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

[Joe_Fan]

This is just a personal thing and I'm sure others disagree, but I had an issue with the way he celebrated, not that he did it at all. His are the 'look at me' types of celebration, not the 'great job guys' team celebrations. I love it when teammates congratulate and high-five one another on a job well done. But when the guy stands there thinking he's done it all himself? Not a fan.

How is that any different from Irvin's first down celebrations? Both were personal celebrations and not congratulating the team.

Trust me I'm not knocking Irvin at all because I loved the cockiness and his heart but to me it was similar and on some of the CMichael celebrations it reminded me of the same type of intimidation to the opposing team. Much like the "you know it's coming but you still can't stop us" type of mentality.

 

[BlindFaith]

Let's not use 'dumb things we've all heard' as the basis for believing things, for starters. And I said he's not going to come in and be the starter, not that he might not develop into the starter eventually.

He differs from Randle in that he reportedly struggled with his mechanics and his assignments in a way that substantially affected his ability to play in games. Hence, the getting traded for a song prior to getting cut outright. Despite his immense athletic talent, he's lacking in skills in a way that Randle is not, and if he doesn't address those issues, he'll be in the same situation in Dallas he was in SEA.

Randle wouldn't be on the Seattle roster right now either. Randle wouldn't even have sniffed the field the last two years in Seattle.

Randle got cleanup duty here and he was the clear #2 guy.

What are the exact skills that Michael lacks that Randle has? How many teams do you really think would even give up a 7th round pick for Randle? I'm being serious here. Some folks are way over rating what we have at running back.

 

[Joe_Fan]

Randle wouldn't be on the Seattle roster right now either. Randle wouldn't even have sniffed the field the last two years in Seattle.

Randle got cleanup duty here and he was the clear #2 guy.

What are the exact skills that Michael lacks that Randle has? How many teams do you really think would even give up a 7th round pick for Randle? I'm being serious here. Some folks are way over rating what we have at running back.

I couldn't have said it any better myself. The whole mindset that Michael has zero chance because of who he's backing up is just mind blowing to me. Our current roster pre-trade just wasn't very good at all and I can't help but laugh at those people that only think that he's going to be nothing more than a 3rd and 1 / short yardage back.

For everything that's been said about Michael here on the board let's not forget that the exact same thing can be said about Randle but with the addition of all the legal issues as well.

Some players just need a change of scenery and I feel this is exactly what CMichael needed. Now it's up to him to make the most of it.

 

[BlindFaith]

Some players just need a change of scenery and I feel this is exactly what CMichael needed. Now it's up to him to make the most of it.

Yep. He's been given the Golden Ticket to the Chocolate Factory. If he can just keep out of the chocolate river, not eat the blueberry gum or not shrink himself to the size of a pez dispenser he should find himself in the glass elevator.

 

[Idgit]

Randle wouldn't be on the Seattle roster right now either. Randle wouldn't even have sniffed the field the last two years in Seattle.

Randle got cleanup duty here and he was the clear #2 guy.

What are the exact skills that Michael lacks that Randle has? How many teams do you really think would even give up a 7th round pick for Randle? I'm being serious here. Some folks are way over rating what we have at running back.

I disagree. Primarily, Randle know his assignments, and he gets what's blocked. That's the difference right now between where these two players are at. Perhaps, once he gets into the playbook, Michael won't have the issues in Dallas he reportedly had in Seattle. We'll see. Right now, he's not familiar enough with the offense to demonstrate one way or another.

If you don't think a young starter in Dallas is good enough to make the roster in SEA or net a flier of a pick to jump the waiver line at cutdowns, then that explains how we see things differently at RB. Joseph Randle is good enough to be a solid role player on a lot of rosters. The fact that I recognize that doesn't mean I'm overrating him.

 

[Idgit]

I couldn't have said it any better myself. The whole mindset that Michael has zero chance because of who he's backing up is just mind blowing to me. Our current roster pre-trade just wasn't very good at all and I can't help but laugh at those people that only think that he's going to be nothing more than a 3rd and 1 / short yardage back.

For everything that's been said about Michael here on the board let's not forget that the exact same thing can be said about Randle but with the addition of all the legal issues as well.

Some players just need a change of scenery and I feel this is exactly what CMichael needed. Now it's up to him to make the most of it.

Maybe it's because you seem to be reading into arguments that aren't there. It's not that Michael has zero chance. It's only that he comes with warts, too, which ought to be expected when a good team drops a former 2nd round pick with his kind of ability.

And Michael's struggles haven't been the same sorts of issues that Randle's had. Randle's team was comfortable letting a more established workhorse back walk to let him have his shot. Michael's team flipped him for a late pick. Despite him being a much more athletic player. Those two things are not equivalent.

 

[BlindFaith]

I disagree. Primarily, Randle know his assignments, and he gets what's blocked. That's the difference right now between where these two players are at. Perhaps, once he gets into the playbook, Michael won't have the issues in Dallas he reportedly had in Seattle. We'll see. Right now, he's not familiar enough with the offense to demonstrate one way or another.

If you don't think a young starter in Dallas is good enough to make the roster in SEA or net a flier of a pick to jump the waiver line at cutdowns, then that explains how we see things differently at RB. Joseph Randle is good enough to be a solid role player on a lot of rosters. The fact that I recognize that doesn't mean I'm overrating him.

So he knows the playbook? That's the skill that Randle has over Michael?

And no, I don't think this young "starter" would make the roster in Seattle. He'd have a hard time making a roster anywhere. He wasn't even good enough last year to be a solid role player here. Unless you think getting garbage carries and playing a couple special teams is "solid". And it's an even sadder statement that our "starter" is used in the same context as "solid role player" on a lot of rosters. I guess I am seeing things differently at RB. If I'm the GM of a team with Super Bowl aspirations, I'm getting in a guy that is more than someone who could be a role player, maybe, for another team.

 

[Stash]

How is that any different from Irvin's first down celebrations? Both were personal celebrations and not congratulating the team.

Trust me I'm not knocking Irvin at all because I loved the cockiness and his heart but to me it was similar and on some of the CMichael celebrations it reminded me of the same type of intimidation to the opposing team. Much like the "you know it's coming but you still can't stop us" type of mentality.

One key difference? Irvin had earned his right to be confident. The guy was a proven Pro Bowl receiver, among the best at his position. He had done something to be confident. And as I recall, he was also quick to celebrate with his teammates too. Something I do not see from Christine Michael.

You're not intimidating anyone if you're third string. And trying to do that shows a lack of awareness more than anything else.

 

[Idgit]

So he knows the playbook? That's the skill that Randle has over Michael?

And no, I don't think this young "starter" would make the roster in Seattle. He'd have a hard time making a roster anywhere. He wasn't even good enough last year to be a solid role player here. Unless you think getting garbage carries and playing a couple special teams is "solid". And it's an even sadder statement that our "starter" is used in the same context as "solid role player" on a lot of rosters. I guess I am seeing things differently at RB. If I'm the GM of a team with Super Bowl aspirations, I'm getting in a guy that is more than someone who could be a role player, maybe, for another team.

Well there's your problem then. You don't like Randle because you underestimate his ability a fair amount. He's definitely a solid back. One who'd contribute, as I said, on many teams.

There's no doubt you and I would run a team very differently. RB would be the last offensive position I'd lose sleep over. Give me guys who know the protections and who don't fumble, and I'm off to address the positions that help teams win football games.

 

[CowboyGil]

Randle wouldn't be on the Seattle roster right now either. Randle wouldn't even have sniffed the field the last two years in Seattle.

Randle got cleanup duty here and he was the clear #2 guy.

What are the exact skills that Michael lacks that Randle has? How many teams do you really think would even give up a 7th round pick for Randle? I'm being serious here. Some folks are way over rating what we have at running back.

Well, not many RBs would've been able to displace Beast Mode as the starter the last 2-3 years. Probably not Murray either. I don't think Randle is as bad as you think. Not saying he's a world beater, but give our FO some credit.

 

[Idgit]

Well, not many RBs would've been able to displace Beast Mode as the starter the last 2-3 years. Probably not Murray either. I don't think Randle is as bad as you think. Not saying he's a world beater, but give our FO some credit.

Michael couldn't displace Turbin, either, remember.

And I don't want this thread spun like I don't think Michael has a world of potential. He's a really, really talented athlete. But just the fact that so much talent was underutilized by that team--with a coach who's got a great reputation for working with challenging players to maximize their abilities--should let you know that there are issues with this guy that are going to need to be addressed.