Big John Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 Starks in currently not ready to contribute Starks said he wasn't sure whether he would be activated this year but was just focusing on sharpening his skills and making sure he was fundamentally sound. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slugs3511 Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 So all this talk about him contributing could be a lot of B........S. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balzac Posted October 21, 2010 Author Share Posted October 21, 2010 Certainly disappointing news but it's not like I've sacrificed anything to have him on my roster - I'll hold him until week 9 when I'll need the roster space to compensate for a heavy bye week. He is (and always has been), at best, a very speculative add. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMD Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 For what it is worth, Starks was good in college for two years playing for Buffalo in the MAC but did not play his Senior year because of a shoulder injury so by now it has been almost two years since he played any competitive football. And he still cannot get healthy because he's had a hamstring problem for all of training camp and the preseason. There is no way he can pass block obviously and the Packers this week hope to see him in actual football pads for the first time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajfalcone Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 out of all this, the only info I'm registering is the Pack SHOULD draft #1 on their RB next year and say goodbye to Grant and a thankyou for his services. Unless Grant agrees to a lesser role and the pack go RBBC. And with that offence look out next year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearBroncos Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 out of all this, the only info I'm registering is the Pack SHOULD draft #1 on their RB next year and say goodbye to Grant and a thankyou for his services. Unless Grant agrees to a lesser role and the pack go RBBC. And with that offence look out next year. I think most, if not all teams will move towards a RBBC. It sucks for fantasy, but makes sence for business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piratesownninjas Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 out of all this, the only info I'm registering is the Pack SHOULD draft #1 on their RB next year and say goodbye to Grant and a thankyou for his services. Unless Grant agrees to a lesser role and the pack go RBBC. And with that offence look out next year. Madness... Why in the blue hell would the Pack want to say goodbye to Grant? Not just no, but hell no to that idea. If anything, bring in a slasher/3rd down speed guy ala Norwood or Sproles. The O Line and secondary are far bigger holes to fill. OLB opposite Matthews as well. You don't have to have a first round RB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 Madness... Why in the blue hell would the Pack want to say goodbye to Grant? Not just no, but hell no to that idea. If anything, bring in a slasher/3rd down speed guy ala Norwood or Sproles. The O Line and secondary are far bigger holes to fill. OLB opposite Matthews as well. You don't have to have a first round RB. Why? Because of the escalators in his contract: http://olbagofdonuts.com/index.php/2010/09...odson-and-hawk/ In all, Grant could earn exactly $6 million next season. That’s the total of a $3.5 million salary, $1.75 million roster bonus (due in March), $500,000 in gameday roster bonuses and a $250,000 workout bonus. There are multiple yardage bonuses in there, also, but for now, let’s just look at that $6 million figure. Seems a bit high, doesn’t it? Whether or not the cap returns next season – and you have to think it will in some form – the Packers have some other, younger players potentially line for raises (Jermichael Finley, James Jones and Josh Sitton, to name a few). If the team is looking to lop off some salary in order to get cash for those players, Grant’s large contract very well could be a good place to start. Remember the following factors: Grant turns 28 in December, will be coming off a major injury and plays on a pass-first offense. I’m not suggesting he’s played his final down for Green Bay or anything, but it is something to keep in the back of your mind going forward. I'll be the first to say that I think Grant is often underrated for what he's done, but from a business-standpoint, this offseason could be an ideal time to let Grant go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piratesownninjas Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 Why? Because of the escalators in his contract: http://olbagofdonuts.com/index.php/2010/09...odson-and-hawk/ I'll be the first to say that I think Grant is often underrated for what he's done, but from a business-standpoint, this offseason could be an ideal time to let Grant go. I have no issues with a reduction in pay, or more of an incentive based deal, but to just cut him without a better option seems like shooting yourself in the foot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 fwiw, Grant's salary for next year was a main factor in why I targeted Starks in my rookie drafts this past spring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slugs3511 Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 Any value on my team? I have an opportunity to get Blount of Fast Freddy Jackson possibly..... I am using a roster spot on this guy and could use another becasue Bradshaw is on a bye....Is it o.k. to drop him now? What's the take on him this week? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balzac Posted October 26, 2010 Author Share Posted October 26, 2010 Any value on my team? I have an opportunity to get Blount of Fast Freddy Jackson possibly..... I am using a roster spot on this guy and could use another becasue Bradshaw is on a bye....Is it o.k. to drop him now? What's the take on him this week? I'd drop him for either of those guys - no question Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mroban Posted October 27, 2010 Share Posted October 27, 2010 I'd drop him for either of those guys - no question I would definitely drop him for anyone that could help you this year. I am holding onto him in a keeper league for purely speculative reasons most of which already covered here. There is an opportunity in Green Bay for a RB to step up and be the men whether this year or next year. I have Starks in a salary cap based league for a $1. Speculating on potential keeper studs for a $1 is almost as much fun as playing for a championship. Usually you are panning for fools gold, but I picked up a guy named Larry Johnson for $1 once and held onto him even though he was the "third string back" in KC. Got me a championship. Not saying Starks is going to be that guy, but in leagues like that, it is worth a shot for sure. Even if he becomes a regular in a RBBC next season he is worth the salary bump to hold onto at that price. In a redraft league he is probably not worth much at this point but again, there is opportunity if he stays healthy and practices well. If he gets some game time and gets hot, it will be difficult to keep him off the field. Remember, Jackson was really only considered a third down back. He is playing a little better recently but doesnt have the power and down hill style that fits the Packers offense. wouldnt be that hard to move him back into that role if someone like Starks stepped up. Lord knows that Packers need that presence. If the Packers get healthy and make a playoff push it isnt difficult to see someone like Starks or even Nance getting 8-10 carries a game. If the Packers dont get healthy and fall out of playoff contention then it might be even more likely they take a look at Starks in the last few games. He might be someone around week 12 that starts to contribute. Or, he might get shelved for the year. Either way, he is worth holding onto in keeper and dynasty leagues if you have the roster spot. and the way players are dropping these days, you never know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMD Posted October 29, 2010 Share Posted October 29, 2010 http://packersnews.greenbaypressgazette.co...amp;located=rss Starks Taking Slow Road Rookie running back James Starks hasn’t played football for so long that the Packers might be hesitant to elevate him to the 53-man roster when his PUP eligibility runs out next week. Starks missed his senior season at the University of Buffalo because of a shoulder injury, then was put on PUP at the start of training camp this year after failing his physical because of a hamstring injury. He’s on the second of his three-week practice window before the Packers have to activate him, place him on injured reserve or waive him. Starks has been working as the scout team halfback but hasn’t been tackled since his junior season at Buffalo. The Packers have been practicing only in shells in recent weeks because of their long list of injuries, so to acclimate Starks to playing in pads, they have him doing drills such as hitting the blocking sled before and after practice. “Showing more signs of improvement, this week more than the initial week,” said running backs coach Edgar Bennett. “It’s more about getting back to the basics and fundamentals and bringing him along from that standpoint. The footwork, ball security, things of that nature, field work, the physical part of it.” The Packers aren’t saying what they’re going to do with Starks, but considering the short time they have to determine his roster status, it would be a big step to put him in a game after that long layoff from live hitting. Right now their backup halfback behind starter Brandon Jackson is John Kuhn, and the No. 3 back is Dimitri Nance, who is in his seventh week with the team and now has a good grasp of the offense. “It’s all about pad level, not only as a runner but also as far as protecting the football,” Bennett said. “(Starks) missed a lot of time the last few years, we’re just trying to get him back to wearing (pads). As far as the overall pad level, we’re working on his techniques, the feeling of carrying them, those kind of things.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theeohiostate Posted October 29, 2010 Share Posted October 29, 2010 (edited) The Pack may be leaning towards taking Starks off the 53-man roster,if so, it stands to show the Packers confidence with Nance. Nance has been working on learning the offense and pass blocking, the staff feels comfortable with him on the field now. Nance could be a RB that comes out of nowhere the 2nd half of the season, we have 1 or 2 each year and if he gets an opportunity, why not? Edited October 29, 2010 by theeohiostate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted October 31, 2010 Share Posted October 31, 2010 The Pack may be leaning towards taking Starks off the 53-man roster,if so, it stands to show the Packers confidence with Nance. Nance has been working on learning the offense and pass blocking, the staff feels comfortable with him on the field now. Nance could be a RB that comes out of nowhere the 2nd half of the season, we have 1 or 2 each year and if he gets an opportunity, why not? Not today though. He is on the inactive list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted October 31, 2010 Share Posted October 31, 2010 The Pack may be leaning towards taking Starks off the 53-man roster,if so, it stands to show the Packers confidence with Nance. Nance has been working on learning the offense and pass blocking, the staff feels comfortable with him on the field now. Nance could be a RB that comes out of nowhere the 2nd half of the season, we have 1 or 2 each year and if he gets an opportunity, why not? They may be? Who said that? Starks has a lot more talent than Nance imo but is often hurt. I just don't see Nance doing much and am TT didn't get Lynch. He acts like giving up draft picks is like peeling off his own skin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 They may be? Who said that? Starks has a lot more talent than Nance imo but is often hurt. I just don't see Nance doing much and am TT didn't get Lynch. He acts like giving up draft picks is like peeling off his own skin. You seriously want to put Lynch on this Packer team? And you are seriously questioning Thompson for his use of the draft to build the team? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearBroncos Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 You seriously want to put Lynch on this Packer team? And you are seriously questioning Thompson for his use of the draft to build the team? Lynch would have been a brilliant player on this team. Moving to Seattle is no better than playing for Buffalo. At least on the packers, he might have had the ability to get the major share. I think if they had Lynch, BJ could go back to his back up role and Kuhn could do what he's good at being a FB. Having a good RB might make Rodgers a decent QB onec again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 Lynch would have been a brilliant player on this team. Moving to Seattle is no better than playing for Buffalo. At least on the packers, he might have had the ability to get the major share. I think if they had Lynch, BJ could go back to his back up role and Kuhn could do what he's good at being a FB. Having a good RB might make Rodgers a decent QB onec again. And what is the cost of putting a me-first cancer like Lynch on a team that obviously has a lot of selfless chemistry going on? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearBroncos Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 (edited) And what is the cost of putting a me-first cancer like Lynch on a team that obviously has a lot of selfless chemistry going on? Now that has merit. I would have thought they'd at least made a move for D.WIll. Imagine him in with the Packers???? I think they would have been a SB contender over night (less is injury concerns as well). Edited November 1, 2010 by BearBroncos Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 Now that has merit. I would have thought they'd at least made a move for D.WIll. Imagine him in with the Packers???? No way Thompson antes up for what CAR might have wanted for him. No way. This isn't fantasy football. I think they would have been a SB contender over night (less is injury concerns as well). Would have been a SB contender? You did just see them shut out what was a 5-1 Jets team in NY, right? And that despite their injuries to date that they are 1/2 game back of having the best record in the NFC, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearBroncos Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 Would have been a SB contender? You did just see them shut out what was a 5-1 Jets team in NY, right? And that despite their injuries to date that they are 1/2 game back of having the best record in the NFC, right? I also saw NO tear Pit up but I also don't think NO is repeating. I just don't think they will be solid down the stretch without a solid running game. BJ has looked better, but he scares no defense. Granted, there is no scary team in the NFC this year. Maybe the NFL will make a consession and allow to AFC teams to play in the SB.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 I also saw NO tear Pit up but I also don't think NO is repeating. I just don't think they will be solid down the stretch without a solid running game. BJ has looked better, but he scares no defense. Granted, there is no scary team in the NFC this year. Maybe the NFL will make a consession and allow to AFC teams to play in the SB.. Counting out what Brees and Rodgers can do to any team on any given day (ie - what they did to PIT & NYJ respectively) and then looking at the well roundedness of the Giants, I think simply dismissing the NFC this year is a mistake - despite what the talking heads think to be true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Hoyle Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 And what is the cost of putting a me-first cancer like Lynch on a team that obviously has a lot of selfless chemistry going on? They traded Favre to the Jets for that very same reason. The team needs to find a WAY to win and improve. So, far, they have found the ways to win since Washington. Have they been lucky?? Heck yes. But, they won. As for the RB's, why not give Starks a chance? Nance didn't play yesterday, so what's the deal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.