2012: Trade it all for the #1 pick(Probably Luck), even 2013 picks if needed?

[DiscoBob]

Yeah, you are going to have to do better than that. Those three picks make it a no-brainer. You'd have to add a second rounder and a top player.

I might be willing to add the #2 in 2012, but more than that and the potential to setback the team even further for another 5 years is too high...

[addicted]

Shanny has shown me that he knows how to build a team...I trust he will find his QB. Everyone was questioning why he chose Jay Cutler so early? Before you bash Cutler...when has any QB played great in Chicago?

Rex Grossman took the Bears to the SB

Don't give me that crap that it was all Hester and the Defense

No it wasn't

Was the Ravens all Defense and ST and no Trent Dilfer?

No it wasn't

No teams QB has nothing to do with them winning enough games to get to the playoffs and a SB

---------- Post added September-28th-2011 at 05:52 PM ----------

I think you guys end up with Tannehill or trade down and target a guy like Nick Foles. I actually think all 3 QBs go fairly early with teams like the Colts, Dolphins, Chiefs and Seahawks headed towards the top 5 and Denver likely in the top 10.

After the run on them this year I think your right

[SuperBash]

How much would Matt Flynn cost?

[mistertim]

Rex Grossman took the Bears to the SB

Don't give me that crap that it was all Hester and the Defense

No it wasn't

Was the Ravens all Defense and ST and no Trent Dilfer?

No it wasn't

No teams QB has nothing to do with them winning enough games to get to the playoffs and a SB

Come on, man. Those teams were absolutely known for their defense and their defenses/ST won them games that they should have lost. There were at least a few games in the 2006 season that it seems Rex did everything possible to ensure a loss but they still won because of defensive turnovers for points, special teams, and a good running game. As far as the Ravens in 2000, Dilfer was pretty much the definition of mediocre. Sure, he didn't make TOO many mistakes that would cost them games, but he didn't have a ton to do with how good that team was overall.

You're right that no QB has NOTHING to do with a team getting to the SB, but if they have legendary defenses like the two teams you mentioned most of what they have to do is "not screw up too much", which even Rex challenged. And, honestly, I don't hate Rex. I think he is who he is. An average QB who is streaky and prone to mistakes when he gets pressured or can't get into a rhythm. Nobody is ever going to mistake him for a top tier QB and, while they have certainly improved, nobody is ever going to mistake our current defense for the 2000 Ravens or 2006 Bears.

[Hiro]

Rex Grossman can be a serviceable QB for us, but who we end up drafting in 2012 really depends on how he performs for the rest of the season. Shanahan sticks with his guy, and only pulls the plug on them if he feels he cannot win with them.

If Rex doesn't completely regress into "Bad Rex" for the rest of the season, I would not be shocked at all if we didn't go after a QB early. This team, despite its massive improvement, still needs major attention in areas like CB and ILB.

[Wildbunny]

I would add an OT to the list of having. Sure we're gonna need a QB soon, but I still don't see any reason to sell the barn for one. No matter how good he is, according to how well we drafted this year, I'm pretty sure we can get some nice raw gems in the next draft without giving it all on just one guy.

[washedup2]

i think Barkley fits our scheme and hope we dont have to give up everything to get him.

[Gibbsisgod2006]

The only limits to improving our team are our imaginations and ability to scout

Before the Cowboys won the Superbowls in the 1990's they spent 2 first round picks in the same year on QB's

I wouldn't mind us spending two picks on two different QB's but I would mind us spending all of our picks on one guy

Before Green Bay won it's championship in the 1990's they spent a 2nd round pick on the little known backup QB in Atlanta

I wouldn't mind us spending a pick on someone's backup QB either

There is no reason to believe we have only one choice to find our guy

Honestly you if they have the ammo to pull a trade off and grab an elite QB they need too. Sexy Rexy is not the answer this team needs an elite QB. We as fans need to realize that in order to get an elite QB we need to draft one, and if that takes by packaging this year's #1 pick along with a 3rd rd pick, and and a couple of picks in the following draft I say do it. A lot of fan are so scared that we are going to draft the reincarnation of Heath Shuler again. In order to be considered in the same breath as the Green Bay Packers, or theNew Orleans Saints we need to get an elite QB. Teams just don't let franchise QB go so are best bet would be to trade up and get one of those elite QB in the draft.

[darrelgreenie]

To be honest this sort of stuff was what was talked about in the Manning/Leaf debate. Manning had the football IQ, the maturity, the mechanics and the study habits. Leaf had the "swagger", the elite arm, mobility, the big time physical traits, etc. As far as Luck, I think he DOES have many elite traits. Sure, he doesn't have a Favre-like arm and probably doesn't run a 4.4 40. But from watching him play I'd say his ability to read defenses, decision making (before and after the snap), footwork, mechanics, and accuracy are elite. He has an arm that is fine for making all the throws needed in the NFL but not a rocket launcher. He has the size, is a surprisingly good runner outside of the pocket, and seems to be great at sensing pressure.

No rational person is going to say he is a sure fire HOFer. That is ridiculous. But it seems he is the best PROSPECT to come out in a very long time. I'm not saying I advocate giving up an entire draft to get him, but if Shanny and Co. really think he can be a great one and they want to give up a substantial amount to get him then I'll trust them.

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?355087-2012-Trade-it-all-for-the-1-pick(Probably-Luck)-even-2013-picks-if-needed&p=8571254&viewfull=1#post8571254

[master4caster]

I see that there are 19 pages of answers already. I presume that sanity has emerged for a consensus of HELL NO. I know this was a poll intended to provoke response, but...

Football is a team sport. It takes 10 guys for one man to make a play. One reason the Redskins are improved this year is that the front office did NOT go for a high profile QB and filled out the roster with block & tackle guys. The strategy proposed in this question did not work for the Vikings when traded multiple draft picks to the Cowboys for Herschel Walker. That trade is also known as the stupidest deal in football history. The Vikings did not go to the Super Bowl. Walker's career took a downturn because of the way the Vikings used him. The GM who made the deal left football. Oh yeah, the Cowboys won three Super Bowls from the talent they acquired in that deal.

It didn't work when Mike Ditka traded multiple draft picks to Washington for Ricky Williams. The Saints did not go to football. Williams proved less than advertised.

Keep an eye on how well it works out in Atlanta with Julio Jones. Jones is playing well, but Atlanta is off to a slow start. They are going to miss those draft picks.

Winning teams with franchise quarterbacks do NOT build this way (looking at you, Bill Belichick). New England trades players in their prime for draft picks often to teams that do not draft well (looking at you, Al Davis).

If football were golf or tennis, I might trade future draft picks for one outstanding prospect. But, it's not, so I wouldn't.

Smart teams do not trade draft picks away. They acquire them, then they use them. The Redskins had an excellent offseason. I hope they are as astute next year whatever they do. Oh yeah, if they thought Rex Grossman was the answer, he would not be signed to a one-year vet-minimum contract.

[GibbsFactor]

master4caster, tell that to Colts fans.

[TheGreek1973]

some interesting points here but let me throw something at you guys. many of you say Luck is can't miss. I will never forget watching the draft that Smith and Rogers came out of. Smith gets drafted first and then Rogers sits around with team after team passing him by. Its not until the 24th pick that GB takes him and I will never forget the announcers say come on GB give this guy a chance. Heck we picked JC right after that and I never stopped wondering if Gibbs would have gone with Rogers or JC if Aaron was still there. What am I trying to say here is, yes Luck my be the best prospect coming out in a long time but then again how many top prospects didn't pen out. personally I like the approach of looking around the league at some backups that were also good prospects and I trust our front office to trade for them if they feel he will be a good fit in our offense. You don't give away the house and put all your hopes on one draft pick. if it doesn't work you will be like the Vikings on the early 90s when they gave so much to the Girls for Walker.

[GibbsFactor]

some interesting points here but let me throw something at you guys. many of you say Luck is can't miss. I will never forget watching the draft that Smith and Rogers came out of. Smith gets drafted first and then Rogers sits around with team after team passing him by. Its not until the 24th pick that GB takes him and I will never forget the announcers say come on GB give this guy a chance. Heck we picked JC right after that and I never stopped wondering if Gibbs would have gone with Rogers or JC if Aaron was still there. What am I trying to say here is, yes Luck my be the best prospect coming out in a long time but then again how many top prospects didn't pen out. personally I like the approach of looking around the league at some backups that were also good prospects and I trust our front office to trade for them if they feel he will be a good fit in our offense. You don't give away the house and put all your hopes on one draft pick. if it doesn't work you will be like the Vikings on the early 90s when they gave so much to the Girls for Walker.

Smith wasn't clear cut that year. A lot of people thought Rogers was better. It was shocking to see him fall the way he did. The 9ers were torn between Smith and Rogers. There will be no indecision come this draft.

---------- Post added September-29th-2011 at 01:29 PM ----------

ESPN has the entire NFL page devoted to this very question right now.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

By my reckoning we're still anything up to 20 players, starters and quality depth, from seriously competing on a consistent basis again.

We're in ZERO position to think about trading away a good bulk of them on one guy. However important and potentially great he may be.

Hail.

[sportjunkie07]

some interesting points here but let me throw something at you guys. many of you say Luck is can't miss. I will never forget watching the draft that Smith and Rogers came out of. Smith gets drafted first and then Rogers sits around with team after team passing him by. Its not until the 24th pick that GB takes him and I will never forget the announcers say come on GB give this guy a chance. Heck we picked JC right after that and I never stopped wondering if Gibbs would have gone with Rogers or JC if Aaron was still there. What am I trying to say here is, yes Luck my be the best prospect coming out in a long time but then again how many top prospects didn't pen out. personally I like the approach of looking around the league at some backups that were also good prospects and I trust our front office to trade for them if they feel he will be a good fit in our offense. You don't give away the house and put all your hopes on one draft pick. if it doesn't work you will be like the Vikings on the early 90s when they gave so much to the Girls for Walker.

to many, Andrew Luck is the best prospect they have ever scouted. if there is any player worth pulling a Ditka for, its Luck.

with all of that said, i dont want to do that as there are too many good qb prospects this year.

[myzhi]

Before I start, we are probably going to be 8-8 which means we won't have enough ammunition to move to #1 and pick Luck.

I see that there are 19 pages of answers already. I presume that sanity has emerged for a consensus of HELL NO. I know this was a poll intended to provoke response, but...

Football is a team sport. It takes 10 guys for one man to make a play. One reason the Redskins are improved this year is that the front office did NOT go for a high profile QB and filled out the roster with block & tackle guys. The strategy proposed in this question did not work for the Vikings when traded multiple draft picks to the Cowboys for Herschel Walker. That trade is also known as the stupidest deal in football history. The Vikings did not go to the Super Bowl. Walker's career took a downturn because of the way the Vikings used him. The GM who made the deal left football. Oh yeah, the Cowboys won three Super Bowls from the talent they acquired in that deal.

It didn't work when Mike Ditka traded multiple draft picks to Washington for Ricky Williams. The Saints did not go to football. Williams proved less than advertised.

Having a franchise QB can make the 52 other players into prime time players. Without one, they suddenly seem to be crap. Prime example, the Colts has the inside track to get Luck.

A franchise RB <<<<< franchise QB. And, that's why you don't trade everything for a RB, but should if you are fairly sure the QB will be a star.

Winning teams with franchise quarterbacks do NOT build this way (looking at you, Bill Belichick). New England trades players in their prime for draft picks often to teams that do not draft well (looking at you, Al Davis).

If football were golf or tennis, I might trade future draft picks for one outstanding prospect. But, it's not, so I wouldn't.

Smart teams do not trade draft picks away. They acquire them, then they use them. The Redskins had an excellent offseason. I hope they are as astute next year whatever they do. Oh yeah, if they thought Rex Grossman was the answer, he would not be signed to a one-year vet-minimum contract.

NE has a franchise QB. Thus, trading players / picks won't affect the team as much. If Tom Brady goes down, trades / picks won't remotely look as good. Once again, look at the Colts.

[terpskins10]

I'm all for building a great young team with great depth, but it starts with the QB. If you have a guy that's going to be a franchise-caliber star, there's no price to put on that. The Herschel Walker and Ricky Williams comparisons are ridiculous because of how much the NFL relies on QB play, especially in the last 4 or so years.

The Patriots stock up picks and get young talent, but even if they didn't use a single draft pick each year, they'd still be Super Bowl contenders because of who they have behind center. Conversely, the Colts also stockpile draft picks (sometime in the last couple seasons, every one of their starters was drafted by the team) but are helpless without Peyton Manning.

There's absolutely NO price you can put on a QB of that caliber, which Andrew Luck will be, no matter how "good" or "bad" your team is right now. Atlanta had as many holes as we do now back in 2007, and they went to the playoffs in Ryan's first year.

If we want to be a team that contends for a title every year, we give up some picks to do it. We had 12 picks this past draft and every player made either the active roster or PS. We have maneuvering room because of that if we want to package some picks together.

If we want to be a team that stockpiles young talent via 30 draft picks a year but can't get past inconsistent and/or poor QB play (looking at you, Philly), then we can do what so many people are advocating this year. Build a talented team around Rex Grossman and watch him squander it away with his play.

[LD0506]

<sigh> Wasn't this dead horse beaten enough before the season? That poor nag was pounded to dust and yet still rises from the grave to stink up the board again. Enough with the shortsighted Madden viewpoint, this is so far beyond a legitimate discussion that it isn't funny.

Yeah, let's look at the Colts and the conclusions drawn from them. A first round highly touted QB that actually lives up to his billing, ok, we get that, Peyton Manning is a hell of a QB and has been fundamental to their success, but look where that gets them, they are hot garbage without him under center, their entire offense is predicated on him taking the snaps. So we want to mortgage the team for years, a team in serious need of continued rebuilding and repair, forgo all the other players that would upgrade a variety of positions and put everything down on Luck to pay off. It is just such a mindbogglingly stupid plan that it is difficult to even comprehend, much less discuss.

People throw that "franchise QB" thing around like a Frisbee at a Dead concert, but as important as the QB he is still only an element of the larger team around him. It might be different if we were set everywhere except for QB, but we are not, and no rook can hide all those other deficiencies or make up for them with fantasy plays dancing in children's imaginations.

Yes, we need a better QB, not just better play from the ones we have, but making Luck out to be the only possible choice for a generation to come is simplistic, emptying our pockets in a desperate attempt to preform some alchemist's trick to transform the team with one guy is just........well, it's dumb.

[bird_1972]

<sigh> Wasn't this dead horse beaten enough before the season? That poor nag was pounded to dust and yet still rises from the grave to stink up the board again. Enough with the shortsighted Madden viewpoint, this is so far beyond a legitimate discussion that it isn't funny.

Yeah, let's look at the Colts and the conclusions drawn from them. A first round highly touted QB that actually lives up to his billing, ok, we get that, Peyton Manning is a hell of a QB and has been fundamental to their success, but look where that gets them, they are hot garbage without him under center, their entire offense is predicated on him taking the snaps. So we want to mortgage the team for years, a team in serious need of continued rebuilding and repair, forgo all the other players that would upgrade a variety of positions and put everything down on Luck to pay off. It is just such a mindbogglingly stupid plan that it is difficult to even comprehend, much less discuss.

People throw that "franchise QB" thing around like a Frisbee at a Dead concert, but as important as the QB he is still only an element of the larger team around him. It might be different if we were set everywhere except for QB, but we are not, and no rook can hide all those other deficiencies or make up for them with fantasy plays dancing in children's imaginations.

Yes, we need a better QB, not just better play from the ones we have, but making Luck out to be the only possible choice for a generation to come is simplistic, emptying our pockets in a desperate attempt to preform some alchemist's trick to transform the team with one guy is just........well, it's dumb.

Exactly. The lesson from the Colts is not that a QB can change everything, it's that one shouldn't sacrifice the strength of the entire team for just one player.

In other words, a resounding NO when given the chance to package all picks in the draft to move into a position to draft Luck (or any other player, for that matter).

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

Exactly. The lesson from the Colts is not that a QB can change everything, it's that one shouldn't sacrifice the strength of the entire team for just one player.

In other words, a resounding NO when given the chance to package all picks in the draft to move into a position to draft Luck (or any other player, for that matter).

Nah, the lesson from the Colts is that you still have to draft well even when you have a franchise QB.

The Polians have been hot garbage the last few years. Anyone remember Jerry Hughes? Donald Brown?

[TD_washingtonredskins]

terp...I think your line of thinking is fine assuming you KNOW the guy you're trading for will be Tom Brady. No one knows that though. Even if he is Tom Brady and you can get someone who isn't quite Tom Brady plus a bunch of other good players, that still could be better overall.

[Win4us]

I'm probably in the minority here but I would actually like to see a 2011 repeat draft of trading down to aquire more picks. Stud guard, and right tackle for offense with an ILB that never misses tackles would do wonders for the D. Throw in some secondary depth and that's a great draft.

If a decent qb falls to one of our picks go for it, but otherwise we should never again trade draft picks away.

[skinfan2k]

build a solid team and then whatever qb you draft will have more success from the start because of the talent around him

[terpskins10]

terp...I think your line of thinking is fine assuming you KNOW the guy you're trading for will be Tom Brady. No one knows that though. Even if he is Tom Brady and you can get someone who isn't quite Tom Brady plus a bunch of other good players, that still could be better overall.

That's fair. I just think I have more confidence in Luck than most people do. Maybe I'm just impatient, but I think someone like Luck would be the FASTEST way to turn around a team. Players like a Rodgers, Brees, Brady (whom I think Luck will be like) can mask a team's deficiencies immediately. Someone lesser will need a strong supporting cast, which will still take time to develop.

Call me crazy, but I'll still take Tom Brady + Deion Branch, David Givens, and Troy Brown over someone like Kolb throwing to Larry Fitzgerald and Andre Roberts. The league is so QB-driven now that having a great QB makes everyone better immediately, while building a good supporting cast to a decent QB still has potential to fail in the end if the QB himself just can't make a throw or gets rattled.

Again, it just may be my impatience because of how much we've tried to find our QB and how much we've wasted to do it. Just in the last 10 years, a first rounder for Ramsey, a third for Brunell, multiple picks for Campbell, a second for McNabb. We've spent pretty much an entire draft trying to find the guy and we've come up short. To do the same for a guy who is considered to be one of the best QB prospects in recent memory doesn't seem that bad to me, especially since I think we won't need to worry about the position for 10 years after that. We won't be competitive until we find a QB, no matter how good the team around the position is. It's just not how the league works anymore.

[pjfootballer]

We would have to give up some picks, but it's nothing like the Ditka situation where we are willing or have to give up our entire draft, in order to trade up to #1. It's nothing like the Walker trade. Minnesota was literally an elite back away from contending and the Cowboys were coming off a 1-15 campaign in 1989. Those two situations are different from trying to trade up into the #1 spot this year.