James Starks (1 Viewer)

[SaintsInDome2006]

Any observations from people who watched the game today?

How did Starks actually look?

 

[BeaverCleaver]

Any observations from people who watched the game today?How did Starks actually look?

He ran well and there is reason to think he can have a big impact with the Packers next year.

 

[damageinc]

Starks looked really good. As I and alot said you might be weery of starting him for fantasy purposes with Jackson getting the recpetions and Kuhn the GL and short yardage but for "real" footbal I think the Packers found there future running back. Very nice game for Starks. I would expect him to have the most carries going forward. Just the 3 way RBBC thing is a fantasy killer.

Hes not going to help that much for fantasy BUT again its good for the packers . They need a back who can get 4 YPC and rush 18-80 type games.

Something would have to happen to Jackson and Kuhn for Starks to really be Fantasy Relevant

 

[mlball77]

Starks looked really good. As I and alot said you might be weery of starting him for fantasy purposes with Jackson getting the recpetions and Kuhn the GL and short yardage but for "real" footbal I think the Packers found there future running back. Very nice game for Starks. I would expect him to have the most carries going forward. Just the 3 way RBBC thing is a fantasy killer.

I'm asking because I really don't know... is Grant not expected to be in the picture next year?

 

[Kitrick Taylor]

Starks looked good not great. He runs upright ala Eddie George/Robert Smith. Starks has some talent, just don't look for an Arian Foster type breakout here.

 

[GloryDaze]

Starks looked good not great. He runs upright ala Eddie George/Robert Smith.

Starks makes Eddie George seem like Barry Sanders.

 

[nysportsfan]

Not enough people eat crow when they should. He looked good, made an impact, and might be a nice flex player this year.

 

[davearm]

So you don't think a guy on the PUP that hadn't played football in about 2 years was improbable to make an impact as a rookie?Are you really trying to argue that?Are you that desperate to argue with me that you are going to claim that?

I said he could have an impact this year and you said it was improbable. Keep going, sho....it is fun as always with you!

And it was improbable.Seems most people out there could see that, but you are still arguing about it.And it is always fun watching you obsess over me though and all that I say.And Im glad he had a good game...I hope he tears it up the rest of the year showing me and others were wrong to doubt he could do it this year.It won't change the FACT that in September it was improbable given his injuries and what was going on.

It won't change the FACT that you were wrong.

You seem not to grasp the meaning of the word improbable.

 

[sho nuff]

at this argument.

Dude 1: I think ____ might happen.

Dude 2: Highly unlikely because of ____.

...two months pass...

Dude 1: It happened! You were so wrong! Let's argue!

sho thinks he knows all when it comes to football and the Packers. His meltdowns here are legendary.

Whats legendary is that its always you, phase, and ookie that have to chime in with little to say on topic and always about me.I knew you wouldn't disappoint.

I don't think I know it all, I do believe I do know quite a bit about the Packers.

 

[sho nuff]

So you don't think a guy on the PUP that hadn't played football in about 2 years was improbable to make an impact as a rookie?Are you really trying to argue that?Are you that desperate to argue with me that you are going to claim that?

I said he could have an impact this year and you said it was improbable. Keep going, sho....it is fun as always with you!

And it was improbable.Seems most people out there could see that, but you are still arguing about it.And it is always fun watching you obsess over me though and all that I say.And Im glad he had a good game...I hope he tears it up the rest of the year showing me and others were wrong to doubt he could do it this year.It won't change the FACT that in September it was improbable given his injuries and what was going on.

It won't change the FACT that you were wrong.

You seem not to grasp the meaning of the word improbable.

Exactly...don't worry though, its just the obsession of a few with me. Because I am opinionated and post (alot) in Packer topics.There are some who can't handle it and will look for any reason they can find to bash me (like bringing up posts from September).As the season went on and he was removed from the pup, GB made no moves, and kept him around, it obviously become more likely he would get some time.It took Jackson continuing to suck and Nance to get a concussion for him to get in.Im more surprised McCarthy finally gave a running back 18 carries.

 

[Football Jones]

Just watched him on Short Cuts & Starks is an impressive runner. Very good after contact & has a knack for falling forward. Kinda reminds me of Marcus Allen in a way.

What's exciting is there's no way Starks can even have his legs fully under him yet. The Pack may very well have their feature back of the future, IMO. We'll see what happens with Grant, but this kid is a player.

 

[zamboni]

Starks looked really good. As I and alot said you might be weery of starting him for fantasy purposes with Jackson getting the recpetions and Kuhn the GL and short yardage but for "real" footbal I think the Packers found there future running back. Very nice game for Starks. I would expect him to have the most carries going forward. Just the 3 way RBBC thing is a fantasy killer.Hes not going to help that much for fantasy BUT again its good for the packers . They need a back who can get 4 YPC and rush 18-80 type games.Something would have to happen to Jackson and Kuhn for Starks to really be Fantasy Relevant

No doubt that Jackson and Kuhn are still in the picture, but I think it may be premature to say that Starks won't be fantasy relevant in his own right. As well all know from the banter in this thread, this was Starks' first game in two years so they probably didn't throw too much at him right away. In fact, I just read that McCarthly planned to give him 8-10 carries, but Starks got better as the game went along.I could see Jackson continue to be the receiving back, but wouldn't be surprised to see Starks get short yardage carries. Would be curious if anyone knows how Starks' receiving abilities are.

 

[smackdaddies]

Would be curious if anyone knows how Starks' receiving abilities are.

Zero targets (which at least tells us something about how the coaches see his recieving skills)I think it will be the three headed monster as of now, but don't be suprised if the "hot hand" ends up with the most in any given gameBJ will get the pass plays (because he is the best pass blocker)Kuhn will get short yardage (Fullback John Kuhn was given the ball four times in third-and-1 situations and converted every time)Starks the most carriesedit - forgot about Nance - he will get yardage too end editTD's? I think Kuhn might get the most.edit - so...depending on any of them is probably a fools game, except BJ will always get you some recpts. Plus next year with Grant? Packers RB to this point are not worth carrying, and I was one of the BJ will rock your world people when Grant went down. end edit

 

[smackdaddies]

good summary of Starks 1st start

 

[T J]

Had him, then dropped him in a redraft.

Will definitely be making a claim on him this week.

I wish I woulda held on now.

 

[sho nuff]

Kuhn will get short yardage (Fullback John Kuhn was given the ball four times in third-and-1 situations and converted every time)

Which has me wondering why they got away from him in recent weeks.

 

[damageinc]

Yeah I think they realized that Kuhn is going to get 1-2 yards every time .

Its hard to figure where Starks is fantasy wise. In TD Heavy Kuhn is the guy and in PPR its Jackson who is a good reciever . I guess Starks can be a flex play at best right now. Tough to play a guy who might go 15-75 ish every week, If I pick him up i might get stuck since my backups are Wells, Goodson and Best. I may just pass and grab Choice , M Bush or Ivory. But if you got no better options , Starks is a ADD . Just would not take him before those other guys who can get TD's and receptions. But for the Packers they got a good RB there. I think he is talented.

 

[DesmondBishop]

Just watched him on Short Cuts & Starks is an impressive runner. Very good after contact & has a knack for falling forward. Kinda reminds me of Marcus Allen in a way.What's exciting is there's no way Starks can even have his legs fully under him yet. The Pack may very well have their feature back of the future, IMO. We'll see what happens with Grant, but this kid is a player.

That is exactly the comparison I was thinking. If Starks has any where near Marcus' talent I will be very happy he is a Packer.

 

[Matt Waldman]

Just watched him on Short Cuts & Starks is an impressive runner. Very good after contact & has a knack for falling forward. Kinda reminds me of Marcus Allen in a way.What's exciting is there's no way Starks can even have his legs fully under him yet. The Pack may very well have their feature back of the future, IMO. We'll see what happens with Grant, but this kid is a player.

That is exactly the comparison I was thinking. If Starks has any where near Marcus' talent I will be very happy he is a Packer.

I'd say that's a good comparison stylistically: upright, glider, decent size to break tackles. Eric Dickerson (extreme end of stylistic spectrum)--Marcus Allen---Eddie George/Robert Smith--James StarksYou could probably add Chris Brown a few others...

 

[zamboni]

Favorable matchup versus Detroit next week, then two cold weather games versus the Pats and Giants the following two weeks.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Starks get a good amount of work the rest of the way.

 

[theplayer11]

How is the below impressive? 9 carries, 7 for 4 yards or less, 6 for 3 yards or lss.

Starks was impressive on the Packers' clock-eating 17-play, 74-yard drive in the fourth quarter that ended with Mason Crosby's 24-yard field goal with 3:10 left.

He carried nine times on the drive for gains of 0, 16, 1, 3, 7, 4, 1, 3 and 0.

 

[zamboni]

How is the below impressive? 9 carries, 7 for 4 yards or less, 6 for 3 yards or lss.Starks was impressive on the Packers' clock-eating 17-play, 74-yard drive in the fourth quarter that ended with Mason Crosby's 24-yard field goal with 3:10 left.He carried nine times on the drive for gains of 0, 16, 1, 3, 7, 4, 1, 3 and 0.

That stat line by carry probably isn't all that different among most RBs not named Jamaal Charles.

 

[BeaverCleaver]

at this argument.

Dude 1: I think ____ might happen.

Dude 2: Highly unlikely because of ____.

...two months pass...

Dude 1: It happened! You were so wrong! Let's argue!

sho thinks he knows all when it comes to football and the Packers. His meltdowns here are legendary.

Whats legendary is that its always you, phase, and ookie that have to chime in with little to say on topic and always about me.I knew you wouldn't disappoint.

I don't think I know it all, I do believe I do know quite a bit about the Packers.

Phase contibuted to the topic that Starks could have an impact this season and you felt the need to tell him it was improbable and it turns out your prediction was wrong.

 

[ROBOPUNTER]

How is the below impressive? 9 carries, 7 for 4 yards or less, 6 for 3 yards or lss.Starks was impressive on the Packers' clock-eating 17-play, 74-yard drive in the fourth quarter that ended with Mason Crosby's 24-yard field goal with 3:10 left.He carried nine times on the drive for gains of 0, 16, 1, 3, 7, 4, 1, 3 and 0.

Are you familiar with football?

 

[Matt Waldman]

How is the below impressive? 9 carries, 7 for 4 yards or less, 6 for 3 yards or lss.Starks was impressive on the Packers' clock-eating 17-play, 74-yard drive in the fourth quarter that ended with Mason Crosby's 24-yard field goal with 3:10 left.He carried nine times on the drive for gains of 0, 16, 1, 3, 7, 4, 1, 3 and 0.

Because this is a simplified and inaccurate way of analyzing a running back. It doesn't reveal the situations in which a runner gained those yards. This is why fantasy owners will continue to miss on quality players that develop into fantasy starters but don't put up numbers separated by commas in a series that they imagine is impressive without watching a football game or watching, but not knowing what to look for.

 

[Dismattle]

(Id appreciate any links going forward regarding receptions, reps etc). (Def just has to watch for indications of a rushing attempt right now). I trully believe thats when the potential will be unlocked, when the defense is forced to cover the Pack's passing game.

btw I was quite upset that Starks didnt get an opportunity for a shuffle pass early in the game (ending up settling for a field goal I believe).

Overall I believe the Coach played a smart game, hopefully with a more challenging opponent in what some consider must wins, we will see a more multi-purpose performance from Starks.

 

[BeaverCleaver]

Exactly...don't worry though, its just the obsession of a few with me. Because I am opinionated and post (alot) in Packer topics.There are some who can't handle it and will look for any reason they can find to bash me (like bringing up posts from September).

So you never bump posts from the past or question people here?

 

[damageinc]

It was impressive for a green bay back this season . it wasnt a "great" performance I mean it was 73 yards not 173. But it was a good showing. What Choice and ivory did was impressive. Especially T Choice. Starks had a normal good RB performance. Nothing more , nothing less but its big for packers fans. They have a running back who can get 4 ypc and shows he can play . And for fantasy purposes at this time of the season with injuries etc people will overstate a perfrmance like Starks. Again he was good and showed talent not understating that.

How is the below impressive? 9 carries, 7 for 4 yards or less, 6 for 3 yards or lss.Starks was impressive on the Packers' clock-eating 17-play, 74-yard drive in the fourth quarter that ended with Mason Crosby's 24-yard field goal with 3:10 left.He carried nine times on the drive for gains of 0, 16, 1, 3, 7, 4, 1, 3 and 0.

 

[zamboni]

Take the bickering out to the bike racks, kids.

The rest of us aren't interested, and just want to talk about Starks' future.

 

[sho nuff]

at this argument.

Dude 1: I think ____ might happen.

Dude 2: Highly unlikely because of ____.

...two months pass...

Dude 1: It happened! You were so wrong! Let's argue!

sho thinks he knows all when it comes to football and the Packers. His meltdowns here are legendary.

Whats legendary is that its always you, phase, and ookie that have to chime in with little to say on topic and always about me.I knew you wouldn't disappoint.

I don't think I know it all, I do believe I do know quite a bit about the Packers.

Phase contibuted to the topic that Starks could have an impact this season and you felt the need to tell him it was improbable and it turns out your prediction was wrong.

My prediction was it was improbable...and it was given the injury situation and so on.Its still hilarious that you don't see this.

Hell, you probably would have agreed with it earlier in the year...but you won't admit that will you?

Yes, phase did contribute...as did I...you came in (just as I said) to snipe...because that is what you do. Phase does it too (check the latest Favre thread where he has not posted one single thing on the topic).

Now...care to stop the sniping and actually discuss Starks? I doubt it, I see you whined about another one of my posts.

 

[sho nuff]

Exactly...don't worry though, its just the obsession of a few with me. Because I am opinionated and post (alot) in Packer topics.There are some who can't handle it and will look for any reason they can find to bash me (like bringing up posts from September).

So you never bump posts from the past or question people here?

I don't believe I do bump month old posts.Do I question people here? Yes. Never claimed I didn't...so save your whole .

 

[sho nuff]

Take the bickering out to the bike racks, kids. The rest of us aren't interested, and just want to talk about Starks' future.

Im sorry that I do continue to respond to these people...

 

[BeaverCleaver]

at this argument.

Dude 1: I think ____ might happen.

Dude 2: Highly unlikely because of ____.

...two months pass...

Dude 1: It happened! You were so wrong! Let's argue!

sho thinks he knows all when it comes to football and the Packers. His meltdowns here are legendary.

Whats legendary is that its always you, phase, and ookie that have to chime in with little to say on topic and always about me.I knew you wouldn't disappoint.

I don't think I know it all, I do believe I do know quite a bit about the Packers.

Phase contibuted to the topic that Starks could have an impact this season and you felt the need to tell him it was improbable and it turns out your prediction was wrong.

My prediction was it was improbable...and it was given the injury situation and so on.Its still hilarious that you don't see this.

Hell, you probably would have agreed with it earlier in the year...but you won't admit that will you?

Yes, phase did contribute...as did I...you came in (just as I said) to snipe...because that is what you do. Phase does it too (check the latest Favre thread where he has not posted one single thing on the topic).

Now...care to stop the sniping and actually discuss Starks? I doubt it, I see you whined about another one of my posts.

According to Elias, Starks' 73 rushing yards were the most by a Packers rookie running back in his first game since Ralph Earhart had 78 at Boston on Sept. 17, 1948.

 

[Stinger Ray]

at this argument.

Dude 1: I think ____ might happen.

Dude 2: Highly unlikely because of ____.

...two months pass...

Dude 1: It happened! You were so wrong! Let's argue!

sho thinks he knows all when it comes to football and the Packers. His meltdowns here are legendary.

Whats legendary is that its always you, phase, and ookie that have to chime in with little to say on topic and always about me.I knew you wouldn't disappoint.

I don't think I know it all, I do believe I do know quite a bit about the Packers.

Phase contibuted to the topic that Starks could have an impact this season and you felt the need to tell him it was improbable and it turns out your prediction was wrong.

My prediction was it was improbable...and it was given the injury situation and so on.Its still hilarious that you don't see this.

Hell, you probably would have agreed with it earlier in the year...but you won't admit that will you?

Yes, phase did contribute...as did I...you came in (just as I said) to snipe...because that is what you do. Phase does it too (check the latest Favre thread where he has not posted one single thing on the topic).

Now...care to stop the sniping and actually discuss Starks? I doubt it, I see you whined about another one of my posts.

Please stay on topic. TIA

 

[Stinger Ray]

According to Elias, Starks' 73 rushing yards were the most by a Packers rookie running back in his first game since Ralph Earhart had 78 at Boston on Sept. 17, 1948.

 

[theplayer11]

How is the below impressive? 9 carries, 7 for 4 yards or less, 6 for 3 yards or lss.Starks was impressive on the Packers' clock-eating 17-play, 74-yard drive in the fourth quarter that ended with Mason Crosby's 24-yard field goal with 3:10 left.He carried nine times on the drive for gains of 0, 16, 1, 3, 7, 4, 1, 3 and 0.

Are you familiar with football?

yup..and 4 out of 9 carries for 1 yard or less is not good

 

[Stinger Ray]

How is the below impressive? 9 carries, 7 for 4 yards or less, 6 for 3 yards or lss.Starks was impressive on the Packers' clock-eating 17-play, 74-yard drive in the fourth quarter that ended with Mason Crosby's 24-yard field goal with 3:10 left.He carried nine times on the drive for gains of 0, 16, 1, 3, 7, 4, 1, 3 and 0.

Are you familiar with football?

yup..and 4 out of 9 carries for 1 yard or less is not good

He ran well for his first NFL game and looks like the best active RB the Packers have.

 

[damageinc]

Exactly. Hes not a "Great" Rb but he is the best RB on the Packers Roster. and could be big if next season he gets alot of carries ( Receptions and the Goal Line) .

 

[ROBOPUNTER]

How is the below impressive? 9 carries, 7 for 4 yards or less, 6 for 3 yards or lss.Starks was impressive on the Packers' clock-eating 17-play, 74-yard drive in the fourth quarter that ended with Mason Crosby's 24-yard field goal with 3:10 left.He carried nine times on the drive for gains of 0, 16, 1, 3, 7, 4, 1, 3 and 0.

Are you familiar with football?

yup.

 

[theplayer11]

How is the below impressive? 9 carries, 7 for 4 yards or less, 6 for 3 yards or lss.Starks was impressive on the Packers' clock-eating 17-play, 74-yard drive in the fourth quarter that ended with Mason Crosby's 24-yard field goal with 3:10 left.He carried nine times on the drive for gains of 0, 16, 1, 3, 7, 4, 1, 3 and 0.

Are you familiar with football?

yup.

Hey, if you like 0 and 1 yard runs for your backs, so be it...

 

[sho nuff]

My prediction was it was improbable...and it was given the injury situation and so on.

Its still hilarious that you don't see this.

Hell, you probably would have agreed with it earlier in the year...but you won't admit that will you?

Yes, phase did contribute...as did I...you came in (just as I said) to snipe...because that is what you do. Phase does it too (check the latest Favre thread where he has not posted one single thing on the topic).

Now...care to stop the sniping and actually discuss Starks? I doubt it, I see you whined about another one of my posts.

Please stay on topic. TIA

You too please...btw...mine was on topic.Do you wish to discuss Starks?

 

[njherdfan]

For those who are wondering about Starks' receiving skills, he had 34-226-0 as a freshman, 41-311-2 as a sophomore, and 52-361-1 as a junior. Clearly, he's at least a passable receiver, but I'm not sure about how many targets he will get in the Packers offense, which seems to have designated Jackson as the pass-catching back.

 

[Matt Waldman]

How is the below impressive? 9 carries, 7 for 4 yards or less, 6 for 3 yards or lss.Starks was impressive on the Packers' clock-eating 17-play, 74-yard drive in the fourth quarter that ended with Mason Crosby's 24-yard field goal with 3:10 left.He carried nine times on the drive for gains of 0, 16, 1, 3, 7, 4, 1, 3 and 0.

Are you familiar with football?

yup..and 4 out of 9 carries for 1 yard or less is not good

On Sunday, this back carried the ball 6 of 8 carries for 4 yards or less to start the day against one of the worst rushing defenses in the NFL: 6,-1,-3, 6, -1, 2, 2, 3. This week a back began his game with this line of 8 carries of 1 yard or less out of 15 carries from the beginning until the end of his first series in the third quarter: -2,3,9,3,1,1,6,5,-3,-2,-2,3,4,-4,1These are the only two games I looked at, but I'm sure I'll find more every week. Based on this analysis, Adrian Peterson (first back) and Arian Foster (second back) should have been pulled.

 

[The Westin]

Very promising performance by Starks. No, he didn't put up gaudy fantasy numbers. But in real life football...there is some hope growing in GB that a running game may be developing. It should be noted that the line blocked much better than they had last week though.

 

[ROBOPUNTER]

How is the below impressive? 9 carries, 7 for 4 yards or less, 6 for 3 yards or lss.Starks was impressive on the Packers' clock-eating 17-play, 74-yard drive in the fourth quarter that ended with Mason Crosby's 24-yard field goal with 3:10 left.He carried nine times on the drive for gains of 0, 16, 1, 3, 7, 4, 1, 3 and 0.

Are you familiar with football?

yup.

Hey, if you like 0 and 1 yard runs for your backs, so be it...

I bet you I can find bit time RBs with similar strings yesterday. Not to mention that on a 17 play drive, you'll find runs for short gain. Not to mention that this was his first game experience in over a year. If you aren't impressed, then go to www.tennisguys.com or something.

 

[blackbird001]

How is the below impressive? 9 carries, 7 for 4 yards or less, 6 for 3 yards or lss.Starks was impressive on the Packers' clock-eating 17-play, 74-yard drive in the fourth quarter that ended with Mason Crosby's 24-yard field goal with 3:10 left.He carried nine times on the drive for gains of 0, 16, 1, 3, 7, 4, 1, 3 and 0.

Are you familiar with football?

yup..and 4 out of 9 carries for 1 yard or less is not good

He ran well for his first NFL game and looks like the best active RB the Packers have.

Exactly. Let's all remember he hasn't played football in two years. Given those circumstances and the long odds he had of contributing this year. 18/73, besides rare according to Elias, was damn impressive. Imagine what he will be like once he gets a few games under his belt and starts running with the first team every week in practice. Oh, and if you want to know what his receiving skills will be like. Go check out his Buffalo stats, you will be glad you did.

 

[Stinger Ray]

My prediction was it was improbable...and it was given the injury situation and so on.

Its still hilarious that you don't see this.

Hell, you probably would have agreed with it earlier in the year...but you won't admit that will you?

Yes, phase did contribute...as did I...you came in (just as I said) to snipe...because that is what you do. Phase does it too (check the latest Favre thread where he has not posted one single thing on the topic).

Now...care to stop the sniping and actually discuss Starks? I doubt it, I see you whined about another one of my posts.

Please stay on topic. TIA

Do you wish to discuss Starks?

I did...now please focus on the topic. TIA

 

[theplayer11]

How is the below impressive? 9 carries, 7 for 4 yards or less, 6 for 3 yards or lss.Starks was impressive on the Packers' clock-eating 17-play, 74-yard drive in the fourth quarter that ended with Mason Crosby's 24-yard field goal with 3:10 left.He carried nine times on the drive for gains of 0, 16, 1, 3, 7, 4, 1, 3 and 0.

Are you familiar with football?

yup..and 4 out of 9 carries for 1 yard or less is not good

On Sunday, this back carried the ball 6 of 8 carries for 4 yards or less to start the day against one of the worst rushing defenses in the NFL: 6,-1,-3, 6, -1, 2, 2, 3. This week a back began his game with this line of 8 carries of 1 yard or less out of 15 carries from the beginning until the end of his first series in the third quarter: -2,3,9,3,1,1,6,5,-3,-2,-2,3,4,-4,1These are the only two games I looked at, but I'm sure I'll find more every week. Based on this analysis, Adrian Peterson (first back) and Arian Foster (second back) should have been pulled.

you guys are too funny..all I said was that the stat line on the final drive was not impressive as the article stated. Does anyone here believe his final drive stat line was impressive?..if so, you can argue. If not, no reason to respond with posts that are not relevant to what I posted. I realize it was the guys first game..that's irreleveant to whether or not that drives stat line was impressive.

 

[Sudsy]

How is the below impressive? 9 carries, 7 for 4 yards or less, 6 for 3 yards or lss.Starks was impressive on the Packers' clock-eating 17-play, 74-yard drive in the fourth quarter that ended with Mason Crosby's 24-yard field goal with 3:10 left.He carried nine times on the drive for gains of 0, 16, 1, 3, 7, 4, 1, 3 and 0.

Are you familiar with football?

yup.

Hey, if you like 0 and 1 yard runs for your backs, so be it...

At least there were no carries for negative yardage, which for the Packer running game this season is quite a positive. Given the clear intent of the drive was to eat clock, stay in bounds, and hold onto the ball these numbers are pretty good. I look at the drive as the Packers being more or less in their four minute, run out the clock offense. that offense is not conducive to great opportunity for a back. Those are hard yards. Clearly not yet the second comming of John Brockington, but a very positive start for a guy who has not seen live action in two years. I'm pleased as a Packer Fan who has had this guy since the draft.

 

[smackdaddies]

For those who are wondering about Starks' receiving skills, he had 34-226-0 as a freshman, 41-311-2 as a sophomore, and 52-361-1 as a junior. Clearly, he's at least a passable receiver, but I'm not sure about how many targets he will get in the Packers offense, which seems to have designated Jackson as the pass-catching back.

Probably means that the coaches are not thrilled with his blitz pick up yet, but those are good numbers - speaks well about future potentialStill has to climb over Grant though....