DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Pryor Signs with Skins ... Chapter 2

They were not being sarcastic.

Just saying that he does seem to have a problem with broken legs.


If you read the posts, you'll understand the comment and context.

Well shoot...

The guy is an ironman. Played the day after/before an emergency appendectomy. Played the Superbowl on a jacked up leg. Not only played but played up to his usual, awesome level.

So yeah, I assumed sarcasm.

Yeah, but he left the Browns. That means we gotta bash him. Come on, man............get w/the program.

Doesn't somebody have to be bashed? It's either him or the team I guess.

I think you are kidding..........right?

But, if you are not....sometimes, it's just business.

I am not so much on placing blame unless something happens over and over. Last year was alarming for me and I bashed the FO. However, this year, they re-signed some of their free agents and extended guys. I am no longer bashing them because they have done some good and some bad. Stuff happens.

I am probably alone on this one...........but, I think it would be more productive to concentrate on how these signings or losses affects the well-being of the team rather than who is to "blame."

I think losing guys like Pryor, Mack, Schwartz, and Gipson hurt the team.

I think keeping guys like Bitonio, Crow, and Collins help the team.

But, I realize I am probably alone in that line of thinking. At least in regards to those who are willing to speak up. Those "positive posters" scare the crap out of a lot of posters and they choose to remain silent rather than voicing their opinion.

I don't think the Browns "LET" him walk. He tried to leave once.. and the Browns transition tagged him. He decided to void his contract, and the Browns tried to negotiate with him. That is not "letting him leave."

Considering his injury in 2014.. perhaps.. after a major break.. the Browns decided not to pursue him further. Which is why Erving was a first round pick. Hindsighr is 20/20.

Vers ... buddy ... how many times do the enlightened need to remind you that we went 3-13 with that bum anchoring our line? He was no great loss, it's not like we can do any worse without him. (Oh yeah, don't look at our record without him. Kinda pokes a hole in that theory).

Yes, and no. Kidding yes, in that I don't believe someone always needs bashed. And kidding no, in that for every unfortunate occurrence someone always does get bashed. It seems, without much thinking, folks take a hard stance diametrically opposed to each other. FO vs Pryor for instance. Half blame the FO and the other half blame Pryor. Truth is, there is no blame. Each side set their own parameter and neither of them could be met to the satisfaction of both. Wash. Bummer for the good of the team but it takes two to tango.

However, it sure seems like folks need to blame somebody when things don't go their way. Since there's only two entities in this instance, the FO and Pryor, folks pick one and run with it feeling better that they got to the bottom of the problem. I don't even know if either side cares of their right or wrong. They've convinced themselves respectively that they've found the reason for the issue and so, problem solved.

I think that you are right in that there's a certain group that seem always to take the side of the FO and another group perfectly willing to take the other side.


True, but it's human nature to blame. Immediately following a critical incident the authorities step up to the podium proclaiming, "We're going to do everything in our power to find who's responsible for this and prosecute to them to the fullest extent of the law." Well, that's great if your end goal is revenge, but it does nothing to heal the problem, other than to find someone to blame and the satisfaction gotten from that... problem solved.

People like easy answers to difficult problems. We all do. So if we can pin-down that this guy or that guy is to blame then we've found our answer allowing us to get back to the regularly scheduled program. It's hardly ever that simple but it seems always to be the approach.

I see it the same way you do. Each had their own perceived goals and simply couldn't find a middle ground that worked for both. That's simply the way business works sometimes.

Nice post and I agree w/most of it. However, there is this:



Half and half? Other than mac, who else is blaming the FO and excusing Pryor?

I think there is mac and perhaps a couple of other posters [who mainly remain silent] that blame the FO. The vast majority [who speak up] place zero blame on the FO and all of it on Pryor. I think the rest of us aren't really placing any blame or think that perhaps both sides could have handled things a bit better.

I also think that those who place no blame on the FO and all the blame on Pryor cause way more problems on this board than mac does. I don't think that is debatable.

Personally, I am not blaming either side or excusing either side. I really don't know the details or the dynamics and won't pretend to.

What I do know is that I wish we could have kept guys like Mack, Schwartz, Gipson, and Pryor because I think we would be a better team w/them than we are/would be w/out them.

I also think that this issue isn't exclusive to the Browns. I see other teams losing/cutting players and then have even more holes in their lineup.

I think it is crippling to teams who already have a lot of holes when more holes are created, no matter who is to blame.

In BOTH the Schwartz and Pryor negotiations, the Browns offered substantially more $$$ than did any other team. Fans are quick to point out that "it's" all about the $$$ for professional athletes...so...when a player turns down more money to go elsewhere, that situation really focuses the debate on the player's actions as the FO ponied up the $$$ (doing their part so to speak) and the player left anyway.

aka The team did their part and the player did not. That's not completely how I see it...but I understand how others would. I don't agree with the FO putting an apparently very short-term expiration date on the Schwartz offer and I would have given Pryor that one year "show-me" deal. BUT...this game is all about the $$$...and the FO did their job in the most important part of that game.

The team also wanted the security of a long term contract.. not to be held with a gun to their head again next year..

Terrelle Pryor - WR - Redskins

Terrelle Pryor and Kirk Cousins are working out together this offseason.

Many quarterbacks and receivers do this every year, but it's notable with Pryor recently joining the team and Pryor and Cousins entering contract years together. Jordan Reed, Josh Doctson, and Jamison Crowder have joined Pryor and Cousins. The entire crew stayed at ESPN's Jon Gruden's house and worked with the former coach. "There were a couple routes I had to run a couple times because he’s a timing thrower, and he throws it to spots," Pryor said of Cousins. "But we'll get there." With targets up for grabs in D.C., Pryor has a chance for another career year in an efficient, pass-heavy offense.

Source: ESPN.com Apr 14 - 9:34 AM

Cool to have Gruden's brother involved ... nice way to get around some of the cba rules ... *LOL* ....

Interesting that Pryor mentioned Cousins being a "timing/spot" thrower ... thats going to force TP to learn how to run routes weather he wants to or not .... i think he should be able to pick that up very easily ....

Tim Couch