QB Sam Darnold, SEA (3 Viewers)

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I still think he gets a multi year deal, but he cost himself some money with those last two games.

They’re 2 different things.

He most certainly didn’t “cost himself $100M”, which was the assertion I was responding to.

He might not have helped himself get more $, but that’s debatable.

Hypothetically speaking, let’s say he did ball out (which here seems to imply getting a W” because he wasn’t that bad statistically speaking) - ok, so the Vikings franchise him and he’s on a 1-year deal.

Because he didn’t get the W, now he’s more likely to get a long term contract somewhere else with more guaranteed $, right?

So in effect Darnold might well have earned himself more money by avoiding being franchised.

He could also play the lottery to try to make up the difference he was going to get if he didn't play bad the last two games of this season (week 18 and first round of the playoffs). Then he wins the lottery and makes even more and again you are correct. Come on these rabbit holes are wild.

I’m not following this.

I didn’t go down a rabbit hole - I described the likely scenario that he now won’t be franchised.

Enjoy your day.

My hypothetical was thrown out because of your logic. You think because of his play he may not get franchised anymore, but it didn't cost him money. We could go down so many hypotheticals, but they don't help anything.

My stance and argument is he will get a multi year contract if he wants, but those games cost him money.

I think it’s a pretty sensible binary: he either will, or won’t be franchised.

I think the consensus opinion going into this game was if he played well, he would be franchised. And if he did not play well, he would not be Franchised.

What I’m saying is by not being franchised, he may actually make more money because he will get a multi year deal with X amount of guaranteed.

I don’t see that as being an outlandish rabbit hole to go down.

I also concede that the amount of guaranteed money he gets may be less because of his performance. So in that regard, I agree with you.

But I don’t believe it will be $100M, or anywhere close to it.

 

[InDitkaWeTrust]

I wonder if Los Vegas would be attractive place for Darnold if Ben Johnson takes the job. I mean he making Goff look like an all pro, I mean the guys in the trenches have a lot to do with it as well. I am thinking a 2-3 bridge QB deal. I think los Vegas is actually more malleable to change than some of the other organizations.

I had that same thought. Unfortunately for Darnold, other than TE, the Raiders offensive weaponry is pretty meager.

Of all the QB needy teams, the Raiders seem to be the most likely. Add a couple weapons in free agency and through the draft and they are on the right track. I'm gonna throw my money down on a 3 year 125mil contract for Darnold, assuming he's not franchised. Again, franchising him makes way too much sense in this case. ~40mil for a single year is not a huge investment to make in a guy who's has ~ 9 months in KOCs system.

 

[Gally]

I watched every sack again today. I'd put 7 of the 9 on Darnold. Many times he just sat there waiting to be sacked, he also did some running into sacks, like he thought he was Lamar and could run by defenders that weren't about to sack him.

I was flabbergasted by the blatant missed open WR's he had that he just plain didn't throw to. Add to that the times he did throw I cannot remember a good throw. Even the positive plays (Hock TD and a 3rd down pick up by Nailor) were terrible throws that the receiver bailed him out on by making a great catch.

It was like this for the past two games. The two games that actually had big pressure and required him to perform well. The games were way too big for him. He showed he can be a decent QB for a regular season with a solid infrastructure around him but when the pressure on he sees ghosts and freezes up. The last two games clearly show this to be the case.

Many of his throws reminded me of the decent Keenum year in Minny. He did well, they won a lot of games but he left a ton on the table because he wasn't great. There were tons of throws throughout the entire year that got the job done but with better throws the WR's would have been able to turn the plays into big plays. Instead of leading a guy he put in low and Thielen would come up with a sliding great catch. It worked for the first down but a good pass and he keeps running. I realized that year how much a quality QB with quality ball placement added so much to an offense. The last two games Darnold reminded me of that a lot. Even his "good" throws were bad.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Of all the QB needy teams, the Raiders seem to be the most likely. Add a couple weapons in free agency and through the draft and they are on the right track. I'm gonna throw my money down on a 3 year 125mil contract for Darnold, assuming he's not franchised. Again, franchising him makes way too much sense in this case. ~40mil for a single year is not a huge investment to make in a guy who's has ~ 9 months in KOCs system.

Raiders do seem like the best / most likely landing spot. Be interesting to see how this all shakes out, and whether or not he proves worthy for whatever team takes a chance on him.

I also agree that it’s probably a coin flip of being franchised vs hitting FA. MIN could just decide to go with JJM & bring in a capable backup - but in a way winning 14 games was the worst thing to happen to them because now there’s an expectation of winning/playoffs.

Before this season fans woulda been thrilled with a 6-11 season and a high draft pick to help build around their rookie QB.

Bringing back Darnold is probably more likely braise of that unexpected success.

 

[Gally]

Again, franchising him makes way too much sense in this case. ~40mil for a single year is not a huge investment to make in a guy who's has ~ 9 months in KOCs system.

This is my sentiment exactly. It allows JJM to get back into shape, get another year of learning (and maybe take over mid year) and you aren't committed to Darnold with big money beyond next year. Minny has the cap space to do this and still improve their line/DB's and then clear Darnold off for the following year and let JJM take over. That cap space could then be used to further improve the O-Line and the team should be poised for a serious run (assuming JJM is the real deal).

 

[RaidersAreOne]

If the Raiders land Ben Johnson then I am game for Darnold on a ~3 year deal.

 

[Gally]

If the Raiders land Ben Johnson then I am game for Darnold on a ~3 year deal.

Good luck with that.

 

[JoeJoe88]

You can’t even blame the majority of the sacks he took last night on the line

That’s simply not true. He had unblocked defenders in his lap for 5-6 of them.

I’d say 1 he definitely should have thrown it away, and 2 he spent too much time looking for a receiver (coverage sacks)

Those were on him. The rest were bad (or no) blocking.

Just because pressure eventually gets home does not mean the QB is absolved of any blame for taking it.

Darnold had time last night, he was just extremely indecisive. Stroud would kill for some of the pockets Sam had last night.

He had open receivers on multiple sacks he took last night. And he still had time to throw the ball away on the ones he didn’t. Several of the sacks he literally stepped right into instead of trying to move outside the pocket.

 

[jumper]

The instant he hits the market he will be offered a multi-year contract by a QB-needy team. Bank on it.

Sure. The only question is $$$.

Cousins just signed last year for 4 years $180mm. Daniel Jones signed for 4 years/ $160mm. I'm thinking some team splits the difference between a Cousins and Baker Mayfield contract (3 years / $100mm) and a touch more than the Daniel Jones contract in AAV. Going to say 3 years / $130mm with $50mm guaranteed from the Raiders ($92mm in cap space).

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

The instant he hits the market he will be offered a multi-year contract by a QB-needy team. Bank on it.

Sure. The only question is $$$.

Cousins just signed last year for 4 years $180mm. Daniel Jones signed for 4 years/ $160mm. I'm thinking some team splits the difference between a Cousins and Baker Mayfield contract (3 years / $100mm) and a touch more than the Daniel Jones contract in AAV. Going to say 3 years / $130mm with $50mm guaranteed from the Raiders ($92mm in cap space).

That sounds reasonable and likely.

But it all depends on what MIN does.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Darnold had time last night, he was just extremely indecisive. Stroud would kill for some of the pockets Sam had last night.

And sometimes when he had time it was because they dropped everyone into coverage.

At some point you have to tip your cap to the job the Rams defense did.

And it’s pretty clear the Rams went to school on what the Lions did to Darnold the week before.

I’m not absolving Darnold of blame. I also don’t believe he deserves all of it.

 

[travdogg]

I watched every sack again today. I'd put 7 of the 9 on Darnold. Many times he just sat there waiting to be sacked, he also did some running into sacks, like he thought he was Lamar and could run by defenders that weren't about to sack him.

I was flabbergasted by the blatant missed open WR's he had that he just plain didn't throw to. Add to that the times he did throw I cannot remember a good throw. Even the positive plays (Hock TD and a 3rd down pick up by Nailor) were terrible throws that the receiver bailed him out on by making a great catch.

It was like this for the past two games. The two games that actually had big pressure and required him to perform well. The games were way too big for him. He showed he can be a decent QB for a regular season with a solid infrastructure around him but when the pressure on he sees ghosts and freezes up. The last two games clearly show this to be the case.

Many of his throws reminded me of the decent Keenum year in Minny. He did well, they won a lot of games but he left a ton on the table because he wasn't great. There were tons of throws throughout the entire year that got the job done but with better throws the WR's would have been able to turn the plays into big plays. Instead of leading a guy he put in low and Thielen would come up with a sliding great catch. It worked for the first down but a good pass and he keeps running. I realized that year how much a quality QB with quality ball placement added so much to an offense. The last two games Darnold reminded me of that a lot. Even his "good" throws were bad.

Keenum is a really great comp.

 

[jumper]

The instant he hits the market he will be offered a multi-year contract by a QB-needy team. Bank on it.

Sure. The only question is $$$.

Cousins just signed last year for 4 years $180mm. Daniel Jones signed for 4 years/ $160mm. I'm thinking some team splits the difference between a Cousins and Baker Mayfield contract (3 years / $100mm) and a touch more than the Daniel Jones contract in AAV. Going to say 3 years / $130mm with $50mm guaranteed from the Raiders ($92mm in cap space).

That sounds reasonable and likely.

But it all depends on what MIN does.

Well Vikings have $69.5mm in cap space now and are without their 2nd, 3rd, 4th round picks in the 2025 draft. Aaron Jones and Cam Akers are both FAs and they need to resign Jones or pay someone else (they aren't going to use their 1st rounder on a RB, at least I would think?). They also badly need to resign their CBs or get another in draft or FA. That's going to suck up a decent amount of cap money.

Franchise tag for QB is $41.3mm and transition tag is $35.2mm. If JJ McCarthy is healthy for next year, then Darnold is going to walk and they'll pick up some cheaper QB2 to back up JJ. Too many other holes to fill to use up half their available cap on Darnold.

If JJ isn't healthy? My first thought would be they transition tag Darnold for the year until JJ is healthy, but then who's out there as a potential replacement if the Raiders or someone offers a stupid deal the Vikes won't match? Trade for Carr? Sign Jameis? They won't (I think) take on ARod and his baggage if the Jets cut him. No one else out there moves the needle much (are a team that went 14-3 really going to roll into 2025 with Russell Wilson or Mac Jones at QB1? Doubt it.

 

[travdogg]

Is he Kirk Cousins or is he Daniel Jones or is he Mitch Trubisky?

Cousins>>>Darnold>Jones>>>>Trubisky

I’m not sure Cousins belongs there after this year. He hasn’t looked at all the same since the injury.

I’m wondering where Drew Lock is on that scale, since the Giants might be a landing spot.

I thought Cousins was more a bad fit than anything else. His accuracy, pocket presence and reading of defenses was still great. His arm strength was certainly not it once was, but for whatever reason they kept asking for deep balls. I thought the Falcons were one of the worst coached teams in the NFL. There's more talent on that roster than half the teams that are playing this weekend.

Lock would probably be just above Trubisky, in the low-end backup category.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

If JJ isn't healthy? My first thought would be they transition tag Darnold for the year until JJ is healthy, but then who's out there as a potential replacement if the Raiders or someone offers a stupid deal the Vikes won't match?

Reportedly JJM is progressing well.

 

[BeTheMatch]

Wow, how much money did he cost himself over the last two games? He's played two "playoff" games, and didn't impress in either. Is he back to a "prove it" deal, or will a team still see him as a long-term answer?

None.

You're crazy

No way to support it, however you have to think a better performance and a playoff win or two would have only helped financially.

14 win season
4300+ yards
35 TD to 12 Int

That's his 2024 resume.

@BeTheMatch might think he deserves less in the offseason because of 2 games against playoff teams, but I assure you that NFL GMs aren't as short-sighted. His body of work in 2024 was not supplanted by 2 games against the NFC 1-seed & a well-rested Rams team.

The Rams defense gets a lot of credit for those results.
The DET defense likewise.
The Vikings OL also gets a lot of credit for those results.

FF nerds like us look at the little picture. NFL GMs look at the big picture.

I agree with @King of the Jungle that Darnold might have increased his value with better performances, but he is going to be a highly sought-after commodity the second FA begins, assuming the Vikings don't franchise him.

As I said several weeks ago, yes, the stats and wins were there, but there were signs of trouble for someone paying attention.

Not trying to victory lap, but I more than suggested these types of outcomes were coming. He was getting away with a lot of bad things. And it caught up to him.

Assuming the Vikings let him walk, I'm not saying he can't be good. Although, without KOC as his coach, I would downgrade his chances of significant success quite a bit.

He'll still get a good contract because he's the top FA QB on a very short list.

But he absolutely cost himself money.

Of course none of us will ever be able to prove that one way or another, so it's pointless to argue about it.

 

[elguapo07]

I watched every sack again today. I'd put 7 of the 9 on Darnold. Many times he just sat there waiting to be sacked, he also did some running into sacks, like he thought he was Lamar and could run by defenders that weren't about to sack him.

I was flabbergasted by the blatant missed open WR's he had that he just plain didn't throw to. Add to that the times he did throw I cannot remember a good throw. Even the positive plays (Hock TD and a 3rd down pick up by Nailor) were terrible throws that the receiver bailed him out on by making a great catch.

It was like this for the past two games. The two games that actually had big pressure and required him to perform well. The games were way too big for him. He showed he can be a decent QB for a regular season with a solid infrastructure around him but when the pressure on he sees ghosts and freezes up. The last two games clearly show this to be the case.

Many of his throws reminded me of the decent Keenum year in Minny. He did well, they won a lot of games but he left a ton on the table because he wasn't great. There were tons of throws throughout the entire year that got the job done but with better throws the WR's would have been able to turn the plays into big plays. Instead of leading a guy he put in low and Thielen would come up with a sliding great catch. It worked for the first down but a good pass and he keeps running. I realized that year how much a quality QB with quality ball placement added so much to an offense. The last two games Darnold reminded me of that a lot. Even his "good" throws were bad.

Keenum is a really great comp.

Andy Dalton

 

[Mitchie]

More I think about it, I think he's most likely gone. They're not gonna want JJ to sit the entire year, so you're essentially gonna pay someone 40+M to start a handful of games and then be a backup/mentor? Doesn't make any sense to me. Yes he had a good season, but his flaws were exposed in the post season, that's just the reality of the situation. If he had played well in the last couple games maybe things would be different, who knows but that's not what happened.

 

[Donnybrook]

The more I think about it. The more I think that Darnold will have a Matt Cassel type of career, For those that don't remember Cassel, he filled in for a injured Brady and went 10-5 with the Patriots. Cassel put a couple of stellar performances during the 2008 season, Patriots didn't qualify for the playoffs so there was no Darnold swoon at the end. After franchising Cassel, Patriots traded him and Vrabel for the 34th pick I believe.

I think like Cassel, Darnold will continue his career based on this size and arm talent although I doubt he ever eclipses what he did this year with the Vikings.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

But he absolutely cost himself money.

Of course none of us will ever be able to prove that one way or another, so it's pointless to argue about it.

I don’t think he cost himself $100M

I don’t think his contract, should he become a FA, will be less for his last 2 games.

I do agree that he potentially could have had more with a stronger performance in one of those last two games (or both). But that’s difficult to quantify. Does it mean fewer years? Less guaranteed? Like you said, we’ll never know.

But I do not believe it hurt his chances of being a starter somewhere in the slightest.

It may have hurt his chances at being franchised by the Vikings, but I’m not convinced they would have franchised him regardless. They drafted JJM to be the starter last year. This was a flukey situation from the jump.

Will be interesting to see what actually happens. Our speculation won’t impact it in the slightest. lol

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

More I think about it, I think he's most likely gone. They're not gonna want JJ to sit the entire year, so you're essentially gonna pay someone 40+M to start a handful of games and then be a backup/mentor? Doesn't make any sense to me. Yes he had a good season, but his flaws were exposed in the post season, that's just the reality of the situation. If he had played well in the last couple games maybe things would be different, who knows but that's not what happened.

who knows. It would make a lot more sense for the Vikings to go with JJM on his rookie deal. That’s the dream for most franchises - win with a cheap QB under contract, and spend to build around him.

Add to that their plan was for JJM to start last year and it’s hard to believe MIN ever planned on franchising Darnold regardless of how productive he was in 2024.

But I’m not the Vikings GM, so I can’t say for sure. My gut says they let him walk regardless though.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

who knows. It would make a lot more sense for the Vikings to go with JJM on his rookie deal. That’s the dream for most franchises - win with a cheap QB under contract, and spend to build around him.

This is repeated ad nauseam but the reality is that since 2000 only six Super Bowl winning QBs were on their rookie contracts

1. Tom Brady
2. Ben Roethlisberger
3. Eli Manning
4. Joe Flacco
5. Russell Wilson
6. Patrick Mahomes

 

[menobrown]

who knows. It would make a lot more sense for the Vikings to go with JJM on his rookie deal. That’s the dream for most franchises - win with a cheap QB under contract, and spend to build around him.

This is repeated ad nauseam but the reality is that since 2000 only six winning QBs were on their rookie contracts

1. Tom Brady
2. Ben Roethlisberger
3. Eli Manning
4. Joe Flacco
5. Russell Wilson
6. Patrick Mahomes

I've seen this counter argument a lot but I think it fails to take into context that this list would look very different if players 1 and 6 on this list were not so consistently dominant during this timeframe. It's kind of similar to me to making a case that so and so failed to work to win an NBA championship in the 90's but if not for Jordan it might very well have worked out great.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

who knows. It would make a lot more sense for the Vikings to go with JJM on his rookie deal. That’s the dream for most franchises - win with a cheap QB under contract, and spend to build around him.

This is repeated ad nauseam but the reality is that since 2000 only six winning QBs were on their rookie contracts

1. Tom Brady
2. Ben Roethlisberger
3. Eli Manning
4. Joe Flacco
5. Russell Wilson
6. Patrick Mahomes

I've seen this counter argument a lot but I think it fails to take into context that this list would look very different if players 1 and 6 on this list were not so consistently dominant during this timeframe. It's kind of similar to me to making a case that so and so failed to work to win an NBA championship in the 90's but if not for Jordan it might very well have worked out great.

Okay, but if the argument is that having a QB on his rookie contract allows you to build up the rest of your team that argument should hold water by those teams having the additional talent at other spots to offset Brady and Mahomes. But they didn't.

The proof is conclusive - you have a greatly increased chance to win Super Bowls when you have an elite QB regardless of what his contact is.

 

[jumper]

Wow, how much money did he cost himself over the last two games? He's played two "playoff" games, and didn't impress in either. Is he back to a "prove it" deal, or will a team still see him as a long-term answer?

None.

You're crazy

No way to support it, however you have to think a better performance and a playoff win or two would have only helped financially.

14 win season
4300+ yards
35 TD to 12 Int

That's his 2024 resume.

@BeTheMatch might think he deserves less in the offseason because of 2 games against playoff teams, but I assure you that NFL GMs aren't as short-sighted. His body of work in 2024 was not supplanted by 2 games against the NFC 1-seed & a well-rested Rams team.

The Rams defense gets a lot of credit for those results.
The DET defense likewise.
The Vikings OL also gets a lot of credit for those results.

FF nerds like us look at the little picture. NFL GMs look at the big picture.

I agree with @King of the Jungle that Darnold might have increased his value with better performances, but he is going to be a highly sought-after commodity the second FA begins, assuming the Vikings don't franchise him.

As I said several weeks ago, yes, the stats and wins were there, but there were signs of trouble for someone paying attention.

Not trying to victory lap, but I more than suggested these types of outcomes were coming. He was getting away with a lot of bad things. And it caught up to him.

Assuming the Vikings let him walk, I'm not saying he can't be good. Although, without KOC as his coach, I would downgrade his chances of significant success quite a bit.

He'll still get a good contract because he's the top FA QB on a very short list.

But he absolutely cost himself money.

Of course none of us will ever be able to prove that one way or another, so it's pointless to argue about it.

IMHO the "he's the top FA QB on a very short list" will far outweigh the mediocre performance in the last couple games. Take a look at the list of top FAs and tell me compared to Darnold which guy actually DID have a couple great games to end the season? Surely not Russell Wilson, or Daniel Jones (so bad the Giants benched then cut him), or Mac Jones, or Jameis. Everyone else in FA is a backup at best.

Does anyone here honestly think that a quarterback starved team is going to say "well Darnold had two bad games to end the season, guess I'll sign Daniel Jones instead"?

 

[menobrown]

who knows. It would make a lot more sense for the Vikings to go with JJM on his rookie deal. That’s the dream for most franchises - win with a cheap QB under contract, and spend to build around him.

This is repeated ad nauseam but the reality is that since 2000 only six winning QBs were on their rookie contracts

1. Tom Brady
2. Ben Roethlisberger
3. Eli Manning
4. Joe Flacco
5. Russell Wilson
6. Patrick Mahomes

I've seen this counter argument a lot but I think it fails to take into context that this list would look very different if players 1 and 6 on this list were not so consistently dominant during this timeframe. It's kind of similar to me to making a case that so and so failed to work to win an NBA championship in the 90's but if not for Jordan it might very well have worked out great.

Okay, but if the argument is that having a QB on his rookie contract allows you to build up the rest of your team that argument should hold water by those teams having the additional talent at other spots to offset Brady and Mahomes. But they didn't.

No, that's exactly what I was just disputing. Having a starting QB on his rookie contract playing well gives you the best chance to compete but when you are going against greatness it's often not enough. Does not mean those teams were not better positioned to compete by having a low wage rookie QB performing well.

Joe Burrow was still on his rookie contract when they lost to the Chiefs in the AFC title game. So was Josh Allen when they blew the lead with 13 seconds left. If the Chiefs and Mahomes were not on the other side then this list likely looks completely different and these are just two examples.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

who knows. It would make a lot more sense for the Vikings to go with JJM on his rookie deal. That’s the dream for most franchises - win with a cheap QB under contract, and spend to build around him.

This is repeated ad nauseam but the reality is that since 2000 only six winning QBs were on their rookie contracts

1. Tom Brady
2. Ben Roethlisberger
3. Eli Manning
4. Joe Flacco
5. Russell Wilson
6. Patrick Mahomes

I've seen this counter argument a lot but I think it fails to take into context that this list would look very different if players 1 and 6 on this list were not so consistently dominant during this timeframe. It's kind of similar to me to making a case that so and so failed to work to win an NBA championship in the 90's but if not for Jordan it might very well have worked out great.

Okay, but if the argument is that having a QB on his rookie contract allows you to build up the rest of your team that argument should hold water by those teams having the additional talent at other spots to offset Brady and Mahomes. But they didn't.

No, that's exactly what I was just disputing. Having a starting QB on his rookie contract playing well gives you the best chance to compete but when you are going against greatness it's often not enough. Does not mean those teams were not better positioned to compete by having a low wage rookie QB performing well.

Joe Burrow was still on his rookie contract when they lost to the Chiefs in the AFC title game. So was Josh Allen when they blew the lead with 13 seconds left. If the Chiefs and Mahomes were not on the other side then this list likely looks completely different and these are just two examples.

Let's look at this year's playoffs. Six of the eight remaining teams have QBs making more than $40m/year.

Having a QB on a rookie contract isn't a particular advantage. Having a QB on a large veteran contact isn't particularly a disadvantage.

 

[menobrown]

who knows. It would make a lot more sense for the Vikings to go with JJM on his rookie deal. That’s the dream for most franchises - win with a cheap QB under contract, and spend to build around him.

This is repeated ad nauseam but the reality is that since 2000 only six winning QBs were on their rookie contracts

1. Tom Brady
2. Ben Roethlisberger
3. Eli Manning
4. Joe Flacco
5. Russell Wilson
6. Patrick Mahomes

I've seen this counter argument a lot but I think it fails to take into context that this list would look very different if players 1 and 6 on this list were not so consistently dominant during this timeframe. It's kind of similar to me to making a case that so and so failed to work to win an NBA championship in the 90's but if not for Jordan it might very well have worked out great.

Okay, but if the argument is that having a QB on his rookie contract allows you to build up the rest of your team that argument should hold water by those teams having the additional talent at

who knows. It would make a lot more sense for the Vikings to go with JJM on his rookie deal. That’s the dream for most franchises - win with a cheap QB under contract, and spend to build around him.

This is repeated ad nauseam but the reality is that since 2000 only six winning QBs were on their rookie contracts

1. Tom Brady
2. Ben Roethlisberger
3. Eli Manning
4. Joe Flacco
5. Russell Wilson
6. Patrick Mahomes

I've seen this counter argument a lot but I think it fails to take into context that this list would look very different if players 1 and 6 on this list were not so consistently dominant during this timeframe. It's kind of similar to me to making a case that so and so failed to work to win an NBA championship in the 90's but if not for Jordan it might very well have worked out great.

Okay, but if the argument is that having a QB on his rookie contract allows you to build up the rest of your team that argument should hold water by those teams having the additional talent at other spots to offset Brady and Mahomes. But they didn't.

No, that's exactly what I was just disputing. Having a starting QB on his rookie contract playing well gives you the best chance to compete but when you are going against greatness it's often not enough. Does not mean those teams were not better positioned to compete by having a low wage rookie QB performing well.

Joe Burrow was still on his rookie contract when they lost to the Chiefs in the AFC title game. So was Josh Allen when they blew the lead with 13 seconds left. If the Chiefs and Mahomes were not on the other side then this list likely looks completely different and these are just two examples.

Let's look at this year's playoffs. Six of the eight remaining teams have QBs making more than $40m/year.

Having a QB on a rookie contract isn't a particular advantage. Having a QB on a large veteran contact isn't particularly a disadvantage.

It requires a deeper analysis then taking this years playoffs and saying it's conclusive or just adding up championships but you got your viewpoint and I have mine.

 

[Faust]

Vikings Should Stick With Sam Darnold Long-Term Despite Playoff Disaster

 

[MAC_32]

Again, franchising him makes too much sense in this case. ~40m is not a huge investment to make in a guy who has ~9 months in KOC's system

That's about 30% of the team's cap space over the next 2 years

 

[Andy Dufresne]

It requires a deeper analysis then taking this years playoffs and saying it's conclusive or just adding up championships but you got your viewpoint and I have mine.

Would you like me to go out longer than the last 10 years?

2024​

• Patrick Mahomes: $37M
• Lamar Jackson: $80M
• Brock Purdy: $934K
• Jared Goff: $26M

2023​

• Patrick Mahomes: $37M
• Joe Burrow: $55M
• Jalen Hurts: $1.5M
• Brock Purdy: $934K

2022​

• Patrick Mahomes: $45M
• Joe Burrow: $9M
• Matthew Stafford: $40M
• Jimmy Garoppolo: $24.3M

2021​

• Patrick Mahomes: $45M
• Josh Allen: $43M
• Tom Brady: $25M
• Aaron Rodgers: $33.5M

2020​

• Patrick Mahomes: $10.8M
• Josh Allen: $5.3M
• Aaron Rodgers: $33.5M
• Tom Brady: $25M

2019​

• Patrick Mahomes: $4.1M
• Ryan Tannehill: $7M
• Jimmy Garoppolo: $24.3M
• Aaron Rodgers: $33.5M

2018​

• Tom Brady: $15M
• Patrick Mahomes: $4.1M
• Jared Goff: $7.6M
• Drew Brees: $25M

2017​

• Tom Brady: $14M
• Blake Bortles: $6.57M
• Nick Foles/Carson Wentz: ~$7.6M combined
• Case Keenum: ~$2M

2016​

• Tom Brady: $14M
• Ben Roethlisberger: $18.2M
• Matt Ryan: $20.75M
• Aaron Rodgers: ~$22.5M

2015​

• Peyton Manning: $17.5M
• Tom Brady: ~$14M
• Carson Palmer: ~$7.4M
• Cam Newton: ~$13M

 

[IHEARTFF]

who knows. It would make a lot more sense for the Vikings to go with JJM on his rookie deal. That’s the dream for most franchises - win with a cheap QB under contract, and spend to build around him.

This is repeated ad nauseam but the reality is that since 2000 only six winning QBs were on their rookie contracts

1. Tom Brady
2. Ben Roethlisberger
3. Eli Manning
4. Joe Flacco
5. Russell Wilson
6. Patrick Mahomes

I've seen this counter argument a lot but I think it fails to take into context that this list would look very different if players 1 and 6 on this list were not so consistently dominant during this timeframe. It's kind of similar to me to making a case that so and so failed to work to win an NBA championship in the 90's but if not for Jordan it might very well have worked out great.

Okay, but if the argument is that having a QB on his rookie contract allows you to build up the rest of your team that argument should hold water by those teams having the additional talent at other spots to offset Brady and Mahomes. But they didn't.

No, that's exactly what I was just disputing. Having a starting QB on his rookie contract playing well gives you the best chance to compete but when you are going against greatness it's often not enough. Does not mean those teams were not better positioned to compete by having a low wage rookie QB performing well.

Joe Burrow was still on his rookie contract when they lost to the Chiefs in the AFC title game. So was Josh Allen when they blew the lead with 13 seconds left. If the Chiefs and Mahomes were not on the other side then this list likely looks completely different and these are just two examples.

Let's look at this year's playoffs. Six of the eight remaining teams have QBs making more than $40m/year.

Having a QB on a rookie contract isn't a particular advantage. Having a QB on a large veteran contact isn't particularly a disadvantage.

Having an elite qb is the advantage. Barely paying them is an additional advantage.

 

[menobrown]

who knows. It would make a lot more sense for the Vikings to go with JJM on his rookie deal. That’s the dream for most franchises - win with a cheap QB under contract, and spend to build around him.

This is repeated ad nauseam but the reality is that since 2000 only six winning QBs were on their rookie contracts

1. Tom Brady
2. Ben Roethlisberger
3. Eli Manning
4. Joe Flacco
5. Russell Wilson
6. Patrick Mahomes

I've seen this counter argument a lot but I think it fails to take into context that this list would look very different if players 1 and 6 on this list were not so consistently dominant during this timeframe. It's kind of similar to me to making a case that so and so failed to work to win an NBA championship in the 90's but if not for Jordan it might very well have worked out great.

Okay, but if the argument is that having a QB on his rookie contract allows you to build up the rest of your team that argument should hold water by those teams having the additional talent at other spots to offset Brady and Mahomes. But they didn't.

No, that's exactly what I was just disputing. Having a starting QB on his rookie contract playing well gives you the best chance to compete but when you are going against greatness it's often not enough. Does not mean those teams were not better positioned to compete by having a low wage rookie QB performing well.

Joe Burrow was still on his rookie contract when they lost to the Chiefs in the AFC title game. So was Josh Allen when they blew the lead with 13 seconds left. If the Chiefs and Mahomes were not on the other side then this list likely looks completely different and these are just two examples.

Let's look at this year's playoffs. Six of the eight remaining teams have QBs making more than $40m/year.

Having a QB on a rookie contract isn't a particular advantage. Having a QB on a large veteran contact isn't particularly a disadvantage.

Having an elite qb is the advantage. Barely paying them is an additional advantage.

It seems pretty simple

 

[menobrown]

It requires a deeper analysis then taking this years playoffs and saying it's conclusive or just adding up championships but you got your viewpoint and I have mine.

Would you like me to go out longer than the last 10 years?

2024​

• Patrick Mahomes: $37M
• Lamar Jackson: $80M
• Brock Purdy: $934K
• Jared Goff: $26M

2023​

• Patrick Mahomes: $37M
• Joe Burrow: $55M
• Jalen Hurts: $1.5M
• Brock Purdy: $934K

2022​

• Patrick Mahomes: $45M
• Joe Burrow: $9M
• Matthew Stafford: $40M
• Jimmy Garoppolo: $24.3M

2021​

• Patrick Mahomes: $45M
• Josh Allen: $43M
• Tom Brady: $25M
• Aaron Rodgers: $33.5M

2020​

• Patrick Mahomes: $10.8M
• Josh Allen: $5.3M
• Aaron Rodgers: $33.5M
• Tom Brady: $25M

2019​

• Patrick Mahomes: $4.1M
• Ryan Tannehill: $7M
• Jimmy Garoppolo: $24.3M
• Aaron Rodgers: $33.5M

2018​

• Tom Brady: $15M
• Patrick Mahomes: $4.1M
• Jared Goff: $7.6M
• Drew Brees: $25M

2017​

• Tom Brady: $14M
• Blake Bortles: $6.57M
• Nick Foles/Carson Wentz: ~$7.6M combined
• Case Keenum: ~$2M

2016​

• Tom Brady: $14M
• Ben Roethlisberger: $18.2M
• Matt Ryan: $20.75M
• Aaron Rodgers: ~$22.5M

2015​

• Peyton Manning: $17.5M
• Tom Brady: ~$14M
• Carson Palmer: ~$7.4M
• Cam Newton: ~$13M

I've already provided examples of past years as well so not sure of your point saying if you go from just this past year to 10 years ago. Like I said it's a deeper analysis that takes into account how good the rookie QB is, what his comp to make or win the SB is, surrounding talent, etc,etc. No one here is arguing it guarantees you anything but it seems like a pretty basic concept that that paying a QB less just because he's on his rookie contract then you'd have to pay him otherwise is significant competitive advantage.

 

[Soulfly3]

His absolute best season by far and still has done absolutely nothing to stop my feeling that he's a bust.

4300+ yards and a 35:12 TD:Int rate is a "bust"?

Ooooookay.

Can always count on you to be a contrarian, despite an abundance of stats to tell you otherwise.

He's been in the league since 2018, sweet bell pepper sauce guy. Never once started a full season until this year. Had ONE winning record before this year (7-6 w the jets, again not a full season). Never had more than 3024yds before this year and never more than 19tds before this year. SIX seasons, and 3024 and 19TD was his best ever season (with 13 sweet INTs to boot).

In fact, before this season, his record as a starter was 21-35, on three different teams.

I now predict he does to another team, and fades back into amiguity/a backup role. The last 2 games exposed the true SD, once again.

So ya... His career to date has been a bust. Already gave him cred and happy to see he did pretty good this season, but he got exposed again.

 

[Bri]

I'm ready to pile on too but gotta admit he was one of the better QBs in the regular season and that's a huge improvement.

A lot of QBs stink their first time in the playoffs.

I don't know how you judge this but I do know it's not extreme

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Can always count on you to be a contrarian

Not always.

 

[Soulfly3]

Can always count on you to be a contrarian

Not always.

let me try your sauce.

 

[fred_1_15301]

Can always count on you to be a contrarian

Not always.

let me try your sauce.

You haven’t tried it yet? Damn you’re missing out!

 

[fred_1_15301]

We are talking about the hot sauce, right?

 

[Soulfly3]

Can always count on you to be a contrarian

Not always.

let me try your sauce.

You haven’t tried it yet? Damn you’re missing out!

HSG is my frenemy on this forum, but I have no doubt his hot sauce is deerishiss

 

[InDitkaWeTrust]

Again, franchising him makes too much sense in this case. ~40m is not a huge investment to make in a guy who has ~9 months in KOC's system

That's about 30% of the team's cap space over the next 2 years

That tracks for a 1 year deal. League average in 2024 was 22% mostly due to longer term contracts for the big guns....and Watson.

 

[Hankmoody]

If not franchised, I'd expect Darnold to sign a contract on the order of what Baker Mayfield signed in 2024 (3 years, 100mil). Let's say 3 years 125mil to account for cap inflation. If he had strong games vs DET and LAR, he likely could have commanded on the order of 5 years 225mil, again assuming no franchise tag. So it isn't out of reason to think that he's cost himself $100mil over this next contract. Of course that doesn't take into account a 2nd contract in the 3year vs 5 year scenario, but that contract is far from guaranteed.

Not a chance he gets $45M a year on a long term deal. He might get that on a shorter deal that's backloaded and light on guarantees but no shot he gets it all after a single year. 3 years $150M with $35M/$50M/$55M that they can get out of with minimal damage if he regresses was the best he was going to do.

He’s only cost himself $ if you think a team was gonna give him 5/250M.

You don't think there's a difference between $100M and $250M? Between $33M per year and $50M per year?

Some wild takes in here. The reality is that he was probably always getting the FT and these two games didn't change anything. An organization isn't going to do a full-on about face based on one comeback year they are going to keep their options open as much as possible. The Baker contact is little more than a glorified FT - it paid out $32M cash for 2024 with $10M more guaranteed for 2025 and if he had stunk they could have walked away with a modest $42M total liability for a year.

 

[Hankmoody]

I wonder if Los Vegas would be attractive place for Darnold if Ben Johnson takes the job. I mean he making Goff look like an all pro, I mean the guys in the trenches have a lot to do with it as well. I am thinking a 2-3 bridge QB deal. I think los Vegas is actually more malleable to change than some of the other organizations.

We can dream but I see zero chance MIN lets Darnold out of the building. Why let someone else make him look like an all-pro when you just did it? $40M is nothing for a QB and the biggest bargain in the league for what they got out of him. The only question they have is if they trust him to repeat it but NFL teams generally treat this as a case of trusting themselves (coaches, system, culture) to get as much out of the player as they do the actual player.

 

[Hankmoody]

If JJ isn't healthy? My first thought would be they transition tag Darnold for the year until JJ is healthy, but then who's out there as a potential replacement if the Raiders or someone offers a stupid deal the Vikes won't match?

Reportedly JJM is progressing well.

The only thing I have seen is he underwent another repair in November - that doesn't sound good, is this not a concern? Are they other progress updates I haven't seen?

 

[MAC_32]

Again, franchising him makes too much sense in this case. ~40m is not a huge investment to make in a guy who has ~9 months in KOC's system

That's about 30% of the team's cap space over the next 2 years

That tracks for a 1 year deal. League average in 2024 was 22% mostly due to longer term contracts for the big guns....and Watson.

Do you think that is a good business decision? Do you expect the team paying that price to be happy with their return on investment? Their fans?

 

[InDitkaWeTrust]

Again, franchising him makes too much sense in this case. ~40m is not a huge investment to make in a guy who has ~9 months in KOC's system

That's about 30% of the team's cap space over the next 2 years

That tracks for a 1 year deal. League average in 2024 was 22% mostly due to longer term contracts for the big guns....and Watson.

Do you think that is a good business decision? Do you expect the team paying that price to be happy with their return on investment? Their fans?

Absolutely, it's a good business decision to franchise Darnold. JJM hasn't played a snap of real NFL football and is essentially a rookie prospect. I expect KOC knows what he has in Darnold and will tweak the offense even more to play to his strengths. If, for whatever reason, Darnold busts in 25, they owe nothing for 26. On the flip side, if Darnold plays to his 24 regular season levels in 26, they can sign him to a backloaded contract like all QBs get these days to help offset the cap hit a bit.

If I were the Vikings, I would be extremely nervous going into 25 with a rookie and Danny Dimes (potentially) as my QB room.

 

[MAC_32]

Again, franchising him makes too much sense in this case. ~40m is not a huge investment to make in a guy who has ~9 months in KOC's system

That's about 30% of the team's cap space over the next 2 years

That tracks for a 1 year deal. League average in 2024 was 22% mostly due to longer term contracts for the big guns....and Watson.

Do you think that is a good business decision? Do you expect the team paying that price to be happy with their return on investment? Their fans?

Absolutely, it's a good business decision to franchise Darnold. JJM hasn't played a snap of real NFL football and is essentially a rookie prospect. I expect KOC knows what he has in Darnold and will tweak the offense even more to play to his strengths. If, for whatever reason, Darnold busts in 25, they owe nothing for 26. On the flip side, if Darnold plays to his 24 regular season levels in 26, they can sign him to a backloaded contract like all QBs get these days to help offset the cap hit a bit.

If I were the Vikings, I would be extremely nervous going into 25 with a rookie and Danny Dimes (potentially) as my QB room.

I'm admittedly more comfortable with risk to try to maximize success, but I'd much MUCH rather spend those dollars building the team around JJ and trust that if things turn sideways I can do at least 80% with Danny Dimes what I did with Darnold.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Can always count on you to be a contrarian

Not always.

let me try your sauce.

sure thing - here ya go!

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Can always count on you to be a contrarian

Not always.

A couple of you got this joke, and I respect you more for it.