sschind
10 years ago

I would stop short of saying Franklin "can't play" in the NFL, but I certainly don't think has the ability already shown by Starks and to a lesser extent, by Harris.

Wade, I disagree. Of the two Jameses, I'm glad they apparently are keeping Starks and letting Jones go.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 



Initially I would have rather seen Jones retained but you are probably right. Having Starks' established, performance to back up Lacy is more important. If Lacy were to go down I haven't seen enough from Franklin or Harris to be very confident of either of them to be a long term fix. If Cobb OR Nelson were to go down Rodgers might be able to make any of the other guys we have on the roster a semi serviceable replacement.

In fact, we should let Nelson and Cobb walk after this year, use their money to fix the defense and replace them with 6th round draft choices and go with Boykin as our #1. After all the passing game is all Aaron Rodgers anyway. He can make any WR look like an all pro.

The second paragraph was sarcasm. The first was not.
DoddPower
10 years ago

Initially I would have rather seen Jones retained but you are probably right. Having Starks' established, performance to back up Lacy is more important. If Lacy were to go down I haven't seen enough from Franklin or Harris to be very confident of either of them to be a long term fix. If Cobb OR Nelson were to go down Rodgers might be able to make any of the other guys we have on the roster a semi serviceable replacement.

In fact, we should let Nelson and Cobb walk after this year, use their money to fix the defense and replace them with 6th round draft choices and go with Boykin as our #1. After all the passing game is all Aaron Rodgers anyway. He can make any WR look like an all pro.

The second paragraph was sarcasm. The first was not.

Originally Posted by: sschind 



Well, Ted Thompson has also proven he's very capable of drafting/obtaining talented wide receivers. I'm not sure the same can be said for running back, outside of Lacy and possibly Starks (Maybe Grant? Among several duds). I have no doubt Ted Thompson can find more talented wide receivers to at least come close to providing what James Jones did to the offense. It's one of his strengths as a talent evaluator.

nerdmann
10 years ago
We're deeper at RB than at WR. But Starks is younger.
“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”
sschind
10 years ago

We're deeper at RB than at WR. But Starks is younger.

Originally Posted by: nerdmann 



Right now but going into FA I'd say no which is why he may have been the better player to keep than Jones.

Our passing game does have Aaron Rodgers. While I think too many people feel he can turn bad WRs into good ones at the drop of a hat (or a football) it does help to have someone with his ability throwing the ball. It would take up a bit of the hurt if Jordy or Randal goes down as opposed to Lacy if we didn't have Starks to back him up.
porky88
10 years ago

Initially I would have rather seen Jones retained but you are probably right. Having Starks' established, performance to back up Lacy is more important. If Lacy were to go down I haven't seen enough from Franklin or Harris to be very confident of either of them to be a long term fix. If Cobb OR Nelson were to go down Rodgers might be able to make any of the other guys we have on the roster a semi serviceable replacement.

Originally Posted by: sschind 


It wasn’t a one or the other type of deal. You assign a value to a player and you don’t exceed that value. That’s how the Packers (and most teams) conduct business. Starks and Jones had different values. The Raiders exceeded the value Green Bay placed on Jones, while nobody did for Starks. That’s why Starks is back and Jones is in Oakland. Had nobody exceeded Green Bay’s value on Jones, they both would be back.


sschind
10 years ago

It wasn’t a one or the other type of deal. You assign a value to a player and you don’t exceed that value. That’s how the Packers (and most teams) conduct business. Starks and Jones had different values. The Raiders exceeded the value Green Bay placed on Jones, while nobody did for Starks. That’s why Starks is back and Jones is in Oakland. Had nobody exceeded Green Bay’s value on Jones, they both would be back.

Originally Posted by: porky88 



I understand that. I know that Packers didn't say "we are only going to bring one of these guys back and its going to be Starks because he will be cheaper" I'm talking about assigning that value to a player. We don't know what value Ted assigned to Jones but IMO it was too low. My thinking was around 2 million for Starks and 3.5 up to 4 for Jones. Obviously Jones got close to that so the Packers were thinking less, how much less we don't know and we may never know.

it's possible the Packers didn't even assign a value to Jones because from what I have heard then never offered him a deal. Whether he got the offer from the Raiders and gave the Packers a chance to match and they said no is not known and that also may never be known. Truth be told, if I didn't even get an offer from my current team I don't know if I would go back to them with a chance to match either.

But even all that is not really what I was talking about. I was talking about simply getting players back. Initially I thought Jones would be the better player to retain if we had a choice or had to make a choice but now I am not so sure.
DakotaT
10 years ago
What I like about Starks is that he has a lot younger legs than his age would indicate. We've already gotten the best out of James Jones. If there was a decision between the two, retaining Starks is a no brainer.

As I've said before, WR is one position I do not worry about. The worst I've ever seen was Freeman, Corey Bradford, and Billy Schroeder - and Schroeder and Bradford got paid. Then Driver stepped up and we drafted Javon Walker.

Do not be terribly surprised if the Packers spend their first rounder on a WR. It would have to be the right guy though.
UserPostedImage
buckeyepackfan
10 years ago

With only 3 WR's with much experience, anyone think The Packers may show some looks with Franklin or Harris teaming with Lacy or Starks in the backfield then splitting out to create a mismatch on a LB'r or Safety in the passing game/

I like the thought of having 4 rb's who have shown they can play.

I know Franklin and Harris have not had a lot of playing time due to injury, but both proved to be effective when in the lineup.

Lot's of different looks with 3 experienced WR's and 4 experience rb's.

Hell up until last year the Packers were lucky to keep 1 rb healthy, so it's not a bad thing to have 4 that are available.
I was addicted to The Hokey Pokey, but I turned myself around!
nerdmann
10 years ago

With only 3 WR's with much experience, anyone think The Packers may show some looks with Franklin or Harris teaming with Lacy or Starks in the backfield then splitting out to create a mismatch on a LB'r or Safety in the passing game/

I like the thought of having 4 rb's who have shown they can play.

I know Franklin and Harris have not had a lot of playing time due to injury, but both proved to be effective when in the lineup.

Lot's of different looks with 3 experienced WR's and 4 experience rb's.

Hell up until last year the Packers were lucky to keep 1 rb healthy, so it's not a bad thing to have 4 that are available.

Originally Posted by: buckeyepackfan 



If I recall, Harris has that 4.3 type speed, doesn't he? I know Mike wanted him to be a Darren Sproles type dude. Wouldn't surprise me a bit. He's a little on the short side, though.
“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”
beast
10 years ago

If I recall, Harris has that 4.3 type speed, doesn't he? I know Mike wanted him to be a Darren Sproles type dude. Wouldn't surprise me a bit. He's a little on the short side, though.

Originally Posted by: nerdmann 



No... more like 4.45 or so... he just looks faster because he's really small and quick.

And Harris is no Sproles and Sproles is no Harris...

Sproles is a 5'6" WR in the back-field. He has no power, and needs space and open field to get work or he's done. (kind of like Franklin, though as Franklin, Cobb and Sproles have shown a WR in the backfield can work if you protect them, use them wisely and get them extra spot to work their quickness, speed and magic.)(also Franklin showed he could effectively block which surprised me, it wasn't great but it was decent and good enough).

Harris is a true small RB with surprising power for his size and while he's no short yardage back he can run between the tackles normally and work at times with no space and make something happen out of nothing.
UserPostedImage
Fan Shout
beast (5h) : Sounds like no serious injuries from the Saints game and Jacobs and Watson should play in the Vikings game
packerfanoutwest (9h) : both games Watson missed, Packers won
Martha Careful (11h) : I hope all of you have a Merry Christmas!
Mucky Tundra (21h) : Oh I know about Jacobs, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to mimic Zero lol
buckeyepackfan (21h) : Jacobs was just sat down, Watson re-injured that knee that kept him out 1 game earlier
buckeyepackfan (21h) : I needed .14 that's. .14 points for the whole 4th quarter to win and go to the SB. Lol
Mucky Tundra (21h) : Jacobs gonna be OK???
Zero2Cool (21h) : Watson gonna be OK???
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : Inactives tonight for the Pack: Alexander- knee Bullard - ankle Williams - quad Walker -ankle Monk Heath
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : No Jaire, but hopefully the front 7 destroys the line of scrimmage & forces Rattler into a few passes to McKinney.
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : minny could be #1 seed and the Lions #5 seed
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I just checked. What tie breaker?
bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ahh, ok.
bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes due to tie breaker
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?
bboystyle (23-Dec) : Minny isnt going to lose out so 5th seed is out of the equation. We are playing for the 6th or 7th seed which makes no difference
Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network
beast (23-Dec) : If we win tonight the game is still relative in terms of 5th, 6th or 7th seed... win and it's 5th or 6th, lose and it's 6th or 7th
beast (23-Dec) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.
bboystyle (23-Dec) : i mean game becomes irrelevant if we win tonight. Just a game where we are trying to play spoilers to Vikings chance at the #1 seed
Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno
beast (23-Dec) : I agree that it's BS for fans planning on going to the game. But how does it bring in more money? I'm guessing indirectly?
packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I see what you did there Mucky
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : dammit. 3:25pm
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm
Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground
Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Yeah baby!
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.
beast (23-Dec) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.
packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : ok I stand corrected
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?
beast (23-Dec) : Saying no to the 6th lock.
beast (23-Dec) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.
beast (23-Dec) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games
beast (23-Dec) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality
beast (23-Dec) : We already have told you... if Packers lose all their games (they won't, but if they did), and Buccaneers and Falcons win all theirs
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I literally just said it.
packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
51m / GameDay Threads / bboystyle

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

6h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

7h / Random Babble / beast

12h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

20h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

23-Dec / Random Babble / Martha Careful

22-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / packerfanoutwest

19-Dec / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

18-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

17-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

17-Dec / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.