James Starks (1 Viewer)

[The Real Hipster Doofus]

Question for those who are dissapointed in Starks YPC yesterday...

Did you watch the game or just check the stats? Because while the stats tell one story, my eyes tell me another. Starks is a very talented RB just finding his footing.

The most important stat of the entire game is that they gave him 25 carries.

 

[Balco]

My concern with Starks is his upright running style. He is vulnerable to some huge hits (as evidenced by the end of the Atlanta game).

One thing that I like about him is he always seems to fall forward when running the ball. The Packers ran a puzzling stretch run on 3rd and short, and Starks did a great job of getting the first.

 

[DansRams]

So you think they are impressive? Your rankings seem too say you do.

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.

You are normally pretty objective especially in the 'Prove it to me" category. I think you are a little too attached to this one and it is skewing your view. I'm not saying Starks won't work out, but you already have this guy in your top 27 rb's???

 

[King of the Jungle]

He was met behind the line of scrimmage on many of his runs yesterday. With that being said he continually would gain 1-3 yards after being stopped. He does not look like a physically opposing running back (somewhat tall and thin for the position) but I will tell you has incredible strength for his size. I thought he was very impressive for what he was dealt yesterday and look forward to what he can do with a full NFL offseason (or maybe two if they lockout) under his belt.

 

[DansRams]

Question for those who are dissapointed in Starks YPC yesterday...Did you watch the game or just check the stats? Because while the stats tell one story, my eyes tell me another. Starks is a very talented RB just finding his footing. The most important stat of the entire game is that they gave him 25 carries.

I watched the game and already said I like him. He has the look of a good athlete...BUT, he did go down on first contact quite a bit and the ypc SHOULD be a concern....Now if you don't want to deal with what happened, then ignore it Good athletes are not hard to find or identify when you watch them play. On the other hand good RB's are not as easy to find and most good athletes do not become good RB's.Bottom line, when he produces, then I like what I see. So far 3.7

 

[Mr.Pack]

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.

You're right for once, it USED to be a good place, until you always show up spewing your BS.

Maybe that is the reason you USED to coach. I still highly doubt you ever did.

Once again........

 

[The Real Hipster Doofus]

Question for those who are dissapointed in Starks YPC yesterday...Did you watch the game or just check the stats? Because while the stats tell one story, my eyes tell me another. Starks is a very talented RB just finding his footing. The most important stat of the entire game is that they gave him 25 carries.

I watched the game and already said I like him. He has the look of a good athlete...BUT, he did go down on first contact quite a bit and the ypc SHOULD be a concern....Now if you don't want to deal with what happened, then ignore it Good athletes are not hard to find or identify when you watch them play. On the other hand good RB's are not as easy to find and most good athletes do not become good RB's.Bottom line, when he produces, then I like what I see. So far 3.7

Fair enough. As it comes to fantasy football, I am not a stats guy at all. I am pretty much all eye test. Starks passes that test for me easily, although like Go Deep I have been on this train since draft time so who knows I may have some confirmation bias going on. I think he will be the feature back on a top 5 offense in the NFL next year, and that is incredibly valuable.

 

[Mr.Pack]

Question for those who are dissapointed in Starks YPC yesterday...Did you watch the game or just check the stats? Because while the stats tell one story, my eyes tell me another. Starks is a very talented RB just finding his footing. The most important stat of the entire game is that they gave him 25 carries.

When they needed to run the clock in the 2nd half, he got the yards.

 

[Go deep]

So you think they are impressive? Your rankings seem too say you do.

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.

You are normally pretty objective especially in the 'Prove it to me" category. I think you are a little too attached to this one and it is skewing your view. I'm not saying Starks won't work out, but you already have this guy in your top 27 rb's???

If you think he might work out, dont you think that 27 is a pretty good spot for him to be ranked? If you think 27 is that far off, there must be at least 6-8 RB;s i have below him that you think should clearly be ahead of him, which RB's are they?I might be attached to Starks, but for good reason. I was high on him before he ever played a down in the NFL, and nothing he has done so far has made me feel any different. Probably the opposite, i didnt expect he would be trusted as the workhorse during the playoffs after barely playing football for two years. I get all sorts of excited when i think of what he might be able to do after he shakes the rust off and gets a full offseason with the Packers. I probably have him too low only having him at 27, but i am trying to temper my expectations.

 

[Mr.Pack]

He was met behind the line of scrimmage on many of his runs yesterday. With that being said he continually would gain 1-3 yards after being stopped. He does not look like a physically opposing running back (somewhat tall and thin for the position) but I will tell you has incredible strength for his size. I thought he was very impressive for what he was dealt yesterday and look forward to what he can do with a full NFL offseason (or maybe two if they lockout) under his belt.

And anyone who knows football knows his blocking is subpar at best.The Packer O-Line is built for pass blocking. i'ts what they are best at.

Run blocking is not what they do. They will tell you they just don't run block very well.

Yet Starks still got the yards he needed against a Top 5 run defense.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Cold splash of reality...

Brandon Jackson 194-726-3; 46-376-1 (3.74/carry, 8.17/catch, TD/60 touches)

James Starks 77-290-0; 4-24-0 (3.77/carry, 4.00/catch, 0 TDs in 81 touches)

Basically he's Brandon Jackson, at best. A good RB in that offense would be piling up yardage.

The Packers may well choose to line him up back there and let him compile some RB2/3 numbers next year - but (as it appeared from his measuables when he entered the league) he's most likely not very good, and he probably doesn't have any long-term value.

Now is a great time to sell.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

Cold splash of reality...Brandon Jackson 194-726-3; 46-376-1 (3.74/carry, 8.17/catch, TD/60 touches)James Starks 77-290-0; 4-24-0 (3.77/carry, 4.00/catch, 0 TDs in 81 touches)Basically he's Brandon Jackson, at best. A good RB in that offense would be piling up yardage.The Packers may well choose to line him up back there and let him compile some RB2/3 numbers next year - but (as it appeared from his measuables when he entered the league) he's most likely not very good, and he probably doesn't have any long-term value. Now is a great time to sell.

Here is a cold splash of reality. It you have watched Jackson and Starks you would know that you can't use stats to compare the two. They are different backs and if you can't see the upside with Starks I suggest you give up fantasy football.

 

[The Real Hipster Doofus]

Cold splash of reality...Brandon Jackson 194-726-3; 46-376-1 (3.74/carry, 8.17/catch, TD/60 touches)James Starks 77-290-0; 4-24-0 (3.77/carry, 4.00/catch, 0 TDs in 81 touches)Basically he's Brandon Jackson, at best. A good RB in that offense would be piling up yardage.The Packers may well choose to line him up back there and let him compile some RB2/3 numbers next year - but (as it appeared from his measuables when he entered the league) he's most likely not very good, and he probably doesn't have any long-term value. Now is a great time to sell.

So let's see. The fact that Starks has missed most of the last two seasons and is a rookie playing in his first couple games does not factor in? Jackson at his absolute peak is mediocre. Starks is only going to get better with more experience.

 

[Mr.Pack]

Cold splash of reality...Brandon Jackson 194-726-3; 46-376-1 (3.74/carry, 8.17/catch, TD/60 touches)James Starks 77-290-0; 4-24-0 (3.77/carry, 4.00/catch, 0 TDs in 81 touches)Basically he's Brandon Jackson, at best. A good RB in that offense would be piling up yardage.The Packers may well choose to line him up back there and let him compile some RB2/3 numbers next year - but (as it appeared from his measuables when he entered the league) he's most likely not very good, and he probably doesn't have any long-term value. Now is a great time to sell.

So you're saying you really want him on your roster and you're hoping to get him cheap.

 

[Go deep]

Cold splash of reality...Brandon Jackson 194-726-3; 46-376-1 (3.74/carry, 8.17/catch, TD/60 touches)James Starks 77-290-0; 4-24-0 (3.77/carry, 4.00/catch, 0 TDs in 81 touches)Basically he's Brandon Jackson, at best. A good RB in that offense would be piling up yardage.The Packers may well choose to line him up back there and let him compile some RB2/3 numbers next year - but (as it appeared from his measuables when he entered the league) he's most likely not very good, and he probably doesn't have any long-term value. Now is a great time to sell.

You dont think the sample size might be too small? So if he starts off next week with a 50 yard run, and his career YPC goes up to 5, then he will be a good RB?Also, whats wrong with his measurables? He ran a 4.48 40, had 18 reps on the bench, and finished in the top 25% of most of the other events. ETA, if Starks is only as good as Jackson, then why are the Packers giving Starks, a guy who has barely played football in two years, the majority of the carries when Jackson is 100% healthy?

 

[mlball77]

Cold splash of reality...Brandon Jackson 194-726-3; 46-376-1 (3.74/carry, 8.17/catch, TD/60 touches)James Starks 77-290-0; 4-24-0 (3.77/carry, 4.00/catch, 0 TDs in 81 touches)Basically he's Brandon Jackson, at best. A good RB in that offense would be piling up yardage.The Packers may well choose to line him up back there and let him compile some RB2/3 numbers next year - but (as it appeared from his measuables when he entered the league) he's most likely not very good, and he probably doesn't have any long-term value. Now is a great time to sell.

You dont think the sample size might be too small? So if he starts off next week with a 50 yard run, and his career YPC goes up to 5, then he will be a good RB?Also, whats wrong with his measurables? He ran a 4.48 40, had 18 reps on the bench, and finished in the top 25% of most of the other events. ETA, if Starks is only as good as Jackson, then why are the Packers giving Starks, a guy who has barely played football in two years, the majority of the carries when Jackson is 100% healthy?

The other issue with the sample size for Starks is that a high percentage of his runs have come in obvious run situations where the D is stacking guys in the box. I think his YPC is pretty solid when you consider this fact.

 

[ROYALWITCHEESE]

Thoughts on 25 for only 66 for 2.6 ypc?Not an impressive performance in a game where the rest of the offense dominated

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.

If by "looking good" you mean looking explosive while running directly into tacklers, then, yes, he looked good. There is no denying his explosiveness. It's other areas he lacks, which I suspect is why he was inactive. His vision stinks. And while he may be slightly more explosive than Grant, vision and power is what sets them apart IMO. Those claiming Grant will be gone are fooling themselves...

 

[ROYALWITCHEESE]

Cold splash of reality...Brandon Jackson 194-726-3; 46-376-1 (3.74/carry, 8.17/catch, TD/60 touches)James Starks 77-290-0; 4-24-0 (3.77/carry, 4.00/catch, 0 TDs in 81 touches)Basically he's Brandon Jackson, at best. A good RB in that offense would be piling up yardage.The Packers may well choose to line him up back there and let him compile some RB2/3 numbers next year - but (as it appeared from his measuables when he entered the league) he's most likely not very good, and he probably doesn't have any long-term value. Now is a great time to sell.

Exactly. No matter what he "looks" like, he is doing the same job Jackson is and has done. No better. In fact, you could argue for him doing a worse job, since they choose not to play him in passing situations.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

Cold splash of reality...Brandon Jackson 194-726-3; 46-376-1 (3.74/carry, 8.17/catch, TD/60 touches)James Starks 77-290-0; 4-24-0 (3.77/carry, 4.00/catch, 0 TDs in 81 touches)Basically he's Brandon Jackson, at best. A good RB in that offense would be piling up yardage.The Packers may well choose to line him up back there and let him compile some RB2/3 numbers next year - but (as it appeared from his measuables when he entered the league) he's most likely not very good, and he probably doesn't have any long-term value. Now is a great time to sell.

Exactly. No matter what he "looks" like, he is doing the same job Jackson is and has done. No better. In fact, you could argue for him doing a worse job, since they choose not to play him in passing situations.

If you had to choose Starks or Jackson to be your back which one would you take?

 

[ROYALWITCHEESE]

Cold splash of reality...

Brandon Jackson 194-726-3; 46-376-1 (3.74/carry, 8.17/catch, TD/60 touches)

James Starks 77-290-0; 4-24-0 (3.77/carry, 4.00/catch, 0 TDs in 81 touches)

Basically he's Brandon Jackson, at best. A good RB in that offense would be piling up yardage.

The Packers may well choose to line him up back there and let him compile some RB2/3 numbers next year - but (as it appeared from his measuables when he entered the league) he's most likely not very good, and he probably doesn't have any long-term value.

Now is a great time to sell.

You dont think the sample size might be too small? So if he starts off next week with a 50 yard run, and his career YPC goes up to 5, then he will be a good RB?

Also, whats wrong with his measurables? He ran a 4.48 40, had 18 reps on the bench, and finished in the top 25% of most of the other events.

ETA, if Starks is only as good as Jackson, then why are the Packers giving Starks, a guy who has barely played football in two years, the majority of the carries when Jackson is 100% healthy?

Fair and valid points. From my perspective, he looks almost identical to Grant in that offense. If you squint, they may look the same at first glance. The difference is that Grant breaks more tackles and has great vision. Maybe Starks improves and maybe he doesn't. But for a RB, vision is vision and instincts are instincts. And from what I have seen Starks vision and instincts as a RB aren't where they need to be for him to be the full-time RB everyone wants him to be. There have been a LOT of physically impressive RBs come and go, because they didn't have the instincts and vision the position requires--not only for success--to prevent injury as well (Michael Bennett comes to mind). And as has been mentioned, he runs high and takes big hits on his skinny frame. He was injured multiple times in college for this same reason, and he hasn't adapted. What makes folks think he will suddenly change this with a full off-season? That is why I think Grant comes back for the next couple years, while they see what they truly have in Starks. It's far too early to anoint him as a starting fantasy RB, much less top 10 as some have suggested. He may turn out to be great, but I doubt it. The most likely scenario IMO, is that he spells Grant for the next 2 years and then takes over the 1st-2nd down duties in 2013 after having time to learn from Grant on the job.

 

[ROYALWITCHEESE]

Cold splash of reality...Brandon Jackson 194-726-3; 46-376-1 (3.74/carry, 8.17/catch, TD/60 touches)James Starks 77-290-0; 4-24-0 (3.77/carry, 4.00/catch, 0 TDs in 81 touches)Basically he's Brandon Jackson, at best. A good RB in that offense would be piling up yardage.The Packers may well choose to line him up back there and let him compile some RB2/3 numbers next year - but (as it appeared from his measuables when he entered the league) he's most likely not very good, and he probably doesn't have any long-term value. Now is a great time to sell.

Exactly. No matter what he "looks" like, he is doing the same job Jackson is and has done. No better. In fact, you could argue for him doing a worse job, since they choose not to play him in passing situations.

If you had to choose Starks or Jackson to be your back which one would you take?

Starks without a doubt. Because we've seen all of Jackson we need to see. But Starks is a roll of the dice IMO. Given the choice of the 3, I'd still take Grant even at 28 years old. 2-3 more years of known top 10 production is better than Starks unknown potential at this point in time...

 

[deep vacuum]

Thoughts on 25 for only 66 for 2.6 ypc?Not an impressive performance in a game where the rest of the offense dominated

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.

If by "looking good" you mean looking explosive while running directly into tacklers, then, yes, he looked good. There is no denying his explosiveness. It's other areas he lacks, which I suspect is why he was inactive. His vision stinks. And while he may be slightly more explosive than Grant, vision and power is what sets them apart IMO. Those claiming Grant will be gone are fooling themselves...

I'm a Grant supporter. I believe that Grant is the same age Levens was when Levens had that bad injury and I believe that Grant had the same type of injury. Levens was never the same afterwards. I would be surprised if Grant will ever a feature back again. Probably rbbc with Starks & Jackson IMO. Nance is in the mix for next year also I believe so I wouldn't be surprised to see a Starks/Nance/Jackson backfield next year with Starks being the workhorse back. Everyone rags on the Packers running game but it is getting the job done the past few weeks against playoff type teams. The Packers running game reminds me a little of the Patriots with their nothing special backfield that just produces.

 

[Football Jones]

Thoughts on 25 for only 66 for 2.6 ypc?Not an impressive performance in a game where the rest of the offense dominated

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.

If by "looking good" you mean looking explosive while running directly into tacklers, then, yes, he looked good. There is no denying his explosiveness. It's other areas he lacks, which I suspect is why he was inactive. His vision stinks. And while he may be slightly more explosive than Grant, vision and power is what sets them apart IMO. Those claiming Grant will be gone are fooling themselves...

We couldn't disagree more. Not what I'm seeing. We'll agree to disagree.

 

[ROYALWITCHEESE]

Thoughts on 25 for only 66 for 2.6 ypc?Not an impressive performance in a game where the rest of the offense dominated

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.

If by "looking good" you mean looking explosive while running directly into tacklers, then, yes, he looked good. There is no denying his explosiveness. It's other areas he lacks, which I suspect is why he was inactive. His vision stinks. And while he may be slightly more explosive than Grant, vision and power is what sets them apart IMO. Those claiming Grant will be gone are fooling themselves...

I'm a Grant supporter. I believe that Grant is the same age Levens was when Levens had that bad injury and I believe that Grant had the same type of injury. Levens was never the same afterwards. I would be surprised if Grant will ever a feature back again. Probably rbbc with Starks & Jackson IMO. Nance is in the mix for next year also I believe so I wouldn't be surprised to see a Starks/Nance/Jackson backfield next year with Starks being the workhorse back. Everyone rags on the Packers running game but it is getting the job done the past few weeks against playoff type teams. The Packers running game reminds me a little of the Patriots with their nothing special backfield that just produces.

A knee injury is totally different than a fx fibula. Just saying.

 

[Football Jones]

As far as Starks' YPC, like I said, you can't scout by numbers. The YPC will come. I promise you. The kid nearly always gets yardage after contact & that's the sign of a superior RB. I believe he'll also get integrated into the passing game next season. Starks is simply a much better athlete/RB than anybody they have now.

The sky is the limit, IMO, especially working in that offense. They're not a very good RB-blocking unit, but they're a good organization & they'll get that fixed. I'm becoming more & more convinced he'll be their feature back sooner rather than later (but not this season). Whatever his YPC is in 2010 will be of absolutely no concern.

 

[deep vacuum]

Thoughts on 25 for only 66 for 2.6 ypc?Not an impressive performance in a game where the rest of the offense dominated

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.

If by "looking good" you mean looking explosive while running directly into tacklers, then, yes, he looked good. There is no denying his explosiveness. It's other areas he lacks, which I suspect is why he was inactive. His vision stinks. And while he may be slightly more explosive than Grant, vision and power is what sets them apart IMO. Those claiming Grant will be gone are fooling themselves...

I'm a Grant supporter. I believe that Grant is the same age Levens was when Levens had that bad injury and I believe that Grant had the same type of injury. Levens was never the same afterwards. I would be surprised if Grant will ever a feature back again. Probably rbbc with Starks & Jackson IMO. Nance is in the mix for next year also I believe so I wouldn't be surprised to see a Starks/Nance/Jackson backfield next year with Starks being the workhorse back. Everyone rags on the Packers running game but it is getting the job done the past few weeks against playoff type teams. The Packers running game reminds me a little of the Patriots with their nothing special backfield that just produces.

A knee injury is totally different than a fx fibula. Just saying.

Thanks. I couldn't remember what happened to Levens. I still don't see Grant ever being a workhorse back again.

 

[The Kerminator]

Cold splash of reality...Brandon Jackson 194-726-3; 46-376-1 (3.74/carry, 8.17/catch, TD/60 touches)James Starks 77-290-0; 4-24-0 (3.77/carry, 4.00/catch, 0 TDs in 81 touches)Basically he's Brandon Jackson, at best. A good RB in that offense would be piling up yardage.The Packers may well choose to line him up back there and let him compile some RB2/3 numbers next year - but (as it appeared from his measuables when he entered the league) he's most likely not very good, and he probably doesn't have any long-term value. Now is a great time to sell.

I like Starks. But you are right. Now is the time to sell high. What I haven't seen mentioned is the role Starks plays when Ryan Grant returns next year. I can see a 50-50 split for playing time or both in the backfield at the same time.

 

[qimqam]

So you think they are impressive? Your rankings seem too say you do.

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.

You are normally pretty objective especially in the 'Prove it to me" category. I think you are a little too attached to this one and it is skewing your view. I'm not saying Starks won't work out, but you already have this guy in your top 27 rb's???

Top 10 easily

 

[Ookie Pringle]

Cold splash of reality...Brandon Jackson 194-726-3; 46-376-1 (3.74/carry, 8.17/catch, TD/60 touches)James Starks 77-290-0; 4-24-0 (3.77/carry, 4.00/catch, 0 TDs in 81 touches)Basically he's Brandon Jackson, at best. A good RB in that offense would be piling up yardage.The Packers may well choose to line him up back there and let him compile some RB2/3 numbers next year - but (as it appeared from his measuables when he entered the league) he's most likely not very good, and he probably doesn't have any long-term value. Now is a great time to sell.

I like Starks. But you are right. Now is the time to sell high. What I haven't seen mentioned is the role Starks plays when Ryan Grant returns next year. I can see a 50-50 split for playing time or both in the backfield at the same time.

1. It isn't guaranteed that Grant will be with the Packers in 2011.2. No one knows how he will be after his ijnury.3. So you don't think that Starks will eventually be the #1 back with the Packers?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Cold splash of reality...Brandon Jackson 194-726-3; 46-376-1 (3.74/carry, 8.17/catch, TD/60 touches)James Starks 77-290-0; 4-24-0 (3.77/carry, 4.00/catch, 0 TDs in 81 touches)Basically he's Brandon Jackson, at best. A good RB in that offense would be piling up yardage.The Packers may well choose to line him up back there and let him compile some RB2/3 numbers next year - but (as it appeared from his measuables when he entered the league) he's most likely not very good, and he probably doesn't have any long-term value. Now is a great time to sell.

Here is a cold splash of reality. It you have watched Jackson and Starks you would know that you can't use stats to compare the two. They are different backs and if you can't see the upside with Starks I suggest you give up fantasy football.

Sure he looks better - he's five inches taller, and faster. But, as Billy Beane said, "we're not selling pants." Running behind the same line they've produced identical rushing stats (except that Starks hasn't found the end zone and may not be as good catching the ball). Wake me up when that's not true anymore.To be clear... I'm not saying "it's impossible." Arian Foster is proving anything's possible. I'm just saying that so far he's matching my expectations to a "T" - and they couldn't have been any lower.I have some suggestions for you too: don't assume that just because I don't like your player means that I need your FF advice.

 

[zamboni]

Seems like a lot of presumptions based upon only two games.

My takeaway is that it's way too early to tell whether he'll be the savior of the Packers' run game, or even if he'll have the job to himself next year.

As others have said, the big takeaway is that McCarthy is leaning on Starks quite a bit when the games matter most, despite not having played for two years. That speaks volumes about the team's confidence in him going forward.

 

[djmich]

Seems like a lot of presumptions based upon only two games.My takeaway is that it's way too early to tell whether he'll be the savior of the Packers' run game, or even if he'll have the job to himself next year. As others have said, the big takeaway is that McCarthy is leaning on Starks quite a bit when the games matter most, despite not having played for two years. That speaks volumes about the team's confidence in him going forward.

It also says Brandon Jackson sucks.

 

[humpback]

Seems like a lot of presumptions based upon only two games.My takeaway is that it's way too early to tell whether he'll be the savior of the Packers' run game, or even if he'll have the job to himself next year. As others have said, the big takeaway is that McCarthy is leaning on Starks quite a bit when the games matter most, despite not having played for two years. That speaks volumes about the team's confidence in him going forward.

It also says Brandon Jackson sucks.

Agreed. For everyone saying that "giving him so many touches means they love him", etc, I disagree- all it means is that they like him more than their other options right now. We have no idea how many touches he'd get if Grant or a free agent/draft pick RB is part of the equation next year. He has plenty of potential, but this is still a tiny sample size we're talking about. I doubt we're going to know how things are going to shake out in GB anytime soon.

 

[Matt Waldman]

I think the huge takeaway from last night's game was not his running, but how well he blocked in pass protection. He consistently shut down the edge rusher and on Rodgers' scramble for a score, Starks actually got knocked down during his block, quickly got back to his feet and funneled the edge rusher away from the pocket, which gave the QB the lane to score without backside pursuit. There are first-round talents with excellent running skills that can't stay on the field in critical situations because of their lack of skill at pass blockers and Starks looked like a veteran in this aspect of the game.

While I believe Starks will be a 1000-yard rusher next year that point is certainly worthy of debate. It would be crazy to say that he's the uncontested starter or that Grant could come back and either keep the job or split time with Starks. But I would say anyone that is denying the rookie's overall talent has let something cloud their proper judgment.

 

[DansRams]

I think the huge takeaway from last night's game was not his running, but how well he blocked in pass protection. He consistently shut down the edge rusher and on Rodgers' scramble for a score, Starks actually got knocked down during his block, quickly got back to his feet and funneled the edge rusher away from the pocket, which gave the QB the lane to score without backside pursuit. There are first-round talents with excellent running skills that can't stay on the field in critical situations because of their lack of skill at pass blockers and Starks looked like a veteran in this aspect of the game. While I believe Starks will be a 1000-yard rusher next year that point is certainly worthy of debate. It would be crazy to say that he's the uncontested starter or that Grant could come back and either keep the job or split time with Starks. But I would say anyone that is denying the rookie's overall talent has let something cloud their proper judgment.

There is no question that he has talent. I haven't read any posts question that. Productivity so far has not been good and that has been stated by several here. Here is a question I have for this group to discuss.How would you rate Ryan Williams, Daniel Thomas and Leshoure relative to Starks?For me I think Williams and Leshoure are clearly better, but I think the Thomas versus Starks debate is potentially interesting. Personally I see little difference between the two.

 

[madd futher]

Ignoring the arguments presented here, especially those that relate to the relative talents of Mr Starks v Mr Jackson, I think it is at least as important to point out:

1. John Kuhn will continue to have a place in this offense. One TD by land and one by air may not be a typical stat line, but he is a GB fan favorite, and will continue to vulture.

2. Ryan Grant is still somewhere in the building.

3. Brandon Jackson is not the power runner that Starks is, but he will take touches in the passing game....much better at blitz pick-up and a reliable receiver. And most of us play in PPR.

4. Finally, GB will play a running game when it suits them (which is probably about 1/3 of the time), but they are not COMMITTED to the running game on any kind of regular basis.

Summary: Given these observations, most of those who have drunk the Starks kool-aid probably should pay for it with reality check.

 

[Football Jones]

I think the huge takeaway from last night's game was not his running, but how well he blocked in pass protection. He consistently shut down the edge rusher and on Rodgers' scramble for a score, Starks actually got knocked down during his block, quickly got back to his feet and funneled the edge rusher away from the pocket, which gave the QB the lane to score without backside pursuit. There are first-round talents with excellent running skills that can't stay on the field in critical situations because of their lack of skill at pass blockers and Starks looked like a veteran in this aspect of the game. While I believe Starks will be a 1000-yard rusher next year that point is certainly worthy of debate. It would be crazy to say that he's the uncontested starter or that Grant could come back and either keep the job or split time with Starks. But I would say anyone that is denying the rookie's overall talent has let something cloud their proper judgment.

His pass-blocking was something I was looking closely at. You're right, Starks did very well. That's a huge plus, & one of the reasons I believe he'll be integrated into the passing game next season. Blocking won't keep him off the field. He's got the athleticism, & from what I've seen of his receiving ability/hands, it looks like he's got a lot of potential in PPR leagues.

 

[Steed]

He carries the ball high n tight. Fumbling doesn't look to be an issue.

 

[Steve Tasker]

Starks reminds of a beefier Marcus Allen.

It's clear that he's spent a lot of time hitting the weights and has gained some serious weight - which to me, signals a dedication to hard work. There was never a question of his work ethic in college, and it seems that with more support - I'd imagine that the Packers work closely with nutritionists, etc. - he's making big strides.

 

[Steve Tasker]

He carries the ball high n tight. Fumbling doesn't look to be an issue.

Another thing that he looks to have made a priority after some lax ball security issues in college. Remember that he wasn't recruited as a running back....he was a running QB. It took him a long time to get rid of the bad habits.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Cold splash of reality...

Brandon Jackson 194-726-3; 46-376-1 (3.74/carry, 8.17/catch, TD/60 touches)

James Starks 77-290-0; 4-24-0 (3.77/carry, 4.00/catch, 0 TDs in 81 touches)

Basically he's Brandon Jackson, at best. A good RB in that offense would be piling up yardage.

The Packers may well choose to line him up back there and let him compile some RB2/3 numbers next year - but (as it appeared from his measuables when he entered the league) he's most likely not very good, and he probably doesn't have any long-term value.

Now is a great time to sell.

Here is a cold splash of reality. It you have watched Jackson and Starks you would know that you can't use stats to compare the two. They are different backs and if you can't see the upside with Starks I suggest you give up fantasy football.

Sure he looks better - he's five inches taller, and faster. But, as Billy Beane said, "we're not selling pants." Running behind the same line they've produced identical rushing stats (except that Starks hasn't found the end zone and may not be as good catching the ball). Wake me up when that's not true anymore.

To be clear... I'm not saying "it's impossible." Arian Foster is proving anything's possible. I'm just saying that so far he's matching my expectations to a "T" - and they couldn't have been any lower.

I have some suggestions for you too: don't assume that just because I don't like your player means that I need your FF advice.

at the bold. Sorry man, but that is just horrible analysis. You are REALLY going to tell us that a sample size of 77 carries is sufficient? Absolutely ridiculous. And wait, he's matching your low expectations? By impressing the hell out of everyone in the NFL in his first playoff game, after barely playing the last 2 years due to injury?

Fortunately, everyone in this thread will see through your bias and focus on other posters who have more credibility. And before you retort by calling me a homer (or some other nonsense), I'm perfectly comfortable with a reasoned, objective criticism of Starks. Unfortunately, that isn't what you provided above.

Per Matt Waldman's comments: spot on all around. Starks did a great job with pass protection yesterday, and that will earn him major kudos from Rodgers and the coaching staff. Nothing that he's done so far guarantees jack for 2011 - Grant could easily come back as the starter, they could split carries, who knows? The point is that Starks has DEFINITELY done more so far than the typical 6th round pick (note to wdcrob: most 6th round picks get cut), he has flashed talent, and the team is increasingly relying on him in critical games. Should owners sell him? Depends on the price you can get.

 

[Time Kibitzer]

Cold splash of reality...Brandon Jackson 194-726-3; 46-376-1 (3.74/carry, 8.17/catch, TD/60 touches)James Starks 77-290-0; 4-24-0 (3.77/carry, 4.00/catch, 0 TDs in 81 touches)Basically he's Brandon Jackson, at best. A good RB in that offense would be piling up yardage.The Packers may well choose to line him up back there and let him compile some RB2/3 numbers next year - but (as it appeared from his measuables when he entered the league) he's most likely not very good, and he probably doesn't have any long-term value. Now is a great time to sell.

Come on wdcrob you are better than this. Brandon Jackson has 347 career rushes and has a 3.8 YPC average. Starks has 77 career carries, with 62% of those carries coming in the postseason. Don't you think it's a bit early to declare Starks = Jackson?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Cold splash of reality...Brandon Jackson 194-726-3; 46-376-1 (3.74/carry, 8.17/catch, TD/60 touches)James Starks 77-290-0; 4-24-0 (3.77/carry, 4.00/catch, 0 TDs in 81 touches)Basically he's Brandon Jackson, at best. A good RB in that offense would be piling up yardage.The Packers may well choose to line him up back there and let him compile some RB2/3 numbers next year - but (as it appeared from his measuables when he entered the league) he's most likely not very good, and he probably doesn't have any long-term value. Now is a great time to sell.

Come on wdcrob you are better than this. Brandon Jackson has 347 career rushes and has a 3.8 YPC average. Starks has 77 career carries, with 62% of those carries coming in the postseason. Don't you think it's a bit early to declare Starks = Jackson?

Yeah, probably not my finest moment. But if Starks was a 4.6 guy instead of a 4.5 guy he'd be damn near the perfect anti-prospect IMO.He's 74+ inches tall and not very big. That alone is a recipe for injury after injury, unless the guy is absolutely elite. Which Starks is definitely not.He's got average vision, at best. Which compounds his injury problem above.His college performance against weak competition was atrocious, built entirely on compilation (4.5/carry, 7.0/catch).He was 24.5 years old entering the league.And even at 4.50 in the forty there's nothing noteworthy about his speed given his size.Some guys can survive one or maybe two strikes if everything else lines up. But four strikes and a pitch a few inches off the outside corner? Not likely.So my judgment is based on what I could see about Starks coming into the league, and his 3.77/carry, zero TD performance in a high power offense has done nothing to change my mind. Even Grant, who is pretty mediocre, manged to be OK on that team.If I'm wrong, I'll happily admit I was wrong. Already had to do that on B Jax, who I was really high on at one point. And Reggie Brown who I liked once upon a time. Not the end of the world if it happens again.

 

[Time Kibitzer]

Cold splash of reality...Brandon Jackson 194-726-3; 46-376-1 (3.74/carry, 8.17/catch, TD/60 touches)James Starks 77-290-0; 4-24-0 (3.77/carry, 4.00/catch, 0 TDs in 81 touches)Basically he's Brandon Jackson, at best. A good RB in that offense would be piling up yardage.The Packers may well choose to line him up back there and let him compile some RB2/3 numbers next year - but (as it appeared from his measuables when he entered the league) he's most likely not very good, and he probably doesn't have any long-term value. Now is a great time to sell.

Come on wdcrob you are better than this. Brandon Jackson has 347 career rushes and has a 3.8 YPC average. Starks has 77 career carries, with 62% of those carries coming in the postseason. Don't you think it's a bit early to declare Starks = Jackson?

Yeah, probably not my finest moment. But if Starks was a 4.6 guy instead of a 4.5 guy he'd be damn near the perfect anti-prospect IMO.He's 74+ inches tall and not very big. That alone is a recipe for injury after injury, unless the guy is absolutely elite. Which Starks is definitely not.He's got average vision, at best. Which compounds his injury problem above.His college performance against weak competition was atrocious, built entirely on compilation (4.5/carry, 7.0/catch).He was 24.5 years old entering the league.And even at 4.50 in the forty there's nothing noteworthy about his speed given his size.Some guys can survive one or maybe two strikes if everything else lines up. But four strikes and a pitch a few inches off the outside corner? Not likely.So my judgment is based on what I could see about Starks coming into the league, and his 3.77/carry, zero TD performance in a high power offense has done nothing to change my mind. Even Grant, who is pretty mediocre, manged to be OK on that team.If I'm wrong, I'll happily admit I was wrong. Already had to do that on B Jax, who I was really high on at one point. And Reggie Brown who I liked once upon a time. Not the end of the world if it happens again.

That's a much better post on why you think Starks will fail. He definitely has an unconventional size for a RB, which makes scouting him kind of tricky. His good/adequate speed and very good quickness/jukes makes up for his lack of strength for a back his size imo (though he's still adequate at breaking tackles imo). But it's going to be hard to juke out defenders consistently when you run tall and have so much body for defenders to grab onto. Going to be interesting to see how things transpire in this postseason and subsequent offseason.

 

[Football Jones]

There's no one single recipe for success as a RB. You can't go by numbers, either. Starks is a natural runner with good burst, size, speed, agility, & quickness. I also don't see the poor vision people are talking about. In fact, he's got good natural vision, IMO. That said, he's still rusty. That comes from missing a couple of years.

As far as running upright, I believe that's VASTLY overrated as a potential problem. I hear that all the time & it's hardly ever a valid concern. It would be one thing if he didn't have a knack for falling forward, but the kid is amazing in that area, reminding many people of Marcus Allen (including me).

I can't remember being so high on a sleeper-type RB. There have been others, of course, but Starks can be something special. He just has a ton of things going for him, not to mention being in an ideal FF situation. I really believe this kid is going to eventually be a stud.

 

[replacements]

I have to agree with those that say he passes the eye test. Combine that with the fact that he is the lead back on a strong offense that should be strong for years to come, I like his future prospects. A coaching change doesn't look like it will happen any time soon, and this staff likes him. I wouldn't trade the farm to get him, but he is aguy I would attempt toget in all leagues.As long as you don't pay to much I just don't see the down side.

For those knocking his ypc this week:

Ray Rice 12 for 32 = 2.6 ypc.

Mendenhall 20 for 46 = 2.3 ypc

Turner 10 for 39 = 3.9 ypc

starks 25 for66 = 2.64 ypc

forte 25 for 80 = 3.2 ypc

greene 17 for 76 =4.47 ypc

Starks has not proven himself to the exent that these backs have.But we need to remember that this is playoff football. The sledding is tough out there. He won't be playing great teams all year long.

 

[sho nuff]

Ignoring the arguments presented here, especially those that relate to the relative talents of Mr Starks v Mr Jackson, I think it is at least as important to point out:1. John Kuhn will continue to have a place in this offense. One TD by land and one by air may not be a typical stat line, but he is a GB fan favorite, and will continue to vulture.2. Ryan Grant is still somewhere in the building.3. Brandon Jackson is not the power runner that Starks is, but he will take touches in the passing game....much better at blitz pick-up and a reliable receiver. And most of us play in PPR.4. Finally, GB will play a running game when it suits them (which is probably about 1/3 of the time), but they are not COMMITTED to the running game on any kind of regular basis.Summary: Given these observations, most of those who have drunk the Starks kool-aid probably should pay for it with reality check.

1. Agreed...I still see it as Grant #1, Starks #2, Jackson 3rd down. With mixes of Kuhn in short yardage and goalline.2. See #1...I don't think they get rid of Grant after a year of seeing how important depth at RB is.3. Exactly.4. Agreed here too. It depends on one of McCarthy's favorite words. Matchups. The matchup against Atlanta gives them lots of success in the passing game...so they go with it a lot.

 

[DansRams]

Rotoworld - James Starks admitted that he needs to break more tackles after rushing 25 times for just 66 yards against the Falcons Saturday.

"My standards for myself are a lot higher. I've got to pick my legs up," Starks said. The rookie has 48 carries already this postseason, establishing himself as the clear preferred option on running downs. But the sledding won't get any easier against the Bears' No. 2 rush defense in the NFC Championship Game.

I like the kids standards for himself....but the ypc/breaking tackles/OL play still have to be of some concern.

BTW Go Deep...I took a long look at my rankings and with rookies included I have Starks at 31, so you and I are not as far apart on him as I would have thought.

Despite the concerns I have about the kid, I, like many of you, like what I see with my eyeballs. The hard part when you have a player like this is where/how you value them.

I think Foster last season is a good example. Last year at this time, many people wouldn't have traded him for a 1st rd rookie pick, some would have taken a flyer on him for a 2nd rd pick....others thought he was nothing but a waste of a roster spot. Clearly, in hindsight, all of those people wish they would have traded for him. Obviously he was not only worth a 1st, but he ended up even more valuable than the 1.01 pick...but who knew or would have been willing to make that trade??

So that brings me back to Starks. What is he worth?

I am not trying to make this a "Should I trade" discussion. I'm trying to determine how convicted some are versus others with regards to this kids potential/value.

For example...Go Deep has already done this. He has Starks ranked ahead of Leshoure (one spot)...I think it is safe to think Leshoure will go in the top 4 of a rookie draft. So Starks is equal/slightly more valuable than a 1.04 pick. Personally that seems a little much for me...especially when I compare it to how Foster was valued, at the same time last year...A Foster for 1.04 would have received a type response. That said...don't you wish you made that trade now!!

So...what is he worth??

 

[massraider]

So...what is he worth??

I own Starks in a few leagues. IMO: You trade for Starks if you are a gambler. You are taking the risk that the Pack will not want to pay Grant the money for next year, that Kuhn won't steal all the goalline carries, that BJax won't be back, and that the Pack won't draft a better back. The more I think about it, the more I think Grant will be back. With the CBA up in the air, it looks like best case scenario the new deal won't happen till the summer. Grant is coming off a bad injury, I think the Pack will keep him at a reduced salary at worst, if not just keep him altogether. He's not in a good position to get cut by the Pack, and go find a great deal somewhere else. When I picked him up as a rookie last year, I was actually hoping he'd show more. With the late start he got, and really only one good game under his belt, I don't see how the Pack can just assume he'll be the #1 guy next year, and move forward.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

To me he doenst look any better or worse than Grant from a pure talent standpoint.

IMO if Grant is healthy and back nexst year (big if? who knows) and they dont draft someone else then he might get a chance

I have him and grant on one dynasty team and I might try to move both guy in a deal to a starks lover