Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kyle Orton is the man!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • downinbellum
    replied
    Originally posted by Da Swerski View Post
    I am sad that you said this because the rest of your post was fantastic. It was based in reality while remaining positive, and why Denver fans can get excited for Orton without making out to be better then he is.

    How can anyone say the TEAM wins and losses define a QB?

    If next year a QB threw for 4,000 yards, 30 TD's, 12 INT's, and 65 COMP% but was on a 3-13 team. Would you rather have a guy who threw for 2,800 yards, 20 TD's and 15 INT's, 58 COMP% and went 11-5. What matters from the QB position is that you produce. Because that's what you can base him on. Because Cutler is obviously good enough that he took a team last year that should have been 2-14, 3-13, or 4-12 and got you within a win of the playoffs.


    Ya he looks more mobile in college against slower players. NFL defenses are much faster. Kyle Orton isn't a rock, but he'll rarely make plays with his feet. He's a traditional pocket passer.
    I see your point, and certainly team has a lot to do with it. You must understand that this is the DB we're talking about, I grew up watching Elway just dominate other teams with and without stellar supporting casts (i.e. a few of the teams in 80's, early 90's). But in the end of all conclusions and final discussions, I'd argue that yes, a QB is definitely defined by wins and losses, regardless of the "team" concept. I don't know why anyone can see otherwise. Brady/Manning/Elway/Favre/Aikman will all be remembered because their winning records as QB's were stellar, and to your point as well they won SB's with good supporting casts at times. Make no mistake, however, that many of those QB's carried their teams on their shoulders, something Cutler hasn't done yet. He's shown it in college, but still had a rough go about it. I mean, we saw it a few years ago when Favre passed Elway on the wins list. No expert or analyst mentioned the TEAM, they mentioned Brett Favre's career wins. That is all I'm arguing, no more no less.

    I'm simply arguing that many of the Bears fans on these boards and on air "experts" have it wrong when it comes to Jay Cutler, for now. You can't crown him the next Elway until he actually wins some games, regardless of team or not. He certainly suggests that team is of no consequence. You should've seen some of his post-game PC's last year. The guy thinks he's Elway, Marino, shaken and stirred a little bit of Favre, and many of the fans feed off that kool aid. Broncos fans have had it wrong as well, believe me. We thought he was our savior, but it just isn't true.

    The fact is Kyle Orton and Phillip Rivers have better records than Jay Cutler, despite much hoopla from Bears fans and analysts, when IMO (which is all this is, keep in mind) all that matters for a QB is wins and losses.

    Jay Cutler is a specimen. Kyle Orton is not, and is most definitely not in the conversation with Cutler. But all that matters to me are those wins he has. The wins Cutler doesn't have.
    Last edited by downinbellum; 06-27-2009, 10:12 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • psychobear
    replied
    Originally posted by Al Wilson 4 Mayor View Post
    That's a great post.......they might each actually work better in their new systems as well.......no I'm not trying to say Orton is better, but I am saying he might thrive in a game management system, whereas Cutler thrives more in a system where he is expected to make plays.

    Make no mistake about it, he will be expected to make plays in Chicago from time to time. They didn't pay a king's ransom for him to come in and just manage games and throw the ball 18 times per contest.
    Exactly... and trading Cutler allowed the Broncos to upgrade their D a bit. Orton + Defense= a winning team
    Cutler + Defense= a winning team

    Both teams got better.

    No doubt the Bears want Cutler to go out there and make plays. They paid what they paid to get a guy who could put a team on his back every so often and win a game. A guy who could keep the defense off the field and rested so they can finish games.

    The Broncos got Orton in hopes of making their entire team better... slightly downgrade the QB position but in return get more defense to help him out. He is surrounded by enough talent so that the defense can still stay off the field and the offense will still be productive. With a better defense the whole team gets better.

    It makes sense for both teams. The Bears on offense pretty much have Forte and the TE's. Outside of that pretty weak... getting Cutler makes the whole offense a good amount better... and the defense better. The Broncos on offense were pretty strong... could afford to downgrade slightly at QB and still have a good unit. They needed defense and improved there with the trade.

    Orton doesn't need to be better than Cutler for the trade to be successful. They need to have gotten as much talent TOTAL as they gave up.

    Leave a comment:


  • Da Swerski
    replied
    Originally posted by downinbellum View Post
    I'm sick and tired of hearing Cutler homers and analysts drool over how good Cutler is at his position, when in reality he has a losing record, the only stat that truly defines a QB's success.
    I am sad that you said this because the rest of your post was fantastic. It was based in reality while remaining positive, and why Denver fans can get excited for Orton without making out to be better then he is.

    How can anyone say the TEAM wins and losses define a QB?

    If next year a QB threw for 4,000 yards, 30 TD's, 12 INT's, and 65 COMP% but was on a 3-13 team. Would you rather have a guy who threw for 2,800 yards, 20 TD's and 15 INT's, 58 COMP% and went 11-5. What matters from the QB position is that you produce. Because that's what you can base him on. Because Cutler is obviously good enough that he took a team last year that should have been 2-14, 3-13, or 4-12 and got you within a win of the playoffs.

    Originally posted by Roddoliver View Post
    Kyle Orton in Purdue (2004): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DlbW5_fwFI

    This video shows Orton playing closer to McDaniels' offensive style. Pretty good mobility and some nice throws.
    Ya he looks more mobile in college against slower players. NFL defenses are much faster. Kyle Orton isn't a rock, but he'll rarely make plays with his feet. He's a traditional pocket passer.

    Leave a comment:


  • Al Wilson 4 Mayor
    replied
    Originally posted by psychobear View Post
    While I think it's admirable the argument that some of you are putting up that states that Orton is better than Cutler... after reading this I can't help but think that the people posting those things actually believe it. Seems more like they are just putting up the argument to win the argument than because it's something they actually believe.

    This is coming from a fairly big Orton fan... Kyle Orton is a standup guy who improved a lot to be able to compete on the NFL level... but he isn't going to be going to any probowls any time soon. The Broncos can win with Orton just like the Bears can win with Cutler... it was a win/win trade. There doesn't have to be a winner and a loser in the trade... both teams have an opportunity to improve themselves with the trade.

    That's a great post.......they might each actually work better in their new systems as well.......no I'm not trying to say Orton is better, but I am saying he might thrive in a game management system, whereas Cutler thrives more in a system where he is expected to make plays.

    Make no mistake about it, he will be expected to make plays in Chicago from time to time. They didn't pay a king's ransom for him to come in and just manage games and throw the ball 18 times per contest.

    Leave a comment:


  • psychobear
    replied
    While I think it's admirable the argument that some of you are putting up that states that Orton is better than Cutler... after reading this I can't help but think that the people posting those things actually believe it. Seems more like they are just putting up the argument to win the argument than because it's something they actually believe.

    This is coming from a fairly big Orton fan... Kyle Orton is a standup guy who improved a lot to be able to compete on the NFL level... but he isn't going to be going to any probowls any time soon. The Broncos can win with Orton just like the Bears can win with Cutler... it was a win/win trade. There doesn't have to be a winner and a loser in the trade... both teams have an opportunity to improve themselves with the trade.

    Leave a comment:


  • -Rod-
    replied
    Kyle Orton in Purdue (2004): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DlbW5_fwFI

    This video shows Orton playing closer to McDaniels' offensive style. Pretty good mobility and some nice throws.

    Leave a comment:


  • downinbellum
    replied
    I think all we can do as Broncos fan is pull for Orton to do his best. Obviously he isn't a franchise QB, and he isn't the next Elway, and he isn't a stunning, flashy player with talent that makes D coordinators vomit a little bit in the back of their throats when watching him on film. Cutler did lots of that.

    The simple fact, for Broncos and Bears fans, is that Jay Cutler was eventually traded because #1 he didn't fit our dink and dunk system and #2 he acted like a little child just when his team needed him most: in a state of transition. I'm sure the kid has leadership skills, he took Vandy that far when they were so horrible, but there is little doubt that he has not fully exhibited those leadership attributes in the NFL. He appears very much the opposite. It's hard to say he isn't a leader, but it's hard to say he is at this level.

    Orton does not have a stronger arm Elway. Thank God for that, because I'm sick and tired of hearing Cutler homers and analysts drool over how good Cutler is at his position, when in reality he has a losing record, the only stat that truly defines a QB's success. SD fans are correct in one aspect; Rivers has been the better QB thus far. Orton does not have the quick feet Jay did in the pocket, and I'm betting we'll say little to no bootlegs or run outs with Orton. The point?

    McDaniels made it abundantly clear that he didn't need a player like Jay Cutler to win football games.

    I'm anxious to see what Orton can do. Maybe he can be THE GUY for our system, and maybe it'll work like it did with Cassel. That's all we can hope for.

    NECKBEARD!!!!

    Leave a comment:


  • Da Swerski
    replied
    Originally posted by neckbeard View Post
    Kyle was very much still a "work-in-progress" at the end of 2007. But then he started out 2008 as much more than just a legitimate starter.
    Legitimate starter.... which is probably what most would can an average NFL starter. Someone good enough to start, but not great or elite.

    Originally posted by neckbeard View Post
    Now that he's had the off-season to recuperate from his ankle injury, there's no reason to think that he won't be able to resume playing at that same level.
    But how was Orton able to play at such level? You keep telling me how hard it will be for Jay in Chicago.

    Originally posted by neckbeard View Post
    Why is Cutler considered a "franchise QB?" Because I don't think he's anywhere near it yet. To me, a franchise QB is someone like Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Drew Brees, or Brett Favre. I think it's laughable to try and put Jay Cutler in the same class as those guys when he hasn't even posted a winning record yet. He's really in the middle third of the pack, not an elite QB like you and others seem to think.
    Favre isn't a franchise QB anymore. Cutler is considered one because he was one of the best QB prospects to come around in a while. Each year he got better. He's coming off a year where at age 25 he threw for 4,526 yards and 25 TD's. So to anyone who's not you. He's shown nothing but signs that he will continue to fulfill his potential. Where as you saw a 25 year old QB do these things, and act like he's 32 and still hasn't learned from his mistakes.

    Originally posted by neckbeard View Post
    And Orton is just an everage starter? Well, I suppose that's an upgrade over when the Kyle-bashers proclaimed him not to even be a servicable backup. But I think it's much more than an "average starter" who could ignite the Bears less-than-mediocre Offense when the Defense was stumbling so badly and Special Teams was having an off-year.
    Kyle Orton didn't ignite this offense. Matt Forte did, but that's besides the point. Kyle Orton IS an average starter. This is not an insult so stop taking it as such. What is wrong with being good enough to start in the NFL? He doesn't do anything special. He's not insanely talented. You'll get average starting QB production out of him. Maybe if he takes to the system he'll make a Pro Bowl or two. Most guys in the NFL that start are average starters.

    Originally posted by neckbeard View Post
    It seems like the guys who most want to prove that Orton isn't really good are the ones who were huge fans of the guy he replaced, Sexy-Rexy fanboys in Chicago and now the Jay-boys here in Denver.
    Who said Orton isn't good? Do you realize what it takes to be just an average NFL starter? Not too many people in the world can claim this. If you think he's better then average. Where do you put him? The way you talk about him I'd think Orton was the next Elway.

    Originally posted by neckbeard View Post
    Oh, and I'm just saying that as of now Kyle is on a par at least with Jay.
    Which simply just isn't true. Go ask NFL fans on other boards. Regardless of what you think of Jay as a person, or like Orton because he's a nice guy. That doesn't chance the fact he's no where near Cutler's production/talent/ability. That doesn't matter though because Orton doesn't need to be Cutler. To say he's on par with him is crazy.

    Originally posted by neckbeard View Post
    Jay had better get used to having " tackles couldn't stop a pillow from blowing through the line," because that's what Chicago's line is like. Looks like it's going to be a rough year in Chicago for Jay.
    Kyle Orton with the Bears O-line was lighting up the world, according to you. So now with Jay they've gotten worse? When the opposite is actually true. Orlando Pace will start at left tackle instead of St. Clair. Chris Williams our 1st round pick in 2008 to be our franchise left tackle. Who missed all of last year is now healthy. He'll be starting at right tackle instead of John Tait. We even upgraded at guard. Not to mention Cutler will make life easier on the O-line by being mobile. So how is this going to be a rough year in Chicago for Jay, but Orton that you love so much succeeded in it?

    Originally posted by neckbeard View Post
    Jay is more physically talented than Kyle. Apparently that's all you see in your contention that "everyone who breaks down game film agrees that Jay is a better QB than Kyle."
    He's more talented, and has produced much more then Orton. Cutler can make plays Orton couldn't dream about. Why is this hard for you to accept? Just because Orton isn't as good as Cutler, doesn't mean you can't be excited about Orton.

    Originally posted by neckbeard View Post
    However, Kyle does have some not inconsiderable talents of his own. And he's smart enough to know how to use them successfully within an offensive system. Jay just doesn't match up at all with Kyle as far as the mental aspect of the game goes. That's where KO levels the playing field and then some. Kyle reads Defenses much better, can audible well at scrimmage, checks down quickly, uses the pocket effectively and is willing to take what a D gives him rather than force a bad play.
    Kyle Orton doesn't do everything well. If he honestly did all those things you just said, he'd still be in a Bears uniform. He has shortcomings, he has flaws, but he can still get the job done for you. Just not as well as Jay, but if you put a good team around Orton. That wouldn't stop the Bronco's from winning a Super Bowl.

    Leave a comment:


  • username1
    replied
    Double post

    Leave a comment:


  • username1
    replied
    Originally posted by RodSmithRules View Post
    Good point, but I think we need to be careful when doling out the "elite" tag. I'm not saying Ben is bad. Quite the opposite, in fact. He is a very good QB. But my question is could he be as useful to an offense that did not have the supporting cast he has?

    Some QBs are system QBs. The thrive in that system because it caters to their specific abilities. In Ben's case, he is more of a game manager, and the offense in Pitt, which is more run oriented ("smash mouth," as Cowher called it), he is exactly the kind of QB that will succeed in that offense.

    On the opposite end of the spectrum, Warner is a gunslinger...not quite a Brett Favre kind of slinger, but he puts some mustard on the ball. That offense which, for the moment, has Fitzgerald and Boldin, is far more pass oriented than run oriented.

    Are they elite because of their systems? I would say no. Warner, maybe, but not Ben. When I think of elite QBs, I look at the old school guys like Marino and Elway who did not always have a stellar offense around them. But they made it work because THEY were the center of the offense. When Elway finally had some weapons, look what he was able to accomplish. In the same vein, Marino never really had the tools to take him to the next level. That seems to be the road that guys like Donovan McNabb are on.

    I'm not saying Cutler is or isn't an elite QB, but I am leaning toward the latter. Some guys have the physical talents, but they lack other intangible qualities. Or in some cases, a great QB is stranded because of the players around him and you'll never really know if they could've been successful or not.
    Gotcha. I completely agree that certain systems will benefit certain QB's more. A coach can really help his QB by building the type of offense to help him thrive.
    Another problem is lack of a consensus on elite. I suppose my definition of "elite would be multiple super bowl appearances as a key piece of the offense(I know that this counts out Manning BTW). If you haven't taken your team all the way to the super bowl at least 2x than you are just another above average QB in my eyes.
    That being said Roethlisberger has had sub par weapons IMO, but the smashmouth style of the Steelers suits him perfectly. He has a problem with picks, and Pitt's passing game is never top tier, but he keeps plays alive with his feet and can muscle through defenders trying to sack him like few other QB's. He also comes up with clutch plays consistently. This fits Pitt's style perfectly, he is a threat to run or pass the ball and keeps the D from playing to just element of their O.
    My thinking is that every QB needs to be in the right system to maximize their potential.
    Last edited by username1; 06-26-2009, 02:14 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • RodSmithRules
    replied
    Originally posted by username1 View Post
    You could be right, but I would just like to bring up a few examples and tell me what you think.
    Carr era Johnson and Texans vs Schaub era Johnson and Texans. Schaub isn't even in the elite class yet, but he rose Johnson's stats by about 25%. The Texans also have two straight .500 years after years of being afterthoughts.

    Leinart era Cards vs Warner era cards Warner took over and the team has won some games.

    Maddux and Stewart era Steelers vs Roethlisberger Steelers, the Steelers have always had great D, but once Ben came around the team started finding success. He hasn't had very good weapons either, Hines been a good WR but not spectacular(unless you watch his blocks), but who is his #2? The Steelers Oline was much worse than the Bears was last season.

    When you find an elite QB it looks much easier to replace key players and keep your O functioning than when you have no elite QB.
    Steelers losing the bus and Burress, but Ben kept them on track. Seahawks lost Alexander and the left side of their Oline, but Hasslebeck kept them competitive. You take the QB out of those equations and I feel those teams would have collapsed after losing key components.
    Good point, but I think we need to be careful when doling out the "elite" tag. I'm not saying Ben is bad. Quite the opposite, in fact. He is a very good QB. But my question is could he be as useful to an offense that did not have the supporting cast he has?

    Some QBs are system QBs. The thrive in that system because it caters to their specific abilities. In Ben's case, he is more of a game manager, and the offense in Pitt, which is more run oriented ("smash mouth," as Cowher called it), he is exactly the kind of QB that will succeed in that offense.

    On the opposite end of the spectrum, Warner is a gunslinger...not quite a Brett Favre kind of slinger, but he puts some mustard on the ball. That offense which, for the moment, has Fitzgerald and Boldin, is far more pass oriented than run oriented.

    Are they elite because of their systems? I would say no. Warner, maybe, but not Ben. When I think of elite QBs, I look at the old school guys like Marino and Elway who did not always have a stellar offense around them. But they made it work because THEY were the center of the offense. When Elway finally had some weapons, look what he was able to accomplish. In the same vein, Marino never really had the tools to take him to the next level. That seems to be the road that guys like Donovan McNabb are on.

    I'm not saying Cutler is or isn't an elite QB, but I am leaning toward the latter. Some guys have the physical talents, but they lack other intangible qualities. Or in some cases, a great QB is stranded because of the players around him and you'll never really know if they could've been successful or not.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bronco-24
    replied
    Smack Talk in GD FTW!

    Leave a comment:


  • username1
    replied
    Originally posted by RodSmithRules View Post
    I am inclined to disagree with you only because we have a prime example in Big Ben. I don't think Roethlesberger is an "elite" QB. He's very good, and he has moments of brilliance, but he also has some very disappointing games. What does he have to show for it? Two rings. It isn't the Steeler defense alone that won, either. He has a lot of talented weapons around him.

    But for the most part, an elite QB does much more for an offense. I just don't know if I would crown Cutler as elite without seeing what he does in Chicago.
    You could be right, but I would just like to bring up a few examples and tell me what you think.
    Carr era Johnson and Texans vs Schaub era Johnson and Texans. Schaub isn't even in the elite class yet, but he rose Johnson's stats by about 25%. The Texans also have two straight .500 years after years of being afterthoughts.

    Leinart era Cards vs Warner era cards Warner took over and the team has won some games.

    Maddux and Stewart era Steelers vs Roethlisberger Steelers, the Steelers have always had great D, but once Ben came around the team started finding success. He hasn't had very good weapons either, Hines been a good WR but not spectacular(unless you watch his blocks), but who is his #2? The Steelers Oline was much worse than the Bears was last season, and when Willie Parker is injured, about 40% of a season, they have the Vikes 3rd string castoff in there, Mewelde Moore.

    When you find an elite QB it looks much easier to replace key players and keep your O functioning than when you have no elite QB.
    Steelers losing the bus and Burress, but Ben kept them on track. Seahawks lost Alexander and the left side of their Oline, but Hasslebeck kept them competitive. You take the QB out of those equations and I feel those teams would have collapsed after losing key components.
    Last edited by username1; 06-26-2009, 01:50 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • jhns
    replied
    Originally posted by Crazy8 View Post
    It obviously had to do with what you said earlier about the Shanahan coaching regime, and this one. I was wondering if you were for the coaching change or not. I personally think it was due.
    No, it didn't. Our SB coaching staff was completely different than this past years one. The only people the same are three guys we kept on this new staff and Shanahan.

    Leave a comment:


  • jhns
    replied
    Originally posted by RodSmithRules View Post
    I am inclined to disagree with you only because we have a prime example in Big Ben. I don't think Roethlesberger is an "elite" QB. He's very good, and he has moments of brilliance, but he also has some very disappointing games. What does he have to show for it? Two rings. It isn't the Steeler defense alone that won, either. He has a lot of talented weapons around him.

    But for the most part, an elite QB does much more for an offense. I just don't know if I would crown Cutler as elite without seeing what he does in Chicago.
    I wouldn't say it was all the defense but they were two of the best defenses in the history of this league. There is a reason he can post stuff like 20 QB ratings and still win games.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X