While this guy is a hot topic, we've honestly wanted to rate him for some time now. He's the poster-child validating the ability to rate players by looking at production (stats). Curry's lack of production confirmed what we learned recently after his demotion to second-string--he simply wasn't playing at the level expected of a player who was the #3 pick in the draft. None of his numbers stood out, and the one that did (6 PDs as a rookie) was a good number but not anything outstanding. A strong-side linebacker is supposed to cover TEs, stop the run or pass rush, and Curry does none of these at a high level so far in his career. He's another example of why rating college players higher than people who have actually PLAYED in the league is just a bad idea. Curry is just one of hundreds of examples why these players should be rated highly AFTER they perform, and not before. It's common knowledge that rookies that excel in the NFL is the exception, not the norm. His 85 rating before ever playing a DOWN in the NFL is laughable. Since we rate average starters from 70-74 and Curry isn't even that on one of the league's worst teams, we rated him a 63.
Curry's Numbers
61
ReplyDelete