Andrew Luck for Patrick Willis trade?

[imac_21]

This perfectly illustrates the alternative possibility with Luck. Anyone who thinks 'Luck busting' is simply not possible has either not been around this game very long or hasn't learned very much in the time they have been around the game.

Well stated, snowskier!

Or. . . .

it's possible that as fans we don't have enough information as to why players bust.

Ryan Leaf is no longer a relevant example. The world of scouting has changed since 1997/98. How much more information is out there with the internet now? It's so much easier to scout players character rather than focusing strictly on their on-field performance.

Why was Leaf a bust? Why was Russell a bust?

Does Luck present any of these qualities?

What about the coaching staff? Russell had Lane Kiffin, making his NFL debut coming from an assistant coach position at USC to try to run the Raiders, under an aging Al Davis, followed by an OL coach taking over with no coordinator experience.

How about Ryan Leaf in SD? He had June Jones for a year, then Mike Reilly.

How about our own Alex Smith? Should we discuss the coaching situation he had to deal with?

Stating Luck can be a bust is fine, but don't use Leaf and Russell as your evidence. What about ANDREW LUCK suggests that he might be a bust. Ryan Leaf has nothing to do with Andrew Luck.

If you flip a coin 4 times and it's heads all 4, is it more likely to be heads or tails on the fifth flip?

 

[imac_21]

So would they trade him for Ryan Leaf? Alex Smith? Cutler? Leinart? Young?

In the spectrum of 20/20 hind sight, OF COURSE they would trade Lewis for those guys, and The Niners would trade Willy for them as well.

But we do not live in the past. We live in the now, but are moving into the future. I will take the proven STUD and heart of the team over a potential Ryan Leaf or JaMarcus Russell.

Yes, I would trade Patrick Willis for (a healthy) Jay Cutler.

 

[imac_21]

Trading a Hall of Famer for a question mark? Doesn't compute in my book.

Remember that research shows that the #1 pick is possibly the least valuable pick in the entire draft, based on expected value of the player + salary + what else you could get by trading the pick. Everyone loves the potential of #1 pick, but history shows that its a bad bet....they don't work out often enough to justify the superstar cash they get.

Luck had a lot of hype as an unusually awesome prospect a couple months ago.....then the season started. We've all seen what Harbaugh did for Smith, the chance that Luck isn't as good as Harbaugh's offense made him look is very high, and that was borne out by his "struggles" (average play) late this season.

Remember, all that research became irrelevant with the drastic change to rookie salaries in the new CBA.

And the bit about Harbaugh's effect should serve as a great counter to the idea that Luck could be a bust.

 

[MW49ers5]

Well, here's my question. . .

It's the 1998 draft. Baltimore has the opportunity to trade Ray Lewis for the first overall pick and draft Peyton Manning. They also get to keep their own first round pick because all they have to give up is Lewis.

How does this change Baltimore's history? How many MLB could they have drafted that would have been able to give them similar results to Lewis? How have they done at QB at getting Peyton Manning results?

Is Ray Lewis more important to the Ravens success than Peyton Manning is to Indianapolis'? Please someone make this case.

Simple - Your argument imply's that Luck WILL be as good as Manning; therefore you are changing the parameters of the original question from:

Would you trade Willis as he is today for an unknown commodity?

To

Would you trade Willis as he is today for an elite QB?

Those are two completely different circumstances.

 

[NinerSickness]

Yes, I would trade Patrick Willis for (a healthy) Jay Cutler.

I concur.

 

[imac_21]

At the time? No.

Knowing what we know now? Absolutely.

Unfortunately, The inventor of the time-machine has not come back in time yet to share his invention with us.

You don't think they would have traded Lewis for Manning in 1998? Are you kidding?

Baltimore trade a first round pick and a second round pick for the right to draft Kyle Boller.

Baltimore traded a 1st, 3rd and 6th to get Joe Flacco.

You think there's no chance they would trade a great player for Peyton Manning?

 

[Smart]

Andrew Luck won't wind up being one of the best two QBs in this draft. To trade an All-Pro linebacker for him would just be insanely stupid. Luck's decision-making is less than spectacular, he's only been clutch when the refs have bailed him out, and his stats aren't near the level of RG3, Russell, Keenum, and Moore despite playing behind the best line in America against weak competition. Yes, he is accurate on short throws and has a quick release, but that won't make him a great NFL QB. He'll be solid, but I just don't see him being anything more than that.

 

[imac_21]

Simple - Your argument imply's that Luck WILL be as good as Manning; therefore you are changing the parameters of the original question from:

Would you trade Willis as he is today for an unknown commodity?

To

Would you trade Willis as he is today for an elite QB?

Those are two completely different circumstances.

Well, you presumably trust your scouts and coaches. With Andrew Luck, you particularly trust your coaches because, you know, they coached him already. They are intricately familiar with his work habits and skill set.

If you believe Luck will be a bust, you of course don't trade for him. If you believe he'll be a bust, you don't draft him at all. However, if you're under the impression he's worth the first pick in the draft, you are also presumably under the impression he will be a wonderful QB in the NFL. Why else would you be willing to draft him that high?

So yes, you make the trade. If you don't think he's going to be a great QB, then you don't trade for him.

However, if your reason for not making the trade is that he might be a bust like Ryan Leaf, you fire your entire college scouting department because they aren't doing their jobs.

 

[imac_21]

No. I will take the proven player over the unproven prospect every time. Luck might turn out to be a great QB or he may turn out to be completely average. We already know what Willis is.

Plus I think the team can upgrade the QB position without losing one of the best LBs in the game and captain of the defense.

Well, I've already expressed my feelings on the whole "he might be a bust" line of thinking, but I want to restate it. It's stupid. Also, it's cowardly.

Can we upgrade the QB position without losing Willis? Of course, can we upgrade enough? That's the question. Who are you going after without trading Willis?

 

[NinerSickness]

Simple - Your argument imply's that Luck WILL be as good as Manning; therefore you are changing the parameters of the original question from:

Would you trade Willis as he is today for an unknown commodity?

To

Would you trade Willis as he is today for an elite QB?

Those are two completely different circumstances.

Where's captain obvious when we need him?

Unless a team thinks they have a great shot at winning the SB (which the Niners don't) then they have to make moves that could improve the team. There's always a risk no matter what you do. Sign a FA and you risk hm taking the money & mailing it in. Draft a player and risk he's a bust. Trade for a player and risk him not fitting into the system. Trade away a player and risk him becoming far better than you thought...

The point is you can either (1) stay the same (which would be stupid in the Niners' case) or (2) you can possibly get better by taking the risk that you will become worse. If it's final Jeopardy and you have $5,000 and the leader has $6,000 you have to risk at least $1,001 to win the game.

...And no: neither Patrick Willis, Andrew Luck nor Trent Baalke have ever been in my kitchen.

 

[imac_21]

Andrew Luck won't wind up being one of the best two QBs in this draft. To trade an All-Pro linebacker for him would just be insanely stupid. Luck's decision-making is less than spectacular, he's only been clutch when the refs have bailed him out, and his stats aren't near the level of RG3, Russell, Keenum, and Moore despite playing behind the best line in America against weak competition. Yes, he is accurate on short throws and has a quick release, but that won't make him a great NFL QB. He'll be solid, but I just don't see him being anything more than that.

When you start talking about stats in college for QBs, I stop reading.

 

[imac_21]

Andrew Luck won't wind up being one of the best two QBs in this draft. To trade an All-Pro linebacker for him would just be insanely stupid. Luck's decision-making is less than spectacular, he's only been clutch when the refs have bailed him out, and his stats aren't near the level of RG3, Russell, Keenum, and Moore despite playing behind the best line in America against weak competition. Yes, he is accurate on short throws and has a quick release, but that won't make him a great NFL QB. He'll be solid, but I just don't see him being anything more than that.

Let's bring you into the discussion though.

Would you trade Willis for the QB you consider to be the best in the draft? Be it RG3 or whoever.

 

[Smart]

When you start talking about stats in college for QBs, I stop reading.

Throwing the ball to the opposing defenders in college does correspond with throwing it to them into the pros. The biggest concern with Luck should be the fact that he is a potential pick-six machine. Watch him play and you'll know exactly what I am talking about. If he doesn't make better decisions, he could easy throw 6-8 pick sixes in a season.

 

[imac_21]

Where's captain obvious when we need him?

Unless a team thinks they have a great shot at winning the SB (which the Niners don't) then they have to make moves that could improve the team. There's always a risk no matter what you do. Sign a FA and you risk hm taking the money & mailing it in. Draft a player and risk he's a bust. Trade for a player and risk him not fitting into the system. Trade away a player and risk him becoming far better than you thought...

The point is you can either (1) stay the same (which would be stupid in the Niners' case) or (2) you can possibly get better by taking the risk that you will become worse. If it's final Jeopardy and you have $5,000 and the leader has $6,000 you have to risk at least $1,001 to win the game.

...And no: neither Patrick Willis, Andrew Luck nor Trent Baalke have ever been in my kitchen.

No you don't. You can count on the leader getting the question wrong. Which is exactly what you're doing by not making this trade on the premise that Luck might be a bust. You're hoping the team that drafts him gets it wrong.

 

[imac_21]

Throwing the ball to the opposing defenders in college does correspond with throwing it to them into the pros. The biggest concern with Luck should be the fact that he is a potential pick-six machine. Watch him play and you'll know exactly what I am talking about. If he doesn't make better decisions, he could easy throw 6-8 pick sixes in a season.

Yeah, because I've never seen Stanford play. . . .

 

[Smart]

Let's bring you into the discussion though.

Would you trade Willis for the QB you consider to be the best in the draft? Be it RG3 or whoever.

I'd never trade away a proven superstar for a prospect. There's just too much difference in skill between NFL defenses and collegiate defenses, and it makes it hard to gauge how effective they will be. I'd rather sign a solid NFL starter (a la Kyle Orton) and keep Willis.

 

[Smart]

Yeah, because I've never seen Stanford play. . . .

So am I wrong about the pick sixes? Unless you are a total homer, I find it hard to believe you'd disagree with my statement.

 

[imac_21]

I'd never trade away a proven superstar for a prospect. There's just too much difference in skill between NFL defenses and collegiate defenses, and it makes it hard to gauge how effective they will be. I'd rather sign a solid NFL starter (a la Kyle Orton) and keep Willis.

So you don't trust yourself as a scout, yet you're lecturing on why Luck will be a mediocre QB?

Also, this team does not win a Super Bowl with Kyle Orton at QB, even with Willis at ILB.

Congratulations, you won the NFC West over and over again, but never went to the Super Bowl because Aaron Rodgers and Drew Brees are kicking your ass ever January.

Also, as GM of the 49ers, you're fired because you haven't been able to get the team over the hump, because of your ridiculous idea that a team with a mediocre QB has a legitimate chance at winning the Super Bowl in today's NFL.

 

[imac_21]

So am I wrong about the pick sixes? Unless you are a total homer, I find it hard to believe you'd disagree with my statement.

Did I say I was a Stanford fan? You're simply doing what everyone seems to do every year with the great QBs who get two years of hype: Overanalyzing.

And yes, you're wrong about the pick sixes.

How many WRs did Luck have this year that will play in the NFL?

 

[NinerSickness]

No you don't. You can count on the leader getting the question wrong. Which is exactly what you're doing by not making this trade on the premise that Luck might be a bust. You're hoping the team that drafts him gets it wrong.

How dare you poke holes in my Jeopardy analogy!