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 Volume 3: Inevitable Greatness Soon Achieved (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter elshagon
- Start date
Biabreakable
Footballguy
While this is true Seattles offensive line isn't much better. The coaching might be, but not the personnel.
The Vikings offensive line might be the worst in the league, but you are kind of splitting hairs here as Seattle and the Rams offensive lines are really bad as well.
I would consider Green Bays offensive line to be a upgrade for Michael compared to the support he has had from Seattle.
That said, now that he is a Packer, he is all but useless to me and I certainly won't be rooting for him.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
I wouldn't hold your breath on that.
If the reason he's so frequently been cut is true, the packers aren't going to run out a guy who can't learn the playbook or protect Rodgers.
Starks might be a terrible YPC RB, but he's a terrible YPC RB who won't get his QB blowed up or run around lost out there.
Hell, Seattle has now cut him twice.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
He'll have to keep himself busy somehow I guess. It's either that or macrome on the sidelines.
Skoo
Footballguy
This truly has been quite the saga!
I can't think of any situation that's even close. Guy gets cut 4 times in a year and every single time he gets people excited about his next destination.
Don't get me wrong, I drafted him this year as Rawls insurance and was happy to have him produce for a while, but this is a fantasy story unlike any other.
I can't think of any situation that's even close. Guy gets cut 4 times in a year and every single time he gets people excited about his next destination.
Don't get me wrong, I drafted him this year as Rawls insurance and was happy to have him produce for a while, but this is a fantasy story unlike any other.
Last edited by a moderator:
Interseptopus
Footballguy
I love it...
People here get the daily e-mails I am guessing? See the Michael blurb? Was very "meh"
A year and 3 months ago Sig basically needed new boxers every week with how he was fawning over Michael for him being on the PRACTICE SQUAD. Here he is, with a legitimate shot to be a starter; only a converted WR and a JAG RB past his prime ahead of him. And what do we get: "GB is just throwing things at the wall now." "He's a long shot".
I'm not saying he's going to be a probowler, but sig tells us to spend 50% of our FAAB because Michael *might* get off the practice squad and take a snap when he was with Dallas. But GB, nah they're throwing stuff at the wall. Nothing to see here. This is the epitome of why I don't subscribe anymore.
I think Michael is a definite upgrade over Starks. At the very least he gives us some athleticism that we have not seen in years at the RB position. I still don't like the guy, I still think he's dumb, but if McCarthy can dumb down the offense for him and he can be useful, he has potential to be fantasy relevant. That's nothing to just shrug off as Joe seems to have done in his daily e-mail
People here get the daily e-mails I am guessing? See the Michael blurb? Was very "meh"
A year and 3 months ago Sig basically needed new boxers every week with how he was fawning over Michael for him being on the PRACTICE SQUAD. Here he is, with a legitimate shot to be a starter; only a converted WR and a JAG RB past his prime ahead of him. And what do we get: "GB is just throwing things at the wall now." "He's a long shot".
I'm not saying he's going to be a probowler, but sig tells us to spend 50% of our FAAB because Michael *might* get off the practice squad and take a snap when he was with Dallas. But GB, nah they're throwing stuff at the wall. Nothing to see here. This is the epitome of why I don't subscribe anymore.
I think Michael is a definite upgrade over Starks. At the very least he gives us some athleticism that we have not seen in years at the RB position. I still don't like the guy, I still think he's dumb, but if McCarthy can dumb down the offense for him and he can be useful, he has potential to be fantasy relevant. That's nothing to just shrug off as Joe seems to have done in his daily e-mail
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion
Footballguy
It is pretty much the same crowd that says draft pedigree and talent (combine numbers) trumps everything else and eventually results in NFL success. We went down this road with the much more highly regarded Trent Richardson (although in a longer time frame) and whenever he landed on a new team (Colts/Raiders/Ravens) there was always a new surge of optimism that it would somehow come together and validate what they knew all along.
At this point, he is probably worth a roster spot in a deep dynasty league but it doesn't seem likely this gig in Green Bay will play out any differently than his other stops.
Tommy Collins
Footballguy
This offense is already dumb enough with the decisions that they make regarding playcalling and their gameplans.
Faust
MVP
This scenario could play out assuming that Christine Michael is still on the Packers roster on December 11 which is no sure thing with him.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Physically Michael is seemingly an upgrade over Prosise & Rawls too, yet he was still cut. The air between his ears reportedly is what's been getting him cut. He's also supposedly not a team guy - kind of a weird dude? I don't know how true that is, but in a sport where chemistry matters more than most, that could also be a problem.
IF he can learn the playbook and IF the Packers trust him and IF he shows he can pass protect their golden boy QB, then I'll believe he has a chance to be relevant with the Packers.
I have a hard time believing that he'll manage to do any of those things given his track record.
Didn't yet read the daily, just don't think Michael is going to be fantasy relevant. I could be wrong, but it stands to reason.
Here's another issue with Michael: if they do indeed "dumb down the offense for him" and use him as their feature back, it's going to make playcalling more limited and possibly ineffective. Packers passing game is largely built around play-action. Without the threat of a RB who can pass protect and catch the ball, the PA pass effectiveness is diminished IMO. And if true that Michael isn't the sharpest spoon in the drawer, and if the Packers have to simplify the playbook for him, that's going to make their offense a lot more predictable. e.g. Starks on the field = high % chance they pass. Michael on the field, high % chance they run.
I guess time will tell, but right now I'm not seeing a lot of reason for optimism. Best case scenario would seem to be "more of the same" with a different body in the backfield. Maybe he gets a cheap TD or two at the stripe after a PA in the end zone, but GB loves to throw in short yardage in the red zone, and Rodgers likes to sneak it in from time to time as well.
I'm not seeing a scenario where Michael explodes onto the scene and becomes a 20+ touch RB with the Packers.
Last edited by a moderator:
Interseptopus
Footballguy
1. I agree, it seems like his lack of intelligence is getting him in trouble with teams. However I would say Prosise looks better than Michael. Rawls I just haven't seen enough of live. He's a weird dude but so was Lynch as far as how he treated the media and was kind of a loner. At least it seemed. If anything Seattle should be used to that.
2. What I meant for dumb down the offense is more along the lines of "Tunga run to that spot," (Bob and Brian fans can appreciate the Tunga reference) not so much simplifying the playbook. Like get him a "GB Plays, Audibles, and Assignments for Dummies" book or something. I wouldn't advocate simplifying the playbook or playcalling... that's already happening.
3. I would agree. I think more of the same is about right but I think Michael has a chance to average more than 3.0 YPC like Starks. Michael adds more burst and a chance for that big play. No Packer fan is holding his breath on a Starks 35 yard TD run when he gets the ball.
4. No RB is going to be a 20+ guy for GB. That's not their offense. But a guy who can get some yardage, maybe a TD, be a receiving threat out of the backfield could carve a RB2/Flex fantasy role pretty easily.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
I dunno - he slowed way way down with Seattle. Could just be a conditioning thing - 10 weeks in and dude might be gassed. I honestly don't know, but while folks have commented about Michael bursting out of the gate, he's sure sputtered to a finish the last few games. He might just be a 3 YPC guy with more power, which theoretically might earn him a role.
Well, Lacy would have been had he stayed healthy/not invested so heavily in Country Buffet through his patronage.
Interseptopus
Footballguy
I guess I forget that we are on week 10. How much more of the season is left, at least from a fantasy perspective. This guy might be holding a more significant role by week 12, but do you really trust a guy like this during your fantasy playoffs? I'm not so sure. He may help the Green Bay Packers. If it was week 4-8 I'd probably be more excited.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Interseptopus
Footballguy
Michael in GB's plan to be active this week. FYI.
Plus it's unacceptable that the Michael thread makes it to page 8....
And I still think "Dangerously Cheesey" Or "the cheese that won't go moldy" are better than Cheese is the new blue
Plus it's unacceptable that the Michael thread makes it to page 8....
And I still think "Dangerously Cheesey" Or "the cheese that won't go moldy" are better than Cheese is the new blue
Last edited by a moderator:
mnmplayer
Footballguy
You should just count your lucky starts that Sig doesn't like him anymore, greater chance for success in my experience.
Interseptopus
Footballguy
True. Sig and Lammy have the same history with picking RBs.
I mean GB is a playoff team on paper but has absolutely nothing at RB. A player like Michael can contribute as he's shown. I would see him as an upgrade to Starks who is the definition of JAG. Disappointing that the FBG people are onto their next "flavor of the week" and are very tepid about his chances in GB. Michael could be an impactful player next season given the uncertainty with Lacy and Starks is just about ready for his AARP card.
Last edited by a moderator:
Interseptopus
Footballguy
Eddie Lacy scored a 17 on the wonderlic, Michael 11. FWIW
http://footballiqscore.com/wonderlic-score-database/eddie-lacy
http://footballiqscore.com/wonderlic-score-database/christine-michael
Master list:
https://wonderlictestsample.com/nfl-wonderlic-scores/
You can see other talented RBs failed around where Michael scored... and there are a few friendlier names to be around near Lacy
Last edited by a moderator:
az_prof
Footballguy
Frank Gore near the bottom with a 6 and Chris Johnson with a 10.
IDK, but I doubt there is much correlation with wonderlic and RB performance. The position is instinctual and physical and doesn't take a lot of intelligence.
Interseptopus
Footballguy
Chris Johnson didn't have a very long significant career... If I remember correctly he was just about along average a 3 years. He is still active, I get it, but hardly effective.
There are exceptions up and down that chart. The wonderlic isn't absolute but it is right more often than it is wrong. I think each position is very important from an intelligence stand point. The "stupidest" position IMO not counting P or K is WR. RB requires a lot of intelligence. Blitz recognition and pick up is probably the most important. But knowing the holes to look for and how to see how the second and third level defenders are adjusting to the play/fakes are very important. It isn't run from X to O. That's why I think WR is not really as important for intelligence, which is why I think we see the most prima donnas at WR
Last edited by a moderator:
Interseptopus
Footballguy
I know... I saw that and thought, wow most people would be THRILLED with that. I can't remember the last time the Packers ran the ball in for a TD, but for some reason everyone predicts a TD for a new RB or a RB coming off of an injury. I'd be delighted with 75 all purpose yards as a Packer fan (I do not own Michael). If he gets 75 yards then our offense is clicking and looking back to its normal self
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Synthesizer
Footballguy
Just want to point out that only 31 players have rushed for more career yards than C. Johnson.
I would disagree 100%. In today's game, WR is a much more intellectually demanding position than RB. In many current offenses, the WR's route is predicated on reading the defense and the cornerback's position/technique -- inside leverage, outside leverage, press, man, zone, bump & run, etc. -- each of these may have a corresponding route adjustment, and both the QB and the WR have to make the same presnap read.
Running plays don't have that level of real-time adjustment. If the playcall is bad given what the defense is showing, then the QB checks to a different play -- they don't modify the run call, and certainly not silently the way the QB/WR adjustments are done.
Blitz pickups are a different story, but running plays basically are as simple as, run from X to O. Reading the blocking and defenders isn't intelligence so much as it's instincts/vision/anticipation.
Interseptopus
Footballguy
I said significant long career. he has had a good career but the days of him being dominant were over as fast as they began.
if we care to discuss which position requires more intelligence wecan start a new thread. the fact is Michael is not very smart and that has been rumored to be a major reason he is on his 4th team in less than 18 months
Interseptopus
Footballguy
I disagree but it's really nothing worth debating tbh
see above. Michael is on his 4th team in less than 18 months, rumored to he because of his lack of intelligence. if rb is such a dumb position as you suggest, Michael must be really really dumb
Last edited by a moderator:
Statorama
gangster
Statorama
gangster
65 yards rushing doesn't seem like a huge bar to hurdle over. I can't imagine the expectations moving forward if the dude busts a benji out there.
Interseptopus
Footballguy
I probably would have taken that and run with it. I am not really sure Michael has an upside in the NFL. My expectations for his production in GB is very tepid. I think if he can muster 50-60 yards a game that would be a home run for the Packers, considering they are never a run-first team to begin with. Lacy looked pretty good before he got hurt, so if he comes back next year at target weight I can't see him giving up the starting position to Michael. Even if he catches on in GB he would at best share time with Lacy. Lacy is in his last contract year next year so you can imagine he will be somewhat motivated. Michael is on his 4th team in less than a year and a half. If he falls out of favor in GB I can't imagine him catching on and being relevant anywhere else; there would be a reason he would have been cut/traded from 4 teams in 2 years. If I could trade Michael for any kind of prospect I probably would, because it's likely he holds almost no value in a short 6 weeks
Last edited by a moderator:
JohnnyU
Footballguy
I didn't take the trade because I don't believe in Michael at this point. I'd rather have the 2nd rd pick to be honest.
JoeSteeler
Footballguy
Interseptopus
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Statorama
gangster
I'd do the same (especially with the deep draft we have coming up). CMike's upside is going to be the Tevin Coleman to some teams Devonta Freeman. A handcuff that can come in for an injured back and do some damage. He's going to be a back that has to be in the right situation at the right time to provide value.
JohnnyU
Footballguy
Michael will be a moot point next year for sure with Lacy coming back and may just be a moot point this year as well. My guess is that he won't even be on the Packer's team starting 2017.
Statorama
gangster
Right, like I said, he'll be a gun for hire that needs to be in the right situation at the right time to provide value. His outlook for 2017 with the Packers (and elsewhere) will depend a lot on what he does closing out 2016. He's a free agent at years end, able to sign anywhere he wants. There are a lot of RB wastelands where he could be an effective player (Jacksonville comes to mind) and there are a lot of handcuff situations where he'd have (eta: "he could have") significant FF value (backing up Bell in Pitt for example).
Last edited by a moderator:
JohnnyU
Footballguy
I still think you are overvaluing him. There is something seriously wrong with this guy given how he's been passed around like a cheap *#@*&. I think he's just about arrived at the end of the line.
Interseptopus
Footballguy
This is where I stand. If this guy was truly something special he would have caught on somewhere. The fact that he didn't make it in Dallas is unfair because that was a disaster last year and isn't even close to what they have this year. But, the fact that he couldn't even show signs of promise is alarming. Seattle knew him best of any team in the league, and they dumped him, twice.
I could see him still latching on somewhere. I don't think it'll be with GB unless he impresses. I see GB drafting a RB this offseason, maybe round 3-4. Here's what I could see:
Pittsburgh: Williams is up there in age, Michael would provide some depth of some kind to Bell
Jacksonville: mentioned earlier. He could be a role player. They have kind of a slew of RBs there that they use. Maybe that's not a good thing and they make a change
Minnesota: If he does anything this year in GB, MIN will be keeping an eye on it. McKinnon looks like a younger Starks and Asiata is a FA. ADP looks old and is coming off a second major knee surgery. 32 years old. I see MIN drafting a RB but if not they could go into the season with Michael as a backup
I guess I view Michael's future value as 2nd or 3rd on a depth chart. There are a lot of teams that could use that. Carolina comes to mind as well.
Of course, if he comes out and averages 3.5+ yards per carry and can strum 60-75 yard games the rest of the way here I think GB would try to sign him to a 1 or 2 year deal just as insurance to Lacy. I believe Lacy is a FA after this season as well so that'll be interesting. I fully expect GB to sign him, especially because he is coming off an injured season so his market value is low. I'd expect a 1-2 year deal, and would be very pleased with a 3-4 year deal.
Last edited by a moderator:
Rove!
Footballguy
One big difference is that while TRIch was relatively unproductive, Micheal has been productive when he plays
squistion
Footballguy
Not that productive or he wouldn't keep getting cut from teams.
And remember the meme is that draft pedigree is supposedly the best indicator of NFL success (which, while true, is rather specious, as it overlooks the fact that you can do just as well in making your predictions by using a coin flip) - and also that talent always eventually wins out over situation. With Richardson, he was somewhat productive his first year in Cleveland, and his numbers of 950 yards and 11 TDs seemed to embolden his admirers that they had been right all along (while overlooking his mediocre 3.6 YPC). IIRC, the TRich hype train was still going strong after his rookie year (too bad the original Michael thread has been deleted).
Hooper31
Footballguy
TRich was a top ten RB in fantasy his first season. I wouldn't call that relatively unproductive. Further, his nearly 3000 total yards and 19 TDs far surpass anything we've seen from Michael.
Rove!
Footballguy
He averaged 3.6 yards per carry when Hardesty was at 4.2 and Ogbonnaya was at 3.8. Just because he got a few goal line opportunities doesn't make him productive from a team perspective. michale has averaged at least 4 Ypc each year in the NFL, while 3.6 was Richardson' s career high. Very different stories.Hooper31 said:
Hooper31
Footballguy
Very different? Then why did you want to compare them?
Edit: You go ahead and have the last word if you like. Not sure why I bothered to engage you in the first place.
Last edited by a moderator:
Rove!
Footballguy
If you followed the conversation, you'd realize that I didn't compare them, Squistion did. I only pointed out to him the contrast in their ability to perform at an NFL level with respect to physical talent.
Last edited by a moderator:
Interseptopus
Footballguy
Trich is perhaps the biggest pumpkin in the history of fantasy sports. he had a top 10 season for 1 reason: TDS. that's it. I fell for it year 2. never again.
from an NFL standpoint, he didn't do much at all his first year.
now, how many 60 yard tds do people think Michael is going to get this week?
East Coast Bias
Footballguy
Seattle's offense is really struggling without Michael.