Christine Michael (2 Viewers)

[ROYALWITCHEESE]

I don't think there is as much hype as you say.. He is a young back with very good measurables and people have him targeted as a probable heir apparent. You have to be ahead of the curve in dynasty/deep keeper formats.

If your criteria for a prospect is only proven players without veterans in front of them, you will miss a lot of guys.

Plus some are confusing "hype" and the fact that this is the Michael Thread.

Has ANY, and I mean ANY Michael supporter in this threat say he is worth a TON in trade?? No, not one.

I got him as being worth a mid 1st in this draft.

Exactly. But you will NEVER get him for anything close to that price.

 

[jurb26]

I guess it could have been state more clearly. I was going under the assumption that even backups normally get on the field for most games in a season. Michael has only 18 touches last season. No backup in the world gets that small an amount of action.

Well, how many touches did he average per game played? Project that out to 16 games.

No, no backup that suits up 16 games gets 18 touches unless its a FB.

Sure, if he gets that again, it's a problem.

Well, as much as I might like Michael I'm also of the opinion that there must have been a reason he didn't dress for all those games. I'm not dropping him drastically in my rankings because of it seeing I like his talent. It's a reason for concern to me as an objective fantasy player, though. Quite honestly, I'm not sure how it can't be. That unfortunately is what this 38 page thread to nowhere is all about.

Well, I can see some very legit reasons why he was inactive that have nothing to do with his future as a player. You can't. No problem.

Why does it have to be such absolutes for you? I can't see any of the reasons? Sure I can, though I do appreciate you telling me what I see and don't see. I just also see reason for concern. There is a balance of the 2, not just 1 or the other. Quite frankly, I think that is the main problem with this thread. It's like everyone is trying to make this a concrete topic. Just because I don't see it you're way doesn't mean I don't see some validly to your vision.

 

[ghostguy123]

I don't think there is as much hype as you say.. He is a young back with very good measurables and people have him targeted as a probable heir apparent. You have to be ahead of the curve in dynasty/deep keeper formats.

If your criteria for a prospect is only proven players without veterans in front of them, you will miss a lot of guys.

Plus some are confusing "hype" and the fact that this is the Michael Thread.

Has ANY, and I mean ANY Michael supporter in this threat say he is worth a TON in trade?? No, not one.

I got him as being worth a mid 1st in this draft.

Exactly. But you will NEVER get him for anything close to that price.

I did a couple months ago. Pick 9 for Michael and pick 24 (took Golden Tate in the rookie/vet draft at 24).

Have been trying in another league, "close" to a deal at least

 

[ghostguy123]

Well, I can see some very legit reasons why he was inactive that have nothing to do with his future as a player. You can't. No problem.

Why does it have to be such absolutes for you? I can't see any of the reasons? Sure I can, though I do appreciate you telling me what I see and don't see. I just also see reason for concern. There is a balance of the 2, not just 1 or the other. Quite frankly, I think that is the main problem with this thread. It's like everyone is trying to make this a concrete topic. Just because I don't see it you're way doesn't mean I don't see some validly to your vision.

I never said anythinig about this is concrete. It's my opinion, it's a very strong opinion where I am 99% convinced the "inactive" tag last year has nothing to do with his future.

In other cases I would nto have that stance. In this exact case given the exact situation last year, that's how I feel.

There isnt much to compare this to, which is why I dont bother trying to bring up past examples. Nothing fits.

 

[jurb26]

There isnt much to compare this to, which is why I dont bother trying to bring up past examples. Nothing fits.

well, we agree on that.

 

[ghostguy123]

There isnt much to compare this to, which is why I dont bother trying to bring up past examples. Nothing fits.

well, we agree on that.

Some people are viewing that as a detriment. I view it as nothing. How can you, there is NO COMPARISON to his situation.

Even if there was 100 examples, still no conrete evidence which way his career would turn out.

Talent and oppportunity.

Last year he had the talent, lacked intagibles, and didnt have opportunity anyway

this year he has the talent, likely learned much of the intagibles, but still doesnt have much projected opportunity.

2015 he has the talent and opportunity

 

[Faust]

Making the Leap, No. 23: Christine Michael:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000357110/article/making-the-leap-no-23-christine-michael

 

[x260bm]

The "he didnt dress a bunch last year" argument has about as much to do with his future than...................................I can't even think of anything less relevant.

His pre-season performance, a comment from the OC about RBBC that he now claims was about OTA's, a clip of a run during garbage time where he was untouched until he stumbled and was tackled by a cornerback (which was called back due to holding), etc.- I'd say most of the "arguments" in here are pretty meaningless in terms of his future.

Sure, most are. Most are speculation.

However, the "not dressing" argument is easily explained and in no way should be used as a reasoning for ANYTHING regarding his future, as in, 0%.

Every other arguments about everything in here has more merit than that one

It is relevant in the fact that it does not bode well for his chances at being the transcendent talent some are making him out to be. If he was so talented they would have found a way to get him on the field and given him more chances. It does not prove he will never carve out an NFL career, but the odds of him becoming a stud are severely diminished by the fact that the Seahawks saw no point in even dressing him 16 of 19 games.

It is certainly more relevant than some fifteen yard run he got in preseason with two minutes left in the fourth quarter.

https://yy2.staticflickr.com/3288/2961175776_b341ca0fc5.jpg

You were blowing this horn months ago and even after I provided examples like Jamaal Charles, Deuce McAllister, and Larry Johnson you've just kept at it. Definitely some irony in the fact that arguably the top dynasty RB of the moment (Jamaal Charles) couldn't decisively beat out Kolby Smith for PT as a rookie and yet so many people use the "he couldn't even beat out Turbin" line of reasoning as a cause for skepticism re: Michael.

Ironic that you are still using Charles as an example to your point when it's blatantly horrible. Charles had 2x the carries and 3x the receptions of Smith his rookie year and out performed him in every measure, including getting the bulk of the carries in a game Johnson missed that season. Charles had 67 carries and 27 receptions as a rookie. Michael had 18 carries. Talk about a reach of massive proportions.

This. Charles was also active all 16 games.

Well kick returner's usually are active most games. To be active in the NFL you have to be a starter or play special teams. Arguing someone isn't going to be any good just because they don't play special teams doesn't make a lot of sense.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Arguing someone isn't going to be any good just because they don't play special teams doesn't make a lot of sense.

No, the argument was that the coaches determined they couldn't trust him. That was in pre-season.

Then low-and-behold he was then being inactivated and the new twist about special teams then came from nowhere after-the-fact that made it more palatable.

 

[ghostguy123]

Who was their #3 RB on Sundays?

 

[Tool]

Arguing someone isn't going to be any good just because they don't play special teams doesn't make a lot of sense.

No, the argument was that the coaches determined they couldn't trust him. That was in pre-season.

Then low-and-behold he was then being inactivated and the new twist about special teams then came from nowhere after-the-fact that made it more palatable.

A team has limited roster spots so why would they activate him just to give him a few carries while having someone on special teams active would be more valuable?

 

[ghostguy123]

Exactly. Michael didn't have much value to them on sundsys getting 3 carries a game, not playing special teams, and not up to speed as well as turbin in pass pro.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Who was their #3 RB on Sundays?

Michael Robinson.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Arguing someone isn't going to be any good just because they don't play special teams doesn't make a lot of sense.

No, the argument was that the coaches determined they couldn't trust him. That was in pre-season.

Then low-and-behold he was then being inactivated and the new twist about special teams then came from nowhere after-the-fact that made it more palatable.

A team has limited roster spots so why would they activate him just to give him a few carries while having someone on special teams active would be more valuable?

Saying they couldnt trust him on ST was the bigger issue as well. Not that he was totally incapable of helping on special teams with all his talent.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

and not up to speed as well as turbin in pass pro.

Actually EBF posted Carroll saying he is night and day on every facet (not just a pass pro issue as some like to chortle).

 

[Dr. Octopus]

The "he didnt dress a bunch last year" argument has about as much to do with his future than...................................I can't even think of anything less relevant.

His pre-season performance, a comment from the OC about RBBC that he now claims was about OTA's, a clip of a run during garbage time where he was untouched until he stumbled and was tackled by a cornerback (which was called back due to holding), etc.- I'd say most of the "arguments" in here are pretty meaningless in terms of his future.

Sure, most are. Most are speculation.

However, the "not dressing" argument is easily explained and in no way should be used as a reasoning for ANYTHING regarding his future, as in, 0%.

Every other arguments about everything in here has more merit than that one

It is relevant in the fact that it does not bode well for his chances at being the transcendent talent some are making him out to be. If he was so talented they would have found a way to get him on the field and given him more chances. It does not prove he will never carve out an NFL career, but the odds of him becoming a stud are severely diminished by the fact that the Seahawks saw no point in even dressing him 16 of 19 games.

It is certainly more relevant than some fifteen yard run he got in preseason with two minutes left in the fourth quarter.

This is probably the right way to look at it. While it's not very meaningful at all, it's also not completely meaningless.

I personally agree with those that feel that Turbin likely played more snaps than Michael last season because he was better suited for the third down role at this point of their respective careers. It's very possible that Michael would have been featured more than Turbin if Lynch would have missed any games (although I also think Turbin is better than some people think and it isn't a given that that would have been the case) - but if they were as high on Michael as some believe he should have been active most weeks. The way Lynch runs, he's always a canidate to get nicked up during a game, so if Michael truly was such a difference maker above and beyond Turbin then why leave themselves so exposed? Shouldn't he have been activated for those all important division games at least?

With that said, it isn't very meaningful at all as to what the future holds for Michael, necessarily. He will get his chance at some point, and then it will come down to what he does on the field.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

It is relevant in the fact that it does not bode well for his chances at being the transcendent talent some are making him out to be. If he was so talented they would have found a way to get him on the field and given him more chances. It does not prove he will never carve out an NFL career, but the odds of him becoming a stud are severely diminished by the fact that the Seahawks saw no point in even dressing him 16 of 19 games.

It is certainly more relevant than some fifteen yard run he got in preseason with two minutes left in the fourth quarter.

A guy with all the talent in the world doesnt help a super bowl winning team if he doesnt know the offense as well as another average backup.

It makes sense in that situation for the backup who is more responsible for pass pro than for running the ball to be in the game for a super bowl team. It just makes sense. You have a roster spot for a backup to get only a few touches and be responsibe for things other than running the ball.........makes sense to go with the guy who knows those roles better.

It was a unique situation that most understand while some don't. Been discussed a 1000 times.

Priest Holmes rookie year - 7 games, 0 carries

Arian Foster rookie year - 6 games, 54 carries

Ahman Green rookie year - 16 games, 35 carries

Michael Turner rookie year - 14 games. 20 carries

Larry Johnson rookie year - 6 games, 20 carries

Brian Westbrook rookie year - 15 games, 46 carries

Mark van Eeghan rookie year - 14 games, 28 carries

Leroy Kelly rookie year - 14 games, 6 carries

Stephen Davis rookie year - 12 games, 23 carries

Half of this list were undrafted free agents and most of the rest were late round picks. It surely makes the point that it isn't meaningful for future production that Michael was hardly used as a rookie - but it also makes the point that those teams didn't quite know what they had in those guys.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

So where do you supporters and non supporters rank Michael if he were in rookie drafts right NOW. If a draft was happening right NOW, where you take him?

I am looking at pick 6

Regular PPR leagues, starting 2 RBs, 3 WR, TE, and a flex

I think there's a strong argument that can be made that he's more valuable than any rookie RB in this class. I'd probably take Sankey (especially if I needed help this season) and Hyde before him, but neither are a slam dunk.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

It is relevant in the fact that it does not bode well for his chances at being the transcendent talent some are making him out to be. If he was so talented they would have found a way to get him on the field and given him more chances. It does not prove he will never carve out an NFL career, but the odds of him becoming a stud are severely diminished by the fact that the Seahawks saw no point in even dressing him 16 of 19 games.

It is certainly more relevant than some fifteen yard run he got in preseason with two minutes left in the fourth quarter.

A guy with all the talent in the world doesnt help a super bowl winning team if he doesnt know the offense as well as another average backup.

It makes sense in that situation for the backup who is more responsible for pass pro than for running the ball to be in the game for a super bowl team. It just makes sense. You have a roster spot for a backup to get only a few touches and be responsibe for things other than running the ball.........makes sense to go with the guy who knows those roles better.

It was a unique situation that most understand while some don't. Been discussed a 1000 times.

But we are not talking about just any back-up. We are talking about a guy who is supposedly going to be a future stud. If he was the immensely talented gamechanger people are proclaiming him to be they would have found a way to get him on the field or at least dressed him in case of injury. It is not that hard to wrap your head around and is entirely relevant.

The only legitimate comparison for someone with this level of inactivity turning into a stud fantasy performer is Larry Johnson. So, it is not impossible, but much less likely. Therefore, as I have said many times in this thread, there is no reason his value should have gone anywhere but down following his rookie year.

I feel like I'm arguing on both sides of the debate - probably because while I do like Michael, I also beleive he's overhyped - but there's certainly a reason that his value could go up. Lynch aged one year since last season and his salary could be unmanagable next year with all the contracts this team is looking at having to dole out.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Debating the finer points of Charles being an example is much less relevant with there being more than half a dozen other players that fit the mold just fine.

Yea, I was about to write something along those lines. You'd swear some of these people looking for parallel cases need it to line up so perfectly that anything short of a player named Christine Michael with identical rookie production and the same birthday wouldn't satisfy their demands. To me their reluctance to admit that numerous great players have toiled through similar rookie seasons is just a reflection of their bias in wanting to believe that Michael can't be a great player.

The nice thing is that the arguments in this thread are so circular that at this point I can just copy + paste my old posts to respond to them.

No, some of us like Michael just fine but don't think it's at all productive to manipulate the information with terrible examples that attempt embellish you're point. There are plenty of good examples of RBs that have had slow starts to their careers. Charles and others on that list simply doesn't equate very well at all.

They actually equate really well as highly-drafted backups stuck behind elite starters. Not sure what more you're hoping for.

Seeing as you're the ultimate SEC mark, I'm surprised you're not touting Michael as the greatest thing since Darren McFadden. I guess it's because Texas A&M is still a new team in the conference. If he went to Georgia or Tennessee you'd probably be hyping him as a rich man's Bo Jackson. You're the biggest Cordarrelle Patterson fanboy in the universe, but when someone else touts an unproven young player you cry foul. Hypocrisy 101. And you can't let it lie because you're utterly incapable of not trying to get in the last word, so I'll just leave it at that and be done with you and your "analysis." Bookmark the thread and prepare for a crow feast when Michael is starting.

Why are you taking some one offering a counter point so personally?

You would have to admit that Patterson, while perhaps not "proven", was able to show a lot more than Michael did last season.

 

[jurb26]

So where do you supporters and non supporters rank Michael if he were in rookie drafts right NOW. If a draft was happening right NOW, where you take him?

I am looking at pick 6

Regular PPR leagues, starting 2 RBs, 3 WR, TE, and a flex

I think there's a strong argument that can be made that he's more valuable than any rookie RB in this class. I'd probably take Sankey (especially if I needed help this season) and Hyde before him, but neither are a slam dunk.

I'd take Sankey, Hill and Hyde above him. Other than that, I'm not sure anyone else would be above him.

 

[Deuceman]

I don't think there is as much hype as you say.. He is a young back with very good measurables and people have him targeted as a probable heir apparent. You have to be ahead of the curve in dynasty/deep keeper formats.

If your criteria for a prospect is only proven players without veterans in front of them, you will miss a lot of guys.

Plus some are confusing "hype" and the fact that this is the Michael Thread.

Has ANY, and I mean ANY Michael supporter in this threat say he is worth a TON in trade?? No, not one.

I got him as being worth a mid 1st in this draft.

Exactly. But you will NEVER get him for anything close to that price.

Offered Cordarrelle Patterson for him, got turned down without a counter.

 

[Phenix]

I don't think there is as much hype as you say.. He is a young back with very good measurables and people have him targeted as a probable heir apparent. You have to be ahead of the curve in dynasty/deep keeper formats.

If your criteria for a prospect is only proven players without veterans in front of them, you will miss a lot of guys.

Plus some are confusing "hype" and the fact that this is the Michael Thread.

Has ANY, and I mean ANY Michael supporter in this threat say he is worth a TON in trade?? No, not one.

I got him as being worth a mid 1st in this draft.

Exactly. But you will NEVER get him for anything close to that price.

Offered Cordarrelle Patterson for him, got turned down without a counter.

Reminds me of a time when no one could get David Wilson off anyone... remember that time? I do. That hype was crazy too and I was just as vocal in those threads as I am here and see the same type of posts that I saw there. lol

How does one turn down a #3 RB on the Seahawks for the #1 WR on the Vikings, also how does one offer that trade?

Hype is out of control, I visit this thread for the continuous comedy.

 

[ROYALWITCHEESE]

I don't think there is as much hype as you say.. He is a young back with very good measurables and people have him targeted as a probable heir apparent. You have to be ahead of the curve in dynasty/deep keeper formats.

If your criteria for a prospect is only proven players without veterans in front of them, you will miss a lot of guys.

Plus some are confusing "hype" and the fact that this is the Michael Thread.

Has ANY, and I mean ANY Michael supporter in this threat say he is worth a TON in trade?? No, not one.

I got him as being worth a mid 1st in this draft.

Exactly. But you will NEVER get him for anything close to that price.

Offered Cordarrelle Patterson for him, got turned down without a counter.

That's my point. He probably felt you were so far apart there was no counter. It's out of control now.

 

[jurb26]

I don't think there is as much hype as you say.. He is a young back with very good measurables and people have him targeted as a probable heir apparent. You have to be ahead of the curve in dynasty/deep keeper formats.

If your criteria for a prospect is only proven players without veterans in front of them, you will miss a lot of guys.

Plus some are confusing "hype" and the fact that this is the Michael Thread.

Has ANY, and I mean ANY Michael supporter in this threat say he is worth a TON in trade?? No, not one.

I got him as being worth a mid 1st in this draft.

Exactly. But you will NEVER get him for anything close to that price.

Offered Cordarrelle Patterson for him, got turned down without a counter.

That's my point. He probably felt you were so far apart there was no counter. It's out of control now.

That trade should have been accepted before he could have blinked.

 

[Neofight]

Who was their #3 RB on Sundays?

Michael Robinson.

Robinson wasn't playing football for the first 7 weeks of 2013 as he recovered from a severe reaction to prescription meds.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Who was their #3 RB on Sundays?

Michael Robinson.

Robinson wasn't playing football for the first 7 weeks of 2013 as he recovered from a severe reaction to prescription meds.

Spencer Ware early and Michael Robinson late. With Derrick Coleman always being active.

 

[Neofight]

Debating the finer points of Charles being an example is much less relevant with there being more than half a dozen other players that fit the mold just fine.

Yea, I was about to write something along those lines. You'd swear some of these people looking for parallel cases need it to line up so perfectly that anything short of a player named Christine Michael with identical rookie production and the same birthday wouldn't satisfy their demands. To me their reluctance to admit that numerous great players have toiled through similar rookie seasons is just a reflection of their bias in wanting to believe that Michael can't be a great player.

The nice thing is that the arguments in this thread are so circular that at this point I can just copy + paste my old posts to respond to them.

No, some of us like Michael just fine but don't think it's at all productive to manipulate the information with terrible examples that attempt embellish you're point. There are plenty of good examples of RBs that have had slow starts to their careers. Charles and others on that list simply doesn't equate very well at all.

They actually equate really well as highly-drafted backups stuck behind elite starters. Not sure what more you're hoping for.

Seeing as you're the ultimate SEC mark, I'm surprised you're not touting Michael as the greatest thing since Darren McFadden. I guess it's because Texas A&M is still a new team in the conference. If he went to Georgia or Tennessee you'd probably be hyping him as a rich man's Bo Jackson. You're the biggest Cordarrelle Patterson fanboy in the universe, but when someone else touts an unproven young player you cry foul. Hypocrisy 101. And you can't let it lie because you're utterly incapable of not trying to get in the last word, so I'll just leave it at that and be done with you and your "analysis." Bookmark the thread and prepare for a crow feast when Michael is starting.

Why are you taking some one offering a counter point so personally?

You would have to admit that Patterson, while perhaps not "proven", was able to show a lot more than Michael did last season.

That may have something to do with the fact that Minnesotta had a nicked up and aging Greg Jennings as the only viable WR on the roster outside of the rookie. Patterson was competing with Jerome Simpson and a band of nobody's. How much time would you have expected Michael (or anyone for that matter) to get behind AP and Gerhart? Because that's something similar to the situation he walked into.

 

[Neofight]

Who was their #3 RB on Sundays?

Michael Robinson.

Robinson wasn't playing football for the first 7 weeks of 2013 as he recovered from a severe reaction to prescription meds.

Spencer Ware early and Michael Robinson late. With Derrick Coleman always being active.

Seems like you're on top of this. Quick question: How many of those first 7 weeks was Ware active?

ETA update: looks like Ware was active 2 of the first 7 games. How many do you surmise Michael was active in?

 

[Deuceman]

I don't think there is as much hype as you say.. He is a young back with very good measurables and people have him targeted as a probable heir apparent. You have to be ahead of the curve in dynasty/deep keeper formats.

If your criteria for a prospect is only proven players without veterans in front of them, you will miss a lot of guys.

Plus some are confusing "hype" and the fact that this is the Michael Thread.

Has ANY, and I mean ANY Michael supporter in this threat say he is worth a TON in trade?? No, not one.

I got him as being worth a mid 1st in this draft.

Exactly. But you will NEVER get him for anything close to that price.

Offered Cordarrelle Patterson for him, got turned down without a counter.

That's my point. He probably felt you were so far apart there was no counter. It's out of control now.

That trade should have been accepted before he could have blinked.

Offered Cordarrelle Patterson to the Martin, Sankey and Ellington owners as well. All rejected with only the Sankey owner countering with the price of Patterson/2015 1st, of course I rejected that.

 

[Deuceman]

I don't think there is as much hype as you say.. He is a young back with very good measurables and people have him targeted as a probable heir apparent. You have to be ahead of the curve in dynasty/deep keeper formats.

If your criteria for a prospect is only proven players without veterans in front of them, you will miss a lot of guys.

Plus some are confusing "hype" and the fact that this is the Michael Thread.

Has ANY, and I mean ANY Michael supporter in this threat say he is worth a TON in trade?? No, not one.

I got him as being worth a mid 1st in this draft.

Exactly. But you will NEVER get him for anything close to that price.

Offered Cordarrelle Patterson for him, got turned down without a counter.

Reminds me of a time when no one could get David Wilson off anyone... remember that time? I do. That hype was crazy too and I was just as vocal in those threads as I am here and see the same type of posts that I saw there. lol

How does one turn down a #3 RB on the Seahawks for the #1 WR on the Vikings, also how does one offer that trade?

Hype is out of control, I visit this thread for the continuous comedy.

I offered it because I can "afford" it so to say. My WRs are DT, Dez, Alshon, Floyd, Hopkins, Patterson and Julio. Figured I'd offer one for a RB but can't find a deal. Can't even overpay.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Debating the finer points of Charles being an example is much less relevant with there being more than half a dozen other players that fit the mold just fine.

Yea, I was about to write something along those lines. You'd swear some of these people looking for parallel cases need it to line up so perfectly that anything short of a player named Christine Michael with identical rookie production and the same birthday wouldn't satisfy their demands. To me their reluctance to admit that numerous great players have toiled through similar rookie seasons is just a reflection of their bias in wanting to believe that Michael can't be a great player.

The nice thing is that the arguments in this thread are so circular that at this point I can just copy + paste my old posts to respond to them.

No, some of us like Michael just fine but don't think it's at all productive to manipulate the information with terrible examples that attempt embellish you're point. There are plenty of good examples of RBs that have had slow starts to their careers. Charles and others on that list simply doesn't equate very well at all.

They actually equate really well as highly-drafted backups stuck behind elite starters. Not sure what more you're hoping for.

Seeing as you're the ultimate SEC mark, I'm surprised you're not touting Michael as the greatest thing since Darren McFadden. I guess it's because Texas A&M is still a new team in the conference. If he went to Georgia or Tennessee you'd probably be hyping him as a rich man's Bo Jackson. You're the biggest Cordarrelle Patterson fanboy in the universe, but when someone else touts an unproven young player you cry foul. Hypocrisy 101. And you can't let it lie because you're utterly incapable of not trying to get in the last word, so I'll just leave it at that and be done with you and your "analysis." Bookmark the thread and prepare for a crow feast when Michael is starting.

Why are you taking some one offering a counter point so personally?

You would have to admit that Patterson, while perhaps not "proven", was able to show a lot more than Michael did last season.

That may have something to do with the fact that Minnesotta had a nicked up and aging Greg Jennings as the only viable WR on the roster outside of the rookie. Patterson was competing with Jerome Simpson and a band of nobody's.How much time would you have expected Michael (or anyone for that matter) to get behind AP and Gerhart? Because that's something similar to the situation he walked into.

I'm not holding his lack of carries against Michael in that statement.

EBF said:

You're the biggest Cordarrelle Patterson fanboy in the universe, but when someone else touts an unproven young player you cry foul. Hypocrisy 101

It's a fact that Patterson showed more than Michael in 2014. That's all. It doesn't make him a better prospect, and that wasn't my implication at all.

 

[ghostguy123]

Saying they couldnt trust him on ST was the bigger issue as well. Not that he was totally incapable of helping on special teams with all his talent.

Why is it an issue that they didn't trust him on special teams. I doubt the would trust Lynch on special teams either.

I mean, he wasn't drafted for special teams.

 

[ghostguy123]

I don't think there is as much hype as you say.. He is a young back with very good measurables and people have him targeted as a probable heir apparent. You have to be ahead of the curve in dynasty/deep keeper formats.

If your criteria for a prospect is only proven players without veterans in front of them, you will miss a lot of guys.

Plus some are confusing "hype" and the fact that this is the Michael Thread.

Has ANY, and I mean ANY Michael supporter in this threat say he is worth a TON in trade?? No, not one.

I got him as being worth a mid 1st in this draft.

Exactly. But you will NEVER get him for anything close to that price.

Offered Cordarrelle Patterson for him, got turned down without a counter.

I cant believe you even offered that.

Non-PPR with RB heavy scoring and 3 RB mandatory league?

 

[Heatman]

I don't think there is as much hype as you say.. He is a young back with very good measurables and people have him targeted as a probable heir apparent. You have to be ahead of the curve in dynasty/deep keeper formats.

If your criteria for a prospect is only proven players without veterans in front of them, you will miss a lot of guys.

Plus some are confusing "hype" and the fact that this is the Michael Thread.

Has ANY, and I mean ANY Michael supporter in this threat say he is worth a TON in trade?? No, not one.

I got him as being worth a mid 1st in this draft.

Exactly. But you will NEVER get him for anything close to that price.

Offered Cordarrelle Patterson for him, got turned down without a counter.

Boy do I hope someone offers me Patterson for him! I'd take that in a heartbeat.

 

[Deuceman]

I don't think there is as much hype as you say.. He is a young back with very good measurables and people have him targeted as a probable heir apparent. You have to be ahead of the curve in dynasty/deep keeper formats.

If your criteria for a prospect is only proven players without veterans in front of them, you will miss a lot of guys.

Plus some are confusing "hype" and the fact that this is the Michael Thread.

Has ANY, and I mean ANY Michael supporter in this threat say he is worth a TON in trade?? No, not one.

I got him as being worth a mid 1st in this draft.

Exactly. But you will NEVER get him for anything close to that price.

Offered Cordarrelle Patterson for him, got turned down without a counter.

I cant believe you even offered that.

Non-PPR with RB heavy scoring and 3 RB mandatory league?

12 team PPR, 2 RB, 3 WR, 1 TE with Flex.

 

[ghostguy123]

You will never own Michael in that league, just move on. Classic case of wanting a guy, but no way of getting him without ruining your team.

 

[Deuceman]

You will never own Michael in that league, just move on. Classic case of wanting a guy, but no way of getting him without ruining your team.

I've offered Patterson (plus) for every consensus top 10-12 dynasty RB in my league and been rejected every time.

 

[ghostguy123]

You will never own Michael in that league, just move on. Classic case of wanting a guy, but no way of getting him without ruining your team.

I've offered Patterson (plus) for every consensus top 10-12 dynasty RB in my league and been rejected every time.

Don't make a horrible trade just cause people wont trade with you. Dynasty 101

 

[EBF]

EBF said:

You're the biggest Cordarrelle Patterson fanboy in the universe, but when someone else touts an unproven young player you cry foul. Hypocrisy 101

It's a fact that Patterson showed more than Michael in 2014. That's all. It doesn't make him a better prospect, and that wasn't my implication at all.

Sure, but there are a lot more snaps to go around at WR with 2-3 on the field for most downs. Patterson finished third among Minnesota's WRs in receiving yards, so from that perspective he was the "third string WR." The difference is that your third string WR is a guy who plays a lot whereas your third string RB is typically a guy who doesn't. So I think if you are talking about the relative impact, you have to consider the different dynamics of the position. If not for the need to play 4-5 WRs every game, maybe Patterson is a gameday scratch and maybe we don't see his exploits on returns like we did last year.

It's kind of a moot point because Patterson's market price is exponentially higher than Michael's according to any ADP data or "expert" rankings you can find. I usually see CP around the #20 spot and Michael around the #60 spot. The fact that people can balk at the idea of Michael as a high upside play as the 60th overall pick while simultaneously having no problem with a guy like Cordarrelle in the #20 spot shows how backwards this stuff can get.

A lot of the anti-Michael talk is targeted specifically towards the minority of owners who value him well above his market price, but to me that seems like a waste of energy. Wouldn't you expect the average FF player to have a problem with the most optimistic FF player with regards to a specific unproven NFL player regardless of who that NFL player is? In other words, wouldn't you always expect the middle 50% of the population to balk at the prices paid by the most optimistic 10% of the population when it comes to any developing player who remains somewhat unproven? It's roughly akin to treating extremists as representative of an average follower of any religion. Of course their views are going to be different from the norm. Pointing it out doesn't really have any value because by definition extremists are not representative of the average view.

As an admitted Michael extremist I can understand why people might balk at a ~RB10 valuation, but if their energy and criticism is directed at the generic ~RB22 market price then that just seems misguided and foolish to me. A lot of the talk in this thread seems to imply that Michael is crazy overvalued everywhere, but I own him in three leagues and I almost never get any offers for him. When I do get offers, they're usually more aligned with the RB22 valuation than the "crazy optimism" valuation. If most people view him as a 5th-7th round startup pick then I don't know if all this backlash and doubt is really warranted.

 

[Milkman]

I'm not taking Patterson for Michael. Call me dumb if you want but if he hits his ceiling he's likely a top 5 dynasty asset. He has to great of a chance of hitting that ceiling for me to trade him without being totally blown away. I'd rather get nothing and have him flop then trade away the next Ray Rice.

 

[ghostguy123]

I'm not taking Patterson for Michael. Call me dumb if you want but if he hits his ceiling he's likely a top 5 dynasty asset. He has to great of a chance of hitting that ceiling for me to trade him without being totally blown away. I'd rather get nothing and have him flop then trade away the next Ray Rice.

And Patterson won't? And Patterson is also prime to score well NOW, Michael is not.

I mean, I like Michael as much or more than 95% of people out there, but Patterson is just SUCH an easy accept.

 

[Milkman]

To me Patterson's ceiling isn't as high. I'd need a high 2015 1st and Patterson to trade. Which an owner would be crazy to offer. It means he's untouchable I guess.

 

[Deuceman]

I'm not taking Patterson for Michael. Call me dumb if you want but if he hits his ceiling he's likely a top 5 dynasty asset. He has to great of a chance of hitting that ceiling for me to trade him without being totally blown away. I'd rather get nothing and have him flop then trade away the next Ray Rice.

Never say never, you don't know what you would do if that deal hit your inbox.

 

[Milkman]

Well i value potential to much. That's my problem so what i would trade Michael for is probably not a good indicator of his actual value.

 

[JPeso]

Patterson and Michael are both super horses. Now back to Michael...

 

[lbouchard]

If I were to be draft in a startup, I'd have no problem selecting Michael at 60 overall-I'd go higher than that, top 40. However, I think this is a classic case of ADP not matching market value. Try offering any of the players within 5 spots of Michael on the ADP list, I can nearly guarantee a rejection without a counter.

 

[EBF]

If I were to be draft in a startup, I'd have no problem selecting Michael at 60 overall-I'd go higher than that, top 40. However, I think this is a classic case of ADP not matching market value. Try offering any of the players within 5 spots of Michael on the ADP list, I can nearly guarantee a rejection without a counter.

I think there's a lot of truth to that. There was about a minute in my leagues when he was available for modest prices, but true believers swooped in pretty quickly and snatched him up for peanuts from the teams who lucked into him and didn't particularly like him. In most established leagues the guy who owns Michael will likely be one of the guys who thinks he's legit as opposed to one of the guys who just views him as a generic dime-a-dozen promising RB. So the situation you have is like a guy who buys a new car for $30k one day and then puts a $50k price tag on it the next day after driving it off the lot. A strange dynamic and certainly something that makes it harder to get a deal done than you'd think just looking at generic rankings and ADP. This is a pretty common phenomenon with young players, as they tend to land on the rosters of the people who think they'll pan out, making them more expensive than the generic compromise price tag would lead you to believe.

IF you can get him anywhere near that 60th overall price tag, it's like printing money though. Obviously the more you pay above that, the thinner your profit margin. Makes him a no-brainer target in startups, but not necessarily such an easy acquisition in established leagues. I'd still say if the 60th overall valuation is what people have a problem with then they're naive and if the "super Michael fanatic" price tag is what they have a problem with then that's not really worth entertaining because you could point to any ostensibly uncertain young player, take the 10% of owners who like him most, and argue that he's overvalued if you use them as your measuring stick. Might as well fire up a 40 page thread for Justin Hunter, Johnny Manziel, Travis Kelce, and Carlos Hyde in that case.

 

[Milkman]

The thing is with Michael is his value is going to sky rocket as soon as he gets the starting RB position. So his value right now is to low even if you don't believe he's going to be a transcendent player because you can just trade him as soon as he has one good game or Lynch gets hurt/is dropped and get a kings ransom for him.

 

[Milkman]

Lynch not showing up for mandatory mini camp now. The Seahawks probably knew about this already and that's why they have been pumping Michael so hard this off season.