Would you trade Andrew Luck for Aaron Rodgers or any other QB right now?

[Superman]

Just curious on your thoughts on Luck. His stats were pretty awful last year. Do you not think he is a very good QB?

 

His stats weren't awful last year. Some of them were concerning, but not out of line for a rookie quarterback on a team with some issues. His interceptions and sacks were too high, his completion rate was too low.

 

Others were fantastic. He set a record for passing yards by a rookie quarterback. He was one of the league's best on third down (by some metrics, he was THE best on third down). He was incredibly efficient on game deciding possessions.

 

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1477009-ignore-the-raw-numbers-andrew-luck-had-a-great-rookie-season

 

Speaking objectively, Luck's raw numbers need to improve in certain areas, but he was a rookie. There are some great veteran quarterbacks who had bad rookie campaigns, including Manning. A lot of that -- completion rate and interceptions, for the most part -- you just chock up to him being a rookie, and you expect him to get better.

[amfootball]

Forgot this thread was about Andrew Luck.  He still has the rookie excuse.  Luck had a pretty mediocre year compared to veteran QBs, no doubt.  On the other hand Luck appears to have the tools to run a pro offense and coaches seem eager to work with him.  His arrow is pointed up.  If he doesn't improve he won't be considered a very good QB.  Most people think that he will improve.

 

Tebow has only had limited success running a very limited playbook.  Not a good thing for a veteran QB.  He couldn't gain a starting role in a pretty weak lineup.  He's on a team with no QB and still the Jets appear to want to get rid of him.  He may figure it out one day but he doesn't appear capable of running an NFL offense right now.  

He ran an

 

His stats weren't awful last year. Some of them were concerning, but not out of line for a rookie quarterback on a team with some issues. His interceptions and sacks were too high, his completion rate was too low.

 

Others were fantastic. He set a record for passing yards by a rookie quarterback. He was one of the league's best on third down (by some metrics, he was THE best on third down). He was incredibly efficient on game deciding possessions.

 

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1477009-ignore-the-raw-numbers-andrew-luck-had-a-great-rookie-season

 

Speaking objectively, Luck's raw numbers need to improve in certain areas, but he was a rookie. There are some great veteran quarterbacks who had bad rookie campaigns, including Manning. A lot of that -- completion rate and interceptions, for the most part -- you just chock up to him being a rookie, and you expect him to get better.

Now apply that same logic to Tebow who has a total of 15 starts under his belt. His O led the league in rushing and he was among the top 5 in QBR in the fourth quarter and to boot he took over a horrific team. Also won a playoff game by completing three passes of more than 50+ yards, an NFL record. If you really look objectively at Tebow's season, you could make a similar case for him.

[Superman]

Now apply that same logic to Tebow who has a total of 15 starts under his belt. His O led the league in rushing and he was among the top 5 in QBR in the fourth quarter and to boot he took over a horrific team. Also won a playoff game by completing three passes of more than 50+ yards, an NFL record. If you really look objectively at Tebow's season, you could make a similar case for him.

 

One quarterback propelled his team's offense with his arm, showing he could make all the throws. Over 4,000 yards, behind a makeshift offensive line and a below average rushing attack. The other had one of the best rushing attacks in the league, was only used to throw the ball minimally (39 attempts/game vs 19 attempts/game), and struggled to make pro level throws, particularly intermediate throws and timing-based throws.

 

There's a huge difference between what Luck can do as a passer and what Tebow can do as a passer. You can't apply the same logic without acknowledging that basic fact.

 

You've also repeated that three passes of 50+ yards stat a couple times now. Let me debunk that really quickly. One of those was the game winner to Thomas. The ball went about 20 yards through the air. One of the best throws of Tebow's career, by the way, but it's not like he threw a bomb 50+ yards down the field. He made a good throw for 25% of the yards, and the receiver did the other 75% of the work. So that NFL record isn't really indicative of how he fits into the pantheon of NFL passers.

 

I give Tebow credit for being a part of a great season, and a lot of their success in 2011 was inexplicable. They made a lot of big plays down the stretch, Tebow included. Kudos. But he's not a good passer. I don't think a team should build a roster around a limited passer, which practically dictates that you take football backwards in time about 30 or 40 years. They caught lightning in a bottle for a few weeks in 2011, and they got a big play to win in overtime in the playoffs. Awesome. Now are you willing to try that formula out again?

[amfootball]

One quarterback propelled his team's offense with his arm, showing he could make all the throws. Over 4,000 yards, behind a makeshift offensive line and a below average rushing attack. The other had one of the best rushing attacks in the league, was only used to throw the ball minimally (39 attempts/game vs 19 attempts/game), and struggled to make pro level throws, particularly intermediate throws and timing-based throws.

 

There's a huge difference between what Luck can do as a passer and what Tebow can do as a passer. You can't apply the same logic without acknowledging that basic fact.

 

You've also repeated that three passes of 50+ yards stat a couple times now. Let me debunk that really quickly. One of those was the game winner to Thomas. The ball went about 20 yards through the air. One of the best throws of Tebow's career, by the way, but it's not like he threw a bomb 50+ yards down the field. He made a good throw for 25% of the yards, and the receiver did the other 75% of the work. So that NFL record isn't really indicative of how he fits into the pantheon of NFL passers.

 

I give Tebow credit for being a part of a great season, and a lot of their success in 2011 was inexplicable. They made a lot of big plays down the stretch, Tebow included. Kudos. But he's not a good passer. I don't think a team should build a roster around a limited passer, which practically dictates that you take football backwards in time about 30 or 40 years. They caught lightning in a bottle for a few weeks in 2011, and they got a big play to win in overtime in the playoffs. Awesome. Now are you willing to try that formula out again?

 

I don’t disagree with your points but there is more than one way to win at football. A great rushing attack combined with timely passes can be just as effective as a lethal passing game. Tebow did not have a great Oline either similar to Luck. Luck’s game also produced a ton of turnovers whereas Tebow had 12 TDs passing to 6 picks and 6 TDs rushing. You would think if Tebow was such an awful passer that he would have more picks but the opposite is true. While his accuracy was not great and he still needed to develop throws on timing routes, he made really good decisions with the ball for the most part, especially for a rookie.

 

But the larger point is Tebow started a total of 15 games for Denver over two seasons. He started three games in 2010 at the end of the season and then came in when the team was 1-4 in 2011. One thing no one denies about Tebow is his work ethic, love of football, and determination. If he is given the chance, with the right coaches and systems in place like Luck and RG, it is not farfetched to believe that he would improve not only his passing but his overall game.

 

It generally takes Qbs about five years to get comfortable at the pro level where they can make the right reads and the right throws. Look at Eli as a great example. His first four years statistically are the same as Mark Sanchez. He was pretty awful in terms of his accuracy and decision-making. A few years later, he is a two-time SB MVP. Same thing with Flacco. For all the flack the guy gets, his game has steadily improved over the past five years and with Caldwell as his OC he had a playoff run for the ages and a SB MVP.

 

I think what Tebow possesses – the “IT” factor, the ability to win close games, natural leader in the locker room and huddle are much more difficult traits to find than pure football skills. I think he could become a much better NFL QB with the right coaching and a team built around his skillset. I mean he pretty much proved that in 2011 when Fox morphed the offense to suit him.

 

If a team does not take a flier on him, I don’t think it is because of his football skills but more the drama that comes with his religious views. I think he has really hurt himself with being so vocal about his faith. In the end, it is football and teams don’t want the distractions. I really think that has hurt him more than his actual play on the field.

[UKColt13]

It sort of depends really.

 

If you want to think in depth about it, Luck fits our system too well for me to even think about trading him. And i think we all saw that we have something truly special in having him under centre for the next decade and change.

 

Aaron Rodgers is a truly great QB. Not too old, not injury prone. But he would have fitted in Arians' offense better than Pep's. Plus he's about to sign a squillion dollar extension in the next week or so. So I would say no to him. Anyone else like Brees, Schaub and Ryan are either too old or too inconsistent to take us where want to be. And even with the numbers he put up the last couple of years, i'm still on the fence about Matt Stafford, he has had some injuries and i'm not sure how he'd get on without having Megatron to throw to.

 

If we could get a Herschel Walker style trade for him and get 4/5 1st round picks with a good QB class then i would consider it.

 

But for now, no way.