What's new
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!

James Starks breakout season? (1 Viewer)

Bracie Smathers

Footballguy
I own Starks and don't have great expectations but I'm not down on him either.

I'm trying to figure out what he's capable of.

Some background.

Late sixth round draft pick in 2010 and was injured and didn't a chance till late November of that year. Ran well for a rookie who missed all mini camps and OTAs and training camp etc.

Last year the expectations were higher at this time but the situation turned into a full-fledged RBBC and Starks got injured.

Grant is gone and the Pack hasn't devoted any resources to the RB position add that Starks is healthy yet very little talk about Starks on the boards.

ROTO's take:

ROTO World

With free agent Ryan Grant out of the backfield picture, the Packers are committed to James Starks as their lead back. Just as he did in OTAs, Starks handled first-team reps in Tuesday's minicamp session. "He's a young raw guy that needs to play," said coach Mike McCarthy. "If he can stay healthy, I think he'll make a significant jump as a player." For the primary back in an explosive offense, Starks has received surprisingly little buzz this offseason. He's well worth the price tag at his current late-sixth round ADP. Jun 12 - 7:04 PM
My link
... Indeed, Grant’s locker was given away to a wide receiver, a pretty good sign that the running back position in Green Bay now belongs to James Starks. As he enters his third go-around in the NFL, Starks is convinced he’s ready to have a breakout season.

“I believe I can,” he said last week, “and I believe I will.”

The Packers apparently believe the same thing because their lack of movement at the position indicates they’re happy with what they’ve got. But given the oft-injured, unproven players the Packers have at running back, this clearly is the biggest roll of the offseason dice for general manager Ted Thompson.

On a team that has cornered the market on wide receivers, acquired a good portion of the world’s supply of defensive ends and assembled enough cornerbacks to possibly bump future Hall of Famer Charles Woodson inside, the Packers remain perilously thin at only one position — running back — entering this week’s minicamp.

“I like the way James Starks is moving,” McCarthy said. “It’s nice to see Alex Green out there. Brandon is so consistent; probably the most consistent guy we have back there. I think both young free agents have a chance as far as their movement ability.”

The truth is, the Packers’ running game this season rests largely in the hands of Starks, who said he’s been working on flexibility and endurance in hopes of avoiding injuries.
Green is still recuperating from his blown out ACL and isn't expected to be full strength for a few more months.Seems very little talk about Starks and I hadn't really given too much thought to him but feel he's worthy of some discussion.

 
Fantasy Rule #32 avoid RB's from New England and Green Bay. Passing offense.
No such rule...BJGE had a very nice season in 2010 and Grant had one in 2009.I like Starks as he runs hard and has a burst that no other GB RB has, With him it health as he's had injury issues the past 3 years including college. If he stays healthy this year he could be a solid RB2 but that's a big if. Make or break year for him as he can either prove to be a reliable legit starter or someone who's always dinged and someone who's nothing more than a share the load kind of guy.
 
I've owned starks in a few leagues for the past couple years. He was bye week filler material at best. The problem was, you couldn't trade him for a bag of peanuts. Nobody, and I mean nobody, was willing to deal for him. My opinion is this..... If you want to get rid of him, you'd better do it now while he's got at least a little value with this years rb situation in GB. If he doesn't produce, his value with permanently be ZERO. Of course, maybe he will produce and his value with increase, but I feel like that is the low percentage play. Take what you can get now and move him.

 
Really think he's a committee back at best and will be best remembered for his late season run, with fresh legs, in the playoffs.

No wow factor. Kuhn will get goalline, Saine will steal receptions. Even in an explosion Packer offense, he doesn't offer the upside of either BJGE (New England) or Sproles (New Orleans).

There was no difference between him and Grant in 2011.

PPR: It'd depend on the price tag with Starks. I'll probably end up with Saine/Green more often than not.

 
Fantasy Rule #32 avoid RB's from New England and Green Bay. Passing offense.
Agreed and you can prob add Saints to that list
As mentioned above, poor rule. Grant in '09, BJGE in '10, Sproles in '11. All good fantasy seasons, especially relative to the cost of acquisition. The keys are both scheme and opportunity. Sproles of course was a perfect fit in a pass first offense. Grant and BJGE are grinders, but had an opportunity to pick up the lion's share of the work. Even in pass first offenses they got enough work to be fantasy productive. So the question with Starks is mostly about health I think. In '09 Grant finished 9th in RB scoring in my league. He carried 282 times, or about 17 per game. He only caught 25 balls, about 1.5 a game. He averaged 4.4 ypc, not bad, not great. With that workload and ypc average, he tallied 1450 total yards and 11 TDs. I think Starks is capable of averaging 4.4 ypc, I think he also can do better than 25/197 in the passing game (heck he did better last year in only 13 games, 2 starts). So the questions are can he stay healthy enough for 282 carries, and can he approach 11 TDs. They're both big question marks. 11 TDs would surprise me a great deal; Grant didn't deal with goalline vulture John Kuhn in '09, and in general the Pack pass more around the goalline now it seems. I think 5 or 6 TDs is more reasonable. So a fully healthy season, with Grant's old workload (about 280 carries) and per carry production (4.4 ish) could net something like 280 carries/1250 yards, 35 catches/265 yards, 6 TDs. I'm assuming Green and/or Saine takes some of the 3rd down work there, or Starks could potentially add more to the passing game. Either way, that's a solid line given his cost shouldn't be high. It's just a question of whether or not you think he can play 16 games. Buyer beware in that regard.
 
'joe374 said:
Fantasy Rule #32 avoid RB's from New England and Green Bay. Passing offense.
Not in PPR if they get a lot of touches. I like Alex Green in that role.
 
For those throwing out Grant/Green-Ellis/Sproles....

Grant wasn't in a committee in '09(Rodgers had the second most carries on the team from the QB spot with 58) and was used at the stripe, Green-Ellis was the primary goal line back in NE his two fantasy-relevant seasons there and Sproles had value in '11 primarily because of his production as a receiver(particularly the 7 TDs scored), especially in PRR leagues.

Starks will likely have none of those three things going for him in '12.

 
For those throwing out Grant/Green-Ellis/Sproles.... Grant wasn't in a committee in '09(Rodgers had the second most carries on the team from the QB spot with 58) and was used at the stripe, Green-Ellis was the primary goal line back in NE his two fantasy-relevant seasons there and Sproles had value in '11 primarily because of his production as a receiver(particularly the 7 TDs scored), especially in PRR leagues.Starks will likely have none of those three things going for him in '12.
:goodposting: This is a committee as the Packers offense is meant to be spread around. Alex Green/Brandon Saine are probably better athletes than Starks when everyone is healthy. I don't think anyone is clear cut here.
 
I can't say I'm very well informed on this situation, so I've got to ask where is everybody getting this information about him coming out on 3rd down? On first blush, I like his chances of having a 2010 Ray Rice year. Obviously, 307 rushes would be high, but he should do better than 4.0 ypc. I think 4 rec/gm is feasible, too. If I were to throw out some (assumed 100% healthy) projections I'd say he's very undervalued right now: 260 carries x 4.4 ypc = 1144 yds 5 TD, 56 rec x 7.5 ypr = 420 yds 1 TD

I'm not impressed with Green and don't know much about Saine, so I'm inclined to assume they'll use Starks in the passing game until I hear otherwise.

 
I can't say I'm very well informed on this situation, so I've got to ask where is everybody getting this information about him coming out on 3rd down? On first blush, I like his chances of having a 2010 Ray Rice year. Obviously, 307 rushes would be high, but he should do better than 4.0 ypc. I think 4 rec/gm is feasible, too. If I were to throw out some (assumed 100% healthy) projections I'd say he's very undervalued right now: 260 carries x 4.4 ypc = 1144 yds 5 TD, 56 rec x 7.5 ypr = 420 yds 1 TDI'm not impressed with Green and don't know much about Saine, so I'm inclined to assume they'll use Starks in the passing game until I hear otherwise.
No, you can say that.
 
Brandon Saine just isn't that talented and Alex Green is coming off of ACL surgery..he probably won't be a huge factor. No one in this offense is a 20 carry back. Also, Kuhn should take away a lot of goal line work from any of the backs. Starks hasn't played a full season since 2008 (college) and Mike McCarthy is on record as questioning his durability. All considered, James Starks will be a ppr-value pick. He was given 3 straight games of 20+ carries during their Superbowl run, even though he had hardly played during the regular season (due to injury, but still). Due to the other guys taking work and McCarthy's concerns about his durability, he's probably looking at around only 13-15 carries a game. Over 16 games, 14 carries per games leads to roughly 225 carries though, and considering the running room he, or any GB running back will have, he should be very effective with those carries. Last year through week 11, all games in double digit carries except for 1 game that he had 9 carries, he had a 4.5 ypc. In his other 3 games that year, he had a total of 13 carries for 37 yards. So it seems with more usage he is more effective. Considering that no one will focus on the Green Bay run when facing them, he should have a fairly nice ypc. His biggest value should be in ppr leagues, because he is a pretty solid pass catching back. I don't see him as a 60+ catch back. His mode (most common) number of catches per game last year was 3. He had seven games below that number, four games of 3 catches, and 3 games above that number. He will be used more this year, but with so many wr's and the possible emergence of Randall Cobb, it's tough to envision 60+ catches for this guy. I think 45 is a more realistic number, which would be 2.8 per game, a pretty reasonable number with some room for growth. The biggest question should be does he play 16 games. At the price you draft him, if you play in a ppr league that is somewhere between 10-12 teams, his amount of games doesn't matter. You just draft him, and hope he stays healthy and proves to be a good value. In 14-16, or more, leagues, if this guy is your rb2 it probably means you are strong elsewhere, and if James would make for a nice target because he is one of those guys who can outperform his positional ADP (currently the 29th rb drafted) by 10 or so spots. Fwiw, my 16 team is non-ppr (well, 1 point for 5 rec) so he isn't as appealing to me as in my 12 team ppr. He probably won't be a td machine, so I think his value can rely on the type of league you are in.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I can't say I'm very well informed on this situation, so I've got to ask where is everybody getting this information about him coming out on 3rd down? On first blush, I like his chances of having a 2010 Ray Rice year. Obviously, 307 rushes would be high, but he should do better than 4.0 ypc. I think 4 rec/gm is feasible, too. If I were to throw out some (assumed 100% healthy) projections I'd say he's very undervalued right now: 260 carries x 4.4 ypc = 1144 yds 5 TD, 56 rec x 7.5 ypr = 420 yds 1 TD

I'm not impressed with Green and don't know much about Saine, so I'm inclined to assume they'll use Starks in the passing game until I hear otherwise.
No, you can say that.
Why would I say that I'm well informed when I'm not? Lots of people in the SP talk as if they are the authority on every situation in the NFL. I don't know a whole lot about the GB situation. I know they've got Starks - a guy who slipped to the 6th due to injury and playing for a small school, Green - the last pick of the 3rd round last year with a late ACL tear, Saine - UDFA from last year, and Kuhn - veteran short yardage specialist. All I've read is that Starks will get his chance. Given the competition, I like his chances of getting the majority of carries on a team that makes its living through the air. Last year the RBs got 318 carries (at 4.1 ypc) and 74 receptions. With the steady but unspectacular Grant gone, this is Starks' shot. With a 95 ADP (RB37), I'll take a shot. I really prefer guys who get goal line duties, but at that point I can't be picky. Although it is worth noting that there are a lot of RBs with intrigue in the 30s. I like the value in Hillis (RB32), Ingram (34), Ridley (36), Starks (37), Brown (38), and Blount (39). Can't have them all, but this is a draft where I'd love to trade down for extra mid-round picks. Regardless of if I'm able to pull that off, I'll likely only be drafting 1 RB in the first 5 rounds.

 
I liked Starks as a sleeper when he was drafted. His college highlights showed a very fast RB that looked pretty good catching the ball.

Now Starks looks noticeably slower, but much more powerful. He has good balance and leg drive and delivers the blow. However, he takes a lot of punishment, and so far has not been able to withstand that punishment. He doesn't seem to be able to avoid contact.

I don't trust him to remain healthy enough to be effective over the long haul (whether one season or many) and just as importantly do not think the Packers need a RB to be a big part of the offense. They seem to just want to use their RBs enough to keep the defense honest and let their team strengths, QB and receivers) take over the game.

For value reference, I traded Starks and Reggie Bush for Steve Johnson in a 12 team PPR dynasty league.

 
I think this is just going to be one of those wait-and-see situations. Starks clearly has the leg up on the starting gig to himself, but I wouldn't overpay/overdraft him on that premise.

Even with Grant there last year, Starks did have a golden opportunity to be the guy in a prolific offense after his solid playoff performance in 2010, but it didn't happen. Having not seen much from Saine or Green yet, we don't know whether or how much they will be factors, but it wouldn't surprise me if they play a bigger role as the season goes on.

 
I can't say I'm very well informed on this situation, so I've got to ask where is everybody getting this information about him coming out on 3rd down? On first blush, I like his chances of having a 2010 Ray Rice year. Obviously, 307 rushes would be high, but he should do better than 4.0 ypc. I think 4 rec/gm is feasible, too. If I were to throw out some (assumed 100% healthy) projections I'd say he's very undervalued right now: 260 carries x 4.4 ypc = 1144 yds 5 TD, 56 rec x 7.5 ypr = 420 yds 1 TDI'm not impressed with Green and don't know much about Saine, so I'm inclined to assume they'll use Starks in the passing game until I hear otherwise.
No, you can say that.
from pff, starks played 13 games and ran 233 routes. the other hbs combined for 190 routes. kuhn ran 144.not gonna go game by game but its pretty clear starks was the 3rd down and passing down back last season.
 
I believe he could be a great flex for the playoff run in fantasy leagues.

Week 13 vs Vikings at home

Week 14 vs Lions at home

Week 15 @ Bears

Week 16 Titans at home

All four weeks are outside and while we havnt seen a hard winter in the last couple of years, we could.

I also think the Packers should look at balancing their offense a bit more. Last couple of years they continued to pass even when up by multiple TDs. Grinding the clock in a division with some very high profile offenses just makes sense.

If Starks can land the feature role and I believe he will, he should finish in the 18-25 rb range in PPR.

 
I do not concur with the "don't own a RB from great passing offenses" but Starks isn't going to be "breaking out".

 
I think Starks may end up being that player who will put up solid yet unspectacular numbers for a couple of seasons for fantasy teams and then be phased out for good. The thing that makes him unappealing especially on a dynasty roster is the Packers will always be drafting or looking for an upgrade due to the nature of the NFL. You want playmakers on your team especially at the skill positions. Starks is not a playmaker. He has a chance to carve out a role and contribute, but it is one that is easily replaceable.

This is what makes guys like Grant, BJGE, Jacobs, Greene, Blount, Barber expendable and not worth much on a dynasty team for the long haul.

It would not surpise me to see Starks end this season with 250-275 carries with 1050 to 1100 yards, and 7-10 tds. It also would not surprise me to see Starks replaced as early as next year.

 
I think Green is the one to own in a Dynasty, wouldn't be shocked to see him take over as the primary ball carrier (if there is such a thing in GB) by the end of the season despite coming off the knee injury.

 
I do not concur with the "don't own a RB from great passing offenses" but Starks isn't going to be "breaking out".
Agreed.I am a bit concerned about a back that hasn't broken out because he had Ryan freaking Grant standing in his way.
 
Starks strikes me as one of those guys that was overhyped last year at this time and now falls into the exact opposit group. I'm not sure I feel he is highly talented but his value is pretty low this year. I think his floor for this season is as a wek RB3/strong WR4 and I feel he has the potential to be a low RB2. The nice thing is it looks like he gets his chance to be the main man at the start of 2012 so by the end of the year you should now what you have with him.

 
'joe374 said:
Fantasy Rule #32 avoid RB's from New England and Green Bay. Passing offense.
Fixed. Not only are they 26th in the rush, but most rushing TDs go to Rodgers and Kuhn WHEN they are not passing for it.
 
'joe374 said:
Fantasy Rule #32 avoid RB's from New England and Green Bay. Passing offense.
Fixed. Not only are they 26th in the rush, but most rushing TDs go to Rodgers and Kuhn WHEN they are not passing for it.
Nobody is asking you to burn a 2nd rounder on him. When you are drafting a RB in the 7th round you are doing so because his situation isn't optimal. People are acting like this is a LeSean McCoy vs. James Starks debate. The guy has a 2.4% chance of putting up double digit TDs, but does that mean he can't put up enough yards to give you RB2 production at a RB4 pricetag?
 
'joe374 said:
Fantasy Rule #32 avoid RB's from New England and Green Bay. Passing offense.
Fixed. Not only are they 26th in the rush, but most rushing TDs go to Rodgers and Kuhn WHEN they are not passing for it.
Nobody is asking you to burn a 2nd rounder on him. When you are drafting a RB in the 7th round you are doing so because his situation isn't optimal. People are acting like this is a LeSean McCoy vs. James Starks debate. The guy has a 2.4% chance of putting up double digit TDs, but does that mean he can't put up enough yards to give you RB2 production at a RB4 pricetag?
def depends where you take him and whos avail. Not high on him tho.
 
Do the Packers have enough in backfield?

By Gregg Rosenthal

Around The League editor

It's hard to find fault with most of the Green Bay Packers' roster, especially on offense. The big exception is at running back, where the team is doing a lot of hoping and projecting.

The Green Bay Press-Gazette calls it the "thinnest position group" on the team. We agree. Let's take a look.

No. 1 James Starks: The Packers are projecting he can be a dynamic lead back. Starks has shown flashes of being a centerpiece back, but he has struggled with nagging injuries and only carried the ball 133 times last season.

Primary backups Alex Green and Brandon Saine: Green is a third-round pick from a year ago that is coming off reconstructive knee surgery. He hasn't practiced at all this summer and it's unclear if he'll be ready for camp. Saine looked passable in a third-down role last year, but his ceiling looks limited.

The depth is provided by undrafted running backs Marc Tyler and Du'ane Bennett: Neither player made a huge impression in OTAs, but it's hard for running backs to shine in non-contact practices. Fullback John Kuhn can also help out with carries.

If you are going to be thin anywhere, running back is not a bad option. They can be replaced. Still, this is not an overly promising group. If Starks gets hurt again, it looks particularly ugly.

"I think the coaches feel comfortable with what we got now," Green said earlier this month.

The Packers don't sound especially likely to bring in a veteran in camp, so this should be the group the Packers roll with. Unless Green quickly emerges, the position has potential to drag down Green Bay's otherwise incredible offense.
 
What few people realize is often the hot 2nd half RB usually emerges from an rbbc that suffers an injury to one of the lesser parts. That's exactly how Ryan grant emerged. The starter at the time deshaun Wynn crumpled on his 1st carry, and just like that grant turned into the #2 ranked RB weeks 8-16.

I'd have no problem holding off on my rb2 till round 7, all the while building out the rest of my roster with bpa and then grabbing Starks.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Guess also depends on the defense this year, haven't gotten to far in analyzing GB Def this year, but seemed like the offense practically had to throw last year. any word if this team will be holding offenses down?

 
'Pipes said:
'Sienna2012 said:
'joe374 said:
Fantasy Rule #32 avoid RB's from New England and Green Bay. Passing offense.
Agreed and you can prob add Saints to that list
Yeah Sproles was terrible last year.
Yeah, I know he was. But he gets most of his production from catching out of the backfield. Only 87 rushing attempts and 2 rushing tds. Good point though.
 
Packers: The risk/reward of James Starks

By Kevin Seifert | ESPN.com

Expanding on our initial observations from Green Bay Packers minicamp:

We should add a qualifying statement to last week's assertion, the one where we said the Packers have committed to James Starks as their primary running back for 2012. Here's a better way of putting it: To the extent that the Packers will have a primary running back in 2012, James Starks appears to be the one and only candidate.

The difference? The Packers have the NFL's reigning MVP at quarterback and one of the league's most dynamic passing games. They will run the ball in 2012, but employing a reliable 250-carry ball carrier isn't as high on their priority list as it might be for some teams.

Packers coach Mike McCarthy has indicated plans to tweak his running scheme this offseason, but if the team felt it needed to elevate the production of its running game dramatically, it likely would have added to its personnel this offseason. Instead, the Packers did not re-sign veteran Ryan Grant and conducted spring minicamp with Starks and second-year player Brandon Saine (70 career NFL snaps) as their top two runners.

(Alex Green, a third-round draft pick in 2011, was still recovering from surgery to repair a torn anterior cruciate ligament in his knee.)

Starks has demonstrated strength and burst at times over the past two seasons, but the most important statistic of his career is that he has been healthy for only 16 games -- including the playoffs -- over the past three years. He missed his final season at Buffalo because of a torn labrum in his shoulder, was limited to seven games as a rookie because of a serious hamstring injury and was ineffective last season after spraining his knee and ankle in Week 11.

That, by definition, makes Starks' ascension a risk, but it's one the Packers figure they can manage as long as their passing game remains the crux of their offense. During a conversation last week, McCarthy widely praised Starks skills' -- including significant development as a pass protector -- while acknowledging his health will be the key.

"James [is a] very talented young man," McCarthy said. "The most important statistic for him is going to be availability. It has nothing to do with his skill set. He's getting better and better and better. … He's a young, raw guy that needs to play. If he can stay healthy, I think he'll make a significant jump as a player."

And in this offense, at least, that's probably enough.
 
James Starks RB Green Bay Packers

Rookie season

2010

29 rush attempts

101 rushing yards

0 TDs

2 receptions

15 receiving yards

0 rec TDs

Was injured in camp but the Pack did an unusual thing and kept a roster spot open for him till late November. His big production his rookie year was in the post season.

Last year he was a hot item but RB Ryan Grant held the #1 RB in a RBBC yet Starks did increase his overall production.

2011

133 rush attempts

578 rush yards

1 rush TD

29 receptions

216 receiving yards

0 rec TDs

Grant is gone.

Their is no hot-shot rookie or venerable veteran RB blocking his path to being the #1 RB in any sort of RBBC.

People are hung up on the term BREAK OUT season but without any shadow of doubt Starks path has been paved for his PERSONAL BREAKOUT season.

If he stays healthy he is a sure bet for 200+ carries likely in the 225 upwards to 275. I'm not nearly as optimistic for any sort of TD production and with the Pack passing game he would be a check down guy so I wouldn't expect a ton of production but any #1 RB with little wear on his tread and set for a breakout year is worthy of discussion other than, baaaaaaa he's from a high production offense, yaaack. Come on people. He's looking like a 1,000 yard RB with an additional 250 REC yards with maybe a half dozen commbined TDs.

I've got him as my third RB but I always anticipate injuries so at some point during the year I expect he'll be in my startinng lineup but I don't expect much on a weekly basis due to expected low TD output. I'd be hoping for 65 to 75 rush yards with 20 to 25 rec yards and hopefully catch a week when he scores.

I think he isn't the most interesting back in the league but he's legitimately worth consideration.

 
Starks is 26 years old -- he's not suddenly going to get better. He might win some touches by default, but he's not going to get goal line carries and he's probably not going to get 3rd down work. He's scored ONE touchdown on 190+ touches in his career. And a super tall back with bad vision is an injury waiting to happen.

I can see drafting him as a RB3 or RB4, but between the chance that Green is healthy to start the season and the possibility that the Packers bring in another back there's no way I'd take him with the idea that he's going to be startable.

 
put away the crack pipe people

Last year he could not supplant Grant, who was so good the Packers did not offer him even the veteran minimum to come back.

He blocks badly, and has clearly not picked up the scheme yet.

If your in a TD league, he is clearly undraftable. His absolute upside for TD's is five, personally I think 3 will be his max.

It is possible he breaks 1000 yards rushing.

The only possible play for him is in a ppr heavy league - I could see 50 rcpt. If your not in a ppr league, drafting him is a fools game.

 
put away the crack pipe peopleLast year he could not supplant Grant, who was so good the Packers did not offer him even the veteran minimum to come back.He blocks badly, and has clearly not picked up the scheme yet.If your in a TD league, he is clearly undraftable. His absolute upside for TD's is five, personally I think 3 will be his max.It is possible he breaks 1000 yards rushing. The only possible play for him is in a ppr heavy league - I could see 50 rcpt. If your not in a ppr league, drafting him is a fools game.
You are a great example of the difference between guys that win their leagues and guys that don't (you). Nobody is saying he's going to finish top 5. He is clearly a good option for someone who goes into the draft or auction planning on going light on RB while loading up on other positions. He would also be an option for someone wanting a nice backup. He's going late in drafts and is in line for carries. Its not often you find guys going later in drafts in line for carries. Think Thomas Jones a few years ago.... guy was solid for people. I don't like to go RB heavy. This is an example of a guy I may be able to get cheap that will fill in an RB#2 slot for example, while I try to find that diamond in the FA rough throughout the season...or while I wait for another guy on my roster to emerge. Put down the bath salt bro.
 
put away the crack pipe people

Last year he could not supplant Grant, who was so good the Packers did not offer him even the veteran minimum to come back.

He blocks badly, and has clearly not picked up the scheme yet.

If your in a TD league, he is clearly undraftable. His absolute upside for TD's is five, personally I think 3 will be his max.

It is possible he breaks 1000 yards rushing.

The only possible play for him is in a ppr heavy league - I could see 50 rcpt. If your not in a ppr league, drafting him is a fools game.
I get it. You want other people to put the crack pipe down so you can have another hit... now it makes sense that your post is so absurd. You talk crap about the guy and then say it is possible he breaks 1000 yards rushing and 50 receptions. Let me remind you, this is a guy who is going as RB37 (someone's 4th RB). I'd say a chance at 1000 yards and 50 receptions is a breakout for a player going so late, regardless of PPR format or not. If you really think he's got a chance at those number then NOT drafting him in the 8th round is a fools game.
 
He's being drafted at his downside and if things break right he could be a great value. These are the perfect guys to take shots with in the middle rounds...some talent but some question marks, good offense, not a lot of other good alternatives...what's not to like?

These are the kinds of guys that I follow the training camp news on and what the coaches are saying pretty closely because if he's showing improvement in some of his weaknesses he can quickly become very fantasy relevant.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
http://subscribers.footballguys.com/apps/adp.php :shrug:

Still, 29... 31... 37... this talk makes him sound like value at any of those spots. Kind of splitting hairs, don't you think?
I wouldn't call the difference between 29 and 37 splitting hairs. That is a major difference IMO.
Not when someone is calling for 1000 yards and 50 rec. That's value at 29, no? Plus, that is just one source that has him 29. I think the FBG ADP is better, so if you don't like the phrase "splitting hairs" then let's go with "nit picking".
 
put away the crack pipe people

Last year he could not supplant Grant, who was so good the Packers did not offer him even the veteran minimum to come back.

He blocks badly, and has clearly not picked up the scheme yet.

If your in a TD league, he is clearly undraftable. His absolute upside for TD's is five, personally I think 3 will be his max.

It is possible he breaks 1000 yards rushing.

The only possible play for him is in a ppr heavy league - I could see 50 rcpt. If your not in a ppr league, drafting him is a fools game.
You are a great example of the difference between guys that win their leagues and guys that don't (you). Nobody is saying he's going to finish top 5. He is clearly a good option for someone who goes into the draft or auction planning on going light on RB while loading up on other positions. He would also be an option for someone wanting a nice backup. He's going late in drafts and is in line for carries. Its not often you find guys going later in drafts in line for carries. Think Thomas Jones a few years ago.... guy was solid for people. I don't like to go RB heavy. This is an example of a guy I may be able to get cheap that will fill in an RB#2 slot for example, while I try to find that diamond in the FA rough throughout the season...or while I wait for another guy on my roster to emerge. Put down the bath salt bro.
Think Thomas Jonesa couple years ago? More than a dozen tds? And 1400 yards rushing? fill an RB2 slot?

but I'm sniffing?

:thumbup: Good news is at least a loser like me if I am in a league with you I would only end up second last....

 
I recall Ryan Grant in his heyday breaking a lot of long runs. So even in a pass-first scheme that never really respected his running talent, he found a way to get his by forcing this issue with big plays. Is Starks capable of that?

I don't recall seeming Starks make any explosive plays his first two years. I do like that he runs hard though and he seems to fall forward on most runs, which I also like to see. But without the big play potential, I just don't see him being anything better than a flex option since Rodgers and Kuhn will steal a large share of the short rushing TDs. Thoughts?

 
Starks is 26 years old -- he's not suddenly going to get better. He might win some touches by default, but he's not going to get goal line carries and he's probably not going to get 3rd down work. He's scored ONE touchdown on 190+ touches in his career. And a super tall back with bad vision is an injury waiting to happen.I can see drafting him as a RB3 or RB4, but between the chance that Green is healthy to start the season and the possibility that the Packers bring in another back there's no way I'd take him with the idea that he's going to be startable.
I'd take Bjge over him in a heartbeat. Mcgahee and Donald brown too.
 
I think Green is the one to own in a Dynasty, wouldn't be shocked to see him take over as the primary ball carrier (if there is such a thing in GB) by the end of the season despite coming off the knee injury.
I agree with this.
 
From Cheesehead TV...just more info to help you form an opinion. Saine seems like a nice later PPR grab if/when Starks pops something with his aggressive running style. Saine should easily get worked in more than most think throughout this season. If the excuse for owning a Packer RB is they pass so much and they are a passing team, take the pass catching RB with upside to do more if it all comes together.

Packers Coach Mike McCarthy Praises Running Back Brandon Saine

By Brian Carriveau on Jun 07, 2012 with 7 Comments

I thought one comment from head coach Mike McCarthy on Tuesday was worthy of sharing and further inspection.

When asked about the depth of the running back position, McCarthy talked about James Starks and Alex Green, but one comment about Brandon Saine in particular stood out.

"Brandon (Saine) is so consistent, probably the most consistent guy we have back there," said McCarthy.

It's important to note that McCarthy's praise for Saine was unsolicited. He wasn't asked specifically about Saine but rather about the running backs as a whole.

The positive words regarding Saine can only be viewed as a positive. It's always popular topic of conversation to speculate about which player is making the biggest strides from year one to year two.

To put Saine in that category is rather impressive seeing as he was not only did he go undrafted, he only played in eight games last season after being signed from the practice squad at midseason.

In limited opportunities, Saine flashed talent. He had only 18 carries for 69 yards last season but also added 10 receptions and returned two kickoffs.

The speed is there, as is Saine's ability to catch the ball out of the backfield.

If he can continue to develop, Saine is a good candidate to see significant playing time in 2012 among a group of running backs that doesn't have a ton of experience, especially since it doesn't appear as if the Packers are going to re-sign free agent Ryan Grant.

Before lavishing too much admiration for Saine, however, I suppose it doesn't take much to be the most consistent running back out a group where his only competition has been Starks and a pair of undrafted rookies. Green hasn't practiced this offseason as he continues to recover from injury, same for John Kuhn.

Regardless, it's good to see Saine is making strides. And that can only be a good thing for the Packers offense.

 
Is James Starks ready to break out for Packers?

By Marc Sessler

Writer

The Green Bay Packers rained down points last season, almost in spite of the team's unrewarding ground game.

James Starks was the best back on the roster, but he only had 578 yards, and the Packers finished 27th in rushing. It makes what Aaron Rodgers accomplished even more impressive, but coach Mike McCarthy would like the option for a little more balance this season. With Ryan Grant out of the picture, Starks has been tapped to lead the way.

The Packers had high hopes for Starks after he rushed for 315 yards in four games during Green Bay's Super Bowl run two seasons ago. He was derailed by injuries late last season, and when he played, he was inconsistent. The team, however, is encouraged by his first full offseason with the team.

"He looks great," McCarthy told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. "He had a breakout playoff run (in 2010). Some guys just hit that injury phase in their careers and just have to work themselves out of it. Starks has some of that. He's had some tough challenges just getting hurt."

We've become accustomed to a thin ground game in Green Bay, and you could argue it doesn't matter. The Packers leaned hard on Rodgers last season (gaining 77 percent of the team's yards through the air) and managed to win 15 games. The New York Giants couldn't run the ball to save their lives last season and won a title.

Teams don't buy into Green Bay's running game right now. We're not sure Starks will change that, but the Packers are going to give it a try.
Healthy Starks may improve Packers' run game

Team hopes for breakout season

By Rob Reischel, for the Journal Sentinel

Green Bay - The NFL draft had just ended in late April, and Packer coach Mike McCarthy was talking about his high-powered offense.

"Well, we're going to run the ball more (in 2012) because we're going to get our stats up," McCarthy said with a straight face.

Then he added: "That's a joke."

Of course it is. Since arriving in Green Bay in 2006, McCarthy's teams have traveled almost exclusively by air, and the ground game has gone the way of the covered wagon.

In those six seasons, the Packers have run 5,685 plays from scrimmage during the regular season. Of those, 3,713 have been designed passes (65.3%).

Green Bay has gained 36,557 yards in that time - including 26,460 via the pass (72.4%).

McCarthy leaned on the passing game more than ever in 2011. The Packers gained 77.0% of their yards through the air and called passing plays 65.6% of the time.

As the NFL has transitioned into a league dominated by the forward pass, McCarthy has been at the head of the curve. By and large, McCarthy is going to win on the arm of quarterback Aaron Rodgers and a gifted group of receivers.

And really, who can argue? Since McCarthy took over, the Packers are 63-33, have won a Super Bowl, and reached the playoffs four times.

But for the first time since 2009 - the last year Green Bay had a 1,000-yard rusher - the Packers might give their running game more than a passing glance.

That's because third-year back James Starks appears capable of a breakout season. The key with Starks, as always, will be health.

Starks has the physical gifts to be the best back McCarthy has coached in Green Bay.

He's 6 foot 2, 218 pounds and carries just 7% body fat.

Starks ran the 40-yard dash in 4.51 seconds coming out of Buffalo in 2010. And while Starks hasn't been timed since, he insists, "I'm much faster today. I can just tell. I can feel it."

As Starks showed during Green Bay's run to the Super Bowl title in 2010 - when he ran for 315 yards in four games - he's capable of being the bell cow. But can he do it for more than just short stints?

"He looks great. Looks great," McCarthy said of Starks recently. "He had a breakout playoff run (in 2010). Some guys just hit that injury phase in their careers and just have to work themselves out of it.

"Starks has some of that. He's had some tough challenges just getting hurt."

That's for sure.

At the University of Buffalo, Starks dealt with hamstring issues and a mild concussion in 2006; a broken hand, hip and turf toe injuries in 2008; and a torn labrum in his left shoulder that sidelined him for his entire senior season in 2009.

Starks missed 13 regular season games during his rookie year with the Packers in 2010, due primarily to hamstring injuries. Then in 2011, Starks missed three regular season games with an ankle injury.

When Starks has been healthy, he's produced. There was the big 2010 postseason, and Starks led the Packers with 578 rushing yards last season.

But staying on the field has been a six-year struggle now.

"It is what it is. It's football," Starks said of his injury issues. "It's a physical game. People get hurt all the time. If you get down, you're going to stay down. I'm going to get right back up. I'm going to pray. And I'm always going to be a driver and striver.

"Last year is in the past. I don't think I had a horrible year or anything, but sometimes things don't go your way. I've bought into the system here, and things are going fine. We're winning games with how much I've been doing. You never know what's going to happen. God willing, things will go my way."

Starks spent much of the off-season working on his hamstrings, which have given him fits for years. He's also thicker through the chest, and has lowered his body fat by 1-2%.

Does that make him ready for a breakout season?

"You hope that every guy gets better every year," Packer offensive coordinator Tom Clements said. "He has a lot of ability. He's powerful, runs hard, catches the ball out of the backfield pretty well. We're hopeful."

In many ways, this will be a make-or-break year for Starks.

He's already 26, extremely old for a third-year player. And considering the other backs on the roster are even greener than Starks, it's likely to be his show.

Alex Green, a third-round draft pick in 2011, suffered a torn ACL in Week 7 last season and his status for the start of the season remains unclear.

Brandon Saine, who went undrafted in 2011, had just 18 carries.

Ryan Grant, the No. 5 rusher in franchise history, remains an unrestricted free agent. But the Packers have shown little to no interest.

So it's likely sink or swim with Starks.

"I feel like I do every year, and that's to have a breakout year," Starks said. "That's everybody's dream, but you never know what God has in store for you.

"I approach every year the same. I just work hard, pray on it, and hope that everything will eventually go right, go smooth. I've been here for a while now, so I'm getting comfortable. Eventually it will come."

There won't be a better chance than 2012.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top