Does it really matter? I have a thought and just wanted some opinions on it. With Hutchinson at QB, I see us having a realistic shot at beating Washington, Cleveland, and San Francisco. Anything more than that would be luck in my opinion.
So, why not let Orton start. See what he's got. If he plays like crap all season, we may just be bad enough to draft Leinhart or Omar Jacobs and settle this QB crap once and for all (WE HOPE). If he steadily improves and starts winning games, then we can groom him as our QB of the future.
So what are your thoughts? Let Hutch start and keep our fingers crossed for a 5 or 6 win season or concede this year and let Orton show what he's got?
Seeing as it isn't our decision and the coaches and GM want to save their collective asses, you know they will play Hutch until he dies or does so badly they just can't keep him in any longer. Then next will be Blake, hoping he can just win a couple more games. It sucks, since Blake will be gone after the season anyway, and Hutch should be but likely won't, but that's the way the NFL goes. Orton is the only guy on the roster who has a shot right now to ever make a difference, yet he will get buried on the depth chart, and barring injuries will never see the field. Go Bears!
I think Orton can work his way to #2 by the time the season starts. If he gets adequate protection, Hutch will be serviceable, which just may be enough in the NFC North, god willling.
Blake should be #1 - he's a much better option than Hutch and throwing Orton to the wolves right now would probably be detrimental for his development in the long run...
Blake had a couple of decent seasons in Cinci with a sh|t team, another decent one going in NO until he got hurt and Brooks stole the job from him (and he should have had it back after the injury, he was robbed there) and with a horrendous Cards team in '03 he still had 27 passes over 20 yards and 6 more over 40 yards in 13 games - plus he's still a decent option to make plays with his legs despite his age...
Hutch has a career QB rating about 10 points lower on average, about 100 less career TDs (albeit also a lot less INTs) and his legs are about on par with Drew Bledsoe if you catch my drift....
kevinoc81 wrote: So what are your thoughts? Let Hutch start and keep our fingers crossed for a 5 or 6 win season or concede this year and let Orton show what he's got?
Hutch is going to start unless he gets injured, it's the Angelo/Smith way I guess. Conceding the season before it even starts is not an option for coaches and GM's. In a way I agree, I can't see destroying an inexperienced Orton by throwing him to the wolves. I think Blake, as bad as he is, probably gives the Bears the best chance to win.
Which leads me to my next thought....some people are saying that the Bears had no chance even before Grossman went down. I disagree - the Bears are a team that in my opinion had a chance to not only compete but make the playoffs IF everything fell into place. One of the things that had to fall into place was Grossman being at least an adequate QB. When he went down and no reasonable backup was available hope was lost for a lot of fans including me. What really burns me was that this was completely predictable and preventable.
I think the Bears may have the distinction now of having both the worst starting QB AND the worst backup QB in the NFL. Can anyone find a worse starting QB than Hutch or a worse backup QB than Blake?
I guess it will be another long decade for Bear fans!
It does suck because I feel like we have a championship-caliber defense right now and the only thing lagging is the offense. Now, if Grossman comes back next year, he will still essentially be a rookie. If Orton starts, he will be a rookie. Even if we were to get a Leinhart or Jacobs (optimistic), they would still be rookies.
I just feel like when the offense is finally experienced and respectable enough to compete, our defense will start declining.
Goatwhacker wrote: Can anyone find a worse starting QB than Hutch or a worse backup QB than Blake?
Okay - since you insist on putting them backwards... I will keep them that way for comparison sake. The bold guys are those I think are worse than Blake...
Bears - Hutch/Blake
Ravens - Boller/Wright Browns - Dilfer/Harris Broncs - Plummer/Kanell Texans - Carr/Banks Chiefs - Green/Collins Patriots - Brady/Davey - although Flutie should be the #2 here
Raiders - Collins/Tuiasosopo Chargers - Brees/Rivers - obviously I mean short-term... may be good in the long run but not yet
Cards - Warner/McCown Panthers - Delhomme/Weinke Cowboys - Bledsoe/Romo - Bledsoe should have retired
Saints - Brooks/Bouman NYG - Manning/Hasselbeck - long term Manning may be good but not yet
Eagles - McNabb/Detmer 49ers - Smith/Rattay Rams - Bulger/Martin
Hopefully Lovie realizes quickly what a steal Blake is at this point and jumps him over Hutch...
lmcjaho wrote: Okay - since you insist on putting them backwards...
I'm putting them the same way the Bears coaches are - if you read my post I said I think Blake gives the Bears a better chance to win.
That said, you and I disagree on almost all the rest of your post. I don't know what you've seen in Blake to rank him so highly but I hope you're right.
I think Blake will be better than Hutch, if he's anything close to what he was in Arizona. I'm not so sure he is. I'd almost rather Orton get the keys to the car and see if he can drive. No matter who the QB is, it will be another LONG year.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Baseball
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by kevinoc81 » Mon Aug 15, 2005 10:02 am 
