Aaron Curry: Safe at Home
by Doug Farrar on Mar 22, 2009 3:02 PM PDT
32 comments
We're not in the habit of link-dumping at Field Gulls, and I'm not going to start here. I'm simply going to point out that I was fortunate enough to interview Aaron Curry last week for a Washington Post feature, that he is everything people say he is from a personality and character standpoint, and that he is a very, VERY special player who could dominate at the NFL level in different schemes and positions. It's not often that the best player in a draft at the time of a draft (which I believe he is) could very well be the best of that draft class five years down the road, but I think we're dealing with just that type of cat in this case.
Why? Because there isn't much he can't do, and his skills can fit somewhere in just about any defensive system. I have jokingly referred to Curry as "Leroy Hill with Pass Coverage 2.0 installed", which is really a discredit to Hill's downhill defense and to Curry's ability to play in space. While Hill is a great forward-motion player who has learned through painstaking work how to backpedal and get things done functionally in short areas, Curry is just as agile as he is destructive.
It's an almost unprecedented combination. We're not talking about the Ray Lewis version of coverage, which is "back up a few yards and catch the deflected ball," we're talking about honest-to-God pass coverage. As in, I meant to be there, I read the play, and I made the play:
What you don't generally get with that kind of speed in reverse, is a guy who can also do things like this:
And, the big highlight video here:
As I point out in the linked article, there are different kinds of "safe picks". Generally, safe players are the ones whose projections don't outstrip their production -- based on system, talent, intelligence, what have you. Lofa Tatupu was a safe pick because he was a second-round selection who had displayed a preternatural ability to read opposing offenses and play above his height and weight with a pro-style college team. He was only a "reach" to the people who were blinded by measurables. Now, he's one of the names brought up whenever measurables are overemphasized.
Aaron Curry is not that type of safe pick. Aaron Curry is a safe pick in that wherever he's drafted and wherever they put him, he's going to dominate. I've seen him cause an interception as a rush end in a 3-4 look, decimate running backs as the SAM in a 4-3 base, and trail fast tight ends with near-safety speed. Put simply, wherever you place him, he's going to shine. And if the Seahawks are lucky enough to have him on the board after Kansas City, Seattle's representative should bust a hamstring, Rich Eisen-style, getting the card with Curry's name on it to the Commish. I want an elite offensive tackle for the Seahawks more than anyone, but Aaron Curry is the best player in this draft, and I don't think it's even close.
0 recs |
32 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Curry is the BAP
Sweet, we can only dream though, Curry will probably be gone by the 4th pick. Nice run down , who knows maybe we’ll get lucky.
by Hawkwiz on Mar 22, 2009 3:41 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
If you had to pick something, what does Curry do best?
I have a hard time believing he’s Demarcus Ware’s pass rush mixed with Brian Urlachers coverage and a pinch of Hill’s run stuffing. He can trail speedy college tight ends and decimate ACC running backs, but is he going to be able to trail Antonio Gates and decimate Stephen Jackson? The good at everything college players usually turn out more Nick Collison than Brandon Roy.
by Nate Dogg on Mar 22, 2009 3:46 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I think the rare skill is his coverage ability...
Guys with his propensity for causing Defeats (13.5 TFL in 2007, 15 in 2008) don’t usually cover the way he does. And I wouldn’t put him in Ware’s class as a 3-4 edge rusher, but I find it interesting that he doesn’t seem uncomfortable in that role.
by Doug Farrar on Mar 22, 2009 3:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's because he isn't.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Mar 22, 2009 4:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He's best in a 4-3 for sure.
Played 98 percent SAM (9-tech) at Wake Forest.
by Doug Farrar on Mar 22, 2009 3:57 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
With his versatility
To play pretty much anywhere as a LB in the 3-4 or 4-3, where would he play if he was drafted by Seattle? Weakside, or Strongside and pushing Leroy back the the Weakside?
by SPENCEMAN on Mar 22, 2009 4:16 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Probably Sam...
He can read and cover.
by Doug Farrar on Mar 22, 2009 4:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wouldnt it make more sense to put him at the Will
If he’s amazing at everything, and Hills good at everything but covering, then wouldn’t it make our LB corpse overall better with him at the Wll?
by SPENCEMAN on Mar 22, 2009 7:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Do you think Detroit signs them with their #1?
Now that they have Peterson? I expect them to have a deal done before the draft, on whomever they choose. Hopefully sooner then later, the draft suspense this year is killing me.
by B.B.Finnegan on Mar 22, 2009 4:17 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I am not a college or draft scout, so I won’t bother regurgitating what I have heard other people say about potential draftees. At best, rabid followers of the Hawks MIGHT have a decent understanding of what the front office strategy based on 2008 play their recent actions. Here is what I think I know.
Curry will not be a Seahawk. If Curry is on the board at #4, we will try to trade down a FEW spots… but not any farther than where we are absolutely sure we can get an impact player. Not sure who that would be, but Ruskell won’t trade away the opportunity to pick in the top 10 (approximately) just to get a bottom 1st and another 2nd rounder. If we absolutely can’t find that trade, Ruskell will grit his teeth and PASS on Curry. Ruskell must be absolutely confident in the options he already has in house to fill the 3rd LB spot. Unless you think that he is a gambling man and that he was "hoping" to get Curry to fix a huge problem that he knowingly created by trading Peterson, you must acknowledge that he doesn’t want/need a huge contract at LB. Drafting Curry would be a sure way to guarantee that he can’t re-sign Hill long term. At best we would have a single year with 3 great LBs, and then we would be right back where we are now with 2 great LBs in 2010 (Curry and Tatupu).
by Wolverine in the Hawks Nest on Mar 22, 2009 4:53 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree with this.
Curry makes little sense at all, I’d rather reach on Sanchez.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Mar 22, 2009 5:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Curry will not be expensive in 2009 or 2010
and will not impact Seattle’s ability to sign Hill.
by John Morgan on Mar 22, 2009 5:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm with you that Curry wouldn't be TERRIBLY expensive in years 1 or 2...
But we are talking long term at the LB position, right? With Tatupu the known quantity, they would need to sign Curry to a 4 (maybe 5) year deal and then try to sign Hill to a long term deal… maybe something like 5 years. Both of those contracts would likely be back loaded, so at the very least in 3 years one of those guys would need to go (ask Peterson how that works). That obviously would be Hill, barring some terrible things with Curry. My point still stands… they CAN’T sign a long term deal with Hill after Curry, because Hill will know that he will be shown the door. Ruskell just showed that he doesn’t want 3 huge contract at LB. Signign Curry would be a sure fie way to guarantee that we have to dump talent in the next few years.
by Wolverine in the Hawks Nest on Mar 22, 2009 9:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yep.
And considering we just got rid of Peterson to avoid this problem, it would seem all for waste just to bring the same situation upon us down the road.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Mar 22, 2009 10:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It could be shrewd and maybe even genius.
Maybe the information we’re fed is:
Ruskell just showed that he doesn’t want 3 huge contract at LB.
While the truth is actually that moving JP to DET is done with the idea of getting Curry (or having a chance at getting him)? If Ruskell’s intentions were to find a way to get Curry, or at least and more likely, prepare for the event of him being on the board at 1.04, while simutaneously ‘selling high’ on Peterson, that would be something plausible.
Until it plays out we won’t know for sure, but it’s not unimaginable that trading JP to DET could sway the Lions to pass on Curry. The point being that there could very well be a trickle-down effect on the top four picks due to the Peterson trade. One would have to think that said trade decreased the chances of Detroit drafting a LB with the 1.01. Some of the reasons we traded Peterson may yet be revealed. Maybe, just maybe, it’s all part of TR’s evil plan to manipulate the top of the draft somehow.
by Misfit74 on Mar 23, 2009 1:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This seems very plausible...
Which just reinforces the fact that I dont believe there is a position or player out there that is “off limits” in the draft. Anything is possible at this point.
by iverson2169 on Mar 23, 2009 2:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I respect what you are saying, but...
I think there is absolutely no way that TR would gamble like that… trade away Peterson with the HOPE that Curry is available. He would have done that trade only if he had his LB corps the way he was happy with it. I don’t think it is unimaginable that the Peterson trade could affect the top of the daft such that Curry falls out of 1.01, but I think it is completely unimaginable that that is WHY Ruskell made the trade.
by Wolverine in the Hawks Nest on Mar 23, 2009 6:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
To clarify,
and more likely, prepare for the event of him being on the board at 1.04
In other words, if Curry were available at our pick, that makes it hard to see Ruskell passing on him if he is there, regardless of ‘reasons stated’ for the JP trade. If he’s on the board at four, the chances of him being the BPA are excellent.
Drafting Curry is not really my ideal scenario, regardless. I’m more in the Stafford/Crabtree/Monroe/J.Smith camp.
by Misfit74 on Mar 23, 2009 8:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think the point you make overall is good though
Because giving Detroit JP takes Curry off their board and pushes him one more spot down the line, INCREASING the demand for Curry at spots down the draft… i.e. ours.
Thus, even if we didn’t want Curry, this increases the potential for him to be around when we pick so we can draft down.
by djafrot on Mar 23, 2009 12:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm with ya there.
If Curry is still on the board at #4 (a big if), that is probably the best chance we get for a trade. Other teams still high in the order (top 10) could see real value in the trade to hop up just a couple spots but make a big difference in quality. The fact that we don’t “need” a LB puts us in he best position to field such trade offers.
I love this situation for 2 reasons. If Curry is still on the board at #4, we get a great trade into the 5-10 pick which are all about equivalent but still better than middle first round. If Curry is off the board, we have at least one choice amongst the top 2 OTs or Stafford. This is a great position for us.
by Wolverine in the Hawks Nest on Mar 23, 2009 1:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Plus, the further we move down the cheaper said pick costs.
Though at this point I’m kind of high on an offensive skill guy, and it looks like both Crabs and Stafford are going to be gone fairly early. The jury’s still out on Sanchez.
by djafrot on Mar 23, 2009 4:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Or, he could be a relatively inexpensive contingency plan...
…should Hill prove difficult to sign long-term. Relatively inexpensive at the beginning, that is. If Hill does sign long-term, the single-year franchise value drops and the Seahawks wind up spending fewer cap dollars on their linebackers then they were before.
by Doug Farrar on Mar 22, 2009 5:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It just seems so unlikely he falls to 4
that it’s hardly worth dreaming about him in Seahawk colors.
Also, your first clip purports to show his coverage ability but I see Curry playing three yards off his guy— he only “makes” the play when the ball squirts into his arms.
by shams on Mar 22, 2009 5:21 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
To be fair
I think he’s highlighting Curry’s backpedal.
by John Morgan on Mar 22, 2009 5:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ok
I guess we can see one, maybe two steps of backpedaling right at the beginning of the play.
by shams on Mar 22, 2009 5:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And most of the coverage in the extended highlight video is him playing 5-10 yards off the LOS
and reacting after the play has been completed. And he’s not a particularly hard hitter, though he takes great angles.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Mar 22, 2009 5:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Disagree with that
When he hits people they stop. Or go backward. Very sudden on his blitzes, too. If we picked Sanchez over him at 4 I think I’d blow chunks on the spot.
by Hawkdawg on Mar 22, 2009 7:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe Sanchez,
but quality LBs can be found in many rounds of the draft. QB…not so much.
by Misfit74 on Mar 23, 2009 1:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There are enough obvious exceptions to that rule,
including our own QB, that picking at 4 a guy that started for one season with outstanding athletes all around him is simply something I don’t believe Ruskell would do. Stafford is more likely if he falls, given that his physical tools and experience are both more impressive. But damn, to pass on a Crabtree or Curry for either QB would take major cojones. Or major something.
by Hawkdawg on Mar 23, 2009 11:29 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
