Skip to content

2009 records will control Trent Edwards waiver claims

The Bills surprisingly dumped quarterback Trent Edwards on Monday, a day after word broke that they were trying to trade him.

So now Edwards, who is in his fourth NFL season, will be required to pass through waivers.  ESPN’s Chris Mortensen reports that multiple claims are expected to be made.

And here’s where things get potentially interesting.  NFL spokesman Greg Aiello tells us that the 2009 standings control all waiver claims made through today; as of September 28, the 2010 records determine dibs.

This could result in a team like the 0-3 49ers (whom we’re told like Edwards) losing out on the Stanford product to the 2-1 Seahawks (whom we’re told also like Edwards), given that the 49ers finished 8-8 last year and the Seahawks finished 5-11.

The 2009 priority would apply regardless of the fact that the Seahawks beat the 49ers in Week One, 31-6.

Here’s some advice to the Competition Committee.  If two of the teams making a claim have played each other in the current year, the prior year’s finish shouldn’t matter.  In that circumstance, the team that lost the head-to-head meeting in the current year always should have priority over the team that won the game.

UPDATE:  The league office has now advised us that the 2010 order will apply because Edwards’ contract will be awarded today.

Permalink 36 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Buffalo Bills, Rumor Mill, San Francisco 49ers, Seattle Seahawks, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories
36 Responses to “2009 records will control Trent Edwards waiver claims”
  1. PriorKnowledge says: Sep 27, 2010 8:06 PM

    I totally agree with the current rules. The previous years record should apply for all of the current year. Making it week to week would just be too confusing and almost arbitrary.
    And as we all know, a single game does not make a season.
    So Florio’s suggestion is ridiculous.

  2. Spoonthis says: Sep 27, 2010 8:06 PM

    Trent who? Who cares? Isn’t there a UFL team that might claim him also considering he is not good enough to play in the big league?

  3. TheToolofTools says: Sep 27, 2010 8:07 PM

    I don’t see ANYONE BANGING DOWN THE DOORS to get Trent on their team.
    From what I heard, he got lazy.

  4. Dixon29 says: Sep 27, 2010 8:07 PM

    If you are running an NFL team and you need Trent Edwards after week 3, you have failed miserably.

  5. Igottz5onit says: Sep 27, 2010 8:07 PM

    Here’s some advice to the Competition Committee.  If two of the teams making a claim have played each other in the current year, the prior year’s finish shouldn’t matter.  In that circumstance, the team that lost the head-to-head meeting in the current year always should have priority over the team that won the game.
    Yes let’s further complicate the waiver process to the point we need a waiver committee to decide who gets priority.

  6. east96street. says: Sep 27, 2010 8:12 PM

    What if the team that lost the game in question is, say, New Orleans? Imagine NO and Seattle both want a guy and Seattle beat NO because Drew Brees had the flu? It’s fair that the Super Bowl Champs get a guy, instead of Seattle, because they lost one game to an inferior opponent only because one of the best QBs in the League was not playing that day?

  7. superb owl says: Sep 27, 2010 8:17 PM

    i dont buy that approach florio. it is fair based on a season’s worth of competition.
    the 49ers could still finish 8-5 for 8-8 and the hawks could still finish 5-8 for 7-9.
    here is a thought. reorder the pecking order BASED ON EVERY TEAM’S RECORD OVER THEIR LAST SIXTEEN GAMES. break ties based on net points. of course it could change every week.
    seatlle would still get edwards, but based on net points only. they are both 6-10 over their last 16.

  8. lololnpnp says: Sep 27, 2010 8:22 PM

    Like they did with the ex-Patriot qb O’Connell, the Lions should claim him with the intention of trading for a mid to late draft pick. Mayhew has his eye on the prize.

  9. bluelion says: Sep 27, 2010 8:22 PM

    Doesn’t matter, as the Lions will be claiming him and selling him to the highest 7th-round bidder.

  10. Se@tle Seahawks says: Sep 27, 2010 8:23 PM

    Florio,
    In regards to your advice to the competition committee, i do not believe that your analysis is accurate, and it is not based on the fact that it has my beloved Seahawks losing out on a claim to the 49ers. Even though they need alot more help than Trent Edwards would bring them.
    True the ‘hawks spanked the niners in week 1, but what if they lossed both the Bronco game, and Charger game since? And stretch your imagination to the 49ers actually winning againts the Saints, and Chiefs. In that scenario the 49ers would be 2-1, and Seattle would be 1-2. Should the superior record still land the free agent?

  11. iampats says: Sep 27, 2010 8:26 PM

    After the 32 NFL teams pass, the UFL Nighthawks are on the clock,

  12. fifthorkid says: Sep 27, 2010 8:30 PM

    nobody cares what you think

  13. UniBallOut says: Sep 27, 2010 8:32 PM

    Actually, what it does set up is for the Lion’s to snag him and then trade him. They did it to the Jets this year. Claimed some QB dropped by NE knowing the Jets wanted him. They turned it around and got a late round draft pick for him.
    BTW, the Jets cut the dude during hard knocks. (Don’t remember his name know, but he’s some nobody anyways).

  14. Cincinnasty says: Sep 27, 2010 8:33 PM

    Here’s some advice to the Competition Committee. If two of the teams making a claim have played each other in the current year, the prior year’s finish shouldn’t matter. In that circumstance, the team that lost the head-to-head meeting in the
    ___
    Florio you’re a genius. The only problem is I highly doubt any of the people on the Competition Committee really read what you post and would actually take you serious if they did.

  15. cossack says: Sep 27, 2010 8:37 PM

    Is this really a story? Seriously??

  16. mikeymae says: Sep 27, 2010 8:52 PM

    Who the hell would claim Trent Edwards? Did they legalize crack in California and Washington? This clown was the poster child for hopeless, gutless QB play in Buffalo!

  17. JoeCool16280 says: Sep 27, 2010 9:00 PM

    Shoot, I’ll take him over Smith. Do it Jed.

  18. fleet10 says: Sep 27, 2010 9:00 PM

    dude, my f’ing Browns better be all over this.

  19. coz says: Sep 27, 2010 9:13 PM

    edwards is AWFUL!!!!!!!!!!!

  20. Byrd Is The Word says: Sep 27, 2010 9:17 PM

    From everything I’ve read about Alex Smith, ie checking down 5 yards on 3rd and longs….they wouldn’t be getting anything different at all in Trent Edwards.

  21. Caldon says: Sep 27, 2010 9:24 PM

    So a 2-1 team should get waiver claims over a 1- 2 team, as long as the 1 win came against the 2-1 team.
    Yeah, real smart also.

  22. 1nationraidernation says: Sep 27, 2010 9:25 PM

    florio …c’mon now…last year record works…don’t need to change it.

  23. jaxdolfan says: Sep 27, 2010 9:27 PM

    Edwards >>>>>>>>> Garrard.

  24. Franchise says: Sep 27, 2010 9:37 PM

    Those of you who rip Edwards, remember he is better than 85% of all backup QBs in the league.
    Also, teams with QBs with only 1 year left on contracts should be looking at him as well. (McNabb is out of DC after this year, as is Favre AND TJack in Minny).

  25. NinerNation says: Sep 27, 2010 9:43 PM

    The Bills tried to trade him for a week before releasing him. If the Niners make a waiver claim for him, lose out to someone else, and are upset about it…they have only themselves to blame for not being aggressive enough to secure Edwards for a freaking 7th round pick.

  26. JDOGG says: Sep 27, 2010 10:01 PM

    I really disagree with the post. Technically, San Fran can go 8-8, win the division, make the playoffs, get hot and win the superbowl. By Floria’s logic a team could go 0-16 in 2009, beat the Saints in 2010, because the entire team is in the hospital with the flu, and the Saints would have first rights on the waiver wire.

  27. godlovestebowbuthatesyou says: Sep 27, 2010 10:26 PM

    jaxdolfan says: September 27, 2010 9:27 PM
    Edwards >>>>>>>>> Garrard.
    ————————————–
    No. Don’t ask for that. It can always get worse..

  28. QuizGuy66 says: Sep 27, 2010 10:31 PM

    Ridiculous, Florio.
    One realistic scenario shows why:
    Jacksonville could use a QB and they were 7-9 last year. Who gets the claim then based on your totally flawed approach? In your world the 49ers (8-8) get prioity over the Squawks (5-11) since they lost head to head. Do the Jags (who play neither of those teams this year get placed ahead of the 8-8 49ers or do they get placed behind the 5-11 Seahawks? Very well thought out plan ya got there.
    -QG

  29. dafish says: Sep 27, 2010 10:31 PM

    waiver process is fine as is. There’s usually a good reason someone is waived, as in he sucks or his current team did not think he was worth keeping around.

  30. lalalalala says: Sep 27, 2010 10:50 PM

    Edwards is a warm body for a number 3 QB slot somewhere, that’s it. He likely won’t take a snap all year, but like Rob F-in Johnson, could end up with jewelry. That’s ok…he’ll have something to sell on eBay someday. Anyway, it was unlikely he’d be a distraction in the locker room, but Buffalo smartly avoided any shred of disgruntledness by cutting ties. Screw the 7th round pick. So many 7th rounders get cut while plenty of undrafted players are making teams. I think Gailey and Nix are pretty shrewd. They gave Trent every chance and he failed. Time to move on. Now they can bring back Levi Brown and move forward.

  31. Buffaloblues says: Sep 27, 2010 10:50 PM

    Sad as a Bills fan. This guy has all the tools and practices great. Gets in the game and crumbles. Gailey is good with QB’s too and still couldnt get trent to hold it together

  32. salty says: Sep 28, 2010 12:12 AM

    @Superb owl – that doesn’t work either … This years schedule may front load someones schedule with easy/tough teams which would skew it. You need a true “full” season. Just curious – how does edwards’ career passer rating look? Is he over the kordozo line?

  33. The_Emperor says: Sep 28, 2010 12:51 AM

    I don’t see ANYONE BANGING DOWN THE DOORS to get Trent on their team.
    From what I heard, he got lazy.
    —————————————————–
    He didn’t get lazy, he got scared. Just 2 years ago, he started the 08 Bills season with a 4-0 record. A helmet-helmet hit from Adrian Wilson (that was never called, btw) caused this.

  34. Nickuru says: Sep 28, 2010 3:46 AM

    It’s a bit like a wakeup call to the whole team. Now, giving Chris Kelsay a 24 million extension is not going to get the defense to be anything other than the Swiss Cheese it has been since the turn of the millenium. Better to cut him since he can’t rush the passer and looks like a statue in pass coverage.

  35. ejtowne says: Sep 28, 2010 7:47 AM

    lalalalala says:
    September 27, 2010 10:50 PM
    Edwards is a warm body for a number 3 QB slot somewhere, that’s it. He likely won’t take a snap all year, but like Rob F-in Johnson, could end up with jewelry. That’s ok…he’ll have something to sell on eBay someday. Anyway, it was unlikely he’d be a distraction in the locker room, but Buffalo smartly avoided any shred of disgruntledness by cutting ties. Screw the 7th round pick. So many 7th rounders get cut while plenty of undrafted players are making teams. I think Gailey and Nix are pretty shrewd. They gave Trent every chance and he failed. Time to move on. Now they can bring back Levi Brown and move forward.
    You just spoke for the other 125,000+ Bills fans that are sick of hearing sh-t being talked about their team. Thank you.

  36. GRpatriot says: Sep 28, 2010 8:31 AM

    I can make a case for collusion!

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!