QB Sam Darnold is a Viking

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:
Why should a good QB suddenly suck when he has to pass and everyone knows it? If he's who most people here thinks he is, he ought to come alive when the team needs him to win the game, not start sucking. He's showed a lot of promise, but these three games have cast doubt. He has a bye week to get his head straight, and then decide if he wants to be a great QB or someone who's gonna lose his job to Sam Fing Darnold.

Being behind one score doesn't excuse bonehead decisions. Brock has to learn to be smarter with the ball and not press like he has been. It will hopefully come with time.

We have exactly the same amount of time to wait for that as we did to wait for Lance to develop. Which is to say, none at all. We're 5-3 and looking at a wild card again at best.He has a whole extra week to figure it out. If he doesn't, it's time for Darnold.

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:
We have exactly the same amount of time to wait for that as we did to wait for Lance to develop. Which is to say, none at all. We're 5-3 and looking at a wild card again at best.He has a whole extra week to figure it out. If he doesn't, it's time for Darnold.

You don't think you're missing a major component of the argument behind not playing Lance in the state he was in?

I don't think many people would have argued we can't play Lance if Sudfeld was our other option.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:
We have exactly the same amount of time to wait for that as we did to wait for Lance to develop. Which is to say, none at all. We're 5-3 and looking at a wild card again at best.He has a whole extra week to figure it out. If he doesn't, it's time for Darnold.

You don't think you're missing a major component of the argument behind not playing Lance in the state he was in?

I don't think many people would have argued we can't play Lance if Sudfeld was our other option.

The reason he wasn't afforded the time was because it was believed that Brock was ready. If Brock continues to play badly, we have Sam Darnold sitting there who played very well last year in a far less favorable situation (7 TDs and 3 INTs on the Panthers is pretty impressive, given that the other QBs were 9 TDs and 10 INTs). His physical gifts are near the top of the league.

So, Brock earned a lot of leash with his play early on, but that leash for me ends if he's making game losing plays and has four consecutive bad games. And note, for me, starting with a super high completion percentage and then throwing back to back game losing picks counts as a BAD game, not a good game with unfortunate mistakes.

EDIT: of course, all is right in the world if Brocks fixes it and returns to playing well. But if Brock doesn't right the ship, I'm not going to ignore the thoroughbred horse we have in Sam in terms of his physical gifts if he has indeed turned a corner. No one here can deny he looked outstanding in the preseason, too.

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:
The reason he wasn't afforded the time was because it was believed that Brock was ready. If Brock continues to play badly, we have Sam Darnold sitting there who played very well last year in a far less favorable situation (7 TDs and 3 INTs on the Panthers is pretty impressive, given that the other QBs were 9 TDs and 10 INTs). His physical gifts are near the top of the league.

So, Brock earned a lot of leash with his play early on, but that leash for me ends if he's making game losing plays and has four consecutive bad games. And note, for me, starting with a super high completion percentage and then throwing back to back game losing picks counts as a BAD game, not a good game with unfortunate mistakes.

I don't disagree with your assessment of Purdy's play (like calling it a bad game because he had two critical turnovers). The problem is you need to believe you get better by playing the backup and all evidence says that will not be the case, especially if you are going to be leaning on the offense and pass game.

Darnold was in a caretaker/game management role with the Panthers late last season. That's exactly why we brought him in. If our d is going to be elite and we can run the ball, he can potentially be good enough to not ruin the game. But there's plenty of evidence to suggest he can't be the focal point of the offense, which is where Brock has come up short in the last 2 contests specifically. The burden was larger than it has been when he's had success*

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:
The reason he wasn't afforded the time was because it was believed that Brock was ready. If Brock continues to play badly, we have Sam Darnold sitting there who played very well last year in a far less favorable situation (7 TDs and 3 INTs on the Panthers is pretty impressive, given that the other QBs were 9 TDs and 10 INTs). His physical gifts are near the top of the league.

So, Brock earned a lot of leash with his play early on, but that leash for me ends if he's making game losing plays and has four consecutive bad games. And note, for me, starting with a super high completion percentage and then throwing back to back game losing picks counts as a BAD game, not a good game with unfortunate mistakes.

EDIT: of course, all is right in the world if Brocks fixes it and returns to playing well. But if Brock doesn't right the ship, I'm not going to ignore the thoroughbred horse we have in Sam in terms of his physical gifts if he has indeed turned a corner. No one here can deny he looked outstanding in the preseason, too.

We would see more turnovers with Darnold. I just don't see how the turnovers would go down, especially if the defense isn't stopping anyone.

Brocks issues the last two weeks have been decision making and not taking what the D is giving. Don't see how Darnold will be superior in that area.

I don't wanna see Darnold

Originally posted by lamontb:
I don't wanna see Darnold

You won't. Purdy does not look overwhelmed or out of the element. He's played poorly the last 2 games but he's also playing with balls bouncing off yuks face and kittle dropping balls and 0 running game.

He has not played near poor enough to even consider it.

Darnold might be okay on an even playing field. Give him what purdys had to work with though and games will be lost before halftime with no chance to win.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:
The reason he wasn't afforded the time was because it was believed that Brock was ready. If Brock continues to play badly, we have Sam Darnold sitting there who played very well last year in a far less favorable situation (7 TDs and 3 INTs on the Panthers is pretty impressive, given that the other QBs were 9 TDs and 10 INTs). His physical gifts are near the top of the league.

So, Brock earned a lot of leash with his play early on, but that leash for me ends if he's making game losing plays and has four consecutive bad games. And note, for me, starting with a super high completion percentage and then throwing back to back game losing picks counts as a BAD game, not a good game with unfortunate mistakes.

I don't disagree with your assessment of Purdy's play (like calling it a bad game because he had two critical turnovers). The problem is you need to believe you get better by playing the backup and all evidence says that will not be the case, especially if you are going to be leaning on the offense and pass game.

Darnold was in a caretaker/game management role with the Panthers late last season. That's exactly why we brought him in. If our d is going to be elite and we can run the ball, he can potentially be good enough to not ruin the game. But there's plenty of evidence to suggest he can't be the focal point of the offense, which is where Brock has come up short in the last 2 contests specifically. The burden was larger than it has been when he's had success*

I don't think we brought in Sam as a caretaker. He doesn't fit that description to me. He was brought in cuz KS likes the traits, has since college. Moves well and throws very well. It's a low risk signing after he flamed out and a bet the bad situations held him back.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
I don't think we brought in Sam as a caretaker. He doesn't fit that description to me. He was brought in cuz KS likes the traits, has since college. Moves well and throws very well. It's a low risk signing after he flamed out and a bet the bad situations held him back.

He was brought in to be the backup. Insurance if Purdy wasn't healthy and ready to go or misses some games in the season. You feel comfortable doing that because he showed he could be a winning player in that role last season. There's little to no chance he would be afforded the opportunity to freely sling the ball around if he ends up playing at some point.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
I don't think we brought in Sam as a caretaker. He doesn't fit that description to me. He was brought in cuz KS likes the traits, has since college. Moves well and throws very well. It's a low risk signing after he flamed out and a bet the bad situations held him back.

He was brought in to be the backup. Insurance if Purdy wasn't healthy and ready to go or misses some games in the season. You feel comfortable doing that because he showed he could be a winning player in that role last season. There's little to no chance he would be afforded the opportunity to freely sling the ball around if he ends up playing at some point.

he's been linked to SF for years, so predating what he did last season. Peter King had us trading for him before last year even happened, among others. I suspect KS was interested in him since USC. He's said as much.

No idea how he would play in SF just like TEN had no idea what Levis would do til they activated him or Brock would do last year, etc. It's not always predictable. Strong traits with a great playcaller and weapons it's not a bad recipe if we need it

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
he's been linked to SF for years, so predating what he did last season. Peter King had us trading for him before last year even happened, among others. I suspect KS was interested in him since USC. He's said as much.

Those points don't necessarily betray the argument that's being made. He likes him. Enough to give him a solid backup contract incentivized if he has to make a few starts. Enough to let him take a job from someone who we had a lot invested in. That's a long way from thinking you would look to put an offensive gameplan on his shoulders unless you have no other choice.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
he's been linked to SF for years, so predating what he did last season. Peter King had us trading for him before last year even happened, among others. I suspect KS was interested in him since USC. He's said as much.

No idea how he would play in SF just like TEN had no idea what Levis would do til they activated him or Brock would do last year, etc. It's not always predictable. Strong traits with a great playcaller and weapons it's not a bad recipe if we need it

It's not about the foresight to know with certainty how he will play. It's more about understanding what his expected role would be should be play.

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:

We have exactly the same amount of time to wait for that as we did to wait for Lance to develop. Which is to say, none at all. We're 5-3 and looking at a wild card again at best.He has a whole extra week to figure it out. If he doesn't, it's time for Darnold.

Lance never did s**t.

Purdy has played at an elite level.

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by lamontb:

You know it's bad when a Sam darnold thread gains traction

Lots of stupid people out there, lamont.

People who want to be right about Lance.

It's always the same here.

Originally posted by TheWooLick:
People who want to be right about Lance.

It's always the same here.

There really isn't too much of it anymore and the argument is over anyway, though there will obviously be some leftover remnants that carry into conversations about the players we do have.