2012: Trade it all for the #1 pick(Probably Luck), even 2013 picks if needed?

[GWinSkins83]

Naw I rather have RGIII and say next year say Mathuie

---------- Post added September-27th-2011 at 02:47 PM ----------

Robert Griffin III... He's right up there with Luck IMO, its been discussed quite a bit on the Draft Database. Barkley is next in line with Tannehill

I agree with you RGIII in the same league with Luck. And with Mike and Kyle as his coach I believe he could be better than Luck in the NFL if Luck ends up with a defensive minded Head Coach.

[SoCalSkinsFan1975]

Absolutely not! That is the kind of thinking that has buried us for the past two decades. I admit that picking in the middle of the pack can keep us from getting that franchise qb, but it can also save you from wasting a lot of time, money, and effort on a massive bust. The strategy last year was the right one, stockpile picks and get a lot of good young players not only to start, but for depth as well. Eventually we could have the scenario that NE had with multiple picks in each of the first few rounds. I want the next PM, DB, TB as bad as anyone but we can't mortgage the future to try and get him. What good is it to have him if we can't bring in any weapons or protection around him for the next few years because we traded draft picks away?

[rookieskin]

Can there be an option D?

- Trade it all for the first pick and take the best O-lineman available?

[SkinsHokieFan]

Absolutely not! That is the kind of thinking that has buried us for the past two decades. I admit that picking in the middle of the pack can keep us from getting that franchise qb, but it can also save you from wasting a lot of time, money, and effort on a massive bust. The strategy last year was the right one, stockpile picks and get a lot of good young players not only to start, but for depth as well. Eventually we could have the scenario that NE had with multiple picks in each of the first few rounds. I want the next PM, DB, TB as bad as anyone but we can't mortgage the future to try and get him. What good is it to have him if we can't bring in any weapons or protection around him for the next few years because we traded draft picks away?

Then you let him sit on the bench for 2 years. I am hoping that Rex is serviceable enough where we can have a Favre to Rodgers situation. QBs that are able to sit and are not forced to play are better off

[Champskins]

Can there be an option D?

- Trade it all for the first pick and take the best O-lineman available?

First overall for an O-lineman? No sir. Good o-lineman can be found later. Either QB or you trade out of the first and acquire picks

[bird_1972]

Then you let him sit on the bench for 2 years. I am hoping that Rex is serviceable enough where we can have a Favre to Rodgers situation. QBs that are able to sit and are not forced to play are better off

That's fine, but this "trade the entire draft for Luck" junk needs to go.

No player is worth that much. Even if he is the next Peyton Manning, having Peyton has only yeilded the Colts one SB. That's great and all, but teams like the Packers, Pats, and Saints seem to have a more balanced team with talent more evenly distributed - none of which has a QB that was as lauded as Manning or Luck coming out of college.

We are much better off taking a top 5 QB and maybe trading up once in the first round while still being able to address our awful OL and interior LB corps in the draft rather than to sacrifice it all for one guy.

[FrFan]

Amazing, some people want to pull a Ditka².

[SoCalSkinsFan1975]

Then you let him sit on the bench for 2 years. I am hoping that Rex is serviceable enough where we can have a Favre to Rodgers situation. QBs that are able to sit and are not forced to play are better off

I agree that sitting for a couple years is better than throwing them in the deep in right away, but the trading of everything for one player is complete foolishness. Even if luck turns out to be the next PM, he has only equated to 1 Superbowl...1! He receives a TON of money and the team has brought in pretty descent players around him, but they have never been a completely solid team all the way around. Often their D has been terrible, their running game will let them down and their depth is nonexistent. Just look at the situation they are in now, they put all their stock into PM, Painter has sat behind him for awhile and when it is his turn to step up, he can't do the job. Their whole franchise has been paralyzed over one players injury. The thing I think about is that if they keep going the way they are, they are the ones that will end up with Luck next year. NE has created the template for how to properly build a competitive, solid franchise and that is the model we need to follow. HTTR1

[-JB-]

You dont stand a chance in hell of winning SB's in today NFL without a franchise great QB. I would give up picks galore to get Luck. Doubt we'd get that chance cause whoever gets #1 is most likely going to need a QB unless the Rams get the #1 pick & opt to obtain a lot of picks to build around Bradford. I absolutely would make a trade to move up. Its like having Peyton Manning suddenly fall into your lap. You might not have to give up as much to move up & get Landry Jones so that's an option too. I feel that defensively the Redskins are very solid. To bring in a franchise QB could immediately elevate the Skins to consistent playoff/SB contender... Lack a big playmaking WR & could add depth to OL but other than that its not like the Skins haven't addressed many holes...

GIVE ME MY FRANCHISE QB !!!!!!

[tdigle]

Hmm...I'm going to wait and see how the season plays out. I am not against trading up, but I'd prefer that we not trade so much. The most I'd be comfortable with is: 2012 1st and 3rd and 2013 1st and 3rd.

[U C S D SkinsFan]

I'd give up 2 firsts and a couple of other picks, but not the whole draft. I doubt we have a chance at Luck. I think whoever has the 1st pick keeps it.

[-JB-]

Amazing, some people want to pull a Ditka².

Difference is..... He traded the house for a RB !!!! We're talking about trading picks for a bona fide superstar QB. They dont grow on tree's.... Proof ? The Redskins haven't had one since Sammy Baugh !

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Difference is..... He traded the house for a RB !!!! We're talking about trading picks for a bona fide superstar QB. They dont grow on tree's.... Proof ? The Redskins haven't had one since Sammy Baugh !

Some dude by the name of Jurgensen would like a word.

Hail.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

After the draft we appear to have had this past April, I'm shocked that anyone would be willing to give up 7 or more picks for a good QB. We filled several holes this past off-season by wisely drafting players that fit our schemes. If we do that for another off-season and take a QB that comes to us naturally in the draft, we'd be much better off.

[Champskins]

Difference is..... He traded the house for a RB !!!! We're talking about trading picks for a bona fide superstar QB. They dont grow on tree's.... Proof ? The Redskins haven't had one since Sammy Baugh !

He's not a "bona fide superstar" until he's played a down in the NFL and proves it.
There will be a few good 'franchise' guys this draft.
Anyone remember when Locker was the consensus #1 pick in 2010 and then went back to college and came out in 2011 and wasn't number 1? Not comparing Locker to Luck but you just don't trade everything.
You can make a reasonable offer if Luck is Shanny's guy, but they know better than to overdue it.
If Luck was the only good QB coming out next year and we had a great team to surround him with, then I'd say to at least try and pull some magic but there are a few options.
Personally, like I said before, get the teams to bite and bid on Luck... so we can swoop in and get RGIII (if you don't know who RGIII is, then you shouldnt be discussing the QB's in the draft at all)