Clairton had a conundrum with Aaron Mathews at quarterback last season.
It wasn't so much that Mathews couldn't throw the ball, but rather that he couldn't throw it to Aaron Mathews.
Wayne Wade played the position at Clairton, so the Bears coach saw the value of having the 6-foot-5, 180-pound junior split wide and starting senior Ryan Williams at quarterback.
“Ryan's arm is probably stronger. Is he more athletic? Probably not,” Wade said. “For what we do offensively, we'd rather have the stronger arm at quarterback and put the athletic guy at wideout.”
Now that Pitt, Akron, Temple, Toledo and West Virginia have offered scholarships as a receiver to Mathews, who made a bigger impact running the ball (1,034 yards and 15 touchdowns) than he did passing (515 yards, six touchdowns) last year, he knows his future is catching passes instead of throwing them.
“I like it more. More than quarterback,” Mathews said. “It seems like at quarterback you have to know way more stuff. You have to have a lot of stuff in your head before the play. At wideout, I just know I have to do my route and my blocking assignment. ...
“I feel like I'm most dangerous at wide receiver.”
Wade saw the same in seven-on-seven camps, and realized it benefits his other skill players.
“You're talking about a kid that's tall, very athletic and can jump,” Wade said. “Most teams are going to have to put a safety over him. Then it's hard because you've picked your poison.”
And it won't go down as easily as how Mathews picked his preferred position.
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.