How far does Aaron Curry have to fall before you would trade up for him?

[GTripp0012]

Well, I sort of asked the complete question in the thread title.

You can also answer in the form of; what picks would you be willing to give up to have him?

[FRPLG]

None. I really don't think we are just one or two players away. If we had the ammunition then maybe but our picks are worth more to us because of their scarcity. If there were a legit game changer that we had the practical ability to get then maybe but the talent this year seems a lot more normal and we can maximize the reutrn on our picks by either sticking and taking BPA (within reason) at 13 or trading down. I think moving up for just about anyone this year strikes me as well stupid.

[SmootSmack]

I don't know that I would trade up at all. Is he so much better than any of the USC linebackers, or Sintim that we couldn't take one of those guys, keep our 3rd round pick and be better off in the long run?

[GridIron26]

Curry is good, but I don't think I would trade up to get him, even if he's at #10 or later.. Or for anybody else.. He definitely has a chance to have good career.. But we have more than one need - RT, DE, and LB (and maybe C and nickel back?).. The idea of having Curry on our defense, along with the addition of Haynesworth definitely is tempting..

However, we would be wasting great defense with our offense if we don't do anything to upgrade our O-line (beside signing Dockery).. Unless we are to draft a T in 3rd round (and can play immediately), then that would be different story..

[GMScud]

There's really no plausible scenario where I would want to move up for Curry. I mean, worst case he goes to Cleveland or Cincy, so it doesn't really make much sense to discuss this beyond those two teams. Him falling any further simply is not going to happen. I would think to move up 7 or 8 spots in the 1st round would require our 3rd this year and at least a first day pick next year, plus maybe a current player as well.

Aaron Curry is awesome, but I have a really hard time trading multiple high round current ('09) and future ('10) picks for anyone who's never played a snap in the NFL, no matter how "can't miss" they're judged to be.

Whenever I get enamored with the idea of ONE really awesome player (Raji, Curry, Jason Smith), I think about how nice it would be to have the multitude of picks necessary fill in other holes.

[The Goat]

Interestingly enough Curry doesn't specialize in what we need most from a SLB...the ability to effectively blitz the QB creating sacks, turnovers and general mayhem in the backfield. Watch Curry's highlights, yes he's very good but he rarely was sent after the QB. The irony is the LB prospect best suited to blitz, sack, create turnovers and mayhem is the same guy we'll need in a year or two for our monster in the middle: REY. Really no other LB in this draft is better at blitzing and creating turnovers etc.

Curry is very good, don't get me wrong. But he is your sure-tackler type. Very much like London IMO. You want plenty of these guys on the roster, but you also want the other type mixed in: fiery blasters who whiff here and there but blow shit up and create turnovers and mayhem and all that fun stuff. IMHO we don't have one of those guys on our defense right now. I'M NOT POO POOING OUR D THOUGH. Don't mistake me. I just don't see an explosive player who blows shit up and changes the game in an instant. I know lots of us expect Landry to be that guy. I really like him and even expect him to go to the Pro-Bowl this year as maybe the best safety in the NFC. But I think Landry's strength will be in his coverage, breaking up passes and actually getting a ton of INTs. Looking back at his LSU days this is basically what you see.

So no I don't see Curry as the answer necessarily to our defense. I'd trade up only if we don't have to cede anything in the future like draft picks. I don't know how far that is trading up(?) and sorry I just made this post about Rey...who is my fav and probably will be long time unless he goes to an NFC East rival

[53Fan]

I would love to have Curry. But I would hate to give up a 1rst and 3rd round pick for just one player and I think it would take at least that. Our next highest pick would be in the 5th and there are going to be a lot of good players gone between the 1rst and 5th round. I think we can get a good player in the first and 3rd staying right where we are though I would prefer to trade down.

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

13th

[gw0103]

Curry has tremendous upside in the fact He is a mix of leadership capability
and great physical ability. With that said, He would only be a piece in Our
defensive scheme that would have to show alot of diverse ability to make
a huge splash.. So if He was available at 13 and the stud OT's were gone,
then I would pull the trigger. The draft is so deep in LB talent, that He's
gonna have to have the juice to be the man of 2009.

[dmek25]

i wouldn't trade at all. while i think Curry has a great upside, we need a play maker. he is not quite in that category. and we also need someone to get after the qback. and he doesn't do that, either

[tryfuhl]

If he came down to around 10th I'd contemplate it. Move up by trading our first and maybe a young guy we have, take their 10th-ish and maybe pick up a late 3rd or somewhere in the 4th

[SC Skins Fan]

Originally Posted by tryfuhl

If he came down to around 10th I'd contemplate it. Move up by trading our first and maybe a young guy we have, take their 10th-ish and maybe pick up a late 3rd or somewhere in the 4th

I agree, if the Skins are going to move up it should be in the 8-10 range. The thing is, by the chart, you are talking about giving up pick #80 just to move that far (and at 10 maybe getting a late round pick back). I don't know what "young player" the Skins are going to dangle that would entice a team much (and not hurt the Redskins) and certainly don't see a player netting the Skins a move up and a 3rd or 4th. I guess the best case scenario would be Jax, GB, or SF seeing value in Golston and allowing the Skins to sub him for the 3rd (and maybe throw in a late pick) in order to move up. That seems kind of generous though. If someone would do #13, Golston, and maybe a 7th to move up I guess I could stomach it. Frankly, though, the only players I'd be happy to see the team move up for are Oher and Orakpo. Both might be worth the price to jump Buffalo. Of course, if the Skins start trading up with Jacksonville it is probably to get Sanchez because Seattle passed on him.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Theres absolutely no scenario in which i would trade up to get Curry and theres no way I'd even consider taking him if he fell to 13. (If he fell to 13, we'd have atleast 10 teams wanting to trade into our spot). As I said in another post yesterday, of our three primary needs (LB/DE/OT), LB is the one we are strongest at now and we have the "easy fix" of getting even stronger at the position by resigning Marcus Washington, who has softened his stance and is willing to come back for the vet minimum.

Drafting Curry would mean our starting RT would be either Jansen or Heyer and our starting LDE would be Wynn and Daniels. I don't know about you, but i'd be pretty satisfied with a LB corp consisting of Mcintosh/Thomas, Fletcher, and Blades/Washington. OT, DE, and even G/C are a greater priority at this point. This draft is incredibly deep at LB and, while Curry is a great talent, I think we'll be able to find a solid starter in the 3rd, or even 5th round.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

Theres absolutely no scenario in which i would trade up to get Curry and theres no way I'd even consider taking him if he fell to 13. (If he fell to 13, we'd have atleast 10 teams wanting to trade into our spot). As I said in another post yesterday, of our three primary needs (LB/DE/OT), LB is the one we are strongest at now and we have the "easy fix" of getting even stronger at the position by resigning Marcus Washington, who has softened his stance and is willing to come back for the vet minimum.

Drafting Curry would mean our starting RT would be either Jansen or Heyer and our starting LDE would be Wynn and Daniels. I don't know about you, but i'd be pretty satisfied with a LB corp consisting of Mcintosh/Thomas, Fletcher, and Blades/Washington. OT, DE, and even G/C are a greater priority at this point. This draft is incredibly deep at LB and, while Curry is a great talent, I think we'll be able to find a solid starter in the 3rd, or even 5th round.

Fair points, but I thought Heyer was on the verge of something special? Why not let him start at RT and watch him improve?

[53Fan]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

Theres absolutely no scenario in which i would trade up to get Curry and theres no way I'd even consider taking him if he fell to 13. (If he fell to 13, we'd have atleast 10 teams wanting to trade into our spot). As I said in another post yesterday, of our three primary needs (LB/DE/OT), LB is the one we are strongest at now and we have the "easy fix" of getting even stronger at the position by resigning Marcus Washington, who has softened his stance and is willing to come back for the vet minimum.

Drafting Curry would mean our starting RT would be either Jansen or Heyer and our starting LDE would be Wynn and Daniels. I don't know about you, but i'd be pretty satisfied with a LB corp consisting of Mcintosh/Thomas, Fletcher, and Blades/Washington. OT, DE, and even G/C are a greater priority at this point. This draft is incredibly deep at LB and, while Curry is a great talent, I think we'll be able to find a solid starter in the 3rd, or even 5th round.

I hope you're right about that BHA. Where did you see this? C'mon man, don't leave me hanging.