I dont think Murrell has jumped over anyone on the depth chart just yet.
I agree that whatever the number of OLBs when we line up in a 34 Burgess is the last one on the list to play. However, depending on Cunninghams development he maybe first on the list in sub packages.
In a perfect world, to me, Cunningham wins the job opposite TBC. Ninkovich subs in for both in the base, Burgess subs in for both in the nickel/dime. TBC and JC play about 75% of the snaps each and Ninkovich and Burgess split up the other 50% (75+75+50=200 for 2 spots).
The only issue I see there is that it seems TBC and JC would each be better suited to get their rest in the base, which would leave Burgess out of the equation.
UNLESS???? I have always thought that the best use for Burgess would be INSIDE in the nickel and dime, rushing from over the G. He did that in Philly (I think he got a sack vs us the SB from that alignment IIRC) and I think he did in Oakland too. I would love to see BB try that.
If we have TBC-Wright-Burgess-JC across the DL in nickel/dime, that could be a very effective rush. Burgess moves seem to support that he doesnt need as much open space on the outside to operate as some DEs do.