clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

Your Questions Answered: The Field Gulls Mailbag

Getty Images

The Field Gulls Mailbag is a new feature where you, the reader, can submit your questions about anything and everything Seahawks. To submit a question for the next edition of the "Mailbag" send it to

Happy Saturday 12's! 15 days until games count - and it can't come soon enough! Great questions this week, I wish I could answer all of them. Here we go:

-- "BR" from Parts Unknown (old school WWF reference FTW) writes: A lot of the preseason ink has been spent on the DBs of this team. I have a hard time seeing through it all and understanding if it is because we amassed a lot of young talent there or if there aren't any guys who step forward from the lot and show starting qualities. What's your take on it?

Scott: Good question BR. You basically described two different scenarios, A) the group is deep and there is healthy competition going on, or B) the organization is just throwing a bunch of stuff at a wall and hoping something sticks. I am inclined to go with option A.

The established guys like Marcus Trufant and Earl Thomas, and even Kam Chancellor, aren't the ones the "ink is being spent on" as you put it. Instead, it would seem that the conversation is surrounding the remaining CB spot, and then the rest of the depth chart. I am of the belief that it is clear Kelly Jennings is not the answer at corner, not only because of his on the field play, but also because he doesn't have the physical traits Carroll likes in his corners. 

Walter Thurmond is a guy who Carroll gushes about, but because of injury, we haven't gotten to see much from him. He is expected to play this week's preseason game against Denver, and hopefully that will begin to clarify the situation in the defensive backfield. Brandon Browner has made a strong impression this preseason, and in my opinion has demonstrated the ability to possibly compete for a starting position. Josh Pinkard adds depth at both the safety and CB position, and the signing of Atari Bigby added depth as well. This isn't to say there won't being growing pains with such a young secondary, but it would appear that there is a deeper group of capable talent in Seattle than there has been in some time.

-- A nameless soul, also from Parts Unknown writes: The Tim TebowKyle Orton, and Brady Quinn thing has gotten out of hand. If you were in charge of Seattle would you give the Broncos a 4th (or lower) for Brady Quinn?  I honestly can't figure out why he is the QB that's written off, while the unconventional, and unproven Tebow, has so much support. I read a fan post comparing Tebow's first three games with other established QB's like M. Ryan, P. Manning, and T. Brady. Tebow's numbers were better so he obviously will be a better QB, was the assumption given. 

Scott: Without diving to much into Denver's situation, no I wouldn't give them anything for Brady Quinn. One, because he's not on the market, and two, because he hasn't shown anything to make me believe he is a more competent backup than Charlie Whitehurst. I realize at one point Quinn was a starter in this league, but I don't see the value in Seattle giving up anything for him. I could, in theory, see them giving up a 4th for Tebow - but let's be clear - I don't think that will happen, and if it did, it would be as a backup role, not the QBOTF. 

-- Brian from Convington Wash. writes: I remember when Golden Tate was drafted, there was talk of him being a "body catcher", and would have to adjust to catching with his hands. He also struggled with learning routes in his rookie season. Are his current difficulties related to either of these issues, or are there other things on tape that indicate he may not be NFL material? I'd love to see the Hawks tap into his athleticism in a Harvin-esque fashion.

Scott: Brian, you and everyone else would love anything Harvin-esque to take the field for the Seahawks come September 11th! Tate has been one of the most frustrating players to watch, in my opinion. He's a kid who was drafted high, with strong athletic ability, and relatively raw talent. He came to Notre Dame as a running back out of HS, and on top of that, left school early. In other words, he just isn't experienced enough at the position to completely write-off just yet.

I was listening to an analyst the other day talk about how Tate's route running habits formed because in college, Jimmy Clausen was such a bad QB that Tate would often have to adjust his route. I don't know how much water that theory holds, but it certainly is plausible. It's too early to call Tate a "bust", but I do think that he will need to show a lot more than he has shown if he's going to have any kind of future in Seattle.

-- Matt from Salt Lake City, Utah writes: I was wondering if there was any chance Charlie would get reps with the ones this preseason since he's seemingly played so well? 

Scott: Matt, Carroll is on record saying that Whitehurst won't get reps with the first team offense this preseason. With an abbreviated offseason and so little time to get ready for the first game, Carroll feels that it's counterproductive to give reps to Charlie, when Tarvaris Jackson has already been named the starter. In terms of how well Charlie has played I feel it's important to remind you, and everyone, that the plays Charlie is being asked to run (and the defenses he is running them against) differ greatly from that of Jackson. Additionally, there is no question the quarterback position is so polarizing, but take a step back and apply the logic you're suggesting to another position group. In fact, Hawk Blogger has already done that for you here.

Thanks everyone for your questions. We check daily, so always feel free to send inquiries as they come up, you never know, it might just make the next Field Gulls Mailbag!