Christine Michael - drafted right after Lacy

Should GB claim Christine Michael Off Waivers?

  • Yes

    Votes: 24 82.8%
  • No

    Votes: 5 17.2%

  • Total voters
    29

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,078
Reaction score
7,894
Location
Madison, WI

adambr2

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 8, 2012
Messages
4,013
Reaction score
609
So are we looking at a Starks/Michael committee, or is Michael potentially the lead back here?
 

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
15,893
Reaction score
3,795
I think it's still Starks. He looked pretty decent last week, so while I'm hopeful, it was one week. But if he goes down again, would have been back with nothing.
 

mongoosev

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 19, 2015
Messages
1,384
Reaction score
175
just imagine the weight gain lacy might be gaining during his recovery? oh no!
 

thisisnate

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 25, 2012
Messages
1,627
Reaction score
185
Location
Maine
just imagine the weight gain lacy might be gaining during his recovery? oh no!

I would say that maybe bringing in a back like Michael, drafted immediately after him, might light a fire under his fat **** and make him realize his continued employment in Green Bay is contingent upon his not coming off IR at 270 pounds. But something tells me that's not the way to motivate big Ed.
 

Pucky

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 28, 2015
Messages
18
Reaction score
1
Michael would be a HUGE upgrade over the RB committee we've seen over the last month. GB is around 12-14th on the waiver list and I doubt he falls to us, but would love to have TT place a claim.

I loved the thought of Monty in the backfield but MM used him wrong, IMHO. Should've only been used as receiver out of backfield and draw plays but MM plunged him up the middle on 1/3 of his carries (very rough estimate). Michael would give GB a running threat, unless Starks is healthy and back to his 2015 form.
 

Pucky

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 28, 2015
Messages
18
Reaction score
1
Starks is not a "run up the gut" back. He's good on the outside, but up the middle he runs to get tackled. We need a power back like Lacy, one guy brings Starks down. Hopefully Michael will fill that void.
 

Carl

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 6, 2013
Messages
3,073
Reaction score
272
Location
Madison, Wisconsin
I would say that maybe bringing in a back like Michael, drafted immediately after him, might light a fire under his fat **** and make him realize his continued employment in Green Bay is contingent upon his not coming off IR at 270 pounds. But something tells me that's not the way to motivate big Ed.

I don't think Lacy has to worry much about a cut who has just been cut twice taking his job.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
LOL.....the last line of that report is hilarious...."they are much like a 12 year old going through the fantasy football waiver wire trying to see who is available.....except that this is real football and not that anyone is calling Ted Thompson a 12 year old" LOL...he obviously hasn't read our forum.
This report referenced the little used bench player Don Jackson. Don Jackson is on IR in case anybody missed that.

Before this signing, the Packers had oft injured and recently injured Starks and the oft injured and recently injured Montgomery who is questionable. That's it. Thompson had to sign somebody, so combing the waiver wire like a fantasy player is a fairly apt comparison.

Michael is an upgrade over Davis and might stick around for a bit in the absence of any better options that might come along.

The article cites the Packers poor run yardage after contact, not a good look for a team that likes to run between the tackles while furnishing few clean shots to the second level. Michael is not a guy who will improve on that much. Beggers can't be choosers.

Thompson should have tried to get DuJuan Harris back when he had the chance as some of us recommended; he had the chance to grab him off the 49er's practice squad right up until 10/22. He traded for Nile Davis instead. Maybe DuJuan p*ssed on Thompson's shoes on the way out the door, otherwise passing on him is a little hard to overlook.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

adambr2

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 8, 2012
Messages
4,013
Reaction score
609
And the ten worst teams in the league had no interest either.

Though they've obviously got issues, I can't see too many RB needy teams among the bottom 10 in the league. Not a single one really.

For what it's worth the Vikings did put in a claim on Michael.
 

sschind

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
4,969
Reaction score
1,244
Most players don't get drafted without some talent and the ability to make people think they may be more than just a guy. Michael is just a guy. He may have a flash or two here or there, just enough for people to think maybe he is for real and then he will fizzle out like so many before him. I agree with Packattack that it is low risk but I disagree with the potential high reward. Possible moderate reward perhaps. We needed someone and we probably got the best RB available right now so yeah I'd say it was a good signing but it is not one that is going to change the Packers season.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
Let me Guess, Groin or hamstring? Wouldn't doubt if it was something minor and an injury settlement is coming.

There was no talk about Jackson being injured before he was inactive at Tennessee therefore I expect you're right about it being a minor one and an injury settlement to be reached.

I would say that maybe bringing in a back like Michael, drafted immediately after him, might light a fire under his fat **** and make him realize his continued employment in Green Bay is contingent upon his not coming off IR at 270 pounds. But something tells me that's not the way to motivate big Ed.

I don't believe the Packers claiming Michael will light a fire under Lacy. He hasn't been able to stay motivated with his career on the line in a contract year so the team bringing in another running back most likely won't result in any changes.

Starks is not a "run up the gut" back. He's good on the outside, but up the middle he runs to get tackled. We need a power back like Lacy, one guy brings Starks down. Hopefully Michael will fill that void.

Michael is for sure not the power back you're looking for.

I don't think Lacy has to worry much about a cut who has just been cut twice taking his job.

Lacy should be worried about eating himself out of the league though.
 

RepStar15

"We're going to relentlessly chase perfection."
Joined
Feb 4, 2015
Messages
1,461
Reaction score
265
Location
Cranston, RI
IMO Lacy played his last snap as a Green Bay Packer, and as a big Lacy fan, I am actually thrilled. He gained too much weight, he probably was going to want too much money and he is simply not worth it anymore. I love the player and I love the Packers having a bull at the position, but we need to maintain a more fast pace offense. Though for the next two weeks Starks will be our #1 back as Michaels learns the playbook, he will take over that roll quickly. I like this move a lot!
 

Sunshinepacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
5,766
Reaction score
896
IMO Lacy played his last snap as a Green Bay Packer, and as a big Lacy fan, I am actually thrilled. He gained too much weight, he probably was going to want too much money and he is simply not worth it anymore. I love the player and I love the Packers having a bull at the position, but we need to maintain a more fast pace offense. Though for the next two weeks Starks will be our #1 back as Michaels learns the playbook, he will take over that roll quickly. I like this move a lot!

The fascination that people have with Michael is amazing. This is a guy that has been kicked off three teams (one team twice!) and is notoriously terrible at preparation (reason the Seahawks dumped him the second time) yet some think that he'll pick up the Packer's playbook? Thompson needed to do something to help the team so I don't blame the move but actually expecting anything from Michael is kind of ignoring his entire history in the NFL.
 

Pkrjones

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 3, 2014
Messages
3,803
Reaction score
1,725
Location
Northern IL
The fascination that people have with Michael is amazing. This is a guy that has been kicked off three teams (one team twice!) and is notoriously terrible at preparation (reason the Seahawks dumped him the second time) yet some think that he'll pick up the Packer's playbook? Thompson needed to do something to help the team so I don't blame the move but actually expecting anything from Michael is kind of ignoring his entire history in the NFL.
From HRE's post above explains my excitement with this, as Michael is an NFL-experienced RB ... "Before this signing, the Packers had oft injured and recently injured Starks and the oft injured and recently injured Montgomery who is questionable. That's it. Thompson had to sign somebody".

Who knows how many snaps either Starks or Monty have in them or if they're even available on game day? Gotta hope that Michael will be told where the (tiny) hole should be and hit it on his 10-12 carries/game if/when he's inserted.
 

rodell330

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 18, 2012
Messages
5,611
Reaction score
493
Location
Canton, Ohio
Get rid of the training staff. I'm dead serious. All these hamstring and groin injuries have plagued us for years. It's no coincidence that this happens every year with this team.
 

NYPack

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 8, 2016
Messages
21
Reaction score
3
The fascination that people have with Michael is amazing. This is a guy that has been kicked off three teams (one team twice!) and is notoriously terrible at preparation (reason the Seahawks dumped him the second time) yet some think that he'll pick up the Packer's playbook? Thompson needed to do something to help the team so I don't blame the move but actually expecting anything from Michael is kind of ignoring his entire history in the NFL.
I tend to agree, there's a good reason he keeps getting cut. But, it's a low risk move and he has had some success in the league. It's not like the RB situation is great without him so why not take a shot?
 

Members online

Latest posts

Top