Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Pryor's trade value?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Oakland Raiders
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
BBIB


Joined: 20 Jan 2008
Posts: 8771
PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
JTagg7754


Joined: 09 Nov 2010
Posts: 12152
Location: Somewhere in Ohio
PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
_________________


PM sig requests.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Silver&Black88


Joined: 24 Feb 2009
Posts: 33538
Location: Boston, MA
PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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?
_________________

CrapTakula wrote:
Cleveland steamer?

make sure you wash well.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mr.Bob Dobalina


Joined: 24 Oct 2009
Posts: 1567
Location: Texas
PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2013 12:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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? Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Silver&Black88


Joined: 24 Feb 2009
Posts: 33538
Location: Boston, MA
PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2013 12:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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? Wink


http://www.footballsfuture.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=511141

get a load of that Laughing
_________________

CrapTakula wrote:
Cleveland steamer?

make sure you wash well.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ZoomWaffle


Joined: 25 Apr 2010
Posts: 5365
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2013 10:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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? Wink


http://www.footballsfuture.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=511141

get a load of that Laughing


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
View user's profile Send private message
JTagg7754


Joined: 09 Nov 2010
Posts: 12152
Location: Somewhere in Ohio
PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2013 11:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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? Wink


http://www.footballsfuture.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=511141

get a load of that Laughing


Oh my........
_________________


PM sig requests.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BBIB


Joined: 20 Jan 2008
Posts: 8771
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 1:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
Mr.Bob Dobalina


Joined: 24 Oct 2009
Posts: 1567
Location: Texas
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 1:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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? Wink


http://www.footballsfuture.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=511141

get a load of that Laughing
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
View user's profile Send private message
BBIB


Joined: 20 Jan 2008
Posts: 8771
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 1:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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? Wink


http://www.footballsfuture.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=511141

get a load of that Laughing
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
View user's profile Send private message
Nodisrespect


Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 3920
Location: in the present
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 1:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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? Wink


http://www.footballsfuture.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=511141

Toget a load of that Laughing
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
View user's profile Send private message
BBIB


Joined: 20 Jan 2008
Posts: 8771
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 1:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
Baggabonez


Joined: 29 Apr 2010
Posts: 5948
Location: RaiderNation
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 5:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
_________________
Nodisrespect on building inside out wrote:
teams without highly draft DT's make the playoffs and win the superbowl regularly.

Bonez wrote:
Teams that win Superbowls and make the playoffs aren't picking in the Top 5, clearly
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BBIB


Joined: 20 Jan 2008
Posts: 8771
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 6:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
holyghost


Joined: 18 Jan 2007
Posts: 5772
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 6:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Oakland Raiders All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group