Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

James Starks agrees to terms with Packers
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 12, 13, 14  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
BobSacamano


Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Posts: 13677
PostPosted: Fri Mar 18, 2016 7:52 am    Post subject: James Starks agrees to terms with Packers Reply with quote

Quote:
Adam Caplan
‏@caplannfl
#Packers and RB James Starks have agreed to terms on a contract, per source.

_________________


KingTarvaris7 wrote:
last year's vikings were far better than the packers team that just won
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
driftwood


Joined: 20 Aug 2008
Posts: 7759
Location: Milwaukee
PostPosted: Fri Mar 18, 2016 7:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

hell yes!

hes clearly a good fit here & probably has another year or 2 left in his tank
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
HorizontoZenith


Joined: 03 Mar 2016
Posts: 3021
PostPosted: Fri Mar 18, 2016 8:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nice, nice, nice. Now I feel like RB will be a strength for us again this year.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Packerraymond


Moderator
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Posts: 18150
Location: Oconomowoc, WI
PostPosted: Fri Mar 18, 2016 8:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

James is good, but I be disappointed in anything over the vet min. He easily could've been replaced via the draft.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MrBoom


Joined: 28 May 2014
Posts: 159
Location: Cen Valley, CA
PostPosted: Fri Mar 18, 2016 8:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Honestly wasn't sure if this was going to happen. I like it. I still want to see if Crockett can make some strides but this is good for us I think. AirOn loves him so that's gotta count for something.

If we can get Lacy playing like he did a couple years ago and Starks can play like he did last year (without the fumbles) we should get back to a strong run game. And get some PA bombs back to Jordy..
_________________

Joe on the sig
palmy50 wrote:
stockholder wrote:
Go To---SB Nation evaluation Of adams
Yeah, I'll get right on that......
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
northernpackfan


Joined: 02 Mar 2007
Posts: 2063
PostPosted: Fri Mar 18, 2016 8:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I was hoping for an upgrade at the position, purely from a pass-catching perspective. Lacy and Starks are OK, but we could really use a dynamic receiver out of the backfield, along the lines of what Franklin looked like he was developing into.

That being said, Starks is a top backup, and in the absence of an upgrade, I'm glad to have him back. It will be interesting to see what he signed for.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
northernpackfan


Joined: 02 Mar 2007
Posts: 2063
PostPosted: Fri Mar 18, 2016 8:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Packerraymond wrote:
James is good, but I be disappointed in anything over the vet min. He easily could've been replaced via the draft.

I disagree, Starks is a pretty good runner though nothing special, which is why I can see how you think he is replaceable. But he's also solid at pass protection, which is where a rookie will struggle, especially for the first half of the season. I don't want to see Rodgers getting hit or pressured unnecessarily because a rookie RB is "learning the ropes" when he is spelling Lacy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NormSizedMidget


Joined: 28 Mar 2011
Posts: 15046
PostPosted: Fri Mar 18, 2016 8:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Glad to have him back
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Romancaesar


Joined: 13 May 2015
Posts: 6
PostPosted: Fri Mar 18, 2016 8:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

northernpackfan wrote:
I was hoping for an upgrade at the position, purely from a pass-catching perspective. Lacy and Starks are OK, but we could really use a dynamic receiver out of the backfield, along the lines of what Franklin looked like he was developing into.

That being said, Starks is a top backup, and in the absence of an upgrade, I'm glad to have him back. It will be interesting to see what he signed for.


I would like the Packers to add speed/receiving to the running back position as well, but i do think the Starks signing is a safe route to go. Doesn't stop TT from drafting a Kenyen Drake or whoever, as both Lacy and Starks could be gone next year.


Last edited by Romancaesar on Fri Mar 18, 2016 8:31 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DavidatMIZZOU


Joined: 09 Apr 2009
Posts: 14817
Location: The ZOU
PostPosted: Fri Mar 18, 2016 8:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I like it. It is most likely a make or break year for Lacy, this is good insurance. I also don't think this changes much as far as the draft goes. If there is a RB that TT likes at whichever spot, he will take him. Losing Starks almost forces the selection of a RB, keeping him allows us to pass until the value is right.

Since I am a fan of Starks, I also hope he got eleventy billion dollars. Cool
_________________
GO PACK GO!

mistakebytehlak wrote:

My god it must be so terrible to have three teams that consistently make the playoffs

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Packerraymond


Moderator
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Posts: 18150
Location: Oconomowoc, WI
PostPosted: Fri Mar 18, 2016 8:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

northernpackfan wrote:
Packerraymond wrote:
James is good, but I be disappointed in anything over the vet min. He easily could've been replaced via the draft.

I disagree, Starks is a pretty good runner though nothing special, which is why I can see how you think he is replaceable. But he's also solid at pass protection, which is where a rookie will struggle, especially for the first half of the season. I don't want to see Rodgers getting hit or pressured unnecessarily because a rookie RB is "learning the ropes" when he is spelling Lacy.


Lacy is fine in pass-pro, so is Kuhn (who will be brought back Im sure).

My issue with Starks isn't his play, it's the fact that I wanted that money to go to the defense. I wasn't worried about the offense with a healthy Jordy, Cobb and a slim Lacy.

I think our defense has taken an obvious step back with the loss of Hayward, Raji and Pennell and potentially Neal, along with not adding a single vet ILB. We were working with like 5m, I would have liked to see some of that go to a D player. Starks probably takes half of that.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
{Family Ghost}


Joined: 08 Jun 2010
Posts: 2363
PostPosted: Fri Mar 18, 2016 8:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

He's a pretty good player .. glad to have him back. Hopefully the Packers will also draft a back in the middle rounds.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kenrik


Joined: 15 Dec 2011
Posts: 524
PostPosted: Fri Mar 18, 2016 8:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well he tested the market with little interest. NE had him in and then went a different direction. I'd like to see a 2 year deal with his replacement drafted this year.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Csraverage


Joined: 30 Jan 2006
Posts: 473
PostPosted: Fri Mar 18, 2016 8:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

DavidatMIZZOU wrote:
I like it. It is most likely a make or break year for Lacy, this is good insurance. I also don't think this changes much as far as the draft goes. If there is a RB that TT likes at whichever spot, he will take him. Losing Starks almost forces the selection of a RB, keeping him allows us to pass until the value is right.

Since I am a fan of Starks, I also hope he got eleventy billion dollars. Cool


Yesh.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
driftwood


Joined: 20 Aug 2008
Posts: 7759
Location: Milwaukee
PostPosted: Fri Mar 18, 2016 8:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kenrik wrote:
Well he tested the market with little interest. NE had him in and then went a different direction. I'd like to see a 2 year deal with his replacement drafted this year.


its probably a similar 2 year deal he just finished (maybe slightly less per year?)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 12, 13, 14  Next
Page 1 of 14

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group