https://twitter.com/jfuga01/status/1074353690323107840?s=12
Fuga took on VT center recruit William Pritchard in the state championship game. If I can get some film of that matchup I will break it down after the Bowl. Fuga is a big body who can move and slant in a way that fits VT's DT scheme. I have heard good things from several coaches. Conditioning and upper body strength will be big factors in how quickly he can play.
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
3 DT, s in 4 days, someone has been doing some work
Crawford, Fuga and who else?
MAXXXXXXXXXX
I have a feeling he'll impress as he earns some playing time down the road. We've had plenty of successes from walk-ons.
Philpott, a walk on from roanoke
Wait yeah I missed the third one too
I asked this a few months ago and never heard but still wondering... With, what seems to be pretty decent OL recruiting the last two years and the issues with DT depth, does anyone know why Joe Kane moved from DL to OL when he got here? Is he that talented on OL? It just seems with the depth chart the way it is on the OL side, he'd have a better chance at making some impact on the DL side. Just wondering if anyone had any insight. In his tape looked like he was a beast on the defensive side. The coaches know best, it has just been something I've been wondering about.
He was never going to be DL. Which makes the decision to bring in 1 dt last class even more asinine. I think his Junior tape at DT was good but didn't keep quickness when he put on weight senior year
Gotcha. On the tape he was mostly playing DE, just figured he'd translate better on the inside. Agreed on the head scratching idea to only bring in one DT that you knew already had some issues. But, maybe they were trying and just couldn't close the deal. Well, hopefully Kane turns into a road grader at C or G for us.
IIRC Fuente has mentioned taking better players at other positions rather than taking not so great players at positions of need. I suppose the theory is that a not so good player is a wasted scholarship at any position. So we probably took more wide receivers than we needed but they were the best players we could get.
I think this is accurate. However, we didn't necessarily hold true to that this year as we had a couple of positions where even a decent player is likely to contribute
VT was thin in a few positions, and it hurt, but recruiting additional guys who weren't going to make the field wouldn't have really helped, would it?
The only thing they might have done would be to have gotten a JUCO DT, which is what they ended up doing this year.
I'm glad Fuente is being a bit aggressive in recruiting, which I could see paying off in the long run.
I think with Burke out this spring with the achilles, it will at least give us some opportunities to give some guys a look at the position. I would assume there are some others on the OL side that could at least be serviceable as a DT, maybe even see the field and be a little productive in the DT rotation.
What I meant is that we took some guys at certain positions this year that wouldn't have been a take if we weren't so desperate at those positions.
Now, I'm always glad to have Hokies as Hokies but I'll be surprised if a few of these players have an impact down the line.
Didn't Army take Oklahoma to OT?
Yes, and should have won the game outright!