Is James Starks safe?· Page 5

uffda udfa
Veteran Member Topic Starter

9 years ago

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

Originally Posted by: sschind

I like it uh lawt.

Ted Thompson sits on his hands per former GM: "because they’ve had 25 fricking years of great quarterbacks. Of course it works. Try it without a special quarterback."

sschind
Senior Member

9 years ago

#42

I like it uh lawt.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

I was hoping someone would get the reference. You always kind of leave yourself hanging when going for that laugh. Although, to be honest, I'm not sure how much I would respect the opinion of someone who didn't get a Dumb and Dumber reference.😁

Back to the topic, It is possible they go with 2 but IMO its very unlikely. Like others have said it depends on how difficult the others at the tail end make themselves to cut. If Janis and White pour it on and and extra MLB and DB show a lot it could be more than that 3rd RB so he gets cut to allow them the roster spot.

One thing that does bode well for the keep 2 theory is that if #1 and #2 stay healthy #3 is pretty much a forgotten man to 🇲🇲 and in that case then yeah, why not keep someone with more potential at another position.

beast
Select Member

9 years ago

#43

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.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

I think it might be very interesting to see a 53 man mock roster from you.

We have talked a lot about 2 RB's. I'm not so sure I'm not okay with just 1 with Kuhn as the FB.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

You've talked about possibility going with one RB and this guy and that guy maybe not making it... it would be interesting to see where the extra guys you kept. Because if you go short on one area, another area gets extra at their position. So I think it'd be interesting where you think their is and isn't depth with a 53 man mock prediction. Of course based on that time and point.

beast
Select Member

9 years ago

#44

One thing that does bode well for the keep 2 theory is that if #1 and #2 stay healthy #3 is pretty much a forgotten man to 🇲🇲

Originally Posted by: sschind

I'm not sure that's true, if the 3rd RB is talented enough...
yes Harris last year was a forgotten man, but when Lacy got banged up and couldn't finish a guy Kuhn came in and got more looks as the RB than Harris did.

But when the Packers had Franklin there was a lot of chatter that the Packers were setting up a change up scheme all around Franklin's talents (just like MM did with the idea of having Cobb back there).

So if a guy is talented enough and different enough, MM will set something up for them.

That being said, the guys battling for the 3rd RB don't really seem different in anyway other than maybe Neal in the passing game with his route running. But hey, he could be some sort of tweener... better in route running / catching than Lacy/Starks but more physical runner and more likely to go between the tackles than Cobb.

uffda udfa
Veteran Member Topic Starter

9 years ago

#45

I think it might be very interesting to see a 53 man mock roster from you.

You've talked about possibility going with one RB and this guy and that guy maybe not making it... it would be interesting to see where the extra guys you kept. Because if you go short on one area, another area gets extra at their position. So I think it'd be interesting where you think their is and isn't depth with a 53 man mock prediction. Of course based on that time and point.

Originally Posted by: beast

I don't think I've ever done a 53. I don't do 7 round mocks either. Exercises in futility...but...maybe, right before final cutdown I'll give it a whirl for the 1st time. I'm sure you'll all be graceful with all the ones I miss. 😁

It's bad biz to keep a position just for the sake of the position. If I've got a 6th or 7th WR I really like I'm keeping him over a 3rd RB I may not think much of, or a 2nd FB. Hope to see Abby before this so I can see what he is.

We have to keep another DL, if not two, because of the suspensions. Unless, Dom comes up with some new "exotic" package. 🤬 Or, he could just use Peppers as a DL for a game. Lots of things to consider.

Ted Thompson sits on his hands per former GM: "because they’ve had 25 fricking years of great quarterbacks. Of course it works. Try it without a special quarterback."

beast
Select Member

9 years ago

#46

I'm sure you'll all be graceful with all the ones I miss.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

I think you got my motivation for wanting to see your 53 man roster prediction all wrong... I've heard you talk about the idea of going with 1 RB, 1 FB and disliking the TEs.... and I'm just wondering (other than the WRs) who does this guy like?

Which has gotten me wondering who'd make your top 53 man roster as of right now...

To me the other mock 53 man roster about being correct is the ones between the last preseason game and the season opener... all the rest are about how you feel at that moment in time and a single preseason game can change your mind... like I had Neal as the 3rd RB, but if he keeps getting outplayed I could see it being someone else.

But I'm just wondering what guys would you keep that you maybe don't like as much but think they're in the top 53 and what guys you like more than others and think they have a real shot at the 53 man roster.

And the logic behind it is more important to me... like we saw earlier...

Rotheram is too talented to make it through waivers, so he makes the roster here.
(and)
It’s more of a case of Crockett being a better fit as a receiving back than Neal

packertalk wrote:

Some pretty bad logic there... IMO.

It's bad biz to keep a position just for the sake of the position.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

I think you have to weight both talent and depth.

We have to keep another DL, if not two, because of the suspensions. Unless, Dom comes up with some new "exotic" package. 🤬 Or, he could just use Peppers as a DL for a game. Lots of things to consider.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

Lots of things to consider is why I find it so interesting... it shows what the person considers more and is just interesting in who they like and/or don't like.

uffda udfa
Veteran Member Topic Starter

9 years ago

#47

Originally Posted by: beast

Oh, I was just commenting on how well "loved" I am here. I find it interesting what others think on that subject. It would be hard for me not to think like they would think though. What I mean is...if I was to do a 53, I would probably do two of them. The one I would want and the one I think they'll select.

BTW, I'm not sure I would only want 2 RB's... as I've said I don't do 53's, so I'm not entirely sure. I would likely use the selection Sunday method for the NCAA BB tourney and just rip the committee for the guys who made it over other more deserving guys in my eyes. That's just some straight shooting.

A couple of more games and weeks for me to mull this over. Should be fun.

Ted Thompson sits on his hands per former GM: "because they’ve had 25 fricking years of great quarterbacks. Of course it works. Try it without a special quarterback."

beast
Select Member

9 years ago

#48

Oh, I was just commenting on how well "loved" I am here.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

Yes very loved indeed 😎

What I mean is...if I was to do a 53, I would probably do two of them. The one I would want and the one I think they'll select.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

I say go for it... I probably should be doing two like that as well... but I struggle and force myself to combine the two in my head and come up with one list. But normally I do one after each preseason game (though sometimes my projections don't change at all).

and just rip the committee for the guys who made it over other more deserving guys in my eyes.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

Well I posted one in another thread. You could just suggest who'd you'd take out and put in their place.

A couple of more games and weeks for me to mull this over. Should be fun.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

Well you might want to set it up... so you know who in your mind is a lock, who's clearly out already and the rest who you might want to watch or take notice of (if you're going to do it). Also sometimes the last few positions can be a mental battle of who you want... like I wasn't sure if I wanted, a 4th RB, 4th TE, 4th OG, 4th ILB or 6th DL... I ended up going with the 4th OG because I'm just seem to be hearing a lot of good things about OG Walker including that he could be battling and maybe starting to pass OG Lane as the 3rd. But OGs just aren't a position I normally watch a lot of, and prefer having guys that can play C or OT as well... (though Walker did finish the preseason game at OT)

nerdmann
Premier Member

9 years ago

#49

Originally Posted by: beast

He likes Jeff Janis. And lately, Ty Montgomery.

“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

9 years ago

#50

He likes Jeff Janis. And lately, Ty Montgomery.

Originally Posted by: nerdmann

Yeah but two guys doesn't fill out a 53 man roster. .. which is the point of seeing who someone has near, on or over the 53 bubble. There is room for a lot of guys, so it's interesting to see who someone has making it and who doesn't.

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

Martha Careful (1h) : meh

Zero2Cool (5h) : Sounds like Walker and Wyatt will be with Packers for beyond 2026

Zero2Cool (5h) : It's so awesome.

Zero2Cool (5h) : new site fan shout post fast

wpr (8h) : Slow posting in Fan shout.

wpr (8h) : Only 4

Zero2Cool (11h) : If only we had a topic to read about and discuss it. That's something new website must have!!!

dfosterf (11h) : Justice Musqueda over at Acme Packing put up an excellent synopsis of the Packers 1st round options this am

wpr (19-Apr) : 5 days

beast (18-Apr) : 6 days

wpr (17-Apr) : 7 days

Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : sounds like Packers don't get good compensation, Jaire staying

dfosterf (16-Apr) : Nobody coming up with a keep, but at x amount

dfosterf (16-Apr) : Trade, cut or keep

dfosterf (16-Apr) : that from Jaire

dfosterf (16-Apr) : My guess is the Packers floated the concept of a reworked contract via his agent and agent got a f'

Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Yes, and that is why I think Rob worded it how he did. Rather than say "agent"

dfosterf (16-Apr) : Same laws apply. Agent must present such an offer to Jaire. Cannot accept or reject without presenting it

Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : I'm thinking that is why Rob worded it how he did.

dfosterf (16-Apr) : The Packers can certainly still make the offer to the agent

dfosterf (16-Apr) : Laws of agency and definition of fiduciary responsibility

dfosterf (16-Apr) : Jaire is open to a reduced contract without Jaire's permission

dfosterf (16-Apr) : The agent would arguably violate the law if he were to tell the Packers

Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : That someone ... likely the agent.

Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : So, Jaire has not been offered nor rejected a pay reduction, but someone says he'd decline.

Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Demovksy says t was direct communication with someone familiar with Jaire’s line of thinking at that moment.

Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Demovsky just replied to me a bit ago. Jaire hasn't said it.

dfosterf (16-Apr) : Of course, that depends on the definition of "we"

dfosterf (16-Apr) : We have been told that they haven't because he wouldn't accept it. I submit we don't know that

dfosterf (16-Apr) : What is the downside in making a calculated reduced offer to Jaire?

Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Packers are receiving interest in Jaire Alexander but a trade is not imminent

Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Jalen Ramsey wants to be traded. He's never happy is he?

Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : two 1sts in 2022 and two 2nd's in 2023 and 2024

Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Packers had fortunate last three drafts.

dfosterf (15-Apr) : I may have to move

dfosterf (15-Apr) : My wife just told the ancient Japanese sushi dude not enough rice under his fish

Zero2Cool (14-Apr) : I think a dozen is what I need

dfosterf (14-Apr) : Go fund me for this purpose just might work. A dozen nurses show up at 1265 to provide mental health assistance.

dfosterf (14-Apr) : Maybe send a crew of Angels to the Packers draft room on draft day.

Zero2Cool (14-Apr) : I am the Angel that gets visited.

dfosterf (14-Apr) : Visiting Angels has a pretty good reputation

Zero2Cool (14-Apr) : what

Martha Careful (14-Apr) : WINNING IT, not someone else losing it. The best victory though was re-uniting with his wife

Martha Careful (14-Apr) : The manner in which he won it was just amazing and wonderful. First blowing the lead then getting back, then blowing it. But ultimately

Zero2Cool (12-Apr) : I'm guessing since the thumb was broken, he wasn't feeling it.

dfosterf (10-Apr) : Looking for guidance. Not feeling the thumb.

Mucky Tundra (10-Apr) : If they knew about it or not

Mucky Tundra (10-Apr) : I don't recall that he did which is why I asked.

Zero2Cool (10-Apr) : Guessing they probably knew. Did he have cast or something on?

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

25 - 27

Sunday, Jan 5 @ 12:00 PM

BEARS

22 - 24