Whitehurst - Traded to Seattle (2 Viewers)

[Carter_Can_Fly]

I cannot imagine how much time a professional scout spends breaking down film. Believe me, I don't envy them at all. I take no offense, breaking down games is something I do for fun.

Just find it funny when people use the argument "Oh, I see, we should all listen to an internet poster over a scout/gm/owner . . . etc." Ridiculous. If you want to say that Charlie Whitehurst will be good.

Great, add something substantive regarding him that makes you see that. Same if you think he will be bad. Using the "well, he must be good if 2 teams were competing for him" or "He must be bad because he was a backup" just doesn't do it for me.

It's a hobby, hence - amateur. Like Balco, who posts some GREAT threads that get little attention on this forum breaking down college tape I like watching players develop and make notes throughout the process - watching games (live and recorded) and following off field progress (in-season and offseason). I watch more than most football fans, and do so for somewhat different reasons (being a fan of lousy teams helps), but not as much as guys who do it for a living. I'm wrong about some (like anyone), but I'm right more than I'm wrong. I also keep an open mind, if something I didn't know about the player gets brought to the table I may change my mind. Two days later and...nothing...a lot of people were easily hooked though...shocking.Whitehurst hasn't shown anything outside of San Diego's coaching staff he may be any different than when he came out of school - an NFL arm with no head. Trade a future 3rd for him? Ok, maybe, I don't agree but that's the sort of trade you make for a backup. Trade down 20 spots in the 2nd and give him $10 mil? That's just silly.

Let me get this straight. You only have televised games to use for your "game tape" and you find it suprising you cant find anything to analyze Whitehurst with. Do you think NFL teams(professional scouts) are only using CBS's coverage for their game tape?

This is where I agree with Go deep.I think it is great that a number of guys on here watch and watch games, make notes, evaluate if a players seems to have skills that will translate to the net level- etc. People can spend their free time however they want, and if this is where their interests lie, then great. It often leads to good discussion. However, when people refer to watching youtube highlights and watching DVR'ed games as "Breaking down the tape", I snicker. Even Waldman (and I have payed money for years for his opinions and insights), doesn't break down tape- he analyzes tv coverage in an effort to look for (his own) systemized indicators of success. Tape refers to coaches tape which few have (Lammey has on occasion). Even then, we do not know what the players we coached to read or react to. When posters refer to breaking down the tape, it generally makes them sound like they are trying way too hard to sound intelligent/informed.

I don't break down tape very often if at all, but I am sure people with the resources that the average football fan has access to with on line stuff and through game film you can still break it down to get QB tendancies. "Analyzing TV coverage" as you put it is still quite relevant to see success rates of 3, 5 and 7 step drop backs, throwing percentages left vs right, accuracy of short/intermitade/long throws, throwing with pressure in face, success of throwing off of a boot leg or play action, ability to step into throws, pocket presence etc etc. Sure you may be missing some of the other stuff that may take it to the next level but there is plenty out there to formulate some pretty good/strong opinions.

 

[Mr. Bojangles]

And this:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writ...ings/index.html

What this tells me is teams interested in Tebow don't want the other teams interested in Tebow to know how interested they are. If, for instance, the Seahawks want to add Tebow to the Matt Hasselbeck/Charlie Whitehurst stable and they hold the 60th overall pick in Round 2 (which I now think will be too low for Tebow), they don't want to telegraph their interest in case they plan to try to move into the 40s to get him. With New England having three picks in the second round (44, 47, 53), the Patriots could be in prime position to take Tebow and groom him as either a long-term replacement for Tom Brady (I don't buy that, with Brady wanting to play eight more years) or as a durable, versatile offensive weapon who could play multiple positions.

The Seahawks can't be seriously considering moving up to grab Tebow after trading for Whitehurst, are they?

It makes perfect sense for the Hawks to have interest in Tebow; it doesn't make sense for them to trade back into the 40s (where they were in the first place) to get his services. Realistically, I doubt Hass makes it through 2010 with Hawks (injury/trade?) and I feel pretty strongly that he will not be with the team in 2011. You need a backup so why not let Tebow learn a for a few years while Whitehurst shows whether or not he is a legit QB?

 

[Sabertooth]

If he's such a bright prospect, San Diego sure had a funny way of showcasing the lifetime third-stringer, sticking him behind a lower-tier backup, Billy Volek, and never letting him see the field in four NFL seasons except to hand off in two mop-up games.

Volek is a lower tier backup? Lots of NFL teams are giving their 3rd string QBs meaningful snaps while their starter is still healthy?I can't believe the polarization around Whitehurst which is leading to some pretty stupid comments like these from King.

This. Also, you can tell the Shark Pool is smelling blood in the water. This trade will be an afterthought come August. What you've got here is the true fans of football debating a 3rd stringer who is no spring chicken. And the fighting is vehement. I love it. These are the types of threads the give me hope as we wade through the thinly veiled WDIS threads in October. to everyone contributing. Even if we have no clue what will happen after the draft.

 

[Marauder]

I cannot imagine how much time a professional scout spends breaking down film. Believe me, I don't envy them at all. I take no offense, breaking down games is something I do for fun.

Just find it funny when people use the argument "Oh, I see, we should all listen to an internet poster over a scout/gm/owner . . . etc." Ridiculous. If you want to say that Charlie Whitehurst will be good.

Great, add something substantive regarding him that makes you see that. Same if you think he will be bad. Using the "well, he must be good if 2 teams were competing for him" or "He must be bad because he was a backup" just doesn't do it for me.

It's a hobby, hence - amateur. Like Balco, who posts some GREAT threads that get little attention on this forum breaking down college tape I like watching players develop and make notes throughout the process - watching games (live and recorded) and following off field progress (in-season and offseason). I watch more than most football fans, and do so for somewhat different reasons (being a fan of lousy teams helps), but not as much as guys who do it for a living. I'm wrong about some (like anyone), but I'm right more than I'm wrong. I also keep an open mind, if something I didn't know about the player gets brought to the table I may change my mind. Two days later and...nothing...a lot of people were easily hooked though...shocking.Whitehurst hasn't shown anything outside of San Diego's coaching staff he may be any different than when he came out of school - an NFL arm with no head. Trade a future 3rd for him? Ok, maybe, I don't agree but that's the sort of trade you make for a backup. Trade down 20 spots in the 2nd and give him $10 mil? That's just silly.

Let me get this straight. You only have televised games to use for your "game tape" and you find it suprising you cant find anything to analyze Whitehurst with. Do you think NFL teams(professional scouts) are only using CBS's coverage for their game tape?

This is where I agree with Go deep.I think it is great that a number of guys on here watch and watch games, make notes, evaluate if a players seems to have skills that will translate to the net level- etc. People can spend their free time however they want, and if this is where their interests lie, then great. It often leads to good discussion. However, when people refer to watching youtube highlights and watching DVR'ed games as "Breaking down the tape", I snicker. Even Waldman (and I have payed money for years for his opinions and insights), doesn't break down tape- he analyzes tv coverage in an effort to look for (his own) systemized indicators of success. Tape refers to coaches tape which few have (Lammey has on occasion). Even then, we do not know what the players we coached to read or react to. When posters refer to breaking down the tape, it generally makes them sound like they are trying way too hard to sound intelligent/informed.

I don't break down tape very often if at all, but I am sure people with the resources that the average football fan has access to with on line stuff and through game film you can still break it down to get QB tendancies. "Analyzing TV coverage" as you put it is still quite relevant to see success rates of 3, 5 and 7 step drop backs, throwing percentages left vs right, accuracy of short/intermitade/long throws, throwing with pressure in face, success of throwing off of a boot leg or play action, ability to step into throws, pocket presence etc etc. Sure you may be missing some of the other stuff that may take it to the next level but there is plenty out there to formulate some pretty good/strong opinions.

Certainly the TV coverage has value but without seeing all 22 players at the same time, which you only get these from the high 50 yard line shot or the end zone camera, you are missing a lot.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I cannot imagine how much time a professional scout spends breaking down film. Believe me, I don't envy them at all. I take no offense, breaking down games is something I do for fun.

Just find it funny when people use the argument "Oh, I see, we should all listen to an internet poster over a scout/gm/owner . . . etc." Ridiculous. If you want to say that Charlie Whitehurst will be good.

Great, add something substantive regarding him that makes you see that. Same if you think he will be bad. Using the "well, he must be good if 2 teams were competing for him" or "He must be bad because he was a backup" just doesn't do it for me.

It's a hobby, hence - amateur. Like Balco, who posts some GREAT threads that get little attention on this forum breaking down college tape I like watching players develop and make notes throughout the process - watching games (live and recorded) and following off field progress (in-season and offseason). I watch more than most football fans, and do so for somewhat different reasons (being a fan of lousy teams helps), but not as much as guys who do it for a living. I'm wrong about some (like anyone), but I'm right more than I'm wrong. I also keep an open mind, if something I didn't know about the player gets brought to the table I may change my mind. Two days later and...nothing...a lot of people were easily hooked though...shocking.Whitehurst hasn't shown anything outside of San Diego's coaching staff he may be any different than when he came out of school - an NFL arm with no head. Trade a future 3rd for him? Ok, maybe, I don't agree but that's the sort of trade you make for a backup. Trade down 20 spots in the 2nd and give him $10 mil? That's just silly.

Let me get this straight. You only have televised games to use for your "game tape" and you find it suprising you cant find anything to analyze Whitehurst with. Do you think NFL teams(professional scouts) are only using CBS's coverage for their game tape?

This is where I agree with Go deep.I think it is great that a number of guys on here watch and watch games, make notes, evaluate if a players seems to have skills that will translate to the net level- etc. People can spend their free time however they want, and if this is where their interests lie, then great. It often leads to good discussion. However, when people refer to watching youtube highlights and watching DVR'ed games as "Breaking down the tape", I snicker. Even Waldman (and I have payed money for years for his opinions and insights), doesn't break down tape- he analyzes tv coverage in an effort to look for (his own) systemized indicators of success. Tape refers to coaches tape which few have (Lammey has on occasion). Even then, we do not know what the players we coached to read or react to. When posters refer to breaking down the tape, it generally makes them sound like they are trying way too hard to sound intelligent/informed.

Yeah, that's why I didn't continue my Breaking Down the Tape feature over at Draftguys last season. I was worried that some guy on the internet might think I was trying too hard to sound smart.

 

[rabidfireweasel]

I cannot imagine how much time a professional scout spends breaking down film. Believe me, I don't envy them at all. I take no offense, breaking down games is something I do for fun.

Just find it funny when people use the argument "Oh, I see, we should all listen to an internet poster over a scout/gm/owner . . . etc." Ridiculous. If you want to say that Charlie Whitehurst will be good.

Great, add something substantive regarding him that makes you see that. Same if you think he will be bad. Using the "well, he must be good if 2 teams were competing for him" or "He must be bad because he was a backup" just doesn't do it for me.

It's a hobby, hence - amateur. Like Balco, who posts some GREAT threads that get little attention on this forum breaking down college tape I like watching players develop and make notes throughout the process - watching games (live and recorded) and following off field progress (in-season and offseason). I watch more than most football fans, and do so for somewhat different reasons (being a fan of lousy teams helps), but not as much as guys who do it for a living. I'm wrong about some (like anyone), but I'm right more than I'm wrong. I also keep an open mind, if something I didn't know about the player gets brought to the table I may change my mind. Two days later and...nothing...a lot of people were easily hooked though...shocking.Whitehurst hasn't shown anything outside of San Diego's coaching staff he may be any different than when he came out of school - an NFL arm with no head. Trade a future 3rd for him? Ok, maybe, I don't agree but that's the sort of trade you make for a backup. Trade down 20 spots in the 2nd and give him $10 mil? That's just silly.

Let me get this straight. You only have televised games to use for your "game tape" and you find it suprising you cant find anything to analyze Whitehurst with. Do you think NFL teams(professional scouts) are only using CBS's coverage for their game tape?

This is where I agree with Go deep.I think it is great that a number of guys on here watch and watch games, make notes, evaluate if a players seems to have skills that will translate to the net level- etc. People can spend their free time however they want, and if this is where their interests lie, then great. It often leads to good discussion. However, when people refer to watching youtube highlights and watching DVR'ed games as "Breaking down the tape", I snicker. Even Waldman (and I have payed money for years for his opinions and insights), doesn't break down tape- he analyzes tv coverage in an effort to look for (his own) systemized indicators of success. Tape refers to coaches tape which few have (Lammey has on occasion). Even then, we do not know what the players we coached to read or react to. When posters refer to breaking down the tape, it generally makes them sound like they are trying way too hard to sound intelligent/informed.

Yeah, that's why I didn't continue my Breaking Down the Tape feature over at Draftguys last season. I was worried that some guy on the internet might think I was trying too hard to sound smart.

I thought what you did over there was excellent- I would just prefer a different name- "play by play analysis" or something like that. What you did had great value- looking at each play, as best you good, given the resources- and trying to find things that would translate to the next level.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Thanks. I was trying to be a bit cheeky with that response, but that was what I intended. Looking at each play to see all the different aspects of the RB. What I found is that the discussion was a lot better if it was a YouTube clip that everyone could watch than a full game that I had on DVR, which I understand. Too bad full games aren't easily found on the internet.

Regarding the name, I agree with your point. Breaking down the tape was more in response to someone else using the term in a ridiculous way, maybe that Maroney=Speed guy? Can't remember to be honest. But you're right, if we all had coaches tape it would be easier.

 

[rabidfireweasel]

I cannot imagine how much time a professional scout spends breaking down film. Believe me, I don't envy them at all. I take no offense, breaking down games is something I do for fun.

Just find it funny when people use the argument "Oh, I see, we should all listen to an internet poster over a scout/gm/owner . . . etc." Ridiculous. If you want to say that Charlie Whitehurst will be good.

Great, add something substantive regarding him that makes you see that. Same if you think he will be bad. Using the "well, he must be good if 2 teams were competing for him" or "He must be bad because he was a backup" just doesn't do it for me.

It's a hobby, hence - amateur. Like Balco, who posts some GREAT threads that get little attention on this forum breaking down college tape I like watching players develop and make notes throughout the process - watching games (live and recorded) and following off field progress (in-season and offseason). I watch more than most football fans, and do so for somewhat different reasons (being a fan of lousy teams helps), but not as much as guys who do it for a living. I'm wrong about some (like anyone), but I'm right more than I'm wrong. I also keep an open mind, if something I didn't know about the player gets brought to the table I may change my mind. Two days later and...nothing...a lot of people were easily hooked though...shocking.Whitehurst hasn't shown anything outside of San Diego's coaching staff he may be any different than when he came out of school - an NFL arm with no head. Trade a future 3rd for him? Ok, maybe, I don't agree but that's the sort of trade you make for a backup. Trade down 20 spots in the 2nd and give him $10 mil? That's just silly.

Let me get this straight. You only have televised games to use for your "game tape" and you find it suprising you cant find anything to analyze Whitehurst with. Do you think NFL teams(professional scouts) are only using CBS's coverage for their game tape?

This is where I agree with Go deep.I think it is great that a number of guys on here watch and watch games, make notes, evaluate if a players seems to have skills that will translate to the net level- etc. People can spend their free time however they want, and if this is where their interests lie, then great. It often leads to good discussion. However, when people refer to watching youtube highlights and watching DVR'ed games as "Breaking down the tape", I snicker. Even Waldman (and I have payed money for years for his opinions and insights), doesn't break down tape- he analyzes tv coverage in an effort to look for (his own) systemized indicators of success. Tape refers to coaches tape which few have (Lammey has on occasion). Even then, we do not know what the players we coached to read or react to. When posters refer to breaking down the tape, it generally makes them sound like they are trying way too hard to sound intelligent/informed.

I don't break down tape very often if at all, but I am sure people with the resources that the average football fan has access to with on line stuff and through game film you can still break it down to get QB tendancies. "Analyzing TV coverage" as you put it is still quite relevant to see success rates of 3, 5 and 7 step drop backs, throwing percentages left vs right, accuracy of short/intermitade/long throws, throwing with pressure in face, success of throwing off of a boot leg or play action, ability to step into throws, pocket presence etc etc. Sure you may be missing some of the other stuff that may take it to the next level but there is plenty out there to formulate some pretty good/strong opinions.

We will just agree to disagree. Certainly you can see enough on TV to form a reasonable opinion on a player. We know if a QB will step into a pass when there is pressure, if he makes plays in difficult situations, if he can bounce back from a bad half or a bad game. However, without the all 22 tape, you can't tell why a 3 step drop succeeded or failed (wr didn't beat jam, get into the right spot, inaccurate throw), you don't know what the coach wants the player to do in order of progressions, you don't know if the offensive line is giving something away in regards to play action. There is simply so much we don't know. Prospect talk is filled with overused hyperbole inserted into some bizarre agreed upon format (it seems like an absurd amount players have "tremendous short area quicks", "great bubble" or "can really drive the ball into small windows on 20 yard outs).We can be informed fans that are basing our opinions on visual and statistical information- and some here do it much better than others. In my opinion, most people, in an effort to sound like an expert, really just sound similar to guys who call in to talk radio shows- uptight whte guys who feel slighted that the world is listening to their brilliance. I prefer guys who just talk about what they see and why they think it will or won't translate.

 

[rabidfireweasel]

What I found is that the discussion was a lot better if it was a YouTube clip that everyone could watch than a full game that I had on DVR, which I understand. Too bad full games aren't easily found on the internet.

See, that is a completely different conversation. You weren't trying to sound smart in your analysis (although it was usually accurate and insightful). You were trying to create a format that allowed for meaningful discussion- so that we could all, look, talk, reflect, listen, disagree and come up with a more informed opinion about the player. That is what makes a discussion board great- when people have opinions that can be changed because of thoughtful responses and explanations that might have been missed initially. Although we often disagreed, I thought that it was some of the best work on the boards.ps_Yes it was Maroney=Speed that made his own breaking down the tape thread.

 

[got_nugs]

Am I a pro Whitehurst guy? I guess because I like his chances better than any of the QB in FA that were available and I like his chances out of the gate over Bradford or Clausen, especially when you factor in that it will take a top 6 pick to land either of those guys and a HUGE signing bonus, I guess I am pro Whitehurst.

Such thinking is why many feel so sorry for SEA fans. Nothing like hitching your future to a guy who is the lesser of all evils.

Isn't this the pot and the kettle, Super Bowl-speaking wise?

 

[ConstruxBoy]

What I found is that the discussion was a lot better if it was a YouTube clip that everyone could watch than a full game that I had on DVR, which I understand. Too bad full games aren't easily found on the internet.

See, that is a completely different conversation. You weren't trying to sound smart in your analysis (although it was usually accurate and insightful). You were trying to create a format that allowed for meaningful discussion- so that we could all, look, talk, reflect, listen, disagree and come up with a more informed opinion about the player. That is what makes a discussion board great- when people have opinions that can be changed because of thoughtful responses and explanations that might have been missed initially. Although we often disagreed, I thought that it was some of the best work on the boards.ps_Yes it was Maroney=Speed that made his own breaking down the tape thread.

Thanks. I think it worked pretty well, I just truthfully ran out of time the last couple of years with two young kids. Of course, maybe that's why I like Spiller better than Mathews: haven't broken down the tape.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Prospect talk is filled with overused hyperbole inserted into some bizarre agreed upon format (it seems like an absurd amount players have "tremendous short area quicks", "great bubble" or "can really drive the ball into small windows on 20 yard outs).

Buchsbaum-speak. People couldn't copy the quality of his content, so they copied his style instead. That style started to spread and became self-perpetuating.

 

[Sebowski]

Jim Mora Jr.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/...ds-on-seahawks/

Regarding the recent trade for a new quarterback, Mora said, "I had no idea who Charlie Whitehurst was until there was talk about him, I'd never heard of the guy. . . . I have some friends on the San Diego staff, and they're feeling pretty darn good about the deal."

 

[IHEARTFF]

Jim Mora Jr.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/...ds-on-seahawks/

Regarding the recent trade for a new quarterback, Mora said, "I had no idea who Charlie Whitehurst was until there was talk about him, I'd never heard of the guy. . . . I have some friends on the San Diego staff, and they're feeling pretty darn good about the deal."

Perhaps that's one reason he no longer has a head coaching job.or

Bitter Bill lashing out at the organization that fired him.

 

[Marauder]

Jim Mora Jr.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/...ds-on-seahawks/

Regarding the recent trade for a new quarterback, Mora said, "I had no idea who Charlie Whitehurst was until there was talk about him, I'd never heard of the guy. . . . I have some friends on the San Diego staff, and they're feeling pretty darn good about the deal."

I think this tells you more about Mora than it does about Whitehurst, especially when you consider the Chargers played Seattle in Pre-season every year Mora was there and Whitehurst was the leading passer in the game last year when Mora was Seattle's Head Coach. He didn't even know who his team was playing against?

 

[Faust]

And this:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writ...ings/index.html

What this tells me is teams interested in Tebow don't want the other teams interested in Tebow to know how interested they are. If, for instance, the Seahawks want to add Tebow to the Matt Hasselbeck/Charlie Whitehurst stable and they hold the 60th overall pick in Round 2 (which I now think will be too low for Tebow), they don't want to telegraph their interest in case they plan to try to move into the 40s to get him. With New England having three picks in the second round (44, 47, 53), the Patriots could be in prime position to take Tebow and groom him as either a long-term replacement for Tom Brady (I don't buy that, with Brady wanting to play eight more years) or as a durable, versatile offensive weapon who could play multiple positions.

The Seahawks can't be seriously considering moving up to grab Tebow after trading for Whitehurst, are they?

It makes perfect sense for the Hawks to have interest in Tebow; it doesn't make sense for them to trade back into the 40s (where they were in the first place) to get his services. Realistically, I doubt Hass makes it through 2010 with Hawks (injury/trade?) and I feel pretty strongly that he will not be with the team in 2011. You need a backup so why not let Tebow learn a for a few years while Whitehurst shows whether or not he is a legit QB?

That is what I said...the interest in Tebow is fine, but to trade back up to grab him is a little puzzling!

 

[cacksman]

Jim Mora Jr.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/...ds-on-seahawks/

Regarding the recent trade for a new quarterback, Mora said, "I had no idea who Charlie Whitehurst was until there was talk about him, I'd never heard of the guy. . . . I have some friends on the San Diego staff, and they're feeling pretty darn good about the deal."

I think this tells you more about Mora than it does about Whitehurst, especially when you consider the Chargers played Seattle in Pre-season every year Mora was there and Whitehurst was the leading passer in the game last year when Mora was Seattle's Head Coach. He didn't even know who his team was playing against?

Yup, Mora is an idiot.

 

[Sabertooth]

Jim Mora Jr.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/...ds-on-seahawks/

Regarding the recent trade for a new quarterback, Mora said, "I had no idea who Charlie Whitehurst was until there was talk about him, I'd never heard of the guy. . . . I have some friends on the San Diego staff, and they're feeling pretty darn good about the deal."

I think this tells you more about Mora than it does about Whitehurst, especially when you consider the Chargers played Seattle in Pre-season every year Mora was there and Whitehurst was the leading passer in the game last year when Mora was Seattle's Head Coach. He didn't even know who his team was playing against?

 

[LittlePhatty]

Charlie Whitehurst < Seneca Wallace

Charlie Whitehurst > Seneca Wallace

Charlie Whitehurst = Seneca Wallace

Can't call it. I'd roll a die.

 

[Christo]

Jim Mora Jr.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/...ds-on-seahawks/

Regarding the recent trade for a new quarterback, Mora said, "I had no idea who Charlie Whitehurst was until there was talk about him, I'd never heard of the guy. . . . I have some friends on the San Diego staff, and they're feeling pretty darn good about the deal."

I think that says a lot more about Mora than Whitehurst.

 

[G-Money]

Jim Mora Jr.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/...ds-on-seahawks/

Regarding the recent trade for a new quarterback, Mora said, "I had no idea who Charlie Whitehurst was until there was talk about him, I'd never heard of the guy. . . . I have some friends on the San Diego staff, and they're feeling pretty darn good about the deal."

I think that says a lot more about Mora than Whitehurst.

Agreed. Mora was the head coach of the Falcons in 2006 (when Whitehurst was drafted in the 3rd round by the Chargers). Mora had no idea who he was? Mora sounds like nothing more than a disgruntled ex-employee.

 

[got_nugs]

Jim Mora Jr.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/...ds-on-seahawks/

Regarding the recent trade for a new quarterback, Mora said, "I had no idea who Charlie Whitehurst was until there was talk about him, I'd never heard of the guy. . . . I have some friends on the San Diego staff, and they're feeling pretty darn good about the deal."

I think that says a lot more about Mora than Whitehurst.

Agreed. Mora was the head coach of the Falcons in 2006 (when Whitehurst was drafted in the 3rd round by the Chargers). Mora had no idea who he was? Mora sounds like nothing more than a disgruntled ex-employee.

Playoffs? Playoffs?

Family tree-in tact.

 

[Christo]

Jim Mora Jr.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/...ds-on-seahawks/

Regarding the recent trade for a new quarterback, Mora said, "I had no idea who Charlie Whitehurst was until there was talk about him, I'd never heard of the guy. . . . I have some friends on the San Diego staff, and they're feeling pretty darn good about the deal."

I think that says a lot more about Mora than Whitehurst.

Agreed. Mora was the head coach of the Falcons in 2006 (when Whitehurst was drafted in the 3rd round by the Chargers). Mora had no idea who he was? Mora sounds like nothing more than a disgruntled ex-employee.

Plus, even if SD is pleased with the deal, that doesn't mean it's not a good deal for Seattle. SD has Rivers & Volek. Whitehurst wasn't going to sniff playing time in the near future @ SD. Seattle had Hasselbeck & ??? He may start for Seattle at some time this season, whether it's because he beats out Hass or Hass gets injured.

 

[Gr00vus]

SDTribune Charger columnist waxing a little too giddy about this deal for my tastes.

In that we’re dealing with Seahawks, maybe it should be called a defeathering, but fleecing fits here. Because that’s just what it was. Every so often, Smith is capable of pulling the wool over somebody else’s eyes, and in this case, it was new Seattle boss Pete Carroll who came out of it worsted for wear.

Guaranteed, the deal that sent Chargers third-string quarterback Charlie Whitehurst to the Pacific Northwest has many football men who see San Diego as one of the NFL’s better teams — which it is — hoping the deal is fictitious. Which it is not....

Carroll wanted Whitehurst, and got his man, although, in this case, if Pete had a store he gave it away.

Way to gooch it Nick. Expect to see Whitehurst in the pro-bowl next year.

 

[Matt Waldman]

I cannot imagine how much time a professional scout spends breaking down film. Believe me, I don't envy them at all. I take no offense, breaking down games is something I do for fun.

Just find it funny when people use the argument "Oh, I see, we should all listen to an internet poster over a scout/gm/owner . . . etc." Ridiculous. If you want to say that Charlie Whitehurst will be good.

Great, add something substantive regarding him that makes you see that. Same if you think he will be bad. Using the "well, he must be good if 2 teams were competing for him" or "He must be bad because he was a backup" just doesn't do it for me.

It's a hobby, hence - amateur. Like Balco, who posts some GREAT threads that get little attention on this forum breaking down college tape I like watching players develop and make notes throughout the process - watching games (live and recorded) and following off field progress (in-season and offseason). I watch more than most football fans, and do so for somewhat different reasons (being a fan of lousy teams helps), but not as much as guys who do it for a living. I'm wrong about some (like anyone), but I'm right more than I'm wrong. I also keep an open mind, if something I didn't know about the player gets brought to the table I may change my mind. Two days later and...nothing...a lot of people were easily hooked though...shocking.Whitehurst hasn't shown anything outside of San Diego's coaching staff he may be any different than when he came out of school - an NFL arm with no head. Trade a future 3rd for him? Ok, maybe, I don't agree but that's the sort of trade you make for a backup. Trade down 20 spots in the 2nd and give him $10 mil? That's just silly.

Let me get this straight. You only have televised games to use for your "game tape" and you find it suprising you cant find anything to analyze Whitehurst with. Do you think NFL teams(professional scouts) are only using CBS's coverage for their game tape?

This is where I agree with Go deep.I think it is great that a number of guys on here watch and watch games, make notes, evaluate if a players seems to have skills that will translate to the net level- etc. People can spend their free time however they want, and if this is where their interests lie, then great. It often leads to good discussion. However, when people refer to watching youtube highlights and watching DVR'ed games as "Breaking down the tape", I snicker. Even Waldman (and I have payed money for years for his opinions and insights), doesn't break down tape- he analyzes tv coverage in an effort to look for (his own) systemized indicators of success. Tape refers to coaches tape which few have (Lammey has on occasion). Even then, we do not know what the players we coached to read or react to. When posters refer to breaking down the tape, it generally makes them sound like they are trying way too hard to sound intelligent/informed.

I don't break down tape very often if at all, but I am sure people with the resources that the average football fan has access to with on line stuff and through game film you can still break it down to get QB tendancies. "Analyzing TV coverage" as you put it is still quite relevant to see success rates of 3, 5 and 7 step drop backs, throwing percentages left vs right, accuracy of short/intermitade/long throws, throwing with pressure in face, success of throwing off of a boot leg or play action, ability to step into throws, pocket presence etc etc. Sure you may be missing some of the other stuff that may take it to the next level but there is plenty out there to formulate some pretty good/strong opinions.

The one thing that (to be as accurate as possible about what it's called) "coaches tape" allows you to see when studying player performance is the entire field at once. The positions where this is really most beneficial are QB, WR, TE, LB, and the DB spots because you can see how the QB is reading and reacting to the secondary and vice versa. You can also see with greater consistency how receivers run their routes, block downfield, etc. The nice thing about TV broadcasts is that they tend to focus on pivotal plays with shots that either take the coaches tape angle, or better yet - a close up on specific players. This is something coaches tape does not do - allow you to zoom into a receiver coming off the jam, an RB pass protecting, etc. I would expect that teams try to tape specific players, but scouting departments aren't big enough to do that with every player in every game and still watch other players who are sophs and juniors. So in some respects, broadcasts sometimes have benefits coaches tape doesn't. That said, I'd like to have both.

 

[Couch Potato]

I thought I'd take a look back at some numbers since most of this thread has not.

College

2004 Junior 177-349-2067-7-17 50.7% and 5.92 YPA.

Absolutely horrible stats at the college level. Upthread was a post quoting his college coach explaining this away with OL issues and so forth. Maybe we just throw this year out. Don't know. Certainly his Sr. year was much better. Still, these stats are disconcerting in any context when discussing a possible future starting NFL QB, especially the completion % and 17 INTs thrown in 11 games.

2005 Senior 229-340-2483-11-10 67.4% and 7.30 YPA.

Comp % is much better (about what s/b expected at college level), YPA still pretty unimpressive (stud college QBs are often in the high 8's to low 9's). Concerning still is the 11-10 TD ratio and the fact that his team scored fewer than 20 points in 4 of his 11 games. Also, the team's highest scoring output was the game Whitehurst didn't play in (49 vs. Duke, compared to a Whitehurst-led best of 37 vs. puny Temple). While you can say "yeah, but that was just Duke," one of Whitehurst's worst games as a Jr was against Duke (12-26-117-0-2) and they scored just 13 points in a loss.

By the way, Chansi Stuckey was his best WR, and the ground game with James Davis was the better part of the offense.

Let's keep in mind something else when looking at Charlie's college career at Clemson. He apparently wasn't thought of highly enough to land a starting gig with an elite passing program. So, before we excuse away his stats because he was stuck in a mediocre program, we should remember that he was only qualified to be in a mediocre program.

Pro Preseasons

I'm skipping his 2006 rookie preseason as not meaningful

2007 Preseason week 1 11-22-79-0-1

2007 Preseason week 2 1-1-21-0-0

2007 Preseason week 3 Did not play

2007 Preseason week 4 7-14-76-1-0

2008 Preseason week 1 5-7-40-0-0

2008 Preseason week 2 6-14-67-0-0

2008 Preseason week 3 Did not play

2008 Preseason week 4 15-32-144-1-0

2009 Preseason week 1 15-29-193-1-2

2009 Preseason week 2 5-9-52-0-0

2009 Preseason week 3 4-8-43-0-0

2009 Preseason week 4 10-14-98-1-0

Cumulative 79-150-813-4-3 52.7% and 5.42 YPA. Honestly, that's really really bad.

2009 totals were 34-60-386-2-2 56.7% and 6.43 YPA. Those are backup numbers attained against scrubs. He should instead look like a man among boys against that competition in his 4th year if he's starting-caliber, and that's clearly not been the case.

I'm just not seeing anything in any of those numbers to get at all excited about, especially considering the fact that as 3rd stringer the games were played mostly against guys who were not making NFL rosters. I looked over game logs, and I don't think any of the games were against first stringers.

Summary

As I understand from what I've read, the appeal here has to with his size and arm strength. The drawbacks have to do with accuracy, decision making & judgment, the mental aspects. To me, that's very worrisome right there. Furthermore, I've not seen anything in the stats, college or pro preseason, to indicate that the big arm translates into big passes (YPA is very substandard at both levels).

Let's not forget another thing. San Diego has chosen to hold onto the 34 year old journeyman Volek rather than promote the 27 year old in-his-physical-prime Whitehurst to #2. The Chargers are the ones who have watched him in practice for four years. If they believed in his ability this would never happen.

Might Whitehurst pan out? Look, we never know what might happen with any unproven commodity. But measurables are IMO the secondary consideration with Whitehurst, and I wouldn't just assume that he has or will ever develop the QB mentality to excel, Norv or no Norv, Rivers or no Rivers, as mentors. Nothing so far indicates Charlie will be a starting-caliber NFL QB, and even if Seattle does give him that shot he's still a long way from ever making a fantasy starting lineup.

My best guess is that SD reached on him in the 3rd round knowing the measurables were there, hoping the mental aspects could be taught, and learned during the 4 years that he just doesn't have it. They most likely privately feel they have found a sucker who also hopes they can teach the mental side but will learn the same thing.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I wouldn't read anything at all into his preseason performance with the Chargers. For one thing, I wouldn't read anything at all into any QB's preseason performance with any team. For QBs, it's just a totally different game in the preseason: they're not really playing football. Vanilla offenses, vanilla defenses. You can tell if a guy has a big arm or not, but you can tell that during warm-ups. I don't think the game really adds anything above what you can tell from warm-ups. (That's not true for other positions, but I think it's true for QBs.)

And looking specifically at Whitehurst's preseason reps with the Chargers, he never got reps with (or against) real NFL players. Preseason games are pretty chaotic at the end when the third- and fourth-stringers are in, and it's especially difficult to read anything into that. (The fact that he didn't get high-quality reps, though, is itself an indication that he never seriously challenged Volek for the #2 job.)

Couch Potato, do you have Whitehurst's freshman and sophomore stats handy? I don't, but I think he set a bunch of school records in those seasons and generally had a very good efficiency rating. It's a concern that his junior year was such a drop-off, but I didn't see any of his games that year, so I don't know what the reason was.

 

[Christo]

Season	Team	 	GP	ATT	COMP	PCT	YDS	LG	TD	INT	RATG	RSH	RYDS	RTD
2005	Clemson	NCAA	11	340	229	67.3	2483	51	11	10	133.4	50	26	3
2004	Clemson	NCAA	11	349	177	50.7	2067	56	7	17	97.3	81	43	1
2003	Clemson	NCAA	13	465	288	61.9	3561	72	21	13	135.5	92	42	4
2002	Clemson	NCAA	9	214	123	57.4	1554	83	10	6	128.2	43	-20	2

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Thanks, Christo. Are those rushing yards correct? He averaged a Peytonesque 0.5 yards per rush, roughly, not including his freshman year with negative yards?

That's surprising, because he appears to have good athleticism and scrambling ability.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

From Christo's stats, yards per attempt:

2005 - 7.30

2004 - 5.92

2003 - 7.66

2002 - 7.26

 

[Chase Stuart]

Thanks, Christo. Are those rushing yards correct? He averaged a Peytonesque 0.5 yards per rush, roughly, not including his freshman year with negative yards?That's surprising, because he appears to have good athleticism and scrambling ability.

In college, sacks are counted as negative rushing yards for individual players.

 

[JetMaxx]

Am I a pro Whitehurst guy? I guess because I like his chances better than any of the QB in FA that were available and I like his chances out of the gate over Bradford or Clausen, especially when you factor in that it will take a top 6 pick to land either of those guys and a HUGE signing bonus, I guess I am pro Whitehurst.

Such thinking is why many feel so sorry for SEA fans. Nothing like hitching your future to a guy who is the lesser of all evils.

Isn't this the pot and the kettle, Super Bowl-speaking wise?

Or is it the pot and the "Campbell" currently?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Thanks, Christo. Are those rushing yards correct? He averaged a Peytonesque 0.5 yards per rush, roughly, not including his freshman year with negative yards?That's surprising, because he appears to have good athleticism and scrambling ability.

In college, sacks are counted as negative rushing yards for individual players.

That would explain it.

 

[Gary Davenport]

When people argued over Brady vs. Manning, I don't recall anyone saying they had no opinion because they didn't have access to coaches tape.

I've been away from this thread for a while and I don't want to but I just want to make a quick comment on this.I don't know about anybody else here but I've always taken it as a given that, although we have a lot of very knowledgeable football fans here, none of our opinions are as valuable as any NFL coach simply because there is such a huge gap between the information available to us vs. the information available to them. If, for example, Rex Ryan decided to start posting here and weighed in on the Manning vs. Brady debate, I don't think there is anybody here who is qualified to argue with him.The same thing goes for draft prospects analysis. There are a lot of very knowledgeable posters here and the analysis and debates are always interesting but if anybody on this board thinks they know more than even the worst of the NFL GM's, they are seriously deluding themselves.That doesn't mean we can't have opinions but we have to accept our opinions for what they are. None of us are professional scouts.

That's the $64 difference...the "pros" (guys paid to evaluate players, be it by an NFL team, a fantasy site, a TV network, whatever) have access to information and/or time to review that info that most folks just don't. That doesn't mean that the conclusions they arrive at aren't wrong sometimes, but the pool of info they have access to to arrive at said conclusion(s) is deeper than that which is available to John Q Dude. (and this is coming from a John Q. Dude who "works" for a FF site and reviews games and such ad nauseum...Thank You Information Age.)So far as Whitehurst goes, my gut says the 'Hawks overpaid, but given the money/hype/accolades/blahblahblah any QB with half a pulse gets in today's NFL I can't say that if I was a Seattle fan I'd be horrified. Assuming they saw something they liked the price they paid wasn't obscene, even if what they thought was gold turns out to be pyrite (which, from everything I've seen of Whitehurst, it likely will).

 

[Couch Potato]

I wouldn't read anything at all into his preseason performance with the Chargers. For one thing, I wouldn't read anything at all into any QB's preseason performance with any team. For QBs, it's just a totally different game in the preseason: they're not really playing football. Vanilla offenses, vanilla defenses. You can tell if a guy has a big arm or not, but you can tell that during warm-ups. I don't think the game really adds anything above what you can tell from warm-ups.And looking specifically at Whitehurst's preseason reps with the Chargers, he never got reps with (or against) real NFL players. Preseason games are pretty chaotic at the end when the third- and fourth-stringers are in, and it's especially difficult to read anything into that.

No offense, but I think that's a ridiculous statement. The whole point of the preseason games when it comes to backups is player evaluation. With a QB you can certainly determine whether he is making good decisions and is throwing the ball with accuracy. While it does make sense to discount stats when a player excels against weak competition, to excuse unimpressive performance against weak competition makes no sense at all. I'm not going to debate it further but I think you're way off the mark here.

 

[Donnybrook]

I wouldn't read anything at all into his preseason performance with the Chargers. For one thing, I wouldn't read anything at all into any QB's preseason performance with any team. For QBs, it's just a totally different game in the preseason: they're not really playing football. Vanilla offenses, vanilla defenses. You can tell if a guy has a big arm or not, but you can tell that during warm-ups. I don't think the game really adds anything above what you can tell from warm-ups.And looking specifically at Whitehurst's preseason reps with the Chargers, he never got reps with (or against) real NFL players. Preseason games are pretty chaotic at the end when the third- and fourth-stringers are in, and it's especially difficult to read anything into that.

No offense, but I think that's a ridiculous statement. The whole point of the preseason games when it comes to backups is player evaluation. With a QB you can certainly determine whether he is making good decisions and is throwing the ball with accuracy. While it does make sense to discount stats when a player excels against weak competition, to excuse unimpressive performance against weak competition makes no sense at all. I'm not going to debate it further but I think you're way off the mark here.

I have to agree with Maurile. IMO only first half snaps in game 1 and 2 are meaningful after that it is pretty much meaningless. I recall Matt Cassel looking terrible in pre-season the year that Brady got injured. He had a pre-season passer rating of 56.6. We all know that he took over for Brady that year and had a great season.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I wouldn't read anything at all into his preseason performance with the Chargers. For one thing, I wouldn't read anything at all into any QB's preseason performance with any team. For QBs, it's just a totally different game in the preseason: they're not really playing football. Vanilla offenses, vanilla defenses. You can tell if a guy has a big arm or not, but you can tell that during warm-ups. I don't think the game really adds anything above what you can tell from warm-ups.And looking specifically at Whitehurst's preseason reps with the Chargers, he never got reps with (or against) real NFL players. Preseason games are pretty chaotic at the end when the third- and fourth-stringers are in, and it's especially difficult to read anything into that.

No offense, but I think that's a ridiculous statement. The whole point of the preseason games when it comes to backups is player evaluation. With a QB you can certainly determine whether he is making good decisions and is throwing the ball with accuracy. While it does make sense to discount stats when a player excels against weak competition, to excuse unimpressive performance against weak competition makes no sense at all. I'm not going to debate it further but I think you're way off the mark here.

I have to agree with Maurile. IMO only first half snaps in game 1 and 2 are meaningful after that it is pretty much meaningless. I recall Matt Cassel looking terrible in pre-season the year that Brady got injured. He had a pre-season passer rating of 56.6. We all know that he took over for Brady that year and had a great season.

Eh, I've always thought that all snaps can tell you something, relative to the level of competition. So if guy looks good or even OK in the 3rd and 4th quarters, then you know that he doesn't suck as a 3rd stringer. The question is whether the team then moves him up to the 2nd quarter so he's seeing some second stringers. Did the Chargers ever give him that chance? Without the evaluation, all we can say is that he doesn't suck as a 3rd stringer, not that he would be a good 2nd stringer or can be an NFL starting QB.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I haven't done any kind of comprehensive analysis to see whether preseason success for QBs correlates with regular season success. But my impression is that it doesn't. I remember Joey Harrington being awesome during the preseason. Ryan Leaf was much better than Peyton Manning during the preseason. Maybe I'm remembering selectively. But the game is so different for QBs when defenses aren't giving any real looks.

All NFL QBs are accurate when it comes to throwing balls through hanging tires. Functional accuracy in games depends a lot more on reads, timing, anticipation, etc. And all of that stuff in the preseason, with no real game plan or film preparation, etc., just has very little relation to what it's like in a real game.

 

[Faust]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writ....html?eref=sihp

Charlie Whitehurst is getting used to a new life in Seattle, a life with a little more pressure than he had as the number three quarterback in San Diego. There will be expectations now -- that he can push Matt Hasselbeck for the starting job, and even if he loses that competition, that he'll be ready to play at a moment's notice for the Seahawks this year. Until now, the thickly brown-bearded, long-haired Whitehurst has been known for one thing as a Charger: his resemblance to Jesus Christ, at least to how Christ looks in the photos and images we've become used to seeing.

Whitehurst has formed a nice little bond with Hasselbeck. Let me say that if you can't form a good bond with Hasselbeck, you are either a Martian or speak only Swahili. On one of his first nights in Seattle, Whitehurst got an invitation to dinner with the Hasselbeck family -- Matt, his wife and three kids. The kids figured out something was different at the meal because they didn't open it with grace, as they usually do.

"Daddy,'' 8-year-old Annabelle said, acting like she'd just figured out one of the great mysteries of life, "we didn't have to say grace because we ate with Jesus.''

"I'm thinking he looks more like Barry Gibb,'' Matt Hasselbeck said.

Now we got the interesting-looking-quarterback angle out of the way. Now the question is: Can he play?

Whitehurst threw zero passes in four years of regular-season and postseason play with the Chargers. But from watching his preseason play over the last four seasons, Seattle coach Pete Carroll thinks he can play, or he wouldn't have traded a 2011 third-round pick plus a swap of second-round picks this year for him.

"It's not true to say he hasn't played,'' Carroll told me. "He has played, just not in regular-season games. But he's played against guys with NFL talent fighting to make NFL rosters. We've seen him make all the throws. He's sinewy, tall, real big arm, can throw everything. We've been thrilled with what we've seen so far. Matt's our guy. He's our starter. But Charlie's going after him. He gives us what we want at every position on the field -- competition.''

Whitehurst takes the questions about his inexperience well. He says he felt he was good enough to be number two in San Diego, but the coaches picked Billy Volek, the more experienced player, to be the backup to Philip Rivers. And as for those -- like me -- who wonder if he really can play, Whitehurst knows people are going to be skeptical until he actually does it in a real game.

"I understand the question, and I respect that the question has to be asked,'' Whitehurst said. "I haven't thrown a pass in a game that counts. People are going to have questions about me. But I'm confident when I play that I can perform. I think I'm accurate, have a strong arm to make the downfield throws, and I think guys like to play with me. I've been in the league for four years, and I've played for some really smart offensive coaches in Norv Turner and Cam Cameron. I think I've got the knowledge to play the game.''

In workouts, offensive coordinator Jeremy Bates has been impressed with the downfield accuracy of Whitehurst, although the throws have come against air and no pass rush, and by the way he's picking up the offense quickly.

What also helps Whitehurst is his father. David Whitehurst, the former Packer quarterback, was his youth football coach and remains his biggest adviser and critic. "I've been prepared for the pressure of the game pretty well by my father,'' he said. "I had a really good year, year-and-a-half at Clemson, and I remember him saying, 'Be ready. It's not always going to be this good.' At the time, it's not something you really want to hear, but he's so right. I think he's prepared me for hard the job really can be.''

It's going to be an interesting quarterback competition. I expect Hasselbeck to win it, but I wouldn't be surprised if Whitehurst is impressive in training camp that Carroll finds a way to get him playing time this year.

 

[Sabertooth]

So how did the picks involved in the Whitehurst trade pan out? Which players were taken?

Was Tate the guy they got in the second despite trading back? If so, that hardly seems like any opportunity cost on that pick at all?

What did San Diego do with Seattle's original pick?

 

[gheemony]

So how did the picks involved in the Whitehurst trade pan out? Which players were taken? Was Tate the guy they got in the second despite trading back? If so, that hardly seems like any opportunity cost on that pick at all? What did San Diego do with Seattle's original pick?

Peter King said that the Seahawks liked Clausen. So if they had not made the trade, they would have had Clausen in the second round. So do you prefer Clausen and a 2011 3rd or Whitehurst and Tate?

 

[Donnybrook]

Eh, I've always thought that all snaps can tell you something, relative to the level of competition. So if guy looks good or even OK in the 3rd and 4th quarters, then you know that he doesn't suck as a 3rd stringer. The question is whether the team then moves him up to the 2nd quarter so he's seeing some second stringers. Did the Chargers ever give him that chance? Without the evaluation, all we can say is that he doesn't suck as a 3rd stringer, not that he would be a good 2nd stringer or can be an NFL starting QB.

I guess I am a conspiracy theorist. I have always thought that coaches could easily manipulate the QB compettition to avoid any sort of QB contravsey. If you want your back up QBs to look good let them get first string snaps and if you want him to look bad them give him 3rd string snaps. Ross Tucker says that QB position is the most "predetermined position" in the league. It's going to interesting to watch Denver and Carolina this year to see which QB gets the first string snaps in pre-season. Somehow I doubt it will be a fair competition. It also makes Tony Romo's story interesting. Bill Parcells let Romo start with the first string players in pre-season and of course he looked good. So even before Bill Parcels decided to replace Bledsoe with Romo, there were fans callind radio shows emploring Parcells to let Romo take over.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

So how did the picks involved in the Whitehurst trade pan out? Which players were taken? Was Tate the guy they got in the second despite trading back? If so, that hardly seems like any opportunity cost on that pick at all? What did San Diego do with Seattle's original pick?

SD moved 40th overall (Seattle's original 2nd rounder) to Miami as part of the Ryan Mathews deal.Still holding the 3rd rounder in 2011 IMO I have snagged Whitehurst in a couple dynasty leagues. Hassle isnt gonna play forever and I like Charlies chances to be productive

 

[Sabertooth]

I'm looking forward to snagging Whitehurst as I need to replenish my QB pool. He's got a realistic shot at a starting gig.

 

[Carter_Can_Fly]

(Rotoworld) The Tacoma News Tribune believes J.P. Losman is "far closer to being a game-ready productive quarterback" than Charlie Whitehurst. Analysis: Yikes. Losman spent the 2009 season in the UFL after sporting a 2:5 TD-to-INT ratio and 5.6 YPA in five games with the Bills the year before. The Seahawks new regime may have had a fine draft, but Chargers GM A.J. Smith pulled the wool over their eyes on Whitehurst. Assuming he stays healthy (a big "if"), Matt Hasselbeck may play out the 2010 season after all.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

(Rotoworld) The Tacoma News Tribune believes J.P. Losman is "far closer to being a game-ready productive quarterback" than Charlie Whitehurst. Analysis: Yikes. Losman spent the 2009 season in the UFL after sporting a 2:5 TD-to-INT ratio and 5.6 YPA in five games with the Bills the year before. The Seahawks new regime may have had a fine draft, but Chargers GM A.J. Smith pulled the wool over their eyes on Whitehurst. Assuming he stays healthy (a big "if"), Matt Hasselbeck may play out the 2010 season after all.

1. I don't think Seattle traded for Whitehurst cause he was supposed to be game ready in his first offseason with the team. 2. It is one sentence of an article from a beat writer in Tacoma at a time when training camp hasn't even started yet.

 

[ClownDogs]

(Rotoworld) The Tacoma News Tribune believes J.P. Losman is "far closer to being a game-ready productive quarterback" than Charlie Whitehurst. Analysis: Yikes. Losman spent the 2009 season in the UFL after sporting a 2:5 TD-to-INT ratio and 5.6 YPA in five games with the Bills the year before. The Seahawks new regime may have had a fine draft, but Chargers GM A.J. Smith pulled the wool over their eyes on Whitehurst. Assuming he stays healthy (a big "if"), Matt Hasselbeck may play out the 2010 season after all.

1. I don't think Seattle traded for Whitehurst cause he was supposed to be game ready in his first offseason with the team. 2. It is one sentence of an article from a beat writer in Tacoma at a time when training camp hasn't even started yet.

I want to agree with #1, but with them giving him a decent contract for only 2 years, i dont' know if they planned on him sitting the bench earning good money.

 

[Carter_Can_Fly]

(Rotoworld) The Tacoma News Tribune believes J.P. Losman is "far closer to being a game-ready productive quarterback" than Charlie Whitehurst. Analysis: Yikes. Losman spent the 2009 season in the UFL after sporting a 2:5 TD-to-INT ratio and 5.6 YPA in five games with the Bills the year before. The Seahawks new regime may have had a fine draft, but Chargers GM A.J. Smith pulled the wool over their eyes on Whitehurst. Assuming he stays healthy (a big "if"), Matt Hasselbeck may play out the 2010 season after all.

1. I don't think Seattle traded for Whitehurst cause he was supposed to be game ready in his first offseason with the team. 2. It is one sentence of an article from a beat writer in Tacoma at a time when training camp hasn't even started yet.

I honestly think Seattle made the deal "hoping" Whitehurst could come in and contribute as early as this year and eventually be a stop gap QB for them and with some luck they actually get lucky and he is good. The problem with Whitehurst is he is going to be 28 and has still never played or thrown a pass or started a game in the NFL. How long do they plan to wait on Whitehurst? It seems like a wasted trade and signining at the moment for Seattle. I am sure they were hoping that he was better than he is and would be the stop gap after this year while they let Hass go and they then groom another QB for their future. The problem is and what Seattle may end up finding out is I don't think Whitehurst is stop gap material.

If and it is a huge "if" Seattle starts they year well and is in contention and Hass is hurt (as he very well could be) who would the coaches feel more comfortable putting under center? An unproven and huge question mark in Whiethurst or a game experienced guy like Losman. The fact that they got Losman for so cheap might help save them for over paying for Whitehurst.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

(Rotoworld) The Tacoma News Tribune believes J.P. Losman is "far closer to being a game-ready productive quarterback" than Charlie Whitehurst. Analysis: Yikes. Losman spent the 2009 season in the UFL after sporting a 2:5 TD-to-INT ratio and 5.6 YPA in five games with the Bills the year before. The Seahawks new regime may have had a fine draft, but Chargers GM A.J. Smith pulled the wool over their eyes on Whitehurst. Assuming he stays healthy (a big "if"), Matt Hasselbeck may play out the 2010 season after all.

1. I don't think Seattle traded for Whitehurst cause he was supposed to be game ready in his first offseason with the team. 2. It is one sentence of an article from a beat writer in Tacoma at a time when training camp hasn't even started yet.

I honestly think Seattle made the deal "hoping" Whitehurst could come in and contribute as early as this year and eventually be a stop gap QB for them and with some luck they actually get lucky and he is good. The problem with Whitehurst is he is going to be 28 and has still never played or thrown a pass or started a game in the NFL. How long do they plan to wait on Whitehurst? It seems like a wasted trade and signining at the moment for Seattle. I am sure they were hoping that he was better than he is and would be the stop gap after this year while they let Hass go and they then groom another QB for their future. The problem is and what Seattle may end up finding out is I don't think Whitehurst is stop gap material.

If and it is a huge "if" Seattle starts they year well and is in contention and Hass is hurt (as he very well could be) who would the coaches feel more comfortable putting under center? An unproven and huge question mark in Whiethurst or a game experienced guy like Losman. The fact that they got Losman for so cheap might help save them for over paying for Whitehurst.

I can't comment on what Seattle saw or liked in Whitehurst, and other than Whitehurst being a 2nd/3rd backup in San Diego not many other people can comment on him either, so you are merely jumping to conclusions based on Whitehurst's past and ONE sentence from a beat writer about a few mini camp practices. For some reason the Seattle FO wanted Whitehurst. They obviously wanted him moreso than Derek Anderson, Brady Quinn or Seneca Wallace and were willing to pay him more and trade picks for him, so they are obviously high on him.

People were so quick to bash Seattle "overpaying" for a backup QB in the past, and that turned out quite well for them. Seattle went and gave a QB who had never started an NFL game a 5 year - $24 million contract. Hass turned into a 3 time pro-bowler and went deep in the playoffs a couple of times.

To say this is a wasted trade and signing is absolutely ridiculous given the circumstances that he has not even entered into training camp of his first season with the Seahawks. I am not saying it was a good or bad trade, but I am not going to bash Whitehurst's ability to be the future Seahawk QB in June of his first season with the team.

 

[massraider]

(Rotoworld) The Tacoma News Tribune believes J.P. Losman is "far closer to being a game-ready productive quarterback" than Charlie Whitehurst. Analysis: Yikes. Losman spent the 2009 season in the UFL after sporting a 2:5 TD-to-INT ratio and 5.6 YPA in five games with the Bills the year before. The Seahawks new regime may have had a fine draft, but Chargers GM A.J. Smith pulled the wool over their eyes on Whitehurst. Assuming he stays healthy (a big "if"), Matt Hasselbeck may play out the 2010 season after all.

1. I don't think Seattle traded for Whitehurst cause he was supposed to be game ready in his first offseason with the team. 2. It is one sentence of an article from a beat writer in Tacoma at a time when training camp hasn't even started yet.

I honestly think Seattle made the deal "hoping" Whitehurst could come in and contribute as early as this year and eventually be a stop gap QB for them and with some luck they actually get lucky and he is good. The problem with Whitehurst is he is going to be 28 and has still never played or thrown a pass or started a game in the NFL. How long do they plan to wait on Whitehurst? It seems like a wasted trade and signining at the moment for Seattle. I am sure they were hoping that he was better than he is and would be the stop gap after this year while they let Hass go and they then groom another QB for their future. The problem is and what Seattle may end up finding out is I don't think Whitehurst is stop gap material.

If and it is a huge "if" Seattle starts they year well and is in contention and Hass is hurt (as he very well could be) who would the coaches feel more comfortable putting under center? An unproven and huge question mark in Whiethurst or a game experienced guy like Losman. The fact that they got Losman for so cheap might help save them for over paying for Whitehurst.

Why does it seem like a wasted trade? Whitehurst hasn't done anything to prove he isn't the QBOTF. Unless the blurb from a newspaper in June qualifies, he's still the same unknown he was when he was traded. It's a high price that will seem fine if he works out. As to him being a huge question mark, that's better than the 'game experienced' Losman, who unfortunately is not a question mark. He's a known quantity, and it's not a good quantity.