Why leave out anything?The blurb wasn't War and Peace.Now your calling me a liar?I posted to balance out your positive spin on the article.You stopped after what the coaches were quoted as saying? Most of what you quoted was just the opinion of the writer, but it was positive for Starks. There was only one sentence in there about the coaching staff, and even that wasn't a direct quote. IMO, coach-speak is meaningless- the same exact coaches were singing the praises of BJax earlier in the season. Sorry, just calling them like I see them- this article clearly lists both positives and negatives for Starks, but you only see and quoted the positives. Even if it's not because you're from Buffalo, you are clearly biased here.If you didnt want to, why did you post anything?
Anyway, I only cut my quote short was because i stopped after what the coaches where quoted saying. The rest was just that writers opinions on what could go wrong. All of which is obvious and/or has been pointed out 1000 times in this thread. Obviously if Grant comes back fully healthy he could eat into Starks playing time, and if Starks fumbles that could hurt him. I posted the link for everyone to read, i wasnt trying to avoid the "negatives".
No, i have no bias towards him because im from Buffalo. Had he played for another college and I was able to see enough of him i would feel the exact same way.
Let's move on though, the article really isn't worth discussing anyway.
What negatives did i leave out about Starks? I left out more negatives about Grant in that article than Starks.
Dont bother answering..for my sake anyway, i wont be able to see it.
:ignore:
I left a link to the entire story, i didnt purposely leave out anything.I didnt say the rest of the article had no bearing on Starks, just that it wasnt negative for Starks, and that its stuff that has already been discussed here. Yes, i did say i wasnt concened about Kuhn, look at his touches after Starks took over in the playoffs. But again, that has been discussed here multiple times.Why leave out anything?The blurb wasn't War and Peace.Now your calling me a liar?I posted to balance out your positive spin on the article.You stopped after what the coaches were quoted as saying? Most of what you quoted was just the opinion of the writer, but it was positive for Starks. There was only one sentence in there about the coaching staff, and even that wasn't a direct quote. IMO, coach-speak is meaningless- the same exact coaches were singing the praises of BJax earlier in the season. Sorry, just calling them like I see them- this article clearly lists both positives and negatives for Starks, but you only see and quoted the positives. Even if it's not because you're from Buffalo, you are clearly biased here.If you didnt want to, why did you post anything?
Anyway, I only cut my quote short was because i stopped after what the coaches where quoted saying. The rest was just that writers opinions on what could go wrong. All of which is obvious and/or has been pointed out 1000 times in this thread. Obviously if Grant comes back fully healthy he could eat into Starks playing time, and if Starks fumbles that could hurt him. I posted the link for everyone to read, i wasnt trying to avoid the "negatives".
No, i have no bias towards him because im from Buffalo. Had he played for another college and I was able to see enough of him i would feel the exact same way.
Let's move on though, the article really isn't worth discussing anyway.
What negatives did i leave out about Starks? I left out more negatives about Grant in that article than Starks.
Dont bother answering..for my sake anyway, i wont be able to see it.
:ignore:
And even though it's just one writer's opinion, to say that the 'information' about the other GB rbs has no bearing on Starks and his future is just wrong.
I dont think he is any more or les talented then Grant and we might see a committee next year Oh boy!!!Are people still arguing to the death over Starks? Good grief.
Bravo, the most intelligent post in this mess of a thread. I know this offseason is slow, but for the OP to bump his own thread for a meaningless fluff piece is lame.I posted to balance out your positive spin on the article.You stopped after what the coaches were quoted as saying? Most of what you quoted was just the opinion of the writer, but it was positive for Starks. There was only one sentence in there about the coaching staff, and even that wasn't a direct quote. IMO, coach-speak is meaningless- the same exact coaches were singing the praises of BJax earlier in the season. Sorry, just calling them like I see them- this article clearly lists both positives and negatives for Starks, but you only see and quoted the positives. Even if it's not because you're from Buffalo, you are clearly biased here.If you didnt want to, why did you post anything?
Anyway, I only cut my quote short was because i stopped after what the coaches where quoted saying. The rest was just that writers opinions on what could go wrong. All of which is obvious and/or has been pointed out 1000 times in this thread. Obviously if Grant comes back fully healthy he could eat into Starks playing time, and if Starks fumbles that could hurt him. I posted the link for everyone to read, i wasnt trying to avoid the "negatives".
No, i have no bias towards him because im from Buffalo. Had he played for another college and I was able to see enough of him i would feel the exact same way.
Let's move on though, the article really isn't worth discussing anyway.
I've thought so all along but maybe later in the year or next season will be his. He'll probably fill Jackson's role as 3rd down back.I dont think he is any more or les talented then Grant and we might see a committee next year Oh boy!!!Are people still arguing to the death over Starks? Good grief.
I dont blame you for not wanting to go through this entire thread, it was taken over by angry Grant owners. In a nutshell, i dont think Starks is as good a AD, or any of the other top RB's, i just think he is more talented and versatile than Ryan Grant, and any RB who can potentialy be a 3 down back for GB(Grant is not that) could put up huge numbers even if they werent the most talented back in the league. Starks just learened to play the RB position 4 years ago and spent most of the last two years not playing, so if he only looked as talented as Ryan Grant during the playoffs, i think he is heading in the right direction.Is Grant a road block, of course, i have never said otherwise. Most teams, if not all of them use some sort of a RBBC, and GB will be no different.'BuckeyeChaos said:Hey Go Deep.I've got Starks on my development squad so I want to believe he is the next great one. I've tried going back through this thread but it's hard with all of the arguing. Could you in a nutshell tell me why you believe he will be awsome. I see Ryan Grant's presence as a roadblock of sorts and I'm not sure GB will commit fully to Starks even with his outstanding playoff run.Thanks man!
I'd like to add that GB doesn't typically follow the league mold in the RBBC. It's pretty much been the Grant show for the last few years. It was a turnstile this year trying to find someone to fill in. Once Starks came back healthy and asserted himself, it was his show (even on 3rd down, Mr. Jackson). It will likely go back to Grant on opening day, but if Starks is good enough to eat into Grant's carries, he will likely put him on the bench (or drive them to not re-sign Grant).I dont blame you for not wanting to go through this entire thread, it was taken over by angry Grant owners. In a nutshell, i dont think Starks is as good a AD, or any of the other top RB's, i just think he is more talented and versatile than Ryan Grant, and any RB who can potentialy be a 3 down back for GB(Grant is not that) could put up huge numbers even if they werent the most talented back in the league. Starks just learened to play the RB position 4 years ago and spent most of the last two years not playing, so if he only looked as talented as Ryan Grant during the playoffs, i think he is heading in the right direction.Is Grant a road block, of course, i have never said otherwise. Most teams, if not all of them use some sort of a RBBC, and GB will be no different.'BuckeyeChaos said:Hey Go Deep.I've got Starks on my development squad so I want to believe he is the next great one. I've tried going back through this thread but it's hard with all of the arguing. Could you in a nutshell tell me why you believe he will be awsome. I see Ryan Grant's presence as a roadblock of sorts and I'm not sure GB will commit fully to Starks even with his outstanding playoff run.Thanks man!
If this remains true, i think it favors Starks even mroe considering he is the better pass blocker/catcher.Its possible, its also possible that Grant gets cut before the season, especially if the Packers can find a good RB in the middle of the draft....well, probably only if this happens.I'd like to add that GB doesn't typically follow the league mold in the RBBC. It's pretty much been the Grant show for the last few years. It was a turnstile this year trying to find someone to fill in. Once Starks came back healthy and asserted himself, it was his show (even on 3rd down, Mr. Jackson). It will likely go back to Grant on opening day, but if Starks is good enough to eat into Grant's carries, he will likely put him on the bench (or drive them to not re-sign Grant).I dont blame you for not wanting to go through this entire thread, it was taken over by angry Grant owners. In a nutshell, i dont think Starks is as good a AD, or any of the other top RB's, i just think he is more talented and versatile than Ryan Grant, and any RB who can potentialy be a 3 down back for GB(Grant is not that) could put up huge numbers even if they werent the most talented back in the league. Starks just learened to play the RB position 4 years ago and spent most of the last two years not playing, so if he only looked as talented as Ryan Grant during the playoffs, i think he is heading in the right direction.'BuckeyeChaos said:Hey Go Deep.
I've got Starks on my development squad so I want to believe he is the next great one. I've tried going back through this thread but it's hard with all of the arguing. Could you in a nutshell tell me why you believe he will be awsome. I see Ryan Grant's presence as a roadblock of sorts and I'm not sure GB will commit fully to Starks even with his outstanding playoff run.
Thanks man!
Is Grant a road block, of course, i have never said otherwise. Most teams, if not all of them use some sort of a RBBC, and GB will be no different.
Both have looked good so far. Grant will start, but I think Starks will get carries.I think Starks is dealing with a small ankly injury currently, but how is the Grant vs. Starks competition going in GB... any news on this front?
yea thats a weird pick... starks a top ten... hahahahah wow what do you wanna put on thatcan we wager??
Hey, remember this guy???For the fun of it BSN - I'll bet you a free 2012 RSP that health permitting (no major injury that requires surgery or off-field issues, otherwise the bet is off), that by 2012 Starks will have a 1000-yard season and be the starter in GB. If I win, I just get the satisfaction of being right.
I think it's going to be the dreaded "hot hand" approach in Green Bay. So I would sell to the Lacy owner if I could. I own both Lacy and Starks in one league and I would rather not have the headache of which one to start.surprised to hear so little talk about Starks. For those that grabbed him, what are you thinking / doing? Flipping him? Thinking he's going to split/take over for Lacy and holding?
I was able to snag him as my 6th rb and was thinking of dealing him for Matt Jones to the Lacy owner but I'm second guessing that thought. I think there's a small possibility that he completely takes over the backfield but if he is the hot hand that earns a more significant role or if Lacy is more injured that they're letting on Starks could be a huge asset down the stretch in that offense.
This is ridiculous. Starks is not the better fit.I think it's going to be the dreaded "hot hand" approach in Green Bay. So I would sell to the Lacy owner if I could. I own both Lacy and Starks in one league and I would rather not have the headache of which one to start.surprised to hear so little talk about Starks. For those that grabbed him, what are you thinking / doing? Flipping him? Thinking he's going to split/take over for Lacy and holding?
I was able to snag him as my 6th rb and was thinking of dealing him for Matt Jones to the Lacy owner but I'm second guessing that thought. I think there's a small possibility that he completely takes over the backfield but if he is the hot hand that earns a more significant role or if Lacy is more injured that they're letting on Starks could be a huge asset down the stretch in that offense.
IMO, Starks should be the starter and get the lion's share of the carries. He looks better and is a better fit with the offense without Jordy Nelson.
Even if Starks gets the lion's share of the carries, the offense runs through Aaron Rodgers so Starks' upside is somewhat limited. At best he's a decent RB2. Most likely he's a "what the heck" flex.
Not when it's weighed down with blubber.Lacy has not looked like himself the last couple of games, but talent always rises to the top
and asthmaNot when it's weighed down with blubber.Lacy has not looked like himself the last couple of games, but talent always rises to the top
Actually I'm going to start calling him Flubber.Not when it's weighed down with blubber.Lacy has not looked like himself the last couple of games, but talent always rises to the top
He hasn't been practicing.How come Bloom doesn't have him in his rankings at all this week? He's playing, right?
Rob Demovsky
✔@RobDemovskyPackers running back James Starks (hip) returned to practice on Thursday although he... http://espn.go.com/espn/now?nowId=21-0451432657213986548-4 …
12:12 PM - 29 Oct 2015
Packers running back James Starks (hip) returned to practice on Thursday although he appeared to be limited in the early individual drills.
Maybe but there's been some doublespeak happening here ("we have to get Lacy going")...when that happens combined with McCarthy's preference for occasional misdirection....again I'll believe it when I see it.its already kinda happenedI'll believe it when I see it