Christine Michael (4 Viewers)

[humpback]

Nobody wants to hear it.

It's mind boggling how you can read that article (if you did) and come away thinking it means much of anything other than what we already know, which is that Michael is very athletic.

Precisely. Who is we? And what is it that we know?

"We" is pretty much everyone in this thread, and I said what we know- that he is very athletic.

What is "it" that nobody wants to hear?

That SPARQ is more integral to the Seahawks philosophy than "we" might think; that it is more than a metric, but a training method (developed by Nike and embraced and strongly influenced by Carroll and his strength and conditioning coach at USC and with the Seahawks); that when you run a horizontal draft board it means a lot more flexibility than just looking at a list top to bottom...

Things that "we" have discussed but seems "we" don't want to hear. Of course, maybe some of we do...?

So? What does any of that have to do with his future prospects as a fantasy RB?

"We've" heard these things, "we" aren't disputing them, but "they" don't really mean anything in terms of his future value.

 

[Neofight]

Nobody wants to hear it.

It's mind boggling how you can read that article (if you did) and come away thinking it means much of anything other than what we already know, which is that Michael is very athletic.

Precisely. Who is we? And what is it that we know?

"We" is pretty much everyone in this thread, and I said what we know- that he is very athletic.

What is "it" that nobody wants to hear?

That SPARQ is more integral to the Seahawks philosophy than "we" might think; that it is more than a metric, but a training method (developed by Nike and embraced and strongly influenced by Carroll and his strength and conditioning coach at USC and with the Seahawks); that when you run a horizontal draft board it means a lot more flexibility than just looking at a list top to bottom...

Things that "we" have discussed but seems "we" don't want to hear. Of course, maybe some of we do...?

So? What does any of that have to do with his future prospects as a fantasy RB?

"We've" heard these things, "we" aren't disputing them, but "they" don't really mean anything in terms of his future value.

If you are limiting this to a fantasy perspective on his value, someone should mention opportunity. Everything mentioned regarding his elite skills and attributes means something in terms of his future value (fantasy and otherwise), as do the generalities regarding what makes a good NFL RB. What has no value is dwelling on the past.

 

[EBF]

I think SPARQ is just another way of saying that height/weight/speed/explosiveness are important in football. Everybody knows that, though some teams clearly put more stock in that side of things than others. The Seahawks seem to be a team that puts a lot of emphasis on it. So far so good.

I think Michael physically fits the mold of the elite first round backs ala JStew/Mathews/Peterson. IMO the reason why...

- He didn't have a great college career.

- He wasn't a first round NFL draft pick.

- Even now he isn't quite a lock for sustained NFL success.

...all comes down to durability. He hasn't shown that he can stay healthy on high volume and his running style makes me think it might not be all random.

That's really the only question mark. It's what makes him a good 4th-5th round startup pick rather than a guy you should take in the 1st.

What makes him a "can't-miss" FF investment from my standpoint is that I think he's a lock to eventually take over for Lynch and I think his value is a lock to rise significantly after that happens. I keep mentioning Bell and Lacy because they didn't even have dynamic rookie years running the ball (they were arguably even bad), yet here they are going top 15 in dynasty startups after just one season of that caliber. Now imagine what the hype would be like if they actually flashed elite talent running the ball and you have my vision for Michael, albeit with less youth on his side by the time that happens (probably 2015).

 

[ShaHBucks]

Anything new to discuss here?

 

[humpback]

Nobody wants to hear it.

It's mind boggling how you can read that article (if you did) and come away thinking it means much of anything other than what we already know, which is that Michael is very athletic.

Precisely. Who is we? And what is it that we know?

"We" is pretty much everyone in this thread, and I said what we know- that he is very athletic.

What is "it" that nobody wants to hear?

That SPARQ is more integral to the Seahawks philosophy than "we" might think; that it is more than a metric, but a training method (developed by Nike and embraced and strongly influenced by Carroll and his strength and conditioning coach at USC and with the Seahawks); that when you run a horizontal draft board it means a lot more flexibility than just looking at a list top to bottom...

Things that "we" have discussed but seems "we" don't want to hear. Of course, maybe some of we do...?

So? What does any of that have to do with his future prospects as a fantasy RB?

"We've" heard these things, "we" aren't disputing them, but "they" don't really mean anything in terms of his future value.

If you are limiting this to a fantasy perspective on his value, someone should mention opportunity. Everything mentioned regarding his elite skills and attributes means something in terms of his future value (fantasy and otherwise), as do the generalities regarding what makes a good NFL RB. What has no value is dwelling on the past.

It makes sense that we would discuss his fantasy prospects on a fantasy football message board. Opportunity has been mentioned several times, and his "elite skills and attributes" aren't really in question (although we can debate what qualifies as "skills" and what is "elite"). However, the past is also relevant, particularly when it includes injuries and off field concerns.

Still don't see how Seattle using SPARQ gives any indication about his future value or usage, especially considering they currently roster 3 RBs with higher SPARQ scores than their starter Lynch (4 if you include Coleman).

 

[Neofight]

Nobody wants to hear it.

It's mind boggling how you can read that article (if you did) and come away thinking it means much of anything other than what we already know, which is that Michael is very athletic.

Precisely. Who is we? And what is it that we know?

"We" is pretty much everyone in this thread, and I said what we know- that he is very athletic.

What is "it" that nobody wants to hear?

That SPARQ is more integral to the Seahawks philosophy than "we" might think; that it is more than a metric, but a training method (developed by Nike and embraced and strongly influenced by Carroll and his strength and conditioning coach at USC and with the Seahawks); that when you run a horizontal draft board it means a lot more flexibility than just looking at a list top to bottom...

Things that "we" have discussed but seems "we" don't want to hear. Of course, maybe some of we do...?

So? What does any of that have to do with his future prospects as a fantasy RB?

"We've" heard these things, "we" aren't disputing them, but "they" don't really mean anything in terms of his future value.

If you are limiting this to a fantasy perspective on his value, someone should mention opportunity. Everything mentioned regarding his elite skills and attributes means something in terms of his future value (fantasy and otherwise), as do the generalities regarding what makes a good NFL RB. What has no value is dwelling on the past.

It makes sense that we would discuss his fantasy prospects on a fantasy football message board. Opportunity has been mentioned several times, and his "elite skills and attributes" aren't really in question (although we can debate what qualifies as "skills" and what is "elite"). However, the past is also relevant, particularly when it includes injuries and off field concerns.

Still don't see how Seattle using SPARQ gives any indication about his future value or usage, especially considering they currently roster 3 RBs with higher SPARQ scores than their starter Lynch (4 if you include Coleman).

It does make sense, doesn't it? Since the "piece of the puzzle" comment, opportunity (and other pieces) have yet to be mentioned.

The very fact that Seattle carries that many RB's/FB's that can directly compete with Lynch or a guy like a Michael Robinson (should they sign him) should tell you a lot about where they place value. They utilize the running game more than most NFL teams. Some might view what you wrote and say that the writing is on the wall for Lynch. I won't go that far (I have Lynch rated as the third best back in the league heading into next season [non-fantasy] but it is fair to say that he will be looking over his shoulder. That's a piece. The Seahawks open competition model is another; the talk about Michael by Carroll and Schneider is another; Lynch's contract another.

Ultimately, this will be won on the field, so the past "off the field" nonsense means nothing at this point. If this hasn't become clear to you just by reading this thread then I encourage you to look elsewhere on the web for how the Seahawks are handling that issue (though there really isn't much to deal with, is there?). As for injures, these guys all look to be healthy heading into OTA's. How do you think what happened to each of these RB's in college weighs into the equation given that? This isn't a Marcus Lattimore situation where there is doubt about his ability to return fully.


Perhaps it's because I'm in the market and hear what Carroll and Schneider are saying on a regular basis, perhaps it's because I actually watch a lot a film, perhaps it's just that you and a few others seem less prone to trying to connect the dots and would rather take a wait and see approach... but clearly this is not a discussion where much is being learned.

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

Man, and I thought I had a hard on for Lee Suggs years ago. You guys are on a whole-nuther level.

Wow

 

[ShaHBucks]

Nobody wants to hear it.

It's mind boggling how you can read that article (if you did) and come away thinking it means much of anything other than what we already know, which is that Michael is very athletic.

Precisely. Who is we? And what is it that we know?

"We" is pretty much everyone in this thread, and I said what we know- that he is very athletic.What is "it" that nobody wants to hear?

That SPARQ is more integral to the Seahawks philosophy than "we" might think; that it is more than a metric, but a training method (developed by Nike and embraced and strongly influenced by Carroll and his strength and conditioning coach at USC and with the Seahawks); that when you run a horizontal draft board it means a lot more flexibility than just looking at a list top to bottom... Things that "we" have discussed but seems "we" don't want to hear. Of course, maybe some of we do...?

So? What does any of that have to do with his future prospects as a fantasy RB?"We've" heard these things, "we" aren't disputing them, but "they" don't really mean anything in terms of his future value.

If you are limiting this to a fantasy perspective on his value, someone should mention opportunity. Everything mentioned regarding his elite skills and attributes means something in terms of his future value (fantasy and otherwise), as do the generalities regarding what makes a good NFL RB. What has no value is dwelling on the past.

It makes sense that we would discuss his fantasy prospects on a fantasy football message board. Opportunity has been mentioned several times, and his "elite skills and attributes" aren't really in question (although we can debate what qualifies as "skills" and what is "elite"). However, the past is also relevant, particularly when it includes injuries and off field concerns.Still don't see how Seattle using SPARQ gives any indication about his future value or usage, especially considering they currently roster 3 RBs with higher SPARQ scores than their starter Lynch (4 if you include Coleman).

Where are u guys getting SPARQ scores from? I can't find the calculator on Nike's website anymore.

 

[Neofight]

Nobody wants to hear it.

It's mind boggling how you can read that article (if you did) and come away thinking it means much of anything other than what we already know, which is that Michael is very athletic.

Precisely. Who is we? And what is it that we know?

"We" is pretty much everyone in this thread, and I said what we know- that he is very athletic.What is "it" that nobody wants to hear?

That SPARQ is more integral to the Seahawks philosophy than "we" might think; that it is more than a metric, but a training method (developed by Nike and embraced and strongly influenced by Carroll and his strength and conditioning coach at USC and with the Seahawks); that when you run a horizontal draft board it means a lot more flexibility than just looking at a list top to bottom... Things that "we" have discussed but seems "we" don't want to hear. Of course, maybe some of we do...?

So? What does any of that have to do with his future prospects as a fantasy RB?"We've" heard these things, "we" aren't disputing them, but "they" don't really mean anything in terms of his future value.

If you are limiting this to a fantasy perspective on his value, someone should mention opportunity. Everything mentioned regarding his elite skills and attributes means something in terms of his future value (fantasy and otherwise), as do the generalities regarding what makes a good NFL RB. What has no value is dwelling on the past.

It makes sense that we would discuss his fantasy prospects on a fantasy football message board. Opportunity has been mentioned several times, and his "elite skills and attributes" aren't really in question (although we can debate what qualifies as "skills" and what is "elite"). However, the past is also relevant, particularly when it includes injuries and off field concerns.Still don't see how Seattle using SPARQ gives any indication about his future value or usage, especially considering they currently roster 3 RBs with higher SPARQ scores than their starter Lynch (4 if you include Coleman).

Where are u guys getting SPARQ scores from? I can't find the calculator on Nike's website anymore.

Nike took it down. There's a lot of info at fieldgulls.com. Some of it goes back a ways, but they are all linked in the newer articles.

 

[humpback]

It does make sense, doesn't it? Since the "piece of the puzzle" comment, opportunity (and other pieces) have yet to be mentioned.


The very fact that Seattle carries that many RB's/FB's that can directly compete with Lynch or a guy like a Michael Robinson (should they sign him) should tell you a lot about where they place value. They utilize the running game more than most NFL teams. Some might view what you wrote and say that the writing is on the wall for Lynch. I won't go that far (I have Lynch rated as the third best back in the league heading into next season [non-fantasy] but it is fair to say that he will be looking over his shoulder. That's a piece. The Seahawks open competition model is another; the talk about Michael by Carroll and Schneider is another; Lynch's contract another.

Ultimately, this will be won on the field, so the past "off the field" nonsense means nothing at this point. If this hasn't become clear to you just by reading this thread then I encourage you to look elsewhere on the web for how the Seahawks are handling that issue (though there really isn't much to deal with, is there?). As for injures, these guys all look to be healthy heading into OTA's. How do you think what happened to each of these RB's in college weighs into the equation given that? This isn't a Marcus Lattimore situation where there is doubt about his ability to return fully.


Perhaps it's because I'm in the market and hear what Carroll and Schneider are saying on a regular basis, perhaps it's because I actually watch a lot a film, perhaps it's just that you and a few others seem less prone to trying to connect the dots and would rather take a wait and see approach... but clearly this is not a discussion where much is being learned.

I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse, but that "piece of the puzzle" comment was about his ability as an NFL RB, not fantasy. We've discussed opportunity in terms of fantasy in here ad nauseum. Of course it matters for fantasy, but it doesn't matter for ability, which is why it hasn't been mentioned in that context.

Let's review- someone posted a link to an article about SPARQ, you followed up with a remark saying "nobody wants to hear it", and I followed that up by saying we already know that he's very athletic. Pretty much everyone knew that from the beginning (hence the long thread), and no one is even arguing that point. That article tells us exactly nothing about his future prospects. There's nothing to hear that wasn't already heard and known.

Sure, the competition will be won on the field, but his ability to get and stay on the field will absolutely be impacted by his ability to stay healthy, stay committed and out of trouble, learn the playbook, etc. He absolutely has some questions there, but if you want to completely ignore them, I won't try and stop you.

Your last paragraph is laughable, but you already knew that.

 

[cstu]

Man, and I thought I had a hard on for Lee Suggs years ago. You guys are on a whole-nuther level.

Wow

Kevin Jones.

 

[Neofight]

It does make sense, doesn't it? Since the "piece of the puzzle" comment, opportunity (and other pieces) have yet to be mentioned.


The very fact that Seattle carries that many RB's/FB's that can directly compete with Lynch or a guy like a Michael Robinson (should they sign him) should tell you a lot about where they place value. They utilize the running game more than most NFL teams. Some might view what you wrote and say that the writing is on the wall for Lynch. I won't go that far (I have Lynch rated as the third best back in the league heading into next season [non-fantasy] but it is fair to say that he will be looking over his shoulder. That's a piece. The Seahawks open competition model is another; the talk about Michael by Carroll and Schneider is another; Lynch's contract another.

Ultimately, this will be won on the field, so the past "off the field" nonsense means nothing at this point. If this hasn't become clear to you just by reading this thread then I encourage you to look elsewhere on the web for how the Seahawks are handling that issue (though there really isn't much to deal with, is there?). As for injures, these guys all look to be healthy heading into OTA's. How do you think what happened to each of these RB's in college weighs into the equation given that? This isn't a Marcus Lattimore situation where there is doubt about his ability to return fully.


Perhaps it's because I'm in the market and hear what Carroll and Schneider are saying on a regular basis, perhaps it's because I actually watch a lot a film, perhaps it's just that you and a few others seem less prone to trying to connect the dots and would rather take a wait and see approach... but clearly this is not a discussion where much is being learned.

I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse, but that "piece of the puzzle" comment was about his ability as an NFL RB, not fantasy. We've discussed opportunity in terms of fantasy in here ad nauseum. Of course it matters for fantasy, but it doesn't matter for ability, which is why it hasn't been mentioned in that context.

Let's review- someone posted a link to an article about SPARQ, you followed up with a remark saying "nobody wants to hear it", and I followed that up by saying we already know that he's very athletic. Pretty much everyone knew that from the beginning (hence the long thread), and no one is even arguing that point. That article tells us exactly nothing about his future prospects. There's nothing to hear that wasn't already heard and known.

Sure, the competition will be won on the field, but his ability to get and stay on the field will absolutely be impacted by his ability to stay healthy, stay committed and out of trouble, learn the playbook, etc. He absolutely has some questions there, but if you want to completely ignore them, I won't try and stop you.

Your last paragraph is laughable, but you already knew that.

Oof

 

[humpback]

It does make sense, doesn't it? Since the "piece of the puzzle" comment, opportunity (and other pieces) have yet to be mentioned.


The very fact that Seattle carries that many RB's/FB's that can directly compete with Lynch or a guy like a Michael Robinson (should they sign him) should tell you a lot about where they place value. They utilize the running game more than most NFL teams. Some might view what you wrote and say that the writing is on the wall for Lynch. I won't go that far (I have Lynch rated as the third best back in the league heading into next season [non-fantasy] but it is fair to say that he will be looking over his shoulder. That's a piece. The Seahawks open competition model is another; the talk about Michael by Carroll and Schneider is another; Lynch's contract another.

Ultimately, this will be won on the field, so the past "off the field" nonsense means nothing at this point. If this hasn't become clear to you just by reading this thread then I encourage you to look elsewhere on the web for how the Seahawks are handling that issue (though there really isn't much to deal with, is there?). As for injures, these guys all look to be healthy heading into OTA's. How do you think what happened to each of these RB's in college weighs into the equation given that? This isn't a Marcus Lattimore situation where there is doubt about his ability to return fully.


Perhaps it's because I'm in the market and hear what Carroll and Schneider are saying on a regular basis, perhaps it's because I actually watch a lot a film, perhaps it's just that you and a few others seem less prone to trying to connect the dots and would rather take a wait and see approach... but clearly this is not a discussion where much is being learned.

I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse, but that "piece of the puzzle" comment was about his ability as an NFL RB, not fantasy. We've discussed opportunity in terms of fantasy in here ad nauseum. Of course it matters for fantasy, but it doesn't matter for ability, which is why it hasn't been mentioned in that context.

Let's review- someone posted a link to an article about SPARQ, you followed up with a remark saying "nobody wants to hear it", and I followed that up by saying we already know that he's very athletic. Pretty much everyone knew that from the beginning (hence the long thread), and no one is even arguing that point. That article tells us exactly nothing about his future prospects. There's nothing to hear that wasn't already heard and known.

Sure, the competition will be won on the field, but his ability to get and stay on the field will absolutely be impacted by his ability to stay healthy, stay committed and out of trouble, learn the playbook, etc. He absolutely has some questions there, but if you want to completely ignore them, I won't try and stop you.

Your last paragraph is laughable, but you already knew that.

Oof

Let us know what they say next time you run into Carroll and Schneider on the golf course (after your intense film session, of course).

 

[Neofight]

It does make sense, doesn't it? Since the "piece of the puzzle" comment, opportunity (and other pieces) have yet to be mentioned.


The very fact that Seattle carries that many RB's/FB's that can directly compete with Lynch or a guy like a Michael Robinson (should they sign him) should tell you a lot about where they place value. They utilize the running game more than most NFL teams. Some might view what you wrote and say that the writing is on the wall for Lynch. I won't go that far (I have Lynch rated as the third best back in the league heading into next season [non-fantasy] but it is fair to say that he will be looking over his shoulder. That's a piece. The Seahawks open competition model is another; the talk about Michael by Carroll and Schneider is another; Lynch's contract another.

Ultimately, this will be won on the field, so the past "off the field" nonsense means nothing at this point. If this hasn't become clear to you just by reading this thread then I encourage you to look elsewhere on the web for how the Seahawks are handling that issue (though there really isn't much to deal with, is there?). As for injures, these guys all look to be healthy heading into OTA's. How do you think what happened to each of these RB's in college weighs into the equation given that? This isn't a Marcus Lattimore situation where there is doubt about his ability to return fully.


Perhaps it's because I'm in the market and hear what Carroll and Schneider are saying on a regular basis, perhaps it's because I actually watch a lot a film, perhaps it's just that you and a few others seem less prone to trying to connect the dots and would rather take a wait and see approach... but clearly this is not a discussion where much is being learned.

I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse, but that "piece of the puzzle" comment was about his ability as an NFL RB, not fantasy. We've discussed opportunity in terms of fantasy in here ad nauseum. Of course it matters for fantasy, but it doesn't matter for ability, which is why it hasn't been mentioned in that context.

Let's review- someone posted a link to an article about SPARQ, you followed up with a remark saying "nobody wants to hear it", and I followed that up by saying we already know that he's very athletic. Pretty much everyone knew that from the beginning (hence the long thread), and no one is even arguing that point. That article tells us exactly nothing about his future prospects. There's nothing to hear that wasn't already heard and known.

Sure, the competition will be won on the field, but his ability to get and stay on the field will absolutely be impacted by his ability to stay healthy, stay committed and out of trouble, learn the playbook, etc. He absolutely has some questions there, but if you want to completely ignore them, I won't try and stop you.

Your last paragraph is laughable, but you already knew that.

Oof

Let us know what they say next time you run into Carroll and Schneider on the golf course (after your intense film session, of course).

Is this in regards to fantasy?

 

[Coeur de Lion]

at "connecting the dots." There are no dots to connect here, guy. Michael is a backup RB. He'll get a chance to compete for a meaningful role with Turbin and probably others when they move on from Lynch at some TBD time moving forward. He's not an elite prospect overall, but does have elite athletic ability. No one knows when / if he'll get a featured role, or how he'll do if / when he does. That's it. Full stop.

 

[EBF]

No one knows when / if he'll get a featured role, or how he'll do if / when he does. That's it. Full stop.

Yeah, no one knows but that doesn't mean educated guesses can't be made.

This entire hobby is making educated guesses about the future.

 

[Neofight]

A lot of emotion in here. Let's just watch it play out. Pause....

Ok?

 

[Neofight]

On a side note, was there ever a partial stop?

 

[Neofight]

at "connecting the dots." There are no dots to connect here, guy. Michael is a backup RB. He'll get a chance to compete for a meaningful role with Turbin and probably others when they move on from Lynch at some TBD time moving forward. He's not an elite prospect overall, but does have elite athletic ability. No one knows when / if he'll get a featured role, or how he'll do if / when he does. That's it. Full stop.

Slight nit: Michael is third string. No?

 

[squistion]

No one knows when / if he'll get a featured role, or how he'll do if / when he does. That's it. Full stop.

Yeah, no one knows but that doesn't mean educated guesses can't be made.

This entire hobby is making educated guesses about the future.

If no one knows, why do you keep calling him a "can't miss" prospect? And as I recall, Jonathan Stewart and Trent Richardson were also in that infallible "can't miss" category (in fact Richardson went beyond that and was a "mortal lock" to succeed in the NFL). If you guarantee someone is "can't miss" then they have to succeed, if they don't, then they weren't "can't miss," were they?

 

[EBF]

No one knows when / if he'll get a featured role, or how he'll do if / when he does. That's it. Full stop.

Yeah, no one knows but that doesn't mean educated guesses can't be made.

This entire hobby is making educated guesses about the future.

If no one knows, why do you keep calling him a "can't miss" prospect? And as I recall, Jonathan Stewart and Trent Richardson were also in that infallible "can't miss" category. If you guarantee someone is "can't miss" then they have to succeed, if they don't, then they weren't "can't miss," were they?

I don't think I ever called Jonathan Stewart a can't-miss prospect. Regardless of that, I don't consider him a bust in NFL terms. He has a 4.7 career YPC and was signed to one of the most lucrative contracts of any RB in the NFL after his rookie deal expired. He and Williams have the unusual distinction of landing on a team that, for whatever reason, felt compelled to pay what it took to keep two elite franchise level backs on the roster at the same time. That's an unusual occurrence and not something that I hold either player accountable for. When healthy and given the opportunity, both have looked like top 10 NFL backs. Talking about either of them as an NFL bust goes back to what I said earlier about some FF players not being able to distinguish between "opportunity busts" like Stewart/Gerhart/Michael (i.e. players who "failed" because they were never given a chance to succeed) and players who failed because they were given a chance, but their performance was bad.

Richardson has been a big disappointment for two years, but I personally think it's too early to pull the plug on his career. The guy sitting ahead of Richardson on the depth chart in Seattle was thought to be a bust once too. Sometimes it takes a while to get rolling.

It's a moot point really. If you think I've said Michael is a lock to come in and dominate for years then you must not have been reading my posts very closely. That isn't my argument or my feeling at all. If it was, he'd be a clear top 3-4 dynasty RB in my view. I've never rated him that highly. If you look at what I'm actually trying to say:

What makes him a "can't-miss" FF investment from my standpoint is that I think he's a lock to eventually take over for Lynch and I think his value is a lock to rise significantly after that happens.

Can't-miss player and can't-miss investment are two very different things. My big argument with Michael is that he's a near lock to replace Lynch in Seattle and that his value will spike considerably after that happens. I do think he's going to look like dynamite when he gets his chance and that's partially why I think he's such a good investment, but whether or not he can keep it going over the course of an entire career is much more dubious to me. I don't think I've ever claimed he's going to have a Tomlinson or Peterson type of career. But in another 12-18 months when he's the unquestioned starter and the Turbin crowd is hushed, he will pull more in trades than he does today. Hence the can't-miss investment. Whether you hold or sell at that point is another question.

Putting all of that aside, I've never really agreed with or understood the idea that you need to wait until a player reaches a certain point in his career before you can make an estimate of his value. If that's the case, when are you supposed to wake up with an opinion?

- After his college career?

- After he's drafted by the NFL?

- After his rookie season?

- After five years in the league?

- After his career is over?

The deeper you get into a player's career, the less mystery there is surrounding his true nature. By now we know that Brandon Marshall and Larry Fitzgerald are Pro Bowl talents. It's unanimous. That's just the problem though. It's unanimous. So you're not going to get those players at any sort of discount price unless your leaguemates just don't know what he's worth. Now consider Justin Hunter and Cordarrelle Patterson. What are they? Are they Pro Bowl talents? Mediocrities? Busts destined to flame out early? Nobody knows, but lots of people have opinions on the matter. And it's not like those opinions are pure guesses. If someone thinks Hunter is the next stud at WR, he probably has reasons for believing so. If someone thinks Hunter is the next overhyped bust, he probably has reasons for believing so. Ultimately, the side that puts the puzzle together most accurately and thus has the best information to act on will profit.

And that right there is what FF is all about, IMO. In competitive leagues (or really any league) there's a huge incentive to putting together the puzzles as accurately as you can. I think that's really the main challenge. So when people suggest that any player with any degree of certainty can't be deciphered with anything other than random chance, it really makes me wonder why they read these message boards and why they even play this game.

With Michael, just like with many other developing commodities, there is a lot of information at your disposal to try to put together an accurate picture of his value. Doesn't mean that anyone knows exactly what he's going to be, but I think there's enough information to make a pretty good guess.

 

[squistion]

No one knows when / if he'll get a featured role, or how he'll do if / when he does. That's it. Full stop.

Yeah, no one knows but that doesn't mean educated guesses can't be made.

This entire hobby is making educated guesses about the future.

If no one knows, why do you keep calling him a "can't miss" prospect? And as I recall, Jonathan Stewart and Trent Richardson were also in that infallible "can't miss" category. If you guarantee someone is "can't miss" then they have to succeed, if they don't, then they weren't "can't miss," were they?

It's a moot point really. If you think I've said Michael is a lock to come in and dominate for years then you must not have been reading my posts very closely. That isn't my argument or my feeling at all. If it was, he'd be a clear top 3-4 dynasty RB in my view. I've never rated him that highly. If you look at what I'm actually trying to say:

Classic EBF Straw Man. I never said or suggested anything close to that. It wasn't me, it was you who said he was "can't miss" and I was responding to that.

Please explain what you meant when you said that Michael is a "can't miss" acquisition in FF?

 

[EBF]

Vintage EBF Straw Man. I never said or suggested anything close to that.

Please explain what you meant when you said that Michael is a "can't miss" acquisition in FF?

Can't-miss player and can't-miss investment are two very different things. My big argument with Michael is that he's a near lock to replace Lynch in Seattle and that his value will spike considerably after that happens. I do think he's going to look like dynamite when he gets his chance and that's partially why I think he's such a good investment, but whether or not he can keep it going over the course of an entire career is much more dubious to me. I don't think I've ever claimed he's going to have a Tomlinson or Peterson type of career. But in another 12-18 months when he's the unquestioned starter and the Turbin crowd is hushed, he will pull more in trades than he does today. Hence the can't-miss investment. Whether you hold or sell at that point is another question.

What is this now? My 100th post in this thread?

I'm not here to vent petty personal grudges like some people (wink wink). I'm providing an opinion backed up by analysis.

People can disagree with what I'm saying, but it's not like I haven't explained myself.

 

[squistion]

Vintage EBF Straw Man. I never said or suggested anything close to that.

Please explain what you meant when you said that Michael is a "can't miss" acquisition in FF?

Can't-miss player and can't-miss investment are two very different things. My big argument with Michael is that he's a near lock to replace Lynch in Seattle and that his value will spike considerably after that happens. I do think he's going to look like dynamite when he gets his chance and that's partially why I think he's such a good investment, but whether or not he can keep it going over the course of an entire career is much more dubious to me. I don't think I've ever claimed he's going to have a Tomlinson or Peterson type of career. But in another 12-18 months when he's the unquestioned starter and the Turbin crowd is hushed, he will pull more in trades than he does today. Hence the can't-miss investment. Whether you hold or sell at that point is another question.

What is this now? My 100th post in this thread?

I'm not here to vent petty personal grudges like some people (wink wink). I'm providing an opinion backed up by analysis.

People can disagree with what I'm saying, but it's not like I haven't explained myself.

Dude, if he doesn't become the starter, then by definition he has missed and your characterization of him as "can't miss" was wrong.

 

[slackjawedyokel]

No. If he is inactive every week next season people like EBF will use the same argument, "It's only because Lynch is so good, and Turbin plays special teams that Michael is inactive every week. He'll still be a stud when he gets his chance." Hell, they'll probably say the same thing if the Seahawks keep Lynch through 2015, "2016 is the year!" If he is such a game changer you really think the Seahawks wouldn't have found a way to get him on the field, or at least activated him in case of injury?

I don't expect him to play much next year either. Assuming Lynch is still healthy and productive, there's no reason why he should get more than 50-80 carries.

Nobody who bought him before his rookie season was expecting him to come in and push Lynch aside. It was clearly a "one for the future" move like when the Seahawks grabbed Ahman Green. You don't expect your rookie RB to come in and be a huge factor when you've got a 1500 yard rusher in his prime.

I don't downgrade players for failing to seize opportunities that they never had. That's why I made the Gerhart comparison. When you're stuck behind an elite starter, you don't play. When you don't play, some people automatically assume that it's because you must not be very good. That's bad analysis.

If this was the Rams or Steelers and he hadn't gotten any playing time in a wide open situation, well then I'd say that it's pretty troubling. But it's pretty much irrelevant in the context of him being drafted onto a team with a great starter already in place. About as damning as Aaron Rodgers sitting behind Brett Favre.

The "prove it" crowd generally can't imagine anything other than what's sitting right in front of them, which is why players who get buried for opportunity reasons early in their careers often come to represent such great value in dynasty leagues. Here is a fun old thread in that vein.

Of all of the back and forth of this thread, this gem of a post is a solid analysis.

 

[slackjawedyokel]

I have a three questions for everyone. No need to explain your answer. I will use the responses to make a point in a day or so after I have answers. Assume a standard 12t ppr start 2 rb

(0% - 100%) - Please be serious

Q1: What do you think is the percentage chance that Michaels ends up a top 10 rb in a fantasy season?

Q2: What do you think is the percentage chance that Michaels is valued by you trade partners as a Dynasty RB1 in the next 2 yrs?

Q3: What would you say is Michaels rookie pick value right now? (1.01 - 4.12)

60%.

45%.

1.10

 

[ghostguy123]

60%

30%

Pick 11

 

[rct]

I have a three questions for everyone. No need to explain your answer. I will use the responses to make a point in a day or so after I have answers. Assume a standard 12t ppr start 2 rb

(0% - 100%) - Please be serious

Q1: What do you think is the percentage chance that Michaels ends up a top 10 rb in a fantasy season?

Q2: What do you think is the percentage chance that Michaels is valued by you trade partners as a Dynasty RB1 in the next 2 yrs?

Q3: What would you say is Michaels rookie pick value right now? (1.01 - 4.12)

Game face on:Q1 - 50% he eventually ends up a top 10 RB

Q2 - 25% he is valued as a RB1 the next two years

Q3 - 1.06 in PPR leagues

 

[cstu]

I have a three questions for everyone. No need to explain your answer. I will use the responses to make a point in a day or so after I have answers. Assume a standard 12t ppr start 2 rb

(0% - 100%) - Please be serious

Q1: What do you think is the percentage chance that Michaels ends up a top 10 rb in a fantasy season?

Q2: What do you think is the percentage chance that Michaels is valued by you trade partners as a Dynasty RB1 in the next 2 yrs?

Q3: What would you say is Michaels rookie pick value right now? (1.01 - 4.12)

Q1: 25%

Q2: 75%

Q3: 1.03

Unlike the others I think there's a much higher chance of him being valued as a RB1 in the next two years than for him put up a top 10 season. A lot of things could happen to prevent a top 10 season but all he needs is for Lynch to get hurt/released/traded for him to be valued as a RB1.

Have you guys already forgotten David Wilson and Lamar Miller?

 

[The Man With No Name]

55%

70%

1.06

And in today's NFL, I don't think any running back coming into the league is a lock for anything.

 

[Gandalf]

In my opinion...

40% chance top 10 during his career

75% chance RB1 valuation

1.02 pick. Better than everyone but Sammy Watkins

 

[The Man With No Name]

In my opinion...

40% chance top 10 during his career

75% chance RB1 valuation

1.02 pick. Better than everyone but Sammy Watkins

Many Dynasty league guys (with bad teams) want an immediate contribution for picks that high. Michael likely won't give them that. I gave 1.11 for him a month ago and was happy about it.

 

[biju]

In my opinion...

40% chance top 10 during his career

75% chance RB1 valuation

1.02 pick. Better than everyone but Sammy Watkins

Many Dynasty league guys (with bad teams) want an immediate contribution for picks that high. Michael likely won't give them that. I gave 1.11 for him a month ago and was happy about it.

And the bolded is why they are drafting that high. Since you aren't going to (at least usually) turn around your team in one year you should be only stocking up on high talent players and worry less about immediate contribution.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

I have a three questions for everyone. No need to explain your answer. I will use the responses to make a point in a day or so after I have answers. Assume a standard 12t ppr start 2 rb

(0% - 100%) - Please be serious

Q1: What do you think is the percentage chance that Michaels ends up a top 10 rb in a fantasy season?

Q2: What do you think is the percentage chance that Michaels is valued by you trade partners as a Dynasty RB1 in the next 2 yrs?

Q3: What would you say is Michaels rookie pick value right now? (1.01 - 4.12)

60%.45%.

1.10

This makes zero sense -- same with the guy below it. If you honestly believe that Michael has a 60% chance at being a top 10 RB, he's worth a MUCH higher pick than 1.10 or 1.11. Probably more in the 1.02 or 1.03 range.

 

[biju]

I have a three questions for everyone. No need to explain your answer. I will use the responses to make a point in a day or so after I have answers. Assume a standard 12t ppr start 2 rb

(0% - 100%) - Please be serious

Q1: What do you think is the percentage chance that Michaels ends up a top 10 rb in a fantasy season?

Q2: What do you think is the percentage chance that Michaels is valued by you trade partners as a Dynasty RB1 in the next 2 yrs?

Q3: What would you say is Michaels rookie pick value right now? (1.01 - 4.12)

60%.45%.

1.10

This makes zero sense -- same with the guy below it. If you honestly believe that Michael has a 60% chance at being a top 10 RB, he's worth a MUCH higher pick than 1.10 or 1.11. Probably more in the 1.02 or 1.03 range.

I think this is the point (or one of the points) this is trying to ascertain. People ascribe value in odd ways where if you think he's going to be a top 10 RB in the future but that future isn't coming for three years out, why wouldn't 1.10 make sense? Under the same vein, if he's going to be top 10 in the present year his value is likely more than the 1.01. There is a sliding scale somewhere for everyone, but there are many factors outside of these simple functions (age, for example).

Personally I'd prefer to try to develop probabilities. For example, I would say Lynch having a significant injury in 2014 is around 5%, where the probability of Michael being the early down back around 70%. I would put it at a good 40% chance Lynch is gone after 2014 and an additional 70% chance Michael is the top RB on the team for 2015. If Lynch stays through 2015 however I put Michael's chances of being the top back in 2016 *lower* (perhaps around 50%) because Turbin will likely be gone and they'll bring in someone else for competition or draft a younger back. And then if/when he does get that featured role, I put it at about 50% he becomes a top 10 back. Based on this it would mean (and someone please check me since I'm not a mathematician) his odds are:

To start (via injury) in 2014: 3.5%

To be a top 10 back in 2014: 1.75%

To start in 2015: 28%

To be a top 10 back in 2015: 14%

To start in 2016: 50%

To be a top 10 back in 2016: 25%

Those were really thrown together quickly so I'm not sure I would plant a stake in the ground on those, but it feels good enough for discussion. To me, these are decent enough odds to warrant hanging on to him for the foreseeable future.

 

[slackjawedyokel]

I have a three questions for everyone. No need to explain your answer. I will use the responses to make a point in a day or so after I have answers. Assume a standard 12t ppr start 2 rb

(0% - 100%) - Please be serious

Q1: What do you think is the percentage chance that Michaels ends up a top 10 rb in a fantasy season?

Q2: What do you think is the percentage chance that Michaels is valued by you trade partners as a Dynasty RB1 in the next 2 yrs?

Q3: What would you say is Michaels rookie pick value right now? (1.01 - 4.12)

60%.45%.

1.10

This makes zero sense -- same with the guy below it. If you honestly believe that Michael has a 60% chance at being a top 10 RB, he's worth a MUCH higher pick than 1.10 or 1.11. Probably more in the 1.02 or 1.03 range.

I would pay a 1.2 or 1.3 this year. But when I read the question I understood it to mean "what is the market value via draft pick this year" which I am not sure I could get better than a 1.11, as I feel I am higher on Michael than the majority of my league mates. Having said that, my league mates will also think differently of him in the next couple of years.

 

[ImTheScientist]

I have a three questions for everyone. No need to explain your answer. I will use the responses to make a point in a day or so after I have answers. Assume a standard 12t ppr start 2 rb

(0% - 100%) - Please be serious

Q1: What do you think is the percentage chance that Michaels ends up a top 10 rb in a fantasy season?

Q2: What do you think is the percentage chance that Michaels is valued by you trade partners as a Dynasty RB1 in the next 2 yrs?

Q3: What would you say is Michaels rookie pick value right now? (1.01 - 4.12)

Q1: 100%

Q2: 100%

Q3: 1.01

 

[Sabertooth]

I have a three questions for everyone. No need to explain your answer. I will use the responses to make a point in a day or so after I have answers. Assume a standard 12t ppr start 2 rb

(0% - 100%) - Please be serious

Q1: What do you think is the percentage chance that Michaels ends up a top 10 rb in a fantasy season? 30%

Q2: What do you think is the percentage chance that Michaels is valued by you trade partners as a Dynasty RB1 in the next 2 yrs? 10%

Q3: What would you say is Michaels rookie pick value right now? (1.01 - 4.12) 2.1-2-10 Higher if you have Marshawn, lower end if you don't.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

Q1 -- As a late 2nd round RB, his chances of becoming useful are in the neighborhood of 30%, statistically. It's reasonable to adjust that upward some as Seattle is a well run franchise that is more likely to hit on their picks. But then top 10 RB is a significantly higher bar to set than merely being useful (50 career points over baseline vs. > 50 points over baseline per year). If you're really, really high on Michael, I could see maybe 30% being remotely justifiable -- 10% - 20% is probably more realistic.

Q2 -- This is so league dependent it's impossible to answer, but in terms of paying for a player with the intention of selling high, I'm not a fan. Too many variables at work. You need to find an owner that values the player higher than you do, that owner has to have a perceived need and be willing to deal, and that owner has to actually have something you want in return that he's willing to part with. As far as Michael having consensus top 10 RB value, then yeah, maybe -- people are chugging the kool aid hard right now. In terms of actually getting top 10 RB value out of him in a trade -- much harder to pull off.

Q3 -- I was OK with a mid / late 1st last year, and nothing significant has changed.

 

[TheLurkerBelow]

I have a three questions for everyone. No need to explain your answer. I will use the responses to make a point in a day or so after I have answers. Assume a standard 12t ppr start 2 rb

(0% - 100%) - Please be serious

Q1: What do you think is the percentage chance that Michaels ends up a top 10 rb in a fantasy season?

Q2: What do you think is the percentage chance that Michaels is valued by you trade partners as a Dynasty RB1 in the next 2 yrs?

Q3: What would you say is Michaels rookie pick value right now? (1.01 - 4.12)

Q1: 65%

Q2: 45%

Q3: 1.09ish

Question #2 is a bit of a crapshoot, it really depends on how emphatically Martin succeeds, if at all, with question #1. If it's 2015 and he is the unquestioned starter and puts up top 5 RB fantasy numbers, then his value is exceedingly high, in the Matt Forte range. If he is part of a committee with Lynch and/or Turbin and finishes about RB 9 then his trade value will be about that of an Alfred Morris.

Personally I think Martin has a strong chance, I've listed it as 65%, to achieve that type of value, a Morris on up to Forte type of value. If I were to wait until he shows me he's going to do that then his price goes way up. Right now I have him on one of my dynasty rosters for a late first round price and that's a really good spot to take a 65% gamble on a top ten RB production.

It's all about risk to reward. I would not take the risk with the 1.1 pick, but I was happy to do it with the 1.11.

Does he really have a 65% chance to succeed? Who the hell really knows, that's just the likelihood I have personally placed on his chance of success and I've based on that the information that is available at this point in time.

I can tell you one thing for 100% certain though, you don't win fantasy championships without taking some chances and having some of your prognostication come through in your favor. Take chances, acquire talent, and don't be afraid to trade guys away if you think they might not pan our and you can still get something for them. Sometimes you come out ahead and sometimes you don't, but you'll never win if you don't predict the future correctly a few times.

 

[Neofight]

Top 10 RB in a given year is not much of a high bar at all. Look at some of the names from the last three years at positions 8-10. Look at the point totals. Consider the turnover from year to year as guys age and/or suffer injuries. PPR makes this more of a crapshoot for Michael, but saying a 1 in 3 chance (or less) even in this scenario seems low unless you don't like his chances of taking over for Lynch before his rookie contract is up. If you think he does become the #1 in the next 2-3 seasons his chances are well north of 50%; I'd put it closer to 60-70% (call it 65.49). I like his chances to do just that.

As for question two, who knows. I'm not looking at moving him at the moment and it would vary greatly from league to league. In a few I'm in there are certainly owners with some Michael lust.

Early to mid-first.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

Some interesting predictions going on in here. Tons of people seem to be assessing Michael at 50% or greater to be a top 10 FF RB -- which is pretty much putting him in the uber-elite tier as a prospect with Trent Richardson, Adrian Peterson, Reggie Bush, etc -- the consensus, obvious top-10 NFL draft pick types. Wonder how he fell so far in the draft, and how really smart GMs like Kevin Colbert, John Elway, and Ted Thompson whiffed so badly.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Wonder how he fell so far in the draft

Because he's risky. He fell something like 25 spots due to low NCAA volume. Guys with fewer carries typically get drafted later (specifically about one draft spot for every four carries under 375 in their last two seasons).

And IMO he fell another 20 spots due to character concerns. With a clean nose and high carry total I think he'd have been a first-half of the first-round pick.

Also IMO the fact that he's been in no trouble so far with Seattle for a year starts to offset the later draft position. YMMV.

Talent + Risk = Draft Position and FF players (rightly) have entirely different risk profiles than NFL teams. We can draft for upside a lot easier than they can since our mistakes aren't nearly so costly.

Also, in this specific case Seattle could afford to wait on a guy to round into NFL form, while Denver, Green Bay and Pittsburgh HAD to have (or at least thought they had to have) someone who could contribute immediately. So they might have been willing to give up some upside for a safer player.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

1. 85%

2, 10%

3. 1.03

 

[cstu]

http://sportsglory.com/nfl/seahawks-running-back-christine-michael-grants-teens-prom-wish/16576

Awesome

Just saw this, very nice of him.

 

[Neofight]

Some interesting predictions going on in here. Tons of people seem to be assessing Michael at 50% or greater to be a top 10 FF RB -- which is pretty much putting him in the uber-elite tier as a prospect with Trent Richardson, Adrian Peterson, Reggie Bush, etc -- the consensus, obvious top-10 NFL draft pick types. Wonder how he fell so far in the draft, and how really smart GMs like Kevin Colbert, John Elway, and Ted Thompson whiffed so badly.

You're making a leap from top 10 fantasy RB (not elite) to top 10 NFL draft pick (elite potential) in the same sentence; this is a non sequitur. And that's aside from the fact that he may indeed be in the same class of RB as Richardson, Bush, et al.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

Some interesting predictions going on in here. Tons of people seem to be assessing Michael at 50% or greater to be a top 10 FF RB -- which is pretty much putting him in the uber-elite tier as a prospect with Trent Richardson, Adrian Peterson, Reggie Bush, etc -- the consensus, obvious top-10 NFL draft pick types. Wonder how he fell so far in the draft, and how really smart GMs like Kevin Colbert, John Elway, and Ted Thompson whiffed so badly.

You're making a leap from top 10 fantasy RB (not elite) to top 10 NFL draft pick (elite potential) in the same sentence; this is a non sequitur. And that's aside from the fact that he may indeed be in the same class of RB as Richardson, Bush, et al.

It's not a leap at all -- the truly elite prospects are the only ones that carry a FF hit rate comparable to what you're projecting for Michael.

 

[cstu]

1. 85%

2, 10%

3. 1.03

#2 is way too low. If people like you are so sure that he's going to be a top 10 RB then he'll be valued as RB1 by this time in 2016. Look at Tate's value last year and he was coming off multiple injury plagued seasons.

 

[Neofight]

Some interesting predictions going on in here. Tons of people seem to be assessing Michael at 50% or greater to be a top 10 FF RB -- which is pretty much putting him in the uber-elite tier as a prospect with Trent Richardson, Adrian Peterson, Reggie Bush, etc -- the consensus, obvious top-10 NFL draft pick types. Wonder how he fell so far in the draft, and how really smart GMs like Kevin Colbert, John Elway, and Ted Thompson whiffed so badly.

You're making a leap from top 10 fantasy RB (not elite) to top 10 NFL draft pick (elite potential) in the same sentence; this is a non sequitur. And that's aside from the fact that he may indeed be in the same class of RB as Richardson, Bush, et al.

It's not a leap at all -- the truly elite prospects are the only ones that carry a FF hit rate comparable to what you're projecting for Michael.

Only elite prospects are more likely than not to have a single season of top 10 PPR performance? Can you show your work here?

Again, this is a leap. And a rather large one at that.

ETA: As a reminder, Michael was a 2008 finalist for the Hall Trophy, won the 2009 Walter Payton Trophy, was a 5 star recruit according to Rivals and Scout.com and was the third ranked RB in the country coming out behind only Bryce Brown and the aforementioned Trent Richardson. So yes, he is an elite prospect.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

Wonder how he fell so far in the draft

Because he's risky. He fell something like 25 spots due to low NCAA volume. Guys with fewer carries typically get drafted later (specifically about one draft spot for every four carries under 375 in their last two seasons).And IMO he fell another 20 spots due to character concerns. With a clean nose and high carry total I think he'd have been a first-half of the first-round pick.

Also IMO the fact that he's been in no trouble so far with Seattle for a year starts to offset the later draft position. YMMV.

Talent + Risk = Draft Position and FF players (rightly) have entirely different risk profiles than NFL teams. We can draft for upside a lot easier than they can since our mistakes aren't nearly so costly.

Also, in this specific case Seattle could afford to wait on a guy to round into NFL form, while Denver, Green Bay and Pittsburgh HAD to have (or at least thought they had to have) someone who could contribute immediately. So they might have been willing to give up some upside for a safer player.

I know why he fell -- I was being facetious. I'll stand on assessing him based on his actual draft position as opposed to what ifs, though. IMO giving him > 50% chance at developing into a top 10 FF RB is wildly optimistic.