James Starks (1 Viewer)

[BassNBrew]

I don't want to muddy up the waters by talking about my team, but I picked up Starks off the waiver wire last year in a Zealots league. I've been anxiously holding him & have been impressed with what I've seen. I would have been happy to hold him to see what future value he might hold, but I got an offer that I was comfortable enough trading him for and I want to see what you guys think about the value.I gave James Starks.I received- Dex McCluster, Mike Goodson (I have JStew), Aaron Curry (LB), his 2011 1st & 2nd round picks (both #11 I believe).So what do you think?

YOu belong in jail for two reasons...1. Breaking the rules here...asking for advice on how you should draft or manage your team belong in The Assistant Coach forum.2. Brutally raping that poor dude.

 

[cvnpoka]

well i dont know how to be any clearer about how i interpreted that post.someone posted stats of adrian peterson and john starks vs the common opponents of the bears and eagles. they performed comparably. ROYALWITCHEESE posted that peterson plays with webb and a worse overall team compared to playing alongside aaron rodgers and a better packers team.my perception would be that he feels that starks situation was more advantageous.im confused about what your confused about tbh.

I understand all of that, but what does any of it have to do with my point? Maybe you are missing the point, so ill break it down for you. Some people have said Starks isnt any good because of his low ypc in the playoffs. I pointed out that almost every RB that has played against those same 3 teams on the road have had worse results than Starks....including the best RB in the league(Adrian Peterson).The team they play for or their QB have nothing to do with my point, and even if they did, part of what i like about Starks is he does play for the Packers and Rodgers is the QB.

well, tbc, i think the situation is indeed an advantage for starks, at least in terms of surrounding talent. its a large part of why he is a tempting prospect. i proly should not have interceded in your discussion with royal, to avoid such pressured clarification on both of our parts.

 

[sho nuff]

Anyone who watched the first half of the Bears game and didn't notice a difference with Starks there and how Jackson had run most of the year is blind.

Yes, in the 2nd half, the stats went down (expected with a team milking the lead).

Starks has shown to be the better runner despite people just wanting to look at stats.

 

[Reepicheep]

Anyone who watched the first half of the Bears game and didn't notice a difference with Starks there and how Jackson had run most of the year is blind.Yes, in the 2nd half, the stats went down (expected with a team milking the lead).Starks has shown to be the better runner despite people just wanting to look at stats.

Yeah, setting aside the discussion of Stark's value, future prospects, etc . . . to anyone who has been watching Packers games all year, Starks is such an obvious improvement over Jackson it's not even funny. Jackson is great as a third-down back, his style of running is well suited to screens and draw plays and such. But he is just a mess in normal running situations. Starks' numbers might not be there but this is the playoffs, the yards are not going to come easy. He is getting 1-3 yards where Jackson would get negative or 0. He is knocking out 7-10 yard runs as well, where with Jackson I would get excited about 5 yards. In case anyone missed it, the Packers opening drive against the Bears last week went like this:Fake draw to Starks, pass to Jennings for 22 yards.Play-action to Starks, pass to Jennings for 26 yards.Starks runs for 6 yards.Pass to Starks for 6 yards.Play-action to Starks, pass to Nelson for 22 yards. (to the 2)Starks runs for 1 yard. (to the 1)Fake handoff to Khun, naked bootleg, Rodgers scores.The Bears were paying a lot of attention to Starks and it showed on that opening drive. Jackson does not provide the same threat.

 

[njherdfan]

Mike McCarthy on Starks

Here's Packers coach Mike McCarthy on University at Buffalo running back James Starks: "He had a hamstring injury throughout the spring. We thought that we had it under control going into training camp, but that was not the case. He missed all of training camp so he was placed on PUP and just missed a lot of padded work, all the fundamental work, foundation work that you need as a young player. The development has been consistent since his opportunity to come onto the 53. I think it is clearly evident to everybody to see the player that he can be. What is exciting about him is that his best football is in front of him. He has all of the tools, the work ethic, the intelligence and the instincts to be an every-down player. Everything is in front of him. Running the football will definitely be a factor in this game and James will be a part of it."

Starks has rushed for 263 yards in the playoffs so far. The Packers team playoff record is 316 yards by Dorsey Levens in 1997. The NFL record for a rookie in the playoffs is 342 yards by Washington's TIm Smith in 1987. So Starks needs 79 yards to set the league rookie playoff record.

 

[Ernol]

From Evan Silva on Rotoworld (Feb 1)

“Green Bay: James Starks; A sixth-round rookie and regular season non-factor, Starks has emerged as the NFL's playoff rushing leader. A closer look at his per-play production reveals a middling talent. Starks lacks big-play ability (just one run of 20-plus yards on 70 attempts), and is averaging 3.76 yards per postseason carry. While Starks is capable of killing the clock and getting what's blocked, he isn't a difference maker. Starks is also pulled in favor of Brandon Jackson on all passing downs.”



“Pittsburgh: Rashard Mendenhall; Head to head in terms of position, the running game is an area in which Pittsburgh has a clear advantage over Green Bay. An every-down back unlike Starks, Mendenhall exploded for 121 yards on 27 carries (4.48 average) against the Jets' third-ranked run defense in the divisional round. Whereas the Packers' ground game won't have room to run against Pittsburgh's impenetrable front seven, Mendenhall has the potential to be a deciding factor in Super Bowl XLV.”

I don’t necessarily disagree with the conclusion (in fact, I am not sure either way as it relates to Starks), but it is interesting how certain stats were used to support the argument that Starks is pedestrian while Mendenhall is potentially game changing.

Fact 1: Starks averaged only 3.76 yards per post season carry.

Analysis: Per play production reveals middling talent.

Fact not mentioned: Mendenhall has averaged only 3.55 yards per post season carry.

Fact 2: Starks has just one carry of 20-plus yards.

Analysis: Starks lacks big-play ability.

Facts not mentioned: Starks also had a 19 yard carry in the same game and Mendenhall also only has one carry of 20-plus yards.

Not a big deal, but the use of these facts (without mentioning obvious others) to contrast the two backs jumped out at me.

 

[The Real Hipster Doofus]

From Evan Silva on Rotoworld (Feb 1)“Green Bay: James Starks; A sixth-round rookie and regular season non-factor, Starks has emerged as the NFL's playoff rushing leader. A closer look at his per-play production reveals a middling talent. Starks lacks big-play ability (just one run of 20-plus yards on 70 attempts), and is averaging 3.76 yards per postseason carry. While Starks is capable of killing the clock and getting what's blocked, he isn't a difference maker. Starks is also pulled in favor of Brandon Jackson on all passing downs.”

“Pittsburgh: Rashard Mendenhall; Head to head in terms of position, the running game is an area in which Pittsburgh has a clear advantage over Green Bay. An every-down back unlike Starks, Mendenhall exploded for 121 yards on 27 carries (4.48 average) against the Jets' third-ranked run defense in the divisional round. Whereas the Packers' ground game won't have room to run against Pittsburgh's impenetrable front seven, Mendenhall has the potential to be a deciding factor in Super Bowl XLV.”I don’t necessarily disagree with the conclusion (in fact, I am not sure either way as it relates to Starks), but it is interesting how certain stats were used to support the argument that Starks is pedestrian while Mendenhall is potentially game changing. Fact 1: Starks averaged only 3.76 yards per post season carry. Analysis: Per play production reveals middling talent.Fact not mentioned: Mendenhall has averaged only 3.55 yards per post season carry. Fact 2: Starks has just one carry of 20-plus yards.Analysis: Starks lacks big-play ability. Facts not mentioned: Starks also had a 19 yard carry in the same game and Mendenhall also only has one carry of 20-plus yards. Not a big deal, but the use of these facts (without mentioning obvious others) to contrast the two backs jumped out at me.

So the guy misses most of the season but the Pack don't but him on the IR. He comes back pretty rusty, and plays 3 tough defenses in the playoffs, and that tells us he is just a middling talent? Good to know I don't need to pay attention to Evan Silva's viewpoint in the future.

 

[Invictus~Bronte]

From Evan Silva on Rotoworld (Feb 1)“Green Bay: James Starks; A sixth-round rookie and regular season non-factor, Starks has emerged as the NFL's playoff rushing leader. A closer look at his per-play production reveals a middling talent. Starks lacks big-play ability (just one run of 20-plus yards on 70 attempts), and is averaging 3.76 yards per postseason carry. While Starks is capable of killing the clock and getting what's blocked, he isn't a difference maker. Starks is also pulled in favor of Brandon Jackson on all passing downs.”

“Pittsburgh: Rashard Mendenhall; Head to head in terms of position, the running game is an area in which Pittsburgh has a clear advantage over Green Bay. An every-down back unlike Starks, Mendenhall exploded for 121 yards on 27 carries (4.48 average) against the Jets' third-ranked run defense in the divisional round. Whereas the Packers' ground game won't have room to run against Pittsburgh's impenetrable front seven, Mendenhall has the potential to be a deciding factor in Super Bowl XLV.”I don’t necessarily disagree with the conclusion (in fact, I am not sure either way as it relates to Starks), but it is interesting how certain stats were used to support the argument that Starks is pedestrian while Mendenhall is potentially game changing. Fact 1: Starks averaged only 3.76 yards per post season carry. Analysis: Per play production reveals middling talent.Fact not mentioned: Mendenhall has averaged only 3.55 yards per post season carry. Fact 2: Starks has just one carry of 20-plus yards.Analysis: Starks lacks big-play ability. Facts not mentioned: Starks also had a 19 yard carry in the same game and Mendenhall also only has one carry of 20-plus yards. Not a big deal, but the use of these facts (without mentioning obvious others) to contrast the two backs jumped out at me.

I'm not a huge Starks supporter but was thinking the same thing you posted. Well done

 

[blackbird001]

From Evan Silva on Rotoworld (Feb 1)“Green Bay: James Starks; A sixth-round rookie and regular season non-factor, Starks has emerged as the NFL's playoff rushing leader. A closer look at his per-play production reveals a middling talent. Starks lacks big-play ability (just one run of 20-plus yards on 70 attempts), and is averaging 3.76 yards per postseason carry. While Starks is capable of killing the clock and getting what's blocked, he isn't a difference maker. Starks is also pulled in favor of Brandon Jackson on all passing downs.”



"This negativity just makes me stronger..."Cliff Poncier, Singles (1992)

 

[Steed]

So the guy misses most of the season but the Pack don't but him on the IR. He comes back pretty rusty, and plays 3 tough defenses in the playoffs, and that tells us he is just a middling talent? Good to know I don't need to pay attention to Evan Silva's viewpoint in the future.

This isn't his best work, but he's normally pretty good. I think he predicted Nicks would be the best WR in his class. He deserves a free pass based on his previous work.

 

[Tau837]

I don't get the Starks love... the guy averaged well below 4 ypc, scored 1 TD in 99 carries, and didn't contribute in the passing game. Meanwhile, Grant continues to be severely underrated, and his salary is nowhere close to what you have said here. I think the struggles with the Green Bay running game this season have only reaffirmed Grant's value to the Packers; last year, the Packers had a much better running game and a much better offense overall. I think Grant will be starting for Green Bay in 2011, and deservedly so.

 

[munchkin]

I don't get the Starks love... the guy averaged well below 4 ypc, scored 1 TD in 99 carries, and didn't contribute in the passing game. Meanwhile, Grant continues to be severely underrated, and his salary is nowhere close to what you have said here. I think the struggles with the Green Bay running game this season have only reaffirmed Grant's value to the Packers; last year, the Packers had a much better running game and a much better offense overall. I think Grant will be starting for Green Bay in 2011, and deservedly so.

The "value" could come down to dollars and cents. Starks will be a cheaper replacement for Grant and management has bought a lot of credibility with it's correct call on replacing Favre with Rodgers. Starks's best came was the first playoff game against the Eagles where he average 5.23 yds per carry against a poor tackling Eagles defense where Jamar Chaney played the role of a human turnstile. Starks averaged 2.64 yds/carry against the Falcons with 25 carries and 3.36 yds/carry against a tough Chicago Defense. From the little I have seen of Starks he seems to have good vision and gets the most out of what is there. It will be interesting to see how he does against a very tough Steelers D that did however yield 87 yds on 18 carries to BJGE and an additional 36 yards to said player through the air. Of course, that wasn't the SB.

It has to be said that any RB in the GB system is helped by the prolific passing game but also hurt by a less than stellar O-line.

 

[Reepicheep]

This has already been pointed out, but I think it bears repeating. The yards don't come easy in the playoffs. Having watched all the games as a Packers fan, I'm excited about Starks.

Here's everyone who rushed 14+ times in the playoffs (arbitrary cutoff chosen since there were a lot of guys with 14 totes). You have a paltry three guys with 4+ ypc - Lynch, LT, and Greene. Lynch's big average we know came from that monster carry, so that leaves the two guys on one of the top rushing offenses in the NFL. I'm not saying Starks has proven he is legit yet, and we don't know how much work he will get next year, but I think anybody writing off Starks based on the past three games is doing so prematurely.

G   Runs  Yards Ypc  TDs  James Starks				3   70	263   3.8  1 Shonn Greene				3   45	198   4.4  1 Rashard Mendenhall		  2   47	167   3.6  3 Matt Forte				  2   42	150   3.6  0 LaDainian Tomlinson		 3   35	141   4.0  2 Marshawn Lynch			  2   23	133   5.8  1 Ray Rice					2   29	89	3.1  1    Julius Jones				1   15	59	3.9  2  Willis McGahee			  2   14	48	3.4  1 Danny Woodhead			  1   14	46	3.3  0 Chester Taylor			  2   14	46	3.3  2 Dominic Rhodes			  1   14	33	2.4  0

 

[Tau837]

I don't get the Starks love... the guy averaged well below 4 ypc, scored 1 TD in 99 carries, and didn't contribute in the passing game. Meanwhile, Grant continues to be severely underrated, and his salary is nowhere close to what you have said here. I think the struggles with the Green Bay running game this season have only reaffirmed Grant's value to the Packers; last year, the Packers had a much better running game and a much better offense overall. I think Grant will be starting for Green Bay in 2011, and deservedly so.

The "value" could come down to dollars and cents. Starks will be a cheaper replacement for Grant and management has bought a lot of credibility with it's correct call on replacing Favre with Rodgers. Starks's best came was the first playoff game against the Eagles where he average 5.23 yds per carry against a poor tackling Eagles defense where Jamar Chaney played the role of a human turnstile. Starks averaged 2.64 yds/carry against the Falcons with 25 carries and 3.36 yds/carry against a tough Chicago Defense. From the little I have seen of Starks he seems to have good vision and gets the most out of what is there. It will be interesting to see how he does against a very tough Steelers D that did however yield 87 yds on 18 carries to BJGE and an additional 36 yards to said player through the air. Of course, that wasn't the SB.

It has to be said that any RB in the GB system is helped by the prolific passing game but also hurt by a less than stellar O-line.

The bottom line is that the overall Packers running game was much worse this year than last year with Grant. Their lack of success running the ball this year has reaffirmed his value. IMO there is no way they will be willing to cut Grant and go into next season with Starks and Jackson as their running game. If they cut Grant, I would expect them to bring someone else in.

 

[sho nuff]

I agree that Grant will likely be back. I don't believe they want to go into a season with any lack of depth at that position.

And Grant's cost I believe is around $5-6 mil total. Not an unbelievable number to sit with really.

As for Starks. Please quit just using yards per carry numbers and realize what he has brought to the team.

Look at the number of carries per game that Jackson was getting. Now look at the carries Starks is getting and realize that is what McCarthy wants. Its not about yards per carry with him, its about having enough attempts to make a team respect the run game.

Starks had a very good 1st half against Chicago. His average was closer to 5 ypc I believe in that first half. Breaking off some nice runs.

Yes, they bottled up him in the 2nd half for sure.

But anyone who stops looking at a stat line and watched him play. He is a much more decisive runner than Jackson. Hits the holes quicker and pushes forward after first contact.

 

[Tau837]

I agree that Grant will likely be back. I don't believe they want to go into a season with any lack of depth at that position.And Grant's cost I believe is around $5-6 mil total. Not an unbelievable number to sit with really.As for Starks. Please quit just using yards per carry numbers and realize what he has brought to the team.Look at the number of carries per game that Jackson was getting. Now look at the carries Starks is getting and realize that is what McCarthy wants. Its not about yards per carry with him, its about having enough attempts to make a team respect the run game.Starks had a very good 1st half against Chicago. His average was closer to 5 ypc I believe in that first half. Breaking off some nice runs.Yes, they bottled up him in the 2nd half for sure.But anyone who stops looking at a stat line and watched him play. He is a much more decisive runner than Jackson. Hits the holes quicker and pushes forward after first contact.

I agree Starks is a better runner than Jackson, though I don't think that says a lot (i.e., that's a low bar). I agree that Starks will have a role going forward. I agree that ypc is not the only thing to look at. That said, IMO Grant is much better as both a runner and receiver at this point in time, and it's not particularly close.

 

[sho nuff]

I agree that Grant will likely be back. I don't believe they want to go into a season with any lack of depth at that position.And Grant's cost I believe is around $5-6 mil total. Not an unbelievable number to sit with really.As for Starks. Please quit just using yards per carry numbers and realize what he has brought to the team.Look at the number of carries per game that Jackson was getting. Now look at the carries Starks is getting and realize that is what McCarthy wants. Its not about yards per carry with him, its about having enough attempts to make a team respect the run game.Starks had a very good 1st half against Chicago. His average was closer to 5 ypc I believe in that first half. Breaking off some nice runs.Yes, they bottled up him in the 2nd half for sure.But anyone who stops looking at a stat line and watched him play. He is a much more decisive runner than Jackson. Hits the holes quicker and pushes forward after first contact.

I agree Starks is a better runner than Jackson, though I don't think that says a lot (i.e., that's a low bar). I agree that Starks will have a role going forward. I agree that ypc is not the only thing to look at. That said, IMO Grant is much better as both a runner and receiver at this point in time, and it's not particularly close.

Not sure on receiver...neither Grant nor Starks have been featured as receiving backs.Jackson has had that role for a while in this offense.

 

[Devine Intervention]

I agree that Grant will likely be back. I don't believe they want to go into a season with any lack of depth at that position.And Grant's cost I believe is around $5-6 mil total. Not an unbelievable number to sit with really.As for Starks. Please quit just using yards per carry numbers and realize what he has brought to the team.Look at the number of carries per game that Jackson was getting. Now look at the carries Starks is getting and realize that is what McCarthy wants. Its not about yards per carry with him, its about having enough attempts to make a team respect the run game.Starks had a very good 1st half against Chicago. His average was closer to 5 ypc I believe in that first half. Breaking off some nice runs.Yes, they bottled up him in the 2nd half for sure.But anyone who stops looking at a stat line and watched him play. He is a much more decisive runner than Jackson. Hits the holes quicker and pushes forward after first contact.

I agree Starks is a better runner than Jackson, though I don't think that says a lot (i.e., that's a low bar). I agree that Starks will have a role going forward. I agree that ypc is not the only thing to look at. That said, IMO Grant is much better as both a runner and receiver at this point in time, and it's not particularly close.

Not sure on receiver...neither Grant nor Starks have been featured as receiving backs.Jackson has had that role for a while in this offense.

Starks was actually a really good reciever out of the backfield at UB, I bet that as he comes along people will be surprised to find out he's pretty good at catching some passes.

 

[zamboni]

Per McCarthy's press conference today:

(The emergence of James Starks hasn’t seemed to change your rushing numbers that much except for the number of times you are running the ball. What is it about him that has afforded you the opportunity to do things differently?)

It’s really the combination of James as a runner. I think his running style is what you are looking for as far as his ability to fall forward. He is a long-levered athlete. He has earned these opportunities. I have always said it time and time again, run attempts and third-down production are two key statistics to an offense. Because when you want to be a tempo offense and you are operating in the realm of 70-plus plays a game, those are two important statistics that are tied together. Just very pleased with the way he has matured and taken full advantage of his opportunity and he will be a factor in Sunday’s game.

http://www.packers.com/news-and-events/art...3f-401d19f4d38c

 

[Tau837]

Per McCarthy's press conference today:

(The emergence of James Starks hasn’t seemed to change your rushing numbers that much except for the number of times you are running the ball. What is it about him that has afforded you the opportunity to do things differently?)

It’s really the combination of James as a runner. I think his running style is what you are looking for as far as his ability to fall forward. He is a long-levered athlete. He has earned these opportunities. I have always said it time and time again, run attempts and third-down production are two key statistics to an offense. Because when you want to be a tempo offense and you are operating in the realm of 70-plus plays a game, those are two important statistics that are tied together. Just very pleased with the way he has matured and taken full advantage of his opportunity and he will be a factor in Sunday’s game.

http://www.packers.com/news-and-events/art...3f-401d19f4d38c

There is very little of substance there IMO.

 

[Tau837]

I agree that Grant will likely be back. I don't believe they want to go into a season with any lack of depth at that position.And Grant's cost I believe is around $5-6 mil total. Not an unbelievable number to sit with really.As for Starks. Please quit just using yards per carry numbers and realize what he has brought to the team.Look at the number of carries per game that Jackson was getting. Now look at the carries Starks is getting and realize that is what McCarthy wants. Its not about yards per carry with him, its about having enough attempts to make a team respect the run game.Starks had a very good 1st half against Chicago. His average was closer to 5 ypc I believe in that first half. Breaking off some nice runs.Yes, they bottled up him in the 2nd half for sure.But anyone who stops looking at a stat line and watched him play. He is a much more decisive runner than Jackson. Hits the holes quicker and pushes forward after first contact.

I agree Starks is a better runner than Jackson, though I don't think that says a lot (i.e., that's a low bar). I agree that Starks will have a role going forward. I agree that ypc is not the only thing to look at. That said, IMO Grant is much better as both a runner and receiver at this point in time, and it's not particularly close.

Not sure on receiver...neither Grant nor Starks have been featured as receiving backs.Jackson has had that role for a while in this offense.

OK, that's a fair point. I think Grant is a much better runner, and I'll leave it at that. That's enough.

 

[Ernol]

I don't get the Starks love... the guy averaged well below 4 ypc, scored 1 TD in 99 carries, and didn't contribute in the passing game. Meanwhile, Grant continues to be severely underrated, and his salary is nowhere close to what you have said here. I think the struggles with the Green Bay running game this season have only reaffirmed Grant's value to the Packers; last year, the Packers had a much better running game and a much better offense overall. I think Grant will be starting for Green Bay in 2011, and deservedly so.

The "value" could come down to dollars and cents. Starks will be a cheaper replacement for Grant and management has bought a lot of credibility with it's correct call on replacing Favre with Rodgers. Starks's best came was the first playoff game against the Eagles where he average 5.23 yds per carry against a poor tackling Eagles defense where Jamar Chaney played the role of a human turnstile. Starks averaged 2.64 yds/carry against the Falcons with 25 carries and 3.36 yds/carry against a tough Chicago Defense. From the little I have seen of Starks he seems to have good vision and gets the most out of what is there. It will be interesting to see how he does against a very tough Steelers D that did however yield 87 yds on 18 carries to BJGE and an additional 36 yards to said player through the air. Of course, that wasn't the SB.

It has to be said that any RB in the GB system is helped by the prolific passing game but also hurt by a less than stellar O-line.

The bottom line is that the overall Packers running game was much worse this year than last year with Grant. Their lack of success running the ball this year has reaffirmed his value. IMO there is no way they will be willing to cut Grant and go into next season with Starks and Jackson as their running game. If they cut Grant, I would expect them to bring someone else in.

Not sure that bottomline says much about Starks or GBs running game going forward with Starks in it. Starks was not part of the team for much of the year and when he was eligible to play during the season, he was not yet ready to do so.

 

[zamboni]

Per McCarthy's press conference today:

(The emergence of James Starks hasn’t seemed to change your rushing numbers that much except for the number of times you are running the ball. What is it about him that has afforded you the opportunity to do things differently?)

It’s really the combination of James as a runner. I think his running style is what you are looking for as far as his ability to fall forward. He is a long-levered athlete. He has earned these opportunities. I have always said it time and time again, run attempts and third-down production are two key statistics to an offense. Because when you want to be a tempo offense and you are operating in the realm of 70-plus plays a game, those are two important statistics that are tied together. Just very pleased with the way he has matured and taken full advantage of his opportunity and he will be a factor in Sunday’s game.

http://www.packers.com/news-and-events/art...3f-401d19f4d38c

There is very little of substance there IMO.

Never said it was. I see you are in the camp of not being impressed by Starks , and that's fine - some agree and some don't. Time will tell.The post was evidence that one can't go on stats alone to tell the true story of Starks' impact. When the head coach says it, it's meaningful.

 

[Tau837]

Per McCarthy's press conference today:

(The emergence of James Starks hasn’t seemed to change your rushing numbers that much except for the number of times you are running the ball. What is it about him that has afforded you the opportunity to do things differently?)

It’s really the combination of James as a runner. I think his running style is what you are looking for as far as his ability to fall forward. He is a long-levered athlete. He has earned these opportunities. I have always said it time and time again, run attempts and third-down production are two key statistics to an offense. Because when you want to be a tempo offense and you are operating in the realm of 70-plus plays a game, those are two important statistics that are tied together. Just very pleased with the way he has matured and taken full advantage of his opportunity and he will be a factor in Sunday’s game.

http://www.packers.com/news-and-events/art...3f-401d19f4d38c

There is very little of substance there IMO.

Never said it was. I see you are in the camp of not being impressed by Starks , and that's fine - some agree and some don't. Time will tell.The post was evidence that one can't go on stats alone to tell the true story of Starks' impact. When the head coach says it, it's meaningful.

When he says what? All he really says about him is that he falls forward well, is "long-levered", and has matured well and taken full advantage of his opportunity. He doesn't say anything at all about his talent, about his ability as a runner, what he's good at, what he's not good at, etc. That was my point. Even if he did say it, it could still be fluff. But he didn't even say any fluff here.

 

[Go deep]

I don't get the Starks love... the guy averaged well below 4 ypc, scored 1 TD in 99 carries, and didn't contribute in the passing game. Meanwhile, Grant continues to be severely underrated, and his salary is nowhere close to what you have said here. I think the struggles with the Green Bay running game this season have only reaffirmed Grant's value to the Packers; last year, the Packers had a much better running game and a much better offense overall. I think Grant will be starting for Green Bay in 2011, and deservedly so.

3.8 is not "well below", and its more than the Bears, Falcons and Eagles were giving up on the road to opposing starting RB's during the season. Starks averaged 4 ypc at home against the 49ers in his only other games with double digit carries, which is .5 yards higher than they gave up to opposing RB's during the season. None of that takes into account this is his first action in two years.Also, its not suprising Starks didnt get much work in the passing game, he has barely had time to learn the offense. He is a very good pass catcher and will likely have that role next year with Jackson as good as gone.

Grant could come back, but its not like he is Adrian Peterson. He has averaged 3.9 and 4.4 ypc in his last two seasons, will turn 29 during the season and is coming off a pretty bad injury. Not to mention has only averaged 6.3 yards per reception in his career. Starks might not be the most talented RB in the league, but he wont have to be to take the starting job in GB.

 

[Sabertooth]

I was just mentioning in the Super Bowl thread that Starks has outgunned Mendenhall in almost every metric in the postseason. And he's faced off against top 10 defenses twice and the Eagles were 15th against the rush so it isn't like he's done it against patsy teams.

 

[munchkin]

I agree that Grant will likely be back. I don't believe they want to go into a season with any lack of depth at that position.

And Grant's cost I believe is around $5-6 mil total. Not an unbelievable number to sit with really.

As for Starks. Please quit just using yards per carry numbers and realize what he has brought to the team.

Look at the number of carries per game that Jackson was getting. Now look at the carries Starks is getting and realize that is what McCarthy wants. Its not about yards per carry with him, its about having enough attempts to make a team respect the run game.

Starks had a very good 1st half against Chicago. His average was closer to 5 ypc I believe in that first half. Breaking off some nice runs.

Yes, they bottled up him in the 2nd half for sure.

But anyone who stops looking at a stat line and watched him play. He is a much more decisive runner than Jackson. Hits the holes quicker and pushes forward after first contact.

Not hard to imagine with the passing game they have. This is what Belichick is getting from BJGE; a decisive runner who hits the hole and pushes forward on contact. He can also get the extra yards if they are there. what I didn't see from Starks or Green-Ellis is someone who creates yards. Not to say Starks won't develop into that but I don't see where he currently provides that.

 

[Acrobat7]

besides some blitz pick-ups (which can be taught) that Starks missed yesterday i think it's safe to asume that Grant probably doesn't have too much leverage concering his upcoming contract talks.

 

[smackdaddies]

besides some blitz pick-ups (which can be taught) that Starks missed yesterday i think it's safe to asume that Grant probably doesn't have too much leverage concering his upcoming contract talks.

Blitz pick up can be taught, but it doesn't mean it will be learned. Grant has proven he is a top 10 rb in the nfl. Starks has proven he runs better than Brandon Jackson.

 

[Football Jones]

Actually, Starks is one of the better rookie blockers I've seen. He set too long on a blitz pick-up, but he's a stone-cold killer when he meets a blitzer. For how much time he missed, you can tell he's going to be an exceptional blocker.

Starks also caught a bunch of passes in college & from what I can gather so far (with my eyes & talk from coaches), he has the potential to be an outstanding receiver. You can bet they're going to use his athleticism & get him integrated into the passing game next season.

You can see why Green Bay is so excited about him as a feature back. I know McCarthy is super-high on him. Starks is a do-everything RB & those are hard to find.

 

[humpback]

Actually, Starks is one of the better rookie blockers I've seen. He set too long on a blitz pick-up, but he's a stone-cold killer when he meets a blitzer. For how much time he missed, you can tell he's going to be an exceptional blocker.Starks also caught a bunch of passes in college & from what I can gather so far (with my eyes & talk from coaches), he has the potential to be an outstanding receiver. You can bet they're going to use his athleticism & get him integrated into the passing game next season. You can see why Green Bay is so excited about him as a feature back. I know McCarthy is super-high on him. Starks is a do-everything RB & those are hard to find.

Congrats on the Super Bowl victory, but I have to assume you're still drunk...

 

[smackdaddies]

Actually, Starks is one of the better rookie blockers I've seen. He set too long on a blitz pick-up, but he's a stone-cold killer when he meets a blitzer. For how much time he missed, you can tell he's going to be an exceptional blocker.Starks also caught a bunch of passes in college & from what I can gather so far (with my eyes & talk from coaches), he has the potential to be an outstanding receiver. You can bet they're going to use his athleticism & get him integrated into the passing game next season. You can see why Green Bay is so excited about him as a feature back. I know McCarthy is super-high on him. Starks is a do-everything RB & those are hard to find.

Congrats on the Super Bowl victory, but I have to assume you're still drunk...

As a Packer fan, I say

 

[Football Jones]

Actually, Starks is one of the better rookie blockers I've seen. He set too long on a blitz pick-up, but he's a stone-cold killer when he meets a blitzer. For how much time he missed, you can tell he's going to be an exceptional blocker.Starks also caught a bunch of passes in college & from what I can gather so far (with my eyes & talk from coaches), he has the potential to be an outstanding receiver. You can bet they're going to use his athleticism & get him integrated into the passing game next season. You can see why Green Bay is so excited about him as a feature back. I know McCarthy is super-high on him. Starks is a do-everything RB & those are hard to find.

Congrats on the Super Bowl victory, but I have to assume you're still drunk...

LOL...stone-cold sober

 

[Football Jones]

BTW, I'm not a Packers fan, but it was a great game. I do think Green Bay is set up really nice for a repeat, though.

 

[munchkin]

Actually, Starks is one of the better rookie blockers I've seen. He set too long on a blitz pick-up, but he's a stone-cold killer when he meets a blitzer. For how much time he missed, you can tell he's going to be an exceptional blocker.Starks also caught a bunch of passes in college & from what I can gather so far (with my eyes & talk from coaches), he has the potential to be an outstanding receiver. You can bet they're going to use his athleticism & get him integrated into the passing game next season. You can see why Green Bay is so excited about him as a feature back. I know McCarthy is super-high on him. Starks is a do-everything RB & those are hard to find.

Very similar numbers to BJGE against Pittsburgh. Ellis had 18 carries for 87 yards and a long run of 17 with 4 catches for 36 yards. Danny Woodhead was 9 for 59 against you guys and BJGE was 6 for 38 in the same game. I don't think I would feel comfortable calling those guys more than nice and important players in the Pats scheme; but that's me.

 

[bcr8f]

Actually, Starks is one of the better rookie blockers I've seen. He set too long on a blitz pick-up, but he's a stone-cold killer when he meets a blitzer. For how much time he missed, you can tell he's going to be an exceptional blocker.Starks also caught a bunch of passes in college & from what I can gather so far (with my eyes & talk from coaches), he has the potential to be an outstanding receiver. You can bet they're going to use his athleticism & get him integrated into the passing game next season. You can see why Green Bay is so excited about him as a feature back. I know McCarthy is super-high on him. Starks is a do-everything RB & those are hard to find.

Congrats on the Super Bowl victory, but I have to assume you're still drunk...

LOL...stone-cold sober

4.7 yards per carry(11 for 52) is pretty good against this defense

 

[Football Jones]

Actually, Starks is one of the better rookie blockers I've seen. He set too long on a blitz pick-up, but he's a stone-cold killer when he meets a blitzer. For how much time he missed, you can tell he's going to be an exceptional blocker.Starks also caught a bunch of passes in college & from what I can gather so far (with my eyes & talk from coaches), he has the potential to be an outstanding receiver. You can bet they're going to use his athleticism & get him integrated into the passing game next season. You can see why Green Bay is so excited about him as a feature back. I know McCarthy is super-high on him. Starks is a do-everything RB & those are hard to find.

Very similar numbers to BJGE against Pittsburgh. Ellis had 18 carries for 87 yards and a long run of 17 with 4 catches for 36 yards. Danny Woodhead was 9 for 59 against you guys and BJGE was 6 for 38 in the same game. I don't think I would feel comfortable calling those guys more than nice and important players in the Pats scheme; but that's me.

I'm not comparing his numbers against anybody. You can't scout that way. I do think it's kind of funny that people have been wanting to see him put up a good YPC, & when he does it against the best rushing D in the league, people focus on something else. That said, you can't scout by YPC, either. And I'm not necessarily talking about you. I'm not really sure what your opinion of Starks is. If you differ from me in your opinion, that's cool.I will say there's a weird dynamic with Starks, though (in regards to the Shark Pool). Some players really get opinions going on both sides & that's what has happened with Starks. I kinda compare it to the the threads about Matt Forte in the past. Anyway, my opinion is Starks could very well be fantasy gold. I like his type...good at everything. For a rookie, he's an outstanding blocker. His mistakes have been mental. Rookies make mental mistakes. What you don't see is blitzers overwhelming him. He almost always stones them or cuts them off their feet. As far as his receiving ability, this is more of a projection, but I think we're looking at a very good pass-catcher here. Like I said, Starks caught a lot of balls in college & from what I can tell so far, he'll make a very good 3rd down back. Combine those things with his athleticism/natural running skills & you have the makings of a fine feature back. In short, I like his chances to be their feature back by 2012. Others aren't so sure, others disagree completely. We'll see what happens. That's what the Shark Pool is all about.

 

[munchkin]

Actually, Starks is one of the better rookie blockers I've seen. He set too long on a blitz pick-up, but he's a stone-cold killer when he meets a blitzer. For how much time he missed, you can tell he's going to be an exceptional blocker.

Starks also caught a bunch of passes in college & from what I can gather so far (with my eyes & talk from coaches), he has the potential to be an outstanding receiver. You can bet they're going to use his athleticism & get him integrated into the passing game next season.

You can see why Green Bay is so excited about him as a feature back. I know McCarthy is super-high on him. Starks is a do-everything RB & those are hard to find.

Very similar numbers to BJGE against Pittsburgh. Ellis had 18 carries for 87 yards and a long run of 17 with 4 catches for 36 yards.

Danny Woodhead was 9 for 59 against you guys and BJGE was 6 for 38 in the same game. I don't think I would feel comfortable calling those guys more than nice and important players in the Pats scheme; but that's me.

I'm not comparing his numbers against anybody. You can't scout that way. I do think it's kind of funny that people have been wanting to see him put up a good YPC, & when he does it against the best rushing D in the league, people focus on something else. That said, you can't scout by YPC, either. And I'm not necessarily talking about you. I'm not really sure what your opinion of Starks is. If you differ from me in your opinion, that's cool.I will say there's a weird dynamic with Starks, though (in regards to the Shark Pool). Some players really get opinions going on both sides & that's what has happened with Starks. I kinda compare it to the the threads about Matt Forte in the past.

Anyway, my opinion is Starks could very well be fantasy gold. I like his type...good at everything. For a rookie, he's an outstanding blocker. His mistakes have been mental. Rookies make mental mistakes. What you don't see is blitzers overwhelming him. He almost always stones them or cuts them off their feet. As far as his receiving ability, this is more of a projection, but I think we're looking at a very good pass-catcher here. Like I said, Starks caught a lot of balls in college & from what I can tell so far, he'll make a very good 3rd down back. Combine those things with his athleticism/natural running skills & you have the makings of a fine feature back.

In short, I like his chances to be their feature back by 2012. Others aren't so sure, others disagree completely. We'll see what happens. That's what the Shark Pool is all about.

Your argument is confusing. What I am saying is I see an efficient Rb with little burst and not much speed to the outside. Very similar to BJGE he has shown to get what is there and not much else. I am not saying he can't develop into a more dynamic back but I don't see where he has shown that on the field to date.

 

[blackbird001]

All eyes on how the pack sorts out Grant now.

 

[blackbird001]

BTW, Starks covered. Mendenhall did not.

 

[Football Jones]

Actually, Starks is one of the better rookie blockers I've seen. He set too long on a blitz pick-up, but he's a stone-cold killer when he meets a blitzer. For how much time he missed, you can tell he's going to be an exceptional blocker.

Starks also caught a bunch of passes in college & from what I can gather so far (with my eyes & talk from coaches), he has the potential to be an outstanding receiver. You can bet they're going to use his athleticism & get him integrated into the passing game next season.

You can see why Green Bay is so excited about him as a feature back. I know McCarthy is super-high on him. Starks is a do-everything RB & those are hard to find.

Very similar numbers to BJGE against Pittsburgh. Ellis had 18 carries for 87 yards and a long run of 17 with 4 catches for 36 yards.

Danny Woodhead was 9 for 59 against you guys and BJGE was 6 for 38 in the same game. I don't think I would feel comfortable calling those guys more than nice and important players in the Pats scheme; but that's me.

I'm not comparing his numbers against anybody. You can't scout that way. I do think it's kind of funny that people have been wanting to see him put up a good YPC, & when he does it against the best rushing D in the league, people focus on something else. That said, you can't scout by YPC, either. And I'm not necessarily talking about you. I'm not really sure what your opinion of Starks is. If you differ from me in your opinion, that's cool.I will say there's a weird dynamic with Starks, though (in regards to the Shark Pool). Some players really get opinions going on both sides & that's what has happened with Starks. I kinda compare it to the the threads about Matt Forte in the past.

Anyway, my opinion is Starks could very well be fantasy gold. I like his type...good at everything. For a rookie, he's an outstanding blocker. His mistakes have been mental. Rookies make mental mistakes. What you don't see is blitzers overwhelming him. He almost always stones them or cuts them off their feet. As far as his receiving ability, this is more of a projection, but I think we're looking at a very good pass-catcher here. Like I said, Starks caught a lot of balls in college & from what I can tell so far, he'll make a very good 3rd down back. Combine those things with his athleticism/natural running skills & you have the makings of a fine feature back.

In short, I like his chances to be their feature back by 2012. Others aren't so sure, others disagree completely. We'll see what happens. That's what the Shark Pool is all about.

Your argument is confusing. What I am saying is I see an efficient Rb with little burst and not much speed to the outside. Very similar to BJGE he has shown to get what is there and not much else. I am not saying he can't develop into a more dynamic back but I don't see where he has shown that on the field to date.

Confusing? Basically, we just completely disagree, LOL. I believe Starks is a much, MUCH better prospect than BGE. And he's in a better situation. There's also a good chance the Pats take a RB high in the draft (which goes with the situation aspect of it). What I see is good burst & decent speed. I also see good athleticism, vision, & loose hips. Many of the things that McCarthy has spoken about.

Again, we just have to agree to disagree. This kid is a very talented RB. He does everything well, & like I said, those guys are hard to find. It'll be interesting to see what he does next season.

 

[BigJim®]

Actually, Starks is one of the better rookie blockers I've seen. He set too long on a blitz pick-up, but he's a stone-cold killer when he meets a blitzer. For how much time he missed, you can tell he's going to be an exceptional blocker.

Starks also caught a bunch of passes in college & from what I can gather so far (with my eyes & talk from coaches), he has the potential to be an outstanding receiver. You can bet they're going to use his athleticism & get him integrated into the passing game next season.

You can see why Green Bay is so excited about him as a feature back. I know McCarthy is super-high on him. Starks is a do-everything RB & those are hard to find.

Congrats on the Super Bowl victory, but I have to assume you're still drunk...

As a Packer fan renowned Starks basher, I say

Fixed

 

[Tau837]

As a skeptic who posted a few times earlier in this thread, I must admit the Super Bowl performance was the most impressive performance I've seen from Starks. I still think Grant is the starter in 2011, but I think Starks has a definite role in 2011. As for 2012, I'm sure it will depend on how Starks performs over a larger sample size in 2011, as well as how Grant performs.

 

[Go deep]

Actually, Starks is one of the better rookie blockers I've seen. He set too long on a blitz pick-up, but he's a stone-cold killer when he meets a blitzer. For how much time he missed, you can tell he's going to be an exceptional blocker.

Starks also caught a bunch of passes in college & from what I can gather so far (with my eyes & talk from coaches), he has the potential to be an outstanding receiver. You can bet they're going to use his athleticism & get him integrated into the passing game next season.

You can see why Green Bay is so excited about him as a feature back. I know McCarthy is super-high on him. Starks is a do-everything RB & those are hard to find.

Congrats on the Super Bowl victory, but I have to assume you're still drunk...

As a Packer fan renowned Starks basher, I say

Fixed

He acts likes being a Packers fan makes him unbiased, but he is nothing but a scared Grant owner.

Grant 3 seasons 0 SB's, Starks 1 season 1 SB. If it aint broke......

 

[bcr8f]

All eyes on how the pack sorts out Grant now.

I think Grant's a better zone system runner who will help Starks in the future. Probably a RBBC for now and groom Starks for the future. Jackson could be the man out if he's offered a lot of money.

 

[blackbird001]

All eyes on how the pack sorts out Grant now.

I think Grant's a better zone system runner who will help Starks in the future. Probably a RBBC for now and groom Starks for the future. Jackson could be the man out if he's offered a lot of money.

...or not offered any by Green Bay.

 

[humpback]

Actually, Starks is one of the better rookie blockers I've seen. He set too long on a blitz pick-up, but he's a stone-cold killer when he meets a blitzer. For how much time he missed, you can tell he's going to be an exceptional blocker.Starks also caught a bunch of passes in college & from what I can gather so far (with my eyes & talk from coaches), he has the potential to be an outstanding receiver. You can bet they're going to use his athleticism & get him integrated into the passing game next season. You can see why Green Bay is so excited about him as a feature back. I know McCarthy is super-high on him. Starks is a do-everything RB & those are hard to find.

Congrats on the Super Bowl victory, but I have to assume you're still drunk...

LOL...stone-cold sober

Admitting you have a problem is the first step. :(

 

[munchkin]

Actually, Starks is one of the better rookie blockers I've seen. He set too long on a blitz pick-up, but he's a stone-cold killer when he meets a blitzer. For how much time he missed, you can tell he's going to be an exceptional blocker.

Starks also caught a bunch of passes in college & from what I can gather so far (with my eyes & talk from coaches), he has the potential to be an outstanding receiver. You can bet they're going to use his athleticism & get him integrated into the passing game next season.

You can see why Green Bay is so excited about him as a feature back. I know McCarthy is super-high on him. Starks is a do-everything RB & those are hard to find.

Very similar numbers to BJGE against Pittsburgh. Ellis had 18 carries for 87 yards and a long run of 17 with 4 catches for 36 yards.

Danny Woodhead was 9 for 59 against you guys and BJGE was 6 for 38 in the same game. I don't think I would feel comfortable calling those guys more than nice and important players in the Pats scheme; but that's me.

I'm not comparing his numbers against anybody. You can't scout that way. I do think it's kind of funny that people have been wanting to see him put up a good YPC, & when he does it against the best rushing D in the league, people focus on something else. That said, you can't scout by YPC, either. And I'm not necessarily talking about you. I'm not really sure what your opinion of Starks is. If you differ from me in your opinion, that's cool.I will say there's a weird dynamic with Starks, though (in regards to the Shark Pool). Some players really get opinions going on both sides & that's what has happened with Starks. I kinda compare it to the the threads about Matt Forte in the past.

Anyway, my opinion is Starks could very well be fantasy gold. I like his type...good at everything. For a rookie, he's an outstanding blocker. His mistakes have been mental. Rookies make mental mistakes. What you don't see is blitzers overwhelming him. He almost always stones them or cuts them off their feet. As far as his receiving ability, this is more of a projection, but I think we're looking at a very good pass-catcher here. Like I said, Starks caught a lot of balls in college & from what I can tell so far, he'll make a very good 3rd down back. Combine those things with his athleticism/natural running skills & you have the makings of a fine feature back.

In short, I like his chances to be their feature back by 2012. Others aren't so sure, others disagree completely. We'll see what happens. That's what the Shark Pool is all about. :(

Your argument is confusing. What I am saying is I see an efficient Rb with little burst and not much speed to the outside. Very similar to BJGE he has shown to get what is there and not much else. I am not saying he can't develop into a more dynamic back but I don't see where he has shown that on the field to date.

Confusing? Basically, we just completely disagree, LOL. I believe Starks is a much, MUCH better prospect than BGE. And he's in a better situation. There's also a good chance the Pats take a RB high in the draft (which goes with the situation aspect of it). What I see is good burst & decent speed. I also see good athleticism, vision, & loose hips. Many of the things that McCarthy has spoken about.

Again, we just have to agree to disagree. This kid is a very talented RB. He does everything well, & like I said, those guys are hard to find. It'll be interesting to see what he does next season.

Not really; but that doesn't make BJGE any better than he is. For the record, I don't think BJGE has any special qualities. I don't think it takes a whole lot for an RB to have more upside than BJGE as well. Like I said, Starks may turn out to be a pretty good NFL RB with more playing experience; I just don't see anything special.

 

[humpback]

As a skeptic who posted a few times earlier in this thread, I must admit the Super Bowl performance was the most impressive performance I've seen from Starks. I still think Grant is the starter in 2011, but I think Starks has a definite role in 2011. As for 2012, I'm sure it will depend on how Starks performs over a larger sample size in 2011, as well as how Grant performs.

He looked much better in the Philly game IMO. Since then, he's just looked okay.

 

[Football Jones]

Actually, Starks is one of the better rookie blockers I've seen. He set too long on a blitz pick-up, but he's a stone-cold killer when he meets a blitzer. For how much time he missed, you can tell he's going to be an exceptional blocker.Starks also caught a bunch of passes in college & from what I can gather so far (with my eyes & talk from coaches), he has the potential to be an outstanding receiver. You can bet they're going to use his athleticism & get him integrated into the passing game next season. You can see why Green Bay is so excited about him as a feature back. I know McCarthy is super-high on him. Starks is a do-everything RB & those are hard to find.

Congrats on the Super Bowl victory, but I have to assume you're still drunk...

LOL...stone-cold sober

Admitting you have a problem is the first step.

Pepsi is my drink of choice.