Out Of Touch With Reality (1 Viewer)

[Sabertooth]

Lynch career YPC = 4.2

Lynch YPC, Seattle carries only = 4.3

Lynch 2013 YPC = 4.2

League avg 2013 YPC = 4.2

No. of seasons Lynch has exceeded 4.2 YPC in 7 year career = 1

(in 2012 he was 5.0, which seems to be the outlier here, as he was 4.2 in both 2011 and 2013 with SEA, and 3.5 in his 165 carries with SEA after in-season trade with BUF in 2010)

No. of career carries = 1,753 (250/yr avg over 7 seasons)

No. of carries last 3 seasons = 901 (300/yr avg)

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/L/LyncMa00.htm

Lynch is an average talent, just about exactly aveage, who has been a high volume runner and (so far) has not been injured. After 2013 (his age 28 season) he will have accumulated about 2,000 carries.

Fantasy players view Lynch as special, understandably, because of great volume totals for yards and TDs. Those in this thread who suggest he is a special talent, other than being special in the sense that he has not missed time due to injury, are mistaken. Now he's near the end, close to used up. RBs don't decline gently, they fall off the cliff. Seattle knows this, the NFL knows this.

To say that C Michael cannot be a BETTER runner at 23 than Lynch at 28 with his league average 4.2 YPC is wrong IMO. The only thing setting Lynch apart is injury, and honestly every player is just one play away from injury no matter who they are.

Yards per carry is a little simplistic a take, no? This guy breaks tackles, a lot of tackles, and makes people miss at a rate higher than anyone in the league currently:

The PFF grading system has proved to be pretty robust over the years. Marshawn Lynch broke it the night that Beastmode was born. With that run in the playoffs we had to concede that a +2 grade simply wasn’t enough of a positive grade to award for the play and had to manually alter his positive in the database.

That’s the kind of runner we’re dealing with when it comes to Lynch – a guy who can break not only a defense, but also the very grading system we’re using to evaluate him.

Lynch has always been an immensely talented runner, and I suspect had he come into the league in any other season – away from the looming shadow of Adrian Peterson – it would have taken far less time for him to get the recognition he now enjoys (or shies away from). Even back in his relatively disappointing Buffalo days he was running hard against an insurmountable scarcity of blocking.

In Seattle, though, his game has gone to another level, and he has become the workhorse that can carry that offense even with average blocking at times. That run against the Saints showed the kind of thing he is capable of, but his ability to force missed tackles is peerless in the league – even when compared to Peterson.

This season he forced 75 missed tackles as a runner in the regular season, 11 more as a receiver and the postseason added another 22 across three games. That is a ridiculous rate and by far the most PFF has ever recorded for one runner over a single season. Beastmode may have been born in one paradigm shifting run against the Saints, but he remains alive and well to this day.

Plus, contrary to popular belief, Seattle's O-line was below average to poor last season. He carried them on his back many games.

Lynch was 4.2, Michael 4.4, behind the same O-Line, and when Michael was in everyone knew it was to run the ball. That flowery article drips of fanboyism with the way it reads. Talk about being all over someone's jock. Lynch has a YPC of 4.2, behind all lines over 7 years, those are the facts. Maybe he's having to break so many tackles because he's not getting through the line or finding the right holes as fast as he should.

Did you really just cite YPC of a player who had 18 carries? Really? Did you? Did you really? Did you? Really?

Yes he did.

Then he ignored this

These were the respective YPC numbers in the actual games where Michael saw action. Same offensive lines, same opponents, and Michael came in only after Lynch softened up the defenses.

Lynch 4.62 YPC

Michael 4.41 YPC

And Michael's carries came exclusively on mop up duty after Lynch posted better stats and wore defenses out for him. Michael only got two carries in the 3rd quarter and the rest of his carries came in the fourth, where his performance was inferior to Lynch's.

 

[Sabertooth]

I have Lynch and Michael, so I am just hoping it isn't a time share situation this year. I hope Michael is as good and better than Adrian Peterson. But I'm just trying to be realistic.

 

[humpback]

To be clear about my earlier comparison of C. Michael to ADP. I never said anything about expecting Lynch to not be the starter and workhorse for the Seahawks in 2014. I expect Lynch to suck up his pride and come back to the Hawks, and the early retirement talk will prove to be just an insolent rant.

Now, what I did say: I said C. Michael, assuming he takes over in 2015 is as good as 30 yo ADP, or 29 yo Lynch will be. Is that really so ridiculous to say, given you believe in a players talent? This is a young man's game, especially for RB's. If Lynch gets hurt or even dinged a little, Michael is going to be a top fantasy RB to own going into 2015. I didn't make any direct comparisons to ADP or even Lynch in their prime. Michael needs to prove himself to be in that discussion.

That's not what you said at all. Either own up to your comments or admit that you perhaps took them too far, but trying to add a bunch of qualifiers to make them seem less outlandish is weak sauce IMO.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

To be clear about my earlier comparison of C. Michael to ADP. I never said anything about expecting Lynch to not be the starter and workhorse for the Seahawks in 2014. I expect Lynch to suck up his pride and come back to the Hawks, and the early retirement talk will prove to be just an insolent rant.

Now, what I did say: I said C. Michael, assuming he takes over in 2015 is as good as 30 yo ADP, or 29 yo Lynch will be. Is that really so ridiculous to say, given you believe in a players talent? This is a young man's game, especially for RB's. If Lynch gets hurt or even dinged a little, Michael is going to be a top fantasy RB to own going into 2015. I didn't make any direct comparisons to ADP or even Lynch in their prime. Michael needs to prove himself to be in that discussion.

That's not what you said at all. Either own up to your comments or admit that you perhaps took them too far, but trying to add a bunch of qualifiers to make them seem less outlandish is weak sauce IMO.

Go back, find my quote, read it back to me. I'll wait.

 

[squistion]

To be clear about my earlier comparison of C. Michael to ADP. I never said anything about expecting Lynch to not be the starter and workhorse for the Seahawks in 2014. I expect Lynch to suck up his pride and come back to the Hawks, and the early retirement talk will prove to be just an insolent rant.

Now, what I did say: I said C. Michael, assuming he takes over in 2015 is as good as 30 yo ADP, or 29 yo Lynch will be. Is that really so ridiculous to say, given you believe in a players talent? This is a young man's game, especially for RB's. If Lynch gets hurt or even dinged a little, Michael is going to be a top fantasy RB to own going into 2015. I didn't make any direct comparisons to ADP or even Lynch in their prime. Michael needs to prove himself to be in that discussion.

That's not what you said at all. Either own up to your comments or admit that you perhaps took them too far, but trying to add a bunch of qualifiers to make them seem less outlandish is weak sauce IMO.

Go back, find my quote, read it back to me. I'll wait.

You said nothing about their respective ages at the time. It appeared you were referring to their inherent talent. You should have clarified your original statement if that is what you really meant, rather than what most would assume you meant.

What I've seen of Michael is yes, I think he's every bit as talented as AD. There I said it. Go ahead and block me or throw some smiley emoticons at me.

 

[humpback]

To be clear about my earlier comparison of C. Michael to ADP. I never said anything about expecting Lynch to not be the starter and workhorse for the Seahawks in 2014. I expect Lynch to suck up his pride and come back to the Hawks, and the early retirement talk will prove to be just an insolent rant.

Now, what I did say: I said C. Michael, assuming he takes over in 2015 is as good as 30 yo ADP, or 29 yo Lynch will be. Is that really so ridiculous to say, given you believe in a players talent? This is a young man's game, especially for RB's. If Lynch gets hurt or even dinged a little, Michael is going to be a top fantasy RB to own going into 2015. I didn't make any direct comparisons to ADP or even Lynch in their prime. Michael needs to prove himself to be in that discussion.

That's not what you said at all. Either own up to your comments or admit that you perhaps took them too far, but trying to add a bunch of qualifiers to make them seem less outlandish is weak sauce IMO.

Go back, find my quote, read it back to me. I'll wait.

Don't hurt yourself spinning and twisting now....

What I've seen of Michael is yes, I think he's every bit as talented as AD. There I said it. Go ahead and block me or throw some smiley emoticons at me.

 

[Sabertooth]

Back to Lynch. I think he's making hay while the sun is shining.

Moreno has plenty of time to get in shape. Nobody is going to care what shape he was in back in June if the team improves by 3 wins because of his presence in November.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

To be clear about my earlier comparison of C. Michael to ADP. I never said anything about expecting Lynch to not be the starter and workhorse for the Seahawks in 2014. I expect Lynch to suck up his pride and come back to the Hawks, and the early retirement talk will prove to be just an insolent rant.

Now, what I did say: I said C. Michael, assuming he takes over in 2015 is as good as 30 yo ADP, or 29 yo Lynch will be. Is that really so ridiculous to say, given you believe in a players talent? This is a young man's game, especially for RB's. If Lynch gets hurt or even dinged a little, Michael is going to be a top fantasy RB to own going into 2015. I didn't make any direct comparisons to ADP or even Lynch in their prime. Michael needs to prove himself to be in that discussion.

That's not what you said at all. Either own up to your comments or admit that you perhaps took them too far, but trying to add a bunch of qualifiers to make them seem less outlandish is weak sauce IMO.

Go back, find my quote, read it back to me. I'll wait.

Don't hurt yourself spinning and twisting now....

What I've seen of Michael is yes, I think he's every bit as talented as AD. There I said it. Go ahead and block me or throw some smiley emoticons at me.

Yes, I stated this opinion and it has yet to be seen if Michael can cash in on the opportunity to play to show he's as talented as AD. I won't back down one bit from this statement. I think he can be. I certainly think he can be a top 3 redraft pick in 2015 if the cards play out and Lynch is no longer on the team. I don't think any of this is a stretch.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

To be clear about my earlier comparison of C. Michael to ADP. I never said anything about expecting Lynch to not be the starter and workhorse for the Seahawks in 2014. I expect Lynch to suck up his pride and come back to the Hawks, and the early retirement talk will prove to be just an insolent rant.

Now, what I did say: I said C. Michael, assuming he takes over in 2015 is as good as 30 yo ADP, or 29 yo Lynch will be. Is that really so ridiculous to say, given you believe in a players talent? This is a young man's game, especially for RB's. If Lynch gets hurt or even dinged a little, Michael is going to be a top fantasy RB to own going into 2015. I didn't make any direct comparisons to ADP or even Lynch in their prime. Michael needs to prove himself to be in that discussion.

That's not what you said at all. Either own up to your comments or admit that you perhaps took them too far, but trying to add a bunch of qualifiers to make them seem less outlandish is weak sauce IMO.

Go back, find my quote, read it back to me. I'll wait.

Don't hurt yourself spinning and twisting now....

What I've seen of Michael is yes, I think he's every bit as talented as AD. There I said it. Go ahead and block me or throw some smiley emoticons at me.

he meant 50 yr peterson with a sprained ankle

 

[ODannyBoy]

Lynch asking for a contract now as they talk about bringing in Christine Michael is very smart. If Seattle doesn't want to pay up then he can ask to be moved. After winning the bowl it would be very difficult to move on from Lynch as they are poised to go to the bowl again and the fans would absolutely lose it if Seattle moves Lynch.

Why would they move on from Lynch? He's under contract. He can ask to be moved, and they will smile politely and tell him to go pound sand. Then he can either show up for work or holdout. He has little leverage. True, he will have less next year. But I wouldn't call his scheme smart, I'd call it desperate. When we think of "smart", do we picture grasping at straws as the model?

 

[Coeur de Lion]

To be clear about my earlier comparison of C. Michael to ADP. I never said anything about expecting Lynch to not be the starter and workhorse for the Seahawks in 2014. I expect Lynch to suck up his pride and come back to the Hawks, and the early retirement talk will prove to be just an insolent rant.

Now, what I did say: I said C. Michael, assuming he takes over in 2015 is as good as 30 yo ADP, or 29 yo Lynch will be. Is that really so ridiculous to say, given you believe in a players talent? This is a young man's game, especially for RB's. If Lynch gets hurt or even dinged a little, Michael is going to be a top fantasy RB to own going into 2015. I didn't make any direct comparisons to ADP or even Lynch in their prime. Michael needs to prove himself to be in that discussion.

That's not what you said at all. Either own up to your comments or admit that you perhaps took them too far, but trying to add a bunch of qualifiers to make them seem less outlandish is weak sauce IMO.

Go back, find my quote, read it back to me. I'll wait.

Don't hurt yourself spinning and twisting now....

What I've seen of Michael is yes, I think he's every bit as talented as AD. There I said it. Go ahead and block me or throw some smiley emoticons at me.

Yes, I stated this opinion and it has yet to be seen if Michael can cash in on the opportunity to play to show he's as talented as AD. I won't back down one bit from this statement. I think he can be. I certainly think he can be a top 3 redraft pick in 2015 if the cards play out and Lynch is no longer on the team. I don't think any of this is a stretch.

I have a pretty hard time envisioning a scenario in which Adrian Peterson (or an equivalent talent) fails to ever get 170 carries or 900 rushing yards over four college seasons, and then is a healthy scratch for most of his rookie year while carrying the ball < 20 times. None of those things preclude Michael from being a good RB, obviously, but it's hugely unlikely that things would have played out the way they did if he were indeed a transcendent generational HOF-level talent like Peterson.

 

[humpback]

To be clear about my earlier comparison of C. Michael to ADP. I never said anything about expecting Lynch to not be the starter and workhorse for the Seahawks in 2014. I expect Lynch to suck up his pride and come back to the Hawks, and the early retirement talk will prove to be just an insolent rant.

Now, what I did say: I said C. Michael, assuming he takes over in 2015 is as good as 30 yo ADP, or 29 yo Lynch will be. Is that really so ridiculous to say, given you believe in a players talent? This is a young man's game, especially for RB's. If Lynch gets hurt or even dinged a little, Michael is going to be a top fantasy RB to own going into 2015. I didn't make any direct comparisons to ADP or even Lynch in their prime. Michael needs to prove himself to be in that discussion.

That's not what you said at all. Either own up to your comments or admit that you perhaps took them too far, but trying to add a bunch of qualifiers to make them seem less outlandish is weak sauce IMO.

Go back, find my quote, read it back to me. I'll wait.

Don't hurt yourself spinning and twisting now....

What I've seen of Michael is yes, I think he's every bit as talented as AD. There I said it. Go ahead and block me or throw some smiley emoticons at me.

Yes, I stated this opinion and it has yet to be seen if Michael can cash in on the opportunity to play to show he's as talented as AD. I won't back down one bit from this statement. I think he can be. I certainly think he can be a top 3 redraft pick in 2015 if the cards play out and Lynch is no longer on the team. I don't think any of this is a stretch.

As I thought, this is very different from your original post, although I don't expect you to admit it.

Talent is completely independent of opportunity, so putting that qualifier out there seems like a cop-out. I'll put it this way- if a RB is as talented as one of the most talented RBs in NFL history, we wouldn't be speculating on their opportunity.

 

[cstu]

I have a pretty hard time envisioning a scenario in which Adrian Peterson (or an equivalent talent) fails to ever get 170 carries or 900 rushing yards over four college seasons, and then is a healthy scratch for most of his rookie year while carrying the ball < 20 times. None of those things preclude Michael from being a good RB, obviously, but it's hugely unlikely that things would have played out the way they did if he were indeed a transcendent generational HOF-level talent like Peterson.

Michael Turner isn't AP but he only had 20 carries behind LT.

The last physical freak I saw was Jonathan Stewart and he had 184 carries behind DeAngelo during his career 1500/18 season. However, I do think there was more behind Michael's lack of playing time than his running ability (Turbin's experience, Michael's unproven pass protection).

 

[cstu]

Lynch asking for a contract now as they talk about bringing in Christine Michael is very smart. If Seattle doesn't want to pay up then he can ask to be moved. After winning the bowl it would be very difficult to move on from Lynch as they are poised to go to the bowl again and the fans would absolutely lose it if Seattle moves Lynch.

Why would they move on from Lynch? He's under contract. He can ask to be moved, and they will smile politely and tell him to go pound sand. Then he can either show up for work or holdout. He has little leverage. True, he will have less next year. But I wouldn't call his scheme smart, I'd call it desperate. When we think of "smart", do we picture grasping at straws as the model?

He's desperate, but dumb would be not holding out. He's got nothing to lose by doing so.

 

[biju]

Well, looks like this was a "slow news week" style story.

Marshawn Lynch reported to Seahawks mandatory minicamp on Tuesday.

Beast Mode was a no-show for voluntary OTAs earlier this month. Entering the third year of a four-year, $31 million deal, Lynch wants to re-work his contract. According to an ESPN report, Lynch believes if he shows up for minicamp, the team will negotiate with him in good faith. We don't see Lynch getting his wish.

There might be more to this once TC starts but for now it was--at most--posturing.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

I have a pretty hard time envisioning a scenario in which Adrian Peterson (or an equivalent talent) fails to ever get 170 carries or 900 rushing yards over four college seasons, and then is a healthy scratch for most of his rookie year while carrying the ball < 20 times. None of those things preclude Michael from being a good RB, obviously, but it's hugely unlikely that things would have played out the way they did if he were indeed a transcendent generational HOF-level talent like Peterson.

Michael Turner isn't AP but he only had 20 carries behind LT.

The last physical freak I saw was Jonathan Stewart and he had 184 carries behind DeAngelo during his career 1500/18 season. However, I do think there was more behind Michael's lack of playing time than his running ability (Turbin's experience, Michael's unproven pass protection).

Don't disagree -- but there's a pretty vast gulf between "every bit as talented as AD" and Michael Turner. I'm sure that I'm considered a "hater," but I'd actually say I like Michael -- at least relative to a typical random late 2nd round backup RB with no body of work. I'd pay a future random 1st for the guy pretty much without thinking about it (not that that matters because he costs much more than that). But comparing him to one of the best RBs ever -- along with the rest of the wild hyperbole thrown around on him -- is just absurd IMO.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

To be clear about my earlier comparison of C. Michael to ADP. I never said anything about expecting Lynch to not be the starter and workhorse for the Seahawks in 2014. I expect Lynch to suck up his pride and come back to the Hawks, and the early retirement talk will prove to be just an insolent rant.

Now, what I did say: I said C. Michael, assuming he takes over in 2015 is as good as 30 yo ADP, or 29 yo Lynch will be. Is that really so ridiculous to say, given you believe in a players talent? This is a young man's game, especially for RB's. If Lynch gets hurt or even dinged a little, Michael is going to be a top fantasy RB to own going into 2015. I didn't make any direct comparisons to ADP or even Lynch in their prime. Michael needs to prove himself to be in that discussion.

That's not what you said at all. Either own up to your comments or admit that you perhaps took them too far, but trying to add a bunch of qualifiers to make them seem less outlandish is weak sauce IMO.

Go back, find my quote, read it back to me. I'll wait.

Don't hurt yourself spinning and twisting now....

What I've seen of Michael is yes, I think he's every bit as talented as AD. There I said it. Go ahead and block me or throw some smiley emoticons at me.

Yes, I stated this opinion and it has yet to be seen if Michael can cash in on the opportunity to play to show he's as talented as AD. I won't back down one bit from this statement. I think he can be. I certainly think he can be a top 3 redraft pick in 2015 if the cards play out and Lynch is no longer on the team. I don't think any of this is a stretch.

I have a pretty hard time envisioning a scenario in which Adrian Peterson (or an equivalent talent) fails to ever get 170 carries or 900 rushing yards over four college seasons, and then is a healthy scratch for most of his rookie year while carrying the ball < 20 times. None of those things preclude Michael from being a good RB, obviously, but it's hugely unlikely that things would have played out the way they did if he were indeed a transcendent generational HOF-level talent like Peterson.

Priest Holmes never had more than 120 carries and 524 yards in college.

He's certainly no Adrian Peterson from a talent standpoint, though he did put up insane fantasy production.

 

[bumpman]

Marshawn showed up at mini camp.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/06/17/marshawn-lynch-shows-up-for-mandatory-minicamp/

 

[tdmills]

To be clear about my earlier comparison of C. Michael to ADP. I never said anything about expecting Lynch to not be the starter and workhorse for the Seahawks in 2014. I expect Lynch to suck up his pride and come back to the Hawks, and the early retirement talk will prove to be just an insolent rant.

Now, what I did say: I said C. Michael, assuming he takes over in 2015 is as good as 30 yo ADP, or 29 yo Lynch will be. Is that really so ridiculous to say, given you believe in a players talent? This is a young man's game, especially for RB's. If Lynch gets hurt or even dinged a little, Michael is going to be a top fantasy RB to own going into 2015. I didn't make any direct comparisons to ADP or even Lynch in their prime. Michael needs to prove himself to be in that discussion.

That's not what you said at all. Either own up to your comments or admit that you perhaps took them too far, but trying to add a bunch of qualifiers to make them seem less outlandish is weak sauce IMO.

Go back, find my quote, read it back to me. I'll wait.

Don't hurt yourself spinning and twisting now....

What I've seen of Michael is yes, I think he's every bit as talented as AD. There I said it. Go ahead and block me or throw some smiley emoticons at me.

Yes, I stated this opinion and it has yet to be seen if Michael can cash in on the opportunity to play to show he's as talented as AD. I won't back down one bit from this statement. I think he can be. I certainly think he can be a top 3 redraft pick in 2015 if the cards play out and Lynch is no longer on the team. I don't think any of this is a stretch.

I have a pretty hard time envisioning a scenario in which Adrian Peterson (or an equivalent talent) fails to ever get 170 carries or 900 rushing yards over four college seasons, and then is a healthy scratch for most of his rookie year while carrying the ball < 20 times. None of those things preclude Michael from being a good RB, obviously, but it's hugely unlikely that things would have played out the way they did if he were indeed a transcendent generational HOF-level talent like Peterson.

Priest Holmes never had more than 120 carries and 524 yards in college.

He's certainly no Adrian Peterson from a talent standpoint, though he did put up insane fantasy production.

That kc online was one of the best. Seattle is in the bottom 3rd in the NFL

 

[Neofight]

To be clear about my earlier comparison of C. Michael to ADP. I never said anything about expecting Lynch to not be the starter and workhorse for the Seahawks in 2014. I expect Lynch to suck up his pride and come back to the Hawks, and the early retirement talk will prove to be just an insolent rant.

Now, what I did say: I said C. Michael, assuming he takes over in 2015 is as good as 30 yo ADP, or 29 yo Lynch will be. Is that really so ridiculous to say, given you believe in a players talent? This is a young man's game, especially for RB's. If Lynch gets hurt or even dinged a little, Michael is going to be a top fantasy RB to own going into 2015. I didn't make any direct comparisons to ADP or even Lynch in their prime. Michael needs to prove himself to be in that discussion.

That's not what you said at all. Either own up to your comments or admit that you perhaps took them too far, but trying to add a bunch of qualifiers to make them seem less outlandish is weak sauce IMO.

Go back, find my quote, read it back to me. I'll wait.

Don't hurt yourself spinning and twisting now....

What I've seen of Michael is yes, I think he's every bit as talented as AD. There I said it. Go ahead and block me or throw some smiley emoticons at me.

Yes, I stated this opinion and it has yet to be seen if Michael can cash in on the opportunity to play to show he's as talented as AD. I won't back down one bit from this statement. I think he can be. I certainly think he can be a top 3 redraft pick in 2015 if the cards play out and Lynch is no longer on the team. I don't think any of this is a stretch.

I have a pretty hard time envisioning a scenario in which Adrian Peterson (or an equivalent talent) fails to ever get 170 carries or 900 rushing yards over four college seasons, and then is a healthy scratch for most of his rookie year while carrying the ball < 20 times. None of those things preclude Michael from being a good RB, obviously, but it's hugely unlikely that things would have played out the way they did if he were indeed a transcendent generational HOF-level talent like Peterson.

Priest Holmes never had more than 120 carries and 524 yards in college.

He's certainly no Adrian Peterson from a talent standpoint, though he did put up insane fantasy production.

That kc online was one of the best. Seattle is in the bottom 3rd in the NFL

Makes you appreciate Marshawn that much more. That said, the Priest was a beast too.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I refuse to believe that Seattle's O-line is poor when Plodbert Turbin ran for 4.4ypc behind it in 2012.

The only sources I've seen people cite that say Seattle's o-line is poor were the same sources that ranked lines like Pittsburgh's near the top 10.

 

[biju]

I refuse to believe that Seattle's O-line is poor when Plodbert Turbin ran for 4.4ypc behind it in 2012.

The only sources I've seen people cite that say Seattle's o-line is poor were the same sources that ranked lines like Pittsburgh's near the top 10.

I would agree the line was less than stellar in 2013. But this is also because both starting tackles were out for a large part of the season and the center was out as well during some of those games. The line had serious health problems and the expectation is the line will be healthier in 2014 than in 2013. We lost the RT to free agency, but had backup plans and also drafted a replacement in the 2nd round.

Still, I wouldn't expect a vast improvement--we just don't invest as heavily and rely mostly on Tom Cable to coach up the line. So far, it has worked...

 

[Neofight]

I refuse to believe that Seattle's O-line is poor when Plodbert Turbin ran for 4.4ypc behind it in 2012.

The only sources I've seen people cite that say Seattle's o-line is poor were the same sources that ranked lines like Pittsburgh's near the top 10.

Did you watch any games last year? They were without their three top O-linemen for the first half of the season and even when those three returned Okung and Unger were not themselves. They relied on two rookies, one of them an undrafted free agent much of the season. They even resorted to an in-game platoon system to try and keep an overweight and underachieving James Carpenter from falling over on the field. It was a total hodgepodge, and the numbers (linked previously) reflect that.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Those "numbers" are less than worthless.

There is no good way to statistically grade an O-line. As proof of that, there are two separate sites that attempted to do so and their results are completely different. For instance, Football Outsider ranked the New England line #1 and ProFootballFocus ranked them #21. I dare you to find a QB metric that people believe in that rates the top QB in another metric as #21 in its metric.

FO has Seattle as the #9 unit, with PFF being the one that I assume people have cited here, having Seattle as the #27 unit.

If we are going to try and take one of these at face value then let's look at the one that has Seattle as #27, PFF. If you polled people on this forum, who would they say the worst offensive line in the NFL was in 2013? Undoubtedly the two answers would be Pittsburgh and Miami, yet PFF ranked them as #15 and #19 respectively.

So, are you claiming that Pittsburgh's offensive line is in the top half of the league? Are you claiming that the shamble of a wreck that was the couple players left on the Miami Dolphins line was better than 13 other team's offensive lines this year? That's what you have to believe in order to believe the stat collection that ranked Seattle as a "bad" offensive line.

The other one, the one that didn't try to claim that Pittsburgh and Miami were good offensive lines, ranked Seattle as a top 10 unit in 2013.

 

[Neofight]

Those "numbers" are less than worthless.

There is no good way to statistically grade an O-line. As proof of that, there are two separate sites that attempted to do so and their results are completely different. For instance, Football Outsider ranked the New England line #1 and ProFootballFocus ranked them #21. I dare you to find a QB metric that people believe in that rates the top QB in another metric as #21 in its metric.

FO has Seattle as the #9 unit, with PFF being the one that I assume people have cited here, having Seattle as the #27 unit.

If we are going to try and take one of these at face value then let's look at the one that has Seattle as #27, PFF. If you polled people on this forum, who would they say the worst offensive line in the NFL was in 2013? Undoubtedly the two answers would be Pittsburgh and Miami, yet PFF ranked them as #15 and #19 respectively.

So, are you claiming that Pittsburgh's offensive line is in the top half of the league? Are you claiming that the shamble of a wreck that was the couple players left on the Miami Dolphins line was better than 13 other team's offensive lines this year? That's what you have to believe in order to believe the stat collection that ranked Seattle as a "bad" offensive line.

The other one, the one that didn't try to claim that Pittsburgh and Miami were good offensive lines, ranked Seattle as a top 10 unit in 2013.

I didn't say a thing about Pittsburgh's O-line. I don't really follow the Steelers, or the AFC for that matter.

Just go back and watch the film, or go to a Seahawks board and talk O-line (Fieldgulls had a google hangout where they openly mock the O-line from just yesterday, and these guys are serious homers that know their stuff)... Or believe what you want. That works too.

ETA: Are your a big Surwiecki l fan?

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Those "numbers" are less than worthless.

There is no good way to statistically grade an O-line. As proof of that, there are two separate sites that attempted to do so and their results are completely different. For instance, Football Outsider ranked the New England line #1 and ProFootballFocus ranked them #21. I dare you to find a QB metric that people believe in that rates the top QB in another metric as #21 in its metric.

FO has Seattle as the #9 unit, with PFF being the one that I assume people have cited here, having Seattle as the #27 unit.

If we are going to try and take one of these at face value then let's look at the one that has Seattle as #27, PFF. If you polled people on this forum, who would they say the worst offensive line in the NFL was in 2013? Undoubtedly the two answers would be Pittsburgh and Miami, yet PFF ranked them as #15 and #19 respectively.

So, are you claiming that Pittsburgh's offensive line is in the top half of the league? Are you claiming that the shamble of a wreck that was the couple players left on the Miami Dolphins line was better than 13 other team's offensive lines this year? That's what you have to believe in order to believe the stat collection that ranked Seattle as a "bad" offensive line.

The other one, the one that didn't try to claim that Pittsburgh and Miami were good offensive lines, ranked Seattle as a top 10 unit in 2013.

I didn't say a thing about Pittsburgh's O-line. I don't really follow the Steelers, or the AFC for that matter.

Just go back and watch the film, or go to a Seahawks board and talk O-line (Fieldgulls had a google hangout where they openly mock the O-line from just yesterday, and these guys are serious homers that know their stuff)... Or believe what you want. That works too.

ETA: Are your a big Surwiecki l fan?

My point in bringing up the Pitt O-line was to show that the only metric that rates Seattle's O-line as bad also rates the Pittsburgh and Miami O-lines as pretty good. Since it's pretty well accepted that the Pittsburgh and Miami lines stink, that seriously calls into question the credibility of that metric.

As an analogy, if I said that my proof that Philip Rivers was a bad QB was in presenting a metric that also rated Jimmy Clausen and Brandon Weeden as good QBs, it would be pretty easy to dismiss that metric as meaningless.

The offensive line study that said Pittsburgh and Miami had bad lines also said Seattle had a good one. So if we're going to look at numbers we're left choosing between the numbers that say Pittsburgh/Miami are good and Seattle is bad, or the numbers that say Pittsburgh/Miami are bad and Seattle is good. Since it's pretty well accepted that the Pittsburgh and Miami lines are the two worst in the league, I know which one I'm going to believe the same way you'd know which one to believe. The same way you'd now which you believe if I presented you with a study that said Philip Rivers sucked but Weeden/Clausen were good or a separate one that said Rivers was good and Weeden/Clausen sucked.

 

[Neofight]

Those "numbers" are less than worthless.

There is no good way to statistically grade an O-line. As proof of that, there are two separate sites that attempted to do so and their results are completely different. For instance, Football Outsider ranked the New England line #1 and ProFootballFocus ranked them #21. I dare you to find a QB metric that people believe in that rates the top QB in another metric as #21 in its metric.

FO has Seattle as the #9 unit, with PFF being the one that I assume people have cited here, having Seattle as the #27 unit.

If we are going to try and take one of these at face value then let's look at the one that has Seattle as #27, PFF. If you polled people on this forum, who would they say the worst offensive line in the NFL was in 2013? Undoubtedly the two answers would be Pittsburgh and Miami, yet PFF ranked them as #15 and #19 respectively.

So, are you claiming that Pittsburgh's offensive line is in the top half of the league? Are you claiming that the shamble of a wreck that was the couple players left on the Miami Dolphins line was better than 13 other team's offensive lines this year? That's what you have to believe in order to believe the stat collection that ranked Seattle as a "bad" offensive line.

The other one, the one that didn't try to claim that Pittsburgh and Miami were good offensive lines, ranked Seattle as a top 10 unit in 2013.

I didn't say a thing about Pittsburgh's O-line. I don't really follow the Steelers, or the AFC for that matter. Just go back and watch the film, or go to a Seahawks board and talk O-line (Fieldgulls had a google hangout where they openly mock the O-line from just yesterday, and these guys are serious homers that know their stuff)... Or believe what you want. That works too.

ETA: Are your a big Surwiecki l fan?

My point in bringing up the Pitt O-line was to show that the only metric that rates Seattle's O-line as bad also rates the Pittsburgh and Miami O-lines as pretty good. Since it's pretty well accepted that the Pittsburgh and Miami lines stink, that seriously calls into question the credibility of that metric.

As an analogy, if I said that my proof that Philip Rivers was a bad QB was in presenting a metric that also rated Jimmy Clausen and Brandon Weeden as good QBs, it would be pretty easy to dismiss that metric as meaningless.

The offensive line study that said Pittsburgh and Miami had bad lines also said Seattle had a good one. So if we're going to look at numbers we're left choosing between the numbers that say Pittsburgh/Miami are good and Seattle is bad, or the numbers that say Pittsburgh/Miami are bad and Seattle is good. Since it's pretty well accepted that the Pittsburgh and Miami lines are the two worst in the league, I know which one I'm going to believe the same way you'd know which one to believe. The same way you'd now which you believe if I presented you with a study that said Philip Rivers sucked but Weeden/Clausen were good or a separate one that said Rivers was good and Weeden/Clausen sucked.

Not all metrics are created equal (but you know that, I assume), nor do they even look at the same aspects of play when it comes to offensive line. You know that too. It sounds to me like you may know something about Pittsburgh's line play (through I've read they overachieved last season) and quite possibly Miami's (easy target with the drama surrounding that team).

Well, what do you know about Seattle's situation last season? A lot of people who know, care and follow the team think they were middle of the road to worse. I tend to agree having watched each game, marveling at Wilson's ability to escape sacks (though he took a lot as well [som his fault, but not a lot]) and Lynch's ability to consistently get three or four yards with guys in his backfield.

What can I tell you that you don't already know? Unless you didn't watch the games...

 

[Phenix]

Well, looks like this was a "slow news week" style story.

Marshawn Lynch reported to Seahawks mandatory minicamp on Tuesday.

Beast Mode was a no-show for voluntary OTAs earlier this month. Entering the third year of a four-year, $31 million deal, Lynch wants to re-work his contract. According to an ESPN report, Lynch believes if he shows up for minicamp, the team will negotiate with him in good faith. We don't see Lynch getting his wish.

There might be more to this once TC starts but for now it was--at most--posturing.

So what happens to all those people thinking he was retiring, do they go without mocking for such a ridiculous and ludicrous thought based off hope of one back ups hype? I hope the naive do not go without being called out, I would not want any ones advice who actually went with this obvious media created story that he was retiring because if the people cant see that was BS by the media, what else can they not see?

His own mother even said the media is the devil and people still went with it. That's the problem no one is accountable for their outlandish and ridiculous thoughts.

Can't wait for people to talk about his ankle injury as if it is a real injury and not a made up one so he can sit out practice... more of his ploy to try to get more money which is what all this is.

 

[meatwad1]

My point of view: Lynch

Lynch not getting his money really has nothing to do with Michael. RBs are viewed as a dime a dozen by GMs, and they are correct in that line of thinking.

Lynch is a very good talent, very consistent, but he has already gotten a big deal. Five million in the NFL as a base salary is a lot. On any team that means you are top 5 - 10 in salary for your team. He thinks he needs more?

Let's face it, he only player position that would ever be considered for this type of one sided request (more money on top of five million, two years of contract left) is a qb. As a matter of fact, if he continues with his stupid, stupid way of thinking, every sportswriter in that town will start to compare him to the actual player with two years left on his deal who has a right to be bit<hing; Russel Wilson. If he wants people to start to hate him, he should by all means hold out.

This doesn't even mention the fact that also they have a backup who some people feel is very talented and that he is hitting his late 20s with a ton of mileage, and that he has been very, very lucky in terms of injury, so lucky that a betting man might wager that his luck at some point has to run out, at least for part of the season. So yeah, there is no way he will be seeing extra money...if he is not careful, he will be seeing way less.

My point of view: Moreno



I hate the Dolphins. This is the sort of information that makes me smile. Get ready for year two of some dolt in your redraft league burning a fourth round pick on Lamar (useless) Miller!!!!

 

[jurb26]

Get ready for year two of some dolt in your redraft league burning a fourth round pick on Lamar (useless) Miller!!!!

Miller has an ADP of round 10 right now. I doubt it ever reaches round 4. With a stellar preseason I suppose it could.

 

[Bojang0301]

I refuse to believe that Seattle's O-line is poor when Plodbert Turbin ran for 4.4ypc behind it in 2012.

The only sources I've seen people cite that say Seattle's o-line is poor were the same sources that ranked lines like Pittsburgh's near the top 10.

You are aware Turbin has exact same 40 time as Michael and that your are using Turbin's 2012 numbers to justify your argument about Seattle's OLine.

 

[Monsters of the Midway]

Those "numbers" are less than worthless.

There is no good way to statistically grade an O-line. As proof of that, there are two separate sites that attempted to do so and their results are completely different. For instance, Football Outsider ranked the New England line #1 and ProFootballFocus ranked them #21. I dare you to find a QB metric that people believe in that rates the top QB in another metric as #21 in its metric.

FO has Seattle as the #9 unit, with PFF being the one that I assume people have cited here, having Seattle as the #27 unit.

If we are going to try and take one of these at face value then let's look at the one that has Seattle as #27, PFF. If you polled people on this forum, who would they say the worst offensive line in the NFL was in 2013? Undoubtedly the two answers would be Pittsburgh and Miami, yet PFF ranked them as #15 and #19 respectively.

So, are you claiming that Pittsburgh's offensive line is in the top half of the league? Are you claiming that the shamble of a wreck that was the couple players left on the Miami Dolphins line was better than 13 other team's offensive lines this year? That's what you have to believe in order to believe the stat collection that ranked Seattle as a "bad" offensive line.

The other one, the one that didn't try to claim that Pittsburgh and Miami were good offensive lines, ranked Seattle as a top 10 unit in 2013.

I didn't say a thing about Pittsburgh's O-line. I don't really follow the Steelers, or the AFC for that matter. Just go back and watch the film, or go to a Seahawks board and talk O-line (Fieldgulls had a google hangout where they openly mock the O-line from just yesterday, and these guys are serious homers that know their stuff)... Or believe what you want. That works too.

ETA: Are your a big Surwiecki l fan?

My point in bringing up the Pitt O-line was to show that the only metric that rates Seattle's O-line as bad also rates the Pittsburgh and Miami O-lines as pretty good. Since it's pretty well accepted that the Pittsburgh and Miami lines stink, that seriously calls into question the credibility of that metric.

As an analogy, if I said that my proof that Philip Rivers was a bad QB was in presenting a metric that also rated Jimmy Clausen and Brandon Weeden as good QBs, it would be pretty easy to dismiss that metric as meaningless.

The offensive line study that said Pittsburgh and Miami had bad lines also said Seattle had a good one. So if we're going to look at numbers we're left choosing between the numbers that say Pittsburgh/Miami are good and Seattle is bad, or the numbers that say Pittsburgh/Miami are bad and Seattle is good. Since it's pretty well accepted that the Pittsburgh and Miami lines are the two worst in the league, I know which one I'm going to believe the same way you'd know which one to believe. The same way you'd now which you believe if I presented you with a study that said Philip Rivers sucked but Weeden/Clausen were good or a separate one that said Rivers was good and Weeden/Clausen sucked.

Mike Tanier has Seattle in his bottom 5 along with your Pittsburgh Steelershttp://www.sportsonearth.com/article/77779304/nfl-best-worst-offensive-lines-dallas-cowboys-new-england-patriots-baltimore-ravens#!1gYLB

Don't believe it? Explain how a team with Marshawn Lynch and an option threat at quarterback finished dead last in the league in converting power situations: The Seahawks got the job done on just 49 percent of short-yardage and goal-to-go conversions. Explain how Russell Wilson got sacked 44 times, despite the fact that the Seahawks rarely faced the kind of pressure-passing situations that lead to easy sacks. Finally, take a look at the three-fifths of their line that are not named Max Unger or Russell Okung, and note that two regulars from last season are gone.

 

[cstu]

If we are going to try and take one of these at face value then let's look at the one that has Seattle as #27, PFF. If you polled people on this forum, who would they say the worst offensive line in the NFL was in 2013? Undoubtedly the two answers would be Pittsburgh and Miami, yet PFF ranked them as #15 and #19 respectively.

Only two of their OL had a positive run blocking rating (Okung and Bowie). Okung was injured and Bowie I believe rotated at RG and RT due to other injuries. Even if Okung and Bowie are healthy this year the middle of the OL (Sweezy, Carpenter, Unger) still isn't very good at run blocking unless they've made big improvements over the offseason.

In pass blocking they were #6 in least total pressure allowed.

 

[biju]

If we are going to try and take one of these at face value then let's look at the one that has Seattle as #27, PFF. If you polled people on this forum, who would they say the worst offensive line in the NFL was in 2013? Undoubtedly the two answers would be Pittsburgh and Miami, yet PFF ranked them as #15 and #19 respectively.

Only two of their OL had a positive run blocking rating (Okung and Bowie). Okung was injured and Bowie I believe rotated at RG and RT due to other injuries. Even if Okung and Bowie are healthy this year the middle of the OL (Sweezy, Carpenter, Unger) still isn't very good at run blocking unless they've made big improvements over the offseason.

In pass blocking they were #6 in least total pressure allowed.

I expect Unger to be better this year. He was injured for part of last season and based on what I saw it appeared he was playing injured even when he came back. I also understand that everyone looks good in shorts and shells, but Carpenter has reported 20 pounds lighter now and is getting good marks from the coaches.

Still, I anticipate this group being in the bottom half of the O-line grades at the end of 2014 unless they make remarkable improvements.

In that pass blocking metric I wonder what that is based on. I would have guessed their pass blocking was worse than their run blocking...

 

[cstu]

If we are going to try and take one of these at face value then let's look at the one that has Seattle as #27, PFF. If you polled people on this forum, who would they say the worst offensive line in the NFL was in 2013? Undoubtedly the two answers would be Pittsburgh and Miami, yet PFF ranked them as #15 and #19 respectively.

Only two of their OL had a positive run blocking rating (Okung and Bowie). Okung was injured and Bowie I believe rotated at RG and RT due to other injuries. Even if Okung and Bowie are healthy this year the middle of the OL (Sweezy, Carpenter, Unger) still isn't very good at run blocking unless they've made big improvements over the offseason.

In pass blocking they were #6 in least total pressure allowed.

I expect Unger to be better this year. He was injured for part of last season and based on what I saw it appeared he was playing injured even when he came back. I also understand that everyone looks good in shorts and shells, but Carpenter has reported 20 pounds lighter now and is getting good marks from the coaches.

Still, I anticipate this group being in the bottom half of the O-line grades at the end of 2014 unless they make remarkable improvements.

In that pass blocking metric I wonder what that is based on. I would have guessed their pass blocking was worse than their run blocking...

Total pressure is sacks, hits and hurries. Surprising to me was that they allowed the 2nd fewest hurries. I wonder how much of the credit goes to the OL and how much goes to Russell.

 

[Sabertooth]

Didn't Russel take a lot of sacks last year?

 

[biju]

Didn't Russel take a lot of sacks last year?

Yes. I'm being super, super lazy and not looking it up but I think it was something like 44 last year.

 

[Hooper31]

Sources confirm to ESPN that Marshawn Lynch is expected to skip next week's mandatory minicamp because he wants a new contract.

Who's out of touch with reality? I'm going to go with people that believe "sources".