JAMES STARKS ACTIVATED OFF PUP LIST! (1 Viewer)

[Steve Tasker]

the rent is too damn high

 

[Tacos al Carboner]

This guy might be the real deal, and then again he might not. That's why they waited till the 6th.

Wasn't Terrell Davis a 6th round pick?

Exceptions a rule does not make.

That makes no sense. Drafted in the first round does not mean you will be productive; nor does being drafted in the 6th round mean you will not.So his comment and yours is irrelevant.

It's probabilities my young ffballer.1st rounders odds of panning out are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then 6th rounders.6th rounders are longshots, my comment was very relevant, starks would be an exception to the rule. That doesn't mean he's hopeless, but a longshot he is.

Do you talk like Yoda in real life?

 

[Hoosier16]

Why does everyone keep saying he 'hasn't played football in two years'? It makes it sound like he missed 2 seasons of football. He only missed one year. We don't say that about anyone else who gets hurt and misses a season.

 

[kencav]

LATEST JAMES "TONY" STARKS UPDATEPackers RB James Starks (hamstring), CB Al Harris (knee), and S Atari Bigby (ankle) have not been ruled out for Sunday's Week 7 game against Minnesota.All three are expected to return to practice Wednesday, though the Green Bay Press-Gazette expects Starks to be the furthest away from finding the field on gameday. Starks is worth a stash in deep leagues, while Harris and Bigby figure to upgrade the Packers' 17th ranked pass defense.Source: Green Bay Press-GazetteRelated: Al Harris, Atari BigbyI say we nickname this guy "Ironman".....why not?

Its Tony Stark not Starks. Seems like a pretty contrived nickname.

I betcha Chris Berman calls him James "Tony" Starks on his highlights!- all nicknames are contrived

 

[Yenrub]

May be the most overhyped player in years

No player could EVER be more hyped on this forum than Tyrone Calico.

Kevan Barlow?

 

[Yenrub]

How are his practices going? Has a defender touched him yet?

17 carries for 116 yards in the Fictitious Tuesday KeeperLeague Walkthrough.

Did he get the goalline carries?

 

[JahVideo_Kilt_Radio_Star]

Don't think it's too farfetched he has value this year. I think there's a guy in Washington starting at RB right now after being out a year and a half. GB must think something of him to not just IR him off the bat.

 

[Dawg Pound 69]

The fact that he hasn't played in awhile could be a positive, since he's well rested. Shonn Greene's playoff breakout last year was largely attributed to his fresh legs.

 

[packersfan]

Don't think it's too farfetched he has value this year. I think there's a guy in Washington starting at RB right now after being out a year and a half. GB must think something of him to not just IR him off the bat.

Torain didn't miss all of training camp, though.

 

[T J]

My take is this:

They didn't pick up a RB in a trade when it was pretty clear it was a need. Not their only need, I get that, but a definite need nonetheless. Maybe Starks is the reason why. I admittedly don't know squat about him other than what I've read on various message boards, but the fact the Packers stood pat at the RB position was telling IMO. I think he's definitely a stash player who could blow up and win a league for you. He may not do ***t either, but I just have a hunch the Pack are going to give him an opportunity to be "the guy" and probably sooner than later. I've been wrong before, but I've been right too. We'll see how it plays out. He's on my squad for sure in a wait and see mode.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

It's probabilities my young ffballer.1st rounders odds of panning out are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then 6th rounders.6th rounders are longshots, my comment was very relevant, starks would be an exception to the rule. That doesn't mean he's hopeless, but a longshot he is.

to a certain extent. But opportunity matters a helluva lot more. And right now there is an open window of opportunity in GB.

 

[packersfan]

My take is this:They didn't pick up a RB in a trade when it was pretty clear it was a need. Not their only need, I get that, but a definite need nonetheless. Maybe Starks is the reason why. I admittedly don't know squat about him other than what I've read on various message boards, but the fact the Packers stood pat at the RB position was telling IMO.

I think it said much more about Thompson's inability to close a major deal than it says about Starks. The Packers were talking to the Bills about a Lynch trade but Thompson couldn't pull the trigger. There was a report that the Packers reached out to the Cowboys too about Marion Barber although that was probably more a case of due diligence than anything. However, the fact they were looking at Lynch and at least pondering Barber strongly suggests they are aware they need an upgrade at RB. I'd also again post what I've posted in other Starks threads that Mort reported that the Packers' coaches, scouts and many players were unhappy that Thompson couldn't close the Lynch deal. If Starks was the missing piece to the puzzle, why would the coaches and scouts be upset about the non-Lynch trade? The fact is nobody has the slightest idea what this kid can do. Obviously Thompson likes him or else he wouldn't have drafted him but it's not like Thompson's draft work has been exceptional. He's made a large number of mistakes with his picks. I'm not ruling out Starks for this season or beyond but he has a lot of ground to make up just to get on the field and I do not for a second believe Thompson's inability to trade for Lynch was due to his belief in Starks. Thompson's track record strongly indicates that was simply yet another example where he failed to close the deal for a proven veteran.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

We all know there's alot more to being an NFL rb than speed, cutting and hands. This is a rookie. Who had no training camp. Who hasn't been in live action since 2008. Whose bio says pass protection is a a weakness. He played rb for a small school for less than 3 full seasons and was a hs qb. They are going to trust him to help and protect Aaron Rogers ? I just don't see it, not this season at least.

 

[T J]

My take is this:They didn't pick up a RB in a trade when it was pretty clear it was a need. Not their only need, I get that, but a definite need nonetheless. Maybe Starks is the reason why. I admittedly don't know squat about him other than what I've read on various message boards, but the fact the Packers stood pat at the RB position was telling IMO.

I think it said much more about Thompson's inability to close a major deal than it says about Starks. The Packers were talking to the Bills about a Lynch trade but Thompson couldn't pull the trigger. There was a report that the Packers reached out to the Cowboys too about Marion Barber although that was probably more a case of due diligence than anything. However, the fact they were looking at Lynch and at least pondering Barber strongly suggests they are aware they need an upgrade at RB. I'd also again post what I've posted in other Starks threads that Mort reported that the Packers' coaches, scouts and many players were unhappy that Thompson couldn't close the Lynch deal. If Starks was the missing piece to the puzzle, why would the coaches and scouts be upset about the non-Lynch trade? The fact is nobody has the slightest idea what this kid can do. Obviously Thompson likes him or else he wouldn't have drafted him but it's not like Thompson's draft work has been exceptional. He's made a large number of mistakes with his picks. I'm not ruling out Starks for this season or beyond but he has a lot of ground to make up just to get on the field and I do not for a second believe Thompson's inability to trade for Lynch was due to his belief in Starks. Thompson's track record strongly indicates that was simply yet another example where he failed to close the deal for a proven veteran.

Fair enough, but I do disagree with you on why Thompson didn't pull off the trade. I think this is exactly why. He believes Starks can be the RB.

 

[packersfan]

My take is this:They didn't pick up a RB in a trade when it was pretty clear it was a need. Not their only need, I get that, but a definite need nonetheless. Maybe Starks is the reason why. I admittedly don't know squat about him other than what I've read on various message boards, but the fact the Packers stood pat at the RB position was telling IMO.

I think it said much more about Thompson's inability to close a major deal than it says about Starks. The Packers were talking to the Bills about a Lynch trade but Thompson couldn't pull the trigger. There was a report that the Packers reached out to the Cowboys too about Marion Barber although that was probably more a case of due diligence than anything. However, the fact they were looking at Lynch and at least pondering Barber strongly suggests they are aware they need an upgrade at RB. I'd also again post what I've posted in other Starks threads that Mort reported that the Packers' coaches, scouts and many players were unhappy that Thompson couldn't close the Lynch deal. If Starks was the missing piece to the puzzle, why would the coaches and scouts be upset about the non-Lynch trade? The fact is nobody has the slightest idea what this kid can do. Obviously Thompson likes him or else he wouldn't have drafted him but it's not like Thompson's draft work has been exceptional. He's made a large number of mistakes with his picks. I'm not ruling out Starks for this season or beyond but he has a lot of ground to make up just to get on the field and I do not for a second believe Thompson's inability to trade for Lynch was due to his belief in Starks. Thompson's track record strongly indicates that was simply yet another example where he failed to close the deal for a proven veteran.

Fair enough, but I do disagree with you on why Thompson didn't pull off the trade. I think this is exactly why. He believes Starks can be the RB.

Then he's taking one hell of a risk that had better pay off because right now he's looking like a fool in my opinion for depriving the Packers of the opportunity to address their most glaring need and enhance their Super Bowl aspirations.

 

[T J]

My take is this:They didn't pick up a RB in a trade when it was pretty clear it was a need. Not their only need, I get that, but a definite need nonetheless. Maybe Starks is the reason why. I admittedly don't know squat about him other than what I've read on various message boards, but the fact the Packers stood pat at the RB position was telling IMO.

I think it said much more about Thompson's inability to close a major deal than it says about Starks. The Packers were talking to the Bills about a Lynch trade but Thompson couldn't pull the trigger. There was a report that the Packers reached out to the Cowboys too about Marion Barber although that was probably more a case of due diligence than anything. However, the fact they were looking at Lynch and at least pondering Barber strongly suggests they are aware they need an upgrade at RB. I'd also again post what I've posted in other Starks threads that Mort reported that the Packers' coaches, scouts and many players were unhappy that Thompson couldn't close the Lynch deal. If Starks was the missing piece to the puzzle, why would the coaches and scouts be upset about the non-Lynch trade? The fact is nobody has the slightest idea what this kid can do. Obviously Thompson likes him or else he wouldn't have drafted him but it's not like Thompson's draft work has been exceptional. He's made a large number of mistakes with his picks. I'm not ruling out Starks for this season or beyond but he has a lot of ground to make up just to get on the field and I do not for a second believe Thompson's inability to trade for Lynch was due to his belief in Starks. Thompson's track record strongly indicates that was simply yet another example where he failed to close the deal for a proven veteran.

Fair enough, but I do disagree with you on why Thompson didn't pull off the trade. I think this is exactly why. He believes Starks can be the RB.

Then he's taking one hell of a risk that had better pay off because right now he's looking like a fool in my opinion for depriving the Packers of the opportunity to address their most glaring need and enhance their Super Bowl aspirations.

On that, I agree completely. I thought he was nuts not dealing for someone. Team is built to win now.

 

[moderated]

My take is this:They didn't pick up a RB in a trade when it was pretty clear it was a need. Not their only need, I get that, but a definite need nonetheless. Maybe Starks is the reason why. I admittedly don't know squat about him other than what I've read on various message boards, but the fact the Packers stood pat at the RB position was telling IMO.

I think it said much more about Thompson's inability to close a major deal than it says about Starks. The Packers were talking to the Bills about a Lynch trade but Thompson couldn't pull the trigger. There was a report that the Packers reached out to the Cowboys too about Marion Barber although that was probably more a case of due diligence than anything. However, the fact they were looking at Lynch and at least pondering Barber strongly suggests they are aware they need an upgrade at RB. I'd also again post what I've posted in other Starks threads that Mort reported that the Packers' coaches, scouts and many players were unhappy that Thompson couldn't close the Lynch deal. If Starks was the missing piece to the puzzle, why would the coaches and scouts be upset about the non-Lynch trade? The fact is nobody has the slightest idea what this kid can do. Obviously Thompson likes him or else he wouldn't have drafted him but it's not like Thompson's draft work has been exceptional. He's made a large number of mistakes with his picks. I'm not ruling out Starks for this season or beyond but he has a lot of ground to make up just to get on the field and I do not for a second believe Thompson's inability to trade for Lynch was due to his belief in Starks. Thompson's track record strongly indicates that was simply yet another example where he failed to close the deal for a proven veteran.

Fair enough, but I do disagree with you on why Thompson didn't pull off the trade. I think this is exactly why. He believes Starks can be the RB.

If thompson's reason for not upgrading the rb spot was due to having a 6th round pick who hasn't played in over a year then he would be a fool. He's not a fool and starks was likely not even much of an afterthought as to why he didn't work harder on a trade.Starks probably won't even get on the 53 man roster this year.The shark pools Ben Gay 2.0

 

[T J]

My take is this:They didn't pick up a RB in a trade when it was pretty clear it was a need. Not their only need, I get that, but a definite need nonetheless. Maybe Starks is the reason why. I admittedly don't know squat about him other than what I've read on various message boards, but the fact the Packers stood pat at the RB position was telling IMO.

I think it said much more about Thompson's inability to close a major deal than it says about Starks. The Packers were talking to the Bills about a Lynch trade but Thompson couldn't pull the trigger. There was a report that the Packers reached out to the Cowboys too about Marion Barber although that was probably more a case of due diligence than anything. However, the fact they were looking at Lynch and at least pondering Barber strongly suggests they are aware they need an upgrade at RB. I'd also again post what I've posted in other Starks threads that Mort reported that the Packers' coaches, scouts and many players were unhappy that Thompson couldn't close the Lynch deal. If Starks was the missing piece to the puzzle, why would the coaches and scouts be upset about the non-Lynch trade? The fact is nobody has the slightest idea what this kid can do. Obviously Thompson likes him or else he wouldn't have drafted him but it's not like Thompson's draft work has been exceptional. He's made a large number of mistakes with his picks. I'm not ruling out Starks for this season or beyond but he has a lot of ground to make up just to get on the field and I do not for a second believe Thompson's inability to trade for Lynch was due to his belief in Starks. Thompson's track record strongly indicates that was simply yet another example where he failed to close the deal for a proven veteran.

Fair enough, but I do disagree with you on why Thompson didn't pull off the trade. I think this is exactly why. He believes Starks can be the RB.

If thompson's reason for not upgrading the rb spot was due to having a 6th round pick who hasn't played in over a year then he would be a fool. He's not a fool and starks was likely not even much of an afterthought as to why he didn't work harder on a trade.Starks probably won't even get on the 53 man roster this year.The shark pools Ben Gay 2.0

Like I said.....

 

[falcoatl]

LATEST JAMES "TONY" STARKS UPDATEPackers RB James Starks (hamstring), CB Al Harris (knee), and S Atari Bigby (ankle) have not been ruled out for Sunday's Week 7 game against Minnesota.All three are expected to return to practice Wednesday, though the Green Bay Press-Gazette expects Starks to be the furthest away from finding the field on gameday. Starks is worth a stash in deep leagues, while Harris and Bigby figure to upgrade the Packers' 17th ranked pass defense.Source: Green Bay Press-GazetteRelated: Al Harris, Atari BigbyI say we nickname this guy "Ironman".....why not?

Its Tony Stark not Starks. Seems like a pretty contrived nickname.

I betcha Chris Berman calls him James "Tony" Starks on his highlights!- all nicknames are contrived

Doesn't mean other people should do it too... Its not like those names catch on elsewhere. All nicknames are not contrived. Usually there's something relevant to that person that leads to the name. This is just ridiculously forced. ONE part of his name sounds similar to a comic book character. They don't even share similarities besides that.

 

[gradin123]

According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel James Starks was NOT activated from the PUP List today!

If this is true it doesn't bode well at all for his chances to contribute at all this year.

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/105315683.html