Colbert Open to Bringing Back Starks When He's Healthy

http://www.steelersdepot.com/2012/06/ke ... s-healthy/

As most of us have been saying they'd probably be into bringing him back when he's healthy.

 

If you're going for your best 7 players active...

Adams - Colon - Pouncey - DeCastro - Gilbert + backups: Starks, Foster

In that scenario, DeCastro would have to learn how to play center. They probably won't ask him to do that because he's a rookie, but he's more than capable. He did it in high school and was preparing to do that before the draft, in case he went to a team that needed a center more than a guard. This is my preferred way to go, because I like Foster a lot more than Legursky at guard, and Starks more than Essex/Scott at tackle. If DeCastro isn't up to play center, then you could either keep Legursky active as well and go with 8 OL, or you could drop Foster and keep Legs instead. Or you could forget Starks and go with Essex, who could backup center in addition to both tackle spots (if you know me, you know I don't want that. But I think it's definitely a possibility).

I'm curious about how many OL we'll keep active this year, and who the extras will be. I do hope we keep Foster though.

 

We've had quite a few injuries the last two years. If experience teaches us anything I think we'd go with the 8 lineman scenario.

 

i'm hoping in a year or two beachum takes over the role of 5 position backup. i still think he would be the 3rd LT if needed. the kid started 54 games in college at that position. i still like the gilbert move to LT if adams gets hurt and we go with a different RT then. beachum has fairly long arms to play that role if needed,even if he's shorter then most LT's would be. that inch or two doesn't bother me with him as a backup, in a pinch type player. his arms are 3/4 of an inch shorter then adams. that ain't much. that allows him to have plenty of reach. he's also smart enough to learn the center spot too.

i don't like the starks move as you know but, it's not up to me. it would force either essex or legursky to be kept active on gameday. if we dump essex and bring starks in, what happens if starks has a relapse or sits as a backup and gains 50lbs.? he is known for doing that when he's the starter, so why wouldn't he with less activity? we know he's the 3rd best RT on the team, or was. ( colon beat him out and now gilbert has beat colon out). i just can't then believe starks is the best LT on the team if healthy. that leaves us without a good backup at either tackle spot or we really have to shuffle the line around to use colon and gilbert.

i will also say, one guy i liked last year and will be watching close again this year is malecki. he was a rock at center when the 3rd unit was in the game. not alot of people watched the line during that time and all they really know was it was like a jailbreak when they were in, but if you watched closely, there was one spot in the middle that the rush didn't come from and that was his spot. we never got to see him much at guard if at all, but he can also play guard. legs has had way to many injuries. it seems like he can't stay healthy for more then a couple of games. i think malecki could do that job, he's an inch taller and just didn't give any ground. at least until they teach beachum the ropes.

 

If Starks comes back healthy and in shape (for him) at any point in the season, I'd have him as the swing backup. If Adams were to get hurt, I'd leave it to the coaches to decide if Starks goes in at LT or RT. Since I've never seen Adams or Gilbert on the left side (in the NFL), it's hard to rank them against Starks. But I'd say out of everyone Starks is at least the 3rd best LT, after those two. I have no hesitation plugging him in ahead of Scott and Essex, and I assume Beachum, although I obviously haven't seen him yet. Check out the rankings. Starks was very solid in pass protection for most of the year. Those numbers are acceptable for a starter. They are damn good for a 2nd/3rd stringer. To put Essex in the same spot and expect there to be no dropoff, Essex would have to not just lose weight, but become an entirely different player. He'd have to improve twice as much as Willie Gay did last year.

 

as you said in the rankings starks was questionable in pass protection, most likely his legnth kept it from getting out of hand. he has always played just on the verge. add a knee injury and alot of idle time sitting on the bench and i just don't see the worth. i'd much rather they went outside the organization and grabbed a guy after the cutdowns to bring in. i'm seeing this ending badly if he has to play in this offense. they are going to be running screens and passes to the backs and starks isn't that type of player before and certainly not after the knee injury. i'd rather take my chances on essex or beachum if it got to our 3rd LT anyway. starks was part of the problem with this line in the past, and i don't want to go back there.

 

You're projecting that. You don't know if he'll be injured or overweight. Everything I said was provided he is healed and in shape. Even if we have to sign him mid-season. I don't think it's so out of the question that he'll get healthy and ready. He'll have to, if he ever wants to play again. If he's not, I won't want him any more than you.

That's not what I said at all. Yes, he's been extremely up and down over his career, but last year he was almost completely up in the passing game. What I said was he had a couple bad games (SF and Den, during which he may have been hurt before his ugliness was put on display, considering how truly ugly he looked and the fact that you can't see any injury on any plays), but to my pleasant surprise was mostly rock solid in pass protection over the course of the season. Here's the exact quote:

"He had some very bad moments, including the playoff game, where he looked like he was trying to get Ben killed. But for most of the season, he held up very well and kept Ben's blind side safe." Yes, his run blocking was pitiful, but with our pass protection issues, I'm not sure what more you could want from a LT than keeping his QB safe. And his scores absolutely blow your boys' out of the water. I can't look at those numbers and entertain the idea that a healthy Starks is not far superior to Scott and Essex.

Well, I think about 95% of the LT's job is going to be protecting the passer and regular run blocking. That needs to come first. Worrying about dropoff performance on screens should be way down your list. Otherwise, why not just put a TE or a FB there, right? If you have a superior screen blocker but an inferior pass blocker, you just made your team a whole lot worse. I don't doubt that there will be some trickier stuff in there for the tackles, although the interior OL will be handling a lot of that. I'll withhold judgement on Beachum, but again I guess you are suggesting Essex will all of a sudden become mobile based on his weight loss. He sure hasn't shown that on tape, at any point in his career.

When, 2009? Two games in 2011? I've always said he's been inconsistent in his career, but you have non-stopped preached playing scrubs who are consistently terrible in his place. Starks was a freaking savior to this team last year when he rescued us from the clutches of death also known as your dear friend Jonathan Scott. I'm no Starks lover, but the performances between those two men last year are night and day, and you've done everything possibile, stretched every single thing you could think of to try and minimize that... to make Starks appear worse and Scott better. "Starks was only good for a game or two, I think Scott was hurt all along..." It hasn't let up for a moment. You are clearly biased, but I don't understand the motivation behind it.

 

starks would be an excellent back-up........... he is an inconsistant starter who makes me pull my hair out at times though .......... i recall the cowboys game where starks made demarcus ware, of all people, a non-factor :-D . i also recall the 49ers game where he was abused by aldon smith ............ i don't mind starks as a spot starter, but over the long haul, it could be a problem.

 

All this talk about bring Starks back has given me a dead ache! The guy is done. Why would the Steelers get rid of Essex, Foster or Legs for Starks. Seriosly, why! All three of them are very valueuable. Legs can play center or guard, Foster can play guard and Exxex can play tackle. To me, Starks is a liability. He is no doubt out of shape and over weight, not to mention the fact that he is coming off an injry. His time is up. Why get rid of younger better players for his over payed butt? Quite frankly, he would be a roster space sitting on the bench gaining weight. 8 Gys on game day, Adams LT, Colon LG, Pouncey Center, DeCastro RG, Gilbert RT; and Foster, Legs, and Essex. That is a very formitable group with every position covered with flexability.

I don't know about you but I'm into out with the old and in with the new. Starks shouldn't even be talked about. Time for a change for the future, forget about going backwards.

 

The thing is this ist like last year he isn't coming back to an offense that he knows. Would I take him as a back up at the vet min yes much more then that no

 

first off , i appriciate your time and effort spent on the evaluations. you are however putting words in my mouth saying i think ones better than the others. i think they are all bad. scott however is not bad at RT. essex has flexability of 5 positions, so yes i rate him above the others. yes he was way to fat last year. i think last year motivated him far and away, from the guy he's been lately. his weight loss has had to help his movement skills and footwork. still, i hope we never have to find out. i will say i think he would be fine as the 3rd LT if it came to that. i don't even think jon scott makes the team this year. we can save that 2 mil. instead of giving it to starks, who i think is really no better overall then either of the other two we speak about. none of them should be starting in the nfl on any team. the steelers have been trying to rid themselves of max for years,but just can't seem to get anyone they think can play the game the way they need to. they wait so long and time runs out so the call goes into max. we have spent far to much money on mediocre play from him for way to long and i personally want it to end. the only and i repeat, only reason i think essex should be back is for his backup ability accross the line and for a 3rd string tackle he has enough for us to get by with, so i can't see why we would spend the money or time to bring max starks back. he has never improved his game as an 8 year vet, to ever be considered a starter in this league. i have very high hopes in beachum, to not only make the team but soon make scott, essex and starks all expendable. they are not this teams future. all 3 are very inconsistant, not what we need moving forward. that's as simple as i can put it, and you and i will have to disagree on max's worth to this team. i simply don't want him back taking the place of an up and coming talent. if he was able to play other positions, i would value him more, but he can't. adams and gilbert are the future at LT plain and simple. essex is a good player to have sitting on the bench on gameday. if beachum makes strides in his game like i think he will over the next year or two, he will be a valuable player to have in that position and i fully expect the team to push him into learning all the positions. yea max may be the best of those 3, maybe, but what is that really saying? he's the best looking turd in the pile. this team can do so much better than that. scott has had some decent games for us. scott has had some mediocre games for us. scott has had some bad games for us. i just don't see alot of difference in his play compared to max or essex, and again i don't want any of them starting for us. max ties our hands as a player on gamedays. essex at least as the 3rd LT can play everywhere else on the line where max can't. i've been a coach for alot of years and i see what i see from max, i can't make that any clearer. maybe my expectations are alot higher for what i expect our LT to be. have a nice vacation and happy fathers day to you my friend.

 

I agree with you. We need to keep many, many offensive lineman. We've had some bad luck with injuries and can't keep just plugging a guy in the lineup because he's our last available offensive lineman.

 

http://www.steelersdepot.com/2012/0...in-colbert-with-his-versatility-intelligence/

I have a lot of hope for the guy. I think he's a bit of a project, but he can do PS for a year or two. My hope is that he can turn into a better Legursky. Ideally we'll never need him to be a starter.

I think this sums up the difference between us pretty well. I recognize that Essex can be an adequate 3rd string OG and C and Starks can't even do that, but I see an enormous difference in their LT ability (haven't seen Starks at RT in awhile, but I'm sure he could do fine there too and has experience). And since I see such a huge difference in their OT ability, I don't think having a backup OL player that can take care of either OT spot is a waste of a spot at all. It doesn't tie our hands; it's extraordinarily common. We'll have someone else (maybe two guys) to backup the interior, as well as emergency outside guys like Foster and Colon. And that only even comes into play if we have like 3 OT injuries in the same game. The 5 position turd is only helpful when we don't have the depth. But if we have a swing OT in place, then we have the depth.

 

I think this sums up the difference between us pretty well. I recognize that Essex can be an adequate 3rd string OG and C and Starks can't even do that, but I see an enormous difference in their LT ability (haven't seen Starks at RT in awhile, but I'm sure he could do fine there too and has experience). And since I see such a huge difference in their OT ability, I don't think having a backup OL player that can take care of either OT spot is a waste of a spot at all. It doesn't tie our hands; it's extraordinarily common. We'll have someone else (maybe two guys) to backup the interior, as well as emergency outside guys like Foster and Colon. And that only even comes into play if we have like 3 OT injuries in the same game. The 5 position turd is only helpful when we don't have the depth. But if we have a swing OT in place, then we have the depth.[/quote:10uo6mlg]


i guess we wait and see. alot of people said i was crazy when i said essex would be on the starting line when camp started. i had the wrong position but it looks like he will be. for now.

 

Man I like Starks, I don't even know why the Steelers cut ties with him last season. I totally foresaw them regretting it and they did.

He is actually a better LT then RT from what I have seen. Some games he struggles against the elite rushers, but what average LT doesn't slip up every once in a while. I will say every once in a while he has some really really great games too.

I know his injury and this past draft changes a few things, but I never thought for once thought he was problem #1 on our offensive line.

To me was the interior line turned to crap once Faneca and Hartings were gone. To me it was never about the tackles needing to be replaced.

 

I kind of agree with this line of thinking but I would have Legursky instead of Foster as I'm the exact opposite, I like Legs at guard better than Foster. Legs can pull and I watched too many whiffs from Foster and one that cost us a game but every thing else I think is great. I think Starks also deserves a spot just because of how awful the line was and the immediate improvement that took place when he was brought back. I think they should at least let him compete for a spot.

 

Before the 2011 season, I agreed with you on Legursky/Foster. I did not like Foster at all. But he showed a ton of improvement this year, and in my opinion outplayed Legursky by a mile. For more detail, you can compare their scores in my evaluation here: http://www.thesteelersfans.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3176

I agree that if Starks is healthy and in shape, he should be given a spot to win the swing OT spot. Right now we really don't have one. We have Adams and Gilbert, who might be able to both play each spot, but they are ideally starters. We have Colon, who could shift to RT, but then our whole line is getting jumbled. We have Foster, who might be able to play RT, but he'd be out of position somewhat, and he definitely can't play LT. Scott and Essex? No sir, absolutely not. I'm positive that a healthy Starks would wipe the floor with anyone else available to win a roster spot. He might even outplay Adams and Gilbert at LT, considering neither of them have ever played there, but that doesn't mean he'd win the starting job. If Adams can do it well enough, he should be in.

 

http://www.steelersdepot.com/2012/06/max-starks-almost-back-to-100/

Says he's almost back to 100%, and in Starks' opinion he'll be ready for training camp. That may or may not be true, but you gotta figure that if he's even close to 100% on July 25th, he should be 100% by September 9th. The article also suggests the team will hold a spot for him when he is ready.

I hope Adams starts and excels, but Starks, last year's starter, would be a very good backup plan. Without him, the backup plan consists of 1-2 starters shifting around and actually changing sides, someone playing LT for the first time in the NFL, and either Jonathan Scott or Trai Essex taking the field. Looks a lot better to me to just plug Starks in. I'm pleasantly surprised with this news and estimated return, if true.

 

ray willis was just released by the jets.

 

http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/1691/max-starks

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review believes the Steelers "won't consider" free agent OT Max Starks "until/if" rookie LT Mike Adams falters.
Starks would apparently only be an option at right tackle if Marcus Gilbert comes down with injury. GM Kevin Colbert recently said the Steelers were monitoring Starks' recovery from a torn ACL, but gave no indication a signing was close. Jun 30 - 12:38 PM

 

i saw they have not been very in touch with max. he saw their doc. i never saw anywhere that the steelers were holding a spot for him. i saw the writer that loves max being wishful. it just baffels me.