Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Possible cap casualties in 2017
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="HardRightEdge" data-source="post: 666833"><p>Well, if you wanted a back in the draft who can run, catch and block in week 1 who could replace Starks' 1,000 yds. from scrimmage last season, you'd need to make a day 1 or day 2 pick, if you could find that guy at all. Who would you have not drafted instead? Even then, these college backs you might count on as a runner usually take a year or two to get up to snuff in catching or blocking. Then there's the question of whether that guy would immediately take to the blocking scheme.</p><p></p><p>Looking at FAs, who would you prefer at a lower price who can run, catch and block, can be relied upon to be productive in this system given the need for Lacy insurance, is coming off an injury-free 1,000 yards-from-scrimmage season, and could be limited to a 2 year contract? Good luck.</p><p></p><p>There may be a slight premium in this contract given the Lacy insurance factor in 3 dimensions: conditioning, performance and free agency.</p><p></p><p>Of course, it is axiomatic in the league that backs are done by age 30. This arises from the fact that early-career-high- mileage bell cows typically go into decline in their second contract if not before. Starks is a low mileage guy where the touches have been spread out. He looked just as strong, quick and fast last season as he did in 2010.</p><p></p><p>Speaking of 2010, there's something else about Starks to consider that you won't get with most FA backs...he proved himself to be a money player in the Super Bowl run.</p><p></p><p>It's no coincidence that Starks' deal overlaps exactly Lacy's FA season, which will likely be a big issue regardless of what Lacy does in 2016. If his conditioning relapses, you won't want to bring him back. If he returns to form how much can he be trusted with a substantial second contract? It's the rule rather the exception that guys who struggle with conditioning early in their careers, getting by on "genetics" as his trainer put it, struggle with it throughout their careers.</p><p></p><p>So think about this:</p><p></p><p>If Lacy is not resigned, the Packers will go day 2 in the 2017 draft for a running back. That guy will likely need work in getting up to snuff with his catching and blocking. Maybe he even struggles adapting to the blocking scheme, with the Packers left without the 2-down back they thought they drafted. Maybe he's even an outright bust like Alex Green (3rd. round) or a semi-bust like Brandon Jackson (2nd. round) who was never more than a 3rd. down back.</p><p></p><p>Starks has demonstrated he can be productive as a #1, even if it hasn't been for a full season. Then again, this fact is the reason he has low mileage, which makes him a "younger" player than his birth date indicates.</p><p></p><p>So, Starks isn't being paid a 1 year insurance premium, it's for 2 years. The price goes up. I find it a price worth paying when weighing all the considerations.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="HardRightEdge, post: 666833"] Well, if you wanted a back in the draft who can run, catch and block in week 1 who could replace Starks' 1,000 yds. from scrimmage last season, you'd need to make a day 1 or day 2 pick, if you could find that guy at all. Who would you have not drafted instead? Even then, these college backs you might count on as a runner usually take a year or two to get up to snuff in catching or blocking. Then there's the question of whether that guy would immediately take to the blocking scheme. Looking at FAs, who would you prefer at a lower price who can run, catch and block, can be relied upon to be productive in this system given the need for Lacy insurance, is coming off an injury-free 1,000 yards-from-scrimmage season, and could be limited to a 2 year contract? Good luck. There may be a slight premium in this contract given the Lacy insurance factor in 3 dimensions: conditioning, performance and free agency. Of course, it is axiomatic in the league that backs are done by age 30. This arises from the fact that early-career-high- mileage bell cows typically go into decline in their second contract if not before. Starks is a low mileage guy where the touches have been spread out. He looked just as strong, quick and fast last season as he did in 2010. Speaking of 2010, there's something else about Starks to consider that you won't get with most FA backs...he proved himself to be a money player in the Super Bowl run. It's no coincidence that Starks' deal overlaps exactly Lacy's FA season, which will likely be a big issue regardless of what Lacy does in 2016. If his conditioning relapses, you won't want to bring him back. If he returns to form how much can he be trusted with a substantial second contract? It's the rule rather the exception that guys who struggle with conditioning early in their careers, getting by on "genetics" as his trainer put it, struggle with it throughout their careers. So think about this: If Lacy is not resigned, the Packers will go day 2 in the 2017 draft for a running back. That guy will likely need work in getting up to snuff with his catching and blocking. Maybe he even struggles adapting to the blocking scheme, with the Packers left without the 2-down back they thought they drafted. Maybe he's even an outright bust like Alex Green (3rd. round) or a semi-bust like Brandon Jackson (2nd. round) who was never more than a 3rd. down back. Starks has demonstrated he can be productive as a #1, even if it hasn't been for a full season. Then again, this fact is the reason he has low mileage, which makes him a "younger" player than his birth date indicates. So, Starks isn't being paid a 1 year insurance premium, it's for 2 years. The price goes up. I find it a price worth paying when weighing all the considerations. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
No members online now.
Latest posts
2025 Roster - Semi Live Thread
Latest: Pokerbrat2000
Today at 8:49 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Good Bye J’aire Alexander
Latest: Calebs Revenge
Today at 7:34 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
NFC North Predictions
Latest: gopkrs
Today at 7:30 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Is it time?
Latest: milani
Today at 4:55 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Prospects Deciding NOT to declare...
Latest: Pokerbrat2000
Today at 10:49 AM
Draft Talk
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Possible cap casualties in 2017
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top
