2025 NFL Season Thread

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Vikes fire GM.

Just this week I was wondering about his job security. I know it was Sam Darnold. I know he finished last season. But you don't let 14 win QB's walk for an unproven rookie often. And it is even rarer that you watch that QB win another 14 & make the SB while you stay employed home for the playoffs.

The logic was simple. You don't have to pay the rookie yet. It also could have been a fluke season for Darnold. It was a risk either way. The only issue I see here is that their rookie was a wildcard. He wasn't like Joe Burrow entering the draft.

Only Darnold and Tom Brady have ever won 14 games or more two seasons in a row.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

The logic was simple. You don't have to pay the rookie yet. It also could have been a fluke season for Darnold. It was a risk either way. The only issue I see here is that their rookie was a wildcard. He wasn't like Joe Burrow entering the draft.

Only Darnold and Tom Brady have ever won 14 games or more two seasons in a row.

As I said before (in this thread, I think), if you have an average QB, you best hold on to him. They are too hard to replace.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

As I said before (in this thread, I think), if you have an average QB, you best hold on to him. They are too hard to replace.

I agree when you consider the ultimate goal. It's not championships, it's staying relevant and making money. The problem with keeping average QBs is that you have to pay them top dollar.

[pilight]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

I agree when you consider the ultimate goal. It's not championships, it's staying relevant and making money. The problem with keeping average QBs is that you have to pay them top dollar.

Not really. Sam Darnold is making about half of what the top QBs make.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

I agree when you consider the ultimate goal. It's not championships, it's staying relevant and making money. The problem with keeping average QBs is that you have to pay them top dollar.

It's a seller's market. Like Macho Man said, "you may not like it, but you must accept it".

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by pilight

Not really. Sam Darnold is making about half of what the top QBs make.

He would not have accepted that from the Vikings. That's how it works. He won't accept that in any future contract from the Seahawks.

QBs do it all the time. Especially those on rookie deals. Any QB will not accept less than market value from the team that drafted them. They'll only accept less if they are released and picked up by another team. Darnold's mistake was signing a 3 year deal.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Vikes fire GM.

Just this week I was wondering about his job security. I know it was Sam Darnold. I know he finished last season. But you don't let 14 win QB's walk for an unproven rookie often. And it is even rarer that you watch that QB win another 14 & make the SB while you stay employed home for the playoffs.

Late to the party but Darnold at best was the final straw in a kind of terrible run as GM. Check out the Vikings’ 2022 draft, it’s horrible.

[Cobra Mgr]

[low]

So, who's the worst QB to ever win the Super Bowl?

Namath, Dilfer, Rypien, or Darnold?

Psst. Can we please stop determining a QBs greatness on championships? Please?

[pilight]

Where were we? Oh yes, it's now 19 years since a team won a Super Bowl starting a QB they drafted in the top five. That's really not the way to win championships.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by pilight

Where were we? Oh yes, it's now 19 years since a team won a Super Bowl starting a QB they drafted in the top five. That's really not the way to win championships.

You keep saying that. It proves nothing of the sort.

[pilight]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

You keep saying that. It proves nothing of the sort.

It's not like Manning's Colts title was the end of a string. It was a fluke. The last team before that to win a Super Bowl with a QB they drafted in the top five was 11 years before. With free agency and the salary cap, teams can't draft a QB then build the team around them like they could for Aikman and Bradshaw.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by low

So, who's the worst QB to ever win the Super Bowl?

Namath, Dilfer, Rypien, or Darnold?

Psst. Can we please stop determining a QBs greatness on championships? Please?

I truly wish we could.

Yeah, Namath was not the reason they won SB3. He threw at least 3 dropped picks in that game. But I wouldn't put Namath, Rypien or Darnold in the bad QB category. They were serviceable to decent QBs that had good years. Similar to Jim Plunkett and Nick Foles talent wise. They were backups.

I'll go with Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson. The QB on the '85 Bears wasn't very good either. How the hell did Namath get in the HOF? The prediction? Did he have the stats to back it up?

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

How the hell did Namath get in the HOF? The prediction? Did he have the stats to back it up?

I have long said Namath is the most overrated player, not in football, but in all sports period.

Record as a starter 62-63-4
Comp % 50.1
TD's 173
INT's 220

Some of his HOF contemporaries.....

Staubach 85-29 / 57% / 153 / 109
Len Dawson 94-57-8 / 57.1% / 239 / 183
Bob Griese 92-56-3 / 56.2% / 192 / 172
Fran Tarkenton 124-109-6 / 57% / 342 / 266
Sonny Jurgenson 69-71-7 / 57.1% / 255 / 189

Namath is in the HOF for one reason. He happened to be a NYC QB during one of the more historic games in NFL history. He's Forrest Gump. Right place, right time. But none of that happened due to any brilliance on his part.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by pilight

It's not like Manning's Colts title was the end of a string. It was a fluke. The last team before that to win a Super Bowl with a QB they drafted in the top five was 11 years before. With free agency and the salary cap, teams can't draft a QB then build the team around them like they could for Aikman and Bradshaw.

So if it is 2017, you're the Cleveland Browns, you are still taking Myles Garrett instead of Patrick Mahomes? You might be overqualified for the Browns GM position.

[Cobra Mgr]

Can anyone tell me if this is true? It cost Darnold $70,000 to win the Super Bowl in Cali?

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by pilight

It's not like Manning's Colts title was the end of a string. It was a fluke. The last team before that to win a Super Bowl with a QB they drafted in the top five was 11 years before. With free agency and the salary cap, teams can't draft a QB then build the team around them like they could for Aikman and Bradshaw.

I'm not sure that's the reason. What makes a top 5 QB any different than a top 10, or top 20? They make a little more money. But any rookie QB contract in the first round is cheap for 4-5 years. It's nowhere near market value. Then if the team that drafted the rookie wants to extend them, they're paying market value. It doesn't matter if you're Joe Burrow or Brock Purdy.

I guess I'm just not seeing the disadvantage in drafting a QB top 5. But I am seeing a lot of bad quarterbacks picked by very bad teams.

[pilight]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

I guess I'm just not seeing the disadvantage in drafting a QB top 5. But I am seeing a lot of bad quarterbacks picked by very bad teams.

In many cases they're drafted that high because they are QBs rather than because they're good enough to be drafted high. The talking heads and many GMs have bought into the notion that QBs have to be overdrafted with little-to-no evidence to support it.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by pilight

In many cases they're drafted that high because they are QBs rather than because they're good enough to be drafted high. The talking heads and many GMs have bought into the notion that QBs have to be overdrafted with little-to-no evidence to support it.

I agree with this 100%. We see this year in and year out. Teams wasting their high pick. Teams giving up a ton to move up and pick the crap QB. I think this is the main reason why we don't see top 5 picks winning SBs, not because you can't build around them.

In the SB between the Rams and Bengals, Burrow took up far less cap space than Stafford.

[pilight]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

I agree with this 100%. We see this year in and year out. Teams wasting their high pick. Teams giving up a ton to move up and pick the crap QB. I think this is the main reason why we don't see top 5 picks winning SBs, not because you can't build around them.

Trading up is even worse. You know when the last time a team traded up to the top five before the draft, drafted a QB, and won a championship with that QB? Never. It hasn't happened in the entire history of the NFL. It's worked a couple of times by trading after the draft, when it is cheaper, but trading up before to get a QB never works.