When does McCarthy start?

[halfgiz]

I read somewhere that Kam/KOC have a plan in place for JJ. When he checks all the boxes, then he could get a chance to start.
Currently the Vikings have enough offensive talent in place all they need is a good game manager to run the offense.
Can Sam be that guy for the team until JJ is ready? I’m not ready to write him off when he hasn’t even taken a snap.
So far I have liked how Kam is trying to get the team back on track.

[psjordan]

For every rookie/young QB that has been "thrown in there" and had success and never looked back, there are probably a dozen or more where the post mortem includes the "we never should have thrown him in there that early, he could have been so much better" mantra.

Golly, we have a prime example two feet away from JJ, our de facto starter Sam "I'm seeing ghosts" Darnold.

I have ZERO issues with the approach of "JJ is showing early signs of being special, but let's stick to the plan that in theory makes him all he can be". Not that it would ever be calculable, but if that means we lose a few games in 2024 due to Darnold being out there instead, so be it.

It's the same philosophy with all the jockeying teams do in order to draft "the guy" at QB. No one expects or demands immediate returns, it is a move for the future. The QB position more than any other is subject to "future think".

When it comes to (and I hate the term) franchise QB, who may be your stud for 10 years - losing a few games in 2024 is completely and utterly meaningless. Even if you could boil those few losses down to Darnold on the field vs. JJ on the field. Which seems improbable at best.

When does JJ start? I don't know, but I sure think they want to give Darnold a shot with a clean slate. So even if he stutters, I can see giving Darnold a fairly long leash.

[VikingLord]

I can see valid reasons not to rush a rookie QB.

At the same time, I can see valid reasons to want to get him on the field because there are some things that can only be seen and learned in game situations.

Personally, I'm over the journeyman vet QB on the short term deal. While Cousins was not exactly that during his time with the Vikings, he also sort of was that. I'm sure Sam Darnold will do his best and I'm also sure if he's starting the Vikings have a good reason to start him over McCarthy, but I'm really ready to get on with watching the Vikings finally have a young, dynamic playmaker at QB for a change. It's been a long time since that last happened with this team.

[psjordan]

Personally, I'm over the journeyman vet QB on the short term deal. While Cousins was not exactly that during his time with the Vikings, he also sort of was that. ... but I'm really ready to get on with watching the Vikings finally have a young, dynamic playmaker at QB for a change. It's been a long time since that last happened with this team.

Oh I hear you brother, I hear you.

[JJBreaksRecords]

JJ isnt considered to be the #1 QB to start now for good reason. Because KOC doesnt think he is ready. He doesnt want to screw this up, so he wants JJ to be as ready as is possible. And that might mean he doesnt see the field until the Vikings dont have a chance to see the playoffs, or even next year. Thats the smart thing to do, which is odd for KOC to do. So we will see. They brought Darnold in to teach the new QB, QB things. And if Sam is winning, theres no reason to replace him.

[halfgiz]

Even Mullens moved the offense last year. He just needed to not have the stupid turnovers.
JJ was averaging more yards with Mullens than he was with Cousins last year.

[CharVike]

I read somewhere that Kam/KOC have a plan in place for JJ. When he checks all the boxes, then he could get a chance to start.
Currently the Vikings have enough offensive talent in place all they need is a good game manager to run the offense.
Can Sam be that guy for the team until JJ is ready? I’m not ready to write him off when he hasn’t even taken a snap.
So far I have liked how Kam is trying to get the team back on track.

I have no idea what check all the boxes mean. That could take a week or X number of years. Depends on how many boxes need to be checked and how it's proven to validate the check. Sounds like KAM off in his dream land vision like the competitive rebuild BS. That can mean anything and is no longer preached. 3-0 win can be called competitive but I call it an embarrassment. That was the offensive side of the roster laying down which should be concerning. Don't look like the right mix. Of course that's only one game so it can be written off as a one off which is probably how he justified it. Getting a win also smoothed it over. They have 1 more year left. No trophy then nice try but we need to move on.

[VikingsVictorious]

For every rookie/young QB that has been "thrown in there" and had success and never looked back, there are probably a dozen or more where the post mortem includes the "we never should have thrown him in there that early, he could have been so much better" mantra.

Golly, we have a prime example two feet away from JJ, our de facto starter Sam "I'm seeing ghosts" Darnold.

I have ZERO issues with the approach of "JJ is showing early signs of being special, but let's stick to the plan that in theory makes him all he can be". Not that it would ever be calculable, but if that means we lose a few games in 2024 due to Darnold being out there instead, so be it.

It's the same philosophy with all the jockeying teams do in order to draft "the guy" at QB. No one expects or demands immediate returns, it is a move for the future. The QB position more than any other is subject to "future think".

When it comes to (and I hate the term) franchise QB, who may be your stud for 10 years - losing a few games in 2024 is completely and utterly meaningless. Even if you could boil those few losses down to Darnold on the field vs. JJ on the field. Which seems improbable at best.

When does JJ start? I don't know, but I sure think they want to give Darnold a shot with a clean slate. So even if he stutters, I can see giving Darnold a fairly long leash.

Research has been done on QBs that start right away vs QBs that sat a year. The ones that started right away have incredibly more success than the ones who didn't. This research holds true top 10 drafted, First round drafted and whenever drafted. Of course part of that is the ones who started right away were good and the ones who didn't weren't. However, what evidence we have is way in favor of starting right away.

[Cliff]

For every rookie/young QB that has been "thrown in there" and had success and never looked back, there are probably a dozen or more where the post mortem includes the "we never should have thrown him in there that early, he could have been so much better" mantra.

Golly, we have a prime example two feet away from JJ, our de facto starter Sam "I'm seeing ghosts" Darnold.

I have ZERO issues with the approach of "JJ is showing early signs of being special, but let's stick to the plan that in theory makes him all he can be". Not that it would ever be calculable, but if that means we lose a few games in 2024 due to Darnold being out there instead, so be it.

It's the same philosophy with all the jockeying teams do in order to draft "the guy" at QB. No one expects or demands immediate returns, it is a move for the future. The QB position more than any other is subject to "future think".

When it comes to (and I hate the term) franchise QB, who may be your stud for 10 years - losing a few games in 2024 is completely and utterly meaningless. Even if you could boil those few losses down to Darnold on the field vs. JJ on the field. Which seems improbable at best.

When does JJ start? I don't know, but I sure think they want to give Darnold a shot with a clean slate. So even if he stutters, I can see giving Darnold a fairly long leash.

Research has been done on QBs that start right away vs QBs that sat a year. The ones that started right away have incredibly more success than the ones who didn't. This research holds true top 10 drafted, First round drafted and whenever drafted. Of course part of that is the ones who started right away were good and the ones who didn't weren't. However, what evidence we have is way in favor of starting right away.

I'll have to check the data out because that seems like it can't possibly be correct. Every draft it seems 3-4 QBs are taken in the 1st, start right away, and maybe one of them has success.

[Tommy TarkenKapp]

Research has been done on QBs that start right away vs QBs that sat a year. The ones that started right away have incredibly more success than the ones who didn't. This research holds true top 10 drafted, First round drafted and whenever drafted. Of course part of that is the ones who started right away were good and the ones who didn't weren't. However, what evidence we have is way in favor of starting right away.

I'll have to check the data out because that seems like it can't possibly be correct. Every draft it seems 3-4 QBs are taken in the 1st, start right away, and maybe one of them has success.

I'd be quite interested in seeing that data as well. "Incredibly more success"? I'd like to see the names of these QBs used in the research & the researchers' criteria as to what is considered "success". I can't envision the conclusions being very objective. There are far too many variables to be taken into consideration.

[Cliff]

I'll have to check the data out because that seems like it can't possibly be correct. Every draft it seems 3-4 QBs are taken in the 1st, start right away, and maybe one of them has success.

I'd be quite interested in seeing that data as well. "Incredibly more success"? I'd like to see the names of these QBs used in the research & the researchers' criteria as to what is considered "success". I can't envision the conclusions being very objective. There are far too many variables to be taken into consideration.

I actually started compiling some of the data myself but after about 5 players I realized it doesn't matter. Each QB has a different situation. There is no cookie cutter mold for developing a QB. I'm sure if McCarthy blows the staff away in training camp and preseason he can win the job. Some QBs are successful that way. If he needs more time that's ok, that route has worked for a lot of QBs too.

My assumption is that when KOC says he needs McCarthy to "check all of the boxes" it means knowing the ins and outs of the playbook and being able to execute them all. Being confident enough in himself to lead the offense. Maybe even cleaning up his mechanics and getting used to the speed of the game, that kind of stuff.

If he started learning the offense as soon as he was drafted on April 25th he's had less than 2 months to learn it at this point. If he actually has to earn his way up the depth chart (I think all players should) I can't imagine he even knows what going on enough yet to challenge for the #2 spot. Hopefully by the end of pre-season he's at least #2, that would be good to see. If not though, I don't think it's a future indicator of anything.

[Tommy TarkenKapp]

I'd be quite interested in seeing that data as well. "Incredibly more success"? I'd like to see the names of these QBs used in the research & the researchers' criteria as to what is considered "success". I can't envision the conclusions being very objective. There are far too many variables to be taken into consideration.

I actually started compiling some of the data myself but after about 5 players I realized it doesn't matter. Each QB has a different situation. There is no cookie cutter mold for developing a QB. I'm sure if McCarthy blows the staff away in training camp and preseason he can win the job. Some QBs are successful that way. If he needs more time that's ok, that route has worked for a lot of QBs too.

My assumption is that when KOC says he needs McCarthy to "check all of the boxes" it means knowing the ins and outs of the playbook and being able to execute them all. Being confident enough in himself to lead the offense. Maybe even cleaning up his mechanics and getting used to the speed of the game, that kind of stuff.

If he started learning the offense as soon as he was drafted on April 25th he's had less than 2 months to learn it at this point. If he actually has to earn his way up the depth chart (I think all players should) I can't imagine he even knows what going on enough yet to challenge for the #2 spot. Hopefully by the end of pre-season he's at least #2, that would be good to see. If not though, I don't think it's a future indicator of anything.

Well, you're more ambitious than I am. I never even found my way to profootballreference.com to even begin looking up stats, win/loss records, etc. on QBs that started out of the gate vs. ones that sat their first year. Like you...I had already determined their is no sure fire method for developing young QBs in the NFL. We can all cherry pick statistics to support our opinions. But, at the end of the day it's still just opinions.

I'm cool with whatever KOC decides. I'm not foolish enough to think I know better than him or KAM. I really don't care who our starting QB is. So long as it's the guy who performed the best in order to win the starting job. If that's McCarthy. Great. If that's Darnold. Great. Hell, if there's some odd planetary alignment & Hall ends up winning the job. Great.

I just hope whoever wins the starting role is actually good. One quote I've heard time again & have grown to hate is "He gives us the best chance to win". That's the politically correct way of saying "He doesn't suck quite as much as our other options".

[CharVike]

I'd be quite interested in seeing that data as well. "Incredibly more success"? I'd like to see the names of these QBs used in the research & the researchers' criteria as to what is considered "success". I can't envision the conclusions being very objective. There are far too many variables to be taken into consideration.

I actually started compiling some of the data myself but after about 5 players I realized it doesn't matter. Each QB has a different situation. There is no cookie cutter mold for developing a QB. I'm sure if McCarthy blows the staff away in training camp and preseason he can win the job. Some QBs are successful that way. If he needs more time that's ok, that route has worked for a lot of QBs too.

My assumption is that when KOC says he needs McCarthy to "check all of the boxes" it means knowing the ins and outs of the playbook and being able to execute them all. Being confident enough in himself to lead the offense. Maybe even cleaning up his mechanics and getting used to the speed of the game, that kind of stuff.

If he started learning the offense as soon as he was drafted on April 25th he's had less than 2 months to learn it at this point. If he actually has to earn his way up the depth chart (I think all players should) I can't imagine he even knows what going on enough yet to challenge for the #2 spot. Hopefully by the end of pre-season he's at least #2, that would be good to see. If not though, I don't think it's a future indicator of anything.

There's no particular path that can be used as a guide. Without looking anything up if your team sucks then the QB has very little if any chance to have a great career. Andrew Luck is an example that sticks out to me. His team ignored the OL and he paid a heavy price. We are following the same path. That's a path I would never take. But I'm not a HC or GM.

[CharVike]

For every rookie/young QB that has been "thrown in there" and had success and never looked back, there are probably a dozen or more where the post mortem includes the "we never should have thrown him in there that early, he could have been so much better" mantra.

Golly, we have a prime example two feet away from JJ, our de facto starter Sam "I'm seeing ghosts" Darnold.

I have ZERO issues with the approach of "JJ is showing early signs of being special, but let's stick to the plan that in theory makes him all he can be". Not that it would ever be calculable, but if that means we lose a few games in 2024 due to Darnold being out there instead, so be it.

It's the same philosophy with all the jockeying teams do in order to draft "the guy" at QB. No one expects or demands immediate returns, it is a move for the future. The QB position more than any other is subject to "future think".

When it comes to (and I hate the term) franchise QB, who may be your stud for 10 years - losing a few games in 2024 is completely and utterly meaningless. Even if you could boil those few losses down to Darnold on the field vs. JJ on the field. Which seems improbable at best.

When does JJ start? I don't know, but I sure think they want to give Darnold a shot with a clean slate. So even if he stutters, I can see giving Darnold a fairly long leash.

Research has been done on QBs that start right away vs QBs that sat a year. The ones that started right away have incredibly more success than the ones who didn't. This research holds true top 10 drafted, First round drafted and whenever drafted. Of course part of that is the ones who started right away were good and the ones who didn't weren't. However, what evidence we have is way in favor of starting right away.

Success can mean anything. It's like calling a QB a loser or winner. Again can mean anything. What is the purpose of this season? Selling tickets is the number one goal for the owners. That means putting a product on the field that people will pay to watch. Maybe that's not even true. I'm sure there's enough outside stuff at the stadium to keep people entertained. This is looking like a throw away season. So what do you throw it away on? How much effort do Darnold and JJ get from the coaching staff? Will it be a 50/50 split or 70/30 ect. I read that when Cousins was a rookie the other rookie got the practice snaps to get him up to speed. Cousins would then stay after practice and duplicate the practice the best they could with some players and coaches. If Sammy get's all the snaps so he gets up to speed what does JJ do? Twiddle his thumbs? How will the 3 pre season games be handled? I know they don't mean much but somebody will need to take the snaps.

[makila]

I actually started compiling some of the data myself but after about 5 players I realized it doesn't matter. Each QB has a different situation. There is no cookie cutter mold for developing a QB. I'm sure if McCarthy blows the staff away in training camp and preseason he can win the job. Some QBs are successful that way. If he needs more time that's ok, that route has worked for a lot of QBs too.

My assumption is that when KOC says he needs McCarthy to "check all of the boxes" it means knowing the ins and outs of the playbook and being able to execute them all. Being confident enough in himself to lead the offense. Maybe even cleaning up his mechanics and getting used to the speed of the game, that kind of stuff.

If he started learning the offense as soon as he was drafted on April 25th he's had less than 2 months to learn it at this point. If he actually has to earn his way up the depth chart (I think all players should) I can't imagine he even knows what going on enough yet to challenge for the #2 spot. Hopefully by the end of pre-season he's at least #2, that would be good to see. If not though, I don't think it's a future indicator of anything.

There's no particular path that can be used as a guide. Without looking anything up if your team sucks then the QB has very little if any chance to have a great career. Andrew Luck is an example that sticks out to me. His team ignored the OL and he paid a heavy price. We are following the same path. That's a path I would never take. But I'm not a HC or GM.

And that gm (Ryan Grigson) is executive vp of player personal with us now.