How much would you give up for Andrew Luck in 2012?

If Blaine Gabbert were to fall to us at #7 I could see us trading out of that pick to get a crappy teams first and second round picks next year. Then we could trade our two first round picks and one or both of or second round picks (depending on where our picks are) to get Luck. Hell, people are talking about trading our #7 pick this year to get Kolb, why not trade it to get a much better QB in Luck?

A year of sex.

-9fA

Originally posted by Superbowl09:
If Blaine Gabbert were to fall to us at #7 I could see us trading out of that pick to get a crappy teams first and second round picks next year. Then we could trade our two first round picks and one or both of or second round picks (depending on where our picks are) to get Luck. Hell, people are talking about trading our #7 pick this year to get Kolb, why not trade it to get a much better QB in Luck?

You speak as. Though such a trade is guaranteed. If Luck has another really good year next year, why should the early drafting teams not just take him?

And lets hope we dont trade No 7 for Kolb.

Originally posted by 49ersGiantspride:

Originally posted by WildBill:
Just because Stanford lost some starters, I highly doubt JH left the cubbarbs bare. If Stanford goes 8-3, reaches a bowl game and Luck has good numbers. It will only solidify his position, because he had to deal with loss of starters and change of coach-which is really not that much of a change since the HC was their OC.

Especially if he meets the 26-28-60 criteria. His father (Oliver Luck) is smart, he saw the lockout coming and whether his son comes out this year or next won't make a diff if there is a salary cap on rooks. Plus by going back to college he will get more playing time vs a lockout/strike/rookie year.

he lost 3 lineman, in case you didn't notice Andrew had the best protection last year. How do you know the new recievers will be as good as the ones last year? Locker was thought to be the #1 pick last year had he entered but he stayed and because the players he was surrounded with his numbers went down so did his stock. I still think Locker is good he just a bad cast, Luck has talent but the rest of his team might not.

Think about it how many other names in the past 2 years have you heard from Stanford besides Andrew Luck and Toby Gerhart? not many. The only way Luck can outdo himself is by completing every throw he makes and not throwing INT's. That's not gonna happen, he's had as good a season as anyone could ask for.

He'll still be good but his draft stock will drop. And next year there's other good QB's entering the draft theres no guarantee he'll either be the first taken or even the top 10.

Rumors last year were that Locker stayed in school because the NFL advisory committee projected him to be a 2nd round pick, which surprise surprise it looks like he might be this year anyways.

Even with a fall-off in performance or major injury, I think he'll be drafted #1 as Bradford was. The only way I could really see him dropping would be if one of those scenarios happens AND Matt Barkley has an amazing year and comes out. Still I think that scenario would only drop him 2 or 3 draft spots.

His hype has been through the roof, someone even called him the best QB prospect since Peyton.

This thread is nothing but mental masturbation. The Niners need to do something NOW with only one QB on the roster. The whole premise of "wait till next year" is completely pointless. Luck is off the table now and there is a whole bunch of questions that need to be answered about how things are run in the NFL before this subject is even worth discussing.

Originally posted by Multibomber:
Does anyone think that is the plan? I dont see it to be that far fetched that we get a decent veteran this year, fill all the holes we can at other positions, then take out a second mortgage to get Luck next year. 3 #1s, 2 #1s and 3 #2s, whatever the price. Hell, we could do a Ditka and trade away the whole 2012 draft for him.

I'd be willing to do whatever it takes to get him as long as we go out and fill whatever holes we have in free agency. If we still need a CB, then we need to fill that hole via free agency, then I'd trade away the whole draft for Luck.

I highly doubt Harbaugh and Baalke would even think about doing that, though. If they do, then we know how highly Harbaugh thinks of Luck. He'd be the best judge anyway.

Originally posted by NinerBuff:
There are too may variables, unless the Niners plan on tanking the entire season and "securing" the #1 pick next year. Why would another team trade the rights to Luck if they need a franchise QB?

The number of picks might be too tempting. They could fill a hell of a lot of holes with all those first round picks (ours and theirs). Teams would consider it, even if they need a franchise QB.

Originally posted by midrdan:

Originally posted by NinerBuff:
There are too may variables, unless the Niners plan on tanking the entire season and "securing" the #1 pick next year. Why would another team trade the rights to Luck if they need a franchise QB?

This. The only scenario I can see where the worst team next year doesn't need a franchise QB is if a team's star QB gets injured or the team used a high first rounder this year to draft Newton or Gabbert. Every year a team comes out of nowhere to absolutely tank and it usually has to do with them not having a franchise QB - see Carolina 2010 - so odds are we will never be in a position to acquire Luck unless we happen to be that team in 2011.

Unfortunately, we just might be that team in 2011 due to all this CBA crap not allowing Harbaugh to coach his team. If the labor issues lead all the way up to the start of the season, I don't see any way Harbaugh can get this team to win. He wouldn't have any time to install his system or teach any techniques. In other words, our team would probably be the most unprepared team in the league thanks to this stupid lockout.

Originally posted by English:

Originally posted by 9erred:

Originally posted by 9erred:
We have a 1in 15 chance of not giving up anything. Considering the Niners have only David Carr at qb, they are courting Alex Smith, there is a chance they could earn the #1 pick, which in a weird way would make the2011 a great season.

I said 1 in 15 because I feel the niners have not had a winnign season in 9 years, so I excluded the teams that have franchise qb's and no doubt will win more than 8 games.

Starting line up to lose 16 games.

LCB Tareel Brown
RCB adams
SS Taylor Mays
FS curtis taylor
ILB Navor Bowman
ILB scott Mckillop
OLB parys Harlson
OLB ahmad brooks
LDE ray mcdondald
NT RJF
RDE Isaac Sopaga

WR Kyle Wilson
WR Ted Ginn
TE Nate Byname
LT Alex Boone
LG snyder
LG ICter wragge
RG chilo rachal
RT anthony davis
FB Norris
RB anthony Dixon
QB David Carr

It is SCARY when you takeout GORE, CRABTREE, VD, IUPATI, JUSTIN SMITH, WILLIS, and CLEMENTS, you realize the team has only 7 players who are impact players on the team. The rest are ???

average. And that is the way most teams are. How many impact players did you expect, out of curiosity?

The main problem is our QB is NOT one of our impact players.

[ Edited by 49erRider on Mar 31, 2011 at 11:45:22 ]

I'd give up your wife and kids and a year of your paychecks. But why are we talking about this now? It's not a lock that Luck will go #1.

Originally posted by 49ersGiantspride:

Originally posted by WildBill:
Just because Stanford lost some starters, I highly doubt JH left the cubbarbs bare. If Stanford goes 8-3, reaches a bowl game and Luck has good numbers. It will only solidify his position, because he had to deal with loss of starters and change of coach-which is really not that much of a change since the HC was their OC.

Especially if he meets the 26-28-60 criteria. His father (Oliver Luck) is smart, he saw the lockout coming and whether his son comes out this year or next won't make a diff if there is a salary cap on rooks. Plus by going back to college he will get more playing time vs a lockout/strike/rookie year.

he lost 3 lineman, in case you didn't notice Andrew had the best protection last year. How do you know the new recievers will be as good as the ones last year? Locker was thought to be the #1 pick last year had he entered but he stayed and because the players he was surrounded with his numbers went down so did his stock. I still think Locker is good he just a bad cast, Luck has talent but the rest of his team might not.

Think about it how many other names in the past 2 years have you heard from Stanford besides Andrew Luck and Toby Gerhart? not many. The only way Luck can outdo himself is by completing every throw he makes and not throwing INT's. That's not gonna happen, he's had as good a season as anyone could ask for.

He'll still be good but his draft stock will drop. And next year there's other good QB's entering the draft theres no guarantee he'll either be the first taken or even the top 10.

At the same time, there's no guarantee that his play will drop. He's been coached up by Harbaugh, maybe to the point where he can use what he's been taught to be successful despite losing his coach. As for the rest of the players, who's to say 3 new lineman don't emerge as dominant? Who's to say new receivers don't step up? The kid is good and people won't forget what he did in 2010. He's the best QB in college football and it's unlikely that will change.

Originally posted by English:

Originally posted by GorefullBore:
Lets do a Ricky Williams type deal. I'd make that deal tomorrow.




Seriously, I probably wouldn't go that far, but I think in the long run Andrew Luck will prove more worthy of that kind of move than Ricky was. Ricky was a good player, but not that good. Andrew of course plays QB, and can set a team up for 10 plus years potentially.

I would prefer to do a Ricky Williams deal and lose one whole draft than the OP's idea of losing three first round picks. 3!

I dont see any draftee as being worth three 1st rounders.

How many first round picks have we hit on in the last 9 years? VD and P Willy. Did I forget anyone??? I think you give up whatever it takes to get the sure thing, especially at the most important position on the team.

Originally posted by Multibomber:

Originally posted by English:

Originally posted by GorefullBore:
Lets do a Ricky Williams type deal. I'd make that deal tomorrow.




Seriously, I probably wouldn't go that far, but I think in the long run Andrew Luck will prove more worthy of that kind of move than Ricky was. Ricky was a good player, but not that good. Andrew of course plays QB, and can set a team up for 10 plus years potentially.

I would prefer to do a Ricky Williams deal and lose one whole draft than the OP's idea of losing three first round picks. 3!

I dont see any draftee as being worth three 1st rounders.

How many first round picks have we hit on in the last 9 years? VD and P Willy. Did I forget anyone??? I think you give up whatever it takes to get the sure thing, especially at the most important position on the team.

Yes, you did. Check out last year, for example. And the point which you miss, is this. There is no such thing as a sure thing. And that is why the team will not take that gamble.

So your three first rounders would be a huge gamble. When was the last time such a huge bounty was paid for a draft pick I wonder?

as the street ho said to matthew modine in Full Metal jacket, "any ting you want"

my virginity