Terrelle Pryor anyone?

[Hoenheim]

42 minutes ago, JARROD said:

Pryor could be a number 4. He could over take Funchess for a 3rd.

this assuming for the love of God we find a #1 and a # 2.

Well thats an interesting way to look at our WR situation

[Mr. Scot]

41 minutes ago, Peppers90 NC said:

I think Pryor is a #2 at best, but thats a stretch plus we have Funchess who is a #2 with potential to be a decent #1. Pryor is a good deep threat with good speed and I believe he would be an asset here, but not the do-it-all rare breed WR that so many are looking for(good luck finding that guy). 

If we're talking in Turner language, Pryor might be more of an Alvin Harper than a Michael Irvin.

[WOW!!]

Nope.  

[Cary Kollins]

Anything more than vet min for Pryor is a waste of money. 

[Pejorative Miscreant]

50 minutes ago, JARROD said:

Pryor could be a number 4. He could over take Funchess for a 3rd.

this assuming for the love of God we find a #1 and a # 2.

Chucked I did.   To say LOL would be an understatement.  

[Davidson Deac II]

Sometimes I think some of you are to obsessed with number 1, 2, 3, etc...   We should have receivers whose skillset complement each other, the numbers thing is irrelevant.  

[Crixtala]

when looking at the list of FA WR's that was posted the other day, he was actually someone who stuck out to me.  not a guy that's going to demand a lot of money considering a lot of people will probably view him as a project, plus he didn't do much this past season

but... i think he could have potential as a #3 if we try to grab someone in the draft to pair with Funchess as our #1/2 combo.  he has great size, decent hands and the speed to break free.  i actually think he'd fill the hole that ginn left pretty well while also mixing in the Byrd/Samuel combo to blow the top off

plus, i have to imagine he'd be a guy that Cam would probably hit it off with.  lets be honest, the biggest negative effect that trading KB probably had on this offense was that the chemistry between him and Cam was off the charts.  it would be nice to see Cam having a receiver that he could just have fun with again

[heel31ok]

1 minute ago, Davidson Deac II said:

Sometimes I think some of you are to obsessed with number 1, 2, 3, etc...   We should have receivers whose skillset complement each other, the numbers thing is irrelevant.  

just depends on how you define the #'s...I define them in order of dominance and playmaking...#1 doesn't have to be the fastest but he needs to be  better than almost everyone on the field at the moment...

[Hoenheim]

I'd take Pryor on a reasonable deal .

Cut Clay and Shepard who cant catch worth a damn. Get Pryor from Washington and Moncrief from the colts on very reasonable deals . 

PLEASE cut Curt Coleman. draft a saftey. Cut Charles Johson, draft a DE. 

[Mojo]

Pryor is raw and talented, but he's a still a novice in terms of being a receiver.  We don't want to bet on that in our position.  If we go for an FA we've got to go with a proven guy whether that's a vet or a #1 guy.  Pryor could be good in the future but can't afford to go after a guy who's still learning the nuances of the position.  

[Hoenheim]

8 minutes ago, Crixtala said:

when looking at the list of FA WR's that was posted the other day, he was actually someone who stuck out to me.  not a guy that's going to demand a lot of money considering a lot of people will probably view him as a project, plus he didn't do much this past season

but... i think he could have potential as a #3 if we try to grab someone in the draft to pair with Funchess as our #1/2 combo.  he has great size, decent hands and the speed to break free.  i actually think he'd fill the hole that ginn left pretty well while also mixing in the Byrd/Samuel combo to blow the top off

plus, i have to imagine he'd be a guy that Cam would probably hit it off with.  lets be honest, the biggest negative effect that trading KB probably had on this offense was that the chemistry between him and Cam was off the charts.  it would be nice to see Cam having a receiver that he could just have fun with again

Pryor and Cam are also the same age , both started their league careers in 2011. Both QBs at the time lol. 

[Trill OG]

1 hour ago, Eazy-E said:

He bet on him self this year and failed in Washington. I would say partly due to injury and the fact that Washington is a dumpster fire. I am not saying to bring him in here to be a #1, more just for competition. If he would come on a team friendly contract I would be all for it. He is 6'4 with sub 4.4 speed. He has a ton of upside and way less of a risk then someone like Josh Gordon. (Who by the way is not a FA for everyone drooling over him) I would be happy with FA/Draft #1, Funchess, Pryor, and Samuel / Byrd who ever can stay healthy. 

Haven't really seen his name mentioned so wondering what you guys think about him.

 

I have mentioned him a lot. If we can't trade for a Gordon or Ty Hilton. Pryor is next up on my list.

The only thing I fear is his former team the Browns brings him back. They could obviously offer more money than us. Other than that, I think we are a realistic destination for him.

[Hoenheim]

1 minute ago, Trill OG said:

 

I have mentioned him a lot. If we can't trade for a Gordon or Ty Hilton. Pryor is next up on my list.

The only thing I fear is his former team the Browns brings him back. They could obviously offer more money than us. Other than that, I think we are a realistic destination for him.

Why would the colts give up TY Hilton? Hes literally their best player

[Davidson Deac II]

11 minutes ago, heel31ok said:

just depends on how you define the #'s...I define them in order of dominance and playmaking...#1 doesn't have to be the fastest but he needs to be  better than almost everyone on the field at the moment...

I prefer to just have guys who all have difference skill sets, but can all get open and catch the ball.  If you look at perhaps our best group of receivers ever (Smith, Moose, and Proehl in 2003/2004), all three complemented each other.  Smith could take a 10 yard slant to the house or burn you deep.  Moose could get physical with a defender, but still beat you deep when the opportunity arose, while Proehl was the consummate veteran with good hands and great route running.  Smith caught more balls, but either him or Moose could function as a "number one".  And in fact both did at some point in their career.  

Number one should be whomever is open.