Christine Michael (1 Viewer)

[Chaka]

Again I want to be very clear that I am not saying I think Michael will fail I think he can be a starting caliber RB but I am really trying to understand why people are saying he will be special if/when he gets a chance to start. And it is surprising to me that people think he will be worth more to Seattle than a 29 year old proven RB. Look at the numbers 29 is not a death knell for RBs, 32 maybe but not 29.

 

[valhallan]

Not sure why people are sabertooth so hard.

I'm just having a conversation. As wdcrob said, it's dynasty 101 to convert an asset you think is overvalued.Unless, of course, you're hoping for the same thing the rest of us are.

It seems more like you and werdnoynek are trying to bait him into agreeing with your position that he will be a special back if he ever gets the opportunity to start.But since he seems to be in a keeper/dyansty and has Lynch and Turbin then he doesn't need to be special to make it prudent to keep him.

He made a post outside of the conversation flow to declare he thinks Michael is 'just a guy' on par with other third stringers across the league. How is it that those who ask him why not trade Michael are 'baiting' him? He knew he'd spark a response and really, the response has been cordial.At the end of the day, his position to keep Michael despite the increase in perceived value he could get in trade only makes sense if he thinks Michael can produce as well as many expect. It simply doesn't make sense to hold a guy you think is being overvalued.

 

[ghostguy123]

Why can't they keep him? He's their best player on offense alongside Wilson. They can keep him of they want to. If isn't like he costs 10m per year. Running backs don't make squat. Keeping him past this season would not be cost prohibitive.

Probably because they have younger and more important players to sign rather than keeping a 29 year old RB who will have been beat to hell for several years in a row who MIGHT give them one more really good year.

I dont know a good GM who will let a an excellent young-younginsh guy walk and keep a RB with his resume and cost.

A 29 year old Lynch is going to be more replaceable than some of you seem to think he is

That's the thing though, there are very few backs who have done what Lynch has done at such a high level over these three years. No excuses, just production. He's the kind of elite talent that any smart GM would run into the ground on 1 - 2 year deals until he stops being elite.

pretty sure that is what 2014 is for. Used and abused, then cut and re-sign Wilson and several defenders to big deals.

 

[ghostguy123]

Why can't they keep him? He's their best player on offense alongside Wilson. They can keep him of they want to. If isn't like he costs 10m per year. Running backs don't make squat. Keeping him past this season would not be cost prohibitive.

Probably because they have younger and more important players to sign rather than keeping a 29 year old RB who will have been beat to hell for several years in a row who MIGHT give them one more really good year.

I dont know a good GM who will let a an excellent young-younginsh guy walk and keep a RB with his resume and cost.

A 29 year old Lynch is going to be more replaceable than some of you seem to think he is

So what about his resume leads you to that conclusion?

old, used and abusedm costly, need to re-sign more important players.

His resume is great. So is Ladanian Tomlinson, wanna sign him? Obviously exaggerating there, but the idea is to re-sign guys who will be good for you for a while, not let them go for a guy who MAYBE has a year left.

 

[ghostguy123]

Again I want to be very clear that I am not saying I think Michael will fail I think he can be a starting caliber RB but I am really trying to understand why people are saying he will be special if/when he gets a chance to start. And it is surprising to me that people think he will be worth more to Seattle than a 29 year old proven RB. Look at the numbers 29 is not a death knell for RBs, 32 maybe but not 29.

very good talent, great situation, and a situation that looks like it will be great for a while.

 

[ghostguy123]

Again I want to be very clear that I am not saying I think Michael will fail I think he can be a starting caliber RB but I am really trying to understand why people are saying he will be special if/when he gets a chance to start. And it is surprising to me that people think he will be worth more to Seattle than a 29 year old proven RB. Look at the numbers 29 is not a death knell for RBs, 32 maybe but not 29.

It isnt about whether or not they think Lynch is important to the team, or whether or not they think he is better than Michael.

This should be cleared up for some people in the offseaon when they start signing their good young players to extensions.

 

[ghostguy123]

But also to be clear, if people in your dynasty leagues are offering up many of the players being taken near the same spot as Michael in startups, I would jump at it in a lot of cases.

Michael is definitely overvalued, but he is also definitely valuable.

 

[Chaka]

Not sure why people are sabertooth so hard.

I'm just having a conversation. As wdcrob said, it's dynasty 101 to convert an asset you think is overvalued.Unless, of course, you're hoping for the same thing the rest of us are.

It seems more like you and werdnoynek are trying to bait him into agreeing with your position that he will be a special back if he ever gets the opportunity to start.But since he seems to be in a keeper/dyansty and has Lynch and Turbin then he doesn't need to be special to make it prudent to keep him.

He made a post outside of the conversation flow to declare he thinks Michael is 'just a guy' on par with other third stringers across the league. How is it that those who ask him why not trade Michael are 'baiting' him? He knew he'd spark a response and really, the response has been cordial.At the end of the day, his position to keep Michael despite the increase in perceived value he could get in trade only makes sense if he thinks Michael can produce as well as many expect. It simply doesn't make sense to hold a guy you think is being overvalued.

If you owned Michael and not Lynch and Turbin then you might have a point, but in this situation it makes sense to hold onto him. Unless there is someone like you who would be willing to send a legit starter for Michael then there is far more value to him having the Seattle run game on lockdown.

Let me ask you this, since you clearly value Michael which RBs would you be willing to give up for him? Anyone who is likely to get a lot of touches this season? What about next season?

 

[Chaka]

Why can't they keep him? He's their best player on offense alongside Wilson. They can keep him of they want to. If isn't like he costs 10m per year. Running backs don't make squat. Keeping him past this season would not be cost prohibitive.

Probably because they have younger and more important players to sign rather than keeping a 29 year old RB who will have been beat to hell for several years in a row who MIGHT give them one more really good year.

I dont know a good GM who will let a an excellent young-younginsh guy walk and keep a RB with his resume and cost.

A 29 year old Lynch is going to be more replaceable than some of you seem to think he is

So what about his resume leads you to that conclusion?

old, used and abusedm costly, need to re-sign more important players.

His resume is great. So is Ladanian Tomlinson, wanna sign him? Obviously exaggerating there, but the idea is to re-sign guys who will be good for you for a while, not let them go for a guy who MAYBE has a year left.

I'm confused, were you talking about Michael's resume? If so what about his resume makes you think he should be valued above a 29 year old proven high end RB?

 

[Chaka]

Again I want to be very clear that I am not saying I think Michael will fail I think he can be a starting caliber RB but I am really trying to understand why people are saying he will be special if/when he gets a chance to start. And it is surprising to me that people think he will be worth more to Seattle than a 29 year old proven RB. Look at the numbers 29 is not a death knell for RBs, 32 maybe but not 29.

very good talent, great situation, and a situation that looks like it will be great for a while.

Fair enough but I constantly hear people talking about his talent when, despite being healthy, he was second fiddle to to Ben Malena in his final season at A&M and the only thing he has done on the NFL level is produce against mostly future SkyCaps and UPS drivers.

I understand that his measurables at the combine were excellent but there are a ton of workout warriors who fail to pan out at the NFL level.

And why is his situation great? Turbin showed a lot more on both the college and NFL level, that is a statement of fact not conjecture. I understand that Michael's measurables are superior but that only goes so far to determining success. So if Lynch goes down this year, or is off the team next year it doesn't seem like a guarantee that Michael will automatically supplant Turbin as the starter.

I like Michael's measurables but I am not seeing where the absolute confidence in his success is coming from.

 

[Chaka]

Again I want to be very clear that I am not saying I think Michael will fail I think he can be a starting caliber RB but I am really trying to understand why people are saying he will be special if/when he gets a chance to start. And it is surprising to me that people think he will be worth more to Seattle than a 29 year old proven RB. Look at the numbers 29 is not a death knell for RBs, 32 maybe but not 29.

It isnt about whether or not they think Lynch is important to the team, or whether or not they think he is better than Michael.

This should be cleared up for some people in the offseaon when they start signing their good young players to extensions.

It's not? Seems like many are banking on the hope that Lynch leaves and Michael stays. Could happen but I am not certain why people perceive that as a forgone conclusion.

 

[Chaka]

Michael is definitely overvalued, but he is also definitely valuable.

This I definitely agree with.

 

[ghostguy123]

Why can't they keep him? He's their best player on offense alongside Wilson. They can keep him of they want to. If isn't like he costs 10m per year. Running backs don't make squat. Keeping him past this season would not be cost prohibitive.

Probably because they have younger and more important players to sign rather than keeping a 29 year old RB who will have been beat to hell for several years in a row who MIGHT give them one more really good year.

I dont know a good GM who will let a an excellent young-younginsh guy walk and keep a RB with his resume and cost.

A 29 year old Lynch is going to be more replaceable than some of you seem to think he is

So what about his resume leads you to that conclusion?

old, used and abusedm costly, need to re-sign more important players.

His resume is great. So is Ladanian Tomlinson, wanna sign him? Obviously exaggerating there, but the idea is to re-sign guys who will be good for you for a while, not let them go for a guy who MAYBE has a year left.

I'm confused, were you talking about Michael's resume? If so what about his resume makes you think he should be valued above a 29 year old proven high end RB?

Michaels resume doesnt need to be better.

They need to view Michael plus re-signing another integral player (likely on defense) as better for 2015 and beyond than Lynch.

I think they do. I am 99% sure they do.

Lot can happen this year, but if the Seattle GM had to make a move a year in advance, I am pretty confident he chooses to let Lynch walk and re-sign a different player while Michael takes over.

This isnt some office job where a resume holds a ton of importance. Generally the longer an NFL RBs resume is................the sooner the END is. Lynch is a very good (not great) talent IMO. Do they let Lynch MAYBE play ONE more year for them and let another good player walk because of it??

Saying no. But thats just me.

 

[valhallan]

Not sure why people are sabertooth so hard.

I'm just having a conversation. As wdcrob said, it's dynasty 101 to convert an asset you think is overvalued.Unless, of course, you're hoping for the same thing the rest of us are.

It seems more like you and werdnoynek are trying to bait him into agreeing with your position that he will be a special back if he ever gets the opportunity to start.But since he seems to be in a keeper/dyansty and has Lynch and Turbin then he doesn't need to be special to make it prudent to keep him.

He made a post outside of the conversation flow to declare he thinks Michael is 'just a guy' on par with other third stringers across the league. How is it that those who ask him why not trade Michael are 'baiting' him? He knew he'd spark a response and really, the response has been cordial.At the end of the day, his position to keep Michael despite the increase in perceived value he could get in trade only makes sense if he thinks Michael can produce as well as many expect. It simply doesn't make sense to hold a guy you think is being overvalued.

If you owned Michael and not Lynch and Turbin then you might have a point, but in this situation it makes sense to hold onto him. Unless there is someone like you who would be willing to send a legit starter for Michael then there is far more value to him having the Seattle run game on lockdown.Let me ask you this, since you clearly value Michael which RBs would you be willing to give up for him? Anyone who is likely to get a lot of touches this season? What about next season?

It makes even more sense to move Michael if you have Lynch and Turbin. You're locking up 3 roster spots for one opportunity at production.I took Michael at RB16 in a recent startup over Spiller, Sankey, Stacy, TRich, Hyde and Mathews (who I took later). I didn't value Michael as a top 10 RB, but I liked his chances best of those left to get to that level in the next couple years. So yes, I would trade any of those 6 for him.

 

[Sabertooth]

Why can't they keep him? He's their best player on offense alongside Wilson. They can keep him of they want to. If isn't like he costs 10m per year. Running backs don't make squat. Keeping him past this season would not be cost prohibitive.

Probably because they have younger and more important players to sign rather than keeping a 29 year old RB who will have been beat to hell for several years in a row who MIGHT give them one more really good year.

I dont know a good GM who will let a an excellent young-younginsh guy walk and keep a RB with his resume and cost.

A 29 year old Lynch is going to be more replaceable than some of you seem to think he is

29 is not 30 and I'm sure they can scrape up a million or two to keep Lynch in the fold if he's still playing at a high level. It's not like has a defensive tackle or quarterback. He's a running back and those are cheap. Heck they might even let him test free agency and still get him for a reasonable price. Michael owners are the most delusional group on this board. Heck even if Lynch plays somewhere else in 2015, that still doesn't mean they don't draft a better player or bring in a guy like Spiller. Lots of hurdles to clear for Michael owners that they aren't even considering.

 

[ghostguy123]

Why can't they keep him? He's their best player on offense alongside Wilson. They can keep him of they want to. If isn't like he costs 10m per year. Running backs don't make squat. Keeping him past this season would not be cost prohibitive.

Probably because they have younger and more important players to sign rather than keeping a 29 year old RB who will have been beat to hell for several years in a row who MIGHT give them one more really good year.

I dont know a good GM who will let a an excellent young-younginsh guy walk and keep a RB with his resume and cost.

A 29 year old Lynch is going to be more replaceable than some of you seem to think he is

29 is not 30 and I'm sure they can scrape up a million or two to keep Lynch in the fold if he's still playing at a high level. It's not like has a defensive tackle or quarterback. He's a running back and those are cheap. Heck they might even let him test free agency and still get him for a reasonable price. Michael owners are the most delusional group on this board. Heck even if Lynch plays somewhere else in 2015, that still doesn't mean they don't draft a better player or bring in a guy like Spiller. Lots of hurdles to clear for Michael owners that they aren't even considering.

Well, I dont own Michael in any league, but I do own Lynch in my biggest money dynasty league.

I guess I am a delusional double-reverse Michael lover.

Lynch wont be a Seahawk in 2015. A think a LOT more needs to happen from now till then for Lynch to remain a Seahawk than has to happen for Michael to take over as the starter in 2015.

 

[Sabertooth]

Not sure why people are sabertooth so hard.

I'm just having a conversation. As wdcrob said, it's dynasty 101 to convert an asset you think is overvalued.Unless, of course, you're hoping for the same thing the rest of us are.

It seems more like you and werdnoynek are trying to bait him into agreeing with your position that he will be a special back if he ever gets the opportunity to start.But since he seems to be in a keeper/dyansty and has Lynch and Turbin then he doesn't need to be special to make it prudent to keep him.

He made a post outside of the conversation flow to declare he thinks Michael is 'just a guy' on par with other third stringers across the league. How is it that those who ask him why not trade Michael are 'baiting' him? He knew he'd spark a response and really, the response has been cordial.At the end of the day, his position to keep Michael despite the increase in perceived value he could get in trade only makes sense if he thinks Michael can produce as well as many expect. It simply doesn't make sense to hold a guy you think is being overvalued.

Not really. I compared him to second stringers Knile Davis and James Starks. And I said at this point, he's "just a guy" because he hasn't done anything and he's a character risk. How is that untrue?

How about this? I think Michael is capable of seeing his value increase from where it is today in the eyes of the majority of my league. I give him a bump in value because he MIGHT be the handcuff to Lynch. I don't value him any more or less than Turbin. It sucks clogging up three roster spots with Seattle back but I have a feeling that the player named "RB1-Seahawks" is a valuable guy to own for the near future. Whether that is Lynch, Michael, or Turbin is fine with me.

 

[Sabertooth]

Not sure why people are sabertooth so hard.

I'm just having a conversation. As wdcrob said, it's dynasty 101 to convert an asset you think is overvalued.Unless, of course, you're hoping for the same thing the rest of us are.

It seems more like you and werdnoynek are trying to bait him into agreeing with your position that he will be a special back if he ever gets the opportunity to start.But since he seems to be in a keeper/dyansty and has Lynch and Turbin then he doesn't need to be special to make it prudent to keep him.

He made a post outside of the conversation flow to declare he thinks Michael is 'just a guy' on par with other third stringers across the league. How is it that those who ask him why not trade Michael are 'baiting' him? He knew he'd spark a response and really, the response has been cordial.At the end of the day, his position to keep Michael despite the increase in perceived value he could get in trade only makes sense if he thinks Michael can produce as well as many expect. It simply doesn't make sense to hold a guy you think is being overvalued.

If you owned Michael and not Lynch and Turbin then you might have a point, but in this situation it makes sense to hold onto him. Unless there is someone like you who would be willing to send a legit starter for Michael then there is far more value to him having the Seattle run game on lockdown.Let me ask you this, since you clearly value Michael which RBs would you be willing to give up for him? Anyone who is likely to get a lot of touches this season? What about next season?

It makes even more sense to move Michael if you have Lynch and Turbin. You're locking up 3 roster spots for one opportunity at production.I took Michael at RB16 in a recent startup over Spiller, Sankey, Stacy, TRich, Hyde and Mathews (who I took later). I didn't value Michael as a top 10 RB, but I liked his chances best of those left to get to that level in the next couple years. So yes, I would trade any of those 6 for him.

Not me. I have Spiller quite a ways over Michael. I have him behind Mathews as well and even with Hyde and Sankey. Trich and Stacy are on borrowed time. No thanks.

Spiller

Mathews

Michael - Hyde - Sankey

Stacy

Trich

 

[Chaka]

Why can't they keep him? He's their best player on offense alongside Wilson. They can keep him of they want to. If isn't like he costs 10m per year. Running backs don't make squat. Keeping him past this season would not be cost prohibitive.

Probably because they have younger and more important players to sign rather than keeping a 29 year old RB who will have been beat to hell for several years in a row who MIGHT give them one more really good year.

I dont know a good GM who will let a an excellent young-younginsh guy walk and keep a RB with his resume and cost.

A 29 year old Lynch is going to be more replaceable than some of you seem to think he is

So what about his resume leads you to that conclusion?

old, used and abusedm costly, need to re-sign more important players.

His resume is great. So is Ladanian Tomlinson, wanna sign him? Obviously exaggerating there, but the idea is to re-sign guys who will be good for you for a while, not let them go for a guy who MAYBE has a year left.

I'm confused, were you talking about Michael's resume? If so what about his resume makes you think he should be valued above a 29 year old proven high end RB?

Michaels resume doesnt need to be better.

They need to view Michael plus re-signing another integral player (likely on defense) as better for 2015 and beyond than Lynch.

I think they do. I am 99% sure they do.

Lot can happen this year, but if the Seattle GM had to make a move a year in advance, I am pretty confident he chooses to let Lynch walk and re-sign a different player while Michael takes over.

This isnt some office job where a resume holds a ton of importance. Generally the longer an NFL RBs resume is................the sooner the END is. Lynch is a very good (not great) talent IMO. Do they let Lynch MAYBE play ONE more year for them and let another good player walk because of it??

Saying no. But thats just me.

So you mentioned Michael's resume because?

 

[DropKick]

Why can't they keep him? He's their best player on offense alongside Wilson. They can keep him of they want to. If isn't like he costs 10m per year. Running backs don't make squat. Keeping him past this season would not be cost prohibitive.

Probably because they have younger and more important players to sign rather than keeping a 29 year old RB who will have been beat to hell for several years in a row who MIGHT give them one more really good year.

I dont know a good GM who will let a an excellent young-younginsh guy walk and keep a RB with his resume and cost.

A 29 year old Lynch is going to be more replaceable than some of you seem to think he is

That's the thing though, there are very few backs who have done what Lynch has done at such a high level over these three years. No excuses, just production. He's the kind of elite talent that any smart GM would run into the ground on 1 - 2 year deals until he stops being elite.

How many elite talents want to sign a short term deal to be run into the ground?

 

[DropKick]

Again I want to be very clear that I am not saying I think Michael will fail I think he can be a starting caliber RB but I am really trying to understand why people are saying he will be special if/when he gets a chance to start. And it is surprising to me that people think he will be worth more to Seattle than a 29 year old proven RB. Look at the numbers 29 is not a death knell for RBs, 32 maybe but not 29.

It isnt about whether or not they think Lynch is important to the team, or whether or not they think he is better than Michael.

This should be cleared up for some people in the offseaon when they start signing their good young players to extensions.

It's not? Seems like many are banking on the hope that Lynch leaves and Michael stays. Could happen but I am not certain why people perceive that as a forgone conclusion.

In general, the torch does tend to pass... One glaring exception to this is Jonathan Stewart.

 

[ghostguy123]

So you mentioned Michael's resume because?

I didnt mention Michaels resume.

 

[DropKick]

So what did people see in college that make so many believe he will be a special back in the NFL? I watched a good number of A&M games in '11 & '12 (particularly '12 because it seems you couldn't get away from Manziel even if you wanted to) and he didn't particularly flash on that team. Maybe he didn't flash because he was surrounded by Manziel and Evans but still he seemed to be just okay. Ben Malena seemed to be favored over in '12 and does anyone think he was special?

No doubt Michael had a rare combination of numbers at the combine but there have been plenty of workout warriors who never quite back it up on the field.

I am just trying to understand the basis for the love because it mostly seems to be based upon looking awesome in preseason last year.

First of all, if a guy comes out of college with a shiny pedigree and gaudy statistics - they will be snapped up with the first few picks in dynasty rookie drafts. Generally, I'm play-off caliber and rarely get a shot at those "can't miss" prospects (like Trent Richardson and Mark Ingram.. sorry, couldn't resist).

There was talk that Michael was a very talented kid who fell due to character concerns. That is appealing to me because of the potential for a diamond in the rough - as mentioned, I need to target RBs with later picks. Also, I don't think college production is necessarily a great barometer because of differences in schemes, talent, coaches, supporting cast, etc.

He did well at the combine: "pacing all running backs in the bench press, vertical jump, broad jump, 3-cone drill and 20-yard shuttle." And, yes, he looked very good last preseason.

This, plus he goes to a solid, run oriented team with a veteran RB who runs with a violent style. As I've said before, things change in the NFL. Guys age, get hurt, have contract issues, etc. One way of acquiring RBs is to "buy and hold"... or have a high draft pick...

 

[Sabertooth]

Why can't they keep him? He's their best player on offense alongside Wilson. They can keep him of they want to. If isn't like he costs 10m per year. Running backs don't make squat. Keeping him past this season would not be cost prohibitive.

Probably because they have younger and more important players to sign rather than keeping a 29 year old RB who will have been beat to hell for several years in a row who MIGHT give them one more really good year.

I dont know a good GM who will let a an excellent young-younginsh guy walk and keep a RB with his resume and cost.

A 29 year old Lynch is going to be more replaceable than some of you seem to think he is

That's the thing though, there are very few backs who have done what Lynch has done at such a high level over these three years. No excuses, just production. He's the kind of elite talent that any smart GM would run into the ground on 1 - 2 year deals until he stops being elite.

How many elite talents want to sign a short term deal to be run into the ground?

Huh? I don't think the GMs word it that way. "Feature back" is how they sell "run you into the ground" to an elite veteran.

 

[DropKick]

Why can't they keep him? He's their best player on offense alongside Wilson. They can keep him of they want to. If isn't like he costs 10m per year. Running backs don't make squat. Keeping him past this season would not be cost prohibitive.

Probably because they have younger and more important players to sign rather than keeping a 29 year old RB who will have been beat to hell for several years in a row who MIGHT give them one more really good year.

I dont know a good GM who will let a an excellent young-younginsh guy walk and keep a RB with his resume and cost.

A 29 year old Lynch is going to be more replaceable than some of you seem to think he is

That's the thing though, there are very few backs who have done what Lynch has done at such a high level over these three years. No excuses, just production. He's the kind of elite talent that any smart GM would run into the ground on 1 - 2 year deals until he stops being elite.

How many elite talents want to sign a short term deal to be run into the ground?

Huh? I don't think the GMs word it that way. "Feature back" is how they sell "run you into the ground" to an elite veteran.

Money is the bottom line. They know their career could end at any time so why would Lynch want a one year deal? As a player, wouldn't you want to maximize your guaranteed money while you can? There are 32 teams in the league. He could be a feature back for lots of teams.

 

[Sabertooth]

RB1 - Age 28, makes 6.5 Million 2014 and 9.5 million in 2015, has scored 798.5 fantasy points since 2011 (his first year with his current team). His team drafted a running back in 2013 with the 62nd overall pick who is a physical marvel.

RB2 - Age 29, makes 11.75 million 2014 and 12.75 million in 2015, has scored 795.3 points since 2011. His team drafted a running back in the 2014 draft with the 96th overall pick who is a physical marvel.

Any guesses on who RB2 is in this case? He's older than Beast Mode, costs way more than Beast Mode, has missed more games than Beast Mode, has a much lamer nickname than Beast Mode, and hasn't scored as many fantasy points since Beast Mode arrived in Seattle. I'd give a hint but nobody is going to need it. Be careful though because it's blasphemy to speak ill of him.

 

[Rhythmdoctor]

RB1 - Age 28, makes 6.5 Million 2014 and 9.5 million in 2015, has scored 798.5 fantasy points since 2011 (his first year with his current team). His team drafted a running back in 2013 with the 62nd overall pick who is a physical marvel.

RB2 - Age 29, makes 11.75 million 2014 and 12.75 million in 2015, has scored 795.3 points since 2011. His team drafted a running back in the 2014 draft with the 96th overall pick who is a physical marvel.

Any guesses on who RB2 is in this case? He's older than Beast Mode, costs way more than Beast Mode, has missed more games than Beast Mode, has a much lamer nickname than Beast Mode, and hasn't scored as many fantasy points since Beast Mode arrived in Seattle. I'd give a hint but nobody is going to need it. Be careful though because it's blasphemy to speak ill of him.

RB2 is AP.

 

[Bronco Billy]

Rotoworld really grinds my gears - to the point of starting a Boycott thread... booze and Rotoworld don't mix for me.

When they like someone they pump them up relentlessly and if they don't like someone they dump on them relentlessly. There's really no inbetween with them. They're a necessary evil though. I've come to the point where I ignore their take and just go right to the source they list. I don't even read what Roto has to say about it and I feel I'm much more informed because of it.

----------------------------

There is a solution for this and it is completely in your control.

If you're implying that we should murder Evan Silva ... that would be illegal.

Yes, that's clearly what I was alluding to. Thanks for picking up on it so astutely.

It was a joke, dude -- and not even at your expense. Your defensive sarcasm is unnecessary but not unexpected.

Uh - yeah, I get it. I didn't think you were really advocating Silva's murder. I did think it was pretty tasteless, but it apparently amused you.

Dude.

 

[Chaka]

When do Michael owners become concerned about holding onto him?

If Lynch plays at his typical level this year (and there is no reason to think he wont) and stays in Seattle for 2015 do people start discounting Michael or he just a sunk cost at that point and you keep holding until 2016? And what if Marshawn is still there in 2016? He'll only be 30 and even if he isn't the same runner he is today (although it is possible he will be) he could still be the kind of runner who severely hinders the value of other RBs on the roster. There is also the possibility that Seattle will draft another RB by that time.

At what point do Michael owners regret not taking some of the deals you have been offered to this point?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

At what point do Michael owners regret not taking some of the deals you have been offered to this point?

Home run, or strike out. There aren't very many guys with ceilings that can win your league for you -- take your shot when you get them.

If they don't pan out, that's the price of doing business. No regrets.

 

[jurb26]

When do Michael owners become concerned about holding onto him?

If Lynch plays at his typical level this year (and there is no reason to think he wont) and stays in Seattle for 2015 do people start discounting Michael or he just a sunk cost at that point and you keep holding until 2016? And what if Marshawn is still there in 2016? He'll only be 30 and even if he isn't the same runner he is today (although it is possible he will be) he could still be the kind of runner who severely hinders the value of other RBs on the roster. There is also the possibility that Seattle will draft another RB by that time.

At what point do Michael owners regret not taking some of the deals you have been offered to this point?

I would think it has to be by this time next year. If he hasn't moved up to at least a RBBC role, assuming maybe Lynch stays in Sea but is too old to carry a full load, then you have to worry. Also, next years draft will be over with and it's loaded with some great RB talent. I don't expect Sea to draft one, but with Pistol Pete you never know.

 

[John Paul]

I'm surprised Seattle folded with Lynch. Michael has the talent, he just needs the oppurtunity. I guess it is pretty much the same with Charles in KC and Davis awaiting. If you're really patient, stash him at the bottom of your bench and hope for a Gerhart-like FA oppurtunity.

 

[menobrown]

When do Michael owners become concerned about holding onto him?

. When I no longer see a high potential player. Seattle used a fairly high pick on him and as long as he shows high impact potential and puts in the work I don't think Seattle made that pick with the idea to have Michaels shine in pre-season only to bury him for the next few years on the roster. Keep putting in the work and keep flashing that potential and his time will come.

 

[spreagle]

When do Michael owners become concerned about holding onto him?

If Lynch plays at his typical level this year (and there is no reason to think he wont) and stays in Seattle for 2015 do people start discounting Michael or he just a sunk cost at that point and you keep holding until 2016? And what if Marshawn is still there in 2016? He'll only be 30 and even if he isn't the same runner he is today (although it is possible he will be) he could still be the kind of runner who severely hinders the value of other RBs on the roster. There is also the possibility that Seattle will draft another RB by that time.

At what point do Michael owners regret not taking some of the deals you have been offered to this point?

I'm never giving up on Christine, it's all or nothing for me. Maybe when he reaches 16 tds I'll consider deals.

I don't usually talk about running backs his age, but when I saw him that draft day, that day I knew, I just knew, I got to have him, I'VE GOT TO HAVE HIM.

 

[jurb26]

When do Michael owners become concerned about holding onto him?

If Lynch plays at his typical level this year (and there is no reason to think he wont) and stays in Seattle for 2015 do people start discounting Michael or he just a sunk cost at that point and you keep holding until 2016? And what if Marshawn is still there in 2016? He'll only be 30 and even if he isn't the same runner he is today (although it is possible he will be) he could still be the kind of runner who severely hinders the value of other RBs on the roster. There is also the possibility that Seattle will draft another RB by that time.

At what point do Michael owners regret not taking some of the deals you have been offered to this point?

I'm never giving up on Christine, it's all or nothing for me. Maybe when he reaches 16 tds I'll consider deals.

I don't usually talk about running backs his age, but when I saw him that draft day, that day I knew, I just knew, I got to have him, I'VE GOT TO HAVE HIM.

Could be a while before he reaches 16 career TDs.

 

[ghostguy123]

Why can't they keep him? He's their best player on offense alongside Wilson. They can keep him of they want to. If isn't like he costs 10m per year. Running backs don't make squat. Keeping him past this season would not be cost prohibitive.

Probably because they have younger and more important players to sign rather than keeping a 29 year old RB who will have been beat to hell for several years in a row who MIGHT give them one more really good year.

I dont know a good GM who will let a an excellent young-younginsh guy walk and keep a RB with his resume and cost.

A 29 year old Lynch is going to be more replaceable than some of you seem to think he is

That's the thing though, there are very few backs who have done what Lynch has done at such a high level over these three years. No excuses, just production. He's the kind of elite talent that any smart GM would run into the ground on 1 - 2 year deals until he stops being elite.

How many elite talents want to sign a short term deal to be run into the ground?

Huh? I don't think the GMs word it that way. "Feature back" is how they sell "run you into the ground" to an elite veteran.

and how many feature back enjoy playing on a 1 year deal?

 

[ghostguy123]

RB1 - Age 28, makes 6.5 Million 2014 and 9.5 million in 2015, has scored 798.5 fantasy points since 2011 (his first year with his current team). His team drafted a running back in 2013 with the 62nd overall pick who is a physical marvel.

RB2 - Age 29, makes 11.75 million 2014 and 12.75 million in 2015, has scored 795.3 points since 2011. His team drafted a running back in the 2014 draft with the 96th overall pick who is a physical marvel.

Any guesses on who RB2 is in this case? He's older than Beast Mode, costs way more than Beast Mode, has missed more games than Beast Mode, has a much lamer nickname than Beast Mode, and hasn't scored as many fantasy points since Beast Mode arrived in Seattle. I'd give a hint but nobody is going to need it. Be careful though because it's blasphemy to speak ill of him.

Put AP on Seattle the last couple years and he runs for 2000 and 25 TDs each year

 

[ghostguy123]

When do Michael owners become concerned about holding onto him?

When there is a reason to be concerned.

 

[DropKick]

RB1 - Age 28, makes 6.5 Million 2014 and 9.5 million in 2015, has scored 798.5 fantasy points since 2011 (his first year with his current team). His team drafted a running back in 2013 with the 62nd overall pick who is a physical marvel.

RB2 - Age 29, makes 11.75 million 2014 and 12.75 million in 2015, has scored 795.3 points since 2011. His team drafted a running back in the 2014 draft with the 96th overall pick who is a physical marvel.

Any guesses on who RB2 is in this case? He's older than Beast Mode, costs way more than Beast Mode, has missed more games than Beast Mode, has a much lamer nickname than Beast Mode, and hasn't scored as many fantasy points since Beast Mode arrived in Seattle. I'd give a hint but nobody is going to need it. Be careful though because it's blasphemy to speak ill of him.

So, in other words, both the Vikings and Seahawks will have to make a decision next year about whether they want to pay their older RB 12.75 million or 9.5 million respectively. Two similar but different situations regarding salary cap, roster constitution, etc.

 

[Fever in the Funkhouse]

We can't put AD on Seattle.

 

[Sabertooth]

RB1 - Age 28, makes 6.5 Million 2014 and 9.5 million in 2015, has scored 798.5 fantasy points since 2011 (his first year with his current team). His team drafted a running back in 2013 with the 62nd overall pick who is a physical marvel.

RB2 - Age 29, makes 11.75 million 2014 and 12.75 million in 2015, has scored 795.3 points since 2011. His team drafted a running back in the 2014 draft with the 96th overall pick who is a physical marvel.

Any guesses on who RB2 is in this case? He's older than Beast Mode, costs way more than Beast Mode, has missed more games than Beast Mode, has a much lamer nickname than Beast Mode, and hasn't scored as many fantasy points since Beast Mode arrived in Seattle. I'd give a hint but nobody is going to need it. Be careful though because it's blasphemy to speak ill of him.

Put AP on Seattle the last couple years and he runs for 2000 and 25 TDs each year

I can't. I'm a very powerful man but even I can't go back in time and make trades. I wish I could.

 

[Sabertooth]

RB1 - Age 28, makes 6.5 Million 2014 and 9.5 million in 2015, has scored 798.5 fantasy points since 2011 (his first year with his current team). His team drafted a running back in 2013 with the 62nd overall pick who is a physical marvel.

RB2 - Age 29, makes 11.75 million 2014 and 12.75 million in 2015, has scored 795.3 points since 2011. His team drafted a running back in the 2014 draft with the 96th overall pick who is a physical marvel.

Any guesses on who RB2 is in this case? He's older than Beast Mode, costs way more than Beast Mode, has missed more games than Beast Mode, has a much lamer nickname than Beast Mode, and hasn't scored as many fantasy points since Beast Mode arrived in Seattle. I'd give a hint but nobody is going to need it. Be careful though because it's blasphemy to speak ill of him.

So, in other words, both the Vikings and Seahawks will have to make a decision next year about whether they want to pay their older RB 12.75 million or 9.5 million respectively. Two similar but different situations regarding salary cap, roster constitution, etc.

No two situations are identical are they? No two players either. However people putting Marshawn out to pasture are jumping the gun. That's my only point. Marshall is younger than Adrian and has performed right on par with Adrian since coming to Seattle. Why would the team dump him if a reasonable deal could be worked out?

Why didn't the Seahawks just cut Marshawn this year when he held out instead of giving him more money? Weird for a team with a backup whose ceiling can "win your league for you."

 

[spider321]

Why didn't the Seahawks just cut Marshawn this year when he held out instead of giving him more money?

A better question might be...

Why didn't the Seahawks give Marshawn more guaranteed years when he held out instead of just giving him more money?

 

[Sabertooth]

Maybe he wants to test the FA market after this season? We don't know. What we do know is that he's under contract for this year and next. People assuming he'll be gone after 2014 might be right and they might be wrong. If he is gone, Michael may or may not take over Marshawn's job.

Is it September yet? I want to see if Michael is even activated this year.

 

[DropKick]

RB1 - Age 28, makes 6.5 Million 2014 and 9.5 million in 2015, has scored 798.5 fantasy points since 2011 (his first year with his current team). His team drafted a running back in 2013 with the 62nd overall pick who is a physical marvel.

RB2 - Age 29, makes 11.75 million 2014 and 12.75 million in 2015, has scored 795.3 points since 2011. His team drafted a running back in the 2014 draft with the 96th overall pick who is a physical marvel.

Any guesses on who RB2 is in this case? He's older than Beast Mode, costs way more than Beast Mode, has missed more games than Beast Mode, has a much lamer nickname than Beast Mode, and hasn't scored as many fantasy points since Beast Mode arrived in Seattle. I'd give a hint but nobody is going to need it. Be careful though because it's blasphemy to speak ill of him.

So, in other words, both the Vikings and Seahawks will have to make a decision next year about whether they want to pay their older RB 12.75 million or 9.5 million respectively. Two similar but different situations regarding salary cap, roster constitution, etc.

No two situations are identical are they? No two players either. However people putting Marshawn out to pasture are jumping the gun. That's my only point. Marshall is younger than Adrian and has performed right on par with Adrian since coming to Seattle. Why would the team dump him if a reasonable deal could be worked out?

Why didn't the Seahawks just cut Marshawn this year when he held out instead of giving him more money? Weird for a team with a backup whose ceiling can "win your league for you."

I'm certainly not putting Lynch out to pasture. However, he runs with probably the most violent style in the league. Injury is one possibility. He is also owed a lot of money next year. As a successful team, the Seahawks will have to make difficult roster decisions. So, contract is another possibility. Lynch is constantly in the news... The latest is a possible assault charge. So, suspension is another possibility.

Nothing is weird about them keeping Lynch right now. They are a SB caliber team and Lynch has the respect of the locker room. Michael is still unproven...

Lynch may not want to "work out a deal" next year. Flipping the bird to his coaches for not getting a TD chance says all you need to know about Lynch. He is a loose cannon. How will he react this year if he sees less carries? I don't know and you don't know but It could be a spectacle.

 

[DropKick]

Maybe he wants to test the FA market after this season? We don't know. What we do know is that he's under contract for this year and next. People assuming he'll be gone after 2014 might be right and they might be wrong. If he is gone, Michael may or may not take over Marshawn's job.

Is it September yet? I want to see if Michael is even activated this year.

Try to stay classy.

 

[Sabertooth]

RB1 - Age 28, makes 6.5 Million 2014 and 9.5 million in 2015, has scored 798.5 fantasy points since 2011 (his first year with his current team). His team drafted a running back in 2013 with the 62nd overall pick who is a physical marvel.

RB2 - Age 29, makes 11.75 million 2014 and 12.75 million in 2015, has scored 795.3 points since 2011. His team drafted a running back in the 2014 draft with the 96th overall pick who is a physical marvel.

Any guesses on who RB2 is in this case? He's older than Beast Mode, costs way more than Beast Mode, has missed more games than Beast Mode, has a much lamer nickname than Beast Mode, and hasn't scored as many fantasy points since Beast Mode arrived in Seattle. I'd give a hint but nobody is going to need it. Be careful though because it's blasphemy to speak ill of him.

So, in other words, both the Vikings and Seahawks will have to make a decision next year about whether they want to pay their older RB 12.75 million or 9.5 million respectively. Two similar but different situations regarding salary cap, roster constitution, etc.

No two situations are identical are they? No two players either. However people putting Marshawn out to pasture are jumping the gun. That's my only point. Marshall is younger than Adrian and has performed right on par with Adrian since coming to Seattle. Why would the team dump him if a reasonable deal could be worked out?

Why didn't the Seahawks just cut Marshawn this year when he held out instead of giving him more money? Weird for a team with a backup whose ceiling can "win your league for you."

I'm certainly not putting Lynch out to pasture. However, he runs with probably the most violent style in the league. Injury is one possibility. He is also owed a lot of money next year. As a successful team, the Seahawks will have to make difficult roster decisions. So, contract is another possibility. Lynch is constantly in the news... The latest is a possible assault charge. So, suspension is another possibility.

Nothing is weird about them keeping Lynch right now. They are a SB caliber team and Lynch has the respect of the locker room. Michael is still unproven...

Lynch may not want to "work out a deal" next year. Flipping the bird to his coaches for not getting a TD chance says all you need to know about Lynch. He is a loose cannon. How will he react this year if he sees less carries? I don't know and you don't know but It could be a spectacle.

I agree with all this for sure. I'm not saying I know what will happen, I'm just saying that people are really jumping the gun on Michael. He hasn't shown anything at all. Even in the games he played in last year, Lynch played better.

 

[Sabertooth]

Maybe he wants to test the FA market after this season? We don't know. What we do know is that he's under contract for this year and next. People assuming he'll be gone after 2014 might be right and they might be wrong. If he is gone, Michael may or may not take over Marshawn's job.

Is it September yet? I want to see if Michael is even activated this year.

Try to stay classy.

 

[ghostguy123]

We can't put AD on Seattle.

right, cause it would be unfair

 

[ghostguy123]

RB1 - Age 28, makes 6.5 Million 2014 and 9.5 million in 2015, has scored 798.5 fantasy points since 2011 (his first year with his current team). His team drafted a running back in 2013 with the 62nd overall pick who is a physical marvel.

RB2 - Age 29, makes 11.75 million 2014 and 12.75 million in 2015, has scored 795.3 points since 2011. His team drafted a running back in the 2014 draft with the 96th overall pick who is a physical marvel.

Any guesses on who RB2 is in this case? He's older than Beast Mode, costs way more than Beast Mode, has missed more games than Beast Mode, has a much lamer nickname than Beast Mode, and hasn't scored as many fantasy points since Beast Mode arrived in Seattle. I'd give a hint but nobody is going to need it. Be careful though because it's blasphemy to speak ill of him.

So, in other words, both the Vikings and Seahawks will have to make a decision next year about whether they want to pay their older RB 12.75 million or 9.5 million respectively. Two similar but different situations regarding salary cap, roster constitution, etc.

No two situations are identical are they? No two players either. However people putting Marshawn out to pasture are jumping the gun. That's my only point. Marshall is younger than Adrian and has performed right on par with Adrian since coming to Seattle. Why would the team dump him if a reasonable deal could be worked out?

Why didn't the Seahawks just cut Marshawn this year when he held out instead of giving him more money? Weird for a team with a backup whose ceiling can "win your league for you."

for real???

They kept him and gave him more money cause their franchise QB still makes like a million a year, same with a few of there late round defenders who will command a big contract NEXT YEAR!!!!

They arent going to let Lynch go (for the 100th time) because Lynch isnt a good RB or valuable. They have other valuable players (arguably more valuable 2015 and beyond) to sign after this year.