Wish Bears had a good QB like Orton..... (1 Viewer)

[Carolina Hustler]

lol @ rating ecompasses everything as a tool to determine who is doing better statistically

What is a better tool for grading QB's statistically?

The statistics?

 

[sho nuff]

lol @ rating ecompasses everything as a tool to determine who is doing better statistically

What is a better tool for grading QB's statistically?

All of them?Passer rating is not perfect and does not just cover all stats to say he is statistically better.You know it...you just don't want to admit it (that whole loyal to a fault to where you will defend anything about the Bears and now it seems any post by a Bears fan).Its a formula...its not perfect and is not the only tool to use.

 

[Ivanhoe]

Wish the bears would of at least attempted to go after some Wrs like

TO

Moss

v jackson

brandon marshall

etc etc etc

 

[Whoosah]

I guess I will chime in since I am from Chicago.

Cutler is the best QB to come into the Bears organization. It can be argued, but skill-wise, Cutler is better than pretty much ever QB we had in franchise history.

Yes, Orton is doing really really well, I will not argue that. Most can say that Orton is the better 2010 QB, but is he the better QB down the road? I want to say no.

People need to take the whole "wins" category out of this. 2005, when Orton was the QB, that was the defense that won those games. Orton was always a GAME MANAGER on the Bears and was not responsible for winning a good majority of his games during his Bears' tenure.

Orton has a really really good O-line and people cannot argue that whereas Cutler has the Martz system, a system that results in a lot of picks and sacks and factor in a horrendous O-line.

Now, has Orton changed from game manager to a guy who wins games? Maybe, but at the time, Orton is not what he is now and with Cutler coming off a Pro Bowl year, the trade was damn worth it.

I guarantee that Cutler's numbers would be so much great than Orton if the teams are swapped. I also think McDaniels is that much better of a coach/trainer than Lovie and this crap ### group coaches. McDaniels I believe was responsible for the grooming of Brady when he was on the Patriots (correct me if I am wrong on that).

Long story short, Orton is doing really well and will admit that he is a better QB at this time, but with that O-line and the system McDaniels runs, I am sure a lot of QBs would do well on the Broncos. Cutler is struggling, but with a system that requires an avg O-line at best, it is hurt Cutler's production. People who think Orton would be doing the same thing on the Bears is delusional. Orton is being groomed and getting better whereas Cutler is already good (skill wise) and the Bears are hoping that he will naturally grow into the role and not be coached as long as he has the o-line and the weapons.

 

[atcdav]

As a Chicagoan, I can say if we still had Orton, Orton would be out with a concussion and Collins would have started yesterday. If Culter was still is Denver we would all be saying, he is an elite QB, he would be on track for 5000+yds this year. It is much more the system and the surrounding cast of players than the QBs alone

apples and oranges. If Orton were in Chicago, they'd be running a completely different offense and he'd still be in the game.

I believe Orton could run a Martz offense better than Cutler..Cutler is probably tougher, and has a stronger arm, but the guy is operating on like 15% up top..

The thing is , is it doesnt matter. Martz was going to be the OC regardless of who the QB was. The Bears sat without an OC for quite awhile, and there were a few OC available that got picked up by other teams. Martz was basically the last man standing and the Bears needed someone. It isn't like the Bears when looking for Martz from the get go to match him up with Cutler. And Martz's ego will not let him adjust to different qb. THE qbs adjust to him. If Martz where in Philly, Vick would have been running the Martz offense.

Not sure if I understand what you're saying.. Are you saying that Cutler would be the better QB if in a system that better suited him?

That is not what I am saying. I am saying it doesnt matter who the Bears QB is. The Bears have issues the keep their QB from achieve his full potential. If Rogers was the Chicago QB, he wold not be the elite star he is. If Orton was the Chicago QB he would be struggling, just like he was when he was here.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

That is not what I am saying. I am saying it doesnt matter who the Bears QB is. The Bears have issues the keep their QB from achieve his full potential. If Rogers was the Chicago QB, he wold not be the elite star he is. If Orton was the Chicago QB he would be struggling, just like he was when he was here.

So are you excusing Cutler... ?We're in a Cutler vs Orton thread MAN! Pick a side already! lol

 

[drfeelgood]

Cutler has the Martz system, a system that results in a lot of picks and sacks and factor in a horrendous O-line.

Cutler didn't have Martz last season and he threw the most picks in the league. I think Cutler is more physically gifted as a passer than Orton, but I think Orton is a more intelligent QB.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I guess I will chime in since I am from Chicago.Cutler is the best QB to come into the Bears organization. It can be argued, but skill-wise, Cutler is better than pretty much ever QB we had in franchise history.Yes, Orton is doing really really well, I will not argue that. Most can say that Orton is the better 2010 QB, but is he the better QB down the road? I want to say no.People need to take the whole "wins" category out of this. 2005, when Orton was the QB, that was the defense that won those games. Orton was always a GAME MANAGER on the Bears and was not responsible for winning a good majority of his games during his Bears' tenure.Orton has a really really good O-line and people cannot argue that whereas Cutler has the Martz system, a system that results in a lot of picks and sacks and factor in a horrendous O-line.Now, has Orton changed from game manager to a guy who wins games? Maybe, but at the time, Orton is not what he is now and with Cutler coming off a Pro Bowl year, the trade was damn worth it.I guarantee that Cutler's numbers would be so much great than Orton if the teams are swapped. I also think McDaniels is that much better of a coach/trainer than Lovie and this crap ### group coaches. McDaniels I believe was responsible for the grooming of Brady when he was on the Patriots (correct me if I am wrong on that).Long story short, Orton is doing really well and will admit that he is a better QB at this time, but with that O-line and the system McDaniels runs, I am sure a lot of QBs would do well on the Broncos. Cutler is struggling, but with a system that requires an avg O-line at best, it is hurt Cutler's production. People who think Orton would be doing the same thing on the Bears is delusional. Orton is being groomed and getting better whereas Cutler is already good (skill wise) and the Bears are hoping that he will naturally grow into the role and not be coached as long as he has the o-line and the weapons.

What about the Vodka soaked spud Cutler grows hair on? That's pretty skillful as well!

 

[atcdav]

I guess I will chime in since I am from Chicago.Cutler is the best QB to come into the Bears organization. It can be argued, but skill-wise, Cutler is better than pretty much ever QB we had in franchise history.Yes, Orton is doing really really well, I will not argue that. Most can say that Orton is the better 2010 QB, but is he the better QB down the road? I want to say no.People need to take the whole "wins" category out of this. 2005, when Orton was the QB, that was the defense that won those games. Orton was always a GAME MANAGER on the Bears and was not responsible for winning a good majority of his games during his Bears' tenure.Orton has a really really good O-line and people cannot argue that whereas Cutler has the Martz system, a system that results in a lot of picks and sacks and factor in a horrendous O-line.Now, has Orton changed from game manager to a guy who wins games? Maybe, but at the time, Orton is not what he is now and with Cutler coming off a Pro Bowl year, the trade was damn worth it.I guarantee that Cutler's numbers would be so much great than Orton if the teams are swapped. I also think McDaniels is that much better of a coach/trainer than Lovie and this crap ### group coaches. McDaniels I believe was responsible for the grooming of Brady when he was on the Patriots (correct me if I am wrong on that).Long story short, Orton is doing really well and will admit that he is a better QB at this time, but with that O-line and the system McDaniels runs, I am sure a lot of QBs would do well on the Broncos. Cutler is struggling, but with a system that requires an avg O-line at best, it is hurt Cutler's production. People who think Orton would be doing the same thing on the Bears is delusional. Orton is being groomed and getting better whereas Cutler is already good (skill wise) and the Bears are hoping that he will naturally grow into the role and not be coached as long as he has the o-line and the weapons.

I agree with most of what you said. But I dont think Cutler's stat would be much better if at all. Orton stats are pretty awesome right now. I am also not sure how much better Cutler is than Orton. Stronger arm but maybe dumber(in a football sense). Cutler's decision making skills seem to lack. I do think if Culter played for Green Bay or Denver or San Diego, or several other teams...his stats would be a lot better.

 

[Whoosah]

Cutler has the Martz system, a system that results in a lot of picks and sacks and factor in a horrendous O-line.

Cutler didn't have Martz last season and he threw the most picks in the league. I think Cutler is more physically gifted as a passer than Orton, but I think Orton is a more intelligent QB.

I won't argue the picks and hell some of those picks are his fault too. However, Cutler is a gun slinger and will throw it in questionable areas, but that is what you get with a gun slinger, high risk high reward. If you look at it the other way, I believe he threw for more yards and/or TDs than any other QB in Bears history. So take the good with the bad with a crappy OC in Ron Turner.I think Orton is 'smart' as you say, but I think being in the same system for 2 years in a row helped his growth. Trust me, watching Orton QB on the Bears was never comforting to watch. He was never a game changer or winner for the Bears. Bears front office felt they needed a QB that was going to actually determine our game and not just rely on our defense and special teams. I do not regret the trade and I am sure that Orton would not be "smart" under a Martz system and would struggle even worse than Cutler.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I am sure that Orton would not be "smart" under a Martz system and would struggle even worse than Cutler.

Disagree, The Martz system isn't about having a cannon arm, or about being tough... It's about making good decisions, fast, and being alert... Not Cutlers forte' .... Orton is a better decision makers, and probably triples Cutlers IQ level... I think he's be better in the Martz system then Cutler..

 

[Whoosah]

I am sure that Orton would not be "smart" under a Martz system and would struggle even worse than Cutler.

Disagree, The Martz system isn't about having a cannon arm, or about being tough... It's about making good decisions, fast, and being alert... Not Cutlers forte' .... Orton is a better decision makers, and probably triples Cutlers IQ level... I think he's be better in the Martz system then Cutler..

If you really want to get technical, Martz' system is about the WR developing the plays. It's more on the WR as much as it is on the QB. Martz system needs an O-line to give the QB time since the WRs are running a lot of deep routes. Not to mention that the system calls for the QB to throw it in a certain area, not to a WR specifically and it leaves a lot of trust on the WR for the QB to throw it somewhere in particular.His system is not about being tough, but if you look at the number of sacks all the QBs under Martz has taken, being tough is probably an intangible that you need.I am not defending Martz by any means since I did not want him as our OC, but just informing that the Martz system calls for a lot of thing that the Bears do not have.

 

[switz]

I guess I will chime in since I am from Chicago.

Cutler is the best QB to come into the Bears organization. It can be argued, but skill-wise, Cutler is better than pretty much ever QB we had in franchise history.

Yes, Orton is doing really really well, I will not argue that. Most can say that Orton is the better 2010 QB, but is he the better QB down the road? I want to say no.

People need to take the whole "wins" category out of this. 2005, when Orton was the QB, that was the defense that won those games. Orton was always a GAME MANAGER on the Bears and was not responsible for winning a good majority of his games during his Bears' tenure.

Orton has a really really good O-line and people cannot argue that whereas Cutler has the Martz system, a system that results in a lot of picks and sacks and factor in a horrendous O-line.

Now, has Orton changed from game manager to a guy who wins games? Maybe, but at the time, Orton is not what he is now and with Cutler coming off a Pro Bowl year, the trade was damn worth it.

I guarantee that Cutler's numbers would be so much great than Orton if the teams are swapped. I also think McDaniels is that much better of a coach/trainer than Lovie and this crap ### group coaches. McDaniels I believe was responsible for the grooming of Brady when he was on the Patriots (correct me if I am wrong on that).

Long story short, Orton is doing really well and will admit that he is a better QB at this time, but with that O-line and the system McDaniels runs, I am sure a lot of QBs would do well on the Broncos. Cutler is struggling, but with a system that requires an avg O-line at best, it is hurt Cutler's production. People who think Orton would be doing the same thing on the Bears is delusional. Orton is being groomed and getting better whereas Cutler is already good (skill wise) and the Bears are hoping that he will naturally grow into the role and not be coached as long as he has the o-line and the weapons.

You are not seriously trying to say Denver has a good OL, are you? They don't, that OL isn't close to good. One good player (who has underperformed this year, mind you) does not make an OL good.

 

[Whoosah]

I guess I will chime in since I am from Chicago.

Cutler is the best QB to come into the Bears organization. It can be argued, but skill-wise, Cutler is better than pretty much ever QB we had in franchise history.

Yes, Orton is doing really really well, I will not argue that. Most can say that Orton is the better 2010 QB, but is he the better QB down the road? I want to say no.

People need to take the whole "wins" category out of this. 2005, when Orton was the QB, that was the defense that won those games. Orton was always a GAME MANAGER on the Bears and was not responsible for winning a good majority of his games during his Bears' tenure.

Orton has a really really good O-line and people cannot argue that whereas Cutler has the Martz system, a system that results in a lot of picks and sacks and factor in a horrendous O-line.

Now, has Orton changed from game manager to a guy who wins games? Maybe, but at the time, Orton is not what he is now and with Cutler coming off a Pro Bowl year, the trade was damn worth it.

I guarantee that Cutler's numbers would be so much great than Orton if the teams are swapped. I also think McDaniels is that much better of a coach/trainer than Lovie and this crap ### group coaches. McDaniels I believe was responsible for the grooming of Brady when he was on the Patriots (correct me if I am wrong on that).

Long story short, Orton is doing really well and will admit that he is a better QB at this time, but with that O-line and the system McDaniels runs, I am sure a lot of QBs would do well on the Broncos. Cutler is struggling, but with a system that requires an avg O-line at best, it is hurt Cutler's production. People who think Orton would be doing the same thing on the Bears is delusional. Orton is being groomed and getting better whereas Cutler is already good (skill wise) and the Bears are hoping that he will naturally grow into the role and not be coached as long as he has the o-line and the weapons.

You are not seriously trying to say Denver has a good OL, are you? They don't, that OL isn't close to good. One good player (who has underperformed this year, mind you) does not make an OL good.

As a guy who watches the Bears every week, that just just shows how bad our line is then. Denver's o-line is 14th in the passing game. Chicago is dead last. So by comparison, Denver's oline is very very good. I don't think you are going to see Denver's O-line give up 10 sacks in a game, so yes they are good.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Orton is a better NFL QB than Cutler. No one can credibly argue otherwise.

In a skills competition, Cutler is probably better than Orton.

 

[Whoosah]

Orton is a better NFL QB than Cutler. No one can credibly argue otherwise.In a skills competition, Cutler is probably better than Orton.

2010, maybe, still got a few more weeks. But if you can clearly tell me that 2 years ago when Orton was on the Bears (2005-2008), then you are horribly mistaken. The only year that Orton had a winning season was when he was terrible and it was credited primarily to the defense and special teams.Orton did not play of this calibur during his Bears tenure, Cutler was a pro bowl QB. The trade made sense to the Bears. In hindsight, you can't say Orton would be like this on the Bears. I don't think he would be.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Orton is a better NFL QB than Cutler. No one can credibly argue otherwise.In a skills competition, Cutler is probably better than Orton.

2010, maybe, still got a few more weeks. But if you can clearly tell me that 2 years ago when Orton was on the Bears (2005-2008), then you are horribly mistaken. The only year that Orton had a winning season was when he was terrible and it was credited primarily to the defense and special teams.Orton did not play of this calibur during his Bears tenure, Cutler was a pro bowl QB. The trade made sense to the Bears. In hindsight, you can't say Orton would be like this on the Bears. I don't think he would be.

So it's the Receivers, and the O-line, and the Martz system thats at fault when Cutler is bad in Chicago, but when in Denver, where he didn't have a winning season, but put up good stats, he gets the credit..? The guy has a strong arm, I'll never disagree with you on that, but if it wasn't for Marshall/Royal and that arm, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.. The guy makes terrible decisions.. The QB is supposed to be the most intelligent player on the field. The guy still writes with crayons...

 

[switz]

As a guy who watches the Bears every week, that just just shows how bad our line is then. Denver's o-line is 14th in the passing game. Chicago is dead last. So by comparison, Denver's oline is very very good. I don't think you are going to see Denver's O-line give up 10 sacks in a game, so yes they are good.

Since when did 10 sacks become the delimiter between a good and bad OL? Denver gave up 6 sacks in week 4, not exactly stellar. And the 10 sack game you refer to, it's already been noted that at least 3 of those were on Cutler, not the OL.Is Chicago's OL worse? Perhaps. But that doesn't make Denvers OL good, just maybe not as bad.Edited for typos

 

[Whoosah]

Orton is a better NFL QB than Cutler. No one can credibly argue otherwise.In a skills competition, Cutler is probably better than Orton.

2010, maybe, still got a few more weeks. But if you can clearly tell me that 2 years ago when Orton was on the Bears (2005-2008), then you are horribly mistaken. The only year that Orton had a winning season was when he was terrible and it was credited primarily to the defense and special teams.Orton did not play of this calibur during his Bears tenure, Cutler was a pro bowl QB. The trade made sense to the Bears. In hindsight, you can't say Orton would be like this on the Bears. I don't think he would be.

So it's the Receivers, and the O-line, and the Martz system thats at fault when Cutler is bad in Chicago, but when in Denver, where he didn't have a winning season, but put up good stats, he gets the credit..? The guy has a strong arm, I'll never disagree with you on that, but if it wasn't for Marshall/Royal and that arm, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.. The guy makes terrible decisions.. The QB is supposed to be the most intelligent player on the field. The guy still writes with crayons...

I'm glad we can have this discussion without getting person to each other. This is an on going debate in Chicago (Orton vs Cutler).Last year Cutler was bad, a lot of picks and yes, DUMB moves. But his ability did make him (sadly) the best QB we had in a long time. I mean consider that Olin Kreutz has had about 20 QBs to snap to. We finally have a 'franchise QB' who has the ability to carry a team to a W and not just a game manager.Last year I blamed a lot of Cutler's bad play on Cutler alone, but consider who he was working with: a rookie WR, a converted WR who I don't believe should be a starting WR, and a pseudo journeyman. I do not think you can call this awesome talent. There are many plays last year where you see receivers running bad routes or try to get the ball when it's in the air. I for one never saw a Denver game when Cutler was there, but his stats don't lie that he was good behind a very good O-line and stud WRs. They all made each other look good. He had his losses and made bad calls. Still does not deny the fact that he is a good QB. I mean he was a top ranked QB in the first 3 games this season. I know it's just 3 games, but you can tell that he is making better decisions. Martz's system is high risk, high reward and as long as Cutler has time, you will see the latter. At least with "smarts" you can learn and teach that. Cutler is still young and can still develop into an even better QB if he has time behind that horrendous o-line.

 

[Whoosah]

As a guy who watches the Bears every week, that just just shows how bad our line is then. Denver's o-line is 14th in the passing game. Chicago is dead last. So by comparison, Denver's oline is very very good. I don't think you are going to see Denver's O-line give up 10 sacks in a game, so yes they are good.

Since when did 10 sacks become the delimiter between a good and bad OL? Denver gave up 6 sacks in week 4, not exactly stellar. And the 10 sack game you refer to, it's already been noted that at least 3 of those were on Cutler, not the OL.Is Chicago's OL worse? Perhaps. But that doesn't make Denvers OL good, just maybe not as bad.Edited for typos

10 sacks as a record high. That's says a lot. They even had to go to max protect and still couldn't protect Cutler. 3 sacks might be on Cutler, but people think that he was already concussed at the time and not thinking straight and not seeing things clearly. But again, that is my point: Denver OL > Chicago OL. I will take a 14th ranked Oline over a 32nd ranked Oline. I can't imagine what Cutler can be capable of if he had that. Consider that when Cutler had time to throw, he was lights out. Prior to the NY game, he had time to throw and was a top 5 QB in the league. All he needs is time in that line and will work wonders. I am sure you can't deny that.

 

[shredhead]

What about the Vodka soaked spud Cutler grows hair on? That's pretty skillful as well!

 

[geoff8695]

Lots of stinky bait in here...

Why people continue to bite on it is beyond me, but have fun trollin' guys!

 

[Whoosah]

Lots of stinky bait in here...Why people continue to bite on it is beyond me, but have fun trollin' guys!

Since this is an unbiased message board, who is the troll? Those saying Orton is a good QB or those saying Cutler is?On the Chicago boards anyone saying Orton is a better QB than Cutler would scream of troll. Just wondering.

 

[SmoovySmoov]

I'm still not really sure why Carolina Hustler and switz hate Cutler so much. It's like he slept with your mothers, or something. You don't like him. We get it. You don't have to post in every single thread how much you hate him. It's been over 2 years now. We get it. Take a deep breath and move on.

 

[two_dollars]

Has nothing to do with the QB. Payton Manning would crumble playing behind that line. Heard on sports radio this morning Angelo has selected one offensive lineman out of his last 23 draft picks (Chris Williams who didn't play due to injury) . If thats not an indictment of Angelo nothing is. Even the average football fan knows a strong team starts with offense and defensive lines. Without that you are basically screwed. For Angelo to ignore that for so long he should be shown the door.

And like I've said in previous posts.. the Bears still came out on top of this trade.. from a Bears perspective. It's not like the Bears do well with first roound draft picks anyway. Orton would have never developed under the coaching and management of the Chicago Bears. No Qb ever did or ever could. They had no choice but to go out and get one who was already developed to an extent. Chicago could never have produced a Cutler. Orton is doing what he is because of McDaniels and the system that produced Brady and made Cassell look good. It's great for him, but make no mistake that Cutler would be doing as well or better under McDaniels.

I find the comparisons between the two laughable, and those who make a direct comparison based only on numbers are just showing how bad they are at journalism.

Wow....Who is doing better statistically?

Who has more career wins?

Why do you think Cutler is better? The guy is a tool box...

He only produced stats under favorable conditions and still couldn't win.. Without Shanny (offensive mastermind), that O-line, B.Marshall, and Royal, did he have a chance?

"Bears came out on top of this trade because THEY are bad at making picks in the first round, and because THEY are bad at developing QB's..."

I can't believe what I'm reading..

Cutler is better this year on both accounts.102.2 rating (rating encompasses everything) vs a 97.8 rating.

Cutler has 3 wins in 3.5 games, Orton has 2 wins in 5 games.

So.. therefor Cutler is a better QB this year.. by your measurements.

Name a particular stat in 2010 that Cutler betters Orton with... And I'll counter with 5 more meaningful stats where Orton wins.

And Career wins, is specifically what I was talking about..

In 2005 Orton was carried to 11-5 by the defense. He averaged 125 yards passing a game. They won in spite of Orton, not because of him. Yet you want to count that. It's like saying Todd Collins did well vs the Panthers because they won.

 

[DoubleG]

In 2005 Orton was carried to 11-5 by the defense. He averaged 125 yards passing a game. They won in spite of Orton, not because of him. Yet you want to count that. It's like saying Todd Collins did well vs the Panthers because they won.

Collins is 1-0 as a Bears starter!!! He's better than both of them, cause he aint lost one yet. And they won 23-6. That Collins guy is DOMINATIN THE LEAGUE!!!!!Please stop with the career wins % silliness. We covered this a week ago (I'm sure Switz remembers). Looking at Winning %, Terry Bradhsaw is one of the best QB ever. Now go look up his stats and say that with a straight face. HINT: He probably wouldn't even be in the conversation for top 25 (possibly top 50) QBs.

 

[atcdav]

That is not what I am saying. I am saying it doesnt matter who the Bears QB is. The Bears have issues the keep their QB from achieve his full potential. If Rogers was the Chicago QB, he wold not be the elite star he is. If Orton was the Chicago QB he would be struggling, just like he was when he was here.

So are you excusing Cutler... ?We're in a Cutler vs Orton thread MAN! Pick a side already! lol

whats the question. Fantasy QB -Orton. NFL real QB. We will know after Cutler plays for a team other than the Bears.

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

lol @ rating ecompasses everything as a tool to determine who is doing better statistically

What is a better tool for grading QB's statistically?

All of them?Passer rating is not perfect and does not just cover all stats to say he is statistically better.You know it...you just don't want to admit it (that whole loyal to a fault to where you will defend anything about the Bears and now it seems any post by a Bears fan).Its a formula...its not perfect and is not the only tool to use.

I asked for a better tool....you didn't name ONE.As for the other statement. This is getting old...changing a simple statement into something else to please yourself in an argument. It is hypocritical that you were defending Crosby over Gould tho

 

[switz]

I'm still not really sure why Carolina Hustler and switz hate Cutler so much. It's like he slept with your mothers, or something. You don't like him. We get it. You don't have to post in every single thread how much you hate him. It's been over 2 years now. We get it. Take a deep breath and move on.

I don't hate Cutler, I just disagree that he was an upgrade over Orton, and tire of hearing excuses for his bad performances.

 

[switz]

lol @ rating ecompasses everything as a tool to determine who is doing better statistically

What is a better tool for grading QB's statistically?

All of them?Passer rating is not perfect and does not just cover all stats to say he is statistically better.

You know it...you just don't want to admit it (that whole loyal to a fault to where you will defend anything about the Bears and now it seems any post by a Bears fan).

Its a formula...its not perfect and is not the only tool to use.

I asked for a better tool....you didn't name ONE.As for the other statement. This is getting old...changing a simple statement into something else to please yourself in an argument.

It is hypocritical that you were defending Crosby over Gould tho

Actually he did... He said looking at all of them is better than just picking passer rating.

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

lol @ rating ecompasses everything as a tool to determine who is doing better statistically

What is a better tool for grading QB's statistically?

All of them?Passer rating is not perfect and does not just cover all stats to say he is statistically better.

You know it...you just don't want to admit it (that whole loyal to a fault to where you will defend anything about the Bears and now it seems any post by a Bears fan).

Its a formula...its not perfect and is not the only tool to use.

I asked for a better tool....you didn't name ONE.As for the other statement. This is getting old...changing a simple statement into something else to please yourself in an argument.

It is hypocritical that you were defending Crosby over Gould tho

Actually he did... He said looking at all of them is better than just picking passer rating.

Is this hard to comprehend?

I asked for a better tool.

A....as in one...a single.

All=multiple.

Hey switz, while you're in here and won't step foot into a Forte thread. Was the Carolina Defense that unathletic to let a poor runner/non special RB like Forte run for all those yards?

 

[switz]

I asked for a better tool....you didn't name ONE.

As for the other statement. This is getting old...changing a simple statement into something else to please yourself in an argument.

It is hypocritical that you were defending Crosby over Gould tho

Actually he did... He said looking at all of them is better than just picking passer rating.

Is this hard to comprehend? I asked for a better tool.

A....as in one...a single.

All=multiple.

Hey switz, while you're in here and won't step foot into a Forte thread. Was the Carolina Defense that unathletic to let a poor runner/non special RB like Forte run for all those yards?

The point is, using just ONE tool leads to very inaccurate conclusions. And asking for a better tool doesn't imply just one statistical category, a tool can be examining a number of stats. I know you are arguing semantics trying to look smart, but anyone reading your initial post asking about a tool would not have expected you to mean a single stat.As for Forte, I don't see a Forte thread on the first page, but already commented in one earlier today. Carolina SUCKS, that's pretty much all you need to know. I wonder how many Forte owners even had him in their lineup.

ETA - LeShon Johnson once ran for 203 yards in a game. No one would claim he was special.

 

[two_dollars]

I asked for a better tool....you didn't name ONE.

As for the other statement. This is getting old...changing a simple statement into something else to please yourself in an argument.

It is hypocritical that you were defending Crosby over Gould tho

Actually he did... He said looking at all of them is better than just picking passer rating.

Is this hard to comprehend? I asked for a better tool.

A....as in one...a single.

All=multiple.

Hey switz, while you're in here and won't step foot into a Forte thread. Was the Carolina Defense that unathletic to let a poor runner/non special RB like Forte run for all those yards?

The point is, using just ONE tool leads to very inaccurate conclusions. And asking for a better tool doesn't imply just one statistical category, a tool can be examining a number of stats. I know you are arguing semantics trying to look smart, but anyone reading your initial post asking about a tool would not have expected you to mean a single stat.As for Forte, I don't see a Forte thread on the first page, but already commented in one earlier today. Carolina SUCKS, that's pretty much all you need to know. I wonder how many Forte owners even had him in their lineup.

ETA - LeShon Johnson once ran for 203 yards in a game. No one would claim he was special.

I don't know what kind of leagues you play in, but he was DEFINITELY started in my league.

 

[DoubleG]

I asked for a better tool....you didn't name ONE.

As for the other statement. This is getting old...changing a simple statement into something else to please yourself in an argument.

It is hypocritical that you were defending Crosby over Gould tho

Actually he did... He said looking at all of them is better than just picking passer rating.

Is this hard to comprehend? I asked for a better tool.

A....as in one...a single.

All=multiple.

Hey switz, while you're in here and won't step foot into a Forte thread. Was the Carolina Defense that unathletic to let a poor runner/non special RB like Forte run for all those yards?

The point is, using just ONE tool leads to very inaccurate conclusions. And asking for a better tool doesn't imply just one statistical category, a tool can be examining a number of stats. I know you are arguing semantics trying to look smart, but anyone reading your initial post asking about a tool would not have expected you to mean a single stat.As for Forte, I don't see a Forte thread on the first page, but already commented in one earlier today. Carolina SUCKS, that's pretty much all you need to know. I wonder how many Forte owners even had him in their lineup.

ETA - LeShon Johnson once ran for 203 yards in a game. No one would claim he was special.

Carolina is averaging 3.8 ypc in rush defense, that's tied for 8th in the league. Incidentally, that includes this past week when Forte ripped them for 166 on 22 carries (7.5 ypc). But don't let actual stats get in the way of your analysis. Oh and the Forte owners in all the league's I'm in had him in their lineups too. Hope that helps.

 

[ericttspikes]

Here's a question for Broncos fans. How would the guy McDaniels really wanted, Matt Cassel, be doing as the Broncos starter? I suspect a whole lot better than he is doing in KC.

McDaniels is a system guy. Orton fits his system and has been doing great. I'm happy for him. Orton would not be doing what he is doing this year with Chicago. Even Tom Brady hasn't sniffed 40 yet alone 50 TDs since McDaniels left.

 

[switz]

Carolina is averaging 3.8 ypc in rush defense, that's tied for 8th in the league. Incidentally, that includes this past week when Forte ripped them for 166 on 22 carries (7.5 ypc). But don't let actual stats get in the way of your analysis.

I didn't mean to turn this into a Forte thread, nor do I want to... but Carolina's rush D has been terrible the last few weeks. Stats do not tell the whole story. They started the season pretty well, but they've deteriorated, and part of their early season success was due to to the teams they played.Week 1 - first half, they looked good, second half Jacobs and Bradshaw started tearing them up. The only time Carolina was getting them stopped in the second half was on obvious running plays.Week 2 - they played TB, and TB can't run the ball.Week 3 - The did a decent job on the Bengals, but Benson can be shut down pretty easily.Week 4 - Chris Ivory (who???) averaged over 5 YPC against themSo yes, take Forte's CAR game with a grain of salt, because CAR has a terrible rush defense.

 

[cubd8]

Orton has 130 yards and a TD passing against the #1 ranked overall Defense in the NFL at halftime this past week so this is just one example of him performing well when it matters, and not in garbage time as I have heard implied.

Since the start of 2009, Orton has thrown for 5,900 yards, 25 TD's, and 13 INT's with a passer rating hovering around 90.

That means that over that stretch, dating back to the start of last season, he's throwing for 280 yards a game with a 2:1 TD to INT ratio, and an excellent passer rating, all while completing nearly 2/3 of his attempts for more yards per completion that just about any QB in the NFL.

So far this season, just his second in that Offense, he's having a Pro Bowl season, on pace for over 5,000 passing yards with a nearly 3:1 TD to INT ratio and a passer rating just shy of 100.

He is ranked among the top 10 QB's in Completion Percentage, Yards, Yards per Completion, TD's, least number of INT's, plays over 20 yards (#2), plays over 40 yards (#1), and passer rating.

Also, the argument that he's just throwing a lot doesn't hold water, since his number of attempts per game are on par with other top QB's like Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, and Tony Romo.

Essentially no matter what he does, some will never change their mind.

The guy is blowing it up in that Offense. Maybe it's the system, blah, blah, blah.

The bottom line is that if nearly a season and a half of production at a high level is insufficient to change minds, combined with a Pro Bowl pace this year, then you are simply refusing to admit your error. Plain and simple.

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

Carolina is averaging 3.8 ypc in rush defense, that's tied for 8th in the league. Incidentally, that includes this past week when Forte ripped them for 166 on 22 carries (7.5 ypc). But don't let actual stats get in the way of your analysis.

I didn't mean to turn this into a Forte thread, nor do I want to... but Carolina's rush D has been terrible the last few weeks. Stats do not tell the whole story. They started the season pretty well, but they've deteriorated, and part of their early season success was due to to the teams they played.Week 1 - first half, they looked good, second half Jacobs and Bradshaw started tearing them up. The only time Carolina was getting them stopped in the second half was on obvious running plays.Week 2 - they played TB, and TB can't run the ball.Week 3 - The did a decent job on the Bengals, but Benson can be shut down pretty easily.Week 4 - Chris Ivory (who???) averaged over 5 YPC against themSo yes, take Forte's CAR game with a grain of salt, because CAR has a terrible rush defense.

You say that the Bears fans use excuses such as the OL as the problem...yet all of the above are excuses.Week 1- The Bradshaw/Jacobs had 4 runs over 10 yards in the second half(is that tearing them up?) they also had many gains of 3 yards or less. Week 3- Benson can be shut down pretty easily? Carolina held him to his second lowest YPC of the season. In fact, he only had one game averaging equal to or less than that YPC all of last season.Week 4- Chris Ivory ran well....but Ladell Betts averaged 3.6 ypc.

 

[DoubleG]

Carolina is averaging 3.8 ypc in rush defense, that's tied for 8th in the league. Incidentally, that includes this past week when Forte ripped them for 166 on 22 carries (7.5 ypc). But don't let actual stats get in the way of your analysis.

I didn't mean to turn this into a Forte thread, nor do I want to... but Carolina's rush D has been terrible the last few weeks. Stats do not tell the whole story. They started the season pretty well, but they've deteriorated, and part of their early season success was due to to the teams they played.Week 1 - first half, they looked good, second half Jacobs and Bradshaw started tearing them up. The only time Carolina was getting them stopped in the second half was on obvious running plays. They held Bradshaw to his lowest YPC this season(and his 2nd lowest total rushing yards) and Jacobs to his 2nd lowest YPC

Week 2 - they played TB, and TB can't run the ball. TB is 18th in rushing (not great, but nor horrible) just ahead on Cincy...see below.

Week 3 - The did a decent job on the Bengals, but Benson can be shut down pretty easily. Benson was top 10 in total rushing yards in 2009 and had 7 games of 100+ yards rushing including the games against the Ravens, Packers and Jets. Sorry, this makes no sense.

Week 4 - Chris Ivory (who???) averaged over 5 YPC against them Last I checked, the Saints are a pretty good passing team (they won the Superbowl last year) and they had two RBs out. And Ivory rushed for only 67 yards - and didn't even lead the Saints in carries, so nice cherry picking there.

So yes, take Forte's CAR game with a grain of salt, because CAR has a terrible rush defense.

Why do insist on doing this to yourself?

 

[switz]

Carolina is averaging 3.8 ypc in rush defense, that's tied for 8th in the league. Incidentally, that includes this past week when Forte ripped them for 166 on 22 carries (7.5 ypc). But don't let actual stats get in the way of your analysis.

I didn't mean to turn this into a Forte thread, nor do I want to... but Carolina's rush D has been terrible the last few weeks. Stats do not tell the whole story. They started the season pretty well, but they've deteriorated, and part of their early season success was due to to the teams they played.Week 1 - first half, they looked good, second half Jacobs and Bradshaw started tearing them up. The only time Carolina was getting them stopped in the second half was on obvious running plays. They held Bradshaw to his lowest YPC this season(and his 2nd lowest total rushing yards) and Jacobs to his 2nd lowest YPC

Week 2 - they played TB, and TB can't run the ball. TB is 18th in rushing (not great, but nor horrible) just ahead on Cincy...see below.

Week 3 - The did a decent job on the Bengals, but Benson can be shut down pretty easily. Benson was top 10 in total rushing yards in 2009 and had 7 games of 100+ yards rushing including the games against the Ravens, Packers and Jets. Sorry, this makes no sense.

Week 4 - Chris Ivory (who???) averaged over 5 YPC against them Last I checked, the Saints are a pretty good passing team (they won the Superbowl last year) and they had two RBs out. And Ivory rushed for only 67 yards - and didn't even lead the Saints in carries, so nice cherry picking there.

So yes, take Forte's CAR game with a grain of salt, because CAR has a terrible rush defense.

Why do insist on doing this to yourself?

Did you watch the Giants game?You think the 18th ranked running attack is good?

And you think 5+ YPC is meaningless because another RB got 1 more carry?

you should ask yourself your question.