Christine Michael (3 Viewers)

[LOCO]

I am holding on to cmike just because of this thread.

 

[Detroit Revival]

http://www.scout.com/nfl/cowboys/story/1591336-the-cowboys-cult-of-christine-michael?hootPostID=4232fa729653ce2fdc27b9aa0587c298

This doesn't really break away from what we've been hearing. He is talented, he's getting to know the system, but something is going to happen in order for him to start. This week isn't going to be it as said by the writer. "He isn't in the gameplan for Sunday's game against the Falcons"

This is the article the beatwriter teased.

Also for those on the messageboards that have been pointing to the inefficiency of the Cowboys backfield, the Rotoviz guys would agree with you.

http://rotoviz.com/2015/09/7-takeaways-week-2-rb-opportunity-report/

From yesterday but relevant.

 

[DLR]

So.... if CM wins the lead back role we're looking at like a 100/1 floor per game right?

 

[ATB]

Do we KNOW he's inactive this week yet though?

 

[Detroit Revival]

Do we KNOW he's inactive this week yet though?

One beat writer said that during the walk throughs this week Christine Michael was used to simulate Devonta Freeman. He was not given reps with the first team.

 

[FBG Moderator]

So.... if CM wins the lead back role we're looking at like a 100/1 floor per game right?

How do you see him performing and why?

 

[DLR]

I don't think it was complete snark considering Murray averaged 115/.8 last year. Considering that, if he were to secure the lead back role, ala Murray, would 100/1 be out of the realm of possibilities?

I'm pretty sure that is the upside everyone here in this thread is hoping for....

 

[BigSteelThrill]

 

[Concept Coop]

I don't think it was complete snark considering Murray averaged 115/.8 last year. Considering that, if he were to secure the lead back role, ala Murray, would 100/1 be out of the realm of possibilities?

I'm pretty sure that is the upside everyone here in this thread is hoping for....

He'd have to prove worthy of the volume, first. Murray led the league in carries, IIRC. And that was with Romo/Dez pulling attention.

IF he beat out Randle and DMC, he'd likely split early down work 60/40 and surrender all 3rd down work. We're likely looking at about Randle is doing now--well below a 1,600/16 TD pace.

 

[DLR]

If CM is marginally better than Randle and DMC, sure.

But, if he is legitimately good, like really good, you don't think he could compare with Murray last year?

I know Murray had volume. He had 392 carries and Randle had 51 in 2014. That is am 88.5%/11.5% split.

They are averaging 26 carries a game right now. If CM was really good could they give him 23 (88.5%) carries a game? Could they run more and give him less % but same volume? Could he get 20 carries per game and average 5 ypc? Murray averaged 4.7.

I would guess if he were really good they would want to give him the carries to make that difference.

 

[ROYALWITCHEESE]

If CM is marginally better than Randle and DMC, sure.

But, if he is legitimately good, like really good, you don't think he could compare with Murray last year?

I know Murray had volume. He had 392 carries and Randle had 51 in 2014. That is am 88.5%/11.5% split.

They are averaging 26 carries a game right now. If CM was really good could they give him 23 (88.5%) carries a game? Could they run more and give him less % but same volume? Could he get 20 carries per game and average 5 ypc? Murray averaged 4.7.

I would guess if he were really good they would want to give him the carries to make that difference.

No.

Murray >>>> Michael.

Compare Murray's college tape to Michael's (which is still about all we have in CM).

 

[Interseptopus]

If CM is marginally better than Randle and DMC, sure.

But, if he is legitimately good, like really good, you don't think he could compare with Murray last year?

I know Murray had volume. He had 392 carries and Randle had 51 in 2014. That is am 88.5%/11.5% split.

They are averaging 26 carries a game right now. If CM was really good could they give him 23 (88.5%) carries a game? Could they run more and give him less % but same volume? Could he get 20 carries per game and average 5 ypc? Murray averaged 4.7.

I would guess if he were really good they would want to give him the carries to make that difference.

No. Murray >>>> Michael.

Compare Murray's college tape to Michael's (which is still about all we have in CM).

I hope u mean Murray is > Michael at something other than football. Because they are about to rename the Walter Payton award the Christine Michael award

 

[Interseptopus]

FWIW: Skip Bayless intimated CMike would be available this week in ATL. He said, "Joseph Randle will run it down the Falcons' throats. And Christine Michael who was traded from Seattle, he's a bruiser man, and he will run it down their throats..."

I was like wtf? You telling me CMike's gonna be active in Atlanta?

Me thinks Skip knows something we don't.

Skip Bayles is pretty much worthless as an analystI have Cmike only left in 1 redraft league. that has a long bench and the wire is bare.

If Randle is running it down their throats then why would they bring in CM?

Michael is the "sexy" pick across the board and unfortunately it's dying out. This is almost as ridiculous as how much Lammy was obsessed with Ronnie Hillman

 

[McGarnicle]

So we've got a budget of $100. Last year my draft was dog#### and I started 0-3. Ended up 8-5 and made the playoffs by 3 points. Won the championship thanks to late waiver guys -- CJ and Odell.

I drafted Matt Jones. Dropped him after week 1 for Michael. Then Jones went off and I almost bid $20 to get him back. Decided to stick with Michael and see what happens.

Seems like half the backup RBs in the league start a game or two anyway because of injury, so it's a waiting game. But in this situation, the guys ahead of Michael are JAG's, and the o-line is sick, and the Cowboys think they're winning the SB every damn year. I'm just gonna wait patiently on Michael, Khiry Robinson, David Johnson and Abdullah. One of these guys ends up a top-10 every week start if not two.

 

[Interseptopus]

So we've got a budget of $100. Last year my draft was dog#### and I started 0-3. Ended up 8-5 and made the playoffs by 3 points. Won the championship thanks to late waiver guys -- CJ and Odell.

I drafted Matt Jones. Dropped him after week 1 for Michael. Then Jones went off and I almost bid $20 to get him back. Decided to stick with Michael and see what happens.

Seems like half the backup RBs in the league start a game or two anyway because of injury, so it's a waiting game. But in this situation, the guys ahead of Michael are JAG's, and the o-line is sick, and the Cowboys think they're winning the SB every damn year. I'm just gonna wait patiently on Michael, Khiry Robinson, David Johnson and Abdullah. One of these guys ends up a top-10 every week start if not two.

Cool story.

Imo i would have dropped a fourth string rb instead of a rookie rb in a very good position.

 

[georg013]

Surprising blurb at PFF

Not a banner day for the Cowboys run blocking. Unfortunately for them their best run blocker on the day, left tackle Tyron Smith (+2.5), was aligned right next to their worst, left guard Mackenzy Bernadeau (-3.2), meaning they could never string enough blocks together for a crease. As such, the Cowboys runners were forced to gain 78 of their 113 yards after contact.

I didn't get to watch the game but this is the consistent analysis I've read. That DMC didn't look great but that Randle shook some tackles and did most of his work after contact. Never good to take stats at face-value.

Seems pretty spot on. Randle consistently was getting hit at the line but made moves and spins / kept churning his legs to gain an extra 2-3 yards each time. The O-line is def not what I expected it would be so far.

He didn't even avg 3 yds per carry

Finding an extre 2-3 yards when there's nothing to begin with will keep your average below 3.

I dont think he understood the gist of the previous post.

 

[georg013]

Coach Garrett mentioned that Randle did a good job of getting the tough yards. The yards needed to keep the offense moving. He also said Michael had memorized the title of the playbook.

 

[Eminence]

Is he starter yet? We probably shouldn't bump this thread until he's starter. You're driving his price up.

 

[McGarnicle]

So we've got a budget of $100. Last year my draft was dog#### and I started 0-3. Ended up 8-5 and made the playoffs by 3 points. Won the championship thanks to late waiver guys -- CJ and Odell.

I drafted Matt Jones. Dropped him after week 1 for Michael. Then Jones went off and I almost bid $20 to get him back. Decided to stick with Michael and see what happens.

Seems like half the backup RBs in the league start a game or two anyway because of injury, so it's a waiting game. But in this situation, the guys ahead of Michael are JAG's, and the o-line is sick, and the Cowboys think they're winning the SB every damn year. I'm just gonna wait patiently on Michael, Khiry Robinson, David Johnson and Abdullah. One of these guys ends up a top-10 every week start if not two.

Cool story.

Imo i would have dropped a fourth string rb instead of a rookie rb in a very good position.

2-down rookie RB with fumblitis on a dysfunctional team is a good position?

 

[Eminence]

Is this some kind of pyramid scheme?

 

[Interseptopus]

So we've got a budget of $100. Last year my draft was dog#### and I started 0-3. Ended up 8-5 and made the playoffs by 3 points. Won the championship thanks to late waiver guys -- CJ and Odell.

I drafted Matt Jones. Dropped him after week 1 for Michael. Then Jones went off and I almost bid $20 to get him back. Decided to stick with Michael and see what happens.

Seems like half the backup RBs in the league start a game or two anyway because of injury, so it's a waiting game. But in this situation, the guys ahead of Michael are JAG's, and the o-line is sick, and the Cowboys think they're winning the SB every damn year. I'm just gonna wait patiently on Michael, Khiry Robinson, David Johnson and Abdullah. One of these guys ends up a top-10 every week start if not two.

Cool story.

Imo i would have dropped a fourth string rb instead of a rookie rb in a very good position.

2-down rookie RB with fumblitis on a dysfunctional team is a good position?

I'd rather have a RB who has a chance to be "the guy" this year on a dysfunctional team that is likely going to see what they have in their new shiney rookie than a 0-down RB who was traded in favor of Fred "Medicare Eligible" Jackson and hasn't been active.

It's like saying you prefer Josh Gordon over a 4th string WR for any team in the NFL. Just wasting a roster space unless you have 20 man rosters...

EDIT: Not really... Josh Gordon is good. How about Tim Tebow...

 

[McGarnicle]

So we've got a budget of $100. Last year my draft was dog#### and I started 0-3. Ended up 8-5 and made the playoffs by 3 points. Won the championship thanks to late waiver guys -- CJ and Odell.

I drafted Matt Jones. Dropped him after week 1 for Michael. Then Jones went off and I almost bid $20 to get him back. Decided to stick with Michael and see what happens.

Seems like half the backup RBs in the league start a game or two anyway because of injury, so it's a waiting game. But in this situation, the guys ahead of Michael are JAG's, and the o-line is sick, and the Cowboys think they're winning the SB every damn year. I'm just gonna wait patiently on Michael, Khiry Robinson, David Johnson and Abdullah. One of these guys ends up a top-10 every week start if not two.

Cool story.

Imo i would have dropped a fourth string rb instead of a rookie rb in a very good position.

2-down rookie RB with fumblitis on a dysfunctional team is a good position?

I'd rather have a RB who has a chance to be "the guy" this year on a dysfunctional team that is likely going to see what they have in their new shiney rookie than a 0-down RB who was traded in favor of Fred "Medicare Eligible" Jackson and hasn't been active.

I figured I'd have to bid $20 to get Jones back, so I didn't bother. He went for $7, but I'm still cool with the decision. As mentioned I'm rolling with several young lottery ticket RB's and in that context I like a higher ceiling guy like Michael (and my target is weeks 10-16 to see these guys pay off). I also want to have $50+ available after week 10, again because of how free agents won my league last year. I've seen a lot of Matt Jonses blow up and flare out by midseason.

 

[Interseptopus]

So we've got a budget of $100. Last year my draft was dog#### and I started 0-3. Ended up 8-5 and made the playoffs by 3 points. Won the championship thanks to late waiver guys -- CJ and Odell.

I drafted Matt Jones. Dropped him after week 1 for Michael. Then Jones went off and I almost bid $20 to get him back. Decided to stick with Michael and see what happens.

Seems like half the backup RBs in the league start a game or two anyway because of injury, so it's a waiting game. But in this situation, the guys ahead of Michael are JAG's, and the o-line is sick, and the Cowboys think they're winning the SB every damn year. I'm just gonna wait patiently on Michael, Khiry Robinson, David Johnson and Abdullah. One of these guys ends up a top-10 every week start if not two.

Cool story.

Imo i would have dropped a fourth string rb instead of a rookie rb in a very good position.

2-down rookie RB with fumblitis on a dysfunctional team is a good position?

I'd rather have a RB who has a chance to be "the guy" this year on a dysfunctional team that is likely going to see what they have in their new shiney rookie than a 0-down RB who was traded in favor of Fred "Medicare Eligible" Jackson and hasn't been active.

I figured I'd have to bid $20 to get Jones back, so I didn't bother. He went for $7, but I'm still cool with the decision. As mentioned I'm rolling with several young lottery ticket RB's and in that context I like a higher ceiling guy like Michael (and my target is weeks 10-16 to see these guys pay off). I also want to have $50+ available after week 10, again because of how free agents won my league last year. I've seen a lot of Matt Jonses blow up and flare out by midseason.

And I've seen a lot of Matt Jones take off by midseason.

To each their own. I just think you made a terrible move in the first place. Yeah I wouldn't have spent the money either. I dropped Sproles before the first game in favor of someone else, as we have very short benches in my league, and he had a great day with receptions. My bad. I didn't feel like paying to get him back, but I can at least admit I was an idiot to drop him in the first place.

Good luck

 

[McGarnicle]

So we've got a budget of $100. Last year my draft was dog#### and I started 0-3. Ended up 8-5 and made the playoffs by 3 points. Won the championship thanks to late waiver guys -- CJ and Odell.

I drafted Matt Jones. Dropped him after week 1 for Michael. Then Jones went off and I almost bid $20 to get him back. Decided to stick with Michael and see what happens.

Seems like half the backup RBs in the league start a game or two anyway because of injury, so it's a waiting game. But in this situation, the guys ahead of Michael are JAG's, and the o-line is sick, and the Cowboys think they're winning the SB every damn year. I'm just gonna wait patiently on Michael, Khiry Robinson, David Johnson and Abdullah. One of these guys ends up a top-10 every week start if not two.

Cool story.

Imo i would have dropped a fourth string rb instead of a rookie rb in a very good position.

2-down rookie RB with fumblitis on a dysfunctional team is a good position?

I'd rather have a RB who has a chance to be "the guy" this year on a dysfunctional team that is likely going to see what they have in their new shiney rookie than a 0-down RB who was traded in favor of Fred "Medicare Eligible" Jackson and hasn't been active.

I figured I'd have to bid $20 to get Jones back, so I didn't bother. He went for $7, but I'm still cool with the decision. As mentioned I'm rolling with several young lottery ticket RB's and in that context I like a higher ceiling guy like Michael (and my target is weeks 10-16 to see these guys pay off). I also want to have $50+ available after week 10, again because of how free agents won my league last year. I've seen a lot of Matt Jonses blow up and flare out by midseason.

And I've seen a lot of Matt Jones take off by midseason.To each their own. I just think you made a terrible move in the first place. Yeah I wouldn't have spent the money either. I dropped Sproles before the first game in favor of someone else, as we have very short benches in my league, and he had a great day with receptions. My bad. I didn't feel like paying to get him back, but I can at least admit I was an idiot to drop him in the first place.

Good luck

To you as well.

 

[georg013]

Sep 23

Rob Phillips ‏@robphillips3

Garrett: Joseph Randle got a lot of tough yards vs. Philly that "are really important for running efficient offense."

Should this be ignored? Or should I spin this into a positive for Christina?

 

[Interseptopus]

Sep 23

Rob Phillips ‏@robphillips3

Garrett: Joseph Randle got a lot of tough yards vs. Philly that "are really important for running efficient offense."

Should this be ignored? Or should I spin this into a positive for Christina?

This is clear proof that Garretts ploy to motivate Joseph Randle is working

 

[georg013]

Jerry Jones on @1053thefan: Joseph Randle has "all the talent for an every down running back that you could hope to [have]."

 

[ATB]

Sep 23

Rob Phillips ‏@robphillips3

Garrett: Joseph Randle got a lot of tough yards vs. Philly that "are really important for running efficient offense."

Should this be ignored? Or should I spin this into a positive for Christina?

Jerry Jones on @1053thefan: Joseph Randle has "all the talent for an every down running back that you could hope to [have]."

Actions speak louder than words. Randle hasn't lived up to the hype thus far (and I'm a Randle owner).

 

[Interseptopus]

Sep 23

Rob Phillips ‏@robphillips3

Garrett: Joseph Randle got a lot of tough yards vs. Philly that "are really important for running efficient offense."

Should this be ignored? Or should I spin this into a positive for Christina?

Jerry Jones on @1053thefan: Joseph Randle has "all the talent for an every down running back that you could hope to [have]."

Actions speak louder than words. Randle hasn't lived up to the hype thus far (and I'm a Randle owner).

No, he hasn't, but it speaks volumes when the head coach and a meddling owner give their vote of confidence. That's a very different tune than what the arm chair GMs have been saying

 

[jurb26]

Sep 23

Rob Phillips ‏@robphillips3

Garrett: Joseph Randle got a lot of tough yards vs. Philly that "are really important for running efficient offense."

Should this be ignored? Or should I spin this into a positive for Christina?

Jerry Jones on @1053thefan: Joseph Randle has "all the talent for an every down running back that you could hope to [have]."

Actions speak louder than words. Randle hasn't lived up to the hype thus far (and I'm a Randle owner).

So, what do the actions of never being higher than 3rd on an NFL depth chart speak too?

 

[ATB]

Sep 23

Rob Phillips ‏@robphillips3

Garrett: Joseph Randle got a lot of tough yards vs. Philly that "are really important for running efficient offense."

Should this be ignored? Or should I spin this into a positive for Christina?

Jerry Jones on @1053thefan: Joseph Randle has "all the talent for an every down running back that you could hope to [have]."

Actions speak louder than words. Randle hasn't lived up to the hype thus far (and I'm a Randle owner).

So, what do the actions of never being higher than 3rd on an NFL depth chart speak too?

How about the action of trading for a powerful RB to backup an unproven starter? No matter what the coach and GM say... they traded for him. Because they lacked confidence in the RBs they already had. And those RBs have, thus far, greatly under produced.

Just because they espouse confidence in their lead back does not negate all of that.

 

[timbrah_ho]

Sep 23

Rob Phillips ‏@robphillips3

Garrett: Joseph Randle got a lot of tough yards vs. Philly that "are really important for running efficient offense."

Should this be ignored? Or should I spin this into a positive for Christina?

Jerry Jones on @1053thefan: Joseph Randle has "all the talent for an every down running back that you could hope to [have]."

Actions speak louder than words. Randle hasn't lived up to the hype thus far (and I'm a Randle owner).

No, he hasn't, but it speaks volumes when the head coach and a meddling owner give their vote of confidence. That's a very different tune than what the arm chair GMs have been saying

Two words: Coach speak. Jones and the coaching staff are probably not going to just come out and say "our RB situation is underwhelming....and while we're at it we hope the next defensive coordinator hears this so they can scheme accordingly"

I agree CM is a longshot but I'm certainly not taking the staff's public statements at face value either

 

[GreenNGold]

Sep 23

Rob Phillips ‏@robphillips3

Garrett: Joseph Randle got a lot of tough yards vs. Philly that "are really important for running efficient offense."

Should this be ignored? Or should I spin this into a positive for Christina?

Jerry Jones on @1053thefan: Joseph Randle has "all the talent for an every down running back that you could hope to [have]."

Actions speak louder than words. Randle hasn't lived up to the hype thus far (and I'm a Randle owner).

Randle has been servicable so far (obviously not a superstar), and now with Romo out their entire running game is going to suffer as defenses can guard against the run more. Dallas is working through some issues and they don't have a pressing need to start replacing their RB's, although I would like to see what Christine Michael can do too, Dallas has no reason to rush him into games either. Demarco Murray is currently averaging 0.5 YPC in Philly, anyone who thinks it is all based on YPC is not being realistic or looking at the bigger picture.

 

[mrbigg]

I don't know why I keep checking this page. It doesn't have the youthful enthusiasm like the Josh Gordon hype train nor is there rarely any relevant information about CM. And yet, here I stand.

 

[cubbie5150]

Coach Garrett mentioned that Randle did a good job of getting the tough yards. The yards needed to keep the offense moving. He also said Michael had memorized the title of the playbook.

"Dallas Cowboys Playbook" is a challenging tongue-twister.

 

[Banger]

someone dropped him and just picked him up off waivers for Beasley

 

[matuski]

someone dropped him and just picked him up off waivers for Beasley

I would have dropped Jaron Brown... but to each his own.

Keep us posted.

 

[humpback]

Sep 23

Rob Phillips ‏@robphillips3

Garrett: Joseph Randle got a lot of tough yards vs. Philly that "are really important for running efficient offense."

Should this be ignored? Or should I spin this into a positive for Christina?

Jerry Jones on @1053thefan: Joseph Randle has "all the talent for an every down running back that you could hope to [have]."

Actions speak louder than words. Randle hasn't lived up to the hype thus far (and I'm a Randle owner).

So, what do the actions of never being higher than 3rd on an NFL depth chart speak too?

How about the action of trading for a powerful RB to backup an unproven starter? No matter what the coach and GM say... they traded for him. Because they lacked confidence in the RBs they already had. And those RBs have, thus far, greatly under produced.

Just because they espouse confidence in their lead back does not negate all of that.

This has all been pointed out over and over already, but they've given up exactly zero in terms of draft pick compensation as of today. IF he eventually meets the conditions of the trade, they will give up a whopping 7th round draft pick.

It's also been pointed out that Dallas has recently traded for a QB and WR, giving up higher draft pick compensation for each than they did for Michael, but no one is arguing that those guys are going to be focal points of the team. Often times teams trade for guys just for depth/insurance. Think about it- despite the team saying essentially the opposite, you're saying that they traded for him because they lacked confidence in the RBs they already had, and those RBs have thus far greatly under produced. Okay, then why would he still be inactive if these things were true? The only plausible explanations would be that at least one of those things aren't true, or Michael himself has also greatly under produced (in practice).

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

Sep 23

Rob Phillips ‏@robphillips3

Garrett: Joseph Randle got a lot of tough yards vs. Philly that "are really important for running efficient offense."

Should this be ignored? Or should I spin this into a positive for Christina?

Jerry Jones on @1053thefan: Joseph Randle has "all the talent for an every down running back that you could hope to [have]."

Actions speak louder than words. Randle hasn't lived up to the hype thus far (and I'm a Randle owner).

So, what do the actions of never being higher than 3rd on an NFL depth chart speak too?

How about the action of trading for a powerful RB to backup an unproven starter? No matter what the coach and GM say... they traded for him. Because they lacked confidence in the RBs they already had. And those RBs have, thus far, greatly under produced.Just because they espouse confidence in their lead back does not negate all of that.

This has all been pointed out over and over already, but they've given up exactly zero in terms of draft pick compensation as of today. IF he eventually meets the conditions of the trade, they will give up a whopping 7th round draft pick. It's also been pointed out that Dallas has recently traded for a QB and WR, giving up higher draft pick compensation for each than they did for Michael, but no one is arguing that those guys are going to be focal points of the team. Often times teams trade for guys just for depth/insurance. Think about it- despite the team saying essentially the opposite, you're saying that they traded for him because they lacked confidence in the RBs they already had, and those RBs have thus far greatly under produced. Okay, then why would he still be inactive if these things were true? The only plausible explanations would be that at least one of those things aren't true, or Michael himself has also greatly under produced (in practice).

You're ignoring that the RB position has been devalued. QBs and WRs who can run sub 4.4 40's have a higher value then a RB, even if that RB is a potential sleeping giant who shoots lightening from his ####.

 

[Chaka]

someone dropped him and just picked him up off waivers for Beasley

I would have dropped Jaron Brown... but to each his own.

Keep us posted.

The decisions that others make when picking up or dropping Michael are helpful (even if only a little bit) to those of us who are deciding on whether or not to make a move involving him.

 

[Detroit Revival]

One of the key things that I keep coming back to is that he has done nothing on special teams. He was brought in to run the ball. Sometime this season we will see him active and given a shot. At 2-0, there's little reason to activate him right now except for an injury. Looking at the schedule, maybe after a tough loss to the Pats on Sunday night in week 5 he'll get his shot after the bye.

 

[spreagle]

One of the key things that I keep coming back to is that he has done nothing on special teams. He was brought in to run the ball. Sometime this season we will see him active and given a shot. At 2-0, there's little reason to activate him right now except for an injury. Looking at the schedule, maybe after a tough loss to the Pats on Sunday night in week 5 he'll get his shot after the bye.

I don't think Michael ever played special teams in Seattle. Turbin did play special teams in Seattle.

 

[Coach3K]

someone dropped him and just picked him up off waivers for Beasley

I would have dropped Jaron Brown... but to each his own.

Keep us posted.

The decisions that others make when picking up or dropping Michael are helpful (even if only a little bit) to those of us who are deciding on whether or not to make a move involving him.

Don't you dare criticize someone's attempt to demean another person! Everyone deserves the right to display their manhood and prove they are better than someone else for a fleeting second on an anonymous message board!

Is this Russia or is this 'Murica?!

As for Michael, I'm holding for now. This backfield has enough open questions that I want to see some of the answers before folding my hand.

 

[skinsrule05]

[quote name="humpback" post="18407778" timestamp="1443274492

This has all been pointed out over and over already, but they've given up exactly zero in terms of draft pick compensation as of today. IF he eventually meets the conditions of the trade, they will give up a whopping 7th round draft pick.

It's also been pointed out that Dallas has recently traded for a QB and WR, giving up higher draft pick compensation for each than they did for Michael, but no one is arguing that those guys are going to be focal points of the team. Often times teams trade for guys just for depth/insurance. Think about it- despite the team saying essentially the opposite, you're saying that they traded for him because they lacked confidence in the RBs they already had, and those RBs have thus far greatly under produced. Okay, then why would he still be inactive if these things were true? The only plausible explanations would be that at least one of those things aren't true, or Michael himself has also greatly under produced (in practice).

I don't get this and I admit I am not fully up on the implications of the trade. By putting him on the 53 man roster doesn't that mean they had to cut someone else? Isn't that giving up something? I don't believe they would cut someone for no reason.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

This has all been pointed out over and over already, but they've given up exactly zero in terms of draft pick compensation as of today. IF he eventually meets the conditions of the trade, they will give up a whopping 7th round draft pick.

It's also been pointed out that Dallas has recently traded for a QB and WR, giving up higher draft pick compensation for each than they did for Michael, but no one is arguing that those guys are going to be focal points of the team. Often times teams trade for guys just for depth/insurance. Think about it- despite the team saying essentially the opposite, you're saying that they traded for him because they lacked confidence in the RBs they already had, and those RBs have thus far greatly under produced. Okay, then why would he still be inactive if these things were true? The only plausible explanations would be that at least one of those things aren't true, or Michael himself has also greatly under produced (in practice).

I don't get this and I admit I am not fully up on the implications of the trade. By putting him on the 53 man roster doesn't that mean they had to cut someone else? Isn't that giving up something? I don't believe they would cut someone for no reason.

I could be wrong but they pushed Gus Johnson to the practice squad to make room for him, not some great sacrifice

 

[Chaka]

someone dropped him and just picked him up off waivers for Beasley

I would have dropped Jaron Brown... but to each his own.

Keep us posted.

The decisions that others make when picking up or dropping Michael are helpful (even if only a little bit) to those of us who are deciding on whether or not to make a move involving him.

Don't you dare criticize someone's attempt to demean another person! Everyone deserves the right to display their manhood and prove they are better than someone else for a fleeting second on an anonymous message board!

Is this Russia or is this 'Murica?!

As for Michael, I'm holding for now. This backfield has enough open questions that I want to see some of the answers before folding my hand.

I appreciate that you agree but most of your response is inflammatory and I wouldn't be surprised if you received responses in kind. That's how this thread got so horribly derailed and so many people got banned.

I dropped him for Karlos Williams because he is the clear backup and looks like he may be the Bills goal line option but, obviously, I am monitoring the Michael situation very closely.

 

[Detroit Revival]

One of the key things that I keep coming back to is that he has done nothing on special teams. He was brought in to run the ball. Sometime this season we will see him active and given a shot. At 2-0, there's little reason to activate him right now except for an injury. Looking at the schedule, maybe after a tough loss to the Pats on Sunday night in week 5 he'll get his shot after the bye.

I don't think Michael ever played special teams in Seattle. Turbin did play special teams in Seattle.

Maybe I wasn't clear, I think that it is a very positive sign for his role in the future . Since he has no special-teams value he will be running for the boys eventually.

 

[humpback]

Sep 23

Rob Phillips ‏@robphillips3

Garrett: Joseph Randle got a lot of tough yards vs. Philly that "are really important for running efficient offense."

Should this be ignored? Or should I spin this into a positive for Christina?

Jerry Jones on @1053thefan: Joseph Randle has "all the talent for an every down running back that you could hope to [have]."

Actions speak louder than words. Randle hasn't lived up to the hype thus far (and I'm a Randle owner).

So, what do the actions of never being higher than 3rd on an NFL depth chart speak too?

How about the action of trading for a powerful RB to backup an unproven starter? No matter what the coach and GM say... they traded for him. Because they lacked confidence in the RBs they already had. And those RBs have, thus far, greatly under produced.Just because they espouse confidence in their lead back does not negate all of that.

This has all been pointed out over and over already, but they've given up exactly zero in terms of draft pick compensation as of today. IF he eventually meets the conditions of the trade, they will give up a whopping 7th round draft pick. It's also been pointed out that Dallas has recently traded for a QB and WR, giving up higher draft pick compensation for each than they did for Michael, but no one is arguing that those guys are going to be focal points of the team. Often times teams trade for guys just for depth/insurance. Think about it- despite the team saying essentially the opposite, you're saying that they traded for him because they lacked confidence in the RBs they already had, and those RBs have thus far greatly under produced. Okay, then why would he still be inactive if these things were true? The only plausible explanations would be that at least one of those things aren't true, or Michael himself has also greatly under produced (in practice).

You're ignoring that the RB position has been devalued. QBs and WRs who can run sub 4.4 40's have a higher value then a RB, even if that RB is a potential sleeping giant who shoots lightening from his ####.

It isn't the point, but you think the RB position has been so devalued since his team spent a 2nd round pick on him 2 years ago? There are plenty of QBs and fast WRs who have zero value as well, but that isn't the point either.

I was just giving context, showing how a team trading for a player doesn't necessarily mean they lack confidence in their current players.

 

[jerry jones]

Sep 23

Rob Phillips ‏@robphillips3

Garrett: Joseph Randle got a lot of tough yards vs. Philly that "are really important for running efficient offense."

Should this be ignored? Or should I spin this into a positive for Christina?

Jerry Jones on @1053thefan: Joseph Randle has "all the talent for an every down running back that you could hope to [have]."

Actions speak louder than words. Randle hasn't lived up to the hype thus far (and I'm a Randle owner).

So, what do the actions of never being higher than 3rd on an NFL depth chart speak too?

How about the action of trading for a powerful RB to backup an unproven starter? No matter what the coach and GM say... they traded for him. Because they lacked confidence in the RBs they already had. And those RBs have, thus far, greatly under produced.Just because they espouse confidence in their lead back does not negate all of that.

This has all been pointed out over and over already, but they've given up exactly zero in terms of draft pick compensation as of today. IF he eventually meets the conditions of the trade, they will give up a whopping 7th round draft pick. It's also been pointed out that Dallas has recently traded for a QB and WR, giving up higher draft pick compensation for each than they did for Michael, but no one is arguing that those guys are going to be focal points of the team. Often times teams trade for guys just for depth/insurance. Think about it- despite the team saying essentially the opposite, you're saying that they traded for him because they lacked confidence in the RBs they already had, and those RBs have thus far greatly under produced. Okay, then why would he still be inactive if these things were true? The only plausible explanations would be that at least one of those things aren't true, or Michael himself has also greatly under produced (in practice).

You're ignoring that the RB position has been devalued. QBs and WRs who can run sub 4.4 40's have a higher value then a RB, even if that RB is a potential sleeping giant who shoots lightening from his ####.

It isn't the point, but you think the RB position has been so devalued since his team spent a 2nd round pick on him 2 years ago? There are plenty of QBs and fast WRs who have zero value as well, but that isn't the point either.I was just giving context, showing how a team trading for a player doesn't necessarily mean they lack confidence in their current players.

I DO think it means that they LACK confidence in the backs they have....for a very low cost they bring in "potential"

We shall see how it plays out

 

[humpback]

It isn't the point, but you think the RB position has been so devalued since his team spent a 2nd round pick on him 2 years ago? There are plenty of QBs and fast WRs who have zero value as well, but that isn't the point either.

I was just giving context, showing how a team trading for a player doesn't necessarily mean they lack confidence in their current players.

I DO think it means that they LACK confidence in the backs they have....for a very low cost they bring in "potential"We shall see how it plays out

So does trading for Butler mean they lack confidence in the WRs they have, or is it more for depth/insurance?

It certainly could be because they lack confidence in their RBs, but when you factor in the very low cost and the positive comments out of pretty much everyone in the organization about their current RBs, it doesn't seem likely. In any event, it's far from a "fact", which is how some people are portraying it.