Alphadawg7 Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Just got this text that they tendered Poz, Whitner and Chandler... Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmjoyce113 Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 It will be interesting to see what designation they gave each of these players as far as what other teams would need to give up in order to sign them. Also I am pretty sure, not positive but pretty sure that this is all dependent on the next CBA as well as to whether being tendered will even hold up or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Estro Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 (edited) Just got this text that they tendered Poz, Whitner and Chandler... Thoughts? I guess we found out the answer to my question last week. Whitner can be retained with the RFA designation, whether or not it holds up once a new CBA is agreed upon is questionable. The biggest surprise for me is not to see George Wilson on that list. According to Chris Brown, G. Wilson has the same number of accrued seasons as Whitner so I believe he should be eligible for the RFA designation. This could mean one of two things: The Bills don't plan on retaining George Wilson or they are working on a long term deal. I'm hoping it's the latter, because I think Wilson is a valuable piece to the secondary and at the worst provides quality depth. I hope he is retained. Edited March 1, 2011 by Estro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Now, with more Linky Felton Huggins and Garrison Sandborn were also tendered contracts. The Whitner and Poz deals were as much to secure their rights as it was to offer them a contract. When FA begins any team courting them must allow Buffalo one week to match the offer sheet. Chandler is a former Bolt converted Bill who saw limited action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-Gun10 Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 So they will be Bills for the 2012 season? unless a tram trades for on of them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Estro Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 It will be interesting to see what designation they gave each of these players as far as what other teams would need to give up in order to sign them. Also I am pretty sure, not positive but pretty sure that this is all dependent on the next CBA as well as to whether being tendered will even hold up or not. Most people seem to think these designations will not hold up once a new CBA is agreed upon. None the less it is smart for front offices to protect their assets as best they can under the current rules, and as of now these designations are allowed. Just wish George Wilson was on that list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 So they will be Bills for the 2012 season? unless a tram trades for on of them? In order to sign Whitner or Poz, the team must allow the Bills to make a counter offer to the contract or face drawing compensation. That means if another NFL club signed Posluszny or Whitner to an offer sheet, if and when a free agency period begins this offseason, Buffalo would have a week to match or at the very least receive compensation in the form of a draft choice equal to the round in which they were drafted. Per team policy Buffalo does not disclose the tender level of their qualifying offers. Poz could be worth it, I do not know if someone would try Whitner for the risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattyT Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 So they will be Bills for the 2012 season? unless a tram trades for on of them? This just gives the Bills an opportunity to match any offer for these guys or be compensated when and if another team does sign them away. Not a lot of assurance that they will be back...especially w/o a CBA in place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Is Wilson really that good, or just the best of a sub-par bunch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slayers Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Whitner could be worth it, I do not know if you get anything from the CFL for signing Poz There fixed it for ya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 If the NFL goes back to the salary cap rules whereby players are UFAs after 4 seasons (which most expect they will), then these tags are rendered meaningless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattyT Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Is Wilson really that good, or just the best of a sub-par bunch? I think it's mostly that he represents good value for what you get compared to Whitner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 (edited) I think it's mostly that he represents good value for what you get compared to Whitner. I think I agree. However, I think (and I am thinking the Bills brainstrust is thinking the same thing) that Whitner still has more of that dreaded upside than Wilson. Whitner has been inconsistent, and sometimes not looked so good...but I think he has shown, on occaision, that he can be a pretty good starter. While GW, by all accounts, is a stand-up guy who has done a good job (particularly considering his switch of positions), he is limited. If they really want to improve this defense they need more than that. The thinking, I am guessing, with an upgrade of the front seven, Whitner will look a lot better. If you recall, last summer, Chan Gailey was really high on Whitner, and kept praising him for his effort, and his desire. I think the season just kind of got away from the Bills, defensively, and I don't think Whitner was the fundamental problem. His propenstiy for speaking (and tweeting) a little too much made him an easy target for those disgusted with the defensive unit. Personally, I think Whitner is kind of a goofball, but, his heart is in the right place... Edited March 1, 2011 by Buftex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thoner7 Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 I guess we found out the answer to my question last week. Whitner can be retained with the RFA designation, whether or not it holds up once a new CBA is agreed upon is questionable. The biggest surprise for me is not to see George Wilson on that list. According to Chris Brown, G. Wilson has the same number of accrued seasons as Whitner so I believe he should be eligible for the RFA designation. This could mean one of two things: The Bills don't plan on retaining George Wilson or they are working on a long term deal. I'm hoping it's the latter, because I think Wilson is a valuable piece to the secondary and at the worst provides quality depth. I hope he is retained. My first reaction was “Well G Wilson must not be eligible” But I guess that’s not accurate. I cannot believe this team thinks Whitner is better than Wilson. The proof is in the pudding. Wilson makes plays (TFL, INTs, Forced Fumbles, Covers the player he is assigned to cover) while Whitner gets scored on for TD after TD after TD. If he starts for us next year I am taking Gronkowski in the 2nd round of my fantasy draft. Sure Whitner tackles a guy after no one in our front 7 did but that doesn’t make him great – that means he does his job in a slightly above average way. I don’t mind keeping him as a backup S but WTF JUST SIGN THE BEST SAFETY WE HAVE ALREADY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If we let him walk GW is going to go to a much better team, with a much stronger D, and be much better than Whitner. We will then be screaming about how we let the guy go. His success wont be because “he has better players around him so obviously he looks goo” It will be because he is better than Whitner and is a good player all by himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattyT Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 (edited) My first reaction was “Well G Wilson must not be eligible” But I guess that’s not accurate. I cannot believe this team thinks Whitner is better than Wilson. The proof is in the pudding. Wilson makes plays (TFL, INTs, Forced Fumbles, Covers the player he is assigned to cover) while Whitner gets scored on for TD after TD after TD. If he starts for us next year I am taking Gronkowski in the 2nd round of my fantasy draft. Sure Whitner tackles a guy after no one in our front 7 did but that doesn’t make him great – that means he does his job in a slightly above average way. I don’t mind keeping him as a backup S but WTF JUST SIGN THE BEST SAFETY WE HAVE ALREADY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If we let him walk GW is going to go to a much better team, with a much stronger D, and be much better than Whitner. We will then be screaming about how we let the guy go. His success wont be because “he has better players around him so obviously he looks goo” It will be because he is better than Whitner and is a good player all by himself. The RFA tender has little to do with the Bills thinking that Whitner >>>>>>> Wilson. This is about protecting an asset. There WILL be a market for Whitner and with this tender, plus his status as a former first round draft pick, the Bills could receive a nice bit of compensation in the form of a high draft pick or two in return. Plus it sets a market price for Whitner's services which will likely be more realistic than it sounds like he thinks it is and that could be used as a basis to sign him long term at a reasonable price or wave bye-bye to him if another team wants to overpay. Wilson was undrafted, therefore the only way the Bills could receive compensation would be if they tendered him at a very high amount and paid him a 2011 salary that is way above his talent level. Edited March 1, 2011 by MattyT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in Chicago Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 (edited) Just got this text that they tendered Poz, Whitner and Chandler... Thoughts? Considering their possible status after the CBA, I think this is excellent strategy that really protects the Bills. I commend the FO for being pro-active. They also are showing that they place some (undisclosed) value on keeping your own even if they are not superstars in their own right. I have said before that Poz and Whitner are above average players and we will be better off keeping them (at a reasonable price ofcourse). Edited March 1, 2011 by Fan in Chicago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockinon Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 I think the reason Wilson was not tendered means he will be resigned shortly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 (edited) My first reaction was Well G Wilson must not be eligible But I guess thats not accurate. I cannot believe this team thinks Whitner is better than Wilson. The proof is in the pudding. Wilson makes plays (TFL, INTs, Forced Fumbles, Covers the player he is assigned to cover) while Whitner gets scored on for TD after TD after TD. If he starts for us next year I am taking Gronkowski in the 2nd round of my fantasy draft. Sure Whitner tackles a guy after no one in our front 7 did but that doesnt make him great that means he does his job in a slightly above average way. I dont mind keeping him as a backup S but WTF JUST SIGN THE BEST SAFETY WE HAVE ALREADY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If we let him walk GW is going to go to a much better team, with a much stronger D, and be much better than Whitner. We will then be screaming about how we let the guy go. His success wont be because he has better players around him so obviously he looks goo It will be because he is better than Whitner and is a good player all by himself. The only people that think Wilson is better than Whitner are the "genious" posters on message boards. No one in the NFL does. Gailey has shown that whoever plays better will start. If Wilson was better he'd start. But he's not better. Hence the reason he's a backup. Just because Wilson's perceived "value" is better doesn't make him the better player on an absolute scale. Edited March 1, 2011 by Ramius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Estro Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 I think the reason Wilson was not tendered means he will be resigned shortly. I have the same "gut" feeling. Someone mentioned his twitter account stated it's been an exciting day and he'd announce the news later today. Let's hope it's a resigning and not a tender. I'd rather retain Wilson, under a market deal, than Whitner, under what he feels is his market. I believe Wilson could be extended for 4 years - $16 million, with about half of that guarenteed. That's a lot less than Donte is looking for which I believe is in excess of $7 mill. a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qdawg in philly Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 The only people that think Wilson is better than Whitner are the "genious" posters on message boards. No one in the NFL does. Gailey has shown that whoever plays better will start. If Wilson was better he'd start. But he's not better. Hence the reason he's a backup. Just because Wilson's perceived "value" is better doesn't make him the better player on an absolute scale. That's a solid point Ramius. But what pokes at me is whenever GW was called on he produced. I just don't get it. Guess we'll see what happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts