PDA

View Full Version : The Seattle Seahawks...Who is running this team?


Dan_Steele
04-16-2012, 01:54 PM
I'll be the first to admit, I am big fan of a ton of the work Pete Carroll has done since he arrived in Seattle (i.e. Marshawn Lynch and Mike Williams' revival, finding late round gems like Kam Chancellor, Richard Sherman and Doug Baldwin, and I'm happy he up and traded Aaron Curry).

However, for the life of me I cannot figure out what they are doing with the QB position. First, they trade away several draft picks for Charlie Whitehurst in the hopes he'll be their franchise signal caller...FAIL #1. The next year they make up for their mistake by adding Tarvaris Jackson??? I do not think there ever was a soul on this earth who believed he was the answer to their QB issues. Lo and behold, the prophecy was fulfilled after a season in which he looked absolutely hopeless behind center they have given up. I'll give the guy credit, its not like that offensive line was the best and its not like he had the best weapons play with but I don't think anybody in their right mind believed, even for an instance, that this guy had winning potential...FAIL #2. Now the Seahawks have signed Matt Flynn, and for a player with his potential the contract was pretty safe, at least for a QB. He is exactly the type of player Carroll needs to run his style of offense and I am interested to see how he does. Best case scenario he is Mark Brunell, worst case he is AJ Feely...lets just table this one for now and give the Seahawks (and Flynn) the benefit of the doubt.

However, here is where my question lies, if there is any merit to the Hawks' love for Ryan Tannehill why even sign Flynn in the first place? In no way was Flynn brought on to be a place holder for a young guy, being still a young guy himself. Although it is becoming clear that Tannehill will be long gone by #12, would it really have cost them more than they are willing to give up if they were to pull off a trade with a team in the Top 10? IMO, you can never overpay for a franchise signal caller, and with the rookie wage scale the way it is, the financial risk would not be debilitating if he is to be a bust. Also, if they are indeed as enamored as much as they say, why not let Miami go ahead and sign him in the first place? The only team you really have to compete with is the Chiefs...maybe. Its looking more and more likely that Cleveland will give McCoy all the weapons in the world and allow him one more season to prove himself.

As a football move having Flynn already locked up is wise. It doesn't force your hand or make you desperate to get a young guy and force him to carry the franchise. As a business move it is baffling. Why sign a young guy to be your franchise signal caller and then go ahead and draft another QB with a relatively high pick before your new investment even hits the practice field?

Seahawks fans help me out here. Look I am very well aware this could be a smokescreen, but for debate's sake lets just say its the truth, please tell me how having both of these guys makes any logical sense?

NY+Giants=NYG
04-16-2012, 02:04 PM
It's probably a smoke screen. Wait and see how it all plays out. We also hear the Eagles want Tannehill, but they have Vick. So, at this time, I wouldn't believe what any team says, reports, or leaks to the beat writers. I think getting Flynn was a good move, now let's see how you guys develop him within your system. I think the rest is BS and a smoke screen. Just wait and see how everything plays out. If you guys trade and draft him, then I'd wonder what the heck is going on.

XxXdragonXxX
04-16-2012, 02:34 PM
Obviously the Seahawks gave up too much for Whitehurst. But was there really a better option that year? I'd say no.

Tarvaris Jackson sucks, but again what other options were there? I mean they could have got Dalton, but nobody really thought a Ginger would be good. Or they could have overpaid for Kolb. Or kept old man hasselbeck who would have died behind the hawks OL.

As far as Tannehill goes, IMO his ceiling is the same as Flynn's and there's a good chance he wont make it to 12. I don't think they will draft him anyway. Flynn will be the guy this year and if he doesn't work out they'll try again next year.


Schneider and Carroll aren't making terrible mistakes with the QB position, they just haven't had an opportunity to do anything better.

Dan_Steele
04-16-2012, 02:35 PM
It's probably a smoke screen. Wait and see how it all plays out. We also hear the Eagles want Tannehill, but they have Vick. So, at this time, I wouldn't believe what any team says, reports, or leaks to the beat writers. I think getting Flynn was a good move, now let's see how you guys develop him within your system. I think the rest is BS and a smoke screen. Just wait and see how everything plays out. If you guys trade and draft him, then I'd wonder what the heck is going on.

That is what I am thinking, honestly it is the only thing that makes any sense. I am not a Seahawks fan, but rather somebody who is incredibly critical of baffling GM moves. Whitehurst was terrible mistake and Tarvaris Jackson was even worse. Flynn shows more potential to be a solid QB then both, but I am a fan of drafting your QB, and unless a guy like Peyton Manning is on the market I prefer building a team through the draft. The question I think most GMs do not ask is "If he is so good, why is his former team just letting him go?" If a player is good enough, and important enough to the team's success then the team would make a more concentrated effort to bring him back. I know the Pack has Rodgers, and he is set in stone, but if the Packers didn't make an effort to franchise him, a la Patriots and Matt Cassell, they must have been convinced that they wouldn't have received a good package of picks, which I believe directly translates to the Packers' confidence in him as a franchise signal caller. So what I am saying, why not just make a play at Tannehill if you like him so much?

Dan_Steele
04-16-2012, 02:39 PM
Obviously the Seahawks gave up too much for Whitehurst. But was there really a better option that year? I'd say no.

Tarvaris Jackson sucks, but again what other options were there? I mean they could have got Dalton, but nobody really thought a Ginger would be good. Or they could have overpaid for Kolb. Or kept old man hasselbeck who would have died behind the hawks OL.
As far as Tannehill goes, IMO his ceiling is the same as Flynn's and there's a good chance he wont make it to 12.


Schneider and Carroll aren't making terrible mistakes with the QB position, they just haven't had an opportunity to do anything better.

I agree with the points you are making, and they are fair points if we are talking strictly football here. But QBs cost a lot of money on the open market, more money than they are worth, and these guys didn't have one year contracts with no bonuses. Whitehurst cost several important draft picks and Jackson cost money that could have been allocated elsewhere. Signing a free agent is hardly ever a 1-year commitment, and if your signing a QB with no intention of sticking with him for the long run then its a poor move.

Sportsfan486
04-16-2012, 02:55 PM
Ignore any and all pre-draft talk linking teams and players.

It's all smokescreen and BS. All of it. Teams want other teams to draft people they don't want ahead of them so people they do want fall to them. Or make their spots more valuable for trades. That is basically the only goal with all these pre-draft visits and talk.

Teams have tape, combine and pro days. They have their boards. It's just us draftniks that keep changing things around based on what we hear. Teams don't care. They have the tape. They already interviewed these players. They have all the numbers. The rest of this stuff is just playing poker.

The Seahawks got Flynn. It was a fantastic move for them, especially at the price he got them. If that defense continues to improve and they keep that run game strong, maybe add a nice threat at WR in the draft, Flynn can take them to the playoffs. He won't be elite but he will be effective. He's an incredible dramatic improvement over the lack of anything close to a QB they had last year.

descendency
04-16-2012, 03:24 PM
The same Pete Carroll that took a Bill Parcells, "ready made team", and managed to get fired.

gpngc
04-16-2012, 06:09 PM
The same Pete Carroll that took a Bill Parcells, "ready made team", and managed to get fired.

I like your avatar.

Rosebud
04-16-2012, 06:10 PM
If he falls to 12, he's a great pick. Tannehill has significantly higher upside than Flynn, at least IMO, but he needs more work. Flynn's only signed for 3 seasons, which means Flynn will get a chance to prove himself while they groom Tannehill, if Flynn is just a mediocre starter or worse, yet another bust, then they've already got a really talented kid they've been grooming to step in. If not, and Tannehill develops as well, then they get to pick who they want to keep and trade the other for picks. If Flynn is the real deal but Tannehill busts, well then you blew one pick just to make sure you had a franchise QB.

wogitalia
04-17-2012, 01:07 AM
Makes sense to me, if they want Tannehill then drafting him makes sense as he needs time on the bench and worst case they end up in the situation the Chargers did with Brees and Rivers or the Packers with Favre and Rodgers.

If they don't want Tannehill, then they are probably targeting another position and if the bluff forces a team to trade ahead of them to take Tannehill then that is one less pick being used on whoever the Hawks actually want.

gpngc
04-17-2012, 02:11 AM
I don't really understand your argument.

You can criticize the Seahawks for:

A) the horrible Whitehurst trade.

B) passing on Andy Dalton.

C) not re-signing Hasselbeck last year.

You'd have a valid argument for any of those. I'd argue against you if you claimed B and C, but you'd at least have an argument. A everyone can agree on. Which is fine, but I think that's your only good point in terms of 'wtf are they doing?'

You CANNOT criticize them for:

A) Signing Tarvaris Jackson to a 2-year $8 million contract (unless you mix his signing with the passing of Dalton - even though the two probably were unrelated).

B) Signing Matt Flynn to a reasonable contract.

The interest in Tannehill (or eventual drafting of Tannehill) has very little to do with Flynn. A team without a franchise QB should continue its pursuit of one until it finds one. That's what they are doing. If they end up with two during this offseason, then that's a good 'problem' to have.

And he's probably not going to be there at No. 12 anyway. So if they liked him so much and didn't trade up to No. 3, passed on Flynn because they eyed Tannehill, struck out on both they'd be absolutely screwed (or the Dolphins).

niel89
04-17-2012, 02:16 AM
I'll be the first to admit, I am big fan of a ton of the work Pete Carroll has done since he arrived in Seattle (i.e. Marshawn Lynch and Mike Williams' revival, finding late round gems like Kam Chancellor, Richard Sherman and Doug Baldwin, and I'm happy he up and traded Aaron Curry).


I'm pretty sure they just need to keep picking up the Stanford players that beat up on Carol and they should be good.

jojo
04-17-2012, 07:58 AM
Tavaris was never really more than a placeholder.

And why take Tannehill when they already have one QB with minimal experience in Flynn? Twice bitten, once shy..... huh?:njx:

IMO, you can never overpay for a franchise signal caller, and with the rookie wage scale the way it is, the financial risk would not be debilitating if he is to be a bust.

I beg to differ. See Cleveland & Tim Couch, SD Bolts & Ryan leaf, etc. About 2 out of 3 rookie QBs bust or become career backups or cap casualties, & the flip side of that is that when they say an Andrew Luck only comes along once in a decade like an Elway, you take him & don't look back. It's a crapshoot any way you slice it.

In the Seattle games I saw last yr. it was their defense that caved. Carroll knows this & will rebuild it, not necessarily with pick #12 which is a value pick & almost guaranteed rookie starter that low, so with the mid-rd. players. Pass rush upgrade, coverage secondary help & & d-line anchors all needed.

Job Reborn
04-17-2012, 09:01 AM
worst case they end up in the situation the Chargers did with Brees and Rivers or the Packers with Favre and Rodgers.


Worst case is they both suck.

XxXdragonXxX
04-17-2012, 09:29 AM
In the Seattle games I saw last yr. it was their defense that caved. Carroll knows this & will rebuild it, not necessarily with pick #12 which is a value pick & almost guaranteed rookie starter that low, so with the mid-rd. players. Pass rush upgrade, coverage secondary help & & d-line anchors all needed.


I don't know what games you were watching, but in the ones I watched (all of them) it was the defense keeping them in games so that Tarvaris Jackson could fail to complete a game winning drive. The defense was 9th in yards per game, 7th in points. They were also 4th in the league with 31 turnovers forced.

You're right about the need for a pass rusher, but the run defense is stout and the secondary is very young and very very good. There is absolutely no rebuilding needed on defense. A pass rusher and an MLB and they're set.

Quarterback was EASILY the biggest need for the Seahawks, hopefully Flynn will fill that hole. I don't see them taking Tannehill, they will give Flynn his shot and if he doesn't work out they'll go get someone next year.

TitleTown088
04-19-2012, 12:10 AM
Schneider will make the seahawks boring to be a fan of in the offseason and exciting to watch during the season for some time to come.

Embrace a Ted Thompson disciple with open arms.