Kyle Orton Named Starter
by Adam T on Aug 18, 2008 3:47 PM CDT
64 comments
Not that this is all the shocking of an announcment, but the Bears have given us the first person who will try to lead this team to victory behind a Swiss Cheese of an offensive line.
The Bears have named Kyle Orton as the starting quarter back (video).
The decision was based on Orton’s body of work dating back to his performance late last year. Seeing his first regular-season action in two years, he completed 43 of 80 passes for 478 yards with 3 touchdowns, 2 interceptions and a 73.9 passer rating as the Bears lost to the Vikings before closing 2007 with back-to-back wins over the Packers and Saints.
Prior to facing the Vikings Dec. 17 in Minnesota, Orton hadn’t stepped on the field since compiling a 10-5 record as a surprise starter during his rookie season in 2005.
This however does not do much to inspire:
Starting against the Chiefs and coming in off the bench versus the Seahawks, Orton won the competition without directing the offense to a touchdown or completing a pass of more than 17 yards. His five preseason possessions resulted in two field goals and three punts.
0 recs |
64 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Good!
It’s about time. I hope he can make due, and I’ll be pulling for him the whole way. That OL better shape the f up.
Besides the obvious - Go Irish.
Z. He doesn't need an exclamation point. He is one.
by PopeFlick on Aug 18, 2008 3:58 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Does it really matter who starts?
They’re both going to play anyway.
I'm not going to even bother trying to update this sig everyday anymore... that's what the standings column on ESPN is for.
Updated on May 25, 2008
by SackMan on Aug 18, 2008 3:59 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
You gotta see what you have in Orton, right?
As many of you stated on this board last year and the year before…
… Don’t you have to see what you have in Orton before we all “champion” for another QB in the 2009 draft? Either way, Grossman is gone after this season, right?
Besides… If we can win with Rex Grossman throwing INTs and fumbling snaps in 2006 and 2007, can’t we win with a gameplan that doesn’t turn the ball over much and relies on field position and defense?
(I know that’s not going to go over smoothly, but…)
by ChicagoMarine on Aug 18, 2008 4:21 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
good thought... BUT...
If we can win with Rex Grossman throwing INTs and fumbling snaps in 2006 and 2007, can’t we win with a gameplan that doesn’t turn the ball over much and relies on field position and defense?
Orton has had more turnovers per game than Grossman has.
And at least Grossman is capable of moving the ball down field.
visit the mindful mission
by big_lowitzki on Aug 18, 2008 4:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Way to cherry pick...
…if you want to hold Orton to 100% responsibility the year he was given no training camp and thrown to the wolves for his first start, you can semantically say you are correct. A week or two after that began he threw 5 INTs vs Cinci.
But there is no practical way that you can, with a straight face, say that Orton is more turnover prone than Rex, he of the 3 INTs in 5 pass attempts against the Vikings at home his SB year.
In his last 20 games Grossman has thrown 24 picks and fumbled 12 times. Kyle Orton has gotten better since his 5 INT game, and possess no stats along those lines currently. Rex Grossman has regressed the more he plays.
Besides the obvious - Go Irish.
Z. He doesn't need an exclamation point. He is one.
by PopeFlick on Aug 18, 2008 4:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
hmm...
he of the 3 INTs in 5 pass attempts against the Vikings at home his SB year.
Hmm… and I am cherry picking?
Lets take a look.
Last year, Orton had 2 int in 80 attempts (40 attempts/int), while Rex had 7 int in 225 attempts (32 attempts/int). Not a huge difference. Orton was better, but not by a ton.
Orton had 2 fumbles last year, Grossman had 6. Grossman has the advantage there.
In their careers… Orton has 14 fumbles and 15 ints in just 18 games. That is 1.6 turnovers/game. Even removing those 5 ints, he still has 1.33 turnovers/game.
Rex has 18 fumbles and 33 ints in 32 games. That is 1.34 turnovers/game.
I don’t see how Orton protects the ball better.
So if Orton and Grossman protect the ball relatively equally, I want the guy who can actually move the ball and make things happen.
visit the mindful mission
by big_lowitzki on Aug 18, 2008 6:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The proof is in your own numbers.
Orton’s had nearly half the starts and beats Rex in all of the categories you looked at.
A chunk of Orton’s start represent his rookie training camp as well.
I could mention the Cardinals game from a few weeks before the Minny train wreck as well, and it could be seen as a pattern.
I’m not saying the kid is Johnny U, but Rex can’t lock it down, we need to see what ol’ neckbeard is really all about – and he has my support.
Besides the obvious - Go Irish.
Z. He doesn't need an exclamation point. He is one.
by PopeFlick on Aug 18, 2008 7:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
huh?
Orton’s had nearly half the starts and beats Rex in all of the categories you looked at.
How does Orton beat Grossman in every stat?
I showed that Orton has had more turnovers per game than Grossman has. You want to throw out Orton’s worst game, saying it doesn’t count. Even if we throw that out, their turnover/game numbers are essentially identical. And I didn’t throw out Grossman’s worst game.
My prediction – Orton loses the starting job by mid-season.
visit the mindful mission
by big_lowitzki on Aug 18, 2008 9:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
These people love to throw out stats. Don't even try. You can't argue. If Rex played with a broken wrist, that game would count too.
Kick it to me... I'm open!
by #23 on Aug 18, 2008 10:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Grossman might give you the longball/big play potential....
And that’s a good argument for having him in there. But, you guys are also omitting one MAJOR statistic that will greatly impact this season, with our horrible O-line: sacks and yards lost.
In 900 career pass attempts, Grossman’s been sacked once every 16 attempts (56 times), with an avg 7.36 yards lost per sack (412 yards).
In 448 career pass attempts, Orton’s been sacked once every 14 attempts (32 times), with an avg 6.31 yards lost per sack (202 yards).
Now… let’s compare the two from 2007, behind a shaky O-line, like we’ll have this year. Orton was only sacked twice in 80 pass attempts (12 yards lost). I know that’s a small sample size, but it shows improvement from his rookie year when he was thrown into the fire. So far in the pre-season he’s been sacked just once in 19 attempts for a loss of 9 yards.
Behind the same shaky O-line in 2007, Grossman’s numbers inflated big time, getting sacked 25 times in 225 attempts (once sack every 9 attempts), with an average of 7.92 yards lost per sack (198 yards).
Our O-line is going to be horrible once again this year, but the taller Orton seems to be able to see the pressure before the snap better and get the ball out of his hands more quickly. Grossman, on the other hand, typically drops back even further under pressure and takes bigger losses per sack.
Field position is crucial for this year’s Bears team… the game plan should be much like 2005, when Orton started as a rookie, except that we have an x factor now that didn’t exist then: Hester. Let your defense and special teams create the opportunities and give you a short field… and hope your offense doesn’t move backwards.
If Orton can minimize yards lost vs Grossman… then he’s the man to go with for 2008.
I'm not going to even bother trying to update this sig everyday anymore... that's what the standings column on ESPN is for.
Updated on May 25, 2008
by SackMan on Aug 18, 2008 7:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
faulty
I don’t think that you can make the comparison that simply.
If you really wanted to compare sack and yards lost numbers, you would also have to look at play calling and the teams that the Bears were playing.
I would guess that Grossman would have more 5-step drops as he tends to throw the ball down field more, which would mean that he is deeper in the backfield more often than Orton would be.
visit the mindful mission
by big_lowitzki on Aug 18, 2008 9:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
can hardly blame it all on grossman/orton
did you see the play when grossman actually had to get an intentional grounding call because the d-line was in his face so fast he couldn’t even do anything…not to mention he was playing from shotgun. any qb in there this year that can’t run (orton/grossman/hanie) is gonna be a sittin duck.
by lopey986 on Aug 19, 2008 12:24 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes... it would take more detail
But, that’s an extreme amount of work to go through. For now, the easiest way to measure this category is to look at it like this. An besides… the defensive competition probably evens out over the sample sizes, as does the situational play calling (down and distance). The basic game plan is likely to differ somewhat because of Sexy Rexy’s infatuation with the deep ball.
Combining those stats with our own observations of the way each QB plays, and you have to admit that Grossman is a greater risk at losing big yardage on sacks vs Orton.
Now… as I said before: our goal is to NOT move backwards. We know we’re going to struggle to put points on the board regardless of which QB is on the field. But, we need to slowly win the field position battle in order to keep games close and at least have an opportunity ti win in the 4th qtr.
That means boring low risk offense… running the football and completing high percentage short passes to the RBs and TEs in order to keep the clock moving. Field position and time of possession are the only way we can win with this pathetic offense. If the line begins to improve over the course of the season, then we’ll be able to open it up a bit.
I'm not going to even bother trying to update this sig everyday anymore... that's what the standings column on ESPN is for.
Updated on May 25, 2008
by SackMan on Aug 19, 2008 12:58 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sackman: Do yourself
a favor and take a look at the amount of penalties in ‘05 vs. ’06 and ’07. It will open your eyes on how poor Grossman’s leadership really is. We had so many false starts in ‘06 and ’07, and holding calls. I truly believe he has a cadence problem and everyone else knows when we’re going to hike the ball. This hurts all aspects of an offense. All timing plays. All running plays. Fumbled snaps. Everything.
by mikebdot on Aug 20, 2008 1:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
By that logic
couldn’t you also say the same thing about Orton’s selection of plays he had to choose from his rookie year?
by mikebdot on Aug 20, 2008 1:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Please
site your sources. Where are you getting that Orton had 14 fumbles for turnovers? According to nfl.com Orton has 14 fumbles, 5 of which were lost and 15 INTs, so 20 turnovers in 18 games. Or 1.11 TO/game.
http://www.nfl.com/players/kyleorton/careerstats?id=ORT716150
Says Grossman has 19 fumbles with 10 fumbles lost. So, 10 fumbles + 33 INTs. 43 TO’s in 32 starts. 1.34 TO/game, which is the same as what you have.
http://www.nfl.com/players/careerstats?id=GRO597298
Now, if you count the non-lost fumbles it’s 1.6 vs. 1.6.
Orton didn’t lose either fumble last season, per nfl.com. I actually didn’t watch either game, so I have no way of knowing whether or not those are good numbers.
by mikebdot on Aug 20, 2008 1:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
fair enough
I think that fumbles are a better stat than fumbles lost.
Fumbles lost are a matter of luck. Fumbles, for the most part, are not.
visit the mindful mission
by big_lowitzki on Aug 21, 2008 8:34 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Um Where is this Orton more turnovers/start stat?
I hadn’t heard that.
I think Orton has a better chance to flourish, as ChicagoMarine points out, lets wait until we get into the regular season and see what he does before we write him, the line, the season off.
Bold Prediction: Orton will be the starter in week 1.
by GallopingGhost on Aug 18, 2008 6:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
umm...
Where is this Orton more turnovers/start stat?
Look at their stats on any site. I already gave the numbers above.
visit the mindful mission
by big_lowitzki on Aug 18, 2008 9:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
ugh
Rex hasn’t looked very good in pre-season.
But I think Orton has looked worse. Orton cannot move this offense.
visit the mindful mission
by big_lowitzki on Aug 18, 2008 4:22 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
probably
the first time in history, a qb has won a job without throwing a touchdown.
im not sure if people will be wishing kyle congratulations or condolences.
by rahulsriram on Aug 18, 2008 4:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
He better get on the horn with his insurance provider
He’s gotta get his coverage bumped up.
I'M A MAN! I'M 22!
by ChiFan13 on Aug 18, 2008 4:29 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Orton is the only pick that makes since here.
Grossman will turn the ball over if he is getting all that pressure and as much as some like Haney, he was a undrafted FA rookie. He needs time to learn about the system and NFL before being thrown to the wolves. I wouldn’t want anyone to start his first career game on this current offensive roster.
Orton is the QB because he knows the system, can avoid the rush better, and “should” protect the ball pretty well. He is not the starter because he can move the ball down the field or help the offense score.
Kick it to me... I'm open!
by #23 on Aug 18, 2008 5:29 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
A resounding vote of confidence
He is not the starter because he can move the ball down the field or help the offense score.
Scariest sentence ever in the endorsement of a starting QB…
"I'm very important. I have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany." - Ron Burgundy
by mdmnd9294 on Aug 18, 2008 5:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
2008 Drive Summary
run for 2 yards, run for 1 yard, pass complete for 4 yards. Punt.
Rinse and repeat.
Visit The Cub Reporter (thecubreporter.com)
by thecubreporter on Aug 18, 2008 6:15 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm actually alright with Orton starting
I think Kyle Orton is a better quarterback then what people think. While I am a supporter of Rex Grossman and think he has gotten a little bit of a raw deal, I still understand the decision and feel the Grossman situation is what it is. He got himself into this situation by not being hungry enough to succeed and he got upstaged by a quarterback that was hungrier. There is also a little bit of PR in this as the majority of Chicago fans hate Rex Grossman.
by californiabearfan on Aug 18, 2008 6:16 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
not hungry to succeed?
he spent the whole of july training in tampa while others were partying and vacationing.
not sure how you came up with that, but from everything ive heard since he came into the league, is that hes a hard worker and stays in meetings afterward to watch tape. and everyone on the staff always comments on his work ethic…
the irony of this all is that while lovie says this was an open comp, he goes on to say on the team web site that this came down to his gut. lovies got a vision of this team and it looks alot like 05…w/hester.
by rahulsriram on Aug 18, 2008 6:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The best hope we have is
for a repeat of 2005. Thats the best we have at this point. We just need the schedule to be easier than first thought and then the defense to dominate and Forte to play better than expected.
Bold Prediction: Orton will be the starter in week 1.
by GallopingGhost on Aug 18, 2008 6:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
For some reason
I believe that a lot of the players rally behind Orton. It seemed that way in 2005, however the team would have rallied behind anyone not named Hutchinson. But I just sometimes get the feeling that he must be somewhat of a better leader than Grossman but then I never thought the coaching staff felt the same way.
Bold Prediction: Orton will be the starter in week 1.
by GallopingGhost on Aug 18, 2008 7:02 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
But... but...
Lovie “really liked Chad Hutchinson.” And then he cut him two weeks later.
I'm not going to even bother trying to update this sig everyday anymore... that's what the standings column on ESPN is for.
Updated on May 25, 2008
by SackMan on Aug 18, 2008 7:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I feel like the line blocked tremendously better for Orton in Preseason.
Could this be a conspiracy to get rid of Grossman?
Kick it to me... I'm open!
by #23 on Aug 18, 2008 10:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thats what I thought too!!
Bold Prediction: Orton will be the starter in week 1.
by GallopingGhost on Aug 18, 2008 11:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Really? I thought I was going crazy.
It may have just been by chance, but Orton, even though better at getting out of the pocket when pressured, didn’t seem to have to move around hardly ever and had plenty of time to find a receiver, while Grossman was dodging players left and right. I was glad he didn’t fumble. I saw that a lot last year where it seemed like he tried to protect the ball when getting hit. In 2006 every hit was a fumble.
Kick it to me... I'm open!
by #23 on Aug 19, 2008 12:37 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
i dunno about that
i think opposing teams know rex has less pocket poise than orton, and they know our line is abysmal, so they make a point to blitz rex like crazy. i don’t recall orton ever facing remotely close to the same pass rush rex did. again, he definitely can avoid the rush better than rex, no doubt, but he also did not face the same kind of pass rush. not even close.
by guy incognito on Aug 19, 2008 12:43 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was going to say the same thing
The book on Grossman is sitting on every defensive coordinators desk. Pressure him up the middle, and he’ll crack. So, Seattle came out and blitzed him like crazy the other night… similar to last year’s season opener in San Diego.
But (and I can’t really comment on this because I missed most of the game), it appears Orton commands a little more respect from opposing defensive coordinators, and faces less pressure.
It also has something to do with their style of play. Grossman likes to hold onto the ball longer and drop back further to go downfield. So, defenses want to bring more pressure against him and force errors. Orton likes to get rid of the ball more quickly (compared to Grossman), which makes a blitz more risky for the defense.
I'm not going to even bother trying to update this sig everyday anymore... that's what the standings column on ESPN is for.
Updated on May 25, 2008
by SackMan on Aug 19, 2008 1:09 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
not to mention
defenses really have no reason to blitz a qb like orton, it’s simpler to just sit back in a zone and force him to dump it off in the backfield. you sit back in a zone against grossman and give him time he is going to rifle the ball into a hole and pick you apart just like he did the first half of our superbowl run.
by lopey986 on Aug 19, 2008 1:12 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm fine with that
We’ll have a boring offense… but boring is better than too much excitement (aka INTs and horrible sacks).
I'm not going to even bother trying to update this sig everyday anymore... that's what the standings column on ESPN is for.
Updated on May 25, 2008
by SackMan on Aug 19, 2008 1:14 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
not really much difference
sure, there is potential that an interception could go for a td or a sack could turn into a fumble. at the same time, defenses dropping into a short zone and forcing orton to dump it for 2 yards per play is just going to cause us to punt over and over. sure, our defense is good and they’ll stand strong for the first half or 3 quarters, but they will wear down and give up big plays late in the game that will end up putting us out of it.
by lopey986 on Aug 19, 2008 1:16 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here's the wrench...
Forte is a very capable receiver, and we have great TEs.
If Orton can complete those high % short passes to the RB and TEs… we’ll be able to at least chew up some clock, even on our 3 and outs, and preserve our defense.
It’ll look like 2005 again.
I'm not going to even bother trying to update this sig everyday anymore... that's what the standings column on ESPN is for.
Updated on May 25, 2008
by SackMan on Aug 19, 2008 9:58 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Except, the line is horrible.
The good part of 2005 was that we had a run game. It could have been much better if the box wasn’t stacked, but given the situation, TJ did something.
Now we can pass a little better, but we can’t open any rushing lanes or protect our QB. Hopefully we will see lots of screens to help counter the blitz, but I don’t believe Turner will see this till next season. He’s always a year behind what Bears fans see as obvious.
Kick it to me... I'm open!
by #23 on Aug 19, 2008 1:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You are probably right. I hadn't thought of that.
I was thinking last night, what would happen if Rex filled in for Tom Brady while hurt for 2 or 3 games on the Pats. With that line and those weapons, I bet he would look like a stud.
I hated watching the offense of 2005. While I definitely think Orton is better, I hope scoring 20 points isn’t an amazing offensive performance for us.
Kick it to me... I'm open!
by #23 on Aug 19, 2008 9:55 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It doesn't matter...
Who’s our QB if the OL still sucks.
...^x^...
by Dracula on Aug 18, 2008 7:46 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
we keep coming back to that
aren’t we.
Being Who You Thought We Were Since 2005!
by Adam T on Aug 18, 2008 7:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
and going away from that
aren’t we.
...^x^...
by Dracula on Aug 18, 2008 7:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I just think...
…that both Grossman and Orton aren’t as bad as everyone is making them out to be, no time to throw the ball, dropped passes, backs and TE’s that can’t block, WR’s running bad/wrong routes. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think either one is a Pro Bowl QB, but all those things have to be factored in. Could either of them do better with another team? I don’t know, but I do know that many QB’s from other teams would do just as bad here.
...^x^...
by Dracula on Aug 18, 2008 7:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Funny you should mention
Because I made an argument last year that if you put Grossman on the Cowboys, he pretty much accomplishes the same number of victories that Romo has won over there. And would also probably lose the two playoff games Romo lost.
I'm not going to even bother trying to update this sig everyday anymore... that's what the standings column on ESPN is for.
Updated on May 25, 2008
by SackMan on Aug 18, 2008 7:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't say that to the Rex haters. I agree.
I hope Rex get cuts and makes it onto a team with a line a at least on WR who plays hard every down.
Kick it to me... I'm open!
by #23 on Aug 18, 2008 11:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
with a decent line
rex is a pretty good nfl qb. people slam him for his inability to avoid the rush, which he definitely could be much better at, but compare rex to other nfl qbs. how many of them faced pass rushes as strong as rex last year? any? i doubt it. orton may be the better qb, but some of the criticism of grossman ignores this fact…last year, he probably had less time to throw the ball behind our god-awful line than any other nfl qb. look what constant pressure did to one of the greatest qbs in history in the superbowl.
by guy incognito on Aug 19, 2008 12:48 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
good point
i was wondering if we would be discussing this if earl bennett doesnt drop that ball on 3rd down. i agree neither qb has proven to have all the intangibles to be a star, but neither has really gotten a good team to work with. eventually a team has to take ownership for the offensive woes and it starts with management and the coaching staff.
i mean what happens if the d hits the injury bug again… then what. kyles arm isnt going to scare defenses from stacking the box. hester cant do everything, forte is a rookie and there will be growing pains. it makes you wonder how serious this team is about winning games.
by rahulsriram on Aug 18, 2008 8:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Attn.
When referring to the suckocity of the OL,please do not include Olin.
Mahalo
Pass the jezynowka.
by oahu420 on Aug 19, 2008 2:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
well...
Olin didn’t exactly play like a pro-bowler last year.
visit the mindful mission
by big_lowitzki on Aug 20, 2008 8:27 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
what a waste of time
this qb competition was.
by mike b on Aug 18, 2008 8:37 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
rex got a raw deal
no other way to cut it – he faced an all-out blitz and had no time at all vs. seattle, while orton faced a much less intense rush against 2nd stringers. that being said, i think orton could be the better qb. he definitely has better pocket presence, that’s for sure. if we had an average OL, grossman is the better QB by a bit. with our line, orton will last longer. someone explain to me why we didn’t at least go after a decent guard during the offseason??? i get the tackle thing, but there’s no way you should bring back the rest of the o-line after last year’s nightmare.
by guy incognito on Aug 18, 2008 10:32 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
orton named the tallest midget....
it’s sad when the best offensive player on your team is the center
If I was a caterpillar and you were a caterpillar I would metamorphosize into a butterfly so that you could see the vast potential of your great beauty. And then you would change, and we would have changed. And it would be beautiful. Change is beautiful.
by furby2056 on Aug 18, 2008 10:41 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
sitting ducks
that is what the qbs who can’t run (orton/grossman/hanie) are going to be this year. i was just going to suggest we go out and sign dennis dixon, but i just found out the steelers drafted him in the 5th round.
we need to go out and get a qb who can run, because they are gonna have to do a lot of it. anyone know of any qbs out there with some serious wheels, i’ll take some errant passing if the guy can at least run, because our qbs are going to be laying on their asses all year long.
by lopey986 on Aug 19, 2008 12:32 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Hey if we are going to get off the bus running, who needs WR's.
Let’s just have big blockers out there with WR numbers and then have a QB who can run with 3 RB’s and run options and reverses and QB sneaks. Everyone knows we’re running anyways, so let’s get more RB’s on the field. WCG mentioned Kevin Jones as a possible QB.
Kick it to me... I'm open!
by #23 on Aug 19, 2008 12:40 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
might as well
take it to extremes. bring back the wishbone offense or some shit. i like a formation of olsen at tight end on the left. clark at tight end on the right. 5 linemen in between them. a scrambling quarterback. hester all the way back. jones and forte in between hester and the qb but split about 5 yards. something similar to what a kneel formation looks like, only we run the ball out of that formation.
by lopey986 on Aug 19, 2008 12:51 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Or... just long snap to Hester
And let him run around a defense:)
I'm not going to even bother trying to update this sig everyday anymore... that's what the standings column on ESPN is for.
Updated on May 25, 2008
by SackMan on Aug 19, 2008 1:11 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let's teach Hester to pass and bring Daniel Manning over to play WR.
Then Hester can scramble and we’ll move another player out of position to try to get some offense going. Hester can’t pass as bad as Vick. Maybe we already have Vick on our team.
Kick it to me... I'm open!
by #23 on Aug 19, 2008 9:58 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm serious....
Line him up DEEP in the backfield… if nothing more than to confuse the heck out of the defense and freeze them.
I'm not going to even bother trying to update this sig everyday anymore... that's what the standings column on ESPN is for.
Updated on May 25, 2008
by SackMan on Aug 19, 2008 10:24 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
LOL, I know your serious.
Kick it to me... I'm open!
by #23 on Aug 19, 2008 1:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
We should have
converted him to a punter instead…
by mikebdot on Aug 20, 2008 1:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
