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

[Bump]

Sam Darnold has completely turned his career around in Minnesota. Yes, the Vikings have one of the best receiving corps and a good TE. But it's not like you could just plug in any QB and it will be great.

Sam Darnold signed a 1 year deal worth $10m is what google says. So he will be a free agent.

Should they use the franchise tag on him and try to trade him for a 1st? Or sign him to a contract and make him their starter since he played so well?

What to do with JJ McCarthy, if they go with Sam Darnold, since they drafted him so high? Sam Darnold wouldn't be in this position if it weren't for that injury.

It's a somewhat unusual situation and it's a Chiefs-less weekend so if you are the GM of the Vikings, what do you do?

[htismaqe]

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.

[chiefzilla1501]

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.

[lcarus]

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.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

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.

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.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

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.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

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.

[duncan_idaho]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

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.

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.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

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.

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

[Discuss Thrower]

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

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho

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.

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..."

[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.

[mr. tegu]

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.

[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.