QB Sam Darnold is a Viking

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:
So here's my thing. If we are to take Kyle at his word that Darnold was clearly better and more of what we needed than TL, then having the expectations that he can run a functional offense this weekend shouldn't be too high of a standard to hold him to. That's why I said IF Darnold comes out and lays an egg, then they will have questions to answer.

The expectation is that Darnold should be able to lead this team in a similar fashion to what Purdy does. I didn't set that expectation. Kyle did. So we will see. We need a good game out of Darnold, but I for one will not be holding my breath.

Except he didn't set that expectation at all. Purdy was in zero competition for his spot and the clear priority at starter. Darnold was in a competition to be the backup and won it.

I don't need to take Kyle's word that Darnold is a better option than Lance. We have plenty of evidence to show it. What we didn't know was whether Lance could make a jump in the offseason without playing time. We got a look and he did not make that jump.

I think Darnold can run an offense with our weapons and scheme effectively enough to win in spots. But that's a far cry from what we've seen from Purdy in the bulk of his first 10 plus starts.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
Stronger arm but isn't as poised, doesn't see the field as well, isn't as fast at progressions and on and on.

We can dial up deep shots on playactions and trust that Sam can execute when Kyle gets a first read open… but that's not playing the position at a level that Purdy has shown.

This sounds like Tr....you know what, nevermind.

We just need one game. Sam is good for one

Originally posted by lamontb:
We just need one game. Sam is good for one

If no Trent knock on wood

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:
This sounds like Tr....you know what, nevermind.

Let me make this simple. Purdy is better at those things than Darnold, who is better at those things than Trey. The differences between them are pretty clear.

I mentioned this above but this is a disconnect in understanding how bad Trey looked when he played. These are not plug and play pieces.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:
So here's my thing. If we are to take Kyle at his word that Darnold was clearly better and more of what we needed than TL, then having the expectations that he can run a functional offense this weekend shouldn't be too high of a standard to hold him to. That's why I said IF Darnold comes out and lays an egg, then they will have questions to answer.

The expectation is that Darnold should be able to lead this team in a similar fashion to what Purdy does. I didn't set that expectation. Kyle did. So we will see. We need a good game out of Darnold, but I for one will not be holding my breath.

Except he didn't set that expectation at all. Purdy was in zero competition for his spot and the clear priority at starter. Darnold was in a competition to be the backup and won it.

I don't need to take Kyle's word that Darnold is a better option than Lance. We have plenty of evidence to show it. What we didn't know was whether Lance could make a jump in the offseason without playing time. We got a look and he did not make that jump.

I think Darnold can run an offense with our weapons and scheme effectively enough to win in spots. But that's a far cry from what we've seen from Purdy in the bulk of his first 10 plus starts.

I didnt mean Darnold should be as good as Purdy. I re-read my post and I can see how that came across. Just clarifying that is not what I meant.

What I mean is, he should be effective enough to run a functional offense. He won the backup job because his floor is currently higher. He won the backup with the expectation that he should be able to win a game or two if he needs to play. What I am saying is if he comes out here and plays like garbage (or basically plays like pretty much every other time we have seen Sam Darnold play), then the floodgates are going to open up in terms of questioning Kyle. And I dont think its ridiculous to say that it absolutely should.

Originally posted by 9erson3:

Originally posted by lamontb:
We just need one game. Sam is good for one

If no Trent knock on wood

Moore played decent enough for them to beat the Vikings. Run blocking was his main issue

Originally posted by 9erson3:
If no Trent knock on wood

Break out the ol' lucky rabbit's foot or whatever lol

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:
I didnt mean Darnold should be as good as Purdy. I re-read my post and I can see how that came across. Just clarifying that is not what I meant.

What I mean is, he should be effective enough to run a functional offense. He won the backup job because his floor is currently higher. He won the backup with the expectation that he should be able to win a game or two if he needs to play. What I am saying is if he comes out here and plays like garbage (or basically plays like pretty much every other time we have seen Sam Darnold play), then the floodgates are going to open up in terms of questioning Kyle. And I dont think its ridiculous to say that it absolutely should.

I think that criticism would only be valid if he turned in a performance (or performances) that was/were identifiably worse than what we saw from Trey. I honestly think that's extremely unlikely.

I try not to set what I think are unreasonable expectations for even a high quality NFL backup. He could theoretically do his job exactly as asked and have it not be enough if a team like the Bengals are on their game. It's a Super Bowl quality team.

But I do expect him to be able to function. Hit defined reads. Be smart with the football. Don't take unnecessary risks. All the things you'd associate with a QB who's impact we ought to reduce.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:
I didnt mean Darnold should be as good as Purdy. I re-read my post and I can see how that came across. Just clarifying that is not what I meant.

What I mean is, he should be effective enough to run a functional offense. He won the backup job because his floor is currently higher. He won the backup with the expectation that he should be able to win a game or two if he needs to play. What I am saying is if he comes out here and plays like garbage (or basically plays like pretty much every other time we have seen Sam Darnold play), then the floodgates are going to open up in terms of questioning Kyle. And I dont think its ridiculous to say that it absolutely should.

I think that criticism would only be valid if he turned in a performance (or performances) that was/were identifiably worse than what we saw from Trey. I honestly think that's extremely unlikely.

I try not to set what I think are unreasonable expectations for even a high quality NFL backup. He could theoretically do his job exactly as asked and have it not be enough if a team like the Bengals are on their game. It's a Super Bowl quality team.

But I do expect him to be able to function. Hit defined reads. Be smart with the football. Don't take unnecessary risks. All the things you'd associate with a QB who's impact we ought to reduce.

We're talking about a guy that started 55 games compared to 4. If he can't outplay that, there's no excuses lol. For the record, I think he'll be serviceable but that to be expected from a guy with that much experience.

Originally posted by MucketyMuck:
We're talking about a guy that started 55 games compared to 4. If he can't outplay that, there's no excuses lol.

I think its effectively assured.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:
I didnt mean Darnold should be as good as Purdy. I re-read my post and I can see how that came across. Just clarifying that is not what I meant.

What I mean is, he should be effective enough to run a functional offense. He won the backup job because his floor is currently higher. He won the backup with the expectation that he should be able to win a game or two if he needs to play. What I am saying is if he comes out here and plays like garbage (or basically plays like pretty much every other time we have seen Sam Darnold play), then the floodgates are going to open up in terms of questioning Kyle. And I dont think its ridiculous to say that it absolutely should.

I think that criticism would only be valid if he turned in a performance (or performances) that was/were identifiably worse than what we saw from Trey. I honestly think that's extremely unlikely.

I try not to set what I think are unreasonable expectations for even a high quality NFL backup. He could theoretically do his job exactly as asked and have it not be enough if a team like the Bengals are on their game. It's a Super Bowl quality team.

But I do expect him to be able to function. Hit defined reads. Be smart with the football. Don't take unnecessary risks. All the things you'd associate with a QB who's impact we ought to reduce.

I mean, you are acting like Trey was so bad that he lost games for us. No one, myself included, was pleased with what we saw from Trey in the preseason. But what I saw from Darnold in past years has been FAR worse. He has had multiple three interception games. He has had multiple FOUR interception games.

Look, I expect Darnold to be better than he was on the Jets. But in terms of the bolded, which you have set as your expectations, those are all things he has struggled mightily in the past with. Those arent exactly strengths of his.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
I think that criticism would only be valid if he turned in a performance (or performances) that was/were identifiably worse than what we saw from Trey. I honestly think that's extremely unlikely.

I try not to set what I think are unreasonable expectations for even a high quality NFL backup. He could theoretically do his job exactly as asked and have it not be enough if a team like the Bengals are on their game. It's a Super Bowl quality team.

But I do expect him to be able to function. Hit defined reads. Be smart with the football. Don't take unnecessary risks. All the things you'd associate with a QB who's impact we ought to reduce.

I don't expect any of those things. Hope they happen though.

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:
I mean, you are acting like Trey was so bad that he lost games for us. No one, myself included, was pleased with what we saw from Trey in the preseason. But what I saw from Darnold in past years has been FAR worse. He has had multiple three interception games. He has had multiple FOUR interception games.

Look, I expect Darnold to be better than he was on the Jets. But in terms of the bolded, which you have set as your expectations, those are all things he has struggled mightily in the past with. Those arent exactly strengths of his.

We've been through all these arguments. Darnold on the Jets was a better player than Trey Lance with us IMO. And he certainly looked better with us.

Trey absolutely was that bad. An anchor on the offense.

Back to Darnold and the things you claim aren't his strengths. Two points in response:

1. he showed he could do this in a stretch last season.
2. the Jets put much more of a burden on him than we will. They were looking for a star, and actually needed one, at the position.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:
I don't expect any of those things. Hope they happen though.

Yea I just hope we don't need more. If we can't run the ball and have to score a bunch of points we're almost certainly screwed. We at least have a shot if we can manage the game.