Aaron Curry and Expectations
Expectations.
The key word Pete Carroll used when describing Aaron Curry when asked by the media. Expectations. Pete was a sports and human psychology major in grad school at the University of Pacific over 30 years ago. He knew then and knows now that so much of sports success resides outside of the talents of the body or the talent of the team.
Sure, he wants bigger, stronger, taller, faster players. He wants talent. He knows talent. He wants all the measurables. His 2004 USC team placed over 50 players in the NFL. That's talent. But as we saw in 2010, he knows when to raise and lower expectations. He also knew when the expectations on New Orleans could be played AGAINST them and he seized the moment. It was a trap game for New Orleans. A trap game he lost a few times at USC as the Pac-10 favorite. Expectations.
Expectations. Peyton Manning lived up to them. Hard to do that. Peyton and Tim Duncan were considered the top draft pick two years running (a la Andrew Luck) and they both went on to Hall of Fame careers, changed their franchises and won rings. They lived up to the hype. Tiger did too...for a while. Lebron kinda sorta did too...til the Decision. In Miami Lebron raised his expectations not 1, not 2, not 3...times.
See, Aaron Curry should start in the NFL in my opinion. He should play for $2-3M per year and be a solid player in the NFL. I have no idea if he should play outside in a 4-3 or inside in a 3-4, but I think he can play in this league and he is still young.
MONEY
He has already banked $20M from the Seahawks in two years. That's a lot of money. He will bank $5-15M more from Seattle when all is said and done. And he is human. Any human would feel really good and to a certain degree, really bad about that.
Half the players on an NFL team make about $500,000 per year. Pro Bowl players like Sidney Rice and Zach Miller have yet to bank that $20M kind of cash, yet. Bottom line: if you get paid a lot of money, players and fans and owners and coaches and GMs expect you to produce. In a hard salary cap league, it doesn't matter if your owner is Paul Allen - the money you receive eats up a limited pie for you to sign another impact player. Everyone has to produce value.
The new CBA toned down the exponential money slope of the first fifteen picks in the draft. We will look back at those top fifteen contracts in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 - from the veterans perspective and the owners perspective, it's a good thing those were toned down. Sam Bradford could be another Peyton Manning (2 year running favorite to be pick #1) so I think his deal is probably worth it. But those days are over. Jake Locker's contract as the 8th pick in 2011 was super modest for a QB. Same with Cam Newton.
Let's move on from the money.
2009 DRAFT POSITION
Expectations. Everyone comes into the NFL ranked. It's called the Draft, and every player remembers what round they were picked in. I am sure many players know the exact pick number as well as the round. Players that were not drafted remember draft day and many non-drafted players carry that rejection with them and lead long NFL careers. Everyone knows what round you were drafted in, especially if you were a first round pick, or better yet, a HIGH first round pick.
It's not Aaron's fault Seattle was not able to trade down. Why? The huge money you had to tie up at the 4th pick at the time and the fact that other teams didn't value that pick in 2009. Jim L Mora said they tried to trade down but no partner was there.
Fans demand a lot from high 1st rd picks. I mean, in 2008 Seahawk fans had to suffer through a 4-12 season. Highlighted by Josh Wilson snow angels and a Brett Favre torn triceps. Koren Robinson came BACK to play WR for the Seahawks- and we were HAPPY about that. We suffered through a lot in 2008, so when that 4th pick in the 2009 draft comes along, we wanted BIG THINGS.
2009 wasn't a good year in my opinion as far as First Rounds go. At least in the first half of Round One. Nothing compared to 2010 I think. Bottom of the round was pretty decent.
I will bucket players in groups - gut instinct - no arguments allowed, especially if you are a fan of another team and know these players better than me.
GOOD
1. Matt Stafford
9. BJ Raji
13. Brian Orakpo
14. Malcolm Jenkins
15. Brian Cushing
17. Josh Freeman
19. Jeremy Maclin
21. Alex Mack
22. Percy Harvin
26. Clay Matthews
29. Hakeem Nicks
30. Kenny Britt
JUST OK
2. Jason Smith
4. Aaron Curry
5. Mark Sanchez
7. Darrius Heyward-Bey
10. Michael Crabtree
12. Knowshon Moreno
18. Robert Ayers
23. Michael Oher
31. Beanie Wells
BAD
6. Andre Smith
11. Aaron Maybin
I HAVE NO IDEA IF THEY ARE GOOD OR NOT
16. Larry English
24. Peria Jerry
25. Vontae Davis
28. Eric Wood
32. Ziggy Hood
Look at that- most of the value was at the mid-bottom of the round. Is that because of expectations? I don't necessarily think so, but it may say that it was a "Flat" draft in terms of 1st round talent. Meaning there wasn't much difference in grades between pick 2 and pick 31. Seahawks were in a tough position.
We couldn't get Stafford. I know we considered Moreno. My good friend wanted Beanie Wells. Thank God we didn't get Andre Smith. Jason Smith, who went ahead of us anyway, doesn't even play Left Tackle. Wasn't a good year for Left Tackles and Ruskell-Mora still thought Walter Jones had gas in the tank. Josh Freeman was the right pick but in all fairness he was considered to be a 2nd round project. Good for Tampa.
My other friend wanted chain-wearing Orakpo, but Ruskell had Patrick Kerney and newly acquired Corey Redding, so he thought we were covered. Plus we had Daryll Tapp and Lawrence Jackson, both his picks.
I think what hurts is that at the linebacker position there are two players that jump out: Clay Matthews III and Brian Cushing. Pro Bowlers already and both were Pete Carroll's linebackers. Interesting.
Part II coming up tomorrow, stay tuned...
58 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
question:
was Ray Malaluga in this draft or the previous/next one? He was another dominant USC linebacker. I’m thinking norotn jr has the ability to turn our linebackers around. if he cant, i feel like they’re moderately expendable (except hawthorne, i like his growing ability) I feel like malcom smith could be a very good, late pick. K.J Wright is a project. Pete is probably waiting for that secret LB and QB that he rememberd scouting out of high school and will dominate the NFL.
p.s- there was another LB on the bengals who is pretty good from USC. cant recall the name right now….
Keith Rivers is who you're thinking of
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
Pete and Ken know linebackers
Keith Rivers was drafted by the Bengals in 2008. Cushing, Matthews, Maualuga and Kaluka Maiava were all drafted in 2009. Maiava has played first and second team for the Browns depending on injury status of other LBs on the team. The other guys have all been starters for their respective teams.
The obvious "shoulda" pick was Sanchize
I probably wouldn’t have been happy with it at the time. And, Sanchez wouldn’t have had the surrounding talent to cover up his shortcomings. But, he’s a league-average QB and even if Curry becomes a slightly-better-than-league-average LB that’s not an even trade-off.
I’ll grant Ruskell that it wasn’t a great year to have a high pick, but his particular draft biases ended up being killers for us. In fairness, Ruskell was good with the cap and quite good at finding veteran fill-in types. (We started a 6th string safety in the SB, and still outplayed Pittsburgh.)
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
yeah... Ruskell just has no idea how to evaluate talent in my opinion
too many first round busts and too few hidden gems to show otherwise. seems like the hits (Tats Bane and Alexander) are blind luck considering the overwhelming ammount of people that just didnt produce or, worse yet, shouldnt be allowed on the field because they seem to help the other team more (I’m looking at you kelly jennings…)
should be noted, i believe ruskell looked for intangibles
pete looks for talent, but wants physical dominance. If a player is physically gifted they can succeed at this level to at least an average level, they dont usually bust completely. I obviously prefer the latter evaluation.
Agreed.
Having said all of that, Curry seems to be an exception to the typical Ruskell pick. Loads of physical talent without the “football sense” to make it all work well. Sort of an anti-Tatupu.
Not really.
The perception of him coming out of college was that he was a very “aware” LB.
by michaelfox99 on Aug 24, 2011 11:52 AM PDT up reply actions
Considering Ruskell usually picked out in the back of the 1st
He came out badly but not that badly. And just blaming the gems on “luck”, especially Tatupu who we aggressively targeted, is just wrong.
Ruskell had his blind spots, particularly Oline and a love of polished high-ceiling low-upside guys, but at times we’re slamming him just a bit too hard here. He isn’t the worst GM in league history.
PS: Alexander wasn’t a Ruskell pick though, assuming you mean Shaun.
Formerly Known As Vasilii
by Thomas Beekers on Aug 24, 2011 8:55 AM PDT up reply actions
I still wouldn't be happy about it
Sanchez is easily the worst 1st-round QB from that draft, and would’ve fallen flat on his face on our teams.
From an importance perspective you’re right, but realize this: picking a league-average LB 4th overall doesn’t really impact the development of your team that much. Picking a league-average QB 4th can force franchise to keep sticking with him because of QB expectations.
Essentially, drafting Mark Sanchez 4th would have been our Alex Smith pick.
Formerly Known As Vasilii
by Thomas Beekers on Aug 24, 2011 8:52 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I wanted Sanchez
Comparing him to Smith isn’t fair. Smith plain sucks. Sanchez is around average.
Keep in mind he would have been sitting behind Hass, and this would probably be his first season as a full time starter. So who knows how it would have played out. But we would be better off.
But that’s the draft. We can all look out and say, hey, we should have picked up that Freeman kid.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
Since this would be his first year starting
it’s impossible to say. I just don’t see him being that bad by any stretch.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
How can we really say it would be his first year?
I’d say the main reason the team stuck with Hass so long was that there was nobody behind him. Do you think if we went into 09/10 and Hass was struggling, that fans/pundits wouldn’t have been calling for Sanchez to start? He would have been our 1st round pick and QBOTF after all.
Smith has been average for terrible teams
He was in fact exactly league average on last year’s San Francisco Disfunctioniners.
Sanchez had the third-worst adjusted interception rate in the league according to FBO, and adjusted interception rate is the most consistent advanced stat from year-to-year. He barely clawed into mediocrity on a team that massages his weaknesses as much as it can. Can he improve with more experience? Sure. Is he likely to? Nah. I expect him to regress more than advance this season.
Sanchez was a one-year starter. The total list of 1-year starters drafted high since 1990 are Matt Bludin, Mark Sanchez and Cam Newton. Guys like that don’t succeed, historically.
Formerly Known As Vasilii
by Thomas Beekers on Aug 24, 2011 9:48 AM PDT up reply actions
Personally
I wish we’d taken Raji.
by The Ancient Mariner on Aug 24, 2011 9:17 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Me too...although Raji looked a lot like Colin Cole coming out of college.
Well, that might be an exaggeration, but Gerald Warren and Dewayne Robertson can attest to the haphazard history of drafting DTs in the Top 5 in the draft.
No one was going to pick Freeman at #4
He was picked too high as it was, #4 would’ve been riots.
Formerly Known As Vasilii
by Thomas Beekers on Aug 24, 2011 9:28 AM PDT up reply actions
You can't say he was picked too high
The Bucs picked him where they valued him, he has exceeded his relatively modest draft positions expectations. Just because some pundits called him a second rounder doesnt mean thats where he should be picked. I do agree on the second point though that public backlash at taking a prospect most ranked as a second rounder at #4 would have been extreme.
by CMoney87 on Aug 24, 2011 11:35 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Well, it's my own opinion
I looked at him and didn’t see a 1st-rounder. Was I wrong? Probably. But I do prefer to judge picks by a mix of pre-draft valuation and results, not just looking at results. There’s too much luck involved with just result-based analysis.
Formerly Known As Vasilii
by Thomas Beekers on Aug 24, 2011 12:39 PM PDT up reply actions
If we're looking at hindsight might as well aim high..
I think he was the best QB in that draft class in hindsight.
Plenty of people had Freeman as a first round sleeper
Just because you didn’t doesn’t mean it is results-based analysis.
by lemonverbena on Aug 24, 2011 6:19 PM PDT up reply actions
First round, sure, 4th overall, no.
Formerly Known As Vasilii
by Thomas Beekers on Aug 24, 2011 7:15 PM PDT up reply actions
Oh hell no, it would have been a trade down
by lemonverbena on Aug 24, 2011 7:50 PM PDT up reply actions
To trade down you need a trade partner
And the contract requirements of the 4th overall pick of the 2009 draft were pretty significant.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Aug 24, 2011 11:02 PM PDT up reply actions
Freeman was NOT a Ruskell pick.
He might have played at a D-1 school, but he didn’t have the 4-year sterling resume (like, say, a David Greene) that Tim looked for, especially picking $4….also why I don’t think we were ever really interested in Sanchez.
I’m sure he would have loved to trade up for Mark Stafford, but I don’t think the Lions were going to give him up.
We hosted Freeman prior to the draft if I recall correctly
Might’ve been a realistic pick had we been able to trade back
Formerly Known As Vasilii
by Thomas Beekers on Aug 24, 2011 2:26 PM PDT up reply actions
Sanches would have been horrible as a Seahawk
He’s benefited significantly from playing behind a stout OL, alongside a good run game and backed by an elite defense. Had he played behind our 2009 OL, he’d be broken by now.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Aug 24, 2011 2:39 PM PDT up reply actions
He'd also have had a year, maybe 2, of backup up Hasselbeck.
Still, I just dont’ think Sanchez is all that good, which is primarily why I think he’d be horrible in Seahawks blue. As stated elsewhere in here, if he was all that great, why didn’t he start his junior year? Yeah, there were other guys at the school but great, first round quality talent still finds a way of emerging prior to the age-22 year.
by Johnny Slick on Aug 24, 2011 4:26 PM PDT up reply actions
That draft class will go down as one of the worst
in decades. Only a few bright spots. And the good players like Stafford and Harvin could have short careers based on health.
Raji, Freeman, Matthews might end up being the only consistent performers of the bunch. And the Packers got two of them. It’s like that draft cost every team a year, and the Packers gained two.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
He was with the organization, yes. But he didn't make the picks for the Packers, he wasn't their head guy, Thompson was and is
Also, please use the subject line.
Formerly Known As Vasilii
by Thomas Beekers on Aug 24, 2011 10:02 AM PDT up reply actions
No worries, welcome to Field Gulls
Formerly Known As Vasilii
by Thomas Beekers on Aug 24, 2011 10:19 AM PDT up reply actions
Basically.
He was director of football operations for Thompson in 2008 & 2009 and ran their draft those 2 years. Thompson is the head and had final say but Schneider had a heavy hand in it. It’s rational to give Schneider credit for those picks because they almost certainly wouldn’t have happened if he weren’t behind them. He didn’t have final say but they were not made in spite of him.
Head of catering.
by jacobstevens on Aug 24, 2011 3:20 PM PDT up reply actions
If we could have traded down I think we would have gone after a guy like Raji
But of course we couldn’t trade down. And taking him at 4 would have been a reach, as opposed to Curry who “fell” to us at #4.
Rule of thumb – when a SAM LB “falls” to #4, it’s probably going to be a bad overall draft.
Man I gotta say...
Its getting so repetative discussing Aaron Curry. No offense to the post for it is well put together Davishsu. Its just I think we all agree that AC has to have a really really big year to win the hearts of the 12th. I really hope he has a monumental year in which PC puts him in position to make an impact for us. Sometimes you draft a guy and he isn’t as amazing out the gate as expected but if he’s on your team and gonna be on the squad for a bit as fans we just need to back him and hope he puts up numbers.
"I was 11 or 12 and Quinton was like 30. He was the only dude on the Pop Warner team who had a full mustache and a beard. And he used to drive to Pop Warner games. You're not supposed to be doing that. It was crazy." -Marshawn Lynch
If you were to rank LBs on the Seahawks ...
how many guys would Curry be behind? I think Hawthorne and Hill would be ahead of him.
I would agree.
Hell, KJ Wright and Malcolm Smith might be better at this point. Aaron should ask KJ for tackling lessons, at least he knows how to wrap a guy up and put him down.
1. Charlie Whitehurst 2. ??? 3. Profit!!!
KJ and Malcolm have looked like rookies a few times
But they’ve looked fairly decent overall. I don’t think either is a plug and play starter though, and Curry is.
Hill is similarly still a bit of an unknown quantity
Formerly Known As Vasilii
by Thomas Beekers on Aug 25, 2011 12:05 PM PDT up reply actions
Good points..
especially RE: trading down. It was definitely a pretty weak draft at the top. The one thing I don’t get is why we couldn’t have taken Sanchez and then used him to trade down. Was New York really only going to do the deal at 5? On balance though, the haul for Sanchez was #17, #52 and some spare parts, which reflects very generally the lack of a market for trade-downs. Compare that to Cleveland trading #6 this past year to Atlanta for Atlanta’s first (27th overall, which later became #26), second (59th) and fourth-rounder (124th) and also Atlanta’s first- and fourth-round selections in 2012. That’s roughly double.
It’s important to avoid too much hindsight with picks though. The consensus was that Curry was the best player relative to his position in the draft. Most thought he was likely to be a probowler within a few years. The question was whether a pro-bowler at 4-3 OLB was as valuable as a solid starter at LT, QB, DE, or CB. Opinions were pretty divided.
Obviously none of us would take Curry in hindsight. The main thing that really stands out to me about the whole thing is the matter of Curry as a passrusher. On paper there are reasons to think he could be a menace as a blitzer or as an end. The problem was that would seem to be obvious to college coaches too and he was not anything remotely resembling a sack artist in college. A linebacker that can contribute significantly in pass rush situations IS worthy of such a high pick. We have tried to use Curry in pass rush situations A LOT thus far. I think this has a lot to do with why he was projected to be such a good LB and hasn’t been that. There has been talk of going back to basics with him, we’ll see what happens.
Agree with your post.
I do want to say that I wouldn’t even put Heyward-Bey in the “Okay” category. He’s just awful. A classic Al Davis pick.
DHB was a raw, late-1st prospect
Expected to go late in the 1st because he was so raw. The fact that the Raiders drafted him high doesn’t actually lessen his chances of succeeding, though people tend to indicate it does. The fact that he’s with the Raiders might.
Formerly Known As Vasilii
by Thomas Beekers on Aug 24, 2011 1:00 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm just saying that as of right now,
he can’t even be in the “Okay” category. His catch rate was barely over 40%.
I'm of two minds about this.
On the one hand, you’re totally correct: just because the Rrrrrraidas overrated him doesn’t mean he’s really a disappointment. On the other hand, the late 1st round and the top 10 picks are almost like two completely different drafts. You get a top 10 guy, you’re drafting someone you expect to start for you for several years and perhaps be a Hall of Fame type talent if you’re lucky. Late 1st rounders can develop into HoF talents too, of course – heck, so could Mr. Irrelevant or UDFAs for that matter – but the 50th percentile is probably not so much “long time starter” as it is “guy who can put it together for you for a couple years and maybe be a good situational guy for several years” level.
I had a thought about actually looking at this regarding expectations of Carpenter/Moffitt. If I conquer my natural laziness I may write a FanPost on it in the near future.
by Johnny Slick on Aug 24, 2011 2:03 PM PDT up reply actions
Great writeup.
Made sense to me how Ruskell came to pick Curry. Still hurts to think about Clay Matthews or Brian Cushing.
"Being number two sucks."-Andre Agassi
Not so fast there on Cushing.
Jury is still out if he can do it without Brian’s Little Helper.
If you're not sure if there's a quarterback controversy, there is one.
this kind of echos the feeling of everyone at the time
Strengths: Elite size and strength … Solid timed speed in the 4.6 range … Very solid production over past three seasons … Great instincts; does not hesitate or second guess the development of the play … Playmaker who makes clutch tackles on third down and jars the ball loose … Is a threat to rush the quarterback … Works through the trash to get to the ball-carrier … Aggressive … Rarely misses tackles … Textbook usage with his hands … Strong at the point of attack … Takes sound, consistent angles to the football … Will take on a block … Extreme versatility to play 4-3 SAM and 4-3 or 3-4 ILB, but can also occasionally play 3-4 OLB … Leads by example.
Weaknesses: Sluggish hips in zone coverage … Not much of a playmaker against the pass … Questionable ability to change directions … Occasionally gets too high when taking on blockers.
the weaknesses seem to have shone through and outweighed the strengths
Dunno about those strengths - they haven't manifested at the NFL level
Size, strength, burst – yes. Instincts, playmaking, rushing the QB, good angles not so much. BTW, PA hawk fan, are you from Port Angeles? I have family that area.




































