The Seattle Seahawks aren’t sure how much time Sam Darnold will miss with his glute injury, but thus far there hasn’t been any concrete evidence that the team is preparing for a prolonged absence because the quarterback hasn’t landed on injured reserve yet. An IR stint would at least confirm that the team is fearful of a prolonged absence beyond a couple more weeks, so until that happens we can assume that there’s more optimism about a quick return than there is concern for his 2026 season.
As of Monday evening, the Seahawks announced it as a “short-term injury” with no hip joint damage and that’s all they can confirm right now.
In the meantime, Drew Lock is everything a team wants in a contingency plan. There are plenty of quarterbacks better than Lock, but most of them are starters. Among the NFL’s backup options, Lock is as comfortable as it gets, and certainly appealing when compared to quarterbacks who aren’t even signed with teams right now.
Like Jimmy Garoppolo.
ESPN’s Bill Barnwell and The Athletic’s Mike Sando both left their reputations unprotected in the shooting range of social media by suggesting that Seattle should sign Garoppolo in the event that Darnold is seriously injured. This is by far the most basic and unsophisticated take on the situation possible because it requires you to know nothing more than these three facts:
Garoppolo was on the 49ers
Brian Fleury was on the 49ers
Garoppolo is a free agent
That’s it. That’s all you have to know and everybody who reads Seaside Joe knew it already. Also because Garoppolo is more of a public figure than, say, Nick Mullens or Jake Browning, this is where their minds went to first and it is a lot more tantalizing of a reaction than reality.
What’s the reality?
The reality is that while Lock will start in the interim, Jalen Milroe is the Seahawks’ best fallback option this season. Not Garoppolo, a quarterback who hasn’t played in a serious football game since 2023, which was when he was on the Raiders and one of the worst starters in the NFL.
His game log shows that he threw at least one interception in all six starts:
The connection between Garoppolo and Fleury is as strong as the one between Garoppolo and virtually anyone associated with the 49ers in the early 2020s. Fleury wasn’t the offensive coordinator or the quarterbacks coach. He wasn’t even an offensive coach for San Francisco in his first season under Kyle Shanahan. There was only one year where the two overlapped in a notable capacity, which is when Fleury was the tight ends coach in 2022.
Is that notable though? Not really.
Sure, a connection to a Shanahan system makes sense, but this would be true of so many coaches who used to be on the 49ers. Bobby Slowik, Klay Kubiak, Klint Kubiak, Mike McDaniel, and even DeMeco Ryans. Garoppolo didn’t go to any other teams just because of a connection to Shanahan, so why would he come out of semi-retirement to be a very short-term backup for Drew Lock for a couple of weeks?
Because Fleury is a friend of a friend? Make it make sense, “top NFL brass” at ESPN and The Athletic.
Garoppolo also spent the last two years on the Rams, but declined the opportunity to be Matthew Stafford’s backup for a third season because he tired of waiting on the sidelines. He didn’t want to play for McVay or compete for a role on a team with a McVay disciple like Mike LaFleur’s Cardinals, and yet we’re led to believe that Garoppolo is “a great logical addition” for the Seahawks?
Is this just a case of “guys who have a last name that ends in ‘o’” sticking together?
I’ve learned from too many mistakes to ever say “never” and perhaps there is some dire scenario that leads Garoppolo to Seattle, but I won’t hesitate to say “almost never” in this case. It’s not just a bad idea, it’s an IL-LOGICAL one. I know that’s not as exciting as spouting out literally the very first QB name that comes to everyone’s mind when “fleury is a shanahan guy” is the only criterion, but looking beyond the shallow, it actually makes no sense.
Super Joes Q&A
Want to be on the next Super Joes Q&A exclusive newsletter? Join us!
Danno: I’ve seen some fear mongerers say Sam Darnold could be out 6 weeks. Of course I do not see any credible evidence to suggest that, but Florio is one such example of the absurdity…Does this “news,” and I am stretching it to call it news, change your thinking that the Seahawks need a replacement for Lock if Darnold is out for 6 or more weeks?
Look, nothing is news except news. A report that Sam Darnold could miss six weeks may be a totally real thing that was leaked from within the Seahawks, and we can’t dismiss it just because it’s not real news, but it is also not confirmation of literally anything.
A report or a rumor: May be something to file away as a consideration. We shouldn’t just file all of the bad rumors as “bullshit” and all of the good rumors as “credible”, which isn’t what I’m saying Danno is doing by any means, just what I often see in general. Not here, but everywhere for all teams’ fans.
News: Would obviously be anything that is news. Example, the Seahawks putting Jake Bobo on IR was news. It’s real, it’s not changing in 2026. The Seahawks ruling out Sam Darnold in Week 2 is not “news” yet but it’s so undisputed that we basically know Darnold is out this week.
Seaside Joe deals in 94.63%* real news.
*fake news
Okay, I made up that number obviously but still, if you’re reading it here it’s almost always going to be reporting the facts. Or gathering as many facts as we have in order to develop an expectation or an opinion. But those predictions or opinions will always be based on facts with a sprinkle of historical tendencies that are harder to prove, and yet super typical.
Like the Garoppolo thing…
Do I know for 100% certain that the Seahawks won’t sign Garoppolo? No, obviously I couldn’t know that. Do I 100% disagree with Sando and Barnwell that it’s “logical”? Yes.
So nobody should say that they know Darnold is going to miss six weeks or that they know Darnold is not going to miss six weeks. We don’t know anything! The Seahawks have reportedly sought out four second opinions (wouldn’t that be “up to five opinions”??) on Darnold’s butt so they don’t even know the answer!
And frankly we don’t even need to know. All we need to know is that the Seahawks are starting Drew Lock on Sunday. If Darnold misses more time than that, then it’s time to buck up and deal with it like any good football team would do. It’s not all about the starting quarterback.
What I think is MOST logical as QB insurance
If Darnold were to hit IR, this is what I think the Seahawks would do:
Start Drew Lock for as long as he’s healthy
Back him up with Jalen Milroe
Sign a mediocre QB to the practice squad
Unless Lock is as bad as Max Brosmer was against Seattle last year, I see no scenario in which the Seahawks abandon him as the starter for the time being. Remember how panicked fans were when Geno Smith had to start three games in place of Russell Wilson in 2021? This is no different than that and Geno was obviously more than fine.
Lock is as good as it’s gonna get among backup quarterbacks. Seattle has the defense, special teams, supporting cast, and coaching to win games without Darnold.
Milroe will be the backup and given his 1.5 years of experience inside the facilities already, he’s a much backup contingency than Garoppolo or anyone else. Garoppolo is terrible anyway. What are we doing here?
Then I’d expect the Seahawks to add a quarterback to the practice squad, someone like Mullens or Browning or Brandon Allen or Josh Johnson, etc. In the worst case scenario, they’d have at least given someone a few weeks of practice reps to get involved with the team and then elevate him for game day, if necessary.
This is the far more logical, far less click-centric analysis of the situation.
IdahoFred: Are the Cardinals a different team this year? One game so too early to tell? You are in LA, what is the scuttlebutt about the Bolts? I like Harbaugh and I thought McDaniels would be a good addition to the team, but they didn't show up on Sunday. Arizona led the whole way.
One game is always too early to tell. The Raiders beat the Patriots in Week 1 last year. The 49ers beat the Seahawks. This is perhaps the most difficult time of year for analysis because there are just so many overreactions and it really only matters in one sense:
The NFC West could come down to a tiebreaker, so it matters
We don’t know who those tiebreakers will actually impact until Week 18
But as far as “looks”? It doesn’t matter a whole to me how a team looks right now. Even if it all goes into the bucket of considerations. Week 1 is definitely the first major data point though, and not the preseason.
To summarize: Cardinals 26, Chargers 14
LaFleur’s first game as a head coach and offensive play caller was a success, as this performance would have been Arizona’s fourth-best day on offense by EPA and third-best day on defense compared to all Cardinals games in 2025.
The only game the Cardinals played last season in which they were as good as this was a 27-17 win over the Cowboys, which does tell us one thing at least: We already knew the Cardinals could be this good, even when they go 3-14.
Just normal regression tells us that Arizona was likely to win more than three games in 2026, whether that’s 5-12 or 8-9 or 10-7. Winning in Week 1 isn’t that crazy, especially against a Chargers team that I would NEVER bet on to be as good as they’re supposed to be.
It’s too soon for me to change my mind that Jacoby Brissett is a below-average starting quarterback. I’m more easily convinced that LaFleur will be a surprisingly good hire and Arizona has a talented supporting cast. The defense is anyone’s guess, but could also be better than expectations.
Don’t count out the Cardinals, this is their Super Bowl.
Maxx: What kind of day do you see Drew Lock having against the Cardinals secondary? And will the O-line be able to open up holes for JP? Will JP get more carries than last week?
Even if Jadarian Price is Seattle’s best running back (which he is) and he has the potential to become one of the NFL’s most explosive runners (seems like he does), don’t forget that the most carries he’s had in a game since high school is 15.
And that’s just his career-high. Price averaged 9.4 carries per game with Notre Dame in 2025, and 7.5 carries per game in 2024.
A ramp-up period of some sort at the start of his NFL career is rational, and the reward to give him significantly more touches right now isn’t worth the risk of losing him for an extended period of time later. Just look at how valuable Kenneth Walker III was to the Seahawks in the playoffs. Having Price available in games 18, 19, 20, and/or 21 of the season—when he’s a rookie who played in 12 games last year—is far more important than the immediate thrill of seeing him run the ball a few more times in Week 2.
So I’d say, “more” carries? Maybe. “A lot more” carries? I wouldn’t hope so.
Also, I’m sure a lot of people will want to know what I think about Kenneth Walker’s performance on Monday night against the Broncos. I think it’s great for him! Seaside Joe has always said he’s one of the most talented running backs in the league and I’m not at all surprised he had so many yards in his Chiefs debut. Good!
But that doesn’t mean the Seahawks should have re-signed him or that the Seahawks didn’t realize they were going to part ways with a top-tier running back in free agency.
They were the team that drafted Walker when the media was giving them an “F” for the decision
They were the team that built an offense meant to feature him during a Super Bowl run.
I don’t think Walker would have gotten more (if any) than 10 carries for Seattle in Week 1 if they had kept him. That’s not what the Seahawks do unless they’re forced to do it and certainly it’s not what I’d expect Seattle to do in Week 1 when they’re not forced to do it.
So he’s in a better place for him, and the Seahawks are in the right place for themselves. It’s not that they’re “better off without him”, it’s more that given the nature of the business and the sport, the Seahawks made a calculated franchise move instead of an emotional decision.
Part II: “What kind of day do you see Drew Lock having against the Cardinals secondary?”
Hard to say but I put “what Lock does” lower on the importance list than most people. It’s “Lock vs. Brissett” so if Lock is a concern, so is Brissett. It evens out. I said this before the Super Bowl and before the divisional round against the 49ers: People overrated the importance of Sam Darnold.
He needed to have a great game in the NFC Championship against the Rams. He didn’t need to have a great game those other times.
If Lock doesn’t turn the ball over, he’s as good as Seattle needs him to be.
zezinhom400: Has the NFC West paradoxically become even tougher than before with a less-convincing Rams team but both Cards and Niners impressing?
Let’s re-visit this in five weeks. I’m not dismissing the Cardinals, and I’m not saying that the Rams will be in the Super Bowl (I was calling the Rams overrated before it was cool, as you all know), but it’s one week. The NFL has no solid form until at least Week 6 and it never stops changing.
Samuel Garfield: Were the chargers much worse than expectations or were the cardinals much better? Or both? Like 40% of my football pool picks were lost in week 1 on that game, Oh also: football survivor pool. Who are your top pick options weeks 2-4?
The Cardinals have posted one winning season in the past 10 years, so a comfortable victory over a team that made the playoffs last season is surprising. However, so many people picking the Chargers (I saw a tweet that said about 30% of people were knocked out of survivor leagues from this one game) in SEPTEMBER seems crazy to me too. They always do this to themselves.
I would hate to be responsible for anyone’s losses. Three teams that looked totally helpless though: Dolphins, Titans, and Browns.
IdahoFred: By QBR and RTG, Stafford is one of the worst QBs right now. Is he washed up? Bad O line? Bad coaching? One game does not make a season so too early to tell?
Every quarterback has bad games, but if you’re 38 and you have a bad game people will assume that one of the explanations for it — the most common explanation — is that you’re “washed”. That’s understandable because every player is eventually “washed”, however people were saying the same thing after every bad Tom Brady game since at least 2014.
And then Brady played nine more years and still retired before anyone felt like he was no longer good enough to be in the NFL anymore.
In the offseason, Matthew Stafford only practices half of the time, and then he sits out the entire preseason. This could be adversely affecting him, and the entire Rams team, with these early season sloppy performances; L.A. has gotten off to a poor start every year since 2022.
And they always finish strong.
So “too early to tell”? Of course. The Rams flew all the way to Australia — and landed less than 24 hours before the game — and basically no important player on offense or defense had played in a real situation since L.A. lost to the Seahawks in the NFC Championship*.
*never hurts to bring that up again.
Stafford was certainly off his game, but Puka Nacua and Davante Adams hurt his stats with their own miscues, and the 49ers are always good against the Rams. Defensive coordinator Raheem Morris knows better than anybody what to throw at Sean McVay, as he used to be the Rams DC.
I’d prefer to get three or four more data points before saying if the Rams need to be worried about Stafford. They probably do need to be worried about Adams though.
That’s it for today’s Super Joes Q&A. But there are more questions on deck, so subscribe and you won’t miss everything else left to answer.
Plus, Lock knows the players, knows the coaches, knows the culture, and knows the playbook. When the alternative is Jimmy G, continuity becomes a big factor.
BTW, Lock and JSN have teamed up for two of the more memorable touchdown passes in recent Hawks history.
https://youtu.be/h_brmJBcT3E?is=YQsyrIS3jRjiMD5i
I’m happy that K9 has found a team to use him as RB1. I still feel he’s better suited to RB1A. 23 runs plus 3 receptions (26 total touches) off the top of my head is certainly more that he had in a regular season game last year by at least 5. If he continues to carry the ball 20 plus times every game, I’d be shocked if he can finish the season. The Seahawks want to use at least 2 RBs to shoulder the load and keep them on the field. It’s difficult enough to keep an RB on the field no matter how durable they’ve been. Given the number of games K9 missed in his 4 years with the Seahawks, using him as a workhorse is shortsighted. Perhaps his touches will decrease in the coming weeks.