'15 VA OL Matthew Burrell

#576
#576
Another thing, which i hope to make you think about for future discussion. Coaching staff's can not miss on O-linemen.

That is an old football adage that always holds true. If you give a scholarship to an O-lineman that ends up being a bust...it is a complete wasted scholarship. O-line can not switch to other positions and they do not have skill-sets that lend themselves to help out in other areas like special teams.

If a DT ends up busting, typically he switches to the O-line and more times than not, they end up being pretty dang good O-linemen because of the foot quickness, attitude and athleticism they had that made them a good DT prospect. Same thing goes for lots of positions, busts at LB usually contribute on ST's at the very least. Busts at WR and RB usually make good DB's and gunners on ST's, or return men. Busts at TE can end up great OL's or a back up DE or an H-back and they are good blockers at the very least on ST's units....

So in the future, i hope you realize that saying you take as many OL as you can get and hope a few pan out, is simply one of the stupider strategies you can make, and it is a great way to build a crappy program. Conversely, not recruiting an OL ala Dooley is equally as dumb, if not even dumber. OL and QB are the 2 positions your evaluations have to be spot on with and hit on with a high %..... if you don't its wasted scholarships that tie up valuable spots for 4 years with no where else to put them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#577
#577
chandler bing said:
This is terrible analysis. If you want to debate whether Burrell is a OG or an OT at the next level, that is a good question. There is a lot of interesting debate about that aspect. Burrell displays amazing feet and quickness, but he plays OG in HS, he isn't as tall and as long armed as the prototypical OT"s are, but he shows very good athleticism and skill that does make many wonder if he could in fact be a very good RT....

If you believe he is an OG, all the way, which you have stated, then we do not need another OG....and OG is not a problem on the current roster, nor is it a position of need in this class.

Zach Stewart is one hell of an OG prospect. Venzelle Boulware is one hell of an OG prospect. Jack Jones like Burrell could be a great OG prospect but is intriguing and athletic enough on film to make you think he could be a very good RT as well. Same goes for Chance Hall. He at the very least will be a good OG prospect, but has the frame and feet that projects nicely to an OT.

Lets also talk about the current roster. We currently have Jashon Robertson, Marcus Jackson for another year, Dylan Weisman, Austin Sanders, Kyler Kerbyson that are all OG's. We have many reports that say Charles Mosely will end up being a very good OG. We also have reports saying Mike Sawyers may end up at OG as well, if he doesn't improve at DT. So again, that puts us at 10-12 OG types on the roster next year...... It boggles my mind that because we have had some O-line issues this year, that taking another OG is going to somehow address the current issue for the future. I can assure you, our OG play has not been the issue....having OG's, walk-on's and true freshman that are suited for C and OG that are playing OT is the problem.

No way we take another OG prospect if that is what our staff believes he projects at. I believe that Burrell is a very good RT prospect, and if our coaches believe that which i'm pretty sure they do, then yes you take him and don't bat an eye. If you think any player left on our board no matter their "ranking" at OG is a take for us still, you are freaking crazy.
Click to expand...

Damn you don't like to argue do you? All I said was that I think he's best suited to play OG, never said he was an OG all the way. You just made that up so that you could argue a little more. Just because you have young players at the positin doesn't mean you don't try to upgrade and build depth for the future (again look at Bama's class this year and the past few years before for example). If you don't think we could upgrade our OGs then I will just have to agree to disagree, not saying we don't have talent there and guys with potential but imo Burrell is an elite guard prospect. I definitely think we need more help at OT than OG but that doesn't mean you don't take an elite guard if he wants on board, you can never have too many quality interior linemen. From Leb to me lol. Go find someone else to argue with because I'm done with it...not in the mood to read you putting words in my mouth, jumping to conclusions, and making assumptions anymore. Better yet go argue with the wall because you're pretty much just talking to yourself at this point anyway.
 
Last edited:
#578
#578
Phat-Phil said:
Damn you don't like to argue do you? All I said was that I think he's best suited to play OG, never said he was an OG all the way. You just made that up so that you could argue a little more. Just because you have young players at the positin doesn't mean you don't try to upgrade and build depth for the future (again look at Bama's class this year and the past few years before for example). If you don't think we could upgrade our OGs then I will just have to agree to disagree, not saying we don't have talent there and guys with potential but imo Burrell is an elite guard prospect. I definitely think we need more help at OT than OG but that doesn't mean you don't take an elite guard if he wants on board, you can never have too many quality interior linemen. From Leb to me lol. Go find someone else to argue with because I'm done with it...not in the mood to read you putting words in my mouth, jumping to conclusions, and making assumptions anymore. Better yet go argue with the wall because you're pretty much just talking to yourself at this point anyway.
Click to expand...

Refer to the next post about why you don't oversign and take gambles on O-linemen, particularly OG's.

I understand that Burrell is a great OG prospect, and he could be a good RT prospect as well, he and JJ are very similar.

However, we have plenty of OG prospects, and further you recruit from outside to inside on the O-line. OT's can typically transition to OG easily, but OG's almost never can transition to OT. OT's require a level of athleticism, knee-bend, long arms, and good feet that at that size is just rare. Kerbyson is a great example of a guy that is a great OG, but he is absolutely below average to terrible at OT. Also if Burrell is an OG, what do you do with the other 3 OG's we are signing in this class? (Boulware, Stewart, Jones for sure). There are only 2 OG positions on the OL, and we will have anywhere from 10-12 OG's on the roster next year, most of which are within a year of each other. We need OT's. Other than Blair and Kendrick, i'm not even sure if we have another OT on the roster. Coleman Thomas is our future C, but has had to play out of position and out of need at RT. Chance Hall tearing his ACL this season, makes him unlikely to contribute at OT next year as well, plus he was a raw but very athletic guy to begin with. We need to land one of Richmond, Pat Allen, Sweet, St Louis, and McGirt. Burrell, i assume\think is a future RT at the next level and i believe our coaches think that, so if that is the case, you take him, but it's a risk. Richmond, Allen. Sweet. and Louis are definitely high end OT prospects.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#579
#579
Lots of interesting stuff between yalls bickering, but how about chopping yalls posts into much smaller paragraphs so they can at least be read?
 
#584
#584
chandler bing said:
Refer to the next post about why you don't oversign and take gambles on O-linemen, particularly OG's.

I understand that Burrell is a great OG prospect, and he could be a good RT prospect as well, he and JJ are very similar.

However, we have plenty of OG prospects, and further you recruit from outside to inside on the O-line. OT's can typically transition to OG easily, but OG's almost never can transition to OT. OT's require a level of athleticism, knee-bend, long arms, and good feet that at that size is just rare. Kerbyson is a great example of a guy that is a great OG, but he is absolutely below average to terrible at OT. Also if Burrell is an OG, what do you do with the other 3 OG's we are signing in this class? (Boulware, Stewart, Jones for sure). There are only 2 OG positions on the OL, and we will have anywhere from 10-12 OG's on the roster next year, most of which are within a year of each other. We need OT's. Other than Blair and Kendrick, i'm not even sure if we have another OT on the roster. Coleman Thomas is our future C, but has had to play out of position and out of need at RT. Chance Hall tearing his ACL this season, makes him unlikely to contribute at OT next year as well, plus he was a raw but very athletic guy to begin with. We need to land one of Richmond, Pat Allen, Sweet, St Louis, and McGirt. Burrell, i assume\think is a future RT at the next level and i believe our coaches think that, so if that is the case, you take him, but it's a risk. Richmond, Allen. Sweet. and Louis are definitely high end OT prospects.
Click to expand...

loud-noises-o.gif
 
#587
#587
Paul on VQ wondered aloud how high Burrell is on the staff's board since they project him at G.

Still think Allen and Richmond are their top targets at the last OL position.
 
#588
#588
Ericvol2096 said:
Paul on VQ wondered aloud how high Burrell is on the staff's board since they project him at G.

Still think Allen and Richmond are their top targets at the last OL position.
Click to expand...

Seriously how hard is it to get a friggin OT
 
#589
#589
Catbone said:
Seriously how hard is it to get a friggin OT
Click to expand...

Jones, Hall, and Boulware could all end up as OT options. With having up to 3 committed currently, IMO it's not that hard. :)

I think the staff was all in on Richmond and slow played a lot of other options. That has now back fired IMO and they may have just lost too much time to make it up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#595
#595
cncchris33 said:
Yup. No probs.

-Coleman Thomas
Click to expand...

Yea, Kendrick should have been starting without a doubt over Thomas IMO. Our line last week looked semi better with a RT who played on a torn ACL. Dobbs helped the cause a lot too. I like Thomas, but I just don't get moving him to T. We need a C for the future anyways, heck for that matter we could use a new starting C now. We can't bank on Wiesman as he never can stay healthy, and none of us know how good Ray is. I understand the depth issues, but the Thomas move was a bit eccentric, especially when you consider the two guys he started over, Sanders and Kendrick, played T in high school and he never did.
 
#597
#597
I don't give a damn who it is, but throwing a true freshman in at OL is rarely gonna play in your favor. Their bodies aren't developed enough to compete with the starting dline players in the SEC. It'll pay off later though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#599
#599
keckjm said:
Yea, Kendrick should have been starting without a doubt over Thomas IMO. Our line last week looked semi better with a RT who played on a torn ACL. Dobbs helped the cause a lot too. I like Thomas, but I just don't get moving him to T. We need a C for the future anyways, heck for that matter we could use a new starting C now. We can't bank on Wiesman as he never can stay healthy, and none of us know how good Ray is. I understand the depth issues, but the Thomas move was a bit eccentric, especially when you consider the two guys he started over, Sanders and Kendrick, played T in high school and he never did.
Click to expand...

It makes you wonder how much Thomas' weight gain may have impacted his athleticism. Sure, he needed to get stronger and all that - but he gained about 40 pounds from Jan 1 to August. That's IF he was truly 285 as a HS Sr and is now 320. Mahoney always talks about how good of an athlete he is, but his footwork leaves alot to be desired (I know he is a true freshman).

Austin Sanders' future father in law works for me, and the thing that holds him back from being a true tackle is footwork. He is strong as a moose, and it may be best for him and the program long term to be as good as he can be at guard (either guard, or even get reps at center if he has the aptitude for it).
 
#600
#600
BigorangeBoy said:
It makes you wonder how much Thomas' weight gain may have impacted his athleticism. Sure, he needed to get stronger and all that - but he gained about 40 pounds from Jan 1 to August. That's IF he was truly 285 as a HS Sr and is now 320. Mahoney always talks about how good of an athlete he is, but his footwork leaves alot to be desired (I know he is a true freshman).

Austin Sanders' future father in law works for me, and the thing that holds him back from being a true tackle is footwork. He is strong as a moose, and it may be best for him and the program long term to be as good as he can be at guard (either guard, or even get reps at center if he has the aptitude for it).
Click to expand...

Thomas is fine athletically.... It's mental reps/confidence, physical strength and not being used to being on an island with no help to both sides like you have on the interior. Mind tripping up the feet
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top