Why? He’s going to ask for $45-50 million a year. Is that reasonable?

Paying Darnold to keep him for next year could blow up their ability to reinforce the whole roster.

You keep both...

How many seasons does it take to shed the 1st round bust label?

There are not a lot of QBs that have had a 14 win season...especially in a division as competitive as the NFC North. Plug-n-play QBs in a great system maybe nets 10-11 wins...like Cassel.

If Carr can get $40 mil...Darnold should too. 3 years, $120 million. Let JJ play the Rodgers role...you could hedge and try the franchise tag route if he agrees to it. That's the angle I would take...see of he can repeat the same level of play next year first.

Vikings just smoked the Packers...

Ok.

:hmmm:

I guess my confusion was when you said they should sign him for a season or two as opposed to giving him a three year deal...

And I think Darnold is in a stronger position than when Baker signed his deal.

I guess we'll find out.

I'm not sure what you consider as somewhat reasonable.

But I'm not sure why you would expect that given the state of QB contracts.

Agree that Darnold is 100 percent in a stronger position than Baker. It's a weak QB market, there are plenty of teams that are going to have cap space that need a QB, and the league is QB-starved.

Do you think Sam Darnold can beat Patrick Mahomes in the Super Bowl?

The Vikings and Chiefs would be a good Super Bowl matchup. Either team could win. Both have great overall coaching and defensive coordinator coaching. Mahomes is obviously a better clutch quarterback than Darnold. But Mahomes doesn’t have as good a supporting cast. We don’t match up at receiver although I think we will next year with Rice back and worthy with another year of experience and I think at least one of brown and/or Hopkins will be back. We don’t match up at OL, although I hope Humphrey’s comes through for us. With Tuney at LT our OL is serviceable for pass protection, but not nearly as good supporting the run. I think we’re about even with the Vikings at RB.

I think Mahomes can still win it for sure but it is certainly a possibility that the Vikings would come out on top.

And I think for next year the Vikings will be able to settle for 40 million with Darnold. He is in the same boat as Baker in terms of weighing a reasonable contract instead of going for the max against going to a terrible team. They both have had enough experience with terrible teams.

Darnold is only 5 years older than McCarthy, though. He's younger than Mahomes.

He's just entering the prime years of a QBs career - if he's 'real' he doesn't need an understudy.

And the Vikings, with some additional draft capital, could be a real powerhouse around him. Again, presuming this isn't a one-off.

And some of the throws he's made and his feel for the pocket are things that are just talent. It's not smoke and mirrors. He's looked REALLY good this year.

He's also been well respected in Carolina and SF. And the pedigree coming out of college was obviously excellent.

Ultimately McCarthy can probably net you a high 2nd at this point. Maybe even a mid/late 1st. And if that's the case and you can afford to pay Darnold, why wouldn't you go that route?

The odds of McCarthy being better than what we've seen from Darnold this year are pretty damn remote. And many a coach has been brought low by believing that his system matters more than his talent.

People say the high risk move is retaining Darnold and I think just the opposite. If you move on from Darnold and McCarthy ISN'T a premier guy, you're putting your nuts in a vice.

To me, Darnold has a higher ceiling and a higher floor than McCarthy. The question is whether or not you can get him to sign a reasonable contract AND what the trade value of McCarthy is. If all you can get for McCarthy is a 3rd -- go ahead and keep him at that point. You're not going to damage his value any further by keeping him on the bench another year.

But if you can still get him dealt for a 1st or 2nd rounder, you probably should.

Franchise tag for a QB is in the $40 million range so if you're gonna try to retain him, that's where it's gonna start.

If you could get Darnold done at something like 5/$200 with maybe half of that guaranteed, you're taking a risk, but one with some pretty massive upside baked in given how crazy the QB market is.

Teams have given worst QBs better contracts with less pedigree and potential (Garapollo for example). If the argument against Darnold is “because the system,” basically who cares? He’s still executing it at a high level, and unlike a lot of typical “system QBs” he has really good arm talent and upside. You don’t have to hide him, you just need to coach the turnovers and bad decisions out of him.

I just can’t imagine being a Vikings fan and being excited about moving onto the fifth QB taken from a college team that basically did work around him, to then have him learn and develop for two years while your all time WR is in his prime, as you just hope in the face of long odds the young QB gives you anything close to what Darnold has this year.

This could also very well be a lightning in a bottle season for Darnold. There aren't really any great answers here, just tough decisions.

We've seen lots of teams like Atlanta this year or Seattle (after paying Matt Flynn only to roll with Russell Wilson) pay a good chunk of gold to a veteran while hoping a legit QB prospect can take over. That seems to be the play here. They don't want to lose darnold to the open market with nothing in return. Worst case, sign him to a frontloaded deal that is easy to get rid of. If darnold is a flash in the pan, trade him for picks. If he excels for yet another year, trade McCarthy. Ultimately their goal should be to get really good picks by 2026.

I would not force the hand in the off-season. They'll know what they have by mid season next year. I'm still a little skeptical of darnold especially having seen how quickly qbs like stroud and tua fell off a cliff once defenses began to adjust in the off-season.

I still think it's a crazy story. Darnold sucked ass through a straw his whole career and now he's one of the top QBs in the NFL. I did think he looked sharp in that game for the 49ers last year when Purdy threw 4 picks and got pulled late in the game.

But to Tegu's point - Darnold's issue has never been talent.

He has the arm strength and the repeatability in his mechanics to make strong, accurate throws.

What he's shown this year is an improved feel in the pocket and exponential improvement in decisionmaking.

Why wouldn't that be sustainable?

The pure talent is there to be a top tier QB. It was always about how he processed. And if the system is going to be the same next year (O'Connell isn't going anywhere) why should we believe he couldn't duplicate this season?

And if he does that, we're talking about a $60 million QB. That's why I don't understand the 'tag him' crowd -- you'll cost yourself a TON of money long-term if he's the guy he's shown this year. And as a coach/front office, if you don't think he's that guy, you don't even bother to tag him unless it's to trade him.

And in that scenario you're now taking a step back to a rookie QB as your top shelf talent around him ages just a little more in the next year or two as he's going through the same headaches that Darnold did but WITHOUT the physical ability that Darnold had.

All true. I just don't think that you can walk into next season expecting Darnold to be this good again. He's going to regress, at least a bit. The question is whether or not they think he has a higher ceiling than McCarthy. Like you, I think he does, so they should sign him. That's going to be costly, though so it's certainly not a no-brainer.

Nobody has a career year every year. Even Mahomes may have seen his statistical peak already. This may well be the best Darnold ever is.

But that doesn't mean he's not a good bet to be a top 10 QB again next season and if that's the case, you bring him back.

That type of deal would make sense. I have reservations about their ability to get him done at that amount. The Vikings ARE projected to have almost $80M in cap space, so I guess they have a lot of wiggle room AND can afford to put a big part of the guarantee in Year 1, if they want. That would make the deal a lot more manageable.

I just think Darnold's ask is going to be higher.

Totally agree. It's all gonna come down to the money.

You trade Darnold to use the cap space and draft picks to cushion McCarthy.

Might be.

Like I said in my first post in the thread - depends on what they can get Darnold to say yes to.

Because if he's going to insist on the Prescott kind of deal, I think you do the tag/trade and bank on O'Connell as a guy who can develop QBs. At that point you're not pricing in any risk so you might as well just hold the line.

But if you offer him a deal for $200 million with a $100 million signing bonus, that's a tough thing to say no to for a guy who was on his way out of the league.

I think we all underestimate how hard it is for these guys to just say 'nah' when someone says "Hey if you sign this piece of paper, we'll put tens of millions of dollars in your bank account tomorrow..."

Say you do the tag and trade thing.

What are you getting for him? Can you get the Raiders to give you their first rounder?

Might be able to at this point.

They've pushed themselves down to, what, 8?

I don't think you're getting a top 5 for him, but you could maybe get something right at the fringe of the top 10 given that this draft is a little iffy through there. The Raiders would have to give up a ton to get up into Ward/Sanders range and ultimately I don't think either of those guys are better bets to be long-term assets at QB than Darnold.

Moreover, the 'cheap years' don't have nearly as much value to Oakland because that ain't gonna do them a bit of good for at least 2 seasons. No matter what QB they have back there, they're not going to be in a position to win until 2027 at the earliest.

So honestly, the 'rookie contract' value is lesser for them than it would be for many teams that have a solid foundation and/or a large collection of good players they'll need to pay for.

The Raiders don't have anyone else to spend the money on anyway. So why not?

Wouldn't that make it smarter to not do it then? IF you're that far away....just keep plugging holes and stacking talent and see what happens.

Darnold has been around enough bad and enough good organizations, seen the difference, and realizes that he probably isn’t interested in joining a bad organization.

Not if you think Darnold is a Dude.

Because if he is, he can be a top 10 QB for a decade - he's only 27. And it's not often you get a shot at grabbing one of those guys.

Lets not forget that Brees didn't win the championship in NOLA until his 4th season. They were 3-13 when he ended up in FA through strange happenstance (the combination of his injury, late breakout and Rivers presence). He immediately made them better but they weren't championship ready yet.

Had they decided "Well we're not ready to win the big one so lets not get him" their whole history changes.

They saw a chance to get a younger veteran QB they thought could be a franchise guy and they took it when they could. Then got work building around him.

O’Connell has proven he can identify and coach up some QB’s, so whatever move they do is whatever he believes is best. If he thinks he can get Darnold to continue to play at a high level, they’ll pay him. If he thinks McCarthy can be as good or even better, they’ll let Darnold walk.

I know a QB on a rookie deal is one of the most valuable assets in the league, but moving on from a high production QB who led the team to a #1 (or near #1) seed is a huge gamble. I’d probably see what I could get for McCarthy - a lot of teams need a good young QB. If you can get a 1st rounder, take it and make a run with this bunch.

And that’s why I think he will be willing to sign for around 40 million instead of pushing the market value at 60 million. Yes, most players just seem to be interested in maximizing the dollars. But we have an example in Baker who had been through the hell of bad organizations who decided not to do that. I think Darnold will be the same.

I see their situation as a Nick Foles situation if I’m being honest… I was able to catch the Vikings game this last week, and even though he had good stats, he missed some very easy passes that made me think to myself on how he’s having such a good season throwing like that…

I personally think, if not the Vikings, he’s going to get a big pay day but it’s only going to be a 3 year contract imo (2 year would be ideal for Vikings franchise) … for the Vikings this would make sense since McCarthy is on a rookie deal and looked good pre injury…

I don’t see any team offering Donald Dak money/years…

No one is letting McCarthy walk unless he’s like a Trey Lance of the 49ers. They spent a 1st round pick on him, and if they are shopping him, it’s because they think he’s worse than darnold… do you think any GM is giving up a 1st round for a qb that a team values less than say darnold talent wise???

The more I think about it, the more I think the Vikings sign him to a very high paid 2 year contract, less $$ if 3, and let McCarthy learn… Jordan love looked unfinished early on, he sat for what, 3 years?? Might be the same situation here.

As I stated above, I don’t see any team giving darnold a 5 year, Dak money contract. 1 year isn’t enough in this league. Matt Flynn off the packers, Matt cassel anyone? Nick foles? Blake bortles, Robert griffin??

One good year isn't enough to know you have a sure thing, but it is a QB starved league.

There are probably teams that would take chance throwing money at him versus throwing draft picks at the drat lottery.

The Vikings are a weird organisation. Always seem to have great drafts, good coaching and make a run out of nowhere.

2017 they had a top rated defense and an offense featuring a young Diggs, Thieland and Cook. They had a bye after going 13-3 and made it to the NFC conference game WITH CASE KEENUM

In 2022 they were good once again. Jefferson, Theilan, Hokonsen and Cook were balling. They got themselves to 13-4 with Kirk Cousins under center and lost to the Giants at home in the wildcard round.

Now two years later they are back at it again with Jefferson, Addison, Jones, Hokonson and a solid defense. Only this time it's Sam Darnold pulling the trigger.

Ya'll see the pattern? Keenum, Cousins and Darnold have all had world class pieces around them and good coaching.

But last year we saw Purdy thrive the same way and look at him now? The same goes for Baker. Dude has some of the best weapons around him too. But when those weapons aren't there then who are these guys? That's the question.

I watched a spot on the Rick Eisen show with the QB guru, Jordan Palmer. He's worked with Allen, Burrow etc. anyway...... He talked about how he unlocks skills and talent that was always there but just not being used efficiently and vice versa not do the bad mechanics.

Darnold just got into some bad mechanics that didn't utilize his natural skill set. He knew this but noone could get him to repeat the good mechanics instead of focusing on the good mechanics and to use his natural talent.

Except Baker actually played pretty well for the 4 games he didn't have either Evans or Godwin. And during that stretch he also played without his starting RT for a couple games.

In spite of those personnel losses, Baker threw for over 300 yds in two games, and his PR for those games were; 97.5, 94.6, 112.3 and 82.0, 9 TDs/4 INTs. The reason Baker lost those 4 games had more to do with the fact that he was saddled with the 31st defense in the league and Bowles made some awful in-game decisions.

I probably pillage Ireland and kidnap some of their red-haired women on my way to Iceland. And I also give Samvold Daroldsson a long-term contract. Rookie QBs are not a sure thing.

The Vikings have already lost in the playoffs.

Was firmly in the pay him and keep going camp until last night. Fell asleep at half but God damn was he terrible from what I saw. If they get bounced against the Rams they really will have an incredibly tough choice to make.

It would be very difficult to move off of a QB that has performed that well in your system. If he completely shits his pants in the playoffs, then I'd very seriously consider moving him. If they win one and at least look competitive in the Divisional or get to the NFCC, then I don't think I could let him go.

As it stands right now, the draft really lacks elite potential at QB. I'd likely consider JJ McCarthy at least the #3 QB if he were in this draft, depending on how you view Ward and Sanders. He should still have a lot of value. I'd venture that those two guys will likely go #1 and #2 to the Titans and Browns. I'd think the Giants at #3, Raiders at #6, and Jets at #7 should all be thinking about some sort of package for JJ if the Vikes hold onto Darnold. Maybe a 1st and 2nd or 3rd for JJ and the Vikings' 1st.

My vote right now would be to keep Darnold and trade JJ while you can get a high pick for him and get a difference-maker at DE or something.

The only other players the Vikings need to re-sign are Jones II at DE and Murphy at SCB. I'm not sure the tag is worthwhile on anyone other than Darnold if it's needed.

Detroit made him scramble, especially to his left and he looked turible.

I've not watched that many Min games, but not sure why the Lions were that more effective after all the injuries they've had on D.

His WRs didn't do him any favors nor did his coach/game plan.

Vikes should give up on Darnold and sign Purdy in FA.

Dude, you were on a roll and then that last sentence...like...wow.

LMAO

I think tonight makes this easy, just let him walk into free agency

You let him walk.

Darnold made this really easy.

You roll with JJ and probably have Daniel Jones back him up.

Draft some offensive linemen.

Darnold had no real pressure to succeed in Minnesota because nobody really expected anything. With all of the pressure off him, he performed pretty well. As the end of the season closed in and the pressure was on, he folded like a lawn chair in the critical situations.

He might be adequate as a backup, but not as a starter. In fact, any team looking to win it all has to have serious reservations about him as a backup. He's not going to take over and win it all for you like Nick Foles.

His processing is too slow to succeed in this league, you will never win anything with him. Let him walk and see what JJ has.

Whatever is left of Rodgers he has got to be better than Darnold even if he is on magic shrooms.

To be fair the Rams had 9 sacks. That Darnold survived is a wonder in itself.

psilocybin is the key to happiness

13.6 QBR

The guy was just eating sacks on 3rd downs. Get rid of the ball. Throw an int if you have to I dont care just go down the field.

They should keep Aaron Jones and Jefferson. Then trade for Justin Fields.

LMAO LMAO

But joking aside, Purdy would be better, and I don't think SF should extend him.

Half of those were because when he got off his first read, he froze like a statue. Never even tried to throw the ball away. To leak right or left. Just stood there for 20 seconds pump faking

Darnold is just an average QB who played well in 2024. They should be looking for a run/pass QB. Maybe Russell Wilson or Justin Fields.

Keep’em both.

I would move off O'Connell if he doesnt win a playoff game next season

I think last night complicated things.

Darnold's play the past two weeks has shown SIGNIFICANT flaws still exist in his game. He has slow eyes and doesn't process well if the first read is taken away. You're going to need a team that is (1) desperate (2) stupid enough to pretend those flaws don't exist to be able to trade him now.

Is there a Washington, circa 2018 out there?

Well, I did say "If he completely shits his pants in the playoffs..." and that's exactly what he did. I'd venture that you just move on from Darnold at this point. It'd be nice if he had tag and trade value but I don't think a team would offer anything.

Yeah, I wouldn't touch Purdy with a 10-foot pole. He's going to get paid way more than he's worth.

Yeah, I like Darnold well enough. Like seeing a guy battle his way back to relevance.

But when the answer to completely gutting you is 'zero coverage, full send' and you just absolutely melt down, you're not a starting QB.

It's been a really rough couple of weeks for Sam but it has to change the way Minnesota approaches the off-season.

Yip.

At least Purdy isn't going to get his shit pushed in by every single blitz you send at him.

I'm just floored by how poorly Darnold handled that the last 2 weeks. It was just spamming an easy button and he had no earthly idea what to do with it.

Yeah Purdy is definitely superior to Darnold. That's not really the thing. He originally said he'd sign Purdy if he were the Vikings. I'm saying I wouldn't do that, either. Darnold is not a starting QB, obviously. But Purdy is one of those guys that's going to get a top QB contract but will never play up to it.

Long-term, this is for the best for Minnesota.

Had he performed admirably these last couple weeks and earned a payday, they would’ve regretted it.

He did them a favor.

100%

They need to keep taking shots at QB while they play McCarthy.

I agree

I don't think you can risk tagging him now. Unless you're willing to keep him (and by virtue of his contract, likely start him).

Because ultimately I think he'd probably get nearer $25 million on the open market, if that. So if you tag him, you're starting $15 million or so underwater on his market value.

Now maybe some team wants him as a short term stop gap but they aren't giving up a 2nd for that.

You might get a 3rd for him at this point with that tag attached. In the meantime, you have a massive cap hold as FA opens. Additionally, you have the risk that NOBODY wants him at that figure and you're stuck with that cap hit.

He was just too damn bad the last two weeks and in a way that's easily replicable. One game of inaccuracy is one thing. Consecutive playoff style games where the same thing absolutely destroyed him twice in a row and that thing isn't difficult to duplicate...that's just a disaster.

I don't think you tag him at this point. Let him walk, hope he signs a deal that nets you a comp pick at some point.

These last two weeks just couldn't have gone any worse for the Vikings.

Hopefully the league is learning, don't pay mediocre.

Let him walk, tag and trade whatever.

We all talk about these things like they're gonna end up mattering, I guess to keep up occupied during down time but......the league is the same as it's always been.

The NFL is the have and the have nots. Do you have an elite level QB? If so, you'll atleast be in the divisional round basically every year. Maybe you hit a time when you have a stacked team around a game manager and a legit coach and you happen to hit a time in your conference when there's not other high level QB's (the current NFC) and you get a good little run.

All the mental masturbating we do to talk about this stuff when if you don't have Pat, or Josh Allen, or Burrow or Lamar or Matt Stafford....you're drawing dead. You know it. I know it.

Honestly I'm not sure I agree. Not at QB anyway.

The difference between mediocre and bad at QB in the NFL can be a 5 game difference. It's MASSIVE. Just look at how much different the Panthers looked at the beginning of the season when Young was a mess to the 2nd half when he looked mediocre. They were suddenly a credible team.

Not good, but not a weekly embarrassment.

There IS a justification for paying mediocre.

But the worry is whether Darnold is actually mediocre at this point.

This.

The difference is contending for a playoff spot and flirting with 5-12. Owners like playoff contention. It keeps fans from flying planes over the stadium.

Mediocre is fine. Honestly, more teams should shoot for and be fine with that.

I can't believe Dallas didn't bring back McCarthy, a guy who has shown he can get the best out of Dak and win 12 games a year.

But, no. Lets shoot for "we've gotta win SB's this is unacceptable".

You don't have one of the top QB's who win SB's. You won't win.

You can.

It's just so much more rare than people want to admit. I mean it's an every 15-20 years thing.

Some fans try to convince themselves that it happens every 4-5 years; like 20% of the SBs are won by average QBs.

That's just not the case. It's like 5%. It just doesn't happen often at all.

But if you're a team that doesn't have a great QB you just have to hope that you're the 5%.

Right now, if you're in the NFC yes.

Because you just have to beat an elite QB 1 time. Maybe 2 if Stafford is hot.

Yeah, it's probably a different story in the AFC.

You're not going to get a bye out of the AFC if you don't have a HoF caliber passer. And if you don't end up in the top 3 seeds, you're going to have to beat 3 premier QBs to get to the Super Bowl.

Good point. You can win a Super Bowl with a mediocre QB coming out of the NFC (the Eagles are trying to do exactly that). But out of the AFC, that seems pretty much impossible.

Philly just has such a loaded roster (losing Dean is gonna hurt them though defensively).

The problem is that McCarthy squandered exceptional talent and made them mediocre. I’m not a fan of dak but that team has far too much talent to have imploded like that last year. And to have been that bad this year with or without dak. His hiring of zimmer is pretty symbolic of who he is… just a guy who’s willing to settle for meh at this point.

Dallas should be looking into a defensive coach and get themselves a rb again. They are an anomaly that in a conference that beefed up the run they did the complete opposite.

84 people would pay Darnold $40 million next season? Amazing.

Their roster is so good that people have kinda forgotten that Jalen Hurts...isn't.

They've won enough games with him at QB that folks have decided he's an elite QB. But he really isn't. He's an expensive Purdy.

Shit, now that I think about it, Hurts may be the best comp for Nix.

He's...fine. He's not a problem but he's not a force multiplier.

Is it Barkley that says "he's the wagon not the horse"? I think it's Wright that says he's a thermometer not a furnace or something like that.

Essentially, if he looks good it's because his team is playing well. He's not the REASON his team is playing well, but rather a proxy for that good play around him.

It’s crazy to me that 4 QB’s have dominated the AFC since the Patriots reign started in 2001: Brady, Peyton, Big Ben and Mahomes

Only 3 of those 23 years was a different QB: Gannon, Flacco and Burrow

Statistically it’s 13%. Not great

The year they lost to SF in SF was their chance. Last year, it just didn't work out.

But they've never had "exceptional talent". Specifically at QB.

He had the one year. Other than that he's a replacement level QB.

But whatever. Howie is one of the best in the Biz. They'll pivot at some point.