3 Mocks: Blackmon-1, Claiborne-2, and Richardson-3. Pick the mock you like the best.

[berg8309]

Like many others, I am not a fan of taking 2 WRs early, but I am ok with it as Blackmon and one other. Taking Hill/Sanu seems to me like stocking up on #2 WRs instead of adding a starting quality player at another position of need. It's going for the quantity over quality aspect, and with Steve Smith on the roster, I'd rather not go crazy on stockpiling the 2nd tier receivers in the draft. I know Smith's health isn't for sure and we can't operate on the assumption that he will be 100% all season, but nor do I think we can operate on the assumption that he will be worthless and overload ourselves with 2nd tier rookies to make up for it. Not when we have other holes, and players will be available to fill those holes.

Again, outside of the first draft, it seems like it's quantity over quality. We don't need that many WRs, at least not at that level. It's a bit like last year, when we drafted Salas and Pettis. It was overkill when we had so many other holes to fill, and could potentially create roster problems.

However, even on the first draft I'd prefer we take one and see if we can't get more out of Salas or Petting, or maybe Smith will step up into the #2 role.

Finally, I'd prefer to avoid LaMichael James. He's just too small to carry much of a workload, and would be at best a change-of-pace back. We need someone who can take a few more carries.

[#39 Fan]

Too much talent in this years draft at the DT to position not to take a look at one, especially considering the workout warriors body of work, or lack thereof. (Hill) Randle in the 2nd would be a better move, not taking WR back-to-back -- the best move.

[RamsSB99]

I guess no one got the memo. This was not about what you would do it was about which you would pick. I knew few would like the two WR's and many would like a DT in the 2nd. This was not meant to be a critique of the draft picks and changing them it was meant to see if you had to pick one which would you pick. I prefer these drafts with a DT via free agency and two WR's I don't care if the stance is popular or not. After about the 10th response and 8th Like of a post regarding not liking two WR's or wanting a DT I think everyone missed the main point of the thread which is if you had to choose between these three drafts which would you choose.

[RealRam]

Nice job SB99.

[Tampa_Ram]

I guess no one got the memo. This was not about what you would do it was about which you would pick. I knew few would like the two WR's and many would like a DT in the 2nd. This was not meant to be a critique of the draft picks and changing them it was meant to see if you had to pick one which would you pick. I prefer these drafts with a DT via free agency and two WR's I don't care if the stance is popular or not. After about the 10th response and 8th Like of a post regarding not liking two WR's or wanting a DT I think everyone missed the main point of the thread which is if you had to choose between these three drafts which would you choose.

I love the idea of taking two wr's. I've been advocating it for a bit now. I chose the first one obviously.