Ray_T 604 Posted March 18, 2016 6 mil over 2 years. as per NFL.com. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rholio 339 Posted March 18, 2016 Decent money for Starks, more than I thought he'd get. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
weepaws 2,517 Posted March 18, 2016 3 mil a season , how the heck do they expect him to eat on change like that . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Djgb13 2,338 Posted March 19, 2016 He did do better than the other back they had there Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
weepaws 2,517 Posted March 19, 2016 I'm not to sure he was better than the other back , Starks a avg 4.1 yards per rush and so did Lacy . Starks had one 100 yard game , and Lacy had 3 Starks avg 8.1 points per game in non ppr and Lacy avg 8.3 in non ppr . I would not say he was better . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
petekrum 20 Posted March 19, 2016 Starks is a nickel trying to be a dime. No threat to Lacy, simply backup fodder. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
murf74 461 Posted March 19, 2016 Starks is a nickel trying to be a dime. No threat to Lacy, simply backup fodder. Unless you actually watch the 2 backs play Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Too Loud 5 Posted March 19, 2016 Unless you actually watch the 2 backs play i watched Lacy play in 2013 and 2014 he looked good until he got fat. i saw some pictures that says he isnt fat anymore. so i will take the talent here and thats not starks. this signing tells em they have a lot of belief in lacy. starks is a terrific back up and change of pace who can take on more carries but is not more talented than lacy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
petekrum 20 Posted March 19, 2016 Unless you actually watch the 2 backs play They obviously watched enough of Starks to use a high pick on Lacy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
murf74 461 Posted March 19, 2016 They obviously watched enough of Starks to use a high pick on Lacy. And then essentially employ a 2 back system. Lacy apologists crack me up Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted March 28, 2016 And then essentially employ a 2 back system. Lacy apologists crack me up Not an apologist...fan of both.Starks is not a starter. He is a complimentary back. He has shown that many times. He can have success in spurts but isn't someone they want to carry the load. Lacy has gotten in better shape (it looks like) and even when big, also showed he too can do well with screens and a few other passes out of the backfield. At worst for Lacy (barring injury) its 60/40 split and I'd say it ends up closer to 70/30. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Too Loud 5 Posted March 28, 2016 And then essentially employ a 2 back system. Lacy apologists crack me up people who love starks all of a sudden after years of mediocrity crack me up. did they employ the 2 back system in 2013 and 2014? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
murf74 461 Posted March 30, 2016 people who love starks all of a sudden after years of mediocrity crack me up. did they employ the 2 back system in 2013 and 2014? Who loves Starks? Mularky seemed to last year. I just can't believe people can ignore the fact that Lacy stunk last year and about half of the previous year. It's more than weight. Heck he might be worse at a lower weight as he fails to truck people over which is really his only move. Losing weight won't give him any moves. He is a good back if you have a good hole, well most are. I don't trust him. He always has a nagging injury. The Packers like to pass a lot at the goalline or run Kuhn or Rodgers too. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ray_T 604 Posted March 30, 2016 people who love starks all of a sudden after years of mediocrity crack me up. did they employ the 2 back system in 2013 and 2014? Starks isnt a starter anymore. (not sure he was ever durable enough to be a true #1 guy... at best, he was more of a 1A type back) and No they did not employ the 2 back system in those years and I dont see that happening now unless Lacy shows up to camp fat. (I've heard hes lost a lot of weight, so I'm not betting on it) I think Starks is only there because the pack arent happy with Lacy's shape & size and to motovate Lacy, I am guessing they want at least a somewhat credible threat to replace him on the roster. Starks is also getting on in age. I wouldnt be surprised if the Pack spend a 3rd or 4th round pick to draft someone to compete with Starks for the #2 job with the thought that Starks would be likely replaced by this time next year. Bottom line, this is only a fantasy relevant signing if Lacy drops the ball and shows up to camp fat. I dont see that happening. at best, you can use him to handcuff Lacy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
petekrum 20 Posted March 31, 2016 Have faith in Starks, 5-8 teams need RBs too. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
weepaws 2,517 Posted March 31, 2016 Animals don't understand death , so how does a boar love life ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ray_T 604 Posted March 31, 2016 Have faith in Starks, 5-8 teams need RBs too. they could have signed Starks if they wanted him bad enough. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
weepaws 2,517 Posted March 31, 2016 If Lacy has a stud season , we won't even recall that Starks is his back up . 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ray_T 604 Posted March 31, 2016 If Lacy has a stud season , we won't even recall that Starks is his back up . I couldnt agree more. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
