canadianbear Posted November 17, 2008 Report Share Posted November 17, 2008 I find it very interesting that this ENTIRE board is mum on Kyles performance yesterday. I find it admirable that he played, dont get me wrong, but his lack of mobilty restricted play action calls and roll outs. If he couldnt play at an highlevel and he knew they would have to restrict the playbook due to his injury, he should not have played. We can debate all we want about the coaches and defense, but he was simply bad yesterday. He locked on receivers, he missed open guys downfield, he threw into coverage, he had 3 ball batted down at the LOS. He produced the fewest points, yards and first downs of any Bears game this year. Although I do believe he is better than Rex and has proven it this year, he also proved that the team should have gone with a healthy Rex over an injured Kyle. I believe his decision to start was admirable, but selfish. I hope he heals enough so that next week we can implement the true playbook. If not, I would prefer to see Rex in the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flea Posted November 17, 2008 Report Share Posted November 17, 2008 He didn't play well at all & probably hurt the team, but surely you blame the coaches for letting him play? BTW love the trip on the int lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Da Bears 88 Posted November 17, 2008 Report Share Posted November 17, 2008 This guy better be on our radar for QB: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butkus Posted November 17, 2008 Report Share Posted November 17, 2008 In my view Orton and the offense really never had a chance, they were in a hole from the start that just got deeper. No, he was not great, but surely he was our best option. Would you rather have had Grossman out there? Think he would have done any better? I would take a injured Orton over a healthy Grossman any day. A disproportianate amount of cap money is spent on the defense, yet the offense has been bailing them out all year! The defensive side of the ball deserves all of the blame! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubbiesFan07 Posted November 17, 2008 Report Share Posted November 17, 2008 This one goes to the defense. We cannot say that this game was similar to the Titans game, because the Packers started behind their own 20 numerous amounts of the time. The defense gave up SO many yards that should have been stopped, it made me sick. I have never seen WR's as open as I did this game, it made me sick. Was Orton's performance good? Not really. Was it his fault? Not entirely. There were many passes that were catchable, but the receivers couldn't hang on. Devin Hester is a good example. Brandon Lloyd, Marty Booker, etc, all had a terrible game, and it hurts to watch their gameplay continue to decrease. Hester is a waste of money entirely. Have not seen him make one play like he has in previous years even though he's had the opportunities to. Blame the defense, not the offense. It's hard to play with motivation when your defense gives up yards like it's a high school football game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted November 17, 2008 Report Share Posted November 17, 2008 He really shouldn't... The fumble is on him. But, it's hard to completely blast a guy who is not healthy. It looked obvious yesterday. I hope he gets healthy. We need him strong and healthy. I find it very interesting that this ENTIRE board is mum on Kyles performance yesterday. I find it admirable that he played, dont get me wrong, but his lack of mobilty restricted play action calls and roll outs. If he couldnt play at an highlevel and he knew they would have to restrict the playbook due to his injury, he should not have played. We can debate all we want about the coaches and defense, but he was simply bad yesterday. He locked on receivers, he missed open guys downfield, he threw into coverage, he had 3 ball batted down at the LOS. He produced the fewest points, yards and first downs of any Bears game this year. Although I do believe he is better than Rex and has proven it this year, he also proved that the team should have gone with a healthy Rex over an injured Kyle. I believe his decision to start was admirable, but selfish. I hope he heals enough so that next week we can implement the true playbook. If not, I would prefer to see Rex in the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Hochuli 3:16 Posted November 17, 2008 Report Share Posted November 17, 2008 This guy better be on our radar for QB: Would you shut up? We'll probably finish with 6-8 wins, and Stafford is a top 5 pick. 6-8 wins gets us the 10th or so pick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted November 17, 2008 Report Share Posted November 17, 2008 Detroit will get to him first. We've won 5 games already. This guy better be on our radar for QB: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted November 17, 2008 Report Share Posted November 17, 2008 Agreed. In my view Orton and the offense really never had a chance, they were in a hole from the start that just got deeper. No, he was not great, but surely he was our best option. Would you rather have had Grossman out there? Think he would have done any better? I would take a injured Orton over a healthy Grossman any day. A disproportianate amount of cap money is spent on the defense, yet the offense has been bailing them out all year! The defensive side of the ball deserves all of the blame! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted November 17, 2008 Report Share Posted November 17, 2008 The Hester experiment should be over. By trying to make him a WR, they've ruined him at PR/KR. Time to call it a bad idea...give him a rest at WR, and just put him as a return man. Maybe even give him a full week off to ponder the change. This one goes to the defense. We cannot say that this game was similar to the Titans game, because the Packers started behind their own 20 numerous amounts of the time. The defense gave up SO many yards that should have been stopped, it made me sick. I have never seen WR's as open as I did this game, it made me sick. Was Orton's performance good? Not really. Was it his fault? Not entirely. There were many passes that were catchable, but the receivers couldn't hang on. Devin Hester is a good example. Brandon Lloyd, Marty Booker, etc, all had a terrible game, and it hurts to watch their gameplay continue to decrease. Hester is a waste of money entirely. Have not seen him make one play like he has in previous years even though he's had the opportunities to. Blame the defense, not the offense. It's hard to play with motivation when your defense gives up yards like it's a high school football game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted November 17, 2008 Report Share Posted November 17, 2008 Brianbear, your off on this one. Yea, his posts get old, but he didn't respond w/ the expected Rex is great/Orton sucks post. He threw out the name of a QB who he said should be on our radar. Sorry, but there is absolutely nothing wrong w/ this post. Maybe the guy is a top 5 pick. Then again, Leinart was supposed to be a top 5 pick, and fell to 10. And I would say he isn't alone in top 5 picks falling on draft day. Point is, all he said was we should have this college QB on our radar. What's wrong w/ that? Would you shut up? We'll probably finish with 6-8 wins, and Stafford is a top 5 pick. 6-8 wins gets us the 10th or so pick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearSox Posted November 17, 2008 Report Share Posted November 17, 2008 We had an offense yesterday? It seemed to me that the whole game was the Bears D trying to stop the Packers O. The time of possession yesterday was disgustingly in favor of Green Bay by a wide margin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selection7 Posted November 17, 2008 Report Share Posted November 17, 2008 We've got a QB. I'll take another great one, but we have other needs these days...many. As the other post mentioned there is no reason to have a guy on our radar if the only way we could get him is to trade up, as if we were desperate, which we certainly are not anymore. We still need a backup if Rex doesn't want to come back, but we might be better off with a veteran in the #2 spot unless we ditch Hanie. On a side note, at one point in the post-game interview Orton said "I played almost, errr, just as bad as everyone else and blah, blah, blah..." I just thought that was funny. As bad as he played, most other players played worse, especially considering he had no proper practice reps in the preceding week and was still injured. In short, no one is getting a free ride today. But unlike Tommie and Vasher and Hester and Babich, etc., Orton didn't come into this game having to prove himself, so rightfully so, those other guys are getting more scrutiny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Hochuli 3:16 Posted November 17, 2008 Report Share Posted November 17, 2008 Brianbear, your off on this one. Yea, his posts get old, but he didn't respond w/ the expected Rex is great/Orton sucks post. He threw out the name of a QB who he said should be on our radar. Sorry, but there is absolutely nothing wrong w/ this post. Maybe the guy is a top 5 pick. Then again, Leinart was supposed to be a top 5 pick, and fell to 10. And I would say he isn't alone in top 5 picks falling on draft day. Point is, all he said was we should have this college QB on our radar. What's wrong w/ that? Well, that is all true. However, #1 there won't be 2 other star QB's in this draft like there was with Leinart (Cutler and Young). Bradford will probably stay as he's still raw, and that's about it for great QB's. Secondly, I'd rather take an LB, DE, S, DT, CB, hell even a WR before a QB, and you can't really argue that we have too many needs to go QB in the 1st. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connorbear Posted November 18, 2008 Report Share Posted November 18, 2008 Orton said he played like crap - that's all I need to hear. Besides, he wasn't the one getting run up and down the field. He wasn't the one who failed to adjust the defense to apply pressure on the QB. He wasn't the one calling a pass play from the 7 yd line with 50 seconds to go when they should have been running out the clock. He wasn't the one calling 1 run in the 3rd quarter. Etc, etc, etc...... Peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted November 18, 2008 Report Share Posted November 18, 2008 True...but he was the one fumbling the ball for a TD. He deserves grief too, but not nearly to the extent our offensive defense does. Orton said he played like crap - that's all I need to hear. Besides, he wasn't the one getting run up and down the field. He wasn't the one who failed to adjust the defense to apply pressure on the QB. He wasn't the one calling a pass play from the 7 yd line with 50 seconds to go when they should have been running out the clock. He wasn't the one calling 1 run in the 3rd quarter. Etc, etc, etc...... Peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connorbear Posted November 18, 2008 Report Share Posted November 18, 2008 True...but he was the one fumbling the ball for a TD. He deserves grief too, but not nearly to the extent our offensive defense does. The game was already over at that point and he shouldn't have even been in the game (27-3 with 8 minutes to go). Grossman or Hanie should have been taking snaps at that point. I blame the coaching staff for allowing him to still be out there. Peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted November 18, 2008 Report Share Posted November 18, 2008 I do hear you there... And that's yet another knock on Smith and staff as you mention. It's just all so sickening... The game was already over at that point and he shouldn't have even been in the game (27-3 with 8 minutes to go). Grossman or Hanie should have been taking snaps at that point. I blame the coaching staff for allowing him to still be out there. Peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted November 18, 2008 Report Share Posted November 18, 2008 First, original point was, his post was not so out there as to prompt the normal response. I'll grant you, 99% of his posts would prompt a shut the hell up response, but saying a college QB should be on our radar is not one of them. Second, correct me if I am wrong, but Leinart was the 2nd QB taken, w/ Cutler going after. Thus only one QB (like Bradford) needs to jump in to potentially mix things up. Third, while this does look like a weak QB class today, that depends on what happens w/ the underclassmen. If several underclassmen thrown their hats in, it could get interesting. I am not saying they would leapfrog Stafford, but if a team thinks some of the other QBs are very good, they could draft another position early and look at QB later. Among the underclassmen who I think could be seen as 1-2 round picks if they come out (Bradford, who could be top 10), Tebow_Florida, Harrell_TT, Sanchez_USC, McCoy_Texas). Fourth, while I am not saying QB should be our top pick, I am not dismissing it either. We saw a great start from Orton, but what if he bombs the rest of the way? Are you so sure what we have seen from him in the first half of the season is what we should expect long term? I think the impact Ryan has had in Atlanta could go a long way toward pushing franchises to really looking at that top pick QB. I agree we have many needs (though I still believe our coaching staff makes it look like our list of needs is greater than what it really is) but if QB is not set, then QB should still be among our top concerns. Well, that is all true. However, #1 there won't be 2 other star QB's in this draft like there was with Leinart (Cutler and Young). Bradford will probably stay as he's still raw, and that's about it for great QB's. Secondly, I'd rather take an LB, DE, S, DT, CB, hell even a WR before a QB, and you can't really argue that we have too many needs to go QB in the 1st. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaBearSox Posted November 18, 2008 Report Share Posted November 18, 2008 No one is going to chime in on the great play of the Oline??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunkBomber Posted November 18, 2008 Report Share Posted November 18, 2008 Nothing went right offensively. Olsen had some nice catches but that was about it. Orton had been improving before he got hurt so Im not going to panic yet, but I think we should definitely keep our eyes peeled for qbs in FA and the draft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canadianbear Posted November 18, 2008 Author Report Share Posted November 18, 2008 Nothing went right offensively. Olsen had some nice catches but that was about it. Orton had been improving before he got hurt so Im not going to panic yet, but I think we should definitely keep our eyes peeled for qbs in FA and the draft. This still does not explain why he was playing in the first place. If we had to limit the playbook due to his injury (and he clearly was not close to 100%) then I believe his decision to play was selfish. At least with Rex we had use of the roll out and play action pass. I realize we gave up 37 points and our defense and coaching stinks, but if Rex could have built on last weeks game against a great Defense and put up a few scores by half time the game could have been completely different. So why, I ask you, did Kyle choose to play, knowing the offense would be hampered by his injury? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted November 18, 2008 Report Share Posted November 18, 2008 Because he probably felt, even at not close to 100%, he's still better than Grossman. This still does not explain why he was playing in the first place. If we had to limit the playbook due to his injury (and he clearly was not close to 100%) then I believe his decision to play was selfish. At least with Rex we had use of the roll out and play action pass. I realize we gave up 37 points and our defense and coaching stinks, but if Rex could have built on last weeks game against a great Defense and put up a few scores by half time the game could have been completely different. So why, I ask you, did Kyle choose to play, knowing the offense would be hampered by his injury? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connorbear Posted November 19, 2008 Report Share Posted November 19, 2008 This still does not explain why he was playing in the first place. If we had to limit the playbook due to his injury (and he clearly was not close to 100%) then I believe his decision to play was selfish. At least with Rex we had use of the roll out and play action pass. I realize we gave up 37 points and our defense and coaching stinks, but if Rex could have built on last weeks game against a great Defense and put up a few scores by half time the game could have been completely different. So why, I ask you, did Kyle choose to play, knowing the offense would be hampered by his injury? I have no issues with him wanting to play. Further, he was cleared to play by the training staff. This is a non issue. Peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iguana Posted November 19, 2008 Report Share Posted November 19, 2008 I'm pretty confident that if Lovie didnt think he could play, he wouldnt have played him. Just because Orton wanted to play, doesnt mean 2 shits if Lovie doesnt think it's in the best interest of the team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.