Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

28 Sep 2005

Breakdown of Kyle Orton's 5 INTs

We don't normally link to team fan message board posts here at Extra Points, but then again you don't normally find good breakdown like this on team fan message boards. I was going through the referral logs this morning and found this Chicago Bears board had linked to Mike's Every Play Counts about Brian Urlacher. Near the top of their board today is this analysis of Kyle Orton's five interceptions against Cincinnati. The verdict seems to be one bad decision, one bad mechanics, one caused by Justin Gage, and two that were a mix of bad offense and good defense.

Posted by: Aaron Schatz on 28 Sep 2005

10 comments, Last at 29 Sep 2005, 1:55pm by Justin Gage

Comments

1
by beedubyuh (not verified) :: Wed, 09/28/2005 - 3:15pm

I feel a little better after reading that and watching the film clip. I was only able to catch glances of the game and was wondering just how bad it got.

Of course this also brings up the old question: Will it be possible for FO to supplement it's analysis with video? Maybe this gets easier now that FO is aligned with a media big timer like Fox?

We can only hope.

2
by JG (not verified) :: Wed, 09/28/2005 - 3:34pm

I was impressed by the analysis. As a Bears fan living in NE Wisconsin and getting Green Bay TV stations, I don't actually get to see a lot of Bears games, this one included. Getting a little detailed view gave me a little more hope for the season.

3
by Carl (not verified) :: Wed, 09/28/2005 - 6:18pm

"If the free safety isn't there to make the INT, the ball is pretty much there for Moose to make a play on."

Yes. If Kyle Orton played on a field with no defenders, his TOs certainly would decline.

But they won't decline as quickly as the Bears' playoff hopes.

4
by CaffeineMan (not verified) :: Wed, 09/28/2005 - 11:52pm

That's an interesting analysis. And Carl's comment is clever, but a little disingenuous. The author wrote clearly that it was a mistake by Orton to throw the ball there. The author's quoted comment was aimed at countering the "Orton has no arm strength" claim, which I think he addresses pretty well, with respect to the 5 INT's. Now, whether he learns to read defenses is still to be determined.

5
by David (not verified) :: Thu, 09/29/2005 - 2:08am

So, what it comes down to is this: the kid's sloppy. He's trying to get away with cutting corners, like reading a blitz before the snap, and only looking at the defenders currently on a receiver who's 40 yards downfield. Hopefully he'll outgrow that, but somebody needs to smack him upside the head and remind him that he's playing pro now.

6
by VarlosZ (not verified) :: Thu, 09/29/2005 - 2:51am

Was that video clip posted with the express written consent of the National Football League?

7
by David (not verified) :: Thu, 09/29/2005 - 3:09am

Something I just noticed, that never jumped out at me since I didn't see the game: Before the second interception, the Bengals are up 7-0. Three INTs later, the score is 10-0. This is most hyped offense in the league?

8
by Ryan Mc (not verified) :: Thu, 09/29/2005 - 10:30am

re #7: David, as a Bengals fan who watched the game, I must credit the Chicago D for what you observed. They are an exceptionally quick defense and apparently never miss any tackles. For most of the game they held the Bengals offense in check. Cincinnati's 3 TDs all came against the same defensive front: 8 men in the box, corners in press coverage, lone safety cheating to the strong side of the field. On all three TDs Palmer simply threw downfield to the receiver on the open side in single coverage. As impressed as I was with Chicago's D, I credit Cincy for staying patient while the Bears defense was holding them down, and then hitting the big plays when they had the chance.

As for Orton's INTs: I thought the first one was actually a fumble. Seemed to me like the receiver caught the ball, got both feet on the ground and then got popped. Certainly not on Orton though. The 2nd and 5th picks looked like he tried to jam the ball into receivers in tight single coverage and just had defenders out-muscle his receivers for the ball. The 3rd and 4th INTs are pretty accurately summed up I think.

9
by Carl (not verified) :: Thu, 09/29/2005 - 12:17pm

"As for Orton’s INTs: I thought the first one was actually a fumble."

Ryan, it wasn't a fumble! I was a TUCK! He got wicked rooked!

10
by Justin Gage (not verified) :: Thu, 09/29/2005 - 1:55pm

Maybe a "professional football player" needs to avoid throwing five interceptions in a game!