It's pretty simple... if Starks is one of the top 3 RBs then he's going to be on the team.

It's simple as that.

---

I think alot has to do with pass protection as other pointed out. If starks is much better then the newbies then hes got the job. And ya I agree with the others he is more of a back up to lacy atm; and arods personal guard.

Who knows thou ...

So, IMPOSSIBLE they roll with 2 on active roster and PS some guys?

---

That's not what I said...

My opinion is

---

Starks could be 3rd best and they could roll with 2, no?

---

Few things are impossible, but it certainly is improbable. If they let go of all but 2RBs at final cuts, I would expect them to sign another RB off the wavier wire before the start of the season. The only way I could imagine this happens is if a significant portion of the backs currently on the roster get injured.

---

Anything COULD happen...

But my opinion is

---

Fair enough...you think we're keeping 3 RB's on the roster. I don't know about that. I think we're going to do some weird things with spots. Having a guy on the PS is not the end of the world vs. the roster. Kuhn/Cobb/88 cent should be more than capable of getting us through a game if both RB's went down. The following week you bring up your PS guy and hope the other is back. I'm going to guess if they go 2 RB's they PS squad two of them. Brandon Saine, Michael Hill, etc...those type of guys will always be there.

Heck, I'm not sure Kuhn makes it. If Ripkowski handles up on ST's you can't really let him go off the worst ST's in the league.

Been a Starks fan since he got here, before he played a down. I still think he's vulnerable.

---

I think even if Starks is the #3 RB he's still better than the other guys on the tail end of the 53. It wouldn't be the craziest thing ever for him to not make it but I really doubt it happens.

Not impossible, if Lloyd Christmas had a chance I suppose there is a chance the Packers go with 2 RBs.


I think Neal would have to be not just the same as Starks but better for them to cut Starks. What I mean by that is I think Starks' proven track record (yes, I think he has a proven track record) gives him an edge even if current performance is equal. To put it another way I think if 2 RBs have equal ability the guy that is proven will get the nod even if he costs a bit more. You pay for experience at the starter level why not do the same for backups if the talent level is the same and the added cost is not significant. If it were 3 million dollar difference then maybe but to be honest I think a million or so even a million and a half is pretty much chump change for a team that controls it cap like the Packers do.