Christine Michael (1 Viewer)

[Gandalf]

Yep

 

[Bob Barker]

I havent read all of this thread but even though Michael hasnt done anything yet there is virtually no chance you can get him for cheap based on his upside alone, in limited action he looks every bit the part of a stud RB. Look at the other rookie Rbs and where they rank in FBG consensus dynasty rankings in the last month

4. Bernard

5. Bell

7. lacy

15. ball

17. Stacy

all of them were drafted around where Michael was but into much better situations with no one like Lynch in front of them. If Michael was drafted by one of those teams last year he would have easily been one of the top rookie fantasy picks. Anyone who got him in the 2nd got a steal, it just might take another year or 2, but the odds are on him having top 15 dynasty RB value in the near future, possibly top 5-10 as he looks like he can be a complete back who catches and gets goalline work, which is rare these days in the NFL

 

[Mingooch]

The other side of the coin is Lynch does stay healthy for a few more years and Michael finishes his contract, goes elsewhere for more money as the players on the D want to get paid and he goes to a bad situation or flops.

 

[Gandalf]

The other side of the coin is Lynch does stay healthy for a few more years and Michael finishes his contract, goes elsewhere for more money as the players on the D want to get paid and he goes to a bad situation or flops.

Highly unlikely Seattle resigns Lynch after 2015

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I can understand people liking Michael's skills set, but I can't understand how people keep saying he looked the part of a stud RB in his limited carries. The guy had 18 carries - how can anyone make any kind of assessment on his future over 18 carries?

It's as if we're all part of this elaborate hoax where someone has created a stud RB out of thin air.

 

[Bob Barker]

He was a top recruit coming out of high school, and he excelled in the preseason and training camp. Injuries are a concern as he had a few injuries in college but was highly productive when healthy. fell to the 2nd round in the NFL draft due to injury concerns but is thought to be an high impact RB in the NFL and I would bet a lot of money he will be a ranked a top 15 dynasty RB at sometime in future. There are just not that many RBs in the NFL that have the skill set to be complete backs and Michael does, its only a matter of time before he gets the chance to prove it. A lead back who can catch and get goalline work will be considered a top 15 fantasy back, it looks like Michael can do it all

 

[Dr. Octopus]

fell to the 2nd round in the NFL draft due to injury concerns

how do yo know that?As far as having a great preseason, many backs have done that: Kareem Huggins, Anthony Dixon, Danny Ware....

I like Michaels, but the hype is so bizzare to me - at this point his price is so high that there's ony downside, no real upside since that is already factored into the price.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I can understand people liking Michael's skills set, but I can't understand how people keep saying he looked the part of a stud RB in his limited carries. The guy had 18 carries - how can anyone make any kind of assessment on his future over 18 carries?

It's as if we're all part of this elaborate hoax where someone has created a stud RB out of thin air.

I can only speak for me, but his measurables (including my read on his NCAA carries) are all top-flight. So the pre-season buzz and obvious pop he displayed in his limited action are confirmatory rather than the thing I'm basing my opinion on.

I think people are underestimating the risk that there's a real character or work-ethic issue, but in terms of talent he sure checks all the boxes IMO.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I guess I'm too hung up on all the talk on how good he looked in his "limited action", when that consists of 18 carries. Talk like that is usually reserved for at least 75 carries.

I'll let it go now though.

 

[Bob Barker]

fell to the 2nd round in the NFL draft due to injury concerns

how do yo know that?As far as having a great preseason, many backs have done that: Kareem Huggins, Anthony Dixon, Danny Ware....

I like Michaels, but the hype is so bizzare to me - at this point his price is so high that there's ony downside, no real upside since that is already factored into the price.

I agree his upside is factored in to what an owner would want from him, but if you are looking fo a guy who can come out of nowhere and produce in a year or 2, i would say Michael has a good a chance as anyone, thats why if you have him you dont reaaly want to trade him if you dont have too. Would anyone that has followed Micheal really be suprised if seattle lets Lynch go after the 2014 season and names Michael the starting RB and he finishes top 15 for fantasy in 2015, I sure wouldnt. It just looks like the talent is there, just opportunity is needed and that will eventually come

 

[Bob Barker]

And I could be wrong but as far as i know he has never raped a woman, knocked out a female in a casino or kill anyone drunk driving or Aaron Hernandez style, so he has that going for him

 

[EBF]

I can understand people liking Michael's skills set, but I can't understand how people keep saying he looked the part of a stud RB in his limited carries. The guy had 18 carries - how can anyone make any kind of assessment on his future over 18 carries?

It's as if we're all part of this elaborate hoax where someone has created a stud RB out of thin air.

I can't speak for anyone else, but a big part of it for me was the buzz out of training camp and the awesome showing in the preseason games. I was following Seattle pretty closely this past summer due to my heavy investment in Michael/Harper/Ware/Willson. There was a consistent narrative emerging from the practice recaps about Michael looking absolutely studly. I'm not talking about 1-2 puff pieces. I'm talking about nearly unanimous praise from every observer. Then the preseason came along and he looked every bit as good as billed. I liked him before all that stuff, but those were the things that really kicked my interest into overdrive. The 18 regular season carries did not affect my view in any way.

I'm in a few soft leagues, but I'm also in a few really tough leagues where you don't really have the luxury of sitting back and waiting for players to prove themselves. You have to look at a limited data set, extrapolate, and act accordingly. This player is a really nice test of that. For me, there were enough positives to warrant a pretty aggressive stance. Nobody really knows if that's right or wrong yet.

 

[jurb26]

My lord, you guys are still at it with this?

 

[Gandalf]

Haha. Yes jurb. It's going to be fun to see which side will be right in a year or two. Then we will have this thread to bump.

 

[humpback]

I can understand people liking Michael's skills set, but I can't understand how people keep saying he looked the part of a stud RB in his limited carries. The guy had 18 carries - how can anyone make any kind of assessment on his future over 18 carries?

It's as if we're all part of this elaborate hoax where someone has created a stud RB out of thin air.

I can't speak for anyone else, but a big part of it for me was the buzz out of training camp and the awesome showing in the preseason games. I was following Seattle pretty closely this past summer due to my heavy investment in Michael/Harper/Ware/Willson. There was a consistent narrative emerging from the practice recaps about Michael looking absolutely studly. I'm not talking about 1-2 puff pieces. I'm talking about nearly unanimous praise from every observer. Then the preseason came along and he looked every bit as good as billed. I liked him before all that stuff, but those were the things that really kicked my interest into overdrive. The 18 regular season carries did not affect my view in any way.

I'm in a few soft leagues, but I'm also in a few really tough leagues where you don't really have the luxury of sitting back and waiting for players to prove themselves. You have to look at a limited data set, extrapolate, and act accordingly. This player is a really nice test of that. For me, there were enough positives to warrant a pretty aggressive stance. Nobody really knows if that's right or wrong yet.

This seems a bit contradictory to me. You've got all kinds of positives about Michael- high draft position, great workout numbers, all of this practice and pre-season buzz- and then he only gets 18 carries? I'm not saying it's some major indictment on him, but if there really was a consistent narrative about him being absolutely studly, you don't think it's a little strange that they didn't give him a few more reps? Is that really all you expected, not even slightly disappointed or concerned?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

fell to the 2nd round in the NFL draft due to injury concerns

Draft notes show his drop was from being in coach Kevin Summlins doghouse at Texas A&M. Which resulted in him not getting utilized.

His physical prowess was almost never questioned. He is mega-talented physically. He even had similar issues at the combine itself.

 

[EBF]

I can understand people liking Michael's skills set, but I can't understand how people keep saying he looked the part of a stud RB in his limited carries. The guy had 18 carries - how can anyone make any kind of assessment on his future over 18 carries?

It's as if we're all part of this elaborate hoax where someone has created a stud RB out of thin air.

I can't speak for anyone else, but a big part of it for me was the buzz out of training camp and the awesome showing in the preseason games. I was following Seattle pretty closely this past summer due to my heavy investment in Michael/Harper/Ware/Willson. There was a consistent narrative emerging from the practice recaps about Michael looking absolutely studly. I'm not talking about 1-2 puff pieces. I'm talking about nearly unanimous praise from every observer. Then the preseason came along and he looked every bit as good as billed. I liked him before all that stuff, but those were the things that really kicked my interest into overdrive. The 18 regular season carries did not affect my view in any way.

I'm in a few soft leagues, but I'm also in a few really tough leagues where you don't really have the luxury of sitting back and waiting for players to prove themselves. You have to look at a limited data set, extrapolate, and act accordingly. This player is a really nice test of that. For me, there were enough positives to warrant a pretty aggressive stance. Nobody really knows if that's right or wrong yet.

This seems a bit contradictory to me. You've got all kinds of positives about Michael- high draft position, great workout numbers, all of this practice and pre-season buzz- and then he only gets 18 carries? I'm not saying it's some major indictment on him, but if there really was a consistent narrative about him being absolutely studly, you don't think it's a little strange that they didn't give him a few more reps? Is that really all you expected, not even slightly disappointed or concerned?

Variations of this have been brought up in this thread a million times by now. I'm not going to spend much energy refuting it again when I've already dedicated several extensive posts to that. In a word, the answer is no. When you've already got an elite franchise back and a competent third down back, there's not much incentive to force your rookie into duty. I mentioned numerous guys like Turner, Charles, McAllister, Ahman, Alexander, and Sproles who had similarly quiet debut seasons behind dominant starters. It's not that big of a deal. And honestly, Michael is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, so it wouldn't be a huge shock if he were a little behind the curve when it comes to the chalkboard stuff.

 

[humpback]

I can understand people liking Michael's skills set, but I can't understand how people keep saying he looked the part of a stud RB in his limited carries. The guy had 18 carries - how can anyone make any kind of assessment on his future over 18 carries?

It's as if we're all part of this elaborate hoax where someone has created a stud RB out of thin air.

I can't speak for anyone else, but a big part of it for me was the buzz out of training camp and the awesome showing in the preseason games. I was following Seattle pretty closely this past summer due to my heavy investment in Michael/Harper/Ware/Willson. There was a consistent narrative emerging from the practice recaps about Michael looking absolutely studly. I'm not talking about 1-2 puff pieces. I'm talking about nearly unanimous praise from every observer. Then the preseason came along and he looked every bit as good as billed. I liked him before all that stuff, but those were the things that really kicked my interest into overdrive. The 18 regular season carries did not affect my view in any way.

I'm in a few soft leagues, but I'm also in a few really tough leagues where you don't really have the luxury of sitting back and waiting for players to prove themselves. You have to look at a limited data set, extrapolate, and act accordingly. This player is a really nice test of that. For me, there were enough positives to warrant a pretty aggressive stance. Nobody really knows if that's right or wrong yet.

This seems a bit contradictory to me. You've got all kinds of positives about Michael- high draft position, great workout numbers, all of this practice and pre-season buzz- and then he only gets 18 carries? I'm not saying it's some major indictment on him, but if there really was a consistent narrative about him being absolutely studly, you don't think it's a little strange that they didn't give him a few more reps? Is that really all you expected, not even slightly disappointed or concerned?

Variations of this have been brought up in this thread a million times by now. I'm not going to spend much energy refuting it again when I've already dedicated several extensive posts to that. In a word, the answer is no. When you've already got an elite franchise back and a competent third down back, there's not much incentive to force your rookie into duty. I mentioned numerous guys like Turner, Charles, McAllister, Ahman, Alexander, and Sproles who had similarly quiet debut seasons behind dominant starters. It's not that big of a deal. And honestly, Michael is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, so it wouldn't be a huge shock if he were a little behind the curve when it comes to the chalkboard stuff.

Again, not saying it's "shocking" or "that big of a deal", but Leon Washington managed to carve out more carries last year (at a 3.4 ypc clip) while having the same "elite franchise back and a competent third down back".

 

[Neofight]

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.

He was número uno on their board. They loved him plenty.

 

[EBF]

I can understand people liking Michael's skills set, but I can't understand how people keep saying he looked the part of a stud RB in his limited carries. The guy had 18 carries - how can anyone make any kind of assessment on his future over 18 carries?

It's as if we're all part of this elaborate hoax where someone has created a stud RB out of thin air.

I can't speak for anyone else, but a big part of it for me was the buzz out of training camp and the awesome showing in the preseason games. I was following Seattle pretty closely this past summer due to my heavy investment in Michael/Harper/Ware/Willson. There was a consistent narrative emerging from the practice recaps about Michael looking absolutely studly. I'm not talking about 1-2 puff pieces. I'm talking about nearly unanimous praise from every observer. Then the preseason came along and he looked every bit as good as billed. I liked him before all that stuff, but those were the things that really kicked my interest into overdrive. The 18 regular season carries did not affect my view in any way.

I'm in a few soft leagues, but I'm also in a few really tough leagues where you don't really have the luxury of sitting back and waiting for players to prove themselves. You have to look at a limited data set, extrapolate, and act accordingly. This player is a really nice test of that. For me, there were enough positives to warrant a pretty aggressive stance. Nobody really knows if that's right or wrong yet.

This seems a bit contradictory to me. You've got all kinds of positives about Michael- high draft position, great workout numbers, all of this practice and pre-season buzz- and then he only gets 18 carries? I'm not saying it's some major indictment on him, but if there really was a consistent narrative about him being absolutely studly, you don't think it's a little strange that they didn't give him a few more reps? Is that really all you expected, not even slightly disappointed or concerned?

Variations of this have been brought up in this thread a million times by now. I'm not going to spend much energy refuting it again when I've already dedicated several extensive posts to that. In a word, the answer is no. When you've already got an elite franchise back and a competent third down back, there's not much incentive to force your rookie into duty. I mentioned numerous guys like Turner, Charles, McAllister, Ahman, Alexander, and Sproles who had similarly quiet debut seasons behind dominant starters. It's not that big of a deal. And honestly, Michael is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, so it wouldn't be a huge shock if he were a little behind the curve when it comes to the chalkboard stuff.

Again, not saying it's "shocking" or "that big of a deal", but Leon Washington managed to carve out more carries last year (at a 3.4 ypc clip) while having the same "elite franchise back and a competent third down back".

Why was Washington active on gameday? Because he was the primary kickoff and punt returner.

Michael doesn't play on special teams. A backup RB who doesn't play on passing downs, isn't the primary ball carrier, and doesn't play on special teams is a prime candidate for "weekly inactive" status. I don't attach a lot of meaning to it. If you want to take the most optimistic reading of the situation, you can actually view it as a plus that Seattle managed to work him into a couple games even though he really had no role on the team.

Michael Turner was in a very similar situation as a rookie (i.e. not the starting RB, not the third down RB, and not a special teams contributor). He had 20 carries that season. It's not all that meaningful. When there is no role for you, you don't play. Aaron Rodgers did not play much as a rookie. Didn't mean anything with regards to his future.

 

[Neofight]

I can understand people liking Michael's skills set, but I can't understand how people keep saying he looked the part of a stud RB in his limited carries. The guy had 18 carries - how can anyone make any kind of assessment on his future over 18 carries?

It's as if we're all part of this elaborate hoax where someone has created a stud RB out of thin air.

I can't speak for anyone else, but a big part of it for me was the buzz out of training camp and the awesome showing in the preseason games. I was following Seattle pretty closely this past summer due to my heavy investment in Michael/Harper/Ware/Willson. There was a consistent narrative emerging from the practice recaps about Michael looking absolutely studly. I'm not talking about 1-2 puff pieces. I'm talking about nearly unanimous praise from every observer. Then the preseason came along and he looked every bit as good as billed. I liked him before all that stuff, but those were the things that really kicked my interest into overdrive. The 18 regular season carries did not affect my view in any way.

I'm in a few soft leagues, but I'm also in a few really tough leagues where you don't really have the luxury of sitting back and waiting for players to prove themselves. You have to look at a limited data set, extrapolate, and act accordingly. This player is a really nice test of that. For me, there were enough positives to warrant a pretty aggressive stance. Nobody really knows if that's right or wrong yet.

This seems a bit contradictory to me. You've got all kinds of positives about Michael- high draft position, great workout numbers, all of this practice and pre-season buzz- and then he only gets 18 carries? I'm not saying it's some major indictment on him, but if there really was a consistent narrative about him being absolutely studly, you don't think it's a little strange that they didn't give him a few more reps? Is that really all you expected, not even slightly disappointed or concerned?

Variations of this have been brought up in this thread a million times by now. I'm not going to spend much energy refuting it again when I've already dedicated several extensive posts to that. In a word, the answer is no. When you've already got an elite franchise back and a competent third down back, there's not much incentive to force your rookie into duty. I mentioned numerous guys like Turner, Charles, McAllister, Ahman, Alexander, and Sproles who had similarly quiet debut seasons behind dominant starters. It's not that big of a deal. And honestly, Michael is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, so it wouldn't be a huge shock if he were a little behind the curve when it comes to the chalkboard stuff.

Again, not saying it's "shocking" or "that big of a deal", but Leon Washington managed to carve out more carries last year (at a 3.4 ypc clip) while having the same "elite franchise back and a competent third down back".

Why was Washington active on gameday? Because he was the primary kickoff and punt returner.

Michael doesn't play on special teams. A backup RB who doesn't play on passing downs, isn't the primary ball carrier, and doesn't play on special teams is a prime candidate for "weekly inactive" status. I don't attach a lot of meaning to it. If you want to take the most optimistic reading of the situation, you can actually view it as a plus that Seattle managed to work him into a couple games even though he really had no role on the team.

Michael Turner was in a very similar situation as a rookie (i.e. not the starting RB, not the third down RB, and not a special teams contributor). He had 20 carries that season. It's not all that meaningful. When there is no role for you, you don't play. Aaron Rodgers did not play much as a rookie. Didn't mean anything with regards to his future.

People don't seem to understand how Special Teams play factors into the equation. You're likely pissing into the wind here.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Michael doesn't play on special teams. A backup RB who doesn't play on passing downs, isn't the primary ball carrier, and doesn't play on special teams is a prime candidate for "weekly inactive" status.

Do we have some equivalent comparisons of inactive RBs?

We know plenty that didnt do STs, work in the pass game, and werent the primary (or even secondary) ball carriers. Its that other part that is very different.

 

[Eminence]

Anyone who doesn't likehis talent is blind. His situation, sure. Talent? #### no.

 

[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.

He was número uno on their board. They loved him plenty.

Why trade down when your #1 guy ( if true) was there?

 

[humpback]

I can understand people liking Michael's skills set, but I can't understand how people keep saying he looked the part of a stud RB in his limited carries. The guy had 18 carries - how can anyone make any kind of assessment on his future over 18 carries?

It's as if we're all part of this elaborate hoax where someone has created a stud RB out of thin air.

I can't speak for anyone else, but a big part of it for me was the buzz out of training camp and the awesome showing in the preseason games. I was following Seattle pretty closely this past summer due to my heavy investment in Michael/Harper/Ware/Willson. There was a consistent narrative emerging from the practice recaps about Michael looking absolutely studly. I'm not talking about 1-2 puff pieces. I'm talking about nearly unanimous praise from every observer. Then the preseason came along and he looked every bit as good as billed. I liked him before all that stuff, but those were the things that really kicked my interest into overdrive. The 18 regular season carries did not affect my view in any way.

I'm in a few soft leagues, but I'm also in a few really tough leagues where you don't really have the luxury of sitting back and waiting for players to prove themselves. You have to look at a limited data set, extrapolate, and act accordingly. This player is a really nice test of that. For me, there were enough positives to warrant a pretty aggressive stance. Nobody really knows if that's right or wrong yet.

This seems a bit contradictory to me. You've got all kinds of positives about Michael- high draft position, great workout numbers, all of this practice and pre-season buzz- and then he only gets 18 carries? I'm not saying it's some major indictment on him, but if there really was a consistent narrative about him being absolutely studly, you don't think it's a little strange that they didn't give him a few more reps? Is that really all you expected, not even slightly disappointed or concerned?

Variations of this have been brought up in this thread a million times by now. I'm not going to spend much energy refuting it again when I've already dedicated several extensive posts to that. In a word, the answer is no. When you've already got an elite franchise back and a competent third down back, there's not much incentive to force your rookie into duty. I mentioned numerous guys like Turner, Charles, McAllister, Ahman, Alexander, and Sproles who had similarly quiet debut seasons behind dominant starters. It's not that big of a deal. And honestly, Michael is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, so it wouldn't be a huge shock if he were a little behind the curve when it comes to the chalkboard stuff.

Again, not saying it's "shocking" or "that big of a deal", but Leon Washington managed to carve out more carries last year (at a 3.4 ypc clip) while having the same "elite franchise back and a competent third down back".

Why was Washington active on gameday? Because he was the primary kickoff and punt returner.

Michael doesn't play on special teams. A backup RB who doesn't play on passing downs, isn't the primary ball carrier, and doesn't play on special teams is a prime candidate for "weekly inactive" status. I don't attach a lot of meaning to it. If you want to take the most optimistic reading of the situation, you can actually view it as a plus that Seattle managed to work him into a couple games even though he really had no role on the team.

Michael Turner was in a very similar situation as a rookie (i.e. not the starting RB, not the third down RB, and not a special teams contributor). He had 20 carries that season. It's not all that meaningful. When there is no role for you, you don't play. Aaron Rodgers did not play much as a rookie. Didn't mean anything with regards to his future.

Yes, everyone knows that. However, that doesn't mean the team is obligated to give their returner carries in the running game, yet they still did.

Was Michael Turner a 2nd round draft pick with all of the pre-season hype and buzz? That's the point- you said yourself that those things are what really intrigued you about Michael, so I highly doubt you expected him to be inactive most weeks and only receive 18 touches on the season.

Again, no one is saying this is a huge indictment on Michael or his future.

 

[Neofight]

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.

He was número uno on their board. They loved him plenty.

Why trade down when your #1 guy ( if true) was there?

Draft picksETA: and some discipline

 

[miqws]

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.

He was número uno on their board. They loved him plenty.

Why trade down when your #1 guy ( if true) was there?

Draft picksETA: and some discipline

Green Bay traded down and that worked out pretty good.

 

[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.

He was número uno on their board. They loved him plenty.

Why trade down when your #1 guy ( if true) was there?

Draft picksETA: and some discipline

Or they get too cute and gain a 6th round pick and miss out on "their guy." It doesn't make sense

 

[Neofight]

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.

He was número uno on their board. They loved him plenty.

Why trade down when your #1 guy ( if true) was there?

Draft picksETA: and some discipline

Or they get too cute and gain a 6th round pick and miss out on "their guy." It doesn't make sense

Makes plenty of sense if you look at the board and team needs. Nobody expected Seattle to even be thinking of RB there, but I think it's possible that they could have waited on Michael a while due to the character concerns other teams had plus his lack of high output.

I don't see why this is so hard for you to figure out; it's a calculated risk. They did the same thing with Russell Wilson, who many thought they reached on, but who Schneider wanted to pull the trigger on in round two (and has said he wouldn't have blinked drafting him in round 1). That worked out ok for the Seahawks, no?

 

[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.

He was número uno on their board. They loved him plenty.

Why trade down when your #1 guy ( if true) was there?

Draft picksETA: and some discipline

Or they get too cute and gain a 6th round pick and miss out on "their guy." It doesn't make sense

Makes plenty of sense if you look at the board and team needs. Nobody expected Seattle to even be thinking of RB there, but I think it's possible that they could have waited on Michael a while due to the character concerns other teams had plus his lack of high output. I don't see why this is so hard for you to figure out; it's a calculated risk. They did the same thing with Russell Wilson, who many thought they reached on, but who Schneider wanted to pull the trigger on in round two (and has said he wouldn't have blinked drafting him in round 1). That worked out ok for the Seahawks, no?

If Seattle knew Wilson would've turned into what he has they would've taken him round 1. Same thing with new england and tom Brady. If Christine Michael was their guy, u don't trade down and let rb hungry teams snatch him. Calculated risk=we like several players. It doesn't mean we love Michael and think he can be a superstar, but let's trade down and take a gamble here.

 

[Neofight]

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.

He was número uno on their board. They loved him plenty.

Why trade down when your #1 guy ( if true) was there?

Draft picksETA: and some discipline

Or they get too cute and gain a 6th round pick and miss out on "their guy." It doesn't make sense

Makes plenty of sense if you look at the board and team needs. Nobody expected Seattle to even be thinking of RB there, but I think it's possible that they could have waited on Michael a while due to the character concerns other teams had plus his lack of high output. I don't see why this is so hard for you to figure out; it's a calculated risk. They did the same thing with Russell Wilson, who many thought they reached on, but who Schneider wanted to pull the trigger on in round two (and has said he wouldn't have blinked drafting him in round 1). That worked out ok for the Seahawks, no?

If Seattle knew Wilson would've turned into what he has they would've taken him round 1. Same thing with new england and tom Brady. If Christine Michael was their guy, u don't trade down and let rb hungry teams snatch him. Calculated risk=we like several players. It doesn't mean we love Michael and think he can be a superstar, but let's trade down and take a gamble here.

They did just that. The words you are struggling to find is good on them.

 

[humpback]

He was número uno on their board. They loved him plenty.

Do you have a link to this?

 

[miqws]

If Seattle knew Wilson would've turned into what he has they would've taken him round 1. Same thing with new england and tom Brady. If Christine Michael was their guy, u don't trade down and let rb hungry teams snatch him. Calculated risk=we like several players. It doesn't mean we love Michael and think he can be a superstar, but let's trade down and take a gamble here.

They did just that. The words you are struggling to find is good on them.

GB took the bigger risk - dire need at RB where Lacy or Ball were more NFL ready/reliable than Michael. Appears Seattle just followed that lead - and got a fifth and sixth. Good gamble, good on them. Value and volume work in reality and fantasy. Remains to be seen if Seattle got any value with Michael.

 

[DropKick]

I can understand people liking Michael's skills set, but I can't understand how people keep saying he looked the part of a stud RB in his limited carries. The guy had 18 carries - how can anyone make any kind of assessment on his future over 18 carries?

It's as if we're all part of this elaborate hoax where someone has created a stud RB out of thin air.

I can't speak for anyone else, but a big part of it for me was the buzz out of training camp and the awesome showing in the preseason games. I was following Seattle pretty closely this past summer due to my heavy investment in Michael/Harper/Ware/Willson. There was a consistent narrative emerging from the practice recaps about Michael looking absolutely studly. I'm not talking about 1-2 puff pieces. I'm talking about nearly unanimous praise from every observer. Then the preseason came along and he looked every bit as good as billed. I liked him before all that stuff, but those were the things that really kicked my interest into overdrive. The 18 regular season carries did not affect my view in any way.

I'm in a few soft leagues, but I'm also in a few really tough leagues where you don't really have the luxury of sitting back and waiting for players to prove themselves. You have to look at a limited data set, extrapolate, and act accordingly. This player is a really nice test of that. For me, there were enough positives to warrant a pretty aggressive stance. Nobody really knows if that's right or wrong yet.

This seems a bit contradictory to me. You've got all kinds of positives about Michael- high draft position, great workout numbers, all of this practice and pre-season buzz- and then he only gets 18 carries? I'm not saying it's some major indictment on him, but if there really was a consistent narrative about him being absolutely studly, you don't think it's a little strange that they didn't give him a few more reps? Is that really all you expected, not even slightly disappointed or concerned?

Variations of this have been brought up in this thread a million times by now. I'm not going to spend much energy refuting it again when I've already dedicated several extensive posts to that. In a word, the answer is no. When you've already got an elite franchise back and a competent third down back, there's not much incentive to force your rookie into duty. I mentioned numerous guys like Turner, Charles, McAllister, Ahman, Alexander, and Sproles who had similarly quiet debut seasons behind dominant starters. It's not that big of a deal. And honestly, Michael is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, so it wouldn't be a huge shock if he were a little behind the curve when it comes to the chalkboard stuff.

Again, not saying it's "shocking" or "that big of a deal", but Leon Washington managed to carve out more carries last year (at a 3.4 ypc clip) while having the same "elite franchise back and a competent third down back".

Not to be sarcastic but do you have any complaint about how the Seahawks managed their team last year?

You've got an elite back in Lynch, who is at/near the peak of his career. Use him. Michael was inactive for all but some games with blow-out potential. I think they just wanted to give him a taste. But, week to week, they felt the active roster spot could be more useful for another role.

 

[Touchdown There]

You've got an elite back in Lynch, who is at/near the peak of his career. Use him.

If the people in this thread wanted to talk about Lynch, the name of the thread would be different. We know you like Lynch. Fantastic. Now promptly exit because you are in the wrong thread.

 

[Neofight]

He was número uno on their board. They loved him plenty.

Do you have a link to this?

John Schneider on Christine Michael: ‘He’s our kind of runner’

Why would a team that already has All-Pro Marshawn Lynch and selected complementary back Robert Turbinin the fourth round of last year’s NFL Draft make another running back its top draft choice this year?

General manager John Schneider supplied the bottom-line answer after the Seahawks did just that by taking Texas A&M’s Christine Michael in the second round last Friday: “He was the top-rated player on our board.”

But the broader explanation is that the more the Seahawks saw of the 221-pound Michael – whose first name is pronounced kristin – the more they liked him.

He posted the top marks among the running backs at the NFL Scouting Combine in the vertical leap (43 inches) and cone (6.69 seconds) and shuttle (4.02 seconds) drills. He was second in the broad jump (10 feet, 5 inches) and third in the bench press (27 reps with 225 pounds). His time of 4.43 second in the 40-yard dash ranked ninth, but only one of the eight faster backs weighed more than 210 pounds and his time was second-best among the backs the Seahawks would have considered with what ended up being the 62nd pick overall.

....

The kicker is that Seattle went after this guy based on his crazy numbers (which back up his tape), to have him compete directly with Marshawn Lynch... in 2014. Good on them.

 

[Neofight]

If Seattle knew Wilson would've turned into what he has they would've taken him round 1. Same thing with new england and tom Brady. If Christine Michael was their guy, u don't trade down and let rb hungry teams snatch him. Calculated risk=we like several players. It doesn't mean we love Michael and think he can be a superstar, but let's trade down and take a gamble here.

They did just that. The words you are struggling to find is good on them.

GB took the bigger risk - dire need at RB where Lacy or Ball were more NFL ready/reliable than Michael. Appears Seattle just followed that lead - and got a fifth and sixth. Good gamble, good on them. Value and volume work in reality and fantasy. Remains to be seen if Seattle got any value with Michael.

Both teams risk was mitigated by the fact that not a single running back was taken in round 1. By the time Giovanni Bernard went off the board with the fifth pick in round 2 I'm guessing both Green Bay and Seattle felt pretty good about landing their respective guys, which most certainly weren't Montee Ball or Le'Veon Bell.

I have no dog in this fight so I'm not interested in a pissing contest. I just find the truth to be far more interesting than the fictions.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Why trade down when your #1 guy ( if true) was there?

He was #1 available at the time of their actual selection (i.e. post trade).

Not before that.

 

[Neofight]

Why trade down when your #1 guy ( if true) was there?

He was #1 available at the time of their actual selection (i.e. post trade).

Not before that.

Post trade? The trade happened in March, well before the draft. Of course, you're aware that Michael's SPARQ score is what put him at the top of their ratings (pre trade).

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Why trade down when your #1 guy ( if true) was there?

He was #1 available at the time of their actual selection (i.e. post trade).

Not before that.

Post trade? The trade happened in March, well before the draft.Of course, you're aware that Michael's SPARQ score is what put him at the top of their ratings (pre trade).

“When we got to our spot and Michael was there, we were excited,” Sherman Smith said Wednesday. “There were other backs we liked, but some of them were gone and we also wanted a bigger guy.”

Yes at the time of their actual selection. He was the best then, not before then.

 

[Neofight]

Why trade down when your #1 guy ( if true) was there?

He was #1 available at the time of their actual selection (i.e. post trade).

Not before that.

Post trade? The trade happened in March, well before the draft.Of course, you're aware that Michael's SPARQ score is what put him at the top of their ratings (pre trade).

“When we got to our spot and Michael was there, we were excited,” Sherman Smith said Wednesday. “There were other backs we liked, but some of them were gone and we also wanted a bigger guy.”

Yes at the time of their actual selection. He was the best then, not before then.

Christine Michael wasn't just the best RB, but the highest rated player on their board. That's according to the guy that actually rates the players. I'm sure they liked plenty of backs (who doesn't?), just not as much as the guy that was clearly the one with the best measurables.

Do better.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Why trade down when your #1 guy ( if true) was there?

He was #1 available at the time of their actual selection (i.e. post trade).

Not before that.

Post trade? The trade happened in March, well before the draft.Of course, you're aware that Michael's SPARQ score is what put him at the top of their ratings (pre trade).

“When we got to our spot and Michael was there, we were excited,” Sherman Smith said Wednesday. “There were other backs we liked, but some of them were gone and we also wanted a bigger guy.”

Yes at the time of their actual selection. He was the best then, not before then.

Christine Michael wasn't just the best RB, but the highest rated player on their board. That's according to the guy that actually rates the players. I'm sure they liked plenty of backs (who doesn't?), just not as much as the guy that was clearly the one with the best measurables.

Do better.

They said they had other backs, but they were gone.

 

[Neofight]

Why trade down when your #1 guy ( if true) was there?

He was #1 available at the time of their actual selection (i.e. post trade).

Not before that.

Post trade? The trade happened in March, well before the draft.Of course, you're aware that Michael's SPARQ score is what put him at the top of their ratings (pre trade).

When we got to our spot and Michael was there, we were excited, Sherman Smith said Wednesday. There were other backs we liked, but some of them were gone and we also wanted a bigger guy.

Yes at the time of their actual selection. He was the best then, not before then.

Christine Michael wasn't just the best RB, but the highest rated player on their board. That's according to the guy that actually rates the players. I'm sure they liked plenty of backs (who doesn't?), just not as much as the guy that was clearly the one with the best measurables.Do better.

They said they had other backs, but they were gone.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Why trade down when your #1 guy ( if true) was there?

He was #1 available at the time of their actual selection (i.e. post trade).

Not before that.

Post trade? The trade happened in March, well before the draft.Of course, you're aware that Michael's SPARQ score is what put him at the top of their ratings (pre trade).

When we got to our spot and Michael was there, we were excited, Sherman Smith said Wednesday. There were other backs we liked, but some of them were gone and we also wanted a bigger guy.

Yes at the time of their actual selection. He was the best then, not before then.

Christine Michael wasn't just the best RB, but the highest rated player on their board. That's according to the guy that actually rates the players. I'm sure they liked plenty of backs (who doesn't?), just not as much as the guy that was clearly the one with the best measurables.Do better.

They said they had other backs, but they were gone.

Its like a debate with faith based in the FFA.

 

[Neofight]

Why trade down when your #1 guy ( if true) was there?

He was #1 available at the time of their actual selection (i.e. post trade).

Not before that.

Post trade? The trade happened in March, well before the draft.Of course, you're aware that Michael's SPARQ score is what put him at the top of their ratings (pre trade).

When we got to our spot and Michael was there, we were excited, Sherman Smith said Wednesday. There were other backs we liked, but some of them were gone and we also wanted a bigger guy.

Yes at the time of their actual selection. He was the best then, not before then.

Christine Michael wasn't just the best RB, but the highest rated player on their board. That's according to the guy that actually rates the players. I'm sure they liked plenty of backs (who doesn't?), just not as much as the guy that was clearly the one with the best measurables.Do better.

They said they had other backs, but they were gone.

Its like a debate with faith based in the FFA.

That has nothing to do with it. Facts are staring you right in the faith.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Why trade down when your #1 guy ( if true) was there?

He was #1 available at the time of their actual selection (i.e. post trade).

Not before that.

Post trade? The trade happened in March, well before the draft.Of course, you're aware that Michael's SPARQ score is what put him at the top of their ratings (pre trade).

When we got to our spot and Michael was there, we were excited, Sherman Smith said Wednesday. There were other backs we liked, but some of them were gone and we also wanted a bigger guy.

Yes at the time of their actual selection. He was the best then, not before then.

Christine Michael wasn't just the best RB, but the highest rated player on their board. That's according to the guy that actually rates the players. I'm sure they liked plenty of backs (who doesn't?), just not as much as the guy that was clearly the one with the best measurables.Do better.

They said they had other backs, but they were gone.

Its like a debate with faith based in the FFA.

That has nothing to do with it. Facts are staring you right in the faith.

I saw him talk about his #1 guy at the time of their selection and that some of the the guys were gone. Apologies.

 

[tdmills]

Why trade down when your #1 guy ( if true) was there?

He was #1 available at the time of their actual selection (i.e. post trade).

Not before that.

Post trade? The trade happened in March, well before the draft.Of course, you're aware that Michael's SPARQ score is what put him at the top of their ratings (pre trade).

When we got to our spot and Michael was there, we were excited, Sherman Smith said Wednesday. There were other backs we liked, but some of them were gone and we also wanted a bigger guy.

Yes at the time of their actual selection. He was the best then, not before then.

Christine Michael wasn't just the best RB, but the highest rated player on their board. That's according to the guy that actually rates the players. I'm sure they liked plenty of backs (who doesn't?), just not as much as the guy that was clearly the one with the best measurables.Do better.

They said they had other backs, but they were gone.

Its like a debate with faith based in the FFA.

That has nothing to do with it. Facts are staring you right in the faith.

Was Michael the #1 prospect in the entire draft for the seahawks?

 

[matttyl]

What's a fair 2014 rookie pick to trade for him? #5ish?

 

[Shutout]

What's a fair 2014 rookie pick to trade for him? #5ish?

I don't know why you would do that. The 5 pick now will allow you to pick someone you can use right now. Michael's situation is still a holad and wait. He likely isn't going to make a fantasy impact for at least another season and a half.

I would expect the Hawks to ride Lynch and his contract into the ground and use him up and, assuming they continue their success, start phasing Michael in, in earnest, about half way through NEXT season, let Lynch walk when the contract is up and then go with Michael in '16.

I like the idea of buying Michael but only if you are like the Hawks and have that luxury. Not as a promise for this upcoming season.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

He was número uno on their board. They loved him plenty.

Do you have a link to this?

John Schneider on Christine Michael: ‘He’s our kind of runner’

Why would a team that already has All-Pro Marshawn Lynch and selected complementary back Robert Turbinin the fourth round of last year’s NFL Draft make another running back its top draft choice this year?

General manager John Schneider supplied the bottom-line answer after the Seahawks did just that by taking Texas A&M’s Christine Michael in the second round last Friday: “He was the top-rated player on our board.”

But the broader explanation is that the more the Seahawks saw of the 221-pound Michael – whose first name is pronounced kristin – the more they liked him.

He posted the top marks among the running backs at the NFL Scouting Combine in the vertical leap (43 inches) and cone (6.69 seconds) and shuttle (4.02 seconds) drills. He was second in the broad jump (10 feet, 5 inches) and third in the bench press (27 reps with 225 pounds). His time of 4.43 second in the 40-yard dash ranked ninth, but only one of the eight faster backs weighed more than 210 pounds and his time was second-best among the backs the Seahawks would have considered with what ended up being the 62nd pick overall.

....

The kicker is that Seattle went after this guy based on his crazy numbers (which back up his tape), to have him compete directly with Marshawn Lynch... in 2014. Good on them.

There's two ways to interpret Schneider's statement:

1. He was the top rated player on their board [that was still available] when they were OTC.

2. He was the top rated player on their board (their #1 ranked player in the entire draft).

Which seems more likely?

You seem to be trying to turn it into the second option. Does that seem realistic to you?

ETA: Saying he was the No. 1 player on their board when they picked is obvious, since they....you know...picked him when they were OTC. So that statement would be quite meaningless, unless you were trying to say he was their #1 overall player (which once again doesn't seem all that realistic). If Seattle had the No. 1 overall pick, woul they have taken Michael? You seem to want to say "yes".