Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

BREAKING!! Packers Cut Christine Michael
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Shanedorf


Joined: 18 Mar 2014
Posts: 1410
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 11:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

persiandud wrote:
Shanedorf wrote:
He ran the wrong direction on several plays; this is the guy you wanna trust to pick up the blitz package and protect Rodgers ? No thanks


You don't think a full offseason with the team might help with these issues? maybe? cmon man

Do you think that he now magically possesses the ability to quickly process information and be on the same page as Rodgers ?
Here's a snippet from his time in Seattle-

"Michael touched the ball only 53 times in two seasons, but the play that defined his tenure in Seattle was a 12-yard catch last year in San Francisco. As Michael neared the first-down marker — it was second-and-13 — he slowed up and stuttered before stepping out of bounds. Had he lowered his shoulder, had he used his powerful 221-pound body, he would have easily picked up the first down.
But as inexplicable as that decision was, it was what happened right after that cemented the play: Michael kept running into the end zone, yelling all the way, celebrating his run — even though he hadn’t picked up the first down. He was immediately taken out of the game.

It was always that way with Michael, a strange cocktail of talent, potential, immaturity and inconsistency."

Every player has a risk/reward profile and Dallas thought so little of him that they cut him for failing to wear a suit on the team plane. This is the same team that tolerated Greg Hardy - because his immense talent outweighed his many problems. The Seahawks have a high tolerance too, but they cut him (twice) and so did the Redskins. And GB was the only team to place a waiver claim on him per the reports I read

Players change and improve over their careers and I hope Michael does well, but I wouldn't bet 5 cents on it. Mainly because I don't believe he can handle the light- speed offense the Packers run. Having more time to study doesn't change the fact that he's a [inappropriate/removed], and dumbasses always eff up at the worst possible moment. Like catching a short pass to secure a first down, only to dance around, go backwards and give back the first down. That's stupid football and no amount of studying will change that.

He's roster protection in case the draft board falls completely apart, but if he's on the 53 in September after one of the deepest RB drafts in history, then I think the Packers whiffed. That's my opinion, others feel differently- and that's fine.

But at least I support my opinion by sharing information from NFL teams, scouts and football writers.
.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TheOnlyThing


Joined: 01 Sep 2015
Posts: 842
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 1:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

blankman0021 wrote:
Maybe I'm in the minority, but I don't like wasting a roster spot on him. He is a RB who doesn't have vision and he's not football-smart. I don't trust him in blitz pickup. Sure, he runs hard, but it felt like for every 4 yard gain there were two broken runs.


Could not agree more.

Very few knuckleheads have appeared on the Packers' roster in the past decade.

It is very surprising to me that Michael, who was traded in 2015 by Seattle (the team that drafted him in the 2nd round) to his home state Dallas Cowboys for a conditional 7th round pick, then cut 2 months later by the Cowboys, signed and cut by the Redskins the following month, re-signed by Seattle last season and then cut again, was invited back to Green Bay.

Michael seems to have very little upside and a penchant for screwing up and, most importantly, not playing very well.

I'd be very surprised if he is on the opening day roster, even as cheap as he is.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Stevein2012


Joined: 12 Jul 2013
Posts: 1661
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 1:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't see what the big deal is. If he goes into next year as our #3 option he'll be the best 3rd RB we've had to begin a season since Franklin in 2013. He's already a step up from what Starks was last year who was the primary back up. If we can land a rookie talented enough to compete with Monty for snaps we are in pretty good shape.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NormSizedMidget


Joined: 28 Mar 2011
Posts: 17805
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 6:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Shanedorf wrote:
persiandud wrote:
Shanedorf wrote:
He ran the wrong direction on several plays; this is the guy you wanna trust to pick up the blitz package and protect Rodgers ? No thanks


You don't think a full offseason with the team might help with these issues? maybe? cmon man

Do you think that he now magically possesses the ability to quickly process information and be on the same page as Rodgers ?
Here's a snippet from his time in Seattle-

"Michael touched the ball only 53 times in two seasons, but the play that defined his tenure in Seattle was a 12-yard catch last year in San Francisco. As Michael neared the first-down marker — it was second-and-13 — he slowed up and stuttered before stepping out of bounds. Had he lowered his shoulder, had he used his powerful 221-pound body, he would have easily picked up the first down.
But as inexplicable as that decision was, it was what happened right after that cemented the play: Michael kept running into the end zone, yelling all the way, celebrating his run — even though he hadn’t picked up the first down. He was immediately taken out of the game.

It was always that way with Michael, a strange cocktail of talent, potential, immaturity and inconsistency."

Every player has a risk/reward profile and Dallas thought so little of him that they cut him for failing to wear a suit on the team plane. This is the same team that tolerated Greg Hardy - because his immense talent outweighed his many problems. The Seahawks have a high tolerance too, but they cut him (twice) and so did the Redskins. And GB was the only team to place a waiver claim on him per the reports I read

Players change and improve over their careers and I hope Michael does well, but I wouldn't bet 5 cents on it. Mainly because I don't believe he can handle the light- speed offense the Packers run. Having more time to study doesn't change the fact that he's a [inappropriate/removed], and dumbasses always eff up at the worst possible moment. Like catching a short pass to secure a first down, only to dance around, go backwards and give back the first down. That's stupid football and no amount of studying will change that.

He's roster protection in case the draft board falls completely apart, but if he's on the 53 in September after one of the deepest RB drafts in history, then I think the Packers whiffed. That's my opinion, others feel differently- and that's fine.

But at least I support my opinion by sharing information from NFL teams, scouts and football writers.
.


An NFL team who rarely takes chances on these kind of guys just brought him back. There's the support of the other side.

I don't see how him ending up rb3 is a whiff. Sounds like an exaggeration to me.

Everyone is so tied up in him being cut that it's unfathomable that he could be a fine role player.

There's also the fact your standard for a third back seems pretty damn high.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
bkobow05


Joined: 16 Dec 2005
Posts: 73783
Location: Milwaukee, WI
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 6:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NormSizedMidget wrote:
There's also the fact your standard for a third back seems pretty damn high.
MUST HAZ STARTER QUALITY EVERYWHEREZ
_________________

Eric "Korean Jesus" Thames
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Shanedorf


Joined: 18 Mar 2014
Posts: 1410
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 6:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Skills-wise Christine's fine as RB3, I just have a problem with dumb players in this offense and with this QB. I'll get over it... Cool
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NormSizedMidget


Joined: 28 Mar 2011
Posts: 17805
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 7:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Shanedorf wrote:
Skills-wise Christine's fine as RB3, I just have a problem with dumb players in this offense and with this QB. I'll get over it... Cool


I guess what you're concerned about I think you would be with any third back most likely. Right?

If not he'll have other similar level concerns.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
skibrett15


Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 2524
Location: nibelheim
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 8:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NormSizedMidget wrote:
Shanedorf wrote:
Skills-wise Christine's fine as RB3, I just have a problem with dumb players in this offense and with this QB. I'll get over it... Cool


I guess what you're concerned about I think you would be with any third back most likely. Right?

If not he'll have other similar level concerns.


I trust John Crockett to not ruin the play when he's on the field. I don't trust Michael to do the same.

I don't believe Crockett can make his own play when he's on the field, but I do believe Michael can do the same.

You give Michael the ball if you're in trouble and you need a spark. if it's a tight game, I don't want him anywhere near the field.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
blankman0021


Joined: 02 May 2007
Posts: 2733
Location: MKE
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 8:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Stevein2012 wrote:
I don't see what the big deal is. If he goes into next year as our #3 option he'll be the best 3rd RB we've had to begin a season since Franklin in 2013. He's already a step up from what Starks was last year who was the primary back up. If we can land a rookie talented enough to compete with Monty for snaps we are in pretty good shape.


The deal is every rep counts and if you don't want him on the team because you dont trust him on the field, then you're better off with literally anybody else.

It's a deep RB class and some of those will be UDFA. I'd like use to get another pass catching RB to pair in a timeshare with Montgomery and then a move-the-chains bruiser to give goal line carries to. Preferably with less tread on the tires.

Overall, NFL players need opportunities to play and be in the right system to thrive. Tom Brady doesn't play if Bledsoe doesn't get hurt. Bahk doesn't play if we don't get injuries to LT. I'd rather roll the dice that a mid to late round player will give us more spark than a guy who has questionable vision
_________________
The Doctor wrote:
ALLONS-Y, ALONSO!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cadmus


Joined: 22 Apr 2013
Posts: 2323
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 8:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

skibrett15 wrote:


I trust John Crockett to not ruin the play when he's on the field. I don't trust Michael to do the same.

I don't believe Crockett can make his own play when he's on the field, but I do believe Michael can do the same.

You give Michael the ball if you're in trouble and you need a spark. if it's a tight game, I don't want him anywhere near the field.


Well John Crockett is gone.

He was not retained and will not be with the Packers in 2017, so I'm not sure why we are comparing the 2?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Stevein2012


Joined: 12 Jul 2013
Posts: 1661
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 8:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

blankman0021 wrote:
Stevein2012 wrote:
I don't see what the big deal is. If he goes into next year as our #3 option he'll be the best 3rd RB we've had to begin a season since Franklin in 2013. He's already a step up from what Starks was last year who was the primary back up. If we can land a rookie talented enough to compete with Monty for snaps we are in pretty good shape.


The deal is every rep counts and if you don't want him on the team because you dont trust him on the field, then you're better off with literally anybody else.

It's a deep RB class and some of those will be UDFA. I'd like use to get another pass catching RB to pair in a timeshare with Montgomery and then a move-the-chains bruiser to give goal line carries to. Preferably with less tread on the tires.

Overall, NFL players need opportunities to play and be in the right system to thrive. Tom Brady doesn't play if Bledsoe doesn't get hurt. Bahk doesn't play if we don't get injuries to LT. I'd rather roll the dice that a mid to late round player will give us more spark than a guy who has questionable vision


It's not like they don't know what they are getting with him and yet they chose to bring him back. So obviously they have some idea of what they can do with him. It's also likely a very minor contract commitment so if we do draft someone later or pick up a good UDFA or something if they can beat him out then he can be cut without any issue. So yeah unless we gave this guy a couple mil guaranteed for some reason there is literally nothing to have an issue with.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
skibrett15


Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 2524
Location: nibelheim
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 11:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cadmus wrote:
skibrett15 wrote:


I trust John Crockett to not ruin the play when he's on the field. I don't trust Michael to do the same.

I don't believe Crockett can make his own play when he's on the field, but I do believe Michael can do the same.

You give Michael the ball if you're in trouble and you need a spark. if it's a tight game, I don't want him anywhere near the field.


Well John Crockett is gone.

He was not retained and will not be with the Packers in 2017, so I'm not sure why we are comparing the 2?


Because he was the 3rd RB going into last season? Whoever it is this year, there will be 2-3 UDFAs or rookies who are already better at the offense than Michael.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Stevein2012


Joined: 12 Jul 2013
Posts: 1661
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 11:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

skibrett15 wrote:
Cadmus wrote:
skibrett15 wrote:


I trust John Crockett to not ruin the play when he's on the field. I don't trust Michael to do the same.

I don't believe Crockett can make his own play when he's on the field, but I do believe Michael can do the same.

You give Michael the ball if you're in trouble and you need a spark. if it's a tight game, I don't want him anywhere near the field.


Well John Crockett is gone.

He was not retained and will not be with the Packers in 2017, so I'm not sure why we are comparing the 2?


Because he was the 3rd RB going into last season? Whoever it is this year, there will be 2-3 UDFAs or rookies who are already better at the offense than Michael.


Then they shouldn't have any trouble winning the roster spot
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DraftHobbyist


Joined: 17 Aug 2014
Posts: 349
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 11:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't mind the signing. Michael has very good athleticism. He ran with an attitude nobody else on our Offense had. Sure, he had some bad plays, but he made some good plays as well.

I think people are way overreacting to the bad plays. It does seem to be a problem that he has had troubles with the mental side of the game, but a few broken plays after only having been with the Packers for a short time doesn't prove broken plays will be a consistent thing here. And what's one of the worst things for a player who learns a playbook slower? To keep changing teams and be rushed into the game.

Also, I haven't seen any contract details out. If there is no guaranteed money (or little) then we can cut him before the season starts. A signing doesn't necessarily mean the guy made the 53. This also protects us in case we can't find value in the 2017 NFL Draft at the RB position. It's hard to be critical of such a minor signing IMO. If the details come out and we gave him a bunch of guaranteed money, then I can understand the complaints a little more.

Have we forgotten this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5UnRuvmNDA
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
skibrett15


Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 2524
Location: nibelheim
PostPosted: Fri Mar 24, 2017 12:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Stevein2012 wrote:
skibrett15 wrote:
Cadmus wrote:
skibrett15 wrote:


I trust John Crockett to not ruin the play when he's on the field. I don't trust Michael to do the same.

I don't believe Crockett can make his own play when he's on the field, but I do believe Michael can do the same.

You give Michael the ball if you're in trouble and you need a spark. if it's a tight game, I don't want him anywhere near the field.


Well John Crockett is gone.

He was not retained and will not be with the Packers in 2017, so I'm not sure why we are comparing the 2?


Because he was the 3rd RB going into last season? Whoever it is this year, there will be 2-3 UDFAs or rookies who are already better at the offense than Michael.


Then they shouldn't have any trouble winning the roster spot

except that none will have the athleticism of Michael or they would have been draft picks.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 3 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group