What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Latavius Murray to the Vikings (1 Viewer)

It may be the early morning hours in the midwest, but that didn’t stop the Minnesota Vikings from making an addition to their roster on Thursday.

The team announced they have signed former Oakland Raiders running back Latavius Murray.

It was an experience,” Murray said of free agency in an interview with the Vikings’ website. ” Obviously it being my first time, I didn’t really know what to expect but just glad I get the chance to play the game again with a great team with great history here in Minnesota.”

Murray visited the Vikings on Wednesday and didn’t leave town before signing with the team. Murray scored a career-high 12 touchdowns last year with the Raiders in rushing for 788 yards in 14 games with Oakland. He’s gained 2,278 yards with 20 touchdowns and caught 91 passes for 639 yards in three seasons played with the Raiders.

The signing of Murray also potentially closes the door on Adrian Peterson returning to the Vikings.

 
Depends on your thoughts on AP going forward. Did we not see how bad AP was before he tore up his knee, again? AP is done, age catches everyone. 31 carries for 50 yards, then a knee. Pass. Will be 32 this month and two major knee injuries. Charles is done too and he is younger.

 
Am I dumb to say that I'd rather have Latavius than AP at this point?
Not necessarily, but Murray is going to have a tough go behind that Vikings O-line, especially with that upward running style he has.  It worked behind that top notch line in Oakland, but not sure it will in Minnesota. 

 
I dont expect great things here. Good signing for Mn as he's now the best back they have, but the line needs to improve in a major way.

 
I dont expect great things here. Good signing for Mn as he's now the best back they have, but the line needs to improve in a major way.
Is he? I don't own McKinnon in any leagues, so don't label me as a hopeful owner, but I'm not ready to write him off just yet. Murray has barely hit 4 ypc behind one of the better lines in the league and he'll be going to one of the worst (see link below). I wouldn't be shocked if McKinnon outplays him. I'll probably be avoiding this situation altogether with the expectation that I'll be able to grab McKinnon off the waiver wire early in the season in redrafts. I might see if I can get him for a late pick in dynasty now.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol

 
Not necessarily, but Murray is going to have a tough go behind that Vikings O-line, especially with that upward running style he has.  It worked behind that top notch line in Oakland, but not sure it will in Minnesota. 
Reiff/Remmers aren't elite but should be huge upgrades compared to last year. It likely won't be the same line you saw last year - barring injury.

Having said that, Murray is not an exciting signing.

 
I'll pick a team of guys whose adp is in the 8th round or later, and you can take all the Vikings.  Redraft or dynasty.  What a wasteland. 

 
All Murray dynasty owners are cursing this news, and he might be soon. A small contract with a team who can't run the ball is not a good deal. He would have been better off waiting for a camp injury to a contender and would have got more on a better team. 

The Vikings sold their future down the river for a hail marry when they traded for Bradford. I'd suspect the 2015 division title will be there high water mark for the next 5-6 years. Now they have lost AP, Bridgewater might be lost from reports, and Bradford is past due to have an injury given his history. 10 Bucks says the vikings are last in the division this year. 

 
Remmers, Reiff and the draft still...All this talk about the line, when will people get rid of rhetoric? This is why we see players dip in drafts and then later that year people say, "I did not see this coming." Now why do people say those things at the end of the year, because they follow narrative instead of prognosticate in a legit way. Last year with RBs like Asiata, McKinnon a bad AP and even Hillman? GTFOH blaming just the line with that mess. They get a better RB and do get an upgrade on the line and people stick to same old "tired lines" if you will, avoid that pun.

Am I expecting lights out from Murray? No, I am not. But I'm not going to be short sighted and think last year has anything to do with this year when new players are on different teams.
I can go to last years offseason and give you the rhetoric and McCoy and DMurray and Ajayi and Freeman and on the other end of the spectrum Gurley? Narrative had the opposite of how those players did at this point last year. Careful how much you but into storylines.

 
Remmers, Reiff and the draft still...All this talk about the line, when will people get rid of rhetoric? This is why we see players dip in drafts and then later that year people say, "I did not see this coming." Now why do people say those things at the end of the year, because they follow narrative instead of prognosticate in a legit way. Last year with RBs like Asiata, McKinnon a bad AP and even Hillman? GTFOH blaming just the line with that mess. They get a better RB and do get an upgrade on the line and people stick to same old "tired lines" if you will, avoid that pun.

Am I expecting lights out from Murray? No, I am not. But I'm not going to be short sighted and think last year has anything to do with this year when new players are on different teams.
I can go to last years offseason and give you the rhetoric and McCoy and DMurray and Ajayi and Freeman and on the other end of the spectrum Gurley? Narrative had the opposite of how those players did at this point last year. Careful how much you but into storylines.
Fair enough.  Do you think Murray is better off in Minnesota than Oakland? 

 
He was sharing a lot in Oakland, sure he had a way better line, but with such few reps what was his value really worth to the team? If we are talking NFL, sure he had a better chance to win in Oakland, but he can contribute more in Minny. In fantasy, its about points. Minny was a decent team, started 6-1 remember, then collapsed. No running game and Murray can help with that. Detroit is not the greatest D and neither is Chicago and now he plays them twice. Packers are not notorious for stopping the run. But playing KC and Den twice? Not that great. He had 12 TDs last year, I do not see that, but then again Minnesota pounds the ball at the stripe a ton too. Asiata scores 3 a game sometimes. I call it a wash in value.

Murray better than any RB in Minny last year, thats including AP who ran 31 times for 50 yards. The line was blocking for terrible RBs. Lots factor into this. I think he is a 200 point kinda guy still in PPR. Bottom end RB1.

 
Fair enough.  Do you think Murray is better off in Minnesota than Oakland? 
This can go in several directions. Is he looking to win, add stat lines or bank money? No idea what, if anything, Oakland offered him in terms of a contract. 

FWIW "Wheels Up", the Vikings were never 6-1. 

 
He was sharing a lot in Oakland, sure he had a way better line, but with such few reps what was his value really worth to the team? If we are talking NFL, sure he had a better chance to win in Oakland, but he can contribute more in Minny. In fantasy, its about points. Minny was a decent team, started 6-1 remember, then collapsed. No running game and Murray can help with that. Detroit is not the greatest D and neither is Chicago and now he plays them twice. Packers are not notorious for stopping the run. But playing KC and Den twice? Not that great. He had 12 TDs last year, I do not see that, but then again Minnesota pounds the ball at the stripe a ton too. Asiata scores 3 a game sometimes. I call it a wash in value.

Murray better than any RB in Minny last year, thats including AP who ran 31 times for 50 yards. The line was blocking for terrible RBs. Lots factor into this. I think he is a 200 point kinda guy still in PPR. Bottom end RB1.
5-0. Then collapsed. 

I don't see rb1 type.  Might be an okay rb2. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Remmers, Reiff and the draft still...All this talk about the line, when will people get rid of rhetoric? This is why we see players dip in drafts and then later that year people say, "I did not see this coming." Now why do people say those things at the end of the year, because they follow narrative instead of prognosticate in a legit way. Last year with RBs like Asiata, McKinnon a bad AP and even Hillman? GTFOH blaming just the line with that mess. They get a better RB and do get an upgrade on the line and people stick to same old "tired lines" if you will, avoid that pun.

Am I expecting lights out from Murray? No, I am not. But I'm not going to be short sighted and think last year has anything to do with this year when new players are on different teams.
I can go to last years offseason and give you the rhetoric and McCoy and DMurray and Ajayi and Freeman and on the other end of the spectrum Gurley? Narrative had the opposite of how those players did at this point last year. Careful how much you but into storylines.
You think Remmers (really?) and Reiff are going to help Minnesota surpass Oakland's 2016 in run blocking efficiency? If yes, you're crazy. If no, then settle down. Nobody is saying Minnesota is going to be ranked 30th again - the main point is that Murray was barely serviceable (4.0 ypc) with a good QB and good OL. Bradford and that OL are both going to be mediocre at best next year. That's not rhetoric, that's not short-sighted... that's common sense. Murray needs good blocking, lots of volume, and a bunch of goal line carries (20 for 10 TDs last year) to be fantasy relevant. He'll be lucky to have 1 out of 3 next year.

 
The question seems to be "Are the Vikings' improvements to their offensive line enough to turn an average back into a good one?"

The answer is "no". 

 
The question seems to be "Are the Vikings' improvements to their offensive line enough to turn an average back into a good one?"

The answer is "no". 
Right. But AP did virtually nothing in the passing game and was below average in protection. I'm hoping Murray can provide a more balanced game. 

 
Yeah I dont know why I even typed 6-1 and I meant 5-0. Thats just a mistype if ever seen one.
Yes, Remmers is better than what they had. Talking about Murray as an average back? lol He is better than most.
Remarks like some above with so much certainty is why people are always wrong at the end of the year.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Good signing by MIN. McKinnon is not the answer there. They have a great defense and are a good RB and good OL away from being very very formidable. They may win the division this year. But that all depends on the OL which hasn't had the major overhaul it needs.

I expected them to resign AP, but this signing actually makes sense for them. Murray isn't a complete back like AP was but they don't need one because they have some decent backs to be in RBBC with Murray getting the lion's share
 

 
That line in Oakland was as good as any in the NFL, meanwhile the Vikings were as bad as any in the NFL. Murray is nothing special, and they will find that out very quickly, Oakland made no effort to re-sign the guy. 

Honestly, I think its very likely that Murray is unable to beat out McKinnon for the starting job. He'll basically fill Asiata's short yardage role from last year.

 
Good signing by MIN. McKinnon is not the answer there. They have a great defense and are a good RB and good OL away from being very very formidable. They may win the division this year. But that all depends on the OL which hasn't had the major overhaul it needs.

I expected them to resign AP, but this signing actually makes sense for them. Murray isn't a complete back like AP was but they don't need one because they have some decent backs to be in RBBC with Murray getting the lion's share
 
I agree with most of what you said. AP however, is not a complete back. 

 
I agree with most of what you said. AP however, is not a complete back. 
True but what I meant by that was I don't see Murray getting the workload that AP had gotten historically. I see it more split up because Murray isn't the same kind as AP was. I see Murray being used slightly more but similar to how he was used in Oakland. 

 
I agree with most of what you said. AP however, is not a complete back. 
Exactly. In his prime that didn't matter. But with the necessity of a shorter passing game and the greater need for additional protection, plus his age, honestly he's replaceable now. 

 
He's on an essentially one year contract which makes him a "break glass in case of emergency" guy in case they don't get what they want in the draft.  

$3.4 million guaranteed at signing for Latavius Murray

Latavius Murray is now a Viking. He may be a Viking for only one year.

Via Ben Goessling of ESPN.com, Murray’s three-year contract has $3.4 million guaranteed at signing. Another $5.15 million that is guaranteed less than fully at this point becomes fully guaranteed on the third day of the 2018 league year.

That gives the Vikings a chance to decide based on 2017 that they want to move on.

The deal has a total value (with incentives) of $15 million over three years. So the Vikings have hardly broken the bank on Murray, and they’ve hardly made a clear commitment to him.

The deal underscores the soft nature of the running back market, which doesn’t bode well for Adrian Peterson, Jamaal Charles, or any of the other players looking for jobs in an industry where plenty of rookies who can move the chains flood the market every year.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Seems like a good move for the Vikings.  One year deal in reality, Murray has 74 catches out of the backfield the past two years, upgrade over AP, could be a three down back.  The Vikings can now spend their draft picks on o lineman.

 
Yeah I dont know why I even typed 6-1 and I meant 5-0. Thats just a mistype if ever seen one.
Yes, Remmers is better than what they had. Talking about Murray as an average back? lol He is better than most.
Remarks like some above with so much certainty is why people are always wrong at the end of the year.
Guess it depends on who you're comparing him to but as a runner he looked and performed no better and slightly worse than Washington and Richard.  Decent receiving back, but nothing special there either.  

Did the Vikings and Raiders essentially trade Patterson and Murray?  

 
3.4 guaranteed? I was thinking way less than that. That assures me he will get the ball this year, a lot. Next year we can talk next year, but this year he is getting the ball if healthy.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
travdogg said:
That line in Oakland was as good as any in the NFL, meanwhile the Vikings were as bad as any in the NFL. Murray is nothing special, and they will find that out very quickly, Oakland made no effort to re-sign the guy. 

Honestly, I think its very likely that Murray is unable to beat out McKinnon for the starting job. He'll basically fill Asiata's short yardage role from last year.
I actually took this signing as great news for Mckinnon.

 
McKinnon
2016 - 159/539/2 ---43/255/2
2015 - 52/271/2 ---21/173/1
2014 - 113/538/0 ---27/135/0

Murray
2016 - 195/788/12 ---33/264/0
2015 - 267/1066/6 ---41/232/0
2014 - 82/424/2 ---17/143/0

 
Last edited by a moderator:
McKinnon
2016 -159/539/2 43 255 2 53
2015 -52/271/2 21 173 1 29
2014 -113/538 27 135 41

Murray
2016 -195/788/12 33 264 43
2015 -267/1066/6 41 232 53
2014 -82/424/2 17 143 23
Not exactly an apples to apples comparison.

Offensive line rankings:

2016:

Vikings: 29

Raiders: 4

2015:

Vikings: 14

Raiders: 6

2014:

Vikings:21

Raiders:16

 
Bojang0301 said:
I think the Vikings made Murray an offer around the beginning of free agency. He was checking out some other options. They basically made it known what they were willing to pay for a RB and not more.

As the offensive line is trying to improve I think having a RB who is good in pass protection is important until the line proves they can protect the QB without help from RB and TE. Murray was tied for 3rd in pass protection last season according to PFF. So I see him as a good fit with the Vikings for this reason.

Murray also has run the ball decently out of the shotgun formation which the Vikings used a lot once Shurmur took over. Again this was an adjustment to the poor pass protection, giving Bradford some more space to get rid of the ball.

I see Murray as a bridge RB to tandem with McKinnon and an upgrade from Matt Asiata. The Vikings will still draft a RB. Possibly more than one depending on how they feel about Ham.

Personally I have never been a fan of Murray as a RB. He has the skill set that the Vikings offense needs at this time. I am happy with the move but I would still expect the Vikings to draft a RB to compete with Murray and Jet this season.

 
Not I, I can argue the Vikings OLine looked so bad statistically running the ball because of a McKinnon and Asiata and he world beater Hillman not doing anything. Its a legit narrative, but by that logic McKinnon should still suck this year behind that line and shouldnt do any better.

At this point every time someone brings up OLine, I will mention the talent that was running behind it, so you can stop mentioning OLine, and Ill stop mentioning that RB core was the worst.

The Vikings gave up 38 sacks, how many were from the RBs? Murray is a fantastic blocker, McKinnon was atrocious.

The OLine is soo bad and McKinnon is so great, but they are going to draft RBs, maybe 2?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
hoffman0001 said:
All Murray dynasty owners are cursing this news, and he might be soon. A small contract with a team who can't run the ball is not a good deal. He would have been better off waiting for a camp injury to a contender and would have got more on a better team. 

The Vikings sold their future down the river for a hail marry when they traded for Bradford. I'd suspect the 2015 division title will be there high water mark for the next 5-6 years. Now they have lost AP, Bridgewater might be lost from reports, and Bradford is past due to have an injury given his history. 10 Bucks says the vikings are last in the division this year. 
Six to eight years because of one first round pick?

I guess you have this all figured out.  :excited:

 
Not I, I can argue the Vikings OLine looked so bad statistically running the ball because of a McKinnon and Asiata and he world beater Hillman not doing anything. Its a legit narrative, but by that logic McKinnon should still suck this year behind that line and shouldnt do any better.

At this point every time someone brings up OLine, I will mention the talent that was running behind it, so you can stop mentioning OLine, and Ill stop mentioning that RB core was the worst.

The Vikings gave up 38 sacks, how many were from the RBs? Murray is a fantastic blocker, McKinnon was atrocious.

The OLine is soo bad and McKinnon is so great, but they are going to draft RBs, maybe 2?
Not idea why you want to protect last year's line? They were terrible. It is possible that both the line and RBs were untalented. 

 
I dont want to protect them, they were not good. I cant lie. But so many factors go into it, you are trying to over simplify it.
You are not taking into account that the RBs were terrible. I have said Murray is no stud, but he is better than anything Minny had.
I do not think Murray is a stud, but him in Minny is intriguing. I understand McKinnon owners trying to hype themselves up, but McKinnon is limited.

 
Not I, I can argue the Vikings OLine looked so bad statistically running the ball because of a McKinnon and Asiata and he world beater Hillman not doing anything. Its a legit narrative, but by that logic McKinnon should still suck this year behind that line and shouldnt do any better.

At this point every time someone brings up OLine, I will mention the talent that was running behind it, so you can stop mentioning OLine, and Ill stop mentioning that RB core was the worst.

The Vikings gave up 38 sacks, how many were from the RBs? Murray is a fantastic blocker, McKinnon was atrocious.

The OLine is soo bad and McKinnon is so great, but they are going to draft RBs, maybe 2?
For well over a decade I have been trying to find a way to adjust RB stats for offensive line play. I have never really found a way to do that. Open to ideas if anyone has them.

Football is a team sport and you do need at least a certain level of blocking for plays to be effective. The Vikings did not have that for the majority of the 2016 season and most of the 2015 season as well. The injury to Phil Loadholt and John Sullivan started a domino effect of really poor blocking execution. Then the Vikings lost Kalil to injury in 2016 as well (and Kalil was not playing good, just better than the guys who replaced him).

You could say the offensive line wasn't that great before the injuries to Loadholt and Sullivan, and they did give up a lot of sacks even when they were running the ball well. Those two linemen were better run blockers than they were pass protectors.

Peterson was able to run the ball very well despite the offensive line, which is kind of what you are talking about, that it isn't all about the offensive line, good players can overcome poor line play. 

The flip side of that of course is average players can perform great if the blocking is consistently great.

As far as sacks goes there is plenty of blame to go around. Matt Asiata and Jerrick McKinnon failed a handful of those protection assignments but the player who gave up the most pressure was tackle TJ Clemmings. If your offensive line is doing the job, then the RB and TE blocking won't come into play as often. If they are giving up pressure consistently such as TJ Clemmings was, then you need a RB or TE to help out more often. The Vikings would line up Zach Line and Rhett Ellison in the backfield as this second line of protection a lot because they know the pressure is going to get past their tackles. Doing this limits the number of passing options and simplifies the coverage for the defense. If the defense is playing man, then the players who are assigned to the FB/TE/RB will blitz when those players are in the backfield.

Jerrick McKinnon has some good abilities. He can be very elusive at times and he runs with good power for a player of his size. Very athletically gifted player but not good enough to overcome the other weaknesses of the offense. It makes it difficult to judge him fairly based on play last season. He has made some improvement as a receiver, which is an area where he was pretty raw coming out of college. He is still not quite completely comfortable in this role but I have seen improvement from him in his release into a route and timing. If McKinnon was the answer and could handle 300 touches a year, I think we would have seen that from him by now if it was there. He had a big chunk of games where he played well without Peterson being in his way in 2014 and 2016 but didn't get that done. So I am not really expecting him to moving forward.

It is a very good RB class in the draft. I think most teams besides the Cowboys should be looking to add one at some point of the draft. The Vikings definitely have a need for RBs on their team. That does not mean McKinnon isn't also a good player though.

 
Six to eight years because of one first round pick?

I guess you have this all figured out.  :excited:
Try reading sometime.....maybe an adult class in the evening? "Now they have lost AP, Bridgewater might be lost from reports, and Bradford is past due to have an injury given his history" Where did I say because of one pick?

 
People still think McKinnon can be some sort of lead back?
No, never did but a big time part of a RBBC who is adept at catching passes? Yes, 100%.

I'll let people go play with stats but he was learning how to play the position when he came into the league and last year was banged up a lot of time behind a poor OL.

 
Has anyone been able to sniff out the desperate Murray owner grasping for straws in this thread?

If he's your RB1 just admit that 2017 will be a rebuilding year and move on accordingly. Don't try to set yourself up for inevitable disappointment.

 
Jokes on you Ninja. I dont even own him, he is just the new FA signing and a topic of discussion today.
Is that how you sum up discussion, people only talk positively about players if they own them? You know better.
I dont think Murray is a stud and I explained myself, maybe you should go back and read, instead of troll me.
Do better, this is not the FFA. Also, I still dont like you for beating me in the survivor finals ;-)

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top