RIP Ryan Grant (1 Viewer)

[massraider]

Fantasy-wise I don't feel good about either as a consistent starter in 2011.

Neither do I. Maybe a nice bye week flex kind of thing. I am a dynasty/keeper guy, and what I saw tonight made me feel a lot better about Starks. I own him in two leagues, and was cautiously optimistic. I think any dynasty Starks owner that grabbed him late, or as a 2nd or 3rd round rookie pick, was hoping the Pack wouldn't give Grant the bonus, and Starks would be the guy or 1A or a RBBC. It didn't happen, and I kind of pulled the reins in on my hopes. We didn't see a ton of him, he was banged up a little, and let's be honest, he was only a 6th rounder. He showed a little flash, but not world-beater stuff. So I was hopeful, but I try and tap the brakes on guys that I perceive as having an opportunity, because that opportunity can just as easily go to a more talented guy that isn't on the roster yet.

But what we know for sure is that he is part of this offense, and what I think I saw tonight was a more explosive back (it's only one game, it's only one game). I fell like Grant is not done, but he's close. He was never special, and I feel now that given the same hole, Starks will get more. If he can do all the little things a veteran is expected to do, in the future, he'll get the lions share. Question is, when does the future come? Even without it, if he gets 12 touches, he'll do more with those than Grant would with 15. And that's the name of the game in fantasy.

I could easily see the Pack sticking with a 50/50 rotation all year, as that is maybe the best thing for the team, not for our fantasy rosters. But 2012? I could see the Pack waving bye-bye to Grant, and giving Starks 60+ percent of the work. I think he's a major buy in dynasty, in the hopes that you are sitting on the workhorse back for a powerful offense.

Wild guess, his redraft ADP doesn't fall below 36 next year.

 

[moderated]

Starks will be getting a big bump in my next rankings update. It looks to me like the writing is on the wall.

The writing is on the wall. Starks will be the feature rb in gb barring injury.

 

[BroncoFreak_2K3]

Starks did enough and was in enough tonight in key situations to now consider him as a RB2-3 for me.

 

[pantherclub]

I was entirely wrong about this situation. I admit it. I thought the Packers would go with the vet regardless of the down. Its probably not safe to start either of these dudes until someone goes down. I thought Grant looked great early on last night so that made Starks percentage of play that more confusing. Starks has a different style that looks to attract contact so maybe that is what the coaches were going for.

I was wrong no problem admitting it.

Still though both backs looked good but its probably a fantasy nightmare for the time being especially with Kuhn potentially stealing TD's.

 

[nysportsfan]

Are people serious in here? Starks is obviously the guy. Grant will get his carries for sure, but the multi-purpose guy is Starks. He is in there on almost every passing down. And, the Pack passes a lot.

I think this is how I feel as a Grant owner. However, I did not see Starks get very many touches at all, despite being on the field much more.Starks has a bit more value than Grant, so it seems at this point. The only way one of them become a SOD is injury to the other, IMO.

 

[Banger]

What Grant/rbbc supporters have to remember is that this was game 1 and Starks out touched Grant. I thought that Starks wod have a role but didn't anticpate it to be so big and didn't think he'd get the crunch time carries in game 1. They came out with a heavy dose of tbe vet but to me it seemed like after the 1st qtr it was all Starks Ya, he may have missed a blitz pickup or blown a play but they kept him out there when it counted most.

Grant isn't going to totally go away but I could easily see this being a d. Williams / j Stewart situation where Starks is D Williams but on a great offense.

 

[qimqam]

I think that if Starks could pass block as reliably as Grant, he'd get the majority of the touches. As it stands, he can't, and that muddles things even on passing downs.

Starks was in on just about every passing play and blocked very well

 

[Football Jones]

This isn't close, IMO. Starks is the 3rd down back (& a very good one) & also an outstanding short yardage back. The dude is a tough-running slasher. If he isn't already, Starks will be their feature back. That's not a knock on Grant. Starks is just a helluva RB.

He looked good as a rookie & is getting better. Starks is well on his way to being one of the best all-around RBs in the NFL.

 

[TheDirtyWord]

Too early to tell how this situation will shake out this year but I would say this fell in line with expectations, no?

Close to a 50/50 split...this week Starks got the TD. Don't think Starks put up his first yards until 2nd quarter...and while Starks looked the better of the two this night, it wasn't eons better.

 

[smackdaddies]

I think that if Starks could pass block as reliably as Grant, he'd get the majority of the touches. As it stands, he can't, and that muddles things even on passing downs.

Starks was in on just about every passing play and blocked very well

especially near the end of the game when Rodgers got hit killing the drive

 

[Raiderfan32904]

I'm kicking myself for not taking Starks in my money drafts. I just knew Grant was gonna be a bust. I said as much in Grant's spotlight thread. If I could only follow my own @!$#@!# advice.

At least I got Starks in the Survivor league.

 

[cr8f]

I think that if Starks could pass block as reliably as Grant, he'd get the majority of the touches. As it stands, he can't, and that muddles things even on passing downs.

Starks was in on just about every passing play and blocked very well

especially near the end of the game when Rodgers got hit killing the drive

He'll get better. They miss Jackson's blocking but Starks isn't the only one missing assignments-look at the o line. He won't make that mistake(fake handoff) next time.

 

[Wadsworth]

Starks is much better, more explosive back. Grant is plodding and pedestrian and they have Starks in there to ice the game. Congrats to the Starks owners and condolences to the Grant owners.

RIP Mark Ingram. Pierre Thomas is much better, more explosive back. Ingram is plodding and pedestrian and they have Pierre Thomas in the passing game as well. Congrats to the Pierre Thomas owners and condolences to the Ingram owners.

 

[Banger]

Starks is much better, more explosive back. Grant is plodding and pedestrian and they have Starks in there to ice the game. Congrats to the Starks owners and condolences to the Grant owners.

RIP Mark Ingram. Pierre Thomas is much better, more explosive back. Ingram is plodding and pedestrian and they have Pierre Thomas in the passing game as well. Congrats to the Pierre Thomas owners and condolences to the Ingram owners.

xIngram >>> Thomas and Starks >> Grant over the course of the year. It's all about touches. Ingram got a bunch of touches in his 1st NFL game against a tough D playing from down nearly 10 points the whole game and he still got 13 carries. Ingram will be just fine....Grant, not so much.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

Starks is much better, more explosive back. Grant is plodding and pedestrian and they have Starks in there to ice the game. Congrats to the Starks owners and condolences to the Grant owners.

RIP Mark Ingram. Pierre Thomas is much better, more explosive back. Ingram is plodding and pedestrian and they have Pierre Thomas in the passing game as well. Congrats to the Pierre Thomas owners and condolences to the Ingram owners.

Uh...thanks for your congratulations and pity, I guess. Signed: Owner of both Ingram/PT Reality is Ingram will put this game behind him and learn from it. The distribution and carries, especially on the GL and when the game was on the line tells you how much of a man-crush Payton has on Ingram. The DL of the Packers just owned the Saints OL last night when it mattered most. The Saints won't always be facing the Packers.

 

[Wadsworth]

Starks is much better, more explosive back. Grant is plodding and pedestrian and they have Starks in there to ice the game. Congrats to the Starks owners and condolences to the Grant owners.

RIP Mark Ingram. Pierre Thomas is much better, more explosive back. Ingram is plodding and pedestrian and they have Pierre Thomas in the passing game as well. Congrats to the Pierre Thomas owners and condolences to the Ingram owners.

Uh...thanks for your congratulations and pity, I guess. Signed: Owner of both Ingram/PT Reality is Ingram will put this game behind him and learn from it. The distribution and carries, especially on the GL and when the game was on the line tells you how much of a man-crush Payton has on Ingram. The DL of the Packers just owned the Saints OL last night when it mattered most. The Saints won't always be facing the Packers.

Of course. It would be silly to overreact to one game.

 

[ready5]

i'll believe the starks hype when the dude learns how to block.

that's aaron rodgers back there. you don't let him get sacked.

 

[DocHolliday]

i'll believe the starks hype when the dude learns how to block.that's aaron rodgers back there. you don't let him get sacked.

Good point. I avoided the GB RBs for a reason. At least I got that right so far this season. Looks like a 50/50 split which means neither has much value to me.

 

[Debeucci]

Does Ingram remind anyone of a certain Cedric Benson? Plodding bulldozer that will average about 3.5 ypc for his career?

And that's from a Ingram owner

 

[Wolfpacker]

i'll believe the starks hype when the dude learns how to block.that's aaron rodgers back there. you don't let him get sacked.

I may be in the minority here, but I don't think Starks should get all the blame for that sack. It looked to me like there was no way any RB could have blocked that blitz. By the time Rodgers faked the handoff (to his right to Starks), the blitzing player was untouched at the line and already on top of Rodgers from behind. Rodgers was actually between Starks and the blitzing player.

 

[Manster]

Neither Grant nor Starks is special at all. The offense is so prolific, however, and defenses will leave huge gaps for runners due to having to key on stopping the pass, so that any runner who plays for the Packers will usually look good. I took a flyer on Alex Green in a keeper league, hoping that between the mediocrity of both the guys in front of him and their injury histories, he might get a chance.

this is what i saw. whoever's in the backfield has value. RBBC to keep them healthy.i'm kickin myself for not gettting nelson in any leagues.

 

[Manster]

Does Ingram remind anyone of a certain Cedric Benson? Plodding bulldozer that will average about 3.5 ypc for his career? And that's from a Ingram owner

No. he's got way more wiggle than Benson.there was not much running room for the saints.Ingram will a workhorse, imo.

 

[qimqam]

i'll believe the starks hype when the dude learns how to block.that's aaron rodgers back there. you don't let him get sacked.

Good point. I avoided the GB RBs for a reason. At least I got that right so far this season. Looks like a 50/50 split which means neither has much value to me.

You avoided the RBs on the best offense in the NFL? That's brilliant!I foolishly drafted starks and got a measly 60yds @ 5 per carry and a TD ... What was I thinking By the way ... Did you avoid all of the receivers to? because they have to many weapons.

 

[Sam Quentin]

Starks "looked" good, but at the end of the day, where are the yards?

He gets a 17 yard TD against a bunch of DBs, but outside that he's getting less yards than te "slow" "plodding" "lost a step" Grant...

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Grant looked much better tonight than expected, I would not say RIP Grant at all. Yes, Starks had that nice TD run but Grant would have had it too, the blocking was amazing on that play.

Either way, neither Grant nor Starks should be your #1 or your #2, as it is going to be RBBC on a passing-focused offense. Even the receivers get so spread around (WRBC?) other than Jennings it is hard to roster another. I can see both Grant and Starks finishing less than top 20 this year (or right around there). They aren't going to win you a league.

Rodgers might be the only true fantasy stud on this amazing offense.

That's just a stupid thing to say ... That was a great run by Starks, he ran hard and broke tackles.

He also had the vision to see a great cut back lane and take it.

 

[smackdaddies]

i'll believe the starks hype when the dude learns how to block.that's aaron rodgers back there. you don't let him get sacked.

I may be in the minority here, but I don't think Starks should get all the blame for that sack. It looked to me like there was no way any RB could have blocked that blitz. By the time Rodgers faked the handoff (to his right to Starks), the blitzing player was untouched at the line and already on top of Rodgers from behind. Rodgers was actually between Starks and the blitzing player.

It is the RB job on that play to break off the fake and make the blitz pick up. And Rodgers was not between starks and the Blitzer.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I think that if Starks could pass block as reliably as Grant, he'd get the majority of the touches. As it stands, he can't, and that muddles things even on passing downs.

Starks was in on just about every passing play and blocked very well

especially near the end of the game when Rodgers got hit killing the drive

Didn't the defensive player blow by him as he as "taking" the fake handoff? - it really would have been tough for any RB to have recovered in time on that one.

 

[Banger]

Starks "looked" good, but at the end of the day, where are the yards?He gets a 17 yard TD against a bunch of DBs, but outside that he's getting less yards than te "slow" "plodding" "lost a step" Grant...

huh? so we are going to take away a 17 yard nice TD run? why because he ran over some DBs (I actually want my RB to do that)? ok, let's take away Starks 17 yard run and Grants 10 yard run so Grant would have 30 yards and Starks would have 40 yards, so Starks still ran for 33% more yards it's one game and it's about touches and situation that he's being used in.

 

[smackdaddies]

Starks "looked" good, but at the end of the day, where are the yards?He gets a 17 yard TD against a bunch of DBs, but outside that he's getting less yards than te "slow" "plodding" "lost a step" Grant...

That was a nice 17 yard run. Good cuts, bounce of would be tackles, powered it in. So what if the rest of the time he looked the same as Grant? Most RB get just a couple of yards a play, then break a run off.The issue to me (other than blitz pick up) is that look at the stats -Starks/Grant/Kuhns combined for 100 yards and two tds. That is perfect in the Packers view - they have no need or desire to pick one when they have three.Plus, Kuhns actually had more recepts than Starks and Grant was the same as starks

 

[pollardsvision]

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

I avoided this situation on draft day, but obviously, Starks is the guy I'd rather own right now. Grant looked good. Starks looked better.

The question is, if both look good, what do the Packers do?

They gave Grant back to back seasons of 280+ carries. Other than the 2010 reg. season, in the McCarthy era, there's always been a clear primary RB.

This year feels like uncharted territory though. They haven't had 2 backs of the quality of Starks and Grant before.

They looked great last night using both backs. Smart teams use multiple backs, lest they end up having to ask one to take a pay cut or be released.

You guys think McCarthy want's a relative bell cow, or has he learned his lesson yet?

I honestly have no idea.

 

[Banger]

Starks "looked" good, but at the end of the day, where are the yards?He gets a 17 yard TD against a bunch of DBs, but outside that he's getting less yards than te "slow" "plodding" "lost a step" Grant...

That was a nice 17 yard run. Good cuts, bounce of would be tackles, powered it in. So what if the rest of the time he looked the same as Grant? Most RB get just a couple of yards a play, then break a run off.The issue to me (other than blitz pick up) is that look at the stats -Starks/Grant/Kuhns combined for 100 yards and two tds. That is perfect in the Packers view - they have no need or desire to pick one when they have three.Plus, Kuhns actually had more recepts than Starks and Grant was the same as starks

3? cmon Kuhns will be lucky to get 3 touches per game.

 

[Wadsworth]

I think that if Starks could pass block as reliably as Grant, he'd get the majority of the touches. As it stands, he can't, and that muddles things even on passing downs.

Starks was in on just about every passing play and blocked very well

especially near the end of the game when Rodgers got hit killing the drive

Didn't the defensive player blow by him as he as "taking" the fake handoff? - it really would have been tough for any RB to have recovered in time on that one.

I don't know how the Packer coaches teach that situation, but it is not uncommon to instruct the RB to ignore the play action and go straight to the blitz pick up if there is a defender running free like that. Either way, if Starks made a mistake it was a mental mistake in an uncommon situation which should be easy to correct.

 

[smackdaddies]

I think that if Starks could pass block as reliably as Grant, he'd get the majority of the touches. As it stands, he can't, and that muddles things even on passing downs.

Starks was in on just about every passing play and blocked very well

especially near the end of the game when Rodgers got hit killing the drive

Didn't the defensive player blow by him as he as "taking" the fake handoff? - it really would have been tough for any RB to have recovered in time on that one.

The RB breaks off the fake to make the block. That's what they are taught. Starks just doesnt see the field well enough (yet) to do that

 

[sho nuff]

The issue to me (other than blitz pick up) is that look at the stats -Starks/Grant/Kuhns combined for 100 yards and two tds. That is perfect in the Packers view - they have no need or desire to pick one when they have three.

Why would they change anything?They got good production...and it will likely continue to be that type of split.

 

[smackdaddies]

Starks "looked" good, but at the end of the day, where are the yards?He gets a 17 yard TD against a bunch of DBs, but outside that he's getting less yards than te "slow" "plodding" "lost a step" Grant...

That was a nice 17 yard run. Good cuts, bounce of would be tackles, powered it in. So what if the rest of the time he looked the same as Grant? Most RB get just a couple of yards a play, then break a run off.The issue to me (other than blitz pick up) is that look at the stats -Starks/Grant/Kuhns combined for 100 yards and two tds. That is perfect in the Packers view - they have no need or desire to pick one when they have three.Plus, Kuhns actually had more recepts than Starks and Grant was the same as starks

3? cmon Kuhns will be lucky to get 3 touches per game.

yet he got a TD (he got 4 last year). They signed Kuhns to a big contract and kept him as the only true full back. My point is the Packers don't care about fantasy stats. They care about running their offense. And Kuhns will pull touchs, recpts and TD's from Starks/Grant.

 

[degenerate]

i'll believe the starks hype when the dude learns how to block.that's aaron rodgers back there. you don't let him get sacked.

Good point. I avoided the GB RBs for a reason. At least I got that right so far this season. Looks like a 50/50 split which means neither has much value to me.

for those that are simply writing this off as a 50/50 share all season need to realize this was the first game and the plan going in was 50/50. what wins you leagues (other than getting lucky) is being able to reasonably see how things will shake out over the course of the year and getting those value picks BEFORE they break out. while grant could certainly be involved each game like last night, i think the more likely outcome is this becoming starks' backfield with grant sprinkled in. i see starks becoming a great rb2 that was drafted super cheap. people need to stop coming to such quick conclusions. take a nice cheap gamble on a great offense? i'll take that potential as my rb4 all day.

 

[Sam Quentin]

Starks "looked" good, but at the end of the day, where are the yards?He gets a 17 yard TD against a bunch of DBs, but outside that he's getting less yards than te "slow" "plodding" "lost a step" Grant...

That was a nice 17 yard run. Good cuts, bounce of would be tackles, powered it in. So what if the rest of the time he looked the same as Grant? Most RB get just a couple of yards a play, then break a run off.The issue to me (other than blitz pick up) is that look at the stats -Starks/Grant/Kuhns combined for 100 yards and two tds. That is perfect in the Packers view - they have no need or desire to pick one when they have three.Plus, Kuhns actually had more recepts than Starks and Grant was the same as starks

Not taking it away, just saying it was a unique situation.For all of this extra "explosiveness" where's the extra production?

 

[Banger]

Starks "looked" good, but at the end of the day, where are the yards?He gets a 17 yard TD against a bunch of DBs, but outside that he's getting less yards than te "slow" "plodding" "lost a step" Grant...

That was a nice 17 yard run. Good cuts, bounce of would be tackles, powered it in. So what if the rest of the time he looked the same as Grant? Most RB get just a couple of yards a play, then break a run off.The issue to me (other than blitz pick up) is that look at the stats -Starks/Grant/Kuhns combined for 100 yards and two tds. That is perfect in the Packers view - they have no need or desire to pick one when they have three.Plus, Kuhns actually had more recepts than Starks and Grant was the same as starks

3? cmon Kuhns will be lucky to get 3 touches per game.

yet he got a TD (he got 4 last year). They signed Kuhns to a big contract and kept him as the only true full back. My point is the Packers don't care about fantasy stats. They care about running their offense. And Kuhns will pull touchs, recpts and TD's from Starks/Grant.

every single team in the league has a 3rd back or FB that will get the odd touch here or there. Kuhn is a non-factor at the end of the day when it comes to dividing the pie.

 

[Banger]

Starks "looked" good, but at the end of the day, where are the yards?He gets a 17 yard TD against a bunch of DBs, but outside that he's getting less yards than te "slow" "plodding" "lost a step" Grant...

That was a nice 17 yard run. Good cuts, bounce of would be tackles, powered it in. So what if the rest of the time he looked the same as Grant? Most RB get just a couple of yards a play, then break a run off.The issue to me (other than blitz pick up) is that look at the stats -Starks/Grant/Kuhns combined for 100 yards and two tds. That is perfect in the Packers view - they have no need or desire to pick one when they have three.Plus, Kuhns actually had more recepts than Starks and Grant was the same as starks

Not taking it away, just saying it was a unique situation.For all of this extra "explosiveness" where's the extra production?

ummm the 17 yard run was a decent example.

 

[sho nuff]

i'll believe the starks hype when the dude learns how to block.that's aaron rodgers back there. you don't let him get sacked.

Good point. I avoided the GB RBs for a reason. At least I got that right so far this season. Looks like a 50/50 split which means neither has much value to me.

for those that are simply writing this off as a 50/50 share all season need to realize this was the first game and the plan going in was 50/50. what wins you leagues (other than getting lucky) is being able to reasonably see how things will shake out over the course of the year and getting those value picks BEFORE they break out. while grant could certainly be involved each game like last night, i think the more likely outcome is this becoming starks' backfield with grant sprinkled in. i see starks becoming a great rb2 that was drafted super cheap. people need to stop coming to such quick conclusions. take a nice cheap gamble on a great offense? i'll take that potential as my rb4 all day.

That I will agree with. Starks is the play hoping for a bigger % of the touches by the end of the year.It may not play out that way...but he is worth the "risk".

 

[pantherclub]

What Grant/rbbc supporters have to remember is that this was game 1 and Starks out touched Grant. I thought that Starks wod have a role but didn't anticpate it to be so big and didn't think he'd get the crunch time carries in game 1. They came out with a heavy dose of tbe vet but to me it seemed like after the 1st qtr it was all Starks Ya, he may have missed a blitz pickup or blown a play but they kept him out there when it counted most.

Grant isn't going to totally go away but I could easily see this being a d. Williams / j Stewart situation where Starks is D Williams but on a great offense.

He barely got more touches but he was in a ton more plays. This will be an interesting offense to watch as the weeks go by if you are a Grant or Stark owner. If one goes down I think there is major potential there.

 

[rascal]

Coach Mike McCarthy concedes that James Starks "probably didn't have the attempts that he deserved" in the opening-night victory over the Saints.

So is to too late to buy low on Starks?

 

[pantherclub]

Coach Mike McCarthy concedes that James Starks "probably didn't have the attempts that he deserved" in the opening-night victory over the Saints.So is to too late to buy low on Starks?

Is there a link where I can put this in context? Seems like an odd thing to say seeing he had a pretty good game.

 

[rascal]

Coach Mike McCarthy concedes that James Starks "probably didn't have the attempts that he deserved" in the opening-night victory over the Saints.So is to too late to buy low on Starks?

Is there a link where I can put this in context? Seems like an odd thing to say seeing he had a pretty good game.

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/129511403.html

 

[Banger]

Coach Mike McCarthy concedes that James Starks "probably didn't have the attempts that he deserved" in the opening-night victory over the Saints.So is to too late to buy low on Starks?

Good find. That doesn't surprise me by the amount of time he spent on the field and continues to tell the story I saw on the field last night.Package Grant now....Starks will probably be difficult to come by as the owners will likely view him as a bit of a lottery ticket. That's how I'd view him at least. I don't think you'd necessarily buy low but I'd buy now. I'd certainly deal a Lynch or someone like that for him....package a Fred Jackson and wr for Starks +.

 

[zoonation]

I think that if Starks could pass block as reliably as Grant, he'd get the majority of the touches. As it stands, he can't, and that muddles things even on passing downs.

Did you watch the game?Grant wasn't even on the field in passing situations.

 

[hephner]

Coach Mike McCarthy concedes that James Starks "probably didn't have the attempts that he deserved" in the opening-night victory over the Saints.

So is to too late to buy low on Starks?

See also: Mike Clay of ProFootballFocus.com just posted this on Twitter:

"James Starks played 47 snaps to 17 for Ryan Grant. Not as much of a committee as expected."

If the eye test and McCarthy's quote doesn't convince you that the writing is on the wall for this RB situation, certainly the percentage of snaps should.

 

[Pipes]

As a Packer fan who doesn't own either Grant or Starks in any leagues I'd much rather have them give the majority of carries to Starks. He's just a better back at this point in their careers. Grant had a solid night but he doesn't have the burst that Starks has. Starks appears much quicker, at least to my eyes. I'm not writing off Grant as he can still be a solid contributor...I just think Starks is better.

For those knocking Starks' protection keep in mind he's essentially a rookie. He missed all of the camps last year due to injury and only has played in a handfull of games. With the strike this year he still hasn't had a complete off season to learn the blocking schemes. Last night's error can be easily corrected.

 

[zoonation]

Coach Mike McCarthy concedes that James Starks "probably didn't have the attempts that he deserved" in the opening-night victory over the Saints.

So is to too late to buy low on Starks?

See also: Mike Clay of ProFootballFocus.com just posted this on Twitter:

"James Starks played 47 snaps to 17 for Ryan Grant. Not as much of a committee as expected."

If the eye test and McCarthy's quote doesn't convince you that the writing is on the wall for this RB situation, certainly the percentage of snaps should.

74%Get your head out of the sand people. This isn't even a committee.

 

[sho nuff]

Coach Mike McCarthy concedes that James Starks "probably didn't have the attempts that he deserved" in the opening-night victory over the Saints.

So is to too late to buy low on Starks?

See also: Mike Clay of ProFootballFocus.com just posted this on Twitter:

"James Starks played 47 snaps to 17 for Ryan Grant. Not as much of a committee as expected."

If the eye test and McCarthy's quote doesn't convince you that the writing is on the wall for this RB situation, certainly the percentage of snaps should.

74%Get your head out of the sand people. This isn't even a committee.

How many touches for each?