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.
Christine Michael (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Black
- Start date
- Status
ATB
Footballguy
I'm considering dropping CMike too. Ahmad Bradshaw may be signed to Indy within days (and he knows that offense already). Joique Bell is being dropped by a lot of owners after just one outing in Detroit (and his coach is claiming he's still top dog when he's fully healthy). Jaryd Hayne looked great in SF and will likely be the lead for punt returns (and will get some work behind Hyde at times).
CMike is promising but he's not even active yet. There are plenty of other options that could payoff better at the end of the season.
Ditka Butkus
Footballguy
I dropped him for Dion Lewis...Reason: Lewis is actually active and playing...
Koya
Footballguy
All joking aside, for deep roster leagues I definitely could find a spot for him, and in dynasty he has to be rostered and likely is.
That said, for most of us, we took a chance that he might shine, and while we may still happen, the first game brings a lot of clarity. Might he look great, one or two of their backs go down and Michael brings some FF championships? Sure, it's happened before.
But even IF he does that - and chances are he won't come close, just the probabilities - we are talking at the least a few weeks down the road.
If you are 0-1, or even if not, and you have short rosters and have a chance to get say, James Jones or Montcrief, maybe you need Chris Johnson for two weeks when you know he will start, or a nice TE pickup (until he gets hurt) in Reed. There are SO many options that you'd generally have to take over Michael for most situations.
I like the guy. In one league with deep rosters, he's a great type of 2nd half lottery because you have depth elsewhere. But in my two other leagues, he's the first guy to get cut because there are contributors that will do so starting now, not in a few weeks, maybe, if everything goes right.
So in that way, yes, have to be impatient or you sit on a bunch of losses and can then breeze to the toilet bowl when he shines late season. Which he likely won't (but I hope he does)
bicycle_seat_sniffer
Smells like chicken
I think with Dubar taking the passing down hurry up 3rd down back role and being a pass catcher it will limit CMike into only getting a chance if Randle is injured.
Lets see if he can pick up the playbook in the coming weeks. In a shallow bench league I just don't have the room
Lets see if he can pick up the playbook in the coming weeks. In a shallow bench league I just don't have the room
Koya
Footballguy
I'd MUCH rather have Williams. Has shown more this year, by far, than Michael. Has FAR less ahead of him re: opportunity, playing behind a star who may be getting fragile as he ages, and RBs can sometimes age real quick.
Not even close, imo. For redraft or dynasty.
ATB
Footballguy
EBF
Footballguy
Disagree with most of that. Williams is the second best back in Buffalo (at best). In redraft, there typically isn't much value in having a guy who will never start barring injuries.
The odds of Michael beating out Randle and company seem much greater than the odds of Karlos beating out McCoy.
I could see more of an argument in dynasty, but I personally never rated Karlos very highly at all and neither did the league, letting him slip to the late 5th round of the draft in May. I haven't watched him at all since he joined Buffalo, but he was never a favorite of mine in college.
jurrassic
Footballguy
I have no idea if Michael will ever get the chance he needs, but all it takes is a slight knee or ankle tweak to one of the backs in front of him. Yes, Randle had 100 combined yards and had a nice one handed reception but I can't remember him breaking a single tackle. Michael is a more physical and talented runner than Randle is and with the passing game limited and the potential of more two tight ends sets the Cowboys are going to need rb's who can get the extra yards. All Michael needs is a game in week 4 in which he has 6 carries for 48 yards. At that point Garrett will state that Michael has "earned the opportunity" for more reps.
Interseptopus
Footballguy
I think this whole deal is just a ploy to motivate Joseph Randle
Fat Nick
Footballguy
I don't think he said he's less competition. He said he's potentially fragile. I agree with Koya here...I'd rather have Williams. IF McCoy goes down, Williams is a bell-cow back. IF Michaels learns the system, beats Randall, beats McFadden, and beats Dunbar, he would likely be a 2-down back with goal-line work while Dunbar takes 3rd downs.
You can speculate all you want, but I think Williams will have a lot more value this year than Michaels. People forget that Seattle cut him for a reason. They're not exactly loaded at RB. They clearly felt aging Fred Jackson was a better option than Michaels, so some talent evaluator with a lot more talent than us looked at him and felt he wasn't worth it...not sure why he'd suddenly go to Dallas and overcome whatever obstacles he had in Seattle.
Johnny Blood
Footballguy
Did any of you watch the Cowboys and think, hey, I wish Randle were on my favorite team?
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
I didnt think that about a single Cowboy or Giant player all game long.
Only in those final two drives (for all of 4minutes and 19seconds worth of drives) with two Witten tds and Romo padding 145 yards/2tds.
Fat Nick
Footballguy
Not to nitpick, but...
He's got 2, potentially 3 backs in front of him right now. Williams has one.
...who was cut by Seattle who signed Fred Jackson. Nobody has ever called Fred Jackson overly physical or talented. There's a lot more to playing RB in the NFL than physical ability, and talent goes well beyond just ability. You have to be able to block and pick up blitzes, etc. Further, IF the passing game is limited, what's to say the Cowboys don't turn to a Dunbar more who can help out in the passing game? Why bang endlessly at an 8-man front?
Don't disagree here...but "more reps" when there are 3 other competent backs could be 7...8...10? I just don't see Dallas moving to a bell-cow back like Murray was last year.
Interseptopus
Footballguy
Not real fair. As a packer fan, no I am quite content with our rb. But if your team was Indianapolis maybe you're singing a different tune
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
I dunno.
19 touches by Randle in the opener in his first ever start, a game where they went pass heavy with 2:1 ratio and they won.
Jerry Jones just said yesterday that Randle should have 22,23,24 carries in a normal game.
Johnny Blood
Footballguy
As of right now the Cowboys' all-universe offensive line is generating 3.5 yards per carry. So amp up Randle's carries to 24. What does that get you? What does Jerry see when he's watching this running game? What's going to prevent him from seeing what someone else can do?
Don't get me wrong, I'm on the verge of cutting Michael, but the quality of his competition is being overrated.
Don't get me wrong, I'm on the verge of cutting Michael, but the quality of his competition is being overrated.
Last edited by a moderator:
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Randle was just over 4 in his first start. So that endears him to more usage over DMC, which is what Jones said.
*In Murrays first ever start, for Dallas, he averaged 3.1. The following week he ran for 250.
Last edited by a moderator:
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
The folks bashing Fred Jackson in here (to bash Michael by proxy) are pretty misguided. Fred has been a great RB. At his age, he probably isn't suited for a huge workload anymore, but as far as being a reliable versatile veteran backup, he's great.
If getting pushed aside by Fred Jackson means a player sucks, then you guys should probably let Marshawn Lynch and CJ Spiller know.
If getting pushed aside by Fred Jackson means a player sucks, then you guys should probably let Marshawn Lynch and CJ Spiller know.
Fat Nick
Footballguy
Don't disagree...but the QUANTITY of his competition isn't. There's potentially 4 mouths to feed in that backfield. There's an argument for any of the 4 to get more touches going forward.
Fat Nick
Footballguy
You're probably pointing to me...I guess I should clarify - Fred Jackson is a good RB. I agree 100%. I've been impressed with him (when healthy) and have owned him several times. My point wasn't to say that he sucks. My point is that nobody has ever called him "Physically gifted." He's what you said...a reliable, versatile, veteran. He can come in, learn a system, and make plays. He picks up blitzes.
The argument was made that Michaels was a more physically gifted runner than the other 'boys backs. I don't disagree with that (don't honestly know), but saying that means he'll get more carries and win the job is short-sighted because there is a lot more to playing RB than physical gifts.
Not meant as a knock on Jackson...Just using him as the poster-boy for a guy who has a job because he's reliable and smart, and in this case, won a job over a guy who is clearly more physically gifted.
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
The reason that three guys are currently splitting the touches is because none of them is really a difference maker. Randle is solid but unproven and likely unspectacular. McFadden is brittle and just isn't good at this point. Dunbar is a (+) receiver.
The entire pro-Michael argument is based on the fact that he might, in fact, possess difference-making talent as a runner. If he does, the other guys are irrelevant, except maybe Dunbar on passing downs. If Michael is the player that his fans have been claiming that he is for the past two years, then LOL at Darren freaking McFadden taking touches away from him.
That was dragged down a bit by McFadden's 2.7 ypc, not by Randle. Randle isn't Murray, but I thought he looked good and I thought it was pretty promising that he got 3-42 in the passing game. With Bryant down, I think Randle and Dunbar are going to do very well in PPR. The Cowboys OL didn't look like world beaters on Sunday, certainly not like all of the off-season hype surrounding them.
Concept Coop
Footballguy
Randle averaged 3.0 YPC outside of one run (of 16). The Cowboys running game looked like garbage as a whole; Randle included--who left a lot of yards on the field.
I am not holding out much hope for Michael. But the competition is garbage. You also have to wonder what the early down role will reward in fantasy points. It doesn't feel as promising today as it did a week ago. The line is still all-world, but I think Murray was a big part of the 2014 success.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dismattle
Footballguy
thanx for the update..
16% in one League, may be quite different in another ex. RB needy teams may have received trade offers prior to the drop.
But the info doesn't hurt one bit.. gL
Seriously? We are taking away the 16 yarder now? That is the dumbest argument out there. ADP averaged 6.0ypc in his 2012 season. Take away his longest run every game and he was a pedestrian 4.38 ypc, so I guess he really wasn't good that year.
The line wasn't even close to all-world this week. I agree that Murray was a much bigger part of the success than Jerry wants to admit, but that was just a not so good game and Randle was still good. His 25 yard reception and the one handed grab were really nice plays. He showed a lot of burst IMHO on the 25 yarder getting the edge. I think that will end up helping him. I think he and Dunbar are going to both do well in PPR with Bryant out.
No prob. Some context might help: this is a dynasty league with 22 man rosters plu3 rookie spots and 12 keepers. So in that setting a guy like michael is a stronger open than in redraft.
Concept Coop
Footballguy
You're misunderstanding and/or misrepresenting my point. Randle didn't play well or look good. He was lucky enough to be in the game the single time there was 15 yards blocked for a Dallas RB. The line gave him multiple chances to win a one-on-one matchup at the 2nd level and he couldn't do it. He didn't look close to doing so, even.
The O-line dominated in pass protection. And after seeing the RB mess Sunday Night--I think what they did on the ground, despite Randle and DMC, was pretty impressive too.
ETA: Murray was able to gain the extra yard at a high rate. From what I've seen, and in my opinion, Randle can't. DMC can't. Dunbar can't. I don't know if Michael can. But as a fan of the team, whose SB chances depend on 2nd and 6 vs 2nd and 8, let's find out, please!
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
The great DeMarco Murray just got done going 8/9 (that's 8 carries, 9 yards) (and throw in 4/11 rec.) vs the vaunted falcs. This is the guy that won the rushing belt last year. I'm sure the Jones boys are aware of this performance.
Last edited by a moderator:
georg013
Footballguy
Where is this difference making talent? Has it been dormant?
EBF
Footballguy
Some people see different things. I don't think the OL was impressive at all at run-blocking. We'll just have to disagree. They didn't dominate like I imagined they would based on the hype. I thought Randle clearly looked better than McFadden and looked good overall. He didn't look fantastic, but you make it seem like he was awful. As a Randle (and Dunbar/Michael) owner in 1 of my 3 leagues I was pleasantly surprised based on the pre-week 1 talk. All I play is PPR, so his performance on 2 of his 3 catches really made me feel good.
Concept Coop
Footballguy
matuski
Footballguy
When? Nobody was ever taking anything from Lynch. Nothing behind him had any effect.
Not sure Eddie Lacy would have seen the field backing him up.
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Concept Coop
Footballguy
EBF
Footballguy
Those are questionable assertions. The Turbin thing has been beaten to death in this thread. To summarize the pro-Michael side, winning the role of "irrelevant third down back who blocks and gets 5 carries per game" does not necessarily = beating out for the role of primary backup. We never saw what Seattle would've done if Lynch had missed time. Everything related to that is pure speculation. There were signs that it would've been closer to a 50/50 split, if not more than that. As I pointed out last season, they actually played Michael more snaps than Turbin w/ Russell Wilson in the third game preseason tune-up.
Did Rawls beat out Michael? Michael was on 2/3 the contract for almost twice the money. They were able to get a pick for him (albeit a crappy one) whereas my guess is that Rawls wouldn't have netted any pick on the trade market. I don't think Rawls got into the game ahead of Michael once in the entire preseason. You could argue that Rawls made him expendable and that seems believable enough, but it's more of a stretch to say he "beat him out." Rawls is a decent player BTW and much better than the typical #3 back from what I saw of other teams this preseason.
I think the most troubling thing with Michael is the fact that Seattle cut bait for so cheap. I was hoping they'd trade him and I was hoping it would be Dallas, but I thought they could get up to a 4th for him. A conditional 7th is not much at all. At the same time, it's not nothing and they're operating from a very different standpoint compared with FF owners. With his contract set to expire relatively soon, Seattle was coming up on the "do we get married to this guy or do we keep playing the field?" moment with him. Obviously they didn't think he was marriage material. However, that doesn't mean he isn't "one night stand" material for Dallas as they look to fill a pretty glaring need in the short term. 4-5 productive games in that offense and suddenly all the panicky and impatient FF players who have soured on him will be sending out trade offers to acquire him. He doesn't have to do it for 2-3 years to pop. I trust him a lot more in a short window than I do in a long window.
Apart from that, plenty of people who know football think highly of him despite Seattle dumping him for cheap. Michael Robinson had front row seats to two of the best RBs of his generation (Gore and Lynch). I'm guessing that the guy knows a quality RB when he sees one in the flesh in practice and if he's predicting Michael to thrive in Dallas then I take that as a good sign. At this point I just want to see him get a chance. Tired of the same played out bickering in this thread and eager to get some concrete data.
Did Rawls beat out Michael? Michael was on 2/3 the contract for almost twice the money. They were able to get a pick for him (albeit a crappy one) whereas my guess is that Rawls wouldn't have netted any pick on the trade market. I don't think Rawls got into the game ahead of Michael once in the entire preseason. You could argue that Rawls made him expendable and that seems believable enough, but it's more of a stretch to say he "beat him out." Rawls is a decent player BTW and much better than the typical #3 back from what I saw of other teams this preseason.
I think the most troubling thing with Michael is the fact that Seattle cut bait for so cheap. I was hoping they'd trade him and I was hoping it would be Dallas, but I thought they could get up to a 4th for him. A conditional 7th is not much at all. At the same time, it's not nothing and they're operating from a very different standpoint compared with FF owners. With his contract set to expire relatively soon, Seattle was coming up on the "do we get married to this guy or do we keep playing the field?" moment with him. Obviously they didn't think he was marriage material. However, that doesn't mean he isn't "one night stand" material for Dallas as they look to fill a pretty glaring need in the short term. 4-5 productive games in that offense and suddenly all the panicky and impatient FF players who have soured on him will be sending out trade offers to acquire him. He doesn't have to do it for 2-3 years to pop. I trust him a lot more in a short window than I do in a long window.
Apart from that, plenty of people who know football think highly of him despite Seattle dumping him for cheap. Michael Robinson had front row seats to two of the best RBs of his generation (Gore and Lynch). I'm guessing that the guy knows a quality RB when he sees one in the flesh in practice and if he's predicting Michael to thrive in Dallas then I take that as a good sign. At this point I just want to see him get a chance. Tired of the same played out bickering in this thread and eager to get some concrete data.
Last edited by a moderator:
I think they do. It's just a pretty high limit. But on that topic, I used to be able to get in there and delete a few quotes or delete part of the quote so only the relevant part is left, but I can't anymore. Not sure what they changed.
gethugefast1
Footballguy
I was about to come in here and get annoyed BC this thread is cluttered with the opinion of people who have no freaking clue how this cmike Dallas thing is going to shake out and pretend to know. And then you save the day with this little tidbit, which imo is worth more than every 10 paragraph diatribe on here espousing how bad cmike is or how good he is.
Thank you! Please keep us updated!
Todem
Footballguy
I drafted Michael as a lotto ticket. I am being ultra patient and taking a wait and see approach. But a few things are certain to me after just one game and watching Randle last season and his rookie year.
He is ordinary as hell. He does not possess game changing, play making skills.
McFadden had those but they are long gone. He looks awkward when he does get touches. Like something is going to break in his feet. He has bad feet to begin within a long history of foot problems. He also goes down easy...very easy.
The door is clearly wide open for Michael to break through and grab the lead back job. To me if his head is right, he will accomplish this in the next few weeks. Michael was the only back I was interested in on Dallas. Before he was traded...I had zero interest in the Cowboys backfield.
The talent is just not there (other than Dunbar as a third down back) and Dallas I think deep down knows this. I don't blame them for letting Murray walk. He was way overpaid. Guy can't even stay healthy for 16 games (at any point in his career thus far and I know injuries are the luck of the draw but these are the facts with Murray) and in Philly they now have two guys now who can't finish a season with he and Matthews....good luck to them.
Michael is one of the best lotto tickets at RB this year at almost zero risk (grabbed him in the 15th round in a 16 round 12 team draft) and I also throw Chris Johnson into that category (grabbed him in the 11th as a long shot and low and behold he is starting in week two because of an unfortunate injury to Ellington).
Michael's physical talent is really eye popping on game film. It's there for him to take. The million dollar question is....will he?
I say he can and he will at some point soon.
He is ordinary as hell. He does not possess game changing, play making skills.
McFadden had those but they are long gone. He looks awkward when he does get touches. Like something is going to break in his feet. He has bad feet to begin within a long history of foot problems. He also goes down easy...very easy.
The door is clearly wide open for Michael to break through and grab the lead back job. To me if his head is right, he will accomplish this in the next few weeks. Michael was the only back I was interested in on Dallas. Before he was traded...I had zero interest in the Cowboys backfield.
The talent is just not there (other than Dunbar as a third down back) and Dallas I think deep down knows this. I don't blame them for letting Murray walk. He was way overpaid. Guy can't even stay healthy for 16 games (at any point in his career thus far and I know injuries are the luck of the draw but these are the facts with Murray) and in Philly they now have two guys now who can't finish a season with he and Matthews....good luck to them.
Michael is one of the best lotto tickets at RB this year at almost zero risk (grabbed him in the 15th round in a 16 round 12 team draft) and I also throw Chris Johnson into that category (grabbed him in the 11th as a long shot and low and behold he is starting in week two because of an unfortunate injury to Ellington).
Michael's physical talent is really eye popping on game film. It's there for him to take. The million dollar question is....will he?
I say he can and he will at some point soon.
Last edited by a moderator:
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
IMO, looking at the contract differences between Rawls and Michael is a pretty huge stretch -- the difference this year is < $300K, which is literally nothing, as in less than two tenths of one percent of the cap. Also, Seattle had two more years to decide on Michael. I seriously doubt that either the $ or the years were more than very minor considerations. Seattle had two years plus a 3rd TC to evaluate Michael, and said "no thanks" to keeping him around.
That said, I do agree that Dallas is a completely different situation. Particularly now with Dez hurt for a big chunk. They are in DIRE need of playmakers, and hugely more likely to put up with mental lapses out of a RB than was Seattle. And as you said, Michael doesn't need to be a long term solution to be a guy that you can turn a profit on -- a handful of good games should create a great selling window.
- Status
