James Starks Must Be Cut TODAY!!!!

[DarkHelmet]

Our line doesn't run block very well. They do a great job in pass protection, but are simply not set up to open big holes for a runner. A bruiser like Lacy could get some yards, and a quick/strong guy like Montgomery can get loose on occasion, but we're just not staffed/coached to run. We need Starks for depth this year if nothing else. Next year we need either a really healthy Lacy or a high round RB.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

While I understand people think James Starks was overpaid on his new contract, cutting him right now would serve no purpose. Who do you propose to take his place on the roster? Starks is familiar with the Packer system, he does actually do some good things (see Philly game) and cutting him would mean we are willing to finish the year with Michael and Monty at RB, both had some positive yardage plays as well as negative, but what happens when one of them gets injured? Sorry, be upset that TT overpaid Starks, but cutting him with 5 games to go and nothing really that special to take his place? McCarthy just needs to give up on the idea of Starks being his featured back and use him in different ways.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

But if anyone could kindly update me on any injuries that may have occurred during yesterdays game. Anything I should know about that I missed? Thank you!

Perry suffered a hand injury in the first half and tried to play with a club on it in the second half. He ended up playing only 12 snaps though.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

While I understand people think James Starks was overpaid on his new contract, cutting him right now would serve no purpose. Who do you propose to take his place on the roster? Starks is familiar with the Packer system, he does actually do some good things (see Philly game) and cutting him would mean we are willing to finish the year with Michael and Monty at RB, both had some positive yardage plays as well as negative, but what happens when one of them gets injured? Sorry, be upset that TT overpaid Starks, but cutting him with 5 games to go and nothing really that special to take his place? McCarthy just needs to give up on the idea of Starks being his featured back and use him in different ways.

You forgot Rip, but yes I am perfectly willing to do that. At least those 2 can get some semblance of positive yards on runs, something Starks can't do for his life. Dude is a worthless bum.

 

[Forget Favre]

What a bust of a pick this guy was, what's with this team's fascination of this do-nothing?

This is why I gave a "Disagree."
Starks was awesome for us at one time during the SB year and he was not a bust at all.
He was awesome.
Yeah, maybe now not so much.
But ye gods, don't let your anger blind you to the truth of how great he was.
SMH

 

[OldSchool101]

This is why I gave a "Disagree."
Starks was awesome for us at one time during the SB year and he was not a bust at all.
He was awesome.
Yeah, maybe now not so much.
But ye gods, don't let your anger blind you to the truth of how great he was.
SMH

He was also a very good 1-2 punch when Eddie Lacy first rose to stardom. Starks isn't a good #1 but he's had past success as a respected #2
Once again MM got away from what was successful with the Eagles. The short passing game to his RBs and it showed in early poor clock management Sunday.

 

[Carl]

He was also a very good 1-2 punch when Eddie Lacy first rose to stardom. Starks isn't a good #1 but he's had past success as a respected #2
Once again MM got away from what was successful with the Eagles. The short passing game to his RBs and it showed in early poor clock management Sunday.

The Texans and Eagles are completely different teams. If something worked against the Eagles, it doesn't mean it would work against the Texans.

 

[swhitset]

This is why I gave a "Disagree."
Starks was awesome for us at one time during the SB year and he was not a bust at all.
He was awesome.
Yeah, maybe now not so much.
But ye gods, don't let your anger blind you to the truth of how great he was.
SMH

I would never characterize him as great at any point, but he was also not a bust. He was a decent pass catching back for several years, and now appears to be at the end.

 

[armand34]

Starks had a unique run as a rookie in 2010

He provided an awesome compliment to the dominant Packer passing game in the playoffs all the way to the Super Bowl.

Since then...he's been better than average overall, but has never been a good starter, just look at 2011 when the job was given to him.

I like Starks, he may produce more positives this season, but he cannot be counted on needed short yardage downs. That's just never been a strength of this team and truly one of his weaknesses.

 

[Arod2gjdd]

Michael looked decent on his few carries, there was definitely some burst there

Edit: He lead the team in attempts? Guess we don't run much, for the best. 2.8 average but idk eye test looked alright

 

[7thFloorRA]

This line just doesn't fit him this year. He dances and prances and looks for a hole to shoot. That style absolutely can work but its just not happening with this line or the way they are blocking this year. I watched closely on the replays when michael carried the ball and his pad level was down and he was trying to get through the wash as soon as possible. Thats another thing with starks....he runs really upright and just carries no momentum into contact.

I hope MM employs more of the Ripper and Michael/Monty sets. You have a legit FB, a RB option and that is going to open up the play action to be taken seriously and that is going to unlock the field for the wr's.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

This line just doesn't fit him this year. He dances and prances and looks for a hole to shoot. That style absolutely can work but its just not happening with this line or the way they are blocking this year. I watched closely on the replays when michael carried the ball and his pad level was down and he was trying to get through the wash as soon as possible. Thats another thing with starks....he runs really upright and just carries no momentum into contact.

I hope MM employs more of the Ripper and Michael/Monty sets. You have a legit FB, a RB option and that is going to open up the play action to be taken seriously and that is going to unlock the field for the wr's.

There it is again....it's all about the pad level

IMO the 3 things Starks brings to the Packers:

1. Knows the playbook and audibles
2. Guessing AR trusts him and his pass blocking
3. Decent hands and ability to catch a screen and pick up a first down

But he isn't a back that is going to have much success behind our OL when the defense has 7-8 in the box and is waiting for the run. It's up to MM to figure out how to use Starks, Monty, Michaels and Rip in ways that best fit the offense and each runner's style.

 

[swhitset]

Michael looked decent on his few carries, there was definitely some burst there

Edit: He lead the team in attempts? Guess we don't run much, for the best. 2.8 average but idk eye test looked alright

2 or 3 of his carries came on the last offensive series when it was clear to everybody that the Packers were just going to run out as much clock as possible before punting. a couple of his earlier carries looked halfway decent.

 

[Robert Mason]

Not saying that Starks has had a great year, but without him, we probably don't win the Super Bowl in 2010. He's been more than worth a sixth round pick for that alone.

That's the past......we have to deal with the present and future now !

 

[Robert Mason]

The Texans and Eagles are completely different teams. If something worked against the Eagles, it doesn't mean it would work against the Texans.

MM made a good move in the second half of the Texans game replacing Starks with Montgomery. 88 is twice as good as 44. Maybe they should consider converting Janis to a RB ? I like seeing Montgomery in the backfield. He can run the ball or go out as a receiver from the backfield forcing a LB to cover him.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Once again MM got away from what was successful with the Eagles. The short passing game to his RBs and it showed in early poor clock management Sunday.

The weather made it extremely difficult to stick to the game plan that worked vs. the Eagles. It´s possible Rodgers didn´t trust some of his receivers to consistently catch the ball in snowy conditions.

I would never characterize him as great at any point, but he was also not a bust. He was a decent pass catching back for several years, and now appears to be at the end.

Starks was a huge factor in the Packers winning the first three games of the 2010 playoffs especially in the wild card game at Philadelphia. It´s possible the team doesn´t win the Super Bowl without him. It seems he doesn´t have a lot in the tank anymore but for a sixth round pick he has had a pretty successful career.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Starks was a huge factor in the Packers winning the first three games of the 2010 playoffs especially in the wild card game at Philadelphia. It´s possible the team doesn´t win the Super Bowl without him. It seems he doesn´t have a lot in the tank anymore but for a sixth round pick he has had a pretty successful career.

Starks ran very well against the Eagles but the revisionist history on him running well in all three playoff games is kind of overblown. Not singling you out, the narrative is common but the stats just don't back it up. He ran very well against the Eagles. However, he averaged 2.6 YPC against the Falcons and 3.3 YPC against the Bears. He got a lot of volume but he didn't do very much with it in those two games. He was actually pretty good against the Steelers in the Super Bowl but he only got 11 carries so it doesn't show up as much.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

MM made a good move in the second half of the Texans game replacing Starks with Montgomery. 88 is twice as good as 44. Maybe they should consider converting Janis to a RB ? I like seeing Montgomery in the backfield. He can run the ball or go out as a receiver from the backfield forcing a LB to cover him.

I would be more impressed if MM had actually stuck with Montgomery for the last few games rather than completely ignoring him and forgetting that he's been one of the Packer's better looking offensive players. MM's use of Montgomery this season is one of the single biggest illustrations of his refusal to evolve his offense to try new things unless his hand is forced by injury.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Starks ran very well against the Eagles but the revisionist history on him running well in all three playoff games is kind of overblown. Not singling you out, the narrative is common but the stats just don't back it up. He ran very well against the Eagles. However, he averaged 2.6 YPC against the Falcons and 3.3 YPC against the Bears. He got a lot of volume but he didn't do very much with it in those two games. He was actually pretty good against the Steelers in the Super Bowl but he only got 11 carries so it doesn't show up as much.

There were a lot of tough yards in those games behind a mediocre-to-poor run blocking line.

Still and all, over those 4 games he had 81 carries for 315 yds. and 1 TD with a 3.9 yd. average. His long run was 27 yards, so there wasn't much in the way of padding in that 3.9 number.

Project those 4 games over a season and you get 324 carries for 1,260 yds. and 4 TDs. It was an Eddie George-type performance.

 

[Robert Mason]

Our line doesn't run block very well. They do a great job in pass protection, but are simply not set up to open big holes for a runner. A bruiser like Lacy could get some yards, and a quick/strong guy like Montgomery can get loose on occasion, but we're just not staffed/coached to run. We need Starks for depth this year if nothing else. Next year we need either a really healthy Lacy or a high round RB.

"Montgomery can get loose on occasion"

With the QB and WR's the Packers have all the Packers need is a RB who can get loose on occasion. Granted in bad weather the running game becomes more important. I like the short/high percentage passing game in good or bad weather. I'll take five yard completions all day. How about converting Janis to a RB ?

 

[longtimefan]

Michael looked decent on his few carries, there was definitely some burst there

Edit: He lead the team in attempts? Guess we don't run much, for the best. 2.8 average but idk eye test looked alright

Michael looked decent on his few carries, there was definitely some burst there

Edit: He lead the team in attempts? Guess we don't run much, for the best. 2.8 average but idk eye test looked alright

He had 9 for 19, take away the 7 yard carry he was 8 for 12

Looking at play by play he did nothing.. He do look to run hard, but he was below average.. Let's see how it is with normal conditions

 

[Bleedcheese]

Christian Michael looks good for the few runs he was in...runs real hard. Hope he gets more touches in the 2 nd half

I think he looked awesome for the few he had. I hope they get him some opportunities against Seattle. Need more power when their defense is hitting us.

 

[Bleedcheese]

Michael didn't have good numbers during yesterday's game either (9 carries for 19 yards, 2.1 avg.) but it's pretty obvious he should be the featured back vs. the Seahawks.

I think so too! He knows how their defense stacks and their Tendencies. I think this could be a great game for him. Starks is a good player but in my opinion Christine, the Ty, then Rip! Use their skill sets to our advantage. GO PACK GO

 

[HardRightEdge]

I think he looked awesome for the few he had. I hope they get him some opportunities against Seattle. Need more power when their defense is hitting us.

Michael is not a power back. He's not going to get yardage on his own.

 

[Bleedcheese]

Michael is not a power back. He's not going to get yardage on his own.

I know he's not a power back.
I know he's not a power back but in my opinion he's got more power than Starks less power than Lacey. He has more quickness than Lacey but less than Starks. He's kind of in between. I think we need a back that has some power but good quickness too. Our line is great but won't keep the holes open long enough for a slower back with little power.