What is Andrew Luck Worth?

[30gut]

Originally Posted by skinsfaninok

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.

Originally Posted by SkinzWin

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)?

[celts32]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

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.

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

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

[SkinzWin]

Originally Posted by 30gut

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.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by SkinzWin

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.

[SkinzWin]

Originally Posted by 30gut

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.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by SkinzWin

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?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by 30gut

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.

[GTripp0012]

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.

[SkinzWin]

Originally Posted by 30gut

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.

[sportscurmudgeon]

Originally Posted by celts32

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.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by SkinzWin

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.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by SkinzWin

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.

[SkinzWin]

Originally Posted by 30gut

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...

[SkinzWin]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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.