Christine Michael (3 Viewers)

[MoveToSkypager]

What is so difficult???

For you, I'm guessing it's untying your shoes.

Classic response lol...did you think that up all by yourself?

Dude, just stop. I'm fine with threads getting a little sidetracked, but this guy should be banned. He's either trolling or he needs to go back to the 4th grade.

You learned probability in 4th grade?

Honestly, most people don't understand probability so he should probably get a pass for the first attempt. It's the defending it blindly and with examples that are incorrect that he might want to check in the future. I'm all for taking a mathematical approach to this (as I tried to do a page or two ago), but we do need to use real math. I think it's better than the endless subjective debate we're having now.

I can understand not understand probability perfectly, but the fact that he's still defending the fact that he thinks there's a 120% chance of something occurring is mind blowing.

People say they gave 110% effort with a straight face all the time.

 

[steveski]

What is so difficult???

For you, I'm guessing it's untying your shoes.

Classic response lol...did you think that up all by yourself?

Dude, just stop. I'm fine with threads getting a little sidetracked, but this guy should be banned. He's either trolling or he needs to go back to the 4th grade.

You learned probability in 4th grade?

Honestly, most people don't understand probability so he should probably get a pass for the first attempt. It's the defending it blindly and with examples that are incorrect that he might want to check in the future. I'm all for taking a mathematical approach to this (as I tried to do a page or two ago), but we do need to use real math. I think it's better than the endless subjective debate we're having now.

I can understand not understand probability perfectly, but the fact that he's still defending the fact that he thinks there's a 120% chance of something occurring is mind blowing.

People say they gave 110% effort with a straight face all the time.

It's a figure of speech... It's not physically possible to give 110% effort. Not sure if you're aware of that or not.

I can tell that I've made a mistake by posting in here...

 

[biju]

What is so difficult???

For you, I'm guessing it's untying your shoes.

Classic response lol...did you think that up all by yourself?

Dude, just stop. I'm fine with threads getting a little sidetracked, but this guy should be banned. He's either trolling or he needs to go back to the 4th grade.

You learned probability in 4th grade?

Honestly, most people don't understand probability so he should probably get a pass for the first attempt. It's the defending it blindly and with examples that are incorrect that he might want to check in the future. I'm all for taking a mathematical approach to this (as I tried to do a page or two ago), but we do need to use real math. I think it's better than the endless subjective debate we're having now.

I can understand not understand probability perfectly, but the fact that he's still defending the fact that he thinks there's a 120% chance of something occurring is mind blowing.

People say they gave 110% effort with a straight face all the time.

It's a figure of speech... It's not physically possible to give 110% effort. Not sure if you're aware of that or not.

I can tell that I've made a mistake by posting in here...

Pretty sure he was agreeing with you and the general absurdity people use around numbers to convey stupid ideas. My personal nit is with advertisers who say they are selling something "at a fraction" of the normal price. Yeah, well 5/4s is a fraction so that is meaningless.

 

[FBG Moderator]

Guys we're looking for your help in cleaning up the Shark Pool. Appreciate posts by people like duaneok66 that responded to an obvious flaw in someone's math and did it in a civil fashion. That's exactly how to respond without derailing the entire discussion. Others didn't and it only took a few of them to again make the thread unreadable.

If you think someone is trolling, then attacking them or calling them a troll just helps them ruin any useful discussion. Please use the Report button instead. Several people got vacations and warnings, but posts were left as an example of what we don't want to see.

With how combative this thread has been and how many times the moderators have had to step in, do not expect much leeway in it going forward. If you question whether you're about to post something that might cross the line, then it probably does.

 

[werdnoynek]

Guys we're looking for your help in cleaning up the Shark Pool. Appreciate posts by people like duaneok66 that responded to an obvious flaw in someone's math and did it in a civil fashion. That's exactly how to respond without derailing the entire discussion. Others didn't and it only took a few of them to again make the thread unreadable.

If you think someone is trolling, then attacking them or calling them a troll just helps them ruin any useful discussion. Please use the Report button instead. Several people got vacations and warnings, but posts were left as an example of what we don't want to see.

With how combative this thread has been and how many times the moderators have had to step in, do not expect much leeway in it going forward. If you question whether you're about to post something that might cross the line, then it probably does.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Here are the results so far

Top 10 season - 60, 60, 50, 25, 55, 40, 100, 30, 15, 85, 85 - for an average of 62%

Valued as and rb1 - 45, 30, 25, 75, 70, 75, 100, 10, 15, 45, 10 - for an average of 45%

Draft pick value - 1.10, 1.11, 1.06, 1.03, 1.06, 1.02, 1.01, 2.05, 1.09, 1.09, 1.03 - for an average of 1.07

The reason I did this with you all is I do a version of this when I try to measure speculative value. This kind of helps me determine if I want to acquire or sell a player like Michaels (or a rookie) who's value is based on what I think he might do, not on what he has done, because he has done nothing.

So according to these results it would cost a 1.07 to have a 62% chance of acquiring an rb who will put up top 10 numbers sometime in the future. If I bought two of these players it would cost me 2 1.07's but I would have 2 times a 62% (124%)chance of one hitting or 100% chance of one hitting plus a 24% chance of another hitting (just using simple math). You know your leagues better than I, but if an RB puts up top 10 numbers can you sell him for more than 2 1.07's? If so, short of the cost of time (giving up the 1.07 now for future value), that would tell you if it is a good investment

Same with him being valued as an rb1. The consensus is 45%. 2 1.07's for 2 of these would give you a 90% chance. So lets say 100% is a 1.05 and 1.07. If he is valued as an rb1 in 2 yrs (a 25yr old rb1) could you sell him for more than a 1.05 and 1.07? If you can, it looks like a good investment....I think this is EBF's point, although the strong draft values provided don't necessarily make it a strong point using this limited sample. I am honestly surprised so many valued him so high, so this came out a little more "reasonable" than I guessed it would.

Curious to hear your thoughts about the outcome as will as the process I use.

good research and good post, but your stats are slightly flawed

if you use 62% as the probability and saying that you have two such chances

the chances of getting BOTH players to succeed would be 38%

the chances of getting ONE of the TWO to succeed would be 48%

the chances of failing both times would be 14%

so the chances of succeeding with at least ONE would be 86% (not 124%)

Worth pointing out that (2*38%) + (1*48%) = 124%, which in this case represents the number of expected successful players (1.24).

 

[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.

Hall Trophy= most outstanding HS football player in the country.

Michael was a finalist, he didn't win. Lets look at who has won over the years: Kevin Jones, Lorenzo Booker, Chris Leak, Adrian Peterson, Ryan Perrilloux, Mitch Mustain, Jimmy Clausen, Terrelle Pryor, Bryce Brown, Dillion Baxter, Demetrius Hart, Dorial Green-Beckham, Max Browne, Elijah Hood. Only 1 player has ever been worth a damn...being a finalist for a HS award means nothing.

Walter Payton Trophy= most athletic HS football player. Other winners: Ryan Reynolds, Arrelious Benn, Taylor Mays, Nigel Bradham....again some really good company to be in.

Throwing out a bunch of HS awards and ranking out of HS doesn't mean a lot when we're talking about the NFL. Aaron Rodgers wasn't recruited by a single D1 football school, Todd Gurley was a 4 star recruit, etc etc.

I wonder if Christine Michael won the punt pass and kick?

The kid has been an elite prospect at every level. If you disagree, all you need to do is say so.

He wasn't an elite prospect coming out of college or else he would've went round 1/before Gio, Lacy, Bell, Ball. Elite for me is top 8 player at your position in the NFL overall, people throw that word around way too easily. Just like franchise QB(seems like the NFL has 22 of them).

How many RB's were taken in the first round last year?

Why?

What is a prospect?

 

[DansRams]

Here are the results so far

Top 10 season - 60, 60, 50, 25, 55, 40, 100, 30, 15, 85, 85 - for an average of 62%

Valued as and rb1 - 45, 30, 25, 75, 70, 75, 100, 10, 15, 45, 10 - for an average of 45%

Draft pick value - 1.10, 1.11, 1.06, 1.03, 1.06, 1.02, 1.01, 2.05, 1.09, 1.09, 1.03 - for an average of 1.07

The reason I did this with you all is I do a version of this when I try to measure speculative value. This kind of helps me determine if I want to acquire or sell a player like Michaels (or a rookie) who's value is based on what I think he might do, not on what he has done, because he has done nothing.

So according to these results it would cost a 1.07 to have a 62% chance of acquiring an rb who will put up top 10 numbers sometime in the future. If I bought two of these players it would cost me 2 1.07's but I would have 2 times a 62% (124%)chance of one hitting or 100% chance of one hitting plus a 24% chance of another hitting (just using simple math). You know your leagues better than I, but if an RB puts up top 10 numbers can you sell him for more than 2 1.07's? If so, short of the cost of time (giving up the 1.07 now for future value), that would tell you if it is a good investment

Same with him being valued as an rb1. The consensus is 45%. 2 1.07's for 2 of these would give you a 90% chance. So lets say 100% is a 1.05 and 1.07. If he is valued as an rb1 in 2 yrs (a 25yr old rb1) could you sell him for more than a 1.05 and 1.07? If you can, it looks like a good investment....I think this is EBF's point, although the strong draft values provided don't necessarily make it a strong point using this limited sample. I am honestly surprised so many valued him so high, so this came out a little more "reasonable" than I guessed it would.

Curious to hear your thoughts about the outcome as will as the process I use.

good research and good post, but your stats are slightly flawed

if you use 62% as the probability and saying that you have two such chances

the chances of getting BOTH players to succeed would be 38%

the chances of getting ONE of the TWO to succeed would be 48%

the chances of failing both times would be 14%

so the chances of succeeding with at least ONE would be 86% (not 124%)

Worth pointing out that (2*38%) + (1*48%) = 124%, which in this case represents the number of expected successful players (1.24).

Isn't that what Bazinga was unsuccessfully trying to say?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Here are the results so far

Top 10 season - 60, 60, 50, 25, 55, 40, 100, 30, 15, 85, 85 - for an average of 62%

Valued as and rb1 - 45, 30, 25, 75, 70, 75, 100, 10, 15, 45, 10 - for an average of 45%

Draft pick value - 1.10, 1.11, 1.06, 1.03, 1.06, 1.02, 1.01, 2.05, 1.09, 1.09, 1.03 - for an average of 1.07

The reason I did this with you all is I do a version of this when I try to measure speculative value. This kind of helps me determine if I want to acquire or sell a player like Michaels (or a rookie) who's value is based on what I think he might do, not on what he has done, because he has done nothing.

So according to these results it would cost a 1.07 to have a 62% chance of acquiring an rb who will put up top 10 numbers sometime in the future. If I bought two of these players it would cost me 2 1.07's but I would have 2 times a 62% (124%)chance of one hitting or 100% chance of one hitting plus a 24% chance of another hitting (just using simple math). You know your leagues better than I, but if an RB puts up top 10 numbers can you sell him for more than 2 1.07's? If so, short of the cost of time (giving up the 1.07 now for future value), that would tell you if it is a good investment

Same with him being valued as an rb1. The consensus is 45%. 2 1.07's for 2 of these would give you a 90% chance. So lets say 100% is a 1.05 and 1.07. If he is valued as an rb1 in 2 yrs (a 25yr old rb1) could you sell him for more than a 1.05 and 1.07? If you can, it looks like a good investment....I think this is EBF's point, although the strong draft values provided don't necessarily make it a strong point using this limited sample. I am honestly surprised so many valued him so high, so this came out a little more "reasonable" than I guessed it would.

Curious to hear your thoughts about the outcome as will as the process I use.

good research and good post, but your stats are slightly flawed

if you use 62% as the probability and saying that you have two such chances

the chances of getting BOTH players to succeed would be 38%

the chances of getting ONE of the TWO to succeed would be 48%

the chances of failing both times would be 14%

so the chances of succeeding with at least ONE would be 86% (not 124%)

Worth pointing out that (2*38%) + (1*48%) = 124%, which in this case represents the number of expected successful players (1.24).

Isn't that what Bazinga was unsuccessfully trying to say?

Yeah. His math was fine, his explanation was just confusing.

 

[DansRams]

Here are the results so far

Top 10 season - 60, 60, 50, 25, 55, 40, 100, 30, 15, 85, 85 - for an average of 62%

Valued as and rb1 - 45, 30, 25, 75, 70, 75, 100, 10, 15, 45, 10 - for an average of 45%

Draft pick value - 1.10, 1.11, 1.06, 1.03, 1.06, 1.02, 1.01, 2.05, 1.09, 1.09, 1.03 - for an average of 1.07

The reason I did this with you all is I do a version of this when I try to measure speculative value. This kind of helps me determine if I want to acquire or sell a player like Michaels (or a rookie) who's value is based on what I think he might do, not on what he has done, because he has done nothing.

So according to these results it would cost a 1.07 to have a 62% chance of acquiring an rb who will put up top 10 numbers sometime in the future. If I bought two of these players it would cost me 2 1.07's but I would have 2 times a 62% (124%)chance of one hitting or 100% chance of one hitting plus a 24% chance of another hitting (just using simple math). You know your leagues better than I, but if an RB puts up top 10 numbers can you sell him for more than 2 1.07's? If so, short of the cost of time (giving up the 1.07 now for future value), that would tell you if it is a good investment

Same with him being valued as an rb1. The consensus is 45%. 2 1.07's for 2 of these would give you a 90% chance. So lets say 100% is a 1.05 and 1.07. If he is valued as an rb1 in 2 yrs (a 25yr old rb1) could you sell him for more than a 1.05 and 1.07? If you can, it looks like a good investment....I think this is EBF's point, although the strong draft values provided don't necessarily make it a strong point using this limited sample. I am honestly surprised so many valued him so high, so this came out a little more "reasonable" than I guessed it would.

Curious to hear your thoughts about the outcome as will as the process I use.

good research and good post, but your stats are slightly flawed

if you use 62% as the probability and saying that you have two such chances

the chances of getting BOTH players to succeed would be 38%

the chances of getting ONE of the TWO to succeed would be 48%

the chances of failing both times would be 14%

so the chances of succeeding with at least ONE would be 86% (not 124%)

Worth pointing out that (2*38%) + (1*48%) = 124%, which in this case represents the number of expected successful players (1.24).

Isn't that what Bazinga was unsuccessfully trying to say?

Yeah. His math was fine, his explanation was just confusing.

That's the conclusion I came to as well. All of the "math is wrong" comments were almost as confusing as his explanation. He finally called the 1.24 result ROI. That made sense and the math is correct. It is an interesting way to think about trades

 

[zed2283]

NFL Draft rumors: Terrance West meeting with Seahawks

The defending Super Bowl champion Seattle Seahawks have Marshawn Lynch, Robert Turbin and potential 2014 breakout candidate Christine Michael on the roster, but that hasn’t stopped them from taking a look at an intriguing mid-round running back prospect leading up to the NFL Draft.

According to Gil Brandt on Twitter, the Seahawks are hosting Towson running back Terrance West for a visit.

West has also visited with the Baltimore Ravens, Minnesota Vikings, Tennessee Titans and Arizona Cardinals. The interest suggest that he has a real chance to be selected in the second or third-round of this year’s draft.

West may not have played his collegiate football at the highest level, but he has a skill set that could allow him to be a featured running back at the next level.

With Marshawn Lynch not getting any younger, West could be viewed as an eventual replacement in Seattle.

 

[biju]

NFL Draft rumors: Terrance West meeting with Seahawks

The defending Super Bowl champion Seattle Seahawks have Marshawn Lynch, Robert Turbin and potential 2014 breakout candidate Christine Michael on the roster, but that hasn’t stopped them from taking a look at an intriguing mid-round running back prospect leading up to the NFL Draft.

According to Gil Brandt on Twitter, the Seahawks are hosting Towson running back Terrance West for a visit.

West has also visited with the Baltimore Ravens, Minnesota Vikings, Tennessee Titans and Arizona Cardinals. The interest suggest that he has a real chance to be selected in the second or third-round of this year’s draft.

West may not have played his collegiate football at the highest level, but he has a skill set that could allow him to be a featured running back at the next level.

With Marshawn Lynch not getting any younger, West could be viewed as an eventual replacement in Seattle.

Obviously I can't know this, but it feels like a smoke screen here. They did this last year with Christine Michael and surprised everyone with a 2nd round selection. I can't imagine anyone has forgotten this fact so now publicly doing it again seems more smoke screen to me. But I've been wrong many times in how John Schneider drafts; the guy is very unpredictable IMO.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

at "smokescreen." No one is wasting time feigning interest in a random middle round player to fool other teams, guy. Every team brings in dozens of prospects leading up to the draft, and deception only matters at the very top.

And even if the Seahawks do draft another RB this year it says absolutely nothing about Michael. Seattle drafts BPA; they're not filling specific roster needs at all.

 

[biju]

at "smokescreen." No one is wasting time feigning interest in a random middle round player to fool other teams, guy. Every team brings in dozens of prospects leading up to the draft, and deception only matters at the very top.

And even if the Seahawks do draft another RB this year it says absolutely nothing about Michael. Seattle drafts BPA; they're not filling specific roster needs at all.

I'm pretty sure people weren't expecting Michael to go in the 2nd last year and your "mid round" valuation this year is based on what you've read, not because you're a "super internet scout". I know part of your schtick is to be abrasive, but even looking past that I don't see how you can be certain enough to call it outlandish. I certainly didn't make my statement as fact, just throwing out possibilities.

You're kind of the reason why this board sucks.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

at "smokescreen." No one is wasting time feigning interest in a random middle round player to fool other teams, guy. Every team brings in dozens of prospects leading up to the draft, and deception only matters at the very top.

And even if the Seahawks do draft another RB this year it says absolutely nothing about Michael. Seattle drafts BPA; they're not filling specific roster needs at all.

I'm pretty sure people weren't expecting Michael to go in the 2nd last year and your "mid round" valuation this year is based on what you've read, not because you're a "super internet scout". I know part of your schtick is to be abrasive, but even looking past that I don't see how you can be certain enough to call it outlandish. I certainly didn't make my statement as fact, just throwing out possibilities.

You're kind of the reason why this board sucks.

Link to where I ever claimed to be a "super Internet scout?" If anything I've always said that scouting college players for FF purposes is largely worthless and a waste of time for 99.9% of everyone playing this game, myself included.

And yes, if people post absurdities, I call them out on it. If you actually believe that Seattle, or any other team is wasting their time bringing in and working out random non-elite players that they have zero interest in, well, that speaks for itself. What purpose would that serve? It's impossible for anyone to predict how the draft will fall even at the very top. To actually think that bringing in a random player purely to fool someone else would have any effect whatsoever on who might be available in the middle rounds is pretty bizarre. To actually believe that the Seahawks' coaches and personnel guys don't have anything better to do at this time of the year than waste their time to create a "smokescreen" over a random middle round player, well, again, that speaks for itself.

 

[Terpman22]

I was just offered Michael for my 1.8 for a chance to "lock up the Seattle backfield"

I'm good. If I ain't taking him in the 1st last year, not a chance I would this year.

 

[biju]

at "smokescreen." No one is wasting time feigning interest in a random middle round player to fool other teams, guy. Every team brings in dozens of prospects leading up to the draft, and deception only matters at the very top.

And even if the Seahawks do draft another RB this year it says absolutely nothing about Michael. Seattle drafts BPA; they're not filling specific roster needs at all.

I'm pretty sure people weren't expecting Michael to go in the 2nd last year and your "mid round" valuation this year is based on what you've read, not because you're a "super internet scout". I know part of your schtick is to be abrasive, but even looking past that I don't see how you can be certain enough to call it outlandish. I certainly didn't make my statement as fact, just throwing out possibilities.

You're kind of the reason why this board sucks.

Link to where I ever claimed to be a "super Internet scout?" If anything I've always said that scouting college players for FF purposes is largely worthless and a waste of time for 99.9% of everyone playing this game, myself included.

And yes, if people post absurdities, I call them out on it. If you actually believe that Seattle, or any other team is wasting their time bringing in and working out random non-elite players that they have zero interest in, well, that speaks for itself. What purpose would that serve? It's impossible for anyone to predict how the draft will fall even at the very top. To actually think that bringing in a random player purely to fool someone else would have any effect whatsoever on who might be available in the middle rounds is pretty bizarre. To actually believe that the Seahawks' coaches and personnel guys don't have anything better to do at this time of the year than waste their time to create a "smokescreen" over a random middle round player, well, again, that speaks for itself.

So all visits are legitimate? If you think that, it's very wrong.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

at "smokescreen." No one is wasting time feigning interest in a random middle round player to fool other teams, guy. Every team brings in dozens of prospects leading up to the draft, and deception only matters at the very top.

And even if the Seahawks do draft another RB this year it says absolutely nothing about Michael. Seattle drafts BPA; they're not filling specific roster needs at all.

I'm pretty sure people weren't expecting Michael to go in the 2nd last year and your "mid round" valuation this year is based on what you've read, not because you're a "super internet scout". I know part of your schtick is to be abrasive, but even looking past that I don't see how you can be certain enough to call it outlandish. I certainly didn't make my statement as fact, just throwing out possibilities.

You're kind of the reason why this board sucks.

Link to where I ever claimed to be a "super Internet scout?" If anything I've always said that scouting college players for FF purposes is largely worthless and a waste of time for 99.9% of everyone playing this game, myself included.And yes, if people post absurdities, I call them out on it. If you actually believe that Seattle, or any other team is wasting their time bringing in and working out random non-elite players that they have zero interest in, well, that speaks for itself. What purpose would that serve? It's impossible for anyone to predict how the draft will fall even at the very top. To actually think that bringing in a random player purely to fool someone else would have any effect whatsoever on who might be available in the middle rounds is pretty bizarre. To actually believe that the Seahawks' coaches and personnel guys don't have anything better to do at this time of the year than waste their time to create a "smokescreen" over a random middle round player, well, again, that speaks for itself.

So all visits are legitimate? If you think that, it's very wrong.

I think that teams do their due diligence on players, and some might try to play games to fool others at the top of the draft, but no one is bringing in a Terrence West to feign interest hoping that someone might reach on him in the late 3rd so the guy they really want falls an extra spot. It's pretty bizarre to think that way IMO.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

If I were teams I'd use some of my visits to get additional data. It's valuable going forward even you don't plan to draft them.

 

[Steed]

Read the other day that New England has brought in about 40 players the last 2 years and hasn't drafted a single one of them. Maybe smokescreen or maybe gathering intel for later on...who knows?

 

[FBG Moderator]

at "smokescreen." No one is wasting time feigning interest in a random middle round player to fool other teams, guy. Every team brings in dozens of prospects leading up to the draft, and deception only matters at the very top.

And even if the Seahawks do draft another RB this year it says absolutely nothing about Michael. Seattle drafts BPA; they're not filling specific roster needs at all.

I'm pretty sure people weren't expecting Michael to go in the 2nd last year and your "mid round" valuation this year is based on what you've read, not because you're a "super internet scout". I know part of your schtick is to be abrasive, but even looking past that I don't see how you can be certain enough to call it outlandish. I certainly didn't make my statement as fact, just throwing out possibilities.

You're kind of the reason why this board sucks.

This is exactly what was said needs to stop and what isn't going to get any more leeway in this thread. When you get back from vacation, please leave the insults towards other posters at the door.

 

[Neofight]

at "smokescreen." No one is wasting time feigning interest in a random middle round player to fool other teams, guy. Every team brings in dozens of prospects leading up to the draft, and deception only matters at the very top.

And even if the Seahawks do draft another RB this year it says absolutely nothing about Michael. Seattle drafts BPA; they're not filling specific roster needs at all.

Read this

You're wrong on how Seattle drafts and you are wrong again about where the deception occurs, particularly for a team that likes to trade back to accumulate additional picks in the mid to late rounds. Brooks or Jeremiah (I can't recall at the moment, but I believe it may have been Brooks when he was with the Seahawks or Panthers) did a podcast where they spoke specifically to this issue of subterfuge and how the team he was with would take a different approach year to year to mix it up. And it happened with visits from guys just like West and those rated lower.

Sad that Biju gets a timeout for having a clue.

 

[Pickle Rody]

I have an extremely high interest in Michael this season. I'm getting annoyed that there is so much bickering here in this thread vs. actual news or quality discussion. Makes me want to avoid it at all costs, but sadly there probably isn't a way to curtail the BS until it gets closer to the regular season.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

ESPN's John Clayton says Marshawn Lynch will be a candidate to be cut in 2015.
Lynch will turn 29 years old next offseason and is owed $7.5 million in total compensation -- none of which is guaranteed. Before then, the Seahawks will be handing out hefty extensions to core youngsters such as Russell Wilson, Earl Thomas and Richard Sherman. It will be an unpopular, but not overly difficult decision for the Seahawks to move on from Lynch as they can hand the reigns to Christine Michael and save a ton of cash in the process. C-Mike remains one of our favorite Dynasty holds.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

at "smokescreen." No one is wasting time feigning interest in a random middle round player to fool other teams, guy. Every team brings in dozens of prospects leading up to the draft, and deception only matters at the very top.

And even if the Seahawks do draft another RB this year it says absolutely nothing about Michael. Seattle drafts BPA; they're not filling specific roster needs at all.

Read this

You're wrong on how Seattle drafts and you are wrong again about where the deception occurs, particularly for a team that likes to trade back to accumulate additional picks in the mid to late rounds. Brooks or Jeremiah (I can't recall at the moment, but I believe it may have been Brooks when he was with the Seahawks or Panthers) did a podcast where they spoke specifically to this issue of subterfuge and how the team he was with would take a different approach year to year to mix it up. And it happened with visits from guys just like West and those rated lower.

Sad that Biju gets a timeout for having a clue.

http://i.imgur.com/YGiEIlr.gif

 

[Sabertooth]

I was just offered Michael for my 1.8 for a chance to "lock up the Seattle backfield"

I'm good. If I ain't taking him in the 1st last year, not a chance I would this year.

This exactly. He's not better or worse than Franklin or Lattimore. A total unknown.

 

[cdubz]

I was just offered Michael for my 1.8 for a chance to "lock up the Seattle backfield"

I'm good. If I ain't taking him in the 1st last year, not a chance I would this year.

This exactly. He's not better or worse than Franklin or Lattimore. A total unknown.

So if you had Michael, you would deal him for Franklin and a 2nd?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

ESPN's John Clayton says Marshawn Lynch will be a candidate to be cut in 2015.
Lynch will turn 29 years old next offseason and is owed $7.5 million in total compensation -- none of which is guaranteed. Before then, the Seahawks will be handing out hefty extensions to core youngsters such as Russell Wilson, Earl Thomas and Richard Sherman. It will be an unpopular, but not overly difficult decision for the Seahawks to move on from Lynch as they can hand the reigns to Christine Michael and save a ton of cash in the process. C-Mike remains one of our favorite Dynasty holds.

If this is how it goes down you'd think they'll want to see at least something from him this year in actual games. Was pretty blase about him not seeing the field in 2013, but if it happens again it'll be a giant yellow flag IMO.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

I was just offered Michael for my 1.8 for a chance to "lock up the Seattle backfield"

I'm good. If I ain't taking him in the 1st last year, not a chance I would this year.

This exactly. He's not better or worse than Franklin or Lattimore. A total unknown.

Eh, I'm sure that the pro-Michael crowd would consider me a hater, but I'd strongly prefer him to either of those two.

 

[Tool]

I was just offered Michael for my 1.8 for a chance to "lock up the Seattle backfield"

I'm good. If I ain't taking him in the 1st last year, not a chance I would this year.

This exactly. He's not better or worse than Franklin or Lattimore. A total unknown.

I'll give you Lattimore, but Franklin's not worth a damn at this point.

 

[zilladog]

I see Latimore and Michael's value as pretty equal right now. What you could get for dealing one, should be what you could get for the other I would expect.

For the record I think both are top of the list prospects.

 

[EBF]

I was just offered Michael for my 1.8 for a chance to "lock up the Seattle backfield"

I'm good. If I ain't taking him in the 1st last year, not a chance I would this year.

This exactly. He's not better or worse than Franklin or Lattimore. A total unknown.

Unknown if you were asleep during his college career, training camp, and the preseason.

I think there is enough information out there to get a good idea of what he is.

 

[slackjawedyokel]

The hype will start to really pick up this preseason. Seattle is a well-run organ(choke)ization and must have their reasons for not showcasing Michael last season. If the idea was to milk Lynch for everything knowing that he will be gone after the 2014 season, I would not be surprised one bit. Michael fits the mold, and to only use rookie-year usage as an indicator of his NFL career is short-sighted and negligent. Hang tight... he's close to ruining your Sundays playing on another team's roster (2015 season).

 

[Mistabishi]

I just finished a dynasty auction where Michael went for 10% of a guy's budget for a 20 starter lineup. People are going full ####### over this guy in dynasty drafts everywhere.

 

[Milkman]

Lol i know I've had three owners in the last month inquire if he was available. I said not really but if you want to make me an offer I'll consider it. No offers though.

 

[MAC_32]

ESPN's John Clayton says Marshawn Lynch will be a candidate to be cut in 2015.

Lynch will turn 29 years old next offseason and is owed $7.5 million in total compensation -- none of which is guaranteed. Before then, the Seahawks will be handing out hefty extensions to core youngsters such as Russell Wilson, Earl Thomas and Richard Sherman. It will be an unpopular, but not overly difficult decision for the Seahawks to move on from Lynch as they can hand the reigns to Christine Michael and save a ton of cash in the process. C-Mike remains one of our favorite Dynasty holds.

If this is how it goes down you'd think they'll want to see at least something from him this year in actual games. Was pretty blase about him not seeing the field in 2013, but if it happens again it'll be a giant yellow flag IMO.

i think I wrote it sometime last offseason, but I wouldn't be worried about Michael's playing time until this year for this reason. He wasn't going to be a fantasy asset until Marshawn left anyway.

 

[starks]

Earl Thomas signed and now Sherman getting 40 mil guaranteed, next year they will have to sign Wilson.

I can't see a situation that Marshawn is on the roster in 2015 with that contract. Sure he could restructure I guess but highly unlikely.

 

[Tool]

Earl Thomas signed and now Sherman getting 40 mil guaranteed, next year they will have to sign Wilson.

I can't see a situation that Marshawn is on the roster in 2015 with that contract. Sure he could restructure I guess but highly unlikely.

Agreed. he's a goner.

 

[Riffraff]

Earl Thomas signed and now Sherman getting 40 mil guaranteed, next year they will have to sign Wilson.

I can't see a situation that Marshawn is on the roster in 2015 with that contract. Sure he could restructure I guess but highly unlikely.

Agreed. he's a goner.

I'm sure Lynch has seen the recent free agent RB contracts. I can see him restructure to a reasonable extension to stay.

 

[EBF]

Lynch will be 29 going into the 2015 season with something like 2000 career carries (assuming another full workload in 2014). We may hit a point in the near future where Michael simply offers more ability as a runner. When that happens, it might not really matter what Marshawn wants to do.

I'm sure both parties would've wanted Tomlinson to remain the dominant starter in San Diego, but when his skills started to erode it forced their hand. That will happen here eventually. It's only a matter of exactly how long it takes.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Seahawks RBs coach Sherman Smith does not anticipate Marshawn Lynch's workload lessening in 2014.
"To me, there's a drop off (behind Lynch)," Smith said. "You take Marshawn out of the game, there's a drop off to the next guy. So why would we do that?" The Seahawks are going to ride Lynch until his wheels fall off, which history suggests will happen sooner rather than later. Including playoffs, he has 1,002 carries over the last three seasons (334 per year). Lynch turned 28 in April.

 

[ebsteelers]

Lynch is only 28? I know its old in Rb years just feel likes he has been around for over a decade

 

[buck naked]

Seahawks RBs coach Sherman Smith does not anticipate Marshawn Lynch's workload lessening in 2014.
"To me, there's a drop off (behind Lynch)," Smith said. "You take Marshawn out of the game, there's a drop off to the next guy. So why would we do that?" The Seahawks are going to ride Lynch until his wheels fall off, which history suggests will happen sooner rather than later. Including playoffs, he has 1,002 carries over the last three seasons (334 per year). Lynch turned 28 in April.

Yet another indication of the gross overvaluing of Michael going on in the dynasty world.

 

[cdubz]

Seahawks RBs coach Sherman Smith does not anticipate Marshawn Lynch's workload lessening in 2014.
"To me, there's a drop off (behind Lynch)," Smith said. "You take Marshawn out of the game, there's a drop off to the next guy. So why would we do that?" The Seahawks are going to ride Lynch until his wheels fall off, which history suggests will happen sooner rather than later. Including playoffs, he has 1,002 carries over the last three seasons (334 per year). Lynch turned 28 in April.

Yet another indication of the gross overvaluing of Michael going on in the dynasty world.

What do you want them to say?

Something along the lines of:

"Yeah, we plan on running Lynch into the ground this year because we plan on cutting him next year and don't have a vested interest in his future health. I could say that we have talented backups, but that would cast doubt on our motivations for overusing Lynch and provide a dis-incentive to our backups to work harder."?

I don't think that quote has any bearing on the underlying reality of the situation. Which isn't to say Michael isn't overrated.

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

Seahawks RBs coach Sherman Smith does not anticipate Marshawn Lynch's workload lessening in 2014.
"To me, there's a drop off (behind Lynch)," Smith said. "You take Marshawn out of the game, there's a drop off to the next guy. So why would we do that?" The Seahawks are going to ride Lynch until his wheels fall off, which history suggests will happen sooner rather than later. Including playoffs, he has 1,002 carries over the last three seasons (334 per year). Lynch turned 28 in April.

Yet another indication of the gross overvaluing of Michael going on in the dynasty world.

I don't think that quote has any bearing on the underlying reality of the situation.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Seahawks RBs coach Sherman Smith does not anticipate Marshawn Lynch's workload lessening in 2014.
"To me, there's a drop off (behind Lynch)," Smith said. "You take Marshawn out of the game, there's a drop off to the next guy. So why would we do that?" The Seahawks are going to ride Lynch until his wheels fall off, which history suggests will happen sooner rather than later. Including playoffs, he has 1,002 carries over the last three seasons (334 per year). Lynch turned 28 in April.

Yet another indication of the gross overvaluing of Michael going on in the dynasty world.

What do you want them to say?

Something along the lines of:

"Yeah, we plan on running Lynch into the ground this year because we plan on cutting him next year and don't have a vested interest in his future health. I could say that we have talented backups, but that would cast doubt on our motivations for overusing Lynch and provide a dis-incentive to our backups to work harder."?

I don't think that quote has any bearing on the underlying reality of the situation. Which isn't to say Michael isn't overrated.

Even if they planned on cutting him next year, why would they need to "run him into the ground" unless they really thought "there's a drop off"?

It seems that you are suggesting they have some devious plan, and aren't actually trying to win football games - Are they saving Michael (or Turbin) for the future? Would they get so worn out for 2015 if they handled backup carries in 2014.

Its seems the guy really beleives Lynch is their best RB and the team is better off with him on the field.

 

[EBF]

Cheatey Petey had a different take in February:

http://www.fieldgulls.com/2014/2/27/5451970/pete-carroll-says-christine-michael-has-most-breakout-potential-for

Pete Carroll said this of Christine Michael at the Combine:

"He's really talented and a really exciting guy in our program. Probably has the most breakout potential of anybody because we haven't seen much of him yet. We've seen him, we know that he can do really special stuff. He played in a very competitive position.

It was hard to get in there with Marshawn and Robert Turbin. But he'll give those guys a real run when we come back to work. He'll grow a lot from year one to year two. We all know in our program that he's going to be very explosive and a really exciting guy. He showed that in his chances that he got."

But let's spend the next five pages debating it anyway...

 

[Coeur de Lion]

It's all meaningless Spring coach-speak on both sides. We'll see what happens this fall.

 

[cdubz]

Seahawks RBs coach Sherman Smith does not anticipate Marshawn Lynch's workload lessening in 2014.
"To me, there's a drop off (behind Lynch)," Smith said. "You take Marshawn out of the game, there's a drop off to the next guy. So why would we do that?" The Seahawks are going to ride Lynch until his wheels fall off, which history suggests will happen sooner rather than later. Including playoffs, he has 1,002 carries over the last three seasons (334 per year). Lynch turned 28 in April.

Yet another indication of the gross overvaluing of Michael going on in the dynasty world.

What do you want them to say?

Something along the lines of:

"Yeah, we plan on running Lynch into the ground this year because we plan on cutting him next year and don't have a vested interest in his future health. I could say that we have talented backups, but that would cast doubt on our motivations for overusing Lynch and provide a dis-incentive to our backups to work harder."?

I don't think that quote has any bearing on the underlying reality of the situation. Which isn't to say Michael isn't overrated.

Even if they planned on cutting him next year, why would they need to "run him into the ground" unless they really thought "there's a drop off"?

It seems that you are suggesting they have some devious plan, and aren't actually trying to win football games - Are they saving Michael (or Turbin) for the future? Would they get so worn out for 2015 if they handled backup carries in 2014.

Its seems the guy really beleives Lynch is their best RB and the team is better off with him on the field.

I have no idea if they have a devious plan or not, here is what I do know.

1) This quote or any quote they are willing to share with the media has little impact on what they are actually going to do.

2) Will they overuse Lynch to "save" Michael and Turbin. Not if it hurts them win football games. But they will use him more this year if they don't think he is coming back than if they are planning on keeping him.

3) They aren't going to say their backups are on the level of Lynch because that could provide a disincentive for Michael and Turbin to work harder if they think they have already "made it".

4) Even if they think Lynch is the best RB at this point, we know that RBs jobs change in a hurry in the NFL.

ETA: additional context on #2 is that my comment assumes he is still playing at a relatively high level and not sitting on the bench because he is being outplayed by Michael/Turbin.

 

[Xue]

Breaking ankles: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3V3JiOhFOxA