scs787 Posted April 21, 2014 Report Share Posted April 21, 2014 If he's willing to take a backup position and knows his role I really wouldn't mind taking a flyer on him. I think if you surround him with some actual talent like we have here in Chicago he could end up being a solid QB. And with the Bears bringing back Jerrod Johnson, working out Boyd and Lynch, and then also last years talks of them running the pistol/read option plays, Pryor, at 6'6" with 4.32 speed he'd be a good fit to do just that. What says you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted April 21, 2014 Report Share Posted April 21, 2014 Seem frivolous... I think we need more of an according to Hoyle back-up QB. If he's willing to take a backup position and knows his role I really wouldn't mind taking a flyer on him. I think if you surround him with some actual talent like we have here in Chicago he could end up being a solid QB. And with the Bears bringing back Jerrod Johnson, working out Boyd and Lynch, and then also last years talks of them running the pistol/read option plays, Pryor, at 6'6" with 4.32 speed he'd be a good fit to do just that. What says you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DABEARSDABOMB Posted April 21, 2014 Report Share Posted April 21, 2014 Not interested. I want a backup that can throw the football. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scs787 Posted April 21, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 21, 2014 He did complete 57% of his passes with whatever hot garbage WRs they had in Oakland(65% his last year at OSU). I think it's not far fetched to believe he'd be up over 60% here in Chicago while also offering Trestman to get creative with Pistol and read option plays. I'm cool with drafting a QB, but with all the other needs, and only 7 picks, it'd be nice if they could pick up a guy like Pryor to take away 1 draft need. Not sure why signing him would be "Frivolous" unless you mean him wanting to leave Oakland because he doesn't wanna be a backup, only to be a backup here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongo3451 Posted April 21, 2014 Report Share Posted April 21, 2014 With the criteria you stated, yes. I think he would be an excellent choice as a backup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted April 21, 2014 Report Share Posted April 21, 2014 Frivolous. Meaning it isn't needed. Having a guy like that to run a pistol isn't what Trestman runs. We need another McCown clone... Once we get the clone, then, if money is still there for such frivolity, then I'm OK with the experiment. I just feel that there are larger holes to fill...and especially getting a back-up QB that offers more than Palmer and Pryor. With that said, if Trestman is all over it, then I'm fine. I trust him implicitly with our QB decisions. He did complete 57% of his passes with whatever hot garbage WRs they had in Oakland(65% his last year at OSU). I think it's not far fetched to believe he'd be up over 60% here in Chicago while also offering Trestman to get creative with Pistol and read option plays. I'm cool with drafting a QB, but with all the other needs, and only 7 picks, it'd be nice if they could pick up a guy like Pryor to take away 1 draft need. Not sure why signing him would be "Frivolous" unless you mean him wanting to leave Oakland because he doesn't wanna be a backup, only to be a backup here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scs787 Posted April 21, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 21, 2014 Frivolous. Meaning it isn't needed. Having a guy like that to run a pistol isn't what Trestman runs. We need another McCown clone... Once we get the clone, then, if money is still there for such frivolity, then I'm OK with the experiment. I just feel that there are larger holes to fill...and especially getting a back-up QB that offers more than Palmer and Pryor. With that said, if Trestman is all over it, then I'm fine. I trust him implicitly with our QB decisions. I'm aware what it means, and I disagree. We need a backup QB that alone makes it non-frivolous because that's exactly what Pryor is, a QB. He's not just a pistol guy. We've had one year with Trestman, he already said last year that he wanted to run some pistol/run option, or at least had that in his playbook, so when you couple that with Jerrod Johnson, and them working out Boyd/Lynch, so it sounds like he wants that type of guy. Yes McCown had success last year, but it doesn't nessessarily mean he wants a McCown clone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chitownhustla Posted April 21, 2014 Report Share Posted April 21, 2014 If he's willing to take a backup position and knows his role I really wouldn't mind taking a flyer on him. I think if you surround him with some actual talent like we have here in Chicago he could end up being a solid QB. And with the Bears bringing back Jerrod Johnson, working out Boyd and Lynch, and then also last years talks of them running the pistol/read option plays, Pryor, at 6'6" with 4.32 speed he'd be a good fit to do just that. What says you? I watched a lot of his games in College. He doesn't throw the ball well, does not have a quick release and is not very accurate. I know I read somewhere that he worked on his release the last couple of years but that doesn't mean it did anything. TP likes to run before throw. The Bears don't need a runner, they need exactly what they had last year in JM. Having a running QB would be the last thing on my list. I would think they could find better qb that is closer to a JM type QB. All Im looking for in a backup QB is Quick release student of the game- can learn a system and read Defenses Accurate thrower doesn't need a cannon of an arm, we already have that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chitownhustla Posted April 21, 2014 Report Share Posted April 21, 2014 Frivolous. Meaning it isn't needed. Having a guy like that to run a pistol isn't what Trestman runs. We need another McCown clone... Once we get the clone, then, if money is still there for such frivolity, then I'm OK with the experiment. I just feel that there are larger holes to fill...and especially getting a back-up QB that offers more than Palmer and Pryor. With that said, if Trestman is all over it, then I'm fine. I trust him implicitly with our QB decisions. Pretty much the same thing I just wrote, sorry missed what you wrote....... What he said!!! lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chitownhustla Posted April 21, 2014 Report Share Posted April 21, 2014 I'm aware what it means, and I disagree. We need a backup QB that alone makes it non-frivolous because that's exactly what Pryor is, a QB. He's not just a pistol guy. We've had one year with Trestman, he already said last year that he wanted to run some pistol/run option, or at least had that in his playbook, so when you couple that with Jerrod Johnson, and them working out Boyd/Lynch, so it sounds like he wants that type of guy. Yes McCown had success last year, but it doesn't nessessarily mean he wants a McCown clone. I just don't see the Bears using the Pistol or run option....They just committed to Jay Cutler, the last thing they want next year is Cutler getting hurt. Having him run an option would increase the chances of that happening. There would be no reason to put any of that in the playbook, its a waste of time. Any rep in practice running the option would be a waste of time, as long as Cutler is here they will not be running the option. I don't see them using the Wildcat either, but if they wanted to because they have a running QB as a backup that would make sense Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stinger226 Posted April 21, 2014 Report Share Posted April 21, 2014 If he's willing to take a backup position and knows his role I really wouldn't mind taking a flyer on him. I think if you surround him with some actual talent like we have here in Chicago he could end up being a solid QB. And with the Bears bringing back Jerrod Johnson, working out Boyd and Lynch, and then also last years talks of them running the pistol/read option plays, Pryor, at 6'6" with 4.32 speed he'd be a good fit to do just that. What says you? Every time someone is cut, (we should look at him) he aint worth it. A good body doesnt make you a good football player. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted April 21, 2014 Report Share Posted April 21, 2014 Sorry. Didn't mean to come of condescending. I just don't view Pryor as a viable #2. As a project, yes. But as a capable back-up no. I'm aware what it means, and I disagree. We need a backup QB that alone makes it non-frivolous because that's exactly what Pryor is, a QB. He's not just a pistol guy. We've had one year with Trestman, he already said last year that he wanted to run some pistol/run option, or at least had that in his playbook, so when you couple that with Jerrod Johnson, and them working out Boyd/Lynch, so it sounds like he wants that type of guy. Yes McCown had success last year, but it doesn't nessessarily mean he wants a McCown clone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scs787 Posted April 21, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 21, 2014 Sorry. Didn't mean to come of condescending. I just don't view Pryor as a viable #2. As a project, yes. But as a capable back-up no. Fair enough, I'll simply disagree I know it's just highlights but still, I'd love to have this guy work with Trestman. Oh and I've had a bit of a man crush on him since his preseason game against the Bears It was week 3 so there was a lot of starters out there. Matt Flynn started that game, Bears went up 27-0 on him, Pryor came out and put on a show and put them back in the game. I think there's a reason why he thinks of himself as a starter, will he be one?? No, reality will probably set in and he'll take a backup job somewhere. I'd love for that to be in Chicago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bears4Ever_34 Posted April 21, 2014 Report Share Posted April 21, 2014 Would love it. He has a ton of talent and his throwing motion is much improved from what it used to be. Before his team went in the tank he actually looked like he was trending towards being a pro bowler. He struggled a ton near the end and eventually lost his job, but with a coach that knows what he's doing with quarterbacks, he's worth the investment. Could be a Cutler replacement eventually. He is the definition of athletic freak at the QB position. He has the tools to produce like a Cam Newton. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ54 Posted April 21, 2014 Report Share Posted April 21, 2014 I think Pryor grew up a bit last year in terms of his work toward being a better passer. He's dreaming if he thinks he'll get to be a starter somewhere. If he comes to accept that he'll be a backup I'd like to see the Bears bring him in for a workout and see what he has to offer. He may offer just as much as a late Rd QB does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scs787 Posted April 22, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 Another intriguing aspect is just how good our WRs blocked last year. I could imagine Trestman designing some designed runs for him with our big receivers out there blocking. I don't think we need to be locked in to the Josh McCown type pocket passer as the backup QB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scs787 Posted April 22, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 Anddddd he was just traded to the Seahawks. Kinda figured someone would trade for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradjock Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 Anddddd he was just traded to the Seahawks. Kinda figured someone would trade for him. And there was no way we were trading for a back-up quarterback. Don't forget that last year we traded our 5th round pick for what amounted to Jordan Mills and Marquis Wilson. That's a starting RT and starting slot receiver. Those late picks can be important. I get what you're saying about the back-up QB position. Last year during the pre-season I complained about this often. Then Josh emerged and Lovie broke the bank for his services. After that, I'm going to give our coaches the benefit of the doubt when it comes to back-up QB's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scs787 Posted April 22, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 And there was no way we were trading for a back-up quarterback. Don't forget that last year we traded our 5th round pick for what amounted to Jordan Mills and Marquis Wilson. That's a starting RT and starting slot receiver. Those late picks can be important. I get what you're saying about the back-up QB position. Last year during the pre-season I complained about this often. Then Josh emerged and Lovie broke the bank for his services. After that, I'm going to give our coaches the benefit of the doubt when it comes to back-up QB's. Meh, I wouldn't have minded a 6th round pick for him (Seattle sent a 7th but we don't have one)....Like AZ said, he may offer just as much as a late Rd QB does. But ya the thought thought process was to sign him after being released so they can address something else in the draft. Seattle knows what their doing, he'll be a fine backup to Russell Wilson. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chitownhustla Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 Makes sense for the Seahawks, their starter is a mobile Qb who makes a lot of plays with his feet. You could run the same play book with him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.