Christine Michael (2 Viewers)

[DropKick]

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.

One pick after Lacy actually.

 

[Chaka]

- 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.

How are his physical tools rare?

You discounted opportunity earlier in this thread and that is a huge factor. He could be the next Walter Payton but if he doesn't get opportunities then who cares?

And I personally am not discounting his ability to be a fringe "RB1/RB2" what I found bizarre was when people were ranking him ahead of guys like Lacy and Bell in dynasty ( and there was at least one insane mention of Michael for Adrian Peterson in dynasty). All the rare physical tools in the world mean zip if you can't get on the field and Lacy, Bell & Bernard look to be getting a lot of opportunities in both the near and long term (looks like Zac Stacy may belong on that list too) while Michael may not see meaningful PT for another year or two and who knows how the landscape will have changed by then.

 

[EBF]

How are his physical tools rare?

That has already been discussed several times in the thread.

You discounted opportunity earlier in this thread and that is a huge factor. He could be the next Walter Payton but if he doesn't get opportunities then who cares?

I believe that good players eventually get their chance to start. I can't think of many guys who had the talent to be a starting RB, but never get the opportunity. DeAngelo Williams and Jonathan Stewart are the only glaring examples that come to mind during the period since I've been playing FF seriously (about 15 years). Over that same time span numerous strong talents who began their careers as backups eventually got their chance to be the man (LJ, Alexander, Deuce, McCoy, Charles, Gore, Turner, Sproles, Foster, Rice, and Holmes just to name a few). So I think it's a pretty safe assumption that anyone who really has the talent to be a perennial starter in the NFL will eventually get his chance. Therefore I'm more interested in determining a player's talent level than whatever his team's depth chart happens to look like today.

And I personally am not discounting his ability to be a fringe "RB1/RB2" what I found bizarre was when people were ranking him ahead of guys like Lacy and Bell in dynasty ( and there was at least one insane mention of Michael for Adrian Peterson in dynasty). All the rare physical tools in the world mean zip if you can't get on the field and Lacy, Bell & Bernard look to be getting a lot of opportunities in both the near and long term (looks like Zac Stacy may belong on that list too) while Michael may not see meaningful PT for another year or two and who knows how the landscape will have changed by then.

This goes back to the Anthony Thomas/Deuce McAllister and Steve Slaton/Jamaal Charles examples. In dynasty, the goal should probably be to select the player who will have the best career, not the player who will have the best rookie season. Sometimes those things are going to overlap and sometimes they're not. I don't know if Michael will have a better career than those other rookies, but it's certainly possible. Winning the first lap doesn't mean you're going to win the marathon.

As far as Michael vs. Peterson, I think there's a pretty decent argument for Michael in dynasty. Peterson turns 29 in a few months and he already has 2000 carries. Most of his prime has already come and gone. 1-2 years of peak performance is probably the best you can realistically hope for. Most of the time when people have chased the ppg with a fading star on the backslope of his prime in the top 10 of a dynasty startup, those picks have looked pretty bad in hindsight (i.e. Tomlinson circa 2007, Westbrook circa 2007, Alexander circa 2005). Great player. Best pure runner of the past 5 or 10 years. Not gonna play forever though. The fall comes pretty quickly once a RB loses a step (see: Turner, LT, Portis, Westbrook, Alexander, arguably MJD, Rice, and SJax).

 

[bumpman]

- 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.

How are his physical tools rare?

Take it for what it is worth, but here is an excerpt from the Seattle Times with quotes from the Eagles' former head scout (he left for ESPN in May) and A&M's conditioning coach:

"Riddick traveled to Texas A&M last season to watch tape of Michael and offensive tackles Luke Joeckel and Jake Matthews. What he saw, right away, was the speed, the power, the ability to spin away from a defender one second and break an arm tackle the next. He saw a starter given the right situation.

'I thought he was the best running back in the draft at that time,' Riddick said.

While in Aggies land, Riddick talked with Larry Jackson, Texas A&M’s strength and conditioning coach who also worked at Oklahoma when Adrian Peterson terrorized defenses. And what Jackson told Riddick stunned him.

'He told me that from a functional explosiveness perspective that Christine was on the same level as Adrian,' Riddick said. 'When you’re talking about functional explosiveness — acceleration, change of direction, force and impact on contact, breaking tackles — he said he’s the same as Adrian. The only difference ... is that Adrian believed that he was unstoppable. He didn’t know if Christine believed it yet.'

(When asked to verify his comments, Jackson said that’s exactly what he said.)"

http://www.chatsports.com/seattle-seahawks/a/Seahawks-rookie-Christine-Michael-is-talented-but-raw-0-8392486

 

[Milkman]

Yeah I think you guys are right it's time to reevaluate Michaels.

I've upgraded him to sure fire RB1!

Cheers!

 

[Steed]

http://www.fieldgulls.com/seahawks-analysis/2013/5/16/4338100/sparq-a-fire-measuring-the-type-of-athlete-the-seahawks-hunt-for

Talks about michael's athleticism. He's on par with Harvin who is an uber freak

 

[Milkman]

http://www.fieldgulls.com/seahawks-analysis/2013/5/16/4338100/sparq-a-fire-measuring-the-type-of-athlete-the-seahawks-hunt-for

Talks about michael's athleticism. He's on par with Harvin who is an uber freak

It's reassuring to see Le'Veon Bell on the list. When I've watched him play I never thought he was a plodder. Reading this forum had me doubting that assessment. I always saw a big RB with above average short area quickness, great hands, and above average pass protection. Bell just doesn't have great top end speed. He might be primed for a breakout next season if pitt fixes their OL play.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

In dynasty, the goal should probably be to select the player who will have the best career, not the player who will have the best rookie season

no, in any FFL league the goal is to win money, Eddie Lacy has already helped my teams do that, CM hasnt.

 

[humpback]

Chaka and Squistion with some in here.

 

[Chaka]

Once again I feel I should restate that I am not saying Michael is not an excellent physical prospect or that he won't become a top notch RB. His measurables are impressive, no doubt, I just find some of the statements in his favor to not be grounded in reality.

 

[biju]

Chaka and Squistion with some in here.

Really? There's only EBF giving his opinion backed by what looks to be solid research. Everyone else is simply saying "but he can't be good--he hasn't played yet."

 

[jurb26]

Chaka and Squistion with some in here.

Really? There's only EBF giving his opinion backed by what looks to be solid research. Everyone else is simply saying "but he can't be good--he hasn't played yet."

You call that solid research? Looks like cherry picking to fit a preconceived belief to me.

 

[humpback]

Chaka and Squistion with some in here.

Really? There's only EBF giving his opinion backed by what looks to be solid research. Everyone else is simply saying "but he can't be good--he hasn't played yet."

It's EBF giving his opinion based on cherry picked "research" (which he'd ignore when it's a player he's biased against), and those guys aren't saying anything remotely close to that.

 

[EBF]

Nobody on the other side of the debate has made a good effort to put Michael in a historical context to actually show why he should be treated as more of a longshot. Their argument is basically just "he isn't playing so he's probably not that good." There is no attempt to account for his rare physical ability, no attempt to account for his lack of opportunity, and no attempt to build a good list of historical comparisons (high pick workout freaks with good college efficiency stats drafted onto a team with a 27-28 year old or younger player coming off multiple consecutive 100+ yard seasons). Ironically, the detractors are more guilty of what I'm being accused of than I am. Basically just clinging to a lazy kneejerk opinion and then looking for anything that will justify it.

People can disagree with my conclusions, but nobody can say that it doesn't come from solid analysis. I've been tracking Michael since his freshman college season. I followed most of the Seahawks news stories and practice reports all offseason. I even watched three of their four preseason games. I spend more time looking at combine numbers than most owners and therefore have a better understanding of what those figures mean. But because I use all of these different data points to draw a pretty reasonable conclusion (that a high pick backup with poor opportunity has a good chance to boom when he becomes a starter), I am somehow "biased" and "cherry picking." It is quite the opposite. I had no particular affinity for Michael in the build-up to the draft. It's just become clear to me in the months since then that the consensus is doing a poor job of gauging his prospects and value. The discussion here is a great example.

I think when Michael is starting and showing consistent flashes of excellence as a runner you will see that most of the backlash here was ill-informed and excessive. In the meantime there may be good opportunities to buy at a reasonable price since many people still feel that he's more of a "maybe" than a "probably" in terms of achieving significant FF value in the future.

 

[Chaka]

Chaka and Squistion with some in here.

Really? There's only EBF giving his opinion backed by what looks to be solid research. Everyone else is simply saying "but he can't be good--he hasn't played yet."

That's not what I am saying. Not even close.

 

[Chaka]

Their argument is basically just "he isn't playing so he's probably not that good."

Where are you getting that from?

And, btw that he isn't playing is a simple fact which makes him unstartable in fantasy regardless of how high his vertical is or how fast he can finish the 3 cone drill. On a side note I did look at his combine numbers and how they stack up historically; his vert, 3 cone and short shuttle are among the best since 1999. It doesn't mean he can play football but they are very impressive numbers, particularly for a guy his size.

You can say that you believe if Lynch went down Michael would take the primary role but that is pure speculation. I think Pete Carroll is a great football coach and if he thought Michael could help him win right now the guy would be getting snaps. Carroll has a long history of giving every player, regardless of paycheck/status/draft position etc an opportunity to become the starter or play meaningful snaps.

I am not sure why Michael is not getting the opportunities yet, I doubt it is because of a lack of physical talent and it certainly isn't because Carroll is saving him in case Lynch gets hurt. It is most likely a situation similar to David Wilson where he simply could not be trusted to pass protect and hold onto the football (you like his numbers well another number he has is an 11 on the Wonderlic). Either way if Michael was game ready and better than what is available then I guarantee you Carroll would have him in the lineup in some capacity.

What his future holds is uncertain but promising but today he offers very little and, barring injury of course, it doesn't look like he offers much for next season either. After that it's anyone's guess.

Still my overarching point is that you shouldn't hold onto him if you have an opportunity to land a guy like Lacy, Bell or Bernard and possibly Stacy. And without question you give him up for Adrian Peterson.

 

[humpback]

Once again I feel I should restate that I am not saying Michael is not an excellent physical prospect or that he won't become a top notch RB. His measurables are impressive, no doubt, I just find some of the statements in his favor to not be grounded in reality.

That's not what I am saying. Not even close.

Where are you getting that from?

It doesn't matter how many times/ways you say it, if/when Michael amounts to anything you will forever be labeled a "hater". Really bizarre, but it happens quite a bit.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Their argument is basically just "he isn't playing so he's probably not that good."

Where are you getting that from?

And, btw that he isn't playing is a simple fact which makes him unstartable in fantasy regardless of how high his vertical is or how fast he can finish the 3 cone drill. On a side note I did look at his combine numbers and how they stack up historically; his vert, 3 cone and short shuttle are among the best since 1999. It doesn't mean he can play football but they are very impressive numbers, particularly for a guy his size.

You can say that you believe if Lynch went down Michael would take the primary role but that is pure speculation. I think Pete Carroll is a great football coach and if he thought Michael could help him win right now the guy would be getting snaps. Carroll has a long history of giving every player, regardless of paycheck/status/draft position etc an opportunity to become the starter or play meaningful snaps.

I am not sure why Michael is not getting the opportunities yet, I doubt it is because of a lack of physical talent and it certainly isn't because Carroll is saving him in case Lynch gets hurt. It is most likely a situation similar to David Wilson where he simply could not be trusted to pass protect and hold onto the football (you like his numbers well another number he has is an 11 on the Wonderlic). Either way if Michael was game ready and better than what is available then I guarantee you Carroll would have him in the lineup in some capacity.

What his future holds is uncertain but promising but today he offers very little and, barring injury of course, it doesn't look like he offers much for next season either. After that it's anyone's guess.

Still my overarching point is that you shouldn't hold onto him if you have an opportunity to land a guy like Lacy, Bell or Bernard and possibly Stacy. And without question you give him up for Adrian Peterson.

the fact Carroll isnt getting him on the field in some way speaks volumes, maybe hes really dumb and doesnt get the playbook? Or maybe he isnt practicing well and doesnt want him to make a collosal blunder in a game and get his QB killed.

 

[EBF]

Their argument is basically just "he isn't playing so he's probably not that good."

Where are you getting that from?

And, btw that he isn't playing is a simple fact which makes him unstartable in fantasy regardless of how high his vertical is or how fast he can finish the 3 cone drill. On a side note I did look at his combine numbers and how they stack up historically; his vert, 3 cone and short shuttle are among the best since 1999. It doesn't mean he can play football but they are very impressive numbers, particularly for a guy his size.

You can say that you believe if Lynch went down Michael would take the primary role but that is pure speculation. I think Pete Carroll is a great football coach and if he thought Michael could help him win right now the guy would be getting snaps. Carroll has a long history of giving every player, regardless of paycheck/status/draft position etc an opportunity to become the starter or play meaningful snaps.

I am not sure why Michael is not getting the opportunities yet, I doubt it is because of a lack of physical talent and it certainly isn't because Carroll is saving him in case Lynch gets hurt. It is most likely a situation similar to David Wilson where he simply could not be trusted to pass protect and hold onto the football (you like his numbers well another number he has is an 11 on the Wonderlic). Either way if Michael was game ready and better than what is available then I guarantee you Carroll would have him in the lineup in some capacity.

What his future holds is uncertain but promising but today he offers very little and, barring injury of course, it doesn't look like he offers much for next season either. After that it's anyone's guess.

Still my overarching point is that you shouldn't hold onto him if you have an opportunity to land a guy like Lacy, Bell or Bernard and possibly Stacy. And without question you give him up for Adrian Peterson.

I don't think we're really gonna come to an agreement here. I think the reason why he isn't playing much is very simple. Marshawn Lynch is a great back and you don't play a rookie ahead of a great back in his prime (hence why I dragged out the Charles, Alexander, McAllister, Ahman examples). I don't think there was ever any real chance, short of looking like god in cleats, that Michael was going to have a prominent role as a ball carrier this year.

Gauging Michael's value is more about assessing his future than describing his current situation, which is I think where you're erring. Too much emphasis on the here and now. Too timid in your projections of what he might be 1-2 years down the line. With that mindset I can understand why you'd prefer Peterson, but in my view that's an example of overrating past production and underrating future production. AP is mostly a spent force whereas Michael's best years are ahead of him.

These debates pop up every year and it is always the same folks arguing the "proven production" side and the same folks touting the value of youth and potential. The type of owners who need to wait to see a player succeed before they can feel comfortable putting a high value on him are also the kind of guys who are going to miss out on McCoy/Charles/Rice etc because they're not willing to go out on a limb for a player during the period of time in which is value is still grounded. The plus side of that is that they're also going to "miss out" on the likes of Beanie Wells, Kevan Barlow, and Felix Jones. It's a case-by-case thing where sometimes the scared money ends up being wise and sometimes the gamblers win the jackpot.

In this particular case, I feel like there are enough solid positive signs with Michael to feel pretty good about paying his current generic market value. Pretty much the same thing I've been saying since August-September.

 

[jurb26]

Once again I feel I should restate that I am not saying Michael is not an excellent physical prospect or that he won't become a top notch RB. His measurables are impressive, no doubt, I just find some of the statements in his favor to not be grounded in reality.

That's not what I am saying. Not even close.

Where are you getting that from?

It doesn't matter how many times/ways you say it, if/when Michael amounts to anything you will forever be labeled a "hater". Really bizarre, but it happens quite a bit.

Probably true. I will as well I suspect and I ranked him as my 3rd RB among rookies 5 months ago. It seems some people in here are willing to be objective and willing to reevaluate the situation and others simply aren't.

 

[EBF]

Once again I feel I should restate that I am not saying Michael is not an excellent physical prospect or that he won't become a top notch RB. His measurables are impressive, no doubt, I just find some of the statements in his favor to not be grounded in reality.

That's not what I am saying. Not even close.

Where are you getting that from?

It doesn't matter how many times/ways you say it, if/when Michael amounts to anything you will forever be labeled a "hater". Really bizarre, but it happens quite a bit.

Probably true. I will as well I suspect and I ranked him as my 3rd RB among rookies 5 months ago. It seems some people in here are willing to be objective and willing to reevaluate the situation and others simply aren't.

Consider an alternative possibility: That you're just incorrectly assessing the situation.

That's why I mentioned the Patterson example. Since you're a big Patterson fan, you would be touting him regardless of how his rookie year had gone. Even if he'd been stuck behind Jennings and Simpson all year, that wouldn't have slowed you down at all. Why? Because you think he's a good player and you think that his talent will eventually prevail. You know that there might be some bumps in the road, but in the end you like his chances of panning out.

I could tell you that most 1st round picks don't pan out and that most receivers who fail to crack the 500 yard barrier as rookies do not eventually become 1000+ yard receivers in the NFL, but you would dismiss all of that because you like Patterson and you believe he will be successful regardless of the odds.

Swap the name Patterson with the name Michael and it's basically the same argument. Yet because you don't have the same attachment to Michael that you do to Patterson, you come on here and criticize the same type of thought processes that you yourself practice as "biased" "denial" "cherry picking" or whatever. That is what makes you a giant hypocrite.

Here's a newsflash: Believing that a relatively untested player is going to pan out doesn't mean you are biased or that you lack objectivity. All it means is that you look at the variables and determine that you think the player is a good bet for success. It's not that controversial and not worthy of criticism. I made a couple straight up offers of Larry Fitz for Patterson in different dynasty leagues during the middle of the season. Both owners rejected them out of hand. Apparently they think Patterson is going to be a very good player in this league. That's their right. I'm not going to try to label it as bias or denial just because I might think it's overly optimistic. They might be completely right.

 

[EastonBlues22]

Once again I feel I should restate that I am not saying Michael is not an excellent physical prospect or that he won't become a top notch RB. His measurables are impressive, no doubt, I just find some of the statements in his favor to not be grounded in reality.

That's not what I am saying. Not even close.

Where are you getting that from?

It doesn't matter how many times/ways you say it, if/when Michael amounts to anything you will forever be labeled a "hater". Really bizarre, but it happens quite a bit.

Probably true. I will as well I suspect and I ranked him as my 3rd RB among rookies 5 months ago. It seems some people in here are willing to be objective and willing to reevaluate the situation and others simply aren't.

I had him third behind Bernard and Lacy as well.

What's there really to re-evaluate, though? Everyone knew that he wouldn't get much, if any, playing time this year once he was drafted into this situation. If you liked him post-draft/pre-season, then there's really no reason why you shouldn't like him just as much now.

It seems like status quo to me.

 

[squistion]

Their argument is basically just "he isn't playing so he's probably not that good."

I am not sure why Michael is not getting the opportunities yet, I doubt it is because of a lack of physical talent and it certainly isn't because Carroll is saving him in case Lynch gets hurt. It is most likely a situation similar to David Wilson where he simply could not be trusted to pass protect and hold onto the football (you like his numbers well another number he has is an 11 on the Wonderlic). Either way if Michael was game ready and better than what is available then I guarantee you Carroll would have him in the lineup in some capacity.

 

[jurb26]

Once again I feel I should restate that I am not saying Michael is not an excellent physical prospect or that he won't become a top notch RB. His measurables are impressive, no doubt, I just find some of the statements in his favor to not be grounded in reality.

That's not what I am saying. Not even close.

Where are you getting that from?

It doesn't matter how many times/ways you say it, if/when Michael amounts to anything you will forever be labeled a "hater". Really bizarre, but it happens quite a bit.

Probably true. I will as well I suspect and I ranked him as my 3rd RB among rookies 5 months ago. It seems some people in here are willing to be objective and willing to reevaluate the situation and others simply aren't.

I had him third behind Bernard and Lacy as well.What's there really to re-evaluate, though? Everyone knew that he wouldn't get much, if any, playing time this year once he was drafted into this situation. If you liked him post-draft/pre-season, then there's really no reason why you shouldn't like him just as much now.

It seems like status quo to me.

The thing that's been said a thousand times here already. That he is still stuck at 3rd on the depth chart. Now, many have speculated that if Lynch goes down suddenly this will change. I'm not sure about that. I don't think coaches deliberately keep better players lower on the depth chart. If you want to hold that opinion, fine. But don't try and portray it as fact. The fact is he is still 3rd. On top of that, several other players have proven better than I thought. Lacy was my number one guy but after that it was pretty cloudy. Bernard has shown worthy of elevation. If not in status in ranking at least widening his gap. Stacy has shown to be a starting caliber RB and put up 1k on a bad team with an incomplete season. Bell is a guy I had low, not knowing if he had the explosiveness to be a featured RB. He has eased all those fears. Ball was a guy I thought would be a career backup but even he has shown flashes. The bottom line is several other RBs in this class have performed above expectations and Michael has done nothing. Not even move up from 3rd on the depth chart in Sea. Yes, that is going to cause me to reevaluate my original position.

 

[jurb26]

Once again I feel I should restate that I am not saying Michael is not an excellent physical prospect or that he won't become a top notch RB. His measurables are impressive, no doubt, I just find some of the statements in his favor to not be grounded in reality.

That's not what I am saying. Not even close.

Where are you getting that from?

It doesn't matter how many times/ways you say it, if/when Michael amounts to anything you will forever be labeled a "hater". Really bizarre, but it happens quite a bit.

Probably true. I will as well I suspect and I ranked him as my 3rd RB among rookies 5 months ago. It seems some people in here are willing to be objective and willing to reevaluate the situation and others simply aren't.

Consider an alternative possibility: That you're just incorrectly assessing the situation.

That's why I mentioned the Patterson example. Since you're a big Patterson fan, you would be touting him regardless of how his rookie year had gone. Even if he'd been stuck behind Jennings and Simpson all year, that wouldn't have slowed you down at all. Why? Because you think he's a good player and you think that his talent will eventually prevail. You know that there might be some bumps in the road, but in the end you like his chances of panning out.

I could tell you that most 1st round picks don't pan out and that most receivers who fail to crack the 500 yard barrier as rookies do not eventually become 1000+ yard receivers in the NFL, but you would dismiss all of that because you like Patterson and you believe he will be successful regardless of the odds.

Swap the name Patterson with the name Michael and it's basically the same argument. Yet because you don't have the same attachment to Michael that you do to Patterson, you come on here and criticize the same type of thought processes that you yourself practice as "biased" "denial" "cherry picking" or whatever. That is what makes you a giant hypocrite.

Here's a newsflash: Believing that a relatively untested player is going to pan out doesn't mean you are biased or that you lack objectivity. All it means is that you look at the variables and determine that you think the player is a good bet for success. It's not that controversial and not worthy of criticism. I made a couple straight up offers of Larry Fitz for Patterson in different dynasty leagues during the middle of the season. Both owners rejected them out of hand. Apparently they think Patterson is going to be a very good player in this league. That's their right. I'm not going to try to label it as bias or denial just because I might think it's overly optimistic. They might be completely right.

This post is ridiculous. Patterson and Michael have nothing in common. You seem intent on proving some point about me being stubborn and unwilling to change my point of view. Yet that is the entire point of my bringing concerns up with Michael. I thought he was a future RB1 in the NFL and knew going in he wouldn't see PT right away behind Lynch. I did however expect him to supplant Turbin on the depth chart and he hasn't. Therefore I'm reevaluating. At the start of the season I thought Patterson was the best WR in this class but raw and needing work. I expected him to struggle behind solid vets in Minn. I had him as the number 1 rookie WR but also had him very closely lumped with Allen, Woods and Austin. Based on what he's done this year I've widen that gap for him and Allen and pushed Woods and Austin down. Patterson, unlike Michael, accented up his depth chart and exhibited skills worthy of upgrading. If Patterson hadn't displayed the skills he has this season I would gladly move Allen into that top spot without hesitation. I would not give up on Patterson and still believe in his ability but clearly Allen would have done something worth elevating him for. You keep going to this Patterson straw man and it means nothing. It is funny that you are now trying to tell me how I evaluate players, though.

 

[biju]

Chaka and Squistion with some in here.

Really? There's only EBF giving his opinion backed by what looks to be solid research. Everyone else is simply saying "but he can't be good--he hasn't played yet."

That's not what I am saying. Not even close.

Let me ask a simple question: if Lacy and Michael had everything 2013 switched (teams, opportunity, numbers) does that change your opinion on who is the better RB?

 

[jurb26]

Chaka and Squistion with some in here.

Really? There's only EBF giving his opinion backed by what looks to be solid research. Everyone else is simply saying "but he can't be good--he hasn't played yet."

That's not what I am saying. Not even close.

Let me ask a simple question: if Lacy and Michael had everything 2013 switched (teams, opportunity, numbers) does that change your opinion on who is the better RB?

Why even ask a silly question like this? It's pointless. We have no idea how Michael performs in GB and how Lacy performs in Sea.

 

[biju]

Chaka and Squistion with some in here.

Really? There's only EBF giving his opinion backed by what looks to be solid research. Everyone else is simply saying "but he can't be good--he hasn't played yet."

That's not what I am saying. Not even close.

Let me ask a simple question: if Lacy and Michael had everything 2013 switched (teams, opportunity, numbers) does that change your opinion on who is the better RB?

Why even ask a silly question like this? It's pointless. We have no idea how Michael performs in GB and how Lacy performs in Sea.

I specifically said everything flips--I guess I should have been more specific and said "stats".

 

[jurb26]

Chaka and Squistion with some in here.

Really? There's only EBF giving his opinion backed by what looks to be solid research. Everyone else is simply saying "but he can't be good--he hasn't played yet."

That's not what I am saying. Not even close.

Let me ask a simple question: if Lacy and Michael had everything 2013 switched (teams, opportunity, numbers) does that change your opinion on who is the better RB?

Why even ask a silly question like this? It's pointless. We have no idea how Michael performs in GB and how Lacy performs in Sea.

I specifically said everything flips--I guess I should have been more specific and said "stats".

In this fictional world, yes I'd gladly move Michael into the number 1 spot among rookie RBs. I don't think anybody on the Lacy side would even argue with you.

 

[EastonBlues22]

Once again I feel I should restate that I am not saying Michael is not an excellent physical prospect or that he won't become a top notch RB. His measurables are impressive, no doubt, I just find some of the statements in his favor to not be grounded in reality.

That's not what I am saying. Not even close.

Where are you getting that from?

It doesn't matter how many times/ways you say it, if/when Michael amounts to anything you will forever be labeled a "hater". Really bizarre, but it happens quite a bit.

Probably true. I will as well I suspect and I ranked him as my 3rd RB among rookies 5 months ago. It seems some people in here are willing to be objective and willing to reevaluate the situation and others simply aren't.

I had him third behind Bernard and Lacy as well.What's there really to re-evaluate, though? Everyone knew that he wouldn't get much, if any, playing time this year once he was drafted into this situation. If you liked him post-draft/pre-season, then there's really no reason why you shouldn't like him just as much now.

It seems like status quo to me.

The thing that's been said a thousand times here already. That he is still stuck at 3rd on the depth chart. Now, many have speculated that if Lynch goes down suddenly this will change. I'm not sure about that. I don't think coaches deliberately keep better players lower on the depth chart. If you want to hold that opinion, fine. But don't try and portray it as fact. The fact is he is still 3rd. On top of that, several other players have proven better than I thought. Lacy was my number one guy but after that it was pretty cloudy. Bernard has shown worthy of elevation. If not in status in ranking at least widening his gap. Stacy has shown to be a starting caliber RB and put up 1k on a bad team with an incomplete season. Bell is a guy I had low, not knowing if he had the explosiveness to be a featured RB. He has eased all those fears. Ball was a guy I thought would be a career backup but even he has shown flashes. The bottom line is several other RBs in this class have performed above expectations and Michael has done nothing. Not even move up from 3rd on the depth chart in Sea. Yes, that is going to cause me to reevaluate my original position.

Turbin assumed a COP role in the passing game last year and looked pretty decent doing it. He's done well in the same role this year. PFF has him as their 16th rated back (minimum 25% snaps) in pass blocking.

It's not unusual for 1st year running backs to struggle in that area. In fact, it's probably the most common flaw that rookie backs have. Since Michael wasn't particularly noted for his passing work in college, I wouldn't think that most people would expect him to master it during his first season in the NFL.

If Michael profiled as a COP back, then failing to beat out Turbin for those snaps would be a concern. As it is, I fail to see how it's a black mark against him. Since Michael likely isn't beating out Turbin for the COP role anytime soon, and SEA isn't making it a habit of dressing 3 RBs on Sunday, he's probably going to remain 3rd on the depth chart until Lynch isn't playing. That was my expectation coming into this season, but it appears that wasn't a universal expectation.

For me, nothing changes until Lynch doesn't play. The fact that Turbin has carved out a solid niche as a COP back doesn't make him a great candidate for 20 handoffs a game. There are many people who don't see anything particularly dynamic in Turbin's running. I think he's a replacement level runner...capable, but not dynamic or special in any way. I think Michael is clearly superior in that regard, and it's not much of a leap to believe that he'll get early down carries ahead of Turbin when the time comes as long as he keeps his nose clean in the meantime (with Turbin likely retaining the COP role).

If Michael eventually flashes enough ability in the passing game to earn significant 3rd down work, then all the better. That's something he'll have to prove on the field, though, which means he's not going to get much of a shot at it until Lynch is out of the picture.

What other backs have done or not done in the meantime might affect someone's relative ranking of Michael in that group, but I don't see why it should affect one's evaluation of Michael's talent or potential.

 

[jurb26]

EastonBlues22, I have no idea why the performance of other backs is nowhere in you're thought process. Why are you putting blinders onto the fact that other RBs have performed above expectations this year?

Just saw you're edit. It's pretty simple. If other RBs exceeded you're expectations and Michael did nothing to change you're view then other RBs could have surpassed him.

 

[EastonBlues22]

EastonBlues22, I have no idea why the performance of other backs is nowhere in you're thought process. Why are you putting blinders onto the fact that other RBs have performed above expectations this year?

Just saw you're edit. It's pretty simple. If other RBs exceeded you're expectations and Michael did nothing to change you're view then other RBs could have surpassed him.

Sure, relative rankings are very fluid things. They will change multiple times between now and the beginning of next season. In a redraft format that matters more, but I don't think anyone here would argue that Michael should be chosen ahead of Bernard, Lacy, Bell, Stacy, or even guys like Ellington next year in a redraft.

In a dynasty setting, relative rankings matter much less for me than how players are valued relative to what I believe their potential to be. I don't see much point in paying RB1 prices to acquire a RB1 unless I need one to fill out my roster. I'm interested in investing in players that I believe are undervalued relative to what I think they have a good chance of being worth down the road, and I want to sell guys that I'm not high on but that are highly regarded by others.

That means I'm looking to buy guys like Michael from owners who only see his risk or who don't have the patience for his speculative reward, and looking to sell him to owners who will give me a RB1 price for him. If I have a lineup need, I might trade him for middling RB2 like Alfred Morris (my format is PPR with big play bonuses and KR yardage)...but if I don't, then I would probably rather have Michael and his upside on my bench then a guy who's producing now with a relatively capped talent ceiling.

So for me, the real interest isn't how Michael ranks relative to his peers...it's what do I see as his potential relative to how he's commonly seen by others. Judging by the discussion in here, I'm a buyer relative to most because I think he's undervalued by many. I'm happy to share my reasons for that with others to contribute to the conversation, but I don't feel a need to convince anyone that they are "wrong" about Michael's value.

 

[EBF]

This post is ridiculous. Patterson and Michael have nothing in common. You seem intent on proving some point about me being stubborn and unwilling to change my point of view. Yet that is the entire point of my bringing concerns up with Michael. I thought he was a future RB1 in the NFL and knew going in he wouldn't see PT right away behind Lynch. I did however expect him to supplant Turbin on the depth chart and he hasn't. Therefore I'm reevaluating.At the start of the season I thought Patterson was the best WR in this class but raw and needing work. I expected him to struggle behind solid vets in Minn. I had him as the number 1 rookie WR but also had him very closely lumped with Allen, Woods and Austin. Based on what he's done this year I've widen that gap for him and Allen and pushed Woods and Austin down. Patterson, unlike Michael, accented up his depth chart and exhibited skills worthy of upgrading. If Patterson hadn't displayed the skills he has this season I would gladly move Allen into that top spot without hesitation. I would not give up on Patterson and still believe in his ability but clearly Allen would have done something worth elevating him for. You keep going to this Patterson straw man and it means nothing. It is funny that you are now trying to tell me how I evaluate players, though.

The Turbin thing has been brought up and refuted again and again. You either find it compelling or you don't. What I said earlier is that I think anyone latching onto the "third string" reasoning is misunderstanding the situation. Whereas you seem to view Turbin playing COOP duties as evidence that Michael is failing to make an impact, I view it as more of a tangent with minimal long term predictive ability. You don't seem to understand the idea that you might be wrong here, not me. And if that's the case, no "reevaluation" is necessary. It comes down to two people looking at the same data points and drawing different conclusions.

You'd still be pimping Patterson even if he'd been glued to the bench as a WR all year. You would've justified it by saying something like "Well he's raw and he needs time to learn, but once he has experience he will clearly outperform Jennings and Simpson." Like most people, you have your favorites in the draft class and you interpret data points in a favorable light when it comes to those players. Calling someone out for the same "crime" just shows poor self-awareness and makes you look like a hypocrite. Maybe step back and consider the possibility that Turbin playing ahead of Michael as a third down back will have the same predictive value as Kolby Smith playing ahead of Jamaal Charles. Just because you happen to perceive it as something that warrants "reevaluation" doesn't mean you're right. You don't seem to understand that, which ironically shows all of the bias and favoritism that you would accuse me of.

 

[Chaka]

Chaka and Squistion with some in here.

Really? There's only EBF giving his opinion backed by what looks to be solid research. Everyone else is simply saying "but he can't be good--he hasn't played yet."

That's not what I am saying. Not even close.

Let me ask a simple question: if Lacy and Michael had everything 2013 switched (teams, opportunity, numbers) does that change your opinion on who is the better RB?

I don't think I have ever said who I think is a better RB. In fact I have made the point several times that if GB drafted Michael and Seattle Lacy then we would be having the opposite conversation. I have also made the point to EBF, one that he seems to dismiss, that opportunity is perhaps the biggest factor in the success of a fantasy player. The problem for Michael is that he earned zero opportunities this season and, barring injury, the landscape in Seattle doesn't look like it will be any different next season. That would make two years invested in Michael with zero returns and no guarantees that he will get his opportunity in 2015.

Lacy OTOH (and Bernard and Bell and Stacy) have all warranted opportunities as rookies and look like they will continue to get opportunities next year and beyond. So not only will Michael have to play but he will have to be significantly better than all those guys (like top 3 fantasy back for multiple years) in 2015 and beyond to warrant holding onto him over those other guys who have been helping fantasy teams win games since day 1.

 

[Chaka]

Their argument is basically just "he isn't playing so he's probably not that good."

Where are you getting that from?

And, btw that he isn't playing is a simple fact which makes him unstartable in fantasy regardless of how high his vertical is or how fast he can finish the 3 cone drill. On a side note I did look at his combine numbers and how they stack up historically; his vert, 3 cone and short shuttle are among the best since 1999. It doesn't mean he can play football but they are very impressive numbers, particularly for a guy his size.

You can say that you believe if Lynch went down Michael would take the primary role but that is pure speculation. I think Pete Carroll is a great football coach and if he thought Michael could help him win right now the guy would be getting snaps. Carroll has a long history of giving every player, regardless of paycheck/status/draft position etc an opportunity to become the starter or play meaningful snaps.

I am not sure why Michael is not getting the opportunities yet, I doubt it is because of a lack of physical talent and it certainly isn't because Carroll is saving him in case Lynch gets hurt. It is most likely a situation similar to David Wilson where he simply could not be trusted to pass protect and hold onto the football (you like his numbers well another number he has is an 11 on the Wonderlic). Either way if Michael was game ready and better than what is available then I guarantee you Carroll would have him in the lineup in some capacity.

What his future holds is uncertain but promising but today he offers very little and, barring injury of course, it doesn't look like he offers much for next season either. After that it's anyone's guess.

Still my overarching point is that you shouldn't hold onto him if you have an opportunity to land a guy like Lacy, Bell or Bernard and possibly Stacy. And without question you give him up for Adrian Peterson.

I don't think we're really gonna come to an agreement here. I think the reason why he isn't playing much is very simple. Marshawn Lynch is a great back and you don't play a rookie ahead of a great back in his prime (hence why I dragged out the Charles, Alexander, McAllister, Ahman examples). I don't think there was ever any real chance, short of looking like god in cleats, that Michael was going to have a prominent role as a ball carrier this year.

I agree that Lynch deserves the playing time but why isn't he getting time in front of Turbin? Again, if he were the best option then Pete Carroll would be getting him PT. There is something that is not quite ready about him, my guess is it's pass protection (not knowing his assignments or how to read blitzes or properly pick them up). This is not uncommon in young RBs but there is no guarantee it will improve either.

 

[biju]

Their argument is basically just "he isn't playing so he's probably not that good."

Where are you getting that from?

And, btw that he isn't playing is a simple fact which makes him unstartable in fantasy regardless of how high his vertical is or how fast he can finish the 3 cone drill. On a side note I did look at his combine numbers and how they stack up historically; his vert, 3 cone and short shuttle are among the best since 1999. It doesn't mean he can play football but they are very impressive numbers, particularly for a guy his size.

You can say that you believe if Lynch went down Michael would take the primary role but that is pure speculation. I think Pete Carroll is a great football coach and if he thought Michael could help him win right now the guy would be getting snaps. Carroll has a long history of giving every player, regardless of paycheck/status/draft position etc an opportunity to become the starter or play meaningful snaps.

I am not sure why Michael is not getting the opportunities yet, I doubt it is because of a lack of physical talent and it certainly isn't because Carroll is saving him in case Lynch gets hurt. It is most likely a situation similar to David Wilson where he simply could not be trusted to pass protect and hold onto the football (you like his numbers well another number he has is an 11 on the Wonderlic). Either way if Michael was game ready and better than what is available then I guarantee you Carroll would have him in the lineup in some capacity.

What his future holds is uncertain but promising but today he offers very little and, barring injury of course, it doesn't look like he offers much for next season either. After that it's anyone's guess.

Still my overarching point is that you shouldn't hold onto him if you have an opportunity to land a guy like Lacy, Bell or Bernard and possibly Stacy. And without question you give him up for Adrian Peterson.

I don't think we're really gonna come to an agreement here. I think the reason why he isn't playing much is very simple. Marshawn Lynch is a great back and you don't play a rookie ahead of a great back in his prime (hence why I dragged out the Charles, Alexander, McAllister, Ahman examples). I don't think there was ever any real chance, short of looking like god in cleats, that Michael was going to have a prominent role as a ball carrier this year.

I agree that Lynch deserves the playing time but why isn't he getting time in front of Turbin? Again, if he were the best option then Pete Carroll would be getting him PT. There is something that is not quite ready about him, my guess is it's pass protection (not knowing his assignments or how to read blitzes or properly pick them up). This is not uncommon in young RBs but there is no guarantee it will improve either.

The bolded is the part I think the "for" and "against" have a distinct difference of opinion on. You (and other) believe if Michael is the better player he should be getting snaps ahead of Turbin. In a way I agree, but for a different reason.

There are three functions today with RBs and Seattle's gameplan.

- a workhorse back that does the heavy lifting on 1st and 2nd down

- a goal line or short yardage back

- 3rd down pass play back, specializing in pass protection and the occasional pass out of the backfield

Marshawn does the first two for about 95% of the plays. Turbin does most of the 3rd down work. It has been documented Michael doesn't excel in pass protection. Turbin has 77 carries on the season, which averages to ~4.8 carries a game. The team is down their KO returner (Harvin) in addition to another starting WR (Rice). How can you possibly have a third RB active in this situation just on the off-chance the game is a blow-out and he can get carries?

I don't have the answers here, but this idea that Turbin is in the role he'll eventually fill seems poorly constructed. If I'm right, these two players aren't vying for the same role and Turbin doing the part that Turbin will do has no reflection on Michael's ability. The only thing I see is that the coaching staff doesn't think he's as good as Marshawn Lynch, which I completely agree with.

If you're concerned about Turbin and his 3rd down role, why are we not questioning why Lynch doesn't get those formations and touches?

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Their argument is basically just "he isn't playing so he's probably not that good."

Where are you getting that from?And, btw that he isn't playing is a simple fact which makes him unstartable in fantasy regardless of how high his vertical is or how fast he can finish the 3 cone drill. On a side note I did look at his combine numbers and how they stack up historically; his vert, 3 cone and short shuttle are among the best since 1999. It doesn't mean he can play football but they are very impressive numbers, particularly for a guy his size.

You can say that you believe if Lynch went down Michael would take the primary role but that is pure speculation. I think Pete Carroll is a great football coach and if he thought Michael could help him win right now the guy would be getting snaps. Carroll has a long history of giving every player, regardless of paycheck/status/draft position etc an opportunity to become the starter or play meaningful snaps.

I am not sure why Michael is not getting the opportunities yet, I doubt it is because of a lack of physical talent and it certainly isn't because Carroll is saving him in case Lynch gets hurt. It is most likely a situation similar to David Wilson where he simply could not be trusted to pass protect and hold onto the football (you like his numbers well another number he has is an 11 on the Wonderlic). Either way if Michael was game ready and better than what is available then I guarantee you Carroll would have him in the lineup in some capacity.

What his future holds is uncertain but promising but today he offers very little and, barring injury of course, it doesn't look like he offers much for next season either. After that it's anyone's guess.

Still my overarching point is that you shouldn't hold onto him if you have an opportunity to land a guy like Lacy, Bell or Bernard and possibly Stacy. And without question you give him up for Adrian Peterson.

I don't think we're really gonna come to an agreement here. I think the reason why he isn't playing much is very simple. Marshawn Lynch is a great back and you don't play a rookie ahead of a great back in his prime (hence why I dragged out the Charles, Alexander, McAllister, Ahman examples). I don't think there was ever any real chance, short of looking like god in cleats, that Michael was going to have a prominent role as a ball carrier this year.

I agree that Lynch deserves the playing time but why isn't he getting time in front of Turbin? Again, if he were the best option then Pete Carroll would be getting him PT. There is something that is not quite ready about him, my guess is it's pass protection (not knowing his assignments or how to read blitzes or properly pick them up). This is not uncommon in young RBs but there is no guarantee it will improve either.

This has been addressed repeatedly in the thread. How many times do you need to have it explained to you?

 

[jurb26]

This post is ridiculous. Patterson and Michael have nothing in common. You seem intent on proving some point about me being stubborn and unwilling to change my point of view. Yet that is the entire point of my bringing concerns up with Michael. I thought he was a future RB1 in the NFL and knew going in he wouldn't see PT right away behind Lynch. I did however expect him to supplant Turbin on the depth chart and he hasn't. Therefore I'm reevaluating.

At the start of the season I thought Patterson was the best WR in this class but raw and needing work. I expected him to struggle behind solid vets in Minn. I had him as the number 1 rookie WR but also had him very closely lumped with Allen, Woods and Austin. Based on what he's done this year I've widen that gap for him and Allen and pushed Woods and Austin down. Patterson, unlike Michael, accented up his depth chart and exhibited skills worthy of upgrading. If Patterson hadn't displayed the skills he has this season I would gladly move Allen into that top spot without hesitation. I would not give up on Patterson and still believe in his ability but clearly Allen would have done something worth elevating him for. You keep going to this Patterson straw man and it means nothing. It is funny that you are now trying to tell me how I evaluate players, though.

The Turbin thing has been brought up and refuted again and again. You either find it compelling or you don't. What I said earlier is that I think anyone latching onto the "third string" reasoning is misunderstanding the situation. Whereas you seem to view Turbin playing COOP duties as evidence that Michael is failing to make an impact, I view it as more of a tangent with minimal long term predictive ability. You don't seem to understand the idea that you might be wrong here, not me. And if that's the case, no "reevaluation" is necessary. It comes down to two people looking at the same data points and drawing different conclusions.

You'd still be pimping Patterson even if he'd been glued to the bench as a WR all year. You would've justified it by saying something like "Well he's raw and he needs time to learn, but once he has experience he will clearly outperform Jennings and Simpson." Like most people, you have your favorites in the draft class and you interpret data points in a favorable light when it comes to those players. Calling someone out for the same "crime" just shows poor self-awareness and makes you look like a hypocrite. Maybe step back and consider the possibility that Turbin playing ahead of Michael as a third down back will have the same predictive value as Kolby Smith playing ahead of Jamaal Charles. Just because you happen to perceive it as something that warrants "reevaluation" doesn't mean you're right. You don't seem to understand that, which ironically shows all of the bias and favoritism that you would accuse me of.

How do you even come up with this stuff, seriously? I'm a hypocrite earlier because I don't change my view regardless and have my fanboys. Now I'm a hypocrite because I do change my opinion and am willing to reevaluate. You say Turbin has been refuted again and again but there is nothing but speculation on your part as to what will happen if Lynch goes down. Your speculation is hardly irrefutable proof. I think Michael is the better RB than Turbin but that means nothing. What the Sea coaches think is all that matters right now. You say Turbin is nothing more than a COOP RB. Ok fine. Then why can't you're ubber talented Michael beat out a 2nd string COOP RB? You say I'm wrong about Turbin. What exactly am I wrong about? The only thing I've said thus far is that he is ahead of Michael on the depth chart. That is a fact. You are the one making things up about my view of him. You're right in that we are looking at the same data points and coming to a different conclusion. I'm looking at it and acknowledging that maybe my original position on Michael is worth reevaluation. You blindly plow forward. I haven't come up with my verdict on that evaluation yet. I'm in the process of going through. Somehow though you are able to tell me I'm already wrong when I haven't even come to a conclusion. That is ripe stuff.

On top of all the other things you are making up about my view on Michael, you are pretending to know what I would think about Patterson in some fictional world where he didn't do squat this year.

I hate to break it to you but I'm not concerned in the least what you think about my evaluating or reevaluating players and situations. You're ridiculous notion that I'm wrong to do so is pretty laughable to me quit frankly. I'll continue to look into Michael and any other player/situations I care too without losing a moments sleep that you don't approve of it.

 

[Chaka]

Their argument is basically just "he isn't playing so he's probably not that good."

Where are you getting that from?

And, btw that he isn't playing is a simple fact which makes him unstartable in fantasy regardless of how high his vertical is or how fast he can finish the 3 cone drill. On a side note I did look at his combine numbers and how they stack up historically; his vert, 3 cone and short shuttle are among the best since 1999. It doesn't mean he can play football but they are very impressive numbers, particularly for a guy his size.

You can say that you believe if Lynch went down Michael would take the primary role but that is pure speculation. I think Pete Carroll is a great football coach and if he thought Michael could help him win right now the guy would be getting snaps. Carroll has a long history of giving every player, regardless of paycheck/status/draft position etc an opportunity to become the starter or play meaningful snaps.

I am not sure why Michael is not getting the opportunities yet, I doubt it is because of a lack of physical talent and it certainly isn't because Carroll is saving him in case Lynch gets hurt. It is most likely a situation similar to David Wilson where he simply could not be trusted to pass protect and hold onto the football (you like his numbers well another number he has is an 11 on the Wonderlic). Either way if Michael was game ready and better than what is available then I guarantee you Carroll would have him in the lineup in some capacity.

What his future holds is uncertain but promising but today he offers very little and, barring injury of course, it doesn't look like he offers much for next season either. After that it's anyone's guess.

Still my overarching point is that you shouldn't hold onto him if you have an opportunity to land a guy like Lacy, Bell or Bernard and possibly Stacy. And without question you give him up for Adrian Peterson.

I don't think we're really gonna come to an agreement here. I think the reason why he isn't playing much is very simple. Marshawn Lynch is a great back and you don't play a rookie ahead of a great back in his prime (hence why I dragged out the Charles, Alexander, McAllister, Ahman examples). I don't think there was ever any real chance, short of looking like god in cleats, that Michael was going to have a prominent role as a ball carrier this year.

I agree that Lynch deserves the playing time but why isn't he getting time in front of Turbin? Again, if he were the best option then Pete Carroll would be getting him PT. There is something that is not quite ready about him, my guess is it's pass protection (not knowing his assignments or how to read blitzes or properly pick them up). This is not uncommon in young RBs but there is no guarantee it will improve either.

The bolded is the part I think the "for" and "against" have a distinct difference of opinion on. You (and other) believe if Michael is the better player he should be getting snaps ahead of Turbin. In a way I agree, but for a different reason.

There are three functions today with RBs and Seattle's gameplan.

- a workhorse back that does the heavy lifting on 1st and 2nd down

- a goal line or short yardage back

- 3rd down pass play back, specializing in pass protection and the occasional pass out of the backfield

Marshawn does the first two for about 95% of the plays. Turbin does most of the 3rd down work. It has been documented Michael doesn't excel in pass protection. Turbin has 77 carries on the season, which averages to ~4.8 carries a game. The team is down their KO returner (Harvin) in addition to another starting WR (Rice). How can you possibly have a third RB active in this situation just on the off-chance the game is a blow-out and he can get carries?

I don't have the answers here, but this idea that Turbin is in the role he'll eventually fill seems poorly constructed. If I'm right, these two players aren't vying for the same role and Turbin doing the part that Turbin will do has no reflection on Michael's ability. The only thing I see is that the coaching staff doesn't think he's as good as Marshawn Lynch, which I completely agree with.

If you're concerned about Turbin and his 3rd down role, why are we not questioning why Lynch doesn't get those formations and touches?

Are you certain about that theory?

Marshawn has 301 rushes and Turbin has 77 a ratio of 3.9:1.

Marshawn has 36 receptions and Turbin has 8 a ratio of 4.5:1

Marshawn has been the RB on 32 3rd down plays this season and Turbin has been the RB on 10 plays a ratio of 3.2:1

Looking at those 3rd down numbers a little closer to try and pull out obvious passing downs, Marshawn has been used on 3rd downs with 6 or more yards to go 13 times and Turbin has been used 3 times a ratio of 4.3:1

3rd down and 8 or greater 12 for Marshawn to 2 for Turbin a ratio of 6:1

It is possible that I am missing something, which I address below, but it doesn't seem like Marshawn is being pulled on 3rd down passing plays at a higher rate for Turbin than he is on any other plays. Doesn't that suggest that Turbin is simply used to spell Lynch and not as some passing down specialist?

It's true that I didn't break out the numbers for every single Seattle long distance play and find out which back was in the lineup for each of those plays, regardless of whether or not they touched the ball. Maybe I will do that at some point but for now I will leave that to someone else because the preliminary data suggests that we won't find a difference.

 

[MAC_32]

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.

I'm saying this based on what I have seen out of him on the field. He is what we have seen, nothing more.

 

[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.

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.

I think we'll have a better read on this come August, this is the year players usually make the biggest jump. Year one can be over whelming, michael wasn't used much in the passing game in college.

 

[biju]

Their argument is basically just "he isn't playing so he's probably not that good."

Where are you getting that from?

And, btw that he isn't playing is a simple fact which makes him unstartable in fantasy regardless of how high his vertical is or how fast he can finish the 3 cone drill. On a side note I did look at his combine numbers and how they stack up historically; his vert, 3 cone and short shuttle are among the best since 1999. It doesn't mean he can play football but they are very impressive numbers, particularly for a guy his size.

You can say that you believe if Lynch went down Michael would take the primary role but that is pure speculation. I think Pete Carroll is a great football coach and if he thought Michael could help him win right now the guy would be getting snaps. Carroll has a long history of giving every player, regardless of paycheck/status/draft position etc an opportunity to become the starter or play meaningful snaps.

I am not sure why Michael is not getting the opportunities yet, I doubt it is because of a lack of physical talent and it certainly isn't because Carroll is saving him in case Lynch gets hurt. It is most likely a situation similar to David Wilson where he simply could not be trusted to pass protect and hold onto the football (you like his numbers well another number he has is an 11 on the Wonderlic). Either way if Michael was game ready and better than what is available then I guarantee you Carroll would have him in the lineup in some capacity.

What his future holds is uncertain but promising but today he offers very little and, barring injury of course, it doesn't look like he offers much for next season either. After that it's anyone's guess.

Still my overarching point is that you shouldn't hold onto him if you have an opportunity to land a guy like Lacy, Bell or Bernard and possibly Stacy. And without question you give him up for Adrian Peterson.

I don't think we're really gonna come to an agreement here. I think the reason why he isn't playing much is very simple. Marshawn Lynch is a great back and you don't play a rookie ahead of a great back in his prime (hence why I dragged out the Charles, Alexander, McAllister, Ahman examples). I don't think there was ever any real chance, short of looking like god in cleats, that Michael was going to have a prominent role as a ball carrier this year.

I agree that Lynch deserves the playing time but why isn't he getting time in front of Turbin? Again, if he were the best option then Pete Carroll would be getting him PT. There is something that is not quite ready about him, my guess is it's pass protection (not knowing his assignments or how to read blitzes or properly pick them up). This is not uncommon in young RBs but there is no guarantee it will improve either.

The bolded is the part I think the "for" and "against" have a distinct difference of opinion on. You (and other) believe if Michael is the better player he should be getting snaps ahead of Turbin. In a way I agree, but for a different reason.

There are three functions today with RBs and Seattle's gameplan.

- a workhorse back that does the heavy lifting on 1st and 2nd down

- a goal line or short yardage back

- 3rd down pass play back, specializing in pass protection and the occasional pass out of the backfield

Marshawn does the first two for about 95% of the plays. Turbin does most of the 3rd down work. It has been documented Michael doesn't excel in pass protection. Turbin has 77 carries on the season, which averages to ~4.8 carries a game. The team is down their KO returner (Harvin) in addition to another starting WR (Rice). How can you possibly have a third RB active in this situation just on the off-chance the game is a blow-out and he can get carries?

I don't have the answers here, but this idea that Turbin is in the role he'll eventually fill seems poorly constructed. If I'm right, these two players aren't vying for the same role and Turbin doing the part that Turbin will do has no reflection on Michael's ability. The only thing I see is that the coaching staff doesn't think he's as good as Marshawn Lynch, which I completely agree with.

If you're concerned about Turbin and his 3rd down role, why are we not questioning why Lynch doesn't get those formations and touches?

Are you certain about that theory?

Marshawn has 301 rushes and Turbin has 77 a ratio of 3.9:1.

Marshawn has 36 receptions and Turbin has 8 a ratio of 4.5:1

Marshawn has been the RB on 32 3rd down plays this season and Turbin has been the RB on 10 plays a ratio of 3.2:1

Looking at those 3rd down numbers a little closer to try and pull out obvious passing downs, Marshawn has been used on 3rd downs with 6 or more yards to go 13 times and Turbin has been used 3 times a ratio of 4.3:1

3rd down and 8 or greater 12 for Marshawn to 2 for Turbin a ratio of 6:1

It is possible that I am missing something, which I address below, but it doesn't seem like Marshawn is being pulled on 3rd down passing plays at a higher rate for Turbin than he is on any other plays. Doesn't that suggest that Turbin is simply used to spell Lynch and not as some passing down specialist?

It's true that I didn't break out the numbers for every single Seattle long distance play and find out which back was in the lineup for each of those plays, regardless of whether or not they touched the ball. Maybe I will do that at some point but for now I will leave that to someone else because the preliminary data suggests that we won't find a difference.

In full disclosure, no I don't have this in actual numbers. I do however watch every game multiple times and eyeballing it I assumed it. I'll dig deeper and see if you're right.

 

[jurb26]

In full disclosure, no I don't have this in actual numbers. I do however watch every game multiple times and eyeballing it I assumed it. I'll dig deeper and see if you're right.

So this stuff that we've been told has been refuted over and over agin is basically just you and a couple of other peoples speculation and opinion?

 

[starks]

It's all speculation.

But we do know that Lynch's contract is coming to an end soon and it will play the biggest role in CM's future. What is everyone's best percentage guess that they don't pick up his contract after this year? I know it's dependent on health and play but it's going to be a nice chunk of change for a guy that has taken a pounding over the years. He would probably want a 3 or 4 year extension or contract with another team, would Seahawks go for that?

 

[biju]

In full disclosure, no I don't have this in actual numbers. I do however watch every game multiple times and eyeballing it I assumed it. I'll dig deeper and see if you're right.

So this stuff that we've been told has been refuted over and over agin is basically just you and a couple of other peoples speculation and opinion?

Based on watching all of the games. So far, all of your "stuff" is opinion and speculation too. Don't get high and mighty when you aren't bringing facts to the table.

EDIT: actually, you guys are bringing "facts" about playing time so I should be clear. There is no facts around how their use will be once Marshawn is gone. There isn't a way to prove it until it happens though.

 

[jurb26]

In full disclosure, no I don't have this in actual numbers. I do however watch every game multiple times and eyeballing it I assumed it. I'll dig deeper and see if you're right.

So this stuff that we've been told has been refuted over and over agin is basically just you and a couple of other peoples speculation and opinion?

Based on watching all of the games. So far, all of your "stuff" is opinion and speculation too. Don't get high and mighty when you aren't bringing facts to the table.

What stuff have I said that is speculation?

 

[biju]

In full disclosure, no I don't have this in actual numbers. I do however watch every game multiple times and eyeballing it I assumed it. I'll dig deeper and see if you're right.

So this stuff that we've been told has been refuted over and over agin is basically just you and a couple of other peoples speculation and opinion?

Based on watching all of the games. So far, all of your "stuff" is opinion and speculation too. Don't get high and mighty when you aren't bringing facts to the table.

What stuff have I said that is speculation?

I edited my response as it was way too harsh.

 

[Steed]

Their argument is basically just "he isn't playing so he's probably not that good."

Where are you getting that from?And, btw that he isn't playing is a simple fact which makes him unstartable in fantasy regardless of how high his vertical is or how fast he can finish the 3 cone drill. On a side note I did look at his combine numbers and how they stack up historically; his vert, 3 cone and short shuttle are among the best since 1999. It doesn't mean he can play football but they are very impressive numbers, particularly for a guy his size.

You can say that you believe if Lynch went down Michael would take the primary role but that is pure speculation. I think Pete Carroll is a great football coach and if he thought Michael could help him win right now the guy would be getting snaps. Carroll has a long history of giving every player, regardless of paycheck/status/draft position etc an opportunity to become the starter or play meaningful snaps.

I am not sure why Michael is not getting the opportunities yet, I doubt it is because of a lack of physical talent and it certainly isn't because Carroll is saving him in case Lynch gets hurt. It is most likely a situation similar to David Wilson where he simply could not be trusted to pass protect and hold onto the football (you like his numbers well another number he has is an 11 on the Wonderlic). Either way if Michael was game ready and better than what is available then I guarantee you Carroll would have him in the lineup in some capacity.

What his future holds is uncertain but promising but today he offers very little and, barring injury of course, it doesn't look like he offers much for next season either. After that it's anyone's guess.

Still my overarching point is that you shouldn't hold onto him if you have an opportunity to land a guy like Lacy, Bell or Bernard and possibly Stacy. And without question you give him up for Adrian Peterson.

I don't think we're really gonna come to an agreement here. I think the reason why he isn't playing much is very simple. Marshawn Lynch is a great back and you don't play a rookie ahead of a great back in his prime (hence why I dragged out the Charles, Alexander, McAllister, Ahman examples). I don't think there was ever any real chance, short of looking like god in cleats, that Michael was going to have a prominent role as a ball carrier this year.

I agree that Lynch deserves the playing time but why isn't he getting time in front of Turbin? Again, if he were the best option then Pete Carroll would be getting him PT. There is something that is not quite ready about him, my guess is it's pass protection (not knowing his assignments or how to read blitzes or properly pick them up). This is not uncommon in young RBs but there is no guarantee it will improve either.

The bolded is the part I think the "for" and "against" have a distinct difference of opinion on. You (and other) believe if Michael is the better player he should be getting snaps ahead of Turbin. In a way I agree, but for a different reason.

There are three functions today with RBs and Seattle's gameplan.

- a workhorse back that does the heavy lifting on 1st and 2nd down

- a goal line or short yardage back

- 3rd down pass play back, specializing in pass protection and the occasional pass out of the backfield

Marshawn does the first two for about 95% of the plays. Turbin does most of the 3rd down work. It has been documented Michael doesn't excel in pass protection. Turbin has 77 carries on the season, which averages to ~4.8 carries a game. The team is down their KO returner (Harvin) in addition to another starting WR (Rice). How can you possibly have a third RB active in this situation just on the off-chance the game is a blow-out and he can get carries?

I don't have the answers here, but this idea that Turbin is in the role he'll eventually fill seems poorly constructed. If I'm right, these two players aren't vying for the same role and Turbin doing the part that Turbin will do has no reflection on Michael's ability. The only thing I see is that the coaching staff doesn't think he's as good as Marshawn Lynch, which I completely agree with.

If you're concerned about Turbin and his 3rd down role, why are we not questioning why Lynch doesn't get those formations and touches?

Are you certain about that theory?Marshawn has 301 rushes and Turbin has 77 a ratio of 3.9:1.

Marshawn has 36 receptions and Turbin has 8 a ratio of 4.5:1

Marshawn has been the RB on 32 3rd down plays this season and Turbin has been the RB on 10 plays a ratio of 3.2:1

.

Am I missing something? Marshawn and Turbin combined for only 42 plays on 3rd down?

 

[Chaka]

Their argument is basically just "he isn't playing so he's probably not that good."

Where are you getting that from?And, btw that he isn't playing is a simple fact which makes him unstartable in fantasy regardless of how high his vertical is or how fast he can finish the 3 cone drill. On a side note I did look at his combine numbers and how they stack up historically; his vert, 3 cone and short shuttle are among the best since 1999. It doesn't mean he can play football but they are very impressive numbers, particularly for a guy his size.

You can say that you believe if Lynch went down Michael would take the primary role but that is pure speculation. I think Pete Carroll is a great football coach and if he thought Michael could help him win right now the guy would be getting snaps. Carroll has a long history of giving every player, regardless of paycheck/status/draft position etc an opportunity to become the starter or play meaningful snaps.

I am not sure why Michael is not getting the opportunities yet, I doubt it is because of a lack of physical talent and it certainly isn't because Carroll is saving him in case Lynch gets hurt. It is most likely a situation similar to David Wilson where he simply could not be trusted to pass protect and hold onto the football (you like his numbers well another number he has is an 11 on the Wonderlic). Either way if Michael was game ready and better than what is available then I guarantee you Carroll would have him in the lineup in some capacity.

What his future holds is uncertain but promising but today he offers very little and, barring injury of course, it doesn't look like he offers much for next season either. After that it's anyone's guess.

Still my overarching point is that you shouldn't hold onto him if you have an opportunity to land a guy like Lacy, Bell or Bernard and possibly Stacy. And without question you give him up for Adrian Peterson.

I don't think we're really gonna come to an agreement here. I think the reason why he isn't playing much is very simple. Marshawn Lynch is a great back and you don't play a rookie ahead of a great back in his prime (hence why I dragged out the Charles, Alexander, McAllister, Ahman examples). I don't think there was ever any real chance, short of looking like god in cleats, that Michael was going to have a prominent role as a ball carrier this year.

I agree that Lynch deserves the playing time but why isn't he getting time in front of Turbin? Again, if he were the best option then Pete Carroll would be getting him PT. There is something that is not quite ready about him, my guess is it's pass protection (not knowing his assignments or how to read blitzes or properly pick them up). This is not uncommon in young RBs but there is no guarantee it will improve either.

The bolded is the part I think the "for" and "against" have a distinct difference of opinion on. You (and other) believe if Michael is the better player he should be getting snaps ahead of Turbin. In a way I agree, but for a different reason.

There are three functions today with RBs and Seattle's gameplan.

- a workhorse back that does the heavy lifting on 1st and 2nd down

- a goal line or short yardage back

- 3rd down pass play back, specializing in pass protection and the occasional pass out of the backfield

Marshawn does the first two for about 95% of the plays. Turbin does most of the 3rd down work. It has been documented Michael doesn't excel in pass protection. Turbin has 77 carries on the season, which averages to ~4.8 carries a game. The team is down their KO returner (Harvin) in addition to another starting WR (Rice). How can you possibly have a third RB active in this situation just on the off-chance the game is a blow-out and he can get carries?

I don't have the answers here, but this idea that Turbin is in the role he'll eventually fill seems poorly constructed. If I'm right, these two players aren't vying for the same role and Turbin doing the part that Turbin will do has no reflection on Michael's ability. The only thing I see is that the coaching staff doesn't think he's as good as Marshawn Lynch, which I completely agree with.

If you're concerned about Turbin and his 3rd down role, why are we not questioning why Lynch doesn't get those formations and touches?

Are you certain about that theory?Marshawn has 301 rushes and Turbin has 77 a ratio of 3.9:1.

Marshawn has 36 receptions and Turbin has 8 a ratio of 4.5:1

Marshawn has been the RB on 32 3rd down plays this season and Turbin has been the RB on 10 plays a ratio of 3.2:1

.

Am I missing something? Marshawn and Turbin combined for only 42 plays on 3rd down?

42 touches not snaps.

 

[EastonBlues22]

Without digging through every game log to verify the numbers, my general feeling is that a disproportionate number of Turbin's carries come after Lynch has been pulled in non-competitive games (and that relatively few of his passing down touches would come in such situations). If that was true, he would be getting relatively more touches in the passing game than Lynch while things are still competitive. I'm not going to take the time to verify that, though.

As far as snap count data goes, PFF has them charted like this:

Lynch: 737 total -- 306 run (41.5%), 278 pass (37.7%), 62 run block (8.4%), 91 pass block (12.3%) for a total run/pass ratio of 368:369 or 1:1

Turbin: 237 total -- 79 run (33.3%), 98 pass (41.4%), 25 run block (10.5%), 35 pass block (14.8%) for a total run/pass ratio of 104:133 or 1:1.28

Even without factoring in a potential garbage time effect, SEA is about 28% more likely to be passing when Turbin is in the game than when Lynch is in the game.

Edit: Might as well add Michael as well.

Michael: 26 total -- 18 run (69.2%), 6 pass (23.1%), 2 run block (7.7%), 0 pass block (0%) for a total run/pass ratio of 20:6 or 1:0.3

I don't think these numbers "prove" anything, per se. It's certainly not a huge sample size, but it's all we have from this year if we're trying to add some context to the usage conversation.

Feel free to make of them what you will.