The reason I don't like the Chiefs is plain and simple. They signed Tyler Thigpen to their active roster. The Vikings had planned on bringing Thigpen along via the practice squad, but now he is gone. Perhaps with the signing of Holcomb, Brooks Bollinger should have been cut. Hindsight is 20/20 I guess. The reason I say this is simple. If Brooks Bollinger is starting for us in the season well we offically will suck, what would the difference between Bollinger and Thigpen be? Nothing except Thigpen could possibly emerge into a threat, Bollinger is what he is: a backup QB and he is lucky to be that. Thigpen could have emerged into a passing threat if (and that is a big if) we ever had to go to our 3rd String QB.
Although (via the same article) the Vikings did sign Garrett Mills to their active roster blocking the Patriots from being able to sign him to their practice squad. I don't know what to think of Mills, but hey I will trust that the Vikings will develop him and maybe he could be the TE/FB replacement for Kleinsasser down the road.
Dear Pacifist:
ReplyDeleteI check out your blog quite often. I started a Vikings blog myself a week ago and was hoping you would include it in your Vikings Links on your blog page. The blog can be found at http://grants-tomb.blogspot.com.
Cheers,
DC
No worries. The vikings are going to have a much better team than KC this season, with or without Thigpen.
ReplyDeleteThis was why I was so confused by the original cut of Thigpen... I mean, he is not a star, but why cut him instead of Bollinger and risk that another team would claim him? With the trade for Holcomb, there wasn't really a need for Bollinger. Just a strange decision.
ReplyDeleteThough I suppose if my biggest complaint is that the Vikings lost their 3rd-string, 7th round rookie QB, things aren't all bad.