Could we keep 2 QBs?

[nfoligno]

I have seen some ask this, though I am not sure if it has been talked about on this board.

 

One reason I think it may be worth consideration is, if we put Basanez on the PS, which I am pretty sure he is still eligible for, would any other team really steal him? To steal him, another team would have to give him a spot on their 53 man roster, and I am just not sure anyone would be willing to do that. On the practice squad, he is still ours and would still be in a position to learn and develop, but at the same time, it would free up a roster spot. W/ questions of whether we keep 5 or 6 WRs, 3 or 4 TEs as well as 3 or 4 RBs, we could be in a situation where that extra roster spot becomes a big deal. Thoughts?

[Mongo3451]

I have seen some ask this, though I am not sure if it has been talked about on this board.

 

One reason I think it may be worth consideration is, if we put Basanez on the PS, which I am pretty sure he is still eligible for, would any other team really steal him? To steal him, another team would have to give him a spot on their 53 man roster, and I am just not sure anyone would be willing to do that. On the practice squad, he is still ours and would still be in a position to learn and develop, but at the same time, it would free up a roster spot. W/ questions of whether we keep 5 or 6 WRs, 3 or 4 TEs as well as 3 or 4 RBs, we could be in a situation where that extra roster spot becomes a big deal. Thoughts?

Do we have anyone that could be an emergency QB?

[flea]

I could definitely see that happening. WR,TE,RB & LB are all spots where theres questions on how many places we need to keep. Surely we could put him on the PS with a handshake agreement that if any other team comes calling we elevate him ourselfs?

[LT2_3]

I have seen some ask this, though I am not sure if it has been talked about on this board.

 

One reason I think it may be worth consideration is, if we put Basanez on the PS, which I am pretty sure he is still eligible for, would any other team really steal him? To steal him, another team would have to give him a spot on their 53 man roster, and I am just not sure anyone would be willing to do that. On the practice squad, he is still ours and would still be in a position to learn and develop, but at the same time, it would free up a roster spot. W/ questions of whether we keep 5 or 6 WRs, 3 or 4 TEs as well as 3 or 4 RBs, we could be in a situation where that extra roster spot becomes a big deal. Thoughts?

 

I totally see that as a possibility. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me a bit.

 

Without a journeyman QB as backup, the season is pretty much toast if Cutler goes down for the season. In the case of both QBs going down, they can pick someone up to learn on the fly and run alot more Wildcat.

[bradjock]

I have seen some ask this, though I am not sure if it has been talked about on this board.

 

One reason I think it may be worth consideration is, if we put Basanez on the PS, which I am pretty sure he is still eligible for, would any other team really steal him? To steal him, another team would have to give him a spot on their 53 man roster, and I am just not sure anyone would be willing to do that. On the practice squad, he is still ours and would still be in a position to learn and develop, but at the same time, it would free up a roster spot. W/ questions of whether we keep 5 or 6 WRs, 3 or 4 TEs as well as 3 or 4 RBs, we could be in a situation where that extra roster spot becomes a big deal. Thoughts?

 

Agreed. I'd even take it one step further: Does any team pick up Caleb Hanie if we cut him?

 

There seems to be a glut of veteran QB's available who we could likely sign for the minimum. Losman & even Brian Griese are the first two the come to mind.

 

I know there are those who believe that Hanie could be the next Tony Romo, but I have a BAD feeling he's far more likely to fall into the "Chad Hutchinson, Medicine Woman, Craig Krenzel" category.

 

We sign a durable veteran as a back-up and we can easily go with two.

 

 

[nfoligno]

Regarding Hanie, I personally don't feel he is the next Romo or Brady. I have a "tiny" bias for him, only because I watched our last game (against the Texans) with his family, and they were really cool. The team line has been that what is available is no better than what we have in Hanie. Honestly, I am not totally sure they are wrong. Further, I like the situation we have now, which is one I have never seen. We have a legit franchise QB, and behind him, we have a young QB w/ talent who can develop over a period of time. That is the situation teams love to have, but one our franchise has always lacked.

 

Of the two you mention.

 

Griese - The problem w/ Griese is, he wants to play, and has said as much. I am not sure how ready he is to sign for the minimum, or for a team where he has no legit shot to play. I think he is more likely to look at teams w/ a less stable QB situation, you know, like the bears for decades leading up to this season. Not saying he will demand an opportunity to start right off, but look for a team where the starter is less established, and where he may have a shot at some point during the season.

 

Losman - Honestly, I don't even know what is up here. Loseman was a QB I wanted to target heading into the offseason. While he didn't develop as expected, he has only failed w/ one team, which means something to me. He would seem ideal, but I also have to wonder why he has drawn zero interest around the league. Even freaking Cade McNown drew interest after failing in Chicago. 1st round picks who fail w/ one team always seem to find other teams interested, but nothing for Losman. I just don't know what is up, but wonder if there is something we don't know about.

 

No question a more experienced QB would make everyone feel a bit more comfortable, especially if we we only go w/ 2 QB. At the same time, while I do not think Hanie is the next Romo, I do wonder if he wouldn't be just as good as most any other options available.

 

Agreed. I'd even take it one step further: Does any team pick up Caleb Hanie if we cut him?

 

There seems to be a glut of veteran QB's available who we could likely sign for the minimum. Losman & even Brian Griese are the first two the come to mind.

 

I know there are those who believe that Hanie could be the next Tony Romo, but I have a BAD feeling he's far more likely to fall into the "Chad Hutchinson, Medicine Woman, Craig Krenzel" category.

 

We sign a durable veteran as a back-up and we can easily go with two.

 

[nfoligno]

Wondered the same myself. I really don't know if we have anyone on the roster now that once played QB, like Booker for example.

 

Do we have anyone that could be an emergency QB?

 

[madlithuanian]

My gut feeling is Hanie stays and we pick up a vet. Bas gets either cut or put on the practice squad...

 

There just is too much upside w/ Hanie.

 

And if his family's cool, well then...

[defiantgiant]

I like the idea of keeping Hanie as the #2. I remember an interview with Orton where he talked about how hard it is to prepare and learn as the #3 quarterback, since you're hardly getting any reps, even with the second-string receivers. The #3 guy's main job is to run the scout team, which doesn't teach you much about the offense your own team runs. We've finally got an undisputed starting QB, and Cutler hasn't had any significant injury concerns, so I don't have a problem keeping Hanie as the #2, in order to give him a better chance to learn and develop.

 

J.P. Losman is kind of an interesting guy. He put up good numbers on an awful Bills team back in 2006, but he's always thrown too many picks and been kind of an erratic player. I read somewhere that he's slated to play in the UFL this year.

 

As far as Griese goes, I really did like him on the Bears, but I agree with nfo that he wants a chance to start. I don't know who's going to give him one, though. He just left one of the few teams with a QB situation unsettled enough to offer him a shot at the starting job, and I don't see any other situations like the '08 Bucs or the '07 Bears around the league. Maybe the Rams or the Niners, but that's about it. It's too bad, because I liked Griese.

[nfoligno]

I like the idea of keeping Hanie as the #2. I remember an interview with Orton where he talked about how hard it is to prepare and learn as the #3 quarterback, since you're hardly getting any reps, even with the second-string receivers. The #3 guy's main job is to run the scout team, which doesn't teach you much about the offense your own team runs. We've finally got an undisputed starting QB, and Cutler hasn't had any significant injury concerns, so I don't have a problem keeping Hanie as the #2, in order to give him a better chance to learn and develop.

 

Yea, I like Hanie, and while I am not in the group who thinks he is the 2nd coming, I do like the potential he brings and I like his longterm development possibilities. Think about this. When have we had an opportunity to stash a young QB for long term development. Our issues at QB have forced us to even throw rookie onto the field. Orton was a rookie w/ potential, but was foreced to start most of his rookie season due to injuries, and frankly, fans never really forgave him for his rookie season play. He was limited that year (since he was a rookie and we had a good defense) to a conservative style, and that tag stuck w/ him. Krentzel was a rookie thrown to the wolves, and never recovered. When have we ever had an opportunity to simply develop for a couple years a young QB.

 

J.P. Losman is kind of an interesting guy. He put up good numbers on an awful Bills team back in 2006, but he's always thrown too many picks and been kind of an erratic player. I read somewhere that he's slated to play in the UFL this year.

 

No question he has lacked consistency and been erratic. At the same time, I just shocks me he is thought so little of to actually be out of the league. The only thing I can think of is he actually prefers or choose to take a starting gig w/ the UFL or 3rd string jobs in the NFL.

 

As far as Griese goes, I really did like him on the Bears, but I agree with nfo that he wants a chance to start. I don't know who's going to give him one, though. He just left one of the few teams with a QB situation unsettled enough to offer him a shot at the starting job, and I don't see any other situations like the '08 Bucs or the '07 Bears around the league. Maybe the Rams or the Niners, but that's about it. It's too bad, because I liked Griese.

 

It isn't that I think he will hold out for a job where he can compete to start, but will look to get on w/ a team where the starter is not a long term lock. Maybe the starter has a history of injuries. Maybe he isn't proven. Just a situation that at least offers potential for the future for him. Some possibilities I could see:

 

Denver - How about his old team. He would seem to fit the system McD wants to install, and I don't think they are "set" at QB.

Carolina - Delhomme has dealt w/ injuries and inconsistency over the last three seasons, and the depth behind him is not proven.

SF - Hill is far from a lock, and Smith thus far looks like a bust. Some thing they are looking at the 2010 rookie QB class, which would give Griese potential this year and beyond.

Seattle - Hassel is coming off injury, no spring chicken, and seattle has garbage behind him.

Buffalo - Edwards is the starter, but has yet to really prove himself, and the depth is weak behind him. After adding TO, they may like more insurance.

Cincy - Palmer is back, but coming off injury. Cincy's season was lost when he want down, and they could want a better backup than O'Sully

 

I don't know if any of these teams are wanting to improve their current situation, but I simply think it would make sense for both sides.

[adam]

That seems feasible, and it is not like we couldn't pick someone up in the event of an injury. I just like to think that we only need 1 QB.

[defiantgiant]

It isn't that I think he will hold out for a job where he can compete to start, but will look to get on w/ a team where the starter is not a long term lock. Maybe the starter has a history of injuries. Maybe he isn't proven. Just a situation that at least offers potential for the future for him. Some possibilities I could see:

 

Denver - How about his old team. He would seem to fit the system McD wants to install, and I don't think they are "set" at QB.

Carolina - Delhomme has dealt w/ injuries and inconsistency over the last three seasons, and the depth behind him is not proven.

SF - Hill is far from a lock, and Smith thus far looks like a bust. Some thing they are looking at the 2010 rookie QB class, which would give Griese potential this year and beyond.

Seattle - Hassel is coming off injury, no spring chicken, and seattle has garbage behind him.

Buffalo - Edwards is the starter, but has yet to really prove himself, and the depth is weak behind him. After adding TO, they may like more insurance.

Cincy - Palmer is back, but coming off injury. Cincy's season was lost when he want down, and they could want a better backup than O'Sully

 

I don't know if any of these teams are wanting to improve their current situation, but I simply think it would make sense for both sides.

 

Definitely agree on San Francisco, Seattle, and Buffalo. Buffalo, especially, is interesting. Trent Edwards is like Matt Schaub in that you'd want to have a good backup for him, since he's been banged up a fair amount. I could see Griese doing well in relief of Edwards, certainly better than Ryan Fitzpatrick or Gibran Hamdan. Seattle would be a good fit, too - I think Seneca Wallace is more of an emergency QB, and Griese's skill set would fit well with the WCO the Seahawks run. I think San Francisco is the one team on the list that Griese could step in and start for: I wouldn't be surprised at all to see him beat out Shaun Hill and Alex Smith, were the Niners to sign him.

 

In any case, I'll be interested to see where he winds up.

[bradjock]

Further, I like the situation we have now, which is one I have never seen. We have a legit franchise QB, and behind him, we have a young QB w/ talent who can develop over a period of time. That is the situation teams love to have, but one our franchise has always lacked.

 

Why the hell would we worry about developing a young QB??? That's pretty much all we've done for the past 50 years and where has it gotten us? Instead of developing, they usually end up cut and are soon out of the league. If they're lucky they end up as a #3. The exception to this is Orton, but I'm anxious to see how he plays this year. The plan is for Cutler to be the franchise qb for the next 10 years. To hell with the young talent. The only reason I can think of for developing a guy is that he might be the next Matt Cassell. But our back-up will be throwing to Hester & Bennett, which is a far cry from Moss & Welker.

 

Griese - The problem w/ Griese is, he wants to play, and has said as much. I am not sure how ready he is to sign for the minimum, or for a team where he has no legit shot to play. I think he is more likely to look at teams w/ a less stable QB situation, you know, like the bears for decades leading up to this season. Not saying he will demand an opportunity to start right off, but look for a team where the starter is less established, and where he may have a shot at some point during the season.

Griese needs to decide if he wants to be a #2 or if he wants to retire. If he couldn't cut it with Miami, Tampa Bay, Chicago, and Tampa Bay, he ain't going to cut it anywhere. In Tampa Bay & Chicago he had a great opportunity to become the man and he failed. Hopefully he's smart enough to figure out his time has passed.

 

Losman - Honestly, I don't even know what is up here. Loseman was a QB I wanted to target heading into the offseason. While he didn't develop as expected, he has only failed w/ one team, which means something to me. He would seem ideal, but I also have to wonder why he has drawn zero interest around the league. Even freaking Cade McNown drew interest after failing in Chicago. 1st round picks who fail w/ one team always seem to find other teams interested, but nothing for Losman. I just don't know what is up, but wonder if there is something we don't know about.

 

Losman's young enough where he's a guy I could see signing as a #2 hoping to become a #1. For that reason, he'd be nuts to sign with Chicago. There has to be better opportunities for him.

 

No question a more experienced QB would make everyone feel a bit more comfortable, especially if we we only go w/ 2 QB. At the same time, while I do not think Hanie is the next Romo, I do wonder if he wouldn't be just as good as most any other options available.

 

It's the known versus the unknown. With our defense getting older, I view us as having a 2-3 year window to win the Super Bowl. Why the hell would we risk having an inexperienced back-up?

 

 

[defiantgiant]

Why the hell would we worry about developing a young QB??? That's pretty much all we've done for the past 50 years and where has it gotten us? Instead of developing, they usually end up cut and are soon out of the league. If they're lucky they end up as a #3. The exception to this is Orton, but I'm anxious to see how he plays this year. The plan is for Cutler to be the franchise qb for the next 10 years. To hell with the young talent. The only reason I can think of for developing a guy is that he might be the next Matt Cassell. But our back-up will be throwing to Hester & Bennett, which is a far cry from Moss & Welker.

 

Emphasis mine: this is actually a great reason to develop young QBs rather than bringing in veteran backups. Look at what Green Bay did when they had Favre: they kept developing young guys behind him. In 1993, they took Mark Brunell in the 5th round, then moved him for a 3rd and a 5th in 1995. In 1998, they spent a 6th-round pick on Matt Hasselbeck, developed him for three seasons, then traded him for significant value (Hasselbeck, the #17 overall pick, and a 7th in exchange for the #10 overall pick and a 3rd-rounder.) If you believe the draft-pick value chart, that means they traded Hasselbeck for the equivalent of the #33 overall pick. That's awesome value for a 6th-rounder and three years' work. They kept drafting and developing guys, and by the time they needed a successor to Favre, they had Aaron Rodgers ready to go. In the meantime, they'd gained a ton of value in the draft for moving Brunell and Hasselbeck.

 

If the Bears can turn Hanie into a Matt Cassell or a Matt Hasselbeck, that'll be awesome. We got the guy for nothing and we don't need him to start for us in the foreseeable future, so any value he might bring in a trade is pure profit for Chicago.

[Connorbear]

Emphasis mine: this is actually a great reason to develop young QBs rather than bringing in veteran backups. Look at what Green Bay did when they had Favre: they kept developing young guys behind him. In 1993, they took Mark Brunell in the 5th round, then moved him for a 3rd and a 5th in 1995. In 1998, they spent a 6th-round pick on Matt Hasselbeck, developed him for three seasons, then traded him for significant value (Hasselbeck, the #17 overall pick, and a 7th in exchange for the #10 overall pick and a 3rd-rounder.) If you believe the draft-pick value chart, that means they traded Hasselbeck for the equivalent of the #33 overall pick. That's awesome value for a 6th-rounder and three years' work. They kept drafting and developing guys, and by the time they needed a successor to Favre, they had Aaron Rodgers ready to go. In the meantime, they'd gained a ton of value in the draft for moving Brunell and Hasselbeck.

 

If the Bears can turn Hanie into a Matt Cassell or a Matt Hasselbeck, that'll be awesome. We got the guy for nothing and we don't need him to start for us in the foreseeable future, so any value he might bring in a trade is pure profit for Chicago.

Ding, Ding!!!! We have a winner!!!

 

Peace

[nfoligno]

I had to leave work early today, so you beat me to the punch.

 

Frankly, there are many reasons to develop young talent behind a set/established veteran QB.

 

One. As you said, QBs are very valuable commodities, and you can have too many.

 

Two. One of my main reasons though is this. As bradjock said, the idea is for Cutler to start the next decade. When you sign a backup like Griese, it is usually one or two year deals. That means, every year or other year, you are bringing in a new veteran, and having to start fresh teaching the system, chemistry w/ players, etc. On the other hand, if you have a young player you drafted, you have him 4 years, maybe more. There are going to be question marks with that player, but at the same time, there are also numerous other benefits which may in fact offset the lack of experience.

 

Three. Cutler starting the next 10 years is the plan. But have we not learned a thing. When it comes to the QB, we need a plan B. What if Cutler goes down w/ an injury, and I am not saying a minor one. If we are just adding our old vets every year or other year, we will have someone who can come in short term, but would also be starting from scratch long term. By having a young QB developing (whether than is Hanie or not) you are preparing for a worst case scenario.

 

 

Emphasis mine: this is actually a great reason to develop young QBs rather than bringing in veteran backups. Look at what Green Bay did when they had Favre: they kept developing young guys behind him. In 1993, they took Mark Brunell in the 5th round, then moved him for a 3rd and a 5th in 1995. In 1998, they spent a 6th-round pick on Matt Hasselbeck, developed him for three seasons, then traded him for significant value (Hasselbeck, the #17 overall pick, and a 7th in exchange for the #10 overall pick and a 3rd-rounder.) If you believe the draft-pick value chart, that means they traded Hasselbeck for the equivalent of the #33 overall pick. That's awesome value for a 6th-rounder and three years' work. They kept drafting and developing guys, and by the time they needed a successor to Favre, they had Aaron Rodgers ready to go. In the meantime, they'd gained a ton of value in the draft for moving Brunell and Hasselbeck.

 

If the Bears can turn Hanie into a Matt Cassell or a Matt Hasselbeck, that'll be awesome. We got the guy for nothing and we don't need him to start for us in the foreseeable future, so any value he might bring in a trade is pure profit for Chicago.

 

[nfoligno]

Griese needs to decide if he wants to be a #2 or if he wants to retire. If he couldn't cut it with Miami, Tampa Bay, Chicago, and Tampa Bay, he ain't going to cut it anywhere. In Tampa Bay & Chicago he had a great opportunity to become the man and he failed. Hopefully he's smart enough to figure out his time has passed.

 

You can say he needs to do this or that, but as we have seen too often w/ veterans, sometimes it takes them longer to accept reality. That may be especially the case for Griese, who likely believes he showed last year he can still play, and further, looks around the league and see many QBs he likely feels he is better than.

 

I do feel he will accept a job as a #2, but just feel he will try to get on w/ a team where the #1 is not quite so "set" as Cutler is.

 

Losman's young enough where he's a guy I could see signing as a #2 hoping to become a #1. For that reason, he'd be nuts to sign with Chicago. There has to be better opportunities for him.

 

Um, right now he is set to play in the new UFL league. Doesn't sound like his opportunities are that great.

 

It's the known versus the unknown. With our defense getting older, I view us as having a 2-3 year window to win the Super Bowl. Why the hell would we risk having an inexperienced back-up.

 

I comment about this in another post, but at the same time, i am not sure I agree we have a 2-3 year window. We have some players getting older, but at the same time, also seem to have infused w/ a lot of youth too.

 

[BearFan2000]

defiantgiant @ Jul 17 2009, 03:51 PM) *

Emphasis mine: this is actually a great reason to develop young QBs rather than bringing in veteran backups. Look at what Green Bay did when they had Favre: they kept developing young guys behind him. In 1993, they took Mark Brunell in the 5th round, then moved him for a 3rd and a 5th in 1995. In 1998, they spent a 6th-round pick on Matt Hasselbeck, developed him for three seasons, then traded him for significant value (Hasselbeck, the #17 overall pick, and a 7th in exchange for the #10 overall pick and a 3rd-rounder.) If you believe the draft-pick value chart, that means they traded Hasselbeck for the equivalent of the #33 overall pick. That's awesome value for a 6th-rounder and three years' work. They kept drafting and developing guys, and by the time they needed a successor to Favre, they had Aaron Rodgers ready to go. In the meantime, they'd gained a ton of value in the draft for moving Brunell and Hasselbeck.

 

If the Bears can turn Hanie into a Matt Cassell or a Matt Hasselbeck, that'll be awesome. We got the guy for nothing and we don't need him to start for us in the foreseeable future, so any value he might bring in a trade is pure profit for Chicago.

 

Ding, Ding!!!! We have a winner!!!

 

Peace

>

 

 

I second that, couldn't have said it better. The only thing about the Favre situation is that he was incredibly durable, Green Bay wisely took the risk of basically making him their only viable option and drafting guys to develop behind him and as those guys got to be ready to play Favre was still going strong so they traded them at good value. When you stop and think about it over the past (what seems like forever) that Favre has been starting there that they have to an extent been a QB factory Both Hasselbeck and Brunell went on to solid careers as starters themselves. It also tells me that Green Bay has done a good job developing talent at QB.

 

By no means do I want to Hex Jay but we don't have the luxury of looking back on history to see how durable he will be. But at the same time how can we not take that risk and seek to develop guys under Cutler. For the first time that's even possible here in Chicago that we finally have QB that you'd have to be brain dead not to have him as the undisputed starter. We've all had season tickets to the annual QB carousel and we've finally gotten off that ride. Reading the comments about guys like Brian and others who are looking for a team with stability issues at QB so they may have a shot at starting.... and the list of potential teams does not include the Bears in bold underlined lettering. The Bears have been the joke of the NFL when it comes to finding a QB.

 

Inconsistency and instability have been the only consistent trademarks of our QB derby. We've shuffled through an insane number of guys who we hoped to finally be the guy. We are finally one of those teams that are not in search of potential or looking for a stop gap. We have a clear cut starter and I say we take the risk of developing young guys behind Jay. It's what we've been doing for years only it will be the battle for #2 rather than a starter who won't totally embarrass us week after week. Going the route GB did all those years is what good teams do. Think of San Fran back in the day they had Montana but developed Young to the point that he could step in and made Montana expendable (the serious injury he sustained didn't help), then when Young was at the end of his career, they had Garcia. Good teams use the stability at QB to develop for the future when that guy is either gone or retired. Something we haven't been able to do. The gap between our starters and backups in talent has often been a coin flip. We no longer look to our number #2 as a guy to possibly step in should our #1 inevitably stumble and hope that he can do better, even reaching to the #3 guy because let's face it none of them are any where near spectacular but are serviceable at best. Wasn't Kyle #3 prior to Rex going down in preseason his rookie year and it took what what 1 1/2 preseason games to decide to install Kyle as the starter as a rookie. A good team envisions their #3's potential to hold the clipboard and run the scout team not a potential starter. Only the #2 is the guy that should be ready to step in due to injury.

 

My only concern about our situation is that should Jay go down so likely would our offense. I like Haine as much as the next guy and think he has potential but we've only seen him against other teams scrubs in preseason action. Should something happen and he has to start for more than a game or two I question his readiness. If it's short term though and it's a game here or there then that can help him but if it's extended time the exposure at this stage may do as much damage as good. Hopefully Haine's game experience comes at the end of games where we are comfortably ahead. But on the flip side with Jay here there's no rush to get him ready he can learn at his own pace. Which I think is part of our problem with developing young QB's we've had to rush to get them ready should the guy ahead of them fail. Ours was a system of perpetual panic mode. In light of that it's by far still worth the risk of not having a vet to back up Jay. The long term effect of the Cutler trade could be that we will be set at QB for the present and the future, and can actually develop guys naturally like it should be done.

[Guest TerraTor]

Its funny how a backup QB is now no longer an issue?

[AZ54]

It's not that we don't need a backup QB as much as there is less of a need to keep a developmental QB (i.e. 3rd QB) on the roster. That was the big argument for keeping Hanie around last year. He showed enough promise that it was worth it to keep him around and don't take the risk of losing him. Others have stated they prefer the shotgun approach toward finding a QB: put enough buckshot toward the target and one will hit therefore draft one every year.