James Starks (3 Viewers)

[humpback]

I dont think our thoughts differ that much. Im not suggesting Starks is a future HOF'er, but the way he is being used in the playoffs is a pretty good sign that the coaches really like/trust him. I dont think it is just because he is the best back they have. I used the Bucs as an example because it was clear the coaching staff didnt like/trust Blount very much even though he was the best back on the team.

It might not be- my point is, we have no way of knowing that simply because he is their best RB right now. They could be using him because they absolutely love him and have penciled him in as their long term starter, or they could be using him because their other options aren't very good. We won't know the answer at least until camps.

 

[Go deep]

What's so exciting is it looks like Starks is a natural receiver (as well as being a good pass-blocker). They couldn't get him integrated into all the packages with the missed time, but that will be fixed this offseason. Starks is the type of RB who'll be on the field a lot. This kid is an outstanding feature back prospect.

Starks could be a FF monster with his athletic ability & talent working in Green Bay's offense. Sick, sick potential. And he's going to get better. I look for him to be one of the better FF RBs by 2012.

I was thinking by 2011. It will be fun to see what he can do next year with a full offseason, and more than a year removed from injury.

 

[Go deep]

I dont think our thoughts differ that much. Im not suggesting Starks is a future HOF'er, but the way he is being used in the playoffs is a pretty good sign that the coaches really like/trust him. I dont think it is just because he is the best back they have. I used the Bucs as an example because it was clear the coaching staff didnt like/trust Blount very much even though he was the best back on the team.

It might not be- my point is, we have no way of knowing that simply because he is their best RB right now. They could be using him because they absolutely love him and have penciled him in as their long term starter, or they could be using him because their other options aren't very good. We won't know the answer at least until camps.

Like i said, we are not that far off. My only point was that considering how much work they are giving a guy(in the playoffs especially) who has barely played football, it bodes pretty well for his future. If he were merely just the best smelling peice of poo in the Packers backfield, i doubt he would get the amount of work he is getting. Either way, we are beating a dead horse at this point. Starks is going to be a very good RB for the Packers over the next 5 years. I understand why some people might still be skeptical of this, but i feel pretty confident about it.

 

[Football Jones]

What's so exciting is it looks like Starks is a natural receiver (as well as being a good pass-blocker). They couldn't get him integrated into all the packages with the missed time, but that will be fixed this offseason. Starks is the type of RB who'll be on the field a lot. This kid is an outstanding feature back prospect.

Starks could be a FF monster with his athletic ability & talent working in Green Bay's offense. Sick, sick potential. And he's going to get better. I look for him to be one of the better FF RBs by 2012.

I like Starks, but this is just a stupid level of hype.....3.4 ypc again. He looks like a good rb, but one of the best??? He better do a little better job producing before I give him that level of credit

It might sound stupid to you, but not for me, LOL. Gauging RBs by YPC is something I simply don't do. Using your eyeballs is the best method, as it is for any position.BTW, I wouldn't sound so excited if I really wasn't. I've mentioned this before, but I've never been so high on a sleeper-type RB. Starks has shown me enough that I believe he'll be one of the best RBs in FF by 2012 if his career path goes like I think it will. Of course, he's in an ideal situation, which only helps.

I also believe it's not too far-fetched to call him a future stud in the making. We'll see what happens, but I absolutely love his chances.

 

[Football Jones]

BTW, FF is all about projecting players. If you wait to see what Starks will do, you'll be too late. It's that simple. And that goes for any young player, especially sleeper-types.

I realize Starks hasn't made it yet, but I'm very confident he'll eventually be a quality FF RB at the very least.

 

[Go deep]

What's so exciting is it looks like Starks is a natural receiver (as well as being a good pass-blocker). They couldn't get him integrated into all the packages with the missed time, but that will be fixed this offseason. Starks is the type of RB who'll be on the field a lot. This kid is an outstanding feature back prospect.

Starks could be a FF monster with his athletic ability & talent working in Green Bay's offense. Sick, sick potential. And he's going to get better. I look for him to be one of the better FF RBs by 2012.

I like Starks, but this is just a stupid level of hype.....3.4 ypc again. He looks like a good rb, but one of the best??? He better do a little better job producing before I give him that level of credit

It might sound stupid to you, but not for me, LOL. Gauging RBs by YPC is something I simply don't do. Using your eyeballs is the best method, as it is for any position.

BTW, I wouldn't sound so excited if I really wasn't. I've mentioned this before, but I've never been so high on a sleeper-type RB. Starks has shown me enough that I believe he'll be one of the best RBs in FF by 2012 if his career path goes like I think it will. Of course, he's in an ideal situation, which only helps.

I also believe it's not too far-fetched to call him a future stud in the making. We'll see what happens, but I absolutely love his chances.

especially the bolded part.

 

[Eastwood]

I own Starks in several dynasty leagues. I wouldn't trade him for less than an early/mid 1st right now. In that offense, showing that he's an every down back, what's not to like? He doesn't have to be a HOF super talent to be a VERY productive player in FF (see Forte for example) He'll have lots of opportunities and will rarely ever see 8 in the box on that team.

 

[DansRams]

BTW, FF is all about projecting players. If you wait to see what Starks will do, you'll be too late. It's that simple. And that goes for any young player, especially sleeper-types. I realize Starks hasn't made it yet, but I'm very confident he'll eventually be a quality FF RB at the very least.

You don't have to tell me...I had Foster at this time last year. But, saying productive vs one of the best?? that is another matter

 

[DansRams]

What's so exciting is it looks like Starks is a natural receiver (as well as being a good pass-blocker). They couldn't get him integrated into all the packages with the missed time, but that will be fixed this offseason. Starks is the type of RB who'll be on the field a lot. This kid is an outstanding feature back prospect.

Starks could be a FF monster with his athletic ability & talent working in Green Bay's offense. Sick, sick potential. And he's going to get better. I look for him to be one of the better FF RBs by 2012.

I like Starks, but this is just a stupid level of hype.....3.4 ypc again. He looks like a good rb, but one of the best??? He better do a little better job producing before I give him that level of credit

It might sound stupid to you, but not for me, LOL. Gauging RBs by YPC is something I simply don't do. Using your eyeballs is the best method, as it is for any position.

BTW, I wouldn't sound so excited if I really wasn't. I've mentioned this before, but I've never been so high on a sleeper-type RB. Starks has shown me enough that I believe he'll be one of the best RBs in FF by 2012 if his career path goes like I think it will. Of course, he's in an ideal situation, which only helps.

I also believe it's not too far-fetched to call him a future stud in the making. We'll see what happens, but I absolutely love his chances.

especially the bolded part.

I guess you got glasses, cause your eyeballs failed you with Foster last year. My point on Starks has nothing t do with thinking he could be good, and everything to do with not going so far as saying he will be one of the best.

 

[humpback]

What's so exciting is it looks like Starks is a natural receiver (as well as being a good pass-blocker). They couldn't get him integrated into all the packages with the missed time, but that will be fixed this offseason. Starks is the type of RB who'll be on the field a lot. This kid is an outstanding feature back prospect.

Starks could be a FF monster with his athletic ability & talent working in Green Bay's offense. Sick, sick potential. And he's going to get better. I look for him to be one of the better FF RBs by 2012.

I like Starks, but this is just a stupid level of hype.....3.4 ypc again. He looks like a good rb, but one of the best??? He better do a little better job producing before I give him that level of credit

It might sound stupid to you, but not for me, LOL. Gauging RBs by YPC is something I simply don't do. Using your eyeballs is the best method, as it is for any position.

BTW, I wouldn't sound so excited if I really wasn't. I've mentioned this before, but I've never been so high on a sleeper-type RB. Starks has shown me enough that I believe he'll be one of the best RBs in FF by 2012 if his career path goes like I think it will. Of course, he's in an ideal situation, which only helps.

I also believe it's not too far-fetched to call him a future stud in the making. We'll see what happens, but I absolutely love his chances.

especially the bolded part.

I guess you got glasses, cause your eyeballs failed you with Foster last year. My point on Starks has nothing t do with thinking he could be good, and everything to do with not going so far as saying he will be one of the best.

I don't want to start a war here- I actually like the guy and am rooting for him- but can you guys tell me what looked so good today? He pretty much just took what was given to him, didn't do a heck of a lot on his own. I'm watching Mendenhall right now, who a lot of people aren't that high on, and he's dominating.

 

[cvnpoka]

its the height of arrogance to presume that your personal "eye test," constructed by network footage and formulated on selective plays and cuts, possibly clouded by innate bias, is the best way to project.

 

[Go deep]

I don't want to start a war here- I actually like the guy and am rooting for him- but can you guys tell me what looked so good today? He pretty much just took what was given to him, didn't do a heck of a lot on his own. I'm watching Mendenhall right now, who a lot of people aren't that high on, and he's dominating.

Whats wrong with that, Arian Foster had a great year doing just that.Did you see Starks TD run? Sure it was only 4 yards, but he went through 3 guys to get it.

Anyways, we are beating a dead horse, neither of us are going to change the others mind, i guess we will just have to wait and see what happens. Unless anyone wants to make a monetary wager. I will bet any amount of money under $500 that Starks outrushes Grant next season(or any other GB RB). PM me if interested.

P.S. What does Mendenhall having a good game have to do with anything, just curious?

 

[Go deep]

its the height of arrogance to presume that your personal "eye test," constructed by network footage and formulated on selective plays and cuts, possibly clouded by innate bias, is the best way to project.

Im not sure if you are being serious, but if you are, its not worth responding.

 

[humpback]

I don't want to start a war here- I actually like the guy and am rooting for him- but can you guys tell me what looked so good today? He pretty much just took what was given to him, didn't do a heck of a lot on his own. I'm watching Mendenhall right now, who a lot of people aren't that high on, and he's dominating.

Whats wrong with that, Arian Foster had a great year doing just that. Plus, i think Starks did more than that, did you see his TD run? Sure it was only 4 yards, but he went through 3 guys to get it.Anyways, we are beating a dead horse, neither of us are going to change the others mind, i guess we will just have to wait and see what happens. Unless anyone wants to make a monetary wager. I will bet any amount of money under $500 that Starks outrushes Grant next season(or any other GB RB). PM me if interested.

P.S. What does Mendenhall having a good game have to do with anything, just curious?

There's nothing wrong with it, just pointing out that I didn't see anything special today. Foster did a heck of a lot more than that this year- you can keep digging deeper and deeper if you'd like, but I'd suggest finally admitting you were dead wrong about him and move on- he's a lot better than you thought.I brought up Mendy to compare eyeball tests since both players played today vs. very good defenses and I'm assuming most of us watched them both. Starks didn't show anything today to make me think that he isn't very replaceable, where Mendy has.

Again, I like Starks, I hope he does well. He has some good natural ability and maybe he sticks. I just haven't seen anything to make me salivate the way others apparently have.

 

[Go deep]

I don't want to start a war here- I actually like the guy and am rooting for him- but can you guys tell me what looked so good today? He pretty much just took what was given to him, didn't do a heck of a lot on his own. I'm watching Mendenhall right now, who a lot of people aren't that high on, and he's dominating.

Whats wrong with that, Arian Foster had a great year doing just that. Plus, i think Starks did more than that, did you see his TD run? Sure it was only 4 yards, but he went through 3 guys to get it.Anyways, we are beating a dead horse, neither of us are going to change the others mind, i guess we will just have to wait and see what happens. Unless anyone wants to make a monetary wager. I will bet any amount of money under $500 that Starks outrushes Grant next season(or any other GB RB). PM me if interested.

P.S. What does Mendenhall having a good game have to do with anything, just curious?

There's nothing wrong with it, just pointing out that I didn't see anything special today. Foster did a heck of a lot more than that this year- you can keep digging deeper and deeper if you'd like, but I'd suggest finally admitting you were dead wrong about him and move on- he's a lot better than you thought.I brought up Mendy to compare eyeball tests since both players played today vs. very good defenses and I'm assuming most of us watched them both. Starks didn't show anything today to make me think that he isn't very replaceable, where Mendy has.

Again, I like Starks, I hope he does well. He has some good natural ability and maybe he sticks. I just haven't seen anything to make me salivate the way others apparently have.

I dont think anyone said he was better than Mendenhall, or said he was a great RB. I think he is talented and should be the Packers starting Rb next year. I liked him before the season started and he has looked good to this point considering the circumstances. Im not sure what you are arguing against in this thread?

Either way, we shall see what happens.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Apologies in advance to those eyes for whom "he's passed the test"...

If Starks had done nothing more than achieve the average yards/carry surrendered by his opponent on each of his carries he'd have 402 yards right now. He has 367. Almost 10% short of the total an average back with the same schedule and carries could expect to have gained.

Which means that despite playing in an incredibly favorable situation where he virtually never faces eight in the box and the other team has to play pass first, he hasn't managed to be even average. A good back in that great situation would be lighting it up right now.

It's true that the sample size is relatively small, only 99 carries. And I didn't control for type of carries or down and distance. Feel free to correct that omission.

But it's also true that the simplest explanation that fits all the known facts to date is that... He's. Not. Very. Good.

 

[RaiderBones]

Apologies in advance to those eyes for whom "he's passed the test"...If Starks had done nothing more than achieve the average yards/carry surrendered by his opponent on each of his carries he'd have 402 yards right now. He has 367. Almost 10% short of the total an average back with the same schedule and carries could expect to have gained.Which means that despite playing in an incredibly favorable situation where he virtually never faces eight in the box and the other team has to play pass first, he hasn't managed to be even average. A good back in that great situation would be lighting it up right now. It's true that the sample size is relatively small, only 99 carries. And I didn't control for type of carries or down and distance. Feel free to correct that omission.But it's also true that the simplest explanation that fits all the known facts to date is that... He's. Not. Very. Good.

Or maybe perhaps it has something to do with him missing a lot of time and trying to get some rhythm. Nah that can't be it because everyone comes back at full strength and ready to go.

 

[blackbird001]

Two types of people in this thread.

People who own Starks or were high on him coming into this year. They are forced to talk up what Starks has done and make bold predictions (and hope they're right) concerning the future to overcome:

People who don't own him or missed the boat. Now all they can do is nitpick said predictions and take the field when it comes to the future RB stud of the packers (and hope

they're right).

 

[blackbird001]

Two types of people in this thread.

People who own Starks or were high on him coming into this year. They are forced to talk up what Starks has done and make bold predictions (and hope they're right) concerning the future to overcome:

People who don't own him or missed the boat. Now all they can do is nitpick said predictions and take the field when it comes to the future RB stud of the packers (and hope

they're right).

 

[cvnpoka]

its the height of arrogance to presume that your personal "eye test," constructed by network footage and formulated on selective plays and cuts, possibly clouded by innate bias, is the best way to project.

Im not sure if you are being serious, but if you are, its not worth responding.

my position, as i tend to allow, was indeed overstated. to clarify it is indeed not "the height..." as i alleged.

 

[kface]

I own starks in both my keeper leagues but i didn't like what i saw yesterday. Those holes were huge for him to run through and I can't help but think that a back with just a little more talent would have turned those 8-10 yard gains without a finger on him into 20-25 yard gains. I can't even help think that this game would have been perfect for grant with the free pass through the dline where he could then use his speed and acceleration to pick up some extra yards in a hurry.

Everything I have seen from starks tells me he's not that talented. My only real hope is that for some reason they cut grant and just feed starks 20 carries a game next year and he averages 3.5 with 8tds...

 

[BeaverCleaver]

But it's also true that the simplest explanation that fits all the known facts to date is that... He's. Not. Very. Good.

 

[Football Jones]

This kid is an outstanding prospect in a great situation. If you don't like what you've seen from Starks, I'm not sure what to tell you.

Starks absolutely has the type of ability to be a FF stud. I've never been so high on a sleeper-type RB. You can tell he has everthing a top RB needs. And the thing is, he'll get even better. There's nothing NOT to like.

Again, forget the YPC. You simply can't scout using YPC. Sure, the YPC will be there over time, but the Packers have been playing some of the best Ds in the league & you can bet one of Thompson's goals is to improve their run-blocking.

In short, I believe John Starks is a gold mine. They are plenty of people on board, but I'm surprised there isn't more.

 

[Moniker]

Apologies in advance to those eyes for whom "he's passed the test"...

If Starks had done nothing more than achieve the average yards/carry surrendered by his opponent on each of his carries he'd have 402 yards right now. He has 367. Almost 10% short of the total an average back with the same schedule and carries could expect to have gained.

If you're going to try and project performance this way, then this is only half of the equation.

 

[Football Jones]

As far as comparing him to Mendenhall, remember how Mendenhall looked earlier in his career? LOL. What about LT averaging around 3.5 for not a few games in his rookie season, but the WHOLE year.

I can't speak for anyone else, but one of the reasons I'm so high on Starks is because I'm projecting him to be even better than what he's showed so far. Scouting RBs can be tricky. Many people think they can't improve over time like the other positions, but that's simply not true. Starks has shown me the little things the top RBs have. And as good as he is now, he'll get even better. Remember, he's missed most of the last couple of seasons.

BTW, yes, I don't believe there's any doubt I'll have Starks rated over Mendenhall in the not too distant future. One reason is it looks like Starks is a natural pass-catcher, unlike Mendy. What Starks could do in that offense is scary.

 

[Boom Switch]

Starks will be lucky to get 20 yards against the Steelers in the SB.

 

[sho nuff]

I own starks in both my keeper leagues but i didn't like what i saw yesterday. Those holes were huge for him to run through and I can't help but think that a back with just a little more talent would have turned those 8-10 yard gains without a finger on him into 20-25 yard gains. I can't even help think that this game would have been perfect for grant with the free pass through the dline where he could then use his speed and acceleration to pick up some extra yards in a hurry.Everything I have seen from starks tells me he's not that talented. My only real hope is that for some reason they cut grant and just feed starks 20 carries a game next year and he averages 3.5 with 8tds...

You think backs would be turning those runs into 20-25 yard gains on that field against that D? Very few would have been able to do that.He played a solid game, not great, but solid.The first half they looked very good running the ball.Not that talented? If you say so.That said, I don't think Grant is out of the picture yet...I agree there. And I hope he isn't. Id to see the 2 headed attack with Grant and Starks with Jackson on 3rd downs for his blocking and receiving ability.This year showed that kind of depth would be great to have.

 

[humpback]

Why is this so difficult to understand? I only brought up Mendenhall because they were both feature backs playing during very similar circumstances on the same day. We are talking about the "eyeball" test, so what did your eyes tell you? Starks looked very average to me, Mendenhall looked very, very good. Compare him to Forte if you'd like, who played in the same game- he looked much better than Starks to me as well.

I keep hearing about the eyeball test, and I think it is important, but no one has given any specifics- what did he look so good doing yesterday? I'm not trying to bash him, but I watched every carry (most multiple times), and I saw a very a very interchangeable performance. Sure, if he gets better, than obviously he'll be better. Right now, that performance was just okay.

A natural pass catcher? Based on what, his 1 reception in the game? He has 5 receptions all season- I'm not trying to say he isn't good at it, but the point is, there is not nearly enough of a track record to be making these claims. Both sides are going overboard here (what else is new)- he's an intriguing prospect at this point, but has a long way to go before he's an elite FF RB.

 

[steelcityman]

He can run well in he super bowl, 70+ yards, then he will deserve consideration for next year. I like his speed, size and youth. I havent seen enough to want to draft him next year. But he is on a list of guys I will keep an eye on the summer camps. Of course, Grant has a lot to do with everything.

 

[AcerFC]

Pretty cool that the best RB, WR, and TE from the 2010 draft class are all Buffalo natives!!

Awesome call Taskles. You told me about him before this thread and any so called experts hyped him upThanks. Nice call. Must have been awesome to see him in practice every day. Seems like a player

 

[Football Jones]

Who says it's difficult to understand? Like I said, FF is all about projecting. It looks like I'm much higher on him than you are.

As far as his pass-catching, from what I've seen & heard, I'll go out on a limb & say he's going to be an above-average receiver at the very least, probably very good, maybe outstanding.

Like I've said before, if you wait on these types of players, you'll never get them. The time to move is now if you haven't already. Then again, if you're not that impressed, don't. That's what FF is all about.

I believe Starks will eventually be their feature back. We'll see what happens.

 

[BeaverCleaver]

Who says it's difficult to understand? Like I said, FF is all about projecting. It looks like I'm much higher on him than you are.

As far as his pass-catching, from what I've seen & heard, I'll go out on a limb & say he's going to be an above-average receiver at the very least, probably very good, maybe outstanding.

Like I've said before, if you wait on these types of players, you'll never get them. The time to move is now if you haven't already. Then again, if you're not that impressed, don't. That's what FF is all about.

I believe Starks will eventually be their feature back. We'll see what happens.

 

[humpback]

He can run well in he super bowl, 70+ yards, then he will deserve consideration for next year. I like his speed, size and youth. I havent seen enough to want to draft him next year. But he is on a list of guys I will keep an eye on the summer camps. Of course, Grant has a lot to do with everything.

I think this is the mistake a lot of people are making- you can have 70+ yards and not have had a good game, or you could have 70+ yards and have had a great game. Likewise, you could have a 2 yd. run that is much more impressive than a 10 yd. run. That's where the eyeball test comes in. I didn't think he was all that good this week (he was much better vs. Philly for instance). I'm interested to see how he does in the SB, but it won't have much to do with the total yardage.He already deserves consideration for next year for sure.

 

[smackdaddies]

If Starks hangs 120 plus yards on Chicago, like Grant did last year, then I will start believing in Starks.

How many yards did Starks get?

 

[humpback]

Who says it's difficult to understand? Like I said, FF is all about projecting. It looks like I'm much higher on him than you are.As far as his pass-catching, from what I've seen & heard, I'll go out on a limb & say he's going to be an above-average receiver at the very least, probably very good, maybe outstanding.Like I've said before, if you wait on these types of players, you'll never get them. The time to move is now if you haven't already. Then again, if you're not that impressed, don't. That's what FF is all about.I believe Starks will eventually be their feature back. We'll see what happens.

We're talking about both his talent and his FF value in this thread, which are two separate things. I know you have to project in FF, but people are making major leaps based on very little information, that's all I'm saying. Even if he had a great game, his future isn't going to be decided in 1 week.The "difficult to understand" thing is the Mendy comparison. I explained that I didn't bring that up to have a direct comparison of the two RBs, I only brought it up because everybody watched both of them play on the same day in very similar circumstances. I'm not talking about their careers, so it's pointless to talk about Mendy a couple of years ago or LT's rookie season. I'm asking about the eyeball test for 1 game that is fresh in everyone's mind, that's all. People are talking him up after this game, and I'm just asking what they saw that looked so impressive. I don't think he looked bad, I just don't think he looked very good either. It is only 1 game, and he has looked better in others. He has plenty of room to improve. He may be a FF monster, and he may be worthless. I don't think yesterdays game helped or hurt his future prospects, it was just "meh". I just don't get all of the reaction to 1 game, especially when it didn't stand out. I'll feel the same way after the superbowl (assuming he isn't dominant or terrible in that game). It's only 1 game, we shouldn't overreact either way. Saying he's not very good, or that he's the complete package or a natural pass catcher, is just a stretch with such a small body of work.

 

[The Westin]

He can run well in he super bowl, 70+ yards, then he will deserve consideration for next year. I like his speed, size and youth. I havent seen enough to want to draft him next year. But he is on a list of guys I will keep an eye on the summer camps. Of course, Grant has a lot to do with everything.

I doubt he gets 70+ against that Steelers defense...but I wouldn't take any game a RB has against that D and use it the measure how good he is. They're just too damn good

 

[massraider]

If Starks hangs 120 plus yards on Chicago, like Grant did last year, then I will start believing in Starks.

How many yards did Starks get?

Is that how you judge backs? Pick an arbitrary number, and if they don't meet it........ADP had 51 yards vs. the Bears this year, averaging 3 yards. Does that mean Starks is going to be better than ADP?

 

[Kitrick Taylor]

Apologies in advance to those eyes for whom "he's passed the test"...If Starks had done nothing more than achieve the average yards/carry surrendered by his opponent on each of his carries he'd have 402 yards right now. He has 367. Almost 10% short of the total an average back with the same schedule and carries could expect to have gained.Which means that despite playing in an incredibly favorable situation where he virtually never faces eight in the box and the other team has to play pass first, he hasn't managed to be even average. A good back in that great situation would be lighting it up right now. It's true that the sample size is relatively small, only 99 carries. And I didn't control for type of carries or down and distance. Feel free to correct that omission.But it's also true that the simplest explanation that fits all the known facts to date is that... He's. Not. Very. Good.

You're better than this. First of all this is playoff football, comparing stats to regular season averages holds little water. The Bears run defense is very good, and especially tough vs the Packers, as they know their plays and tendencies exceptionally well. Also, I'm seeing teams load up the box with 8 plenty of times vs the Packers. They've run right at it numerous times as well. Sometimes with success and sometimes not so much. Starks looks plenty good to be a starter in this league to me. I do think it will be RBBC with Grant in 2011, but Starks is a good bet to carry the load in 2012.

 

[smackdaddies]

If Starks hangs 120 plus yards on Chicago, like Grant did last year, then I will start believing in Starks.

How many yards did Starks get?

Is that how you judge backs? Pick an arbitrary number, and if they don't meet it........ADP had 51 yards vs. the Bears this year, averaging 3 yards. Does that mean Starks is going to be better than ADP?

If your going to replace a top 10 rb, you have to play better than him. Yardage and touchdowns are rather typical ways of making that evaluation. But perhaps you have a different view.

 

[sho nuff]

Starks 1st half was solid. 11 carries for 54 yards and a TD.

4.9 per carry in the first half.

The whole offense sputtered in the 2nd half...but that one half was huge for Green Bay.

 

[massraider]

If Starks hangs 120 plus yards on Chicago, like Grant did last year, then I will start believing in Starks.

How many yards did Starks get?

Is that how you judge backs? Pick an arbitrary number, and if they don't meet it........ADP had 51 yards vs. the Bears this year, averaging 3 yards. Does that mean Starks is going to be better than ADP?

If your going to replace a top 10 rb, you have to play better than him. Yardage and touchdowns are rather typical ways of making that evaluation. But perhaps you have a different view.

My view is that we are talking about a small sample size, and to set a yardage goal for one game as a barometer of whether I believe in a guy is a recipe for failure. My view of Starks is that it's way too early to predict whether he is going to be the lead back. I think that he has shown enough to think he is going to be in the mix next year. And for a 6th round rookie, that's all you can ask as a dynasty owner. I think Grant is good, but not special. I think it is possible that the Pack decides that Grant isn't worth the money next year, and Starks may find himself as the #1 guy next year.

I own Starks in a few leagues, and am cautiously optimistic about next year. I don't think it's a slam dunk that he's the guy, not at all. But in dynasty leagues, I am not thinking about trading him.

 

[smackdaddies]

If Starks hangs 120 plus yards on Chicago, like Grant did last year, then I will start believing in Starks.

How many yards did Starks get?

Is that how you judge backs? Pick an arbitrary number, and if they don't meet it........ADP had 51 yards vs. the Bears this year, averaging 3 yards. Does that mean Starks is going to be better than ADP?

If your going to replace a top 10 rb, you have to play better than him. Yardage and touchdowns are rather typical ways of making that evaluation. But perhaps you have a different view.

My view is that we are talking about a small sample size, and to set a yardage goal for one game as a barometer of whether I believe in a guy is a recipe for failure. My view of Starks is that it's way too early to predict whether he is going to be the lead back. I think that he has shown enough to think he is going to be in the mix next year. And for a 6th round rookie, that's all you can ask as a dynasty owner. I think Grant is good, but not special. I think it is possible that the Pack decides that Grant isn't worth the money next year, and Starks may find himself as the #1 guy next year.

I own Starks in a few leagues, and am cautiously optimistic about next year. I don't think it's a slam dunk that he's the guy, not at all. But in dynasty leagues, I am not thinking about trading him.

I agree with that. Starks will get his chance. I just think any more than that about next year is pure wishful thinking.

 

[Kitrick Taylor]

If Starks hangs 120 plus yards on Chicago, like Grant did last year, then I will start believing in Starks.

How many yards did Starks get?

Is that how you judge backs? Pick an arbitrary number, and if they don't meet it........ADP had 51 yards vs. the Bears this year, averaging 3 yards. Does that mean Starks is going to be better than ADP?

If your going to replace a top 10 rb, you have to play better than him. Yardage and touchdowns are rather typical ways of making that evaluation. But perhaps you have a different view.

My view is that we are talking about a small sample size, and to set a yardage goal for one game as a barometer of whether I believe in a guy is a recipe for failure. My view of Starks is that it's way too early to predict whether he is going to be the lead back. I think that he has shown enough to think he is going to be in the mix next year. And for a 6th round rookie, that's all you can ask as a dynasty owner. I think Grant is good, but not special. I think it is possible that the Pack decides that Grant isn't worth the money next year, and Starks may find himself as the #1 guy next year.

I own Starks in a few leagues, and am cautiously optimistic about next year. I don't think it's a slam dunk that he's the guy, not at all. But in dynasty leagues, I am not thinking about trading him.

Slim to no chance this will happen next year. The Packers just went through an entire season with garbage options at RB. If they were to release Grant next season, and Starks got hurt, they'd be right back in the same spot. I think there's little to no question this will be RBBC next year with Starks and Grant.

We all know how often RBs get hurt in this league. I don't think that will be lost on the Packer brass going into 2011.

 

[beerbarron]

In the action I have seen starks play.. he looks to have some potential.. perhaps he could be a full time RB in the NFL... he seems to catch balls out of the backfield well.. runs pretty strong.. has some lateral quickness... lets keep in mind he has been out of action for a while and still could be gettin his football vision and timing back.. maybe the game will start to slow down for him and he will make better decisions with his lane choice, cutbacks and so forth..

Who saw peyton hillis bustin out this season. in what action i saw of him in denver.. he didnt look to be a 1000 yard nfl RB.. but he had a great year when given the oppurtunity..

Grant is under contract for a year so it looks like it could be a RBBC for another year in GB so it might be another year until we can see what starks can do in a full season..

 

[Football Jones]

Who says it's difficult to understand? Like I said, FF is all about projecting. It looks like I'm much higher on him than you are.As far as his pass-catching, from what I've seen & heard, I'll go out on a limb & say he's going to be an above-average receiver at the very least, probably very good, maybe outstanding.Like I've said before, if you wait on these types of players, you'll never get them. The time to move is now if you haven't already. Then again, if you're not that impressed, don't. That's what FF is all about.I believe Starks will eventually be their feature back. We'll see what happens.

We're talking about both his talent and his FF value in this thread, which are two separate things. I know you have to project in FF, but people are making major leaps based on very little information, that's all I'm saying. Even if he had a great game, his future isn't going to be decided in 1 week.The "difficult to understand" thing is the Mendy comparison. I explained that I didn't bring that up to have a direct comparison of the two RBs, I only brought it up because everybody watched both of them play on the same day in very similar circumstances. I'm not talking about their careers, so it's pointless to talk about Mendy a couple of years ago or LT's rookie season. I'm asking about the eyeball test for 1 game that is fresh in everyone's mind, that's all. People are talking him up after this game, and I'm just asking what they saw that looked so impressive. I don't think he looked bad, I just don't think he looked very good either. It is only 1 game, and he has looked better in others. He has plenty of room to improve. He may be a FF monster, and he may be worthless. I don't think yesterdays game helped or hurt his future prospects, it was just "meh". I just don't get all of the reaction to 1 game, especially when it didn't stand out. I'll feel the same way after the superbowl (assuming he isn't dominant or terrible in that game). It's only 1 game, we shouldn't overreact either way. Saying he's not very good, or that he's the complete package or a natural pass catcher, is just a stretch with such a small body of work.

You're missing my point. It sounds like you're not going to make a final decision until you know for sure, & that's cool. I'm making a call now. And really, that's what this forum is all about...& what FF is all about.As far as what's impressive, what's not impressive about this kid? He's got everything a top RB needs. He's got talent, & as a result of that talent, along with his situation, means he's got tremendous FF potential.In short, you're not nearly as high on him as I am, & that's fine. It's just a disagreement. Like I said, we'll see what happens.

 

[blackbird001]

Slim to no chance this will happen next year. The Packers just went through an entire season with garbage options at RB. If they were to release Grant next season, and Starks got hurt, they'd be right back in the same spot. I think there's little to no question this will be RBBC next year with Starks and Grant. We all know how often RBs get hurt in this league. I don't think that will be lost on the Packer brass going into 2011.

What if Grant decides he doesn't want to play next year either for his current salary or without the security of a new multi-year extension? This, I think is what makes Stark owners so optimistic. Packers can stand without renewing Grant and take another RB in the later rounds of the draft and be fine.

 

[humpback]

You're missing my point. It sounds like you're not going to make a final decision until you know for sure, & that's cool. I'm making a call now. And really, that's what this forum is all about...& what FF is all about.As far as what's impressive, what's not impressive about this kid? He's got everything a top RB needs. He's got talent, & as a result of that talent, along with his situation, means he's got tremendous FF potential.In short, you're not nearly as high on him as I am, & that's fine. It's just a disagreement. Like I said, we'll see what happens.

I'm not waiting to make my final decision until I know for sure, I'm just not crowning him a stud, in NFL or FF terms, yet. Some guys you don't need to see a lot to be able to tell they're special. I don't believe Starks is one of them.As for what's not impressive in yesterdays game, it's that he didn't do much on his own. Not a lot of making defenders miss, breaking tackles, fighting for the extra yards, etc. He has shown these things in the past, so I'm not saying he can't do it, I'm just talking about the last game that so many people seem to be so excited about. I think if you put Mendy in that game instead of Starks, with the way he ran yesterday, and he has a MONSTER game.Again, talent and FF value aren't one in the same. The starting RB on GB has a ton of FF potential because that offense is insanely good. I just don't think he's shown enough to be locked in as their future starter yet. I'm not down on him, I'm not overly high on him, I need to see more. Lot's of potential for sure.

 

[sho nuff]

Slim to no chance this will happen next year. The Packers just went through an entire season with garbage options at RB. If they were to release Grant next season, and Starks got hurt, they'd be right back in the same spot. I think there's little to no question this will be RBBC next year with Starks and Grant. We all know how often RBs get hurt in this league. I don't think that will be lost on the Packer brass going into 2011.

What if Grant decides he doesn't want to play next year either for his current salary or without the security of a new multi-year extension? This, I think is what makes Stark owners so optimistic. Packers can stand without renewing Grant and take another RB in the later rounds of the draft and be fine.

Given he missed this year and the team is going to the Super Bowl without him...I don't think Grant has any leverage to refuse to play for his salary.Doesn't seem very realistic.

 

[blackbird001]

Slim to no chance this will happen next year. The Packers just went through an entire season with garbage options at RB. If they were to release Grant next season, and Starks got hurt, they'd be right back in the same spot. I think there's little to no question this will be RBBC next year with Starks and Grant. We all know how often RBs get hurt in this league. I don't think that will be lost on the Packer brass going into 2011.

What if Grant decides he doesn't want to play next year either for his current salary or without the security of a new multi-year extension? This, I think is what makes Stark owners so optimistic. Packers can stand without renewing Grant and take another RB in the later rounds of the draft and be fine.

Given he missed this year and the team is going to the Super Bowl without him...I don't think Grant has any leverage to refuse to play for his salary.Doesn't seem very realistic.

That's fine. I don't think it's realistic for a skill player to play out the last year of his deal at one of the most punishing positions on the field without any long-term security. That worked out well for Javon Walker.

 

[sho nuff]

Worked out fine for this Peyton Manning guy.