Christine Michael (1 Viewer)

[ghostguy123]

I believe the odds of him ever being a RB1 are severely diminished based on the fact that he wasn't useful in special teams.

fixed

 

[ptsteelers]

I honestly know nothing of the guy other than people have him inked in the HOF already, but I have read a thousand times he can't block or pick up a blitz to save his life. In addition some fumbling issues, is this true? The fact that he never played last season tells me that there is some truth to these reports.

Careful, according to fantasy "experts" in this thread not playing at all is completely irrelevant.

As is taking comments totally out of context and spinning them to fit your needs, it seems

Yes ... again ... because you just can't say it enough here, the situation with Michael and the Seahawks in the year 2013 is what makes his "not playing at all" irrelevant. But, ya know, I am sure this logic will be misinterpreted 1,000 more times here, because we are trying for 100,000 by August.

Edit - as I forgot to address the guy with the Seahawk avatar and Seahawk related name that "knows nothing of (Michael)". Love the HOF remark. That has to be true, right? I mean Shanahanigans didn't bold that remark at all, so ...

As far as blocking, yes, the Seahawks were not sold on his blocking as a rookie (not unusual for ANY rookie), and that ... ya know what ... no. I am not playing this game were people seem to put their fingers in their ears and throw hyperbole out like the truth. Not doing it.

You guys are right and you should just avoid Michael. There ya go, problem solved

I don't care how you came to your reasoning. You still think his being inactive for 16 of 19 games is completely irrelevant. I wholeheartedly disagree as you may have guessed. I believe the odds of him ever being a RB1 are severely diminished based on that fact.

And that is your right, but you can just say that instead of trying to spin my (and guys with the same thought) words ,,, my right to think the opposite ... into irrational thought or somehow wrong. I mean saying you disagree is fine, but calling us "experts" facetiously is just a un-needed jab.

Just saying.

I'm also just saying your wrong, but that's because you just don't agree with me

 

[Neofight]

I believe the odds of him ever being a RB1 are severely diminished based on the fact that he wasn't useful in special teams.

fixed

I actually think he could have been quite useful on kick returns, but the fact that they decided not to use him in that capacity said as much about the coaching staff's view of him being a potential replacement for Marshawn (in the event of an injury to Beast Mode) as it did about his ability as a kick returner. Outside of Percy Harvin, Michael is as good on returns as anyone on that team.

 

[ptsteelers]

He did have a better average per carry than Lynch when he did play ...

 

[squistion]

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.

I don't like acquiring guys based on theoretical trades I might be able to make in the future if everything goes according to plan.

Me, neither, because that assumes that the player doesn't get injured and/or that his competition goes away (see Jonathan Stewart) or that he lives up to insane hype (see Trent Richarson who was called not only a can't miss prospect but also a mortal lock to succeed in the NFL) and more importantly, that someone in your league will actually pay this future theoretical value when the time comes (which is not guaranteed).

This is why people who are always talking about future value being more important than present value don't usually win many league championships (but they always think they have the players that will get them a kings ransom in a year or two). The problem with those who think they can predict the future is that it rarely plays out the way they expect.

 

[ghostguy123]

I believe the odds of him ever being a RB1 are severely diminished based on the fact that he wasn't useful in special teams.

fixed

I actually think he could have been quite useful on kick returns, but the fact that they decided not to use him in that capacity said as much about the coaching staff's view of him being a potential replacement for Marshawn (in the event of an injury to Beast Mode) as it did about his ability as a kick returner. Outside of Percy Harvin, Michael is as good on returns as anyone on that team.

Wait, so you are saying that the fact they didnt use him on kick returns means his chances of being a good starting RB are less??

 

[Neofight]

I believe the odds of him ever being a RB1 are severely diminished based on the fact that he wasn't useful in special teams.

fixed

I actually think he could have been quite useful on kick returns, but the fact that they decided not to use him in that capacity said as much about the coaching staff's view of him being a potential replacement for Marshawn (in the event of an injury to Beast Mode) as it did about his ability as a kick returner. Outside of Percy Harvin, Michael is as good on returns as anyone on that team.

Wait, so you are saying that the fact they didnt use him on kick returns means his chances of being a good starting RB are less??

No, quite the opposite actually. I think they didn't use him on coverage or returns because they view him as a number 1. As much as Seattle likes to use starters on returns and coverage, they seem less prone to using a bread and butter, 3 down type RB than, say, a third down and long type of runner. I still think that, had Marshawn gone down last season, Michael would have stepped in to fill his role assuming the line held up (i.e., the second half of the season). With the line a mess like it was early in the season I'd wager they'd have gone with the less explosive, more seasoned Turbin.How 'bout them apples?

 

[ghostguy123]

Ok, gotcha.

I also agree if Lynch went down, Michael would have become the starter right away.

 

[Sabertooth]

Ok, gotcha.

I also agree if Lynch went down, Michael would have become the starter right away.

Not if he'd already been scratched for that week. Because he was inactive most weeks.

 

[Neofight]

Ok, gotcha.

I also agree if Lynch went down, Michael would have become the starter right away.

Not if he'd already been scratched for that week. Because he was inactive most weeks.

How many weeks was that? Completely besides the point, since Marshawn wasn't inactive, but it seems as though there is some misinformation about how many weeks Michael was actually deemed inactive. And even then, so what? It doesn't contradict what we're talking about.

 

[DropKick]

I honestly know nothing of the guy other than people have him inked in the HOF already, but I have read a thousand times he can't block or pick up a blitz to save his life. In addition some fumbling issues, is this true? The fact that he never played last season tells me that there is some truth to these reports.

Careful, according to fantasy "experts" in this thread not playing at all is completely irrelevant.

As is taking comments totally out of context and spinning them to fit your needs, it seems

Yes ... again ... because you just can't say it enough here, the situation with Michael and the Seahawks in the year 2013 is what makes his "not playing at all" irrelevant. But, ya know, I am sure this logic will be misinterpreted 1,000 more times here, because we are trying for 100,000 by August.

Edit - as I forgot to address the guy with the Seahawk avatar and Seahawk related name that "knows nothing of (Michael)". Love the HOF remark. That has to be true, right? I mean Shanahanigans didn't bold that remark at all, so ...

As far as blocking, yes, the Seahawks were not sold on his blocking as a rookie (not unusual for ANY rookie), and that ... ya know what ... no. I am not playing this game were people seem to put their fingers in their ears and throw hyperbole out like the truth. Not doing it.

You guys are right and you should just avoid Michael. There ya go, problem solved

I don't care how you came to your reasoning. You still think his being inactive for 16 of 19 games is completely irrelevant. I wholeheartedly disagree as you may have guessed. I believe the odds of him ever being a RB1 are severely diminished based on that fact.

Point has been made and answered repeatedly. I guess who cares what you think...

 

[Phenix]

I honestly know nothing of the guy other than people have him inked in the HOF already, but I have read a thousand times he can't block or pick up a blitz to save his life. In addition some fumbling issues, is this true? The fact that he never played last season tells me that there is some truth to these reports.

Careful, according to fantasy "experts" in this thread not playing at all is completely irrelevant.

As is taking comments totally out of context and spinning them to fit your needs, it seems

Yes ... again ... because you just can't say it enough here, the situation with Michael and the Seahawks in the year 2013 is what makes his "not playing at all" irrelevant. But, ya know, I am sure this logic will be misinterpreted 1,000 more times here, because we are trying for 100,000 by August.

Edit - as I forgot to address the guy with the Seahawk avatar and Seahawk related name that "knows nothing of (Michael)". Love the HOF remark. That has to be true, right? I mean Shanahanigans didn't bold that remark at all, so ...

As far as blocking, yes, the Seahawks were not sold on his blocking as a rookie (not unusual for ANY rookie), and that ... ya know what ... no. I am not playing this game were people seem to put their fingers in their ears and throw hyperbole out like the truth. Not doing it.

You guys are right and you should just avoid Michael. There ya go, problem solved

I don't care how you came to your reasoning. You still think his being inactive for 16 of 19 games is completely irrelevant. I wholeheartedly disagree as you may have guessed. I believe the odds of him ever being a RB1 are severely diminished based on that fact.

Point has been made and answered repeatedly. I guess who cares what you think...

I do because I feel the same way, the only people who care what you think are people just like you who have him on their team and are praying to god this guy who was over valued in the NFL draft by the Seahawks just like Richardson was this year and was not even active for an overwhelming majority of the season will amount to what Rotoworld is desperately trying to put out there to save face on their face plant assumption he is a stud ready to pop.

All of the people coming here to have the same fantasy is quite funny, the hype has even gone as far as convincing people to start a Lynch is retiring rumor and are comparing him to Peterson, I feel it is quite comical.

He wasnt even the #2 RB on his team last year, but because Rotowolrd is hyping him and the coach speak in April was pumping him up, you think he is going to jump Turbin who was active and pretty decent as the #2 RB and jump Lynch who will be forced into retirement? How did you come to this assumption? Was it based of his 18 carries, the rhetoric from former and current coaches, "your" eye test or the fact that your hope is completely out of control?

His value will never be higher then it is now and that is just due to hype.

 

[Phenix]

Ricky Williams walked away from a lot of money didn't he? I mean what Lynch is contemplating is not unprecedented.

Didnt he come back because he realized is was such a boneheaded mistake to walk away from money?

No, he came back because he would have had to pay back a ####load of money that by all accounts he no longer had.

So, Yes, it was boneheaded mistake to walk away? Thanks for confirming my initial thought.

 

[Heatman]

I honestly know nothing of the guy other than people have him inked in the HOF already, but I have read a thousand times he can't block or pick up a blitz to save his life. In addition some fumbling issues, is this true? The fact that he never played last season tells me that there is some truth to these reports.

Careful, according to fantasy "experts" in this thread not playing at all is completely irrelevant.

As is taking comments totally out of context and spinning them to fit your needs, it seems

Yes ... again ... because you just can't say it enough here, the situation with Michael and the Seahawks in the year 2013 is what makes his "not playing at all" irrelevant. But, ya know, I am sure this logic will be misinterpreted 1,000 more times here, because we are trying for 100,000 by August.

Edit - as I forgot to address the guy with the Seahawk avatar and Seahawk related name that "knows nothing of (Michael)". Love the HOF remark. That has to be true, right? I mean Shanahanigans didn't bold that remark at all, so ...

As far as blocking, yes, the Seahawks were not sold on his blocking as a rookie (not unusual for ANY rookie), and that ... ya know what ... no. I am not playing this game were people seem to put their fingers in their ears and throw hyperbole out like the truth. Not doing it.

You guys are right and you should just avoid Michael. There ya go, problem solved

I don't care how you came to your reasoning. You still think his being inactive for 16 of 19 games is completely irrelevant. I wholeheartedly disagree as you may have guessed. I believe the odds of him ever being a RB1 are severely diminished based on that fact.

Point has been made and answered repeatedly. I guess who cares what you think...

I do because I feel the same way, the only people who care what you think are people just like you who have him on their team and are praying to god this guy who was over valued in the NFL draft by the Seahawks just like Richardson was this year and was not even active for an overwhelming majority of the season will amount to what Rotoworld is desperately trying to put out there to save face on their face plant assumption he is a stud ready to pop.

All of the people coming here to have the same fantasy is quite funny, the hype has even gone as far as convincing people to start a Lynch is retiring rumor and are comparing him to Peterson, I feel it is quite comical.

He wasnt even the #2 RB on his team last year, but because Rotowolrd is hyping him and the coach speak in April was pumping him up, you think he is going to jump Turbin who was active and pretty decent as the #2 RB and jump Lynch who will be forced into retirement? How did you come to this assumption? Was it based of his 18 carries, the rhetoric from former and current coaches, "your" eye test or the fact that your hope is completely out of control?

His value will never be higher then it is now and that is just due to hype.

So you are saying that people went so far as to convince Lynch to tell a couple of his team mates that he might retire after the 2013 season if the Seahawks won the Super Bowl in order to increase the hype on Michael eight months later?

Fantasy football has gone to new heights.

Not that I ever thought he was retiring mind you, but it was started by Lynch himself.

 

[biju]

I honestly know nothing of the guy other than people have him inked in the HOF already, but I have read a thousand times he can't block or pick up a blitz to save his life. In addition some fumbling issues, is this true? The fact that he never played last season tells me that there is some truth to these reports.

Careful, according to fantasy "experts" in this thread not playing at all is completely irrelevant.

As is taking comments totally out of context and spinning them to fit your needs, it seems

Yes ... again ... because you just can't say it enough here, the situation with Michael and the Seahawks in the year 2013 is what makes his "not playing at all" irrelevant. But, ya know, I am sure this logic will be misinterpreted 1,000 more times here, because we are trying for 100,000 by August.

Edit - as I forgot to address the guy with the Seahawk avatar and Seahawk related name that "knows nothing of (Michael)". Love the HOF remark. That has to be true, right? I mean Shanahanigans didn't bold that remark at all, so ...

As far as blocking, yes, the Seahawks were not sold on his blocking as a rookie (not unusual for ANY rookie), and that ... ya know what ... no. I am not playing this game were people seem to put their fingers in their ears and throw hyperbole out like the truth. Not doing it.

You guys are right and you should just avoid Michael. There ya go, problem solved

I don't care how you came to your reasoning. You still think his being inactive for 16 of 19 games is completely irrelevant. I wholeheartedly disagree as you may have guessed. I believe the odds of him ever being a RB1 are severely diminished based on that fact.

Point has been made and answered repeatedly. I guess who cares what you think...

I do because I feel the same way, the only people who care what you think are people just like you who have him on their team and are praying to god this guy who was over valued in the NFL draft by the Seahawks just like Richardson was this year and was not even active for an overwhelming majority of the season will amount to what Rotoworld is desperately trying to put out there to save face on their face plant assumption he is a stud ready to pop.

All of the people coming here to have the same fantasy is quite funny, the hype has even gone as far as convincing people to start a Lynch is retiring rumor and are comparing him to Peterson, I feel it is quite comical.

He wasnt even the #2 RB on his team last year, but because Rotowolrd is hyping him and the coach speak in April was pumping him up, you think he is going to jump Turbin who was active and pretty decent as the #2 RB and jump Lynch who will be forced into retirement? How did you come to this assumption? Was it based of his 18 carries, the rhetoric from former and current coaches, "your" eye test or the fact that your hope is completely out of control?

His value will never be higher then it is now and that is just due to hype.

So you are saying that people went so far as to convince Lynch to tell a couple of his team mates that he might retire after the 2013 season if the Seahawks won the Super Bowl in order to increase the hype on Michael eight months later?

Fantasy football has gone to new heights.

Not that I ever thought he was retiring mind you, but it was started by Lynch himself.

He also keeps bringing up the "people are comparing him to Adrian Peterson" thing too. Yes, the Texas A&M strength coach said he had the same athletic explosiveness as Adrian Peterson. Does that mean ANYONE is comparing them as running backs or how they will play the game? No. But the doubters will continue to bring it up because it is a good sound bite out of context to try to show hype.

 

[Phenix]

I honestly know nothing of the guy other than people have him inked in the HOF already, but I have read a thousand times he can't block or pick up a blitz to save his life. In addition some fumbling issues, is this true? The fact that he never played last season tells me that there is some truth to these reports.

Careful, according to fantasy "experts" in this thread not playing at all is completely irrelevant.

As is taking comments totally out of context and spinning them to fit your needs, it seems

Yes ... again ... because you just can't say it enough here, the situation with Michael and the Seahawks in the year 2013 is what makes his "not playing at all" irrelevant. But, ya know, I am sure this logic will be misinterpreted 1,000 more times here, because we are trying for 100,000 by August.

Edit - as I forgot to address the guy with the Seahawk avatar and Seahawk related name that "knows nothing of (Michael)". Love the HOF remark. That has to be true, right? I mean Shanahanigans didn't bold that remark at all, so ...

As far as blocking, yes, the Seahawks were not sold on his blocking as a rookie (not unusual for ANY rookie), and that ... ya know what ... no. I am not playing this game were people seem to put their fingers in their ears and throw hyperbole out like the truth. Not doing it.

You guys are right and you should just avoid Michael. There ya go, problem solved

I don't care how you came to your reasoning. You still think his being inactive for 16 of 19 games is completely irrelevant. I wholeheartedly disagree as you may have guessed. I believe the odds of him ever being a RB1 are severely diminished based on that fact.

Point has been made and answered repeatedly. I guess who cares what you think...

I do because I feel the same way, the only people who care what you think are people just like you who have him on their team and are praying to god this guy who was over valued in the NFL draft by the Seahawks just like Richardson was this year and was not even active for an overwhelming majority of the season will amount to what Rotoworld is desperately trying to put out there to save face on their face plant assumption he is a stud ready to pop.

All of the people coming here to have the same fantasy is quite funny, the hype has even gone as far as convincing people to start a Lynch is retiring rumor and are comparing him to Peterson, I feel it is quite comical.

He wasnt even the #2 RB on his team last year, but because Rotowolrd is hyping him and the coach speak in April was pumping him up, you think he is going to jump Turbin who was active and pretty decent as the #2 RB and jump Lynch who will be forced into retirement? How did you come to this assumption? Was it based of his 18 carries, the rhetoric from former and current coaches, "your" eye test or the fact that your hope is completely out of control?

His value will never be higher then it is now and that is just due to hype.

So you are saying that people went so far as to convince Lynch to tell a couple of his team mates that he might retire after the 2013 season if the Seahawks won the Super Bowl in order to increase the hype on Michael eight months later?

Fantasy football has gone to new heights.

Not that I ever thought he was retiring mind you, but it was started by Lynch himself.

He also keeps bringing up the "people are comparing him to Adrian Peterson" thing too. Yes, the Texas A&M strength coach said he had the same athletic explosiveness as Adrian Peterson. Does that mean ANYONE is comparing them as running backs or how they will play the game? No. But the doubters will continue to bring it up because it is a good sound bite out of context to try to show hype.

The doubters or "realists"?

 

[humpback]

He also keeps bringing up the "people are comparing him to Adrian Peterson" thing too. Yes, the Texas A&M strength coach said he had the same athletic explosiveness as Adrian Peterson. Does that mean ANYONE is comparing them as running backs or how they will play the game? No. But the doubters will continue to bring it up because it is a good sound bite out of context to try to show hype.

From the other thread:

What I've seen of Michael is yes, I think he's every bit as talented as AD. There I said it. Go ahead and block me or throw some smiley emoticons at me.

 

[jurb26]

He also keeps bringing up the "people are comparing him to Adrian Peterson" thing too. Yes, the Texas A&M strength coach said he had the same athletic explosiveness as Adrian Peterson. Does that mean ANYONE is comparing them as running backs or how they will play the game? No. But the doubters will continue to bring it up because it is a good sound bite out of context to try to show hype.

From the other thread:

What I've seen of Michael is yes, I think he's every bit as talented as AD. There I said it. Go ahead and block me or throw some smiley emoticons at me.

This isn't the only comment like this, either.

 

[biju]

The doubters or "realists"?

There are basic facts that some folks see one way, and another set see another way. The fact that you are so certain of your viewpoint doesn't make you a "realist". Nobody is 100% correct in nailing rookies and their potential so you can stop trying to pretend you know better than the NFL evaluators who are paid to do this.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

He also keeps bringing up the "people are comparing him to Adrian Peterson" thing too. Yes, the Texas A&M strength coach said he had the same athletic explosiveness as Adrian Peterson. Does that mean ANYONE is comparing them as running backs or how they will play the game? No. But the doubters will continue to bring it up because it is a good sound bite out of context to try to show hype.

From the other thread:

What I've seen of Michael is yes, I think he's every bit as talented as AD. There I said it. Go ahead and block me or throw some smiley emoticons at me.

This isn't the only comment like this, either.

C'mon, that hype of comment has been a rarity in this thread. You know that - no need to over do it.

 

[biju]

He also keeps bringing up the "people are comparing him to Adrian Peterson" thing too. Yes, the Texas A&M strength coach said he had the same athletic explosiveness as Adrian Peterson. Does that mean ANYONE is comparing them as running backs or how they will play the game? No. But the doubters will continue to bring it up because it is a good sound bite out of context to try to show hype.

From the other thread:

What I've seen of Michael is yes, I think he's every bit as talented as AD. There I said it. Go ahead and block me or throw some smiley emoticons at me.

This isn't the only comment like this, either.

Fair enough, I shouldn't have been absolute in my point. I'm sure Christine Michael's mother thinks the same thing too, but that doesn't mean a large majority of the people who are in the "pro-Michael" group think this. But like I said before, you're trying to build an extreme viewpoint to paint a large group.

 

[Bojang0301]

He also keeps bringing up the "people are comparing him to Adrian Peterson" thing too. Yes, the Texas A&M strength coach said he had the same athletic explosiveness as Adrian Peterson. Does that mean ANYONE is comparing them as running backs or how they will play the game? No. But the doubters will continue to bring it up because it is a good sound bite out of context to try to show hype.

From the other thread:

What I've seen of Michael is yes, I think he's every bit as talented as AD. There I said it. Go ahead and block me or throw some smiley emoticons at me.

This isn't the only comment like this, either.

C'mon, that hype of comment has been a rarity in this thread. You know that - no need to over do it.

I honestly don't see the difference between that comment and someone saying he would have automatically started last year if Lynch went down when they didn't even feel the need to have him activated for game days. Turbin would have been the starter, and until the coaches state the contrary Turbin is the #2 the way it has been for the last two years. People need to stop nay saying and hating Turbin because he's a good back that could carry the load in his own right and if he is still a superior pass protector than Michael he just might.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

He also keeps bringing up the "people are comparing him to Adrian Peterson" thing too. Yes, the Texas A&M strength coach said he had the same athletic explosiveness as Adrian Peterson. Does that mean ANYONE is comparing them as running backs or how they will play the game? No. But the doubters will continue to bring it up because it is a good sound bite out of context to try to show hype.

From the other thread:

What I've seen of Michael is yes, I think he's every bit as talented as AD. There I said it. Go ahead and block me or throw some smiley emoticons at me.

This isn't the only comment like this, either.

C'mon, that hype of comment has been a rarity in this thread. You know that - no need to over do it.

I honestly don't see the difference between that comment and someone saying he would have automatically started last year if Lynch went down when they didn't even feel the need to have him activated for game days. Turbin would have been the starter, and until the coaches state the contrary Turbin is the #2 the way it has been for the last two years. People need to stop nay saying and hating Turbin because he's a good back that could carry the load in his own right and if he is still a superior pass protector than Michael he just might.

You really don't see a difference between saying a guy would be the primary back if Lynch went down vs saying he is as good as one of the greatest RBs of all time? Really?

 

[Bojang0301]

He also keeps bringing up the "people are comparing him to Adrian Peterson" thing too. Yes, the Texas A&M strength coach said he had the same athletic explosiveness as Adrian Peterson. Does that mean ANYONE is comparing them as running backs or how they will play the game? No. But the doubters will continue to bring it up because it is a good sound bite out of context to try to show hype.

From the other thread:

What I've seen of Michael is yes, I think he's every bit as talented as AD. There I said it. Go ahead and block me or throw some smiley emoticons at me.

This isn't the only comment like this, either.

C'mon, that hype of comment has been a rarity in this thread. You know that - no need to over do it.

I honestly don't see the difference between that comment and someone saying he would have automatically started last year if Lynch went down when they didn't even feel the need to have him activated for game days. Turbin would have been the starter, and until the coaches state the contrary Turbin is the #2 the way it has been for the last two years. People need to stop nay saying and hating Turbin because he's a good back that could carry the load in his own right and if he is still a superior pass protector than Michael he just might.

You really don't see a difference between saying a guy would be the primary back if Lynch went down vs saying he is as good as one of the greatest RBs of all time? Really?

Yes I don't see a difference because in both cases people have created this scenario in their head where Michael is automatically a top 5 back and he is not and does not deserve the costs people have driven up on him. I mean it's happened in the past and it will happen in the future but his situation isn't that different than a CJ Anderson other than his draft pedigree. Yet I have to deal with schlub after schlub offering me their table scraps for Anderson while people that own Michael would just as we'll reject two 1sts for him. His market isn't correct and for some reason it drives me nuts. It really doesn't have anything to do with talent because I can see he's a good runner but as stated previously so is Turbin. He does not have as clear a path to stardom as people make out.So I'll reel it back some. I meant the Anderson thing as an injury perspective. That being said his perceived back of the future status has reached perceived hall of famer of the future status. As much as I shouldn't let that cloud my perspective it does cause me to resent players such as this.

 

[Neofight]

He also keeps bringing up the "people are comparing him to Adrian Peterson" thing too. Yes, the Texas A&M strength coach said he had the same athletic explosiveness as Adrian Peterson. Does that mean ANYONE is comparing them as running backs or how they will play the game? No. But the doubters will continue to bring it up because it is a good sound bite out of context to try to show hype.

From the other thread:

What I've seen of Michael is yes, I think he's every bit as talented as AD. There I said it. Go ahead and block me or throw some smiley emoticons at me.

This isn't the only comment like this, either.

C'mon, that hype of comment has been a rarity in this thread. You know that - no need to over do it.

I honestly don't see the difference between that comment and someone saying he would have automatically started last year if Lynch went down when they didn't even feel the need to have him activated for game days. Turbin would have been the starter, and until the coaches state the contrary Turbin is the #2 the way it has been for the last two years. People need to stop nay saying and hating Turbin because he's a good back that could carry the load in his own right and if he is still a superior pass protector than Michael he just might.

You really don't see a difference between saying a guy would be the primary back if Lynch went down vs saying he is as good as one of the greatest RBs of all time? Really?

Yes I don't see a difference because in both cases people have created this scenario in their head where Michael is automatically a top 5 back and he is not and does not deserve the costs people have driven up on him. I mean it's happened in the past and it will happen in the future but his situation isn't that different than a CJ Anderson other than his draft pedigree. Yet I have to deal with schlub after schlub offering me their table scraps for Anderson while people that own Michael would just as we'll reject two 1sts for him. His market isn't correct and for some reason it drives me nuts. It really doesn't have anything to do with talent because I can see he's a good runner but as stated previously so is Turbin. He does not have as clear a path to stardom as people make out.So I'll reel it back some. I meant the Anderson thing as an injury perspective. That being said his perceived back of the future status has reached perceived hall of famer of the future status. As much as I shouldn't let that cloud my perspective it does cause me to resent players such as this.

Why in Shiva's name would you let someone else's thoughts on another person cloud your thoughts on that person, for reasons wholly unrelated to said person's level of ability? People get hyped all the time. Some pan out, some don't. Some are much better than widely anticipated. AP was hyped; did that cause you to resent him? If your kid is praised by you as the greates kid at X, Y or Z of all time is it kosher for other parents to resent your kid?

And what is a correct market? Strange brand of bitters here.

 

[ROYALWITCHEESE]

He also keeps bringing up the "people are comparing him to Adrian Peterson" thing too. Yes, the Texas A&M strength coach said he had the same athletic explosiveness as Adrian Peterson. Does that mean ANYONE is comparing them as running backs or how they will play the game? No. But the doubters will continue to bring it up because it is a good sound bite out of context to try to show hype.

From the other thread:

What I've seen of Michael is yes, I think he's every bit as talented as AD. There I said it. Go ahead and block me or throw some smiley emoticons at me.

This isn't the only comment like this, either.

C'mon, that hype of comment has been a rarity in this thread. You know that - no need to over do it.

I honestly don't see the difference between that comment and someone saying he would have automatically started last year if Lynch went down when they didn't even feel the need to have him activated for game days. Turbin would have been the starter, and until the coaches state the contrary Turbin is the #2 the way it has been for the last two years. People need to stop nay saying and hating Turbin because he's a good back that could carry the load in his own right and if he is still a superior pass protector than Michael he just might.

You really don't see a difference between saying a guy would be the primary back if Lynch went down vs saying he is as good as one of the greatest RBs of all time? Really?

Yes I don't see a difference because in both cases people have created this scenario in their head where Michael is automatically a top 5 back and he is not and does not deserve the costs people have driven up on him. I mean it's happened in the past and it will happen in the future but his situation isn't that different than a CJ Anderson other than his draft pedigree. Yet I have to deal with schlub after schlub offering me their table scraps for Anderson while people that own Michael would just as we'll reject two 1sts for him. His market isn't correct and for some reason it drives me nuts. It really doesn't have anything to do with talent because I can see he's a good runner but as stated previously so is Turbin. He does not have as clear a path to stardom as people make out.So I'll reel it back some. I meant the Anderson thing as an injury perspective. That being said his perceived back of the future status has reached perceived hall of famer of the future status. As much as I shouldn't let that cloud my perspective it does cause me to resent players such as this.

Why in Shiva's name would you let someone else's thoughts on another person cloud your thoughts on that person, for reasons wholly unrelated to said person's level of ability? People get hyped all the time. Some pan out, some don't. Some are much better than widely anticipated. AP was hyped; did that cause you to resent him? If your kid is praised by you as the greates kid at X, Y or Z of all time is it kosher for other parents to resent your kid?

And what is a correct market? Strange brand of bitters here.

I would argue that AP's value prior to his first game was less than Michael's current value. AP was being devalued due to Chester Taylor and the clavicle injury.

 

[Neofight]

He also keeps bringing up the "people are comparing him to Adrian Peterson" thing too. Yes, the Texas A&M strength coach said he had the same athletic explosiveness as Adrian Peterson. Does that mean ANYONE is comparing them as running backs or how they will play the game? No. But the doubters will continue to bring it up because it is a good sound bite out of context to try to show hype.

From the other thread:

What I've seen of Michael is yes, I think he's every bit as talented as AD. There I said it. Go ahead and block me or throw some smiley emoticons at me.

This isn't the only comment like this, either.

C'mon, that hype of comment has been a rarity in this thread. You know that - no need to over do it.

I honestly don't see the difference between that comment and someone saying he would have automatically started last year if Lynch went down when they didn't even feel the need to have him activated for game days. Turbin would have been the starter, and until the coaches state the contrary Turbin is the #2 the way it has been for the last two years. People need to stop nay saying and hating Turbin because he's a good back that could carry the load in his own right and if he is still a superior pass protector than Michael he just might.

You really don't see a difference between saying a guy would be the primary back if Lynch went down vs saying he is as good as one of the greatest RBs of all time? Really?

Yes I don't see a difference because in both cases people have created this scenario in their head where Michael is automatically a top 5 back and he is not and does not deserve the costs people have driven up on him. I mean it's happened in the past and it will happen in the future but his situation isn't that different than a CJ Anderson other than his draft pedigree. Yet I have to deal with schlub after schlub offering me their table scraps for Anderson while people that own Michael would just as we'll reject two 1sts for him. His market isn't correct and for some reason it drives me nuts. It really doesn't have anything to do with talent because I can see he's a good runner but as stated previously so is Turbin. He does not have as clear a path to stardom as people make out.So I'll reel it back some. I meant the Anderson thing as an injury perspective. That being said his perceived back of the future status has reached perceived hall of famer of the future status. As much as I shouldn't let that cloud my perspective it does cause me to resent players such as this.

Why in Shiva's name would you let someone else's thoughts on another person cloud your thoughts on that person, for reasons wholly unrelated to said person's level of ability? People get hyped all the time. Some pan out, some don't. Some are much better than widely anticipated. AP was hyped; did that cause you to resent him? If your kid is praised by you as the greates kid at X, Y or Z of all time is it kosher for other parents to resent your kid?

And what is a correct market? Strange brand of bitters here.

I would argue that AP's value prior to his first game was less than Michael's current value. AP was being devalued due to Chester Taylor and the clavicle injury.

That's interesting, man, that's interesting. Can we hear some more of this argument? Value is a different beast.But who was more hyped (and most resented)?

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I would argue that AP's value prior to his first game was less than Michael's current value. AP was being devalued due to Chester Taylor and the clavicle injury.

That's interesting, man, that's interesting. Can we hear some more of this argument? Value is a different beast.But who was more hyped (and most resented)?

Peterson's ADP headed into his rookie year, according to MFL

Redraft ADP: 48 (4th round)

Dynasty ADP: 27 (3rd round)

Those both seem lower than I remember, but that's what MFL says.

 

[Dez]

In 2007 you had Peterson and Calvin pretty much the top 2 rookie picks probably all over the place with Peterson going #1 in most of them.

Last year I landed Michael at 2.06 in my rookie draft.

I wasn't paying attention to startups in 2007 so no clue where AP was going back then.

Last year in 3 startups I still have data for Michael went at 9.11, 10.5 and 13.3

Certainly doesn't appear to have been too much hype for Michael at this time last year based on those numbers vs the hype around Peterson when he came out.

 

[Neofight]

I would argue that AP's value prior to his first game was less than Michael's current value. AP was being devalued due to Chester Taylor and the clavicle injury.

That's interesting, man, that's interesting. Can we hear some more of this argument? Value is a different beast.But who was more hyped (and most resented)?

Peterson's ADP headed into his rookie year, according to MFL

Redraft ADP: 48 (4th round)

Dynasty ADP: 27 (3rd round)

Those both seem lower than I remember, but that's what MFL says.

I remember him a bit higher in my leagues, but I'd have to look it up. That's damn good value though. I definitely remember him being hyped plenty. Jim Brown comparison's were flying on some boards. Turns out that hype was fairly accurate. *for the record, I have never resented AP (except that one championship...)

 

[ROYALWITCHEESE]

In 2007 you had Peterson and Calvin pretty much the top 2 rookie picks probably all over the place with Peterson going #1 in most of them.

Last year I landed Michael at 2.06 in my rookie draft.

I wasn't paying attention to startups in 2007 so no clue where AP was going back then.

Last year in 3 startups I still have data for Michael went at 9.11, 10.5 and 13.3

Certainly doesn't appear to have been too much hype for Michael at this time last year based on those numbers vs the hype around Peterson when he came out.

I was referring to Michael's current value, as compared to AP's before he took over as starter.

 

[Chaka]

Has there ever been a RB who has done less in the NFL that has generated more hype on these boards than this guy?

With all this build up he could be the next Emmitt Smith and he would still disappoint his pimps and haters.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Unfortunately it's tough to find rankings from back then, but I did manage to scrounge up a message board post that was discussing FBG's 2007 dynasty rankings back then and they mentioned that Peterson was ranked 8th overall in them.

Christine Michael is 57th overall in their current rankings.

 

[Neofight]

Unfortunately it's tough to find rankings from back then, but I did manage to scrounge up a message board post that was discussing FBG's 2007 dynasty rankings back then and they mentioned that Peterson was ranked 8th overall in them.

Christine Michael is 57th overall in their current rankings.

That seems more like it.

 

[ROYALWITCHEESE]

Unfortunately it's tough to find rankings from back then, but I did manage to scrounge up a message board post that was discussing FBG's 2007 dynasty rankings back then and they mentioned that Peterson was ranked 8th overall in them.

Christine Michael is 57th overall in their current rankings.

Good info. That's lower than I would expect based on some of the trade offers rejected and stat predictions I've seen in forums. I doubt you could get him straight up for someone like Vereen who is ranked and drafted markedly higher.

 

[Dez]

Has there ever been a RB who has done less in the NFL that has generated more hype on these boards than this guy?

With all this build up he could be the next Emmitt Smith and he would still disappoint his pimps and haters.

Lamar Miller and David Wilson come to mind.

Last year a guy in my league traded 2 1st and 3 2nd for Lamar Miller at this time last year. I was stupid enough to offer the 1.01 rookie pick for Miller last year and thankfully he said "There is no one in this draft worth Lamar Miller"

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Unfortunately it's tough to find rankings from back then, but I did manage to scrounge up a message board post that was discussing FBG's 2007 dynasty rankings back then and they mentioned that Peterson was ranked 8th overall in them.

Christine Michael is 57th overall in their current rankings.

Good info. That's lower than I would expect based on some of the trade offers rejected and stat predictions I've seen in forums. I doubt you could get him straight up for someone like Vereen who is ranked and drafted markedly higher.

I have a skewed perspective, because nobody in my league seems interested in Michael at all. Can't get even a sniff of interest.

 

[ghostguy123]

Ok, gotcha.

I also agree if Lynch went down, Michael would have become the starter right away.

Not if he'd already been scratched for that week. Because he was inactive most weeks.

Maybe, just maybe, the following week.

 

[Dez]

Charles sat behind Larry Johnson for a year and a half and then boom since mid 2009 he has been one of the top backs in the league. Anyone who traded Charles is still regretting it...ya that's me. Michael could be the same deal.

In 2009 1 day before Charles became the starter I sent him packing for Boldin in what my league called "a horrible rip off trade" it took only 1 day for me to regret that as Charles went for 100+ and a TD for like 8 straight weeks to close the season.

The rest is history as they say. Anyone who trades away Michael at this time could face the same disappointment in a year or so.

 

[ghostguy123]

Has there ever been a RB who has done less in the NFL that has generated more hype on these boards than this guy?

With all this build up he could be the next Emmitt Smith and he would still disappoint his pimps and haters.

Yes. David Wilson and lamar miller. And those guys were going much higher than michael now.

 

[ghostguy123]

Charles sat behind Larry Johnson for a year and a half and then boom since mid 2009 he has been one of the top backs in the league. Anyone who traded Charles is still regretting it...ya that's me. Michael could be the same deal.

In 2009 1 day before Charles became the starter I sent him packing for Boldin in what my league called "a horrible rip off trade" it took only 1 day for me to regret that as Charles went for 100+ and a TD for like 8 straight weeks to close the season.

The rest is history as they say. Anyone who trades away Michael at this time could face the same disappointment in a year or so.

Could could could. Anything COULD happen.

Me and Dez in a league have michael. Someone offered us Harvin for him. I say we take the deal. Cmon Dez.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Unfortunately it's tough to find rankings from back then, but I did manage to scrounge up a message board post that was discussing FBG's 2007 dynasty rankings back then and they mentioned that Peterson was ranked 8th overall in them.

Christine Michael is 57th overall in their current rankings.

Good info. That's lower than I would expect based on some of the trade offers rejected and stat predictions I've seen in forums. I doubt you could get him straight up for someone like Vereen who is ranked and drafted markedly higher.

Yeah I don't think offseason rankings are always a good indication of a guy's true value and I think Michael is one of those players that falls into that category. Those rankings have him behind Zac Stacy and there is no way That Zac Stacy is commanding more in trades than Christine Michael. He's definitely fetching more than 57th overall value.

That said, as highly valued as he is he's certainly not fetching #8 overall dynasty value, which would be like people trading him straight up for Jimmy Graham.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Has there ever been a RB who has done less in the NFL that has generated more hype on these boards than this guy?

With all this build up he could be the next Emmitt Smith and he would still disappoint his pimps and haters.

Lamar Miller and David Wilson come to mind.

Last year a guy in my league traded 2 1st and 3 2nd for Lamar Miller at this time last year. I was stupid enough to offer the 1.01 rookie pick for Miller last year and thankfully he said "There is no one in this draft worth Lamar Miller"

I don't think it's all that uncommon for young RBs that have done little (like Wilson and Miller) to be mega-hyped. I also don't think it's all that uncommon for young RBs that are still a ways off from starting (Stewart and Turner) to be mega hyped.

What IS rare is for a guy that has both done little and is still at least a year away from starting to be mega hyped. The only really good comp I can think of there is Larry Johnson. He had almost identical rookie stats to Michael (20 carries at 4.3ypc) as the 3rd stringer and was entering year two still behind a consensus top 2 fantasy RB who was 28 years old, but people still coveted Johnson highly.

 

[ghostguy123]

Has there ever been a RB who has done less in the NFL that has generated more hype on these boards than this guy?

With all this build up he could be the next Emmitt Smith and he would still disappoint his pimps and haters.

Lamar Miller and David Wilson come to mind.

Last year a guy in my league traded 2 1st and 3 2nd for Lamar Miller at this time last year. I was stupid enough to offer the 1.01 rookie pick for Miller last year and thankfully he said "There is no one in this draft worth Lamar Miller"

What IS rare is for a guy that has both done little and is still at least a year away from starting to be mega hyped.

Some people don't view waiting one year to be some death sentence like others do.

Lot of people I see run their teams like redraft teams, and year in year out they are the worst teams because of it.

 

[lbouchard]

Has there ever been a RB who has done less in the NFL that has generated more hype on these boards than this guy?

With all this build up he could be the next Emmitt Smith and he would still disappoint his pimps and haters.

Yes. David Wilson and lamar miller. And those guys were going much higher than michael now.

Not really-both those guys had a bigger sample size than Michael. They definitely didn't do less. I thought that both were being overhyped last year so I didn't buy them. However, I would say that as prospects after one year in the NFL, David Wilson was a more attractive asset than Michael is. First round pedigree, actually flashed his rookie season, and had an open path to a starting job. Michael has pretty much the opposite. Obviously things didn't work out with Wilson, maybe (probably?) they will with Michael.

 

[ghostguy123]

Has there ever been a RB who has done less in the NFL that has generated more hype on these boards than this guy?

With all this build up he could be the next Emmitt Smith and he would still disappoint his pimps and haters.

Yes. David Wilson and lamar miller. And those guys were going much higher than michael now.

Not really-both those guys had a bigger sample size than Michael. They definitely didn't do less. I thought that both were being overhyped last year so I didn't buy them. However, I would say that as prospects after one year in the NFL, David Wilson was a more attractive asset than Michael is. First round pedigree, actually flashed his rookie season, and had an open path to a starting job. Michael has pretty much the opposite. Obviously things didn't work out with Wilson, maybe (probably?) they will with Michael.

Ok. Any rookie. How is that?

 

[ghostguy123]

Cmon Michael lovers/haters........who ya take in 12 team PPR (FFPC), Michael or Harvin

 

[slackjawedyokel]

Cmon Michael lovers/haters........who ya take in 12 team PPR (FFPC), Michael or Harvin

Michael... because the odds of them playing 16 games are about the same.

 

[ghostguy123]

Cmon Michael lovers/haters........who ya take in 12 team PPR (FFPC), Michael or Harvin

Michael... because the odds of them playing 16 games are about the same.

Nah. Odds favor Michael. He played more last year

 

[Donnybrook]

Cmon Michael lovers/haters........who ya take in 12 team PPR (FFPC), Michael or Harvin

Harvin in redraft no doubt.

Dynasty it i closer but I would go with Harvin. I have both and turned down the 1.04 rookie to keep Michael.