I remember the hype of USC middle-linebacker Chris Claiborne prior to the 1999 draft -- hard hitter, great closer, good tackler, can operate in space and work in coverage. However, as a four-year starter in a Lions uniform he looked thoroughly underwhelming, and at best, serviceable -- there were certainly no Pro Bowls forthcoming. What's more, though he was often a team leader in tackles, I thought he was always a step or two slow and looked fat around the middle. FWIW, and perhaps comparing apples and oranges, Ernie Sims has impressed me much more as a player!

The pre-draft measurables of Claiborne and Aaron Curry are somewhat similar in size and 40 speed. As what's planned for Curry, Claiborne was initially playing "out of position" for the Lions. Unlike Curry, however, Claiborne was asked to play OLB before eventually moving inside.

I'm asking this mainly out of ignorance, hoping the savvier posters can give me some insight: How does Curry compare to Claiborne coming out of college?

good topic, this isn't the first time I've seen this comparison made. However, I don't think there really is one to make. Despite all his natural assets and abilities, Claiborne was questioned due to his work ethic and lack of a true athletic build. He was a productive college player who didn't have his mind and heart in the right place to translate that into the NFL. I don't see any of that in Curry. This guy is solid as a rock, and far more athletic than Claiborne ever was. As time wears on, I am ever more convinced that Aaron Curry will be an All Pro for many years, barring devastating injury.

Good comparison. Curry IMO has a much better attitude so as to not fall into the same rut. Claiborne COULD have been a really good LB with Curry's attitude IMO.