Bears Got It Right With Orton, Is Tait's Age an Issue?
Now that we have a starter the internet is a safer place to be. Most journalists and critics agree the Bears made the correct call.
He is the right quarterback for this Bears team because they can't afford a passer who will lose the game. Orton might not win as many games as Grossman could, but he won't lose as many.
Orton has become a much different player than he was in college. Then, he was willing to take more chances. He played with more of a gunslinger mentality. Now it looks as if he has been neutered by his offense and the circumstances surrounding his team. He is doing what he has to do to survive. But as he gains experience and increased confidence, there is no reason he cannot become a bolder passer.
Is part of the Bears offensive line problems the fact that age is catching up with John Tait?
Tait, 33, arrived at training camp as "The Assumption," the player whose consistency was considered a given because of his experience, ability and commitment. That might be why Saturday night's setback at Seattle that Tait acknowledged, a showing punctuated when Darryl Tapp zipped by him to force a Rex Grossman interception, was so startling.
0 recs |
9 comments
Comments
Why would you want a Game Managing quarterback
with 0 offensive weapons around him?
by Jbasic89 on Aug 19, 2008 9:15 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
why do u want a "playmaking quarterback"
with 0 offensive weapons around him
by SamuraiMike50 on Aug 19, 2008 9:46 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Why is Tait's age a concern?
He didn’t play football during his Mormon sabbatical, or whatever you call it. So, even at 33, he has less playing years than the average 33 year old lineman.
I think he looks bad because the Bears moved him to another side again. And to that point I’d like to add: if Tait was playing a decent LT for us during the last 3 seasons (even though he’s supposed to be better at RT), then why move him over to RT, when all we have is St. Clair to play LT? Move Tait back to LT, and let St. Clair and Barton battle it out for RT.
Opposing pass rushers must be looking at schedule and licking their chops, knowing they get to go against St. Clair.
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 10:04 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Orton
Gee, does this mean we’ll get off the bus running? Sure hope so. Forte was the only thing I’ve seen out of this offense that makes sense with a line that can’t move and receiver’s looking for their pension checks. Just cut off the microphone from OC Turner and RUN, BABY, RUN!
by vetset on Aug 19, 2008 11:12 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Because a “playmaker” makes plays, no matter who they have around them.
I think the decision’s wrong only because of the overwhelming mindset that Orton “won” the job simply because he won’t lose games for us. He won’t win games for us either, unless he starts throwing down the field . . . and all of those other issues (o-line problems, inexperienced, short receiving corps, etc.) improve or prove the many opinions out in cyber and sports “journalism” world wrong.
I’d like to see Orton throw more than 10 yards down the field when A) it isn’t the two-minute drill, and/or B) we’re not trailing in a game and NEED the quick score. For this to happen, Turner needs to really be on his game in calling plays ALL year. Turner needs to show he knows how to coordinate this offense this year.
I do think that Orton has a much stronger arm than most say. In Minnesota last year I was impressed with his arm. That said, I still think our coaches are bad evaluators of the offense. With the current regime of decision makers, it started for me drafting Benson and a player like Mark Bradley, who we drafted on that dread p-word (potential).
And then getting rid of Thomas Jones was the biggest f-up for me in the last 20-years of decisions. Why? I can kind of forgive bad draft picks because drafting can be tricky. But, when you sign a free agent and they revive their career and are the best back you’ve had since Walter Payton (in my opinion, better than Neal Anderson, sorry) then you royally mess up. You just don’t trade your best offensive player because you drafted someone else high. Once the games start, draft position should not be a deciding factor.
Everyone talks about how many quarterbacks we’ve gone through in the last 17 years, which too often shows off how many running backs we let come and go every two years. If we had as much continuity of players on the offense as we do on defense then maybe our offense could improve yearly. Instead, on offense we’re always willing to clean house with the slightest problem. A-Train may not have been great, but he’s still playing. T.J. could easily gain 1500 and catch for 500yd plus with Favre at QB.
On defense, we blew it last year, and we resigned everyone to long contracts and Archuleta was the only one let go. The staff blamed it on injuries and the offense, and escaped all culpability. Instead, Briggs gets lots of money and seems to have stepped back into Urlacher’s huge shadow.
I’d rather have seen Berrian get the money and let Jamar Williams step up IF they are going to do business the same for both the defense and offense. Why, again? Because Briggs seems to have dropped off. I hope that he has a great year, though. Or, since “rewarding our own” doesn’t seem to work for the offensive side, how about going out and finding some big free agents in their prime (not when they are old (Moose) and cut by their team for salary cap reasons).
I hope we do much better than what so many fans here think we will. I believe we can, but it takes a lot of clicking and lots of things to go right.
by ethan a on Aug 19, 2008 11:21 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I hope we do too
At best 10-6. It’s achievable. But we’d have to sweep the Lions and pull off a couple other upsets and win some close games. I think we all will be pleasantly surprised by Orton’s progress.
Bold Prediction: Orton will be the starter in week 1.
by GallopingGhost on Aug 19, 2008 2:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
ah
what a ringing endorsement for kyle orton. he must be walking on cloud 9 today having won the starting job because he can’t make big plays which could lead to big mistakes (even though it’s been stated over and over that he has just as high a turnover per game ratio as rex with far less big play ability, but yeah, he is the token “safe” choice for this years bears team. he won’t be starting by week 5.)
by lopey986 on Aug 19, 2008 11:51 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
QBs
So now we have a QB who won’t take chances and will “manage the game”. Okay, so be it. But wouldn’t Chris Simms be a flat out upgrade over Orton?
by tacologic on Aug 19, 2008 11:51 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Not at this point
Let’s say we trade for him today, no way would he play Thursday, then he gets into the playbook and starts learning and taking reps, there is still no way he could unseat Grossman or Orton until well into the regular season and even then he may not have the time to get down timing and everything else with receivers.
Bold Prediction: Orton will be the starter in week 1.
by GallopingGhost on Aug 19, 2008 2:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 


















