QB Sam Darnold is a Viking

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by tankle104:
If I had to guess, he's referring to Sam's PFF score over the course of his career. Which I get, but don't think what he did 3-4 years ago is super relevant. Sam wasn't great last year but a decent player. If you take last year's and then add great coaching, system, and excellent talent - idk why he wouldn't improve.

he's actually surprised me with his play. Only one pick in all of camp (hopefully he isn't being too cautious but he's learning the system) and in the preseason he's made some excellent throw - no bone head plays that I've seen. Seems very accurate.

Does PFF do a career grade in that fashion? I paid for their service for one season about a decade ago. Dropped it quick, lol.

I'm not surprised by his solid showing so far in any case.

I expected more turnovers from him and less accuracy. I didn't think he would be bad but I think he's been above average. Always liked his skill set, I watched him a lot at USC.

idk what pff offers - never used the subscription. I've just seen a lot of random stats of his posted and I know his early years were rough ridin cause of all the turnovers and low accuracy.

Originally posted by tankle104:
I expected more turnovers from him and less accuracy. I didn't think he would be bad but I think he's been above average. Always liked his skill set, I watched him a lot at USC.

idk what pff offers - never used the subscription. I've just seen a lot of random stats of his posted and I know his early years were rough ridin cause of all the turnovers and low accuracy.

I'm a little wary of drawing conclusions about his play from a couple of preseason games, but I think our team situation and coaching would limit any negative impact he might have on a game, if he were to have to play. We wouldn't need him to go out and win games as a playmaker in most cases. Hand the ball off, make the easy throws, don't try to do too much. It's QB on easy mode here provided the guy can understand the playbook and execute basic plays.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by tankle104:
I expected more turnovers from him and less accuracy. I didn't think he would be bad but I think he's been above average. Always liked his skill set, I watched him a lot at USC.

idk what pff offers - never used the subscription. I've just seen a lot of random stats of his posted and I know his early years were rough ridin cause of all the turnovers and low accuracy.

I'm a little wary of drawing conclusions about his play from a couple of preseason games, but I think our team situation and coaching would limit any negative impact he might have on a game, if he were to have to play. We wouldn't need him to go out and win games as a playmaker in most cases. Hand the ball off, make the easy throws, don't try to do too much. It's QB on easy mode here provided the guy can understand the playbook and execute basic plays.

Yeah, I've been saying it all off season - we know what darnold is good at and not good at, it's much easier to gameplan for him as a coach and put him in positions to succeed than it is Trey. Nothing to do with talent or anything, we just know what darnold is and can/can't do. As a coach, that brings comfort.

Originally posted by Kolohe:

Originally posted by SLCNiner:

Originally posted by Kolohe:
The fact that Darnold has 55 starts shows he's already better than Lance. That's of course until Lance proves otherwise.

Sure Darnold was a bust for NYJ, but any QB in his situation 9 times outta 10 would've failed too. There was a lot of pressure on him to be thee guy, just like there's pressure on Lance to be thee guy after what was given up to get him. And after two seasons, Lance could also be called a bust in his own right. But of course you'll disagree because there's no reasoning with you.

But like I said in the Lance thread, everything that Darnold has done in the past is irrelevant. What matters is, the 49ers signed him as a back up who thought he had a shot at being a starter. But in the end he's nothing but a back up a #2. If anything be mad at Trey Lance, he's the one that's getting paid the most and who's about to fall to the #3 position and rightfully so.

You know what they say, Don't hate the player, hate the game.

Huh? LMFAO. by that rationale, JaMarcus Russell was better than Trey Lance. Come on dude, you're better than that.

That comment might seem silly to a lot of you but the point is, is that you can't teach experience. You guys said it yourself that all Lance needs is reps well…..

Well now I'm pissed we let Josh Johnson go.

Originally posted by SLCNiner:

Originally posted by Kolohe:

Originally posted by SLCNiner:

Originally posted by Kolohe:
The fact that Darnold has 55 starts shows he's already better than Lance. That's of course until Lance proves otherwise.

Sure Darnold was a bust for NYJ, but any QB in his situation 9 times outta 10 would've failed too. There was a lot of pressure on him to be thee guy, just like there's pressure on Lance to be thee guy after what was given up to get him. And after two seasons, Lance could also be called a bust in his own right. But of course you'll disagree because there's no reasoning with you.

But like I said in the Lance thread, everything that Darnold has done in the past is irrelevant. What matters is, the 49ers signed him as a back up who thought he had a shot at being a starter. But in the end he's nothing but a back up a #2. If anything be mad at Trey Lance, he's the one that's getting paid the most and who's about to fall to the #3 position and rightfully so.

You know what they say, Don't hate the player, hate the game.

Huh? LMFAO. by that rationale, JaMarcus Russell was better than Trey Lance. Come on dude, you're better than that.

That comment might seem silly to a lot of you but the point is, is that you can't teach experience. You guys said it yourself that all Lance needs is reps well…..

Well now I'm pissed we let Josh Johnson go.

Gee I wonder why Darnold was signed and why wasn't Trey Lance named the starter while Purdy was recovering or at least given the #2 job??

Originally posted by Kolohe:

Originally posted by SLCNiner:

Originally posted by Kolohe:

Originally posted by SLCNiner:

Originally posted by Kolohe:
The fact that Darnold has 55 starts shows he's already better than Lance. That's of course until Lance proves otherwise.

Sure Darnold was a bust for NYJ, but any QB in his situation 9 times outta 10 would've failed too. There was a lot of pressure on him to be thee guy, just like there's pressure on Lance to be thee guy after what was given up to get him. And after two seasons, Lance could also be called a bust in his own right. But of course you'll disagree because there's no reasoning with you.

But like I said in the Lance thread, everything that Darnold has done in the past is irrelevant. What matters is, the 49ers signed him as a back up who thought he had a shot at being a starter. But in the end he's nothing but a back up a #2. If anything be mad at Trey Lance, he's the one that's getting paid the most and who's about to fall to the #3 position and rightfully so.

You know what they say, Don't hate the player, hate the game.

Huh? LMFAO. by that rationale, JaMarcus Russell was better than Trey Lance. Come on dude, you're better than that.

That comment might seem silly to a lot of you but the point is, is that you can't teach experience. You guys said it yourself that all Lance needs is reps well…..

Well now I'm pissed we let Josh Johnson go.

Gee I wonder why Darnold was signed and why wasn't Trey Lance named the starter while Purdy was recovering or at least given the #2 job??

This has been explained a hundred times already lol...

Even Kyle mentioned that we wanted that insurance with a vet QB since the status of Lance and Purdy were questionable with both coming off injuries and weren't gonna be cleared until the summer. I'm sure you will still ask this question again in a couple of days and act you like you can't understand this

Originally posted by GoreGoreGore:

Originally posted by Kolohe:

Originally posted by SLCNiner:

Originally posted by Kolohe:

Originally posted by SLCNiner:

Originally posted by Kolohe:
The fact that Darnold has 55 starts shows he's already better than Lance. That's of course until Lance proves otherwise.

Sure Darnold was a bust for NYJ, but any QB in his situation 9 times outta 10 would've failed too. There was a lot of pressure on him to be thee guy, just like there's pressure on Lance to be thee guy after what was given up to get him. And after two seasons, Lance could also be called a bust in his own right. But of course you'll disagree because there's no reasoning with you.

But like I said in the Lance thread, everything that Darnold has done in the past is irrelevant. What matters is, the 49ers signed him as a back up who thought he had a shot at being a starter. But in the end he's nothing but a back up a #2. If anything be mad at Trey Lance, he's the one that's getting paid the most and who's about to fall to the #3 position and rightfully so.

You know what they say, Don't hate the player, hate the game.

Huh? LMFAO. by that rationale, JaMarcus Russell was better than Trey Lance. Come on dude, you're better than that.

That comment might seem silly to a lot of you but the point is, is that you can't teach experience. You guys said it yourself that all Lance needs is reps well…..

Well now I'm pissed we let Josh Johnson go.

Gee I wonder why Darnold was signed and why wasn't Trey Lance named the starter while Purdy was recovering or at least given the #2 job??

This has been explained a hundred times already lol...

Even Kyle mentioned that we wanted that insurance with a vet QB since the status of Lance and Purdy were questionable with both coming off injuries and weren't gonna be cleared until the summer. I'm sure you will still ask this question again in a couple of days and act you like you can't understand this

Wrong!!! Darnold was coming in to compete right off the bat.

This article was just on the front page.

I think Darnold and Lance are both our 2nd capable starters after Brock. Just because the NFL forces teams to designate 2nd and 3rd qb shouldn't change both guys abilities.

Originally posted by qnnhan7:
I think Darnold and Lance are both our 2nd capable starters after Brock. Just because the NFL forces teams to designate 2nd and 3rd qb shouldn't change both guys abilities.

Darnolds play style is more like Purdys so it would make sense he gets the QB2 spot.

Originally posted by tankle104:

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by tankle104:
If I had to guess, he's referring to Sam's PFF score over the course of his career. Which I get, but don't think what he did 3-4 years ago is super relevant. Sam wasn't great last year but a decent player. If you take last year's and then add great coaching, system, and excellent talent - idk why he wouldn't improve.

he's actually surprised me with his play. Only one pick in all of camp (hopefully he isn't being too cautious but he's learning the system) and in the preseason he's made some excellent throw - no bone head plays that I've seen. Seems very accurate.

Does PFF do a career grade in that fashion? I paid for their service for one season about a decade ago. Dropped it quick, lol.

I'm not surprised by his solid showing so far in any case.

I expected more turnovers from him and less accuracy. I didn't think he would be bad but I think he's been above average. Always liked his skill set, I watched him a lot at USC.

idk what pff offers - never used the subscription. I've just seen a lot of random stats of his posted and I know his early years were rough ridin cause of all the turnovers and low accuracy.

Sam has had 90TOs in 5 yrs of football.

Originally posted by Hysterikal:

Originally posted by qnnhan7:
I think Darnold and Lance are both our 2nd capable starters after Brock. Just because the NFL forces teams to designate 2nd and 3rd qb shouldn't change both guys abilities.

Darnolds play style is more like Purdys so it would make sense he gets the QB2 spot.

I agree with the similar style to Brock and Darnold has more game experience. The problem is Darnold is new to Kyle's offense, maybe still learning. So I would put Lance at 2nd and Darnold at 3rd going into the season. It may not stay that way later. This help both guys. If Brock gets injured, Lance gets game experience while Darnold has time to learn the offense further. By mid season we reevaluate.

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:

Originally posted by NDSU:
So you are dying on the "Sam is not injury prone" hill. Got it.
Mono forced him to miss 3 games, so it should count.

Lol. Mono is not an injury unless you're arguing that some people are just immune to getting sick.

So if you get the flu I guess you're injury prone because you miss time at work.

Originally posted by NYniner85:
Sam has had 90TOs in 5 yrs of football.

Gonna throw the red challenge flag here. Looks like you just added his INTs and fumbles. The true number I am thinking is 68. The reason is not all fumbles are turnovers.

Originally posted by tankle104:
I expected more turnovers from him and less accuracy. I didn't think he would be bad but I think he's been above average. Always liked his skill set, I watched him a lot at USC.

idk what pff offers - never used the subscription. I've just seen a lot of random stats of his posted and I know his early years were rough ridin cause of all the turnovers and low accuracy.

Recipe for turnovers:

poor protection
WRs that don't separate, no easy throws
poor gameplan, OC that doesn't know what he is doing
chasing the game, down 2-3 scores

NYJ had all the above
the CAR numbers are better
I don't think any of the above fits SF, so he won't have issues here is my take

KS is on record about this, he said when you are in the situations Sam was in, you are gonna have turnovers, that simple.
Sam is also on record, he said he signed with SF cuz 'guys are open'
If guys are open, and you have the arm talent Sam does, just put it on em, it's not that hard folks.

Teddy B had 11 picks in 15 starts with Carolina. Darnold had 13 in 11 starts following year.