News: Cowboys Trade for Christine Michael per Schefter

[Common Sense]

From Seattle RB coach Sherman Smith:





So why wasn't he more dependable and professional than Turbin?

Yeah, but show me in that article where it says he's a communist. If you can't show me where it says he's a communist, you're wrong. He is the second coming of AD.

In fact, this season we're going to start referring to Adrian Peterson as BC, as in "Before Christine."

 

[Plankton]

Because that's what we're discussing? We're not discussing if he's as talented as his combine and college career made us think, we are discussing the claim that he has a poor work ethic.

I'm backing up what I'm saying. I'm waiting for you two to do the same. I don't play the assumption game, I don't spin the words of what the coaches say. You gave me a quote, without giving the full response, and dissected that. But when I give you the quote from Pete Carroll, you question why it's being brought up.

Again, if you don't have anything to stand on with the claim that he's lazy (This is what the discussion stemmed from), you should question why you're making such a claim.

Answer me this - if Michael was truly meeting and showing his potential, then why did the Seahawks sign a 34 year old running back that is unfamiliar with their offense to back up Marshawn Lynch, and then turn around and trade Michael for a conditional seventh round pick? Wouldn't that alone point to some dissatisfaction with Michael's development on their part, regardless of him being "the most improved"?

Actions speak louder than words. Michael was the third RB off the bench for his time there, and he was traded for a song.

 

[Alexander]

He will be in Dallas. Better coaches, his favorite team. New environment. Chance for #1 position. I am optimistic.

Two time defending conference champions, but hey, we have better coaches. Makes sense.

And that playing for his favorite team thing always comes up aces.

If we could just somehow get 53 players whose favorite team is the Cowboys, we could win it all.

 

[Alexander]

Answer me this - if Michael was truly meeting and showing his potential, then why did the Seahawks sign a 34 year old running back that is unfamiliar with their offense to back up Marshawn Lynch, and then turn around and trade Michael for a conditional seventh round pick? Wouldn't that alone point to some dissatisfaction with Michael's development on their part, regardless of him being "the most improved"?

Actions speak louder than words. Michael was the third RB off the bench for his time their, and he was traded for a song.

Wait, are you implying some logic here? Oh.

Anyways. It is just wrong. He really is a dependable player and since we have better coaches and Dallas is his favorite team, it is a mega steal.

Case closed!

 

[Common Sense]

Having voiced my reservations about the player, I still think it's a good trade (as I've said all along). Given the change of scenery, either the light will come on or it won't. If it doesn't, you cut ties and move on, and all you've lost is Lavar Edwards, who would have been cut when Ro or Hardy return anyway.

 

[mattjames2010]

From Seattle RB coach Sherman Smith:





So why wasn't he more dependable and professional than Turbin?

Rober Turbin - 1 fumble
Christine Michael - 4 fumbles, 3 in his preseason games

He also has bad technique when it comes to pass protection, from what I've read. But he's still willing to make blocks. He also holds the ball in one arm, which coaches will frown upon.

As for the "professional" thing. Who knows, because he raps?

 

[Plankton]

Wait, are you implying some logic here? Oh.

Anyways. It is just wrong. He really is a dependable player and since we have better coaches and Dallas is his favorite team, it is a mega steal.

Case closed!

Lookit, for a conditional seventh rounder, it's not a bad trade. He brings some heft that the running back position in Dallas lacks.

But, the trade doesn't come without some questions. Guys with his physical ability and draft status typically aren't made available for a paltry sum unless there was an issue of some kind.

 

[windjc]

Two time defending conference champions, but hey, we have better coaches. Makes sense.

And that playing for his favorite team thing always comes up aces.

If we could just somehow get 53 players whose favorite team is the Cowboys, we could win it all.

What part of "Im optimistic" did you not understand? I didn't say I was right. Two steps behind as always.

As a fan, I am optimistic. Not that you apparently understand what that means.

 

[btcutter]

10 pager.

did someone already said "Championship"???

 

[Alexander]

Lookit, for a conditional seventh rounder, it's not a bad trade. He brings some heft that the running back position in Dallas lacks.

But, the trade doesn't come without some questions. Guys with his physical ability and draft status typically aren't made available for a paltry sum unless there was an issue of some kind.

Correct. Agreed on all counts. I think we needed a more physical back. If he provides just that for short yardage, I will take that risk for a 7th.

I just refuse to count on this as being some heist. I would rather that be proven to me than sit here and dream about it. The player's past dictates that he needs to prove it.

 

[viman96]

I don't understand all the hand wringing over this trade.
Guys we gave up a 7th round pick for an athletic bruising running back. If he doesn't cut it ..... We cut him. What am I missing here

Because all the naysayers want to be right and this is their moment to scream, "I told you so", and brag about being "right".

 

[mattjames2010]

Answer me this - if Michael was truly meeting and showing his potential, then why did the Seahawks sign a 34 year old running back that is unfamiliar with their offense to back up Marshawn Lynch, and then turn around and trade Michael for a conditional seventh round pick? Wouldn't that alone point to some dissatisfaction with Michael's development on their part, regardless of him being "the most improved"?

Actions speak louder than words. Michael was the third RB off the bench for his time there, and he was traded for a song.

Him not meeting the potential they thought he had DOES NOT mean he didn't work to get better. Can you people PLEASE return to the source of this discussion?

I am not arguing if he's as good as his combine made him look, I am not arguing that he is as good as the SPARQ tests made it seem.

Again, one is a character issue, the other is not being as talented as the scouts believed you to be.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

My question is, can he pass protect? If so, he has a shot, if not, then meh...

 

[ragman]

I think Randle is gonna surprise a lot of cowboys fans this season. I really don't understand the criticism his running ability gets. When he has had opportunities he has made nice plays.

His pass protection needs a lot of attention and he has off the field concerns but as far running the ball i'm excited to see what he can do.

What off the field concerns does he have?

 

[Alexander]

What part of "Im optimistic" did you not understand? I didn't say I was right. Two steps behind as always.

As a fan, I am optimistic. Not that you apparently understand what that means.

So you are saying you were optimistic about what?

Him or the line about having better coaches and how playing for his favorite team matters in the least?

Be optimistic all you want, but when you create reasons for the optimism? It gets more than a little amusing.

 

[Alexander]

My question is, can he pass protect? If so, he has a shot, if not, then meh...

He probably is decent at it, but it is hard to tell from where he is coming from. It is not like he was their 3rd down back, nor did they pass a lot.

And yes, I have seen the chip on Dee Ford.

 

[mattjames2010]

My question is, can he pass protect? If so, he has a shot, if not, then meh...

From what I've read, he's a willing blocker with bad technique.

 

[windjc]

So you are saying you were optimistic about what?

Him or the line about having better coaches and how playing for his favorite team matters in the least?

Be optimistic all you want, but when you create reasons for the optimism? It gets more than a little amusing.

I'm optimistic about you being a troll.

As a fan I can create reasons for anything I want to be optimistic about. Just like you pull reasons out of your butt to justify your opinions that you like to call "Realism." Yet, they are no different than anyone else's.

 

[Plankton]

Him not meeting the potential they thought he had DOES NOT mean he didn't work to get better. Can you people PLEASE return to the source of this discussion?

I am not arguing if he's as good as his combine made him look, I am not arguing that he is as good as the SPARQ tests made it seem.

Again, one is a character issue, the other is not being as talented as the scouts believed you to be.

Perhaps, with an open mind, one can infer from the quotes above from Sherman Smith and Darrell Bevell that Michael didn't work at the little things.

Which, one can easily infer, means that he didn't work to get better on the details of the position and preparation. Maybe Michael was arrogant enough to think that those details didn't matter. Maybe he just didn't get it. Who knows?

 

[Plankton]

My question is, can he pass protect? If so, he has a shot, if not, then meh...

Not enough data points to know for sure.