Announcement PH Beta → Check it out! Click Me! (you might be see "unsafe", but it is safe)
14 years ago
While I am very hopeful, I have heard that line about him being almost ready too often for a rookie.
blank
djcubez
14 years ago

I agree with most of your assessment but the guy has been attending meetings. Since he's not on the field he's had more time to study the playbook and get to know the offense. I wouldn't expect anything from him in the first few weeks after he comes back but maybe later in the season. Plus, coming in as a RB has to be one of the easier positions to adjust to--for the most part you just get the ball and run. The hard part is picking up blitzes and knowing what to do on pass plays.

"all_about_da_packers" wrote:




I just do not think attending meetings makes up for the fact he has a grand total of zero reps in our system. He may have had this time to get the playbook open and study it, but that does not mean he has been able to focus on some of the more physical aspects of practice (securing the ball, keeping his feet moving, understanding how to make adjustments to audibles, etc.).

I highly doubt Starks main focus is going to be coming in and getting the ball, then simply running. A lot in this scheme (zone-blocking) is predicated on the running back having good timing: being patient enough to let the backside blocks (cuts) occur and then cutting it back for positive gains. He simply cannot get that without having taken a rep in training camp, let alone not having played football in about two years.

Starks may have potential, but asking anyone two do something - especially at a higher level - two years after they did it last is asking a bit much. Starks is now playing in a league where everyone is that much faster and stronger, and taking mental reps is much different from taking live reps where a hesitation of a slight second may be the difference between the QB throwing a TD and the QB getting planted and injured.

I simply cannot be led to believe that Starks will provide anything beyond minimal value this season. And I think anyone in the higher places of this organization would be fool to think the RB position would be alright as long as Starks is activated.

"djcubez" wrote:



Like I said earlier I mostly agree with you. I was alluding to the fact that he may be able to help out a little in the backfield later this season if is he is healthy. Not as a starter but maybe get a few carries a game to help Kuhn and Jackson out.
go.pack.go.
14 years ago

I agree with most of your assessment but the guy has been attending meetings. Since he's not on the field he's had more time to study the playbook and get to know the offense. I wouldn't expect anything from him in the first few weeks after he comes back but maybe later in the season. Plus, coming in as a RB has to be one of the easier positions to adjust to--for the most part you just get the ball and run. The hard part is picking up blitzes and knowing what to do on pass plays.

"djcubez" wrote:




I just do not think attending meetings makes up for the fact he has a grand total of zero reps in our system. He may have had this time to get the playbook open and study it, but that does not mean he has been able to focus on some of the more physical aspects of practice (securing the ball, keeping his feet moving, understanding how to make adjustments to audibles, etc.).

I highly doubt Starks main focus is going to be coming in and getting the ball, then simply running. A lot in this scheme (zone-blocking) is predicated on the running back having good timing: being patient enough to let the backside blocks (cuts) occur and then cutting it back for positive gains. He simply cannot get that without having taken a rep in training camp, let alone not having played football in about two years.

Starks may have potential, but asking anyone two do something - especially at a higher level - two years after they did it last is asking a bit much. Starks is now playing in a league where everyone is that much faster and stronger, and taking mental reps is much different from taking live reps where a hesitation of a slight second may be the difference between the QB throwing a TD and the QB getting planted and injured.

I simply cannot be led to believe that Starks will provide anything beyond minimal value this season. And I think anyone in the higher places of this organization would be fool to think the RB position would be alright as long as Starks is activated.

"all_about_da_packers" wrote:



Like I said earlier I mostly agree with you. I was alluding to the fact that he may be able to help out a little in the backfield later this season if is he is healthy. Not as a starter but maybe get a few carries a game to help Kuhn and Jackson out.

"djcubez" wrote:



I'm hoping Kuhn will be helping Jackson and Starks....I would like it better if Kuhn went back to getting the amount of touches he did when Grant was playing.
UserPostedImage
Nonstopdrivel
14 years ago
So who gets cut to bring Starks off the PUP?
UserPostedImage
go.pack.go.
14 years ago

So who gets cut to bring Starks off the PUP?

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:



Nance.
UserPostedImage
millertime
14 years ago

So who gets cut to bring Starks off the PUP?

"go.pack.go." wrote:



Nance.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:



He isn't eligible until week 6 right? What the point of predicting who will be cut to make room for him right now?
Nonstopdrivel
14 years ago
My point is do we sincerely think Starks will make a greater contribution to this team this year than any other player currently on the roster?
UserPostedImage
go.pack.go.
14 years ago

My point is do we sincerely think Starks will make a greater contribution to this team this year than any other player currently on the roster?

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:



I do believe that he will make a bigger contribution than Nance. But who knows, Dimitri may come out and prove me wrong.

I like both of them, but I think Starks has a better opportunity, considering that he already knows the playbook (hopefully).
UserPostedImage
porky88
14 years ago

He has not played football in about two years.

He missed all of training camp. He is a rookie.

Honestly, any production from Starks would be a bonus in my opinion. It is too much to expect him to come in and actually do anything considering he has had very limited reps in our system and has had no football contact in over two years.

I do not think Ted is fool enough to put all his eggs in Starks' basket. If our running game is struggling, I think someone outside the organization (via trade most probably) would provide more support than Starks could this year.

"all_about_da_packers" wrote:



Agreed, but before his injury, Starks was a very good prospect. We're talking second round talent. Certainly every bit as good as guys like Ben Tate and Montario Hardesty. Obviously we'll see though, but RB is the one position I think you can come in and succeed in without playing in quite a while.
all_about_da_packers
14 years ago

My point is do we sincerely think Starks will make a greater contribution to this team this year than any other player currently on the roster?

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:



I wonder if that is how Ted will look at it, because in those exact terms the answer has to be "yes" since, surely, Starks can provide more immediate value to this team than someone like Nick McDonald.

But I do not imagine it will be a simple "bring him in and cut the 53rd-ranked man on the roster" scenario because then we'd be left with 3 RBs and 3 FBs (including Kuhn), which is very redundant when activating 45 players for the game-day roster.

As Ted pointed out at his press-conference after the final 53-man roster cut down, it is not a matter of simply rating players amongst their position, but also across positions against other players.
The NFL: Where Greg Jennings Happens.
Fan Shout
Mucky Tundra (11m) : Kanata, seek help! lol
beast (2h) : I was rooting for the Bears to win and hurt their draft pick status
Zero2Cool (2h) : Forgot there was even a game last night haha
TheKanataThrilla (2h) : That was terrible.
TheKanataThrilla (2h) : Watching that game in its entirety yesterday is proof positive that I am a football addict.
beast (3h) : And horrible time management multiple times... and not being able to score more than 3 points on a team with talent
beast (3h) : Realizing the Bears didn't fix it from the previous week and do the same thing, getting the game to overtime
beast (3h) : They probably are not tanking, but they've absolutely mismanagement some things, such as Vikings seeing the Packers blocked FG and realizing
Zero2Cool (4h) : Crazy of Bears to have that mindset that is
Zero2Cool (4h) : Hail Mary stop away from 5 - 2. Not sure how that flips to tanking. Crazy mindset if true
beast (4h) : I've quietly questioned if Bears are tanking on purpose... they suddenly got a lot worse with some simple concepts like 101 clock management
wpr (7h) : Watching bares fans melt down over how putrid their team is, so enjoyable. It's the gift that keeps on giving.
Mucky Tundra (14h) : The Seattle Seahawks defeat the Chicago Bears 6-3. Jason Myers had 6 RBIs for Seattle while Cairo Santos had 3 RBI for Chicago
beast (15h) : Not nessarily, he might of been injured either way. He's playing about 50% of the games the last 4 years
Zero2Cool (21h) : If they'd been more patient with him, he'd be back already. Putting him out there vs Bears caused him to tweak it and here we are.
packerfanoutwest (21h) : well this is his last season with the PAck, book it
beast (22h) : Sounds like no Alexander (again), I'm wondering if his time with the Packers is done
Zero2Cool (26-Dec) : Could ban beast and I still don't think anyone catches him.
Mucky Tundra (26-Dec) : Houston getting dog walked by Baltimore
packerfanoutwest (25-Dec) : Feliz Navidad!
Zero2Cool (25-Dec) : Merry Christmas!
beast (25-Dec) : Merry Christmas 🎄🎁
beast (24-Dec) : Sounds like no serious injuries from the Saints game and Jacobs and Watson should play in the Vikings game
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : both games Watson missed, Packers won
Martha Careful (24-Dec) : I hope all of you have a Merry Christmas!
Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Oh I know about Jacobs, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to mimic Zero lol
buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : Jacobs was just sat down, Watson re-injured that knee that kept him out 1 game earlier
buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : I needed .14 that's. .14 points for the whole 4th quarter to win and go to the SB. Lol
Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Jacobs gonna be OK???
Zero2Cool (24-Dec) : 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
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
11m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

29m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

31m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

1h / Random Babble / Martha Careful

1h / Around The NFL / Martha Careful

4h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

11h / Random Babble / Mucky Tundra

17h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

25-Dec / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

25-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

25-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

25-Dec / GameDay Threads / bboystyle

24-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

24-Dec / Random Babble / beast

24-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.