1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!

    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers. You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
    Dismiss Notice

Can we discuss James Starks?

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by Forget Favre, Sep 28, 2016.

  1. Forget Favre

    Forget Favre Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2009
    Messages:
    8,169
    Ratings:
    +2,802
    Watching him at first was exciting and I thought he was going to be the future running game for GB.
    Now he has had 12 carries and only 9 yards this season.
    What happened?

    I think we should give him one more season and if he doesn't return to getting better or how he was, cut him.

    What do you think about James Starks?
     
  2. Mondio

    Mondio Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2014
    Messages:
    2,832
    Ratings:
    +1,795
    I think Lacy is and should be our primary back. I know James works hard and all that, but get lacy going and keep him going. Let Starks provide relief and be done with it
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. captainWIMM

    captainWIMM Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Messages:
    12,688
    Ratings:
    +6,640
    Starks has been a disappointment so far this season and if he doesn´t improve significantly the rest of the year his performance doesn´t justify the contract he was signed to.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  4. gopkrs

    gopkrs Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 12, 2014
    Messages:
    336
    Ratings:
    +99
    I don't think Starks has had much of an opportunity...including nowhere to run.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  5. captainWIMM

    captainWIMM Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Messages:
    12,688
    Ratings:
    +6,640
    Starks has made questionable decisions on several runs though as well.
     
  6. Twiddlemylobes

    Twiddlemylobes Fat Tuesday Orleans

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    1,111
    Ratings:
    +521
    I'd like to see him involved more. At one point he and Lacy made a nice 1-2 punch
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. PackerDNA

    PackerDNA Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2014
    Messages:
    2,186
    Ratings:
    +941
    I'd like to see Starks 2nd year of this contract voided after the season. We've past the point of diminishing returns with him.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  8. captainWIMM

    captainWIMM Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Messages:
    12,688
    Ratings:
    +6,640
    It depends on what happens with Lacy next offseason though. If the Packers don´t re-sign the starting running back releasing Starks would result in not having an experienced player at the position.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. PackerDNA

    PackerDNA Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2014
    Messages:
    2,186
    Ratings:
    +941
    Why keep a player who's done? Starks is pretty much done now; he won't get better a year from now.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. captainWIMM

    captainWIMM Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Messages:
    12,688
    Ratings:
    +6,640
    I think it´s too early to assume Starks is done.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
  11. PackerDNA

    PackerDNA Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2014
    Messages:
    2,186
    Ratings:
    +941
    You're right. In Green Bay it will take about 3 more years.
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  12. Pokerbrat2000

    Pokerbrat2000 Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2012
    Messages:
    4,724
    Ratings:
    +2,941
    Think the Jets would trade Forte for Starks even up? :coffee: I can't hide it, I wanted Forte before Starks was signed but wasn't that unhappy when Starks was resigned based on his body of work as a Packer. As Captain pointed out then and now, we probably overpaid him.

    While I'm not ready to give up on Starks, I have found myself cringing as of late, when he lines up in the backfield and is handed the ball. He can't seem to find a running lane and is even worse when the defense is playing the run. He can be a nice compliment to the passing game and I would prefer seeing him be used mostly on 3rd and long. Last season receiving stats.... 3 TDS, 43 catches for 392 yards and a 9.1 average.
     
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2016
  13. GBkrzygrl

    GBkrzygrl Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2012
    Messages:
    37
    Ratings:
    +10
    Is that why they keep using Cobb/Montgomery? That drives me nuts. They are not running backs. If the DL was wearing down then maybe but to me they have used those 2 more than they have used Starks.
     
  14. azrsx05

    azrsx05 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    351
    Ratings:
    +217
    I think Starks is one of those players that got paid for what he's done instead of what he's going to do. I think it was a bad decision to keep him instead of getting a young guy to get experience behind Lacy in case Lacy doesn't return. But Lacy should be the primary runner this year for sure
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Pokerbrat2000

    Pokerbrat2000 Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2012
    Messages:
    4,724
    Ratings:
    +2,941
    My take on lining Cobb or Montgomery up in the backfield is that it makes them harder to defense in the passing game, which way are they going to go and who picks them up? While Cobb has had some success in that formation running the ball and they probably need to keep the defense honest by handing him the ball once in awhile, I think the Packers are taking their chances on some pretty big men getting some whacks on a smaller guy at the line of scrimmage.
     
  16. Pokerbrat2000

    Pokerbrat2000 Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2012
    Messages:
    4,724
    Ratings:
    +2,941
    Yes and no. I think you are right, while it would have been nice to get a young under study, which is what Crockett was suppose to be, they need a guy like Starks to fill in for Lacy on a regular basis. Lacy isn't a guy that can play all the snaps and a seasoned Vet like Starks is viewed more as a complimentary back to him more then just a back up.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. Eli Haugen

    Eli Haugen Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2014
    Messages:
    1,532
    Ratings:
    +255
    I like starks. Im suprised at his numbers rushing this year. But if we didnt have him id be nervous.
     
  18. Pokerbrat2000

    Pokerbrat2000 Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2012
    Messages:
    4,724
    Ratings:
    +2,941
    I think its safe to say, if we hadn't resigned Starks, we would have someone else behind Lacy, that at this point couldn't be any worse then we have seen so far from Starks. Whether that was a FA or a rookie, I don't know. I'm leaning on a vet, given how much our #2 back is called upon.
     
  19. captainWIMM

    captainWIMM Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Messages:
    12,688
    Ratings:
    +6,640
    This season using Cobb in the backfield hasn´t worked out at all averaging only three yards per play on 20 attempts. The coaching staff used Montgomery in that role vs. the Lions on four plays but as far as I can remember it didn´t produce any big plays either.

    I was fine with re-signing Starks but Thompson overpaid to retain him.
     
  20. El Guapo

    El Guapo Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    3,523
    Ratings:
    +1,992
    He's got 12 rushing attempts for 9 yards over the past three games. Obviously his average is terrible, but 12 attempts is also terrible. He may have made questionable decisions but this isn't enough to judge the man. We know that he can run, but they either need to give him the ball consistently in a game or keep him reserved for backup duties. Lacy needs more touches so there is no reason to give Starks opportunities unless McCarthy intends to give Lacy some recuperation time.

    I don't think that Starks is done. He just needs better opportunities, both from the coach and his blockers.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  21. El Guapo

    El Guapo Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    3,523
    Ratings:
    +1,992
    I don't think that you'd be saying that had Lacy shown up fatter and in worse condition. I think that TT had to either re-sign Starks or find a FA and we know which of those options was most likely. Either way he would have paid quasi-starter/backup money.
     
  22. captainWIMM

    captainWIMM Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Messages:
    12,688
    Ratings:
    +6,640
    I agree that 12 carries is a small sample size to evaluate Starks performance. I prefer to get Lacy the ball more often before worrying about Starks to receive additional touches.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  23. captainWIMM

    captainWIMM Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Messages:
    12,688
    Ratings:
    +6,640
    I said at the time the Packers re-signed Starks that the team overpaid for a backup running back. So far he for sure hasn´t justified being paid $3 million a year.
     
  24. Poppa San

    Poppa San SB I trophy First of four Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2010
    Messages:
    5,839
    Ratings:
    +1,631
    I was so-so at his signing. Right now he is ho-hum. Hasn't done diddly to deserve a roster spot. Not even sure his pass blocking is all that effective. It might be, I haven't paid attention. I think he was retained to be the "new" Kuhn. Reliable, play-book savvy veteran backup. Ain't happening at the moment.
     
  25. captainWIMM

    captainWIMM Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Messages:
    12,688
    Ratings:
    +6,640
    Starks struggled in pass protection vs. the Lions as well.
     

Share This Page