Christine Michael (2 Viewers)

[Englishteacher]

Faust linked this article in the Turbin thread:

Posted 28 July 2013 - 05:35 PM

2nd-year RBs: Robert TurbinEvan Silva

Quote

This is Part 10 in my 10-Part Second-Year Running Back Series, using NFL Game Rewind to analyze each sophomore back's rookie-season tape. For the Lamar Miller,David Wilson, Bryce Brown, Vick Ballard, Bernard Pierce, Ronnie Hillman, Daryl Richardson, LaMichael James, and Isaiah Pead writeups, click here:

Miller Link.
Wilson Link.
Brown Link.
Ballard Link.
Pierce Link.
Hillman Link.
Richardson Link.
James Link.
Pead Link.

My first exposure to Robert Turbin came during the 2012 Scouting Combine, where he arrived built like a 5-foot-10, 220-pound brick sh*thouse and ran a 4.50 forty time, "unofficially" clocking as fast as 4.44. At rookie camp, teammates dubbed Turbin "SeaHulk" for his sculpted physique. Although their running styles are somewhat similar, Turbin served as Marshawn Lynch's change-of-pace back and mixed in on obvious passing downs as a rookie. Turbin wound up with 92 carries and 22 receptions on the season.

I re-watched and charted all 114 of Turbin's touches over the weekend. These were my takeaways:

For a rookie back who averaged a seemingly impressive 4.4 yards per carry, Turbin's tape wasn't so impressive. Strictly as a ball carrier, he's a gets-what's-blocked runner. With few exceptions, I didn't see Turbin add yardage to runs and pass plays with broken tackles or elusiveness. Although Turbin demonstrated some open-field pop when he lowered his shoulder to take defenders head on, his ability to generate yards after contact was disappointing. Albeit in a small sample size, I noticed Turbin was ineffective in short-yardage situations as a rookie. He carried the football four times on third-and-short plays (two yards or fewer), and executed just once for the first down.

Despite his fast forty time, Turbin lacks ideal initial burst and giddy-up. I'm not sure I'd go so far as to call Turbin a "plodder," but there is very little quick-twitch movement to his game. Turbin does have somewhat impressive acceleration and buildup speed when his run blocking springs him onto the second level, but he's certainly not an explosive short-area back, either as a runner or receiver. While Turbin gave the Seahawks better straight-line speed than Lynch when he had a full head of steam, otherwise he was a downgrade in every tangible area from Seattle's starter.

I'd characterize Turbin's change-of-direction skills as inconsistent to poor. At times, it looked almost painful for Turbin to make cuts, and on a couple of occasions I noticed Turbin lose his footing altogether because he simply couldn't execute an attempt at a lateral move in the hole. His cutting ability was methodical and mechanical. This was not a comfortable area of Turbin's game.

Turbin's vision was also shaky. He missed too many big-yardage cutback opportunities, and frequently ran into piles. Turbin consistently fell forward to finish his runs, but left yards on the field.

For a 220-pound power back, I found it rather fascinating that the pass game was Turbin's real bread and butter. The Seahawks were very comfortable aligning Turbin in the shotgun next to Russell Wilson, where he was often asked to pick up blitzers and run pass patterns. Turbin is a plus receiver. He collects passes with his hands rather than letting the football into his body, and showed an ability to secure errant throws.

I also thought Turbin displayed excellent awareness of when to release out of the backfield and into a route. He was an intelligent, reliable checkdown target. Turbin lacks big-play receiving skills, but the Seahawks clearly felt good about his passing-game chops because it showed in the way they utilized him. Turbin ran four pick-wheel routes during his rookie year, and caught two passes after splitting out wide or into the slot. In Week 16 versus San Francisco, Turbin lined up at X receiver and caught a nine-yard pass on an in-breaking route. I charged Turbin with one drop on 25 rookie-year targets. He secured 22, good for a highly efficient "catch rate" of 88 percent.

Turbin is not an explosive runner or receiver, but as a rookie came off as a largely assignment-sound football player with a solid NFL career ahead of him. He reminds me of Giants running back Andre Brown. Turbin can gain blocked yards and function in all phases of the game. I do think Christine Michael is a significantly more gifted running back, and wouldn't be surprised if Michael passed Turbin on the Seahawks' depth chart before the 2013 season is through. Here is a link to my pre-draft evaluation of Michael, whom Seattle selected with the 62nd overall pick.

 

[Neofight]

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.

It's not just Seahawks fans that notice this, it's anyone who has watched the games or Turbin's highlights. He simply has poor balance and goes down far too easily for a man his size. When watching his tape at first I thought it was just poor proprioception, but after watching more highlights I can confirm that his proprioception indeed sucks balls, but also that this dude just tiptoes through the LOS. He is like an upside down Beast Mode; all arms and chest and no lower body push. His taper just lends itself toward falling forward; whereas Lynch runs with a wide base (strangely reminiscent of Barry Sanders in terms of width and being low to the ground), Turbin runs with narrow legs and hips and his arms flared out wide. Not a good recipe for success in the NFL.

 

[DropKick]

Michael must be a stud because we've got 14 pages and he has hardly seen the field yet.

Most of the people who drafted him (myself included) did so in dynasty formats because they think he has the physical abilities to be a good to great NFL back. This, by definition, is a long term proposition and really isn't an expensive choice since this is what people use the "end of the bench" for... dynasty prospects.

I haven't been phased in the least that he would get limited playing time as a rookie behind beast mode and a capable backup in Turbin. That's how good NFL teams operate.

In fact, I prefer a rookie back rides the bench. These kids come into the league very young and I think the "seasoning" does them good. Someone mentioned Charles as a player eased in. I recall the same thing with Brian Westbrook.

So what specifically is the problem with having a flyer on Michael? Why 14 pages on a "buy and hold" guy like this?

 

[Mr. Retukes]

In fact, I prefer a rookie back rides the bench. These kids come into the league very young and I think the "seasoning" does them good. Someone mentioned Charles as a player eased in. I recall the same thing with Brian Westbrook.

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

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

 

[EBF]

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

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

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

Shaun Alexander - 64

Ahman Green - 35

Willis McGahee - 0

Priest Holmes - 0

Stephen Davis - 23

Michael Turner - 20

Brian Westbrook - 46

Larry Johnson - 20

Deuce McAllister - 16

Rudi Johnson - 0

Jamaal Charles - 67

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

Shaun Alexander (Ricky Watters)

Ahman Green (Ricky Watters)

Willis McGahee ****

Priest Holmes (Jamal Lewis)

Stephen Davis (Terry Allen)

Michael Turner (LaDainian Tomlinson)

Brian Westbrook (Duce Staley)

Larry Johnson (Priest Holmes)

Deuce McAllister (Ricky Williams)

Rudi Johnson (Corey Dillon)

Jamaal Charles (Larry Johnson)

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

 

[Warrior]

These guys are among the top 100 rushers in NFL history.

It's really reaching when you have to look at the top one hundred RBs. That's a huge sample to choose a handful of flukes from. I don't think it really has any correlation with Michael's situation. If I take a large enough sample of WRs, I'll be comparing to both Jerry Rice and Kenny Britt.

 

[Milkman]

Lol @ to large of a sample.

 

[EBF]

These guys are among the top 100 rushers in NFL history.

It's really reaching when you have to look at the top one hundred RBs. That's a huge sample to choose a handful of flukes from. I don't think it really has any correlation with Michael's situation. If I take a large enough sample of WRs, I'll be comparing to both Jerry Rice and Kenny Britt.

I don't consider it much of a reach. Priest Holmes, Brian Westbrook, Ahman Green, Shaun Alexander, Jamaal Charles, and Larry Johnson have all had periods within the past 10-15 years where they were among the highest scoring RBs in FF. I'm not a VBD historian, but if you looked at the top-scoring RBs of the past 20 years I'd guess that the players I listed would represent a pretty significant percentage of the sample. So it's incredibly narrow-minded to think that any RB who isn't getting 100+ carries as a rookie can't be great when there are numerous recent examples staring you right in the face.

As far as the top 100 thing, it's true that most of the absolute all-time leading rushers did indeed have great rookie years. But that makes sense if you think about it. Part of the reason why Emmitt Smith, LaDainian Tomlinson, and Curtis Martin are in the top 15 as opposed to the top 25-45 is because they were unquestioned starters from day one. A player like Shaun Alexander or Michael Turner who came into the league stuck behind a Pro Bowler lost some opportunity that he never had a chance to make up.

Kind of like how Christine Michael is losing ground to Eddie Lacy and LeVeon Bell this year solely by virtue of being drafted onto a team with Marshawn Lynch. If you flipped their places on draft day, Michael would be the one accumulating yards and the others would be doing nothing. I don't believe in punishing players based on opportunities that they never had. If you stuck with that approach you would've missed on title-winning FF monsters like LJ, Priest, Westbrook, Alexander, and Charles.

 

[jurb26]

I don't consider it much of a reach. Priest Holmes, Brian Westbrook, Ahman Green, Shaun Alexander, Jamaal Charles, and Larry Johnson have all had periods within the past 10-15 years where they were among the highest scoring RBs in FF. I'm not a VBD historian, but if you looked at the top-scoring RBs of the past 20 years I'd guess that the players I listed would represent a pretty significant percentage of the sample. So it's incredibly narrow-minded to think that any RB who isn't getting 100+ carries as a rookie can't be great when there are numerous recent examples staring you right in the face.

As far as the top 100 thing, it's true that most of the absolute all-time leading rushers did indeed have great rookie years. But that makes sense if you think about it. Part of the reason why Emmitt Smith, LaDainian Tomlinson, and Curtis Martin are in the top 15 as opposed to the top 25-45 is because they were unquestioned starters from day one. A player like Shaun Alexander or Michael Turner who came into the league stuck behind a Pro Bowler lost some opportunity that he never had a chance to make up.

Kind of like how Christine Michael is losing ground to Eddie Lacy and LeVeon Bell this year solely by virtue of being drafted onto a team with Marshawn Lynch. If you flipped their places on draft day, Michael would be the one accumulating yards and the others would be doing nothing. I don't believe in punishing players based on opportunities that they never had. If you stuck with that approach you would've missed on title-winning FF monsters like LJ, Priest, Westbrook, Alexander, and Charles.

It is a reach. Not because there haven't been guys who have had slow starts to their careers and gone on to major success. It's a reach because none of those guys you listed except for maybe Holmes (I'm not even sure about him) were ever stuck at 3rd string. Nobody is punishing Michael for being behind Lynch. We are questioning his ability to not beat out Turbin and viewing this as a reason to reevaluate the situation and player.

 

[MAC_32]

▲▲▲fair to question that logic because we don't know Michael's role without Lynch in the picture. Staff feels more comfortable giving turbin the secondary snaps, but if Lynch is out that doesn't mean turbin gets his snaps.

 

[MAC_32]

That said, now that we're getting to the playoffs I don't expect Michael to earn a meaningful role if something happens to lynch.

 

[Milkman]

The risk of ruin to Seattle's #1 asset is increased when Christine Michael is on the field. What's so hard to understand? This can be fixed. It's likely to be fixed in TC next year.

 

[coolnerd]

▲▲▲fair to question that logic because we don't know Michael's role without Lynch in the picture. Staff feels more comfortable giving turbin the secondary snaps, but if Lynch is out that doesn't mean turbin gets his snaps.

If I have read this thread correctly, Turbin is flat better in the passing game especially in terms blitz awareness and willingness to block. My speculation is that Turbin is the better player at the secondary role than Michael.

 

[Chaka]

The risk of ruin to Seattle's #1 asset is increased when Christine Michael is on the field. What's so hard to understand? This can be fixed. It's likely to be fixed in TC next year.

People said that exact same thing about David Wilson this year.

 

[Chaka]

Never got the turbin love either. A very good JAG in a great situation if Lynch got hurt, but not talented enough to avoid being replaced year to year.

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.

projectable ceiling, I think we have seen turbins but not Michael's.

You think we have seen Turbin's ceiling based upon 5 carries/game? I am not seeing that as a fair benchmark.

I am not saying Turbin is better than Michael but the way the tides have shifted on Turbin between this and last season is absolutely remarkable.

 

[Chaka]

I don't believe in punishing players based on opportunities that they never had. If you stuck with that approach you would've missed on title-winning FF monsters like LJ, Priest, Westbrook, Alexander, and Charles.

Opportunity is one of the key benchmarks for judging fantasy success. Fair or not, opportunity is absolutely one of the most important factors used to judge fantasy players. Michael may be the next Walter Payton for all we know but if he can't get off the bench we'll never know.

 

[Milkman]

I think you're taking that out of context a little bit. I believe he's talking about players that have been in this exact situation. Not some rb that's in his 4th year and can't get on the field.

 

[Chaka]

Never got the turbin love either. A very good JAG in a great situation if Lynch got hurt, but not talented enough to avoid being replaced year to year.

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.

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.

How can you possibly define that based upon the two games he has touched the ball?

During the first game (a home game vs Jax in week 3) he got his first carry when the score was 31-7 (4 minutes left in the third). He went for 11, -2, 3, 4, -2, 7, 3, 4 & 9.

During the second game (week 8 @ Atl) he got his first carry with 6 minutes left in the 4th quarter when the score was 33-10 (3, 13, 7, 1, 3, 3, 9 & -6).

Do you believe he was getting the best effort either team had to offer (let alone the best the NFL had to offer)?

Again I am not saying Turbin > Michael I just don't understand the leaps people are making on both players based upon their respective NFL and college careers.

 

[Chaka]

I think you're taking that out of context a little bit. I believe he's talking about players that have been in this exact situation. Not some rb that's in his 4th year and can't get on the field.

I may be but my overall point isn't really about Turbin v Michael (I consider them both to be larger unknowns based upon what we have seen) I am more taking exception to the suggestions that Michael should be taken ahead of guys like Lacy and Bernard (and probably Stacy) in dynasty leagues. And opportunity is a large factor in making that determination. Yes "If Michael had been drafted by GB" then we would making different arguments but he wasn't drafted by GB and that means we still have no idea when or even if Michael will get his opportunity.

 

[Chaka]

Never got the turbin love either. A very good JAG in a great situation if Lynch got hurt, but not talented enough to avoid being replaced year to year.

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.

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.

No one has seen Michael play an appreciable amount in the NFL and I am not sure Turbin has seen an appreciable amount of play time either.

 

[Chaka]

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.

How long was it before the first "GAY!!!!!!!! RON PAUL 2016!" post in those comments?

 

[Milkman]

I think you're taking that out of context a little bit. I believe he's talking about players that have been in this exact situation. Not some rb that's in his 4th year and can't get on the field.

I may be but my overall point isn't really about Turbin v Michael (I consider them both to be larger unknowns based upon what we have seen) I am more taking exception to the suggestions that Michael should be taken ahead of guys like Lacy and Bernard (and probably Stacy) in dynasty leagues. And opportunity is a large factor in making that determination. Yes "If Michael had been drafted by GB" then we would making different arguments but he wasn't drafted by GB and that means we still have no idea when or even if Michael will get his opportunity.

Yeah I wouldn't trade those guys for Michaels either.

 

[Chasers Dawg]

I don't consider it much of a reach. Priest Holmes, Brian Westbrook, Ahman Green, Shaun Alexander, Jamaal Charles, and Larry Johnson have all had periods within the past 10-15 years where they were among the highest scoring RBs in FF. I'm not a VBD historian, but if you looked at the top-scoring RBs of the past 20 years I'd guess that the players I listed would represent a pretty significant percentage of the sample. So it's incredibly narrow-minded to think that any RB who isn't getting 100+ carries as a rookie can't be great when there are numerous recent examples staring you right in the face.

As far as the top 100 thing, it's true that most of the absolute all-time leading rushers did indeed have great rookie years. But that makes sense if you think about it. Part of the reason why Emmitt Smith, LaDainian Tomlinson, and Curtis Martin are in the top 15 as opposed to the top 25-45 is because they were unquestioned starters from day one. A player like Shaun Alexander or Michael Turner who came into the league stuck behind a Pro Bowler lost some opportunity that he never had a chance to make up.

Kind of like how Christine Michael is losing ground to Eddie Lacy and LeVeon Bell this year solely by virtue of being drafted onto a team with Marshawn Lynch. If you flipped their places on draft day, Michael would be the one accumulating yards and the others would be doing nothing. I don't believe in punishing players based on opportunities that they never had. If you stuck with that approach you would've missed on title-winning FF monsters like LJ, Priest, Westbrook, Alexander, and Charles.

It is a reach. Not because there haven't been guys who have had slow starts to their careers and gone on to major success. It's a reach because none of those guys you listed except for maybe Holmes (I'm not even sure about him) were ever stuck at 3rd string. Nobody is punishing Michael for being behind Lynch. We are questioning his ability to not beat out Turbin and viewing this as a reason to reevaluate the situation and player.

Wasn't Davis the fullback for a couple years. Not even 3rd string

Last year got Lacy @ #4, Lattimore @ #9, Michael @ #22 in a 16 team IDP rookie draft. All 3 are Keeper/Holds

Ironically FBG (who we edged out in the championship game) had pick #21

 

[Mr. Retukes]

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

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

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

Shaun Alexander - 64

Ahman Green - 35

Willis McGahee - 0

Priest Holmes - 0

Stephen Davis - 23

Michael Turner - 20

Brian Westbrook - 46

Larry Johnson - 20

Deuce McAllister - 16

Rudi Johnson - 0

Jamaal Charles - 67

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

Shaun Alexander (Ricky Watters)

Ahman Green (Ricky Watters)

Willis McGahee ****

Priest Holmes (Jamal Lewis)

Stephen Davis (Terry Allen)

Michael Turner (LaDainian Tomlinson)

Brian Westbrook (Duce Staley)

Larry Johnson (Priest Holmes)

Deuce McAllister (Ricky Williams)

Rudi Johnson (Corey Dillon)

Jamaal Charles (Larry Johnson)

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

Correlation <> Causation.

Congratulations on naming 11 backups to Pro Bowlers who later became starters. Would you like me to name 50 backups to Pro Bowlers who never became starters? Because that list would be equally as relevant as your list.

It's also interesting to note that most of those 11 still got significant playing time as rookies! Only a few were "healthy inactives" like Michael has been. So if your benchmark is Rudi Johnson, then that's not saying much.

 

[Mr. Retukes]

And here's what happens when you take a closer look at EBF's list:

Shaun Alexander - 16 games, 69 rushes/receptions, 1 start
Ahman Green - 16 games, 38 rushes/receptions
Willis McGahee - IR
Priest Holmes - 7 games, 0 rushes/receptions
Stephen Davis - 12 games, 23 rushes/receptions
Michael Turner - 14 games, 24 rushes/receptions, 1 start
Brian Westbrook - 15 games, 53 rushes/receptions, 3 starts
Larry Johnson - 6 games, 21 rushes/receptions (hamstring and legal issues most of the year)
Deuce McAllister - 16 games, 31 rushes/receptions, 4 starts
Rudi Johnson - 2 games, 0 rushes/receptions
Jamaal Charles - 16 games, 94 rushes/receptions, 2 starts


7 of 11 played in 12+ games; 8 of 11 had 20+ rushes and receptions (not counting kick returns); 5 of 11 started at least one game.

Now look at Mr. Michael:

Christine Michael - 4 games, 18 rushes/receptions, 0 starts

One of these things is not like the others...

 

[EBF]

I don't consider it much of a reach. Priest Holmes, Brian Westbrook, Ahman Green, Shaun Alexander, Jamaal Charles, and Larry Johnson have all had periods within the past 10-15 years where they were among the highest scoring RBs in FF. I'm not a VBD historian, but if you looked at the top-scoring RBs of the past 20 years I'd guess that the players I listed would represent a pretty significant percentage of the sample. So it's incredibly narrow-minded to think that any RB who isn't getting 100+ carries as a rookie can't be great when there are numerous recent examples staring you right in the face.

As far as the top 100 thing, it's true that most of the absolute all-time leading rushers did indeed have great rookie years. But that makes sense if you think about it. Part of the reason why Emmitt Smith, LaDainian Tomlinson, and Curtis Martin are in the top 15 as opposed to the top 25-45 is because they were unquestioned starters from day one. A player like Shaun Alexander or Michael Turner who came into the league stuck behind a Pro Bowler lost some opportunity that he never had a chance to make up.

Kind of like how Christine Michael is losing ground to Eddie Lacy and LeVeon Bell this year solely by virtue of being drafted onto a team with Marshawn Lynch. If you flipped their places on draft day, Michael would be the one accumulating yards and the others would be doing nothing. I don't believe in punishing players based on opportunities that they never had. If you stuck with that approach you would've missed on title-winning FF monsters like LJ, Priest, Westbrook, Alexander, and Charles.

It is a reach. Not because there haven't been guys who have had slow starts to their careers and gone on to major success. It's a reach because none of those guys you listed except for maybe Holmes (I'm not even sure about him) were ever stuck at 3rd string. Nobody is punishing Michael for being behind Lynch. We are questioning his ability to not beat out Turbin and viewing this as a reason to reevaluate the situation and player.

Yea, this point has come up countless times. Playing ahead of someone as a third down back/special teamer doesn't automatically mean that you're ahead of that player on the overall RB depth chart. So to say that Michael is clearly "third string" is a pretty big stretch in my book. I think if Lynch went down Michael would become the primary ball carrier. Sort of like how Moreno took over for McGahee last season even though he had been "third string" behind Ronnie Hillman until Willis got hurt.

I think the people latching onto the "Michael is third string" line of reasoning are totally misreading the situation. My guess is that they'll look pretty foolish in a year or two when Michael is clearly ahead of Turbin. For the time being, it's purely hypothetical. It makes sense that some people would be frightened by the immediate depth chart, but that doesn't mean they aren't ultimately 100% wrong about what's going on here. We'll know more in another year or two. For now the uncertainty is what creates (IMO) an exploitable gap between what the average FF player thinks Michael is worth and what he's actually worth.

 

[EBF]

And here's what happens when you take a closer look at EBF's list:

Shaun Alexander - 16 games, 69 rushes/receptions, 1 start

Ahman Green - 16 games, 38 rushes/receptions

Willis McGahee - IR

Priest Holmes - 7 games, 0 rushes/receptions

Stephen Davis - 12 games, 23 rushes/receptions

Michael Turner - 14 games, 24 rushes/receptions, 1 start

Brian Westbrook - 15 games, 53 rushes/receptions, 3 starts

Larry Johnson - 6 games, 21 rushes/receptions (hamstring and legal issues most of the year)

Deuce McAllister - 16 games, 31 rushes/receptions, 4 starts

Rudi Johnson - 2 games, 0 rushes/receptions

Jamaal Charles - 16 games, 94 rushes/receptions, 2 starts

7 of 11 played in 12+ games; 8 of 11 had 20+ rushes and receptions (not counting kick returns); 5 of 11 started at least one game.

Now look at Mr. Michael:

Christine Michael - 4 games, 18 rushes/receptions, 0 starts

One of these things is not like the others...

Pretty weak analysis IMO.

Deuce McAllister had 4 "starts" as a rookie even though he never carried the ball more than 4 times in a single game his entire rookie season. Meaningless. Jamaal Charles had 2 starts. Guess what? Larry Johnson missed 4 games that season. Charles accumulated 43% of his rookie carries during that 4 game span, including his only game of double digit carries. In other words, he didn't "find a way to get playing time." He only got on the field for meaningful snaps as a last resort when the starter was injured. Even then, if you look at those four games you'll see that he was out-carried 31 to 29 over that time period by somebody named Kolby Smith. Jamaal Charles couldn't beat out Kolby Smith as a rookie. Guess he must suck pretty bad, huh? Michael Turner had 5 carries in his entire rookie season until the week 17 game. Guess who sat out that game with an injury? Darren Sproles had 8 carries in his first NFL season. The list goes on...

This isn't really rocket science. When you're drafted onto the same team as a Pro Bowl RB in the prime of his career, you're probably not going to see much of the field regardless of how good you are. Most of the guys who played extensively right away either split carries with a lesser player/fading star (i.e. Peterson vs. Chester Taylor, MJD vs. 31 year old Fred Taylor, Gore vs. Barlow, McCoy vs. Westbrook) or had absolutely nothing to compete against and thus carried the workload by default (i.e. Doug Martin, LaDainian Tomlinson, Trent Richardson, Eddie Lacy). The main variable for rookie RB impact isn't talent. The main variable is opportunity.

Now think about Michael's situation. He joined the Seahawks immediately after Marshawn Lynch had just finished a 1590 yards/5.0 YPC season. To compound the problem, the team had spent a 4th rounder on Turbin just a year prior. So what kind of rookie year were you really hoping for? He was never going to beat out of Lynch for anything close to work horse carries. About the best you could've hoped for is that he'd get maybe 50-80 carries as a COOP back and maybe get some work on kickoff returns. From that standpoint his rookie season could be viewed as a mild disappointment, but hardly a catastrophe. Skill as a kick returner is not exactly parallel to skill as a RB and there are perfectly understandable reasons why Turbin would've been preferred for the bit player role (pass blocking, experience, familiarity with the playbook, pass catching). Probably some of the same reasons why Kolby Smith started ahead of Jamaal Charles.

This is straightforward stuff. Mega talented rookie RBs usually don't play much when they're drafted into the league behind a mega talented starter in his prime. So the fact that a rookie RB doesn't play much when stuck behind a mega talented starter tells you pretty much nothing about his ultimate viability. If anything, the rule is pretty encouraging. Mega talented backups eventually get a chance to start and when that happens they will thrive (Sproles, Turner, Ahman, Alexander, Holmes, LJ, McCoy, Charles, etc). So the only question is whether or not Michael has a comparable level of talent. If you think the answer is yes, obviously you're going to be bullish on his prospects.

 

[jurb26]

The amount of cherry picking going on in this threads is of epic proportions.

 

[squistion]

The amount of cherry picking going on in this threads is of epic proportions.

More like it is of EBF proportions

 

[PatsWillWin]

And here's what happens when you take a closer look at EBF's list:

Shaun Alexander - 16 games, 69 rushes/receptions, 1 start

Ahman Green - 16 games, 38 rushes/receptions

Willis McGahee - IR

Priest Holmes - 7 games, 0 rushes/receptions

Stephen Davis - 12 games, 23 rushes/receptions

Michael Turner - 14 games, 24 rushes/receptions, 1 start

Brian Westbrook - 15 games, 53 rushes/receptions, 3 starts

Larry Johnson - 6 games, 21 rushes/receptions (hamstring and legal issues most of the year)

Deuce McAllister - 16 games, 31 rushes/receptions, 4 starts

Rudi Johnson - 2 games, 0 rushes/receptions

Jamaal Charles - 16 games, 94 rushes/receptions, 2 starts

7 of 11 played in 12+ games; 8 of 11 had 20+ rushes and receptions (not counting kick returns); 5 of 11 started at least one game.

Now look at Mr. Michael:

Christine Michael - 4 games, 18 rushes/receptions, 0 starts

One of these things is not like the others...

Pretty weak analysis IMO.

<clipped>

Err...all he did was provide some context around the statistics you posted. It's not his analysis, it's yours.

 

[Milkman]

The point is it's not unprecedented. With what Michaels has shown at the combine and in preseason he could be the next rb to do nothing his rookie year, because of a lack of opportunity, and go on to have a great career later on.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

And here's what happens when you take a closer look at EBF's list:

Shaun Alexander - 16 games, 69 rushes/receptions, 1 start

Ahman Green - 16 games, 38 rushes/receptions

Willis McGahee - IR

Priest Holmes - 7 games, 0 rushes/receptions

Stephen Davis - 12 games, 23 rushes/receptions

Michael Turner - 14 games, 24 rushes/receptions, 1 start

Brian Westbrook - 15 games, 53 rushes/receptions, 3 starts

Larry Johnson - 6 games, 21 rushes/receptions (hamstring and legal issues most of the year)

Deuce McAllister - 16 games, 31 rushes/receptions, 4 starts

Rudi Johnson - 2 games, 0 rushes/receptions

Jamaal Charles - 16 games, 94 rushes/receptions, 2 starts

7 of 11 played in 12+ games; 8 of 11 had 20+ rushes and receptions (not counting kick returns); 5 of 11 started at least one game.

Now look at Mr. Michael:

Christine Michael - 4 games, 18 rushes/receptions, 0 starts

One of these things is not like the others...

Pretty weak analysis IMO.

Deuce McAllister had 4 "starts" as a rookie even though he never carried the ball more than 4 times in a single game his entire rookie season. Meaningless. Jamaal Charles had 2 starts. Guess what? Larry Johnson missed 4 games that season. Charles accumulated 43% of his rookie carries during that 4 game span, including his only game of double digit carries. In other words, he didn't "find a way to get playing time." He only got on the field for meaningful snaps as a last resort when the starter was injured. Even then, if you look at those four games you'll see that he was out-carried 31 to 29 over that time period by somebody named Kolby Smith. Jamaal Charles couldn't beat out Kolby Smith as a rookie. Guess he must suck pretty bad, huh? Michael Turner had 5 carries in his entire rookie season until the week 17 game. Guess who sat out that game with an injury? Darren Sproles had 8 carries in his first NFL season. The list goes on...

This isn't really rocket science. When you're drafted onto the same team as a Pro Bowl RB in the prime of his career, you're probably not going to see much of the field regardless of how good you are. Most of the guys who played extensively right away either split carries with a lesser player/fading star (i.e. Peterson vs. Chester Taylor, MJD vs. 31 year old Fred Taylor, Gore vs. Barlow, McCoy vs. Westbrook) or had absolutely nothing to compete against and thus carried the workload by default (i.e. Doug Martin, LaDainian Tomlinson, Trent Richardson, Eddie Lacy). The main variable for rookie RB impact isn't talent. The main variable is opportunity.

Now think about Michael's situation. He joined the Seahawks immediately after Marshawn Lynch had just finished a 1590 yards/5.0 YPC season. To compound the problem, the team had spent a 4th rounder on Turbin just a year prior. So what kind of rookie year were you really hoping for? He was never going to beat out of Lynch for anything close to work horse carries. About the best you could've hoped for is that he'd get maybe 50-80 carries as a COOP back and maybe get some work on kickoff returns. From that standpoint his rookie season could be viewed as a mild disappointment, but hardly a catastrophe. Skill as a kick returner is not exactly parallel to skill as a RB and there are perfectly understandable reasons why Turbin would've been preferred for the bit player role (pass blocking, experience, familiarity with the playbook, pass catching). Probably some of the same reasons why Kolby Smith started ahead of Jamaal Charles.

This is straightforward stuff. Mega talented rookie RBs usually don't play much when they're drafted into the league behind a mega talented starter in his prime. So the fact that a rookie RB doesn't play much when stuck behind a mega talented starter tells you pretty much nothing about his ultimate viability. If anything, the rule is pretty encouraging. Mega talented backups eventually get a chance to start and when that happens they will thrive (Sproles, Turner, Ahman, Alexander, Holmes, LJ, McCoy, Charles, etc). So the only question is whether or not Michael has a comparable level of talent. If you think the answer is yes, obviously you're going to be bullish on his prospects.

Mega-talents generally are able to manage a thousand yard season in college. They also usually don't see 4 players at the same position go off the board prior to hearing their name called, nor slide 60+ picks deep in the draft. Michael is a guy with some strong workout numbers that didn't fully translate on the field in college. He's a nice prospect with some athletic gifts and some imposing red flags and question marks. Calling him a mega-talent is mega-hyperbole.

 

[jurb26]

The point is it's not unprecedented. With what Michaels has shown at the combine and in preseason he could be the next rb to do nothing his rookie year, because of a lack of opportunity, and go on to have a great career later on.

That's fine. Nobody is saying he can't take that path. We are only pointing out that it is a path less travelled. Many are trying to portray it as a sure bet, which is ridiculous and the rational being used is making them look ridiculous. I like Michael's talent as much as the next guy and always have. I hope he does break out at some point. The lengths people are going to justify themselves is comical. Just say you like his talent and be done with it. The cream eventually rises to the top. That's what happened with some of the other guys. While many like what they have seen from Michael in his extremely limited time as a pro, there are clearly some red flags to acknowledge. Unfortunately some people can't acknowledge them because they're pride is too big.

 

[Mr. Retukes]

And here's what happens when you take a closer look at EBF's list:

Shaun Alexander - 16 games, 69 rushes/receptions, 1 start

Ahman Green - 16 games, 38 rushes/receptions

Willis McGahee - IR

Priest Holmes - 7 games, 0 rushes/receptions

Stephen Davis - 12 games, 23 rushes/receptions

Michael Turner - 14 games, 24 rushes/receptions, 1 start

Brian Westbrook - 15 games, 53 rushes/receptions, 3 starts

Larry Johnson - 6 games, 21 rushes/receptions (hamstring and legal issues most of the year)

Deuce McAllister - 16 games, 31 rushes/receptions, 4 starts

Rudi Johnson - 2 games, 0 rushes/receptions

Jamaal Charles - 16 games, 94 rushes/receptions, 2 starts

7 of 11 played in 12+ games; 8 of 11 had 20+ rushes and receptions (not counting kick returns); 5 of 11 started at least one game.

Now look at Mr. Michael:

Christine Michael - 4 games, 18 rushes/receptions, 0 starts

One of these things is not like the others...

Pretty weak analysis IMO.

<clipped>

Err...all he did was provide some context around the statistics you posted. It's not his analysis, it's yours.

EBF keeps insisting that the only reason Michael isn't playing is because he doesn't do special teams. Well, most of the 11 guys on his list didn't play special teams either! Yet they found a way to get into the rotation.

True talent cannot be denied. Pete Carroll is not a moron. If he thought Michael could contribute, then he'd put him in for more than 4 games.

 

[EBF]

The point is it's not unprecedented. With what Michaels has shown at the combine and in preseason he could be the next rb to do nothing his rookie year, because of a lack of opportunity, and go on to have a great career later on.

That's fine. Nobody is saying he can't take that path. We are only pointing out that it is a path less travelled. Many are trying to portray it as a sure bet, which is ridiculous and the rational being used is making them look ridiculous.I like Michael's talent as much as the next guy and always have. I hope he does break out at some point. The lengths people are going to justify themselves is comical. Just say you like his talent and be done with it. The cream eventually rises to the top. That's what happened with some of the other guys. While many like what they have seen from Michael in his extremely limited time as a pro, there are clearly some red flags to acknowledge. Unfortunately some people can't acknowledge them because they're pride is too big.

That is funny stuff coming from the guy who thinks Cordarrelle Patterson is the greatest thing in the universe. There is nothing "comical" or "ridiculous" about being optimistic about a player whose opportunities have been limited to date. Greg Jennings and Jerome Simpson have twice as many targets as Patterson. Yet I'm sure you'd say he's clearly worth more. I wouldn't fault you for that.

You're just a massive hypocrite who's selectively critical when the discussion turns to a player who isn't on his fanboy list.

 

[PhantomZoner]

And here's what happens when you take a closer look at EBF's list:

Shaun Alexander - 16 games, 69 rushes/receptions, 1 start
Ahman Green - 16 games, 38 rushes/receptions
Willis McGahee - IR
Priest Holmes - 7 games, 0 rushes/receptions
Stephen Davis - 12 games, 23 rushes/receptions
Michael Turner - 14 games, 24 rushes/receptions, 1 start
Brian Westbrook - 15 games, 53 rushes/receptions, 3 starts
Larry Johnson - 6 games, 21 rushes/receptions (hamstring and legal issues most of the year)
Deuce McAllister - 16 games, 31 rushes/receptions, 4 starts
Rudi Johnson - 2 games, 0 rushes/receptions
Jamaal Charles - 16 games, 94 rushes/receptions, 2 starts


7 of 11 played in 12+ games; 8 of 11 had 20+ rushes and receptions (not counting kick returns); 5 of 11 started at least one game.

Now look at Mr. Michael:

Christine Michael - 4 games, 18 rushes/receptions, 0 starts

One of these things is not like the others...

Pretty weak analysis IMO.

<clipped>

Err...all he did was provide some context around the statistics you posted. It's not his analysis, it's yours.

EBF keeps insisting that the only reason Michael isn't playing is because he doesn't do special teams. Well, most of the 11 guys on his list didn't play special teams either! Yet they found a way to get into the rotation.

True talent cannot be denied. Pete Carroll is not a moron. If he thought Michael could contribute, then he'd put him in for more than 4 games.

I agree Carroll is not a moron, he is the guy who drafted him in the 2nd round.

 

[squistion]

The point is it's not unprecedented. With what Michaels has shown at the combine and in preseason he could be the next rb to do nothing his rookie year, because of a lack of opportunity, and go on to have a great career later on.

That's fine. Nobody is saying he can't take that path. We are only pointing out that it is a path less travelled. Many are trying to portray it as a sure bet, which is ridiculous and the rational being used is making them look ridiculous.I like Michael's talent as much as the next guy and always have. I hope he does break out at some point. The lengths people are going to justify themselves is comical. Just say you like his talent and be done with it. The cream eventually rises to the top. That's what happened with some of the other guys. While many like what they have seen from Michael in his extremely limited time as a pro, there are clearly some red flags to acknowledge. Unfortunately some people can't acknowledge them because they're pride is too big.

That is funny stuff coming from the guy who thinks Cordarrelle Patterson is the greatest thing in the universe. There is nothing "comical" or "ridiculous" about being optimistic about a player whose opportunities have been limited to date. Greg Jennings and Jerome Simpson have twice as many targets as Patterson. Yet I'm sure you'd say he's clearly worth more. I wouldn't fault you for that.

You're just a massive hypocrite who's selectively critical when the discussion turns to a player who isn't on his fanboy list.

Such delicious irony.

 

[jurb26]

The point is it's not unprecedented. With what Michaels has shown at the combine and in preseason he could be the next rb to do nothing his rookie year, because of a lack of opportunity, and go on to have a great career later on.

That's fine. Nobody is saying he can't take that path. We are only pointing out that it is a path less travelled. Many are trying to portray it as a sure bet, which is ridiculous and the rational being used is making them look ridiculous.I like Michael's talent as much as the next guy and always have. I hope he does break out at some point. The lengths people are going to justify themselves is comical. Just say you like his talent and be done with it. The cream eventually rises to the top. That's what happened with some of the other guys. While many like what they have seen from Michael in his extremely limited time as a pro, there are clearly some red flags to acknowledge. Unfortunately some people can't acknowledge them because they're pride is too big.

That is funny stuff coming from the guy who thinks Cordarrelle Patterson is the greatest thing in the universe. There is nothing "comical" or "ridiculous" about being optimistic about a player whose opportunities have been limited to date. Greg Jennings and Jerome Simpson have twice as many targets as Patterson. Yet I'm sure you'd say he's clearly worth more. I wouldn't fault you for that.

You're just a massive hypocrite who's selectively critical when the discussion turns to a player who isn't on his fanboy list.

Thats a pretty ridiculous example, like the rest you have made in this thread. I've said Patterson is the best WR in this class. No more, no less. His targets have tripled in the last 8 games compared to his 1st 8 games. He's scored 7 TDs in his last 8 games, 6 in the last 5 games. His situation is about as opposite from Micheal as it gets. He is doing exactly what you hope Michael eventually does some day. He has earned more and more playing time, worked his way up the depth chart and capitalized on his in game opportunities. Michael still sits at 3 on the depth chart same as he did this preseason.

Oh, and as I already referenced several times in this thread I am a Michael fan. I rated him as the 3rd rookie RB in this class. I'm just willing to acknowledge now that some reevaluation is in order.

Keep trying though.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

The point is it's not unprecedented. With what Michaels has shown at the combine and in preseason he could be the next rb to do nothing his rookie year, because of a lack of opportunity, and go on to have a great career later on.

That's fine. Nobody is saying he can't take that path. We are only pointing out that it is a path less travelled. Many are trying to portray it as a sure bet, which is ridiculous and the rational being used is making them look ridiculous.I like Michael's talent as much as the next guy and always have. I hope he does break out at some point. The lengths people are going to justify themselves is comical. Just say you like his talent and be done with it. The cream eventually rises to the top. That's what happened with some of the other guys. While many like what they have seen from Michael in his extremely limited time as a pro, there are clearly some red flags to acknowledge. Unfortunately some people can't acknowledge them because they're pride is too big.

That is funny stuff coming from the guy who thinks Cordarrelle Patterson is the greatest thing in the universe. There is nothing "comical" or "ridiculous" about being optimistic about a player whose opportunities have been limited to date. Greg Jennings and Jerome Simpson have twice as many targets as Patterson. Yet I'm sure you'd say he's clearly worth more. I wouldn't fault you for that.

You're just a massive hypocrite who's selectively critical when the discussion turns to a player who isn't on his fanboy list.

woah

In all seriousness this is why what was stated Sirius NFL radio from the Seattle reporter two weeks ago (which was still hearsay as he didnt give his front office source's name) I didnt even bother posting it in this thread. Re: Michael and the Sea RBs. Which is rather unfortunate considering we should be talking about fantasy info and not being rah-rah or pooh-pooh.

 

[EBF]

Mega-talents generally are able to manage a thousand season in college. They also usually don't see 4 players at the same position go off the board prior to hearing their name called, nor slide 60+ picks deep in the draft. Michael is a guy with some strong workout numbers that didn't fully translate on the field in college. He's a nice prospect with some athletic gifts and some imposing red flags and question marks. Calling him a mega-talent is mega-hyperbole.

There are lots of things here that I disagree with. Let's go down the list

Mega-talents generally are able to manage a thousand season in college.

Yes, I agree with this. Then again, most mega talents don't suffer two season-ending injuries in college. Michael had 899 rushing yards through the first 9 games of his junior season. He tore his ACL and missed the rest of the year. Had he been healthy, he likely would've topped 1000+ yards and had a strong enough platform to leave school early for the draft. He also averaged 78.1 rushing yards per game as a sophomore, but broke his leg in the 8th game of the season. If not for that injury, he would've had a good chance at a 1000+ yard season. So the fact that he didn't have a 1000+ yard season mainly boils down to injuries. Durability is the biggest concern with him by far. Something that I've mentioned time and time again. It's also probably the main reason why he wasn't a 1st round pick.

They also usually don't see 4 players at the same position go off the board prior to hearing their name called, nor slide 60+ picks deep in the draft.

I think you're giving the NFL draft process a little too much credit. Just including guys who are still in the league, here are their positional ranks in their draft class (i.e. whether they were the 1st or 8th RB chosen) along with their overall draft position:

14 (173) Alfred Morris

6 (71) Demarco Murray

4 (53) LeSean McCoy

6 (44) Matt Forte

7 (55) Ray Rice

10 (73) Jamaal Charles

6 (60) Maurice Jones-Drew

6 (65) Frank Gore

10 (109) Marion Barber

11 (110) Brandon Jacobs

15 (130) Darren Sproles

"Mega talent" is a subjective label. I don't think I'd describe guys like Barber, Jacobs, and Murray as "mega talents." On the other hand, MJD, McCoy, Rice, Charles, and Gore have been among the best FF RBs of the past decade and all of those guys were selected within 15 slots of Michael's #62 overall. So if you're really going to hold to the belief that a supreme talent can't fall to that range of the draft, you're frequently going to miss out on eventual elite backs.

Michael is a guy with some strong workout numbers that didn't fully translate on the field in college.

I'm not sure I'd agree with that. As I mentioned previously, he might have rushed for 1000+ yards twice if it hadn't been for injuries. He also ran for 844 yards as a true freshman and was named Big 12 Offensive Freshman of the Year by the media and by the coaches. He had a 5.3 career YPC average and 2791 career rushing yards. It's more accurate to portray him as a good player who couldn't stay healthy than a workout warrior who couldn't produce. That's part of what separates him from guys like Chris Henry (Titans draft bust who went in the 2nd round of the 2007 draft despite dismal college production).

Calling him a mega-talent is mega-hyperbole.

We don't know that for sure yet. If I'd said Charles, MJD, Rice, and McCoy were mega talents before they'd played an NFL down you would've said that it was hyperbole. If someone says that an unproven player like Justin Hunter or Travis Kelce is a mega talent, I can't really say he's wrong. I can say that I disagree and that it's unlikely based on historical odds of similar players, but the reality is that I don't know what those players are going to accomplish. And you don't really know what Christine Michael will accomplish either. There's a possibility that he's a great player. There's a possibility that he isn't. The only thing we can do right now is make an estimate. The fact that my estimate might look different from yours doesn't mean I'm automatically wrong.

I'd also point out that he really doesn't have to be a mega talent to justify a RB8-RB18 price tag. Like I said, I'm not a VBD guy, but I'd guess that even a career like Murray, Jacobs, or Barber might be a profitable outcome based on current market value. So you don't really need him to be a top 3-5 Pro Bowl type of guy for him to make sense as an investment right now.

 

[slackjawedyokel]

A couple things:

If someone likes Michael, it is probably as good a time to buy as any. The early hype seems to have died down a bit but the spectrum of opinion is wider than that of most players. I like him. Combine numbers are one thing, physical tools are another, and opportunity proves how they translate. Sometimes you just watch a player touch the ball and know that he is special. A previous poster mentioned Steve Slaton. I knew when I watched him that his opportunity was making him look better than his talent. Sell those guys and buy the ones that have not yet grabbed the reigns but have the look. In my opinion, Michael has the look.

 

[EastonBlues22]

Never got the turbin love either. A very good JAG in a great situation if Lynch got hurt, but not talented enough to avoid being replaced year to year.

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.

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.

No one has seen Michael play an appreciable amount in the NFL and I am not sure Turbin has seen an appreciable amount of play time either.

I'll take that as a no.

If all you have to go by is their career numbers, of course it's going to be hard for you to understand what many people see in Michael that they don't see in Turbin after having seen them both play. For me, there's an obvious visual difference between the two players. If you take the time to watch them, maybe you'll see it as well.

 

[Chaka]

Never got the turbin love either. A very good JAG in a great situation if Lynch got hurt, but not talented enough to avoid being replaced year to year.

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.

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.

No one has seen Michael play an appreciable amount in the NFL and I am not sure Turbin has seen an appreciable amount of play time either.

I'll take that as a no.

If all you have to go by is their career numbers, of course it's going to be hard for you to understand what many people see in Michael that they don't see in Turbin after having seen them both play. For me, there's an obvious visual difference between the two players. If you take the time to watch them, maybe you'll see it as well.

You can take it however you want to but the fact is 18 late game blowout carries is nothing to base a player analysis upon (half of those carries were for 3 or fewer yards btw).

He had two top notch preseason games (27 total carries for 186 yards) and one pathetic one (13 carries for 15 yards). Is anyone going to tell me that they have the entire book on this guy after that?

 

[Chaka]

I don't think there is anything I hate more in these threads than the tired refrain of "Clearly you don't watch the games" or its derivatives.

First off if anyone here was good enough to evaluate NFL caliber talent they would be getting paid by an NFL team to do it. Secondly if you put 10 guys who actually get paid by NFL teams to evaluate talent in a room together you would get 10 different opinions about whichever player they were evaluating.

 

[duaneok66]

I don't think there is anything I hate more in these threads than the tired refrain of "Clearly you don't watch the games" or its derivatives.

First off if anyone here was good enough to evaluate NFL caliber talent they would be getting paid by an NFL team to do it. Secondly if you put 10 guys who actually get paid by NFL teams to evaluate talent in a room together you would get 10 different opinions about whichever player they were evaluating.

post of the thread.

 

[EBF]

I don't think there is anything I hate more in these threads than the tired refrain of "Clearly you don't watch the games" or its derivatives.

First off if anyone here was good enough to evaluate NFL caliber talent they would be getting paid by an NFL team to do it. Secondly if you put 10 guys who actually get paid by NFL teams to evaluate talent in a room together you would get 10 different opinions about whichever player they were evaluating.

I don't agree with most of that, but it's kind of irrelevant.

An NFL team that does pretty well at evaluating talent drafted Michael very high despite his durability and minor character warts. It's not like people are coming in here to say some street UDFA is a beast and that he's destined for stardom. They're basically saying that guy with freaky talent and a high draft slot has a huge amount of potential and could be worth a lot once he gets his shot. Given what Bernard/Bell/Lacy have accomplished this season, it's strange that there's so much pushback against optimism for a player drafted in the same round at the same position.

 

[EastonBlues22]

Never got the turbin love either. A very good JAG in a great situation if Lynch got hurt, but not talented enough to avoid being replaced year to year.

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.

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.

No one has seen Michael play an appreciable amount in the NFL and I am not sure Turbin has seen an appreciable amount of play time either.

I'll take that as a no.

If all you have to go by is their career numbers, of course it's going to be hard for you to understand what many people see in Michael that they don't see in Turbin after having seen them both play. For me, there's an obvious visual difference between the two players. If you take the time to watch them, maybe you'll see it as well.

You can take it however you want to but the fact is 18 late game blowout carries is nothing to base a player analysis upon (half of those carries were for 3 or fewer yards btw).

He had two top notch preseason games (27 total carries for 186 yards) and one pathetic one (13 carries for 15 yards). Is anyone going to tell me that they have the entire book on this guy after that?

Nobody is claiming to have the entire book on this guy. I called him a lottery ticket in a previous post. Does that sound like I think he's a sure thing?

Also, not all of these opinions are based solely on a handful of preseason games. Some of us watched them both in college, and there's a good amount of NFL tape on Turbin at this point. There's some connecting the dots in there (Turbin is basically JAG, and Michael has the potential to be more), but that's to be expected on a topic like this. If there was a huge amount of raw data to support one being better than the other, then there would be essentially no disagreement.

I don't think there is anything I hate more in these threads than the tired refrain of "Clearly you don't watch the games" or its derivatives.

First off if anyone here was good enough to evaluate NFL caliber talent they would be getting paid by an NFL team to do it. Secondly if you put 10 guys who actually get paid by NFL teams to evaluate talent in a room together you would get 10 different opinions about whichever player they were evaluating.

I'm not dismissing your opinion because you haven't seen him play. I'm trying to answer the question you posed, which was:

"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."

If your frame of reference is limited to the raw college total numbers and the box scores from a handful of NFL games, then of course you are not going to understand why someone would dismiss Turbin for Michael.

It's like trying to understand why someone prefers the music of John Williams over that of Hans Zimmer if you have never heard the music of either. Taking an opposing position by talking about things like total number of pieces composed, total awards won, and total number of albums sold isn't going to convince the person with the opinion of anything other than the fact that you haven't heard the music of either. It's a futile, and ultimately meaningless, endeavor since the person's opinion isn't based off numbers.

If you want to engage someone with an opinion like that, you need to hear the music for yourself so you can talk about the music itself. Saying that is a recognition of the disconnect in understanding between the two parties, not a validation of one opinion (or even method of analysis) over the other.

Finally, dismissing the opinions of those who have watched the two play (or who are basing their opinions off others who have) because we "are not good enough to evaluate NFL caliber talent" is pretty hypocritical given your umbrage at feeling dismissed because you haven't watched them play. I don't suppose the numbers you share are backed by the weight of your career as an NFL data analyst, by chance? Or an advanced degree in statistical analysis? Even hard numbers can generate wildly differing interpretations of their meaning from person to person, as I'm sure you're aware. Should we eliminate them from the conversation as well because there isn't a clear consensus among the experts? Or because we are not "experts" ourselves?

We're here to share our opinions because we enjoy football and this silly hobby. Some of those opinions are based off numbers, some are based off what we've seen, some are based off what we think has happened in the past, and some are based off what we think will happen in the future. There's room for all of the above in a meaningful conversation.

 

[PatsWillWin]

The point is it's not unprecedented. With what Michaels has shown at the combine and in preseason he could be the next rb to do nothing his rookie year, because of a lack of opportunity, and go on to have a great career later on.

Well first, out of the top 100 backs, there aren't what I'd call a ton of examples. Second, out of those examples that do exist, almost all of them still did more than Michael.

So okay, it wouldn't be unprecedented, but few things are.

 

[EBF]

The point is it's not unprecedented. With what Michaels has shown at the combine and in preseason he could be the next rb to do nothing his rookie year, because of a lack of opportunity, and go on to have a great career later on.

Well first, out of the top 100 backs, there aren't what I'd call a ton of examples. Second, out of those examples that do exist, almost all of them still did more than Michael.

So okay, it wouldn't be unprecedented, but few things are.

If you're going to try to talk about odds and percentages, I think you need to think long and hard about the criteria that you're using in order to build your list of similar players. For example, I think we can agree that the odds of any RB who gets less than 25-30 carries as a rookie becoming an impact FF player are quite small. However, I'd argue that the sample used in that example is far too generic. A high pick who fails to get 100+ carries stuck behind a multi-year 1000+ yard rusher is not comparable to a 7th round rookie who fails to get 100+ carries on a team with no established starter.

If you wanted to find comparisons for Michael I think you'd need to find players who...

1. Had a similar lack of immediate production.

2. Had a similar draft background (i.e. top 100 picks, 2nd round picks, or players picked within half a round of his #62 overall slot).

3. Had a similar lack of immediate opportunity (i.e. players selected onto a team with a multi-year 1000+ yard rusher still in his prime [27-28 or younger]). Moreover, Lynch has been healthy for all 16 games so you need to factor that in as well (no chance for a fluke hot streak like Turner or Charles).

4. Had similar physical tools.

I see a few problems here. No matter which criteria you use, it's always going to be a little arbitrary. For example, lumping Michael in the same bucket as former 1st round picks like LJ/Alexander/McAllister might yield more favorable results than restricting the sample to only include players picked within a very narrow range of the draft. Likewise, establishing a set of criteria to determine who has "similar physical tools" is going to be very problematic. For one thing, there aren't a lot of guys in the league with similar physical tools compared to Michael. So you could maybe amend that to say players who "have dynamic physical qualities." All of these (somewhat arbitrary) decisions are going to warp and distort your results. You could probably massage the numbers to tell you whatever you want to believe.

If you want to believe that Michael is some kind of a hail mary longshot, you could just use the simple-minded approach that "backs who don't produce right away usually don't become great pros." On the other hand, if you want to believe that he's a lock for success then you could simply say there hasn't been a back with Michael's combination of physical tools, college efficiency stats, draft position, and lack of immediate opportunity to enter the league in the past 15 years. Therefeore he's totally unprecedented and all attempts to talk about the odds or probabilities are completely bogus. I tend to that think most of the people talking about odds and likelihoods are doing a poor job of putting Michael in a historical context, but I'm not so optimistic that I think he's a stone cold lock either.

My take is very simple:

- Michael was a productive college player, has rare physical tools, and was a high draft pick. He also generated a big buzz in training camp practices before leading the league in rushing during the preseason, where he looked dynamic and explosive almost every time he touched the ball.

- The main reason Michael isn't producing stats is because he doesn't have the opportunity. The presence of Marshawn Lynch has blocked his impact and prevented him from achieving meaningful carries as a rookie. Since almost any rookie back would fail to play ahead of Lynch, the lack of immediate production tells us almost nothing about Michael's viability one way or another.

- Add it all up and you have a guy who looks like a high potential/low opportunity play. It stands to reason that when his opportunity improves, so will his value. Possibly by a huge amount.

Considering that even his most ardent supporters are talking about him as more of a fringe RB1/RB2 for dynasty purposes, it's kind of crazy that the resistance to this is so passionate. Especially during a season in which three other rookie RBs picked in the same round of the draft are helping teams win FF titles. Nobody blinks if you rate Bell, Bernard, or Lacy as a top 5 dynasty back, but if you suggest that Christine Michael could do something similar when he gets his chance then you're suddenly a delusional maniac. It is really bizarre and I think a really interesting reflection of how different owners assess fluid situations.

 

[squistion]

If you're going to try to talk about odds and percentages, I think you need to think long and hard about the criteria that you're using in order to build your list of similar players. For example, I think we can agree that the odds of any RB who gets less than 25-30 carries as a rookie becoming an impact FF player are quite small. However, I'd argue that the sample used in that example is far too generic. A high pick who fails to get 100+ carries stuck behind a multi-year 1000+ yard rusher is not comparable to a 7th round rookie who fails to get 100+ carries on a team with no established starter.

If you wanted to find comparisons for Michael I think you'd need to find players who...

1. Had a similar lack of immediate production.

2. Had a similar draft background (i.e. top 100 picks, 2nd round picks, or players picked within half a round of his #62 overall slot).

3. Had a similar lack of immediate opportunity (i.e. players selected onto a team with a multi-year 1000+ yard rusher still in his prime [27-28 or younger]). Moreover, Lynch has been healthy for all 16 games so you need to factor that in as well (no chance for a fluke hot streak like Turner or Charles).

4. Had similar physical tools.

I see a few problems here. No matter which criteria you use, it's always going to be a little arbitrary. For example, lumping Michael in the same bucket as former 1st round picks like LJ/Alexander/McAllister might yield more favorable results than restricting the sample to only include players picked within a very narrow range of the draft. Likewise, establishing a set of criteria to determine who has "similar physical tools" is going to be very problematic. For one thing, there aren't a lot of guys in the league with similar physical tools compared to Michael. So you could maybe amend that to say players who "have dynamic physical qualities." All of these (somewhat arbitrary) decisions are going to warp and distort your results. You could probably massage the numbers to tell you whatever you want to believe.

If you want to believe that Michael is some kind of a hail mary longshot, you could just use the simple-minded approach that "backs who don't produce right away usually don't become great pros." On the other hand, if you want to believe that he's a lock for success then you could simply say there hasn't been a back with Michael's combination of physical tools, college efficiency stats, draft position, and lack of immediate opportunity to enter the league in the past 15 years. Therefeore he's totally unprecedented and all attempts to talk about the odds or probabilities are completely bogus. I tend to that think most of the people talking about odds and likelihoods are doing a poor job of putting Michael in a historical context, but I'm not so optimistic that I think he's a stone cold lock either.

My take is very simple:

- Michael was a productive college player, has rare physical tools, and was a high draft pick. He also generated a big buzz in training camp practices before leading the league in rushing during the preseason, where he looked dynamic and explosive almost every time he touched the ball.

- The main reason Michael isn't producing stats is because he doesn't have the opportunity. The presence of Marshawn Lynch has blocked his impact and prevented him from achieving meaningful carries as a rookie. Since almost any rookie back would fail to play ahead of Lynch, the lack of immediate production tells us almost nothing about Michael's viability one way or another.

- Add it all up and you have a guy who looks like a high potential/low opportunity play. It stands to reason that when his opportunity improves, so will his value. Possibly by a huge amount.

Considering that even his most ardent supporters are talking about him as more of a fringe RB1/RB2 for dynasty purposes, it's kind of crazy that the resistance to this is so passionate. Especially during a season in which three other rookie RBs picked in the same round of the draft are helping teams win FF titles. Nobody blinks if you rate Bell, Bernard, or Lacy as a top 5 dynasty back, but if you suggest that Christine Michael could do something similar when he gets his chance then you're suddenly a delusional maniac. It is really bizarre and I think a really interesting reflection of how different owners assess fluid situations.

Understatement of the year.