Posted by ANDY RICHARDSON | Mar. 23 at 03:00 AM

What also struck me as odd was that they gave up a 3rd-rounder and 20 spots in the second round -- pretty significant compensation -- and then signed him to only a 2-year deal. That pretty much says that the absolute latest they expect him to be their starting quarterback is the 2011 opener, if not sooner. You don't give up that much money and picks to just have him as a backup for two years, so why not give him a longer-term contract. Can't believe I'm saying it, but I'm with Mora. This was a bizarre deal all the way through, especially for a guy who wasn't even a particularly noteworthy college quarterback.

Posted by Brian Grzybowski | Mar. 23 at 07:18 AM

This was a strange deal, at least for the Seahawks. I tried to think of a QB in a similar deal in the recent past. The best I could come up with was Matt Schaub. He had a very limited sample history of his abilities when the Texans traded for him. I think over 3 years in Atlanta he had less than 75 completions. As many interceptions as passing TDs (6). And one arrest for assault and battery. To get him the Texans swapped first round picks with Atlanta in 2007 (8th for 10th) and gave away their 2nd round pick in '07 and '08. Still, Schaub had been in games in the pros. Also he was given a more incentive laden contract that ultimately payed 8 million the first year in Texas and 11 million the second. But Schaub, like Whitehurst, also had a fairly unsung college career. However, in hindsight, the first five QBs drafted in 2007 were: Jamarcus Russell, Brady Quinn, Kevin Kolb, John Beck, and Drew Stanton. So Houston saw enough of Schaub to assume it was better to aquire and compensate him than to attempt to maybe get one of those guys in the draft. Perhaps the Seahawks have seen enough of Whitehurst to assume he is better than whomever they might get in this draft. Although it should be noted that the Seahawks have made mostly poor talent assessments in recent years. And the guy couldn't beat out Billy Volek for #2.

Posted by IAN ALLAN | Mar. 23 at 07:56 AM

Big difference between Schaub and Whitehurst. Schaub at least had been on the field and played well in a few games. Whitehurst couldn't even beat out Billy Volek after three years. I glanced at Whitehurst's preseason numbers; they are not good (so that's wildly different than Matt Hasselbeck, who had that Mr. August thing going with the Packers). It looks like a stinker to me.

Posted by Moishe Steigmann | Mar. 23 at 11:45 AM

Let me take a stab at understanding what the Seahawks did. Initially, I was with you -- terrible move by giving up too much in trade value and too much money. But, then I thought of it this way. Let's say they were going to draft a QB (i.e., Bradford). It would take a top pick to do it, which they don't have. It would take an absurd amount of money. And, he would have thrown exactly zero NFL passes with zero time spent in the league. So, maybe they see something in Whitehurst. If so, it cost them far less both in terms of draft pick and money. If they're wrong, it's a relatively low-risk gamble compared to what the top half-dozen QBs are going to get in the draft. If they're right, they got a steal (and, yes, they'll have to pay him in year 3, but it would still be comparable with Bradford. And, they'd be right.) Plus, this is a guy who, unlike any QB drafted, has three NFL seasons; he's more likely to be ready to step in right away. In other words, as long as the Seahawks see something in Whitehurst that is comparable to a top QB in the draft, then they made a brilliant move. Of course, if he flops big-time, then they'll be taken to task as poor talent evaluators, and deservedly so. All in all, though, given what a top QB will get in draft money and what it would cost in terms of draft picks, this seems like a (relatively) low-risk move. Thoughts?

Posted by ANDY RICHARDSON | Mar. 23 at 12:26 PM

I guess you are right, if they see a lot in him (and they must); I just can't figure out what it is they see in him. With Schaub there was a good preseason or two and perhaps a couple of solid NFL regular-season starts (I remember a strong performance against the Patriots). With Hasselbeck there were a couple of quality preseasons, including at least one where he took all of the first team snaps in the exhibitions (when Favre hurt his thumb or had elbow tendinitis or something). With Whitehurst, are they looking at college tape? I can't imagine what they've seen from his exhibition play. One thing I'm pretty sure of is that the guy is not mobile, so hopefully they'll put a decent line together before they have to put him in the lineup (which again, his two-year deal suggests isn't too far off).

Posted by IAN ALLAN | Mar. 23 at 12:40 PM

I will agree with Moishe that the cost looks more reasonable when you compare Whitehurst with drafting a quarterback. They're essentially saying, "Yeah, we'll take this guy with our second-round pick". And as an added benefit (a huge benefit), he's already signed and ready to practice with the team. Those rookie guys tend to miss most of the spring drills because of NFL rules about guys being with teams before graduation. But can this guy play? His numbers were ordinary at best in the last two years. Why do I keep hearing these whispers out of San Diego that they think they really swindled Seattle?

Posted by Moishe Steigmann | Mar. 23 at 12:58 PM

I agree that there is not much to go on. But, that's why coaches and GMs have their jobs. People didn't really think that Favre was worth the first-round pick that the Packers gave to the Falcons. But, Ron Wolf was right on that... We'll see here, too. As for the rumors out of SD, that's kind of like Joe Biden spreading rumors about how pleased everyone is with the Health Care package: SD isn't really an objective party here. The "better" they make the trade look (i.e., by having "swindled" Seattle), the better they really make themselves looks. Seems like commonplace P.R. Look, I am no real Whitehurst fan; I wouldn't have been able to even really identify him before this trade. I just think that is a much lower-risk way to find out if a guy has NFL talent than using a top-10 pick and spending all that cash that goes along with it. The Seattle staff will be judged disproportionately on this one move, for the good or for the bad...

Posted by Brian Grzybowski | Mar. 23 at 04:25 PM

Ian, I know the Matt Schaub analogy isn't a great one but there are some parallels. If I recall correctly there was much consternation amongst Houston fans and local media because the sample was fairly small. Combined, he had played about 6 NFL regular season games. He basically made his reputation on that New England game. He went 18 of 34 in that game. The rest of his games were mostly exhibition style week 16 (1 game) and week 17 (3 games). He lost all those games. Other than the New England game and the late season exhibitions he only attempted 29 passes in real games. I don't believe that a short sample can define weather a player is good or not. If it did then after watching Ryan Fitzpatrick's first game in St. Louis you would have to conclude he is a good QB. And the other QB currently in San Diego, Billy Volek, looked like a lock for the Hall of Fame in 2004. And pre-season performance means something, but not everything. Remember a few years back when the Broncos had a receiver named Darius Watts? The kid caught everything in the pre-season. It was amazing. They drafted him in the 2nd. He plays arena league now. I think the Whitehurst deal is bad for Seattle but they must see something in him that is better than whoever is available after Sam Bradford and Jimmy Clausen. My issue is their horrible track record lately in player evaluation. They've change coaching staffs twice in the last two years but if they still have the same scouting and evaluation staff then this is probably a horrible deal. Julius Jones, Deion Branch, T.J. Houshmandzedah, etc. These horrible transactions were camouflaged by the fact that Seattle played in a horrible division and always got home-field advantage for the playoffs. And it's a great home-field advantage, they've never lost a playoff game at Qwest...and they've never won a road playoff game ever. And that's my long-winded reason for not liking this deal: I don't think Seattle can evaluate talent. But the money and compensation don't bother me. If Matt Leinart can get a six year, $51 Million deal then this guy is worth a shot at 10 for 2.