Jerick McKinnon Thread

[Valhalla]

I've watched a lot of McKinnon and really like his talent. I see a lot of negativity here so far (not sure why people want to cheer against him). Someone needs to offer up the reason for hope, right? Just so I don't have to write it all again, copy-pasting some of my (reason for hope) thoughts from an offseason thread:

I drafted him and held him since then. The writing is on the wall. Vikings get to see more of McKinnon than we do and it's clear they see him as less valuable than Matt Asiata.

? Why do you say that? Glancing at the numbers, McKinnon got 38 more carries, 11 more receptions (on 15 more targets), and although he only averaged 3.39ypc, it was still more than Asiata averaged. McKinnon beat Asiata in all these numbers while playing through and missing time due to an ankle injury.

He's been given chances and failed to capitalize
Look no further than 2016 to value him... 159 attempts 3.39 ypc. As a receiving back he did pretty well, but his yards per catch were a lackluster below 6.

His chances he failed to capitalize on:
2014 - Rookie year. Playing behind the more established team vet Asiata. McKinnon was a running QB in college, so for him to over-take a vet to the system his first year as a RB is a bit much to ask. No way they are not playing Asiata when they are trying to protect their rookie QB Bridgewater. The criticism of how he couldn't even find time over Asiata has just that TINY flaw in its short-sighted view. Despite being fairly new to the RB position and needing to protect a rookie QB behind a pretty relentless blitz the Vikings usually faced, McKinnon was given 113 carries at a 4.8 ypc clip. Not failing to capitalize, at all.
2015 - Peterson was back off his suspension. McKinnon's carries dropped down to 52 attempts, at a 5.2 ypc clip while spelling Peterson. I get why that 5.2 is inflated with the 3rd and long carries, but this was not failing to capitalize on his opportunities.
2016 - He was playing behind the worst OL play I've watched in my time, in one of the most predictable offenses I've watched. Todd Gurley just averaged 3.2ypc in a similarly predictable offense behind a better OL (but with a worse QB). Are we writing off Gurley, too? He did less per carry than McKinnon with a better line, and wasn't playing on a bum ankle I don't believe. Actually I just checked this. Gurley was playing through a thigh injury of some sort, McKinnon an ankle injury. Gurley gets the excuses though, whereas McKinnon just sucks? 2016 was not a fair assessment of anything with the Vikings running game. The only players that averaged more ypa than McKinnon were Patterson (on 7 carries) and Thielen (on 2 carries), on end around plays. Peterson averaged 1.9 ypa. McKinnon was running hurt, and I don't think I need to go over how injured that line was again. They lost so many starters and backups they played multiple waiver claim linemen, one being an undrafted rookie FA. You must realize that he's more than a 3.4 ypc RB behind even an adequate OL, and he'd make for a good ppr back in an open passing system, not ideal for a predictable up the gut system like the Vikings have been running. My honest assessment of his 2016 season, I'd say he actually performed pretty well behind that historically bad line, but it wasn't capitalizing on the open job, either. I doubt even NFL savior Elliott could have "capitalized" in that situation, though.

Any other position and I'd give him a shot, but RBs are a dime a dozen to NFL teams. Only way I get excited is if the Patriots bring him in somehow.

I do agree with you that his value doesn't look so great now. He's got an uphill battle to be fantasy useful this year, unless Cook gets injured. I think McKinnon gets carries still, but not enough to win games in fantasy. He's useful to the Vikings at this point, but not us. If you have the roster space and decide to hold, it's likely you have to either root for a Cook injury (I don't think Murray is all that great) or for McKinnon to find a better suited role in '18.
I think the main reason the Vikings grabbed Murray is they needed depth, as McKinnon has been injured and Asiata is nothing special. They then grabbed Cook because the value was there, and when you are a running team it doesn't hurt to have a couple good RBs. I don't think the signing of Murray OR the drafting of Cook was an indictment that the coaches have no trust in McKinnon's effectiveness. They were just the right football moves to make at the time. I still think McKinnon plays a good amount for the Vikings, but not enough to be fantasy relevant in '17 without an injury to one of the other two. His fantasy value now is as a handcuff (if you like to hold handcuffs) or as a '18 free agent bet if you have the roster depth to hold players like that.

I'm probably delusional though. I wouldn't be shocked, one bit, to see all three of Cook, Murray and McKinnon have games where they get the majority of the carries. I wouldn't want to count on a single one of them in my lineup, but would feel ok flexing Cook on and off.

[maxhyde]

Yeah McKinnon is a good athlete trying to learn a new position in the NFL...tough road for anybody. Edelman took years to become the WR Brady trusts and be a good fantasy asset so I don't see why McKinnon can't follow a similar path.
His athleticism will get him a long leash and trial period.

[Jfever]

New position? I'm not following. He was a rb, and is still a running back.

[Friction]

I assume he meant that he was a qb in college, correct? Always been a fan of his, definitely moreso than Murray. I still feel the few goaline carries will go to Latavius, but Jerrick should have a decent ppr floor. Its not like the offense is some explosive juggernaut, so you could do worse than flex a player like him. RB2 in good match ups.

[JJDubya]

New position? I'm not following. He was a rb, and is still a running back.

He was recruited out of high school as a QB. Played a host of positions throughout college, only really focusing on RB in his senior year.

[Jason]

New position? I'm not following. He was a rb, and is still a running back.

My understanding is he was recruited as a running QB in college in a gimmicky super run heavy offense at Georgia Southern and then sort of transitioned to a hybrid role there where he played RB too because they had some guy named Jaybo Shaw and then Kevin Ellison who did most of the passing. Mckinnon threw for only 829 yards.

However he did run for 1800+ and 20 touchdowns his junior year and was Senior Bowl team MVP the following year as a RB, for what it's worth.

[Jfever]

Oh, I got ya. Yeah, I knew that. I guess I read it as a new position in the NFL.

Yeah, the wildcat plays and such are based off of his experience as a qb and rb at Georgia southern and qb in High school. But, the entire time he was much more of a running qb than he was a passing qb.

To that end, yeah, I agree, there probably was a bit of a learning curve for him. I've always thought though that the rb position has a short learning curve and is more instinctual.

[Valhalla]

...I've always thought though that the rb position has a short learning curve and is more instinctual.

Agree with this. I believe McKinnon has the reflexes and proper feel to be a good RB. He's being judged by so many people based solely on last year. Not even David Johnson would have looked great behind that line...but anyways...
McKinnon is certainly more instinctual than Murray, who I see as just a big fast guy (decent hands) who blindly runs forward. McKinnon's skills are superior both running and receiving. He will lose short yardage carries to Murray and Ham, though.

[onetwothree]

I've watched a lot of McKinnon and really like his talent. I see a lot of negativity here so far (not sure why people want to cheer against him). Someone needs to offer up the reason for hope, right?

Think the argument was that the team's moves signing Latavius and drafting Cook was an indictment of McKinnon.

I traded him for a 1st a couple seasons ago when he had his first chance to take over but I've always liked the talent. He can't keep inviting hits like the ones he took last night though.

[Valhalla]

I've watched a lot of McKinnon and really like his talent. I see a lot of negativity here so far (not sure why people want to cheer against him). Someone needs to offer up the reason for hope, right?

Think the argument was that the team's moves signing Latavius and drafting Cook was an indictment of McKinnon.

Yes, and my argument was that it wasn't an indictment of McKinnon. That's overly simplistic.

Depth chart going into offseason (from my memory) in which the team had no first round pick and severe needs on the OL:
McKinnon (rehabbing his ankle over offseason)
Sankey
CJ Ham

If you were the front office, would you grab a free agent RB to offer some depth? Yep. Even if I were confident in McKinnon, signing a free agent was a no-brainer, must do move. Signing a free agent was not an indictment on McKinnon's abilities.

New depth chart (entering the draft and order is debatable):
McKinnon (ankle)
Murray (having surgery and his timetable for return is entirely unknown)
Sankey
Ham

Even if you had confidence in McKinnon's abilities, would you, as GM, enter the draft with intentions of drafting a RB, knowing your top two aren't healthy? I know I would. If you saw a talent falling significantly from where you had him on your board, and it was a position you desired more depth at, would you move on him? I know I would. Drafting Cook is a little more of an indictment than signing Murray, but not a huge one.

Most people read the offseason as "The Vikings clearly made it a goal to replace him, so..." I don't read it that way. I read it as a GM that sees Sankey as his 2nd best and signs Murray to remedy that. I don't even like Murray and I completely understand that. Then the GM sees a highly desirable RB falling into his grasp and, with an entirely unhealthy RB corps, grabs the falling talent, of course.
Think of it this way: If Myles Garrett fell in the draft and the Texans moved on him, is that an indictment of JJ Watt? No, I'm not saying McKinnon is a stud on a Watt level. I'm just saying drafting falling talents is not an indictment of what the coaches think about who's on the roster.

[skip]

I absolutely believe it was an indictment of McKinnon and that is practically the only way to read it. If this was just about having depth, he would have been left as the starter. But he was awful in the role a year ago. But I've never been a believer either and feel he was nothing more than a backup quality talent just holding down the job until the Vikings found a suitable replacement.

[Valhalla]

Honest question, how many people who are judging McKinnon from his 2016 season stats watched the Vikings? If you watched them and didn't think he was good, fine. Not what I saw, but it's your opinion. If you are judging him based on 3.4, you should dig a little deeper. Maybe look into yards before contact, for starters. Also consider he was playing through an injury that would typically have probably put him on the sidelines to rehab, but the Vikings were too injury riddled to allow him the recovery time.
It's very easy to say: 3rd round! 3.4! They replaced him! It's not the best analysis, but sure, go with it.

[ManuManu]

I've always liked McKinnon, but I don't think there's much of an argument to defend him in terms of signing Murray.

They wanted a bigger back and a guy who could potentially lead the backfield. As an owner, I was happy they signed Murray because, despite his contract, I saw him as a bad player that could be beaten out. Obviously Cook changed everything. Then Cook was injured and Murray immediately commanded the touches and started the next game. Slowly, I think they're seeing that Murray isn't what they expected, and McKinnon adds some needed speed behind a meh OL.

It's now or never for McKinnon. I don't think he's ever going to he a true lead back, but my hope is he shows well enough to be seen as a timeshare back that isn't just a passing down guy.

[Plank]

I think its a mistake to think he will become a 3 down back .. he is what he is .. a good change of pace back than can come in on passing situations .. Not a back an offense can run through ...

[Valhalla]

I think its a mistake to think he will become a 3 down back .. he is what he is .. a good change of pace back than can come in on passing situations .. Not a back an offense can run through ...

He was the only thing working for the Vikings win over the Bears...so that's running an offense through him.
I understand your point though. Over the long haul of a season's work, you don't believe he can continue at that pace. I do agree he is better suited as a committee player, and as a Vikings fan I would obviously love for Cook to be healthy. I think McKinnon can handle the load as well as an Abdullah can. That's not saying much with how often that guy is injured, but I'm just saying I don't believe McKinnon is backup talent because I see plently of starting RBs that I would prefer McKinnon over. Drop him onto the Giants, Eagles, Jets, Cardinals, Seahawks, Ravens, Browns, or Colts, and I would argue that he would play his way to the top or into a timeshare for top carries. Patriots, Packers, Lions and Redskins I could see him working his way into timeshares at the top as well. I'm clearly a bigger fan of him than most, though.