C Mike?

[ballhawk80]

Any word if he is going to be on the playoff roster?

Michael and Harvin unleashed during playoffs.....Scary!

 

[DavidSeven]

Scary based on what? What he did in the pre-season and in garbage time this year? He didn't take a meaningful snap all year. Not one. Obviously there is a reason for that.

My guess is he will be on the roster, but inactive for all games unless there is an injury. Lynch/Turbin/Mike Rob/Coleman will likely be the active backs. Coleman gets reps at FB and can also be the emergency RB. He also plays special teams.

 

[kidhawk]

Scary based on what? What he did in the pre-season and in garbage time this year? He didn't take a meaningful snap all year. Not one. Obviously there is a reason for that.

My guess is he will be on the roster, but inactive for all games unless there is an injury. Lynch/Turbin/Mike Rob/Coleman will likely be the active backs. Coleman gets reps at FB and can also be the emergency RB. He also plays special teams.

I am with those who can't wait to see Michael with the Rock, but unlike many, I am ok with waiting for him to be held out until he's a more complete player (learns protections so our franchise QB survives). We have Lynch right now, so we aren't hurting at the RB position and with the Rookie Salary cap, we can afford to be patient with him.

Many don't remember but Turbin didn't get much time his rookie year either as he learned to be a more complete player at the NFL level and Pete compared that to Michael at one point earlier this year. He also said that Turbin really got better once he had a full off season to work on what he learned and that he believed we'll see the same from Michael.

 

[willyum]

Scary based on what? What he did in the pre-season and in garbage time this year? He didn't take a meaningful snap all year. Not one. Obviously there is a reason for that.

My guess is he will be on the roster, but inactive for all games unless there is an injury. Lynch/Turbin/Mike Rob/Coleman will likely be the active backs. Coleman gets reps at FB and can also be the emergency RB. He also plays special teams.

Uhh its no mystery that all his teammates praise Michael's explosiveness and combination of quickness/speed/power. Theres a reason they call him Baby Beast.

 

[ceej22]

Where is all this Michael love coming from?

 

[DavidSeven]

Scary based on what? What he did in the pre-season and in garbage time this year? He didn't take a meaningful snap all year. Not one. Obviously there is a reason for that.

My guess is he will be on the roster, but inactive for all games unless there is an injury. Lynch/Turbin/Mike Rob/Coleman will likely be the active backs. Coleman gets reps at FB and can also be the emergency RB. He also plays special teams.

Uhh its no mystery that all his teammates praise Michael's explosiveness and combination of quickness/speed/power. Theres a reason they call him Baby Beast.

I'm not sure what this proves or if it's even true. Link? All the Seahawk players pump each other up in the press. Even James Carpenter gets a ton of love. Anyway, I don't remember reading any overwhelming praise of Michael from his teammates at any point this year, but I guess I could have missed it.

 

[Showmeyourtd's]

NO!! no one is going to be unleashed. Its not how that works, if they were able to play and contribute earlier in the season they would have done so. Its not as simple as coming in with out playing and being a major impact on the game.

 

[DavidSeven]

Where is all this Michael love coming from?

Whitehurst syndrome.

 

[CrimsonWazzu]

Where is all this Michael love coming from?

Aside from his inability to pick up blocks and fumbling issues, the guy is an incredible talent.

 

[Ozzy]

How do we know he can't pick up blocks and has fumbling issues? He's rarely been given a chance and when he did get a chance he looked incredible.

 

[jblaze]

How do we know he can't pick up blocks and has fumbling issues? He's rarely been given a chance and when he did get a chance he looked incredible.

There is a reason he hasn't played and only Pete and John know that. We speculate about blocking, fumbling, etc but regardless, he hasn't earned the right to play and getting your first shot in the playoffs is not a good idea.

 

[Missing_Clink]

Where is all this Michael love coming from?

From the apparently unreasonable belief that a rookie second round pick with unbelievable athleticism would be able to help the team if given a couple plays throughout the game.

Might also have something to do with the other 2013 2nd round rookie RBs that made a big impact this year: Bernard, Lacy and Bell.

 

[willyum]

Where is all this Michael love coming from?

From the apparently unreasonable belief that a rookie second round pick with unbelievable athleticism would be able to help the team if given a couple plays throughout the game.

Might also have something to do with the other 2013 2nd round rookie RBs that made a big impact this year: Bernard, Lacy and Bell.

Lacy and Bell are good pass protectors. And Bell's hands make him a legit 3 down back. I wish we could have seen more of Michael because as of now we really dont know much of what he can or cant do

it dosen't help that he has an All-Pro and a solid young backup ahead of him on the depth chart I wonder what would have happened if Michael went to GB or PIT

 

[Basis4day]

How do we know he can't pick up blocks and has fumbling issues? He's rarely been given a chance and when he did get a chance he looked incredible.

When asked in Pressers, Pete will state that Michael needs to improve in pass protection. He doesn't get asked about it that often though (and nothing recently off the top of my head) so certain fans choose to speculate rather than believe the explanation.

I haven't heard Pete specifically cite fumbling issues. It was part Michael's draft evaluation at TX A&M.

I too have high hopes for Michael. I understand however that him getting on the field this year is much more complicated than being a great runner in the 4th quarter of a blowout with the limitations of the 46 man game day roster. Pass protection is so critical when you had a hobbled o-line and Wilson taking way more hits than he should this year.

 

[formido]

Ah, yes. Another Christine Michael thread where half the people confidently introduce evidence such as "fumbling issues" and "can't pass block" despite that there is zero actual evidence of this. Michael's pass blocking was just as good as Turbin's in the preseason by my eye test and PFF agrees with my eye test.

Even if it were true that Michael's pass blocking were worse than Turbin's, football isn't an ice skating contest where victories are awarded based on judges grading pass blocking. Instead, how good you are is based on the whole package, and when Michael was in, the offense moved the ball better and was more explosive because Michael's dynamism on runs and screen passes is that good. Michael's running is so good that it can't be stopped even when you know it's coming, much of the time. Michael had an explosive run near the goal line against, I think, Minnesota, even though everyone knew a run was coming. If you don't think Michael can pick up a blitz, he can leak out. He had a 26 yard catch and run against Green Bay after he torched their first string defense for a 43 yard run earlier.

Just like players, coaches are people and people make mistakes in execution and judgment. We have the best coach in the NFL, but he's made many errors, e.g., letting Bennett go. Plenty of people hated that decision, with evidence, and their position was proved. Based on the evidence available, I regard holding Michael back as an error. It may be that if I had more inside info, I would change my mind, but it would have to be new information. Football coaches have to deal with so many decisions and so many layers of abstraction that it can sometimes be easier for folks on the outside to see things with a better perspective. Deferring to a trusted authority makes sense when there's little evidence. In this case there's enough evidence that we can question whether authority is making the right decision making trade-offs.

 

[kidhawk]

Ah, yes. Another Christine Michael thread where half the people confidently introduce evidence such as "fumbling issues" and "can't pass block" despite that there is zero actual evidence of this. Michael's pass blocking was just as good as Turbin's in the preseason by my eye test and PFF agrees with my eye test.

Even if it were true that Michael's pass blocking were worse than Turbin's, football isn't an ice skating contest where victories are awarded based on judges grading pass blocking. Instead, how good you are is based on the whole package, and when Michael was in, the offense moved the ball better and was more explosive because Michael's dynamism on runs and screen passes is that good. Michael's running is so good that it can't be stopped even when you know it's coming, much of the time. Michael had an explosive run near the goal line against, I think, Minnesota, even though everyone knew a run was coming. If you don't think Michael can pick up a blitz, he can leak out. He had a 26 yard catch and run against Green Bay after he torched their first string defense for a 43 yard run earlier.

Just like players, coaches are just people and people make mistakes in execution and judgment. We have the best coach in the NFL, but he's made many errors, e.g., letting Bennett go. Plenty of people hated that decision, with evidence, and their position was proved. Based on the evidence available, I regard holding Michael back as an error. It may be that if I had more inside info, I would change my mind, but it would have to be new information. Football coaches have to deal with so many decisions and so many layers of abstraction that it can sometimes be easier for folks on the outside to see things with a better perspective. Deferring to a trusted authority makes sense when there's little evidence. In this case there's enough evidence that we can question whether authority is making the right decision making trade-offs.

Sometimes I wonder if fans understand all the intricacies involved in the NFL. A back who has pass protection issues doesn't mean he can't block. His problems could very well be his ability to quickly read defenses and spot blitzers. The guy has to practice against the best defense in the league with little to no NFL experience...why is it so hard to believe that it takes time to learn how to read NFL defenses?

 

[sutz]

I guess it's easier to believe that Pete is 'making a mistake' than to believe that CM is just not ready yet, and with our backfield, he doesn't need to be.

If we had two RBs out of the lineup right now, yeah, I'd agree that not activating CM would be a 'mistake.' But we don't, and it isn't.

 

[Basis4day]

Ah, yes. Another Christine Michael thread where half the people confidently introduce evidence such as "fumbling issues" and "can't pass block" despite that there is zero actual evidence of this. Michael's pass blocking was just as good as Turbin's in the preseason by my eye test and PFF agrees with my eye test.

Even if it were true that Michael's pass blocking were worse than Turbin's, football isn't an ice skating contest where victories are awarded based on judges grading pass blocking. Instead, how good you are is based on the whole package, and when Michael was in, the offense moved the ball better and was more explosive because Michael's dynamism on runs and screen passes is that good. Michael's running is so good that it can't be stopped even when you know it's coming, much of the time. Michael had an explosive run near the goal line against, I think, Minnesota, even though everyone knew a run was coming. If you don't think Michael can pick up a blitz, he can leak out. He had a 26 yard catch and run against Green Bay after he torched their first string defense for a 43 yard run earlier.

Just like players, coaches are people and people make mistakes in execution and judgment. We have the best coach in the NFL, but he's made many errors, e.g., letting Bennett go. Plenty of people hated that decision, with evidence, and their position was proved. Based on the evidence available, I regard holding Michael back as an error. It may be that if I had more inside info, I would change my mind, but it would have to be new information. Football coaches have to deal with so many decisions and so many layers of abstraction that it can sometimes be easier for folks on the outside to see things with a better perspective. Deferring to a trusted authority makes sense when there's little evidence. In this case there's enough evidence that we can question whether authority is making the right decision making trade-offs.

Again. No one is saying that Michael won't be a great back. What we're doing is believing Pete Carroll's explanation of Christine Michael's playing time. We're not saying we have seen Michael have issues with pass protection. We understand that Michael rarely is active on game day and are believing Pete Carroll's explanation when asked about the topic.

There is no evidence because he rarely is active on game days. The only available information is Pete's explanation when asked. He is rarely asked because it's not on the top of the press corp's to do list.

Your eye test is based on the Preseason. Where are your regular season pass blocking examples? There are few, if any, yet he continues to be inactive on gameday.

As far as zero evidence, how is that any different than the people who dismiss claims of pass protection issues? The difference is Pete Carroll has specifically stated this as the reason Michael doesn't play more. You have two choices: Believe Pete, or speculate.

 

[Vetamur]

I have been on the patient side. Very much so. Early in the season I was one of the people writing about pass protection, etc..

But here is the thing: He was a 2nd round pick, and he has played a complete NFL season.

If youre a 2nd round RB and after 4 preseason games and a full regular season and youre still not ready to make a meaningful contribution to the team, then youve been over drafted. Running back is generally one of the positions that transitions easiest, 2nd round running backs are usually "plug and play". We have Lynch so he didnt need to be , but after a full season I would hope he would be able to get some touches. Turbin is fine, but I would think that Michael offers more, otherwise why pick him up?

On the other hand, I am not sure I want him getting meaningful touches for the first time in a playoff game. But maybe there are creative ways to get him in there.

 

[Missing_Clink]

Ah, yes. Another Christine Michael thread where half the people confidently introduce evidence such as "fumbling issues" and "can't pass block" despite that there is zero actual evidence of this. Michael's pass blocking was just as good as Turbin's in the preseason by my eye test and PFF agrees with my eye test.

Even if it were true that Michael's pass blocking were worse than Turbin's, football isn't an ice skating contest where victories are awarded based on judges grading pass blocking. Instead, how good you are is based on the whole package, and when Michael was in, the offense moved the ball better and was more explosive because Michael's dynamism on runs and screen passes is that good. Michael's running is so good that it can't be stopped even when you know it's coming, much of the time. Michael had an explosive run near the goal line against, I think, Minnesota, even though everyone knew a run was coming. If you don't think Michael can pick up a blitz, he can leak out. He had a 26 yard catch and run against Green Bay after he torched their first string defense for a 43 yard run earlier.

Just like players, coaches are people and people make mistakes in execution and judgment. We have the best coach in the NFL, but he's made many errors, e.g., letting Bennett go. Plenty of people hated that decision, with evidence, and their position was proved. Based on the evidence available, I regard holding Michael back as an error. It may be that if I had more inside info, I would change my mind, but it would have to be new information. Football coaches have to deal with so many decisions and so many layers of abstraction that it can sometimes be easier for folks on the outside to see things with a better perspective. Deferring to a trusted authority makes sense when there's little evidence. In this case there's enough evidence that we can question whether authority is making the right decision making trade-offs.

Again. No one is saying that Michael won't be a great back. What we're doing is believing Pete Carroll's explanation of Christine Michael's playing time. We're not saying we have seen Michael have issues with pass protection. We understand that Michael rarely is active on game day and are believing Pete Carroll's explanation when asked about the topic.

There is no evidence because he rarely is active on game days. The only available information is Pete's explanation when asked. He is rarely asked because it's not on the top of the press corp's to do list.

Your eye test is based on the Preseason. Where are your regular season pass blocking examples? There are few, if any, yet he continues to be inactive on gameday.

As far as zero evidence, how is that any different than the people who dismiss claims of pass protection issues? The difference is Pete Carroll has specifically stated this as the reason Michael doesn't play more. You have two choices: Believe Pete, or speculate.

I don't think there is any reason to disbelieve Carroll about it. I think the questions really are: 1. Is there no way to give him a few plays which will not put the QB at risk?, and 2. Why did the team use their highest draft pick on a player apparently completely incapable of helping them win in such an important season? Hell, they could have drafted Eddie Lacy if they didn't make that trade with the Ravens. Anyone think Lacy just might be better than Robert Turbin? Clearly Lacy was ready to play NFL football.