Seahawks trade for Terrelle Pryor

[hawknation2014]

If Jackson and Pryor were equal talents, then it wouldn't be a bad move to trade a 7th Round pick to make Jackson seven years younger and then sign him to a cap-friendly longterm deal.

Unfortunately, from what I have seen, Jackson and Pryor are not equal talents.

If that's true (and the comparison IMHO is BJ vs Pryor at least this year), then we cut him and move on. He wouldn't be the first or last 7th round pick that doesn't work out. This is a fishing expedition, and given Pryor's athleticism, it seems worth at least a kick of the tires (which is all a 7th rounder really is).

For every team, except the Seahawks, that may be true. However, we took Michael Bowie last year with the 36th pick in the 7th Round.

The year before that, the Seahawks took J.R. Sweezy and Greg Scruggs with their 7th Round picks.

And the year before that, they took Super Bowl MVP Malcolm Smith with their 7th Round pick.

For other teams, a 7th Rounder is a waste of time. For the Seahawks, it is an opportunity cost. In one of the deepest drafts in some time, that could mean a lot. The only way to justify it is to believe they will be able to sign pretty much any undrafted free agent they want this year . . . so why draft them in the 7th Round, when you can convince them to sign as a free agent? That logic appeals to me, a little.

 

[Hasselbeck]

7th round pick.. I'd take Pryor over a Keith Price or Connor Shaw.. not a bad deal.

Will probably compete with BJ Daniels for a roster spot.

 

[DynoHawk]

WR/emergency QB-all in one.

 

[Coug_Hawk08]

I'm glad we held out for Pryor instead of going all in on Gabbert.

 

[Rat]

The only way to justify it is to believe they will be able to sign pretty much any undrafted free agent they want this year . . . so why draft them in the 7th Round, when you can convince them to sign as a free agent? That logic appeals to me, a little.

Why would we be able to sign any UDFA we want? The priority for those guys is potential playing time (or making a roster at all), which they're not going to get on a deep squad with so many established players. They can't afford to be ring chasers.

 

[Pandion Haliaetus]

Scout team QB to simulate Kaepernick?

It took until page 3 but finally some actual common sense.

 

[TeamoftheCentury]

Sounds like we traded our 7th round pick this year, the last tradeable pick of the draft. So, not a huge cost. Not much difference between 7th round and UDFA.

Yup. A player will be drafted there that the Raiders (or some other team if traded) values. But, it's possible that the guy the Hawks would target there with the 32nd pick of the 7th round could still be available as an UDFA anyway. Maybe JS can pitch that to guys they want to bring in when the draft winds down. "Hey (prospect), we would be taking you with our 7th rounder if it didn't belong to the Raiders. If you don't get drafted, we'd love to add you."

I'm thinking this is a deep draft, but also it tapers off after the 5th round. At least that's how I feel whenever I run a mock draft on those simulators. (Meaning, the available talent is perhaps better overall than other drafts.) Not overly excited about that 6th rounder (32nd in the round) either. But, we'll see. Maybe a gem is sitting there for the taking.

I realize the players the Seahawks have picked up in later rounds. Again, there's no way to know if the players the Seahawks would draft are being drafted by other teams. So, it will make those UDFA signings more interesting! "Hey kid, you could be the next Malcolm Smith!"

 

[hawknation2014]

Why would we be able to sign any UDFA we want?

I think the priority for undrafted free agents is making a team. At the moment, the Seahawks have only six draft picks and only 70 of their 90 available roster spots are filled, which means more opportunity for making the final roster.

The Seahawks also have Pete Carroll, the most popular coach in the league, who has proven adept at signing the most high-profile undrafted free agents (i.e. Alvin Bailey). Being the favorite to repeat as Super Bowl champions only adds to the allure.

 

[Hasselbeck]

If Jackson and Pryor were equal talents, then it wouldn't be a bad move to trade a 7th Round pick to make Jackson seven years younger and then sign him to a cap-friendly longterm deal.

Unfortunately, from what I have seen, Jackson and Pryor are not equal talents.

If that's true (and the comparison IMHO is BJ vs Pryor at least this year), then we cut him and move on. He wouldn't be the first or last 7th round pick that doesn't work out. This is a fishing expedition, and given Pryor's athleticism, it seems worth at least a kick of the tires (which is all a 7th rounder really is).

For every team, except the Seahawks, that may be true. However, we took Michael Bowie last year with the 36th pick in the 7th Round.

The year before that, the Seahawks took J.R. Sweezy and Greg Scruggs with their 7th Round picks.

And the year before that, they took Super Bowl MVP Malcolm Smith with their 7th Round pick.

For other teams, a 7th Rounder is a waste of time. For the Seahawks, it is an opportunity cost. In one of the deepest drafts in some time, that could mean a lot. The only way to justify it is to believe they will be able to sign pretty much any undrafted free agent they want this year . . . so why draft them in the 7th Round, when you can convince them to sign as a free agent? That logic appeals to me, a little.

You're getting up in arms about this while assuming throughout the course of draft weekend that a team notorious for trading back and racking up picks, wont trade back at some point and pick up an extra 7th?

 

[Polaris]

If Jackson and Pryor were equal talents, then it wouldn't be a bad move to trade a 7th Round pick to make Jackson seven years younger and then sign him to a cap-friendly longterm deal.

Unfortunately, from what I have seen, Jackson and Pryor are not equal talents.

If that's true (and the comparison IMHO is BJ vs Pryor at least this year), then we cut him and move on. He wouldn't be the first or last 7th round pick that doesn't work out. This is a fishing expedition, and given Pryor's athleticism, it seems worth at least a kick of the tires (which is all a 7th rounder really is).

For every team, except the Seahawks, that may be true. However, we took Michael Bowie last year with the 36th pick in the 7th Round.

The year before that, the Seahawks took J.R. Sweezy and Greg Scruggs with their 7th Round picks.

And the year before that, they took Super Bowl MVP Malcolm Smith with their 7th Round pick.

For other teams, a 7th Rounder is a waste of time. For the Seahawks, it is an opportunity cost. In one of the deepest drafts in some time, that could mean a lot. The only way to justify it is to believe they will be able to sign pretty much any undrafted free agent they want this year . . . so why draft them in the 7th Round, when you can convince them to sign as a free agent? That logic appeals to me, a little.

These moves were done by the same scouting department and same FO that did all these moves. You are making the mistake of thinkign that just because a 7th round pick is a seahawk pick it's somehow worth more than a 7th round pick. It's not. All those moves were calculated risks. This team is good at making those calculated risks (but not perfect....see Whitehurst). Basically, if they think Pryor is worth the low opporunity cost, I am willing to take their word on it especially since I can see where they are coming from. [I think Pryor was on the receiving end of a bum deal by a bum franchise.]

 

[hawknation2014]

You're getting up in arms about this while assuming throughout the course of draft weekend that a team notorious for trading back and racking up picks, wont trade back at some point and pick up an extra 7th?

I don't think I assumed that anywhere. Even if they trade for more picks, they're still losing this pick, which is one opportunity cost.

 

[Polaris]

You're getting up in arms about this while assuming throughout the course of draft weekend that a team notorious for trading back and racking up picks, wont trade back at some point and pick up an extra 7th?

I don't think I assumed that anywhere. Even if they trade for more picks, they're still losing this pick.

A pick that's the least valuable pick in the NFL draft that can be traded.

 

[Hasselbeck]

You're getting up in arms about this while assuming throughout the course of draft weekend that a team notorious for trading back and racking up picks, wont trade back at some point and pick up an extra 7th?

I don't think I assumed that anywhere. Even if they trade for more picks, they're still losing this pick.

They were probably drafting a QB in the latter rounds of the draft given the fact T-Jack isn't going to stay around forever and BJ Daniels is a large unknown. Consider Terrelle Pryor to be that drafted QB.

I guarantee at some point in the draft we will get another 7th rounder .. may even happen on day 1 in the draft if a team moves back into the first round.

Am I expecting Pryor to make waves? Not really. But it's one of those.. "what the hell, lets see what happens?" moves

 

[Pandion Haliaetus]

I'm confused...by all the confusion over this.

The Seahawks traded a 7th rounder for a premiere athlete who they (likely) believe they could mold into a serviceable QB. This type of move should surprise anyone.

Extending Pryor after this year could cost money they won't have. How much are they willing to spend on a 3rd string QB?

If Pryor proves good enough to be re-signed after 2014, it would be as the #2 QB. Jackson's deal is only for 2014.

They could have just as easily planned to re-sign Jackson, who wants to be here and knows the system.

If they really wanted Pryor (for what, who knows?), just sign him as a free agent after this year, without giving up a draft pick. Oakland certainly didn't want him, so his stock would just continue to plummet. Giving up a draft pick actually creates value where there was very little before.

Why are you being such a crybaby over this? You don't run this team. You have no clue what they're going to do with him.

 

[Rat]

Why would we be able to sign any UDFA we want?

I think the priority for undrafted free agents is making a team. At the moment, the Seahawks have only six draft picks and only 70 of their 90 available roster spots are filled, which means more opportunity for making the final roster.

The Seahawks also have Pete Carroll, the most popular coach in the league, who has proven adept at signing the most high-profile undrafted free agents (i.e. Alvin Bailey). Being the favorite to repeat as Super Bowl champions only adds to the allure.

I'm not saying we won't add any, but I'd think that most UDFAs would prefer to sign with whichever roster they feel they have the best chance of making. This team is so deep, it's hard to see them having much in the way of rookies on their final roster, compared to most teams.

 

[hawknation2014]

The question is how much money will they have to pay Pryor to re-sign him after this year?

If they had signed a rookie QB, they would automatically get him for four years on a rookie contract. Signing Pryor gives them just one year, and then the uncertainty of whether another team will offer more money in free agency or whether Pryor decides he wants to take less money elsewhere in order to compete for a starting spot.

And why add a QB at all when Tavaris Jackson likely has three or four good years left and has already shown the loyalty and willingness to take less money to be a Seahawks backup?

They must think very highly of Pryor. Unfortunately, I do not.

 

[Rat]

[I think Pryor was on the receiving end of a bum deal by a bum franchise.]

Bum deal? That was one of the very few teams he had any chance of actually getting playing time with, and he blew it with his complete inability to read a defense. He ended up losing his job permanently to a UDFA who wasn't even a good college QB. Pryor was so bad that his team traded for Captain Pick-Six. He was also a whiner about the whole situation.

 

[Polaris]

[I think Pryor was on the receiving end of a bum deal by a bum franchise.]

Bum deal? That was one of the very few teams he had any chance of actually getting playing time with, and he blew it with his complete inability to read a defense. He ended up losing his job permanently to a UDFA who wasn't even a good college QB. Pryor was so bad that his team traded for Captain Pick-Six. He was also a whiner about the whole situation.

I saw his game against the Steelers and against Indy (to name two). Pryor lost his job due to injury primarily. I am not saying he's the bees-knees, but he was given something of a raw deal.

 

[razgriz737]

Watch us turn him into a WR/TE.

 

[Polaris]

The question is how much money will they have to pay Pryor to re-sign him after this year?

Burn that bridge when we get to it. I think Pryor's chance of surviving training camp is only about 50-50. This is a pure flier deal much like any 7th rounder we might have drafted. Given that only the 49ners were the only other team to show any real interest and they have the same salary cap issues we do, chances are very good that if we want him, we'll get him dirt cheap (and that can be negotiated during the season...an advantage of having him on the roster) if he is a diamond in the ruff.

If they had signed a rookie QB, they would automatically get him for four years on a rookie contract. Signing Pryor gives them just one year, and then the uncertainty of whether another team will offer more money in free agency or whether Pryor decides he wants to take less money elsewhere in order to compete for a starting spot.

Not really. If we drafted him as a 7th round flier, chances are extremely good (with 4 QBs on the roster) that we would cut him during training camp and/or demote him to the practice squad. After the first time you do that, the 4 year rookie contract is VOID and he becomes a year by year free agent.

And why add a QB at all when Tavaris Jackson likely has three or four good years left and has already shown the loyalty and willingness to take less money to be a Seahawks backup?

Because the coaches and scouts see something they like? Given the glare of that Lombardi trophy, I am disinclined to argue the point.

They must think very highly of Pryor. Unfortunately, I do not.

See above.