Kyle Orton's Game Management Not Enough

I wrote an article about Orton's inability to show his "improved" play last weekend and got burned for it by a few readers here on BR. They defended lackluster play by one of the most important positions on the field with the "hey, we won" speech.

So, I'd like to know...What are you going to defend him with now?

Last weekend, Kyle Orton was on top of the world. He was the hero in Chicago, the QB we'd been waiting for, the consistent weapon in the backfield (although he really wasn't). This weekend, not two hours after the Bears dropped a 14-point lead in a 20-17 loss to the Carolina Panthers, the headlines read: "Orton doesn't have the magic", "Where did it go wrong?", "Orton: I want my three hours back."

Judging by the previous reactions, you'd think Orton was stellar in Week One and then laid an egg in Week Two, right? Actually, that's the funny part. Take a look at Orton's Week One and Two stats comparisons.

Week One

13 of 21 for 150 yards, 0 TDs, 0 INT, 1 FUM - 83.4 rating

Week Two

19 of 32 for 149 yards, 0 TDs, 0 INT, 0 FUM - 71 rating

The stats are almost exactly the same. The one difference? This week, the Bears lost. This week, a running game that Carolina was bent on stopping wasn't enough to carry Orton's inept passing game, though Forte still did well, rushing for 92 yards.

This week, the defense, who played excellent, ran out of miracles, giving the offense the chance to break away.

Now, some of you may point to Greg Olsen's two fumbles and say that cost us the game. It didn't help Chicago's case, of course, but the fact remains that even after those two turnovers, the Bears still had the lead, and Carolina was gaining on the Bears even before Olsen's fumbles.

Also take into account that Orton, who need I remind you again swore up and down that he's a "new man" now, had two series to respond once the Bears defense gave up the lead, and a total of five series after the Bears had racked up 17 points to improve upon it.

He got defensive breaks, good field position, good protection, and a solid running game to keep the defense honest all the while. And just like last week, what did Orton do with it? Well, in the two series after the Bears fell behind, Orton went one of five with an intentional grounding penalty and two near INTs.

Now, Orton wasn't all bad—he executed well on plays of one to five yards, but failed to show Chicago that he had improved in his "big play" ability, missing on all of his passes over 20 yards—one in particular that could've gone for a TD to a wide open Marty Booker—that a certain QB sitting on the bench now would've almost certainly completed.

For some reason, the fans want to believe that the Bears' offense is better with Kyle Orton than it was with Rex Grossman. Less likely to throw an INT? Yes, at times as Kyle Orton has shown by not throwing an INT yet this season (though he should, thank God that he's encountered some butterfinger corners on defense or he would have four by now).

But better? Certainly not, as Kyle Orton has also proven by being one of only two QBs in the NFL to go into Week Two without a TD pass.

The funny thing is, the media is already starting to turn on Orton, and it's almost certain that if he performs similarly again next week in the Bears' home opener, the fans will as well. It's humorous to hear Bears fans talk about their QB situation from time to time.

When Rex Grossman was QB, they would say: "If only Rex would just manage the game and not turn the ball over, we'd be fine..."

Well, now they have "the game manager" who isn't turning the ball over...And suddenly they're complaining and asking for the big plays!

See, while Rex Grossman may have turned the ball over from time to time, he gave you the chance, the shot, the possibility to hit that one huge play downfield to win the game. He had that ability to get hot and absolutely destroy a defense.

I think we can all concur that when Kyle Orton ran out onto the field with two-and-a-half minutes left to play and the Bears down by three, that no one had that feeling.

And while I'm not one to say, "I told you so," some of the fans have been so blatantly ignorant in their support of Orton, that this time I don't mind. I told you when the game was on the line, Orton's game-management skills wouldn't be enough.

You wanted consistency, and now you have it. You will consistently see this team lose if the Bears fall behind and have to rely on Kyle Orton to stage a comeback.

I have nothing personal against Kyle Orton, except for the fact that he spat in this franchise's face when he first came here: not committing to the role, registering a DUI, and gracing the Internet with a wave of drunken photos—but if you're sitting there hoping Kyle Orton will suddenly pull a page from the playbook of Rex Grossman and hit a defense deep downfield, you're dreaming.

The one big play Orton had, on a sideline pass to Lloyd, was ALL receiver. Orton's badly underthrown pass was compensated for by a heads-up play by Lloyd, who came back at the last minute and grabbed the ball out of the air.

Orton's antics and stage show at the line of scrimmage was sniffed out by the defense in about five minutes, who picked up on the fact that all Orton was going to do was throw screens and slants and nearly picked him off twice in the process.

So I'd love to hear it this week. I'd love to hear how well Orton did and how solid he was. The feel-good sensation is gone, and we're 1-1, looking a lot like the inept offense of 2005.

Keep in mind, our offense did not once execute a long scoring drive. The one TD drive we had came off a defensive turnover that put the Bears in business at the Panthers' 25-yard line. No INTs and no mistakes is great, but what we needed most today, at the end of the day, was a playmaker behind center, and Orton failed to show us that he was that guy.

And apparently now, I've read that Chicago's "savior," Kyle Orton, practically single-handedly gave the game away on a 3rd-and-1 call that Ron Turner initially made the decision on.

He called a running play to Forte. However, this play had been designed so that if Orton thought he could do something with it, he could change the call at the line. And he did.

Forte had just run for a nine-yard gain not more than a minute ago, and Orton, the "game manager", the "mistake-free" QB, elected to put the ball in the air on a side pass to Booker that he'd run four times before—four time too many—and it was sniffed out and nearly picked off by the Panthers' corner Gamble.

Ladies and gentlemen, we can thank Kyle Orton for that blown third-down play.

The QB who sat there and told us, "I just do what I'm told. I throw the ball where it's designed to be thrown and hand it off or whatever they tell me to. People may not like it but if that's what I'm told to do I do it."

Kyle, I can speak for everyone when I say that your cheap imitation of Peyton Manning's antics at the line before the play fooled no one, and we would've liked it just fine to see a hand off to a solid back when we needed ONE yard rather than your nearly intercepted, poorly selected, drive-killing pass to Booker.

But this is who you guys wanted out on the field. The quarterback whose decision later prompted Turner to tell the media, "I probably shouldn't have given him that option."

Turner has only turned on his quarterback to the media once, and that was when Griese took credit for 97-yard TD drive to win the game in Philly last season. This time, it was Turner letting the media know that that play was all Kyle Orton on that one.

That says a lot, believe it or not. With all the bad game Grossman has had, you'll never find one quote by Turner that calls Rex out on a bad decision. So that says A LOT.

I give it a few more weeks until we start hearing the cheers for Grossman or Hanie.