James Starks (1 Viewer)

[Holy Schneikes]

Grant is underrated as both an NFL player and a fantasy player.

The reason the pack didn't grab a RB higher like everyone expected them to is that overall, they are pleased with Grant's performance, as they should be.

He is not Chris Johnson, but he's an effective no-nonsense RB in the prime of his career with at least average NFL starter talent. He's much faster than people give him credit for (I have no idea how he got the "plodder" reputation he has, but he had a faster 40 time at the combine than Starks did for example), and except for his injury riddled 2008, breaks as many long runs as the "big boys" (had two 50+ yarders last year, same as ADP, MJD, and Ray Rice). Oh, and he caught 25 of the 30 balls thrown to him last year, so it's not like he's totally ineffective as a receiver either (and again, that ratio is better than ADP, MJD, and Rice).

Ryan Grant was SECOND in the league behind Chris Johnson in football outsider's DYAR. He also had one fumble on the year, pretty nice for a guy with over 300 touches. For the life of me, I can't figure out why everybody always thinks he is about to be replaced.

But go ahead, keep thinking a 6th round draft pick with all kinds of issues and holes in his game is going to take his job.

You want value? Forget about Starks. Trade away some mediocre draft picks and/or scrubs and go get Ryan Grant.

 

[Unwrittenlaw]

Grant is underrated as both an NFL player and a fantasy player.The reason the pack didn't grab a RB higher like everyone expected them to is that overall, they are pleased with Grant's performance, as they should be.He is not Chris Johnson, but he's an effective no-nonsense RB in the prime of his career with at least average NFL starter talent. He's much faster than people give him credit for (I have no idea how he got the "plodder" reputation he has, but he had a faster 40 time at the combine than Starks did for example), and except for his injury riddled 2008, breaks as many long runs as the "big boys" (had two 50+ yarders last year, same as ADP, MJD, and Ray Rice). Oh, and he caught 25 of the 30 balls thrown to him last year, so it's not like he's totally ineffective as a receiver either (and again, that ratio is better than ADP, MJD, and Rice).Ryan Grant was SECOND in the league behind Chris Johnson in football outsider's DYAR. He also had one fumble on the year, pretty nice for a guy with over 300 touches. For the life of me, I can't figure out why everybody always thinks he is about to be replaced.But go ahead, keep thinking a 6th round draft pick with all kinds of issues and holes in his game is going to take his job.You want value? Forget about Starks. Trade away some mediocre draft picks and/or scrubs and go get Ryan Grant.

Just don't be surprised....

Ryan Grant has escalators in his contract that the Packers likely won't want to pay in 2011.Grant has a roster bonus based on cumulative yardage that could add $2M or $4M to his pay in 2011. For example, if he rushes for 1,253 yards again in 2010, he'd be set to earn $5M in base salary, a $2M roster bonus and another $2M in bonuses he's already scheduled for. As beat writer Pete Dougherty points out, the Packers would probably work out a long-term deal, ask him to take a pay cut or release Grant before paying him $9M in 2011.

The Packers reportedly intend to find a speed back this offseason to "push" Ryan Grant.This doesn't bode especially well for Brandon Jackson, who can pick up the blitz and catch a pass here or there, but offers little to no explosion. Ahman Green definitely won't be back. Green Bay could look at rookies like Dexter McCluster and Keith Toston, or Darren Sproles if he gets to free agency.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

Grant is underrated as both an NFL player and a fantasy player.The reason the pack didn't grab a RB higher like everyone expected them to is that overall, they are pleased with Grant's performance, as they should be.He is not Chris Johnson, but he's an effective no-nonsense RB in the prime of his career with at least average NFL starter talent. He's much faster than people give him credit for (I have no idea how he got the "plodder" reputation he has, but he had a faster 40 time at the combine than Starks did for example), and except for his injury riddled 2008, breaks as many long runs as the "big boys" (had two 50+ yarders last year, same as ADP, MJD, and Ray Rice). Oh, and he caught 25 of the 30 balls thrown to him last year, so it's not like he's totally ineffective as a receiver either (and again, that ratio is better than ADP, MJD, and Rice).Ryan Grant was SECOND in the league behind Chris Johnson in football outsider's DYAR. He also had one fumble on the year, pretty nice for a guy with over 300 touches. For the life of me, I can't figure out why everybody always thinks he is about to be replaced.But go ahead, keep thinking a 6th round draft pick with all kinds of issues and holes in his game is going to take his job.You want value? Forget about Starks. Trade away some mediocre draft picks and/or scrubs and go get Ryan Grant.

Just don't be surprised....

Ryan Grant has escalators in his contract that the Packers likely won't want to pay in 2011.Grant has a roster bonus based on cumulative yardage that could add $2M or $4M to his pay in 2011. For example, if he rushes for 1,253 yards again in 2010, he'd be set to earn $5M in base salary, a $2M roster bonus and another $2M in bonuses he's already scheduled for. As beat writer Pete Dougherty points out, the Packers would probably work out a long-term deal, ask him to take a pay cut or release Grant before paying him $9M in 2011.

The Packers reportedly intend to find a speed back this offseason to "push" Ryan Grant.This doesn't bode especially well for Brandon Jackson, who can pick up the blitz and catch a pass here or there, but offers little to no explosion. Ahman Green definitely won't be back. Green Bay could look at rookies like Dexter McCluster and Keith Toston, or Darren Sproles if he gets to free agency.

Both of those sound suspiciously like talking head speculation to me. If the first scenario becomes relevant, where Grant has another very successful season, the GB response would be to get rid of him? No, the answer might be a restructure, but I doubt a release (the third option listed, even in the speculation).Then the second bit of speculation is directed squarely at Grant's backups, not Grant. Plus, it turns out to be incorrect speculation at that. Starks may take over on 3rd down, but I wouldn't really describe him as a "speed back".Let me put it this way... What would GB be looking for in a primary back that Grant is not providing? More yards? Nope. Better average? Not likely. Fewer mistakes/fumbles? Nope. A little more of a dynamic playmaker? MAYBE, but as I said before, Grant makes more big plays than he is given credit for, he just isn't flashy about it. Defenses aren't quaking over Ryan Grant like they might over a Chris Johnson or a CJ Spiller, but they DO have to account for him because he is good enough to take advantage of opportunities when they are there.

 

[Donsmith753]

Grant is underrated as both an NFL player and a fantasy player.The reason the pack didn't grab a RB higher like everyone expected them to is that overall, they are pleased with Grant's performance, as they should be.He is not Chris Johnson, but he's an effective no-nonsense RB in the prime of his career with at least average NFL starter talent. He's much faster than people give him credit for (I have no idea how he got the "plodder" reputation he has, but he had a faster 40 time at the combine than Starks did for example), and except for his injury riddled 2008, breaks as many long runs as the "big boys" (had two 50+ yarders last year, same as ADP, MJD, and Ray Rice). Oh, and he caught 25 of the 30 balls thrown to him last year, so it's not like he's totally ineffective as a receiver either (and again, that ratio is better than ADP, MJD, and Rice).Ryan Grant was SECOND in the league behind Chris Johnson in football outsider's DYAR. He also had one fumble on the year, pretty nice for a guy with over 300 touches. For the life of me, I can't figure out why everybody always thinks he is about to be replaced.But go ahead, keep thinking a 6th round draft pick with all kinds of issues and holes in his game is going to take his job.You want value? Forget about Starks. Trade away some mediocre draft picks and/or scrubs and go get Ryan Grant.

Just don't be surprised....

Ryan Grant has escalators in his contract that the Packers likely won't want to pay in 2011.Grant has a roster bonus based on cumulative yardage that could add $2M or $4M to his pay in 2011. For example, if he rushes for 1,253 yards again in 2010, he'd be set to earn $5M in base salary, a $2M roster bonus and another $2M in bonuses he's already scheduled for. As beat writer Pete Dougherty points out, the Packers would probably work out a long-term deal, ask him to take a pay cut or release Grant before paying him $9M in 2011.

The Packers reportedly intend to find a speed back this offseason to "push" Ryan Grant.This doesn't bode especially well for Brandon Jackson, who can pick up the blitz and catch a pass here or there, but offers little to no explosion. Ahman Green definitely won't be back. Green Bay could look at rookies like Dexter McCluster and Keith Toston, or Darren Sproles if he gets to free agency.

Both of those sound suspiciously like talking head speculation to me. If the first scenario becomes relevant, where Grant has another very successful season, the GB response would be to get rid of him? No, the answer might be a restructure, but I doubt a release (the third option listed, even in the speculation).Then the second bit of speculation is directed squarely at Grant's backups, not Grant. Plus, it turns out to be incorrect speculation at that. Starks may take over on 3rd down, but I wouldn't really describe him as a "speed back".Let me put it this way... What would GB be looking for in a primary back that Grant is not providing? More yards? Nope. Better average? Not likely. Fewer mistakes/fumbles? Nope. A little more of a dynamic playmaker? MAYBE, but as I said before, Grant makes more big plays than he is given credit for, he just isn't flashy about it. Defenses aren't quaking over Ryan Grant like they might over a Chris Johnson or a CJ Spiller, but they DO have to account for him because he is good enough to take advantage of opportunities when they are there.

I really like Ryan Grant especially considering value for money on what you have to pay to get him. Doesn't mean you shouldn't have both?

 

[Rodeojones]

.

 

[gregjcross]

This is actually the first "You heard x here first" thread that I actually did hear it here first. Don't know anything about him though. Maybe Go Deep can help.

Frank Coyle had this guy as his sleeper RB

Who were Coyle's RB/WR sleepers in 2007/08/09?

 

[MAC_32]

Where do most FBG's think Starks will go in rookie drafts? Is it acceptable to reach for a guy you really like rather than wait and end up with someone you didn't really want?

I'll be targeting him and Anthony Dixon in round 2, after the first 10-14 picks I won't feel bad about reaching for either. At that point we're sifting through prospects and the pool of potentially relevant RB's is paper thin whereas the well of WR's is deep. I'm getting my RB's then and saving my WR fliers for later.

 

[Man in the yellow hat]

Grant is underrated as both an NFL player and a fantasy player.The reason the pack didn't grab a RB higher like everyone expected them to is that overall, they are pleased with Grant's performance, as they should be.He is not Chris Johnson, but he's an effective no-nonsense RB in the prime of his career with at least average NFL starter talent. He's much faster than people give him credit for (I have no idea how he got the "plodder" reputation he has, but he had a faster 40 time at the combine than Starks did for example), and except for his injury riddled 2008, breaks as many long runs as the "big boys" (had two 50+ yarders last year, same as ADP, MJD, and Ray Rice). Oh, and he caught 25 of the 30 balls thrown to him last year, so it's not like he's totally ineffective as a receiver either (and again, that ratio is better than ADP, MJD, and Rice).Ryan Grant was SECOND in the league behind Chris Johnson in football outsider's DYAR. He also had one fumble on the year, pretty nice for a guy with over 300 touches. For the life of me, I can't figure out why everybody always thinks he is about to be replaced.But go ahead, keep thinking a 6th round draft pick with all kinds of issues and holes in his game is going to take his job.You want value? Forget about Starks. Trade away some mediocre draft picks and/or scrubs and go get Ryan Grant.

Just don't be surprised....

Ryan Grant has escalators in his contract that the Packers likely won't want to pay in 2011.Grant has a roster bonus based on cumulative yardage that could add $2M or $4M to his pay in 2011. For example, if he rushes for 1,253 yards again in 2010, he'd be set to earn $5M in base salary, a $2M roster bonus and another $2M in bonuses he's already scheduled for. As beat writer Pete Dougherty points out, the Packers would probably work out a long-term deal, ask him to take a pay cut or release Grant before paying him $9M in 2011.

The Packers reportedly intend to find a speed back this offseason to "push" Ryan Grant.This doesn't bode especially well for Brandon Jackson, who can pick up the blitz and catch a pass here or there, but offers little to no explosion. Ahman Green definitely won't be back. Green Bay could look at rookies like Dexter McCluster and Keith Toston, or Darren Sproles if he gets to free agency.

Both of those sound suspiciously like talking head speculation to me. If the first scenario becomes relevant, where Grant has another very successful season, the GB response would be to get rid of him? No, the answer might be a restructure, but I doubt a release (the third option listed, even in the speculation).Then the second bit of speculation is directed squarely at Grant's backups, not Grant. Plus, it turns out to be incorrect speculation at that. Starks may take over on 3rd down, but I wouldn't really describe him as a "speed back".Let me put it this way... What would GB be looking for in a primary back that Grant is not providing? More yards? Nope. Better average? Not likely. Fewer mistakes/fumbles? Nope. A little more of a dynamic playmaker? MAYBE, but as I said before, Grant makes more big plays than he is given credit for, he just isn't flashy about it. Defenses aren't quaking over Ryan Grant like they might over a Chris Johnson or a CJ Spiller, but they DO have to account for him because he is good enough to take advantage of opportunities when they are there.

 

[Baron Samedi]

He will be a top 10 dynasty back by the end of the 2010 season.

Jimmy.....is that you?

 

[pghrob]

In our 12 team dynasty, I was targeting James Starks as my mid 2nd round pick. I ended up grabbing TBB WR Mike Williams and hoped that Starks would fall to me at 3.02. Unfortunately, he went two picks later at 2.08 with the 20th overall.

As luck would have it, the guy who drafted him dropped him for some reason last night to pick up WR converted from college QB Armanti Edwards, and I immediately scooped up Starks by dropping my 4th pick, project Dorin Dickerson.

He is a risk definitely worth the paid price.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Starks is a horrific prospect. In fact, if I was making up a list of what NOT to look for Starks has almost the entire list covered: he's a 24 year old rookie, he's not fast for his size, he's 74" tall and somewhat underweight for his height, and did nothing in college to suggest he's especially skillful.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

For the fun of it BSN - I'll bet you a free 2012 RSP that health permitting (no major injury that requires surgery or off-field issues, otherwise the bet is off), that by 2012 Starks will have a 1000-yard season and be the starter in GB. If I win, I just get the satisfaction of being right.

Does BSN = me?If so bet on.and BTW I did snag him in one rookie draft at 2.12. I have doubts he will still be on my roster after the 2010 season

 

[pghrob]

Starks is a horrific prospect. In fact, if I was making up a list of what NOT to look for Starks has almost the entire list covered: he's a 24 year old rookie, he's not fast for his size, he's 74" tall and somewhat underweight for his height, and did nothing in college to suggest he's especially skillful.

There definitely seems to be split strong opinions on his prospects for success from well informed people. Based on what I gave up to get him (my 4th round dynasty pick) and the very positive comments shared, I am willing to take a flyer on him and see what develops with him on my bench for a year or two. Low risk, high reward if it pans out.

 

[kremenull]

I'm not buying this......Looks like a poor man's Norwood, or for the NFL veteran fans, Harvey Williams.......tall, rangy, with enough size and skill but simply not a tough enough runner to impact the game ala Dickerson and Marcus Allen........

I'd rather take Deji Karim 2 rounds later in rookie drafts than this guy.

 

[Faust]

I'm not buying this......Looks like a poor man's Norwood, or for the NFL veteran fans, Harvey Williams.......tall, rangy, with enough size and skill but simply not a tough enough runner to impact the game ala Dickerson and Marcus Allen........

I'd rather take Deji Karim 2 rounds later in rookie drafts than this guy.

Harvey Williams...lol...I remember that guy. He was a hot commodity in our league after his 1995 season.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Willia...rican_football)

Professional career

Williams was a bust with the Kansas City Chiefs. In his first two seasons, Barry Word and Christian Okoye consistently beat Williams out for playing time. In both seasons, he finished behind Word and Okoye in rushing yards. By 1993, Marcus Allen joined the team and would become the starter, meaning that Williams' days in Kansas City were numbered.

In 1994, Williams moved on to Marcus Allen's former team, the Los Angeles Raiders. He would finally get a chance to be a starter, and would respond with two good seasons. He would rush for 983 yards in 1994. He followed up this season with his only 1,000 yard rushing season, rushing for 1,114 yards and 9 touchdowns in 1995.

After 1995, Williams would lose his starting job to another first round pick, Napoleon Kaufman, and would eventually be moved to tight end. In 1997, he had perhaps his most memorable game as a pro, scoring 4 touchdowns in a 38-13 win over the San Diego Chargers. He would stay with the Raiders until his release after the 1998 NFL season. [4]

 

[Glaven]

Watching him there, he reminds me of Fred Jackson on the Bills. Tall, good speed, good lateral agility, good ability to break tackles, and an excellent receiver out of the backfield. Unlike Sigmund Bloom, i think Starks is both elusive and powerful enough to be a primary back.

Starks is definitely someone i'm targeting in the later rounds of rookie drafts.

 

[Go deep]

He has been consistently been going in the late 2nd early 3rd round of Zealots drafts. I was hoping to get him in the 3rd, but had to reach in the mid 2nd to make sure i got him. I agree 100% with your assessment of him, he is going to suprise alot of people sooner than later.

 

[Devine Intervention]

Starks is a horrific prospect. In fact, if I was making up a list of what NOT to look for Starks has almost the entire list covered: he's a 24 year old rookie, he's not fast for his size, he's 74" tall and somewhat underweight for his height, and did nothing in college to suggest he's especially skillful.

Have you watched him play or just telling us what you saw on paper??

 

[ninerfanatic492000]

Grant is underrated as both an NFL player and a fantasy player.The reason the pack didn't grab a RB higher like everyone expected them to is that overall, they are pleased with Grant's performance, as they should be.He is not Chris Johnson, but he's an effective no-nonsense RB in the prime of his career with at least average NFL starter talent. He's much faster than people give him credit for (I have no idea how he got the "plodder" reputation he has, but he had a faster 40 time at the combine than Starks did for example), and except for his injury riddled 2008, breaks as many long runs as the "big boys" (had two 50+ yarders last year, same as ADP, MJD, and Ray Rice). Oh, and he caught 25 of the 30 balls thrown to him last year, so it's not like he's totally ineffective as a receiver either (and again, that ratio is better than ADP, MJD, and Rice).Ryan Grant was SECOND in the league behind Chris Johnson in football outsider's DYAR. He also had one fumble on the year, pretty nice for a guy with over 300 touches. For the life of me, I can't figure out why everybody always thinks he is about to be replaced.But go ahead, keep thinking a 6th round draft pick with all kinds of issues and holes in his game is going to take his job.You want value? Forget about Starks. Trade away some mediocre draft picks and/or scrubs and go get Ryan Grant.

Grant is always being undervalued b/c he's not flashy. he has produced behind a OL that has been patchwork at best the past 2years. no RB's has been hit in the backfield more than he.

 

[Erin Go Bragh]

Those are some amazingly clear, high quality highlights (picture quality) for a prospect that played for such a relatively small school. So many of these YouTube video highlight packages are crap to look at.Thanks for posting.

 

[grtwhtsk]

Thanks for the link. I like what I see.I took a look at his college stats and see he caught the ball quite a bit as well...always a good thing!

 

[Ariakis]

He went 2.03 in my 12x24 dynasty league (non-PPR). Dwyer and Gerhart had already gone so while that seems high in a RB hungry league I wouldn't expect him to last much longer. That said, I just don't see him passing Grant who played well last year. He may get some PT but he seems more like Goodson of 2009 than Slaton of 2008.

 

[Thorpe]

So yes, like where Starks is and I think he's really a guy to watch. He will need to be more decisive at times, but his style reminds me more of Eric Dickerson than Adrian Peterson. I don't see him being that good, but he has some nice upside that could put him in a starting position.

Great comparison, IMO

Lousy comparison. Starks danced in the backfield almost every time he touched the ball. Dickerson was a north/south runner that never danced. I live in Buffalo now but grew up a LA Rams fan. Maybe I am not remembering Dickerson correctly...

 

[griz145389]

Watching this video makes me think think he is going to fumble a lot. He doesn;t seem to keep the ball tucked in at all.

 

[Cripster]

I took him at 3.8 in a 12 team dynasty league 6 round rookie draft . On that team I had Grant. I also took him in another rookie draft at 2.11 ( also 12 team, 6 round dynasty). Basically, he was the 9th RB taken in each draft. I think this represents a fair risk. Odds are against him but he may break through. At any rate, 2.11 is about as early as I would take him.

 

[Cripster]

He looks good in the highlights. I certainly don't want to offend MAC fans. I just wonder what he would have done over 3-4 months against BCS defenses. I guess you could say the same thing about Matthews. However, Best, Spiller, Hardesty, Tate, Gerhart, Dixon, McKnight & Dwyer all played against a high level of competition for 9 games or so.

 

[JamesTheScot]

Grant is underrated as both an NFL player and a fantasy player.The reason the pack didn't grab a RB higher like everyone expected them to is that overall, they are pleased with Grant's performance, as they should be.He is not Chris Johnson, but he's an effective no-nonsense RB in the prime of his career with at least average NFL starter talent. He's much faster than people give him credit for (I have no idea how he got the "plodder" reputation he has, but he had a faster 40 time at the combine than Starks did for example), and except for his injury riddled 2008, breaks as many long runs as the "big boys" (had two 50+ yarders last year, same as ADP, MJD, and Ray Rice). Oh, and he caught 25 of the 30 balls thrown to him last year, so it's not like he's totally ineffective as a receiver either (and again, that ratio is better than ADP, MJD, and Rice).Ryan Grant was SECOND in the league behind Chris Johnson in football outsider's DYAR. He also had one fumble on the year, pretty nice for a guy with over 300 touches. For the life of me, I can't figure out why everybody always thinks he is about to be replaced.But go ahead, keep thinking a 6th round draft pick with all kinds of issues and holes in his game is going to take his job.You want value? Forget about Starks. Trade away some mediocre draft picks and/or scrubs and go get Ryan Grant.

Just don't be surprised....

Ryan Grant has escalators in his contract that the Packers likely won't want to pay in 2011.Grant has a roster bonus based on cumulative yardage that could add $2M or $4M to his pay in 2011. For example, if he rushes for 1,253 yards again in 2010, he'd be set to earn $5M in base salary, a $2M roster bonus and another $2M in bonuses he's already scheduled for. As beat writer Pete Dougherty points out, the Packers would probably work out a long-term deal, ask him to take a pay cut or release Grant before paying him $9M in 2011.

The Packers reportedly intend to find a speed back this offseason to "push" Ryan Grant.This doesn't bode especially well for Brandon Jackson, who can pick up the blitz and catch a pass here or there, but offers little to no explosion. Ahman Green definitely won't be back. Green Bay could look at rookies like Dexter McCluster and Keith Toston, or Darren Sproles if he gets to free agency.

Both of those sound suspiciously like talking head speculation to me. If the first scenario becomes relevant, where Grant has another very successful season, the GB response would be to get rid of him? No, the answer might be a restructure, but I doubt a release (the third option listed, even in the speculation).Then the second bit of speculation is directed squarely at Grant's backups, not Grant. Plus, it turns out to be incorrect speculation at that. Starks may take over on 3rd down, but I wouldn't really describe him as a "speed back".Let me put it this way... What would GB be looking for in a primary back that Grant is not providing? More yards? Nope. Better average? Not likely. Fewer mistakes/fumbles? Nope. A little more of a dynamic playmaker? MAYBE, but as I said before, Grant makes more big plays than he is given credit for, he just isn't flashy about it. Defenses aren't quaking over Ryan Grant like they might over a Chris Johnson or a CJ Spiller, but they DO have to account for him because he is good enough to take advantage of opportunities when they are there.

Good posting. Since when is Starks a speed back?I'm not a 40 time slave, but is it possible his game speed looks a little over-inflated given his college competition? The knock on Ryan Mathews is that he "lacks a top gear to break away". On Hardesty it's that he "does not have speed to gain the edge". For Ben Tate it's that he "lacks the elite speed to break big plays once in the open field".Yet these three guys all had a better 40 time than Starks. And Ryan Grant is reported to have run a 4.43 - though I'm not sure if this was his best run or his average. Sure there's a difference in game speed and track speed. But you have to take into account the opposing talent when you try and judge speed by college game film.Starks is as light or lighter than these guys, taller and appears slightly slower. If he was playing in college at 203#'s, what makes people think he can add even more weight than he already has and not lose speed?To me, he looks a lot like Ryan Grant on paper. How did Grant look in college game film compared to Starks?

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

True but Chris Johnson, etc.Mathews did run for over 100 yards vs two top 10 rush defenses(TCU, Wisconsin).

I think the biggest thing with Starks is he is a good pass catcher so he will have a chance to contribute right away....but how does that extra 15 pounds change him?

 

[Glaven]

Good posting. Since when is Starks a speed back?I'm not a 40 time slave, but is it possible his game speed looks a little over-inflated given his college competition? The knock on Ryan Mathews is that he "lacks a top gear to break away". On Hardesty it's that he "does not have speed to gain the edge". For Ben Tate it's that he "lacks the elite speed to break big plays once in the open field".Yet these three guys all had a better 40 time than Starks. And Ryan Grant is reported to have run a 4.43 - though I'm not sure if this was his best run or his average. Sure there's a difference in game speed and track speed. But you have to take into account the opposing talent when you try and judge speed by college game film.Starks is as light or lighter than these guys, taller and appears slightly slower. If he was playing in college at 203#'s, what makes people think he can add even more weight than he already has and not lose speed?To me, he looks a lot like Ryan Grant on paper. How did Grant look in college game film compared to Starks?

Looks to me that you actually are in fact a 40 time slave.

 

[TS Garp]

Grant is underrated as both an NFL player and a fantasy player.The reason the pack didn't grab a RB higher like everyone expected them to is that overall, they are pleased with Grant's performance, as they should be.He is not Chris Johnson, but he's an effective no-nonsense RB in the prime of his career with at least average NFL starter talent. He's much faster than people give him credit for (I have no idea how he got the "plodder" reputation he has, but he had a faster 40 time at the combine than Starks did for example), and except for his injury riddled 2008, breaks as many long runs as the "big boys" (had two 50+ yarders last year, same as ADP, MJD, and Ray Rice). Oh, and he caught 25 of the 30 balls thrown to him last year, so it's not like he's totally ineffective as a receiver either (and again, that ratio is better than ADP, MJD, and Rice).Ryan Grant was SECOND in the league behind Chris Johnson in football outsider's DYAR. He also had one fumble on the year, pretty nice for a guy with over 300 touches. For the life of me, I can't figure out why everybody always thinks he is about to be replaced.But go ahead, keep thinking a 6th round draft pick with all kinds of issues and holes in his game is going to take his job.You want value? Forget about Starks. Trade away some mediocre draft picks and/or scrubs and go get Ryan Grant.

I completely agree with this. Without looking, I was thinking that Grant averaged around 4.0 YPC last season, but he was actually at 4.4, the same as ADP and Steven Jackson and a tick below MJD. He had the same number of 100+ yard rushing games as ADP last year. He's not going to be on Sportcenter a lot and I think people are still suspicious due to the lack of pedigree, but he's entrenched in Green Bay, at least for this season. It doesn't mean Starks isn't worth picking up as a long-term flier, but I'm confused by those who think Grant is mediocre and that the Packers are looking to upgrade as soon as they can.

 

[Hoot&HoLLer]

Grant is a dependable commodity in fantasy. He is a solid RB2 with a chance to post slightly above avg. #'s. The high flying passing game for GB will make it relatively inviting for any # of decent backs to at least post respectable #'s that keep you competitive. Starks at 24 coming in from missing his senior season and only having played MAC level ball will be hard pressed to offer much in fantasy value the next year unless gb opts not to deal with salary escalation due Grant after this season.

 

[Cleat Spike]

So yes, like where Starks is and I think he's really a guy to watch. He will need to be more decisive at times, but his style reminds me more of Eric Dickerson than Adrian Peterson. I don't see him being that good, but he has some nice upside that could put him in a starting position.

Great comparison, IMO

Lousy comparison. Starks danced in the backfield almost every time he touched the ball. Dickerson was a north/south runner that never danced. I live in Buffalo now but grew up a LA Rams fan. Maybe I am not remembering Dickerson correctly...

Starks kind of looks like he could be the real DMC (who a lot of us were expecting DMC to be like)

 

[JHicks22]

He will be a top 10 dynasty back by the end of the 2010 season.

Anybody still high on Starks after the pre-season and being placed on the PUP list?

 

[Go deep]

He will be a top 10 dynasty back by the end of the 2010 season.

Anybody still high on Starks after the pre-season and being placed on the PUP list?

I still am, although if he doesnt get healthy soon, i will start to get worried.

 

[JamesTheScot]

Good posting. Since when is Starks a speed back?I'm not a 40 time slave, but is it possible his game speed looks a little over-inflated given his college competition? The knock on Ryan Mathews is that he "lacks a top gear to break away". On Hardesty it's that he "does not have speed to gain the edge". For Ben Tate it's that he "lacks the elite speed to break big plays once in the open field".Yet these three guys all had a better 40 time than Starks. And Ryan Grant is reported to have run a 4.43 - though I'm not sure if this was his best run or his average. Sure there's a difference in game speed and track speed. But you have to take into account the opposing talent when you try and judge speed by college game film.Starks is as light or lighter than these guys, taller and appears slightly slower. If he was playing in college at 203#'s, what makes people think he can add even more weight than he already has and not lose speed?To me, he looks a lot like Ryan Grant on paper. How did Grant look in college game film compared to Starks?

Looks to me that you actually are in fact a 40 time slave.

Which then calls into question your ability to reason. If I said Grant was the better back because he had a better 40 time, that would qualify as being a slave to the 40...and would get me a job with the Raiders.What I said was that Starks doesn't time any faster than Grant, and his game film consists of opponents that are not as fast as NFL defenses. So what makes us think he is a speed back compared to Grant? I don't think 40 times are everything. I think they are over-rated. But I can't say they are completely meaningless either.

 

[Go deep]

We might be 5 weeks away from the Starks era.

 

[basher]

We might be 5 weeks away from the Starks era.

The question is, can he really be a factor? The guy hasn't played football in what ... a year if not longer ... and hasn't even taken a preseason snap ... that doesn't sound like the prospect of him being a big impact is very good this season

 

[Go deep]

We might be 5 weeks away from the Starks era.

The question is, can he really be a factor? The guy hasn't played football in what ... a year if not longer ... and hasn't even taken a preseason snap ... that doesn't sound like the prospect of him being a big impact is very good this season

You might be right, but i will stay optomistic because i was so high on the guy coming out of college. I am all but sure if he gets a shot to show what he can do, he will run away with the starting job. His skill set seems almost perfect for the Packers offense as well.

 

[Donsmith753]

Glad I didn't drop him yet.

 

[basher]

We might be 5 weeks away from the Starks era.

The question is, can he really be a factor? The guy hasn't played football in what ... a year if not longer ... and hasn't even taken a preseason snap ... that doesn't sound like the prospect of him being a big impact is very good this season

You might be right, but i will stay optomistic because i was so high on the guy coming out of college. I am all but sure if he gets a shot to show what he can do, he will run away with the starting job. His skill set seems almost perfect for the Packers offense as well.

I agree that his skill set would fit just fine. I kinda figured they were planning on him factoring in more in training camp next season ... the Grant injury might put a rush on things.

 

[Football Jones]

40 times are the single biggest crop of crap in scouting today. Scouts would be better off with their stopwatch stuck up their butt instead of their hand. Also, quickness is much more important than speed.

Not saying timed tests don't have merit, but they're VASTLY overrated. When it comes right down to it, what you see on film is what you're going to get (as far as speed/quickness). It's that simple.

 

[Go deep]

I have to assume since they PUP'd him instead of IR'ing him, the Packers thought he could contribute this season. They obviously did that before the Grant injury so its not like they felt desperate at the RB position at the time.

 

[D'OHtis]

Glad I didn't drop him yet.

Likewise. I don't know how good he'll look as he hasn't played live football in quite some time.

 

[njherdfan]

Since he's on the PUP list, is he allowed to practice with the team? Also, does anyone have any updates on how his rehab is going. I'm getting ready to stash him in my keeper league, and I just want to make sure it's not a waste of a spot.

 

[BallparkFrank]

Packers beat writer Rob Demovsky's comments on Starks from a chat session today:

12:27

[Comment From LuisLuis: ]

Rob cheers from Buenos Aires, Argentina. What's your take on Starks? Will he be able to contribute to the team? When and how? Do we wait for him?

Thursday September 16, 2010 12:27 Luis

12:29

Rob Demovsky:

Another far-away chatter. Welcome, Luis. I have a hard time believing that Starks will play this season, only because it's been so long since he practiced. He missed all of training camp, and he's a rookie. Would you trust him to throw him out there in a key situation? If he's healthy after Week 6, he'll get a chance to practice for a couple of weeks, but my best guess is he'll end up on IR.

Chat Link

 

[scott72]

Since he's on the PUP list, is he allowed to practice with the team? Also, does anyone have any updates on how his rehab is going. I'm getting ready to stash him in my keeper league, and I just want to make sure it's not a waste of a spot.

No he can't practice. I have a hard time believing he'll contribute this season. Next season should be fun though..

 

[Go deep]

Since he's on the PUP list, is he allowed to practice with the team? Also, does anyone have any updates on how his rehab is going. I'm getting ready to stash him in my keeper league, and I just want to make sure it's not a waste of a spot.

No he can't practice. I have a hard time believing he'll contribute this season. Next season should be fun though..

It definitely makes sense that he wouldnt play this year. The only problem i have with that is why wouldnt the Packers just IR him instead of PUP him in that was the case. Now that Grant is out, i have to assume if they can get him back on the field this year, they will.If i am not mistaken, wasnt he practing with the team during mini-camp before re-aggravating the injury?

 

[That Little Voice]

Gonna go ahead and throw up a here.

Very sharky thread.

 

[Acrobat7]

I have Starks in a dynasty, so:

 

[Tacos al Carboner]

:hawkscreech: