IONTOP Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 Alright hear me out (Scenario is for Indy, but any team can be substituted): 2012 First Rounder 2013 First Rounder 2013 2nd Rounder Once Luck wins 2 Super Bowls, we will put him on the trade block and Indy can look at the best trade offer and offer us ONE less first rounder and we will trade him to them. Therefore in 2014 if a team offers us: 2014 First, Second and Third 2015 First, Second 2016 First The Colts only have to give us the 2014 and 2015 picks. Conversely, if the Colts already have a Franchise QB, we will give them our first rounder the year after we win our 2nd Super Bowl. WIN/WIN Situation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 Alright hear me out (Scenario is for Indy, but any team can be substituted):2012 First Rounder 2013 First Rounder 2013 2nd Rounder Once Luck wins 2 Super Bowls, we will put him on the trade block and Indy can look at the best trade offer and offer us ONE less first rounder and we will trade him to them. Therefore in 2014 if a team offers us: 2014 First, Second and Third 2015 First, Second 2016 First The Colts only have to give us the 2014 and 2015 picks. Conversely, if the Colts already have a Franchise QB, we will give them our first rounder the year after we win our 2nd Super Bowl. WIN/WIN Situation You should be a futurist. ---------- Post added November-2nd-2011 at 06:01 PM ---------- In that great draft of '83, Dan Marino was the 27th pick. After Kelly, Blackledge, and O'Brien were picked. In Shanny we trust. :fingersx: I understand that. The point is that with our luck we'd end up with the Blackledge of this draft. The sure thing is the first pick and he lived up to it. Of course you have Kelly and Marino, but the can't miss didn't miss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmchairRedskin Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 I'd rather keep the other firsts, take one of the other top QB's. Those future firsts you trade away could be either be used to surround the QB with other weapons, or can even be used to choose another QB in a couple. three years if your guy doesn't show what you want. The rookie wage scale makes picking a top QB a lot less prohibitive. I don't want to have to go all in with 4 firsts on one guy. What if he gets Theismann'd in year two? Then we have two more years to go without a first round pick and no QB. There's no guarantee that the gap between Luck and the others is sufficient enough to even justify the cost. Luck may be the best now, but he might not be the best in 5 years. I want to be relevant, but the risk reward isn't skewed toward reward far enough for my taste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins4ever28 Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 I agree with your overall premise that you need an elite QB to consistently win in the NFL. But the above quote made me seriously discredit everything else you said.Wayne is one of the cleanest route-runners you'll ever see, and has unbelievable hands. To say that a guy who will get legitimate consideration for the HOF is garbage reflects poor football knowledge. Let me rephrase, Im a little harsh on reggie this year, maybe because hes on my fantasy team. Waynes far from garbage, but hes far from great as well. Great route runner? Yes. Hands? Absolutely, but those two keys, especially route running, arent very useful without a QB. If Reggie Wayne played on another team his whole career with an average QB, he wouldnt be half as good as he has been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbs Hog Heaven Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Crud. I was out watching 'Contagion' earlier (and man does that flick make you think on things) and missed your radio gig Murph. Not up in their archives yet, but I'll keep checking. Hail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPortJGibbs89 Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Would love to hear the podcast if anyone has it. Pretty awesome how they wanted you to be on the show murf! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
die.hard.skins.fan Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 I sat on hold for this freaking radio show for 1.5 hours, then they finally let me on the air, they let me speak my mind for all of 30 seconds and then they hang up on me, no "thanks for your call" ... very disappointed in the way this radio show was handled, I won't be listening to them anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins4ever Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 I'd rather keep the other firsts, take one of the other top QB's. Those future firsts you trade away could be either be used to surround the QB with other weapons, or can even be used to choose another QB in a couple. three years if your guy doesn't show what you want. The rookie wage scale makes picking a top QB a lot less prohibitive. I don't want to have to go all in with 4 firsts on one guy. What if he gets Theismann'd in year two? Then we have two more years to go without a first round pick and no QB. There's no guarantee that the gap between Luck and the others is sufficient enough to even justify the cost. Luck may be the best now, but he might not be the best in 5 years. I want to be relevant, but the risk reward isn't skewed toward reward far enough for my taste. I wholeheartedly agree. If the Redskins can get Andrew Luck, then fine. If not, then Bruce Allen and Mike Shanahan have to take a long hard look at Landry Jones and Robert Griffin III. Even if the Redskins don't end up drafting in the top ten, I'm sure the front office will try to make a deal that will put them into the position of drafting Griffin or Jones. The Redskins also need a young WR and a veteran WR for the young QB to throw to. Or perhaps, Griffin or Jones may fall similar to how Aaron Rodgers fell in the 2005 draft. And we could end up selecting one of them. But to insure that we get either of them, the Redskins are going to have to wheel and deal in order to make that happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skin'Em84 Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 I'm a firm believer of the fact that you never give up the farm for a player. Never, whatever the circumstances. As a poster earlier pointed out, what if he get's theismann'd, or Sean Taylor'd, or Jay Williams'd, or Len Bias'd? You never know what will happen. If we had the #1 pick and someone gave up the farm for him? I'd probably take their farm. He's a beast, he will be a great QB, but unless he's Peyton Manning, he won't make the team a superbowl contender by himself. We may only have one QB in the league that can do that, possibly two (Aaron Rodgers, but that defense is reallly good. Peyton doesn't have a Raji, Woodson, Matthews, or Tramon WIlliams). Three if you want to try Brady, but Belichick has had success with 2 different QBs. That's it. Out of those three, 1 was a number one pick. Remember that as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brettstr Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 I'm a firm believer of the fact that you never give up the farm for a player. Never' date=' whatever the circumstances. As a poster earlier pointed out, what if he get's theismann'd, or Sean Taylor'd, or Jay Williams'd, or Len Bias'd? You never know what will happen. If we had the #1 pick and someone gave up the farm for him? I'd probably take their farm. He's a beast, he will be a great QB, but unless he's Peyton Manning, he won't make the team a superbowl contender by himself. We may only have one QB in the league that can do that, possibly two (Aaron Rodgers, but that defense is reallly good. Peyton doesn't have a Raji, Woodson, Matthews, or Tramon WIlliams). Three if you want to try Brady, but Belichick has had success with 2 different QBs. That's it. Out of those three, 1 was a number one pick. Remember that as well.[/quote'] How many superbowls has P. Manning won or been to? Took 8 years to get there and 2 more to more to get back. Do you think Luck can do it any quicker? if not be prepared to wait on possibly 4-7 years to get there if that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFKFedEx Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Andrew Luck could be as can't miss as Dot.com stocks in 1999, US real estate in 2005. Laugh now, but no one was laughing at the time. I'd be willing to give away two first round picks, but nothing more. That would equate to 3 first rounds picks spent on one guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins4ever28 Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 How many superbowls has P. Manning won or been to? Took 8 years to get there and 2 more to more to get back. Do you think Luck can do it any quicker? if not be prepared to wait on possibly 4-7 years to get there if that. I dont mind waiting another 4-7 years for a super bowl. I mind being able to have a chance in every game. Thats what Manning did. Every year, every game they either won or should have won. He even said something last year after a game that made me think how great it would have been to had him on our team. He said "I think me, the staff, the team and even the fans really take for granted that we usually win 11-13 games every year. Just because were so used to winning." Imagine winning 10+ games a year every year, itd be great. Look at a team like the Chargers. Their really good(they definitely have their problems) , but every single year they can make a run to the Super Bowl. Every single year, they could beat any team on any Sunday. They just havent made it there yet. But how nice would it be to watch our Skins win 11ish games a year and every week the other teams look at the schedule, see that their playing us and go, well thats one loss. Look, me personally, Id trade it all for Luck. But we probably wont. I just hope whatever comes out of this, is something to finally end this 20 years of me punching holes in my walls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins Wingman Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 we dont need andrew luck. how many #1 picks have turned out great, and how many have turned out bust? the chances are better that you get a bust. luck has been so freakin hyped up, i dont think he can live up to the expectations. sure, the brothers manning were both picked #1 overall, and both have won superbowls. but what about quarterbacks like drew brees, ben roethlisberger, tom brady, and aaron rodgers? they were not the first qbs taken in their draft class, and they have all won superbowls. being a big prospect in the draft is so overrated, and history proves that. stop crowning andrew luck when he hasnt even taken a snap in the nfl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
themurf Posted November 3, 2011 Author Share Posted November 3, 2011 we dont need andrew luck. how many #1 picks have turned out great, and how many have turned out bust? the chances are better that you get a bust. luck has been so freakin hyped up, i dont think he can live up to the expectations. sure, the brothers manning were both picked #1 overall, and both have won superbowls. but what about quarterbacks like drew brees, ben roethlisberger, tom brady, and aaron rodgers? they were not the first qbs taken in their draft class, and they have all won superbowls. being a big prospect in the draft is so overrated, and history proves that. stop crowning andrew luck when he hasnt even taken a snap in the nfl. Scouts, who aren't the ones hyping Luck to mythical proportions, compare his skill set right now to Peyton Manning and/or John Elway. Both of those guys turned out pretty good, and honestly, I can't think of a single quarterback who has come out since them that's been openly compared to either of the Hall of Famers. Your argument of "how many first-rounders turn out to be busts?" only strengthens my stance that the Redskins should go all in for Luck -- because he's the closest thing to a sure thing/one-in-a-generation talent you're going to be able to get. Anyone else coming out this year -- whether it be Landry Jones, Robert Griffin III, Matt Barkley or whoever -- is much more likely to be a bust than he is. So if you don't want to run the risk of your favorite football team drafting the wrong guy and setting back the franchise another five years or so, then you too should be on board with getting Luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Scouts, who aren't the ones hyping Luck to mythical proportions, compare his skill set right now to Peyton Manning and/or John Elway...That's a neat trick. The skillsets of Peyton and Elway could not be more dissimilar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mursilis Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Scouts, who aren't the ones hyping Luck to mythical proportions, compare his skill set right now to Peyton Manning and/or John Elway. Both of those guys turned out pretty good, and honestly, I can't think of a single quarterback who has come out since them that's been openly compared to either of the Hall of Famers. Your argument of "how many first-rounders turn out to be busts?" only strengthens my stance that the Redskins should go all in for Luck -- because he's the closest thing to a sure thing/one-in-a-generation talent you're going to be able to get.Anyone else coming out this year -- whether it be Landry Jones, Robert Griffin III, Matt Barkley or whoever -- is much more likely to be a bust than he is. So if you don't want to run the risk of your favorite football team drafting the wrong guy and setting back the franchise another five years or so, then you too should be on board with getting Luck. Which is all the more reason I can't see the 'skins getting him. Unless a few miracles happen in Miami or Indy, this team isn't going to have the #1 pick, and I just can't see those teams passing up the chance to land Luck. Miami is in desperate need of a franchise QB NOW, and Indy will need one very soon. I don't see a realistic scenario in which the Redskins can make a trade for Luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
themurf Posted November 3, 2011 Author Share Posted November 3, 2011 Which is all the more reason I can't see the 'skins getting him. Unless a few miracles happen in Miami or Indy, this team isn't going to have the #1 pick, and I just can't see those teams passing up the chance to land Luck. Miami is in desperate need of a franchise QB NOW, and Indy will need one very soon. I don't see a realistic scenario in which the Redskins can make a trade for Luck. I agree that chances are Miami wouldn't give him up at any cost, but Indy would be in an interesting spot. Let's say they land the top pick and the Redskins end up with a pick somewhere between the eighth and 12th overall pick. If the Redskins went all in and offered four first rounders, wouldn't the Colts have to strongly consider the offer? They'd drop down somewhere between seven and 11 spots, still be able to get a quarterback if they wanted and, as an added bonus, they'd be able to groom that player as Manning's eventual replacement, as opposed to dealing with the immediate onslaught of "which one should start?" drama. Oh, and the three future first rounders wouldn't hurt either. It's all wild speculation at this point, but it makes for an interesting discussion. ---------- Post added November-3rd-2011 at 09:40 AM ---------- That's a neat trick. The skillsets of Peyton and Elway could not be more dissimilar. I know you're always the smartest man in the room and it's not even worth trying to have a discussion with you because you're never wrong, but I'll clarify for others. Scouts say Luck is the first player since Manning and/or Elway to come into the league with such an NFL-ready skill set. Not that he's magically going to grow an oversized forehead and buck teeth to transform into a Manning-Elway love child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mursilis Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 I agree that chances are Miami wouldn't give him up at any cost, but Indy would be in an interesting spot. Let's say they land the top pick and the Redskins end up with a pick somewhere between the eighth and 12th overall pick. If the Redskins went all in and offered four first rounders, wouldn't the Colts have to strongly consider the offer? They'd drop down somewhere between seven and 11 spots, still be able to get a quarterback if they wanted and, as an added bonus, they'd be able to groom that player as Manning's eventual replacement, as opposed to dealing with the immediate onslaught of "which one should start?" drama. Oh, and the three future first rounders wouldn't hurt either.It's all wild speculation at this point, but it makes for an interesting discussion. Speculation indeed - we just can't know if the 'skins would make that offer, or if Indy would take it. Of course, if they kept the pick and took Luck, they'd also have the option of dealing Manning right away for a fairly high price, and get BOTH Luck and additional picks, so we're going to just have to wait and see how it all shakes out. I'm still thinking any team (except maybe St. Louis, who already has Bradford, or Carolina, who has Newton) with the chance to draft Luck will get him and keep him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
authentic Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Andrew Luck could be as can't miss as Dot.com stocks in 1999, US real estate in 2005. Laugh now, but no one was laughing at the time. I'd be willing to give away two first round picks, but nothing more. That would equate to 3 first rounds picks spent on one guy. I hear you, I would be willing to give up 2012s (1st & 2nd) and 2013s 1st. I'm just afraid it would take more to get him, and IMO its not worth it since it would mean sacrificing other glaring holes on the team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
themurf Posted November 3, 2011 Author Share Posted November 3, 2011 I hear you, I would be willing to give up 2012s (1st & 2nd) and 2013s 1st. I'm just afraid it would take more to get him, and IMO its not worth it since it would mean sacrificing other glaring holes on the team. No one is trading away Andrew Luck for two first rounders and a second-round pick. Look at what Chicago had to give up for Cutler (who was three years older and not as good) or what Oakland gave up for 31-year-old Palmer (nine years older and the guy most likely to be compared to washed-up Donovan McNabb). The cost is high for a franchise quarterback because teams without them don't win. Don't believe me? Keep watching John Beck miss his receivers by five yards any time he throws the ball more than 20 yards down field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 ...Scouts say Luck is the first player since Manning and/or Elway to come into the league with such an NFL-ready skill set. Not that he's magically going to grow an oversized forehead and buck teeth to transform into a Manning-Elway love child.Well now, that statement makes more sense. Your first sounded like just more hype. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pointyfootball Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 The suggest price to pay (four 1sts) is not worth it, even if he does turn out to be Peyton II. The inability to get blue-chip players in future years to help the team would result in a team not talented enough to help Luck IF he turns out to be as good as people says he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbsisgod2006 Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 The suggest price to pay (four 1sts) is not worth it, even if he does turn out to be Peyton II. The inability to get blue-chip players in future years to help the team would result in a team not talented enough to help Luck IF he turns out to be as good as people says he is. A franchise QB is always worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
authentic Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 The cost is high for a franchise quarterback because teams without them don't win. Don't believe me? Keep watching John Beck miss his receivers by five yards any time he throws the ball more than 20 yards down field. I agree the price is high. But anything more than that is too much for ME.. Perhaps thats why i'm not a GM of an organization... ...Ok, ok 2012 and 2013 (1st & 2nd).... and thats it!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 No one is trading away Andrew Luck for two first rounders and a second-round pick. Look at what Chicago had to give up for Cutler (who was three years older and not as good)...Jay Cutler made the Pro Bowl off his 2008 performance, and scouts and GMs had him graded as the outstanding young QB in the league. His value should have been higher than Manning and Elway's love child.Here's a Sando article from 2007 with expert opinions on Cutler: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=sando_mike&id=3142771 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.