Aaron Curry Is On The Market

[Andy]

Now before I say anything, I'm not saying I want him, and odds are the Colts will not pick him up, but it's always good to keep all possible players on the board. Never say never.

I've come up with some trade possibilities, but like I said we don't really need this guy, but he would be a good SAM linebacker, because right now we have a backup playing it, but playing it well. So without further ado the trade possibilities:

They would like a DE, an LB, and a CB so

Donald Brown, and a 5th round pick for Aaron Curry

Phillip Wheeler, and a 5th round pick for Aaron Curry

Antoine Bethea, Peyton Manning, Reggie Wayne and Dwight Freeney for... Aaron Curry and the Seattle Seahawks

and on a more serious note, a 4th round pick for Aaron Curry

Like I said, he would provide great depth and could be a possible starter, but he's not a must, and I don't really think we need him. I made this thread to see what people think of him. So, thoughts?

[DILLIGAFER]

Funny, I thought your post heading said Adrian Curry is on the market.. i thought to myself.. really?? She divorced that Christopher Knight guy?? Lol ;) little humor..

[Andy]

Funny, I thought your post heading said Adrian Curry is on the market.. i thought to myself.. really?? She divorced that Christopher Knight guy?? Lol ;) little humor..

I'm not a gossip guru, but my girlfriend is and she says their separated... anyways let's keep this football related

[21isSuperman]

I did notice that he wasn't finding his groove on the Seahawks, but I don't follow the Seahawks that closely. Is he not finding his groove because he is not playing well or does Carroll not have a position for him in his system? Curry was considered the best player of his draft class, so there is clearly potential. Anyone know why he is on the market?

[MAC]

I did notice that he wasn't finding his groove on the Seahawks, but I don't follow the Seahawks that closely. Is he not finding his groove because he is not playing well or does Carroll not have a position for him in his system? Curry was considered the best player of his draft class, so there is clearly potential. Anyone know why he is on the market?

I knew nothing of the guy before but I'll share my research: from http://www.boston.co...gh_draft_picks/

------------------

"Mora and current Seattle coach Pete Carroll both targeted Curry as a linebacker on the strong side, where you have to be strong enough to hold the edge against the run and athletic enough to cover running backs. But Curry seemed more suited to the weak side, where players are free to make plays and rush the passer.

In his short career, that’s when Curry has been at his best. But some doubt that he’s a good enough tackler in the open field to play the “Will’’ linebacker spot.

One NFL executive thinks Curry could still make an impact elsewhere.

“Curry may ultimately be better with a hand on the ground,’’ he said.

That would seem to put Curry as an end in a Cover-2 scheme in which his speed would be an asset."

-----------------------------

So how about we trade Hughes even up?

[ColtJ82]

Unfortunately trading a 4th round pick doesn't open any cap space to pay a former 1st rounder. He can become a UFA after next year due to his restructuring his contract.

[Superman]

I think he'd be ideal here as a weakside linebacker, where we're lacking depth at the moment. Unfortunately, he has a mega cap number, even for a starting linebacker, much less a reserve. That plus the draft pick it would take to get him, plus we'd have to free up a roster spot for him from somewhere else? No thank you. Too bad, because I think he could be a really good linebacker in our system. I don't know what Pete Carroll is doing up there, but this is a waste of talent.

[Smitto]

Yea the colts dont have cap space for him, doubt they would go after him anyway... wish they would, then the colts would have the baddest LB lineup

[OLD FAN MAN]

Yea the colts dont have cap space for him, doubt they would go after him anyway... wish they would, then the colts would have the baddest LB lineup

colts dont value lbs when they get good and want money they go to tenn or jax, if angerer wants more money he is gone another fa will take his place, we dont manage our cap to include lbs

[Jason_]

colts dont value lbs when they get good and want money they go to tenn or jax, if angerer wants more money he is gone another fa will take his place, we dont manage our cap to include lbs

explain Bracket then. ;) I agree the Colts have let a lot of LB's go, but really, how good were any of them? I can think of 2 that went to other teams and had an impact in Peterson and Thornton. Peterson had 3 very good years in Jax but has been inconsistent since then. Thornton had 2 good years in Tenn but really dropped off after that. I think a lot of people remember those guys or think of them as being better than they were simply because of the number of horrible LBs that have come and gone through the years. There have been far more LBs that were released that should have been released or should never have been on the team in the first place.

[buccolts]

colts dont value lbs when they get good and want money they go to tenn or jax, if angerer wants more money he is gone another fa will take his place, we dont manage our cap to include lbs

You know, it's funny you mention this. I was just wondering how happy ol' Clint Session is these days.

[Jason_]

Clint has 8 tackles through the first 3 games...that's, you know...that's not that bad. It's not Wheeler's 10 tackles, Conner's 25 or Angerer's 42 but...yeah he probably did the right thing.

Clint is probably happy but I don't know I could say the same for Jax. LOL

[OLD FAN MAN]

You know, it's funny you mention this. I was just wondering how happy ol' Clint Session is these days.

very happy counting their $$$$ AS I SAID OUR POOR CAP MANAGEMENT DOSENT INCLUDE LBS

[Jason_]

very happy counting their $$$$ AS I SAID OUR POOR CAP MANAGEMENT DOSENT INCLUDE LBS

Still doesn't explain Brackett...and Conner/Wheeler are by far outplaying Sessions so why should we have given Sessions more money again?

[OLD FAN MAN]

Still doesn't explain Brackett...and Conner/Wheeler are by far outplaying Sessions so why should we have given Sessions more money again?

just what i said brackett is history, and we can get undrafted fa to work our system , dont need high dollar guys

[buccolts]

very happy counting their $$$$ AS I SAID OUR POOR CAP MANAGEMENT DOSENT INCLUDE LBS

Personally, I don't buy the 'poor cap management' theory.

The present system just doesn't value LBs as much as other positions.

Same with RBs.

We feel we can use them through their rookie contracts then replace them. A couple of exceptions, and a couple of mistakes, but that's pretty much the MO.

It allows us to pay other key personnel.

If 8 tackles per 3 games becomes the norm for Clint, I can't imaging Session being a great cap move for JAX.

[John Waylon]

just what i said brackett is history, and we can get undrafted fa to work our system , dont need high dollar guys

Pretty much. Polian has never really opened up the bank to keep LB's, save for Brackett.

No way to curry. Just no.

[Smitto]

colts dont value lbs when they get good and want money they go to tenn or jax, if angerer wants more money he is gone another fa will take his place, we dont manage our cap to include lbs

that will soon change mate... peyton isnt getting any younger, if Pat or any LB the colts have is actually worth the money they will pay him because of peyton.

[Jason_]

just what i said brackett is history, and we can get undrafted fa to work our system , dont need high dollar guys

Bracket was resigned and given a pretty big contract so that clearly disproves your statement. Further, Angerer was a 2nd round pick, Wheeler was a 3rd round pick and Conner was a 7th round pick. None are UDFA as you suggested. If you could do a little of your own homework before you post that'd be great.

[OLD FAN MAN]

Personally, I don't buy the 'poor cap management' theory.

The present system just doesn't value LBs as much as other positions.

Same with RBs.

We feel we can use them through their rookie contracts then replace them. A couple of exceptions, and a couple of mistakes, but that's pretty much the MO.

It allows us to pay other key personnel.

If 8 tackles per 3 games becomes the norm for Clint, I can't imaging Session being a great cap move for JAX.

season is early he is a game changer, hope not against us

[Jason_]

Pretty much. Polian has never really opened up the bank to keep LB's, save for Brackett.

No way to curry. Just no.

IMO this has nothing to do with Polian but rather to do with Dungy. The most important LB, especially in the tampa/cover 2 is the MIKE lb and that's the guy they kept around. If Angerer continues to play at his current level, he will not be released...just my prediction. Otherwise, aside from the fact there really haven't been any LBs since Dungy came here that were worth keeping around. The best cases, as I said before, could be made for Thornton and Peterson but even they weren't outstanding...each had a couple of solid years but that was it.

[John Waylon]

Bracket was resigned and given a pretty big contract so that clearly disproves your statement. Further, Angerer was a 2nd round pick, Wheeler was a 3rd round pick and Conner was a 7th round pick. None are UDFA as you suggested. If you could do a little of your own homework before you post that'd be great.

Ok. Polian came here in 1998. In that time we've drafted the following LB's:

Anthony Jordan

Mike Peterson

Corey Terry

Rob Morris

Marcus Washington

David Thornton

Kenyon Whiteside

Cato June

Gilbert Gardner

Kendyll Pope

Tyjuan Hagler

Freddie Keiaho

Clint Session

Phillip Wheeler

Marcus Howard (Played both DE and LB in college)

Pat Angerer

Kavell Conner

Look at that list. How many of those guys have we gone out of our way to keep and spent decent, or good money on?

Short answer: ZERO. If Polian did open the purse for LB's as you indicate, what happened in the cases of Mike Peterson, Marcus Washington, David Thornton, Cato June, and Clint Session? All good LB's worth decent money to keep, yet none were retained.

If you measure Brackett's deal by cap percentage, he got a bigger and better deal than anyone else on that list by far.

Polian is cheap with his LB's. One instance doesn't change that.

[OLD FAN MAN]

IMO this has nothing to do with Polian but rather to do with Dungy. The most important LB, especially in the tampa/cover 2 is the MIKE lb and that's the guy they kept around. If Angerer continues to play at his current level, he will not be released...just my prediction. Otherwise, aside from the fact there really haven't been any LBs since Dungy came here that were worth keeping around. The best cases, as I said before, could be made for Thornton and Peterson but even they weren't outstanding...each had a couple of solid years but that was it.

wrong! peterson had many good years in jax

[Jason_]

wrong! peterson had many good years in jax

In the first post where I mentioned Peterson I said:

Peterson had 3 very good years in Jax but has been inconsistent since then

Look at the numbers below and tell me if you see something other than what I said.

Taken directly from NFL.com

2011 Atlanta Falcons 3 1 5 3 2 0.0 -- 0 -- -- 0.0 -- -- 0

2010 Atlanta Falcons 16 13 59 40 19 1.0 -- 5 2 18 9.0 17 0 1

2009 Atlanta Falcons 16 16 109 82 27 1.0 -- 7 1 39 39.0 39 0 2

2008 Jacksonville Jaguars 15 10 84 70 14 1.0 -- 0 -- -- 0.0 -- -- 0

2007 Jacksonville Jaguars 10 10 70 60 10 2.0 -- 3 1 12 12.0 12 0 0

2006 Jacksonville Jaguars 5 5 32 22 10 0.0 -- 1 1 15 15.0 15 0 0

2005 Jacksonville Jaguars 16 16 131 94 37 6.0 0 4 3 54 18.0 26T 1 2

2004 Jacksonville Jaguars 16 16 126 93 33 5.0 -- 1 -- -- 0.0 -- -- 1

2003 Jacksonville Jaguars 16 16 100 71 29 1.0 -- 5 3 8 2.7 7 0 2

[buccolts]

that will soon change mate... peyton isnt getting any younger, if Pat or any LB the colts have is actually worth the money they will pay him because of peyton.

I agree with you, but I'm not sure it's for the same reason.

They will pay him because of Peyton, but because we'll be changing the make up of the team for the post Peyton days.

That's my feeling anywho.

[Jason_]

Ok. Polian came here in 1998. In that time we've drafted the following LB's:

Anthony Jordan

Mike Peterson

Corey Terry

Rob Morris

Marcus Washington

David Thornton

Kenyon Whiteside

Cato June

Gilbert Gardner

Kendyll Pope

Tyjuan Hagler

Freddie Keiaho

Clint Session

Phillip Wheeler

Marcus Howard (Played both DE and LB in college)

Pat Angerer

Kavell Conner

Look at that list. How many of those guys have we gone out of our way to keep and spent decent, or good money on?

Short answer: ZERO. If Polian did open the purse for LB's as you indicate, what happened in the cases of Mike Peterson, Marcus Washington, David Thornton, Cato June, and Clint Session? All good LB's worth decent money to keep, yet none were retained.

If you measure Brackett's deal by cap percentage, he got a bigger and better deal than anyone else on that list by far.

Polian is cheap with his LB's. One instance doesn't change that.

First, what I said is based on my belief that the merry-go-round of LBs is due to Dungy instead of Polian, and the fact that most of them were not very good. So based on that you wouldn't be able to count the LBs prior to Dungy's years.

We've already addressed Peterson and Thornton and I admit I forgot about Washington...I knew there was a 3rd that went off and actually had a decent career somewhere else but couldn't remember who it was. Of the other guys listed, how many of them went to another team and just "lit it up"? Conversely, how many of them either never re-signed with another team, or was signed by another team but did next to nothing? And before Cato June is mentioned, the only reason he had success here is because he was the best of a really bad group of LBs. He never managed more than 70 tackles after leaving Indy.

So then I'll counter with this question....how many of them should we have given good money to in order to keep?

[coltsfanej]

Its true, they have only really spent money on Gary. There is only one team that spends $200+ million to their players. And thats the Yankees. Thats because they have no salary cap. It is impossible to have guys at every position getting paid star money. Thats why you have to pick the positions of importance to pay bigger money and know how to work non-elite players into your system to produce. Its the beauty of a salary cap.

But as for Curry, I would love to have him here. I think he could be a very good player for us. Though the trade would have to be based on if he will take a pay cut and sign a new contract. Kind of like mcnabbs trade to the Vikes.

[OLD FAN MAN]

First, what I said is based on my belief that the merry-go-round of LBs is due to Dungy instead of Polian, and the fact that most of them were not very good. So based on that you wouldn't be able to count the LBs prior to Dungy's years.

We've already addressed Peterson and Thornton and I admit I forgot about Washington...I knew there was a 3rd that went off and actually had a decent career somewhere else but couldn't remember who it was. Of the other guys listed, how many of them went to another team and just "lit it up"? Conversely, how many of them either never re-signed with another team, or was signed by another team but did next to nothing? And before Cato June is mentioned, the only reason he had success here is because he was the best of a really bad group of LBs. He never managed more than 70 tackles after leaving Indy.

So then I'll counter with this question....how many of them should we have given good money to in order to keep?

why did we draft them if they were not any good?

[Jason_]

why did we draft them if they were not any good?

This I agree with, but to find the answer you'll have to ask Dungy.

[John Waylon]

First, what I said is based on my belief that the merry-go-round of LBs is due to Dungy instead of Polian, and the fact that most of them were not very good. So based on that you wouldn't be able to count the LBs prior to Dungy's years.

We've already addressed Peterson and Thornton and I admit I forgot about Washington...I knew there was a 3rd that went off and actually had a decent career somewhere else but couldn't remember who it was. Of the other guys listed, how many of them went to another team and just "lit it up"? Conversely, how many of them either never re-signed with another team, or was signed by another team but did next to nothing? And before Cato June is mentioned, the only reason he had success here is because he was the best of a really bad group of LBs. He never managed more than 70 tackles after leaving Indy.

So then I'll counter with this question....how many of them should we have given good money to in order to keep?

Cato June would have continued to produce had he stayed here. We see it with our defensive players all the time... They were drafted to fit our style defense, and they work well in it. When they go elsewhere and drop into a different system it doesn't work out so well for them. Cato June is the perfect example of that. Had we retained him, he would have been one of our best producing LB's annually. Nick Harper and Jason David are also great examples of that as well. They weren't Pro-Bowlers in their time here, but they were Jacob Lacey, either. But when they left here, especially in the case of David, they turned into a Jacob Lacey.

Mike Peterson, Marcus Washington, David Thronton, Cato June, and Clint Session were all LB's that would have remained adequate starters had we retained them. Many of them, though, we didn't even make an attempt to retain.

[coltsfanej]

why did we draft them if they were not any good?

i dont think the Chargers drafted Ryan Leaf #2 overall knowing that he would suck. I dont think that we would have drafted Brown or Hughes knowing how they are. Every player that is drafted isnt a star. Some are good, some are not, and some are in between. You cant pay top money at every position. Guys have to leave. The FO has to decide on which to keep to build around and which to let go. Cant keep em all.

[OLD FAN MAN]

Cato June would have continued to produce had he stayed here. We see it with our defensive players all the time... They were drafted to fit our style defense, and they work well in it. When they go elsewhere and drop into a different system it doesn't work out so well for them. Cato June is the perfect example of that. Had we retained him, he would have been one of our best producing LB's annually. Nick Harper and Jason David are also great examples of that as well. They weren't Pro-Bowlers in their time here, but they were Jacob Lacey, either. But when they left here, especially in the case of David, they turned into a Jacob Lacey.

Mike Peterson, Marcus Washington, David Thronton, Cato June, and Clint Session were all LB's that would have remained adequate starters had we retained them. Many of them, though, we didn't even make an attempt to retain.

i agree we dont spend money on lbs

[coltsfanej]

Cato June would have continued to produce had he stayed here. We see it with our defensive players all the time... They were drafted to fit our style defense, and they work well in it. When they go elsewhere and drop into a different system it doesn't work out so well for them. Cato June is the perfect example of that. Had we retained him, he would have been one of our best producing LB's annually. Nick Harper and Jason David are also great examples of that as well. They weren't Pro-Bowlers in their time here, but they were Jacob Lacey, either. But when they left here, especially in the case of David, they turned into a Jacob Lacey.

Mike Peterson, Marcus Washington, David Thronton, Cato June, and Clint Session were all LB's that would have remained adequate starters had we retained them. Many of them, though, we didn't even make an attempt to retain.

yes Sessio would have been good still. But he has injury problems at times. Conner and Wheeler have also produced well. And the deciding factor in that is that the salary of both of those players combined are not close to Clint's. Would u rather be payin Session his 6 million to do the same thing Conner does for 500K?

[John Waylon]

yes Sessio would have been good still. But he has injury problems at times. Conner and Wheeler have also produced well. And the deciding factor in that is that the salary of both of those players combined are not close to Clint's. Would u rather be payin Session his 6 million to do the same thing Conner does for 500K?

No, absolutely not. I always thought Session was very overhyped myself. He's a good LB, don't get me wrong, and a guy who makes any LB corps he's in better, but not a top flight LB like he was paid by Jaxtown.

But we didn't even try to keep him. What would have been the harm in it for us to shoot him a lower offer than he would get elsewhere, but one we were comfortable with? Maybe he decided "Hey, I like it here, I've been successful here, so even though it means less money, I guess I'll stay."

There's no harm in trying to keep a guy. Most times, though, when it comes to LB's, we don't. We just let them go and look for the next cheap starter.

[Jason_]

Cato June would have continued to produce had he stayed here. We see it with our defensive players all the time... They were drafted to fit our style defense, and they work well in it. When they go elsewhere and drop into a different system it doesn't work out so well for them. Cato June is the perfect example of that. Had we retained him, he would have been one of our best producing LB's annually. Nick Harper and Jason David are also great examples of that as well. They weren't Pro-Bowlers in their time here, but they were Jacob Lacey, either. But when they left here, especially in the case of David, they turned into a Jacob Lacey.

Mike Peterson, Marcus Washington, David Thronton, Cato June, and Clint Session were all LB's that would have remained adequate starters had we retained them. Many of them, though, we didn't even make an attempt to retain.

I fully agree that June would have continued to produce...but just because he produces does not mean he's good...it simply means he was the most productive of a terrible group of LBs. He was a CB turned safety in college and then Dungy converted him to LB. The guy had no business playing LB as evidenced by his lack of production anywhere else. This does give credence to your point about some players being able to produce here but can't anywhere else because of our system, but that still doesn't mean that guy is a good player worthy of a big pay-day.

Cato's first year in Tampa was in '07 so that was our first year without him. I could be wrong about this and someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Keiaho and Rocky Boiman split the starts at WLB that year in place of June. When you combine their numbers (since Keiaho started 11 games and Rocky started 5) then they actually produced more than June did in his best year as a full time Colts starter.

So this goes back to my point, even though WILL and SAM positions are a lesser priority position in our scheme, we also haven't had a LB after Peterson, Washington or Thornton that would really even be worth considering bringing back with a new, bigger contract...especially when many of them are only productive because they are a product of our system (your words) which would make sense to believe another player could be just as productive for less money.

[Jason_]

No, absolutely not. I always thought Session was very overhyped myself. He's a good LB, don't get me wrong, and a guy who makes any LB corps he's in better, but not a top flight LB like he was paid by Jaxtown.

But we didn't even try to keep him. What would have been the harm in it for us to shoot him a lower offer than he would get elsewhere, but one we were comfortable with? Maybe he decided "Hey, I like it here, I've been successful here, so even though it means less money, I guess I'll stay."

There's no harm in trying to keep a guy. Most times, though, when it comes to LB's, we don't. We just let them go and look for the next cheap starter.

It was my understanding they did try to re-sign him but he wanted more money, which Jax was offering, and that's why he left.

[John Waylon]

It was my understanding they did try to re-sign him but he wanted more money, which Jax was offering, and that's why he left.

I can't recall any reports of us extending any offers to him. We made Vinny and Peyton our 1 and 2 priorities, and by the time that was all cleared up, he was gone.

[Jason_]

I can't recall any reports of us extending any offers to him. We made Vinny and Peyton our 1 and 2 priorities, and by the time that was all cleared up, he was gone.

So you can't recall...and I don't know for sure either...so maybe isn't it a little unfair to say

But we didn't even try to keep him. What would have been the harm in it for us to shoot him a lower offer than he would get elsewhere, but one we were comfortable with? Maybe he decided "Hey, I like it here, I've been successful here, so even though it means less money, I guess I'll stay."

There's no harm in trying to keep a guy. Most times, though, when it comes to LB's, we don't. We just let them go and look for the next cheap starter.

[John Waylon]

So you can't recall...and I don't know for sure either...so maybe isn't it a little unfair to say

A google search is producing no results suggesting any negotiations between us and Session.

I'm positive we let him walk without offering him any kind of deal.

[Jason_]

A google search is producing no results suggesting any negotiations between us and Session.

I'm positive we let him walk without offering him any kind of deal.

I also did a google search and couldn't find any info either way. Without proof one way or another how can we know for sure? Odds are that no one knows aside from Sessions,his agent and the Colts FO. Regardless though of whether an offer was made, there was no way the colts were going to match the offer by Jax.