Clay for Chandler....bad deal.

[HHURRICANE]

Not to rain on everyone's parade here.....

Love the Hughes signing, ok with McCoy, and even Harvin. However it looks like Whaley got his over inflated, Tom Donohoe ego, sucked into the Clay drama. Chandler is bigger, arguably just as productive, with less speed. Chandler sucked so much that the Pats came in and snatched him up. Clay was so good his numbers look the same as Chandlers.

This contract makes it look like we got Jerry Hughes on the cheap and I think it creates cap issues, issues with players on this team, etc.

We tried to sign an offensive lineman and it didn't work out. I'm ok with that. I'm not ok with the money burning a hole in your pocket. Glad the team has owners that will spend money but as Schneider proved in DC all the spending in the world doesn't buy you a championship.

This deal is dumb on every level.

[CoolBreeze]

Re: Clay for Chandler....bad deal.

Is that the same Schneider that was on "One day at a Time"? I thought Snyder owned the Redskins.

[HHURRICANE]

Re: Clay for Chandler....bad deal.

Is that the same Schneider that was on "One day at a Time"? I thought Snyder owned the Redskins.

Hahhahahahahahahaha!!!!

Sorry Snyder.

Hate auto correct.

[CoolBreeze]

Re: Clay for Chandler....bad deal.

LOL. I'd take Valerie Bertinelli tho

[Pinkerton Security]

Re: Clay for Chandler....bad deal.

Dumb on every level is a gross overstatement. Chandler was a crappy blocker, and had a knack for dropping easy catches.

My real beef with the Clay contract offer is the money - how the heck did we just make this guy the 4th highest paid TE in the league? I dont think we'll regret signing Clay by any means, but it seems overpriced.

[Mahdi]

Re: Clay for Chandler....bad deal.

Not to rain on everyone's parade here.....

Love the Hughes signing, ok with McCoy, and even Harvin. However it looks like Whaley got his over inflated, Tom Donohoe ego, sucked into the Clay drama. Chandler is bigger, arguably just as productive, with less speed. Chandler sucked so much that the Pats came in and snatched him up. Clay was so good his numbers look the same as Chandlers.

This contract makes it look like we got Jerry Hughes on the cheap and I think it creates cap issues, issues with players on this team, etc.

We tried to sign an offensive lineman and it didn't work out. I'm ok with that. I'm not ok with the money burning a hole in your pocket. Glad the team has owners that will spend money but as Schneider proved in DC all the spending in the world doesn't buy you a championship.

This deal is dumb on every level.

That's because you are comparing apples to apples.

Clay is an apple Chandler is an orange.

They have completely different games and serve an offense in a completely different way.

[Dr. Lecter]

Re: Clay for Chandler....bad deal.

Meh. I liked Chandler. Probably more than most. He was a pretty good receiver and ran decent routes. His rep for dropping passes is way over stated too.

But he was a poor blocker and was not athletic or fast. Clay is a better blocker and more of a receiving threat.

That being said, I would probably take Chandler at 2.5 million and a better guard or RT (if there is one out there!) than Clay at 7 per. And a hit of 16 million for him next year is bad since they will be paying Dareus, Gilmore, Bradham and Glenn new deals next year.

But let's not pretend they are the same guy or have the same numbers. That's simply not true

[Mr. Miyagi]

Re: Clay for Chandler....bad deal.

Everybody suddenly is a goddamn GM of the year, pretending to know anything about managing the cap. No we don't know crap about that. Stop your *****ing already.

[GreedoII]

Re: Clay for Chandler....bad deal.

Who cares about the money...stop whining about it. Chandler should have beem gone 3 yrs ago....

[Mr. Miyagi]

Re: Clay for Chandler....bad deal.

Oakland saved up 68 million in cap room. Would you rather be them?

[Woodman]

Re: Clay for Chandler....bad deal.

It'll only hurt when I smile after we beat the Pats.

So far 1 RB, 1 FB, 1WR, 1 OG, 2 QB, Resigning Hughes and maybe 1 TE .... so I'll hold the judgments until the results are in.

So what's next?

A message is being sent.

[Strongman]

Re: Clay for Chandler....bad deal.

Whaley put the Bills in a tough spot by releasing Chandler before signing Clay. The rest of the available TEs are a scrap heap. In order to have a decent TE, he pretty much had to make him an offer he's are confident the Fins can't match.

I'n order to justify Clay's contract, I hope he's at least 2x as productive as Chandler was.

[Uncle Jesse]

Re: Clay for Chandler....bad deal.

Chandler couldn't block anyone. Clay is excellent at that, and just as, if not more productive as a receiver. He's no doubt an upgrade from a pure roster standpoint.

[ParanoidAndroid]

Re: Clay for Chandler....bad deal.

He's more versatile, not much better of a blocker, but better, he's way faster and gets yards-after-catch. He can get by CB's and safeties and surely creates a match-up problem for LB's. Chandler was all size and decent hands. Clay hasn't hit his ceiling yet. Of course there will be those who say "I told you so" after Chandler has a good year with Tom Brady throwing him the ball.

[better days]

Re: Clay for Chandler....bad deal.

He's more versatile, not much better of a blocker, but better, he's way faster and gets yards-after-catch. He can get by CB's and safeties and surely creates a match-up problem for LB's. Chandler was all size and decent hands. Clay hasn't hit his ceiling yet. Of course there will be those who say "I told you so" after Chandler has a good year with Tom Brady throwing him the ball.

Clay is a MUCH BETTER blocker than Chandler.

And Clay is much harder to tackle than Chandler.

With his size, Chandler makes a nice target to throw the ball to, I will give him that.

But for all his size, you would think Chandler would be a better blocker & harder to tackle than he is.