Impressions of Charlie Whitehurst
by John Morgan on Mar 22, 2010 6:02 PM PDT
Email
PrintIf Charlie Whitehurst was a free agent, and Seattle could sign him for no more than his current contract and the pressure that contract puts on the Seahawks depth chart, I would consider Whitehurst a bad signing.
Norv Turner took over as head coach of the San Diego Chargers in 2007. He earned the position after making the San Francisco 49ers offense look..semi-functional. He developed a reputation as a quarterbacks guru after developing Troy Aikman and wringing a single season of productivity from Alex Smith. And by productivity, I mean, not cripplingly bad quarterback play. Philip Rivers has become one of the best quarterbacks in the NFL, perhaps because of Turner, perhaps not. If you buy into quarterbacks being coached up, Whitehurst had it all: consistency, expertise and time.
Whitehurst studied Turner's offense over three seasons, without pressure, but also without game experience. He looks completely and utterly unaccustomed to game speed, even preseason game speed. He seems to have enough trouble simply reading a vanilla zone, and while attempting to decipher it, shows no pocket awareness at all. Whitehurst keeps his eyes up field, but can not walk and chew bubble gum. If he showed better ability to read routes or find open receivers, maybe developing pocket presence could be a realistic goal. But seemingly flummoxed by simple zones, it's a stretch to think he will significantly improve his read and pocket awareness.
I do not see evidence of a cannon arm, a trait that might ease his impending decline, and I also do not see great accuracy. Even his calmest, least harassed, and simplest throws are around the target rather than to it. His tools seem decent. He has good arm strength, a good frame and doesn't embarrass himself on the run. Whitehurst embodies the middle round, prototypical quarterback that has never achieved great success nor tantalized with his tools, but because he looks the part, is handed a clipboard and calls it a career.
Whitehurst turns 28 August 6. He studied the same basic playbook for three years, but when asked to execute it, showed little ability, confidence, competence or promise. He now faces a new playbook and real expectations. The Chargers announcers had a healthy humor about Whitehurst. They did not ridicule him, but instead dismissed him for what he is: A third string quarterback. Before the game, Whitehurst stressed the importance of the preseason for him, talking about how it's his only chance to impress and saying "I prepare for these games just like they are a regular season game."
Mike Sando wrote something to the effect that if Whitehurst develops no one will remember what Seattle spent to acquire him. That is probably true and yet beside the point. Seattle went dumpster diving and returned with Charlie Whitehurst. They have not mortgaged the future hoping he develops. If he doesn't, it's possible Pete Carroll survives, and possible John Schneider survives. Probable, maybe, for Carroll. Whitehurst is not likely to sink the franchise even if he busts as badly as I think he will. However, a team can wager a lot or a little on a low-value asset. It can see Whitehurst for what he is, a backup quarterback with some warts and some potential not unlike Brady Quinn or Derek Anderson, or it can lock onto one player, forego negotiations and pay the sticker price for his services. Seattle did the latter. Whitehurst is not only a potential talent evaluation failure, but a troubling indication that Carroll and Schneider trust their own opinions to a fault.
106 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I'm hoping pretty fervently that we still draft a QB and Whitehurst is only a stop gap.
I have been hoping this since the news about Whitehurst came out, and this has done nothing to make me hope any less. Though that’s a hell of an overpay for a stopgap QB.
Now with more lemon bars!
that would be good
maybe they have received word through all the channels that Clausen and Bradford will be gone by #6. Fearing a complete and total meltdown with Hasselbeck behind center Queen and Prime Minister overpaid for anyone to come in and try and play QB, that anyone was Charles. If Clausen falls maybe they still take him.
by Hancock.Brett on Mar 22, 2010 6:15 PM PDT up reply actions
We're getting Clausen.
I received word through a channel of my own: my dream last night. I shit you not. (Then again, we also got Gerald McCoy in this dream, and Suh fell to the Raiders at 8, so take my clairvoyance with a grain of salt.)
Ugh
Makes me feel sheepish for liking some things I saw in the guy the last few years. Have to agree on the sticker-price argument now. Still, I hold out hope that consistent first- and second-team snaps will allow him to develop.
Anyone who want to know what Whitehurst will bring need only look at his college numbers
When the expectations where high, he folded. He will struggle to beat out Teel.
It is what it is...
this is one of those where we will just have to see
I can understand impressions from pre-season, but this whole thing doesn’t make sense until the coaching staff gets a chance to put him in their own offense. One thing I know, since the Seahawks are going to suck anyway I would rather watch Whitehurst for half a season to see if he can do it than watch hasselbeck get injured and still not know.
It’s done – so let’s do it.
Why is it everyone that is afraid of the Rapture are the ones that want to be saved by it?
I saw someone post in another thread Hope is like Manure, the more you look at it the more it looks like shit. That was quite possibly the truest statement I have ever seen posted on FG. The sky is falling and no one wants to get crushed, and so we yell and shout our case hoping we’ll be spared. But no one is listening. There is no Savior. The harder you look the more strained your eyes become.
No one, not I nor you, can see into the Future. We must study History so we do not repeat it willingly, but it will not save us. The only thing we as Men can do is hold our heads up high. This site and all others discussing any move our FO makes are just being reactionary. We are reacting to things we know nothing about and can only pretend to.
I guess I am just getting tired of so many people claiming failure/success year after year only to be proven wrong and wrong again. Yet these same people will sit there year after year pointing to how they are right and give some obscure stat/byline to support it.
If we cannot open our eyes enough to see the light at the end of the tunnel we will only drown in Darkness.
Um, I'm the one who made the fertilizer comment, and as I said in that thread, it was a joke.
I also get frustrated by people making definitive statements about what will or will not happen, but:
It’s one thing to act like the sky is falling ten minutes after the Whitehurst news broke, knowing nothing really about him. That’s annoying, I agree.
It’s another to study the player, his history, and the deal that brought him here and come away with a negative opinion. That’s a sound opinion.
As for your claim that “This site and all others discussing any move our FO makes are just being reactionary” — That’s ridiculous. Some of them have been reactionary. Some of them have been considered and rational. Do you really want to argue that any discussion of current events is just reactionary nonsense? If so, why the hell are you reading a message board?
As for “We are reacting to things we know nothing about and can only pretend to” — that’s also ridiculous. You’re right that we can’t know the details of what’s in Carroll’s head or the in-the-room discussions, but we do not know nothing. Specifically, we know the rules of football, strategies pursued in the past by 32 teams, the histories of the players involved, and a pair of eyes with which to evaluate players’ skills and performances. Those things form the basis of valid opinions.
In other words: Chill out.
by sev79 on Mar 22, 2010 7:22 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Not trying to be destructive or reactionary myself
just trying to throw another view onto the table. As we have all seen by the numerous threads about the off season and the comments they’ve brought, I only want to bring into discussion some rational optimism. I don’t think any of my comments were far fetched or out of order. I am all for discussion which is why I joined this conversation.
I guess I am as burned out as the rest of us are and want this thing(Our Team) to work out. I also don’t want a witch hunt in which people blindly follow everything there told. If you read what i posted and thought about it then Horrah! Mission Accomplished! I love this site and have been an avid follower and I don’t want to see it degenerate into desperation.
Then, by all means, present something that suggests that desperation is unjustified.
And nobody thinks the sky is falling, literally or figuratively. This is a hobby, and we’re all just concerned about our favorite football team.
by DrunkAmerican on Mar 23, 2010 1:36 AM PDT up reply actions
I see the light at the end of the tunnel
But currently Carroll and Schneider are stacking bricks in front of the exit.
"BANG!" - Jim Lampley's first word as a child
by SSreporters on Mar 22, 2010 7:25 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
They're building a brick wall in front of the exit
Before they can board the train.
"BANG!" - Jim Lampley's first word as a child
I do not want to say John has been wrong year in and year out, nor do I say he has been right
I am just trying to say people have already “made up their minds” about matters which they know nothing about and have zero control over. And that it has started to get intolerable. I know I would love to see something from the FO that EVERYONE screams GREAT! WONDERFUL! ABOUT FUCKING TIME!
But I don’t think that time will ever come because were all too ignorant to know enough for EVERYONE to say this. There will always be those for and against all moves because we are not enlightened enough for everyone to come together and actually agree on something.
Perhaps judgment should be held in check until we actually know something.
I think we do actually know something
and that something is
that Carroll and Schneider trust their own opinions to a faultand that isn’t a good thing.
"I call the big one Bitey."-Homer J. Simpson
by Willie Mays Haze on Mar 22, 2010 7:09 PM PDT up reply actions
JM is never right.
Clearly he has no idea what he’s talking about when forcasting our team.
Seriously, that prediction is scary accurate.
Unless you are taking issue with the people who are crying about the sky being falling. Which I guess is fair, because it’s gone overboard a few times. But the Seahawks are doing a lot of little things wrong right now, and it’s pretty apparent they are heading in the wrong direction. Maybe they can salvage it with a great draft. If they do, hurray. Maybe they can do a hell of a coaching job too. And the team makes a genuine rebound next year off the backs of Carroll’s efforts (and not just be piggybacking off a few players hitting their prime that were drafted by the previous regime). Maybe. But those are big maybes, and they havn’t happened yet. What has happened are a series of questionable to downright bad moves. Nothing game breaking, but nothing to give us any hope. And that is very bad.
Now with more lemon bars!
Uh...
A piece with a bunch of different prognosis is “scary accurate” in the same way flipping a coin and saying “it’ll land heads or tails” is “scary accurate”. Not a good example of what you want to get across.
by Thomas Beekers on Mar 22, 2010 7:48 PM PDT up reply actions
Take our record.
Look at the team he mentioned for that record. It’s a dead on description of our team last year.
Now with more lemon bars!
check out my post above
I am mainly talking to the sky is falling crowd as i mentioned in my post. I love this site and am an avid follower of projections and statistics but to throw it all away on numbers goes against my fandom. I just want people to be wide eyed and try to see as much as possible.
Upon reflection
we may have been a bit optimistic…
Though Hasselbeck playing all year with a nagging injury definitely was a big problem. Personally I underestimated his propensity for getting injured.
Now with more lemon bars!
A bit?
I voted 8-8. So yeah, optimism ran rampant.
So hey, considering our rampant optimism was dead wrong last year, one can only hope our way-too-early rampant pessimism this year is dead wrong too.
by Thomas Beekers on Mar 23, 2010 10:08 AM PDT up reply actions
Well, that's fandom for you.
Though this year the poll might go the opposite direction.
I get this same basic response ten times a year,
but I give you credit for rewriting it as a Bible tale.
by John Morgan on Mar 22, 2010 7:15 PM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
Haha, that's the same feeling I had.
I think Whitehurst has his found his first Seattle disciple.
by Mind of no mind on Mar 22, 2010 7:34 PM PDT up reply actions
The criticism is too general and debate-killing to have much validity
But I can’t help but sense some confirmation bias in these pieces.
But eh. ’t is what ’t is.
by Thomas Beekers on Mar 22, 2010 7:55 PM PDT up reply actions
John doesn't pretend to have a crystal ball or be one of those ESPN commentators who know all.
He tries to add value to the game and our experiences of it and I appreciate it. I take it for what it is, but I don’t have a shrine to the great Seahawk god John Morgan. Sorry. Commentary and evaluation is exactly that an educated guess. We can’t predict the future but we can lay out the possibilities and the probabilities of it occurring. I think John’s got a great eye for talent and what their max and min are and a honest and measured sense that has long been missing in sports journalism. That’s more than 90% of the so called football and seahawk press seem to have. And he’s a fan too; for some reason that matters to me.
Yes yes. I'm not offering criticism in general, I love these analysis pieces.
I’m just saying I can’t help but read some confirmation bias from the way these specific pieces on Whitehurst are formulated.
by Thomas Beekers on Mar 23, 2010 7:08 AM PDT up reply actions
I am so sick of this argument against inferrence
You, and everyone making this argument, are asking people to not question things, to not try to evaluate players because that’s what the authority figures are supposed to do, and supposedly they know better. That’s just dumb. What if they don’t know better? Working on the available evidence it sure seems like they don’t. The whole purpose of this blog is to offer analysis, and it’s not analysis to say “just roll with it, these guys know what they’re doing” when they have made so many moves that suggest otherwise.
At times I have been part of the counter-argument, so let me fall on my own sword in that regard and clarify.
I read Field Gulls for the analysis and discussion. The analysis examines angles rarely found elsewhere, and the discussion of our team is the only such forum on the internet worth engaging in. The point I have tried to advance is against making sweeping judgements based on opinions that are presented as fact. John’s “Impressions” post is reasoned and walks back that kind of absolutism.
With that said, I might have to scale back how much I read comments here if it continues to be too much of the “we’re hopelessly fucked” variety. We can’t say for sure that the sky is falling, nor can we rationally say that Carroll/Schneider have earned blind faith. I’ve seen Pete Carroll work up close, I’ve watched Charlie Whitehurst play quarterback, and despite how the offseason has gone to this point, I firmly believe—at the very least—that all is not yet lost.
by lemonverbena on Mar 23, 2010 12:16 PM PDT up reply actions
I really don't get how you can enjoy this site and not be tolerant of opinions that oppose your own.
Nobody is saying that the sky is falling “for sure.” That’s just what the evidence we have seems to suggest to some people. You’re welcome to disagree via a reasonable argument.
The “sky is falling” argument as it pertains to CW is simply that, from what we know of him, he seems to be actually below average which should be a worrisome quality from someone who is expected to head the most important position in football. Again, this is not absolute, just what the evidence seems to suggest.
by DrunkAmerican on Mar 23, 2010 12:29 PM PDT up reply actions
to expand on that thought
I don’t think many of us believe that Whitehurst is going to doom the franchise. We could still draft a QB this year or next that we believe will be the future. If we do then why the heck did we give up so much to acquire a backup QB with no regular season snaps?
Whatever their thought process was with the Whitehurst move it still doesn’t justify what they gave up to get him. Either they want him to start or they want him to “compete”. All the evidence suggests that both of those theories are flawed when considering the price we paid.
by Hancock.Brett on Mar 23, 2010 12:54 PM PDT up reply actions
I think you've misunderstood my point
I’m solicitous of opinions that oppose my own. I constantly challenge my own beliefs, knowledge and opinions in everything, and modify/change course when I find compelling reasons or new information. For example, and without going into specifics, I read and watch a lot of what I consider to be biased news sources because I want to understand what those arguments are.
What I saw recently here were arguments made ad nauseum that the recent moves are absolutely bad, as if we could determine with certainty such a thing in the immediate term from our outside perspective. In the aftermath of the Tapp and Whitehurst trades—if you can stand to go back and read those threads—the prevailing wisdom was that they were absolutely, 100% bad moves. A flood of negativity and defeatism based on those “facts” followed, i.e. Carroll and Schneider are in over their heads and the team is irrevocably going down the shitter. I disagree with that kind of absolutism. There are a lot of ways to approach buidling a football team, we all have opinions on what some of the best ways are, and it previously got a little heated and unreasonable. That’s all.
by lemonverbena on Mar 23, 2010 1:14 PM PDT up reply actions
Oh.
That’s not how I read those threads, but I can see why that would be annoying given your interpretation.
by DrunkAmerican on Mar 23, 2010 1:25 PM PDT up reply actions
I can absolutely see where you're coming from
We do see and use a ton of opinions (built on a solid analysis) as fact. And it is often implied to be the only logical conclusion to come to.
Drives me crazy.
Don't worry too much about it.
Hopefully after the draft (assuming we don’t take Mays-Tebow with 6 and 14) everyone will be back in good spirits. Those two high picks are nearly guaranteed to inject a massive amount of talent into our depleted team’s ranks.
The more and more I find out about Whitehurst (which is not a whole lot)
The more I have to say “QB at #6.”
Sadly that’s probably not going to happen. A Hasselbeck/Whitehurst/Teel triple threat makes me cringe.
Oh yeah, and all of those QBs mentioned can probably forget about being protected by Sims.
http://www.nextseasonsports.com/2010/03/seahawks-sims-told-mora-he-will-be.html
"BANG!" - Jim Lampley's first word as a child
Should the FO looked into Anderson more than Whitehurst?
As a OSU fan I would have loved Anderson to be back in the Northwest.
And I bet UW fans would love to see the return of Cody Pickett to the Northwest
But that doesn’t make him a good football player. Derek Anderson is a terrible QB.
"BANG!" - Jim Lampley's first word as a child
Probably.
But he was cheaper then Whitehurst. And probably has similar upside.
Now with more lemon bars!
Brain fart.
I was thinking Quinn. DA is a terrible QB with probably lower upside the Whitehurst. But he was still cheaper. And right now he’s probably an equivalent QB.
Now with more lemon bars!
I'll say this again and again, and this brief Whitehurst scouting compilation isn't going to change it one bit:
I’d rather take a flyer on unproven with upside (Whitehurst) than proven mediocre/suck (DA, Quinn, Clemens, etc.).
Who did you want? Troy Smith? We just got rid of Seneca Wallace…. ;)
Seriously, we could still end up with Clausen, though I firmly believe both he and Bradford will be gone before we pick. Regarding CW, this is still not enough info for me to formulate any kind of opinion of him. My hope for the guy is still greater than the evidence against – which is a drop in the ocean at this point, though I did enjoy reading John trying to make it rain.
And, really, to all of you Field Gullians out there, this is the important point in all of this.
It isn’t really who joins the team and who goes away, but rather the cost or value (respectively) that relates to those moves. If the front office trades players for far less than the value of the tender they placed on them, that’s bad. If the market is shitty at the time and no one wants to give you more than X when it takes more than X to replace the player’s current and future value to the team then be a big boy and don’t ship off the player anyway.
If the front office also spends more than the value of the tender placed on other players, that’s also bad. You can argue until you’re blue in the face about scheme fit or any other number of platitudes thrown around to help justify moves that are of unequal value. If you don’t like the 5 dollar bill in your wallet because someone drew a mustache on Lincoln and you get rid of it for three crisp Washingtons, you’ve made a poor swap.
by abender20 on Mar 22, 2010 11:02 PM PDT up reply actions 4 recs
Nice post, but I don't think you understand the tender.
Nice post, abender, except that your “trading $5 bill for $3” metaphor doesn’t apply here. There is no “absolute value” of a player in the NFL. Paying more than the tender does not mean you overpaid.
The third round tender placed on Whitehurst was not his value, it was his mandatory minimum compensation set by NFL rule (round in which he was drafted). That a third round pick did not represent his value is proven by the associated rule that gives San Diego the right to refuse any offer. If a tender was placed on Tom Brady, it would be a 6th round tender and obviously New England would refuse that since his value is more.
The team with rights to the player, and the current market, sets the player’s value; the league merely sets minimum compensation.
The current market for QBs is higher than some years because few proven starting QBs are available this year. When shopping in a higher market, you pay more. That doesn’t mean you don’t buy if you are in need of buying; you simply expect to compete and pay more.
The Seahawks were determined to add a QB good enough to push Hasselbeck and play if he gets injured. They assessed Whitehurst to be better than any of the QB prospects available in the draft between #6 and #40.
The Chargers knew all this and so they were not about to let Whitehurst go anywhere for only a third round draft choice. His value was higher this year and so they took advantage of the market. That doesn’t mean the Seahawks made a bad trade. How well the did remains to be evaluated once we watch Whitehurst play.
"Football players are temperamental. That's 90 percent temper and 10 percent mental." - Doug Plank
by Stevo's on Mar 24, 2010 2:41 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Good points
I agree with all of that except for one aspect of the last part, though it may just be semantics. The Chargers would have let Whitehurst go for a 3rd if he had signed an offer sheet with Arizona. He chose to come to Seattle, and the Seahawks had to agree to trade something better than a 3rd since we didn’t have one. San Diego had no reason to accept less. They could have kept Whitehurst and/or seen if another team took a run at him in a QB-starved market.
Some have mistakenly assumed Arizona decided to sign Derek Anderson instead of sending a 3rd to San Diego for Whitehurst, and that this meant the market had gotten softer for him and we overpaid. Arizona signed Anderson only when Whitehurst chose Seattle’s offer over theirs. It just didn’t look that way chronologically since that signing was quicker than SD and Seattle finalizing the trade.
by lemonverbena on Mar 25, 2010 12:17 PM PDT up reply actions
I didn't say it did.
I was replying to Misfit when he said “I’d rather take a flyer on unproven with upside (Whitehurst) than proven mediocre/suck (DA, Quinn, Clemens, etc.).” If both Anderson and Whitehurst were on the roster and I got to pick which one got snaps I’d pick Whitehurst. But if you asked me would I rather do the sign and trade for Whitehurst to take a flyer on him or sign Anderson for a bit more cash while keeping the picks I’d choose Anderson (or more likely neither).
Even smart front offices overpay from time to time
It’s impossible to disagree with you fundamentally Nate. But, there are some instances where walking away is not really an option. Even if you’re not in “win now” mode nobody even develops with fundamentally incompetent QB play.
The likelihood of Matt playing 16 games this year, even if he is the best option to start, are close enough to zero that we had to get a QB. It was quite likely that we’d end up overpaying given what we apparently think of the other options.
So I’m less worried about the specific overpay for Whitehurst than how our pro player evaluation process is working. If it has ranked CW waaayyyy ahead of Anderson or Quinn and swapped Tapp for Clemons + low pick, what precisely are they looking for at two pretty important positions?
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
I understood that this piece is about Whitehurst the player on the field.
Some of you are rolling several front-office decisions into one or willing to accept less for less. That’s fine. Just know that I was commenting on Whitehurst, the scouting John did on him and his impressions of him as Whitehurst the player.
I’m simply stating that Whitehurst is still an unknowable player given what we have to scrutinize or review. And, I would still rather risk on the unknown than the known when the known is the body of work presented by DA, Quinn, and others. I think there is a good chance we know enough about DA and Quinn (perhaps Clemens, too) to be ruled out as “future Seattle starting QB”. And, while we don’t have enough to rule CW ‘in’ as ‘future Seattle starting QB’ we certainly do not have enough to rule him out.
I think you're right
The Seahawks like Whitehurst’s upside. There is nothing wrong with that. If they drafted a QB it would be because they like his upside and potential, since no freshly drafted rookie has proven himself in the pros. Whitehurst has lasted three years on an NFL roster, and some of the QBs drafted before #40 each year fail to do that.
Whitehurst sill has enough unknown potential and upside that he seemed well worth a #40 pick, meanwhile – other than Bradford, the same cannot be said about other QBs in this years draft.
Sure Whitehurst is a bit of a gamble. Drafting a QB is even more of a gamble. I think the Seahawks looked at this years QB crop in the draft and said to themselves “no way we are risking our picks on any of those guys”. So they’ll see how Whitehurst develops and search for their QB of the future next year.
Its better than standing pat with Wallace, and better than risking a draft pick on a QB they don’t really love.
"Football players are temperamental. That's 90 percent temper and 10 percent mental." - Doug Plank
Oh, and I like that idea.
‘Draft someone’. I’m still all for it.
I just thought we beat the cost of acquiring CW to death in the several other threads about him. I suppose we can roll that discussion back into this thread, if it’s considered on-topic.
Darn lack of coffee.
I will say this: I’d rather have done what we did to get Whitehurst at the cost we did instead of DA or Quinn. The results of the draft could have some bearing on this if we have a chance at Clausen and pass on him due to this trade, so we don’t know all the info, yet. By itself, I’d still rather have acquired CW than DA or Quinn even while considering cost.
Keep in mind that another quarterback will be coming in
It won’t be at 6, and probably not at 14, but I’m confident that a QB will be drafted.
Psst, hey Pete: Zac Robinson Zac Robinson Zac Robinson
by lemonverbena on Mar 23, 2010 12:33 PM PDT up reply actions
The draft doesn't (most times) help at all with immediate need
Apart from the fact that you’re going from, by all accounts, a mild overpay for CW to a potentially franchise-crippling overpay in the draft.
This team was perilously close to no starter-quality talent at the most important position in the sport.
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
by dcrockett17 on Mar 23, 2010 12:16 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I never said he was a good player
I just said it would be nice to see him back in the northwest.
by Seahawksfan23 on Mar 22, 2010 11:14 PM PDT up reply actions
Quarterbacking the Cardinals? Sure!
I like inaccuracy and interceptions when it’s the other team’s QB.
I think John has done a very nice job of giving all of us...
…a better idea of what Whitehurst is, and what he isn’t. I am utterly in support of addressing the QB position because I don’t think the team can succeed with Hasselbeck, and I was also pretty sure Wallace wasn’t the answer.
So Whitehurst has been somewhat exposed, and that’s a good thing. And the best thing about it, and the criticism of this year’s off season, is that nothing is happening that wil get our hopes unreasonably high.
The past two off seasons I was hopelessly optimistic about the success of the team, and suffered for it. This year, I will be better prepared for failure, and ecstatic with any amount of success or hope for the future.
This
I no longer worry the hawks are getting worse-I know they are. I have no expectations, and less stressed. I wont curse them for losing. But I will curse Carrol. I mean really, Carrol? This is your vaunted scouting skills? Whitehurst? Really?
by paul2 on Mar 22, 2010 8:45 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Hey we traded our second rounder for an unknown backup QB from GB in 2001
Give the guy a chance. Yes some of the moves that the FO has made this offseason are questionable but the season hasn’t even started yet and every team in the NFL is 0-0 at this point. And Whitehurst drew interest not only from us but Arizona as well so there must be something in Whitehurst that the FO of Arizona and Seattle saw.
by Seahawksfan23 on Mar 22, 2010 11:39 PM PDT up reply actions
At the risk of sounding like a broken record
Hasselbeck was younger, a second string QB, played better in the preseason, was brought over with the coach who originally drafted him who also happened to be one of the best offensive/QB coaches of the last 20 years. There are probably more differences than similarities between the two trades.
If I remember right
It was Ron Wolf who drafted Hasselbeck and it was on Andy Reid ’s recommendation that they drafted him. Holmgren had very little to do with drafting Hasselbeck.
Eagles coach Andy Reid, then the Packers’ quarterbacks coach, convinced former Green Bay general manager Ron Wolf to draft Hasselbeck
Source: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1208/is_3_230/ai_n26730952/
Talents that I covet:
Ndamukong Suh, Gerald McCoy, Sam Bradford, Mike Iupati, Golden Tate, Earl Thomas, and Freddie Barnes
by Carl Shinyama on Mar 23, 2010 8:29 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Yeah, thats what I was getting at when I said brought over by the coach that drafted him.
Whether Holmgren pushed to get him or not he’d had Matt for his entire career.
I don't mind them going after Whitehurst so much as I
mind them giving up that #3 next year. Let’s face it; we are in full blown rebuild. This will be Hass’s last year (most likely), and if the team finishes 2010 in the 3-13 to 6-10 range (which is quite possible) they better hope there are not too many teams worse that need QBs because missing a #3 costs you a chip you could possibly use to move up and get that franchise QB. So you have basically handicapped yourself next year in the draft for a guy that is, well, a long shot at best. Poor resource management right out of the gate. Not a good sign!
Hello, hello
Long time reader, first time poster here. I have enjoyed the blog for some time now.
Anyways, I, like many here, am thoroughly disgusted with the apparent bending over that the hawks’ front office did when discussing the terms of the acquisition of whitehurst with the chargers. The fact that they apparently did not even try to negotiate down from a price that was higher than whitehurst’s original tender makes me sick to my stomach.
I guess at this point, there is not much to do besides hope that Whitehurst can play. There have been a lot of QBs who started their careers very inauspiciously and went on to be good players. I mean, Matt Cassell didn’t even see the field at USC and he can play in the NFL. So I think there is hope, but it is hard to feel any real confidence about a 4 year 3rd stringer. I just cannot believe what they gave up to get him.
That's pretty much what I thought of Whitehurts before we went after him
I do end up watching the Charger preseason games, being in SD, and granted I usually don’t finish them or paid much attention to Whitehurst, but this is pretty much what I thought of him. And why I was against this from the start.
I’ll still hold a sliver hope that they know something we don’t, but here’s hoping Teal develops or Clauford drops.
Man. That's pretty desperate
When someone says “here’s hoping Teel develops”.
We’re in trouble.
6/14/60. Sweet.
On the subject of being reactionary.
My humble opinion:
I think Field Gulls has been getting comments on being “overly reactionary” because the people at Field Gulls are, for the most part, big fucking Seahawk fans.
When you’re passionate about something, you’re going to be reactionary.
If you bought a brand new car, a car that you fucking loved, and then heard from a reliable source that it might break in 6 months, you’re probably going to be pissed off.
My point is:
Because we care about the Seahawks and are passionate about them, we’re going to be fucking reactionary. If you don’t like the comments, don’t read them. Or go look at ESPN commentors and you’ll see that relative to them, we’re really not that reactionary.
by killacamkilla2 on Mar 22, 2010 11:45 PM PDT reply actions
Ugh. Being a fan is not synonymous with being reactionary.
You might as well argue that the reason there are assholes at football games is because the assholes are fans, so they’re gonna talk shit as part of the nature of fandom.
Being a fan is characterized by passion and loyalty.
Being reactionary is characterized by speaking before you think, and a lack of perspective.
The two do not have to go together, they just sadly often do.
by sev79 on Mar 23, 2010 12:12 AM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
I disagree.
Because we’re passionate and loyal, we will speak before we think and be biased because we care.
I’m not saying we should do what commentors at Seahawk Addicts often do which is, “OUR SEASON IS OVER! THE HAWKS ARE DONE.”
But when we found out we had traded Daryll Tapp, a, “NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. FUCK YOU PETE CARROLL!” is not unreasonable. We are reactionary because we’re passionate and loyal.
by killacamkilla2 on Mar 23, 2010 10:27 PM PDT up reply actions
The only reason I hope Clausen is still on the board at six
Is that I hold out some faint hope that Buffalo will want to trade up with us to get ahead of Cleveland to draft him. If McCoy isn’t there then I’d be much happier picking up a 2nd or 3rd and moving down to pick 9. This team has far too many holes to draft a QB so high, and as much as I detest how much we gave up to get Whitehurst, it’s done now and all I or any fan can do is bitch while simultaneously hoping that he pans out. Like most others here I’ve hated this off-season, and raised eyebrows at every move. The hopeless optimist in me sees a wonderful draft and just hopes that from a training and gameplanning perspective, Carroll will have many of the same pieces we had in place last year playing at a much improved level. Of course, this is the same optimist that thought we’d be 10-6 or 9-7 last year, but he’s an important part of my psyche, as he has just about held off my progression to suicidal alcoholic over the last month
I'd rather just take Clausen right there.
Talents that I covet:
Ndamukong Suh, Gerald McCoy, Sam Bradford, Mike Iupati, Golden Tate, Earl Thomas, and Freddie Barnes
by Carl Shinyama on Mar 23, 2010 8:30 AM PDT up reply actions
I think their plan is obvious...
They will trade Matt Hasselbeck. This will force them to start Whitehurst. I think they see some potential in him. Ultimately he will struggle much like a rookie quarterback. This will then put them in contention for the Locker sweepstakes.
Our FO cannot come out and say that they are tanking for Locker but rather they will blame it on Whitehurst’s growing pains.
Whitehurst and Locker fit the same prototypical mold for Jeremy Bates’ offense.
Also I predict they try to trade this years 14th pick for a potentially bad teams 2011 first. This will then greatly increase our chances of aquiring the first pick in the 2011 draft. Afterwards Locker would have one year on the bench behind Whitehurst who would then become either our backup or expendable.
Really if Carroll and Schnieder came together and said “How do we get this Locker kid?”. Then this would be the perfect way to do it while also making positve strides as well. If they pulled it off it would be genius.
I know this is a lot of conjecture/rosterbating but it is what I would do.
Plus this is my one and only rosterbation infraction.
by nickfru1 on Mar 23, 2010 9:36 AM PDT via mobile reply actions
I wouldn't call it "dumpster diving"
You seem to be assuming you know more than Pete Carroll or John Schneider about evaluating players. I wouldn’t present these opinions as facts. It’s already the blind leading the blind here.
Appeal to authority fallacy.
First!
Also, these opinions are based on thorough analysis and a more than adequate understanding of the situation, so we’re hardly “blind”.
by DrunkAmerican on Mar 23, 2010 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions
Not thorough enough analysis.
And it’s no fault of John’s. There isn’t a lot out there to analyse. What was presented in these few posts is not enough. Maybe he’s looked at more. I still don’t think there is enough information to evaluate CW.
I wonder if we can get practice and training camp film of him?
The analysis was plenty thorough.
What you’re complaining about is the quantity.
You seem to be assuming Pete Carroll or John Schneider know more than everybody about evaluating players.
I wouldn’t present these opinions as facts. It’s already the blind leading the blind here.
Central Michigan guy?
I’ve heard Dan Lefevour mentioned as a good value later round option. Anyone know anything more specific about him?
Happy 26th birthday Brandon Marshall. Perhaps your birthday energy inspired my epiphany this morning about how your fate will be tied to Charlie Whitehurst.
1) Marshall’s value as a Seahawk is largely dependent on Whitehurst’s success or failure. If the Seahawks drafted a QB this year, that QB will be entering his prime as Marshall will be exiting his prime. Marshall’s developmental benefits on a young QB are not enough to warrant the money we’d be paying him. If Whitehurst can find success then Marshall would have a QB just entering his prime instead of just entering the developmental period.
2) Whitehurst’s skill set could make the most of Marshall and Marshall could help encourage Whitehurst’s success. If we learned anything from John Morgan’s analysis of Whitehurst it’s that he will probably never have a particularly fast read and he is definitely not ultra accurate. Marshall’s dominating playing style would help alleviate these deficiency and nurture Whitehurst’s confidence. Further, Marshall would benefit from a stronger arm throwing to him.
3) One year makes all the difference. There doesn’t appear to be many teams itching to trade a first for Marshall so it is very likely that he’ll play this season as Bronco and hit the open market next year. This gives Carroll one season to work with Whitehurst and determine if he is skilled enough to make the most of a Brandon Marshall signing. This is also gives us more time to look into Marshall’s character concerns.
The reason that a deal was made for Whitehurst but not for Marshall probably comes down to the fact that Marshall would require a first and Whitehurst only required a third, yet their value to the team is somewhat interdependent.
Re: Marshall
ESPN’s John Clayton expects the Broncos to wait until the NFL Draft to trade Brandon Marshall.
The Seahawks are going to have the leverage here. They’re the only team seriously interested thus far, and they know the Broncos don’t want to go into the season with a disgruntled Marshall on their roster. Clayton posits that Seattle could wait through the first round to see if the Broncos will trade Marshall for less than a first-round pick. Source: ESPN.com
Yeah, that girl had asked the question about whether you can trade down in a round before trading the pick.
For all we overpaid for Charlie Whitehurst what if it came to pass that our 40th pick was spent in part to get Marshall AND Whitehurst? In addition to next year’s third, and probably another piece, something better than Chris Clemons but capped at Darryl Tapp. I guess I would be moderately impressed.
by jacobstevens on Mar 24, 2010 9:46 AM PDT up reply actions
John every time I read this damn blog I get more depressed – thanks a lot, haha. You know it wouldn’t hurt so much if your opinions didn’t seem so astute, especially in the details. You’ve torn Whitehurst apart here very effectively, nasty stuff. His success seems close to impossible, at least in your eyes.
Tell me though, would you consider writing a post about who we should be looking for? I would be fascinated to read what quarterbacks you think we should be targetting, and more importantly what sort of quarterback fits our system ideally. What are the qualities we want in a QB? What is Seattle’s dream quarterback like?
The Odenphant is true king of the jungle.
Don't go there. With our luck we will get...
Dan McGwire’s legs, Mirer’s arm, Teel’s accuracy, Gilbert’s poise, Kitna’s rings, and Hasselbeck’s hair.
I believe
the signing of CW will prove to be a mistake, but one that can be rectified in next years’ draft.
What? No SOUL?
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Field Gulls
Related FanShots on Field Gulls
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- NFLPA files collusion claim against NFL, claiming salary cap arrangement in uncapped year
- Donald Driver compared winning ‘Dancing With The Stars’ to winning Super Bowl
- Report: Most NFL players would have no problem with an openly gay teammate
- Donald Driver wins ‘Dancing With the Stars’
- Student has diploma withheld after Tebowing at graduation
