Anyone still think Orton is the answer?

[dougthonus]

Just curious.

I've said before I thought he was the worst starting QB I've ever seen play more than 10 games. I still think that's probably true. He can't throw over 10 yards with any accuracy whatsoever.

[blumeany]

I had high hopes for him, but no, he's not even close. I saw last night exactly what I saw 2 years ago - a very inaccurate passer. And before anyone says 'just give him time' - NO! We've given 20-something QB's 'time'! Let's go get a legit QB!

If Jerry Angelo doesn't spend every draft pick he has on offense, he should be fired. I think the defense showed that it had some life left in it with Vasher healthy.

[dougthonus]

The defense will be much better next year if Harris and Vasher come back fully healthy if we retrain Briggs. Our biggest issues on defense have been injuries. We need to get a new safety or maybe 2 new safeties, but safety isn't that hard a position to fill.

Our offense does not have even one above average skill position player on it and an aging offensive line. If you could, you'd want to upgrade almost every player on it with the possible exception of Kruetz, Olson/Clark, and maybe Berrian if he stayed a number 2 and took #2 WR money.

On offense, we need a new QB, a new RB, at least one new WR, and probably 2 new offensive linemen. In the draft, I'd probably lean towards trying to replace Benson and getting offensive line talent. Though we are most desperate at QB, it's so rare to get a great QB early in the draft, they rarely are ready to really help you immediately, and our defense would be shot by the time the guy developed.

I'm not sure what to do about QB though. Rex Grossman might be the best FA QB out there, and he's the guy we're trying to replace. The draft won't yield someone who helps right away either. We're going to need to pull a rabbit out of a hat to fix this one. Ideally, I'd say trade for McNabb if you can, but that may not prove to be a realistic option at all.

[WEFFPIM]

If anyone actually thought that Orton was the answer they were are few Skittles short of a bag. I wanted to see if he was able of being a capable backup in the future. But starter never crossed my mind.

[CBS7]

Nope, never did. I did want him to start yesterday though, because who knows, he might have proved me wrong.

We don't need new WRs. They could stand to improve, but we can't just go out there and get WRs, RBs, a QB, and OLs. I'd be perfectly fine with going into next season with the same WR corps. Maybe someone to take Moose's spot but thats it. They would look much better if they had some consistent quarterbacking, which would look better if we had a running game, which would look better if we had a better OL.

[richard]

no, i think we need to add some playmakers to surround the qb. berrian and moose don't cut it. there aren't too many options in free agency, so angelo should draft or trade for 1-2 solid wrs.

really, there's so much that needs to be done to get back to elite status. getting a good offensive coordinator, a rb, a qb, wrs, ol.

[Howling Mad]

The Answer... No.

But for a guy who was considered a legit Hiesman Trophy candidate he deserves some chances.

More chances than your average 3rd stringer.

By the end of this year I'll be able to give you a full evaluation. Even if there is such a small chance of him succeeding for the next two games, I'd like to see him start.



I do agree about the injury concerns on defense, because it all trickles down to each position. With Vasher and Tillman playing the corners, Urlacher has less responsibility and more room to take chances. With Urlachers leeway and having two top corners it limits the responsibility of the Safeties(which I don't believe is such a big hole), but of course if Urlachers back continues to bother him he won't be able to have the range to help the Safeties. One of the few MLB that can accomplish that task.

[NLK]

No way should anyone think Orton was "the answer."
But I think realistically, we (or at least myself), thought he would look improved. I didn't see much improvement. A possible indictment of that would be the many 4th and 1 situations (I think it was many of those but I could be wrong), and Lovie et al., punting it away. Orton is what he is, a guy who can play a little, but would look better if he had a really good runner & O-Line. However, we have no RB (Wolfe is too small to play in a league where there are too many big guys who eat meals the size of him. If he's that small, he's going to have to burn them with his speed, something we've rarely seen thus far). And no one on the O-Line capable winning a battle of one on one (let alone being blitzed upon). McNabb is probably not going anywhere, but if he gets choose where, it'd be to Minnesota. The only flaw in Minny is the field

[emperorjones]

At this point I don't see any answers. Only trouble on he horizon (with an uncanny resemblance to the 2008 season). This draft will be critical (along with our 2 picks from last year on D coming back healthy).

[SportsWorld]

If anyone actually thought that Orton was the answer they were are few Skittles short of a bag.

[Ayt]

The Answer... No.

But for a guy who was considered a legit Hiesman Trophy candidate he deserves some chances.

That really has little to do with the ability to play in the NFL.

[Icness]

The thing that has to frustrate the coaches about Orton is that pretty much all his flaws are correctable, yet he's not visibly improved on any of them since his rookie year. He still locks onto receivers, still holds the ball loosely, still appears to freeze and think too much instead of just react, still throws shorter passes with poor mechanics.

I actually like Orton to some extent. He's got a decent enough arm and he's got confidence and enough accuracy when given time. But no way he's "the answer" at QB. Maybe as a #2 behind a #1 who never misses a snap, nothing more.

[dougthonus]

The thing that has to frustrate the coaches about Orton is that pretty much all his flaws are correctable, yet he's not visibly improved on any of them since his rookie year. He still locks onto receivers, still holds the ball loosely, still appears to freeze and think too much instead of just react, still throws shorter passes with poor mechanics.

What would be a hard flaw to correct?

When the guy locks onto his receivers, freezes when trying to read the defense, and can't throw anything other than short passes, what really could possibly be any worse?

[Dr. Lechter]

Just curious.

I've said before I thought he was the worst starting QB I've ever seen play more than 10 games. I still think that's probably true. He can't throw over 10 yards with any accuracy whatsoever.

Doug,

I don't know what to think. However, he did make that great throw to Moose. If that throw turns out to be a touchdown I think he gets evaluated differently. What was it, half a foot short?

I was very eager to see how Orton would look. I thought (and still maintain) that he was treated extremely unfairly his rookie year. I remember the Score declaring that he shouldn't be considered a Rookie anymore since he was past the half way point in the season (in 05). I laughed and laughed.

I do agree that there were some disturbing signs in this game but I do think there is something to work with.

[Howling Mad]

Even though he has a real good game and out played Brett Favre I will wait to make my assessment after the season has concluded.

[dougthonus]

He threw for 101 yards. While the result of the game was outstanding, and the Bears dominated the game even before they got 2 defensive scores to put it out of reach, I don't think Orton was really all that instrumental in the dominance. Take out the Ryan Grant run and the defense allowed 24 total yards on 6 drives in the first half.

If we get defense like that, then any of our 3 QBs will look like a stud.

[WEFFPIM]

If we get defense like that, then any of our 3 QBs will look like a stud.

Isn't that essentially what the 05-06 season was?

Orton didn't have a good game. He didn't have a bad game. He just...was there. He played a role in a meaningless win, but a smaller role compared to the defense and special teams.

[Howling Mad]

Orton isn't the answer for any team, but for this one, he might be the best fit.

Although I do agree any QB playing with a defense that performed like the Bears D did last Sunday would look great. However if we had Grossman in there we would've taken more chances early and we would've wasted a couple downs on dropped snaps.

Orton doesn't give us 250 passing yards or 25+ attempts at a 70% clip, but he does give us less turnovers and a better short passing game.

Over the last two games there were long bombs that Orton had opportunities on, which I think Grossman would've nailed and resulted in a touchdown, but I don't think Grossman establishes those opportunities.

With Orton short passing game, to the TE - up the gut at the linebackers, and off to the sidelines(forcing the DBs to play close and physical with our WR) we can open up the running game. LB and DB playing further back which makes the jobs of our O-line much easier.

Didn't you notice how our running game(got off to a good start) improved after Orton completed a couple passes up the middle and to the sidelines.

With Grossman, we immediately start to take chances downfield without establishing control of the line of scrimmage. This pushes the DBs back(which would conventionally result in a short passing game), but Grossman fails to execute those throws, and without any control of the line of scrimmage we can't establish a running game.

Grossman's short passes would've been incomplete and we would've been forced to take chances on long balls and stick with a running game that has no short passing game to compliment it.

At least with Orton we have an asset(short passing game) that we can build on. Grossman doesn't give us a strong enough asset to build off of.



Taking a look at Orton's two games his numbers are respectable, nothing outstanding but not embarassing. In his first game, at the end of the 2nd quarter, if Moose's TD hadn't been called back I think Orton would be getting a different analysis.

22/38 184 yards 1 TD 1 int

thats not too bad.

Then his numbers for the Packer game are more than respectable considereing te circumstances and also looking at how his counterpart plyed(Favre).


I will admit Orton isn't as accurate as I would like, but as Iceness has stated, all his flaws are correctable ones, where as Grossman can't be made taller and we can't put glue on his fingers so he stops dropping snaps.

An example of Orton's less than stellar accuracy is his interception in his first game. It was a throw into a zone similar to the cover 2(from my memory). He attemtped to throw to the pocket abot 15 yards out, right over the CB and right under the safety. A hard throw to make, needs to be part-floater with precise accuracy. Obviously resulted in an INT.

I do think those mistakes can be fixed.



(sorry if its a lttle choppy I added a little more after the intitial post.)

[ICMTM]

If you don't ever call plays for your QB to throw down field I think you're admitting he's not very good. They don't even let Orton throw the ball down field.

[NoSkyy]

If you don't ever call plays for your QB to throw down field I think you're admitting he's not very good. They don't even let Orton throw the ball down field.

That really changed during the Saints game. It the deep ball basically all game imo.