All that said, Michael is not a guy that I would expect the "look backward to look forward" crowd to appreciate. People wired to think like that aren't going to "get" him until he's succeeded beyond a reasonable doubt. As I've often said, that approach is great for avoiding big mistakes and embarrassing calls, but it's also great for ensuring that you miss out on a huge percentage of breakout players (because there will always be someone willing to outbid you for a Patterson, Michael, Cooks, Hunter, Hyde while you play the "prove it" game). Different strokes for different folks, but I like the "look forward to look backward" mindset myself and that's why most of my analysis is based on what's going to happen and not what already did.
I think you're trying to pigeonhole the people who disagree with you. I wish you wouldn't. I have no problem ranking players high before they prove it. Watkins is my #18 overall player- I've got him higher than any staffer except for Parsons (and I don't think even you would try to out-youth Parsons). I've got Tavon Austin 13 spots higher than the staff consensus (and 6 spots higher than any other individual staffer) despite not having "seen it" yet with him. Jordan Reed was my #15 dynasty TE last offseason as a 3rd round pick with zero career snaps. I was the highest staffer on Julius Thomas last offseason, dating all the way back to May when Bloom and I were the only ones who even had him ranked. Who has two thumbs and is one of the two highest staffers on Manziel, Bortles, and Bridgewater? This guy! Who is the guy who has been saying for years that nobody in the NFL- not no one- is worth four rookie first round picks? That'd be me, picking the side of the yet-to-prove-it over the side of the succeeded-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt. Do you not remember the epic debates I used to have to get in to try to justify my high Devin Hester ranking when he first switched to WR? What had he proven at that point that was causing me to rank him that high?
Maybe it's easier for you to think that I am lower on Christine Michael than you are because I routinely need to "see it" before I'm going to place fair value on anyone, and that's some sort of flaw in my operating system that savvy owners like you are able to exploit. The truth is that I'm lower on Christine Michael than you are because I just don't think Christine Michael is that good of a prospect. I think the Michael backers are not adequately accounting for the full range of possible outcomes and pricing Michael fairly based on the resulting risk and reward. I think when you say you're pricing him on
"what's going to happen", what you really mean is that you're pricing him based on your expectations, and I think you should be pricing him on EV instead. And I resent the implication that most of my analysis is based on what already happened rather than an attempt to predict what is going to happen. Honestly, that's a ludicrous straw man, and I'd be glad to dress it up in armor, stick it on a horse, and take a few more turns in the lists with it.
We're both trying to predict what will happen, here. You have your methods. I have mine. Sometimes we disagree. When we do, it's not because you're enlightened and have discovered the secret of what we're really trying to measure while I'm fumbling around in the dark with a 3-year-old copy of the NFL Record and Fact book and a 300-level stats textbook from the '70s. It's because sometimes smart, educated, earnest, well-intentioned people disagree. Be thankful they do, because otherwise fantasy football would be an awfully boring hobby.