Christine Michael (1 Viewer)

[humpback]

I didn't say it did, and I don't see how this is relevant to realizing how stacked their team was at RB.

Not just RB, but also special teams. Where would Michael fit in on a squad that allowed less than 100 punt return yards for the entire season? I don't think it was on him at all that he could not fit into that mix of dominance when he was never brought in for that in the first place. And what would be the point in activating him as a 3rd RB to get one touch per game while benching some other guy contributing to one of the best special teams units in football.

He didnt surpass Turbin because his higher skill of running the ball was cancelled out by Turbin's higher level of knowledge in pass protection, the passing game, and the staff's level of comfort with a guy they were confident knew the system very well while making a super bowl run.

People seem shocked that a rookie, even a 2nd round rookie, didn't do anything on a super bowl dominating team.

I can understand why people would normally be concerned that a highly drafted rookie barely touched the ball and was inactive most of the year. This isn't one of those situations for me.

This is getting silly already. You pick punt return coverage now? Why not kickoff returns, since they let their #3 RB and kick off returner go in the offseason, and they went from 2nd in the league in avg to 27th? How about kickoff return defense, where they fell from 11th in avg in 2012 to 21st in 2013? No chance to break into that mix of dominance?I'm not shocked that he didn't do anything, just saying that I don't think the plan was for him not to do anything, and that some of that falls on him.

This is actually a valid point that I brought up in another thread. Turbin was mediocre in kickoff returns this season and was eventually replaced by Baldwin, who then did quite well.I think this answer to why Carroll and the coaching staff would go that route instead of giving Michael a shot at in in the regular season (he looked good returning a kicks in preseason) lies in their philosophy on Special Teams. They like to use starters on kick return an coverage teams to not only have their best out there competing, but also to allow for additional active personnel in spots they deem areas of need. RB clearly wasn't one of those, so Michael sits and waits.

IOW, had he won the second string job outright you would have seen Michael returning kicks too (sans Harvin, of course; he is undoubtedly better at this than Turbin). But he didn't, so you didn't.

But this doesn't fit with what they did last year, when they used their #3 RB, Leon Washington, to return kicks. So, they deemed RB one of those areas of need in 2012 when they were dominant running the ball, but not in 2013 when they weren't?

Again, see the pass protection problems throughout most of the year. We are covering old ground.It has nothing to do with 2012 or that completely different set of circumstances.

Well, that's a different excuse than saying they want starters to return kicks, which clearly isn't the case because they didn't have a starter returning kicks the year before. Pass protection is certainly a possibility, but that's on him, not the "situation".

I can see this is going to be continually remedial.You're right, 2012 was the key to understanding why the Seahawk coaching staff decided to deactivate Michael for most of the season. He is clearly a project in their estimation and will quite possibly never figure it out or see significant playing time. They just don't trust him. As Pete Carroll has repeatedly stated in his press conferences and interviews.

Nah, you're right- they only use starters to return kicks.......if you ignore the fact that they don't. Just like they had plenty of options at RB, when they used 2. Just like ghostguy is right that it's almost impossible for him to crack their dominating special teams units, except for the fact that some of their special teams units were awful.

It's a miracle he even made the team with so much working against him!

 

[Neofight]

I didn't say it did, and I don't see how this is relevant to realizing how stacked their team was at RB.

Not just RB, but also special teams. Where would Michael fit in on a squad that allowed less than 100 punt return yards for the entire season? I don't think it was on him at all that he could not fit into that mix of dominance when he was never brought in for that in the first place. And what would be the point in activating him as a 3rd RB to get one touch per game while benching some other guy contributing to one of the best special teams units in football.

He didnt surpass Turbin because his higher skill of running the ball was cancelled out by Turbin's higher level of knowledge in pass protection, the passing game, and the staff's level of comfort with a guy they were confident knew the system very well while making a super bowl run.

People seem shocked that a rookie, even a 2nd round rookie, didn't do anything on a super bowl dominating team.

I can understand why people would normally be concerned that a highly drafted rookie barely touched the ball and was inactive most of the year. This isn't one of those situations for me.

This is getting silly already. You pick punt return coverage now? Why not kickoff returns, since they let their #3 RB and kick off returner go in the offseason, and they went from 2nd in the league in avg to 27th? How about kickoff return defense, where they fell from 11th in avg in 2012 to 21st in 2013? No chance to break into that mix of dominance?I'm not shocked that he didn't do anything, just saying that I don't think the plan was for him not to do anything, and that some of that falls on him.

This is actually a valid point that I brought up in another thread. Turbin was mediocre in kickoff returns this season and was eventually replaced by Baldwin, who then did quite well.I think this answer to why Carroll and the coaching staff would go that route instead of giving Michael a shot at in in the regular season (he looked good returning a kicks in preseason) lies in their philosophy on Special Teams. They like to use starters on kick return an coverage teams to not only have their best out there competing, but also to allow for additional active personnel in spots they deem areas of need. RB clearly wasn't one of those, so Michael sits and waits.

IOW, had he won the second string job outright you would have seen Michael returning kicks too (sans Harvin, of course; he is undoubtedly better at this than Turbin). But he didn't, so you didn't.

But this doesn't fit with what they did last year, when they used their #3 RB, Leon Washington, to return kicks. So, they deemed RB one of those areas of need in 2012 when they were dominant running the ball, but not in 2013 when they weren't?

Again, see the pass protection problems throughout most of the year. We are covering old ground.It has nothing to do with 2012 or that completely different set of circumstances.

Well, that's a different excuse than saying they want starters to return kicks, which clearly isn't the case because they didn't have a starter returning kicks the year before. Pass protection is certainly a possibility, but that's on him, not the "situation".

I can see this is going to be continually remedial.You're right, 2012 was the key to understanding why the Seahawk coaching staff decided to deactivate Michael for most of the season. He is clearly a project in their estimation and will quite possibly never figure it out or see significant playing time. They just don't trust him. As Pete Carroll has repeatedly stated in his press conferences and interviews.

Nah, you're right- they only use starters to return kicks.......if you ignore the fact that they don't. Just like they had plenty of options at RB, when they used 2. Just like ghostguy is right that it's almost impossible for him to crack their dominating special teams units, except for the fact that some of their special teams units were awful.

It's a miracle he even made the team with so much working against him!

What you don't know about this situation could fill the Grand Canyon if it were specks of dust. No different than me, except that I am aware of that and actually interested in trying to understand what it is the Seahawks are actually doing.What I do know is that 2012 has absolutely no bearing on decisions made for this team. It's ridiculous to assume otherwise.

 

[humpback]

What you don't know about this situation could fill the Grand Canyon if it were specks of dust. No different than me, except that I am aware of that and actually interested in trying to understand what it is the Seahawks are actually doing.

What I do know is that 2012 has absolutely no bearing on decisions made for this team. It's ridiculous to assume otherwise.

So you're trying to understand it by saying things that just aren't true? Cool.

I'm only bringing up 2012 to refute some of the ridiculous claims being made, such as yours about them using starters to return kicks. Sorry, but that's not the case. Also ghostguy, saying how they didn't realize how dominant they were as a team until after they drafted him, when they were far more dominant in most relevant aspects prior to their drafting him. Just doesn't add up.

I never claimed to know the reason why he wasn't active, but it certainly seems to be something about him that they aren't quite comfortable with just yet. It isn't some major indictment on him or his future, but it's bizarre to make things up to try and defend him.

 

[Neofight]

What you don't know about this situation could fill the Grand Canyon if it were specks of dust. No different than me, except that I am aware of that and actually interested in trying to understand what it is the Seahawks are actually doing.

What I do know is that 2012 has absolutely no bearing on decisions made for this team. It's ridiculous to assume otherwise.

So you're trying to understand it by saying things that just aren't true? Cool.I'm only bringing up 2012 to refute some of the ridiculous claims being made, such as yours about them using starters to return kicks. Sorry, but that's not the case. Also ghostguy, saying how they didn't realize how dominant they were as a team until after they drafted him, when they were far more dominant in most relevant aspects prior to their drafting him. Just doesn't add up.

I never claimed to know the reason why he wasn't active, but it certainly seems to be something about him that they aren't quite comfortable with just yet. It isn't some major indictment on him or his future, but it's bizarre to make things up to try and defend him.

I made up nothing. In 2012 Seattle used Washjngton because he was easily their best kick returner and, it's worth noting, one of the best in the league. In 2013 they released Washington because they went out and acquired the best kickoff returner in the league. That, coupled with the entirely different set of circumstances (injuries, FA losses and acquisitions) lead the to use Turbin for much of the season. Turbin clearly struggled with returns, but because he contributed in other areas and was better at pass pro he got the nod until he fumbled it away. It is indeed a fact that Carroll and the Seahawks use top tier starters in their coverage and returns. Some teams don't subscribe to this philosophy. But if you have that approach it makes it much easier to sit a guy like Michael, whom they value extremely high, in favor of activating a player at a position that is a greater area of need. The Seahawks never came close to needing his services this year, despite your constant referral to their decreased rushing metrics (which, given the season long issues with offensive line cohesiveness shouldn't be surprising). His pass protection was always a concern, but not something that alarmed anyone outside of a few posters in this thread. That's where the disconnect is: people seem to think there is more going on here than meets the eye, yet can't point to anything other than what is already accepted: pass pro and pecking order.

So I guess the questions are: what do you expect the value of activating Michael would have been? Should he have been active due to being drafted in the second round alone? Why?

 

[ghostguy123]

What you don't know about this situation could fill the Grand Canyon if it were specks of dust. No different than me, except that I am aware of that and actually interested in trying to understand what it is the Seahawks are actually doing.

What I do know is that 2012 has absolutely no bearing on decisions made for this team. It's ridiculous to assume otherwise.

So you're trying to understand it by saying things that just aren't true? Cool.

I'm only bringing up 2012 to refute some of the ridiculous claims being made, such as yours about them using starters to return kicks. Sorry, but that's not the case. Also ghostguy, saying how they didn't realize how dominant they were as a team until after they drafted him, when they were far more dominant in most relevant aspects prior to their drafting him. Just doesn't add up.

I never claimed to know the reason why he wasn't active, but it certainly seems to be something about him that they aren't quite comfortable with just yet. It isn't some major indictment on him or his future, but it's bizarre to make things up to try and defend him.

This is very true regarding why he was inactive instead of the 3rd RB. All things that to me have zero relevance to his value moving forward as a backup and eventual starter.

Again, I don't have his value super high right now. I have him valued as a late 1st in this draft. I made one deal for him this year, dealing pick 9 to get Michael and pick 22, which to me is about the same value as pick 12. I would think picks 12 and 22 could move you up in most cases to about the 9 range.

I didn't feel that I got a "steal" or anything, but if I could get him for that same value in every league I would. Unfortunately I can't.

 

[humpback]

What you don't know about this situation could fill the Grand Canyon if it were specks of dust. No different than me, except that I am aware of that and actually interested in trying to understand what it is the Seahawks are actually doing.

What I do know is that 2012 has absolutely no bearing on decisions made for this team. It's ridiculous to assume otherwise.

So you're trying to understand it by saying things that just aren't true? Cool.I'm only bringing up 2012 to refute some of the ridiculous claims being made, such as yours about them using starters to return kicks. Sorry, but that's not the case. Also ghostguy, saying how they didn't realize how dominant they were as a team until after they drafted him, when they were far more dominant in most relevant aspects prior to their drafting him. Just doesn't add up.

I never claimed to know the reason why he wasn't active, but it certainly seems to be something about him that they aren't quite comfortable with just yet. It isn't some major indictment on him or his future, but it's bizarre to make things up to try and defend him.

I made up nothing. In 2012 Seattle used Washjngton because he was easily their best kick returner and, it's worth noting, one of the best in the league. In 2013 they released Washington because they went out and acquired the best kickoff returner in the league. That, coupled with the entirely different set of circumstances (injuries, FA losses and acquisitions) lead the to use Turbin for much of the season. Turbin clearly struggled with returns, but because he contributed in other areas and was better at pass pro he got the nod until he fumbled it away.It is indeed a fact that Carroll and the Seahawks use top tier starters in their coverage and returns. Some teams don't subscribe to this philosophy. But if you have that approach it makes it much easier to sit a guy like Michael, whom they value extremely high, in favor of activating a player at a position that is a greater area of need. The Seahawks never came close to needing his services this year, despite your constant referral to their decreased rushing metrics (which, given the season long issues with offensive line cohesiveness shouldn't be surprising). His pass protection was always a concern, but not something that alarmed anyone outside of a few posters in this thread. That's where the disconnect is: people seem to think there is more going on here than meets the eye, yet can't point to anything other than what is already accepted: pass pro and pecking order.

So I guess the questions are: what do you expect the value of activating Michael would have been? Should he have been active due to being drafted in the second round alone? Why?

Leon Washington is/was a good kick returner for sure, but he was not a top tier starter and contributed very little in any other area. Ergo, Seattle does not use top tier starters on kick returns, they use who they believe is their best kick returner.

Again, I've been referring to their decreased rushing metrics only to refute the claim that he was inactive because they didn't realize how dominant they were. If anything, they were much less dominant than the prior year when they did utilize a 3rd RB, so that excuse for him being inactive doesn't hold water.

I don't think he should have been active based on draft position at all. I think he would have been active if they felt he gave them a better chance to win. They obviously didn't.

 

[ghostguy123]

I don't think he should have been active based on draft position at all. I think he would have been active if they felt he gave them a better chance to win. They obviously didn't.

Right, not sure anyone is disagreeing with that. Thing is it isn't because of his ability to be a running back.

Just curious. Had they activated Michael, who would have been de-activated?

 

[ghostguy123]

If every team was as good as Seattle top to bottom, there would be a LOT more rookies you never hear from each year.

 

[humpback]

What you don't know about this situation could fill the Grand Canyon if it were specks of dust. No different than me, except that I am aware of that and actually interested in trying to understand what it is the Seahawks are actually doing.

What I do know is that 2012 has absolutely no bearing on decisions made for this team. It's ridiculous to assume otherwise.

So you're trying to understand it by saying things that just aren't true? Cool.

I'm only bringing up 2012 to refute some of the ridiculous claims being made, such as yours about them using starters to return kicks. Sorry, but that's not the case. Also ghostguy, saying how they didn't realize how dominant they were as a team until after they drafted him, when they were far more dominant in most relevant aspects prior to their drafting him. Just doesn't add up.

I never claimed to know the reason why he wasn't active, but it certainly seems to be something about him that they aren't quite comfortable with just yet. It isn't some major indictment on him or his future, but it's bizarre to make things up to try and defend him.

This is very true regarding why he was inactive instead of the 3rd RB. All things that to me have zero relevance to his value moving forward as a backup and eventual starter.

Again, I don't have his value super high right now. I have him valued as a late 1st in this draft. I made one deal for him this year, dealing pick 9 to get Michael and pick 22, which to me is about the same value as pick 12. I would think picks 12 and 22 could move you up in most cases to about the 9 range.

I didn't feel that I got a "steal" or anything, but if I could get him for that same value in every league I would. Unfortunately I can't.

I agree with pretty much everything here, but again, I only responded to you because you originally said his being inactive had nothing to do with him. You keep glossing over that and talking about his future and his trade value. I've never even mentioned those things other than to say I like him long term, I'm just pointing out that of course he had something to do with being inactive most weeks. The situation wasn't nearly as insurmountable as you've made it seem (still laughing at the AP comments btw).

 

[ghostguy123]

I agree with pretty much everything here, but again, I only responded to you because you originally said his being inactive had nothing to do with him. You keep glossing over that and talking about his future and his trade value. I've never even mentioned those things other than to say I like him long term, I'm just pointing out that of course he had something to do with being inactive most weeks. The situation wasn't nearly as insurmountable as you've made it seem (still laughing at the AP comments btw).

I'll say it again, him being inactive instead of the 3rd RB has nothing to do with him, and more to do with other players being really good doing the non-RB things that a 3rd RB needs to do, something Michael was never drafted for.

It's on him that he didn't beat out Turbin, but in order to do so he would have had to be SIGNIFICANTLY better because of the other things Turbin added as a veteran.

So he was either going to be the backup, or inactive.

 

[Neofight]

What you don't know about this situation could fill the Grand Canyon if it were specks of dust. No different than me, except that I am aware of that and actually interested in trying to understand what it is the Seahawks are actually doing.

What I do know is that 2012 has absolutely no bearing on decisions made for this team. It's ridiculous to assume otherwise.

So you're trying to understand it by saying things that just aren't true? Cool.I'm only bringing up 2012 to refute some of the ridiculous claims being made, such as yours about them using starters to return kicks. Sorry, but that's not the case. Also ghostguy, saying how they didn't realize how dominant they were as a team until after they drafted him, when they were far more dominant in most relevant aspects prior to their drafting him. Just doesn't add up.

I never claimed to know the reason why he wasn't active, but it certainly seems to be something about him that they aren't quite comfortable with just yet. It isn't some major indictment on him or his future, but it's bizarre to make things up to try and defend him.

I made up nothing. In 2012 Seattle used Washjngton because he was easily their best kick returner and, it's worth noting, one of the best in the league. In 2013 they released Washington because they went out and acquired the best kickoff returner in the league. That, coupled with the entirely different set of circumstances (injuries, FA losses and acquisitions) lead the to use Turbin for much of the season. Turbin clearly struggled with returns, but because he contributed in other areas and was better at pass pro he got the nod until he fumbled it away.It is indeed a fact that Carroll and the Seahawks use top tier starters in their coverage and returns. Some teams don't subscribe to this philosophy. But if you have that approach it makes it much easier to sit a guy like Michael, whom they value extremely high, in favor of activating a player at a position that is a greater area of need. The Seahawks never came close to needing his services this year, despite your constant referral to their decreased rushing metrics (which, given the season long issues with offensive line cohesiveness shouldn't be surprising). His pass protection was always a concern, but not something that alarmed anyone outside of a few posters in this thread. That's where the disconnect is: people seem to think there is more going on here than meets the eye, yet can't point to anything other than what is already accepted: pass pro and pecking order.

So I guess the questions are: what do you expect the value of activating Michael would have been? Should he have been active due to being drafted in the second round alone? Why?

Leon Washington is/was a good kick returner for sure, but he was not a top tier starter and contributed very little in any other area. Ergo, Seattle does not use top tier starters on kick returns, they use who they believe is their best kick returner.Again, I've been referring to their decreased rushing metrics only to refute the claim that he was inactive because they didn't realize how dominant they were. If anything, they were much less dominant than the prior year when they did utilize a 3rd RB, so that excuse for him being inactive doesn't hold water.

I don't think he should have been active based on draft position at all. I think he would have been active if they felt he gave them a better chance to win. They obviously didn't.

At no time was Turbin their best kick returner this season. He was used because he was active, capable and they had greater needs at other positions. This point can't be more central to your misreading of the situation.That, and you're stuck looking at last year when Seattle clearly wasn't.

 

[Neofight]

I agree with pretty much everything here, but again, I only responded to you because you originally said his being inactive had nothing to do with him. You keep glossing over that and talking about his future and his trade value. I've never even mentioned those things other than to say I like him long term, I'm just pointing out that of course he had something to do with being inactive most weeks. The situation wasn't nearly as insurmountable as you've made it seem (still laughing at the AP comments btw).

I'll say it again, him being inactive instead of the 3rd RB has nothing to do with him, and more to do with other players being really good doing the non-RB things that a 3rd RB needs to do, something Michael was never drafted for.

It's on him that he didn't beat out Turbin, but in order to do so he would have had to be SIGNIFICANTLY better because of the other things Turbin added as a veteran.

So he was either going to be the backup, or inactive.

Pretty much this. Plus other roster concerns factoring into active/inactive status.

 

[ghostguy123]

We also need to stop talking about Turbin.

Turbin won the backup job, we know this. Not because he was a better "runner", but because he was good enough at it that his better 3rd down back abilities, pass pro, and knowledge of the offense offset how much better Michael is than him at taking a handoff and running with it. That changes this year, and if it doesn't, then I worry a lot about Michael.

Once Turbin became the backup, Michael had almost no chance to be active for most of the year because they have much better players (top level players) at doing the special teams duties that a 3rd strong RB needs to do for most teams. Why activate Michael for 1-2 carries a game when they can activate a player who can help more with other duties. I can't think of all that many 3rd strong rookie RBs who were active all year unless they were playing great on special teams, something Michael just isn't good at, which really is meaningless moving forward.

Then once Michael was inactive, obviously it was hard for him to pass up Turbin during the season, and given how dominating their team was this year, why change things? PLus Turbin never game them a reason to bench him.

Again, that all changes this season.

And I can't fathom why anyone would drop Michael's value based on this past season. Anyone who drafted him should have knows he would be useless in 2013, and PROBABLY useless in 2014.

 

[humpback]

What you don't know about this situation could fill the Grand Canyon if it were specks of dust. No different than me, except that I am aware of that and actually interested in trying to understand what it is the Seahawks are actually doing.

What I do know is that 2012 has absolutely no bearing on decisions made for this team. It's ridiculous to assume otherwise.

So you're trying to understand it by saying things that just aren't true? Cool.I'm only bringing up 2012 to refute some of the ridiculous claims being made, such as yours about them using starters to return kicks. Sorry, but that's not the case. Also ghostguy, saying how they didn't realize how dominant they were as a team until after they drafted him, when they were far more dominant in most relevant aspects prior to their drafting him. Just doesn't add up.

I never claimed to know the reason why he wasn't active, but it certainly seems to be something about him that they aren't quite comfortable with just yet. It isn't some major indictment on him or his future, but it's bizarre to make things up to try and defend him.

I made up nothing. In 2012 Seattle used Washjngton because he was easily their best kick returner and, it's worth noting, one of the best in the league. In 2013 they released Washington because they went out and acquired the best kickoff returner in the league. That, coupled with the entirely different set of circumstances (injuries, FA losses and acquisitions) lead the to use Turbin for much of the season. Turbin clearly struggled with returns, but because he contributed in other areas and was better at pass pro he got the nod until he fumbled it away.It is indeed a fact that Carroll and the Seahawks use top tier starters in their coverage and returns. Some teams don't subscribe to this philosophy. But if you have that approach it makes it much easier to sit a guy like Michael, whom they value extremely high, in favor of activating a player at a position that is a greater area of need. The Seahawks never came close to needing his services this year, despite your constant referral to their decreased rushing metrics (which, given the season long issues with offensive line cohesiveness shouldn't be surprising). His pass protection was always a concern, but not something that alarmed anyone outside of a few posters in this thread. That's where the disconnect is: people seem to think there is more going on here than meets the eye, yet can't point to anything other than what is already accepted: pass pro and pecking order.

So I guess the questions are: what do you expect the value of activating Michael would have been? Should he have been active due to being drafted in the second round alone? Why?

Leon Washington is/was a good kick returner for sure, but he was not a top tier starter and contributed very little in any other area. Ergo, Seattle does not use top tier starters on kick returns, they use who they believe is their best kick returner.Again, I've been referring to their decreased rushing metrics only to refute the claim that he was inactive because they didn't realize how dominant they were. If anything, they were much less dominant than the prior year when they did utilize a 3rd RB, so that excuse for him being inactive doesn't hold water.

I don't think he should have been active based on draft position at all. I think he would have been active if they felt he gave them a better chance to win. They obviously didn't.

At no time was Turbin their best kick returner this season. He was used because he was active, capable and they had greater needs at other positions. This point can't be more central to your misreading of the situation.That, and you're stuck looking at last year when Seattle clearly wasn't.

Yes, I'm misreading the situation. It's obvious you are correct, and Seattle only uses a top tier starter at kick returner, even though they never have done so in Pete Caroll's entire tenure there.

 

[humpback]

I agree with pretty much everything here, but again, I only responded to you because you originally said his being inactive had nothing to do with him. You keep glossing over that and talking about his future and his trade value. I've never even mentioned those things other than to say I like him long term, I'm just pointing out that of course he had something to do with being inactive most weeks. The situation wasn't nearly as insurmountable as you've made it seem (still laughing at the AP comments btw).

I'll say it again, him being inactive instead of the 3rd RB has nothing to do with him, and more to do with other players being really good doing the non-RB things that a 3rd RB needs to do, something Michael was never drafted for.

It's on him that he didn't beat out Turbin, but in order to do so he would have had to be SIGNIFICANTLY better because of the other things Turbin added as a veteran.

So he was either going to be the backup, or inactive.

Yeah, that's not what you said originally. As long as you agree that it's at least partly on him that he didn't beat out Turbin, we can agree.

 

[Neofight]

What you don't know about this situation could fill the Grand Canyon if it were specks of dust. No different than me, except that I am aware of that and actually interested in trying to understand what it is the Seahawks are actually doing.

What I do know is that 2012 has absolutely no bearing on decisions made for this team. It's ridiculous to assume otherwise.

So you're trying to understand it by saying things that just aren't true? Cool.I'm only bringing up 2012 to refute some of the ridiculous claims being made, such as yours about them using starters to return kicks. Sorry, but that's not the case. Also ghostguy, saying how they didn't realize how dominant they were as a team until after they drafted him, when they were far more dominant in most relevant aspects prior to their drafting him. Just doesn't add up.

I never claimed to know the reason why he wasn't active, but it certainly seems to be something about him that they aren't quite comfortable with just yet. It isn't some major indictment on him or his future, but it's bizarre to make things up to try and defend him.

I made up nothing. In 2012 Seattle used Washjngton because he was easily their best kick returner and, it's worth noting, one of the best in the league. In 2013 they released Washington because they went out and acquired the best kickoff returner in the league. That, coupled with the entirely different set of circumstances (injuries, FA losses and acquisitions) lead the to use Turbin for much of the season. Turbin clearly struggled with returns, but because he contributed in other areas and was better at pass pro he got the nod until he fumbled it away.It is indeed a fact that Carroll and the Seahawks use top tier starters in their coverage and returns. Some teams don't subscribe to this philosophy. But if you have that approach it makes it much easier to sit a guy like Michael, whom they value extremely high, in favor of activating a player at a position that is a greater area of need. The Seahawks never came close to needing his services this year, despite your constant referral to their decreased rushing metrics (which, given the season long issues with offensive line cohesiveness shouldn't be surprising). His pass protection was always a concern, but not something that alarmed anyone outside of a few posters in this thread. That's where the disconnect is: people seem to think there is more going on here than meets the eye, yet can't point to anything other than what is already accepted: pass pro and pecking order.

So I guess the questions are: what do you expect the value of activating Michael would have been? Should he have been active due to being drafted in the second round alone? Why?

Leon Washington is/was a good kick returner for sure, but he was not a top tier starter and contributed very little in any other area. Ergo, Seattle does not use top tier starters on kick returns, they use who they believe is their best kick returner.Again, I've been referring to their decreased rushing metrics only to refute the claim that he was inactive because they didn't realize how dominant they were. If anything, they were much less dominant than the prior year when they did utilize a 3rd RB, so that excuse for him being inactive doesn't hold water.

I don't think he should have been active based on draft position at all. I think he would have been active if they felt he gave them a better chance to win. They obviously didn't.

At no time was Turbin their best kick returner this season. He was used because he was active, capable and they had greater needs at other positions. This point can't be more central to your misreading of the situation.That, and you're stuck looking at last year when Seattle clearly wasn't.

Yes, I'm misreading the situation. It's obvious you are correct, and Seattle only uses a top tier starter at kick returner, even though they never have done so in Pete Caroll's entire tenure there.

They did so this season. Or are you still stuck in 2012?

 

[humpback]

What you don't know about this situation could fill the Grand Canyon if it were specks of dust. No different than me, except that I am aware of that and actually interested in trying to understand what it is the Seahawks are actually doing.

What I do know is that 2012 has absolutely no bearing on decisions made for this team. It's ridiculous to assume otherwise.

So you're trying to understand it by saying things that just aren't true? Cool.I'm only bringing up 2012 to refute some of the ridiculous claims being made, such as yours about them using starters to return kicks. Sorry, but that's not the case. Also ghostguy, saying how they didn't realize how dominant they were as a team until after they drafted him, when they were far more dominant in most relevant aspects prior to their drafting him. Just doesn't add up.

I never claimed to know the reason why he wasn't active, but it certainly seems to be something about him that they aren't quite comfortable with just yet. It isn't some major indictment on him or his future, but it's bizarre to make things up to try and defend him.

I made up nothing. In 2012 Seattle used Washjngton because he was easily their best kick returner and, it's worth noting, one of the best in the league. In 2013 they released Washington because they went out and acquired the best kickoff returner in the league. That, coupled with the entirely different set of circumstances (injuries, FA losses and acquisitions) lead the to use Turbin for much of the season. Turbin clearly struggled with returns, but because he contributed in other areas and was better at pass pro he got the nod until he fumbled it away.It is indeed a fact that Carroll and the Seahawks use top tier starters in their coverage and returns. Some teams don't subscribe to this philosophy. But if you have that approach it makes it much easier to sit a guy like Michael, whom they value extremely high, in favor of activating a player at a position that is a greater area of need. The Seahawks never came close to needing his services this year, despite your constant referral to their decreased rushing metrics (which, given the season long issues with offensive line cohesiveness shouldn't be surprising). His pass protection was always a concern, but not something that alarmed anyone outside of a few posters in this thread. That's where the disconnect is: people seem to think there is more going on here than meets the eye, yet can't point to anything other than what is already accepted: pass pro and pecking order.

So I guess the questions are: what do you expect the value of activating Michael would have been? Should he have been active due to being drafted in the second round alone? Why?

Leon Washington is/was a good kick returner for sure, but he was not a top tier starter and contributed very little in any other area. Ergo, Seattle does not use top tier starters on kick returns, they use who they believe is their best kick returner.Again, I've been referring to their decreased rushing metrics only to refute the claim that he was inactive because they didn't realize how dominant they were. If anything, they were much less dominant than the prior year when they did utilize a 3rd RB, so that excuse for him being inactive doesn't hold water.

I don't think he should have been active based on draft position at all. I think he would have been active if they felt he gave them a better chance to win. They obviously didn't.

At no time was Turbin their best kick returner this season. He was used because he was active, capable and they had greater needs at other positions. This point can't be more central to your misreading of the situation.That, and you're stuck looking at last year when Seattle clearly wasn't.

Yes, I'm misreading the situation. It's obvious you are correct, and Seattle only uses a top tier starter at kick returner, even though they never have done so in Pete Caroll's entire tenure there.

They did so this season.Or are you still stuck in 2012?

I assume you're referring to Harvin and his 1 kick return this season?

Man, poor Michael just can't catch a break. His coach completely changes philosophies after 3 3/4 seasons of doing the opposite of what you say they do, and they don't even give him a chance when that new plan is derailed by an injury!

 

[ghostguy123]

Yeah, that's not what you said originally. As long as you agree that it's at least partly on him that he didn't beat out Turbin, we can agree.

I don't know my exact quote, nor do I care to look it up, but pretty sure I said him being inactive was not on Michael once he was not the direct backup to Lynch.

 

[Neofight]

What you don't know about this situation could fill the Grand Canyon if it were specks of dust. No different than me, except that I am aware of that and actually interested in trying to understand what it is the Seahawks are actually doing.

What I do know is that 2012 has absolutely no bearing on decisions made for this team. It's ridiculous to assume otherwise.

So you're trying to understand it by saying things that just aren't true? Cool.I'm only bringing up 2012 to refute some of the ridiculous claims being made, such as yours about them using starters to return kicks. Sorry, but that's not the case. Also ghostguy, saying how they didn't realize how dominant they were as a team until after they drafted him, when they were far more dominant in most relevant aspects prior to their drafting him. Just doesn't add up.

I never claimed to know the reason why he wasn't active, but it certainly seems to be something about him that they aren't quite comfortable with just yet. It isn't some major indictment on him or his future, but it's bizarre to make things up to try and defend him.

I made up nothing. In 2012 Seattle used Washjngton because he was easily their best kick returner and, it's worth noting, one of the best in the league. In 2013 they released Washington because they went out and acquired the best kickoff returner in the league. That, coupled with the entirely different set of circumstances (injuries, FA losses and acquisitions) lead the to use Turbin for much of the season. Turbin clearly struggled with returns, but because he contributed in other areas and was better at pass pro he got the nod until he fumbled it away.It is indeed a fact that Carroll and the Seahawks use top tier starters in their coverage and returns. Some teams don't subscribe to this philosophy. But if you have that approach it makes it much easier to sit a guy like Michael, whom they value extremely high, in favor of activating a player at a position that is a greater area of need. The Seahawks never came close to needing his services this year, despite your constant referral to their decreased rushing metrics (which, given the season long issues with offensive line cohesiveness shouldn't be surprising). His pass protection was always a concern, but not something that alarmed anyone outside of a few posters in this thread. That's where the disconnect is: people seem to think there is more going on here than meets the eye, yet can't point to anything other than what is already accepted: pass pro and pecking order.

So I guess the questions are: what do you expect the value of activating Michael would have been? Should he have been active due to being drafted in the second round alone? Why?

Leon Washington is/was a good kick returner for sure, but he was not a top tier starter and contributed very little in any other area. Ergo, Seattle does not use top tier starters on kick returns, they use who they believe is their best kick returner.Again, I've been referring to their decreased rushing metrics only to refute the claim that he was inactive because they didn't realize how dominant they were. If anything, they were much less dominant than the prior year when they did utilize a 3rd RB, so that excuse for him being inactive doesn't hold water.

I don't think he should have been active based on draft position at all. I think he would have been active if they felt he gave them a better chance to win. They obviously didn't.

At no time was Turbin their best kick returner this season. He was used because he was active, capable and they had greater needs at other positions. This point can't be more central to your misreading of the situation.That, and you're stuck looking at last year when Seattle clearly wasn't.

Yes, I'm misreading the situation. It's obvious you are correct, and Seattle only uses a top tier starter at kick returner, even though they never have done so in Pete Caroll's entire tenure there.

They did so this season.Or are you still stuck in 2012?

I assume you're referring to Harvin and his 1 kick return this season?Man, poor Michael just can't catch a break. His coach completely changes philosophies after 3 3/4 seasons of doing the opposite of what you say they do, and they don't even give him a chance when that new plan is derailed by an injury!

Goodness you're thick. Ignoring the obvious fact that they signed Harvin to do just that (as I pointed out upthread), who was it that replaced Turbin?Right. Right. And right.

And remind me who was the kick return specialist for them the three years prior, and what his numbers were?

Right. Again.

 

[humpback]

Yeah, that's not what you said originally. As long as you agree that it's at least partly on him that he didn't beat out Turbin, we can agree.

I don't know my exact quote, nor do I care to look it up, but pretty sure I said him being inactive was not on Michael once he was not the direct backup to Lynch.

I quoted your post, that's how this all began, and that's not what you said.

 

[humpback]

What you don't know about this situation could fill the Grand Canyon if it were specks of dust. No different than me, except that I am aware of that and actually interested in trying to understand what it is the Seahawks are actually doing.

What I do know is that 2012 has absolutely no bearing on decisions made for this team. It's ridiculous to assume otherwise.

So you're trying to understand it by saying things that just aren't true? Cool.I'm only bringing up 2012 to refute some of the ridiculous claims being made, such as yours about them using starters to return kicks. Sorry, but that's not the case. Also ghostguy, saying how they didn't realize how dominant they were as a team until after they drafted him, when they were far more dominant in most relevant aspects prior to their drafting him. Just doesn't add up.

I never claimed to know the reason why he wasn't active, but it certainly seems to be something about him that they aren't quite comfortable with just yet. It isn't some major indictment on him or his future, but it's bizarre to make things up to try and defend him.

I made up nothing. In 2012 Seattle used Washjngton because he was easily their best kick returner and, it's worth noting, one of the best in the league. In 2013 they released Washington because they went out and acquired the best kickoff returner in the league. That, coupled with the entirely different set of circumstances (injuries, FA losses and acquisitions) lead the to use Turbin for much of the season. Turbin clearly struggled with returns, but because he contributed in other areas and was better at pass pro he got the nod until he fumbled it away.It is indeed a fact that Carroll and the Seahawks use top tier starters in their coverage and returns. Some teams don't subscribe to this philosophy. But if you have that approach it makes it much easier to sit a guy like Michael, whom they value extremely high, in favor of activating a player at a position that is a greater area of need. The Seahawks never came close to needing his services this year, despite your constant referral to their decreased rushing metrics (which, given the season long issues with offensive line cohesiveness shouldn't be surprising). His pass protection was always a concern, but not something that alarmed anyone outside of a few posters in this thread. That's where the disconnect is: people seem to think there is more going on here than meets the eye, yet can't point to anything other than what is already accepted: pass pro and pecking order.

So I guess the questions are: what do you expect the value of activating Michael would have been? Should he have been active due to being drafted in the second round alone? Why?

Leon Washington is/was a good kick returner for sure, but he was not a top tier starter and contributed very little in any other area. Ergo, Seattle does not use top tier starters on kick returns, they use who they believe is their best kick returner.Again, I've been referring to their decreased rushing metrics only to refute the claim that he was inactive because they didn't realize how dominant they were. If anything, they were much less dominant than the prior year when they did utilize a 3rd RB, so that excuse for him being inactive doesn't hold water.

I don't think he should have been active based on draft position at all. I think he would have been active if they felt he gave them a better chance to win. They obviously didn't.

At no time was Turbin their best kick returner this season. He was used because he was active, capable and they had greater needs at other positions. This point can't be more central to your misreading of the situation.That, and you're stuck looking at last year when Seattle clearly wasn't.

Yes, I'm misreading the situation. It's obvious you are correct, and Seattle only uses a top tier starter at kick returner, even though they never have done so in Pete Caroll's entire tenure there.

They did so this season.Or are you still stuck in 2012?

I assume you're referring to Harvin and his 1 kick return this season?Man, poor Michael just can't catch a break. His coach completely changes philosophies after 3 3/4 seasons of doing the opposite of what you say they do, and they don't even give him a chance when that new plan is derailed by an injury!

Goodness you're thick. Ignoring the obvious fact that they signed Harvin to do just that (as I pointed out upthread), who was it that replaced Turbin?Right. Right. And right.

And remind me who was the kick return specialist for them the three years prior, and what his numbers were?

Right. Again.

 

[Neofight]

Speaking of philosophies, you should begin by reading Carroll's book so you might begin to see where he is coming from. That and paying attention to the facts will get you pointed in the right direction.

 

[humpback]

Speaking of philosophies, you should begin by reading Carroll's book so you might begin to see where he is coming from. That and paying attention to the facts will get you pointed in the right direction.

I'm assuming you've read the book, and it obviously hasn't helped you pay attention to the facts, so I'll pass.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Speaking of philosophies, you should begin by reading Carroll's book so you might begin to see where he is coming from. That and paying attention to the facts will get you pointed in the right direction.

I'm assuming you've read the book, and it obviously hasn't helped you pay attention to the facts, so I'll pass.

Thank you for wasting a page and a half on nonsense.s

 

[Whitney26]

May have been posted but here's a highlight video of Michael, Turbin and Ware from the preseason:

http://youtu.be/uzprXP6mkyk

 

[Neofight]

Speaking of philosophies, you should begin by reading Carroll's book so you might begin to see where he is coming from. That and paying attention to the facts will get you pointed in the right direction.

I'm assuming you've read the book, and it obviously hasn't helped you pay attention to the facts, so I'll pass.

Yet another in a long list of logical fallacies. Start with those, move on to the book and then look at a few box scores, maybe, if you can't be bothered to watch the games. Three starting WR's returned kicks for the Seahawks this season. All of them to better effect than Turbin.

ETA: *Percy and has Super Bowl back-breaker makes 4 starting WR's to be accurate. My apologies.

 

[Eminence]

This town isn't big enough for both Lynch and Michael. Wouldn't be surprised if this guy doesn't become relevant on a different team completely.

EDIT: He's under contract until 2017. Wow, Seahawks are running such a great organization.

 

[DropKick]

I don't think they were drafting for need when Lynch was coming off a 1590 rushing yard/5.0 YPC season.

Pretty clearly a BPA pick and an investment for the future.

Not totally unlike the Pats grabbing Mallett a couple years ago.

When good teams see a guy with a high grade falling, they take him.

Mallett was their 5th pick in the draft, at a position that commands plenty of trade value, after a season where they were the #1 seed. Very unlike this situation.

I'm convinced. You are absolutely clueless.

 

[ghostguy123]

I just read a lot of the posts in here that I skipped over as of late. I have no idea what some of you are talking about. Books, and philosphies, and whatnot.

Here is a philosphy for ya. Michael was drafted to be a starting RB and take over for Lynch. As long as lynch is alive and well, that wont happen, although I can see lynch being elsewhere after this coming season due to being 29 with one year left on the deal at that point, and a billion carries.

Heck, lynch could break down completely this season.

Michael's value is that he is talented and SHOULD get a starting opportunity, though it could be in 2015 or 2016, which is why his value is not reall high. I don't think a late 1st or early 2nd in a rookie draft should be considered "highly valuable"

 

[Neofight]

I just read a lot of the posts in here that I skipped over as of late. I have no idea what some of you are talking about. Books, and philosphies, and whatnot.

Here is a philosphy for ya. Michael was drafted to be a starting RB and take over for Lynch. As long as lynch is alive and well, that wont happen, although I can see lynch being elsewhere after this coming season due to being 29 with one year left on the deal at that point, and a billion carries.

Heck, lynch could break down completely this season.

Michael's value is that he is talented and SHOULD get a starting opportunity, though it could be in 2015 or 2016, which is why his value is not reall high. I don't think a late 1st or early 2nd in a rookie draft should be considered "highly valuable"

Technically that's more of a theory (on your part) and a strategy (on the Seahawks'). And it's quite possibly wrong (the theory) due to Lynch only being 28 come April.

 

[humpback]

Speaking of philosophies, you should begin by reading Carroll's book so you might begin to see where he is coming from. That and paying attention to the facts will get you pointed in the right direction.

I'm assuming you've read the book, and it obviously hasn't helped you pay attention to the facts, so I'll pass.

Yet another in a long list of logical fallacies. Start with those, move on to the book and then look at a few box scores, maybe, if you can't be bothered to watch the games.Three starting WR's returned kicks for the Seahawks this season. All of them to better effect than Turbin.

ETA: *Percy and has Super Bowl back-breaker makes 4 starting WR's to be accurate. My apologies.

This is such a ridiculous conversation. You said that Seattle uses top tier starters at kick returner. I simply pointed out that they haven't done that for the vast majority of the past 4 seasons. Now you're trying to count guys like Jermaine Kearse as top tier starters?

You also said that they certainly had plenty of options at RB. I don't have to have read a book to see that 2 isn't "plenty".

 

[ghostguy123]

I just read a lot of the posts in here that I skipped over as of late. I have no idea what some of you are talking about. Books, and philosphies, and whatnot.

Here is a philosphy for ya. Michael was drafted to be a starting RB and take over for Lynch. As long as lynch is alive and well, that wont happen, although I can see lynch being elsewhere after this coming season due to being 29 with one year left on the deal at that point, and a billion carries.

Heck, lynch could break down completely this season.

Michael's value is that he is talented and SHOULD get a starting opportunity, though it could be in 2015 or 2016, which is why his value is not reall high. I don't think a late 1st or early 2nd in a rookie draft should be considered "highly valuable"

Technically that's more of a theory (on your part) and a strategy (on the Seahawks'). And it's quite possibly wrong (the theory) due to Lynch only being 28 come April.

29 after this season is what I said.

As for the rest of your post...............

 

[humpback]

I don't think they were drafting for need when Lynch was coming off a 1590 rushing yard/5.0 YPC season.

Pretty clearly a BPA pick and an investment for the future.

Not totally unlike the Pats grabbing Mallett a couple years ago.

When good teams see a guy with a high grade falling, they take him.

Mallett was their 5th pick in the draft, at a position that commands plenty of trade value, after a season where they were the #1 seed. Very unlike this situation.

I'm convinced. You are absolutely clueless.

Says the guy who agreed that if Michael was as good as AP, he still wouldn't have played much.

 

[Neofight]

Speaking of philosophies, you should begin by reading Carroll's book so you might begin to see where he is coming from. That and paying attention to the facts will get you pointed in the right direction.

I'm assuming you've read the book, and it obviously hasn't helped you pay attention to the facts, so I'll pass.

Yet another in a long list of logical fallacies. Start with those, move on to the book and then look at a few box scores, maybe, if you can't be bothered to watch the games.Three starting WR's returned kicks for the Seahawks this season. All of them to better effect than Turbin.

ETA: *Percy and has Super Bowl back-breaker makes 4 starting WR's to be accurate. My apologies.

This is such a ridiculous conversation. You said that Seattle uses top tier starters at kick returner. I simply pointed out that they haven't done that for the vast majority of the past 4 seasons. Now you're trying to count guys like Jermaine Kearse as top tier starters?You also said that they certainly had plenty of options at RB. I don't have to have read a book to see that 2 isn't "plenty".

Take your pick: Tate, Kearse and Baldwin. In the regular season. You'd likely say that Tate is their best WR, yet that's not what the advanced metrics would say. Also, Kearse and Baldwin picked up their games at the end of the season as Tate faded a bit. Tate is clearly a better Punt returner than kickoff. That's another conversation though.Come clean; I said Ware would have likely had more snaps than Michael as well, had he not gone on IR. Plus you need to factor in the other two backs since Seattle actually uses the FB position.

In the end, they just didn't need Michael nor should there be a reasonable expectation for you to say they did. It is ridiculous, I agree.

 

[Neofight]

I just read a lot of the posts in here that I skipped over as of late. I have no idea what some of you are talking about. Books, and philosphies, and whatnot.

Here is a philosphy for ya. Michael was drafted to be a starting RB and take over for Lynch. As long as lynch is alive and well, that wont happen, although I can see lynch being elsewhere after this coming season due to being 29 with one year left on the deal at that point, and a billion carries.

Heck, lynch could break down completely this season.

Michael's value is that he is talented and SHOULD get a starting opportunity, though it could be in 2015 or 2016, which is why his value is not reall high. I don't think a late 1st or early 2nd in a rookie draft should be considered "highly valuable"

Technically that's more of a theory (on your part) and a strategy (on the Seahawks'). And it's quite possibly wrong (the theory) due to Lynch only being 28 come April.

29 after this season is what I said.

As for the rest of your post...............

Gotcha, I misread that he would be 29 next season. Still remains to be seen how he is going though.

The thing about this franchise though, and I'm guessing you've read up on it a bit, is that the overarching philosophy of Carroll's is what drives everything they do. It's impossible to deny. Lynch is still going strong next season that just may renegotiate him.

 

[Eminence]

I don't think Michael was drafted to usurp Lynch. I think he was drafted because he was the BPA.

 

[ghostguy123]

Says the guy who agreed that if Michael was as good as AP, he still wouldn't have played much.

LOL, I can't believe this has been brough up 50 times. Clearly there was a bit of sarcasm in there.

 

[ghostguy123]

Gotcha, I misread that he would be 29 next season. Still remains to be seen how he is going though.The thing about this franchise though, and I'm guessing you've read up on it a bit, is that the overarching philosophy of Carroll's is what drives everything they do. It's impossible to deny. Lynch is still going strong next season that just may renegotiate him.

If they can fit him in they will, but they will have a LOT of players to negotiate with.

 

[ghostguy123]

I don't think Michael was drafted to usurp Lynch. I think he was drafted because he was the BPA.

ummmmmmmm

 

[humpback]

Speaking of philosophies, you should begin by reading Carroll's book so you might begin to see where he is coming from. That and paying attention to the facts will get you pointed in the right direction.

I'm assuming you've read the book, and it obviously hasn't helped you pay attention to the facts, so I'll pass.

Yet another in a long list of logical fallacies. Start with those, move on to the book and then look at a few box scores, maybe, if you can't be bothered to watch the games.Three starting WR's returned kicks for the Seahawks this season. All of them to better effect than Turbin.

ETA: *Percy and has Super Bowl back-breaker makes 4 starting WR's to be accurate. My apologies.

This is such a ridiculous conversation. You said that Seattle uses top tier starters at kick returner. I simply pointed out that they haven't done that for the vast majority of the past 4 seasons. Now you're trying to count guys like Jermaine Kearse as top tier starters?You also said that they certainly had plenty of options at RB. I don't have to have read a book to see that 2 isn't "plenty".

Take your pick: Tate, Kearse and Baldwin. In the regular season. You'd likely say that Tate is their best WR, yet that's not what the advanced metrics would say. Also, Kearse and Baldwin picked up their games at the end of the season as Tate faded a bit. Tate is clearly a better Punt returner than kickoff. That's another conversation though.Come clean; I said Ware would have likely had more snaps than Michael as well, had he not gone on IR. Plus you need to factor in the other two backs since Seattle actually uses the FB position.

In the end, they just didn't need Michael nor should there be a reasonable expectation for you to say they did. It is ridiculous, I agree.

Kearse was their leading KR, and he had 22 receptions on the year. He's not even a starter, never mind a top tier one. Turbin had the 2nd most returns, and he's not a starter either. The others only had a handful of returns combined. The 3 years prior they had used a 3rd string RB as the return man. I realize they brought in Harvin and he was going to have that job if healthy, but that's because he would have been their best return man, not just the best active option.

I know what you said about Ware, but there's no way of knowing if that would have been true, and he was on the IR for almost the entire season so that wasn't really "an option". Their FBs had 3 combined carries on the season. Again, that wasn't standing in the way of Michael playing.

I never said that they needed Michael, just that if they had more confidence in him, they would have found a way to get him more involved.

 

[Neofight]

Speaking of philosophies, you should begin by reading Carroll's book so you might begin to see where he is coming from. That and paying attention to the facts will get you pointed in the right direction.

I'm assuming you've read the book, and it obviously hasn't helped you pay attention to the facts, so I'll pass.

Yet another in a long list of logical fallacies. Start with those, move on to the book and then look at a few box scores, maybe, if you can't be bothered to watch the games.Three starting WR's returned kicks for the Seahawks this season. All of them to better effect than Turbin.

ETA: *Percy and has Super Bowl back-breaker makes 4 starting WR's to be accurate. My apologies.

This is such a ridiculous conversation. You said that Seattle uses top tier starters at kick returner. I simply pointed out that they haven't done that for the vast majority of the past 4 seasons. Now you're trying to count guys like Jermaine Kearse as top tier starters?You also said that they certainly had plenty of options at RB. I don't have to have read a book to see that 2 isn't "plenty".

Take your pick: Tate, Kearse and Baldwin. In the regular season. You'd likely say that Tate is their best WR, yet that's not what the advanced metrics would say. Also, Kearse and Baldwin picked up their games at the end of the season as Tate faded a bit. Tate is clearly a better Punt returner than kickoff. That's another conversation though.Come clean; I said Ware would have likely had more snaps than Michael as well, had he not gone on IR. Plus you need to factor in the other two backs since Seattle actually uses the FB position.

In the end, they just didn't need Michael nor should there be a reasonable expectation for you to say they did. It is ridiculous, I agree.

Kearse was their leading KR, and he had 22 receptions on the year. He's not even a starter, never mind a top tier one. Turbin had the 2nd most returns, and he's not a starter either. The others only had a handful of returns combined. The 3 years prior they had used a 3rd string RB as the return man. I realize they brought in Harvin and he was going to have that job if healthy, but that's because he would have been their best return man, not just the best active option.I know what you said about Ware, but there's no way of knowing if that would have been true, and he was on the IR for almost the entire season so that wasn't really "an option". Their FBs had 3 combined carries on the season. Again, that wasn't standing in the way of Michael playing.

I never said that they needed Michael, just that if they had more confidence in him, they would have found a way to get him more involved.

Why, necessarily?The simple fact is there is nothing in your argument about confidence or lack thereof that carries any weight. He was the best player not only where they drafted according to their board, but the highest rated on their board overall. Yet the fact that they didn't need him in his rookie season makes perfect sense when you see not only how things unfolded, in retrospect, but how they built their team. Not much else to say. What happened is pretty much what Schneider said before the season and what Carroll has been saying all along.

The rest has been covered ad nauseam and I'm keenly aware of the metrics. I know you're aware of why the went after Washington; why they let him go; that the starting WR's all had a crack at the return gig (and Harvin was the obvious choice, though Baldwin was the most consistent); etc.

 

[humpback]

Speaking of philosophies, you should begin by reading Carroll's book so you might begin to see where he is coming from. That and paying attention to the facts will get you pointed in the right direction.

I'm assuming you've read the book, and it obviously hasn't helped you pay attention to the facts, so I'll pass.

Yet another in a long list of logical fallacies. Start with those, move on to the book and then look at a few box scores, maybe, if you can't be bothered to watch the games.Three starting WR's returned kicks for the Seahawks this season. All of them to better effect than Turbin.

ETA: *Percy and has Super Bowl back-breaker makes 4 starting WR's to be accurate. My apologies.

This is such a ridiculous conversation. You said that Seattle uses top tier starters at kick returner. I simply pointed out that they haven't done that for the vast majority of the past 4 seasons. Now you're trying to count guys like Jermaine Kearse as top tier starters?You also said that they certainly had plenty of options at RB. I don't have to have read a book to see that 2 isn't "plenty".

Take your pick: Tate, Kearse and Baldwin. In the regular season. You'd likely say that Tate is their best WR, yet that's not what the advanced metrics would say. Also, Kearse and Baldwin picked up their games at the end of the season as Tate faded a bit. Tate is clearly a better Punt returner than kickoff. That's another conversation though.Come clean; I said Ware would have likely had more snaps than Michael as well, had he not gone on IR. Plus you need to factor in the other two backs since Seattle actually uses the FB position.

In the end, they just didn't need Michael nor should there be a reasonable expectation for you to say they did. It is ridiculous, I agree.

Kearse was their leading KR, and he had 22 receptions on the year. He's not even a starter, never mind a top tier one. Turbin had the 2nd most returns, and he's not a starter either. The others only had a handful of returns combined. The 3 years prior they had used a 3rd string RB as the return man. I realize they brought in Harvin and he was going to have that job if healthy, but that's because he would have been their best return man, not just the best active option.I know what you said about Ware, but there's no way of knowing if that would have been true, and he was on the IR for almost the entire season so that wasn't really "an option". Their FBs had 3 combined carries on the season. Again, that wasn't standing in the way of Michael playing.

I never said that they needed Michael, just that if they had more confidence in him, they would have found a way to get him more involved.

Why, necessarily?The simple fact is there is nothing in your argument about confidence or lack thereof that carries any weight. He was the best player not only where they drafted according to their board, but the highest rated on their board overall. Yet the fact that they didn't need him in his rookie season makes perfect sense when you see not only how things unfolded, in retrospect, but how they built their team. Not much else to say. What happened is pretty much what Schneider said before the season and what Carroll has been saying all along.

The rest has been covered ad nauseam and I'm keenly aware of the metrics. I know you're aware of why the went after Washington; why they let him go; that the starting WR's all had a crack at the return gig (and Harvin was the obvious choice, though Baldwin was the most consistent); etc.

Because he's talented? Why wouldn't you play the more talented player if you had confidence in him?

Not sure what you mean by the bolded, they look like the same thing to me.

I'm also not sure what you're referring to in regards to comments from the organization, but I remember Carroll saying that Michael will be right in the rotation and see how he does, and he'll also see some opportunities to play on special teams, and I don't think he was talking about the pre-season.

No one is saying he should have been the starter this year, but I find it hard to believe that most people expected that he'd only get 18 touches on the season.

 

[Louche]

Please stop. There isn't any new information or new point of views being brought forward. Quibbling over who wrote what 20 posts ago and twisting words is derailing this thread completely. And it was heavily derailed to begin with, along with the other thousands of threads on Christine Michael around the interwebs. Both sides have made their positions abundantly clear and the discussion has gone in circles a couple hundred times. Perhaps it's time to bring new information to this thread? The last news out of Seattle on CMike was that Wagner and him were videobombing a lot during the celebration. Discuss!

 

[Gandalf]

See I'm actually enjoying reading the back and forth. It's relevant to hear both sides argue their point of view because this is the type of back and forth that might occur when you are trying to trade for Michael. I don't think it's derailing the thread. It's not like they are talking about something totally random in this thread. They are arguing about their points. Michael is one of the most polarizing players in FF right now. This is a good debate, in my opinion.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Ultimately there's no way for anyone to know what the right answer is. Maybe the Seahawks have doubts about him. Maybe they love him and it's just a matter of time. Maybe they love him, but he's got to clean some things up to get on the field. Everyone here is just guessing.

 

[Louche]

See I'm actually enjoying reading the back and forth. It's relevant to hear both sides argue their point of view because this is the type of back and forth that might occur when you are trying to trade for Michael. I don't think it's derailing the thread. It's not like they are talking about something totally random in this thread. They are arguing about their points. Michael is one of the most polarizing players in FF right now. This is a good debate, in my opinion.

To recap. As you say he is clearly one of the more polarizing players with some firmly sticking to the thought of his playing time not being reflective of his talent, and others questioning that thought based on his very limited playing time this season. Coming out of college he was seen as having the best pure running ability in the 2013 draft class, however he came with plenty of questions. Primarily durability and maturity concerns, but even at that time it was clear that pass blocking, ball security and receiving needed to be worked on. On the other hand he was seen as an electric north/south runner with amazing explosiveness in an ideal RB size. He was seen as an ideal fit for zone blocking running schemes such as Seattles. Has anything changed based on what we've seen or not seen this season? No, not really. Is it surprising that they did not use a 2nd round draft pick more than they have this season? Possibly. But at the same time they felt they had the opportunity to spend a 2nd round draft pick even though Lynch would clearly be the number one option for the foreseeable future. So they clearly did not draft to fill an immediate need. Sure, even Seattle have made some bad moves over the past few seasons but they are generally viewed as the best organization in the league when it comes to evaluating and developing talent and building their roster. They won the Super Bowl without using Michael so apparently they did not have to use him and could afford to let him learn and mature this entire season. Does this impact his fantasy value? For some yes, for some no. The jury is still out. What is clear is that the Seattle organization did not view him as ready to play, or they did not see it as necessary or helpful for his development to give him more playing time. What is also clear is that he has talent and physical tools that potentially could make him one of the best running backs in the league. What else is there to add? We don't have any further info to go on. What will be interesting is how Seattle approach free agency, the draft and what kind of reports Seahawks beat writers give over the offseason - then we can start to get more of a read on how the Seahawks evaluate his effort and talent. Until then this discussion is stuck at pretty much the same place it has been all season.

 

[Gandalf]

That was a good recap!

 

[Topes]

Coulda used some cariage returns. But, yep, there it is.

 

[Touchdown There]

Seattle should trade Lynch now for what they can get in trade. Both CM and Turbin are really good. Solve cap and get a young draft pick.

 

[ghostguy123]

Seattle should trade Lynch now for what they can get in trade. Both CM and Turbin are really good. Solve cap and get a young draft pick.

why would they do that when the will not have any cap issues at all for 2014?