Christine Michael (2 Viewers)

[coolnerd]

Can you explain why C. Michaels was cut? Did they save face by holding onto a 2nd rnd pick for awhile?

p.s. You a Fan?

1)He was traded2) why? A few reasons. They liked Rawls and the control they have over him for the next 4 years versus 2 for cmike. Rawls fit the scheme better. Cmike is much better suited for Dallas and what they do then the Hawks. They had hoped he could be a one cut and go type guy but it never happened. They loved the talent and that's why they drafted him but talent doesn't always fit the scheme. When it doesn't fit the scheme you see guys fail.

So the Seahawks run a one cut and go scheme, what do the Cowboys run and how exactly is it a better fit for him?

If I understand correctly, the cowboys run a Hybrid or so-called Power Zone scheme which features both zone and classic power techniques.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Not saying they are the same. Just pointing out that the narrative that if a back is being traded he must not be very good.

I don't think that's the narrative at all. You're kind of lopping off the back half of the narrative, the part where he was traded for almost literally nothing.

The jury is still out on Michael, but comparing this trade for a conditional 7th round pick because Seattle thought they could replace him with the UDFA they had just brought in is in no way comparable to Buffalo moving Lynch for a 4th and a 5th round pick because they thought they could replace him with the RB they had just drafted 11th overall.

I am not comparing the trade to Lynch's trade. I am simply pointing out that:

1. Backs get traded

2. Sometimes the backs are actually good

3. Backs are not highly valued in the NFL and are considered expendable, so what the Hawks got in return is not relevant in regards to the players talent.

Backs are now rarely drafted in the first round anymore because they are not valued.

All you need out of a fantasy back is opportunity. Michael represents a combination of perceived talent and relative speculative opportunity in a positive pro running offense.

Then it sounds like you're answering a question that no one has asked.

Do good backs get traded? Sure, no one is disputing that.

Do good backs on a cheap contract get traded for almost nothing from a team that is going to likely have a big gaping hole at RB within the next year or two and replaced with an UDFA? That is a better question, and I guess we're going to find out the answer this year.

Ahman Green is a somewhat adequate comparison but there are a lot of differences there. Namely, that he returned quite a bit more in trade (Fred Vinson, who had actually been picked a round ahead of Green in the 2nd the year before) and perhaps more importantly, that he was replaced by a 1st round pick (Shaun Alexander), not Thomas Rawls.

 

[ImTheScientist]

If Christine Michael was that good the Seahawks would have kept him to replace their 30 year old RB who is on his last legs in the next year or so.

Really, this is what I keep thinking. Seahawks could have locked him up after the year with a long term deal for not-big dollars. If he was this insane talent, they could have tried to keep him. He was traded for what guys that are about to get cut get traded for.

They think Rawls is better than him.

They could be wrong, every team is from time to time, but none of what has happened with him in years is very good.

It's about fit, scheme, and control over 4 years versus 2. He doesn't work well with ZBS... Doesn't pick the right holes and hasn't learned it. Every runner is different. He is not a one cut and go runner. They got what hey could get for him as Rawls does fit, and they have control for 4 years on the cheap. That's important to them as they value fit over talent. I think they have only 8% of the 53 man roster was a first round pick. Something like 20 UFA guys. Fit over talent.

 

[ImTheScientist]

Can you explain why C. Michaels was cut? Did they save face by holding onto a 2nd rnd pick for awhile?

p.s. You a Fan?

1)He was traded2) why? A few reasons. They liked Rawls and the control they have over him for the next 4 years versus 2 for cmike. Rawls fit the scheme better. Cmike is much better suited for Dallas and what they do then the Hawks. They had hoped he could be a one cut and go type guy but it never happened. They loved the talent and that's why they drafted him but talent doesn't always fit the scheme. When it doesn't fit the scheme you see guys fail.

So the Seahawks run a one cut and go scheme, what do the Cowboys run and how exactly is it a better fit for him?

Tough to explain on my phone in a forum. There was plenty on Twitter over the last few days and there are articles about it. If you truly are interested in the details google it I'm sure info will pop up for you. If not PM me and I will direct you there.

 

[I Am the Stig]

Not saying they are the same. Just pointing out that the narrative that if a back is being traded he must not be very good.

I don't think that's the narrative at all. You're kind of lopping off the back half of the narrative, the part where he was traded for almost literally nothing.

The jury is still out on Michael, but comparing this trade for a conditional 7th round pick because Seattle thought they could replace him with the UDFA they had just brought in is in no way comparable to Buffalo moving Lynch for a 4th and a 5th round pick because they thought they could replace him with the RB they had just drafted 11th overall.

I am not comparing the trade to Lynch's trade. I am simply pointing out that:1. Backs get traded

2. Sometimes the backs are actually good

3. Backs are not highly valued in the NFL and are considered expendable, so what the Hawks got in return is not relevant in regards to the players talent.

Backs are now rarely drafted in the first round anymore because they are not valued.

All you need out of a fantasy back is opportunity. Michael represents a combination of perceived talent and relative speculative opportunity in a positive pro running offense.

Then it sounds like you're answering a question that no one has asked.

Do good backs get traded? Sure, no one is disputing that.

Do good backs on a cheap contract get traded for almost nothing from a team that is going to likely have a big gaping hole at RB within the next year or two and replaced with an UDFA? That is a better question, and I guess we're going to find out the answer this year.

Ahman Green is a somewhat adequate comparison but there are a lot of differences there. Namely, that he returned quite a bit more in trade (Fred Vinson, who had actually been picked a round ahead of Green in the 2nd the year before) and perhaps more importantly, that he was replaced by a 1st round pick (Shaun Alexander), not Thomas Rawls.

No, the point of a few of the posts eluded to the point of, "well if he can't find a role on the Hawks and they traded him then how good could he be?"

That is all I was responding to, nothing more and nothing less.

 

[Amused to Death]

Has it been reported yet what the condition is on the pick?

 

[The Man With No Name]

He didn't get it, but he still averaged 4.9 ypc

 

[Monk81]

Has it been reported yet what the condition is on the pick?

That he doesn't hijack a team bus and take it to a Mexican strip club. They have about a 50/50 chance of getting that pick.

 

[jurb26]

Mods, any way you would please combine these parallel CMike threads?

Yeah, why this hasn't been merged is beyond me. It's basically the same discussion in 2 threads and jumping between them to keep up is a pain in the...

 

[cstu]

Do good backs on a cheap contract get traded for almost nothing from a team that is going to likely have a big gaping hole at RB within the next year or two and replaced with an UDFA? That is a better question, and I guess we're going to find out the answer this year.

Ahman Green is a somewhat adequate comparison but there are a lot of differences there. Namely, that he returned quite a bit more in trade (Fred Vinson, who had actually been picked a round ahead of Green in the 2nd the year before) and perhaps more importantly, that he was replaced by a 1st round pick (Shaun Alexander), not Thomas Rawls.

Peyton Hillis was the 3rd string RB for the Broncos in 2009 (after starting 6 games as rookie). He was traded in April 2010 and the Broncos replaced him with undrafted Lance Ball.

If Hillis can put up nearly 1200/12 rushing and 60 receptions for the Browns then it's certainly possible that Michael can do it behind the Cowboys OL. The biggest difference is the the Browns traded for him at the beginning of the offseason so he had all of training camp to prepare.

 

[GoNads]

Not saying they are the same. Just pointing out that the narrative that if a back is being traded he must not be very good.

I don't think that's the narrative at all. You're kind of lopping off the back half of the narrative, the part where he was traded for almost literally nothing.

The jury is still out on Michael, but comparing this trade for a conditional 7th round pick because Seattle thought they could replace him with the UDFA they had just brought in is in no way comparable to Buffalo moving Lynch for a 4th and a 5th round pick because they thought they could replace him with the RB they had just drafted 11th overall.

I am not comparing the trade to Lynch's trade. I am simply pointing out that:

1. Backs get traded

2. Sometimes the backs are actually good

3. Backs are not highly valued in the NFL and are considered expendable, so what the Hawks got in return is not relevant in regards to the players talent.

Backs are now rarely drafted in the first round anymore because they are not valued.

All you need out of a fantasy back is opportunity. Michael represents a combination of perceived talent and relative speculative opportunity in a positive pro running offense.

Then it sounds like you're answering a question that no one has asked.

Do good backs get traded? Sure, no one is disputing that.

Do good backs on a cheap contract get traded for almost nothing from a team that is going to likely have a big gaping hole at RB within the next year or two and replaced with an UDFA? That is a better question, and I guess we're going to find out the answer this year.

Ahman Green is a somewhat adequate comparison but there are a lot of differences there. Namely, that he returned quite a bit more in trade (Fred Vinson, who had actually been picked a round ahead of Green in the 2nd the year before) and perhaps more importantly, that he was replaced by a 1st round pick (Shaun Alexander), not Thomas Rawls.

The two situations are not analogous in every aspect, but the point here, details aside, is the fact that Lynch's stock was pretty low at the time of his trade as well.

Lynch had lost the starting job in Buffalo to Fred Jackson (UFA coming from NFL Europe) the year before the trade, and was stuck in a committee with Jackson and rookie Spiller before being shopped around and then traded to Seattle (2011 fourth-round pick and a 2012 conditional pick) .

What he accomplished in Seattle since then has been awesome and exactly what those buying the CM lottery ticket are hoping for. Lynch was not a sure bet when the trade happened; neither is CM.

 

[coolnerd]

Mods, any way you would please combine these parallel CMike threads?

Yeah, why this hasn't been merged is beyond me. It's basically the same discussion in 2 threads and jumping between them to keep up is a pain in the...

for this reason, I will repost the same info here.

I did an in person draft about two miles (literally) from the Death star...I mean ATT stadium in arlington yesterday and CM went undrafted. Not only in cowboyville, but some A & M fans around. Pretty much meh from that group. basically, he was thought of no more than any other 3rd string running being traded for a late pick with people who are familiar both with his college career and the team he is going.

Edit:

Randle went 70th and DMC went 101...the thought was that dallas is going to be a messy committee all year with Michael adding to the messy versus being some sort of answer.

 

[ROYALWITCHEESE]

Not saying they are the same. Just pointing out that the narrative that if a back is being traded he must not be very good.

I don't think that's the narrative at all. You're kind of lopping off the back half of the narrative, the part where he was traded for almost literally nothing.

The jury is still out on Michael, but comparing this trade for a conditional 7th round pick because Seattle thought they could replace him with the UDFA they had just brought in is in no way comparable to Buffalo moving Lynch for a 4th and a 5th round pick because they thought they could replace him with the RB they had just drafted 11th overall.

I am not comparing the trade to Lynch's trade. I am simply pointing out that:1. Backs get traded

2. Sometimes the backs are actually good

3. Backs are not highly valued in the NFL and are considered expendable, so what the Hawks got in return is not relevant in regards to the players talent.

Backs are now rarely drafted in the first round anymore because they are not valued.

All you need out of a fantasy back is opportunity. Michael represents a combination of perceived talent and relative speculative opportunity in a positive pro running offense.

Then it sounds like you're answering a question that no one has asked.

Do good backs get traded? Sure, no one is disputing that.

Do good backs on a cheap contract get traded for almost nothing from a team that is going to likely have a big gaping hole at RB within the next year or two and replaced with an UDFA? That is a better question, and I guess we're going to find out the answer this year.

Ahman Green is a somewhat adequate comparison but there are a lot of differences there. Namely, that he returned quite a bit more in trade (Fred Vinson, who had actually been picked a round ahead of Green in the 2nd the year before) and perhaps more importantly, that he was replaced by a 1st round pick (Shaun Alexander), not Thomas Rawls.

The two situations are not analogous in every aspect, but the point here, details aside, is the fact that Lynch's stock was pretty low at the time of his trade as well.

Lynch had lost the starting job in Buffalo to Fred Jackson (UFA coming from NFL Europe) the year before the trade, and was stuck in a committee with Jackson and rookie Spiller before being shopped around and then traded to Seattle (2011 fourth-round pick and a 2012 conditional pick) .

What he accomplished in Seattle since then has been awesome and exactly what those buying the CM lottery ticket are hoping for. Lynch was not a sure bet when the trade happened; neither is CM.

Lynch had a couple of 1000 yard seasons in Buffalo. The ONLY thing similar here is that they were both traded. That's it.

 

[Amused to Death]

Has it been reported yet what the condition is on the pick?

That he doesn't hijack a team bus and take it to a Mexican strip club. They have about a 50/50 chance of getting that pick.

He has to be on the roster 3 games....virtually guaranteed they will get the pick, but thx for the valuable post...this thread certainly needs more of those

Thank you. I'm a CM owner with little invested and low expectations. Been searching but couldn't find it. Was wondering if it was tied to playing time, performance or games played. Agree with you on the guarantee.

 

[Milkman]

Anybody want to throw up some predictions on what CM will put up in Dallas. I don't see a scenario where he gets more than 180 carries (unless someone gets hurt) even if he does push Randle out of the way simply because he is just getting to Dallas a few days before the season starts. The first 2-3 games he won't see much action.

I'm thinking realistic ceiling is 180-860-10. I know 10 TD's sounds high but I see a scenario where he's their GL back for about 2/3rds of the season. I would have his ceiling at top 5 RB in the league if he was with the Cowboys all through training camp though. His floor imo is out of the league.

 

[bulger2holt]

Anybody want to throw up some predictions on what CM will put up in Dallas. I don't see a scenario where he gets more than 180 carries (unless someone gets hurt) even if he does push Randle out of the way simply because he is just getting to Dallas a few days before the season starts. The first 2-3 games he won't see much action.

I thinking realistic ceiling is 180-860-10. I know 10 TD's sounds high but I see a scenario where he's their GL back for about 2/3rds of the season. I would have his ceiling at top 5 RB in the league if he was with the Cowboys all through training camp though. His floor imo is out of the league.

If he can get up to speed with the playbook by week 3, I think those are realistic numbers. I'm guess by week 3 or 4, he will be in the rotation and be at least a 50-50 split.

 

[Todem]

I am drafting tonight. And he is on my radar. But I won't pull the trigger on him till past round 9.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Do good backs on a cheap contract get traded for almost nothing from a team that is going to likely have a big gaping hole at RB within the next year or two and replaced with an UDFA? That is a better question, and I guess we're going to find out the answer this year.

Ahman Green is a somewhat adequate comparison but there are a lot of differences there. Namely, that he returned quite a bit more in trade (Fred Vinson, who had actually been picked a round ahead of Green in the 2nd the year before) and perhaps more importantly, that he was replaced by a 1st round pick (Shaun Alexander), not Thomas Rawls.

Peyton Hillis was the 3rd string RB for the Broncos in 2009 (after starting 6 games as rookie). He was traded in April 2010 and the Broncos replaced him with undrafted Lance Ball.

If Hillis can put up nearly 1200/12 rushing and 60 receptions for the Browns then it's certainly possible that Michael can do it behind the Cowboys OL. The biggest difference is the the Browns traded for him at the beginning of the offseason so he had all of training camp to prepare.

I think a big difference here is that Denver (like Buffalo when they moved Lynch) had a back of the future who was young and who they'd just spent their 1st round pick on. Hillis was a true 3rd string RB. There was no path to the starting job for him, as their starter was a 23 year old back that they had just drafted in the 1st round.

With a dire need for a RB coming within the next few years, and as soon as next year, Michael should have presumably had a lot more value to Seattle than someone like Hillis did to the Broncos or Lynch did to the Bills. The fact that they let him go (and so cheaply) in spite of this is more telling to me than the fact that he got traded (which in and of itself hardly matters).

Will it end up being any kind of foreshadowing in the end? Maybe, maybe not. But it's at least worth nothing.

 

[beef]

So what has anyone traded away to get Michael or got in return for him?

 

[I Am the Stig]

Do good backs on a cheap contract get traded for almost nothing from a team that is going to likely have a big gaping hole at RB within the next year or two and replaced with an UDFA? That is a better question, and I guess we're going to find out the answer this year.

Ahman Green is a somewhat adequate comparison but there are a lot of differences there. Namely, that he returned quite a bit more in trade (Fred Vinson, who had actually been picked a round ahead of Green in the 2nd the year before) and perhaps more importantly, that he was replaced by a 1st round pick (Shaun Alexander), not Thomas Rawls.

Peyton Hillis was the 3rd string RB for the Broncos in 2009 (after starting 6 games as rookie). He was traded in April 2010 and the Broncos replaced him with undrafted Lance Ball.If Hillis can put up nearly 1200/12 rushing and 60 receptions for the Browns then it's certainly possible that Michael can do it behind the Cowboys OL. The biggest difference is the the Browns traded for him at the beginning of the offseason so he had all of training camp to prepare.

I think a big difference here is that Denver (like Buffalo when they moved Lynch) had a back of the future who was young and who they'd just spent their 1st round pick on. Hillis was a true 3rd string RB. There was no path to the starting job for him, as their starter was a 23 year old back that they had just drafted in the 1st round.

With a dire need for a RB coming within the next few years, and as soon as next year, Michael should have presumably had a lot more value to Seattle than someone like Hillis did to the Broncos or Lynch did to the Bills. The fact that they let him go (and so cheaply) in spite of this is more telling to me than the fact that he got traded (which in and of itself hardly matters).

Will it end up being any kind of foreshadowing in the end? Maybe, maybe not. But it's at least worth nothing.

They didn't give him away cheaply. They gave him away for the value of a 3rd string RB. The fact that they could trade him at all says that he has some value.

Cutting him would have been cheap.

 

[EBF]

With a dire need for a RB coming within the next few years, and as soon as next year, Michael should have presumably had a lot more value to Seattle than someone like Hillis did to the Broncos or Lynch did to the Bills. The fact that they let him go (and so cheaply) in spite of this is more telling to me than the fact that he got traded (which in and of itself hardly matters).

Will it end up being any kind of foreshadowing in the end? Maybe, maybe not. But it's at least worth nothing.

His contract is up in two years though and with Lynch extended, there's no change on the horizon there in Seattle for at least another year or two. Rawls makes about 60% of what Michael makes, so they also save a good deal of money + get an extra pick rather than keeping him as the #3 RB who is inactive for half the games and then losing him in 18 months for nothing. I still agree that the price is disappointing, but it's better than nothing and all CM believers were hoping for was an opportunity, which he now should have.

In terms of realistic projections, I think there's no way to predict exactly what he'll do. If McFadden and Randle thrive, he might not play much at all. If they struggle, he could be the clear starter by the end of the month. I do think he'll deliver explosive plays when he gets touches because that's the pattern of what he has done every step of the way in the NFL. I also don't think there's much risk of him being cut at any point this season, as he clearly has a lot of talent and Dallas is probably one of the better teams in the NFL at dealing with "difficult" players (i.e. Pac-Man, TO, Dez, etc). I've never heard of Michael being a violent thug type anyway. More of a clowny space cadet type from what I gather.

The fact that Michael Robinson, his former teammate and a very experienced fullback who played with the likes of Gore and Lynch, backs him to be successful is a nice sign. You would expect that guy to have a pretty good grasp of RB talent.

 

[beef]

I feel like this may be the last time to get some value from Michael. After Trent was traded to Indy I was too blinded by the opportunity to accept any offers. This just kind of has a similar feeling for me.

 

[Milkman]

So what has anyone traded away to get Michael or got in return for him?

I tried to trade him and Randle as a package and got very little interest. It might be better to wait until he has a big game if you want off this train. He's still pretty worthless in most peoples eyes and I'm trying to be as objective as possible here but I value him more than that.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

With a dire need for a RB coming within the next few years, and as soon as next year, Michael should have presumably had a lot more value to Seattle than someone like Hillis did to the Broncos or Lynch did to the Bills. The fact that they let him go (and so cheaply) in spite of this is more telling to me than the fact that he got traded (which in and of itself hardly matters).

Will it end up being any kind of foreshadowing in the end? Maybe, maybe not. But it's at least worth nothing.

His contract is up in two years though and with Lynch extended, there's no change on the horizon there in Seattle for at least another year or two. Rawls makes about 60% of what Michael makes, so they also save a good deal of money + get an extra pick rather than keeping him as the #3 RB who is inactive for half the games and then losing him in 18 months for nothing. I still agree that the price is disappointing, but it's better than nothing and all CM believers were hoping for was an opportunity, which he now should have.

If we were talking about them needing a 3rd string RB for the next 4 years that would be one thing. But we're talking about them needing a starting RB within the next year or two, so "we can save a whopping 300k with this other guy and maybe get a 7th round pick back" is so negligible that it's almost meaningless in that context.

"60%" is wildly misleading. This isn't 60% of $40 million. This is 60% of essentially nothing as far as NFL contracts are concerned. We're talking about one fifth of one percent of the NFL cap here. It would be like you or I bragging that we saved 60% on a pack of Juicy Fruit. It's almost irrelevant. As is a conditional 7th round pick.

Likewise, having not played much, it's not like Michael is going to be signed for some big deal when his contract does expire anyway. And again, at that point Seattle will likely be in need of a starting RB (not a 3rd string RB). If Seattle thought there was any chance that Michael would be that guy they'd have kept him, because at that point they'll likely have to invest at least as much, if not a lot more (both in money and/or draft picks) to find a starting RB anyway.

I own Michael in one of my dynasties as well and from an opportunity standpoint am much happier with him being in Dallas. But in terms of why Seattle would have given him away for so little with a RB need looming on the horizon, looking towards money/contracts just reeks of desperately trying to rationalize something to make ourselves feel better about our guy. There was no monetary reason for Seattle to ditch the guy for $300k and a 7th round pick just so they can spend 15x that much and potentially an early draft pick on a RB a year or two down the line if they thought that Michael could have eventually be their starter instead. What this trade means is that Seattle saw Michael as a career 3rd string RB even after Lynch/Jackson were gone. And no, that's not good news from a team that has generally been above average at personnel grading.

 

[Manster]

That's just it.....who fricken knows whats gonna happen with this guy?

He's got talent. He's also kind of a knucklehead. That seems to be a trend with the Cowboys right now..... grab guys who have lots of talent, but have character questions...... i.e., Hardy, Gregory, and now C-Mike. Get em at a discount....limited risk, high potential. From a team standpoint, the Cowboys are in a win now mode. Romo doesn't have a lot of time left.

I just don't know what to think from a FF perspective. The opinions are all over the place on CMike. All I can say is, if you have a long bench in redraft, and he happens to be on the wire, I'd try to snag him and wait and see what happens.

 

[Milkman]

With a dire need for a RB coming within the next few years, and as soon as next year, Michael should have presumably had a lot more value to Seattle than someone like Hillis did to the Broncos or Lynch did to the Bills. The fact that they let him go (and so cheaply) in spite of this is more telling to me than the fact that he got traded (which in and of itself hardly matters).

Will it end up being any kind of foreshadowing in the end? Maybe, maybe not. But it's at least worth nothing.

His contract is up in two years though and with Lynch extended, there's no change on the horizon there in Seattle for at least another year or two. Rawls makes about 60% of what Michael makes, so they also save a good deal of money + get an extra pick rather than keeping him as the #3 RB who is inactive for half the games and then losing him in 18 months for nothing. I still agree that the price is disappointing, but it's better than nothing and all CM believers were hoping for was an opportunity, which he now should have.

If we were talking about them needing a 3rd string RB for the next 4 years that would be one thing. But we're talking about them needing a starting RB within the next year or two, so "we can save a whopping 300k with this other guy and maybe get a 7th round pick back" is so negligible that it's almost meaningless in that context.

"60%" is wildly misleading. This isn't 60% of $40 million. This is 60% of essentially nothing as far as NFL contracts are concerned. We're talking about one fifth of one percent of the NFL cap here. It would be like you or I bragging that we saved 60% on a pack of Juicy Fruit. It's almost irrelevant. As is a conditional 7th round pick.

Likewise, having not played much, it's not like Michael is going to be signed for some big deal when his contract does expire anyway. And again, at that point Seattle will likely be in need of a starting RB (not a 3rd string RB). If Seattle thought there was any chance that Michael would be that guy they'd have kept him, because at that point they'll likely have to invest at least as much, if not a lot more (both in money and/or draft picks) to find a starting RB anyway.

I own Michael in one of my dynasties as well and from an opportunity standpoint am much happier with him being in Dallas. But in terms of why Seattle would have given him away for so little with a RB need looming on the horizon, looking towards money/contracts just reeks of desperately trying to rationalize something to make ourselves feel better about our guy. There was no monetary reason for Seattle to ditch the guy for $300k and a 7th round pick just so they can spend 15x that much and potentially an early draft pick on a RB a year or two down the line if they thought that Michael could have eventually be their starter instead. What this trade means is that Seattle saw Michael as a career 3rd string RB even after Lynch/Jackson were gone. And no, that's not good news from a team that has generally been above average at personnel grading.

It could be as simple as Michael quietly asking for a trade. He hasn't played in 2 years. When he does play he flashes. If you're Pete Carroll and you're already fighting to keep CM's head in the game how many years do you think you can go without playing him? Especially if he's already a knucklehead......

 

[humpback]

With a dire need for a RB coming within the next few years, and as soon as next year, Michael should have presumably had a lot more value to Seattle than someone like Hillis did to the Broncos or Lynch did to the Bills. The fact that they let him go (and so cheaply) in spite of this is more telling to me than the fact that he got traded (which in and of itself hardly matters).

Will it end up being any kind of foreshadowing in the end? Maybe, maybe not. But it's at least worth nothing.

His contract is up in two years though and with Lynch extended, there's no change on the horizon there in Seattle for at least another year or two. Rawls makes about 60% of what Michael makes, so they also save a good deal of money + get an extra pick rather than keeping him as the #3 RB who is inactive for half the games and then losing him in 18 months for nothing. I still agree that the price is disappointing, but it's better than nothing and all CM believers were hoping for was an opportunity, which he now should have.

If we were talking about them needing a 3rd string RB for the next 4 years that would be one thing. But we're talking about them needing a starting RB within the next year or two, so "we can save a whopping 300k with this other guy and maybe get a 7th round pick back" is so negligible that it's almost meaningless in that context.

"60%" is wildly misleading. This isn't 60% of $40 million. This is 60% of essentially nothing as far as NFL contracts are concerned. We're talking about one fifth of one percent of the NFL cap here. It would be like you or I bragging that we saved 60% on a pack of Juicy Fruit. It's almost irrelevant. As is a conditional 7th round pick.

Likewise, having not played much, it's not like Michael is going to be signed for some big deal when his contract does expire anyway. And again, at that point Seattle will likely be in need of a starting RB (not a 3rd string RB). If Seattle thought there was any chance that Michael would be that guy they'd have kept him, because at that point they'll likely have to invest at least as much, if not a lot more (both in money and/or draft picks) to find a starting RB anyway.

I own Michael in one of my dynasties as well and from an opportunity standpoint am much happier with him being in Dallas. But in terms of why Seattle would have given him away for so little with a RB need looming on the horizon, looking towards money/contracts just reeks of desperately trying to rationalize something to make ourselves feel better about our guy. There was no monetary reason for Seattle to ditch the guy for $300k and a 7th round pick just so they can spend 15x that much and potentially an early draft pick on a RB a year or two down the line if they thought that Michael could have eventually be their starter instead. What this trade means is that Seattle saw Michael as a career 3rd string RB even after Lynch/Jackson were gone. And no, that's not good news from a team that has generally been above average at personnel grading.

Completely agree. It may turn out that they are wrong, but it's painfully obvious that Seattle doesn't think he's going to be a very good RB. Judging by his next-to-nothing acquisition cost, you could argue that most of the other teams agree with them. That being said, it's definitely a positive for owners that he's in Dallas right now (if for no other reason than there shouldn't be any more excuses), but all of the talk about money, contracts, schemes, etc. is pretty silly IMO.

 

[Sabertooth]

What is his upside if he wins the starting job?

 

[JohnnyU]

sell !! sell !! sell !!

 

[Chaka]

What is his upside if he wins the starting job?

Any RB behind that offensive line has huge upside.

I just think it isn't very likely he wins the job outright. Certainly not early in the season, maybe after their bye week at the earliest IMO.

For me he is a late season lottery pick. I hope I can keep him on my roster just for the potential but my expectations are very low if both Randle and McFadden stay healthy all year.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Marcus Mosher ‏@Marcus_Mosher

Just because: Christine Michael's spider-chart (via @mockdraftable):

https://twitter.com/Marcus_Mosher/status/640894435572719616

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

David Helman ‏@HelmanDC

Christine Michael is going to wear 30.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Mark Lane ‏@therealmarklane 2h2 hours ago

On @1053thefan, Stephen Jones says he thinks the #Cowboys can get that player the #Seahawks thought they were drafting in 2013.

 

[bulger2holt]

What is his upside if he wins the starting job

If he gets the 3 down job we are looking at an rb1...maybe even top 7

That will be tough if Randle and DMC stay healthy because I think all 3 will be used regularly. Now, if either goes down, then CM could be huge,

 

[Tau837]

What is his upside if he wins the starting job?

Demarco Murray 2014

 

[rjv]

What is his upside if he wins the starting job?

Demarco Murray 2014

+1000

 

[Milkman]

sell !! sell !! sell !!

You can't get anything. Lol

 

[cstu]

They didn't give him away cheaply. They gave him away for the value of a 3rd string RB. The fact that they could trade him at all says that he has some value.

Cutting him would have been cheap.

Dallas' pick in the draft this year was #243. To give you an idea of that pick's value, RB Kenny Hilliard was drafted a pick earlier and he is now on the Bucs practice squad.

 

[Donnybrook]

Given the injury history of the 3 backs in front of him Michael may not even have to beat them out for the job.

Not to mention Randle is a complete knucklehead

It won't be too long before these guys go out for a few, blue haze their ride and cruise around Dallas.

 

[ImTheScientist]

What is his upside if he wins the starting job?

Demarco Murray 2014

+1000

This

 

[beef]

Mods, any way you would please combine these parallel CMike threads?

Yeah, why this hasn't been merged is beyond me. It's basically the same discussion in 2 threads and jumping between them to keep up is a pain in the...

Bump

 

[Monk81]

It will take a few games for this to shake out. I don't think Demarco Murray #s are possible over the season. If he doesn't take control of the backfield until the 4th game he is already 400 yards and 3 TDs behind Murray's 2014 season.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

With a dire need for a RB coming within the next few years, and as soon as next year, Michael should have presumably had a lot more value to Seattle than someone like Hillis did to the Broncos or Lynch did to the Bills. The fact that they let him go (and so cheaply) in spite of this is more telling to me than the fact that he got traded (which in and of itself hardly matters).

Will it end up being any kind of foreshadowing in the end? Maybe, maybe not. But it's at least worth nothing.

His contract is up in two years though and with Lynch extended, there's no change on the horizon there in Seattle for at least another year or two. Rawls makes about 60% of what Michael makes, so they also save a good deal of money + get an extra pick rather than keeping him as the #3 RB who is inactive for half the games and then losing him in 18 months for nothing. I still agree that the price is disappointing, but it's better than nothing and all CM believers were hoping for was an opportunity, which he now should have.

If we were talking about them needing a 3rd string RB for the next 4 years that would be one thing. But we're talking about them needing a starting RB within the next year or two, so "we can save a whopping 300k with this other guy and maybe get a 7th round pick back" is so negligible that it's almost meaningless in that context.

"60%" is wildly misleading. This isn't 60% of $40 million. This is 60% of essentially nothing as far as NFL contracts are concerned. We're talking about one fifth of one percent of the NFL cap here. It would be like you or I bragging that we saved 60% on a pack of Juicy Fruit. It's almost irrelevant. As is a conditional 7th round pick.

Likewise, having not played much, it's not like Michael is going to be signed for some big deal when his contract does expire anyway. And again, at that point Seattle will likely be in need of a starting RB (not a 3rd string RB). If Seattle thought there was any chance that Michael would be that guy they'd have kept him, because at that point they'll likely have to invest at least as much, if not a lot more (both in money and/or draft picks) to find a starting RB anyway.

I own Michael in one of my dynasties as well and from an opportunity standpoint am much happier with him being in Dallas. But in terms of why Seattle would have given him away for so little with a RB need looming on the horizon, looking towards money/contracts just reeks of desperately trying to rationalize something to make ourselves feel better about our guy. There was no monetary reason for Seattle to ditch the guy for $300k and a 7th round pick just so they can spend 15x that much and potentially an early draft pick on a RB a year or two down the line if they thought that Michael could have eventually be their starter instead. What this trade means is that Seattle saw Michael as a career 3rd string RB even after Lynch/Jackson were gone. And no, that's not good news from a team that has generally been above average at personnel grading.

Completely agree. It may turn out that they are wrong, but it's painfully obvious that Seattle doesn't think he's going to be a very good RB. Judging by his next-to-nothing acquisition cost, you could argue that most of the other teams agree with them. That being said, it's definitely a positive for owners that he's in Dallas right now (if for no other reason than there shouldn't be any more excuses), but all of the talk about money, contracts, schemes, etc. is pretty silly IMO.

Absolutely. Seattle preferred a conditional 7th to Michael -- and that's a HUGE red flag as far as his actual talent level. Granted, it's largely offset in FF that he's now in a much better situation with far less competition. I'm trying to sell him in the one league I own him in (largely by accident).

 

[Donnybrook]

sell !! sell !! sell !!

His value really hasn't gone up much at all. The current risk/reward/price suggests buy buy buy

I beg to differ. You should have seen some of the offers I was getting for him over the summer.

 

[Tau837]

With a dire need for a RB coming within the next few years, and as soon as next year, Michael should have presumably had a lot more value to Seattle than someone like Hillis did to the Broncos or Lynch did to the Bills. The fact that they let him go (and so cheaply) in spite of this is more telling to me than the fact that he got traded (which in and of itself hardly matters).

Will it end up being any kind of foreshadowing in the end? Maybe, maybe not. But it's at least worth nothing.

His contract is up in two years though and with Lynch extended, there's no change on the horizon there in Seattle for at least another year or two. Rawls makes about 60% of what Michael makes, so they also save a good deal of money + get an extra pick rather than keeping him as the #3 RB who is inactive for half the games and then losing him in 18 months for nothing. I still agree that the price is disappointing, but it's better than nothing and all CM believers were hoping for was an opportunity, which he now should have.

If we were talking about them needing a 3rd string RB for the next 4 years that would be one thing. But we're talking about them needing a starting RB within the next year or two, so "we can save a whopping 300k with this other guy and maybe get a 7th round pick back" is so negligible that it's almost meaningless in that context.

"60%" is wildly misleading. This isn't 60% of $40 million. This is 60% of essentially nothing as far as NFL contracts are concerned. We're talking about one fifth of one percent of the NFL cap here. It would be like you or I bragging that we saved 60% on a pack of Juicy Fruit. It's almost irrelevant. As is a conditional 7th round pick.

Likewise, having not played much, it's not like Michael is going to be signed for some big deal when his contract does expire anyway. And again, at that point Seattle will likely be in need of a starting RB (not a 3rd string RB). If Seattle thought there was any chance that Michael would be that guy they'd have kept him, because at that point they'll likely have to invest at least as much, if not a lot more (both in money and/or draft picks) to find a starting RB anyway.

I own Michael in one of my dynasties as well and from an opportunity standpoint am much happier with him being in Dallas. But in terms of why Seattle would have given him away for so little with a RB need looming on the horizon, looking towards money/contracts just reeks of desperately trying to rationalize something to make ourselves feel better about our guy. There was no monetary reason for Seattle to ditch the guy for $300k and a 7th round pick just so they can spend 15x that much and potentially an early draft pick on a RB a year or two down the line if they thought that Michael could have eventually be their starter instead. What this trade means is that Seattle saw Michael as a career 3rd string RB even after Lynch/Jackson were gone. And no, that's not good news from a team that has generally been above average at personnel grading.

I agree that the contract savings was not important. I also believe that Seattle likes Rawls. Once he proved to them that he is capable of being a #3 RB that can play in their system in the event Lynch gets injured, it freed them up to move Michael. Of course, they could have kept Lynch, Jackson, Michael, and Rawls. So why didn't they?

Michael was a poor fit for the Seattle running scheme. From Marshawn Lynch combines a bruising style with the patience of a maestro:

There’s an NFL Films clip from a Seahawks game in which coach Pete Carroll comes over to Lynch on the bench. Carroll tries to explain what the defense is doing and how Lynch can take advantage of it. Lynch stares back and repeats, “I just read it,” and eventually Carroll laughs and says, “OK, just read it, right?”

There is a great deal of instinct to what Lynch does, but that undersells his understanding of the position and the Seahawks’ offense.

Fullback Derrick Coleman said earlier in the season that coaches use Lynch as the example. “They always say: ‘Run like Marshawn, get to the spot and make a decision,’ ” he said. “The guys who try to do other stuff are the ones who ain’t here anymore.”

What that shows is something Lynch doesn’t get much credit for: His football savvy.

The Seahawks run a zone-blocking scheme, which means offensive linemen target certain spots more than they target individual players. It also means that the running back has to be patient enough to trust that a hole will eventually open even if one isn’t there at first blush.

The Seahawks call this “popping the clutch” because they ask their running backs to patiently cruise to the line of scrimmage, then take off when the “dark crease” between the linemen suddenly turns into light. Lynch does this as well as anyone, and it’s a patience he developed during his first two years in Seattle.

“He knows that it’s not about the long runs; it’s about the short runs,” Coleman said. “Even if it’s a dark crease, you can still get 2 or 3 yards. You might see 5 or 6 yards over there, but we can live with 2 or 3 yards. If he starts bouncing outside, bad (stuff) happens.”

Michael wasn't a good fit for this scheme. Some feel he will be a better fit for the scheme used in Dallas, and we know Dallas as a great run blocking OL. If he is a better fit, he could easily pass Randle and/or McFadden to become the lead RB. That is the reason he could succeed elsewhere even though he didn't succeed in Seattle. (Although he did average 5.1 ypc last season and had 12 yards on his only reception... so it wasn't like he was a complete flop in all areas.)

Everyone relying on the fact that Seattle gave up on him for a low price to conclude he is no good is missing or ignoring this point, and thus is missing or ignoring a true assessment of his upside potential in Dallas.

 

[Milkman]

What is his upside if he wins the starting job?

Demarco Murray 2014

+1000

This

Come on guys be real. His ceiling is nowhere near Murray 2014. He's not even going to play the first 2-3 games really.

 

[Chaka]

• He's only been in the league 2 years, and I'm willing to take a wait and see approach for now. I think this year will be telling. "He" either comes through in a big way or we learn that he will not realize his potential because he doesn't care enough about being great. I still rank him very high based on talent but I will need to see more in 2015 than all-world potential accompanied by stats that don't match. I'll be watching for the whispers too... is he maturing and working hard in practices and learning the offense, or is he just trying to get by on God-given talent?

• He has had 2 seasons so far....not one. How old do you have to be to dominate a full game? Just curious so I can know when to start holding players accountable.

These were comments about Dez in the summer prior to his 3rd season. I am not saying it means anything...it doesnt. Just shows "we", the pool, say similar things about talent/knuckleheads that haven't performed well...yet. The bold is where I took his name out and changed the year

You're right; it doesn't.

What Dez did and what we said applies to Michael in absolutely no way. Dez put up 45-561-6 (12.5) with Jon Kitna starting 9 games & 63-928-9 (14.7) so it seems like all trajectories were heading in an upwards fashion (and the results since then have supported that notion).

Michael IMO is much closer to Joseph Randle in that we simply have not seen enough to make any kind of judgement about what he can or can't do on the NFL level. Michael has all of 52 carries (4.9) and 1 reception after two seasons and Randle has 105 carries (4.8) and 4 catches after 2 seasons.

Not sure why anyone would compare either with what Dez did in his first two years.

 

[Tau837]

It will take a few games for this to shake out. I don't think Demarco Murray #s are possible over the season. If he doesn't take control of the backfield until the 4th game he is already 400 yards and 3 TDs behind Murray's 2014 season.

Who cares about the season. Anyone who has Michael and gets Murray-level performance from him at any point this year gets a huge boost.

 

[gabes1919]

With a dire need for a RB coming within the next few years, and as soon as next year, Michael should have presumably had a lot more value to Seattle than someone like Hillis did to the Broncos or Lynch did to the Bills. The fact that they let him go (and so cheaply) in spite of this is more telling to me than the fact that he got traded (which in and of itself hardly matters).

Will it end up being any kind of foreshadowing in the end? Maybe, maybe not. But it's at least worth nothing.

His contract is up in two years though and with Lynch extended, there's no change on the horizon there in Seattle for at least another year or two. Rawls makes about 60% of what Michael makes, so they also save a good deal of money + get an extra pick rather than keeping him as the #3 RB who is inactive for half the games and then losing him in 18 months for nothing. I still agree that the price is disappointing, but it's better than nothing and all CM believers were hoping for was an opportunity, which he now should have.

If we were talking about them needing a 3rd string RB for the next 4 years that would be one thing. But we're talking about them needing a starting RB within the next year or two, so "we can save a whopping 300k with this other guy and maybe get a 7th round pick back" is so negligible that it's almost meaningless in that context.

"60%" is wildly misleading. This isn't 60% of $40 million. This is 60% of essentially nothing as far as NFL contracts are concerned. We're talking about one fifth of one percent of the NFL cap here. It would be like you or I bragging that we saved 60% on a pack of Juicy Fruit. It's almost irrelevant. As is a conditional 7th round pick.

Likewise, having not played much, it's not like Michael is going to be signed for some big deal when his contract does expire anyway. And again, at that point Seattle will likely be in need of a starting RB (not a 3rd string RB). If Seattle thought there was any chance that Michael would be that guy they'd have kept him, because at that point they'll likely have to invest at least as much, if not a lot more (both in money and/or draft picks) to find a starting RB anyway.

I own Michael in one of my dynasties as well and from an opportunity standpoint am much happier with him being in Dallas. But in terms of why Seattle would have given him away for so little with a RB need looming on the horizon, looking towards money/contracts just reeks of desperately trying to rationalize something to make ourselves feel better about our guy. There was no monetary reason for Seattle to ditch the guy for $300k and a 7th round pick just so they can spend 15x that much and potentially an early draft pick on a RB a year or two down the line if they thought that Michael could have eventually be their starter instead. What this trade means is that Seattle saw Michael as a career 3rd string RB even after Lynch/Jackson were gone. And no, that's not good news from a team that has generally been above average at personnel grading.

Completely agree. It may turn out that they are wrong, but it's painfully obvious that Seattle doesn't think he's going to be a very good RB. Judging by his next-to-nothing acquisition cost, you could argue that most of the other teams agree with them. That being said, it's definitely a positive for owners that he's in Dallas right now (if for no other reason than there shouldn't be any more excuses), but all of the talk about money, contracts, schemes, etc. is pretty silly IMO.

Absolutely. Seattle preferred a conditional 7th to Michael -- and that's a HUGE red flag as far as his actual talent level. Granted, it's largely offset in FF that he's now in a much better situation with far less competition. I'm trying to sell him in the one league I own him in (largely by accident).

It's possible that Michael is just a huge #### stain and they wanted to be rid of him. They let harvin go for a similar reason. The reason they might have gotten more for him was because harvin was starter level at the time of the trade. Michael isn't. If they were going to cut him because he's a pain, it's better to trade him for anything they can get to an in conference team. If he's a problem, then he's someone else's now.

 

[Chaka]

It will take a few games for this to shake out. I don't think Demarco Murray #s are possible over the season. If he doesn't take control of the backfield until the 4th game he is already 400 yards and 3 TDs behind Murray's 2014 season.

Who cares about the season. Anyone who has Michael and gets Murray-level performance from him at any point this year gets a huge boost.

If you know it's coming and you put him in your lineup that is. Unless he gets the official "starter" designation it will be difficult to put him in my fantasy lineup.