Inconsistent and Skewed Narratives

[StableOfRBs]

The worst thing about that Adams narrative is that it is still following him around. I think it is funny to consider Adams and a guy like Michael Thomas. They are 2 months apart in age, and had pretty similar 23 year old season last year. Both have the benefit of playing with an elite QB, with a small question mark about how long that will continue (Adams' contract, and Brees' age/contract). Yet Adams 3rd/4th round startup pick while Thomas is a late 1st.

Why? The only explanation I have is that at 22 years old, Adams was underwhelming against NFL corners, while Thomas was underwhelming against Big Ten corners.

Adams had a year much like James Jones in 2012...I think he is being slightly overdrafted to be honest. I mean he played much better but didn't look like a dynamic playmaker. He benefitted from a high TD to reception ratio and didn't crack 1000 yards. Should be at least a little concerning.

While Thomas hasn't had the 3 seasons Adams had it is hard to hold it against him especially when 2 of Adams seasons were not great and not even average. Thomas was pretty good as a rookie and lost his biggest competition for targets. I understand he also lost the guy that scared defenses so his coverages will look different. I usually wait for a guy to fail rather than trying to predict it. I think he will have difficulty with the transition to being the #1 target but more targets and maybe less efficient might even out.

I mean, he had 997, not getting 3 more yards isn't gonna lower my opinion of the guy, also 1TD/6.25 Receptions isn't that bad considering the offense and QB he has

[Kaz]

I bought into the McKinnon narrative after his rookie year, and I overpayed for him. I still don't think it was a bad move in hindsight. I think people are forgetting that he averaged nearly 5 ypc over 100+ carries as a rookie. Ameer Abdullah averaged the same behind a similar line and I get people sending me offers for him left and right.

[StableOfRBs]

I bought into the McKinnon narrative after his rookie year, and I overpayed for him. I still don't think it was a bad move in hindsight. I think people are forgetting that he averaged nearly 5 ypc over 100+ carries as a rookie. Ameer Abdullah averaged the same behind a similar line and I get people sending me offers for him left and right.

Because Ameer has been labelled the clear starter on his team and McKinnon has had people in front of him his whole career, it's not that people forgot it's that they knew McKinnon was never going to get a starters full workload

[Cameron Giles]

Adams had a year much like James Jones in 2012...I think he is being slightly overdrafted to be honest. I mean he played much better but didn't look like a dynamic playmaker. He benefitted from a high TD to reception ratio and didn't crack 1000 yards. Should be at least a little concerning.

James Jones was 28 when he broke out.
Davante Adams was 24 when he broke out.

There's no way you can fault a WR for missing the 1,000 yard mark by 3 yards.

[maxhyde]

Adams had a year much like James Jones in 2012...I think he is being slightly overdrafted to be honest. I mean he played much better but didn't look like a dynamic playmaker. He benefitted from a high TD to reception ratio and didn't crack 1000 yards. Should be at least a little concerning.

James Jones was 28 when he broke out.
Davante Adams was 24 when he broke out.

There's no way you can fault a WR for missing the 1,000 yard mark by 3 yards.

I didn't say he WAS James Jones I said his season felt like James Jones 2012 with more points from TD's than is normal for the stats put although not as exaggerated as Jones. I am not faulting him for 997 just pointing out that finishing as a WR1 with less than 1000 yards is pretty unusual...I don't remember it happening often anyway.
I also am not the one bitching about Thomas vs Adams ADP although I would be dealing Thomas everywhere I own him at 1st round startup value...no one is paying that where I play.

I would also swap Adams pretty quickly for DT/Diggs if it was available and those guys probably could be had around there or later.

I don't hate Adams but neither was I super-impressed with his 2016

[Chris_R]

Should be no sweat off your back. McKinnon is dirt cheap and easy to acquire so you'll have no problem holding onto him in the mean time. But if you think the team has confidence in him yet pays to sign Murray and moves up in the 2nd rd for a back as accomplished as Cook then I don't know what to tell you. That shows you what the Vikings confidence level is in him. If they don't believe in him why should we? Maybe 1 of those guys meant they wanted to add depth, both means he won't be a factor and they see him up close everyday. SD was still confident in Gordon and it showed by his workload in year 2.

[HereForTheComments]

I have a skewed narrative to get this thread back on its intended tracks....

AB never produces when Big Ben is out.

Fact is, he struggled with Vick and he produced under Landry Jones. Vick would not throw to AB while he looked covered... he obviously didn't want to risk an int and criticism while he was trying to extend his career.

Landry Jones, in 2 seasons, has started 2 games. In both of those games, AB put up 6/124 and 7/106.

People have got to stop using this narrative as an excuse to "trade off AB before Big Ben retires". It's baseless.

[StableOfRBs]

I have a skewed narrative to get this thread back on its intended tracks....

AB never produces when Big Ben is out.

Fact is, he struggled with Vick and he produced under Landry Jones. Vick would not throw to AB while he looked covered... he obviously didn't want to risk an int and criticism while he was trying to extend his career.

Landry Jones, in 2 seasons, has started 2 games. In both of those games, AB put up 6/124 and 7/106.

People have got to stop using this narrative as an excuse to "trade off AB before Big Ben retires". It's baseless.

I think a lot of it has more to do with Brown's age and not his connection with Ben, sure he can be productive if the guy is like Landry (who is actually a pretty garbage passer) but the problem is the next guy could be just like Vick, it isn't that he won't produce without Ben, it's that nobody knows what his production will look like, although odds are it won't be as a perennial top 3 receiver so it would be better to sell him at that value now than try to convince someone that he could still be at that value a year or two from now

[Valhalla]

I agree with the OP on McKinnon. The main criticism on him is he should have put up a better ypc in his opportunity to shine, but it wasn't really much of an opportunity. He put a better ypc than Gurley with a worse OL and a comparably bland offensive scheme. He was also running on a bum ankle...in an incredibly predictable offense as to when they were running and when they were passing.
The team had mentally committed themselves to moving on from Peterson. They clearly wanted an upgrade over Asiata. After subtracting Peterson and Asiata...the Vikings depth chart was...anyone? McKinnon, Sankey and probably Hamm. Even if, as a coaching staff and front office, you like what McKinnon brought, WHO WOULDN'T BRING IN ANOTHER RB VIA FREE AGENCY?! It was obvious they were going to get someone. I wish it wasn't Murray (as I am not a big fan), but whatever.
Then the draft rolls around. Their depth chart is McKinnon and Murray (order is debatable) and Murray was laid up. Just had surgery and his availability is unclear. So, your healthy depth chart is McKinnon and nada. Then you see Cook falling. Even if, as a front office and coaching staff, you have complete confidence in what McKinnon can bring, WHO WOULDN'T TRADE UP AND ADD THAT TALENT?!

So, the narrative I would like to add is this: "The Vikings replaced McKinnon with Murray. Then they drafted a high end talent like Cook. They clearly have no confidence in McKinnon as being any good, so why should we?" To me, that's just flawed.

[Chris_R]

I agree with the OP on McKinnon. The main criticism on him is he should have put up a better ypc in his opportunity to shine, but it wasn't really much of an opportunity. He put a better ypc than Gurley with a worse OL and a comparably bland offensive scheme. He was also running on a bum ankle...in an incredibly predictable offense as to when they were running and when they were passing.
The team had mentally committed themselves to moving on from Peterson. They clearly wanted an upgrade over Asiata. After subtracting Peterson and Asiata...the Vikings depth chart was...anyone? McKinnon, Sankey and probably Hamm. Even if, as a coaching staff and front office, you like what McKinnon brought, WHO WOULDN'T BRING IN ANOTHER RB VIA FREE AGENCY?! It was obvious they were going to get someone. I wish it wasn't Murray (as I am not a big fan), but whatever.
Then the draft rolls around. Their depth chart is McKinnon and Murray (order is debatable) and Murray was laid up. Just had surgery and his availability is unclear. So, your healthy depth chart is McKinnon and nada. Then you see Cook falling. Even if, as a front office and coaching staff, you have complete confidence in what McKinnon can bring, WHO WOULDN'T TRADE UP AND ADD THAT TALENT?!

So, the narrative I would like to add is this: "The Vikings replaced McKinnon with Murray. Then they drafted a high end talent like Cook. They clearly have no confidence in McKinnon as being any good, so why should we?" To me, that's just flawed.

You're looking too much into a situation that is clear they have zero confidence in Mckinnon. They signed Latavious Murray to a 3 year deal, guaranteeing over 3 million. That's not a depth signing, they are paying him to get the ball. They also traded up in the 2nd to take a RB in Cook who will be projected to get a lions share of touches. Who does that of they have confidence in their starting back? Where was Chicago with addressing depth? Chargers? The teams who are confident in the back they have showed you by their actions. Mckinnon may be worth his salt but it'll absolutely be somewhere else. There's no way you can spin the Vikings really like him or see him as anything more then a role player. He's a 3rd down specialty back, and Minnesota has treated him as such.

[ericanadian]

I agree with the OP on McKinnon. The main criticism on him is he should have put up a better ypc in his opportunity to shine, but it wasn't really much of an opportunity. He put a better ypc than Gurley with a worse OL and a comparably bland offensive scheme. He was also running on a bum ankle...in an incredibly predictable offense as to when they were running and when they were passing.
The team had mentally committed themselves to moving on from Peterson. They clearly wanted an upgrade over Asiata. After subtracting Peterson and Asiata...the Vikings depth chart was...anyone? McKinnon, Sankey and probably Hamm. Even if, as a coaching staff and front office, you like what McKinnon brought, WHO WOULDN'T BRING IN ANOTHER RB VIA FREE AGENCY?! It was obvious they were going to get someone. I wish it wasn't Murray (as I am not a big fan), but whatever.
Then the draft rolls around. Their depth chart is McKinnon and Murray (order is debatable) and Murray was laid up. Just had surgery and his availability is unclear. So, your healthy depth chart is McKinnon and nada. Then you see Cook falling. Even if, as a front office and coaching staff, you have complete confidence in what McKinnon can bring, WHO WOULDN'T TRADE UP AND ADD THAT TALENT?!

So, the narrative I would like to add is this: "The Vikings replaced McKinnon with Murray. Then they drafted a high end talent like Cook. They clearly have no confidence in McKinnon as being any good, so why should we?" To me, that's just flawed.

You're looking too much into a situation that is clear they have zero confidence in Mckinnon. They signed Latavious Murray to a 3 year deal, guaranteeing over 3 million. That's not a depth signing, they are paying him to get the ball. They also traded up in the 2nd to take a RB in Cook who will be projected to get a lions share of touches. Who does that of they have confidence in their starting back? Where was Chicago with addressing depth? Chargers? The teams who are confident in the back they have showed you by their actions. Mckinnon may be worth his salt but it'll absolutely be somewhere else. There's no way you can spin the Vikings really like him or see him as anything more then a role player. He's a 3rd down specialty back, and Minnesota has treated him as such.

First, McKinnon ran between the tackles more than Asiata last year, which isnt how you would treat a third down specialty back. He outpaced Asiata in 2015 as well and ran between the tackles significantly more than outside the tackles in both years. McKinnon actually kind of sucks on outside runs. No idea why, but even in 2015 he averaged less than 4.0 YPC on outside. I don't see the team as having a huge amount of faith in McKinnon, but I'm in no hurry to move him.

For me, if the team has faith in Murray, why draft Cook? If the team planned to address RB with an early round pick, why sign Murray to a fairly large contract for a RB? Murray struggled to average 4.0 YPC behind one of the best lines in the NFL. Cook struggled with fumbles and put up garbage agility numbers at the combine while being a RB that kicked it to the outside too often and struggled against several of the better defenses in the ACC. I think Murray could easily flop or get injured and Cook may take longer to acclimate than hoped, if he acclimates at all. McKinnon was getting first team reps last I checked. People are assuming it's because Murray's out, but Murray being out isn't exaxtly helping his own case, is it?

[Chris_R]

I agree with the OP on McKinnon. The main criticism on him is he should have put up a better ypc in his opportunity to shine, but it wasn't really much of an opportunity. He put a better ypc than Gurley with a worse OL and a comparably bland offensive scheme. He was also running on a bum ankle...in an incredibly predictable offense as to when they were running and when they were passing.
The team had mentally committed themselves to moving on from Peterson. They clearly wanted an upgrade over Asiata. After subtracting Peterson and Asiata...the Vikings depth chart was...anyone? McKinnon, Sankey and probably Hamm. Even if, as a coaching staff and front office, you like what McKinnon brought, WHO WOULDN'T BRING IN ANOTHER RB VIA FREE AGENCY?! It was obvious they were going to get someone. I wish it wasn't Murray (as I am not a big fan), but whatever.
Then the draft rolls around. Their depth chart is McKinnon and Murray (order is debatable) and Murray was laid up. Just had surgery and his availability is unclear. So, your healthy depth chart is McKinnon and nada. Then you see Cook falling. Even if, as a front office and coaching staff, you have complete confidence in what McKinnon can bring, WHO WOULDN'T TRADE UP AND ADD THAT TALENT?!

So, the narrative I would like to add is this: "The Vikings replaced McKinnon with Murray. Then they drafted a high end talent like Cook. They clearly have no confidence in McKinnon as being any good, so why should we?" To me, that's just flawed.

You're looking too much into a situation that is clear they have zero confidence in Mckinnon. They signed Latavious Murray to a 3 year deal, guaranteeing over 3 million. That's not a depth signing, they are paying him to get the ball. They also traded up in the 2nd to take a RB in Cook who will be projected to get a lions share of touches. Who does that of they have confidence in their starting back? Where was Chicago with addressing depth? Chargers? The teams who are confident in the back they have showed you by their actions. Mckinnon may be worth his salt but it'll absolutely be somewhere else. There's no way you can spin the Vikings really like him or see him as anything more then a role player. He's a 3rd down specialty back, and Minnesota has treated him as such.

First, McKinnon ran between the tackles more than Asiata last year, which isnt how you would treat a third down specialty back. He outpaced Asiata in 2015 as well and ran between the tackles significantly more than outside the tackles in both years. McKinnon actually kind of sucks on outside runs. No idea why, but even in 2015 he averaged less than 4.0 YPC on outside. I don't see the team as having a huge amount of faith in McKinnon, but I'm in no hurry to move him.

For me, if the team has faith in Murray, why draft Cook? If the team planned to address RB with an early round pick, why sign Murray to a fairly large contract for a RB? Murray struggled to average 4.0 YPC behind one of the best lines in the NFL. Cook struggled with fumbles and put up garbage agility numbers at the combine while being a RB that kicked it to the outside too often and struggled against several of the better defenses in the ACC. I think Murray could easily flop or get injured and Cook may take longer to acclimate than hoped, if he acclimates at all. McKinnon was getting first team reps last I checked. People are assuming it's because Murray's out, but Murray being out isn't exaxtly helping his own case, is it?

If you still have faith in McKinnon, that's fine. But it's very clear Minnesota does not, that can't be disputed in any shape or form. Maybe he'll get an opportunity elsewhere to do what you think but it won't be in Minny. Nobody spends 3 million guaranteed on a RB and trades up for one in the 2nd round when they are either confident with the back they have, or plan to give him carries. The backs teams are confident in, is obvious by their off season moves. Don't let your judgement cloud what Minnesota thinks, those are 2 different things.

[ArrylT]

Why did Tennessee draft Derrick Henry when they already have DeMarco Murray?

Why did N.E. acquire Dwayne Allen when they already have Rob Gronkowski?

Why did Cincinnati draft John Ross at 10 overall when they already have AJ Green & Tyler Boyd?

Why did the Saints draft Kamara when they already had Ingram & Peterson?

Sometimes something can be both.

So maybe Minnesota also wants to do what other teams are doing and have multiple talents at the same position, while also having some concern that McKinnon would not be a 3 down back - but thought he could be part of a committee - much like what happened in Oakland this past year - and always happens in NE. Good teams pick up talent whenever & wherever feasible - especially when it adds depth at a position of need. Dalvin Cook was at one point a lock for the 1st round of the draft. Would a smart fantasy owner pass on acquiring say someone like OJ Howard or Christian McCaffrey if they fell into the 2nd round, even if they already had a glut at TE or RB? Or maybe you being the smart owner explore ways to move up if the price is right and get BPA. After all I wouldnt be surprised if Cincinnati was targeting Joe Mixon all along - and all it cost Minnesota was a 4th round pick.

If you had the 2.04 and a player you thought was a lock for top 6-7 was available at 2.01-2.02 and you were able to move up to 2.01 at the cost of a 4th - does that mean you've suddenly lost confidence in the other players on your fantasy squad if you do that?

Things arent always black & white. Sometimes there are multiple reasons why a team does something.

[Valhalla]

But it's very clear Minnesota does not, that can't be disputed in any shape or form.

Considering one's own opinion to be on a factual level? You may be right that the MN front office and coaches have no faith in McKinnon, but it's certainly disputable. I'd have gone ahead with adding a free agent and a rb via the draft with that depth chart. On a team that wants defense and clock control, one running back is not enough.
As to why they took dalvin and didn't wait for a later round rb, I think they probably intended to. Yet, dalvin was dropping. When a player that is high on your talent board is dropping and it's a position that they intend to draft anyways, they should go get him.

[Pac_Eddy]

People have got to stop using this narrative as an excuse to "trade off AB before Big Ben retires". It's baseless.

I've seen this as a reason to offload AB in other threads. I think it's a factor but a very small one. I'm also the type that isn't scared to be holding a WR for too long. I've gotten some good value trading for older WRs that others fear are about to hit the wall.