Christine Michael looks most like....

[chawx]

[youtube]8PBvOxicz-0[/youtube]

^ This is who he reminds me of—Bo Jackson.

 

[HunnyBadger]

Reminds me most of Sam Gordon

[youtube]ldHBB8j5QYw[/youtube]

 

[Tical21]

He really doesn't remind me of Turbin at all. Michael explodes through the second level. That part reminds me of Priest Holmes. Yards 5-10 happen in a blink. Michael also does a great job of setting up the DBs, ala Shaun Alexander. It takes extra feel for the position to be able to do that instinctively. I liked Turbin, and didn't see the need for the pick, but I don't think we added a 3rd back, I think we upgraded our backup, and depending on how contracts play out, may have landed our future at the position.

 

[kearly]

I looked up Ben Tate's combine numbers and they are almost identical to Christine Michael's. Tate's combine forty was a lot better than Michael's somehow, though on the field I think Michael is at least as fast and looks more explosive.

Even though Tate tested extremely well for a 220 pound back, I watch those videos and Michael just looks like he's on another level athletically. It makes me wonder if Michael's upside is even better than his combine numbers indicate.

If Michael ends up being Tate 2.0, I could live with that. I think Tate's going to be a star if he stays healthy and gets his chance to be a starter. He almost had 1000 yards in 2011 and he had just 2 starts that year.

 

[McG]

Turbin is very stiff and doesn't have the agility that Micheal has. Turbin and Micheal both are the future, because flat out Beast isn't going to be around forever with his running style. To me it's funny, the whole NFL is moving towards pass, pass, pass. Us on the other hand refuse to let go of the run game, which I am personally happy with. Remember under Holmy how we were a finesse team, well now that's the whole NFL and we are now the hard-nosed team that runs it and has a beast D.

 

[themunn]

I looked up Ben Tate's combine numbers and they are almost identical to Christine Michael's. Tate's combine forty was a lot better than Michael's somehow, though on the field I think Michael is at least as fast and looks more explosive.

Even though Tate tested extremely well for a 220 pound back, I watch those videos and Michael just looks like he's on another level athletically. It makes me wonder if Michael's upside is even better than his combine numbers indicate.

If Michael ends up being Tate 2.0, I could live with that. I think Tate's going to be a star if he stays healthy and gets his chance to be a starter. He almost had 1000 yards in 2011 and he had just 2 starts that year.

Identical?

Tate - Michael

40 time - 4.43 - 4.54 (I see conflicting things here, with suggestions Michael ran a 4.43... and others saying Tate ran a 4.34?)
Vertical Leap - 40.5 - 43
3 cone drill - 6.91- 6.69
Bench Press - 26 - 27
Broad Jump - 10'4" - 10'5"
20 yard short shuttle - 4.12 - 4.02

So whilst Tate might be a little bit faster, it's absolutely clear that Michael has significantly greater agility and explosion (better short shuttle/3-cone/vertical leap by some distance), and he outperformed him in every single measurable (even if only just) bar the 40 yard dash... which has inconsistent results too, suggesting the may have either tied or on the flip-side possibly Tate completely destroyed him in it.
But since 40 yard runs are a rarity in the NFL, it's probably the least important metric of the lot

 

[olyfan63]

DARREN MCFADDEN. Michael's college runs look just like Darren McFadden of the Raiders, running away from Broncos, Seahawks, and everyone else.

Of course, Tom Cable got to spend some time with McFadden in Oakland, so I'd sure expect Cable was in Schneider and Carroll's ear to grab that type of back. McFadden's biggest problem has been staying healthy. When he's healthy, he's had two seasons averaging 5+ yards per carry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9v-RmeOPTo

Michael and McFadden's measurables and combine times have a lot in common. More in common is that Dickersonian burst into "warp drive" that leaves defenders grasping at air. They see the 2nd level opening, turn on the jets and explode through it. Backs like Lynch and Turbin are a step+ behind that explosiveness and someone gets a body on them and tackles them instead of only getting an extended arm on them that gets easily pushed away on the way to the house.

 

[TwilightError]

Adrian Peterson was the first thing I thought when I saw Micheals highlights for the first time.

 

[jlwaters1]

[youtube]8PBvOxicz-0[/youtube]

^ This is who he reminds me of—Bo Jackson.

That's Epic! Loved TECMO BOWL, and TECMO SUPER BOWL. On one of them if you were the BEARS (I think, or maybe Giants) you could block all FG's and Extra Points.

 

[MysterMatt]

I like the highlights, but these cheesy music videos are beyond lame. I expect better.

 

[Tical21]

I've seen the references, and he is nothing like McFadden. McFadden runs very upright, even between the tackles. He is almost exclusively an outside the tackles back. He is also MUCH faster than Michael. McFadden ran 4.27. Also, McFadden has the skinniest calves of any back in the league. I literally can't think of a single similarity between the two. I think Michael is going to be good, he just doesn't have anything in common with Darren McFadden, other than maybe the fact that they are explosive.

 

[billio155]

Michael looks very explosive...he cruses to the hole and then just explodes through it. He is going to be a safety's nightmare. He does remind me a lot of Emmit Smith. We will see. I bet we see him early and often. Last year Lynch wore down and by playoff time was running on fumes. I think Michael will be used like Tate is in Houston. I think he was brought in to be a 1 and 2nd down runner...I read reports from the The Shrine game that said his pass blocking was really bad. Look to see him in about twenty-five percent of the snaps...and not as a third down back...that will be Turbin's job.

 

[Russ Willstrong]

Wow, looks like a much more fluid Ben Tate indeed. Tate didn't take as long of strides when in full sprint as Michael does, but ran a faster 40 time than Michael at the combine - which I find pretty intriguing. Michael beats him in every other department at the combine and looks like he has a higher top gear.

Anyway, I can definitely see the comparison to Tate.

I was thinking the same. Christine's got a longer smoother stride than Tate. He looks to be more agile too.

 

[olyfan63]

I've seen the references, and he is nothing like McFadden. McFadden runs very upright, even between the tackles. He is almost exclusively an outside the tackles back. He is also MUCH faster than Michael. McFadden ran 4.27. Also, McFadden has the skinniest calves of any back in the league. I literally can't think of a single similarity between the two. I think Michael is going to be good, he just doesn't have anything in common with Darren McFadden, other than maybe the fact that they are explosive.

Funny... I'm talking about how their highlight runs look, and you're talking about their calf sizes! Maybe one has a shaved head and the other has dreads? I suppose that should be taken into account too.

The official timing on McFadden was a 4.33, the 4.27 was an unofficial hand-timed. Their speed and how and when they use it is quite similar. McFadden is not "much faster". They see the opening, cut back, and explode through it. Michael is actually slightly *quicker* and slightly more *explosive*, while McFadden has a slightly, slightly faster top speed. Watch Michael's 97 yard TD run where a DB is chasing him but not gaining, gets embarrassed, and realizes too late that he'll have to go into full sprint mode, and then gains only a yard or so during the remaining 50 yards of the chase. That's about the amount of difference McFadden and Michael's 40 times, and the only area where McFadden is faster. Michael is equal or faster/quicker everywhere else, e.g., Michael actually has a little quicker cutback and acceleration to and through an opening. The numbers backing this up:

10 yard: Michael 1.50, McFadden 1.49 (TIE)
20 yard: Michael 2.51, McFadden 2.53 (TIE)
3-cone: Michael 6.69, McFadden 6.86 (Michael quicker)
20-shuttle: Michael 4.02, McFadden 4.10 (Michael quicker)

So, the story these numbers tell, is that the "faster" McFadden is only very slightly "faster", and ONLY in a full-out sprint, AFTER breaking through, to not get hauled down from behind after a 30-yard chase by a super-speedy safety like Earl Thomas*. In terms of the "football speed" that matters, Michael is actually equal to or superior to McFadden.

The other story these numbers tell is that JS/PC scored a *physical* talent in the 2nd round that is better than the *TOP 5* draft pick the Raiders used on McFadden. So kudos to the Seahawks front office, and not so much to the Raiders. McFadden's $60M contract is also a poster child for the rookie salary schedule. If he had four 2010-ish seasons, worth the 60M, but he didn't, so not.

For now I will go with your assertion that Michael may be a tougher inside runner. Michael is 3 inches shorter (5'10" vs 6'1") and a little more compact (and we hope, durable) stronger build. At the very least, McFadden hasn't been as durable as certainly the Raiders would have hoped.

My point is that we should expect several Darren-McFadden-like long, 40-yard-plus highlight runs out of Michael, meaning the 2010-2011 version of McFadden, and ideally at opportune times, like in the 4th quarter vs. the 40-Whiners, and even better, 4th quarter of playoff and Super Bowl games. I say they have very similar vision in how they see cutback lanes and similarities in how they use their cutbacks and warp-drive burst to hit those openings and leave defenders grabbing at empty air.

So we can hope for Michael to remind us of the 2010-2011 *healthy* version of McFadden with a little more inside running toughness and durability,

*In the Seahawks beatdown by the Raiders a couple years ago, it was actually Kennard Cox who caught McFadden and kept his breakthru run from going to the house; ET was left out of position and in the dust by a McFadden cutback, while Cox guessed right on it. Because of the separation a back like Michael gets with his cutback bursts, I say it would be rare where Michael would get hauled down from behind and McFadden wouldn't. If in doubt, watch Michael's 97 yard TD run highlight again.

 

[scutterhawk]

You seem to be the one stuck on draft slot. Nobody else mentioned that....just you. I don't think they are similar backs fwiw.

I don't care about draft slot. But it has to be part of the reason he's getting so much love on here. The higher the draft pick the higher the expectations, If Michael was taken in round 6th would you be just as excited? Probably not. Most poeple would be: alright good depth and solid #3 back. Instead most think it's a foregone conclusion that he'll be the #2 back by SEPT. My point is the 2 backs are very similar, to which PC has said the same thing in interviews.

Yeah, but we all know that Pete doesn't know what he's talking about :16:
Oh, and by the way, Michael reminds me of me, except he's a lot younger, thinner (except for the hair on my head), and , his 40 time, and my 10 time are virtually identical.

 

[plyka]

Adrian Peterson was the first thing I thought when I saw Micheals highlights for the first time.

Unfortunately for us, there is a difference between looking like ADP in college and looking like ADP in the NFL,lol. For those who say Michael looks like Turbin, i wonder what in the world they are looking at. They are absolutely nothing alike in my eyes. I'm not sure who is going to be better in the NFL, my bet is on Michael, but as far as similarities go, they could not be further apart in my eyes.

And for the guy who said that Michael has Turbin guns, have you even seen Michaels arms? They are down right tiny for a back, exactly the opposite of Turbin's massive guns.

Turbin is more of a power guy, while Michael is the back that can break it. Michael is the natural back, he has the best vision, it is incredible some of his runs the way he finds the whole so far from his initial course. This typically hurts backs in the NFL if they spend too much time looking for the whole, but Michael doesn't do that, he finds the whole naturally, instinctively, which is why he finds it so quickly and bursts through like a mad man.

I think Michael has a much higher chance of being a premier back, but also has a higher chance of being a bust.

 

[ImTheScientist]

Matt Waldman says Ahman Green. I can see that comparison with the exception of speed.

 

[Sac]

Michael finds the whole what? Does he find the whole offensive line does a good job blocking? Does he find that the whole world is a stage? Does he find that the whole comPete thing is legit?

Or do you mean that he finds the whole hole? Most backs just find part of the hole, a crack, and go through that. If he finds the whole hole wholly then he himself may have some holy attributes. At least his vision anyway.

 

[ImTheScientist]

Michael finds the whole what? Does he find the whole offensive line does a good job blocking? Does he find that the whole world is a stage? Does he find that the whole comPete thing is legit?

:lol:

 

[Bigpumpkin]

First runner I thought of was Emmitt Smith

My first thought as well.....

We'll know a little more of "What's in the tank" after next week's Rookie Camp.