Doesn't something have to give at RB?

[Basis4day]

Right now Michael has no trade value.

Really? I was imagining a team would give up a 3rd or a 4th for him? Might be a steal for the other team.

The other team will see a guy who was a 2nd rd pick and never plays. Where is the value in that?

I think most GMs would understand that Michael is playing behind the best RB in football and that's why he's not going to get a lot of opportunities.

If only such arguments worked on fans.

 

[jlwaters1]

If CMike didn't have so many fumbles, he'd probably be a great return guy.

What am I missing here? The guy has had 52 carries in 2 years, is averaging 4.9 YPC and has fumbled the ball 1 time. There seems to be a perception he fumbles all the time. Is he fumbling a lot in pre-season that I am not remembering?

Yes, he's fumbled twice in 2 preseason games last year.

 

[EastCoastHawksFan]

I like Turbin and Michael . But I like Demitrious Bronson more . He showed a lot of burst and power last pre season and I look forward to seeing him this preseason. Not sure how many of your watched Isaah Crowell last season but I saw many comparisons between the two .


I hope we can trade either Turbin or Michael , though I like them both and would be happy to have them both.

 

[TeamoftheCentury]

Right now Michael has no trade value.

Really? I was imagining a team would give up a 3rd or a 4th for him? Might be a steal for the other team.

The other team will see a guy who was a 2nd rd pick and never plays. Where is the value in that?

I think most GMs would understand that Michael is playing behind the best RB in football and that's why he's not going to get a lot of opportunities. Also Turbin is pretty good himself.

Steve Young sat behind Joe Montana for a while and then was amazing when he got a chance to play. Michael has some sick talent, who's to say another team won't take a shot on him? I don't think you can use the argument 'He has no value because he can't get playing time over Marshawn Lynch'.

Yes and teams keep track of players they had rated high in previous drafts. Case in point the Patriots signing Sheard. There are plenty of other examples. If Rick Mirer was traded for a 1st round pick, anything can happen. There's always potential trade value. It depends on need. Michael was electric in college and I'm sure there has got to be a GM or two that is still enamored with his potential.

I believe during training camp last year, JS was saying how they wanted to get Michael on the field more. That could have been to try to build trade interest. But, perhaps it was sincere and they still have plans for him. If he's not wearing out the tread, he could be a valuable commodity.

 

[Hendo66]

Trade him to Jerry if Murray goes to Philadelphia

 

[sc85sis]

Right now Michael has no trade value.

Really? I was imagining a team would give up a 3rd or a 4th for him? Might be a steal for the other team.

Lynch only netted Buffalo a 4th and a conditional 5th in spite of the fact we clearly wanted him and had been bugging them to trade him to us for months. Yes, he'd had a couple legal run-ins, but he still was clearly a talented back who'd had good production in the league.

C-Mike has nada so far. He's pretty much been invisible. He isn't just behind Marshawn on the depth chart, he also hasn't beaten out Turbin. He likely isn't going to bring in a 3rd or 4th round pick in a trade.

 

[Popeyejones]

I think most GMs would understand that Michael is playing behind the best RB in football and that's why he's not going to get a lot of opportunities. Also Turbin is pretty good himself.

He's not playing behind the best RB in football, because he's not playing at all.

General Rule: Healthy players that don't even suit up on game days do not have trade value.

Just by way of comparison, from 2010 through 2012 Ben Tate WAS splitting time with the best RB in football. Foster was getting about 300 carries a year and Tate was getting about 150 carries a year; 1/3 of the carries went to Tate. At that time Tate had some trade value.

For Michael it doesn't matter if Lynch is the best RB in football, because Michael doesn't even suit up. By their actions the Seahawks have basically declared that Lynch is their guy (about 300 carries per yer), Turbin isn't good enough to really split any meaningful time with Lynch (75 carries per year for Turbin -- about half of what Tate got), and Michael isn't good enough to even take carries away from Turbin, and on many weeks, provides less to the team than the very last guy who even suits up at all. .

Steve Young sat behind Joe Montana for a while and then was amazing when he got a chance to play[./quote]

So what? Are you arguing that as a rule backups are better than the people they sit behind, or are you taking a flyer on an exception to the rule that starters generally are starters because they're better players than backups?

BJ Daniels also sits behind Tavaris Jackson and Russell WIlson. That doesn't mean that BJ Daniels is a future hall of famer. :lol:

Michael has some sick talent, who's to say another team won't take a shot on him? I don't think you can use the argument 'He has no value because he can't get playing time over Marshawn Lynch'.

Nobody has made that argument, though.

Think of it this way:

Coming out of college Michael was believed to be quite talented and was a second round pick. Over two years in the NFL he has only intermitently suited up and accounted for about 250 yards of total offense.

Coming out of college LaMichael James was also believed to be quite talented and who was also a second round pick. Over two years he also accounted for about 250 yards of total offense, and had also provided some value in the return game.

Some 9ers fans were convinced that the 9ers could get trade value for James. They were wrong. They were completely wrong. They were thinking like fans rather that thinking rationally.

LaMichael James' trade value was zero. He got cut, sat around at home without drawing any interest for a long time, spent last year at the end of the Dolphins bench, and is now a FA again.

Michael might turn his career around and contribute to an NFL roster, but as of right now, he has no trade value.

 

[ImTheScientist]

If CMike didn't have so many fumbles, he'd probably be a great return guy.

How many fumbles does he have?

 

[CPHawk]

I've heard he hasn't learned the O totally. Not knowing your job makes it hard to get PT.

 

[Popeyejones]

If CMike didn't have so many fumbles, he'd probably be a great return guy.

How many fumbles does he have?

Not a lot of fumbles on not a lot of carries. It's a very small sample size.

When the 9ers couldn't get anything out of LaMichael James they turned him into a return guy. Then they cut him.

That doesn't mean this is how it will turn out for Michael, but if I were him I'd spend all offseason trying to learn how to field puns and kickoffs (as James did), because he's got to try to provide some value to the team somewhere.

 

[original poster]

I'd say keep both of them and they can battle it out once Lynch retires.

 

[nwgamer]

IIRC PC said two of those fumbles just weren't CM's fault.

hehe.. then again.... a fumble is still a fumble...

 

[ImTheScientist]

If CMike didn't have so many fumbles, he'd probably be a great return guy.

How many fumbles does he have?

Not a lot of fumbles on not a lot of carries. It's a very small sample size.

He actually has zero career fumbles lost.

 

[Popeyejones]

He actually has zero career fumbles lost.

Fumbles lost is just based on random chance though. It would only be a useful stat to judge ability in an imaginary world in which you don't know # of fumbles (or better yet, fumbles/touches).

 

[sutz]

If I was forced to make a bet, I'd say they stand pat re Michael/Turbin and maybe draft another RB for grooming. With both of them becoming FA in the next couple of seasons, that seems sound to me.

I'd never say that Michael has "no" value, but I think he has minimal value in trade because of lack of playing time to evaluate him. Any team seeking to acquire him would want some recent film on him if they were going to spend a 2d day pick on him. His draft position two years ago would be of little to no value today.

Having said all that, John likes to move around the draft board on days 2 & 3, and a promising young RB might make a good pot sweetener for that kind of action. He is nothing if not a bit unpredictable. Funny, but his "surprise" moves seem to often be his best.

 

[Hawkfan77]

Not sure why some want Michael off the team. Let's remember how the Seahawks works, they send players packing all the time regardless of how much money that players is making or where the player was drafted.

Heck they cut EJ Wilson, a high 4th rounder, during TC. There is no player wasting roster spots around here. If Michael hasn't shown the Hawks anything he would already be gone. But he's still here which means the Hawks see him as a valuable member of the team. I think we see why he was taken with our first pick two years ago this season. He's got great ability and I'm hoping he finally puts it together because a lynch-michael 1-2 punch would be great

 

[Popeyejones]

If I was forced to make a bet, I'd say they stand pat re Michael/Turbin and maybe draft another RB for grooming. With both of them becoming FA in the next couple of seasons, that seems sound to me.

I'd never say that Michael has "no" value, but I think he has minimal value in trade because of lack of playing time to evaluate him. Any team seeking to acquire him would want some recent film on him if they were going to spend a 2d day pick on him. His draft position two years ago would be of little to no value today.

Having said all that, John likes to move around the draft board on days 2 & 3, and a promising young RB might make a good pot sweetener for that kind of action. He is nothing if not a bit unpredictable. Funny, but his "surprise" moves seem to often be his best.

If they draft an RB though it would mean that they either:

a) carry four RBs, which is very unlikely, given that many times last year they were only activating two RBs

b) are drafting an RB to compete with Michael in TC and hopefully beat him out (why draft someone to compete with Michael in TC unless you're hoping for that pick to win the battle)

c) are drafting an RB at the very end of the draft, or bringing someone in after the draft, with the intent of grooming that person on the practice squad (sending an early or mid-round pick to the practice squad where anyone can grab him just doesn't make sense).


EDIT: I forgot about a fourth option, which unlike the first three supports what you're saying--

d) Draft an RB who doubles as a return specialist, and roster (and activate) that guy in replace of a WR from last year (e.g. Walters). In this scneario though Michael is definitely never being activated on game days (they'd already have three RBs active when last year they were sometimes going with two), at which point there's really not any reason to not just cut him and free up the roster spot.


And just to clarify, yeah, IIRC i've never mistakenly said he has "no value", just that he has "no trade value." It's not looking good for him so far, but if he actually has any value or not remains to be seen.

 

[sutz]

If I was forced to make a bet, I'd say they stand pat re Michael/Turbin and maybe draft another RB for grooming. With both of them becoming FA in the next couple of seasons, that seems sound to me.

I'd never say that Michael has "no" value, but I think he has minimal value in trade because of lack of playing time to evaluate him. Any team seeking to acquire him would want some recent film on him if they were going to spend a 2d day pick on him. His draft position two years ago would be of little to no value today.

Having said all that, John likes to move around the draft board on days 2 & 3, and a promising young RB might make a good pot sweetener for that kind of action. He is nothing if not a bit unpredictable. Funny, but his "surprise" moves seem to often be his best.

If they draft an RB though it would mean that they either:

a) carry four RBs, which is very unlikely, given that many times last year they were only activating two RBs

b) are drafting an RB to compete with Michael in TC and hopefully beat him out (why draft someone to compete with Michael in TC unless you're hoping for that pick to win the battle)

c) are drafting an RB at the very end of the draft, or bringing someone in after the draft, with the intent of grooming that person on the practice squad (sending an early or mid-round pick to the practice squad where anyone can grab him just doesn't make sense).


EDIT: I forgot about a fourth option, which unlike the first three supports what you're saying--

d) Draft an RB who doubles as a return specialist, and roster (and activate) that guy in replace of a WR from last year (e.g. Walters). In this scneario though Michael is definitely never being activated on game days (they'd already have three RBs active when last year they were sometimes going with two), at which point there's really not any reason to not just cut him and free up the roster spot.


And just to clarify, yeah, IIRC i've never mistakenly said he has "no value", just that he has "no trade value." It's not looking good for him so far, but if he actually has any value or not remains to be seen.

To be clear, I meant "trade value" in that he has minimal, but not "no" trade value. I think we'll go with option C.

 

[Popeyejones]

^^^^ :th2thumbs: