[CBFF] [Fwd: Why didn't Bears draft a quarterback?]

[Westmalle van 't vat]

On 5/2/08 3:00 PM, "mactbone" <mactbone0 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> "Now, if we had not gotten Hanie and Hill, I would have been very worried"
>  
> OK, now I have to ask you what makes you think they'll be any better next year
> than Leak was last year, Orton was two years ago, Krenzel was three years ago,
> Burris was before that, etc.? There were a lot of guys who thought Leak would
> be a great pickup and possibly get a backup job in Chicago. It just doesn't
> seem likely to me that any player not picked during 200+ chances is going to
> be any more ready to start than a guy who was picked.
> -Chris

Well, you¹re not wrong, Chris, about the last part, but they are probably
just as good than Krenzel or Burris--might be better.  The scouting on Hanie
does sound somewhat promising.  Fact is, neither of them may be ready to
start, but I anticipate that start wouldn't be until later in the season, if
then.  And if they do not look like at least *potential* NFL QBs, I assume
they'll get cut in camp.  They are stop-gaps and/or development prospects.
I'm glad we'll have someone like them, if not them in the pipeline.

That being said, I do hope Angelo does not rest content here.  He should
sign a veteran FA off of the heap at some point.  We probably should put the
better of Hill or Hanie on the practice squad and sign a veteran 3rd string
backup, a Chris Simms-type guy from the waiver wire.

My worry was that we had NOTHING after Grossman and Orton and now we at
least have someoneS, at least one of whom (Hanie) looks as good as some of
the guys other teams wasted late round draft picks on.  It would be,
finally, our long overdue good luck to find a gem of a QB on the UDFA pile.
Here's to hoping!
 
Steve