Someone explain to me what makes Aaron Curry worth the 3rd pick?

[Mecca]

Since I'm seeing people starting to lean that way I really want to know...he's not a rusher 9 1/2 sacks in 4 years...he has nearly as many INT's as he does sacks over the course of his college career...

Does this mean he's a bad player no it doesn't, but the type of LB he is does not make him worth a top 5 pick. Fathom this Ernie Sims was taken 10 as a traditional 4-3 OLB he's a very nice player...is he a difference maker up in Detroit, he's not. And it can be easily argued that he's more naturally gifted than Curry is..the OLB position in a 4-3 is not a game changing core position.

Not to mention you could sign the #1 LB on the market of FA for half of what you'd have to pay Curry to do the same thing.

[Chiefnj2]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

Curry is Derrick Johnson in a Wake Forest uniform, basically.

Not at all.

[keg in kc]

It's not slamming Curry to say he's Derrick Johnson. Johnson was an absolute stud coming out of texas. The point is that their college stats and measurables are almost identical, and the things that people say about Curry are almost verbatim with what they said about Johnson four years ago. Google it if you don't believe me, you can still find scouting stuff on DJ online.

[CanadaKC]

Mecca...your anger only reflects your total denial

[Mecca]

No one and I mean no one had Curry higher than the 12-15 range until Mayock sucked his dick on NFL network...that's not a joke either.

[melbar]

Originally Posted by kcchiefsus

Then go back and look at recent history in the draft. Very few linebackers go in the top 5 and very few of those that do live up to their draft status.

So then we're talking about being afraid of drafting a bust. As I've said before, just because this year it turns out that there happens to be a backer who is one of the best players available you dont draft him? The only player thats been suggested outside of LT after the 2 top QB's is a CB. There have been even less CB's drafted in the top 5 than LB's and yet no argument has been made for him other than the drone like generalization "CB's are more valuable than LB's". I would make the assertion that in general DT's are more valuable than kickers, but I'd take Vinitari over Ryan Sims any day. Especially if I already had 2 solid young DT's. (before someone starts of course I'm going to extremes but you get the point)

[Mecca]

Originally Posted by CanadaKC

Mecca...your anger only reflects your total denial

Draft history dictates LB's that don't rush the passer are not worth picks this high, period.

[CanadaKC]

draft history dictates value at the draft position...wherever they may be.

[Mecca]

Read this..all the dumbass things are covered.

Kansas City Chiefs: Mark Sanchez, QB, USC
FEB. 17 UPDATE: The transition is nearly complete. The Chiefs have a new head coach. They have a new general manager. They still have their old offensive coordinator, but it appears as though he won't be calling the plays. And if you think about it, the Chiefs basically have a new owner; Clark Hunt has been in charge for only a couple of seasons.

New regimes take new quarterbacks, and the Chiefs are the definition of a new regime. Hunt, Scott Pioli and Todd Haley will all want "their guy." Haley is calling the plays now, so I doubt he wants a shotgun spread quarterback like Tyler Thigpen. Don't get me wrong; I like Thigpen, but he just doesn't fit Haley's system.

JAN. 28 UPDATE: I've gotten a few e-mails asking me why I don't think Aaron Curry will be the guy here. Check out the Top-Three NFL Draft Pick Trends since 1998 for the answer. I'm not saying there's no chance that Curry won't be taken - the NFL Draft is known for being wildly unpredictable - but Sanchez is more than likely the choice here.

JAN. 22 UPDATE: This isn't as much of a lock as Matt Stafford going first or the Seahawks taking Michael Crabtree, but I think there's a pretty good chance that the Chiefs select Mark Sanchez. A new regime usually means a new quarterback, and Sanchez is way too talented to pass up.

Some may argue that new general manager Scott Pioli has never taken a quarterback this high. That may be true, but it's fairly obvious why - he had Drew Bledsoe and Tom Brady in New England. Why would he use a first-rounder on a signal caller? I doubt Pioli read Andy Reid's NFL Drafting for Dummies.

All the talk regarding New England's pick last season was that Pioli and Bill Belichick never spent a top-10 choice on a linebacker. Well, they drafted Jerod Mayo, didn't they?

PREVIOUS UPDATES: A new regime almost always equals a new quarterback. Mark Sanchez is a hot commodity, coming off a brilliant performance at the Rose Bowl, sponsored by Kraft. The knock on him is the lack of experience, but going 28-of-35 for 413 yards and four touchdowns against Penn State pretty much quelled those concerns.

[kcchiefsus]

Originally Posted by melbar

So then we're talking about being afraid of drafting a bust. As I've said before, just because this year it turns out that there happens to be a backer who is one of the best players available you dont draft him? The only player thats been suggested outside of LT after the 2 top QB's is a CB. There have been even less CB's drafted in the top 5 than LB's and yet no argument has been made for him other than the drone like generalization "CB's are more valuable than LB's". I would make the assertion that in general DT's are more valuable than kickers, but I'd take Vinitari over Ryan Sims any day. Especially if I already had 2 solid young DT's. (before someone starts of course I'm going to extremes but you get the point)

No, not at all. I never said I was afraid of busts. Guys like Lavar Arrington or A.J. Hawk were not busts. Arrington might have been a borderline bust but only because of injury problems. My point is that these guys don't live up to their draft status because 4-3 OLB's generally do not have enough of an impact to be worth a #3 pick and a $60+ million contract. Hell I don't like the idea of a right tackle at #3 either but it would sure as hell beat picking an OLB at that spot.

[Chiefnj2]

Originally Posted by Mecca

No one and I mean no one had Curry higher than the 12-15 range until Mayock sucked his dick on NFL network...that's not a joke either.

Wrong as usual.

September 2008 rankings of top collegiate football players by PFW. Curry is the #2 player.

http://www.profootballweekly.com/PFW...08RegOfPos.htm

[Mecca]

What do you think is more valuable a top 10 QB or having the best cover backer in the league....

If you say cover backer you should ask the Titans how that works out.

[kcchiefsus]

Originally Posted by CanadaKC

draft history dictates value at the draft position...wherever they may be.

And a 4-3 OLB is not a good value at the #3 pick.

[Mecca]

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

Wrong as usual.

September 2008 rankings of top collegiate football players by PFW. Curry is the #2 player.

http://www.profootballweekly.com/PFW...08RegOfPos.htm

I'm sorry that is a shitty ass reference, that publication blows, they have Aaron Maybin as a top 10 player.

[Chiefnj2]

Originally Posted by Mecca

I'm sorry that is a shitty ass reference, that publication blows, they have Aaron Maybin as a top 10 player.

That "shitty ass reference" just proved you wrong.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by CanadaKC

draft history dictates value at the draft position...wherever they may be.

Are you going to take my wager then? You never replied and I've offered twice. Here's a third:

Barring a high profile QB signing or trade, if the Chiefs pass on Sanchez/Stafford at #3, you get all my casino cash.

If they choose either, I get yours.

Deal?