Hey, it could be possible if the Redskins continue to lose.

That's a short sighted vacuum.

Having a line to run behind is much more important so no. Lineman only in the top 10

Guys like Marshall Falk come around once in a decade. Charles was a second rounder.

Does it make sense to draft a Tackle in the top 10 in today's NFL?

I said no, because generally you don't see Adrian Petersons and Marshall Faulks.

When they're there, however, they can change a team's fortunes around faster than any other position except for QB.

It would have to be a once a decade type of RB going to a built team for me to do it in the top 10. Late first sure, but top 10 is tough to justify in today's league.

90's football, yes.
2010's football, no.
Future football, ?

3rd. He went there because he's built skinny.

Yup, one of the best rbs in the league went in the third. It's harder to get OL that's why they should go first.

Nooooooooooooooooo!


Damn you. LMAO

I hope we never stop drafting linemen in the 1st round. It should be our thing.

To everyone saying no, let me ask you a few questions.

Would you give a first-round choice for a rookie Jamaal Charles? How about Adrian Peterson? Arian Foster? C.J. Spiller?

If the answer is yes, then you would give a first-round choice for a running back. Perhaps from a strategy perspective you would find it advantageous to wait, but that doesn't mean that they're not worth a first.

RB's are more risky than QB's.

Would the Bills, Chiefs, and Vikings trade all of those players for a Super Bowl?

If the answer is yes, then you should have drafted a QB with that pick.