Seahawks Replay Booth: Behind the Charlie Whitehurst Hype
by Danny Kelly on Aug 19, 2011 11:45 AM PDT
in Seahawks Replay Booth
Email
PrintCharlie Whitehurst got a little good press following the Seahawks-Chargers game and has already ignited a small quarterback controversy early in this preseason. This rumbling compelled Pete Carroll to quash the notion this week that it's even an open competition at this point: Tarvaris Jackson is the Seahawks Week One starter and that's final. Personally, I'm fine with this. Even if Jackson has a bad preseason, there are many other factors in play that make him a good candidate to start -- and that's where I'll leave it on this point. That being said though, even if we're just critiquing our backup quarterback, I think he did some good things on Thursday and they're worth pointing out.
First up, I wanted to point out a pass by Charlie Whitehurst that impressed me for a number of reasons. First, it's fairly obvious that Whitehurst has a good arm and that's not really something that people have called into question. In this case, unsurprisingly, the pass has good zip and a low trajectory that arrives with perfect timing. While his arm strength hasn't been a concern for most, he did have a tendency last season to short-arm his deep throws a bit, raising questions about his accuracy and/or confidence.
The two main examples cited are probably his pass to a wide open Ben Obomanu against the Giants that went for a touchdown but was underthrown, and the pass to a wide open Ruvell Martin against the Rams that was underthrown but completed. I tend to chalk these up to a certain timidness, which can be dealt with pretty easily and with experience, rather than an outright lack of accuracy, but that's just my opinion. I'm sure people will chime in with examples of why he isn't an an accurate thrower and never will be and thus should be cut (though even Greg Cosell notes that inaccuracy is a correctable problem for a QB).
Regardless, Whitehurst did make a few deep throws vs the Chargers -- a couple that went incomplete off the hands of his receivers (to Stanbeck and Tate, and in both cases placed pretty well), and they were on line, and well thrown. He demonstrated an authoritativeness that you haven't seen much yet, so that is an improvement in my book. You'd like to see Charlie, for lack of a better way of putting it, show some brass balls and leave it all out there, -- and I thought he did that in the 3rd quarter, opponent skill level be damned.
The other reason he impressed me is related to another knock on his play, and that's his penchant to lock onto his receivers. As you know, this is the death of any NFL quarterback and is inevitably what separates the elites from the middling to low-level QBs in this league. Brady, Manning, Rodgers, whoever, all have that ability to manipulate the defense to their advantage, whether it's by pre-snap reads and adjustments or by looking off safeties and linebackers in their reads.
This is an infinitesimal example of that skill, but we're talking about single plays in preseason games so at worst this is a positive takeaway. Doesn't mean much in the big scheme of things, but it's not something you really saw Whitehurst doing much of last season in his limited action.
12:00 mark in the 3rd quarter with the Seahawks just past midfield. 1st and 10. Isaiah Stanback is on the left wing and will be running a post corner (or maybe more of a slant and go) and Charlie does a good job of manipulating the single high safety in this defense.
Above you see Charlie looking to Isaiah on the slant, which occupies the weakside linebacker. Stanback then runs a go route and Charlie does a nice little shoulder pump fake to him.
This pump fake draws the attention of the deep safety here and you see him bite on the route. This leaves the middle right secondary open for a seam-route running Dominique Byrd. Charlie hits him with a laser 20-25 yards downfield as Byrd beats the strongside linebacker tracking him with ease.
It's a simple play really, but it's encouraging nonetheless.
I'll bring you the second example later on this afternoon. Stay tuned...
Follow @FieldGulls on Twitter | Like Field Gulls on Facebook
53 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Whitehurst
I was impressed with that play…the question is is will that work on a 1st string D in the regular season? Can TJ make that play…not so sure. Great post raises a lot of questions!
The obvious question is whether he can make it against first string players, yeah.
But it’s a play you see good quarterbacks making and he sold it pretty well. Even a top safety could bite on that route.
Proactive-like-Nonstop
FIELDGULLS
by Danny Kelly on Aug 19, 2011 12:06 PM PDT up reply actions
Great analysis
Very encouraging. The two things that I have been down on Charlie for seem tractable after his last showing: 1) Locking on to receivers 2) Throwing with confidence and authority.
Time will tell if it is a repeatable positive trend or a just a blip. Here’s to hoping CW is turning a corner.
I like that picture of him.
He looks like a diesel.
by Carl Shinyama on Aug 19, 2011 12:28 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
The 2 long incomplete passes you mentioned...
…to Tate and Stanback were interesting as well.
BWM made a comment about CW awhile back that stuck with me. He said that he liked that CW was willing to throw the ball down the field and give his WRs a chance to make a play. The long pass to Tate I think Rice makes that reception. The one to Stanback, just about any experienced WR probably makes that reception (more about positioning and getting his eyes on the ball).
Anyway, this is something that the Seahawk fans haven’t seen in a long time, and unlikely to see from TJax, based on his penchant for making the safe play unless he is throwing the ball up after an off-sides flag hits the field.
CW threw the ball with poise and confidence, a far cry (IMO) from how he presented himself in the Rams game (after the first drive, anyway).
Here's the question I have about CW:
Why hasn’t he played well enough in practice (or in pre-season) this year or last year to warrent serious consideration as a starter?
Possible answers:
1 – he never was starter material, and never will be
2 – Hass outplayed him last year
3 – CW outplayed Hass in practice, but PC felt more comfortable starting the veteran
4 – CW didn’t impress PC enough last year or the first week in camp to keep him from naming TJax the starter
5 – CW did impress PC in camp but PC felt that TJax familiarity with Bevel’s offense trumped CW’s near-term goodness
6 – CW’s just not that good of an NFL QB
I don’t know what it is, really.
I am one of those Seahawk fans that wanted to see far more of CW last year then we did.
And I am in the same boat this year, at least so far.
Some of us have felt that CW needs to start several meaningful games in a row to see how he develops, or doesn’t.
Watching him play Thursday seemed to confirm his ability to improve. He is much better then when he played pre-season games for San Diego.
The jury seems to still be out on the guy, even though he shows flashes of excellence. Can he ever become a good NFL starting QB? Nobody knows.
with regards to last year
This was Hasselbeck’s team, he had the support of his teammates and carried himself like a leader which is why he got the job. Charlie needs to act more like a leader and that couldn’t really happen with Hasselbeck on the roster.
With TJax he does have a chance to start, he just needs to learn the offense and TJax needs to struggle a little.
by Billy Showbiz on Aug 19, 2011 1:40 PM PDT up reply actions
So CW gets the chance to improve
But TJax “is what he is”. The only year TJ got those “several meaningful games in a row” he took his team to the playoffs. TJ has far more natural physical ability than CW, this is a fairly accepted conclusion and why TJ was a starter and CW couldnt beat out Billy Volek. The missing aspect for both players seems to be some part of the “mental game” which is something that should be learned with experience. So why be so down on the guy who is generally accepted to have more natural ability. I don’t whole-heartedly believe in either guy but I’m giving the benefit of the doubt to the coaches and trust that the better QB will be starting.
by CMoney87 on Aug 19, 2011 2:32 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I think part of the answer is that TJax has started literarly 10 times more games then CW.
That is a sizable difference. TJax has had plenty of opportunity to develop – more then an entire season as a starter, and CW not.
If memory serves, though, they are both batting .500.
TJ didn't have just one season where he was the annointed starter, he had two
If you’re going to mention wins, you should mention the 5 strung together wins from W11 2007 rather than W8 2008. On five starts in 2008, he went 2-3. He didn’t take his team to the playoffs and strung together more games in 2007. So that’s wrong.
The second wrong thing is saying TJ has “far more natural physical ability” than CW. Where are you getting that from? They both have good arms and athleticism. TJ has the slight edge in both, but not by a significant margin.
Formerly Known As Vasilii
by Thomas Beekers on Aug 19, 2011 4:03 PM PDT up reply actions
PC's actions (as opposed to his words) have never seemed very supportive of CW.
Is that because CW was a JS guy from the beginning?
Or perhaps PC has always seen CW as his number 2, while he continued to search for his starter.
I think PC always saw CW as a potential guy
Kind of like our Colt McCoy. A guy who looked like he might put it together but wasn’t worth guaranteed starter type compensation or high draft choices. If he puts it all together and becomes what he has the potential to be than it was worth the 3rd rounder. Add in the fact that sitting on SDs bench for 3 years should have taught him the “situational football” aspect of the NFL game and hopefully corrected any technique problems he had coming into the league and that was worth the downgrade of our 2nd. If he doesnt put it together there isnt the same pressure to tie your franchise to him that you get by drafting a guy in the first where you sink or swim with that guy.
by CMoney87 on Aug 19, 2011 2:40 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Yeah, I don't know about the Stanback play...
…watching it, I was thinking “that’s not an easy pass to catch, but Isiah if you caught that it really would have helped your case to not get cut.” It wasn’t a particularly well-thrown ball – Stanback had to slow down to catch it and then had to gyrate around a bit to get to a point where he could put his hands on it – but in a sense, sure it was thrown well enough. The underthrowing of the ball also allowed the CB to stay in the area. I couldn’t help but think that if the Chargers had a first teamer out there, he might have been able to just swat the ball away and make Stanback’s non-catch a moot point.
I think you are right on both counts...
…in that a top CB makes some kind of play on the ball, or a good WR gets himself in position to make the reception.
Either way, it would have taken a good play to make a play, offensively or defensively.
Both Rice and BMW make that catch.
And from what I’ve seen, Baldwin too. Rice’s noodly appendages reach over any CB and snag the ball.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
He seemed much more polished than even the lambs game.
I thought it was a brilliant series of moves to bring in Pro Bowlers from the systems that Bevell and Cable run. Jackson was an excellent pickup not just for his familiarity with the offense, but Charlie has a very similar game to his as far as strengths and weaknesses are concerned, so there will be no frantic adjustments on the fly in case of injury as there was last year.
Both QBs have better wheels and a better arm than The Bald Bomber did the last several years, and a young, retooling team desperately needs those abilities from their QB.
I thought he looked less tentative, more confident. But that probably had to do with the game plan, and what was expected of him...
…whereas in pre-season he can open up quite a bit.
Danny writes:
“Tarvaris Jackson is the Seahawks Week One starter and that’s final. Personally, I’m fine with this. Even if Jackson has a bad preseason…”
Respectfully disagree. If CW decisively outplays TJax in the pre-season, CW should be the regular season starting QB.
If it’s close, then sure, go with TJax, but if not, the better player should start, based on performance.
One of the things (perhaps the principle reasons) that we like professional sports (or any sports, I suppose) is that the results aren't based on anyone's opinion.
What matters is what happens on the field. Who makes the better plays. Who scores the most points. Who wins the most games, or the most important games.
If games were decided by polls, or by the experts...
…Seattle would have been crushed by the Saints.
Start Portis!
I agree with what you’re saying, but keep in mind that the quality of competition in a preseason game is entirely different.
The better player should start. But better performance in preseason does not equal better player. The assesment of ‘better player’ necessarily requires a lot of subjectivity.
by Snuffleupagus on Aug 19, 2011 4:48 PM PDT up reply actions
There's Charlie Whitehurst hype?
Seems like just last week he was bound for the chopping block. I don’t understand the title of the post whatsoever.
2011: Building the Trenches.
Ok.
Some people think because Jackson didn’t appear to play well on Thursday that now Charlie should be the starter or there should be an open competition. Danny ONeil talks about it here.
Jim Moore (ESPN guy) makes his claim here.
Pete Carroll explains, amid many questions from reporters about the quarterback competition, why he’s sticking with Jackson, here.
Proactive-like-Nonstop
FIELDGULLS
There were some rumors going around a couple of weeks ago that Charlie was going to be cut
I don’t know how much there was too them.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Aug 19, 2011 2:28 PM PDT up reply actions
That's really interesting - I don't remember seeing those, but maybe they were related to signing Leinart...
…with the idea that CW was the odd QB out if they had both Leinart and TJax.
Also - just to be clear-
The “hype” im referring to comes directly from the Charger game. And I’m not endorsing the hype, just pointing out why it’s there. (maybe that’s indirectly endorsing it.. but either way it’s directly related to how he and Jackson played on Thursday)
Proactive-like-Nonstop
FIELDGULLS
I think the hype is justified.
If the pattern continues, the hype will go into hyper-drive.
On the other hand, if TJax comes out smokin’ hot on Saturday, and CW struggles, we’ll all be back to where we started.
Portis is gonna be a hot quarterback.
In 2014.
As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly.
by Bisquick McBob on Aug 25, 2011 4:44 PM PDT up reply actions
Ah, okay.
Sounds like hype from within the FG community or Seattle fan-base, which I can understand. I, for one, am fully aboard the competition angle and also think CW looks fairly good – thus far – in comparison to Tarvaris. Obviously, it’s far too early with too little time with the team to bail completely on Tarvaris. Early impressions certainly favor Whitehurst. Far from conclusive.
2011: Building the Trenches.
I think it was just Doug Farrar pushing that
Was anyone taking it seriously?
Formerly Known As Vasilii
by Thomas Beekers on Aug 19, 2011 4:04 PM PDT up reply actions
I think I saw a couple of people bounce the idea around, but it was mostly Doug
(who has some access to the team in a media capacity). After poo-pooing all of John Clayton’s pre-FA rumors (and then watching them all turn out), I’ve been a little less skeptical.
We don’t have so much invested in Charlie that it would kill us to cut him, but he’s not costing us so much that we’d need to cut him. The ~$8M we’re spending on the QB position this year is relatively cheap. Charlie’s probably got as good of an upside as TJ and we’ll probably need to play at least 2 starting QBs this year, given our young OL.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Aug 19, 2011 4:35 PM PDT up reply actions
Yes
Barring a surprise late addition, Charlie’s spot is pretty secure
Formerly Known As Vasilii
by Thomas Beekers on Aug 19, 2011 6:28 PM PDT up reply actions
5 freaking passes and a couple of ugly dropbacks do not a failure make
It’s like player development by Jolly Time microwave popcorn. I can think of a few current stars who took multiple seasons to develop, but not many seem to have that patience anymore.
Or maybe the fact that he is replacing a Seattle legend is the real problem. Half the fans are sitting around just ready to say, “Gawdammit! Hasselbeck wouldna done that!”
I’m not addressing anyone in particular, just bitching for the pure joy of it.
by Harvey Manfrengenson on Aug 19, 2011 2:16 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Lets keep our facts straight:
Nineteen total snaps. Eleven pass plays, 3 completions and 3 ugly sacks.
Of those completions, one went for 7 yards and a first down; another was an easy check down for 5 yards. And the third completion went for maybe 1 yard.
Just sayin’.
by Hawksince77 on Aug 19, 2011 2:53 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I can think of players who took 2-3 years
Tarvaris is entering his 6th season. No quarterback jumps to mind who broke out at that point.
And I don’t think anyone here, on FG, is bemoaning the loss of Hasselbeck to judge T-Jax.
Formerly Known As Vasilii
by Thomas Beekers on Aug 19, 2011 4:06 PM PDT up reply actions
I know he didn't start.
But didn’t Hasselbeck ‘break out’ around his 6th season in the NFL? He was drafted in 98, became a starter in 03, but I remember that he struggled for his first season as a starter. So if 04 was a ‘break out’ year for him, then that was six years after being drafted.
Obviously it’s different with Tarvaris.
by Snuffleupagus on Aug 19, 2011 4:52 PM PDT up reply actions
Steve Young comes to mind.
Also Doug Flutie. I’m not saying that it’s likely but it has happened before.
by Johnny Slick on Aug 19, 2011 5:14 PM PDT up reply actions
When exceptions exist to the rule you have to look at why tho
Flutie was a star in the CFL and never that good in the NFL.
Young is certainly an interesting case, but not really analogues to T-Jax’.
Formerly Known As Vasilii
by Thomas Beekers on Aug 19, 2011 6:31 PM PDT up reply actions
Okay, doing this entirely from memory...
…but didn’t Steve Young get signed to a huge contract with a new pro football league that didn’t take?
And after Tampa, didn’t he end up in SF with Montana – and didn’t his starting role get delayed by a couple of years as a result? In other words, wasn’t his break-out year artificially delayed as a result?
As Beekers says, very different circumstances, anyway.
Well yeah, of course.
My primary dog in that fight was the idea that there weren’t any QBs who flourished after languishing in the league for several years. I definitely agree that the odds are not in CJ’s favor. In the particular case of Steve Young, I want to say he was one of the last guys brought in by the USFL (I know Jim Kelly got a silly contract from the LA Express, for that matter) but even so, he sucked gigantic donkey balls in Tampa Bay and in all probability needed those couple years relearning the game behind Joe Montana in order to be a good player.
Speaking of Tampa Bay guys, actually, Vinny Testaverde’s a guy who went from zero to pretty darn decent in his late 20s. And if anything I think his pedigree is worse than CJ’s in that CJ has just not had the chance whereas Testaverde got the chance and was the David Carr of interceptions (David Carr being the David Carr of getting sacked).
I do have to say that I’m a lot more interested in how guys looked than their preseason numbers. Setting aside those two plays which should have been caught (or in the case of the Stanback pass, probably would have been knocked away), I thought Whitehurst looked solid in the pocket, I don’t think he had an attack of the happy feet the way, say, Hasselbeck did his first year and a half with Seattle, I thought he showed some poise and resiliency, and I’d like to see if he can continue doing that into the regular season. Of course, he’ll be TJ’s backup but hopefully with their skillsets so similar if he is called on in relief he’ll be more able to air it out than play within a vanilla system built neither for him nor the incumbent like last year.
by Johnny Slick on Aug 19, 2011 9:57 PM PDT up reply actions
603 pass attempts in 5 seasons for Jackson
Sam Bradford threw almost that many passes last year. Basing his real game experience on his number of years in the league is misleading.
For Charlie and Jackson, a lack of real game snaps is the issue. They have probably thousands of practice reps, but half speed reps only establish memory, both muscle and mental. I expect lots of young quarterback mistakes from the two of them, because their number of real game pass attempts is barely more than a rookie in Jackson’s case, and far lower in Charlie’s.
by Harvey Manfrengenson on Aug 20, 2011 6:45 AM PDT up reply actions
Jackson has been around for what, 4 years?
(no I don’t care if I’m right or not)
And yet, with all of his experience, in a preseason game, he still threw off of his back foot twice?
How is that acceptable? How can that be overlooked? Jackson is nothing. He is here today, and gone tomorrow. Just like Whitehurst, Jackson does nothing to increase our odds of winning, but unlike Whitehurst, we know what Jackson will give us: frustration.
When a player is given all the confidence from his coaching staff, and still makes boneheaded plays, I do not accept that player still being on the starting lineup. Successful organizations do not put up with that bullshit. (but they do put up with rape and dogfighting blah blah blah)
You mean the way the Seahawks didn't put up with Matt Hasselbeck checking down on every freaking play for a year and a half?
Or wait, maybe Mike Homlgren’s an unsuccessful head coach. He has after all only led his team to 2 Super Bowls.
by Johnny Slick on Aug 20, 2011 9:13 AM PDT up reply actions
Totally agree with this...
He demonstrated an authoritativeness that you haven’t seen much yet, so that is an improvement in my book. You’d like to see Charlie, for lack of a better way of putting it, show some brass balls and leave it all out there, — and I thought he did that in the 3rd quarter, opponent skill level be damned.
Agreed, 100%. I told a friend as Whitehurst got in and started play off with some typical checkdowns that if the dude has any intention of being the team’s starting quarterback that he needs to just go balls to the wall and leave it all out there on the field. If he plays poorly, at least he went down with a fight. And I gotta say, the dude actually looked the part out there, albeit against weaker competition. I was impressed, and the pass to Byrd was a great pass for sure. He looked good but I’m anxious to see how Jackson performs with more practice, some starting receivers, and a full half of play. Should be interesting.
Oh, and despite the fact that he didn’t make the catch, I thought that was a great effort from Stanback. Would have been a sick catch but he just couldn’t reel it in. I like Stanback but I think he’s just going to be a victim of the numbers game at receiver. It’s too bad for him, but he should definitely be able to stick on a lesser-stacked roster.
Thank you Marshawn Lynch... I now yell "Beast Mode" when fighting my way through NYC's subways!
by NYSeaCoug on Aug 19, 2011 2:22 PM PDT reply actions 2 recs
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
- Former high-school star Brian Banks does serious time on trumped-up charge, now hopes for an NFL shot
- Former ‘idiot kicker’ Mike Vanderjagt in trouble after accosting junior-high heckler
- Adrian Peterson blows teammates away in footraces; appears to be on the mend
- UPDATE: Charlie Sheen didn’t buy Lawrence Taylor’s Super Bowl ring
- Alex Smith gets blown up by Jon Beason over Cam Newton comments
