Gordio Posted April 20, 2015 Posted April 20, 2015 Are you kidding me, cut Fred Jackson!!! I would rather we cut you. Good day Sir, I said good day. Take it easy Alice. There is a decent possibility that Jackson does get cut in training camp. Don't be surprise if he does.
JohnC Posted April 20, 2015 Posted April 20, 2015 Except for your comment about him having "tremendous hands", that's an exaggeration worthy of P.T. Barnum. All receivers drop passes. If you are disturbed by the words "tremendous hands" then I will change it to "good hands". As I stated in prior posts he is on the receiving end of a lot of less than precise throws.
Deranged Rhino Posted April 20, 2015 Posted April 20, 2015 All receivers drop passes. If you are disturbed by the words "tremendous hands" then I will change it to "good hands". As I stated in prior posts he is on the receiving end of a lot of less than precise throws. No one disputes Buffalo has had sub-par QB play in the past 15 years and counting. But that doesn't mean Chandler will magically become something he's not in New England with a better QB and system in place. He's still Chandler, a guy with suspect hands, poor athleticism, and so-so blocking. That doesn't magically go away with a new QB throwing him the ball. He'll be lucky to be active for 10 games this season barring a major injury to Gronk. He didn't have a role in the new offense and was costly to keep. Releasing Scott gave the Bills the room to resign Easley and extend Kyle on top of bringing in Clay.
YoloinOhio Posted April 20, 2015 Posted April 20, 2015 All receivers drop passes. If you are disturbed by the words "tremendous hands" then I will change it to "good hands". As I stated in prior posts he is on the receiving end of a lot of less than precise throws. to be fair, he dropped passes Ej threw right in his numbers in 2013. I agree he made some clutch catches too. He's not a "bad" player. But not all of his drops were due to the Qb. He dropped passes that were accurate.
JohnC Posted April 20, 2015 Posted April 20, 2015 No one disputes Buffalo has had sub-par QB play in the past 15 years and counting. But that doesn't mean Chandler will magically become something he's not in New England with a better QB and system in place. He's still Chandler, a guy with suspect hands, poor athleticism, and so-so blocking. That doesn't magically go away with a new QB throwing him the ball. He'll be lucky to be active for 10 games this season barring a major injury to Gronk. He didn't have a role in the new offense and was costly to keep. Releasing Scott gave the Bills the room to resign Easley and extend Kyle on top of bringing in Clay. I have never made the argument that he is an exceptional talent. So I don't understand your response. What I have repeatedly stated is that he will be a contributing player and even a better player playing for a team with a good qb and for an organizatiion that has a good record utilizing the talents of players and managing their limitations. How he fits in with the team he left is not the issue. He is gone and signed with a team that wanted him. The issue is how will he do with his new team? I believe he will be a positive contributor. to be fair, he dropped passes Ej threw right in his numbers in 2013. I agree he made some clutch catches too. He's not a "bad" player. But not all of his drops were due to the Qb. He dropped passes that were accurate. I didn't say that all his drops can be attributed to the inconsistently accurate passers that he played with. He dropped some passes and he made some tough catches. What I have stated is that I believe that he will be a more effective player playing on a team with an accurate passer and an organization that is smart in utilizing the individual talents of its player. There are things that Chandler does not do well, such as blocking. But as a secondary receiver in an offense that very often utilizes multiple TE sets he can be productive and an asset to the offense. Whether there was no role for him with the Bills isn't the issue for me. Whether he can be a contributor for his new team is the issue for me. I believe so.
Kelly the Dog Posted April 20, 2015 Posted April 20, 2015 I have never made the argument that he is an exceptional talent. So I don't understand your response. What I have repeatedly stated is that he will be a contributing player and even a better player playing for a team with a good qb and for an organizatiion that has a good record utilizing the talents of players and managing their limitations. How he fits in with the team he left is not the issue. He is gone and signed with a team that wanted him. The issue is how will he do with his new team? I believe he will be a positive contributor. I didn't say that all his drops can be attributed to the inconsistently accurate passers that he played with. He dropped some passes and he made some tough catches. What I have stated is that I believe that he will be a more effective player playing on a team with an accurate passer and an organization that is smart in utilizing the individual talents of its player. There are things that Chandler does not do well, such as blocking. But as a secondary receiver in an offense that very often utilizes multiple TE sets he can be productive and an asset to the offense. Whether there was no role for him with the Bills isn't the issue for me. Whether he can be a contributor for his new team is the issue for me. I believe so. That's the equivalent of saying Julian Edelman would be better on the Patriots than he would be on the Bills or other teams.
Deranged Rhino Posted April 20, 2015 Posted April 20, 2015 I have never made the argument that he is an exceptional talent. So I don't understand your response. I responded to your claim that Scott has "tremendous hands" and that you "weren't exaggerating" his talents. He doesn't have tremendous hands or even good hands. He has suspect hands, hence the exaggeration. That's all. Scott was a fine Bill but a mediocre TE at best. That won't change in New England.
BuffaloHokie13 Posted April 20, 2015 Posted April 20, 2015 No one disputes Buffalo has had sub-par QB play in the past 15 years and counting. But that doesn't mean Chandler will magically become something he's not in New England with a better QB and system in place. He's still Chandler, a guy with suspect hands, poor athleticism, and so-so blocking. That doesn't magically go away with a new QB throwing him the ball. He'll be lucky to be active for 10 games this season barring a major injury to Gronk. He didn't have a role in the new offense and was costly to keep. Releasing Scott gave the Bills the room to resign Easley and extend Kyle on top of bringing in Clay. Agreed. Hasn't Chandler had Rivers, Romo, and Eli as his QB's before too?
Kelly the Dog Posted April 20, 2015 Posted April 20, 2015 Agreed. Hasn't Chandler had Rivers, Romo, and Eli as his QB's before too? He didn't really play with them in games, and I doubt saw much action with them even in training camp and practice. He was the #4 or #5 TE before he came to the Bills. In fact, with the Cowboys, he was on the roster, the Bills claimed another TE off their PS squad and the Cowboys chose to keep him and cut Chandler, whom the Bills immediately signed. Nix always claimed Chandler was the guy he wanted but I always doubted that, even though Nix knew him from the Charger days. Surely he didn't know the Cowboys would do what they did (although he could have hoped for it). I'm also sure he would have been happy with either. The other guy was Martin Rucker.
JohnC Posted April 20, 2015 Posted April 20, 2015 That's the equivalent of saying Julian Edelman would be better on the Patriots than he would be on the Bills or other teams. Absolutely! That's my point. The Bills have had for a very long time had below average qbs. Any receiver (including limited players) playing with an immensely better qb with his new team compared to the mediocre qbs formerly played with is going to be more effective. I don't understand your and others gottcha approach to something that is so obvious. To go further on this issue the Pats to a greater degree than the Bills have been much smarter in utilizing the individual talents of its playlers while also minimizing their limitiations. In my mind they have a history of being a better coachedteam than the historically struggling Bills. Stating the obvious is simply stating the obvious. I responded to your claim that Scott has "tremendous hands" and that you "weren't exaggerating" his talents. He doesn't have tremendous hands or even good hands. He has suspect hands, hence the exaggeration. That's all. Scott was a fine Bill but a mediocre TE at best. That won't change in New England. Without a doubt Chandler was a below average TE in the league. But for a long time he was the best TE on the roster. That is why (the level of talent) the Bills have been out of the playoffs fr 15 consecutive years.
Kirby Jackson Posted April 20, 2015 Posted April 20, 2015 (edited) Absolutely! That's my point. The Bills have had for a very long time had below average qbs. Any receiver (including limited players) playing with an immensely better qb with his new team compared to the mediocre qbs formerly played with is going to be more effective. I don't understand your and others gottcha approach to something that is so obvious. To go further on this issue the Pats to a greater degree than the Bills have been much smarter in utilizing the individual talents of its playlers while also minimizing their limitiations. In my mind they have a history of being a better coachedteam than the historically struggling Bills. Stating the obvious is simply stating the obvious. I guess that it kind of works both ways for me. Chandler had a tremendous opportunity in Buffalo that he wouldn't have had anywhere else. He was the #1 TE because the position group was terrible. If he played with a better QB that certainly would have helped Chandler. If Chandler were on another team however he would have seen his chances dwindle. In reality, Chandler had it really good in Buffalo. They missed on upgrading the position last year so he was given another run as a top guy (at a reduced cost). He was given lots of opportunities to showcase his limited abilities. Edited April 20, 2015 by Kirby Jackson
atlbillsfan1975 Posted April 20, 2015 Posted April 20, 2015 I don't think the Vikings feel this way ... Good take A broke clock is right twice a day. besides it was Hogan's catch that was the clutch catch. Chandler's was nice, but not calling it the clutch one for that game.
JohnC Posted April 20, 2015 Posted April 20, 2015 I guess that it kind of works both ways for me. Chandler had a tremendous opportunity in Buffalo that he wouldn't have had anywhere else. He was the #1 TE because the position group was terrible. If he played with a better QB he could certainly help Chandler. If Chandler were on another team he would see his chances dwindle. In reality, Chandler had it really good in Buffalo. They missed on upgrading the position last year so he was given another run as a top guy (at a reduced cost). Read my response to Greggy T in post #90 that made the same point that you just made. Chandler being a starter for the Bills is a reflection of a long term flawed franchise.
Pneumonic Posted April 20, 2015 Posted April 20, 2015 Chandler will most likely take Hoomanawanui's roster spot and add a much more balanced option for the Pats at the 2nd TE spot. Having a more traditional TE as the 2nd outta allow the Pats to get much more creative with Gronk in move type packages. With Gronk and Chandler in there the Pats red zone and short yardage package will be a challenge to defend.
Kelly the Dog Posted April 20, 2015 Posted April 20, 2015 Absolutely! That's my point. The Bills have had for a very long time had below average qbs. Any receiver (including limited players) playing with an immensely better qb with his new team compared to the mediocre qbs formerly played with is going to be more effective. I don't understand your and others gottcha approach to something that is so obvious. To go further on this issue the Pats to a greater degree than the Bills have been much smarter in utilizing the individual talents of its playlers while also minimizing their limitiations. In my mind they have a history of being a better coachedteam than the historically struggling Bills. Stating the obvious is simply stating the obvious. Without a doubt Chandler was a below average TE in the league. But for a long time he was the best TE on the roster. That is why (the level of talent) the Bills have been out of the playoffs fr 15 consecutive years. Stating the obvious, which is what you were doing, is no point at all. Chandler will most likely take Hoomanawanui's roster spot and add a much more balanced option for the Pats at the 2nd TE spot. Having a more traditional TE as the 2nd outta allow the Pats to get much more creative with Gronk in move type packages. With Gronk and Chandler in there the Pats red zone and short yardage package will be a challenge to defend. That is what Wright is for. Hoomanawanui is there to block. That's what most team's third TE is for (unless the blocker is also the #2 TE).
JohnC Posted April 20, 2015 Posted April 20, 2015 Stating the obvious, which is what you were doing, is no point at all. It was enough of a point for you to repeatedly argue over.
Pneumonic Posted April 20, 2015 Posted April 20, 2015 (edited) Stating the obvious, which is what you were doing, is no point at all. That is what Wright is for. Hoomanawanui is there to block. That's what most team's third TE is for (unless the blocker is also the #2 TE). Wright isn't a traditional TE and Hoomanawanui, while a decent pass blocker, poses no threat as a pass catcher and offers zero matchup advantage. Chandler can play in-line and pass block as a traditional TE but also threaten in the receiving game and require some accountability ... something the Pats lacked last year. Edited April 20, 2015 by Pneumonic
Kirby Jackson Posted April 20, 2015 Posted April 20, 2015 Read my response to Greggy T in post #90 that made the same point that you just made. Chandler being a starter for the Bills is a reflection of a long term flawed franchise. Yeah, it is amazing that in the history of the franchise (until now) they haven't really had a great TE. Warlick is probably the closest. People love Big Red but he was pretty average. He was good when compared to Derek Fine and some of the other gems that have worn a Bills uniform. If you think about it Chandler may be in the top 5 Bills TEs of all-time and he is currently a #4 on the Pats (or at least a 3). It is strange how that position has been so neglected.
JohnC Posted April 20, 2015 Posted April 20, 2015 Yeah, it is amazing that in the history of the franchise (until now) they haven't really had a great TE. Warlick is probably the closest. People love Big Red but he was pretty average. He was good when compared to Derek Fine and some of the other gems that have worn a Bills uniform. If you think about it Chandler may be in the top 5 Bills TEs of all-time and he is currently a #4 on the Pats (or at least a 3). It is strange how that position has been so neglected. The best blocking TE we had was Paul Seymour, a college OT. He was a very good blocking TE for OJ. The Bills drafted Tony Hunter two picks ahead of their selection of Jim Kelly in the first round. As you noted the Bills have not been too successful in identifying good TE prospects. Clay may turn out to be at the top of ranking of a very nondiscript list.
Kelly the Dog Posted April 20, 2015 Posted April 20, 2015 The best blocking TE we had was Paul Seymour, a college OT. He was a very good blocking TE for OJ. The Bills drafted Tony Hunter two picks ahead of their selection of Jim Kelly in the first round. As you noted the Bills have not been too successful in identifying good TE prospects. Clay may turn out to be at the top of ranking of a very nondiscript list. Yup on all accounts. Seymour was a very good blocker. The Bills have never had a good TE outside of Warlick in the mid 60s. Even MacKellar wasn't any good. Metz was pretty good.
Recommended Posts