Wow, just heard that Curry has been traded out of Seattle via Rotoworld. They haven't named the team because he needs to restructure his contract to make the trade work but his locker has been cleaned out.

Needless to say I couldn't have been more wrong about my argument for Curry over Stafford (just like a lot of people!)but I almost feel bad for the guy. The guy on college film is just not the same player here in the pros.

Hopefully a fresh start can jump start his career.

Raiders

Ouch! I really said that?? Im embarrassed.

Please forgive me Stafford, you're the man!

You
Were
Not
Alone

Hahaha...

now the Raiders have two busts at linebacker

Keep it real 49er's fan, you guys picked Alex Smith over Aaron Rodgers!

"Bona fide stud" was obviously a bit overboard, admittedly. However, he's also been a victim of a coaching change and scheme change. He's still young so he could still emerge as a decent player. I hate when the bust label is slapped on a guy when often he was just in a bad situation. Listen to Lawrence Jackson talk sometime about his experience in Seattle before the trade. That place is a mess. Lawrence Jackson was also considered a bust, by the way.

Finally, I wasn't banging the drum for Curry although I liked him better than the first round OTs that year. I'll stand behind that today. I merely said he should be considered. I also said that if the Lions liked Stafford, they had to draft him. I was happy about that pick and still think it was the best move.

Edit: I should also mention that at the time of the draft, a lot of people were dismissing Curry for playing at Wake Forest--and there had indeed been very similar criticisms made about several NC State players, including Mario Williams, Philip Rivers, and Stephen Tulloch (along with Manny Lawson and John McCargo). Wjb, you might have interpreted my comment about "Those who question Curry simply because he's from Wake" as a dig at you since you had mentioned that idea earlier in the thread. I'm sure I was reacting to your post but I assure you my response was about that line of thinking in general. I live about halfway between Wake and NC State so I heard a lot of those criticisms in the pre-draft media coverage in 2004, 2006, and 2009. It usually went something like "If (so and so) is so great, why didn't the team win more games?" I stand by the notion that dismissing a player based on where he played his college ball is generally not a good idea. There are lots of great players who came from small (or bad) college programs.

mwill I agree. Dismissing a player because of the school he played at has bitten some teams in the butt, I'm sure of it. Look at Marques Colston. 7th round pick, despite having a pretty good college career at Hofstra. His size and speed combination are NFL caliber, yet teams passed on him time and again. I have to figure it was because of his school.

And whenever the draft rolls around, there are always those who will downplay a certain guy based on his "level of competition" that he faced. Curry's lack of performance as an NFL player so far has nothing to do with where he went to college. It could be, as you pointed out, that he is simply not suited for the defensive scheme in Seattle now. Remember, we not only got LoJack from them, but Rob Sims as well, because neither player fit their "schemes". Same thing with Bobby Carpenter as an OLB in a 3-4. It just didn't suit him.

But, that all said, a top ten player should be able to adapt. Part of his attraction should be his ability to play his position regardless of scheme. So while Curry may have a pretty good career from here on out, whether as a Raider or not, he'll always be seen as a "bust" for the Seahawks.

The Raiders have installed him as a starter over Quinton Groves at one of their OLB spots for Sunday.