The Tape: Seven Straight Lines
by John Morgan on May 16, 2009 1:35 PM PDT
74 comments
Aaron Curry recorded more pressures than sacks. He has the skills and quickness to turn pressure into sacks. Why then did so many of his blitzes end up empty? Tough to say. Maybe he recorded some near-sacks that were lost in the semantics wringer. Once a quarterback tucks to run, it's no longer a sack. It's an ambiguous distinction, but not one that will change in the NFL. Curry was blitzed from the wings, and the length and deliberateness of his route to the quarterback could have contributed. Maybe it's indicative of his just-good agility. Curry is agile, even better than normal agile for a linebacker, but he doesn't compare with Julian Peterson or DeMarcus Ware. Whatever the case, without Peterson, Seattle looks like a team that will struggle to create pass rush. Curry will not fix that. And it once again looks like a team that will struggle against mobile quarterbacks. Curry will not fix that either. However great, Curry is not the post-Julian Peterson pass-rusher Seattle needs.
- (Left) Curry slides towards the middle, contains, contains and then pushes into the pile for tackle after a Josh Haden rush of three.
- (Right) Dominique Davis play-fakes then rolls right. That puts him on an island opposite Curry. Curry briefly holds contain, but when he sees his teammate drop into the flat behind him, Curry rushes Davis. Davis is initially eight yards away and drops another two before Curry closes the gap. Davis throws it away before contact.
- (Left) Wake Forest is in a 4-2 nickel. Curry blitzes up the gut, but it's a draw and Haden runs past Curry before Curry can redirect. That's probably the quintessential agility play for a linebacker, and Curry is just too quick, too massive and too stiff to redirect so suddenly. Haden only gets five and the drive ends, but group Curry in with the rest of Seattle's front seven as another guy that's great on a line but can be run around.
0 recs |
74 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Hill best be da man
Curry is agile, even better than normal agile for a linebacker, but he doesn’t compare with Julian Peterson or DeMarcus Ware. Whatever the case, without Peterson, Seattle looks like a team that will struggle to create pass rush. Curry will not fix that. And it once again looks like a team that will struggle against mobile quarterbacks. Curry will not fix that either. However great, Curry is not the post-Julian Peterson pass-rusher Seattle needs.
We best hope that said pass rusher is named Leroy Hill. I thought that was the idea behind franchising him to start with and eventually inking him to a long-term deal.
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
by dcrockett17 on May 16, 2009 3:43 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I honestly think that
Tapp can fill a bit of a pass rushing LB role…with the little zones he drops back into and such. If we ran anything with a 3-4 aspect to it I think he could fill that role. He’s done a great job of putting on the weight and transforming into a 4-3 DE version of himself, but he seems quick enough to be the 4th LB/4th DL hybrid guy. Not that he’s an athletic equivalent to Merriman, Ware, or Peterson, but he seems like he can play in space as well as on the line.
by cashless on May 16, 2009 6:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Reaction time is the thing
On the line, with an assignment, controlling a gap or just set to go after the pass rusher, he does a good job. Reading & reacting, he’s like a statue. Wouldn’t work.
by jacobstevens on May 18, 2009 2:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let's hope...
our upgrades to the front four can help nullify the loss of Peterson.
I really liked what I saw from Tapp towards the end of last year’s season. Patrick Kerney… hmm, now there’s the big question for me this year. Does he return to prime form? That’s going to have a HUGE impact on our pass-rushing ability as a team. Because if he’s at top form, he typically requires double the attention from the opposing offense. Let’s face it, though, if anyone can do it at his age, it’s Pat Kerney. The man will go to insane lengths for his body. In fact, if someone told the guy there was a “magic Moon rock” which could revitalize his body, he’d be out of his pressurized bubble, or cryogenic stasis [whichever he’s currently recovering in at the time] and would be bugging NASA for a piggyback on the next lunar mission. One thing everyone knows about Kerney is that he’s ALL EFFORT, and ALL MOTOR. At his age, I give Pat Kerney a 55-60% chance to return to form. As for Lo Jack… He’s on some serious thin ice. Not only with the fans, but with the organization as well. DEs do typically have better second seasons in the NFL, and rotating with Tapp could help him. What I’m most interested in is how Corry Redding performs back at DE. Cole has been talked-up to be much more than a 330 lb. object on the line, too… I was reading that for 330, the man moves very well. I think the combination of Cole and Mebane are going to be sick.
Succeed or fail… this season is going to be interesting!
[Let’s all do a little rain dance for rookie Courtney Green, C.J Wallace, or Jamar Adams, too. Russell has heart, no doubt… but then again… so does Big Bird from Sesame Street… ]
"And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short." Thomas Hobbes' "Leviathan"
"But, in spite of these things, it was a gay and magnificent revel." Edgar Allen Poe "The Masque of the Red Death"
by Grimm Blackwood on May 16, 2009 9:19 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
*What* upgrades to the front four?p
If you’re putting your hope in Colin Cole . . . well, go back and take a look at John’s posts around the time we picked that guy up. At this point, only a fully-healthy back-to-peak-form season from Cory Redding and a breakout year from Red Bryant could keep us from a serious downgrade in the middle; on the ends, I’m not sure anybody knows exactly what we have, but I’m really hoping the lightbulb comes on for Jackson.
by The Ancient Mariner on May 17, 2009 5:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cole blows ass.
I wouldn’t be surprised if we look back in a year and identify him as the worst move of an otherwise excellent offseason.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on May 17, 2009 12:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn't be surprised
if we look at him as the biggest single reason the offseason wasn’t excellent.
by The Ancient Mariner on May 17, 2009 4:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Big Bird outplayed Brian Russell in college
but B-Russ’ grit put him over.
by PRIDEin253 on May 17, 2009 6:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree we may have downgraded
Perhaps I am taking this wrong, but based on John’s observations, Curry sounds like he would have made a great 3rd round pick.
Couple that with John’s assessment of Jennings, Hill, Redding, Cole, Bryant, Tapp and throw in unknowns such as Jackson and Atkins… yuck.
We may actually be awful on defense.
I hope I am wrong. However, based on John’s analysis of upside regarding Hill, Jennings, Tapp, Cole, Bryant, Jackson, and now Curry, one would have to surmise that this team will succeed only if it overachieves.
Ruskell had better win this year, with Holmgren laying in wait. I am sure Paul Allen and Liewiske (sp?) would be interested in bringing back the guy who built the Super Bowl team.
It is what it is...
by kidder95 on May 17, 2009 8:18 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I don't think that will happen,
but that would be weird: Going 4-12 next year and firing Ruskell and hiring Holmgren to be the president/GM.
I think Ruskell’s job is safe for another year. Unless we go 2-14, I think it will take two years of 5-11 to get him fired.
2010 Seahawks Mock: 1A: Eric Berry S, 1B: Ndamukong Suh DT, 2: Charles Brown OT, 4:Zac Robinson QB, 5: Stafon Johnson RB 6: Will Tukuafu DE, 7: Kerry Meier WR
Also acceptable, trade for Patrick Chung and draft Ed Wang so everyone can Wang Chung tonight.
by LantermanC on May 17, 2009 9:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I may be in the minority on this
but I would welcome Holmgren back to the GM position with open arms. While I respect and appreciate what Ruskell has done, I do not see the impact players being drafted that Holmgren did. Having lots of drafted players on the roster means nothing if you suck.
Holmgrens trade of Galloway, trade for Hasselbeck, drafting of Hutch, Alexander, Jackson, Tubbs, Locklear, free agent signing of Tobeck, Gray was masterful.
Ruskell would make a great defensive scout.
It is what it is...
by kidder95 on May 17, 2009 9:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
As a side note
if Seattle cuts Spencer, Jennings and branch next year, 3 out of 5 possible first rounders will have been busts. Add in Jackson as a possible role player… wow.
It is what it is...
by kidder95 on May 17, 2009 9:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And Holmgren?
Busts: Lamar King, Chris McIntosh, Koren Robinson, Jerramy Stevens, Marcus Tubbs
Gems: Shaun Alexander, Steve Hutchinson, Marcus Trufant,
Also, all of Ruskell’s picks came near the end of the first round. Ruskell has also been a little better at the later round picks, particularly the 2nd.
If you’re going to put on the rose colored glasses, look at both sides with them, eh? Before you start selling us about the glory days of the past.
by B.B.Finnegan on May 17, 2009 10:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Eh...
KoRo, Stevens, and Tubbs aren’t really ‘Busts’.
I’d put them into a middle category, maybe closer to gem than busts. Without two of those players, are we the dominant team that made the superbowl? I don’t think so. And KoRo was pretty damn good for a year or two. Certainly better than the WR drafted right before him.
Also, three of those Gems are all-pro talents, the top 5 at their position for a few years.
2010 Seahawks Mock: 1A: Eric Berry S, 1B: Ndamukong Suh DT, 2: Charles Brown OT, 4:Zac Robinson QB, 5: Stafon Johnson RB 6: Will Tukuafu DE, 7: Kerry Meier WR
Also acceptable, trade for Patrick Chung and draft Ed Wang so everyone can Wang Chung tonight.
by LantermanC on May 17, 2009 12:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, at least KoRo, Stevens, and Tubbs actually showed great things before their respective troubles.
With Ruskell’s first round picks we’re left making excuses for them and why they haven’t done anything yet. Almost all are hovering around bust status.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on May 17, 2009 1:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let's keep this on-topic
there will be somewhere to discuss GM Ruskell versus GM Holmgren soon enough.
by John Morgan on May 17, 2009 3:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Apologies.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on May 17, 2009 4:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tubbs was not even close to a bust
He has to go into the gem pile. When he played (and he DID play), he made our run defense very good. Unfortunate his knees failed him (and us). Best DL we’ve had since Tez…
by Kryten on May 17, 2009 11:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He could've been arguing
bust based on final result, not initial production. I don’t know what Tubbs’ injury history was in college, but if it were extensive, and he were to get injured, it’s a risk the GM took that didn’t pan out. However if Tubbs didn’t have any unusual history, than it would be hard to place blame on the GM.
2010 Seahawks Mock: 1A: Eric Berry S, 1B: Ndamukong Suh DT, 2: Charles Brown OT, 4:Zac Robinson QB, 5: Stafon Johnson RB 6: Will Tukuafu DE, 7: Kerry Meier WR
Also acceptable, trade for Patrick Chung and draft Ed Wang so everyone can Wang Chung tonight.
by LantermanC on May 18, 2009 8:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh and I agree, I wouldn't mind seeing Holmy as a GM for us either.
I think his drafting ability is comparable to Ruskell’s. And I think his trading ability is better than Ruskell’s. SSS, but if if I have to go what information there is, than I’d say Holmgren is a better trade evaluator than Ruskell.
2010 Seahawks Mock: 1A: Eric Berry S, 1B: Ndamukong Suh DT, 2: Charles Brown OT, 4:Zac Robinson QB, 5: Stafon Johnson RB 6: Will Tukuafu DE, 7: Kerry Meier WR
Also acceptable, trade for Patrick Chung and draft Ed Wang so everyone can Wang Chung tonight.
by LantermanC on May 17, 2009 12:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Curry isn't remotely close to a third round pick
I’m not sure what I’ve written that supports that.
by John Morgan on May 17, 2009 9:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think the issue is...
that you don’t fawn John. These post-draft analyses generally read like letters of recommendation. If you read something other than “this is the greatest draft pick in the history of draft picks” the reader thinks, “well, this guy can’t be that good then.” People aren’t ready to see the warts on their picks just yet.
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
by dcrockett17 on May 17, 2009 2:46 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Agreed
Perhaps what I am seeing through my seemingly dark-colored glasses are how each piece fits into the “vision” that is the Seahawks 2009 and beyond.
I am trying to take the warts and the potential and understand how it makes Seattle, its current scheme, and its future vision come about. Perhaps with the analysis given thus far, I only see how what we have done does “not” fit.
Cole, Curry, Redding will mean little if we do not have explosive play from our ends (Redding included).
TJ will not provide value with Hasselbeck on the bench.
Wallace will not add value as someone to groom for the future.
Thus, with the analysis, where do we go.
Or more to the point of this post, how does Curry get us to where we intend to be, and the manner by which we attain that end?
It is what it is...
by kidder95 on May 17, 2009 5:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow, no better then a 3rd rounder?
While it’s probably true Curry will never be the pass rusher Peterson was and is not as freakishly athletic (but then, who is? This is Julian Peterson we’re talking about here) he should be better in pass coverage, run support, and reading and recognizing plays. This all comes with an asterisk because he’s never played a down, but still by a decent margin the best linebacker in the draft in most categories, speed, athleticism, awareness, yadda yadda yadda.
I think people forget that when someone does a complete breakdown of a player, play by play, you focus on that player and tend to think he’ll be directly involved in every play and when he isn’t, you’re disappointed. I catch myself doing the same thing, but it’s just not feasible. If you did a game breakdown of Julian Peterson I’m sure you’d see similar results. Many plays where he just doesn’t factor, sometimes simply because he’s containing the backside, which may seem worthless, but when he doesn’t do that the running back cuts back and, to quote Madden, BOOM, 50 yard td. Or, I remember one play from Johns analysis, where Curry disappears off the screen covering the tight end, well what happens if he doesn’t cover the tight end? Or do it well? The QB throws to him for a big gain.
by B.B.Finnegan on May 17, 2009 10:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I'm not enthusiastic about Curry at all.
Ruskell, for all his flaws, had at least one sure skill: finding starting linebackers later on that made great value. Linebackers in general are not impact players unless you draft pass-rushing terrors, something that Curry isn’t. Did we really have to spend a top 5 pick on possibly the least important position on defense because he was likely to be a solid starter and not bust?
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on May 17, 2009 1:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think there's a counterpoint to that argument...
First, I think it’s too early in John’s analysis to draw any conclusions about Curry. The only game I saw was WF vs. Clemson, and he seemed to be much more of a beast in that game.
I’m not too sure whether we can take too much away from the BC game. Yes, they have a more pro-style offense, but most ACC teams don’t, so I doubt they were really set up to do well in that game. Maybe I’m wrong there.
As for the impact LBs – well, how about Ray Lewis, Urlacher, Derrick Brooks, Patrick WIllis, Tatupu – not pass rushing terrors, but all impact players.
Also, didn’t Steve Hutchinson play the “least important position” on offense? I’m over Hutch leaving, but I think if you can get an outstanding player at any position, you get it done.
by PerryCollective on May 17, 2009 3:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, except you mostly listed MLBs, who rarely rush the passer anyway.
And I’m not basing this off the analysis. Even if Curry is a solid, mildly above average starter, like say (and I hate to beat this dead horse in the afterlife), AJ Hawk, would that really be worth a top 5 pick in your opinion?
The Hutch comparison doesn’t make sense. Yes, I suppose people call guard the least important position on offense, but Hutchinson had an outstanding college career beginning from his freshman season. Curry somehow skyrocketed into the top 5 after being projected a third round pick had he declared eligibility after his junior season. He must have had some kickass senior season that describes how he’s suddenly a possibly HoF talent everyone somehow slept on for most of his career.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on May 17, 2009 4:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Considering he went from under 200 lbs
when he enrolled his freshman year to over 250 lbs as a senior(while being the most athletic LB in the draft) says that he’s worked hard to become who he is, and that he was not some great pure athlete. That is a LOT of weight room work, and four years of great work ethic, turning an undersized LB into a guy with a speed score that ranks up there with some great running backs, as John pointed out.
Putting on weight while staying that athletic is amazing, and since we began starting Tatupu, Hill, and Peterson together we have not started a guy over 240 lbs at LB. The things he does at his size are awesome, I’m guessing he won’t be bouncing off Brandon Jacobs like our LBs were last season.
by cashless on May 17, 2009 6:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe not,
but he won’t even get a chance to try to stop Jacobs if someone like Chris Snee is coming at him at full speed. Curry could be great, but we had 3 great linebackers before him and they weren’t turning our defense into the ranks of the elite.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on May 17, 2009 8:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Peterson had only one option when a guy like Snee was coming,
try to run around him. He was good at it, but not strong enough to meet him in the hole consistently. I’m pretty sure John has mentioned this about him,(although he has not gotten there in his play by play) that Curry can use his great size, athleticism, and strength to stand up a guard, or push through the clutter instead of getting lost.
by cashless on May 18, 2009 6:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your entire dislike of Aaron Curry as a player
seems to revolve around his projected 3rd round status as a junior. There’s a lot lacking in that analysis.
by Nate Dogg on May 17, 2009 7:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That isn't much of a big deal, really.
But when it’s irritating when people keep insisting he’s one of the premier LB prospects to come out since the days dinosaurs walked the earth despite that. At least with Maualuga and Laurinaitis they were considered top linebacker prospects since they became starters at their schools.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on May 17, 2009 8:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Consider this
Different sport, same diff. Evan Longoria is the best young player in baseball, and if you did Bill Simmons’ Trade Value List for the sport, would almost certainly come out #1. Not only was he not considered a top prospect coming out of HS, he wasn’t drafted; in fact, he couldn’t even get a scholarship offer, and wound up starting out at a community college. He did transfer to Long Beach State later, where he became the starting third baseman — but even there, he wasn’t recognized as a premier prospect right away; it wasn’t until he put on a show in the Cape Cod League in 2005 that he got that recognition. The next summer, he was the third overall pick in the draft, and two years later, he was the RoY. But he got there about as suddenly as Aaron Curry has.
The fact that Curry had a third-round grade last year doesn’t mean he can’t be “one of the premier LB prospects to come out since the days dinosaurs walked the earth” today, since that’s about how it went with Longoria; nor does it mean he can’t be a game-changing force next year. Personally, I agree with those who say you build from the lines out, I think Curry’s position limits the impact of his talent, and I’m very skeptical that we have a good enough DL to rise above mediocre — I just don’t believe we can cover for the deficiencies of guys like Cole when Bane’s the only real standout on the line; but as regards Curry, I don’t think introducing irrelevances has anything to do with the issue.
by The Ancient Mariner on May 18, 2009 6:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with you.
And would add that it did not seem very likely that we add a DT through the draft, it seemed like a weak draft once Ziggy Hood was snapped up by Pittsburgh.
Our pass rush might not be that much improved(or if they free Leroy Hill, it could be), but with Redding and Laurence Jackson in at the same time at ends, our run defense could be dominant the way we always thought it would.
by cashless on May 18, 2009 6:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I really don't know where this Redding-to-DE idea comes from
though obviously someone around the team thought it might work; but I just don’t buy it at all. It makes absolutely no sense to me.
by The Ancient Mariner on May 18, 2009 7:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Redding played DE at Detroit until the 2006 season when they lost their DT's to injury and they moved him inside
He can play both, but DE was his natural position. Seattle just wants to move him back to DE, and then use him as DT on passing downs
by B.B.Finnegan on May 18, 2009 11:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But then we stunt the growth of players who need the playing time with higher upside
ie: Tapp, Jackson, Atkins. Plus, our DT unit as a whole sucks.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on May 18, 2009 12:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Neither HOF nor bust...
I wasn’t implying that he’s the same as Hutch in every way – just that I’ve never bought the argument that he’s not worthy of a top 5 pick just because of his position.
Maybe if he was a K, P, or LS I’d agree…. :)
I’m just saying…watch a little tape on Curry. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEwCf7huMgs&feature=related
That may not get you excited, but it gets me excited. Contrast that with the highlight reel of Maualuga, Cushing, or Laurinaitis – it’s no contest. Curry makes plays that those guys can’t make. Most of the Laurinaitis highlights are him piling on (a la BRuss). Curry plays contain on a reverse – I think against UVa and makes a tackle for a loss despite 2 pulling linemen bearing down on him. Now, I’m sure those other guys are more polished, but they come from perennial top-10 teams. Curry is a late bloomer at a school that’s not exactly a football powerhouse. I’d bet he’s got room to grow.
I’m all for saying a top-5 pick should have a dramatic impact, but this year was by most accounts a down draft year. I think if Curry is a solid starter and challenges for a Pro Bowl spot, he will be worth it. I think he’s much more physical than anyone else on the roster, and I think if the Hawks can climb into a top 10 defense in the next few years, he will be a big part of that.
by PerryCollective on May 17, 2009 8:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well stated
I want to believe. Tell me how he impacts Seattle specifically. Does he take the TE away, does he eliminate a zone, does he force QB’s to check off the RB/TE?
What is it that makes Curry special besides he 40 speed and weight, and how does that translate into what will make the Hawks special?
Finally, would it be better than having Everette Brown (available at 37) or Brian Orakpo reeking havoc on the edges.
Football is as much an explosion sport as it is strategic. Sell me Curry’s strategic, because John has proven he is not explosive.
It is what it is...
by kidder95 on May 17, 2009 9:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not explosive?
I think John was trying to prove that while he has good agility, it is not a elite like it was for Peterson.
by cashless on May 18, 2009 6:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's certainly what he *said*, anyway
and as far as explosiveness goes, agility’s only one part of that, anyway; Curry’s very quick with great closing speed, which is also part of the equation.
by The Ancient Mariner on May 18, 2009 7:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I may be wrong.
If explosion is Hands, Hips, Rip, and Run as defined here then Curry “should” be explosive.
John mentions Curry casting aside a OT prospect (Rip), his quickness to a screen (Run), his ability to shed blockers (Hands), and his good but perhaps average agility (Hips).
My question is (and John mentions it may be scheme related), why the hell does this not translate to sacks?
From a coverage perspective, Curry provides explosion.
From a technique perspective, Curry provides explosion.
From a scheme perspective, Curry provides exposion.
Froma a game changing, pressure perspective; a real game changer (think Deon Sanders), Curry does not show up.
Why?
It is what it is...
by kidder95 on May 18, 2009 8:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bad analogy...
In fact, Curry may be the LB version of Deon Sanders.
I would just wish we could get a Demarcus Ware at #4, rather than the inverse of Leroy Hill.
It is what it is...
by kidder95 on May 18, 2009 8:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Demarcus Ware is a pass rush linebacker in a 3-4 defense
Which is almost a defensive end in a 4-3, except with some coverage ability. His job on passing plays is mostly to get to the quarterback. Not the same for a 4-3. Peterson only got as many sacks as he did because he played some defensive end on passing downs. We would have to switch to a 3-4 to the optimal use out of a Demarcus Ware. I know sack specialist linebackers get the most hoopla but they almost always play in a 3-4 defense, which means little to a team like Seattle.
by B.B.Finnegan on May 18, 2009 12:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He used the word prove, and I tried to
go the same way.
I don’t know that Leroy Hill has breathtaking agility, yet he didn’t seem to have an issue wrapping up QBs his rookie season.
by cashless on May 18, 2009 12:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
;)
Thought you had an issue with the use of the word prove, as I did.
by cashless on May 18, 2009 5:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, certainly
John hasn’t proven that Curry “isn’t explosive”; which is in part because that’s not even what he was talking about.
by The Ancient Mariner on May 18, 2009 6:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think that is what is confusing most people.
Curry is a great linebacker. Peterson was a damn good one too. Peterson is in the upper echelon of athletes in the NFL in my opinion. He might as well have had Javon Kearse’ nick name ‘the freak’. So when someone says, that’s a play that Curry can’t make but JP can make, that’s not an insult to Curry. The play is most likely on made by a few players like him, Ware, and Merriman.
My only concern is the d-coordinator plays our guys to their strengths. It seems like this will happen with the 4-3 over/ WCD/cloud secondary, but I’d like to see Redding at the other DT position, and Adams at the safety spot over Russell.
2010 Seahawks Mock: 1A: Eric Berry S, 1B: Ndamukong Suh DT, 2: Charles Brown OT, 4:Zac Robinson QB, 5: Stafon Johnson RB 6: Will Tukuafu DE, 7: Kerry Meier WR
Also acceptable, trade for Patrick Chung and draft Ed Wang so everyone can Wang Chung tonight.
by LantermanC on May 18, 2009 8:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The issue with that, is that
we actually had ‘the freak’ and drafted a player in the top 5 who may not be able to do what he could.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on May 18, 2009 12:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know. I love Curry,
but I also love Rey and Laurinaitis. Not totally hot on Laurinatis as a 1st rounder, but a safe cover tackling machine sounds great to me in the 2nd.
Rey seemed like a playmaking machine. My only two concerns with him were his 40 time (though I think some guys just suck at running in an upright position, but don’t lose as much when playing, also he hurt his leg at some point), and his attitude. I know there were concerns about him overpursuing, but the same things were said about Polamalu. Rey just seemed like a huge playmaker who can turn in the types of games that Lofa did against the Eagles.
2010 Seahawks Mock: 1A: Eric Berry S, 1B: Ndamukong Suh DT, 2: Charles Brown OT, 4:Zac Robinson QB, 5: Stafon Johnson RB 6: Will Tukuafu DE, 7: Kerry Meier WR
Also acceptable, trade for Patrick Chung and draft Ed Wang so everyone can Wang Chung tonight.
by LantermanC on May 17, 2009 10:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, think Tats with block-shedding ability
But a dip in coverage ability. Bengals got a steal who should fit right in in that ultra physical division.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on May 18, 2009 12:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Given this neutral/negative discussion it makes me wonder:
What is it exactly that made people say that Curry could be ‘a once in a decade type linebacker’ or ‘has HOF upside’. He must be projected to excel at quite a few things. I do agree about FF’s pass-rushing terror statement, but maybe he’ll have enough impact in coverage and other things to offset that not being his primary (or even secondary) skill. Who knows, maybe he’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing right now and will rush the hell out of the passer.
by Misfit74 on May 17, 2009 3:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd say Tatupu was an impact player for us...
..especially given our sad sack history with MLBs.
And I, for one, am quite enthusiastic about Curry. Whether he is worth $30 mil guaranteed, etc. is a different question. He’s a football player, and he will make football plays, as the Chuckster used to say.
by Hawkdawg on May 17, 2009 2:37 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
WTF... did I miss something...
I’m a casual reader of this site, I read it every day, by casual I mean that I wouldn’t be up for some of the daily heavy lifting (read: brilliant analysis) done primarily by John Morgan, but also some others, and often a few commentators as well.
But on Aaron Curry did I miss something? Wasn’t it just recently that I heard he was really the best overall pick in the draft? I thought he was wicked fast and holds a PhD in defensive football? Now he’s a slow -ABD and a poor substitute for an aging Julian Peterson?
What did I miss exactly?
by Professor on May 17, 2009 11:03 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The gist
as I perceive it to be, is that we have solved the roaming TE issue, but have created or built upon an existing pass rush issue with the selection of Curry.
It is what it is...
by kidder95 on May 18, 2009 8:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Which was pretty well known.
If he could pass-rush, Kansas City would have drafted him. Jack of all trades, master of none? Curry doesn’t have many real weaknesses but I don’t think he especially kicks ass at anything besides coverage, and our secondary needs more coverage help than our LBs.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on May 18, 2009 12:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
For this year, perhaps we might have growing pains as a defense.
In the future, defensive line can be our goal without worrying about the LB position for years to come, and getting an above-average to star pass rushing DE would be a huge boost to our D. But we drafted at 4 and if there was a real game-changing DE, who was it?
The value of using Curry to free up front 7 players to only play to their strengths will pay off this year, and in years to come.
by cashless on May 18, 2009 12:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
As a fan
I’m with ya. In the back of my mind, I just keep running the tape:
Guy is smart, big, fast, strong, can rip, ferocious tackler… why the hell does that not translate to sacks. What is it that breaks down for Curry in his pursuit… is it agility, or is it all scheme?
I honestly like the Curry selection (although, being a rogue, I was in favor of Sanchez).
It is what it is...
by kidder95 on May 18, 2009 3:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am guessing that if we tore apart Tatupu
like this back then, it would look like he had a lot more holes in his game, and we might be even more pissed off.
But we are talking about a college player, with a notorious work ethic. Tatupu was still easy to lose in the clutter as a rookie, and some as a second year player. He got bigger and stronger and adjusted well to the NFL.
Perhaps Curry will not be a legendary NFL pass rusher, but neither was Derrick Brooks, and he has a decent chance of being a hall of famer, has a SB ring, and was the NFL defensive player of the year once. And he was a big part of one of the best two or three defenses this league has seen in the past 10 years. I’d say if we had the chance to draft Derrick Brooks, we might be saying some similar things about him, and he was even undersized. Curry is at ideal or even slightly above ideal size.
If Curry is a top 10 LB at pass coverage, and a top 10 LB in run stopping(grading all aspects), I’d say he is more than worth the pick, even if he never is a great pass rusher. I’m not saying he will be, just that I think there is a lot of value in other skills.
by cashless on May 18, 2009 5:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tatupu did have a lot of holes in his game.
He improved eventually but even as a rookie he was far more talented than whoever our previous middle linebacker was (Kacyvenski? Koutouvides?). Curry has big expectations to live up to.
Also is a top 10 LB at pass coverage and run stopping worthy of a top 5 pick? I’m not so sure we couldn’t have found someone like that far later.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on May 19, 2009 10:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Like, our other two linebackers.
Tatupu is top 10 in both categories and he was drafted (even considered a reach) in the second round. Hill is top 10 in run stopping at least and at least used to be somewhere near top 10 in pass coverage in 2007 and was a third round pick who most had graded as a 5th rounder.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on May 19, 2009 10:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're falling into the fallacy of quoting the exception as rule
Tatupu and Hill are two of Ruskell’s greatest achievements, and I’m sure even he will admit that he would have a hell of a time finding linebackers that good in the first round again, much less the second and third. Curry must be evaluated against what was available at his pick. If you’re going to argue Curry was the wrong pick, I’m curious who you think Seattle should have taken?
by John Morgan on May 19, 2009 11:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Darrius Heyw-
Ahem.
I’m a rebel rouser so I suppose I wanted the pick between Monroe, Sanchez, or Crabtree. Long or short term impact would be far greater than a linebacker.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on May 19, 2009 12:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And Curry would have made sense if we had none, or perhaps one good linebacker.
Three may be a crowd or however that saying goes, but historically, how often has having 3 linebackers translated into some tangible success on defense? I’d wager the teams that have tried that and have it succeed probably had much better defensive lines that how I suspect ours will perform.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on May 19, 2009 12:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rabble rouser, I think the phrase is.
The correct answer was pull a Cleveland 3x, then pull a NE Pats 3x and have as many 2nd round picks as possible. ;)
2010 Seahawks Mock: 1A: Eric Berry S, 1B: Ndamukong Suh DT, 2: Charles Brown OT, 4:Zac Robinson QB, 5: Stafon Johnson RB 6: Will Tukuafu DE, 7: Kerry Meier WR
Also acceptable, trade for Patrick Chung and draft Ed Wang so everyone can Wang Chung tonight.
by LantermanC on May 19, 2009 12:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Pats ninja'd this draft.
It’s practically unfair. Chung, we hardly knew ye :(
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on May 19, 2009 5:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well
I guess we’ll just have to see how things shake out. I think I might, might agree with you about Crabtree, but he’s a player I’m on the fence about. As for Monroe, if Seattle needs an offensive tackle, it will find a better class next season. In fact, it seems like a long time back when there wasn’t a great tackle class, and that make me wonder if the position is becoming less scarce.
by John Morgan on May 19, 2009 4:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My point was that Tatupu had holes,
but that his work ethic and drive led him to work on those, and turn some of them into strengths.
Curry seems to have that kind of a work ethic, drive, and even leadership ability. He’s not just a Beanie Wells type “body” with no potential for improvement. Even if we drafted a Julius Peppers type of defensive end, if he came out and was not motivated to do much improving, he’s never be the guy we hope he would be. Curry is the type that will come back every year having followed the coaches workout advice, at least he seems more likely to than almost all other defensive players in the first round.
by cashless on May 19, 2009 2:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's not Curry I have a problem with.
It’s his position. Even if he becomes a really kickass LB in his own right, which he goddamn should considering that he’s soon going to be one of the highest paid ones, linebackers simply do not make a defense, and we are going to get tooled like last season if our defensive line is routinely overwhelmed like that. I think it was John who made a good point somewhere that while great linebackers may be an asset to a great defense, they aren’t the key components of them.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on May 19, 2009 5:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A defensive lineman is usually better at pass rushing
or run stopping, but not both. The Seahawks added size to their defensive line, something I know I’ve personally wanted for the past 5+ years. Maybe Cole isn’t Tubbs, but he isn’t Darby or Howard Green either. He should be a legitimate defensive tackle for us, at least in the scheme’s concept. He doesn’t have to be an all-star to be an upgrade over what we’ve had the past couple years.
Linebackers can fill a LOT of roles, and a supplemental pass rush is one of them. The most valuable 4-3 linebackers are the most versatile. The front 7 and the back 7 include the linebackers.
Fat Albert was probably the only defensive lineman that we missed on, and the owner that overpays the most in the NFL got him. What other defensive linemen should we have drafted over him, or picked up in free agency?
by cashless on May 19, 2009 7:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 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.
