Skins sign C/G Chester from Ravens

[Red_One43]

Pro Football Focus: Players Who Did Well


Chris Chester, Redskin (5 year, $20m, undisclosed guarantees)

Chester isn’t a bad player, but there is a reason why the Ravens were prepared to let him go, and a reason why they’ve never seen him as anything more than back up. He’s probably athletic enough to play in Shanahan’s system but he’s just not so good that you can afford to spend $4m a year on him. He does make the Redskins better, but not by so much that they should overpay by that amount.

With the amount that the Redskins had to play him, obviously, the Ravens tried to keep him. Chester fits Shanny's MO. Trent Williams was the highest rated Tackle on the board when Shanny selected him, but he was probably the most athletic. Chester being athletic is why Shanny went after him. You can't coach up athleticism. Having his former coach won't hurt either. PPF admits that he is an upgrade for us, so he makes us better. Finally, I bet the the contract is structured that it really isn't as good as PPF thinks. I bleive someone mentioned this earlier on this thread.

http://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/20 ... ing-value/

[Skinsfan55]

Pro Football Focus: Players Who Did Well


Chris Chester, Redskin (5 year, $20m, undisclosed guarantees)

Chester isn’t a bad player, but there is a reason why the Ravens were prepared to let him go, and a reason why they’ve never seen him as anything more than back up. He’s probably athletic enough to play in Shanahan’s system but he’s just not so good that you can afford to spend $4m a year on him. He does make the Redskins better, but not by so much that they should overpay by that amount.

With the amount that the Redskins had to play him, obviously, the Ravens tried to keep him. Chester fits Shanny's MO. Trent Williams was the highest rated Tackle on the board when Shanny selected him, but he was probably the most athletic. Chester being athletic is why Shanny went after him. You can't coach up athleticism. Having his former coach won't hurt either. PPF admits that he is an upgrade for us, so he makes us better. Finally, I bet the the contract is structured that it really isn't as good as PPF thinks. I bleive someone mentioned this earlier on this thread.

http://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/20 ... ing-value/

So us overpaying him speaks to his abilities as a player? If we hadn't given him such a huge payday then the Ravens would have?

Doubtful on both counts.

[Red_One43]

Pro Football Focus: Players Who Did Well


Chris Chester, Redskin (5 year, $20m, undisclosed guarantees)

Chester isn’t a bad player, but there is a reason why the Ravens were prepared to let him go, and a reason why they’ve never seen him as anything more than back up. He’s probably athletic enough to play in Shanahan’s system but he’s just not so good that you can afford to spend $4m a year on him. He does make the Redskins better, but not by so much that they should overpay by that amount.

With the amount that the Redskins had to play him, obviously, the Ravens tried to keep him. Chester fits Shanny's MO. Trent Williams was the highest rated Tackle on the board when Shanny selected him, but he was probably the most athletic. Chester being athletic is why Shanny went after him. You can't coach up athleticism. Having his former coach won't hurt either. PPF admits that he is an upgrade for us, so he makes us better. Finally, I bet the the contract is structured that it really isn't as good as PPF thinks. I bleive someone mentioned this earlier on this thread.

http://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/20 ... ing-value/

So us overpaying him speaks to his abilities as a player? If we hadn't given him such a huge payday then the Ravens would have?

Doubtful on both counts.

It's called outbidding. Have you ever bid on something and lost? Just because you lost the bid doesn't mean that you didn't value it. The Ravens might have other options on their roster. We apparently didn't.
Again, I point out, is Shanny sees the athleticism in this guy as something he wants ands needs from his guard then he will be willing to "overpay" for a guy. Just like folks said a 4th pick was "overpay" for Trent Williams.

Finally: Did we in fact overpay? The question is how is the contract structured. I am willing to bet that the contract is structured favorably to both sides.

[Skinsfan55]

It's called outbidding. Have you ever bid on something and lost? Just because you lost the bid doesn't mean that you didn't value it.

...

Finally: Did we in fact overpay? The question is how is the contract structured. I am willing to bet that the contract is structured favorably to both sides.

So if you're on ebay, and you see something you want that you feel is worth around $10 and then someone comes in and wins it for $50 does that mean the item is worth $50 or does it mean the winning bidder placed an inordinately high value on the item?

[1niksder]

On Ebay $50 is $50.... In the NFL $20M isn't always $20 million

[Red_One43]

It's called outbidding. Have you ever bid on something and lost? Just because you lost the bid doesn't mean that you didn't value it.

...

Finally: Did we in fact overpay? The question is how is the contract structured. I am willing to bet that the contract is structured favorably to both sides.

So if you're on ebay, and you see something you want that you feel is worth around $10 and then someone comes in and wins it for $50 does that mean the item is worth $50 or does it mean the winning bidder placed an inordinately high value on the item?

On ebay if the bid is $10 dollars and you bid $50 and no one bids again, you win the auction at $11 - Not $50. Why is it that you want to assume that we just outbidded the Ravens with an amount that they couldn't or wouldn't match instead of incrementally outbidding them? All other free agents, to include our own, we let test the market. Why would you think it would be any different than Chester. I would be willing to bet the Ravens tried to keep him but for them, he wasn't worth bidding that high. As with most winning bidders, they do place value that high. Again, Allen has showed expertise with three teams in structuring contracts . This isn't VINNY - he is long gone.

[Red_One43]

On Ebay $50 is $50.... In the NFL $20M isn't always $20 million

+1

[Skinsfan55]

At least it is a ?, the OL is only marginally improved so we know it will be bad, just like last year. The only thing we have done to improve it was sign a Ravens' backup to "improve" one spot.

Very little change to the OL, means very little change to the OL!

He wasn't a Ravens backup

Okay, I think Chris Chester is going to help some, but showing he was temporarily first on the depth chart doesn't disprove the idea he is a backup. Chester was never the Ravens first choice to hit the field, but was always pressed into action by injury. Marshall Yanda was their starting RG, but an injury to tackle Jared Gaither forced him to slide to RT. That of course opened a spot for Chester.

One more time.... he's started 38 games over the last three years.

He was second string 10 games out of 48

That speaks for itself, what's so hard to understand about that?

Obviously you don't have any use for context. You're happy to parrot the fact he started 38 of 48 games over and over and over and over.

Chris Chester has been the #1 reserve for the Ravens his whole career. Injuries forced him into the starting lineup, just as our top reserve Stephon Heyer got many starting opportunities.

He was given ample opportunities to start but was always replaced. He played 2008 as a starter, was replaced by Marshall Yanda by the end of 2009 and in 2010 he was forced into action again due to the Gaither injury that moved Yanda to RT. It's clear to anyone who does a little bit of digging that Chester was given several opportunities to start and always ended up back on the bench. In fact, Rotoworld had this to say:

The Redskins plan to start Chris Chester at right guard.
Chester couldn't hold down a starting job in Baltimore due to ineffectiveness, but the Redskins gave him $20 million. The 'Skins have one of the worst offensive lines in football and are planning to stage a full-blow competition between Rex Grossman and John Beck at quarterback.

Scouts Inc. has a much more positive scouting report, but even they praise him for being an important part of their interior line as well as pointing out his versatility. Not as a guy who is a surefire starter.

All you're saying with the 38/48 stat is that he was pressed into action way more than the Ravens ever intended.

[1niksder]

It's called outbidding. Have you ever bid on something and lost? Just because you lost the bid doesn't mean that you didn't value it.

...

Finally: Did we in fact overpay? The question is how is the contract structured. I am willing to bet that the contract is structured favorably to both sides.

So if you're on ebay, and you see something you want that you feel is worth around $10 and then someone comes in and wins it for $50 does that mean the item is worth $50 or does it mean the winning bidder placed an inordinately high value on the item?

On ebay if the bid is $10 dollars and you bid $50 and no one bids again, you win the auction at $11 - Not $50. Why is it that you want to assume that we just outbidded the Ravens with an amount that they couldn't or wouldn't match instead of incrementally outbidding them? All other free agents, to include our own, we let test the market. Why would you think it would be any different than Chester. I would be willing to bet the Ravens tried to keep him but for them, he wasn't worth bidding that high. As with most winning bidders, they do place value that high. Again, Allen has showed expertise with three teams in structuring contracts . This isn't VINNY - he is long gone.

IF it were Vinny, I'd be inclined to agree with Skinsfan55

[skinsfan#33]

So you don't think the progression of our tackles with Trent moving past his rookie season and Jamaal being actually available for a season will have an impact? I think you're totally wrong. Solid bookend tackles would have more of an impact then another interior lineman. We'll see.

+1

Looking at the video clips of our line, a lot of the pressure was coming off the edge.

It appears you have stock in Youtube, that must be why you keep sending is there, because it is worthless from a football exaltation stand point. Unless you managed to find coaches tape or a compilation of EVERY play a player made.

I could put together highlights that make it look like Hainsworth was a stud with the Skins and I could do the same that makes him look like the worst player to play that position.

Highlights are cool to look at but should never be used as a evaluation tool unless you have every play, otherwise they are worthless!

[skinsfan#33]

At least it is a ?, the OL is only marginally improved so we know it will be bad, just like last year. The only thing we have done to improve it was sign a Ravens' backup to "improve" one spot.

Very little change to the OL, means very little change to the OL!

He wasn't a Ravens backup

Okay, I think Chris Chester is going to help some, but showing he was temporarily first on the depth chart doesn't disprove the idea he is a backup. Chester was never the Ravens first choice to hit the field, but was always pressed into action by injury. Marshall Yanda was their starting RG, but an injury to tackle Jared Gaither forced him to slide to RT. That of course opened a spot for Chester.

One more time.... he's started 38 games over the last three years.

He was second string 10 games out of 48

That speaks for itself, what's so hard to understand about that?

What is hard to understand is the notion that you think that he was their starter just because the guy that they wanted to be their starter was injured. Yes, he started a bunch of games for the Buzzards, but that was only because the starter couldn't start due to injury.

So he was a backup that started a lot of games because the starter was hurt. That may make him valuable, it may even mean he is good, but it doesn't make him a starter. It makes him a backup that was forced to start a lot of games.

[1niksder]

All you're saying with the 38/48 stat is that he was pressed into action way more than the Ravens ever intended.

I'm saying if he wasn't starter quality he would have been replaced at some point over the course of three years. We're talking about the Ravens and their front office, they know how to go out and find what they need. They had what they needed. When Gaithers went down Yanda moved to tackle and Chester replaced him at guard. When Gaithers came back Chester wasn't benched. He was moved to TE. Why?

Because they wanted him on the field.

[Skinsfan55]

I'm saying if he wasn't starter quality he would have been replaced at some point over the course of three years.

They did. In 2008 he lost his job to Marshall Yanda early in the season, Yanda then got injured and Chester finished. He started in 2009 while Yanda recovered and then lost his job again. Lastly, in 2010 he only started because Gaithers was injured and Yanda moved to RT. These are all indisputable. He only played because a starter was injured. That's what makes him a backup.

We're talking about the Ravens and their front office, they know how to go out and find what they need. They had what they needed. When Gaithers went down Yanda moved to tackle and Chester replaced him at guard. When Gaithers came back Chester wasn't benched. He was moved to TE. Why?

Because they wanted him on the field.

Even the argument that his starting at TE is somehow evidence that the Ravens needed him on the field is explained by an injury to the starter. Todd Heap was injured and there was no one else really at the position. They wanted a big blocker in the game for certain situations since they are a running team. It's not like he was catching passes.

The Ravens are a smart team with a good front office, I don't see how that fact, combined with the fact they didn't make much of an effort to re-sign him is interpreted as a positive.

Look, I've said on other places on the board that Chester is the key to the line. If he adapts to the scheme and becomes an above average player this line might not be as bad as some of us expect. He's really the one wildcard IMO. I think he'll help, I think he's an upgrade on Hicks but the bottom line is, he's kind of a risky move because we paid him starter money and he has a history of being a career backup who's been given several opportunities to start... and he always ends up back on the bench.

[skinsfan#33]

I see Shanahan working to create a healthy rotation of down hill runners in the offensive backfield. Next questions: "Can the O-line keep up?" "Will the passing game be adequate to keep the box uncluttered?"

+1

Passing game is definitely a ???

At least it is a ?, the OL is only marginally improved so we know it will be bad, just like last year. The only thing we have done to improve it was sign a Ravens' backup to "improve" one spot.

Very little change to the OL, means very little change to the OL!

To a casual fan, this would appear true. We so far have only signed Chester. But deeper analysis yields three additional improvements considering building lines actually isn't just about signing free agents:

- Trent Williams is no longer a rookie and should show significant improvement
- Jamaal Brown is in his second year after his injury, an injury which typically takes two years to heel. He clearly wasn't full strength last year.
- OL's take several years to gel, consistency helps.

Are we going to forget the hogs this year? No. But we have two good tackles who both should improve significantly this year and we have some consistency and depth. To say the only change we made is signing Chester ergo that's going to be the only improvement really isn't very insightful.

How about this for insightful since I'm much more than a casual fan:
- Trent Williams MAY improve but it certainly isn't guaranteed, but he had no off season to work with the coaches and he chose not to work out with his team mates and his poor work habits were a red flag before he was drafted and is still a concern.
- J Brown's hip should be better from the surgery, but it was trotted that it is also arthritic which would be a chronic problem
- If Montgomery was a clear improvement over Rabach at C why wasn't he starting there last year? So he MAY be beyer than Rabach our he may be worse. (personally I THINK he will be a marginal improvement)
- Lichtenwhatever has been call "hot garbage" by a former player, but I must admit he did improve a the season went on, because he certainly couldn't have gotten worse!
- We change 2 out of 5 of our starters. So there goes your consultancy.
- Our backups have little to no game experience.

Even the most optimistic person can't expect this group to be anything but average at best and a realist would count on it being in the bottom third of the NFL. And that is if ask of our starters play every game!

Face it basically stayed status quo. So yes there will be some inerrant improvement as they gel but that just means they will go from being laughable to poor or average if average breaks just right!

Yippie!

[SkinsJock]

I don't think the O line is going to suddenly become as good as everyone wants

Agreed

OR - be a big improvement over last season

So you don't think the progression of our tackles with Trent moving past his rookie season and Jamaal being actually available for a season will have an impact? I think you're totally wrong. Solid bookend tackles would have more of an impact then another interior lineman. We'll see.

WHOA there hoss - don't put words in my mouth

I said that we would see some improvement but to say that I'm "totally wrong" seems a little strong

no worries - we''ll see - you might be right but I think decent improvement is more likely than expecting a huge upgrade


I think the offensive line will be better but I'm not looking for HUGE improvement from the offense this year - some improvement is to be expected and will be nice

we need time ... AND we need a good QB

[KazooSkinsFan]

I don't think the O line is going to suddenly become as good as everyone wants

Agreed

OR - be a big improvement over last season

So you don't think the progression of our tackles with Trent moving past his rookie season and Jamaal being actually available for a season will have an impact? I think you're totally wrong. Solid bookend tackles would have more of an impact then another interior lineman. We'll see.

WHOA there hoss - don't put words in my mouth

I said that we would see some improvement but to say that I'm "totally wrong" seems a little strong

no worries - we''ll see - you might be right but I think decent improvement is more likely than expecting a huge upgrade


I think the offensive line will be better but I'm not looking for HUGE improvement from the offense this year - some improvement is to be expected and will be nice

we need time ... AND we need a good QB

Well, I guess it's in the connotation. When you say it's not going to be a big improvement, I take that as implying it's not going to be much of an improvement. I did agree it's not going to get us where we want, but we're in shades of gray so I take what you say as word.

[KazooSkinsFan]

I see Shanahan working to create a healthy rotation of down hill runners in the offensive backfield. Next questions: "Can the O-line keep up?" "Will the passing game be adequate to keep the box uncluttered?"

+1

Passing game is definitely a ???

At least it is a ?, the OL is only marginally improved so we know it will be bad, just like last year. The only thing we have done to improve it was sign a Ravens' backup to "improve" one spot.

Very little change to the OL, means very little change to the OL!

To a casual fan, this would appear true. We so far have only signed Chester. But deeper analysis yields three additional improvements considering building lines actually isn't just about signing free agents:

- Trent Williams is no longer a rookie and should show significant improvement
- Jamaal Brown is in his second year after his injury, an injury which typically takes two years to heel. He clearly wasn't full strength last year.
- OL's take several years to gel, consistency helps.

Are we going to forget the hogs this year? No. But we have two good tackles who both should improve significantly this year and we have some consistency and depth. To say the only change we made is signing Chester ergo that's going to be the only improvement really isn't very insightful.

How about this for insightful since I'm much more than a casual fan:
- Trent Williams MAY improve but it certainly isn't guaranteed, but he had no off season to work with the coaches and he chose not to work out with his team mates and his poor work habits were a red flag before he was drafted and is still a concern.
- J Brown's hip should be better from the surgery, but it was trotted that it is also arthritic which would be a chronic problem
- If Montgomery was a clear improvement over Rabach at C why wasn't he starting there last year? So he MAY be beyer than Rabach our he may be worse. (personally I THINK he will be a marginal improvement)
- Lichtenwhatever has been call "hot garbage" by a former player, but I must admit he did improve a the season went on, because he certainly couldn't have gotten worse!
- We change 2 out of 5 of our starters. So there goes your consultancy.
- Our backups have little to no game experience.

Even the most optimistic person can't expect this group to be anything but average at best and a realist would count on it being in the bottom third of the NFL. And that is if ask of our starters play every game!

Face it basically stayed status quo. So yes there will be some inerrant improvement as they gel but that just means they will go from being laughable to poor or average if average breaks just right!

Yippie!

You started with some more reasonable analysis then went back to the casual fan level analysis that only counts is who we sign. We knew Trent was a rookie, we knew Jamaal wouldn't be full steam the first year and we knew the team needed more consistency. Those are things that are happening. We did those AND signed Chester. We didn't just sign Chester.

[1niksder]

I'm saying if he wasn't starter quality he would have been replaced at some point over the course of three years.

They did. In 2008 he lost his job to Marshall Yanda early in the season, Yanda then got injured and Chester finished. He started in 2009 while Yanda recovered and then lost his job again. Lastly, in 2010 he only started because Gaithers was injured and Yanda moved to RT. These are all indisputable. He only played because a starter was injured. That's what makes him a backup.

If he lost he job to Yanda that would mean he was the starter, right?
But you say he wasn't.

In 2008 he played with the first team (started) 11 of 16 games even if it was due to injury he had started the year before so if he wasn't starting caliber the Ravens had all off-season to find someone that was but they didn't. They knew Yanda was injury prone and they stayed with what they had. They weren't hurting for cap space so they had every chance to go get someone... they didn't. They started Chester.

In 2010 he started because they wanted him to start Gaithers may have had injuries but that wasn't anything new. If he was a backup wouldn't they have moved him to Tackle instead of Yanda?

Why move your "starting guard"(Yanda) to tackle and put a backup in at guard? If it were the left side of the line... maybe

Chester was the starting guard and that's where he stayed. Yanda was the one that got moved. You're right it's indisputable they wanted him on the field and they juggled the line to make it happen and they did it over a 4 year period.

Chester started at guard 34 out of 48 games, because he is a starting caliber guard. Those are just the facts, not assumptions.

We're talking about the Ravens and their front office, they know how to go out and find what they need. They had what they needed. When Gaithers went down Yanda moved to tackle and Chester replaced him at guard. When Gaithers came back Chester wasn't benched. He was moved to TE. Why?

Because they wanted him on the field.

Even the argument that his starting at TE is somehow evidence that the Ravens needed him on the field is explained by an injury to the starter. Todd Heap was injured and there was no one else really at the position. They wanted a big blocker in the game for certain situations since they are a running team. It's not like he was catching passes.

That would make since if Heap had got hurt in late Nov. when Chester was moved to TE but he didn't get hurt until mid Dec.

Chester was lining up on one side with Heap on the other, when Heap went down then Ed Dickson (the guy you says they didn't have) took over. Dickson filled in so well Heap was released this year.

The Ravens are a smart team with a good front office, I don't see how that fact, combined with the fact they didn't make much of an effort to re-sign him is interpreted as a positive.

We agree about Ozzie you say they didn't make much of a effort to re-sign Chester.

He got more of a offer than Gaithers or Heap did and you say their injuries are part of the reason Chester was starting.

Look, I've said on other places on the board that Chester is the key to the line. If he adapts to the scheme and becomes an above average player this line might not be as bad as some of us expect. He's really the one wildcard IMO. I think he'll help, I think he's an upgrade on Hicks but the bottom line is, he's kind of a risky move because we paid him starter money and he has a history of being a career backup who's been given several opportunities to start...

History is what happened in the past and all he as done in the past is start for most of he career.

You can try to spend why he was starting anyway you want the fact is and history shows he started 70% of the snaps the Ravens offense had over the last 4 years.

and he always ends up back on the bench.

2008 he finished the season as the starter, 2009 he finished the season as the starter, last year he finished the season as the starter.

Somebody should have told him he was a backup before he left Baltimore.

[chiefhog44]

Here is an article for those that think Williams hasn't improved this offseason.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/foo ... _blog.html

And

This debate about Chester being starting or non-starting...nowadays, the 6th lineman is usually as good as a low end starter. You are splitting hairs.

[Red_One43]

So you don't think the progression of our tackles with Trent moving past his rookie season and Jamaal being actually available for a season will have an impact? I think you're totally wrong. Solid bookend tackles would have more of an impact then another interior lineman. We'll see.

+1

Looking at the video clips of our line, a lot of the pressure was coming off the edge.

It appears you have stock in Youtube, that must be why you keep sending is there, because it is worthless from a football exaltation stand point. Unless you managed to find coaches tape or a compilation of EVERY play a player made.

I could put together highlights that make it look like Hainsworth was a stud with the Skins and I could do the same that makes him look like the worst player to play that position.

Highlights are cool to look at but should never be used as a evaluation tool unless you have every play, otherwise they are worthless!

None of clips that I posted were highlights of the lineman. They were focusing on other the players, so your argument there doesn't fly. Though, I sold my stock in Youtube, I still believe that it a worthwhile site to view football clips. I referenced it, so fans who don't want to read a bunch of opinions, can have a look and judge for themselves.

Skinsfan#33

Highlights are cool to look at but should never be used as a evaluation tool unless you have every play, otherwise they are worthless!

Thank you for your opinion.
Now here is an opinion from a writer who did some research:

Shanahan often evaluated players by watching tapes of their highlights, a system employed by some in the league who believe that if you see a player at his best then he can be coached up to that ability.
"It has worked for him. I think he has confidence in it," said Lombardi, the NFL Network analyst.

link at the bottom

You see Shanahan would disagree with you that you should never use highlights as a tool for evaluation unless you have every play. The use of the word "some" means that Shanny is not alone with this strategy. Shanahan would say they are not worthless. Now, I am not saying your wrong, you might quote another coach who agrees with you and it just so happens that I kinda agree with you, but I would "never" say "never", I'd say it is not the best way to evaluate players for me. This is precisely why I chose not to post clips of highlights about the linemen. I would love to hear you try to sell your argument to Shanny that he should never use highlights as a tool to evaluate players unless he has every play.

One thing you did convince, is I need to stop watching youtube for football plays, since I am good buddies with several NFL coaches and all I need to do is contact them to allow me to look at actual game footage of their players.

Skinsfan#33 wrote

I could put together highlights that make it look like Hainsworth was a stud with the Skins and I could do the same that makes him look like the worst player to play that position.

Too late Shanny already made the stud one and sent it to Belichick. Too late on the worst player to play the position video too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFzp3uHua40

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 0010700047

[Irn-Bru]

Some people seem so hell-bent on demonstrating that the Ravens can do no wrong that they are really twisting the story behind Chester.

It's really not that complicated: the Redskins think he's worth more than the Ravens do. OK. Did the Ravens think Chester wasn't worth anything? No. Was Chester a starting-quality player for the Ravens? Yes. (That's really indisputable, btw, and I'm amazed so much ink has been spilled over that question.) Do the Ravens want someone better than Chester to start next year? Yes.

Of course the Ravens FO will make it sound like they didn't care if we poached him. That's what the tight-fisted FOs in the league do (Philly, NE, Pitt, Balt). If you are a player on one of those teams, be prepared to be thrown under the PR bus the very moment the team is done with you. They all pretend that anyone they let go isn't much of a loss. (Often times they are right.)

[1niksder]

+1

[Red_One43]

All you're saying with the 38/48 stat is that he was pressed into action way more than the Ravens ever intended.

I'm saying if he wasn't starter quality he would have been replaced at some point over the course of three years. We're talking about the Ravens and their front office, they know how to go out and find what they need. They had what they needed. When Gaithers went down Yanda moved to tackle and Chester replaced him at guard. When Gaithers came back Chester wasn't benched. He was moved to TE. Why?

Because they wanted him on the field.

+1

[Irn-Bru]

This is a friendly staff reminder that debates about Chester should take place in the Chester thread, not in the Hightower thread.

Thank you.

[andyjens89]

Chester will fit the 'skins scheme. He was drafted in the 2nd round and was tops at the 2006 combine in the 40-yard dash, 3 cone drill, vertical jump, and broad jump for his position, meaning he is pretty athletic, with 27 reps on the bench to boot. The Ravens line is full of maulers like Grubbs and Yanda, which is different from Chester.