Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Marty Hurney - More Burns Commentary**


SetfreexX

Recommended Posts

59 minutes ago, mc52beast said:

What’s  the o/u on how many plays into the 2019 season before the Huddle declares that Burns is a bust...

Do we even have to wait for the season? If he doesn't sack Trubinsky at least twice, he's dead to me!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LinvilleGorge said:

He might not still be changing direction on a dime carrying another 20 pounds. This honestly makes me nervous. I don't see why we need him at 270 to play 3-4 OLB and Hurney's track record with undersized 4-3 DEs is littered with failure.

While I can't disagree with the history, I think we need to look at the situation.  In the past, our coaching staff tried to fit these undersized players into our 4-3 (because that's our system!) and they failed.  Not sure why we should have been surprised.

This time however, what we're hearing is that we're moving to a 3-4, which gives these undersized players a much more natural place to fit in.  One would hope that giving them this opportunity would improve their potential trajectory.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BrianS said:

While I can't disagree with the history, I think we need to look at the situation.  In the past, our coaching staff tried to fit these undersized players into our 4-3 (because that's our system!) and they failed.  Not sure why we should have been surprised.

This time however, what we're hearing is that we're moving to a 3-4, which gives these undersized players a much more natural place to fit in.  One would hope that giving them this opportunity would improve their potential trajectory.

 

Thats what I'm saying. I don't see the need for him to put on 20 pounds to be a 3-4 OLB, so if we're looking to have him put on 20 pounds it makes again start to wonder if this defensive scheme change is going to be all that big of a change. 6-5, 270 is a lot more prototypical 4-3 DE than it is prototypical 3-4 OLB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, kungfoodude said:

As long as he isn't sacrificing too much speed, I don't see a problem with what he is saying. He WILL have to get stronger at this level. He won't be able to be a pure speed rusher and become as successful as he needs to be as a first round pick. 

This. He CAN play 4-3DE and he will more in the future. He's light in the pants right now he'll need the lower body strength when he can't rely on his speed alone.

I like Burns moves, his combo moves. You may stop his bull rush but he'll quickly bend around. He's advanced in his ability to switch up out of the gate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm Mr. Homer here so I'm going to go ahead and get on the Feel The Burns Official Bandwagon now.

I'm not particularly a fan of college ball. I prefer to watch the best of the best when they make it to the NFL. That's just me.

I do my research on guys during the draft and combine although I did watch Cam at Auburn for obvious reasons.

Before the draft I did very little research on Burns. Having watched his film I'm amazed at his fluidity, how he makes hard plays look easy for him at times, how he can instantly play like a LB, fast. I watched a play get behind him and he somehow runs through traffic to the side line to make the tackle, some Luke type sh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love college football and as a fan of UNC I was lot of ACC football. Burns looks like a beast and I'm happy with the pick, but my concern is that FSU does have quite the history of bust edge rushers. I'm just hoping that Brian Burns is more JuJu Smith-Schuster than Mike Williams (USC has quite the history of WR busts).

It's tough projecting players from college to the pros. A few years back, Wake Forest LB Aaron Curry looked like qn absolutely can't miss prospect. Great college player, strong workouts, no off-field issues. Worst case scenario you're thinking he's a solid starting LB. Worst case. If you'd told me then that he'd be a complete bust, I would've asked you what injury he suffered because that looked like the only way that guy wasn't headed toward being a top tier NFL LB. Total bust.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Too late to edit above but the quote is from this Diane Russini article in the Athletic: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5941684/2024/11/23/russinis-what-im-hearing-the-day-the-jets-fell-apart-and-the-broncos-rallied-belichick-best-fits/ Okay.. there you have sorry I left that out the first post.  Also waivers keep the contract intact. That is the major difference in released and waived. It's all in that link from the other post.
    • Okay so I am reading something in The Athletic and it says that Jones had to pass through waivers. So I don't know. I looked this stuff up when we were number one there all offseason and I thought it said 4 years in the league got you vested, as they call it.  Vested gets you out of waivers as I understood it. I probably got something wrong, but when I think about the slack quality of journalism these days I wonder about that. So I went and looked, again. Well, well.  For everyone: "When a player has accrued at least four seasons in the NFL, they are considered a vested veteran. When these vested veterans get cut, they are released and their contract is terminated. When a vested veteran is released, they are an unrestricted free agent that can sign with any NFL team, and the team that released them doesn’t need to provide any additional compensation." It runs it all down here, where the quotes came from: https://www.profootballnetwork.com/waived-vs-released-nfl/ As far as Jones, the team turned down his 5th year option so I knew that meant he had 4 years in, because they re-signed him anyway, after turning down the much cheaper extra year.  The Athletic is owned by the New York Times so I shouldn't be surprised. That paper was an institution once upon a time but they let their standards go.
    • Well, we got our answer on Army today.
×
×
  • Create New...