Kirby Jackson Posted November 20, 2015 Author Posted November 20, 2015 (edited) the article is about the discrepancy in what the Pats thought they were getting and expected (a return to their 2 TE sets like with Gronk/Hernandez) and what they actually got (Chandler, who isn't close to Hernandez talent-wise). Not about why Buffalo cut him. He didn't fit the TE role in Roman's system and he wasn't good enough to change the system and be put out there as just a mediocre pass catcher taking up a spot. There were actually pats media and fans declaring before the season that they had two elite TEs. I wanted to know who the hell the other one was. Chandler is a depth TE and they see that now. Not sure why they had their sites set so high. The really annoying people were those that were CONVINCED that he would just all of a sudden become good because he was on the Pats. As if going to the Pats made him faster, a better blocker, a better route runner and better hands. His skill set wasn't holding him back it was the jersey. It was such a dumb argument then and has been proven wrong (at least so far). I honestly thought NE was a good fit for him and he would be a reliable #2. He just was never going to be Aaron Hernandez because he has nowhere near the talent. Hernandez has more murders than Chandler TDs this year. Edited November 20, 2015 by Kirby Jackson
LB3 Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 The real annoying people were those that were CONVINCED that he would just all of a sudden become good because he was on the Pats. As if going to the Pats made him faster, a better blocker, a better route runner and better hands. His skill set wasn't holding him back it was the jersey. It was such a dumb argument then and has been proven wrong (at least so far). I honestly thought NE was a good fit for him and he would be a reliable #2. He just was never going to be Aaron Hernandez because he has nowhere near the talent. Hernandez has more murders than Chandler TDs this year.
Charles Romes Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 This just in, Scott Chandler is still a bad football player. Despite what many here believed to be a Pro Bowl year, Chandler has looked like the same unathletic borderline #2 TE that he was here. I don't know where everyone went that was predicting a monster year from a below average player but here's Mike Reiss to tell you more: http://espn.go.com/blog/new-england-patriots/post/_/id/4787682/exploring-why-te-scott-chandler-hasnt-had-more-impact-with-patriots I have to agree. Every time I flip the channel there is chandler dropping another one. I almost feel bad for the pats for having him and can't believe they have kept him. Wouldn't surprise me to see a chandler drop causing the pats to lose the whole thing.
FireChan Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 The real annoying people were those that were CONVINCED that he would just all of a sudden become good because he was on the Pats. As if going to the Pats made him faster, a better blocker, a better route runner and better hands. His skill set wasn't holding him back it was the jersey. It was such a dumb argument then and has been proven wrong (at least so far). I honestly thought NE was a good fit for him and he would be a reliable #2. He just was never going to be Aaron Hernandez because he has nowhere near the talent. Hernandez has more murders than Chandler TDs this year. I was one of those people, but you're misrepresenting the argument, IMO. It was never that going to the Pats would make Chandler better. It was that he had decent numbers in Buffalo with garbage QB's who didn't throw a lot. One could reasonably think that going to another team with a way better QB who throws 40-50 times a game would increase his numbers. And I was wrong in this regard.
YoloinOhio Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 I was one of those people, but you're misrepresenting the argument, IMO. It was never that going to the Pats would make Chandler better. It was that he had decent numbers in Buffalo with garbage QB's who didn't throw a lot. One could reasonably think that going to another team with a way better QB who throws 40-50 times a game would increase his numbers. And I was wrong in this regard. i have to think his snaps will increase going forward with the injuries they've had. Just a matter of what he does with them.
Kelly the Dog Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 I thought Chandler would do a lot better even though I don't think he is all that good. I thought Spiller would do a lot better even though I thought he was good. That can only mean one thing and I don't know what it is.
Kirby Jackson Posted November 20, 2015 Author Posted November 20, 2015 I was one of those people, but you're misrepresenting the argument, IMO. It was never that going to the Pats would make Chandler better. It was that he had decent numbers in Buffalo with garbage QB's who didn't throw a lot. One could reasonably think that going to another team with a way better QB who throws 40-50 times a game would increase his numbers. And I was wrong in this regard. The point that was missed though is that the good numbers in Buffalo were a function of an opportunity that his skill level didn't warrant. He was never challenged for his starting role despite not having the tools to be an average starter. It wasn't that he was good despite bad QB play, he put up good numbers because of bad TE talent on the roster.
FireChan Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 The point that was missed though is that the good numbers in Buffalo were a function of an opportunity that his skill level didn't warrant. He was never challenged for his starting role despite not having the tools to be an average starter. It wasn't that he was good despite bad QB play, he put up good numbers because of bad TE talent on the roster. You're right, but I thought he'd get opportunities even as the #2. Especially with Gronk drawing coverage in twin TE sets.
3rdand12 Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 i would swear i saw him score a touchdown for the Patsies?
Kirby Jackson Posted November 20, 2015 Author Posted November 20, 2015 You're right, but I thought he'd get opportunities even as the #2. Especially with Gronk drawing coverage in twin TE sets.I did too. I thought that it was the ideal fit. Thought that he would only catch maybe 25-30 balls but 6+ TDs.
truth on hold Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 Unfortunately he may step up against us as pats avoid our DBs and look to exploit our poor covering LBs and backup SS
dave mcbride Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 I've watched him a fair bit this season, and he's a weak link on that team.
Augie Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 I won't say anything negative.... until next week. I don't want to spur a freak 3 TD game.
YoloinOhio Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 Unfortunately he may step up against us as pats avoid our DBs and look to exploit our poor covering LBs and backup SSif he does, good for him. He's been frequently open all season though due to teams saying WGAS and only stepped up on occasion.
Gray Beard Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 Not that I believe in jinxing the team. but all this talk about how worthless he is makes me think he will stand in the endzone and make a catch too high for the defense to stop. He does that every so often, and I wouldn't be surprised if it happens on Monday night. Then who will look foolish?
YoloinOhio Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 (edited) Not that I believe in jinxing the team. but all this talk about how worthless he is makes me think he will stand in the endzone and make a catch too high for the defense to stop. He does that every so often, and I wouldn't be surprised if it happens on Monday night. Then who will look foolish?no one? He hasn't been good. If he does that good for him. Doesn't erase his crappiness for 9 games. Edited November 20, 2015 by YoloinOhio
truth on hold Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 if he does, good for him. He's been frequently open all season though due to teams saying WGAS and only stepped up on occasion. he played OK against us if I remember, and got a TD. these guys have a tendency to step up against former teams. with that and Pats working more on him during practise (which i can see given the matchups theyd want to exploit and avoid), i can at least see him featured more
Kirby Jackson Posted November 20, 2015 Author Posted November 20, 2015 Not that I believe in jinxing the team. but all this talk about how worthless he is makes me think he will stand in the endzone and make a catch too high for the defense to stop. He does that every so often, and I wouldn't be surprised if it happens on Monday night. Then who will look foolish?If the game plan on Monday is to get the ball to Chandler, I like the Bills chances. He may score but that doesn't change the fact that he isn't good and hasn't been what the Pats thought.
YoloinOhio Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 (edited) he played OK against us if I remember, and got a TD. these guys have a tendency to step up against former teams. with that and Pats working more on him during practise (which i can see given the matchups theyd want to exploit and avoid), i can at least see him featured moreno TDs vs Bills. He has two 1-yd TDs all year. Week 1 and week 10. Edited November 20, 2015 by YoloinOhio
truth on hold Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 no TDs vs Bills. He has two 1-yd TDs all year. Week 1 and week 10. right, 3 for 23, long 9 against us. Look for them to try and increase that
Recommended Posts