Yeah going with only 2 RBs is just crazy to me ... (yes I saw you say 3rd at the very end but still some others are saying 2 RBs) but it's just completely crazy thought to me, as RBs seem to get injured every so often and they need to rotate. With 2 RBs, a team would be in trouble once one of them got injured.

Packers normally keep at least 8 OL for the same reason, 7 for game day roster and one back-up for depth when injuries hit which is why Lane Taylor got some playing time last year.

And yeah, maybe not Starks, Guion, Raji, Neal and not Perry just seems more like trolling or blind dislike than projection to me.

Originally Posted by: beast 

Why's everyone so down on Starks? I'd still take him over Ryan Grant in his prime. And btw, they've got TWO "slash" guys in Cobb and Montgomery who can back up the RB position if necessary, so two guys would probably be ok there.

I've said it before. Crockett and Neal are Vernand Morency 2.0.

Originally Posted by: nerdmann 

I think Starks disappears because his strengths are so similar (but less exciting) than Lacy's... so when asking how is he different than Lacy, less power, a bit more speed, a bit more slash and different running styles but he's strengths (power running) aren't that different from that of Lacy making his strengths more forgettable and that's why I think some are more down on him than what he shows on the field.

And Cobb isn't a RB... he has no power (for RB standards) and he hasn't been a threat to go up the middle... that's not a back-up that's a different scheme or gimmick... don't get me wrong, different schemes and gimmicks can work, but unless you're going to pass the ball on 80% or more of the time, you need to be able to run the ball too.

Now Montgomery has power in his running, and I know people have talked about him backing up RB, but the Packers are probably going to let him learn WR before moving him around too much unless they're main plan with him is to turn him into a RB.

Also throw in Janis, (who as far as I know has never played RB), but with that pure speed and some power (though maybe not a slasher per say) he could clearly threaten the edges and that could do a lot for their outside running and play action.


But still why not just go with a real 3rd RB, like the Packers have been doing since (I'm guessing here) before Vince Lombardi came to the Packers...

If he stays healthy, I think Neal will make it, as he seems pretty good all around.

Originally Posted by: beast 

Neal and Crocket have that same similar skill set, they're just no better than Vernand Morency and Noah Herron.

Originally Posted by: nerdmann