SeattleTimes: Christine Michael’s inconsistency proved to be his downfall with Seahawks

jrumann59 said:
So fans cannot offer insight on player, there are ones that do not post emotionally charged posts just like here. I do hope he does well but when articles, fan posts bring into question this kids abilities you have to ask the question. He has played in 16 games in the last 2 years, he was buried behind Lynch and Turbin. Randle had an excuse he was buried behind the best back the team has had in years in Murray. Michael couldn't even beat out Turbin for the 3rd down back role, why is that. On top of that his team signed a 34 year old back that pushed him off the roster where he most likely would be cut, oh the fact UDFA rookie was getting props from the coaching staff. Put all that together and it would seem the kid has a knack of rubbing the coaches the wrong way.
Click to expand...

Fan insight does mean something. The point is that you should weigh all fan insight. Not just the negatives. Especially when it's Seattle fans talking about a guy they just traded.

Of course he has some warts. He wasn't traded for a conditional 7th because he was working out so well in Seattle. So Tom Cable doesn't like him...the same Tom Cable that broke the jaw and teeth of one of his coaches in Oakland. The same dolt that has been accused by his ex wife and ex girlfriend of beating them up....

Point being that we gave up nothing. If he develops into the player many hope he can then we made out nicely.
I don't see why people should call him an idiot or cut him down at this point. If he can't learn the playbook or can't block then he won't be here long and we will still have Randle and Dmac.

Reading this thread would make you think we just traded a 1st round pick for Maurice Clarrett or Lawrence Phillips.
 
superonyx said:
Fan insight does mean something. The point is that you should weigh all fan insight. Not just the negatives. Especially when it's Seattle fans talking about a guy they just traded.

Of course he has some warts. He wasn't traded for a conditional 7th because he was working out so well in Seattle. So Tom Cable doesn't like him...the same Tom Cable that broke the jaw and teeth of one of his coaches in Oakland. The same dolt that has been accused by his ex wife and ex girlfriend of beating them up....

Point being that we gave up nothing. If he develops into the player many hope he can then we made out nicely.
I don't see why people should call him an idiot or cut him down at this point. If he can't learn the playbook or can't block then he won't be here long and we will still have Randle and Dmac.

Reading this thread would make you think we just traded a 1st round pick for Maurice Clarrett or Lawrence Phillips.
Click to expand...

Agreed. You don't get Adrian Peterson for a conditional 7th round pick. If he works out, great news. If not, the worst case is they lose a 7th round pick.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BAT
superonyx said:
Fan insight does mean something. The point is that you should weigh all fan insight. Not just the negatives. Especially when it's Seattle fans talking about a guy they just traded.

Of course he has some warts. He wasn't traded for a conditional 7th because he was working out so well in Seattle. So Tom Cable doesn't like him...the same Tom Cable that broke the jaw and teeth of one of his coaches in Oakland. The same dolt that has been accused by his ex wife and ex girlfriend of beating them up....

Point being that we gave up nothing. If he develops into the player many hope he can then we made out nicely.
I don't see why people should call him an idiot or cut him down at this point. If he can't learn the playbook or can't block then he won't be here long and we will still have Randle and Dmac.

Reading this thread would make you think we just traded a 1st round pick for Maurice Clarrett or Lawrence Phillips.
Click to expand...

I get that but reading this thread you would think we got Bo Jackson for a 7th round pick. The kid has talent no denying it, besides the kids eccentricities, Seattle loves eccentric atheletes. What makes a team sour on talent not even 3 years in when just here he has been compared to Murray and Lynch
 
jrumann59 said:
I get that but reading this thread you would think we got Bo Jackson for a 7th round pick. The kid has talent no denying it, besides the kids eccentricities, Seattle loves eccentric atheletes. What makes a team sour on talent not even 3 years in when just here he has been compared to Murray and Lynch
Click to expand...

As a hopeful cowboys fan I am going to say that Michael may not be the right personality to be a long term backup. I believe the article mentioned a time when he waved Lynch off the field in philly. It may not have been the right move but it shows the kid wants to play. I could be like Aaron Rodgers and Favre (not saying he is Rodgers). These days a 2nd round RB is equal to a first round QB. I'm sure he has some growing up to do but I don't believe a player is worthless or less worthy based on the fact that they don't play for the team that drafted them.

In some ways I would be more uncomfortable with a player that doesn't want to be the featured back.
I know he is a part of the committee here....but its new still and a player can emerge and turn the committee into a feature back offense.
 
jrumann59 said:
until he doesn't or does not get the carries he wants. The more I read the more I feel he feels like he is God's Gift to NFL RB, can't learn the playbook, can't pass block, can't secure the ball.
Click to expand...

It's amazing what being traded for a conditional 7th round pick will do to wake you up :)
 
Most Seattle fans are happy he is gone, and are saying that he will fumble and cost us the game when Seattle plays Dallas.
 
When did he ever get the chance? He is stuck behind an All Pro (much like anyone who backs up Witten)
 
hornitosmonster said:
When did he ever get the chance? He is stuck behind an All Pro (much like anyone who backs up Witten)
Click to expand...

And the All Pro's backup.

He's a young guy with a ton of athletic potential who's had issues with fumbling and with reportedly being a professional. So much so, that an NFC contender traded him to another contender for a conditional 7th rounder. People thinking this guy is going to arrive and be the best back on the roster are deluding themselves. In part because Michael looks really good running the ball. In part because they've been so unhappy with our RB position group for months.

The reality is that it's much more likely Michael comes in and contributes to the group that we've got as he learns the offense and hopefully learns some of the nuances of the game that sound like they held him up so much in SEA. What I like about him is that he's got attributes none of our other RBs have. So, between the four of them, we've got a good chance now of finding a combination that's going to work. We also get redundancy at a position where we've got a couple of guys with a history of soft tissue injuries and a legitimate short-yardage back.

What I hate is that we're carrying four RBs on the roster for at least the time being. Unless they're also going to use Randle on STs coverage, that's a really inefficient use of a roster space.
 
BAZ said:
He's hanging around the steelers practice facility waiting for Vick to drop a jockstrap.
Click to expand...

I didn't have a problem with Choice getting Vicks autograph. It was when and how he did it.

Hell I would asked for his autograph as well, just asher the game and the media and tv crew left
 
Idgit said:
And the All Pro's backup.

He's a young guy with a ton of athletic potential who's had issues with fumbling and with reportedly being a professional. So much so, that an NFC contender traded him to another contender for a conditional 7th rounder. People thinking this guy is going to arrive and be the best back on the roster are deluding themselves. In part because Michael looks really good running the ball. In part because they've been so unhappy with our RB position group for months.

The reality is that it's much more likely Michael comes in and contributes to the group that we've got as he learns the offense and hopefully learns some of the nuances of the game that sound like they held him up so much in SEA. What I like about him is that he's got attributes none of our other RBs have. So, between the four of them, we've got a good chance now of finding a combination that's going to work. We also get redundancy at a position where we've got a couple of guys with a history of soft tissue injuries and a legitimate short-yardage back.

What I hate is that we're carrying four RBs on the roster for at least the time being. Unless they're also going to use Randle on STs coverage, that's a really inefficient use of a roster space.
Click to expand...

That's one key point I kept mentioning. Taking a risk on McFadden's health, or on Dunbar being a niche back essentially necessitates carrying four running backs on the roster.

You could indulge yourself with one of those factors hanging over your head, but not both. Choosing to keep both of those players, with their limitations and question marks, makes carrying a capable fourth running back a must.
 
remdak said:
Agreed. You don't get Adrian Peterson for a conditional 7th round pick. If he works out, great news. If not, the worst case is they lose a 7th round pick.
Click to expand...

No, you dont. But you might get Justin Forsett,
 
stasheroo said:
That's one key point I kept mentioning. Taking a risk on McFadden's health, or on Dunbar being a niche back essentially necessitates carrying four running backs on the roster.

You could indulge yourself with one of those factors hanging over your head, but not both. Choosing to keep both of those players, with their limitations and question marks, makes carrying a capable fourth running back a must.
Click to expand...

I don't think we'll do it for very long. If Michael doesn't have the right attitude, he won't last. If he does, we'll probably juggle that spot for a bit until we need it and can see how the RB committee shakes out. At some point, something's got to give.

I'm choosing to believe--based on very little actual evidence--that we're going to finally feature the screen game, or at least try to this season. I think Linehan's got some stuff that he hasn't shown yet using Escobar and Beasley and Dunbar schematically that we haven't done much of in preseason. It explains the direction we went in terms of the RB position this offseason, at least. With the mobility of these OGs and the ability of the QB, keeping Dunbar and adding another space player like DMC (albeit one who can pass protect) just shouts 'screen' to me. With the smoke routes we show every now and then, and with maybe moving Dez around a bit more and using him in the slot, too; I think it's probably by design.

But getting back to the thread topic, what the Michael signing does do is give us a legitimate hard runner who can play a more traditional role if we want to get back to that, or to do that against certain teams or certain defenses. I think he'll run well behind our OL. I think he'll be an adequate pass protector. The only real problem I have with him is the fumbling, which I hate in any RB. But this was a good, smart, cheap hedge that costs us nothing, really, other than an extra roster spot. I can live with it until we see what we've really got at RB across the board.
 
Idgit said:
What I hate is that we're carrying four RBs on the roster for at least the time being. Unless they're also going to use Randle on STs coverage, that's a really inefficient use of a roster space.
Click to expand...

This. I'm not a huge fan of our Rich Bisaccia, but for the 2nd or 3rd year in a row he is having to make due with players who made their roster because they may be able to contribute on Offense or Defense, not because of ST. The one difference may be that we kept both Heath and McCray. Here's to hoping that they work out.
 
Idgit said:
And the All Pro's backup.

He's a young guy with a ton of athletic potential who's had issues with fumbling and with reportedly being a professional. So much so, that an NFC contender traded him to another contender for a conditional 7th rounder. People thinking this guy is going to arrive and be the best back on the roster are deluding themselves. In part because Michael looks really good running the ball. In part because they've been so unhappy with our RB position group for months.

The reality is that it's much more likely Michael comes in and contributes to the group that we've got as he learns the offense and hopefully learns some of the nuances of the game that sound like they held him up so much in SEA. What I like about him is that he's got attributes none of our other RBs have. So, between the four of them, we've got a good chance now of finding a combination that's going to work. We also get redundancy at a position where we've got a couple of guys with a history of soft tissue injuries and a legitimate short-yardage back.

What I hate is that we're carrying four RBs on the roster for at least the time being. Unless they're also going to use Randle on STs coverage, that's a really inefficient use of a roster space.
Click to expand...

I think realistically they are hoping he could be the lead back next year. This year he will be a role player and learn to become a professional. I trust our staff and leaders to help the guy grow up.
 
Crown Royal said:
This. I'm not a huge fan of our Rich Bisaccia, but for the 2nd or 3rd year in a row he is having to make due with players who made their roster because they may be able to contribute on Offense or Defense, not because of ST. The one difference may be that we kept both Heath and McCray. Here's to hoping that they work out.
Click to expand...

Randle is pretty good on coverage teams, at least. I had assumed they wouldn't expose him on Teams, but maybe they will now that there's another potential all-around back on the roster. That'd make me feel better about going heavy at RB, of all positions, at least.

I'm also trying to think of Dunbar as a .50 WR to make me feel better about that roster spot. Same with Escobar.
 
Idgit said:
Randle is pretty good on coverage teams, at least. I had assumed they wouldn't expose him on Teams, but maybe they will now that there's another potential all-around back on the roster. That'd make me feel better about going heavy at RB, of all positions, at least.

I'm also trying to think of Dunbar as a .50 WR to make me feel better about that roster spot. Same with Escobar.
Click to expand...

THat's not a terrible way to look at it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Staff online

Members online

Total: 6,846 (members: 94, guests: 6,752)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
464,691
Messages
13,826,512
Members
23,781
Latest member
Vloh10
Back
Top