PDA

View Full Version : **Warning - Long, Rational Post** Statistically analyzing Cutler vs. Orton


RubberDuckie24
04-03-2009, 06:47 PM
Hello everyone, long time viewer of the Orange Mane (4+ years), relatively new poster. Upon hearing of Cutler being traded to Chicago, my immediate reaction went something along the lines of "2 first round picks, great, upgraded a 5th round pick to a 3rd rounder, awesome... receiving Kyle Orton? Oh god... THIS guy is going to likely be our starter next year?!" I of course then came onto the Orange Mane to see my opinion (not surprisingly) validated by many fellow posters. However, I wanted to do my own digging into the situation to see just HOW bad our quarterback situation is going to be next year. Needless to say, I was caught off guard by my findings.

To be completely honest, I never watched Kyle Orton last year. I reacted with emotion only based on nothing more than ignorant stereotypes. All I had known was that the Bears have been struggling to find a suitable quarterback for many years. So naturally, I went onto the Chicago Bears message board to see what THEIR opinion (biased in some regards, but certainly more informed than my own) of Kyle Orton was. Basically what I heard was... weak arm, "serviceable" as a backup, immobile, inaccurate in the deep ball, wont win you the game... etc. However, I also heard form them (somewhat resoundingly might I add) that he's a tough leader who is respected by his teammates, can effectively play the middle of the field, and wont lose you the game for you. If youíre interested in it, here's the website for the thread I mostly looked at:
http://boards.chicagobears.com/forums/thread/1519766.aspx
But I came across something very interesting on a part of their message board - that Kyle Orton severely injured his ankle during the 8th game against the Detroit lions. So from there I decided to do a little digging in the statistics department and come to my own conclusion of what exactly weíre getting in Kyle Orton.

While reading this report, do keep in my these 3 things:
1st) Every statistic is based off of points scored aside from rushing statistics and quarterback passer rating. I found that there isnít a very strong correlation between yards gained and points scored with quarterbacks Ė however (to no surprise) there is a perfect correlation between points scored by a quarterback and total points scored in a game, and a very strong correlation between total points (or points scored by a quarterback) and winning games.
2nd) Weíre going to assume that a higher quarterback passer rating means a better quarterback. Now while I realize that this isnít a cause-effect relationship between a quarterbackís passer rating and winning games, there is a very high correlation between the two.
3rd) None of these statistics have been altered in any sense (my source is NFL.com), except it should be noted that all statistics pertaining to Kyle Orton (not necessarily the Chicago Bears) only encompass the first 7 games before he was injured in the 8th game. For those arguing that comparing a full season for Cutler to half a season for Orton isnít fair Ė youíre wrong. Orton threw for 230 pass attempts, which is more than enough for a sample size. However, itís also why I donít try to compare pass yards or anything thatís not ratio/percentage related.

First letís simply compare the two quarterbackís obvious tangibles:

Cutler: 6-3 233lbs Coming into 4th season (3rd season as starter)
Orton: 6-4 217lbs Coming into 5th season (3rd season as starter)

Both similar builds (Cutler obviously more muscular), but the emphasis on this is that both are still very young, both have very similar amount of starting experience in the NFL, and both have yet to reach their full potential. Itís not even argued that Cutlerís arm strength is greater than that of OrtonísÖ. however, it is up to much debate as to how much this actually correlates with success as a quarterback (my take Ė very little).

Next, lets look at the most widely used statistic to measure a quarterback: the quarterback passer rating.

Cutlerís passer rating for 2008: 86 --- Ranked 16th in the league.
Ortonís passer rating for first 7 games of 2008: 91 --- Ranked 9th in the league.

As we all know, quarterback mobility does factor into the effectiveness of a good quarterback. Cutler being known as a mobile quarterback, Orton not so much. Lets take a look:

Cutler averages 12 yards rushing per game
Orton averages 5 yards rushing per game.

This certainly is statistically significant, and does show that Cutler is a far more mobile quarterback than Orton is.

That right there, comparing the passer rating and rushing between the two, gives you a good idea of how well Cutler and (a healthy) Orton did compared to one another. However, giving the statistics is one thing, it of course doesn't consider the many variables that come with what affects quarterback performance in the NFL. To name a few that are considered to highly affect a quarterback outcome include (among what have already been named):

Offensive line performance
Receiving corps performance
Team Rushing performance (outside of the quarterback)
Opposing teams defense
The Quarterbacks own team Defense.


Lets go through these to compare and contrast the differences between Cutlers supporting cast and that of Ortonís.
Offensive Line - Denver's offensive line was arguably the best in pass protection in 2008. Chicago's offensive line - not so much. Lets say Chicago's pass protection was average, giving a huge advantage to whoever plays quarterback for Denver.
Receiving Corps - Denver had arguably a top 5 receiving corps in 2008, Chicago had arguably the worst receiving corps. I don't need to explain the direct impact Receivers have on a quarterbacks performance, this gives a huge advantage to whoever plays quarterback for Denver.
Team Rushing Performance - Itís a common misconception that Denver had a mediocre running game while Chicagoís running game was dominant (at least I had that misconception). However, the numbers tell otherwise.

Chicago rushing statistics (yds): 24th in the league (105 yds a game)
Denver rushing statistics (yds): 12th in the league (116 yds a game)

Thatís overall, including the effects of the added rushing of Cutler and Orton. Taking Cutler and Orton out of the rushing equation, Chicago would still rank below Denver, respectively:

Denver at 104 yards a game (rank 24)
Chicago at 100 yards a game (rank 27)

Looking at these statistics, we can see that both Denverís rushing offense and Chicagoís rushing offense, taking away the mobility of Cutler and the immobility of Orton, we end up with virtually the same strength of rushing attack. What does this mean? This means that there isnít an advantage for either teamís quarterback regarding their rushing attack.

Opposing Teams Defense - Obviously these quarterbacks arenít playing against themselves, and it should be fairly common sense to see that there is a strong negative correlation between a quarterbacks performance and the opposing teams defensive performance (when one does well, the other does poorly, and vice versa). Lets look at the strength of schedule of not just the opposing teams whom theyíve played, but strictly the ranking of the opposing teams defense (ranked in order of points allowed).

Average Bears Opponents Defensive Average (for the first 7 games): 14th
Average Broncos Opponents Defensive Average: 18th

What this means is that during those 7 games, Kyle Orton faced on average better defensive teams than what Jay Cutler did.

Lastly, The Quarterbacks Own Team Defense - The Big knock on Cutler was that he didnít win games because his own defense was weighing him down. The Big knock on Orton was that the only reason he had such a great record was that his defense kept him in the games. Lets look at the statistics:

Chicago Bears Defensive rank for 2008: 16th
Denver Broncos Defensive rank for 2008: 30th

Looking at these statistics, it appears Cutler did in fact have a harder time winning games in Denver based solely on his defense, while Orton did have an easier time winning games in Chicago (holding all other variables constant). However, it is very difficult (near impossible) to statistically show just how much Cutler's lack of Defense, or Orton's proficient defense actually affected their performance. I think it's agreed that quarterbacks do better when they are not playing catchup, than those who are neck and neck with the other team, and this certainly should be taken into account.

Hereís what you have to do to come to your own conclusion: For the sake of simplicity, take out the opposing teams defense and itís effect on wins and losses (along with special teams). Those now mean nothing. The fact that Cutler is 17-20 and that Orton is 21-12 is irrelevant. You now have to weigh all the variables, including the ones not mentioned in this report. These include quarterback rating (86 vs. 91), Mobility (12 yds/game vs. 5 yds/game), Offensive line (Denver > Chicago), Receiving Corps (Denver > Chicago), Team Rushing (Denver = Chicago), Opponents Team Defense (Harder for Orton, easier for Cutler), Own Teams Defense (ONLY how it subtly affects that teams quarterback performance) and many of the unknowns including but not limited to: mental maturity, leadership, toughness, potential, physical tangibles, ability to come through when needed, coaching, coachability, etc.

And if you want to analyze the trade, just throw in those 2 first round picks and that upgraded 5th rounder to a 3rd rounder from Chicago to Denver. :thumbsup:

labronx
04-03-2009, 06:47 PM
wow
this is probably the coach

elsid13
04-03-2009, 06:50 PM
Why only the first 7 games for Orton? Does your argument break if you include a whole season or just Cutler first 7 games.

RubberDuckie24
04-03-2009, 06:52 PM
No, Orton was seriously injured in the 8th game, and his performance drops significantly after that. I didn't bother doing the same for cutler, nothing changed regarding his capability to perform at the same level for the first 7 games than he did the whole 16 games.

Bronx33
04-03-2009, 06:55 PM
Great post and welcome iam glad you came out of the lurker closet (it creeps me out) :P

El Minion
04-03-2009, 06:57 PM
Football Outsiders QB Rank:

2008
Cutler 5th
Orton 21st

2007
Cutler 8th
Orton 19th (10-99 passes)

2006
Cutler 33rd
Orton Not Found

2005
Orton 45th

Yeah!.

Rock Chalk
04-03-2009, 06:58 PM
No, Orton was seriously injured in the 8th game, and his performance drops significantly after that. I didn't bother doing the same for cutler, nothing changed regarding his capability to perform at the same level for the first 7 games than he did the whole 16 games.

Actually, Cutler's performance declined after the first 3 games of the season.

Take out those first 3 games against horrendous defenses that Cutler faced and you will find that Cutler wasnt all that special.

lostknight
04-03-2009, 07:00 PM
Good post. What about Yards per completion?

Bronx33
04-03-2009, 07:01 PM
Just a heads up put frerottenextelway and lostknight on ignore.

RubberDuckie24
04-03-2009, 07:02 PM
Good post. What about Yards per completion?

I believe *believe* that yards per completion is heavily weighed in the quarterbacks passer rating. I could be wrong though.

SonOfLe-loLang
04-03-2009, 07:04 PM
Good stuff, though i still wonder how well stats translate in football. KC Joyner said he wouldnt even trade Campbell for Cutler straight up. I'm not so sure about that

Rock Chalk
04-03-2009, 07:04 PM
.

El Minion, Im a big fan of Football Outsiders but over the years I have found serious statistical flaws in their formulas.

They said the Eagles were the best team in teh country all year long last year afterall.

Its a good reference site but by no means should be used as a defacto judgement on the quality of players. Not for anyone at any position. IN fact if you read their QB statistic explanation, they specifically say that the QB stats cannot be accurately separated from teh WR stats (same with RBs and Offensive lines).

All things taken into account, Cutler was a better QB in a better offense with better weapons around him.

Now, if ORTON stars for Denver this year and Cutler pulls the dildo out of his ass and actually suits up for Chicago next year, we will see if it was the system that made Cutler great (which I think is more likely) or if it was really him.

We'll see how he does with no receivers, and an average offensive line.

DHallblows
04-03-2009, 07:07 PM
wow
this is probably the coach

:~ohyah!: Yeah great to see you here Mr. McDaniels!

But seriously: Great post

RubberDuckie24
04-03-2009, 07:16 PM
El Minion, Im a big fan of Football Outsiders but over the years I have found serious statistical flaws in their formulas.

They said the Eagles were the best team in teh country all year long last year afterall.

Its a good reference site but by no means should be used as a defacto judgement on the quality of players. Not for anyone at any position. IN fact if you read their QB statistic explanation, they specifically say that the QB stats cannot be accurately separated from teh WR stats (same with RBs and Offensive lines).

All things taken into account, Cutler was a better QB in a better offense with better weapons around him.

Now, if ORTON stars for Denver this year and Cutler pulls the dilrod out of his ass and actually suits up for Chicago next year, we will see if it was the system that made Cutler great (which I think is more likely) or if it was really him.

We'll see how he does with no receivers, and an average offensive line.

Couldn't agree more... it's a shame we won't ever see what Cutler could potentially do in the offense he had around him, along with the mentoring from Josh McDaniels (whom looking at his track record, is arguably one of the best quarterbacks coach in the league).

Cito Pelon
04-03-2009, 07:17 PM
Why only the first 7 games for Orton? Does your argument break if you include a whole season or just Cutler first 7 games.

I took a look at Orton vs. Jay for the 2008 season also, and comparing four of the most important QB stats found that the players were fairly even for the whole season:

TD% Kyle 3.9 vs. Jay 4.1%
INT% Kyle 2.6 vs. Jay 2.9%
YPA Kyle 6.4 vs. Jay 7.3
Completion % Kyle 58.5 vs. Jay 62.3%

Orton wasn't that far from Jay, and as pointed out, Orton played with a worse supporting cast and a bad ankle injury. So really, Jay wasn't leaps and bounds better than Orton except in completion %.

dEADmANwALKING
04-03-2009, 07:25 PM
Say the Bronco's or the Bears get the beat sh't out of them this year and the Bronco's end up with a chance to get Tim Tebow next year,how fast will everybody here forget Cutler,Orton and Elway?,I say before the Commissioner gets done announcing the pick!

NYBronco
04-03-2009, 07:26 PM
Good work and thanks for sharing. I think McDaniels can do much to improve both Simms and Orton.

elsid13
04-03-2009, 07:27 PM
I took a look at Orton vs. Jay for the 2008 season also, and comparing four of the most important QB stats found that the players were fairly even for the whole season:

TD% Kyle 3.9 vs. Jay 4.1%
INT% Kyle 2.6 vs. Jay 2.9%
YPA Kyle 6.4 vs. Jay 7.3
Completion % Kyle 58.5 vs. Jay 62.3%

Orton wasn't that far from Jay, and as pointed out, Orton played with a worse supporting cast and a bad ankle injury. So really, Jay wasn't leaps and bounds better than Orton except in completion %.

maybe it my economic background but "market" seem to put more faith in Cutler then stats based upon what we got. I don't think that Orton was high on many team boards.

You need to look at what each team asked the QB to do, responsibilities (Did Turner make Orton read the whole field or limit his read) and opponents defense faced.

theAPAOps5
04-03-2009, 07:27 PM
Tebow is the 3rd best QB next year AT BEST. He won't make anyone forget the petulant child drunk!

elsid13
04-03-2009, 07:28 PM
Say the Bronco's or the Bears get the beat sh't out of them this year and the Bronco's end up with a chance to get Tim Tebow next year,how fast will everybody here forget Cutler,Orton and Elway?,I say before the Commissioner gets done announcing the pick!

Tebow most likely won't be drafted as QB, many doubt his ability to play that position in the pros. So unless Denver is running the triple option then I doubt we care about him.

elsid13
04-03-2009, 07:29 PM
Tebow is the 3rd best FB next year AT BEST. He won't make anyone forget the petulant child drunk!

Fixed for accuracy

DHallblows
04-03-2009, 07:30 PM
Say the Bronco's or the Bears get the beat sh't out of them this year and the Bronco's end up with a chance to get Tim Tebow next year,how fast will everybody here forget Cutler,Orton and Elway?,I say before the Commissioner gets done announcing the pick!

...how will the Bears doing badly next year affect getting Tebow??? It'll only take our 2nd rounder...
Hell I'm being generous there. Are you from Florida or something Ha! I'll assume that's why you think he'll be a good qb in the NFL...

dEADmANwALKING
04-03-2009, 07:33 PM
Tebow most likely won't be drafted as QB, many doubt his ability to play that position in the pros. So unless Denver is running the triple option then I doubt we care about him.

Oh I think he'll be the 1st player drafted next year,as to how he'll be as a pro,that depends on the system and his talent,if he has any.

If he came out this year,The Lions would have already drafted him.

extralife
04-03-2009, 07:44 PM
Oh I think he'll [Tebow] be the 1st player drafted next year.

And this here is the perfect cap to the idiocy that is this thread.

Merlin
04-03-2009, 07:44 PM
Yeah, and the reason the Bears gave all those picks with Orton for Cutler is because they are idiots. And the reason Orton has been nothing more than a mediocre QB since he has been in the NFL has nothing to with it.

Karenin
04-03-2009, 07:48 PM
Oh I think he'll be the 1st player drafted next year,as to how he'll be as a pro,that depends on the system and his talent,if he has any.

If he came out this year,The Lions would have already drafted him.

I'll bet you a lot of money that Tebow isn't the #1 pick next year, or even drafted in the first round. Up to $10k (escrow obviously required).

theAPAOps5
04-03-2009, 07:51 PM
Oh I think he'll be the 1st player drafted next year,as to how he'll be as a pro,that depends on the system and his talent,if he has any.

If he came out this year,The Lions would have already drafted him.

Not really showing any smarts with this post. Watch where Pat White gets drafted then go a round lower. That is where Tebow lands

Drek
04-03-2009, 07:52 PM
Yeah, and the reason the Bears gave all those picks with Orton for Cutler is because they are idiots. And the reason Orton has been nothing more than a mediocre QB since he has been in the NFL has nothing to with it.

He's been pretty comparably mediocre to Jay Cutler over his NFL career.

But Cutler throws a ball real hard, so he's worth Orton, two firsts, and a third.

Most of the nation in a recent ESPN poll think the Broncos made out better in this deal. Several successful front office types (Ozzie Newsome foremost among them to attach his name to the comments) were surprised by just how much the Broncos got. Multiple media analysts have repeated that sentiment.

The VP of my company is a Bears fan. He isn't even totally sold on this deal. Me as a Bronco fan? I ****ing LOVE it. In five years this will be viewed as the turning point of the organization and will end in a prolonged run as a perennial SB contender.

Rabb
04-03-2009, 07:56 PM
good thread, seriously

the real proof (obvious, I know) will be to see how they both roll in the other system

it is my opinion that Orton will do better than Cutler in the systems they are now in, largely due to the tools they have to work with

if that turns out to be true, I cannot wait to revisit this and listen to the Cutler fanboys go on about how it isn't Jay's fault that he is doing poorly and Orton is only benefiting from good players around him

RubberDuckie24
04-03-2009, 08:07 PM
good thread, seriously

the real proof (obvious, I know) will be to see how they both roll in the other system

it is my opinion that Orton will do better than Cutler in the systems they are now in, largely due to the tools they have to work with

if that turns out to be true, I cannot wait to revisit this and listen to the Cutler fanboys go on about how it isn't Jay's fault that he is doing poorly and Orton is only benefiting from good players around him

Most definitely. I think Josh McDaniels influence on young moldable quarterbacks is invaluable, and it will show with Orton's progress as a quarterback. Granted he will most likely be a game manager, but if he shows improvement similar to that of Cassel's, then we may have a good quarterback... certainly one good enough to get us to the superbowl. (Being optimistic here)

theAPAOps5
04-03-2009, 08:09 PM
Most definitely. I think Josh McDaniels influence on young moldable quarterbacks is invaluable, and it will show with Orton's progress as a quarterback. Granted he will most likely be a game manager, but if he shows improvement similar to that of Cassel's, then we may have a good quarterback... certainly one good enough to get us to the superbowl. (Being optimistic here)

Well that depends on what they do with the Defense. Thats the key and I hope they spend every pick, save for 1 or 2, on Defense.

lex
04-03-2009, 08:19 PM
Thats some really good analysis but there were a couple of things worth pointing out. One is 3rd down%. How well does the QB perform in situations where the defense knows he's going to throw. That would have been worthy of analysis. Alsothere was this:

Team Rushing Performance - Itís a common misconception that Denver had a mediocre running game while Chicagoís running game was dominant (at least I had that misconception). However, the numbers tell otherwise.

Chicago rushing statistics (yds): 24th in the league (105 yds a game)
Denver rushing statistics (yds): 12th in the league (116 yds a game)

Thatís overall, including the effects of the added rushing of Cutler and Orton. Taking Cutler and Orton out of the rushing equation, Chicago would still rank below Denver, respectively:

Denver at 104 yards a game (rank 24)
Chicago at 100 yards a game (rank 27)

Looking at these statistics, we can see that both Denverís rushing offense and Chicagoís rushing offense, taking away the mobility of Cutler and the immobility of Orton, we end up with virtually the same strength of rushing attack. What does this mean? This means that there isnít an advantage for either teamís quarterback regarding their rushing attack.



Youre using this analysis to test the performence of the quarterbacks. Its possible that Chicagos 100 yards a game rushing is more difficult to come by than Denvers 105 because opposing defenses perceive Cutler as a bigger threat and load up against him. If opposing defenses perceive Cutler as a more potent threat, that opens up the run more...and his arm strength alone could actually accomplish that. Another aspect of this is the flip side and that is how opposing defenses perceive the opposing RB. Its not really that far fetched that Chicagos opponents perceived Forte as a bigger threat than anyone we had at RB. Plus when you add that to the possibility that Cutler has a bigger arm (requiring the defense to cover more of the field) and also that Cutler is perceived as a bigger thread, you can see these things interface with each other. So the running yardage could be erroneous ("could be" as in I dont know defenses see Cutler as a greater threat, although Im guessing thats the case).

But either way, its solid analysis even if only to show the gap isnt as big as some may think. Now watch us trade Orton to KC.

_Oro_
04-03-2009, 08:27 PM
No, Orton was seriously injured in the 8th game, and his performance drops significantly after that. I didn't bother doing the same for cutler, nothing changed regarding his capability to perform at the same level for the first 7 games than he did the whole 16 games.

Except defenses usually get better as the season goes on.

Circle Orange
04-03-2009, 08:27 PM
This is a somewhat reasonable argument. Therefore, it doesn't count. :~ohyah!:

I'm not sure if that posted weight for Cutler was pre-or post the 30lbs swing during the diabetes deal. I'm thinking it was before he lost the weight and then regained it back.

Supposedly Orton worked on his physical conditioning in the offseason to prep for a qb competition with Grossman. He stopped all the heavy drinking and worked out more. At least so the story goes.

And the arm strength thing is funny. I'm not an Orton fan, but if you think he's got a Jake Plummer arm don't kid yourself. His biggest issue is no accuracy past 15 yards. All his long passes sail. There was much debate in Chicago about whether his arm was as strong as Grossman's. Some people insisted he had a cannon, others said he has to 'put everything into it' to get balls upfield.

Let the Bronco fans decide for themselves. Meanwhile, we don't need sensible and sane posts here. Enough is enough.

gyldenlove
04-03-2009, 08:32 PM
How much does an ankle injury hamper a guy who has 5 yards rushing per game?

If we look at his sacks taken, he took 15 in the 7.5 games before his injury, and only 12 in the 7 games after his injury. He had 13 rush attempts before his injury and 11 after. You can use that injury as an excuse, but at the end of the day he was not injured enough to reduce the amount of times he ran, he was not injured enough that he had trouble getting away from sacks, so really your argument lacks validity.

Cutler led 4 4th quarter game winning drives in 2009. Cutler attempted 32 passes, completed 22 for 241 yards, while the team rushed 15 times for 117 yards, Cutler was sacked 1 time and scored TDs on every drive and a 2 point conversion on 1 drive.

Orton was in on 2 4th quarter game tying drives and 2 OT gamewinning drives. On those 4 drives his stats were 17 passes, 11 completions, 95 yards, 1 sack and 1 def pass interference, they also had 15 rushes on those drives for 69 yards and 1 TD. Orton failed to score a single TD on those 4 drives.

At the end of the day, who do you want, someone who wins games when it is down to the wire or someone who can't get into the end zone?

RubberDuckie24
04-03-2009, 08:36 PM
Except defenses usually get better as the season goes on.

lol, what? No more than the offense gets better as the season goes on too. A defense's aptitude doesn't increase at a faster rate than the offenses does, lol.

extralife
04-03-2009, 08:39 PM
Yes it does. Knowledge of what the other team does helps a defense more than it helps an offense, historically. And there's the whole weather factor.

RubberDuckie24
04-03-2009, 08:41 PM
How much does an ankle injury hamper a guy who has 5 yards rushing per game?

If we look at his sacks taken, he took 15 in the 7.5 games before his injury, and only 12 in the 7 games after his injury. He had 13 rush attempts before his injury and 11 after. You can use that injury as an excuse, but at the end of the day he was not injured enough to reduce the amount of times he ran, he was not injured enough that he had trouble getting away from sacks, so really your argument lacks validity.

Cutler led 4 4th quarter game winning drives in 2009. Cutler attempted 32 passes, completed 22 for 241 yards, while the team rushed 15 times for 117 yards, Cutler was sacked 1 time and scored TDs on every drive and a 2 point conversion on 1 drive.

Orton was in on 2 4th quarter game tying drives and 2 OT gamewinning drives. On those 4 drives his stats were 17 passes, 11 completions, 95 yards, 1 sack and 1 def pass interference, they also had 15 rushes on those drives for 69 yards and 1 TD. Orton failed to score a single TD on those 4 drives.

At the end of the day, who do you want, someone who wins games when it is down to the wire or someone who can't get into the end zone?

I'd say for as many passing yards that Cutler had, he couldn't get into the end zone any better than Orton could. As for the injury, your right that his rushing stats didn't change drastically (not that they had much room to fall), but supposedly he had a hard time putting weight on his ankle when going for throws. Obviously this didn't affect him to the point where he was rendered incapable, but to say that it didn't affect him would be a mistake. His passing rating does drop relatively significantly after his injury.

Who knows though, he did play well in his last game against the Texans... and by all means I'm not saying I'd rather have Orton than Cutler, but I would definitely rather have Orton + 2 first round picks than a crybaby cutler.

RubberDuckie24
04-03-2009, 08:45 PM
Yes it does. Knowledge of what the other team does helps a defense more than it helps an offense, historically. And there's the whole weather factor.

Knowledge of the other team helps both sides of the ball equally. There's no reason why the defense would gain an upper hand for reading the offense any more than the offense would gain an upper hand for reading the defense.

Weather affects both teams equally as well. In fact, I could probably make a pretty strong argument that it favors the offensive team. You ever play defense in any sport? Your playing a reaction game, and that time spend making up that reaction time is maximized when you have to make a hard cut on a crappy field. However, the other argument is visibility/wind conditions for quarterback.... it all equals out. Unless you could prove it to me statistically... I'd be very open to being proven wrong.

extralife
04-03-2009, 08:49 PM
Knowledge of the other team helps both sides of the ball equally. There's no reason why the defense would gain an upper hand for reading the offense any more than the offense would gain an upper hand for reading the defense.

A defense is much more dependent on what the offense does than the offense is on what the defense does. The defense primarily reacts. When you are reacting, it helps if you have a large body of evidence on the tendencies of what you are reacting to.

I don't have any numbers to prove that the weather effects the offense more than the defense, but come on. When it is snowing and the field is a mess, do you expect a high scoring game or a low scoring one? Have you watched football? I don't think it'd be too hard to get a breakdown of the average points scored per game in, say, September games vs. December ones over the last 25 years or whatever. Maybe I'll look into it.

DenverBrit
04-03-2009, 08:49 PM
Oh I think he'll be the 1st player drafted next year,as to how he'll be as a pro,that depends on the system and his talent,if he has any.

If he came out this year,The Lions would have already drafted him.

LOL Ok, that was funny.

RubberDuckie24
04-03-2009, 08:59 PM
A defense is much more dependent on what the offense does than the offense is on what the defense does. The defense primarily reacts. When you are reacting, it helps if you have a large body of evidence on the tendencies of what you are reacting to.

I don't have any numbers to prove that the weather effects the offense more than the defense, but come on. When it is snowing and the field is a mess, do you expect a high scoring game or a low scoring one? Have you watched football? I don't think it'd be too hard to get a breakdown of the average points scored per game in, say, September games vs. December ones over the last 25 years or whatever. Maybe I'll look into it.

Your right about the defense being more reaction dependent, but when an offense lines up now a days, it doesn't mean that they're going to be running the original play like they used to. The offense is just as reactant to the defense as it is the other way around - thus why Peyton Manning is one of the best quarterbacks in the league, he specializes in setting up an offense play in reaction to the defensive formation. It goes both ways.

As for the defense, your right in terms of crippling weather, I give you that. i wasn't thinking of weather like the Steelers-Miami game over in Europe. Thinking about the most extreme example and your right, the offense wouldn't be able to move the ball an inch not because it benefits the defense so much, but because it hinders both sides of the ball equally, and when your job is to move the ball, your served a severe disadvantage (that's my argument anyways, haha). Good call on the weather though. I was thinking more along the lines of a muddy field.

RMT
04-03-2009, 09:10 PM
i could have sworn the broncos defense finished 29th in 2008 and the bears finished 21st.

Anaximines
04-03-2009, 09:34 PM
good post, most of all because it makes me feel a bit better about losing Cutler :). It's nice to have the Mane to come to so I can find information like this without spending all of the time digging it up myself.

RubberDuckie24
04-03-2009, 09:44 PM
i could have sworn the broncos defense finished 29th in 2008 and the bears finished 21st.

That was in yards allowed... I went by points allowed.

SonOfLe-loLang
04-03-2009, 09:47 PM
maybe it my economic background but "market" seem to put more faith in Cutler then stats based upon what we got. I don't think that Orton was high on many team boards.

You need to look at what each team asked the QB to do, responsibilities (Did Turner make Orton read the whole field or limit his read) and opponents defense faced.

I actually watched a lot of bears games last year (my buddy and I would spend our sundays watching the bears in the early game and broncos and late) and Kyle made lots of audibles, pre snap reads. Also, remember he ran the spread at Purdue. Kyle's mistakes usually were not mental...which is a good sign for the McD offense. That chicago offense was horribly conservative and woefully unimaginative. I think we're gonna see a different orton. its gonna be interesting

The MVPlaya
04-03-2009, 09:55 PM
Cutlerís passer rating for 2008: 86 --- Ranked 16th in the league.
Ortonís passer rating for first 7 games of 2008: 91 --- Ranked 9th in the league.


Rational?

Rohirrim
04-03-2009, 09:57 PM
I'll bet you a lot of money that Tebow isn't the #1 pick next year, or even drafted in the first round. Up to $10k (escrow obviously required).

How about his GF?
http://walterfootball.com/images/fball/TTebow2.jpg

Br0nc0Buster
04-03-2009, 10:00 PM
How much does an ankle injury hamper a guy who has 5 yards rushing per game?

If we look at his sacks taken, he took 15 in the 7.5 games before his injury, and only 12 in the 7 games after his injury. He had 13 rush attempts before his injury and 11 after. You can use that injury as an excuse, but at the end of the day he was not injured enough to reduce the amount of times he ran, he was not injured enough that he had trouble getting away from sacks, so really your argument lacks validity.

Cutler led 4 4th quarter game winning drives in 2009. Cutler attempted 32 passes, completed 22 for 241 yards, while the team rushed 15 times for 117 yards, Cutler was sacked 1 time and scored TDs on every drive and a 2 point conversion on 1 drive.

Orton was in on 2 4th quarter game tying drives and 2 OT gamewinning drives. On those 4 drives his stats were 17 passes, 11 completions, 95 yards, 1 sack and 1 def pass interference, they also had 15 rushes on those drives for 69 yards and 1 TD. Orton failed to score a single TD on those 4 drives.

At the end of the day, who do you want, someone who wins games when it is down to the wire or someone who can't get into the end zone?

At the end of the day I want Cutler to be qb for us, but he doesnt want to be here.
No sense in reflecting on what could of been

I am not sure stats can transfer like that though, also consider the casts each guy is working with.
I seriously doubt Orton is upset he no longer has to throw to a converted CB or RBs out of the flat

Eldorado
04-03-2009, 10:03 PM
Not to be a stickler here, but I didn't see any statistics. Or conclusions. Or, really, anything useful.

Where do I petition to get those last 5 minutes back?

footstepsfrom#27
04-03-2009, 10:03 PM
Nobody on this board has used stats more than me to make a point.

This is not a time to do that. Orton is very average. In two years he won't be here either.

Taco John
04-03-2009, 10:06 PM
This is really warped statistical analysis. We had 7 RBs go down last year. If you're going to cherry pick Orton's stats when things were rosie for him, you should give Cutler the same benefit, and compare his stats when he had either Pittman or Hillis behind him.

But aside from that, we're not even running the same offense, so any statistical analysis that compares them is pretty well meaningless.

I think what DOES have meaning is that Orton is a controlled passer who doesn't make a lot of mistakes when the guys around him aren't making mistakes. We're not going to ask Orton (or Simms) to carry the team the way Cutler had to last year. He won't throw for 4000 yards, but he won't need to either.

SonOfLe-loLang
04-03-2009, 10:15 PM
How about his GF?
http://walterfootball.com/images/fball/TTebow2.jpg

cripes

DBBBSBS
04-04-2009, 12:23 AM
Oh I think he'll be the 1st player drafted next year,as to how he'll be as a pro,that depends on the system and his talent,if he has any.

If he came out this year,The Lions would have already drafted him.

you are joking.. right.

tebow will be = eric couch potato

DBBBSBS
04-04-2009, 12:26 AM
No, Orton was seriously injured in the 8th game, and his performance drops significantly after that. I didn't bother doing the same for cutler, nothing changed regarding his capability to perform at the same level for the first 7 games than he did the whole 16 games.

good work on this thread... rep for you.

one more stat which is significant is YAC. mostly Bmarsh made cutler look awesome with his ability. So in his 9000 yards in 3 yrs.. check how much came from just YAC from bmarsh.

cutthemdown
04-04-2009, 02:08 AM
Nice thread.

Popps
04-04-2009, 02:11 AM
This is really warped statistical analysis. We had 7 RBs go down last year. If you're going to cherry pick Orton's stats when things were rosie for him, you should give Cutler the same benefit, and compare his stats when he had either Pittman or Hillis behind him.

But aside from that, we're not even running the same offense, so any statistical analysis that compares them is pretty well meaningless.

I think what DOES have meaning is that Orton is a controlled passer who doesn't make a lot of mistakes when the guys around him aren't making mistakes. We're not going to ask Orton (or Simms) to carry the team the way Cutler had to last year. He won't throw for 4000 yards, but he won't need to either.



Good. QBs shouldn't carry teams. If any fan in the world should know that, it's a Broncos fan.

extralife
04-04-2009, 02:54 AM
Good. QBs shouldn't carry teams. If any fan in the world should know that, it's a Broncos fan.

But the QB is the most important man on the field for most super bowl teams. It is very hard to win a super bowl with a Kyle Orton. And last I checked, nothing but a super bowl mattered. That's why we ended up with Cutler in the first place.

gyldenlove
04-04-2009, 04:42 AM
I'd say for as many passing yards that Cutler had, he couldn't get into the end zone any better than Orton could. As for the injury, your right that his rushing stats didn't change drastically (not that they had much room to fall), but supposedly he had a hard time putting weight on his ankle when going for throws. Obviously this didn't affect him to the point where he was rendered incapable, but to say that it didn't affect him would be a mistake. His passing rating does drop relatively significantly after his injury.

Who knows though, he did play well in his last game against the Texans... and by all means I'm not saying I'd rather have Orton than Cutler, but I would definitely rather have Orton + 2 first round picks than a crybaby cutler.


I think you are wrong about that, Cutler had a lot more TDs than Orton. The fact that the REST of the team couldn't get in the end zone as well as Matt Forte is another matter.

Who is to say that his passing dropped because of his injury? it could just be that teams figured out he can't throw the ball more than 10 yards and started covering the short game more aggressively.

elsid13
04-04-2009, 05:25 AM
I think you are wrong about that, Cutler had a lot more TDs than Orton. The fact that the REST of the team couldn't get in the end zone as well as Matt Forte is another matter.

Who is to say that his passing dropped because of his injury? it could just be that teams figured out he can't throw the ball more than 10 yards and started covering the short game more aggressively.

About 3 to 4 games in, DCs in league have enough film on offense for the year to know what that team is trying to do. They then adjust accordingly and see if the quarterback is able to adjust on field.

Hulamau
04-04-2009, 05:26 AM
I think you are wrong about that, Cutler had a lot more TDs than Orton. The fact that the REST of the team couldn't get in the end zone as well as Matt Forte is another matter.

Who is to say that his passing dropped because of his injury? it could just be that teams figured out he can't throw the ball more than 10 yards and started covering the short game more aggressively.

You obviously never watched any of the Bears games last year gylden, right??? With a little protection Orton was very accurate and has a very quick release as well. He does throw a nice ball too, even if the very deep ball isn't his specialty. You can see his mobility was severely hampered at least 5 or so games after the injury and it effected his follow through as well. Look at his foot work in the early games versus the injury games even on grainy You-tube tapes you can see it.

He wont throw as many WOW passes as Cutler and he wont take nearly so many risky chances, which in this offense is a real plus!

Drek
04-04-2009, 05:27 AM
But the QB is the most important man on the field for most super bowl teams. It is very hard to win a super bowl with a Kyle Orton. And last I checked, nothing but a super bowl mattered. That's why we ended up with Cutler in the first place.

A lot of people would have said the exact same thing about Tom Brady in 2001.

Or Joe Montana in 1979.

I know a lot of us Bronco fans have a hard time wrapping our minds around this, but there comes a point in time when a QB can be so effective and consistent at managing a game that he equals or even surpasses a gunslinger type in his ability to lead the team.

Mediator12
04-04-2009, 09:06 AM
Yeah, and the reason the Bears gave all those picks with Orton for Cutler is because they are idiots. And the reason Orton has been nothing more than a mediocre QB since he has been in the NFL has nothing to with it.

Orton was a spread QB @ Purdue ala Drew Brees. Brees Numbers in a more prostyle offense in SD were nowhere near as good as his numbers in the spread in NO. In fact, SD let Brees go after Drafting Phillip Rivers as a more adept Prostyle QB. SD got Nothing out of Brees, was that a good deal for them?

Now, Orton comes to a system extremely similar to the one he played in at Purdue with a lot of success. And, he actually has an offense that will facilitate running that system as opposed to the ultra-Conservative Bears offense without Berrian. He played against his strengths as a QB in CHI. Therefore, CHI was more than happy to get rid of him for a player that could maximize their offense the way Orton could not with his skillset.

Orton may not be a very good NFL QB right now, but no one has any idea what he will do in a much better situation in DEN next year in a system that suits him. He could be completely average or he could be above average. I highly doubt he will be below average in this system though as he understands it, will check down instead of forcing TO's, and has much better personnel around him.

Is he a long term Solution or even the short term solution, I have no idea until we see him play in like 4 months. There is still a lot to do before then, and things can happen quickly in the NFL.

lostknight
04-04-2009, 09:19 AM
I think we will see some fall off with Marshall who isn't great over the middle. I think Eddie Royal will be a bit better. But I antcipate that Chicago's receivers are going to be significantly better. A good QB makes his wide receivers better if they have any upwards potential at all. A worrything about Orton is that when you look at his show stopper throws they almost always are a case of badly blown coverage, someone tripping, etc. Jay could fit a laser into traffic. This guy seems to need to throw mortors with no-one else in a 10 yard radius of his target.

Orton looks like a decent fit for what McDaniels evidently wants to do. Chriss Simms also does. Both of them are pure system quarterbacks however. At least McDaniels will be able to take credit for the QB.

Rohirrim
04-04-2009, 09:22 AM
Orton was a spread QB @ Purdue ala Drew Brees. Brees Numbers in a more prostyle offense in SD were nowhere near as good as his numbers in the spread in NO. In fact, SD let Brees go after Drafting Phillip Rivers as a more adept Prostyle QB. SD got Nothing out of Brees, was that a good deal for them?

Now, Orton comes to a system extremely similar to the one he played in at Purdue with a lot of success. And, he actually has an offense that will facilitate running that system as opposed to the ultra-Conservative Bears offense without Berrian. He played against his strengths as a QB in CHI. Therefore, CHI was more than happy to get rid of him for a player that could maximize their offense the way Orton could not with his skillset.

Orton may not be a very good NFL QB right now, but no one has any idea what he will do in a much better situation in DEN next year in a system that suits him. He could be completely average or he could be above average. I highly doubt he will be below average in this system though as he understands it, will check down instead of forcing TO's, and has much better personnel around him.

Is he a long term Solution or even the short term solution, I have no idea until we see him play in like 4 months. There is still a lot to do before then, and things can happen quickly in the NFL.

This is one of my biggest disagreements with many NFL fans - they write players off so fast. Coaches sometimes make the same mistake. I think one of the primary successes of the Patriots has been their ability to find players to fit their team (Mike Vrabel, who was cut by Pittsburgh, being a prime example) not just a guy who is excellent at his position. It's a subtle difference, but very important. Properly meshed teams win championships. Star players, not so much. I think that McD is bringing that concept to Denver.

Spider
04-04-2009, 09:33 AM
This is one of my biggest disagreements with many NFL fans - they write players off so fast. Coaches sometimes make the same mistake. I think one of the primary successes of the Patriots has been their ability to find players to fit their team (Mike Vrabel, who was cut by Pittsburgh, being a prime example) not just a guy who is excellent at his position. It's a subtle difference, but very important. Properly meshed teams win championships. Star players, not so much. I think that McD is bringing that concept to Denver.

Case in point Redskins when Danny Snider first took over , signed and lured every super star he could , and got nowhere fast ....... The NFL isnt set up like baseball or basketball ....... Plunkett for the pats totally sucked , Raiders got him went to a bowl , Morton to Denver , Morton was considered washed up , he had and I quote " Betty Davis knees" ........

Mediator12
04-04-2009, 09:37 AM
About 3 to 4 games in, DCs in league have enough film on offense for the year to know what that team is trying to do. They then adjust accordingly and see if the quarterback is able to adjust on field.

This is basically correct.

The first four games give each team a scheme advantage on both sides of the ball. The new wrinkles can really test teams. See DEN's Defense in 2006 with not allowing a TD until the final quarter of game 3. Also, see DEN's offense last year with Bates calling the plays early.

Then, it becomes a chess match around game 4 scheme wise creating matchups and nuetralizing matchup advantages. The better Coordinators give their team an advantage schematically during this time. It was one of Shanahan's best strengths as a Coordinator.

Finally, around game 9-10 the scheme advantages are no longer there. Teams with superior personnel start to impose their will on teams that have held tactical advantages until that time. This is where dominant early teams like DEN in the past have struggled. The personnnel advantage was exploited especially in the second half of games and in the physical aspects of the game such as pass rush and Running game.

TB looked this way last year, and the NYJ's too. In 2005, it is what got DEN to the AFCC game. DEN changed its defensive scheme in game 7 against PHI with the Cover Zero Blitz package and it took 10 more games for PIT to finally figure it out and make the adjustments to play against it, even though they had a TON of luck with TO's and missed TO's to help too.

Some teams are capable of changing what they do every week, but they are few and far between. Some are so good at what they do, scheme does not matter as they simply outexecute other teams. Those are the rare exceptions to that timeline. But its a good way to look at why some teams collapse down the stretch and others become much better as the season progresses.

Spider
04-04-2009, 09:42 AM
In other words you have to line up and beat the man in front of you .......win the one on one battles

theAPAOps5
04-04-2009, 09:42 AM
This is basically correct.

The first four games give each team a scheme advantage on both sides of the ball. The new wrinkles can really test teams. See DEN's Defense in 2006 with not allowing a TD until the final quarter of game 3. Also, see DEN's offense last year with Bates calling the plays early.

Then, it becomes a chess match around game 4 scheme wise creating matchups and nuetralizing matchup advantages. The better Coordinators give their team an advantage schematically during this time. It was one of Shanahan's best strengths as a Coordinator.

Finally, around game 9-10 the scheme advantages are no longer there. Teams with superior personnel start to impose their will on teams that have held tactical advantages until that time. This is where dominant early teams like DEN in the past have struggled. The personnnel advantage was exploited especially in the second half of games and in the physical aspects of the game such as pass rush and Running game.

TB looked this way last year, and the NYJ's too. In 2005, it is what got DEN to the AFCC game. DEN changed its defensive scheme in game 7 against PHI with the Cover Zero Blitz package and it took 10 more games for PIT to finally figure it out and make the adjustments to play against it, even though they had a TON of luck with TO's and missed TO's to help too.

Some teams are capable of changing what they do every week, but they are few and far between. Some are so good at what they do, scheme does not matter as they simply outexecute other teams. Those are the rare exceptions to that timeline. But its a good way to look at why some teams collapse down the stretch and others become much better as the season progresses.


WOW, that is very insightful Med. That makes perfect sense regarding Denver's collapses in past years. Shanny could scheme with the best of them. But when teams caught on they didn't have the personnel to compensate. Mix in injuries and bad defensive parts and it all makes sense.

Rohirrim
04-04-2009, 09:55 AM
This is basically correct.

The first four games give each team a scheme advantage on both sides of the ball. The new wrinkles can really test teams. See DEN's Defense in 2006 with not allowing a TD until the final quarter of game 3. Also, see DEN's offense last year with Bates calling the plays early.

Then, it becomes a chess match around game 4 scheme wise creating matchups and nuetralizing matchup advantages. The better Coordinators give their team an advantage schematically during this time. It was one of Shanahan's best strengths as a Coordinator.

Finally, around game 9-10 the scheme advantages are no longer there. Teams with superior personnel start to impose their will on teams that have held tactical advantages until that time. This is where dominant early teams like DEN in the past have struggled. The personnnel advantage was exploited especially in the second half of games and in the physical aspects of the game such as pass rush and Running game.

TB looked this way last year, and the NYJ's too. In 2005, it is what got DEN to the AFCC game. DEN changed its defensive scheme in game 7 against PHI with the Cover Zero Blitz package and it took 10 more games for PIT to finally figure it out and make the adjustments to play against it, even though they had a TON of luck with TO's and missed TO's to help too.

Some teams are capable of changing what they do every week, but they are few and far between. Some are so good at what they do, scheme does not matter as they simply outexecute other teams. Those are the rare exceptions to that timeline. But its a good way to look at why some teams collapse down the stretch and others become much better as the season progresses.

That brings back memories of John Riggins on the Skins. They ran that off tackle run (I forget what it was called) play after play after play. Everybody knew it was coming. But that Oline was so good, and Riggins was such a horse, it just didn't matter.

Rabb
04-04-2009, 10:00 AM
But the QB is the most important man on the field for most super bowl teams. It is very hard to win a super bowl with a Kyle Orton. And last I checked, nothing but a super bowl mattered. That's why we ended up with Cutler in the first place.

I just won't ever completely agree with this.

Trent Dilfer, Eli Manning, Brad Johnson

yeah I know, the common thing there is they all have defense that carried them...but that is my point, this trade was not necessarily for a QB...it was to make a defense stronger so a Kyle Orton type CAN get them to the promised land

2KBack
04-04-2009, 10:04 AM
That brings back memories of John Riggins on the Skins. They ran that off tackle run (I forget what it was called) play after play after play. Everybody knew it was coming. But that Oline was so good, and Riggins was such a horse, it just didn't matter.

the Counter Trey, they were still running it with Portis while Gibbs was coach, with less effectiveness though.

Man that play would kill with the Denver O-line and Hillis.

Northman
04-04-2009, 10:41 AM
Great post Rubber.

Spider
04-04-2009, 10:44 AM
Rational and stats 2 words that should never be used together ......
I dont know enough about Ortons play , but in less then 24 hours he was in Denver ready to work ........

Dedhed
04-04-2009, 11:08 AM
About 3 to 4 games in, DCs in league have enough film on offense for the year to know what that team is trying to do. They then adjust accordingly and see if the quarterback is able to adjust on field.

So we should take from that the fact that our offense was 24th in the league in scoring after week 3. Based on that it seems like Cutler did a pretty poor job of adjusting on the field.

slyinky
04-04-2009, 11:27 AM
Some interesting stats:

Chicago averaged 28 pts a game through Orton's first 7 games (only New Orleans, at 28.9, averaged more over a full season). Of those 7 games, 3 were against top 10 scoring defenses (Phil, T.B., Ind) and 3 more were just outside the top 10 (#11 Atl, #12 Car, #13 Minn).

Denver averaged 23.1 pts per game for the season, good for 16th overall. Of those 16 games, only 3 were against top 10 scoring defenses (T.B., N.E., Mia) and 2 were just outside the top 10 (#11 Atl, #12 Car).

Chicago's Orton led offense through the first 7 games faced 6 teams that allowed less than 21 pts a game for the season. Chicago averaged 27 pts a game in those contests.

Denver's Cutler led offense over 16 games faced 5 teams that allowed less than 21 pts a game for the season. Denver averaged 14.8 pts a game in those contests.

p7superfly
04-04-2009, 11:51 AM
100 post rule officially waived for Rubber Duckie.

Great analysis. You made me feel better.

Circle Orange
04-04-2009, 12:59 PM
That brings back memories of John Riggins on the Skins. They ran that off tackle run (I forget what it was called) play after play after play. Everybody knew it was coming. But that Oline was so good, and Riggins was such a horse, it just didn't matter.

Also, few teams had defensive linemen around 300lbs then. In the current NFL, I don't know if the hogs would power anyone, the guys across from them would be just as big (or bigger).

Circle Orange
04-04-2009, 01:01 PM
i could have sworn the broncos defense finished 29th in 2008 and the bears finished 21st.

But don't worry! The new era is in Chicago, which means they'll go 8-8 this year, too. ;)

Bronx33
04-04-2009, 01:05 PM
But don't worry! The new era is in Chicago, which means they'll go 8-8 this year, too. ;)


Cutler will soon find out how passionate the bears fans are Ha!

rastaman
04-04-2009, 01:06 PM
A lot of people would have said the exact same thing about Tom Brady in 2001.

Or Joe Montana in 1979.

I know a lot of us Bronco fans have a hard time wrapping our minds around this, but there comes a point in time when a QB can be so effective and consistent at managing a game that he equals or even surpasses a gunslinger type in his ability to lead the team.

At this stage its safe to say Orton is no Brady nor Montana! Comparing apples to oranges.

rastaman
04-04-2009, 01:08 PM
Cutler will soon find out how passionate the bears fans are Ha!

Orton will find out just how passionate we Bronco fans are as well.

Bronx33
04-04-2009, 01:12 PM
Orton will find out just how passionate we Bronco fans are as well.


Why don't you check out thumpc thread and defend that one.

RubberDuckie24
04-04-2009, 01:51 PM
Some interesting stats:

Chicago averaged 28 pts a game through Orton's first 7 games (only New Orleans, at 28.9, averaged more over a full season). Of those 7 games, 3 were against top 10 scoring defenses (Phil, T.B., Ind) and 3 more were just outside the top 10 (#11 Atl, #12 Car, #13 Minn).

Denver averaged 23.1 pts per game for the season, good for 16th overall. Of those 16 games, only 3 were against top 10 scoring defenses (T.B., N.E., Mia) and 2 were just outside the top 10 (#11 Atl, #12 Car).

Chicago's Orton led offense through the first 7 games faced 6 teams that allowed less than 21 pts a game for the season. Chicago averaged 27 pts a game in those contests.

Denver's Cutler led offense over 16 games faced 5 teams that allowed less than 21 pts a game for the season. Denver averaged 14.8 pts a game in those contests.

These are great stats. The thing with the first 7 games is the huge outlier game against the Detroit Lions, it completely brings down his opposing teams defense stats, but he absolutely tore it up against them.

Taking out the Lions, who were easily the leagues worst defense, brings down Orton's passer rating because he did so well against them - he had a passer rating of 121 of them.

So he had a passer rating of 121 against the worst ranked defense, and an average passer rating of 86 against Phil, TB, Indy, ATL, CAR, and MIN. That's impressive given his lack of offensive weapons.

And for those arguing his injury couldn't have affected him THAT much, after injuring it against Detroit he had to sit out a game against the Titans. For 6 games his passer rating never surpassed 86, eventually doing so with a 97 passer rating in his final game against the Texans.

The point is that his avg passer rating DROPPED to 67 for the last 7 games against teams with an average defensive ranking of 23rd in the NFL.

I'm sorry, but that just doesn't make sense to me unless that injury truly affected him. You don't go from a passer rating of 86 against teams with an avg defensive ranking of 10 (or a 91 passer rating against teams with an avg defensive ranking of 13 including the Detroit outlier) down to a 67 passer rating against teams with an avg defensive ranking of 23rd for no reason. Something happens, and I doubt it was the weather or defensive teams getting the upper hand to that degree. But hey, that's my opinion.

gyldenlove
04-04-2009, 02:59 PM
These are great stats. The thing with the first 7 games is the huge outlier game against the Detroit Lions, it completely brings down his opposing teams defense stats, but he absolutely tore it up against them.

Taking out the Lions, who were easily the leagues worst defense, brings down Orton's passer rating because he did so well against them - he had a passer rating of 121 of them.

So he had a passer rating of 121 against the worst ranked defense, and an average passer rating of 86 against Phil, TB, Indy, ATL, CAR, and MIN. That's impressive given his lack of offensive weapons.

And for those arguing his injury couldn't have affected him THAT much, after injuring it against Detroit he had to sit out a game against the Titans. For 6 games his passer rating never surpassed 86, eventually doing so with a 97 passer rating in his final game against the Texans.

The point is that his avg passer rating DROPPED to 67 for the last 7 games against teams with an average defensive ranking of 23rd in the NFL.

I'm sorry, but that just doesn't make sense to me unless that injury truly affected him. You don't go from a passer rating of 86 against teams with an avg defensive ranking of 10 (or a 91 passer rating against teams with an avg defensive ranking of 13 including the Detroit outlier) down to a 67 passer rating against teams with an avg defensive ranking of 23rd for no reason. Something happens, and I doubt it was the weather or defensive teams getting the upper hand to that degree. But hey, that's my opinion.

Brady Quinn went from a passing rating of 104 in his first game to 21 in his third game. He wasn't injured he just wasn't that good.

I know you really want Orton to be better than he is, but you have to accept that there is no indication that he suffered any serious effects of his injury, he had an 84 passer rating in his second game back and 85 in his fourth game. I know it is a tough pill to swallow, but he just isn't that good. I know it kind of ruins your argument.

Cutler injured his throwing hand against New England, so I will do the same thing you did and look at the games he played up until he got injured, that would be the first 6 games of the season, and for poops and giggles I Will compare those to the first 7 of Orton, so I will spot Orton an extra game.

Cutler had 146 completions on 228 passes for 1694 yards, 12 TDs and 5 picks. Average rating: 98

Orton had 143 completions on 230 passes for 1669 yards, 10 TDs and 4 picks. Average rating: 91

Remember, Ortons numbers are accumulated through 7 games while Cutlers are through 6. Cutler has more yards, more completions, fewer attempts, more TDs.

extralife
04-04-2009, 03:11 PM
I just won't ever completely agree with this.

Trent Dilfer, Eli Manning, Brad Johnson

yeah I know, the common thing there is they all have defense that carried them...but that is my point, this trade was not necessarily for a QB...it was to make a defense stronger so a Kyle Orton type CAN get them to the promised land

Well, there's a difference between "building a defense" and "having one of the best defenses of all time," which describes the situations Dilfer and Johnson were in. Manning was not the most important player on the Giants, no, but he's also a much better QB than Dilfer or Johnson, and he was excellent during the playoffs. In fact, outside of the super bowl, Manning was the most important player on that team during the stretch run and playoffs.

I mean, I agree that if the choice is between an excellent QB or an excellent defense, it is not automatically in favor of the QB at all. But the QB is one person, and the defense is 11 and some change. That's a pretty big difference. We could turn those draft picks into hall of fame defensive players and we'd still be closer to having an excellent QB with Cutler than an excellent defense after the trade. That's a net loss in my book.

RubberDuckie24
04-04-2009, 03:24 PM
Brady Quinn went from a passing rating of 104 in his first game to 21 in his third game. He wasn't injured he just wasn't that good.

I know you really want Orton to be better than he is, but you have to accept that there is no indication that he suffered any serious effects of his injury, he had an 84 passer rating in his second game back and 85 in his fourth game. I know it is a tough pill to swallow, but he just isn't that good. I know it kind of ruins your argument.

Cutler injured his throwing hand against New England, so I will do the same thing you did and look at the games he played up until he got injured, that would be the first 6 games of the season, and for poops and giggles I Will compare those to the first 7 of Orton, so I will spot Orton an extra game.

Cutler had 146 completions on 228 passes for 1694 yards, 12 TDs and 5 picks. Average rating: 98

Orton had 143 completions on 230 passes for 1669 yards, 10 TDs and 4 picks. Average rating: 91

Remember, Ortons numbers are accumulated through 7 games while Cutlers are through 6. Cutler has more yards, more completions, fewer attempts, more TDs.

Wrong wrong wrong.

I apologize in advance, but I'm going to systematically show you how you are wrong.

First off, your example with Quinn was HORRIBLE. Quinn, when he got his 104 passer rating, played against the 30th worst defense in the league - the Denver Broncos. Then his next game, when his passer rating dropped significantly to 56, he played against the 14th ranked defense in the league, the buffalo bills. THEN when he played his worst game against the Texans and had only a 21 passer rating, he broke his index finger that game and was put on IR a week later. You just proved my point of how injuries do affect performance.

You made a huge mistake when comparing Orton's injury to that of Cutlers. First of all, Cutler injury only affected him for one game, the game against the Patriots where he hurt it. Lets look at his stats that game - 64 passer rating, horrible, granted he was playing against a good defense (in Denver). And you know who the Broncos played a week after that game, where his finger supposedly would have affected him the most? Oh wait... they had a bye week, an additional week to help him heal his hurt finger. Cutler wasn't on the injury list going into the Miami game, nor was it EVER talked about whether or not he was 100%, everyone knew he was.

The truth is Orton's injury DID affect him in the games after his injury. Not only in his stat's as I've shown, but go to the Bears message board (as I have done), or read the post by the poster earlier saying that his mechanics WERE affected by his injury. Orton's injury was severe enough to the point where he couldn't play the next game, and that it DID affect him even after he came back.

As for Cutler's drop in performance after the first 3 games, that's not surprise, everyone knows it. Why? Who knows, but his first 3 games were record breaking, and after that it drops significantly. However, you can't pick and choose which stats to display without a good reason. There's no reason why Cutler's stats dropped so greatly after his 3 games, and I guarantee you it wasn't because of his one game injury facing the Patriots.

NEXT.

Edit- I was wrong, I admit... Quinn broke his finger BEFORE the Texans game, so basically he played against the Texans with a broken finger and had a passer rating of 21. Showing even more the adverse effects of an injury. :thanku:

fontaine
04-04-2009, 03:26 PM
Good thread and I do agree that Orton is a better QB than most think. But there's no denying that when it comes to talent, arm strength, mobility, pocket presence etc Orton is a Mule while Cutler is a thoroughbread.

The difference is quite simply this. With Cutler, you get a QB that will improve the play of the offense because of his natural skills, with Orton it's the other way around.

Will Orton be able to hit that deep seam route up the middle that is Scheffler's speciality? What about generating enough zip and velocity in those tough 15 yard sideline routes the Royal excels at? Or stretching the defense back deep and because of the deep ball? Or those fade touch passes in the back of the red zone that Marshall is so good at hauling in?

No, Orton can't do those things that make our passing offense a real threat. McDaniels is supposed to be a QB guru but he's not going to be able to make Orton do those things, he's going to have to develop and entirely NEW offense to suit Orton (Will it suit Marshall/Royal/Scheff)?

I don't know. What I do know is that guys like Orton can have success in this league as long as they keep improving, because if they don't, defenses sooner or later catch up to them like they did with Plummer, Griese etc etc.

The biggest thing though, by far, is how Orton reads defense/makes pre snap reads because McDaniels offense depends a ton on a QB being able to do that. Let's hope Orton is more intelligent than he looks.

RubberDuckie24
04-04-2009, 03:38 PM
Good thread and I do agree that Orton is a better QB than most think. But there's no denying that when it comes to talent, arm strength, mobility, pocket presence etc Orton is a Mule while Cutler is a thoroughbread.

The difference is quite simply this. With Cutler, you get a QB that will improve the play of the offense because of his natural skills, with Orton it's the other way around.

Will Orton be able to hit that deep seam route up the middle that is Scheffler's speciality? What about generating enough zip and velocity in those tough 15 yard sideline routes the Royal excels at? Or stretching the defense back deep and because of the deep ball? Or those fade touch passes in the back of the red zone that Marshall is so good at hauling in?

No, Orton can't do those things that make our passing offense a real threat. McDaniels is supposed to be a QB guru but he's not going to be able to make Orton do those things, he's going to have to develop and entirely NEW offense to suit Orton (Will it suit Marshall/Royal/Scheff)?

I don't know. What I do know is that guys like Orton can have success in this league as long as they keep improving, because if they don't, defenses sooner or later catch up to them like they did with Plummer, Griese etc etc.

The biggest thing though, by far, is how Orton reads defense/makes pre snap reads because McDaniels offense depends a ton on a QB being able to do that. Let's hope Orton is more intelligent than he looks.

"But there's no denying that when it comes to talent, arm strength, mobility, pocket presence etc Orton is a Mule while Cutler is a thoroughbread."

I do agree with you that Cutler is a better quarterback than Orton is, though not about the pocket presence... Orton never had a pocket to play in during his tenure at Chicago! :rofl:

However, I do disagree about your analysis of Orton here:
Will Orton be able to hit that deep seam route up the middle that is Scheffler's speciality? What about generating enough zip and velocity in those tough 15 yard sideline routes the Royal excels at? Or stretching the defense back deep and because of the deep ball? Or those fade touch passes in the back of the red zone that Marshall is so good at hauling in?

Look at Orton's highlights, the truth is he CAN do all of those! He CAN run the bootleg, he CAN throw it down field, he CAN throw a ball into a tight hole. I will admit fully that he can't do it with Cutler's velocity, but the question isn't whether Orton can do those things, it's how consistently he CAN do them.

People underestimate the effect of having a BAD offensive line and a BAD corps of wide receivers can have on a quarterbacks play (significant emphasis on the offensive line). Cutler had arguable the best offensive line with regards to giving him time and keeping pressure off of him - Orton had a rather lame offensive line pertaining to keeping pressure off him and giving him time in the pocket.

Look, for example, just go to Youtube and look at some of Orton's highlights. Yes, they are highlights, but they highlight 2 very important things - 1st) He CAN do every throw that is asked of him and 2nd) Almost every highlight while on the Bears, he is being pressured or has no time to throw.

Look, I didn't reach a conclusion or put my opinion in the original post for a reason - I wanted everyone to reach their own conclusion given solid statistics that simply can't be argued with. I do believe that Orton will do better in Denver than Cutler will do better in Chicago, at least until Chicago upgrades their O-line and their receiving corps.

Bronx33
04-04-2009, 03:40 PM
"But there's no denying that when it comes to talent, arm strength, mobility, pocket presence etc Orton is a Mule while Cutler is a thoroughbread."

I do agree with you that Cutler is a better quarterback than Orton is, though not about the pocket presence... Orton never had a pocket to play in during his tenure at Chicago! :rofl:

However, I do disagree about your analysis of Orton here:
Will Orton be able to hit that deep seam route up the middle that is Scheffler's speciality? What about generating enough zip and velocity in those tough 15 yard sideline routes the Royal excels at? Or stretching the defense back deep and because of the deep ball? Or those fade touch passes in the back of the red zone that Marshall is so good at hauling in?

Look at Orton's highlights, the truth is he CAN do all of those! He CAN run the bootleg, he CAN throw it down field, he CAN throw a ball into a tight hole. I will admit fully that he can't do it with Cutler's velocity, but the question isn't whether Orton can do those things, it's how consistently he CAN do them.

People underestimate the effect of having a BAD offensive line and a BAD corps of wide receivers can have on a quarterbacks play (significant emphasis on the offensive line). Cutler had arguable the best offensive line with regards to giving him time and keeping pressure off of him - Orton had a rather lame offensive line pertaining to keeping pressure off him and giving him time in the pocket.

Look, for example, just go to Youtube and look at some of Orton's highlights. Yes, they are highlights, but they highlight 2 very important things - 1st) He CAN do every throw that is asked of him and 2nd) Almost every highlight while on the Bears, he is being pressured or has no time to throw.

Look, I didn't reach a conclusion or put my opinion in the original post for a reason - I wanted everyone to reach their own conclusion given solid statistics that simply can't be argued with. I do believe that Orton will do better in Denver than Cutler will do better in Chicago, at least until Chicago upgrades their O-line and their receiving corps.


You underestimated some of the folks on this message board LOL

Spider
04-04-2009, 03:46 PM
Sold ...... I didnt have all the stats and game situations ,but I felt Denver got a better deal then most think ......... No Orton isnt a Cutler level QB , but then Cutler wasnt a Cutler level QB some times .......

RubberDuckie24
04-04-2009, 03:47 PM
You underestimated some of the folks on this message board LOL

lol, I think I OVERestimated them.

Case in point, this quote from orange&blue:
"Not to be a stickler here, but I didn't see any statistics. Or conclusions. Or, really, anything useful."

Oh well... I tried.

slyinky
04-04-2009, 03:49 PM
Brady Quinn went from a passing rating of 104 in his first game to 21 in his third game. He wasn't injured he just wasn't that good.

I know you really want Orton to be better than he is, but you have to accept that there is no indication that he suffered any serious effects of his injury, he had an 84 passer rating in his second game back and 85 in his fourth game. I know it is a tough pill to swallow, but he just isn't that good. I know it kind of ruins your argument.

Cutler injured his throwing hand against New England, so I will do the same thing you did and look at the games he played up until he got injured, that would be the first 6 games of the season, and for poops and giggles I Will compare those to the first 7 of Orton, so I will spot Orton an extra game.

Cutler had 146 completions on 228 passes for 1694 yards, 12 TDs and 5 picks. Average rating: 98

Orton had 143 completions on 230 passes for 1669 yards, 10 TDs and 4 picks. Average rating: 91

Remember, Ortons numbers are accumulated through 7 games while Cutlers are through 6. Cutler has more yards, more completions, fewer attempts, more TDs.
Very similar stats but just to play Devil's Advocate.

Opposing teams pass defense rankings:
Cutler's- Oak 10th, S.D. 31st, N.O. 23rd, K.C. 28th, T.B. 4th, Jac, 24th (Avg. 20th)

Orton's- Ind 6th, Car 16th, T.B. 4th, Phi 3rd, Det 27th, Atl 21st, Minn 18th (Avg. 13.5)

Spider
04-04-2009, 03:49 PM
lol, I think I OVERestimated them.

Case in point, this quote from orange&blue:
"Not to be a stickler here, but I didn't see any statistics. Or conclusions. Or, really, anything useful."

Oh well... I tried.

LOL Wait until you meet footsteps 27 .......That boy got it bad for Cutler

RubberDuckie24
04-04-2009, 03:51 PM
Very similar stats but just to play Devil's Advocate.

Opposing teams pass defense rankings:
Cutler's- Oak 10th, S.D. 31st, N.O. 23rd, K.C. 28th, T.B. 4th, Jac, 24th (Avg. 20th)

Orton's- Ind 6th, Car 16th, T.B. 4th, Phi 3rd, Det 27th, Atl 21st, Minn 18th (Avg. 13.5)


Amazing, thank you slyinky. I love how numbers and statistics don't lie... they can just be misleading, and taken out of context some times.

Bronx33
04-04-2009, 03:54 PM
Well hopefully MCD and his schemes can get the most out of orton.

enjolras
04-04-2009, 04:10 PM
Very similar stats but just to play Devil's Advocate.

Opposing teams pass defense rankings:
Cutler's- Oak 10th, S.D. 31st, N.O. 23rd, K.C. 28th, T.B. 4th, Jac, 24th (Avg. 20th)

Orton's- Ind 6th, Car 16th, T.B. 4th, Phi 3rd, Det 27th, Atl 21st, Minn 18th (Avg. 13.5)

Of course you have to take into account that Cutlers effectiveness against those teams might have affected their rankings:) Heisenberg and all.

enjolras
04-04-2009, 04:12 PM
But the QB is the most important man on the field for most super bowl teams. It is very hard to win a super bowl with a Kyle Orton. And last I checked, nothing but a super bowl mattered. That's why we ended up with Cutler in the first place.

Is Rothlesberger anything but an average NFL QB? Dilfer? Warner? Peyton Manning has only been to one superbowl. I think winning superbowls simply elevates peoples opinions about quarterbacks making the whole thing a self fulfilling axiom.

barryr
04-04-2009, 04:14 PM
The only stat I worry about is the wins/losses and Cutler hasn't gotten that done to this point. orton is 15-2 at home, Cutler 10-9. The Broncos' homefield advantage disappeared the last fews years under Shanahan. I hope McDaniels can change that.

Spider
04-04-2009, 04:27 PM
The only stat I worry about is the wins/losses and Cutler hasn't gotten that done to this point. orton is 15-2 at home, Cutler 10-9. The Broncos' homefield advantage disappeared the last fews years under Shanahan. I hope McDaniels can change that.

forgive me but I am not used to you making sense , but so far on every cutler post , you have been on the money ......But good job

RubberDuckie24
04-04-2009, 04:29 PM
Of course you have to take into account that Cutlers effectiveness against those teams might have affected their rankings:) Heisenberg and all.

Nah, cutler's effect for one game is minimal statistically. Even if you take away the game each team played against cutler, they will still rank horrible and would only drop in ranking maybe 1, 2 places. And that's when Cutler played well.... he didn't play so well against the raiders the 2nd time, nor the Chargers for instance.

Drek
04-04-2009, 04:31 PM
Is Rothlesberger anything but an average NFL QB? Dilfer? Warner? Peyton Manning has only been to one superbowl. I think winning superbowls simply elevates peoples opinions about quarterbacks making the whole thing a self fulfilling axiom.

Pretty much.

Rothlisberger has never had a big statistical season, yet most consider him the 2nd or 3rd best QB in the NFL because he does just enough to win games, especially when they matter most.

Eli Manning was starting to have whispers of "bust" thrown about in NY until he won a title, largely on the back of a stellar defense and powerful running game. Now he's an example of a franchise QB.

Tom Brady hasn't had a QB rating at or over 90 in any of the seasons the Patriots won a title in. He's considered the #1 QB in the NFL.

The big defining characteristic of a franchise QB that I see is they step their play up down the stretch run towards the playoffs, and keep it at that high level through the playoffs. Primarily they minimize mistakes and especially turnovers while producing clutch first downs when their team needs them the most.

I said on this board shortly after the season ended that Matt Ryan is more of a franchise QB than Jay Cutler, and that you could make a damn good argument for Joe Flacco as well. They both stepped up in the clutch as rookies to push their teams into the playoffs. As a rookie Cutler helped precipitate an AFCC team from the year before missing the playoffs entirely, and since he's continually played his worst football late in seasons.

He's an amazing talent but he hasn't learned how to flip the switch when its clutch time yet and I'm skeptical of if he ever will.

Spider
04-04-2009, 04:33 PM
Pay me a ton was considered a choker until the Colts got a D

extralife
04-04-2009, 05:03 PM
The Colts D sucked the year the won it all. It was good the year before, when they didn't win jack. I was Peyton's biggest critic until he won his Super Bowl, but to argue that he's anything less than the second best QB in the NFL, and the most important person to his team in the league is being an idiot.

Big Ben an average QB? Are you kidding me? He's clutch and is among the top 5 most talented guys at that position in the league (along with Cutler!). If you want a big statistical season--which is less likely for a QB with his kind of defense and (traditionally) running game--just look at '07. Here, let me refresh your memory:

65.3 completion percentage, 3154 yards (low for obvious reasons), 32 TDs, 11 ints, 104.1 rating. I think that qualifies.


<table class="datatablecell" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="1" width="100%"><tbody><tr onmouseout="this.className='rowAlt'" onmouseover="this.className='over'" class="rowAlt"><td>
</td><td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td></tr></tbody></table>

Spider
04-04-2009, 05:06 PM
The Colts D sucked the year the won it all. That Colts D kicked it in the as during the post season ..i remember that all to well .......

extralife
04-04-2009, 05:06 PM
They played well against Baltimore, I guess.

Spider
04-04-2009, 05:10 PM
They played well against Baltimore, I guess.

And the Patriots

RubberDuckie24
04-04-2009, 05:13 PM
They played well against Baltimore, I guess.

Umm... They held KC to 8 points, Baltimore to 6 points, and Chicago in the superbowl to 10 points scored against the defense, granted they allowed 34 points against NE, they still played well against such a prolific offense.

They played pretty damn good that season's playoff's.

Br0nc0Buster
04-04-2009, 05:14 PM
And the Patriots

and the Chiefs.

The Chiefs didnt get a first down until the 3rd quarter in that game.

extralife
04-04-2009, 05:28 PM
I guess I forgot about the Chiefs. They essentially laid an egg against the Pats, and both Baltimore and Chicago had terrible offenses. Chicago in particular didn't do anything to help themselves in that game outside of the opening kickoff.

And lets not even talk about what they did in the regular season that year.

RubberDuckie24
04-04-2009, 05:35 PM
I guess I forgot about the Chiefs. They essentially laid an egg against the Pats, and both Baltimore and Chicago had terrible offenses. Chicago in particular didn't do anything to help themselves in that game outside of the opening kickoff.

And lets not even talk about what they did in the regular season that year.

That's not true at all. They pretty damn good against the Pats in my opinion. Looking at the score (34-38) doesn't tell the whole story.

What you don't see is Peyton Manning throwing an interception for a touchdown, or the Patriots getting an 80 yard kickoff return, placing them at the Colts 21, leaving them only 21 yards for another touchdown.

Take those 2 scores out and the defense only allowed 20 points. Pretty good in my opinion.

elsid13
04-04-2009, 05:48 PM
That's not true at all. They pretty damn good against the Pats in my opinion. Looking at the score (34-38) doesn't tell the whole story.

What you don't see is Peyton Manning throwing an interception for a touchdown, or the Patriots getting an 80 yard kickoff return, placing them at the Colts 21, leaving them only 21 yards for another touchdown.

Take those 2 scores out and the defense only allowed 20 points. Pretty good in my opinion.

But the only reason the Colts were in position to win was Payton and his offense got them to the playoff and things clicked. If wasn't for Payton they wouldn't have a chance.

extralife
04-04-2009, 05:49 PM
20 points in the amount of time left after a pick six, a return TD and a 25 yard drive still isn't that great. And I'm not going to just write off giving up a TD instead of a FG with a short field. It counts on the scoreboard just the same, and red zone defense is about as important as it gets.

But whatever, we're getting into semantics. The point is that team was not carried by defense, and has never been carried by defense. Their success comes down to one man. He makes it all go.

TonyR
04-04-2009, 05:51 PM
The big defining characteristic of a franchise QB that I see is they step their play up down the stretch run towards the playoffs, and keep it at that high level through the playoffs. Primarily they minimize mistakes and especially turnovers while producing clutch first downs when their team needs them the most.

I said on this board shortly after the season ended that Matt Ryan is more of a franchise QB than Jay Cutler, and that you could make a damn good argument for Joe Flacco as well. They both stepped up in the clutch as rookies to push their teams into the playoffs. As a rookie Cutler helped precipitate an AFCC team from the year before missing the playoffs entirely, and since he's continually played his worst football late in seasons.

He's an amazing talent but he hasn't learned how to flip the switch when its clutch time yet and I'm skeptical of if he ever will.

YES! This is a HUGE point and is also probably among the strongest cases against Jay Cutler. And I'm with you in being skeptical.

RubberDuckie24
04-04-2009, 05:52 PM
20 points in the amount of time left after a pick six, a return TD and a 25 yard drive still isn't that great. And I'm not going to just write off giving up a TD instead of a FG with a short field. It counts on the scoreboard just the same, and red zone defense is about as important as it gets.

But whatever, we're getting into semantics. The point is that team was not carried by defense, and has never been carried by defense. Their success comes down to one man. He makes it all go.

I never said the team was carried by defense, nor did I say that it was a defensive reliant team, nor did I say that Payton wasn't a damn good quarterback (possibly the best).

All i was saying was that he did have to do it with a pretty good defense. I think that's kinda hard to argue against given what the defense did in the post season.

Xenos
04-04-2009, 05:57 PM
cripes
Damn bastard
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_7OC0YbG2fek/R2DzCFm7SXI/AAAAAAAAEDw/FSLMHFXW7_0/s400/TimTebowgirlfriend.jpg

elsid13
04-04-2009, 05:58 PM
Damn bastard
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_7OC0YbG2fek/R2DzCFm7SXI/AAAAAAAAEDw/FSLMHFXW7_0/s400/TimTebowgirlfriend.jpg

Being the star QB in at big time program has its benefits.

Drek
04-04-2009, 06:06 PM
Big Ben an average QB? Are you kidding me? He's clutch and is among the top 5 most talented guys at that position in the league (along with Cutler!). If you want a big statistical season--which is less likely for a QB with his kind of defense and (traditionally) running game--just look at '07. Here, let me refresh your memory:

65.3 completion percentage, 3154 yards (low for obvious reasons), 32 TDs, 11 ints, 104.1 rating. I think that qualifies.

Depends.

Cutler only had an 86 QB rating this year, good for just middle of the pack. But his 4500 passing yards somehow make him a "franchise QB!"

So how can Ben's above season be a "franchise QB!" season when he didn't even break 3500?

This is where the "Cutler is a franchise QB" argument starts to fall apart. There is no tie that binds the real undisputed franchise QBs in the NFL together nearly as closely as wins. Namely playoff wins.

Cutler has zero, nada, zilch. Not even an appearance, and a losing record on the regular season to boot.

Cutler inarguably has the talent to be a franchise QB. But he's not there yet by a long stretch. He's got core fundamentals of his game that need work, not to mention a long ways to go to have the mental toughness and clutch play making ability that the unquestioned franchise QBs show on an annual basis.

Maybe thats something he can learn. But I don't know of many who did after as much of an opportunity as he's had to show it. Roethlisberger showed it out of the gate. So did Tom Brady. Manning scuffled as a rookie but came back a difference maker by his second season. Matt Ryan and Joe Flacco both showed clutch stepping up their game down the stretch last year to get their teams into the playoffs.

Hell, Jake Plummer did it for us every year he was here, and Chad Pennington does it as well. I don't really think those guys are "franchise quarterbacks" but they sure do find themselves in the playoffs an aweful lot for how mediocre they're supposed to be.

He's missing a key component right there to just be a top 10 QB in this league, let alone one of the truly elite players. He's got more talent than pretty much all of them, but to date the production on the field doesn't come close to matching up.

Circle Orange
04-04-2009, 06:06 PM
Pretty much.

Rothlisberger has never had a big statistical season, yet most consider him the 2nd or 3rd best QB in the NFL because he does just enough to win games, especially when they matter most.

Eli Manning was starting to have whispers of "bust" thrown about in NY until he won a title, largely on the back of a stellar defense and powerful running game. Now he's an example of a franchise QB.

Tom Brady hasn't had a QB rating at or over 90 in any of the seasons the Patriots won a title in. He's considered the #1 QB in the NFL.

The big defining characteristic of a franchise QB that I see is they step their play up down the stretch run towards the playoffs, and keep it at that high level through the playoffs. Primarily they minimize mistakes and especially turnovers while producing clutch first downs when their team needs them the most.

I said on this board shortly after the season ended that Matt Ryan is more of a franchise QB than Jay Cutler, and that you could make a damn good argument for Joe Flacco as well. They both stepped up in the clutch as rookies to push their teams into the playoffs. As a rookie Cutler helped precipitate an AFCC team from the year before missing the playoffs entirely, and since he's continually played his worst football late in seasons.

He's an amazing talent but he hasn't learned how to flip the switch when its clutch time yet and I'm skeptical of if he ever will.

I tell you what, Matt Ryan caught my eye from the jump. The guy just throws amazing precision passes, either upfield or in close. Over the shoulder, between defenders. Cool as a cucumber. All Cutler does is gun a ball to an open guy when he has time.

Physically, Big Ben and Cutler are comparable, and Ben may be stronger (harder to bring down).

Who gives a f***, anyway. GO ORTON!!!

extralife
04-04-2009, 06:19 PM
Depends.

Cutler only had an 86 QB rating this year, good for just middle of the pack. But his 4500 passing yards somehow make him a "franchise QB!"

So how can Ben's above season be a "franchise QB!" season when he didn't even break 3500?

This is where each and every one of us get to use what we call our "brain." It allows us to look at individual circumstances and derive conclusions from the evidence provided.

There is no metric. Without a brain, numbers are literally meaningless. Last year, the Pittsburgh Steelers do not win the Super Bowl without Ben Roethlisberger. In 2007 they do not win 8 games without him. In 2008, the Denver Broncos do not win 5 games without Jay Cutler.

barryr
04-04-2009, 06:22 PM
This is where each and every one of us get to use what we call our "brain." It allows us to look at individual circumstances and derive conclusions from the evidence provided.

There is no metric. Without a brain, numbers are literally meaningless. Last year, the Pittsburgh Steelers do not win the Super Bowl without Ben Roethlisberger. In 2007 they do not win 8 games without him. In 2008, the Denver Broncos do not win 5 games without Jay Cutler.


Let's also get some reality. The Steeler defense last season did not give up 300 yards in any game until the Super Bowl. No other team did that. It takes a whole team to win, not just having a QB who can throw hard.

Spider
04-04-2009, 06:45 PM
This is where each and every one of us get to use what we call our "brain." It allows us to look at individual circumstances and derive conclusions from the evidence provided.

There is no metric. Without a brain, numbers are literally meaningless. Last year, the Pittsburgh Steelers do not win the Super Bowl without Ben Roethlisberger. In 2007 they do not win 8 games without him. In 2008, the Denver Broncos do not win 5 games without Jay Cutler.

and Warner threw for more yardage , in that game ......

Bob's your Information Minister
04-04-2009, 06:50 PM
Orton has 30 TDs in 3 years.

Cutler has 54.

All you really need to know.

extralife
04-04-2009, 07:37 PM
and Warner threw for more yardage , in that game ......

...what is your point?

I'd be willing to bet Warner threw for more yards than Roethlisberger every week of the season. That's how Arizona played. That's what he needed to do. And either way, saying Warner is better than Roethlisberger wouldn't exactly be damning to the later. Warner is very possibly a hall of famer.

Spider
04-04-2009, 07:55 PM
...what is your point?

I'd be willing to bet Warner threw for more yards than Roethlisberger every week of the season. That's how Arizona played. That's what he needed to do. And either way, saying Warner is better than Roethlisberger wouldn't exactly be damning to the later. Warner is very possibly a hall of famer.
Just pointing out that the Steelers didnt need Big Ben to win

Spider
04-04-2009, 07:57 PM
...what is your point?

I'd be willing to bet Warner threw for more yards than Roethlisberger every week of the season. That's how Arizona played. That's what he needed to do.

And didnt the Cards need help getting in ?

Mediator12
04-04-2009, 08:10 PM
I stayed out of the statistics comparison for one reason. Neither has played in the other guys shoes.

No one here plays the statistics game better than me, but the comparison here is flawed based on variability. Even next year it will be majorly flawed as both teams are upgrading thei rosters to compete for next year. The only things those statistics show is who performed at what level in what system last year.

Cutler performed at a very high profile level in DEN because he threw the ball all over the place with a tremendous OL and receiving core. Orton performed at an average level with a below average OL and receiving core. Now, they flip systems and in DEN's case change sytems as well.

So, in short, let's wait and see what they can do in thier new surroundings before we try and analyze statistically something that can not be seperated. For me, its about getting Orton is a system he is familiar with and maximizing his skills to run it. For Cutler, its going back to Vandy offensively and seeing if he can really make those around him better since he will no longer enjoy a personnel advantage on offense to make it run outside of TE possibly.

extralife
04-04-2009, 08:10 PM
Yeah. They were a lot like us only slightly better--great passing game, suspect running game and a bad defense. They won one more game than we did.

Spider
04-04-2009, 08:22 PM
Yeah. They were a lot like us only slightly better--great passing game, suspect running game and a bad defense. They won one more game than we did.

This is why I am in the camp of improving the team instead of holding on to Cutler , if we had a more complete team , then this deal would be absurd ....but we dont

extralife
04-04-2009, 08:44 PM
My original argument is that Cutler is closer to great than our defense will be regardless of who we get with the picks in question. He has 3 years left on his deal; I'd have kept him and let the chips fall where they may.

RubberDuckie24
04-04-2009, 08:53 PM
I stayed out of the statistics comparison for one reason. Neither has played in the other guys shoes.

No one here plays the statistics game better than me, but the comparison here is flawed based on variability. Even next year it will be majorly flawed as both teams are upgrading thei rosters to compete for next year. The only things those statistics show is who performed at what level in what system last year.

Cutler performed at a very high profile level in DEN because he threw the ball all over the place with a tremendous OL and receiving core. Orton performed at an average level with a below average OL and receiving core. Now, they flip systems and in DEN's case change sytems as well.

So, in short, let's wait and see what they can do in thier new surroundings before we try and analyze statistically something that can not be seperated. For me, its about getting Orton is a system he is familiar with and maximizing his skills to run it. For Cutler, its going back to Vandy offensively and seeing if he can really make those around him better since he will no longer enjoy a personnel advantage on offense to make it run outside of TE possibly.
"No one here plays the statistics game better than me"
Well don't be TOO humble now ::)

Not comparing quarterbacks because of variables is just being mentally lazy. It doesn't matter who you compare between two different teams, your going to have unknown variables, and there will NEVER be a "correct" answer - the conclusion many of times is very subjective. And that is exactly why there wasn't an overall conclusion to my original post - I left it up for others to weigh the factors and variables given themselves.

Of course we're not going to get an answer until they actually play, and that this is indeed all "speculation." But certainly there's nothing flawed, or wrong about trying to line up statistics and compare them (albeit the unknown variables, many of which I listed).

The point of my post was to show everyone that Orton did pretty damn good given 2 things: 1) He didn't have much help on offense aside from Matt Forte, and 2) He did indeed play well against some pretty tough defenses.

Take it with a grain of salt, but don't come onto this thread telling everyone there's no point in comparing the two quarterbacks just because they "haven't played in the other quarterback's shoes."

Dukes
04-04-2009, 08:54 PM
For me, its about getting Orton is a system he is familiar with and maximizing his skills to run it.

This sentence explains my optimism for next year. I can't wait to see what McD can do with Orton in his offense. If McD can get the most out of Orton the offense will be in good shape.

Spider
04-04-2009, 08:57 PM
"No one here plays the statistics game better than me"
Well don't be TOO humble now ::)



LOL if only you knew who he is

RubberDuckie24
04-04-2009, 08:58 PM
My original argument is that Cutler is closer to great than our defense will be regardless of who we get with the picks in question. He has 3 years left on his deal; I'd have kept him and let the chips fall where they may.

Your speculating... Cutler hasn't proven anything, and he will have a much harder time being "closer to great" in Chicago (at least offensively).

I think everyone, if they had the opportunity to choose, would have chosen keeping Cutler ASSUMING he was going to be 100% on board with the change in coaching staff. He wasn't, and his mental immaturity was shown brighter in the past month than it ever has.

Before Cutler got all whiny, ABSOLUTELY I would have kept him. But after he showed his true colors... get his ass out of town, and we did in turn get a pretty good deal for him in the end.

Spider
04-04-2009, 08:59 PM
My original argument is that Cutler is closer to great than our defense will be regardless of who we get with the picks in question. He has 3 years left on his deal; I'd have kept him and let the chips fall where they may.
dont know how you came up with this

Spider
04-04-2009, 09:00 PM
Your speculating... Cutler hasn't proven anything, and he will have a much harder time being "closer to great" in Chicago (at least offensively).

I think everyone, if they had the opportunity to choose, would have chosen keeping Cutler ASSUMING he was going to be 100% on board with the change in coaching staff. He wasn't, and his mental immaturity was shown brighter in the past month than it ever has.

Before Cutler got all whiny, ABSOLUTELY I would have kept him. But after he showed his true colors... get his ass out of town, and we did in turn get a pretty good deal for him in the end.

Yup.........