Christine Michael (2 Viewers)

[Milkman]

The under selling and over selling can easily be explained. It just shows you who owns him and who doesn't.

F that, I am trying to trade for him in my leagues. Havent been able to.

Maybe I shoudl join the side comparing him to Turbin so I can try and drive his value down and trade for him, just like they probably are.

What have you offered for him?

 

[humpback]

The "he didnt dress a bunch last year" argument has about as much to do with his future than...................................I can't even think of anything less relevant.

His pre-season performance, a comment from the OC about RBBC that he now claims was about OTA's, a clip of a run during garbage time where he was untouched until he stumbled and was tackled by a cornerback (which was called back due to holding), etc.- I'd say most of the "arguments" in here are pretty meaningless in terms of his future.

Sure, most are. Most are speculation.

However, the "not dressing" argument is easily explained and in no way should be used as a reasoning for ANYTHING regarding his future, as in, 0%.

Every other arguments about everything in here has more merit than that one

Nonsense.

 

[ghostguy123]

The under selling and over selling can easily be explained. It just shows you who owns him and who doesn't.

F that, I am trying to trade for him in my leagues. Havent been able to.

Maybe I shoudl join the side comparing him to Turbin so I can try and drive his value down and trade for him, just like they probably are.

What have you offered for him?

A future 1st (probable playoff team) and Goldent Tate (i know he wants Tate, as soon as I drafted him in the rookie/vet draft at pick 16 he asked about him).

Also offered Goldent Tate and Cody Latimer

 

[ghostguy123]

Nonsense.

Poppycock

 

[DropKick]

Turbin doesn't look very good to me. Sorry.

He strikes me as the kind of guy that you can give some touches and he wont lose the game for you.

Pretty contradicting isn't it? A guy not losing you a game is pretty good to me.

Watching people go nuts over Michael is like watching Conservatives going nuts and believing everything Fox News says.

Reports say Michael is about to be a stud in a RBBC, they drool over it. Same exact site says the OC himself is back tracking and the Michael supporters don't believe it.

No one finds this like politics, that no matter what the facts are people want to believe what they want.

Facts:

Lynch is still a stud and still productive.

Michael is not guaranteed the spot ahead of Turbin on depth chart.

Michael didn't dress for most games his rookie season after being drafted in the 2nd and one spot behind Lacy who won Rookie of the Year. LOL.

Blame it on situation all you want, you draft a guy with talent, that talent will show and get you on the field at the RB position. Did it get him on the field?

Opinions:

ANYTHING hyping a guy who has only ran for 79 yards and still behind a guy they label as "Beast mode."

So yes for some, including myself, it is beyond a funny thing to see some people hoping praying and wishing so much that it clouds their judgement. Some are comparing him to AP for god sake.

ETA: Can Michael be good? Sure, but is he even deserving of any of this hype? Not in the slightest.

I don't think there is as much hype as you say.. He is a young back with very good measurables and people have him targeted as a probable heir apparent. You have to be ahead of the curve in dynasty/deep keeper formats.

If your criteria for a prospect is only proven players without veterans in front of them, you will miss a lot of guys.

 

[ghostguy123]

I don't think there is as much hype as you say.. He is a young back with very good measurables and people have him targeted as a probable heir apparent. You have to be ahead of the curve in dynasty/deep keeper formats.

If your criteria for a prospect is only proven players without veterans in front of them, you will miss a lot of guys.

Plus some are confusing "hype" and the fact that this is the Michael Thread.

Has ANY, and I mean ANY Michael supporter in this threat say he is worth a TON in trade?? No, not one.

I got him as being worth a mid 1st in this draft.

 

[ghostguy123]

Still waiting for the list of 34 RBs than Phenix has ahead of Michael.

 

[humpback]

Nonsense.

Poppycock

Where's the merit with those other things? They're all absolutely meaningless.

 

[ghostguy123]

Nonsense.

Poppycock

Where's the merit with those other things? They're all absolutely meaningless.

Everything is meaningless. Life is meaningless. What's the deal with airline food??

What?

 

[Shanahanigans]

The "he didnt dress a bunch last year" argument has about as much to do with his future than...................................I can't even think of anything less relevant.

His pre-season performance, a comment from the OC about RBBC that he now claims was about OTA's, a clip of a run during garbage time where he was untouched until he stumbled and was tackled by a cornerback (which was called back due to holding), etc.- I'd say most of the "arguments" in here are pretty meaningless in terms of his future.

Sure, most are. Most are speculation.

However, the "not dressing" argument is easily explained and in no way should be used as a reasoning for ANYTHING regarding his future, as in, 0%.

Every other arguments about everything in here has more merit than that one

It is relevant in the fact that it does not bode well for his chances at being the transcendent talent some are making him out to be. If he was so talented they would have found a way to get him on the field and given him more chances. It does not prove he will never carve out an NFL career, but the odds of him becoming a stud are severely diminished by the fact that the Seahawks saw no point in even dressing him 16 of 19 games.

It is certainly more relevant than some fifteen yard run he got in preseason with two minutes left in the fourth quarter.

 

[ghostguy123]

It is relevant in the fact that it does not bode well for his chances at being the transcendent talent some are making him out to be. If he was so talented they would have found a way to get him on the field and given him more chances. It does not prove he will never carve out an NFL career, but the odds of him becoming a stud are severely diminished by the fact that the Seahawks saw no point in even dressing him 16 of 19 games.

It is certainly more relevant than some fifteen yard run he got in preseason with two minutes left in the fourth quarter.

A guy with all the talent in the world doesnt help a super bowl winning team if he doesnt know the offense as well as another average backup.

It makes sense in that situation for the backup who is more responsible for pass pro than for running the ball to be in the game for a super bowl team. It just makes sense. You have a roster spot for a backup to get only a few touches and be responsibe for things other than running the ball.........makes sense to go with the guy who knows those roles better.

It was a unique situation that most understand while some don't. Been discussed a 1000 times.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Reports say Michael is about to be a stud in a RBBC, they drool over it. Same exact site says the OC himself is back tracking and the Michael supporters don't believe it.

Can you point out the people that don't believe it and are counting on Michael to be a productive RBBC back for them this year?

It seems to me that most Michael supporters are pinning their hopes on him helping them in 2015 and/or beyond. I think 2014 is pretty well being written off unless Lynch gets injured.

Michael didn't dress for most games his rookie season after being drafted in the 2nd and one spot behind Lacy who won Rookie of the Year. LOL.

Blame it on situation all you want, you draft a guy with talent, that talent will show and get you on the field at the RB position. Did it get him on the field?

It's not really unprecedented for a talented rookie RB to get stuck behind an high-end veteran. Ahman Green didn't really see the field any more than Michael did in his first 2 years. Neither did Michael Turner, who was stuck behind reliable Jesse Chatman for the backup job. Nor did Ahmad Bradshaw who clearly is a very talented guy that would have had a great career without the injuries. Darren Sproles didn't either. Larry Johnson. Deuce Mcallister. They go on and on.

I think Seattle was in a pretty unique situation with a great defense, a young franchise quarterback, and a super bowl caliber team. They clearly didn't need to take any big risks at running back and a couple of guys they've had the last few years who's pass blocking and ball security they trusted was a good place to not roll the dice. As Michael picks up his pass blocking and Lynch gets older, more expensive, and less reliable it will likely be time to give that electric guy his shot.

I say all this as someone who is only moderately high on Christine Michael. I own him in zero leagues and haven't made any offers for him. I am considering offering Ellington for him in a rare league where I actually have extra starting running backs and could use the extra contract space of having Michael on my taxi squad, but I haven't actually made the offer yet.

Regardless, I don't in any way fault the people that want to roll the dice on him being the next big thing. He may be expensive relative to what he's shown but he's cheap relative to what you'd have to pay for other guys that are or have that elite potential. Those are the kinds of guys that win championships so I don't have a problem with people rolling the dice on one. I certainly respect that approach more than the one of some of the folks in here who latch on to little phrases like him being a back up to Turbin and spin them out of control and out of context to try and make some bold statement.

 

[EBF]

The "he didnt dress a bunch last year" argument has about as much to do with his future than...................................I can't even think of anything less relevant.

His pre-season performance, a comment from the OC about RBBC that he now claims was about OTA's, a clip of a run during garbage time where he was untouched until he stumbled and was tackled by a cornerback (which was called back due to holding), etc.- I'd say most of the "arguments" in here are pretty meaningless in terms of his future.

Sure, most are. Most are speculation.

However, the "not dressing" argument is easily explained and in no way should be used as a reasoning for ANYTHING regarding his future, as in, 0%.

Every other arguments about everything in here has more merit than that one

It is relevant in the fact that it does not bode well for his chances at being the transcendent talent some are making him out to be. If he was so talented they would have found a way to get him on the field and given him more chances. It does not prove he will never carve out an NFL career, but the odds of him becoming a stud are severely diminished by the fact that the Seahawks saw no point in even dressing him 16 of 19 games.

It is certainly more relevant than some fifteen yard run he got in preseason with two minutes left in the fourth quarter.

https://yy2.staticflickr.com/3288/2961175776_b341ca0fc5.jpg

You were blowing this horn months ago and even after I provided examples like Jamaal Charles, Deuce McAllister, and Larry Johnson you've just kept at it. Definitely some irony in the fact that arguably the top dynasty RB of the moment (Jamaal Charles) couldn't decisively beat out Kolby Smith for PT as a rookie and yet so many people use the "he couldn't even beat out Turbin" line of reasoning as a cause for skepticism re: Michael.

 

[ghostguy123]

People seem to think not dressing is like 100000x worse than dressing but only getting a couple touches a game. It really isn't.

Had Michael dressed every game, he gets a couple touches a game. Yippeee. They prefered a veteran guy who was better with the duties other than just taking handoffs. That was more valuable to them than Michael doing better on his 3 runs than what Turbin gave them.

 

[DropKick]

The "he didnt dress a bunch last year" argument has about as much to do with his future than...................................I can't even think of anything less relevant.

His pre-season performance, a comment from the OC about RBBC that he now claims was about OTA's, a clip of a run during garbage time where he was untouched until he stumbled and was tackled by a cornerback (which was called back due to holding), etc.- I'd say most of the "arguments" in here are pretty meaningless in terms of his future.

Sure, most are. Most are speculation.

However, the "not dressing" argument is easily explained and in no way should be used as a reasoning for ANYTHING regarding his future, as in, 0%.

Every other arguments about everything in here has more merit than that one

It is relevant in the fact that it does not bode well for his chances at being the transcendent talent some are making him out to be. If he was so talented they would have found a way to get him on the field and given him more chances. It does not prove he will never carve out an NFL career, but the odds of him becoming a stud are severely diminished by the fact that the Seahawks saw no point in even dressing him 16 of 19 games.

It is certainly more relevant than some fifteen yard run he got in preseason with two minutes left in the fourth quarter.

The Seahawks boast one of the deepest rosters in the NFL. Having such a deep team, gives them the luxury of team building for the future. Lynch is a top flight RB and Turbin a capable backup. Yet they still spent their first pick of the 2013 draft on Michael, a RB. Did they need a back in 2013? No, but like any good management team, you plan for the future. The Seahawks know they could lose Lynch to injury. legal troubles or cap casualty.

If I'm coaching the team, I'm in no rush to get Michael on the field. I have backs I can depend on. I have that luxury. I also have a mobile QB and other skill position players that I trust. I'm paying Lynch 8.5 million (including prorated signing bonus). I'm going to use him. Meanwhile, Michael has time to develop as a player (pass protection, etc.). I'm managing the team for today and tomorrow.

Not dressing Michael means dressing somebody else. And an extra lineman or a defensive back might be a lot more useful considering my RB depth. I know how to manage my team. I won the SB. Now tell me why I had to find a way to get him on the field?

 

[The Man With No Name]

It is relevant in the fact that it does not bode well for his chances at being the transcendent talent some are making him out to be. If he was so talented they would have found a way to get him on the field and given him more chances. It does not prove he will never carve out an NFL career, but the odds of him becoming a stud are severely diminished by the fact that the Seahawks saw no point in even dressing him 16 of 19 games.

It is certainly more relevant than some fifteen yard run he got in preseason with two minutes left in the fourth quarter.

A guy with all the talent in the world doesnt help a super bowl winning team if he doesnt know the offense as well as another average backup.

It makes sense in that situation for the backup who is more responsible for pass pro than for running the ball to be in the game for a super bowl team. It just makes sense. You have a roster spot for a backup to get only a few touches and be responsibe for things other than running the ball.........makes sense to go with the guy who knows those roles better.

It was a unique situation that most understand while some don't. Been discussed a 1000 times.

Priest Holmes rookie year - 7 games, 0 carries

Arian Foster rookie year - 6 games, 54 carries

Ahman Green rookie year - 16 games, 35 carries

Michael Turner rookie year - 14 games. 20 carries

Larry Johnson rookie year - 6 games, 20 carries

Brian Westbrook rookie year - 15 games, 46 carries

Mark van Eeghan rookie year - 14 games, 28 carries

Leroy Kelly rookie year - 14 games, 6 carries

Stephen Davis rookie year - 12 games, 23 carries

 

[jurb26]

The "he didnt dress a bunch last year" argument has about as much to do with his future than...................................I can't even think of anything less relevant.

His pre-season performance, a comment from the OC about RBBC that he now claims was about OTA's, a clip of a run during garbage time where he was untouched until he stumbled and was tackled by a cornerback (which was called back due to holding), etc.- I'd say most of the "arguments" in here are pretty meaningless in terms of his future.

Sure, most are. Most are speculation.

However, the "not dressing" argument is easily explained and in no way should be used as a reasoning for ANYTHING regarding his future, as in, 0%.

Every other arguments about everything in here has more merit than that one

It is relevant in the fact that it does not bode well for his chances at being the transcendent talent some are making him out to be. If he was so talented they would have found a way to get him on the field and given him more chances. It does not prove he will never carve out an NFL career, but the odds of him becoming a stud are severely diminished by the fact that the Seahawks saw no point in even dressing him 16 of 19 games.

It is certainly more relevant than some fifteen yard run he got in preseason with two minutes left in the fourth quarter.

https://yy2.staticflickr.com/3288/2961175776_b341ca0fc5.jpg

You were blowing this horn months ago and even after I provided examples like Jamaal Charles, Deuce McAllister, and Larry Johnson you've just kept at it. Definitely some irony in the fact that arguably the top dynasty RB of the moment (Jamaal Charles) couldn't decisively beat out Kolby Smith for PT as a rookie and yet so many people use the "he couldn't even beat out Turbin" line of reasoning as a cause for skepticism re: Michael.

Ironic that you are still using Charles as an example to your point when it's blatantly horrible. Charles had 2x the carries and 3x the receptions of Smith his rookie year and out performed him in every measure, including getting the bulk of the carries in a game Johnson missed that season. Charles had 67 carries and 27 receptions as a rookie. Michael had 18 carries. Talk about a reach of massive proportions.

 

[EBF]

The "he didnt dress a bunch last year" argument has about as much to do with his future than...................................I can't even think of anything less relevant.

His pre-season performance, a comment from the OC about RBBC that he now claims was about OTA's, a clip of a run during garbage time where he was untouched until he stumbled and was tackled by a cornerback (which was called back due to holding), etc.- I'd say most of the "arguments" in here are pretty meaningless in terms of his future.

Sure, most are. Most are speculation.

However, the "not dressing" argument is easily explained and in no way should be used as a reasoning for ANYTHING regarding his future, as in, 0%.

Every other arguments about everything in here has more merit than that one

It is relevant in the fact that it does not bode well for his chances at being the transcendent talent some are making him out to be. If he was so talented they would have found a way to get him on the field and given him more chances. It does not prove he will never carve out an NFL career, but the odds of him becoming a stud are severely diminished by the fact that the Seahawks saw no point in even dressing him 16 of 19 games.

It is certainly more relevant than some fifteen yard run he got in preseason with two minutes left in the fourth quarter.

https://yy2.staticflickr.com/3288/2961175776_b341ca0fc5.jpg

You were blowing this horn months ago and even after I provided examples like Jamaal Charles, Deuce McAllister, and Larry Johnson you've just kept at it. Definitely some irony in the fact that arguably the top dynasty RB of the moment (Jamaal Charles) couldn't decisively beat out Kolby Smith for PT as a rookie and yet so many people use the "he couldn't even beat out Turbin" line of reasoning as a cause for skepticism re: Michael.

Ironic that you are still using Charles as an example to your point when it's blatantly horrible. Charles had 2x the carries and 3x the receptions of Smith his rookie year and out performed him in every measure, including getting the bulk of the carries in a game Johnson missed that season. Charles had 67 carries and 27 receptions as a rookie. Michael had 18 carries. Talk about a reach of massive proportions.

Charles got most of his work when LJ was out. I must have missed when Lynch was injured last season to allow Michael the same chance.

Charles had 2 starts as a rookie...

Guess what? Larry Johnson missed 4 games that season. Charles accumulated 43% of his rookie carries during that 4 game span, including his only game of double digit carries. In other words, he didn't "find a way to get playing time." He only got on the field for meaningful snaps as a last resort when the starter was injured. Even then, if you look at those four games you'll see that he was out-carried 31 to 29 over that time period by somebody named Kolby Smith. Jamaal Charles couldn't beat out Kolby Smith as a rookie. Guess he must suck pretty bad, huh? Michael Turner had 5 carries in his entire rookie season until the week 17 game. Guess who sat out that game with an injury? Darren Sproles had 8 carries in his first NFL season. The list goes on...

 

[ghostguy123]

I am also of the belief that had Lynch missed games, MICHAEL starts and gets the bulk of the carries, not Turbin.

As the starter Michael's main work would be carries and some blocking. As the backup it would have mostly been blocking assignments.

Who knows for absolute sure except the staff, but I am pretty certain that is how that would have went down.

 

[ghostguy123]

I think Turbins role was similar to something in New orleans if the starter gets hurt. Not saying they have the same skillset at all, but in new Orleans if the starter gets hurt, Sproles still has HIS role.

I think Turbin would have remained the backup had Lynch been hurt. Some more touches probably, but Michael slides in as the starter.

Ahhhhhhhhhh, what a fun argument THAT one will be, lol. Really not one I will participate in because the answer means nothing going forward anyway. Have at it if ya want, but thats my stance on it.

 

[jurb26]

The "he didnt dress a bunch last year" argument has about as much to do with his future than...................................I can't even think of anything less relevant.

His pre-season performance, a comment from the OC about RBBC that he now claims was about OTA's, a clip of a run during garbage time where he was untouched until he stumbled and was tackled by a cornerback (which was called back due to holding), etc.- I'd say most of the "arguments" in here are pretty meaningless in terms of his future.

Sure, most are. Most are speculation.

However, the "not dressing" argument is easily explained and in no way should be used as a reasoning for ANYTHING regarding his future, as in, 0%.

Every other arguments about everything in here has more merit than that one

It is relevant in the fact that it does not bode well for his chances at being the transcendent talent some are making him out to be. If he was so talented they would have found a way to get him on the field and given him more chances. It does not prove he will never carve out an NFL career, but the odds of him becoming a stud are severely diminished by the fact that the Seahawks saw no point in even dressing him 16 of 19 games.

It is certainly more relevant than some fifteen yard run he got in preseason with two minutes left in the fourth quarter.

https://yy2.staticflickr.com/3288/2961175776_b341ca0fc5.jpgYou were blowing this horn months ago and even after I provided examples like Jamaal Charles, Deuce McAllister, and Larry Johnson you've just kept at it. Definitely some irony in the fact that arguably the top dynasty RB of the moment (Jamaal Charles) couldn't decisively beat out Kolby Smith for PT as a rookie and yet so many people use the "he couldn't even beat out Turbin" line of reasoning as a cause for skepticism re: Michael.

Ironic that you are still using Charles as an example to your point when it's blatantly horrible. Charles had 2x the carries and 3x the receptions of Smith his rookie year and out performed him in every measure, including getting the bulk of the carries in a game Johnson missed that season. Charles had 67 carries and 27 receptions as a rookie. Michael had 18 carries. Talk about a reach of massive proportions.

Charles got most of his work when LJ was out. I must have missed when Lynch was injured last season to allow Michael the same chance.

Charles had 2 starts as a rookie...

Guess what? Larry Johnson missed 4 games that season. Charles accumulated 43% of his rookie carries during that 4 game span, including his only game of double digit carries. In other words, he didn't "find a way to get playing time." He only got on the field for meaningful snaps as a last resort when the starter was injured. Even then, if you look at those four games you'll see that he was out-carried 31 to 29 over that time period by somebody named Kolby Smith. Jamaal Charles couldn't beat out Kolby Smith as a rookie. Guess he must suck pretty bad, huh? Michael Turner had 5 carries in his entire rookie season until the week 17 game. Guess who sat out that game with an injury? Darren Sproles had 8 carries in his first NFL season. The list goes on...

So, even with Johnson not getting injured Charles managed to amass more than 2x the carries and 3x the receptions Michael did. It's an awful point. It was then and is now. We saw Charles in action for nearly a 100 touches in his rookie season. We saw Michael in action for less than 20. Also, it's funny how you don't mention receptions anywhere in your post. Wonder why? The carries were about split, the receptions were not. Equally hilarious is the fact that Smith got 21 of his carries in the 1st 2 of those games until it was clear he was in fact being outplayed by Charles. So, yeah, Charles outplayed his way to more touches.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Debating the finer points of Charles being an example is much less relevant with there being more than half a dozen other players that fit the mold just fine.

 

[ghostguy123]

So where do you supporters and non supporters rank Michael if he were in rookie drafts right NOW. If a draft was happening right NOW, where you take him?

I am looking at pick 6

Regular PPR leagues, starting 2 RBs, 3 WR, TE, and a flex

 

[EBF]

Debating the finer points of Charles being an example is much less relevant with there being more than half a dozen other players that fit the mold just fine.

Yea, I was about to write something along those lines. You'd swear some of these people looking for parallel cases need it to line up so perfectly that anything short of a player named Christine Michael with identical rookie production and the same birthday wouldn't satisfy their demands. To me their reluctance to admit that numerous great players have toiled through similar rookie seasons is just a reflection of their bias in wanting to believe that Michael can't be a great player.

The nice thing is that the arguments in this thread are so circular that at this point I can just copy + paste my old posts to respond to them.

Charles and Westbrook may have been "eased in", but they also both got significant playing time their rookie years (they even started a multiple games).

The great players find ways to get playing time, even as rookies.

I guess that depends on how you define great. These guys are among the top 100 rushers in NFL history. Here are their rookie carry totals:

Shaun Alexander - 64

Ahman Green - 35

Willis McGahee - 0

Priest Holmes - 0

Stephen Davis - 23

Michael Turner - 20

Brian Westbrook - 46

Larry Johnson - 20

Deuce McAllister - 16

Rudi Johnson - 0

Jamaal Charles - 67

McGahee probably deserves an asterisk next to his name because he missed all of his true rookie season while recovering from injuries. The other guys simply didn't play much. The common thread among these players is that they landed on a team with an established top level starter:

Shaun Alexander (Ricky Watters)

Ahman Green (Ricky Watters)

Willis McGahee ****

Priest Holmes (Jamal Lewis)

Stephen Davis (Terry Allen)

Michael Turner (LaDainian Tomlinson)

Brian Westbrook (Duce Staley)

Larry Johnson (Priest Holmes)

Deuce McAllister (Ricky Williams)

Rudi Johnson (Corey Dillon)

Jamaal Charles (Larry Johnson)

Being drafted onto a team that already has a multi-1000 yard rusher in his prime is bad news for a rookie RB's chances of making an immediate impact (duh). Contrary to what you're saying, most of these guys did not "find a way to get playing time." They all averaged roughly between 0-4 carries per game. This said very little about their ultimate talent level and a lot about their poor immediate opportunity. When you're a rookie RB on the same roster as a Pro Bowl talent in his prime, you don't play much. Simple as that.

 

[Shanahanigans]

It is relevant in the fact that it does not bode well for his chances at being the transcendent talent some are making him out to be. If he was so talented they would have found a way to get him on the field and given him more chances. It does not prove he will never carve out an NFL career, but the odds of him becoming a stud are severely diminished by the fact that the Seahawks saw no point in even dressing him 16 of 19 games.

It is certainly more relevant than some fifteen yard run he got in preseason with two minutes left in the fourth quarter.

A guy with all the talent in the world doesnt help a super bowl winning team if he doesnt know the offense as well as another average backup.

It makes sense in that situation for the backup who is more responsible for pass pro than for running the ball to be in the game for a super bowl team. It just makes sense. You have a roster spot for a backup to get only a few touches and be responsibe for things other than running the ball.........makes sense to go with the guy who knows those roles better.

It was a unique situation that most understand while some don't. Been discussed a 1000 times.

But we are not talking about just any back-up. We are talking about a guy who is supposedly going to be a future stud. If he was the immensely talented gamechanger people are proclaiming him to be they would have found a way to get him on the field or at least dressed him in case of injury. It is not that hard to wrap your head around and is entirely relevant.

The only legitimate comparison for someone with this level of inactivity turning into a stud fantasy performer is Larry Johnson. So, it is not impossible, but much less likely. Therefore, as I have said many times in this thread, there is no reason his value should have gone anywhere but down following his rookie year.

 

[Milkman]

It is relevant in the fact that it does not bode well for his chances at being the transcendent talent some are making him out to be. If he was so talented they would have found a way to get him on the field and given him more chances. It does not prove he will never carve out an NFL career, but the odds of him becoming a stud are severely diminished by the fact that the Seahawks saw no point in even dressing him 16 of 19 games.

It is certainly more relevant than some fifteen yard run he got in preseason with two minutes left in the fourth quarter.

A guy with all the talent in the world doesnt help a super bowl winning team if he doesnt know the offense as well as another average backup.

It makes sense in that situation for the backup who is more responsible for pass pro than for running the ball to be in the game for a super bowl team. It just makes sense. You have a roster spot for a backup to get only a few touches and be responsibe for things other than running the ball.........makes sense to go with the guy who knows those roles better.

It was a unique situation that most understand while some don't. Been discussed a 1000 times.

But we are not talking about just any back-up. We are talking about a guy who is supposedly going to be a future stud. If he was the immensely talented gamechanger people are proclaiming him to be they would have found a way to get him on the field or at least dressed him in case of injury.

This isn't true. It doesn't matter how good he is if he significantly risks Seattle's #1 asset because he is not good at pass protection.

 

[ghostguy123]

But we are not talking about just any back-up. We are talking about a guy who is supposedly going to be a future stud. If he was the immensely talented gamechanger people are proclaiming him to be they would have found a way to get him on the field or at least dressed him in case of injury. It is not that hard to wrap your head around and is entirely relevant.

The only legitimate comparison for someone with this level of inactivity turning into a stud fantasy performer is Larry Johnson. So, it is not impossible, but much less likely. Therefore, as I have said many times in this thread, there is no reason his value should have gone anywhere but down following his rookie year.

Key word "future".

And who in here is saying he is some surefire stud and some crazy gamechanger? I mean, maybe 1-2 people out there think that I guess.

But regarding the situation, had he been on pretty much any other team he probably wouldnt have been inactive. Something peopel overlook.

 

[EBF]

But we are not talking about just any back-up. We are talking about a guy who is supposedly going to be a future stud. If he was the immensely talented gamechanger people are proclaiming him to be they would have found a way to get him on the field or at least dressed him in case of injury. It is not that hard to wrap your head around and is entirely relevant.

The only legitimate comparison for someone with this level of inactivity turning into a stud fantasy performer is Larry Johnson. So, it is not impossible, but much less likely. Therefore, as I have said many times in this thread, there is no reason his value should have gone anywhere but down following his rookie year.

Charles and Westbrook may have been "eased in", but they also both got significant playing time their rookie years (they even started a multiple games).

The great players find ways to get playing time, even as rookies.

I guess that depends on how you define great. These guys are among the top 100 rushers in NFL history. Here are their rookie carry totals:

Shaun Alexander - 64

Ahman Green - 35

Willis McGahee - 0

Priest Holmes - 0

Stephen Davis - 23

Michael Turner - 20

Brian Westbrook - 46

Larry Johnson - 20

Deuce McAllister - 16

Rudi Johnson - 0

Jamaal Charles - 67

McGahee probably deserves an asterisk next to his name because he missed all of his true rookie season while recovering from injuries. The other guys simply didn't play much. The common thread among these players is that they landed on a team with an established top level starter:

Shaun Alexander (Ricky Watters)

Ahman Green (Ricky Watters)

Willis McGahee ****

Priest Holmes (Jamal Lewis)

Stephen Davis (Terry Allen)

Michael Turner (LaDainian Tomlinson)

Brian Westbrook (Duce Staley)

Larry Johnson (Priest Holmes)

Deuce McAllister (Ricky Williams)

Rudi Johnson (Corey Dillon)

Jamaal Charles (Larry Johnson)

Being drafted onto a team that already has a multi-1000 yard rusher in his prime is bad news for a rookie RB's chances of making an immediate impact (duh). Contrary to what you're saying, most of these guys did not "find a way to get playing time." They all averaged roughly between 0-4 carries per game. This said very little about their ultimate talent level and a lot about their poor immediate opportunity. When you're a rookie RB on the same roster as a Pro Bowl talent in his prime, you don't play much. Simple as that.

 

[Shanahanigans]

The "he didnt dress a bunch last year" argument has about as much to do with his future than...................................I can't even think of anything less relevant.

His pre-season performance, a comment from the OC about RBBC that he now claims was about OTA's, a clip of a run during garbage time where he was untouched until he stumbled and was tackled by a cornerback (which was called back due to holding), etc.- I'd say most of the "arguments" in here are pretty meaningless in terms of his future.

Sure, most are. Most are speculation.

However, the "not dressing" argument is easily explained and in no way should be used as a reasoning for ANYTHING regarding his future, as in, 0%.

Every other arguments about everything in here has more merit than that one

It is relevant in the fact that it does not bode well for his chances at being the transcendent talent some are making him out to be. If he was so talented they would have found a way to get him on the field and given him more chances. It does not prove he will never carve out an NFL career, but the odds of him becoming a stud are severely diminished by the fact that the Seahawks saw no point in even dressing him 16 of 19 games.

It is certainly more relevant than some fifteen yard run he got in preseason with two minutes left in the fourth quarter.

https://yy2.staticflickr.com/3288/2961175776_b341ca0fc5.jpg

You were blowing this horn months ago and even after I provided examples like Jamaal Charles, Deuce McAllister, and Larry Johnson you've just kept at it. Definitely some irony in the fact that arguably the top dynasty RB of the moment (Jamaal Charles) couldn't decisively beat out Kolby Smith for PT as a rookie and yet so many people use the "he couldn't even beat out Turbin" line of reasoning as a cause for skepticism re: Michael.

Ironic that you are still using Charles as an example to your point when it's blatantly horrible. Charles had 2x the carries and 3x the receptions of Smith his rookie year and out performed him in every measure, including getting the bulk of the carries in a game Johnson missed that season. Charles had 67 carries and 27 receptions as a rookie. Michael had 18 carries. Talk about a reach of massive proportions.

This. Charles was also active all 16 games.

 

[ghostguy123]

It's very, very simple. Many upon many rookies don't touch the ball much as rookie and still end up doing very well. Happens all the time.

In Michaels case he was inactive rather than wallowing on the bench with 3 carries a game due to the situation and team. If you think he woulda been inactive on most other teams, then well, wow, I don't agree at all.

 

[jurb26]

Debating the finer points of Charles being an example is much less relevant with there being more than half a dozen other players that fit the mold just fine.

Yea, I was about to write something along those lines. You'd swear some of these people looking for parallel cases need it to line up so perfectly that anything short of a player named Christine Michael with identical rookie production and the same birthday wouldn't satisfy their demands. To me their reluctance to admit that numerous great players have toiled through similar rookie seasons is just a reflection of their bias in wanting to believe that Michael can't be a great player.

The nice thing is that the arguments in this thread are so circular that at this point I can just copy + paste my old posts to respond to them.

No, some of us like Michael just fine but don't think it's at all productive to manipulate the information with terrible examples that attempt embellish you're point. There are plenty of good examples of RBs that have had slow starts to their careers. Charles and others on that list simply doesn't equate very well at all.

 

[Shanahanigans]

You can't misread a fact, and the fact is it is extremely rare for a RB to be inactive as often as Michael was and later on become a stud.

The fact is it is extremely rare for a RB to be drafted in the 2nd round onto a team with a 27 year old Pro Bowl starter coming off a 315 carry 5.0 YPC season. You don't seem to have accounted for this at all in your analysis. Hence why I think you're simply misreading the situation. Do you not realize how expectations need to be adjusted for players who are drafted into absolutely dismal short term situations? It doesn't seem like you do.

Your response to that will probably be to say, "Okay well I understand why he didn't play over Lynch, but couldn't he at least get time ahead of Turbin?" That's probably one of the most common arguments raised in this thread. All of the refutations have already been laid out. Again...and again...and again...and again. If you don't find them compelling, so be it. That's your decision, but it's not like people just randomly decided to hype this player.

If you look at the list of low-impact eventual stud RBs I posted:

Shaun Alexander - 64

Ahman Green - 35

Willis McGahee - 0

Priest Holmes - 0

Stephen Davis - 23

Michael Turner - 20

Brian Westbrook - 46

Larry Johnson - 20

Deuce McAllister - 16

Rudi Johnson - 0

Jamaal Charles - 67

McGahee probably deserves an asterisk next to his name because he missed all of his true rookie season while recovering from injuries. The other guys simply didn't play much. The common thread among these players is that they landed on a team with an established top level starter:

Shaun Alexander (Ricky Watters)

Ahman Green (Ricky Watters)

Willis McGahee ****

Priest Holmes (Jamal Lewis)

Stephen Davis (Terry Allen)

Michael Turner (LaDainian Tomlinson)

Brian Westbrook (Duce Staley)

Larry Johnson (Priest Holmes)

Deuce McAllister (Ricky Williams)

Rudi Johnson (Corey Dillon)

Jamaal Charles (Larry Johnson)

Hmmmm.....

You sound exactly like the people in the Toby Gerhart thread. "Nah, Gerhart is no good. He's been in the league for four years and he's never shown that he can be the guy." Well, why do you think he hadn't shown anything? Do you think maybe it's because he was stuck on the same team as Adrian Peterson all that time?

Hmmmm.....

If you don't understand how opportunity and the lack thereof can influence results, you're going to whiff hard on a lot of these guys who are buried early in their careers for reasons entirely unrelated to their talent level. It's not that your "facts" are wrong. It's that you're not putting them in the proper context.

In the context of being drafted onto a team with an absolute every-down stud at RB, getting minimal work as a rookie means virtually nothing.

How many times do I have to restate what I am saying. What is concerning is not the minimal amount of carries Michael got. What is concerning is that they did not even see him as a good enough insurance policy in case Lynch or Turbin got injured in a game, and therefore made him inactive for 16 of 19 games.

There are plenty of RBs, like the ones you listed, who don't get an opportunity to tote the rock as a rookie because they are behind a skilled veteran, yet later go on to become a quality fantasy option. It is extremely rare for a RB to be inactive for that many games and later become a stud.

Toby Gerhart was active for 15 games as a rookie. So, again you are missing the point.

Every single RB you listed, except Rudi Johnson, was active for at least twice as many games as Michael. All but two were active for at least 12 games, and the vast majority were active for 14-16 games. Kudos for actually finding one example of a RB who was active for fewer games than Michael, and later went on to become a viable fantasy option in Rudi Johnson. However, I restate the fact that it is extremely rare for a RB to be inactive as often as Michael was and later on become a stud like you are touting him to become. You are betting against the odds which is almost always a bad move in fantasy.

While we're quoting ourselves. It shows just how far we have come, which is nowhere.

 

[EBF]

Debating the finer points of Charles being an example is much less relevant with there being more than half a dozen other players that fit the mold just fine.

Yea, I was about to write something along those lines. You'd swear some of these people looking for parallel cases need it to line up so perfectly that anything short of a player named Christine Michael with identical rookie production and the same birthday wouldn't satisfy their demands. To me their reluctance to admit that numerous great players have toiled through similar rookie seasons is just a reflection of their bias in wanting to believe that Michael can't be a great player.

The nice thing is that the arguments in this thread are so circular that at this point I can just copy + paste my old posts to respond to them.

No, some of us like Michael just fine but don't think it's at all productive to manipulate the information with terrible examples that attempt embellish you're point. There are plenty of good examples of RBs that have had slow starts to their careers. Charles and others on that list simply doesn't equate very well at all.

They actually equate really well as highly-drafted backups stuck behind elite starters. Not sure what more you're hoping for.

Seeing as you're the ultimate SEC mark, I'm surprised you're not touting Michael as the greatest thing since Darren McFadden. I guess it's because Texas A&M is still a new team in the conference. If he went to Georgia or Tennessee you'd probably be hyping him as a rich man's Bo Jackson. You're the biggest Cordarrelle Patterson fanboy in the universe, but when someone else touts an unproven young player you cry foul. Hypocrisy 101. And you can't let it lie because you're utterly incapable of not trying to get in the last word, so I'll just leave it at that and be done with you and your "analysis." Bookmark the thread and prepare for a crow feast when Michael is starting.

 

[EBF]

You can't misread a fact, and the fact is it is extremely rare for a RB to be inactive as often as Michael was and later on become a stud.

The fact is it is extremely rare for a RB to be drafted in the 2nd round onto a team with a 27 year old Pro Bowl starter coming off a 315 carry 5.0 YPC season. You don't seem to have accounted for this at all in your analysis. Hence why I think you're simply misreading the situation. Do you not realize how expectations need to be adjusted for players who are drafted into absolutely dismal short term situations? It doesn't seem like you do.

Your response to that will probably be to say, "Okay well I understand why he didn't play over Lynch, but couldn't he at least get time ahead of Turbin?" That's probably one of the most common arguments raised in this thread. All of the refutations have already been laid out. Again...and again...and again...and again. If you don't find them compelling, so be it. That's your decision, but it's not like people just randomly decided to hype this player.

If you look at the list of low-impact eventual stud RBs I posted:

Shaun Alexander - 64

Ahman Green - 35

Willis McGahee - 0

Priest Holmes - 0

Stephen Davis - 23

Michael Turner - 20

Brian Westbrook - 46

Larry Johnson - 20

Deuce McAllister - 16

Rudi Johnson - 0

Jamaal Charles - 67

McGahee probably deserves an asterisk next to his name because he missed all of his true rookie season while recovering from injuries. The other guys simply didn't play much. The common thread among these players is that they landed on a team with an established top level starter:

Shaun Alexander (Ricky Watters)

Ahman Green (Ricky Watters)

Willis McGahee ****

Priest Holmes (Jamal Lewis)

Stephen Davis (Terry Allen)

Michael Turner (LaDainian Tomlinson)

Brian Westbrook (Duce Staley)

Larry Johnson (Priest Holmes)

Deuce McAllister (Ricky Williams)

Rudi Johnson (Corey Dillon)

Jamaal Charles (Larry Johnson)

Hmmmm.....

You sound exactly like the people in the Toby Gerhart thread. "Nah, Gerhart is no good. He's been in the league for four years and he's never shown that he can be the guy." Well, why do you think he hadn't shown anything? Do you think maybe it's because he was stuck on the same team as Adrian Peterson all that time?

Hmmmm.....

If you don't understand how opportunity and the lack thereof can influence results, you're going to whiff hard on a lot of these guys who are buried early in their careers for reasons entirely unrelated to their talent level. It's not that your "facts" are wrong. It's that you're not putting them in the proper context.

In the context of being drafted onto a team with an absolute every-down stud at RB, getting minimal work as a rookie means virtually nothing.

How many times do I have to restate what I am saying. What is concerning is not the minimal amount of carries Michael got. What is concerning is that they did not even see him as a good enough insurance policy in case Lynch or Turbin got injured in a game, and therefore made him inactive for 16 of 19 games.

There are plenty of RBs, like the ones you listed, who don't get an opportunity to tote the rock as a rookie because they are behind a skilled veteran, yet later go on to become a quality fantasy option. It is extremely rare for a RB to be inactive for that many games and later become a stud.

Toby Gerhart was active for 15 games as a rookie. So, again you are missing the point.

Every single RB you listed, except Rudi Johnson, was active for at least twice as many games as Michael. All but two were active for at least 12 games, and the vast majority were active for 14-16 games. Kudos for actually finding one example of a RB who was active for fewer games than Michael, and later went on to become a viable fantasy option in Rudi Johnson. However, I restate the fact that it is extremely rare for a RB to be inactive as often as Michael was and later on become a stud like you are touting him to become. You are betting against the odds which is almost always a bad move in fantasy.

While we're quoting ourselves. It shows just how far we have come, which is nowhere.

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink."

 

[FreeBaGeL]

It is relevant in the fact that it does not bode well for his chances at being the transcendent talent some are making him out to be. If he was so talented they would have found a way to get him on the field and given him more chances. It does not prove he will never carve out an NFL career, but the odds of him becoming a stud are severely diminished by the fact that the Seahawks saw no point in even dressing him 16 of 19 games.

It is certainly more relevant than some fifteen yard run he got in preseason with two minutes left in the fourth quarter.

A guy with all the talent in the world doesnt help a super bowl winning team if he doesnt know the offense as well as another average backup.

It makes sense in that situation for the backup who is more responsible for pass pro than for running the ball to be in the game for a super bowl team. It just makes sense. You have a roster spot for a backup to get only a few touches and be responsibe for things other than running the ball.........makes sense to go with the guy who knows those roles better.

It was a unique situation that most understand while some don't. Been discussed a 1000 times.

But we are not talking about just any back-up. We are talking about a guy who is supposedly going to be a future stud. If he was the immensely talented gamechanger people are proclaiming him to be they would have found a way to get him on the field or at least dressed him in case of injury. It is not that hard to wrap your head around and is entirely relevant.

The only legitimate comparison for someone with this level of inactivity turning into a stud fantasy performer is Larry Johnson. So, it is not impossible, but much less likely. Therefore, as I have said many times in this thread, there is no reason his value should have gone anywhere but down following his rookie year.

Are you just sticking your head in the sand and pretending that half the posts in this thread don't exist or are you just not reading them?

Larry Johnson is the only legitimate comp? What about Ahman Green? Stephen Davis? Priest Holmes? Deuce Mcallister? Michael Turner?

And countless others.

I could forgive overlooking them a little more if their names weren't RIGHT HERE ON THIS PAGE five times.

 

[jurb26]

Debating the finer points of Charles being an example is much less relevant with there being more than half a dozen other players that fit the mold just fine.

Yea, I was about to write something along those lines. You'd swear some of these people looking for parallel cases need it to line up so perfectly that anything short of a player named Christine Michael with identical rookie production and the same birthday wouldn't satisfy their demands. To me their reluctance to admit that numerous great players have toiled through similar rookie seasons is just a reflection of their bias in wanting to believe that Michael can't be a great player.

The nice thing is that the arguments in this thread are so circular that at this point I can just copy + paste my old posts to respond to them.

No, some of us like Michael just fine but don't think it's at all productive to manipulate the information with terrible examples that attempt embellish you're point. There are plenty of good examples of RBs that have had slow starts to their careers. Charles and others on that list simply doesn't equate very well at all.

They actually equate really well as highly-drafted backups stuck behind elite starters. Not sure what more you're hoping for.

Seeing as you're the ultimate SEC mark, I'm surprised you're not touting Michael as the greatest thing since Darren McFadden. I guess it's because Texas A&M is still a new team in the conference. If he went to Georgia or Tennessee you'd probably be hyping him as a rich man's Bo Jackson. You're the biggest Cordarrelle Patterson fanboy in the universe, but when someone else touts an unproven young player you cry foul. Hypocrisy 101. And you can't let it lie because you're utterly incapable of not trying to get in the last word, so I'll just leave it at that and be done with you and your "analysis." Bookmark the thread and prepare for a crow feast when Michael is starting.

Well, I can always count on you for name calling and misinformation when you know you've got know credence to a point. Again, seeing you need a reminder of the actual facts as usual. I had Michael as my 3rd ranked rookie RB of this group and posted such in this thread. So, just like the aimless SEC claims and fanboy name calling you've done numerous times before... You should actually do some research prior to posting on this topic as well.

You're examples are mostly poor. The Charles one is especially poor. I'll assume you are conceding this point now base on your attack approach in response.

 

[Shanahanigans]

It's very, very simple. Many upon many rookies don't touch the ball much as rookie and still end up doing very well. Happens all the time.

In Michaels case he was inactive rather than wallowing on the bench with 3 carries a game due to the situation and team. If you think he woulda been inactive on most other teams, then well, wow, I don't agree at all.

What concerns me, which I realize many disregard as irrelevant, is not the lack of touches he received but the fact that he was not even dressed for an inordinate amount of games. This should be very disconcerting considering RBs get hurt all time in addition to the fact that were Michael the uber-talented future stud people are touting him to be they would have found a way to get the ball in his hands.

He may carve out a role as a low-end RB2, but I find it highly unlikely he ever performs at RB1 levels.

As Shah pointed out, his ROI is too low now. He is already ranked as RB22 by FBG, a ranking EBF scoffs at, and I do not see him performing much higher than that ranking. Plus, odds are you'd have to pay more than that to get him.

 

[ghostguy123]

It's very, very simple. Many upon many rookies don't touch the ball much as rookie and still end up doing very well. Happens all the time.

In Michaels case he was inactive rather than wallowing on the bench with 3 carries a game due to the situation and team. If you think he woulda been inactive on most other teams, then well, wow, I don't agree at all.

What concerns me, which I realize many disregard as irrelevant, is not the lack of touches he received but the fact that he was not even dressed for an inordinate amount of games. This should be very disconcerting considering RBs get hurt all time in addition to the fact that were Michael the uber-talented future stud people are touting him to be they would have found a way to get the ball in his hands.

He may carve out a role as a low-end RB2, but I find it highly unlikely he ever performs at RB1 levels.

As Shah pointed out, his ROI is too low now. He is already ranked as RB22 by FBG, a ranking EBF scoffs at, and I do not see him performing much higher than that ranking. Plus, odds are you'd have to pay more than that to get him.

Who was saying this?

 

[ghostguy123]

And sorry, but his film, talent, and projections mean more going forward than ebing inactive rather than a backup on maybe the deepest team we have ever seen as a rookie.

Oh well. Guess we get to re-hash this same nonsense for about another 15 months.

Stuck on the "inactive" thing. Even if people were actually touting him as some uber-talent, would three carries from an uber-talent be more or less beneficial than another backup that is better and more familiar with the rest of the responsibilities??

 

[jurb26]

As Shah pointed out, his ROI is too low now. He is already ranked as RB22 by FBG, a ranking EBF scoffs at, and I do not see him performing much higher than that ranking. Plus, odds are you'd have to pay more than that to get him.

The current price for Michael from what I'm seeing is basically low end RB1. The owners who have him are not giving him up cheap. Maybe you can get him for a RB2 price in start ups, I'm not sure. I'm not doing start ups though so I really don't care about that much. As much as I like Michael, I'm not willing to pay his current price. I hope he goes this entire season on the bench again and the price drops considerably next year. That is the only way I can see him ever being a buy.

 

[ghostguy123]

As Shah pointed out, his ROI is too low now. He is already ranked as RB22 by FBG, a ranking EBF scoffs at, and I do not see him performing much higher than that ranking. Plus, odds are you'd have to pay more than that to get him.

The current price for Michael from what I'm seeing is basically low end RB1. The owners who have him are not giving him up cheap. Maybe you can get him for a RB2 price in start ups, I'm not sure. I'm not doing start ups though so I really don't care about that much. As much as I like Michael, I'm not willing to pay his current price. I hope he goes this entire season on the bench again and the price drops considerably next year. That is the only way I can see him ever being a buy.

WHy would his price drop when he is pegged as the man for 2015? The people who own him right now likely all feel this way, which is why they wrnt out and got him in the first place.

 

[jurb26]

As Shah pointed out, his ROI is too low now. He is already ranked as RB22 by FBG, a ranking EBF scoffs at, and I do not see him performing much higher than that ranking. Plus, odds are you'd have to pay more than that to get him.

The current price for Michael from what I'm seeing is basically low end RB1. The owners who have him are not giving him up cheap. Maybe you can get him for a RB2 price in start ups, I'm not sure. I'm not doing start ups though so I really don't care about that much. As much as I like Michael, I'm not willing to pay his current price. I hope he goes this entire season on the bench again and the price drops considerably next year. That is the only way I can see him ever being a buy.

WHy would his price drop when he is pegged as the man for 2015? The people who own him right now likely all feel this way, which is why they wrnt out and got him in the first place.

If he fails to even beat out Turban for back up duty for a 2nd year in a row then red flags will go up. Many owners will simply get impatient, right or wrong. Actually, you hyper guys will have lost a lot of you're ammunition so I'm not sure why this is surprising to you.

 

[Shanahanigans]

It is relevant in the fact that it does not bode well for his chances at being the transcendent talent some are making him out to be. If he was so talented they would have found a way to get him on the field and given him more chances. It does not prove he will never carve out an NFL career, but the odds of him becoming a stud are severely diminished by the fact that the Seahawks saw no point in even dressing him 16 of 19 games.

It is certainly more relevant than some fifteen yard run he got in preseason with two minutes left in the fourth quarter.

A guy with all the talent in the world doesnt help a super bowl winning team if he doesnt know the offense as well as another average backup.

It makes sense in that situation for the backup who is more responsible for pass pro than for running the ball to be in the game for a super bowl team. It just makes sense. You have a roster spot for a backup to get only a few touches and be responsibe for things other than running the ball.........makes sense to go with the guy who knows those roles better.

It was a unique situation that most understand while some don't. Been discussed a 1000 times.

But we are not talking about just any back-up. We are talking about a guy who is supposedly going to be a future stud. If he was the immensely talented gamechanger people are proclaiming him to be they would have found a way to get him on the field or at least dressed him in case of injury. It is not that hard to wrap your head around and is entirely relevant.

The only legitimate comparison for someone with this level of inactivity turning into a stud fantasy performer is Larry Johnson. So, it is not impossible, but much less likely. Therefore, as I have said many times in this thread, there is no reason his value should have gone anywhere but down following his rookie year.

Are you just sticking your head in the sand and pretending that half the posts in this thread don't exist or are you just not reading them?

Larry Johnson is the only legitimate comp? What about Ahman Green? Stephen Davis? Priest Holmes? Deuce Mcallister? Michael Turner?

And countless others.

I could forgive overlooking them a little more if their names weren't RIGHT HERE ON THIS PAGE five times.

Ahman Green = Active 16 Games (76th Pick)

Deuce McCallister = Active 16 Games (23rd Pick)

Michael Turner = Active 14 Games (154th Pick)

Stephen Davis = Active 12 Games (102nd Pick)

Priest Holmes = Active 7 Games (Undrafted)

Christine Michael = Active 3 Games (62nd Pick)

One of these is not like the other. Larry Johnson and to a lesser extent Rudi Johnson are the only legitimate comparisons in the history of fantasy football of players who have been inactive as often as Michael and later went on to be viable RB1s.

Holmes was inactive quite a bit, but that is justified given he was undrafted. Even being undrafted he was still active for more than twice the games Michael was. Not to mention the 3 extra games Michael was inactive in the playoffs, when he had essentially had an entire year to learn the offense and improve at pass protection.

You say I have my head in the sand, but you have your head in the clouds.

 

[Shanahanigans]

It's very, very simple. Many upon many rookies don't touch the ball much as rookie and still end up doing very well. Happens all the time.

In Michaels case he was inactive rather than wallowing on the bench with 3 carries a game due to the situation and team. If you think he woulda been inactive on most other teams, then well, wow, I don't agree at all.

What concerns me, which I realize many disregard as irrelevant, is not the lack of touches he received but the fact that he was not even dressed for an inordinate amount of games. This should be very disconcerting considering RBs get hurt all time in addition to the fact that were Michael the uber-talented future stud people are touting him to be they would have found a way to get the ball in his hands.

He may carve out a role as a low-end RB2, but I find it highly unlikely he ever performs at RB1 levels.

As Shah pointed out, his ROI is too low now. He is already ranked as RB22 by FBG, a ranking EBF scoffs at, and I do not see him performing much higher than that ranking. Plus, odds are you'd have to pay more than that to get him.

Who was saying this?

Really, have you not been reading EBF or the people comparing him to Adrian Peterson?

 

[ghostguy123]

As Shah pointed out, his ROI is too low now. He is already ranked as RB22 by FBG, a ranking EBF scoffs at, and I do not see him performing much higher than that ranking. Plus, odds are you'd have to pay more than that to get him.

The current price for Michael from what I'm seeing is basically low end RB1. The owners who have him are not giving him up cheap. Maybe you can get him for a RB2 price in start ups, I'm not sure. I'm not doing start ups though so I really don't care about that much. As much as I like Michael, I'm not willing to pay his current price. I hope he goes this entire season on the bench again and the price drops considerably next year. That is the only way I can see him ever being a buy.

WHy would his price drop when he is pegged as the man for 2015? The people who own him right now likely all feel this way, which is why they wrnt out and got him in the first place.

If he fails to even beat out Turban for back up duty for a 2nd year in a row then red flags will go up. Many owners will simply get impatient, right or wrong. Actually, you hyper guys will have lost a lot of you're ammunition so I'm not sure why this is surprising to you.

Oh, well, you didnt say if he fails to be the backup.

If that happens sure.

 

[ghostguy123]

Really, have you not been reading EBF or the people comparing him to Adrian Peterson?

Is EBF Jesus or something?

One person saying it doesnt equal everyone saying it.

And people compared one aspect of his talent to Peterson, which for all intents and purposes doesnt mean anything, and even those people know that.

 

[jurb26]

As Shah pointed out, his ROI is too low now. He is already ranked as RB22 by FBG, a ranking EBF scoffs at, and I do not see him performing much higher than that ranking. Plus, odds are you'd have to pay more than that to get him.

The current price for Michael from what I'm seeing is basically low end RB1. The owners who have him are not giving him up cheap. Maybe you can get him for a RB2 price in start ups, I'm not sure. I'm not doing start ups though so I really don't care about that much. As much as I like Michael, I'm not willing to pay his current price. I hope he goes this entire season on the bench again and the price drops considerably next year. That is the only way I can see him ever being a buy.

WHy would his price drop when he is pegged as the man for 2015? The people who own him right now likely all feel this way, which is why they wrnt out and got him in the first place.

If he fails to even beat out Turban for back up duty for a 2nd year in a row then red flags will go up. Many owners will simply get impatient, right or wrong. Actually, you hyper guys will have lost a lot of you're ammunition so I'm not sure why this is surprising to you.

Oh, well, you didnt say if he fails to be the backup.

If that happens sure.

I guess it could have been state more clearly. I was going under the assumption that even backups normally get on the field for most games in a season. Michael has only 18 touches last season. No backup in the world gets that small an amount of action.

 

[ghostguy123]

I guess it could have been state more clearly. I was going under the assumption that even backups normally get on the field for most games in a season. Michael has only 18 touches last season. No backup in the world gets that small an amount of action.

Well, how many touches did he average per game played? Project that out to 16 games.

No, no backup that suits up 16 games gets 18 touches unless its a FB.

Sure, if he gets that again, it's a problem.

 

[jurb26]

I guess it could have been state more clearly. I was going under the assumption that even backups normally get on the field for most games in a season. Michael has only 18 touches last season. No backup in the world gets that small an amount of action.

Well, how many touches did he average per game played? Project that out to 16 games.

No, no backup that suits up 16 games gets 18 touches unless its a FB.

Sure, if he gets that again, it's a problem.

Well, as much as I might like Michael I'm also of the opinion that there must have been a reason he didn't dress for all those games. I'm not dropping him drastically in my rankings because of it seeing I like his talent. It's a reason for concern to me as an objective fantasy player, though. Quite honestly, I'm not sure how it can't be. That unfortunately is what this 38 page thread to nowhere is all about.

 

[ghostguy123]

I guess it could have been state more clearly. I was going under the assumption that even backups normally get on the field for most games in a season. Michael has only 18 touches last season. No backup in the world gets that small an amount of action.

Well, how many touches did he average per game played? Project that out to 16 games.

No, no backup that suits up 16 games gets 18 touches unless its a FB.

Sure, if he gets that again, it's a problem.

Well, as much as I might like Michael I'm also of the opinion that there must have been a reason he didn't dress for all those games. I'm not dropping him drastically in my rankings because of it seeing I like his talent. It's a reason for concern to me as an objective fantasy player, though. Quite honestly, I'm not sure how it can't be. That unfortunately is what this 38 page thread to nowhere is all about.

Well, I can see some very legit reasons why he was inactive that have nothing to do with his future as a player. You can't. No problem.