Orton good or no?

Post #1 » by **dougthonus** » Mon Sep 8, 2008 1:53 pm

It seems like the general story line coming out about Orton's play is that he was solid with no turnovers, and gave us what Rex Grossman could not by keeping possession of the football.

However, I have to say while Orton was better than I expected (Hooray Orton) and completed a few really nice timely throws with some zip and accuracy, he also delivered to balls straight into the numbers of Colts defenders that were simply dropped. Passes that probably 75% of the time would have been picked off and the Colts have little excuse for not having picked off.

Has those passes been intercepted it easily could have swung the game in the other direction (ifs and buts and all that, it certainly didn't, hooray Bears!), but going forward, just looking at this performance it was more of a Rex Grossman like performance to me than what we'd say Kyle Orton was billed as. He did take some chances, and he did make some Grossman like boneheaded throws, and much like Grossman would occasionally he got away with a few and completed some nice plays.

All in all, I'm quite happy with the outcome (who wouldn't be? Beating the Colts on the road to open the season is awesome), and I'm also happy to see that Orton was more aggressive than we were led to believe he would be. At the same time with his increased aggression he showed the same kind of potential to make poor decisions as Grossman has in the past. I have no problem with that, as I like the idea more of having an offense that will go for the gusto a bit rather than play ultra conservative and hope the defense bails them out (which, the defense accounting for 9 points while giving up 13 is pretty damn awesome).

Anyway, not sure what my point is really, I just thought it was interesting that everyone seemed to think "Hooray Orton, no turnovers", but the story that wasn't told, but easily could have been, was that Orton did make several pretty dicey decisions.

Still, all in all, solid game by Orton, he did make several big plays, and our 3rd down conversion rate was awesome which is the first time we've seen that in a long time. The two things that stood out to me in this game was the offensive line played much better than I (and probably most people) expected it to, and the defense played like the Bears defense of old (which I did expect, but thought a poor offense would keep them on the field too long and eventually wear them down). The Colts injuries up front definitely opened things up for us as we had massive pressure on Manning all night long. How much of our pressure was related to their OL problems vs our great pass rushers we'll find out soon.

Chewie · Post #2 » by **Chewie** » Mon Sep 8, 2008 2:20 pm

Well, to answer the thread title, I guess "good ENOUGH" would be my answer for THIS GAME. There's going to come a game - probably very soon - in which the opposing defense stifles the run or the Bears will be behind big and we're going to have to count on KO to win the game with his arm. I'm not as confident in him in those situations but I'm willing to be pleasantly surprised.

This game, however, was perfect for Orton. Forte's early success softened the Colts up and forced them to respect the run. We had continuous good field position for the most part and the score didn't require Orton to air it out. Conditions won't always be this perfect for Kyle and that will be his true test.

karch34 · Post #3 » by **karch34** » Mon Sep 8, 2008 2:23 pm

I agree good enough. I remember one that could've been intercepted but he was composed and made some nice throws. I think part of it was having a lead they played conservatively and let the running game and D do most of the work. I agree that he will have to do more sooner than later as the running game will have some bad games and they'll need Orton to make some plays to keep the D off the field.

I also think they'll expand the playbook and include more downfield plays.

CjayC · Post #4 » by **CjayC** » Mon Sep 8, 2008 2:30 pm

Yeah agree with the above 2.

Orton made some really good throws. The one that immediately comes to mind is the one pass to Olsen near the sideline.

Not insane stats, but he didn't lose the game for us, and put us in a position to win. Plus I bet the Bears actually believe they have a chance to win, as opposed to Grossman starting and turning the ball over like crazy lmao.

When Orton got fumbled that ball, how much you want to bet that idiot Grossman would have tried to pick the ball up and make a play with it?

bobsampson · Post #5 » by **bobsampson** » Mon Sep 8, 2008 2:43 pm

He managed the game well, like he usually does... Id say his performance was ok, not bad at all but far from great.. It did basically look like a good game from his rookie year.. Im still watin on a break out performance wich he hasnt doen yet.. But im happy with Orton for now and hope he builds on this performance.. Cant wait till week 2, im also excited for the Packers, Vikes game tonight to see who were gonna be battlin for the division crown

I cant believe so many experts think Packers, i dunno, i think the queens take em

Post #6 » by **CBS7** » Mon Sep 8, 2008 2:50 pm

We did catch a few breaks. The Colts did have one of the top pass defenses last year, though. I believe there were two throws that could/should have been picked off.

Cliff Levingston · Post #7 » by **Cliff Levingston** » Mon Sep 8, 2008 3:17 pm

Cliff Levingston will say that he's the best we've got right now. He tends to favor the middle of the field which is a major plus for us right now considering the two tight ends we have. He also doesn't seem to take as many risks and is content with throwing the ball away which is a good thing.

However Cliff Levingston strongly agrees with the statement that Orton won't win a game for us. There will come a time where our run game can't get going (against Minnesota) and Orton will be called upon to win the game for us through the air and fail miserably. He made some nice throws last night but he also made some bad ones as well.

We don't have a good QB on this roster, and Orton might not even be average. Even if he has games like he did last night for the majority of the season, it's no excuse for not looking to somehow address the position anyway. ICLO, Orton's greatest value to this team would be to help transition the team over to a a guy we can look to to carry the the QB duties for a lot of year to follow, but that would require us to find that guy which has proven MUCH easier said than done.

Post #8 » by **emperorjones** » Mon Sep 8, 2008 3:26 pm

Cliff Levingston wrote:
However Cliff Levingston strongly agrees with the statement that Orton won't win a game for us. There will come a time where our run game can't get going (against Minnesota) and Orton will be called upon to win the game for us through the air and fail miserably. He made some nice throws last night but he also made some bad ones as well.

I agree with your whole post but this. Over the course of the season I'd be surprised if he doesn't have an over the top game that people credit as the reason the team won.

Post #9 » by **CBS7** » Mon Sep 8, 2008 3:45 pm

Orton is no savior, but I don't have a problem with having him hold down the fort for the next 2, maybe 3 seasons as we develop a young QB that we hopefully draft early next draft.

Orton didn't do great today but again... the Colts were the #2 pass defense last year. Orton will have some 200 yard/2 TD games here and there against the worse pass defenses.

Anyways, remember that 10 yard run by Orton? That was cool. He knocked out a defender and almost had the first.

Cliff Levingston · Post #10 » by **Cliff Levingston** » Mon Sep 8, 2008 3:49 pm

emperorjones wrote:
Cliff Levingston wrote:
However Cliff Levingston strongly agrees with the statement that Orton won't win a game for us. There will come a time where our run game can't get going (against Minnesota) and Orton will be called upon to win the game for us through the air and fail miserably. He made some nice throws last night but he also made some bad ones as well.

I agree with your whole post but this. Over the course of the season I'd be surprised if he doesn't have an over the top game that people credit as the reason the team won.

Maybe one game, but the point is that Orton isn't a guy you can count on to win games for you through the air. If the defense is bad enough to where we need to play catchup or an opposing defense takes the run away from us, Cliff Levingston wouldn't feel very good at all about counting on Orton to make plays through the air in order for us to win.

bobsampson · Post #11 » by **bobsampson** » Mon Sep 8, 2008 3:50 pm

CBS7 wrote:Orton is no savior, but I don't have a problem with having him hold down the fort for the next 2, maybe 3 seasons as we develop a young QB that we hopefully draft early next draft.

+1... And no matter what we do this year we should draft a QB in the first round next april imo.. Second the latest... I think Orton just might be able to pull out a game (game's) with his arm i dunno, we shall see..

Post #12 » by **chitownsports4ever** » Mon Sep 8, 2008 4:55 pm

I wouldnt count Orton out yet .I think he is gonna surpise some people . I see him developing as a do whatever it takes to win type QB as opposed to a carry the team with his arm. He can make all the throws needed to win and the fact that he is content to spread the ball around and take what the defense gives him means he wont be as affected by defensive adjustment .

He was poised and he knew where all his dumpoffs were at and made some key throws .He knows this offense and is showing a good ability to read defenses quickly. I think he will have 3 300+ games before this season is over especially if Forte stays healthy and the line holds up.

Chewie · Post #13 » by **Chewie** » Mon Sep 8, 2008 6:03 pm

chitownsports4ever wrote:I think he will have 3 300+ games before this season is over especially if Forte stays healthy and the line holds up.

Whoa!

That a 'save and clip' statement right there !

SLCceltic · Post #14 » by **SLCceltic** » Mon Sep 8, 2008 6:04 pm

Orton is our JIm Miller-------hopefully orton goes 13-3 like miller did
With our backs, TEs, and receivers--5looks from our wideouts that can all play--orton has more to work with

add in our Defense and Hester and
Im thinking play-offs, and playoff wins

great win last night!!!!!

karch34 · Post #15 » by **karch34** » Mon Sep 8, 2008 6:16 pm

Cliff Levingston wrote:Maybe one game, but the point is that Orton isn't a guy you can count on to win games for you through the air. If the defense is bad enough to where we need to play catchup or an opposing defense takes the run away from us, Cliff Levingston wouldn't feel very good at all about counting on Orton to make plays through the air in order for us to win.

I agree with your point. I think he'll have a couple very nice games, but I'm not sure about any game where we're down by 14 points and need Orton to win it for us. Of course some of that hesitation goes to Ron Turner too. To be a good team we need a few games that the offense wins for us.

I do think Orton will show a little more though as he's not a rookie or looking over his shoulder anymore. Not that it means much, but he was a Heisman candidate midway through his last season at Purdue before playing through an injury that caused his numbers to drop. So I think he has the ability to make the big plays.

Chewie · Post #16 » by **Chewie** » Mon Sep 8, 2008 6:22 pm

karch34 wrote:Not that it means much, but he was a Heisman candidate midway through his last season at Purdue before playing through an injury that caused his numbers to drop. So I think he has the ability to make the big plays.

Given such NFL studs like Jason White, Eric Crouch, Chris Weinke, Danny Wuerffel, Charlie Ward, Gino Toretta, Ty Detmer, and Andre Ware are listed among the Heisman winners, I'd agree that doesn't mean much.

Post #17 » by **chitownsports4ever** » Mon Sep 8, 2008 8:00 pm

Chewie wrote:
chitownsports4ever wrote:I think he will have 3 300+ games before this season is over especially if Forte stays healthy and the line holds up.

Whoa!

That a 'save and clip' statement right there !

Hey Im not saying hes gonna be the next Kurt Warner but he comes from a passing system and is used to standing back there and throwing a ton of passes . I think now that we have backs that can catch out of the backfield he will be able to make some big plays with his decision making.

Post #18 » by **Nolan** » Mon Sep 8, 2008 10:50 pm

Looking at the big picture I really don't think either one of Orton or Grossman can win games for us on their own. We are going to win games by running the ball and playing good defense. Orton did a decent job, he made good decisions, managed the clock well, and most importantly he didn't turn the ball over.

Mr Smoke Weed · Post #19 » by **Mr Smoke Weed** » Tue Sep 9, 2008 1:12 am

right now id say hes a 6/10
but much ebtter tavaris jackson who id say is a 3/10

karch34 · Post #20 » by **karch34** » Tue Sep 9, 2008 3:48 am

Chewie wrote:
karch34 wrote:Not that it means much, but he was a Heisman candidate midway through his last season at Purdue before playing through an injury that caused his numbers to drop. So I think he has the ability to make the big plays.

Given such NFL studs like Jason White, Eric Crouch, Chris Weinke, Danny Wuerffel, Charlie Ward, Gino Toretta, Ty Detmer, and Andre Ware are listed among the Heisman winners, I'd agree that doesn't mean much.

Good point.