He's not a top 10 dynasty RB either...No, reference was made to a top 10 dynasty back not re-draft.Are we really anointing Starks a top 10 back after one game?Wow.....He will be a top 10 dynasty back by the end of the 2010 season.![]()
![]()
He's not a top 10 dynasty RB either...No, reference was made to a top 10 dynasty back not re-draft.Are we really anointing Starks a top 10 back after one game?Wow.....He will be a top 10 dynasty back by the end of the 2010 season.![]()
![]()
diving forward is a recipe for injury? thats a new oneWatched him for the first time yesterday. He seemed to have a very explosive burst when he needed it. However, diving forward at the end of runs seems like a recipe for injury. I was impressed with him but that running style seems destined to lead to injury and/or a short career. What type of injury history did he have prior to this year?
And he's not even close to a top 10 back in any format.No, reference was made to a top 10 dynasty back not re-draft.Are we really anointing Starks a top 10 back after one game?Wow.....He will be a top 10 dynasty back by the end of the 2010 season.![]()
![]()
If the Packers get rid of Grant he will be, IMO. Grant is not a spectacular talent but with that offense put up very good numbers as the starter. If Starks takes over as the starter there's no reason to think he can't put up those numbers. Of course, that all depends on whether or not Grant is kept.And he's not even close to a top 10 back in any format.No, reference was made to a top 10 dynasty back not re-draft.Are we really anointing Starks a top 10 back after one game?Wow.....He will be a top 10 dynasty back by the end of the 2010 season.![]()
![]()
That's still a big "if". I'm not sure why anyone would think the Packers are ready to commit to the guy after one good game. At this point, like I said, he's not close to a top ten back. WAY too many question marks.njherdfan said:If the Packers get rid of Grant he will be, IMO. Grant is not a spectacular talent but with that offense put up very good numbers as the starter. If Starks takes over as the starter there's no reason to think he can't put up those numbers. Of course, that all depends on whether or not Grant is kept.
I think this is a case where if you wait that long to get all the evidence it will be too late. I would be willing to bet Starks is the starter next season and puts up very good numbers if healthy. If you wait until you hear about Grant, see the draft, etc. you will likely be paying for a top 10-15 RB. If you move now you can get a good price while there are still doubters. Green Bay has made it clear through their actions with Starks that they value him very highly.That's still a big "if". I'm not sure why anyone would think the Packers are ready to commit to the guy after one good game. At this point, like I said, he's not close to a top ten back. WAY too many question marks.njherdfan said:If the Packers get rid of Grant he will be, IMO. Grant is not a spectacular talent but with that offense put up very good numbers as the starter. If Starks takes over as the starter there's no reason to think he can't put up those numbers. Of course, that all depends on whether or not Grant is kept.
By making him inactive the last two regular season games?I think this is a case where if you wait that long to get all the evidence it will be too late. I would be willing to bet Starks is the starter next season and puts up very good numbers if healthy. If you wait until you hear about Grant, see the draft, etc. you will likely be paying for a top 10-15 RB. If you move now you can get a good price while there are still doubters. Green Bay has made it clear through their actions with Starks that they value him very highly.That's still a big "if". I'm not sure why anyone would think the Packers are ready to commit to the guy after one good game. At this point, like I said, he's not close to a top ten back. WAY too many question marks.njherdfan said:If the Packers get rid of Grant he will be, IMO. Grant is not a spectacular talent but with that offense put up very good numbers as the starter. If Starks takes over as the starter there's no reason to think he can't put up those numbers. Of course, that all depends on whether or not Grant is kept.
Probably not the right description. He seemed to be laying out near the end of runs and not protecting himself prior to impact from either the ground or tacklers.nlgb1 said:diving forward is a recipe for injury? thats a new oneWatched him for the first time yesterday. He seemed to have a very explosive burst when he needed it. However, diving forward at the end of runs seems like a recipe for injury. I was impressed with him but that running style seems destined to lead to injury and/or a short career. What type of injury history did he have prior to this year?
I'm a Starks owner in dynasty and would like to believe he will be 'the guy' next year in GB, but I think you have it right. RBBC seems likely to me.Ryan Grant is going to be a big part of the offense in 2011. Starks is starting to look like he'll be a component as well. What will most likely happen is they will both hurt each other's value in FF. Very good chance this ends up being a RBBC.
No doubt it's a huge "if," but his upside is huge. It's definitely a gamble but if Starks becomes the clear starter, he will be a fantasy gold mine next season.That's still a big "if". I'm not sure why anyone would think the Packers are ready to commit to the guy after one good game. At this point, like I said, he's not close to a top ten back. WAY too many question marks.njherdfan said:If the Packers get rid of Grant he will be, IMO. Grant is not a spectacular talent but with that offense put up very good numbers as the starter. If Starks takes over as the starter there's no reason to think he can't put up those numbers. Of course, that all depends on whether or not Grant is kept.
By not putting him on the IR in the first place.By making him inactive the last two regular season games?I think this is a case where if you wait that long to get all the evidence it will be too late. I would be willing to bet Starks is the starter next season and puts up very good numbers if healthy. If you wait until you hear about Grant, see the draft, etc. you will likely be paying for a top 10-15 RB. If you move now you can get a good price while there are still doubters. Green Bay has made it clear through their actions with Starks that they value him very highly.That's still a big "if". I'm not sure why anyone would think the Packers are ready to commit to the guy after one good game. At this point, like I said, he's not close to a top ten back. WAY too many question marks.njherdfan said:If the Packers get rid of Grant he will be, IMO. Grant is not a spectacular talent but with that offense put up very good numbers as the starter. If Starks takes over as the starter there's no reason to think he can't put up those numbers. Of course, that all depends on whether or not Grant is kept.
He seemed to me to get toppled over a bit more than I liked. On some of the replays it was odd seeing his head up there with the OL's, DL's and LB's heads as he ran through the LOS. I'm just waiting for the feet to be planted and someone to fold over his upper body.But I was impressed with his vision in traffic. He had a couple of nice runs where he picked his way through the trash rather deftly to gain a couple of extra yards.Watched him for the first time yesterday. He seemed to have a very explosive burst when he needed it. However, diving forward at the end of runs seems like a recipe for injury. I was impressed with him but that running style seems destined to lead to injury and/or a short career. What type of injury history did he have prior to this year?
I believe I read that the inactive decision was made because Starks didn't contribute on Special Teams, which shouldn't really be a surprise. He was the best player on his team all through HS and college, so it's not likely he played specials, and once he came to the NFL he was put on the PUP list so he wasn't allowed to practice with the team in the beginning of the season, so he was way behind the other backs in regards to special teams. I'm sure with a full off-season of work Starks will be able to contribute fully to special teams next season.By making him inactive the last two regular season games?I think this is a case where if you wait that long to get all the evidence it will be too late. I would be willing to bet Starks is the starter next season and puts up very good numbers if healthy. If you wait until you hear about Grant, see the draft, etc. you will likely be paying for a top 10-15 RB. If you move now you can get a good price while there are still doubters. Green Bay has made it clear through their actions with Starks that they value him very highly.That's still a big "if". I'm not sure why anyone would think the Packers are ready to commit to the guy after one good game. At this point, like I said, he's not close to a top ten back. WAY too many question marks.njherdfan said:If the Packers get rid of Grant he will be, IMO. Grant is not a spectacular talent but with that offense put up very good numbers as the starter. If Starks takes over as the starter there's no reason to think he can't put up those numbers. Of course, that all depends on whether or not Grant is kept.
nfl teams need and prefer 2 rbs that can perform. moreso if it goes to 18 games. starks is dirt cheap, so that could actually allow them to overspend a bit for grant. also, what is the possibility that grant restructures his deal?Kind of a "no duh" statement, but I think Starks is almost auditioning for the full-time roll next year during these playoffs. If he continues to do well, and they continue to advance, hard to imagine them NOT giving him the starting roll next year. He's younger and cheaper than Grant, it would just make sense.
Well, he's 6' 2", and has a bit of an upright running style. So yes, at times, he stands tall. It's noticeable. At the same time, I don't see how falling forward is a bad thing. That's what you want in a back.What really stood out was his burst. Big difference between him hitting the hole compared to Brandon Jackson. No stutter steps, planted and ran.He seemed to me to get toppled over a bit more than I liked. On some of the replays it was odd seeing his head up there with the OL's, DL's and LB's heads as he ran through the LOS. I'm just waiting for the feet to be planted and someone to fold over his upper body.But I was impressed with his vision in traffic. He had a couple of nice runs where he picked his way through the trash rather deftly to gain a couple of extra yards.Watched him for the first time yesterday. He seemed to have a very explosive burst when he needed it. However, diving forward at the end of runs seems like a recipe for injury. I was impressed with him but that running style seems destined to lead to injury and/or a short career. What type of injury history did he have prior to this year?
Agreed. The Packers running game suffered mightily this year after Grant got hurt. I seriously doubt they'd get rid of Grant just because Starks looks like he can play too.nfl teams need and prefer 2 rbs that can perform. moreso if it goes to 18 games. starks is dirt cheap, so that could actually allow them to overspend a bit for grant. also, what is the possibility that grant restructures his deal?Kind of a "no duh" statement, but I think Starks is almost auditioning for the full-time roll next year during these playoffs. If he continues to do well, and they continue to advance, hard to imagine them NOT giving him the starting roll next year. He's younger and cheaper than Grant, it would just make sense.
I think they waited because Grant was already on IRIsnt Philly terrible vs. the run this season? I own Starks in a dynasty but Im not holding my breathBy not putting him on the IR in the first place.By making him inactive the last two regular season games?I think this is a case where if you wait that long to get all the evidence it will be too late. I would be willing to bet Starks is the starter next season and puts up very good numbers if healthy. If you wait until you hear about Grant, see the draft, etc. you will likely be paying for a top 10-15 RB. If you move now you can get a good price while there are still doubters. Green Bay has made it clear through their actions with Starks that they value him very highly.That's still a big "if". I'm not sure why anyone would think the Packers are ready to commit to the guy after one good game. At this point, like I said, he's not close to a top ten back. WAY too many question marks.njherdfan said:If the Packers get rid of Grant he will be, IMO. Grant is not a spectacular talent but with that offense put up very good numbers as the starter. If Starks takes over as the starter there's no reason to think he can't put up those numbers. Of course, that all depends on whether or not Grant is kept.
He was nicked up on and off during his college career before tearing his labrum and missing his entire senior season. Missed an occasional game here and there. FWIW, Mel Kiper had him as late 1st/early 2nd round talent before the injury.The main problem with Starks is that he runs very upright - he is very tall and lanky for an NFL RB. He appears to have added the weight that he needed to add....he looks like he's more capable of taking the pounding than ever.I've said it before - I don't know if he's a full 16-game, workhorse back....but he could be a very good player in an RBBC situation.Watched him for the first time yesterday. He seemed to have a very explosive burst when he needed it. However, diving forward at the end of runs seems like a recipe for injury. I was impressed with him but that running style seems destined to lead to injury and/or a short career. What type of injury history did he have prior to this year?
Did the Packers sign Deangelo Williams?Bad Practice habits is what got him sat down after he came off the PUP list
The week after his promising debut against the 49ers, Starks gained just 8 yards in six carries in an ugly 7-3 loss to Detroit. He was inactive the next two games and admitted he needed to develop better practice habits.
it does go on to say
All indications are that he did just that.
"I think he really learned the last month or so how to be a professional and that this is a seven-day-a-week job and you have to practice well if you are going to play on Sunday," Rodgers said. "His practice habits have really improved in the last month and he has been re-energized."
So, Starks will get a shot next year. He just has to beat out a top 10 RB to do so.
they may add a RB, but i don't think it's a slam dunk. they rode out this season with starks, jackson and kuhn when they had plenty of opportunity to add other backs (lynch comes to mind). now maybe they see a better talent out there at this point, either in free agency or in the draft, but their actions this year indicate that they're not real afraid of rolling with those three guys.I'd love to have Starks on my dynasty roster, but lets not get ahead of ourselves. Even if GB doesn't have Grant back next year, they are going to have somebody decent in addition to Starks. No way they go into next year with Starks, Jackson, and Kuhn.
Bad Practice habits is what got him sat down after he came off the PUP list
The week after his promising debut against the 49ers, Starks gained just 8 yards in six carries in an ugly 7-3 loss to Detroit. He was inactive the next two games and admitted he needed to develop better practice habits.
it does go on to say
All indications are that he did just that.
"I think he really learned the last month or so how to be a professional and that this is a seven-day-a-week job and you have to practice well if you are going to play on Sunday," Rodgers said. "His practice habits have really improved in the last month and he has been re-energized."
So, Starks will get a shot next year. He just has to beat out a top 10 RB to do so.
Green Bay — James Starks has had some ups and downs since being activated from the physically unable to perform list Nov. 9, and the rookie recently admitted he needed to improve his practice habits.
But running backs coach Edgar Bennett stressed Thursday that there was nothing wrong with Starks' work ethic. Bennett said Starks was a hard worker who was still learning how to practice in the detail-oriented NFL.
"He has a tremendous work ethic," Bennett said. "The kid comes in early and leaves late. It's not a question of work ethic, so let's nip that in the bud. It's just more the detail of it. It's a process, just like anything else."
Starks rushed for 73 yards in his NFL debut against San Francisco on Dec. 5, gained just 8 yards in six carries against Detroit the next week and then was inactive against New England (Dec. 19) and the New York Giants (Dec. 26).
He got back on the field last week and performed well in spot duty against Chicago, gaining 20 yards in five carries and catching two passes for 15 yards.
It wouldn't be a shock if he saw even more playing time against the Philadelphia Eagles in an NFC wild-card playoff game Sunday.
"Keep in mind this is a young kid who is still continuing to grow and continuing to develop," Bennett said. "Each and every one of our backs, they have a role and when their number is called they'll jump in and respond."
Does Starks have what it takes to be an every-down back someday?
"He certainly has all the capabilities of being that guy," Bennett said. "He's talented."
Grant had a nice year in 2009, but let's not make him into something he's not. We're not taking about a perennial All-Pro here.So, Starks will get a shot next year. He just has to beat out a top 10 RB to do so.
are you kidding?Bad Practice habits is what got him sat down after he came off the PUP list
The week after his promising debut against the 49ers, Starks gained just 8 yards in six carries in an ugly 7-3 loss to Detroit. He was inactive the next two games and admitted he needed to develop better practice habits.
it does go on to say
All indications are that he did just that.
"I think he really learned the last month or so how to be a professional and that this is a seven-day-a-week job and you have to practice well if you are going to play on Sunday," Rodgers said. "His practice habits have really improved in the last month and he has been re-energized."
So, Starks will get a shot next year. He just has to beat out a top 10 RB to do so.
Uhh, ok. I think people get the gist of your position on Starks.Will starks have a shot next year? Sure. Just like everyone else.
It just goes to show you can't scout by numbers. He looked good. Big-time potential, IMO. I haven't been as giddy about a sleeper-type RB in a long time.I've been saying I expect Starks to be their feature back by 2012, if not sooner, & I still firmly believe that. I also look for him to start being implemented in their passing game next season as well as be their GL back.Make no mistake, this kid is a very talented RB. Starks reminds of a beefier Marcus Allen.Thoughts on 25 for only 66 for 2.6 ypc?Not an impressive performance in a game where the rest of the offense dominated
Meh, it wasn't a good fantasy performance, but I'm looking at them giving him the rock 25 times. BJAX once.Atlanta has a top 10 run defense and the kid did what he needed to do. Keep the clock running.Thoughts on 25 for only 66 for 2.6 ypc?Not an impressive performance in a game where the rest of the offense dominated
2.6 ypcMeh, it wasn't a good fantasy performance, but I'm looking at them giving him the rock 25 times. BJAX once.Atlanta has a top 10 run defense and the kid did what he needed to do. Keep the clock running.Thoughts on 25 for only 66 for 2.6 ypc?Not an impressive performance in a game where the rest of the offense dominated
Meh, it wasn't a good fantasy performance, but I'm looking at them giving him the rock 25 times. BJAX once.Atlanta has a top 10 run defense and the kid did what he needed to do. Keep the clock running.Thoughts on 25 for only 66 for 2.6 ypc?Not an impressive performance in a game where the rest of the offense dominated
Show me what holes he missed. The offensive line sucks when it comes to running but he should be used more in the passing game. He'll have good days when they game plan better for him.2.6 ypcMeh, it wasn't a good fantasy performance, but I'm looking at them giving him the rock 25 times. BJAX once.Atlanta has a top 10 run defense and the kid did what he needed to do. Keep the clock running.Thoughts on 25 for only 66 for 2.6 ypc?Not an impressive performance in a game where the rest of the offense dominatedI actually like what I have seen from Starks, but the GB running game just isn't very good.So far he is 77/290 in his career for a terrible 3.76 ypc (regular season and playoffs). Brandon Jackson this yr 3.7 ypc (regular season) GB as a team 3.8 yps (regular season).Starks looks good, but the results are not. Hype >>>>> Results
A little deffensive??Show me what holes he missed. The offensive line sucks when it comes to running but he should be used more in the passing game. He'll have good days when they game plan better for him.2.6 ypcMeh, it wasn't a good fantasy performance, but I'm looking at them giving him the rock 25 times. BJAX once.Atlanta has a top 10 run defense and the kid did what he needed to do. Keep the clock running.Thoughts on 25 for only 66 for 2.6 ypc?Not an impressive performance in a game where the rest of the offense dominatedI actually like what I have seen from Starks, but the GB running game just isn't very good.So far he is 77/290 in his career for a terrible 3.76 ypc (regular season and playoffs). Brandon Jackson this yr 3.7 ypc (regular season) GB as a team 3.8 yps (regular season).Starks looks good, but the results are not. Hype >>>>> Results
RB's don't get a good lane every time. On every play, a RB is expected to get 3 yards on their own...even if its a blitz, DL breaking through, terrible OL blocking. Every play 3 yards is the expectation. Does that always happen? No, but most good RB's will get 3 yards most of the time. To average 2.6 ypc, doesn't show a ton of potential.Show me what holes he missed. The offensive line sucks when it comes to running but he should be used more in the passing game. He'll have good days when they game plan better for him.2.6 ypcMeh, it wasn't a good fantasy performance, but I'm looking at them giving him the rock 25 times. BJAX once.Atlanta has a top 10 run defense and the kid did what he needed to do. Keep the clock running.Thoughts on 25 for only 66 for 2.6 ypc?Not an impressive performance in a game where the rest of the offense dominatedI actually like what I have seen from Starks, but the GB running game just isn't very good.So far he is 77/290 in his career for a terrible 3.76 ypc (regular season and playoffs). Brandon Jackson this yr 3.7 ypc (regular season) GB as a team 3.8 yps (regular season).Starks looks good, but the results are not. Hype >>>>> Results
Starks is averaging 3.76 YPC, and is averaging 4.0 YPC in the 3 games he received more than 6 carries. Either way, its a pretty small sample size, so its unfair to compare him to Brandon Jackson who is a more established 3.7 YPC guy. Plus Starks hasnt played football in 2 years, so he has a fair amount of rust to shake off. If the guy is averaging less than 4 YPC half way through next season then then i will say his results are not impressive, but at this point, i coudlnt expect much more.A little deffensive??Show me what holes he missed. The offensive line sucks when it comes to running but he should be used more in the passing game. He'll have good days when they game plan better for him.2.6 ypcMeh, it wasn't a good fantasy performance, but I'm looking at them giving him the rock 25 times. BJAX once.Atlanta has a top 10 run defense and the kid did what he needed to do. Keep the clock running.Thoughts on 25 for only 66 for 2.6 ypc?Not an impressive performance in a game where the rest of the offense dominatedI actually like what I have seen from Starks, but the GB running game just isn't very good.So far he is 77/290 in his career for a terrible 3.76 ypc (regular season and playoffs). Brandon Jackson this yr 3.7 ypc (regular season) GB as a team 3.8 yps (regular season).Starks looks good, but the results are not. Hype >>>>> Results
I said "I actually like what I have seen from Starks, but the GB running game just isn't very good." and "Starks looks good, but the results are not."... So you say "Show me what holes he missed."
Blame the results on whatever you want to blame them on...but they are the results......and FF is a results oriented game.BTW, Starks (3.7 ypc) may look good, but he hasn't been any more effective than Jackson (3.7 ypc), who usually doesn't look good (they both have the same OL excuse)
Barry Sanders must have sucked, he led the league in negative yard plays every season.Whats you definition of "most of the time"? I bet i can show you alot of great RB's that do not get 3 yards "most of the time".RB's don't get a good lane every time. On every play, a RB is expected to get 3 yards on their own...even if its a blitz, DL breaking through, terrible OL blocking. Every play 3 yards is the expectation. Does that always happen? No, but most good RB's will get 3 yards most of the time. To average 2.6 ypc, doesn't show a ton of potential.Show me what holes he missed. The offensive line sucks when it comes to running but he should be used more in the passing game. He'll have good days when they game plan better for him.2.6 ypcMeh, it wasn't a good fantasy performance, but I'm looking at them giving him the rock 25 times. BJAX once.Atlanta has a top 10 run defense and the kid did what he needed to do. Keep the clock running.Thoughts on 25 for only 66 for 2.6 ypc?Not an impressive performance in a game where the rest of the offense dominatedI actually like what I have seen from Starks, but the GB running game just isn't very good.So far he is 77/290 in his career for a terrible 3.76 ypc (regular season and playoffs). Brandon Jackson this yr 3.7 ypc (regular season) GB as a team 3.8 yps (regular season).Starks looks good, but the results are not. Hype >>>>> Results
Is this what the Shark Pool has really turned into?You are going to pick apart my posts. Really Go Deep? I had a respect for you. I'm done with the Shark Pool this place used to be a good place, with solid discussions.I said MOST good RB's(not all, every time because that would be an impossible task) will get 3 yards most of the time regardless. That is the goal on every play. How do I know that? That is what I coached my RB's at the D1 college level.Barry Sanders must have sucked, he led the league in negative yard plays every season.Whats you definition of "most of the time"? I bet i can show you alot of great RB's that do not get 3 yards "most of the time".RB's don't get a good lane every time. On every play, a RB is expected to get 3 yards on their own...even if its a blitz, DL breaking through, terrible OL blocking. Every play 3 yards is the expectation. Does that always happen? No, but most good RB's will get 3 yards most of the time. To average 2.6 ypc, doesn't show a ton of potential.Show me what holes he missed. The offensive line sucks when it comes to running but he should be used more in the passing game. He'll have good days when they game plan better for him.2.6 ypcMeh, it wasn't a good fantasy performance, but I'm looking at them giving him the rock 25 times. BJAX once.Atlanta has a top 10 run defense and the kid did what he needed to do. Keep the clock running.I actually like what I have seen from Starks, but the GB running game just isn't very good.So far he is 77/290 in his career for a terrible 3.76 ypc (regular season and playoffs). Brandon Jackson this yr 3.7 ypc (regular season) GB as a team 3.8 yps (regular season).Starks looks good, but the results are not. Hype >>>>> Results
Seriously? Isnt that what we do here? You said RB's are exepcted to get 3 YPC on every play under any circimstance. While im sure that every coach would love that to happen, it just isnt a real expectation. Like i said, Barry Sanders is one of the greatest RB's of all time and consistently led the league in plays for negative yardage. To say Starks lacks potential because he failed to rush for 3 YPC most if the time on the road against a pretty good Atlanta team, in a game where he spent most of the 2nd half trying to run clock seems absurd to me.It wasnt my intent to belittle you, but i just dont think what you said made much sense. I appologize if i came off smart-azzy.Is this what the Shark Pool has really turned into?
You are going to pick apart my posts. Really Go Deep? I had a respect for you. I'm done with the Shark Pool this place used to be a good place, with solid discussions.
I said MOST good RB's(not all, every time because that would be an impossible task) will get 3 yards most of the time regardless. That is the goal on every play. How do I know that? That is what I coached my RB's at the D1 college level.
200 yards rushing in two road games against playoff teams after being back for a month after not playing football for two years, yeah, i am pretty impressed.So you think they are impressive? Your rankings seem too say you do.