Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
InboxChat RoomChat Room (0 fans in chatroom)

Petes Qb history,,,

Posted: 04/30/2011 6:12 AM

Petes Qb history,,, 


,,,in recent memory  are more or less,,,

Palmer
Cassell
Sanchez
Leinhart

No Hall of Famers there, right? So why would one expect that from him now? Simple answer,,,don't.

If ever a coach screamed "game-mgr. Qb guru", it's Pete. We are going to run the football and run it some more and if you stack us we are going to throw it and if you run blitz us on passing downs we are going to throw it over you on the perimeter. If we throw it first it will be because we want to run it. If we throw it to much we'll fire our OC rolleyes.
Oh, and we don't need a lot of points because we play defense around here and our head coach is a "defensive game-mgr qb guru guy"

So here we are astride the fourth round with two early picks, no Qb taken and Pete comfortably discussing the reality of "only guy we've got at Qb" with Mayock like he knows everybodys hole card. What gives? Why did you let that punk in SF punk you on that punk from Nevada? New England on that bigger punk from Arkansas?

We can always get Palmer, right? Mike Brown says no, he's retired or can show up to play and mentor to Dandy Dalton,,,oh wait a minute we were going to do that! Damn! But we could have had Kaep the new and improved Alex Smith, actually we could have had both, Nope!  Locker,,fuhgetaboutit. Gabbert if we had tried to look like Atlanta the rest of the day without the solice of being labeled "one guy away from a championship". Not us.

We are going to find that game-mgr qb guy come hell or high water, run the damn ball, play defense and have a couple of flashy speed guys (Bush? Taiwan?) for the going vertical with Penny Benjamin crowd, and stare at you like we know your hole card.

Come to think of it, thats what I always hated about USC, well that and the stupid horse, song and well yes,,,,their winning ways! Damn!
Reply | Quote

Posted: 04/30/2011 8:05 AM

Re: Petes Qb history,,, 


Well said woof. I think John and Pete are taking the right approach to this thing. You got to be tough on both sides of the line of scrimmage to win in this league. We could have a very good OL for 10 years if it all comes together. We will find "our qb" in time. In the mean time we will continue to build this thing the right way. Be patient guys, these guys get it, even if it isn't always flashy. I bet this qb class ends up like last years crop. Maybe one or two good players out of the bunch. We may be in the Kevin Kolb business when they get the CBA figured out. He might be our future "game manager".
Reply | Quote

Posted: 04/30/2011 12:17 PM

RE: Petes Qb history,,, 


One thing that has been nagging at me since the Carpenter pick is we have two OT's capable of protecting the blind side wether it's right or left sided.

No Qb selection yet,,,,,,,,,,Leinhart??

Last edited 04/30/2011 1:36 PM by woofu

Reply | Quote

Posted: 04/30/2011 12:42 PM

Re: Petes Qb history,,, 


Now that Leinhart is probably out of a job, what do you suppose the chances are that Carroll brings him here as a 2nd stringer?  I hope not



 

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 04/30/2011 2:04 PM

RE: Petes Qb history,,, 


The best this team has ever been is with Hass and he is a game manager. Ever since the running game died his production has dropped. Cable loves nasty physical guys up front and that is the direction we are going. Iam praying this comes together so as we are ramming the ball down peoples throats I wont have to listen to the national media calling us soft any longer.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 04/30/2011 6:39 PM

RE: Petes Qb history,,, 


QB situtation going forward revolves around labor issues beig resolved and wheter we can resign Matt afterwards.

Tells me they would be thinking of keeping Matt to groom long term replacement if they would have listened to Trent Dilfer and went with Andy Daulton.

I dont say it is best but wrost case scenerio, they have Charlie if Matt leaves.

Say what you want about Charlie, he did get them win they needed on national TV over Rams to set up funnest playoff win since Tony Romo botched fumble in 2007.

No disrespect to the Redskins in 2008, but we had done that before in 2006 for first playoff win since 1984.

.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 04/30/2011 9:36 PM

RE: Petes Qb history,,, 


I actually like Charlie, but as a backup. I do not see him being our future. Also, everyone keeps giving him all the credit for that win, like he played so well. The truth is that they played a passive scheme, limiting his throws deep. Everything was short in that game. Because of that at the end we almost lost. I am not sold on him, and the real credit for that win should go to our defense.
"GO SEAHAWKS"
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 05/04/2011 12:31 PM

Re: Petes Qb history,,, 


,,,in recent memory  are more or less,,,

Palmer
Cassell
Sanchez
Leinhart

No Hall of Famers there, right? So why would one expect that from him now? Simple answer,,,don't.

If ever a coach screamed "game-mgr. Qb guru", it's Pete. We are going to run the football and run it some more and if you stack us we are going to throw it and if you run blitz us on passing downs we are going to throw it over you on the perimeter. If we throw it first it will be because we want to run it. If we throw it to much we'll fire our OC rolleyes.
Oh, and we don't need a lot of points because we play defense around here and our head coach is a "defensive game-mgr qb guru guy"

Completely disagree.  Have you ever watched a USC game?  Pete is an aggressive coach. He wants a balanced attack because that's when your most dangerous. If you rely mainly on one or the other your easier to shut down.  However, we can't run a balanced attack without first upgrading our OL.  Palmer, Sanchez, Leinert all made huge plays from the passing game in their time under PC.  He likes balance. He's also very aggressive on offense, going on 4th down a significant amount of time. 

Charlie Whitehurst may be our QB of the future. For anyone to say definitively that he isn't, isn't giving him a fair shake. 2010 was his first time playing in the NFL. Sure he'd been in the league for several years but this was his first experience.  If he is the guy, than I expect him to win the starting job and perform at a higher level than last year. If he doesn't win the starting job than I would agree he's not the answer. 
I don't think you can say he worthless with such a small sample size to judge from. To me it's the same with Max Unger, I keep hearing everyone say how horrible he was as a rookie.  Guess what?  He's now in his third year and I would expect both players to play at a higher level next year.  We will probably address QB in next year's draft.

I will say this in Charlie's last start, he won the game for us.  He out performed the Offensive Rookie of the year and the Rams new "Franchise QB"--  Bradford-- 19-36 155 yards  53% comp, 0-TD, 1- INT.  Whitehurst- 22-36, 192 yards, 61% comp., 1TD.  The Rams are stoked with their Franchise QB, while most Seahawk fans think Whitehurst is worthless. I find that remarkable.  Give him a chance is what I say. Every QB takes their lumps in their first year of play. A couple quick examples of the improvement made from year 1 to year 2.

Josh Freeman
2009-  1855 yards, 54.5 comp %, 10- TD's, 18- INT's. QB Rating= 59.8
2010-  3451 yards, 61.4 comp %, 25- TD's, 6- INT.  QB Rating= 95.9

Matt Hasslebeck
2001- 2023 yards, 54.8 comp %, 7-TD's, 8- INT's. QB Rating= 70.9
2002- 3075 yards, 63.7 comp %, 15- TD's, 10- INT's.  QB Rating= 87.8







 


SUPPORT THE VANDAL SCHOLARSHIP FUND!! DONATE TODAY!!
https://www.sites.uidaho.edu/gifts
Reply | Quote

Posted: 05/04/2011 12:51 PM

RE: Petes Qb history,,, 


I'm guessing you missed my point.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 05/04/2011 4:47 PM

RE: Petes Qb history,,, 


I don't think your point made sense. PC wants to run the ball. That doesn't mean he's content with a "game manager @ QB."

He's never had to rely solely on his running game in his career as a HC.  He's always had a good QB running the show. Slinging it around the field. 

We've already got a guy in Whitehurst who can manage the game. If the OL improves like we all hope, it will open up the PA pass and should give Whitehurst the best chance to suceed.

SUPPORT THE VANDAL SCHOLARSHIP FUND!! DONATE TODAY!!
https://www.sites.uidaho.edu/gifts
Reply | Quote

Posted: 05/04/2011 6:57 PM

RE: Petes Qb history,,, 



woofu wrote: One thing that has been nagging at me since the Carpenter pick is we have two OT's capable of protecting the blind side wether it's right or left sided.

No Qb selection yet,,,,,,,,,,Leinhart??
Nice way to frame the question.  Makes sense.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 05/08/2011 8:04 PM

RE: Petes Qb history,,, 


I know a lot has changed since Pete's run with the Jets and Patriots.

He has written his book, patterned after the thought process of John Wooden.

Lets not think about QB at USC, they may not be applicable, better to see how he hand Jets and patriots QBs
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/18/2011 5:59 PM

Re: Petes Qb history,,, 



jlwaters1 wrote:
,,,in recent memory  are more or less,,,

Palmer
Cassell
Sanchez
Leinhart

No Hall of Famers there, right? So why would one expect that from him now? Simple answer,,,don't.

If ever a coach screamed "game-mgr. Qb guru", it's Pete. We are going to run the football and run it some more and if you stack us we are going to throw it and if you run blitz us on passing downs we are going to throw it over you on the perimeter. If we throw it first it will be because we want to run it. If we throw it to much we'll fire our OC rolleyes.
Oh, and we don't need a lot of points because we play defense around here and our head coach is a "defensive game-mgr qb guru guy"

Completely disagree.  Have you ever watched a USC game?  Pete is an aggressive coach. He wants a balanced attack because that's when your most dangerous. If you rely mainly on one or the other your easier to shut down.  However, we can't run a balanced attack without first upgrading our OL.  Palmer, Sanchez, Leinert all made huge plays from the passing game in their time under PC.  He likes balance. He's also very aggressive on offense, going on 4th down a significant amount of time. 

Charlie Whitehurst may be our QB of the future. For anyone to say definitively that he isn't, isn't giving him a fair shake. 2010 was his first time playing in the NFL. Sure he'd been in the league for several years but this was his first experience.  If he is the guy, than I expect him to win the starting job and perform at a higher level than last year. If he doesn't win the starting job than I would agree he's not the answer. 
I don't think you can say he worthless with such a small sample size to judge from. To me it's the same with Max Unger, I keep hearing everyone say how horrible he was as a rookie.  Guess what?  He's now in his third year and I would expect both players to play at a higher level next year.  We will probably address QB in next year's draft.

I will say this in Charlie's last start, he won the game for us.  He out performed the Offensive Rookie of the year and the Rams new "Franchise QB"--  Bradford-- 19-36 155 yards  53% comp, 0-TD, 1- INT.  Whitehurst- 22-36, 192 yards, 61% comp., 1TD.  The Rams are stoked with their Franchise QB, while most Seahawk fans think Whitehurst is worthless. I find that remarkable.  Give him a chance is what I say. Every QB takes their lumps in their first year of play. A couple quick examples of the improvement made from year 1 to year 2.

Josh Freeman
2009-  1855 yards, 54.5 comp %, 10- TD's, 18- INT's. QB Rating= 59.8
2010-  3451 yards, 61.4 comp %, 25- TD's, 6- INT.  QB Rating= 95.9

Matt Hasslebeck
2001- 2023 yards, 54.8 comp %, 7-TD's, 8- INT's. QB Rating= 70.9
2002- 3075 yards, 63.7 comp %, 15- TD's, 10- INT's.  QB Rating= 87.8

I don't have anything against Charlie but saying he won that game is beyond ignoring facts. 

Of Charlie's 193 yards 67 came from the worst blown coverage I have ever seen that left Martin 25 yards away from any defender but the ball was so poorly thrown Martin had to back track to catch it and the defender had enough time to catch up to him. If that defender is only 15 yards away, that pass is probably an INT and not a completion. Consider that, that means we don't score and the Rams have the ball mid field. If the rams can even get 3 points, based on bates offense, we may just be abandoning our running game, that by the way put up 144 yards on the day. By the way, without that blown coverage Charlies numbers are 126 yards 0 TD's and probably at least one INT. and he faces the possibility of being forced into a passing situation all day. How would that have turned out? 

For fun, find a Seahawks QB who lost a home game when we held our opponent to 6 points.

You should also consider the officials provided much needed help also. On Charlies only TD it was made possible by a bad call that gave us another set of downs at the 5 yard line.

If you watched the game you would see that Bradford was hitting his receivers down field and in the hands and they were just plain dropping everything while anything Charlie threw beyond 5 yards was horrifically off the mark, landing well behind the intended receiver most of the time. None of his incompletions beyond 5 yards were due to the receivers.   

That game was the prime example of a team winning in spite of poor QB play not the other way around. 

I know it sounds like I am trashing on Charlie but that's not the truth. Charlie had to work with the same inexperience and lack of talent that Matt had too and it is a very poor environment for a QB, especially if that QB is not a Veteran. Charlie was essentially thrown into a violent atmosphere and as expected he didn't excel. My only real knock on Charlie right now is he didn't learn the play book but I will say that is a very big knock for someone who is trying to compete for the starting job against an aged and injured veteran. He may still improve if the talent around him does also, but what we witnessed last season could very easily be described as the worst case scenario. 

I'd bet my house that Charlie is not in the conversation as the starter in our FO right now and in fact when we do see FA, I fully expect to see some competition brought in to compete with Charlie for the back up position. 



Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/18/2011 8:37 PM

RE: Petes Qb history,,, 


Charlie is the ****. You will see. Word.

On with the show!

Just like China, but without all the delicious food.
Drinkin the H8R-aid for over 37 years and counting.!!


Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/19/2011 12:06 PM

RE: Petes Qb history,,, 



TechWorlds wrote: Charlie is the ****. You will see. Word.

On with the show!
Morning Dom, Haven't seen you around for a while.  

I hope you are right, but didn't you say Big Red sucks? biggrin

I think some are correct about not being able to evaluate Charlie but not because he didn't get enough playing time. I don't think any QB would have looked good under the circumstances they were put in last year, no matter who they were. If Manning or Brady were our starters last year, they would have looked just as lost as Matt and Charlie did. You can't throw a Nascar driver into a go cart and expect then ti win races. 

I like the direction Pete is going. He seems to understand the team formula and recognizes the affects of poor O-line play and other dynamics that contribute to poor production across the board as well as being able to evaluate QB production. I would have preferred to hear that Charlie was grasping the play book and spending extra time doing film study or in the weight room while taking advantage of competition Wednesday and Challenging Matt for the starter role but unfortunately we never heard those type of comments, instead we are listening to John Clayton asking why Charlie didn't grab the bull by the horns when the opportunity was there by organizing team work outs. 

I think everyone knows Charlie has the physical tools to be a good QB but he continues to show why he remained a third string QB for four years. If Charlie ever wants to be a starter in the NFL he is going to need to show he wants it and is willing to work for it but so far I haven't seen him do anything that makes me feel that way. That is why I suspect we will see another back up brought in to compete with him. Pete wants guys who want to challenge and get to the next level, not just be happy with collecting a paycheck, otherwise there was no reason to ship off Seneca Wallace for peanuts, who like Charlie, seemed to be just fine collecting a paycheck to fill in when needed. 

When FA opens watch who they bring in. My top three candidates are Leinart, Gradkowski and Jackson. If you see any of them in our training camp you can say goodbye to Charlie.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/20/2011 9:24 PM

RE: Petes Qb history,,, 


Red Bryant does suck. Show me where he has justified the draft position he was taken at.

Half a season of mediocre play before being injured? And why was he injured? He eats cornbread all day and doesnt work out like he should. He is a lazy bum. Said it then, and I say it again.

Whitehurst is a pimp. you will see.

Just like China, but without all the delicious food.
Drinkin the H8R-aid for over 37 years and counting.!!


Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/21/2011 7:21 PM

RE: Petes Qb history,,, 



TechWorlds wrote: Red Bryant does suck. Show me where he has justified the draft position he was taken at.

Half a season of mediocre play before being injured? And why was he injured? He eats cornbread all day and doesnt work out like he should. He is a lazy bum. Said it then, and I say it again.

Whitehurst is a pimp. you will see.

Thats pretty funny, I am aware you were just trying to get under peoples skin by saying he was a bust in the first place. Your not kidding me and I'm not biting on your line, but nice try. biggrin

I suspect you are doing the same with Whitehurst in an opposite fashion. I know you well enough to know you know more about football than most and I doubt you believe Charlie has shown anything to deserve being propped up some elite pedestal, let alone even shown any reason to be dubbed the starter.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/22/2011 12:16 AM

RE: Petes Qb history,,, 


If Charlie wanted to be a starter this was the off season to prove it and he has let Matt remain in the drivers seat. It is difficult to see Charlie leading this team when he was the only QB on the roster and he would not step up and run player only workouts.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 06/29/2011 10:52 AM

RE: Petes Qb history,,, 



Birk1029 wrote: If Charlie wanted to be a starter this was the off season to prove it and he has let Matt remain in the drivers seat. It is difficult to see Charlie leading this team when he was the only QB on the roster and he would not step up and run player only workouts.

The dudes still new, he's not going to step on Hass or anyone elses toes.....He's going to earn his spot as the starter once the team comes back together.

Mays S USC, Black OT LSU, Cody DT Bama, Bryant WR OSU or McCoy QB Texas  Just Gimmie Two In 2010 Timmy!

Reply | Quote