We're not really going to sign Aaron Rodgers are we?

[Small Hands]

TV contracts are already set and storylines don't sell anything.

aside from the already stated, why do they flex games?

TV contracts are collectively negotiated, and the NFL pools revenues from TV broadcasts and divides it equally among all teams. A flexed game might earn them a few new fans.

cc: small hands - ^same answer to your last reply

If signing Rodgers was really that much of financial boon they would have done it already.

I believe the reality is somewhere in between our stances. Rodgers would in fact increase ratings. The league is more profitable when HOF QBs are successful. Rodgers still has appeal. Otherwise, ESPN wouldn’t be pushing his story on the daily. We don’t like him because he is a former Packer and a douche, but he’s interesting to the masses.

[Beef Supreme]

aside from the already stated, why do they flex games?

TV contracts are collectively negotiated, and the NFL pools revenues from TV broadcasts and divides it equally among all teams. A flexed game might earn them a few new fans.

cc: small hands - ^same answer to your last reply

If signing Rodgers was really that much of financial boon they would have done it already.

I believe the reality is somewhere in between our stances. Rodgers would in fact increase ratings. The league is more profitable when HOF QBs are successful. Rodgers still has appeal. Otherwise, ESPN wouldn’t be pushing his story on the daily. We don’t like him because he is a former Packer and a douche, but he’s interesting to the masses.

How much do you think Rodgers improved ratings last year?

[hategreenticemase]

TV contracts are collectively negotiated, and the NFL pools revenues from TV broadcasts and divides it equally among all teams. A flexed game might earn them a few new fans.

cc: small hands - ^same answer to your last reply

If signing Rodgers was really that much of financial boon they would have done it already.

I believe the reality is somewhere in between our stances. Rodgers would in fact increase ratings. The league is more profitable when HOF QBs are successful. Rodgers still has appeal. Otherwise, ESPN wouldn’t be pushing his story on the daily. We don’t like him because he is a former Packer and a douche, but he’s interesting to the masses.

How much do you think Rodgers improved ratings last year?

Well played.

I really didn't think this thread could get any dumber. I was wrong. Now they are talking "ratings". Good God.

[Beef Supreme]

I believe the reality is somewhere in between our stances. Rodgers would in fact increase ratings. The league is more profitable when HOF QBs are successful. Rodgers still has appeal. Otherwise, ESPN wouldn’t be pushing his story on the daily. We don’t like him because he is a former Packer and a douche, but he’s interesting to the masses.

How much do you think Rodgers improved ratings last year?

Well played.

I really didn't think this thread could get any dumber. I was wrong. Now they are talking "ratings". Good God.

I don’t think people gave one fuck about the Jets last year. And they’re a New York team with said HoF quarterback.

Winning teams and good football attract ratings. Personalities absent that are sideshows and camp intrigue.

[hategreenticemase]

How much do you think Rodgers improved ratings last year?

Well played.

I really didn't think this thread could get any dumber. I was wrong. Now they are talking "ratings". Good God.

I don’t think people gave one fuck about the Jets last year. And they’re a New York team with said HoF quarterback.

Winning teams and good football attract ratings. Personalities absent that are sideshows and camp intrigue.

This place comes up with some gems.

[Slap Shot]

aside from the already stated, why do they flex games?

TV contracts are collectively negotiated, and the NFL pools revenues from TV broadcasts and divides it equally among all teams. A flexed game might earn them a few new fans.

cc: small hands - ^same answer to your last reply

If signing Rodgers was really that much of financial boon they would have done it already.

I believe the reality is somewhere in between our stances. Rodgers would in fact increase ratings. The league is more profitable when HOF QBs are successful. Rodgers still has appeal. Otherwise, ESPN wouldn’t be pushing his story on the daily. We don’t like him because he is a former Packer and a douche, but he’s interesting to the masses.

Yes a MNF Vikings game with Rodgers maybe garners a marginally measurable amount of more eyeballs, but again so what from the Vikings perspective? The slightly increased ratings for x# of Prime Time Vikings games in a year isn't going to make or break the next collectively bargained TV contract for the league, which again is shared equally between all the teams.

However for any non-Vikings fan that watches them because Rodgers is on the team that otherwise would not have, they likely lose a Vikings fan that would have watched had they gone with JJ McCarthy.

I mean the ratings for MNF games hover around 12-15% on average and ESPN pays roughly $1.9b per year for the NFL rights. You really think the league or the Vikings give a fuck if ESPN's ratings spike (0.1%?) when the Vikings play with Rodgers?

You're just way overstating the importance of his impact financially to a multi-billion dollar entity.

[RubeTube]

TV contracts are collectively negotiated, and the NFL pools revenues from TV broadcasts and divides it equally among all teams. A flexed game might earn them a few new fans.

cc: small hands - ^same answer to your last reply

If signing Rodgers was really that much of financial boon they would have done it already.

I believe the reality is somewhere in between our stances. Rodgers would in fact increase ratings. The league is more profitable when HOF QBs are successful. Rodgers still has appeal. Otherwise, ESPN wouldn’t be pushing his story on the daily. We don’t like him because he is a former Packer and a douche, but he’s interesting to the masses.

Yes a MNF Vikings game with Rodgers maybe garners a marginally measurable amount of more eyeballs, but again so what from the Vikings perspective? The slightly increased ratings for x# of Prime Time Vikings games in a year isn't going to make or break the next collectively bargained TV contract for the league, which again is shared equally between all the teams.

However for any non-Vikings fan that watches them because Rodgers is on the team that otherwise would not have, they likely lose a Vikings fan that would have watched had they gone with JJ McCarthy.

I mean the ratings for MNF games hover around 12-15% on average and ESPN pays roughly $1.9b per year for the NFL rights. You really think the league or the Vikings give a fuck if ESPN's ratings spike (0.1%?) when the Vikings play with Rodgers?

You're just way overstating the importance of his impact financially to a multi-billion dollar entity.

“Lose a Viking fan”

They weren’t fan anyway.

This shit is 4 Lyfe.

#Skolgier

[Slap Shot]

I believe the reality is somewhere in between our stances. Rodgers would in fact increase ratings. The league is more profitable when HOF QBs are successful. Rodgers still has appeal. Otherwise, ESPN wouldn’t be pushing his story on the daily. We don’t like him because he is a former Packer and a douche, but he’s interesting to the masses.

Yes a MNF Vikings game with Rodgers maybe garners a marginally measurable amount of more eyeballs, but again so what from the Vikings perspective? The slightly increased ratings for x# of Prime Time Vikings games in a year isn't going to make or break the next collectively bargained TV contract for the league, which again is shared equally between all the teams.

However for any non-Vikings fan that watches them because Rodgers is on the team that otherwise would not have, they likely lose a Vikings fan that would have watched had they gone with JJ McCarthy.

I mean the ratings for MNF games hover around 12-15% on average and ESPN pays roughly $1.9b per year for the NFL rights. You really think the league or the Vikings give a fuck if ESPN's ratings spike (0.1%?) when the Vikings play with Rodgers?

You're just way overstating the importance of his impact financially to a multi-billion dollar entity.

“Lose a Viking fan”

They weren’t fan anyway.

This shit is 4 Lyfe.

#Skolgier

Way to ignore the overall point. ftr I didn't mean they lose a Vikings fan forever just for signing Erin.

[RubeTube]

Yes a MNF Vikings game with Rodgers maybe garners a marginally measurable amount of more eyeballs, but again so what from the Vikings perspective? The slightly increased ratings for x# of Prime Time Vikings games in a year isn't going to make or break the next collectively bargained TV contract for the league, which again is shared equally between all the teams.

However for any non-Vikings fan that watches them because Rodgers is on the team that otherwise would not have, they likely lose a Vikings fan that would have watched had they gone with JJ McCarthy.

I mean the ratings for MNF games hover around 12-15% on average and ESPN pays roughly $1.9b per year for the NFL rights. You really think the league or the Vikings give a fuck if ESPN's ratings spike (0.1%?) when the Vikings play with Rodgers?

You're just way overstating the importance of his impact financially to a multi-billion dollar entity.

“Lose a Viking fan”

They weren’t fan anyway.

This shit is 4 Lyfe.

#Skolgier

Way to ignore the overall point. ftr I didn't mean they lose a Vikings fan forever just for signing Erin.

[Small Hands]

How much do you think Rodgers improved ratings last year?

Well played.

I really didn't think this thread could get any dumber. I was wrong. Now they are talking "ratings". Good God.

I don’t think people gave one fuck about the Jets last year. And they’re a New York team with said HoF quarterback.

Winning teams and good football attract ratings. Personalities absent that are sideshows and camp intrigue.

They were on ESPN and FS1 daily. Rodgers is the lead story every day right now. The fuck are you talking about?

[Beef Supreme]

Well played.

I really didn't think this thread could get any dumber. I was wrong. Now they are talking "ratings". Good God.

I don’t think people gave one fuck about the Jets last year. And they’re a New York team with said HoF quarterback.

Winning teams and good football attract ratings. Personalities absent that are sideshows and camp intrigue.

They were on ESPN and FS1 daily. Rodgers is the lead story every day right now. The fuck are you talking about?

Did they get any ratings bump from Jets games vs. other games nationally (outside of NY)?

ESPN is notorious for slurping big names. That doesn't mean the Vikings would make any more money from it. It just means ESPN is lazy.


Did the NFL suffer at all financially when Rodgers didn't play in 2023 because of his Achille's?

[Norn_Iron]

They tried to re sign Sam and DJ. Also, spent a week kicking the tires on a blown out Rodgers.

Not in any realistic way for Sam given his market and their pursuit of Jones was strictly as a backup.



They clearly did it want to pay any quarterback the kind of money that would demand that he be anointed the starter and they obviously did not want to squander the rookie QB contract advantage.


And if JJ is only good and not great, I hope they consider letting him walk and repeating the process with another rookie when his payday comes, if he wants top money. I do not want to be locked into paying top dollar for average to reasonably good production out of that spot. Not unless the NFL salary dynamics change.

I get that. I agree with the approach. I’ve been begging for them to fix the lines for years and they at least have made an honest effort this offseason. Probably wouldn’t have been able to do that with Sam on a FT. DJ is terrible, so I’d rather roll the dice with JJ over him.

I think they would’ve signed Sam for $30-$35 million for 1 year though. They said as much. Schefter reported that they were trying to get him on a 1 year deal just under the FT amount.

Everyone else seems to be letting this slide, I presume because its so ridiculous.

Sam has signed a contract that could be a 1 year $37 million contract. If we were offering him $35 million he stays here no question.
So you can store that in the fantasy section of your brain.

We made no serious attempt to keep Darnold
Jones was only ever staying as JJ's backup/insurance policy

Rodgers was a talker, and i've already said I believe they will have made him an offer. But i'd guess it was in the 15-20 million range.
No one on this site wants any part of Rodgers on a 30 million+ contract

So Rodgers was an interesting aside, but JJ has 100% always been our starting QB in 2025.
I would say that was the case going into the Lions and LA games as well. Those were 2 chances for Darnold to challenge for the starting berth, and as we know, he came up short.

[witljon]

JJ has been Vikings QB 1 for 2025 since the Vikings lost in the playoffs.

Yes, but reports were that the Vikings spent the better part of a week considering Aaron Rodgers. After they couldn’t reach an agreement they’ve announced this morning they are moving on from him, leaving McCarthy atop the QB depth chart.

Do you really believe they spent “the better part of a week” considering it? Really?

They probably had a few conversations and made their decision. It’s not like they deliberated for 32 hours about it like some kind of sequestered jury.

I just love some of these replies.

[minnemike]

TV contracts are collectively negotiated, and the NFL pools revenues from TV broadcasts and divides it equally among all teams. A flexed game might earn them a few new fans.

cc: small hands - ^same answer to your last reply

If signing Rodgers was really that much of financial boon they would have done it already.

I believe the reality is somewhere in between our stances. Rodgers would in fact increase ratings. The league is more profitable when HOF QBs are successful. Rodgers still has appeal. Otherwise, ESPN wouldn’t be pushing his story on the daily. We don’t like him because he is a former Packer and a douche, but he’s interesting to the masses.

How much do you think Rodgers improved ratings last year?

Yeah, that ship has sailed. You actually have to win and carry a team for people to care like that.

Sure still a chance for him to regain success, but Father Time has the edge now.

He probably would look really good in mn to some extent, but so would a lot of other QBs. The issue is if a qb can bring it over the top. After following him as a rival for so many years, pretty sure I recall him not even having very good clutch stats for a HOF type qb. He led gb to one Super Bowl win in what I see as a flukey year. The rest of the time never a juggernaut with good MN type season here and there…. And some huge upsets at home. He flashed insane skills but also overrated imo

[Small Hands]

Not in any realistic way for Sam given his market and their pursuit of Jones was strictly as a backup.



They clearly did it want to pay any quarterback the kind of money that would demand that he be anointed the starter and they obviously did not want to squander the rookie QB contract advantage.


And if JJ is only good and not great, I hope they consider letting him walk and repeating the process with another rookie when his payday comes, if he wants top money. I do not want to be locked into paying top dollar for average to reasonably good production out of that spot. Not unless the NFL salary dynamics change.

I get that. I agree with the approach. I’ve been begging for them to fix the lines for years and they at least have made an honest effort this offseason. Probably wouldn’t have been able to do that with Sam on a FT. DJ is terrible, so I’d rather roll the dice with JJ over him.

I think they would’ve signed Sam for $30-$35 million for 1 year though. They said as much. Schefter reported that they were trying to get him on a 1 year deal just under the FT amount.

Everyone else seems to be letting this slide, I presume because its so ridiculous.

Sam has signed a contract that could be a 1 year $37 million contract. If we were offering him $35 million he stays here no question.
So you can store that in the fantasy section of your brain.

We made no serious attempt to keep Darnold
Jones was only ever staying as JJ's backup/insurance policy

Rodgers was a talker, and i've already said I believe they will have made him an offer. But i'd guess it was in the 15-20 million range.
No one on this site wants any part of Rodgers on a 30 million+ contract

So Rodgers was an interesting aside, but JJ has 100% always been our starting QB in 2025.
I would say that was the case going into the Lions and LA games as well. Those were 2 chances for Darnold to challenge for the starting berth, and as we know, he came up short.

Fantasy land

Reported by Adam Schefter. But you know better. It’s easy to dismiss everything because you want to believe they didn’t make a serious attempt, but every report said otherwise.

[witljon]

Adam Schefter says Aaron Rodgers has already made more money than any player in the NFL…..just saying.

[Norn_Iron]

I get that. I agree with the approach. I’ve been begging for them to fix the lines for years and they at least have made an honest effort this offseason. Probably wouldn’t have been able to do that with Sam on a FT. DJ is terrible, so I’d rather roll the dice with JJ over him.

I think they would’ve signed Sam for $30-$35 million for 1 year though. They said as much. Schefter reported that they were trying to get him on a 1 year deal just under the FT amount.

Everyone else seems to be letting this slide, I presume because its so ridiculous.

Sam has signed a contract that could be a 1 year $37 million contract. If we were offering him $35 million he stays here no question.
So you can store that in the fantasy section of your brain.

We made no serious attempt to keep Darnold
Jones was only ever staying as JJ's backup/insurance policy

Rodgers was a talker, and i've already said I believe they will have made him an offer. But i'd guess it was in the 15-20 million range.
No one on this site wants any part of Rodgers on a 30 million+ contract

So Rodgers was an interesting aside, but JJ has 100% always been our starting QB in 2025.
I would say that was the case going into the Lions and LA games as well. Those were 2 chances for Darnold to challenge for the starting berth, and as we know, he came up short.

Fantasy land

Reported by Adam Schefter. But you know better. It’s easy to dismiss everything because you want to believe they didn’t make a serious attempt, but every report said otherwise.

So you honestly think Darnold turned down 35million here to go to Seattle for 37.5 million?

Is that what you are saying?

[Small Hands]

Everyone else seems to be letting this slide, I presume because its so ridiculous.

Sam has signed a contract that could be a 1 year $37 million contract. If we were offering him $35 million he stays here no question.
So you can store that in the fantasy section of your brain.

We made no serious attempt to keep Darnold
Jones was only ever staying as JJ's backup/insurance policy

Rodgers was a talker, and i've already said I believe they will have made him an offer. But i'd guess it was in the 15-20 million range.
No one on this site wants any part of Rodgers on a 30 million+ contract

So Rodgers was an interesting aside, but JJ has 100% always been our starting QB in 2025.
I would say that was the case going into the Lions and LA games as well. Those were 2 chances for Darnold to challenge for the starting berth, and as we know, he came up short.

Fantasy land

Reported by Adam Schefter. But you know better. It’s easy to dismiss everything because you want to believe they didn’t make a serious attempt, but every report said otherwise.

So you honestly think Darnold turned down 35million here to go to Seattle for 37.5 million?

Is that what you are saying?

I don’t know. And neither do you. I think his opportunity in Seattle is probably better than here, because if he plays near what he did here, he will have a home for a long time. He’s also from the west coast, so that may have factored into his decision as well. Regardless, it was reported from TP and AS that we were trying to re sign him for slightly less than the FT amount. Could they both have been wrong? Sure, but we may never know.

[Oriole81]

Everyone else seems to be letting this slide, I presume because its so ridiculous.

Sam has signed a contract that could be a 1 year $37 million contract. If we were offering him $35 million he stays here no question.
So you can store that in the fantasy section of your brain.

We made no serious attempt to keep Darnold
Jones was only ever staying as JJ's backup/insurance policy

Rodgers was a talker, and i've already said I believe they will have made him an offer. But i'd guess it was in the 15-20 million range.
No one on this site wants any part of Rodgers on a 30 million+ contract

So Rodgers was an interesting aside, but JJ has 100% always been our starting QB in 2025.
I would say that was the case going into the Lions and LA games as well. Those were 2 chances for Darnold to challenge for the starting berth, and as we know, he came up short.

Fantasy land

Reported by Adam Schefter. But you know better. It’s easy to dismiss everything because you want to believe they didn’t make a serious attempt, but every report said otherwise.

So you honestly think Darnold turned down 35million here to go to Seattle for 37.5 million?

Is that what you are saying?

I think there's still a good chance that he sticks there past this year. They still gave him a multi year deal.
Even if it's only guaranteed for the first year, the same was true of Geno Smith's deal.

In Geno's first year on the new contract, he only had an 8-7 record, 3600 yards, 64% completion %, and 20 TDs.
Yet they kept him.

The Darnold contract is still a good team deal as long as he's even pedestrian.
I think that was enough for him to justify going there vs back here on a 1 year deal.

[Beetlejuice]

Just stop with the Aaron Rodgers bullshit. It’s not happening.

[Beetlejuice]

How much more would signing Rodgers move the revenue needle? They sellout every game already. People wouldn't go crazy buying Rodgers jerseys the same way they did for Favre and I think most fans want JJ to start. Being talked about on Sports Center doesn't mean dick.

TV ratings me boi. How many prime time games do the Vikings get with JJ vs Erin? Revenue is generated in more ways than just ticket sales. The NFL has more to gain with a HOF QB playing for a long time rival on a last dance season. Storylines are easy to sell and that’s a big storyline. Whether it’s a smart move for us or not is another story, but money talks.

TV contracts are already set and storylines don't sell anything.

It’s simply amazing that his guy doesn’t get it. You drafted a QB, you gotta find out what you got. They aren’t going to make more money off of TV ratings since THE LEAGUE AND NOT THE TEAM COLLECTS THE REVENUE. Even f Rodgers signs somewhere else, they would still collect their chunk of the revenue from all games!!

[Beef Supreme]

Fantasy land

Reported by Adam Schefter. But you know better. It’s easy to dismiss everything because you want to believe they didn’t make a serious attempt, but every report said otherwise.

So you honestly think Darnold turned down 35million here to go to Seattle for 37.5 million?

Is that what you are saying?

I think there's still a good chance that he sticks there past this year. They still gave him a multi year deal.
Even if it's only guaranteed for the first year, the same was true of Geno Smith's deal.

In Geno's first year on the new contract, he only had an 8-7 record, 3600 yards, 64% completion %, and 20 TDs.
Yet they kept him.

The Darnold contract is still a good team deal as long as he's even pedestrian.
I think that was enough for him to justify going there vs back here on a 1 year deal.

If he’s “pedestrian” do you think Seattle pays his $27.5M contract? I get that we’re in a bit of semantics here as to what is or isn’t “pedestrian,” but I take it to mean “replaceable.”

But if he’s as good as he was this year or better, he’s leaving a lot of money on the table with the Seattle deal vs taking one-year deal anywhere. It’s a pretty bad deal for him and a great one for Seattle. I believe that a one-year deal anywhere near the $37.5M he got from the Hawks is a much better deal for him.

So I conclude that whatever offer we made (and I do believe we made him an offer), was substantially short of that $37.5M number.

[Sellingguy]

TV contracts are already set and storylines don't sell anything.

aside from the already stated, why do they flex games?

TV contracts are collectively negotiated, and the NFL pools revenues from TV broadcasts and divides it equally among all teams. A flexed game might earn them a few new fans.

cc: small hands - ^same answer to your last reply

If signing Rodgers was really that much of financial boon they would have done it already.

Im answering your statement of storylines dont sell anything. For AR, maybe, maybe not on his next move, but storylines have been part of the NFL and marketing for a long time and they just experienced one of the biggest ones ever that any sport has seen and it had NOTHING to do with football.

They set opening season games as rematches of the conf finals or superbowl.

Pro sports, Vegas, and the networks paint stories each and every day to make you pay attention and spend money. College as well.

[Oriole81]

So you honestly think Darnold turned down 35million here to go to Seattle for 37.5 million?

Is that what you are saying?

I think there's still a good chance that he sticks there past this year. They still gave him a multi year deal.
Even if it's only guaranteed for the first year, the same was true of Geno Smith's deal.

In Geno's first year on the new contract, he only had an 8-7 record, 3600 yards, 64% completion %, and 20 TDs.
Yet they kept him.

The Darnold contract is still a good team deal as long as he's even pedestrian.
I think that was enough for him to justify going there vs back here on a 1 year deal.

If he’s “pedestrian” do you think Seattle pays his $27.5M contract? I get that we’re in a bit of semantics here as to what is or isn’t “pedestrian,” but I take it to mean “replaceable.”

But if he’s as good as he was this year or better, he’s leaving a lot of money on the table with the Seattle deal vs taking one-year deal anywhere. It’s a pretty bad deal for him and a great one for Seattle. I believe that a one-year deal anywhere near the $37.5M he got from the Hawks is a much better deal for him.

So I conclude that whatever offer we made (and I do believe we made him an offer), was substantially short of that $37.5M number.

I think the Geno example I provided was pretty good. I think the numbers he put up that year were incredibly pedestrian compared to the QBs above him, but pedestrian play can still provide value when you consider how many teams would love to have a QB put up steady numbers like that.

So I do think that if he put up similar numbers to that, that the Seahawks would pick up that 2nd year. It's certainly not a great QB draft, so who else would they go to realistically?

Regarding the whether he could have gambled on himself thing and gotten a larger deal elsewhere, maybe he just doesn't have the confidence to gamble on himself after having gone through free agency this past year. Maybe he was just content with the "security" of a Baker deal.

[Small Hands]

I think there's still a good chance that he sticks there past this year. They still gave him a multi year deal.
Even if it's only guaranteed for the first year, the same was true of Geno Smith's deal.

In Geno's first year on the new contract, he only had an 8-7 record, 3600 yards, 64% completion %, and 20 TDs.
Yet they kept him.

The Darnold contract is still a good team deal as long as he's even pedestrian.
I think that was enough for him to justify going there vs back here on a 1 year deal.

If he’s “pedestrian” do you think Seattle pays his $27.5M contract? I get that we’re in a bit of semantics here as to what is or isn’t “pedestrian,” but I take it to mean “replaceable.”

But if he’s as good as he was this year or better, he’s leaving a lot of money on the table with the Seattle deal vs taking one-year deal anywhere. It’s a pretty bad deal for him and a great one for Seattle. I believe that a one-year deal anywhere near the $37.5M he got from the Hawks is a much better deal for him.

So I conclude that whatever offer we made (and I do believe we made him an offer), was substantially short of that $37.5M number.

I think the Geno example I provided was pretty good. I think the numbers he put up that year were incredibly pedestrian compared to the QBs above him, but pedestrian play can still provide value when you consider how many teams would love to have a QB put up steady numbers like that.

So I do think that if he put up similar numbers to that, that the Seahawks would pick up that 2nd year. It's certainly not a great QB draft, so who else would they go to realistically?

Regarding the whether he could have gambled on himself thing and gotten a larger deal elsewhere, maybe he just doesn't have the confidence to gamble on himself after having gone through free agency this past year. Maybe he was just content with the "security" of a Baker deal.

He’s a west coast guy and as soon as they moved Geno and made it public that they were pursuing him, MN announced that they were backing out. All likelihood he informed the Vikings he wanted to be closer to home and a chance to be the future franchise quarterback of an organization. We weren’t going to give him more than a 1 year bridge deal.

I’m very interested to see how it pans out. The Vikings definitely have decided to start the growing pains process with the kid now. They gave him to the keys to a Cadillac. Let’s see if he can drive it. There are no excuses for him. He should be able to take this roster to 10 wins minimum. Anything below that and they made a mistake IMO.

[Oriole81]

If he’s “pedestrian” do you think Seattle pays his $27.5M contract? I get that we’re in a bit of semantics here as to what is or isn’t “pedestrian,” but I take it to mean “replaceable.”

But if he’s as good as he was this year or better, he’s leaving a lot of money on the table with the Seattle deal vs taking one-year deal anywhere. It’s a pretty bad deal for him and a great one for Seattle. I believe that a one-year deal anywhere near the $37.5M he got from the Hawks is a much better deal for him.

So I conclude that whatever offer we made (and I do believe we made him an offer), was substantially short of that $37.5M number.

I think the Geno example I provided was pretty good. I think the numbers he put up that year were incredibly pedestrian compared to the QBs above him, but pedestrian play can still provide value when you consider how many teams would love to have a QB put up steady numbers like that.

So I do think that if he put up similar numbers to that, that the Seahawks would pick up that 2nd year. It's certainly not a great QB draft, so who else would they go to realistically?

Regarding the whether he could have gambled on himself thing and gotten a larger deal elsewhere, maybe he just doesn't have the confidence to gamble on himself after having gone through free agency this past year. Maybe he was just content with the "security" of a Baker deal.

He’s a west coast guy and as soon as they moved Geno and made it public that they were pursuing him, MN announced that they were backing out. All likelihood he informed the Vikings he wanted to be closer to home and a chance to be the future franchise quarterback of an organization. We weren’t going to give him more than a 1 year bridge deal.

I’m very interested to see how it pans out. The Vikings definitely have decided to start the growing pains process with the kid now. They gave him to the keys to a Cadillac. Let’s see if he can drive it. There are no excuses for him. He should be able to take this roster to 10 wins minimum. Anything below that and they made a mistake IMO.

It makes sense for everyone (Darnold, the Seahawks, JJ, the Vikings) involved.

[Slap Shot]

aside from the already stated, why do they flex games?

TV contracts are collectively negotiated, and the NFL pools revenues from TV broadcasts and divides it equally among all teams. A flexed game might earn them a few new fans.

cc: small hands - ^same answer to your last reply

If signing Rodgers was really that much of financial boon they would have done it already.

Im answering your statement of storylines dont sell anything. For AR, maybe, maybe not on his next move, but storylines have been part of the NFL and marketing for a long time and they just experienced one of the biggest ones ever that any sport has seen and it had NOTHING to do with football.

They set opening season games as rematches of the conf finals or superbowl.

Pro sports, Vegas, and the networks paint stories each and every day to make you pay attention and spend money. College as well.

None of that equates to a measurable increase in revenue for the Vikings. TV ratings move very little year over year, as do concession sales and merchandise sales aside from incremental increases in pricing.

[Beef Supreme]

TV contracts are collectively negotiated, and the NFL pools revenues from TV broadcasts and divides it equally among all teams. A flexed game might earn them a few new fans.

cc: small hands - ^same answer to your last reply

If signing Rodgers was really that much of financial boon they would have done it already.

Im answering your statement of storylines dont sell anything. For AR, maybe, maybe not on his next move, but storylines have been part of the NFL and marketing for a long time and they just experienced one of the biggest ones ever that any sport has seen and it had NOTHING to do with football.

They set opening season games as rematches of the conf finals or superbowl.

Pro sports, Vegas, and the networks paint stories each and every day to make you pay attention and spend money. College as well.

None of that equates to a measurable increase in revenue for the Vikings. TV ratings move very little year over year, as do concession sales and merchandise sales aside from incremental increases in pricing.

And there’s a dozen perfectly compelling storylines ready to go if Rodgers fades away.

The NFL will not miss a beat.

It didn’t suffer when Elway retired. It didn’t suffer when Montana retired. It didn’t suffer when Marino retired. Revenues kept growing.

It won’t suffer when Rodgers retires either. The only people who think it will are Aaron Rodgers (probably) and some desperate fanboys.

[RubeTube]

If he’s “pedestrian” do you think Seattle pays his $27.5M contract? I get that we’re in a bit of semantics here as to what is or isn’t “pedestrian,” but I take it to mean “replaceable.”

But if he’s as good as he was this year or better, he’s leaving a lot of money on the table with the Seattle deal vs taking one-year deal anywhere. It’s a pretty bad deal for him and a great one for Seattle. I believe that a one-year deal anywhere near the $37.5M he got from the Hawks is a much better deal for him.

So I conclude that whatever offer we made (and I do believe we made him an offer), was substantially short of that $37.5M number.

I think the Geno example I provided was pretty good. I think the numbers he put up that year were incredibly pedestrian compared to the QBs above him, but pedestrian play can still provide value when you consider how many teams would love to have a QB put up steady numbers like that.

So I do think that if he put up similar numbers to that, that the Seahawks would pick up that 2nd year. It's certainly not a great QB draft, so who else would they go to realistically?

Regarding the whether he could have gambled on himself thing and gotten a larger deal elsewhere, maybe he just doesn't have the confidence to gamble on himself after having gone through free agency this past year. Maybe he was just content with the "security" of a Baker deal.

He’s a west coast guy and as soon as they moved Geno and made it public that they were pursuing him, MN announced that they were backing out. All likelihood he informed the Vikings he wanted to be closer to home and a chance to be the future franchise quarterback of an organization. We weren’t going to give him more than a 1 year bridge deal.

I’m very interested to see how it pans out. The Vikings definitely have decided to start the growing pains process with the kid now. They gave him to the keys to a Cadillac. Let’s see if he can drive it. There are no excuses for him. He should be able to take this roster to 10 wins minimum. Anything below that and they made a mistake IMO.

Agreed. They need to win at least one playoff game also or it’s a failure.

He’s got everything to his disposal. No excuses. Just. Win. Baby.

[Norn_Iron]

If he’s “pedestrian” do you think Seattle pays his $27.5M contract? I get that we’re in a bit of semantics here as to what is or isn’t “pedestrian,” but I take it to mean “replaceable.”

But if he’s as good as he was this year or better, he’s leaving a lot of money on the table with the Seattle deal vs taking one-year deal anywhere. It’s a pretty bad deal for him and a great one for Seattle. I believe that a one-year deal anywhere near the $37.5M he got from the Hawks is a much better deal for him.

So I conclude that whatever offer we made (and I do believe we made him an offer), was substantially short of that $37.5M number.

I think the Geno example I provided was pretty good. I think the numbers he put up that year were incredibly pedestrian compared to the QBs above him, but pedestrian play can still provide value when you consider how many teams would love to have a QB put up steady numbers like that.

So I do think that if he put up similar numbers to that, that the Seahawks would pick up that 2nd year. It's certainly not a great QB draft, so who else would they go to realistically?

Regarding the whether he could have gambled on himself thing and gotten a larger deal elsewhere, maybe he just doesn't have the confidence to gamble on himself after having gone through free agency this past year. Maybe he was just content with the "security" of a Baker deal.

He’s a west coast guy and as soon as they moved Geno and made it public that they were pursuing him, MN announced that they were backing out. All likelihood he informed the Vikings he wanted to be closer to home and a chance to be the future franchise quarterback of an organization. We weren’t going to give him more than a 1 year bridge deal.

I’m very interested to see how it pans out. The Vikings definitely have decided to start the growing pains process with the kid now. They gave him to the keys to a Cadillac. Let’s see if he can drive it. There are no excuses for him. He should be able to take this roster to 10 wins minimum. Anything below that and they made a mistake IMO.

Your first paragraph is utter bollocks, trying to support your original terrible take

2nd one I agree with. JJ could not have landed in a better spot. Will he put up Darnolds numbers of last year, I'd be stunned if he did
He just needs to show something. Hes young, hes going to fuck up, he just needs to show he can run this team