• Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

NFL Week 18 -- Motown Showdown

Bad night, missed some throws, totes sucks. Sack him.

View attachment 18889
I'm not saying he sucks. I'm not advocating for one way or the other. There's certainly a good case for paying him. There's also a good case for letting him go and handing the reins to McCarthy. Remember, Carson Wentz once looked like an MVP.
 
Darnold has been terrific most of the season but the problem is in the game they really needed him, he was awful.
That probably makes longtime Vikings fans nervous because they have a terrible history of choking in the playoffs (mostly in brutal or lopsided fashion). And the Rams are not pushovers, plus they already defeated the Vikings this season.
Maybe the Vikings have gotten the brutal loss out of the way before the playoffs but Vikings fans know all too well about misery in the playoffs and the team hasn't been to the Super Bowl in nearly 50 years.
 
Back in the day a middling show could attract 20 percent of the TV audience. Of course back then, you had three networks, cable was just getting going in the 80s. Now? A Tuesday network sitcom isn't just competing with literally 100s of networks available around the world for eyeballs, they are competing with every movie and TV show ever made for eyeballs given the new media eco-system.

Comparing network TV now to then is endlessly fascinating to me, while also reminding me it used to be so easy to figure out the TV ratings. You just opened up the Life section in USA Today on Wednesday! Now, everything's updated daily (it seems) and there's a million different micro cateogories. All of which is a roundabout way of saying I may be reading this wrong, but per the below link (which is obviously a photo copy of a page in the Life section of a Wednesday USA Today), the no. 1 entertainment show this week in 1990 was "Roseanne," which drew 41.4 million viewers.

Ratings Archive - January 8, 1990 - TV-aholic's TV Blog

The. 1 non-entertainment last week was "Tracker," which has Kevin from "This Is Us" in it. That's about all I know about it. It drew just under 8.2 million viewers, which I believe would have made it the sixth-LEAST watched show this week in 1990. Again, I may be reading this wrong and the difference may not be QUITE that vast, but it's fascinating nonetheless.

https://tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/2024-25-tv-show-season-ratings-week-13/
 
Before 1979 there were the three channels and that was it. HBO and Showtime showed movies, ESPN showed obscure Northeastern basketball teams called Villanova and St. John's, and PBS showed Sesame Street. And WGN and TBS.
 
He has a history. He was bad far longer than he's been good.

No one says Darnold should be banished from the league. But the Vikings used a top 10 overall draft choice on a QB they obviously think can be a success in the league, and the clock is ticking on McCarthy's bargain rookie contract. The franchise tag for QBs in 2024 was $38 million, and Over The Cap is projecting it will be $41 million this year. McCarthy's cap number for '25 is right around $5 million. What kind of talent could you add or keep with that difference?

If you believe McCarthy can give you similar results, it's only logical that's the way to go.

You're gambling if you throw $40-plus million (or $100 million-plus if you sign him long-term) at Darnold and ashume he can take you to the promised land (or close). It's a gamble if you let him walk and pin your hopes on a virtual rookie. Which gamble has better odds?

Darnold is going to play. Someone is going to sign him. But does it make sense for Minnesota to be that team? That's the question the Vikes have to answer.
As a lifelong Vikings fan, I feel obligated to weigh in. Here's the argument for keeping Darnold, IMO:
-he's only 27
-he still has a very live arm
-he's not a diva
This isn't a typical journeyman QB. Sometimes it takes a QB a while to figure it out, like Baker Mayfield, Geno Smith, or the Rich Gannons or Jim Plunketts of the world.
I say tag Darnold and let's re-evaluate in a year. JJ McCarthy is still very young (21, IIRC) and he's coming off a nasty knee injury. ….
 
Sure, but when you tag someone, you are committing to $35 to $40m for a QB who may not start for you. The Cleveland Browns are getting roasted for having to pay Watson $46m to maybe not be their starter next year. The Falcons will pay Cousins $27m to definitely not play for them (its funny how much heat the Falcons took for drafting Penix).

And yeah, I'm a Raider fan so I'm resigned to the idea than one of them will end up in the Silver and Black next year - or Rodgers. I'd take McCarthy from the Vikes as well. Any other second-hand or pre-owned QBs out there worth a darn?
 
Sure, but when you tag someone, you are committing to $35 to $40m for a QB who may not start for you. The Cleveland Browns are getting roasted for having to pay Watson $46m to maybe not be their starter next year. The Falcons will pay Cousins $27m to definitely not play for them (its funny how much heat the Falcons took for drafting Penix).

And yeah, I'm a Raider fan so I'm resigned to the idea than one of them will end up in the Silver and Black next year - or Rodgers. I'd take McCarthy from the Vikes as well. Any other second-hand or pre-owned QBs out there worth a darn?

The tag for Darnold makes sense based on the McCarthy injury. If he's not ready to go, you're throwing away a season building off whatever this ends up as the playoff run to start some rando who signs a one-year deal anyway becuase he's trying to do what Darnold did. The guy just won you 14 games, the short-term solution is works in this case.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top