Seahawks Draft Grade: Aaron Curry
by John Morgan on Apr 27, 2009 11:01 AM PDT
Email
Print
Aaron Curry
 |
Upside:
Scouts call Curry a once in a decade linebacker talent, so why only a "B"? The answer is in the question. Curry is a linebacker, and aside from rush linebackers, few, if any, can significantly impact their defense on their own. Ask Dick Butkus. Because of that, Curry is unlikely to be even as valuable as Chad Pennington. Ignoring position, Curry's upside is immense. Though Lofa Tatupu has an outside shot, Curry is the first Seahawk since Walter Jones to have a legitimate shot at Hall of Fame induction. He's that talented.
 |
Downside:
When the stakes are six years, $60 million including $26 million guaranteed (2008 fourth overall pick Darren McFadden's contract), downside actually trumps upside. Scouts excel at evaluating linebackers. Given a near-consensus that Curry is not only the best linebacker in a loaded linebacker class, but the best overall talent, Curry is true safest pick in the 2009 draft. He has avoided major injury, has minimal character concerns (suspended one game for missing class) and has no production or athleticism red flags. The downside for Curry is a solid starter that could contend for the Pro Bowl in his prime.
| |
Fit:
Jokes about the West Coast Defense aside, I don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. Seattle is moving towards a Tampa 2-derived defense and needs fast, agile linebackers that can excel in coverage and stopping the run. That's Curry. Curry has scheme flexibility, and might grade highly for fit in most defenses, but for a Seahawks team desperately in need of another top cover linebacker to pair with Lofa Tatupu, Curry is a day-one starter that will upgrade an already stacked unit - from day one.
(Draft grades are important. Though too many either write in absolutes or exploit the fraidy-cat tactic of grading between winking admissions that "no one knows", it's important to put in words how I rate this draft, at the time of this draft and before the future gives the answers to us. It's only fair. There is a right and wrong method to drafting, no matter the very unpredictable outcome. Today I will rate each player by upside, downside and fit.)
51 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I'm starting to think about the intangibles here.
As much as I was kind of “meh” about the pick of Curry at the time it was made, I realize now that it had to be done.
I’m also wondering about the more intangible factors at play here. Curry is such a huge name, considered by many the best player in the draft. Whether or not his presence on the field actually improves our defense, his presence on the team and in the organization is going to be huge.
This is a team that’s had the “soft” moniker on it for years, particularly in terms of defense. With Curry on the roster, whether he’s really that influential or not, a lot of people around the league are going to THINK we have drastically improved. This will not only be intimidating for a lot of offenses, who are now going to be scared shitless of passing to the middle or strong side of the short field, but it will bring defensive free agents to the team in droves over the length of his career.
Sometime in 2012 you’ll hear a Dorsey or a Landry or a Ware say “I wanted to play alongside that great duo of Lofa and Curry”.
I don't know... doesn't seem substantial to me.
Players go where the money is. They want to win and get paid. Bart Scott didn’t want to stay with Ray Lewis, he wanted more money and a chance to be ‘the man’.
Also, as a TE or someone catching a ball over the middle, the thought of getting hit by Curry wouldn’t really scare me any more than the thought of getting hit by Peterson. Seems like a wash to me.
McCoy McCoy 2010
Hrm.
Scott is a linebacker, I’m sure he doesn’t mind getting out from Lewis’s shadow. I was thinking of positions whose numbers would clearly increase in the presence of other stars… like the DL and the secondary. You’re right that they follow the money, but to think that the quality of the team they’re going to has no effect ignores the difficulty we’ve had over the years in bringing in free agents.
As for being scared of throwing over the middle, I was thinking about Curry’s coverage ability, especially in combination with Lofa’s. I’m betting just the presence of Curry anywhere close to the strongside flat would be a pretty significant factor in a QB’s decision making.
I don’t think he’s that much of an improvement over JP either, at least not right now. In two years? Most definitely. And my POINT is that his already preordained glory will instill fear in opposing offenses in the way our current defense does not, much like Shaun Alexander’s supposed greatness often scared opposing defenses into bringing eight guys into the box.
He's not much of an improvement over what JP was a few years ago
But compared to last year’s JP? Definitely an upgrade.
I would agree with the bulk of this
I like Curry. I really like Curry. He has a combination of experience, speed, athleticism, and production that, coupled with no foreseeable character or injury issues, make him impossible NOT to take. However, while his coverage ability will be useful and allow for scheme flexibility – allowing less versitile players to be used more specifically to their strengths making them seem better – what inspires fear is getting the shit hit out of you. To change the perception of the ’Hawks as a soft or finesse unit, they have to stop the run. If Curry facilitates the ’Hawks ability to do that, then the soft label will evaporate.
As a defender, specifically a linebacker, the player that would make me happy to play with is that monster DL that gobbles up offensive linemen and necessitates double or triple teams, thereby allowing me – the glory boy – to make plays and get a fat contract.
Ugh
Though Lofa Tatupu has an outside shot, Curry is the first Seahawk since Walter Jones to have a legitimate shot at Hall of Fame induction. He’s that talented.
Ugh, without meaning any offense I’m not a big fan of that kind of language. I agree Tats is not HoF so far, but he’s a 3 time pro bowler and 1 time All Pro. Curry has yet to play a down. Can we not do this hype thing until his first tackle?
Fine, he has the upside to be a HoFer. Calling him a legitimate shot before he’s played a game is just hype.
by Thomas Beekers on Apr 27, 2009 11:40 AM PDT reply actions
John, one thing that didn't make its way into your grade
Do you think that the possible loss of Leroy Hill due to this makes this pick an A- or a B+ overall? I understand that Curry is an amazing talent that I will love to watch for years to come, but in grading the pick in the “now,” shouldn’t that come into play?
I’m also curious as to your final assessment of who Seattle should have picked when the #4 slot came available. Obviously Ruskell was unconvinced about the franchise qb potential of Sanchez, which is understandable, and he addressed it instead with the Broncos pick next season (one of my top-five all-time Ruskell moves, I loved it that much). To me, then, the only two picks that would have made sense at the #4 slot would have been Curry or Crabtree. Crabtree would have meant probably cutting Branch or Burleson, I assume, but WR is a more dynamic, team-impacting position.
Overall, while I wasn’t a huge fan of the pick when it happened, the 2nd round of intense awesomeness made up for most of that, along with Curry being Aaron F’ing Curry, but still wondering over whether Crabtree would have been a slightly better value pick at that slot.
"Why is it every time I need to get somewhere, we get waylaid by jackassery?" - Dr. Venture
I agree when you reduce it to that, but in a "right now" sense.
If you have an exact defensive mold, and a player you may never find again is available, you take him, and replace a more “replacable” player like Hill.
Hill is powerful, probably a great pass rusher, and a real good hitter and tackler, but he has limitations in coverage and slight limitations with his range. He’s certainly no borderline HOFer, although with his MLB experience in college and abilities is an above-average to great LB.
I like Curry better, mostly because he has a lot less downside
Tape may be paramount, but individual drills and agility tests are part of evaluating a prospect. Crabtree has more upside, but like I said above, when it’s this high-stakes, downside is even more important.
Here’s the thing about the whole Hill situation. It’s in flux, so I can’t say if Hill is a Seahawk or not. I can’t know that Curry is the reason Seattle will not re-sign Hill if Seattle doesn’t re-sign Hill. Hill isn’t worth franchise money, and right now I’m not sure what his final contract will look like. If it’s too much, painful as it might be, it would be better to let Hill walk. Essentially, I think it’s an oversimplification to say Curry cost us Hill, or that potentially losing Hill should subtract from Curry’s value.
Also, I’m not doing pluses or minuses this year. It implies a level of precision that’s just not real.
by John Morgan on Apr 27, 2009 12:27 PM PDT up reply actions
I don't think he'll command a bunch of money
From what I’ve read, he won’t fit a 3-4 scheme (which many teams are moving to) and he already missed the FA boat. Major spending came in the first few weeks of FA, and if any team really needed LB help, they would have addressed it during the draft.
I think Hill screwed himself and Seattle will lowball the 6/$36 offer and still be the highest bidder. And in the case another team does sign him, we still have two very talented linebackers and salary cap space that we can use elsewhere (D-Line, RB, etc).
by Nick Andron on Apr 27, 2009 12:39 PM PDT up reply actions
Agreed
And this supports Ruskell’s decision. As much as we all love Hill and how well he filled the huge LB holes we had when we drafted him and Tats together, he is not worth the numbers that were being thrown around, and this is the best way for the Seahawks to retain him at a reasonable number, or for Hill to get his much higher number somewhere else. I think the first is what happens, but if the 2nd happens, the Seahawks still made the right decision IMO.
Thanks for the response, JM. Great stuff.
"Why is it every time I need to get somewhere, we get waylaid by jackassery?" - Dr. Venture
Maybe Weaver
But I dont think he was worth it
2/3 of the world is covered by water. The rest is covered by Marcus Trufant.
Pretty sure Weaver's tag would be with all RBs...
HB’s included. If so, absolutely not.
On Curry's upside and building a great defense
John has (repeatedly) raised a great point about (non-rush) LBs. What they can aspire to is pretty dependent on what’s around them. A tackle who wreaks havoc makes other players better by breaking down an offense’s integrity. A LB does not. The Giants wouldn’t have been a great defense with Banks, Carson, and LT but without Jim Burt and Harvey Martin.
Having said that, the critical question is: can Ruskell acquire the talent that allows Curry (well, the LB group overall really) to a) reach his potential, while b) elevating this defense into the league’s elite?
That’s basically an empirical question. But, looking at how the offseason has unfolded thus far I feel much more confident that Ruskell will acquire that talent than I did at anytime over the past year, maybe year and a half. Here’s why:
1. He’s up for trying new things — I don’t know how this West Coast defense will play out, but clearly Ruskell, Mora & Associates are trying to take the Tampa 2’s strengths and deal with its weaknesses.
2. He’s using leverage much more wisely — If failing to use the tag on Hutch was Ruskell’s low point then taking the tag away from Hill was absolutely the right move. In a broader sense, Ruskell doesn’t over-sentimentalize.
3. He’s not overthinking it - You go get potential greatness-especially when it’s low risk—when you can it’s available at whatever position because competence is relatively easier (and often cheaper) to build.
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
No big deal.
Curry is the first Seahawk since Walter Jones to have a legitimate shot at Hall of Fame induction.
I think legitimate HOF chances can be said about many, many players. Though, I agree that kept in context it does describe what the consensus is that we are getting in Curry, specifically regarding ‘upside’.
I wonder if Shawn Springs had a ‘legit shot’ when he was drafted? He was also a higher pick (3rd overall) in the same draft as Jones. The point being that many players that can be said about. It’s exciting, but any time it’s taken to far too the extreme or simply out of context, it’s might be wrongly criticized. I think I see it for what it is.
I don't think I much like the Dick Butkus analogy
I could make a similar analogy about defensive ends. Simeon Rice played 5 years in Arizona and their defense never ranked higher than 24th in points. One player doesn’t make a defense. I understand that you used Butkus because he’s a hall of famer but that leaves out players like Ray Lewis, Teddy Bruschi, Brian Urlacher, and Lofa Tatupu. All those guys have been large parts of transforming defenses. It also ignores the changing roles of linebackers in the modern era.
I’m coming around on Curry in part because why the hell not, and in part because I think the biggest problem the Hawks had last year, outside of injuries, was the fucktard in the booth. Marshall didn’t seem to have a clue how to use any of his linebackers. Now we’ve paired a possible once in a decade linebacker with coaches whose strengths match his. Maybe it doesn’t count in just a pure assesment of how much impact a linebacker can have on a defense but I suspect it’s going to revolutionize what we see on the field this season.
One player doesn't make a defense, for sure.
I don’t think linebacker is a position that makes others better or is really a building block. Case in point, Seattle had three awesome linebackers last season and its defense was awful. I don’t think you could say that about a team with three awesome defensive linemen.
We had John Marshall too though, how many linebackers does that cancel?
by michaelfox99 on Apr 27, 2009 1:12 PM PDT up reply actions
I don't hate Marshall as much as many
He boned it last year, but also nailed it with a lot creative blitzes in 2007. I think he’s past his prime, but certainly not the only reason Seattle failed. Maybe top of the list, but not the only reason. An “attacking” style of defense that relies on turnovers is also going to experience a lot of variability in performance.
He was really hit or miss
In 2005 Marshall was great with Hill. 2006 he was terrible with Hill and great with Peterson. 2007 was maybe his best year, but Hill’s coverage regressed in ‘08 and Marshall was none the wiser. I don’t like using the Hawks as an example of great linebackers that don’t make your defense great just because Marshall or injuries always seemed to negate at least one of them.
Incorrect.
John Marshall took over Defensive Coordinator duties in 2005.
Weez the juice!!
by Carl Shinyama on Apr 28, 2009 12:20 AM PDT up reply actions
Some blitzes were creative.
Some were completely… uninspiring.
Weez the juice!!
by Carl Shinyama on Apr 27, 2009 3:48 PM PDT up reply actions
Sometimes you go with what works
Dick LeBeau doesn’t invent new blitzes every month. I’m partly worried about the Knapp offense because he’s criticized as too predictable. On the other hand, some things are proven and are the smart call to make in a given situation.
Like the FB draw on 3rd & 6.
by jacobstevens on Apr 28, 2009 1:49 PM PDT up reply actions
Yes, this, exactly.
Losing Hill would be losing a very good player at a low-impact position, freeing up money to be spent at a position of much greater need and impact.
Well, it can't be Haynesworth since he was too expensive,
but I think he just meant in general. Most of the top pickings are gone before the draft.
McCoy McCoy 2010
Well with him gone corner
is a very good possibilty, Kenny Lucas maybe
I'm liking that idea.
I’m curious if he can play Safety for a certain turdball we have on the roster.
I'm a little confused as to why Curry takes a hit for not being a pass-rusher
the 4-3 typically doesn’t have a pass rush LB specialist. All linebackers are expected to be able to drop back into coverage. Peterson was used at times as a defensive end on third down, which is where most of his sacks came from. Although Curry wasn’t used in College to do that, he was used to blitz and from what I’ve read was rather effective at it, doesn’t mean he can’t, but why would they? Peterson’s and Hill’s lack of coverage abilities last year probably hurt us just as much as anybodies inability to get to the quarterback.
So I guess my question is, though it may be true that pass-specialist linebackers can dramatically change a defense for the better, does it really mean all that much to a 4-3 defense that has no use for one? Those types of linebackers play almost always on a 3-4 defense. Derrick Brooks only had 13.5 sacks his entire career, about as much as Lawrence Taylor averaged a season.
I'm not buying...
That Curry can’t or won’t ever be rushing the passer. With his overall athleticism and skill, I don’t see any reason that he wouldn’t be good at it. If he winds up being the team’s best defensive player, I don’t know why you wouldn’t have him doing what would cause the most havoc for the opposition, whether that’s covering TEs, run blitzing, or rushing the passer on a case by case basis. If he can rush the passer as well as he can cover an RB, I would think that rushing the passer is more disruptive than covering one guy (or zone).
What I see in Curry is a freakish talent with versitile being the watchword. To use a chess anology, he’s a queen (in the most masculine sense) that can be used in a number of ways unlike knights, rooks, and bishops that have more clearly defined roles. I see a weapon to be dispensed on an as-needed basis. Playing the Vikings? Have him shadow Peterson. Atlanta in the red zone? Cover Gonzalas. Whatever, but with his speed and athleticism I would think that – occassionally at least – sending him on a QB assassination assignment would be good for the gander.
If someone were to determine that the scheme doesn’t dictate that he should ever rush the passer (after he illustrates an aptitude) then the scheme is stupid.
It's definitely possible.
But look at a guy like Yuniesky Betancourt. He has good ‘instincts’ and good speed. Yet he can’t steal a base. Sometimes what is ability doesn’t always translate into production. I think it’s definitely possible for Curry to have several 8+ sack seasons, but the fact that he didn’t have very many sacks in college makes me want to be conservative in estimating his value and write him down for 3 sacks with the potential for more.
But yeah, good idea with shadowing Peterson and schemes like that. If a guy can do everything, put him where his talents fit best for that particular situation. Don’t pigeon hole him into a certain role. Roles are for role players, Curminator is an elite talent. I hope our coaching staff makes use of Curry’s skills.
McCoy McCoy 2010
Yuniesky Betancourt can't do shit anymore...
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Apr 27, 2009 2:52 PM PDT up reply actions
Truer to say, he *used* to have the ability, and no longer does
Laziness, good living, and being stubbornly uncoachable will do that to you.
by The Ancient Mariner on Apr 27, 2009 3:09 PM PDT up reply actions
Lets not
compare are new 30 million dollar man to Yuni Betancourt, just the thought makes me sad.
"We want the ball and were gonna score"
That's a big part of why even with the best scouting, production matters
A player can be fast and strong and agile and still not a great pass rusher, and the reason why can be almost impossible to tell. It could be something subtle like tipping a move dip or poor core strength. That’s why Nick Reed might wash out completely, but could realistically be a force as a pass rusher.
No, I meant Yuni can't do a lot of things besides stealing bases.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Apr 27, 2009 5:13 PM PDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Radio Row Video: Marcell Dareus of the Buffalo Bills
- Not to be outdone, Tecmo Bowl also predicts a Giants win
- Shutdown Corner previews and predicts Super Bowl XLVI
- With help from a police escort, Giants get their hometown pizza in Indianapolis
- ‘Why Is This News’ podcast: Doug Farrar on Super Bowl XLVI
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
