What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

McCarthy Speaks on Starks (1 Viewer)

nlgb1

Footballguy
(Rotoworld) Coach Mike McCarthy confirmed this week that the Packers remain high on sixth-round RB James Starks after he missed all of training camp and preseason action with a hamstring injury.

Analysis: "He's a big, athletic running back, and I think he has the ability to be a three-down player," said McCarthy. The Packers have still not seen Starks in pads yet, so he's not a lock to be ready for a game-day contribution when he's eligible to come off the PUP list in Week 7. He's worth stashing in deeper leagues, especially those with I.R. spots available.

This is all good news, but strange that he considers him a 3 down guy after all the injuries hes sustained. anybody seen this guy on tape? looking for some thoughts outside of the rose colored highlight tapes on youtube.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I haven't seen him play but I have heavy doubts that he can be anything of a factor this year unless extreme catastrophe hits. He hasn't played in how long ... 2 years? and is a rookie who hasn't even taken a pro snap.

From everything I read he is supposed to be a bigger back that has decent hands and supposed to have some wiggle. Granted that is against Buffalo (college) competition. Probably a good dynasty prospect but that is about it.

 
[quote name='nlgb1' date='Sep 17 2010, 06:00 PM' post='12304909'

This is all good news, but strange that he considers him a 3 down guy after all the injuries hes sustained. anybody seen this guy on tape? looking for some thoughts outside of the rose colored highlight tapes on youtube.

I think this quote is basically a regurgitation of comments a coach would make day after a draft. McCarthy doesn't know any more about Starks as a RB than he did then. he hasn't seen him.

And that's not to knock Starks. Picked him up in keeper/dynasty leagues. With Grant in front of him, who is not a special back(and has a contract that could very easily lead to his release), any rookie back has to be considered. He's a lottery ticket. But I don't think McCarthy's comments really say much one way or the other. Once he comes off the PUP, I get a lot more interested. At this point, we need to see him get carries, and see what he does with them.

 
Just coach speak. Perhaps trying to make it look like the Packers don't feel desperate at RB so if they do look to make a trade teams don't see they as panicked and try and take advantage.

 
I don't think Starks contributes much this year, but keeper leaguers might want to stash him away if you can. He's got good potential.

 
Im sure there is some coach speak there, but i did watch him play alot in college and he is the real deal....assuming he can stay healthy.

He may have a shot to contribute this year, if there wasnt a chance, then why wouldnt the Packers just IR him?

 
Im sure there is some coach speak there, but i did watch him play alot in college and he is the real deal....assuming he can stay healthy.He may have a shot to contribute this year, if there wasnt a chance, then why wouldnt the Packers just IR him?
yea the fact that they didnt just simply IR him leads me to believe they see him contributing this year. may all be coach speak, but grants future with the team is now most likely in question and BJackson simply isnt that good. even if jimmy starks isnt the total package, i think the coaching staff will give him every opportunity to show what hes got come week 7.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
(Rotoworld) Coach Mike McCarthy confirmed this week that the Packers remain high on sixth-round RB James Starks after he missed all of training camp and preseason action with a hamstring injury.Analysis: "He's a big, athletic running back, and I think he has the ability to be a three-down player," said McCarthy. The Packers have still not seen Starks in pads yet, so he's not a lock to be ready for a game-day contribution when he's eligible to come off the PUP list in Week 7. He's worth stashing in deeper leagues, especially those with I.R. spots available.This is all good news, but strange that he considers him a 3 down guy after all the injuries hes sustained. anybody seen this guy on tape? looking for some thoughts outside of the rose colored highlight tapes on youtube.
I don't know much about Rotoworld, but their analysis is a bit strange. Not a "lock"? No kidding. It is approximately 100% certain that he won't contribute in any fashion for at least several weeks after he comes back. I'm not sure how the roster rules work with the PUP, but right now I think its a long-shot that he makes the 53. Even then, it would be an amazing story if Starks makes any tangible contribution from scrimmage this season. I also think their comment re: IR seems bizarre - I guess some leagues allow teams to put PUP guys on IR?I do agree that Starks may have some value from a dynasty or keeper perspective as he will likely be in the mix at RB for the Packers in training camp next summer. With Grant's injury and difficult contract situation, there is a good possibility he will be gone.
 
(Rotoworld) Coach Mike McCarthy confirmed this week that the Packers remain high on sixth-round RB James Starks after he missed all of training camp and preseason action with a hamstring injury.Analysis: "He's a big, athletic running back, and I think he has the ability to be a three-down player," said McCarthy. The Packers have still not seen Starks in pads yet, so he's not a lock to be ready for a game-day contribution when he's eligible to come off the PUP list in Week 7. He's worth stashing in deeper leagues, especially those with I.R. spots available.This is all good news, but strange that he considers him a 3 down guy after all the injuries hes sustained. anybody seen this guy on tape? looking for some thoughts outside of the rose colored highlight tapes on youtube.
I don't know much about Rotoworld, but their analysis is a bit strange. Not a "lock"? No kidding. It is approximately 100% certain that he won't contribute in any fashion for at least several weeks after he comes back. I'm not sure how the roster rules work with the PUP, but right now I think its a long-shot that he makes the 53. Even then, it would be an amazing story if Starks makes any tangible contribution from scrimmage this season. I also think their comment re: IR seems bizarre - I guess some leagues allow teams to put PUP guys on IR?I do agree that Starks may have some value from a dynasty or keeper perspective as he will likely be in the mix at RB for the Packers in training camp next summer. With Grant's injury and difficult contract situation, there is a good possibility he will be gone.
while im not overly optimistic about starks outlook this season, to say that he probably wont make the 53 when he comes back doesnt make sense. why would they keep him on the pup for 6 weeks then cut him? the fact that jackson and practice squadder D. Nance are the only RBs on the roster i think guarantees him at least a shot at playing time as soon as he comes back.
 
I have heavy doubts that he can be anything of a factor this year unless extreme catastrophe hits.
Well, Ryan Grant is out for the year already.Jackson & Nance aren't exactly world beaters, so I'd say if the kid has legit game the Packers will give him every chance to get on the field and contribute THIS season.
 
(Rotoworld) Coach Mike McCarthy confirmed this week that the Packers remain high on sixth-round RB James Starks after he missed all of training camp and preseason action with a hamstring injury.Analysis: "He's a big, athletic running back, and I think he has the ability to be a three-down player," said McCarthy. The Packers have still not seen Starks in pads yet, so he's not a lock to be ready for a game-day contribution when he's eligible to come off the PUP list in Week 7. He's worth stashing in deeper leagues, especially those with I.R. spots available.This is all good news, but strange that he considers him a 3 down guy after all the injuries hes sustained. anybody seen this guy on tape? looking for some thoughts outside of the rose colored highlight tapes on youtube.
I don't know much about Rotoworld, but their analysis is a bit strange. Not a "lock"? No kidding. It is approximately 100% certain that he won't contribute in any fashion for at least several weeks after he comes back. I'm not sure how the roster rules work with the PUP, but right now I think its a long-shot that he makes the 53. Even then, it would be an amazing story if Starks makes any tangible contribution from scrimmage this season. I also think their comment re: IR seems bizarre - I guess some leagues allow teams to put PUP guys on IR?I do agree that Starks may have some value from a dynasty or keeper perspective as he will likely be in the mix at RB for the Packers in training camp next summer. With Grant's injury and difficult contract situation, there is a good possibility he will be gone.
while im not overly optimistic about starks outlook this season, to say that he probably wont make the 53 when he comes back doesnt make sense. why would they keep him on the pup for 6 weeks then cut him? the fact that jackson and practice squadder D. Nance are the only RBs on the roster i think guarantees him at least a shot at playing time as soon as he comes back.
I'm not saying they'll cut him. I don't know exactly how the PUP works, but I think they have some short amount of time after the six weeks to make a roster move. Rather than cutting someone to make room on the 53 roster, I think they could IR Starks or try to stash him on the practice squad. He's a rookie who missed all of training camp and preseason after sitting out his senior year in college. I can't imagine the Packers trying to integrate this guy into their offense in the middle of the season. I don't see McCarthy/Thompson sacrificing practice reps and coaches' time for this long of a long-shot. Nor can I imagine them giving him a significant role from scrimmage in a game this year. Therefore, unless he can play special teams, I do think its at best a 50/50 proposition that he makes the active roster. The best scenario is he finds a place on special teams, then maybe gets some carries in a mop-up situation and is able to prove himself. Its highly unlikely, but would be a great story.All that said, I would be very happy if Starks shocked us all and became an impact player this season in the Packer's backfield. I actually grabbed Starks this week in my fantasy league with the hope that I can afford to stash him until next season, when I'll have the whole preseason to determine whether to burn a keeper spot.
 
CletiusMaximus said:
nlgb1 said:
(Rotoworld) Coach Mike McCarthy confirmed this week that the Packers remain high on sixth-round RB James Starks after he missed all of training camp and preseason action with a hamstring injury.Analysis: "He's a big, athletic running back, and I think he has the ability to be a three-down player," said McCarthy. The Packers have still not seen Starks in pads yet, so he's not a lock to be ready for a game-day contribution when he's eligible to come off the PUP list in Week 7. He's worth stashing in deeper leagues, especially those with I.R. spots available.This is all good news, but strange that he considers him a 3 down guy after all the injuries hes sustained. anybody seen this guy on tape? looking for some thoughts outside of the rose colored highlight tapes on youtube.
I don't know much about Rotoworld, but their analysis is a bit strange. Not a "lock"? No kidding. It is approximately 100% certain that he won't contribute in any fashion for at least several weeks after he comes back. I'm not sure how the roster rules work with the PUP, but right now I think its a long-shot that he makes the 53. Even then, it would be an amazing story if Starks makes any tangible contribution from scrimmage this season. I also think their comment re: IR seems bizarre - I guess some leagues allow teams to put PUP guys on IR?I do agree that Starks may have some value from a dynasty or keeper perspective as he will likely be in the mix at RB for the Packers in training camp next summer. With Grant's injury and difficult contract situation, there is a good possibility he will be gone.
while im not overly optimistic about starks outlook this season, to say that he probably wont make the 53 when he comes back doesnt make sense. why would they keep him on the pup for 6 weeks then cut him? the fact that jackson and practice squadder D. Nance are the only RBs on the roster i think guarantees him at least a shot at playing time as soon as he comes back.
I'm not saying they'll cut him. I don't know exactly how the PUP works, but I think they have some short amount of time after the six weeks to make a roster move. Rather than cutting someone to make room on the 53 roster, I think they could IR Starks or try to stash him on the practice squad. He's a rookie who missed all of training camp and preseason after sitting out his senior year in college. I can't imagine the Packers trying to integrate this guy into their offense in the middle of the season. I don't see McCarthy/Thompson sacrificing practice reps and coaches' time for this long of a long-shot. Nor can I imagine them giving him a significant role from scrimmage in a game this year. Therefore, unless he can play special teams, I do think its at best a 50/50 proposition that he makes the active roster. The best scenario is he finds a place on special teams, then maybe gets some carries in a mop-up situation and is able to prove himself. Its highly unlikely, but would be a great story.All that said, I would be very happy if Starks shocked us all and became an impact player this season in the Packer's backfield. I actually grabbed Starks this week in my fantasy league with the hope that I can afford to stash him until next season, when I'll have the whole preseason to determine whether to burn a keeper spot.
i think youre overly pessimistic about starks chances especially considering how thin GB is at RB right now
 
If someone like Samkon Gado can make a short term splash with the Packers then I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt that Starks will play a role with the Packers this season.

 
Because we needed both more hype on Starks and another old Starks thread bumped?

The kid had a nice game...he may prove to be impactful down the stretch...but wow...was this bump really needed?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Because we needed both more hype on Starks and another old Starks thread bumped?The kid had a nice game...he may prove to be impactful down the stretch...but wow...was this bump really needed?
Was this post really needed? :lmao:
Sure...we have had how many Starks threads on the front page the last 2 days that were bumped?Now we have two of the usual suspects who don't seem to have made any real posts on Starks prior to bumping these threads.Whats the point of bumping the thread and not having anything actually to say other than posting :popcorn: to two posts?What was the purpose of doing that?If you want to talk about Starks and going forward...do so...and it would make more sense in the other long thread on him that has been more ongoing...rather than posting icons to bump an old thread.
 
Because we needed both more hype on Starks and another old Starks thread bumped?The kid had a nice game...he may prove to be impactful down the stretch...but wow...was this bump really needed?
Was this post really needed? :lmao:
Sure...we have had how many Starks threads on the front page the last 2 days that were bumped?Now we have two of the usual suspects who don't seem to have made any real posts on Starks prior to bumping these threads.Whats the point of bumping the thread and not having anything actually to say other than posting :popcorn: to two posts?What was the purpose of doing that?If you want to talk about Starks and going forward...do so...and it would make more sense in the other long thread on him that has been more ongoing...rather than posting icons to bump an old thread.
Please contribute to the topic instead of whining. TIA
 
http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/111423284.html

Green Bay — Though James Starks made a good first impression in his NFL debut Sunday, 18 carries weren't enough to gauge exactly how good he is or will become for the Green Bay Packers.

Starks rushed for 73 yards against a team, the San Francisco 49ers, that had no film on him.

On the other hand, when he was on the field the 49ers pretty much knew he was going to get the ball, especially during a clock-eating, 17-play drive late in the game, and he still averaged 4.1 yards per carry.

He didn't fumble, was decisive with his reads, mostly got what he should have gotten and had one nice 16-yard run in which he broke two tackles.

"Well, I'm not ready to put James' plaque up here," said offensive coordinator Joe Philbin. "But he's off to a good start."

What Starks does give the Packers is another option at running back. The 6-foot-2, 218-pound rookie, who was activated Nov. 9 from the physically unable to perform list, joins Brandon Jackson, Dimitri Nance and John Kuhn in a suddenly crowded backfield.

It will be interesting to see how coach Mike McCarthy uses them over the final four weeks of the regular season. Will Starks supplant Jackson, who leads the team with 527 rushing yards, as the No. 1 back? How will Kuhn and Nance be used?

"For the twelve-hundredth time, there really are no depth charts," McCarthy said Monday. "Brandon Jackson has done an excellent job and will continue to do so. . . . I'd really like to get into more of a rotation now that I know I have three halfbacks."

Four, counting Kuhn, who plays a hybrid halfback / fullback role and gets most of his carries in short-yardage situations.

Nance, who suffered a concussion on his only carry against Atlanta, was inactive Sunday.

"Nance, we don't know a lot about yet still," Philbin said. "He hasn't had the same kind of shots. James had 18 carries so that's a good first look. Obviously, we don't know everything about him, either."

It's not as if the Packers have a four-headed monster. Jackson, Kuhn, Nance and Starks have combined for 886 yards, which would rank 11th among individual running backs in the NFL.

But Starks showed how even a modest running game can help open up the passing game for quarterback Aaron Rodgers. McCarthy talks a lot about balance, and the Packers had it in a 410-yard performance Sunday.

"He did a nice job," Philbin said. "I thought, No. 1, he protected the ball very well. Secondly, he ran pretty decisively and pretty hard. Obviously, his reads aren't perfect yet, but for the most part we felt like he got the yards that were there. And he broke a couple tackles."

Starks is a tall back with long legs and tends to run upright. Running backs coach Edgar Bennett has to constantly remind him about his pad level but said Starks was making good progress.

"For the most part I thought he ran with leverage," Bennett said. "He's a big guy and he always falls forward. In the situations where he ended up getting knocked backwards, it was because his pad level was too high."

Said Philbin, "His height is not necessarily a disadvantage for him. There's a couple times when he did a nice job lowering his pads and keeping them down, because the pad level helps protect the football. Obviously, he's not there yet. He still does run a little bit high."

Starks ran mostly out of two- and three-back sets, but Bennett said he could play in any of the Packers' formations. McCarthy said Starks had receiving skills and could catch the ball coming out of the backfield.

"He's an every-down back," Bennett said. "He does have that type of talent where he can stay on the field in every situation."

At the very least, Starks gives opposing defenses something else to think about. Bennett said Starks, Jackson, Nance and Kuhn all "bring something unique to the table."

Said McCarthy, "I don't really want to get into specifics of how we're going to use each one. That's really what the games are for and for our opponents to plan against."

Jackson wound up with just four carries against San Francisco, but he did catch four passes for 63 yards, including a nicely executed 37-yard screen.

Philbin said he was not worried about Jackson's attitude if the running back got fewer chances to carry the ball because of Starks' emergence.

"He's a high-character guy," Philbin said. "He's done everything we've ever asked him to do. He's never been a guy that I know that has complained an awful lot. It wasn't like he was shut out of the game plan, or 'Brandon Jackson, I don't want you touching the football in this game plan.' That certainly wasn't the case at all."

Still, it wouldn't be a surprise to see Starks get the bulk of the carries again against the Detroit Lions on Sunday.

"The kid, he never gave the impression that it was too big," Bennett said. "He was poised. In the pregame warm-up, you saw it in his eyes: You knew this kid was ready to play."

 
Because we needed both more hype on Starks and another old Starks thread bumped?The kid had a nice game...he may prove to be impactful down the stretch...but wow...was this bump really needed?
Was this post really needed? :lmao:
Sure...we have had how many Starks threads on the front page the last 2 days that were bumped?Now we have two of the usual suspects who don't seem to have made any real posts on Starks prior to bumping these threads.Whats the point of bumping the thread and not having anything actually to say other than posting :popcorn: to two posts?What was the purpose of doing that?If you want to talk about Starks and going forward...do so...and it would make more sense in the other long thread on him that has been more ongoing...rather than posting icons to bump an old thread.
Please contribute to the topic instead of whining. TIA
So you think by posting this and then immediately copying and pasting an article is great in this huh?Why is it that you and stinger said little to nothing on Starks in all of these threads until after Sunday and then have come in to bump old threads in this manner?BTW, I was contributing to the board by trying to keep month old topics from being bumped when there is already a 7 page topic on Starks on the 1st page of the board where he has been being discussed since just after the game.It was a simple question as to what was the point of bumping this?
 
Because we needed both more hype on Starks and another old Starks thread bumped?The kid had a nice game...he may prove to be impactful down the stretch...but wow...was this bump really needed?
Was this post really needed? :rolleyes:
Sure...we have had how many Starks threads on the front page the last 2 days that were bumped?Now we have two of the usual suspects who don't seem to have made any real posts on Starks prior to bumping these threads.Whats the point of bumping the thread and not having anything actually to say other than posting :goodposting: to two posts?What was the purpose of doing that?If you want to talk about Starks and going forward...do so...and it would make more sense in the other long thread on him that has been more ongoing...rather than posting icons to bump an old thread.
hes just bitter that he hyped up nance and shot down starks. all knowing packer god sho nuff with a ***** in the armor
 
Because we needed both more hype on Starks and another old Starks thread bumped?The kid had a nice game...he may prove to be impactful down the stretch...but wow...was this bump really needed?
Was this post really needed? :rolleyes:
Sure...we have had how many Starks threads on the front page the last 2 days that were bumped?Now we have two of the usual suspects who don't seem to have made any real posts on Starks prior to bumping these threads.Whats the point of bumping the thread and not having anything actually to say other than posting :goodposting: to two posts?What was the purpose of doing that?If you want to talk about Starks and going forward...do so...and it would make more sense in the other long thread on him that has been more ongoing...rather than posting icons to bump an old thread.
Please contribute to the topic instead of whining. TIA
So you think by posting this and then immediately copying and pasting an article is great in this huh?
Much better than your whining. It's a good article. :thumbup:
 
Because we needed both more hype on Starks and another old Starks thread bumped?The kid had a nice game...he may prove to be impactful down the stretch...but wow...was this bump really needed?
Was this post really needed? :rolleyes:
Sure...we have had how many Starks threads on the front page the last 2 days that were bumped?Now we have two of the usual suspects who don't seem to have made any real posts on Starks prior to bumping these threads.Whats the point of bumping the thread and not having anything actually to say other than posting :goodposting: to two posts?What was the purpose of doing that?If you want to talk about Starks and going forward...do so...and it would make more sense in the other long thread on him that has been more ongoing...rather than posting icons to bump an old thread.
hes just bitter that he hyped up nance and shot down starks. all knowing packer god sho nuff with a ***** in the armor
Who hyped up Nance?I am not all knowing at all, never have claimed to be...but I see we have another who wants to snipe at me now.But can anyone give a good reason to bump this thread given there is a longer one on the front page and another was bumped yesterday?
 
Because we needed both more hype on Starks and another old Starks thread bumped?The kid had a nice game...he may prove to be impactful down the stretch...but wow...was this bump really needed?
Was this post really needed? :rolleyes:
Sure...we have had how many Starks threads on the front page the last 2 days that were bumped?Now we have two of the usual suspects who don't seem to have made any real posts on Starks prior to bumping these threads.Whats the point of bumping the thread and not having anything actually to say other than posting :goodposting: to two posts?What was the purpose of doing that?If you want to talk about Starks and going forward...do so...and it would make more sense in the other long thread on him that has been more ongoing...rather than posting icons to bump an old thread.
hes just bitter that he hyped up nance and shot down starks. all knowing packer god sho nuff with a ***** in the armor
But can anyone give a good reason to bump this thread
Just giving out a few good postings to people but it's even better now that you are in one of your famous meltdowns again. :thumbup:
 
Because we needed both more hype on Starks and another old Starks thread bumped?The kid had a nice game...he may prove to be impactful down the stretch...but wow...was this bump really needed?
Was this post really needed? :rolleyes:
Sure...we have had how many Starks threads on the front page the last 2 days that were bumped?Now we have two of the usual suspects who don't seem to have made any real posts on Starks prior to bumping these threads.Whats the point of bumping the thread and not having anything actually to say other than posting :goodposting: to two posts?What was the purpose of doing that?If you want to talk about Starks and going forward...do so...and it would make more sense in the other long thread on him that has been more ongoing...rather than posting icons to bump an old thread.
hes just bitter that he hyped up nance and shot down starks. all knowing packer god sho nuff with a ***** in the armor
Who hyped up Nance?I am not all knowing at all, never have claimed to be...but I see we have another who wants to snipe at me now.But can anyone give a good reason to bump this thread given there is a longer one on the front page and another was bumped yesterday?
because everyone that got crapped on for liking starks chances are rubbing it in the know-it-alls faces
 
http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/111423284.html

Green Bay — Though James Starks made a good first impression in his NFL debut Sunday, 18 carries weren't enough to gauge exactly how good he is or will become for the Green Bay Packers.

Starks rushed for 73 yards against a team, the San Francisco 49ers, that had no film on him.

On the other hand, when he was on the field the 49ers pretty much knew he was going to get the ball, especially during a clock-eating, 17-play drive late in the game, and he still averaged 4.1 yards per carry.

He didn't fumble, was decisive with his reads, mostly got what he should have gotten and had one nice 16-yard run in which he broke two tackles.

"Well, I'm not ready to put James' plaque up here," said offensive coordinator Joe Philbin. "But he's off to a good start."

What Starks does give the Packers is another option at running back. The 6-foot-2, 218-pound rookie, who was activated Nov. 9 from the physically unable to perform list, joins Brandon Jackson, Dimitri Nance and John Kuhn in a suddenly crowded backfield.

It will be interesting to see how coach Mike McCarthy uses them over the final four weeks of the regular season. Will Starks supplant Jackson, who leads the team with 527 rushing yards, as the No. 1 back? How will Kuhn and Nance be used?

"For the twelve-hundredth time, there really are no depth charts," McCarthy said Monday. "Brandon Jackson has done an excellent job and will continue to do so. . . . I'd really like to get into more of a rotation now that I know I have three halfbacks."

Four, counting Kuhn, who plays a hybrid halfback / fullback role and gets most of his carries in short-yardage situations.

Nance, who suffered a concussion on his only carry against Atlanta, was inactive Sunday.

"Nance, we don't know a lot about yet still," Philbin said. "He hasn't had the same kind of shots. James had 18 carries so that's a good first look. Obviously, we don't know everything about him, either."

It's not as if the Packers have a four-headed monster. Jackson, Kuhn, Nance and Starks have combined for 886 yards, which would rank 11th among individual running backs in the NFL.

But Starks showed how even a modest running game can help open up the passing game for quarterback Aaron Rodgers. McCarthy talks a lot about balance, and the Packers had it in a 410-yard performance Sunday.

"He did a nice job," Philbin said. "I thought, No. 1, he protected the ball very well. Secondly, he ran pretty decisively and pretty hard. Obviously, his reads aren't perfect yet, but for the most part we felt like he got the yards that were there. And he broke a couple tackles."

Starks is a tall back with long legs and tends to run upright. Running backs coach Edgar Bennett has to constantly remind him about his pad level but said Starks was making good progress.

"For the most part I thought he ran with leverage," Bennett said. "He's a big guy and he always falls forward. In the situations where he ended up getting knocked backwards, it was because his pad level was too high."

Said Philbin, "His height is not necessarily a disadvantage for him. There's a couple times when he did a nice job lowering his pads and keeping them down, because the pad level helps protect the football. Obviously, he's not there yet. He still does run a little bit high."

Starks ran mostly out of two- and three-back sets, but Bennett said he could play in any of the Packers' formations. McCarthy said Starks had receiving skills and could catch the ball coming out of the backfield.

"He's an every-down back," Bennett said. "He does have that type of talent where he can stay on the field in every situation."

At the very least, Starks gives opposing defenses something else to think about. Bennett said Starks, Jackson, Nance and Kuhn all "bring something unique to the table."

Said McCarthy, "I don't really want to get into specifics of how we're going to use each one. That's really what the games are for and for our opponents to plan against."

Jackson wound up with just four carries against San Francisco, but he did catch four passes for 63 yards, including a nicely executed 37-yard screen.

Philbin said he was not worried about Jackson's attitude if the running back got fewer chances to carry the ball because of Starks' emergence.

"He's a high-character guy," Philbin said. "He's done everything we've ever asked him to do. He's never been a guy that I know that has complained an awful lot. It wasn't like he was shut out of the game plan, or 'Brandon Jackson, I don't want you touching the football in this game plan.' That certainly wasn't the case at all."

Still, it wouldn't be a surprise to see Starks get the bulk of the carries again against the Detroit Lions on Sunday.

"The kid, he never gave the impression that it was too big," Bennett said. "He was poised. In the pregame warm-up, you saw it in his eyes: You knew this kid was ready to play."
Thanks for posting this. Good read on Starks. He seems to have a lot of positives about him. :goodposting:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just giving out a few good postings to people but it's even better now that you are in one of your famous meltdowns again. :goodposting:
I think its cute that you feel important enough that you would cause any meltdown.Posting a lot to point out the pointless nature of your posts is not a meltdown.Now, do you actually have any opinion on Starks?
 
because everyone that got crapped on for liking starks chances are rubbing it in the know-it-alls faces
ahh...nice mature attitude you all have.BTW...most did not "crap on" those who liked Starks. There is reason to like him. There were also big reasons for doubting what he would be able to contribute this year.
 
http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/111423284.html

Green Bay — Though James Starks made a good first impression in his NFL debut Sunday, 18 carries weren't enough to gauge exactly how good he is or will become for the Green Bay Packers.

Starks rushed for 73 yards against a team, the San Francisco 49ers, that had no film on him.

On the other hand, when he was on the field the 49ers pretty much knew he was going to get the ball, especially during a clock-eating, 17-play drive late in the game, and he still averaged 4.1 yards per carry.

He didn't fumble, was decisive with his reads, mostly got what he should have gotten and had one nice 16-yard run in which he broke two tackles.

"Well, I'm not ready to put James' plaque up here," said offensive coordinator Joe Philbin. "But he's off to a good start."

What Starks does give the Packers is another option at running back. The 6-foot-2, 218-pound rookie, who was activated Nov. 9 from the physically unable to perform list, joins Brandon Jackson, Dimitri Nance and John Kuhn in a suddenly crowded backfield.

It will be interesting to see how coach Mike McCarthy uses them over the final four weeks of the regular season. Will Starks supplant Jackson, who leads the team with 527 rushing yards, as the No. 1 back? How will Kuhn and Nance be used?

"For the twelve-hundredth time, there really are no depth charts," McCarthy said Monday. "Brandon Jackson has done an excellent job and will continue to do so. . . . I'd really like to get into more of a rotation now that I know I have three halfbacks."

Four, counting Kuhn, who plays a hybrid halfback / fullback role and gets most of his carries in short-yardage situations.

Nance, who suffered a concussion on his only carry against Atlanta, was inactive Sunday.

"Nance, we don't know a lot about yet still," Philbin said. "He hasn't had the same kind of shots. James had 18 carries so that's a good first look. Obviously, we don't know everything about him, either."

It's not as if the Packers have a four-headed monster. Jackson, Kuhn, Nance and Starks have combined for 886 yards, which would rank 11th among individual running backs in the NFL.

But Starks showed how even a modest running game can help open up the passing game for quarterback Aaron Rodgers. McCarthy talks a lot about balance, and the Packers had it in a 410-yard performance Sunday.

"He did a nice job," Philbin said. "I thought, No. 1, he protected the ball very well. Secondly, he ran pretty decisively and pretty hard. Obviously, his reads aren't perfect yet, but for the most part we felt like he got the yards that were there. And he broke a couple tackles."

Starks is a tall back with long legs and tends to run upright. Running backs coach Edgar Bennett has to constantly remind him about his pad level but said Starks was making good progress.

"For the most part I thought he ran with leverage," Bennett said. "He's a big guy and he always falls forward. In the situations where he ended up getting knocked backwards, it was because his pad level was too high."

Said Philbin, "His height is not necessarily a disadvantage for him. There's a couple times when he did a nice job lowering his pads and keeping them down, because the pad level helps protect the football. Obviously, he's not there yet. He still does run a little bit high."

Starks ran mostly out of two- and three-back sets, but Bennett said he could play in any of the Packers' formations. McCarthy said Starks had receiving skills and could catch the ball coming out of the backfield.

"He's an every-down back," Bennett said. "He does have that type of talent where he can stay on the field in every situation."

At the very least, Starks gives opposing defenses something else to think about. Bennett said Starks, Jackson, Nance and Kuhn all "bring something unique to the table."

Said McCarthy, "I don't really want to get into specifics of how we're going to use each one. That's really what the games are for and for our opponents to plan against."

Jackson wound up with just four carries against San Francisco, but he did catch four passes for 63 yards, including a nicely executed 37-yard screen.

Philbin said he was not worried about Jackson's attitude if the running back got fewer chances to carry the ball because of Starks' emergence.

"He's a high-character guy," Philbin said. "He's done everything we've ever asked him to do. He's never been a guy that I know that has complained an awful lot. It wasn't like he was shut out of the game plan, or 'Brandon Jackson, I don't want you touching the football in this game plan.' That certainly wasn't the case at all."

Still, it wouldn't be a surprise to see Starks get the bulk of the carries again against the Detroit Lions on Sunday.

"The kid, he never gave the impression that it was too big," Bennett said. "He was poised. In the pregame warm-up, you saw it in his eyes: You knew this kid was ready to play."
Thanks for posting this. Good read on Starks. He seems to have a lot of postitives about him. :cry:
But still too hard to tell if he will have any fantasy value next couple weeks.
 
http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/111423284.html

Green Bay — Though James Starks made a good first impression in his NFL debut Sunday, 18 carries weren't enough to gauge exactly how good he is or will become for the Green Bay Packers.

Starks rushed for 73 yards against a team, the San Francisco 49ers, that had no film on him.

On the other hand, when he was on the field the 49ers pretty much knew he was going to get the ball, especially during a clock-eating, 17-play drive late in the game, and he still averaged 4.1 yards per carry.

He didn't fumble, was decisive with his reads, mostly got what he should have gotten and had one nice 16-yard run in which he broke two tackles.

"Well, I'm not ready to put James' plaque up here," said offensive coordinator Joe Philbin. "But he's off to a good start."

What Starks does give the Packers is another option at running back. The 6-foot-2, 218-pound rookie, who was activated Nov. 9 from the physically unable to perform list, joins Brandon Jackson, Dimitri Nance and John Kuhn in a suddenly crowded backfield.

It will be interesting to see how coach Mike McCarthy uses them over the final four weeks of the regular season. Will Starks supplant Jackson, who leads the team with 527 rushing yards, as the No. 1 back? How will Kuhn and Nance be used?

"For the twelve-hundredth time, there really are no depth charts," McCarthy said Monday. "Brandon Jackson has done an excellent job and will continue to do so. . . . I'd really like to get into more of a rotation now that I know I have three halfbacks."

Four, counting Kuhn, who plays a hybrid halfback / fullback role and gets most of his carries in short-yardage situations.

Nance, who suffered a concussion on his only carry against Atlanta, was inactive Sunday.

"Nance, we don't know a lot about yet still," Philbin said. "He hasn't had the same kind of shots. James had 18 carries so that's a good first look. Obviously, we don't know everything about him, either."

It's not as if the Packers have a four-headed monster. Jackson, Kuhn, Nance and Starks have combined for 886 yards, which would rank 11th among individual running backs in the NFL.

But Starks showed how even a modest running game can help open up the passing game for quarterback Aaron Rodgers. McCarthy talks a lot about balance, and the Packers had it in a 410-yard performance Sunday.

"He did a nice job," Philbin said. "I thought, No. 1, he protected the ball very well. Secondly, he ran pretty decisively and pretty hard. Obviously, his reads aren't perfect yet, but for the most part we felt like he got the yards that were there. And he broke a couple tackles."

Starks is a tall back with long legs and tends to run upright. Running backs coach Edgar Bennett has to constantly remind him about his pad level but said Starks was making good progress.

"For the most part I thought he ran with leverage," Bennett said. "He's a big guy and he always falls forward. In the situations where he ended up getting knocked backwards, it was because his pad level was too high."

Said Philbin, "His height is not necessarily a disadvantage for him. There's a couple times when he did a nice job lowering his pads and keeping them down, because the pad level helps protect the football. Obviously, he's not there yet. He still does run a little bit high."

Starks ran mostly out of two- and three-back sets, but Bennett said he could play in any of the Packers' formations. McCarthy said Starks had receiving skills and could catch the ball coming out of the backfield.

"He's an every-down back," Bennett said. "He does have that type of talent where he can stay on the field in every situation."

At the very least, Starks gives opposing defenses something else to think about. Bennett said Starks, Jackson, Nance and Kuhn all "bring something unique to the table."

Said McCarthy, "I don't really want to get into specifics of how we're going to use each one. That's really what the games are for and for our opponents to plan against."

Jackson wound up with just four carries against San Francisco, but he did catch four passes for 63 yards, including a nicely executed 37-yard screen.

Philbin said he was not worried about Jackson's attitude if the running back got fewer chances to carry the ball because of Starks' emergence.

"He's a high-character guy," Philbin said. "He's done everything we've ever asked him to do. He's never been a guy that I know that has complained an awful lot. It wasn't like he was shut out of the game plan, or 'Brandon Jackson, I don't want you touching the football in this game plan.' That certainly wasn't the case at all."

Still, it wouldn't be a surprise to see Starks get the bulk of the carries again against the Detroit Lions on Sunday.

"The kid, he never gave the impression that it was too big," Bennett said. "He was poised. In the pregame warm-up, you saw it in his eyes: You knew this kid was ready to play."
Thanks for posting this. Good read on Starks. He seems to have a lot of postitives about him. :cry:
But still too hard to tell if he will have any fantasy value next couple weeks.
As the article stated I think Starks will see the bulk of the carries against the Lions. The problem is what will McCarthy do with his playcalling and the running game. I won't be surprised to see Starks as the starter next year for the Packers.
 
Just giving out a few good postings to people but it's even better now that you are in one of your famous meltdowns again. :thumbup:
Now, do you actually have any opinion on Starks?
Already posted it above. :rolleyes:
"he seems to have a lot of positives"Thats all you have to say after the bumping and posting over the last 2 days?Wow...you sure do contribute a lot to these threads.BTW, in the long Starks thread I posed a question. Would be interested if you and Beaver have any opinions of your own on Starks and the RB situation.
 
Just giving out a few good postings to people but it's even better now that you are in one of your famous meltdowns again. :thumbup:
Now, do you actually have any opinion on Starks?
Already posted it above. :rolleyes:
"he seems to have a lot of positives"Thats all you have to say after the bumping and posting over the last 2 days?Wow...you sure do contribute a lot to these threads.BTW, in the long Starks thread I posed a question. Would be interested if you and Beaver have any opinions of your own on Starks and the RB situation.
You have some serious issues.
 
Just giving out a few good postings to people but it's even better now that you are in one of your famous meltdowns again. :thumbup:
Now, do you actually have any opinion on Starks?
Already posted it above. :rolleyes:
"he seems to have a lot of positives"Thats all you have to say after the bumping and posting over the last 2 days?Wow...you sure do contribute a lot to these threads.BTW, in the long Starks thread I posed a question. Would be interested if you and Beaver have any opinions of your own on Starks and the RB situation.
You have some serious issues.
I may...just wondering if you have posted any more than that as far as an opinion on Starks.And the question still remains in that other thread...
 
Just giving out a few good postings to people but it's even better now that you are in one of your famous meltdowns again. :thumbup:
Now, do you actually have any opinion on Starks?
Already posted it above. :rolleyes:
"he seems to have a lot of positives"Thats all you have to say after the bumping and posting over the last 2 days?Wow...you sure do contribute a lot to these threads.
That is a hell of a lot more than you are contributing to this thread. You really need to chill out.
 
As the article stated I think Starks will see the bulk of the carries against the Lions. The problem is what will McCarthy do with his playcalling and the running game. I won't be surprised to see Starks as the starter next year for the Packers.
Agreed. I don't think that Grant will be with the Packers next year and Thompson will add another RB through the draft.
 
Just giving out a few good postings to people but it's even better now that you are in one of your famous meltdowns again. :thumbup:
Now, do you actually have any opinion on Starks?
Already posted it above. :rolleyes:
"he seems to have a lot of positives"Thats all you have to say after the bumping and posting over the last 2 days?Wow...you sure do contribute a lot to these threads.
That is a hell of a lot more than you are contributing to this thread. You really need to chill out.
I think my point was there is a whole 7 page thread on Starks.Then a poster who has little to nothing posted as far as an opinion on Starks bumps this thread (with 2 others on the first 2 or 3 pages of the board already going) and bumps it with icons and still no real opinion on him.As far as chilling out...seems a few of you need to do so...as usual, I am remaining quite calm and civil despite the posting of a few of you.
 
As the article stated I think Starks will see the bulk of the carries against the Lions. The problem is what will McCarthy do with his playcalling and the running game. I won't be surprised to see Starks as the starter next year for the Packers.
Agreed. I don't think that Grant will be with the Packers next year and Thompson will add another RB through the draft.
Do you think the injury is that bad for Grant?I think he is due to make 3.5 million next year. I don't think thats too high of a number if his rehab has been going well (another topic right there is has anyone heard anything about him and his rehab?).If they do let Grant go (likely before the March bonus?) they better use a pretty high pick on a RB. I am not comfortable going into the year at this point (could change if Starks shines) with Starks, Nance, and Jackson as our RBs.
 
I think my point was there is a whole 7 page thread on Starks.

Then a poster who has little to nothing posted as far as an opinion on Starks bumps this thread (with 2 others on the first 2 or 3 pages of the board already going) and bumps it with icons and still no real opinion on him.As far as chilling out...seems a few of you need to do so...as usual, I am remaining quite calm and civil despite the posting of a few of you.
He did post an opinion on him. Get off your high horse and start contributing football talk.
 
Id take as much stock in this as them saying they were happy with Jackson and thought he could be an every down back.

 
Even on ignore you ruin every single Packer thread. Never have I encountered anyone so enamored of their own voice. It's not others, its you. Even when correct you are not right. You are unwelcome, like a bloodsucker on the scrotum.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think my point was there is a whole 7 page thread on Starks.

Then a poster who has little to nothing posted as far as an opinion on Starks bumps this thread (with 2 others on the first 2 or 3 pages of the board already going) and bumps it with icons and still no real opinion on him.As far as chilling out...seems a few of you need to do so...as usual, I am remaining quite calm and civil despite the posting of a few of you.
He did post an opinion on him. Get off your high horse and start contributing football talk.
He posted on line at the time...that from 3 different threads.and I have been contributing quite a bit in both threads...yet still responding to the same old crap.

Do you care to contribute at all?

 
Even on ignore you ruin every single Packer thread. Never have I encountered anyone so enamored of their own voice. it's not others, its you. Even when correct you are not right. You are unwelcome, like a bloodsucker on the scrotum.
Thanks to someone who ignores me yet feels the need to bash.Is it me? Do you seriously think me posting my opinion ruins these threads?Or is it the constant sniping my way that I respond to that does it?EDIT: No, I am not completely innocent in all of this...but I think its obvious to anyone who steps back and is honest that there are several people on this board who will bash me no matter what I say. My problem is being dumb enough to keep responding to these type of people.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think my point was there is a whole 7 page thread on Starks.

Then a poster who has little to nothing posted as far as an opinion on Starks bumps this thread (with 2 others on the first 2 or 3 pages of the board already going) and bumps it with icons and still no real opinion on him.As far as chilling out...seems a few of you need to do so...as usual, I am remaining quite calm and civil despite the posting of a few of you.
He did post an opinion on him. Get off your high horse and start contributing football talk.
He posted on line at the time...that from 3 different threads.and I have been contributing quite a bit in both threads...yet still responding to the same old crap.

Do you care to contribute at all?
:thumbup:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top