, well constructed joke bombs. Ah, well, I thought I was funny.
by jacobstevens on Mar 18, 2010 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions
no one will be any good if they can't stay upright.
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Mar 18, 2010 10:13 AM PDT up reply actions
but it would make a huge difference for Whitehurst
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Mar 18, 2010 10:16 AM PDT up reply actions
Hasselbeck had more time then some of the best QBs last year
the offensive line right now is fine for Whitehurst.
by Hancock.Brett on Mar 18, 2010 10:24 AM PDT up reply actions
unless injuries cause us to call back Kyle Williams
that has been the big issue will they stay healthy.
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Mar 18, 2010 10:29 AM PDT up reply actions
Boy that was a game influenced by shitty luck.
Injuries take out the first and second string left tackle and left guard. That was as patchwork a line as they come.
my biggest concern is that some players get injured
and never heal and stay injured, we have had a bad run of those kinds of players.
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Mar 18, 2010 10:50 AM PDT up reply actions
I don't think this is true.
The Cards’ tackles gave Warner no time. But rush was contained. It simply got there fast. We were vulnerable from free rushers from gaps or edges, through blitzes or stunts. I don’t want to overstate how bad it was, but the reasonable people here know Matt’s lost it, and we don’t need to pretend the pass protection was adequate to establish it. Our pass protection was not adequate.
by jacobstevens on Mar 18, 2010 11:13 AM PDT up reply actions
I'm guessing the top DE.
Based on the idea that Bradford, G.McCoy, Suh, Okung, Berry, Clausen are somewhere in the top 5 with the remaining option being another possibility for us at 6. It’s so rare that a Safety is drafted in the top-5 or 6 that I can see Berry being that other and most likely possibility as far as being on the board when we pick. Usually the top-5 picks are linemen or quarterbacks and that’s a long historical trend.
So, I think most likely the team thinks a starting offensive tackle will be available at 14 and take the top-rated DE – and spell the reason we moved Tapp. We didn’t move him for Clemons.
Rams take Bradford (or trade down with someone who will)...
Detroit takes Okung (or trades down with Washington who takes Clausen and Detroit still drafting Okung), and the Bucs taking the DT they like (most likely Suh, but perhaps McCoy) and then KC takes Berry or an OT (very unlikely they draft a DT). Washington takes Clausen at 2 or 4 in this scenario.
That leaves one of the DTs (Suh or McCoy) and maybe Berry at six. Given that the DTs in this class are overwhelmingly rated higher than the DEs, and given how much Suh or McCoy could contribute, I suspect that is the likely pick for Seattle at 6.
Having said that, I am all for considering Berry, if the DTs are off the board and he is still there.
by Hawksince77 on Mar 18, 2010 11:49 AM PDT up reply actions
What I'm not sure I get is why does everyone assume KC won't take a DT?
by B.B.Finnegan on Mar 18, 2010 11:53 AM PDT up reply actions
Yeah but best player available
plus snickers and skittles
by B.B.Finnegan on Mar 18, 2010 11:58 AM PDT up reply actions
I have also heard it argued...
…that KC has some very large holes, and the pick is likely between OT and safety.
But then again, someone who really wants McCoy (or Suh) could trade up with KC to get one of them.
wasn't Dorsey a flop?
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Mar 18, 2010 1:24 PM PDT up reply actions
Sort of; he's playing out of position right now.
But I haven’t heard any talks yet of the Chiefs trading him.
by aerozeppelin on Mar 18, 2010 1:45 PM PDT up reply actions
We'll take him.
We’ll give ya 5 first round picks, KC.
by jacobstevens on Mar 18, 2010 1:46 PM PDT up reply actions
can't gauge much from a scouting video
but he looks to have a pretty strong arm
Yeah I watched this earlier
at the 40 second mark he throws what looks to be the twice as far as Hasselback has ever thrown the ball
It's a Casio on a plastic beach
by Roy Weaver Stuckey on Mar 18, 2010 2:27 PM PDT up reply actions
You're intentionally exaggerating, right?
You gotta be kidding me, somehow. Or maybe you’ve only watched the passed two years.
That was a long pass but lofted. Took so long to get there it would be rare for that to be a complete pass in the NFL.
by jacobstevens on Mar 18, 2010 2:39 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm sure he's developed some since then
but that wasn’t very encouraging.
Drew Bledsoe-like pocket movement. Not enitrely a bad thing. And I don’t mean statuesque. Whitehurst has the legs to move laterally out of the pocket and can run fast and be elusive. But by Bledsoe movement I mean a rather morose, unfolding of the drop and set. Good sense of pressure and movement in the pocket, though.
The throws were often lofty. Some underthrows. The accuracy seems OK to the vicinity, but at least one of the wideouts is really helping by going up and getting balls at the right point. So can’t be sure about the accuracy.
Can’t tell how the reads were, but the few times you get a hint or glimpse of what’s up field, it seemed allright. One throw near the end zone, probably should have thrown a mite earlier, but it worked out OK.
This is a highlight tape, though. So it’s not encouraging. But it’s been a while, and I’m sure his skillset didn’t remain static.
by jacobstevens on Mar 18, 2010 2:47 PM PDT up reply actions
Not bad at all, but not elite. That's OK
Neither was Hasselbeck.
I am thinking we can definitely work with Whitehurst.
Talents that I covet:
Ndamukong Suh, Gerald McCoy, Sam Bradford, Mike Iupati, Golden Tate, Earl Thomas, and Freddie Barnes
by Carl Shinyama on Mar 20, 2010 2:17 PM PDT up reply actions
The presser introducing the White Stallion
happens in 15 minutes. 2PM. One of the local sports radio stations will cover this, right? Or is March Madness more important?
I think Colt McCoy and D. Thomas could both fall to 60.
Though that doesn’t mean that I think we should take either of them.
There are some good points here. We’ll see what happens in the draft!
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
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.
