The important reason for running the ball & play Christine

[ivotuk]

You have been finding a new "reason" to play our unproven rookie running back each and every week since the preseason.

Maybe trust our coaches?

A complete fabrication on your part. I challenge you to find a single post I have started arguing for starting Christine Michael.

As far as the connection between running Michael and protecting Russell? If RW is handing the ball off, he's not taking the big hits.

See: http://seahawks.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=79239

Russell got nailed this week and last, he's beat up to quote our head coach and early in the game you could see some of his tentativeness on throws with pressure coming.

 

[hawk45]

You have been finding a new "reason" to play our unproven rookie running back each and every week since the preseason.

Maybe trust our coaches?

A complete fabrication on your part. I challenge you to find a single post I have started arguing for starting Christine Michael.

As far as the connection between running Michael and protecting Russell? If RW is handing the ball off, he's not taking the big hits.

See: http://seahawks.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=79239

Russell got nailed this week and last, he's beat up to quote our head coach and early in the game you could see some of his tentativeness on throws with pressure coming.

Er...but Russell can hand off to guys not named Michael.

I think perhaps the question might be better rephrased as "what's the connection between protecting Russell and Micheal specifically, vs handing off to our other 2 pretty good backs?"

 

[bestfightstory]

You have been finding a new "reason" to play our unproven rookie running back each and every week since the preseason.

Maybe trust our coaches?

A complete fabrication on your part. I challenge you to find a single post I have started arguing for starting Christine Michael.

As far as the connection between running Michael and protecting Russell? If RW is handing the ball off, he's not taking the big hits.

See: http://seahawks.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=79239

Russell got nailed this week and last, he's beat up to quote our head coach and early in the game you could see some of his tentativeness on throws with pressure coming.

I decline your challenge. Perhaps you should pull up the 7 other "Play Christine Michael!!" Threads and refamiliarize yourself with all the arguments that are recycling in this thread. In fact, sir, I challenge YOU.

Ain't nothing changed.

 

[Missing_Clink]

Love Michael, but I sure wish that pick had been a O lineman now.

 

[THUGCAPS]

At this point, I think it has to do with his attitude. This is a guy that knows he is talented and i'm guessing he's not being patient with the coaches. Why else would he be inactive? The blocking aspect doesn't make sense to me because half of the o line can't block but they still play every game. On the other hand, it could be part of Bevell's master plan and they are waiting until the playoffs to unleash him.

Half the line can't block, but we don't have guys sitting on the bench who play OL who CAN block. If we did, they'd be playing.

In the case of Michael, if indeed it's a blocking thing (it's all speculation at this point), they have dudes they know can do it.

I actually think we DO have guys on the bench who can block better. Maybe not guys, but one guy. His name is Alvin Bailey. This is all just speculation though, like you said. I just don't get why Michael is inactive when Lynch is banged up.

 

[DavidSeven]

Love Michael, but I sure wish that pick had been a O lineman now.

No good tackles left at pick 62. Maybe a guard (e.g. Warford), but that's not where our depth has been pushed this year.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Lynch is hurt and CMike isn't even activated?

125 yards, 6 yards a carry, and put the team on his back in the 4th Qtr Sunday. I hope Lynch is "hurt" every week.

 

[dontbelikethat]

You have been finding a new "reason" to play our unproven rookie running back each and every week since the preseason.

Maybe trust our coaches?

A complete fabrication on your part. I challenge you to find a single post I have started arguing for starting Christine Michael.

As far as the connection between running Michael and protecting Russell? If RW is handing the ball off, he's not taking the big hits.

See: http://seahawks.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=79239

Russell got nailed this week and last, he's beat up to quote our head coach and early in the game you could see some of his tentativeness on throws with pressure coming.

A lot of things to consider:

1. Who are you goona deactivate for him?
2. Can he block? If not, it immediately hurts us when he needs to or gives the defense the advantage of knowing we're goona rush.
3. Takes carries away from Lynch. (Yes Lynch is "dinged" up, but he's not out, so if can run then let him)
4. Hard to use your 3rd string RB when the game is always so close or we're down(especially when you could use your 1st string still).
5. Can he play special teams?
6. Probably a lot more, but this is all I could think of right now.

Seems like you want Michael as more of an insurance policy in case Lynch is hurt because I do not see how Michael helps the passing offense at all, considering Lynch could do it better and Lynch is still probably a better rusher.

 

[Missing_Clink]

Love Michael, but I sure wish that pick had been a O lineman now.

No good tackles left at pick 62. Maybe a guard (e.g. Warford), but that's not where our depth has been pushed this year.

Warford starting in place of either Carpenter, Sweezy, McQuistan, Moffitt or anyone else we have/had would be far better than having Michael sit on the sidelines all game.

 

[Ozzy]

I love our staff as much as anyone. Does that mean that coaches never make mistakes when deciding to play a guy? They all make mistakes. In my opinion I think they are making a mistake and he would help out. They lack an explosive element and I think Michael can offer that. But I also fully admit that they are with this guy in practice and maybe there is a valid reason for not playing him, who knows. I do know that coaches make mistakes but unfortunately we will never know.

 

[hawk45]

I love our staff as much as anyone. Does that mean that coaches never make mistakes when deciding to play a guy? They all make mistakes. In my opinion I think they are making a mistake and he would help out. They lack an explosive element and I think Michael can offer that. But I also fully admit that they are with this guy in practice and maybe there is a valid reason for not playing him, who knows. I do know that coaches make mistakes but unfortunately we will never know.

The run game is the one part of our team that has consistently performed this season. I don't believe it lacks anything whatsoever.

I get the conversation around the OL where we all try to suggest play calls or personnel swaps to work around the gaping holes left by injuries, but there is simply put nothing to fix about our running game at the moment. Other than the Rams game where we didn't give him carries, Lynch has been his usual awesome self. Nothing Michael brings would have made things different vs. the Rams.

 

[12thMan1]

Maybe the FO thinks that Michael might be our future starting RB and so they're holding back on utlizing him until Lynch's career is about to end.

 

[Scottemojo]

I learned my lesson when I wanted Charlie to play.

 

[Basis4day]

You have been finding a new "reason" to play our unproven rookie running back each and every week since the preseason.

Maybe trust our coaches?

A complete fabrication on your part. I challenge you to find a single post I have started arguing for starting Christine Michael.

As far as the connection between running Michael and protecting Russell? If RW is handing the ball off, he's not taking the big hits.

See: http://seahawks.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=79239

Russell got nailed this week and last, he's beat up to quote our head coach and early in the game you could see some of his tentativeness on throws with pressure coming.

I decline your challenge. Perhaps you should pull up the 7 other "Play Christine Michael!!" Threads and refamiliarize yourself with all the arguments that are recycling in this thread. In fact, sir, I challenge YOU.

Ain't nothing changed.

:13: :13: :13:

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

It's time when Pete and the coaching staff decide it's time

Way to contribute to the discussion "seven other threads" or not.. Shit dude, the OP is stating why HE thinks it's time and hoping to provoke some discussion with other members here on .net. Heading to the ignore list in 4-3-2..... (and I have never put anyone on ignore)


It's the same kind of thing when a few of us say we think Bevell should be gone after the season and someone who's a mod utterly dismisses the notion because of "continuity" despite the fact that we've seen good results this season after Bradley left as DC in the offseason. The whole attitude of dismissiveness around here gets real stale. Very few if any of you that dismiss others' ideas here have any more football knowledge than the rest of us. I see your eye roll and raise you one Radish. :roll: :roll:


EDIT: see Hasselbeck post below and Hawk45 post above for reasonable disagreement.

 

[Hasselbeck]

With the thin depth at WR and OL, I'd imagine activating 3 running backs just isn't a good idea right now.

 

[Axx]

Christina is injured

 

[CANHawk]

With the thin depth at WR and OL, I'd imagine activating 3 running backs just isn't a good idea right now.

exactamundo.

just think of cmike as red shirting this year. Beast is a franchise back, mrob is the full backand turbin is a well rounded and capablebback up. there's a log jam in the back field and the rookie is the odd man out. maye next year he get some reps.

and i totally disagree that cmike is some magic key to keeping russell upright.

 

[HawkWow]

You have been finding a new "reason" to play our unproven rookie running back each and every week since the preseason.

Maybe trust our coaches?

A complete fabrication on your part. I challenge you to find a single post I have started arguing for starting Christine Michael.

As far as the connection between running Michael and protecting Russell? If RW is handing the ball off, he's not taking the big hits.

See: http://seahawks.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=79239

Russell got nailed this week and last, he's beat up to quote our head coach and early in the game you could see some of his tentativeness on throws with pressure coming.

A lot of things to consider:

1. Who are you goona deactivate for him?
2. Can he block? If not, it immediately hurts us when he needs to or gives the defense the advantage of knowing we're goona rush.
3. Takes carries away from Lynch. (Yes Lynch is "dinged" up, but he's not out, so if can run then let him)
4. Hard to use your 3rd string RB when the game is always so close or we're down(especially when you could use your 1st string still).
5. Can he play special teams?
6. Probably a lot more, but this is all I could think of right now.

Seems like you want Michael as more of an insurance policy in case Lynch is hurt because I do not see how Michael helps the passing offense at all, considering Lynch could do it better and Lynch is still probably a better rusher.

Not meaning to sound like a wiseass, but if Michael is incapable of the basic fundamentals you refer to, I'd be reluctant in considering him an insurance policy for Lynch. Especially with virtually no reps this year.

Falcons kicker Matt Bryant has been struggling with back issues and sitting out practices. He is expected to kick on Sunday but his leg distance may obviously be compromised. I'd like to see Lockette sit, Michael activated and at the least, replace Kearse on kick offs. In the event we get a *substantial lead, and are able to reduce Wilson's pass attempts, I'd then rest ML and let Turbin and Michael finish up. Perhaps even behind Tjack.

* Yes, I know. We've not exactly been blowing out the competition, but I won't be surprised if that happens in Atlanta. They are a 1.5 trick pony and our D played much better last week than the final score suggested. Jackson won't do sh*t against us so we just need to stop Gonzo and that little beaver.

 

[Rose City Hawk]

We know absolutely jack and sh** about the backend mechanisms at play with the team and depth chart. Hell Lynch could be on a pitch count for all we know as they would like him to have something in the tank come playoffs. I just have to trust in the FO at this point that they know a helluva lot more than any of us pretend to and get my popcorn ready. Christine is going to be fun to watch develop but there is a reason he isn't out there, they just aren't going to tell us why. Whatever, let's just keep winning.