Charlie Whitehurst's First Game in Blue, a Synopsis
by John Morgan on Aug 18, 2010 6:39 PM PDT
Email
Print
In his first game in Seattle, Charlie Whitehurst posted his highest ever adjusted net yards per attempt, 7.9, blowing away his previous best, 5.8*. He tied his lowest sack percentage in games he had ten or more attempts. In a global sense, Whitehurst surpassed any previous standard.
He did it through good process: pocket awareness, reads, timing, decisiveness. He did it though apparent ability: crisp rollouts, mid-range zip, a beautiful rainbow to Deon Butler streaking up the left sideline. Whitehurst played the preseason game every hope-drunk Seahawks fan was desperate to see. He put it all together. He played like a somebody.
If I ballparked Whitehurst's potential to ever become a franchise quarterback at 10% before, it would be premature to move that to even 20% now. There is too much we do not know. Most basically, how bad is the Titans second-string defense? Jovan Haye and Sen'Derrick Marks are ok, but the ends were shoddy, the secondary porous and the linebackers slow. Whitehurst was tossing through some huge windows. His pocket wasn't pristine but pressure edged in rather than exploded. Charlie made some throws a quicker end could have killed him for attempting. Mostly, he locked on, watched his man and zipped it in when the receiver flashed free against a coverage scheme so vanilla it catalogues kissing as one of two types of foreplay.
So, one hurdle cleared, Whitehurst approaches another this Saturday.
*Over 13 games and 196 attempts, and excluding his week two performance of the 2007 preseason. He had one passing attempt and completed it for 21 yards.
59 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
It should be interesting
The Titans allowed 258.7 yards and a 66.9% passing offense from their opponents in 2009. The Pack allowed 201.1 yards and a 54.4% passing offense from their opponents. Better rush D too. Should be an interesting test, even though the Pack looked very vanilla against the Browns, and I’m not sure if their defense is going to survive their D-Line changes.
Still, all Whitehurst did, and can do in the pre-season, realistically, is solidify his hold on the backup spot. As long as he and Losman keep playing like this that’s certainly how we should go into the season, and then it seems only a matter of time before Whitehurst is faced with a real NFL defense, sadly.
Please, eleventy is more realistic.
All The Way, AIRBORNE!!!
by Airborne Hawk Guy on Aug 18, 2010 8:02 PM PDT up reply actions
Well, it's one louder, isn't it?
It’s not ten.
Thank you, Walter Jones.
Thank you, Ken Griffey Jr.
by thebyron on Aug 20, 2010 7:43 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
One what?
Is this exponential, linear, logarithmic?
That's not how it goes
It goes “Well, why don’t you just make them go to ten, and make ten louder?”
by Thomas Beekers on Aug 20, 2010 3:32 PM PDT up reply actions
A low hurdle, true...
though certainly not meaningless (I recognize you’re not implying it was). He spent time behind an offensive line that won’t play much during the regular season.
I was glad to see the mechanics, arm strength, etc. I may be one of the few people on this site who saw him play several games at Clemson. He’s come a long way since then. You can see what the FO/coaching staff liked.
This one game couldn’t really move the needle on his odds of becoming a quality player. But it’s a decent start.
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
It's just like Guitar Hero
Miss 5 notes in a row and you’re okay. But when the crazy, fret-workin’ hammer ons come around, you’d better know what you’re doing.
Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion...
by Cheddar28 on Aug 18, 2010 8:58 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Would this synopsis overall be any different if he had played worse
Then previous preseason games? I wonder what the chances are we see him start a preseason game against a vanilla yet starter filled defense. And even then, would it really tell us anything definitive?
Ugh, just start the season.
by Moresoftness on Aug 18, 2010 7:43 PM PDT via mobile reply actions
Yes.
If his previous preseason games in SD had been better then this then it would change our entire outlook on Whitehurst and our expectations of him. As it is, he met every expectation we could have reasonably put on him. Now to see how he does against players that are more in line with what an NFL defense would put against him on game day.
Now with more lemon bars!
I agree
I guess I get (relatively) frustrated with evaluating a guy like this because of the necessary caveat that this is the preseason, which I feel could be used to explain away both good or bad performances.
I just want some certainty in an uncertain world dammit!
by Moresoftness on Aug 18, 2010 8:46 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
It does appear Matt just pricked his thumb as well.
All The Way, AIRBORNE!!!
by Airborne Hawk Guy on Aug 18, 2010 8:15 PM PDT up reply actions
That rainbow comment was purposeful wasn't it?
Charliiiiiiiieeeee.
Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion...
If he does actually become a starter, he'll need a new nickname...
“Helmeted Jesus”? “Jesus Hawk”? “Green and blue Jesus”? “Sea-sus” ? …I don’t know, but it deserves some attention.
Charlie Rainbow
Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion...
I've always been partial to Aragorn
Can’t stand “Jesus” nicknames in general, tho. Not even Purple Jesus, who I just call All Day.
by Thomas Beekers on Aug 18, 2010 11:27 PM PDT up reply actions
for the record...
I don’t have a good nickname, but for the record, the name Whitehurst means white grove or white wood… not “white horse”… so people with “horse”-related names
"Charlie Whitehorse"
The picture is what makes it.
Thank you, Walter Jones.
Thank you, Ken Griffey Jr.
Good Lord.
The guy has 1000 nicknames already.
Charlie the Unicorn
Barry Gibb
Aragorn
Uh, there’s some other ones, too.
Raible is going to call him Charles probably
by scotthawk on Aug 19, 2010 12:17 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
My buddy refers to our coach as "Peter". Makes me laugh every time.
"Pass rushers enter the world of Okung but never leave." - JM
How about Charlie "Tebow gets on his knees for me" Whitehurst?
Suck it, Denver.
by John Edwards on Aug 19, 2010 3:22 PM PDT up reply actions
Chuck, Son of David
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Aug 19, 2010 5:15 PM PDT up reply actions
Charlie and the Touchdown Factory?
long winded, but hopefully it will ring true one day
Good start.
You have to like what Whitehurst did last Sunday and it’s a nice start, but it is way to early to say he is good or bad (which the article is NOT saying). It’s nice to see that the team has a POSSIBLE legit prospect in Whitehurst, but until he plays in some real games against mostly first stringers that are game planning for him and the offense the Seahawks run, we won’t know.
The only way we will ever know THIS SEASON if Charlie is a true starter is if Matt gets hurt for a long period of time (which is possible), or if the team just falls apart and they’re way out of the playoff race by week nine (like if they are 3-6 or 2-7). You never know what you have until you use it (or in this case him), but the team has to put the best options on the field to win, so until Charlie wins the starting job it’s Matts, and I don’t see it happening this year (unless something dramatic happens).
The article did say that, just not in an up front way.
He basically said that Whitehurst’s performance was solid, but the grain of salt was his competition: 2nd tier players running the simplest of simple defensive schemes.
"Pass rushers enter the world of Okung but never leave." - JM
I always consider the level of competition, too.
But really what’s the alternative to having success in that situation? Not standing out, or even failure, which is worse.
by John Edwards on Aug 19, 2010 3:25 PM PDT up reply actions
The way I see it,
he’s not increased his ceiling, nor increased his likelihood of reaching it, but he has increased his floor. I guess that would also be saying he’s increased his likelihood of reaching most of his potential, in that some of the ways he could have failed — fundamental problems in reading, progressing, sensing pressure or adapting to game speed — have been reasonably overcome.
It's the Monty Hall riddle (*insane geek laughter*)
“he’s not increased his ceiling, nor increased his likelihood of reaching it, but he has increased his floor.”
There are three doors.
One is labeled: “total suck”.
Another: “mediocre”
A third: “franchise QB”
The real Charlie Whitehurst is behind one of these doors.
We guessed #2, “mediocre”, as a best guess/average guess based on a lack of information. Now our host Mr. Preseason, has just flung open door #1 (“total suck”) to show that there is no Whitehurst behind it.
Has the likelihood of Whitehurst being behind door #3 increased, or is #2 still just as good of a guess?
by Jason_D on Aug 19, 2010 1:11 PM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
Not sure about that
Still too early, in my mind. I’d say door #1 has been opened just a smidge and it doesn’t appear that Whitehurst is behind it, but we need that door opened further before we can know for sure.
Rec'd for geeky analogy that makes some sense
Even if I don’t think that Mr. Preseason has opened the “total suck” door yet. Let’s give it three more games and even that may not be quite enough. But it’s all Mr. Preseason can give us, eh?
So, if I’m playing the Monty Hall guessing game, I’ll take “franchise QB”, please!
(Which, of course, is counter to my feeling that Whitehurst is mediocre, but still, it’s the game so I’ll play it. And I suspect this will spawn a subthread wherein people argue about the outcome of the Monty Hall scenario. Always fun!)
Yep.
I’m not gonna argue it, because Wikipedia is never, ever wrong, but it still doesn’t make intuitive sense to me. Perhaps this is why I did poorly in Logic class….
Thank you, Walter Jones.
Thank you, Ken Griffey Jr.
It's notoriously counter-intuitive
Sometimes I think I finally “get it” and then my poor fallible brain swings right back to “no it doesn’t matter if you switch!” Just gotta trust the math…
It took me so long to get it,
that for a while I was sure I’d found how it was wrong and marvelled how no one else in the world had ever figured it out. Which made me think of
But then I read the explanation that uses a million doors instead of three. What are the odds you picked the right door the 1st time? (a million to 1). When Monty opens one of the other 999,999 doors, it’s obvious you’d be better off switching doors. Drop that number down to 3, and you still have greater odds that you didn’t pick the right door the 1st time (2 to1) than did, so it gives you the opportunity to jump to the now-culled 66%.
by jacobstevens on Aug 20, 2010 10:01 AM PDT up reply actions
When Monty opens *all but one* of the remaining 999,999 doors,
…it’s even more obvious that you’re better off switching.
Ah, yes, thanks for the correction.
That’s what really drives it home.
by jacobstevens on Aug 20, 2010 4:22 PM PDT up reply actions
Well, speaking as an expert in probability...
The comparison is fun, but not precisely accurate.
In the Monty Hall scenario, there is a 2/3 probability that the selection of a door to open is determined by your own first guess. But the preseason testing of Whitehurst is not affected by our evaluation or guesses.
Metaphorically, there is no reason to switch doors— but with a few assumptions, the likelihood of Whitehurst having/reaching a higher skill level increases if the possibility of “total suck” is eliminated.
Assumption #1: His potential achievement can be divided into n discrete levels of equal probability. Although Hall-of-Fame potential is much less likely than a mediocre level, we can even things out with boundary selection. E.g.,
level 1 = 3rd-string or worse
level 2 = mediocre, capable backup
level 3 = mediocre, below-average starter
level 4 = mediocre, average starter
level 5 = career starter (some above-average seasons) or better
In that case, each level has a prior probability of 1/n
Assumption #2: The test conditions (preseason play) are a valid test for exactly one level. In other words, we know a priori that preseason games will give us a ‘yeah’ or ‘nay’ regarding level 1, but they cannot provide any information regarding other levels.
In that case, a negative test for any given level increases the probability for each other level to 1/(n-1)
For the 5-level example, Whitehurst’s probability of “career starter” would go from a 20% up to 25%. That’s good news. But we shouldn’t really switch doors, because the test result raises each of the “mediocre” levels up to a 25% probability also.
Great photo, but...
…I just can’t wait to see the other side of that page.
76-6-20
Okung-Whitehurst-Forsett
A turning the page/ changing of the guard of Locklear-Hasselback-Jones. …though I suppose it should be 20-6-76, being on the left side of the line.
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
- The Shutdown Corner Podcast: Greg Cosell on the NFC South Draft
- BREAKING: Tim Tebow did not become a great quarterback today
- Jerry Jones says Cowboys championship window is closing; Tony Romo disagrees
- Lawrence Taylor was told his Super Bowl ring was bought by Charlie Sheen
- Chad Ochocinco gets robbed, mourns loss of Starbucks gold card
