Kyle Orton (1 Viewer)

[omahabrad]

Orton is very under rated, in my opinion. San Fran is crazy if they don't give up a 2nd for him. Not sure Orton would want to go to Ariz. knowing they want Skelton to develope into their future starter.

 

[David Yudkin]

I'm not sure a team will want to fork over a 2nd and $9 million salary for what could amount to a one year rental. Yes, he did well for a year and a half stretch in DEN. But he didn't light the world on fire in CHI (even though one year the team had a solid record). He's probably a decent stop gap for a team with a developmental/young QB waiting in the wings like he was in DEN.

 

[Jason Wood]

Orton has been good, not great, but good is just about all you need when you also happen to be:

*** He's in his prime (28 years old)

*** He's experienced (several systems)

*** He's shown he isn't a cancer amid tough times

*** He's big (6'4", 226 lbs)

*** He's shown steady improvement year on year

With so many teams looking for QB help, I have to think Denver will be in the catbird seat if they're absolutely ready to trade him.

 

[Buckna]

Agree with those that say he will definitely end up somewhere this offseason. Huge short term boost to the WR's there as well.

Also agree that it probably won't be a 2nd. 3rd and a 5th or a conditional sounds better.

 

[RUSF18]

I'd really like him in SF to allow whoever the 1.07 drafted QB is to develop for a year or two, but I think 2.07 is too much. Does Orton make them a SB contender? Not likely in my mind...but he would make them the favorite in the NFC West unless STL does something dramatic in the offseason. So carrying this out further, is Orton enough of an improvement over guys you could get for free (aka McNabb) or for much less in trade compensation? That's where I'm not sure, and the ceiling for the team might be the same.

I'd give up a 3rd+, no question, and if it can happen on the fly at the draft and I'm the new GM, I try to see if there's a way to move down in the 2nd, pick up an extra 3rd/4th, swap that now mid to late 2nd for Orton and then you still have some extra pieces to address other areas. The team is solid, but nowhere good enough to invest the 1.07 and 2.07 in the same position.

 

[Steel Dillo]

I think he'd be a great fit in Tennessee.

Teams would want to stack 8 in the box to stop Johnson and Orton is good enough to make them pay with play action.

 

[Andrew Garda]

Does this remind anyone of the Brees / Rivers situation a few years back? I can see both Tebow and Orton being relevant wherever they go.

There are some similarities. Denver gave up on Orton when he started to regress; San Diego drafted Rivers when Brees started to regress. But Brees wasn't traded right away -- he ended up beating out Rivers and elevating his game to Pro Bowl levels. I am not sure if Orton has what it takes to step up his game to the Pro Bowl level. He's had 3 straight seasons with similar stats and it seems to me that he has reached a plateau.

Orton may not be Drew Brees but I'm not sure Tebow will end up being Rivers either. But as long as you're rebuilding a team - and the Broncos need to - and can get pick or picks for Orton who has value and I think is a good, if not great QB - if Denver can do it, makes sense.

 

[omahabrad]

There's a huge demand for QB's this upcoming year, someone will pay a 2nd for Orton.

Some of the starters we might have next year: McCoy/Delhomme, Webb,Young/Collins, Clausen/Luck, Henne/Thigpen, Grossman, Campbell, Tebow, Skelton, Carr, Whitehurst, Fitzgerald

Notable QB's that may be available: Kolb,McNabb, Hass, Alex Smith, Bulger, Wallace

He maynot be better than all these guys but is better than most of them.

 

[Tau837]

I'm not sure a team will want to fork over a 2nd and $9 million salary for what could amount to a one year rental. Yes, he did well for a year and a half stretch in DEN. But he didn't light the world on fire in CHI (even though one year the team had a solid record). He's probably a decent stop gap for a team with a developmental/young QB waiting in the wings like he was in DEN.

Back when the trade happened, I posted a few times about the fact that he actually was having a good, if under the radar, season before he got hurt his last season in Chicago. And you seem to minimize that he did well for a year and a half stretch in Denver, yet it is notable that he did that despite playing in a chaotic situation on a team that was lacking in talent. IMO Orton is definitely underrated. As for the $9M, if a team wants to trade for him, they could potentially rework his contract into a longer term deal and convert some of that to bonus, etc.

 

[Runningman]

Please God let this happen. Orton is a average QB and wilts under pressure. Sure he is better than some of the crap out there but he is very limited as a starter. Not worth a second round pick to me.

 

[David Yudkin]

I'm not sure a team will want to fork over a 2nd and $9 million salary for what could amount to a one year rental. Yes, he did well for a year and a half stretch in DEN. But he didn't light the world on fire in CHI (even though one year the team had a solid record). He's probably a decent stop gap for a team with a developmental/young QB waiting in the wings like he was in DEN.

Back when the trade happened, I posted a few times about the fact that he actually was having a good, if under the radar, season before he got hurt his last season in Chicago. And you seem to minimize that he did well for a year and a half stretch in Denver, yet it is notable that he did that despite playing in a chaotic situation on a team that was lacking in talent. IMO Orton is definitely underrated. As for the $9M, if a team wants to trade for him, they could potentially rework his contract into a longer term deal and convert some of that to bonus, etc.

I am not anti-Orton and thought the Broncos got a decent QB when they sent Cutler packing. I still think that is/was the case. I'd rate Orton as above average to good, but I would not say he is a top 10 QB. Probably in the 10-15 range.Statistically, in his two years in DEN, he ranked 19th in ypa, 9th in passing yds/gm, 18th in TD passes/gm, 6th in lowest INT%, and 14th in passer rating in 09 and 15th in 10. Not having a rushing attack both hurt and helped him.He could certainly be an upgrade to a team with a train wreck at QB, but I am not sure a team would want to pin their longterm hopes and dreams on Orton. He's not old, but if a team were looking for a marquee, young, franchise type QB I am not sure they would want Orton to rally around longterm.I could see him going to MIA, TEN, MIN, or ARI especially if those teams took on a young guy early in the draft.

 

[CompetitiveEdgeFootball]

I'm not sure a team will want to fork over a 2nd and $9 million salary for what could amount to a one year rental. Yes, he did well for a year and a half stretch in DEN. But he didn't light the world on fire in CHI (even though one year the team had a solid record). He's probably a decent stop gap for a team with a developmental/young QB waiting in the wings like he was in DEN.

Back when the trade happened, I posted a few times about the fact that he actually was having a good, if under the radar, season before he got hurt his last season in Chicago. And you seem to minimize that he did well for a year and a half stretch in Denver, yet it is notable that he did that despite playing in a chaotic situation on a team that was lacking in talent. IMO Orton is definitely underrated. As for the $9M, if a team wants to trade for him, they could potentially rework his contract into a longer term deal and convert some of that to bonus, etc.

I am not anti-Orton and thought the Broncos got a decent QB when they sent Cutler packing. I still think that is/was the case. I'd rate Orton as above average to good, but I would not say he is a top 10 QB. Probably in the 10-15 range.Statistically, in his two years in DEN, he ranked 19th in ypa, 9th in passing yds/gm, 18th in TD passes/gm, 6th in lowest INT%, and 14th in passer rating in 09 and 15th in 10. Not having a rushing attack both hurt and helped him.He could certainly be an upgrade to a team with a train wreck at QB, but I am not sure a team would want to pin their longterm hopes and dreams on Orton. He's not old, but if a team were looking for a marquee, young, franchise type QB I am not sure they would want Orton to rally around longterm.I could see him going to MIA, TEN, MIN, or ARI especially if those teams took on a young guy early in the draft.

I think it's an important distinction to make- Orton is not going to win you a ton of games like Brady/Manning/Brees will, but average starting QBs have a place in the league. He could help mentor a younger more talented QB adjusting to the speed/complexities of the pro game (kitna-palmer). He could be a workman-like QB you don't ask to do anything but manage games while you feature your running game and defense (dilfer). There ARE a lot of teams in this league in dire straights at QB, David has hit a few of the more glaring messes... They'll probably get what they're asking for him. Especially since the public perception of the NFL dictates you need a QB to win games... teams are going to need to show their fans they're willing to fix the QB position and bring in players who can contribute at an acceptable level.

 

[Maelstrom]

I wouldn't be opposed to seeing Orton in Vikings purple. I'd rather have had the 3rd to offer, but maybe get a 4th or 5th back, and then try to deal down with the first come draft day? If Frazier is going to run a ball control offense (they do have AP) it wouldn't hurt to have some experience at QB, and that is the kinda game plan that would probably play to Orton's strengths. I know I'd feel more confident with Orton than with Webb going into next year, just don't know if the Vikings have the bargaining chips they need to get the value right.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Somebody will bite. Orton can play.

I think Orton has had an absolutely fascinating last two years.In 09, he had a good season:

336/541

62.1 Completion %

7.0 YPA

21 TDs

12 INTs

The last couple of seasons, those stats would put him as a middle of the pack (12-20) NFL starter.

In 2010, he flew out of the gates. In his first five games, he put up the following numbers:

141/213

66.2 Completion %

8.1 YPA

8 TDs

3 INTs

Those are Brady/Manning/Brees numbers. But then something happened, in the last 8 games of 2010, he put up:

152/285

53.3 Completion %

6.7 YPA

12 TDs

6 INTs

Those numbers are poor and most QBs won't keep a job long with them. What's more, is those numbers are much closer to everything Orton has done in his career before going to Denver.

It's just my opinion, but I think that Orton is most likely a bottom 5-10 starting NFL QB with a mediocre upside. He may put up some nice fantasy games if he goes somewhere that likes to throw a ton (Arizona), but he's definitely not the type of QB that will take a team to the next level.

Best Case - Goes to a team with a great D and puts together a Dilfer/Brad Johnson season.

Worst Case - Kyle Orton pre-2009.

makes me wonder if he was hiding an injury..

Why not break it down like this:First 11 games:

265/429

61.8%

7.85 YPA

20 TDs

6 INTs

Last 2 games:

28/69

4.1 YPA

0 TDs

3 INTs

Granted DEN had to throw alot, but through 11 games Orton averaged 306 YPG with a 3/1 TD:INT ratio. Let's also realize that he had absolutely no running game whatsoever to support him which meant teams started to tee off on him and he started to get beat up real good. He took a shot against SF which I thought was going to knock him out for weeks. He came back in on the next series.

I'm still stunned by how little credit Orton gets. He's legit and available and a 2nd is worth IMO.

I'm still stunned by how little credit Josh McDaniels gets. In a league where coaches of mediocre offenses like Mike Shanahan and Brian Billick still retain the lable of offensive gurus, McDaniels may be the only true "offensive genius" out there.In 2007, the Patriots have probably the greatest offense in the history of the league. In 2008, they lose their all-time great quarterback in the 1st game and replace him with a guy who I'm not convinced had ever played a snap of football, and they still remain one of the top offenses in the league.

Then McDaniels leaves down, the Pats get Brady back yet have only a "good" offense, while Cassel goes on to mediocrity elsewhere prior to turning it back around (into a good, efficient season but not explosive) under another top OC.

Meanwhile, McDaniels goes to Denver and turns career journeymen like Orton, Lloyd, and Gaffney into possibly the most explosive offense in the league. Then, he leaves town and within a week that same exact offense with the same exact players transforms into the most pathetic offense in the league under Orton.

It's no coincidence that Orton's suddenly bad games came when they did. And it's no coincidence that every quarterback looks great under McDaniels.

Horrible head coach, but someone name me a better OC...

 

[omahabrad]

Charlie Weis, Chan Gailey and Norv Turner

 

[steelcityman]

me has Larry Fitz, so I suggest ARZ offers their 3rd to start with, and see where that goes.

 

[Tau837]

I'm still stunned by how little credit Josh McDaniels gets. In a league where coaches of mediocre offenses like Mike Shanahan and Brian Billick still retain the lable of offensive gurus, McDaniels may be the only true "offensive genius" out there.In 2007, the Patriots have probably the greatest offense in the history of the league. In 2008, they lose their all-time great quarterback in the 1st game and replace him with a guy who I'm not convinced had ever played a snap of football, and they still remain one of the top offenses in the league.Then McDaniels leaves down, the Pats get Brady back yet have only a "good" offense, while Cassel goes on to mediocrity elsewhere prior to turning it back around (into a good, efficient season but not explosive) under another top OC.

In 2008, the Pats were 8th in ppg and 5th in ypg. In 2009, the Pats were 6th in ppg and 3rd in ypg. How do you characterize 2008 as "one of the top offenses" and then call 2009 "only a good offense"? It's a credit to McDaniels that he was able to maintain an excellent offense when Brady went down. But you seem to be spinning this to an extreme here.

Meanwhile, McDaniels goes to Denver and turns career journeymen like Orton, Lloyd, and Gaffney into possibly the most explosive offense in the league.

Please define "most explosive." It must not equate to top production... last season, Denver was #20 in ppg and #15 in ypg. This year, they are #19 and #13, respectively.

Then, he leaves town and within a week that same exact offense with the same exact players transforms into the most pathetic offense in the league under Orton.

Interestingly, Denver has actually raised its ppg production slightly since McDaniels left... 21.3 ppg under McDaniels this season, 22 ppg after he left. Yards per game dropped from ~357 to ~322. But consider the two common opponents they faced under McDaniels as well as after he left this season:vs. San Diego under McDaniels: 235 yards, 14 pointsvs. San Diego under Studesville: 337 yards, 28 pointsvs. Oakland under McDaniels: 240 yards, 14 pointsvs. Oakland under Studesville: 235 yards, 23 pointsDoesn't look like much of a dropoff to me.

It's no coincidence that Orton's suddenly bad games came when they did.

Orton finished his season in weeks 12 and 13 with two horrible games. The first came under McDaniels, the second came under Studesville. Not sure that proves anything.I don't disagree that McDaniels is an excellent OC and gets good production from his QBs, but your post is full of exaggerations and misstatements.

 

[BusMan]

Why did Denver extend Orton? So they could trade him?

 

[thecatch]

I'd really like him in SF to allow whoever the 1.07 drafted QB is to develop for a year or two, but I think 2.07 is too much. Does Orton make them a SB contender? Not likely in my mind...but he would make them the favorite in the NFC West unless STL does something dramatic in the offseason. So carrying this out further, is Orton enough of an improvement over guys you could get for free (aka McNabb) or for much less in trade compensation? That's where I'm not sure, and the ceiling for the team might be the same.I'd give up a 3rd+, no question, and if it can happen on the fly at the draft and I'm the new GM, I try to see if there's a way to move down in the 2nd, pick up an extra 3rd/4th, swap that now mid to late 2nd for Orton and then you still have some extra pieces to address other areas. The team is solid, but nowhere good enough to invest the 1.07 and 2.07 in the same position.

I doubt SF would reach for a QB at 1.07 if they dealt for Orton. They'd probably get a developmental guy later in the draft and draft one of the top CBs on the board, unless Mallett/Gabbert blows them away in the pre-draft workouts (and if they have great offseasons, I wouldn't be surprised if they were off the board by 1.07).

 

[RUSF18]

I'd really like him in SF to allow whoever the 1.07 drafted QB is to develop for a year or two, but I think 2.07 is too much. Does Orton make them a SB contender? Not likely in my mind...but he would make them the favorite in the NFC West unless STL does something dramatic in the offseason. So carrying this out further, is Orton enough of an improvement over guys you could get for free (aka McNabb) or for much less in trade compensation? That's where I'm not sure, and the ceiling for the team might be the same.I'd give up a 3rd+, no question, and if it can happen on the fly at the draft and I'm the new GM, I try to see if there's a way to move down in the 2nd, pick up an extra 3rd/4th, swap that now mid to late 2nd for Orton and then you still have some extra pieces to address other areas. The team is solid, but nowhere good enough to invest the 1.07 and 2.07 in the same position.

I doubt SF would reach for a QB at 1.07 if they dealt for Orton. They'd probably get a developmental guy later in the draft and draft one of the top CBs on the board, unless Mallett/Gabbert blows them away in the pre-draft workouts (and if they have great offseasons, I wouldn't be surprised if they were off the board by 1.07).

While I understand your approach...they have to use this pick on a QB. Even if Orton came and sparked the offense, it's a short term solution and then you're left drafting in that 18-25 range where the odds of landing a franchise QB go down tremendously. The QB position has been ignored for too long, going after a developmental guy has failed already with Davis, and there is a much greater chance of that happening again than not. This is a really good and deep QB draft and the interesting part is the variety of styles these guys bring, so the new coach/GM should be able to figure out who fits into what they want to accomplish.

 

[humpback]

Why is it only a short-term solution? Orton is younger than Eli, Rivers, Romo, Schaub, etc.- are they short-term solutions? I'm not trying to say he's as good as these guys, but if you think he's good enough to compete in the near term, there's no reason why it can't be longer term too.

I get that a lot of people aren't sold on Orton- I think he's better than a lot of people give him credit for, but he's certainly not an elite talent. What I don't get is why he's only a 1 or 2 year stop-gap. This isn't Collins or McNabb we're talking about.

 

[RUSF18]

Why is it only a short-term solution? Orton is younger than Eli, Rivers, Romo, Schaub, etc.- are they short-term solutions? I'm not trying to say he's as good as these guys, but if you think he's good enough to compete in the near term, there's no reason why it can't be longer term too.I get that a lot of people aren't sold on Orton- I think he's better than a lot of people give him credit for, but he's certainly not an elite talent. What I don't get is why he's only a 1 or 2 year stop-gap. This isn't Collins or McNabb we're talking about.

I'm more of an Orton fan than others too, but one reason is you're going to need to make a major financial commitment to him. He's got one year at $9 million left and he will be in a position to demand a lot of guaranteed money, especially if you go the developmental route and have no one else behind him who will be ready soon.

 

[David Yudkin]

Why is it only a short-term solution? Orton is younger than Eli, Rivers, Romo, Schaub, etc.- are they short-term solutions? I'm not trying to say he's as good as these guys, but if you think he's good enough to compete in the near term, there's no reason why it can't be longer term too.I get that a lot of people aren't sold on Orton- I think he's better than a lot of people give him credit for, but he's certainly not an elite talent. What I don't get is why he's only a 1 or 2 year stop-gap. This isn't Collins or McNabb we're talking about.

IMO, he's not a top tier talent. Not everyone can be a huge difference maker. If we conclude that NFL talent evaluators agree with that, that probably leaves the following to consider.A bad team with little hope of winning very soon probably would not win people over by adding him as their go to guy. We've already seen that in DEN and the team elected to move on to Tebow.A good to great team only looking for a better QB option that might get them over the top or with not great options at the QB position. While I wouldn't call MIN great, they were a very good team last year and seem to fit the bill. MIA has also been decent the past couple of years and is probably a better option than Henne, but would Orton take either of these teams to the promised land?We can pretty much rule out these teams:NE, NYJ, PIT, BAL, CIN, IND, HOU, KC, SD, NYG, PHI, DAL, CHI, DET, GB, TB, ATL, NO, STL That's 20 teams when you count the Broncos.That leaves 12 others:BUF - Would Orton be much of an upgrade over Fitzpatrick and are the Bills looking to draft someone?MIA - Probably a better option than Henne.CLE - Who knows what's going on with the coaching staff and they've had a revolving door at QB. I'm not sure a new coach will want Orton as his "big move" to reshape the franchise. The verdict is still out on McCoy.JAX - Garrard always gets mentioned as someone who could be ousted but then runs off a string of decent games. Not sure Orton would be a major upgrade on a team that focuses a lot more on the run.TEN - Same thing philosophy wise as JAX but obviously in need of a QB. Obviously would not have as high powered passing attack as DEN.OAK - The Raiders went 8-8 with Campbell and Gradkowski at QB. Orton might be a better option, but maybe not be a whole lot.WAS - Probably a decent fit for Orton, as McNabb and Grossman are likely not the answer.MIN - Had the makings of a solid team and things fell apart this year. Orton might be a decent option for the Vikes.CAR - Clearly better than whoever is there now, but I don't see how they don't draft Luck.SFO - Probably an option.SEA - Seems like they picked out Whitehurst as their QB of the future.ARI - Again, a decent landing spot but I am not sure if that make ARI relevant again.I still get the sense that MIA, TEN, MIN, or ARI would all be options and maybe SF as well. A lot will depend on if teams feel that they want to invest an early draft pick on the chance of landing a franchise QB or not. Maybe the same thing will happen as in DEN. Sign Orton for a couple of years while rookie QB develops.So for the most important position on the field, which team would "settle" for Orton and say their goal is to be either not as bad or striving to be above average? I think a team would really need to be solid in a lot of other areas to get Orton and expect to be a serious, serious contender.

 

[az_prof]

Minnesota should deal the 2 for him, franchise Rice then deal that 1 back to recoup the picks. It will be a very talented WR group and they should have a prime pick for one of them without the need making a deal somewhat easy.

I agree. And use their first round pick on the best offensive lineman. If they do this, they easily have a top 8 offense and the defense played well with the young DBs showing a lot of promise. I don't think waiting around for a mid-first round QB pick to mature is the right way to go and there is guarantee that a rookie will ever be as good as Orton is right now.

 

[humpback]

Why is it only a short-term solution? Orton is younger than Eli, Rivers, Romo, Schaub, etc.- are they short-term solutions? I'm not trying to say he's as good as these guys, but if you think he's good enough to compete in the near term, there's no reason why it can't be longer term too.I get that a lot of people aren't sold on Orton- I think he's better than a lot of people give him credit for, but he's certainly not an elite talent. What I don't get is why he's only a 1 or 2 year stop-gap. This isn't Collins or McNabb we're talking about.

I'm more of an Orton fan than others too, but one reason is you're going to need to make a major financial commitment to him. He's got one year at $9 million left and he will be in a position to demand a lot of guaranteed money, especially if you go the developmental route and have no one else behind him who will be ready soon.

I don't necessarily agree- he just signed his 2 year extension before the season (which covers next year), and he didn't demand a ton of guaranteed money. He was pretty good again this year, but I don't think he did anything to drastically increase his value.If I'm giving up a 2nd rounder for him, or even a 3rd plus, it's because I feel like he can be my QB for the next several years. I'm going to do it with the condition that we talk about an extension first- if he wants top 10 QB money, then I wouldn't make the deal. If he wants a reasonable contract, then it makes sense. No way do I give up much at all without an extension in place (myself).

 

[az_prof]

Why is it only a short-term solution? Orton is younger than Eli, Rivers, Romo, Schaub, etc.- are they short-term solutions? I'm not trying to say he's as good as these guys, but if you think he's good enough to compete in the near term, there's no reason why it can't be longer term too.I get that a lot of people aren't sold on Orton- I think he's better than a lot of people give him credit for, but he's certainly not an elite talent. What I don't get is why he's only a 1 or 2 year stop-gap. This isn't Collins or McNabb we're talking about.

IMO, he's not a top tier talent. Not everyone can be a huge difference maker. If we conclude that NFL talent evaluators agree with that, that probably leaves the following to consider.A bad team with little hope of winning very soon probably would not win people over by adding him as their go to guy. We've already seen that in DEN and the team elected to move on to Tebow.A good to great team only looking for a better QB option that might get them over the top or with not great options at the QB position. While I wouldn't call MIN great, they were a very good team last year and seem to fit the bill. MIA has also been decent the past couple of years and is probably a better option than Henne, but would Orton take either of these teams to the promised land?We can pretty much rule out these teams:NE, NYJ, PIT, BAL, CIN, IND, HOU, KC, SD, NYG, PHI, DAL, CHI, DET, GB, TB, ATL, NO, STL That's 20 teams when you count the Broncos.That leaves 12 others:BUF - Would Orton be much of an upgrade over Fitzpatrick and are the Bills looking to draft someone?MIA - Probably a better option than Henne.CLE - Who knows what's going on with the coaching staff and they've had a revolving door at QB. I'm not sure a new coach will want Orton as his "big move" to reshape the franchise. The verdict is still out on McCoy.JAX - Garrard always gets mentioned as someone who could be ousted but then runs off a string of decent games. Not sure Orton would be a major upgrade on a team that focuses a lot more on the run.TEN - Same thing philosophy wise as JAX but obviously in need of a QB. Obviously would not have as high powered passing attack as DEN.OAK - The Raiders went 8-8 with Campbell and Gradkowski at QB. Orton might be a better option, but maybe not be a whole lot.WAS - Probably a decent fit for Orton, as McNabb and Grossman are likely not the answer.MIN - Had the makings of a solid team and things fell apart this year. Orton might be a decent option for the Vikes.CAR - Clearly better than whoever is there now, but I don't see how they don't draft Luck.SFO - Probably an option.SEA - Seems like they picked out Whitehurst as their QB of the future.ARI - Again, a decent landing spot but I am not sure if that make ARI relevant again.I still get the sense that MIA, TEN, MIN, or ARI would all be options and maybe SF as well. A lot will depend on if teams feel that they want to invest an early draft pick on the chance of landing a franchise QB or not. Maybe the same thing will happen as in DEN. Sign Orton for a couple of years while rookie QB develops.So for the most important position on the field, which team would "settle" for Orton and say their goal is to be either not as bad or striving to be above average? I think a team would really need to be solid in a lot of other areas to get Orton and expect to be a serious, serious contender.

I agree with your team analysis.Of the ones that are possible, the ones that really could be improved with Orton are:Tenn (Young is gone)Oakland (He is much better than Campbell and Gradkowski)WA: they have no QBMN: they have no QB and he would be a good fit with the Viking's receivers, especially HarvinSF: Alex Smith is a backup; they have no QB and any team that gets a good, veteran QB in the NFC West instantly becomes a contender in a horrible divisionARI: See SF above. He makes them relevant because any team with an average QB suddenly becomes a 9-7 team, which likely wins the division.Of those six, several will decide they would rather rebuild with a rookie. How many franchise rookie QBs behind Luck will come out?

 

[humpback]

Why is it only a short-term solution? Orton is younger than Eli, Rivers, Romo, Schaub, etc.- are they short-term solutions? I'm not trying to say he's as good as these guys, but if you think he's good enough to compete in the near term, there's no reason why it can't be longer term too.I get that a lot of people aren't sold on Orton- I think he's better than a lot of people give him credit for, but he's certainly not an elite talent. What I don't get is why he's only a 1 or 2 year stop-gap. This isn't Collins or McNabb we're talking about.

IMO, he's not a top tier talent. Not everyone can be a huge difference maker. If we conclude that NFL talent evaluators agree with that, that probably leaves the following to consider.A bad team with little hope of winning very soon probably would not win people over by adding him as their go to guy. We've already seen that in DEN and the team elected to move on to Tebow.A good to great team only looking for a better QB option that might get them over the top or with not great options at the QB position. While I wouldn't call MIN great, they were a very good team last year and seem to fit the bill. MIA has also been decent the past couple of years and is probably a better option than Henne, but would Orton take either of these teams to the promised land?We can pretty much rule out these teams:NE, NYJ, PIT, BAL, CIN, IND, HOU, KC, SD, NYG, PHI, DAL, CHI, DET, GB, TB, ATL, NO, STL That's 20 teams when you count the Broncos.That leaves 12 others:BUF - Would Orton be much of an upgrade over Fitzpatrick and are the Bills looking to draft someone?MIA - Probably a better option than Henne.CLE - Who knows what's going on with the coaching staff and they've had a revolving door at QB. I'm not sure a new coach will want Orton as his "big move" to reshape the franchise. The verdict is still out on McCoy.JAX - Garrard always gets mentioned as someone who could be ousted but then runs off a string of decent games. Not sure Orton would be a major upgrade on a team that focuses a lot more on the run.TEN - Same thing philosophy wise as JAX but obviously in need of a QB. Obviously would not have as high powered passing attack as DEN.OAK - The Raiders went 8-8 with Campbell and Gradkowski at QB. Orton might be a better option, but maybe not be a whole lot.WAS - Probably a decent fit for Orton, as McNabb and Grossman are likely not the answer.MIN - Had the makings of a solid team and things fell apart this year. Orton might be a decent option for the Vikes.CAR - Clearly better than whoever is there now, but I don't see how they don't draft Luck.SFO - Probably an option.SEA - Seems like they picked out Whitehurst as their QB of the future.ARI - Again, a decent landing spot but I am not sure if that make ARI relevant again.I still get the sense that MIA, TEN, MIN, or ARI would all be options and maybe SF as well. A lot will depend on if teams feel that they want to invest an early draft pick on the chance of landing a franchise QB or not. Maybe the same thing will happen as in DEN. Sign Orton for a couple of years while rookie QB develops.So for the most important position on the field, which team would "settle" for Orton and say their goal is to be either not as bad or striving to be above average? I think a team would really need to be solid in a lot of other areas to get Orton and expect to be a serious, serious contender.

I don't disagree, but I think Orton can give quite a few teams that boost that they need. Maybe not necessarily to become SB champions, but to get them over the hump and become a serious playoff contender. Miami, Ten, Min, Ari, SF, Oak and Jax are all teams that I feel could benefit quite a bit by adding Orton- I think they would all be serious playoff contenders with him. Not so much because he's elite, but because he's much better than what they have at QB, and they're good enough elsewhere to compete right now IMO.

 

[Tau837]

Why is it only a short-term solution? Orton is younger than Eli, Rivers, Romo, Schaub, etc.- are they short-term solutions? I'm not trying to say he's as good as these guys, but if you think he's good enough to compete in the near term, there's no reason why it can't be longer term too.I get that a lot of people aren't sold on Orton- I think he's better than a lot of people give him credit for, but he's certainly not an elite talent. What I don't get is why he's only a 1 or 2 year stop-gap. This isn't Collins or McNabb we're talking about.

IMO, he's not a top tier talent. Not everyone can be a huge difference maker. If we conclude that NFL talent evaluators agree with that, that probably leaves the following to consider.A bad team with little hope of winning very soon probably would not win people over by adding him as their go to guy. We've already seen that in DEN and the team elected to move on to Tebow.A good to great team only looking for a better QB option that might get them over the top or with not great options at the QB position. While I wouldn't call MIN great, they were a very good team last year and seem to fit the bill. MIA has also been decent the past couple of years and is probably a better option than Henne, but would Orton take either of these teams to the promised land?We can pretty much rule out these teams:NE, NYJ, PIT, BAL, CIN, IND, HOU, KC, SD, NYG, PHI, DAL, CHI, DET, GB, TB, ATL, NO, STL That's 20 teams when you count the Broncos.That leaves 12 others:BUF - Would Orton be much of an upgrade over Fitzpatrick and are the Bills looking to draft someone?MIA - Probably a better option than Henne.CLE - Who knows what's going on with the coaching staff and they've had a revolving door at QB. I'm not sure a new coach will want Orton as his "big move" to reshape the franchise. The verdict is still out on McCoy.JAX - Garrard always gets mentioned as someone who could be ousted but then runs off a string of decent games. Not sure Orton would be a major upgrade on a team that focuses a lot more on the run.TEN - Same thing philosophy wise as JAX but obviously in need of a QB. Obviously would not have as high powered passing attack as DEN.OAK - The Raiders went 8-8 with Campbell and Gradkowski at QB. Orton might be a better option, but maybe not be a whole lot.WAS - Probably a decent fit for Orton, as McNabb and Grossman are likely not the answer.MIN - Had the makings of a solid team and things fell apart this year. Orton might be a decent option for the Vikes.CAR - Clearly better than whoever is there now, but I don't see how they don't draft Luck.SFO - Probably an option.SEA - Seems like they picked out Whitehurst as their QB of the future.ARI - Again, a decent landing spot but I am not sure if that make ARI relevant again.I still get the sense that MIA, TEN, MIN, or ARI would all be options and maybe SF as well. A lot will depend on if teams feel that they want to invest an early draft pick on the chance of landing a franchise QB or not. Maybe the same thing will happen as in DEN. Sign Orton for a couple of years while rookie QB develops.So for the most important position on the field, which team would "settle" for Orton and say their goal is to be either not as bad or striving to be above average? I think a team would really need to be solid in a lot of other areas to get Orton and expect to be a serious, serious contender.

I agree with your team analysis.Of the ones that are possible, the ones that really could be improved with Orton are:Tenn (Young is gone)Oakland (He is much better than Campbell and Gradkowski)WA: they have no QBMN: they have no QB and he would be a good fit with the Viking's receivers, especially HarvinSF: Alex Smith is a backup; they have no QB and any team that gets a good, veteran QB in the NFC West instantly becomes a contender in a horrible divisionARI: See SF above. He makes them relevant because any team with an average QB suddenly becomes a 9-7 team, which likely wins the division.Of those six, several will decide they would rather rebuild with a rookie. How many franchise rookie QBs behind Luck will come out?

Though I will say that I think Al Davis would not view Orton as the kind of QB he wants and thus would not pursue him.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

if a team decides to deal their 2nd for Orton and also take one of the top QB's in the draft with their 1st to sit for a year or so under Orton, they are basically committing their first two rounds of the draft to the QB position....so this team would then either

(a) be in a position to win right now and be pretty strong in other areas or

(b) not be real strong in other areas and be committing to rebuilding next year and be able to sell that to their fan base...

honestly, MIN should have already made this deal, as I think that team could go deep in the playoffs with Orton and is also strong enough to take a future QB in round one and be competitive year in and year out.....with ADP and the WR's and TE that MIN has, Orton could be very solid in that system.....

MIN window seems to be closing a little.....I think they have an opportunity here to remain VERY competitive and also draft a QB for the future that can go toe to toe with Rodgers, Cutler, and Stafford..........

 

[humpback]

if a team decides to deal their 2nd for Orton and also take one of the top QB's in the draft with their 1st to sit for a year or so under Orton, they are basically committing their first two rounds of the draft to the QB position....so this team would then either (a) be in a position to win right now and be pretty strong in other areas or(b) not be real strong in other areas and be committing to rebuilding next year and be able to sell that to their fan base...honestly, MIN should have already made this deal, as I think that team could go deep in the playoffs with Orton and is also strong enough to take a future QB in round one and be competitive year in and year out.....with ADP and the WR's and TE that MIN has, Orton could be very solid in that system.....MIN window seems to be closing a little.....I think they have an opportunity here to remain VERY competitive and also draft a QB for the future that can go toe to toe with Rodgers, Cutler, and Stafford..........

This is what I mean- I think it's foolish to give up a #2 for Orton and also spend an early/mid #1 on a QB. You either think Orton is your guy for the next few years or you don't. If he's good enough for you to go deep in the playoffs in 2011, why wouldn't he be for 2012+? Am I missing something?

 

[thecatch]

I'd really like him in SF to allow whoever the 1.07 drafted QB is to develop for a year or two, but I think 2.07 is too much. Does Orton make them a SB contender? Not likely in my mind...but he would make them the favorite in the NFC West unless STL does something dramatic in the offseason. So carrying this out further, is Orton enough of an improvement over guys you could get for free (aka McNabb) or for much less in trade compensation? That's where I'm not sure, and the ceiling for the team might be the same.I'd give up a 3rd+, no question, and if it can happen on the fly at the draft and I'm the new GM, I try to see if there's a way to move down in the 2nd, pick up an extra 3rd/4th, swap that now mid to late 2nd for Orton and then you still have some extra pieces to address other areas. The team is solid, but nowhere good enough to invest the 1.07 and 2.07 in the same position.

I doubt SF would reach for a QB at 1.07 if they dealt for Orton. They'd probably get a developmental guy later in the draft and draft one of the top CBs on the board, unless Mallett/Gabbert blows them away in the pre-draft workouts (and if they have great offseasons, I wouldn't be surprised if they were off the board by 1.07).

While I understand your approach...they have to use this pick on a QB. Even if Orton came and sparked the offense, it's a short term solution and then you're left drafting in that 18-25 range where the odds of landing a franchise QB go down tremendously. The QB position has been ignored for too long, going after a developmental guy has failed already with Davis, and there is a much greater chance of that happening again than not. This is a really good and deep QB draft and the interesting part is the variety of styles these guys bring, so the new coach/GM should be able to figure out who fits into what they want to accomplish.

I agree only to the extent there are 2-3 QBs that have a top 10 grade. The upside with an Orton trade is that the Niners wouldn't have to overdraft a QB with suspect talent at 1.07.

 

[Sigfawn]

Does this remind anyone of the Brees / Rivers situation a few years back? I can see both Tebow and Orton being relevant wherever they go.

Except for the fact both are below average QBs. This is sorta like the Smith/Smith situation in SF. I'm not sure which Smith ='s Rivers, but I'll let you figure that out.

 

[David Yudkin]

If Vince Young is on the market, I wonder who there would be a bigger market for seeing that Orton and Young would be candidates for the same teams.

 

[omahabrad]

Orton's stock just went up. Luck staying in school.(big mistake) Carolina has to be upset

 

[Richard_the_Vampire]

If Vince Young is on the market, I wonder who there would be a bigger market for seeing that Orton and Young would be candidates for the same teams.

I don't think they would be candidates for the same teams--they are different players.But if they were, the more sought after commodity would have to be Orton I would think. Orton is a good (but not great) pocket passer, and several teams in recent years have had success with a non-franchise QB like that--Delhomme in Carolina, Hasselbeck in Seattle, Manning in New York, Cassel in KC, etc. Orton can go to San Fran or Miami and instantly make those teams contenders next season.Vince Young is an interesting player, but not one that I would pin my franchise's success on. I could see a team like Cleveland bringing him in and running play action bootlegs all day with Hillis--that is the sort of situation he is ideal for. But for the teams that ORton is a good fit for--pocket passing offenses--Young is not a good option. Also, Young will be 28 next year, which is dangerous given how much he relies on his legs.

 

[Abraham]

He's only 28? Wow. I thought he was 30 at least by now. A 2nd for that guy, in his prime, is a GREAT deal for the acquiring team.

 

[Spike]

If Vince Young is on the market, I wonder who there would be a bigger market for seeing that Orton and Young would be candidates for the same teams.

Wild idea:The Broncos and Titans make a trade in which Young goes to the Broncos and Orton to the Titans?

 

[LHUCKS]

If Vince Young is on the market, I wonder who there would be a bigger market for seeing that Orton and Young would be candidates for the same teams.

Wild idea:The Broncos and Titans make a trade in which Young goes to the Broncos and Orton to the Titans?

yeah, no

 

[CompetitiveEdgeFootball]

If Vince Young is on the market, I wonder who there would be a bigger market for seeing that Orton and Young would be candidates for the same teams.

Wild idea:The Broncos and Titans make a trade in which Young goes to the Broncos and Orton to the Titans?

The thing about Young is, you can fix a QBs throwing motion, you can fix how he reads defenses. You can't fix LUNATIC, which is what the dude is. They've tried. Yeah he's a really good athlete, and he has a winning record as a qb, but man the guy just melts down OFTEN.As I've stated before, now that Luck isn't coming out, the Broncos may just get exactly what they're asking for Orton. He makes a good game manager QB, if you want to run the ball and play some tough defense, those teams do well in the playoffs. He's also improved quite a bit over the last couple years, and he could teach an unpolished rookie a few things about adjusting to the NFL. He'd be a good fit in AZ for that, as they have young QBs they want to develop, and as bad as that division is, it might be enough to get them into the playoffs.

 

[Pura Vida]

The only one dumb enough to give a 2nd rounder for orton is mcd. Hope mcd catches on some where.

The vast majority of ortons production came in garbage time.