Kyle Orton Can't Replace Jay Cutler in Denver, but He Will Hold His Own

Kyle Orton doesn't have Jay Cutler's franchise quarterback pedigree. He was taken in the fourth round of the 2005 draft, two years after the Bears had invested a first-round pick in Rex Grossman. And, from the beginning, his role was clear: a raw, strong-armed talent, who would spend the first few seasons on the bench learning the nuances of what it means to be an NFL quarterback.

That lasted up till the moment Grossman broke his ankle in a 2005 preseason game. At the time, head coach Lovie Smith told the AP that "I don't know exactly who there is out there but we like the guys we have right now ... Chad Hutchinson is a good player, we feel comfortable starting him, and Kyle Orton continues to shine as far as we're concerned."

The Bears released Hutchinson a few weeks later.

Orton started 15 games as a rookie, and Chicago would win 11 times before losing in the divisional round of the playoffs. The Bears' success wasn't so much because of Orton -- he was among the league's worst quarterbacks that season -- but because of a stifling defense that was outstanding against the run and the pass.

Still, it was invaluable experience for a guy who wasn't even supposed to be playing. Two years later, it would pay off: Smith finally admitted what everybody else already knew: Grossman just wasn't an NFL-caliber quarterback and he let Orton take the reins for the final three weeks of the '07 season.

Orton won twice in three tries on a team that had just five wins in its previous 13 games. His numbers were unspectacular (53.8 completion percentage, two touchdowns, two interceptions), but he earned the right to battle for the starting job in '08. He emerged from training camp with the gig, led the Bears to a 9-7 record and just missed the postseason.

Now, Orton's in Denver as Cutler's likely successor. It's hard to argue that the Broncos are a better team -- at least in the short term -- but head coach Josh McDaniels thought enough of Orton's abilities to send his Pro Bowl quarterback to Chicago. (Although, I suspect the two first-rounders and a third-rounder also included in the trade didn't hinder the negotiation process.)

But what can we expect from Orton now that he's in a new, pass-heavy offense? Last year, then-Patriots quarterback Matt Cassel relied heavily on the short-passing game because, as NFL Films' Greg Cosell wrote in a February column for SportingNews.com, he was uncomfortable "pull[ing] the trigger on tighter throws at the intermediate and deeper levels." As the season progressed, so too did Cassel's pocket presence, and McDaniels would eventually try to bring him to Denver. (Which is what started McJaygate in the first place.)

While Orton doesn't possess all the same physical attributes as Cassel, he does have a chance to be successful in McDaniels' offense. The Chicago Sun-Times' Brad Biggs told me that one of Orton's strengths was his accuracy on short throws.

"That's primarily what [the Bears] did. They didn't have a lot of success throwing the ball vertically, so that was probably playing to some of Kyle's strengths," Biggs said. "I know his percentage doesn't look real good from this past season, but I can tell you that he was a victim of quite a few drops.

"You know, he had a clause in his contract where he was going to get a small escalator ... if he hit 60 percent completion percentage, and I remember vividly [writing] that the dropped passes were going to cost him money."

For the record: Orton completed 58.5 percent of his throws last season. (Thanks, Brandon Lloyd!)

But now he comes to a team with a great pass-catchers in Brandon Marshall, Eddie Royal and Tony Scheffler, a solid offensive line and a running game that ranked third in the league in yards per carry, even though it cycled through seven running backs. And Biggs thinks this will all play in Orton's favor.

"If he can go in there and win the job, I think he can fare pretty well. Let's face it, he's walking into a situation with just vastly superior wide receivers."

In terms of maturity, Biggs said that "He's a much different quarterback than he was as a rookie ... When they made that run to the Super Bowl, [Brian] Griese took him under his wing and worked with him. And I think he learned a lot from Griese about being a professional.

"From a decision-making standpoint ... he's still young ... but he's pretty good because he puts in a lot of time and he's intelligent. He's got football smarts, he's a well-studied guy, he's a bright guy, and from a decision-making standpoint I think he's just going to get better with time."


Football Outsiders' Editor-in-Chief Aaron Schatz made an interesting point when I asked him about Orton's chances in Denver.

"If Orton had not played as a rookie ... had come in in '07 and played reasonably well like he did for a couple of games, and then taken the starting job in '08 and had basically an average year -- despite the fact that he [had no one to throw to] -- he'd be Trent Edwards right now. The thing about Orton is that he was so horrible as a rookie that it kind of flavors our memory of him."

But Schatz also shared this peculiar stat about Orton's performance in the shotgun, a formation McDaniels featured frequently with New England: "Now nothing says this is consistent from year to year -- there are quarterbacks who go back and forth as to whether they're good in the shotgun or not -- but Orton averaged 1.5 net yards per play more under center than he did in the shotgun. And the league average is about 1.5 yards the other way.

"The shotgun he's running in Chicago isn't necessarily the same type of spread [offense McDaniels could feature in Denver], but he was not good [in that formation] last year. And you have to figure that McDaniels is going to run a similar offense as he did with the Patriots."

Given how much success New England had out of the shotgun -- even when Cassel replaced Tom Brady -- it's certainly a fair assumption. Which is why I asked Schatz if he thought Cassel would've been productive with the Broncos.

"It's hard to know how good Cassel is; he was above average according to DVOA, but his performance has to be taken with the grains of salt that a) the AFC East may have had the easiest schedule in history for offenses, and b) we don't know what he's like outside the best offense in history. What I said to people this year about Cassel was, 'This is what happens if you take an average quarterback and put him into the best offense that has ever been.' "

Clearly, McDaniels was comfortable enough with Cassel to try to swing a deal for him, but other than Mel Kiper, there weren't many people jumping on the "Cassel > Cutler" bandwagon.

Of all the quarterbacks traded (or rumored to be traded) in recent weeks, Cutler is obviously the best. That doesn't mean Orton is doomed to fail in Denver (or Cassel in Kansas City, for that matter). But the Broncos' offense is plenty potent without their Pro Bowl quarterback. And let's be honest: this is a team that last went to the playoffs with Jake Plummer under center.

Ultimately, Denver's postseason hopes will rest with a defense that was among the worst in the league a year ago. Maybe McDaniels, who admits he'll consider drafting a quarterback later this month, will take Mark Sanchez with either the 12th- or 18th-overall selections, but he may also need every one of those 2009 draft picks to restock a defense that went missing for long stretches in '08.

As for the Bears, here's something to be excited about: Football Outsiders has a similarity score statistic, which, based on formulas and variables too complicated to mention here, compares current players to their predecessors for a glimpse at how their careers might unfold. Over a two-season span, Cutler's career is most similar to Joe Montana, followed by Peyton Manning. The list also includes Brett Favre, Tom Brady, Carson Palmer and Neil Lomax.

Pretty heady company. And if, in ten years, Cutler's career comes close to matching that of the aforementioned names, those two first-rounders, a third-rounder and Orton will have well been worth it. In fact, we'll be calling it a steal.