Christine Michael (1 Viewer)

[Alex P Keaton]

So we still have no idea who is the handcuff to Lynch?

Everyone knows its currently Turbin.

So Lynch owners should own him instead of Michael (non-dynasty)?

And maybe in dynasty too.....

 

[rjv]

At the very least, if lynch misses time, it will be a 50/50 split.

 

[Sabertooth]

I've been strafing of the objective here because people want to get butt hurt that I see Turbin and Michaels skill sets to be similar (which they are, and which Seattle did because that's their prototype). Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word exact... It was, in my mind, to be said as their athleticism. Which, by all measures but very jump, is the same.

Third time you've said it, third time it was wrong. Use your own links and read.

Oh, so Turbin was better in the 40 my bad.

Why you trollin?

I'm really not man... This thread spiraled a long time ago.For the record:

-I like Turbin a lot. He has proven himself to be the backup and I think that holds weight in redraft and dynasty. I definitely see him as a guy who could shoulder the load. I really wouldn't have verbalized it too much if it weren't for this thread.

-I like Michael and my sig is a response to an argument that got deleted saying that Rotoworld wasn't trolling.

-Even though I like Michaels skill set I do not view him as others have. What I believe was originally a response to his dynasty draft status amongst a really weak crop of NFL RB's grew out of control to believe he would be THE back in SEA. Some of the weakest arguments were that is Turbin was the lone back for the Hawks they'd bring in someone else... Well they've had Lynch for a considerable time now and brought in two backs. When Lynch is gone they'll bring in another guy with talent even if Michael lives up to the highest of high heights. They are a well run orginization.

-Lastly, I feel like when I entered this thread I was simply trying to say Turbin is not a JAG and is the backup. The voices of reason were few and far between. Faust bumped the Turbin thread and EBF had a fondness for him that must have magically disappeared upon Michaels entrance to the league. So there has been a lot of trolling in this thread if you believe I've been trolling so far.

This

 

[Sabertooth]

At the very least, if lynch misses time, it will be a 50/50 split.

Wait are you saying the very least for Turbin or very least for Michael?

I don't think it will go 50/50 but I have no idea how beat will divvy up the carries either. So I have Michael and Turbin both rostered. In fact, I think your 50/50 is about the worst case scenario for guys like me who are honest about not knowing what would happen in the event of a Lynch injury. Just cover your bases fellas. Because unlike some situations where there is a stud with no real handcuff (McCoy for instance) here is a situation where there probably is a true handcuff but you have to pay for both guys to get it. In dynasty leagues it hurts, but in redrafts with smaller rosters, it might be cost prohibitive.

 

[Sabertooth]

People are also ignoring the elephant in the room. If Marshawn were to get hurt, the offense would quite possibly shift onto the shoulders of Russell Wilson. If Lynch were to go down, the guy who might benefit most could be Wilson or Harvin.

 

[rjv]

At the very least, if lynch misses time, it will be a 50/50 split.

Wait are you saying the very least for Turbin or very least for Michael? I don't think it will go 50/50 but I have no idea how beat will divvy up the carries either. So I have Michael and Turbin both rostered. In fact, I think your 50/50 is about the worst case scenario for guys like me who are honest about not knowing what would happen in the event of a Lynch injury. Just cover your bases fellas. Because unlike some situations where there is a stud with no real handcuff (McCoy for instance) here is a situation where there probably is a true handcuff but you have to pay for both guys to get it. In dynasty leagues it hurts, but in redrafts with smaller rosters, it might be cost prohibitive.

I as well have both. I agree with your assessment, and ppl need to grab both with Michael having the bigger upside.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

So we still have no idea who is the handcuff to Lynch?

Everyone knows its currently Turbin.

I disagree that Turbin is the one to own if Lynch goes down. Sure he is 2nd into the game currently but if Lynch misses a lot of time I doubt he remains there long.

He picks up blitzes better currently and believe that is why he is used more for the moment. Michael is always improving

I have both in a dynasty and will probably drop Turbin if I can't trade him. The better talent will win out in the end.

Not talking dynasty.

 

[humpback]

It takes a lot more than just being a talented runner to play RB in the NFL though. I don't think it's nearly as cut and dried which is the more talented RB right now.

Also, let's drop the "those who watch the game vs. stat watchers" stuff. EBF, the king of that schtick, admittedly didn't even see most of Turbin's carries yet he has no problem assuming they were pedestrian. It's not unreasonable for someone who has watched them both to think that Turbin is at least as good as Michael right now (again, as an overall RB).

He said Turbin has the EXACT skill set Michael has. He doesn't. Michael is a more explosive, more instinctive and far more creative runner than Turbin. He runs with a wider base as well, thus limiting those plays where he is tripped up with arm tackles around his ankles; which Turbin succumbs to far too often. I'd say based on watching them both in college and the pros that Michael has better vision as well. Both have decent (not great) hands, though I can recall a few key drops Turbin has made in his few years in Seattle.About watching film, why should anyone drop that as a valid argument? Is your angle that because EBF may not have watched all the games Turbin played to see his carries that others shouldn't place value in actually watching the players to assess their level of talent? If so, that is strange; perhaps you should direct your argument toward asking EBF to gain more knowledge by actually watching the film (assuming you are correct in that he has not).

People in this thread are using imagined scenarios to assume another's position and then argue against that position. My personal thought, if we are playing make believe, is that Michael (or a handful of other, more explosive and creative backs) would have taken that one cut wide open run to the house. Turbin went 47 yards, about 20 of which looked fairly labored, and needed to best only one DB to hit paydirt. There's 4 or 5 guys on the Seahawk roster alone that could have taken that thing all the way to the end zone. Robert Turbin is obviously not one of them.

That's nice, but completely irrelevant considering I never said that they had the same exact skill sets nor did I agree with the poster who did.You can use watching film (it was actually the games) as a valid argument, but not as a blanket statement that it's clear to anyone who has watched that my opinion is the correct one and anyone who disagrees must only look at the box scores. It's incredibly lame (and condescending).

Yeah, that last paragraph is a nice fantasy for sure.

Fair enough, but it is pretty cut and dried as to who has more talent between these two according to the talent evaluators (e.g., Schneider) and the coaches. That's not to say Turbin isn't talented; he's just not considered to have the level of talent that Michael possesses by the Seahawks FO (amongst plenty of other evaluators).Not certain the distinction you are trying to make between games and film (of games), but we'll agree that it clearly has great value in talent evaluation. It's also clear that many posters in here don't watch Seahawks games and may not watch highlights.

Do you doubt that there are three or four Seahawks that could have scored on that play? There was one defender between Turbin and the goal line. I like those odds for an exceptional talent.

Again, there's a difference between being a talented runner vs. a talented running back. I don't think it's cut and dried right now which is the more talented RB, but if anything it seems the team believes it's Turbin since he's ahead of him. I agree Michael is the better pure runner, and he has the higher upside in ff because of it, but that's only one part of the equation.Not a major issue, but there's a difference between watching the games and reviewing film. Agreed, both are valuable in talent evaluation, but the bottom line is that it's all very subjective. Saying that anyone who has watched someone must have the same opinion as you do and anyone with a differing opinion couldn't possibly have watched is petty. Many people who watch them are doing so through less than neutral eyes and are likely going to confirm their bias regardless (on both sides).

"Could have" is different from "would have" (any player "could have", including Turbin), but there's no way of knowing if anyone else would have scored on that play. I do think you are vastly underestimating how difficult it would have been though- the defensive back (who is very athletic in his own right) had at least a 6 yard lead on him when it turned into a foot race. You're also giving no credit for the ~15 yards Turbin gained after the stiff arm- it was a fairly impressive run IMO.

Well just disagree on these points. Turbin is an average RB and looks to me to be a career backup. Michael has the talent to be something more.That run was open for him to take it to the house. Lynch would have hurt the db in the way of his TD.

This is what I mean- I haven't said that Turbin isn't an average RB, and I have said that Michael has more talent as a runner hence more upside if he can put it all together. You keep ignoring what I am saying, which is that running ability isn't the only thing that makes a talented running back.

Here is the run in question. It seems silly to say that it was open for him to take it to the house when there is a defender running 6+ yards in front of him, just like it's silly to assume that several other players (even the almighty Lynch) would have scored on the play. I know it may be hard to believe, but Lynch has been tackled (or forced out of bounds, slowed down so other players can catch up, etc.) by one guy before.

Regardless, it doesn't really matter in terms of Michael, but it just shows how biased many people are- saying another RB made a decent play doesn't mean Michael is any less of a RB himself, but some just have to discredit them instead for some reason. It's pretty strange IMO (and another reason the "lol you don't even watch the gamz!@!" is meaningless if you can't be objective).

 

[Sabertooth]

So we still have no idea who is the handcuff to Lynch?

Everyone knows its currently Turbin.

I disagree that Turbin is the one to own if Lynch goes down. Sure he is 2nd into the game currently but if Lynch misses a lot of time I doubt he remains there long.

He picks up blitzes better currently and believe that is why he is used more for the moment. Michael is always improving

I have both in a dynasty and will probably drop Turbin if I can't trade him. The better talent will win out in the end.

Not talking dynasty.

I am. It makes no difference in the discussion of handcuff though.

 

[Neofight]

It takes a lot more than just being a talented runner to play RB in the NFL though. I don't think it's nearly as cut and dried which is the more talented RB right now.

Also, let's drop the "those who watch the game vs. stat watchers" stuff. EBF, the king of that schtick, admittedly didn't even see most of Turbin's carries yet he has no problem assuming they were pedestrian. It's not unreasonable for someone who has watched them both to think that Turbin is at least as good as Michael right now (again, as an overall RB).

He said Turbin has the EXACT skill set Michael has. He doesn't. Michael is a more explosive, more instinctive and far more creative runner than Turbin. He runs with a wider base as well, thus limiting those plays where he is tripped up with arm tackles around his ankles; which Turbin succumbs to far too often. I'd say based on watching them both in college and the pros that Michael has better vision as well. Both have decent (not great) hands, though I can recall a few key drops Turbin has made in his few years in Seattle.About watching film, why should anyone drop that as a valid argument? Is your angle that because EBF may not have watched all the games Turbin played to see his carries that others shouldn't place value in actually watching the players to assess their level of talent? If so, that is strange; perhaps you should direct your argument toward asking EBF to gain more knowledge by actually watching the film (assuming you are correct in that he has not).

People in this thread are using imagined scenarios to assume another's position and then argue against that position. My personal thought, if we are playing make believe, is that Michael (or a handful of other, more explosive and creative backs) would have taken that one cut wide open run to the house. Turbin went 47 yards, about 20 of which looked fairly labored, and needed to best only one DB to hit paydirt. There's 4 or 5 guys on the Seahawk roster alone that could have taken that thing all the way to the end zone. Robert Turbin is obviously not one of them.

That's nice, but completely irrelevant considering I never said that they had the same exact skill sets nor did I agree with the poster who did.You can use watching film (it was actually the games) as a valid argument, but not as a blanket statement that it's clear to anyone who has watched that my opinion is the correct one and anyone who disagrees must only look at the box scores. It's incredibly lame (and condescending).

Yeah, that last paragraph is a nice fantasy for sure.

Fair enough, but it is pretty cut and dried as to who has more talent between these two according to the talent evaluators (e.g., Schneider) and the coaches. That's not to say Turbin isn't talented; he's just not considered to have the level of talent that Michael possesses by the Seahawks FO (amongst plenty of other evaluators).Not certain the distinction you are trying to make between games and film (of games), but we'll agree that it clearly has great value in talent evaluation. It's also clear that many posters in here don't watch Seahawks games and may not watch highlights.

Do you doubt that there are three or four Seahawks that could have scored on that play? There was one defender between Turbin and the goal line. I like those odds for an exceptional talent.

Again, there's a difference between being a talented runner vs. a talented running back. I don't think it's cut and dried right now which is the more talented RB, but if anything it seems the team believes it's Turbin since he's ahead of him. I agree Michael is the better pure runner, and he has the higher upside in ff because of it, but that's only one part of the equation.Not a major issue, but there's a difference between watching the games and reviewing film. Agreed, both are valuable in talent evaluation, but the bottom line is that it's all very subjective. Saying that anyone who has watched someone must have the same opinion as you do and anyone with a differing opinion couldn't possibly have watched is petty. Many people who watch them are doing so through less than neutral eyes and are likely going to confirm their bias regardless (on both sides).

"Could have" is different from "would have" (any player "could have", including Turbin), but there's no way of knowing if anyone else would have scored on that play. I do think you are vastly underestimating how difficult it would have been though- the defensive back (who is very athletic in his own right) had at least a 6 yard lead on him when it turned into a foot race. You're also giving no credit for the ~15 yards Turbin gained after the stiff arm- it was a fairly impressive run IMO.

Well just disagree on these points. Turbin is an average RB and looks to me to be a career backup. Michael has the talent to be something more.That run was open for him to take it to the house. Lynch would have hurt the db in the way of his TD.

This is what I mean- I haven't said that Turbin isn't an average RB, and I have said that Michael has more talent as a runner hence more upside if he can put it all together. You keep ignoring what I am saying, which is that running ability isn't the only thing that makes a talented running back.Here is the run in question. It seems silly to say that it was open for him to take it to the house when there is a defender running 6+ yards in front of him, just like it's silly to assume that several other players (even the almighty Lynch) would have scored on the play. I know it may be hard to believe, but Lynch has been tackled (or forced out of bounds, slowed down so other players can catch up, etc.) by one guy before.

Regardless, it doesn't really matter in terms of Michael, but it just shows how biased many people are- saying another RB made a decent play doesn't mean Michael is any less of a RB himself, but some just have to discredit them instead for some reason. It's pretty strange IMO (and another reason the "lol you don't even watch the gamz!@!" is meaningless if you can't be objective).

I'm not ignoring what you're saying. You're confusing talent for execution and mental preparedness. Michael is a more talented RB, and it's not really that close. He doesn't know his assignments as well and has lapses in his play (particularly blocking).

To assume a more talented RB would have taken it to the house is only slightly less silly than assuming the reaction of an individual (or group of individuals) if another RB had made the exact same run given the exact same set of circumstances.

 

[biju]

And I'll keep pounding the table, Turbin has the EXACT skill set as Michael with maybe a step less speed (which is significant in the NFL but not a burial). If the situation plays out with Lynch as people think it will, it will be far more difficult to get Turbin, who is a consistent steady hand, off the field than just assumed. Glad his value is coming around.

I think you've said this twice, but according the the combine, Michael is significantly quicker than Turbin. I think they are both fine prospects so I agree with you that the anti-Turbin stuff is foolish. I think Turbin is first up should something happen to Lynch's availability and that's what it seems that Seahawks think as well.

You don't really have to go all the way back to the combine--for the folks watching the games instead of the stat lines it is very clear who is the more talented runner. Michael's problem is he's been in this system for over a year and still can't pass block which is troubling. But for someone to say they have the same skill set tells me they aren't watching the two of them with an unbiased point of view, which I find funny because the same person is claiming bias on everyone else's behalf.

I mean, in his sig he has "Christina Michael hater". What more do you actually need?

It takes a lot more than just being a talented runner to play RB in the NFL though. I don't think it's nearly as cut and dried which is the more talented RB right now.

Also, let's drop the "those who watch the game vs. stat watchers" stuff. EBF, the king of that schtick, admittedly didn't even see most of Turbin's carries yet he has no problem assuming they were pedestrian. It's not unreasonable for someone who has watched them both to think that Turbin is at least as good as Michael right now (again, as an overall RB).

Which is *exactly* why I said "runner" instead of "RB". I also specifically called out my concern with him being in the system over a year and seems to still have issues pass blocking, along with putting the ball on the field two times in limited carries.

And until people actually come to the table with valuable insight instead of regurgitating stats I don't see why "watch the tape" is not a valid point. Honestly, we're arguing the same point: you're saying there's more to football than running the ball and I'm agreeing, but also with the added context of one great run doesn't justify the poor runs. I think you're confusing the idea of the fantasy line of "not taking out the big run" with the objectivity of whether they actually looked good in their other runs.

And to be super clear, I thought Turbin looked really good at times, and then relatively mediocre at times. Most of what Turbin excels at is the types of plays where he isn't accumulating stats: blocking mostly, and also route running. But when both players have the ball in their hands (and keeps it in their hands in Michael's case) I really think you would have to have a bias to determine Turbin is even on the same level. This is the case for Seahawks fans (like me, who don't care who ends up the best backup as long as the team succeeds), local commentators and media (who might have some biases but for the most part appear to be objective), and fantasy news outlets (of which I think it is obvious who Rotoworld is supporting unjustly).

There isn't a person in this forum who *knows* what would happen if Lynch were to go down in injury. I believe Michael gives them a better chance for yardage. If the play is an obvious passing play, I believe Turbin gives them *by far* the best chance for yardage. The opposing sides what to make this north pole/south pole comparison but it really isn't so black and white one way or the other. My only point to make is I think there would be much more of a split on ambiguous play downs (1st and 10, 2nd and 6, 3rd and 2 types), but Turbin would "win" the obvious passing downs.

 

[EastonBlues22]

People are also ignoring the elephant in the room. If Marshawn were to get hurt, the offense would quite possibly shift onto the shoulders of Russell Wilson. If Lynch were to go down, the guy who might benefit most could be Wilson or Harvin.

Harvin will get his regardless. I think the really sneaky dynasty beneficiary is Paul Richardson.

 

[ebsteelers]

Is anyone moving Michael or acquiring him? If so what kind of trades are we doing?

 

[humpback]

It takes a lot more than just being a talented runner to play RB in the NFL though. I don't think it's nearly as cut and dried which is the more talented RB right now.

Also, let's drop the "those who watch the game vs. stat watchers" stuff. EBF, the king of that schtick, admittedly didn't even see most of Turbin's carries yet he has no problem assuming they were pedestrian. It's not unreasonable for someone who has watched them both to think that Turbin is at least as good as Michael right now (again, as an overall RB).

He said Turbin has the EXACT skill set Michael has. He doesn't. Michael is a more explosive, more instinctive and far more creative runner than Turbin. He runs with a wider base as well, thus limiting those plays where he is tripped up with arm tackles around his ankles; which Turbin succumbs to far too often. I'd say based on watching them both in college and the pros that Michael has better vision as well. Both have decent (not great) hands, though I can recall a few key drops Turbin has made in his few years in Seattle.About watching film, why should anyone drop that as a valid argument? Is your angle that because EBF may not have watched all the games Turbin played to see his carries that others shouldn't place value in actually watching the players to assess their level of talent? If so, that is strange; perhaps you should direct your argument toward asking EBF to gain more knowledge by actually watching the film (assuming you are correct in that he has not).

People in this thread are using imagined scenarios to assume another's position and then argue against that position. My personal thought, if we are playing make believe, is that Michael (or a handful of other, more explosive and creative backs) would have taken that one cut wide open run to the house. Turbin went 47 yards, about 20 of which looked fairly labored, and needed to best only one DB to hit paydirt. There's 4 or 5 guys on the Seahawk roster alone that could have taken that thing all the way to the end zone. Robert Turbin is obviously not one of them.

That's nice, but completely irrelevant considering I never said that they had the same exact skill sets nor did I agree with the poster who did.You can use watching film (it was actually the games) as a valid argument, but not as a blanket statement that it's clear to anyone who has watched that my opinion is the correct one and anyone who disagrees must only look at the box scores. It's incredibly lame (and condescending).

Yeah, that last paragraph is a nice fantasy for sure.

Fair enough, but it is pretty cut and dried as to who has more talent between these two according to the talent evaluators (e.g., Schneider) and the coaches. That's not to say Turbin isn't talented; he's just not considered to have the level of talent that Michael possesses by the Seahawks FO (amongst plenty of other evaluators).Not certain the distinction you are trying to make between games and film (of games), but we'll agree that it clearly has great value in talent evaluation. It's also clear that many posters in here don't watch Seahawks games and may not watch highlights.

Do you doubt that there are three or four Seahawks that could have scored on that play? There was one defender between Turbin and the goal line. I like those odds for an exceptional talent.

Again, there's a difference between being a talented runner vs. a talented running back. I don't think it's cut and dried right now which is the more talented RB, but if anything it seems the team believes it's Turbin since he's ahead of him. I agree Michael is the better pure runner, and he has the higher upside in ff because of it, but that's only one part of the equation.Not a major issue, but there's a difference between watching the games and reviewing film. Agreed, both are valuable in talent evaluation, but the bottom line is that it's all very subjective. Saying that anyone who has watched someone must have the same opinion as you do and anyone with a differing opinion couldn't possibly have watched is petty. Many people who watch them are doing so through less than neutral eyes and are likely going to confirm their bias regardless (on both sides).

"Could have" is different from "would have" (any player "could have", including Turbin), but there's no way of knowing if anyone else would have scored on that play. I do think you are vastly underestimating how difficult it would have been though- the defensive back (who is very athletic in his own right) had at least a 6 yard lead on him when it turned into a foot race. You're also giving no credit for the ~15 yards Turbin gained after the stiff arm- it was a fairly impressive run IMO.

Well just disagree on these points. Turbin is an average RB and looks to me to be a career backup. Michael has the talent to be something more.That run was open for him to take it to the house. Lynch would have hurt the db in the way of his TD.

This is what I mean- I haven't said that Turbin isn't an average RB, and I have said that Michael has more talent as a runner hence more upside if he can put it all together. You keep ignoring what I am saying, which is that running ability isn't the only thing that makes a talented running back.Here is the run in question. It seems silly to say that it was open for him to take it to the house when there is a defender running 6+ yards in front of him, just like it's silly to assume that several other players (even the almighty Lynch) would have scored on the play. I know it may be hard to believe, but Lynch has been tackled (or forced out of bounds, slowed down so other players can catch up, etc.) by one guy before.

Regardless, it doesn't really matter in terms of Michael, but it just shows how biased many people are- saying another RB made a decent play doesn't mean Michael is any less of a RB himself, but some just have to discredit them instead for some reason. It's pretty strange IMO (and another reason the "lol you don't even watch the gamz!@!" is meaningless if you can't be objective).

I'm not ignoring what you're saying. You're confusing talent for execution and mental preparedness. Michael is a more talented RB, and it's not really that close. He doesn't know his assignments as well and has lapses in his play (particularly blocking).

To assume a more talented RB would have taken it to the house is only slightly less silly than assuming the reaction of an individual (or group of individuals) if another RB had made the exact same run given the exact same set of circumstances.

Execution, mental preparedness, knowing your assignments, not having lapses in play, blocking, and a bunch of other things absolutely factor in to how talented your are as a RB. If they didn't, Michael would certainly be ahead of Turbin on the depth chart, maybe even ahead of Lynch.

Not sure what that last ramble is about, but my point remains- you're not watching things with neutral eyes if you think that run should have easily been a TD.

 

[spider321]

Get a room guys.

 

[humpback]

And I'll keep pounding the table, Turbin has the EXACT skill set as Michael with maybe a step less speed (which is significant in the NFL but not a burial). If the situation plays out with Lynch as people think it will, it will be far more difficult to get Turbin, who is a consistent steady hand, off the field than just assumed. Glad his value is coming around.

I think you've said this twice, but according the the combine, Michael is significantly quicker than Turbin. I think they are both fine prospects so I agree with you that the anti-Turbin stuff is foolish. I think Turbin is first up should something happen to Lynch's availability and that's what it seems that Seahawks think as well.

You don't really have to go all the way back to the combine--for the folks watching the games instead of the stat lines it is very clear who is the more talented runner. Michael's problem is he's been in this system for over a year and still can't pass block which is troubling. But for someone to say they have the same skill set tells me they aren't watching the two of them with an unbiased point of view, which I find funny because the same person is claiming bias on everyone else's behalf.

I mean, in his sig he has "Christina Michael hater". What more do you actually need?

It takes a lot more than just being a talented runner to play RB in the NFL though. I don't think it's nearly as cut and dried which is the more talented RB right now.

Also, let's drop the "those who watch the game vs. stat watchers" stuff. EBF, the king of that schtick, admittedly didn't even see most of Turbin's carries yet he has no problem assuming they were pedestrian. It's not unreasonable for someone who has watched them both to think that Turbin is at least as good as Michael right now (again, as an overall RB).

Which is *exactly* why I said "runner" instead of "RB". I also specifically called out my concern with him being in the system over a year and seems to still have issues pass blocking, along with putting the ball on the field two times in limited carries.

And until people actually come to the table with valuable insight instead of regurgitating stats I don't see why "watch the tape" is not a valid point. Honestly, we're arguing the same point: you're saying there's more to football than running the ball and I'm agreeing, but also with the added context of one great run doesn't justify the poor runs. I think you're confusing the idea of the fantasy line of "not taking out the big run" with the objectivity of whether they actually looked good in their other runs.

And to be super clear, I thought Turbin looked really good at times, and then relatively mediocre at times. Most of what Turbin excels at is the types of plays where he isn't accumulating stats: blocking mostly, and also route running. But when both players have the ball in their hands (and keeps it in their hands in Michael's case) I really think you would have to have a bias to determine Turbin is even on the same level. This is the case for Seahawks fans (like me, who don't care who ends up the best backup as long as the team succeeds), local commentators and media (who might have some biases but for the most part appear to be objective), and fantasy news outlets (of which I think it is obvious who Rotoworld is supporting unjustly).

There isn't a person in this forum who *knows* what would happen if Lynch were to go down in injury. I believe Michael gives them a better chance for yardage. If the play is an obvious passing play, I believe Turbin gives them *by far* the best chance for yardage. The opposing sides what to make this north pole/south pole comparison but it really isn't so black and white one way or the other. My only point to make is I think there would be much more of a split on ambiguous play downs (1st and 10, 2nd and 6, 3rd and 2 types), but Turbin would "win" the obvious passing downs.

I was really just expanding on your point- I don't agree with the other poster that he has the exact same skill set, but I do agree that it isn't a forgone conclusion that Michael would be the man if something happened to Lynch right now because that comes down to more than just running the football.

The reason I don't like the "watch the tape" comments is because it's usually condescending. It's all very subjective and just because someone may have a different opinion doesn't mean they haven't watched the tape. I'm not saying Turbin is awesome or even that he had a good game, but it's ridiculous when guys like EBF actually admit that he hasn't watched the plays and just assumes his runs were pedestrian because of the box score when he loves to throw that same argument out at people. It's petty. I agree that doing so can be very beneficial, but I hate it being used as the go-to anytime someone disagrees. Like I said, many people who watch tape are very biased and only see what they want to see, so it doesn't really do anything for them other than confirm their bias no matter what is actually on it.

Agreed with the last paragraph for the most part, which is why I've stayed away from this thread for a while- so many people are convinced they know what would happen if circumstances changed, and if you disagree, you're clueless. Better yet, you haven't watched the tape!

 

[biju]

Just to add in a little local radio commentary by Brock Huard as I was rolling into work yesterday, he was essentially mentioning Turbin looked good and this might be from rooming with Russell Wilson and working with him very hard in the offseason. He was also pretty interested in Christine Michael and noted he was an exceptional running but really slammed him for the fumble and for not working hard enough to get pass pro down in the offseason. He basically insinuated he won't see the field much if he doesn't show dramatic improvement.

He *sounded* pretty convinced that Turbin was the guy behind Marshawn, but I didn't hear him directly say much about depth charts. Maybe someone else caught that? (My commute is only about 20 minutes.)

 

[George Jefferson Airplane]

52 pages on Christian Michael? Someone has to send him this thread to his twitter account. This is the most press he'll ever get.

 

[biju]

The reason I don't like the "watch the tape" comments is because it's usually condescending. It's all very subjective and just because someone may have a different opinion doesn't mean they haven't watched the tape. I'm not saying Turbin is awesome or even that he had a good game, but it's ridiculous when guys like EBF actually admit that he hasn't watched the plays and just assumes his runs were pedestrian because of the box score when he loves to throw that same argument out at people. It's petty. I agree that doing so can be very beneficial, but I hate it being used as the go-to anytime someone disagrees. Like I said, many people who watch tape are very biased and only see what they want to see, so it doesn't really do anything for them other than confirm their bias no matter what is actually on it.

I understand entirely what you're saying and agree it can be condescending--that wasn't my intention. But when someone says these guys have the "exact" same skill set (which it sound like he later retracted) my initial reaction is they don't know what they are talking about and likely looking at stats and depth charts. Perhaps that is entirely unfounded and I'm making broad assumptions I shouldn't, but then perhaps people need to calm down on the hyperbolic statements.

The folks arguing over and over in this thread seem to not want to take a "closer to the middle" position, probably because it feels weak more than it does accurate. But everyone taking a hard stance one way or the other is just guessing and not really making an informed decision.

 

[Neofight]

It takes a lot more than just being a talented runner to play RB in the NFL though. I don't think it's nearly as cut and dried which is the more talented RB right now.

Also, let's drop the "those who watch the game vs. stat watchers" stuff. EBF, the king of that schtick, admittedly didn't even see most of Turbin's carries yet he has no problem assuming they were pedestrian. It's not unreasonable for someone who has watched them both to think that Turbin is at least as good as Michael right now (again, as an overall RB).

He said Turbin has the EXACT skill set Michael has. He doesn't. Michael is a more explosive, more instinctive and far more creative runner than Turbin. He runs with a wider base as well, thus limiting those plays where he is tripped up with arm tackles around his ankles; which Turbin succumbs to far too often. I'd say based on watching them both in college and the pros that Michael has better vision as well. Both have decent (not great) hands, though I can recall a few key drops Turbin has made in his few years in Seattle.About watching film, why should anyone drop that as a valid argument? Is your angle that because EBF may not have watched all the games Turbin played to see his carries that others shouldn't place value in actually watching the players to assess their level of talent? If so, that is strange; perhaps you should direct your argument toward asking EBF to gain more knowledge by actually watching the film (assuming you are correct in that he has not).

People in this thread are using imagined scenarios to assume another's position and then argue against that position. My personal thought, if we are playing make believe, is that Michael (or a handful of other, more explosive and creative backs) would have taken that one cut wide open run to the house. Turbin went 47 yards, about 20 of which looked fairly labored, and needed to best only one DB to hit paydirt. There's 4 or 5 guys on the Seahawk roster alone that could have taken that thing all the way to the end zone. Robert Turbin is obviously not one of them.

That's nice, but completely irrelevant considering I never said that they had the same exact skill sets nor did I agree with the poster who did.You can use watching film (it was actually the games) as a valid argument, but not as a blanket statement that it's clear to anyone who has watched that my opinion is the correct one and anyone who disagrees must only look at the box scores. It's incredibly lame (and condescending).

Yeah, that last paragraph is a nice fantasy for sure.

Fair enough, but it is pretty cut and dried as to who has more talent between these two according to the talent evaluators (e.g., Schneider) and the coaches. That's not to say Turbin isn't talented; he's just not considered to have the level of talent that Michael possesses by the Seahawks FO (amongst plenty of other evaluators).Not certain the distinction you are trying to make between games and film (of games), but we'll agree that it clearly has great value in talent evaluation. It's also clear that many posters in here don't watch Seahawks games and may not watch highlights.

Do you doubt that there are three or four Seahawks that could have scored on that play? There was one defender between Turbin and the goal line. I like those odds for an exceptional talent.

Again, there's a difference between being a talented runner vs. a talented running back. I don't think it's cut and dried right now which is the more talented RB, but if anything it seems the team believes it's Turbin since he's ahead of him. I agree Michael is the better pure runner, and he has the higher upside in ff because of it, but that's only one part of the equation.Not a major issue, but there's a difference between watching the games and reviewing film. Agreed, both are valuable in talent evaluation, but the bottom line is that it's all very subjective. Saying that anyone who has watched someone must have the same opinion as you do and anyone with a differing opinion couldn't possibly have watched is petty. Many people who watch them are doing so through less than neutral eyes and are likely going to confirm their bias regardless (on both sides).

"Could have" is different from "would have" (any player "could have", including Turbin), but there's no way of knowing if anyone else would have scored on that play. I do think you are vastly underestimating how difficult it would have been though- the defensive back (who is very athletic in his own right) had at least a 6 yard lead on him when it turned into a foot race. You're also giving no credit for the ~15 yards Turbin gained after the stiff arm- it was a fairly impressive run IMO.

Well just disagree on these points. Turbin is an average RB and looks to me to be a career backup. Michael has the talent to be something more.That run was open for him to take it to the house. Lynch would have hurt the db in the way of his TD.

This is what I mean- I haven't said that Turbin isn't an average RB, and I have said that Michael has more talent as a runner hence more upside if he can put it all together. You keep ignoring what I am saying, which is that running ability isn't the only thing that makes a talented running back.Here is the run in question. It seems silly to say that it was open for him to take it to the house when there is a defender running 6+ yards in front of him, just like it's silly to assume that several other players (even the almighty Lynch) would have scored on the play. I know it may be hard to believe, but Lynch has been tackled (or forced out of bounds, slowed down so other players can catch up, etc.) by one guy before.

Regardless, it doesn't really matter in terms of Michael, but it just shows how biased many people are- saying another RB made a decent play doesn't mean Michael is any less of a RB himself, but some just have to discredit them instead for some reason. It's pretty strange IMO (and another reason the "lol you don't even watch the gamz!@!" is meaningless if you can't be objective).

I'm not ignoring what you're saying. You're confusing talent for execution and mental preparedness. Michael is a more talented RB, and it's not really that close. He doesn't know his assignments as well and has lapses in his play (particularly blocking).To assume a more talented RB would have taken it to the house is only slightly less silly than assuming the reaction of an individual (or group of individuals) if another RB had made the exact same run given the exact same set of circumstances.

Execution, mental preparedness, knowing your assignments, not having lapses in play, blocking, and a bunch of other things absolutely factor in to how talented your are as a RB. If they didn't, Michael would certainly be ahead of Turbin on the depth chart, maybe even ahead of Lynch.Not sure what that last ramble is about, but my point remains- you're not watching things with neutral eyes if you think that run should have easily been a TD.

Talent is natural ability. Michael has more of it than Turbin. In the history of the NFL, plenty of more talented players lost out to better prepared and harder working individuals- you are seeing 3 or four cases of this on the Seahawks this year alone. Work ethic, assignment correctness and preparedness have nothing to do with talent, but complement it to make the player more complete.

 

[humpback]

Talent is natural ability. Michael has more of it than Turbin. In the history of the NFL, plenty of more talented players lost out to better prepared and harder working individuals- you are seeing 3 or four cases of this on the Seahawks this year alone. Work ethic, assignment correctness and preparedness have nothing to do with talent, but complement it to make the player more complete.

So you don't think that preparation/dedication/work ethic can make you more talented? It's all just natural ability, when you come out of the womb your talent level is determined right then and there and you don't develop it at all?

Don't really think it's debatable, but let's agree to disagree and move on.

 

[tdmills]

Talent is natural ability. Michael has more of it than Turbin. In the history of the NFL, plenty of more talented players lost out to better prepared and harder working individuals- you are seeing 3 or four cases of this on the Seahawks this year alone. Work ethic, assignment correctness and preparedness have nothing to do with talent, but complement it to make the player more complete.

So you don't think that preparation/dedication/work ethic can make you more talented? It's all just natural ability, when you come out of the womb your talent level is determined right then and there and you don't develop it at all?

Don't really think it's debatable, but let's agree to disagree and move on.

Where was Michael's "natural ability" in college?

Michael 529 attempts for 2791 yards 5.3 ave 34 TD

Cyrus Gray 632 attempts for 3298 yards 5.2 ave 30 TD

Michael was a 2nd round pick and Gray was a 6th. They were together for 3 of Michael's 4 years at Texas A&M, didn't look like a lot separated them.

 

[humpback]

The reason I don't like the "watch the tape" comments is because it's usually condescending. It's all very subjective and just because someone may have a different opinion doesn't mean they haven't watched the tape. I'm not saying Turbin is awesome or even that he had a good game, but it's ridiculous when guys like EBF actually admit that he hasn't watched the plays and just assumes his runs were pedestrian because of the box score when he loves to throw that same argument out at people. It's petty. I agree that doing so can be very beneficial, but I hate it being used as the go-to anytime someone disagrees. Like I said, many people who watch tape are very biased and only see what they want to see, so it doesn't really do anything for them other than confirm their bias no matter what is actually on it.

I understand entirely what you're saying and agree it can be condescending--that wasn't my intention. But when someone says these guys have the "exact" same skill set (which it sound like he later retracted) my initial reaction is they don't know what they are talking about and likely looking at stats and depth charts. Perhaps that is entirely unfounded and I'm making broad assumptions I shouldn't, but then perhaps people need to calm down on the hyperbolic statements.

The folks arguing over and over in this thread seem to not want to take a "closer to the middle" position, probably because it feels weak more than it does accurate. But everyone taking a hard stance one way or the other is just guessing and not really making an informed decision.

Yeah, like I said I was really just expanding on your post, not so much calling you out on it. It just grates on me when it's the go-to response when someone disagrees, and I had just finished catching up and had read EBF's post at the time. Saying something more like "what have you seen that leads you to think they have the same exact skill set" would be more productive IMO, but I admit it's a pet peeve of mine.

It's a small distinction, but I think people don't want to seem weak by saying "I don't know" how it's going to shake out. Heck, I doubt the the coaching staff knows for sure what things would look like if Lynch missed time, or what the RB depth chart is going to look like next season. They'll let things play out and see what happens, but a bunch of guys on the internet don't seem to want to wait that long I guess.

 

[biju]

Talent is natural ability. Michael has more of it than Turbin. In the history of the NFL, plenty of more talented players lost out to better prepared and harder working individuals- you are seeing 3 or four cases of this on the Seahawks this year alone. Work ethic, assignment correctness and preparedness have nothing to do with talent, but complement it to make the player more complete.

So you don't think that preparation/dedication/work ethic can make you more talented? It's all just natural ability, when you come out of the womb your talent level is determined right then and there and you don't develop it at all?

Don't really think it's debatable, but let's agree to disagree and move on.

I don't really need to step into this lovefest, but you guys are just arguing semantics at this point. I think we can all agree that there is a certain amount of natural ability and athleticism you are born with and you can become more skilled at using that athleticism, however there will be natural limitations based on what you're born with.

 

[biju]

The reason I don't like the "watch the tape" comments is because it's usually condescending. It's all very subjective and just because someone may have a different opinion doesn't mean they haven't watched the tape. I'm not saying Turbin is awesome or even that he had a good game, but it's ridiculous when guys like EBF actually admit that he hasn't watched the plays and just assumes his runs were pedestrian because of the box score when he loves to throw that same argument out at people. It's petty. I agree that doing so can be very beneficial, but I hate it being used as the go-to anytime someone disagrees. Like I said, many people who watch tape are very biased and only see what they want to see, so it doesn't really do anything for them other than confirm their bias no matter what is actually on it.

I understand entirely what you're saying and agree it can be condescending--that wasn't my intention. But when someone says these guys have the "exact" same skill set (which it sound like he later retracted) my initial reaction is they don't know what they are talking about and likely looking at stats and depth charts. Perhaps that is entirely unfounded and I'm making broad assumptions I shouldn't, but then perhaps people need to calm down on the hyperbolic statements.

The folks arguing over and over in this thread seem to not want to take a "closer to the middle" position, probably because it feels weak more than it does accurate. But everyone taking a hard stance one way or the other is just guessing and not really making an informed decision.

Yeah, like I said I was really just expanding on your post, not so much calling you out on it. It just grates on me when it's the go-to response when someone disagrees, and I had just finished catching up and had read EBF's post at the time. Saying something more like "what have you seen that leads you to think they have the same exact skill set" would be more productive IMO, but I admit it's a pet peeve of mine.

It's a small distinction, but I think people don't want to seem weak by saying "I don't know" how it's going to shake out. Heck, I doubt the the coaching staff knows for sure what things would look like if Lynch missed time, or what the RB depth chart is going to look like next season. They'll let things play out and see what happens, but a bunch of guys on the internet don't seem to want to wait that long I guess.

I agree this generates better discussion--I'll certainly use this phrasing instead going forward.

 

[valhallan]

Biased Rotoworld at it again!

27. Christine Michael

There might not be a running back on an NFL roster that's more fun to watch than Christine Michael. He is incredibly explosive both vertically and laterally. He runs with hammer-dropping power and sprint-winning speed. When I get bored, I flip on C-Mike highlights and consider selling the farm for him in every one of my Dynasty leagues.

And then I relax. I look at his standing on Seattle's depth chart. He's No. 3 behind Marshawn Lynch and Robert Turbin, and that's become especially clear in this year's training camp. Michael has insane, I'm talking insane running ability, but Turbin is pretty good too, and he's a more complete back. The Seahawks' coaching staff certainly seems to prefer Turbin over Michael at this stage of the process. Michael is an undisciplined runner and overall player. Turbin is a far superior receiver and pass protector, and as a runner pretty much always gets what's blocked.

I sold Michael in the only Dynasty league where I owned him this offseason. I got tired of waiting for his theoretical talent. Both Turbin and Michael need a Lynch injury to become fantasy viable, and in the event of one I think Turbin would be Seattle's lead back. Michael isn't even a strong handcuff.

http://www.rotoworld.com/articles/nfl/48156/139/the-shy-away-top-40?pg=3

 

[ghostguy123]

Talent is natural ability. Michael has more of it than Turbin. In the history of the NFL, plenty of more talented players lost out to better prepared and harder working individuals- you are seeing 3 or four cases of this on the Seahawks this year alone. Work ethic, assignment correctness and preparedness have nothing to do with talent, but complement it to make the player more complete.

So you don't think that preparation/dedication/work ethic can make you more talented? It's all just natural ability, when you come out of the womb your talent level is determined right then and there and you don't develop it at all?

Don't really think it's debatable, but let's agree to disagree and move on.

Where was Michael's "natural ability" in college?

Michael 529 attempts for 2791 yards 5.3 ave 34 TD

Cyrus Gray 632 attempts for 3298 yards 5.2 ave 30 TD

Michael was a 2nd round pick and Gray was a 6th. They were together for 3 of Michael's 4 years at Texas A&M, didn't look like a lot separated them.

If only GMs drafted based 100% on stats, this might matter more.

 

[Chaka]

Talent is natural ability. Michael has more of it than Turbin. In the history of the NFL, plenty of more talented players lost out to better prepared and harder working individuals- you are seeing 3 or four cases of this on the Seahawks this year alone. Work ethic, assignment correctness and preparedness have nothing to do with talent, but complement it to make the player more complete.

So you don't think that preparation/dedication/work ethic can make you more talented? It's all just natural ability, when you come out of the womb your talent level is determined right then and there and you don't develop it at all?

Don't really think it's debatable, but let's agree to disagree and move on.

Where was Michael's "natural ability" in college?

Michael 529 attempts for 2791 yards 5.3 ave 34 TD

Cyrus Gray 632 attempts for 3298 yards 5.2 ave 30 TD

Michael was a 2nd round pick and Gray was a 6th. They were together for 3 of Michael's 4 years at Texas A&M, didn't look like a lot separated them.

If only GMs drafted based 100% on stats, this might matter more.

Yup, knowing your assignments and how to pass block don't show up on the stat sheet.

 

[Faust]

Rotoworld:

Christine Michael - RB - Seahawks

Speaking Thursday, Seahawks coach Pete Carroll called Christine Michael the "most-improved player on the team."

They're well-timed comments for fantasy owners, Michael has been running as the Seahawks' No. 3 running back this summer. Carroll's remarks are a reminder that the Seahawks remain bullish on their 2013 second-rounder. Michael's game is not as well-rounded as Turbin's at the moment, but he boasts rare raw-rushing ability. Michael could still make a 2014 impact. Dynasty-league owners have to remain patient.

Related: Robert Turbin

Source: Liz Mathews on Twitter

Aug 21 - 3:08 PM

 

[ebsteelers]

any recent trades with involving michael?

if so what did they detail?

 

[Chaka]

any recent trades with involving michael?

if so what did they detail?

My spinning rims.

 

[karmarooster]

Tried to move him for Hunter in one league, other owner wouldn't go for it.

 

[valhallan]

Bunch of real nice pass blocks before his first carry tonight.

 

[mbuehner]

Talent is natural ability. Michael has more of it than Turbin. In the history of the NFL, plenty of more talented players lost out to better prepared and harder working individuals- you are seeing 3 or four cases of this on the Seahawks this year alone. Work ethic, assignment correctness and preparedness have nothing to do with talent, but complement it to make the player more complete.

So you don't think that preparation/dedication/work ethic can make you more talented? It's all just natural ability, when you come out of the womb your talent level is determined right then and there and you don't develop it at all?Don't really think it's debatable, but let's agree to disagree and move on.

Where was Michael's "natural ability" in college?

Michael 529 attempts for 2791 yards 5.3 ave 34 TD

Cyrus Gray 632 attempts for 3298 yards 5.2 ave 30 TD

Michael was a 2nd round pick and Gray was a 6th. They were together for 3 of Michael's 4 years at Texas A&M, didn't look like a lot separated them.

Where was Fred Jackson?

Sure, Michaels position on depth chart is a factor. But anyone watching Michael rush the ball that doesnt see something special is watching a different game than me. Yeah thats only one factor of being a RB, but his running is explosive.

 

[valhallan]

Totally natural hands catch for the score. CMike back in the fantasy community's good graces.

 

[slackjawedyokel]

I wish he were silent tonight. Got a couple drafts this weekend.

 

[snitwitch]

he came to play tonight

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Where was Michael's "natural ability" in college?
Michael 529 attempts for 2791 yards 5.3 ave 34 TD

Cyrus Gray 632 attempts for 3298 yards 5.2 ave 30 TD

Michael was a 2nd round pick and Gray was a 6th. They were together for 3 of Michael's 4 years at Texas A&M, didn't look like a lot separated them.

To be fair, Laurence Maroney outplayed Marion Barber in college on the same team, and Trent Richardson had Eddie Lacy planted firmly on the bench.

 

[Chaka]

Most in here will disagree but the truth is that Turbin looked pretty good too.

Just sayin'.

 

[tdmills]

Talent is natural ability. Michael has more of it than Turbin. In the history of the NFL, plenty of more talented players lost out to better prepared and harder working individuals- you are seeing 3 or four cases of this on the Seahawks this year alone. Work ethic, assignment correctness and preparedness have nothing to do with talent, but complement it to make the player more complete.

So you don't think that preparation/dedication/work ethic can make you more talented? It's all just natural ability, when you come out of the womb your talent level is determined right then and there and you don't develop it at all?

Don't really think it's debatable, but let's agree to disagree and move on.

Where was Michael's "natural ability" in college?

Michael 529 attempts for 2791 yards 5.3 ave 34 TD

Cyrus Gray 632 attempts for 3298 yards 5.2 ave 30 TD

Michael was a 2nd round pick and Gray was a 6th. They were together for 3 of Michael's 4 years at Texas A&M, didn't look like a lot separated them.

If only GMs drafted based 100% on stats, this might matter more.

I'm simply pointing out that "natural ability" is relative. If someone owns Michael they'll say "it just looks like he's going to break it every time." That's because you own him and what you want to see happen. So the term "natural ability" means nothing outside of "I own Michael and can't define why he's good." I would assume that natural ability would be similar to RB instincts and I disagree that Michael has great instincts. If anything, Michael is more athlete than football player. Football players do all the little things almost naturally. Can he learn over time and shorten that gap, sure. But I don't think Michael is one of the more instinctual running backs around.

 

[tdmills]

Where was Michael's "natural ability" in college?
Michael 529 attempts for 2791 yards 5.3 ave 34 TD

Cyrus Gray 632 attempts for 3298 yards 5.2 ave 30 TD

Michael was a 2nd round pick and Gray was a 6th. They were together for 3 of Michael's 4 years at Texas A&M, didn't look like a lot separated them.

To be fair, Laurence Maroney outplayed Marion Barber in college on the same team, and Trent Richardson had Eddie Lacy planted firmly on the bench.

I know it happens, but where was the "natural ability" is my question. Cryus Gray was a good college RB and isn't the caliber athlete of Michael. But at some point, either that athleticism shows up on the field or he's just not a great RB.

ETA: Meant at some point Michael should separate from Gray, if he is a better athlete and has that "natural ability." But he didn't, so one of those statements isn't true.

 

[Alonzo Mosely]

Talent is natural ability. Michael has more of it than Turbin. In the history of the NFL, plenty of more talented players lost out to better prepared and harder working individuals- you are seeing 3 or four cases of this on the Seahawks this year alone. Work ethic, assignment correctness and preparedness have nothing to do with talent, but complement it to make the player more complete.

So you don't think that preparation/dedication/work ethic can make you more talented? It's all just natural ability, when you come out of the womb your talent level is determined right then and there and you don't develop it at all?

Don't really think it's debatable, but let's agree to disagree and move on.

Where was Michael's "natural ability" in college?

Michael 529 attempts for 2791 yards 5.3 ave 34 TD

Cyrus Gray 632 attempts for 3298 yards 5.2 ave 30 TD

Michael was a 2nd round pick and Gray was a 6th. They were together for 3 of Michael's 4 years at Texas A&M, didn't look like a lot separated them.

If only GMs drafted based 100% on stats, this might matter more.

I'm simply pointing out that "natural ability" is relative. If someone owns Michael they'll say "it just looks like he's going to break it every time." That's because you own him and what you want to see happen. So the term "natural ability" means nothing outside of "I own Michael and can't define why he's good." I would assume that natural ability would be similar to RB instincts and I disagree that Michael has great instincts. If anything, Michael is more athlete than football player. Football players do all the little things almost naturally. Can he learn over time and shorten that gap, sure. But I don't think Michael is one of the more instinctual running backs around.

Relative to what?

 

[Chaka]

Where was Michael's "natural ability" in college?
Michael 529 attempts for 2791 yards 5.3 ave 34 TD

Cyrus Gray 632 attempts for 3298 yards 5.2 ave 30 TD

Michael was a 2nd round pick and Gray was a 6th. They were together for 3 of Michael's 4 years at Texas A&M, didn't look like a lot separated them.

To be fair, Laurence Maroney outplayed Marion Barber in college on the same team, and Trent Richardson had Eddie Lacy planted firmly on the bench.

I know it happens, but where was the "natural ability" is my question. Cryus Gray was a good college RB and isn't the caliber athlete of Michael. But at some point, either that athleticism shows up on the field or he's just not a great RB.

ETA: Meant at some point Michael should separate from Gray, if he is a better athlete and has that "natural ability." But he didn't, so one of those statements isn't true.

The time frame for reaching that point isn't over.

 

[tdmills]

Talent is natural ability. Michael has more of it than Turbin. In the history of the NFL, plenty of more talented players lost out to better prepared and harder working individuals- you are seeing 3 or four cases of this on the Seahawks this year alone. Work ethic, assignment correctness and preparedness have nothing to do with talent, but complement it to make the player more complete.

So you don't think that preparation/dedication/work ethic can make you more talented? It's all just natural ability, when you come out of the womb your talent level is determined right then and there and you don't develop it at all?

Don't really think it's debatable, but let's agree to disagree and move on.

Where was Michael's "natural ability" in college?

Michael 529 attempts for 2791 yards 5.3 ave 34 TD

Cyrus Gray 632 attempts for 3298 yards 5.2 ave 30 TD

Michael was a 2nd round pick and Gray was a 6th. They were together for 3 of Michael's 4 years at Texas A&M, didn't look like a lot separated them.

If only GMs drafted based 100% on stats, this might matter more.

I'm simply pointing out that "natural ability" is relative. If someone owns Michael they'll say "it just looks like he's going to break it every time." That's because you own him and what you want to see happen. So the term "natural ability" means nothing outside of "I own Michael and can't define why he's good." I would assume that natural ability would be similar to RB instincts and I disagree that Michael has great instincts. If anything, Michael is more athlete than football player. Football players do all the little things almost naturally. Can he learn over time and shorten that gap, sure. But I don't think Michael is one of the more instinctual running backs around.

Relative to what?

If you continue reading I explain. If he is referencing RB instincts, I disagree. If he's referencing that he's a good athlete...I concur, but that doesn't mean he has natural abiltiy.

Where was Michael's "natural ability" in college?
Michael 529 attempts for 2791 yards 5.3 ave 34 TD

Cyrus Gray 632 attempts for 3298 yards 5.2 ave 30 TD

Michael was a 2nd round pick and Gray was a 6th. They were together for 3 of Michael's 4 years at Texas A&M, didn't look like a lot separated them.

To be fair, Laurence Maroney outplayed Marion Barber in college on the same team, and Trent Richardson had Eddie Lacy planted firmly on the bench.

I know it happens, but where was the "natural ability" is my question. Cryus Gray was a good college RB and isn't the caliber athlete of Michael. But at some point, either that athleticism shows up on the field or he's just not a great RB.

ETA: Meant at some point Michael should separate from Gray, if he is a better athlete and has that "natural ability." But he didn't, so one of those statements isn't true.

The time frame for reaching that point isn't over.

Over a 4 year span in college...that's a big enough sample size to separate from a 6th round draft pick.

 

[Alonzo Mosely]

Talent is natural ability. Michael has more of it than Turbin. In the history of the NFL, plenty of more talented players lost out to better prepared and harder working individuals- you are seeing 3 or four cases of this on the Seahawks this year alone. Work ethic, assignment correctness and preparedness have nothing to do with talent, but complement it to make the player more complete.

So you don't think that preparation/dedication/work ethic can make you more talented? It's all just natural ability, when you come out of the womb your talent level is determined right then and there and you don't develop it at all?

Don't really think it's debatable, but let's agree to disagree and move on.

Where was Michael's "natural ability" in college?

Michael 529 attempts for 2791 yards 5.3 ave 34 TD

Cyrus Gray 632 attempts for 3298 yards 5.2 ave 30 TD

Michael was a 2nd round pick and Gray was a 6th. They were together for 3 of Michael's 4 years at Texas A&M, didn't look like a lot separated them.

If only GMs drafted based 100% on stats, this might matter more.

I'm simply pointing out that "natural ability" is relative. If someone owns Michael they'll say "it just looks like he's going to break it every time." That's because you own him and what you want to see happen. So the term "natural ability" means nothing outside of "I own Michael and can't define why he's good." I would assume that natural ability would be similar to RB instincts and I disagree that Michael has great instincts. If anything, Michael is more athlete than football player. Football players do all the little things almost naturally. Can he learn over time and shorten that gap, sure. But I don't think Michael is one of the more instinctual running backs around.

Relative to what?

If you continue reading I explain. If he is referencing RB instincts, I disagree. If he's referencing that he's a good athlete...I concur, but that doesn't mean he has natural abiltiy.

I think the word you're looking for is subjective.

 

[tdmills]

Talent is natural ability. Michael has more of it than Turbin. In the history of the NFL, plenty of more talented players lost out to better prepared and harder working individuals- you are seeing 3 or four cases of this on the Seahawks this year alone. Work ethic, assignment correctness and preparedness have nothing to do with talent, but complement it to make the player more complete.

So you don't think that preparation/dedication/work ethic can make you more talented? It's all just natural ability, when you come out of the womb your talent level is determined right then and there and you don't develop it at all?

Don't really think it's debatable, but let's agree to disagree and move on.

Where was Michael's "natural ability" in college?

Michael 529 attempts for 2791 yards 5.3 ave 34 TD

Cyrus Gray 632 attempts for 3298 yards 5.2 ave 30 TD

Michael was a 2nd round pick and Gray was a 6th. They were together for 3 of Michael's 4 years at Texas A&M, didn't look like a lot separated them.

If only GMs drafted based 100% on stats, this might matter more.

I'm simply pointing out that "natural ability" is relative. If someone owns Michael they'll say "it just looks like he's going to break it every time." That's because you own him and what you want to see happen. So the term "natural ability" means nothing outside of "I own Michael and can't define why he's good." I would assume that natural ability would be similar to RB instincts and I disagree that Michael has great instincts. If anything, Michael is more athlete than football player. Football players do all the little things almost naturally. Can he learn over time and shorten that gap, sure. But I don't think Michael is one of the more instinctual running backs around.

Relative to what?

If you continue reading I explain. If he is referencing RB instincts, I disagree. If he's referencing that he's a good athlete...I concur, but that doesn't mean he has natural abiltiy.

I think the word you're looking for is subjective.

Thanks for derailing a thread Webster. Whenever you'd like to talk football, i'm game. However, i'm not interesting in your fishingtrip

 

[Chaka]

Where was Michael's "natural ability" in college?
Michael 529 attempts for 2791 yards 5.3 ave 34 TD

Cyrus Gray 632 attempts for 3298 yards 5.2 ave 30 TD

Michael was a 2nd round pick and Gray was a 6th. They were together for 3 of Michael's 4 years at Texas A&M, didn't look like a lot separated them.

To be fair, Laurence Maroney outplayed Marion Barber in college on the same team, and Trent Richardson had Eddie Lacy planted firmly on the bench.

I know it happens, but where was the "natural ability" is my question. Cryus Gray was a good college RB and isn't the caliber athlete of Michael. But at some point, either that athleticism shows up on the field or he's just not a great RB.

ETA: Meant at some point Michael should separate from Gray, if he is a better athlete and has that "natural ability." But he didn't, so one of those statements isn't true.

The time frame for reaching that point isn't over.

Over a 4 year span in college...that's a big enough sample size to separate from a 6th round draft pick.

3 years and I disagree. Gray was a sophomore in '09 when Michael and they were immediately in a full blown time share (181 touches for Michael and 188 for Gray).

In '10 Michael was leading Gray in touches 139 to 96 before he got hurt. Actually it was more like 124 to 63 when Michael got hurt early against Kansas came back briefly vs Tech before shutting it down.

Michael was hurt again in '11 playing briefly in two games early and missing two others entirely at the end of the season. They were again in pretty much a time share, at worst, during the games they played together.

Injuries are the reason Gray was not more clearly marginalized during their time together at A&M not talent.

And to be clear I am not a Michael owner or apologist I am one of the guys in this thread supporting the notion that Turbin is clearly ahead of Michael for the Seahawks. I also acknowledge that Michael is likely a better pure runner than Turbin (although that doesn't mean #### if he doesn't know his assignments without the ball in his hands).

 

[humpback]

Totally natural hands catch for the score. CMike back in the fantasy community's good graces.

I think that play may actually be a good example of what could hold him back.

 

[biju]

Most in here will disagree but the truth is that Turbin looked pretty good too.

Just sayin'.

I agree. I just think with the ball in their hands Michael looks way better. I would also state Michael looked significantly better in pass protection this week as well.

Again, I don't think Turbin is necessary "bad", but I just can't help but think with either Lynch or Michael you would end up with more run yardage on the exact same carry.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Some really good quotes here:

But he still is inconsistent. He fumbled twice in his first two exhibition games. Against San Diego, he picked up a blitzing linebacker and stopped him cold. On another play, he forgot to help offensive tackle Alvin Bailey block before going out for a pass — what’s known as chipping.

“You might see the great cut one time and then not the next, and it’s the exact same scenario,” offensive-line coach Tom Cable said. “He comes across and makes a great pickup and then he’s supposed to chip and then, ‘Oh, I’m going to get out for my route and, oops, I forgot to chip.’ It’s just being able to put a good play together and then a good one the next time and the next time. When that becomes his habit, then he owns it. Right now, he doesn’t own it.”

[snip]

But the Seahawks need to trust Michael, and in that sense he is still behind Lynch and Robert Turbin.

“What’s really cool about Christine is from where he started and where he’s at is a country mile,” Cable said. “And yet there’s another country mile to go. Some people look at that and say, ‘The glass is half empty and that’s not good.’ No, actually he’s on pace to be what you want him to be.”