Nice thoughts.
I think if anything, saying we'll go any direction with any certainty is precisely what we won't do. Seattle has clearly colored outside the 'needs' line with the 2013 and 2014 drafts.
The one thing that Seattle has seemed to covet since getting their roster right (2012), has been to look for impact players early. Whether it's difference makers on offense, or pass rushers on defense. Players with special quality at high impact positions.
Seattle's OL has been a perceived need since -- well since 2010. It's never gone away and nationally and locally, it's been seen as our primary need every single year. And yet Seattle has taken a much more conservative approach. They've still targeted OL with their first pick, but the drafts haven't fallen that way for them and they've not considered it a need worthy of moving up to ensure they address it.
I actually agree, that Erving is probably one of the 4-5 guys on our list of prospects to target with our first pick. And depending on how many of those players are still available by the time our pick arrives -- will likely determine whether we move back as has been our design.
Davis isn't going in the first. He may go in the 50-75 range. But I kind of doubt that as well. Ultimately, Davis isn't a difference maker. Seattle understands that you may only have around 10 first picks on your roster at any given time. So you can't be using first picks on players that don't provide maximum effect on wins/losses.
I wouldn't preclude Seattle from getting a big WR. We don't know how the draft will shake out. A small handful of the players in the 16-32 range in most mocks will be available to Seattle at 32. If it's not a great RB, then some other talents will drop. There will be a run on a position or two in this draft. Like there is in every draft. Seattle is well positioned to select from players that fall by circumstance as a result.
It could be a big WR. It could be an OL. It probably isn't a DL -- and if it were I'm not convinced it'd be Davis. He isn't a great run stuffer. Nor is he a great pass rusher. He's a good DL, but I don't see great. Seems like the delta between him or a 3rd round development guy would be small. The only reason to take a DL in the first or second, would be if we needed a day 1 starter. I don't see that kind of need. Which means the relative grade for a guy like Davis compared to what we have on the roster is going to be modest. Maybe even a downgrade.
I think it's vital to keep a close eye on methodology here. Seattle definitely has a system. One of the clear determinants to who we project early, is grading for our system. Both fit and versus who we have.
Given that, I can't see us precluding a big WR, since we don't have one currently, and Seattle has always been searching for someone to fill that role. So it's still out there. If the right guy presents. And that's the thing -- we on the outside can't clearly see that because so much of 'the right fit' is determined in the interview room which we have zero ability to gauge.
I agree with you on Erving. Mainly because I think his athletic background fits the Cable ideal. Seattle also admittedly covets players who are versatile. I'm not sure you can demonstrate versatility at a more elite level than Erving has this year. I would imagine if he does well in the interview room, then Erving would really be attractive fitwise for us.
Additionally, I agree, Seattle is going to have strong positional need on the OL. I don't expect Carpenter to resign with us. If he does, that's bonus. We have guys to elevate, but our depth in that case is going to be absolute zero. We are carrying guys off the street who are called on to start currently. Even if we get a 'depth' player in the draft -- the reality is he's going to probably start half a season. Erving is versatile enough that he could start 12+ games even if he's not a starter on opening day.
