The [OFFICIAL] Suck for Luck thread

[Stormtrooper]

As has been over-reported by all the media outlets for the past year or so, Stanford Quarterback Andrew Luck is considered to be the greatest QB prospect since Peyton Manning, and one of the best QB prospects ever. There is now a lot of fans of bad teams who are taking part in a "Suck for Luck" campaign, where they want their team to lose their way to the #1 overall pick to take this "can't miss" prospect. These fans are rooting for 1 terrible, atrocious season for the hope of a decade of great success.

What we'll be doing here are 2 things.

The primary focus of this thread is to take a look at the teams primed for the #1 overall pick, and whether they should take the Stanford QB.

However, in order to start discussion, I have a couple general questions related to the topic at hand.

1. Do you agree with the idea of rooting for your team to have the worst of worst seasons, in hope of getting a "can't miss" prospect?

2. Should the NFL have some sort of Lottery to prevent teams from doing this?



As for my opinion, I believe that a fan should not willingly root for their team to lose, and teams DEFINITELY should not be trying to lose. As Herm Edwards said, you play to win the game. Intentionally tanking games is detrimental to the other teams chances at success, not to mention tanking the season is pretty shady. AND rooting against your team means rooting against the players on your team, who would ultimately be the teamates of the can't miss prospect, and playing bad now may lead to playing bad in the future. As for the fans, I don't think that saying "I hope my team loses" is very fan-like. A fan is supposed to root FOR their team, not against it.

In regards to a lottery, I definitely believe there should be some sort of lottery, but only a small one, with only the lowest 5 teams and the top 5 picks. It prevents teams from trying to tank the season, but doesn't allow middle of the road teams to get top picks. To me there is very little difference between a team finishing 1-15 or 2-14; and guaranteeing one of those teams the #1 pick because they lost one more measly game (which could potentially be against the 2-14 team) to me isn't really fair.


I'll be back tomorrow or during the week with my first look at the teams "leading" the Suck For Luck race, but feel free to give your own opinions.

 

[Scuba 06]

I believe it's wrong on the part of a person who calls themselves a true fan to root for their team to purposely lose games. The whole concept to me is disgusting and if you have ever lived in a city where the team is a constant loser, it is just painful to sit through, having nothing to look forward to every week. My opinion of Luck is that although he does appear to be one of the best college-level quarterbacks to come around in a long time, I dont believe anyone comes into the NFL as a lock for greatness. Do I think Luck will become another Ryan Leaf ? No, however to argue on the basis that because he is a very good College QB, he will just come into the NFL and be a top 5 player at his position, is absurd. First of all, we need to stop treating this guy like God. If the guy comes into the league with this massive ego, he is going to be a burden for his team because he will be more concerned about himself than the whole unit. Fact of the matter is, one player no matter how good, is not going to make a crappy team a Superbowl contender. Peyton Manning has had good but not great teams, how many championships does he have ? Although Manning does make his team mates better, how far does he get without a Wayne or Harrison ? Obviously in order for Luck to succeed, he will need the pieces around him. Notice how many teams continue to suck each year despite getting top picks, that's because managers and owners in that city don't know how to draft and just generally make poor decisions. Look at Miami, currently one of the worst teams, looking at their drafts in recent years, with the #1 overall pick, instead of taking a guy like Matt Ryan they draft an offensive lineman. Then there are a couple others player they drafted who were complete waste like Pat White. So a lot of things have to come together it to work out. If they draft smart like the Lions, Packers and Steelers have they have a shot, but he could end up going to a city where they dont build a unit for him to be successful. Now here is the thing, if your team loses despite them playing hard and striving to win, if they still cant get it done, than take #1. But don't tank the season just to get a shot for potential greatness. I agree with you about some kind of lottery among the bottom 4 or 5 teams to prevent teams from intentionally losing.

 

[gd]

It may seem wrong, but think about it logically. If you're the Miami Dolphins, what do you have to look forward to this season? You're 0 and 4 in potentially the best division in football. You aren't going anywhere this year. So really, what's the difference between 4-12 and 1-15? Are you really going to feel that much better about thsoe 3 extra wins that you're willing to give up on what may be the best QB prospect since Peyton Manning, according to experts at least?

I understand that's it's tough to root for your own team to lose and I'm not sure if I could do it, but looking at it from a logical perspective and it's obviously the best thing to do. And as for the lottery, I don't think it's really needed. NBA has one because of the length of the season and the fact it's quick a bit easier to tank, NFL is fairly different.

 

[Mustang Sally]

So really, what's the difference between 4-12 and 1-15?

The difference to team management who already know their team is going nowhere this season?.....probably no difference. They'll say differently when speaking to the media, but I wouldn't be surprised if discussion in their boardroom is more concerned with the hopeful possibilities of next year rather than with the sad reality of this year.

The difference to the fans who live and die in the hopes their team will win this week?........a huge difference. I just can't believe fans would watch their teams games, hoping for a loss so they have a chance at getting a top college player next year.

Same goes for the players. Seeing the way they leave everything they've got on the field each week, it's discouraging to even consider them thinking it would be better to lose games now so they can get this great QB next year.....I can't believe a player's pride would allow him to think that way. Maybe I'm just naive, huh?

 

[gd]

The difference to team management who already know their team is going nowhere this season?.....probably no difference. They'll say differently when speaking to the media, but I wouldn't be surprised if discussion in their boardroom is more concerned with the hopeful possibilities of next year rather than with the sad reality of this year.

The difference to the fans who live and die in the hopes their team will win this week?........a huge difference. I just can't believe fans would watch their teams games, hoping for a loss so they have a chance at getting a top college player next year.

Same goes for the players. Seeing the way they leave everything they've got on the field each week, it's discouraging to even consider them thinking it would be better to lose games now so they can get this great QB next year.....I can't believe a player's pride would allow him to think that way. Maybe I'm just naive, huh?

No I understand where you're coming from, not sure if I could actualy root for my team to lose, but maybe when I look back afterwards I don't really mind the loss. The thing is, looking at it with not emotion involved and simply by the facts, tanking is the best for the team in the long run. Obviously it's much different in practice.

Tanking doesn't really occur as a result of the players on the field not giving 100%, they're competitors and are playing for future contracts and whantont. The tanking comes when a GM dumps a top player ofr next to nothing or where you suddenly decided to start Matt Moore at quarterback.

 

[Big Sexy]

1. Do you agree with the idea of rooting for your team to have the worst of worst seasons, in hope of getting a "can't miss" prospect?

2. Should the NFL have some sort of Lottery to prevent teams from doing this?

I personally would never root for my own team to lose but I can somewhat understand why some people do it. In terms of a lottery I don't think one is necessary. No team is ever going to lose on purpose. Pro athletes are extremely competitive and all of them want to win every game they play in.

As far as who I think will get Luck, my money is on the Dolphins. Their defense has been extremely disappointing this year and on offense they are without Henne who was actually playing really well to start the season.

 

[Stormtrooper]

My opinion of Luck is that although he does appear to be one of the best college-level quarterbacks to come around in a long time, I dont believe anyone comes into the NFL as a lock for greatness. Do I think Luck will become another Ryan Leaf ? No, however to argue on the basis that because he is a very good College QB, he will just come into the NFL and be a top 5 player at his position, is absurd.

It's not just based on him being an excellent college QB. It's based on his mechanics, and how he reads defenses, as well as his play. Obviously it's an inexact science, but it's the only way we can measure players coming into the league.

First of all, we need to stop treating this guy like God. If the guy comes into the league with this massive ego, he is going to be a burden for his team because he will be more concerned about himself than the whole unit.

He actually doesn't have an ego, as far as I know. He's pretty down to earth about it.

Fact of the matter is, one player no matter how good, is not going to make a crappy team a Superbowl contender. Peyton Manning has had good but not great teams, how many championships does he have ? Although Manning does make his team mates better, how far does he get without a Wayne or Harrison ?

Peyton Manning is the prime example of one guy leading a team to a championship. The Colts were built entirely around Manning (which is why they suck right now that he's injured).

And how far do Wayne or Harrison get without Manning? Here's a hint, not Canton, where both are heading (well, maybe not Harrison with his off-field issues post-retirement).

Obviously in order for Luck to succeed, he will need the pieces around him. Notice how many teams continue to suck each year despite getting top picks, that's because managers and owners in that city don't know how to draft and just generally make poor decisions.

That's true, Management can fuck shit up a lot. But taking Luck at #1 isn't fucking up. If he fails, he fails, but you can't blame them for taking him.

Look at Miami, currently one of the worst teams, looking at their drafts in recent years, with the #1 overall pick, instead of taking a guy like Matt Ryan they draft an offensive lineman.
Then there are a couple others player they drafted who were complete waste like Pat White. So a lot of things have to come together it to work out.

You're kidding me, right? They didn't take Matt Ryan, an overrated QB, and picked a top-5 Left Tackle, who has helped get his team to an AFC East Title in 2008, and has been dominant ever since. The Fins didn't miss on that pick at all. In fact, Ryan would likely have flamed out in Miami, since he wouldn't have had a Left Tackle. Ryan succeeded because he had a good O-Line (and because he played pretty well).

And Pat White was a 2nd round pick. A lot of those guys don't pan out, and you can't blame the Fins either, as Pat White retired 1 year into his NFL career to play for the Kansas City Royals Minor League system.

If they draft smart like the Lions, Packers and Steelers have they have a shot, but he could end up going to a city where they dont build a unit for him to be successful.

Like the LIONS? #AREYOUSERIOUSBRO?!?!?!

The Lions are MOST known for their terrible drafting from the Millen Era (they drafted receivers with a top 10 pick in 4 of 5 years). Recently they got slightly better, but their drafting isn't nearly good enough to be considered among the elite. They have gone 2 drafts now without addressing their biggest problem, which is the Offensive Line. The other 2 I wholeheartedly agree with, they have drafted amazingly well.

Many other teams have been good drafters. The Patriots, the Jets, and countless other teams.

No I understand where you're coming from, not sure if I could actualy root for my team to lose, but maybe when I look back afterwards I don't really mind the loss.

I agree with this. I can see at the end of the year seeing a silver lining, but still there are many, many problems with playing like utter shit. Namely having to replace a lot of players, since they most likely are shit.

Tanking doesn't really occur as a result of the players on the field not giving 100%, they're competitors and are playing for future contracts and whantont.

Again, I totally agree. The players on the field are playing for their careers every year. rack up enough bad years, and you're out of the league, and thus out of money.

The thing is, looking at it with not emotion involved and simply by the facts, tanking is the best for the team in the long run. Obviously it's much different in practice.

This, I disagree with. I kinda explained it above. And also there is a fan backlash if management tanks a season. While the fans may want the #1 pick, they damn sure don't want to spend hundreds of dollars to attend a game to see their team try to lose.

The tanking comes when .... you suddenly decided to start Matt Moore at quarterback.

Again, I disagree. This year, Matt Moore is in playing as an injury-substitute for Chan Henne (out for the year), and last year he played over Jimmy Claussen (a 21 year old rookie who the team didn't have any faith in, and was injured at one point).

In terms of a lottery I don't think one is necessary. No team is ever going to lose on purpose. Pro athletes are extremely competitive and all of them want to win every game they play in.

I know the athletes are competitive, and will try to win every game. I'm talking more about like what others said, about GMs and coaches making roster related moves that clearly don't ever make the team better, in hopes of getting better picks.

And even then, I don't like how being 1 game worse can guarantee a team gets a better draft pick. Especially when that game could be the worst team against the 2nd worst team.

As far as who I think will get Luck, my money is on the Dolphins. Their defense has been extremely disappointing this year and on offense they are without Henne who was actually playing really well to start the season.

Miami does have a good shot at getting LUCKy (yeah, I went there). However, I think that they have enough talent to win 3 or 4 games, which would make them run out of luck (sorry again).

 

[Stormtrooper]

Now on to my first team I'm looking at.

The first team I am going to talk about is a team that Jesus Christ himself doesn't want to end up with the #1 overall pick. That team is the Denver Broncos, now with by 2010 #25 overall pick (and Uber-Christian) Tim Tebow at the helm. I know what you're saying, they drafted a QB just last year, they don't need one. Well, tell that to the Broncos. Many people feel that Tebow isn't a First Round talent, and the coach that drafted Tebow was fired after the 2010 season. Already 0-4, if Tebow can't right the ship and the Broncos get the #1 pick, Team President John Elway (a Stanford Alum) would no doubt push for the Broncos to draft Luck.

My prediction:I do not think the Broncos will end up with the #1 pick, as I think Tim Tebow will right the ship for the most part, and the Broncos will end the year with a 6-10 record (giving them likely a pick between 6-11), making Tebow .500 for the year, and giving him another year as the QB, maybe even proving to the Broncos management that he's the QB of the future (or at least for 2012)

Tomorrow (Monday night/Tuesday early morning) I will take a look at a different team. I'll give you a hint as to what team that is. Nobody is talking about them potentially getting the #1 pick, and even I don't think they'll end the season with the worst record.

 

[Stormtrooper]

I really, REALLY want to take a look at the Dolphins, based on watching them get their asses kicked by the Jets tonight, but I promised a look at a surprising team that no one is really talking about, so I don't want to go back on my word.

Last night, I said this team is not going to finish with the worst record. I still think that's the case. Who is this team, you ask? This team is the CLEVELAND BROWNS.

The Browns are currently 2-3, but that record is not indicative of their play. They only defeated Indianapolis and Miami, 2 of the other Suck For Luck candidates. They are likely heading to a record of around 4-12 (winnable games against St. Louis, Arizona, and Jacksonville). If the Browns end with a 4-12 record, they should end up with a pick between 3-5. Is the 3rd overall pick going to be good enough to get Andrew Luck? No.

Well, how are they going to get him then? Well it's easy. If you remember the 2011 NFL Draft, the Falcons traded up from the mid 20's to 6 to draft receiver Julio Jones. They traded with the Browns. The Browns received a bunch of picks back, including the Falcons #1 in both 2011 and 2012. Couple the Browns potential Top-5 pick with the Falcons pick (likely in the 2nd half of the round), and maybe a 2013 First Rounder or a 2nd rounder, and they can trade up. Why would someone trade down instead of drafting Luck? well, not every team in the race for the #1 pick needs a QB. The St. Louis Rams are one such team. Sam Bradford is already their QB, who was picked #1 overall. They cannot afford 2 #1 overall QBs, and they wouldn't be able to trade Bradford, as he's too expensive.

The Cleveland Browns are a Wildcard in this scenario. They most likely will not earn the #1 pick, but they can get it. They have sub-par QB play right now from 2010 3rd round pick Colt McCoy (who doesn't have an unreasonable contract that would put them in financial trouble). Drafting Luck will give the Browns their first franchise QB since they reentered the league in 1999.

My Prediction: It's really hard to predict. They need a lot of help to get Lucky, but I think it's possible. In fact, I would say that if the team that gets #1 overall doesn't need a QB, the Browns would be the favorite to get him, because they have a lot of tradable pieces. I'm going to say they won't get him, if only because they need the help of another team. Just don't be surprised if Luck goes to Cleveland to replace LeBron James as the sports face of the city. Hopefully he wouldn't leave a few years later for Miami, announcing his decision on a TV show...

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

I don't care if a team loses to get a prospect. MLB teams essentially do it all the time. They realize they aren't going to win so they trade away their best players for prospects.

Why is it bad? It's not unsportsmanlike behavior, you're trying to win....next year....or the year after. Either way, losing more now with the goal of winning more in the future is smart.

However, how many "can't miss QBs" have their been in the draft that didn't pan out? More than those that did I'll tell you that much. If the Colts want to take their chances I say let them.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

Why is there any need to suck for Luck? This upcoming draft class of QBs is probably going to be the greatest anyone has ever seen. Besides Luck, you have two other franchise-caliber QB prospects in Landry Jones from OU and Matt Barkley from USC (add RG3 from Baylor if he decides to declare). Furthermore, you have potential solid starters in Ryan Tannehill from TAMU, Nick Foles from Arizona, and Kirk Cousins from MSU.

If RG3 declares, then you're going to probably see five QBs go in the first 20 picks. It's going to be a crazy draft next year.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

I'm going to divide the 32 NFL teams into two categories.

Those That Don't Need A Quarterback: New England, New York Jets, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Houston, Tennessee, Jacksonville, Oakland, San Diego, Philadelphia, New York Giants, Dallas, Washington, Chicago, Green Bay, Detroit, New Orleans, Tampa Bay, Atlanta, Carolina, St. Louis and Arizona

That's 25 teams. So we have Miami, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Denver, Minnesota, Seattle, and San Francisco. A look at each situation....

Miami: Chad Henne was playing pretty good and I don't think Miami is that bad as they are pretty good on defense and have some nice pieces. Buffalo being where they are is a surprise and they have played everybody on their schedule tough.

Indianapolis: I like Curtis Painter and just like Miami, the Colts have been in almost every game. I believe Manning will be back at the end of the season or at the start of next season.

Kansas City: They acquired Matt Cassel a couple of years ago and he was decent last year even though I felt their team was overrated: Losing their tight end, runningback, and safety hurt a lot.

Denver: They're starting Tebow now and I don't think Elway and Fox believe in him. I secretly think they're rooting for him to fail even though they probably would have if they stuck with Orton.

Minnesota: They drafted Christian Ponder in the first round last year so I don't see them drafting Luck if they get the worst record.

Seattle: They signed Jackson who so far has been average. I don't know if there is a huge commitment to stick with him but they did pay a lot for him.

San Francisco: I still have hope for Alex Smith because just like Jason Campbell, there have been so many changes at head coach and offensive coordinatior. Even if Harbaugh wants Luck, I don't see what they can trade to get him because I don't think they're stupid enough to trade Patrick Willis or Frank Gore.

Projecting to the end of the season, I believe the teams with the worst 5 records will be Minnesota, St. Louis, Indianapolis, Kansas City, and Miami. I just don't think that Luck will have to be drafted with the first pick. The game has evolved more to throwing the ball now and teams like St. Louis (less so with the addition of Lloyd) and Minnesota have a need at wide receiver and would benefit greatly. Offensive line is key too so I could see a offensive lineman being taken #1 like Jake Long was.

All in all, I think the ultimate question is that if a team that needs a quarterback doesn't get the worst record, how much are they willing to trade to get Luck?

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

The Redskins for sure are drafting a QB in the first round of this upcoming draft. They're just as QB-needy as the Dolphins and the Seahawks. KC might end up being in the hunt too, but I doubt the Colts don't use their pick on either Kalil or Coples. I think the Dolphins end up taking Luck, the Seahawks end up taking Jones, and the 'Skins end up going with RGIII.

 

[Big Sexy]

The Dolphins are really starting to look like the team to beat in the race for Luck. The Redskins, Seahawks, and Broncos probably have the worst qb situations but they'll likely have to settle for the consolation prizes of Landry Jones, Matt Barkley, and Robert Griffin III (all three are juniors however). There are also some other guys who could be good but have questions. Ryan Tannehill is just a one year starter, Kirk Cousins has been very inconsistent, and Russell Wilson is just 5'11. All three are capable but not as good as the top 4 quarterbacks.

 

[LikeSheamusLoveOrton]

The Dolphins are really starting to look like the team to beat in the race for Luck. The Redskins, Seahawks, and Broncos probably have the worst qb situations but they'll likely have to settle for the consolation prizes of Landry Jones, Matt Barkley, and Robert Griffin III (all three are juniors however). There are also some other guys who could be good but have questions. Ryan Tannehill is just a one year starter, Kirk Cousins has been very inconsistent, and Russell Wilson is just 5'11. All three are capable but not as good as the top 4 quarterbacks.

The Colts are going to end up with the 1st pick in the draft. And Irsay has said publicly that if available, they will draft Luck. I'm a die-hard Colts fan. And Peyton is on the back end of his career. He has 3-4 good years left, if that. This injury is a scary one. He won't be back to play a game this year. And our only winnable game is Jacksonville. And after our 62-7 beatdown at the hands of the Saints last night, I'm not so sure we can beat Jacksonville...

So I believe the Colts win the Suck For Luck, draft him, and have him sit 2-3 years behind Peyton, learning from one the best to ever play the game. Then come in and run the show, ala Favre/Rodgers.

 

[Big Sexy]

The Colts are going to end up with the 1st pick in the draft. And Irsay has said publicly that if available, they will draft Luck. I'm a die-hard Colts fan. And Peyton is on the back end of his career. He has 3-4 good years left, if that. This injury is a scary one. He won't be back to play a game this year. And our only winnable game is Jacksonville. And after our 62-7 beatdown at the hands of the Saints last night, I'm not so sure we can beat Jacksonville...

So I believe the Colts win the Suck For Luck, draft him, and have him sit 2-3 years behind Peyton, learning from one the best to ever play the game. Then come in and run the show, ala Favre/Rodgers.

Don't count out the Dolphins shittiness. They just lost at home to the awful Broncos led by a below average qb in Tebow. They aren't going to be favored in any of the games left this season. With the Colts there is still a chance that Peyton plays this year. I guarantee if he gets to 100% then he will play. He is too competitive not to.

 

[LikeSheamusLoveOrton]

Don't count out the Dolphins shittiness. They just lost at home to the awful Broncos led by a below average qb in Tebow. They aren't going to be favored in any of the games left this season. With the Colts there is still a chance that Peyton plays this year. I guarantee if he gets to 100% then he will play. He is too competitive not to.

I don't see him being at 100% by the end of the season. He just a few weeks ago got cleared to even stand on the sidelines. He said he wants to return to practice in December, but he said getting into a game looks like 0-5% chance this season.

 

[LoudClearVoice]

With the new rookie salary cap rules, teams will be lining up to trade for the #1 overall pick to draft Luck. So, don't be surprised if whoever gets that pick, trades out of the slot for an offer that is too good to refuse.

If a team like STL gets the pick, we know for sure they will trade it to the highest bidder since they don't need a QB. Some of the teams in the running will take Luck no matter what but a trade is high, high possiblity this year because of the changed rookie salary rules.

Regarding the OP's question about if the NFL should change the rules or switch to a lottery to prevent "Suck For Luck" types of issues, here's the idea I propose:

I came up with this a couple of years back and I think it would be awesome.

At the end of the year, on the Saturday night before the Super Bowl, have the two teams with the worst records play each other (on a neutral field or on the worst team's homefield) for the #1 overall pick. Winner gets #1 pick, loser gets #2 pick then the rest of the picks are determined in the normal fashion. This wouldn't really prevent teams from tanking BUT it would add a nice little twist to the draft and Super Bowl weekend. I think the league could make a fortune off of doing something like this and it would be awesome (even if it's two "bad" teams) to have a game the night before the Super Bowl, to get everyone ready for the big game the next day.

 

[Lugar]

Regarding the draft and teams sucking to get the number 1 pick would it be an idea to have cumulative rankings. So rather then 1 bad year getting the #1 pick teams who have the worst record over 2-3 years do.

As I'm British with a passing interest in american football or basketball I don't know if this has been discussed and dismissed or if it would even be viable.

 

[Big Sexy]

It seemed like a foregone conclusion that the Colts would win the Luck sweepstakes but after back to back wins by Indy the race is a three way tie. The Colts, Vikings, and Rams all have 2 wins. What makes the race even more intriguing is that it is unlikely the Rams or Vikings would take Luck. The Colts would probably take him but if they don't have the first pick they aren't going to trade up and get him. The Vikings just spent a fairly high first round pick on Ponder last year so they likely aren't taking Luck and the Rams took Sam Bradford at number one just two seasons ago so they likely aren't taking Luck.

This really opens up the flood gates for some team to trade up and get Luck. The most likely choice is the Redskins. They have an owner in Dan Snyder who has shown he will over spend to get what he wants plus the Redskins should have a top 10 pick this year so the number one team won't be moving down too far. The Dolphins are another possibility to trade up. With Matt Barkley staying at USC teams in need of a qb will be trying harder then ever to get a high pick. After Luck and Robert Griffin there is a drop off in qb talent. Especially after the down year Landry Jones has had.

 

[Stormtrooper]

It seemed like a foregone conclusion that the Colts would win the Luck sweepstakes but after back to back wins by Indy the race is a three way tie. The Colts, Vikings, and Rams all have 2 wins. What makes the race even more intriguing is that it is unlikely the Rams or Vikings would take Luck. The Colts would probably take him but if they don't have the first pick they aren't going to trade up and get him. The Vikings just spent a fairly high first round pick on Ponder last year so they likely aren't taking Luck and the Rams took Sam Bradford at number one just two seasons ago so they likely aren't taking Luck.

This really opens up the flood gates for some team to trade up and get Luck. The most likely choice is the Redskins. They have an owner in Dan Snyder who has shown he will over spend to get what he wants plus the Redskins should have a top 10 pick this year so the number one team won't be moving down too far. The Dolphins are another possibility to trade up. With Matt Barkley staying at USC teams in need of a qb will be trying harder then ever to get a high pick. After Luck and Robert Griffin there is a drop off in qb talent. Especially after the down year Landry Jones has had.

Thanks for bumping this, as it clearly needs to be revisited now. As you said, Indianapolis is starting to hurt its chances at getting Luck. They may end up falling out of the #1 slot, and the 2 other possible #1 overall picks are both not going to draft a QB. In fact, I just noticed on the Schedule that Indianapolis plays the Jacksonville Jaguars Week 17, which is a winnable game for Indy, which totally opens the door for Minnesota and St. Louis.

You mentioned the Redskins, but I don't think they have enough to trade up to #1 overall. While it may end up costing less this year thanks to a sort of rookie wage scale, the Skins won't have enough. They are guaranteed to have no better then the 4th pick thanks to 3 teams guaranteed to finish with worse records. And with teams like Cleveland, Jacksonville, and Tampa already 1 game worse, they are more likely to be between 8th and 11th (if they lose out). Teams aren't going to want to trade from 1 all the way to 8-11, as the dropoff is too far, especially since Washington doesn't have a 2nd 2012 #1 to trade (nor do they have any real current players worth trading the #1 pick for).

I am going to bring up my last team I talked about; the Cleveland Browns.

They are 4-10 this year so far, and finish the year at Baltimore and home for Pittsburgh (they'll likely end up 4-12). If they're very lucky they may be able to get as high as #2, but it's more likely they are between #4 and #7. If they end up at #4 or #5, they can trade that pick, Atlanta's #1 (likely between 21-27) which they got in the Julio Jones trade, and lower picks for the #1 pick. A team like St. Louis, Minnesota, or Indianapolis would be foolish to turn that down, as they need a lot of help.



There is another scenario. The Colts could get the #1 pick, and trade Manning instead of Luck. I could see the Redskins getting involved in that, as Daniel Snyder likes the big-name superstars and aging veterans; and the cost will be less then the #1 overall pick/Luck (likely just the 2012 #1 and a lower round pick). In fact, that's the much better deal for Indianapolis, as they'd have 2 top 10 picks that they could work with to totally rebuild their franchise. (Luck AND Blackmon?)

 

[LoudClearVoice]

There is another scenario. The Colts could get the #1 pick, and trade Manning instead of Luck. I could see the Redskins getting involved in that, as Daniel Snyder likes the big-name superstars and aging veterans; and the cost will be less then the #1 overall pick/Luck (likely just the 2012 #1 and a lower round pick). In fact, that's the much better deal for Indianapolis, as they'd have 2 top 10 picks that they could work with to totally rebuild their franchise. (Luck AND Blackmon?)

I think this makes a lot of sense actually. I hadn't considered Washington as a suitor but they definitely are. The league would probably be salivating at the prospects of Eli vs. Peyton twice a year.

On another note, Minnesota's situation is interesting. They went out and drafted Christian Ponder last year who I actually think might turn into a good QB at some point. However, they're facing a tough decision, should they get the #1 pick. Do they trade the pick and stick with Ponder (taking the risk that if he's a bust, they passed on Andrew Luck) OR do they take Luck and let he and Ponder compete for the #1 job then trade Ponder later? In looking at their team, I think they're probably better off trading the pick for a huge ransom, fixing their other holes and putting all the confidence in Ponder. Even if he turns out to be a bust, I'm assuming they're going to get enough in return that it would balance.

Keep an eye on that situation, should Minnesota get the #1 pick.

 

[Megatron]

You mentioned the Redskins, but I don't think they have enough to trade up to #1 overall. While it may end up costing less this year thanks to a sort of rookie wage scale, the Skins won't have enough. They are guaranteed to have no better then the 4th pick thanks to 3 teams guaranteed to finish with worse records. And with teams like Cleveland, Jacksonville, and Tampa already 1 game worse, they are more likely to be between 8th and 11th (if they lose out). Teams aren't going to want to trade from 1 all the way to 8-11, as the dropoff is too far, especially since Washington doesn't have a 2nd 2012 #1 to trade (nor do they have any real current players worth trading the #1 pick for).

If the Redskins were to go all out and gave something along the lines of 2012 #1, 2, 3, 4, and 2013 #1 and #3 (or something of the like) I don't think anyone could pass that up. Is that a large bounty? Definitely. But if Cleveland can get 2 1's, a 2nd, and 2 4's for a receiver, they'll have to give up slightly more. Plus Dan Snyder is a gambler and would seriously consider a route like that. It's not the most savvy of moves, but they need a QB and you can take a huge risk, especially if Luck pans out like people expect him to.

I am going to bring up my last team I talked about; the Cleveland Browns.

They are 4-10 this year so far, and finish the year at Baltimore and home for Pittsburgh (they'll likely end up 4-12). If they're very lucky they may be able to get as high as #2, but it's more likely they are between #4 and #7. If they end up at #4 or #5, they can trade that pick, Atlanta's #1 (likely between 21-27) which they got in the Julio Jones trade, and lower picks for the #1 pick. A team like St. Louis, Minnesota, or Indianapolis would be foolish to turn that down, as they need a lot of help.

While I previously said Cleveland may have to change their QB situation, they gotta use those picks they have to add some legitimate gamechaners on offense. Not many QB's would succeed with Mohammad Massaquoi, Josh Cribs, and Greg Little as their main targets and Montario Hardesty and Chris Oobyanaya as their main running backs. Go get Alshon Jeffrey/Michael Floyd and Trent Richardson/David Wilson. If Mccoy then fails you go for the QB next year.

There is another scenario. The Colts could get the #1 pick, and trade Manning instead of Luck. I could see the Redskins getting involved in that, as Daniel Snyder likes the big-name superstars and aging veterans; and the cost will be less then the #1 overall pick/Luck (likely just the 2012 #1 and a lower round pick). In fact, that's the much better deal for Indianapolis, as they'd have 2 top 10 picks that they could work with to totally rebuild their franchise. (Luck AND Blackmon?)

I think this makes a lot of sense actually. I hadn't considered Washington as a suitor but they definitely are. The league would probably be salivating at the prospects of Eli vs. Peyton twice a year.

While that deal may be sensible, according to Colts owner Jim Irsay: Manning will play with Indy in 2012 if healthy. While he could be telling people what they wanna hear, he'd look quite ridiculous to go back on his word like that.

The Colts are still the favorites, but if they don't get #1, expect someone to trade up and give up the motherload to do it. Washington would be my first guess since they have a reputation of being risktakers/big name seekers.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

Thanks for bumping this, as it clearly needs to be revisited now. As you said, Indianapolis is starting to hurt its chances at getting Luck. They may end up falling out of the #1 slot, and the 2 other possible #1 overall picks are both not going to draft a QB. In fact, I just noticed on the Schedule that Indianapolis plays the Jacksonville Jaguars Week 17, which is a winnable game for Indy, which totally opens the door for Minnesota and St. Louis.

You mentioned the Redskins, but I don't think they have enough to trade up to #1 overall. While it may end up costing less this year thanks to a sort of rookie wage scale, the Skins won't have enough. They are guaranteed to have no better then the 4th pick thanks to 3 teams guaranteed to finish with worse records. And with teams like Cleveland, Jacksonville, and Tampa already 1 game worse, they are more likely to be between 8th and 11th (if they lose out). Teams aren't going to want to trade from 1 all the way to 8-11, as the dropoff is too far, especially since Washington doesn't have a 2nd 2012 #1 to trade (nor do they have any real current players worth trading the #1 pick for).

I am going to bring up my last team I talked about; the Cleveland Browns.

They are 4-10 this year so far, and finish the year at Baltimore and home for Pittsburgh (they'll likely end up 4-12). If they're very lucky they may be able to get as high as #2, but it's more likely they are between #4 and #7. If they end up at #4 or #5, they can trade that pick, Atlanta's #1 (likely between 21-27) which they got in the Julio Jones trade, and lower picks for the #1 pick. A team like St. Louis, Minnesota, or Indianapolis would be foolish to turn that down, as they need a lot of help.



There is another scenario. The Colts could get the #1 pick, and trade Manning instead of Luck. I could see the Redskins getting involved in that, as Daniel Snyder likes the big-name superstars and aging veterans; and the cost will be less then the #1 overall pick/Luck (likely just the 2012 #1 and a lower round pick). In fact, that's the much better deal for Indianapolis, as they'd have 2 top 10 picks that they could work with to totally rebuild their franchise. (Luck AND Blackmon?)

The Redskins are not, I repeat, ARE NOT, going to trade for Peyton Manning. Dan Snyder may end up getting back into the mix of things if Shanahan flops again next year, but there's no way in hell that this trade will happen for at least two reasons. One, although Shanahan wants to continue his legacy by landing his son into a head coaching gig, he won't be desperate enough to ask for a QB with a maximum of three years left in the tank. He screwed up big time by trading for Donovan McNabb; do you really think he wants to do the same thing with an admittedly better QB but one who has been in the same system for 10+ years and who will be just as reluctant as McNabb to change his ways? Two, unless you're 27 or under, Bruce Allen ain't going to give you a fat contract. I could honestly see the 'Skins overpaying for someone like Dwayne Bowe this offseason (wouldn't be surprised if he landed here while averaging 10-12 million per year), but there's no way that Allen's going to shell out $18 million a year guaranteed for a guy who just had to take a whole year off.