James Starks Must Be Cut TODAY!!!!

[Robert Mason]

You make some good points.... however, Starks obviously isn't suited to be an every down back either so comparing Ty's build to Starks doesn't give me the feeling that he is built for it either. That being said, if they are going to keep giving the ball to Starks, I don't see how Montgomery could be any worse.

Starks doesn't have the quickness to find the openings...

 

[swhitset]

OK since we are moving on to the ridiculous... let's put in Mike Daniels at RB ... who wants to tackle him?

 

[Sunshinepacker]

You make some good points.... however, Starks obviously isn't suited to be an every down back either so comparing Ty's build to Starks doesn't give me the feeling that he is built for it either. That being said, if they are going to keep giving the ball to Starks, I don't see how Montgomery could be any worse.

Ty and Starks have the same build as Melvin Gordon, Demarco Murray and Frank Gore. When a guy is 6' or bigger and 215 lbs or more, they're plenty big enough to be every down backs. I mean, Ty weighs only 9 lbs less than Ezekiel Elliott.

 

[swhitset]

Ty and Starks have the same build as Melvin Gordon, Demarco Murray and Frank Gore. When a guy is 6' or bigger and 215 lbs or more, they're plenty big enough to be every down backs. I mean, Ty weighs only 9 lbs less than Ezekiel Elliott.

Which is why I said you made some good points... I think the only down side I see.. is that Montgomery has been trained as a wideout... he has done a decent job out of the backfield, but I'm not sure he is ready to make the complete switch at this point.... I'm not against trying it though.

 

[PackerDNA]

Which is why I said you made some good points... I think the only down side I see.. is that Montgomery has been trained as a wideout... he has done a decent job out of the backfield, but I'm not sure he is ready to make the complete switch at this point.... I'm not against trying it though.

It would be interesting. IMO, he hasn't looked out of place at RB. He might have a better future ther, and might give the team a legit threat catching out of the backfield.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Which is why I said you made some good points... I think the only down side I see.. is that Montgomery has been trained as a wideout... he has done a decent job out of the backfield, but I'm not sure he is ready to make the complete switch at this point.... I'm not against trying it though.

Montgomery has the build to turn into an every down running back but currently doesn't have the instincts to successfully do it. Maybe an offseason learning the position might change that.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Contrary to what your woman tells you, size doesn't matter. As people are now posting, a lot of what makes a RB talented is experience along with some innate skills at the position. While I'm not opposed to the Packers trying to convert Ty to RB, I think if it was something that was as simple as slapping a different # on his jersey, the Packers would have already done it. They haven't, he continues to see a limited # of carries by design and in the meantime the Packers will keep hoping for more production from Starks or Michaels at a position both players have spent many years learning.

 

[Mondio]

He looks like he gets a bit better each time though. I don't think he'll be Bell or Johnson, but in 15-20 snaps a game I think he could be extremely effective from that position in this offense as runner and pass catcher

 

[OldSchool101]

OK since we are moving on to the ridiculous... let's put in Mike Daniels at RB ... who wants to tackle him?

On a goal to go from the 1 with RIP blocking..
I can totally see that and I wouldn't doubt that it's in the works if we see the playoffs

 

[HardRightEdge]

Why can't Ty run against seven in the box? I think people forget how big Ty is. He's the same size as Starks; he's actually stockier than Starks, he's two inches shorter and only two pounds lighter. And I said in my original post, that Ty can't play TE; my point was that having a versatile guy allows the offense to motion the defense into bad matchups.

The thought that he's only a passing downs back is the same conservative thinking that's kept Starks in at running back more than Ty. Why can't a guy who has the same build as Melvin Gordon be an every down running back? And, if you don't want him to be an every down back, then why can't he at least be the leader in a platoon?

(1) He runs high.

(2) He does not have the instincts, natural or acquired through years of practice, of a polished running back.

Why can't he be the leader in a platoon? I already mentioned 10 carries per game seems about right which makes him exactly that. Just not on first down or short yardage where the defensive personnel are set for the run.

 

[PeteButter]

Welcome to the forum.

Welcome to my posts lol. Thanks man.

Is this Ty's sister?

Lol nah I'm a Texans fan who's been watching Ty since the Dallas game. I played football at LSU and had a stint in the NFL/CFL.

The thought that he's only a passing downs back is the same conservative thinking that's kept Starks in at running back more than Ty. Why can't a guy who has the same build as Melvin Gordon be an every down running back? And, if you don't want him to be an every down back, then why can't he at least be the leader in a platoon?

Couldn't agree more. And I've heard Ty's a solid 225 now, so he's just as big as Ezekial.

You make some good points.... however, Starks obviously isn't suited to be an every down back either so comparing Ty's build to Starks doesn't give me the feeling that he is built for it either. That being said, if they are going to keep giving the ball to Starks, I don't see how Montgomery could be any worse.

You serious bro? Ty Montgomery is bigger than Adrian Peterson, Jamaal Charles, Mel Gordan, LeVeon...I could go on. And I bet you can't see how Montgomery "could be any worse" considering Ty is BEASTING every time he's given a chance to run the rock. Open them eyes.

I think the only down side I see.. is that Montgomery has been trained as a wideout... he has done a decent job out of the backfield, but I'm not sure he is ready to make the complete switch at this point....

This isn't how football camps work. Firstly, Ty has played runningback his entire life. Most all NFL skill players have played damn-near every position their entire life. Secondly, runningbacks "train" the same as wideouts; both need to know how to run with/protect the ball and both require the same catching techniques. Wrs and rbs do their drills together in a group; the only rb-specific activities (in the NFL) are live practices and whatever personal help the player seeks out himself.

As for Ty's "decent" jobs out the backfield...in his 3 heavy-usage games:
Week 7 vs CHI - 9 carries, 60 yds, 6.67yds/c
Week 8 vs IND - 7 carries, 53 yds, 7.57yds/c
Week 13 vs HOU - 6 carries, 40 yds, 6.67yds/c

He put up these numbers largely without huge chunks; he was consistent in getting 5-7 yards a carry. He also had 22 (!) receptions with a 78% catch rate those 3 games. Broke more tackles than any other rb on the team in just 3 games. How are you not sure this dude is ready.

Contrary to what your woman tells you, size doesn't matter. As people are now posting, a lot of what makes a RB talented is experience along with some innate skills at the position.

Size does matter; there is a reason that people in particular positions tend to look the same physically. Also...this is the NFL...ALL THE SKILL PLAYERS ARE HIGHLY EXPERIENCED. Ty (and Starks) has probably played football at all positions since 5 years old. Some positions (like QB) require unique skillsets and coaching. Skill-players need to be athletic and have the ability to learn a playbook. Pass-protection needs to be learned usually...but fortunately for Green Bay Ty Montgomery is an exceptional blocker, arguably the best pass-blocking RB on the packers (Lacy was slow to learn pass-protection, Ty has FLOURISHED in it). To me Ty is a no-brainer, but the fans and staff have this "meh-we'll see" approach that can sour a hard-working beast like Ty. If you were killing it at work but people were constantly over-looking you, would you want to work there long?

Why can't he be the leader in a platoon?

Using a platoon with a gem like Ty is STUPID. Why waste touches on trash-backs when you've got a guy getting 5-6 yds/carry, can catch like a receiver, and can pass-block better than all the other rbs. What sense does that make? Do you not see how much more effective the offense is when Ty is in the game?

SERIOUSLY, IS THERE SOME HIDDEN FOOTAGE OF TY MONTGOMERY SUCKING THAT I'M NOT SEEING? Someone please explain how a proven effective player is getting so much doubt.

 

[HardRightEdge]

On a goal to go from the 1 with RIP blocking..
I can totally see that and I wouldn't doubt that it's in the works if we see the playoffs

Let's go with RIP in the I!

 

[HardRightEdge]

Ty Montgomery is a bigger, stronger, LeVeon Bell.

OK, buttercup.

 

[Patriotplayer90]

Welcome to my posts lol. Thanks man.


Lol nah I'm a Texans fan who's been watching Ty since the Dallas game. I played football at LSU and had a stint in the NFL/CFL.


Couldn't agree more. And I've heard Ty's a solid 225 now, so he's just as big as Ezekial.


You serious bro? Ty Montgomery is bigger than Adrian Peterson, Jamaal Charles, Mel Gordan, LeVeon...I could go on. And I bet you can't see how Montgomery "could be any worse" considering Ty is BEASTING every time he's given a chance to run the rock. Open them eyes.


This isn't how football camps work. Firstly, Ty has played runningback his entire life. Most all NFL skill players have played damn-near every position their entire life. Secondly, runningbacks "train" the same as wideouts; both need to know how to run with/protect the ball and both require the same catching techniques. Wrs and rbs do their drills together in a group; the only rb-specific activities (in the NFL) are live practices and whatever personal help the player seeks out himself.

As for Ty's "decent" jobs out the backfield...in his 3 heavy-usage games:
Week 7 vs CHI - 9 carries, 60 yds, 6.67yds/c
Week 8 vs IND - 7 carries, 53 yds, 7.57yds/c
Week 13 vs HOU - 6 carries, 40 yds, 6.67yds/c

He put up these numbers largely without huge chunks; he was consistent in getting 5-7 yards a carry. He also had 22 (!) receptions with a 78% catch rate those 3 games. Broke more tackles than any other rb on the team in just 3 games. How are you not sure this dude is ready.



Size does matter; there is a reason that people in particular positions tend to look the same physically. Also...this is the NFL...ALL THE SKILL PLAYERS ARE HIGHLY EXPERIENCED. Ty (and Starks) has probably played football at all positions since 5 years old. Some positions (like QB) require unique skillsets and coaching. Skill-players need to be athletic and have the ability to learn a playbook. Pass-protection needs to be learned usually...but fortunately for Green Bay Ty Montgomery is an exceptional blocker, arguably the best pass-blocking RB on the packers (Lacy was slow to learn pass-protection, Ty has FLOURISHED in it). To me Ty is a no-brainer, but the fans and staff have this "meh-we'll see" approach that can sour a hard-working beast like Ty. If you were killing it at work but people were constantly over-looking you, would you want to work there long? Ty Montgomery is a gem, you all should be writing letters to staff to get this guy to start.

I think they are hesitant to run Ty because he's been getting hurt, not because they think the other guys are better options. He showed a lot of promise working out of the backfield.

 

[childerm]

Welcome to my posts lol. Thanks man.


Lol nah I'm a Texans fan who's been watching Ty since the Dallas game. I played football at LSU and had a stint in the NFL/CFL.


Couldn't agree more. And I've heard Ty's a solid 225 now, so he's just as big as Ezekial.


You serious bro? Ty Montgomery is bigger than Adrian Peterson, Jamaal Charles, Mel Gordan, LeVeon...I could go on. And I bet you can't see how Montgomery "could be any worse" considering Ty is BEASTING every time he's given a chance to run the rock. Open them eyes.


This isn't how football camps work. Firstly, Ty has played runningback his entire life. Most all NFL skill players have played damn-near every position their entire life. Secondly, runningbacks "train" the same as wideouts; both need to know how to run with/protect the ball and both require the same catching techniques. Wrs and rbs do their drills together in a group; the only rb-specific activities (in the NFL) are live practices and whatever personal help the player seeks out himself.

As for Ty's "decent" jobs out the backfield...in his 3 heavy-usage games:
Week 7 vs CHI - 9 carries, 60 yds, 6.67yds/c
Week 8 vs IND - 7 carries, 53 yds, 7.57yds/c
Week 13 vs HOU - 6 carries, 40 yds, 6.67yds/c

He put up these numbers largely without huge chunks; he was consistent in getting 5-7 yards a carry. He also had 22 (!) receptions with a 78% catch rate those 3 games. Broke more tackles than any other rb on the team in just 3 games. How are you not sure this dude is ready.



Size does matter; there is a reason that people in particular positions tend to look the same physically. Also...this is the NFL...ALL THE SKILL PLAYERS ARE HIGHLY EXPERIENCED. Ty (and Starks) has probably played football at all positions since 5 years old. Some positions (like QB) require unique skillsets and coaching. Skill-players need to be athletic and have the ability to learn a playbook. Pass-protection needs to be learned usually...but fortunately for Green Bay Ty Montgomery is an exceptional blocker, arguably the best pass-blocking RB on the packers (Lacy was slow to learn pass-protection, Ty has FLOURISHED in it). To me Ty is a no-brainer, but the fans and staff have this "meh-we'll see" approach that can sour a hard-working beast like Ty. If you were killing it at work but people were constantly over-looking you, would you want to work there long?


Using a platoon with a gem like Ty is STUPID. Why waste touches on trash-backs when you've got a guy getting 5-6 yds/carry, can catch like a receiver, and can pass-block better than all the other rbs. What sense does that make? Do you not see how much more effective the offense is when Ty is in the game?

SERIOUSLY, IS THERE SOME HIDDEN FOOTAGE OF TY MONTGOMERY SUCKING THAT I'M NOT SEEING? Someone please explain how a proven effective player is getting so much doubt.

I'd have to agree with Patriotplayer90 on this. I think the reason they don't use him more is to keep him healthy. Now if Green Bay does manage to make the playoffs, I expect to see his usage in the backfield spike up a bit unless Michael turns it up and takes the starting role before seasons end.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Lol nah I'm a Texans fan who's been watching Ty since the Dallas game.

I wonder about the reasons for a Texans fan having a crush like that on Montgomery. You sure sound like Valyncia Jennings currently in a relationship with Ty.

 

[Robert Mason]

Welcome to my posts lol. Thanks man.


Lol nah I'm a Texans fan who's been watching Ty since the Dallas game. I played football at LSU and had a stint in the NFL/CFL.


Couldn't agree more. And I've heard Ty's a solid 225 now, so he's just as big as Ezekial.


You serious bro? Ty Montgomery is bigger than Adrian Peterson, Jamaal Charles, Mel Gordan, LeVeon...I could go on. And I bet you can't see how Montgomery "could be any worse" considering Ty is BEASTING every time he's given a chance to run the rock. Open them eyes.




This isn't how football camps work. Firstly, Ty has played runningback his entire life. Most all NFL skill players have played damn-near every position their entire life. Secondly, runningbacks "train" the same as wideouts; both need to know how to run with/protect the ball and both require the same catching techniques. Wrs and rbs do their drills together in a group; the only rb-specific activities (in the NFL) are live practices and whatever personal help the player seeks out himself.





















































































































As for Ty's "decent" jobs out the backfield...in his 3 heavy-usage games:
Week 7 vs CHI - 9 carries, 60 yds, 6.67yds/c
Week 8 vs IND - 7 carries, 53 yds, 7.57yds/c
Week 13 vs HOU - 6 carries, 40 yds, 6.67yds/c

He put up these numbers largely without huge chunks; he was consistent in getting 5-7 yards a carry. He also had 22 (!) receptions with a 78% catch rate those 3 games. Broke more tackles than any other rb on the team in just 3 games. How are you not sure this dude is ready.



Size does matter; there is a reason that people in particular positions tend to look the same physically. Also...this is the NFL...ALL THE SKILL PLAYERS ARE HIGHLY EXPERIENCED. Ty (and Starks) has probably played football at all positions since 5 years old. Some positions (like QB) require unique skillsets and coaching. Skill-players need to be athletic and have the ability to learn a playbook. Pass-protection needs to be learned usually...but fortunately for Green Bay Ty Montgomery is an exceptional blocker, arguably the best pass-blocking RB on the packers (Lacy was slow to learn pass-protection, Ty has FLOURISHED in it). To me Ty is a no-brainer, but the fans and staff have this "meh-we'll see" approach that can sour a hard-working beast like Ty. If you were killing it at work but people were constantly over-looking you, would you want to work there long?


Using a platoon with a gem like Ty is STUPID. Why waste touches on trash-backs when you've got a guy getting 5-6 yds/carry, can catch like a receiver, and can pass-block better than all the other rbs. What sense does that make? Do you not see how much more effective the offense is when Ty is in the game?

SERIOUSLY, IS THERE SOME HIDDEN FOOTAGE OF TY MONTGOMERY SUCKING THAT I'M NOT SEEING? Someone please explain how a proven effective player is getting so much doubt.

Yes, Ty has the build for a RB unlike Cobb. Just think of the possibilities of Ty in the backfield. Not only simple run plays, but draws, screen plays and drawing LB coverage in the middle. He can be a awesome weapon if used correctly. Ripkowski is more suited for short yardage plays when the line is stacked

 

[sschind]

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

agreed but I think the post was in reference to the comment that he was a bust of a pick. He was a 6th round pick and an integral part of our 2010 Super Bowl run. That alone in many peoples eyes is enough to be able to say he wasn't a bust. IMO had we cut him in 2011 I wouldn't consider him a bust based his contribution in 2010 vs his draft position

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

If you are going to take away the best run you have to take away his worst one as well. Usually it doesn't change much but it is only fair. I used to do the same thing, look at a stat line and think "well, take away the long run and what are you left with" Its not an unreasonable approach to get the overall picture but again, if you are taking a 1 good you should take away 1 bad.

Its like when opposing fans say something like "take away those 3 interceptions our QB threw and we would have beaten you" I respond with "OK, you are taking away the three interceptions so I'm going to take away his 3 TD passes, now where are we."

As a wise person, I think it was Confucius, once said, "you take the good, you take the bad, you take them both and there you have the facts of life, the facts of life"

 

[longtimefan]

agreed but I think the post was in reference to the comment that he was a bust of a pick. He was a 6th round pick and an integral part of our 2010 Super Bowl run. That alone in many peoples eyes is enough to be able to say he wasn't a bust. IMO had we cut him in 2011 I wouldn't consider him a bust based his contribution in 2010 vs his draft position



If you are going to take away the best run you have to take away his worst one as well. Usually it doesn't change much but it is only fair. I used to do the same thing, look at a stat line and think "well, take away the long run and what are you left with" Its not an unreasonable approach to get the overall picture but again, if you are taking a 1 good you should take away 1 bad.

Its like when opposing fans say something like "take away those 3 interceptions our QB threw and we would have beaten you" I respond with "OK, you are taking away the three interceptions so I'm going to take away his 3 TD passes, now where are we."

As a wise person, I think it was Confucius, once said, "you take the good, you take the bad, you take them both and there you have the facts of life, the facts of life"

While I fully agree when you have a bigger sample, don't take away a run.. but when he only had 8 rushes, I can't say with any confidence he looked good..

 

[Robert Mason]

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.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Yes, Ty has the build for a RB unlike Cobb. Just think of the possibilities of Ty in the backfield. Not only simple run plays, but draws, screen plays and drawing LB coverage in the middle. He can be a awesome weapon if used correctly. Ripkowski is more suited for short yardage plays when the line is stacked

There´s no doubt Montgomery has potential but he´s not suited to run the ball against a stacked box.

 

[PikeBadger]

I think Montgomery has significant value being used out of the backfield but I don't see him as being a guy you would use consistently as your #1 RB. He's a guy you want to move around in different formations to create defensive mismatches imo. I like him. He's got a good range of skills and functionality. Nice weapon to have.

 

[Robert Mason]

There´s no doubt Montgomery has potential but he´s not suited to run the ball against a stacked box.

Agree.....Ripkowski is more suited for short yardage plays when the line is stacked

 

[Sunshinepacker]

There´s no doubt Montgomery has potential but he´s not suited to run the ball against a stacked box.

Why do you say that? He's obviously big enough. For those claiming he doesn't have the "vision" to be a running back, this is a guy that played RB in high school and was an All-American return specialist in college. What facet of Ty's game doesn't allow him to run against a stacked box?

I'm not trying to argue for Ty to get 25 carries a game but it's not like the team would have to audible to a pass against a stacked box.

But even if they did, isn't that the value of having Ty at RB? If they stack the box then that means you can just shift Ty out to receiver and now you have a linebacker on him and that's an easy mismatch.

 

[Robert Mason]

I think the underlying reason is that you really don't want expose Ty to the pounding an every down RB gets.