News: Cowboys Trade for Christine Michael per Schefter

[Kaiser]

I see this as Ro McClain v2.0. All the physical talent in the world, but has never put it together between his ears. Like Ro, Jerry is taking a low cost flier to see if we can get him to do so here.

That's a good comparison, but the key is that Michael doesn't need to be a full time starter. He just needs to carry the ball 8 - 12 times a game. If McClain only had to play a third of the snaps he would look fantastic, this RB Committee could really highlight Michael's strengths.

 

[Nightman]

That's a good comparison, but the key is that Michael doesn't need to be a full time starter. He just needs to carry the ball 8 - 12 times a game. If McClain only had to play a third of the snaps he would look fantastic, this RB Committee could really highlight Michael's strengths.

I agree. Another player that has been mentioned is Marty Bennett. He clearly had the talent but we didn't have the spot and probably over-drafted him. SEA wasn't sure about Lynch a couple seasons ago and probably over-drafted Michael based on his potential. Then Beast Mode happened and they went to back to back SBs.

But CM is nowhere near a bust yet. Marty B is still getting it done. He just needed the chance and a little time to grow up. CMike has a great opportunity here to do the same.

 

[big dog cowboy]

Watching his carries against the Chargers right now because it is the only game I have available.

He was alternating with Turbin a good bit.

Just has some balance issues and you can just see him lacking patience at times. Had a really nice run in the 3rd Q where he got knocked out at the two where he dove for the pylon way too early. His next carry was just awful because he thought he could stop on a dime and run around a penetrating lineman.

As a pass protector, he got shocked pretty good by Denzel Perryman on a blitz, mainly because he did not set his feet.

Serious question - did the problems you see be corrected thru coaching?

 

[conner01]

That's a good comparison, but the key is that Michael doesn't need to be a full time starter. He just needs to carry the ball 8 - 12 times a game. If McClain only had to play a third of the snaps he would look fantastic, this RB Committee could really highlight Michael's strengths.

I don't see the comparison
RO was a stud player with a head problem
Michaels is a very talented player who plays very inconsistent football
If he can learn to be consistent he could be very good, RO is very good and could be even better if he had half a brain
The deal for both were very good
The price was perfect but I have my concerns that he can really be the back some thinks he is

 

[Kaiser]

I don't see the comparison
RO was a stud player with a head problem
Michaels is a very talented player who plays very inconsistent football
If he can learn to be consistent he could be very good, RO is very good and could be even better if he had half a brain

I don't think Michael getting 52 carries in two years qualifies him as having played much football, so I wouldn't call him inconsistent. McClain was a first year starter by virtue of his talent and draft position. The comparison between the two is that they both have a ton of physical talent but haven't mastered the mental/professionalism side yet.

 

[percyhoward]

Very good point. Murray's greatest attribute is he could do everything at least to a solid level. So his presence on the field didn't tip the defense as to what's coming. You start using a rotation of one dimensional players and you become predictable.

Yep. That, or you have to do something to compensate for the particular weakness of the guy that's in the game at the time, which also isn't good.

 

[Vintage]

We traded a conditional 7th to Seattle for Michael.................basically 3 camps commenting on this.

Camp 1............this is a great trade because our RBs suck.

Camp 2...........don't like the trade because they have claimed for weeks "team was fine with what they have" and this makes them look wrong.

Camp 3...........don't like the trade because they don't like the player (reports of fumbling issues and skipping some team meetings)

Camp 4. Don't really care. It adds depth. Another body. Not a game changer.

 

[Nirvana]

this guy was drafted high for a reason, and this could turn out really well for us. Very interesting addition to the team. I like how he finishes runs.

 

[jrumann59]

I think that is Wilber/Smith at LB and Coleman/Bishop/Hayden at DT

Maybe but the 3rd and 4th running back would have to be ST contributors.

 

[Nightman]

Maybe but the 3rd and 4th running back would have to be ST contributors.

Indeed

 

[T-RO]

I see this as Ro McClain v2.0. All the physical talent in the world, but has never put it together between his ears. Like Ro, Jerry is taking a low cost flier to see if we can get him to do so here.

I have zero problem with the trade - in fact I am happy with it, like Ro the upside is stellar- but Seattle didn't just jettison this guy for nothing because they wanted to help us out. To ignore the fact that he obviously has issues, be they effort or just plain mental, is silly. Besides reports of shoddy pass protection and missing assignments, he put the ball on the ground in the last two pre-seasons 3 times in 62 touches. That's red flag worthy, even if it is pre-season.

Not that we're not used to that...

Hmmm...interesting comparison and I get your point. The upside is certainly there--just like it was with Ro. But there are major differences:
1. Ro has very high football IQ. I get the impression Christine doesn't.
2. Ro had major off-the-field issues. I haven't heard that about Christine
3. Ro was always an elite football player...we can't say quite the same about Christine

 

[Common Sense]

Serious question - did the problems you see be corrected thru coaching?

That's the thing that worries me about him. They are all correctable problems, but despite being in a Super Bowl-winning program and despite all of the feel-good offseason articles about how he knows what to work on and is correcting them, his development has still been so disappointing that the team signed a 34-year old backup and kept a rookie UDFA in order to let this guy go for nothing halfway through his rookie deal. He has all the talent in the world, but the light has to come on before any of it means anything. Hopefully that can happen here, but you have to prepare for the fact that this guy might not even get 180 yards here, much less 1,800.

 

[wileedog]

Hmmm...interesting comparison and I get your point. The upside is certainly there--just like it was with Ro. But there are major differences:
1. Ro has very high football IQ. I get the impression Christine doesn't.
2. Ro had major off-the-field issues. I haven't heard that about Christine
3. Ro was always an elite football player...we can't say quite the same about Christine

Yeah, no comparison is perfect, but the idea is there. Ro's issues have always seem to be motivation, and many have floated the idea he just doesn't like football very much (and before anyone starts, this isn't a Ro thread so let's not go there). Reading what I have so far on Michael though from Seahawk fans and reporters, he seems to have similar motivation issues with practice. And in his defense, it can't be fun to wake up everyday and realize you are sitting behind Marshawn friggin Lynch, you are not going to get many carries unless God himself strikes down Beast Mode, so why am I working so hard?

I agree with you about the on the field IQ, but I also don't think it is quite as necessary for a RB than a MLB. I think its more developing muscle memory and instinct through repetition for a RB, and it doesn't seem like the motivation has been there with him to do it. Hopefully this change of scenery is exactly what he needs.

But then again dumb players are dumb players. Only so much you can do, and I am sure a very good set of coaches did their best up in Seattle. But there is no question from anyone that Michael has elite physical talent. As I said, maybe being dumped for a 7th and put into an environment where he has every motivation to succeed works.

 

[Alexander]

Serious question - did the problems you see be corrected thru coaching?

Maybe, if I thought Sherman Smith never tried.

He flashes serious talent. Just like McFadden can.

But it just does not matter if he cannot develop a measure of consistency.

You can coach and coach and coach a player. But if they either don't want to or cannot comprehend the coaching, you are left with physical talent only. That said, you get what the player can give. I think most of his production was due simply to the fact he was talented. That is probably what drove the Seahawks crazy.

 

[Common Sense]

Yeah, no comparison is perfect, but the idea is there. Ro's issues have always seem to be motivation, and many have floated the idea he just doesn't like football very much (and before anyone starts, this isn't a Ro thread so let's not go there). Reading what I have so far on Michael though from Seahawk fans and reporters, he seems to have similar motivation issues with practice. And in his defense, it can't be fun to wake up everyday and realize you are sitting behind Marshawn friggin Lynch, you are not going to get many carries unless God himself strikes down Beast Mode, so why am I working so hard?

I agree with you about the on the field IQ, but I also don't think it is quite as necessary for a RB than a MLB. I think its more developing muscle memory and instinct through repetition for a RB, and it doesn't seem like the motivation has been there with him to do it. Hopefully this change of scenery is exactly what he needs.

But then again dumb players are dumb players. Only so much you can do, and I am sure a very good set of coaches did their best up in Seattle. But there is no question from anyone that Michael has elite physical talent. As I said, maybe being dumped for a 7th and put into an environment where he has every motivation to succeed works.

I think the big difference there is that with Ro you could still see a player who understood how to play the game even when he was with the Raiders. The big question with Michael is that he may never have the mental aspect of the game down well enough to be effective.

Also, Ro is more of a headcase off the field than Michael has ever been, so it's a little of an apples to oranges comparison. For perspective, I'd say Randle is more of a knucklehead off the field than Michael, but Michael is more of a knucklehead on the field. Using that analogy, Ro fits more in the Randle camp, even though Ro and Michael are more similar from a physical talent perspective.

 

[manster4ever]

Pretty disappointing to come on here today and see this pickup getting the usual bashing.

We got Michael and Dmac for practically nothing. If either if these guys pan out it's a steal. If both do it's Katie bar the door!

Agree...buncha nancies whining. Just consider the source(s) and enjoy man. Most of them don't know their arse from a hole in the ground.

 

[wileedog]

Also, Ro is more of a headcase off the field than Michael has ever been, so it's a little of an apples to oranges comparison..

Splitting hairs, but from the Cowboys perspective I don't see it so apples/oranges. In one player the took the flyer they could get the off-field situation sorted out, in the other they are taking the risk they can get the on-field situation sorted out. Different set of challenges for sure, but same risk/reward scenario.

 

[dallasdave]

He can't even take over mall security for that matter..lol.

 

[dallasdave]

Agree...buncha nancies whining. Just consider the source(s) and enjoy man. Most of them don't know their arse from a hole in the ground.

Yeah !!!! Just play FOOTBALL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Nightman]

Agree...buncha nancies whining. Just consider the source(s) and enjoy man. Most of them don't know their arse from a hole in the ground.

I was very leery of going into the season with just Randle, DMC and Dunbar, but CMichael brings everything the RBBC was lacking.

He is a thumper with young legs and should be able to get the tough yards Randle might struggle with.

It's all good man.