If the Vikings are serious about winning you give Darnold the contract.

Worry about McCarthy later. Trade him even if it's for a later pick. Many other teams have made dumber moves than that, but is it stupid if MIN keeps winning with Darnold?

They should take advantage of McCarthy being on a rookie contract and try to keep Darnold on a short term deal.

Jordan Love sat for three years before starting… McCarthy can wait.

Not only this but is there going to be a QB to draft when they are up? I personally have never been sold on JJ. But maybe I am wrong . I would say they are really in a spot that it's best to stay with Darnold for now and hope that this isn't a one year thing

I'm with you. They should be able to sign Darnold to a somewhat reasonable contract. Which puts them in a really great spot at the most important position in pro sports.

Darnold is a bird in hand, McCarthy is two in the bush

You trade McCarthy and pray it doesn't burn you

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.