Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

DT Nate Chandler to offensive tackle?


Recommended Posts

hmmm...interesting.

 

A four-star prospect and one of the best tight end prospects in the country as a California prep. Also averaged a double-double in basketball in addition to lettering in track and baseball. His father passed away just weeks before signing day.

 

Redshirted in 2007.

 

Saw action in all 12 contests at offensive line, tight end and on special teams, making two starts at tight end, grabbing one pass for three yards in ‘08.

 

Caught one pass for five yards in 11 contests in ’09 as a reserve tight end and as a special-teams player. Missed three games because of injury - Arizona and Oregon State (concussion) and the EagleBank Bowl against Temple (quadriceps).

 

Switched to the defensive side of the ball for the ’10 season and appeared in all 12 games, starting eight contests – the first four at defensive end and the next four at defensive tackle – and recorded 21 tackles, one tackle for loss and one sack with one pass batted down.

 

Appeared in all 14 games, making five consecutive starts late in the season at DT, and managed 16-2 1/2-1 with one pass batted down in '11.

http://www.profootballweekly.com/prospects/player/nate-chandler-89/

i've read a bit more on him and he wasn't getting all the reps he wanted at TE so he asked to move to the DL. he was 225lbs his senior year of high school and by the time he was a junior in college he had filled out to 290lbs (went up to 303 at one point)...but he was still really athletic, not a fatty. that's kind of big for a TE.

 

what i see is just a good athlete who can handle both sides of the line. he's probably more needed on the offensive line and that was probably his best chance for sticking with the team. i see him working on the left side backing up gross and giving campbell some competition for the LT2 spot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shows me that they really like this kid. Moving him to OT gives him a better opportunity to make the final 53.

he's big. he's athletic. he's versatile. he's willing to play anywhere. he's shown he can learn multiple positions. ideal for depth, imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • When we drafted Luke, we already had Cam, Smith, Olsen, Stewart, Deangleo, Gross, Kalil, CJ, Hardy, Beason, TD, Gamble (and maybe more I'm forgetting), we had a lot of great pieces in place. Going pure BPA for a player with Luke's potential when the LB you already have is different when you already have all those pieces in place.  Our OL right now is probably in a better shape than that team and our RBs and TE have potential compared to proven vets back then, but after that, the 2012 roster was in a far better shape than we are right now. We need a #1 WR, DEs, LBs, DBs, C, and depending who you ask a QB.  Going BPA at pick #5 when that player is a DT and your current best player on either side of the ball is a DT, seems irresponsible. If he's the only player they like that high left, then you trade back and go with position of more need at a slot that makes sense for the player while adding other picks.  If you trade back and he falls because other teams don't need/want a DT, then you consider him at that point because of the value.    
    • This sounds like the same back and forth when we drafted a LB when we already had a LB or as mentioned prior back to back DLs. I want the BPA, if it is another DT so be it. (No not a kicker/punter for those people that think they are funny))
    • I’m hoping SMU messes it all up and wins out. Imagine the SEC & BI0 would crap themselves trying to “fix” the problem.
×
×
  • Create New...