Should the Redskins trade up for Luck?

[AKM311]

Wrong. You take calculated risks when the potential reward is high. That's how you live. At least, winners do.

Correct. Calculated risks. Read all my posts in this thread. I am not against trading to get him. But what we would have to give up is what I am against.

Why don't you dump all your money into Apple stock. Every penny? It is about as secure of a company you can invest in.

---------- Post added October-20th-2011 at 03:14 PM ----------

No it won't, and it's complete apples and oranges.

The Skins still have huge holes to fill. The offensive line is still 2 or 3 men away from being a solid unit built to last, we still need some help in the secondary, and I'm sure the experts around here could add some positions of need. We cannot afford to make the kind of deal it would take to land Luck.

This isn't going to change. This thread will live on till the draft, but it isn't going to happen. Luck will never be a Redskin. Sorry folks.

Thank you! This is what I have been saying in this entire thread.

[Hitman#21]

I'll answer this question at the end of the season, though i am sure the Skins will have a rookie QB next season as some have said.

[gchwood]

Don't know if anyone else said this (too lazy to read all of the posts) but I would actually rather have Landry Jones than Andrew Luck, and trading up for Jones will be a lot cheaper.

[KDawg]

Could you link me to the board you look at? I'm genuinely curious. I think RG3's the second hottest QB in college FB right now, but the boards I look at don't have him listed since they think he'll stay an extra year (walterfootball has him going to the 'Skins, which I like).

Wish I could. I look at so many. A great place to read info on these guys is our draft thread on this forum. There's a ton of info and links in there. You just gotta keep up with it.

[Gibbsisgod2006]

These are the trades:

The New York Jets traded their first two picks (17 and 57) plus QB Brett Ratliff, DE Kenyon Coleman and S Abram Elam to acquire the fifth overall pick.

The Giants traded that years first and the next years first for Eli.

Now let me ask you this....do you think any of those trades will work to get Luck?

No probably not but it doesn't matter if the skins have to give up a little more to get Luck I would be all in. When you have a chance to get a QB with Peyton Manning skills you do it.

[Diesel Hog]

Wish all this Luck talk, what about Tannehill out of TAMU?

http://espn.go.com/college-football/player/stats/_/id/232059/ryan-tannehill

[Dannyc]

Seriously?

You think people draft first round quarterbacks to become the backup?

Whe3n a tewam drafts a quarterback in the first round he is expected to be their starter in the future. To intimate that a team would waste a first round pick on a backup quarterback may be the dumbest thing I've ever read here, and that is REALLY saying alot.

Later.

This is pointless.

Maybe you can go read some palms to glean the future.

~Bang

Did I ever say they draft them to be backups? No I said just by drafting a guy in the first round it doesn't mean you're "banking your future on him" if a team drafts a QB in the late first round it is not "banking your future on him" "banking your future" on someone would be moving up to select someone or drafting someone very early in the 1st round.

[VaSkinsNut]

Depends on what we give up. If its 2 firsts a 2 and a 3next year sure. More than that no...

---------- Post added October-20th-2011 at 03:33 PM ----------

Wish all this Luck talk, what about Tannehill out of TAMU?

http://espn.go.com/college-football/player/stats/_/id/232059/ryan-tannehill

He hasn't impressed me much from what I've seen.

[Crazy Levi]

. When you have a chance to get a QB with Peyton Manning skills you do it.

But the ridiculous thing here is that you are assuming the Redskins are the only team who wants him. Aren't there like 30 other teams?

There isn't a set price on Luck. We can't just say "Give them our next 3 1st rounders...it's a NO BRAINER!"

We have no idea what the price will be. We have no idea how many teams will want him. We have no idea if KC or Indy or Miami will even CONSIDER trading the pick.

The Skins cannot afford Luck. They can't afford a bidding war. It's not going to happen. There are many other teams who far better situated to chase down Luck "at all costs" than the Redskins.

People keep insisting we "trade the house."

We don't have a house to trade. Fact is, we own the plot and have built the foundation, but that's about it.

[GibbsFactor]

Did I ever say they draft them to be backups? No I said just by drafting a guy in the first round it doesn't mean you're "banking your future on him" if a team drafts a QB in the late first round it is not "banking your future on him" "banking your future" on someone would be moving up to select someone or drafting someone very early in the 1st round.

Jason Campbell?

Patrick Ramsey?

Heath Shuler?

Those picks didn't set us back 5 years each?

---------- Post added October-20th-2011 at 11:38 AM ----------

But the ridiculous thing here is that you are assuming the Redskins are the only team who wants him. Aren't there like 30 other teams?

There isn't a set price on Luck. We can't just say "Give them our next 3 1st rounders...it's a NO BRAINER!"

We have no idea what the price will be. We have no idea how many teams will want him. We have no idea if KC or Indy or Miami will even CONSIDER trading the pick.

The Skins cannot afford Luck. They can't afford a bidding war. It's not going to happen. There are many other teams who far better situated to chase down Luck "at all costs" than the Redskins.

People keep insisting we "trade the house."

We don't have a house to trade. Fact is, we own the plot and have built the foundation, but that's about it.

That's a defeatist attitude. Just a little FYI.

---------- Post added October-20th-2011 at 11:39 AM ----------

Depends on what we give up. If its 2 firsts a 2 and a 3next year sure. More than that no...

.

I just want to add that this is how awesome Andrew Luck must be. People are like, sure 2 firsts and a 2nd and 3rd, but nothing more.

[Gibbsisgod2006]

But the ridiculous thing here is that you are assuming the Redskins are the only team who wants him. Aren't there like 30 other teams?

There isn't a set price on Luck. We can't just say "Give them our next 3 1st rounders...it's a NO BRAINER!"

We have no idea what the price will be. We have no idea how many teams will want him. We have no idea if KC or Indy or Miami will even CONSIDER trading the pick.

The Skins cannot afford Luck. They can't afford a bidding war. It's not going to happen. There are many other teams who far better situated to chase down Luck "at all costs" than the Redskins.

People keep insisting we "trade the house."

We don't have a house to trade. Fact is, we own the plot and have built the foundation, but that's about it.

How do you figure that we don't have any ammunition to trade up and get luck we have all of our draft picks plus an extra fourth rd pick. So what happens if St. Louis gets the top pick what are they going to do with Bradford? Or say Luck doesn't even want to play for the top team which PFT cited yesterday that it could be a possiblity that Luck pulls a Eli. You right we don't know what the price is going to be but if he is available to get then the front office should dowhat it takes to get Luck doning the burgandy and gold.

[gchwood]

Wish all this Luck talk, what about Tannehill out of TAMU?

http://espn.go.com/college-football/player/stats/_/id/232059/ryan-tannehill

My problem with Tannehill is that he struggles against good pass Ds. His 2 worst games were against Arkansas (33rd) and Texas Tech (20th). After that the best team he has faced is ranked 80th (SMU). I need him to show me he can handle tough pass Ds, because in the NFL they are all harder than Texas Tech.

[sportjunkie07]

Wish all this Luck talk, what about Tannehill out of TAMU?

http://espn.go.com/college-football/player/stats/_/id/232059/ryan-tannehill

check out the draft thread. there is a lot of info on him there and he has been quite impressive so far this year.

---------- Post added October-20th-2011 at 10:55 AM ----------

My problem with Tannehill is that he struggles against good pass Ds. His 2 worst games were against Arkansas (33rd) and Texas Tech (20th). After that the best team he has faced is ranked 80th (SMU). I need him to show me he can handle tough pass Ds, because in the NFL they are all harder than Texas Tech.

tannehill had a very good game versus texas tech. he will play tougher d's throughout the season, just make sure you watch them instead of just looking at the stats. they sometimes lie.

[gchwood]

check out the draft thread. there is a lot of info on him there and he has been quite impressive so far this year.

Except for the Romo sits to pee-esque choke moments in the Ok St game and the inability to just close the game out vs Ark. I want a QB who can close it out, tired of having a QB kill us in the 4th with INTs and incompletions.

[sportjunkie07]

Except for the Romo sits to pee-esque choke moments in the Ok St game and the inability to just close the game out vs Ark. I want a QB who can close it out, tired of having a QB kill us in the 4th with INTs and incompletions.

it wasnt Romo sits to pee-esque. i know, i was there. but i do think OK st was the worst game of his so far. there is much more positive than negative overall with the guy though.

[GaryGreenMonk]

Jason Campbell?

Patrick Ramsey?

Heath Shuler?

Those picks didn't set us back 5 years each?

While I agree with you.

I want to point out one thing... The new rules slightly change this dynamic.

IF you draft someone like a Sam Bradford.. you no longer have to sign them to a 4 year 56 million dollar contract.

You will in fact be able to cut them without massive cap damage if you deem necessary after a couple years.

[flock53]

NO WAY are you crazy??? Its looks to be a deep qb class. Could get Kellen Moore or I like Darron Thomas ALOT if he declares

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Jason Campbell?

Patrick Ramsey?

Heath Shuler?

Those picks didn't set us back 5 years each?

Anyone who would like to simplify things to the point that they believe picking Jason Campbell in the mid-20s and Patrick Ramsey in the 30s overall set the franchise back 10 years total is out of their mind. Missing on those two picks contributed to where we are, sure.

You could make a case for Shuler, I suppose. But we were challenging for a playoff spot within 2 years of drafting him despite getting nothing out of him. So I think that's a tough sell as well.

[BucketHTTR]

I do like Kellen Moore.. I think he would fit our offense really well, but he is a bit small in bulkyness. RG III doesn't play under center and I would think he would have to develop his feet a bit before fitting with us. I think he would be dynamic in Philly.

[gchwood]

tannehill had a very good game versus texas tech. he will play tougher d's throughout the season, just make sure you watch them instead of just looking at the stats. they sometimes lie.

16 of 26 for 188 and a TD wasn't a very good game, marginal at best. I watched the game (my best friend is a TAMU fan) and it was yet another one that they tried to give away. He did some good with his feet, but I haven't been overly impressed so far.

[GWinSkins83]

What I don't get is with this argument about trading picks for Luck is really fustrating for people to say no. You say how do you know if he will succeed. Well how do we know those picks are going to succeed. Luck is the cleanest prospect from all prospects in 25 years. Let that sink in a little bit. That means from every position on the field he is the cleanest and most complete. So you have the best prospect not QB prospect but best prospect to come out in 25 years. I'm sorry but that is something that if you have to give up 6 picks eff it then. Yeah we loss 6 picks but in the next 2 drafts we still have 12 picks. And its not like we have holes where you use a 1st round pick to file in expect for CB. Other positions are mainly filled with 2-7 rounds. We already have 2 OLB/DE that realistly be the tops at their position. We have a bonafide Super Star Safety, We have a LT. We might not have a #1 WR but that can be had in FA. There is a core here already. We have a enivorment for a young QB to succeed.

---------- Post added October-20th-2011 at 12:57 PM ----------

Okay i'm not going to quote all that because a lot of it is your opinion. I did mis-word 1,000 and meant 100's but it still doesn't change that fact that scouts miss talent, and over evaluate talent every year. Like mentioned early in this thread with about 39+ other QB's.

Ricky Williams also lead the league in carries, so obviously he would lead the league in rushing. Although, this is not even on subject.

So, you are part of the belief that Luck is the next big thing? Or it's not "your" belief at all? You're argument is just for the sake of an argument? I understand that Luck is projected to be a great player, but he's not a Redskin. My argument is mostly based on the fact that we cannot sacrifice the depth of our football team for one guy. You just can't... Maybe that's my opinion, and if it is then I stand by it and you're biased responses about how you want Luck to be a Redskin so badly that you are willing to trade away the house for him isn't going to change either..

Luck won't be a Redskin...So, let's be clear before I end this debate, and I just want to be clear..

You believe that trading away everything for Luck is a good move because Luck is the future QB of the NFL.

I believe that trading all our picks for a QB and sacrifice our depth at several positions is a bad idea.

So let's just agree to disagree because this is starting to recycle itself

---------- Post added October-20th-2011 at 04:08 AM ----------

Why are we even discussing Luck right now? He's an underclassman and we don't even know if he's coming out for the draft this year? Personally, I think Kellen Moore is a much better option and safer pick for QB for us then giving up so many picks for a QB.

You lost all creditability with the Moore give you a better chance than Luck. You up in here saying we don't know what Luck is going to be in the NFL. But you don't know what those picks that you want to keep is going to be in the NFL. Just because you have more picks doesnt mean you are going to be good either. Didn't SF have least draft picks than us. Aren't they a better team than us? I know that its a gamble to trade that many picks. But I'm going to say this what if we have to tradeup to get a QB anyway. How much are we going to have to giveup to get that QB. Is trading those picks even with that QB or is that situation even with giving up a little bit more the get the BEST PROSPECT not just QB but BEST PROSPECT. Thats the thoughts that I want the FO to be thinking about.

[BucketHTTR]

What I don't get is with this argument about trading picks for Luck is really fustrating for people to say no. You say how do you know if he will succeed. Well how do we know those picks are going to succeed. Luck is the cleanest prospect from all prospects in 25 years. Let that sink in a little bit. That means from every position on the field he is the cleanest and most complete. So you have the best prospect not QB prospect but best prospect to come out in 25 years. I'm sorry but that is something that if you have to give up 6 picks eff it then. Yeah we loss 6 picks but in the next 2 drafts we still have 12 picks. And its not like we have holes where you use a 1st round pick to file in expect for CB. Other positions are mainly filled with 2-7 rounds. We already have 2 OLB/DE that realistly be the tops at their position. We have a bonafide Super Star Safety, We have a LT. We might not have a #1 WR but that can be had in FA. There is a core here already. We have a enivorment for a young QB to succeed.

---------- Post added October-20th-2011 at 12:57 PM ----------

You lost all creditability with the Moore give you a better chance than Luck. You up in here saying we don't know what Luck is going to be in the NFL. But you don't know what those picks that you want to keep is going to be in the NFL. Just because you have more picks doesnt mean you are going to be good either. Didn't SF have least draft picks than us. Aren't they a better team than us? I know that its a gamble to trade that many picks. But I'm going to say this what if we have to tradeup to get a QB anyway. How much are we going to have to giveup to get that QB. Is trading those picks even with that QB or is that situation even with giving up a little bit more the get the BEST PROSPECT not just QB but BEST PROSPECT. Thats the thoughts that I want the FO to be thinking about.

No I just didn't make my reply clear. I didn't say Moore gives us a better chance then Luck. I said we would be better off getting someone like Moore, where he will drop down to us instead of trading away our picks to grab Luck. The QB depth in this draft has potential to be very deep. So no point in trading away everything for one guy.

[mistertim]

Here is the issue with the people saying we have too many holes so there is no way we should/would give up picks to trade up for a QB now. Shanahan apparently disagrees with you. A lot. In the 2010 draft, according to many accounts, Shanny tried to trade up to get Bradford. We don't know for certain but I did read that they were offering the Rams something like 2 1sts and a 2nd or 3rd but the Rams were pretty much dead set on taking him. I'm assuming that most of you would agree that in 2010 we had a much worse defense and a much worse OL than this year, and that includes depth. But Shanahan was still apparently willing to give up a lot to get Bradford anyway. If Shanahan wants Luck and he thinks Luck will be as good as most believe/hope he will be, I'm guessing he will be willing to part with quite a bit to get him.

[Cen Tex Skins]

I would love to have A.Luck as long as we don't have to give up a whole round(or more)worth of draft picks to get him.That being said I feel RGIII,Barkley or N.Foles will be great QB's at the next level and would be happy with anyone of them if we lose out on Luck.We are starting to be competitive in the NFC East,we have a strong running game,Great TE(who Luck loves to throw to),a improving O-line,strong D and location...Luck's dad works at WVU.Not sure any of this amounts to a hill of beans or will factor into A.Luck's decision but I feel if we move up we are a very desirable destination compared to say Miami,St.Louis or even Indy.

[terpskins10]

Kellen Moore is going to be a very good backup QB at best. Don't let the stats fool you - he's not NFL material.