Matt Cassel: Updated Fantasy Outlook & Analysis After Brady Quinn Injury
The Kansas City Chiefs QB carousel has taken another shocking spin, as Brady Quinn has gone down with an injury.
Brady Quinn taken out in KC, being checked for head injury wp.me/p14QSB-6f5R— ProFootballTalk (@ProFootballTalk) October 28, 2012
This means the Matt Cassel era has quickly resumed for the Chiefs. While it is unknown how severe Quinn's head injury is, it is never too early to assess Cassel's updated fantasy outlook and analysis moving forward.
Regardless of who is under center for Kansas City, Cassel is not a viable fantasy option. An injury to him may have been the reason for Quinn getting a chance at the starting spot, but the truth is that he was struggling mightily before the injury took place.
In five starts this season, Cassel has just 1,150 passing yards, five touchdowns and nine interceptions.
This is an offense predicated on handing the ball off to Jamaal Charles, and seeing Cassel return to the top of the depth chart is not going to change that fact.
Cassel has 13 total turnovers this season, and the passing game has been anemic at best with him under center. Do not look to Cassel as anything more than a bench player in even the deepest of fantasy leagues.
Neither Cassel or Quinn are legitimate long-term options for Kansas City. Cassel was brought in to be the franchise guy, and he has failed to live up to that moniker.
The Chiefs' hands are somewhat tied for the rest of this season, and that is a shame because Kansas City is a talented football team. There are playmakers at just about every position except the most important one.
Until the Chiefs can look for another option through either free agency or the draft, Cassel has to be considered the lesser of two evils.
He has more experience and more time with the starting offense than Quinn. Still, this is a clear problem for Kansas City and an issue that must be addressed.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?