Christine Michael waived

[t96]

48 minutes ago, Bartin said:

1. He's not very good

2. Are you going to cut CAP or Fozzy for him?

Tolbert. But your first point stands.

[panthers1234]

33 minutes ago, gorillamilitia13 said:

I don't get the quick "no's." He would be a dynamic backup and yes I'd be willing to cut fozzy or cap for him.

He would NOT be dynamic. He wasn't very good at all. I don't know why in the world you think hes good. He couldn't even make the top 3 RBs in seattle. This is what ESPN had to say about him -   Too often, Michael danced in the backfield instead of hitting holes and shied away from contact by stepping out of bounds. He's not a skilled receiver, either. 

[Judo Thoreau]

If he played for the browns, no one would want him or care that he was cut. There's a reason he won't stick on any team, his talent is viewed as easily replaceable.

[gorillamilitia13]

3 minutes ago, 15 said:

are we thinking of the same Christine Michael?

He is still averaing 4.0 YPC and has 6 tds. I don't think hes the best player on the planet but especially giving the position we are in we could use any type of spark. I don't know who wouldn't be willing to cut Tolbert for him, especially if we could bring him in for cheap, which I have a strong feeling we'd be able to.

to

[mc52beast]

Dave Gettleman; "The answer is already on the roster".

[Bartin]

18 minutes ago, thomas96 said:

Tolbert. But your first point stands.

If we are cutting Tolbert, which I'd have no problem with, then bring in a real blocking FB. Michael for Tolbert doesn't make us better.

[t96]

52 minutes ago, Bartin said:

If we are cutting Tolbert, which I'd have no problem with, then bring in a real blocking FB. Michael for Tolbert doesn't make us better.

Michael for a Tolbert wouldn't make us better, but an actually good RB for Tolbert would. I'd like Reece but I suppose there's a reason he's stayed unsigned the past couple months.

[ThPantherFan]

1 hour ago, gorillamilitia13 said:

I don't get the quick "no's." He would be a dynamic backup and yes I'd be willing to cut fozzy or cap for him.

Now you went too far. 

[KillerKat]

I'd cut Tolbert for him and stick with 2 RB sets 

[gorillamilitia13]

32 minutes ago, 15 said:

That's because he was the starting running back for one of the best teams in league for quite some time. Fozzy averaged 5 per carry while our starter but didn't get into the end zone because that's sort of Cam Newton's job once we're in the redzone.

If we cut Tolbert, we would not have a fullback on the roster, and a TE cannot provide the same versatility that Mike has as poorly as he has played this season. He's a short yardage guy on the ground, which a TE could not do.

It's not going to happen so I'm not sure why I'm wasting my time explaining this. 

Yeah man Tolbert with the 0.5 yards and constant missed blocks would be a huge loss. We have Cam and Stew who can churn for the 1-2 yards. Tolbert is a waste of a roster spot right now. We could even line up Stewart at fb for those 1 yard situations and he'd get the first more often than Tolbert, I guarantee it. I just don't understand how you don't think he'd be an upgrade over fat mike but to each their own.

[Jeremy Igo]

Tolbert is a FB.

I mean, yeah, technically. I guess.

[t96]

Michael looked decent in Seattle this year so far but was fading as the season wore on and they now have Rawls back and Prosise healthy. Still not sure why they didn't just keep him, he wasn't hurting them being on the roster as the third back, and there's no guarantee Rawls will even be any good as he was terrible early in the year. But now they have cut him twice and the Cowboys cut him when they needed a RB as much as anybody last year so I'd say there's a reason he can't stick anywhere.

[gorillamilitia13]

20 minutes ago, 15 said:

Tolbert is a FB.

Michael is a RB. 

If he was a FB that did his job then I would agree with you but right now he is just a waste of a roster spot.

[Mr. Scot]

9 minutes ago, 15 said:

well he is. like I said, he's performing like hot garbage but he is still one of the only fullbacks in the league that lines up as a FB and also a HB. our playbook is designed around this and if we ditched him to add ANOTHER running back, we would be relying on a tight end to play FB and only having Stewart as our short yardage option. 

we're pretty much strapped to him until next season. 

Michael as a direct replacement for Tolbert I don't necessarily see.

But if the suggestion were to sign Michael as a runningback and shift Cameron Artis-Payne into Mike Tolbert's role, then I could at least listen.

Sad to say I still wouldn't trust Rivera to make the right active/inactive choices, but one obstacle at a time.