What do you do in the offseason if you are the Vikings?

[O.city]

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?

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by O.city

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?

[O.city]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

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.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by O.city

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.

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.