Seattle Seahawk Fans Should Quit Whining—The Charlie Whitehurst Trade is Good

Tommy BertolinoContributor IMarch 18, 2010

The typical NFL and Hawk fan reaction has been that we were foolish and got robbed by the Chargers.  Let's think again without the foolish reactionary thought.  

You can NOT assess this trade with any type of negative grade or opinion. Why?

Besides the fact that I said so, and was reported by billybobsled7, you don't even know who we're going to select at the No. 60 slot. There's a mock that had us taking Joe McKnight at No. 40 and Walter had McKnight going to Vikes at No. 62. We could get the SAME player at No. 40 as No. 60. 

John Schneider learned from Ted Thompson the benefits of moving down in a draft and getting a player or incremental selections to find value. This is a value draft and we did NOT give up an INCREMENTAL selection and still inked a QB that our new regime desired. Nice job, PC/JS.

We did NOT give up an INCREMENTAL selection in this deep draft. Is that clear? It should be pretty CRYSTAL .  Dropping down 20 slots in round two in this draft is BETTER than giving up an INCREMENTAL selection in the fourth round and No. 101 pick.  How can you not see this very simple and paramount concept? Think for a second. don't be so reactionary. We need to add youthful talent now.

One other idea to ponder before reacting so quickly without much thought.

There is a mock that already updated the trade as they are on their game. In this mock, both Colt McCoy and Jevan Snead go at selections No. 37 and No. 38 to Washington and Cleveland, which shows upper second round talent. 

What happens if we stay at No. 40 and, needing a future QB, we draft either McCoy or Snead if they drop?  What is the fanbase's reaction? Personally, I'd be sick 'cause I don't like either guy a bit.  Drafting a QB at No. 40 had high probability, especially if both Clausen and Bradford are off the board and we didn't have a third rounder in this draft. It's a big void going from 40 to 101.

Video Play Button
Videos you might like

So instead of Seattle taking a QB at No. 40 like Colt McCoy or Jevan Snead or even Tim Tebow, we traded for an unknown QB in Charlie Whitehurst

AND we still get to choose a second rd talent at No. 60 and STILL get a player that we'd likely have drafted at No. 40 anyway if we hadn't made the trade to move down. We now get the best of both worlds.

We still get a QB that the regime likes in Charlie and still get to draft second round talent where a handful of power running backs, cornerbacks, or safeties will be available and have the impact and contain the same value at No. 60 as No. 40.
 Has any Hawk fan even thought of this, yet? Maybe a handful of the thousands.

Is there anybody that can think outside of the box for a moment w/out reacting to this thread and THINK for a second? Please, just one guy. Just looking for one Hawk fan that will ponder this before responding.

As far as next year's third round selection, there are conflicting reports as to if we gave our third away or received one or swapped selections.  It still DOES NOT change the opinion on this transaction if you use simple PV financial concepts in your analysis of future vs present worth of next year's third. PV has it at a fourth. So in essence we gave up a future pick (pv of a fourth) for Whitehurst.

In conclusion, we get an unknown QB that our new regime wants instead of drafting one of those scrubs mentioned at No. 40 and still get an incremental selection to draft at No. 60 getting similar talent to a guy at No. 40 in this deep draft, anyway. At least if PC/JS are wrong about QB talent we didn't WASTE the No. 40 pick in the draft, we still will have a bondafide power RB or secondary talent with selection No. 60.

slash iconYour sports. Delivered.

Enjoy our content? Join our newsletter to get the latest in sports news delivered straight to your inbox!