"Packers See James Starks As Possible Future Starter" (1 Viewer)

[Toads]

News Articles > Packers | See James Starks as possible future starter Published Tue Jul 27 4:39:58 p.m. MT 2010

(KFFL) The Green Bay Packers see RB James Starks a possible successor to RB Ryan Grant as the team's starting running back, reports Pete Dougherty, of the Green Bay Press-Gazette. Starks may see playing time this season.

Gotta Love that....being "The Annointed One" and all.

There's a long ways to go from 6th rounder to "PFS."

 

[Avery]

I'd like to get excited but this seems like baseless pre-camp fodder.

It seems extremely vague as if Dougherty asked a Packers coach of FO person about Starks and they said, "Sure we like him. He could be possibly be a starter in the future." Are they supposed to say that their rookie draft pick has no chance of ever being a starter?

 

[Multiple Scores]

It's that time of year again. Time for the little fluff pieces!

 

[B. Nugget]

It's that time of year again. Time for the little fluff pieces!

It is obviously a puff piece, but Grant's contract will probably have him out of GB after next year, right Packers fans?I don't have the exact number, but I believe he will be owed $11 million+ in 2012.

 

[by_the_sea_wannabe]

Just wait until Spike throws him into the sun like he did the last one.

 

[moderated]

100% of players drafted are "possible" future starters.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

As if they would say anything to lower one of their players value.

Grant produces, and unless he gets hurt or they pull in a first round quality back, he will be the back for the next couple years (even if franchised its just 6million). End of story.

 

[B. Nugget]

As if they would say anything to lower one of their players value.Grant produces, and unless he gets hurt or they pull in a first round quality back, he will be the back for the next couple years (even if franchised its just 6million). End of story.

The article couldn't be pulled up from the Milwaukee paper, but here is the snippet from February about Grant's contract in 2011. I was mistaken about the $11 million, but it specifically mentions $9 million.Ryan Grant has escalators in his contract that the Packers likely won't want to pay in 2011.Grant has a roster bonus based on cumulative yardage that could add $2M or $4M to his pay in 2011. For example, if he rushes for 1,253 yards again in 2010, he'd be set to earn $5M in base salary, a $2M roster bonus and another $2M in bonuses he's already scheduled for. As beat writer Pete Dougherty points out, the Packers would probably work out a long-term deal, ask him to take a pay cut or release Grant before paying him $9M in 2011.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

It's that time of year again. Time for the little fluff pieces!

I agree, but it's good to see my boy Toads in here posting again.Waddup Toads?

 

[Alex P Keaton]

As if they would say anything to lower one of their players value.Grant produces, and unless he gets hurt or they pull in a first round quality back, he will be the back for the next couple years (even if franchised its just 6million). End of story.

The article couldn't be pulled up from the Milwaukee paper, but here is the snippet from February about Grant's contract in 2011. I was mistaken about the $11 million, but it specifically mentions $9 million.Ryan Grant has escalators in his contract that the Packers likely won't want to pay in 2011.Grant has a roster bonus based on cumulative yardage that could add $2M or $4M to his pay in 2011. For example, if he rushes for 1,253 yards again in 2010, he'd be set to earn $5M in base salary, a $2M roster bonus and another $2M in bonuses he's already scheduled for. As beat writer Pete Dougherty points out, the Packers would probably work out a long-term deal, ask him to take a pay cut or release Grant before paying him $9M in 2011.

Sure, if Grant is set to earn $9M in 2011 the Pack will have a tough decision. But as you point out above, it's not clear whether the Pack would a) cut Grant, or b) re-work his contract. Those 2 outcomes would have a very different impact on the potential for Starks to start in 2011.

 

[B. Nugget]

As if they would say anything to lower one of their players value.Grant produces, and unless he gets hurt or they pull in a first round quality back, he will be the back for the next couple years (even if franchised its just 6million). End of story.

The article couldn't be pulled up from the Milwaukee paper, but here is the snippet from February about Grant's contract in 2011. I was mistaken about the $11 million, but it specifically mentions $9 million.Ryan Grant has escalators in his contract that the Packers likely won't want to pay in 2011.Grant has a roster bonus based on cumulative yardage that could add $2M or $4M to his pay in 2011. For example, if he rushes for 1,253 yards again in 2010, he'd be set to earn $5M in base salary, a $2M roster bonus and another $2M in bonuses he's already scheduled for. As beat writer Pete Dougherty points out, the Packers would probably work out a long-term deal, ask him to take a pay cut or release Grant before paying him $9M in 2011.

Sure, if Grant is set to earn $9M in 2011 the Pack will have a tough decision. But as you point out above, it's not clear whether the Pack would a) cut Grant, or b) re-work his contract. Those 2 outcomes would have a very different impact on the potential for Starks to start in 2011.

Agreed...2 totally different outcomes could come out of that for Starks.Just for clarification, those weren't my words, it was a snippet from Rotoworld taken from a Milwaukee newspaper in Feb.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

As if they would say anything to lower one of their players value.Grant produces, and unless he gets hurt or they pull in a first round quality back, he will be the back for the next couple years (even if franchised its just 6million). End of story.

The article couldn't be pulled up from the Milwaukee paper, but here is the snippet from February about Grant's contract in 2011. I was mistaken about the $11 million, but it specifically mentions $9 million.Ryan Grant has escalators in his contract that the Packers likely won't want to pay in 2011.Grant has a roster bonus based on cumulative yardage that could add $2M or $4M to his pay in 2011. For example, if he rushes for 1,253 yards again in 2010, he'd be set to earn $5M in base salary, a $2M roster bonus and another $2M in bonuses he's already scheduled for. As beat writer Pete Dougherty points out, the Packers would probably work out a long-term deal, ask him to take a pay cut or release Grant before paying him $9M in 2011.

Sure, if Grant is set to earn $9M in 2011 the Pack will have a tough decision. But as you point out above, it's not clear whether the Pack would a) cut Grant, or b) re-work his contract. Those 2 outcomes would have a very different impact on the potential for Starks to start in 2011.

Agreed...2 totally different outcomes could come out of that for Starks.Just for clarification, those weren't my words, it was a snippet from Rotoworld taken from a Milwaukee newspaper in Feb.

Got it, makes sense. Thx for clarifying.

 

[Go deep]

As if they would say anything to lower one of their players value.

Grant produces, and unless he gets hurt or they pull in a first round quality back, he will be the back for the next couple years (even if franchised its just 6million). End of story.

The article couldn't be pulled up from the Milwaukee paper, but here is the snippet from February about Grant's contract in 2011. I was mistaken about the $11 million, but it specifically mentions $9 million.Ryan Grant has escalators in his contract that the Packers likely won't want to pay in 2011.

Grant has a roster bonus based on cumulative yardage that could add $2M or $4M to his pay in 2011. For example, if he rushes for 1,253 yards again in 2010, he'd be set to earn $5M in base salary, a $2M roster bonus and another $2M in bonuses he's already scheduled for. As beat writer Pete Dougherty points out, the Packers would probably work out a long-term deal, ask him to take a pay cut or release Grant before paying him $9M in 2011.

Sure, if Grant is set to earn $9M in 2011 the Pack will have a tough decision. But as you point out above, it's not clear whether the Pack would a) cut Grant, or b) re-work his contract. Those 2 outcomes would have a very different impact on the potential for Starks to start in 2011.

I think what happens to Grant after this season might depend on how Starks looks/plays. I for one am a believer and was before he was drafted by the Packers(a great spot to go for a RB).

I think Starks will be the man by 2011.

 

[GOroute]

Sparks can play. Injury at end of college took him down board. watch this kid. sleeper potential. maybe not this yr but very soon.

 

[rodgers65]

If Grant has another season of 1100+ yards and 10+ TDs, behind that offensive line, the Packers would be idiots not to extend him. That is, assuming he's not looking for a mega-contract...

 

[Ariakis]

So how do you guys rank him vs. the tier of rookie RB's now that we're closer to it counting? Dixon, Gerhart, Dwyer, Scott, etc?

 

[JohnnyU]

So how do you guys rank him vs. the tier of rookie RB's now that we're closer to it counting? Dixon, Gerhart, Dwyer, Scott, etc?

My guess is that most will rank him better than all those RBs because of the current hype. I would rank them as followswyer - Even though I'm having a hard time getting the combine out of my mind, I basing this on his entire body of work in collegeScottStarksGerhartDixon

 

[Go deep]

So how do you guys rank him vs. the tier of rookie RB's now that we're closer to it counting? Dixon, Gerhart, Dwyer, Scott, etc?

GerhartStarksDwyerDixonScott

 

[Nero]

I think Starks, Dixon, and Gerhart are close. Starks gets the edge because he is closer to getting an opportunity(especially in PPR). Being stuck behind AD hurts Gerhart tremendously IMO if you don't own Peterson.

So its

Starks

Dixon

Gerhart

Scott and Dwyer are slugs IMO.

 

[Ariakis]

IMO Gerhart is a tier above ... will play some and if ADP gets hurt (he's due) he'll be a top 20 RB in that offense. Not sure I can say that about any of the others although Starks and Dwyer probably tie for the next best opportunity if Grant or Mendy go down. Again, the #1's in front of them none are old. Not buying Scott because he just doesn't fit the offense so I'll put Dixon above him since Coffee isn't going away I don't see him as a clear threat either again behind another RB not past his prime.

 

[packer23fan]

I believe he can become a starter within a couple of seasons. The only thing he needs to do is stay healthy. If he stays healthy, he can help the Packers alot running the ball.

 

[BigJim®]

I believe he can become a starter within a couple of seasons. The only thing he needs to do is stay healthy. If he stays healthy, he can help the Packers alot running and catching the ball.

Fixed. 105 receptions over 3 seasons (52 in his last season played) is pretty impressive for a college RB.
, he certainly looks like an all purpose RB.

 

[cr8f]

Are you ranking opportunity or talent?

 

[Righetti]

what is the latest update on Starks?

 

[sho nuff]

what is the latest update on Starks?

IR or PUP at the least, stash him on the practice squad maybe?

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

what is the latest update on Starks?

IR or PUP at the least, stash him on the practice squad maybe?

probably be out of the league by next camp

 

[ang12]

Tuesday extra point: Starks can’t be counted out Posted by Mike Vandermause August 24th, 2010, 10:50 am James Starks hasn’t participated in a single training camp rep. He is 0 for 20 in terms of practice participation. He is nursing a hamstring injury that cropped up during offseason workouts and hasn’t been able to get on the field.Yet for all that down time, Starks incredibly still remains in position to make a contribution to the Packers this season.For all the clichés about not being able to make the club in the tub and football being all about availability and accountability, Starks could still make an impact.There is no exact timetable for his return, although he said he’s hopeful it will be soon. In his absence, it appeared rookie free agent Quinn Porter was making major inroads on the No. 3 running back job behind Ryan Grant and Brandon Jackson.But Porter went down with an ankle injury Saturday night against the Seahawks, and Kregg Lumpkin has been sidelined with a hamstring problem as well.So that leaves the door slightly ajar for Starks to still make the final 53-man roster. The Packers were hoping the sixth-round draft choice out of Buffalo, who missed his senior season due to a shoulder injury, would return to the gridiron with a vengeance. It hasn’t happened yet.“It’s been a disappointment that James hasn’t been able to go,” said General Manager Ted Thompson this morning.When asked whether Starks could still be ready for the start of the regular season, Thompson said: “I don’t know that. I don’t know where we are there.”Perhaps the Packers’ most likely option for Starks would involve putting him on the physically unable to perform list (PUP) to open the season. He would then be eligible to play in six weeks. It basically would buy Starks some time, which is what he needs most right now.It’s conceivable the Packers could use fullback John Kuhn as the No. 3 halfback in the meantime, although that would leave them perilously thin at the position. Or Porter, assuming he returns soon, could get a trial run.There’s no way the Packers would cut Starks outright. They liked what they saw of his potential in college and want to give him the chance to display it at the pro level. The worst-case scenario for Starks would be landing on the injured reserve list, which would force him to miss the entire season and in effect be three years removed from the football field when he returns next season.If Starks gets his hamstring right, don’t be surprised to see him on the roster in late October.

 

[rodgers65]

Ted Thompson lost two players last year, including Tyrell Sutton, trying to stash them on the practice squad. Hopefully he learned his lesson. But I'd be surprised if any other team would take a chance on a wounded duck like Starks.

 

[BigJim®]

Looks like possibly light at the end of the tunnel with Starks. Just found this blurb from August 23 in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.

Meanwhile, running back James Starks said he is less than a week from returning. He suffered a hamstring injury in May, aggravated it July 30 during a conditioning run and has been out since then."I should be back soon," said Starks. "I don't even think two weeks. I'm very close."Starks said he has been running full speed under the guidance of the training staff. He added that the hamstring has not been catching at all recently.

Hopefully this means he won't be put on IR?

 

[sho nuff]

He better hurry.

Lumpkin looked decent last night and he has a chance still with Porter getting dinged up last night.

Seems like a possible practice squad guy til he can get healthy...eligible for PUP?

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

On PUP

 

[Judge Ito]

What's the dynasty play w/ Starks? Hold and see what happens, or go ahead and cut bait? Very difficult to evaluate or get a read on a guy who hasn't participated in mini camps or training camp since May.

 

[BigJim®]

Meh, I prefer PUP because it indicates they might get him out there later in the year. Even though IR would clear a dynasty owner's roster spot (for leagues that use IR) it would stink to lose an entire year with a rookie if it is not completely needed.

 

[sho nuff]

Meh, I prefer PUP because it indicates they might get him out there later in the year. Even though IR would clear a dynasty owner's roster spot (for leagues that use IR) it would stink to lose an entire year with a rookie if it is not completely needed.

I think they like him a lot and hope he will be able to push Lumpkin out when he comes back.