What is Andrew Luck Worth?

What could have been if we kept Trent...Yup, and Brad Johnson won a superbowl.
From the list that has nothing to do with my point:
Campbell has been better then McNabb who was better then Rex.

I'll take my chances instead of continuing this legacy:Huh?
What do the QBs on that list have to do with trading multiple first round draft picks in exchange for 1 first round pick (Luck/Griffin)?

Personal speculation.. You have to think you're getting a QB less than 25 yrs old who had a strong rookie year, injury, new system and limited weapons impacted his effectiveness in 2011 but no major red flags about his ability arose. Two firsts is too steep but three top 90 picks is reasonable. Just my speculation though. Honestly, I doubt they move him but it all comes down to the new coach.

Fair enough. And if push came to shove and Luck or RG3 were not an option I would certainly pay that price. Just hoping we could get him for a little less I guess. Also how high the skins pick ends up being will affect the price also. If we pick 4th we would probably need to add a little less to the trade then we would if our pick falls to 10 or 11.

All St. Louis would get from me if they were gonna deal Bradford is a 1st and I wouldn't wanna give them that.

Yup, and Brad Johnson won a superbowl.
From the list that has nothing to do with my point:
Campbell has been better then McNabb who was better then Rex.

Huh?
What do the QBs on that list have to do with trading multiple first round draft picks in exchange for 1 first round pick (Luck/Griffin)?

My point is that most of those starters have not been good to be polite about it. That's why we've had so many at such a high turn over rate. And I'm tired of it year after year after year. And I am ready to make the leap for a big time QB prospect and see how we fair instead of trading for old vets and overpriced aging FA's.

My point is that most of those starters have not been good to be polite about it. That's why we've had so many at such a high turn over rate. And I'm tired of it year after year after year. And I am ready to make the leap for a big time QB prospect and see how we fair instead of trading for old vets and overpriced aging FA's.But those QBs have nothing to do with my post or with my point.
We all want a superbowl caliber QB.

But trading multiple 1st round picks to acquire 1 first round pick doesn't increases your chances of that QB panning out.
The chances are the same.
Except that when you trade multiple 1st round picks you make your team weaker all for the sake of drafting a QB that may not even turn out to be the best QB in the draft class, let alone pan out.

But those QBs have nothing to do with my post or with my point.
We all want a superbowl caliber QB.

But trading multiple 1st round picks to acquire 1 first round pick doesn't increases your chances of that QB panning out.
The chances are the same.
Except that when you trade multiple 1st round picks you make your team weaker all for the sake of drafting a QB that may not even turn out to be the best QB in the draft class, let alone pan out.

I disagree. I think of a high caliber 1st round QB draftee doing well for a team is a lot higher probability than having a continuous turn over of QB's via signing old veterans in FA or trading away picks for old vets (McNabb). The exception in my list is Campbell as we drafted him fairly high, but you see that didn't pan out either.

I disagree. I think of a high caliber 1st round QB draftee doing well for a team is a lot higher probability than having a continuous turn over of QB's via signing old veterans in FA or trading away picks for old vets (McNabb). The exception in my list is Campbell as we drafted him fairly high, but you see that didn't pan out either.Actually you don't disagree with me because again I'm not advocating signing a veteran FA or trading for an older vet, YOU keep bringing it up and each time I tell you the same thing: it has nothing to do with my point.

My point is trading away multiple 1st round draft picks for 1 first round draft does not increase the probability for success.
Rather it reduces the ability to improve the team via the draft (the draft is zero sum) and it artificially increases the pressure and importance and utter necessity for that particular draft pick to hit and hit big.

If I told you can 1 mil i cash if you hit a 3 pt shot and I gave you these 2 options:

1 shot for 1 mil

or

3 shots for 1 mil which would you take?

Yet people seem to be ready, no demanding that we trade (1st round draft picks) the most valueable resources on any team especially for a rebuilding team, for a pick that may or may not even prove to be the best QB in their draft class.One thing you're going to have to put into your analysis is that the expected return of the first QB taken in any draft is much higher than of any other quarterback in the same draft. So whether that's Luck or not Luck, you're clearly better off taking the consensus best quarterback than waiting.

Obviously in some years, that will get you Alex Smith or Jamarcus Russell, but speaking in the most general terms that I can, the team with the most losses and the biggest need at quarterback is typically not going to leave the best QB on the board for later. The equation shifts if you have reason to believe the team with the top pick cannot rationally evaluate talent: then you might have reason to suspect they'll leave the best player on the board.

I am not saying that you should throw your draft board in the trash after Luck gets taken, but that there is incredible value to having that high pick that you aren't accounting for in that analysis, because it takes the limitation of having to pick through players with obvious flaws versus other positions where there is clearly more value out of the equation.

It's not inefficient to trade up in the NFL draft. If you're like the Redskins and you give away many of your picks every year, it continues an inefficient cycle, but when you isolate a single trade between two teams, the team going up in the draft is generally not giving up value. The market will adjust well to the value of draft picks.

It is inefficient, however, to not fully understand the needs and state of your own roster.

I was really critical of the Panthers for taking Newton when they did because I knew for a fact they were leaving elite franchise performers on the draft board for a guy who was unaccomplished. And also because I thought other QBs in the class were better bets to provide value on the rookie contract.

But today, Newton v Gabbert/Locker is not a contest. Newton -- in a total upset -- has surpassed Gabbert and Locker in terms of passing accomplishments.

Actually you don't disagree with me because again I'm not advocating signing a veteran FA or trading for an older vet, YOU keep bringing it up and each time I tell you the same thing: it has nothing to do with my point.

My point is trading away multiple 1st round draft picks for 1 first round draft does not increase the probability for success.
Rather it reduces the ability to improve the team via the draft (the draft is zero sum) and it artificially increases the pressure and importance and utter necessity for that particular draft pick to hit and hit big.

If I told you can 1 mil i cash if you hit a 3 pt shot and I gave you these 2 options:

1 shot for 1 mil

or

3 shots for 1 mil which would you take?

What you originally said was:

"Yet people seem to be ready, no demanding that we trade (1st round draft picks) the most valueable resources on any team especially for a rebuilding team, for a pick that may or may not even prove to be the best QB in their draft class."

The point that I was trying to make, and I apologize if I did not communicate it clearly as I admit I was rushing to write a response before I left my house, was that I believe that it is worth risking our draft picks for the #1 overall QB prospect in this draft (or trading for Bradford who is a former #1 overall pick and has great upside) as opposed to the way we HAVE run things in the PAST, which gives us most of the players on our revolving door of a QB list.

GTripp said it well when referring to the "inefficient cycle" the Redskins have been in. Acquiring over priced FA's at the end of their careers, or overpaying via trades for aging vets.

I AM disagreeing with you because your initial point was an insinuation that it is not a good idea to trade all those draft picks for a guy who may not even be the best QB in the draft. That may be true but I said I am willing to take that risk to break the "inefficient cycle" we have put ourselves in by not trying to take a QB high in the first round. They are more likely to be cornerstones of a franchise than 2nd-7th round QB picks typically.

I never said you were advocating for signing a veteran FA or trading for an older vet, I am simply stating that I disagree with the notion that giving up picks for the #1 pick is bad. Especially given that the way we have been doing things the opposite way of trying to trade up to get the highest ranked QB and they have obviously not worked out since I am confident you are aware that our QB body of work has not been stellar for quite some time.