James Starks (1 Viewer)

[guderian]

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.

The weird dynamic is because so many people have very high expectations of him--I think a few in this thread put him in the top 10. This doesn't remind me of Forte as much as a litany of players that have been hyped on these boards well beyond anything they've shown on the field. It seems like a lot of people have also forgotten that there's a back on the roster that has multiple 1200 yard seasons under his belt. Could starks explode as a top 10 RB? Sure, but a lot of things have to go right for that to happen including improving his on-field performance and either out-performing Grant or Grant getting booted off of the Packers.

 

[Go deep]

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.

I think he has pretty much looked the same in all four games. Situation, opposing defenses, etc have dictated the rest. His numbers were certainly better in the Philly game, but i dont think he looked like a better player than in the other 3 games.

 

[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.

I think he has pretty much looked the same in all four games. Situation, opposing defenses, etc have dictated the rest. His numbers were certainly better in the Philly game, but i dont think he looked like a better player than in the other 3 games.

I disagree- I think he looked like a very good RB in the Philly game, very average in the last 3.

 

[Football Jones]

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.

The weird dynamic is because so many people have very high expectations of him--I think a few in this thread put him in the top 10. This doesn't remind me of Forte as much as a litany of players that have been hyped on these boards well beyond anything they've shown on the field. It seems like a lot of people have also forgotten that there's a back on the roster that has multiple 1200 yard seasons under his belt. Could starks explode as a top 10 RB? Sure, but a lot of things have to go right for that to happen including improving his on-field performance and either out-performing Grant or Grant getting booted off of the Packers.

That's the thing. I think some people shy away from hyped players simply because they're hyped, or maybe because they don't have a gaudy YPC. Or maybe they've been burned. Other people want to see a top-10 performance before they believe.Starks has absolutely showed he deserves the hype by his play, IMO (along with his projected play). Many people see what they see without projecting. Nobody is right or wrong right now, but I haven't been this high on a sleeper-type RB in awhile.As far as the weird dynamic, it happens every once in awhile. It tends to be sleeper-types who get a quick following for whatever reason. In this case, I believe the hype is warranted.

 

[Jericho34]

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.

I would agree he's a better runner than Brandon Jackson, but he benefits significantly from defensive fear of Aaron Rodgers. The comparison to BJGE strikes me as a good one, except BJGE is a better pass blocker.

 

[Eric Stratton]

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.

I think he has pretty much looked the same in all four games. Situation, opposing defenses, etc have dictated the rest. His numbers were certainly better in the Philly game, but i dont think he looked like a better player than in the other 3 games.

I disagree- I think he looked like a very good RB in the Philly game, very average in the last 3.

 

[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.

I think he has pretty much looked the same in all four games. Situation, opposing defenses, etc have dictated the rest. His numbers were certainly better in the Philly game, but i dont think he looked like a better player than in the other 3 games.

I disagree- I think he looked like a very good RB in the Philly game, very average in the last 3.

<_<

So you think he's been great?

 

[Eric Stratton]

So you think he's been great?

BIG difference between "very average" and great. He hasn't been great but he has been more than "very average".

 

[Go deep]

So you think he's been great?

How about something between average and great?

 

[Prussian]

Bottom line ... Starks has shown enough that the fantasy impact is RBBC in Green Bay next year.

 

[humpback]

So you think he's been great?

BIG difference between "very average" and great. He hasn't been great but he has been more than "very average".

Okay, just calling them how I see them. He's show a few flashes, but overall, these last 3 games have been very average IMO. Nothing to do with stats, just watching the games. I think he looked a lot better vs. Philly.

 

[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

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

Well, if he is a Grant owner then it makes all the sense in the world. I was confused that a Packer fan would use so much effort to belittle a RB the team chose to lead them in the playoffs. If true, that's sort of pathetic, IMHO. I wasn't blown away by Starks or anything, but he certainly didn't look bad, as some of these guys would have folks believe (in suggesting someone has to be drunk to have been impressed). He was given all 11 carries with 4.7 YPC, had a couple bg runs and a 3rd down conversion where he was caught behind the line. Who can complain about that? BTW- I'm not suggesting Starks is HOF, top 10 RB, whatever. I think however he's made the most of his rookie opportunities, provided a run threat for a pass first offense, picked up needed yards, and most important secured the ball against good playoff defenses. That the team rode him in the playoffs is a great sign for him, and gives vital experience he can use to help prepare/improve over the coming offseason. I think he has untapped upside as a receiving RB, as getting the ball as a receiver in space was one of his strengths in college; I'm a little puzzled GB didn't involve him in the passing game at all. Seems like it would it more difficult to defend a RB who is occasionally used for a screen rather than exclusively as a runner.

 

[humpback]

Might want to read the post again (in case you want to deal with actual facts). I didn't suggest he must've been drunk to have been impressed, I jokingly suggested he was drunk to say what he actually said, which went way beyond being impressed.

 

[Eric Stratton]

Might want to read the post again (in case you want to deal with actual facts). I didn't suggest he must've been drunk to have been impressed, I jokingly suggested he was drunk to say what he actually said, which went way beyond being impressed.

What's your excuse for actually saying that you think Starks has looked "very average"?

 

[Sudoku_in_the_Bathtub]

He performed pretty well with fresh legs, as he should. Night/day comparing him and a sluggish Jackson run.

Real test is going through an entire regular season's worth of games. Obviously GB handled him and his situation as well as you possibly could. His fresh legs were a huge boost to the running game.

No question it'll be a RBBC if Grant returns. Given that Grant missed all of this year along with Starks extensive injury history, they'd be foolish IMO to rely on Starks (meaning keep Grant, get a FA RB, or spend a pick on one).

 

[humpback]

Might want to read the post again (in case you want to deal with actual facts). I didn't suggest he must've been drunk to have been impressed, I jokingly suggested he was drunk to say what he actually said, which went way beyond being impressed.

What's your excuse for actually saying that you think Starks has looked "very average"?

No excuse needed, just giving my honest objective opinion. What's yours for thinking he's been more than that (besides that helmet)?

 

[duaneok66]

Might want to read the post again (in case you want to deal with actual facts). I didn't suggest he must've been drunk to have been impressed, I jokingly suggested he was drunk to say what he actually said, which went way beyond being impressed.

What's your excuse for actually saying that you think Starks has looked "very average"?

No excuse needed, just giving my honest subjective opinion. What's yours for thinking he's been more than that (besides that helmet)?

fixed . . .

 

[BigJim®]

Might want to read the post again (in case you want to deal with actual facts). I didn't suggest he must've been drunk to have been impressed, I jokingly suggested he was drunk to say what he actually said, which went way beyond being impressed.

You mean dealing with facts like you did, posting 1 sentence that he was still drunk, followed by 1 sentence that recognition is the first step? Uhhh.... ok. Feel free to present a fact at any point here. Rather than calling a guy drunk for being impressed with Starks ability to pick up blitzes, you might tell us how many he missed vs. how many he picked up. TIA, fact guy.

 

[bcr8f]

He performed pretty well with fresh legs, as he should. Night/day comparing him and a sluggish Jackson run.Real test is going through an entire regular season's worth of games. Obviously GB handled him and his situation as well as you possibly could. His fresh legs were a huge boost to the running game.No question it'll be a RBBC if Grant returns. Given that Grant missed all of this year along with Starks extensive injury history, they'd be foolish IMO to rely on Starks (meaning keep Grant, get a FA RB, or spend a pick on one).

I have fresh legs. Hopeful it will be an open competition between the 2 RB's.

 

[humpback]

Might want to read the post again (in case you want to deal with actual facts). I didn't suggest he must've been drunk to have been impressed, I jokingly suggested he was drunk to say what he actually said, which went way beyond being impressed.

You mean dealing with facts like you did, posting 1 sentence that he was still drunk, followed by 1 sentence that recognition is the first step? Uhhh.... ok. Feel free to present a fact at any point here. Rather than calling a guy drunk for being impressed with Starks ability to pick up blitzes, you might tell us how many he missed vs. how many he picked up. TIA, fact guy.

I guess you still haven't read it. No worries, he got it at least.

 

[blackbird001]

Might want to read the post again (in case you want to deal with actual facts). I didn't suggest he must've been drunk to have been impressed, I jokingly suggested he was drunk to say what he actually said, which went way beyond being impressed.

You mean dealing with facts like you did, posting 1 sentence that he was still drunk, followed by 1 sentence that recognition is the first step? Uhhh.... ok. Feel free to present a fact at any point here. Rather than calling a guy drunk for being impressed with Starks ability to pick up blitzes, you might tell us how many he missed vs. how many he picked up. TIA, fact guy.

"Starks' best sequence came in the second quarter. Fox color commentator Troy Aikman also lauded Starks' ability to pick up the blitz on a 16-yard pass completion from Rodgers to Nelson. The very next play, Starks ripped off a run of 12 yards, taking the Packers down to the Steelers' 21-yard line."http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/bills-nf...ticle333560.ece

 

[BigJim®]

Might want to read the post again (in case you want to deal with actual facts). I didn't suggest he must've been drunk to have been impressed, I jokingly suggested he was drunk to say what he actually said, which went way beyond being impressed.

You mean dealing with facts like you did, posting 1 sentence that he was still drunk, followed by 1 sentence that recognition is the first step? Uhhh.... ok. Feel free to present a fact at any point here. Rather than calling a guy drunk for being impressed with Starks ability to pick up blitzes, you might tell us how many he missed vs. how many he picked up. TIA, fact guy.

I guess you still haven't read it. No worries, he got it at least.

Of course I read the exchange. He got what? Seems to me he was just being gracious. Care to unpack so I can receive those facts you want me to consider?

 

[Ranethe]

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.

The weird dynamic is because so many people have very high expectations of him--I think a few in this thread put him in the top 10. This doesn't remind me of Forte as much as a litany of players that have been hyped on these boards well beyond anything they've shown on the field. It seems like a lot of people have also forgotten that there's a back on the roster that has multiple 1200 yard seasons under his belt. Could starks explode as a top 10 RB? Sure, but a lot of things have to go right for that to happen including improving his on-field performance and either out-performing Grant or Grant getting booted off of the Packers.

That's the thing. I think some people shy away from hyped players simply because they're hyped, or maybe because they don't have a gaudy YPC. Or maybe they've been burned. Other people want to see a top-10 performance before they believe.Starks has absolutely showed he deserves the hype by his play, IMO (along with his projected play). Many people see what they see without projecting. Nobody is right or wrong right now, but I haven't been this high on a sleeper-type RB in awhile.As far as the weird dynamic, it happens every once in awhile. It tends to be sleeper-types who get a quick following for whatever reason. In this case, I believe the hype is warranted.

You're getting to be as bad as Switz with Felix. Settle down.

 

[humpback]

Might want to read the post again (in case you want to deal with actual facts). I didn't suggest he must've been drunk to have been impressed, I jokingly suggested he was drunk to say what he actually said, which went way beyond being impressed.

You mean dealing with facts like you did, posting 1 sentence that he was still drunk, followed by 1 sentence that recognition is the first step? Uhhh.... ok. Feel free to present a fact at any point here. Rather than calling a guy drunk for being impressed with Starks ability to pick up blitzes, you might tell us how many he missed vs. how many he picked up. TIA, fact guy.

I guess you still haven't read it. No worries, he got it at least.

Of course I read the exchange. He got what? Seems to me he was just being gracious. Care to unpack so I can receive those facts you want me to consider?

He got that it was just a little ribbing (hence the emoticons). It's not worth wasting more time over, but he didn't just say he was impressed with Starks- he said he was one of the best rookie blockers he's seen, called him a "stone-cold killer", "you can tell he's going to be an exceptional blocker", "has the potential to be an outstanding receiver", "you can see why Green Bay is so excited about him as a feature back", he's a "do everything RB and those are hard to find", etc. This is way more over the top than just saying he was impressed, which is why I joked with him about being drunk. That's all.

 

[Football Jones]

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.

The weird dynamic is because so many people have very high expectations of him--I think a few in this thread put him in the top 10. This doesn't remind me of Forte as much as a litany of players that have been hyped on these boards well beyond anything they've shown on the field. It seems like a lot of people have also forgotten that there's a back on the roster that has multiple 1200 yard seasons under his belt. Could starks explode as a top 10 RB? Sure, but a lot of things have to go right for that to happen including improving his on-field performance and either out-performing Grant or Grant getting booted off of the Packers.

That's the thing. I think some people shy away from hyped players simply because they're hyped, or maybe because they don't have a gaudy YPC. Or maybe they've been burned. Other people want to see a top-10 performance before they believe.Starks has absolutely showed he deserves the hype by his play, IMO (along with his projected play). Many people see what they see without projecting. Nobody is right or wrong right now, but I haven't been this high on a sleeper-type RB in awhile.As far as the weird dynamic, it happens every once in awhile. It tends to be sleeper-types who get a quick following for whatever reason. In this case, I believe the hype is warranted.

You're getting to be as bad as Switz with Felix. Settle down.

See what I mean about a weird dynamic? It just happens. Some players simply make people crazy. Like I said, for some reason, players like Starks really create a divide. I think he's a talented RB with a bright future. Others can't stand to hear his name, LOL.Discussion is good, but with players like Starks, the thread can deteriorate into what I call anti-discussion. Which means it's no longer about opinions, but other stuff (non-football related).I'll call it the Weird Dynamic Syndrome.

 

[Ranethe]

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.

The weird dynamic is because so many people have very high expectations of him--I think a few in this thread put him in the top 10. This doesn't remind me of Forte as much as a litany of players that have been hyped on these boards well beyond anything they've shown on the field. It seems like a lot of people have also forgotten that there's a back on the roster that has multiple 1200 yard seasons under his belt. Could starks explode as a top 10 RB? Sure, but a lot of things have to go right for that to happen including improving his on-field performance and either out-performing Grant or Grant getting booted off of the Packers.

That's the thing. I think some people shy away from hyped players simply because they're hyped, or maybe because they don't have a gaudy YPC. Or maybe they've been burned. Other people want to see a top-10 performance before they believe.Starks has absolutely showed he deserves the hype by his play, IMO (along with his projected play). Many people see what they see without projecting. Nobody is right or wrong right now, but I haven't been this high on a sleeper-type RB in awhile.As far as the weird dynamic, it happens every once in awhile. It tends to be sleeper-types who get a quick following for whatever reason. In this case, I believe the hype is warranted.

You're getting to be as bad as Switz with Felix. Settle down.

See what I mean about a weird dynamic? It just happens. Some players simply make people crazy. Like I said, for some reason, players like Starks really create a divide. I think he's a talented RB with a bright future. Others can't stand to hear his name, LOL.Discussion is good, but with players like Starks, the thread can deteriorate into what I call anti-discussion. Which means it's no longer about opinions, but other stuff (non-football related).I'll call it the Weird Dynamic Syndrome.

He doesn't make me crazy. I like him. I live outside Buffalo, I went to UB. I'm a fan of his. I'm rooting for him. I drafted him in one of my dynasty leagues last year (since traded him). But you are way over the top and keep saying the same things over and over. We get it. You've never been so excited about a rookie RB...etc. etc.No offense meant, you can post whatever you like. Just trying to offer some perspective.

 

[Football Jones]

Might want to read the post again (in case you want to deal with actual facts). I didn't suggest he must've been drunk to have been impressed, I jokingly suggested he was drunk to say what he actually said, which went way beyond being impressed.

You mean dealing with facts like you did, posting 1 sentence that he was still drunk, followed by 1 sentence that recognition is the first step? Uhhh.... ok. Feel free to present a fact at any point here. Rather than calling a guy drunk for being impressed with Starks ability to pick up blitzes, you might tell us how many he missed vs. how many he picked up. TIA, fact guy.

I guess you still haven't read it. No worries, he got it at least.

Of course I read the exchange. He got what? Seems to me he was just being gracious. Care to unpack so I can receive those facts you want me to consider?

He got that it was just a little ribbing (hence the emoticons). It's not worth wasting more time over, but he didn't just say he was impressed with Starks- he said he was one of the best rookie blockers he's seen, called him a "stone-cold killer", "you can tell he's going to be an exceptional blocker", "has the potential to be an outstanding receiver", "you can see why Green Bay is so excited about him as a feature back", he's a "do everything RB and those are hard to find", etc. This is way more over the top than just saying he was impressed, which is why I joked with him about being drunk. That's all.

I didn't take it personal. I realize you were kidding (probably). That said, you're seeing something very different than me if you don't believe he's an outstanding blocker, especially for missing so much time (again, Starks is one of the best rookie blockers I've seen...he stones people regularly). As far as being potentially an outstanding receiver, Green Bay being very high on him, & all that, it's not over the top at all. McCarthy has said many of those things himself.Anyway, the kid is going to be really good, IMO. He could easily be a FF stud in a year or two.

 

[BigJim®]

Might want to read the post again (in case you want to deal with actual facts). I didn't suggest he must've been drunk to have been impressed, I jokingly suggested he was drunk to say what he actually said, which went way beyond being impressed.

You mean dealing with facts like you did, posting 1 sentence that he was still drunk, followed by 1 sentence that recognition is the first step? Uhhh.... ok. Feel free to present a fact at any point here. Rather than calling a guy drunk for being impressed with Starks ability to pick up blitzes, you might tell us how many he missed vs. how many he picked up. TIA, fact guy.

I guess you still haven't read it. No worries, he got it at least.

Of course I read the exchange. He got what? Seems to me he was just being gracious. Care to unpack so I can receive those facts you want me to consider?

He got that it was just a little ribbing (hence the emoticons). It's not worth wasting more time over, but he didn't just say he was impressed with Starks- he said he was one of the best rookie blockers he's seen, called him a "stone-cold killer", "you can tell he's going to be an exceptional blocker", "has the potential to be an outstanding receiver", "you can see why Green Bay is so excited about him as a feature back", he's a "do everything RB and those are hard to find", etc. This is way more over the top than just saying he was impressed, which is why I joked with him about being drunk. That's all.

Listen, this ridiculous exchange began with you saying I missed "actual facts," which I didn't. He provided an enthusiastic opinion, right or wrong. Your responses were pure mockery. Not one iota of fact to dispell his opinions. You didn't give example of Starks not being good at blitz pick up. Starks was an accomplished receiver in college, so I actually agree he has the potential. Coaches have praised Starks and said he was possibly a feature back of the future... and he clearly was the bellcow throughout the playoffs. Does something about that reality make his opinion factually wrong? Obviously I too am not wasting anymore time now that I understand that your only contribution is your own subjective opinion that he's comically wrong, delivered via 1-sentence heckles.

 

[humpback]

Wow. I'll try one last time, not to argue but in an attempt to clarify. When I said "facts", I wasn't talking about actual stats, skills, etc. I was talking about how you said I suggested someone has to be drunk to have been impressed. That's not what I said.

Admittedly, "fact" wasn't the best word, but in my strong opinion, what he said went way beyond just saying he was impressed. Put it this way- if he would've just said that he was impressed with Starks, I wouldn't have even responded. The only reason I did was because he went to the extreme (I still laugh from "stone-cold killer"), and I did it jokingly (no, I don't really think he is drunk).

 

[Football Jones]

Ranethe,

No problem. Sounds like you like him, just not as much as me, LOL.

Anyway, I do think this thread has pretty much run it's course in a way. Like I said, when the discussion turns non-football, it detracts from the thread. I'm sure I've repeated myself, but it's a long thread & various posters are addressing me. Maybe it's time others chime in on Starks, though.

For the record, even I'm not 100% sold on Starks. I absolutely love his talent, but we don't know what Green Bay will do in the draft, what will happen with Grant, how Starks will be used going forward, etc. Those are things you can't control. FF is a perpetual motion machine & evaluating a player (especially a young player) is a constant process. I may not be as bullish on him depending on how things shake out, but I believe he's got the talent, which is the first prerequisite.

 

[humpback]

I didn't take it personal. I realize you were kidding (probably). That said, you're seeing something very different than me if you don't believe he's an outstanding blocker, especially for missing so much time (again, Starks is one of the best rookie blockers I've seen...he stones people regularly). As far as being potentially an outstanding receiver, Green Bay being very high on him, & all that, it's not over the top at all. McCarthy has said many of those things himself.Anyway, the kid is going to be really good, IMO. He could easily be a FF stud in a year or two.

Good, I'm glad you could see that.This may all just come down to context- I like Starks and I'm rooting for him. If you compare him to the better blocking RBs in the NFL, no, I don't think he's outstanding. If you're going to compare him to rookies, and then factor in that he's missed so much time, you'll probably get a different opinion. Same with all of his skills- he's got talent and nice potential, but in no way do I consider him one of the more talented RBs in the NFL right now. Being a rookie and missing time gives a reason to be optimistic for sure, but it doesn't make him more talented, it just gives him more room to improve (if that makes sense). I think you are being very optimistic with your assumptions, that's primarily where we differ- IMO, you're pretty much convinced that he's going to get a lot better. I hope he does, but I'm not convinced yet.As for the coach-speak, I don't put much stock in that at all- nearly everything they say about their players is going to be positive. They've said quite a few positive things about Brandon Jackson earlier as well, and we know how that turned out.

 

[blackbird001]

Just think how often this thread will get bumped in the future every time Starks ties his own shoes or farts in church.

 

[duaneok66]

Just think how often this thread will get bumped in the future every time Starks ties his own shoes or farts in church.

good point . . .this thread is almost as bad as the War and Peace-sized Danario Alexander thread . . .

 

[blackbird001]

From NFP, report on rookie performances in the super bowl:

As he has done all during the playoffs, Starks played a very consistent game. Running the ball was not a big part of the Green Bay game plan so he carried the ball only 11 times for 52 yards. As I have said before, he is a very physical runner who consistently gets yards after contact. He is always attacking his tacklers yet still has the body control and quick feet to make a defender miss. The part of his game that was impressive on Sunday was his pass blocking. Except for one play when he took a bad angle after play action, he was excellent. He’s a face up pass blocker with pop and anchor and also has good hands. Overall, the more Starks plays the more complete he is becoming and next season he will be one of the better backs in the NFC. He gets a B+

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/The-Su...kie-Report.html

 

[Go deep]

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/119666384.html

Outlook: This is Starks’ world if he wants it. The Packers haven’t had a back with his overall skills since Ahman Green. Starks revived a dormant running game at the end of last season and while he only averaged 3.9 yards per carry and had a long run of 27 yards, the game was not too big for him as a rookie. He has been labeled a poor man’s Adrian Peterson by one member of the coaching staff and has just scratched the surface in most others’ view.

 

[cr8f]

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/119666384.html

Outlook: This is Starks’ world if he wants it. The Packers haven’t had a back with his overall skills since Ahman Green. Starks revived a dormant running game at the end of last season and while he only averaged 3.9 yards per carry and had a long run of 27 yards, the game was not too big for him as a rookie. He has been labeled a poor man’s Adrian Peterson by one member of the coaching staff and has just scratched the surface in most others’ view.

He did look good, my hope though is Grant comes back and works him him because he was better at picking holes.

 

[humpback]

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/119666384.html

Outlook: This is Starks’ world if he wants it. The Packers haven’t had a back with his overall skills since Ahman Green. Starks revived a dormant running game at the end of last season and while he only averaged 3.9 yards per carry and had a long run of 27 yards, the game was not too big for him as a rookie. He has been labeled a poor man’s Adrian Peterson by one member of the coaching staff and has just scratched the surface in most others’ view.

Shocker- you stopped quoting the blog right before it got into all of the negatives...

 

[identikit]

http://www.jsonline..../119666384.html

Outlook: This is Starks' world if he wants it. The Packers haven't had a back with his overall skills since Ahman Green. Starks revived a dormant running game at the end of last season and while he only averaged 3.9 yards per carry and had a long run of 27 yards, the game was not too big for him as a rookie. He has been labeled a poor man's Adrian Peterson by one member of the coaching staff and has just scratched the surface in most others' view.

Shocker- you stopped quoting the blog right before it got into all of the negatives...

The rest of the story:

Things won’t be easy for Starks, who had a fumbling problem in college, but didn’t cough it up once in 81 touches with the Packers. Teams will have tape on him and they’ll start going after the ball. Ideally, Grant would come back and look more flexible and elusive than coming into the 2010 season when he appeared stiff and too bulked up. He was off to a decent start before suffering a season-ending injury in the opener. Starks could be Dorsey Levens and Grant, Edgar Bennett, in a job-sharing role reminiscent of the 1996 Super Bowl season. Starks never showed the good hands he had in college, but showed better blocking skills than Grant and could be the regular third-down back. Kuhn remains a vital part of the team and will be re-signed. Coach Mike McCarthy really liked Dimitri Nance and kept trying to use him, but to no avail. He could be the third down back that replaces Jackson, but more than likely that’s where the draft comes in.

 

[Go deep]

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/119666384.html

Outlook: This is Starks’ world if he wants it. The Packers haven’t had a back with his overall skills since Ahman Green. Starks revived a dormant running game at the end of last season and while he only averaged 3.9 yards per carry and had a long run of 27 yards, the game was not too big for him as a rookie. He has been labeled a poor man’s Adrian Peterson by one member of the coaching staff and has just scratched the surface in most others’ view.

Shocker- you stopped quoting the blog right before it got into all of the negatives...

What negatives? I stopped the quoting after the article started to talk about the other Packer rb's. I did leave the link for others to read the whole thing though.

 

[Go deep]

http://www.jsonline..../119666384.html

Outlook: This is Starks' world if he wants it. The Packers haven't had a back with his overall skills since Ahman Green. Starks revived a dormant running game at the end of last season and while he only averaged 3.9 yards per carry and had a long run of 27 yards, the game was not too big for him as a rookie. He has been labeled a poor man's Adrian Peterson by one member of the coaching staff and has just scratched the surface in most others' view.

Shocker- you stopped quoting the blog right before it got into all of the negatives...

The rest of the story:

Things won’t be easy for Starks, who had a fumbling problem in college, but didn’t cough it up once in 81 touches with the Packers. Teams will have tape on him and they’ll start going after the ball. Ideally, Grant would come back and look more flexible and elusive than coming into the 2010 season when he appeared stiff and too bulked up. He was off to a decent start before suffering a season-ending injury in the opener. Starks could be Dorsey Levens and Grant, Edgar Bennett, in a job-sharing role reminiscent of the 1996 Super Bowl season. Starks never showed the good hands he had in college, but showed better blocking skills than Grant and could be the regular third-down back. Kuhn remains a vital part of the team and will be re-signed. Coach Mike McCarthy really liked Dimitri Nance and kept trying to use him, but to no avail. He could be the third down back that replaces Jackson, but more than likely that’s where the draft comes in.

Where are the negatives? That he didn't show the hands he did in college but was a better blocker than Grant? I don't think he showed the hands because he want used in the passing game very much. Or that despite having some fumbling issues in college he didn't fumble once in the NFL?

 

[humpback]

http://www.jsonline..../119666384.html

Outlook: This is Starks' world if he wants it. The Packers haven't had a back with his overall skills since Ahman Green. Starks revived a dormant running game at the end of last season and while he only averaged 3.9 yards per carry and had a long run of 27 yards, the game was not too big for him as a rookie. He has been labeled a poor man's Adrian Peterson by one member of the coaching staff and has just scratched the surface in most others' view.

Shocker- you stopped quoting the blog right before it got into all of the negatives...

The rest of the story:

Things won’t be easy for Starks, who had a fumbling problem in college, but didn’t cough it up once in 81 touches with the Packers. Teams will have tape on him and they’ll start going after the ball. Ideally, Grant would come back and look more flexible and elusive than coming into the 2010 season when he appeared stiff and too bulked up. He was off to a decent start before suffering a season-ending injury in the opener. Starks could be Dorsey Levens and Grant, Edgar Bennett, in a job-sharing role reminiscent of the 1996 Super Bowl season. Starks never showed the good hands he had in college, but showed better blocking skills than Grant and could be the regular third-down back. Kuhn remains a vital part of the team and will be re-signed. Coach Mike McCarthy really liked Dimitri Nance and kept trying to use him, but to no avail. He could be the third down back that replaces Jackson, but more than likely that’s where the draft comes in.

Where are the negatives? That he didn't show the hands he did in college but was a better blocker than Grant? I don't think he showed the hands because he want used in the passing game very much. Or that despite having some fumbling issues in college he didn't fumble once in the NFL?

I was just teasing because of your man-love, but most of the rest of the article talks about the possible negatives- things won't be easy, fumbled in college, they'll have tape on him now, ideally Grant would come back better, could have Dorsey Levens role (instead of being poor man's ADP), Kuhn's role, etc. You really don't see any possible negatives for him there?

 

[blackbird001]

Starks may stub his toe on the curb on the way to practice too.

Any negatives in there can be countered with more opportunity and comfort/experience at the NFL level.

I actually think there are more negatives in grants backyard. He's the one getting older and he's the one coming back from injury.

 

[humpback]

Starks may stub his toe on the curb on the way to practice too. Any negatives in there can be countered with more opportunity and comfort/experience at the NFL level. I actually think there are more negatives in grants backyard. He's the one getting older and he's the one coming back from injury.

I don't disagree with this. I've said it before, I like Starks and I'm rooting for him. I just was pointing out that this article was pretty balanced overall, it had both positives and negatives about him, but GD only quoted the positives.I don't put much if any stock into blogs like this anyway since it's just one guys opinion. It doesn't seem like this guy knows what he's talking about either since Starks basically had the opposite of a fumbling problem in college.

 

[Go deep]

http://www.jsonline..../119666384.html

Outlook: This is Starks' world if he wants it. The Packers haven't had a back with his overall skills since Ahman Green. Starks revived a dormant running game at the end of last season and while he only averaged 3.9 yards per carry and had a long run of 27 yards, the game was not too big for him as a rookie. He has been labeled a poor man's Adrian Peterson by one member of the coaching staff and has just scratched the surface in most others' view.

Shocker- you stopped quoting the blog right before it got into all of the negatives...

The rest of the story:

Things won’t be easy for Starks, who had a fumbling problem in college, but didn’t cough it up once in 81 touches with the Packers. Teams will have tape on him and they’ll start going after the ball. Ideally, Grant would come back and look more flexible and elusive than coming into the 2010 season when he appeared stiff and too bulked up. He was off to a decent start before suffering a season-ending injury in the opener. Starks could be Dorsey Levens and Grant, Edgar Bennett, in a job-sharing role reminiscent of the 1996 Super Bowl season. Starks never showed the good hands he had in college, but showed better blocking skills than Grant and could be the regular third-down back. Kuhn remains a vital part of the team and will be re-signed. Coach Mike McCarthy really liked Dimitri Nance and kept trying to use him, but to no avail. He could be the third down back that replaces Jackson, but more than likely that’s where the draft comes in.

Where are the negatives? That he didn't show the hands he did in college but was a better blocker than Grant? I don't think he showed the hands because he want used in the passing game very much. Or that despite having some fumbling issues in college he didn't fumble once in the NFL?

I was just teasing because of your man-love, but most of the rest of the article talks about the possible negatives- things won't be easy, fumbled in college, they'll have tape on him now, ideally Grant would come back better, could have Dorsey Levens role (instead of being poor man's ADP), Kuhn's role, etc. You really don't see any possible negatives for him there?

Other than my slightly exaggerated thread title what have I said that would insinuate that he is a can't miss stud RB? Negatives like things wont be easy? Who said they would?

Ideally Grant would come back better....of course that would be ideal for GB, what does it have to do with Starks?

No, I don't see Kuhn having a role no matter what happens.

Listen, I really like Starks, and pointed that out before he ever stepped foot on an NFL field. Not sure what qualifies for man love around here, but my opinions on Starks are not biased for any reason other than I think he is a very good RB and can have alot of success in GB.

Ive got Starks ranked a my 25th dynasty RB, im not sure how that qualifies me as a Starks lover either. Maybe I'm not so much a Starks lover as much as that everyone who doesn't share my opinion is a Starks hater.

 

[Go deep]

Starks may stub his toe on the curb on the way to practice too.

Any negatives in there can be countered with more opportunity and comfort/experience at the NFL level.

I actually think there are more negatives in grants backyard. He's the one getting older and he's the one coming back from injury.

I don't disagree with this. I've said it before, I like Starks and I'm rooting for him. I just was pointing out that this article was pretty balanced overall, it had both positives and negatives about him, but GD only quoted the positives.I don't put much if any stock into blogs like this anyway since it's just one guys opinion. It doesn't seem like this guy knows what he's talking about either since Starks basically had the opposite of a fumbling problem in college.

Since you mention this. let me ask you this. What do you think is going to happen in GB this year, who do you think is the better RB in GB right now and where would you rank Starks and Grant in your dynasty RB rankings?

 

[humpback]

http://www.jsonline..../119666384.html

Outlook: This is Starks' world if he wants it. The Packers haven't had a back with his overall skills since Ahman Green. Starks revived a dormant running game at the end of last season and while he only averaged 3.9 yards per carry and had a long run of 27 yards, the game was not too big for him as a rookie. He has been labeled a poor man's Adrian Peterson by one member of the coaching staff and has just scratched the surface in most others' view.

Shocker- you stopped quoting the blog right before it got into all of the negatives...

The rest of the story:

Things won’t be easy for Starks, who had a fumbling problem in college, but didn’t cough it up once in 81 touches with the Packers. Teams will have tape on him and they’ll start going after the ball. Ideally, Grant would come back and look more flexible and elusive than coming into the 2010 season when he appeared stiff and too bulked up. He was off to a decent start before suffering a season-ending injury in the opener. Starks could be Dorsey Levens and Grant, Edgar Bennett, in a job-sharing role reminiscent of the 1996 Super Bowl season. Starks never showed the good hands he had in college, but showed better blocking skills than Grant and could be the regular third-down back. Kuhn remains a vital part of the team and will be re-signed. Coach Mike McCarthy really liked Dimitri Nance and kept trying to use him, but to no avail. He could be the third down back that replaces Jackson, but more than likely that’s where the draft comes in.

Where are the negatives? That he didn't show the hands he did in college but was a better blocker than Grant? I don't think he showed the hands because he want used in the passing game very much. Or that despite having some fumbling issues in college he didn't fumble once in the NFL?

I was just teasing because of your man-love, but most of the rest of the article talks about the possible negatives- things won't be easy, fumbled in college, they'll have tape on him now, ideally Grant would come back better, could have Dorsey Levens role (instead of being poor man's ADP), Kuhn's role, etc. You really don't see any possible negatives for him there?

Other than my slightly exaggerated thread title what have I said that would insinuate that he is a can't miss stud RB? Negatives like things wont be easy? Who said they would?

Ideally Grant would come back better....of course that would be ideal for GB, what does it have to do with Starks?

No, I don't see Kuhn having a role no matter what happens.

Listen, I really like Starks, and pointed that out before he ever stepped foot on an NFL field. Not sure what qualifies for man love around here, but my opinions on Starks are not biased for any reason other than I think he is a very good RB and can have alot of success in GB.

Ive got Starks ranked a my 25th dynasty RB, im not sure how that qualifies me as a Starks lover either. Maybe I'm not so much a Starks lover as much as that everyone who doesn't share my opinion is a Starks hater.

Let's not get into this again- I'm not saying I agree with what this guy is saying (he's dead wrong about the fumbling problem in college for instance), all I'm saying is the article had both positives and negatives in it. You chose to only quote the positives. You may not agree that Kuhn's going to have a role or any of the other negatives listed in the article (you really don't think Grant being better would be bad for Starks by the way?) but they were all still there. This is one guy with his facts mixed up as it is, and it listed just as many negatives as positives. You're only seeing the positives I guess.Are you honestly saying you have no bias towards him because you're from Buffalo? I went to UB, that's why I'm rooting like heck for him, but I try to stay more objective with my evaluation. There's a lot to like about him and his situation, but there's a lot not to like as well.

 

[Go deep]

http://www.jsonline..../119666384.html

Outlook: This is Starks' world if he wants it. The Packers haven't had a back with his overall skills since Ahman Green. Starks revived a dormant running game at the end of last season and while he only averaged 3.9 yards per carry and had a long run of 27 yards, the game was not too big for him as a rookie. He has been labeled a poor man's Adrian Peterson by one member of the coaching staff and has just scratched the surface in most others' view.

Shocker- you stopped quoting the blog right before it got into all of the negatives...

The rest of the story:

Things won't be easy for Starks, who had a fumbling problem in college, but didn't cough it up once in 81 touches with the Packers. Teams will have tape on him and they'll start going after the ball. Ideally, Grant would come back and look more flexible and elusive than coming into the 2010 season when he appeared stiff and too bulked up. He was off to a decent start before suffering a season-ending injury in the opener. Starks could be Dorsey Levens and Grant, Edgar Bennett, in a job-sharing role reminiscent of the 1996 Super Bowl season. Starks never showed the good hands he had in college, but showed better blocking skills than Grant and could be the regular third-down back. Kuhn remains a vital part of the team and will be re-signed. Coach Mike McCarthy really liked Dimitri Nance and kept trying to use him, but to no avail. He could be the third down back that replaces Jackson, but more than likely that's where the draft comes in.

Where are the negatives? That he didn't show the hands he did in college but was a better blocker than Grant? I don't think he showed the hands because he want used in the passing game very much. Or that despite having some fumbling issues in college he didn't fumble once in the NFL?

I was just teasing because of your man-love, but most of the rest of the article talks about the possible negatives- things won't be easy, fumbled in college, they'll have tape on him now, ideally Grant would come back better, could have Dorsey Levens role (instead of being poor man's ADP), Kuhn's role, etc. You really don't see any possible negatives for him there?

Other than my slightly exaggerated thread title what have I said that would insinuate that he is a can't miss stud RB? Negatives like things wont be easy? Who said they would?

Ideally Grant would come back better....of course that would be ideal for GB, what does it have to do with Starks?

No, I don't see Kuhn having a role no matter what happens.

Listen, I really like Starks, and pointed that out before he ever stepped foot on an NFL field. Not sure what qualifies for man love around here, but my opinions on Starks are not biased for any reason other than I think he is a very good RB and can have alot of success in GB.

Ive got Starks ranked a my 25th dynasty RB, im not sure how that qualifies me as a Starks lover either. Maybe I'm not so much a Starks lover as much as that everyone who doesn't share my opinion is a Starks hater.

Let's not get into this again- I'm not saying I agree with what this guy is saying (he's dead wrong about the fumbling problem in college for instance), all I'm saying is the article had both positives and negatives in it. You chose to only quote the positives. You may not agree that Kuhn's going to have a role or any of the other negatives listed in the article (you really don't think Grant being better would be bad for Starks by the way?) but they were all still there. This is one guy with his facts mixed up as it is, and it listed just as many negatives as positives. You're only seeing the positives I guess.Are you honestly saying you have no bias towards him because you're from Buffalo? I went to UB, that's why I'm rooting like heck for him, but I try to stay more objective with my evaluation. There's a lot to like about him and his situation, but there's a lot not to like as well.

If you didnt want to, why did you post anything?Anyway, I only cut my quote short was because i stopped after what the coaches where quoted saying. The rest was just that writers opinions on what could go wrong. All of which is obvious and/or has been pointed out 1000 times in this thread. Obviously if Grant comes back fully healthy he could eat into Starks playing time, and if Starks fumbles that could hurt him. I posted the link for everyone to read, i wasnt trying to avoid the "negatives".

No, i have no bias towards him because im from Buffalo. Had he played for another college and I was able to see enough of him i would feel the exact same way.

 

[humpback]

If you didnt want to, why did you post anything?Anyway, I only cut my quote short was because i stopped after what the coaches where quoted saying. The rest was just that writers opinions on what could go wrong. All of which is obvious and/or has been pointed out 1000 times in this thread. Obviously if Grant comes back fully healthy he could eat into Starks playing time, and if Starks fumbles that could hurt him. I posted the link for everyone to read, i wasnt trying to avoid the "negatives".No, i have no bias towards him because im from Buffalo. Had he played for another college and I was able to see enough of him i would feel the exact same way.

I posted to balance out your positive spin on the article. You stopped after what the coaches were quoted as saying? Most of what you quoted was just the opinion of the writer, but it was positive for Starks. There was only one sentence in there about the coaching staff, and even that wasn't a direct quote. IMO, coach-speak is meaningless- the same exact coaches were singing the praises of BJax earlier in the season. Sorry, just calling them like I see them- this article clearly lists both positives and negatives for Starks, but you only see and quoted the positives. Even if it's not because you're from Buffalo, you are clearly biased here.Let's move on though, the article really isn't worth discussing anyway.

 

[Go deep]

If you didnt want to, why did you post anything?Anyway, I only cut my quote short was because i stopped after what the coaches where quoted saying. The rest was just that writers opinions on what could go wrong. All of which is obvious and/or has been pointed out 1000 times in this thread. Obviously if Grant comes back fully healthy he could eat into Starks playing time, and if Starks fumbles that could hurt him. I posted the link for everyone to read, i wasnt trying to avoid the "negatives".No, i have no bias towards him because im from Buffalo. Had he played for another college and I was able to see enough of him i would feel the exact same way.

I posted to balance out your positive spin on the article. You stopped after what the coaches were quoted as saying? Most of what you quoted was just the opinion of the writer, but it was positive for Starks. There was only one sentence in there about the coaching staff, and even that wasn't a direct quote. IMO, coach-speak is meaningless- the same exact coaches were singing the praises of BJax earlier in the season. Sorry, just calling them like I see them- this article clearly lists both positives and negatives for Starks, but you only see and quoted the positives. Even if it's not because you're from Buffalo, you are clearly biased here.Let's move on though, the article really isn't worth discussing anyway.

Now your calling me a liar? What negatives did i leave out about Starks? I left out more negatives about Grant in that article than Starks.Dont bother answering..for my sake anyway, i wont be able to see it.:ignore:

 

[humpback]

If you didnt want to, why did you post anything?Anyway, I only cut my quote short was because i stopped after what the coaches where quoted saying. The rest was just that writers opinions on what could go wrong. All of which is obvious and/or has been pointed out 1000 times in this thread. Obviously if Grant comes back fully healthy he could eat into Starks playing time, and if Starks fumbles that could hurt him. I posted the link for everyone to read, i wasnt trying to avoid the "negatives".No, i have no bias towards him because im from Buffalo. Had he played for another college and I was able to see enough of him i would feel the exact same way.

I posted to balance out your positive spin on the article. You stopped after what the coaches were quoted as saying? Most of what you quoted was just the opinion of the writer, but it was positive for Starks. There was only one sentence in there about the coaching staff, and even that wasn't a direct quote. IMO, coach-speak is meaningless- the same exact coaches were singing the praises of BJax earlier in the season. Sorry, just calling them like I see them- this article clearly lists both positives and negatives for Starks, but you only see and quoted the positives. Even if it's not because you're from Buffalo, you are clearly biased here.Let's move on though, the article really isn't worth discussing anyway.

Now your calling me a liar? What negatives did i leave out about Starks? I left out more negatives about Grant in that article than Starks.Dont bother answering..for my sake anyway, i wont be able to see it.:ignore:

Yikes. I'm really not trying to argue here, the entire article is there for anyone to read. There is literally one sentence in what you quoted that has any reference to the GB staff, and it's not even a quote. To say that you stopped after what the coaches were quoted as saying seems awfully convenient, considering there weren't any coaches quotes, and the very next sentence was the first of several possible negatives for Starks. FWIW, I don't think you're a liar, I just think that you can't see how biased you are. I think you honestly believe that the article is all positive for Starks, otherwise you wouldn't have bumped the thread with it. In reality, it's just one guys opinion and has both positives and negatives, not really even worth talking about nevermind getting worked up over.