Vikings sign Sam Darnold

[VikeManDan]

16 minutes ago, JDBrocks said:

If they’re going to keep this going O’Connell needs to keep him centered and focused.

And I have all the confidence in KOC and McCown to do that. 

[GermanVike]

15 hours ago, JDBrocks said:

I don't buy this at all, and don't think that the FO thinks this way either. It will absolutely be a part of the equation, and a significant one at that.

That's the problem with sunk costs: They always play into the equation, even though they shouldn't.

Just like the Greeks kept sacrificing men in Troy, because they had already sacrificed so many. If they had just left, Troy would have been still standing and Achilles would have lived.

Edited yesterday at 06:07 AM by GermanVike

[SteelKing728]

https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/bill-belichick-everyone-in-the-nfl-liked-sam-darnold-except-the-jets

At one point Belichick confused Darnold with Mayfield, but I think his overall point is pretty clear.

[Worm Guts]

6 hours ago, GermanVike said:

That's the problem with sunk costs: They always play into the equation, even though they shouldn't.

Just like the Greeks kept sacrificing men in Troy, because they had already sacrificed so many. If they had just left, Troy would have been still standing and Achilles would have lived.

I don't think you view McCarthy as a sunk cost though. Part of the equation is going to be your expectations of McCarthy compared to Darnold.

[SemperFeist]

I just don’t see the Vikings doing a tag and trade. First of all, I think the idea of it is a little optimistic. Even if Darnold has a pro bowl season, I just don’t think you’d get a return that’s worth the potential risk. If you tag Darnold, teams know that you’re planning to unload him. That right there is going to drastically drop his value. Also, while he may have a strong season, he’s not a proven consistent player. So I don’t see teams willing to double down on their gamble by giving up significant assets, as well as a significant contract. 

Secondly, you’re really playing with fire. A franchise tag for a QB is going to slash your spending budget in half. And while you may be able to get a trade done before free agency kicks off, what if the other team decides to drag their feet in order to try and drive the cost down? Seems like the idea would carry a lot more potential risks than potential rewards. 

Another thing to consider is, who would a potential trade partner be? I don’t think there are as many out there as some may believe. Looking around the league, the majority of teams either have their guy, or have a guy they think is their guy. Just going down the list of teams, I only see 2 teams for sure looking for a new QB in 2025, and about 5 teams that might be looking. 

[GermanVike]

4 minutes ago, Worm Guts said:

I don't think you view McCarthy as a sunk cost though. Part of the equation is going to be your expectations of McCarthy compared to Darnold.

I agree. Cine was sunk costs, while McCarthy is an investment into the future.

Back to the topic: Unless we go on a deep playoff run led by Darnold, I don't think we keep him. A tag and trade would be an optimal scenario. If he keeps up his current production, there could be a bidding war, as teams hoping for Prescott will have to find an alternative to a less than stellar QB draft class. A high second and a fourth seems a reasonable price.

[Worm Guts]

As far as tagging him, what about tagging him and keeping him on the one year contract?  Maybe it creates hostility, but it probably means we're overpaying him for 1 season but at least it means we don't have to put all our QB eggs in one basket. The thing about McCarthy being injured is we may not have a great feel for his development when we have to make the decision on Darnold.

Edited yesterday at 01:56 PM by Worm Guts

[SemperFeist]

7 minutes ago, Worm Guts said:

The thing about McCarthy being injured is we may not have a great feel for his development when we have to make the decision on Darnold.

A lot of reporters believed that McCarthy was on the verge of overtaking Darnold as the starter in training camp. Another performance like he had against the Raiders may have tipped the scale in his favor. He’s still in the facility, he’s in the meetings, he’s doing film sessions with O’Connell. They are going to have a good feel for where he is going into next year. 

If you tag Darnold with the plan of keeping him, then you’re committing to Darnold as your starter for 2025, and leaving McCarthy on the bench. 

[vike daddy]

On 3/12/2024 at 5:19 PM, SemperFeist said:

Darnold is certainly not the answer, but if you believe that Kyle Shanahan and Kevin O’Connell are the high level QB “gurus” that many give them credit for, then it says something about Darnold that both coaches have brought him in as insurance/backup for their young, or soon to be young QB. 

I didn’t think that an external bridge QB was necessarily a need. But the vitriol from some Vikings fans over the Darnold signing is crazy. 

a well stated post, back from mid March and before the Draft.

[Worm Guts]

25 minutes ago, SemperFeist said:

A lot of reporters believed that McCarthy was on the verge of overtaking Darnold as the starter in training camp. Another performance like he had against the Raiders may have tipped the scale in his favor. He’s still in the facility, he’s in the meetings, he’s doing film sessions with O’Connell. They are going to have a good feel for where he is going into next year. 

If you tag Darnold with the plan of keeping him, then you’re committing to Darnold as your starter for 2025, and leaving McCarthy on the bench. 

I'm not sure how much I buy into media training camp talk, but even with that, we're talking about situation with McCarthy coming off an injury and Darnold coming off a great year.  I don't necessarily feel like committing to Darnold in 2025 is a bad idea in that situation.

Edited yesterday at 02:37 PM by Worm Guts

[swede700]

17 hours ago, Worm Guts said:

If a team is willing give a QB a starting caliber contract, they are probably willing to give up a first round pick. Anyone you would want as a starting QB is worth that.

While that often happens, you also have the cases of Alex Smith and Matt Ryan both being acquired for 3rd rd picks and Carson Wentz being traded multiple times (and never for a 1st rd pick) and the time that the Eagles acquired Bradford for less than a first (and subsequently later getting a first for him from us).  I just don't think it's a guarantee that they'd get a 1st rd pick just because he'd be a starter.  If you're trading him to a bad team, you're likely not going to get their 1st rd pick, but you could get their high 2nd rd pick.

[Captain Relax]

Anyone care to join me in a boycott of ESPN?  

1.  They don't even pretend to be non biased in the stories, teams, players they cover anymore.

2. Stephen A. Smith wouldn't know a compelling story if it slapped him in the face.

3. Mike Greenberg makes Mike Florio seem reasonable.

4. I can't stand Buck and Aikman. They are the worst announcers in the history of sports and the ManningCast has gotten stale...in my opinion. 

5.  Their NFL coverage on their talk shows would last 5 minutes if they didn't harp on endlessly about the Cowboys, Eagles and Jets.

6.  When the NFL isn't in season they go on and on about the LA Lakers and the NY Knicks.  Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Denver and Boston win the last two NBA championships?

7. In ESPN's warped perspective,  MLB consists of Aaron Judge and the Yankees and Shohei Ohtani and the Dodgers.  No one else plays the sport, apparently. 

8. It makes me highly suspicious that a sports content producer, like ESPN, also handles betting on the same content through ESPN Bet. That situation is ripe for potential scandal...ie fixing outcomes.

[SemperFeist]

I haven’t watched ESPN programming in years. I barely watch Monday Night Football anymore. 

[JDBrocks]

I get most of my info and analysis from podcasts, twitter folks, and youtube channels. Networks cater to the lowest common denominator. I wonder if we'll ever get to a point they realize that football and most sports in general are not that complicated, and gatekeeping actual analysis in favor of clicks or hot takes might not be as profitable as educating people that just want to know more. It'd take some courage, but I really believe that people would be way more engaged with the sports they watch if they knew what they were watching in real time.

[PrplChilPill]

What's ESPN?