Post Whitehurst Post - Dr's Prognosis


Q.  What does SSI expect out of Whitehurst, realistically?  5-game and 5-year scan?

A.  A fairly good dice roll at some day becoming a Plunkett-level quarterback.  Maybe.

I ain't saying Whitehurst is good.  But on Sunday he was an inexperienced QB trying to spit into a tornado.  It's a mulligan to me.


Am optimistic about his arm, because of the easy flick and weight transfer on downfield throws.  Am optimistic about his field presence, in part because of the Giants finish, in part just because of a vibe he gives, the long hair and the cynical, understated answers, and that stuff.  It looks to me like he can see the field okay.

I believe in him enough to give him six or eight starts and see where we're at.  You don't?  Good on yer.  Tough to argue in favor of a quarterback who just engineered one of the ten worst Seahawk performances ever.


Q.  How much is on Carroll?  Could Holmgren have gotten more out of him last Sunday?

A.  If you and I know that Carroll thinks that Whitehurst is a piece of crud, how does Charlie Whitehurst not know it?

My intuitive sense was that the play-calling wasn't set up with much of an opinion of Whitehurst.  Neither did the Seahawks "sting" the Browns, with screens and draws, at the right moments so as to keep them off Whitehurst's keister.

Yeah, I think that the offensive coordinator didn't do him any favors, either.


Isn't it rich, the way that Pete Carroll sold Tarvaris Jackson's need to recieve a fair chance under coaches who believed in him?


Q.  Expectations against the Bengals?

A.  Get the crowd behind him at CLink, rack 'em up against Cincinnati, and go from there. Let's talk again after game two.



Dr D



Nathan H.'s picture

::Shakes head::
You can't believe this. You're too smart to actually believe what you're writing here.
Look, I can understand the argument that CW can still blossom because he hasn't had enough starts. We have an incomplete slate, sure. My argument is that the slate is so small that what's been written on there so far is enough to pass judgement and that's mostly a difference of opinion. But the rest of what you've written here...
1) "It's the rest of the team's fault."
Sure, there were four (4) dropped passes. The O-line started the game poorly. It wasn't an ideal situation for CW. But the Browns weren't world-beaters on defense that game. You say they were but they weren't. There were lapses in coverage all game. Recievers got open all game. The O-line got much better as the game went on. Watch the tape again and say that I'm wrong. The criticism on Charlie is that HIS performance was unacceptable. It wasn't anyone else's fault.
2) "2 weeks as the starter in practice means very little."
Nope. Go ask Brock Huard. Really. You can. He's as accessable a personality as there is. Go ask any QB with experience how valuable those reps at starter in practice is. They'll use words like, "invaluable."
3) "Criticism against CW is simply an emotional knee-jerk reaction with malicious intent."
Nope. Opinion against his viability as a starting quarterback can be based on rational analysis. I like to think that *my* analysis is, please tell me if I'm wrong. It certainly ain't malicious. Your argument is an appeal to emotion fallacy, especially bringing up a lynch-mob. ::Shudder:: Don't DO that.
4) "Charlie got jobbed by his coaches."
C'mon. You don't believe that. You don't actually believe that any NFL coach, especially Pete Carroll, would deliberately sabotage any of his own player's chance for success. Especially someone he believed in enough to overpay to obtain. That's a [gutsy] accusation. And wrong. CW had the plays and failed to convert on them. Because of his deficiencies. Here's a fantastic breakdown of just one example. (BTW Hawk Blogger is AWESOME. If he's not on your Seahawks blog rolodex, add him immediately)
We can disagree about whether we have enough information or not to make a decision about CW as our quarterback. That's a difference of opinion with fair arguments on both sides. But the previously listed excuses for his poor performance don't hold water. : )
Charlie Whitehurst threw to the wrong people, usually locking on to his first read, and threw inaccurately. That has been my criticism all along and those characteristics haven't changed. His performance tells me that those flaws have not been fixed despite the opportunity to have had them fixed and, as such, he cannot be a viable starter in the NFL. Even on a different team with a better O-line.

Add comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd><p><br>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.


  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.