DarrylS

I also think he was a bust, he did not seem to get this defense which seems more highbrow than most in the NFL. He is not alone though, it seems that Biesel and Chad Brown also struggled initially.

__________________
"Being the best doesn't mean you always win. It just means you win more than anyone else".. tweet from Kurt Warner to Tom Brady.

SoonerPatriot

The whole "but...but..he was injured" spew from the Starks apologists was played out by early October.

Starks is a stiff. He will be a HEALTHY stiff for some other team next year. It was as mistake by BB to trade for him. File that under Donald Hayes.

Again, players play hurt every week in this league and some of them still manage to play well, while others, like Duane Starks, don't play well. Predictably, you missed that point.

But that's okay, the clueless don't like to think. It makes them tired.

__________________
Celebrating the wonders of the ignore list.

Feep_FLA

We all had high hopes for Duane Starks this year, as had the Front Orifice, otherwise they wouldn't have brought him onboard. It didn't work out and his cap hit was too high so he's gone. Let's wish him well and move on, not demonize him........ Just my 2 cents.

mgteich

Maybe, but can't afford to risk paying him $3.6M if he is injured before the season starts. Can Poole be far behind?

Terry Glenn is a cowgirl

Starks wasn't all bad. When he was a Raven, he was actually pretty good. Obviously he didn't mesh here at all. If he was really healthy, I think we would have seen another side...but...whatever.

Every team has their Donald Hayes and Starks deals. EVERY TEAM. Hopefully BB will keep this % down from the norm. So far he has almost mastered this talent. I would venture to say that it is borderline impossible to pick 100%.

It is similar to investing. Don't ever keep your losers. Cut your losses beyond the 20%.

DaBruinz

So, you must be extremely exhausted with your lack of thinking.

Starks wasn't a stiff. But why let the facts get in your way, Sooner. Maybe you should go back and watch the plays again because I and many others have and have seen that Starks, when he was beaten deep, was supposed to have had safety help over the top. You do understand what that means, right? It means that the safeties were supposed to stay over the middle of the field. In the 3 deep balls he was beat on, twice Wilson was out of position and the 3rd time Michael Stone was out of position. How can you blame that on Starks?

As for players playing hurt, yes, they do. So what? What you fail to acknowledge is that a SHOULDER INJURY can impact numerous things like your ability to RUN, your ability to catch a ball, and your ability to jam a guy at the line. Predictably, you whiffed on that, like many other things.

arrellbee

Starks was a puzzle for me. Maybe if you reviewed the plays, you can give me some hints.

If it is a zone, I don't believe that necessarily means that the under cover gives up on the receiver IF there is no one else coming into his zone OR if the CB has the ability to read that the receiver is the almost certain target. It just seemed to have the flavor of Starks taking the easy effort and not switching to man coverage when he maybe should have. Also, in a zone, if there is a receiving threat coming into the middle area as well as the receiver going up the side, the center threat becomes the responsibility of the safety and the corner has to adjust to man to man. The TV coverage is so lousy that I couldn't get many hints as to what was happening overall. But it seemed on those plays that he hadn't picked up an assignment to cover another receiver. One thing I DO know is that Starks had the speed to stay with all of the receivers that got by him. On several of those plays, he caught the receiver from behind after the receiver had the ball and was in full flight. So was he just lazy ? Or was he unable or unwilling to work within the complexity of the scheme to pick up when he should have switched to man coverage ?? As I say, maybe you can give me some help here.

PATSNUTme

I agree with that. The guy had a shoulder injury which effected his covering tight and his running. Yes, I said running. Try it yourself with one shoulder/arm tied to your body and see if it effects you speed.

Having said all that, we needed to cut him for cap reasons. Too much money on a guy that may not be and may never be completely healed. We need the space, plain and simple.

So lets quit dumping on the guy and move on. Lets move on the the Ty Poole cut.

stcjones

OK lets start here.......he may not have gotten torched on EVERY down....I'm not sitting here reviewing tape of EVERY play he was involved in.....but let's just say that he got BURNED on almost every big play for TD's when he was in there.....most everyone agrees on that one.....

You are wrong....I played almost every sport....and in some cases there were times if I wasn't 100% (very rarely) and it was effecting the TEAM....I would step out.....that is not saying one isn't a competitor....it's doing what is best for the team. IF a guy is playing at 50% capacity, and is staying in the game for the EGO....and getting burned on every play....is that good for the TEAM....re-think this one.....

I agree with you....the coaches are DEFINITELY as much to blame....as Starks.......

captain stone

...these more to go (please God) : Ty "The Thief" Poole, "Let 'em in" Gorin, Overrated Izzo, and the Fossils Don Davis and Chad Brown.
Time to clear out the deadwood, Bill.

__________________
Question Authority.