Homer: Why the Redskins need Andrew Luck (Update: Going on 106.7 the Fan)

[Oldfan]

...2. His use of the tight ends and running backs. This is where Stanford does seem to have a talent advantage and my goodness does he exploit it. Most college QBs don't have the patience or touch to work the middle of the field and flats like this.

I agree. However, I give credit to the coaching. This is the strength of their offense, but they're the easiest throws a QB can make. They seem to have a bunch of sure-handed receivers, but no studly types.

[authentic]

Is it too late for the Redskins to throw in a fifth first-rounder?

...... there should be a federal law preventing this.

[GibbsFactor]

Oldfan is the Phil Simms of ES -- meaning I can't think of a single time I've ever agreed with his stance on anything. If he and Simms are the two guys on the other side of this debate, then I know I'm onto something.

Is it too late for the Redskins to throw in a fifth first-rounder?

Murph, you probably missed my thread back in March about taking advantage of the work stoppage year.

Here it is, give it a read...

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?344865-Innovative-Solutions-in-Uncertain-Times-The-Work-Stoppage-Year

I felt we should have traded away picks and players THIS year ahead of the '11 draft for '12 futures.

Wish more would have taken it seriously. I thought it was a stroke of genius.

---------- Post added November-1st-2011 at 03:39 PM ----------

...... there should be a federal law preventing this.

What have those 1st rounders done for us?

[darrelgreenie]

3 years down the road who's to say that another from this draft class won't be better then Luck?

[pjfootballer]

No, not at all ....But neither do i enjoy the prospects of not having a 1st round pick until 2016 either. And who's to say "said team" would want only 1st round picks, they may want multiple 2012 picks as well. Again, I don't completely disagree with you. I hate our QB situation right now, but i don't think mortgaging that much is the answer either. But, thats just me....

I know this is 2 different eras, but the Redskins in the 70s and 80s rarely had 1st round picks thanks to George Allen and Bobby Beathard. Now, they did have more rounds back then (12-20), but if we give up this year's (top 5) and next years (maybe not a top 15 if Luck turns us around) and the other 2 might be between picks 15-32, you can still find good players in the other rounds. I'm all in. I'm tired of having "JOKES" lining up behind center.

[GibbsFactor]

I agree. However, I give credit to the coaching. This is the strength of their offense, but they're the easiest throws a QB can make. The seem to have a bunch of sure-handed receivers, but no studly types.

Which coaching staff?

His redshirt and Sophmore year's or his current Junior year's?

[Hitman21ST]

By "great support system," I meant a great college support system. His line and his receivers are good and they are a well-coached team.

So he's performing well with players who won't be in the NFL, but he's going to regress with better surrounding players? Not sure I follow your logic.

The support level at Stanford is laughable compared to what he'll have in the NFL. If he were playing at a powerhouse against clearly inferior talent then I could see your point. But Stanford plays a tough schedule this year, against quality opponents, and every time Luck rises to the occasion and shows his talent. USC had the better team last Saturday, but Luck won the game for Stanford. This isn't Terrelle Pryor beating up on a weak Big 10.

[GibbsFactor]

3 years down the road who's to say that another from this draft class won't be better then Luck?

Name him.

That's the problem with that argument.

[Rocket442Olds]

No scouting, no matter how "universally accepted" it is, is a sure win. Giving up 4 First Round picks is franchise suicide if Luck turns out to be bad. On top of the all the fundamentals (which he seems to have), we have to think about how a QB is used, taught, and his first few years. Putting him behind a OL like ours, could turn him into a draft bust in a single season. Peyton had one bad year, his first. Luck may be the next Manning, but he may also be the next Tim Couch, David Carr, or any other QB who through not having a chance to succeed in a system, had a messed up brain from football.

I'd love to get the guy, but I doubt any of the 0-2 win teams are going to go through with a trade. I think just as important as the intangibles and fundamentals, is the ability of a staff & team to put a QB in a good situation. Players like Big Ben, Rodgers, and others prove this as well. You can draft a QB later in the round and be okay, there are so many variables (many probably even unknown to anyone) that no one is a "lock" as a great player.

[darrelgreenie]

Tom Brady (2x)

Ben Roethlisberger (2x)

Peyton Manning

Aaron Rodgers

Drew Brees

Eli Manning

If you have a chance to acquire a player you believe can be in that class, there's almost no price too high. As I said before, would the Packers have regretted the 2005 draft if they'd had to give up the entirety of the rest of their class to get Rodgers? Same with the rest of these guys. They're more valuable than any THREE other players on their team, and I truly believe that.

Were all of them the top rated QB in their draft class?

[steve09ru]

The talent around him has done nothing this year...that team was designed for a high profile QB that can put points up and make the plays. They have always been horrid against the run and have only found success defensively when teams are passing to keep up.

[GibbsFactor]

No scouting, no matter how "universally accepted" it is, is a sure win. Giving up 4 First Round picks is franchise suicide if Luck turns out to be bad. On top of the all the fundamentals (which he seems to have), we have to think about how a QB is used, taught, and his first few years. Putting him behind a OL like ours, could turn him into a draft bust in a single season. Peyton had one bad year, his first. Luck may be the next Manning, but he may also be the next Tim Couch, David Carr, or any other QB who through not having a chance to succeed in a system, had a messed up brain from football.

I'd love to get the guy, but I doubt any of the 0-2 win teams are going to go through with a trade. I think just as important as the intangibles and fundamentals, is the ability of a staff & team to put a QB in a good situation. Players like Big Ben, Rodgers, and others prove this as well. You can draft a QB later in the round and be okay, there are so many variables (many probably even unknown to anyone) that no one is a "lock" as a great player.

Not giving up 4 first rounders is franchise suicide.

I give you the 2011 Washington Redskins.

Kerrigan

Williams

Orakpo

who the hell knows.

What has that done for us?

[themurf]

Murph, you probably missed my thread back in March about taking advantage of the work stoppage year.

Here it is, give it a read...

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?344865-Innovative-Solutions-in-Uncertain-Times-The-Work-Stoppage-Year

I felt we should have traded away picks and players THIS year ahead of the '11 draft for '12 futures.

Wish more would have taken it seriously. I thought it was a stroke of genius.

---------- Post added November-1st-2011 at 03:39 PM ----------

What have those 1st rounders done for us?

Looks like the team went with option three from your post, which is the route I would have begged them to go. But then again, I've always preferred defense and a solid ground game. Nicely done.

[GibbsFactor]

Were all of them the top rated QB in their draft class?

We are talking about best since ELWAY!

Not Bradford, not Vick, not Manning, John Elway.

All John Elway did was make the Denver Broncos one of the most relevant AFC squads over a 15 year period. I'll take that.

[Oldfan]

Oldfan is the Phil Simms of ES -- meaning I can't think of a single time I've ever agreed with his stance on anything. If he and Simms are the two guys on the other side of this debate, then I know I'm onto something.

How much do you know about QBs?

I called the shot on McNabb. I said he didn't fit the scheme, and would be a minor improvement over Jason. I even predicted that he would come up short in the redzone and that the Skins would be a big play offense in 2010.

How did you do on calling the shot on the McNabb trade?

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

3 years down the road who's to say that another from this draft class won't be better then Luck?

I am to say it.

Look, I could end up being wrong, but I think that if you threw Luck on the Dolphins this week, on Sunday, he's one of the 12 best QBs in the league. Outside of injury, the only way I can see him failing is if he ****s up in his personal life. But he's a smart man from a great family so even that seems difficult to foresee.

[GibbsFactor]

Looks like the team went with option three from your post, which is the route I would have begged them to go. But then again, I've always preferred defense and a solid ground game. Nicely done.

See, if only we had gone to interview those soccer players instead of playing on LeAnne's go cart.

This is what I wish we had done:

4. Trade for the future. – Ah yes, you all knew it was coming. This move has been labled “retarded” by some. 11 positions needed. Will Julio Jones or Von Miller or Cameron Jordan help us? Of course. Drafting BPA the traditional route is the safe thing to do. Many feel that gambling with our picks is the last thing we need since we have so many holes. Plus, we’d waste a good year of Orakpo/Landry, etc… To that I say their year will be wasted anyway. The season will be short, the team won’t have camps to improve their knowledge of the scheme, with so many holes, this team is not contending next year. .500 is the best we could hope for. With lack of player movement in free agency, teams will be looking to move up, acquire extra picks to contend this year. We are not one of those teams. With that being said, extra value will be placed on draft picks. Couple that with future year draft picks weighted lower, and you could walk away from this draft set for the next 5 years. What I mean is by trading the #10 and #41 pick, you could go into the 2012 draft with 7+ picks in the first two days of the draft alone. You could package those picks to trade up for one of the three QBs that will outclass this years, you could trade some for future picks and be set to have draft collateral for years to come. Wouldn’t that be nice? Wouldn’t that be a true change in culture? I realize this thought is sickening to most, but it’s big picture thinking. It’s the type of move that would change the fortune of the Skins for years to come with two moves.

[Bat~man]

Yea, we aren't even going to be in play for Luck.

It's a nice thought tho

[pjfootballer]

Looking at Luck's videos, I don't see the tangibles you see, GHH. He's a good athlete, but not great. He's a good passer, but not great. He's been well coached. He reads coverages like Peyton? Come on, man. He's playing college ball. How sophisticated are those college defenses compared to the pros?

I tend to be wary of QBs who come out of great support systems like Stanford's. You aren't drafting his support system.

He's probably worth a number one pick, but this idea of trading the family farm to get him is way out of line.

The interesting thing is, Stanford football has not been so good "since" Elway was the QB. Sure Steve Stenstrom et al had a couple of good years, but the combination of Harbaugh and Luck have propelled Stanford football to top 5-10 status. It will be interesting to see how Stanford fares after Luck is gone and the new coach has to groom someone else.

[Aghar]

3 years down the road who's to say that another from this draft class won't be better then Luck?

No one. But the chances of that is far less than any other in recent memory. You always take a chance when drafting a QB. GM / Coaching staff bank their jobs on drafting one. However, whoever does draft Luck will not loose their job over it. He could turn out to be a bust, and it wouldn't happen. Why? Because there isn't a single GM or Coach in the NFL that doesn't think he is the real deal. A once in a generation type player. That's saying a lot. In fact I could see a few GM/Coach firings over not drafting this guy if a team is actually dumb enough to pass on him without getting a ton in return for him.

[GibbsFactor]

I agree, but the argument may be irrelevant.

There are two questions:

1. What is Andrew Luck worth to the Redskins?
   
2. What is Mike Shanahan willing to pay for Andrew Luck?
   

In a perfect world, these questions have precisely the same answer. My answer to #1 is the same as yours or Murph's ... essentially anything.

I don't think Shanahan feels the same way. Not because he grades Luck low, but because he overvalues his own system and IMO is determined to prove to the world that his system beats the NFL with adequate QB play, and that he is a genius who should be in the HOF.

That's the rational interpretation of his QB management to date, post-Elway. He can't prove that case with Andrew Luck.

Starting John Beck is giving the finger to the rest of the NFL. Continuing to start John Beck is doubling down: he's giving the finger to his own locker room. Once Shanahan's gone that far, we've left the realm of normal decision making.

We've seen this story before. It's Steve Spurrier.

My answer is that Mike Shannahan will never give up anything for that quarterback. His ego prevents him from doing that. Nevermind that he had nothing to do with bringing in Steve Young or John Elway. He feels his system is the contributing factor to the teams success, not the talent. With Shannahan, I'll never expect him to go big for a QB when he thinks John Beck will do.

[yellow41]

I agree, but the argument may be irrelevant.

There are two questions:

1. What is Andrew Luck worth to the Redskins?
   
2. What is Mike Shanahan willing to pay for Andrew Luck?
   

If I might add this:

3. What is Andrew Luck worth to Dan Snyder, and what is Snyder willing to pay for him?

It certainly seems Shanahan has kept Snyder at bay as a wannabe-GM, but just for the sake of argument, what if Snyder decides he can't stay away from this one? What if he sets his sights on Luck?

As a football man, what Snyder has done best is woo the guys he wants and, in the grand majority of cases, get them. His judgment hasn't often been right, but he does usually get what he wants.

I don't personally think Snyder's going to jump back into the picture when it comes to putting the team together. And more importantly, I don't think any of the QB-needy teams drafting above the Redskins would trade the rights to Luck under any circumstances. But if Snyder decides this prospect -- the best in a generation -- is what he wants, it'll be interesting to see what happens from there.

[aspkikn]

until our offensive line injuries (and offense injuries in general) I don't think the argument for the offense stinking holds much weight. It wasn't great but it was certainly "acceptable" I still think they need to stay the course and take the best available QB next year instead of mortgaging the future by throwing picks at an unproven commodity. There are a number of talented qbs in this upcoming draft that can be more than adequate starters. jmho

[pjfootballer]

In the past 8 years, the Super Bowl has been won by the following QBs:

Tom Brady (2x)

Ben Roethlisberger (2x)

Peyton Manning

Aaron Rodgers

Drew Brees

Eli Manning

Aside from Eli, who I view as the definition of "merely solid," these are the creme de la creme of the NFL QB world. They rank 1st (Rodgers), 2nd (Manning), 3rd (Brady), 6th (Brees), and 7th (Roethlisberger) in passer rating over that period of time. Those players have a combined 373-154 record (.707 winning percentage) over that period of time. They are AVERAGING over 11 wins per season among the 5 of them over the past 8 years.

I think the time is now.

Excellent post!

[Oldfan]

So he's performing well with players who won't be in the NFL, but he's going to regress with better surrounding players? Not sure I follow your logic.

That isn't my logic. It's yours. i said nothing about him regressing. You created a strawman.

The point I made is that Luck's performance is enhanced by virtue of the fact that he enjoys a great support system. If you want to argue that he doesn't have a great support system, then tell me where I'm mistaken. Is the O-line not a good college O-line. The receivers? The coaching?