Lattimore vs Christine Michael (1 Viewer)

[Alex P Keaton]

I did decide I would take Lattimore before the draft just for the reason that he has a clearer path to playing time next year.

Not that complicated

You sure?

Gore is 3 years older than Lynch w/ 30% more carries, add another year of use on Gore this season w/ that many more carries...

So? That's not nearly enough to support Warrior's claim.

Gore's contract is such that it is very likely he will be cut. Lynch is going to be starting for Seattle next year. It's really not that complicated.

Don't be so certain. Lynch will count 16 million against the cap for next two years with only 3 million in dead money.

Does anyone think they try to trade him before june 1. Some team may be willing to overspend

Nope. Unlikely. Far more likely is that they restructure his deal.

 

[ldizzle]

I did decide I would take Lattimore before the draft just for the reason that he has a clearer path to playing time next year.

Not that complicated

You sure?

Gore is 3 years older than Lynch w/ 30% more carries, add another year of use on Gore this season w/ that many more carries...

So? That's not nearly enough to support Warrior's claim.

Gore's contract is such that it is very likely he will be cut. Lynch is going to be starting for Seattle next year. It's really not that complicated.

Don't be so certain. Lynch will count 16 million against the cap for next two years with only 3 million in dead money.

Does anyone think they try to trade him before june 1. Some team may be willing to overspend

Nope. Unlikely. Far more likely is that they restructure his deal.

I think that would be the obvious first choice. But given Marshawns history I think they may end up getting rid of him all together via trade or cut. When Marshawn wasnt happy in Buffalo he demanded a trade and held out until they shipped him to seattle. so when they ask him to restructure, keep in mind he is entering what is likely the prime of his career, do you honestly think he is going to restructure?

edit: disregard, i had a brain fart and was thinking paycut for a minute.

 

[FF Ninja]

I did decide I would take Lattimore before the draft just for the reason that he has a clearer path to playing time next year.

Not that complicated

You sure?

Gore is 3 years older than Lynch w/ 30% more carries, add another year of use on Gore this season w/ that many more carries...

So? That's not nearly enough to support Warrior's claim.

Gore's contract is such that it is very likely he will be cut. Lynch is going to be starting for Seattle next year. It's really not that complicated.

Don't be so certain. Lynch will count 16 million against the cap for next two years with only 3 million in dead money.

What really matters is whether the Seahawks think he's worth his $5.5M in salary and bonuses next year. I think it's also possible that they restructure his deal to keep him for less money.

I think that's a pretty normal rate for a top RB. Gore was $5.5M this year and they kept him...

If he turns into 2012 Michael Turner then I'm sure he'll be cut, but if he looks like 2012 Lynch then $5.5M is a good deal, relatively speaking.

 

[ROYALWITCHEESE]

I did decide I would take Lattimore before the draft just for the reason that he has a clearer path to playing time next year.

Not that complicated

You sure?

Gore is 3 years older than Lynch w/ 30% more carries, add another year of use on Gore this season w/ that many more carries...

True. And Lattimore has torn 4x as many knee ligaments as Michael.

 

[petenice15]

Michael had a broken leg to end his 2010 season, a torn ACL to end his 2011 season and let's not forget he brings baggage. He was suspended from A&M for disciplinary reasons and he slept through 2 interviews at the combine. Not sure about you guys, but I've never slept through a job interview where I'm going to get paid millions of dollars. So sure he's gotten off on a good foot through camp, but he's just as injury prone and a moron to boot. I honestly don't know who's going to be a better pro, but lets not put our heads in the sand and forget about Michael's warts.

I think in a draft right now I'd take Michael ahead of Lattimore just bc of perceived value. But I'd also trade for Lattimore the same day if i didnt fraft him, because his value is only going up. Once Lattimore starts making a little noise in week 7 or 8 that he might come back soon, people are going to be all over him.

 

[ROYALWITCHEESE]

Michael had a broken leg to end his 2010 season, a torn ACL to end his 2011 season and let's not forget he brings baggage. He was suspended from A&M for disciplinary reasons and he slept through 2 interviews at the combine. Not sure about you guys, but I've never slept through a job interview where I'm going to get paid millions of dollars. So sure he's gotten off on a good foot through camp, but he's just as injury prone and a moron to boot. I honestly don't know who's going to be a better pro, but lets not put our heads in the sand and forget about Michael's warts.

I think in a draft right now I'd take Michael ahead of Lattimore just bc of perceived value. But I'd also trade for Lattimore the same day if i didnt fraft him, because his value is only going up. Once Lattimore starts making a little noise in week 7 or 8 that he might come back soon, people are going to be all over him.

Really?

Michael has already overcome and recovered from his injuries.

He was sick at the combine. It's been documented.

My point is, people act like Lattimore has this clear path to a full time starting job. But that couldn't be further from the truth. Hunter is still there and young. Gore will play next year. To top it all off Lattimore tore 3 knee ligaments (his second injury) and will miss the entire season. I was never impressed with him to begin with, as his style makes him more susceptible to injury IMO.

I'm not sure why folks think he's the better choice. Michael is far and away more likely to claim a starting job IMO. And even if you want to mention old character and injury issues for Michael (which are old by the way), well that only makes them EVEN.

THEN, you still have to account for the fact that Lattimore ain't playing!

 

[petenice15]

Michael had a broken leg to end his 2010 season, a torn ACL to end his 2011 season and let's not forget he brings baggage. He was suspended from A&M for disciplinary reasons and he slept through 2 interviews at the combine. Not sure about you guys, but I've never slept through a job interview where I'm going to get paid millions of dollars. So sure he's gotten off on a good foot through camp, but he's just as injury prone and a moron to boot. I honestly don't know who's going to be a better pro, but lets not put our heads in the sand and forget about Michael's warts.

I think in a draft right now I'd take Michael ahead of Lattimore just bc of perceived value. But I'd also trade for Lattimore the same day if i didnt fraft him, because his value is only going up. Once Lattimore starts making a little noise in week 7 or 8 that he might come back soon, people are going to be all over him.

Really? Michael has already overcome and recovered from his injuries.

He was sick at the combine. It's been documented.

My point is, people act like Lattimore has this clear path to a full time starting job. But that couldn't be further from the truth. Hunter is still there and young. Gore will play next year. To top it all off Lattimore tore 3 knee ligaments (his second injury) and will miss the entire season. I was never impressed with him to begin with, as his style makes him more susceptible to injury IMO.

I'm not sure why folks think he's the better choice. Michael is far and away more likely to claim a starting job IMO. And even if you want to mention old character and injury issues for Michael (which are old by the way), well that only makes them EVEN.

THEN, you still have to account for the fact that Lattimore ain't playing!

I didn't say Lattimore was better, I actually said I don't know who's going to be the better pro, which is my whole point. People are just making wild guesses at this point. I was just presenting objective information that people forget to account for. The facts are they're both have plus and minuses right now and if you are playing these guys like the stock market, I feel Michael is already a rising price that might come crashing down and Lattimore is a buy low IMO. As far as who's has a better shot at starting sooner, I think clearly Michael does today, bc yes he is healthy right now. But looking at these guys only in dynasty formats, where I'm not really worried about who starts sooner, then nobody really has any idea who's the better long term prospect. If I can get a better value on Lattimore when I feel the talent is very very close, then that's who I would buy today.

On a side note, just because an agent said his client had a cold, doesn't mean anything is "documented", it means an excuse was made for a grown man.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

The facts are they're both have plus and minuses right now and if you are playing these guys like the stock market, I feel Michael is already a rising price that might come crashing down and Lattimore is a buy low IMO. As far as who's has a better shot at starting sooner, I think clearly Michael does today, bc yes he is healthy right now. But looking at these guys only in dynasty formats, where I'm not really worried about who starts sooner, then nobody really has any idea who's the better long term prospect. If I can get a better value on Lattimore when I feel the talent is very very close, then that's who I would buy today.

This is where I'm at and why I drafted Lattimore in the 14th round of a keep 2 redraft format, Michael went 3 rounds earlier. The initial discussion was about who has a clearer path to be a full time starter, based solely on who they are replacing it is more likely for Gore to be replaced than Lynch - +3 years of age and ~500 additional carries (add another year and another 250 carries for this year to drive the point home) is pretty significant in the NFL when you talk about a RB's performance declining after age 28.

 

[Biabreakable]

Here is a thread about Lattimore: http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=664941&hl=lattimore&page=3

I did some research and put some things together on post 128 that looks at players being able to recover from injuries. One of the positive findings was that players younger than 22 have a higher success rate of coming back from ACL injuries, similar to the ones that Lattimore had. Now I think a lot of the data is only based on each injury as a separate data point, so Lattimore having multiple injuries is cause for greater concern, but he is young enough that this provides me some optimism about him being able to recover to somewhere near pre-injury ability.

Anyhow here is that post-

Posted 19 March 2013 - 07:24 AM

Quote

ROSEMONT, Ill., Nov. 30 /PRNewswire/ -- The good news for NFL players
who sustain an injury to their anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) is that
they'll likely play again in the NFL. The bad news is, they'll return with
diminished performance on the field, concludes a study in the December
issue of The American Journal of Sports Medicine.

"Although there have been over 2000 articles on the ACL in the past 20
years, only a few have focused on the pro player," writes author James L.
Carey MD and colleagues from the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery,
University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pa. "Our study
is the first to objectively measure an NFL player's performance before and
after an ACL injury." (Dr. Carey is now affiliated with Vanderbilt Sports
Medicine, Nashville, Tenn.)

Brian J. Sennett MD, co-author and Chief of Sports Medicine at the
University of Pennsylvania, believes "this article will have significant
impact on setting appropriate expectations for the injured players, their
agents, team owners, and fans. It is the first article to establish that
injuries may have a significant negative impact on a player's performance
if they are able to return to action."

The researchers collected data on ACL injuries sustained by NFL running
backs (RBs) and wide receivers (WRs) during a five-year period (1998-2002).
This data came from NFL game summaries, play-by-play documents, weekly
injury reports, and player profiles. The injury group was compared to a
control group consisting of all NFL RBs and WRs without an identified ACL
injury who played during the 2000 season.

Carey, Sennett and colleagues devised a unique measurement of game
performance output in the professional athlete. They assigned a "power
rating" for every player in every season, defined as a weighted sum of
total yards and touchdowns, likely the most important statistics of RB and
WR performance. The power ratings for the 3 seasons prior to ACL injury
were compared to the power ratings for the 3 seasons following ACL injury.

Data were analyzed for 31 players with 33 ACL injuries. Of the injured
players, 21 percent (7 of 33 ACL injuries) never returned to play in
another regular season NFL game. Of the 79 percent that did return, most
players returned to action 9 to 12 months after an ACL injury.

For those players who returned to NFL action following an ACL injury,
performance fell by one-third, the researchers found. Power rating per game
played decreased from 9.9 pre-injury to 6.5 post-injury. This decline in
player production was statistically significant when compared to the 146
players in the control group.

Knee pain, stiffness, loss of strength, deconditioning and reduced
proprioception (the sense of knowing where your leg is) may be factors
explaining the loss of production in players after an ACL injury, the
authors theorize. Further, ACL reconstruction does not perfectly recreate
the complex anatomy and composition of a person's ACL before injury.

Interestingly, prior to their injury the ACL-injured players performed
better than did controls. "High-performance RBs and WRs are more likely to
be injured because they compete in more plays per game, carry the ball
longer on each play, and attract more defensive attention," the authors
say. "The same qualities of RBs and WRs that contribute to high performance
-- instantaneous decelerations as well as explosive pivoting and cutting
maneuvers -- may increase the risk for ACL injury."

The researchers cite a recent survey of all 31 NFL team physicians who
were asked to quantify "what percentage of players return to play in the
NFL after ACL reconstruction." Ninety percent of team physicians responded
"90 to 100 percent" of players (assuming not borderline talent) return to
the NFL. The current study found the number of players who return to play
after an ACL injury was actually less, at 79 percent.

"Most studies report good to excellent results in the majority of ACL
reconstructions regardless of technique or patient age, but the
professional football player presents unique demands on the reconstructed
knee," Carey concludes. "Our findings may be useful for athletes, coaches,
and team owners in anticipating the future contributions of a player who
has injured an ACL."

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/most-nfl-players-return-to-competition-after-acl-injury-but-at-a-reduced-performance-level-56563987.html

I thought the bolded part was pretty interesting that they suggest a player with higher talent is more likely to have a acl injury than an average player for a combination of reasons. This kind of relates to the workload ideas and how coaches will talk about managing a players snaps.

Now I do think this is a small sample size and the data is pretty old. But I thought it was interesting to consider in regards to Lattimore or other players recovering from these types of injury. Almost 80% play again but most do not play at the same level again.

This is also before the more recent success players have had recovering from these types of injuries. The sports medicine being developed at the time of this article has improved a great deal since then.

Here is another article I was looking at last season in regards to Adrian Peterson about this that shows younger players have a higher success rate recovering from these injuries than older players. But Peterson just broke this trend. Of course it is not entirely certain AD is playing at the correct gravity.

Quote

Have you always wondered how likely it is for a running back to return to Top 10 Running Back Form after an ACL tear? The data linked to this article will finally answer all of those ACL-related questions!

View Data & Research

ACL tears are a serious matter for fantasy football running back success. While the data below shows that it is completely possible for runners to rebound after ACL tears, there are several factors that the savvy owner should be aware of. Comparing all seasons of RBs pre-ACL injury and a group of RBs who have never had ACL tears, you find that the fantasy success rate of these RBs is almost identical among the 88 total seasons studied. The rate of top-10 finishes among both groups is about 55%, while the top-20 finish rate among both groups is about 75-80%. This suggests we are studying and comparing relatively equal RB skill levels. The data shows that seasons during or post ACL injury, fantasy success rates go down dramatically. With a comparable set of 69 total “post-injury” seasons, the rate of top-10 fantasy finishes drops to only 28% while the rate of top-20 finishes drops to 49%. The effect of ACL injuries for RBs should not be ignored.


Age Matters

Another matter of importance is the age in which the injury occurred. Among the group studied, Edgerrin James was the only RB who experienced consistent post ACL tear success after an ACL injury sustained in the NFL. At time of his injury, Edge was only 23 years old.

Even more interesting, however, is that:

There was only ONE top-10 fantasy finish among RBs who tore an ACL after the age of 23, and that one top-10 finish was Adrian Peterson’s 2011 season, as he had enough yardage to stick to the top-10 during his injury season.
Out of the 16 other post-ACL seasons by RBs who tore their ACL after the age of 23, there were ZERO top-10 fantasy finishes.
Only two of those 16 seasons resulted in 1,000 total rushing yards (Deuce McAllister and Jamal Anderson), although, neither season was good enough for top-10 fantasy performance.

Conclusion

While the group studied obviously is not large enough to make a definitive statement, based on the findings, there is good news and bad news to take from this report. Many fantasy owners worry about collegiate injury history when drafting rookies…

College ACL Tears Can Absolutely Be Overcome

ACL tears suffered in college do not appear to have a debilitating effect on NFL success, and owners should not ignore players like Frank Gore or Willis McGahee in their rookie drafts, although, they should understand inconsistent play will result in a possible “boom or bust” dynasty player from season to season.

Did You Know?

Holy Garrison Hearst !

Note: Garrison Hearst tore his ACL way before the NFL, back in 1991, and never knew it; due to league-driven pressures, Hearst had surgery to repair the ACL prior to entering the NFL. Read more on this and why Hearst didn’t even need an ACL!

ACL Tears After 23: Approach With Extreme Caution!

On the flip side, ACL tears suffered after the age of 23 should be approached with extreme caution, regardless of prior success. As the body ages, its ability to heal itself and recover from serious injury to play at the elite athletic levels required in the NFL drops dramatically. The fact that these RBs who sustain injury late in their careers have trouble putting together elite fantasy seasons should temper fantasy owners’ expectations. There are still good buy-low opportunities for fantasy owners who can tolerate high levels of risk/reward, however these RBs should not be drafted as cornerstone players for a franchise, especially during dynasty start-ups.

More Runners To Study Moving Forward

In 2012, we will get to see these theories put to test. Adrian Peterson and Jamaal Charles sustained injuries after the age of 23 and will have to prove their return to elite performance before owners should justify giving 2nd and 3rd round dynasty start-up value. During dynasty start-ups, savvy owners should consider overall value before diving into RBs coming off injuries; fully understand the risk involved with all injuries before drafting!

http://draftcalc.com/fantasy-football-content/articles/dont-tear-your-acl-after-23-years-of-age/

Each case is different of course but Lattimore is only 22 years old.

There is a lot of other good information in that thread if you are interested in more about ML.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

The facts are they're both have plus and minuses right now and if you are playing these guys like the stock market, I feel Michael is already a rising price that might come crashing down and Lattimore is a buy low IMO. As far as who's has a better shot at starting sooner, I think clearly Michael does today, bc yes he is healthy right now. But looking at these guys only in dynasty formats, where I'm not really worried about who starts sooner, then nobody really has any idea who's the better long term prospect. If I can get a better value on Lattimore when I feel the talent is very very close, then that's who I would buy today.

This is where I'm at and why I drafted Lattimore in the 14th round of a keep 2 redraft format, Michael went 3 rounds earlier. The initial discussion was about who has a clearer path to be a full time starter, based solely on who they are replacing it is more likely for Gore to be replaced than Lynch - +3 years of age and ~500 additional carries (add another year and another 250 carries for this year to drive the point home) is pretty significant in the NFL when you talk about a RB's performance declining after age 28.

I think most reasonable people can agree that the contract status, age and experience of the current starter are about the 2nd or 3rd most important factors of Lattimore's/Michael's path to starterdom. People want to pretend they can hit the fast forward button and see Lattimore fully recovered and more competent than Hunter and James, fine. Just don't push that insanity on everyone else. Lattimore's path to becoming a starter is about the opposite of clear.

 

[rickyg]

I think that is Lattimore's recovery keeps progressing well like it has we are going to see him in limited action towards the end of the season. If the 9ers are gonna let gore walk they need to know what they truly have in Lattimore fist...in real game action. Maybe we see him get activated as the primary backup to gore starting in week 14 or something. He gets 10 carries a game. Something.

At that point, Lattimore's prospects will have more clarity.

Right now I'd say michael is more valuable BC he is healthy.

But Lattimore might have more upside in talent and situation.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

The facts are they're both have plus and minuses right now and if you are playing these guys like the stock market, I feel Michael is already a rising price that might come crashing down and Lattimore is a buy low IMO. As far as who's has a better shot at starting sooner, I think clearly Michael does today, bc yes he is healthy right now. But looking at these guys only in dynasty formats, where I'm not really worried about who starts sooner, then nobody really has any idea who's the better long term prospect. If I can get a better value on Lattimore when I feel the talent is very very close, then that's who I would buy today.

This is where I'm at and why I drafted Lattimore in the 14th round of a keep 2 redraft format, Michael went 3 rounds earlier. The initial discussion was about who has a clearer path to be a full time starter, based solely on who they are replacing it is more likely for Gore to be replaced than Lynch - +3 years of age and ~500 additional carries (add another year and another 250 carries for this year to drive the point home) is pretty significant in the NFL when you talk about a RB's performance declining after age 28.

I think most reasonable people can agree that the contract status, age and experience of the current starter are about the 2nd or 3rd most important factors of Lattimore's/Michael's path to starterdom. People want to pretend they can hit the fast forward button and see Lattimore fully recovered and more competent than Hunter and James, fine. Just don't push that insanity on everyone else. Lattimore's path to becoming a starter is about the opposite of clear.

Conversely when you draw a line in the sand like this you open yourself to getting your post bumped a year from now

INSANITY

 

[MoveToSkypager]

The facts are they're both have plus and minuses right now and if you are playing these guys like the stock market, I feel Michael is already a rising price that might come crashing down and Lattimore is a buy low IMO. As far as who's has a better shot at starting sooner, I think clearly Michael does today, bc yes he is healthy right now. But looking at these guys only in dynasty formats, where I'm not really worried about who starts sooner, then nobody really has any idea who's the better long term prospect. If I can get a better value on Lattimore when I feel the talent is very very close, then that's who I would buy today.

This is where I'm at and why I drafted Lattimore in the 14th round of a keep 2 redraft format, Michael went 3 rounds earlier. The initial discussion was about who has a clearer path to be a full time starter, based solely on who they are replacing it is more likely for Gore to be replaced than Lynch - +3 years of age and ~500 additional carries (add another year and another 250 carries for this year to drive the point home) is pretty significant in the NFL when you talk about a RB's performance declining after age 28.

I think most reasonable people can agree that the contract status, age and experience of the current starter are about the 2nd or 3rd most important factors of Lattimore's/Michael's path to starterdom. People want to pretend they can hit the fast forward button and see Lattimore fully recovered and more competent than Hunter and James, fine. Just don't push that insanity on everyone else. Lattimore's path to becoming a starter is about the opposite of clear.

Conversely when you draw a line in the sand like this you open yourself to getting your post bumped a year from now

INSANITY

That's not really the converse. I don't bother with I told you so stuff. Knock yourself out with it though.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

The facts are they're both have plus and minuses right now and if you are playing these guys like the stock market, I feel Michael is already a rising price that might come crashing down and Lattimore is a buy low IMO. As far as who's has a better shot at starting sooner, I think clearly Michael does today, bc yes he is healthy right now. But looking at these guys only in dynasty formats, where I'm not really worried about who starts sooner, then nobody really has any idea who's the better long term prospect. If I can get a better value on Lattimore when I feel the talent is very very close, then that's who I would buy today.

This is where I'm at and why I drafted Lattimore in the 14th round of a keep 2 redraft format, Michael went 3 rounds earlier. The initial discussion was about who has a clearer path to be a full time starter, based solely on who they are replacing it is more likely for Gore to be replaced than Lynch - +3 years of age and ~500 additional carries (add another year and another 250 carries for this year to drive the point home) is pretty significant in the NFL when you talk about a RB's performance declining after age 28.

I think most reasonable people can agree that the contract status, age and experience of the current starter are about the 2nd or 3rd most important factors of Lattimore's/Michael's path to starterdom. People want to pretend they can hit the fast forward button and see Lattimore fully recovered and more competent than Hunter and James, fine. Just don't push that insanity on everyone else. Lattimore's path to becoming a starter is about the opposite of clear.

Conversely when you draw a line in the sand like this you open yourself to getting your post bumped a year from now

INSANITY

That's not really the converse. I don't bother with I told you so stuff. Knock yourself out with it though.

...and yet you are predicting the #3 rusher in 2012 is more likely to be supplanted by his backup in 2014 then a RB that will be 31 next year, good luck with that INSANITY! I will knock myself out bumping your turd prediction in 12 months.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

The facts are they're both have plus and minuses right now and if you are playing these guys like the stock market, I feel Michael is already a rising price that might come crashing down and Lattimore is a buy low IMO. As far as who's has a better shot at starting sooner, I think clearly Michael does today, bc yes he is healthy right now. But looking at these guys only in dynasty formats, where I'm not really worried about who starts sooner, then nobody really has any idea who's the better long term prospect. If I can get a better value on Lattimore when I feel the talent is very very close, then that's who I would buy today.

This is where I'm at and why I drafted Lattimore in the 14th round of a keep 2 redraft format, Michael went 3 rounds earlier. The initial discussion was about who has a clearer path to be a full time starter, based solely on who they are replacing it is more likely for Gore to be replaced than Lynch - +3 years of age and ~500 additional carries (add another year and another 250 carries for this year to drive the point home) is pretty significant in the NFL when you talk about a RB's performance declining after age 28.

I think most reasonable people can agree that the contract status, age and experience of the current starter are about the 2nd or 3rd most important factors of Lattimore's/Michael's path to starterdom. People want to pretend they can hit the fast forward button and see Lattimore fully recovered and more competent than Hunter and James, fine. Just don't push that insanity on everyone else. Lattimore's path to becoming a starter is about the opposite of clear.

Conversely when you draw a line in the sand like this you open yourself to getting your post bumped a year from now

INSANITY

That's not really the converse. I don't bother with I told you so stuff. Knock yourself out with it though.

...and yet you are predicting the #3 rusher in 2012 is more likely to be supplanted by his backup in 2014 then a RB that will be 31 next year, good luck with that INSANITY! I will knock myself out bumping your turd prediction in 12 months.

You should say insanity more, it helps. Put your post in all caps next time too.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

Is Lattimore on IR?

He is on the NFI, non-football injury list.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000233260/article/marcus-lattimore-will-start-49ers-season-on-nfi-list

I cant open the link since its blocked--How long can he stay on that?

Beginning the season on the NFI list means the rookie running back will miss at least the season's first six games. However, keeping Lattimore off injured reserve also leaves the door cracked -- however slightly -- for a potential return late in the season.

He's obviously past the 6 games--did they IR him and I missed it? He's a FA in my keeper league and I wanted to add him but I'd have to IR him

 

[Diamond]

Not IRed yet. Thought they had to make the decision to activate him for practice up to 3 weeks after week 6, like the PUP. But this article says different:

Lattimore is expected to spend the season on the Reserve/Non-Football Injury list, but as previously discussed, there is a chance Lattimore could get in some practice time in the next few weeks. The team has three more weeks to get him on the practice field. If they do not get him on the practice field by Week 12, Lattimore will stay on the Reserve/NFI list the rest of the year. If he is able to get back on the practice field, he can participate in practice for up to three weeks. At the end of three weeks, the team would have to decide whether to activate him to the 53-man roster, or leave him on the Reserve/NFI list for the rest of the season.

 

[Englishteacher]

Bump due to mention in Michael thread.

 

[womb]

I will talk of neither Michael, nor Lattimore.

I would like to solely put out what I feel about the opportunities with no solid basis but my gut.

Lynch is labeled as a beast in most references nowadays. He was no such thing in Buffalo though he was good.

Gore was drafted by 49ers. If one were to search this forum for threads pre and post the draft, he would see numerous threads on the questions of his health and durability at the time.

If I were to walk in Lynch's shoes, I would believe I would get the best deal be it financial or long term prospects (like a TV gig) if I stayed in Seattle and tried to kept that name, nick name and skittles associated with me.

If I were to walk in Gore's shoes, I would feel threatened as the team has invested also on a guy with similar intangibles and tangibles I had when I came out of college. Not only that but he grinned and beared it with no words of aggression throughout his first year. I would want to make the best of my situation as the lead dog and jump ship at the opportune moment.

 

[Sabertooth]

I will talk of neither Michael, nor Lattimore.

I would like to solely put out what I feel about the opportunities with no solid basis but my gut.

Lynch is labeled as a beast in most references nowadays. He was no such thing in Buffalo though he was good.

Gore was drafted by 49ers. If one were to search this forum for threads pre and post the draft, he would see numerous threads on the questions of his health and durability at the time.

If I were to walk in Lynch's shoes, I would believe I would get the best deal be it financial or long term prospects (like a TV gig) if I stayed in Seattle and tried to kept that name, nick name and skittles associated with me.

If I were to walk in Gore's shoes, I would feel threatened as the team has invested also on a guy with similar intangibles and tangibles I had when I came out of college. Not only that but he grinned and beared it with no words of aggression throughout his first year. I would want to make the best of my situation as the lead dog and jump ship at the opportune moment.

I think this is spot on. However I'm not sure Gore has a whole lot left in the tank. I think Marshawn has plenty.