Christine Michael (5 Viewers)

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Twitter:

Retweeted by Sigmund Bloom

RumfordJohnny ‏@RumfordJohnny
He's right RT @MatthewFairburn: Carroll: Christine Michael has the most breakout potential of any Seahawk.

In case it got lost in the unreadable clutter that is Twitter... that's Pete Carroll saying Michael has the most breakout potential of any Seahawk.

FLUFF PIECE

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Nah man, he sucks. He can't even beat out Turbin.

That was actually dead-on correct for his 2013 campaign.

Heading in the 2014 slate, its just a small note on the docket.

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.

True also ... because Spencer Ware was suiting up until he got hurt. And when he did, even then Michael didnt get to put on his uniform.

 

[bumpman]

Pete Carroll has high hopes for Christine Michael

Posted by Mike Wilkening on February 21, 2014, 1:42 PM EST

AP
The Seahawks’ top draft pick in 2013, running back Christine Michael appeared in just four regular season games as a rookie for Super Bowl-champion Seattle.

However, Michael appears in line to get more of a shot next season, Seahawks coach Pete Carroll indicated Friday at the NFL Scouting Combine.

“He’s really talented and he’s a really exciting guy in our program. Probably has the most breakout potential out of anybody because you haven’t seen much of him yet,” Carroll said. “We’ve seen him, we know that he can do really special stuff.

“He played in a very competitive position. It was hard to get in there with Marshawn (Lynch) and Robert Turbin there. But he’ll give those guys a real run when we come back to work. He’ll grow a lot from Year One to Year Two.

“We all know in our program that he’s going to be very explosive and a really exciting guy. He showed that in his chances that he had.”

A second-round pick from Texas A&M, Michael rushed for 79 yards on 18 carries in the regular season. He didn’t play in any of Seattle’s club’s postseason games, either.

Michael (5-10, 221) had a productive preseason for the Seahawks, rushing for 201 yards on 40 carries and catching three passes for 47 yards. If he develops, a Seattle offense with already solid skill position depth will be even stronger.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/02/21/pete-carroll-has-high-hopes-for-christine-michael/

 

[Neofight]

Nah man, he sucks. He can't even beat out Turbin.

That was actually dead-on correct for his 2013 campaign.

Heading in the 2014 slate, its just a small note on the docket.

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.

True also ... because Spencer Ware was suiting up until he got hurt. And when he did, even then Michael didnt get to put on his uniform.

That has been explained as well. It's like déjà vu all over again.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Nah man, he sucks. He can't even beat out Turbin.

That was actually dead-on correct for his 2013 campaign.

Heading in the 2014 slate, its just a small note on the docket.

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.

True also ... because Spencer Ware was suiting up until he got hurt. And when he did, even then Michael didnt get to put on his uniform.

That has been explained as well. It's like déjà vu all over again.

Yeah, not sure why EBF went the sarcasm route to start it off again. It was obviously proven true for 2013 and yet he decided to regurgitate it and try to spin it.

Its a whole new season now.

 

[biju]

Man some people are dense.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

And some people are clouded Michael owners. Pretty evident.

 

[Gandalf]

Count me in as a delusional Christine Michael owner. There are worse delusions one could have. He's probably around my #20 in my RB rankings with upside to top 5 when he gets an opportunity. He's one back spasm away...

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Count me in as a delusional Christine Michael owner. There are worse delusions one could have. He's probably around my #20 in my RB rankings with upside to top 5 when he gets an opportunity. He's one back spasm away...

#20 isn't delusional it's his average ADP in the Jan & Feb mocks at DLF and seems in line with his market value currently.

 

[Gandalf]

Oh good. So I'm not crazy after all!

I think that the delusional part comes more from the 'what it would take for me to trade him' standpoint. While I rank him as RB20, in dynasty, I would only trade him for a top player. That's because I think he will ultimately be one. I need

to see what he can do as the starter. That said, if someone offered me a deal involving a top RB, I would take it. Of course my team is decent so I can afford to keep him on my bench.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Oh good. So I'm not crazy after all!

I think that the delusional part comes more from the 'what it would take for me to trade him' standpoint. While I rank him as RB20, in dynasty, I would only trade him for a top player. That's because I think he will ultimately be one. I need

to see what he can do as the starter. That said, if someone offered me a deal involving a top RB, I would take it. Of course my team is decent so I can afford to keep him on my bench.

I've seriously thought about offering him for someone like Reggie Bush in a league where I'm RB starved (start one, but I only have Woodhead, Mendenhall and Stewart), but other than that I'm holding. Would rather have a chance at a stud than cash out at his average expected average today.

 

[DropKick]

Nah man, he sucks. He can't even beat out Turbin.

That was actually dead-on correct for his 2013 campaign.

Heading in the 2014 slate, its just a small note on the docket.

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.

True also ... because Spencer Ware was suiting up until he got hurt. And when he did, even then Michael didnt get to put on his uniform.

And for some reason this is critical to you... Because you believe the Seahawks should have used him in a different capacity. But what if the Seahawks don't think that way? It's just as likely (more likely actually) that they see him as a future asset and prefer not to put him in a risky situation, such as returning punts.

If Lynch had been hurt and Michael didn't see the field, I would agree with you. But that didn't happen and no one can argue with the Seahawks success or their use of the RBs.

This has been beaten into the ground, so I won't belabor the point. But, there is "no obvious conclusions" to be drawn from 2013.

 

[DropKick]

Oh good. So I'm not crazy after all!

I think that the delusional part comes more from the 'what it would take for me to trade him' standpoint. While I rank him as RB20, in dynasty, I would only trade him for a top player. That's because I think he will ultimately be one. I need

to see what he can do as the starter. That said, if someone offered me a deal involving a top RB, I would take it. Of course my team is decent so I can afford to keep him on my bench.

I've seriously thought about offering him for someone like Reggie Bush in a league where I'm RB starved (start one, but I only have Woodhead, Mendenhall and Stewart), but other than that I'm holding. Would rather have a chance at a stud than cash out at his average expected average today.

Not in a million years would I give up a young RB with Michael's potential for a injury prone back that is pushing 30.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

Nah man, he sucks. He can't even beat out Turbin.

That was actually dead-on correct for his 2013 campaign.

Heading in the 2014 slate, its just a small note on the docket.

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.

True also ... because Spencer Ware was suiting up until he got hurt. And when he did, even then Michael didnt get to put on his uniform.

And for some reason this is critical to you... Because you believe the Seahawks should have used him in a different capacity. But what if the Seahawks don't think that way? It's just as likely (more likely actually) that they see him as a future asset and prefer not to put him in a risky situation, such as returning punts.

If Lynch had been hurt and Michael didn't see the field, I would agree with you. But that didn't happen and no one can argue with the Seahawks success or their use of the RBs.

This has been beaten into the ground, so I won't belabor the point. But, there is "no obvious conclusions" to be drawn from 2013.

Bolded is a bit of a stretch, IMO. The Seahawks certainly haven't hesitated to use quality contributors on special teams at all. I think the most likely explanation is the obvious one -- Michael just wasn't ready to contribute this year. Now I agree that that is not any kind of major black mark against him -- he was a raw physical talent coming out and shouldn't have been expected to do much of anything this year.

Where I disagree with the pro-Michael crew is using the 2013 preseason / camp hype / coachspeak as a reason to move him up significantly. IMO 2013 really provided nothing compelling on Christine Michael. For me, he's pretty much the same guy he was in May 2013: late 2nd round RB, good situation potentially, crappy opportunity.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

Oh good. So I'm not crazy after all!

I think that the delusional part comes more from the 'what it would take for me to trade him' standpoint. While I rank him as RB20, in dynasty, I would only trade him for a top player. That's because I think he will ultimately be one. I need

to see what he can do as the starter. That said, if someone offered me a deal involving a top RB, I would take it. Of course my team is decent so I can afford to keep him on my bench.

I've seriously thought about offering him for someone like Reggie Bush in a league where I'm RB starved (start one, but I only have Woodhead, Mendenhall and Stewart), but other than that I'm holding. Would rather have a chance at a stud than cash out at his average expected average today.

Not in a million years would I give up a young RB with Michael's potential for a injury prone back that is pushing 30.

Tough to make a definitive statement like that without knowing the full team situation. If I have a loaded team that could compete the next few years with a black hole at RB holding me back, I move a prospect, even one that I love, every time to address that weakness. When you're close to that brass ring, IMO you have to try to grab it. Weird stuff happens in FF and you never know how long that window is going to stay open.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Tough to make a definitive statement like that without knowing the full team situation. If I have a loaded team that could compete the next few years with a black hole at RB holding me back, I move a prospect, even one that I love, every time to address that weakness. When you're close to that brass ring, IMO you have to try to grab it. Weird stuff happens in FF and you never know how long that window is going to stay open.

Pretty much where I am. Rodgers, AJ, Fitz, VJax, Gronk and a gigantic zero at RB. Even then it's something I'm on the fence about. In most of the leagues where I own him he's an easy hold.

 

[Gandalf]

I guess I would see if there was something else on the team you could move before trading Michael. He could be the answer to your RB issues in 2015 just by holding onto him

 

[Kitrick Taylor]

Oh good. So I'm not crazy after all!

I think that the delusional part comes more from the 'what it would take for me to trade him' standpoint. While I rank him as RB20, in dynasty, I would only trade him for a top player. That's because I think he will ultimately be one. I need

to see what he can do as the starter. That said, if someone offered me a deal involving a top RB, I would take it. Of course my team is decent so I can afford to keep him on my bench.

I've seriously thought about offering him for someone like Reggie Bush in a league where I'm RB starved (start one, but I only have Woodhead, Mendenhall and Stewart), but other than that I'm holding. Would rather have a chance at a stud than cash out at his average expected average today.

Not in a million years would I give up a young RB with Michael's potential for a injury prone back that is pushing 30.

I own Michael in one league and would trade him for Bush/Bell in a heartbeat if I thought it would put me over the top. The Det RB situation is FF gold for the next couple of years IMO. I think if you own both you're locking in RB1 production for 2 seasons. (At least as close to a lock as there is at the RB position currently). Michael has top 5 potential, but he has an injury history of his own, and a stud RB ahead of him.Having said that, I think Michaels opportunity is coming sooner rather than later. Lynch is currently 6th on the list of most career rushing attempts by active players. 4/5 ahead of him are arguably cooked. (MJD, Gore, SJax, McGahee, ADP). Lynch is still a very good player, but that was the consensus about Gore, SJax, MJD and Rice going into this past season too. I don't think his talent will fall off a cliff in 2014, but he's a violent runner and plays a position plagued by injuries. I just don't think it's very likely that Lynch is still Seattles lead RB in 2015. Talented backup, salary, injury, off field stuff. Take your pick.

 

[Terpman22]

Oh good. So I'm not crazy after all!

I think that the delusional part comes more from the 'what it would take for me to trade him' standpoint. While I rank him as RB20, in dynasty, I would only trade him for a top player. That's because I think he will ultimately be one. I need

to see what he can do as the starter. That said, if someone offered me a deal involving a top RB, I would take it. Of course my team is decent so I can afford to keep him on my bench.

I've seriously thought about offering him for someone like Reggie Bush in a league where I'm RB starved (start one, but I only have Woodhead, Mendenhall and Stewart), but other than that I'm holding. Would rather have a chance at a stud than cash out at his average expected average today.

Not in a million years would I give up a young RB with Michael's potential for a injury prone back that is pushing 30.

I own Michael in one league and would trade him for Bush/Bell in a heartbeat if I thought it would put me over the top. The Det RB situation is FF gold for the next couple of years IMO. I think if you own both you're locking in RB1 production for 2 seasons. (At least as close to a lock as there is at the RB position currently). Michael has top 5 potential, but he has an injury history of his own, and a stud RB ahead of him.Having said that, I think Michaels opportunity is coming sooner rather than later. Lynch is currently 6th on the list of most career rushing attempts by active players. 4/5 ahead of him are arguably cooked. (MJD, Gore, SJax, McGahee, ADP). Lynch is still a very good player, but that was the consensus about Gore, SJax, MJD and Rice going into this past season too. I don't think his talent will fall off a cliff in 2014, but he's a violent runner and plays a position plagued by injuries. I just don't think it's very likely that Lynch is still Seattles lead RB in 2015. Talented backup, salary, injury, off field stuff. Take your pick.

 

[Tool]

Oh good. So I'm not crazy after all!

I think that the delusional part comes more from the 'what it would take for me to trade him' standpoint. While I rank him as RB20, in dynasty, I would only trade him for a top player. That's because I think he will ultimately be one. I need

to see what he can do as the starter. That said, if someone offered me a deal involving a top RB, I would take it. Of course my team is decent so I can afford to keep him on my bench.

I've seriously thought about offering him for someone like Reggie Bush in a league where I'm RB starved (start one, but I only have Woodhead, Mendenhall and Stewart), but other than that I'm holding. Would rather have a chance at a stud than cash out at his average expected average today.

Not in a million years would I give up a young RB with Michael's potential for a injury prone back that is pushing 30.

I own Michael in one league and would trade him for Bush/Bell in a heartbeat if I thought it would put me over the top. The Det RB situation is FF gold for the next couple of years IMO. I think if you own both you're locking in RB1 production for 2 seasons. (At least as close to a lock as there is at the RB position currently). Michael has top 5 potential, but he has an injury history of his own, and a stud RB ahead of him.

Does your league have a rule where you can play 2 rb's in 1 spot or something? That's the only way i'd do that trade.

 

[Kitrick Taylor]

Oh good. So I'm not crazy after all!

I think that the delusional part comes more from the 'what it would take for me to trade him' standpoint. While I rank him as RB20, in dynasty, I would only trade him for a top player. That's because I think he will ultimately be one. I need

to see what he can do as the starter. That said, if someone offered me a deal involving a top RB, I would take it. Of course my team is decent so I can afford to keep him on my bench.

I've seriously thought about offering him for someone like Reggie Bush in a league where I'm RB starved (start one, but I only have Woodhead, Mendenhall and Stewart), but other than that I'm holding. Would rather have a chance at a stud than cash out at his average expected average today.

Not in a million years would I give up a young RB with Michael's potential for a injury prone back that is pushing 30.

I own Michael in one league and would trade him for Bush/Bell in a heartbeat if I thought it would put me over the top. The Det RB situation is FF gold for the next couple of years IMO. I think if you own both you're locking in RB1 production for 2 seasons. (At least as close to a lock as there is at the RB position currently). Michael has top 5 potential, but he has an injury history of his own, ad a stud RB ahead of him.

Does your league have a rule where you can play 2 rb's in 1 spot or something? That's the only way i'd do that trade.

Bush was RB 6 last year in PPG and played 14 games. Ended up RB9 overall. Bell was a backup most of the season, but in the 2 games Bush missed he averaged over 20ppg in ppr. Even as a backup Bell ended up as RB16.

Seems like the Lions are going with that approach for 2014 at minimum, and I personally think 2015 too. With Calvin drawing a ton of attention, and Bush averaging 4 catches a game, it's a lucrative backfield.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

Oh good. So I'm not crazy after all!

I think that the delusional part comes more from the 'what it would take for me to trade him' standpoint. While I rank him as RB20, in dynasty, I would only trade him for a top player. That's because I think he will ultimately be one. I need

to see what he can do as the starter. That said, if someone offered me a deal involving a top RB, I would take it. Of course my team is decent so I can afford to keep him on my bench.

I've seriously thought about offering him for someone like Reggie Bush in a league where I'm RB starved (start one, but I only have Woodhead, Mendenhall and Stewart), but other than that I'm holding. Would rather have a chance at a stud than cash out at his average expected average today.

Not in a million years would I give up a young RB with Michael's potential for a injury prone back that is pushing 30.

I own Michael in one league and would trade him for Bush/Bell in a heartbeat if I thought it would put me over the top. The Det RB situation is FF gold for the next couple of years IMO. I think if you own both you're locking in RB1 production for 2 seasons. (At least as close to a lock as there is at the RB position currently). Michael has top 5 potential, but he has an injury history of his own, ad a stud RB ahead of him.

Does your league have a rule where you can play 2 rb's in 1 spot or something? That's the only way i'd do that trade.

Bush was RB 6 last year in PPG and played 14 games. Ended up RB9 overall. Bell was a backup most of the season, but in the 2 games Bush missed he averaged over 20ppg in ppr. Even as a backup Bell ended up as RB16.Seems like the Lions are going with that approach for 2014 at minimum, and I personally think 2015 too. With Calvin drawing a ton of attention, and Bush averaging 4 catches a game, it's a lucrative backfield.

Didn't the Lions just hire their new OC from NO where they typically mix in 3 or even 4 RBs in various roles? Not saying I don't like Bush, but I certainly think that other RBs are "safer" bets.I wouldn't be shocked at all if Detroit used more of a multiway RBBC with more than two guys involved moving forward.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Oh good. So I'm not crazy after all!

I think that the delusional part comes more from the 'what it would take for me to trade him' standpoint. While I rank him as RB20, in dynasty, I would only trade him for a top player. That's because I think he will ultimately be one. I need

to see what he can do as the starter. That said, if someone offered me a deal involving a top RB, I would take it. Of course my team is decent so I can afford to keep him on my bench.

I've seriously thought about offering him for someone like Reggie Bush in a league where I'm RB starved (start one, but I only have Woodhead, Mendenhall and Stewart), but other than that I'm holding. Would rather have a chance at a stud than cash out at his average expected average today.

Not in a million years would I give up a young RB with Michael's potential for a injury prone back that is pushing 30.

I own Michael in one league and would trade him for Bush/Bell in a heartbeat if I thought it would put me over the top. The Det RB situation is FF gold for the next couple of years IMO. I think if you own both you're locking in RB1 production for 2 seasons. (At least as close to a lock as there is at the RB position currently). Michael has top 5 potential, but he has an injury history of his own, ad a stud RB ahead of him.

Does your league have a rule where you can play 2 rb's in 1 spot or something? That's the only way i'd do that trade.

Bush was RB 6 last year in PPG and played 14 games. Ended up RB9 overall. Bell was a backup most of the season, but in the 2 games Bush missed he averaged over 20ppg in ppr. Even as a backup Bell ended up as RB16.Seems like the Lions are going with that approach for 2014 at minimum, and I personally think 2015 too. With Calvin drawing a ton of attention, and Bush averaging 4 catches a game, it's a lucrative backfield.

Didn't the Lions just hire their new OC from NO where they typically mix in 3 or even 4 RBs in various roles? Not saying I don't like Bush, but I certainly think that other RBs are "safer" bets.I wouldn't be shocked at all if Detroit used more of a multiway RBBC with more than two guys involved moving forward.

I doubt the New Orleans OC had any material say in the gameplan or play calling last year. Which makes it difficult to project the offensive under NO to what we should expect next year in Detroit.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

Oh good. So I'm not crazy after all!

I think that the delusional part comes more from the 'what it would take for me to trade him' standpoint. While I rank him as RB20, in dynasty, I would only trade him for a top player. That's because I think he will ultimately be one. I need

to see what he can do as the starter. That said, if someone offered me a deal involving a top RB, I would take it. Of course my team is decent so I can afford to keep him on my bench.

I've seriously thought about offering him for someone like Reggie Bush in a league where I'm RB starved (start one, but I only have Woodhead, Mendenhall and Stewart), but other than that I'm holding. Would rather have a chance at a stud than cash out at his average expected average today.

Not in a million years would I give up a young RB with Michael's potential for a injury prone back that is pushing 30.

I own Michael in one league and would trade him for Bush/Bell in a heartbeat if I thought it would put me over the top. The Det RB situation is FF gold for the next couple of years IMO. I think if you own both you're locking in RB1 production for 2 seasons. (At least as close to a lock as there is at the RB position currently). Michael has top 5 potential, but he has an injury history of his own, ad a stud RB ahead of him.

Does your league have a rule where you can play 2 rb's in 1 spot or something? That's the only way i'd do that trade.

Bush was RB 6 last year in PPG and played 14 games. Ended up RB9 overall. Bell was a backup most of the season, but in the 2 games Bush missed he averaged over 20ppg in ppr. Even as a backup Bell ended up as RB16.Seems like the Lions are going with that approach for 2014 at minimum, and I personally think 2015 too. With Calvin drawing a ton of attention, and Bush averaging 4 catches a game, it's a lucrative backfield.

Didn't the Lions just hire their new OC from NO where they typically mix in 3 or even 4 RBs in various roles? Not saying I don't like Bush, but I certainly think that other RBs are "safer" bets.I wouldn't be shocked at all if Detroit used more of a multiway RBBC with more than two guys involved moving forward.

I doubt the New Orleans OC had any material say in the gameplan or play calling last year. Which makes it difficult to project the offensive under NO to what we should expect next year in Detroit.

Agree -- just saying that it's kind of hard to call a team with complete coaching turnover the single safest bet to produce a top 10 FF RB.There are places where we know that, barring injury, the RB will be a top-10 guy.

 

[Neofight]

Nah man, he sucks. He can't even beat out Turbin.

That was actually dead-on correct for his 2013 campaign.

Heading in the 2014 slate, its just a small note on the docket.

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.

True also ... because Spencer Ware was suiting up until he got hurt. And when he did, even then Michael didnt get to put on his uniform.

And for some reason this is critical to you... Because you believe the Seahawks should have used him in a different capacity. But what if the Seahawks don't think that way? It's just as likely (more likely actually) that they see him as a future asset and prefer not to put him in a risky situation, such as returning punts.

If Lynch had been hurt and Michael didn't see the field, I would agree with you. But that didn't happen and no one can argue with the Seahawks success or their use of the RBs.

This has been beaten into the ground, so I won't belabor the point. But, there is "no obvious conclusions" to be drawn from 2013.

Bolded is a bit of a stretch, IMO. The Seahawks certainly haven't hesitated to use quality contributors on special teams at all. I think the most likely explanation is the obvious one -- Michael just wasn't ready to contribute this year. Now I agree that that is not any kind of major black mark against him -- he was a raw physical talent coming out and shouldn't have been expected to do much of anything this year.Where I disagree with the pro-Michael crew is using the 2013 preseason / camp hype / coachspeak as a reason to move him up significantly. IMO 2013 really provided nothing compelling on Christine Michael. For me, he's pretty much the same guy he was in May 2013: late 2nd round RB, good situation potentially, crappy opportunity.

It's not a stretch if you listen to what the GM and coaches actually have to say on the matter.

 

[Kitrick Taylor]

Oh good. So I'm not crazy after all!

I think that the delusional part comes more from the 'what it would take for me to trade him' standpoint. While I rank him as RB20, in dynasty, I would only trade him for a top player. That's because I think he will ultimately be one. I need

to see what he can do as the starter. That said, if someone offered me a deal involving a top RB, I would take it. Of course my team is decent so I can afford to keep him on my bench.

I've seriously thought about offering him for someone like Reggie Bush in a league where I'm RB starved (start one, but I only have Woodhead, Mendenhall and Stewart), but other than that I'm holding. Would rather have a chance at a stud than cash out at his average expected average today.

Not in a million years would I give up a young RB with Michael's potential for a injury prone back that is pushing 30.

I own Michael in one league and would trade him for Bush/Bell in a heartbeat if I thought it would put me over the top. The Det RB situation is FF gold for the next couple of years IMO. I think if you own both you're locking in RB1 production for 2 seasons. (At least as close to a lock as there is at the RB position currently). Michael has top 5 potential, but he has an injury history of his own, ad a stud RB ahead of him.

Does your league have a rule where you can play 2 rb's in 1 spot or something? That's the only way i'd do that trade.

Bush was RB 6 last year in PPG and played 14 games. Ended up RB9 overall. Bell was a backup most of the season, but in the 2 games Bush missed he averaged over 20ppg in ppr. Even as a backup Bell ended up as RB16.Seems like the Lions are going with that approach for 2014 at minimum, and I personally think 2015 too. With Calvin drawing a ton of attention, and Bush averaging 4 catches a game, it's a lucrative backfield.

Didn't the Lions just hire their new OC from NO where they typically mix in 3 or even 4 RBs in various roles? Not saying I don't like Bush, but I certainly think that other RBs are "safer" bets.I wouldn't be shocked at all if Detroit used more of a multiway RBBC with more than two guys involved moving forward.

I doubt the New Orleans OC had any material say in the gameplan or play calling last year. Which makes it difficult to project the offensive under NO to what we should expect next year in Detroit.

Agree -- just saying that it's kind of hard to call a team with complete coaching turnover the single safest bet to produce a top 10 FF RB.There are places where we know that, barring injury, the RB will be a top-10 guy.

I didn't say it was the single safest bet. I also don't think either Bush nor Bell have a chance to be a top 3 kind of producer. I just think it's as good of a bet as there is right now for RB1 kind of production.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Nah man, he sucks. He can't even beat out Turbin.

That was actually dead-on correct for his 2013 campaign.

Heading in the 2014 slate, its just a small note on the docket.

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.

True also ... because Spencer Ware was suiting up until he got hurt. And when he did, even then Michael didnt get to put on his uniform.

And for some reason this is critical to you... Because you believe the Seahawks should have used him in a different capacity. But what if the Seahawks don't think that way? It's just as likely (more likely actually) that they see him as a future asset and prefer not to put him in a risky situation, such as returning punts.

If Lynch had been hurt and Michael didn't see the field, I would agree with you. But that didn't happen and no one can argue with the Seahawks success or their use of the RBs.

This has been beaten into the ground, so I won't belabor the point. But, there is "no obvious conclusions" to be drawn from 2013.

Bolded is a bit of a stretch, IMO. The Seahawks certainly haven't hesitated to use quality contributors on special teams at all. I think the most likely explanation is the obvious one -- Michael just wasn't ready to contribute this year. Now I agree that that is not any kind of major black mark against him -- he was a raw physical talent coming out and shouldn't have been expected to do much of anything this year.Where I disagree with the pro-Michael crew is using the 2013 preseason / camp hype / coachspeak as a reason to move him up significantly. IMO 2013 really provided nothing compelling on Christine Michael. For me, he's pretty much the same guy he was in May 2013: late 2nd round RB, good situation potentially, crappy opportunity.

It's not a stretch if you listen to what the GM and coaches actually have to say on the matter.

That they didnt trust him. Not because of any future asset spin.

 

[DropKick]

Nah man, he sucks. He can't even beat out Turbin.

That was actually dead-on correct for his 2013 campaign.

Heading in the 2014 slate, its just a small note on the docket.

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.

True also ... because Spencer Ware was suiting up until he got hurt. And when he did, even then Michael didnt get to put on his uniform.

And for some reason this is critical to you... Because you believe the Seahawks should have used him in a different capacity. But what if the Seahawks don't think that way? It's just as likely (more likely actually) that they see him as a future asset and prefer not to put him in a risky situation, such as returning punts.

If Lynch had been hurt and Michael didn't see the field, I would agree with you. But that didn't happen and no one can argue with the Seahawks success or their use of the RBs.

This has been beaten into the ground, so I won't belabor the point. But, there is "no obvious conclusions" to be drawn from 2013.

Bolded is a bit of a stretch, IMO. The Seahawks certainly haven't hesitated to use quality contributors on special teams at all. I think the most likely explanation is the obvious one -- Michael just wasn't ready to contribute this year. Now I agree that that is not any kind of major black mark against him -- he was a raw physical talent coming out and shouldn't have been expected to do much of anything this year.Where I disagree with the pro-Michael crew is using the 2013 preseason / camp hype / coachspeak as a reason to move him up significantly. IMO 2013 really provided nothing compelling on Christine Michael. For me, he's pretty much the same guy he was in May 2013: late 2nd round RB, good situation potentially, crappy opportunity.

It's not a stretch if you listen to what the GM and coaches actually have to say on the matter.

That they didnt trust him. Not because of any future asset spin.

Link?

Maybe you just lack long term vision but, if I'm managing a franchise and I have a back of Lynch's caliber with a capable guy like Turbin, I do exactly what the Seahawks did.

 

[DropKick]

Oh good. So I'm not crazy after all!

I think that the delusional part comes more from the 'what it would take for me to trade him' standpoint. While I rank him as RB20, in dynasty, I would only trade him for a top player. That's because I think he will ultimately be one. I need

to see what he can do as the starter. That said, if someone offered me a deal involving a top RB, I would take it. Of course my team is decent so I can afford to keep him on my bench.

I've seriously thought about offering him for someone like Reggie Bush in a league where I'm RB starved (start one, but I only have Woodhead, Mendenhall and Stewart), but other than that I'm holding. Would rather have a chance at a stud than cash out at his average expected average today.

Not in a million years would I give up a young RB with Michael's potential for a injury prone back that is pushing 30.

Tough to make a definitive statement like that without knowing the full team situation. If I have a loaded team that could compete the next few years with a black hole at RB holding me back, I move a prospect, even one that I love, every time to address that weakness. When you're close to that brass ring, IMO you have to try to grab it. Weird stuff happens in FF and you never know how long that window is going to stay open.

It isn't tough at all. Young RBs with his physical attributes come at a premium in my leagues (all dynasty deep/keeper). You need a high draft pick to acquire one. Lots of things happen over the course of a season; Bush could get hurt. Even Lynch could get hurt. Their "immediate" values could turn on a dime so give me the young back with the chance for a long career.

Unlike a panicked MLB team at the trade deadline, I don't mortgage the future for better odds this year. There are no guarantees. That's a personal philosophy. There are teams in my leagues that are all about the "here and now". They do OK. But, I can honestly say I've never had a "complete rebuild".

I fill the whole another way. You still have a fantasy draft and a whole season to play out before "crunch" time. Guys will be hurt; things will change. If your team is "loaded", you should be in the mix.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

Oh good. So I'm not crazy after all!

I think that the delusional part comes more from the 'what it would take for me to trade him' standpoint. While I rank him as RB20, in dynasty, I would only trade him for a top player. That's because I think he will ultimately be one. I need

to see what he can do as the starter. That said, if someone offered me a deal involving a top RB, I would take it. Of course my team is decent so I can afford to keep him on my bench.

I've seriously thought about offering him for someone like Reggie Bush in a league where I'm RB starved (start one, but I only have Woodhead, Mendenhall and Stewart), but other than that I'm holding. Would rather have a chance at a stud than cash out at his average expected average today.

Not in a million years would I give up a young RB with Michael's potential for a injury prone back that is pushing 30.

Tough to make a definitive statement like that without knowing the full team situation. If I have a loaded team that could compete the next few years with a black hole at RB holding me back, I move a prospect, even one that I love, every time to address that weakness. When you're close to that brass ring, IMO you have to try to grab it. Weird stuff happens in FF and you never know how long that window is going to stay open.

It isn't tough at all. Young RBs with his physical attributes come at a premium in my leagues (all dynasty deep/keeper). You need a high draft pick to acquire one. Lots of things happen over the course of a season; Bush could get hurt. Even Lynch could get hurt. Their "immediate" values could turn on a dime so give me the young back with the chance for a long career.

Unlike a panicked MLB team at the trade deadline, I don't mortgage the future for better odds this year. There are no guarantees. That's a personal philosophy. There are teams in my leagues that are all about the "here and now". They do OK. But, I can honestly say I've never had a "complete rebuild".

I fill the whole another way. You still have a fantasy draft and a whole season to play out before "crunch" time. Guys will be hurt; things will change. If your team is "loaded", you should be in the mix.

Yeah, you didn't need a high pick to acquire Michael last year in the vast majority of leagues, and there are a handful of better RB prospects every single year in the draft. You're way overplaying Michael's ability and value.

 

[Neofight]

Nah man, he sucks. He can't even beat out Turbin.

That was actually dead-on correct for his 2013 campaign.

Heading in the 2014 slate, its just a small note on the docket.

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.

True also ... because Spencer Ware was suiting up until he got hurt. And when he did, even then Michael didnt get to put on his uniform.

And for some reason this is critical to you... Because you believe the Seahawks should have used him in a different capacity. But what if the Seahawks don't think that way? It's just as likely (more likely actually) that they see him as a future asset and prefer not to put him in a risky situation, such as returning punts.

If Lynch had been hurt and Michael didn't see the field, I would agree with you. But that didn't happen and no one can argue with the Seahawks success or their use of the RBs.

This has been beaten into the ground, so I won't belabor the point. But, there is "no obvious conclusions" to be drawn from 2013.

Bolded is a bit of a stretch, IMO. The Seahawks certainly haven't hesitated to use quality contributors on special teams at all. I think the most likely explanation is the obvious one -- Michael just wasn't ready to contribute this year. Now I agree that that is not any kind of major black mark against him -- he was a raw physical talent coming out and shouldn't have been expected to do much of anything this year.Where I disagree with the pro-Michael crew is using the 2013 preseason / camp hype / coachspeak as a reason to move him up significantly. IMO 2013 really provided nothing compelling on Christine Michael. For me, he's pretty much the same guy he was in May 2013: late 2nd round RB, good situation potentially, crappy opportunity.

It's not a stretch if you listen to what the GM and coaches actually have to say on the matter.

That they didnt trust him. Not because of any future asset spin.

Link?

Maybe you just lack long term vision but, if I'm managing a franchise and I have a back of Lynch's caliber with a capable guy like Turbin, I do exactly what the Seahawks did.

Leave him; doesn't know what he doesn't know. Sadly he's not fishing.

 

[EBF]

Yeah, you didn't need a high pick to acquire Michael last year in the vast majority of leagues, and there are a handful of better RB prospects every single year in the draft. You're way overplaying Michael's ability and value.

I'd be reluctant to make that statement without actually knowing how good Michael really is. You can say that there a handful of RB prospects with similar grades who enter the league every year, but then that would've been true of MJD, Jamaal Charles, LeSean McCoy, Ray Rice, and Frank Gore as well. The generic odds don't favor any given late 2nd-early 3rd round RB becoming a Pro Bowl type of player, but of course we know that many of them have and many more will in the future.

I'm not saying anything new here, but that's basically the root of the disagreement in this thread. You've got one side who looks at Michael as merely a random late 2nd round RB prospect. And then you've got another side who has latched onto some of the workout numbers and offseason tea leaves to make a more ambitious assessment. To say that one side is right and another is wrong is entirely premature at this point.

 

[tdmills]

Just because it got lost in the offseason trade thread and figured it was more appropriate here.

Looking at it this way, I don't think they've proven significantly more than Michael. They just happened to be fortunate enough to land in situations with no real competition for carries whereas he landed on a team with no real opportunity. I think in their shoes he would've broken more long runs and had a better YPC. Based on what I've seen of him, he's probably the most talented runner of that group. Possibly by a significant margin.

Here's what we know:

1) Lacy/Bell/Stacy all didn't flop, they proved they're 3 down NFL RBs that are above average.

2) Christine Michael just lost a year of production off of his career(which is a negative). What's interesting is that you're all aboard the C. Michael hype train, but don't like to hold onto RB's past age 25/26 if you can help it. Michael is currently 23, birthday is in November. Lynch will most likely be the main guy in 2014 and might be cut after that. Based on a 2015 outlook for Michael, he will be 24 and have a 1-3 year window before his "exit value plummets."

As far as a the Michael hype goes, I don't think the 18 regular season carries are the driving force there. I can't speak for anyone else, but for me it's a projection based on his draft position, the team that drafted him, his workout numbers, some of his college achievements, the eyeball test, the training camp buzz, the preseason performances, and just a tiny sliver based on those regular season carries. There are a lot of arrows pointing in a positive direction and that's what I'm using to color in the mystery of his future.

1) Draft position- last pick of the 2nd round isn't a high draft position. Every NFL team passed on Michael a couple of times and took the Gio/Ball/Bell/Lacy ahead of him...that's a negative.

2) Team that drafted him is a positive? Why? They're prone to drafting all good players?

3) Workout numbers, yes he did well

4) College achievements- his most touches in his career were his true freshman season with 181. Most total yards 934...nothing to write home about as a positive. 5) Eyeball/training camp/preseason are mainly in the eye of the beholder. More TC stories are just hype than reality.

The central point in our disagreement here is Michael himself -- I'm treating him as a generic late 2nd round (NFL) RB and you see him as a stud in waiting.

"Stud in waiting" might be extreme, but yea that pretty much nails it. That is the central difference in the endless Christine Michael thread too. One group of people looks at him as a random backup RB with potential. The other group is more optimistic based on some of the other variables.

How can you be a stud in waiting when CM's entire collegiate/NFL career hasn't seen the stud part surface?

Last year was also the best season of Forte's career by far. Career highs in rushing attempts, rushing yards, rushing TDs, receptions, and receiving yards. One way to look at that is that he's peaking right now. The other way to look at that is that he already peaked and that his 2013 isn't a realistic expectation of things to come. I've pretty consistently banged the drum AGAINST buying players after their career year because they usually become overvalued.

You've constantly banged the drum against Matt Forte, which I believe is the strongest fact here. This was Matt Forte's 1st season with an offensive Head Coach and he produced the best numbers in his career. Is the offense going to get worse? I doubt it with everyone more familiar in season 2, Cutler resigned, Marshall/Jeffery/Bennett keeping defenses honest, Forte took over more GL duties as the year went on, OL started 2 rookies who will likely improve in year 2 and the defense will likely be better by default(meaning more 2nd half leads=FF points). I don't know a reason Forte would have a poor season in year 2 with Trestman...he did have 4 of his last 5 games rushing for over 100 yards as well.

Forte(28) who should continue to produce well for at least 2 more seasons vs Michael who will be 24 if he ever gets a starting gig and has never had more than 934 yards in any season since 2009. This debate sounds a lot like the Jstew "potential" ones of the past.

 

[DropKick]

Oh good. So I'm not crazy after all!

I think that the delusional part comes more from the 'what it would take for me to trade him' standpoint. While I rank him as RB20, in dynasty, I would only trade him for a top player. That's because I think he will ultimately be one. I need

to see what he can do as the starter. That said, if someone offered me a deal involving a top RB, I would take it. Of course my team is decent so I can afford to keep him on my bench.

I've seriously thought about offering him for someone like Reggie Bush in a league where I'm RB starved (start one, but I only have Woodhead, Mendenhall and Stewart), but other than that I'm holding. Would rather have a chance at a stud than cash out at his average expected average today.

Not in a million years would I give up a young RB with Michael's potential for a injury prone back that is pushing 30.

Tough to make a definitive statement like that without knowing the full team situation. If I have a loaded team that could compete the next few years with a black hole at RB holding me back, I move a prospect, even one that I love, every time to address that weakness. When you're close to that brass ring, IMO you have to try to grab it. Weird stuff happens in FF and you never know how long that window is going to stay open.

It isn't tough at all. Young RBs with his physical attributes come at a premium in my leagues (all dynasty deep/keeper). You need a high draft pick to acquire one. Lots of things happen over the course of a season; Bush could get hurt. Even Lynch could get hurt. Their "immediate" values could turn on a dime so give me the young back with the chance for a long career.

Unlike a panicked MLB team at the trade deadline, I don't mortgage the future for better odds this year. There are no guarantees. That's a personal philosophy. There are teams in my leagues that are all about the "here and now". They do OK. But, I can honestly say I've never had a "complete rebuild".

I fill the whole another way. You still have a fantasy draft and a whole season to play out before "crunch" time. Guys will be hurt; things will change. If your team is "loaded", you should be in the mix.

Yeah, you didn't need a high pick to acquire Michael last year in the vast majority of leagues, and there are a handful of better RB prospects every single year in the draft. You're way overplaying Michael's ability and value.

I don't care about the vast majority of leagues. I only care about mine. It isn't uncommon to see 8+ of 12 first round picks spent on RBs. We do play PPR so you will even see reaches for COP backs. I'll wager that the first round is RB dominant in most dynasty formats.

In the NFL draft, Michael went a pick after Lacy. Lacy went first overall in both of my dynasty leagues. Michael went 5th (to a Lynch owner and before an injured Bell) and 7th in those leagues.

I don't think I'm overplaying his ability. I really don't have any questions about that. His real problem is opportunity. Lacy is such an interesting comparison, especially since they were taken with back to back picks. If Michael had been taken by the Packers, this thread could be about Lacy (a darling of the fantasy community).

Incidentally, this is the assessment (nfl.com) of the Seahawks needs entering the NFL draft and the comment on their first pick (Michael):

Needs Analysis: After trading for Percy Harvin and signing a pair of pass rushers (Cliff Avril and Michael Bennett), the Seahawks appear to be a team without any major needs as they enter the draft. Head coach Pete Carroll and general manager John Schneider boast what is arguably the strongest top-to-bottom roster in the NFL. Otherwise adequate right tackle Breno Giacomini was abused by St. Louis Rams defensive end Chris Long in two meetings last season, and the Seahawks should target his eventual replacement in the second round. While the Seahawks have the best starting secondary in the league, they could use depth at both cornerback and safety in the later rounds.

Pick Analysis: "He's the most gifted tailback in this class, albeit troubled. He's had off-field issues and got in Kevin Sumlin's doghouse, which is why he slipped. But if he stays straight, boy is he gifted."

 

[Coeur de Lion]

I don't think I'm overplaying his ability. I really don't have any questions about that.

It's the statements like this that I really just don't understand. How can you not have questions about his ability? We've seen basically nothing meaningful from him to this point at the NFL level. Lots of guys look good in preseason and go on to do nothing. He had a great workout at the combine, but that's already baked in to his draft position -- he wasn't one of the first few RBs taken, and he wasn't a 1st round pick -- NFL GMs obviously didn't see him as anything even remotely close to the sure thing that his fantasy owners are touting him as. Some very smart franchises thought that other RBs were better places to invest.

This Michael hype is really off of the rails at this point.

 

[Gandalf]

Because we have seen enough - even with the limited carries to know he should be successful if given the opportunity

 

[Tool]

Does anyone find it interesting that Seattle traded down from 56 to 62 before taking Michael. Then Ball went at 58 and Lacy at 61.

 

[Gandalf]

Tool - what are the implications of that in your mind?

 

[tdmills]

Tool - what are the implications of that in your mind?

They had all 3 graded out near the same and took whomever was left is my guess

 

[Touchdown There]

The anti-Michael crowd largely consists of Lynch owners.

It takes a ballsy GM to do what I am proposing, but I still think Seattle should trade Lynch. His value has peaked to the league and his contract is detrimental to the team under the cap. I do not believe he has leadership intangibles like Frank Gore. I also do not believe there will be a significant drop in production if Seattle rolls w Michael and Turbin.

The cap would be a non issue if Lynch is traded now that Rice was released. They could keep most of the team intact, gain a draft pick or two, and bring in a classy vet willing to play near league min (think Ronnie Brown type).

Ballsy moves like this are how one year champions turn into a formidable dynasty.

 

[DropKick]

I don't think I'm overplaying his ability. I really don't have any questions about that.

It's the statements like this that I really just don't understand. How can you not have questions about his ability? We've seen basically nothing meaningful from him to this point at the NFL level. Lots of guys look good in preseason and go on to do nothing. He had a great workout at the combine, but that's already baked in to his draft position -- he wasn't one of the first few RBs taken, and he wasn't a 1st round pick -- NFL GMs obviously didn't see him as anything even remotely close to the sure thing that his fantasy owners are touting him as. Some very smart franchises thought that other RBs were better places to invest.

This Michael hype is really off of the rails at this point.

Pop quiz.. How many RBs were taken in the 1st round of the 2013 draft? Zero. When you consider all the positional needs of the NFL, it isn't a surprise that RB is not the primary need. Michael was taken as the fifth back overall but Ball, Lacy & Michael went in the span of five picks. This order could have just as easily been reversed.

My opinion in based on highlights, respectable college production. In limited NFL action: 5.0 yards/carry preseason; 4.4 regular season, 220 pound 4.4 speed. If it makes you feel any better, i don't have any more questions about Michael than I would any other young back, including this year's rookie class. I think he has ideal size/speed to be a work horse back.

He has the potential to be EXACTLY what you hope to find in a dynasty league. I am not saying he is a "sure thing"... just that he could be. and that guys with his potential come at a cost.

As mentioned, he fell in the draft due to character concerns. As did Randy Moss... Do you recall that Kevin Dyson was drafted before Moss? If you want something more recent, Josh Gordon was drafted in the 2nd round of the Supplemental Draft - again character concerns. Essentially the Bills passed on Gordon twice. Safe to say the supplemental draft lacks the overall depth of the regular draft?

 

[DropKick]

Does anyone find it interesting that Seattle traded down from 56 to 62 before taking Michael. Then Ball went at 58 and Lacy at 61.

Minor drop in picks to acquire two additional picks. Sounds like a good deal but it is impossible to say what their board looked like at the time; who they preferred and what was their assessment of teams drafting between those picks. Here is one assessment:

The Seahawks have traded their 2nd round pick, #56 overall, to the Baltimore Ravens. In return, the Seahawks get Baltimore's 2nd round pick, #62 overall, plus an additional 5th (#165) and 6th rounder (#199). The Ravens used Seattle's pick to draft Ray Lewis' successor in Kansas State's Arthur Brown. Seems to be a win-win.

The Seahawks definitely favor the high-volume drafting style, and now hold 12 total picks. It's been said that not all of the team's draft picks will make the team this upcoming season but that's the type of competitive cauldron that Pete Carroll and John Schneider try to create. It's also about hedging your bets - the Draft is notoriously riddled with failures - high volume drafting gives the Seahawks a better chance of hitting on the amount of players they need to fill the back end of their roster with talented players.

 

[humpback]

I love how the fanboys think that they are any different/better than those they consider haters in here.

 

[domvin]

Tool - what are the implications of that in your mind?

They had all 3 graded out near the same and took whomever was left is my guess

Or they had 7 guys on their board that they still really liked. Not sure if they were really locked into rb?

 

[tdmills]

Tool - what are the implications of that in your mind?

They had all 3 graded out near the same and took whomever was left is my guess

Or they had 7 guys on their board that they still really liked. Not sure if they were really locked into rb?

True, but it does say they didn't love Michael or he was their guy. If so, you take him if he's there or trade up to get him.

 

[Touchdown There]

I love how the fanboys think that they are any different/better than those they consider haters in here.

Is there a good reason to hate on Michael? I have only read things about how Lynch is clearly better or how Lynch is the best player on the team, etc. Lynch owners don't like how Michael owners promote him, so they pop in this thread to be antagonists.Lynch is good. No one is disputing that. All players have a price and Lynch is too expensive at his cap number. The game is not as simple as finding the best players you can. It is about finding 52 of the best players you can within cap restraints. Big difference and that is what makes Lynch expendable. Parity constraints.

No drop off in rb production + cap relief + draft pick means that it is a possibility to owners that believe in Michaels talent. Can you find a way to deal with it in the Michael thread?

 

[humpback]

I love how the fanboys think that they are any different/better than those they consider haters in here.

Is there a good reason to hate on Michael? I have only read things about how Lynch is clearly better or how Lynch is the best player on the team, etc. Lynch owners don't like how Michael owners promote him, so they pop in this thread to be antagonists.Lynch is good. No one is disputing that. All players have a price and Lynch is too expensive at his cap number. The game is not as simple as finding the best players you can. It is about finding 52 of the best players you can within cap restraints. Big difference and that is what makes Lynch expendable. Parity constraints.

No drop off in rb production + cap relief + draft pick means that it is a possibility to owners that believe in Michaels talent. Can you find a way to deal with it in the Michael thread?

I don't see many people "hating" on Michael, which is why I phrased it that way. IMO, pointing out some concerns does not equal hating. I think you're way off base with your Lynch hypothesis, you certainly don't need to own him to think Michael isn't a lock- Lynch's presence isn't the only question mark here.

 

[Tool]

Tool - what are the implications of that in your mind?

Tool - what are the implications of that in your mind?

Not sure. Just bringing it up for discussion. Seems like they maybe they weren't in love with him which someone pointed out. Or they were very confident noone was going to pick him since Lacy and Ball were still on the board.

 

[DropKick]

Tool - what are the implications of that in your mind?

Tool - what are the implications of that in your mind?

Not sure. Just bringing it up for discussion. Seems like they maybe they weren't in love with him which someone pointed out. Or they were very confident noone was going to pick him since Lacy and Ball were still on the board.

We'll never know what they were thinking. However, I think the average fan can relate to trading up while trading down is a foreign concept. If your war room has done a good job of evaluating talent and assessing other team's needs and the Ravens approach you about moving back 6 picks and dangle two additional picks??? A confident team takes the deal.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Because we have seen enough - even with the limited carries to know he should be successful if given the opportunity

18 carries?