Green Bay Packers Forum
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline Mucky Tundra  
#1 Posted : Tuesday, October 1, 2013 6:25:18 AM(UTC)
JerseyAl said:
The Green Bay Packers announced on Monday that running back Michael Hill was signed off of the team's practice squad and to the 53-man roster.  Hill fills the roster spot that was vacated when the Packers released receiver/kick returner Jeremy Ross following the team's loss to the Cincinnati Bengals. Hill spent most of this year's training camp [...]


I wondered this as well when I heard that they signed a RB to the roster.
Sponsor
Online texaspackerbacker  
#2 Posted : Tuesday, October 1, 2013 6:34:06 AM(UTC)
Hopefully it's just a precaution, but last week showed that you need plenty of RBs on the active roster. With the hyper-caution about concussions, as well as the probable increase in leg injuries partially resulting from the emphasis on no hits to the head, a team can go from plenty of RBs to none in just a few plays. I'd even go so far as to cross-train several other position players as RBs at least minimally.
Offline sschind  
#3 Posted : Tuesday, October 1, 2013 6:43:12 AM(UTC)
Just caught a blurb from Tyler Dunne last night and he said he expected Starks to miss 3-4 weeks. He didn't say, or at least I didn't catch, what he based it on.
thanks Post received 1 applause.
nerdmann on 10/1/2013(UTC)
Offline yooperfan  
#4 Posted : Tuesday, October 1, 2013 7:44:33 AM(UTC)
sschind said: Go to Quoted Post
Just caught a blurb from Tyler Dunne last night and he said he expected Starks to miss 3-4 weeks. He didn't say, or at least I didn't catch, what he based it on.


Cut him.
There is no use for a player that spends most of his time in the rehab room.

Offline hardrocker950  
#5 Posted : Tuesday, October 1, 2013 8:05:09 AM(UTC)
yooperfan said: Go to Quoted Post
Cut him.
There is no use for a player that spends most of his time in the rehab room.



At this point that is hard to argue. Having a guy on IR on a regular basis hurts our roster. Cutting Starks would open a roster spot, but could give us issues in our depth at RB if he isn't going to miss more than a couple weeks.

I like the guy, but I am tired of seeing him in the injury report every season.](*,)
Offline Zero2Cool  
#6 Posted : Tuesday, October 1, 2013 8:16:44 AM(UTC)
He's typically only good for a handful of games consecutively. Slap him with the IR to return deal and gradually bring him back for the playoff push.
Offline Cheesey  
#7 Posted : Tuesday, October 1, 2013 10:50:04 AM(UTC)
It's a shame that Starks can't stay healthy.
When he is (on the rare occasion) he has shown that he has talent.
Online texaspackerbacker  
#8 Posted : Tuesday, October 1, 2013 11:59:57 AM(UTC)
I'm not as negative on Starks and the whole injury thing as I was previously. When it seemed like he was our only decent RB or whatever, then, yeah, it was a big deal when he was so disgustingly prone to injury. But now, with Lacy and Franklin, he can miss 3-4 weeks if that turns out to be true, then come in and play hard in mid-season, giving the others a little bit of a break or if one of them gets injured, and if he gets hurt again, no big deal - maybe he'd be back just in time for the late season run. Taking up a roster spot really isn't that big a deal, especially considering there are inactives out of the 53 each week anyway.
Offline nerdmann  
#9 Posted : Tuesday, October 1, 2013 12:46:54 PM(UTC)
texaspackerbacker said: Go to Quoted Post
I'm not as negative on Starks and the whole injury thing as I was previously. When it seemed like he was our only decent RB or whatever, then, yeah, it was a big deal when he was so disgustingly prone to injury. But now, with Lacy and Franklin, he can miss 3-4 weeks if that turns out to be true, then come in and play hard in mid-season, giving the others a little bit of a break or if one of them gets injured, and if he gets hurt again, no big deal - maybe he'd be back just in time for the late season run. Taking up a roster spot really isn't that big a deal, especially considering there are inactives out of the 53 each week anyway.


Starks can start.

And I don't mean, "if there's nobody better on the team." What I mean is, he can beat NFL defenses consistently.

But Lacy and Franklin are better.
Rss Feed 
Users browsing this topic
Guest
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Notification

Icon
Error


Recent Topics
1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Poppa San

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Poppa San

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

5h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

27-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / packerfanoutwest

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / steveishere

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / steveishere

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Smokey

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Smokey

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / DakotaT

25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / DakotaT


Tweeter