PDA

View Full Version : Could the Whitehurst trade be pointing to Marshall being signed?



Lancane
03-17-2010, 05:44 PM
According to Greg Rossenthal, Charlie Whitehursts' acquisition from San Diego will be costly for the Seahawks.


Obtaining Whitehurst proves costly for Seahawks
Posted by Gregg Rosenthal on March 17, 2010 6:02 PM ET
For better or worse, the first years of the Pete Carroll era in Seattle will be defined by Charlie Whitehurst.

ESPN's John Clayton reports that the Seahawks have obtained Whitehurst, a restricted free agent, from the Chargers. Seattle will move down 20 picks in the second round of the 2010 draft and give up a third-round pick in 2011 to get San Diego's third-string quarterback.

But that's not the costly part.

The Seahawks have agreed to terms on a two-year deal with Whitehurst that is expected to pay him $5 million-per-year. Yikes.

Whitehurst has not attempted a regular season pass as a pro, but he should fairly soon with that contract.

Give Carroll and G.M. John Schneider credit for targeting their guy and having the cajones to go get him. They just better be right.


Many believed the reason why Brandon Marshall left Seattle without a contract was because the team felt it was in need of a quarterback and Jimmy Clausen was the likely candidate. With this, the chances of Seattle drafting Clausen is highly unlikely, the cost they accepted to give for Whitehurst is more then most should spend on a backup quarterback, let alone giving him five million a year. Could this open the way for Marshall to be inked and Seattle giving up the 6th overall pick to retain him? Could be...I will not say it's for sure. Carroll is likely to be booed out of Seattle if he doesn't get more talent on the field, and the same could be said if he keeps paying so much for quarterbacks...drafting Clausen, may get him in the hot seat with Seattle's fans.

Italianmobstr7
03-17-2010, 05:48 PM
According to Greg Rossenthal, Charlie Whitehursts' acquisition from San Diego will be costly for the Seahawks.



Many believed the reason why Brandon Marshall left Seattle without a contract was because the team felt it was in need of a quarterback and Jimmy Clausen was the likely candidate. With this, the chances of Seattle drafting Clausen is highly unlikely, the cost they accepted to give for Whitehurst is more then most should spend on a backup quarterback, let alone giving him five million a year. Could this open the way for Marshall to be inked and Seattle giving up the 6th overall pick to retain him? Could be...I will not say it's for sure. Carroll is likely to be booed out of Seattle if he doesn't get more talent on the field, and the same could be said if he keeps paying so much for quarterbacks...drafting Clausen, may get him in the hot seat with Seattle's fans.

I think this makes it more likely that they WON'T be trading for Marshall. They're not going to want to give up draft picks when they're already trading down, and now losing a 3rd rounder next year. Teams covet draft picks, which is why hardly any RFA have been signed to a different team. I think Marshall will stay in Denver (God PLEASE let this be the case!), but wouldn't be surprised if he's traded on draft day.

SmilinAssasSin27
03-17-2010, 05:50 PM
Or...they could just want a young QB for the future. Just saying.

Lancane
03-17-2010, 05:52 PM
I think this makes it more likely that they WON'T be trading for Marshall. They're not going to want to give up draft picks when they're already trading down, and now losing a 3rd rounder next year. Teams covet draft picks, which is why hardly any RFA have been signed to a different team. I think Marshall will stay in Denver (God PLEASE let this be the case!), but wouldn't be surprised if he's traded on draft day.

They only traded down..., they actually only give up a pick next year. And this is Pete Carroll, we really do not know what to expect of him now... I would not be surprised if they did sign Marshall. Though I understand and respect your point of view on the subject as well. I just wanted input, because right now the heat for Marshall is heating up and I still see Seattle being a viable option.

Ravage!!!
03-17-2010, 06:01 PM
I don't think so. Again, why would they make a move to give up the 6th pick? They dont' need to. No way Denver passes up onthe 14 if thats offered.

So no. The owner for Seattle is MAJORLY MAJORLY rich .. and during this economic 'fall'.. the rich only got richer (look at all the numbers, alll the majorly rich dudes are BANKING it in right now).

I don't see how this is a single sign that Seattle is thinking of giving the 6th pick. This is a major stretch. Seattle can now trade this pick to a team that is looking for a QB, and trade down while acquiring more picks. They could still use the 6th on a different player, or still draft a QB if Clausen is still there (they would be foolish not to).

This gives them options. I don't see it being anything more than that.

dogfish
03-17-2010, 06:07 PM
Could the Whitehurst trade be pointing to Marshall being signed?

couuuuld be. . .

OR, it could just be that you're bored and your brain can't stop the relentless speculation this time of year, and you're willing to kick around virtually any scenario or line of thought for at least a few minutes. . .


;)


probably the latter. . . i suppose there's nothing fundamentally wrong with your reasoning as far as it goes, but the leap of logic used to get from A to B might qualify for a world record. . . *laughs*

they could juuust as easily be signing him to address the QB spot to clear the way for drafting okung or bulaga at #6-- given that they still have hasselbeck but jones is questionable at best, you might say they need help at left tackle even more immediately than at quarterback. . .

or, hell, they might be feeling like eric berry is going to fall in their lap if a couple of QBs or OTs fit into the top five. . . maybe carroll wants to roll the dice on an edge rusher and doesn't think his guy will be there at #14. . . they have a shit-ton of needs, they could go any different number of ways in the draft. . . would okung and spiller surprise anybody? they could still try to put together a package of picks for marshall if we haven't traded him by draft day, or take golden tate at #14. . . or hope that somebody like damian williams or deymarius thomas is still there in the 2nd. . .

i do think they're probably still interested in marshall, but everybody knew they needed a QB with wallace getting dealt and hass getting old and beat up. . .

dogfish
03-17-2010, 06:14 PM
Or...they could just want a young QB for the future. Just saying.

maybe paul allen is ready to go dan snyder in an uncapped year, but IMO the compensation would seem to indicate that they view him as a potential starter in the next year or two. . .

unless they don't think hasselbeck has another year or two left in him and wanted to secure a guy who's at least been in the league for a few years to act as a bridge/mentor for a kid like claussen, i would GUESS that this does decrease the likelihood that they spend a high pick on a QB. . .

Nomad
03-17-2010, 06:17 PM
I believe this makes it likely that Seattle may be looking hard at Okung or Buluga!! depending on if Wash takes Okung or Clausen!!

Northman
03-17-2010, 07:20 PM
This smells like Chris Simms only Chris actually played in the NFL. lol

tomjonesrocks
03-18-2010, 10:13 AM
Man the Chargers are *good*...:mad:

Compensation like this for Whitehurst?

Ravage!!!
03-18-2010, 10:15 AM
Man the Chargers are *good*...:mad:

Compensation like this for Whitehurst?

well Duh..... just look at their trophy case. I think that says it all

Traveler
03-18-2010, 10:20 AM
According to Greg Rossenthal, Charlie Whitehursts' acquisition from San Diego will be costly for the Seahawks.



Many believed the reason why Brandon Marshall left Seattle without a contract was because the team felt it was in need of a quarterback and Jimmy Clausen was the likely candidate. With this, the chances of Seattle drafting Clausen is highly unlikely, the cost they accepted to give for Whitehurst is more then most should spend on a backup quarterback, let alone giving him five million a year. Could this open the way for Marshall to be inked and Seattle giving up the 6th overall pick to retain him? Could be...I will not say it's for sure. Carroll is likely to be booed out of Seattle if he doesn't get more talent on the field, and the same could be said if he keeps paying so much for quarterbacks...drafting Clausen, may get him in the hot seat with Seattle's fans.

This move pretty much shuts the door on them acquiring BM IMO.

T.K.O.
03-18-2010, 10:30 AM
if anything,i think it points to hasselbech being traded and drafting clausen at #6.is the new offense going to be alot different? just wondering.
i doubt the new coach wants to waste time on a qb who may have a year or 2 left in the tank.while he may get a team like washington to give him picks.
hasslelbech has played well ,but never has been able to get them over the top

rationalfan
03-18-2010, 11:52 AM
hasslelbech has played well ,but never has been able to get them over the top

uh, seattle did go to a super bowl with hasselbeck (sp?). he might getting old, but until recently he wasn't the problem in seattle.

TXBRONC
03-18-2010, 12:45 PM
This smells like Chris Simms only Chris actually played in the NFL. lol

So you've gotten closen enough to Simms to know what he smells like? :heh:

j/k

WARHORSE
03-19-2010, 06:32 AM
This move pretty much shuts the door on them acquiring BM IMO.

Nah. If anything it makes it more believable.



If youre going to give up that much for Whitehurst...........you'd give up the 6th pick for BM.....guaranteed. :coffee:

Ravage!!!
03-19-2010, 12:50 PM
well.. I see what they are saying. People speculated the same as I did, that we would be getting Seattle's 2nd round pick. Now, that has moved down. I don't believe for a MOMENT (not a single one) that Seattle will ever give up the 6th pick. NO WAY. I don't think they will give up the 14th, but they might (now) give up next year's first. I think they are in great spots to pick up both Clausen and Spiller.. then they could trade away next years 1st for Marshall (or some other compensation)... and their team would take a HUGE leap offensively.

This does change the outcome of the draft for me. Seattle now doesn't have the 2nd that I anticipated being a part of the trade. I know they are still interested, and will be the top team in line to make a move. But I'm curious as to how they get it done, now.

WARHORSE
03-19-2010, 02:15 PM
well.. I see what they are saying. People speculated the same as I did, that we would be getting Seattle's 2nd round pick. Now, that has moved down. I don't believe for a MOMENT (not a single one) that Seattle will ever give up the 6th pick. NO WAY. I don't think they will give up the 14th, but they might (now) give up next year's first. I think they are in great spots to pick up both Clausen and Spiller.. then they could trade away next years 1st for Marshall (or some other compensation)... and their team would take a HUGE leap offensively.

This does change the outcome of the draft for me. Seattle now doesn't have the 2nd that I anticipated being a part of the trade. I know they are still interested, and will be the top team in line to make a move. But I'm curious as to how they get it done, now.


Denver is not going to give up Marshall for just a second rounder.

Never happen.


Ever.

Ravage!!!
03-19-2010, 02:51 PM
Denver is not going to give up Marshall for just a second rounder.

Never happen.


Ever.

yeah.. ok. They are much more likely to get the 6th pick.

I would ahve said the same thing about USING a first round pick on Alphonso.... or using it on a RB... or moving UP in the draft for a blocking TE....

claymore
03-19-2010, 02:54 PM
I think Green Bay wanted a 1st for Javon Walker till the 2nd round came around. :D

Lancane
03-19-2010, 03:00 PM
Denver is not going to give up Marshall for just a second rounder.

Never happen.


Ever.

Agreed...the teams that has the most power to make a move on Marshall after the first round would be Kansas City, Cleveland, Tampa Bay and New England. I do not see them trading Marshall to either KC or New England, it's doubtful that Holmgren would give up fair value for Marshall...leaving Tampa Bay, they could offer both of their second round picks, but will they?

I don't see Denver parting with him for just a second round pick, a first or multiple picks...but no matter what the fandom thinks, I do believe Bowlen would be pissed if McDaniels did so, whether he said it was for the good of the team or not.

Lancane
03-19-2010, 03:01 PM
I think Green Bay wanted a 1st for Javon Walker till the 2nd round came around. :D

There is a difference, Walker had a history of health issues and also had what some considered character issues at the same time. Marshall's value far exceeds Walkers'.

claymore
03-19-2010, 03:06 PM
Agreed...the teams that has the most power to make a move on Marshall after the first round would be Kansas City, Cleveland, Tampa Bay and New England. I do not see them trading Marshall to either KC or New England, it's doubtful that Holmgren would give up fair value for Marshall...leaving Tampa Bay, they could offer both of their second round picks, but will they?

I don't see Denver parting with him for just a second round pick, a first or multiple picks...but no matter what the fandom thinks, I do believe Bowlen would be pissed if McDaniels did so, whether he said it was for the good of the team or not.
The longer we have Marshall the less value he has. I can see taking a 2nd rounder for him because we might not have a choice.

If the draft passes without a trade, we are stuck with a pissed off WR that isnt under contract. Our option is to try and make him sign a tender to play for peanuts, or sign him to a long contract.

If we pay him what he is worth football wise we are now stuck at the hip with a kid that has a history of emotional issues and trouble. Mix that with a coach that plays hardball in every scenario.

Id rather take a 2nd and avoid all the drama.

claymore
03-19-2010, 03:13 PM
There is a difference, Walker had a history of health issues and also had what some considered character issues at the same time. Marshall's value far exceeds Walkers'.

Walker also didnt have Dui, domestic violence, and suspensions. Marshall has had injury issues as well. He was benched for basically not being tougher. Or for dogging it.

Walker and Marshall situation are different, but there are alot of similarities to both.

Ravage!!!
03-19-2010, 03:14 PM
The longer we have Marshall the less value he has. I can see taking a 2nd rounder for him because we might not have a choice.

If the draft passes without a trade, we are stuck with a pissed off WR that isnt under contract. Our option is to try and make him sign a tender to play for peanuts, or sign him to a long contract.

If we pay him what he is worth football wise we are now stuck at the hip with a kid that has a history of emotional issues and trouble. Mix that with a coach that plays hardball in every scenario.

Id rather take a 2nd and avoid all the drama.


I just don't see McD wanting to deal with it. He didn't even want to deal with a good DC. How does McD justify signing Marshall to a long-term contract when he doesn't even like him?

Bowlen told Marshall he had to prove himself, again, before he would get his money and that he WOULD get his money. He said that on TV interview. They really going to then sign him to peanuts, again, and tell him he has to earn his paycheck.. again?

I truly believe McD wants him out more than people realize right now. I just dont see this relationship being healed.

claymore
03-19-2010, 03:18 PM
I just don't see McD wanting to deal with it. He didn't even want to deal with a good DC. How does McD justify signing Marshall to a long-term contract when he doesn't even like him?

Bowlen told Marshall he had to prove himself, again, before he would get his money and that he WOULD get his money. He said that on TV interview. They really going to then sign him to peanuts, again, and tell him he has to earn his paycheck.. again?

I truly believe McD wants him out more than people realize right now. I just dont see this relationship being healed.

I dont see what Marshall has to gain by signing his tender if noone signs him to an offer sheet, or makes an offer Denver accepts.

Lets keep in mind that Marshals Agent can threaten the Broncos with this very real possibility, and sway their decision.

Marshall wants out. Regardless of what anyone here thinks. For those that want him to stay, need to hope and wish JMCD is kissing his ass right now.

Lancane
03-19-2010, 03:29 PM
I just don't see McD wanting to deal with it. He didn't even want to deal with a good DC. How does McD justify signing Marshall to a long-term contract when he doesn't even like him?

Bowlen told Marshall he had to prove himself, again, before he would get his money and that he WOULD get his money. He said that on TV interview. They really going to then sign him to peanuts, again, and tell him he has to earn his paycheck.. again?

I truly believe McD wants him out more than people realize right now. I just dont see this relationship being healed.

That is all well and fine, and for the most part I agree with your point of view. One fact still remains and that is Bowlen. Yes, I know what he has said, I know what McDaniels has said and the back and forth drama of it all. Here is my point, if McDaniels trades Marshall for a second round pick and he can not replace him, which is very unlikely and all of a sudden Marshall is going to the Pro-Bowl yet again for another team; then Bowlen might well see the ineptitude of McDaniels and Xanders being in charge of this team. Let's take out the lucky wins and the ability Marshall brought to the offense this past year, where would we likely have been? 5-11, 6-10...maybe worse?

How does losing Marshall improve the team? Yes, we've all heard the team philosophy and yadda, yadda. But can his value be replaced, chances are high that we draft a bust at the receiver position in itself. Do we then trade for a lesser receiver? My thing is that I think McDaniels knows that his flaws could be exposed, not saying it will keep him from trading Marshall anyways...but that unless he has a higher chance to replace him or more picks to do such, that he might indeed not be so willing to just rid himself of Marshall, does that make sense?

I mean we agree that he is not a complete idiot, right?

KyleOrtonArmySoldier#128
03-19-2010, 03:37 PM
Completely unrelated: I had the craziest dream last night. I was the HC of the Broncos, and they were a SKATEBOARDING team. None of them wanted to "play football" come game day, or maybe they didn't want to skateboard. Anyway, I coached em up until they agreed to skateboard, and orton showed up on a ******* bike! wtf?

Lancane
03-19-2010, 03:38 PM
I dont see what Marshall has to gain by signing his tender if noone signs him to an offer sheet, or makes an offer Denver accepts.

Lets keep in mind that Marshals Agent can threaten the Broncos with this very real possibility, and sway their decision.

Marshall wants out. Regardless of what anyone here thinks. For those that want him to stay, need to hope and wish JMCD is kissing his ass right now.

Clay, they can not trade him if he refuses to sign his tenure, or so I am led to believe. A RFA tenure is the value to his rights and his rights alone. A restricted free agent can only be traded if he signs his tenure therein making it equal to a one year contract, or that is my interpretation of the guidelines.

So to be traded his tenure needs to be signed, then McDaniels can trade him for a seventh round pick if he wanted to...but to get his services before the tenure is signed a team would need to sign him to an offer sheet and Denver would either let it go or match. But they can not trade him till that time, again that is what I get from it all.

claymore
03-19-2010, 03:44 PM
Clay, they can not trade him if he refuses to sign his tenure, or so I am led to believe. A RFA tenure is the value to his rights and his rights alone. A restricted free agent can only be traded if he signs his tenure therein making it equal to a one year contract, or that is my interpretation of the guidelines.

So to be traded his tenure needs to be signed, then McDaniels can trade him for a seventh round pick if he wanted to...but to get his services before the tenure is signed a team would need to sign him to an offer sheet and Denver would either let it go or match. But they can not trade him till that time, again that is what I get from it all.

True, very true, and I understand that. But if no one is calling the Broncos for a trade because the price is to high then Marshall can try to force their hand by telling the Broncos he will just sit out 2010 and not play.

If he skips 2010 is he an UFA in 2011?

Lancane
03-19-2010, 03:49 PM
True, very true, and I understand that. But if no one is calling the Broncos for a trade because the price is to high then Marshall can try to force their hand by telling the Broncos he will just sit out 2010 and not play.

If he skips 2010 is he an UFA in 2011?

No, his rights will still belong to the Broncos. Jake Plummer had a similar issue with Tampa Bay, even though he was not a restricted free agent, he retired...the league felt he may be doing so to escape his rights being owned by the Buccaneers and it was deemed that if he returned his rights would still be owned by Tampa Bay for the continuation of the length of his contract. So he could return now and be an unrestricted free agent...if he wanted. But we would have control of Marshall's rights for at least another year more then likely and that would cause him to be away from the game for two whole seasons. Or so I am led to believe, the guidelines read like legal papers and are not so easy to understand sometimes...lol.

claymore
03-19-2010, 03:52 PM
No, his rights will still belong to the Broncos. Jake Plummer had a similar issue with Tampa Bay, even though he was not a restricted free agent, he retired...the league felt he may be doing so to escape his rights being owned by the Buccaneers and it was deemed that if he returned his rights would still be owned by Tampa Bay for the continuation of the length of his contract. So he could return now and be an unrestricted free agent...if he wanted. But we would have control of Marshall's rights for at least another year more then likely and that would cause him to be away from the game for two whole seasons.

Plummer's contract was traded though. He was still under contract.

Marshall is not under contract whatsoever.

Lancane
03-19-2010, 03:59 PM
Plummer's contract was traded though. He was still under contract.

Marshall is not under contract whatsoever.

Well as it was said in the other thread, no matter we retain his rights until such time as he signs his tenure and either plays or is traded we retain his rights...or unless someone other team offers him an offer sheet to sign...

Ravage!!!
03-19-2010, 04:44 PM
How many games can Marshall sit out and still be considered 'accrued' for the year. As it was, he could sit out ten games and then come back. So just how many games can Marshall choose to sit out, and then still count? They made it a rule where you couldn't just sent a player home and have it not count.... that went out with the Owens fiasco in Philly.