PDA

View Full Version : How Much Is Luck Worth?


Prowler
11-01-2011, 11:41 AM
Another Luck thread...but I scrolled back through May and didn't see a thread with a poll with how much people would actually give up for Luck. Figured it would make a nice reference post.

How many first round picks would you give up for Luck? Eli was traded in 2004 for 2 firsts and a 3rd.(Rivers-4, Merriman-12, Kaeding=3,265 in trade value vs 3,000 for #1) Julio Jones, pick 6 was traded for 1(27), 1(2012), 2(59), 4(124), and 4(2012) which equals about 1,038 value + 1st and 4th which would currently be around 966. So 1,600(Jones) was worth over 2,000 worth of draft picks.

If a team is 16th out of 32 teams, then their first round pick would be worth 1,000 points. With the top pick of Luck being worth 3,000 points....how many first rounds picks would you trade to get him. Obviously current standings may skew this slightly depending on the team in question, but hypothetically how much is he worth?

Cardinal96
11-01-2011, 11:46 AM
If I am in need of a franchise QB and I am sitting in the bottom half of round 1, I personally would give the 1st and 2nd round pick this year plus the 1st and 3rd round pick in the 2013 draft for Luck. I am a Stanford fan and have seen Luck play for the last 3 years. I take my homer glasses off when I evaluate NFL prospects. With Luck, he is about as "can't miss" a QB prospect as I have seen at least in the last ten years when I started following NFL drafts.

Halsey
11-01-2011, 11:49 AM
I believe teams can only trade 2012 and 2013 Draft picks. Not sure where I heard that, so I could be wrong. If that's true, we know there's actually a ceiling on what a team can pay for him. If I was running a team in need of a franchise QB, I'd give whatever it took. If I have to throw in active players, fine. I'd be willing to set my overall roster talent back a couple of years in order to secure a franchise QB for potentially 20 years.

killxswitch
11-01-2011, 11:52 AM
Where are you getting your pick value numbers? If you're going off the old chart I doubt it really applies anymore. Top 10 picks are much cheaper and therefore worth a lot more.

I'd say two 1sts, two 2nds, and two 3rds is the minimum, and that's just for a team with a current top 5 or 7 pick. Any lower than that and the price goes up.

The rookie cap made top draft picks significantly more valuable IMO. Especially when you're talking about the best QB prospect in a decade or more. The right to pay that guy less than $8 million a year for 4 years is very valuable indeed.

Prowler
11-01-2011, 11:53 AM
I believe teams can only trade 2012 and 2013 Draft picks. Not sure where I heard that, so I could be wrong. If that's true, we know there's actually a ceiling on what a team can pay for him. If I was running a team in need of a franchise QB, I'd give whatever it took. If I have to throw in active players, fine. I'd be willing to set my the overall roster talent back a couple of years in order to secure a franchise QB for potentially 20 years.

Ouch, if that's true then the combined value of 2nd-7th round picks for mid range teams with only one pick is about 3/4 of a first round pick. So a middle of the road team would have around 3 1/2 first round picks between 2 drafts.

nepg
11-01-2011, 11:57 AM
2 firsts a second and some other compensation.

A Perfect Score
11-01-2011, 12:00 PM
It's an interesting topic, and one that certainly deserves talking about. Scott's most recent blog touches upon it, and I'm not entirely sure I agree with his philosophy. I understand that QB's play an integral role in the contemporary NFL; hell, integral probably doesn't even do it justice. Without a competent QB nowadays, you can't realistically expect to compete for a Super Bowl every year. But piggybacking on Scott's metaphor for a minute, what's the point of having a 65 plasma TV if your guests are sitting on the floor because you're too poor to buy furniture? Confused? Allow me to explain.

Luck is a fantastic QB prospect in many ways, but he's not flawless. For the sake of this argument, let's dismiss the fans who will say Luck is immutably the best QB prospect of the last 30 years and settle on two facts; A) He is an awesome QB prospect, but he is not lightyears ahead of where recent first overall picks like Matt Stafford and Sam Bradford were and B) He is definitely a better prospect then recent overall picks like Matt Stafford and Sam Bradford. My point is, he's good, but he's not that good, people. He has flaws, many of which have been talked about at length in other threads so I won't go into them now, but they're there. With that in mind and moving forward, if you think about it logically, there isn't a ton of ways to justify moving a ******** of picks for someone like Luck if you're say...Cleveland. Luck may be amazing, but if you sit him down in Cleveland right now and then take away the tools the franchise has to surround him with talent, you're not doing yourself a big favor. What's worth more to you, Luck throwing to Mohammed Massaquoi or Landry Jones throwing to Alshon Jefferey? We're seeing the effects of a similar scenario in Chicago right now. I applaud them for identifying their guy and going out and getting him (Cutler), but that team is now devoid of talent surrounding him because they mortgaged their future to get him. Jay Cutler isn't worth nearly as much to a franchise when he's throwing to a bunch of scrubs. The same goes for Andrew Luck. I really do love the guy as a prospect, but I will feel bad if a team nearly devoid of talent like Cleveland or Denver gives up a fortune to get him and in the process, hinders their ability to help him succeed in the foreseeable future. Like I said, there's absolutely no point in owning a 65 inch TV if you have to sit on the floor to use it.

Obviously this scenario is different for every team. Some teams, like Indianapolis, already have an established guy in place so they can afford to wait a few years and gather talent before integrating Luck into the starting lineup. Miami probably isn't as bad as their record indicates, and even though Brandon Marshall is overrated as a receiver he's still a hell of a lot better then what Luck would be throwing to in St Louis. Speaking of them, their place in all this rests on what they can get for Bradford. If they can somehow snag a couple first rounders for him, then they can afford to go out and grab Luck while still having the option to surround him with talent. I don't think the financial implications of such a deal would ever allow it to happen, but there are those out there who do.

Anyways, that was a pretty long winded rant about something that the basic football fan should know, but just reading these forums lately makes me think that basic knowledge needs to be reiterated. To me, it makes much more sense to take a Matt Barkley and use the premium picks you would have traded for Luck to surround him with playmakers then it does to mortgage your future to get Luck, only to surround him with a bunch of fourth round receiving options.

AntoinCD
11-01-2011, 12:16 PM
Regardless of whether or not people think he is can't miss or the best prospect in the last how many years, Luck is a potential franchise QB in a draft where they won't now have to pay him $80 million.

I tend to agree with some of the NFL people who have stated previously, that it will take 3 1st round picks to get him.

bucfan12
11-01-2011, 12:17 PM
It all depends. If its a team that has a lot of holes to fill including QB, then I wouldn't pay the price.

But, if it's someone like the Dallas Cowboys, I think them giving up Romo, 2 1sts (2012, and 2013) and a 2nd in 2013 and 3rd in 2012 is a reasonable deal, if they pick in the 15 range.

But, If I'm Miami, and have the 1st pcik, I'm holding on to that pick, unless Andrew Luck pulls an Eli Manning, which rumors have surfaced he might.

WCH
11-01-2011, 12:25 PM
Anyways, that was a pretty long winded rant about something that the basic football fan should know, but just reading these forums lately makes me think that basic knowledge needs to be reiterated. To me, it makes much more sense to take a Matt Barkley and use the premium picks you would have traded for Luck to surround him with playmakers then it does to mortgage your future to get Luck, only to surround him with a bunch of fourth round receiving options.

In general, I agree. But this entire line of thinking breaks down at the extremes. Jerry Rice and Larry Fitzgerald wouldn't make some guys look any better, because they just can't pass. Likewise, John Elway spent the 80's carrying a lot of crap Broncos teams on deep playoff runs (if this season is any indication, Peyton Manning has probably been carrying crap Colts teams for at least a couple of years).

So this really does depend on if you think Luck is the best QB prospect of his generation (like Elway and Manning were). If you think he's that good, lets call it "generational elite," then you pull the trigger; you trade your firstborn child if you have to. If you think that he's only "regular elite," then you settle for a guy who's maybe more on par with Bradford or Matt Ryan, and you give him as many weapons as possible.

And I actually do think that Luck is "lightyears" ahead of Bradford and Stafford as prospects, but I wasn't as high on those guys as some others were. I actually liked Freeman a little bit more than Stafford (which isn't making me look as smart as it did last year).

keylime_5
11-01-2011, 12:47 PM
No one is gonna give up 3 first rounders, but i think he's worth the equivelant of that. 2 firsts, a 2nd and a 3rd, and then some change.

Babylon
11-01-2011, 01:04 PM
I went with other, 2 first round picks and any player on a team's roster. So if you're Indy you can have the Broncos #1s for this year and next and a Ryan Clady. I'd be inclined to take that seeing as the Denver pick, at least this year, should be pretty high.

My additional thinking, if i'm the Colts, is the Luck family is going to not want to play here and we'll get out in front of it ahead of time.

killxswitch
11-01-2011, 01:14 PM
My additional thinking, if i'm the Colts, is the Luck family is going to not want to play here and we'll get out in front of it ahead of time.

I don't necessarily disagree, but what is your reasoning for thinking this?

vidae
11-01-2011, 01:16 PM
But piggybacking on Scott's metaphor for a minute, what's the point of having a 65 plasma TV if your guests are sitting on the floor because you're too poor to buy furniture? Confused? Allow me to explain.

No one was confused, but thank you for the explanation anyway! :D

Forenci
11-01-2011, 01:22 PM
Where is the option to surrender ones own left testicle for Andrew Luck?

AntoinCD
11-01-2011, 01:26 PM
Where is the option to surrender ones own left testicle for Andrew Luck?

You can't give that up to another team for the right to draft Luck though because that's what he will demand in contract talks...and everyone knows the left one is better

Prowler
11-01-2011, 01:29 PM
Here's what I think each of the "top" teams would give up.

Colts- Nothing. They are more than happy with Kalil or any other BPA.
Dolphins-Everything. 3 first round picks, or almost every single pick for the next 2 years.
Rams-Nothing. They will not trade up for him, even with a new regime.
Cardinals- equivalent of 3 first round picks. Their 2nd round pick is already lost because of Kolb, but they can at least trade the rest of their next 2 draft and get an actual QB.
Vikings-2 1sts, Ponder, and a couple middle rounders. Not sure if they will though.
Redskins-4 1st round picks. They will not be anything less than the Baltimore Orioles of the NFC East without an elite QB. I don't think they can make a deal though.
Browns-3 1st round picks. The Browns are my favorites to successfully complete a trade if there is one for Luck. The Julio trade gave them 2 middle 1st round picks and I can see them jetting their 2nd round and 4th round picks and a couple more. It would be a perfect deal for a team like St. Louis to take. Losing 2 1sts now is easier to swallow than slowly bleeding for multiple years.

Other potential teams who could or should do something.
Tennessee-Jake Locker is still probably 3 years away...why wait? Locker plus 2 first rounders?
Kansas City-Cassel is only a 'solid 70-80 QB rating guy that always loses in playoffs' type. 2 firsts, a couple mids, and maybe a player?
49ers-Why not reunite with Harbaugh? 3 first rounders or equivalent.

Generically, I do think Luck is worth 3 first round picks. I really like Barkley, but there are a lot of teams that could use Luck and only a couple guys that I like this year. Last year I didn't like anyone. Teams will pay the premium price to get their guy now.

Babylon
11-01-2011, 01:55 PM
I don't necessarily disagree, but what is your reasoning for thinking this?

First off i'm not down on the Colts, i have been a fan back to the Bert Jones days. It just feels like a John Elway/Eli Manning situation all over again. Not sure if the fact that their Dads were players/coaches but this smells of deja vu all over again. Personally i think Peyton can have several quality years left so not sure a QB is the real need there and a big package could really turn them around in a hurry.

bored of education
11-01-2011, 02:12 PM
Id give the Colts 1st, 3rd, 1st, Glen Dorsey

niel89
11-01-2011, 02:15 PM
I honestly don't think that you can over pay for a guy like Luck. I have absolutely no problem trading 3 1st rounders, especially someone like Cleveland who has multiple 1st already. I think it is really really hard to over pay for a franchise QB. I actually went with 4 1st in this poll. I'm fine with having the talent around him take a hit for 3/4 years in order to have a great QB for the next 10+. QB's are just that important.



But, If I'm Miami, and have the 1st pcik, I'm holding on to that pick, unless Andrew Luck pulls an Eli Manning, which rumors have surfaced he might.

These rumors are still completely unsubstantiated. People just looked and said "wow he is so good, he could just choose where he goes." I have seen or heard absolutely nothing from Luck actually indicating at this point that he would do this. The guy is busy with college and leading a top 5 team to spend his time quashing hypotheticals about the draft.

jrdrylie
11-01-2011, 02:25 PM
I think it is 2 1sts, 2 3rds, and a 2nd... minimum. Now if the Cowboys are throwing in Romo, maybe you take away the 2nd.

A Perfect Score
11-01-2011, 02:28 PM
No one was confused, but thank you for the explanation anyway! :D

Someone who hasn't read Scott's blog might have been! Dick.

AntoinCD
11-01-2011, 02:28 PM
wait, so two first round picks and a stud lt? um, no thanks. i can't actually imagine a trade that would cripple the team more, unless it included von miller, too.

Throwing Luck into an offense with no RBs, no WRs, no TEs and giving away your top offensive lineman plus two first round picks??? I agree there is no way that would be good and he would flounder.

Clearly the only person who could succeed in that situation is Tebow...so I guess it's a moot point

DiG
11-01-2011, 04:07 PM
I'm not giving up 3 1st round picks but I'm probably giving equivalent to 3 first round picks in "value". However it is you decide to define value. Basically I'm saying that I'd give up 2 1st a 2nd, and a 3rd probably.

K Train
11-01-2011, 04:25 PM
i would say 2 firsts, a conditional 2nd, and a probowl caliber player.

it seriously could be anything though, it could be a historic deal. If they team that gets #1 doesnt want luck it will be the first time in so long weve seen a frenzy for the #1 pick...cause it would level the playing field and so many teams could have a legit shot at luck, might have to sell their souls but think about what atlanta gave up for julio....that could be tripled for a franchise QB at a low rookie cap price especially

kalbears13
11-01-2011, 04:26 PM
I'm not giving up 3 1st round picks but I'm probably giving equivalent to 3 first round picks in "value". However it is you decide to define value. Basically I'm saying that I'd give up 2 1st a 2nd, and a 3rd probably.

1st =/= 2nd & 3rd

jrdrylie
11-01-2011, 04:32 PM
How about Washington giving up their entire draft this year (two 4ths, no 6th, plus whatever pick they get for McNabb) to move up from 10th and then next year's 1st and 3rd?

cmarq83
11-01-2011, 04:52 PM
i would say 2 firsts, a conditional 2nd, and a probowl caliber player.


I'd say roughly this, except I'd say an established young player rather than a probowl guy. Any GM is going to need a sure thing if he has the stones to pull off this deal. The kind of guy who you can point to and say you got a cornerstone player for the long term in the deal.

Cardinal96
11-01-2011, 07:01 PM
How about Washington giving up their entire draft this year (two 4ths, no 6th, plus whatever pick they get for McNabb) to move up from 10th and then next year's 1st and 3rd?

If I have the number 1 pick, I don't think I make that trade.

Thecollegedropout
11-01-2011, 07:09 PM
A 1st in 2012 and 2013 and 2nd in 2012 and 2013 and a 4th this year I think would be what it takes to move in from somewhere in the top 10 to get the 1st pick.

Iamcanadian
11-01-2011, 09:42 PM
Nobody is going to trade him anyways. If the team holding his pick has a QB, they either trade their current QB or if it is Peyton, they sit Luck for a year or 2 a la Rodgers, especially with the rookie salary cap in place.
As for trade value, only a top 5 team could afford the price which would be in the range of 2 first round picks plus at least, 2 seconds and probably 2 thirds or some solid veteran players. A team out of the top 5 would have to pay substantially more, a fact that would keep them out of the bidding altogether.
It's simple, how much would a team pay to get a Brady or a Peyton at the start of their career, knowing what they know today.

Complex
11-01-2011, 09:49 PM
5 first rounders because he is going to win 8 super bowls minimum.

TitanHope
11-01-2011, 09:57 PM
Didn't Jay Cutler go for two 1st RD picks, a 3rd RD pick, and Kyle Orton?

I'd say something along those lines. And while people may argue that Luck is a better prospect and could be a better pro, Cutler was a known commodity and therefore less of a gamble.

TACKLE
11-01-2011, 10:00 PM
Save your draft picks...use them next year to get Bray! :D

TitanHope
11-01-2011, 10:03 PM
Save your draft picks...use them next year to get Bray! :D

This would insinuate that Bray would declare early...WHICH IS JUST RIDICULOUS!

TACKLE
11-01-2011, 10:07 PM
This would insinuate that Bray would declare early...WHICH IS JUST RIDICULOUS!

Problem is, well with Relf gone after this year, Bray should take over as the top QB in the SEC which may cause him to declare.

....just speculating though. ;D

DraftSavant
11-01-2011, 10:13 PM
Problem is, well with Relf gone after this year, Bray should take over as the top QB in the SEC which may cause him to declare.

....just speculating though. ;D

He is future #1 overall pick material. Will be a better prospect than Stafford coming out.

TitanHope
11-01-2011, 10:18 PM
Problem is, well with Relf gone after this year, Bray should take over as the top QB in the SEC which may cause him to declare.

....just speculating though. ;D

You forgot John Brantley too!

Btw, so glad the rest of my house is awake or else I'd have just woken them up from laughing so hard.

LOLChrisRelf