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 didn't read the entire thread. Is that a prerequisite to making a post? Good luck to anyone in the Dynasty Rankings 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. Chris Henry looks like a good comparison at the moment.
Again, something that I might not have to point out if you'd actually read the thread. Is this necessary?
As far as this goes...
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.
I quoted this Gandalf post in my 1st reply in this thread.
The case for Michael is pretty straightforward:
- Solid college production when healthy. Same argument Percy Harvin is elite supporters say. I get it, but it's a slippery slope.
- Freaky athletic qualities. Size/Speed guy
- High draft slot. The last pick in the 2nd round is a high draft slot?
- Impressive training camp and preseason. This is just stretching, now we're adding in TC and preseason to evaluations. This means little in the grand scheme of things when he gets very little playing time in the regular season. If it was so impressive, one would think he would actually play to give Lynch a break.
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. At a cost prohibitive price, that's been my argument. I feel like you overpaid. 2014 1st + 2014 devy + Gresham.
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. Not when I think a 1.4-1.6 rookie pick or what you paid is too much. I said i'll pay an early 2nd, but then again i'm not a Michael supporter. I could see a late 1st...but a mid 1st is when I think you're gambling too much.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Christine Michael (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Black
- Start date
- Status
squistion
Footballguy
High draft slot? Wait a second. Michael was the 30th pick in the 2nd round, however Matt Forte was the 13th pick in the 2nd round and rather than being a selling point like it is for Michael, you used his draft "pedigree" against him. http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=459397&page=3
I wish you could make up your mind - being taken in the 2nd round is either a high draft slot/pick or it isn't.
EBF
Footballguy
I can't tell if you're this thick or you're just being deliberately difficult. Based on past experience, I'm guessing it's a healthy amount of both.
Chris Henry averaged 3.3 YPC in his Arizona career. Christine Michael averaged 5.3 YPC in his Texas A&M career. No comparison.
As far as Michael's price goes, you can get him for a lot less than guys like Bell, Lacy, and Stacy. He's RB19 in DLF's January ADP. He's going 57-58th overall in startup drafts on average. To me, that's a very reasonable compromise between his upside and his downside. If anything, there isn't enough weight given to his upside. Lacy/Bell/Bernard are all going right around 13-15.
Last edited by a moderator:
Lol, I'm the difficult one because I disagree with you?
Chris Henry/ Christine Michael.... both limited college production... both 220 pound rbs and ran in the 4.4's...both 2nd round picks. That's the best comparison I could come up with because most NFL teams are smart and don't draft workout warriors with limited production before round 3.
I hope we can put aside our personal differences/jabs moving forward because I think we could have some rich discussions.
squistion
Footballguy
What difference does that make? Has the value of 2nd round picks increased over the last 5 years? You said Forte taken as the 13th pick in the 2nd round "wasn't a high draft pick" while Michael taken 17 slots later at 30th in 2012 was a "high draft slot"
Unless you are arguing that draft position in the 2nd round means more for a 2012 pick than a 2008 pick, then you should admit your position is hypocritical using Michael's 2nd round selection as a selling point in his favor, while earlier pointing to Forte's 2nd round selection as a detriment.
Last edited by a moderator:
karmarooster
Footballguy
Please, please, don't make this the David Wilson thread 2.0. There's literally nothing to talk about, and probably won't be for some time. Yet the topic rages, with the same old back and forth we've had since about week 4.
That is, until Michael breaks off a 40 yarder in the Super Bowl....
That is, until Michael breaks off a 40 yarder in the Super Bowl....
maybe there has been a sort of grade deflation [re: devaluing] for RBs and that a RB taken in the first two rounds is the equivalent to a first round pick 5 years ago...
maybe a better way to try and compare across different draft years would be Christine Michael was the 5th RB taken in the 2013 Draft and Forte was the 6th RB taken in 2008. Of course, hindsight tells us that 2008 was an incredible year for RBs and the jury is out for 2013 (though I will admit it is off to a better start than I would have thought).
maybe a better way to try and compare across different draft years would be Christine Michael was the 5th RB taken in the 2013 Draft and Forte was the 6th RB taken in 2008. Of course, hindsight tells us that 2008 was an incredible year for RBs and the jury is out for 2013 (though I will admit it is off to a better start than I would have thought).
ghostguy123
Footballguy
I think a 2nd round pick means more for a RB in 2012 than it did in 2008, since rbs in general have slid further and further in NFL drafts in recent years.
EBF
Footballguy
I'm saying opinions and attitudes can change in 5 years. The statute of limitations expired on that post a long time ago.
If you are taken in the 2nd round, you are a high draft pick. It's not as impressive as going in the 1st round, but it's the next best thing.
EBF
Footballguy
I think there's a little bit of truth in this, but I think it's an argument that gets a little too much play right now. It has always been difficult for a RB to get taken in the first round. For a back to go that high, he usually needs to have special production AND special physical qualities. If you look at that 2008 draft, you had a rare number of freaky talents in the pool. McFadden had great college production and insane speed. Stewart was a size/speed monster coming off a huge season. Felix Jones was probably the least freakish of the bunch and in hindsight the most questionable as a first round pick, but he had good efficiency stats in college and pretty decent physical tools. Mendenhall had very rare speed for a 220+ pound back and Chris Johnson had unreal explosiveness.
I think that's pretty illustrative. For a back to go that high, he usually has to bring something exceptional to the table. That can be rare speed, rare power, or some combination of both. If he lacks those qualities, it's going to be very difficult for him to be taken in the first round. Most of the exceptions that immediately come to mind are guys who had very strong stats at major BCS programs (Knowshon Moreno, Mark Ingram, Cedric Benson). And incidentally none of those players look like they were worth the pick that was invested in them. So you might say that the NFL is prone to overrating big producers from huge programs who lack standout tools. By and large though, there's been a pretty consistent mold for first round RBs over the years: special production in conjunction with special physical tools.
We're only two years removed from a draft that saw three backs taken in the first round. I think all of those players approximately fit the mold. Richardson had monster stats at a huge program and a rare size/speed combo. Martin was pretty borderline, but his combine numbers were strong enough when you factor in his far above average frame. And Wilson was a workout freak coming off a massive season.
I think the reason the RBs fell deeper in 2013 had more to do with the players themselves and less to do with league-wide trends. If you look at last year's top backs, the guys who had great college production had very suspect workout numbers (Ball, Bell, Lacy). The guys with freaky workout numbers had injury questions and were coming into the league on the heels of bad seasons (Knile, Michael). Bernard was the closest thing to a clean prospect and it's probably not a coincidence that he was the first RB selected.
I think you'll continue to see some backs go in the first round, but only when the right prospects come along. For the most part, that's the way it has always been. You don't spend a 1st round pick on a replacement level runner. You hope to get someone special that high (i.e. Ryan Mathews, CJ Spiller, Reggie Bush, Jonathan Stewart, Chris Johnson). A player who either has freaky speed/explosiveness or at least freaky speed/explosiveness relative to his frame.
ShaHBucks
Footballguy
Awe, come on... Some of us had a lot of fun therePlease, please, don't make this the David Wilson thread 2.0. There's literally nothing to talk about, and probably won't be for some time. Yet the topic rages, with the same old back and forth we've had since about week 4.
That is, until Michael breaks off a 40 yarder in the Super Bowl....
LOL at you winning. Michael Turner special talent...are you trying to make me laugh? I've been watching people like you pimp guys like Stewart for years. Half the time you're right, half you're wrong. You don't know if special talents get a chance to shine. And when guys do get a chance you have little idea if it's there talent or the system/team they are on. Two backups in Tampa out produced Martin this year and will likely be back on the bench this year. For any of the guys you listed above I can find two that never got a chance. Blount went into beast mode at the end of the year in NE. Is he a special talent?
EBF
Footballguy
Special talents almost always get a chance to shine. A good rule of thumb is that anyone who has the talent to be an above average starter in the NFL will eventually get that opportunity. That's the nature of the league. There aren't enough standout players to go around for all of them to be wasted forever. What the Panthers did with Williams and Stewart was the exception and not the norm. Throwing it out there as if it's a realistic expectation for a given player of that talent level is just incredibly lazy and stupid. The group of potential elite backs who had their careers wrecked in the last 15 years by a lack of opportunity is about two players deep. Williams and Stewart. Two guys with the misfortune of being on the same dumb team.
On the other side of the equation, you have numerous standout backs who began their careers in a backup role and soon became outright starters. I've already named several of them. Off to top of my head, Priest Holmes, Larry Johnson, Jamaal Charles, Shaun Alexander, Ahman Green, Deuce McAllister, Darren Sproles, Michael Turner, Rashard Mendenhall, and Brian Westbrook played sparingly as rookies. Why? Because all of them were drafted onto a team that already had a top end starter. Just like Michael. That's without even getting into all the guys who split carries as rookies because their team had a moderately serviceable veteran on the roster already (i.e. SJax, McCoy, Rice, etc).
The idea that "half" of the players like Michael succeed and half fail is once again just incredibly lazy analysis.
I've already said it before in this thread, but if you're going to try to talk about odds then I think you need to find a way to:
- Identify players who were drafted into similarly bad situations (i.e. a team that already had a mega productive RB in his prime).
- Identify players with similar talent level compared with Michael (based on draft slot, physical tools, and college production).
I don't see the Michael critics making a good attempt to do that. Instead they seem content (as you've seemingly just done) to lump him in with a random collection of backup RBs and assume that his odds of success are no better than any other back who shows flashes at some point in his career. That's just terrible analysis because it doesn't account for his total lack of opportunity or the positive traits that his believers are citing as reasons to think he might be more than just a typical backup (his draft slot, his rare physical tools, his training camp buzz and preseason performance).
I can understand genuine skepticism from people who have done their homework on Michael and still aren't sold that he's a good investment, but lazy criticisms by those who are asleep at the wheel aren't that compelling.
Last edited by a moderator:
EBF
Footballguy
Not one of those guys has even been in the league long enough to see his rookie contract expire yet (though Gerhart and Tate just got there). It's a bit difficult to talk about career expectations for guys who are still right in the middle of their careers. No telling what's in store for Tate/Gerhart/Pierce these next few seasons.
The bigger issue is that it's going to be really difficult to find parallel cases if your criteria are specific enough. The number of RBs who were backups in their rookie year is high. The number of RBs who were backups behind a RB as good as Lynch in their rookie year is lower. The number of RBs who were top 100 draft picks and were backups behind a RB as good as Lynch in their rookie year is even lower. The number of RBs who had freakish workout numbers, were top 100 draft picks, and were backups behind a RB as good as Lynch can probably be counted on one hand. The number of RBs who had freakish workout numbers, were top 100 draft picks, generated a huge buzz in training camp/preseason, and were backups behind a RB as good as Lynch might consist of one name: Christine Michael. So even though I've implored the critics to make an actual effort to find parallel cases, I think it's going to be difficult because at some point the criteria that you're using to establish your comparisons might become so specific that there are no comparisons.
That's not an uncommon occurrence in FF. Prior to Chris Johnson, there really hadn't been anybody exactly like Chris Johnson. So you really couldn't look at historical equivalents and come up with odds. Instead you had to weigh all of the information at your disposal and make an educated guess. In general, I'd feel pretty good about investing in a guy who was an impact player in college, showed freaky athletic ability at the combine, was a high draft pick by a smart organization, generated a big buzz in training camp, looked great in his only NFL chances, and whose only obvious impediment to huge FF value is a lack of immediate opportunity. Same #### I've been saying for months, really. I should probably just leave it at that for now.
Last edited by a moderator:
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
TheLurkerBelow
Footballguy
I think this is an incredibly fair summary. There are enough indicators to suggest Michael could deliver in a huge way, but there isn't enough data, in terms of on-field opportunity, to give us anything concrete. At this point he's a 'buy and/or hold' until we see him get more opportunities. People can speculate that he will or won't work out in the long run, but there's no way anyone could have a definitive answer at this point in his career, and if Lynch stays in 2014, and there's no reason to think he won't, we'll be in the same boat with Michael for another year.
I'm a believer in acquiring top talent, even if I have to wait for it to develop. Michael and Lattimore fall into that type of category right now. Two guys who could deliver big, or who could bust completely. The price on both, in their rookie draft or in a trade now, wasn't/isn't that high so it's worth it to me to acquire them if the opportunity arises. I would much rather have one of these two guys than someone like Bilail Powell, LaGarrette Blount, BJE, etc. who can help me now but will never be more than mediocre players. Do I want them more than guys like Lacy, Bell, or Bernard? No, why would I? Those guys are young and are already producing like fantasy starters. Do I want them more than guys like Trent Richardson or David Wilson? Now we're into a really tough debate, where it's speculation vs. speculation and it really depends on your predictive ability.
lardonastick
Footballguy
Gandalf
Footballguy
Just reading through this thread and realized that someone had an issue with me calling Christine Michael a 'beast' if he ever got the chance to take over for Lynch. I guess it depends on what one means by beast. I mean a FF RB that could be good for 1200 yards and 10 TDs annually for the next 3-5 years. So um yeah, I think this is a definitely possibility when he takes over. Could I be wrong? Absolutely. But obviously I think I'm right. The issue as I see it is still that this might not happen until 2015 or later. With the way Lynch is playing, I think Seattle will ride him into the sunset even with a big cap number in 2015. Especially if he has a good Super Bowl. CM is road blocked and that is the biggest issue to his success. And I'm basing this on the times I have seen him run and the flashes of awesomeness I think he has shown.
disclosure: main league, 6-player keeper, max 3/position
You can put me in the group that thinks Michael's talents and abilities will eventually produce plenty of fantasy stats once he's given the opportunity, for whatever reason he get's that opportunity. I'm really enamored with Michael's potential for future production, be it 2014 or 2015. I liked him enough coming out to roster him all year (via draft day trade of a pick and Bryce Brown to acquire him) in my main league. I will likely be dropping him on our cut-down date. I truly hope to re-acquire him via the draft, but I'm not the only owner aware of him in our league so it will be tough. Even with in-season 18-player rosters, which isn't large at all, there are other teams in my league who could afford to sit on this guy all next year. I do have the luxury of holding on to him until the end of July though, so if his situation changes prior to then I'll be able to react accordingly. I just need to be patient.
I would advise current owners, be it dynasty or keeper, to take a "wait and see" approach until it's absolutely necessary to cut/trade him. Be patient.
I would advise re-drafters to keep Michael in mind as a late/last round flier if they can afford the roster space, especially the Lynch owner as a hand-cuff.
Of course, many things could change between now and late August.
You can put me in the group that thinks Michael's talents and abilities will eventually produce plenty of fantasy stats once he's given the opportunity, for whatever reason he get's that opportunity. I'm really enamored with Michael's potential for future production, be it 2014 or 2015. I liked him enough coming out to roster him all year (via draft day trade of a pick and Bryce Brown to acquire him) in my main league. I will likely be dropping him on our cut-down date. I truly hope to re-acquire him via the draft, but I'm not the only owner aware of him in our league so it will be tough. Even with in-season 18-player rosters, which isn't large at all, there are other teams in my league who could afford to sit on this guy all next year. I do have the luxury of holding on to him until the end of July though, so if his situation changes prior to then I'll be able to react accordingly. I just need to be patient.
I would advise current owners, be it dynasty or keeper, to take a "wait and see" approach until it's absolutely necessary to cut/trade him. Be patient.
I would advise re-drafters to keep Michael in mind as a late/last round flier if they can afford the roster space, especially the Lynch owner as a hand-cuff.
Of course, many things could change between now and late August.
Christine Michael is a very good young prospect.
Key word is prospect.
He was a first round talent, but due toinjury issues, maturity issues and being an idiot off the field he was considered to be a risky pick and fell the the seahawks at the bottom of round 2.
But lets not put the horse before the cart.
I like what I saw in the limited action I saw from him. I dont think it could be more clear that the best thing for this kid was that he got to sit much of the year. That being said, hes playing on a team of winners and he will learn to win by being there. He is a better all around back than Turbin, but Turbin is the better pass catcher, and is more useful at the moment as a change of pace back. If Lynch were to get hurt Michael would step in there and they wouldnt miss a beat.
It is my thought that the best thing for Michael was that he got to sit a bit. He will be the better player for it and I think will eventually be a starter. But his day is a year or two away (unless Lynch gets hurt sooner)
Key word is prospect.
He was a first round talent, but due toinjury issues, maturity issues and being an idiot off the field he was considered to be a risky pick and fell the the seahawks at the bottom of round 2.
But lets not put the horse before the cart.
I like what I saw in the limited action I saw from him. I dont think it could be more clear that the best thing for this kid was that he got to sit much of the year. That being said, hes playing on a team of winners and he will learn to win by being there. He is a better all around back than Turbin, but Turbin is the better pass catcher, and is more useful at the moment as a change of pace back. If Lynch were to get hurt Michael would step in there and they wouldnt miss a beat.
It is my thought that the best thing for Michael was that he got to sit a bit. He will be the better player for it and I think will eventually be a starter. But his day is a year or two away (unless Lynch gets hurt sooner)
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Inactive for the Super Bowl.
So if Lynch were to have gotten hurt in the biggest game of their lives, the team had concluded...
So if Lynch were to have gotten hurt in the biggest game of their lives, the team had concluded...
Last edited by a moderator:
MAC_32
Footballguy
...the team would rather rely on the guy withnNFL game experience and knows the pass pro scheme.
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Absolutely agree.
But this is even after 22 weeks of practice time and having "elite talent".
MAC_32
Footballguy
I doubt he has gotten many practice reps since august.
buck naked
Footballguy
Montee Ball seems to have picked things up just fine. It took him a few weeks, but he's played well for many weeks now.
Michael is as dumb as a post. But I'm sorry, I'm supposed to show only love in this thread for the inactive Christine.
Alex P Keaton
Footballguy
Very true. Montee has been a difference maker tonight, while Michael sits inactive......buck naked said:
Denver724
Footballguy
I think CJ Anderson may be better than Ball. Looking forward to traing camp next year with Moreno gone.
TheLurkerBelow
Footballguy
Of course he's inactive. You don't keep two active kickers either, even though one might get hurt during the game. You already have Turbin as depth to mitigate the risk of an injury, you don't need a third RB.Brewtown said:
No one in this thread who believes Michael has a chance to produce good fantasy numbers in the future thinks that he'll do it while Lynch is still in top form and on the same team. The fact that he was inactive in the Superbowl just follows the same thing we've seen all year and isn't a new indicator of anything.
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Thats simply not true until they all started changing their tune when the inactive started piling up.
TheLurkerBelow
Footballguy
Well, I could revise my statement to say "At this point in time...", but instead I'll revise my statement to be, "No one in this thread with any sense who believes..."
DropKick
Footballguy
It is true. As you played town crier to announce he was inactive every week, it was clear that you thought it mattered but there were many posts stating that it doesn't matter to others - owners are in it for the long haul. I, for one, don't expect him to produce good fantasy numbers while Lynch is in top form and on the same team. What is so hard to grasp here?
ghostguy123
Footballguy
Michael being inactive is more a sign of how good and deep they are, not that they are afraid to use him.
And got some crazy news for ya, you won't hear much of anything from michael all of next year either barring a major Lynch injury. Again, nothing to do with Michael. He is simply not in a position to be able to succeed right now.
Michael could be as good as Peterson and they still wouldn't make him the starter over lynch right now. But, he WILL get his shot. Just sometimes it takes longer due to the circumstances.
And got some crazy news for ya, you won't hear much of anything from michael all of next year either barring a major Lynch injury. Again, nothing to do with Michael. He is simply not in a position to be able to succeed right now.
Michael could be as good as Peterson and they still wouldn't make him the starter over lynch right now. But, he WILL get his shot. Just sometimes it takes longer due to the circumstances.
Basic synapses of the last few pages of this thread:
Michael Owners: He's an elite talent and will show it when he can play. Not his fault that he's on a team loaded at RB.
Non-Michael Owners: If he's a great talent, he would find a way to be active and play.
Neither side is going to coincide their side(pride is a nasty thing in life).
Michael Owners: He's an elite talent and will show it when he can play. Not his fault that he's on a team loaded at RB.
Non-Michael Owners: If he's a great talent, he would find a way to be active and play.
Neither side is going to coincide their side(pride is a nasty thing in life).
How can you say it has nothing to do with him? Do you really think they spent a 2nd round pick on a guy they planned on making a healthy scratch for most of the season? To me, it's pretty clear that they still aren't comfortable with him for some reason. Of course that can change pretty quickly as well.
Lol at the Peterson comment. I know Lynch has a bit of a cult following, but he had a 4.2 ypc this year (and for his career). I'm pretty sure they'd find a way for someone as talented as Peterson to at least be active most weeks.
Don't get me wrong, I think he's talented and will get his shot at some point as well, but I think it's equally foolish to think his lack of playing time has absolutely nothing to do with him. It does.
Gandalf
Footballguy
DropKick
Footballguy
Wow... You don't think teams plan for the long run? As mentioned earlier, they need to protect themselves from a Lynch injury, contract issue or even legal issue. Yes, I really think they spent a second round pick on a guy they thought was talented even though they didn't need him this year. It is obvious, they didn't need him, right?
Why do you have to "find a way" to make a player active? I'm glad he isn't returning kicks. I'd rather not seem a fluke injury in that capacity.
The Petersen comment didn't say he was another ADP. It said, even if he was as good as Peterson, he wouldn't displace Lynch. The point being that teams just don't replace healthy backs that are under contract, who put up almost 1,600 yards and 11 TDs the season before.
Him being inactive most of the season was their plan all along- that's your story?
You're delusional if you think that someone as talented as Peterson wouldn't replace Lynch. Not to mention, we're not talking about replacing, we're talking about being active. Maybe taking some time away from the pedestrian 4th round pick back up RB.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
It's not that uncommon for rookies to take a back seat and ride the pine on a stacked super bowl bound team.
- Status
