Touchdown There
Footballguy
That Pack game is when I knew I had to draft CM. Turbin has some good highlights in that game too.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Christine Michael (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Black
- Start date
- Status
cstu
Footballguy
Michael is the best tested RB since LT. He's basically LT with a long injury history and a bad attitude. If Carroll fixes his attitude and he can stay healthy he should be a stud.
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
Touchdown There
Footballguy
Five posts back was this link: http://www.fieldgulls.com/2014/2/27/5451970/pete-carroll-says-christine-michael-has-most-breakout-potential-forDid you bother to educate yourself by clicking on the link?
squistion
Footballguy
Yes, and I am sure it is just a coincidence that EBF has been the president of both their fan clubs.
cstu
Footballguy
Gandalf
Footballguy
I'm so glad he's on my team. There's no way I'm trading him unless I upgrade to a top 5 RB. Because that is what I believe he will be in 2015.
Check him out in this link as well. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfHyeOIlwSo
Last edited by a moderator:
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
I've seen plenty of college and preseason highlights. Looking good in college or in the preseason doesn't make him a HOF talent either.
He's a late 2nd round NFL prospect with great measurables and a spotty college career. For FF purposes he has a good team situation paired with crappy opportunity.
I like the guy as a prospect, but the hyperbole on him is way out of control:
"I'd only trade him for a top 5 RB"
"He's basically LT with a poor attitude"
"The Seahawks had him #1 overall on their draft board"
"He was inactive so much because he's too valuable to risk on ST"
People mentioning him in the top 5 at each position thread
And so on. It's absurd. You honestly think that a player as talented as LaDanian Tomlinson has ANY chance of getting < 20 touches for the year, regardless of ANY other circumstances? If Michael was on that level, he would have had a role, period. Lynch is a very good RB, no doubt. Turbin is OK. Neither one would EVER be making Tomlinson irrelevant, regardless of attitude, experience, pass blocking, or anything else.
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
He absolutely has a chance at being an impact player, but he's currently being valued as if he is guaranteed to be one.Every situation is the same, end of story. Michael has absolutely NO CHANCE of becoming a great RB in the NFL! And LESS THAN ZERO (Robert ####### DOWNEY style) chance of becoming an impact player on LT's level!!!
Zero, zip, zilch... NEIN, NADA, NUNCA!
The chances of a guy being as gifted as LaDanian Tomlinson, yet never having a thousand yard season in college, being the 5th RB taken in the late 2nd round, and not playing any role as a rookie are laughably small.
Link?Every situation is the same, end of story. Michael has absolutely NO CHANCE of becoming a great RB in the NFL! And LESS THAN ZERO (Robert ####### DOWNEY style) chance of becoming an impact player on LT's level!!!
Zero, zip, zilch... NEIN, NADA, NUNCA!
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
I haven't read where one person said that.Every situation is the same, end of story. Michael has absolutely NO CHANCE of becoming a great RB in the NFL! And LESS THAN ZERO (Robert ####### DOWNEY style) chance of becoming an impact player on LT's level!!!
Zero, zip, zilch... NEIN, NADA, NUNCA!
I think the "detractors" are more just amazed that his value has skyrocketed for really no reason whatsoever.
I liked him fine coming into the league, and I do think he'll be a very good back given the opportunity - I just don't see the upside of spending "top 5 RB" prices for him when there are ceratin risks, that some don't acknowledge, that he never reaches those heights.
I still don't think he was the No. 1 overall player on the Seattle draft board though.
Last edited by a moderator:
Gandalf
Footballguy
For clarification, when I said upgrade to a top 5 RB I meant as part of a package to get a top 5 RB. Not a straight up deal. But the point is that since I think he has a real chance to be elite, I would want to make sure I was upgrading at RB if dealing him away.
Last edited by a moderator:
Gandalf
Footballguy
His value has sky rocketed because we are able to anticipate what will happen in Seattle when he is the starter. If you think that is in the next year or two, which most people do, I really don't see why this is that hard to understand for the detractors.I haven't read where one person said that.Every situation is the same, end of story. Michael has absolutely NO CHANCE of becoming a great RB in the NFL! And LESS THAN ZERO (Robert ####### DOWNEY style) chance of becoming an impact player on LT's level!!!
Zero, zip, zilch... NEIN, NADA, NUNCA!
I think the "detractors" are more just amazed that his value has skyrocketed for really no reason whatsoever.
I liked him fine coming into the league, and I do think he'll be a very good back given the opportunity - I just don't see the upside of spending "top 5 RB" prices for him when there are ceratin risks, that some don't acknowledge, that he never reaches those heights.
I still don't think he was the No. 1 overall player on the Seattle draft board though.
Last edited by a moderator:
Based on what?His value has sky rocketed because we are able to anticipate what will happen in Seattle when he is the starter. If you think that is in the next year or two, which most people do, I really don't see why this is that hard to understand for the detractors.I haven't read where one person said that.Every situation is the same, end of story. Michael has absolutely NO CHANCE of becoming a great RB in the NFL! And LESS THAN ZERO (Robert ####### DOWNEY style) chance of becoming an impact player on LT's level!!!
Zero, zip, zilch... NEIN, NADA, NUNCA!
I think the "detractors" are more just amazed that his value has skyrocketed for really no reason whatsoever.
I liked him fine coming into the league, and I do think he'll be a very good back given the opportunity - I just don't see the upside of spending "top 5 RB" prices for him when there are ceratin risks, that some don't acknowledge, that he never reaches those heights.
I still don't think he was the No. 1 overall player on the Seattle draft board though.
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Just as a reminder...
2009 -- Big12 freshman of the year (15 touches/game)
2010 -- broke leg and missed final four games (17 touches/game)
2011 -- tore ACL and missed final three games (17 touches/game)
2012 -- Texas A&M's new coach elected not to use Michael -- few details available (9 touches/game)
2009 -- Big12 freshman of the year (15 touches/game)
2010 -- broke leg and missed final four games (17 touches/game)
2011 -- tore ACL and missed final three games (17 touches/game)
2012 -- Texas A&M's new coach elected not to use Michael -- few details available (9 touches/game)
Worth mentioning that Michael didn't receive a single touch in his last game at A&M (the bowl game against Oklahoma) and claims to have had no notice of that fact ahead of time.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Gandalf
Footballguy
Are you for real? There's like 18 pages on this...Based on what?His value has sky rocketed because we are able to anticipate what will happen in Seattle when he is the starter. If you think that is in the next year or two, which most people do, I really don't see why this is that hard to understand for the detractors.I haven't read where one person said that.Every situation is the same, end of story. Michael has absolutely NO CHANCE of becoming a great RB in the NFL! And LESS THAN ZERO (Robert ####### DOWNEY style) chance of becoming an impact player on LT's level!!!
Zero, zip, zilch... NEIN, NADA, NUNCA!
I think the "detractors" are more just amazed that his value has skyrocketed for really no reason whatsoever.
I liked him fine coming into the league, and I do think he'll be a very good back given the opportunity - I just don't see the upside of spending "top 5 RB" prices for him when there are ceratin risks, that some don't acknowledge, that he never reaches those heights.
I still don't think he was the No. 1 overall player on the Seattle draft board though.
Ah, love that snark!Are you for real? There's like 18 pages on this...Based on what?His value has sky rocketed because we are able to anticipate what will happen in Seattle when he is the starter. If you think that is in the next year or two, which most people do, I really don't see why this is that hard to understand for the detractors.I haven't read where one person said that.Every situation is the same, end of story. Michael has absolutely NO CHANCE of becoming a great RB in the NFL! And LESS THAN ZERO (Robert ####### DOWNEY style) chance of becoming an impact player on LT's level!!!
Zero, zip, zilch... NEIN, NADA, NUNCA!
I think the "detractors" are more just amazed that his value has skyrocketed for really no reason whatsoever.
I liked him fine coming into the league, and I do think he'll be a very good back given the opportunity - I just don't see the upside of spending "top 5 RB" prices for him when there are ceratin risks, that some don't acknowledge, that he never reaches those heights.
I still don't think he was the No. 1 overall player on the Seattle draft board though.
He had a value going into this season, and now his value has "sky rocketed". Are you saying that you couldn't "anticipate what will happen in Seattle when he is the starter" in August, but now you can? What happened to make his value "sky rocket"?
Last edited by a moderator:
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
There's a ton of pages of fancy acronyms, links to fan boi blogs, speculation, combine results, preseason highlights, etc. Some find that stuff hugely compelling, others don't. It's not about disliking Michael as a prospect -- it's about his current value being out of whack with most of the cold hard facts about him as a player, mainly his draft position, but also his college career and the fact that he was a healthy scratch almost all year. The entire picture is more similar to a workout warrior like Tennessee Chris Henry than it is to LaDanian Tomlinson. Not saying Michael is likely to be Henry, just saying that would be more valid than comparing him to a first ballot freaking HOFer 18 carries into his professional career.Are you for real? There's like 18 pages on this...Based on what?His value has sky rocketed because we are able to anticipate what will happen in Seattle when he is the starter. If you think that is in the next year or two, which most people do, I really don't see why this is that hard to understand for the detractors.I haven't read where one person said that.Every situation is the same, end of story. Michael has absolutely NO CHANCE of becoming a great RB in the NFL! And LESS THAN ZERO (Robert ####### DOWNEY style) chance of becoming an impact player on LT's level!!!
Zero, zip, zilch... NEIN, NADA, NUNCA!
I think the "detractors" are more just amazed that his value has skyrocketed for really no reason whatsoever.
I liked him fine coming into the league, and I do think he'll be a very good back given the opportunity - I just don't see the upside of spending "top 5 RB" prices for him when there are ceratin risks, that some don't acknowledge, that he never reaches those heights.
I still don't think he was the No. 1 overall player on the Seattle draft board though.
EBF
Footballguy
He's really not. His February ADP at DLF is ~60th overall. So basically the last pick in the 5th round of a 12 team league. I don't see that as expensive at all for a player who could very easily be valued as a top 12-15 pick within half a season of getting his first opportunity. Bell, Lacy, and Stacy had very mixed results as rookies and yet simply by virtue of being young guys who put up good FF stats, their value has exploded. I recommend Michael to people partially because his startup value is virtually guaranteed to go up at least 2-3 rounds once Lynch is gone. That makes him a pretty safe investment at his current cost (unless you think Seattle hands the reins to someone else, which I don't).
I have Michael on three teams. Two of those are leagues where I got him in the rookie draft with late 1st-early 2nd rounders. The other league is one where I got him late in the 2013 season. The price was Jermaine Gresham (1.25 PPR for TE), the 1.05 dev pick, and the 1.12 rookie pick (which is like the ~16th pick thanks to players like Watkins, Seastrunk, Lee, and Hill already being taken). So basically a backup TE, a top 5 dev pick in a weak class, and an early 2nd round rookie pick. I don't consider that an exorbitant price and I think if you offered that for an "guaranteed impact player" you would be rejected immediately.
There is definitely a segment of the population that's really high on Michael, but people exaggerate his price tag. I've never seen him go for anything approaching what it would take to land a truly elite player. I don't know anyone who has been paying those prices.
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Uhh... gotta disagree here. It's not even close. Chris Henry sucked -- truly awful performance measures. Michael's line up well with LT's NCAA performance everywhere except volume (see injuries and coaching above).
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
You yourself mentioned him in the top 5 at each position thread man. And IIRC said you'd have him as high as RB6 if you were rebuilding. He's being compared to LT in here. People are arguing that he was the best overall player (not RB) in last year's draft class.
60th overall / low end RB2 value isn't hugely objectionable to me, but I don't see that as very accurate as far as his actual value in established leagues where he's pretty likely to be owned by people whose opinions are mirrored by the more extreme Michael proponents in this thread.
cstu
Footballguy
Here's one thing:
http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/college_sports/aggies/article/Michael-s-route-out-of-Sumlin-s-doghouse-comes-to-3894277.php
Former coach Mike Sherman said he had "bouts of immaturity". He was also kicked out of his last regular season game for punching another player.
Last edited by a moderator:
karmarooster
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
College efficiency metrics, sure. But not draft position and what happened during his rookie year. Rookie LT wasn't getting 18 carries and wearing street clothes while Robert Turbin dressed every week.
I also see Michael's benching as far more likely to be a Michael issue vs a coaching issue.
EBF
Footballguy
I mentioned him as a candidate to break out because he fits the mold. What were Josh Gordon, Alshon Jeffery, Jordan Cameron, and Michael Floyd before their monster breakout season? High NFL draft picks with ideal measurables for their position. If you go back and look at breakouts in any NFL season, a healthy percentage of them will fit that basic description. So if you're looking for the next breakout stars, a good place to start is with developing prospects with special physical tools and a high NFL draft slot. Which current backup NFL RB fits that description better than Michael? I can't think of anyone. There are some guys like Bernard Pierce, Toby Gerhart, and Ben Tate who have a similar case. But to me, Michael is right up there with any non-elite RB in terms of having a chance to take the next big step. What you have to understand is that I'm saying he has a CHANCE to take that big step, not that he's GUARANTEED to take it.
You're right that he's a player whose actual price might be higher than his generic price because the teams that own him are likely to rate him 1-2 rounds above his generic market value. However, that's true of many players. Especially young prospects. Which owner is going to draft Justin Hunter, Lache Seastrunk, Mike Evans, or Marqise Lee? Probably one of the guys who thinks those players will pan out. You'd expect almost any player to end up on the roster of someone who rates him higher than the consensus because people draft players they like and avoid players they don't like. Since that affects many many players, I don't see it as a great argument specifically against Christine Michael. Yes, his owners are high on him. That's true for many players.
That doesn't mean it's impossible to find a fair price. The deal I posted above seems pretty modest to me. And if the ~60th overall ADP holds true for startup drafts, I think that's a cheap price for a guy with his boom potential. Considering that Lacy/Bell/Stacy go in the top 15-25 and that he might be more talented than those guys, I can't find much fault with taking him 60th or paying an equivalent price. It's really not very expensive given the risk/reward. I think you'd have a better argument if he were going 20th-30th in startup drafts, but that doesn't seem to be the case. So to say he's "already valued like a guaranteed impact player" seems well off the mark. I think you're making the mistake of taking a handful of statements from his most optimistic supporters and generalizing them to a wider population that doesn't actually share those beliefs.
Heck, in the Gresh/1.05 devy/1.12 rookie pick trade that I made, there were some people in the league grumbling that I overpaid and that it seemed like a steep price for Michael. He's a player whose value is all over the map right now. The fact that maybe 2-3 people per league really like him doesn't equate to "he's totally overvalued right now" to me unless you're saying "he's totally overvalued by the people who are way higher on him than average." Wouldn't that be true of most players? It doesn't seem like a very damning criticism to me.
Neofight
Footballguy
It was satire, and I'll claim artistic license. I honestly don't see this as an issue of value, but one of evaluation. Some people need to see it happen in the NFL before they have the "ah-ha" moment. Others can see it coming based on everything that has been discussed in this (and other) forum(s). It's like the difference between an anticipation passer and a "see it, throw it" passer. Some just lack vision.I haven't read where one person said that.Every situation is the same, end of story. Michael has absolutely NO CHANCE of becoming a great RB in the NFL! And LESS THAN ZERO (Robert ####### DOWNEY style) chance of becoming an impact player on LT's level!!!
Zero, zip, zilch... NEIN, NADA, NUNCA!
I think the "detractors" are more just amazed that his value has skyrocketed for really no reason whatsoever.
I liked him fine coming into the league, and I do think he'll be a very good back given the opportunity - I just don't see the upside of spending "top 5 RB" prices for him when there are ceratin risks, that some don't acknowledge, that he never reaches those heights.
I still don't think he was the No. 1 overall player on the Seattle draft board though.
And again, I'm just taking Schneider at his word, based on the evidence. You could have argued that the "highest player on our board" meant, say, highest player on their positional board for RB's. That might be a reasonable explanation and I considered that. But he said "player" and, well, it's John Schneider (and Pete Carroll) talking. This is the tandem that just the year before traded down three spots (picking up two draft picks- ring a bell?) when everyone knew they needed a pass rusher. The guy they wanted all along was Bruce Irvin; a player that was rumored pre-draft to have a first round grade by a handful of other teams, including their most heated division rival.
Seems like they don't mind taking these risks with players they covet. But I'll defer to the SPHP on this issue...
Last edited by a moderator:
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
Bolded is definitely possible. Also agree that your Gresham deal was more than fair.
I do know for a fact that he's not trading at late 5th round startup value in any of the leagues I'm in though. I haven't tried to acquire him anywhere (LOL) but I know others who have, and who genuinely love the guy and would pay quite a bit -- and none of em are even bothering to try anymore.
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
Oh, you're that guy. Not only is John Schneider significantly better at talent evaluation than the personnel departments in GB, Pittsburgh, Denver, and every one else who let the best player in the draft fall into the late 2nd round, but you are too. Must be nice to be able to figure it out like that.
Neofight
Footballguy
EBF
Footballguy
I don't think you're totally wrong, but I'd describe it less as seeing the obvious and more as putting together the puzzle pieces accurately.
Poker players talk about the ability to read hands and glean information from their opponents' betting patterns and behavior. What they're doing is looking at ambiguous data points and trying to pull an accurate narrative out of the noise. Is the guy who bets his whole stack when a blank hits on the river bluffing or did he just get lucky and make a set? The bet itself could mean either thing, so you'd have to analyze all the information at your disposal (i.e. body language, opponent betting patterns during the hand, betting patterns in previous hands, etc) to come up with your answer.
I think when you're dealing with unknown quantities in FF, it demands a similar ability to look at all the various data points and try to determine which are meaningful and what exactly they mean. To use an example from recent history. Consider these true statements:
- Jimmy Graham only had 213 receiving yards and 5 TDs in college.
- Jimmy Graham was a late 3rd round NFL draft pick.
- Jimmy Graham was an athletic freak who tested off the charts at the combine.
- Jimmy Graham was a converted basketball player with limited football experience.
All of those statements are true. However, depending on which points you emphasize, you would've reached different conclusions.
If you look at it this way...
- Jimmy Graham only had 213 receiving yards and 5 TDs in college.
- Jimmy Graham was a late 3rd round NFL draft pick.
You would probably have said that he was not a very good bet for NFL stardom. He was "only" a late 3rd round pick. He was not productive in college.
However, if you looked at this way...
- Jimmy Graham was an athletic freak who tested off the charts at the combine.
- Jimmy Graham was a converted basketball player with limited football experience.
Now you're probably more optimistic. Rather than emphasizing his lack of production and his moderately high draft slot, you're emphasizing his insane athletic ability and his lack of experience, which not only explains his poor college production but also turns his draft slot from a negative into a positive (because it's rare for a guy with such a weak resume to be such a high pick). So you probably come out of it thinking he's a good investment.
Here's the game with Christine Michael:
- Christine Michael never had a 1000 yard rushing season in college.
- Christine Michael was not a full-time starter as a senior.
- Christine Michael was Big 12 Offensive Freshman of the Year in 2009.
- Christine Michael had a 5.3 career YPC in college.
- Christine Michael is a freak athlete with off the charts measurables.
- Christine Michael suffered serious injuries in 2 out of 4 college seasons.
- Christine Michael was a late 2nd round pick.
- Christine Michael was picked by a team that has done really well in the draft recently.
- Christine Michael barely played as a rookie.
- Christine Michael led the NFL in preseason rushing yards and looked awesome.
- Christine Michael generated a big buzz in training camp practices.
- Robert Turbin was active for all of Seattle's game whereas Christine Michael was only active for a few.
All of these statements are true. The question is, which are important and what do they mean? The main difference I see in this thread is what people choose to emphasize. Most of the Michael skeptics look something like this:
- Christine Michael never had a 1000 yard rushing season in college.
- Christine Michael was not a full-time starter as a senior.
- Christine Michael suffered serious injuries in 2 out of 4 college seasons.
- Christine Michael was only a late 2nd round pick.
- Christine Michael barely played as a rookie.
- Robert Turbin was active for all of Seattle's game whereas Christine Michael was only active for a few.
And most of the optimists look more like this:
- Christine Michael was Big 12 Offensive Freshman of the Year in 2009.
- Christine Michael had a 5.3 career YPC in college.
- Christine Michael is a freak athlete with off the charts measurables.
- Christine Michael was a late 2nd round pick. That's pretty high.
- Christine Michael was picked by a team that has done really well in the draft recently.
- Christine Michael led the NFL in preseason rushing yards and looked awesome.
- Christine Michael generated a big buzz in training camp practices.
If the Michael skeptics are proven wrong, I won't say it's because they're ignoring the obvious. More because they're putting too much weight on certain variables and not enough on others. And also because they're assigning the wrong meaning to certain data points (i.e. "Turbin played more because Michael couldn't beat him out" and not "Turbin played more because Michael was too inexperienced and raw to risk playing").
To me, the narrative isn't as muddy as people make it out to be. The guy is a dynamite talent and when he plays, he's usually pretty impressive. He has issues with durability and intelligence/focus that have kept him out of the lineup at times. If he fails in the NFL, it will probably be because of those things and not because he lacks ability. But I don't expect any consensus to emerge until we actually see what happens, as it's clear that people are looking at the same facts and reaching wildly different conclusions.
Bump.Ah, love that snark!Are you for real? There's like 18 pages on this...Based on what?His value has sky rocketed because we are able to anticipate what will happen in Seattle when he is the starter. If you think that is in the next year or two, which most people do, I really don't see why this is that hard to understand for the detractors.I haven't read where one person said that.Every situation is the same, end of story. Michael has absolutely NO CHANCE of becoming a great RB in the NFL! And LESS THAN ZERO (Robert ####### DOWNEY style) chance of becoming an impact player on LT's level!!!
Zero, zip, zilch... NEIN, NADA, NUNCA!
I think the "detractors" are more just amazed that his value has skyrocketed for really no reason whatsoever.
I liked him fine coming into the league, and I do think he'll be a very good back given the opportunity - I just don't see the upside of spending "top 5 RB" prices for him when there are ceratin risks, that some don't acknowledge, that he never reaches those heights.
I still don't think he was the No. 1 overall player on the Seattle draft board though.
He had a value going into this season, and now his value has "sky rocketed". Are you saying that you couldn't "anticipate what will happen in Seattle when he is the starter" in August, but now you can? What happened to make his value "sky rocket"?
Gandalf
Footballguy
We are one year closer than we were in AugustBump.Ah, love that snark! He had a value going into this season, and now his value has "sky rocketed". Are you saying that you couldn't "anticipate what will happen in Seattle when he is the starter" in August, but now you can? What happened to make his value "sky rocket"?Are you for real? There's like 18 pages on this...Based on what?His value has sky rocketed because we are able to anticipate what will happen in Seattle when he is the starter. If you think that is in the next year or two, which most people do, I really don't see why this is that hard to understand for the detractors.I haven't read where one person said that.Every situation is the same, end of story. Michael has absolutely NO CHANCE of becoming a great RB in the NFL! And LESS THAN ZERO (Robert ####### DOWNEY style) chance of becoming an impact player on LT's level!!!
Zero, zip, zilch... NEIN, NADA, NUNCA!
I think the "detractors" are more just amazed that his value has skyrocketed for really no reason whatsoever.
I liked him fine coming into the league, and I do think he'll be a very good back given the opportunity - I just don't see the upside of spending "top 5 RB" prices for him when there are ceratin risks, that some don't acknowledge, that he never reaches those heights.
I still don't think he was the No. 1 overall player on the Seattle draft board though.
EBF doesn't respond to my posts, but these simply aren't all accurate. Plus you're leaving out key negatives I had on him.
1) 5.3 YPC in college is a bonus? Cyrus Gray ran in the same offense for every season but 2012 and was a 2011 6th round pick(nothing special). Gray averaged 5.2 YPC. Another player you're not a fan of Bishop Sankey averaged over 5.4 YPC in his career. So why is Michael's 5.3 all that impressive, especially when he had limited seasons in college(which skews the data)?
2) Christine Michael is 23 and he came into the NFL as an old rookie RB.
3) You have the team that drafted him as a plus. Didn't they also draft Robert Turbin? Maybe they don't evaluate RB's well.
4) He landed in a bad situation that will likely mean he's 24 or 25 years old before he gets a starting job...if he ever gets one.
Gandalf
Footballguy
I think he needs to surpass Turbin. Otherwise we have to downgrade him. They do have different roles though. I think if lynch were to go down and Turbin were to start over Michael, then yeah that's not good. I don't think this happens though. Obviously. But could it? Yep.
- Status
