Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Who do you think is realistically in play for owners that have the Michael love? ADP? Lynch? Forte? R Bush?
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Christine Michael (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Black
- Start date
- Status
I'm a Seattle fan and I can tell you that any Seattle fan thinks Michael would be a better starter than Turbin if having to choose.
Most people are confused as to why he hasn't seen the field more, especially with the offense struggling a bit. Turbin has been pretty underwhelming and Michael has looked explosive every time he has touched the ball in a Seahawk uniform.
Turbin doesn't really make mistakes(aside from fumbling a kickoff return which he never should have been in the first place), he is a good 3rd down back, catches the ball, and blocks well in pass protection. But it seems there must be something the coaches are seeing in practice which is inhibiting Michael from seeing the field.
Most people are confused as to why he hasn't seen the field more, especially with the offense struggling a bit. Turbin has been pretty underwhelming and Michael has looked explosive every time he has touched the ball in a Seahawk uniform.
Turbin doesn't really make mistakes(aside from fumbling a kickoff return which he never should have been in the first place), he is a good 3rd down back, catches the ball, and blocks well in pass protection. But it seems there must be something the coaches are seeing in practice which is inhibiting Michael from seeing the field.
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
No idea really. As always it would depend entirely on team makeup and goals. If I had a short window contender thin at RB I'd likely move him for one of those dudes. If I'm set at RB short term I'd rather swing for the fences and keep Michael or try to grab proven quality at WR.
I'd definitely listen to a high 1st this year or multiple random 1sts down the road -- I'm all about incremental safe small gains that build over time into a crushing advantage. Spending a mid / late 1st on Michael --> return of a high 1st or multiple random 1sts qualifies in most cases for me, depending on team makeup, etc of course.
EBF
Footballguy
The discussion has pretty much been the same for the past several months. One side says he's mega talented. The other side asks why he isn't playing ahead of Turbin if he's so talented. I don't know how much more can be said to address those points. For me, the Turbin thing is a minor speedbump. When you've got a great #1 and a solid #2, there's not much incentive to rush your rookie into action. That doesn't mean that he won't ultimately be the guy. Pretty much everyone who saw these guys play in the preseason recognized a clear difference between Michael and Turbin, and it's something that was reflected in their draft position and workouts as well. Michael isn't the perfect running back. He runs kind of duck footed and lacks great elusiveness in the second level, but he has the potential to be one of the best backs in the league for the first 10-15 yards, which are the most important since very few runs go longer than that. There are only a handful of guys in the league who can match his power/explosiveness combo. He had the fastest 10 yard split in the entire draft last year and jumped 43" in the vertical at 220 pounds. There's a lot of pop in those legs. From what we saw in the preseason, it will translate to the field. And FWIW he was a good player at A&M. Widely touted as a top devy prospect after his freshman season. Just didn't have the volume of carries to amass huge yardage seasons, which I believe owes more to his durability problems than anything else.
Anyway, he's a player that requires some imagination to gauge and I think that's a weakness for some owners. If a guy isn't starting and playing right now, he's out of sight out of mind. That's why you see guys like Michael, Knile, and Pierce falling so far in rookie drafts and why a guy like Gerhart has become a forgotten man while mediocre talents such as Bell, Lacy, and Stacy catapult to the top of dynasty RB lists. Been like this forever. From my perspective, if you can correctly identify good players with bad opportunity, that's something that you can exploit time and time again because the would-be buyers standing on the sidelines with cold feet help suppress a player's market value below where it should be. Then once they see him break a couple long runs they push him up the board. That's how I see this one playing out. I think it's pretty clear cut. Lynch will be gone in 2014 or 2015. Michael will beat out Turbin for the workhorse role. Pretty straightforward.
Some people obviously think the Michael fans are too quick to assume that things will play out that way. I'm on the other side of the argument. I think the Michael doubters are too skeptical for their own good. By the time they are confident enough in Michael to rate him highly, he will be too expensive for them to buy.
The final point I'll make is that it's relatively common to see a great talent get limited chances in his first season. Here are some recent examples:
Jamaal Charles - 67 carries
Shaun Alexander - 64 carries
Arian Foster - 54 carries
Ahman Green - 35 carries
Larry Johnson - 20 carries
Michael Turner - 20 carries
Deuce McAllister - 16 carries
Darren Sproles - 8 carries
It's pretty common to see this sort of thing happen when a guy is drafted onto a team that already has a top level #1 back. I think people understand why Michael isn't playing ahead of Lynch, but wonder why he's "behind" Turbin on the depth chart. That has already been addressed numerous times in this thread. Turbin is the more reliable pass protector and receiver. He averages less than 5 carries per game. Is it worth taking a modest hit on 4-5 carries per game in order to get a boost in other areas? Apparently Seattle thinks so. That doesn't mean that if Lynch were to go down Turbin would suddenly become a 20 carry per game back. The more likely scenario is that his current role would expand slightly while Michael would become the primary ball carrier.
Anyway, he's a player that requires some imagination to gauge and I think that's a weakness for some owners. If a guy isn't starting and playing right now, he's out of sight out of mind. That's why you see guys like Michael, Knile, and Pierce falling so far in rookie drafts and why a guy like Gerhart has become a forgotten man while mediocre talents such as Bell, Lacy, and Stacy catapult to the top of dynasty RB lists. Been like this forever. From my perspective, if you can correctly identify good players with bad opportunity, that's something that you can exploit time and time again because the would-be buyers standing on the sidelines with cold feet help suppress a player's market value below where it should be. Then once they see him break a couple long runs they push him up the board. That's how I see this one playing out. I think it's pretty clear cut. Lynch will be gone in 2014 or 2015. Michael will beat out Turbin for the workhorse role. Pretty straightforward.
Some people obviously think the Michael fans are too quick to assume that things will play out that way. I'm on the other side of the argument. I think the Michael doubters are too skeptical for their own good. By the time they are confident enough in Michael to rate him highly, he will be too expensive for them to buy.
The final point I'll make is that it's relatively common to see a great talent get limited chances in his first season. Here are some recent examples:
Jamaal Charles - 67 carries
Shaun Alexander - 64 carries
Arian Foster - 54 carries
Ahman Green - 35 carries
Larry Johnson - 20 carries
Michael Turner - 20 carries
Deuce McAllister - 16 carries
Darren Sproles - 8 carries
It's pretty common to see this sort of thing happen when a guy is drafted onto a team that already has a top level #1 back. I think people understand why Michael isn't playing ahead of Lynch, but wonder why he's "behind" Turbin on the depth chart. That has already been addressed numerous times in this thread. Turbin is the more reliable pass protector and receiver. He averages less than 5 carries per game. Is it worth taking a modest hit on 4-5 carries per game in order to get a boost in other areas? Apparently Seattle thinks so. That doesn't mean that if Lynch were to go down Turbin would suddenly become a 20 carry per game back. The more likely scenario is that his current role would expand slightly while Michael would become the primary ball carrier.
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
EBF, you're entirely missing the eminently reasonable middle ground in your dismissal of the anti-Michael side -- namely that he's very physically talented but also carries significant red flags that may well end up standing in the way of him ever becoming a trusted workhorse in the NFL. After all, it never came together for him in college.
Lynch is signed to a pretty reasonable deal through 2015 when he'll be 29. Seattle is pretty likely to be a strong team through that period, and it's pretty likely that Lynch doesn't fall apart physically prior to the end of his contract. That's an eternity in the NFL, and who knows what happens between now and then. Not to mention Michael is still an unknown in terms of durability and role (pass blocking matters).
Again, I like the player, but you're putting him ahead of Eddie Lacy man -- who is putting up top-10 numbers right now, and regardless of what you're watching, looking good doing it. Regardless of incremental differences that you may perceive in talent, Lacy is going nowhere, and will be piling up a huge advantage in points over baseline the next two years that will be really hard for Michael to overcome from a career standpoint -- and that's only if Michael inherits the full three down feature job in Seattle by 2016, which isn't nearly as certain as you seem to believe.
Lynch is signed to a pretty reasonable deal through 2015 when he'll be 29. Seattle is pretty likely to be a strong team through that period, and it's pretty likely that Lynch doesn't fall apart physically prior to the end of his contract. That's an eternity in the NFL, and who knows what happens between now and then. Not to mention Michael is still an unknown in terms of durability and role (pass blocking matters).
Again, I like the player, but you're putting him ahead of Eddie Lacy man -- who is putting up top-10 numbers right now, and regardless of what you're watching, looking good doing it. Regardless of incremental differences that you may perceive in talent, Lacy is going nowhere, and will be piling up a huge advantage in points over baseline the next two years that will be really hard for Michael to overcome from a career standpoint -- and that's only if Michael inherits the full three down feature job in Seattle by 2016, which isn't nearly as certain as you seem to believe.
opensourcebeer
Footballguy
Rating Michaels as a near RB 1 in dynasty is crazy IMO. College production is lacking, questions around his durability, potential knucklehead behavior as exhibited in missing interviews, and not showing any movement to bypass a pedestrian looking Turbin are all big concerns for me. In addition, I don't think it's a forgone conclusion that Lynch won't be back in Seattle in 2014.
I personally don't think Michaels can be ranked that highly based on nice work out numbers and a couple of good preseason performances against second and third string defenses. As an owner of Michaels in one of my dynasty leagues, he's an easy sell if anybody is offering near RB 1 prices.
I personally don't think Michaels can be ranked that highly based on nice work out numbers and a couple of good preseason performances against second and third string defenses. As an owner of Michaels in one of my dynasty leagues, he's an easy sell if anybody is offering near RB 1 prices.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
I'm on the fence between the EBF and "sell for anything that smells like RB1" positions.
If he hits I think he's the type of guy who can win your league for you. Not just put up solid Lacy-like #s.
Unless I'm desperate for a RB I'd rather have a 40% chance of that (33%? 25%? -- not sure what the actual number is) than 100% of Eddie Lacy.
If he hits I think he's the type of guy who can win your league for you. Not just put up solid Lacy-like #s.
Unless I'm desperate for a RB I'd rather have a 40% chance of that (33%? 25%? -- not sure what the actual number is) than 100% of Eddie Lacy.
EBF
Footballguy
If that were true I'd have him ranked as a top 5 guy, which I don't. For me he's somewhere between 8-12 depending on roster composition and team needs. I actually have him behind Lacy, though I think if you could put the two of them in an identical situation Michael would probably have a higher YPC.
Part of the reason why I like him is the opportunity to trade him once he becomes the starter. I'm not sold that he's going to be an enduring superstar (more for durability reasons than opportunity or talent reasons), but I know that his value will explode once the path clears for him. Like what happened with David Wilson and Lamar Miller this past offseason. It didn't matter whether or not they ultimately succeeded or failed. The fact that they were flashy high picks with immediate boom potential caused their value to soar once their opportunity cleared up. I happen to think Michael has a much better chance of being legit, but I'll also consider the escape hatch once his perceived market value completely catches up with where I have him ranked. The pushback from the skeptics and slow movers will mostly dissolve once he's starting for the Seahawks and putting up 100 yard games.
Realistically, I think he's an ideal dynasty RB2 and not really a guy you want leading your group at this exact moment in time. I'd be looking to pay a RB14-RB18 price for him, as opposed to paying at his ceiling. Just because I think he might be RB7-RB10 in value doesn't mean I'm going to pay that price necessarily. I want to make some profit, which means the price has to make sense.
This is primarily where you (and most of the other Michael skeptics) differ from me. I don't think there's much question about his long term opportunity. So all of the uncertainty that you're adding to your assessment of his value doesn't exist for me. He will eventually be a starter in the NFL and when that moment comes he will be worth more (both in terms of perceived value and functional value) than what you'd have to pay for him today in a lot of leagues.
I'm no expert on cap science, but Lynch is owed a lot of money in 2014 and 2015. He'll be 28 years old next season with 1700 career carries. He'll be really lucky to have two more peak seasons. If I had to guess, I think he'll have one more year of his real prime and maybe one more year as a fading starter before he falls into "Emmitt in Arizona" territory. Add it all up and my tentative estimate is that Lynch starts one more season in Seattle before they move to Michael, with two years being a pretty realistic worst-case scenario. That's without even factoring the possibility of a severe injury opening the door earlier.
Like I said, accurately gauging Michael requires an imagination. Not everyone has an imagination. For a lot of people they can't see beyond what happened yesterday. What we know about the NFL is that things move quickly and talented players tend to find their opportunity eventually. I got Aaron Rodgers in the 16th round of a dynasty startup after his rookie season. Larry Johnson in the 7th-8th round of a startup when he was stuck behind Priest Holmes. Michael Turner and Darren Sproles could be had for pretty cheap when they were high talent/low opportunity prospects. There will always be value plays out there who fit this mold because so many people want to wait to see the uncertainty dissolve before they feel comfortable giving up any real value for a rising prospect. That's something that I usually try to exploit when I see a prospect who looks like a solid bet to succeed. If you can pay a little above his generic market value, but still well below his actual value, you can turn a nice profit assuming that your take is accurate.
I think Michael is one of those guys right now. Some people don't. There's really no way to "prove" it one way or the other besides waiting to see what happens.
Last edited by a moderator:
EastonBlues22
Footballguy
That's about where I am as well.
I see him as the highest upside lottery ticket currently out there at RB. You don't invest RB1 value into acquiring a lottery ticket, regardless of upside, and you cash the ticket if you're getting that value offered back.
With that said, in a contextual vacuum, I would probably have trouble naming 15 RBs I would rather own in a dynasty format.
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
Ehhhh... you lost me there man. I reserve that "league winning potential" for a very select few -- and they are either true once in a generation physical freaks (Peterson coming out) or guys that I'm pretty damn sure will be huge factors in the passing game so they can threaten 2000 YFS with a ton of catches in PPR (Bush coming out). I'm definitely hugely reluctant to put that tag on a guy with limited NCAA production and a late 2nd round pedigree.
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
Hate multi-quoting on my phone.
@ EBF -- opportunity isn't a big issue with me for Michael moving forward -- Turbin isn't a threat if Michael hits his potential -- it's his ability to grab that opportunity and excel with it that I'm not sold on. If he can't do the little things and battle through the minor injuries while staying effective, your Lamar Miller and David Wilson comparisons may be more apt than you realize.
There's also no need to condescendingly toss out the "no imagination" BS or throw around your FF resume -- after 10 years of back and forth on this board I'm pretty sure we can both hold our own in any dynasty league out there.
No one is saying Michael isn't a good guy to roster, or that he wouldn't be a good 7th / 8th round startup pick a la LJ / Turner / etc -- that's not what this discussion hinges on. Michael has a group of smart owners who are EXTREMELY high on him considering his pedigree and what we've seen thus far -- if I can get RB1 value for a guy with Michael's initial cost of acquisition, profile, and outlook moving forward, considering cashing out isn't indicative of a lack of foresight -- it's just smart business.
@ EBF -- opportunity isn't a big issue with me for Michael moving forward -- Turbin isn't a threat if Michael hits his potential -- it's his ability to grab that opportunity and excel with it that I'm not sold on. If he can't do the little things and battle through the minor injuries while staying effective, your Lamar Miller and David Wilson comparisons may be more apt than you realize.
There's also no need to condescendingly toss out the "no imagination" BS or throw around your FF resume -- after 10 years of back and forth on this board I'm pretty sure we can both hold our own in any dynasty league out there.
No one is saying Michael isn't a good guy to roster, or that he wouldn't be a good 7th / 8th round startup pick a la LJ / Turner / etc -- that's not what this discussion hinges on. Michael has a group of smart owners who are EXTREMELY high on him considering his pedigree and what we've seen thus far -- if I can get RB1 value for a guy with Michael's initial cost of acquisition, profile, and outlook moving forward, considering cashing out isn't indicative of a lack of foresight -- it's just smart business.
EBF
Footballguy
I don't think Rob is totally off. Michael is the type of guy where if it clicks and he stays healthy, he could do some pretty amazing things. One thing that's important to remember is that he WAS a good college player. He rushed for 844 yards as a true freshman at A&M and at the time was widely touted as maybe the top consolation prize at RB in devy drafts if you didn't have a high enough pick to get Trent Richardson. Prior to his ACL injury in 2011 he was averaging 6.0 YPC on 149 carries. Overall, he had a 5.3 career YPC average. The main thing missing was the volume, which I think was primarily due to his durability problems (broken leg and torn ACL). That's my #1 concern with him by far. Not ability.
Purely as a physical talent, he's one of the bigger freaks to come along recently. You mentioned Peterson, so here's a direct comparison:
Adrian Peterson
6'1 4/8" 217 pounds
40 yard dash - 4.40 seconds
Vertical - 38.5"
Broad Jump - 10'7"
3 Cone - 7.09 seconds
Christine Michael
5'10" 220 pounds
40 yard dash - 4.43-4.53 seconds*
Vertical - 43"
Broad Jump - 10'5"
3 Cone - 6.69 seconds
To put those numbers into perspective, I can't remember ever seeing a RB with a higher vertical leap (which roughly measures leg power/leg explosiveness). His mark in the three cone drill (which is supposed to measure quickness, acceleration, and change of direction) was the best among all RBs at the combine this past year. If you expand the sample to include the past eight years, it's the 5th best mark at the combine by a RB.
A few other interesting notes about Michael. He had the fastest 10 yard split of any player at the combine (1.49 seconds). That's faster than Tavon Austin, Marquise Goodwin, Darius Slay, or any of the other 4.2-4.3 guys. He also did 27 reps on the bench, which is the same as Luke Joeckel and Eric Fisher. So you're talking about a guy who has the fast twitch explosiveness of a track star, the strength of a lineman, and the bulk of a power back. That is rare stuff.
Is he a better running back than Peterson? No, I definitely don't think so. Peterson was on another level from day one in college. He has better footwork and better long speed. One thing you notice with Michael is that he has insane initial burst, but once he gets into his stride he has pretty bad form (runs with his feet pointed outward) and mediocre long speed. He's not going to make as many people miss in the open field and he's not going to run away from defenses like Peterson can.
Having said that, he has a good case for being the better overall workout athlete. He's heavier and more muscular. He has lower top speed, but better initial acceleration and a better burst. The 1.49 10 yard split in conjunction with his 6.69 three cone time, 43" vertical, and 220 pound weight is a combination that you just don't see. Purely as a workout freak, he's in a rare class. That doesn't guarantee football success, but it does hint towards scary potential.
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
I'm very familiar with Michael's combine profile. It's impressive -- but "league winning potential" is really bold man -- Peterson himself has only been that type of player once; his typical season has been merely good FF RB1, largely because he doesn't get used a ton in the passing game, which is a big ? I have with Michael. League winning potential (my definition of it anyway) requires the 75ish catches, 2000+ YFS, and huge goal line use that very few guys generally see, and rarely for long -- Charles this year, prime Faulk and Holmes, Arian Foster early on, Shaun Alexander that one year, prime Emmitt Smith. That's a thin limb to go out on.
Joe Summer
Footballguy
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
How does it look when you pair it with good size, good vision, ridiculous agility and a strong size/speed measure?
A: L Tomlinson, D Martin, C Michael.
That's all of them.
Those workout numbers cannot be dismissed like one might dismiss Margus Hunt's workout numbers when compared to JJ Watt. Michael was actually a very good college RB, and the skill has translated onto the field when given a chance in preseason and garbage time(when everyone knows the run is coming) this year.
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
They do, but you have to control for a whole host of other things to see it. If you just look at it in isolation it looks like it's irrelevant.
Joe Summer
Footballguy
Doug Martin's vertical wasn't close to Tomlinson or Michael.
Sabertooth
Footballguy
I agree. I content to hold him. His upside is high. But his true value is as a handcuff alongside Turbin to me. I like having the Seattle backfield locked up for the next 5 years one way or another.
Sabertooth
Footballguy
Personally I think Turbin or Michael would put up top 20 numbers if given the touches.
Alex P Keaton
Footballguy
That isn't the discussion people were having though. Thus the snarky response.....at least for me.
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Agreed. I'm not super sold on Turbin, but I'm going to try and target him where I own Michael just to pin down the Seattle starter. Good situation to corner.
Alex P Keaton
Footballguy
Yeah, this is a very reasonable view. The biggest thing the rabidly pro-michael folks have trouble explaining is why Michael.....with so much talent and potential......didn't see the field more in college if he is such a stud.Lots of things have to fall into place for Michael to be fantasy relevant....and in the meantime, he has to avoid serious injury and manage to keep himself out of trouble or out of the doghouse. Which even his most ardent supporters have to acknowledge...is a scary proposition.
karmarooster
Footballguy
It gets passed over every time in this discussion, that there could be a window of Michael as early as the next 2 to 4 to 6 to 8 games next year:
Well, that was yesterday, and no news, so it probably got pushed back again. But sometime between now and Week 1 of 2014, it could happen. IF Lynch gets convicted, he'll probably get suspended for some unknown number of games, depending on if his priors stack.
Lynch's cap numbers are 7 and 9 million the next two years. Wilson and Sherman are making about half a million each. When they need to be re-signed, Lynch is the one to restructure or be cut, particularly if he's missing 4-6 games. This is all speculation, but it shows there are more variables than just "Lynch is 27, Michael will probably have to wait till 2016" or whatever.
Chaka
Footballguy
Interesting thread, lots of good info about Michael in here. While I think people are dismissing Turbin a little too quickly I understand why.
However any talk of Michael >>> Lacy is absolute insanity. Lacy is one of the few legitimate every down backs in the league and he has produced with a substandard O-line and no threat of a passing game for 7 weeks, while also playing through injury. Michael may have looked nice against future UPS drivers and Sky Caps, suggesting that he may be able to produce against real competition, but Lacy is without question the real deal. No way should any dynasty owner consider trading Lacy for Michael.
However any talk of Michael >>> Lacy is absolute insanity. Lacy is one of the few legitimate every down backs in the league and he has produced with a substandard O-line and no threat of a passing game for 7 weeks, while also playing through injury. Michael may have looked nice against future UPS drivers and Sky Caps, suggesting that he may be able to produce against real competition, but Lacy is without question the real deal. No way should any dynasty owner consider trading Lacy for Michael.
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
Neofight
Footballguy
Fine posting in terms of Lacy, but Turbin has shown little in his first two years to indicate he is a legitimate NFL three down RB. I think it is fairly safe to assume that when Marshawn is gone someone other than Turbin fills that role. My bet would be on Michael, but if he doesn't make it as a feature back I would wager that they turn elsewhere and let Turbin be the third down back. Or just let him move on altogether.
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
Agreed on all of the above, but it still doesn't mean Michael is guaranteed to assume a 3 down role, and will succeed and stay healthy in that role. I think he probably will, but Eddie Lacy has already crossed a hurdle that Michael hasn't even arrived at yet.Fine posting in terms of Lacy, but Turbin has shown little in his first two years to indicate he is a legitimate NFL three down RB. I think it is fairly safe to assume that when Marshawn is gone someone other than Turbin fills that role. My bet would be on Michael, but if he doesn't make it as a feature back I would wager that they turn elsewhere and let Turbin be the third down back. Or just let him move on altogether.Lacy is what you hope Michael becomes.
I hate to agree. I drafted Michael in my dynasty league with 13th pick, Lacy went top 3. The gap is closing, but their values are not close.
Chaka
Footballguy
How is the gap closing?
It's not closing on any level. If Marshawn actually misses time then we can start talking about gaps but right now the gap couldn't be larger.
Chaka
Footballguy
And while Turbin may or may not be anything special why are people so confident that a completely unproven commodity is anything special either? I respect the combine numbers but plenty of workout warriors flop in the NFL and Michael doesn't have anything on his resume to suggest that he is some kind of phenom.
Not one single thing. Sorry a couple big runs against future sky caps and UPS drivers proves absolutely zilch.
He may turn out to be awesome but the level of love for this guy is bizarre.
Not one single thing. Sorry a couple big runs against future sky caps and UPS drivers proves absolutely zilch.
He may turn out to be awesome but the level of love for this guy is bizarre.
Buffaloes
Footballguy
the idea of the satisfaction of beating your opponent with a broad named Christine leading the charge is tantalizing
Chaka
Footballguy
Being a machine means that you are on the field. He was good (when he was on the field) but he was a career 5.3 YPC guy on limited touches, let's not talk like he was Reggie Bush or anything.
MAC_32
Footballguy
I don't think I have read this thread since July since I figured he would be useless this year, so I can't speak for what has been discussed.He has the same upside he had in April though. Potential is enormous, in a redraft rookie draft the only player I take before him is Keenan Allen.
Chaka
Footballguy
And that would have been a mistake because Lacy, Stacy and Bernard would have been significantly better choices. I can't see one good argument to take Michael over any one of those four (Allen included).
He was good in college (not great) and flashed against non-NFL caliber preseason talent. He might be great, I really believe that, but you shouldn't bank on the guy at this point. It was just last year when people were going koo-koo for coco puffs over Robert Turbin (who had a much better college career than Michael) and now the guy is an after thought.
Point being is Michael is an unproven talent with more hurdles to overcome than pretty much all of the players people are putting him in front of. He's a nice prospect and not much more than that.
Why are so many people putting the cart in front of the horse with this guy?
Last edited by a moderator:
Chaka
Footballguy
What I don't understand is why Turbin, who had a better college career and has a better pro career, is being entirely dismissed in favor of a guy who, as far as I can tell, only had a couple nice second half performances in preseason games.
I understand the reasons people like Michael but what I am seeing in here borders on cultish love.
MAC_32
Footballguy
projectable ceiling, I think we have seen turbins but not Michael's.
biju
Footballguy
Have you seen the runs Michael had in the regular season? He looked special. And yes, this wasn't against all of the preseason players you made jokes about earlier...twice. Turbin goes down easy and if you watched the games you would know the difference.
You're right--neither of them have really proven anything as of now. But I feel you're giving too much credit to players who are just getting opportunities. It's a philosophical difference in how people play dynasty leagues. I suspect you lose interest in developmental players and would prefer guys "doing it" right now.
EBF
Footballguy
I don't think it's that simple.
In 2001, Anthony Thomas rushed for 1183 yards at 4.3 YPC and won Rookie of the Year. Meanwhile Deuce McAllister had 16 carries for 91 yards. In 2008, Steve Slaton rushed for 1282 yards at 4.8 YPC. Jamaal Charles rushed for 357 yards on 67 carries. Using your line of reasoning, you probably would've argued that Slaton was what you could only hope Charles would become or that A-Train was what you could only hope McAllister would become.
In hindsight, you would've been completely incorrect. McAllister and Charles were a lot more talented than A-Train and Slaton. So while they got out of the blocks slower due to limited immediate opportunities, they ultimately had much better careers. It's completely plausible that Michael/Lacy (or Michael/Bell or Michael/Stacy or even Michael/Bernard) will turn out similarly. In dynasty, there's something to be said for taking the BEST player, not the player with the best combination of talent and immediate opportunity. That's because a great back with a good situation will be worth a lot more than an average back with a good situation.
I really don't have a big problem with Eddie Lacy even though I find myself talking against him in a lot of threads these days. He hovered around my top two rookie RBs throughout most of the pre-draft and post-draft discussion last year. I always thought that he would beat out Franklin and put up decent numbers. I actually took him in the 4th round of my 10 team redraft. We specifically targeted him as a great value play.
Having said all that, putting up decent numbers over a single season doesn't in any way mean he's a great running back or a bankable long term asset. I've said it elsewhere, but I think there are numerous backups in the NFL who could put up decent numbers if thrust into the lineup. It's something that we see every season. Chester Taylor, Peyton Hillis, Ladell Betts, Justin Fargas, Chris Brown, LeGarrette Blount, Steve Slaton, Ryan Grant, Kevan Barlow, and Kevin Jones are all former 1000+ yard rushers. Means absolutely diddly. Any back who's on an NFL roster would have a chance at rushing for 1000+ yards if you gave him 250-300 carries. That's why he's on an NFL roster.
Yet every year you see guys like Julius Jones, A-Train, Chris Brown, and Steve Slaton fly up the dynasty rankings because they were high picks and they showed flashes of brilliance as rookies. I think there are a couple problems here. Number one is that people are more impressed by decent rookie RB seasons than they should be. Putting up numbers as a rookie RB is as much about being lucky enough to land on a team with crap RBs (i.e. Vick Ballard, Trent Richardson, Zac Stacy) as it is about being a great talent. The second problem is that, because we don't have the benefit of hindsight when we try to assess a young player, we fill in our projections for his future based on observations from a really small sample size. So when we see Julius Jones looking awesome and rushing for 150 yards against the Bears on Thanksgiving in his rookie year, we assume that this is an accurate reflection of what we can expect from him in the future when in reality it's just a mediocre player having a good game (as mediocre players often do).
The end result is that high opportunity/average talent rookie RBs are prone to being horribly overvalued. Go back and look at some old dynasty drafts and you will see a lot of guys like William Green, Kevan Barlow, Kevin Jones, Julius Jones, Ronnie Brown, Beanie Wells, Steve Slaton, A-Train, Darren McFadden, and even Rashard Mendenhall being comically overdrafted because they happened to look decent for a year or two. Of course there are some genuine hits in there as well. Guys like Adrian Peterson, MJD, Chris Johnson, Clinton Portis, and LaDainian Tomlinson came out of the blocks fast and never really looked back. My point isn't that a guy like Lacy couldn't be a legitimate long term star, but rather that lots of backs in the NFL could probably put up similar numbers if given his opportunity and thus his numbers don't necessarily provide definitive proof that he's somehow going to be a perennial FF machine.
I try to develop an understanding of a player's true talent level independent of his situation and usage, which is why I typically gravitate towards low opportunity/high talent value plays while simultaneously steering clear of guys that I perceive as high opportunity/mediocre talent. The former are typically underrated while the latter are prone to being overrated. I don't think guys like Eddie Lacy and LeVeon Bell are horrible players. Then again, I don't think Toby Gerhart and Shonn Greene are horrible players either. Is Eddie Lacy really a top 5 dynasty RB or is he just Toby Gerhart with opportunity? I think it's a question worth asking.
If the answer is yes then it's easy to see why someone might prefer Michael. If Michael is far more talented than Lacy (possible, but not certain) then he's going to be worth a lot more if and when his opportunity ever reaches a similar level. Sort of like how Deuce McAllister + opportunity turned out to be worth a lot more than Anthony Thomas + opportunity. To say that Thomas was what McAllister could only hope to become would have been implying that Thomas represented Deuce's talent ceiling, when in fact he was capable of far more than Thomas because he was a far better player.
Last edited by a moderator:
EastonBlues22
Footballguy
Have you actually seen them both play any appreciable amount?
Michael has plenty of questions that need to be answered, but he definitely pops off the screen to me when he's running the ball in a way that Turbin doesn't.
And that's coming from a guy who saw enough in Turbin to draft him in my rookie dynasty draft.
EBF
Footballguy
Turbin is pretty overrated around here. I don't know where the attachment comes from. Maybe it's people who spent rookie picks on him last year being slow to accept the writing on the wall or maybe it's just people getting too hung up on the immediate depth chart. Either way, I don't think he's going to be a long term factor in the NFL. Seahawks fans don't rate him at all. It's usually a bad sign when the community as a whole is a lot higher on a player than the fans who actually follow and watch that team. ESPN ran a Michael story yesterday and you didn't have to look far in the comments to find negative opinions on Turbin:
http://espn.go.com/blog/seattle-seahawks/post/_/id/3013/michaels-time-will-have-to-wait
"Beastmode>Michael>A box of kleenex>turbin>Darell Bevell."
"I wouldn't mind seeing less of Turbin and more of Michael..."
"Why does seeing more Michaels have to mean less Lynch? How about replacing the "run right into the pile and go down" style of Turbin."
This is consistent with what you'll read on Seahawks fan forums. Most of the people who actually watch this team play every week are pretty "over" Turbin at this point. He's also rated as one of the worst RBs in the league according to Football Outsiders DVOA if that means anything to you.
http://espn.go.com/blog/seattle-seahawks/post/_/id/3013/michaels-time-will-have-to-wait
"Beastmode>Michael>A box of kleenex>turbin>Darell Bevell."
"I wouldn't mind seeing less of Turbin and more of Michael..."
"Why does seeing more Michaels have to mean less Lynch? How about replacing the "run right into the pile and go down" style of Turbin."
This is consistent with what you'll read on Seahawks fan forums. Most of the people who actually watch this team play every week are pretty "over" Turbin at this point. He's also rated as one of the worst RBs in the league according to Football Outsiders DVOA if that means anything to you.
- Status
