Phillip Burley moved to TE

by **smu diamond m** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 2:48 pm

No joke. Not updated on smumustangs.com, but from a reliable source.

He's apparently been putting on a good bit of weight from lifting, making him more viable as a TE.

by **abezontar** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 2:58 pm

Just what we need another TE that won't be used.

by **Stallion** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 3:07 pm

I think we might have 6 TEs. Let's see Chase, McKinney, Walker, Brock, Austin Michelson(Tech transfer who caught a couple in the spring game) and now Burley. But these guys all play special teams too I'm not real surprised by the move as most Division 1A schools questioned Burley speed to play WR once he grew into his body. I wonder if some to these TEs will get moved?

by **MustangIcon** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 3:12 pm

This is really disappointing considering how underutilized the TE position has been for us, a problem which has been here for quite some time, and how thin we are at WR.

Burley is 6'3 or 6'4 and ran a 4.5 coming out of highschool right? Has he really put on so much weight that his speed has been greatly affected? Plenty of big physical college receivers are very successfull even though they run slower than a 4.5. I just would hate to see a talented athlete get wasted at a deep position that we have never utilized in the first place, while we search for more WRs.

by **davidsmu94** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 3:22 pm

As Darth Vader put it at the end of the Return of the Sith..."Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo"

by **Stallion** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 3:22 pm

Yep he ran run one of those (unverified) 4.5s . Now you know why I insist on the distinction when I report-despite the fact I know it brings tears to some of your eyes. All I know is that several teams had him pegged as a TE not a WR.

by **LakeHighlandsPony** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 3:26 pm

I was really looking forward to having a receiver that actually looked like a Div. 1 receiver

by **smu diamond m** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 3:38 pm

davidsmu94 could you edit your post so it doesn't make the page 3 feet wide?

by **Charleston Pony** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 3:54 pm

I'd like to see more of McKinney at FB in some 2 back sets

by **jkflamebo** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:16 pm

LakeHighlandsPony wrote:I was really looking forward to having a receiver that actually looked like a Div. 1 receiver

me too...but sanders and givens are pretty baller

by **Corso** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:46 pm

McKinney has done mostly lead-blocker stuff (while annihilating guys on special teams), Walker doesn't have ideal size, Brock has a history of stingers in his neck and Burley's speed might well be affected by his offseason knee surgery. He's still big, has good hands (from the little I saw of him in practice last year) and his brother is a pretty good indication he could carry a lot more weight. When he was recruited, many speculated this move would happen one day. No surprise, and nothing wrong with this move, especially if he's slowed at all. Beef him up and use let's see if he can become a dangerous weapon, if not at the position we all first envisioned.

by **ALEX LIFESON** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 6:45 pm

Plus it looks like Jeff Brocks career is over, due to injuries.

by **westexSMU** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 7:05 pm

[quote="Charleston Pony"]I'd like to see more of McKinney at FB in some 2 back sets[/quote].........................I'm for that, the guy can block and would be great on 1st, 2nd, 3rd and goal also.

by **jtstang** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 8:12 pm

Stallion wrote:I think we might have 6 TEs.

Don't forget the backup QB contingent.

by **MiMiguys** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 10:26 pm

Say, Since we are getting more guys playing TE. Please let us have some TE U's. I have been spitting nails for 2 years waiting to see this play done by SMU.