Report: David Nelson Not Expected to Be Tendered by the Buffalo Bills
Thomas B. Shea/Getty Images
Bills GM Buddy Nix said at the NFL Combine that they had been in touch with the agent for receiver David Nelson.
“To be honest we’ve talked to David and his agent briefly, but we will follow-up on it before free agency starts,” Nix told reporters.
On Friday evening, Jason Cole of Yahoo! Sports broke the following news on Buffalo Bills WR David Nelson:
Bills not expected to tender RFA WR David Nelson, who missed all but one game last season because of injury. Nelson expected to be healthy.— Jason Cole (@JasonColeYahoo) February 23, 2013
Making matters worse, David Nelson found this news out on Twitter and not from the organization:
Wow. If this is true- then I def do get all my info from twitter.. RT: @jasoncoleyahoo: Bills not expected to tender RFA WR David Nelson— David Nelson (@DavidNelson86) February 23, 2013
If this report is true, Nelson becomes the second wide receiver that the Bills have decided not to tender. On February 7, the Bills announced that they would not tender WR Donald Jones.
Nelson was signed as an undrafted free agent out of the University of Florida in 2010.
In 2010, Nelson had 31 receptions for 353 yards and three touchdowns in 15 games.
The 2011 season was a breakout season for Nelson, as he finished the season with 61 receptions for 658 yards and five touchdowns.
Should David Nelson have been tendered by Bills?
Nelson was expected to be healthy for training camp.
What does this mean for the Bills' offense? It seems that Buffalo may be reverting back to a more traditional offense with only two or three wide receivers on the field.
However, not tendering Nelson and Jones has left the Bills thin at wide receiver.
Currently, the team has Stevie Johnson, T.J. Graham, Brad Smith, Marcus Easley and Chris Hogan under contract for the 2013 season.
Perhaps, the Bills have something up their sleeve in regards to a potential free agent, but Nelson seems like a bargain as his tender offer would have been $1.3 million.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?