What's new
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)

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Man With No Name said:
With barely $1 million in cap space, they don't even have enough cap room to sign their rookies.

http://overthecap.com/calculator/?Team=Seahawks

http://overthecap.com/teamcontract.php?Team=Seahawks
Click to expand...
Sure, however, they should pretty easily get under the cap without losing any key contributors. They do have a few dead-weight kinda contracts.

Sure they can't keep EVERY single player. No team ever can or ever will these days. But they absolutely do not needs to lose anyone that will be sorely missed (from an on the field standpoint that is), and they certainly do not need to get rid of LYNCH to do it.

I think just Sydney Rice alone will save them several million. Pretty sure I also read Zach Miller would save like 4-5 million. That scream CUT or restructure.

Are they going to have a lot more trouble the following year heading into 2015?? Of course, but pretty sure they aren't going to blow another great chance at a super bowl to have a better cap number in 2015 when it will be hard that year no matter what they do now. They can cut/trade Lynch next offseason.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Man With No Name said:
With barely $1 million in cap space, they don't even have enough cap room to sign their rookies.

http://overthecap.com/calculator/?Team=Seahawks

http://overthecap.com/teamcontract.php?Team=Seahawks
Click to expand...
Except it's very real possibility that Rice, Clemons, Miller, and Bryant are all cut. According to your link that adds an extra 25.3 million of 2014 cap space. Those guys comprise huge cap hits going into 2014, are at the end of guaranteed money, and none of them are necessarily key components to the team moving forward.

 
The Rookie Cap is not a separate, distinct pool, but rather, a separate calculation and there is not a dollar-for-dollar correlation between the Rookie Cap and the overall Cap. So, while all of the Salary Cap numbers of a team’s draft picks must fit under the team’s Rookie Salary Cap, very rarely will all of that amount actually impact the team’s overall Salary Cap.

The reason for these misconceptions revolves around the Rule of 51, which is contained in Article 13 of the NFL’s Collective Bargaining Agreement. The Rule of 51 dictates that, from the beginning of the league year in early March until the beginning of the season, only the top 51 Salary Cap numbers and all of the pro-rata shares of bonus money for the players outside of the top 51 count toward the team’s overall Cap. All “dead money,” i.e. amounts that count against the Salary Cap for players who are no longer on the roster, counts as well.

Rookies will displace players who may be making more- veterans, players that were higher picks and players who are not rookies, etc. The NFL minimum salary for players goes up each season they make the roster until season 11. Only the top 51 players salaries count towards the cap.

http://www.steelersdepot.com/2011/07/2011-2014-nfl-minimum-base-salaries/

 
I think I said early in this thread, you are going to have to be patient with Michael. Cutting Lynch in 2013 wasn't going to happen, and it doesn't seem likely it will happen in 2014 either. Sure there would be some cap savings, but not enough to make it worthwhile for them when Lunch has played so well, and what they are doing as a team is obviously working.

Lynch's cap hit is 7M this year. If he were cut, it would be 3M, so they could save 4M against the cap, but again, I don't see them rocking the boat that much for 4M in savings.

Next year is a different story. If his play falls off a little bit, 2015 could get interesting. His cap hit in 2015 is 9M, and the cap hit is only 1.5M if he's cut (plus there would be a lot of real money savings). That might be a little more tempting for the team. On the other hand, if they have another excellent season and Lynch is still playing well, I could easily see them riding him one more year too.

 
Holy Schneikes said:
I think I said early in this thread, you are going to have to be patient with Michael. Cutting Lynch in 2013 wasn't going to happen, and it doesn't seem likely it will happen in 2014 either. Sure there would be some cap savings, but not enough to make it worthwhile for them when Lunch has played so well, and what they are doing as a team is obviously working.

Lynch's cap hit is 7M this year. If he were cut, it would be 3M, so they could save 4M against the cap, but again, I don't see them rocking the boat that much for 4M in savings.

Next year is a different story. If his play falls off a little bit, 2015 could get interesting. His cap hit in 2015 is 9M, and the cap hit is only 1.5M if he's cut (plus there would be a lot of real money savings). That might be a little more tempting for the team. On the other hand, if they have another excellent season and Lynch is still playing well, I could easily see them riding him one more year too.
Click to expand...
I picked up Michael as a throw-in in a recent deal. Not sure what I've got here. Was offered Justin Hunter and a late 2nd for him. Said no, based on, well, not knowing what I have.

Is there any chance Michael ousts Turbin as the COP 'Back in 2014, hence influencing his 2015 prospectus?

 
Evil G said:
Holy Schneikes said:
I think I said early in this thread, you are going to have to be patient with Michael. Cutting Lynch in 2013 wasn't going to happen, and it doesn't seem likely it will happen in 2014 either. Sure there would be some cap savings, but not enough to make it worthwhile for them when Lunch has played so well, and what they are doing as a team is obviously working.

Lynch's cap hit is 7M this year. If he were cut, it would be 3M, so they could save 4M against the cap, but again, I don't see them rocking the boat that much for 4M in savings.

Next year is a different story. If his play falls off a little bit, 2015 could get interesting. His cap hit in 2015 is 9M, and the cap hit is only 1.5M if he's cut (plus there would be a lot of real money savings). That might be a little more tempting for the team. On the other hand, if they have another excellent season and Lynch is still playing well, I could easily see them riding him one more year too.
Click to expand...
I picked up Michael as a throw-in in a recent deal. Not sure what I've got here. Was offered Justin Hunter and a late 2nd for him. Said no, based on, well, not knowing what I have.

Is there any chance Michael ousts Turbin as the COP 'Back in 2014, hence influencing his 2015 prospectus?
Click to expand...
There is certainly a chance. I think most people are expecting a "camp battle" although I'm not sure that is the way the Seattle coaching staff and front office views it. Hopefully there are a couple of leaks soon so that we can get some insight on what they are thinking... But it will also be interesting to see if Lynch can maintain his level of performance and health after 1002 carries over the last three seasons. There was a story on it the other day, can't remember where or the exact numbers, but it was something like 2 out of 30 RBs with those type of carries were able to sustain that pace for a fourth season. Lynch looks otherworldly with no signs of slowing down but things change quickly in this league.

 
Louche said:
Evil G said:
Holy Schneikes said:
I think I said early in this thread, you are going to have to be patient with Michael. Cutting Lynch in 2013 wasn't going to happen, and it doesn't seem likely it will happen in 2014 either. Sure there would be some cap savings, but not enough to make it worthwhile for them when Lunch has played so well, and what they are doing as a team is obviously working.

Lynch's cap hit is 7M this year. If he were cut, it would be 3M, so they could save 4M against the cap, but again, I don't see them rocking the boat that much for 4M in savings.

Next year is a different story. If his play falls off a little bit, 2015 could get interesting. His cap hit in 2015 is 9M, and the cap hit is only 1.5M if he's cut (plus there would be a lot of real money savings). That might be a little more tempting for the team. On the other hand, if they have another excellent season and Lynch is still playing well, I could easily see them riding him one more year too.
Click to expand...
I picked up Michael as a throw-in in a recent deal. Not sure what I've got here. Was offered Justin Hunter and a late 2nd for him. Said no, based on, well, not knowing what I have.

Is there any chance Michael ousts Turbin as the COP 'Back in 2014, hence influencing his 2015 prospectus?
Click to expand...
There is certainly a chance. I think most people are expecting a "camp battle" although I'm not sure that is the way the Seattle coaching staff and front office views it. Hopefully there are a couple of leaks soon so that we can get some insight on what they are thinking... But it will also be interesting to see if Lynch can maintain his level of performance and health after 1002 carries over the last three seasons. There was a story on it the other day, can't remember where or the exact numbers, but it was something like 2 out of 30 RBs with those type of carries were able to sustain that pace for a fourth season. Lynch looks otherworldly with no signs of slowing down but things change quickly in this league.
Click to expand...
You've got to be careful with the 2 out of 30 stuff. It could be significant, or it could not be, just depends on how the stats were laid out.

The odds of flipping a coin and getting heads 4 times in a row are about 6 in 100. But if you've done it 3 times in a row, your odds of doing it again are STILL 1 in 2. Doing anything 4 times in a row is much less likely than doing it 3 times in a row. But going from the 3rd time to the 4th time may not be that unlikely.

Not that RB carries are going to be a nice even 50/50 coin flip, I'm just saying that some "studies" like that are not very rigorous in their analysis.

The gambler's fallacy works both directions. Just like being "due" gets folks in trouble, so does "It can't happen again".

 
I see what you are saying in the post above, but in this case all those carries affect Lynch. Flipping the coin a thousand times doesnt damage the coin.

I realize the 2 out of 30 comment isn't very scientific, but when a guy gets a ton of carries a few years in a row there has definitely been a downtrend.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
ghostguy123 said:
I see what you are saying in the post above, but in this case all those carries affect Lynch. Flipping the coin a thousand times doesnt damage the coin.

I realize the 2 out of 30 comment isn't very scientific, but when a guy gets a ton if carries a few heard in a row there has definitely been a downtrend.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but until you prove it with "true" (or "real/actual") odds, I'm not convinced. ;)

 
Holy Schneikes said:
Louche said:
Evil G said:
Holy Schneikes said:
I think I said early in this thread, you are going to have to be patient with Michael. Cutting Lynch in 2013 wasn't going to happen, and it doesn't seem likely it will happen in 2014 either. Sure there would be some cap savings, but not enough to make it worthwhile for them when Lunch has played so well, and what they are doing as a team is obviously working.

Lynch's cap hit is 7M this year. If he were cut, it would be 3M, so they could save 4M against the cap, but again, I don't see them rocking the boat that much for 4M in savings.

Next year is a different story. If his play falls off a little bit, 2015 could get interesting. His cap hit in 2015 is 9M, and the cap hit is only 1.5M if he's cut (plus there would be a lot of real money savings). That might be a little more tempting for the team. On the other hand, if they have another excellent season and Lynch is still playing well, I could easily see them riding him one more year too.
Click to expand...
I picked up Michael as a throw-in in a recent deal. Not sure what I've got here. Was offered Justin Hunter and a late 2nd for him. Said no, based on, well, not knowing what I have.

Is there any chance Michael ousts Turbin as the COP 'Back in 2014, hence influencing his 2015 prospectus?
Click to expand...
There is certainly a chance. I think most people are expecting a "camp battle" although I'm not sure that is the way the Seattle coaching staff and front office views it. Hopefully there are a couple of leaks soon so that we can get some insight on what they are thinking... But it will also be interesting to see if Lynch can maintain his level of performance and health after 1002 carries over the last three seasons. There was a story on it the other day, can't remember where or the exact numbers, but it was something like 2 out of 30 RBs with those type of carries were able to sustain that pace for a fourth season. Lynch looks otherworldly with no signs of slowing down but things change quickly in this league.
Click to expand...
You've got to be careful with the 2 out of 30 stuff. It could be significant, or it could not be, just depends on how the stats were laid out.

The odds of flipping a coin and getting heads 4 times in a row are about 6 in 100. But if you've done it 3 times in a row, your odds of doing it again are STILL 1 in 2. Doing anything 4 times in a row is much less likely than doing it 3 times in a row. But going from the 3rd time to the 4th time may not be that unlikely.

Not that RB carries are going to be a nice even 50/50 coin flip, I'm just saying that some "studies" like that are not very rigorous in their analysis.

The gambler's fallacy works both directions. Just like being "due" gets folks in trouble, so does "It can't happen again".
Click to expand...
Sure, it's just statistics and it's a gamble regardless. But at the same time the data tells a pattern. There is a common perception that running backs are at risk for a sharp decline when they hit their 30s. This is not the case. Statistics show that the fantasy output of RBs have a dramatic and fairly consistent decline after age 26 and the average fantasy points per touch for RBs is at its highest in the first 500 career touches and declines relatively steadily the more touches a player has. Players that have consistently performed at a high level and high volume and are about to turn 27 or 28 are prime candidates for a sharp drop-off in fantasy production. These are the most dangerous players to draft high or to acquire expensively through trades as their market value is that of a sure fire proven commodity that has very little risk built into it since 27 or 28 years is still not considered old by many owners. And the critical thing is of course to identify players before they enter their decline as players that have started their decline have their drop off built into their ADP already. With that being said there was no statistical trend that could project Adrian Peterson's 2012 season so anything can happen - there are plenty of instances where players fall outside of the norm. But the odds are against it.

 
I am a poor statistician, but I understand the basic concepts. One of the intriguing thing about stats in general is that correlation does not equal causation. So even if most of the folks who have had a lot of carries don't produce well after those carries, it doesn't necessarily mean those carries are what caused the drop in production (and more importantly, won't cause a drop in other guys with similar numbers of carries). I'm not saying that IS the case, I'm saying we don't always know the where the causation really is.

It's a lot like the old saw about how teams win a lot when a back gets a lot of carries. There is a STRONG correlation there. But it's more likely that something ELSE (or many somethings) caused those teams to be winning, and the result of the score caused the teams to run more. That one has been or less debunked at this point (at least around here), but there are a million more cause and effect linkages that are assumed, but aren't necessarily true. Sometimes they ARE true, but getting at that causation is the hard part. And amateur statisticians (like myself) tend to make leaps that aren't there (or are difficult to prove one way or the other).

Freakonomics (the book and/or the documentary) is awesome for this by the way for anyone who is interested.

 
Holy Schneikes said:
I think I said early in this thread, you are going to have to be patient with Michael. Cutting Lynch in 2013 wasn't going to happen, and it doesn't seem likely it will happen in 2014 either. Sure there would be some cap savings, but not enough to make it worthwhile for them when Lunch has played so well, and what they are doing as a team is obviously working.

Lynch's cap hit is 7M this year. If he were cut, it would be 3M, so they could save 4M against the cap, but again, I don't see them rocking the boat that much for 4M in savings.

Next year is a different story. If his play falls off a little bit, 2015 could get interesting. His cap hit in 2015 is 9M, and the cap hit is only 1.5M if he's cut (plus there would be a lot of real money savings). That might be a little more tempting for the team. On the other hand, if they have another excellent season and Lynch is still playing well, I could easily see them riding him one more year too.
Click to expand...
Lynch is owed $5.5M in new money this year, so if they cut him now they'll save a total of $5.5M against the cap ($4M against the 2014 cap and $1.5M against the 2015 cap). (The numbers that you gave are accurate, but the most relevant number for the team right now is the $5.5M, not the $4M.) That makes it a little bit more tempting for them to cut him, though it still seems unlikely (unless his off-the-field issues finally materialize in a way that has an impact on the field).

 
Bamac said:
ghostguy123 said:
I see what you are saying in the post above, but in this case all those carries affect Lynch. Flipping the coin a thousand times doesnt damage the coin.

I realize the 2 out of 30 comment isn't very scientific, but when a guy gets a ton of carries a few years in a row there has definitely been a downtrend.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but until you prove it with "true" (or "real/actual") odds, I'm not convinced. ;)
Click to expand...
I can for the coin, not Lynch's body. Want the equation?........ :nerd:

 
ZWK said:
Holy Schneikes said:
I think I said early in this thread, you are going to have to be patient with Michael. Cutting Lynch in 2013 wasn't going to happen, and it doesn't seem likely it will happen in 2014 either. Sure there would be some cap savings, but not enough to make it worthwhile for them when Lunch has played so well, and what they are doing as a team is obviously working.

Lynch's cap hit is 7M this year. If he were cut, it would be 3M, so they could save 4M against the cap, but again, I don't see them rocking the boat that much for 4M in savings.

Next year is a different story. If his play falls off a little bit, 2015 could get interesting. His cap hit in 2015 is 9M, and the cap hit is only 1.5M if he's cut (plus there would be a lot of real money savings). That might be a little more tempting for the team. On the other hand, if they have another excellent season and Lynch is still playing well, I could easily see them riding him one more year too.
Click to expand...
Lynch is owed $5.5M in new money this year, so if they cut him now they'll save a total of $5.5M against the cap ($4M against the 2014 cap and $1.5M against the 2015 cap). (The numbers that you gave are accurate, but the most relevant number for the team right now is the $5.5M, not the $4M.) That makes it a little bit more tempting for them to cut him, though it still seems unlikely (unless his off-the-field issues finally materialize in a way that has an impact on the field).
Click to expand...
The original point/question was if they could afford to keep players this year. For this year, that 4M is what they would save. The extra 1.5M next year might be on their radar, but I doubt it would be much of a driving factor at this point.

But again, 2015 is a very different story. But even aside from the possibility of keeping Lynch, there is always the possibility of extending him which could provide short term cap relief as well. Extending him two or three years would only put him at 30/31. It's not like an extension would put him at 34 or something. My point is (and was early on), it's at least possible Michael doesn't see significant playing time for several more years.

 
ghostguy123 said:
I see what you are saying in the post above, but in this case all those carries affect Lynch. Flipping the coin a thousand times doesnt damage the coin.

I realize the 2 out of 30 comment isn't very scientific, but when a guy gets a ton of carries a few years in a row there has definitely been a downtrend.
Click to expand...
Along the same lines power backs that run violently have always seemed to have shorter shelf lives. Lynch falling off the cliff at 28/29 shouldn't really shock anyone - that's not to say that it will happen, just that it would not be totally unexpected.

 
ghostguy123 said:
Sabertooth said:
I'd be surprised if the offense dumped their best player coming off a Super Bowl to save cap space.
Click to expand...
I would be surprised if the thought even crossed their mind, let alone actually doing it.
Click to expand...
I wouldnt be shocked if they havent thought about extending him to a team friendlier option.

Even after he is done being a solo lead dog, his style of play will still have plenty to offer as a useful tool.

 
I was thinking they give home another 300 plus carries this year and cut him next offseason when they will have lots of decisions to make with what I think will be more important players moving forward in 2015 and beyond.

This defense HAS to be kept together.

 
I don't think Marshawn Lynch leaving Seattle the coming season. Unfortunate for me, I will have to sit Christine Michael on my bench for another year. Hey, I didn't foresee Seahawk having a super bowl season either.

 
I'm not sure if anyone has brought this up in the 21+ pages, but what if Lynch is suspended for 4, 6, or 8 games? His never ending looming court date is suppose to be this spring. If he's found guilty of DUI (as he should be), a suspension is certain. Does this open the door for Michael? It very well could. If Michael plays well in those potential Lynch suspension games, Michael would then earn more playing time......making Lynch expendable in 2015. Saving some cash to sign Wilson, Sherman, Wagner, etc long term seems obvious. I think we see out with the old and in with the new at RB.

 
Carl Eller said:
I'm not sure if anyone has brought this up in the 21+ pages, but what if Lynch is suspended for 4, 6, or 8 games? His never ending looming court date is suppose to be this spring. If he's found guilty of DUI (as he should be), a suspension is certain. Does this open the door for Michael? It very well could. If Michael plays well in those potential Lynch suspension games, Michael would then earn more playing time......making Lynch expendable in 2015. Saving some cash to sign Wilson, Sherman, Wagner, etc long term seems obvious. I think we see out with the old and in with the new at RB.
Click to expand...
Yep. This is the bonus that could come by owning Michael now. It's a binary event but if Lynch is suspended, his value will increase immediately overnight even prior to playing. And there is a real possibility that he could be suspended for some amount of time. I like owning him even without this but there is a chance it happens.

 
Rotoworld:

The Seattle Times says Christine Michael "looms large" in the Seahawks' future.

Michael was a strict third-stringer as a rookie, appearing in just four games and totaling 18 carries. But as the Times notes, he'll be better positioned to battle Robert Turbin for backup duties in 2014. Michael is already a more explosive and powerful runner, he just needs to polish up his game and gain trust in pass pro. Marshawn Lynch turns 28 years old in April and his contract is up following the 2015 season.

Related: Robert Turbin, Marshawn Lynch

Source: Seattle Times
Click to expand...
 
Over 1,000 replies for a player with 18 career rushing attempts. *shakes head*

The most popular guy on the field is always the backup QB....or 3rd string HB.

 
Off the top of my head...

Ryan Grant, Ahmad Bradshaw, Ahman Green, Priest Holmes, Arian Foster, Darren Sproles, Pierre Thomas, Peyton Hillis, Joique Bell. And I haven't touched the Bronco RBs under Shanahan yet. I'm sure there are more.

 
wdcrob said:
Off the top of my head...

Ryan Grant, Ahmad Bradshaw, Ahman Green, Priest Holmes, Arian Foster, Darren Sproles, Pierre Thomas, Peyton Hillis, Joique Bell. And I haven't touched the Bronco RBs under Shanahan yet. I'm sure there are more.
Click to expand...
I know they exist, but that's not a good chunk of the stud rbs as he said. 3 rbs (foster, holmes, green) over the last 15 years shows they're outliers.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
tdmills said:
wdcrob said:
Off the top of my head...

Ryan Grant, Ahmad Bradshaw, Ahman Green, Priest Holmes, Arian Foster, Darren Sproles, Pierre Thomas, Peyton Hillis, Joique Bell. And I haven't touched the Bronco RBs under Shanahan yet. I'm sure there are more.
Click to expand...
I know they exist, but that's not a good chunk of the stud rbs as he said. 3 rbs (foster, holmes, green) over the last 15 years shows they're outliers.
Click to expand...
They aren't outliers as a percentage of 3rd string RBs who are actually really good players.

 
tdmills said:
wdcrob said:
Off the top of my head...

Ryan Grant, Ahmad Bradshaw, Ahman Green, Priest Holmes, Arian Foster, Darren Sproles, Pierre Thomas, Peyton Hillis, Joique Bell. And I haven't touched the Bronco RBs under Shanahan yet. I'm sure there are more.
Click to expand...
I know they exist, but that's not a good chunk of the stud rbs as he said. 3 rbs (foster, holmes, green) over the last 15 years shows they're outliers.
Click to expand...
Bradshaw and Grant each had a season or two at "stud" level. Hillis had a 5 game strecth and one full season putting up stud type numbers - and Sproles and Thomas have been more than useful players in ppr leagues.

I'm not even caught up in the Michaels hype to the level of some, but he's not a typical 3rd string back. In fact, it was likely that he would have handled the starting RB carries if Lynch went down, with Turbin keeping his 3rd down back role due to his blcoking and receiving abilities.

 
Dr. Octopus said:
tdmills said:
wdcrob said:
Off the top of my head...

Ryan Grant, Ahmad Bradshaw, Ahman Green, Priest Holmes, Arian Foster, Darren Sproles, Pierre Thomas, Peyton Hillis, Joique Bell. And I haven't touched the Bronco RBs under Shanahan yet. I'm sure there are more.
Click to expand...
I know they exist, but that's not a good chunk of the stud rbs as he said. 3 rbs (foster, holmes, green) over the last 15 years shows they're outliers.
Click to expand...
Bradshaw and Grant each had a season or two at "stud" level. Hillis had a 5 game strecth and one full season putting up stud type numbers - and Sproles and Thomas have been more than useful players in ppr leagues.

I'm not even caught up in the Michaels hype to the level of some, but he's not a typical 3rd string back. In fact, it was likely that he would have handled the starting RB carries if Lynch went down, with Turbin keeping his 3rd down back role due to his blcoking and receiving abilities.
Click to expand...
Stud is top 5 at your position for more than 1 season or at least that's my description.

 
It's not surprising that some of the longest threads on the board are about unproven and speculative players, see the David Wilson thread for another example. More discussion is generated around trying to project the future of a player than on someone on whom we all have a pile of information. If I started a thread about how productive we all think Jamaal Charles will be, I can't imagine it would get beyond 20 posts. The answers are going to be "pretty damn productive". When a thread starts on a talented player who we don't already have data on, that's where the posts accumulate.

Nothing wrong with that either. Those who speculated at length about Arian Foster and decided to take that input and invest in him were richly rewarded. Those type of guys, studs who you don't have to pay a top draft pick for, can make a season or a dynasty.

My prediction for next up on a long super speculative thread as the next season's camps begin will be Marcus Lattimore.

 
wdcrob said:
Off the top of my head...

Ryan Grant, Ahmad Bradshaw, Ahman Green, Priest Holmes, Arian Foster, Darren Sproles, Pierre Thomas, Peyton Hillis, Joique Bell. And I haven't touched the Bronco RBs under Shanahan yet. I'm sure there are more.
Click to expand...
Steven Davis (Was FB ???)

 
Marshawn Lynch will plead guilty to alcohol related reckless driving as part of a plea-deal to avoid trail for his arrest on suspicion of DUI back in July 2012, reports ESPN's Terry Blount. Lynch gets two years of probation, must attend educational driving classes, and pay a monetary fine, but steers clear of a public trail, and may evade further punishment by NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell. Lynch's attorney, Ivan Golde, speculated as such, noting, "I can't speak for the commissioner, but my feeling is Marshawn is OK and will avoid a suspension."

Lynch has run into trouble with the law previously, and has been suspended for it under the NFL's personal conduct policies, but DUI/reckless driving falls under the Substance Abuse policy. Had Lynch been convicted of DUI, the general first-offense punishment is a fine of up to two game checks. Seahawks RB Spencer Ware may be expecting this after he was arrested for DUI a few months ago.

Golde explains the decision to take a plea deal despite public declarations that they felt they had a strong case (and it seems they did at least have some benefit of the doubt, if the DA was willing to strike a deal): "We have a strong case for trial and could win the case, but the last thing(Lynch) needs is to go through a public trial. He's a Super Bowl champion and he has endorsements pending. For a guy in his position, it just doesn't make any sense to go through a public trial. He has a lot at stake here. You know Marshawn. He's not a media guy. It wouldn't have been good for him to go through all that."

"With the way the media is today, it would be tough for him to go through a trial like this," he continued. "It was better to plead to the much lesser charge, which basically is an unsafe lane change."

http://www.fieldgulls.com/2013-nfl-offseason/2014/2/20/5431122/marshawn-lynch-accepts-plea-bargain-to-avoid-dui-trial
 
Someone just mentioned, and i agree. Just because someone is technically 3rd string doesn't mean they wouldn't start if the current starter got hurt.

Turbin had a role. I think if Lynch had a major injury that turbin would have kept that role, with increases in touches, but Michael would have taken over as the starter.

Who knows if it would have played out exactly like that,but when you have to give the RB position 25-30 touches in a game, you are going to want the more talented player getting most of those.

 
BigSteelThrill said:
EBF said:
Nah man, he sucks. He can't even beat out Turbin.
Click to expand...
That was actually dead-on correct for his 2013 campaign.

Heading in the 2014 slate, its just a small note on the docket.
Click to expand...
I don't think this thread needs to beat that dead horse any further, but the above is only correct if you assume that "X plays ahead of Y in a third down back/occasional COOP role" equates to "Y couldn't beat out X." Reminds me of the Madden games, where there is literally a different depth chart for "RB" and "THIRD DOWN RB." If you look at the two different roles as two different positions instead of a hierarchy of one single position, you might reach a different conclusion. There was the recent example of Moreno being "behind" Ronnie Hillman on the depth chart in 2012, only to take over as the primary back when McGahee went down.

The above is one way to read the situation, but not necessarily correct. That's probably been said a dozen times by now in this thread already.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

rockaction
RB Jacory Croskey-Merritt, WAS
32 33 34
Replies
2K
Views
65K
efactor
efactor
JohnnyU
TE Ben Sinnott, WAS
2 3
Replies
111
Views
7K
JohnnyU
JohnnyU
jm192
Dynasty Buy Low's/Sell Highs
2 3
Replies
105
Views
10K
oldmanhawkins
oldmanhawkins

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top