Should LA get rid of Stafford, getting Darnold seems pretty obvious for them.. big question for is can it be done in a trade (or 3 way trade for example)
That's pretty good. Stafford has a vastly more accomplished resume, but the age difference matters.
It would be telling, though, if the Rams are willing to move on from Stafford to Darnold.
They'd have to pay him, of course, but if McVay/Snead are comfortable giving up 1-4 more years of the guy with whom they won a SB, hopefully that's worth more than a high 2nd round pick.
Agreed that Stafford has the resume.. But age is age and at 37 is where it can kick in...
Biggest problem for the Vikings with a Darnold trade is the timing.. if you do not have a trad e in place hard to do. That said (as Matthew pointed out) if you need a QB, there is a huge difference between Darnold (or Stafford) and anybody else especially with a weak rookie class. But a 3way trade makes sense (solves timing/risk issues (LA does not want Daniel Jones or Russel Wilson as their starter... Just not happening (if avoidable)
On the expectations off of 14 wins topic, I do feel like we all need to keep ourselves in check a bit. Schedule looks like it might be quite a bit tougher this year and they will potentially have 7 starters on defense walking out the door if I’m doing my math right. They’re also likely starting a QB with 0 starts in the NFL. Schedules tend to look tougher than they actually are (we all thought SF and HOU would be Ls I’m sure), and they have a lot of cap space to bring guys back or sign solid players on D, but it would not be surprising at all for them to take a big step back.
There should be limited shifts in internal assessments based upon the t-shirt olympics. Interviews are worth doing, but these aren't office jobs. A good interviewer who gets thrown into the QB's lap, or stoned on pass rushes, is not helpful. There is plenty of tape of these guys playing actual football; that should be paramount.
The information gathering component, akin to MLB's winter meetings, has value--especially about a tag and draft, or trying to gauge league-wide interest in UFAs and draftees.
The Vikings' roster has a lot of holes to fill, but the biggest issue is having a GM who is in the last year of his contract. The moral hazard gjallarhorn is going off at full blast. E.G., who cares about drafting a player who will take time to develop if he'll produce for your successor? Who cares about dead cap hits limiting future roster construction if it will be someone else's problem?
The whole Stanford thing gets my mouth watering. Why not trade Darnold for Stafford? He will be a great mentor for JJ. Two years max while JJ get healthy and experience. A few regular season snaps here and there. Stafford is a proven winner. Grab two guards, a center, and maybe a CB and RB to round out the squad and we’ll be deep into the playoffs.
Should LA get rid of Stafford, getting Darnold seems pretty obvious for them.. big question for is can it be done in a trade (or 3 way trade for example)
LA gets Darnold
Vikings get Raiders 2nd rounder
Raiders get Stafford
Everybody wins!
That's pretty good. Stafford has a vastly more accomplished resume, but the age difference matters.
It would be telling, though, if the Rams are willing to move on from Stafford to Darnold.
They'd have to pay him, of course, but if McVay/Snead are comfortable giving up 1-4 more years of the guy with whom they won a SB, hopefully that's worth more than a high 2nd round pick.
Agreed that Stafford has the resume.. But age is age and at 37 is where it can kick in...
Biggest problem for the Vikings with a Darnold trade is the timing.. if you do not have a trad e in place hard to do. That said (as Matthew pointed out) if you need a QB, there is a huge difference between Darnold (or Stafford) and anybody else especially with a weak rookie class. But a 3way trade makes sense (solves timing/risk issues (LA does not want Daniel Jones or Russel Wilson as their starter... Just not happening (if avoidable)
On the expectations off of 14 wins topic, I do feel like we all need to keep ourselves in check a bit. Schedule looks like it might be quite a bit tougher this year and they will potentially have 7 starters on defense walking out the door if I’m doing my math right. They’re also likely starting a QB with 0 starts in the NFL. Schedules tend to look tougher than they actually are (we all thought SF and HOU would be Ls I’m sure), and they have a lot of cap space to bring guys back or sign solid players on D, but it would not be surprising at all for them to take a big step back.
There should be limited shifts in internal assessments based upon the t-shirt olympics. Interviews are worth doing, but these aren't office jobs. A good interviewer who gets thrown into the QB's lap, or stoned on pass rushes, is not helpful. There is plenty of tape of these guys playing actual football; that should be paramount.
The information gathering component, akin to MLB's winter meetings, has value--especially about a tag and draft, or trying to gauge league-wide interest in UFAs and draftees.
The Vikings' roster has a lot of holes to fill, but the biggest issue is having a GM who is in the last year of his contract. The moral hazard gjallarhorn is going off at full blast. E.G., who cares about drafting a player who will take time to develop if he'll produce for your successor? Who cares about dead cap hits limiting future roster construction if it will be someone else's problem?
The whole Stanford thing gets my mouth watering. Why not trade Darnold for Stafford? He will be a great mentor for JJ. Two years max while JJ get healthy and experience. A few regular season snaps here and there. Stafford is a proven winner. Grab two guards, a center, and maybe a CB and RB to round out the squad and we’ll be deep into the playoffs.