YoloinOhio Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 right, 3 for 23, long 9 against us. Look for them to try and increase thatagreed
3rdand12 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. so you are Pats fan! 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? Rex. For putting Robey on him
BaaadThingsMan Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 I saw a snippet on inside the nfl of Chandler after his TD all pumped up and in the offenses faces screaming 15 plays helluva start boys let's keep it goin and they all looked at him like...dude, shut up. I laughed
bigK14094 Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 Nobody has mentioned money. Chandlers release was about money too. Chandler was scheduled to make 2.75 mil, I think. He was asked to take a haircut ala Urbik (who went from $3 mil to $1mil) Chandler refused and was cut. the Pats made a point of signing him for.....I think $100K over the Bills salary he was cut from . Making him make ($2.85 mil, I think) So, lots of good football talk here on this thread, but, the money was part of the equation....and mayb e more than the on field performance imho. Also, Chandler hadd some killer days against the Pats thinking back over a few years....so they bought the on field performance.
Kirby Jackson Posted November 20, 2015 Author Posted November 20, 2015 (edited) Nobody has mentioned money. Chandlers release was about money too. Chandler was scheduled to make 2.75 mil, I think. He was asked to take a haircut ala Urbik (who went from $3 mil to $1mil) Chandler refused and was cut. the Pats made a point of signing him for.....I think $100K over the Bills salary he was cut from . Making him make ($2.85 mil, I think) So, lots of good football talk here on this thread, but, the money was part of the equation....and mayb e more than the on field performance imho. Also, Chandler hadd some killer days against the Pats thinking back over a few years....so they bought the on field performance.They already cut him once over money and no one wanted him. They brought him back on a team friendly deal. Money was not much of a factor in this particular decision. He wasn't in huge demand this year either. He signed a smaller deal than Lee Smith. Edited November 20, 2015 by Kirby Jackson
Formerly Allan in MD Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 You'd be having an unproductive year as well if you backed up Gronk. Chandler wasn't a star but he wasn't as bad as some on this board made him out to be.
Kirby Jackson Posted November 20, 2015 Author Posted November 20, 2015 You'd be having an unproductive year as well if you backed up Gronk. Chandler wasn't a star but he wasn't as bad as some on this board made him out to be.He wasn't brought there to backup though. He was brought there to play the Hernandez role.
Prickly Pete Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 (edited) I think they wanted him there in case Gronkowski got injured. I expected him to get injured, and that Chandler would get some good opportunities...he still might. Edited November 20, 2015 by HoF Watkins
Billsfansince90 Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 I hated to see him go. He was a productive pass catcher who could stretch the field and provide a big target in the red zone. We were on the hook for a lot of cheddar though and we were looking for more blocking up front. Clay provides both and is a much more athletic target. Whaley needed to trip so salary and he was unfortunately a casualty of that. I miss him but I'm not unhappy that he hasn't taken off with the Pats.
CardinalScotts Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 hes had some good games against the patriots, maybe that creates an overrated thought process. I think they thought he could be tough in the red zone 6-7 and forgotten, but he has bad hands and his blocking has never been good
truth on hold Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 (edited) I think they wanted him there in case Gronkowski got injured. I expected him to get injured, and that Chandler would get some good opportunities...he still might.It's an easier adjustment to feature him as a bigger part of the offense than try to get amendola to take edelman's place in the slot. He may be smallish and white like edelman and welker, but he's more of a true downfield WR Edited November 20, 2015 by JTSP
RyanC883 Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 Clay is clearly better than Chandler. But who among our other tight ends is better than Chandler? Or for that matter, Lee Smith? None, as far as I can see. Gragg is better than Chandler.
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 DOOMED .. watch a breakout performance on MNF 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
Chandler#81 Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 Gragg is better than Chandler. and O'Leary more upside.
YoloinOhio Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 (edited) DOOMED .. watch a breakout performance on MNFat this point in his career I think it would be referred to as a "fluke" vs a "breakout performance" Edited November 20, 2015 by YoloinOhio
Kirby Jackson Posted November 20, 2015 Author Posted November 20, 2015 at this point in his career I think it would be referred to as a "fluke" vs a "breakout performance"Pretty much ^^ I for one with be thrilled if the Pats game plan is to feed Chandler. When Chandler gets the ball a lot the team loses because he's a non threat. He's a limited possession receiver with decent hands, plays smaller than his frame and has no explosion. I'm all for opponents giving the ball to guys that can't hurt you.
bigK14094 Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 Gragg is better than Chandler. Uhhhh...WRONG...Gragg is a borderline NFL player...not sure he is around much longer.....Chandler is more like a journeyman. Big difference, actually.
Kelly the Dog Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 This guy is better than Scott Chandler and he's younger, too. http://youtu.be/TsoUBjy3-_w
Nanker Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 The only issue I ever had with releasing Chandler, was counting our chickens before they hatched and releasing him before Clay was officially ours. However, he is, so no harm no foul. Clay, clearly an upgrade over Chandler. Eye sea what ewe did their. http://youtu.be/lIVSGPwAe7k
quinnearlysghost88 Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 !@#$ bellicheat: "trying to feed him unsuccessfully twice in a row in Week 2 vs. Buffalo in the end zone" "The 43 snaps for Chandler against Buffalo easily marks a season high, as he is averaging 23.6 snaps per game in the team's 9-0 start." he tried to needle us and failed.
Recommended Posts