Christine Michael (2 Viewers)

[12punch]

IMO the Hawks' almost panicked desire to keep Lynch tells me that they don't see R Wilson as a true franchise QB. They need Lynch because it is him - not Wilson - who is the emotional leader of the offense.

Sorry but that's a dumb comment.

https://twitter.com/FantasyDouche/status/574001831489179648

pats lookin' good

 

[Tool]

IMO the Hawks' almost panicked desire to keep Lynch tells me that they don't see R Wilson as a true franchise QB. They need Lynch because it is him - not Wilson - who is the emotional leader of the offense.

Sorry but that's a dumb comment.

https://twitter.com/FantasyDouche/status/574001831489179648

not sure that proves anything. could just mean their backup qb bites. you'd also want to know differences of other teams w/ and w/o their starting qb.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Maybe a loaded question in this thread, but does anyone have any thoughts on how the Hawks are viewing Michael these days? Does he still have potential to take over if Lynch goes down with injury or maybe in 2016?

I believe they like Turbin more than Michael. I don't think this is a big secret.

I believe they like Turbin better as a third down back but I don't think anything is definitive in terms of which one they'd prefer if Lynch was out of the picture.

The problem for both Turbin and Michaels is I get the sense the Seahawks don't trust either of them in expanded roles. The way they went after Lynch offering more money when his only leverage was not playing was one huge sign but the other was the slew of credible people who felt Seattle would look at Rb's as high as the first round. Nothing about their actions seems to indicate they feel comfortable they have Lynch's replacment on the roster, at least not a bell cow type RB.

But I don't agree with those who say Michaels will never be anything but hype or a nonfactor. He might never fully live up to the hype, but some players just take longer than others to get their chance especially when play behind a future HOF player.

My feelings on Michaels remain unchanged. I think he's an incredible athlete but he's never been a consistent bell cow guy even in college, more of a lead part or co-part of a RBBC. When I see him run he looks like he has one speed and it's full go. That's great sometimes, but true feature backs learn some preservation running skills and not just rely on being a better athlete. When you run like Michaels does I just don't think you can have a heavy usage. So despite having the size for it I just don't think he's ever going to be 20 carry a week back, but I think at some point in time he'll be the lead part of a RBBC and be a dangerous weapon and useful fantasy player.

So.id take overall.IMO the Hawks' almost panicked desire to keep Lynch tells me that they don't see R Wilson as a true franchise QB. They need Lynch because it is him - not Wilson - who is the emotional leader of the offense.

Or You know, they could just want to keep the team that went to back to back super bowls together.

Or it could be both

 

[Alex P Keaton]

IMO the Hawks' almost panicked desire to keep Lynch tells me that they don't see R Wilson as a true franchise QB. They need Lynch because it is him - not Wilson - who is the emotional leader of the offense.

Sorry but that's a dumb comment.

https://twitter.com/FantasyDouche/status/574001831489179648

Good stats. I can see you've never taken a logic course though.

 

[Sabertooth]

Michael has the same value as most third string backs. He's got less value than some at this point. Personally I'd rather have Terrance West or somebody like him. If Michael was a great player, he'd be on the field.

Huh? Most 3rd string RBs aren't even rosters in fantasy. Michael is owned in just about every league and people owning him actually seem to think he's worth a mid/high-level rookie 1st.

Huh?

 

[EBF]

Lynch is the best rushing RB in the NFL since 2010 and I don't think extending his contract has anything to do with Christine Michael or Turbin. JS and PC keep their studs around and if it is working for them then there is no reason to change until change is needed.

https://twitter.com/ESPNStatsInfo/status/573964222121578496

Get out of here with that common sense!

Seriously, this is mildly disappointing, but not the least bit unexpected. The Hawks have been tremendously successful the last few years and Lynch has been a huge part of that. Why mess with that formula if you can retain him for a reasonable price? To me it says as much about Michael as the Broncos wanting Manning back says about Osweiler. In other words, absolutely nothing. In both cases, the clock is ticking. Nobody plays forever. If Lynch goes MJD/SJax this year then the conversation will turn quickly.

That being said, if I were Michael's agent I'd have to be thinking about trade possibilities right about now. It's a waste of time for him to sit and rot there. Given that trades are rare in the league though, I'm not holding my breath on anything.

 

[beef]

Lynch is the best rushing RB in the NFL since 2010 and I don't think extending his contract has anything to do with Christine Michael or Turbin. JS and PC keep their studs around and if it is working for them then there is no reason to change until change is needed.

https://twitter.com/ESPNStatsInfo/status/573964222121578496

Get out of here with that common sense!

Seriously, this is mildly disappointing, but not the least bit unexpected. The Hawks have been tremendously successful the last few years and Lynch has been a huge part of that. Why mess with that formula if you can retain him for a reasonable price? To me it says as much about Michael as the Broncos wanting Manning back says about Osweiler. In other words, absolutely nothing. In both cases, the clock is ticking. Nobody plays forever. If Lynch goes MJD/SJax this year then the conversation will turn quickly.

That being said, if I were Michael's agent I'd have to be thinking about trade possibilities right about now. It's a waste of time for him to sit and rot there. Given that trades are rare in the league though, I'm not holding my breath on anything.

michael's agent doesn't get make that call.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Lynch is the best rushing RB in the NFL since 2010 and I don't think extending his contract has anything to do with Christine Michael or Turbin. JS and PC keep their studs around and if it is working for them then there is no reason to change until change is needed.

https://twitter.com/ESPNStatsInfo/status/573964222121578496

Get out of here with that common sense!

Seriously, this is mildly disappointing, but not the least bit unexpected. The Hawks have been tremendously successful the last few years and Lynch has been a huge part of that. Why mess with that formula if you can retain him for a reasonable price? To me it says as much about Michael as the Broncos wanting Manning back says about Osweiler. In other words, absolutely nothing. In both cases, the clock is ticking. Nobody plays forever. If Lynch goes MJD/SJax this year then the conversation will turn quickly.

That being said, if I were Michael's agent I'd have to be thinking about trade possibilities right about now. It's a waste of time for him to sit and rot there. Given that trades are rare in the league though, I'm not holding my breath on anything.

michael's agent doesn't get make that call.

yeah like some 3rd string RB has some kind of "trade me" leverage

sheesh

 

[Biabreakable]

Lynch is the best rushing RB in the NFL since 2010 and I don't think extending his contract has anything to do with Christine Michael or Turbin. JS and PC keep their studs around and if it is working for them then there is no reason to change until change is needed.

https://twitter.com/ESPNStatsInfo/status/573964222121578496

Get out of here with that common sense!

Seriously, this is mildly disappointing, but not the least bit unexpected. The Hawks have been tremendously successful the last few years and Lynch has been a huge part of that. Why mess with that formula if you can retain him for a reasonable price? To me it says as much about Michael as the Broncos wanting Manning back says about Osweiler. In other words, absolutely nothing. In both cases, the clock is ticking. Nobody plays forever. If Lynch goes MJD/SJax this year then the conversation will turn quickly.

That being said, if I were Michael's agent I'd have to be thinking about trade possibilities right about now. It's a waste of time for him to sit and rot there. Given that trades are rare in the league though, I'm not holding my breath on anything.

EBF the eternal optimist.

 

[EBF]

When players are drafted behind a rock solid incumbent, they often sit for years before they get their chance. I don't see any particular reason to downgrade the long term valuation of these players based on nonexistent opportunity. Michael is less valuable than he was two years ago simply by virtue of being older, but the Seahawks wanting to retain their MVP-caliber running back who has led them to consecutive Super Bowl doesn't say much about Michael. It just says that they want to keep the guys who have been pivotal to their most successful era in franchise history, which makes perfect sense.

So the short bus crowd can cry about the sky falling, but patience is often rewarded in cases like this (see: Aaron Rodgers and Michael Turner).

 

[Mr. Retukes]

When players are drafted behind a rock solid incumbent, they often sit for years before they get their chance.

Not in the NFL unless it's a quarterback.

 

[Donnybrook]

When players are drafted behind a rock solid incumbent, they often sit for years before they get their chance.

Not in the NFL unless it's a quarterback.

Do you recall Michael Turner?

 

[Papa John's]

When players are drafted behind a rock solid incumbent, they often sit for years before they get their chance.

Not in the NFL unless it's a quarterback.

Do you recall Michael Turner?

And Darren Sproles.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Priest Holmes, Lamont Jordan, Ahman Green, Tiki Barber, Charlie Garner -- lots of good backs have been relegated to backup roles behind other good backs.

It's worse in Michael's case than some of those, possibly because the team doesn't view him as a 3rd down back. But talent is talent, and IF he's got it the continued presence of Lynch means nothing except a longer wait to find out.

No one (supporters, non-believers, trolls) knows.

 

[georg013]

Maybe a loaded question in this thread, but does anyone have any thoughts on how the Hawks are viewing Michael these days? Does he still have potential to take over if Lynch goes down with injury or maybe in 2016?

I believe they like Turbin more than Michael. I don't think this is a big secret.

it's to the point where the Seahawks would be better off dumping CM for a pick if there's a buyer.

It is to the point where CM and CM owners would be better off if he gets traded. Not sure that is true for Seattle. What could they realistically get for him? A 4th next year or 5th this year? Why bother?

Beautifully put. They care zero about his fantasy value. He will rot away on their bench.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Maybe a loaded question in this thread, but does anyone have any thoughts on how the Hawks are viewing Michael these days? Does he still have potential to take over if Lynch goes down with injury or maybe in 2016?

I believe they like Turbin more than Michael. I don't think this is a big secret.

it's to the point where the Seahawks would be better off dumping CM for a pick if there's a buyer.

It is to the point where CM and CM owners would be better off if he gets traded. Not sure that is true for Seattle. What could they realistically get for him? A 4th next year or 5th this year? Why bother?

Beautifully put. They care zero about his fantasy value. He will rot away on their bench.

To play Devils advocate, if they are keeping him (vs trading him), then either a) they see him as a viable backup or b) nobody else wants him enough to trade for him.It would be interesting to know which is the case.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

When players are drafted behind a rock solid incumbent, they often sit for years before they get their chance. I don't see any particular reason to downgrade the long term valuation of these players based on nonexistent opportunity. Michael is less valuable than he was two years ago simply by virtue of being older, but the Seahawks wanting to retain their MVP-caliber running back who has led them to consecutive Super Bowl doesn't say much about Michael. It just says that they want to keep the guys who have been pivotal to their most successful era in franchise history, which makes perfect sense.

So the short bus crowd can cry about the sky falling, but patience is often rewarded in cases like this (see: Aaron Rodgers and Michael Turner).

Yeah, that is fair. It is just tough as an owner who drafted him two years ago.....this situation reminds me of why a "buy and hold" strategy is imperfect. The time to sell Michael was last offseason. The time to buy him might be right now. Or mid season this year. But make no mistake, folks who drafted him and flipped him made a really good profit. Those who have held him the whole time lost value.

 

[Sabertooth]

We've lost time and we still don't know if he'll be any good. Let's face it the guy hasn't scored a touchdown since 2012.

 

[tdmills]

When players are drafted behind a rock solid incumbent, they often sit for years before they get their chance. I don't see any particular reason to downgrade the long term valuation of these players based on nonexistent opportunity. Michael is less valuable than he was two years ago simply by virtue of being older, but the Seahawks wanting to retain their MVP-caliber running back who has led them to consecutive Super Bowl doesn't say much about Michael. It just says that they want to keep the guys who have been pivotal to their most successful era in franchise history, which makes perfect sense.

So the short bus crowd can cry about the sky falling, but patience is often rewarded in cases like this (see: Aaron Rodgers and Michael Turner).

So classy.

Wait time hurts value, as well as the roster spot of a player that might not be able to help your team. Also, you're assuming Michael can even be a FF factor in the future. So you're holding out for something that might never be.

 

[spreagle]

Maybe a loaded question in this thread, but does anyone have any thoughts on how the Hawks are viewing Michael these days? Does he still have potential to take over if Lynch goes down with injury or maybe in 2016?

I believe they like Turbin more than Michael. I don't think this is a big secret.

it's to the point where the Seahawks would be better off dumping CM for a pick if there's a buyer.

It is to the point where CM and CM owners would be better off if he gets traded. Not sure that is true for Seattle. What could they realistically get for him? A 4th next year or 5th this year? Why bother?

Beautifully put. They care zero about his fantasy value. He will rot away on their bench.

To play Devils advocate, if they are keeping him (vs trading him), then either a) they see him as a viable backup or b) nobody else wants him enough to trade for him.It would be interesting to know which is the case.

A big part of Seattle drafting Michael with their first pick is that they must have seen Michael as mostly Lynch-insurance (remember Lynch is Lynch and he did have legal issues) and the insurance bet simply didn't pan out because Lynch stayed productive and didn't get suspended. In fact Lynch seems to have become more important to Seattle over time. Michael now basically represents a failed insurance bet. Thats OK because Lynch is still chugging along and Seattle didn't need the insurance. But Seattle is in win-now mode and burnt a recent first pick on a running back that sat until his trade value sank to about a 5th round pick, and with no playing time this year it will sink to zero. That is not a good return on investment for a win now team. And its not really smart to keep holding insurance that has been deemed almost worthless. From a win now perspective, Michael should be traded on draft day, not for a 5th rounder but for Seattle to move up a few picks to get a guy they want who can contribute now.

 

[Tool]

Maybe a loaded question in this thread, but does anyone have any thoughts on how the Hawks are viewing Michael these days? Does he still have potential to take over if Lynch goes down with injury or maybe in 2016?

I believe they like Turbin more than Michael. I don't think this is a big secret.

it's to the point where the Seahawks would be better off dumping CM for a pick if there's a buyer.

It is to the point where CM and CM owners would be better off if he gets traded. Not sure that is true for Seattle. What could they realistically get for him? A 4th next year or 5th this year? Why bother?

Beautifully put. They care zero about his fantasy value. He will rot away on their bench.

To play Devils advocate, if they are keeping him (vs trading him), then either a) they see him as a viable backup or b) nobody else wants him enough to trade for him.It would be interesting to know which is the case.

A big part of Seattle drafting Michael with their first pick is that they must have seen Michael as mostly Lynch-insurance (remember Lynch is Lynch and he did have legal issues) and the insurance bet simply didn't pan out because Lynch stayed productive and didn't get suspended. In fact Lynch seems to have become more important to Seattle over time. Michael now basically represents a failed insurance bet. Thats OK because Lynch is still chugging along and Seattle didn't need the insurance. But Seattle is in win-now mode and burnt a recent first pick on a running back that sat until his trade value sank to about a 5th round pick, and with no playing time this year it will sink to zero. That is not a good return on investment for a win now team. And its not really smart to keep holding insurance that has been deemed almost worthless. From a win now perspective, Michael should be traded on draft day, not for a 5th rounder but for Seattle to move up a few picks to get a guy they want who can contribute now.

He was their 1st pick but it was the end of 2nd round, so a bit misleading. Anyway, they still need insurance, no? Lynch ain't getting younger and he's got back issues. He's been remarkably durable, but that could end on one play. I suppose they could roll w/ just Turbin and maybe draft someone in the middle rounds. But if they're not going to get much in a trade, might as well just keep him.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

When players are drafted behind a rock solid incumbent, they often sit for years before they get their chance. I don't see any particular reason to downgrade the long term valuation of these players based on nonexistent opportunity. Michael is less valuable than he was two years ago simply by virtue of being older, but the Seahawks wanting to retain their MVP-caliber running back who has led them to consecutive Super Bowl doesn't say much about Michael. It just says that they want to keep the guys who have been pivotal to their most successful era in franchise history, which makes perfect sense.

So the short bus crowd can cry about the sky falling, but patience is often rewarded in cases like this (see: Aaron Rodgers and Michael Turner).

CM is losing value by the day, sure if you still like him go try n snag him now as people will probably sell

But the fact he cant get on the field in front of Turbin has to be a little bit of a red flag? You would think Pete Carroll would want to reduce some wear n tear on his stud, and maybe he will lighten the load some this year and see what CM can do. But even that seems unlikely

 

[Tool]

When players are drafted behind a rock solid incumbent, they often sit for years before they get their chance. I don't see any particular reason to downgrade the long term valuation of these players based on nonexistent opportunity. Michael is less valuable than he was two years ago simply by virtue of being older, but the Seahawks wanting to retain their MVP-caliber running back who has led them to consecutive Super Bowl doesn't say much about Michael. It just says that they want to keep the guys who have been pivotal to their most successful era in franchise history, which makes perfect sense.

So the short bus crowd can cry about the sky falling, but patience is often rewarded in cases like this (see: Aaron Rodgers and Michael Turner).

CM is losing value by the day, sure if you still like him go try n snag him now as people will probably sell

But the fact he cant get on the field in front of Turbin has to be a little bit of a red flag? You would think Pete Carroll would want to reduce some wear n tear on his stud, and maybe he will lighten the load some this year and see what CM can do. But even that seems unlikely

Carroll actually has been keeping Lynch's carries in check. Avg around 300 for last 4 years. Turbin's been getting the majority of the carries though.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

When players are drafted behind a rock solid incumbent, they often sit for years before they get their chance. I don't see any particular reason to downgrade the long term valuation of these players based on nonexistent opportunity. Michael is less valuable than he was two years ago simply by virtue of being older, but the Seahawks wanting to retain their MVP-caliber running back who has led them to consecutive Super Bowl doesn't say much about Michael. It just says that they want to keep the guys who have been pivotal to their most successful era in franchise history, which makes perfect sense.

So the short bus crowd can cry about the sky falling, but patience is often rewarded in cases like this (see: Aaron Rodgers and Michael Turner).

Yeah, that is fair. It is just tough as an owner who drafted him two years ago.....this situation reminds me of why a "buy and hold" strategy is imperfect. The time to sell Michael was last offseason. The time to buy him might be right now. Or mid season this year. But make no mistake, folks who drafted him and flipped him made a really good profit. Those who have held him the whole time lost value.

Sure, if they flipped him for a late first and drafted OBJr they made a killing. But if they flipped him for some mid-range WR2 you can't say that yet. And if they gave him up for a bunch of junk they aren't ahead at all yet.

Because in start 2RB leagues a high-end RB1 is worth 5-10x as much as a mid-range WR2. So even if you think Michael's only got a 20% chance of turning into The Next Big Thing it may turn out you sold cheap.

I think his odds are more like 40% (which is higher than any RB in the draft except Gurley IMO), and no one's giving me that kind of value in return. So I'm holding.

 

[Bri]

When players are drafted behind a rock solid incumbent, they often sit for years before they get their chance. I don't see any particular reason to downgrade the long term valuation of these players based on nonexistent opportunity. Michael is less valuable than he was two years ago simply by virtue of being older, but the Seahawks wanting to retain their MVP-caliber running back who has led them to consecutive Super Bowl doesn't say much about Michael. It just says that they want to keep the guys who have been pivotal to their most successful era in franchise history, which makes perfect sense.

So the short bus crowd can cry about the sky falling, but patience is often rewarded in cases like this (see: Aaron Rodgers and Michael Turner).

Michael Turner was very good behind Tomlinson.

Lamont Jordan was very good behind Curtis Martin.

There was no doubt they'd be good as a starter and that they would start someday. (results may be different, but I mean "everyone" was confident)

Michael isn't similar til he fills in and does real well.

He isn't even Toby Gerhart who got a chance to fail, as Toby filled in well for ADP.

If not for a 4th quarter run against the Gmen, his best game would be his first at 37 yards.

2,3,4 carries a game is not indicative of a future star.

The way I see it, if you love his prospects then Carroll is making a terrible call here-otherwise, he's a classic college RB that didn't pan out in the NFL.

Turbin is not this awesome back that would start for most teams and is a gem of a backup. He's more veteran nice guy to have as a backup, career backup type. Michael should have beaten him out by now.

 

[tdmills]

When players are drafted behind a rock solid incumbent, they often sit for years before they get their chance. I don't see any particular reason to downgrade the long term valuation of these players based on nonexistent opportunity. Michael is less valuable than he was two years ago simply by virtue of being older, but the Seahawks wanting to retain their MVP-caliber running back who has led them to consecutive Super Bowl doesn't say much about Michael. It just says that they want to keep the guys who have been pivotal to their most successful era in franchise history, which makes perfect sense.

So the short bus crowd can cry about the sky falling, but patience is often rewarded in cases like this (see: Aaron Rodgers and Michael Turner).

Yeah, that is fair. It is just tough as an owner who drafted him two years ago.....this situation reminds me of why a "buy and hold" strategy is imperfect. The time to sell Michael was last offseason. The time to buy him might be right now. Or mid season this year. But make no mistake, folks who drafted him and flipped him made a really good profit. Those who have held him the whole time lost value.

Sure, if they flipped him for a late first and drafted OBJr they made a killing. But if they flipped him for some mid-range WR2 you can't say that yet. And if they gave him up for a bunch of junk they aren't ahead at all yet.

Because in start 2RB leagues a high-end RB1 is worth 5-10x as much as a mid-range WR2. So even if you think Michael's only got a 20% chance of turning into The Next Big Thing it may turn out you sold cheap.

I think his odds are more like 40% (which is higher than any RB in the draft except Gurley IMO), and no one's giving me that kind of value in return. So I'm holding.

 

[spreagle]

Last year Caroll called Michael the "most-improved player", my boy told me the "most-improved" label is the last thing you ever want to "win" because it means you recently "stunk".

 

[georg013]

If I owned Christine Michael I would try like hell to convince myself everything was going to be alright and that there was a perfectly good explanation why he is getting few reps. Maybe needs more time to learn the playbook. Heard that before?

 

[Sabertooth]

I wouldn't give a rookie 2nd rounder for him right now. Here are the players taken in the second round of the league I own him in from last season (superflex)

Odell Beckham

Andre Williams

Johnny Manziel

Teddy Bridgewater

Lache Seastrunk

Kelvin Benjamin

Davante Adams

Marquise Lee

Jeremy Hill

Kadeem Carey

Charles Sims

Cody Latimer

Only Seastrunk (who was a total headscratcher at the time) has less value right now than Michael. Manziel maybe but we shall see.

 

[Chaka]

Priest Holmes, Lamont Jordan, Ahman Green, Tiki Barber, Charlie Garner -- lots of good backs have been relegated to backup roles behind other good backs.

It's worse in Michael's case than some of those, possibly because the team doesn't view him as a 3rd down back. But talent is talent, and IF he's got it the continued presence of Lynch means nothing except a longer wait to find out.

No one (supporters, non-believers, trolls) knows.

Ahman was a lead back in Green Bay in his third season.

I think everyone would be disappointed if Michael ended up with Jordan's career (one good season and eight disappointing ones). Or if they had to wait until his sixth season before he started producing ala Charlie Garner, who only put up four good seasons after that (is that solid ROI?)

Every year owners have to wait means another year of diminishing ROI. At some part the smart move may have turned out to be trading him when his hype was highest.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Priest Holmes, Lamont Jordan, Ahman Green, Tiki Barber, Charlie Garner -- lots of good backs have been relegated to backup roles behind other good backs.

It's worse in Michael's case than some of those, possibly because the team doesn't view him as a 3rd down back. But talent is talent, and IF he's got it the continued presence of Lynch means nothing except a longer wait to find out.

No one (supporters, non-believers, trolls) knows.

Ahman was a lead back in Green Bay in his third season.

I think everyone would be disappointed if Michael ended up with Jordan's career (one good season and eight disappointing ones). Or if they had to wait until his sixth season before he started producing ala Charlie Garner, who only put up four good seasons after that (is that solid ROI?)

Every year owners have to wait means another year of diminishing ROI. At some part the smart move may have turned out to be trading him when his hype was highest.

Only because he got traded. If he'd stayed in Seattle behind Watters and Alexander he would have NEVER gotten a chance. But he'd have still been a damn good back.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I'm not arguing that his value isn't declining. Obviously it is.

I'm just arguing that him being locked in as a like-for-like replacement behind a guy who's putting together a decent HOF case doesn't (or at least might not) say much about his ability.

 

[Chaka]

Priest Holmes, Lamont Jordan, Ahman Green, Tiki Barber, Charlie Garner -- lots of good backs have been relegated to backup roles behind other good backs.

It's worse in Michael's case than some of those, possibly because the team doesn't view him as a 3rd down back. But talent is talent, and IF he's got it the continued presence of Lynch means nothing except a longer wait to find out.

No one (supporters, non-believers, trolls) knows.

Ahman was a lead back in Green Bay in his third season.

I think everyone would be disappointed if Michael ended up with Jordan's career (one good season and eight disappointing ones). Or if they had to wait until his sixth season before he started producing ala Charlie Garner, who only put up four good seasons after that (is that solid ROI?)

Every year owners have to wait means another year of diminishing ROI. At some part the smart move may have turned out to be trading him when his hype was highest.

Only because he got traded. If he'd stayed in Seattle behind Watters and Alexander he would have NEVER gotten a chance. But he'd have still been a damn good back.

If "if's and buts were candy and nuts we'd all have a merry christmas".

You can also make the argument that someone identified a glut of RB talent in Sea back then (something they allegedly have now) and thought Ahman was worth trading for (something that hasn't happened with Michael today...yet).

 

[Chaka]

I'm not arguing that his value isn't declining. Obviously it is.

I'm just arguing that him being locked in as a like-for-like replacement behind a guy who's putting together a decent HOF case doesn't (or at least might not) say much about his ability.

I completely agree but the longer he is in Seattle the more irrelevant his ability/potential becomes.

 

[Skoo]

I'm not arguing that his value isn't declining. Obviously it is.

I'm just arguing that him being locked in as a like-for-like replacement behind a guy who's putting together a decent HOF case doesn't (or at least might not) say much about his ability.

As someone else pointed out, if I were an owner I'd be worried that after the coaches talked about CM like he was gonna take over for Lynch at any second, he couldn't even get on the field as their #2 RB.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I'm not arguing that his value isn't declining. Obviously it is.

I'm just arguing that him being locked in as a like-for-like replacement behind a guy who's putting together a decent HOF case doesn't (or at least might not) say much about his ability.

I completely agree but the longer he is in Seattle the more irrelevant his ability/potential becomes.

Different strokes. Happy to ride him all the way down to the ground. Just like I was/am with Jonathan Stewart.

 

[Sabertooth]

I'm not arguing that his value isn't declining. Obviously it is.

I'm just arguing that him being locked in as a like-for-like replacement behind a guy who's putting together a decent HOF case doesn't (or at least might not) say much about his ability.

I completely agree but the longer he is in Seattle the more irrelevant his ability/potential becomes.

Different strokes. Happy to ride him all the way down to the ground. Just like I was/am with Jonathan Stewart.

Depends on roster sizes I guess.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I'm not arguing that his value isn't declining. Obviously it is.

I'm just arguing that him being locked in as a like-for-like replacement behind a guy who's putting together a decent HOF case doesn't (or at least might not) say much about his ability.

I completely agree but the longer he is in Seattle the more irrelevant his ability/potential becomes.

Different strokes. Happy to ride him all the way down to the ground. Just like I was/am with Jonathan Stewart.

Depends on roster sizes I guess.

Yeah, he's hitting the waiver wire in a bunch of leagues I'm sure.

 

[Lott's Fingertip]

I offered a mid 2nd and a 3rd for him in a league that he has to be assigned a contract this season, up to 4 years... so you may only be getting a couple of years of use by tying up a roster spot for that time. Offer was refused and he countered with CM for 4 2nd rounders, including 2.01. I wouldn't pay 2.01 by itself under these contract limitations.

 

[cstu]

I offered a mid 2nd and a 3rd for him in a league that he has to be assigned a contract this season, up to 4 years... so you may only be getting a couple of years of use by tying up a roster spot for that time. Offer was refused and he countered with CM for 4 2nd rounders, including 2.01. I wouldn't pay 2.01 by itself under these contract limitations.

I wouldn't pay the 2.1 even without contracts.

 

[Sabertooth]

Nah he's a guy I would give a 3rd rounder for in a 12 team league. Nothing more.

 

[Tool]

As a Michaels owner he's tough to trade b/c you're not getting much at this point and he's got the home run potential, however small, if Lynch gets hurt or Lynch is done after next year. So maybe it's a fantasy and i'll probably be riding him into the ground as well.

 

[dewmass]

best thread on the internet

 

[Ditka Butkus]

As a Michaels owner he's tough to trade b/c you're not getting much at this point and he's got the home run potential, however small, if Lynch gets hurt or Lynch is done after next year. So maybe it's a fantasy and i'll probably be riding him into the ground as well.

Lynch is going to get hurt...big payday...."you know what coach my back hurts to much to play today".

 

[PatsWillWin]

I'm thinking of just tryiing to sell him to the Lynch owner. Other than that, you have to hold (assuming reasonably deep rosters).

 

[amnesiac]

at this point his remaining production is highly unlikely to match his cost for acquiring and holding him.

 

[menobrown]

I'm not arguing that his value isn't declining. Obviously it is.

I'm just arguing that him being locked in as a like-for-like replacement behind a guy who's putting together a decent HOF case doesn't (or at least might not) say much about his ability.

I completely agree but the longer he is in Seattle the more irrelevant his ability/potential becomes.

Different strokes. Happy to ride him all the way down to the ground. Just like I was/am with Jonathan Stewart.

Depends on roster sizes I guess.

I don't know about that. In FFPC leagues which required cut down to 14 position players I did not see him cut anywhere. I've got him in one league myself and even with that short roster I'm fully prepared to hold on for at least two more seasons, unless of course someone made me an attractive offer.

 

[Biabreakable]

You are likely correct that people who value Michael as the 62nd player would not be willing to sell him for a 3rd round draft pick.

I wouldn't want to give up much more than that for him at this point.

 

[Lott's Fingertip]

I don't know about that. In FFPC leagues which required cut down to 14 position players I did not see him cut anywhere. I've got him in one league myself and even with that short roster I'm fully prepared to hold on for at least two more seasons, unless of course someone made me an attractive offer.

Out of curiosity, what is your minimum sell price?

 

[Milkman]

I'm not arguing that his value isn't declining. Obviously it is.

I'm just arguing that him being locked in as a like-for-like replacement behind a guy who's putting together a decent HOF case doesn't (or at least might not) say much about his ability.

I completely agree but the longer he is in Seattle the more irrelevant his ability/potential becomes.

Different strokes. Happy to ride him all the way down to the ground. Just like I was/am with Jonathan Stewart.

Depends on roster sizes I guess.

I don't know about that. In FFPC leagues which required cut down to 14 position players I did not see him cut anywhere. I've got him in one league myself and even with that short roster I'm fully prepared to hold on for at least two more seasons, unless of course someone made me an attractive offer.

I can't drop him either. It sucks though. I wouldn't take anything less than a mid 1st for him.