VolNation

 Users online now! 1206            Home   Blog   VN Mobile   Store   Arcade   Contact Us    


About this Page -- This is a discussion on UT didn't recruit a top DT this season. within the forum Tennessee Vols Recruiting. I know UT picked up a top DE this year but UT really needed to recruit a top DT. Losing ...

Go Back   VolNation > Tennessee Vols Forums > Tennessee Vols Recruiting

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-11-2007, 09:52 PM   #1 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
oklavol's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 10,448
UT didn't recruit a top DT this season

I know UT picked up a top DE this year but UT really needed to recruit a top DT. Losing both starting DT's Turk McBride and Matt McGothlin. I'm disappointed UT didn't recruit one. UT is going to be thin at DT next season.

The best prospect is :

23 Rolando Melancon

but UT needed someone who could play immediately.

Last edited by oklavol; 02-11-2007 at 09:55 PM.
oklavol is offline   TOP Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2007, 09:53 PM   #2 (permalink)
Member

Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 67
I believe Melancon is going to be a good DT that we recruited. Look at his video he is good.
andy51386 is offline   TOP Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2007, 09:56 PM   #3 (permalink)
GIVE HIM SIX
 
govols182's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Chattanooga
Posts: 9,845
What about Donald Langley? He is ranked higher than Melancon.
govols182 is offline   TOP Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2007, 09:58 PM   #4 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
oklavol's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 10,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by govols182 View Post
What about Donald Langley? He is ranked higher than Melancon.

What I saw had Langley as the 53rd best prospect at DT

Tennessee DT 53 Donald Langley
(Seneca Valley HS)
oklavol is offline   TOP Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2007, 10:00 PM   #5 (permalink)
Maestro of Merge
 
GAVol's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 39,189
Quote:
Originally Posted by oklavol View Post
but UT needed someone who could play immediately.
Unfortunately, it's next to impossible finding 18 year olds who are physically ready to play D-Tackle in the SEC.
GAVol is offline   TOP Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2007, 10:06 PM   #6 (permalink)
Senior Member

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Brentwood
Posts: 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by GAVol View Post
Unfortunately, it's next to impossible finding 18 year olds who are physically ready to play D-Tackle in the SEC.
uhhhhh...marvin austin
voloholic is offline   TOP Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2007, 10:12 PM   #7 (permalink)
Senior Member

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Knoxville
Posts: 6,217
Quote:
Originally Posted by voloholic View Post
uhhhhh...marvin austin
I think that is why he said "Next to impossible to find a DT physically ready to play in the SEC". There is one that comes along every now and then, but it isn't the norm.
__________________
"Spider pig, spider pig, does whatever a spider pig does." ~ Homer Simpson
utvol0427 is offline   TOP Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2007, 10:13 PM   #8 (permalink)
Volunteer
 
TennTradition's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 7,958
Quote:
Originally Posted by voloholic View Post
uhhhhh...marvin austin
ok...it's hard to find rational 18yr olds who can play DT as freshmen
TennTradition is online now   TOP Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2007, 10:14 PM   #9 (permalink)
Mergelicious
 
vader's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: DFW
Posts: 15,561
Quote:
Originally Posted by TennTradition View Post
ok...it's hard to find rational 18yr olds
FYP
__________________
Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity - Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
vader is offline   TOP Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2007, 10:16 PM   #10 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Volunteer_Kirby's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: West Texas
Posts: 2,950
lol, Scout.com
Volunteer_Kirby is offline   TOP Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2007, 10:16 PM   #11 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
oklavol's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 10,448
I have to be honest and say J Mapu played well as a freshmen but he was disappointing last year. UT could use a lot of immediate help. Doesn't look like UT recruited any impact players at DT.

Secondary has Berry to step in and play. Hefney will still be back. DT will start a couple of underachieving back-ups from last season, Bolden and Mapu without much depth.

Last edited by oklavol; 02-11-2007 at 10:21 PM.
oklavol is offline   TOP Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2007, 10:16 PM   #12 (permalink)
Member

Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 87
That Langley ranking is waaaaay too low. The coaches reportedly think as much of him as they do of Austin.

Melancon and Langley are big time
allVOL6deuce is offline   TOP Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2007, 10:17 PM   #13 (permalink)
Member

Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 87
Mapu took 2 years off from weight training and football. He should be much more effective this year
allVOL6deuce is offline   TOP Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2007, 10:27 PM   #14 (permalink)
Member

Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 82
Rivals (the better recruiting source) has Langley ranked better than Melancon (both are in the Rivals 250), and since Langley enrolled in January, I'm assuming he'll participate in Spring drills. He may be ready to rumble sooner than later.
VagabondVol is online now   TOP Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2007, 10:28 PM   #15 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
oklavol's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 10,448
Langley is #12 on rivals
Melancon is #22 on rivals

thats looks a lot better. Never thought scout and rivals had such a Disparity in player rankings.
oklavol is offline   TOP Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Forum Jump

 


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.2.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24