Christine Michael (1 Viewer)

[Shanahanigans]

The only real conclusion is that in year one of his career, he made zero impact at a young man's position as a high draft pick. A big fat F for year one. Gonna be tough to get his career GPA up to anywhere meaningful if he lays another egg.

No. If he is inactive every week next season people like EBF will use the same argument, "It's only because Lynch is so good, and Turbin plays special teams that Michael is inactive every week. He'll still be a stud when he gets his chance." Hell, they'll probably say the same thing if the Seahawks keep Lynch through 2015, "2016 is the year!" If he is such a game changer you really think the Seahawks wouldn't have found a way to get him on the field, or at least activated him in case of injury?

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

most people who own him know that this coming season he wont be getting alot of carries either save an injury/suspension from Lynch

 

[Shanahanigans]

but he's moved up waaaaaaay higher than that based on nothing but hype...

If you think training camp and preseason = hype then maybe that's true.

Looking good in camp and in the preseason means essentially nothing, so yes, it's just hype.

It's about as strong a positive as Michael being inactive is a negative. Tons of complete scrubs have gone hog wild in the preseason.

If we're going strictly off preseason performance then Cedric Peerman might be the best RB of all time when he finally gets a chance!

 

[EBF]

No. If he is inactive every week next season people like EBF will use the same argument, "It's only because Lynch is so good, and Turbin plays special teams that Michael is inactive every week. He'll still be a stud when he gets his chance." Hell, they'll probably say the same thing if the Seahawks keep Lynch through 2015, "2016 is the year!" If he is such a game changer you really think the Seahawks wouldn't have found a way to get him on the field, or at least activated him in case of injury?

I don't expect him to play much next year either. Assuming Lynch is still healthy and productive, there's no reason why he should get more than 50-80 carries.

Nobody who bought him before his rookie season was expecting him to come in and push Lynch aside. It was clearly a "one for the future" move like when the Seahawks grabbed Ahman Green. You don't expect your rookie RB to come in and be a huge factor when you've got a 1500 yard rusher in his prime.

I don't downgrade players for failing to seize opportunities that they never had. That's why I made the Gerhart comparison. When you're stuck behind an elite starter, you don't play. When you don't play, some people automatically assume that it's because you must not be very good. That's bad analysis.

If this was the Rams or Steelers and he hadn't gotten any playing time in a wide open situation, well then I'd say that it's pretty troubling. But it's pretty much irrelevant in the context of him being drafted onto a team with a great starter already in place. About as damning as Aaron Rodgers sitting behind Brett Favre.

The "prove it" crowd generally can't imagine anything other than what's sitting right in front of them, which is why players who get buried for opportunity reasons early in their careers often come to represent such great value in dynasty leagues. Here is a fun old thread in that vein.

 

[EBF]

but he's moved up waaaaaaay higher than that based on nothing but hype...

If you think training camp and preseason = hype then maybe that's true.

Looking good in camp and in the preseason means essentially nothing, so yes, it's just hype.

It's about as strong a positive as Michael being inactive is a negative. Tons of complete scrubs have gone hog wild in the preseason.

If we're going strictly off preseason performance then Cedric Peerman might be the best RB of all time when he finally gets a chance!

Except we're not going strictly off preseason performance. There's a pretty consistent narrative:

- Big-12 Offensive Freshman of the Year.

- 5.3 career YPC at Texas A&M, including 6.0 YPC as a junior in 9 games before tearing his ACL.

- Awesome performance at the NFL combine.

- 2nd round pick by the Seahawks.

- Big buzz in training camp.

- Awesome performance in preseason.

Regular season comes along. Lynch goes back into the lineup. Business as usual for the Seahawks. The Chicken Little crowd panics.

Doesn't change the fact that the narrative is there. Some people just don't see it. Like I said...

Dynamic talent. Spotty durability. That's who he is. No real mystery.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

The "prove it" crowd generally can't imagine anything other than what's sitting right in front of them.

And on the flip side, there are shiny new toy lovin owners who literally write themselves completely out of contention for years by somehow convincing themselves that a RB group of Trent Richardson, Christine Michael, Bryce Brown, and Paul Pierce is somehow a good thing. If that's what your imagination gets you... no thanks. I'll stick to good old fashioned boring production.

 

[Gandalf]

The "prove it" crowd generally can't imagine anything other than what's sitting right in front of them.

And on the flip side, there are shiny new toy lovin owners who literally write themselves completely out of contention for years by somehow convincing themselves that a RB group of Trent Richardson, Christine Michael, Bryce Brown, and Paul Pierce is somehow a good thing. If that's what your imagination gets you... no thanks. I'll stick to good old fashioned boring production.

Both opinions are true at the exact same time. It's a dialectic.

 

[werdnoynek]

The "prove it" crowd generally can't imagine anything other than what's sitting right in front of them.

And on the flip side, there are shiny new toy lovin owners who literally write themselves completely out of contention for years by somehow convincing themselves that a RB group of Trent Richardson, Christine Michael, Bryce Brown, and Paul Pierce is somehow a good thing. If that's what your imagination gets you... no thanks. I'll stick to good old fashioned boring production.

You must be the guy everyone goes to when they want rookie picks huh?

 

[Shanahanigans]

No. If he is inactive every week next season people like EBF will use the same argument, "It's only because Lynch is so good, and Turbin plays special teams that Michael is inactive every week. He'll still be a stud when he gets his chance." Hell, they'll probably say the same thing if the Seahawks keep Lynch through 2015, "2016 is the year!" If he is such a game changer you really think the Seahawks wouldn't have found a way to get him on the field, or at least activated him in case of injury?

I don't expect him to play much next year either. Assuming Lynch is still healthy and productive, there's no reason why he should get more than 50-80 carries.

Nobody who bought him before his rookie season was expecting him to come in and push Lynch aside. It was clearly a "one for the future" move like when the Seahawks grabbed Ahman Green. You don't expect your rookie RB to come in and be a huge factor when you've got a 1500 yard rusher in his prime.

I don't downgrade players for failing to seize opportunities that they never had. That's why I made the Gerhart comparison. When you're stuck behind an elite starter, you don't play. When you don't play, some people automatically assume that it's because you must not be very good. That's bad analysis.

If this was the Rams or Steelers and he hadn't gotten any playing time in a wide open situation, well then I'd say that it's pretty troubling. But it's pretty much irrelevant in the context of him being drafted onto a team with a great starter already in place. About as damning as Aaron Rodgers sitting behind Brett Favre.

The "prove it" crowd generally can't imagine anything other than what's sitting right in front of them, which is why players who get buried for opportunity reasons early in their careers often come to represent such great value in dynasty leagues. Here is a fun old thread in that vein.

Likening Michael to Rodgers is a horrible comparison. QBs play every play, every game and never need a breather. You don't just bench a QB to see what your rookie can do. It is much easier to find ways to get a rookie RB involved. I am not concerned because he didn't "push Lynch aside" I'm concerned because the Seahawks found no reason to try to get him on the field or even activate him. Again, if he is such a game changer why is that the case? If he is that much worse than Turbin at pass protection, catching the ball, and special teams that it negates his "dynamic talent" that is a red flag too.

I'm glad you brought up Gerhart, because not only was he active for 15 games his rookie year (12 more than Michael), but he also touched the ball 102 times (84 more than Michael). All of this while being behind a RB vastly superior to Lynch.

 

[Shanahanigans]

but he's moved up waaaaaaay higher than that based on nothing but hype...

If you think training camp and preseason = hype then maybe that's true.

Looking good in camp and in the preseason means essentially nothing, so yes, it's just hype.

It's about as strong a positive as Michael being inactive is a negative. Tons of complete scrubs have gone hog wild in the preseason.

If we're going strictly off preseason performance then Cedric Peerman might be the best RB of all time when he finally gets a chance!

Peerman career preseason carries 104 for 459 4.4 yards per carry....doesn't look like that to me

I was referring to his 2010 preseason which had many people hyping him to be something he was not: 31 Car 201 Yards 3 TDs. One good preseason does not a career make.

 

[werdnoynek]

I enjoy grabbing guys with upside... it's a great feeling when a player you like hits and works his way into stardom. It appears I'm not the only one here. I like to do my own scouting, pick up guys I think have potential, sometimes at prices that seem ridiculous. I don't see anything wrong with it. Like investments...it's just risk vs reward in my eyes. Some prefer the slow and steady method of proven production, while it's not always top notch production, it's production. While others enjoy gambling and potentially hitting big. If I recall correctly there was a similar discussion going on in the Josh Gordon thread when he declared for the supplemental draft. Too much risk for some on a guy who was unproven coming into the NFL. Some of us seemlingly hit a home run, while others may have missed out because they were playing it safe.

This is a tale of two owners here and at this point no one is right or wrong. Unfortunately, as usual in the Pool, almost everyone thinks they're right and there's nothing the one side can say to sway the other.

 

[werdnoynek]

No. If he is inactive every week next season people like EBF will use the same argument, "It's only because Lynch is so good, and Turbin plays special teams that Michael is inactive every week. He'll still be a stud when he gets his chance." Hell, they'll probably say the same thing if the Seahawks keep Lynch through 2015, "2016 is the year!" If he is such a game changer you really think the Seahawks wouldn't have found a way to get him on the field, or at least activated him in case of injury?

I don't expect him to play much next year either. Assuming Lynch is still healthy and productive, there's no reason why he should get more than 50-80 carries.

Nobody who bought him before his rookie season was expecting him to come in and push Lynch aside. It was clearly a "one for the future" move like when the Seahawks grabbed Ahman Green. You don't expect your rookie RB to come in and be a huge factor when you've got a 1500 yard rusher in his prime.

I don't downgrade players for failing to seize opportunities that they never had. That's why I made the Gerhart comparison. When you're stuck behind an elite starter, you don't play. When you don't play, some people automatically assume that it's because you must not be very good. That's bad analysis.

If this was the Rams or Steelers and he hadn't gotten any playing time in a wide open situation, well then I'd say that it's pretty troubling. But it's pretty much irrelevant in the context of him being drafted onto a team with a great starter already in place. About as damning as Aaron Rodgers sitting behind Brett Favre.

The "prove it" crowd generally can't imagine anything other than what's sitting right in front of them, which is why players who get buried for opportunity reasons early in their careers often come to represent such great value in dynasty leagues. Here is a fun old thread in that vein.

Likening Michael to Rodgers is a horrible comparison. QBs play every play, every game and never need a breather. You don't just bench a QB to see what your rookie can do. It is much easier to find ways to get a rookie RB involved. I am not concerned because he didn't "push Lynch aside" I'm concerned because the Seahawks found no reason to try to get him on the field or even activate him. Again, if he is such a game changer why is that the case? If he is that much worse than Turbin at pass protection, catching the ball, and special teams that it negates his "dynamic talent" that is a red flag too.

I'm glad you brought up Gerhart, because not only was he active for 15 games his rookie year (12 more than Michael), but he also touched the ball 102 times (84 more than Michael). All of this while being behind a RB vastly superior to Lynch.

Who else did they have on the team to back up AP that year?? Albert Young??

 

[humpback]

I don't expect him to play much next year either. Assuming Lynch is still healthy and productive, there's no reason why he should get more than 50-80 carries.
Nobody who bought him before his rookie season was expecting him to come in and push Lynch aside. It was clearly a "one for the future" move like when the Seahawks grabbed Ahman Green. You don't expect your rookie RB to come in and be a huge factor when you've got a 1500 yard rusher in his prime.

I don't downgrade players for failing to seize opportunities that they never had. That's why I made the Gerhart comparison. When you're stuck behind an elite starter, you don't play. When you don't play, some people automatically assume that it's because you must not be very good. That's bad analysis.

If this was the Rams or Steelers and he hadn't gotten any playing time in a wide open situation, well then I'd say that it's pretty troubling. But it's pretty much irrelevant in the context of him being drafted onto a team with a great starter already in place. About as damning as Aaron Rodgers sitting behind Brett Favre.

The "prove it" crowd generally can't imagine anything other than what's sitting right in front of them, which is why players who get buried for opportunity reasons early in their careers often come to represent such great value in dynasty leagues. Here is a fun old thread in that vein.

I can think of one good reason why he'd get more carries than that- if he was better than Lynch. Funny how you thought he'd get more carries than that last season.

Nice touch with the link- shall we link threads to all of the guys you've been dead wrong about too?

 

[Shanahanigans]

No. If he is inactive every week next season people like EBF will use the same argument, "It's only because Lynch is so good, and Turbin plays special teams that Michael is inactive every week. He'll still be a stud when he gets his chance." Hell, they'll probably say the same thing if the Seahawks keep Lynch through 2015, "2016 is the year!" If he is such a game changer you really think the Seahawks wouldn't have found a way to get him on the field, or at least activated him in case of injury?

I don't expect him to play much next year either. Assuming Lynch is still healthy and productive, there's no reason why he should get more than 50-80 carries.

Nobody who bought him before his rookie season was expecting him to come in and push Lynch aside. It was clearly a "one for the future" move like when the Seahawks grabbed Ahman Green. You don't expect your rookie RB to come in and be a huge factor when you've got a 1500 yard rusher in his prime.

I don't downgrade players for failing to seize opportunities that they never had. That's why I made the Gerhart comparison. When you're stuck behind an elite starter, you don't play. When you don't play, some people automatically assume that it's because you must not be very good. That's bad analysis.

If this was the Rams or Steelers and he hadn't gotten any playing time in a wide open situation, well then I'd say that it's pretty troubling. But it's pretty much irrelevant in the context of him being drafted onto a team with a great starter already in place. About as damning as Aaron Rodgers sitting behind Brett Favre.

The "prove it" crowd generally can't imagine anything other than what's sitting right in front of them, which is why players who get buried for opportunity reasons early in their careers often come to represent such great value in dynasty leagues. Here is a fun old thread in that vein.

Likening Michael to Rodgers is a horrible comparison. QBs play every play, every game and never need a breather. You don't just bench a QB to see what your rookie can do. It is much easier to find ways to get a rookie RB involved. I am not concerned because he didn't "push Lynch aside" I'm concerned because the Seahawks found no reason to try to get him on the field or even activate him. Again, if he is such a game changer why is that the case? If he is that much worse than Turbin at pass protection, catching the ball, and special teams that it negates his "dynamic talent" that is a red flag too.

I'm glad you brought up Gerhart, because not only was he active for 15 games his rookie year (12 more than Michael), but he also touched the ball 102 times (84 more than Michael). All of this while being behind a RB vastly superior to Lynch.

Who else did they have on the team to back up AP that year?? Albert Young??

They did have footballguys' darling Lorenzo Booker. Who else do the Seahawks have? You guys act like Robert Turbin is some superstar, "It's no surprise Michael couldn't get on the field he was behind Robert Turbin and his 3.9 career YPC!"

 

[Shanahanigans]

I don't expect him to play much next year either. Assuming Lynch is still healthy and productive, there's no reason why he should get more than 50-80 carries.
Nobody who bought him before his rookie season was expecting him to come in and push Lynch aside. It was clearly a "one for the future" move like when the Seahawks grabbed Ahman Green. You don't expect your rookie RB to come in and be a huge factor when you've got a 1500 yard rusher in his prime.

I don't downgrade players for failing to seize opportunities that they never had. That's why I made the Gerhart comparison. When you're stuck behind an elite starter, you don't play. When you don't play, some people automatically assume that it's because you must not be very good. That's bad analysis.

If this was the Rams or Steelers and he hadn't gotten any playing time in a wide open situation, well then I'd say that it's pretty troubling. But it's pretty much irrelevant in the context of him being drafted onto a team with a great starter already in place. About as damning as Aaron Rodgers sitting behind Brett Favre.

The "prove it" crowd generally can't imagine anything other than what's sitting right in front of them, which is why players who get buried for opportunity reasons early in their careers often come to represent such great value in dynasty leagues. Here is a fun old thread in that vein.

I can think of one good reason why he'd get more carries than that- if he was better than Lynch. Funny how you thought he'd get more carries than that last season.

Nice touch with the link- shall we link threads to all of the guys you've been dead wrong about too?

You'd be linking threads for days.

 

[EBF]

Likening Michael to Rodgers is a horrible comparison. QBs play every play, every game and never need a breather. You don't just bench a QB to see what your rookie can do. It is much easier to find ways to get a rookie RB involved. I am not concerned because he didn't "push Lynch aside" I'm concerned because the Seahawks found no reason to try to get him on the field or even activate him. Again, if he is such a game changer why is that the case? If he is that much worse than Turbin at pass protection, catching the ball, and special teams that it negates his "dynamic talent" that is a red flag too.
I'm glad you brought up Gerhart, because not only was he active for 15 games his rookie year (12 more than Michael), but he also touched the ball 102 times (84 more than Michael). All of this while being behind a RB vastly superior to Lynch.

If you're that worried about the inactive thing, there's nothing I can say to sway your opinion. Plenty of RBs have come into the league behind great starters and played sparingly. Jamaal Charles was out-touched by Kolby Smith as a rookie behind Larry Johnson. Ahman Green was a zero on the Seahawks when they had Rickey Watters. You wanted "one example" of an eventual superstar RB who barely played as a rookie and I'd argue that those a pretty good ones.

Seems to me that you've already made up your mind here and you're going to bulldoze through any reasons people give you to reconsider. That's fine. People would accuse me of the same thing. Like I said, Michael is a fascinating player because we're all looking at the same information and drawing different conclusions. IMO these developing situations are where a lot of the "skill" of FF comes into play.

If you go back and look at any questionable young player, you're always going to find people on both sides convinced that they're right. What I like about this game is you can put your money where your mouth is. If you think Michael is horribly overvalued, well don't acquire him. Pretty simple.

 

[ghostguy123]

He wont do much this year at all..............but I WILL call it a red flag if he is inactive a lot THIS year.

Last year..................meaningless.

 

[EBF]

The "prove it" crowd generally can't imagine anything other than what's sitting right in front of them.

And on the flip side, there are shiny new toy lovin owners who literally write themselves completely out of contention for years by somehow convincing themselves that a RB group of Trent Richardson, Christine Michael, Bryce Brown, and Paul Pierce is somehow a good thing. If that's what your imagination gets you... no thanks. I'll stick to good old fashioned boring production.

Playing this game over the years and talking about players on the forums, you definitely come to see how different people are just hard-wired in different ways. It's survival strategies that go back millennia. Some people cling to shore and play it safe. Other people get on the boat in search of fortune and a better life. Neither side is right all the time. The owners who constantly package their volatile and uncertain picks/prospects for steady and reliable production tend to avoid the Roy Williams/Mike Williams/Vince Young collapses where a next-big-thing proves to be a next-big-nothing. On the other hand, they're not the kind of guys who are typically going to reap the rewards of a Josh Gordon or Alshon Jeffery because they're not going to pay the price of entry and stomach the risk. They're going to toss that hot potato out for a "safe" asset before the youngster has a chance to explode in their hands.

I think the ideal strategy is to alternate between the two styles as the situation dictates, rather than blindly adhering to either an upside-crazy or risk-averse strategy as your catch-all approach. You don't want to be asleep at the wheel when the next Jimmy Graham comes along. At the same time, you don't want to be caught holding the bag when the next Braylon Edwards blows up on your roster. Since neither side is right all the time, I have very little regard for strategies that are based purely on terror of risk or fascination with potential. It seems to me that you'd want to be upside-crazy with prospects who warrant the optimism and risk-averse when confronted with someone who looks like a fraud. It is an elusive holy grail, but it's something that I strive for.

Dismissing it as blind love of "shiny new toys" doesn't ring true when I'm actually very specific in the players that I target and recommend. There are specific reasons why I'm high on Michael in particular (as opposed to Marcus Lattimore, Knile Davis, David Wilson, Lamar Miller, and numerous players that I've hardly hyped, if at all). Rather than dismissing the specific promotion of Michael as a symptom of an overall youth-crazy mindset, it would be a lot more convincing if you could provide specific reasons why it's not justified in this case. When you lump all generically similar prospects into a bin because you're not willing or able to get more specific in your analysis, I would expect that you'd find it hard to understand why anyone would be abnormally high on those players compared with all the others.

That's one of the central tensions of this thread. The side that sees Michael as just another generic young RB with potential either can't grasp or disagrees with the specific signs that other people are using to arrive at a more optimistic reading. To say it's just "shiny new toy" syndrome would be a lot more convincing if everyone who liked Michael was equally high on every generic young prospect. At least for me, that's not the case at all.

 

[EBF]

I can think of one good reason why he'd get more carries than that- if he was better than Lynch. Funny how you thought he'd get more carries than that last season.

Nice touch with the link- shall we link threads to all of the guys you've been dead wrong about too?

I think you missed the point of the post. By now I've been posting here and playing in dynasty leagues for over 10 years. When you do this for that long, you start to see the same patterns and mistakes over and over again. Doesn't mean I get every call right, but it does mean that I have some familiarity not only with specific players that hit/busted, but also with how they fit into broader trends.

One thing that's been pretty consistent over the years is players with horrible short-term opportunity erroneously being punished, as if somehow being put in a bad situation is proof that they're disappointments. A certain chunk of the FF population seems to be so results-oriented that they're prone to treating "no performance" as "bad performance." Look at all of these players:

Larry Johnson

Aaron Rodgers

Toby Gerhart

Guys who had almost zero opportunity when they came into the league on account of being stuck behind a great veteran. Did their lack of performance early in their careers say anything about their talent level? No. It was a function of their opportunity and almost entirely unrelated to their ability.

So when I see people come in here and harp on the fact that Christine Michael didn't play much as a rookie, it immediately evokes past arguments over guys like Rodgers and Gerhart who were buried by a segment of the FF community before they ever really even had a chance to do anything.

I understand if people don't like Christine Michael because of his injury history or because they don't think he's a good runner, but if their main argument is that he shouldn't be hyped because he didn't have a good rookie year then basically their analysis on the player is null and void to me.

 

[squistion]

The "prove it" crowd generally can't imagine anything other than what's sitting right in front of them, which is why players who get buried for opportunity reasons early in their careers often come to represent such great value in dynasty leagues. Here is a fun old thread in that vein.

I can think of one good reason why he'd get more carries than that- if he was better than Lynch. Funny how you thought he'd get more carries than that last season.

Nice touch with the link- shall we link threads to all of the guys you've been dead wrong about too?

I brought up another fun old thread a few weeks ago, the infamous EBF rant of 2009 on Matt Forte as being the most overrated player in fantasy football http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=459397&hl=+forte - and he whined that it was irrelevant and unfair to mention it because the "statute of limitations" had run on discussing it (ancient history, you know). Interesting that the Rodgers thread is 3 years older (from 2006) but he has no hesitancy in trotting that out to do some bragging.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

re-read some of that EBF Forte thread, and he bashed Forte's pedigree as 2nd round, LMFAO and Im sure he used it prop up CM in this one.

And everything, literally line for line what he said about Forte, you can pretty much copy about Lacy from him now.

win some, loose some, but the Funk has a pattern here

opportunity matters in ff even dynasty

carry a guy for 2 seasons in the hope that he might do something is fine and good, but the roster spot and the initial investment (some people snagged CM in round1) is costly, because you could of drafted someone just as good with better opportunity for points, POINTS win, not talent

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

I can think of one good reason why he'd get more carries than that- if he was better than Lynch. Funny how you thought he'd get more carries than that last season.

Nice touch with the link- shall we link threads to all of the guys you've been dead wrong about too?

I think you missed the point of the post. By now I've been posting here and playing in dynasty leagues for over 10 years. When you do this for that long, you start to see the same patterns and mistakes over and over again. Doesn't mean I get every call right, but it does mean that I have some familiarity not only with specific players that hit/busted, but also with how they fit into broader trends.

One thing that's been pretty consistent over the years is players with horrible short-term opportunity erroneously being punished, as if somehow being put in a bad situation is proof that they're disappointments. A certain chunk of the FF population seems to be so results-oriented that they're prone to treating "no performance" as "bad performance." Look at all of these players:

Larry Johnson

Aaron Rodgers

Toby Gerhart

Guys who had almost zero opportunity when they came into the league on account of being stuck behind a great veteran. Did their lack of performance early in their careers say anything about their talent level? No. It was a function of their opportunity and almost entirely unrelated to their ability.

So when I see people come in here and harp on the fact that Christine Michael didn't play much as a rookie, it immediately evokes past arguments over guys like Rodgers and Gerhart who were buried by a segment of the FF community before they ever really even had a chance to do anything.

I understand if people don't like Christine Michael because of his injury history or because they don't think he's a good runner, but if their main argument is that he shouldn't be hyped because he didn't have a good rookie year then basically their analysis on the player is null and void to me.

people totally lost patience on Arod, he was cut in several dynos I was in at the time before Brett was booted.

Im sure though you held the whole time, holding out hope

 

[biju]

They did have footballguys' darling Lorenzo Booker. Who else do the Seahawks have? You guys act like Robert Turbin is some superstar, "It's no surprise Michael couldn't get on the field he was behind Robert Turbin and his 3.9 career YPC!"

Not picking on you, just the fact that people are touting Lacy as a superstar with a 4.1 YPC average and that was likely against fewer stacked boxes than Turbin. Not that this is helping the thread, but I think people underestimate Turbin's ability.

 

[Milkman]

Pretty sure Turbin sucks.

 

[greggorymac]

Which "back of the future" would you rather have? Lattimore or Michael?

 

[spreagle]

'Which "back of the future" would you rather have? Lattimore or Michael?'

*******************

Michael. I have no doubt Michael is going to get enough carries this year for Seattle to know whether he is the 'back of the future', or not. They are going to test him hard this year because it is in Seattles best interest to test him hard this year. This 29 page thread will NOT last until this time next year, it is either going to peter-out out of disinterest or Michael will be a consensus slam dunk stud for 2015.

Lattimore, they are going to ease him into it, it could be another year of waiting, I think.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

'Which "back of the future" would you rather have? Lattimore or Michael?'

*******************

Michael. I have no doubt Michael is going to get enough carries this year for Seattle to know whether he is the 'back of the future', or not. They are going to test him hard this year because it is in Seattles best interest to test him hard this year. This 29 page thread will NOT last until this time next year, it is either going to peter-out out of disinterest or Michael will be a consensus slam dunk stud for 2015.

Lattimore, they are going to ease him into it, it could be another year of waiting, I think.

Soooo... it wasn't in their best interest this year, but next year they're going to pull their Pro Bowl starter and team leader off of the field so they can assess Michael. Got it.

I prefer Michael also, though. Draft position is the single biggest piece of information we have this far on either guy, completely lacking an NFL body of work, and the NFL preferred Michael by a substantial amount. Both are in great team situations with likely poor short term opportunity, so that's a wash.

 

[DropKick]

The only real conclusion is that in year one of his career, he made zero impact at a young man's position as a high draft pick. A big fat F for year one. Gonna be tough to get his career GPA up to anywhere meaningful if he lays another egg.

No. If he is inactive every week next season people like EBF will use the same argument, "It's only because Lynch is so good, and Turbin plays special teams that Michael is inactive every week. He'll still be a stud when he gets his chance." Hell, they'll probably say the same thing if the Seahawks keep Lynch through 2015, "2016 is the year!" If he is such a game changer you really think the Seahawks wouldn't have found a way to get him on the field, or at least activated him in case of injury?

Skimmed the first 28 pages I see...

 

[Englishteacher]

'Which "back of the future" would you rather have? Lattimore or Michael?'

*******************

Michael. I have no doubt Michael is going to get enough carries this year for Seattle to know whether he is the 'back of the future', or not. They are going to test him hard this year because it is in Seattles best interest to test him hard this year. This 29 page thread will NOT last until this time next year, it is either going to peter-out out of disinterest or Michael will be a consensus slam dunk stud for 2015.

Lattimore, they are going to ease him into it, it could be another year of waiting, I think.

Soooo... it wasn't in their best interest this year, but next year they're going to pull their Pro Bowl starter and team leader off of the field so they can assess Michael. Got it.

I prefer Michael also, though. Draft position is the single biggest piece of information we have this far on either guy, completely lacking an NFL body of work, and the NFL preferred Michael by a substantial amount. Both are in great team situations with likely poor short term opportunity, so that's a wash.

Don't have a horse in the race here. Drafted both in a small, six man dynasty and have to drop them.

However, one thing to consider is NFL teams typically will take a "round up" in deferring picks for a year. A second rounder in 2014 is worth a first rounder in 2015. Lattimore was taken in Round 4 last year so I'd say he was worth at least a third in value due to his "redshirt" year that the 49ers knew they were taking on.

For more debate on Michael vs. Lattimore, there is an entire thread devoted to the topic. LINKY: http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=687870&hl=lattimore

 

[Shutout]

This is like the antithesis of the Arian Foster scenario. He erupts on to the scene and everyone says, "well, prove it." He does it again and they say "Well, once is a fluke, prove it again" and so on until that segment of owners completely missed the true sweet spot of owning Arian Foster.

Now, in this case, for whatever reason, the hype is completely opposite and he has crazy value despite doing nothing. So, I'm almost certain that he can do nothing again this year in terms of opportunity and it won't hurt his value one bit because people will be sitting back a year from now saying "Lynch is older...it's almost Christine's time..I can't sell now..I'm so close to cashing in." Its very similar to the JSTEW scenario in that regard.

So, I think you can buy him and not have a care in the world as far as his value dipping in the next year. It won't. Now, what you ultimately get out of him...who knows? But, if you have an older good rb/WR/TE/QB and want to turn the roster over and some guy has Michael and could buy that older player from you for their 2014 season, that could be a win/win. He will get the good player now and you will get a player that isn't going to lose value in the next season or so.

 

[ImTheScientist]

http://www.fieldgulls.com/nfl-draft/2014/4/4/5571364/nfl-draft-2014-sparq-profiling-part-3-running-back

Interesting article.

 

[Neofight]

Nobody wants to hear it.

 

[Sabertooth]

http://www.fieldgulls.com/nfl-draft/2014/4/4/5571364/nfl-draft-2014-sparq-profiling-part-3-running-back

Interesting article.

Nice article. I need to figure out who the hell Jerick McKinnon is I guess.

 

[jmo87usc]

http://www.fieldgulls.com/nfl-draft/2014/4/4/5571364/nfl-draft-2014-sparq-profiling-part-3-running-back

Interesting article.

Nice article. I need to figure out who the hell Jerick McKinnon is I guess.

Seems like the article was meant to imply that this SPARQ stat is some kind of indicator to predict quality NFL talent. Then it throws up the numbers of top NFL RBs and pretty much contradicts it's own theory. I wish the guys in my league gave this stat some heavy consideration so I can get Carlos Hyde in the 3rd round of my rookie draft.

 

[humpback]

Nobody wants to hear it.

It's mind boggling how you can read that article (if you did) and come away thinking it means much of anything other than what we already know, which is that Michael is very athletic.

 

[Neofight]

Nobody wants to hear it.

It's mind boggling how you can read that article (if you did) and come away thinking it means much of anything other than what we already know, which is that Michael is very athletic.

Precisely. Who is we? And what is it that we know?

 

[Coeur de Lion]

Nobody wants to hear it.

It's mind boggling how you can read that article (if you did) and come away thinking it means much of anything other than what we already know, which is that Michael is very athletic.

It's not that nobody wants to hear it, it's just not anything new nor is it particularly compelling. Being an athletic freak is great, but it's only one piece of the puzzle that makes up an NFL RB.

 

[Neofight]

Nobody wants to hear it.

It's mind boggling how you can read that article (if you did) and come away thinking it means much of anything other than what we already know, which is that Michael is very athletic.

It's not that nobody wants to hear it, it's just not anything new nor is it particularly compelling. Being an athletic freak is great, but it's only one piece of the puzzle that makes up an NFL RB.

What are the other pieces?

 

[Sabertooth]

Nobody wants to hear it.

It's mind boggling how you can read that article (if you did) and come away thinking it means much of anything other than what we already know, which is that Michael is very athletic.

It's not that nobody wants to hear it, it's just not anything new nor is it particularly compelling. Being an athletic freak is great, but it's only one piece of the puzzle that makes up an NFL RB.

What are the other pieces?

Heart, ability to withstand pain, perseverence, luck.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Nobody wants to hear it.

It's mind boggling how you can read that article (if you did) and come away thinking it means much of anything other than what we already know, which is that Michael is very athletic.

It's not that nobody wants to hear it, it's just not anything new nor is it particularly compelling. Being an athletic freak is great, but it's only one piece of the puzzle that makes up an NFL RB.

What are the other pieces?

Physical tools, the ability to find the hole at NFL game speed, and limited medical/character/work ethic concerns. All three of those and you've got a good back. We know about the first two at this point -- it's that third set that's concerning.

 

[Neofight]

Keep em coming...

 

[Coeur de Lion]

Nobody wants to hear it.

It's mind boggling how you can read that article (if you did) and come away thinking it means much of anything other than what we already know, which is that Michael is very athletic.

It's not that nobody wants to hear it, it's just not anything new nor is it particularly compelling. Being an athletic freak is great, but it's only one piece of the puzzle that makes up an NFL RB.

What are the other pieces?

Durability, vision, running instincts, work ethic, receiving ability, blocking ability, football intelligence, etc.ETA: heart, toughness, etc.

 

[humpback]

Nobody wants to hear it.

It's mind boggling how you can read that article (if you did) and come away thinking it means much of anything other than what we already know, which is that Michael is very athletic.

Precisely. Who is we? And what is it that we know?

"We" is pretty much everyone in this thread, and I said what we know- that he is very athletic.

What is "it" that nobody wants to hear?

 

[Neofight]

Nobody wants to hear it.

It's mind boggling how you can read that article (if you did) and come away thinking it means much of anything other than what we already know, which is that Michael is very athletic.

Precisely. Who is we? And what is it that we know?

"We" is pretty much everyone in this thread, and I said what we know- that he is very athletic.

What is "it" that nobody wants to hear?

That SPARQ is more integral to the Seahawks philosophy than "we" might think; that it is more than a metric, but a training method (developed by Nike and embraced and strongly influenced by Carroll and his strength and conditioning coach at USC and with the Seahawks); that when you run a horizontal draft board it means a lot more flexibility than just looking at a list top to bottom...

Things that "we" have discussed but seems "we" don't want to hear. Of course, maybe some of we do...?

 

[Coeur de Lion]

Nobody wants to hear it.

It's mind boggling how you can read that article (if you did) and come away thinking it means much of anything other than what we already know, which is that Michael is very athletic.

Precisely. Who is we? And what is it that we know?

"We" is pretty much everyone in this thread, and I said what we know- that he is very athletic.What is "it" that nobody wants to hear?

That SPARQ is more integral to the Seahawks philosophy than "we" might think; that it is more than a metric, but a training method (developed by Nike and embraced and strongly influenced by Carroll and his strength and conditioning coach at USC and with the Seahawks); that when you run a horizontal draft board it means a lot more flexibility than just looking at a list top to bottom... Things that "we" have discussed but seems "we" don't want to hear. Of course, maybe some of we do...?

And none of that is in any way relevant to a discussion of Christine Michael as a FF prospect. The Seahawks don't have any magic bullet, dude, they're just one well run team among many in the NFL.

 

[Neofight]

Nobody wants to hear it.

It's mind boggling how you can read that article (if you did) and come away thinking it means much of anything other than what we already know, which is that Michael is very athletic.

Precisely. Who is we? And what is it that we know?

"We" is pretty much everyone in this thread, and I said what we know- that he is very athletic.What is "it" that nobody wants to hear?

That SPARQ is more integral to the Seahawks philosophy than "we" might think; that it is more than a metric, but a training method (developed by Nike and embraced and strongly influenced by Carroll and his strength and conditioning coach at USC and with the Seahawks); that when you run a horizontal draft board it means a lot more flexibility than just looking at a list top to bottom... Things that "we" have discussed but seems "we" don't want to hear. Of course, maybe some of we do...?

And none of that is in any way relevant to a discussion of Christine Michael as a FF prospect. The Seahawks don't have any magic bullet, dude, they're just one well run team among many in the NFL.

Magic Bullet? I have one of those on my kitchen table. Who said anything about one of those?

What has been said was that they have a plan. The coach and GM have been pretty clear in their methods, plan and praise. Given that the measurables and metrics are pretty evident, maybe "we" should pay closer attention to what those individuals are telling us (and not telling us).

 

[ImTheScientist]

http://www.fieldgulls.com/nfl-draft/2014/4/4/5571364/nfl-draft-2014-sparq-profiling-part-3-running-back

Interesting article.

Nice article. I need to figure out who the hell Jerick McKinnon is I guess.

Seems like the article was meant to imply that this SPARQ stat is some kind of indicator to predict quality NFL talent. Then it throws up the numbers of top NFL RBs and pretty much contradicts it's own theory. I wish the guys in my league gave this stat some heavy consideration so I can get Carlos Hyde in the 3rd round of my rookie draft.

Super Bowl champs use it as a tool for evaluation.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

Nobody wants to hear it.

It's mind boggling how you can read that article (if you did) and come away thinking it means much of anything other than what we already know, which is that Michael is very athletic.

Precisely. Who is we? And what is it that we know?

"We" is pretty much everyone in this thread, and I said what we know- that he is very athletic.What is "it" that nobody wants to hear?

That SPARQ is more integral to the Seahawks philosophy than "we" might think; that it is more than a metric, but a training method (developed by Nike and embraced and strongly influenced by Carroll and his strength and conditioning coach at USC and with the Seahawks); that when you run a horizontal draft board it means a lot more flexibility than just looking at a list top to bottom... Things that "we" have discussed but seems "we" don't want to hear. Of course, maybe some of we do...?

And none of that is in any way relevant to a discussion of Christine Michael as a FF prospect. The Seahawks don't have any magic bullet, dude, they're just one well run team among many in the NFL.

Magic Bullet? I have one of those on my kitchen table. Who said anything about one of those?What has been said was that they have a plan. The coach and GM have been pretty clear in their methods, plan and praise. Given that the measurables and metrics are pretty evident, maybe "we" should pay closer attention to what those individuals are telling us (and not telling us).

And again, none of that is relevant to a discuss of Michael as a FF prospect. Every team has a plan. Every coach talks up pretty much every player on his roster. Plans don't always work out, and coachspeak means squat.

 

[Neofight]

Good talk Russ.

 

[cstu]

Nobody wants to hear it.

It's mind boggling how you can read that article (if you did) and come away thinking it means much of anything other than what we already know, which is that Michael is very athletic.

It's not that nobody wants to hear it, it's just not anything new nor is it particularly compelling. Being an athletic freak is great, but it's only one piece of the puzzle that makes up an NFL RB.

What are the other pieces?

Durability, vision, running instincts, work ethic, receiving ability, blocking ability, football intelligence, etc.ETA: heart, toughness, etc.

If it weren't for his injury and character questions he would have been the first RB off the board instead of the fifth.