FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Christine Michael (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Black
- Start date
- Status
The big difference there was that Larry Johnson was coming off of one of the better RB seasons in college football history.
Bojang0301
Omar4Heisman
PPR definitely Harvin. I know you're taking the gamble he stays healthy but two years ago he was top 6 in points per game and in the Super Bowl you saw Seattle wanted to use him all over and get him several touches per game had he not been hurt throughout the year.
I would agree.
Assuming Lynch is still in the picture, Michael is what a 7th-10th round gamble on a high upside backup? 7th-8th is about where Tate and Pierce were going last year. Harvin is probably worth a 4th-6th.
ETA: Read it as re-draft, in dynasty think Michael might be the play if only because you could sell him for a ransom once he is the presumed starter.
Last edited by a moderator:
slackjawedyokel
Footballguy
Redraft is Harvin, but dyno is Michael.
cstu
Footballguy
I don't remember this kind of hype, but Michael Turner (20 carries at 5.2 YPC) comes to mind, but like Larry Johnson he had huge production in college.
I think he's more comparable to Michael since he was a 5th round pick and Michael was the last pick of the 2nd while Johnson was 1st round pick.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bojang0301
Omar4Heisman
People were hugely disappointed in LJ. I drafted him early and had several people try to pry him cheap from me when Vermeil talked about his immaturity and it looked like he was on the fringes in KC. LJ is not a good comp with Michael in terms of hype. Situation is slightly similar though. Great offense with good OLine where any average RB could come in and do well and a good RB could be a top 3 stud.
Sabertooth
Footballguy
Has anyone in this thread actually broken down Michael as a player in either college or the NFL? I was looking at just his college stats and he never had more than 166 carries in a season. He also didn't catch the ball much at all. In fact since high school he's caught a total of only 47 passes in games. That's since 2009.
Lynch, while not exactly Darren Sproles, is a pretty good receiver out of the backfield, grabbing 36 balls last season.
Michael's college production is suspect as well, he never topped 1000 combined yards in a season. To whit, there were 21 backs in the NFL last season who topped Michael's best year from college. Bilal Powell and Danny Woodhead to name a few. And that's cherry picking Michael's best college career. So I just don't see it with him to be honest.
I wouldn't surprise me if Spencer Ware became the guy over both Michael and Turbin. Check that, it would mildly surprise me but it wouldn't shock me. Michael reminds me of the hype the Jonathan Stewart got up until recent years. He just never came through. Also Kevan Barlow is another one. Just never panned out despite Bill Walsh saying he was great. People have stopped trying to have productive conversations about Michael and this post is an attempt to steer this thread back into that. Unfortunately there just isn't any production to discuss with Michael so it's pure speculation. Makes it tough.
Lynch, while not exactly Darren Sproles, is a pretty good receiver out of the backfield, grabbing 36 balls last season.
Michael's college production is suspect as well, he never topped 1000 combined yards in a season. To whit, there were 21 backs in the NFL last season who topped Michael's best year from college. Bilal Powell and Danny Woodhead to name a few. And that's cherry picking Michael's best college career. So I just don't see it with him to be honest.
- Weak production his whole career
- Couldn't get on the field as a rookie
- Doesn't catch passes
- Injury history
- Character issues
I wouldn't surprise me if Spencer Ware became the guy over both Michael and Turbin. Check that, it would mildly surprise me but it wouldn't shock me. Michael reminds me of the hype the Jonathan Stewart got up until recent years. He just never came through. Also Kevan Barlow is another one. Just never panned out despite Bill Walsh saying he was great. People have stopped trying to have productive conversations about Michael and this post is an attempt to steer this thread back into that. Unfortunately there just isn't any production to discuss with Michael so it's pure speculation. Makes it tough.
And Stewart was pulling down 2nd round start-up value (1st in some cases?) at one point. So what you are saying is that Michael has a ton of room to increase his value? Sweet.
ROYALWITCHEESE
Footballguy
ConnSKINS26
Footballguy
This dynamic has always interested the hell out of me. Two guys, who both know their ####, and have their own separate favorite sleepers, prospects, etc. And you both have equal skin in the game, and a decent amount of scratch on the line at that. And you must face decisions like this all the time.
How do you make decisions? How do you avoid the I told you so's when you pass on a trade one wanted and later it turns out it would have been the right call?
Sabertooth
Footballguy
Not trolling at all. The hype for this guy is way out of whack. Maybe the worst I've ever seen.
Sabertooth
Footballguy
Yes he did when he was in his first few seasons. But the hype lasted for years and years. In fact the Stewart hype was at least warranted. Michael has really ever done anything on any level. He had a great combine. That's it.
biju
Footballguy
I agree, I didn't think you were trolling. I just thought this thread had already covered everything you brought up...two or three times.
I'm pro-Michael but the level of certainty from both sides is what is really out of whack. I see reason to legitimately be excited about the opportunity presented to him, and also the reason to be cautiously optimistic instead of in full blown celebration mode. But since internet arguments have to be extreme this is why we have a 43 page thread on a backup.
I have Stewart maxing out at 15 and 18 in PPR if my spreadsheet is correct. But Stewart is an interesting if not entirely similar comparison. Let's play some compare/contrast based on Stewart's characteristics.
Has Michael/does Michael....
Perception as physically talented RB that just needs an opportunity? Yes
Has he ever had a top 30 season to this point? No
Was he a 1st round pick? No
Workhorse in college? No
Comparing measurables (Stewart/Michael)
Weight: 235/220
40: 4.46/4.54
Broad Jump: 128"/125"
Vertical Jump: 36.5"/43"
Michael also had 90th percentile+ scores on 20 yard shuttle and 3 cone, whereas we don't have combine data for Stewart.
So based on qualitative and quantitative factors, Michael is probably a worse RB prospect than Stewart was. But remember, Stewart was commanding 2nd round start-up value DESPITE the fact he never had the starting RB job to himself.
So the questions that I think are relevant:
1) If Michael gets the starting RB job in the next 2 years (i.e. Lynch no longer with team and Michael is the presumed starter). What type of start-up value would he demand?
2) What are the odds that Michael becomes the presumed starter in the next 2 years?
On 1, I would say at least 2nd-3rd round start-up value that would also be true of trade market (i.e. liquid asset).
2 is tougher to gauge, but I would throw out 60%-70% as my estimate. Putting those 2 together, that is probably worth somewhere between a 4th-6th round start-up pick based on my answers to those questions.
Could he bust? Sure, but that discussion is less interesting to me as all outcomes are probabilistic. I think any evaluation of his dynasty prospects needs to answer those 2 main questions.
ROYALWITCHEESE
Footballguy
Agreed. I think this is at least partially a product of the dodobirdization (I just made that up) of the workhorse RB. Fantasy footballers are so starved for the next 3 down 350 touch stud, they blow up every guy with good measurables.
Donnybrook
Footballguy
You must have missed the Mark Ingram going to the Hall of fame thread. His hype was surpassed by Trent Richardson. Greg Cossell called Trent Richardson "the best back to come out since Adrian Peterson" and the best player in the entire 2012 draft.
Last edited by a moderator:
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
There are no stats, numbers, or figures that will make Michael look like the next big thing, or even a worthwhile asset. With Michael, the value people place on him comes 100% from the eyeball test. With the limited time he's been out there he's shown phenomenal flashes. He has agility and cutting ability that just should not be possible in his body type. He cuts like Shady but has the body type of Ladainian Tomlinson.
People are swinging for the fences here. A guy like Turbin is a nice, safe player who's pass blocking won't keep him off the field and who can be a solid complimentary player if that ever amounts to him getting the starting job. With Michael, people are swinging for the fences. He has an injury history, off the field issues, and very limited production at any level. That's not news to people that are high on Michael. But people see him run and they think "wow, if he ever gets the starting job...". That's fine, some people like playing it safe and some like swinging for the fences. Swinging for a bigger fence with a higher initial investment is a calculated risk that some people are willing to take and some aren't. To shoot down a different approach to dynasty, especially when it has paid off for some people in the past, with hyperbole like he has shown nothing (statistically, sure, but he's shown plenty of what he could be if he can get and stay on the field) or that he is the most overhyped player ever or that this is the worst thread ever is just childish.
If anything, it's hyperbole like that that has made this thread difficult to read. We don't need to hear that he's never put up big numbers in the past over and over and over and over again. That's a well known fact that barely even bares mentioning because everyone that is high on Michael already knew that going in. You're not going to change their mind by telling them something that they already know.
I think even the doubters have that little part in the back of their mind where they see the upside with Michael. It's almost like they're trying to convince themselves with these discussions. For instance Saber, I find it extremely odd that you essentially called Michael the most overhyped player in history, yet you choose to keep him on your roster instead of the immense value you could get out of his hype in return. You say you value him the same as Franklin, Bryce Brown, and Ka"Deem Carey yet you could get all three of those guys and more for Michael alone. If you really think he's no different than any of those guys then why not trade him for a handful of those type of players/picks and quadruple your longshots at no cost to yourself? You've made up this excuse that you're trying to "lock down the SF and Sea running games" but I find it completely implausible that you'd reject an offer of Ryan Mathews for Lattimore or Turbin, yet that's the kind of value you could get out of Michael and you choose not to.
What I've seen in these 43 pages is a lot of Michael supporters talking about what he COULD possibly be, with a lot of the anti-Michael crowd taking the much more hard and fast stance on what he WON'T be.
People are swinging for the fences here. A guy like Turbin is a nice, safe player who's pass blocking won't keep him off the field and who can be a solid complimentary player if that ever amounts to him getting the starting job. With Michael, people are swinging for the fences. He has an injury history, off the field issues, and very limited production at any level. That's not news to people that are high on Michael. But people see him run and they think "wow, if he ever gets the starting job...". That's fine, some people like playing it safe and some like swinging for the fences. Swinging for a bigger fence with a higher initial investment is a calculated risk that some people are willing to take and some aren't. To shoot down a different approach to dynasty, especially when it has paid off for some people in the past, with hyperbole like he has shown nothing (statistically, sure, but he's shown plenty of what he could be if he can get and stay on the field) or that he is the most overhyped player ever or that this is the worst thread ever is just childish.
If anything, it's hyperbole like that that has made this thread difficult to read. We don't need to hear that he's never put up big numbers in the past over and over and over and over again. That's a well known fact that barely even bares mentioning because everyone that is high on Michael already knew that going in. You're not going to change their mind by telling them something that they already know.
I think even the doubters have that little part in the back of their mind where they see the upside with Michael. It's almost like they're trying to convince themselves with these discussions. For instance Saber, I find it extremely odd that you essentially called Michael the most overhyped player in history, yet you choose to keep him on your roster instead of the immense value you could get out of his hype in return. You say you value him the same as Franklin, Bryce Brown, and Ka"Deem Carey yet you could get all three of those guys and more for Michael alone. If you really think he's no different than any of those guys then why not trade him for a handful of those type of players/picks and quadruple your longshots at no cost to yourself? You've made up this excuse that you're trying to "lock down the SF and Sea running games" but I find it completely implausible that you'd reject an offer of Ryan Mathews for Lattimore or Turbin, yet that's the kind of value you could get out of Michael and you choose not to.
What I've seen in these 43 pages is a lot of Michael supporters talking about what he COULD possibly be, with a lot of the anti-Michael crowd taking the much more hard and fast stance on what he WON'T be.
cstu
Footballguy
Considering owners I have talked to value him as a top 5 dynasty RB right now, I don't think it's childish at all to say he's the most hyped player ever.
He does pass the eyeball and looks like a stud, but he's currently valued as if he's already a Pro Bowl player. Even Trent Richardson (the most hyped RB since Peterson) was only ranked #9 going into his rookie year and he had a lock on a starting job.
Dez
Footballguy
You must have missed the hype for Lamar Miller and David Wilson last year then.
Seen Miller and Wilson going as high as a 2nd round startup pick and people trading gobs of picks and players for them.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dez
Footballguy
Yet in 6 startup drafts in the DFWC in May he was the 20th RB off the board the hype is so out of control!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dez
Footballguy
Those who snooze sometimes lose.
When Shaun Alexander was a rookie he had no starting job lined up, Same for Duece McAlister, Larry Johnson also had to sit a few years and then it was Charles sitting for a year and a half behind Larry Johnson. Going into 2009 for Charles is similar to going into 2014 for Michael. A stud was sitting ahead of him on the depth chart but the time clock was fading for that stud.
Maybe he is the next Stewart, Lamar Miller, David Wilson or maybe he is the next big thing.
Either you believe or you don't believe in those guys back then and this guy now. No answer is right or wrong. Everyone has their own belief. In a year or two 50% of the people will be saying I told you so on this thread 1 way or another.
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
I pretty much only look at stats, numbers and figures and he's been a target of mine since the combine numbers were finanlized. Pre-hype.
The only other player with his same combination of measurables is LT. They're damn near identical with the exception that LT came into the league with a ridiculous NCAA volume and no character questions.
To be sure those are two big differences, but since I'm in the FF business and not the business of paying guys millions of dollars the risk/reward equation is also completely different. I mostly got him for a late first or early second last year, but even today his price is really not very high (RB15-20 in startups) since career VBD is an exponential curve at the high end.
If he hits he'll put up 5-10x (wild ### guess) the total value of the other guys in the RB15-20 range. So I only need a 10-20% chance that he pans out (which is much lower than I believe his true chances are). I'm more than happy to take that shot on a guy who comes out of college with NFL-quality vision and extraordinary physical tools, and lands in an ideal situation.
Last edited by a moderator:
ROYALWITCHEESE
Footballguy
Does he really have good vision? I think that debatable. Wasn't one of his question marks coming out vision?
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
His rushing efficiency numbers are right in line with LT's and well into the safe zone by my measure. His receiving numbers are low, but (oddly) so were LT's.
ConnSKINS26
Footballguy
That doesn't really make sense, since Tate was drafted into a starting role that Foster stole.
The Man With No Name
Footballguy
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
The problem with that is that Tate had a much larger NCAA volume and no obvious character problems or injury history. So Tate's draft position was more about him as a football player than Michael's was. Tate was more of a known quantity.
Last edited by a moderator:
cstu
Footballguy
Before tearing his ACL in 2011 he looked great but he was nowhere close to that in 2012.
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Right. So his efficiency numbers are understated if anything. Unless you believe he'll never be fully recovered from it?
cstu
Footballguy
IIRC there was a big debate between Foster vs. Tate right after the draft. Tate had loads of talent but Foster averaged 4.8 YPC the year before.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
ghostguy123
Footballguy
Sabertooth
Footballguy
Knowshon Moreno and Monte Ball beg to differ.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
Thanks for pointing out a couple examples. SOmething you can do with ANY statement.Sabertooth said:
Over the long haul, I will take talent over opportunity in dynasty. If we are talking redraft, sure, situation is more important.
How's Moreno look right now?
ghostguy123
Footballguy
Well, I officially don't own Michael in any league now.
Yet amazingly, I still think he is worth a lot and easily take him as the 2nd RB out of this rookie class (if not the first), and in the top 5 overall of the rookie crop.
Yet amazingly, I still think he is worth a lot and easily take him as the 2nd RB out of this rookie class (if not the first), and in the top 5 overall of the rookie crop.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
Yeah, if you are always and ONLY going after RBs that have a starting job lined up that year, you are going to deplete the value of your team pretty quick and suck for a long, long time.Dez said:
Almost every top 15 in the league pretty much at any point in time was NOT a starter right away.
EBF
Footballguy
Foster was basically an unknown at that point. Maybe the team felt that he would be great, but taking Tate in the 2nd seems like a pretty strong hedge. Saying Foster was the presumptive guy seems like revisionist history to me, as I remember a lot of folks spending top 5-6 rookie picks on Tate that year.
As a side note, the mid-firsts in that rookie draft absolutely sucked. Bradford, Hardesty, B Tate, Benn, G Tate, Gresham. Oy.
As a side note, the mid-firsts in that rookie draft absolutely sucked. Bradford, Hardesty, B Tate, Benn, G Tate, Gresham. Oy.
Last edited by a moderator:
ROYALWITCHEESE
Footballguy
Shanahanigans
Footballguy
I think most people thought of it as Tate's job after the draft, and then after he went down with the leg injury Foster was able to cement the job. We held our draft the day of Foster's breakout Week 3 preseason game, and he still went #5 overall in our draft while Tate went in the mid-to-late- second.
Last edited by a moderator:
cstu
Footballguy
Foster actually started the first preseason game against the Cardinals where Tate broke his leg. He had 4 carries for 31 yards (7.8 YPC) and Tate came in at the end of the 2nd half.
cstu
Footballguy
Bojang0301
Omar4Heisman
This thread is like heroin. It's stupid but I keep coming back to it.
ptsteelers
Footballguy
Absolutely. And I still face-palm when I think of forcing myself to draft Benn with the 7th overall instead of just trading out for a 1st the following year. I didn't like it, but I did it. Learned from it though (For now ... until next time. HA).
Okay, sorry for the interruption. Please continue at your leisure, guys.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
How many of these guys were starters right away:
Mccoy
Forte
Charles
Moreno
Lynch
Murray
Peterson
Bush
Lacy
CHris Johnson
Fred Jackso
Bernard
Levion Bell
Zach Stacy
Several of them did start right away, but that was not known in June of that year. How many fo those guys were drafted and the whole world knew they were starting week 1?
And how many talented guys get passed up for guys like Wali Lundy, Daniel Thomas...............................Because they are projected to start.
- Status
