James Starks (1 Viewer)

[smackdaddies]

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) .

So....he will be big next season if he gets a lot of carries and receptions, and goal line stuff too. Starks looked good (watched about 3/4 of the game on tv). He got lots of carries, and had a decent average.Long term issues before we all jump on the bandwagon1. Ryan Grant is a top 10 RB and will be back (?) next year2. Kuhns and Nance have gotten all the short yard carries this season3. BJ is the best pass blocker on the team and a good receiver, knows the offenseDefinitely a dynasty play, and definitely someone to roster this season if you have space and/or your desperate for a RBBut nothing to count on to carry you through the playoffs this year

 

[HellToupee]

for a guy with a lot of game rust on him I came away impressed

 

[blackbird001]

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) .

So....he will be big next season if he gets a lot of carries and receptions, and goal line stuff too. Starks looked good (watched about 3/4 of the game on tv). He got lots of carries, and had a decent average.Long term issues before we all jump on the bandwagon1. Ryan Grant is a top 10 RB and will be back (?) next year2. Kuhns and Nance have gotten all the short yard carries this season3. BJ is the best pass blocker on the team and a good receiver, knows the offenseDefinitely a dynasty play, and definitely someone to roster this season if you have space and/or your desperate for a RBBut nothing to count on to carry you through the playoffs this year

I am really interested in the Starks/Grant short term future. Grant HAS to reduce his salary next year to remain with the team, doesn't he? Most players are reluctant to reduce their salary to remain with their team, he also sees Starks as cutting into his production next year. Isn't the play for Grant to seek a trade so he can go somewhere and be the #1 guy or at least compete for it?At worst, I see Starks cutting into and trying to win the job from Grant next year. At best, Green Bay tries to get something for Grant and moves him.Interested in all points of view out there. Full disclosure, I am not a Grant owner. I drafted Starks this year and claimed BJax before the season started trying to short Ryan Grant stock.

 

[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.

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....

I agree that Starks' college statistics definitely indicate that he has the ability to catch passes, I just wonder if the Packers' offense is designed with the idea that the primary running back (Grant in the past, maybe Starks now??) doesn't catch passes, and it was designed that way because of Grant's limited receiving abilities?As for climbing over Grant, that's the big question. How highly does the Packers CS think of Grant? Could the staff want to save 5 million dollars and re-invest that elsewhere and go with the trio of Starks, Jackson, and Kuhn? I think that if Starks shows enough in the last 4 games (and possibly playoffs) to make the CS think that he could do a reasonable job of replacing Grant, it wouldn't be far-fetched to see Grant cut. Again, that's all speculation and largely based on my opinion that Grant isn't a transcendent talent. Either way, I think these last 4 games will be huge.

 

[Sudsy]

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) .

So....he will be big next season if he gets a lot of carries and receptions, and goal line stuff too. Starks looked good (watched about 3/4 of the game on tv). He got lots of carries, and had a decent average.Long term issues before we all jump on the bandwagon1. Ryan Grant is a top 10 RB and will be back (?) next year2. Kuhns and Nance have gotten all the short yard carries this season3. BJ is the best pass blocker on the team and a good receiver, knows the offenseDefinitely a dynasty play, and definitely someone to roster this season if you have space and/or your desperate for a RBBut nothing to count on to carry you through the playoffs this year

I am really interested in the Starks/Grant short term future. Grant HAS to reduce his salary next year to remain with the team, doesn't he? Most players are reluctant to reduce their salary to remain with their team, he also sees Starks as cutting into his production next year. Isn't the play for Grant to seek a trade so he can go somewhere and be the #1 guy or at least compete for it?At worst, I see Starks cutting into and trying to win the job from Grant next year. At best, Green Bay tries to get something for Grant and moves him.Interested in all points of view out there. Full disclosure, I am not a Grant owner. I drafted Starks this year and claimed BJax before the season started trying to short Ryan Grant stock.

Many teams do have two fine backs. I could see the Packers holding both through next year. Healthy, with Grant, Finley, Neal, Jolly, Barnett, Morgan, and others back they would have to be one of the preseason Superbowl favorites and I think they could, under those circumstances, coexist for at least one year.

 

[yellowdog]

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) .

So....he will be big next season if he gets a lot of carries and receptions, and goal line stuff too. Starks looked good (watched about 3/4 of the game on tv). He got lots of carries, and had a decent average.

Long term issues before we all jump on the bandwagon

1. Ryan Grant is a top 10 RB and will be back (?) next year

2. Kuhns and Nance have gotten all the short yard carries this season

3. BJ is the best pass blocker on the team and a good receiver, knows the offense

Definitely a dynasty play, and definitely someone to roster this season if you have space and/or your desperate for a RB

But nothing to count on to carry you through the playoffs this year

I am really interested in the Starks/Grant short term future. Grant HAS to reduce his salary next year to remain with the team, doesn't he? Most players are reluctant to reduce their salary to remain with their team, he also sees Starks as cutting into his production next year. Isn't the play for Grant to seek a trade so he can go somewhere and be the #1 guy or at least compete for it?

At worst, I see Starks cutting into and trying to win the job from Grant next year. At best, Green Bay tries to get something for Grant and moves him.

Interested in all points of view out there. Full disclosure, I am not a Grant owner. I drafted Starks this year and claimed BJax before the season started trying to short Ryan Grant stock.

Grant 2011: $3.5 million (+ $1.75 million roster bonus due in March + $500,000 roster bonus), 2012: Free Agent

I can easily see Grant not returning in 2011. This offseason is going to be very interesting. Any roster bonuses due in March are sketchy.

 

[Sudsy]

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 potential

Still has to climb over Grant though....

I agree that Starks' college statistics definitely indicate that he has the ability to catch passes, I just wonder if the Packers' offense is designed with the idea that the primary running back (Grant in the past, maybe Starks now??) doesn't catch passes, and it was designed that way because of Grant's limited receiving abilities?As for climbing over Grant, that's the big question. How highly does the Packers CS think of Grant? Could the staff want to save 5 million dollars and re-invest that elsewhere and go with the trio of Starks, Jackson, and Kuhn? I think that if Starks shows enough in the last 4 games (and possibly playoffs) to make the CS think that he could do a reasonable job of replacing Grant, it wouldn't be far-fetched to see Grant cut. Again, that's all speculation and largely based on my opinion that Grant isn't a transcendent talent. Either way, I think these last 4 games will be huge.

Cut, I don't think so. Traded, perhaps, but I tend to think they woud carry both, using this year as a cautionary tale about depth at R.B.

As always, anything I post is my opinion only, for entertainment purposes only, and is likely 180 degrees from what is likely to happen.

 

[Kitrick Taylor]

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 potential

Still has to climb over Grant though....

I agree that Starks' college statistics definitely indicate that he has the ability to catch passes, I just wonder if the Packers' offense is designed with the idea that the primary running back (Grant in the past, maybe Starks now??) doesn't catch passes, and it was designed that way because of Grant's limited receiving abilities?As for climbing over Grant, that's the big question. How highly does the Packers CS think of Grant? Could the staff want to save 5 million dollars and re-invest that elsewhere and go with the trio of Starks, Jackson, and Kuhn? I think that if Starks shows enough in the last 4 games (and possibly playoffs) to make the CS think that he could do a reasonable job of replacing Grant, it wouldn't be far-fetched to see Grant cut. Again, that's all speculation and largely based on my opinion that Grant isn't a transcendent talent. Either way, I think these last 4 games will be huge.

Cut, I don't think so. Traded, perhaps, but I tend to think they woud carry both, using this year as a cautionary tale about depth at R.B.

As always, anything I post is my opinion only, for entertainment purposes only, and is likely 180 degrees from what is likely to happen.

The only way Grant isn't a real factor next year is if he has lost two steps or gets hurt in TC. Don't really see his contract as a problem. Packers are in good shape for a salary cap again in 2011, as they front loaded a number of contracts. (AJ Hawk notwithstanding.)

 

[tdmills]

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) .

So....he will be big next season if he gets a lot of carries and receptions, and goal line stuff too. Starks looked good (watched about 3/4 of the game on tv). He got lots of carries, and had a decent average.

Long term issues before we all jump on the bandwagon

1. Ryan Grant is a top 10 RB and will be back (?) next year

2. Kuhns and Nance have gotten all the short yard carries this season

3. BJ is the best pass blocker on the team and a good receiver, knows the offense

Definitely a dynasty play, and definitely someone to roster this season if you have space and/or your desperate for a RB

But nothing to count on to carry you through the playoffs this year

I am really interested in the Starks/Grant short term future. Grant HAS to reduce his salary next year to remain with the team, doesn't he? Most players are reluctant to reduce their salary to remain with their team, he also sees Starks as cutting into his production next year. Isn't the play for Grant to seek a trade so he can go somewhere and be the #1 guy or at least compete for it?

At worst, I see Starks cutting into and trying to win the job from Grant next year. At best, Green Bay tries to get something for Grant and moves him.

Interested in all points of view out there. Full disclosure, I am not a Grant owner. I drafted Starks this year and claimed BJax before the season started trying to short Ryan Grant stock.

Grant 2011: $3.5 million (+ $1.75 million roster bonus due in March + $500,000 roster bonus), 2012: Free Agent

I can easily see Grant not returning in 2011. This offseason is going to be very interesting. Any roster bonuses due in March are sketchy.

So you guys think that going into next season it would be a good idea for GB to have one starter with Brandon Jackson backing him up.....wasn't that the problem with this season?

 

[sho nuff]

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) .

So....he will be big next season if he gets a lot of carries and receptions, and goal line stuff too. Starks looked good (watched about 3/4 of the game on tv). He got lots of carries, and had a decent average.

Long term issues before we all jump on the bandwagon

1. Ryan Grant is a top 10 RB and will be back (?) next year

2. Kuhns and Nance have gotten all the short yard carries this season

3. BJ is the best pass blocker on the team and a good receiver, knows the offense

Definitely a dynasty play, and definitely someone to roster this season if you have space and/or your desperate for a RB

But nothing to count on to carry you through the playoffs this year

I am really interested in the Starks/Grant short term future. Grant HAS to reduce his salary next year to remain with the team, doesn't he? Most players are reluctant to reduce their salary to remain with their team, he also sees Starks as cutting into his production next year. Isn't the play for Grant to seek a trade so he can go somewhere and be the #1 guy or at least compete for it?

At worst, I see Starks cutting into and trying to win the job from Grant next year. At best, Green Bay tries to get something for Grant and moves him.

Interested in all points of view out there. Full disclosure, I am not a Grant owner. I drafted Starks this year and claimed BJax before the season started trying to short Ryan Grant stock.

Grant 2011: $3.5 million (+ $1.75 million roster bonus due in March + $500,000 roster bonus), 2012: Free Agent

I can easily see Grant not returning in 2011. This offseason is going to be very interesting. Any roster bonuses due in March are sketchy.

I don't think 3.5 mil is too big of a number that they wouldn't hang on to Grant. Especially in seeing what happened when they lost their main option.

 

[smackdaddies]

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) .

So....he will be big next season if he gets a lot of carries and receptions, and goal line stuff too. Starks looked good (watched about 3/4 of the game on tv). He got lots of carries, and had a decent average.

Long term issues before we all jump on the bandwagon

1. Ryan Grant is a top 10 RB and will be back (?) next year

2. Kuhns and Nance have gotten all the short yard carries this season

3. BJ is the best pass blocker on the team and a good receiver, knows the offense

Definitely a dynasty play, and definitely someone to roster this season if you have space and/or your desperate for a RB

But nothing to count on to carry you through the playoffs this year

I am really interested in the Starks/Grant short term future. Grant HAS to reduce his salary next year to remain with the team, doesn't he? Most players are reluctant to reduce their salary to remain with their team, he also sees Starks as cutting into his production next year. Isn't the play for Grant to seek a trade so he can go somewhere and be the #1 guy or at least compete for it?

At worst, I see Starks cutting into and trying to win the job from Grant next year. At best, Green Bay tries to get something for Grant and moves him.

Interested in all points of view out there. Full disclosure, I am not a Grant owner. I drafted Starks this year and claimed BJax before the season started trying to short Ryan Grant stock.

Grant 2011: $3.5 million (+ $1.75 million roster bonus due in March + $500,000 roster bonus), 2012: Free Agent

I can easily see Grant not returning in 2011. This offseason is going to be very interesting. Any roster bonuses due in March are sketchy.

So you guys think that going into next season it would be a good idea for GB to have one starter with Brandon Jackson backing him up.....wasn't that the problem with this season?

Grant is a top 10 RB with sure hands and decent pass blocking. No way the Pack is dumping him unless he can't perform.Stark is very low cost, so he stays

BJ stays

Then it comes down to Hall, Kuhn or Nance. Don't see all three of those guys sticking

 

[sho nuff]

Then it comes down to Hall, Kuhn or Nance. Don't see all three of those guys sticking

Id like to hang on to Hall and Kuhn. I think they both bring a lot to the table as FBs and Kuhn in short yardage.Nance...he might have some talent there...just don't see them keeping 4 RBs.

 

[Bracie Smathers]

I picked up Starks over a month ago when he was still on the PUP with the knowledge of Grant's contract situation and that the Pack didn't put James on IR or risk putting him on their practice squad. I think he'll be a contender to start next year if he continues to look as good as he did yesterday.

Here's what the Pack HC said after the game when asked about Starks

Green Bay Head Coach response to how he felt James Starks did in his first game

(What did you think of James Starks in his first NFL game?)

James Starks is a really talented young man. The goal was to try to get him probably 8-10 carries. I wanted to see how he would handle it. I thought he improved as the game went on. I’m pleased with his individual performance. I’m sure throughout the film study there will be some things we can improve on, pad level, ball security. He did a nice job. To get him 18 carries in the game, just on a personal note, for his development, because it’s obvious he hasn’t played in a game in quite some time. I thought he performed very well and was very impressed particularly the way he fell forward for 1 or 2 yards on a number of his carries. He’s off to a good start..

Here you can see what the local press was saying in a live blog that was written as the game happened so you can view their reactions in real time to what they were seeing.

To the left is the time of the comments.

Live Packer Blog what was waid about James Starks as game was happening

1:38

 LoriNickel: agree. Just an update: He has 6 carries for 26, longest run is 9 RT @Dismattle Starks just gettn warmed up

2:25

 LoriNickel: would say he has fresh legs! RT @fettpet Packers found running game in Starks, looks like they made the right call between him and Harris [via Twitter]

2:43

 Tom Silverstein: I think Starks is going to be the subject of a lot of sidebars in tomorrow's papers.

2:47  Tom Silverstein: Starks has 14 carries. Five more and he'll surpass Jackson's season high.

2:47  Tom Silverstein: The most Jackson has had since the season-opener against Philadelphia when he had 18 is 15 at the Jets.

Sunday December 5, 2010 2:47 Tom Silverstein

2:48  Tom Silverstein: Here's his 15th. He's got 69 yards.

3:03

 Tom Silverstein: Don't forget to tune into the chat at 6 p.m. I have a feeling we'll be talking a lot about Starks.

First NFL game and he gets 17 carries for 73 yards. The most for a Pack rookie RB since the 1940s and he has the second most carries of any Pack RB this year.

The way the Pack coaches protected him from IR and practice squad shows that they felt that they had something special.

The way he performed in his first NFL game was special.

I'm pretty happy I picked him up when I did and I think next year I'll be even more happy with Starks.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Then it comes down to Hall, Kuhn or Nance. Don't see all three of those guys sticking

Id like to hang on to Hall and Kuhn. I think they both bring a lot to the table as FBs and Kuhn in short yardage.Nance...he might have some talent there...just don't see them keeping 4 RBs.

There's a lot to be seen the rest of this season, plus training camp. As Bob McGinn noted in yesterday's paper, Dorsey Levens had a very similar injury as Grant, also at 28, and was never quite the same. That said, Grant is a huge gym-rat and will do whatever it takes. Depending on what we see the next month or so, I could easily see the Packers opening 2011 with BJax and Nance gone, Starks and a high or mid draft pick backing up Grant, and 2 or 3 of Hall/Kuhn/Johnson back at FB.

 

[nlgb1]

Then it comes down to Hall, Kuhn or Nance. Don't see all three of those guys sticking

Id like to hang on to Hall and Kuhn. I think they both bring a lot to the table as FBs and Kuhn in short yardage.Nance...he might have some talent there...just don't see them keeping 4 RBs.

im hard pressed to put nance and talent in the same sentence

 

[Steve Tasker]

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

In college, the screen game was a large part of the offense, and he caught a decent number of passes. He was a homerun-thread type of player, and getting him active in the screen game was crucial to getting him in open space.As I mentioned in one of the few Starks threads out there, he was a WR during his redshirt freshman year at UB. He struggled at times, though, and bounced around between QB/WR/DB before finally settling in at RB.I'd say he's pretty much an average NFL receiving RB. He's not Brian Westbrook, but he's not a stone-handed slouch either.

 

[Steve Tasker]

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....

He grew in leaps and bounds in terms of receiving during his college career. The screen was a huge (and I mean HUGE) part of the total offense, and Starks was the workhorse. He won't be able to use his sheer speed to get the separation in the NFL that he was able to get against MAC defenders, though....but the hands are there.

 

[steelwind]

3 headed RBBC coming your way in GB. I can't trust this in FF playoffs no thanks. From Rotoworld:

"Mike McCarthy referred to Brandon Jackson as the "main guy" at running back, he said he would like to have a three-man rotation with Jackson, James Starks and Dmitri Nance."

 

[damageinc]

As I said fantasy killer. . 2 RBBC are bad enough. A mess to stay away from.

Packers would like three-man rotation at RB

Brandon Jackson - RB - GB - Dec. 6 - 12:57 p.m. ET

Although Packers coach Mike McCarthy referred to Brandon Jackson as the "main guy" at running back, he said he would like to have a three-man rotation with Jackson, James Starks and Dmitri Nance.

Although Packers coach Mike McCarthy referred to Brandon Jackson as the "main guy" at running back, he said he would like to have a three-man rotation with Jackson, James Starks and Dmitri Nance.

Jackson played more snaps than Starks Sunday, but Starks ran the ball 14 more times and McCarthy said he graded out well both as a runner and in pass protection. He did add that it was pretty obvious that when Starks was in the game, they were going to run the ball, which is something that needs to be fixed. Nance (concussion) was inactive for the game but could get the short-yardage duties when he's ready.

 

[Sudsy]

3 headed RBBC coming your way in GB. I can't trust this in FF playoffs no thanks. From Rotoworld:"Mike McCarthy referred to Brandon Jackson as the "main guy" at running back, he said he would like to have a three-man rotation with Jackson, James Starks and Dmitri Nance."

As long as each has a large enough package of plays that the defense cannot key in on what it means to have them in the game I am happy with this from a fan of the team perspective. Agreed that from a fantasy perspective this makes owning any of them problematic at best. I suspect this set up is short term oly and has no dynasty relevance, but for the next few weeks it will be tugh to start one with confidence.

 

[brewer]

Grant is a top 10 RB with sure hands and decent pass blocking. No way the Pack is dumping him unless he can't perform.

I keep seeing this and I couldn't disagree more. Grant is a top 10 RB in terms of what exactly?RBs I would rather have on my NFL team just off the top of my head:Adrian PetersonChris JohnsonMaurice Jones-DrewSteven JacksonFrank GoreRay RiceDeAngelo WilliamsRashard MendenhallMichael TurnerAhmad BradshawMatt ForteShonn GreeneJamaal CharlesArian FosterPeyton HillisKnowshon MorenoLeSean McCoyI'm sure there are more that I am forgetting.My point is that while Ryan Grant enjoyed a fair bit of success with the Packers, I don't think his talent level was ever top 10.

 

[Sudsy]

Grant is a top 10 RB with sure hands and decent pass blocking. No way the Pack is dumping him unless he can't perform.

I keep seeing this and I couldn't disagree more. Grant is a top 10 RB in terms of what exactly?RBs I would rather have on my NFL team just off the top of my head:Adrian PetersonChris JohnsonMaurice Jones-DrewSteven JacksonFrank GoreRay RiceDeAngelo WilliamsRashard MendenhallMichael TurnerAhmad BradshawMatt ForteShonn GreeneJamaal CharlesArian FosterPeyton HillisKnowshon MorenoLeSean McCoyI'm sure there are more that I am forgetting.My point is that while Ryan Grant enjoyed a fair bit of success with the Packers, I don't think his talent level was ever top 10.

I think you are pushing the envelope including Moreno, Greene, Forte, Williams, Mendenhall and Jackson on your list. Still, opinions vary.

 

[sho nuff]

I think you are pushing the envelope including Moreno, Greene, Forte, Williams, Mendenhall and Jackson on your list. Still, opinions vary.

I can see having DeAngelo on there when healthy.Jackson absolutely belongs on that list though.Id trade Grant straight up for Steven Jackson any day of the week.

 

[DesmondBishop]

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

I think what you are missing or just choose not to see is that this was a time consuming drive against a good run defense that was playing to stop the run. SF is the #10 rush defense in the NFL and is giving up the 3rd lowest YPC (tied with Minn) in the NFL. That, and the fact that he is a rookie playing in his first NFL game and first game in 2 years, it was not a bad performance.http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?sea...mp;d-447263-p=1

 

[zamboni]

More on Starks from McCarthy - includes a lot of what was discussed earlier (his performance, three headed RBBC), but also talks about his ability to become involved in the passing game:

(Now that you have looked at the film, what did you think of James Starks’ performance?)

I thought James Starks played well. It was a great opportunity for the young man. Going into the game, really just anticipated probably giving him probably 8-10 carries. But I thought he played well. He graded out very well, not only in the run game, in pass protection. On the kickoff return, he did some good things. Just had the one miscommunication on the one short ball. But for a first time playing in a football game in two years, we’re very pleased with his performance.

(Was that a byproduct of you being patient with him, and him getting those six weeks of practice time?)

Definitely. I think it definitely helped him prepare for this first step. Anytime you have a situation like his where you’re down for a long period of time from injury, you have to make sure that they’re ready to play. It is difficult to put someone in the game you don’t have much history with, particularly in a padded environment. I thought he did a very good job. Very pleased with his performance.

(Where are Starks and Jackson at on the depth chart now?)

For the twelve-hundredth time, there really are no depth charts. Brandon Jackson has done an excellent job and will continue to do so. I think I stated this yesterday after the game, I’d really like to get into more of a rotation now that I know I have three halfbacks. Dimitri Nance is someone that really hasn’t had the opportunity that James had yesterday, and he’s done a lot of positive things since he’s been here on the practice field. You have to be careful when you rotate backs like that in the game because I think it was very apparent yesterday when 44 went into the game we were running the ball. That’s something we have to obviously plan against as we move forward. I would like to have some type of rotation of all three of those backs, but Brandon is still our main guy. He’s done it all year. As I’ve stated before, I don’t think it’s in our best interests with as much football as we have in front of us to sit there and run Brandon Jackson 25 times a game.

(Do you foresee being able to use Starks in the passing game?)

Absolutely. I think James and Dimitri have that element coming out of the backfield. They have good hands and are both good receivers. I think all three of those backs – I know Brandon can play every down and I see Dimitri and James developing into an every-down player.

(How limited is Starks as far as packages he can play in?)

I don’t really want to get into specifics of how we’re going to use each one. That’s really what the games are for and for our opponents to plan against. We would not put an individual in the game that we did not feel could play both run and pass because it would be a one-week or a two-week shot. Because you just can’t line up and telegraph what you’re doing based on who’s in the game. But James can play both in the run and pass.

(Was it hard to be patient and wait for Starks?)

I wouldn’t say it was difficult. I think to a man, the players and coaches alike, everybody could see the talent from the day he arrived here back in the spring. He had an unusual hamstring injury that took a long time. The patience was worth the wait, but it’s really what he does moving forward. He’s a fine young man. Going the PUP route was the right move. We took enough time to get him ready to play in games, and he stepped up and responded. It’s just like anything else in this world, when you have the opportunity you have to do something with it, and he got off to a good start.

http://www.packers.com/news-and-events/art...a8-5dc082776ded

 

[smackdaddies]

Grant is a top 10 RB with sure hands and decent pass blocking. No way the Pack is dumping him unless he can't perform.

I keep seeing this and I couldn't disagree more. Grant is a top 10 RB in terms of what exactly?RBs I would rather have on my NFL team just off the top of my head:Adrian PetersonChris JohnsonMaurice Jones-DrewSteven JacksonFrank GoreRay RiceDeAngelo WilliamsRashard MendenhallMichael TurnerAhmad BradshawMatt ForteShonn GreeneJamaal CharlesArian FosterPeyton HillisKnowshon MorenoLeSean McCoyI'm sure there are more that I am forgetting.My point is that while Ryan Grant enjoyed a fair bit of success with the Packers, I don't think his talent level was ever top 10.

Talent? Perhaps not. But FF scoring - most definitely. Check out your leagues scoring the previous two years

 

[brewer]

Grant is a top 10 RB with sure hands and decent pass blocking. No way the Pack is dumping him unless he can't perform.

I keep seeing this and I couldn't disagree more. Grant is a top 10 RB in terms of what exactly?RBs I would rather have on my NFL team just off the top of my head:Adrian PetersonChris JohnsonMaurice Jones-DrewSteven JacksonFrank GoreRay RiceDeAngelo WilliamsRashard MendenhallMichael TurnerAhmad BradshawMatt ForteShonn GreeneJamaal CharlesArian FosterPeyton HillisKnowshon MorenoLeSean McCoyI'm sure there are more that I am forgetting.My point is that while Ryan Grant enjoyed a fair bit of success with the Packers, I don't think his talent level was ever top 10.

Talent? Perhaps not. But FF scoring - most definitely. Check out your leagues scoring the previous two years

I won't argue that he has been a top 10 fantasy back for the couple of seasons leading up to this one, I thought you were saying that he was in the top 10 NFL RB in terms of talent.

 

[tdmills]

Grant is a top 10 RB with sure hands and decent pass blocking. No way the Pack is dumping him unless he can't perform.

I keep seeing this and I couldn't disagree more. Grant is a top 10 RB in terms of what exactly?RBs I would rather have on my NFL team just off the top of my head:Adrian PetersonChris JohnsonMaurice Jones-DrewSteven JacksonFrank GoreRay RiceDeAngelo WilliamsRashard MendenhallMichael TurnerAhmad BradshawMatt ForteShonn GreeneJamaal CharlesArian FosterPeyton HillisKnowshon MorenoLeSean McCoyI'm sure there are more that I am forgetting.My point is that while Ryan Grant enjoyed a fair bit of success with the Packers, I don't think his talent level was ever top 10.

Talent? Perhaps not. But FF scoring - most definitely. Check out your leagues scoring the previous two years

He said NFL wise, not FF wise. FF changes so much year to year. NFL wise, Grant lacks in the pass catching department and is only on par with Turner and Greene. Otherwise everyone is superior to him IMO. Who's to say he will ever be the same back...that you admit isn't on par talent wise.

 

[todisco1]

He said NFL wise, not FF wise. FF changes so much year to year. NFL wise, Grant lacks in the pass catching department and is only on par with Turner and Greene. Otherwise everyone is superior to him IMO. Who's to say he will ever be the same back...that you admit isn't on par talent wise.

Grant had seasons with 30 and 24 catches, before this year Turner never had more than 6 in one season. Not sure I'd put him and Grant on even footing in that department.

 

[smackdaddies]

Grant is a top 10 RB with sure hands and decent pass blocking. No way the Pack is dumping him unless he can't perform.

I keep seeing this and I couldn't disagree more. Grant is a top 10 RB in terms of what exactly?RBs I would rather have on my NFL team just off the top of my head:Adrian PetersonChris JohnsonMaurice Jones-DrewSteven JacksonFrank GoreRay RiceDeAngelo WilliamsRashard MendenhallMichael TurnerAhmad BradshawMatt ForteShonn GreeneJamaal CharlesArian FosterPeyton HillisKnowshon MorenoLeSean McCoyI'm sure there are more that I am forgetting.My point is that while Ryan Grant enjoyed a fair bit of success with the Packers, I don't think his talent level was ever top 10.

Talent? Perhaps not. But FF scoring - most definitely. Check out your leagues scoring the previous two years

He said NFL wise, not FF wise. FF changes so much year to year. NFL wise, Grant lacks in the pass catching department and is only on par with Turner and Greene. Otherwise everyone is superior to him IMO. Who's to say he will ever be the same back...that you admit isn't on par talent wise.

1. This is an FF board - I pretty much only care what his scoring is.2. Scoring pretty much defines talent, so if he was the #8 rb in 2009, then yes, he is a top 10 talent

 

[brewer]

1. This is an FF board - I pretty much only care what his scoring is.2. Scoring pretty much defines talent, so if he was the #8 rb in 2009, then yes, he is a top 10 talent

Right, but the Packers really don't care about your fantasy team. So if they think his salary is too high compared to his talent level, they will get rid of him and replace him with someone of similar talent at a lower salary.

 

[tdmills]

Grant is a top 10 RB with sure hands and decent pass blocking. No way the Pack is dumping him unless he can't perform.

I keep seeing this and I couldn't disagree more. Grant is a top 10 RB in terms of what exactly?RBs I would rather have on my NFL team just off the top of my head:Adrian PetersonChris JohnsonMaurice Jones-DrewSteven JacksonFrank GoreRay RiceDeAngelo WilliamsRashard MendenhallMichael TurnerAhmad BradshawMatt ForteShonn GreeneJamaal CharlesArian FosterPeyton HillisKnowshon MorenoLeSean McCoyI'm sure there are more that I am forgetting.My point is that while Ryan Grant enjoyed a fair bit of success with the Packers, I don't think his talent level was ever top 10.

Talent? Perhaps not. But FF scoring - most definitely. Check out your leagues scoring the previous two years

He said NFL wise, not FF wise. FF changes so much year to year. NFL wise, Grant lacks in the pass catching department and is only on par with Turner and Greene. Otherwise everyone is superior to him IMO. Who's to say he will ever be the same back...that you admit isn't on par talent wise.

1. This is an FF board - I pretty much only care what his scoring is.2. Scoring pretty much defines talent, so if he was the #8 rb in 2009, then yes, he is a top 10 talent

So Brandon Lloyd is your #1 WR for next year? Gottcha

 

[Flash]

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 gets a lot of crap, but he was right here.

It was an improbable comeback, and one game doesn't make it a success.

I love what I saw tho

 

[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 gets a lot of crap, but he was right here.

It was an improbable comeback, and one game doesn't make it a success.

I love what I saw tho

And I hope I have to eat some serious crow and he lights it up like Grant did in 2007.

 

[Football Jones]

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.

Yeah, that's what I want to see next (pass-catching ability). When I was studying him for my dynasty leagues, I remember thinking the numbers suggested he's at least an adequate receiver. Of course, can't tell for sure until he's in the NFL & in game action.Starks is probably one of the few players seasoned dynasty leaguers couldn't really study (unless you were local). I saw a few clips, but that was it. I drafted him in the late 2nd/early 3rd in some of my dynasty leagues just on those clips, some reports, as well as the Pack drafting him in the 6th round.I'm optimistic. From what I can tell this week, I don't think you'll have to worry about him being pulled at the GL if he becomes their feature back. And if he ends up being a good receiver, he could be a gold mine, IMO.

 

[bleedgreen]

3 headed RBBC coming your way in GB. I can't trust this in FF playoffs no thanks. From Rotoworld:

"Mike McCarthy referred to Brandon Jackson as the "main guy" at running back, he said he would like to have a three-man rotation with Jackson, James Starks and Dmitri Nance."

I had to laugh when I read that. How can Mike McCarthy call him the main guy when he only got 4 carries. Sounds like lip service in case Starks bombs or gets hurt next game and they have to mostly rely on Jackson again.

 

[Flash]

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.

Yes.... there is now.Anyone who says they thought he would have an impact after missing nearly 2 years of football including his Senior year and nearly all of his rookie year, is a damn liar and someone who is just looking to start ####.You are a master of that.

 

[Flash]

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.

This is exactly right.I don't agree with a loft of what Sho posts, or his feuds. But he was spot on here, as were many who were taking a wait and see attitude.

 

[Flash]

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.

This!I couldn't figure out who he reminded me of. Marcus Allen is the guy.

 

[ace0927]

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.

well if Charles consistently received 20+ carries he would run for 1,600-2,000 yds....I believe everyone in football sees this other than freaken Todd Haley.

 

[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.

Yes.... there is now.Anyone who says they thought he would have an impact after missing nearly 2 years of football including his Senior year and nearly all of his rookie year, is a damn liar and someone who is just looking to start ####.You are a master of that.

Phase of The Game did.

 

[plyka]

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) .

So....he will be big next season if he gets a lot of carries and receptions, and goal line stuff too. Starks looked good (watched about 3/4 of the game on tv). He got lots of carries, and had a decent average.Long term issues before we all jump on the bandwagon1. Ryan Grant is a top 10 RB and will be back (?) next year2. Kuhns and Nance have gotten all the short yard carries this season3. BJ is the best pass blocker on the team and a good receiver, knows the offenseDefinitely a dynasty play, and definitely someone to roster this season if you have space and/or your desperate for a RBBut nothing to count on to carry you through the playoffs this year

The last sentence in this post is just wrong. you can't tell the future, none of us can. so the last sentence is not only worthless, but damaging to others who may take your word for it and not pick this guy up. the important point to take away from all this is a rookie RB that can be found on waivers just got 18 carries in his first game on a potent offense with horrible competition at the RB spot. whether he is a fantasy stud in the future none of us know. the point is once that becomes clear he will no longer be available. the intelligent move is to pick this guy up and let him sit on your bench until you find out, since the talent and opportunity are there.

 

[bleedgreen]

the important point to take away from all this is a rookie RB that can be found on waivers just got 18 carries in his first game on a potent offense with horrible competition at the RB spot. whether he is a fantasy stud in the future none of us know. the point is once that becomes clear he will no longer be available. the intelligent move is to pick this guy up and let him sit on your bench until you find out, since the talent and opportunity are there.

I agree. He could very well be a good flex start going forward depending on how they use him. It's all speculation at this point. I think we'll know a lot more after another game. At the very least, he's already proven to be in game shape and able to handle around 20 carries.

 

[Steelfan7]

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.

Yes.... there is now.Anyone who says they thought he would have an impact after missing nearly 2 years of football including his Senior year and nearly all of his rookie year, is a damn liar and someone who is just looking to start ####.You are a master of that.

It appears that someone's pissed that they passed on Starks.

 

[Flash]

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.

Yes.... there is now.Anyone who says they thought he would have an impact after missing nearly 2 years of football including his Senior year and nearly all of his rookie year, is a damn liar and someone who is just looking to start ####.You are a master of that.

It appears that someone's pissed that they passed on Starks.

You can't be talking about me. If you are, you haven't read the entire thread. I have had him stashed on both of my keeper leagues all year.

 

[smackdaddies]

1. This is an FF board - I pretty much only care what his scoring is.2. Scoring pretty much defines talent, so if he was the #8 rb in 2009, then yes, he is a top 10 talent

Right, but the Packers really don't care about your fantasy team. So if they think his salary is too high compared to his talent level, they will get rid of him and replace him with someone of similar talent at a lower salary.

$4m for a top 10 RB? Pretty sure even ted t will pay that price

 

[Gopher State]

Hoping Grant is good to go for us next year

 

[smackdaddies]

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) .

So....he will be big next season if he gets a lot of carries and receptions, and goal line stuff too. Starks looked good (watched about 3/4 of the game on tv). He got lots of carries, and had a decent average.

Long term issues before we all jump on the bandwagon

1. Ryan Grant is a top 10 RB and will be back (?) next year

2. Kuhns and Nance have gotten all the short yard carries this season

3. BJ is the best pass blocker on the team and a good receiver, knows the offense

Definitely a dynasty play, and definitely someone to roster this season if you have space and/or your desperate for a RBBut nothing to count on to carry you through the playoffs this year

The last sentence in this post is just wrong. you can't tell the future, none of us can. so the last sentence is not only worthless, but damaging to others who may take your word for it and not pick this guy up. the important point to take away from all this is a rookie RB that can be found on waivers just got 18 carries in his first game on a potent offense with horrible competition at the RB spot. whether he is a fantasy stud in the future none of us know. the point is once that becomes clear he will no longer be available. the intelligent move is to pick this guy up and let him sit on your bench until you find out, since the talent and opportunity are there.

Did you bother reading what I posted?

 

[nysportsfan]

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) .

So....he will be big next season if he gets a lot of carries and receptions, and goal line stuff too. Starks looked good (watched about 3/4 of the game on tv). He got lots of carries, and had a decent average.

Long term issues before we all jump on the bandwagon

1. Ryan Grant is a top 10 RB and will be back (?) next year

2. Kuhns and Nance have gotten all the short yard carries this season

3. BJ is the best pass blocker on the team and a good receiver, knows the offense

Definitely a dynasty play, and definitely someone to roster this season if you have space and/or your desperate for a RBBut nothing to count on to carry you through the playoffs this year

The last sentence in this post is just wrong. you can't tell the future, none of us can. so the last sentence is not only worthless, but damaging to others who may take your word for it and not pick this guy up. the important point to take away from all this is a rookie RB that can be found on waivers just got 18 carries in his first game on a potent offense with horrible competition at the RB spot. whether he is a fantasy stud in the future none of us know. the point is once that becomes clear he will no longer be available. the intelligent move is to pick this guy up and let him sit on your bench until you find out, since the talent and opportunity are there.

Did you bother reading what I posted?

 

[sho nuff]

Hoping Grant is good to go for us next year :(

Why...your team has Peterson.