Jerick McKinnon Thread

[jman3134]

Am I the only one who thinks this is great for Matt Breida because McKinnon is not a three down back? I think Breida will get more time in the committee now and McKinnon will get a lot of receptions out of the backfield. Both can thrive. Bad for Joe Williams though.

[nathanq42]

Fwiw McKinnon was ranked RB 8 by PFF which iirc is based solely on watching the games

[darewood11]

that's also a great point. Latavius Murray was the more efficient rusher between him and Mckinnon.

I'm wondering if this opinion is based on watching the games or looking at the box scores.

would me watching the game on television make Mckinnon more efficient?

If so...im watching all my guys every sunday.

[WhatWouldDitkaDo]

I won't be selling high on McKinnon. Either you believe in Shanahan, or you don't. I do.

Do you really think that Shanahan can make him a more efficient feature back?

1. McKinnon does not have to be a feature back to be a fantasy RB1 or RB2.
2. Yes, coaching matters. Not saying McKinnon is anywhere near as talented as Gurley, but look at Gurley with McVay vs with Fisher. Worst case scenario, McKinnon is still in a committee with whoever SF drafts at RB and is a PPR RB2 and upside handcuff a la Tevin Coleman. Best case scenario, McKinnon becomes the 1A and is a PPR RB1. I would buy for a late 1st, but I'd need a mid 1st to sell.

[_yeti]

Why are the McKinnon haters talking about "efficiency?" What is that, YPC? And how much of that is solely based on the Viking's dumpster fire of 2016? You need to come with more substance than that

[bsp27]

No, it wouldn't bsp27. But, it would cut down on your silly posts that lack context.

Whether or not you believe in Hyde or McKinnon, this is what I see:
1) Hyde has a more proven track record of production.
2) McKinnon had the opportunity to sieze the starting role in Minnesota in 2016 and failed. He again had that opportunity (shared with Murray after the Cook injury) in 2017 and didn't impress.
3) Hyde got $5m per season & McKinnon replaced him at a cost of $7.5m per season.

I'm not going to argue whether or not McKinnon will be successful in San Francisco. But what I don't understand is why the 49ers made this move for a back who might match Hyde's production. Even if that were the case, there is no way McKinnon should have received such a lucrative deal.

that's also a great point. Latavius Murray was the more efficient rusher between him and Mckinnon.

Damn. I hate to constantly be and feel like the thought police here.

1. Hyde's production being "proven". As an owner that was invested in Hyde from his rookie year - I wasn't a consistently happy owner. So, In my honest opinion - he was proven to the extent that he was proven to be inconsistent. Not bad years, but, not good considering his lack of efficiency. No thanks. Mckinnon is 2 years younger so - there is that to be considered. Hyde has likely peaked and is trending down, while Mckinnon's career arch is still climbing. And, in the right environment, with the right opportunity and surrounding cast, I think (as do the 49'ers) that Mckinnon could out produce Hyde - all things being equal.
2. I love that you say that Mckinnon was given the opportunity to take the job in 2016. It is once again like you don't watch the games. Minnesota had (in 2016) one of, if not the - most horrible 0-line in the entire NFL that season. They were hard to watch. As a fan - it was painful. All 5 starters missed time. some of their backups that came in to replace, also then were replaced by 3rd and 4th stringers. One or two off the damn street if I recall correctly. So, Skip, in your world view then - we should judge Mckinnon negatively on that 2016 year as he didn't grab the damn starting job.... wow. Also, Glad you brought up the Murray vs Mckinnon deal. After watching every Vikings game and watching them in the preseason and at their training camp. Murray and Mckinnon have different styles. On paper, it may appear that Murray was more consistent. I won't argue with the actual numbers, I will tell you that if you actually watch them play, you'd say that one of them is more talented as a running back, and more of a natural athlete than the other. The more efficient runner is just a very very lazy way of looking at the comparison because it blatantly ignores context. And, to be clear, when judging NFL running backs, context matters and it matters greatly.
3. The money thing about their contracts, I agree with. Regardless of Mckinnon vs Hyde, I know Hyde wasn't worth what he was getting paid, but it now appears that Mckinnon is getting over paid. I'm not understanding the 49'ers thinking there.

We basically agree on most things you said, so I'm confused as to why you are arguing with me. I agree Mckinnon is the better athlete. I agree Mckinnon is much more dynamic and better in the passing game. But, he has proven that he is not a good between the tackles runner throughout his entire career. He never has been a reliable and efficient RUNNER. He is much more of a satellite back than every down feature back. That's all i'm saying.

[Phaded]

In a world where Danny Woodhead can finish as a top 5 back in PPR; I don't see how you can argue with McKinnon's fantasy potential.

[bsp27]

I won't be selling high on McKinnon. Either you believe in Shanahan, or you don't. I do.

Do you really think that Shanahan can make him a more efficient feature back?

1. McKinnon does not have to be a feature back to be a fantasy RB1 or RB2.
2. Yes, coaching matters. Not saying McKinnon is anywhere near as talented as Gurley, but look at Gurley with McVay vs with Fisher. Worst case scenario, McKinnon is still in a committee with whoever SF drafts at RB and is a PPR RB2 and upside handcuff a la Tevin Coleman. Best case scenario, McKinnon becomes the 1A and is a PPR RB1. I would buy for a late 1st, but I'd need a mid 1st to sell.

1. I agree
2. Mcvay certainly had some impact, but the upgrades to the offensive line and more offensive opportunities in general were the main reasons for Gurley's success; not the coach on the sideline.

i'd sell at that value, but that's just me

[henry1jg]

In a world where Danny Woodhead can finish as a top 5 back in PPR; I don't see how you can argue with McKinnon's fantasy potential.

Amen.

[ericanadian]

McKinnon's moving to a primarily zone scheme with the 49ers. I'm not sure how he looked in the power scheme in 2016 is really all that relevant. Freeman looked like a mediocre rusher with receiving upside prior to seizing the role under Shanahan as well. Injuries are certainly a risk, but I'll trust Shanahan's ability to identify an effective zone rusher over pretty much anyone else.

[Accumen]

Just bought him for Ty Mont, 2.01 and what will be a mid/late 2019 2 (Team A in sig). Thoughts?

[Cameron Giles]

Am I the only one who thinks this is great for Matt Breida because McKinnon is not a three down back? I think Breida will get more time in the committee now and McKinnon will get a lot of receptions out of the backfield. Both can thrive. Bad for Joe Williams though.

I don't see anything interesting/special about Breida.

[Valhalla]

How about now?

[Raymond1974]

Have been a McKinnon fan for a while. I think the only thing holding him back was opportunity. I see him being a focal point of a new and upcoming offense.

[Jfever]

Interesting to look back and read through old threads at times like this. There is something to be said about overvaluing situation over talent. The NFL landscape is always changing. Injuries change things without warning or foresight.