Vikings Message Board.Com

Mckinnon has legit high level talent and would have been the starter since week 2 if it wasn't for the way he played ball at his small school in college where he played QB, WR, punt returner, and so on outside of RB.

He's a bit like Barr in that regard, if either guy had 1 more legit year as a player at their NFL position they would have been drafted much much higher than where they were. Asiata will only be there to give Mckinnon a break once in a while, but not much more.

mondry wrote:Mckinnon has legit high level talent and would have been the starter since week 2 if it wasn't for the way he played ball at his small school in college where he played QB, WR, punt returner, and so on outside of RB.

He's a bit like Barr in that regard, if either guy had 1 more legit year as a player at their NFL position they would have been drafted much much higher than where they were. Asiata will only be there to give Mckinnon a break once in a while, but not much more.

And probably take any goal line carries we might have. He seems pretty adept at scoring touchdowns from inside the 3 yard line as well, which is nothing to sneeze at.

The large athletic freak RB ala Heyward and Bettis that some of you are talking about is the guy we drafted playing LB right now.

The Breeze wrote:The large athletic freak RB ala Heyward and Bettis that some of you are talking about is the guy we drafted playing LB right now.

Good point. Maybe they should re-convert him or make a him a dual position player.

(That's not meant to be taken seriously)

Mothman wrote:
Good point. Maybe they should re-convert him or make a him a dual position player.

(That's not meant to be taken seriously)

I'd like to see what he could do as a ball carrier....after watching his speed on display. The guy is pretty amazing. Imagine him catching a little swing pass and bearing down on a DB.

oh well

The Breeze wrote: I'd like to see what he could do as a ball carrier....after watching his speed on display. The guy is pretty amazing. Imagine him catching a little swing pass and bearing down on a DB.

oh well

You wouldn't want to imagine it if you were that DB!

Would fit better in a more open offense. But Teddy probably would to. Wish our OCs would adjust more. Norv came out against Atlanta ran more of the read-option/draw stuff. Sweeps. And since then nothing but vanilla 90s big ten offense despite the personnel changes. Reminds me of when Ponder went down, Webb comes in, and same old offense is being run.

Maybe throw in a big more shotgun, let him see the field, where the pressure is coming from. Get McKinnon and Patterson both in the backfield! (HA! Remember that from Harvin/AD?). Clearly three receivers on patterns and a cloud of dust isn't getting it done!

Demi wrote:Would fit better in a more open offense. But Teddy probably would to. Wish our OCs would adjust more. Norv came out against Atlanta ran more of the read-option/draw stuff. Sweeps. And since then nothing but vanilla 90s big ten offense despite the personnel changes. Reminds me of when Ponder went down, Webb comes in, and same old offense is being run.

Maybe throw in a big more shotgun, let him see the field, where the pressure is coming from. Get McKinnon and Patterson both in the backfield! (HA! Remember that from Harvin/AD?). Clearly three receivers on patterns and a cloud of dust isn't getting it done!

Do you think the gameplan used against atlanta would've worked against Detroit/Buffalo?

fiestavike wrote: Do you think the gameplan used against atlanta would've worked against Detroit/Buffalo?

Do you think the gameplan used against Detroit/Buffalo would have worked against Detroit/Buffalo?
Norv did, how'd that work out for him.

Demi wrote: Do you think the gameplan used against Detroit/Buffalo would have worked against Detroit/Buffalo?
Norv did, how'd that work out for him.

That's not the question. But I notice you didn't answer mine! The question is what would have worked against those defenses. Do you have any idea?

fiestavike wrote: That's not the question. But I notice you didn't answer mine! The question is what would have worked against those defenses. Do you have any idea?

I think running a generic line up and try to beat your sums with mine sums isn't going to work missing half your offensive line, using your backup QB, one WR legged at receiver, your #3 running back. Would it have worked? I don't know, just like no one knows if it wouldn't have. We DO know what we did do DIDN'T work.

I don't think we're going to have much success against any half decent defense lining up in the I and trying to beat them with the same offense Norv planned on running with Cassell and AD. And that's exactly what we're seeing.

But heck, it might work this week against one of the worst defenses in the league! And at least we should keep games close.

Demi wrote: Do you think the gameplan used against Detroit/Buffalo would have worked against Detroit/Buffalo?
Norv did, how'd that work out for him.

Right because you know more than Norv? You know what it's like to game plan against these teams. If you were handed his game plan would you think it would work?? You would probably have no clue so lets not stretch it too far

Pondering Her Percy wrote: Right because you know more than Norv? You know what it's like to game plan against these teams. If you were handed his game plan would you think it would work?? You would probably have no clue so lets not stretch it too far

After ten years of incompetent QBs running this same generic offense? At some point I'd like to see an offensive coordinator at least TRY something different. Too much to ask? Seems like it. Was nice to see some flashy stuff now and then with Patterson, and Teddy on the read/option early on. But I guess it wouldn't work against the Bills and Lions so thank god we didn't try it, because wow did our offense show how well it worked *not* doing it.

Worst passing offense, bottom 5 scoring offense. Sorry I'm off base. You're right. NOOOOOORV!!!!!

Demi wrote:
I think running a generic line up and try to beat your sums with mine sums isn't going to work missing half your offensive line, using your backup QB, one WR legged at receiver, your #3 running back. Would it have worked? I don't know, just like no one knows if it wouldn't have. We DO know what we did do DIDN'T work.

So are you essentially acknowledging that you have no idea what might have worked better?

Now that we have that on record, please continue to criticize Norv Turner.

Demi wrote:
After ten years of incompetent QBs running this same generic offense? At some point I'd like to see an offensive coordinator at least TRY something different. Too much to ask? Seems like it. Was nice to see some flashy stuff now and then with Patterson, and Teddy on the read/option early on. But I guess it wouldn't work against the Bills and Lions so thank god we didn't try it, because wow did our offense show how well it worked *not* doing it.

Worst passing offense, bottom 5 scoring offense. Sorry I'm off base. You're right. NOOOOOORV!!!!!

What same generic offense?? Norv's offense is nothing like Musgraves. Everyone one is bashing Norv for his one FB play he ran vs Buffalo. With Musgrave we were calling out 5-6 bad play calls a game.