Christine Michael (2 Viewers)

[Casting Couch]

Imagine if CM did what Turbin did last night. People would be freaking out.

Exactly. This situation is being looked at in a very biased way. The hype for Michael is at a fever pitch, while the reality is

he is being pushed into the number 3 role as Turbin outperforms him.

 

[jurb26]

Imagine if CM did what Turbin did last night. People would be freaking out.

Exactly. This situation is being looked at in a very biased way. The hype for Michael is at a fever pitch, while the reality is

he is being pushed into the number 3 role as Turbin outperforms him.

This thread would have add 10 pages of nonsensical hype if CM did what Turbin did last night. Yeah, it's one of the worst threads and most biased in the SP. Has been for a while.

 

[RBM]

Turbin and Michael both look good, but this is the sort of situation I avoid. They still have Lynch ahead of both of them. And if something does happen to Lynch, you don't know which of the two backups is going to get the starting gig.

I'll say this, as a hopeful Michael owner; if something does happen to Lynch I think it's most likely a split...BUT if one guy did take over it seems like it would be Turbin, not Michael.

 

[biju]

Imagine if CM did what Turbin did last night. People would be freaking out.

Exactly. This situation is being looked at in a very biased way. The hype for Michael is at a fever pitch, while the reality is

he is being pushed into the number 3 role as Turbin outperforms him.

This thread would have add 10 pages of nonsensical hype if CM did what Turbin did last night. Yeah, it's one of the worst threads and most biased in the SP. Has been for a while.

I seriously don't get why people say this kind of stuff. Could it just as easily been said that if Michael had one carry for 47 yards and then averaged 3 YPC this thread would have 10 pages of nonsensical bashing? For everyone wondering why this thread has been 1+ years of garbage I seriously believe everyone reconsider what they post in here. Instead of real information we get hype, bash, complaining about the hype, and complaining about bashing.

Now it appears we're complaining about the hype we didn't get, so now we must bash the folks who would have hyped had this non-existent play occurred. Unreal.

 

[ShaHBucks]

Buy Michael 3-4 weeks into the season when he has 5-6-7 total carries. Lynch made the FO pony up another million just because he felt like it. This is his territory. Don't think otherwise.

Lynch is still under contract next season btw

 

[jurb26]

Imagine if CM did what Turbin did last night. People would be freaking out.

Exactly. This situation is being looked at in a very biased way. The hype for Michael is at a fever pitch, while the reality is

he is being pushed into the number 3 role as Turbin outperforms him.

This thread would have add 10 pages of nonsensical hype if CM did what Turbin did last night. Yeah, it's one of the worst threads and most biased in the SP. Has been for a while.

I seriously don't get why people say this kind of stuff. Could it just as easily been said that if Michael had one carry for 47 yards and then averaged 3 YPC this thread would have 10 pages of nonsensical bashing? For everyone wondering why this thread has been 1+ years of garbage I seriously believe everyone reconsider what they post in here. Instead of real information we get hype, bash, complaining about the hype, and complaining about bashing.

Now it appears we're complaining about the hype we didn't get, so now we must bash the folks who would have hyped had this non-existent play occurred. Unreal.

Nobody's complaining about it. Just pointing out the bias. I find it relieving to be honest.

 

[ROYALWITCHEESE]

Robert Turbin: JAG

What does that make Michael, who is still behind him?

I have to say, I think I'm starting to agree. He's had 2 offseasons now to pass who most people say is a career backup, and hasn't done it.

Sure he looks impressive, and the commentators even said as much, but last night Turbin just looked better as a football player. Whether this holds, who knows? Michael is really explosive. But if he's going to explode into defenders and/or blockers, fumble, and miss assignments, I have a hard time separating him from a guy like David Wilson on the field.

To make it short, I think he should have passed Turbin by now. I'm not encouraged since he hasn't blown this guy away already.

 

[cstu]

Turbin is good, so is Michael...deal with it.

 

[Chaka]

Turbin and Michael both look good, but this is the sort of situation I avoid. They still have Lynch ahead of both of them. And if something does happen to Lynch, you don't know which of the two backups is going to get the starting gig. I will say this: if a young RB can't hold onto the ball, it doesn't matter how good he is running--he won't see much opportunity. So for redraft, I would probably prefer Turbin.

What you want if you draft a backup RB is a guy who is going to be the clearcut guy should the starter go down and do so on an offense that runs the ball well. Seattle runs the ball well, but does not have clarity on the pecking order.

The pecking order has been Lynch then Turbin then Michael for awhile. What is unclear about that?

 

[mbuehner]

All of this is in the context of Lynch as your cowbell starter. They are competing for who will spell Lynch, and Turbin is the better choice right now.

Now if Lynch goes down for significant time, the equation is very different. I dont see Turbin carrying the ball 25 times in this offense.

For fantasy purposes, I dont care about whos spelling Lynch. I care who would ultimately be called on to be the man if Lynch went down.

 

[Bojang0301]

Turbin and Michael both look good, but this is the sort of situation I avoid. They still have Lynch ahead of both of them. And if something does happen to Lynch, you don't know which of the two backups is going to get the starting gig. I will say this: if a young RB can't hold onto the ball, it doesn't matter how good he is running--he won't see much opportunity. So for redraft, I would probably prefer Turbin.

What you want if you draft a backup RB is a guy who is going to be the clearcut guy should the starter go down and do so on an offense that runs the ball well. Seattle runs the ball well, but does not have clarity on the pecking order.

The pecking order has been Lynch then Turbin then Michael for awhile. What is unclear about that?

Ask Rotoworld, oh wait, they edited their troll post last night that said Turbin would be the lesser half of a committee to looking like he is locked in as the #2. They are a good source of player news but that's pretty low on their part. I hope whoever was writing the Michael blurbs got sent packing.

 

[EBF]

He continues to look good when given opportunities, which is a lot more important to me than where he sits on the depth chart right now. I don't view him as a redraft option and I don't think too many others are counting on him for immediate production. He's an investment for the future. With that in mind, the important questions for me are, "Is he talented enough to eventually get an opportunity and if so, is he talented enough to thrive?" I think the answers are a resounding yes, which is what I'd anchor to from a dynasty standpoint rather than freaking out about what other players on the roster are doing.

That being said, I'm not buying the idea that Turbin is a better runner or player. His 47 yard run in this game was all blocked for him, not earned. One cut (probably by design) and then acres of space. Any back in the league busts a long gain there. His other 11 carries netted a typically Turdbinesque 34 yards. My DVR cut out the first quarter of this game, so I can't comment on most of those carries, but on the surface it looks like a mediocre performance. Michael has a creativity that I've never seen from Turbin. Every time he touches the ball, you feel like he can do something special. If it ever came down to a heads-up battle between those two for workhorse carries, I don't think Turbin could keep him off the field.

Like I said though, I'm really more concerned with the dynasty prognosis than the immediate outlook and every time I see Michael play for the Seahawks, he solidifies my belief that he's an "NFL starter" even if he doesn't happen to be starting right this moment (think Sproles and Turner in SD). Durability is the only long-term concern.

 

[ghostguy123]

All of this is in the context of Lynch as your cowbell starter. They are competing for who will spell Lynch, and Turbin is the better choice right now.

Now if Lynch goes down for significant time, the equation is very different. I dont see Turbin carrying the ball 25 times in this offense.

For fantasy purposes, I dont care about whos spelling Lynch. I care who would ultimately be called on to be the man if Lynch went down.

Some people have never been able to grasp this concept.

However, I fully expect Michael to also be the primary backup. Maybe not the 3rd down back, but the backup on 1st-2nd.

 

[Shanahanigans]

EBF I thought you weren't a fan of taking out the big plays when analyzing players. I guess you are as long as it fits your agenda.

 

[amnesiac]

.

 

[Bojang0301]

Just sheer, unbridled bias against Turbin and it has nothing to do with Michaels talent level and everything to do with Turbin's. Whatever, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. The edited statement of "he is a back that could play 3/4 years in" was never what anyone wanted to say or believe this offseason. People wanted to push their agenda and skyrocket his value this offseason. Now that the situation has revealed it's hand some more the community is now taking a more cautious look at Michael. It becomes IF he beats out Turbin, IF he doesn't split with Turbin, IF Lynch even leaves next year, IF he stays healthy, IF he stops fumbling and IF he can learn to block... Instead of this year or next he's a stud period: sell the farm. I think I may have even said to sell back then then wait a few weeks into the season and you could probably get him back for less than what you sold him for. Sure no guarantee on that but there isn't a guarantee on anything and you have to play the market how it's given.

And I'll keep pounding the table, Turbin has the EXACT skill set as Michael with maybe a step less speed (which is significant in the NFL but not a burial). If the situation plays out with Lynch as people think it will, it will be far more difficult to get Turbin, who is a consistent steady hand, off the field than just assumed. Glad his value is coming around.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

And I'll keep pounding the table, Turbin has the EXACT skill set as Michael with maybe a step less speed (which is significant in the NFL but not a burial). If the situation plays out with Lynch as people think it will, it will be far more difficult to get Turbin, who is a consistent steady hand, off the field than just assumed. Glad his value is coming around.

I think you've said this twice, but according the the combine, Michael is significantly quicker than Turbin. I think they are both fine prospects so I agree with you that the anti-Turbin stuff is foolish. I think Turbin is first up should something happen to Lynch's availability and that's what it seems that Seahawks think as well.

 

[RBM]

All of this is in the context of Lynch as your cowbell starter. They are competing for who will spell Lynch, and Turbin is the better choice right now.

Now if Lynch goes down for significant time, the equation is very different. I dont see Turbin carrying the ball 25 times in this offense.

For fantasy purposes, I dont care about whos spelling Lynch. I care who would ultimately be called on to be the man if Lynch went down.

Some people have never been able to grasp this concept.However, I fully expect Michael to also be the primary backup. Maybe not the 3rd down back, but the backup on 1st-2nd.

When is this going to happen?

 

[biju]

And I'll keep pounding the table, Turbin has the EXACT skill set as Michael with maybe a step less speed (which is significant in the NFL but not a burial). If the situation plays out with Lynch as people think it will, it will be far more difficult to get Turbin, who is a consistent steady hand, off the field than just assumed. Glad his value is coming around.

I think you've said this twice, but according the the combine, Michael is significantly quicker than Turbin. I think they are both fine prospects so I agree with you that the anti-Turbin stuff is foolish. I think Turbin is first up should something happen to Lynch's availability and that's what it seems that Seahawks think as well.

You don't really have to go all the way back to the combine--for the folks watching the games instead of the stat lines it is very clear who is the more talented runner. Michael's problem is he's been in this system for over a year and still can't pass block which is troubling. But for someone to say they have the same skill set tells me they aren't watching the two of them with an unbiased point of view, which I find funny because the same person is claiming bias on everyone else's behalf.

I mean, in his sig he has "Christina Michael hater". What more do you actually need?

 

[Bojang0301]

And I'll keep pounding the table, Turbin has the EXACT skill set as Michael with maybe a step less speed (which is significant in the NFL but not a burial). If the situation plays out with Lynch as people think it will, it will be far more difficult to get Turbin, who is a consistent steady hand, off the field than just assumed. Glad his value is coming around.

I think you've said this twice, but according the the combine, Michael is significantly quicker than Turbin. I think they are both fine prospects so I agree with you that the anti-Turbin stuff is foolish. I think Turbin is first up should something happen to Lynch's availability and that's what it seems that Seahawks think as well.

You don't really have to go all the way back to the combine--for the folks watching the games instead of the stat lines it is very clear who is the more talented runner. Michael's problem is he's been in this system for over a year and still can't pass block which is troubling. But for someone to say they have the same skill set tells me they aren't watching the two of them with an unbiased point of view, which I find funny because the same person is claiming bias on everyone else's behalf.

I mean, in his sig he has "Christina Michael hater". What more do you actually need?

I have been one of the least biased posters in here. Have stated Michael is talented multiple times and said he has more bust that Turbin. Michaels handful of carries vs. 1st stringers and running all over backups doesn't tell you everything. They both have a over average vision, plus power, great hands and Turbin, who is a slower, still has good speed. Reminds me of Michael Turner/Thomas Jones. It's a classic case of people seeing what they want to see out of him because they want Michael to succeed. If Lynch was gone tomorrow, Turbin would step in and not miss a beat and you all would be sitting here asking why Michael is only get a small amount of touches a game. Consistency is king in the NFL.

 

[karmarooster]

All of this is in the context of Lynch as your cowbell starter. They are competing for who will spell Lynch, and Turbin is the better choice right now.

Now if Lynch goes down for significant time, the equation is very different. I dont see Turbin carrying the ball 25 times in this offense.

For fantasy purposes, I dont care about whos spelling Lynch. I care who would ultimately be called on to be the man if Lynch went down.

I know you don't care about spelling, but a "bell cow" is one cow in a herd with a bell on it to mark the herd and allow them to be heard and herded; oddly enough we use this term to refer to a lead RB as if he were the leader of a herd of cattle.

A "cowbell" is the actual bell that is on the bell cow.

We need more bell cows, and we need more cowbell, but let's keep the two straight.

Turning back to Turbin vs. Michael:

Turbin seems more likely to be the backup this year. Michael, I remain convinced, is the more valuable long term dynasty asset. The pissing contest is usually inconsequential to me as I have both in most places - Turbin was an easy WW pickup to add to Michael and give me strong chance of locking down the Seahawks backfield as soon as 2015 when I'm assuming Lynch will be gone (an assumption based on a likelihood). I do not think that Turbin has much of a chance in the future to be the starting RB for a number of years. If Michael can't figure it out, they will add other RBs rather than give Turbin 250 carries a year. Does anyone think that the Seahawks would be in a good spot if forced to make Turbin their starter? I doubt it.

 

[humpback]

And I'll keep pounding the table, Turbin has the EXACT skill set as Michael with maybe a step less speed (which is significant in the NFL but not a burial). If the situation plays out with Lynch as people think it will, it will be far more difficult to get Turbin, who is a consistent steady hand, off the field than just assumed. Glad his value is coming around.

I think you've said this twice, but according the the combine, Michael is significantly quicker than Turbin. I think they are both fine prospects so I agree with you that the anti-Turbin stuff is foolish. I think Turbin is first up should something happen to Lynch's availability and that's what it seems that Seahawks think as well.

You don't really have to go all the way back to the combine--for the folks watching the games instead of the stat lines it is very clear who is the more talented runner. Michael's problem is he's been in this system for over a year and still can't pass block which is troubling. But for someone to say they have the same skill set tells me they aren't watching the two of them with an unbiased point of view, which I find funny because the same person is claiming bias on everyone else's behalf.

I mean, in his sig he has "Christina Michael hater". What more do you actually need?

It takes a lot more than just being a talented runner to play RB in the NFL though. I don't think it's nearly as cut and dried which is the more talented RB right now.

Also, let's drop the "those who watch the game vs. stat watchers" stuff. EBF, the king of that schtick, admittedly didn't even see most of Turbin's carries yet he has no problem assuming they were pedestrian. It's not unreasonable for someone who has watched them both to think that Turbin is at least as good as Michael right now (again, as an overall RB).

 

[MoveToSkypager]

And I'll keep pounding the table, Turbin has the EXACT skill set as Michael with maybe a step less speed (which is significant in the NFL but not a burial). If the situation plays out with Lynch as people think it will, it will be far more difficult to get Turbin, who is a consistent steady hand, off the field than just assumed. Glad his value is coming around.

I think you've said this twice, but according the the combine, Michael is significantly quicker than Turbin. I think they are both fine prospects so I agree with you that the anti-Turbin stuff is foolish. I think Turbin is first up should something happen to Lynch's availability and that's what it seems that Seahawks think as well.

You don't really have to go all the way back to the combine--for the folks watching the games instead of the stat lines it is very clear who is the more talented runner. Michael's problem is he's been in this system for over a year and still can't pass block which is troubling. But for someone to say they have the same skill set tells me they aren't watching the two of them with an unbiased point of view, which I find funny because the same person is claiming bias on everyone else's behalf.

I mean, in his sig he has "Christina Michael hater". What more do you actually need?

I said combine because he used the combine numbers to say they were identical. He missed some categories obviously. I never read his sig because I have sigs turned off.

 

[Neofight]

And I'll keep pounding the table, Turbin has the EXACT skill set as Michael with maybe a step less speed (which is significant in the NFL but not a burial). If the situation plays out with Lynch as people think it will, it will be far more difficult to get Turbin, who is a consistent steady hand, off the field than just assumed. Glad his value is coming around.

I think you've said this twice, but according the the combine, Michael is significantly quicker than Turbin. I think they are both fine prospects so I agree with you that the anti-Turbin stuff is foolish. I think Turbin is first up should something happen to Lynch's availability and that's what it seems that Seahawks think as well.

You don't really have to go all the way back to the combine--for the folks watching the games instead of the stat lines it is very clear who is the more talented runner. Michael's problem is he's been in this system for over a year and still can't pass block which is troubling. But for someone to say they have the same skill set tells me they aren't watching the two of them with an unbiased point of view, which I find funny because the same person is claiming bias on everyone else's behalf.

I mean, in his sig he has "Christina Michael hater". What more do you actually need?

It takes a lot more than just being a talented runner to play RB in the NFL though. I don't think it's nearly as cut and dried which is the more talented RB right now.Also, let's drop the "those who watch the game vs. stat watchers" stuff. EBF, the king of that schtick, admittedly didn't even see most of Turbin's carries yet he has no problem assuming they were pedestrian. It's not unreasonable for someone who has watched them both to think that Turbin is at least as good as Michael right now (again, as an overall RB).

He said Turbin has the EXACT skill set Michael has. He doesn't. Michael is a more explosive, more instinctive and far more creative runner than Turbin. He runs with a wider base as well, thus limiting those plays where he is tripped up with arm tackles around his ankles; which Turbin succumbs to far too often. I'd say based on watching them both in college and the pros that Michael has better vision as well. Both have decent (not great) hands, though I can recall a few key drops Turbin has made in his few years in Seattle.About watching film, why should anyone drop that as a valid argument? Is your angle that because EBF may not have watched all the games Turbin played to see his carries that others shouldn't place value in actually watching the players to assess their level of talent? If so, that is strange; perhaps you should direct your argument toward asking EBF to gain more knowledge by actually watching the film (assuming you are correct in that he has not).

People in this thread are using imagined scenarios to assume another's position and then argue against that position. My personal thought, if we are playing make believe, is that Michael (or a handful of other, more explosive and creative backs) would have taken that one cut wide open run to the house. Turbin went 47 yards, about 20 of which looked fairly labored, and needed to best only one DB to hit paydirt. There's 4 or 5 guys on the Seahawk roster alone that could have taken that thing all the way to the end zone. Robert Turbin is obviously not one of them.

 

[cstu]

He said Turbin has the EXACT skill set Michael has. He doesn't. Michael is a more explosive, more instinctive and far more creative runner than Turbin. He runs with a wider base as well, thus limiting those plays where he is tripped up with arm tackles around his ankles; which Turbin succumbs to far too often. I'd say based on watching them both in college and the pros that Michael has better vision as well. Both have decent (not great) hands, though I can recall a few key drops Turbin has made in his few years in Seattle.About watching film, why should anyone drop that as a valid argument? Is your angle that because EBF may not have watched all the games Turbin played to see his carries that others shouldn't place value in actually watching the players to assess their level of talent? If so, that is strange; perhaps you should direct your argument toward asking EBF to gain more knowledge by actually watching the film (assuming you are correct in that he has not).

People in this thread are using imagined scenarios to assume another's position and then argue against that position. My personal thought, if we are playing make believe, is that Michael (or a handful of other, more explosive and creative backs) would have taken that one cut wide open run to the house. Turbin went 47 yards, about 20 of which looked fairly labored, and needed to best only one DB to hit paydirt. There's 4 or 5 guys on the Seahawk roster alone that could have taken that thing all the way to the end zone. Robert Turbin is obviously not one of them.

Question - who is the more explosive, more instinctive and far more creative runner in Buffalo?

 

[Neofight]

He said Turbin has the EXACT skill set Michael has. He doesn't. Michael is a more explosive, more instinctive and far more creative runner than Turbin. He runs with a wider base as well, thus limiting those plays where he is tripped up with arm tackles around his ankles; which Turbin succumbs to far too often. I'd say based on watching them both in college and the pros that Michael has better vision as well. Both have decent (not great) hands, though I can recall a few key drops Turbin has made in his few years in Seattle.

About watching film, why should anyone drop that as a valid argument? Is your angle that because EBF may not have watched all the games Turbin played to see his carries that others shouldn't place value in actually watching the players to assess their level of talent? If so, that is strange; perhaps you should direct your argument toward asking EBF to gain more knowledge by actually watching the film (assuming you are correct in that he has not).

People in this thread are using imagined scenarios to assume another's position and then argue against that position. My personal thought, if we are playing make believe, is that Michael (or a handful of other, more explosive and creative backs) would have taken that one cut wide open run to the house. Turbin went 47 yards, about 20 of which looked fairly labored, and needed to best only one DB to hit paydirt. There's 4 or 5 guys on the Seahawk roster alone that could have taken that thing all the way to the end zone. Robert Turbin is obviously not one of them.

Question - who is the more explosive, more instinctive and far more creative runner in Buffalo?

I'd say Spiller. But I like Brown a lot and he has some power CJ does not. Wouldn't be surprised to see Brown as the back of the future there. But then again I don't really follow the Bills. Do you?

 

[Bojang0301]

And I'll keep pounding the table, Turbin has the EXACT skill set as Michael with maybe a step less speed (which is significant in the NFL but not a burial). If the situation plays out with Lynch as people think it will, it will be far more difficult to get Turbin, who is a consistent steady hand, off the field than just assumed. Glad his value is coming around.

I think you've said this twice, but according the the combine, Michael is significantly quicker than Turbin. I think they are both fine prospects so I agree with you that the anti-Turbin stuff is foolish. I think Turbin is first up should something happen to Lynch's availability and that's what it seems that Seahawks think as well.

You don't really have to go all the way back to the combine--for the folks watching the games instead of the stat lines it is very clear who is the more talented runner. Michael's problem is he's been in this system for over a year and still can't pass block which is troubling. But for someone to say they have the same skill set tells me they aren't watching the two of them with an unbiased point of view, which I find funny because the same person is claiming bias on everyone else's behalf.

I mean, in his sig he has "Christina Michael hater". What more do you actually need?

It takes a lot more than just being a talented runner to play RB in the NFL though. I don't think it's nearly as cut and dried which is the more talented RB right now.Also, let's drop the "those who watch the game vs. stat watchers" stuff. EBF, the king of that schtick, admittedly didn't even see most of Turbin's carries yet he has no problem assuming they were pedestrian. It's not unreasonable for someone who has watched them both to think that Turbin is at least as good as Michael right now (again, as an overall RB).

He said Turbin has the EXACT skill set Michael has. He doesn't. Michael is a more explosive, more instinctive and far more creative runner than Turbin. He runs with a wider base as well, thus limiting those plays where he is tripped up with arm tackles around his ankles; which Turbin succumbs to far too often. I'd say based on watching them both in college and the pros that Michael has better vision as well. Both have decent (not great) hands, though I can recall a few key drops Turbin has made in his few years in Seattle.About watching film, why should anyone drop that as a valid argument? Is your angle that because EBF may not have watched all the games Turbin played to see his carries that others shouldn't place value in actually watching the players to assess their level of talent? If so, that is strange; perhaps you should direct your argument toward asking EBF to gain more knowledge by actually watching the film (assuming you are correct in that he has not).

People in this thread are using imagined scenarios to assume another's position and then argue against that position. My personal thought, if we are playing make believe, is that Michael (or a handful of other, more explosive and creative backs) would have taken that one cut wide open run to the house. Turbin went 47 yards, about 20 of which looked fairly labored, and needed to best only one DB to hit paydirt. There's 4 or 5 guys on the Seahawk roster alone that could have taken that thing all the way to the end zone. Robert Turbin is obviously not one of them.

You can remember drops because Turbin has actually played in games.

 

[humpback]

And I'll keep pounding the table, Turbin has the EXACT skill set as Michael with maybe a step less speed (which is significant in the NFL but not a burial). If the situation plays out with Lynch as people think it will, it will be far more difficult to get Turbin, who is a consistent steady hand, off the field than just assumed. Glad his value is coming around.

I think you've said this twice, but according the the combine, Michael is significantly quicker than Turbin. I think they are both fine prospects so I agree with you that the anti-Turbin stuff is foolish. I think Turbin is first up should something happen to Lynch's availability and that's what it seems that Seahawks think as well.

You don't really have to go all the way back to the combine--for the folks watching the games instead of the stat lines it is very clear who is the more talented runner. Michael's problem is he's been in this system for over a year and still can't pass block which is troubling. But for someone to say they have the same skill set tells me they aren't watching the two of them with an unbiased point of view, which I find funny because the same person is claiming bias on everyone else's behalf.

I mean, in his sig he has "Christina Michael hater". What more do you actually need?

It takes a lot more than just being a talented runner to play RB in the NFL though. I don't think it's nearly as cut and dried which is the more talented RB right now.Also, let's drop the "those who watch the game vs. stat watchers" stuff. EBF, the king of that schtick, admittedly didn't even see most of Turbin's carries yet he has no problem assuming they were pedestrian. It's not unreasonable for someone who has watched them both to think that Turbin is at least as good as Michael right now (again, as an overall RB).

He said Turbin has the EXACT skill set Michael has. He doesn't. Michael is a more explosive, more instinctive and far more creative runner than Turbin. He runs with a wider base as well, thus limiting those plays where he is tripped up with arm tackles around his ankles; which Turbin succumbs to far too often. I'd say based on watching them both in college and the pros that Michael has better vision as well. Both have decent (not great) hands, though I can recall a few key drops Turbin has made in his few years in Seattle.About watching film, why should anyone drop that as a valid argument? Is your angle that because EBF may not have watched all the games Turbin played to see his carries that others shouldn't place value in actually watching the players to assess their level of talent? If so, that is strange; perhaps you should direct your argument toward asking EBF to gain more knowledge by actually watching the film (assuming you are correct in that he has not).

People in this thread are using imagined scenarios to assume another's position and then argue against that position. My personal thought, if we are playing make believe, is that Michael (or a handful of other, more explosive and creative backs) would have taken that one cut wide open run to the house. Turbin went 47 yards, about 20 of which looked fairly labored, and needed to best only one DB to hit paydirt. There's 4 or 5 guys on the Seahawk roster alone that could have taken that thing all the way to the end zone. Robert Turbin is obviously not one of them.

That's nice, but completely irrelevant considering I never said that they had the same exact skill sets nor did I agree with the poster who did.

You can use watching film (it was actually the games) as a valid argument, but not as a blanket statement that it's clear to anyone who has watched that my opinion is the correct one and anyone who disagrees must only look at the box scores. It's incredibly lame (and condescending).

Yeah, that last paragraph is a nice fantasy for sure.

 

[Bojang0301]

People want to act like Michael is some 4.3 burner... He's not. He's more like Jamal Lewis and he's not close to AD. I've been strafing of the objective here because people want to get butt hurt that I see Turbin and Michaels skill sets to be similar (which they are, and which Seattle did because that's their prototype). Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word exact... It was, in my mind, to be said as their athleticism. Which, by all measures but very jump, is the same. I really believe, and maybe I'm alone, that the reason someone would think they arn't similar is because Michael has had so much less time with the 1's. Yes he is faster, that can be seen. The athletic disparity and comparisons of vision being different I don't see it.

 

[Neofight]

And I'll keep pounding the table, Turbin has the EXACT skill set as Michael with maybe a step less speed (which is significant in the NFL but not a burial). If the situation plays out with Lynch as people think it will, it will be far more difficult to get Turbin, who is a consistent steady hand, off the field than just assumed. Glad his value is coming around.

I think you've said this twice, but according the the combine, Michael is significantly quicker than Turbin. I think they are both fine prospects so I agree with you that the anti-Turbin stuff is foolish. I think Turbin is first up should something happen to Lynch's availability and that's what it seems that Seahawks think as well.

You don't really have to go all the way back to the combine--for the folks watching the games instead of the stat lines it is very clear who is the more talented runner. Michael's problem is he's been in this system for over a year and still can't pass block which is troubling. But for someone to say they have the same skill set tells me they aren't watching the two of them with an unbiased point of view, which I find funny because the same person is claiming bias on everyone else's behalf.

I mean, in his sig he has "Christina Michael hater". What more do you actually need?

It takes a lot more than just being a talented runner to play RB in the NFL though. I don't think it's nearly as cut and dried which is the more talented RB right now.Also, let's drop the "those who watch the game vs. stat watchers" stuff. EBF, the king of that schtick, admittedly didn't even see most of Turbin's carries yet he has no problem assuming they were pedestrian. It's not unreasonable for someone who has watched them both to think that Turbin is at least as good as Michael right now (again, as an overall RB).

He said Turbin has the EXACT skill set Michael has. He doesn't. Michael is a more explosive, more instinctive and far more creative runner than Turbin. He runs with a wider base as well, thus limiting those plays where he is tripped up with arm tackles around his ankles; which Turbin succumbs to far too often. I'd say based on watching them both in college and the pros that Michael has better vision as well. Both have decent (not great) hands, though I can recall a few key drops Turbin has made in his few years in Seattle.About watching film, why should anyone drop that as a valid argument? Is your angle that because EBF may not have watched all the games Turbin played to see his carries that others shouldn't place value in actually watching the players to assess their level of talent? If so, that is strange; perhaps you should direct your argument toward asking EBF to gain more knowledge by actually watching the film (assuming you are correct in that he has not).

People in this thread are using imagined scenarios to assume another's position and then argue against that position. My personal thought, if we are playing make believe, is that Michael (or a handful of other, more explosive and creative backs) would have taken that one cut wide open run to the house. Turbin went 47 yards, about 20 of which looked fairly labored, and needed to best only one DB to hit paydirt. There's 4 or 5 guys on the Seahawk roster alone that could have taken that thing all the way to the end zone. Robert Turbin is obviously not one of them.

You can remember drops because Turbin has actually played in games.

I can remember drops because he dropped passes in tightly contested games.

 

[cstu]

He said Turbin has the EXACT skill set Michael has. He doesn't. Michael is a more explosive, more instinctive and far more creative runner than Turbin. He runs with a wider base as well, thus limiting those plays where he is tripped up with arm tackles around his ankles; which Turbin succumbs to far too often. I'd say based on watching them both in college and the pros that Michael has better vision as well. Both have decent (not great) hands, though I can recall a few key drops Turbin has made in his few years in Seattle.

About watching film, why should anyone drop that as a valid argument? Is your angle that because EBF may not have watched all the games Turbin played to see his carries that others shouldn't place value in actually watching the players to assess their level of talent? If so, that is strange; perhaps you should direct your argument toward asking EBF to gain more knowledge by actually watching the film (assuming you are correct in that he has not).

People in this thread are using imagined scenarios to assume another's position and then argue against that position. My personal thought, if we are playing make believe, is that Michael (or a handful of other, more explosive and creative backs) would have taken that one cut wide open run to the house. Turbin went 47 yards, about 20 of which looked fairly labored, and needed to best only one DB to hit paydirt. There's 4 or 5 guys on the Seahawk roster alone that could have taken that thing all the way to the end zone. Robert Turbin is obviously not one of them.

Question - who is the more explosive, more instinctive and far more creative runner in Buffalo?

I'd say Spiller. But I like Brown a lot and he has some power CJ does not. Wouldn't be surprised to see Brown as the back of the future there.But then again I don't really follow the Bills. Do you?

No one follows the Bills...

Spiller/Jackson is something I think could happen to Michael as long as Turbin is there.

 

[EBF]

EBF I thought you weren't a fan of taking out the big plays when analyzing players. I guess you are as long as it fits your agenda.

I'm not, but if you're evaluating a player's performance then I think you need to consider "how" he got his stats, not just what his stats were. That applies to backs who "struggle" in games where there's no blocking for them whatsoever and also to backs who "excel" in games where they don't actually make any plays, but instead just benefit from a good context. What makes players like Adrian Peterson and LeSean McCoy great is not their ability to get the easy yards on routine plays, but rather their ability to earn extra yards above expectation in situations where most backs would be stopped for a much shorter gain. A "great" run to me is a play in which the back creates extra yards through elusiveness/vision/power/speed/whatever and gains far more yards than most of his peers would have in the same situation. This is a great run. This is good blocking.

That doesn't mean you take the play out of Turbin's stat line, but it also doesn't mean he deserves praise for it. The outside backer completely overran the play, the inside defenders were well-blocked, and Turbin had an easy path to a 30+ yard run. I think any halfway competent back would have busted a long one there, so for me the play isn't very notable. I've not seen much from Turbin in the NFL to suggest he's anything more than a replacement-level runner, whereas Michael has looked like a guy who can consistently gain extra yards above expectation. That's why I like one of these two players and wouldn't give up much for the other. Every time I see Michael for the Seahawks, he looks like dynamite. That's the take-home message for me from a dynasty perspective. High-talent players with difference-maker potential are exactly the guys I want to collect on my dynasty rosters, regardless of what their current circumstance is. Players like that almost inevitably get their chance, one way or another. So the key is to nail your evaluation of their talent, not to fret so much about the immediate situation. As long as you're right about their talent level, the opportunity aspect will eventually work itself out.

Buying high-talent/murky-opportunity guys is pretty much my default dynasty strategy at RB once you get past the obvious top flight guys. All the guys I picked outside the early rounds in my most recent startup fit this mold (Bryce Brown, Andre Williams, Mark Ingram, Jonathan Stewart). Even a lot of my devy players across my leagues fit this general mold (Michael Dyer, Nick Chubb, Thomas Tyner). That was also the driving force behind me acquiring Gerhart in a lot of leagues before he hit free agency. It's also why I drafted Bernard Pierce in most of my rookie drafts a few years ago. The emphasis that most owners place on short-term considerations is actually what makes this variety of player a bargain. Most people look at the context and the immediate results, not the player himself. I think that makes sense in a redraft league where it's all about the now. In dynasty, I think it's more about anchoring to the player's talent level. Hence my stance on Michael. Players almost inevitably get the opportunity they deserve, even if it takes years. If Christine Michael looks like an animal every time he sees the field then that's really what's going to stand out to me, not the specifics of his situation at one moment in time. A lot of people are saying the narrative of Friday's game was, "Christine Michael sits behind Turbin again." For me it was, "Christine Michael looks really good again." The rest is just noise.

 

[Neofight]

And I'll keep pounding the table, Turbin has the EXACT skill set as Michael with maybe a step less speed (which is significant in the NFL but not a burial). If the situation plays out with Lynch as people think it will, it will be far more difficult to get Turbin, who is a consistent steady hand, off the field than just assumed. Glad his value is coming around.

I think you've said this twice, but according the the combine, Michael is significantly quicker than Turbin. I think they are both fine prospects so I agree with you that the anti-Turbin stuff is foolish. I think Turbin is first up should something happen to Lynch's availability and that's what it seems that Seahawks think as well.

You don't really have to go all the way back to the combine--for the folks watching the games instead of the stat lines it is very clear who is the more talented runner. Michael's problem is he's been in this system for over a year and still can't pass block which is troubling. But for someone to say they have the same skill set tells me they aren't watching the two of them with an unbiased point of view, which I find funny because the same person is claiming bias on everyone else's behalf.

I mean, in his sig he has "Christina Michael hater". What more do you actually need?

It takes a lot more than just being a talented runner to play RB in the NFL though. I don't think it's nearly as cut and dried which is the more talented RB right now.Also, let's drop the "those who watch the game vs. stat watchers" stuff. EBF, the king of that schtick, admittedly didn't even see most of Turbin's carries yet he has no problem assuming they were pedestrian. It's not unreasonable for someone who has watched them both to think that Turbin is at least as good as Michael right now (again, as an overall RB).

He said Turbin has the EXACT skill set Michael has. He doesn't. Michael is a more explosive, more instinctive and far more creative runner than Turbin. He runs with a wider base as well, thus limiting those plays where he is tripped up with arm tackles around his ankles; which Turbin succumbs to far too often. I'd say based on watching them both in college and the pros that Michael has better vision as well. Both have decent (not great) hands, though I can recall a few key drops Turbin has made in his few years in Seattle.About watching film, why should anyone drop that as a valid argument? Is your angle that because EBF may not have watched all the games Turbin played to see his carries that others shouldn't place value in actually watching the players to assess their level of talent? If so, that is strange; perhaps you should direct your argument toward asking EBF to gain more knowledge by actually watching the film (assuming you are correct in that he has not).

People in this thread are using imagined scenarios to assume another's position and then argue against that position. My personal thought, if we are playing make believe, is that Michael (or a handful of other, more explosive and creative backs) would have taken that one cut wide open run to the house. Turbin went 47 yards, about 20 of which looked fairly labored, and needed to best only one DB to hit paydirt. There's 4 or 5 guys on the Seahawk roster alone that could have taken that thing all the way to the end zone. Robert Turbin is obviously not one of them.

That's nice, but completely irrelevant considering I never said that they had the same exact skill sets nor did I agree with the poster who did.You can use watching film (it was actually the games) as a valid argument, but not as a blanket statement that it's clear to anyone who has watched that my opinion is the correct one and anyone who disagrees must only look at the box scores. It's incredibly lame (and condescending).

Yeah, that last paragraph is a nice fantasy for sure.

Fair enough, but it is pretty cut and dried as to who has more talent between these two according to the talent evaluators (e.g., Schneider) and the coaches. That's not to say Turbin isn't talented; he's just not considered to have the level of talent that Michael possesses by the Seahawks FO (amongst plenty of other evaluators). Not certain the distinction you are trying to make between games and film (of games), but we'll agree that it clearly has great value in talent evaluation. It's also clear that many posters in here don't watch Seahawks games and may not watch highlights.

Do you doubt that there are three or four Seahawks that could have scored on that play? There was one defender between Turbin and the goal line. I like those odds for an exceptional talent.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

I've been strafing of the objective here because people want to get butt hurt that I see Turbin and Michaels skill sets to be similar (which they are, and which Seattle did because that's their prototype). Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word exact... It was, in my mind, to be said as their athleticism. Which, by all measures but very jump, is the same.

Third time you've said it, third time it was wrong. Use your own links and read.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

EBF I thought you weren't a fan of taking out the big plays when analyzing players. I guess you are as long as it fits your agenda.

I'm not, but if you're evaluating a player's performance then I think you need to consider "how" he got his stats, not just what his stats were. That applies to backs who "struggle" in games where there's no blocking for them whatsoever and also to backs who "excel" in games where they don't actually make any plays, but instead just benefit from a good context. What makes players like Adrian Peterson and LeSean McCoy great is not their ability to get the easy yards on routine plays, but rather their ability to earn extra yards above expectation in situations where most backs would be stopped for a much shorter gain. A "great" run to me is a play in which the back creates extra yards through elusiveness/vision/power/speed/whatever and gains far more yards than most of his peers would have in the same situation.

Do you at least see how your final 3 sentences look an awful lot like confirmation bias?

 

[Neofight]

He said Turbin has the EXACT skill set Michael has. He doesn't. Michael is a more explosive, more instinctive and far more creative runner than Turbin. He runs with a wider base as well, thus limiting those plays where he is tripped up with arm tackles around his ankles; which Turbin succumbs to far too often. I'd say based on watching them both in college and the pros that Michael has better vision as well. Both have decent (not great) hands, though I can recall a few key drops Turbin has made in his few years in Seattle.

About watching film, why should anyone drop that as a valid argument? Is your angle that because EBF may not have watched all the games Turbin played to see his carries that others shouldn't place value in actually watching the players to assess their level of talent? If so, that is strange; perhaps you should direct your argument toward asking EBF to gain more knowledge by actually watching the film (assuming you are correct in that he has not).

People in this thread are using imagined scenarios to assume another's position and then argue against that position. My personal thought, if we are playing make believe, is that Michael (or a handful of other, more explosive and creative backs) would have taken that one cut wide open run to the house. Turbin went 47 yards, about 20 of which looked fairly labored, and needed to best only one DB to hit paydirt. There's 4 or 5 guys on the Seahawk roster alone that could have taken that thing all the way to the end zone. Robert Turbin is obviously not one of them.

Question - who is the more explosive, more instinctive and far more creative runner in Buffalo?

I'd say Spiller. But I like Brown a lot and he has some power CJ does not. Wouldn't be surprised to see Brown as the back of the future there.But then again I don't really follow the Bills. Do you?

No one follows the Bills...

Spiller/Jackson is something I think could happen to Michael as long as Turbin is there.

I was going to say something along those lines but didn't want to offend Bills fans- I know a few.

Spiller's problem is that he isn't built like a three down back and lingering soft tissue injuries have limited the impact of his play. That, and Fred Jackson is immensely underrated as a talent. I like his game more than Turbin's by far.

Either way, neither Jackson nor Spiller looks to be the Bills long term solution at RB. And I think that says a lot about the rapid evolution of the game. I honestly feel that the NFL pendulum is already swinging back towards more ball control and shortening the amount of time your D is on the field. In Buffalos case in particular they are going to have to run a lot to compensate for EJ Manuel's play at QB. This is why Bryce Brown could be the long term solution if he gets his head right.

I think Brown is the better analogy for Michael here; neither guy has real questions about their talent level. They both have issues around work ethic and execution, plus perhaps some minor character concerns (which I don't see being a limiting factor).

 

[cstu]

He said Turbin has the EXACT skill set Michael has. He doesn't. Michael is a more explosive, more instinctive and far more creative runner than Turbin. He runs with a wider base as well, thus limiting those plays where he is tripped up with arm tackles around his ankles; which Turbin succumbs to far too often. I'd say based on watching them both in college and the pros that Michael has better vision as well. Both have decent (not great) hands, though I can recall a few key drops Turbin has made in his few years in Seattle.

About watching film, why should anyone drop that as a valid argument? Is your angle that because EBF may not have watched all the games Turbin played to see his carries that others shouldn't place value in actually watching the players to assess their level of talent? If so, that is strange; perhaps you should direct your argument toward asking EBF to gain more knowledge by actually watching the film (assuming you are correct in that he has not).

People in this thread are using imagined scenarios to assume another's position and then argue against that position. My personal thought, if we are playing make believe, is that Michael (or a handful of other, more explosive and creative backs) would have taken that one cut wide open run to the house. Turbin went 47 yards, about 20 of which looked fairly labored, and needed to best only one DB to hit paydirt. There's 4 or 5 guys on the Seahawk roster alone that could have taken that thing all the way to the end zone. Robert Turbin is obviously not one of them.

Question - who is the more explosive, more instinctive and far more creative runner in Buffalo?

I'd say Spiller. But I like Brown a lot and he has some power CJ does not. Wouldn't be surprised to see Brown as the back of the future there.But then again I don't really follow the Bills. Do you?

No one follows the Bills...

Spiller/Jackson is something I think could happen to Michael as long as Turbin is there.

I was going to say something along those lines but didn't want to offend Bills fans- I know a few.

Spiller's problem is that he isn't built like a three down back and lingering soft tissue injuries have limited the impact of his play. That, and Fred Jackson is immensely underrated as a talent. I like his game more than Turbin's by far.

Either way, neither Jackson nor Spiller looks to be the Bills long term solution at RB. And I think that says a lot about the rapid evolution of the game. I honestly feel that the NFL pendulum is already swinging back towards more ball control and shortening the amount of time your D is on the field. In Buffalos case in particular they are going to have to run a lot to compensate for EJ Manuel's play at QB. This is why Bryce Brown could be the long term solution if he gets his head right.

I think Brown is the better analogy for Michael here; neither guy has real questions about their talent level. They both have issues around work ethic and execution, plus perhaps some minor character concerns (which I don't see being a limiting factor).

I know there's Aaron but I don't think he's easily offended.

The Brown comparison is a good one. Every down back potential if he earns the trust of the team.

 

[Bojang0301]

I've been strafing of the objective here because people want to get butt hurt that I see Turbin and Michaels skill sets to be similar (which they are, and which Seattle did because that's their prototype). Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word exact... It was, in my mind, to be said as their athleticism. Which, by all measures but very jump, is the same.

Third time you've said it, third time it was wrong. Use your own links and read.

Oh, so Turbin was better in the 40 my bad.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

I've been strafing of the objective here because people want to get butt hurt that I see Turbin and Michaels skill sets to be similar (which they are, and which Seattle did because that's their prototype). Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word exact... It was, in my mind, to be said as their athleticism. Which, by all measures but very jump, is the same.

Third time you've said it, third time it was wrong. Use your own links and read.

Oh, so Turbin was better in the 40 my bad.

Why you trollin?

 

[tdmills]

He continues to look good when given opportunities, which is a lot more important to me than where he sits on the depth chart right now. I don't view him as a redraft option and I don't think too many others are counting on him for immediate production. He's an investment for the future. With that in mind, the important questions for me are, "Is he talented enough to eventually get an opportunity and if so, is he talented enough to thrive?" I think the answers are a resounding yes, which is what I'd anchor to from a dynasty standpoint rather than freaking out about what other players on the roster are doing.

That being said, I'm not buying the idea that Turbin is a better runner or player. His 47 yard run in this game was all blocked for him, not earned. One cut (probably by design) and then acres of space. Any back in the league busts a long gain there. His other 11 carries netted a typically Turdbinesque 34 yards. My DVR cut out the first quarter of this game, so I can't comment on most of those carries, but on the surface it looks like a mediocre performance. Michael has a creativity that I've never seen from Turbin. Every time he touches the ball, you feel like he can do something special. If it ever came down to a heads-up battle between those two for workhorse carries, I don't think Turbin could keep him off the field.

Like I said though, I'm really more concerned with the dynasty prognosis than the immediate outlook and every time I see Michael play for the Seahawks, he solidifies my belief that he's an "NFL starter" even if he doesn't happen to be starting right this moment (think Sproles and Turner in SD). Durability is the only long-term concern.

Sounds like a biased owner to me. That's every FF owner hoping their player is going to bust it on any play. But in reality, Christine Michael has had 15 rushing attempts this preseason and his long run is 11 yards...

 

[humpback]

It takes a lot more than just being a talented runner to play RB in the NFL though. I don't think it's nearly as cut and dried which is the more talented RB right now.

Also, let's drop the "those who watch the game vs. stat watchers" stuff. EBF, the king of that schtick, admittedly didn't even see most of Turbin's carries yet he has no problem assuming they were pedestrian. It's not unreasonable for someone who has watched them both to think that Turbin is at least as good as Michael right now (again, as an overall RB).

He said Turbin has the EXACT skill set Michael has. He doesn't. Michael is a more explosive, more instinctive and far more creative runner than Turbin. He runs with a wider base as well, thus limiting those plays where he is tripped up with arm tackles around his ankles; which Turbin succumbs to far too often. I'd say based on watching them both in college and the pros that Michael has better vision as well. Both have decent (not great) hands, though I can recall a few key drops Turbin has made in his few years in Seattle.About watching film, why should anyone drop that as a valid argument? Is your angle that because EBF may not have watched all the games Turbin played to see his carries that others shouldn't place value in actually watching the players to assess their level of talent? If so, that is strange; perhaps you should direct your argument toward asking EBF to gain more knowledge by actually watching the film (assuming you are correct in that he has not).

People in this thread are using imagined scenarios to assume another's position and then argue against that position. My personal thought, if we are playing make believe, is that Michael (or a handful of other, more explosive and creative backs) would have taken that one cut wide open run to the house. Turbin went 47 yards, about 20 of which looked fairly labored, and needed to best only one DB to hit paydirt. There's 4 or 5 guys on the Seahawk roster alone that could have taken that thing all the way to the end zone. Robert Turbin is obviously not one of them.

That's nice, but completely irrelevant considering I never said that they had the same exact skill sets nor did I agree with the poster who did.You can use watching film (it was actually the games) as a valid argument, but not as a blanket statement that it's clear to anyone who has watched that my opinion is the correct one and anyone who disagrees must only look at the box scores. It's incredibly lame (and condescending).

Yeah, that last paragraph is a nice fantasy for sure.

Fair enough, but it is pretty cut and dried as to who has more talent between these two according to the talent evaluators (e.g., Schneider) and the coaches. That's not to say Turbin isn't talented; he's just not considered to have the level of talent that Michael possesses by the Seahawks FO (amongst plenty of other evaluators).Not certain the distinction you are trying to make between games and film (of games), but we'll agree that it clearly has great value in talent evaluation. It's also clear that many posters in here don't watch Seahawks games and may not watch highlights.

Do you doubt that there are three or four Seahawks that could have scored on that play? There was one defender between Turbin and the goal line. I like those odds for an exceptional talent.

Again, there's a difference between being a talented runner vs. a talented running back. I don't think it's cut and dried right now which is the more talented RB, but if anything it seems the team believes it's Turbin since he's ahead of him. I agree Michael is the better pure runner, and he has the higher upside in ff because of it, but that's only one part of the equation.

Not a major issue, but there's a difference between watching the games and reviewing film. Agreed, both are valuable in talent evaluation, but the bottom line is that it's all very subjective. Saying that anyone who has watched someone must have the same opinion as you do and anyone with a differing opinion couldn't possibly have watched is petty. Many people who watch them are doing so through less than neutral eyes and are likely going to confirm their bias regardless (on both sides).

"Could have" is different from "would have" (any player "could have", including Turbin), but there's no way of knowing if anyone else would have scored on that play. I do think you are vastly underestimating how difficult it would have been though- the defensive back (who is very athletic in his own right) had at least a 6 yard lead on him when it turned into a foot race. You're also giving no credit for the ~15 yards Turbin gained after the stiff arm- it was a fairly impressive run IMO.

 

[EastonBlues22]

Sounds like a biased owner to me. That's every FF owner hoping their player is going to bust it on any play. But in reality, Christine Michael has had 15 rushing attempts this preseason and his long run is 11 yards...

It seems odd to call someone out for potential bias, and then immediately follow that by implying that 15 preseason carries is "evidence" to the contrary of the position he's taken on Michael.

Turbin has 183 NFL regular/postseason carries, of which 3 (1.6%) were longer than 15 yards (16, 24, 26). He averaged 3.81 yards across those carries. He has another 78 preseason carries, of which 3 (3.8%) were longer than 15 yards (17, 25, 47), and over which he averaged 4.32 yards/carry. According to PFF, his elusive ratings the past two regular seasons were 35.7 and 31.3 and his Yco/Att were 2.09 and 2.13. All those numbers are below average relative to other starting RBs in the league. Comparable 2013 RBs across the last two numbers filtered by 25% attempts are Le'Veon Bell, Stephen Ridley, MJD, and Bilal Powell. Expanding the filter includes Michael Bush, Brian Leonard, and Roy Helu. All those players broke 15+ runs at a higher rate than Turbin last year. Feel free to draw your own conclusions from that.

For completeness: Michael has 18 NFL/postseason carries, of which 0 were longer than 15 yards. He averaged 4.4 yards across those carries. He has another 55 preseason carries, of which 3 (5.5%) were longer than 15 yards (18, 24, 43), and over which he averaged 4.76 yards/carry. His elusive rating was graded at 69.4 for his 18 regular season carries and his Yco/Att was 2.50. There are fewer comps around those numbers when filtering by 25% attempts. The closest two are Ingram (2.52, 78.2) and Lynch (2.61, 70.0).

Obviously, anything associated with Michael's 18 regular season carries should be taken with a huge grain of salt from a projection standpoint. At the same time, the numbers he's compiled thus far in his extremely limited NFL career are objectively better than the sum total of Turbin's work. Is it really so hard to believe that an objective observer might draw the conclusion that Michael has looked better than Turbin while both were compiling those numbers? Logic actually suggests that a truly neutral observer should have come away with that visual impression. The error lies in assuming that what little we've seen of him is a significant enough sample size to say with confidence that he will maintain that level of play moving forward.

We've seen enough of Turbin to have a reasonable idea of what he's going to be in the NFL, and it's nothing remarkable. We can't say the same about Michael. In real life, the NFL team is going to start the established "good enough" option when pressed until it's sure there's a better option available. In fantasy football, we're more interested in projecting what will happen down the road. Based on what we know, and what little we've seen, Michael's career arc has the potential to be higher than Turbin's. We can't say with high confidence that this will happen, because Michael's projections are based off very small sample sizes of NFL events and things that have a relatively modest correlations with NFL success (measurables, etc.). I feel like we can say with higher confidence, however, that Turbin's career projections are modest at this point relative to other starting NFL RBs.

IMO the real debate shouldn't be whether Michael has been/looked better than Turbin running the ball to this point. It should be about whether the rough edges of his game (pass protection, etc.) are (or are capable of) progressing, because I believe that's all that's keeping him behind Turbin at this point.

 

[Bojang0301]

I've been strafing of the objective here because people want to get butt hurt that I see Turbin and Michaels skill sets to be similar (which they are, and which Seattle did because that's their prototype). Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word exact... It was, in my mind, to be said as their athleticism. Which, by all measures but very jump, is the same.

Third time you've said it, third time it was wrong. Use your own links and read.

Oh, so Turbin was better in the 40 my bad.

Why you trollin?

I'm really not man... This thread spiraled a long time ago. For the record:

-I like Turbin a lot. He has proven himself to be the backup and I think that holds weight in redraft and dynasty. I definitely see him as a guy who could shoulder the load. I really wouldn't have verbalized it too much if it weren't for this thread.

-I like Michael and my sig is a response to an argument that got deleted saying that Rotoworld wasn't trolling.

-Even though I like Michaels skill set I do not view him as others have. What I believe was originally a response to his dynasty draft status amongst a really weak crop of NFL RB's grew out of control to believe he would be THE back in SEA. Some of the weakest arguments were that is Turbin was the lone back for the Hawks they'd bring in someone else... Well they've had Lynch for a considerable time now and brought in two backs. When Lynch is gone they'll bring in another guy with talent even if Michael lives up to the highest of high heights. They are a well run orginization.

-Lastly, I feel like when I entered this thread I was simply trying to say Turbin is not a JAG and is the backup. The voices of reason were few and far between. Faust bumped the Turbin thread and EBF had a fondness for him that must have magically disappeared upon Michaels entrance to the league. So there has been a lot of trolling in this thread if you believe I've been trolling so far.

 

[Neofight]

It takes a lot more than just being a talented runner to play RB in the NFL though. I don't think it's nearly as cut and dried which is the more talented RB right now.

Also, let's drop the "those who watch the game vs. stat watchers" stuff. EBF, the king of that schtick, admittedly didn't even see most of Turbin's carries yet he has no problem assuming they were pedestrian. It's not unreasonable for someone who has watched them both to think that Turbin is at least as good as Michael right now (again, as an overall RB).

He said Turbin has the EXACT skill set Michael has. He doesn't. Michael is a more explosive, more instinctive and far more creative runner than Turbin. He runs with a wider base as well, thus limiting those plays where he is tripped up with arm tackles around his ankles; which Turbin succumbs to far too often. I'd say based on watching them both in college and the pros that Michael has better vision as well. Both have decent (not great) hands, though I can recall a few key drops Turbin has made in his few years in Seattle.About watching film, why should anyone drop that as a valid argument? Is your angle that because EBF may not have watched all the games Turbin played to see his carries that others shouldn't place value in actually watching the players to assess their level of talent? If so, that is strange; perhaps you should direct your argument toward asking EBF to gain more knowledge by actually watching the film (assuming you are correct in that he has not).

People in this thread are using imagined scenarios to assume another's position and then argue against that position. My personal thought, if we are playing make believe, is that Michael (or a handful of other, more explosive and creative backs) would have taken that one cut wide open run to the house. Turbin went 47 yards, about 20 of which looked fairly labored, and needed to best only one DB to hit paydirt. There's 4 or 5 guys on the Seahawk roster alone that could have taken that thing all the way to the end zone. Robert Turbin is obviously not one of them.

That's nice, but completely irrelevant considering I never said that they had the same exact skill sets nor did I agree with the poster who did.You can use watching film (it was actually the games) as a valid argument, but not as a blanket statement that it's clear to anyone who has watched that my opinion is the correct one and anyone who disagrees must only look at the box scores. It's incredibly lame (and condescending).

Yeah, that last paragraph is a nice fantasy for sure.

Fair enough, but it is pretty cut and dried as to who has more talent between these two according to the talent evaluators (e.g., Schneider) and the coaches. That's not to say Turbin isn't talented; he's just not considered to have the level of talent that Michael possesses by the Seahawks FO (amongst plenty of other evaluators).Not certain the distinction you are trying to make between games and film (of games), but we'll agree that it clearly has great value in talent evaluation. It's also clear that many posters in here don't watch Seahawks games and may not watch highlights.

Do you doubt that there are three or four Seahawks that could have scored on that play? There was one defender between Turbin and the goal line. I like those odds for an exceptional talent.

Again, there's a difference between being a talented runner vs. a talented running back. I don't think it's cut and dried right now which is the more talented RB, but if anything it seems the team believes it's Turbin since he's ahead of him. I agree Michael is the better pure runner, and he has the higher upside in ff because of it, but that's only one part of the equation.Not a major issue, but there's a difference between watching the games and reviewing film. Agreed, both are valuable in talent evaluation, but the bottom line is that it's all very subjective. Saying that anyone who has watched someone must have the same opinion as you do and anyone with a differing opinion couldn't possibly have watched is petty. Many people who watch them are doing so through less than neutral eyes and are likely going to confirm their bias regardless (on both sides).

"Could have" is different from "would have" (any player "could have", including Turbin), but there's no way of knowing if anyone else would have scored on that play. I do think you are vastly underestimating how difficult it would have been though- the defensive back (who is very athletic in his own right) had at least a 6 yard lead on him when it turned into a foot race. You're also giving no credit for the ~15 yards Turbin gained after the stiff arm- it was a fairly impressive run IMO.

We'll just disagree on these points. Turbin is an average RB and looks to me to be a career backup. Michael has the talent to be something more. That run was open for him to take it to the house. Lynch would have hurt the db on the way to his TD.

 

[rascal]

So we still have no idea who is the handcuff to Lynch?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

So we still have no idea who is the handcuff to Lynch?

Everyone knows its currently Turbin.

 

[rascal]

So we still have no idea who is the handcuff to Lynch?

Everyone knows its currently Turbin.

So Lynch owners should own him instead of Michael (non-dynasty)?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

So we still have no idea who is the handcuff to Lynch?

Everyone knows its currently Turbin.

So Lynch owners should own him instead of Michael (non-dynasty)?

In redraft absolutely.

 

[cr8f]

So we still have no idea who is the handcuff to Lynch?

Everyone knows its currently Turbin.

I disagree that Turbin is the one to own if Lynch goes down. Sure he is 2nd into the game currently but if Lynch misses a lot of time I doubt he remains there long.

He picks up blitzes better currently and believe that is why he is used more for the moment. Michael is always improving

I have both in a dynasty and will probably drop Turbin if I can't trade him. The better talent will win out in the end.

 

[ghostguy123]

Raise your hand if you think Turbin is better to own than Michael if Lynch were to tear up his knee tomorrow???

Hint, my hand is not up.