Is Mcadoo developing Darnold??

[MartyClemons]

I find this need to passionately argue about Darnold in 100 threads weird.

He had a nice game. He’s been decent over the last 4. We know from last season that making major proclamations based off 4 games is a little premature. 

We got 3 more games to collect data on and judge him.  

[mav1234]

6 minutes ago, frankw said:

Best case scenario is Sam can be a decent backup/bridge until the next QB is ready to go. The concern is over the next few games will circumstances allow him to continue to eek by without having to do much more than he's asked. It's inevitable we will see some wtf moments and even an OC like McAdoo is capable of hiding those for a time but it won't last.

Eh... If he plays mistake free he'd be a good backup imo. And maybe that gets us the division and playoffs... Then, My feeling is that if he falls flat in the playoffs, where he will NEED to do more than just lean on our rushing, it'll be clear to everyone he isn't the answer 

[mrcompletely11]

1 minute ago, mav1234 said:

Eh... If he plays mistake free he'd be a good backup imo. And maybe that gets us the division and playoffs... Then, My feeling is that if he falls flat in the playoffs, where he will NEED to do more than just lean on our rushing, it'll be clear to everyone he isn't the answer 

Great post

 

how about this.   Say he balls the fug out the rest of the way.   Is anyone going to be comfortable rolling into next year with a new deal for darnold, mcadoo as the oc and wilks as the hc?   fug that we need to be thinking long term here.   

[mrcompletely11]

25 minutes ago, WOW!! said:

The point of this thread is taking notice of differences I see in this offense and this QB who’s been trash but now looks like he has some competency.. Which he hasn’t shown since he’s been here.. I’ve already said this I’m completely on drafting a QB in the 1st round 

Are you comfortable rolling with bc and darnold into next season?   That’s a yes or no question 

[Sgt Schultz]

The original question, is McAdoo developing Darnold, is a tough one to assess.  We know that he has not been put in a position that he couldn't handle since The Process was sent packing. 

What we don't know is:

• The Process talked about running the football before the season started.  Then we didn't.  Was that McAdoo's decision, The Process proving he could outsmart the rest of the world, or some mutual agreement between them?
• The decision to run the ball down opponent's throats emerged with Wilks took over.  Was that at Wilks' direction, was McAdoo freed from being under the thumb of The Process, or did Wilks and McAdoo agree on that?
• Regardless, are we developing Darnold or just putting him in positions that he almost can't fail?  A team that runs the ball for 320 yards over two games will have a good chance of winning them both.  A team that does that in one game almost can't lose.  That does not mean we are developing Darnold.  In fairness, it doesn't mean we aren't either.  But if we are not and are just protecting him from himself at this stage

People have mentioned how Darnold is 25 and there is no difference between him and Pickett at 24 or, I guess, Hooker 25 (early next year).  But there is.  Darnold is 25 but has been looking at NFL defenses, speed, and talent for five years now.  He has either adjusted to them or he hasn't.  His chances of getting significantly better at that adjustment moving forward are pretty slim.  Pickett has one year at that, Hooker will be a rookie (assuming he makes a roster).  Class has barely started or is yet to start for them.  They WILL either adapt or not.  That is still in front of them.

I probably would be less skeptical about Darnold's future if his main problem has been something other than his decision making.  I can forgive that in a rookie or QB in their first year or two (at two, we'd better be seeing improvement).  After four (I won't count this year against him because maybe he has made progress), it becomes an almost impossible hill to climb. 

Going forward, if we are going to develop game plans to protect the QB from themselves, I would much rather it be a QB in their first or second year than in their fifth or sixth, even if they are about the same age.  There is much more of a chance that we can loosen the reigns on the guys earlier in their career.  They may not work out, but I like the odds better.

And I am not advocating for Hooker.  His age just makes him an obvious point of comparison.

[MasterAwesome]

15 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

Are you comfortable rolling with bc and darnold into next season?   That’s a yes or no question 

Who is BC? Corral? Give me Darnold, Corral, and a raw talent like Anthony Richardson and I’m happy.

Edited December 25, 2022 by MasterAwesome

[mrcompletely11]

4 minutes ago, MasterAwesome said:

Who is BC? Corral? Give me Darnold, Corral, and a raw talent like Anthony Richardson and I’m happy.

Sorry autocorrect.  I meant.  Bm.  Ben mcadoo 

[Sgt Schultz]

6 minutes ago, MasterAwesome said:

Who is BC? Corral? Give me Darnold, Corrall, and a raw talent like Anthony Richardson and I’m happy.

Bing Crosby? 

At this point, I want the QB room next year to be Corrall, some draft pick, and a vet to be the bridge and help mentor. 

If Darnold proves he is that vet over the next couple of games and is available at a reasonable cost, so be it.  But that is not in a vacuum.  He is in the same pool as any other FA vets.  Some of whom will have more experience they can share.

I see we clarified BC to BM.  I am not wowed by McAdoo, but if the answers to my first two unknowns posted above are that talking about the run but not doing it was all The Process, and one of the first questions McAdoo asked Wilks when he took the keys was "can we run the effing ball now?" then the situation is a little different.

[ECHornet]

12 minutes ago, MasterAwesome said:

Who is BC? Corral? Give me Darnold, Corral, and a raw talent like Anthony Richardson and I’m happy.

Im in as long as Richardson isn’t taken with our first two picks. Ideally 3rd or later. 

[ECHornet]

49 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

You can’t look at it like that.  

Seems a logical way to think about it. How many years does Darnold have left in his career and do you see him progressing or regressing/maintaining from here. 
 

We’ll likely get a decent idea over the next few weeks. 

[mrcompletely11]

2 minutes ago, ECHornet said:

Seems a logical way to think about it. How many years does Darnold have left in his career and do you see him progressing or regressing/maintaining from here. 
 

We’ll likely get a decent idea over the next few weeks. 

It’s not logical.   Sam has had 5 years now of nfl coaching film study etc.     at some point the excuses run out.  

[ECHornet]

12 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

It’s not logical.   Sam has had 5 years now of nfl coaching film study etc.     at some point the excuses run out.  

Excuses for what? He’s played well so far this year. 

[mrcompletely11]

5 minutes ago, ECHornet said:

Excuses for what? He’s played well so far this year. 

“Played well” is incredibly subjective.    He hasn’t won us any games or lost us any games.   The coaching staff clearly doesn’t trust him.   

[Ivan The Awesome]

21 hours ago, LinvilleGorge said:

No. He's running an offense that basically heavily de-emphasizes the QB position. 43 runs vs. 22 passes. Darnold has thrown less than 25 pass attempts in each of his starts in the post-Rhule era. He's doing a good job managing the game with what he's asked to do but the game plan revolves around asking him to do little.

The way I read this, it's almost like you have a problem with it.