Packers re-sign James Starks

[AmishMafia]

Would you have rather paid Forte 4-5m a year? Because that is what he got.

I think people are prisoners of the moment and having the "Grass is Greener" syndrome, honestly.

I like starks, but I think forte is worth the extra $2m. Unfortunately he didnt want to come to Green Bay because Lacy is #1.

 

[El Guapo]

So once again I ask, what would you guys have done differently in this situation?

Let's start with the assumption that Starks was not available for $1M. I doubt that this was the market and Russ Ball just decided to give Starks an extra $2M just for fun. Knowing this, it sounds like most people here would have preferred to let Starks walk for $3M. Fine. So the plan was then to go into 2016 with Lacy starting, a rookie RB from the middle rounds, and Crockett on the roster? To me that sounds equally ridiculous. Lacy may or not be in shape. In shape or not, we are all realizing that he may have a motivation issue - ala BJ Raji.

So you've let Starks walk because $3M is too much, what is your GM move now?

 

[Vrill]

So once again I ask, what would you guys have done differently in this situation?

Let's start with the assumption that Starks was not available for $1M. I doubt that this was the market and Russ Ball just decided to give Starks an extra $2M just for fun. Knowing this, it sounds like most people here would have preferred to let Starks walk for $3M. Fine. So the plan was then to go into 2016 with Lacy starting, a rookie RB from the middle rounds, and Crockett on the roster? To me that sounds equally ridiculous. Lacy may or not be in shape. In shape or not, we are all realizing that he may have a motivation issue - ala BJ Raji.

So you've let Starks walk because $3M is too much, what is your GM move now?

I agree. The alternative would be to roll the dice and hope we don't end up with poor backup RB play. As we all know, rookies are not a for sure bet. Especially when you draft one in the middle/late rounds.

Did TT overpay for Starks? Probably. But in the NFL realm, is 2 million really that much in the grand scheme of things? We are talking about the difference between 1 mil and 3 mil. Or veteran minimum and 3 mil. To us, yeah that is a lot of money. But in the NFL realm, is it? I don't think so. So while Starks may have been overpaid, I don't think its worthy of throwing your arms into the air and bleating to the world that its some kind of end times scenario and how TT needs to be fired for it and this and that. If Starks was paid 5 mil a year, yeah, that would be crazy. But lets face it, Starks plays a lot in our system. In a way, Lacy and Starks are 1a and 1b.

 

[adambr2]

So once again I ask, what would you guys have done differently in this situation?

Let's start with the assumption that Starks was not available for $1M. I doubt that this was the market and Russ Ball just decided to give Starks an extra $2M just for fun. Knowing this, it sounds like most people here would have preferred to let Starks walk for $3M. Fine. So the plan was then to go into 2016 with Lacy starting, a rookie RB from the middle rounds, and Crockett on the roster? To me that sounds equally ridiculous.

Not sure why that sounds ridiculous at all. Were the Bears ridiculous to go into 2015 with Jeremy Langford as their backup RB? Bills with Karlos Williams? Dolphins with Jay Ayaji? Ravens with Buck Allen? All of these guys were rookie 4th and 5th round picks in 2015.

It's not at all unusual these days to count on a rookie RB for significant contributions as a backup or even starter.

 

[Vrill]

Not sure why that sounds ridiculous at all. Were the Bears ridiculous to go into 2015 with Jeremy Langford as their backup RB? Bills with Karlos Williams? Dolphins with Jay Ayaji? Ravens with Buck Allen? All of these guys were rookie 4th and 5th round picks in 2015.

It's not at all unusual these days to count on a rookie RB for significant contributions as a backup or even starter.

Its still rolling the dice. We don't have a clue if that 5th round RB will be productive or not. Yeah, he might be. But then again, he might be a fumble machine and blow assignments and not be that great at pass blocking for our HOF QB. If the latter were to happen, a lot of people would have been wishing we had Starks still because all the sudden, the RB situation behind Lacy looks bad. In Starks, we know what we get at least.

 

[adambr2]

I agree. The alternative would be to roll the dice and hope we don't end up with poor backup RB play. As we all know, rookies are not a for sure bet. Especially when you draft one in the middle/late rounds.

Did TT overpay for Starks? Probably. But in the NFL realm, is 2 million really that much in the grand scheme of things? We are talking about the difference between 1 mil and 3 mil. Or veteran minimum and 3 mil. To us, yeah that is a lot of money. But in the NFL realm, is it? I don't think so. So while Starks may have been overpaid, I don't think its worthy of throwing your arms into the air and bleating to the world that its some kind of end times scenario and how TT needs to be fired for it and this and that. If Starks was paid 5 mil a year, yeah, that would be crazy. But lets face it, Starks plays a lot in our system. In a way, Lacy and Starks are 1a and 1b.

I am blown away that a deal that you said would 'probably be 1M' this morning, you are okay with at 3M.

I hate the line of thinking that it's just 2M, not huge in the scheme of things. True or not, I think that's an irresponsible way to treat your cap. The 'we overpaid this guy, but it's just by 1M or 2' deals seem to be adding up.

Also to my knowledge no one has declared it end times or said TT should be fired for it.

If Starks was paid 5 mil a year, yeah, that would be crazy.

Why? Like you said, it's just another 2M, not really anything big in the big NFL picture, right?

 

[adambr2]

Its still rolling the dice. We don't have a clue if that 5th round RB will be productive or not. Yeah, he might be. But then again, he might be a fumble machine and blow assignments and not be that great at pass blocking for our HOF QB. If the latter were to happen, a lot of people would have been wishing we had Starks still because all the sudden, the RB situation behind Lacy looks bad. In Starks, we know what we get at least.

Well, you're going to have to roll the dice to improve at times. You can't always just stick with the known quantity out of fear.

Starks already does have fumble issues. To my knowledge he doesn't really excel in pass protection either, though he's gotten better.

I like James. I just don't like him for 3M at all. I would have rather looked in the draft if that was the price. It's a bad offseason for paying mid to low level RBs. The market really jumped up from the last couple years.

 

[Vrill]

Why? Like you said, it's just another 2M, not really anything big in the big NFL picture, right?

Nope, it would have been 4 million. 1 mil--->5 mil is a 4 mil difference. That is a big difference to me. (or the difference between Vet minimum and 5 mil for that matter)

 

[adambr2]

Nope, it would have been 4 million. 1 mil--->5 mil is a 4 mil difference. That is a big difference to me. (or the difference between Vet minimum and 5 mil for that matter)

Right. Then my point is, you overpay 2M one guy here, then there, then another guy, you're not just overpaying 2M, you're overpaying 4M, 6M, 8M, etc. They add up fast.

 

[Jerellh528]

Its still rolling the dice. We don't have a clue if that 5th round RB will be productive or not. Yeah, he might be. But then again, he might be a fumble machine and blow assignments and not be that great at pass blocking for our HOF QB. If the latter were to happen, a lot of people would have been wishing we had Starks still because all the sudden, the RB situation behind Lacy looks bad. In Starks, we know what we get at least.

So we're fine with Rollin the dice on our starting ilb, but not or backup rb?

 

[bigbubbatd]

I have read a couple places that Starks' cap hit is 2 million not 3 million. Which number is correct?

 

[Vrill]

Right. Then my point is, you overpay 2M one guy here, then there, then another guy, you're not just overpaying 2M, you're overpaying 4M, 6M, 8M, etc. They add up fast.

Who else on our roster is overpaid exactly? I think Nick Perry's contract was fine. I really like him as a player. Maybe Cosby I guess? Hes the only other one in my eyes.

If anything, TT tends to underpay IMO. Just look at that contract Jordy got as an example. Anywhere else Jordy would have received a top 5 WR money most likely.

 

[Vrill]

So we're fine with Rollin the dice on our starting ilb, but not or backup rb?

Nowhere did I say that. I don't think anyone else has either. And lets be honest, a lot of people are excited about Jake Ryan's future. He looks promising. Also, we have no clue how far along Sam Barrington has come. He might or might not have a breakout season. But the question does remain that we still need a 3rd down reliable ILB. That may come in the draft. In the perfect world, that would be in the form of a legit 3 down ILB, but we might not get that. Instead we'll have to deal with a utility ILB that specializes against the pass.

In short, I don't see our ILB position being THAT dire. Its a need yes, but its not critical.

One has to wonder if Clay at ILB would have even happened if Sam Barrington never got injured last season. That is a question we'll see answered soon.

 

[Half Empty]

So once again I ask, what would you guys have done differently in this situation?

Let's start with the assumption that Starks was not available for $1M. I doubt that this was the market and Russ Ball just decided to give Starks an extra $2M just for fun. Knowing this, it sounds like most people here would have preferred to let Starks walk for $3M. Fine. So the plan was then to go into 2016 with Lacy starting, a rookie RB from the middle rounds, and Crockett on the roster? To me that sounds equally ridiculous. Lacy may or not be in shape. In shape or not, we are all realizing that he may have a motivation issue - ala BJ Raji.

So you've let Starks walk because $3M is too much, what is your GM move now?

I almost hate to keep beating the drum, but how do we end up with an Agree AND a Disagree when the poster is asking a question? I understand one likes Starks' deal and one doesn't, but the poster lays out his own reasoning and then asks for alternatives.

 

[adambr2]

Nowhere did I say that. I don't think anyone else has either. And lets be honest, a lot of people are excited about Jake Ryan's future. He looks promising. Also, we have no clue how far along Sam Barrington has come. He might or might not have a breakout season. But the question does remain that we still need a 3rd down reliable ILB. That may come in the draft. In the perfect world, that would be in the form of a legit 3 down ILB, but we might not get that. Instead we'll have to deal with a utility ILB that specializes against the pass.

In short, I don't see our ILB position being THAT dire. Its a need yes, but its not critical.

One has to wonder if Clay at ILB would have even happened if Sam Barrington never got injured last season. That is a question we'll see answered soon.

Rolling with Ryan and Barrington as starters is as dire as it gets IMO. It's the equivalent of going into 2013 with MD Jennings and Jerron McMillian at safety.

 

[El Guapo]

I almost hate to keep beating the drum, but how do we end up with an Agree AND a Disagree when the poster is asking a question? I understand one likes Starks' deal and one doesn't, but the poster lays out his own reasoning and then asks for alternatives.

Since Jerelh428 disagreed with my question, I thought that he/she would actually say something...but he chose the nothing route. Oh well.

So we're fine with Rollin the dice on our starting ilb, but not or backup rb?

Assuming Barrington and Ryan as the starters with Palmer, Thomas, and Clay Matthews as backups isn't rolling the dice unless we don't draft anyone this year. Rolling the dice would be going into the season with just a draft pick without having Palmer/Thomas/Matthews as additional proven options.

 

[El Guapo]

Rolling with Ryan and Barrington as starters is as dire as it gets IMO. It's the equivalent of going into 2013 with MD Jennings and Jerron McMillian at safety.

Let's revisit your quote at the end of next season. They aren't going to be elite, but they are not bad like you portray. Re-watch Ryan on that goal line stand at the beginning of the Arizona game. I see a guy with heart that will stick his nose into it. He'll never be a great cover guy but there's also a lot he can learn.

 

[PackerDNA]

[QUOTE="El Guapo, Palmer/Thomas/Matthews as additional proven options.[/QUOTE]


All Thomas and Palmer have proven to me is that they're guys I'd rather not have on the field or have to count on.

 

[Jerellh528]

Since Jerelh428 disagreed with my question, I thought that he/she would actually say something...but he chose the nothing route. Oh well.

Assuming Barrington and Ryan as the starters with Palmer, Thomas, and Clay Matthews as backups isn't rolling the dice unless we don't draft anyone this year. Rolling the dice would be going into the season with just a draft pick without having Palmer/Thomas/Matthews as additional proven options.

Since Jerelh428 disagreed with my question, I thought that he/she would actually say something...but he chose the nothing route. Oh well.

Assuming Barrington and Ryan as the starters with Palmer, Thomas, and Clay Matthews as backups isn't rolling the dice unless we don't draft anyone this year. Rolling the dice would be going into the season with just a draft pick without having Palmer/Thomas/Matthews as additional proven options.

I choose not to reply considering you scoffed at any alternative as ridiculous in your post which was started with an assumption. The obvious alternative was roll with lacy as our starter and add a mid round drafted talent. That's not ridiculous at all.

What's more ridiculous is you consider guys like barrington, Ryan, Palmer, and Thomas as proven. I'd be more comfortable spending on a contract like Jerrell Freeman got and considering him a proven option at ilb, and drafting a backup rb that I would bank on providing higher relative performance than the options we currently have at ilb. A bigger roll of the dice in my opinion is relying on what we have at ilb to provide what we need to reach the superbowl, especially considering we also have a hole at nt now, and nt and ilb often go hand in hand performance wise over a back rb drafted in the mid rounds

 

[Deleted member 6794]

So once again I ask, what would you guys have done differently in this situation?

Let's start with the assumption that Starks was not available for $1M. I doubt that this was the market and Russ Ball just decided to give Starks an extra $2M just for fun. Knowing this, it sounds like most people here would have preferred to let Starks walk for $3M. Fine. So the plan was then to go into 2016 with Lacy starting, a rookie RB from the middle rounds, and Crockett on the roster? To me that sounds equally ridiculous. Lacy may or not be in shape. In shape or not, we are all realizing that he may have a motivation issue - ala BJ Raji.

So you've let Starks walk because $3M is too much, what is your GM move now?

I would have been fine with signing Starks for $1.5 million per season. Otherwise I would have let him walk away in free agency and used a day 3 pick on a running back.

Who else on our roster is overpaid exactly? I think Nick Perry's contract was fine. I really like him as a player. Maybe Cosby I guess? Hes the only other one in my eyes.

If anything, TT tends to underpay IMO. Just look at that contract Jordy got as an example. Anywhere else Jordy would have received a top 5 WR money most likely.

The quote with Thompson underpaying gotta be a joke. Have you even followed his moves this offseaaon???

One has to wonder if Clay at ILB would have even happened if Sam Barrington never got injured last season. That is a question we'll see answered soon.

Matthews was moved to inside linebacker midway through the 2014 season. The coaching staff was planning all offseason to continue to play him there so Barrington's injury didn't have anything to do with it.

As I've stated repeatedly I think the Packers are in dire need of an upgrade at the position, especially with Matthews moving back outside.

 

[adambr2]

I am baffled how anyone could think ILB is not a dire need. It wasn't good enough last year with our best defensive player at ILB. Now that player is moving back to OLB, and we're not in dire need at ILB?

 

[El Guapo]

I choose not to reply...

I scoffed at having a yet-to-be determined RB and Crockett as the backups to Lacy. That is not the same as scoffing at any alternative...although you decided it as so.

Proven means that we know what we have in those players. You interpreted me saying "proven" as meaning something else. I think that having a drafted rookie or raw talent at any position is rolling the dice. We know Barrington's limitations in coverage, we know that Thomas can cover but little else, and Palmer is pedestrian. A drafted rookie could be even worse. That's rolling the dice.

IMO you draft players to develop behind the starters that you already have on the roster, but hopefully not to be the primary backup their first season.

 

[El Guapo]

I'm baffled why all of you are treating this as an either/or situation. TT could still get an ILB, regardless of what he tied up with Starks. You're creating an artificial barrier. I think that you're frustrated, as we all are, that he hasn't found more help at ILB.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

IMO you draft players to develop behind the starters that you already have on the roster, but hopefully not to be the primary backup their first season.

The Packers need one or maybe even two inside linebackers starting next season though. That's why the money spend to overpay several of our own free agents, who are mostly backups and rotational players, should have been used to upgrade the position.

If you want to draft players to develop behind a starter wouldn't that make a ton of sense for a backup RB???

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I'm baffled why all of you are treating this as an either/or situation. TT could still get an ILB, regardless of what he tied up with Starks. You're creating an artificial barrier. I think that you're frustrated, as we all are, that he hasn't found more help at ILB.

Well, overpaying for several of our free agents this offseason has resulted in the Packers not having a ton of cap space to sign any free agents though.