Naming Pryor starter boost mcfaddens rankings?

[eaglesfreak 10]

Whats your thoughts?

[warren2600 3]

i like turtles.

 

that is my only response to having mcfadden on my team.

[Skinny_Bastard 154]

Absolutely.

QB with the ability to stretch the fields with their running ability can create an additional split-second delay in the reaction of the interior defense. This will give a speedster like McFadden a chance to get some 'big' runs.

[roroco 75]

Absolutely.

QB with the ability to stretch the fields with their running ability can create an additional split-second delay in the reaction of the interior defense. This will give a speedster like McFadden a chance to get some 'big' runs.

 

A QB that is easy to tackle and force fumbles on also puts more of the defensemen on the line.... I am staying away from OAK players this year.

[Matt Mueller 146]

 

A QB that is easy to tackle and force fumbles on also puts more of the defensemen on the line.... I am staying away from OAK players this year.

If they don't respect the pass at all loaded boxes all day. Plus tons of catchup mode in Oakland.

 

McFadden has talent no doubt but the situation does not look promising to me.

[Busted by the Feds 9]

Idk about DMac's ratings, but it makes the Colts D a must play this week .

[unloopme 4]

Yes, I have bumped DMC from DND to "Hell to the naw."

[rumbleready00 3]

I believe with Pryor starting, this reduces the value of McFadden - at least what was there.

 

I concur with the boxes being stacked, as Oakland has a weak Oline, poor QB and a suspect WR core.

 

With Pryor at QB, he will run immediately when the pocket breaks down and does check down, which will limit McFaddens touches/yards in the passing game. Plus, I don't believe Pryor has a lot of touch on his passes.

[Cuse9 128]

I think Pryor being named starter only confirms that even with Al Davis gone the Raiders have no direction and will be a lost cause for a long time?!

[tanatastic 2,061]

It kills mcfaddens value. Ur dreaming if you think the colts are scratching their heads planning for Pryor as if hes RG3 or Kaep. Their just gonna stuff the box, play simple coverages and watch the excitement unfold. its like planning for a scrub playing w vick on madden, just set a backer to spy the qb, get in base 4-3 and go get a snack.

[roroco 75]

I think Pryor being named starter only confirms that even with Al Davis gone the Raiders have no direction and will be a lost cause for a long time?!

 

They had direction WITH Al Davis? The lost cause left the port several years ago when Davis had a shifty for anyone with a fast 40 and fat QBs.

[5Year1 23]

It could also mean the DMC loses points both due to designed QB runs that are not in the offense with Flynn, plus Pryor could turn into a Cam Newton like goal line vulture. Finally, if Pryor can't prove he can throw the football, there goes the respect for the pass.

[Perennial Contender 18]

Oakland really looks like a mess. I would not have high hopes for anyone on that team. See if you can trade him.

[BobSanders_33 127]

Is it an upgrade from Flynn? Not really sure as I had him with little or no value previously. The upside that he had with Flynn was that he would catch a ton of check downs as Flynn can't pass more than 15 yards down field. Pryor will chuck the ball 40 yards down field or will tuck and run if things break down.

[madd futher mucker 36]

NOTHING can boost McFadden's rankings other than a complete overhaul of that team, both offensively and defensively. McFadden has been overdrafted from the get-go. If you took McFadden before round 4 you paid too much.

[DrG 94]

I took McFadden at the end of the 4th and feel just ok about it. Last startable rb on the board. Hadn't planned to take him but took him as rb3

[weepaws 2,461]

Whats your thoughts?

the def is going to dare the raiders to throw the ball down field and load up the box and with that oline . i don't see how it helps plus what happens in the red-zone do you think they are going to pass the ball ? nope i see qb keepers imo .so that hurts the td s imo

[Houston Texans 10]

I believe with Pryor starting, this reduces the value of McFadden - at least what was there.

 

I concur with the boxes being stacked, as Oakland has a weak Oline, poor QB and a suspect WR core.

 

With Pryor at QB, he will run immediately when the pocket breaks down and does check down, which will limit McFaddens touches/yards in the passing game. Plus, I don't believe Pryor has a lot of touch on his passes.

11 games, 304 RB carries, 1448 rushing yards, 4.8 YPC

 

extrapolated over 16 games: 442 carries, 2106 rushing yards.

 

Those were the stats for Denver RBs for the 11 game stretch in 2011 when Tim Tebow was the starting QB. I think the same arguments could have been (were?) made then that Denver RBs would struggle:

 

boxes will be stacked,

poor O-line (Denver's O-line had led the way to a 4.2 YPC for the year prior to Tebow taking over, tied for 17th in the league), poor QB,

suspect WR core (Lloyd had been traded, D Thomas and E Decker weren't established yet, Thomas led the team that year with under 600 yards)

 

Yet despite all of those things, Denver's RBs put up great numbers. Why couldn't McFadden?

[Matt Mueller 146]

11 games, 304 RB carries, 1448 rushing yards, 4.8 YPC

 

extrapolated over 16 games: 442 carries, 2106 rushing yards.

 

Those were the stats for Denver RBs for the 11 game stretch in 2011 when Tim Tebow was the starting QB. I think the same arguments could have been (were?) made then that Denver RBs would struggle:

 

boxes will be stacked,

poor O-line (Denver's O-line had led the way to a 4.2 YPC for the year prior to Tebow taking over, tied for 17th in the league), poor QB,

suspect WR core (Lloyd had been traded, D Thomas and E Decker weren't established yet, Thomas led the team that year with under 600 yards)

 

Yet despite all of those things, Denver's RBs put up great numbers. Why couldn't McFadden?

McFadden could... But Oaklands offensive line is looking like one of the worst of the league.

 

Oakland doesn't have D. Thomas and Decker.

 

Denver was running against Oak, KC, SD ect and not vice versa.

 

Also see Tebow on the Jets or anywhere else he, and his running back, likely would have been exposed in due time.

[We Tigers 71]

McFadden could... But Oaklands offensive line is looking like one of the worst of the league.

 

Oakland doesn't have D. Thomas and Decker.

Yep. I didn't see anything in the preseason that suggested the Raiders o-line--which has by my count four below-league-average starters out of five--is in any shape to provide good running lanes no matter who is QB. The o-line is a mix of talents/techniques due to the shift from power to zone back to power that probably lost all hope of producing a strong running game when Veidheer went down for the year.

 

In theory Pryor spreading out DEs and LBs should open up lanes for McFadden, but it's not like he has Trent Williams or Mike Iupati or Ryan Clady on that line. Part of why read-option looks and running QBs have led to super-productive RBs in recent years is the talent, discipline, and coordination of the lines helping to execute the plays. I don't think the Raiders have that.

[Houston Texans 10]

McFadden could... But Oaklands offensive line is looking like one of the worst of the league.

 

As previously noted, Denver's O-line prior to 2011 wasn't the best in the league, either. I'd bet that McFadden would grade out as a better RB than McGahee, Moreno, or L. Ball in 2011, so that's a wash.

 

Oakland doesn't have D. Thomas and Decker.

 

It's easy to use hindsight to make statements like this, but in 2011, Thomas and Decker weren't the Thomas and Decker that we know them to be today. Thomas was coming off a major injury, hadn't shown anything in the NFL, and had only 32 catches for 551 yards in 2011; Decker was a 2nd year player, as well, with very little "hype" around him. He had 44 catches for 612 yards in 2011.

 

Denver was running against Oak, KC, SD ect and not vice versa.

 

SD's defense is better now than it was in 2011, and Denver's defense is better (now) than Oakland's was in 2011. That's 4 games. Even if you give the Raiders below-average rushing stats in those 4 games, their rushing game would still be very good.

 

Also see Tebow on the Jets or anywhere else he, and his running back, likely would have been exposed in due time.

 

Now you're just making stuff up. We have a 15 game sample (including playoffs & 2 games at the end of '10) to work with where Tebow was the starting QB of an NFL franchise. In those 15 games, the RBs on his team averaged 126 rushing yards. You want to say his running backs would have been exposed, but the facts don't back that up. We have essentially a full season sample size, where his running backs generated 1890 rushing yards (over 2000 if you extrapolate to 16 games); they didn't get exposed, they performed at a very high level.

[5Year1 23]

Funny speaking of this thread... a guy in one my leagues today cut McFadden and picked up Pryor!

[JT 137]

Pryor will confound defenses, just as athletic QB have always done. I think he's a definite upgrade over Flynn, and as such is a benefit to McFadden. How much of a benefit is what remains to be seen.

[benglish88 2]

Pryor will confound defenses, just as athletic QB have always done. I think he's a definite upgrade over Flynn, and as such is a benefit to McFadden. How much of a benefit is what remains to be seen.

This above.

 

This offense sounds like it will have to rely on being able to shoot from the hip.

 

So lets say Pryor has to scramble and they have stacked the box "everything from that point is going to be improvisational right?"

 

That is where lanes open, screen passes are made and an athlete(Pryor) makes things happen.....Enter DMC.

 

Rod Streeter is not terrible is he?

 

I don't think it is necessarily the talent but more, does the coaching staff know how to use Pryor's skillset to their advantage?