Trade for Thigpen

by FinnHawk on Jul 2, 2009 6:58 AM PDT

First-time poster here.. just a wild thought. KC acquired Cassel from NE and with the money he's making is not likely they brough him in just for backup. What I've seen, Thigpen has done quite good, taking in to account the team and lack of talent surrounding him (no O-line, no Larry Johnson, ). He might be available in an affordable price, until weaknesses of Cassel are being exposed.

I know he went 1-11, but 18-12 TD-INT isn't that bad, 3 of INT's coming in the first game. Even Tony Gonzales was lobbying for him.

Tweet Comment 12 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Who would trade for him, the Seahawks?

We have a starting QB for the next two years and one of, if not the best backup QB in Seneca Wallace.

by LantermanC on Jul 2, 2009 8:51 AM PDT reply actions

And if that doesn't work out, we have a couple of first-round picks next year

I think its too early to trade for a veteran QB, especially one that has started and may have concrete expectations to be the successor to Hass.

by ninjasocks on Jul 2, 2009 9:07 AM PDT up reply actions

Thiggy is not that great.

He was certainly fun to watch, running that creative offense and all, but there’s little reason to acquire him.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Jul 2, 2009 10:21 AM PDT reply actions

Agreed

He made me look good as a solid fantasy pickup off the waiver wire, but that doesn’t mean I’d want him running my actual team.

by thebyron on Jul 3, 2009 11:21 AM PDT up reply actions

I'd rather try my hand with a rookie

Assuming our O-line doesn’t collapse, our system should be fairly rookie-friendly:

1. Average to above average QB protection
2. Above average to great receiving corps (two, possibly three very talented WR and a very talented, young TE)
3. Average running game
4. Average to above average defense (help keep the score close)

I think those four bullets are fairly realistic and not based upon “hopium”.

If they hold true, our system should cater well to a rookie with talent. Why bother attaining an exceedingly average veteran QB?

The demise of the Broncos in '09 is our future. Pray hard.

by Nick Andron on Jul 2, 2009 10:35 AM PDT reply actions

Thigpen aside

is it just me or without the notion of taking a QB 4th overall being an active prospect, has the idea or urgency of finding and grooming an heir to Hasselbeck been largely forgotten?

And when I say is it me, I mean am I the only one who did feel some urgency to address that situation, and, since the draft, has all but forgotten how concerned I once was?

by jacobstevens on Jul 2, 2009 1:22 PM PDT reply actions

Why would KC want to get rid of their cheap, high upside, young back up quarterback?

by Nate Dogg on Jul 2, 2009 1:59 PM PDT reply actions

Sell high

would be the only plausible reason, I think.

by jacobstevens on Jul 2, 2009 2:08 PM PDT up reply actions

It's the dead of the offseason, so this isn't a big deal

but in general we discourage fantasy GM discussions. There’s just no way to even know if Kansas City is interested in trading Thigpen. The Chiefs invested a seventh round pick to draft him and he’s likely more valuable than anything they could expect to get in return.

by John Morgan on Jul 6, 2009 2:43 PM PDT reply actions