Originally Posted by Deberg_1990 (Post 5505506)

Hes the type of player you pick when you like to "play it safe"


Peterson would have picked him.

Originally Posted by brandon (Post 5505531)

What positions justify #3 money? QB? OT? What else?

Seems like we're going to have to pay #3 money no matter what.. so we need to go BPO regardless of position.

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 5505524)

There have only been 4 LB's go Top 5 in the past 15 years, and none of them were, or in the case of Hawk, are worth their draft slot.

I'm not doubting Curry's talent, but it's not Top 5 talent we're talking about.

To be a Top 5 LB, you better be a Singletary/Lewis clone in the middle, or a Derrick Thomas/Lawrence Taylor type disruptive force on the outside.

Curry hasn't shown that he excels at either - but that he's a well rounded, athletic guy.

That makes him a 8-15 guy, IMO. Top 5 is ridiculous, and Top 3 is career suicide for a GM.

Originally Posted by brandon (Post 5505531)

What positions justify #3 money? QB? OT? What else?

Seems like we're going to have to pay #3 money no matter what.. so we need to go BPO regardless of position.

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990 (Post 5505541)

QB, OT, and an "ELite" talent at DE (sack specialist) WR, RB and DT.

Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 5505545)

Eww I would never take a RB in the top 5.

Originally Posted by ChiefRon (Post 5505546)

Anyone catch the segment on NFL Network about LB's?

Another thing that struck me is there seems to be several LBs available this year, and not a ton of separation amongst some of the top ones...

Really, what's the difference between Curry and someone that would slip to our Rd 2 pick?

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990 (Post 5505548)

LT was top 3 i believe? In rare cases, its justified. But yes, i see your point.

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990 (Post 5505548)

LT was top 3 i believe? In rare cases, its justified. But yes, i see your point.

Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 5505536)

Would you like to make Aaron Curry the highest paid player in the NFL at his position when his position isn't all that important?

Originally Posted by dirk digler (Post 5505556)

Don't you espouse picking the best available player? So what if Curry is the ranked the 3rd best player on the board do you abandon your position and trade down or draft someone else?

Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 5505536)

Would you like to make Aaron Curry the highest paid player in the NFL at his position when his position isn't all that important?

Originally Posted by brandon (Post 5505566)

No, but Curry is consistently top 5 in most of the big boards I've seen so far.

If it's between a OT and Curry, I'm still taking Curry. We may be overpaying him, but I bet he'd have more of an immediate impact than an offensive linemen would(especially considering he'd probably play RT).

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 5505524)

To be a Top 5 LB, you better be a Singletary/Lewis clone in the middle, or a Derrick Thomas/Lawrence Taylor type disruptive force on the outside.

Curry hasn't shown that he excels at either - but that he's a well rounded, athletic guy.

That makes him a 8-15 guy, IMO. Top 5 is ridiculous, and Top 3 is career suicide for a GM.

Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 5505564)

He's not the best player on my board because see positional value factors in...hell I might think Chris Wells is great he's still a RB which means I'm not taking him in the top 10.

Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 5505570)

That's a scenario of, so would you rather slice my dick off with a sword or a saw...taking either position at 3 would be awful.

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins (Post 5505577)

People think it's just about BPA. It's not, and has never been. When you pick high, it's about BPA when taking into account positional value.

QB>LT,RDE>DT,WR,CB>everything else.

Originally Posted by ChiefRon (Post 5505546)

Anyone catch the segment on NFL Network about LB's?

Another thing that struck me is there seems to be several LBs available this year, and not a ton of separation amongst some of the top ones...

Really, what's the difference between Curry and someone that would slip to our Rd 2 pick?

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins (Post 5505555)

He went 5.
Sanders went 3.
Peterson went 7.
Ki-Jana Carter went 1.
Blair Thomas went 2.
Ronnie Brown went 2.
Cedric Benson went 4.
Cadillac Williams went 5.
Eric Dickerson went 2.
Walter Payton went 4.

Those are some of the uber high ones.

Originally Posted by brandon (Post 5505583)

But they are the positions that seem most viable at this point and time. You think drafting Sanchez is much better?

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins (Post 5505554)

Aaron Curry is a linebacker.

We are going to move to a 3-4.

Therefore, Aaron Curry can rush the passer.

It's really quite simple.

Originally Posted by dirk digler (Post 5505579)

Hypothetically what if he had DT type attributes? DT meaning Derrick Thomas

Originally Posted by lazepoo (Post 5505611)

So is there anyone else that thinks Curry could thrive in a 3-4? If he's as well rounded as everyone seems to think, would his versatility be the kind of thing that Pioli looks for? Are there other options that would be around later on? I think Mecca touched on this earlier, but I hadn't heard many names or anyone else weigh in on it. As far as QBs, who would be around in the 2nd or 3rd? If we pass on QB with the first pick, I would be shocked if we didn't take one in the next couple of rounds. It's such a glaring position of need for us.

Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 5505617)

We wouldn't get a QB then we'd be stuck between guys like Nate Davis and Rhett Bomar..the 1st 3 are all going in the 1st round.

Plus I think Aaron Curry is a MLB in a 3-4.

Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 5505617)

We wouldn't get a QB then we'd be stuck between guys like Nate Davis and Rhett Bomar..the 1st 3 are all going in the 1st round.

Originally Posted by CrazyHorse (Post 5505639)

What makes Sanchez worth a 3rd pick? He probably wont even play for a year or 2 if ever. 16 games dont = the 3rd pick. He should have stayed in school another year. He's too green.

Not many experts have Sanchez worth a top 3 pick. We need a LB that will start this season more than a QB on the bench.

We can get a green developmental QB later in the draft for the bench.

Originally Posted by keg in kc (Post 5505640)

Because it's a very weak draft at the top and he's seen as a safe pick. Any other year and he's probably going in the 12-15 range.

Originally Posted by CrazyHorse (Post 5505639)

What makes Sanchez worth a 3rd pick? He probably wont even play for a year or 2 if ever. 16 games dont = the 3rd pick. He should have stayed in school another year. He's too green.

Not many experts have Sanchez worth a top 3 pick. We need a LB that will start this season more than a QB on the bench.

We can get a green developmental QB later in the draft for the bench.

Originally Posted by CrazyHorse (Post 5505639)

What makes Sanchez worth a 3rd pick? He probably wont even play for a year or 2 if ever. 16 games dont = the 3rd pick. He should have stayed in school another year. He's too green.

Not many experts have Sanchez worth a top 3 pick. We need a LB that will start this season more than a QB on the bench.

We can get a green developmental QB later in the draft for the bench.

Originally Posted by milkman (Post 5505661)

There's a reason that the QB class this year is Stafford/Sanchez-----/Freeman------------/everyone else.

These guys have all the physical tools to succeed.

You are more likely to get Quincy Carter than Tom Brady with late round developmental prospects.

Originally Posted by milkman (Post 5505661)

There's a reason that the QB class this year is Stafford/Sanchez-----/Freeman------------/everyone else.

These guys have all the physical tools to succeed.

You are more likely to get Quincy Carter than Tom Brady with late round developmental prospects.

Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 5505612)

That's completely different because then that would make him a pass rusher.

Originally Posted by brandon (Post 5505671)

Interesting comparison: who do you guys think is a better LB Aaron Curry or AJ Hawk. Hawk was the last LB taken in top 5.

Originally Posted by Dark Horse (Post 5505676)

Someone brought this up the other day. I wonder how many people posting either pro or con on Curry have actually seen him play.

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins (Post 5505555)

He went 5.
Sanders went 3.
Peterson went 7.
Ki-Jana Carter went 1.
Blair Thomas went 2.
Ronnie Brown went 2.
Cedric Benson went 4.
Cadillac Williams went 5.
Eric Dickerson went 2.
Walter Payton went 4.

Those are some of the uber high ones.

Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 5505692)

I've seen him quite a bit....nice player and all, runs well tackles well, but he's a general 4-3 backer which lowers his value.

He played for Wake Forest I'm going to wager if he had top end pass rush ability he'd have been blitzed a ton since they tend to lack overall talent.

Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 5505665)

I think Crazy either likes to argue or he was a big fan of the Carl years.

Originally Posted by CrazyHorse (Post 5505709)

If it was just to argue, there's plenty of reason. I dont see the emergency QB situation that some do. I could be wrong. Also, I am a fan of defense. I would rather build a good defense than a good offense. Of course, we would all like to have both.

As for arguement sake, I think I have a good one. The 3rd pick in the draft for a green QB is very risky. You have attempted to communicate that it's some sort of slam dunk. I disagree. Sanchez may wind up being great. But there is nothing to indicate that it is even likely. Many good QBs from college come into the NFL and do squirt. Especially those with little experience.

If we draft a QB I will be happy enough about it. If we draft Currey, that'll be cool too. The main thing for me is that we get a good player. If we get a good player, it will be worth the 3rd pick.

I dont pretend to know everything about these players, as some with several hundred posts do. I'm just puttin my opinion out there.

Originally Posted by Dark Horse (Post 5505708)

So he's Derrick Johnson part 2.

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990 (Post 5505506)

Hes the type of player you pick when you like to "play it safe"


Peterson would have picked him.

Originally Posted by melbar (Post 5505725)

OK, Safe does not mean bad or incapeable of growth. It just means a guy has performed and you know a certain amount of info about a guy that you know you get. People use "safe" like a curse word around here. So "unsafe" is better? A guy who hasnt lived up to his "potential" for some reason is better? I think potential is a much bigger curse word. It means you arent getting it done yet and you need to step it up. Hard workers with a solid skill set are "safe" because they're already getting it done and moving in the right direction.

Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 5505724)

That's probably valid other than I think he's more disciplined and aggressive, to the point of being over aggressive and over running plays.

Derrick Johnson is just a heavily passive player.

Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 5505717)

Defense guy huh, well tell me what awesome defense was built around it's OLB that didn't get sacks.

Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 5505717)

Defense guy huh, well tell me what awesome defense was built around it's OLB that didn't get sacks.

Originally Posted by CrazyHorse (Post 5505760)

You saying a guy CANT get a sack is the same thing as you saying a QB CANT learn to play offense. Yet you're the 1st one to jump in and say your boy who has little to no experience will have no problem being the next great QB.

I dont get too hung up in your evaluations. They're pretty self serrving.

I dont understand what big benefit a bench QB has to offer us. I mean, you're not thinking someone with no experience is gonna come out of college and wow us all on an NFL level do you?

Of course you do.

If I had to guess, I'd say you're the one who likes to argue. Since that is what the thread is designed to do. Argue a point saying the same shit you've been saying for the last week 500 times over. Like it's somehow going to make more sense now.

Give it up man. It's really not that ****ing important in the regular scope of life. Take a break. There's more to life than convincing/insulting everyone into your way of felating Sanchez.

You're starting to come off like a fricken kook.

Originally Posted by melbar (Post 5505766)

Ray lewis hasnt had 4 sacks since '97.

Originally Posted by melbar (Post 5505766)

Ray lewis hasnt had 4 sacks since '97.

Originally Posted by Dark Horse (Post 5505708)

So he's Derrick Johnson part 2.

Originally Posted by Reerun_KC (Post 5505768)

So Curry is a sure fire Probowl OLB in his 1st two years? He is an immediate impact player that will redefine the position?

Originally Posted by CrazyHorse (Post 5505760)

You saying a guy CANT get a sack is the same thing as you saying a QB CANT learn to play offense. Yet you're the 1st one to jump in and say your boy who has little to no experience will have no problem being the next great QB.

I dont get too hung up in your evaluations. They're pretty self serrving.

I dont understand what big benefit a bench QB has to offer us. I mean, you're not thinking someone with no experience is gonna come out of college and wow us all on an NFL level do you?

Of course you do.

If I had to guess, I'd say you're the one who likes to argue. Since that is what the thread is designed to do. Argue a point saying the same shit you've been saying for the last week 500 times over. Like it's somehow going to make more sense now.

Give it up man. It's really not that ****ing important in the regular scope of life. Take a break. There's more to life than convincing/insulting everyone into your way of felating Sanchez.

You're starting to come off like a fricken kook.

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990 (Post 5505777)

If Sanchez gets picked at #3 there is no way he sits for long. Thats just simple $$$$ economics more than aything.

Originally Posted by Reerun_KC (Post 5505768)

So Curry is a sure fire Probowl OLB in his 1st two years? He is an immediate impact player that will redefine the position?

Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 5505781)

And now we're back to the thing of people not wanting a QB unless he's a perfect prospect.

Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 5505739)

He's a LB...

You could literally go sign a guy for half the price.

Originally Posted by CrazyHorse (Post 5505783)

That's a little over the top. Simmer down.

He's a top prospect at the single biggest need on defense though. Probably wont be a bench warmer his 1st season.

Originally Posted by melbar (Post 5505789)

Who?

Again who do you pick if both QB's are gone? I know you've said CB. OK. How does that have more value to this team?

Curry had 15 tackles behind the line. 3 TD's from int's. over 100 tackles. He's a solid tackler and a big hitter. He is stout against the run. So they didnt rush the passer with him. We cant get everything with one pick or even one draft. Lewis doesnt rush the passer either and he does pretty OK.

Originally Posted by Reerun_KC (Post 5505785)

Who said Curry was the perfect prospect...

Its just a mindset in the fanbase... Some want defense and 9-7, others want a QB and a chance to win a superbowl...

Originally Posted by keg in kc (Post 5505801)

Statistically-speaking, DJ had 10.5 sacks (more than curry), 9 INTs (more than curry), 69 tackles for loss (24 more than curry), 9 passes defended (less than curry) and 458 tackles (120+ more than curry).

Size-wise they're almost identical (Curry's reported 5 pounds heavier). DJ ran in the low 4.5s, Curry's expected to run in the low 4.6s.

One played at Texas. One played at Wake Forest.

Look at all of those stats and tell me why Curry's supposedly going top-3 and DJ went 15. Although to be fair, virtually nobody expected DJ to fall that far.

Originally Posted by melbar (Post 5505766)

Ray lewis hasnt had 4 sacks since '97.

Originally Posted by Reerun_KC (Post 5505785)

Who said Curry was the perfect prospect...

Its just a mindset in the fanbase... Some want defense and 9-7, others want a QB and a chance to win a superbowl...

Originally Posted by melbar (Post 5505789)

Who?

Again who do you pick if both QB's are gone? I know you've said CB. OK. How does that have more value to this team?

Curry had 15 tackles behind the line. 3 TD's from int's. over 100 tackles. He's a solid tackler and a big hitter. He is stout against the run. So they didnt rush the passer with him. We cant get everything with one pick or even one draft. Lewis doesnt rush the passer either and he does pretty OK.

Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 5505776)

Just forget Crazy man he just wants to take whoever the supposed best defensive player is period. Inspite if this you know being a shitty year for defense at the top of the draft but that doesn't count.

We don't need a QB we got Tyler Thigpen!

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 5505808)

Ray Lewis is a MIDDLE linebacker, not an OLB.