Skip to content

Lions claim O'Connell, sign Bollinger

As we recently explained, only two teams had priority over the Chiefs in the waiver process relating to former Patriots quarterback Kevin O’Connell:  the Lions and the Rams.

We thought the Rams possibly would consider O’Connell.  We regarded the Lions as an unlikely candidate to claim him.

So, of course, Mike Reiss of the Boston Globe reports that the Lions claimed O’Connell.

The move becomes even more curious given that the Lions signed quarterback Brooks Bollinger on Tuesday.

But with Daunte Culpepper nursing a toe injury and Drew Stanton being evaluated for a knee injury, the Lions need other quarterbacks to complement Matthew Stafford for the preseason finale.

It’s also possible that the Lions will try to flip O’Connell to the Chiefs or the Broncos for a low-round draft pick. 

Permalink 8 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Denver Broncos, Detroit Lions, Kansas City Chiefs, New England Patriots, Rumor Mill, Top Stories
8 Responses to “Lions claim O'Connell, sign Bollinger”
  1. FumbleNuts says: Sep 1, 2009 4:48 PM

    O’Connell to the Chiefs would make total sense.

  2. Darr247 says: Sep 1, 2009 4:59 PM

    I could see them flipping either QB if they look halfway decent taking over for Stafford. I certainly don’t expect him to play past the 1st quarter. Possibly not even the whole 1st; Just give him some quality reps at full speed with and against first stringers. It’s certainly preferrable to have starters miss preseason games from injuries than regular season.
    Hopefully, Drew’s knee is just a strain and he’ll be backing up DC in the opener. Or starting. Either is fine with me… just don’t throw Stafford to the wolves this early. Draft more O line next year, too.
    It’s funny how a low-key guy like Schwartz could garner Coach of the Year honors if he can pull off just 9 wins. :-)~

  3. Mark0226 says: Sep 1, 2009 5:28 PM

    The Patriots have already shown a willingness to make trade deals with the Chiefs, so if the Chiefs really wanted O-Connell and were willing to give up something for him, then wouldn’t it make more sense to deal with the Patriots directly?

  4. empty13 says: Sep 1, 2009 5:44 PM

    the lions did something… smart.
    talk about goin upside the head of one’s worldview… goin to take a while to digest this.
    yes trade him to kaycee. or someone else who wants him.
    or just cut brooks.
    i’d probly start stanton anyway, as soon as healthy. pullpecker is a disaster.

  5. nato2424 says: Sep 1, 2009 5:48 PM

    Marshall for O’connel. and some picks that we can waste on No name tight ends and back up lineman

  6. BigWalt says: Sep 1, 2009 6:35 PM

    Lion’s have too many holes to offer a pick, or a pick + O’connel for any player at this point. Bad teams don’t give away future players, they’re in the market for more.

  7. stanjam says: Sep 1, 2009 6:56 PM

    Taking O’Connel isn’t exactly smart. He hasn’t shown much of anything, though he CAN throw the ball a long way.
    Doubt they would flip him to the Chiefs, as they didn’t put in a claim for him. The teams that did were Denver (Pioli loves the Patriots back ups, and will do anything, including ripping apart his own team, to try and get them), the NY Jets (who always show an interest in NE throwaways, pump them for info, then release them), and Cleveland (danger, Mangina at work).

  8. rusH1023 says: Sep 1, 2009 7:08 PM

    The reasons that the Pats didn’t like him are the same reasons that Pioli of the Chiefs and McDaniels of the Donks didn’t take him. I guarantee we tried. Second year-third round pick waived, getting nothing for him? Something up there.

Leave a Reply

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