Skins have 10th overall selection. Who do we pick?

At this point im totally okay with Locker becoming a Redskin. My theory is that a quarterbacks career is almost 50% how he is coached. We ruined Jason Campbell, who may have had more success in a system where the front office groomed him (like we did), was patient, and allowed him to learn the system. Who knows if aaron rodgers would have done any better here. As long as we are patient and give him the right coaching i see him as a potential 15 year starter.

Interesting theory, would that apply to Heath Shuler? I always wondered how he would've done had norv started him instead of Frerotte. Once he was benched he lost all moxy.

I would add that w/any player, but QB especially, success comes down to personality, drive, etc. As someone posted earlier, we haven't had the "it" factor in a qb in a long time w/the painful exception of McNabb. This team needs a young leader on Offense, someone with a strong drive to succeed & the charisma & leadership to demand it of others. I would rather have a guy has those characteristics than a guy w/a rocket arm & athleticism. I think Locker seems like he could be that type of leader.

At this point im totally okay with Locker becoming a Redskin. My theory is that a quarterbacks career is almost 50% how he is coached. We ruined Jason Campbell, who may have had more success in a system where the front office groomed him (like we did), was patient, and allowed him to learn the system. Who knows if aaron rodgers would have done any better here. As long as we are patient and give him the right coaching i see him as a potential 15 year starter.

I think you might be overrating coaching just a bit. I might put it more like 25%. Some guys just aren't going to make it at this level no matter what.

There are rarely ideal situations for players. Coaches and systems come and go, having a guy like Peyton Manning play in one offense his entire career is not the norm. And with a guy like PM, he probably would have still thrived if he had played in a few different systems.

Talent and the drive to succeed trump coaching in my opinion.

I am not liking the quarterbacks who will be available at no. 10. If Blaine Gabbert is there (and AJ Green is not), I think we need to take him.

If there's no immediate help for the passing game at pick no. 10, we may have to go to the defensive side of the ball.

Jake Locker will probably be around in the second round if we want to take him then, but he'll be just one of many mediocre quarterback prospects who fit our system to be available then. With the depth of the senior QB class, I'm not sure what a guy like Jake Locker really gives you, outside of a longshot at solving your QB issue.

Exactly, whatever position we make a choice at he will become an instant starter. Best player available is the best choice for us in the 1st round. In the 2nd round id take a player at the biggest position of need after our 1st pick (preferably an o-lineman).

If we can (WE BETTER) re-sign Moss i think we have other units that are bigger area of needs. 1. o-lineman 2. DE 3. OLB 4. DB/FS (depending on where Barnes starts next year).

I don't know. I think if a team has players at every position but only needs 1 or 2 players to fill positions where players left from then I'd agree BPA. If you had a team that had needs every where I'd agree with BPA.

I know some would say we are in the latter catagory, but I'm just not sure if it's the best way to go and I probably wouldn't know until the moment the Skins pick comes up. I think it's best to look into all options including any trades we could get with the 10th pick in order to pick up more picks, but that doesn't mean we need to actually trade. Just be prepared prior to the Skins pick taking place.

Again for me it's more BPA at one of the positions we have a need for. I just don't get the idea of if the Skins pick comes up and a TE is the top pick we should pick a TE because he's BPA. Same could be said for LT. The Skins just picked up a LT last yr. So for me I would rather the Skins look at their needs OL, NT, LB, FS, QB, and WR, and possibly decide which player still on the board is the BPA out of those positions and take him. However it would also depend on what the team did in FA, meaning if they went out and picked up a FA WR who is #1 quality then I think we could look at WR late in the draft or even UDFA's. Then next year pick up a WR in the first or second round. I'm just using WR as an example but you could say the same for any of the other positions also.

I like Dalton more than any other QB in the draft

As do I. There was just something about him watching him play in the bowl game. Poised, calm, elusive, accurate, and looked like the type of QB KS would need to work his offense. Meaning call the play in the huddle, get on line and hike the ball not letting the defense adjust to their play and getting the ball out of his hands quickly. I also liked the fact he can scramble.

I know people are saying Luck was the best and should go #1 but won't now that he's not coming out, but he just didn't look good the whole first half against VT. I probably should look at his whole season but just looking at him in a big game and how he handled the pressure just didn't impress me. Sorry.

^ and before I get blasted....

I know Luck did come out after the half and threw several TD's and won the game. That does show he is capable of making adjustments and over coming diversity. I'm just saying Dalton showed 4 quarters of poise. Am I biased towards Dalton maybe. I was simply trying to see what college games was on flipping channels and watched the game. I came away impressed with him. I hadn't even heard of him until I watched the game and when I decided to talk about him on the message boards I found several message boards already had threads about him.

I meant what I said. if we can get two more picks for our first round in early rounds to add depth to our team, then why not?.

Hey genius. Look up the word VALUE in the dictionary.

Suggesting that we trade the number 10 pick in the draft for a second and third round pick is a clown shoes idea.

It's hardly even worth responding to because it is such an absurd comment.

Hey genius. Look up the word VALUE in the dictionary.

Suggesting that we trade the number 10 pick in the draft for a second and third round pick is a clown shoes idea.

It's hardly even worth responding to because it is such an absurd comment.

According to the standard draft value chart here (http://walterfootball.com/draftchart.php), the #10 pick would be worth the first two picks of the second round plus a mid-round pick from the third round.

So, yes, we should get more than a #2 and a #3 for our pick at 10.

Hey genius. Look up the word VALUE in the dictionary.

Suggesting that we trade the number 10 pick in the draft for a second and third round pick is a clown shoes idea.

It's hardly even worth responding to because it is such an absurd comment.

Then why do it?

According to the standard draft value chart here (http://walterfootball.com/draftchart.php), the #10 pick would be worth the first two picks of the second round plus a mid-round pick from the third round.

So, yes, we should get more than a #2 and a #3 for our pick at 10.

I believe NE has 2 2nd round picks correct? So we would obtain their 2 2nd round picks, and their 3rd... How is that not value?

Maybe I made a typo on my original comment. I'm to lazy to go back a few pages and check though..