James Starks Must Be Cut TODAY!!!!

[HardRightEdge]

The best formulation for the balance of this season, albeit an imperfect one, is to use Montgomery as the primary TB.

In the run, when wanting to just show run, and in play action, Montgomery paired with Ripkowski looks to be the optimal formulation. Montgomery in single back on passing downs is head and shoulders above the other options.

Starks/Michael should be the rotational options.

Montgomery at around 10 carries and Ripkowski at around 5 carries seems about right to me.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The hard part about being too critical on Stark's or the Packers running game in general is that ultimately neither can be depended on or is expected to be depended on. The Packers live and die by AR's arm. No back, not even Zeke Elliott has awesome runs on every carry. But Elliot runs behind a line built to run block as well as in an offensive system designed to run first and pass second. So every 5-15 runs, the great backs break one and the dividends of sticking with the run pay off for teams like Dallas. Minnesota did this for years with AP. We started to see shades of a more balanced run/pass offense with Lacy, but to expect that out of Starks, Monty or even Michaels is really expecting to much IMO. So keep using all the backs, including Ripkowski, in a way that helps our pass oriented offense. But to try and "establish a running game" or expect too much out of it, really isn't going to happen with our current RB's.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

The hard part about being too critical on Stark's or the Packers running game in general is that ultimately neither can be depended on or is expected to be depended on. The Packers live and die by AR's arm. No back, not even Zeke Elliott has awesome runs on every carry. But Elliot runs behind a line built to run block as well as in an offensive system designed to run first and pass second. So every 5-15 runs, the great backs break one and the dividends of sticking with the run pay off for teams like Dallas. Minnesota did this for years with AP. We started to see shades of a more balanced run/pass offense with Lacy, but to expect that out of Starks, Monty or even Michaels is really expecting to much IMO. So keep using all the backs, including Ripkowski, in a way that helps our pass oriented offense. But to try and "establish a running game" or expect too much out of it, really isn't going to happen with our current RB's.

I don't think anyone thinks this offense is all the sudden going to morph into a power running team like Kansas City or Dallas, considering yes we all acknowledge this has traditionally been a pass first team. We don't need backs to pick up 100 yards every game, nor do we do expect it, but I think we all feel Stark's downright awful play is something that should be expected of better than that.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I don't think anyone thinks this offense is all the sudden going to morph into a power running team like Kansas City or Dallas, considering yes we all acknowledge this has traditionally been a pass first team. We don't need backs to pick up 100 yards every game, nor do we do expect it, but I think we all feel Stark's downright awful play is something that should be expected of better than that.

I guess I am not in the camp that Starks overall play has been "downright awful", but that could be based on the difference between your expectations of him and mine. I viewed the signing of Starks as a complimentary #2 back to Lacy. Someone who would spell Lacy at times and be in on obvious passing situations. I never viewed him as a featured back, which people now seem to want to view and grade him as. Before Starks was resigned, there was much discussion about this and I was one who wanted to sign someone like Forte to be our #2 back. Forte I believed was someone who could not only fill the role of being our 3rd down back, but be the #1 if Lacy went down. Starks isn't that guy.

So yeah, I would love Starks to pick up more yards each time he is handed the ball, but I don't expect it and if anyone is to blame, its TT for how much he paid Starks and the expectations he may have had for what Starks could do if Lacy went down.

Lesson here for TT is, if you want to keep a RB mainly for his ability to contribute on 3rd down, then you better have him as your #3 and a solid starter type back as your #2. TT chose to roll the dice with only having Lacy and Starks, which may have worked out fine if Lacy had stayed healthy and productive.

 

[PackerDNA]

I'd posted very early in the season that Starks was done. There is no reason to keep playing him, and even less to keep him around next year.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

How about converting Janis to a RB ?

I would prefer to convert Janis to a free agent next offseason.

I guess I am not in the camp that Starks overall play has been "downright awful", but that could be based on the difference between your expectations of him and mine. I viewed the signing of Starks as a complimentary #2 back to Lacy. Someone who would spell Lacy at times and be in on obvious passing situations. I never viewed him as a featured back, which people now seem to want to view and grade him as. Before Starks was resigned, there was much discussion about this and I was one who wanted to sign someone like Forte to be our #2 back. Forte I believed was someone who could not only fill the role of being our 3rd down back, but be the #1 if Lacy went down. Starks isn't that guy.

So yeah, I would love Starks to pick up more yards each time he is handed the ball, but I don't expect it and if anyone is to blame, its TT for how much he paid Starks and the expectations he may have had for what Starks could do if Lacy went down.

Lesson here for TT is, if you want to keep a RB mainly for his ability to contribute on 3rd down, then you better have him as your #3 and a solid starter type back as your #2. TT chose to roll the dice with only having Lacy and Starks, which may have worked out fine if Lacy had stayed healthy and productive.

I think that your expectations for Starks are too low. Thompson signed him to a decent contract for a backup running back but he hasn´t performed even close to it. While I agree that he shouldn´t be considered an above average starter there´s no reason to be satisfied with his performance. According to PFF he´s only ranked 47th out of 49 qualifying RBs.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I would prefer to convert Janis to a free agent next offseason.

Probably his most likely position next year for sure.

I think that your expectations for Starks are too low. Thompson signed him to a decent contract for a backup running back but he hasn´t performed even close to it. While I agree that he shouldn´t be considered an above average starter there´s no reason to be satisfied with his performance. According to PFF he´s only ranked 47th out of 49 qualifying RBs.

My expectations for Starks today are different then my expectations for Starts when he was resigned. I guess I didn't explain that well. While I didn't expect TT to roll the dice this season and go with just Lacy and Starks, I also hoped Starks would only have to be a rotational guy, which I think had both he and Lacy stayed healthy, may have worked out better. But once Starks came back from his injury and was thrust into being the feature back, it became very obvious that he is not that guy.

Would I like to see more production out of Starks? Of course. I just don't expect much more then what we have already seen. But for the OP to claim he should be cut today or people claiming he is a bust, I think is an over reaction fueled by to high of expectations.

 

[Robert Mason]

What's the problem with Janis ?

 

[Croak]

What's the problem with Janis ?

You didn't seriously just post that, did you? There is a VERY long running thread on Janis.

https://www.packerforum.com/threads/defending-janis.66902/

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

What's the problem with Janis ?

It would be far easier to answer a question of: "What are Janis's strengths?"

 

[C-Lee]

What's the problem with Janis ?

He sucks.

 

[yooperpackfan]

It would be far easier to answer a question of: "What are Janis's strengths?"

Deer hunting!
Did anyone else see the picture of the mammoth buck he shot with his bow?
Choosing women!
His wife is gorgeous and she got a buck almost as nice with her bow.

 

[rodell330]

Janis isn't going anywhere. TT kept Jarrett Bush around way longer than he was worth..simply because he was a good special teams player. The same will happen with Janis. You also have to consider the fact, that outside of Trevor Davis there isn't much deep speed in the WRs core.

 

[Robert Mason]

You didn't seriously just post that, did you? There is a VERY long running thread on Janis.

https://www.packerforum.com/threads/defending-janis.66902/

I searched for a thread on Janis.......did not find it. Thanks for forwarding !

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Janis isn't going anywhere. TT kept Jarrett Bush around way longer than he was worth..simply because he was a good special teams player. The same will happen with Janis. You also have to consider the fact, that outside of Trevor Davis there isn't much deep speed in the WRs core.

Has Janis been "good" on special teams this year? Maybe I am missing something, but I rarely notice him on the field during punts and kicks this year, unlike last year.

While he may make the 53 next year, I would hardly call him a lock. His special teams play in 2015 is probably what earned him the roster spot this year, minus that, all you have is a guy who can run fast.

 

[Robert Mason]

It would be far easier to answer a question of: "What are Janis's strengths?"

He is fast....see him run the sweep ? Funny that a player with all your perceived negatives is still on the 53.

 

[Half Empty]

You did note his one strength. However, roster management is not something that has escaped criticism here, so pointing out that he's still here doesn't carry much weight.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

He is fast....see him run the sweep ? Funny that a player with all your perceived negatives is still on the 53.

Not to "unpoint" your finger at me, but I don't think I am alone with my perceived negatives of Janis. Also, not sure I find it funny that he is still on the 53, but more of a reflection of the strength of our 53.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Janis isn't going anywhere. TT kept Jarrett Bush around way longer than he was worth..simply because he was a good special teams player. The same will happen with Janis.

Unfortunately Janis hasn´t been any good on special teams this season though.

He is fast....see him run the sweep ? Funny that a player with all your perceived negatives is still on the 53.

The problem is that speed is his only positive trait.

 

[rodell330]

Unfortunately Janis hasn´t been any good on special teams this season though.

Not really..but you can't cut him for that reason alone...unless you have a viable replacement in place. I don't think they do.



The problem is that speed is his only positive trait.

He's also probably the biggest, and most physical wr onthe roster at the moment.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

He's also probably the biggest, and most physical wr onthe roster at the moment.

That doesn´t help because he can´t run a proper route though.

 

[Mondio]

Who are you kidding, Janis is dominating. He can even dominate a thread about an entirely different position and person.

 

[Robert Mason]

It's marvelous to discuss both sides of topics like this, but we do not make roster decisions.....

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

It's marvelous to discuss both sides of topics like this, but we do not make roster decisions.....

No we don't, but we don't make draft decisions, play calls, personnel and 1000's of other decisions, so it shouldn't prevent us from discussing it.

Really, the only decision we as fans make for the Packers team.......well....LOL None?

 

[Sunshinepacker]

The best formulation for the balance of this season, albeit an imperfect one, is to use Montgomery as the primary TB.

In the run, when wanting to just show run, and in play action, Montgomery paired with Ripkowski looks to be the optimal formulation. Montgomery in single back on passing downs is head and shoulders above the other options.

Starks/Michael should be the rotational options.

Montgomery at around 10 carries and Ripkowski at around 5 carries seems about right to me.

This has been true for weeks. MM either doesn't know how to use versatile players or he just doesn't like to use versatile players. Montgomery should be a terrific player on this offense, someone that is not taken off the field that often and yet MM prefers to play Starks because he knows how to use a traditional running back in his 1/1 sets. Put Ty on the Pats and you'd have a potential All-Star. The Pats made Hernandez a focal point on their offense just by moving him around and putting the defense in bad positions. Yeah, Ty can't block at TE but neither could Hernandez, just having a guy that can play WR/RB/FB is an enormous weapon and it's one that MM has NEVER been able to use.