My son played with Ty at BA, I know what we have in Ty.Is this a D4H burner account? @Freak can we get this guy a handle change Chandler4Heisman?
Thats an insult to D4H. At least D4H is intelligent.Is this a D4H burner account? @Freak can we get this guy a handle change Chandler4Heisman?
I think you put the wrong shrooms on your pizza. You be trippin’!1. Ty Chandler is a Heisman ability back but our staff is enamored with "spreading" the ball around to other backs throughout the game. It is very frustrating as he can and will be a stud in the league. Think Kamara on steroids.
2. 79 plays in a modern football game is not much for a defense to play. Its not ideal but definitely not a ridiculous number and not an excuse to give up 50.
3. From a pure physiological standpoint, KC is much better equipped to take the beating that our Oline allows our QBs to take.
4. We can and will beat Vandy if Ty is featured almost exclusively, the others are simply mop up type players.
5. There is NO way Missiouri has a night and day better roster of talent with the last 4 or 5 classes they have brought in, simply NO WAY.
6. We will win 10 next year if we play Shrout and feature Chandler.
Do you realize that seriously everyone disagrees with you?
Whats all that have to do with Alvin Kamara?Thinking about some of that...
Of the RB's, Chandler did have the best game last night.
Jordan seemed to be off right from the start.
Fils-Aime can't fumble on one of his few touches.
Banks seems to have disappeared since the RB-LB-RB switch around.
So, OP is probably correct that Chandler needs to roll vs Candybilt.
Not so sure about some of the other observations...
Thank youThinking about some of that...
Of the RB's, Chandler did have the best game last night.
Jordan seemed to be off right from the start.
Fils-Aime can't fumble on one of his few touches.
Banks seems to have disappeared since the RB-LB-RB switch around.
So, OP is probably correct that Chandler needs to roll vs Candybilt.
Not so sure about some of the other observations...