Article: Luck is NFL's most untradeable player

[Johnnydollaz89]

Agree or disagree? In essence, they highlight his all-around game, his age, and intangibles.

If you disagree, what players do you take over him for, say, the next five years?

If you agree, is it by a significant gap or not, and to whom?

Y! SPORTS

 

[Wolverine830872]

Flacco is the league's most untradable player. Who would even want to give up a 7th rounder for that inflated salary

 

[Johnnydollaz89]

Not meaning contract wise. More like, value wise to their team.

 

[cdumler7]

Well quarterback is the most valuable position on the field and considering his age and skills he definitely has to be in the top 5. Other guys I would consider would be JJ Watt (the guy is the best defensive player in the NFL right now and only entering his 4th year), Luke Kuechly (guy looks like the next Ray Lewis of the NFL), and maybe Cam Newton (another young quarterback playing well). Those are about the only 3 I would rank up there and probably JJ Watt is the only one I would take over Luck to be the most untradeable.

 

[TDs3nOut]

Luck was pretty widely regarded as the best QB prospect coming into the league in many years and he's shown tremendous promise his two years in the league. I definitely believe that he is the least likely player in the league to get traded.

 

[Am I Blue Through it All?]

Luck was pretty widely regarded as the best QB prospect coming into the league in many years and he's shown tremendous promise his two years in the league. I definitely believe that he is the least likely player in the league to get traded.

I saw yesterday that the Colts picked up some 6'9" 320 lbs. tackle from the CFL. Hope he pans out. I am much more worried about Luck getting killed or injured than losing him.

 

[STBR 27]

Well quarterback is the most valuable position on the field and considering his age and skills he definitely has to be in the top 5. Other guys I would consider would be JJ Watt (the guy is the best defensive player in the NFL right now and only entering his 4th year), Luke Kuechly (guy looks like the next Ray Lewis of the NFL), and maybe Cam Newton (another young quarterback playing well). Those are about the only 3 I would rank up there and probably JJ Watt is the only one I would take over Luck to be the most untradeable.

No way in hell is a defensive player more untradeable than a QB and I bet given the chance, Houston would trade JJ Watt for a franchise QB like Luck, if one was available.

 

[cdumler7]

No way in hell is a defensive player more untradeable than a QB and I bet given the chance, Houston would trade JJ Watt for a franchise QB like Luck, if one was available.

The question was which players are the most untradeable from their teams and right now I would say Houston unless just an incredible offer like that of 3 1st round picks and a whole host of other picks would not trade JJ Watt.

Now obviously quarterback is the position every team is trying to find as they have the most impact on how a team does. I was just trying to add a little conversation to the topic as it is pretty obvious that Luck is at least top 2 in that category of least tradable.

Now I will say I think that if Green Bay offered Aaron Rodgers for Luck straight up that the Colts would highly think about it. Not sure there is another defensive player in the NFL that Houston would think about trading Watt straight up for. I know again quarterback is the most valuable piece and my guess is you are right if the Colts offered Luck for Watt Houston would agree to that deal. Again just trying to add a little different twist or thought on the subject. Don't get your panties in a bunch.

 

[STBR 27]

The question was which players are the most untradeable... Don't get your panties in a bunch.

And the point I was just trying to make is that I bet a deal for Watt could be made for less (even though it would be 3 #1 picks +) than a deal with Luck could be made, which makes Luck MORE untradeable.

Also, my panties are not in a bunch, but are your jimmies still Russell'd?

 

[cdumler7]

And the point I was just trying to make is that I bet a deal for Watt could be made for less (even though it would be 3 #1 picks +) than a deal with Luck could be made, which makes Luck MORE untradeable.

Also, my panties are not in a bunch, but are your jimmies still Russell'd?

No definitely over the Super Bowl. Congrats by the way. Again I agree just didn't think the question really opened it up for much discussion considering most everybody considers Luck the next big quarterback in the NFL so that obviously makes him one of if not the most valuable player in the NFL right now when you consider his age and skills combined.

 

[STBR 27]

No definitely over the Super Bowl. Congrats by the way. Again I agree just didn't think the question really opened it up for much discussion considering most everybody considers Luck the next big quarterback in the NFL so that obviously makes him one of if not the most valuable player in the NFL right now when you consider his age and skills combined.

Thanks and I agree.

 

[dkmightyhammer]

I can honestly say I wouldn't trade Russell Wilson for any QB and that includes Luck. To me Wilson is the most untradeable. I am clearly biased but I don't see anything in Luck's resume that is better than Wilson's resume unless you need someone in the room to get the last can of tuna off the top shelf and then I'd pick Luck over Wilson for that reason.

 

[NinerSickness]

Agree or disagree?

Agree.

Circle gets the square.

 

[fearthepelicans]

Luck's results have not matched the hype so far. I need to see more from him to consider him most untradeable.

 

[Jakology]

Luck: 46 TDs, 41 Turnovers, 6.85 ypc, 57% completion, 81.5 QB rating

Wilson: 52 TDs, 30 Turnovers, 8.09 ypc, 63.6% completion, 100.6 QB rating

Luck has better weapons to throw to. Wilson has a better O line and running game. So I'd say that's pretty much a wash. And I'm sorry, the talent argument is not valid. Wilson is just as talented as Luck, minus size. He can do anything Luck can do. Just watch the film if you don't believe me. So the only argument you could possibly use here is that Luck has to do more for his team. Which doesn't hold up here, because if that were true, why doesn't he have more TDs than Wilson? I thought Wilson was a game manager? So...What am I missing here that somehow makes Luck better?

 

[cwood]

Luck: 46 TDs, 41 Turnovers, 6.85 ypc, 57% completion, 81.5 QB rating

Wilson: 52 TDs, 30 Turnovers, 8.09 ypc, 63.6% completion, 100.6 QB rating

Luck has better weapons to throw to. Wilson has a better O line and running game. So I'd say that's pretty much a wash. And I'm sorry, the talent argument is not valid. Wilson is just as talented as Luck, minus size. He can do anything Luck can do. Just watch the film if you don't believe me. So the only argument you could possibly use here is that Luck has to do more for his team. Which doesn't hold up here, because if that were true, why doesn't he have more TDs than Wilson? I thought Wilson was a game manager? So...What am I missing here that somehow makes Luck better?

I love Wilson but I'd take Luck over him. Russell has a dominant team supporting him while Luck is pretty much carrying a pretty bad supporting cast. Luck needed to throw 163 more passes than Wilson behind a terrible line. Put Luck on Seattle and his efficiency stats jump quite a bit. That said, Wilson is the real deal, too. I'd be surprised if they're not both future top 5 quarterbacks consistently.

 

[Jakology]

I love Wilson but I'd take Luck over him. Russell has a dominant team supporting him while Luck is pretty much carrying a pretty bad supporting cast. Luck needed to throw 163 more passes than Wilson behind a terrible line. Put Luck on Seattle and his efficiency stats jump quite a bit. That said, Wilson is the real deal, too. I'd be surprised if they're not both future top 5 quarterbacks consistently.

They were both in similar offensive situations for most of the season minus the Seattle run game. Yes, Wilson had the best supporting offensive player in Lynch, but overall, Luck had more weapons. They both had offensive line issues. Not saying that the issues for Seattle were as bad as the Colts, but they were shuffling a lot due to injuries. So they were both in bad situations. I still don't see how Lynch was able to produce the way he did. Him and Wilson really did carry that offense all year.

Putting Luck on Seattle is just speculation. I'm sure his completion % would go up, but other than that, I'm not sure. He's attempted 1,197 passes. Almost 400 more than Wilson. And his numbers still don't stack up to Wilson's minus yardage totals of course. 8,196 for Luck. 6,475 for Wilson. So. 397 more pass attempts and he can't even manage 2000 yards than Wilson? That's pretty bad. Are the Colts weapons really that bad? No. Actually better overall that what Wilson has had to throw to.

I just can't find any sound logic to argue that Luck is better than Wilson The only thing you have is a hype machine and people bringing up the "talented" argument. Which makes no sense since Wilson is just as talented.

 

[cdumler7]

OL and no RB of any quality for Luck. Throw in he lost his top receiving option early in the year and didn't have a dominant defense making teams have to respect the run as much as they were down quite often. I like Wilson as well just would take Luck over him by a hair mostly because of his size and athleticism. Again it is close.

 

[Jakology]

OL and no RB of any quality for Luck. Throw in he lost his top receiving option early in the year and didn't have a dominant defense making teams have to respect the run as much as they were down quite often. I like Wilson as well just would take Luck over him by a hair mostly because of his size and athleticism. Again it is close.

How were they down quite often? Most of their games were close Wayne played in 7 games, and even after Wayne went down, I would still say Luck had better receiving options. And again I say, Wilson had O line issues too. Maybe not as bad as Luck, but still bad at times. Donald Brown averaged 5 yards a carry So you say size and athleticism. That's all you have left? Pretty much grasping for straws. Your entire argument was just that. Straw grasping with no facts behind it.

 

[cwood]

How were they down quite often? Most of their games were close Wayne played in 7 games, and even after Wayne went down, I would still say Luck had better receiving options. And again I say, Wilson had O line issues too. Maybe not as bad as Luck, but still bad at times. Donald Brown averaged 5 yards a carry So you say size and athleticism. That's all you have left? Pretty much grasping for straws. Your entire argument was just that. Straw grasping with no facts behind it.

The future is the only thing that will make any of us right. I'm betting on Luck. We'll probably be talking about why Luck doesn't have as many championships when Wilson started on a stacked team. A repeat of history for Indy.