Title: Russell Wilson vs. Sam Darnold: The $35 Million Question Dividing the NFL

The NFL offseason is here, and with it comes the annual quarterback carousel that has fans, analysts, and front offices alike debating one crucial question: Who deserves the paycheck? And this year, two names have ignited a firestorm of controversy—Russell Wilson and Sam Darnold. Should either of these quarterbacks be earning upwards of $35 million per year?

Sam Darnold: One Good Year or a True Turnaround?

If you’re basing it on one season, then sure—Sam Darnold had a career-best year. Under the guidance of Kevin O’Connell, he put up impressive stats, leading his team to a 14-3 record, 4,400 passing yards, and 35 touchdowns. But let’s not forget his final two games—when it mattered most, he imploded. Against the Detroit Lions and Los Angeles Rams, he looked like the same turnover-prone quarterback we’ve known for six years. Are we really going to ignore six seasons of mediocrity for one year of success in a perfect system?

Paying Darnold elite quarterback money feels like rewarding a lottery winner instead of a proven investor. If you remove the Vikings’ offensive system and coaching staff, do you still trust Darnold to perform? If you say yes, you might be betting on fool’s gold.

Russell Wilson: The Fall from Grace or the Ultimate Comeback?

On the other hand, Russell Wilson has been one of the most consistent quarterbacks of the past decade. Yes, he struggled with the Broncos, and yes, he lost five straight games last season. But let’s not erase history—Wilson has a Super Bowl ring, multiple Pro Bowl selections, and years of top-tier performances.

Even last season, he wasn’t the problem in Denver. Despite a lackluster defense, he kept the Broncos in games, often being the sole reason they remained competitive. Wilson has proven time and time again that he can win without needing a perfect setup—unlike Darnold, who required elite coaching, an excellent receiving corps, and a strong defense just to have one respectable season.

If you’re an NFL GM, who are you trusting with a $35 million contract: a one-year wonder or a proven veteran with a championship pedigree?

The Overpayment Epidemic: Are Either of Them Worth It?

Here’s the real issue—why are either of these quarterbacks commanding such massive paydays? The NFL’s quarterback economy is broken. Mediocre play is now being rewarded with superstar contracts, and teams are overpaying out of desperation. Darnold and Wilson should both be in the $20-25 million range, not $35-40 million.

Think about this: we can easily name 15 quarterbacks better than both of them. And yet, because the NFL has placed such an overinflated value on the position, guys who should be fighting for backup jobs are getting starting money.

Final Verdict: Who Gets the Bag?

If you’re the Minnesota Vikings, you might take a gamble on Darnold—but only in the right system and at the right price. Outside of that, Russell Wilson is still the safer bet for any team that wants proven leadership and stability.

But let’s get one thing straight—neither of them should be getting paid like elite quarterbacks. Until teams stop throwing money at inconsistency, they’ll continue to be trapped in mediocrity.

What do you think? Would you pay Darnold or Wilson $35 million per year? Or is the entire quarterback market a joke? Let’s hear it!