James Starks is not going anywhere· Page 2

PackFanWithTwins
Veteran Member

9 years ago

Good signing. Lacy cannot be depended on, not only for weight, but for other ailments also. Starks is a better back than given credit for, he is not a 3rd down specialist, he can play any down and distance. He is a good threat out of the backfield. He has some power, and he has more speed. But like most running backs, if the Oline isn't blocking he will not be as productive.

The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!

nerdmann
Premier Member

9 years ago

#12

I think it is more of a statement on the staff's feeling on our current backups on the roster at this position. A healthy Lacy and a better coach should help pay dividends this year. The fumbles were concerning but everyone was pressing on offense last year. 30 is not too old, so 2 years still makes sense to me.

Originally Posted by: DarkaneRules

It's not like they're bringing back Vernand Morency or Noah Herron. Starks actually belongs in the league.

“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.”

Wade
Veteran Member

9 years ago

#13

Starks is not a bad RB. But RB's at his skill level are pretty common.

It's hard getting excited when our annual free agent signings are nothing much beyond ensuring the team has 53 players on the field.

I'd love it if Ted Thompson gave the FA attention to the top 2/3 of the roster that he gives to the bottom 1/3.

And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)

isocleas2
Member

9 years ago

#14

I think the signing is fine, maybe for a little more money than I would have wanted but when we learn the details the contract may be more incentive laden than we think, similar to Perry's 5 million price tag.

I would have liked to see an upgrade in FA or the draft but I also wouldn't be excited seeing some rookie bonehead mistakes next year while we get said player used to our offense.

PackFanWithTwins
Veteran Member

9 years ago

#15

Another thing to look at. If we didn't have Starks, the bargaining power that Lacy would hold over the team would increase as he heads into his contract year. He is probably looking in the 7mil/yr or higher range and I'm not sure he has shown enough consistently to justify paying him that. Starks give them a little room to be able to say, no we don't need to be forced into overpaying because we dont' have any other options.

The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!

DoddPower
Veteran Member

9 years ago

#16

Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins

I don't think I want Lacy back regardless. Especially if he has a good season this year. That will just drive his price up even higher. I don't trust the guy and I doubt he will be effective for many more years even if he does stay in shape due to his punishing running style. Let Lacy go, hope for a decent compensatory pick for him, and find another running back. There is no way I would pay Lacy $7 million+/year.

DakotaT
Select Member

9 years ago

#17

(In case anyone doesn't get it, I'm being sarcastic and agree with wpr.)

[assho]

Originally Posted by: Wade

Glad you cleared that up, cause I really have my doubts that everyone "gets it"!

DakotaT
Select Member

9 years ago

#18

Forte would have been an upgrade over Starks.

yooperfan
Veteran Member

9 years ago

#19

Forte would have been an upgrade over Starks.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT

But but but the money!
The Packers would spend years digging themselves out of the hole!😴

Rockmolder
Honored Member

9 years ago

#20

Forte would have been an upgrade over Starks.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT

Forte also got a $12 million, 3 year contract of which $9 million is guaranteed. For a 30 year old running back with a lot of wear and tear that's still quite a bit of money. They can cut him pretty safely in year 3, but I like us not handing that kind of money to a player his age, with his wear and tear at a position with little positional value and which isn't a big need for us.

You can only spend that money once. I'd prefer we spend it on a good NT, for instance.

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 (8h) : What is he supposed to say? He doesn't want players currently on the team?

Martha Careful (13h) : meh

Zero2Cool (17h) : Sounds like Walker and Wyatt will be with Packers for beyond 2026

Zero2Cool (17h) : It's so awesome.

Zero2Cool (17h) : new site fan shout post fast

wpr (20h) : Slow posting in Fan shout.

wpr (20h) : Only 4

Zero2Cool (23h) : If only we had a topic to read about and discuss it. That's something new website must have!!!

dfosterf (23h) : 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.

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