BarleyNY Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 See, that was my problem with the Orton move originally. Orton was way worse than EJ at similar stages at their careers. But he improved. I don't want a guy who is basically older and average stunting the growth of a young QB. I've accepted this year and hope EJ can benefit from it. But to not draft a guy or give up EJ because of Kyle Orton is just running in place. Part of the reason we didn't draft Russell Wilson is because we needed more weapons for Fitz. That didn't work out so good. I'm not sure you can compare QB's stats from 10 years ago with QB's stats today. QB ratings and stats have improved dramatically due to the QB and receiver friendly rules. Also I think there are some real differences between Orton's Chicago team and this year's Bills. Then there is the question of growth. Has anyone seen EJ grow? I have seen him make off-season improvements only to watch him regress during the season. I know that he has not had that many opportunities overall, but it has been clear that he has not improved with regards to his accuracy, pocket presence or ability to read a defense. I think it was pretty obvious that his teammates - especially his receivers - lost faith in him as their quarterback. I don't think leaving him in as the starter was going to help the team or him. I think it will be difficult for him to be successful here in Buffalo and I expect that after the season he will find himself elsewhere. The Bills will recoup something for him and he will get a chance to be successful somewhere else, although I really don't see that happening in all likelihood. He just has too much to fix.
C.Biscuit97 Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 I'm not sure you can compare QB's stats from 10 years ago with QB's stats today. QB ratings and stats have improved dramatically due to the QB and receiver friendly rules. Also I think there are some real differences between Orton's Chicago team and this year's Bills. Then there is the question of growth. Has anyone seen EJ grow? I have seen him make off-season improvements only to watch him regress during the season. I know that he has not had that many opportunities overall, but it has been clear that he has not improved with regards to his accuracy, pocket presence or ability to read a defense. I think it was pretty obvious that his teammates - especially his receivers - lost faith in him as their quarterback. I don't think leaving him in as the starter was going to help the team or him. I think it will be difficult for him to be successful here in Buffalo and I expect that after the season he will find himself elsewhere. The Bills will recoup something for him and he will get a chance to be successful somewhere else, although I really don't see that happening in all likelihood. He just has too much to fix. I watched him. He sucked. Most Bears fans thought he sucked. They won despite him. He is a much better player than he is today and that's simply my point regarding EJ. EJ helped win a tough road game, keep plays alive agaisnt SD and Hou that become big plays. He certainly has a a ways to go. But there were some signs. To act like Orton can improve and EJ can't makes no sense to me. Orton was bad.
Mickey Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 It is not as if Kyle Orton dropped out of the sky, a complete unknown with talents as yet unexplored. He has been around long enough and had enough opportunities to earn a starting job in this league and he hasn't been able to do so. You can't ignore his entire career leading up to last Sunday in evaluating his abilities. It was one game and it was hardly a perfect performance. He is the best QB on our roster right now and none of the rest matters. As for the future, we are still are in the market for a long term QB good enough to win consistently in this league. That doesn't rule out KO as our starter for the immediate future but it does mean that if we have an opportunity to get a QB, we should take it.
billykaykay Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 See, that was my problem with the Orton move originally. Orton was way worse than EJ at similar stages at their careers. But he improved. I don't want a guy who is basically older and average stunting the growth of a young QB. I've accepted this year and hope EJ can benefit from it. But to not draft a guy or give up EJ because of Kyle Orton is just running in place. Part of the reason we didn't draft Russell Wilson is because we needed more weapons for Fitz. That didn't work out so good. Despite what they say, they have already given up on EJ. i understand what we are doing -- the thread is about him being the long term answer though, so i am discussing him in that role, not as a short term stop gap (where ive for years stuck up for guys like him having value) as to the 3rd string thing - i was just underscoring that as a qb that went 10-5 as a rookie, clearly his play wasnt what youd expect as a 10-5 record to reflect or he wouldnt have been demoted. A lot of people have pointed to that year as him getting it done (it is his best W-L season, afterall) but he was the lowest rated starting qb in the league that year. im not trying to shred the guy, just saying realistic expectations are probably that hes in the 16-24 range of starting qbs any given week/year. He wasn't demoted. The injured starting QB returned & reclaimed the job.
BarleyNY Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 I watched him. He sucked. Most Bears fans thought he sucked. They won despite him. He is a much better player than he is today and that's simply my point regarding EJ. EJ helped win a tough road game, keep plays alive agaisnt SD and Hou that become big plays. He certainly has a a ways to go. But there were some signs. To act like Orton can improve and EJ can't makes no sense to me. Orton was bad. I'm sure you remember, in detail, Orton's 2005 season performance. But it is really a moot point because whether or not Orton improved early in his career has absolutely no bearing on whether or not EJ can improve. I'm not saying that it isn't theoretically possible that he does, only that I've seen precious little evidence of it happening. I have seen him regress in some regards and not improve in others. That is far more germane to this discussion. One last thought. You mentioned missing out on Wilson. Having a halfway decent QB like Orton starting certainly opens up possibilities like that. It eliminates the glaring need at the position and allows the team to focus on value picks in lieu of reaching for a QB like they did EJ.
NoSaint Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 Despite what they say, they have already given up on EJ. He wasn't demoted. The injured starting QB returned & reclaimed the job. And then they signed another vet leaving him 3rd on the totem pole. That would be a demotion from #2. And my more extensive point was a year that many point to among his successes (his best W-L record) wasn't even good enough to earn the right to compete with the injured starter upon return but actually resulted in a step down from where he began that season
billstein22 Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 I watched him. He sucked. Most Bears fans thought he sucked. They won despite him. He is a much better player than he is today and that's simply my point regarding EJ. EJ helped win a tough road game, keep plays alive agaisnt SD and Hou that become big plays. He certainly has a a ways to go. But there were some signs. To act like Orton can improve and EJ can't makes no sense to me. Orton was bad. To praise EJ at all for his performance in the SD and HOU games is, frankly, idiotic.
JC2002 Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 I watched him. He sucked. Most Bears fans thought he sucked. They won despite him. He is a much better player than he is today and that's simply my point regarding EJ. EJ helped win a tough road game, keep plays alive agaisnt SD and Hou that become big plays. He certainly has a a ways to go. But there were some signs. To act like Orton can improve and EJ can't makes no sense to me. Orton was bad. But in reality he didnt suck the bears organizational outlook on offense sucked . They wanted hester to be a #1 and just look at how much seasons of offensive rebuilding they went through to get a passing attack AFTER they traded for what they perceived to be a franchise QB. EJ was playing in system that catered offensively to the things that he does well while Orton was never in that position . He was basically told this is how we will win games and it was not about developing him as player . Do you really believe the last year hasn't been about developing EJ as a player ? Im still waiting on the folks who say they won in spite of him to answer they can argue that considering the bears had one playoff appearance in the 15 years prior to Orton rookie year and that was 4 years earlier under an entirely different coaching staff . Things came together for the first time in years for the bears with Orton at QB and then they had a decision to make between Orton and Grossman and they chose Grossman and then a couple of years later Orton beats him out and then they trade Orton for another Grossman in jay Cutler . My point is that in todays NFL its always in a state of flux especially for the losing teams and to get out of that rut sometimes you have to consider psyche of a organization because you cant always be rebuilding and waiting on one guy to development . THIS season is shaping up to look an awfully lot like we have a legit shot to beat anyone because of our defense and run game with some solid qb play and so you have to go for that chance after 15 years . You cant 3-4 years for it to click with EJ with him in the starting lineup especially when you are not seeing the sharp improvement in play week to week .
Doc Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 (edited) Orton's 2005/rookie season wasn't very good, despite the 11-5 record, which was due to the #1 defense, ST's and a strong running game. Grossman was a former 1st rounder from 2003 who had won a national championship. He got injured and Orton's rookie season didn't merit making him the starter over Grossman once he got healthy. But Orton's last season in Chicago, 2008, was better than Grossman's SB season of 2006, so the Bears looked to have gone with the wrong guy. But then they decided to go in another direction and jettisoned both Orton and Grossman, and aquired Cutler. And for all the bluster, Cutler hasn't exactly done much better than Orton did, especially if you compare Orton's 2009/first Denver season to Cutler's 2008/last Denver season. Edited October 9, 2014 by Doc
JC2002 Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 And then they signed another vet leaving him 3rd on the totem pole. That would be a demotion from #2. And my more extensive point was a year that many point to among his successes (his best W-L record) wasn't even good enough to earn the right to compete with the injured starter upon return but actually resulted in a step down from where he began that season and as I pointed out with the link that it was organizational thing and it had nothing to do with Orton as a player .being good enough. They didnt care they had just drafted and paid for a 1st rd qb the year before so when healthy it was his job “He would not lose us any football games,” said former Bears MLB Brian Urlacher of Orton in an appearance on the Peter Schrager podcast this week. “The coaches didn’t ask him to do a whole lot, especially not to take a lot of chances. Kyle was a steady guy. He has a good arm. When he needed to make a play, he could.” “I just think the Bears missed out on him. I really do,” said Brown. “I think they missed out on his intelligence of understanding the game, knowing where to attack the defense, understanding the blitzes and schemes. I think they lost sight of the fact that he could get the job done.” “As good as our defenses were for a couple of years, if he would have been our quarterback I do think we would have won a Super Bowl,” said Urlacher. “Our defenses were so good all we had to do was just hold on to the football and take care of it and we would have won a bunch more games than we did.” Being able to start at qb in the NFL and be successful is about opportunity,circumstance, and luck .
NoSaint Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 (edited) and as I pointed out with the link that it was organizational thing and it had nothing to do with Orton as a player .being good enough. They didnt care they had just drafted and paid for a 1st rd qb the year before so when healthy it was his job and the griese signing? or the 59 qb rating (and no, thats not the espn QBR where 50 is average). 51% completions, 9 tds and 13 ints, and 5.0 YPA. grossman got his job back because orton didnt earn the spot. griese got signed because they didnt want orton back in the spot if something happened. they gave griese a chance to compete with that first rounder too, if i recall correctly. and to grossmans status -- orton played in his place in his 3rd year of his rookie deal and if any competition was to occur it wouldve been going into year 4. additionally, his contract was heavily tied to playing time incentives that he wouldnt have hit if orton started. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs06/columns/story?id=2746886 That deal paid Grossman, the 22nd overall choice in the 2003 draft, a signing bonus of $2.05 million and a roster bonus of $390,000 as a rookie. He earned a $1.98 million option bonus in the spring of 2004, but his base salaries have been modest: $250,000 (for 2003), $305,000 (2004), $465,000 (2005) and $625,000 (2006). His scheduled base salary for next season, $785,000, could be augmented by an "escalator" that has yet to be determined but would boost its value. And Grossman also will earn a bonus based on several performance factors, including how far Chicago advances in the playoffs. But the fact remains that, in his first four NFL seasons, Grossman has banked only about $6.07 million total. There are at least two quarterbacks in the league who had bigger base salaries alone, exclusive of any bonuses, for the 2006 season. The really big bucks in Grossman's contract were tied to playing time and performance. His potential for earning much of that money was scuttled by injuries -- a torn anterior cruciate ligament in 2004 and a broken ankle in 2005 -- that limited Grossman to just eight appearances and seven starts in his first three seasons. you can like the guy a ton, i dont mind, im just trying to get the full disclosure on that season, and how the bears handled it. also - amazing how in 2006 only 2 qbs eclipsed 6m as a salary (total side note, but quite the perspective on how player pay went nuts) Edited October 9, 2014 by NoSaint
Orton's Arm Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 (edited) I watched him. He sucked. Most Bears fans thought he sucked. They won despite him. He is a much better player than he is today and that's simply my point regarding EJ. EJ helped win a tough road game, keep plays alive agaisnt SD and Hou that become big plays. He certainly has a a ways to go. But there were some signs. To act like Orton can improve and EJ can't makes no sense to me. Orton was bad. > He is a much better player [today than he was with Chicago] I didn't see much of him with Chicago. But his statistics there were certainly mediocre. Just from looking at the numbers, he seems to have considerably improved between then and now. > To act like Orton can improve and EJ can't makes no sense to me. Manuel was over-drafted based on good physical traits. He was a one read college QB in a simplified offense. His throwing accuracy was suspect. QBs like that tend to have a high physical upside, and a low ceiling from the standpoint of accuracy and information processing. They plateau early. What you see from them early in their careers is about the best you're going to get. Is it possible Manuel will be an exception to that general pattern? Yes. But it's a long shot. (In the same sense that Jeff Tuel becoming the next Kurt Warner was a long shot.) It probably makes sense to keep Manuel on the roster for another year to see how that long shot plays out. Orton's pre-draft scouting report indicated he "has the field-reading skills of a 10 year NFL vet." Did it take time for his information processing ability to translate to the NFL game? Absolutely. Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, and Aaron Rodgers are all better quarterbacks than Kyle Orton will ever be. But despite this disparity in ability, the four of them have one thing in common. All four demonstrated good information processing ability while playing college ball, and all four needed several years to fully develop that ability in the NFL. Edited October 9, 2014 by Orton's Arm
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 Orton's history reads like a case study for an average QB who has never shown enough to convince a team that he can lead them to the Super Bowl and win it. Trent Dilfer anyone?
MDH Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 I sifted through a lot of this thread and read a lot of the same type of response in regards to why he could be the solution to the Bills' QB problems: He's "good enough" to win with the talent the Bills have. That right there is why he's not the long term solution. A long term solution isn't "good enough", that's a stop gap. A long term solution should be a strength of the team.
NoSaint Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 I sifted through a lot of this thread and read a lot of the same type of response in regards to why he could be the solution to the Bills' QB problems: He's "good enough" to win with the talent the Bills have. That right there is why he's not the long term solution. A long term solution isn't "good enough", that's a stop gap. A long term solution should be a strength of the team. well stated, and shouldnt be considered a major knock on KO.
John from Riverside Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 It is not as if Kyle Orton dropped out of the sky, a complete unknown with talents as yet unexplored. He has been around long enough and had enough opportunities to earn a starting job in this league and he hasn't been able to do so. You can't ignore his entire career leading up to last Sunday in evaluating his abilities. It was one game and it was hardly a perfect performance. He is the best QB on our roster right now and none of the rest matters. As for the future, we are still are in the market for a long term QB good enough to win consistently in this league. That doesn't rule out KO as our starter for the immediate future but it does mean that if we have an opportunity to get a QB, we should take it. Just to be fair....Orton has in fact one starting positions on other teams....he just couldnt maintain them (this could be for any number of reasons) and Franchise QBs do not fall out of trees..... You know its interesting.....people were clamoring to draft a qb before EJ Manuel was drafted.....then he was taken in the 1st....then he was too green to start....now people are advocating using a SECOND ROUND PICK on a QB so that we can do that process all over again. If a QB falls to the 2nd round.....do we really want to attempt to find a franchise QB there? Hardly every happens when so many 1st rounders end up being misses.
Rob's House Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 I'm not saying Orton IS the guy, but based on everything I've seen and read about him (which is considerable) I see no reason to think he can't plausibly be a top 15 QB. If we go 8-4 with him at QB sporting a ~90 QB rating I'd wager we'd feel like we found our guy. Just to be fair....Orton has in fact one starting positions on other teams....he just couldnt maintain them (this could be for any number of reasons) and Franchise QBs do not fall out of trees..... You know its interesting.....people were clamoring to draft a qb before EJ Manuel was drafted.....then he was taken in the 1st....then he was too green to start....now people are advocating using a SECOND ROUND PICK on a QB so that we can do that process all over again. If a QB falls to the 2nd round.....do we really want to attempt to find a franchise QB there? Hardly every happens when so many 1st rounders end up being misses. Depends on the QB.
John from Riverside Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 I'm not saying Orton IS the guy, but based on everything I've seen and read about him (which is considerable) I see no reason to think he can't plausibly be a top 15 QB. If we go 8-4 with him at QB sporting a ~90 QB rating I'd wager we'd feel like we found our guy. Depends on the QB. OK EJ Manuel is the proto type size, weight, arm, speed, athlete guys from a major program who has several bowl game wins..... How do we determine the QB?
Rob's House Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 OK EJ Manuel is the proto type size, weight, arm, speed, athlete guys from a major program who has several bowl game wins..... How do we determine the QB? The way you determine any other player. You evaluate his performance and abilities and try to assess his likelihood of succeeding in the NFL.
Fan in Chicago Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 I'm not saying Orton IS the guy, but based on everything I've seen and read about him (which is considerable) I see no reason to think he can't plausibly be a top 15 QB. IMHO, we haven't seen enough of Orton in this offense to make a judgement one way or the other. This week is a huge test for the Orton-led O and even for the D. Beating the Pats* this weekend will be worth lot more than 1 game in the Win column.
Recommended Posts