Scott Chandler

think we expected too much..chandler is a 400-600 yards guy with 7-8 td's. which is fine for a number 1 TE. he'll have better numbers than overpaid charles clay.

Looked him up and his catches/targets is comparable to gronk. Gronk undoubtedly gets a lot more concentrated coverage, but chandlers new and probably nervous too.

These guys aren't machines. the scott chandler who played against us looked pretty good and just as a matchup, is causing headaches.

Let him get settled.

I like Chandler, he'll be fine. BB doesn't produce robots, he puts a certain group of players together that are versatile and complement each other. This team has a lot of new players that have never played together. It takes time, so far so good.

I also like the fact that we don't have any star players (barring Brady). Prima Donnas don't work well on BB'S teams.

With BB as his head coach and the coach staff of the patriots i think they can transform him into an elite tight end hopefully. I'm hoping Chandler has the Welker from Miami-Patriots, Moss Oak-patriots effect with time, him and Gronk are almost the same size and Scott is taller then gronk so if they can get chandler on point that would be a deadlier combo then Gronk/Hernendez

BradyFTW! said:

List of TEs I would definitely take over Chandler, on account of production and/or potential:

Gronk
Jimmy Graham
Jason Witten
Greg Olsen
Martellus Bennett
Travis Kelce
Delanie Walker
Antonio Gates
Dwayne Allen
Charles Clay
Vernon Davis
Coby Fleener
Jermaine Gresham
Tyler Eifert
Jordan Cameron
Kyle Rudolph
Jared Cook
Julius Thomas
Jordan Reed
Austin Seferian-Jenkins

That's 20 right there, and there's a few more like Marcedes Lewis that are just about on the same level. Granted, some of the younger guys still have a *lot* more to prove, but I'd still take their potential over Chandler's established ceiling if I had a pick of one or the other. And that's not trashing on the guy; I like Chandler and think he will add real value to this offense. He's a good player and the team is better with him on it. But there are plenty of young TEs that have a lot more promise than he does, and plenty of TEs closer to him in age who are better.

Click to expand...

That's fair, but I'm not really sure what the point is in comparing him against starters. $2.25M for this season is more than reasonable for one of the best #2 TEs in the league on a team that plays a ton of multi-TE sets.

And while drops are a subjective topic, it's interesting to note Chandler, bad hands and all, caught about 66% of his targets last season in Buffalo with some pretty terrible QBs (47 receptions in 71 targets, 10.6 YPC). Jimmy Graham is a significantly better player who had a much better QB, but caught about 68% of his targets, and averaged less per catch. Witten was around 71%, Olsen at 68%, and Bennett at 70%. Gronk was around 63%, although he also had significantly more YPC which can also factor in that there are deeper throws for him.

Let me be clear: Chandler is nowhere near as good as any of those guys. I am not saying that at all. All I am saying is he seems to catch similar percentages of balls as a lot of top guys at his position, so the hands can't be that terrible. Or if they are, the rest of his game seems to make up for it enough that there's not a significant drop in production, certainly for a #2 TE.

Jimmy Graham's arrival pushed promising second-year man Luke Willson down the depth chart. Willson has 2 receptions in 4 targets in 2 games so far. Kelce's back-up hasn't caught a pass. Ed ****son backs up Olsen and has 1 catch on 2 targets. Zach Miller is TE2 behind Bennett and has 2 catches on 2 targets. Maybe you'd add Gavin Escobar to the list with 4 catches in 5 targets, although his fumble and general stupidity have Cowboys fans gnashing their teeth.

Chandler finished in the top 20 in catches and yards last season, and he's our second-stringer. He's better than some teams's TE1, and certainly better than the majority of TE2s. Just because he doesn't match Gronk's production doesn't mean he sucks.

BradyFTW! said:

List of TEs I would definitely take over Chandler, on account of production and/or potential:

Gronk
Jimmy Graham
Jason Witten
Greg Olsen
Martellus Bennett
Travis Kelce
Delanie Walker
Antonio Gates
Dwayne Allen
Charles Clay
Vernon Davis
Coby Fleener
Jermaine Gresham
Tyler Eifert
Jordan Cameron
Kyle Rudolph
Jared Cook
Julius Thomas
Jordan Reed
Austin Seferian-Jenkins

That's 20 right there, and there's a few more like Marcedes Lewis that are just about on the same level. Granted, some of the younger guys still have a *lot* more to prove, but I'd still take their potential over Chandler's established ceiling if I had a pick of one or the other. And that's not trashing on the guy; I like Chandler and think he will add real value to this offense. He's a good player and the team is better with him on it. But there are plenty of young TEs that have a lot more promise than he does, and plenty of TEs closer to him in age who are better.

Click to expand...

I know you qualified it afterward saying you like Chandler, but I think it should go without saying that of course we'd like to have an additional top 20 TE.

2 games. We scored 40 and 28 points. There is only 1 football. So....wait.

convertedpatsfan said:

That's fair, but I'm not really sure what the point is in comparing him against starters. $2.25M for this season is more than reasonable for one of the best #2 TEs in the league on a team that plays a ton of multi-TE sets.

And while drops are a subjective topic, it's interesting to note Chandler, bad hands and all, caught about 66% of his targets last season in Buffalo with some pretty terrible QBs (47 receptions in 71 targets, 10.6 YPC). Jimmy Graham is a significantly better player who had a much better QB, but caught about 68% of his targets, and averaged less per catch. Witten was around 71%, Olsen at 68%, and Bennett at 70%. Gronk was around 63%, although he also had significantly more YPC which can also factor in that there are deeper throws for him.

Let me be clear: Chandler is nowhere near as good as any of those guys. I am not saying that at all. All I am saying is he seems to catch similar percentages of balls as a lot of top guys at his position, so the hands can't be that terrible. Or if they are, the rest of his game seems to make up for it enough that there's not a significant drop in production, certainly for a #2 TE.

Jimmy Graham's arrival pushed promising second-year man Luke Willson down the depth chart. Willson has 2 receptions in 4 targets in 2 games so far. Kelce's back-up hasn't caught a pass. Ed ****son backs up Olsen and has 1 catch on 2 targets. Zach Miller is TE2 behind Bennett and has 2 catches on 2 targets. Maybe you'd add Gavin Escobar to the list with 4 catches in 5 targets, although his fumble and general stupidity have Cowboys fans gnashing their teeth.

Chandler finished in the top 20 in catches and yards last season, and he's our second-stringer. He's better than some teams's TE1, and certainly better than the majority of TE2s. Just because he doesn't match Gronk's production doesn't mean he sucks.

Click to expand...

I would suggest reading the post that I quoted, because that provides the context for why I put that list together. The person I quoted disputed my claim that he was around the 25th best TE in the league, putting him solidly in the borderline-starter-to-good-#2 range. I like Chandler and he's a perfect adequate #2 TE. His pay is in line with the caliber of player he is, and if he had better hands and blocked better--like some people in this thread are complaining that they expected--then he wouldn't have signed here in the first place because he would've got more money somewhere else than the Pats are willing to pay for his role. He wasn't signed to be that guy and he isn't paid to be that guy. He's fine for the role that he was signed to play.

Gronks don't grow on trees.

Also worth noting, Chandler had a heck of a block on the goal line on Dion Lewis's TD run.

http://www.patriots.com/video/2015/09/23/belichick-breakdown-week-2-bills

As BB noted on Wednesday when talking about Gronk, TE is the second-toughest position behind QB because of all the things one has to do.

"Probably other than the quarterback, the tight end position in our offense is the hardest to play because you have all the protections, you have all the running game and you have routes from the sideline to the middle of the field to occasionally even in the backfield. So, there are really no plays off mentally for that position."

So let's also not overlook all those other things too. Gronk and Chandler dominating those blocks lets Lewis run through a gaping hole to build momentum towards the end zone. That doesn't show up in any fantasy football stats, so I'm sure most fans don't care. But they matter quite a bit in real football, and Chandler is a pretty complete TE, unlike many other big WRs playing the TE position.

I think we are maybe expecting a hell of a lot, given that we have been graced with some pretty good guys at the position over the last five years. I think Bills are exaggerated. He didn't fumble once last season. He has four fumbles in his career since he really got going in 2011. Four years, and four fumbles? Hardly worrying to me. So I don't really see how Bills fans saying he had fumble issues is justified.

Captain Cliche said:

Gronks don't grow on trees.

Click to expand...

Yes. Because of their sheer weight, Gronks are more of a herbaceous vine-type of plant likened to the squash or gourd family.

Typically smaller players grow on trees

He'll be just fine. Besides, all that's needed right now is the problem he creates with opposing defences. I promise you...he's a problem that defences must account for.

BradyFTW! said:

I would suggest reading the post that I quoted, because that provides the context for why I put that list together. The person I quoted disputed my claim that he was around the 25th best TE in the league, putting him solidly in the borderline-starter-to-good-#2 range. I like Chandler and he's a perfect adequate #2 TE. His pay is in line with the caliber of player he is, and if he had better hands and blocked better--like some people in this thread are complaining that they expected--then he wouldn't have signed here in the first place because he would've got more money somewhere else than the Pats are willing to pay for his role. He wasn't signed to be that guy and he isn't paid to be that guy. He's fine for the role that he was signed to play.

Click to expand...

I think the problem is that a lot of people expected Chandler to be a grade A tight end, which he has never been(exept against us). So when he performs like what he is, and frankly right in line with what he is payed, then people get dissapointed. Because they thought he was something he was never been.

I like the addition of Chandler. Because I think he gives us much greated depth at the TE position than we've had for a while, and gives us a good #2 TE.

BradyFTW! said:

he was around the 25th best TE in the league, putting him solidly in the borderline-starter-to-good-#2 range. I like Chandler and he's a perfect adequate #2 TE.

Click to expand...

If he is ~25th best in a league that has 32 teams, doesn't that mean he is an excellent #2?

In Gronk, the Pats have the best TE in the game.
In Chandler, the Pats have one of the best #2 TE's in the game.

When it comes to roster building, you can't get much better than this.

All of the above. Methinks it's a mix of what was just mentioned; situational, new offense; new QB (throwing where it should be); and basic skills. Is this a pattern for new players- with Randy Moss and an exception -that have to catch the ball for the NE offense? Isn't the current offense made up of players who went through the same? And it's not like Chandler is stinking it up and/or has not been an asset on the field. If he learns to compliment the offense a la Amendola and LaFell, it will all be well and fine.

Oswlek said:

If he is ~25th best in a league that has 32 teams, doesn't that mean he is an excellent #2?

Click to expand...

Yes, exactly. I think he's a very good TE2. People who expect him to be surehanded in addition to the other things he does are basically missing the point, since if he was a surehanded receiver he would be a TE1 making considerably more than the Pats are paying him. It's their expectations that are unreasonable, not Chandler's production.

Marinlik said:

I think the problem is that a lot of people expected Chandler to be a grade A tight end, which he has never been(exept against us). So when he performs like what he is, and frankly right in line with what he is payed, then people get dissapointed. Because they thought he was something he was never been.

I like the addition of Chandler. Because I think he gives us much greated depth at the TE position than we've had for a while, and gives us a good #2 TE.

Click to expand...

Exactly, he's right in line with what we paid him to be. People who are complaining about him are complaining that we didn't get a top-tier TE for TE2 money. If he was the player they want him to be, he wouldn't be here because he'd be making a couple million more per year and would be out of the Pats' TE2 price range.

BradyFTW! said:

Exactly, he's right in line with what we paid him to be. People who are complaining about him are complaining that we didn't get a top-tier TE for TE2 money. If he was the player they want him to be, he wouldn't be here because he'd be making a couple million more per year and would be out of the Pats' TE2 price range.

Click to expand...

Yep. My perception is that people think he is Gronk Jr. Chandler is not even Gronk's 2nd cousin on his mother's side.

Chandler will give the team ~40 catches for 500yds and 5-6TDs. As others have said with what they are paying him that is in-line with those numbers.

He is a solid TE2 and god forbid Gronk goes down is a vastly superior catching threat than Hooman.