Kiper on Seahawks draft pick

Alai · Joined: 27 Aug 2007 Posts: 9

Melly says...

Fred Davis Sr. TE USC

Supposedly the best TE out of this draft.

Archived from group: alt>sports>football>pro>sea-seahawks

Peter Reggio · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 36

"Alai" wrote in message @comcast.com...
> Melly says...
>
> Fred Davis Sr. TE USC
>
> Supposedly the best TE out of this draft.

Sr.? As in: I already got a kid?

Regis

MySelf · Joined: 10 Jan 2008 Posts: 15

If he's the best TE in the draft I have to wonder if he'll be available
when we make our first pick.
John

Alai wrote:
> Melly says...
>
> Fred Davis Sr. TE USC
>
> Supposedly the best TE out of this draft.
>
>
>

Phil N D'Blan©® · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 41

"MySelf" wrote in message @comcast.com...
> If he's the best TE in the draft I have to wonder if he'll be available
> when we make our first pick.
> John
>
> Alai wrote:
>> Melly says...
>>
>> Fred Davis Sr. TE USC
>>
>> Supposedly the best TE out of this draft.
>>
>>

We will trade back 4 spots to pick up a 2nd or 3rd round pick then NE will
trade up ahead of us and take him...

Deja Vu all over again..

Yogi Bear...

seahawk · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 69

Alai wrote:
> Melly says...
>
> Fred Davis Sr. TE USC
>
> Supposedly the best TE out of this draft.

There seems to be a growing consensus among all the guys that frequent KJR
that the TE position would be the one to go for with our first choice. The
thought behind it is that it's easier to find an OG or RB in the second
round and beyond than a TE if you want one that can catch the ball well AND
block (in other words a complete TE). They run down the top TE's and most of
them are first round choices. Also, it was speculated that position would
help Holmgren's offense prosper more than just about any other single
position since it would also help the running game immensely.

It was also pointed out that the year that we had a somewhat dominant TE
(Stevens best year in 2005), we went to the SB. Coincidence?

I could live with a TE as the first round pick if he was worthy of the pick
at that position.

--
William P. Tomisser
"Power Of Ten" Band
www.poweroften.net
Anchorage, Alaska

Santolina chamaecyparissu · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 18

On Jan 24, 1:18 pm, "Alai" wrote:
> Melly says...
>
> Fred Davis Sr. TE USC
>
> Supposedly the best TE out of this draft.

Yeesh. The first question would be, is Kiper's reasoning that
Holmgren's system requires a dominating TE? Because Holmgren has
never had such a thing as a head coach. Second question, is Davis the
best player, period, available at twenty-something? Because if not
then the answer is a big "nyet."

Stephen Trapani · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 46

Santolina chamaecyparissus wrote:
> On Jan 24, 1:18 pm, "Alai" wrote:
>> Melly says...
>>
>> Fred Davis Sr. TE USC
>>
>> Supposedly the best TE out of this draft.
>
> Yeesh. The first question would be, is Kiper's reasoning that
> Holmgren's system requires a dominating TE? Because Holmgren has
> never had such a thing as a head coach.

You apparently forgot about the team Holmgren won a Superbowl with.

Stephen

seahawk · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 69

Stephen Trapani wrote:
> Santolina chamaecyparissus wrote:
>> On Jan 24, 1:18 pm, "Alai" wrote:
>>> Melly says...
>>>
>>> Fred Davis Sr. TE USC
>>>
>>> Supposedly the best TE out of this draft.
>>
>> Yeesh. The first question would be, is Kiper's reasoning that
>> Holmgren's system requires a dominating TE? Because Holmgren has
>> never had such a thing as a head coach.
>
> You apparently forgot about the team Holmgren won a Superbowl with.
>
> Stephen

Exactly right. Hugh Millen was talking about the importance of the TE in
Holmgren's WCO on KJR recently and pointed out that the year Stevens had his
best year was in 2005 when he finally played a year injury free and that it
wasn't just a coincidence that the Seahawks went to the Super Bowl that
year. Stevens had a bad game in the Super Bowl of course but all year long
he was a dominating presence in the middle of the field and caused defenses
to account for him on every play. He stretched the defense and was another
major reason Seattle's running game flourished that year. Hugh speculated
that the one single component that could turn Holmgren's offense around
would be a dominating TE. He said that would also bolster the running game
quite a bit by stretching the defense and not allowing teams to play
specifically to stop the run.

Stevens was an average blocker but a very good receiver. A more complete TE
who was an above average blocker to go along with being an excellent
receiver could do wonders for this offense. I think a lot of people have
missed the boat when they thought that losing Stevens wasn't such a big
deal. People blaming our running woes on losing Hutch are missing two thirds
of the picture. Probably even bigger than losing Hutch was losing Tobeck and
his astute line adjustment calls. But the other third of the problem was
losing the dominating TE that took the pressure off the offensive line to
have to block against a defense stacked in run prevent defense for the whole
game. Taking Hutch, Tobeck, and Stevens off that line is what caused the
best offensive line in the NFL in 2005 to become one of the worst two years
later not just losing Hutch.

As was pointed out recently by one of the local papers, with the money we
saved by not signing Hutch, we acquired Peterson whom we never could have
signed otherwise. Had that been the only tradeoff, we might still be a
powerhouse running team if we still had Tobeck, Stevens , and a younger Gray
still on the team as well as being a much better defensive team because of
Peterson. Losing Hutch AND Tobeck, AND Stevens was what really hurt. You
could have plugged in a good but not necessarily great OG between Jones and
Tobeck and with Gray still playing great ball, you'd still have a great
offensive line as long as you had a TE like Stevens to take the pressure off
the running game as well as to bolster the passing game. You can't lay all
that baggage on losing Hutch only.

I would be totally excited to get a hot TE prospect as our first round pick
as long as that guy was worthy of the pick at that position and there wasn't
another player who was a much better player at another position available
that had fallen to us. I agree with Stephen's assessment of what the TE has
done for Holmgren's offense when he has a great one (propelled it into the
Super Bowl) as well as Kiper's reasoning. If Fred Davis is that guy, we
should go after him and do what it takes to lock him up even if it means
moving up to get our hands on him. A great TE is that important.

We can get Guards and Running Backs in lower rounds or elsewhere like free
agency. There aren't any free agent TE's that can turn our ballclub around.
Sad but true. Kiper's got it right this time.

--
William P. Tomisser
"Power Of Ten" Band
www.poweroften.net
Anchorage, Alaska

seahawk · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 69

Alai wrote:
> Melly says...
>
> Fred Davis Sr. TE USC
>
> Supposedly the best TE out of this draft.

From various sources:

Davis, a good blocker and an effective, speedy downfield receiver, had an
all-star season while starting for his second year at tight end as a senior
in 2007. He won the 2007 Mackey Award as the nation's top tight end (USC's
first-ever recipient). He was named to the 2007 The Sporting News
All-American first team (USC's first All-American tight end since Jim
Obradovich in 1974), Phil Steele's All-American first team, AP All-American
second team, SI.com All-American second team, Collegefootballnews.com
All-American second team, Pro Football Weekly All-American honorable
mention, All-Pac-10 first team, ESPN.com All-Pac-10 first team,
Collegefootballnews.com All-Pac- 10 first team, Rivals.com All-Pac-10 first
team and Phil Steele's All- Pac-10 first team. Overall in 2007 while
starting all 12 games, he had 55 receptions for 794 yards (14.4 avg.) and 7
TDs, all team highs. He also made 2 tackles. He is the first tight end to
lead USC in receptions in a season since Joe Cormier in 1985, in receiving
yardage since Hoby Brenner in 1980 and in TD receptions since Antoine Harris
in 2000. His 14.4 average per catch in 2007 is second best among the nation's
tight ends. His 55 catches in 2007 is tied for 18th on USC's season
receptions chart and is a record for USC tight ends (as are his 794 yards
and 7 TDs). He was USC's Co-MVP. He was a Senior Bowl invitee. - USC
Football

Started all thirteen games, ranking fifth in the nation among tight end with
school season tight end records, as he became the first tight end since Joe
Cormier in 1985 (44 catches) to lead the team in catches.Hauled in 62 balls
for 881 yards (14.2 avg) and eight touchdowns, averaging 4.77 receptions and
67.77 yards per game. Recovered one onside kickoff and recorded two solo
tackles.Was penalized three times (two false starts, one personal foul) and
turned the ball over once on a fumble.Of the 90 passes targeted to him, the
opposition deflected three of those throws.Accounted for 42 first downs
among his 62 receptions, as he converted 8-of-17 third-down plays and all
four fourth-down snaps he was involved in.38 of his catches were for 10
yards or more, including thirteen that were for longer than 20 yards.Had key
receptions that set up 22 Trojan touchdown drives and seven other series
that finished with field goals.Caught six of his passes inside the red zone,
including three on goal-line plays.

Fred Davis is one of the best all around tight ends in this draft. Coming in
as a receiver, you know he has the talent to be a playmaker catching the
football. He has the athleticism, speed, and quickness to get open, make
defenders miss, and get down the field vertically. What most didn't expect
was his blocking ability. As a sophomore, he was frequently used on the
field with Byrd because of his ability to block.
Davis had a tremendous senior season. He emerged as the go to target for
John David Booty as the season progressed. He is a playmaker as a receiver
and good enough as a blocker to have an impact on every down. Good workouts
could make Davis the first TE selected come April, but he looks like a safe
bet to go in the first two rounds no matter what.

--
William P. Tomisser
"Power Of Ten" Band
www.poweroften.net
Anchorage, Alaska

Squidly · Joined: 07 Aug 2007 Posts: 47

On Jan 24, 11:10 pm, Santolina chamaecyparissus
wrote:

> Yeesh. The first question would be, is Kiper's reasoning that
> Holmgren's system requires a dominating TE? Because Holmgren has
> never had such a thing as a head coach.

First of all, you're wrong.

Second, if Holmgren says he needs a dominating TE,
I say "Give him one."

In this year of all years.

BillB

dinoscop · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 20

On Jan 24, 11:07 pm, Stephen Trapani
wrote:
> Santolina chamaecyparissus wrote:
> > On Jan 24, 1:18 pm, "Alai" wrote:
> >> Melly says...
>
> >> Fred Davis Sr. TE USC
>
> >> Supposedly the best TE out of this draft.
>
> > Yeesh. The first question would be, is Kiper's reasoning that
> > Holmgren's system requires a dominating TE? Because Holmgren has
> > never had such a thing as a head coach.
>
> You apparently forgot about the team Holmgren won a Superbowl with.
>
> Stephen

You need to definte "dominating" before you make that assertion. The
1996 champion Packers had Keith Jackson (in the final year of his
career *cough*MarcusPollard*cough*) with 40 catches, and sixth-round
pick Mark Chmura with 28. Which one of those was the "dominant" tight
end?

Jackson caught 10 TDs, which is fantastic, but that's more indicative
of him being a great red-zone target rather than a "dominant" player
who is always getting open and moving the chains. "Dominant" conjures
images of Antonio Gates, Tony Gonzalez, Shannon Sharpe -- tight ends
who catch 70-80 balls a year. The 1996 Packers didn't have that -- in
fact, so far as I can tell, the Holmgren Packers never had that in his
entire time there.

What they DID have, which the Seahawks lack, is a back that can catch
the ball -- their RBs were catching 60-70-80 balls a year. That,
moreso than lack of tight end, is what separates Holmgren's Seahawks
teams from his Green Bay teams. The Holmgren Packers relied *heavily*
on the screen and were usually very successful with it; the Holmgren
Seahawks almost never run screens (at least in the last 3-4 years) and
when we do, much more often than not, they don't work (which is
probably why we don't run them).

dinoscop · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 20

On Jan 25, 4:25 am, Squidly wrote:
> On Jan 24, 11:10 pm, Santolina chamaecyparissus
> wrote:
>
> > Yeesh. The first question would be, is Kiper's reasoning that
> > Holmgren's system requires a dominating TE? Because Holmgren has
> > never had such a thing as a head coach.
>
> First of all, you're wrong.

See my response to Trapani above. Holmgren's teams have never relied
on a "dominant" tight end. So far as I can tell, the most receptions
a TE had in era with the Packers was 54. That's about 60-70% of the
receptions that the truly "dominant" tight ends typically catch in a
season.

You can't look at a guy that has three catches a game and call him
"dominant," however you choose to slice it. Remember, Holmgren's
teams had Sterling Sharpe catching 100+ balls in two different years,
so it's not like Favre was always spreading the ball around or
something, which would cause the TE to not get it as much.

As I wrote in the other note, it's a running back that can catch which
really separates his recent Seahawks teams with his Packers teams. We
haven't had that since Watters.

> Second, if Holmgren says he needs a dominating TE,
> I say "Give him one."
>
> In this year of all years.

Before we get all hot and bothered about taking a TE in the first
round this year, let's just remember that Holmgren's best TE in Green
Bay was a sixth-rounder, Mark Chmura.

Just like WR, it's not likely (though not impossible) that a first-
round TE is going to come in an magically hugely upgrade the offense
in his first year. We need to draft what's best for the *team* in the
long run, not what's best for *Holmgren* this year.

That said, having watched Davis play, it would not upset me if we
chose him -- he obviously has skills.

Stephen Trapani · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 46

dinoscop@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jan 24, 11:07 pm, Stephen Trapani
> wrote:
>> Santolina chamaecyparissus wrote:
>>> On Jan 24, 1:18 pm, "Alai" wrote:
>>>> Melly says...
>>>> Fred Davis Sr. TE USC
>>>> Supposedly the best TE out of this draft.
>>> Yeesh. The first question would be, is Kiper's reasoning that
>>> Holmgren's system requires a dominating TE? Because Holmgren has
>>> never had such a thing as a head coach.
>> You apparently forgot about the team Holmgren won a Superbowl with.
>>
>> Stephen
>
> You need to definte "dominating" before you make that assertion. The
> 1996 champion Packers had Keith Jackson (in the final year of his
> career *cough*MarcusPollard*cough*) with 40 catches, and sixth-round
> pick Mark Chmura with 28. Which one of those was the "dominant" tight
> end?
>
> Jackson caught 10 TDs, which is fantastic, but that's more indicative
> of him being a great red-zone target rather than a "dominant" player
> who is always getting open and moving the chains. "Dominant" conjures
> images of Antonio Gates, Tony Gonzalez, Shannon Sharpe -- tight ends
> who catch 70-80 balls a year. The 1996 Packers didn't have that -- in
> fact, so far as I can tell, the Holmgren Packers never had that in his
> entire time there.

Semantics. Holmgren in GB obviously had a great deal of production at
the TE position. Very important in the WCO.

> What they DID have, which the Seahawks lack, is a back that can catch
> the ball -- their RBs were catching 60-70-80 balls a year. That,
> moreso than lack of tight end, is what separates Holmgren's Seahawks
> teams from his Green Bay teams. The Holmgren Packers relied *heavily*
> on the screen and were usually very successful with it; the Holmgren
> Seahawks almost never run screens (at least in the last 3-4 years) and
> when we do, much more often than not, they don't work (which is
> probably why we don't run them).

Having a RB who can block and be effective in the passing game *is* a
little better than the same in a TE, for the WCO, but having it in a TE
is almost as good. Having it in neither is a disaster. You just
demonstrated all the production Holmgren had at the TE position when he
won the SB. So don't pretend that that can be discounted. It can't.

Apparently Holmgren had both in GB, which is very very valuable, more
valuable than, say a "dominant" running RB.

Stephen

Stephen Trapani · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 46

dinoscop@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jan 25, 4:25 am, Squidly wrote:
>> On Jan 24, 11:10 pm, Santolina chamaecyparissus
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Yeesh. The first question would be, is Kiper's reasoning that
>>> Holmgren's system requires a dominating TE? Because Holmgren has
>>> never had such a thing as a head coach.
>> First of all, you're wrong.
>
> See my response to Trapani above. Holmgren's teams have never relied
> on a "dominant" tight end. So far as I can tell, the most receptions
> a TE had in era with the Packers was 54. That's about 60-70% of the
> receptions that the truly "dominant" tight ends typically catch in a
> season.

Look at the production he had from the TE position. Massive. The point
is that the Seahawks need much much better production from the TE
position than they currently have. If you can get it in one player?
Nothing wrong with that.

Stephen

dinoscop · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 20

On Jan 25, 8:54 am, Stephen Trapani wrote:
> dinos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Jan 25, 4:25 am, Squidly wrote:
> >> On Jan 24, 11:10 pm, Santolina chamaecyparissus
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> Yeesh. The first question would be, is Kiper's reasoning that
> >>> Holmgren's system requires a dominating TE? Because Holmgren has
> >>> never had such a thing as a head coach.
> >> First of all, you're wrong.
>
> > See my response to Trapani above. Holmgren's teams have never relied
> > on a "dominant" tight end. So far as I can tell, the most receptions
> > a TE had in era with the Packers was 54. That's about 60-70% of the
> > receptions that the truly "dominant" tight ends typically catch in a
> > season.
>
> Look at the production he had from the TE position. Massive. The point
> is that the Seahawks need much much better production from the TE
> position than they currently have. If you can get it in one player?
> Nothing wrong with that.
>
> Stephen

Then you need to separate the terms "productive" from "dominant."
They're two different things. 60 catches and 6 TDs from the tight end
spot is productive; 90 catches and 10 TDs from the tight end spot is
dominant.

I don't think anyone disagrees that the Hawks need more production
from the TE position, but that wasn't Sondericker's position; his
position is that the Seahawks don't need a "dominating" TE, and that
Holmgren has never had one as a head coach, and both of those
assertions are true.

Seattle Times: Seahawks viewed as team in turmoil Seattle Times: Seahawks viewed as team in turmoil 07:34 AM PST on Wednesday, February 9, 2005 By Greg Bishop / Seattle Times KIRKLAND - As the Seahawks' search for a

NFL tacitly admits Seahawks got screwed on 2 more Super Bowl

Hypothetical Draft Dilemma Seattle on the clock in the draft, Mike Williams, WR (USC) is on the board.. do we take him at #23? -- ---- I'll hold on to my freedom May not be what you want from me Just the way it's got to be

Seahawks players with last name in X, Y, or Z Can anyone name any Seahawks players (active, retired, etc) with the last name starting with X or Y or Z? I looked at the Seattle Seahawks groups at and Thanks Mike

Dear My Democrat Party Friends on the Seahawks NG I encourage you today to go out to your local libraries, schoolhouses and churches to participate in the nominating caucus for your national party convention. This is a great day of focus for this wonderful state and a chance for everyone to draw nice at