Poor Robert Turbin

[4XPIPS]

No he isn't injured or getting cut. But I spent the last week re-watching all the games this year on my DVR, well because it was sure fun to relive the season. However I realized something, it must just be bad luck or something. However almost 95% time Robert Turbin broke for a solid gain(+10 yards) it called back by a hold or some other flag. What a curse, and I was wondering if anyone else felt this way through out the season?

Anyhow my real question is do you think we have enough a running game with Michael and Turbin with in the next 2 years to offer up knowing that the shelf life of Tailbacks are short, and the way Lynch is running he probably has 2 good years left before he starts declining?

We haven't seen much of Michael, but I have heard on radio Pod Cast that they expect big things from him....

[kalibane]

Michael was inactive for almost the entire year so it's hard to say anything for certain but there were a handful of runs in the pre-season where he flashed special ability. I think the Hawks are set at RB for now.

[monkey]

I don't think Turbin will be Marshawn's eventual replacement, he's just not dynamic enough. Christine on the other hand, is DEFINITELY dynamic enough. With him it's just a matter f him learning how to play the game the RIGHT way, which includes blocking well.
It may turn out that neither of them eventually replace Lynch, but between the two, I think only one of them has a realistic shot at it.
Turbin will likely go try to catch on with another team, and he may do well, but I don't see him as even close to the player Marshawn is. CM though...he might be.

[HumanCockroach]

Yeah, he certainly wasn't "lucky" this season when he had big gains, it got to the point where every time he did crack one off, we would start saying while he was still running "and there's the flag" before there was one. He certainly has value, and he could indeed be starting on other teams, but IMHO he won't be the starter when Lynch hangs them up. I see him as a Knowshawn Moreno type back, with a little more speed, good at a lot of things, but not great at anything. His role is defined IMHO on this team. I have little doubt he could excel in a pass happy offense, but just don't see him as a feature back in this particular one.

[c_hawkbob]

Luckily the coaches don't evaluate on game stats but on film study and how he does in practice. Turbo's on solid ground here, even Russ goes out of his way to say he's a starter on most teams in the league. We know we need quality backups at RB, that's a candle that burns out quicker than most any other in this league.

[I-5]

I wonder if Turb has the tools to be a fullback and compete with Coleman on that front? They are both very solid players in my book.

[kalibane]

Spencer Ware? There is no way the kept a third fullback on the roster (IR or not) if they don't like him.

[RiverDog]

I don't think Turbin will be Marshawn's eventual replacement, he's just not dynamic enough. Christine on the other hand, is DEFINITELY dynamic enough. With him it's just a matter f him learning how to play the game the RIGHT way, which includes blocking well.
It may turn out that neither of them eventually replace Lynch, but between the two, I think only one of them has a realistic shot at it.
Turbin will likely go try to catch on with another team, and he may do well, but I don't see him as even close to the player Marshawn is. CM though...he might be.

I don't see either of them giving us the YAC plays that Lynch does, but Lynch is a one-of-a-kind running back in that regard. No one on the planet is going to give us the Beast Quake runs we've seen in the past 3 years. Lynch has us spoiled.

I think Turbin would be an adequate replacement when Lynch is done. He'd be a legitimate 1,000 yard back that runs hard and has decent enough hands to play on 3rd downs. I just haven't seen enough of Michael to get a good handle on what he can and can't do, but my understanding of the reason why Turbin is ahead of him on the depth chart is that Michael isn't a very good blocker. I'm still befuddled as to why we drafted him with our #2, but what else is new. I haven't liked our first draft pick for 3 straight years now.

[PasadenaHawk]

[quote="HumanCockroach"]Yeah, he certainly wasn't "lucky" this season when he had big gains, it got to the point where every time he did crack one off, we would start saying while he was still running "and there's the flag" before there was one.

Same here.

[I-5]

I just haven't seen enough of Michael to get a good handle on what he can and can't do, but my understanding of the reason why Turbin is ahead of him on the depth chart is that Michael isn't a very good blocker. I'm still befuddled as to why we drafted him with our #2, but what else is new. I haven't liked our first draft pick for 3 straight years now.

[/quote]

You've gone on the record that you're of the conventional wisdom variety, so that makes total sense why you wouldn't be a big fan. As for not seeing enough of Michael, did you see enough of Russell Wilson during his rookie preseason to want him to be the starter? What would you need to see exactly?

From what we could see of Michael during the preseason last year, he had that same dynamic sense in space that got me excited about Wilson in the preseason. Yes, it's a terribly small sample size, but we have nothing else to go by. However, even though Stephen Williams lit it up during the preseason, I was never convinced about his toughness in watching him play, so I know it's not just about having great stats.

[Distant Relative]

I think the team was letting Michael sit and learn this year as they really didn't need that third back. Also, I think they were concerned with his inability, on some occasions to hold on to the ball in college. They see him in practice and we don't, so who knows. One thing you can't deny is the kids athletic and play making ability's in the open field. Love the Kids spin move. Also don't forget he had a few serious injuries in college which may be another reason the coaching staff was sitting him so much.

Her is a highlight video of him. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCVqxFeWFoU

[RiverDog]

You've gone on the record that you're of the conventional wisdom variety, so that makes total sense why you wouldn't be a big fan. As for not seeing enough of Michael, did you see enough of Russell Wilson during his rookie preseason to want him to be the starter? What would you need to see exactly?

From what we could see of Michael during the preseason last year, he had that same dynamic sense in space that got me excited about Wilson in the preseason. Yes, it's a terribly small sample size, but we have nothing else to go by. However, even though Stephen Williams lit it up during the preseason, I was never convinced about his toughness in watching him play, so I know it's not just about having great stats.

My take on the Wilson/Flynn battle was that Flynn should have been given the starting job and that Wilson should have carried a clipboard for a year. I was as wrong on that one as I've been on any judgment I've ever made about anything related to football. In retrospect, what I didn't know then that I do know now is just how off the shelf ready Russell was to play QB in the NFL. I did not realize how hard the guy prepares and how quickly he learns offenses.

I'm not sure what your question is in relation to Michael, though. I have not seen him play very often, either at the college level or with us. I'm not a big fan of watching game highlights as they typically show just the good plays so you can't get a good feel for a player. What gave me some concern was spending our top pick on a low value position that we didn't have an immediate need for. I was looking for a player that can contribute immediately. We all knew that we were on the cusp of a SB run and that our window of opportunity opened up last season. Three years from now we could be rebuilding again, so I didn't see the rationale of devoting a high pick to a player not projected to start for several seasons.

[monkey]

Well, we all miss some from time to time Riv, and if it makes you feel any better, I could remind you of how wrong I was about the Seahawks trading for Marshawn Lynch.
I was of the opinion that you don't trade for a guy who is going to make a lot of money, who is stuck behind two other players on the depth chart, mostly due to off the field problems, and troubles relating to the coaching staff.
What I didn't realize was that, player who had problems relating to other coaches, wouldn't have that problem with Carroll, he's a different kind of coach that allows players to be themselves. He treats them like adults instead of disobedient kids.
I thought that tying up the RB position with a guy who already had some hard miles on him, was a bad idea, when we could just draft a RB. There are so many good running backs that can easily be gotten with lower round picks nowadays since they are so badly undervalued I just didn't see the point in trading a pick to get one.

Man was I wrong.
I was right about Wilson, I wanted him coming out of training camp, in fact I've never so strongly believed in any one player before in my entire life, but Marshawn I missed by country mile! As much as I felt pretty good calling the Wilson thing after seeing him in training camp his rookie season, that is how stupid I feel for missing it with Lynch.
It should have been obvious, I'd watched him play with the Bills and always came away impressed with his ability, and especially his balance and power, how did I let my feelings about a guys off field problems cloud my judgment so badly when it came to Marshawn?

[Hawktawk]

Turbin was very unlucky with penalties. I remember him popping a huge one vs the Saints and having a very questionable hold called on Breno. In the SB he popped it around the left sideline and there was a ridiculous call against Baily I believe. Turbin has some wheels. Hes definitely faster than Beast. I could see him in a rotation with Christine after next season. Beast was amazing in the playoff run but he had a very average last 1/3 of the season other than the Rams game. And he was fairly pedestrian in the SB. I think hes already wearing down. And lets remeber the DUI is still hanging out there. The guy could potentially face league discipline and miss time if hes convicted.

As for Micheal he is absolutely explosive. Harvin is probably the only guy on offense who has a higher gear.

[Zorn76]

Turbin's a good kid who does as he's asked, but in no way, shape, or form is he a legit starter or franchise back for the Seahawks.

Jury's out on Michael, since he saw next to no playing time his rookie year. What's interesting is, if his blocking technique and/or effort is the main reason he isn't above Robert already, or won't be this coming season, then it gets interesting.

Whatever a player needs to improve on, he should be practicing due diligence in getting it done. That's work ethic. Maybe it's as simple as Pete feeling RT is better at this point, I dunno. But we drafted CM high for a reason, and if he's legit then he needs to step up and take over the #2 spot this fall, IMO.

We also need to know if he's franchise material. If he's 2nd string, it makes it a bit easier to see what he has for the future. Either way, If we have yet another chance to grab a good RB in the next yr or so, then I'd do it. Lynch is the kinda guy that's probably good until 30, max, given his style. That gives us '14 & '15 for nearly guaranteed productive seasons, barring injury.

Anything beyond that is a bonus. I'd love for Beast to start beyond 30, but the position isn't very forgiving beyond that age. Mixing in Michael this season to spell ML is something I hope to see this fall.

[RiverDog]

Well, we all miss some from time to time Riv, and if it makes you feel any better, I could remind you of how wrong I was about the Seahawks trading for Marshawn Lynch.
I was of the opinion that you don't trade for a guy who is going to make a lot of money, who is stuck behind two other players on the depth chart, mostly due to off the field problems, and troubles relating to the coaching staff.
What I didn't realize was that, player who had problems relating to other coaches, wouldn't have that problem with Carroll, he's a different kind of coach that allows players to be themselves. He treats them like adults instead of disobedient kids.
I thought that tying up the RB position with a guy who already had some hard miles on him, was a bad idea, when we could just draft a RB. There are so many good running backs that can easily be gotten with lower round picks nowadays since they are so badly undervalued I just didn't see the point in trading a pick to get one.

Man was I wrong.
I was right about Wilson, I wanted him coming out of training camp, in fact I've never so strongly believed in any one player before in my entire life, but Marshawn I missed by country mile! As much as I felt pretty good calling the Wilson thing after seeing him in training camp his rookie season, that is how stupid I feel for missing it with Lynch.
It should have been obvious, I'd watched him play with the Bills and always came away impressed with his ability, and especially his balance and power, how did I let my feelings about a guys off field problems cloud my judgment so badly when it came to Marshawn?

I feel better in that you value humility as much as I do. I'm the epitome of an armchair MMQB, and I want to be free to express my innermost thoughts and opinions.

My good friend Bird Droppings was all over the Marshawn Lynch trade, advocating that we go after him as soon as Lynch became disenchanted with Buffalo. That guy earned my utmost respect with that call. But as close as he follows the game in general and our Hawks in particular, he's wrong more times than he's right.

So when I b**** about drafting Carpenter, Irvin, Michael, the Harvin trade, or any other decision by our brain trust, it's not meant to mean that I know more than they do or more than any other swinging dick in this forum. All I'm doing is letting my feelings hang out, something other venues don't permit me to do. I've lived and died with this team for nearly 40 years, and I'm not apologizing to anyone for speaking my mind. At times, that mindset has a tendency to rub some people the wrong way.

[NorthHawk]

We probably won't know why Michael didn't play more last year. Maybe he wasn't protecting the ball well enough in practice for Pete to be comfortable or maybe they are laying the foundation for younger players to learn what Pete wants - the Seahawk way so to speak. Coupled with having to beat out Lynch to start, and Turbin as a backup who doesn't fumble much, there wasn't much room to make any mistakes and still get playing time.

[4XPIPS]

The way I look at it... is I like what I see from Turbin, but not overly thrilled or wowed. However after watching the entire season all over(i know what a freak) I would say that Turbin does have that second level burst that Lynch doesn't have. What is astounding is that he is built way more thicker than Lynch, but then again Lynch is one of a kind. I think he may have broke 2 tackles all year, but does show great burst through the wholes and can cut well. Turbin does play a lot of special teams, and that may separate him from Michael from the start of last season from an experience stand point.

I certainly thought Turbin was doomed when he did fumble that Kick Off, and maybe it may have cost him so Playing Time, but it sure didn't. I am more anxious to see Michael play more, but it's an interesting concept because you have so many RBs on the roster now, and you can't field them all. If Coleman never had his ankle injury in Arizona, I guarantee you that Mike Rob would be still sitting at home.

So now you got;

Lynch
Turbin
Michael
Robinson
Coleman
Ware

Someone will get cut, and someone will be inactive. I feel bad to say, but looks like Robinson maybe out again

[briwas101]

You've gone on the record that you're of the conventional wisdom variety, so that makes total sense why you wouldn't be a big fan. As for not seeing enough of Michael, did you see enough of Russell Wilson during his rookie preseason to want him to be the starter? What would you need to see exactly?

From what we could see of Michael during the preseason last year, he had that same dynamic sense in space that got me excited about Wilson in the preseason. Yes, it's a terribly small sample size, but we have nothing else to go by. However, even though Stephen Williams lit it up during the preseason, I was never convinced about his toughness in watching him play, so I know it's not just about having great stats.

My take on the Wilson/Flynn battle was that Flynn should have been given the starting job and that Wilson should have carried a clipboard for a year. I was as wrong on that one as I've been on any judgment I've ever made about anything related to football. In retrospect, what I didn't know then that I do know now is just how off the shelf ready Russell was to play QB in the NFL. I did not realize how hard the guy prepares and how quickly he learns offenses.

I'm not sure what your question is in relation to Michael, though. I have not seen him play very often, either at the college level or with us. I'm not a big fan of watching game highlights as they typically show just the good plays so you can't get a good feel for a player. What gave me some concern was spending our top pick on a low value position that we didn't have an immediate need for. I was looking for a player that can contribute immediately. We all knew that we were on the cusp of a SB run and that our window of opportunity opened up last season. Three years from now we could be rebuilding again, so I didn't see the rationale of devoting a high pick to a player not projected to start for several seasons.

Funny, having russell sit a year while flynn starts was one of my few wrong ideas too.

I still do believe that most QBs benefit from sitting on the bench for a year. Not only is the pro game more complex but it's also faster. His first few games made it look like he could've used some time on the bench but he kept learning and making progress.

Unfortunately for a lot of young QBs, their careers will be hurt because they can't respond the way Russell did.


As for the Michael pick, I wasn't a big fan of drafting a rb either, but the only reason I can STILL give them the benefit of the doubt is Schneider's quote along the lines of "you can't pass on talents like Michael".

I think there needs to be a strong balance between BPA and PON (position of need) and in order to achieve that balance there will be high draft picks that don't do much for a year or (gulp) two. The obvious downside is that you get less production when the player is cheap and are forced to give him a raise without a huge body of work when his rookie deal is up.

If it doesn't work out, at least there's a good chance some of their later picks will

[I-5]

My take on the Wilson/Flynn battle was that Flynn should have been given the starting job and that Wilson should have carried a clipboard for a year. I was as wrong on that one as I've been on any judgment I've ever made about anything related to football. In retrospect, what I didn't know then that I do know now is just how off the shelf ready Russell was to play QB in the NFL. I did not realize how hard the guy prepares and how quickly he learns offenses.

I'm not sure what your question is in relation to Michael, though. I have not seen him play very often, either at the college level or with us. I'm not a big fan of watching game highlights as they typically show just the good plays so you can't get a good feel for a player. What gave me some concern was spending our top pick on a low value position that we didn't have an immediate need for. I was looking for a player that can contribute immediately. We all knew that we were on the cusp of a SB run and that our window of opportunity opened up last season. Three years from now we could be rebuilding again, so I didn't see the rationale of devoting a high pick to a player not projected to start for several seasons.

This is what I don't understand. Why did you prefer Flynn to start over Wilson? It can't be because of the way they played in preseason. The only reason I can think of Flynn starting is because 1) he had NFL experience 2) his 2 non-pressure monster games with the Packers, and 3) his contract status as the highest paid QB. But nothing else would tell me that Flynn was any better than Wilson when you actually see them playing in the same game, so I simply went with what my eyes were telling me. I didn't really pay attention to the final score necessarily, but my eyes easily told me that the way Wilson moves in space, how he reacts to the players actions around him, the touch, velocity and accuracy on his throws...even his field awareness were all clearly superior to Flynn during preseason, and all on display for the world to see. He just had 'it'.

Now use the same eyes and compare Christine Michael to Robert Turbin. Michael actually got quite a bit of playing time in the preseason, so that's what I looked at. Obviously, Turb is the more polished player, but the spatial sense, the reaction, the violent running style, the fight, the sudden shiftiness, making tacklers miss, then the burst of acceleration that Michael shows in his extensive preseason playing time is all clearly there to see IMO. Turb doesn't do much of any of those things IMO, even though I think he is a solid back. The only place where I see Turb beating him is maybe in the power running style (But it looks quite even to me), Turb's catching ability (I didn't see any balls thrown to Michael), and definitely in his blocking skills (never seen Michael block, either). He just looks way more dynamic of a runner than Turbin, regardless of yards or scores.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap100000 ... -impresses

[RiverDog]

My take on the Wilson/Flynn battle was that Flynn should have been given the starting job and that Wilson should have carried a clipboard for a year. I was as wrong on that one as I've been on any judgment I've ever made about anything related to football. In retrospect, what I didn't know then that I do know now is just how off the shelf ready Russell was to play QB in the NFL. I did not realize how hard the guy prepares and how quickly he learns offenses.

I'm not sure what your question is in relation to Michael, though. I have not seen him play very often, either at the college level or with us. I'm not a big fan of watching game highlights as they typically show just the good plays so you can't get a good feel for a player. What gave me some concern was spending our top pick on a low value position that we didn't have an immediate need for. I was looking for a player that can contribute immediately. We all knew that we were on the cusp of a SB run and that our window of opportunity opened up last season. Three years from now we could be rebuilding again, so I didn't see the rationale of devoting a high pick to a player not projected to start for several seasons.

This is what I don't understand. Why did you prefer Flynn to start over Wilson? It can't be because of the way they played in preseason. The only reason I can think of Flynn starting is because 1) he had NFL experience 2) his 2 non-pressure monster games with the Packers, and 3) his contract status as the highest paid QB. But nothing else would tell me that Flynn was any better than Wilson when you actually see them playing in the same game, so I simply went with what my eyes were telling me. I didn't really pay attention to the final score necessarily, but my eyes easily told me that the way Wilson moves in space, how he reacts to the players actions around him, the touch, velocity and accuracy on his throws...even his field awareness were all clearly superior to Flynn during preseason, and all on display for the world to see. He just had 'it'.

Now use the same eyes and compare Christine Michael to Robert Turbin. Michael actually got quite a bit of playing time in the preseason, so that's what I looked at. Obviously, Turb is the more polished player, but the spatial sense, the reaction, the violent running style, the fight, the sudden shiftiness, making tacklers miss, then the burst of acceleration that Michael shows in his extensive preseason playing time is all clearly there to see IMO. Turb doesn't do much of any of those things IMO, even though I think he is a solid back. The only place where I see Turb beating him is maybe in the power running style (But it looks quite even to me), Turb's catching ability (I didn't see any balls thrown to Michael), and definitely in his blocking skills (never seen Michael block, either). He just looks way more dynamic of a runner than Turbin, regardless of yards or scores.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap100000 ... -impresses

1. Experience. Yes, Flynn didn't play much with the Packers, but there's a certain value to having been a backup quarterback for several years learning from one of the best quarterbacks in the game. And when Flynn did play, he played well. That's why he was the most sought after FA qb that year next to Peyton Manning.

2. Pre season play. Russell probably out played him, but most of his success was against 2nd and 3rd stringers while Flynn was playing against starters. Plus Flynn didn't do anything at all to lose the job, at least not until the final preseason game when he hurt his throwing arm.

Like I said, this was a typical situation where I was not close enough to the situation to make a good judgment. Had I known what our coaching staff obviously knew, ie Russell's ability to prepare and so quickly grasp the offense, I might have made the same decision they did. But Russell is a very unique player. Colin Kaepernick had to sit for 1.5 years before they trusted him to run a SB contender's offense.

Like I told you earlier, I haven't seen enough of Michael to make a good judgment of him. I didn't see him in college and his playing time hasn't given us enough of a sample size. But there's obviously something that's keeping him from playing ahead of Turbin, and my understanding is that it is his blocking. My objection to drafting him wasn't because I didn't think he was a good value pick, but a general philosophy that if you're a SB contender like we were, use your top draft pick to draft that one player that might get you over the top immediately, and I haven't seen anything out of Michael to make me feel that he was a good enough of a value pick to justify going away from that philosophy.

[RiverDog]

This is what I don't understand. Why did you prefer Flynn to start over Wilson? It can't be because of the way they played in preseason. The only reason I can think of Flynn starting is because 1) he had NFL experience 2) his 2 non-pressure monster games with the Packers, and 3) his contract status as the highest paid QB. But nothing else would tell me that Flynn was any better than Wilson when you actually see them playing in the same game, so I simply went with what my eyes were telling me. I didn't really pay attention to the final score necessarily, but my eyes easily told me that the way Wilson moves in space, how he reacts to the players actions around him, the touch, velocity and accuracy on his throws...even his field awareness were all clearly superior to Flynn during preseason, and all on display for the world to see. He just had 'it'.

Now use the same eyes and compare Christine Michael to Robert Turbin. Michael actually got quite a bit of playing time in the preseason, so that's what I looked at. Obviously, Turb is the more polished player, but the spatial sense, the reaction, the violent running style, the fight, the sudden shiftiness, making tacklers miss, then the burst of acceleration that Michael shows in his extensive preseason playing time is all clearly there to see IMO. Turb doesn't do much of any of those things IMO, even though I think he is a solid back. The only place where I see Turb beating him is maybe in the power running style (But it looks quite even to me), Turb's catching ability (I didn't see any balls thrown to Michael), and definitely in his blocking skills (never seen Michael block, either). He just looks way more dynamic of a runner than Turbin, regardless of yards or scores.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap100000 ... -impresses

1. Experience. Yes, Flynn didn't play much with the Packers, but there's a certain value to having been a backup quarterback for several years learning from one of the best quarterbacks in the game. And when Flynn did play, he played well. That's why he was the most sought after FA qb that year next to Peyton Manning.

2. Pre season play. Russell probably out played him, but most of his success was against 2nd and 3rd stringers while Flynn was playing against starters. Plus Flynn didn't do anything at all to lose the job, at least not until the final preseason game when he hurt his throwing arm.

Like I said, this was a typical situation where I was not close enough to the situation to make a good judgment. Had I known what our coaching staff obviously knew, ie Russell's ability to prepare and so quickly grasp the offense, I might have made the same decision they did. I don't think my sentiments were that wrong. For most NFL rookies, sitting a year is the right decision. Colin Kaepernick had to sit for 1.5 years before they trusted him to run a SB contender's offense. But Russell is a very unique player. That's what I didn't recognize.

Like I told you earlier, I haven't seen enough of Michael to make a good comparison of him to Turbin. I didn't see him in college and his playing time hasn't given us enough of a sample size. But there's obviously something that's keeping him from playing ahead of Turbin, and my understanding is that it is his blocking. My objection to drafting him wasn't because I didn't think he was a good value pick, but a general philosophy that if you're a SB contender like we were, use your top draft pick to draft that one player that might get you over the top immediately, and I haven't seen anything out of Michael to make me feel that he was a good enough of a value pick to justify going away from that philosophy.

[Eaglehawk]

Turbin just had a lot of bad luck last season. If you look at all of the plays where he ran for huge yards that were called back due to penalties, you have to think this dude is unlucky.

In the Saints game alone he had that one run for 35 yards that was called back. That was the phantom hold by Giacomini according to some on here.

I wanted to kick his ass after his two fumbles in the Saints game. One wasn't but he still lost the ball and someone on the team should have or might have spoken to him about protecting the ball better before that fateful fumble.

His technique was horrible.

That is all behind him and us now. I want him back. Michael is good, no arguments there. But I like Turbin, the guy seems like an everydown back, and someone that might be able to develop into a 3rd and short type of RB(although I did not see that this year out of Turbin). If Lynch gets hurt we would not lose a beat with Turbin and MIchael IMO. Keep him. His experience has proved to be invaluable.

[RiverDog]

Turbin just had a lot of bad luck last season. If you look at all of the plays where he ran for huge yards that were called back due to penalties, you have to think this dude is unlucky.

In the Saints game alone he had that one run for 35 yards that was called back. That was the phantom hold by Giacomini according to some on here.

I wanted to kick his ass after his two fumbles in the Saints game. One wasn't but he still lost the ball and someone on the team should have or might have spoken to him about protecting the ball better before that fateful fumble.

His technique was horrible.

That is all behind him and us now. I want him back. Michael is good, no arguments there. But I like Turbin, the guy seems like an everydown back, and someone that might be able to develop into a 3rd and short type of RB(although I did not see that this year out of Turbin). If Lynch gets hurt we would not lose a beat with Turbin and MIchael IMO. Keep him. His experience has proved to be invaluable.

I dunno why we had Turbin returning KO's to start with. It looked really strange having a wide bodied RB back there returning kicks when we had athletic receivers like Kearse, Baldwin, and Lockette standing on the sidelines.

[Eaglehawk]

Turbin just had a lot of bad luck last season. If you look at all of the plays where he ran for huge yards that were called back due to penalties, you have to think this dude is unlucky.

In the Saints game alone he had that one run for 35 yards that was called back. That was the phantom hold by Giacomini according to some on here.

I wanted to kick his ass after his two fumbles in the Saints game. One wasn't but he still lost the ball and someone on the team should have or might have spoken to him about protecting the ball better before that fateful fumble.

His technique was horrible.

That is all behind him and us now. I want him back. Michael is good, no arguments there. But I like Turbin, the guy seems like an everydown back, and someone that might be able to develop into a 3rd and short type of RB(although I did not see that this year out of Turbin). If Lynch gets hurt we would not lose a beat with Turbin and MIchael IMO. Keep him. His experience has proved to be invaluable.

I dunno why we had Turbin returning KO's to start with. It looked really strange having a wide bodied RB back there returning kicks when we had athletic receivers like Kearse, Baldwin, and Lockette standing on the sidelines.

Only thing I could think of was injury. Kearse Baldwin and Lockette have small frames, even Tate is a bit wider and better able to sustain a hit or two. And I don't remember if Harvin was out or received his first concussion of the game by then. I am sure though that this stuff played a factor. Horrible decision as it turned out.

[HumanCockroach]

Kearse fumbled a kickoff and then received a concussion, at that point they inserted Turbin. Not sure what they were thinking, but I am fine with Harvin/Baldwin returning kicks.

[kalibane]

The whole Turbin returning kicks thing was one of the most aggravating things of the year for me because he was terrible at it. Kearse was good at it and it wasn't like he put the ball on the ground multiple times. And one concussion didn't seem like enough to take him away from that.

But then we saw some very conservative play calling at times as well so I guess that might be it. Still hated it. Turbin returning kicks created a domino effect. Almost always starting behind the 20 yard line which led to conservative play calling which led to three and outs.

[RiverDog]

The whole Turbin returning kicks thing was one of the most aggravating things of the year for me because he was terrible at it. Kearse was good at it and it wasn't like he put the ball on the ground multiple times. And one concussion didn't seem like enough to take him away from that.

But then we saw some very conservative play calling at times as well so I guess that might be it. Still hated it. Turbin returning kicks created a domino effect. Almost always starting behind the 20 yard line which led to conservative play calling which led to three and outs.

I can understand us being reluctant to put Kearse back there after he received a concussion, but why Turbin and not Baldwin or one of our DB's like Lane? Certainly after we re-signed Lockett it would have made sense to put him in there.

But if that's the worst personnel decision our team ever makes, I'll be extraordinarily happy.

[HumanCockroach]

I was originally ok with the decision, took one return for me to change my opinion. Turbin returned kicks like he was running a dive on 4th and inches. Returners need the ability to "feel" openings, and Turbin never showed that ability on KO's. That experiment is over, and will IMHO never be seen again. He just can't return kicks IMHO. Which isn't a big deal really.

[I-5]

Like I told you earlier, I haven't seen enough of Michael to make a good comparison of him to Turbin.

My main point about Wilson is that we didn't really see enough of him either prior to him being named starter, and yet - look what happened. Obviously, the coaches got to see him everyday, and they're the ones who really know. But even Pete was questioned by everyone and their mother. Ironically, Pete said the decision was a 'no-brainer', and I totally agree.

RE: Michael, I think there are a few things keeping him from being on the field : 1) BeastMode being BeastMode in his prime 2) Turb playing well 3) Lack of blocking skills, and 4) lack of maturity, drive to be an all-around back. Hopefully, he's trying to shore up the gap during the offseason. Just like I said to my friend about Wilson before he started his first game as an NFL starter (I predicted we would go to the SB within 2 years with Wilson at the QB helm), my prediction with Michael, based on what I saw last preseason, is that he will become one of the top 4 Seahawk running backs if he stays in Seattle. Obviously, I can't prove that will happen just like I couldn't prove Wilson would turn out, but that's what I think of his ability.

[RiverDog]

Like I told you earlier, I haven't seen enough of Michael to make a good comparison of him to Turbin.

My main point about Wilson is that we didn't really see enough of him either prior to him being named starter, and yet - look what happened. Obviously, the coaches got to see him everyday, and they're the ones who really know. But even Pete was questioned by everyone and their mother. Ironically, Pete said the decision was a 'no-brainer', and I totally agree.

RE: Michael, I think there are a few things keeping him from being on the field : 1) BeastMode being BeastMode in his prime 2) Turb playing well 3) Lack of blocking skills, and 4) lack of maturity, drive to be an all-around back. Hopefully, he's trying to shore up the gap during the offseason. Just like I said to my friend about Wilson before he started his first game as an NFL starter (I predicted we would go to the SB within 2 years with Wilson at the QB helm), my prediction with Michael, based on what I saw last preseason, is that he will become one of the top 4 Seahawk running backs if he stays in Seattle. Obviously, I can't prove that will happen just like I couldn't prove Wilson would turn out, but that's what I think of his ability.

I saw quite a bit of Wilson, including when he played for Wisconsin. I saw enough to be glad that we took him in the draft, although initially I felt a #3 was too high. I had what I thought at the time was quite a bit of information to form an opinion. Not so with Michael. I never watched a college game of his from start to finish and I haven't seen much of him with the Seahawks. He's a lot more of a mystery to me than Russell ever was.

I have some friends that saw Michael in training camp and they can't say enough good things about him, so I can understand you're optimism about him.

[Eaglehawk]

I was originally ok with the decision, took one return for me to change my opinion. Turbin returned kicks like he was running a dive on 4th and inches. Returners need the ability to "feel" openings, and Turbin never showed that ability on KO's. That experiment is over, and will IMHO never be seen again. He just can't return kicks IMHO. Which isn't a big deal really.

Yes HC agreed 100 percent. Of course I never saw Turbin return a kick in my life.
And after his performance I hope I never WILL see him return a kick for the rest of my life.