Vikings Message Board.Com

Plenty of speculation already about whether the #Vikings could go after Christine Michael.

halfgiz wrote:Plenty of speculation already about whether the #Vikings could go after Christine Michael.

Seen plenty of him to know he's no answer...Not to mention that the RB spot isn't the issue. Not sure what people don't understand. Every one of their RB's are serviceable, if not more (looking at McKinnon here), but lest we forget that even in the small sample we saw with Peterson in game 1, this team could have ______ (insert your opinion of the most dominant RB ever) as their RB and it probably won't matter a whole lot. The Vikings just cannot block. Pretty much clear as day to me.

Vikings Sign Tackle Rashod Hill, Place Jake Long on IR

The Vikings on Tuesday announced they have signed tackle Rashod Hill and placed Jake Long on injured reserve.

Hill, who joined Jacksonville as a rookie free agent in May, was signed off the Jaguars practice squad to Minnesota’s 53-man roster. He spent one game this season on the active roster of his hometown team but did not play against Baltimore.

halfgiz wrote:Plenty of speculation already about whether the #Vikings could go after Christine Michael.

With what cap room exactly? I would rather just give Ronnie Hillman a chance.

HardcoreVikesFan wrote: With what cap room exactly? I would rather just give Ronnie Hillman a chance.

I would love to see Hillman get more touches.....could be a good thing.

autobon7 wrote: I would love to see Hillman get more touches.....could be a good thing.

That quote was from Chris Tomasson on Christine Michael.
I agree Hillman or CJ Ham is who I would like to see. Ham as a short yardage back.

The Seahawks just cut him, I for one think he would be a upgrade to our craptastic running game. I wonder how long it would take him to get a hold of the system.

Seriously, guys...Christine Micheal is nothing special. Michael needs clear holes to run through in order to be just minimally effective and the Vikings Oline cannot provide that. Hillman is much better.

PacificNorseWest wrote:Seriously, guys...Christine Micheal is nothing special. Michael needs clear holes to run through in order to be just minimally effective and the Vikings Oline cannot provide that. Hillman is much better.

He was running behind Seattles terrible O line, I think it is almost as bad as ours and he did pretty good for them.

I agree I would like to see CJ ham in the game for short yardage instead of Asiata, that dude is like a little bowling ball.

halfgiz wrote:Plenty of speculation already about whether the #Vikings could go after Christine Michael.

Packers have claimed RB Christine Michael off waivers, source says.
1:17 PM - 16 Nov 2016



#Vikings did put in a waiver claim for Christine Michael but Packers got him since they have a worse record. twitter.com/christomasson/…

I agree with many that Christine Michael wouldn't have helped our running game very much since our problems start at the OL. But he is going to big upgrade for the Packers and i expect he will be well acclimated by the time we go to Lambeau. Oh well.

Grashopa wrote:I agree with many that Christine Michael wouldn't have helped our running game very much since our problems start at the OL. But he is going to big upgrade for the Packers and i expect he will be well acclimated by the time we go to Lambeau. Oh well.

A big upgrade over the practice squad scrubs we have been trotting out recently, but hopefully he doesnt take too many carries away from a returning Starks.

Grashopa wrote:I agree with many that Christine Michael wouldn't have helped our running game very much since our problems start at the OL. But he is going to big upgrade for the Packers and i expect he will be well acclimated by the time we go to Lambeau. Oh well.

Disagree completely. As someone said above, he ran very well behind the next worse line in the NFL in Seattle. That line is so bad it could give us a run for our money. Michael is a fast, straight line runner that is elusive and has good vision (unlike Asiata) and hits the hole at full speed (unlike McKinnon). Granted the line isnt helping our cause but does anyone believe that even behind Dallas' line, Matt Asiata could run for 100 and a TD....no. Absolutely not. The guy has no right being an NFL RB. And Mckinnon just doesnt have the downhill running style that is required to be a workhorse. I've said all along that Hillman needs to see more action. I want to puke more and more when I see Asiata run the ball

Pondering Her Percy wrote:Michael is a fast, straight line runner that is elusive and has good vision (unlike Asiata) and hits the hole at full speed (unlike McKinnon)

The very same description could be used to describe Peterson, who also struggled mightily behind our O-line when it was at its healthiest. Havent you been watching the games this season? all of our backs no matter if they are future hall of famers, Superbowl champions or nicknamed "Jet" are getting hit in the back field or running into piles of bodies where the hole should be. It looks like an O-line problem to me. Put any of our backs behind the Dallas line where they can run through gaping holes and not even get touched until they are 3-5 yards downfield and see how they look... probably more Elliot like.

My main point was that Michael will be a much bigger improvement over the packers bottom of the barrel RBs than he would be over our stable of otherwise good RBs

Grashopa wrote: The very same description could be used to describe Peterson, who also struggled mightily behind our O-line when it was at its healthiest. Havent you been watching the games this season? all of our backs no matter if they are future hall of famers, Superbowl champions or nicknamed "Jet" are getting hit in the back field or running into piles of bodies where the hole should be. It looks like an O-line problem to me. Put any of our backs behind the Dallas line where they can run through gaping holes and not even get touched until they are 3-5 yards downfield and see how they look... probably more Elliot like.

My main point was that Michael will be a much bigger improvement over the packers bottom of the barrel RBs than he would be over our stable of otherwise good RBs

But they aren't losing yards nearly as much as they were in the beginning of the season. I admitted the line is awful. But our RBs aren't getting tackled in the backfield nearly as much as they were. We have a combination of a fullback in Asiata and somebody thats overly patient in McKinnon. They couldn't hit hole if it was the size of a bus. We have nobody with any kind of elusiveness and speed to hit the line. Asiata hits it 100 mph but has no clue where he's going and McKinnon stops and sits. How is it possible for Seattles line to be so bad and Michael running as good as he was? It doesnt add up. Anytime Hillman has been in, he's been getting positive yards for the most part. Nobody else is and Hillman is a average to below average back but has the right running style. The other two don't. Michael wouldnt fix this running game completely, but I could see him making it a lot better. Thats why I'm baffled that Asiata continues to run the ball and Hillman doesnt.