Jerick McKinnon Thread

[FantasyFreakGuru]

I'm excited that I own McKinnon. He has the same skill set but is more athletic than Freeman so hopefully they can improve that offensive line then he can be top 10 PPR in Shannahans system

https://www.playerprofiler.com/nfl/jerick-mckinnon/

They already changed his picture...

Thats been his picture for months now.

[Ka Boom!]

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

[Valhalla]

What in the hell was SF thinking. This is way too much money and Hyde was better

lmao... How was Hyde better? As a former Hyde owner... Thanks but no thanks. I'd much rather have Hyde and his "potential" to be someone else's problem.

He was right at 4.0 yards per attempt and close to 60 catches. I'll take that "potential," especially at a lower cost

60 catches is nice at a glance, sure. But the 49ers were force feeding the rbs, and actually Hyde and Breida didn’t do much with the volume they were given. I believe Hyde got the 5th? most targets in the league, behind Bell, mccaffrey, Duke, Kamara (incorrect order I think). I believe his catch % was not approaching the other top targeted backs. In other words, he wasn’t efficient as a receiving back, but he was their option. Getting fed doesn’t mean you’re great. Just the best option available (until the offseason).

[WhatWouldDitkaDo]

lmao... How was Hyde better? As a former Hyde owner... Thanks but no thanks. I'd much rather have Hyde and his "potential" to be someone else's problem.

He was right at 4.0 yards per attempt and close to 60 catches. I'll take that "potential," especially at a lower cost

60 catches is nice at a glance, sure. But the 49ers were force feeding the rbs, and actually Hyde and Breida didn’t do much with the volume they were given. I believe Hyde got the 5th? most targets in the league, behind Bell, mccaffrey, Duke, Kamara (incorrect order I think). I believe his catch % was not approaching the other top targeted backs. In other words, he wasn’t efficient as a receiving back, but he was their option. Getting fed doesn’t mean you’re great. Just the best option available (until the offseason).

FWIW Hyde's high target share was also somewhat linked to QB ineptitude by Brian Hoyer and CJ Beathard. Hyde's targets per game dropped once Jimmy Garoppolo took over and was able to move the offense without constantly checking it down to the RB. I expect McKinnon to be involved in the passing game, but I wouldn't expect him to get a crazy high amount of receptions.

[bsp27]

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

I think the fact that Mckinnon hasn't topped 4 ypc over the last 2 years is concerning. He's never showcased efficiency in between the tackles on high volume. Do you really think that Shanahan can make him a more efficient feature back?

Mckinnon is an excellent satellite back but has struggled between the tackles for his entire career. I don't see how his coach can change that.

[bsp27]

Mckinnon is probably the strongest sell in dynasty right now.

[skip]

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.

[bsp27]

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.

[metalmat]

It's a good a landing spot but I think it's pretty obvious that McKinnon is not going to ever be a featured back

[Valhalla]

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.

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

[Fezzik]

Weeks 5-16 he was a low Rb1 in ppg in every league format i play in. Won 2 titles with him.

Impressed me. And more importantly, Shanahan.

Won’t argue they overpaid; sure they did. Who cares? They had cap, saw someone they liked and got him. Not any of our money.

He scores fantasy points. Lots of them. Now he has one of the best offensive minds in the League scheming for him, and this guy happened to really want him. Maybe cuz he’s good at football?

Don’t overthink it. Treat him like a back end rb1. There’s very few dominantors of touches in the nfl. Leveon, Gurley, Elliot, Fournette. Probably Barkley. Everyone else is in a timeshare. He will lead this timeshare it seems.

Sure there’s better players so sell if you want but don’t pretend he’s not an asset.

[bsp27]

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.

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?

[Jfever]

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.

[_yeti]

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.

[. . .]
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.
[. . .]

THIS. Context is everything, especially in a sport where everything interacts the way football does. Murray is stronger between the tackles, plays a little bigger than McKinnon, that is all he has on McKinnon. The fact is, and I have lamented this on these forums, the NFL has become all about the pass pass pass pass. Fact of the matter is, McKinnon is an excellent receiving back and most of those are just specialists. He can handle early down work also unlike people like Riddick and Cohen.

Is he the best between the tackles? No. Does he need to be to put up fantasy points, especially in PPR? Nope!

[gopackgo]

With McKinnon and Breida there, can I now cut Joe Williams? (who I spent a 2nd on last year...)