Random thoughts on the Denver preseason game

[Scottemojo]

What is it with stats? If Bronson doesn't have butter fingers, Pryor is 10-15 with a touchdown. I guarantee you Pete isn't going to decide between TJ and Pryor over completion percentage.

IF you think he doesn't have the skills, great. But I don't think anyone needs the math on his performance Thursday to make up their minds.

 

[rideaducati]

Watching Pryor in this game felt like watching an alternate universe Seahawks team that drafted Kaepernick in 2011.

Uh-huh. I remarked several times during the game that he looked like poor-man's Russell Wilson. He had the patented spin and run move down, but as soon as he did that, he lost all vision down field, much like Kaepernick. I'm glad he got so much playing time, but for now he's third on the depth chart, and quite easily, at least for me.

I don't see Pryor as "quite easily" the third QB. I saw an 85 yard drive at the end of the game that I doubt Tarvaris would be able to do. Pryor has intrigue. He seems like a guy that could lead this team to 12-4 or 4-12, but at least the 12 wins are possible. Tarvaris would lead this team to 8-8 or 9-7. He's not good enough to win more. I hope to see a lot more of Pryor.

Pryor has not chance of leading this team to 12-4, none at all. He is a career 56% complt% and in his first game with us against 3rd stringers he was 56%. I have no doubt Rw would have scored on that 85 yard drive and TJ would have at least gotten us a FG. Neither would have thrown the INT. Pryor to me is a waste of a roster spot, and if any other team is willing to give him a shot to compete for a starting position he will be gone.

Tarvaris is known to throw interceptions in those exact situations. The difference being that Tarvaris would have thrown his near the 50 yard line or would have thrown the ball out of bounds on a fourth down earlier in the drive. We already know that no team would give Tarvaris a chance to compete for a starting job because they all had a chance to pick him up last year. The wasted roster spot is occupied by Tarvaris.

If Tarvaris is so good, why do they keep bringing in supposed scrubs to compete with him? Answer: He isn't good, he just knows the system. Any QB they bring in that can pick up the system will likely be better.

Tarvaris Jackson has been in the NFL for a long time and his minimum salary for what he offers has all but priced him out of the league. Pryor is an upgrade.

 

[DavidSeven]

If Tarvaris is so good, why do they keep bringing in supposed scrubs to compete with him?

There isn't a team in the NFL that carries just two QBs in camp.

 

[Basis4day]

If Tarvaris is so good, why do they keep bringing in supposed scrubs to compete with him?

There isn't a team in the NFL that carries just two QBs in camp.

To add to that, this is the backup QB we're talking about. How good you are only goes so far because you're a backup for a reason.

 

[rideaducati]

I don't see Pryor as "quite easily" the third QB. I saw an 85 yard drive at the end of the game that I doubt Tarvaris would be able to do.

That's a bit of a strange thought to me. You doubt this despite the fact that Tarvaris led multiple TD drives last preseason, led a TD drive in the regular season, and exhibited far more poise and command than Pryor against better competition in Denver? What do you happen to be basing this line of thinking on? Clutchness? At the end of the day, Pryor's drive ended in an INT. Lot of ifs and buts, but still.

I have yet to see a fourth quarter comeback or a game winning drive by Tarvaris Jackson. I don't recall any drive to win a game getting anywhere near the goal line with Tarvaris at the helm. I think he had a couple with Minnesota back in '08, but I didn't see those. I do, however, recall several opportunities as a Seahawk with EVERY ONE OF THEM ending with an L in the loss column. They didn't all end with an interception though, he threw the ball out of bounds on fourth down to lose a game too.

 

[rideaducati]

I don't see Pryor as "quite easily" the third QB. I saw an 85 yard drive at the end of the game that I doubt Tarvaris would be able to do.

That's a bit of a strange thought to me. You doubt this despite the fact that Tarvaris led multiple TD drives last preseason, led a TD drive in the regular season, and exhibited far more poise and command than Pryor against better competition in Denver? What do you happen to be basing this line of thinking on? Clutchness? At the end of the day, Pryor's drive ended in an INT. Lot of ifs and buts, but still.

I have yet to see a fourth quarter comeback or a game winning drive by Tarvaris Jackson. I don't recall any drive to win a game getting anywhere near the goal line with Tarvaris at the helm. I think he had a couple with Minnesota back in '08, but I didn't see those. I do, however, recall several opportunities as a Seahawk with EVERY ONE OF THEM ending with a L in the loss column. They didn't all end with an interception though, he threw the ball out of bounds on fourth down to lose a game too.

 

[rideaducati]

Watching Pryor in this game felt like watching an alternate universe Seahawks team that drafted Kaepernick in 2011.

Uh-huh. I remarked several times during the game that he looked like poor-man's Russell Wilson. He had the patented spin and run move down, but as soon as he did that, he lost all vision down field, much like Kaepernick. I'm glad he got so much playing time, but for now he's third on the depth chart, and quite easily, at least for me.

I don't see Pryor as "quite easily" the third QB. I saw an 85 yard drive at the end of the game that I doubt Tarvaris would be able to do. Pryor has intrigue. He seems like a guy that could lead this team to 12-4 or 4-12, but at least the 12 wins are possible. Tarvaris would lead this team to 8-8 or 9-7. He's not good enough to win more. I hope to see a lot more of Pryor.

Pryor has not chance of leading this team to 12-4, none at all. He is a career 56% complt% and in his first game with us against 3rd stringers he was 56%. I have no doubt Rw would have scored on that 85 yard drive and TJ would have at least gotten us a FG. Neither would have thrown the INT. Pryor to me is a waste of a roster spot, and if any other team is willing to give him a shot to compete for a starting position he will be gone.

Tarvaris is known to throw interceptions in those exact situations. The difference being that Tarvaris would have thrown his near the 50 yard line or would have thrown the ball out of bounds on a fourth down earlier in the drive. We already know that no team would give Tarvaris a chance to compete for a starting job because they all had a chance to pick him up last year. The wasted roster spot is occupied by Tarvaris.

If Tarvaris is so good, why do they keep bringing in supposed scrubs to compete with him? Answer: He isn't good, he just knows the system. Any QB they bring in that can pick up the system will likely be better.

Tarvaris Jackson has been in the NFL for a long time and his minimum salary for what he offers has all but priced him out of the league. Pryor is an upgrade.

 

[brimsalabim]

We need to find away to cary TJack, Pryor, and maybe Daniels too. Did you see how quickly Denvers starters got presure on Russell? Okung is not even back yet and how much confidence do you have in him playing out the season if he returns? Unger is in and out too and Carp has yet to contribute. That #2 OL unit on the field at mile high could easily end up being our #1 unit. If that happens we could go through a lot of QB's this season.

Also BR has a practice report that has LJP moving to guard and Shilling at starting center until Unger returns. It has looked to me as if LJP has done I nice job filling in for Unger so why move him if Carp is working out?

 

[kearly]

Going back to the long XP issue...

I know this might be unpopular, but I really like the idea of doing something to modify the XP. I hate that it's essentially a non-play. The only play less competitive is the kneeldown. It's boring and adds nothing to the game. The ONLY time it's remotely interesting is when it goes awry, which happens less than 1% of the time. What value does that add to the game in any way?

Moving it out may not be the best answer, but at least it adds an element of difficulty that wasn't there before, and it makes the 2-point play - which is LOADS more entertaining and competitive - a much more attractive option to coaches. The only other option I see is to eliminate the XP and the 2-point play altogether and just make TDs worth 7 points.

My team had one good season in high school varsity football, my senior year. We went 6-3-1 but would have been 8-2 if not for missed extra points. It would have been our school's first playoff berth.

And as a UW fan, I'll never forget the BYU game in 2008 that set the team up for an 0-12 season.

Making extra points interesting is fun in theory, until you suffer a brutal loss because of it. It's always a shame when a game is decided by an extra point. At least right now, it's freakishly rare.

I'm okay with eliminating the extra point. To me, the extra point is a time to stretch and get ready to go to the bathroom or grab another beverage during the ensuing commercial break. It's more tradition than real football.

I think forcing teams to go for two, outside of college rules OT, feels kinda dumb. If teams went for two every time, then too often would it would result a game being determined by a two point conversion success, which is less than ideal.

I just really like the idea of a TD equalling a TD, unless a team needs to gamble for a little more in certain game situations. Force teams to always go for two and you remove some of the strategy from the game and the two point conversion loses its excitement and mystique.

 

[Hawks46]

Going back to the long XP issue...

I know this might be unpopular, but I really like the idea of doing something to modify the XP. I hate that it's essentially a non-play. The only play less competitive is the kneeldown. It's boring and adds nothing to the game. The ONLY time it's remotely interesting is when it goes awry, which happens less than 1% of the time. What value does that add to the game in any way?

Moving it out may not be the best answer, but at least it adds an element of difficulty that wasn't there before, and it makes the 2-point play - which is LOADS more entertaining and competitive - a much more attractive option to coaches. The only other option I see is to eliminate the XP and the 2-point play altogether and just make TDs worth 7 points.

My team had one good season in high school varsity football, my senior year. We went 6-3-1 but would have been 8-2 if not for missed extra points. It would have been our school's first playoff berth.

And as a UW fan, I'll never forget the BYU game in 2008 that set the team up for an 0-12 season.

Making extra points interesting is fun in theory, until you suffer a brutal loss because of it. It's always a shame when a game is decided by an extra point. At least right now, it's freakishly rare.

I'm okay with eliminating the extra point. To me, the extra point is a time to stretch and get ready to go to the bathroom or grab another beverage during the ensuing commercial break. It's more tradition than real football.

I think forcing teams to go for two, outside of OT, feels kinda dumb. If teams went for two every time, then too often would it result in a game being watered down to a single play.

I didn't lose a football game in High School, at the JV or Varsity level in my Junior or Senior years. We missed a few extra points, and anything over a 30 yard FG was an adventure. We didn't have good kickers; the kicker my Junior year was an exchange student from Australia. We just knew we had to get it in the end zone. Then again, we had an epically good HS football team.

I like the extra challenge on extra points. It also cuts both ways: it sucks to lose by missing an extra point, but it also sucks to lose by being completely unable to stop an extra point due to it being ridiculously easy. And I'm sure the latter happens far more often.

 

[kearly]

I like the extra challenge on extra points. It also cuts both ways: it sucks to lose by missing an extra point, but it also sucks to lose by being completely unable to stop an extra point due to it being ridiculously easy. And I'm sure the latter happens far more often.

We had an exchange student from Italy who spoke like 10 words in English. Seven of those are words you can't say on television. He was awful at kicking the football but we loved him anyway.

If you are up by six and give up a last second TD, you deserve to lose by 1 point. My teams lost a few games in previous years by 1 point or by game ending 50 yard field goals, but that didn't bother me because it felt like they earned it.

 

[volsunghawk]

Going back to the long XP issue...

I know this might be unpopular, but I really like the idea of doing something to modify the XP. I hate that it's essentially a non-play. The only play less competitive is the kneeldown. It's boring and adds nothing to the game. The ONLY time it's remotely interesting is when it goes awry, which happens less than 1% of the time. What value does that add to the game in any way?

Moving it out may not be the best answer, but at least it adds an element of difficulty that wasn't there before, and it makes the 2-point play - which is LOADS more entertaining and competitive - a much more attractive option to coaches. The only other option I see is to eliminate the XP and the 2-point play altogether and just make TDs worth 7 points.

My team had one good season in high school varsity football, my senior year. We went 6-3-1 but would have been 8-2 if not for missed extra points. It would have been our school's first playoff berth.

And as a UW fan, I'll never forget the BYU game in 2008 that set the team up for an 0-12 season.

Making extra points interesting is fun in theory, until you suffer a brutal loss because of it. It's always a shame when a game is decided by an extra point. At least right now, it's freakishly rare.

I'm okay with eliminating the extra point. To me, the extra point is a time to stretch and get ready to go to the bathroom or grab another beverage during the ensuing commercial break. It's more tradition than real football.

I think forcing teams to go for two, outside of OT, feels kinda dumb. If teams went for two every time, then too often would it result in a game being watered down to a single play.

I didn't lose a football game in High School, at the JV or Varsity level in my Junior or Senior years. We missed a few extra points, and anything over a 30 yard FG was an adventure. We didn't have good kickers; the kicker my Junior year was an exchange student from Australia. We just knew we had to get it in the end zone. Then again, we had an epically good HS football team.

I like the extra challenge on extra points. It also cuts both ways: it sucks to lose by missing an extra point, but it also sucks to lose by being completely unable to stop an extra point due to it being ridiculously easy. And I'm sure the latter happens far more often.

Exactly. Both teams will be subject to the rules. And if you're concerned that your kicker can't hit a 33 yard XP try, just go for 2. Honestly, the success rate for the "new" XP distance is still hovering around 90%. It's not like they're asking kickers to now make bank shots. It just turns something that once was an actual football play (and not a tradition/formality) back into an actual football play.

 

[kearly]

Exactly. Both teams will be subject to the rules. And if you're concerned that your kicker can't hit a 33 yard XP try, just go for 2. Honestly, the success rate for the "new" XP distance is still hovering around 90%. It's not like they're asking kickers to now make bank shots. It just turns something that once was an actual football play (and not a tradition/formality) back into an actual football play.

My point is this, do you like the idea of a game being decided by a PAT? I think that's really the core of this debate. If you do, that's your opinion and you probably won't mind this change. My opinion is shaped by my experience. I am thankful that it is a rare occurrence and I would prefer it to stay as rare as possible.

The odds of a game being decided by a PAT will still be low. But it will be 10 times higher than before. I'd prefer to keep it freakishly rare.

I don't like arbritrary stuff deciding games. Imagine if they asked Lillard to make a free throw to prove it after sinking his dramatic three in game six? If he misses the free throw, it ruins a magical moment.

What if Hauscha misses the extra point after Sherman's pick six against Houston? Or after Baldwin's late TD to tie up against Tampa? Two great football games would ultimately be decided by a PAT, and moreso, it could have altered Seattle's 2013 season entirely.

You could have a game where two teams each score a two TDs and two FGs, and the game is decided because one team had the sorry random luck to roll snake eyes and miss on an extra point. That 10% chance for bad luck cost the team a game. I think if anything we should be looking for ways to eliminate randomness from games, not exacerbate it. One of the things I love about football is that compared to sports like baseball there is less randomness and the game is more of a meritocracy.

I think with these rules you'll have a few games lost by extra points this season, and a few would-have-been-amazing comebacks will be thwarted by this new rule. It's not an unfair rule, but all the same it could hurt the game.

 

[rideaducati]

I don't see the big negatives with Pryor threw a bad pass at the end. Time was running out and he forced it. Otherwise, I thought he played fine. Many other quarterbacks would have likely taken sacks from this bad offensive line. Pryor made positive plays out of nothing. Given time to throw, he was more accurate than I anticipated he would be.

56% is more accurate?

Give him the blatant drop and he's at 61%. Hell, give him the screen at the goal line and it goes up even more and he wins the game. He looked fine to me too. I'd rather watch Pryor lead the Seahawks than I would Tarvaris.

 

[Scottemojo]

I don't see the big negatives with Pryor threw a bad pass at the end. Time was running out and he forced it. Otherwise, I thought he played fine. Many other quarterbacks would have likely taken sacks from this bad offensive line. Pryor made positive plays out of nothing. Given time to throw, he was more accurate than I anticipated he would be.

56% is more accurate?

Give him the blatant drop and he's at 61%. Hell, give him the screen at the goal line and it goes up even more and he wins the game. He looked fine to me too. I'd rather watch Pryor lead the Seahawks than I would Tarvaris.

66%. Without the drop, he doesn't throw the INT that followed. One less pass attempt.

 

[Anthony!]

What is it with stats? If Bronson doesn't have butter fingers, Pryor is 10-15 with a touchdown. I guarantee you Pete isn't going to decide between TJ and Pryor over completion percentage.

IF you think he doesn't have the skills, great. But I don't think anyone needs the math on his performance Thursday to make up their minds.

First the pass was high and behind him, even the announcers aid while it was catchable is was not good, and guess what Rw had a drop too it is part of the game and does not change the facts Pryor was not that good. You are right cmplt % alone is not what PC will decide on, but it will matter. As to the rest sorry but stats matter.

 

[rideaducati]

The most glaring realization that opened up for me in This game is that Turbin is not an NFL caliber RB. He can block and he can catch but he cant run the ball. Not when he always goes down on first contact. I find it sad cause I really like the guy. CMike is a very good runner but still cant block and ball security Was also an issue.

If they mated?

If holding isn't called on most of Turbin's runs last season, his average per carry is over 6 yards. Seems that the linemen don't like the guy or something. He needs to work on inside runs, but when he bounces outside he's damn good.

 

[Anthony!]

:34853_tinfoil:

Tarvaris is known to throw interceptions in those exact situations. The difference being that Tarvaris would have thrown his near the 50 yard line or would have thrown the ball out of bounds on a fourth down earlier in the drive. We already know that no team would give Tarvaris a chance to compete for a starting job because they all had a chance to pick him up last year. The wasted roster spot is occupied by Tarvaris.

If Tarvaris is so good, why do they keep bringing in supposed scrubs to compete with him? Answer: He isn't good, he just knows the system. Any QB they bring in that can pick up the system will likely be better.

Tarvaris Jackson has been in the NFL for a long time and his minimum salary for what he offers has all but priced him out of the league. Pryor is an upgrade.

We are talking about a back up, TJ showed he has guts, playing with a torn pectoral. TJ has shown he knows and can run the offense and has the respect of the locker room. TJ has more tds than Ints unlike Pryor, Pryor has shown nothing. Pryor is not an up grade based on his performance at all.

 

[rideaducati]

What is it with stats? If Bronson doesn't have butter fingers, Pryor is 10-15 with a touchdown. I guarantee you Pete isn't going to decide between TJ and Pryor over completion percentage.

IF you think he doesn't have the skills, great. But I don't think anyone needs the math on his performance Thursday to make up their minds.

First the pass was high and behind him, even the announcers aid while it was catchable is was not good, and guess what Rw had a drop too it is part of the game and does not change the facts Pryor was not that good. You are right cmplt % alone is not what PC will decide on, but it will matter. As to the rest sorry but stats matter deal with it

I didn't even count the screen. The scrub wr with the long hair covering his name dropped an easy pass that every starter on the team would have caught. Pryor looked better than the Jackson statue looked in my opinion. Pryor made much quicker decisions and was just as accurate as Jackson, but dude can also move the chains with his legs when needed. I'm done with the Jackson era. We've seen how that one ends and it isn't good.

 

[Anthony!]

I don't see the big negatives with Pryor threw a bad pass at the end. Time was running out and he forced it. Otherwise, I thought he played fine. Many other quarterbacks would have likely taken sacks from this bad offensive line. Pryor made positive plays out of nothing. Given time to throw, he was more accurate than I anticipated he would be.

56% is more accurate?

Give him the blatant drop and he's at 61%. Hell, give him the screen at the goal line and it goes up even more and he wins the game. He looked fine to me too. I'd rather watch Pryor lead the Seahawks than I would Tarvaris.

You are welcome to your opinion, I would not. By the way both Rw and TJ had blatant drops too. In fact in 2011 it was a drop by one of our Wr that cost a game but everyone blamed TJ. The fact is Pryor was 56 % complt period and that is his career number as well which is not good. Based on his performance He is behind TJ.