Christine Michael (and RB position in general)

[kearly]

Turbin had a brutal pass protection breakdown in the Broncos game. It was a reminder that Turbin himself is mediocre at best in pass pro, and the gap between him and Michael in protection is probably not as big as it is in the minds of our coaches.

Michael has shown some amazing ability as a receiver, too. And he is of course a much better runner than Turbin. At this point I think it is probably about time to bump him up to the #2 RB role.

Given that our GM and Bevell have spoken so highly of Michael, you wonder why he's getting the shaft for playing time. My personal theory is that Michael is not well liked by Tom Cable. I base this on no evidence, other than Cable's long established history of playing favorites, usually in favor of less talented players who have the kind of attitude he likes. I think Cable likely has a ton of say in who starts at OL or at #2 RB.

Michael is also a victim of playing on an amazing roster that is relatively healthy. Every team has 8 inactives, and those spots are usually reserved for injured players and roster stash types. But on Seattle, you have good players getting healthy scratches every week, it's not just Michael. Most teams go into games with 3 active RBs and use them all. We've seen a few games this year where 4 different RBs took handoffs. But Seattle only runs with two, because they have so many good reserves at other positions and Lynch is just that damn good.

Do I agree with this idea? I don't. I think Seattle is leaving yards and points on the field by not playing Michael 5-10 snaps a game. I could very easily see him having the kind of impact for our offense that Ben Tate had with Arian Foster all those years. Hopefully Michael gets his day as a complimentary back, but until then I guess I'll just have to settle for having the best team in the NFL.

 

[Russ Willstrong]

With Lynch as our featured power back we can afford to go conservative with Turbin as the steady change-up.
But who is to say Turbo wouldn't just remain our 3rd down back as CMike leapfrogs him to the featured spot once Lynch is gone?
IMO we fans put too much emphasis on who our number 2 back should be. Does it really matter to teams with depth and talent?
Turbin is durable, understands the position and has contributed to special teams in the past. He is Heath Farwellian so to speak. CMIKE was hyped as an explosive talent and the next in line. He has had leg injuries and is nursing a strained hammy. It's possible that by working CMike into the offense slowly we extend his career while appeasing our alpha dog Lynch. What Lynch's career teaches us is that great backs sometimes need help to make that breakthrough.

 

[Basis4day]

With Lynch as our featured power back we can afford to go conservative with Turbin as the steady change-up.
But who is to say Turbo wouldn't just remain our 3rd down back as CMike leapfrogs him to the featured spot once Lynch is gone?
IMO we fans put too much emphasis on who our number 2 back should be. Does it really matter to teams with depth and talent?
Turbin is durable, understands the position and has contributed to special teams in the past. He is Heath Farwellian so to speak. CMIKE was hyped as an explosive talent and the next in line. He has had leg injuries and is nursing a strained hammy. It's possible that by working CMike into the offense slowly we extend his career while appeasing our alpha dog Lynch. What Lynch's career teaches us is that great backs sometimes need help to make that breakthrough.

Who is 2nd or 3rd doesn't matter, unless your third isn't active on gameday. We have no basis for comparison because Michael has only been active for 4 games and has had under 20 carries in his career.

 

[Basis4day]

Turbin had a brutal pass protection breakdown in the Broncos game. It was a reminder that Turbin himself is mediocre at best in pass pro, and the gap between him and Michael in protection is probably not as big as it is in the minds of our coaches.

Michael has shown some amazing ability as a receiver, too. And he is of course a much better runner than Turbin. At this point I think it is probably about time to bump him up to the #2 RB role.

Given that our GM and Bevell have spoken so highly of Michael, you wonder why he's getting the shaft for playing time. My personal theory is that Michael is not well liked by Tom Cable. I base this on no evidence, other than Cable's long established history of playing favorites, usually in favor of less talented players who have the kind of attitude he likes. I think Cable likely has a ton of say in who starts at OL or at #2 RB.

Michael is also a victim of playing on an amazing roster that is relatively healthy. Every team has 8 inactives, and those spots are usually reserved for injured players and roster stash types. But on Seattle, you have good players getting healthy scratches every week, it's not just Michael. Most teams go into games with 3 active RBs and use them all. We've seen a few games this year where 4 different RBs took handoffs. But Seattle only runs with two, because they have so many good reserves at other positions and Lynch is just that damn good.

Do I agree with this idea? I don't. I think Seattle is leaving yards and points on the field by not playing Michael 5-10 snaps a game. I could very easily see him having the kind of impact for our offense that Ben Tate had with Arian Foster all those years. Hopefully Michael gets his day as a complimentary back, but until then I guess I'll just have to settle for having the best team in the NFL.

Can i ask who that is typically active on gameday you would sit to make room for Michael? I might have missed it, long day at work and my eyes are a bit blurry.

 

[hawknation2014]

Can i ask who that is typically active on gameday you would sit to make room for Michael? I might have missed it, long day at work and my eyes are a bit blurry.

A couple people have mentioned Paul Richardson.

 

[Basis4day]

Can i ask who that is typically active on gameday you would sit to make room for Michael? I might have missed it, long day at work and my eyes are a bit blurry.

A couple people have mentioned Paul Richardson.

I think all of them were me.

 

[hawknation2014]

Can i ask who that is typically active on gameday you would sit to make room for Michael? I might have missed it, long day at work and my eyes are a bit blurry.

A couple people have mentioned Paul Richardson.

I think all of them were me.

I was first, LOL.

Zach Miller would actually be the most obvious if they don't add Garry Gilliam to the game day roster.

 

[Basis4day]

Can i ask who that is typically active on gameday you would sit to make room for Michael? I might have missed it, long day at work and my eyes are a bit blurry.

A couple people have mentioned Paul Richardson.

I think all of them were me.

I was first, LOL.

Zach Miller would actually be the most obvious if they don't add Garry Gilliam to the game day roster.

There it is. I didn't read your comment on Richardson as our 6th WR and offensive production correctly.

You may be right for Miller. I thought Helfet was inactive vs broncos, but they carried 3 TE. I think they'll go OL heavy though.

 

[Clayfighter]

Turbin had a brutal pass protection breakdown in the Broncos game. It was a reminder that Turbin himself is mediocre at best in pass pro, and the gap between him and Michael in protection is probably not as big as it is in the minds of our coaches.

Michael has shown some amazing ability as a receiver, too. And he is of course a much better runner than Turbin. At this point I think it is probably about time to bump him up to the #2 RB role.

Given that our GM and Bevell have spoken so highly of Michael, you wonder why he's getting the shaft for playing time. My personal theory is that Michael is not well liked by Tom Cable. I base this on no evidence, other than Cable's long established history of playing favorites, usually in favor of less talented players who have the kind of attitude he likes. I think Cable likely has a ton of say in who starts at OL or at #2 RB.

Michael is also a victim of playing on an amazing roster that is relatively healthy. Every team has 8 inactives, and those spots are usually reserved for injured players and roster stash types. But on Seattle, you have good players getting healthy scratches every week, it's not just Michael. Most teams go into games with 3 active RBs and use them all. We've seen a few games this year where 4 different RBs took handoffs. But Seattle only runs with two, because they have so many good reserves at other positions and Lynch is just that damn good.

Do I agree with this idea? I don't. I think Seattle is leaving yards and points on the field by not playing Michael 5-10 snaps a game. I could very easily see him having the kind of impact for our offense that Ben Tate had with Arian Foster all those years. Hopefully Michael gets his day as a complimentary back, but until then I guess I'll just have to settle for having the best team in the NFL.

I would love to see Michael in a sproles or woodhead type role. I think his burst would make him greatfor screens. The fact that he barely saw the field last year in favor of Turbin tells me that the OL is or was really that bad if they value blocking so much. Why are other teams able to have these backs come in on designed short routes or screens to the RB and we aren't?

 

[Basis4day]

Turbin had a brutal pass protection breakdown in the Broncos game. It was a reminder that Turbin himself is mediocre at best in pass pro, and the gap between him and Michael in protection is probably not as big as it is in the minds of our coaches.

Michael has shown some amazing ability as a receiver, too. And he is of course a much better runner than Turbin. At this point I think it is probably about time to bump him up to the #2 RB role.

Given that our GM and Bevell have spoken so highly of Michael, you wonder why he's getting the shaft for playing time. My personal theory is that Michael is not well liked by Tom Cable. I base this on no evidence, other than Cable's long established history of playing favorites, usually in favor of less talented players who have the kind of attitude he likes. I think Cable likely has a ton of say in who starts at OL or at #2 RB.

Michael is also a victim of playing on an amazing roster that is relatively healthy. Every team has 8 inactives, and those spots are usually reserved for injured players and roster stash types. But on Seattle, you have good players getting healthy scratches every week, it's not just Michael. Most teams go into games with 3 active RBs and use them all. We've seen a few games this year where 4 different RBs took handoffs. But Seattle only runs with two, because they have so many good reserves at other positions and Lynch is just that damn good.

Do I agree with this idea? I don't. I think Seattle is leaving yards and points on the field by not playing Michael 5-10 snaps a game. I could very easily see him having the kind of impact for our offense that Ben Tate had with Arian Foster all those years. Hopefully Michael gets his day as a complimentary back, but until then I guess I'll just have to settle for having the best team in the NFL.

I would love to see Michael in a sproles or woodhead type role. I think his burst would make him greatfor screens. The fact that he barely saw the field last year in favor of Turbin tells me that the OL is or was really that bad if they value blocking so much. Why are other teams able to have these backs come in on designed short routes or screens to the RB and we aren't?

A lot of teams use that player as their Kick returner like we did Leon Washington or they don't carry a FB. The 46 man roster strikes again.

 

[Russ Willstrong]

Turbin had a brutal pass protection breakdown in the Broncos game. It was a reminder that Turbin himself is mediocre at best in pass pro, and the gap between him and Michael in protection is probably not as big as it is in the minds of our coaches.

Michael has shown some amazing ability as a receiver, too. And he is of course a much better runner than Turbin. At this point I think it is probably about time to bump him up to the #2 RB role.

Given that our GM and Bevell have spoken so highly of Michael, you wonder why he's getting the shaft for playing time. My personal theory is that Michael is not well liked by Tom Cable. I base this on no evidence, other than Cable's long established history of playing favorites, usually in favor of less talented players who have the kind of attitude he likes. I think Cable likely has a ton of say in who starts at OL or at #2 RB.

Michael is also a victim of playing on an amazing roster that is relatively healthy. Every team has 8 inactives, and those spots are usually reserved for injured players and roster stash types. But on Seattle, you have good players getting healthy scratches every week, it's not just Michael. Most teams go into games with 3 active RBs and use them all. We've seen a few games this year where 4 different RBs took handoffs. But Seattle only runs with two, because they have so many good reserves at other positions and Lynch is just that damn good.

Do I agree with this idea? I don't. I think Seattle is leaving yards and points on the field by not playing Michael 5-10 snaps a game. I could very easily see him having the kind of impact for our offense that Ben Tate had with Arian Foster all those years. Hopefully Michael gets his day as a complimentary back, but until then I guess I'll just have to settle for having the best team in the NFL.

Yeah it would be very interesting to see how explosive we could be working CMike in more. Tom Cable seems like he can be very stubborn about making changes to the rushing offense. Lynch's bruising rushing style compensates for O Line deficiencies and simplifies blocking schemes I bet.
PC is a master at learning his players. I wonder if PC is holding back CMike to appease Lynch who is such a great talent but can be quite temperamental and sullen. A Lynch vs Michael discussion may be eventual but is it necessary for this year? Could the talk of moving on from Lynch prove divisive to team chemistry given how popular Lynch is?

 

[seedhawk]

We will move on from Lynch sooner or later. Why do some here have a problem stashing someone who could be super simply to keep him from others while he learns, and we as a team learn about him?

 

[FlyingGreg]

We will move on from Lynch sooner or later. Why do some here have a problem stashing someone who could be super simply to keep him from others while he learns, and we as a team learn about him?

Nobody said it was a "problem". It's just odd. You don't normally "stash" players on the 53 man roster.

 

[seedhawk]

We will move on from Lynch sooner or later. Why do some here have a problem stashing someone who could be super simply to keep him from others while he learns, and we as a team learn about him?

Nobody said it was a "problem". It's just odd. You don't normally "stash" players on the 53 man roster.

Actually. Pete and John do it frequently.

 

[bigskydoc]

Coming into the season, I didn't expect to see much of C.M. until after the bye week. We couldn't afford to trial him against some stiff competition while waiting for the rest of the team to get into gear.

His injury and the better than expected performance of Lynch ensured that he would not be active before the bye.

It would appear that the team is starting to fire on all cylinders and we can afford to start auditioning him now. Also, the last portion of our schedule is brutal and every win may be too important to gamble on his audition.

Assuming he is somewhat healed, I would not be surprised to see him make an appearance against the Redskins with their woeful pass rush. In a nod to Basis4Day, I would consider sitting Turbin or Richardson for that game.

Next obvious chance is Raiders with the same substitutions unless there are injuries that open up a spot.

His performance in these games and our record going into the brutal stretch at the end of the season will dictate how much more we will see.

- bsd

 

[justafan]

Pete came out and said right off the bat it will be hard for CM to make the active squad without playing special teams.

Turbin is trusted in many rolls.I dont see it as a competition between Turbin and CM, if Lynch went down I think CM would get more carries and Turbin would play the same role he is now.Right now he is just more versatile and valuable on game day.

I could see Cable blocking his playing time if he doesnt conform to the demands he places on the backs making trhe right zone read and no bs in the backfield.

 

[chris98251]

I think Sherman Smith has some say in the situation, everyone wants to blame Cable, but Smith was also the one that was endorsing Turbin heavily last year.

 

[Tech Worlds]

2 drafts in a row. 2 top picks that arnt good enough to get significant playing time.

 

[AgentDib]

The Seahawks draft philosophy is just different from the other teams. Most other teams try to make their selections look good by investing resources in them (whether they should or not), while the Seahawks actively pitch how willing they are to cut draft picks to prospective UDFAs.

C-Mike will continue to have an opportunity to compete if he can get healthy and stay healthy, but it's not like the FO is rooting for him and against Turbin or Lynch just because C-Mike was a second round selection. As far as Pete is concerned the guy who practices better will play regardless of how they got on the roster and they obviously aren't concerned about being second guessed on their draft selections.

It's true that Carroll's has had some very impactful rookies - mostly due to the poor competition at their positions - but remember that when he first showed up he surprised most of us with how many veterans he kept around at depth positions in what everybody thought would be a rebuilding year. Milloy, Babs, Tru, Terrill, Siavii, Stokely, Hamilton and probably a few others I am forgetting were on the roster not because they were in the longterm plan but because they were better in the short term than the younger guy that would have replaced them.

 

[Pandionidae]

2 drafts in a row. 2 top picks that arnt good enough to get significant playing time.

A little off topic but since it diverged here this points out what i would say is a worrisome trend. It's ops normal for teams like the Jets, Browns and there kind. JS and PC get a lot of leeway but there comes a point where your high picks have to pan out by year two. They impact the cap and if you are not getting value the team eventually regresses.