Magox Posted April 3, 2009 Posted April 3, 2009 Two problems with that: first, there is only one QB on the field at a time, not two or three to choose from. Second, the Broncos are so bad defensively, what good will a "game managing QB" be for them? Will a game mangager get them 4 TDs a game? Maybe the Bears WRs numbers are not impressive because their QBs....suck? And yet, even with a "game managing" QB like Kyle Orton, they managed to achieve a 9-7 winning record, with Devon Hester as their best WR, with the 21st ranked defense, losing 3 2nd half 10 point leads in a much tougher division. Oh and did I say, with a QB who "sucks"? hmmmm no but you're right, "game managing QB's" are overrated
Fingon Posted April 3, 2009 Posted April 3, 2009 Two problems with that: first, there is only one QB on the field at a time, not two or three to choose from. Second, the Broncos are so bad defensively, what good will a "game managing QB" be for them? Will a game mangager get them 4 TDs a game? Maybe the Bears WRs numbers are not impressive because their QBs....suck? The Broncos are so talented on the offensive side of the ball, that whatever QB they insert will have a tremendous advantage when he's developing. Also, it's likely that the Broncos will spend both 1sts on defensive players, and should improve their defense significantly. The Bears WR numbers are so terrible, because they let their only good one go... and they are full of #3s. There is no debating that besides Forte and Olson, the bears don't have much talent on O.
StupidNation Posted April 3, 2009 Posted April 3, 2009 They have a young guy named Lloyd who looks extremely good but was injured. He can burn CBs consistently.
Mr. WEO Posted April 3, 2009 Posted April 3, 2009 And yet, even with a "game managing" QB like Kyle Orton, they managed to achieve a 9-7 winning record, with Devon Hester as their best WR, with the 21st ranked defense, losing 3 2nd half 10 point leads in a much tougher division. Oh and did I say, with a QB who "sucks"? hmmmm no but you're right, "game managing QB's" are overrated 28 points is a tall order for a game manager like Orton. He's not an accurate passer. The Bears only gave up 21. 9-7? Big deal. A "much tougher division?" Come on--the best team in that Div. was the Vikings. None of those teams would have had a winning record in the AFCW. The NFC blows.
Magox Posted April 3, 2009 Posted April 3, 2009 28 points is a tall order for a game manager like Orton. He's not an accurate passer. The Bears only gave up 21. 9-7? Big deal. A "much tougher division?" Come on--the best team in that Div. was the Vikings. None of those teams would have had a winning record in the AFCW. The NFC blows. ya the Raiders and Chiefs are really tough. Oh ya and the Chargers have a great D you're not going to win this argument keep fooling yourself
Chandler#81 Posted April 3, 2009 Posted April 3, 2009 Maybe the Bears WRs numbers are not impressive because their QBs....suck? They don't call it the Windy City for nothing. Someone else posted that Chicago is where QB's go to die. It's almost impossible to fathom great QB play and an aerial passing attack @ Soldier Field. Maybe there's something to the fact the last great QB there was Sid Luckman, and the season ended before Christmas.. Anyway, I share some posters relief he's not in the AFC-E.
Mr. WEO Posted April 3, 2009 Posted April 3, 2009 ya the Raiders and Chiefs are really tough. Oh ya and the Chargers have a great D you're not going to win this argument keep fooling yourself Tougher than the Lions, no? And who would you rather face, the Chargers or the Vikes? Fooling myself? Nah. I picked the easy side of this argument--that the Bears got the better deal. You are "fooling yourself" if you think that simply saying "you're not going to win this argument" will persuade.
Magox Posted April 3, 2009 Posted April 3, 2009 Tougher than the Lions, no? And who would you rather face, the Chargers or the Vikes? Fooling myself? Nah. I picked the easy side of this argument--that the Bears got the better deal. You are "fooling yourself" if you think that simply saying "you're not going to win this argument" will persuade. The Lions and Chiefs are basically a wash. I'd much rather face the Chargers than the Vikes, The Vikes are the better team. And yes, Green Bay is better than the Raiders and Chiefs. And just because you keep saying that the Bears got the better deal, doesn't make it so. I don't care how many times you say it, it wont change anything. Anyway, The whole point of this argument is that you implied that "game managing" QB's don't have value. You also implied that Orton "sucks". So, you have Orton, who has less offensive talent around him than what Cutler had, in a stronger division, without the guidance of Shanahan, a defense ranked 21st in the league, and a team that blew 3 10 point leads still managed to pull out a winning record. I'm not saying that Orton is better than Cutler, because we all know that isn't the case. But you grossly misstated Orton's value. That's typical though, because misinformed fans really don't know too much and they usually make on the surface sort of comments like the one you had made.
Mr. WEO Posted April 3, 2009 Posted April 3, 2009 The Lions and Chiefs are basically a wash. I'd much rather face the Chargers than the Vikes, The Vikes are the better team. And yes, Green Bay is better than the Raiders and Chiefs. And just because you keep saying that the Bears got the better deal, doesn't make it so. I don't care how many times you say it, it wont change anything. Anyway, The whole point of this argument is that you implied that "game managing" QB's don't have value. You also implied that Orton "sucks". So, you have Orton, who has less offensive talent around him than what Cutler had, in a stronger division, without the guidance of Shanahan, a defense ranked 21st in the league, and a team that blew 3 10 point leads still managed to pull out a winning record. I'm not saying that Orton is better than Cutler, because we all know that isn't the case. But you grossly misstated Orton's value. That's typical though, because misinformed fans really don't know too much and they usually make on the surface sort of comments like the one you had made. Vikes and SD both gave up about 21 per game. SD scored more than Vikes. Anyway. What I have said is that a "game managing QB" will not suffice in Denver----Orton, in particular, or otherwise, because it took a QB with Cutler's passing ability to overcome a terrible defense-which will not likely change much next year. You introduced the heroic work of Orton in Chicago to refute the reality in Denver. The "guidance of Shanahan", as you may not have taken into consideration, has been replaced by the "another coattail rider, now HC, of Bill Bellichick" Josh McDaniels. I'm pretty sure the words "you grossly misstated Orton's value" have never appeared in print before, so spare me the "misinformed fans really don't know too much" attempt at a dig. You may be an "All Pro" at TBD, but it really doesn't make you more insightful than the rest of the posters here.
PushthePile Posted April 3, 2009 Posted April 3, 2009 The bears are relying on Pace to protect Cutler... which is very risky. They have no WR's either. They also have Chris Williams, coming off back surgery. He is a question mark but is a talented 2008 first rounder.
bizell Posted April 3, 2009 Posted April 3, 2009 Forte is a very good pass-catcher @ running back.. so i think he's going to get a good deal of receptions this year.
Lori Posted April 3, 2009 Posted April 3, 2009 The rumor I heard from my friends in Chicago is that they are going to try and go after Holt. Take it for what you will though because I dont keep up with Bears rumors. FWIW, I've heard the same rumor. Kennard McGuire represents both players, so I'm sure the possibility was mentioned when he hammered out Pace's deal.
Recommended Posts