Denver Broncos waived quarterback Kyle Orton today

[ShowtimeSBMVP]

ProFootballWklyPro Football Weekly


RT @AdamSchefter: Filed to ESPN: Denver Broncos waived quarterback Kyle Orton today. #Broncos

[Carlota69]

Sorry if repost, but I didnt see this in the thread..And I dont see people talking about this angle...so here it is...

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...-to-get-orton/


Plenty of teams could block Bears’ effort to get Orton

Posted by Mike Florio on November 22, 2011, 10:13 PM EST

AP
It’s a nice, feel-good Thanksgiving week story. Bears quarterback Jay Cutler breaks a thumb. The Broncos have cut a former Bears quarterback who’d like to play in Chicago again. And there’s nothing more natural than a homecoming on the fourth Thursday in November.

The only problem? At least 22 teams can provide the flight delay and/or the traffic jam that prevents Kyle Orton from scarfing down sausage with the Superfans.

After the trading deadline, all players who are released must pass through waivers. Priority is determined by record. And so every team higher than the Bears in the pecking order will have dibs on Orton, if they choose to exercise it.

The Bears reportedly are No. 30 on the list. Which means that every team except the 49ers and Packers will be able to grab him.

It doesn’t matter whether Orton “wants” to play for the Bears. If another team claims him, he has 2.5 million reasons to show up.

At the top of the stack, what better way to test whether the Colts are in full-blown “Suck for Luck” mode than to see whether they’d bring in a quarterback who is significantly better than Curtis Painter or Dan Orlovsky? They’d be crazy not to make a claim. Unless they’re truly crazy for Andrew Luck.

The 4-6 Chiefs also need help, given the performance of Tyler Palko on Monday night. (And with the Chiefs playing the Broncos again on January 1, there could be some strategic benefit to having him around.) Ditto for the Redskins, whose head coach could be coaching for his job, with Rex Grossman and John Beck as the blanks in the bazooka.

And how about NFC teams that hope to pick off a wild-card berth if/when the Bears slide with Caleb Hanie or Nathan Enderle? The 7-3 Lions, 6-4 Falcons, the 6-4 Cowboys (whose primary backup, Jon Kitna, is banged up), the 6-4 Giants, the 4-6 Bucs, and even the 4-6 Dream Team would have an incentive to block the Bears from getting their way.

Let’s also not forget about the Texans, who may not be completely sold on Matt Leinart, despite the decision to put all their eggs in a beer bong.

Finally, it would be foolish to overlook good, old-fashioned spite. In 2002, Deion Sanders wanted to emerge from retirement and hop onto the silver-and-black bandwagon. So the Redskins released his rights. And former Redskins coach Marty Schottenheimer, the man whose presence in 2001 prompted Sanders to pick retirement over playing, put in a waivers claim on Sanders, short-circuiting his plan. With three NFC North teams on track to make it to the playoffs, maybe the 2-8 Vikings would be tempted to keep the Bears from getting Orton, in the hopes that they’ll have company in the non-playoff party.

That’s highly unlikely. But the point is that there are many possible motivations, and just because the Bears want Orton and Orton wants the Bears, it doesn’t mean he’ll end up there. Indeed, the fact that the Bears and Orton are trying to rendezvous could be the tiebreaker for a team that is thinking about disrupting that plan.

UPDATE 10:35 p.m. ET: As a reader pointed out on Twitter, claiming Orton has another benefit. When he leaves as a free agent in March 2012, the team that employs him for six weeks would be in line of a compensatory draft pick. So there’s one more good reason to consider doing it.

[T-post Tom]

Originally Posted by petegz28

I would almost rather have him as a stop gap. Sign Orton, draft a QB and let him ride the pine for a year. If we keep Cassel as the stop gap I am afraid the gap will never stop. This team has to face some reality. The QB isn't going to get us anywhere. Our head coach isn't going to get us anywhere. Drafting 5'7" specialty players when you desparately need line help on both sides of the ball isn't going to get us anywhere. Going through an OC per season isn't going to get us anywhere.

Excellent post.

[mdchiefsfan]

How shitty would it be if we claim him and before a snap on our team, he is signed to a $60 mil contract? That would be called purgatory.

[Brock]

Originally Posted by HemiEd

There are 52 other guys out there busting their asses to win. Have you seen the look on Bowe's face with some of the passes he has been faced with to catch? The guys need a chance to succeed after having ****ing Cassel for 2.5 years, or they are going to want out of town.

There are at most a couple of players out there busting their asses. The rest either don't care or aren't good enough to notice that they're trying.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by HemiEd

There are 52 other guys out there busting their asses to win. Have you seen the look on Bowe's face with some of the passes he has been faced with to catch? The guys need a chance to succeed after having ****ing Cassel for 2.5 years, or they are going to want out of town.

Then start Stanzi. Next man up.

[HemiEd]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Then start Stanzi. Next man up.

I was all for that, until I read Keg's well thought out post today. Stanzi clearly showed talent in his limited exposure in Preseason.
If we really want to give Stanzi a chance to succeed, this is not it. No way could I do justice to Keg's post, but it made a lot of sense. I will try and find it for a link.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by HemiEd

I was all for that, until I read Keg's well thought out post today. Stanzi clearly showed talent in his limited exposure in Preseason.
If we really want to give Stanzi a chance to succeed, this is not it. No way could I do justice to Keg's post, but it made a lot of sense. I will try and find it for a link.

At this point he's had 2/3 of a season. He has talented options around him. He has a decent offensive line. This isn't Jacksonville. St. Louis, or Cleveland.

Also, Stanzi is pretty fungible.

If he shows you something, great, it's another asset of value. If he doesn't, whatever.

[HemiEd]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

At this point he's had 2/3 of a season. He has talented options around him. He has a decent offensive line. This isn't Jacksonville. St. Louis, or Cleveland.

Also, Stanzi is pretty fungible.

If he shows you something, great, it's another asset of value. If he doesn't, whatever.

Good points.
Sorry, had to google fungible, similar action required with a lot of your words.

Here is what Keg had to say in the other thread, and it totally changed my mind. I have been one of the guys screaming for Stanzi since the start of the season. I for one, am sick of other retreads, but think this might be the right instance to finish out the season with one.

Originally Posted by keg in kc

Couple of points there.

First, we haven't seen a fraction of what the coaches have. They see these guys every day for months. Until Sunday, we'd seen a few minutes of both.

Second, saying he'd "clearly outperformed" Palko during the preseason is debatable at best. My recollection is two quarterbacks who largely looked bad playing behind bad lines with bad receivers, who each had some moments where they showed some promise.

Third and final, just like "better than Cassel" does not equal "good", neither does "better than Palko". And it also doesn't equal "ready to play". Stanzi needs to be judged with his own measuring stick, and the decisions made with him should have nothing to do with Palko or wins and losses. It should be purely about whether he's ready to play, regardless of anything else. It's a long-term issue, not an instant gratification thing.

If you think the guy can be a starting quarterback in the NFL, you don't just throw him to the wolves. You prepare him, do your best to put him in situations where he can succeed (which isn't going to happen in 2011 regardless). You don't throw him on the field before he's ready to start, you don't throw him out there him behind a line that can't protect and you don't start playing him in the middle of a murderer's row of defenses just so you can "see what he has". Because if you do those things, you're setting him up to fail from the start.

You can do that with a QB like Palko. Because he's completely and totally expendable. If you think Stanzi has any value long term, that's the exact opposite of what you should do.

That's my opinion at least. My philosophy on how quarterbacks should be handled.

[Rasputin]

Originally Posted by HemiEd

Sorry, had to google fungible, similar action required with a lot of your words.

Here is what Keg had to say in the other thread, and it totally changed my mind. I have been one of the guys screaming for Stanzi since the start of the season. I for one, am sick of other retreads, but think this might be the right instance to finish out the season with one.

He makes good points in that post I would almost agree, the history of the Chiefs not playing or giving drafted QBs the opportunity to play & learn the game by playing is and has been the biggest issue sinse the time of Blackledge. This could be our moment to change history for the Chiefs. We going to let that go? If any thing Stanzi could play a series or two to get him wet. If he does well then continue to insert him in the games to follow more and more to bust his cherry ripe for next year. It's really time to change the mentallity of Chiefs & fans for the fear of rookie QBs & the Blackledge curse for any thing else is what we get to live with. It's our moment.

[Red Dawg]

You would think that if anybody understands the value of a bad ass QB it would be Pioli. He messed up with Matt and no way he can't see that. His top priority should be to fix that error thorgh the draft or FA. I hope it's the draft but even that has it's drawabacks. This team has been building via the draft for three years. If we had a good QB now we would be dangerous.

He had better get rid of Matt for next year and try somebody else.

[Red Dawg]

Originally Posted by KC Tattoo

He makes good points in that post I would almost agree, the history of the Chiefs not playing or giving drafted QBs the opportunity to play & lean the game by playing is and has been the biggest issue sinse the time of Blackledge. This could be our moment to change history for the Chiefs. We going to let that go? If any thing Stanzi could play a series or two to get him wet. If he does well then continue to insert him in the games to follow more and more to bust his cherry ripe for next year. It's really time to change the mentallity of Chiefs & fans for the fear of rookie QBs & the Blackledge curse for any thing else is what we get to live with. It's our moment.

I honestly think Stanzi has the skills to be the guy. He's arrogant as hell and most importatntly is capable of make plays. I watched him alot in college and the kid is a GAMER that hates losing. Good arm and attitude would do wonders for us.

But of course he will never get to play.

[listopencil]

I kind of hope he goes to CHI, and plays really well except against the Broncos.

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by RustShack

We could claim Orton, see how he does the rest of the year. If nothing else we can let him walk at the end of the year and pick up the compensation pick.

Or keep him as a much cheaper fill in than C@$$hole, whom we should cut, and run with Orton until a rookie/Stanzi is ready for his chance.

[R8RFAN]

Originally Posted by Rausch

Or keep him as a much cheaper fill in than C@$$hole, whom we should cut, and run with Orton until a rookie/Stanzi is ready for his chance.

You need to draft a QB if this is the route you want to take, putting all your eggs in a basket on a 5th rounder is not very smart

[R8RFAN]

best rep of the day

you just keep hoping to god that we **** up the qb position again this time and dont go out and draft a real one. I know thats why you're trolling with this crap, you are genuinely scared.