Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Green Bay RB (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Local303
- Start date
degenerate
Footballguy
grant will get the majority the first couple of weeks. if he doesnt produce, starks takes over for good as long as he is playing at a high level.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sweetness_34
Footballguy
I hope Grant is the starter...homers?
Ministry of Pain
Footballguy
I don't see Starks getting all the touches just because Grant comes out of the blocks slow. This to me looks more like a split situation worst case, and if Grant does alright, probably more like 60/40. They still are paying Grant $4m this season, they are not gonna do that and then just bench him. If Starks was head and shoulders above Grant I think the packers would have sent him packing and they didn't. Thompson is no dummy.
Sabertooth
Footballguy
This being the thing. Grant has always produced. People thinking Starks is just going to usurp his role are misled. Starks may get some meaningful carries here and there, but Grant fits that offense. He rarely goes down on first contact and he always gets positive yards.
Chaka
Footballguy
Grant took a $1 million pay cut this month. His salary is $2.5 mil.
sho nuff
Footballguy
Grant having only 1 year left on his contract and them drafting another RB signaled that before he ever took the paycut.
Ministry of Pain
Footballguy
What's your take Sho?
sho nuff
Footballguy
60/40ish Grant to start the year...by the end of the year 60/40 or so for Starks.I think they will try and keep both fresh and mix in some passes to Green a long the way.
KingPrawn
Footballguy
That's pretty much how I see it but I think Green will emerge later in the season as the 3rd down back after he learns blitz pick-up. He's shown flashes during pre-season and that seems to be the path they took with Starks last year, working him in slowly until they could trust him.
pack66
Footballguy
MoP, you and Sho have it right. I think this is a platoon situation with Grant getting more work, with a later possibility of Starks increasing as the year progresses.
zoonation
Footballguy
GB was going to cut Grant. I just don't see how he will be the lead back when the team was willing to walk away from him. He is insurance. How many teams are willing to walk away from a back they plan on giving a majority of the load to?
Grant isn't special. Starks will take over the job. I think it happens almost immediately too.
Grant isn't special. Starks will take over the job. I think it happens almost immediately too.
smackdaddies
Footballguy
Yes, the Packers were going to cut Grant so they gave him 2.5m guaranteed for the year. On top of the $1m bonus they paid him earlier. Because thats what teams do - give players 3.5m because they hate themAfter all, Grant in the two years pre injury was only a top 10 RB. I mean, 1,200 yard rushers - every team has them, right? They really have no valueGrant is not a stud. But he is productive, knows the system, doesn't fumble, and basically does exactly what the Packers want. Many RB could fill that slot. But Grant has performed and will do so again.Grant will be the every down back, Starks the 3rd down back, most of the time. However, the Pack will play whichever back they think is the right fit for the offense they run. If I was Starks, I would be worried about being replaced on 3rd down by either Kuhns or Green, especially if El Matador keeps screwing up blocking on the blitzes. My advice? Stay away from all of them unless they drop a lot in your draft. Draft Rodgers, JFin, and all three starting WR. Grant may yet again be a top 10 RB, but it's not what I would bet on.
rizzler
Footballguy
Too much logic. Does not compute.
cr8f
Footballguy
Yes but he isn't the same player post injury. I still wish they had traded a #3 for Lynch. Grant should share time this year with Starks as the 3rd down back early and will probably take over next year.He needs to be more patient, wait for the holes to open and then explode through them
zoonation
Footballguy
We'll see.
If Grant didn't take the paycut he was gone. Ringing endorsement there. Give an ultimatum to your bellcow running back? Right...
The money he is getting is irrelevant. Sunk cost. The better back willget the ball and that back is Starks.
If Grant is an "everydown" back this year I'll eat my hat.
I guess we'll see. Howevern the argument that Grant will be the guy because they are paying him 2.5 mil this year is completely flawed.
If Grant didn't take the paycut he was gone. Ringing endorsement there. Give an ultimatum to your bellcow running back? Right...
The money he is getting is irrelevant. Sunk cost. The better back willget the ball and that back is Starks.
If Grant is an "everydown" back this year I'll eat my hat.
I guess we'll see. Howevern the argument that Grant will be the guy because they are paying him 2.5 mil this year is completely flawed.
benson_will_lead_the_way
Footballguy
So is the argument that Starks is the better RB. What has he accomplished? People got too hyped over one game vs the Eagles last year...
sho nuff
Footballguy
sho nuff
Footballguy
You are reading into speculation and not fact.There was nothing concrete saying they were actually going to cut him.Nobody is claiming he is an every down back. He has not been in his time in GB...he is not the 3rd down back in nearly every situation.And who made the arguement that he would be the guy because of the 2.5mil?
Last edited by a moderator:
JamesTheScot
Footballguy
He gets paid the same whether he's on the bench or in the game. So GB is going to put the most productive of the two on the field regardless. It would be stupid to start an inferior player just because he is getting paid more than a superior player.We can assume that GB didn't think he was done, else they wouldn't have even opted for a re-structure. But opinions change, especially during the first month or two of the season when the real football starts getting played.'Ministry of Pain said:
What Grant's getting paid won't matter one bit come October and November if Starks is doing more with his touches than Grant is. People can be stubborn in holding onto opinions that are no longer supported by the evidence. But then, if Thompson is no dummy, then he wouldn't be guilty of doing that.
zoonation
Footballguy
Read all the posts above. Each of those arguments was raised there.
And, it isn't speculation. The only logical reason he would take a pay cut is that his other option was to be cut. It isnt rocket science.
Bottom line: GB was willing to let him walk. That's how secure his handle on the #1 job is.
Like I said, we'll see.
And, it isn't speculation. The only logical reason he would take a pay cut is that his other option was to be cut. It isnt rocket science.
Bottom line: GB was willing to let him walk. That's how secure his handle on the #1 job is.
Like I said, we'll see.
Longshot88
Footballguy
Seriously people this is the NFL, Grant is insurance and clearly is not on Stark's level. The most impresive thing i ever saw Grant do was Hop off the field on one leg after he got hurt. hes just not that goodbenson_will_lead_the_way
Footballguy
Starks averaged 3.5 YPC during the regular season and 3.9 in the playoffs. He hasn't accomplished anything.
sho nuff
Footballguy
It was stated they would not just bench him. Which I agree with.Difference than just giving him the bulk of the carries because of it.BTW...there is still nothing out there to really state they were willing to let him go other than rumors that he would be cut.
smackdaddies
Footballguy
Sunk Cost? I don't think that means what you think it means.The Packers had two options before the season. Cut him, at which point he costs them ZERO for this season. Or keep him. They paid his 1m bonus in march, which then became a sunk cost at that point. Then they guaranteed 2.5m for this year, rather than his original salary which was not guaranteed. Grant gets that if he plays a down or not. That 3.5 was not a "sunk cost" till they renegotiated a contract three weeks before the season. Before that his salary was not guaranteed. They could of cut him, and his salary at any time during the season. Now of course they still can. But they lose any value of that $3.5m.'zoonation said:
So your point is basically that the Packers are stupid for be willing paying a guy 3.5m guaranteed when they did not have to and he sucks and they really just want to play Starks.
OK.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr Rodgers neighborhood
Footballguy
Starks isn't special either. I think people get caught up with the hype of a rookie running back coming in and being a decent player in a great playoff run. Starks goes down a lot easier than Grant, and I still believe that Grant will be the goal line guy regardless of Starks role.'zoonation said:
Mr Rodgers neighborhood
Footballguy
This.Grant and Starks aren't that different. They both happen to play running back on a team with an elite passing game. Grant, before the injury got his numbers by grinding on opposing defenses. Neither are game changers, and Starks in no way has done anything to take over the job.Starks averaged 3.5 YPC during the regular season and 3.9 in the playoffs. He hasn't accomplished anything.
And for everyone looking into Grant renegotiating his contract to mean something... It's Ted Thompson. Good luck with figuring it out.
Bruce Leroy
Footballguy
Packers mixing in some passes? Never happen.Agree, by seasons end, I see Starks getting the majority of carries. We'll see how professional he remains as he was in McCarthy's doghouse last year for a while.Grant should be nice & fresh all year long. Starks too.B.J. Raji may get a carry or 2 in the playoffs'sho nuff said:
Longshot88
Footballguy
sometimes I wonder if some of you even watch the games
sho nuff
Footballguy
Says the guy who said this "Grant is insurance and clearly is not on Stark's level".Have you ever even watched Ryan Grant play in that offense?
Sweetness_34
Footballguy
So what are the coaches saying? Any homers got McCarthy's quotes regarding the RB battle during and after training camp?
pack66
Footballguy
Nothing from McCarthy on this...they were late getting their cut list out, so not even sure they'll have a presser until right before the game. I think the hive mind is right on this...they'll play the hot hand. Most likely Grant to start, trusting his blocking skills around the franchise (Rodgers)...Starks and Green will get carries here and there to spell Grant. Maybe Starks gets hot mid-season and becomes the starter...maybe not.
Being a homer, I'll probably avoid drafting any Pack RBs in my money league unless it's too good of a value pick to ignore. Get JFinn if you want a Packer...he's going to get plenty of red zone looks and Rodgers tends to look his way as much as with Jennings.
Being a homer, I'll probably avoid drafting any Pack RBs in my money league unless it's too good of a value pick to ignore. Get JFinn if you want a Packer...he's going to get plenty of red zone looks and Rodgers tends to look his way as much as with Jennings.
smackdaddies
Footballguy
JS reporters were peddling that the Packers liked Nance in the preseason so much that they may keep him and cut Grant
mmmm, not so much. Nance got cut today.
Guess that's the difference in a player getting 3.5m guaranteed v. one not. And why Grant starts with, gasp, the starters in the preseason games and not Starks.
mmmm, not so much. Nance got cut today.
Guess that's the difference in a player getting 3.5m guaranteed v. one not. And why Grant starts with, gasp, the starters in the preseason games and not Starks.
sho nuff
Footballguy
Think it was more coaches and execs in GB were never insinuating anything like that about cutting Grant but reporters wanted something to write about.
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
[scooter]
Footballguy
How many running backs are EVER the "long term answer"? Even Pro-Bowlers are lucky to last 2-3 years as a starter.
The Sniper
Footballguy
I think it's a timeshare all year. But in watching the games, my eyes tell me Starks is the guy with more burst. Grant is definitely in shape and runs hard, but it takes him longer to get to and through the hole.
Both Grant and Starks are the definition of mediocre. Both are injury prone. Even an average RB will be very productive in Green Bay's prolific offense. I took a flyer on Alex Green in a keeper league. I have no idea how good he is, or can be, but I think it's a reasonable gamble given the situation.
Johnny Blood
Footballguy
Some of you are reading way too much into the paycut. There are purely business/salary cap aspects to this, and you have to remember that in taking a paycut he actually increased his guaranteed salary for the year.
His contract was obtained when he held out and had complete leverage because he saved the running game in 07 and there was nobody competing with him in 08. Now the team has leverage and they forced a concession. It doesn't mean Starks is the man it just means the team has options and they used that as leverage.
His contract was obtained when he held out and had complete leverage because he saved the running game in 07 and there was nobody competing with him in 08. Now the team has leverage and they forced a concession. It doesn't mean Starks is the man it just means the team has options and they used that as leverage.
Last edited by a moderator:
jwb
Footballguy
I still, for the life of me, don't understand what anyone saw in Starks last year. I saw the playoffs leading rusher by default - prettymuch the last man standing on the superbowl winners. Guess we'll see this year.
degenerate
Footballguy
its the breakout upside on a championship offense
fatness
Footballguy
If I'm remembering correctly the Green Bay offensive line was bad and their rushing attack was pretty dead before Grant took over. I bet the Giants wish they still had Grant.
nysportsfan
Footballguy
This type of drivel is what waters down this place. His playoff performance against the Hawks (200,3) is something Starks may never even sniff. I have no dog in the fight, but Grant was very good for a period of time.
r0llin_game
Footballguy
Not to mention, Starks didn't play at Buffalo his senior season too That's nearly 24 months off of playing in an actual game. Honestly, there was a lot of rust in Starks in recovering and getting back into practice mode and finally getting some reps in the season. I think that he'll split, at worse, with Grant and take over the job getting more like a 75/25 split. He's shown in the preseason he can catch out of the back field too. I mean, we know Brandon Jackson wasn't anything special, but would this team, who is trying to make a run to the Super Bowl, really put all that trust in someone that's only gotten to practice a limited amount of time over someone who knows the system, regardless of under achieving, and give the rookie all those carries in the post season out of no where?
sho nuff
Footballguy
How is Ryan Grant injury prone?Even Starks.
I think both Grant and Stark will each play about 50% of the plays this year. They will each steal value from the other as long as they are both healthy. It may even be the "Hot hand scenario". YUCK! I think there is value in the GB RB situation but for next year with Green. He looks to be a more dynamic play maker after he learns pass protection. I will target him later in the year for my 5 player keeper league.
T with T
Footballguy
your argument about starks being an everydown back and getting most/all of the work is flawed to buddy. I believe it will be a 60-40 55-45 split in favor of Grant until or if he gets hurt maybe starks could get 50-50 and some goalline carries. He isn't gonna just make Grant sit most of the time like you are insinuated my friend.'zoonation said:
