Starks Re-signed [Archive]

pbmax

03-18-2016, 09:14 AM

Tom Silverstein ‏@TomSilverstein 16m16 minutes ago
The deal #Packers RB James Starks agreed to is for two years.

Ian Rapoport ‏@RapSheet 17m17 minutes ago
The #Packers and RB James Starks reached an agreement for him to return, as @caplannfl said. It's 2 years for $6M, source said.

Not bad for Starks. What is the veteran minimum?

Patler

03-18-2016, 09:18 AM

$885,000 in 2016 for 7-9 year vets.

HarveyWallbangers

03-18-2016, 09:49 AM

How much money left on the cap? We need about $5M for rookies and TT always carries an extra $2M-$3M to get him through the season. I think the money has almost run out.

pbmax

03-18-2016, 10:05 AM

$15 million+ before Starks.

HarveyWallbangers

03-18-2016, 10:42 AM

$15 million+ before Starks.

Assuming not much funny money in Starks deal, that leaves around $12M. That leaves about $4-5M to play with (the rest will be used on the rookies and a buffer going into the season).

Bretsky

03-18-2016, 08:35 PM

Good news; I guess. I guess I've become fairly non committal on Starks. It seems like there are always RB's out there to find.

Tony Oday

03-18-2016, 08:37 PM

Weird. First time ever that I bought a jersey and the guy came back.

pittstang5

03-18-2016, 08:46 PM

I hope our new RB coach can help cure his fumblitis.

Maybe he should wear those arm pads that Ahman Green used to wear....whether it was actually physical or mental...they did help.

woodbuck27

03-18-2016, 10:00 PM

Assuming not much funny money in Starks deal, that leaves around $12M. That leaves about $4-5M to play with (the rest will be used on the rookies and a buffer going into the season).

http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/5823/james-starks

" ...Packers re-signed RB James Starks to a two-year, $6 million contract.

Starks visited the Patriots last week and also had been talking with the Dolphins in recent days. But he's coming back as the 1B to Eddie Lacy's 1A. If Lacy doesn't come back in 2016 in better shape than he was last season, Starks obviously could be in for a larger role with Lacy in a contract year... "

gbgary

03-18-2016, 10:52 PM

since they didn't do anything to get better at the position they pretty much had to sign him.

Pugger

03-19-2016, 12:13 AM

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/free-agents/running-back/

Pugger

03-19-2016, 12:15 AM

since they didn't do anything to get better at the position they pretty much had to sign him.

To me his signing is just insurance. I have a feeling we'll draft a RB in one of later the rounds next month.

Patler

03-19-2016, 08:49 AM

I am a little surprised at the size of this contract. Almost twice what he got in the last contract. In 2014 he signed for two years $3.25 million. This one, 2 years $6 million.

esoxx

03-19-2016, 10:09 AM

I am a little surprised at the size of this contract. Almost twice what he got in the last contract. In 2014 he signed for two years $3.25 million. This one, 2 years $6 million.

And with the late season rash of fumbles and hitting age 3O, a time when a lot of running backs start to slide, the amount is indeed surprising.

Patler

03-19-2016, 11:02 AM

The fumbles don't concern me that much....yet. It was one bad stretch of 5 games in a six year career. It doesn't necessarily define who he is as a player right now.

I don't think age is an issues as much as carries for running backs, and Starks hasn't had a lot of wear and tear in that regard.

Maxie the Taxi

03-19-2016, 11:36 AM

Whether it's Starks or Lacy in the backfield on a regular basis, we really need to draft a FAST, scatback-type who has good hands and a knack for running routes out of the backfield, especially on third downs and in the Red Zone. Maybe Crockett is that guy. Let's draft a guy to compete with him. There are several prospects in the later rounds (Ervin, Smallwood, etc.)

gbgary

03-19-2016, 01:26 PM

I am a little surprised at the size of this contract. Almost twice what he got in the last contract. In 2014 he signed for two years $3.25 million. This one, 2 years $6 million.

it's the market. think about it...almost NOTHING gets cheaper.

run pMc

03-19-2016, 01:39 PM

I would imagine the numbers are inflated by incentives. I agree with Maxie and Pugger about drafting another back, preferably one with speed and receiving skills.

Patler

03-19-2016, 08:26 PM

it's the market. think about it...almost NOTHING gets cheaper.

Didn't expect he would be cheaper, but I didn't expect it to double in just two years. When I heard he signed, I thought maybe $2M/year.

esoxx

03-19-2016, 09:20 PM

Didn't expect he would be cheaper, but I didn't expect it to double in just two years. When I heard he signed, I thought maybe $2M/year.

Running backs are a dime a dozen nowadays. I'll wait to see the guarantees involved but at first glance they overpaid.

Passing league.

Bossman641

03-19-2016, 10:11 PM

Didn't expect he would be cheaper, but I didn't expect it to double in just two years. When I heard he signed, I thought maybe $2M/year.

Agreed. I like Starks but it's a strange signing. I'd prefer a committed Lacy+Crocket/mid to low round pick+speed guy

Fritz

03-20-2016, 09:46 AM

Agreed. I like Starks but it's a strange signing. I'd prefer a committed Lacy+Crocket/mid to low round pick+speed guy

I don't doubt at all the sincerity of your view, but had Thompson not re-signed Starks, the amount of bitching on this site (Ted doesn't care he just thinks he can pick up a draft pick in the sixth round and plug him in, he's letting Rodgers's SB window close, what is he saving the damn money for?) would have been unbelievable.

I think it's very difficult to be an NFL GM. That's probably the bottom line.

I am good with the signing - one less position to worry about - but I agree with you that a speed/hands RB later on would be really nice.

Maxie the Taxi

03-20-2016, 10:30 AM

I don't doubt at all the sincerity of your view, but had Thompson not re-signed Starks, the amount of bitching on this site (Ted doesn't care he just thinks he can pick up a draft pick in the sixth round and plug him in, he's letting Rodgers's SB window close, what is he saving the damn money for?) would have been unbelievable.

I think it's very difficult to be an NFL GM. That's probably the bottom line.

I am good with the signing - one less position to worry about - but I agree with you that a speed/hands RB later on would be really nice.The "amount of bitching on this site" shouldn't be the measuring stick for anything except the length of dog turds.:lol:

pbmax

03-20-2016, 10:34 AM

Starks has become, despite all early indications, a pretty good 3rd down back. He somehow has learned to read Rodgers on screens, his hands have improved (not League best but OK), he can block and obviously is an effective runner, if not a speedster who gets the corner.

If you wanted to carry only two RBs, outside of the otherworldly durable Darren Spoles, Starks is a good fit to handle 3rd downs and be the emergency starter. You can then go rookie or developmental guy as 3rd RB or PS and hope to strike gold.

3irty1

03-20-2016, 10:48 AM

This makes me feel much better. After last season I don't feel comfortable putting all the eggs in the Lacy basket no matter how good of shape he's in. Starks is a legitimate runner who can split the load. His decisive drag race running style seems to compliment Lacy's tough yards when they alternate drives. I disagree about him being much of a third down back though. I prefer Lacy, he seems much better at picking up blitzers which is about the most important thing asked of a 3rd down back in MM's offense. Overall I like the alternating drives approach where both men are 3 down backs.

George Cumby

03-20-2016, 12:10 PM

Ted pays for loyalty and results. It sends a powerful message to all. This isn't lost on the young 'uns on the squad.

Need to draft that shifty, scat back with good hands, though......

Patler

03-20-2016, 12:29 PM

Agreed. I like Starks but it's a strange signing. I'd prefer a committed Lacy+Crocket/mid to low round pick+speed guy

I don't think it is strange bringing him back. In fact, I fully expected they would bring him back. I just expected it would be a bit cheaper than $3M/year. More like $2M, which would have been a decent increase over his last two year contract. But, at just two years, it is an easy contract for the team to handle.

pbmax

03-20-2016, 12:40 PM

He had a dumb, desperate suitor. The Dolphins:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/03/18/dolphins-were-talking-to-james-starks-still-looking-for-a-runner/

pbmax

03-20-2016, 12:41 PM

Too much FA says Ted doubter:

Tim Lanzhammer ‏@lanzhammer Mar 18
@caplannfl sucks. Between Lacy & my man Crockett/4th rounder pick this draft we were set. Starks is wasted $. Uncle Teddy is drunk.

pbmax

03-20-2016, 12:48 PM

Aaron Wilson ‏@AaronWilson_NFL Mar 18
James Starks Packers deal 6M, 1.5M bonus, salaries 1.1M, 2.6M, 18,750 per game annual active bonus, 600K Pro Bowl rush yards incentive ann.

You would need the proverbial dead working gal or a live boy to get Starks off the team this year.

Or maybe not. With $300,000 (presumably) game active bonus, he would be $100,000 dead money this year.

gbgary

03-20-2016, 02:03 PM

Running backs are a dime a dozen nowadays. I'll wait to see the guarantees involved but at first glance they overpaid.

Passing league.

true it's a passing league but you've got to have a good back(s). dallas and the Packers are good examples. both teams suffered offensively because they lost the passing half of their offense and the backs couldn't do much to make up for it because they were substandard. they lost murray and we had a less than optimal Lacy and injured o-line.