It could have been us

Lol. With all the OL issues, I don't think so

Not with our deep pass play calling over a running game that takes the pressure off of Darnold.  The results for Seattle are not indicative of what we could have expected from a KOC called offense.

Absolutely not. Our poor Oline play, lack of defensive depth and inconsistency running game takes us out of any post season success not to mention winning the superbowl. We are at least two years out of sniffing the big dance.
Very happy for Sam.

JimmyinSD wrote:
Not with our deep pass play calling over a running game that takes the pressure off of Darnold.  The results for Seattle are not indicative of what we could have expected from a KOC called offense.

100%

JimmyinSD wrote:
Not with our deep pass play calling over a running game that takes the pressure off of Darnold.  The results for Seattle are not indicative of what we could have expected from a KOC called offense.

SEA had a 3rd and long early and they ran it up the middle then punted the ball away. I was thinking as I watched it, wish KO had done more of that at the end of last year. With the obvious caveat being Seattle's defense is much better than ours was. Same goes for special teams really.

Sadly no, it could not have been us. If we'd signed Sam for 3-4 more years; maybe. Sigh. Hopefully next year is our year.

SO...given just how young and out of his depth Maye looked, I actually gained more optimism about JJM.

Yeah, he still needs to do ALL the things to get his mechanics, awareness, judgement, etc improved...while bulking up...but Maye looked VERY young and lost out there. That same wide-eyed look has been on all of the "2024 QBs" at one point or another.

I can say that I believe our kid would've done at least as well, likely better, than the Pats' QB our (former) FO and coaches were all swooning about. Take a breath, folks, our young'un is just one of several that will be working things out....

Also Seattle is a better team overall. Their defense and play calling made a huge difference

Viking didn’t deserve Sam Darnold, Congratulations Sam!
We had a top defense, One of the top field goal kickers. But I don’t think we had the coaching to get us to the Super Bowl.
Hopefully KOC learned something watching Sam’s journey this year.

pattersaur wrote:

SEA had a 3rd and long early and they ran it up the middle then punted the ball away. I was thinking as I watched it, wish KO had done more of that at the end of last year. With the obvious caveat being Seattle's defense is much better than ours was. Same goes for special teams really.

Sadly no, it could not have been us. If we'd signed Sam for 3-4 more years; maybe. Sigh. Hopefully next year is our year.

Seattle had the 6th best defense in the NFL. Vikings were 3rd. 

But I will say this: I like how Mike McDonald ran that team. Is that his name? I'm not even sure. Nobody seems to know who this guy is. No non-stop media presence, no public statements about "baiting" another team into a draft pick, no kneecap eating, And at a time when the trend has been toward more passing, Seattle ranked 29th in pass attempts. At a time when the trend has been toward going for it on 4th down, Seattle led the league in fewest 4th down attempts. 

And since every NFL team follows the model that won the Super Bowl, the new trend will be toward old school, conservative, run and play defense football with a grown-up making grown-up decisions as head coach.

All I want to say is congratulations to Sam Darnold.

MaroonBells wrote:

Seattle had the 6th best defense in the NFL. Vikings were 3rd. 

But I will say this: I like how Mike McDonald ran that team. Is that his name? I'm not even sure. Nobody seems to know who this guy is. No non-stop media presence, no public statements about "baiting" another team into a draft pick, no kneecap eating, And at a time when the trend has been toward more passing, Seattle ranked 29th in pass attempts. At a time when the trend has been toward going for it on 4th down, Seattle led the league in fewest 4th down attempts. 

And since every NFL team follows the model that won the Super Bowl, the new trend will be toward old school, conservative, run and play defense football with a grown-up making grown-up decisions as head coach.

I was referring to the defense we had last year, when we had Sam. And the effect that had on the playcalling maybe. Also, an extremely shaky kicking game.

Both problems got fixed this year, but alas, no more Sam. I should've been more clear.

MaroonBells wrote:

Seattle had the 6th best defense in the NFL. Vikings were 3rd. 

But I will say this: I like how Mike McDonald ran that team. Is that his name? I'm not even sure. Nobody seems to know who this guy is. No non-stop media presence, no public statements about "baiting" another team into a draft pick, no kneecap eating, And at a time when the trend has been toward more passing, Seattle ranked 29th in pass attempts. At a time when the trend has been toward going for it on 4th down, Seattle led the league in fewest 4th down attempts. 

And since every NFL team follows the model that won the Super Bowl, the new trend will be toward old school, conservative, run and play defense football with a grown-up making grown-up decisions as head coach.

Imagine where our D would have ranked if our O could have stayed on the field.

Play good D, solid running game, Shaheed & JSN on the outside...The HC did a masterful job blending all of it too. Sam had what? 3rd most turn-overs in the league in 25?

But with that D and those running-backs? They were able to sustain and win the big games.

IOW, Sam didnt have to carry the team. Great place for him and I'm glad he got a ring.

Could it have been us? Maybe. I think there’s a lot of ifs and buts. I think the defense was there and ready. I’m not sure Darnold survives a whole season behind that Oline (as it ended up being due to injuries, not blaming roster construction). Mostly, I’m just skeptical that KOC can create a winning gameplan on offense. He’s just so one dimensional that I think it creates limitations in the offense against good teams, which is who you need to be good against. I just don’t think a KOC run offense (as we’ve seen it up until now) is really robust enough to win 3 games in a row against playoff caliber teams. I think you run into a good defense and they’ll take away those deep balls, Darnold would get hit a lot and mistakes would happen. I think Seattle put Darnold in a position to succeed and it worked. I don’t think KOC would have pivoted to an offense that would have worked.

I think winning a SB isn’t just about beating the Patriots, which was probably the most doable part of the equation, but also getting there. I really hope that KOC can take this SB as a learning experience and learn to build an offense that is multiple and works to maximize what the players he has.

On a side note, I’ve been kind of plagued by where we should focus on the draft? Our offense was underperforming, should we give them more help? Or should we give Flores some quality picks so he doesn’t have to make magic out of nothing every year. I’m much more tempted now to give Flores a couple more talented prospects and just see what he can do with them. I'd love to see his scheme with some more elite talent.

medaille wrote:
Could it have been us?  Maybe.  I think there’s a lot of ifs and buts.  I think the defense was there and ready.  I’m not sure Darnold survives a whole season behind that Oline (as it ended up being due to injuries, not blaming roster construction).  Mostly, I’m just skeptical that KOC can create a winning gameplan on offense.  He’s just so one dimensional that I think it creates limitations in the offense against good teams, which is who you need to be good against.  I just don’t think a KOC run offense (as we’ve seen it up until now) is really robust enough to win 3 games in a row against playoff caliber teams.  I think you run into a good defense and they’ll take away those deep balls, Darnold would get hit a lot and mistakes would happen.  I think Seattle put Darnold in a position to succeed and it worked.  I don’t think KOC would have pivoted to an offense that would have worked.

I think winning a SB isn’t just about beating the Patriots, which was probably the most doable part of the equation, but also getting there.  I really hope that KOC can take this SB as a learning experience and learn to build an offense that is multiple and works to maximize what the players he has.

On a side note, I’ve been kind of plagued by where we should focus on the draft?  Our offense was underperforming, should we give them more help?  Or should we give Flores some quality picks so he doesn’t have to make magic out of nothing every year.  I’m much more tempted now to give Flores a couple more talented prospects and just see what he can do with them.  I'd love to see his scheme with some more elite talent.

Yah, getting there requires luck, lots of luck. With of course good health and a really good roster (starting with QB). 

With 4 picks in the top 100, Vikings have the luxury (and enough needs) to watch the draft fall to them and grab that position of need on either side of the ball. 

With no GM, I am not expecting lots of horse-trading and moving up/down all draft.

purplefaithful wrote:

Yah, getting there requires luck, lots of luck. With of course good health and a really good roster (starting with QB). 

With 4 picks in the top 100, Vikings have the luxury (and enough needs) to watch the draft fall to them and grab that position of need on either side of the ball. 

With no GM, I am not expecting lots of horse-trading and moving up/down all draft.

And good health is mostly about luck too. And the QB? I've been saying for 20 years that there are only two kinds of QBs in the NFL. Those you can win with and those you can't. And IMO the amount of QBs in the first column far outnumbers the QBs in the second. I think the last two Super Bowl victories have shown that you don't need some "elite" QB if the other pieces are there. 

About the draft, you may be right. But considering how many players are considered 1st rounders (17 according to one source), I could see us trading back slightly to pick up even more roster-building day two picks if a certain few players are not on the board at 18. 

To get another 3rd, we'd have to move down about 4 or 5 spots. To get another 2nd, we'd have to move to the end of the 1st round. Fans are not going to have much appetite for that though.

MaroonBells wrote:

And good health is mostly about luck too. And the QB? I've been saying for 20 years that there are only two kinds of QBs in the NFL. Those you can win with and those you can't. And IMO the amount of QBs in the first column far outnumbers the QBs in the second. I think the last two Super Bowl victories have shown that you don't need some "elite" QB if the other pieces are there. 

About the draft, you may be right. But considering how many players are considered 1st rounders (17 according to one source), I could see us trading back slightly to pick up even more roster-building day two picks if a certain few players are not on the board at 18. 

To get another 3rd, we'd have to move down about 4 or 5 spots. To get another 2nd, we'd have to move to the end of the 1st round. Fans are not going to have much appetite for that though.

I've been saying that forever,  give me a team with the salary cap balanced to allow better quality players overall and especially in the DL and OL,  and you dont need a high money QB or RB, receivers even,  but having a JJ that can tilt a D is a huge plus, even if they dont take full advantage of the talent he's got.  Same goes for D,  get stops and pressure with a front 4 and every ones jobs behind them gets a lot easier.

I would love to see 3 of our first 4 picks go to OL and DL,  with that 4th going LB or DB.  None on QB, WR,  or RB.

The ultimate irony about Sam Darnold’s journey from the scrap heap to a Super Bowl title is that even in his current form he’s not supposed to be the kind of quarterback that leads a team to a championship.

His performance the last couple of seasons — 14-win regular seasons with the Vikings and now the Seahawks — showed him to be a decidedly above-average quarterback.

The tried-and-true formula since the NFL instituted a rookie salary scale in 2011 has been this: To win the Super Bowl, you either need to have a Hall of Fame-caliber QB (like Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes) or a productive young QB taking up a fraction of your salary cap, enabling you to build a monster roster around him (like Russell Wilson in his early Seahawks days).

Any veteran getting big money without elite production, like Kirk Cousins, would doom you to a ceiling lower than a championship.

• Darnold’s three-year, $100.5 million contract with Seattle was backloaded so that the cap hit this year was only $13.4 million. That mitigated some of the issues, at least for a year, of trying to win with a QB like Darnold. With that relatively low hit, the Seahawks could still make offseason upgrades and field a dominant defense that ultimately carried the load in the Super Bowl.

• But Darnold’s performance throughout the season was more steady than elevating. He finished 19th in regular-season Total QBR. He produced some true clunkers down the stretch, but Seattle’s overall dominance carried the way. And he played arguably his best game of the season when it mattered most, a 346-yard, three-TD game to beat the Rams in the NFC title game. A lot of the year, Darnold was a game manager. In the Super Bowl, he completed just 50% of his passes. He also didn’t turn the ball over at all in the postseason.

• The Vikings tried to follow the formula of riding a young QB on a cheap contract. They let Darnold walk in free agency, and we’ll be relitigating the decision for years because J.J. McCarthy clearly wasn’t ready to play. The Patriots did the same thing with Drake Maye, who had a fantastic season, and it brought them within one win of a title. So it does and can still work.

• But this year was odd. Experience seemed to matter more than ever at quarterback in the biggest moments. Defenses gained the upper hand on offenses in critical moments. It was a pretty nondescript season, which is a polite way of saying “boring.” Darnold was an apt Super Bowl-winning QB for the nature of the season. Redemption and steadiness won the day over flashiness or preconceived notions.

• And yes, what about the Vikings? Veterans Harrison Smith and Blake Cashman are quoted extensively throughout this Tyler Dunne story on Darnold. It’s not so much second-guessing or hindsight as it is wistfulness that comes out in the voices of those two veterans in the piece. What might the 2025 Vikings have looked like with Darnold here? That’s the question we’ll never answer, but anyone with eyes can at least say “much better than they were.”

• Add a name to the Vikings’ offseason QB hunt: Derek Carr, the 34-year-old who is considering a return to the NFL after sitting out a season with injuries. Carr is a four-time Pro Bowler.

• Expectations for the 2026 Vikings are low. ESPN has them No. 23 in their early power poll.

Strib

Realistically, the Vikings team is constructed a lot like Seattle's with one GLARING exception....

The running game.

I think we lack both talent and a willingness to commit to it. Realistically, we haven't had a running game since Dalvin Cook. Seattle could lean on their running game a defense when teams teed off on Sam. The Vikings couldn't do it last year and they sure as shit wouldn't have been able to do it this year.

There is no way on Earth the Vikings would have been in a realistic position to win a Super Bowl this year if they paid to keep Darnold.

CFIAvike wrote:
Realistically, the Vikings team is constructed a lot like Seattle's with one GLARING exception....

The running game.

I think we lack both talent and a willingness to commit to it.  Realistically, we haven't had a running game since Dalvin Cook.  Seattle could lean on their running game a defense when teams teed off on Sam.  The Vikings couldn't do it last year and they sure as shit wouldn't have been able to do it this year.

There is no way on Earth the Vikings would have been in a realistic position to win a Super Bowl this year if they paid to keep Darnold.

Vikings averaged more yards per carry than the Seahawks, but still ran the ball 100 times less. It's the commitment more than the talent. Plus, I'm convinced the Vikings will add a starting RB in free agency next month.

mblack wrote:
Absolutely not. Our poor Oline play, lack of defensive depth and inconsistency running game takes us out of any post season success not to mention winning the superbowl. We are at least two years out of sniffing the big dance. Very happy for Sam.

100%

I think our D was good enough, not Seattle's level, but close.  But no way Darnold would have stayed together without a LT, constant change up front and KOC's deep drops.  Darnold was managed very heavily to keep his melt downs in check.  NE defense had him rattled, but the run game and defense of Seattle won the game for them.