| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
BBIB
Joined: 20 Jan 2008
Posts: 7392
|
 Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:32 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
|
| It's highly unlikely the Raiders would consider trading Pryor with the success another young athletic QB is having a few miles away in the Bay Area |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
JTagg7754
Joined: 09 Nov 2010
Posts: 7218
Location: Somewhere in Ohio
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| BBIB wrote: | | It's highly unlikely the Raiders would consider trading Pryor with the success another young athletic QB is having a few miles away in the Bay Area |
But they're not even close to being the same, skill set wise.
_________________
| NCOUGHMAN wrote: | | Quote: |
you wouldnt want Rodgers Brady or Manning in his prime as your QBs? |
not with the way the nfl is right now. id take a guy like kaep over them |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Silver&Black88
Joined: 24 Feb 2009
Posts: 24560
Location: Rochester, NY
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| JTagg7754 wrote: | | BBIB wrote: | | It's highly unlikely the Raiders would consider trading Pryor with the success another young athletic QB is having a few miles away in the Bay Area |
But they're not even close to being the same, skill set wise. |
We need to keep him. Chip Kelly is going to revolutionize the NFL and render the QB position useless. Haven't you read NFLGen recently?
_________________
| husker_vikes3 wrote: | | What do you season your meatballs and sausage with? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr.Bob Dobalina
Joined: 24 Oct 2009
Posts: 1378
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2013 12:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Silver&Black88 wrote: | | JTagg7754 wrote: | | BBIB wrote: | | It's highly unlikely the Raiders would consider trading Pryor with the success another young athletic QB is having a few miles away in the Bay Area |
But they're not even close to being the same, skill set wise. |
We need to keep him. Chip Kelly is going to revolutionize the NFL and render the QB position useless. Haven't you read NFLGen recently? |
sarcasim?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Silver&Black88
Joined: 24 Feb 2009
Posts: 24560
Location: Rochester, NY
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2013 12:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Mr.Bob Dobalina wrote: | | Silver&Black88 wrote: | | JTagg7754 wrote: | | BBIB wrote: | | It's highly unlikely the Raiders would consider trading Pryor with the success another young athletic QB is having a few miles away in the Bay Area |
But they're not even close to being the same, skill set wise. |
We need to keep him. Chip Kelly is going to revolutionize the NFL and render the QB position useless. Haven't you read NFLGen recently? |
sarcasim? |
http://www.footballsfuture.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=511141
get a load of that 
_________________
| husker_vikes3 wrote: | | What do you season your meatballs and sausage with? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZoomWaffle
Joined: 25 Apr 2010
Posts: 4567
Location: AZ
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2013 10:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Silver&Black88 wrote: | | Mr.Bob Dobalina wrote: | | Silver&Black88 wrote: | | JTagg7754 wrote: | | BBIB wrote: | | It's highly unlikely the Raiders would consider trading Pryor with the success another young athletic QB is having a few miles away in the Bay Area |
But they're not even close to being the same, skill set wise. |
We need to keep him. Chip Kelly is going to revolutionize the NFL and render the QB position useless. Haven't you read NFLGen recently? |
sarcasim? |
http://www.footballsfuture.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=511141
get a load of that |
Good God!
Why the heck do people think Kelly needs a great running QB? He does not. Darron Thomas was a good passer and not a very good runner, so Kelly adjusted his offense to suit him and it was very successful. Kelly's best offenses have included a QB that was a good passer. His offense is based on the run, not on a QB running.
_________________
Silver&Black88 on the sig
| La_Vader wrote: | | I wouldn't trade Pryor for any prospect in this years draft. Quote me on that |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JTagg7754
Joined: 09 Nov 2010
Posts: 7218
Location: Somewhere in Ohio
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2013 11:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Silver&Black88 wrote: | | Mr.Bob Dobalina wrote: | | Silver&Black88 wrote: | | JTagg7754 wrote: | | BBIB wrote: | | It's highly unlikely the Raiders would consider trading Pryor with the success another young athletic QB is having a few miles away in the Bay Area |
But they're not even close to being the same, skill set wise. |
We need to keep him. Chip Kelly is going to revolutionize the NFL and render the QB position useless. Haven't you read NFLGen recently? |
sarcasim? |
http://www.footballsfuture.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=511141
get a load of that |
Oh my........
_________________
| NCOUGHMAN wrote: | | Quote: |
you wouldnt want Rodgers Brady or Manning in his prime as your QBs? |
not with the way the nfl is right now. id take a guy like kaep over them |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BBIB
Joined: 20 Jan 2008
Posts: 7392
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 1:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| ZoomWaffle wrote: |
Good God!
Why the heck do people think Kelly needs a great running QB? He does not. Darron Thomas was a good passer and not a very good runner, so Kelly adjusted his offense to suit him and it was very successful. Kelly's best offenses have included a QB that was a good passer. His offense is based on the run, not on a QB running. |
At the college level Darron Thomas was enough of a threat to run for the zone read plays to be effective
Chip Kelly would not need a dual threat QB to be successful, but the type of offense he ran at Oregon absolutely needed a dual threat QB for the majority of those plays to work |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr.Bob Dobalina
Joined: 24 Oct 2009
Posts: 1378
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 1:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Silver&Black88 wrote: | | Mr.Bob Dobalina wrote: | | Silver&Black88 wrote: | | JTagg7754 wrote: | | BBIB wrote: | | It's highly unlikely the Raiders would consider trading Pryor with the success another young athletic QB is having a few miles away in the Bay Area |
But they're not even close to being the same, skill set wise. |
We need to keep him. Chip Kelly is going to revolutionize the NFL and render the QB position useless. Haven't you read NFLGen recently? |
sarcasim? |
http://www.footballsfuture.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=511141
get a load of that |
Wow so chip Kelly could of made the akili smith's and the Dennis dixon's of this world stars in this league? Didnt know that ! You learn something knew everyday . Lol |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BBIB
Joined: 20 Jan 2008
Posts: 7392
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 1:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Mr.Bob Dobalina wrote: | | Silver&Black88 wrote: | | Mr.Bob Dobalina wrote: | | Silver&Black88 wrote: | | JTagg7754 wrote: | | BBIB wrote: | | It's highly unlikely the Raiders would consider trading Pryor with the success another young athletic QB is having a few miles away in the Bay Area |
But they're not even close to being the same, skill set wise. |
We need to keep him. Chip Kelly is going to revolutionize the NFL and render the QB position useless. Haven't you read NFLGen recently? |
sarcasim? |
http://www.footballsfuture.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=511141
get a load of that |
Wow so chip Kelly could of made the akili smith's and the Dennis dixon's of this world stars in this league? Didnt know that ! You learn something knew everyday . Lol |
That's a strawman of what I stated
I said the talent pool was much greater of guys who could be average passers and above average runners
Not that someone with the passing ability of Denard Robinson could lead an offense to productivity
The talent pool of guys who can be elilte 100% pocket passers is negligible by comparison |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nodisrespect
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2908
Location: in the present
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 1:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| BBIB wrote: | | Mr.Bob Dobalina wrote: | | Silver&Black88 wrote: | | Mr.Bob Dobalina wrote: | | Silver&Black88 wrote: | | JTagg7754 wrote: | | BBIB wrote: | | It's highly unlikely the Raiders would consider trading Pryor with the success another young athletic QB is having a few miles away in the Bay Area |
But they're not even close to being the same, skill set wise. |
We need to keep him. Chip Kelly is going to revolutionize the NFL and render the QB position useless. Haven't you read NFLGen recently? |
sarcasim? |
http://www.footballsfuture.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=511141
Toget a load of that |
Wow so chip Kelly could of made the akili smith's and the Dennis dixon's of this world stars in this league? Didnt know that ! You learn something knew everyday . Lol |
That's a strawman of what I stated
I said the talent pool was much greater of guys who could be average passers and above average runners
Not that someone with the passing ability of Denard Robinson could lead an offense to productivity
The talent pool of guys who can be elilte 100% pocket passers is negligible by comparison |
good point. Unless you think this is all a gimmick |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BBIB
Joined: 20 Jan 2008
Posts: 7392
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 1:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Nodisrespect wrote: | | good point. Unless you think this is all a gimmick |
The pistol offense isn't a gimmick because it's about math and geometry
It gives the QB better angle to see passing lanes from the shotgun and gives running backs better angles to take in the running game
It also takes a top defender out of the play completely on the backside of the play either in the passing game or running game, allowing there to be more blockers to the front side of the play
And the playaction game is far more effective because the vision for the QB out of the playaction is better without having to completely turn their back to the D, and the defense has to respect the playaction fake far more in that offense than a normal O
That's why the QB doesn't have to make as great of passes
The passing windows are as favorable as you will ever see, as well as the coverage. You won't have 7-8 defensive players in coverage against that offense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Baggabonez
Joined: 29 Apr 2010
Posts: 3745
Location: RaiderNation
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 5:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Is it really realistic to have so much enthusiasm and vitriol over a formation whose existence at the professional level is in its infancy? Proponents of the pistol are calling people names without an adequate sample size by which to accurately gauge effectiveness.
_________________
2013 Mancrush: DT Richardson, OT Joeckel, FS Vaccaro, FS Rambo, WR Dobson, RB Michael, TE McDonald, OT Foketi, WR Swope |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BBIB
Joined: 20 Jan 2008
Posts: 7392
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 6:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Baggabonez wrote: | | Is it really realistic to have so much enthusiasm and vitriol over a formation whose existence at the professional level is in its infancy? Proponents of the pistol are calling people names without an adequate sample size by which to accurately gauge effectiveness. |
Proponents are basing it off of the simple math that the Pistol formation presents which gives Qbs more favorable looks than they would have otherwise ever experienced
You think defenses will get 12 players on a field next year?
The Pistol formation takes out one of the best defensive players out of the play from the get go on the backside because they have to respect the backside threat of the QB running the football
I'm not saying it's unstoppable because if you win at the LOS you can stop ANY offense
But if a team has an offensive line that can block decently and a QB who can complete passes in huge passing lanes they can succeed |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
holyghost
Joined: 18 Jan 2007
Posts: 5302
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 6:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
AFA Pryor's trade value. If another team comes knocking, make them pay.
There's a difference between the value of a guy another team wants, and the value of the same guy if you're just trying to dump him. Big difference. I don't see any reason or motivation for Oakland to be dumping Pryor, so make a suitor pay. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
