Packers to re-sign Starks to a two year deal· Page 3

sschind
Senior Member

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
Veteran Member

10 years ago

#22

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
Premier Member

10 years ago

#23

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
Senior Member

10 years ago

#24

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
Veteran Member

10 years ago

#25

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.

http://www.row12.com/

sschind
Senior Member

10 years ago

#26

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
Select Member

10 years ago

#27

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.

buckeyepackfan
Veteran Member

10 years ago

#28

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
Premier Member

10 years ago

#29

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
Select Member

10 years ago

#30

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.

Important Information:

The PACKERSHOME uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More Details Close

Fan Shout

beast (5h) : Sounds like no serious injuries from the Saints game and Jacobs and Watson should play in the Vikings game

packerfanoutwest (10h) : both games Watson missed, Packers won

Martha Careful (12h) : I hope all of you have a Merry Christmas!

Mucky Tundra (22h) : Oh I know about Jacobs, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to mimic Zero lol

buckeyepackfan (22h) : Jacobs was just sat down, Watson re-injured that knee that kept him out 1 game earlier

buckeyepackfan (22h) : I needed .14 that's. .14 points for the whole 4th quarter to win and go to the SB. Lol

Mucky Tundra (22h) : Jacobs gonna be OK???

Zero2Cool (22h) : 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

29 - 34

Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM

COLTS

16 - 10

Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM

Titans

30 - 14

Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM

VIKINGS

29 - 31

Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM

Rams

24 - 19

Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM

CARDINALS

34 - 13

Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM

TEXANS

24 - 22

Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM

Jaguars

30 - 27

Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM

LIONS

14 - 24

Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM

Bears

20 - 19

Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM

49ERS

38 - 10

Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM

DOLPHINS

30 - 17

Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM

Lions

31 - 34

Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM

Seahawks

30 - 13

Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM

SAINTS

34 - 0

Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM

Vikings

Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM

BEARS