Andrew Luck for Patrick Willis trade?

[Smart]

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.

Really? I was in the audience when my favorite team led by noted great QB Rex Grossman made it to the Super Bowl over Drew Brees. If 2011 Kyle Orton was our QB that year, we would have won the Super Bowl, too.

 

[imac_21]

How dare you poke holes in my Jeopardy analogy!

I felt I built on it.

If you have $5000 and I have $6000, are you really going to bet $0 hoping I get it wrong so you can win?

Honestly, you need me to get it wrong anyway. I think the better Jeopardy analogy (now I'm poking holes) is . . .

You're WINNING on Jeopardy. You have $6000, I have $5000.

You can stand pat and bet $0 (keep Willis) and let me bet $5000 (draft Luck). If I'm wrong, you win. However, if I'm right, you don't get to play anymore because I win.

Trading for Luck would be you betting $4001. If you're right. You win and I lose. If you're wrong however, you're screwed.

So it comes down to how well do you know the category "future NFL QBs." Are you willing to bet $4001 to ensure you win? Or are you uncertain enough that you won't bet, you'll keep your $6000 and hope that I'm wrong?

 

[imac_21]

Really? I was in the audience when my favorite team led by noted great QB Rex Grossman made it to the Super Bowl over Drew Brees. If 2011 Kyle Orton was our QB that year, we would have won the Super Bowl, too.

You were not winning the Super Bowl that year.

How did you like the parade in 2006? Do they have a Lombardi trophy at Soldier Field for the 06 Bears?

You also may not have noticed, but in the last few years there has been a significant shift in rules that now greatly benefit QBs.

Why are the Ravens not considered a legitimate Super Bowl team? Why aren't the Niners? Those two teams have possibly the best two defenses in the league. Green Bay, New England and New Orleans have HORRIBLE defenses. Why are GB, NE and NO considered Super Bowl favourites over the Niners and Ravens? No team has allowed more yards than the Packers. GB is the only team to allow more yards than the Patriots.

 

[NinerSickness]

Thanks a lot! Now my brain hurts...

bringing it back to reality... I'd rather have a 50% chance of having a team that ranks 9 or 10 out of 10 in talent than have a 100% chance of going into the playoffs with a team who ranks a 7.5 out of 10 (The Niners) in terms of talent hoping the Packers, Saints, Patriots, Ravens, Steelers or whoever else (teams who are already a 9 or 10) lay an egg or have their QB get injured or something. That's just me.

 

[Smart]

Why are the Ravens not considered a legitimate Super Bowl team? Why aren't the Niners? Those two teams have possibly the best two defenses in the league. Green Bay, New England and New Orleans have HORRIBLE defenses. Why are GB, NE and NO considered Super Bowl favourites over the Niners and Ravens? No team has allowed more yards than the Packers. GB is the only team to allow more yards than the Patriots.

What are you talking about? Those two are most definitely considered Super Bowl contenders. There are six legitimate title contenders. Three of them have great offense and average to poor defenses (GB, NE, NO). Three have relatively weak offenses but strong defenses (Pitt, SF, Baltimore).

Even looking through recent Super Bowl champs, the 07-08 Giants and 08-09 Steelers both had better defenses than offenses. Both Green Bay and New Orleans had top ten defenses (IIRC, Green Bay actually had the #1 statistical defense). Your argument makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[imac_21]

Thanks a lot! Now my brain hurts...

bringing it back to reality... I'd rather have a 50% chance of having a team that ranks 9 or 10 out of 10 in talent than have a 100% chance of going into the playoffs with a team who ranks a 7.5 out of 10 (The Niners) in terms of talent hoping the Packers, Saints, Patriots, Ravens, Steelers or whoever else (teams who are already a 9 or 10) lay an egg or have their QB get injured or something. That's just me.

You have better than a 50% chance if you draft Luck.

 

[imac_21]

What are you talking about? Those two are most definitely considered Super Bowl contenders. There are six legitimate title contenders. Three of them have great offense and average to poor defenses (GB, NE, NO). Three have relatively weak offenses but strong defenses (Pitt, SF, Baltimore).

Even looking through recent Super Bowl champs, the 07-08 Giants and 08-09 Steelers both had better defenses than offenses. Both Green Bay and New Orleans had top ten defenses (IIRC, Green Bay actually had the #1 statistical defense). Your argument makes no sense whatsoever.

No there aren't. Find me someone predicting the Niners to make the Super Bowl. Find me one legitimate NFL media person projecting SF to represent the NFC in the Super Bowl. I also don't know how you can put the Pittsburgh offense in the same class as the SF offense. Pitt ranks 12th, SF ranks 25th.

Those aren't relatively weak. That's a weak, and a decent.

To call New England, GB and New Orleans "average to poor" is equally offensive. They rank 24th, 31st and 32nd. In a 32 team league, which of those is average?

If New Orleans is average, then isn't SF an average offense?

You also really need to accept that the NFL has drastically changed the rules to favour the offense.

But this isn't about how good an offense and defense are. It's about the skill at QB. Sure GB and New Orleans had good defenses their SB years. However, they also had Aaron Rodgers and Drew Brees.

Please, convince us Niner fans that Alex Smith is in that class.

 

[NinerSickness]

You have better than a 50% chance if you draft Luck.

I agree with that wholeheartedly. I was just simplifying.

 

[imac_21]

I agree with that wholeheartedly. I was just simplifying.

Of course, but too many people that are against the trade are using the "Luck might be a bust" argument as a reason to not draft him implying it's as likely he'll be a bust as it is he won't.

 

[Smart]

No there aren't. Find me someone predicting the Niners to make the Super Bowl. Find me one legitimate NFL media person projecting SF to represent the NFC in the Super Bowl. I also don't know how you can put the Pittsburgh offense in the same class as the SF offense. Pitt ranks 12th, SF ranks 25th.

Those aren't relatively weak. That's a weak, and a decent.

To call New England, GB and New Orleans "average to poor" is equally offensive. They rank 24th, 31st and 32nd. In a 32 team league, which of those is average?

If New Orleans is average, then isn't SF an average offense?

You also really need to accept that the NFL has drastically changed the rules to favour the offense.

But this isn't about how good an offense and defense are. It's about the skill at QB. Sure GB and New Orleans had good defenses their SB years. However, they also had Aaron Rodgers and Drew Brees.

Please, convince us Niner fans that Alex Smith is in that class.

A few things:

1. They rank that poorly in yards allowed precisely because they have good offenses that score quickly. If you really think New England has the weakest defense in the league, I really don't know what to tell you.

2. Since when did media selections determine who was a Super Bowl contender and who wasn't. How many media members picked thee Giants to win the Super Bowl at the start of the 2008 playoffs? The Colts were an afterthought in 2007. Some had the Packers as a trendy NFC champion pick, but almost nobody had them winning the title. If anything, you shpuld be relieved the media doesn;t consider you a Super Bowl contender.

3. I said "an average quarterback can win a Super Bowl." Alex Smith isn't average. Of course, the problem with my theory is that any QB who wins the Super Bowl is by definition considered something other than average. Ben Roethlisbergee was 24th in the league in QB rating the last time the Steelers made a title run. Eli was 25th. In other words, two of the last four years, a QB who was statistically average (at best) won the title. When was the last time two statistically average defenses won the Super Bowl?

 

[Slimpikins]

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?

I don't think I stated my point correctly. I am not keeping Willis out of fear, I am keeping Willis because I think that this team *can* be better with Willis and a different QB than it will with Luck and no Willis.

Although with the emergence of Bowman, if he can keep his play up, Willis may become tradeable. Although I personally think that Bowman's elevated play has a lot to do with Willis but that is a different discussion.

 

[yossarian]

I say you do it if you think Luck will be a pro bowl qb for the next 12 years and (as IMAC says) trust your scouting department. It is much easier to replace an inner linebacker in this game than a pro bowl quarterback, so as great as Willis is, he is more easily replaced. If you have a chance at a qb who will take you to the Super Bowl you grab it. I love the Alex Smith story, I think that with an offseason of work under Harbaugh it's possible he improves his mechanics that people like Jaworski have criticized, and becomes not only a smart qb, but a more accurate one, but I think you have an equal or better chance of Luck being an excellent qb out of the gate.

 

[sayheykid1]

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?

How about thinking about a guy they have on the roster? They used a second round pick for a guy who moves well and has a great arm.


I also don't see the Colts trading Luck for Willis.

 

[Slimpikins]

How about thinking about a guy they have on the roster? They used a second round pick for a guy who moves well and has a great arm.


I also don't see the Colts trading Luck for Willis.

Good point, the whole conversation is moot if Indy wants more. Do you trade Willis and picks/players for Luck? Big trades like this don't happen in the NFL like they do in other sports, much more rare in football.

 

[bvanthielriceyoung]

hahaha. You have to love people who are CERTAIN about prospects. I mean, you'd think after watching sports for a year or two - let alone decades - at some point people would figure out that many of the most highly-regarded prospects never reaches even a top level, let alone all-time elite.

Its f*cking difficult to predict for pros with access to game tape and talking to college coaches and 100 hours of analysis, let alone goofs on a message board who have seen the guy play 2 or 3 times.

very, very true.

 

[bvanthielriceyoung]

And without a doubt the Ravens are considered legitimate Super Bowl team.

 

[imac_21]

A few things:

1. They rank that poorly in yards allowed precisely because they have good offenses that score quickly. If you really think New England has the weakest defense in the league, I really don't know what to tell you.

2. Since when did media selections determine who was a Super Bowl contender and who wasn't. How many media members picked thee Giants to win the Super Bowl at the start of the 2008 playoffs? The Colts were an afterthought in 2007. Some had the Packers as a trendy NFC champion pick, but almost nobody had them winning the title. If anything, you shpuld be relieved the media doesn;t consider you a Super Bowl contender.

3. I said "an average quarterback can win a Super Bowl." Alex Smith isn't average. Of course, the problem with my theory is that any QB who wins the Super Bowl is by definition considered something other than average. Ben Roethlisbergee was 24th in the league in QB rating the last time the Steelers made a title run. Eli was 25th. In other words, two of the last four years, a QB who was statistically average (at best) won the title. When was the last time two statistically average defenses won the Super Bowl?

1. That's bullshit. There have been plenty of seasons where teams have ranked high in offense and defense. Just last year NO was 4th on defense but 6th on offense. SD was first on both sides of the ball. GB was top 10 on both sides of the ball. Being good on offense is not a good reason for being a bad defense.

2. How do you suggest we determine who the Super Bowl contenders are? Should I just take your word for it that Baltimore and SF are?

3. So you're using QB rating as your sole way of evaluating QBs? Alex Smith is 9th this year. Which is it? Were Ben and Eli below average because of their low QB ratings, or is Alex Smith a good QB because of his?

In 2009 New Orleans was 25th in defense. The 2006 Colts were 21st.

So there's that. . .

Of course, there's also the situation you keep refusing to acknowledge: The rules have changed to make things much more QB friendly, and therefore more difficult on the defense. A lot of these rules are brand new THIS YEAR. There are 3 QBs that have a legitimate shot at breaking Marino's record.
Oddly enough, those 3 guys QB the Super Bowl favourites.

 

[imac_21]

I don't think I stated my point correctly. I am not keeping Willis out of fear, I am keeping Willis because I think that this team *can* be better with Willis and a different QB than it will with Luck and no Willis.

Although with the emergence of Bowman, if he can keep his play up, Willis may become tradeable. Although I personally think that Bowman's elevated play has a lot to do with Willis but that is a different discussion.

So you get to choose between an elite QB and an average ILB, or an elite ILB and average QB? It isn't as if we trade Willis and line up 10 guys on defense, or just turn over the job to Grant. We can address the position in the draft and get a quality player to play next to Bowman. Or we can go with an average QB.

What other QBs do you have in mind? It's easy to say we can get a "different" QB, but who is that QB?

 

[imac_21]

How about thinking about a guy they have on the roster? They used a second round pick for a guy who moves well and has a great arm.


I also don't see the Colts trading Luck for Willis.

That's the key. If it's such a horrible trade for us to make, wouldn't Indy jump at it? If it's so laughably bad as so many have suggested here, why would Indy not make the trade?

 

[imac_21]

And without a doubt the Ravens are considered legitimate Super Bowl team.

by who?