What is Andrew Luck Worth?

I have a hard time buying Flynn's potential. He was a 7th round draft pick for a reason. I don't see how a couple years on green bays bench and one good performance filling in has catipulted him into being a great prospect. Everyone wants to throw Brady in your face when talking about late round QB's like Flynn, but Brady is the exception not the rule.

I would not mind bringing Flynn to camp next year but I sure as heck don't want to give him a big contract and make him the starter...

Well, if you think that Flynn is just going to show up in Redskins training camp next year because he thinks the Redskins are "way cool" and he doesn't care if they even give him a contract, then you also believe in the Tooth Fairy.

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.Quick correction: I was trying to say that trading multiple picks to get up for one player (i.e. using the draft as an extension of free agency) would continue the inefficient cycle the Redskins have been in. It would not break it.

But I was also saying that, along the lines of what you were saying, that the expected value of the higher pick matters, and 30 Gut was glossing over that in his argument.

I'll say this: if you're talking about all players (including defensive players) in the NFL draft, it is typically not efficient to trade up from 7th to 1st and try to maximize the value of the pick. Taking BPA at 7th overall doesn't typically result in a better overall player than taking BPA at 1st overall. The difference is very small.

But when you limit the discussion to elite offensive talents at skill positions, then it makes a big difference. What got Matt Millen into trouble in Detroit is that he consistently overvalued offensive skill talent, and didn't trade up to get it. What Millen did: sit and wait to draft QB/RB/WR was actually really inefficient. He would have been better off trading up.

If he had actually taken BPA (all positions), he wouldn't have likely ended up with Mike Williams or Roy Williams on his team. But Millen identified passing offense as something he couldn't win without, and then waited around to draft it. Which did him in as GM as much as anything.

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. That's fine, but understand that your are mixing in your own feelings about how things have been run in the past with my point.
The two are mutually exclusive.
Not trading multiple 1st round draft picks does not mean the FO is doing the same things they've done in the past.

My point is this: I don't agree its worth trading multiple first round draft picks for the top pick.
We can agree to disagree.



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.You seem intent on disagreement, even though you admit above that my point may be true.

But to be clear I'm not against drafting a QB with a high pick.
I'm not against trading up to grab a QB, providing the cost is low.
*IIRC Mike Shanahan moved up to draft Cutler without giving up a 1st round draft pick*
I am against trading multiple 1st round draft picks for 1 first round pick.
Taking the 'top' rated QB prospect in the draft doesn't automatically equate to the 'best' QB in the draft.

I mentioned earlier about Sanchez vs. Freeman, GT mentioned Eli vs Ben.
Are Sanchez and Eli that much better then Freeman and Ben to warrant the draft picks spent to acquire those QBs?

By and large I don't think the talent gap between top 10 or even 1st round QBs is quite as large as the perception of the difference.

BTW-I would be happy with trading for Sam Bradford, it would require less resources and net a much more proven quantity then any QB coming out.

That's fine, but understand that your are mixing in your own feelings about how things have been run in the past with my point.
The two are mutually exclusive.
Not trading multiple 1st round draft picks does not mean the FO is doing the same things they've done in the past.

My point is this: I don't agree its worth trading multiple first round draft picks for the top pick.
We can agree to disagree.



You seem intent on disagreement, even though you admit above that my point may be true.

But to be clear I'm not against drafting a QB with a high pick.
I'm not against trading up to grab a QB, providing the cost is low.
*IIRC Mike Shanahan moved up to draft Cutler without giving up a 1st round draft pick*
I am against trading multiple 1st round draft picks for 1 first round pick.
Taking the 'top' rated QB prospect in the draft doesn't automatically equate to the 'best' QB in the draft.

I mentioned earlier about Sanchez vs. Freeman, GT mentioned Eli vs Ben.
Are Sanchez and Eli that much better then Freeman and Ben to warrant the draft picks spent to acquire those QBs?

By and large I don't think the talent gap between top 10 or even 1st round QBs is quite as large as the perception of the difference.

BTW-I would be happy with trading for Sam Bradford, it would require less resources and net a much more proven quantity then any QB coming out.

I wasn't trying to be totally disagreeable, just makes for good discussion. I agree with you whole heartedly about the Bradford deal. However, there would have to be a lot of things to fall just perfectly for that to happen I'm afraid...

Quick correction: I was trying to say that trading multiple picks to get up for one player (i.e. using the draft as an extension of free agency) would continue the inefficient cycle the Redskins have been in. It would not break it.

But I was also saying that, along the lines of what you were saying, that the expected value of the higher pick matters, and 30 Gut was glossing over that in his argument.

I'll say this: if you're talking about all players (including defensive players) in the NFL draft, it is typically not efficient to trade up from 7th to 1st and try to maximize the value of the pick. Taking BPA at 7th overall doesn't typically result in a better overall player than taking BPA at 1st overall. The difference is very small.

But when you limit the discussion to elite offensive talents at skill positions, then it makes a big difference. What got Matt Millen into trouble in Detroit is that he consistently overvalued offensive skill talent, and didn't trade up to get it. What Millen did: sit and wait to draft QB/RB/WR was actually really inefficient. He would have been better off trading up.

If he had actually taken BPA (all positions), he wouldn't have likely ended up with Mike Williams or Roy Williams on his team. But Millen identified passing offense as something he couldn't win without, and then waited around to draft it. Which did him in as GM as much as anything.

I see I misread your meaning of inefficient cycle. However, I think that it is plausible that getting a great top tier talent that can be the center piece of this franchise to build around on offense can stop this "inefficient cycle".

It is inefficient in my way of thinking because of the expenditure of countless picks on aged veterans who we get little to no return for. I feel that giving up picks for a elite level prospect in the draft can do just the opposite for this "inefficient cycle" by giving us a young, longterm cornerstone for the franchise. This coupled with the fact that we have been stockpiling picks by trading down, instead of giving them away for low quality FA's, seems a better way to proceed with this team.

This debate is really lame. OK, say we get Luck somehow or RG III, but our line lacks depth and real talent to be able to adequately protect a rook QB, where are you then. Bradford was supposedly the QB god that was going to reverse the Rams losing, but now is trade bait for draft picks? Luck put up some nice numbers agains crappy Pac 10 teams and struggled a bit against real competition and lost those games. Oregon made him look like a little bitch, USC made him look above average at best. What happens when the competition is always on the same level? It is easy for a good solid QB to put up freakish numbers against remarkedly inferior competition. The same went for both Leinart and Bradford. Look at them now. That is why RG III might make a better pro QB than Luck. Baylor used to be a doormat for the old SWC and Big 12, now with the coach, and RG III they are respectable. That all being said we need all the picks we can get to address depth needs, as well as have guys compete for starting jobs with some of the bums that pass for starters on our team. To throw away 3-4 draft picks on a prima dona type QB that very well might be a bust is foolish. Andy isn't going to face WSU, OSU, UCLA, Ariz St, Az, or Cal. He is going to be facing teams that are about even every Sunday in terms of athleticism, etc. It might be SUck for Luck now, but in 2013 it might be Luck just Sucks!!

When it comes to a special player like Andrew Luck, I don't care about statistical analyses about the odds of a generic QB succeeding in the NFL, or the fact that past trades of high draft picks for players haven't worked out for the Redskins, or any other cautionary tales. Sometimes in life a decision maker must believe in someone or something enough that, regardless of all that might possibly go wrong, he goes for it. Such was the case when Carolina drafted Cam Newton.

I believe that Andrew Luck can be a great NFL QB. He is the real deal, the bomb, the truth! I am not the decision maker in this case, but if there is any reasonable or seemingly unreasonable (just short of ridiculous) trade that Shanny can make to get Luck, I hope he goes for it.

What about this scenario: Rams get the #1 pick but the Browns trade up to get Luck. Colts don't draft RGIII, does he fall to us? Do we pull the trigger? Also, if Michael Vick can become a great west coast QB I don't see why RGIII can't fit our system. I really don't think (and hope) especially with the success of Cam Newton that the Shannys are that stubborn that if they draft RGIII they won't tailor the system a bit to fit RGIII's skill set.

What about this scenario: Rams get the #1 pick but the Browns trade up to get Luck. Colts don't draft RGIII, does he fall to us? Do we pull the trigger? Also, if Michael Vick can become a great west coast QB I don't see why RGIII can't fit our system. I really don't think (and hope) especially with the success of Cam Newton that the Shannys are that stubborn that if they draft RGIII they won't tailor the system a bit to fit RGIII's skill set.

Shurmur on RG3: “Good players fit in every offense” | ProFootballTalk (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/12/31/shurmur-on-rg3-good-players-fit-in-every-offense/)

This debate is really lame. OK, say we get Luck somehow or RG III, but our line lacks depth and real talent to be able to adequately protect a rook QB, where are you then. Bradford was supposedly the QB god that was going to reverse the Rams losing, but now is trade bait for draft picks? Luck put up some nice numbers agains crappy Pac 10 teams and struggled a bit against real competition and lost those games. Oregon made him look like a little bitch, USC made him look above average at best. What happens when the competition is always on the same level? It is easy for a good solid QB to put up freakish numbers against remarkedly inferior competition. The same went for both Leinart and Bradford. Look at them now. That is why RG III might make a better pro QB than Luck. Baylor used to be a doormat for the old SWC and Big 12, now with the coach, and RG III they are respectable. That all being said we need all the picks we can get to address depth needs, as well as have guys compete for starting jobs with some of the bums that pass for starters on our team. To throw away 3-4 draft picks on a prima dona type QB that very well might be a bust is foolish. Andy isn't going to face WSU, OSU, UCLA, Ariz St, Az, or Cal. He is going to be facing teams that are about even every Sunday in terms of athleticism, etc. It might be SUck for Luck now, but in 2013 it might be Luck just Sucks!!

So basically you are saying players in every conference except the SEC sucks and can't be great in the NFL. I thought that was DirtBag's shtick?