Christine Michael (2 Viewers)

[Gandalf]

Assume they go to good situations because some are bound too

 

[Gandalf]

One question I have is: would people rather have Michael Christine or one of the RBs in the draft (Mason, Hyde, etc)? Trying to gauge his value against the rookies.

Tell me where the new guys go and then I can answer.

Pick you favorite RB and put them in a good situation

 

[RBM]

I really like Mason and Seastrunk, so yeah, if those guys were in places they were definitely going to play a lot, I'd have to take them.

 

[EBF]

One question I have is: would people rather have Michael Christine or one of the RBs in the draft (Mason, Hyde, etc)? Trying to gauge his value against the rookies.

Right now it would be pretty close for me between Michael and Seastrunk/Hill (who are probably going to be the top 2 RBs on my board).

After the combine and draft, whoever emerges with a clean athletic profile and a great immediate opportunity might have an edge.

I think Michael is worth roughly the 1.04-1.06 rookie pick. I'm guessing that I'll like 1-2 rookie RBs more than that when the dust settles.

 

[DropKick]

529-2791-34 are pretty solid career rushing #s. Light on total carries for a four year player, but decent overall.

So the problem isn't whether he did enough with his carries. If he'd had more of them his season-by-season numbers would have been strong. And guys with similar performance and similar physical tools have been very successful in the NFL.

The question is how problematic the injuries and problems with the coaching staff -- the issues that kept him from high volume touches -- will affect his NFL career. And no one knows the answer.

Well put.Tdmills - the max single season yardage of 899 has already been addressed. In 2011, he had 899 yards in 9 games. Then he got injured. Dude was averaging 100 yards per game, and .89 TDs per game, when he got hurt. Not the same situation as a guy who gets 899 yards spread over 13-14 games.

wdcrob is right. The injuries and the knucklehead factor are a far bigger deal than his production. He has been productive when on the field.

I didn't read through 16 pages to see what was covered, so that's my fault. My issue is people projecting small sample sizes to large ones(David Wilson did this over a small span at the end of 2012 and therefore will have a huge 2013 for example). I know he was solid in college(i'm not discrediting your point), but how many RBs average to above average college production turn into great NFL careers? Foster/FWP did and were in the dog house, just like Michael. Yes injuries/dog house are important as well. I guess I just have a problem with people seeing what Lynch does, take out Lynch insert Michael and you get a beast...that will more than likely not happen and looking at the sample size of his entire career, he's never been the man for a prolonged period of time. Therefore, if people want to pay a large cost to obtain Michael on the chance of him being a "beast" go ahead. I just find it an unnecessary gamble. I'm not ignoring that foresight is a part of this equation and the gamble sometimes pays off (Demaryius Thomas). But someone could just as likely point at Stephen Hill and think elite athlete + above average college production= beast.

I recall Thomas as a much better prospect than Stephen Hill. If not for the achillies injury, he was close to a sure thing...

In the case of David Wilson, he had everything you could hope for in a young back; physical attributes, flashes of talent and perhaps most importantly, an opportunity to start. Given the scarcity and fantasy value of a young RB in dynasty, why wouldn't you get excited about that kind of potential?

Not every guy will hit but very few guys are without a wart. Just about everyone is a "gamble". You can't wait until someone is proven, because then it is simply too late. At this point in time, Michael lacks the opportunity that Wilson had, so he isn't the best comparison. In general, Michael has to draw interest from fewer people and his price could/should reflect the uncertainty in his situation.

As far as "inserting" Michael and getting a "beast"... I don't think it is unreasonable. Sometimes people target the system or offensive philosophy of a team. For example, the Eagles have produced a stream of versatile, highly productive RBs.

Potential is in the eye of the beholder. To me, it depends a lot on the constitution of your team and the state of your RBs in general. In my situation, I infrequently get a very high draft pick and won't sniff an Adrian Peterson type. So, I'll invest in a guy like Michael. And I'll have conviction in the pick so I'll hold them through some adversity. That's probably why his price is so high in some leagues. I have a track record of more hits than misses. There are "conservative" guys in my league that are reluctant to pull the trigger or sometimes release a guy too quickly. I think it undermines their success but I won't tell them that....

 

[tdmills]

529-2791-34 are pretty solid career rushing #s. Light on total carries for a four year player, but decent overall.

So the problem isn't whether he did enough with his carries. If he'd had more of them his season-by-season numbers would have been strong. And guys with similar performance and similar physical tools have been very successful in the NFL.

The question is how problematic the injuries and problems with the coaching staff -- the issues that kept him from high volume touches -- will affect his NFL career. And no one knows the answer.

Well put.Tdmills - the max single season yardage of 899 has already been addressed. In 2011, he had 899 yards in 9 games. Then he got injured. Dude was averaging 100 yards per game, and .89 TDs per game, when he got hurt. Not the same situation as a guy who gets 899 yards spread over 13-14 games.

wdcrob is right. The injuries and the knucklehead factor are a far bigger deal than his production. He has been productive when on the field.

I didn't read through 16 pages to see what was covered, so that's my fault. My issue is people projecting small sample sizes to large ones(David Wilson did this over a small span at the end of 2012 and therefore will have a huge 2013 for example). I know he was solid in college(i'm not discrediting your point), but how many RBs average to above average college production turn into great NFL careers? Foster/FWP did and were in the dog house, just like Michael. Yes injuries/dog house are important as well. I guess I just have a problem with people seeing what Lynch does, take out Lynch insert Michael and you get a beast...that will more than likely not happen and looking at the sample size of his entire career, he's never been the man for a prolonged period of time. Therefore, if people want to pay a large cost to obtain Michael on the chance of him being a "beast" go ahead. I just find it an unnecessary gamble. I'm not ignoring that foresight is a part of this equation and the gamble sometimes pays off (Demaryius Thomas). But someone could just as likely point at Stephen Hill and think elite athlete + above average college production= beast.

I recall Thomas as a much better prospect than Stephen Hill. If not for the achillies injury, he was close to a sure thing...

In the case of David Wilson, he had everything you could hope for in a young back; physical attributes, flashes of talent and perhaps most importantly, an opportunity to start. Given the scarcity and fantasy value of a young RB in dynasty, why wouldn't you get excited about that kind of potential?

Not every guy will hit but very few guys are without a wart. Just about everyone is a "gamble". You can't wait until someone is proven, because then it is simply too late. At this point in time, Michael lacks the opportunity that Wilson had, so he isn't the best comparison. In general, Michael has to draw interest from fewer people and his price could/should reflect the uncertainty in his situation.

As far as "inserting" Michael and getting a "beast"... I don't think it is unreasonable. Sometimes people target the system or offensive philosophy of a team. For example, the Eagles have produced a stream of versatile, highly productive RBs.

Potential is in the eye of the beholder. To me, it depends a lot on the constitution of your team and the state of your RBs in general. In my situation, I infrequently get a very high draft pick and won't sniff an Adrian Peterson type. So, I'll invest in a guy like Michael. And I'll have conviction in the pick so I'll hold them through some adversity. That's probably why his price is so high in some leagues. I have a track record of more hits than misses. There are "conservative" guys in my league that are reluctant to pull the trigger or sometimes release a guy too quickly. I think it undermines their success but I won't tell them that....

Yes Thomas was a better prospect, but not by a mile. Still questions about route running, lack of college production, etc.

Wilson also had a dominate year in college that Michael hasn't.

Can we just insert whomever in Minnesota and expect ap production? Knile Davis will produce like Charles? Etc. It's a dangerous road to expect beast mode production.

My point is I don't understand the gamble for Michael. It's unnecessary to guess he's going to become a beast based on never doing it prior and his rookie year.

 

[RBM]

Barring injury to Lynch and Turbin, are we assuming the same deal for Michael next year?

 

[Riffraff]

Barring injury to Lynch and Turbin, are we assuming the same deal for Michael next year?

Yup. And then if Lynch leaves, you assume they bring in another RB for the open roster spot. Might be a "special talent," might not.

 

[menobrown]

Barring injury to Lynch and Turbin, are we assuming the same deal for Michael next year?

I'd say so. Really Michael is a 2015 hold and that's on the assumption that they have to drop Lynch's salary off the books when they start needing to pay guys like Wilson and Sherman among others and it's also assuming Michael would beat out Turbin and anyone else they might add over what would amount to the next two off seasons.. Of course Lynch means a lot to that team so if he's performing at a high level they might be able to find a way to make the numbers work or restructure his deal.

Lot's of if's and barring injury lot's of time and why I think he's been sorely overvalued. See some people say his value is that of 1.4-1.6 first rounder or mid first rounder and I think that's woefully off base. You got a chance to select a RB in those spots who has a chance to help your fantasy team in 2014. Not waiting on a bunch of if's in hope he's viable in 2015 or beyond.

 

[ghostguy123]

Lot's of if's and barring injury lot's of time and why I think he's been sorely overvalued. See some people say his value is that of 1.4-1.6 first rounder or mid first rounder and I think that's woefully off base. You got a chance to select a RB in those spots who has a chance to help your fantasy team in 2014. Not waiting on a bunch of if's in hope he's viable in 2015 or beyond.

I am willing to wait on "a bunch of ifs" for guys that are talented, and he is pretty talented.

However, you are right, a top 5-6 pick for me is way too much to give for him. Later first is what I would give (and I did a couple hours ago actually, posted in the trade thread. Gave pick 9 for Michael and pick 22).

 

[Brewtown]

Lot's of if's and barring injury lot's of time and why I think he's been sorely overvalued. See some people say his value is that of 1.4-1.6 first rounder or mid first rounder and I think that's woefully off base. You got a chance to select a RB in those spots who has a chance to help your fantasy team in 2014. Not waiting on a bunch of if's in hope he's viable in 2015 or beyond.

I am willing to wait on "a bunch of ifs" for guys that are talented, and he is pretty talented.

However, you are right, a top 5-6 pick for me is way too much to give for him. Later first is what I would give (and I did a couple hours ago actually, posted in the trade thread. Gave pick 9 for Michael and pick 22).

That was not a bad trade. Very key to the deal is getting 22. Look at Cody Hoffman there....

 

[ghostguy123]

That was not a bad trade. Very key to the deal is getting 22. Look at Cody Hoffman there....

I have a couple late 2nds now (22 and 24). MIght look to deal both to move up, who knows.

But yeah, I am not sure if I do the deal without getting the pick back. In the FFPC, it's hard to roster a guy that you know probably does absolutely nothing for you in 2014, and is no guarantee to do anything in 2015, or ever for that matter.

That roster spot is valuable by itself just being able to go after waiver guys.

 

[Brewtown]

That was not a bad trade. Very key to the deal is getting 22. Look at Cody Hoffman there....

I have a couple late 2nds now (22 and 24). MIght look to deal both to move up, who knows.

But yeah, I am not sure if I do the deal without getting the pick back. In the FFPC, it's hard to roster a guy that you know probably does absolutely nothing for you in 2014, and is no guarantee to do anything in 2015, or ever for that matter.

That roster spot is valuable by itself just being able to go after waiver guys.

This draft will be unlike any other that you have ever previously had. You are going to get great talent at 22 and 24. I would say that the 22nd pick this year will be like most years #11 pick. So much talent this year!!!

 

[EBF]

Lot's of if's and barring injury lot's of time and why I think he's been sorely overvalued. See some people say his value is that of 1.4-1.6 first rounder or mid first rounder and I think that's woefully off base. You got a chance to select a RB in those spots who has a chance to help your fantasy team in 2014. Not waiting on a bunch of if's in hope he's viable in 2015 or beyond.

I think he's worth that much, but I think you might be able to get him for less. Someone just posted a deal where he was had for picks 9 and 22, which is relatively cheap for a potential impact player at RB. I'd argue that far from being a risky pick, he's a virtual lock to rise in value down the road, as right now he's high talent/low opportunity. When his opportunity corrects itself, there will be a nice sell high window regardless of how well he ultimately performs (as there was with Wilson and Miller this past offseason). I think with his draft slot, freaky athletic ability, and impressive training camp/preseason, there are few legitimate talent-related questions. So mostly you're just waiting for him to get his chance and hoping that he can stay healthy.

The big difference comparing him with a rookie that you might take at 1.04-1.06 is that he might have more talent. Yea, there will be guys with more immediate opportunity, but that's a far less important long term consideration than overall ability. Moreno and Wells had more opportunity than LeSean McCoy during their rookie years. What does it matter now? Long term, you want the best player.

 

[ghostguy123]

EBF, it was pick 9 for Michael and 22. Not both picks for Michael.

 

[EBF]

EBF, it was pick 9 for Michael and 22. Not both picks for Michael.

Even better in that case.

 

[menobrown]

Lot's of if's and barring injury lot's of time and why I think he's been sorely overvalued. See some people say his value is that of 1.4-1.6 first rounder or mid first rounder and I think that's woefully off base. You got a chance to select a RB in those spots who has a chance to help your fantasy team in 2014. Not waiting on a bunch of if's in hope he's viable in 2015 or beyond.

I think he's worth that much, but I think you might be able to get him for less. Someone just posted a deal where he was had for picks 9 and 22, which is relatively cheap for a potential impact player at RB. I'd argue that far from being a risky pick, he's a virtual lock to rise in value down the road, as right now he's high talent/low opportunity. When his opportunity corrects itself, there will be a nice sell high window regardless of how well he ultimately performs (as there was with Wilson and Miller this past offseason). I think with his draft slot, freaky athletic ability, and impressive training camp/preseason, there are few legitimate talent-related questions. So mostly you're just waiting for him to get his chance and hoping that he can stay healthy.

The big difference comparing him with a rookie that you might take at 1.04-1.06 is that he might have more talent. Yea, there will be guys with more immediate opportunity, but that's a far less important long term consideration than overall ability. Moreno and Wells had more opportunity than LeSean McCoy during their rookie years. What does it matter now? Long term, you want the best player.

Every draft is different but in most leagues last year you could have had 1-3 guys between Lacy, Gio, Bell or Ball to choose from in the 4-6 range. 3 of those guys I'd easily take over Michaels. Ball as well who is not as easy a call but at least he has a viable chance next year.

I see 3-4 backs right now with the same potential as that group form last year, a group which this time of year most generally thought was poor but turned out to be anything but poor. Will all those backs land in sweet spots like a lot of guys from last year? Probably not but that's the time you might assess the value of Michael as being worth 1.4-1.6, not now. Not when you have a chance to get a starter.

I see the "potential' in Michaels. I said on this board many times last year that I'd pick him over Lattimore making the comp that you have to wait on both guys and I'd rather wait on the healthy one who at least had a chance to contribute in 2013. Still he's got a lot of if's and a likely very long wait with him.

I don't think strategy should be as simple as simply always wanting the best player long term. Opportunity and immediacy matters and while you are sitting on your "best" player if he's not getting a chance he's burning a hole on your roster and often losing value. Many times an inferior talent getting a chance will either actually be more of an assist in helping you now plus you have the benefit of them having a chance to jump their value up, similar to how we saw with last years rookie RB's. Past the guys we saw getting pick in the early to middle first round I'll use Stacy as an example. I believe his talent is inferior to Michaels. Stacy got into a situation he got a chance to play. Would you trade Michaels for Stacy today? I would not and most people would not either but other than having a much more probable chance of helping your team win next year he's also got higher value to utilize for a trade. You could likely net Michaels+ if you traded Stacy now.

In most leagues I like what Ghostguy paid for Michaels. I think that's closer to what I see as his value but still more than I'd pay in an FFPC format due to the roster limitations. I look at that trade as 1.9 plus your 14th man whose roster spot Michaels just took for Michaels and pick 22. That's to much for me but of course if he gets his chance and runs with it, even it takes a year or two, it will look like a great deal.Just not one I'd do, certainly not before roster cuts are due.

 

[DropKick]

529-2791-34 are pretty solid career rushing #s. Light on total carries for a four year player, but decent overall.

So the problem isn't whether he did enough with his carries. If he'd had more of them his season-by-season numbers would have been strong. And guys with similar performance and similar physical tools have been very successful in the NFL.

The question is how problematic the injuries and problems with the coaching staff -- the issues that kept him from high volume touches -- will affect his NFL career. And no one knows the answer.

Well put.Tdmills - the max single season yardage of 899 has already been addressed. In 2011, he had 899 yards in 9 games. Then he got injured. Dude was averaging 100 yards per game, and .89 TDs per game, when he got hurt. Not the same situation as a guy who gets 899 yards spread over 13-14 games.

wdcrob is right. The injuries and the knucklehead factor are a far bigger deal than his production. He has been productive when on the field.

I didn't read through 16 pages to see what was covered, so that's my fault. My issue is people projecting small sample sizes to large ones(David Wilson did this over a small span at the end of 2012 and therefore will have a huge 2013 for example). I know he was solid in college(i'm not discrediting your point), but how many RBs average to above average college production turn into great NFL careers? Foster/FWP did and were in the dog house, just like Michael. Yes injuries/dog house are important as well. I guess I just have a problem with people seeing what Lynch does, take out Lynch insert Michael and you get a beast...that will more than likely not happen and looking at the sample size of his entire career, he's never been the man for a prolonged period of time. Therefore, if people want to pay a large cost to obtain Michael on the chance of him being a "beast" go ahead. I just find it an unnecessary gamble. I'm not ignoring that foresight is a part of this equation and the gamble sometimes pays off (Demaryius Thomas). But someone could just as likely point at Stephen Hill and think elite athlete + above average college production= beast.

I recall Thomas as a much better prospect than Stephen Hill. If not for the achillies injury, he was close to a sure thing...

In the case of David Wilson, he had everything you could hope for in a young back; physical attributes, flashes of talent and perhaps most importantly, an opportunity to start. Given the scarcity and fantasy value of a young RB in dynasty, why wouldn't you get excited about that kind of potential?

Not every guy will hit but very few guys are without a wart. Just about everyone is a "gamble". You can't wait until someone is proven, because then it is simply too late. At this point in time, Michael lacks the opportunity that Wilson had, so he isn't the best comparison. In general, Michael has to draw interest from fewer people and his price could/should reflect the uncertainty in his situation.

As far as "inserting" Michael and getting a "beast"... I don't think it is unreasonable. Sometimes people target the system or offensive philosophy of a team. For example, the Eagles have produced a stream of versatile, highly productive RBs.

Potential is in the eye of the beholder. To me, it depends a lot on the constitution of your team and the state of your RBs in general. In my situation, I infrequently get a very high draft pick and won't sniff an Adrian Peterson type. So, I'll invest in a guy like Michael. And I'll have conviction in the pick so I'll hold them through some adversity. That's probably why his price is so high in some leagues. I have a track record of more hits than misses. There are "conservative" guys in my league that are reluctant to pull the trigger or sometimes release a guy too quickly. I think it undermines their success but I won't tell them that....

Yes Thomas was a better prospect, but not by a mile. Still questions about route running, lack of college production, etc.

Wilson also had a dominate year in college that Michael hasn't.

Can we just insert whomever in Minnesota and expect ap production? Knile Davis will produce like Charles? Etc. It's a dangerous road to expect beast mode production.

My point is I don't understand the gamble for Michael. It's unnecessary to guess he's going to become a beast based on never doing it prior and his rookie year.

Barring injury, he was never going to do much his rookie year. Again, this is a team with Super Bowl aspirations that had a clear #1 back and a more experienced guy for passing situations. Guys do "wait in the wings". Doesn't Seattle have to protect itself from injury/legal/contractual issues with Lynch?

Michael is a very athletic individual and looks the part in the limited opportunity I've seen of him. I didn't say "anybody" can succeed in a given system, but that there is a strategy of targeting guys from good systems, which is an overall reflection of the offensive philosophy, quality of the line, etc.

As far as "unnecessary to guess", it is necessary to guess on somebody, right? It just depends on how much you pay. What is the price you consider a bad gamble? What price would you pay?

 

[ghostguy123]

In this case, my most difficult roster decision before cuts is John Carlson. So at least for now, I have no value lost in picking up Michael as an extra rostered player.

If Michael doesnt do anything all year, then yes, lot of value lost in the ability to use a roster spot for either flier picks or players to help for bye weeks and injuries.

But.........I do have Lynch

 

[menobrown]

In this case, my most difficult roster decision before cuts is John Carlson. So at least for now, I have no value lost in picking up Michael as an extra rostered player.

If Michael doesnt do anything all year, then yes, lot of value lost in the ability to use a roster spot for either flier picks or players to help for bye weeks and injuries.

But.........I do have Lynch

Carlson as 14th man and having Lynch are key items. Would be something I'd have seriously considered as well knowing that info.

 

[ghostguy123]

Yeah, it's pretty much a flier pickup of a talented player with the added bonus of Lynch insurance (I assume Michael is ahead of Turbin, at least he sure should be), with a minor bonus of not having to cut anyone worth anything to add him for now.

 

[EBF]

Every draft is different but in most leagues last year you could have had 1-3 guys between Lacy, Gio, Bell or Ball to choose from in the 4-6 range. 3 of those guys I'd easily take over Michaels. Ball as well who is not as easy a call but at least he has a viable chance next year.

I see 3-4 backs right now with the same potential as that group form last year, a group which this time of year most generally thought was poor but turned out to be anything but poor. Will all those backs land in sweet spots like a lot of guys from last year? Probably not but that's the time you might assess the value of Michael as being worth 1.4-1.6, not now. Not when you have a chance to get a starter.

The issue for me is that I think Michael might be the best pure run talent out of last year's rookie class. So while other players have had more opportunity to show what they can do, if what they can do is 3.8-4.2 YPC while Michael can be a 4.6-4.8 YPC guy in a year or two then I'd rather wait for the better player. In general, the #1 thing that drives my trade/draft considerations is the quality of the player. I will always be willing to wait longer for a bigger payoff.

I think there's something to be said for immediacy. Especially since I think people are prone to grossly overvaluing young backs who flash potential right off the bat. If you know that Joe Mediocrity is going to be a starter in his rookie year whereas Joe Elite Talent is going to ride the pine then maybe there's something to be said for drafting Joe Mediocrity and trading him for Joe Elite Talent after year one. That's a strategy that works better in theory than in practice though.

In practice what usually happens is that someone drafts Joe Mediocrity, he has a decent rookie season, and then that owner becomes convinced that he's holding the next dynasty cornerstone RB rather than an average flash-in-the-pan. Most people were not selling Kevin Jones, Trent Richardson, Anthony Thomas, Michael Bennett, Beanie Wells, and Steve Slaton after their rookie years because they thought those guys were legit. So what happened is they ended up holding those players until the sell high window had already come and gone.

Every now and then I will make a trade or a pick with the intention of trading the player down the road, but for the most part I draft/trade to keep. With that in mind, my only real concern is identifying the best players and getting them on my roster. If I think a guy has a chance to be dynamic, I don't really care if he's sitting on the bench. The cream rises.

 

[slackjawedyokel]

Every draft is different but in most leagues last year you could have had 1-3 guys between Lacy, Gio, Bell or Ball to choose from in the 4-6 range. 3 of those guys I'd easily take over Michaels. Ball as well who is not as easy a call but at least he has a viable chance next year.

I see 3-4 backs right now with the same potential as that group form last year, a group which this time of year most generally thought was poor but turned out to be anything but poor. Will all those backs land in sweet spots like a lot of guys from last year? Probably not but that's the time you might assess the value of Michael as being worth 1.4-1.6, not now. Not when you have a chance to get a starter.

The issue for me is that I think Michael might be the best pure run talent out of last year's rookie class. So while other players have had more opportunity to show what they can do, if what they can do is 3.8-4.2 YPC while Michael can be a 4.6-4.8 YPC guy in a year or two then I'd rather wait for the better player. In general, the #1 thing that drives my trade/draft considerations is the quality of the player. I will always be willing to wait longer for a bigger payoff.

I think there's something to be said for immediacy. Especially since I think people are prone to grossly overvaluing young backs who flash potential right off the bat. If you know that Joe Mediocrity is going to be a starter in his rookie year whereas Joe Elite Talent is going to ride the pine then maybe there's something to be said for drafting Joe Mediocrity and trading him for Joe Elite Talent after year one. That's a strategy that works better in theory than in practice though.

In practice what usually happens is that someone drafts Joe Mediocrity, he has a decent rookie season, and then that owner becomes convinced that he's holding the next dynasty cornerstone RB rather than an average flash-in-the-pan. Most people were not selling Kevin Jones, Trent Richardson, Anthony Thomas, Michael Bennett, Beanie Wells, and Steve Slaton after their rookie years because they thought those guys were legit. So what happened is they ended up holding those players until the sell high window had already come and gone.

Every now and then I will make a trade or a pick with the intention of trading the player down the road, but for the most part I draft/trade to keep. With that in mind, my only real concern is identifying the best players and getting them on my roster. If I think a guy has a chance to be dynamic, I don't really care if he's sitting on the bench. The cream rises.

Here's why I like him --> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCVqxFeWFoU

EXTREMELY good balance as a runner. Powerful and agile.

 

[BuckeyeChaos]

Every draft is different but in most leagues last year you could have had 1-3 guys between Lacy, Gio, Bell or Ball to choose from in the 4-6 range. 3 of those guys I'd easily take over Michaels. Ball as well who is not as easy a call but at least he has a viable chance next year.

I see 3-4 backs right now with the same potential as that group form last year, a group which this time of year most generally thought was poor but turned out to be anything but poor. Will all those backs land in sweet spots like a lot of guys from last year? Probably not but that's the time you might assess the value of Michael as being worth 1.4-1.6, not now. Not when you have a chance to get a starter.

The issue for me is that I think Michael might be the best pure run talent out of last year's rookie class. So while other players have had more opportunity to show what they can do, if what they can do is 3.8-4.2 YPC while Michael can be a 4.6-4.8 YPC guy in a year or two then I'd rather wait for the better player. In general, the #1 thing that drives my trade/draft considerations is the quality of the player. I will always be willing to wait longer for a bigger payoff.

I think there's something to be said for immediacy. Especially since I think people are prone to grossly overvaluing young backs who flash potential right off the bat. If you know that Joe Mediocrity is going to be a starter in his rookie year whereas Joe Elite Talent is going to ride the pine then maybe there's something to be said for drafting Joe Mediocrity and trading him for Joe Elite Talent after year one. That's a strategy that works better in theory than in practice though.

In practice what usually happens is that someone drafts Joe Mediocrity, he has a decent rookie season, and then that owner becomes convinced that he's holding the next dynasty cornerstone RB rather than an average flash-in-the-pan. Most people were not selling Kevin Jones, Trent Richardson, Anthony Thomas, Michael Bennett, Beanie Wells, and Steve Slaton after their rookie years because they thought those guys were legit. So what happened is they ended up holding those players until the sell high window had already come and gone.

Every now and then I will make a trade or a pick with the intention of trading the player down the road, but for the most part I draft/trade to keep. With that in mind, my only real concern is identifying the best players and getting them on my roster. If I think a guy has a chance to be dynamic, I don't really care if he's sitting on the bench. The cream rises.

Here's why I like him --> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCVqxFeWFoU

EXTREMELY good balance as a runner. Powerful and agile.

that does look good, as most highlight videos do. How about this one for a guy generally thought to be a bit of a bust. He looks good too.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_00ziPxn0Os

 

[ghostguy123]

Here's why I like him --> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCVqxFeWFoU

EXTREMELY good balance as a runner. Powerful and agile.

that does look good, as most highlight videos do. How about this one for a guy generally thought to be a bit of a bust. He looks good too.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_00ziPxn0Os

After watching both, I see a fairly distinct difference between the two.

 

[BuckeyeChaos]

agreed, but its still a nice looking highlight reel. I'd say it stacks up well with most RB highlight reels that have folks gushing over the potential. I'm having a hard time sorting out guys with potential and guys that flop based on highlight reels.

 

[ghostguy123]

agreed, but its still a nice looking highlight reel. I'd say it stacks up well with most RB highlight reels that have folks gushing over the potential. I'm having a hard time sorting out guys with potential and guys that flop based on highlight reels.

In these highlights, Michael looks a lot better. A lot.

But highlights cant tell you how hard a guy will work or how much he can or will improve. You will never meet anyone who gets em all right.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Every draft is different but in most leagues last year you could have had 1-3 guys between Lacy, Gio, Bell or Ball to choose from in the 4-6 range. 3 of those guys I'd easily take over Michaels. Ball as well who is not as easy a call but at least he has a viable chance next year.

I see 3-4 backs right now with the same potential as that group form last year, a group which this time of year most generally thought was poor but turned out to be anything but poor. Will all those backs land in sweet spots like a lot of guys from last year? Probably not but that's the time you might assess the value of Michael as being worth 1.4-1.6, not now. Not when you have a chance to get a starter.

The issue for me is that I think Michael might be the best pure run talent out of last year's rookie class. So while other players have had more opportunity to show what they can do, if what they can do is 3.8-4.2 YPC while Michael can be a 4.6-4.8 YPC guy in a year or two then I'd rather wait for the better player. In general, the #1 thing that drives my trade/draft considerations is the quality of the player. I will always be willing to wait longer for a bigger payoff.

I think there's something to be said for immediacy. Especially since I think people are prone to grossly overvaluing young backs who flash potential right off the bat. If you know that Joe Mediocrity is going to be a starter in his rookie year whereas Joe Elite Talent is going to ride the pine then maybe there's something to be said for drafting Joe Mediocrity and trading him for Joe Elite Talent after year one. That's a strategy that works better in theory than in practice though.

In practice what usually happens is that someone drafts Joe Mediocrity, he has a decent rookie season, and then that owner becomes convinced that he's holding the next dynasty cornerstone RB rather than an average flash-in-the-pan. Most people were not selling Kevin Jones, Trent Richardson, Anthony Thomas, Michael Bennett, Beanie Wells, and Steve Slaton after their rookie years because they thought those guys were legit. So what happened is they ended up holding those players until the sell high window had already come and gone.

Every now and then I will make a trade or a pick with the intention of trading the player down the road, but for the most part I draft/trade to keep. With that in mind, my only real concern is identifying the best players and getting them on my roster. If I think a guy has a chance to be dynamic, I don't really care if he's sitting on the bench. The cream rises.

Here's why I like him --> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCVqxFeWFoU

EXTREMELY good balance as a runner. Powerful and agile.

that does look good, as most highlight videos do. How about this one for a guy generally thought to be a bit of a bust. He looks good too.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_00ziPxn0Os

Watch those two back to back and it looks like Taylor is moving in slow motion.

 

[tdmills]

529-2791-34 are pretty solid career rushing #s. Light on total carries for a four year player, but decent overall.

So the problem isn't whether he did enough with his carries. If he'd had more of them his season-by-season numbers would have been strong. And guys with similar performance and similar physical tools have been very successful in the NFL.

The question is how problematic the injuries and problems with the coaching staff -- the issues that kept him from high volume touches -- will affect his NFL career. And no one knows the answer.

Well put.Tdmills - the max single season yardage of 899 has already been addressed. In 2011, he had 899 yards in 9 games. Then he got injured. Dude was averaging 100 yards per game, and .89 TDs per game, when he got hurt. Not the same situation as a guy who gets 899 yards spread over 13-14 games.

wdcrob is right. The injuries and the knucklehead factor are a far bigger deal than his production. He has been productive when on the field.

I didn't read through 16 pages to see what was covered, so that's my fault. My issue is people projecting small sample sizes to large ones(David Wilson did this over a small span at the end of 2012 and therefore will have a huge 2013 for example). I know he was solid in college(i'm not discrediting your point), but how many RBs average to above average college production turn into great NFL careers? Foster/FWP did and were in the dog house, just like Michael. Yes injuries/dog house are important as well. I guess I just have a problem with people seeing what Lynch does, take out Lynch insert Michael and you get a beast...that will more than likely not happen and looking at the sample size of his entire career, he's never been the man for a prolonged period of time. Therefore, if people want to pay a large cost to obtain Michael on the chance of him being a "beast" go ahead. I just find it an unnecessary gamble. I'm not ignoring that foresight is a part of this equation and the gamble sometimes pays off (Demaryius Thomas). But someone could just as likely point at Stephen Hill and think elite athlete + above average college production= beast.

I recall Thomas as a much better prospect than Stephen Hill. If not for the achillies injury, he was close to a sure thing...

In the case of David Wilson, he had everything you could hope for in a young back; physical attributes, flashes of talent and perhaps most importantly, an opportunity to start. Given the scarcity and fantasy value of a young RB in dynasty, why wouldn't you get excited about that kind of potential?

Not every guy will hit but very few guys are without a wart. Just about everyone is a "gamble". You can't wait until someone is proven, because then it is simply too late. At this point in time, Michael lacks the opportunity that Wilson had, so he isn't the best comparison. In general, Michael has to draw interest from fewer people and his price could/should reflect the uncertainty in his situation.

As far as "inserting" Michael and getting a "beast"... I don't think it is unreasonable. Sometimes people target the system or offensive philosophy of a team. For example, the Eagles have produced a stream of versatile, highly productive RBs.

Potential is in the eye of the beholder. To me, it depends a lot on the constitution of your team and the state of your RBs in general. In my situation, I infrequently get a very high draft pick and won't sniff an Adrian Peterson type. So, I'll invest in a guy like Michael. And I'll have conviction in the pick so I'll hold them through some adversity. That's probably why his price is so high in some leagues. I have a track record of more hits than misses. There are "conservative" guys in my league that are reluctant to pull the trigger or sometimes release a guy too quickly. I think it undermines their success but I won't tell them that....

Yes Thomas was a better prospect, but not by a mile. Still questions about route running, lack of college production, etc.Wilson also had a dominate year in college that Michael hasn't.

Can we just insert whomever in Minnesota and expect ap production? Knile Davis will produce like Charles? Etc. It's a dangerous road to expect beast mode production.

My point is I don't understand the gamble for Michael. It's unnecessary to guess he's going to become a beast based on never doing it prior and his rookie year.

Barring injury, he was never going to do much his rookie year. Again, this is a team with Super Bowl aspirations that had a clear #1 back and a more experienced guy for passing situations. Guys do "wait in the wings". Doesn't Seattle have to protect itself from injury/legal/contractual issues with Lynch?

Michael is a very athletic individual and looks the part in the limited opportunity I've seen of him. I didn't say "anybody" can succeed in a given system, but that there is a strategy of targeting guys from good systems, which is an overall reflection of the offensive philosophy, quality of the line, etc.

As far as "unnecessary to guess", it is necessary to guess on somebody, right? It just depends on how much you pay. What is the price you consider a bad gamble? What price would you pay?

I agree, but Seattle will probably go ol in the draft based on need. I think Lynch is producing more than the ol is making lynch look good.

I would give a 2nd round rookie for Michael. I've always thought he's a bit stiff as a runner with limited agility/ creativity + injury concerns + character concerns.

 

[BuckeyeChaos]

529-2791-34 are pretty solid career rushing #s. Light on total carries for a four year player, but decent overall.

So the problem isn't whether he did enough with his carries. If he'd had more of them his season-by-season numbers would have been strong. And guys with similar performance and similar physical tools have been very successful in the NFL.

The question is how problematic the injuries and problems with the coaching staff -- the issues that kept him from high volume touches -- will affect his NFL career. And no one knows the answer.

Well put.Tdmills - the max single season yardage of 899 has already been addressed. In 2011, he had 899 yards in 9 games. Then he got injured. Dude was averaging 100 yards per game, and .89 TDs per game, when he got hurt. Not the same situation as a guy who gets 899 yards spread over 13-14 games.

wdcrob is right. The injuries and the knucklehead factor are a far bigger deal than his production. He has been productive when on the field.

I didn't read through 16 pages to see what was covered, so that's my fault. My issue is people projecting small sample sizes to large ones(David Wilson did this over a small span at the end of 2012 and therefore will have a huge 2013 for example). I know he was solid in college(i'm not discrediting your point), but how many RBs average to above average college production turn into great NFL careers? Foster/FWP did and were in the dog house, just like Michael. Yes injuries/dog house are important as well. I guess I just have a problem with people seeing what Lynch does, take out Lynch insert Michael and you get a beast...that will more than likely not happen and looking at the sample size of his entire career, he's never been the man for a prolonged period of time. Therefore, if people want to pay a large cost to obtain Michael on the chance of him being a "beast" go ahead. I just find it an unnecessary gamble. I'm not ignoring that foresight is a part of this equation and the gamble sometimes pays off (Demaryius Thomas). But someone could just as likely point at Stephen Hill and think elite athlete + above average college production= beast.

I recall Thomas as a much better prospect than Stephen Hill. If not for the achillies injury, he was close to a sure thing...

In the case of David Wilson, he had everything you could hope for in a young back; physical attributes, flashes of talent and perhaps most importantly, an opportunity to start. Given the scarcity and fantasy value of a young RB in dynasty, why wouldn't you get excited about that kind of potential?

Not every guy will hit but very few guys are without a wart. Just about everyone is a "gamble". You can't wait until someone is proven, because then it is simply too late. At this point in time, Michael lacks the opportunity that Wilson had, so he isn't the best comparison. In general, Michael has to draw interest from fewer people and his price could/should reflect the uncertainty in his situation.

As far as "inserting" Michael and getting a "beast"... I don't think it is unreasonable. Sometimes people target the system or offensive philosophy of a team. For example, the Eagles have produced a stream of versatile, highly productive RBs.

Potential is in the eye of the beholder. To me, it depends a lot on the constitution of your team and the state of your RBs in general. In my situation, I infrequently get a very high draft pick and won't sniff an Adrian Peterson type. So, I'll invest in a guy like Michael. And I'll have conviction in the pick so I'll hold them through some adversity. That's probably why his price is so high in some leagues. I have a track record of more hits than misses. There are "conservative" guys in my league that are reluctant to pull the trigger or sometimes release a guy too quickly. I think it undermines their success but I won't tell them that....

Yes Thomas was a better prospect, but not by a mile. Still questions about route running, lack of college production, etc.Wilson also had a dominate year in college that Michael hasn't.

Can we just insert whomever in Minnesota and expect ap production? Knile Davis will produce like Charles? Etc. It's a dangerous road to expect beast mode production.

My point is I don't understand the gamble for Michael. It's unnecessary to guess he's going to become a beast based on never doing it prior and his rookie year.

Barring injury, he was never going to do much his rookie year. Again, this is a team with Super Bowl aspirations that had a clear #1 back and a more experienced guy for passing situations. Guys do "wait in the wings". Doesn't Seattle have to protect itself from injury/legal/contractual issues with Lynch?

Michael is a very athletic individual and looks the part in the limited opportunity I've seen of him. I didn't say "anybody" can succeed in a given system, but that there is a strategy of targeting guys from good systems, which is an overall reflection of the offensive philosophy, quality of the line, etc.

As far as "unnecessary to guess", it is necessary to guess on somebody, right? It just depends on how much you pay. What is the price you consider a bad gamble? What price would you pay?

I agree, but Seattle will probably go ol in the draft based on need. I think Lynch is producing more than the ol is making lynch look good.

I would give a 2nd round rookie for Michael. I've always thought he's a bit stiff as a runner with limited agility/ creativity + injury concerns + character concerns.

did you watch that highlight reel? no lack of agility or creativity there. I'm not even the biggest Michael supporter and I can't let that slide. Injury and character I cannot argue with.

 

[tdmills]

529-2791-34 are pretty solid career rushing #s. Light on total carries for a four year player, but decent overall.

So the problem isn't whether he did enough with his carries. If he'd had more of them his season-by-season numbers would have been strong. And guys with similar performance and similar physical tools have been very successful in the NFL.

The question is how problematic the injuries and problems with the coaching staff -- the issues that kept him from high volume touches -- will affect his NFL career. And no one knows the answer.

Well put.Tdmills - the max single season yardage of 899 has already been addressed. In 2011, he had 899 yards in 9 games. Then he got injured. Dude was averaging 100 yards per game, and .89 TDs per game, when he got hurt. Not the same situation as a guy who gets 899 yards spread over 13-14 games.

wdcrob is right. The injuries and the knucklehead factor are a far bigger deal than his production. He has been productive when on the field.

I didn't read through 16 pages to see what was covered, so that's my fault. My issue is people projecting small sample sizes to large ones(David Wilson did this over a small span at the end of 2012 and therefore will have a huge 2013 for example). I know he was solid in college(i'm not discrediting your point), but how many RBs average to above average college production turn into great NFL careers? Foster/FWP did and were in the dog house, just like Michael. Yes injuries/dog house are important as well. I guess I just have a problem with people seeing what Lynch does, take out Lynch insert Michael and you get a beast...that will more than likely not happen and looking at the sample size of his entire career, he's never been the man for a prolonged period of time. Therefore, if people want to pay a large cost to obtain Michael on the chance of him being a "beast" go ahead. I just find it an unnecessary gamble. I'm not ignoring that foresight is a part of this equation and the gamble sometimes pays off (Demaryius Thomas). But someone could just as likely point at Stephen Hill and think elite athlete + above average college production= beast.

I recall Thomas as a much better prospect than Stephen Hill. If not for the achillies injury, he was close to a sure thing...

In the case of David Wilson, he had everything you could hope for in a young back; physical attributes, flashes of talent and perhaps most importantly, an opportunity to start. Given the scarcity and fantasy value of a young RB in dynasty, why wouldn't you get excited about that kind of potential?

Not every guy will hit but very few guys are without a wart. Just about everyone is a "gamble". You can't wait until someone is proven, because then it is simply too late. At this point in time, Michael lacks the opportunity that Wilson had, so he isn't the best comparison. In general, Michael has to draw interest from fewer people and his price could/should reflect the uncertainty in his situation.

As far as "inserting" Michael and getting a "beast"... I don't think it is unreasonable. Sometimes people target the system or offensive philosophy of a team. For example, the Eagles have produced a stream of versatile, highly productive RBs.

Potential is in the eye of the beholder. To me, it depends a lot on the constitution of your team and the state of your RBs in general. In my situation, I infrequently get a very high draft pick and won't sniff an Adrian Peterson type. So, I'll invest in a guy like Michael. And I'll have conviction in the pick so I'll hold them through some adversity. That's probably why his price is so high in some leagues. I have a track record of more hits than misses. There are "conservative" guys in my league that are reluctant to pull the trigger or sometimes release a guy too quickly. I think it undermines their success but I won't tell them that....

Yes Thomas was a better prospect, but not by a mile. Still questions about route running, lack of college production, etc.Wilson also had a dominate year in college that Michael hasn't.

Can we just insert whomever in Minnesota and expect ap production? Knile Davis will produce like Charles? Etc. It's a dangerous road to expect beast mode production.

My point is I don't understand the gamble for Michael. It's unnecessary to guess he's going to become a beast based on never doing it prior and his rookie year.

Barring injury, he was never going to do much his rookie year. Again, this is a team with Super Bowl aspirations that had a clear #1 back and a more experienced guy for passing situations. Guys do "wait in the wings". Doesn't Seattle have to protect itself from injury/legal/contractual issues with Lynch?

Michael is a very athletic individual and looks the part in the limited opportunity I've seen of him. I didn't say "anybody" can succeed in a given system, but that there is a strategy of targeting guys from good systems, which is an overall reflection of the offensive philosophy, quality of the line, etc.

As far as "unnecessary to guess", it is necessary to guess on somebody, right? It just depends on how much you pay. What is the price you consider a bad gamble? What price would you pay?

I agree, but Seattle will probably go ol in the draft based on need. I think Lynch is producing more than the ol is making lynch look good.I would give a 2nd round rookie for Michael. I've always thought he's a bit stiff as a runner with limited agility/ creativity + injury concerns + character concerns.

did you watch that highlight reel? no lack of agility or creativity there. I'm not even the biggest Michael supporter and I can't let that slide. Injury and character I cannot argue with.

Key word is "limited". of course in a highlight reel he will display some, I just have concerns when watching actual games of him. He generally gets what the line creates or bounces outside. Yes occasionally agility comes into play, I just think he's limited in that area. In the league holes aren't as often or big and then creativity comes into play. I don't think Michael is a bad player, I'm just not on the hype train of him becoming a "beast" and think he has a limited ceiling that will keep him from being a superstar in the NFL.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

529-2791-34 are pretty solid career rushing #s. Light on total carries for a four year player, but decent overall.

So the problem isn't whether he did enough with his carries. If he'd had more of them his season-by-season numbers would have been strong. And guys with similar performance and similar physical tools have been very successful in the NFL.

The question is how problematic the injuries and problems with the coaching staff -- the issues that kept him from high volume touches -- will affect his NFL career. And no one knows the answer.

Well put.Tdmills - the max single season yardage of 899 has already been addressed. In 2011, he had 899 yards in 9 games. Then he got injured. Dude was averaging 100 yards per game, and .89 TDs per game, when he got hurt. Not the same situation as a guy who gets 899 yards spread over 13-14 games.

wdcrob is right. The injuries and the knucklehead factor are a far bigger deal than his production. He has been productive when on the field.

I didn't read through 16 pages to see what was covered, so that's my fault. My issue is people projecting small sample sizes to large ones(David Wilson did this over a small span at the end of 2012 and therefore will have a huge 2013 for example). I know he was solid in college(i'm not discrediting your point), but how many RBs average to above average college production turn into great NFL careers? Foster/FWP did and were in the dog house, just like Michael. Yes injuries/dog house are important as well. I guess I just have a problem with people seeing what Lynch does, take out Lynch insert Michael and you get a beast...that will more than likely not happen and looking at the sample size of his entire career, he's never been the man for a prolonged period of time. Therefore, if people want to pay a large cost to obtain Michael on the chance of him being a "beast" go ahead. I just find it an unnecessary gamble. I'm not ignoring that foresight is a part of this equation and the gamble sometimes pays off (Demaryius Thomas). But someone could just as likely point at Stephen Hill and think elite athlete + above average college production= beast.

I recall Thomas as a much better prospect than Stephen Hill. If not for the achillies injury, he was close to a sure thing...

In the case of David Wilson, he had everything you could hope for in a young back; physical attributes, flashes of talent and perhaps most importantly, an opportunity to start. Given the scarcity and fantasy value of a young RB in dynasty, why wouldn't you get excited about that kind of potential?

Not every guy will hit but very few guys are without a wart. Just about everyone is a "gamble". You can't wait until someone is proven, because then it is simply too late. At this point in time, Michael lacks the opportunity that Wilson had, so he isn't the best comparison. In general, Michael has to draw interest from fewer people and his price could/should reflect the uncertainty in his situation.

As far as "inserting" Michael and getting a "beast"... I don't think it is unreasonable. Sometimes people target the system or offensive philosophy of a team. For example, the Eagles have produced a stream of versatile, highly productive RBs.

Potential is in the eye of the beholder. To me, it depends a lot on the constitution of your team and the state of your RBs in general. In my situation, I infrequently get a very high draft pick and won't sniff an Adrian Peterson type. So, I'll invest in a guy like Michael. And I'll have conviction in the pick so I'll hold them through some adversity. That's probably why his price is so high in some leagues. I have a track record of more hits than misses. There are "conservative" guys in my league that are reluctant to pull the trigger or sometimes release a guy too quickly. I think it undermines their success but I won't tell them that....

Yes Thomas was a better prospect, but not by a mile. Still questions about route running, lack of college production, etc.Wilson also had a dominate year in college that Michael hasn't.

Can we just insert whomever in Minnesota and expect ap production? Knile Davis will produce like Charles? Etc. It's a dangerous road to expect beast mode production.

My point is I don't understand the gamble for Michael. It's unnecessary to guess he's going to become a beast based on never doing it prior and his rookie year.

Barring injury, he was never going to do much his rookie year. Again, this is a team with Super Bowl aspirations that had a clear #1 back and a more experienced guy for passing situations. Guys do "wait in the wings". Doesn't Seattle have to protect itself from injury/legal/contractual issues with Lynch?

Michael is a very athletic individual and looks the part in the limited opportunity I've seen of him. I didn't say "anybody" can succeed in a given system, but that there is a strategy of targeting guys from good systems, which is an overall reflection of the offensive philosophy, quality of the line, etc.

As far as "unnecessary to guess", it is necessary to guess on somebody, right? It just depends on how much you pay. What is the price you consider a bad gamble? What price would you pay?

I agree, but Seattle will probably go ol in the draft based on need. I think Lynch is producing more than the ol is making lynch look good.

I would give a 2nd round rookie for Michael. I've always thought he's a bit stiff as a runner with limited agility/ creativity + injury concerns + character concerns.

Honestly, at this point it is clear that you aren't objective on Michael. He isn't stiff, clearly doesn't display limited agility, and also appears to have average creativity at worst. Injury or character concerns? Bad situation? Definitely. But the rest of your comments demonstrate an obvious bias that lacks any fact base.

 

[tdmills]

529-2791-34 are pretty solid career rushing #s. Light on total carries for a four year player, but decent overall.

So the problem isn't whether he did enough with his carries. If he'd had more of them his season-by-season numbers would have been strong. And guys with similar performance and similar physical tools have been very successful in the NFL.

The question is how problematic the injuries and problems with the coaching staff -- the issues that kept him from high volume touches -- will affect his NFL career. And no one knows the answer.

Well put.Tdmills - the max single season yardage of 899 has already been addressed. In 2011, he had 899 yards in 9 games. Then he got injured. Dude was averaging 100 yards per game, and .89 TDs per game, when he got hurt. Not the same situation as a guy who gets 899 yards spread over 13-14 games.

wdcrob is right. The injuries and the knucklehead factor are a far bigger deal than his production. He has been productive when on the field.

I didn't read through 16 pages to see what was covered, so that's my fault. My issue is people projecting small sample sizes to large ones(David Wilson did this over a small span at the end of 2012 and therefore will have a huge 2013 for example). I know he was solid in college(i'm not discrediting your point), but how many RBs average to above average college production turn into great NFL careers? Foster/FWP did and were in the dog house, just like Michael. Yes injuries/dog house are important as well. I guess I just have a problem with people seeing what Lynch does, take out Lynch insert Michael and you get a beast...that will more than likely not happen and looking at the sample size of his entire career, he's never been the man for a prolonged period of time. Therefore, if people want to pay a large cost to obtain Michael on the chance of him being a "beast" go ahead. I just find it an unnecessary gamble. I'm not ignoring that foresight is a part of this equation and the gamble sometimes pays off (Demaryius Thomas). But someone could just as likely point at Stephen Hill and think elite athlete + above average college production= beast.

I recall Thomas as a much better prospect than Stephen Hill. If not for the achillies injury, he was close to a sure thing...

In the case of David Wilson, he had everything you could hope for in a young back; physical attributes, flashes of talent and perhaps most importantly, an opportunity to start. Given the scarcity and fantasy value of a young RB in dynasty, why wouldn't you get excited about that kind of potential?

Not every guy will hit but very few guys are without a wart. Just about everyone is a "gamble". You can't wait until someone is proven, because then it is simply too late. At this point in time, Michael lacks the opportunity that Wilson had, so he isn't the best comparison. In general, Michael has to draw interest from fewer people and his price could/should reflect the uncertainty in his situation.

As far as "inserting" Michael and getting a "beast"... I don't think it is unreasonable. Sometimes people target the system or offensive philosophy of a team. For example, the Eagles have produced a stream of versatile, highly productive RBs.

Potential is in the eye of the beholder. To me, it depends a lot on the constitution of your team and the state of your RBs in general. In my situation, I infrequently get a very high draft pick and won't sniff an Adrian Peterson type. So, I'll invest in a guy like Michael. And I'll have conviction in the pick so I'll hold them through some adversity. That's probably why his price is so high in some leagues. I have a track record of more hits than misses. There are "conservative" guys in my league that are reluctant to pull the trigger or sometimes release a guy too quickly. I think it undermines their success but I won't tell them that....

Yes Thomas was a better prospect, but not by a mile. Still questions about route running, lack of college production, etc.Wilson also had a dominate year in college that Michael hasn't.

Can we just insert whomever in Minnesota and expect ap production? Knile Davis will produce like Charles? Etc. It's a dangerous road to expect beast mode production.

My point is I don't understand the gamble for Michael. It's unnecessary to guess he's going to become a beast based on never doing it prior and his rookie year.

Barring injury, he was never going to do much his rookie year. Again, this is a team with Super Bowl aspirations that had a clear #1 back and a more experienced guy for passing situations. Guys do "wait in the wings". Doesn't Seattle have to protect itself from injury/legal/contractual issues with Lynch?

Michael is a very athletic individual and looks the part in the limited opportunity I've seen of him. I didn't say "anybody" can succeed in a given system, but that there is a strategy of targeting guys from good systems, which is an overall reflection of the offensive philosophy, quality of the line, etc.

As far as "unnecessary to guess", it is necessary to guess on somebody, right? It just depends on how much you pay. What is the price you consider a bad gamble? What price would you pay?

I agree, but Seattle will probably go ol in the draft based on need. I think Lynch is producing more than the ol is making lynch look good.

I would give a 2nd round rookie for Michael. I've always thought he's a bit stiff as a runner with limited agility/ creativity + injury concerns + character concerns.

Honestly, at this point it is clear that you aren't objective on Michael. He isn't stiff, clearly doesn't display limited agility, and also appears to have average creativity at worst. Injury or character concerns? Bad situation? Definitely. But the rest of your comments demonstrate an obvious bias that lacks any fact base.

1) Everyone is biased. If you don't like my analysis that's fine, but it doesn't mean it's wrong or right. I'm not telling you that you lack "any fact base" that's incredibly disrespectful. If we didn't disagree, then everyone would have the same list drafting each and every year.

2) I'm not talking in absolutes here. When I say he's "a bit stiff as a runner" that doesn't = Michael is a 2 X 4 running down the field. Some players are less flexible and don't have a lot of bend to their game.

3) I'm listing reasons he won't be elite, not that he won't be a productive player in the NFL. As you left out this part of my last post "I don't think Michael is a bad player, I'm just not on the hype train of him becoming a "beast" and think he has a limited ceiling that will keep him from being a superstar in the NFL."

4) Clearly this is a Christine Michael love thread and i'm not going to get a ton of fans. However, his game on the field isn't flawless and that's all I listed.

5) I continue to post to find out what people love about him, so I can learn through that moving forward.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

529-2791-34 are pretty solid career rushing #s. Light on total carries for a four year player, but decent overall.

So the problem isn't whether he did enough with his carries. If he'd had more of them his season-by-season numbers would have been strong. And guys with similar performance and similar physical tools have been very successful in the NFL.

The question is how problematic the injuries and problems with the coaching staff -- the issues that kept him from high volume touches -- will affect his NFL career. And no one knows the answer.

Well put.Tdmills - the max single season yardage of 899 has already been addressed. In 2011, he had 899 yards in 9 games. Then he got injured. Dude was averaging 100 yards per game, and .89 TDs per game, when he got hurt. Not the same situation as a guy who gets 899 yards spread over 13-14 games.

wdcrob is right. The injuries and the knucklehead factor are a far bigger deal than his production. He has been productive when on the field.

I didn't read through 16 pages to see what was covered, so that's my fault. My issue is people projecting small sample sizes to large ones(David Wilson did this over a small span at the end of 2012 and therefore will have a huge 2013 for example). I know he was solid in college(i'm not discrediting your point), but how many RBs average to above average college production turn into great NFL careers? Foster/FWP did and were in the dog house, just like Michael. Yes injuries/dog house are important as well. I guess I just have a problem with people seeing what Lynch does, take out Lynch insert Michael and you get a beast...that will more than likely not happen and looking at the sample size of his entire career, he's never been the man for a prolonged period of time. Therefore, if people want to pay a large cost to obtain Michael on the chance of him being a "beast" go ahead. I just find it an unnecessary gamble. I'm not ignoring that foresight is a part of this equation and the gamble sometimes pays off (Demaryius Thomas). But someone could just as likely point at Stephen Hill and think elite athlete + above average college production= beast.

I recall Thomas as a much better prospect than Stephen Hill. If not for the achillies injury, he was close to a sure thing...

In the case of David Wilson, he had everything you could hope for in a young back; physical attributes, flashes of talent and perhaps most importantly, an opportunity to start. Given the scarcity and fantasy value of a young RB in dynasty, why wouldn't you get excited about that kind of potential?

Not every guy will hit but very few guys are without a wart. Just about everyone is a "gamble". You can't wait until someone is proven, because then it is simply too late. At this point in time, Michael lacks the opportunity that Wilson had, so he isn't the best comparison. In general, Michael has to draw interest from fewer people and his price could/should reflect the uncertainty in his situation.

As far as "inserting" Michael and getting a "beast"... I don't think it is unreasonable. Sometimes people target the system or offensive philosophy of a team. For example, the Eagles have produced a stream of versatile, highly productive RBs.

Potential is in the eye of the beholder. To me, it depends a lot on the constitution of your team and the state of your RBs in general. In my situation, I infrequently get a very high draft pick and won't sniff an Adrian Peterson type. So, I'll invest in a guy like Michael. And I'll have conviction in the pick so I'll hold them through some adversity. That's probably why his price is so high in some leagues. I have a track record of more hits than misses. There are "conservative" guys in my league that are reluctant to pull the trigger or sometimes release a guy too quickly. I think it undermines their success but I won't tell them that....

Yes Thomas was a better prospect, but not by a mile. Still questions about route running, lack of college production, etc.Wilson also had a dominate year in college that Michael hasn't.

Can we just insert whomever in Minnesota and expect ap production? Knile Davis will produce like Charles? Etc. It's a dangerous road to expect beast mode production.

My point is I don't understand the gamble for Michael. It's unnecessary to guess he's going to become a beast based on never doing it prior and his rookie year.

Barring injury, he was never going to do much his rookie year. Again, this is a team with Super Bowl aspirations that had a clear #1 back and a more experienced guy for passing situations. Guys do "wait in the wings". Doesn't Seattle have to protect itself from injury/legal/contractual issues with Lynch?

Michael is a very athletic individual and looks the part in the limited opportunity I've seen of him. I didn't say "anybody" can succeed in a given system, but that there is a strategy of targeting guys from good systems, which is an overall reflection of the offensive philosophy, quality of the line, etc.

As far as "unnecessary to guess", it is necessary to guess on somebody, right? It just depends on how much you pay. What is the price you consider a bad gamble? What price would you pay?

I agree, but Seattle will probably go ol in the draft based on need. I think Lynch is producing more than the ol is making lynch look good.

I would give a 2nd round rookie for Michael. I've always thought he's a bit stiff as a runner with limited agility/ creativity + injury concerns + character concerns.

Honestly, at this point it is clear that you aren't objective on Michael. He isn't stiff, clearly doesn't display limited agility, and also appears to have average creativity at worst. Injury or character concerns? Bad situation? Definitely. But the rest of your comments demonstrate an obvious bias that lacks any fact base.

1) Everyone is biased. If you don't like my analysis that's fine, but it doesn't mean it's wrong or right. I'm not telling you that you lack "any fact base" that's incredibly disrespectful. If we didn't disagree, then everyone would have the same list drafting each and every year.

2) I'm not talking in absolutes here. When I say he's "a bit stiff as a runner" that doesn't = Michael is a 2 X 4 running down the field. Some players are less flexible and don't have a lot of bend to their game.

3) I'm listing reasons he won't be elite, not that he won't be a productive player in the NFL. As you left out this part of my last post "I don't think Michael is a bad player, I'm just not on the hype train of him becoming a "beast" and think he has a limited ceiling that will keep him from being a superstar in the NFL."

4) Clearly this is a Christine Michael love thread and i'm not going to get a ton of fans. However, his game on the field isn't flawless and that's all I listed.

5) I continue to post to find out what people love about him, so I can learn through that moving forward.

Our back and forth began days ago when your assertions about his college productivity were.....lightly corrected.....with facts. Facts that you could have sought out. It isn't disrespectful to point out that you - or anyone else - appears to lack objectivity or interest in facts. I'm not calling you dumb - just strongly biased in this case.

If you really want to point out flaws in his game and have a rich discussion, perhaps you could point to specific plays, on tape, that demonstrate your view? I think many of us - other than rabid supporters - would really be interested in that debate.

 

[The Man With No Name]

Come on people now

Smile on your brother

Everybody get together

Try to love one another

Right now

He has talent but his situation is not good at this time. It could change for the better, but when is the question. Many good fantasy running backs were not thought highly of before they got a chance and performed. He might and he might not. He needs opportunity to prove everyone here right or wrong. When will he get that opportunity if he does at all? We all have to wait on that.

edit: missed a letter.

 

[tdmills]

529-2791-34 are pretty solid career rushing #s. Light on total carries for a four year player, but decent overall.

So the problem isn't whether he did enough with his carries. If he'd had more of them his season-by-season numbers would have been strong. And guys with similar performance and similar physical tools have been very successful in the NFL.

The question is how problematic the injuries and problems with the coaching staff -- the issues that kept him from high volume touches -- will affect his NFL career. And no one knows the answer.

Well put.Tdmills - the max single season yardage of 899 has already been addressed. In 2011, he had 899 yards in 9 games. Then he got injured. Dude was averaging 100 yards per game, and .89 TDs per game, when he got hurt. Not the same situation as a guy who gets 899 yards spread over 13-14 games.

wdcrob is right. The injuries and the knucklehead factor are a far bigger deal than his production. He has been productive when on the field.

I didn't read through 16 pages to see what was covered, so that's my fault. My issue is people projecting small sample sizes to large ones(David Wilson did this over a small span at the end of 2012 and therefore will have a huge 2013 for example). I know he was solid in college(i'm not discrediting your point), but how many RBs average to above average college production turn into great NFL careers? Foster/FWP did and were in the dog house, just like Michael. Yes injuries/dog house are important as well. I guess I just have a problem with people seeing what Lynch does, take out Lynch insert Michael and you get a beast...that will more than likely not happen and looking at the sample size of his entire career, he's never been the man for a prolonged period of time. Therefore, if people want to pay a large cost to obtain Michael on the chance of him being a "beast" go ahead. I just find it an unnecessary gamble. I'm not ignoring that foresight is a part of this equation and the gamble sometimes pays off (Demaryius Thomas). But someone could just as likely point at Stephen Hill and think elite athlete + above average college production= beast.

I recall Thomas as a much better prospect than Stephen Hill. If not for the achillies injury, he was close to a sure thing...

In the case of David Wilson, he had everything you could hope for in a young back; physical attributes, flashes of talent and perhaps most importantly, an opportunity to start. Given the scarcity and fantasy value of a young RB in dynasty, why wouldn't you get excited about that kind of potential?

Not every guy will hit but very few guys are without a wart. Just about everyone is a "gamble". You can't wait until someone is proven, because then it is simply too late. At this point in time, Michael lacks the opportunity that Wilson had, so he isn't the best comparison. In general, Michael has to draw interest from fewer people and his price could/should reflect the uncertainty in his situation.

As far as "inserting" Michael and getting a "beast"... I don't think it is unreasonable. Sometimes people target the system or offensive philosophy of a team. For example, the Eagles have produced a stream of versatile, highly productive RBs.

Potential is in the eye of the beholder. To me, it depends a lot on the constitution of your team and the state of your RBs in general. In my situation, I infrequently get a very high draft pick and won't sniff an Adrian Peterson type. So, I'll invest in a guy like Michael. And I'll have conviction in the pick so I'll hold them through some adversity. That's probably why his price is so high in some leagues. I have a track record of more hits than misses. There are "conservative" guys in my league that are reluctant to pull the trigger or sometimes release a guy too quickly. I think it undermines their success but I won't tell them that....

Yes Thomas was a better prospect, but not by a mile. Still questions about route running, lack of college production, etc.Wilson also had a dominate year in college that Michael hasn't.

Can we just insert whomever in Minnesota and expect ap production? Knile Davis will produce like Charles? Etc. It's a dangerous road to expect beast mode production.

My point is I don't understand the gamble for Michael. It's unnecessary to guess he's going to become a beast based on never doing it prior and his rookie year.

Barring injury, he was never going to do much his rookie year. Again, this is a team with Super Bowl aspirations that had a clear #1 back and a more experienced guy for passing situations. Guys do "wait in the wings". Doesn't Seattle have to protect itself from injury/legal/contractual issues with Lynch?

Michael is a very athletic individual and looks the part in the limited opportunity I've seen of him. I didn't say "anybody" can succeed in a given system, but that there is a strategy of targeting guys from good systems, which is an overall reflection of the offensive philosophy, quality of the line, etc.

As far as "unnecessary to guess", it is necessary to guess on somebody, right? It just depends on how much you pay. What is the price you consider a bad gamble? What price would you pay?

I agree, but Seattle will probably go ol in the draft based on need. I think Lynch is producing more than the ol is making lynch look good.

I would give a 2nd round rookie for Michael. I've always thought he's a bit stiff as a runner with limited agility/ creativity + injury concerns + character concerns.

Honestly, at this point it is clear that you aren't objective on Michael. He isn't stiff, clearly doesn't display limited agility, and also appears to have average creativity at worst. Injury or character concerns? Bad situation? Definitely. But the rest of your comments demonstrate an obvious bias that lacks any fact base.

1) Everyone is biased. If you don't like my analysis that's fine, but it doesn't mean it's wrong or right. I'm not telling you that you lack "any fact base" that's incredibly disrespectful. If we didn't disagree, then everyone would have the same list drafting each and every year.

2) I'm not talking in absolutes here. When I say he's "a bit stiff as a runner" that doesn't = Michael is a 2 X 4 running down the field. Some players are less flexible and don't have a lot of bend to their game.

3) I'm listing reasons he won't be elite, not that he won't be a productive player in the NFL. As you left out this part of my last post "I don't think Michael is a bad player, I'm just not on the hype train of him becoming a "beast" and think he has a limited ceiling that will keep him from being a superstar in the NFL."

4) Clearly this is a Christine Michael love thread and i'm not going to get a ton of fans. However, his game on the field isn't flawless and that's all I listed.

5) I continue to post to find out what people love about him, so I can learn through that moving forward.

Our back and forth began days ago when your assertions about his college productivity were.....lightly corrected.....with facts. Facts that you could have sought out. It isn't disrespectful to point out that you - or anyone else - appears to lack objectivity or interest in facts. I'm not calling you dumb - just strongly biased in this case.

If you really want to point out flaws in his game and have a rich discussion, perhaps you could point to specific plays, on tape, that demonstrate your view? I think many of us - other than rabid supporters - would really be interested in that debate.

Lightly corrected? I said he's never put up "beast numbers" in college and his best season is 899 yards. Is that not a fact? Then you try to spin it because it was only in 9 games and went efficiency. Point is, he never put up beast numbers. Over 1/4 of his rushing yards came against Arkansas and they were 47th in total defense. If you want to be a good NFL RB, you should put up 100 yards a game. Kadeem Carey put up almost 1900 yards two years in a row, does that make him a beast? Christine Michael had the "what if" college career and now through 1 year in the NFL his supporters are doing the same thing.

Michael can run fast and has power, that's easy to see.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l52K5QZ2OEw

:2= Cuts inside of the DE and shows his speed/power. Good play

:11= wasn't creative as he just went out of bounds, didn't try to cut inside or lower his shoulder for more yardage

:17= Look at how many steps it takes him to change direction, move forward, and get going. This is a little stiff and limited agility, not that he has none.

:27= The defender he ran over was being blocked. He is Fast and has power, IMO he's not going to last long doing this at the next level for a long period of time. He already had a bunch of injuries in college.

:57= Lacking vision/creativity/agility to make anything by himself on this play. Flat out missed a hole on the inside earlier in the play.

1:25= Jump cuts back but loses all momentum/power and couldn't make much out of the play. Dives for 3 yards.

1:32= Check the defense before you get too hyped about this one. Auburn is bringing 6 defenders on the LOS, only 1 player at the 2nd level and man coverage behind(hurts for run fits because they can't see the ball). LE twists and gets crushed down by the RG leaving a massive hole. The OL comboed up to the only 2nd level defender. Michael jump cuts, when all he needs is a 45 degree cut and outraces the last defender on the LOS opposite side of the field(defender has good speed) to the end zone. Michael has solid speed, but he did nothing great here...the OL did a tremendous job and it's a good playcall vs a blitz.

1:45= Takes some extra steps to cut upfield, which cost him because the flowing defenders get to him. If he could cut sharper or continue outside, this is probably a touchdown. Instead he loses the football because it's in the wrong arm.

2:20= the RILB guessed wrong and flowed outside, leaving Michael a huge hole up the middle. He makes the safety miss and gets a good gain. These plays show his potential because he is a good athlete.

Again, I don't see anything in here that disproves him not being a beast. He's a decent player, but i'm not yelling from the rooftops about him.

I'll let you break down the other game and feel free to debate any of the plays above.

 

[DropKick]

Lightly corrected? I said he's never put up "beast numbers" in college and his best season is 899 yards. Is that not a fact? Then you try to spin it because it was only in 9 games and went efficiency. Point is, he never put up beast numbers. Over 1/4 of his rushing yards came against Arkansas and they were 47th in total defense. If you want to be a good NFL RB, you should put up 100 yards a game. Kadeem Carey put up almost 1900 yards two years in a row, does that make him a beast? Christine Michael had the "what if" college career and now through 1 year in the NFL his supporters are doing the same thing.

Michael can run fast and has power, that's easy to see.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l52K5QZ2OEw

:2= Cuts inside of the DE and shows his speed/power. Good play

:11= wasn't creative as he just went out of bounds, didn't try to cut inside or lower his shoulder for more yardage

:17= Look at how many steps it takes him to change direction, move forward, and get going. This is a little stiff and limited agility, not that he has none.

:27= The defender he ran over was being blocked. He is Fast and has power, IMO he's not going to last long doing this at the next level for a long period of time. He already had a bunch of injuries in college.

:57= Lacking vision/creativity/agility to make anything by himself on this play. Flat out missed a hole on the inside earlier in the play.

1:25= Jump cuts back but loses all momentum/power and couldn't make much out of the play. Dives for 3 yards.

1:32= Check the defense before you get too hyped about this one. Auburn is bringing 6 defenders on the LOS, only 1 player at the 2nd level and man coverage behind(hurts for run fits because they can't see the ball). LE twists and gets crushed down by the RG leaving a massive hole. The OL comboed up to the only 2nd level defender. Michael jump cuts, when all he needs is a 45 degree cut and outraces the last defender on the LOS opposite side of the field(defender has good speed) to the end zone. Michael has solid speed, but he did nothing great here...the OL did a tremendous job and it's a good playcall vs a blitz.

1:45= Takes some extra steps to cut upfield, which cost him because the flowing defenders get to him. If he could cut sharper or continue outside, this is probably a touchdown. Instead he loses the football because it's in the wrong arm.

2:20= the RILB guessed wrong and flowed outside, leaving Michael a huge hole up the middle. He makes the safety miss and gets a good gain. These plays show his potential because he is a good athlete.

Again, I don't see anything in here that disproves him not being a beast. He's a decent player, but i'm not yelling from the rooftops about him.

I'll let you break down the other game and feel free to debate any of the plays above.

You're going out of your way to be critical.

:11= wasn't creative as he just went out of bounds, didn't try to cut inside or lower his shoulder for more yardage

Less than 4 minutes into the game and he picks up the first down. No need to seek out contact and "maximize" every play, especially that early in the game.

:17= Look at how many steps it takes him to change direction, move forward, and get going. This is a little stiff and limited agility, not that he has none.

Or, is he weighing his options - waiting for blocks to develop? Is it lack of agility or patience?

:27= The defender he ran over was being blocked. He is Fast and has power, IMO he's not going to last long doing this at the next level for a long period of time. He already had a bunch of injuries in college.

Agree the defender probably had poor leverage coming off a block and that explains the pancake but two points above you criticize him for not seeking contact and here its a negative?

:57= Lacking vision/creativity/agility to make anything by himself on this play. Flat out missed a hole on the inside earlier in the play.

There was a hole inside but the blocking looks like the play was designed to go outside. His teammate misses a block and he is going East/West. When he stops the defender is in his face. I would credit the defender for a good play. I see plays like this in every game. Kind of a stretch to knock the back on vision, creativity and agility for one busted play.

1:25= Jump cuts back but loses all momentum/power and couldn't make much out of the play. Dives for 3 yards.

May have done better had he hit the hole but when he was 4 yard deep there was a linebacker in the hole, who drifted right. He cuts back into a pair of defenders and at least he gets positive yards.

1:32= Check the defense before you get too hyped about this one. Auburn is bringing 6 defenders on the LOS, only 1 player at the 2nd level and man coverage behind(hurts for run fits because they can't see the ball). LE twists and gets crushed down by the RG leaving a massive hole. The OL comboed up to the only 2nd level defender. Michael jump cuts, when all he needs is a 45 degree cut and outraces the last defender on the LOS opposite side of the field(defender has good speed) to the end zone. Michael has solid speed, but he did nothing great here...the OL did a tremendous job and it's a good playcall vs a blitz.

Yes, good job of blocking. I'll take 4.41 speed from a 220 lb back.

1:45= Takes some extra steps to cut upfield, which cost him because the flowing defenders get to him. If he could cut sharper or continue outside, this is probably a touchdown. Instead he loses the football because it's in the wrong arm.

Or, again, he is waiting for the block to develop - which it does. Yes, he has the ball in the wrong arm. Fortunately for him, they mark him down on the 2 - a 4 yard gain.

Michael isn't perfect. There are questions, which are probably things that you can ask about most backs - durability, ball control and participation in the passing game. But fantasy football is a team building exercise. Like the Seahawks, I didn't need Michael this season. I have him as an RB5/6 and he is someone that I hope develops into a starter in 1-2 years. I keep a couple "future" players on my roster for just that reason because, frankly, I have few options to acquire a feature back in a dynasty format. So, you have to swing for guys early and hope they develop into a solid fantasy starter. I would rather invest a roster spot in that than some "what you see is what you get" WR6. He looks like he could be a "work horse" back. How many of those are in the league today?

 

[EBF]

I didn't read through 16 pages to see what was covered, so that's my fault. My issue is people projecting small sample sizes to large ones(David Wilson did this over a small span at the end of 2012 and therefore will have a huge 2013 for example). I know he was solid in college(i'm not discrediting your point), but how many RBs average to above average college production turn into great NFL careers? Foster/FWP did and were in the dog house, just like Michael. Yes injuries/dog house are important as well. I guess I just have a problem with people seeing what Lynch does, take out Lynch insert Michael and you get a beast...that will more than likely not happen and looking at the sample size of his entire career, he's never been the man for a prolonged period of time.

You already admitted that you didn't read the thread. Why should anyone waste their energy addressing points that have already been raised numerous times in this thread? I agree that not every RB who has a decent college career will become a good NFL player, but then again not every RB who has a decent college career becomes a top 75 draft pick, dominates the combine, and leads the NFL in preseason rushing yards as a rookie. If you want to talk about "odds" then you might want to make some effort to find historical equivalents for Michael. Again, something that I might not have to point out if you'd actually read the thread.

As far as this goes...

I guess I just have a problem with people seeing what Lynch does, take out Lynch insert Michael and you get a beast...that will more than likely not happen and looking at the sample size of his entire career, he's never been the man for a prolonged period of time.

I've actually read the thread and I don't recall too many Michael supporters latching onto Lynch's success as the cause for their optimism. I don't recall too many people looking at this situation and saying, "Lynch was a beast in this offense therefore Michael will be a beast." So it's a gigantic waste of time to argue against that, since it isn't what anyone has been saying.

The case for Michael is pretty straightforward:

- Solid college production when healthy.

- Freaky athletic qualities.

- High draft slot.

- Impressive training camp and preseason.

He looks like a guy with a lot of talent. It's often wise to buy those players early in their careers while their experience/opportunity are still limited. By the time those hurdles clear up, he'll be so expensive that there will be minimal upside to buying him.

Therefore, if people want to pay a large cost to obtain Michael on the chance of him being a "beast" go ahead. I just find it an unnecessary gamble. I'm not ignoring that foresight is a part of this equation and the gamble sometimes pays off (Demaryius Thomas). But someone could just as likely point at Stephen Hill and think elite athlete + above average college production= beast.

As far as I can see, his current dynasty rankings (even among his most optimistic supporters) represent a pretty fair compromise between his upside and his downside. In other words, yes there is risk. Pointing that out has no real value since the risk of him being a flop is already factored into his cost.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

I didn't read through 16 pages to see what was covered, so that's my fault. My issue is people projecting small sample sizes to large ones(David Wilson did this over a small span at the end of 2012 and therefore will have a huge 2013 for example). I know he was solid in college(i'm not discrediting your point), but how many RBs average to above average college production turn into great NFL careers? Foster/FWP did and were in the dog house, just like Michael. Yes injuries/dog house are important as well. I guess I just have a problem with people seeing what Lynch does, take out Lynch insert Michael and you get a beast...that will more than likely not happen and looking at the sample size of his entire career, he's never been the man for a prolonged period of time.

You already admitted that you didn't read the thread. Why should anyone waste their energy addressing points that have already been raised numerous times in this thread? I agree that not every RB who has a decent college career will become a good NFL player, but then again not every RB who has a decent college career becomes a top 75 draft pick, dominates the combine, and leads the NFL in preseason rushing yards as a rookie. If you want to talk about "odds" then you might want to make some effort to find historical equivalents for Michael. Again, something that I might not have to point out if you'd actually read the thread.

As far as this goes...

I guess I just have a problem with people seeing what Lynch does, take out Lynch insert Michael and you get a beast...that will more than likely not happen and looking at the sample size of his entire career, he's never been the man for a prolonged period of time.

I've actually read the thread and I don't recall too many Michael supporters latching onto Lynch's success as the cause for their optimism. I don't recall too many people looking at this situation and saying, "Lynch was a beast in this offense therefore Michael will be a beast." So it's a gigantic waste of time to argue against that, since it isn't what anyone has been saying.

The case for Michael is pretty straightforward:

- Solid college production when healthy.

- Freaky athletic qualities.

- High draft slot.

- Impressive training camp and preseason.

He looks like a guy with a lot of talent. It's often wise to buy those players early in their careers while their experience/opportunity are still limited. By the time those hurdles clear up, he'll be so expensive that there will be minimal upside to buying him.

Therefore, if people want to pay a large cost to obtain Michael on the chance of him being a "beast" go ahead. I just find it an unnecessary gamble. I'm not ignoring that foresight is a part of this equation and the gamble sometimes pays off (Demaryius Thomas). But someone could just as likely point at Stephen Hill and think elite athlete + above average college production= beast.

As far as I can see, his current dynasty rankings (even among his most optimistic supporters) represent a pretty fair compromise between his upside and his downside. In other words, yes there is risk. Pointing that out has no real value since the risk of him being a flop is already factored into his cost.

TD doesn't think C Michael is talented. He thinks CM lacks vision, agility, etc.

 

[ShaHBucks]

Who do you guys have Michael in dynasty teirs with? I'm having a hard time caring if his roster spot was occupied with the likes of Knile Davis, Toby Gerhart, Bryce Brown, Roy Helu, or my own fav Latavious Murray for the next 1-2 years.

 

[ghostguy123]

Who do you guys have Michael in dynasty teirs with? I'm having a hard time caring if his roster spot was occupied with the likes of Knile Davis, Toby Gerhart, Bryce Brown, Roy Helu, or my own fav Latavious Murray for the next 1-2 years.

Above all of them.

 

[BassNBrew]

I didn't read through 16 pages to see what was covered, so that's my fault. My issue is people projecting small sample sizes to large ones(David Wilson did this over a small span at the end of 2012 and therefore will have a huge 2013 for example). I know he was solid in college(i'm not discrediting your point), but how many RBs average to above average college production turn into great NFL careers? Foster/FWP did and were in the dog house, just like Michael. Yes injuries/dog house are important as well. I guess I just have a problem with people seeing what Lynch does, take out Lynch insert Michael and you get a beast...that will more than likely not happen and looking at the sample size of his entire career, he's never been the man for a prolonged period of time.

You already admitted that you didn't read the thread. Why should anyone waste their energy addressing points that have already been raised numerous times in this thread? I agree that not every RB who has a decent college career will become a good NFL player, but then again not every RB who has a decent college career becomes a top 75 draft pick, dominates the combine, and leads the NFL in preseason rushing yards as a rookie. If you want to talk about "odds" then you might want to make some effort to find historical equivalents for Michael. Again, something that I might not have to point out if you'd actually read the thread.

As far as this goes...

I guess I just have a problem with people seeing what Lynch does, take out Lynch insert Michael and you get a beast...that will more than likely not happen and looking at the sample size of his entire career, he's never been the man for a prolonged period of time.

I've actually read the thread and I don't recall too many Michael supporters latching onto Lynch's success as the cause for their optimism. I don't recall too many people looking at this situation and saying, "Lynch was a beast in this offense therefore Michael will be a beast." So it's a gigantic waste of time to argue against that, since it isn't what anyone has been saying.

The case for Michael is pretty straightforward:

- Solid college production when healthy.

- Freaky athletic qualities.

- High draft slot.

- Impressive training camp and preseason.

He looks like a guy with a lot of talent. It's often wise to buy those players early in their careers while their experience/opportunity are still limited. By the time those hurdles clear up, he'll be so expensive that there will be minimal upside to buying him.

Therefore, if people want to pay a large cost to obtain Michael on the chance of him being a "beast" go ahead. I just find it an unnecessary gamble. I'm not ignoring that foresight is a part of this equation and the gamble sometimes pays off (Demaryius Thomas). But someone could just as likely point at Stephen Hill and think elite athlete + above average college production= beast.

As far as I can see, his current dynasty rankings (even among his most optimistic supporters) represent a pretty fair compromise between his upside and his downside. In other words, yes there is risk. Pointing that out has no real value since the risk of him being a flop is already factored into his cost.

Sounds like Stewart in Carolina.

 

[EBF]

Sounds like Stewart in Carolina.

Figured someone would say that (if they haven't already).

I'll give you Jonathan Stewart and DeAngelo Williams as elite talents whose careers were wasted by bad opportunity (though Stewart may yet have his day).

On the other side I'll take Deuce McAllister, Ahman Green, Priest Holmes, Larry Johnson, Shaun Alexander, Michael Turner, Darren Sproles, and Jamaal Charles.

I win.

If people want to question whether or not Michael is a special talent, I think that's fair. If people want to question whether or not most special talents eventually get a chance to shine, that's not a debate worth having. The answer is an obvious and emphatic yes.

 

[ghostguy123]

Sounds like Stewart in Carolina.

Figured someone would say that (if they haven't already).

I'll give you Jonathan Stewart and DeAngelo Williams as elite talents whose careers were wasted by bad opportunity (though Stewart may yet have his day).

On the other side I'll take Deuce McAllister, Ahman Green, Priest Holmes, Larry Johnson, Shaun Alexander, Michael Turner, Darren Sproles, and Jamaal Charles.

I win.

If people want to question whether or not Michael is a special talent, I think that's fair. If people want to question whether or not most special talents eventually get a chance to shine, that's not a debate worth having. The answer is an obvious and emphatic yes.

Also not real sure Stewart is a good comparison anyway, been nothing but hurt AND not really had opportunity.

You never know how things will shake out once the player is in the league. Do they work harder than ever, or do they get lazy? Do they get opportunity, and if they do will they have a coach who uses them the best way for fantasy purposes?

I would agree with anyone who says they go for talent. Season to season performance will fluctuate, but over the long haul you will do better if you collect the more talented players. I don't think this is remotely debatable.

The only debate is who the more talented players are.

 

[ShaHBucks]

Who do you guys have Michael in dynasty teirs with? I'm having a hard time caring if his roster spot was occupied with the likes of Knile Davis, Toby Gerhart, Bryce Brown, Roy Helu, or my own fav Latavious Murray for the next 1-2 years.

Above all of them.

Why?

 

[ghostguy123]

Who do you guys have Michael in dynasty teirs with? I'm having a hard time caring if his roster spot was occupied with the likes of Knile Davis, Toby Gerhart, Bryce Brown, Roy Helu, or my own fav Latavious Murray for the next 1-2 years.

Above all of them.

Why?

I think all his measurables are decent. From what I have seen in the preseason games he got a good amount of touches, his vision seemed decent, he seemed to be able to use blocks at the 2nd level, made some guys miss in the open field, when hitting the line he got some forward push. He didn't look like he had a weakness that I could tell.

It's not like I have him light years ahead of all the guys you mentioned, though I do have him way ahead of Murray, Gerhardt, and Helu. At least Davis and Brown are reasonably close. I know I say that going with the better talent is the way to go, I might actually tend to lean towards Brown being more talented, but to me Mccoy in front of him is far different than Lynch in front of Michael. I think he is more talented than Davis, and Davis has Charles in front of him which I also view as being worse than Lynch in front of Michael.

But the mixture of talent, seeing SOME game tape, and potential opportunity............I put him ahead of them all.

Michael

.

Brown

Davis

.

.

Helu

Herhardt

.

Murray

That order plus some extra separation

 

[ShaHBucks]

Who do you guys have Michael in dynasty teirs with? I'm having a hard time caring if his roster spot was occupied with the likes of Knile Davis, Toby Gerhart, Bryce Brown, Roy Helu, or my own fav Latavious Murray for the next 1-2 years.

Above all of them.

Why?

I think all his measurables are decent. From what I have seen in the preseason games he got a good amount of touches, his vision seemed decent, he seemed to be able to use blocks at the 2nd level, made some guys miss in the open field, when hitting the line he got some forward push. He didn't look like he had a weakness that I could tell.

It's not like I have him light years ahead of all the guys you mentioned, though I do have him way ahead of Murray, Gerhardt, and Helu. At least Davis and Brown are reasonably close. I know I say that going with the better talent is the way to go, I might actually tend to lean towards Brown being more talented, but to me Mccoy in front of him is far different than Lynch in front of Michael. I think he is more talented than Davis, and Davis has Charles in front of him which I also view as being worse than Lynch in front of Michael.

But the mixture of talent, seeing SOME game tape, and potential opportunity............I put him ahead of them all.

Michael

.

Brown

Davis

.

.

Helu

Herhardt

.

Murray

That order plus some extra separation

They were just names from a hat. I don't think you read my 1st question at all though.

 

[tdmills]

Lightly corrected? I said he's never put up "beast numbers" in college and his best season is 899 yards. Is that not a fact? Then you try to spin it because it was only in 9 games and went efficiency. Point is, he never put up beast numbers. Over 1/4 of his rushing yards came against Arkansas and they were 47th in total defense. If you want to be a good NFL RB, you should put up 100 yards a game. Kadeem Carey put up almost 1900 yards two years in a row, does that make him a beast? Christine Michael had the "what if" college career and now through 1 year in the NFL his supporters are doing the same thing.

Michael can run fast and has power, that's easy to see.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l52K5QZ2OEw

:2= Cuts inside of the DE and shows his speed/power. Good play

:11= wasn't creative as he just went out of bounds, didn't try to cut inside or lower his shoulder for more yardage

:17= Look at how many steps it takes him to change direction, move forward, and get going. This is a little stiff and limited agility, not that he has none.

:27= The defender he ran over was being blocked. He is Fast and has power, IMO he's not going to last long doing this at the next level for a long period of time. He already had a bunch of injuries in college.

:57= Lacking vision/creativity/agility to make anything by himself on this play. Flat out missed a hole on the inside earlier in the play.

1:25= Jump cuts back but loses all momentum/power and couldn't make much out of the play. Dives for 3 yards.

1:32= Check the defense before you get too hyped about this one. Auburn is bringing 6 defenders on the LOS, only 1 player at the 2nd level and man coverage behind(hurts for run fits because they can't see the ball). LE twists and gets crushed down by the RG leaving a massive hole. The OL comboed up to the only 2nd level defender. Michael jump cuts, when all he needs is a 45 degree cut and outraces the last defender on the LOS opposite side of the field(defender has good speed) to the end zone. Michael has solid speed, but he did nothing great here...the OL did a tremendous job and it's a good playcall vs a blitz.

1:45= Takes some extra steps to cut upfield, which cost him because the flowing defenders get to him. If he could cut sharper or continue outside, this is probably a touchdown. Instead he loses the football because it's in the wrong arm.

2:20= the RILB guessed wrong and flowed outside, leaving Michael a huge hole up the middle. He makes the safety miss and gets a good gain. These plays show his potential because he is a good athlete.

Again, I don't see anything in here that disproves him not being a beast. He's a decent player, but i'm not yelling from the rooftops about him.

I'll let you break down the other game and feel free to debate any of the plays above.

You're going out of your way to be critical.

Perhaps, but I always break down prospects in this way. I take them as if they were perfect and then chip away at them. I figured if it worked for Michelangelo, it can for me.

:11= wasn't creative as he just went out of bounds, didn't try to cut inside or lower his shoulder for more yardage

Less than 4 minutes into the game and he picks up the first down. No need to seek out contact and "maximize" every play, especially that early in the game. I won't disagree with this premise. However, it continues with my theme of limited creativity/agility. I'm sure shady mccoy would've hesitated and cut inside, for example.

:17= Look at how many steps it takes him to change direction, move forward, and get going. This is a little stiff and limited agility, not that he has none.

Or, is he weighing his options - waiting for blocks to develop? Is it lack of agility or patience? If he was setting up defenders, I wouldn't think that it would take him as many steps to stop and turn.

:27= The defender he ran over was being blocked. He is Fast and has power, IMO he's not going to last long doing this at the next level for a long period of time. He already had a bunch of injuries in college.

Agree the defender probably had poor leverage coming off a block and that explains the pancake but two points above you criticize him for not seeking contact and here its a negative? I list it as a negative in terms of not being Marshawn Lynch/Eddie Lacy at the next level. I do like that he finished off the run. This was a positive play, I just worry about his injuries.

:57= Lacking vision/creativity/agility to make anything by himself on this play. Flat out missed a hole on the inside earlier in the play.

There was a hole inside but the blocking looks like the play was designed to go outside. His teammate misses a block and he is going East/West. When he stops the defender is in his face. I would credit the defender for a good play. I see plays like this in every game. Kind of a stretch to knock the back on vision, creativity and agility for one busted play. Coming from an elite RB perspective, would Adrian Peterson/Lesean McCoy/Jamaal Charles ended up with the same result?

1:25= Jump cuts back but loses all momentum/power and couldn't make much out of the play. Dives for 3 yards.

May have done better had he hit the hole but when he was 4 yard deep there was a linebacker in the hole, who drifted right. He cuts back into a pair of defenders and at least he gets positive yards. Agreed, this was an average to below average play for him. Not sure if this is a lack of vision/decision and he should've stayed front side/etc. My only negative here is that stiff/agility piece. The jump cut took away momentum, now is it the move or his stiff/agility that robbed him on this play?

1:32= Check the defense before you get too hyped about this one. Auburn is bringing 6 defenders on the LOS, only 1 player at the 2nd level and man coverage behind(hurts for run fits because they can't see the ball). LE twists and gets crushed down by the RG leaving a massive hole. The OL comboed up to the only 2nd level defender. Michael jump cuts, when all he needs is a 45 degree cut and outraces the last defender on the LOS opposite side of the field(defender has good speed) to the end zone. Michael has solid speed, but he did nothing great here...the OL did a tremendous job and it's a good playcall vs a blitz.

Yes, good job of blocking. I'll take 4.41 speed from a 220 lb back. Never disagreed that he wasn't a size/speed player, just Andre Ellington would've scored a TD on this play. It's exciting to see a RB that big move that fast.

1:45= Takes some extra steps to cut upfield, which cost him because the flowing defenders get to him. If he could cut sharper or continue outside, this is probably a touchdown. Instead he loses the football because it's in the wrong arm.

Or, again, he is waiting for the block to develop - which it does. Yes, he has the ball in the wrong arm. Fortunately for him, they mark him down on the 2 - a 4 yard gain. Why does it take so many steps to change direction? I can see him setting up the block(great block by the way), but I still feel he could've won outside on this or a decisive cut inside. Maybe he needs to work on being decisive?

Michael isn't perfect. There are questions, which are probably things that you can ask about most backs - durability, ball control and participation in the passing game. But fantasy football is a team building exercise. Like the Seahawks, I didn't need Michael this season. I have him as an RB5/6 and he is someone that I hope develops into a starter in 1-2 years. I keep a couple "future" players on my roster for just that reason because, frankly, I have few options to acquire a feature back in a dynasty format. So, you have to swing for guys early and hope they develop into a solid fantasy starter. I would rather invest a roster spot in that than some "what you see is what you get" WR6. He looks like he could be a "work horse" back. How many of those are in the league today?

Again, I feel that many are misinterpreting what i'm saying. Of course I would take Michael on my roster over the Joseph Randle's of the world. I'm simply pointing out besides the lack of great production in college, durability, character or coachable concerns.....he has flaws to his game. Are they fixable? Perhaps, but those flaws worked into my evaluation last year.

Thanks for taking the time to look at the plays with me, I enjoy the other perspective.

 

[ghostguy123]

I did read it, I just didn't answer your first question when I said "above all of them". I answered you when you asked why I ranked michael above all if them.

I didn't answer your first question because I haven't done my complete rankins yet since I was planning to wait till after free agency and the draft.

 

[tdmills]

I didn't read through 16 pages to see what was covered, so that's my fault. My issue is people projecting small sample sizes to large ones(David Wilson did this over a small span at the end of 2012 and therefore will have a huge 2013 for example). I know he was solid in college(i'm not discrediting your point), but how many RBs average to above average college production turn into great NFL careers? Foster/FWP did and were in the dog house, just like Michael. Yes injuries/dog house are important as well. I guess I just have a problem with people seeing what Lynch does, take out Lynch insert Michael and you get a beast...that will more than likely not happen and looking at the sample size of his entire career, he's never been the man for a prolonged period of time.

You already admitted that you didn't read the thread. Why should anyone waste their energy addressing points that have already been raised numerous times in this thread? I agree that not every RB who has a decent college career will become a good NFL player, but then again not every RB who has a decent college career becomes a top 75 draft pick, dominates the combine, and leads the NFL in preseason rushing yards as a rookie. If you want to talk about "odds" then you might want to make some effort to find historical equivalents for Michael. Again, something that I might not have to point out if you'd actually read the thread.

As far as this goes...

I guess I just have a problem with people seeing what Lynch does, take out Lynch insert Michael and you get a beast...that will more than likely not happen and looking at the sample size of his entire career, he's never been the man for a prolonged period of time.

I've actually read the thread and I don't recall too many Michael supporters latching onto Lynch's success as the cause for their optimism. I don't recall too many people looking at this situation and saying, "Lynch was a beast in this offense therefore Michael will be a beast." So it's a gigantic waste of time to argue against that, since it isn't what anyone has been saying.

The case for Michael is pretty straightforward:

- Solid college production when healthy.

- Freaky athletic qualities.

- High draft slot.

- Impressive training camp and preseason.

He looks like a guy with a lot of talent. It's often wise to buy those players early in their careers while their experience/opportunity are still limited. By the time those hurdles clear up, he'll be so expensive that there will be minimal upside to buying him.

Therefore, if people want to pay a large cost to obtain Michael on the chance of him being a "beast" go ahead. I just find it an unnecessary gamble. I'm not ignoring that foresight is a part of this equation and the gamble sometimes pays off (Demaryius Thomas). But someone could just as likely point at Stephen Hill and think elite athlete + above average college production= beast.

As far as I can see, his current dynasty rankings (even among his most optimistic supporters) represent a pretty fair compromise between his upside and his downside. In other words, yes there is risk. Pointing that out has no real value since the risk of him being a flop is already factored into his cost.

TD doesn't think C Michael is talented. He thinks CM lacks vision, agility, etc.

If you really want to point out flaws in his game and have a rich discussion, perhaps you could point to specific plays, on tape, that demonstrate your view? I think many of us - other than rabid supporters - would really be interested in that debate.

So was this just a trip Alex P Keaton? Or did you actually want to have a rich discussion, using plays, facts, etc?