James Starks (1 Viewer)

[blackbird001]

Worked out fine for this Peyton Manning guy.

Touche. Point taken, I just don't believe he does it.I think a) Peyton plays one of the least punishing positions behind some of the consistently best protection and b) he's made so much money that the impact of a serious injury on his next contract would be negligible vs. Grant.

 

[Go deep]

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 overcomeeople 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 hopethey're right).

You are probably right, but this thread is no different than every other thread in the Shark pool. Its hard to judge without bias, and i do my best not too, but sometimes you cant help it. With Starks, i got to watch him play live, and even at practice while he was at UB. I was convinced he was going to be a good NFL player before he ever got near the NFL. So yeah, i might be a bit optomistic, but i havnt said anythng to crazy in this thread(other than the title of it which was not meant to be taken literally). I never said he was a great RB, or 1st round dynasty pick, etc. Those are just words the naysyarers are putting in my mouth to make their argument sound better. I have basically agreed with Humpbacks opinion, yet he keeps arguing it with me. Either way, after reading some of the responses last night, it has become clear some people are just here to argue and nothing anyone says is going to matter. So i am done going back and forth with those people. There isnt much more to say about Starks that i havnt already said. I was a big fan in college, and have been impressed with what he has done so far in the pros, especially under the circumstances. Does that mean i think he is the next Adrian Paterson? No, it just means i think he has a good shot to be a solid FF contributor in the near future. Anything can happen though, all i can do is judge the situation the best i can.

 

[sho nuff]

Worked out fine for this Peyton Manning guy.

Touche. Point taken, I just don't believe he does it.I think a) Peyton plays one of the least punishing positions behind some of the consistently best protection and b) he's made so much money that the impact of a serious injury on his next contract would be negligible vs. Grant.

Thing is, I think Grant knows he is fighting a losing battle with any kind of hold out threats.He knows Thompson doesn't give in.He knows Thompson has consistently taken care of those who show up and play.He knows he is coming off of the injury.He knows the team has gotten to the Super Bowl without him and very well may not hesitate to draft and move on without him.And I don't see him making more than GB is about to pay him for the year given he is coming off the injury.Just not seeing it...its possible...but I don't think its that likely for Grant.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

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 overcomeeople 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 hopethey're right).

You are probably right, but this thread is no different than every other thread in the Shark pool. Its hard to judge without bias, and i do my best not too, but sometimes you cant help it. With Starks, i got to watch him play live, and even at practice while he was at UB. I was convinced he was going to be a good NFL player before he ever got near the NFL. So yeah, i might be a bit optomistic, but i havnt said anythng to crazy in this thread(other than the title of it which was not meant to be taken literally). I never said he was a great RB, or 1st round dynasty pick, etc. Those are just words the naysyarers are putting in my mouth to make their argument sound better. I have basically agreed with Humpbacks opinion, yet he keeps arguing it with me. Either way, after reading some of the responses last night, it has become clear some people are just here to argue and nothing anyone says is going to matter. So i am done going back and forth with those people. There isnt much more to say about Starks that i havnt already said. I was a big fan in college, and have been impressed with what he has done so far in the pros, especially under the circumstances. Does that mean i think he is the next Adrian Paterson? No, it just means i think he has a good shot to be a solid FF contributor in the near future. Anything can happen though, all i can do is judge the situation the best i can.

I own Starks n grant in one dynasty league, I think Grant has that job easy next year if both r on the team. Starks looks very long and isnt a break away threat (neither is Grant) With experience maybe he gets better.

 

[Carter_Can_Fly]

Without Ryan Grant he holds a lot more value. Ryan Grant was/is a very good running back for GB. He was able to be a 3 down contributor and was good at the goaline as well.

Even if there is no Ryan Grant in the mix Starks may be somewhat over valued heading into next year. People are going to see he lead the playoffs in rushing and Green Bay was very good at running the ball with Starks but in fantasy circles you will have to look at GB and what that situation might be next year.

Assuming no Ryan Grant, you have a few things working against Starks... You have Kuhn and Rogers that will vulture TDs. You also have the possibility that he is not a 3 down back and a guy like Brandon Jackson is kept around for the 3rd down role. Starks has been a nice story, and does hold some value, but I am guessing his value will be higher than anywhere I will feel comfortable drafting him.

People will point out a story like Foster as to why Starks will/could be successful, but you can also point out opposite stories like Barlow.

 

[Go deep]

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 overcomeeople 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 hopethey're right).

You are probably right, but this thread is no different than every other thread in the Shark pool. Its hard to judge without bias, and i do my best not too, but sometimes you cant help it. With Starks, i got to watch him play live, and even at practice while he was at UB. I was convinced he was going to be a good NFL player before he ever got near the NFL. So yeah, i might be a bit optomistic, but i havnt said anythng to crazy in this thread(other than the title of it which was not meant to be taken literally). I never said he was a great RB, or 1st round dynasty pick, etc. Those are just words the naysyarers are putting in my mouth to make their argument sound better. I have basically agreed with Humpbacks opinion, yet he keeps arguing it with me. Either way, after reading some of the responses last night, it has become clear some people are just here to argue and nothing anyone says is going to matter. So i am done going back and forth with those people. There isnt much more to say about Starks that i havnt already said. I was a big fan in college, and have been impressed with what he has done so far in the pros, especially under the circumstances. Does that mean i think he is the next Adrian Paterson? No, it just means i think he has a good shot to be a solid FF contributor in the near future. Anything can happen though, all i can do is judge the situation the best i can.

I own Starks n grant in one dynasty league, I think Grant has that job easy next year if both r on the team. Starks looks very long and isnt a break away threat (neither is Grant) With experience maybe he gets better.

Thats fine, i have no problem with other opinions differing from mine. I just started this thread to share my thoughts about a player, not argue back and forth. Its my fault for getting caught up a bit, it wont happen again.

 

[Steed]

Bill Barnwell of FootballOutsiders wrote an article for ESPNInsider that basically says what wdcrob pointed out:

Don't believe everything you hear when people talk about what's caused a team to win football games. Because the actual act of playing successful football is so incredibly complex and linked to so many factors, we're often led to believe that an improvement in a team's performance is linked to some change in that team that occurred around the same time. Sometimes, it's true: Although the effect was overstated, the Bears' offense did get better after their bye week once they ran a more balanced scheme. Some, however, are fibs. And there's one storyline you're bound to hear about over the next two weeks that simply isn't true: The rushing attack of the Green Bay Packers has gotten better with James Starks in the lineup; it hasn't. You can point to his 332 rushing yards and note that he's nearly hit half of Brandon Jackson's season total in three games. But once you get past that cumulative total, the flaws in the argument become very clear.On a per-play basis, Starks has not been an improvement on the combination of Jackson and John Kuhn. Those two backs led a rushing attack that produced a DVOA of 1.1 percent during the regular season. Starks has those 332 rushing yards, but it's taken him 70 carries to get there. He's been an inefficient back, producing just 11 first downs and one touchdown on those carries, yielding a success rate of just 33 percent. That would be the worst rate in the league for a qualifying running back if Starks had produced those figures during the regular season. Combine those figures, and Starks' rushing DVOA during the postseason is at minus-7.8 percent. He's produced a total of just 2 DYAR.The reason he's getting the hype is simple. His best game was that shocking wild-card performance against the Philadelphia Eagles, when he had a 27.6 percent DVOA on 23 carries and actually gave the Packers a semblance of a rushing attack. As a powerful back who pushed the pile, he stood as a stark, exciting contrast to the willowy Jackson. The narrative's stuck around since then, but the performance hasn't.

That's as far as you could go without a subscription.

 

[Carter_Can_Fly]

Bill Barnwell of FootballOutsiders wrote an article for ESPNInsider that basically says what wdcrob pointed out:

Don't believe everything you hear when people talk about what's caused a team to win football games. Because the actual act of playing successful football is so incredibly complex and linked to so many factors, we're often led to believe that an improvement in a team's performance is linked to some change in that team that occurred around the same time. Sometimes, it's true: Although the effect was overstated, the Bears' offense did get better after their bye week once they ran a more balanced scheme. Some, however, are fibs. And there's one storyline you're bound to hear about over the next two weeks that simply isn't true: The rushing attack of the Green Bay Packers has gotten better with James Starks in the lineup; it hasn't. You can point to his 332 rushing yards and note that he's nearly hit half of Brandon Jackson's season total in three games. But once you get past that cumulative total, the flaws in the argument become very clear.On a per-play basis, Starks has not been an improvement on the combination of Jackson and John Kuhn. Those two backs led a rushing attack that produced a DVOA of 1.1 percent during the regular season. Starks has those 332 rushing yards, but it's taken him 70 carries to get there. He's been an inefficient back, producing just 11 first downs and one touchdown on those carries, yielding a success rate of just 33 percent. That would be the worst rate in the league for a qualifying running back if Starks had produced those figures during the regular season. Combine those figures, and Starks' rushing DVOA during the postseason is at minus-7.8 percent. He's produced a total of just 2 DYAR.The reason he's getting the hype is simple. His best game was that shocking wild-card performance against the Philadelphia Eagles, when he had a 27.6 percent DVOA on 23 carries and actually gave the Packers a semblance of a rushing attack. As a powerful back who pushed the pile, he stood as a stark, exciting contrast to the willowy Jackson. The narrative's stuck around since then, but the performance hasn't.

That's as far as you could go with a subscription.

 

[humpback]

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 overcomeeople 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 hopethey're right).

You are probably right, but this thread is no different than every other thread in the Shark pool. Its hard to judge without bias, and i do my best not too, but sometimes you cant help it. With Starks, i got to watch him play live, and even at practice while he was at UB. I was convinced he was going to be a good NFL player before he ever got near the NFL. So yeah, i might be a bit optomistic, but i havnt said anythng to crazy in this thread(other than the title of it which was not meant to be taken literally). I never said he was a great RB, or 1st round dynasty pick, etc. Those are just words the naysyarers are putting in my mouth to make their argument sound better. I have basically agreed with Humpbacks opinion, yet he keeps arguing it with me. Either way, after reading some of the responses last night, it has become clear some people are just here to argue and nothing anyone says is going to matter. So i am done going back and forth with those people. There isnt much more to say about Starks that i havnt already said. I was a big fan in college, and have been impressed with what he has done so far in the pros, especially under the circumstances. Does that mean i think he is the next Adrian Paterson? No, it just means i think he has a good shot to be a solid FF contributor in the near future. Anything can happen though, all i can do is judge the situation the best i can.

I'm not arguing with you, just trying to explain what I meant, especially by the Mendy (non) comparison. There are several people contributing in this thread, and I agree with you, our views are pretty similar for the most part. I don't agree with some of the other posters, and I'm sure you feel the same way (maybe for different reasons). I'm basically in the "it's too soon to tell" camp, and I'm cautiously optimistic about his future. From what I've seen, I don't see how anyone can have such a strong viewpoint either positively or negatively about the guy- his body of work is so small, and it's fairly mixed. We learn a little more each week.

 

[Bracie Smathers]

Bill Barnwell of FootballOutsiders wrote an article for ESPNInsider that basically says what wdcrob pointed out:

Don't believe everything you hear when people talk about what's caused a team to win football games. Because the actual act of playing successful football is so incredibly complex and linked to so many factors, we're often led to believe that an improvement in a team's performance is linked to some change in that team that occurred around the same time. Sometimes, it's true: Although the effect was overstated, the Bears' offense did get better after their bye week once they ran a more balanced scheme. Some, however, are fibs. And there's one storyline you're bound to hear about over the next two weeks that simply isn't true: The rushing attack of the Green Bay Packers has gotten better with James Starks in the lineup; it hasn't. You can point to his 332 rushing yards and note that he's nearly hit half of Brandon Jackson's season total in three games. But once you get past that cumulative total, the flaws in the argument become very clear.On a per-play basis, Starks has not been an improvement on the combination of Jackson and John Kuhn. Those two backs led a rushing attack that produced a DVOA of 1.1 percent during the regular season. Starks has those 332 rushing yards, but it's taken him 70 carries to get there. He's been an inefficient back, producing just 11 first downs and one touchdown on those carries, yielding a success rate of just 33 percent. That would be the worst rate in the league for a qualifying running back if Starks had produced those figures during the regular season. Combine those figures, and Starks' rushing DVOA during the postseason is at minus-7.8 percent. He's produced a total of just 2 DYAR.The reason he's getting the hype is simple. His best game was that shocking wild-card performance against the Philadelphia Eagles, when he had a 27.6 percent DVOA on 23 carries and actually gave the Packers a semblance of a rushing attack. As a powerful back who pushed the pile, he stood as a stark, exciting contrast to the willowy Jackson. The narrative's stuck around since then, but the performance hasn't.

That's as far as you could go without a subscription.

LOL, Bill Barnwell writes an a piece saying 'don't belive the hype on Starks because he's not the one who got the Pack to the SB' as if that proves or disproves his FF potential or as if people had actually made that argument.That type of flawed logic is called a 'straw man' argument. Where someone will prop up a phoney argument and knock it down, like a straw man, and they then thump their chest to make a totally un-connected conclusion such as, don't believe the hype.And who pray tell is Bill Barnwell? Is he a coach on the GB staff or is he connected with the GB management or personnel dept? Oh wait, people have already ripped into the direct quotes from the GB coaches and their GM who were praising Starks.But we have a straw man article from Bill Barnwell to tell us to not believe the hype.I see. Don't believe the people who see the kid every day and who scouted him and found him in the sixth round.Believe the guy from Football Outsiders who says Starks isn't the reason why the Pack got to the SB and therefore, don't believe the hype. I guess that settles it and we will never hear another word about James Starks.

 

[Football Jones]

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.

Your last sentence in your first paragraph is where we differ. I do see big-time potential in Starks & I do believe he can be special. Like you said, sometimes we don't need much PT to make a call on a player. All the little things start to add up, like his size, speed, strength, burst, vision, loose hips, receiving ability, etc. This kid has a LOT of talent. Starks oozes talent to me. I believe he's a virtual lock to be their feature back at some point. And the exciting part is he's going to get better. Some people disagree, but I'm pretty confident of that call (becoming their feature back).

 

[BigJim®]

Either way, after reading some of the responses last night, it has become clear some people are just here to argue and nothing anyone says is going to matter. So i am done going back and forth with those people. There isnt much more to say about Starks that i havnt already said.

Sorry to see the thread deteriorate into senseless back-and-forth. FWIW, I did hear about Starks first reading your thread Go Deep, so 'thank you' to you for sharing info your perspective with others. Based on your post, I researched the player, found Buffalo/combine highlights on youtube, came away impressed and took Starks in my rookie draft. If people took your advice, bravo to them, they probably already have a player they should be able to trade away for much more than they invested, regardless of what happens. To those who disagreed with Starks' potential and continue to disagree, bravo to you for your conviction. Maybe you passed on fools gold and could yet be proven right, but IMHO you also missed an opportunity in needing to see more before acting, and that's water under the bridge at this point. I'm still bullish on Starks, but clearly no one knows what his future holds. I'm just grateful posts like this are in this forum, to give people access to information they otherwise might have been deprived.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Football Outsiders on James Starks

On a per-play basis, Starks has not been an improvement on the combination of Jackson and Kuhn. Those two backs led a rushing attack that produced a DVOA of 1.1% during the regular season. Starks has those 332 rushing yards, but it's taken him 70 carries to get there. He's been an inefficient back, producing just 11 first downs and one touchdown on those carries, yielding a Success Rate of just 33 percent. That would be the worst rate in the league for a qualifying running back if Starks had produced those figures during the regular season. Combine those figures, and Starks's rushing DVOA during the postseason is at -7.8%. He's produced a total of just 2 DYAR.

So as difficult as it is to do, I admit I was wrong. Starks hasn't even been as good as Brandon Jackson.

 

[Ernol]

Football Outsiders on James Starks

On a per-play basis, Starks has not been an improvement on the combination of Jackson and Kuhn. Those two backs led a rushing attack that produced a DVOA of 1.1% during the regular season. Starks has those 332 rushing yards, but it's taken him 70 carries to get there. He's been an inefficient back, producing just 11 first downs and one touchdown on those carries, yielding a Success Rate of just 33 percent. That would be the worst rate in the league for a qualifying running back if Starks had produced those figures during the regular season. Combine those figures, and Starks's rushing DVOA during the postseason is at -7.8%. He's produced a total of just 2 DYAR.

So as difficult as it is to do, I admit I was wrong. Starks hasn't even been as good as Brandon Jackson.

You seem to put a lot of stock in the Football Outsider’s system in proving your point. While I am not terribly familiar with it and although I assume it has its use, on a quick look it also appears to be fairly misleading. I mean, Chris Johnson is ranked as the 30th best RB behind the likes of Ricky Williams and Ronnie Brown (am I reading that wrong?). We do know one thing: The Packers disagree with your assessment (as evidenced by a 22 to 2 carry ratio). For me, I am on the fence due to the small sample size and, on the one hand, the meager stats (other than the Philly game), and on the other hand, the fact that he has looked fairly talented to me in his limited time (despite being a rookie and being away from the game so long). In my mind, it is entirely possible that he could end up being a fantasy stud in this offense in time (just the potential of which is valuable in and of itself), and he could also end up a backup to Grant or some other back. I only have him in one dynasty league (out of 20+) and only there out of sheer luck, but I’ll be looking to acquire him in a handful more to hedge my bets and will be looking forward to finding out which one (stud or dud) he'll be next year.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Sorry all for the repeat on that link... I thought I'd kept up and didn't read back up thread.

I think that DVOA is a step forward in terms of analysis, but IMO it doesn't always work when comparing guys across different teams - I think mostly because a big chunk of what it's measuring is a team's rushing attack rather than a back's individual skill.

But when comparing two guys on the same team in the same role that problem goes away.

IMO if you're lucky enough to have have Starks on your roster, move him now to someone else who's a true believer. I think it's very unlikely he ever posts a positive year of VBD (especially in PPR). And at his current value you could get something in return that might.

 

[Football Jones]

The more I see this kid (I've watched his touches/blocking several times over), the more I like him. McCarthy must agree, saying Starks is easily their most talented RB (heard that on a telecast).

We'll know more about his 2011 value when we find out about Grant, but I believe Starks will eventually be their feature back (by 2012).

 

[BeaverCleaver]

IMO if you're lucky enough to have have Starks on your roster, move him now to someone else who's a true believer. I think it's very unlikely he ever posts a positive year of VBD (especially in PPR). And at his current value you could get something in return that might.

Worst advice posted on this board in a long time.

 

[DansRams]

IMO if you're lucky enough to have have Starks on your roster, move him now to someone else who's a true believer. I think it's very unlikely he ever posts a positive year of VBD (especially in PPR). And at his current value you could get something in return that might.

Worst advice posted on this board in a long time.

Worst assessment of advice on this board in a long time.

 

[BeaverCleaver]

IMO if you're lucky enough to have have Starks on your roster, move him now to someone else who's a true believer. I think it's very unlikely he ever posts a positive year of VBD (especially in PPR). And at his current value you could get something in return that might.

Worst advice posted on this board in a long time.

Worst assessment of advice on this board in a long time.

Thanks For those that have actually watched Starks and not relied on a small sample of stats understand that trying to sell high at this point in his short career is a mistake. Also, anyone trying to compare him to Brandon Jackson or even implying Jackson is better should stop watching football and stick with Dungeons and Dragons.

 

[ebcpastor2004]

I don't want to muddy up the waters by talking about my team, but I picked up Starks off the waiver wire last year in a Zealots league. I've been anxiously holding him & have been impressed with what I've seen. I would have been happy to hold him to see what future value he might hold, but I got an offer that I was comfortable enough trading him for and I want to see what you guys think about the value.

I gave James Starks.

I received- Dex McCluster, Mike Goodson (I have JStew), Aaron Curry (LB), his 2011 1st & 2nd round picks (both #11 I believe).

So what do you think?

 

[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.

Your last sentence in your first paragraph is where we differ. I do see big-time potential in Starks & I do believe he can be special. Like you said, sometimes we don't need much PT to make a call on a player. All the little things start to add up, like his size, speed, strength, burst, vision, loose hips, receiving ability, etc. This kid has a LOT of talent. Starks oozes talent to me. I believe he's a virtual lock to be their feature back at some point. And the exciting part is he's going to get better. Some people disagree, but I'm pretty confident of that call (becoming their feature back).

I guess it depends on what your stance actually is- I see a lot of potential in Starks as well, but I don't say "wow, he's a sure-fire stud" when I watch him. He has a lot of tools, and he has plenty of room to get better though. Guys like AP, CJ, Charles, MJD, etc. are the guys I was referring to- you don't have to watch much of them to be able to tell they're special. Starks doesn't jump off the screen like those guys do. I agree that he has the potential to be very good, but I wouldn't say that he is right now.

 

[I was in the pool]

You mentioned all the top 5 RB guys. You can't just sit around waiting to trade for a top 5 RB. You need to seek out guys with good potential to outproduce what you paid for them (or where they are drafted). That's what discussing Starks is all about because the price at the beginning of the season was almost nothing, now it's quite a bit higher. There is still value there, however, if you believe he will get a starter's chance in 2011 or beyond in a great offense.

 

[humpback]

You mentioned all the top 5 RB guys. You can't just sit around waiting to trade for a top 5 RB. You need to seek out guys with good potential to outproduce what you paid for them (or where they are drafted). That's what discussing Starks is all about because the price at the beginning of the season was almost nothing, now it's quite a bit higher. There is still value there, however, if you believe he will get a starter's chance in 2011 or beyond in a great offense.

It's already been mentioned several times, but this is a long thread with many different posters discussing different things. I'm not just talking about his FF value like you are, I'm talking about his talent. In terms of talent, he doesn't scream "stud" right away like those other guys do, which is why I said I need to see more before I consider him the long term answer. I don't watch him and think he's destined to be a star, I watch him and think that he's got some nice potential if he can improve and put it all together. Obviously you don't have to be a top 5 talent to be a good FF option- those are 2 different things, I hope you can see that. Charles wasn't a FF factor his rookie year, but you could tell he had elite talent. I can't tell that from watching Starks so far. IMO, he doesn't "ooze" talent like another poster said- those other guys do.

 

[Fullback Fro]

He passes the eye test for me. He is consistently able to shed arm tackle and push the pile forward after initial contact. He has nice burt out of his lateral breaks. I also saw real nice spin move in there.

 

[I was in the pool]

You mentioned all the top 5 RB guys. You can't just sit around waiting to trade for a top 5 RB. You need to seek out guys with good potential to outproduce what you paid for them (or where they are drafted). That's what discussing Starks is all about because the price at the beginning of the season was almost nothing, now it's quite a bit higher. There is still value there, however, if you believe he will get a starter's chance in 2011 or beyond in a great offense.

It's already been mentioned several times, but this is a long thread with many different posters discussing different things. I'm not just talking about his FF value like you are, I'm talking about his talent. In terms of talent, he doesn't scream "stud" right away like those other guys do, which is why I said I need to see more before I consider him the long term answer. I don't watch him and think he's destined to be a star, I watch him and think that he's got some nice potential if he can improve and put it all together. Obviously you don't have to be a top 5 talent to be a good FF option- those are 2 different things, I hope you can see that. Charles wasn't a FF factor his rookie year, but you could tell he had elite talent. I can't tell that from watching Starks so far. IMO, he doesn't "ooze" talent like another poster said- those other guys do.

Humpback, So who have you seen in 2010 with less than 100 carries (or just not a full-time guy) that shows that talent and flashes that you are speaking about?

 

[Steed]

A lotta amateur scouts are awfully quick to close the book on James Starks. I just went over to Ariakis' thread on whether or not Arian Foster would be fantasy gold in 2010 and pulled these quotes:

assume much? why couldn't foster beat out slaton? or moats? why did it take until week 16 for him to show up? (and, venting, why did he have to pilfer 2 Matt Schaub TD passes I really could have used at the end of the game?) i think there's more of a chance of either slaton or a FA being the starter than foster. i would put it at about 12 percent chance of foster getting the job out of the game in 2009.

Slaton has big time NFL skills. In fact he has proven so over his first 2 seasons. Did he put the ball on the gorund last year? Yes....but after hearing of his pinched nerve in his right shoulder I can now understand why he may have lost more fumbles than normal. Also add in the fact that Houstons line was g-d aweful at run blocking last season and you have what looked like a sub par season. But before he went on IR....Slaton was running as a top 12 PPR back. Was he impressive last year? Not all the time. But he showed in quite a few games that he can ball and take it to the house on any play. He is a great pass catcher and has shown he can handle 17-20 carries a game. I think he can win the job outright....but based on what I am reading they drafted Tate in the hopes he can be the lead back....but to say Foster will beat out Slaton is pure comedy...I wathced Foster play. He is no Steve Slaton.

I could easily see this being a Tate/Slaton committee with Foster being odd man out and replaced easily.

This reminds me of the hype of Nick Goings.

how idiotic are these people to downright count out slaton... Keep in mind that in 08 slaton was 7th best runner in PPR with 258 points ahead of CJ2k.... in 09 like the guy said he had pinched nerve, horrible run blocking and he still avg 15 ppg in ppr and was top 12..... where do u few peeps get the idea that slaton will be man out... only way that would happen is if slaton can't play because of injury and I think he will be healthier then he was last year for sure and the loss of the 10 lbs should make him more explosive... Slaton is awesome if you ask me and can handle 200 carries and 60 catches and be a top 12-15 running back in ppr format

The point is just because a guy isn't considered elite b/c his name isn't Adrian Peterson, Chris Johnson, Jamaal Charles doesn't mean he can't have an elite season when buoyed by a top offense and organization. Like Foster, Starks was considered a 2nd round prospect until he had a disaster senior season and got lost in the muck during the draft process.

 

[humpback]

You mentioned all the top 5 RB guys. You can't just sit around waiting to trade for a top 5 RB. You need to seek out guys with good potential to outproduce what you paid for them (or where they are drafted). That's what discussing Starks is all about because the price at the beginning of the season was almost nothing, now it's quite a bit higher. There is still value there, however, if you believe he will get a starter's chance in 2011 or beyond in a great offense.

It's already been mentioned several times, but this is a long thread with many different posters discussing different things. I'm not just talking about his FF value like you are, I'm talking about his talent. In terms of talent, he doesn't scream "stud" right away like those other guys do, which is why I said I need to see more before I consider him the long term answer. I don't watch him and think he's destined to be a star, I watch him and think that he's got some nice potential if he can improve and put it all together. Obviously you don't have to be a top 5 talent to be a good FF option- those are 2 different things, I hope you can see that. Charles wasn't a FF factor his rookie year, but you could tell he had elite talent. I can't tell that from watching Starks so far. IMO, he doesn't "ooze" talent like another poster said- those other guys do.

Humpback, So who have you seen in 2010 with less than 100 carries (or just not a full-time guy) that shows that talent and flashes that you are speaking about?

How many carries they end up with is irrelevant- I'm talking about being able to tell by only seeing a few carries that they are extremely talented. You can tell way before 100 carries that those guys are elite, it doesn't matter if they finish with 300+.Steed- I hope you weren't referring to me with your post. I'm not closing the book on Starks at all, in fact quite the opposite- I think the book is just beginning, and I'm intrigued to see which way it goes. Funny, I liked Foster myself, and at least one of those negative quotes about him came from this OP.

 

[GridironMenace]

Are people forgetting the competition that Starks had to run against? Philly, Atlanta and Chicago. Those are pretty damn good run defenses. Especially considering that those 3 games were practically the first 3 real games that Starks carried the load all season. So comparing Starks' 3 games against Brandon Jackson's games vs. Detroit and other bottom feeders is silly.

I'm not naive enough to say that Starks is going to be a stud, nor am I a fool to suggest that he sucks and he will continue to suck for the next several years.

The answer obviously lies in the wait and see approach. Starks has flashed talent in limited PT. On such a good passing team, people should be cautiously optimistic about his future. I think we'll have to wait until 2012 until Starks gets a shot at a full time gig (Grant will be back next year and then play himself out of a contract in 2012), but there is no reason to hate on this guy, nor drool over a mediocre first 3 games against very stiff competition.

 

[Football Jones]

I disagree with saying he doesn't have elite potential. He's sneaky-good, much like Foster, Priest Holmes, etc. When you couple his natural ability with his situation, the sky is the limit, IMO.

He's also going to get better. The simple fact he looks this good after missing so much time helps validate his potential. And we're not talking about your typical late-round RB prospect. Starks was considered at least a 2nd-round talent without the injuries.

 

[ROYALWITCHEESE]

I disagree with saying he doesn't have elite potential. He's sneaky-good, much like Foster, Priest Holmes, etc. When you couple his natural ability with his situation, the sky is the limit, IMO.

He's also going to get better. The simple fact he looks this good after missing so much time helps validate his potential. And we're not talking about your typical late-round RB prospect. Starks was considered at least a 2nd-round talent without the injuries.

Comparing Starks to guys like Foster and Holmes is ludicrous, IMO. The only way they are similar is that not much was expected of any of them. When you watch Foster or Holmes, they give you "wow" plays, whether it be through a move, juke, long run, etc. Starks doesn't give you the "wow" plays. Sure he looks plenty quick, runs down hill, and breaks arm tackles. How many of those guys are there in the NFL? LOTS. He may look better than Jackson, but he hasn't out-produced him in the slightest.

A stat that was mentioned earlier: all those carries and ELEVEN first downs. That stinks. Is he getting the meaningful yards? Is he a difference maker? Right now I don't see it. Could he be the eventual successor to Grant? Sure. But that my friends is his MOST OPTIMISTIC AND ABSOLUTE ceiling. How many RBs in the league ever reach their absolute ceiling? Not many. They are often derailed by injuries (which he has a history of, and still shows very little elusiveness) or another equally or more-talented back (of which Grant is).

I think you have to hold him, because you won't get what he is worth in return. But holding him and counting that he is going to become the next top 20ish RB is a mistake, IMO. What separates him from a guy like Chris Ivory? Not much. In fact, given the choice I'd take Ivory.

 

[cvnpoka]

ivory just had ankle surgery so that would be a mistake.

 

[blackbird001]

I think you have to hold him, because you won't get what he is worth in return.

What do you think he is worth?

 

[Go deep]

I disagree with saying he doesn't have elite potential. He's sneaky-good, much like Foster, Priest Holmes, etc. When you couple his natural ability with his situation, the sky is the limit, IMO.

He's also going to get better. The simple fact he looks this good after missing so much time helps validate his potential. And we're not talking about your typical late-round RB prospect. Starks was considered at least a 2nd-round talent without the injuries.

Comparing Starks to guys like Foster and Holmes is ludicrous, IMO. The only way they are similar is that not much was expected of any of them. When you watch Foster or Holmes, they give you "wow" plays, whether it be through a move, juke, long run, etc. Starks doesn't give you the "wow" plays. Sure he looks plenty quick, runs down hill, and breaks arm tackles. How many of those guys are there in the NFL? LOTS. He may look better than Jackson, but he hasn't out-produced him in the slightest.

A stat that was mentioned earlier: all those carries and ELEVEN first downs. That stinks. Is he getting the meaningful yards? Is he a difference maker? Right now I don't see it. Could he be the eventual successor to Grant? Sure. But that my friends is his MOST OPTIMISTIC AND ABSOLUTE ceiling. How many RBs in the league ever reach their absolute ceiling? Not many. They are often derailed by injuries (which he has a history of, and still shows very little elusiveness) or another equally or more-talented back (of which Grant is).

I think you have to hold him, because you won't get what he is worth in return. But holding him and counting that he is going to become the next top 20ish RB is a mistake, IMO. What separates him from a guy like Chris Ivory? Not much. In fact, given the choice I'd take Ivory.

I think the reason people are comparing Starks to Foster and Holmes instead of Peterson or CJ is because the lack of "wow" plays. Holmes was never a "wow" type of player. He didnt have great speed, or crazy moves, etc, he just a good all around RB that was took advantage of a great situation. Same thing applys to Foster(although he has a ways to go before being in the Holmes category)

Im not suggesting Starks is going to put up numbers like Foster or Holmes, i just think thats where the comparison is coming from. Personally, i think Starks puts up numbers similar to Ryan Grant with a bit more upside.

 

[blackbird001]

I disagree with saying he doesn't have elite potential. He's sneaky-good, much like Foster, Priest Holmes, etc. When you couple his natural ability with his situation, the sky is the limit, IMO.

He's also going to get better. The simple fact he looks this good after missing so much time helps validate his potential. And we're not talking about your typical late-round RB prospect. Starks was considered at least a 2nd-round talent without the injuries.

Comparing Starks to guys like Foster and Holmes is ludicrous, IMO. The only way they are similar is that not much was expected of any of them. When you watch Foster or Holmes, they give you "wow" plays, whether it be through a move, juke, long run, etc. Starks doesn't give you the "wow" plays. Sure he looks plenty quick, runs down hill, and breaks arm tackles. How many of those guys are there in the NFL? LOTS. He may look better than Jackson, but he hasn't out-produced him in the slightest.

A stat that was mentioned earlier: all those carries and ELEVEN first downs. That stinks. Is he getting the meaningful yards? Is he a difference maker? Right now I don't see it. Could he be the eventual successor to Grant? Sure. But that my friends is his MOST OPTIMISTIC AND ABSOLUTE ceiling. How many RBs in the league ever reach their absolute ceiling? Not many. They are often derailed by injuries (which he has a history of, and still shows very little elusiveness) or another equally or more-talented back (of which Grant is).

I think you have to hold him, because you won't get what he is worth in return. But holding him and counting that he is going to become the next top 20ish RB is a mistake, IMO. What separates him from a guy like Chris Ivory? Not much. In fact, given the choice I'd take Ivory.

I think the reason people are comparing Starks to Foster and Holmes instead of Peterson or CJ is because the lack of "wow" plays. Holmes was never a "wow" type of player. He didnt have great speed, or crazy moves, etc, he just a good all around RB that was took advantage of a great situation. Same thing applys to Foster(although he has a ways to go before being in the Holmes category)

Im not suggesting Starks is going to put up numbers like Foster or Holmes, i just think thats where the comparison is coming from. Personally, i think Starks puts up numbers similar to Ryan Grant with a bit more upside.

That's a top 10 floor...

 

[Go deep]

I disagree with saying he doesn't have elite potential. He's sneaky-good, much like Foster, Priest Holmes, etc. When you couple his natural ability with his situation, the sky is the limit, IMO.

He's also going to get better. The simple fact he looks this good after missing so much time helps validate his potential. And we're not talking about your typical late-round RB prospect. Starks was considered at least a 2nd-round talent without the injuries.

Comparing Starks to guys like Foster and Holmes is ludicrous, IMO. The only way they are similar is that not much was expected of any of them. When you watch Foster or Holmes, they give you "wow" plays, whether it be through a move, juke, long run, etc. Starks doesn't give you the "wow" plays. Sure he looks plenty quick, runs down hill, and breaks arm tackles. How many of those guys are there in the NFL? LOTS. He may look better than Jackson, but he hasn't out-produced him in the slightest.

A stat that was mentioned earlier: all those carries and ELEVEN first downs. That stinks. Is he getting the meaningful yards? Is he a difference maker? Right now I don't see it. Could he be the eventual successor to Grant? Sure. But that my friends is his MOST OPTIMISTIC AND ABSOLUTE ceiling. How many RBs in the league ever reach their absolute ceiling? Not many. They are often derailed by injuries (which he has a history of, and still shows very little elusiveness) or another equally or more-talented back (of which Grant is).

I think you have to hold him, because you won't get what he is worth in return. But holding him and counting that he is going to become the next top 20ish RB is a mistake, IMO. What separates him from a guy like Chris Ivory? Not much. In fact, given the choice I'd take Ivory.

I think the reason people are comparing Starks to Foster and Holmes instead of Peterson or CJ is because the lack of "wow" plays. Holmes was never a "wow" type of player. He didnt have great speed, or crazy moves, etc, he just a good all around RB that was took advantage of a great situation. Same thing applys to Foster(although he has a ways to go before being in the Holmes category)

Im not suggesting Starks is going to put up numbers like Foster or Holmes, i just think thats where the comparison is coming from. Personally, i think Starks puts up numbers similar to Ryan Grant with a bit more upside.

That's a top 10 floor...

Who said floor?

 

[Go deep]

Im not sure why people are so down on Grant based on his numbers in 3 road games against playoff teams. Here are how some other RB's did on the road against the Eagles, Falcons and Bears(only including the teams leading rusher):

Eagles

Jackson,B - 18 carries, 63 yards, 3.5 ypc

Torain,R - 18/70, 3.9 ypc

Turner,M - 15/45, 3.0 ypc

Brown,D - 15/50, 3.3 ypc

Bradshaw,A - 12/29, 2.4 ypc

Foster,A - 22/83, 3.8 ypc

Peterson,A - 22/118, 5.4 ypc

Jones,F - 11/81 yards, 7.4 ypc(week 17 against backups)

Starks,J - 23 carries, 123 yards, 5.3 ypc(Starks rushed for more yards than any other player in Philadelphia)

Falcons

Hightower,T - 11 carries, 115 yards, 10.5 ypc(3.5 ypc minus 80 yard TD run)

Gore,F - 21/77 3.7 ypc

Benson,C - 20/70 3.5 ypc

Blount,L - 13/46 3.5 ypc

Rice,R - 12/49 4.9

Jackson,B - 10/26 2.6 ypc

Thomas,P - 19/63 3.3 ypc

Stewart,J 13/31 2.4 ypc

Starks, J - 25/66 2.6(Obviously not a great game, but Starks spent the 2nd half running the clock against a team that did pretty well at home against the run.)

Bears

Best,J - 14 carries, 24 yards, 1.4 ypc

Jackson,B - 7/12 1.8 ypc

Lynch,M - 17/44 2.6 ypc

Torain,R -21/125 6.0 ypc

Peterson,A 17/51 3.0 ypc

Mccoy,L 10/53 5.3 ypc

Green-Ellis 21/87 4.1 ypc

Tomlinson, 13/28 2.2 ypc

Forsett(playoffs) 4/9 2.2 ypc

Starks 22/74 3.4 ypc(Only Torain and Green-Ellis ran for more yards in Chicago.)

Funny thing is the Packers played the same three teams on the road this season and Jackson was their leading rusher in each game. Here are both RB's totals in the 3 games.

Jackson - 35 carries, 101 yards, 2.9 ypc

Starks - 70 carries, 263 yards, 3.8 ypc

Starks and Adrian Peterson both had road games aginst the Eagles and Bears, here are their totals:

Peterson - 39 carries, 169 yards, 4.33 ypc

Starks - 45 carries, 197 yards, 4.38 ypc

 

[cr8f]

Grant's better at one cut running than Starks is. Trouble is I see a RBBC next season.

 

[ROYALWITCHEESE]

I think you have to hold him, because you won't get what he is worth in return.

What do you think he is worth?

Well I think he and Ivory are of equal value when healthy. Judging by the posts on this topic, people value him VERY highly. You will never sell at those prices. If you can get another top 20 player at their position from someone who wants him, I think you take that and run. I'd rank him at somewhere between RB30 and RB40.

 

[ROYALWITCHEESE]

Im not sure why people are so down on Grant based on his numbers in 3 road games against playoff teams. Here are how some other RB's did on the road against the Eagles, Falcons and Bears(only including the teams leading rusher):

Eagles

Jackson,B - 18 carries, 63 yards, 3.5 ypc

Torain,R - 18/70, 3.9 ypc

Turner,M - 15/45, 3.0 ypc

Brown,D - 15/50, 3.3 ypc

Bradshaw,A - 12/29, 2.4 ypc

Foster,A - 22/83, 3.8 ypc

Peterson,A - 22/118, 5.4 ypc

Jones,F - 11/81 yards, 7.4 ypc(week 17 against backups)

Starks,J - 23 carries, 123 yards, 5.3 ypc(Starks rushed for more yards than any other player in Philadelphia)

Falcons

Hightower,T - 11 carries, 115 yards, 10.5 ypc(3.5 ypc minus 80 yard TD run)

Gore,F - 21/77 3.7 ypc

Benson,C - 20/70 3.5 ypc

Blount,L - 13/46 3.5 ypc

Rice,R - 12/49 4.9

Jackson,B - 10/26 2.6 ypc

Thomas,P - 19/63 3.3 ypc

Stewart,J 13/31 2.4 ypc

Starks, J - 25/66 2.6(Obviously not a great game, but Starks spent the 2nd half running the clock against a team that did pretty well at home against the run.)

Bears

Best,J - 14 carries, 24 yards, 1.4 ypc

Jackson,B - 7/12 1.8 ypc

Lynch,M - 17/44 2.6 ypc

Torain,R -21/125 6.0 ypc

Peterson,A 17/51 3.0 ypc

Mccoy,L 10/53 5.3 ypc

Green-Ellis 21/87 4.1 ypc

Tomlinson, 13/28 2.2 ypc

Forsett(playoffs) 4/9 2.2 ypc

Starks 22/74 3.4 ypc(Only Torain and Green-Ellis ran for more yards in Chicago.)

Funny thing is the Packers played the same three teams on the road this season and Jackson was their leading rusher in each game. Here are both RB's totals in the 3 games.

Jackson - 35 carries, 101 yards, 2.9 ypc

Starks - 70 carries, 263 yards, 3.8 ypc

Starks and Adrian Peterson both had road games aginst the Eagles and Bears, here are their totals:

Peterson - 39 carries, 169 yards, 4.33 ypc

Starks - 45 carries, 197 yards, 4.38 ypc

Uhh. Rogers vs Webb? Superbowl team vs terrible team? Really?

 

[Eric Stratton]

Im not sure why people are so down on Grant based on his numbers in 3 road games against playoff teams. Here are how some other RB's did on the road against the Eagles, Falcons and Bears(only including the teams leading rusher):

Eagles

Jackson,B - 18 carries, 63 yards, 3.5 ypc

Torain,R - 18/70, 3.9 ypc

Turner,M - 15/45, 3.0 ypc

Brown,D - 15/50, 3.3 ypc

Bradshaw,A - 12/29, 2.4 ypc

Foster,A - 22/83, 3.8 ypc

Peterson,A - 22/118, 5.4 ypc

Jones,F - 11/81 yards, 7.4 ypc(week 17 against backups)

Starks,J - 23 carries, 123 yards, 5.3 ypc(Starks rushed for more yards than any other player in Philadelphia)

Falcons

Hightower,T - 11 carries, 115 yards, 10.5 ypc(3.5 ypc minus 80 yard TD run)

Gore,F - 21/77 3.7 ypc

Benson,C - 20/70 3.5 ypc

Blount,L - 13/46 3.5 ypc

Rice,R - 12/49 4.9

Jackson,B - 10/26 2.6 ypc

Thomas,P - 19/63 3.3 ypc

Stewart,J 13/31 2.4 ypc

Starks, J - 25/66 2.6(Obviously not a great game, but Starks spent the 2nd half running the clock against a team that did pretty well at home against the run.)

Bears

Best,J - 14 carries, 24 yards, 1.4 ypc

Jackson,B - 7/12 1.8 ypc

Lynch,M - 17/44 2.6 ypc

Torain,R -21/125 6.0 ypc

Peterson,A 17/51 3.0 ypc

Mccoy,L 10/53 5.3 ypc

Green-Ellis 21/87 4.1 ypc

Tomlinson, 13/28 2.2 ypc

Forsett(playoffs) 4/9 2.2 ypc

Starks 22/74 3.4 ypc(Only Torain and Green-Ellis ran for more yards in Chicago.)

Funny thing is the Packers played the same three teams on the road this season and Jackson was their leading rusher in each game. Here are both RB's totals in the 3 games.

Jackson - 35 carries, 101 yards, 2.9 ypc

Starks - 70 carries, 263 yards, 3.8 ypc

Starks and Adrian Peterson both had road games aginst the Eagles and Bears, here are their totals:

Peterson - 39 carries, 169 yards, 4.33 ypc

Starks - 45 carries, 197 yards, 4.38 ypc

Uhh. Rogers vs Webb? Superbowl team vs terrible team? Really?

Who is Rogers?

 

[Go deep]

Im not sure why people are so down on Grant based on his numbers in 3 road games against playoff teams. Here are how some other RB's did on the road against the Eagles, Falcons and Bears(only including the teams leading rusher):

Eagles

Jackson,B - 18 carries, 63 yards, 3.5 ypc

Torain,R - 18/70, 3.9 ypc

Turner,M - 15/45, 3.0 ypc

Brown,D - 15/50, 3.3 ypc

Bradshaw,A - 12/29, 2.4 ypc

Foster,A - 22/83, 3.8 ypc

Peterson,A - 22/118, 5.4 ypc

Jones,F - 11/81 yards, 7.4 ypc(week 17 against backups)

Starks,J - 23 carries, 123 yards, 5.3 ypc(Starks rushed for more yards than any other player in Philadelphia)

Falcons

Hightower,T - 11 carries, 115 yards, 10.5 ypc(3.5 ypc minus 80 yard TD run)

Gore,F - 21/77 3.7 ypc

Benson,C - 20/70 3.5 ypc

Blount,L - 13/46 3.5 ypc

Rice,R - 12/49 4.9

Jackson,B - 10/26 2.6 ypc

Thomas,P - 19/63 3.3 ypc

Stewart,J 13/31 2.4 ypc

Starks, J - 25/66 2.6(Obviously not a great game, but Starks spent the 2nd half running the clock against a team that did pretty well at home against the run.)

Bears

Best,J - 14 carries, 24 yards, 1.4 ypc

Jackson,B - 7/12 1.8 ypc

Lynch,M - 17/44 2.6 ypc

Torain,R -21/125 6.0 ypc

Peterson,A 17/51 3.0 ypc

Mccoy,L 10/53 5.3 ypc

Green-Ellis 21/87 4.1 ypc

Tomlinson, 13/28 2.2 ypc

Forsett(playoffs) 4/9 2.2 ypc

Starks 22/74 3.4 ypc(Only Torain and Green-Ellis ran for more yards in Chicago.)

Funny thing is the Packers played the same three teams on the road this season and Jackson was their leading rusher in each game. Here are both RB's totals in the 3 games.

Jackson - 35 carries, 101 yards, 2.9 ypc

Starks - 70 carries, 263 yards, 3.8 ypc

Starks and Adrian Peterson both had road games aginst the Eagles and Bears, here are their totals:

Peterson - 39 carries, 169 yards, 4.33 ypc

Starks - 45 carries, 197 yards, 4.38 ypc

Uhh. Rogers vs Webb? Superbowl team vs terrible team? Really?

What does that have to do with anything?

 

[cvnpoka]

i would imagine he feels that it is easier for the defense to key on the rb when the qb is joe webb rather than aaron rodgers.

hope that helps.

 

[blackbird001]

If you take his one full game during the season and add in the three full games in the post-season you get 88/336/1, that projects out to 352/1344/4 which sniffed top 5 this year. Feel free to dissect my math, but I think it's simple. Good things happen when they get this kid around 20 carries. If Ryan Grant is not brought back, Starks is a RB1. If Grant is brought back, I think Starks still outscores RB30. Best thing for Starks owners is no Grant. Worst thing is Grant signs a new deal to stay in GB. Even if Grant plays out the final year and Starks takes the job at some point in the season, he's a great prospect to have. Like holding onto Bradshaw or Felix Jones the last couple years.

What will the pack do this off-season? Sure hope Starks isn't significant against the Steelers next week.

 

[Go deep]

i would imagine he feels that it is easier for the defense to key on the rb when the qb is joe webb rather than aaron rodgers.hope that helps.

It doesnt. What does any of that have have to do with anything?

 

[cvnpoka]

well i dont know how to be any clearer about how i interpreted that post.

someone posted stats of adrian peterson and john starks vs the common opponents of the bears and eagles. they performed comparably. ROYALWITCHEESE posted that peterson plays with webb and a worse overall team compared to playing alongside aaron rodgers and a better packers team.

my perception would be that he feels that starks situation was more advantageous.

im confused about what your confused about tbh.

 

[moderated]

Starks is a good wildcard but in no way a lock to ever be the feature back for a full season. He could but i don't see how it is likely.

He IS the best runner the packers have at the moment, but kuhn and bj are laughably bad so that isn't saying anything at all as to how the packers really feel about him. He's the best in a batch of bad apples.

Starks looks ok at times but runs extremely high (likely a reason for his injury history) and isn't a strong break lots of tackles type of guy. He is very athletic with some nice moves but doesn't make something out of nothing. Also he takes what is there but never turns it in to something more.

I see a decent yet unspectacular injury prone rb who hasn't shown any elite rb skills outside of being a great athlete.

Wouldn't be surprised at all to see gb take a rb with there late 1st rounder if they like what's there.

 

[blackbird001]

Wouldn't be surprised at all to see gb take a rb with there late 1st rounder if they like what's there.

I'd be plenty surprised. It's a weak class, and the earliest Thompson has ever selected a RB was the end of the 2nd. Better chance Thompson deals a 3rd/4th for a Tashard Choice/Jason Snelling type Rb already in the league.

 

[Eric Stratton]

Wouldn't be surprised at all to see gb take a rb with there late 1st rounder if they like what's there.

I highly doubt that will happen. They are more likely to take an offensive lineman or outside linebacker. I think he will draft a RB at some point and Brandon Jackson won't be resigned.

 

[Go deep]

well i dont know how to be any clearer about how i interpreted that post.someone posted stats of adrian peterson and john starks vs the common opponents of the bears and eagles. they performed comparably. ROYALWITCHEESE posted that peterson plays with webb and a worse overall team compared to playing alongside aaron rodgers and a better packers team.my perception would be that he feels that starks situation was more advantageous.im confused about what your confused about tbh.

I understand all of that, but what does any of it have to do with my point? Maybe you are missing the point, so ill break it down for you. Some people have said Starks isnt any good because of his low ypc in the playoffs. I pointed out that almost every RB that has played against those same 3 teams on the road have had worse results than Starks....including the best RB in the league(Adrian Peterson).The team they play for or their QB have nothing to do with my point, and even if they did, part of what i like about Starks is he does play for the Packers and Rodgers is the QB.

 

[Steve Tasker]

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

really excited to see him in the Super Bowl.