PDA

View Full Version : Aaron Curry Rapes Seattle worse!


Doggcow
08-09-2009, 11:24 AM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/trainingcamp09/news/story?id=4386263

Seattle Seahawks first-round draft choice Aaron Curry ran onto the practice field to applause Saturday after signing a multiyear contract with the team.

Curry signed a six-year, $60 million deal that includes $34 million in guarantees, according to a source. The contract is the richest for a rookie non-quarterback in NFL history.

Last year's No. 4 overall pick, running back Darren McFadden, got $26 million guaranteed from Oakland.

Curry, the fourth overall choice in the 2009 NFL draft out of Wake Forest, had missed the first eight days of camp. The linebacker's agreement leaves six first-rounders without contracts.

"I am just as excited to be out here and just to see the emotion from the fans and get back with my team is just an amazing feeling," Curry said.

The Seahawks saved a spot for Curry in their starting lineup. They expect him to line up with Leroy Hill and three-time Pro Bowl choice Lofa Tatupu when the regular season opens.

On his first play, Curry was matched up against tight end Cameron Morrah, and was roasted on a square-in route. One fan sarcastically yelled out, "Welcome to the NFL."

"He wasn't in there with the first group just because he's got so much catching up to do," Mora said. "I don't know at what point we'll make the switch and he'll start running out there with the first defense, but I think it will be pretty soon."

Although he worked out and studied his playbook in nearby Bellevue during the holdout, Curry said he grew anxious and eventually told his agents to speed up the contract negotiations.

Fellow rookie Deon Butler filled Curry in on practice matters during the holdout, and Tatupu also visited, giving him a mini-walkthrough of what the defense was working on. But Tatupu believed Curry would acclimate himself quickly.

"Linebacker, it's not like it's rocket science," Tatupu said with a laugh. "Just hit the man with the ball."

Mora credited general manager Tim Ruskell for working the phones with Curry's representatives late into Friday night.

"This is probably the longest contract we'll ever do, in terms of pages and volume and little nuances to the deal," Ruskell said.

Only top overall pick Matthew Stafford, the quarterback drafted by Detroit, has received a richer guarantee -- $41.7 million -- from this year's draft.

ESPN.com's Mike Sando and John Clayton contributed to this report. Information from The Associated Press was used in this report.

Broncosfreak_56
08-09-2009, 11:27 AM
At least he is going to be a playmaker.

Popps
08-09-2009, 11:32 AM
Damn.

At what point does this have to be put in check? Draft picks are an absolute crap-shoot. This seems like a bad business model, at a certain point.

521 1N5
08-09-2009, 11:37 AM
Damn.

At what point does this have to be put in check? Draft picks are an absolute crap-shoot. This seems like a bad business model, at a certain point.

Very bad. :cowgirl:

_Oro_
08-09-2009, 11:46 AM
"Linebacker, it's not like it's rocket science," Tatupu said with a laugh. "Just hit the man with the ball."

Love comments like these.

TheReverend
08-09-2009, 12:00 PM
I like how Seattle will use him. Something about him would make me leary of him being the defensive centerpiece, but with Tatupu in place, this should work well.

Javalon
08-09-2009, 12:08 PM
Damn.

At what point does this have to be put in check? Draft picks are an absolute crap-shoot. This seems like a bad business model, at a certain point.

Who the hell wants it, anyway? Almost all the vets are against it, the owners and staff are against it. The players' union wants it but aren't they supposed to represent what the players themselves actually want? The rookies and their agents obviously want it but they are utterly in the minority.

I really don't get why this hasn't been stopped yet. It makes me want to puke every time I hear about another ridiculous contract for players who haven't done jack in the NFL yet are and are nothing more than potential.

From a purely monetary perspective, I never want the Broncos to draft in the top 10 again. If we get a pick up there, trade down!

Br0nc0Buster
08-09-2009, 12:14 PM
Who the hell wants it, anyway? Almost all the vets are against it, the owners and staff are against it. The players' union wants it but aren't they supposed to represent what the players themselves actually want? The rookies and their agents obviously want it but they are utterly in the minority.

I really don't get why this hasn't been stopped yet. It makes me want to puke every time I hear about another ridiculous contract for players who haven't done jack in the NFL yet are and are nothing more than potential.

From a purely monetary perspective, I never want the Broncos to draft in the top 10 again. If we get a pick up there, trade down!

same here
top draft picks are hurting their teams more than helping them because these contracts are so ridiculous these players cant "earn" them

Good news this year if for whatever reason we tank like some think, we wont have to dish out 35 + million for a rookie unless Chicago tanks

Tombstone RJ
08-09-2009, 12:17 PM
Much safer money than the Stafford deal. Unless Curry is hit with the injury bug, this is probably a safe long term contract.

BroncoBuff
08-09-2009, 12:20 PM
At least he is going to be a playmaker.

Maybe, but like Robert Ayers and Tyson Jackson, he is not a sack guy. They've shown alotta Curry highlights here, and he reminds me of D.J. Williams. Let's hope they don't squander his talent with foolish position shifts.

Popps
08-09-2009, 12:33 PM
From a purely monetary perspective, I never want the Broncos to draft in the top 10 again. If we get a pick up there, trade down!

Honestly, it makes you wonder.... doesn't it?

How much more valuable to a franchise is the #7 pick any draft compared to the #15?

Can you imagine paying two top 10 draft picks these days? You'd be looking at $70M guaranteed up front for a couple of guys that may never even deserve to make an NFL roster.

I remember some people saying it was nuts to sign John Abraham (for example) to a $40M contract, or so. Now, you've got guys who never stepped on an NFL field getting paid more.

I don't know what the answer is, but if I run an NFL franchise, I start to be very careful about just how badly I want to pick in the top 10. I'd rather use that money to extend current performers and to sign proven starters out of FA.... and do quality bargain hunting in the draft.

oubronco
08-09-2009, 12:41 PM
Totally Ridiculous but he was the safest sure thing IMO

tsiguy96
08-09-2009, 12:43 PM
he got 35 mil gauranteed for 6 year deal, tyson got 31 mil gauranteed on a 5 year deal, big difference.

Doggcow
08-09-2009, 12:48 PM
Honestly, it makes you wonder.... doesn't it?

How much more valuable to a franchise is the #7 pick any draft compared to the #15?

Can you imagine paying two top 10 draft picks these days? You'd be looking at $70M guaranteed up front for a couple of guys that may never even deserve to make an NFL roster.

I remember some people saying it was nuts to sign John Abraham (for example) to a $40M contract, or so. Now, you've got guys who never stepped on an NFL field getting paid more.

I don't know what the answer is, but if I run an NFL franchise, I start to be very careful about just how badly I want to pick in the top 10. I'd rather use that money to extend current performers and to sign proven starters out of FA.... and do quality bargain hunting in the draft.

Thats what New England has been doing for years. It's how they're always so competitive.

TheReverend
08-09-2009, 12:56 PM
Thats what New England has been doing for years. It's how they're always so competitive.

While I'll agree they've done a great job scouting and using their opportunities well, they've also never shied away from their early picks.

They just hit with them.

Richard Seymour 6th overall
Jerod Mayo 10th overall
Ty Warren 13th overall

They have ZERO history of shying away from taking players early.

OBF1
08-09-2009, 12:59 PM
funny how so many posters have been crying about Denver trading away their first round pick next season.... There is a fair chance that the pick will be a top 10 pick and cost us a ton of future money against the cap, possibly at the expense of keeping some of players that will be needing a new contract ie Doom, Marshall, Scheffler.

Add me to the list of those that want to pass on the multi million dollar crap shoot.

ZONA
08-09-2009, 01:13 PM
funny how so many posters have been crying about Denver trading away their first round pick next season.... There is a fair chance that the pick will be a top 10 pick and cost us a ton of future money against the cap, possibly at the expense of keeping some of players that will be needing a new contract ie Doom, Marshall, Scheffler.

Add me to the list of those that want to pass on the multi million dollar crap shoot.

I was just going to comment on that. And everybody wonders why Bowlen didn't want to pay 4 first round picks over 2 years. So I want every McD hater on this board to read this and STFU about the Smith pick.

Javalon
08-09-2009, 01:19 PM
funny how so many posters have been crying about Denver trading away their first round pick next season.... There is a fair chance that the pick will be a top 10 pick and cost us a ton of future money against the cap, possibly at the expense of keeping some of players that will be needing a new contract ie Doom, Marshall, Scheffler.

Add me to the list of those that want to pass on the multi million dollar crap shoot.

First off, I sure hope it isn't a top 10 pick. Ugh!

Second, I think most people weren't happy about trading off that pick for a second rounder when, as you say, it has the potential to pick a top-10 pick in 2010. If we'd had that pick we could, at the least, have traded it down for a lot more than a second-rounder.

But if Alphonso Smith becomes a Pro Bowl then this will all be moot. :P

TheReverend
08-09-2009, 01:20 PM
funny how so many posters have been crying about Denver trading away their first round pick next season.... There is a fair chance that the pick will be a top 10 pick and cost us a ton of future money against the cap, possibly at the expense of keeping some of players that will be needing a new contract ie Doom, Marshall, Scheffler.

Add me to the list of those that want to pass on the multi million dollar crap shoot.

Not funny.

There's a wealth of players that should be available in that high range that will be beyond worth it next season and won't be a "crap shoot" at all.

Tombstone RJ
08-09-2009, 01:21 PM
I was just going to comment on that. And everybody wonders why Bowlen didn't want to pay 4 first round picks over 2 years. So I want every McD hater on this board to read this and STFU about the Smith pick.

Flip side of this argument is that the NFL Players Union and the owners are gonna renegotiate the labor agreement soon, perhaps sooner than the next draft. If that's the case and there is a rookie cap... yah, Broncos just lost out...

Javalon
08-09-2009, 01:23 PM
Honestly, it makes you wonder.... doesn't it?

How much more valuable to a franchise is the #7 pick any draft compared to the #15?

Can you imagine paying two top 10 draft picks these days? You'd be looking at $70M guaranteed up front for a couple of guys that may never even deserve to make an NFL roster.

I remember some people saying it was nuts to sign John Abraham (for example) to a $40M contract, or so. Now, you've got guys who never stepped on an NFL field getting paid more.

I don't know what the answer is, but if I run an NFL franchise, I start to be very careful about just how badly I want to pick in the top 10. I'd rather use that money to extend current performers and to sign proven starters out of FA.... and do quality bargain hunting in the draft.
Man, TWO top 10-picks would royally suck! There's no way I'd want that much cash tied up in players that would have a really hard time living up to their contracts.

Seriously, look back at the recent top 5-10 picks and it seems like more have NOT lived up to their contracts than those that have. That doesn't mean that a number of them aren't decent players but for that kind of money you can't settle for "decent" players.

Rohirrim
08-09-2009, 01:23 PM
Sixty mil for a LB? You've got to be ****ting me! If the NFL doesn't get a handle on this insanity, the game is doomed.

Mr.Meanie
08-09-2009, 01:24 PM
First off, I sure hope it isn't a top 10 pick. Ugh!

Second, I think most people weren't happy about trading off that pick for a second rounder when, as you say, it has the potential to pick a top-10 pick in 2010. If we'd had that pick we could, at the least, have traded it down for a lot more than a second-rounder.

But if Alphonso Smith becomes a Pro Bowl then this will all be moot. :P

Yeah? How well did that work out for KC?

Javalon
08-09-2009, 01:25 PM
Not funny.

There's a wealth of players that should be available in that high range that will be beyond worth it next season and won't be a "crap shoot" at all.

I think the point of "crap shoot" is that you don't know which ones will be worth the money and which won't. Obviously all the scouting in the world can't reliably figure out who are the "sure things". If it could, there wouldn't be so many relative busts.

Pick Six
08-09-2009, 01:29 PM
Not funny.

There's a wealth of players that should be available in that high range that will be beyond worth it next season and won't be a "crap shoot" at all.

It absolutely IS a crapshoot. Matt Leinart and Vince Young were supposed to be better NFL quarterbacks than Cutler. We saw how all that worked out...

Javalon
08-09-2009, 01:30 PM
Yeah? How well did that work out for KC?

True, you can't guarantee a trade down. But I wonder how much of that is due to teams thinking they have to get "fair value" for those high picks. If you're willing to take another team's first and second round pick to drop back 7 spots or so in the first, the "analysts" would say you got reamed and so no GM wants to make that kind of trade with their high draft pick.

But if it saves a ton of cash and nets you two relatively high picks, I'd say put the damn draft pick value chart out of your mind and do what's best for the team. And, in my opinion, paying that much cash for "potential" is not what is best for any team.

RunSilentRunDeep
08-09-2009, 01:41 PM
First off, I sure hope it isn't a top 10 pick. Ugh!

Second, I think most people weren't happy about trading off that pick for a second rounder when, as you say, it has the potential to pick a top-10 pick in 2010. If we'd had that pick we could, at the least, have traded it down for a lot more than a second-rounder.

But if Alphonso Smith becomes a Pro Bowl then this will all be moot. :P

Really? Only one team moved into the top 16 in this year's draft. And that was for a quarterback. How can anyone be sure some team would take the pick off Denver's hands?

Br0nc0Buster
08-09-2009, 02:08 PM
While I'll agree they've done a great job scouting and using their opportunities well, they've also never shied away from their early picks.

They just hit with them.

Richard Seymour 6th overall
Jerod Mayo 10th overall
Ty Warren 13th overall

They have ZERO history of shying away from taking players early.

Well they actually traded back then selected Mayo
They had like the 6th overall pick and moved back a few spots

Pat Bowlen
08-09-2009, 02:35 PM
At what point does this have to be put in check? Draft picks are an absolute crap-shoot. This seems like a bad business model, at a certain point.
'Seems'?

Think about paying the bills.

Archer81
08-09-2009, 02:45 PM
Hard to call it rape when both KC and Seattle agreed to these contracts in the first place...


:Broncos:

Pat Bowlen
08-09-2009, 02:53 PM
It's rape when you consider that they have nothing more to prove their worth than their college experience and athleticism. I know it's not 'rape', but the word is used to complain about a system that is currently preventing me from buying a new boat.

chrisp
08-09-2009, 03:14 PM
I will confess that I am utterly mystified by this situation. I just do not understand what leverage these guys have.

i can't help but feel there must be some underlying legal issue that gives them some leverage. Perhaps some kind of restraint-of-trade issue that might give the NFL legal problems if someone tested it? I mean the only leverage that they could possibly have is the threat of what might happen if they suggested they were being forced to sign an 'unfair' contract - the definition of 'unfair' being something not yet legall proven...

In all other areas of the NFL contract business, hard-nosed decisions are made relating to player after player, and then when these rookies turn up the gms turn to mush..

SOMETHING is going on out there that no-one's yet talked about because the facts as they are don't stack up!

enjolras
08-09-2009, 03:41 PM
It's rape when you consider that they have nothing more to prove their worth than their college experience and athleticism. I know it's not 'rape', but the word is used to complain about a system that is currently preventing me from buying a new boat.

Having to switch to a cheaper scotch eh?

Hulamau
08-09-2009, 04:13 PM
Honestly, it makes you wonder.... doesn't it?

How much more valuable to a franchise is the #7 pick any draft compared to the #15?

Can you imagine paying two top 10 draft picks these days? You'd be looking at $70M guaranteed up front for a couple of guys that may never even deserve to make an NFL roster.

I remember some people saying it was nuts to sign John Abraham (for example) to a $40M contract, or so. Now, you've got guys who never stepped on an NFL field getting paid more.

I don't know what the answer is, but if I run an NFL franchise, I start to be very careful about just how badly I want to pick in the top 10. I'd rather use that money to extend current performers and to sign proven starters out of FA.... and do quality bargain hunting in the draft.


Below is a excerpt from today's Denver Post further highlighting and bringing home this absurdity! At least we scored this year!


Another perspective.

Now that all the AFC West first-round picks have been signed, it's easier to understand why teams don't like moving up the draft board. The Broncos were billed less in combined guaranteed money to Knowshon Moreno and Robert Ayers ($22.7 million) than the rival Raiders gave Darrius Heyward-Bey ($23.5 million) and the Chiefs paid Tyson Jackson ($31 million).

What a joke, Ayers AND Moreno COMBINED for less than either T Jackson OR Heyward Bey alone! .... Tjesus just shows you how out of whack this rookie slot system is now!

BroncoBuff
08-09-2009, 04:35 PM
The Broncos were billed less in combined guaranteed money to Knowshon Moreno and Robert Ayers ($22.7 million) than the rival Raiders gave Darrius Heyward-Bey ($23.5 million) and the Chiefs paid Tyson Jackson ($31 million).

OMG. OMG. O - M - G .

And I'll bet Knowshon has more catches than Hayward-Bey.

rugbythug
08-09-2009, 04:49 PM
The real reason people were pissed about the Draft pick trade is -It makes next years mocks so much less fun. It is twice the fun when you have twice the picks.

UberBroncoMan
08-09-2009, 04:58 PM
D.J. Williams signed a 6 year 36 million dollar contract last year... he looks cheap as **** now.

UberBroncoMan
08-09-2009, 05:00 PM
Below is a excerpt from today's Denver Post further highlighting and bringing home this absurdity! At least we scored this year!


Another perspective.

Now that all the AFC West first-round picks have been signed, it's easier to understand why teams don't like moving up the draft board. The Broncos were billed less in combined guaranteed money to Knowshon Moreno and Robert Ayers ($22.7 million) than the rival Raiders gave Darrius Heyward-Bey ($23.5 million) and the Chiefs paid Tyson Jackson ($31 million).

What a joke, Ayers AND Moreno COMBINED for less than either T Jackson OR Heyward Bey alone! .... Tjesus just shows you how out of whack this rookie slot system is now!

Probably one if the big reasons we gave Seattle our draft pick for Smith.

With Marshall, and all the other people we need to sign in the upcoming year, I don't see us being able to afford the a top 10 draft pick (unless we have an amazing year based on our schedule/turnover).

The 18-26 or so pick from Chicago probably seemed more economical.

TheReverend
08-09-2009, 05:26 PM
It absolutely IS a crapshoot. Matt Leinart and Vince Young were supposed to be better NFL quarterbacks than Cutler. We saw how all that worked out...

No. It's absolutely not.

Neither Matt or Vince were polished players.

Neither had the same "can't miss" type as a Brandon Spikes.

That entire draft was "potential" players... from Mario, Reggie, Vince, Vernon Davis, etc.

Bronx33
08-09-2009, 05:33 PM
I think it has alot to do with the organization and how well they develope and groom new players.

misturanderson
08-09-2009, 05:41 PM
No. It's absolutely not.

Neither Matt or Vince were polished players.

Neither had the same "can't miss" type as a Brandon Spikes.

That entire draft was "potential" players... from Mario, Reggie, Vince, Vernon Davis, etc.

Cool, so Brandon Spikes has played in the NFL and dominated? Just clarifying because I'm preety sure the first round of the NFL draft has always been riddled with "can't miss" prospects that busted out. Your argument is bull****.

Oh, and reggie Bush was seen as a "can't miss" prospect.

ZONA
08-09-2009, 05:46 PM
Flip side of this argument is that the NFL Players Union and the owners are gonna renegotiate the labor agreement soon, perhaps sooner than the next draft. If that's the case and there is a rookie cap... yah, Broncos just lost out...

Let's be honest, if there is a rookie cap, it will certainly be sky high, and it still would not be a good thing to have to pay 4 #1 picks within 2 years.

TheReverend
08-09-2009, 05:51 PM
Cool, so Brandon Spikes has played in the NFL and dominated? Just clarifying because I'm preety sure the first round of the NFL draft has always been riddled with "can't miss" prospects that busted out. Your argument is bull****.

Oh, and reggie Bush was seen as a "can't miss" prospect.

RE Spikes: That has nothing to do with it... he's played against top shelf competition. Dominated. Is as good against the pass as he is against the run and has the measurables to succeed in the NFL. He'll be a dominant starter from day one, barring injury. Injury is the only part that's a crap shoot.

RE Reggie: The **** he was. He was considered an amazing weapon due to his speed and shiftiness and ability to catch the ball, but he's never had the size to dispel doubts as a "carry the load" back or a between the tackles runner.

...and look what happened.

WoodMan
08-09-2009, 10:00 PM
Much safer money than the Stafford deal. Unless Curry is hit with the injury bug, this is probably a safe long term contract.

This piqued my memory. The Boz was a can't miss linebacker for the seaslugs too. He too was way overpaid and didn't ever really pan out. I think players need to earn it before they get the big $$.

PS I still can't believe Bolen has not paid Bramdon Marshall.

Doggcow
08-10-2009, 01:41 AM
RE Spikes: That has nothing to do with it... he's played against top shelf competition. Dominated. Is as good against the pass as he is against the run and has the measurables to succeed in the NFL. He'll be a dominant starter from day one, barring injury. Injury is the only part that's a crap shoot.

RE Reggie: The **** he was. He was considered an amazing weapon due to his speed and shiftiness and ability to catch the ball, but he's never had the size to dispel doubts as a "carry the load" back or a between the tackles runner.

...and look what happened.

I want Brandon Spikes so bad.

TheReverend
08-10-2009, 07:09 AM
I want Brandon Spikes so bad.

Short of an injury to him lowering his draft stock, there's no chance in hell anymore.

montrose
08-10-2009, 08:00 AM
And this is why even if the Broncos suck this year (which I don't think they will), I don't give a **** that we traded our 1st round pick. These guys are heavily overpaid and you can often get the same value in the mid-late 1st round. In fact, I'm willing to bet Alphonso will be as good of a CB as any other player a their respective position that we'd get in the top 10 next year - and at a fraction of the cost.

misturanderson
08-10-2009, 08:30 AM
Short of an injury to him lowering his draft stock, there's no chance in hell anymore.

Why not? Patrick Willis was as dominant as Spikes in College, in the same conference, and had probably the best combine/pro day of any MLB ever and he went #11 in a weaker draft than this year will probably end up being.

Not to mention that every time someone goes into their senior year as a top-15 prospect, they almost always get picked apart by analysis so bad that their stock drops considerably without some sort of superhuman performance at the senior bowl/combine to make up for it.

rastaman
08-10-2009, 08:46 AM
Below is a excerpt from today's Denver Post further highlighting and bringing home this absurdity! At least we scored this year!


Another perspective.

Now that all the AFC West first-round picks have been signed, it's easier to understand why teams don't like moving up the draft board. The Broncos were billed less in combined guaranteed money to Knowshon Moreno and Robert Ayers ($22.7 million) than the rival Raiders gave Darrius Heyward-Bey ($23.5 million) and the Chiefs paid Tyson Jackson ($31 million).

What a joke, Ayers AND Moreno COMBINED for less than either T Jackson OR Heyward Bey alone! .... Tjesus just shows you how out of whack this rookie slot system is now!

Makes you wonder what compels teams-owners to sign the rookies to the salaries. But then again these rookie salaries aren't guaranteed like the NBA and MLB. Also, just the signing bonuses are guranteed. Example, a player signs for 60 mil and only 30 mil is guaranteed over a 6 year period doesn't equate to 60 mil over 6 years does not = 10 mil per year, but more like 5 mil per year. Seldom will these players see the entire 60 mil. Teams will ask the player to renegotciate or cut the player outright rather than pay the player the full 60 millon dollars

Beantown Bronco
08-10-2009, 09:02 AM
Why not? Patrick Willis was as dominant as Spikes in College, in the same conference, and had probably the best combine/pro day of any MLB ever and he went #11 in a weaker draft than this year will probably end up being.

Weak for LBs or weak overall? I hope you mean just LBs because I'd put the top 12 picks in the 07 draft up against just about any other draft in recent memory. Aside from one or two potential busts, it's full of solid and star players.

misturanderson
08-10-2009, 11:04 AM
Weak for LBs or weak overall? I hope you mean just LBs because I'd put the top 12 picks in the 07 draft up against just about any other draft in recent memory. Aside from one or two potential busts, it's full of solid and star players.

2004 was probably better, but point taken on overall quality in 2007 (it's hard to remember considering how crappy our draft was). I can easily see this coming draft being possibly the deepest/most talented this decade though. I still think a 240 lb. MLB that isn't especially fast (according to scout.com) could easily drop out of the top 10-15 given the crop of seniors and juniors that will probably declare next year.