RIP Ryan Grant (1 Viewer)

[degenerate]

we're not there yet, but as the weeks go on, starks should get that percentage in touches.

 

[FootballGuy22]

As a Starks owner I was looking for how much he played and when. I was happy with the results, especially with him being in when they were trying to run out the clock. I thought he looked better than Grant, but Grant looked better than I thought he would. It's just one game and it will be a few more weeks before we can really draw any conclusions. That said, it looks like Starks is the back to own.

 

[GreenNGold]

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.

Grant gets a touch or target 58.8% of the time he is on the field. Starks gets a touch or target 27.6% of the time he is on the field.

 

[griff321]

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.

Really!?I think Starks is talented enough to take over this RBBC and be exactly the kind of player that wins a league.

The only question now is how long will it take?

I really disagree. I think Starks (and same with Grant) is a top 20 RB at best. That will not win you a league. We are not talking about homeruns here, we are talking about just hoping for an average performance when you start either of them.

You're expecting the status quo. I see a guy that played a lot more then the final stat sheet would indicate and is talented enough to garner an increasingly larger percentage of the carries. Enough so to be a home-run in the playoffs. My only concern is the timetable.

 

[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.

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

How many touches for each?

To quote Matt Waldman from this morning: "If you're only looking at the box score or watching the ball, you'll never understand the why's behind trends that can help you win."Snaps = opportunities to be involved in plays. If the timeshare of snaps continues, it will only yield more and more opportunities for Starks and fewer for Grant. The touches will follow.

 

[Ray_T]

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.

I'm not sure he was on the field much at all outside of the first quarter. I missed most of the first quarter cuz I was stuck at work, but it sounded on the radio as if Grant was on the field almost exclusively in the first quarter. then when I started watching on TV they started playing starks and he played almost exclusively from that point on.Either Way, I scouted Grant a couple of years ago, and found that I was unimpressed at that time. he got good yards because the line was opening a hole big enough for a truck to drive through. The plays where the line didnt do much, he did not impress with his ability to gain extra yards. With this being said, I saw starks run through 3 people to get his TD. I agree, some sloppy tackling but you need to give some credit to the RB and I think he has more of the intangibles than grant does.I picked Starks up as a backup in my fantasy auction league for a dollar and am happy with the purchase so far.

 

[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.

Grant gets a touch or target 58.8% of the time he is on the field. Starks gets a touch or target 27.6% of the time he is on the field.

I think the coach addressed that point with his comment about Starks needing to touch it more. 74% is the key number here. Starks is the guy the Pack want on the field, and the guy who is on the field is the guy I want on my FF team.

We can go round and round on this all day. The fact is Grant is not the lead guy, and it couldn't be more obvious.

 

[eoMMan]

He died after the game?

 

[ready5]

starks is more talented, grant is more complete. they're different backs. and different backs + different opponents = different rushing attack. what can we learn from NO@GB that helps us predict GB@CAR? last night, the packers tromped on the gas pedal for 42 points and the saints still came damn close to tying the game. i don't see mccarthy needing to play the panthers anywhere near that aggressively, so what will be the complexion of his rushing attack next week? lots of ball control with grant? or will he try out some things with starks?

starks seems a good bet to be the featured back at some point, but he's going to have to earn it, one game at a time. the only way i see this timeshare sorting out this season is if there's an injury or a sharp swing in performance. i'm sure blitz pickup will be a big part of starks' week and he'll get enough film study and practice reps to piss him off nicely. the more he 'gets it' about more things, the more he'll be mccarthy's better option in situation after situation (aka opportunities). he's got the talent, he's earning the opportunities, it's just going to take awhile before he's a consistent fantasy option instead of a matchup gamble.

i have neither back, but my money's on grant next week. just a guess.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

He died after the game?

Yes, they're burying him in Grant's tomb.

 

[Longtucky Lemmings]

As a pure runner, hands down Starks is better. He will never be Chris Johnson, obviously, but he has more wiggle than Grant, runs with a better pad level, always falls forward and seems to have a bit better patience and vision.

Having said that, it is completely up to him if he becomes "the man" or not. He cleaarly has a place as a 3-down back on talent alone - he catches the ball smoothly and works well in space. BUT....his blitz pickup leaves a lot to be desired and he looks a bit lost sometimes running routes out of the backfield. If he cleans those things up quickly, he will be the primary back. If he doesn't, the time share will continue.

 

[zoonation]

starks is more talented, grant is more complete. they're different backs. and different backs + different opponents = different rushing attack. what can we learn from NO@GB that helps us predict GB@CAR? last night, the packers tromped on the gas pedal for 42 points and the saints still came damn close to tying the game. i don't see mccarthy needing to play the panthers anywhere near that aggressively, so what will be the complexion of his rushing attack next week? lots of ball control with grant? or will he try out some things with starks?starks seems a good bet to be the featured back at some point, but he's going to have to earn it, one game at a time. the only way i see this timeshare sorting out this season is if there's an injury or a sharp swing in performance. i'm sure blitz pickup will be a big part of starks' week and he'll get enough film study and practice reps to piss him off nicely. the more he 'gets it' about more things, the more he'll be mccarthy's better option in situation after situation (aka opportunities). he's got the talent, he's earning the opportunities, it's just going to take awhile before he's a consistent fantasy option instead of a matchup gamble.i have neither back, but my money's on grant next week. just a guess.

Um, you mean you see Starks getting more than 74% of the total plays?

 

[higgins]

He died after the game?

Yes, they're burying him in Grant's tomb.

:golfclap:

 

[Goldfinger007]

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.

Every year there is some RBBC that gets the fantasy world's panties in a bunch because so-and-so looks so much better than the other guy, and you see post after post about how (insert coaches name) is an idiot for not making him the bell cow. Sorry, but its not the coach that's the idiot. It's a QB driven league and you simply cannot afford to stick your franchise QB out there with a guy that can't pick up a blitz. It simply doesn't matter if he averages a yard more per carry, if the other guy is significantly better at picking up the blitz, he's going to be the starter virtually every time and rightfully so. I have neither of these two guys, so I couldn't care less, but I definitely saw Grant throw two nice blocks to pick up a blitzer last night, while Starks certainly appeared to blow one to me.

 

[ready5]

starks is more talented, grant is more complete. they're different backs. and different backs + different opponents = different rushing attack. what can we learn from NO@GB that helps us predict GB@CAR? last night, the packers tromped on the gas pedal for 42 points and the saints still came damn close to tying the game. i don't see mccarthy needing to play the panthers anywhere near that aggressively, so what will be the complexion of his rushing attack next week? lots of ball control with grant? or will he try out some things with starks?starks seems a good bet to be the featured back at some point, but he's going to have to earn it, one game at a time. the only way i see this timeshare sorting out this season is if there's an injury or a sharp swing in performance. i'm sure blitz pickup will be a big part of starks' week and he'll get enough film study and practice reps to piss him off nicely. the more he 'gets it' about more things, the more he'll be mccarthy's better option in situation after situation (aka opportunities). he's got the talent, he's earning the opportunities, it's just going to take awhile before he's a consistent fantasy option instead of a matchup gamble.i have neither back, but my money's on grant next week. just a guess.

Um, you mean you see Starks getting more than 74% of the total plays?

do you think the saints are the panthers? it's less about the percentage of plays than what kind of plays they were. the more starks is the better option, the more he'll be on the field. right now he seems to have problems in pass protection, so guess what happens when the packers have to pass and their opponent is blitzing? if we see nothing but grant, does that mean he's now a featured back? of course not, because the packers will also be in situations where they can just grind out the clock and oh look, there's starks again. mccarthy must be shanahan or something, woe is me, etc.instead of comparing talent, compare opportunity. until starks rounds out his game, it'll be all about the matchups.

 

[Cookiemonster]

Grant owners:

Starks can't block very well, is injury prone and isn't significantly better running than Grant.

Starks owners:

Grant is slow and plodding. He is getting phased out. Grant is not a good blocker either.

Dynasty owners:

Rodgers is a better runner than either of them. Call me when it's Green's turn. At least he made the top 100 picks in the draft.

 

[ready5]

Call me when it's Green's turn.

yup. most of the reason why i'm avoiding the packers' run game until 2012.

 

[geoff8695]

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

So you're softening on your pre-season stance that Grant is clearly more talented, a top 10RB, and the clear-cut starter over Starks, who you characterized as just a bit better than B.Jackson?Funny but for someone who was dissing Starks and pimping his own prognostication skills regarding this situation you've moved from Grant is the man to now it's a 3 way RBBC, and all it took was the first game of the season.Something tells me I'm going to find your continued mental gymnastics quite entertaining over the next several weeks...

 

[massraider]

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

So you're softening on your pre-season stance that Grant is clearly more talented, a top 10RB, and the clear-cut starter over Starks, who you characterized as just a bit better than B.Jackson?Funny but for someone who was dissing Starks and pimping his own prognostication skills regarding this situation you've moved from Grant is the man to now it's a 3 way RBBC, and all it took was the first game of the season.Something tells me I'm going to find your continued mental gymnastics quite entertaining over the next several weeks...

Ha. Wow.

 

[cubbie5150]

Neither of them really impress me as talents. Obviously given the offense they're in, they have great potential/value. But as has been pointed out, so many mouths to feed, even near GL (Rodgers, Finley, Kuhn, the WRs); Rodgers will likely have 4-5 rushing TDs, Kuhn maybe 5-6, etc.... I'd "like" to have Starks on my roster, but I wouldn't put tremendous effort into getting either guy at this point.

 

[Zab]

I don't understand all the criticism of Starks' pass blocking. He only blew one assignment -- a play-action pass play in which a DB came around the corner. Other than that, he was perfectly fine in pass protection. And it's notable that even after Starks failed to pick up the blitz on that play, they still played him extensively.

 

[massraider]

I don't understand all the criticism of Starks' pass blocking. He only blew one assignment -- a play-action pass play in which a DB came around the corner. Other than that, he was perfectly fine in pass protection. And it's notable that even after Starks failed to pick up the blitz on that play, they still played him extensively.

Coming off a play, fake, and catching that DB is a tough assignment.That this is the play that the anti-Starks crew is hanging their hat on is pretty telling. He saw 74% of the snaps, the coach said he should have given him the ball more, I mean, come on. Might be time to re-think some positions.

 

[BroncoFreak_2K3]

I don't understand all the criticism of Starks' pass blocking. He only blew one assignment -- a play-action pass play in which a DB came around the corner. Other than that, he was perfectly fine in pass protection. And it's notable that even after Starks failed to pick up the blitz on that play, they still played him extensively.

Coming off a play, fake, and catching that DB is a tough assignment.That this is the play that the anti-Starks crew is hanging their hat on is pretty telling. He saw 74% of the snaps, the coach said he should have given him the ball more, I mean, come on. Might be time to re-think some positions.

Yep...we need a :head in the sand: emoticon

 

[GreenNGold]

McCarthy always says he wants to run the ball more, I think he says that after every game. When it comes down to what he actually does though he normally sticks with the passing game. Actions > Words

 

[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.

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.

How many TD did Starks have last year? FYI, less than Kuhns. They both had one yesterday, and in the fourth quarter it was Kuhns doing the short yardage work. Kuhns will pull from whomever is running the ball

 

[zoonation]

This whole notion that Starks has "problems" in pass protection is ridiculous. He blew one assignement.

He is clearly the 3rd down back He is basically the first and second down back most of the time too. What makes you think the coaching staff would continually send him out there in obvious passing situations against a top conference rival on opening night if they didn't think he was the best pass-blocking option on the team?

I thought he was excellent in that role last night. Even the great Ricky Williams misses a blocking assignment once in a while.

And, as another poster noted, they continued to go to him after the miss. In fact, he got MORE playing time from that point on.

This was game 1, people, and Starks was clearly the guy. the argument going into the season was whether he would eventually take over Grant.

It happened. In the pre-season.

 

[massraider]

McCarthy always says he wants to run the ball more, I think he says that after every game. When it comes down to what he actually does though he normally sticks with the passing game. Actions > Words

He didn't say 'run more'. He said he should have given it to Starks more. Didn't say that about Finley. Or Cobb. He said it about Starks. Sometimes, reading between the lines on coachspeak is tough.I don't think this is one of those times.

 

[Drunken Cowboy]

I really don't know what game you guys were watching.

 

[dagwood]

McCarthy always says he wants to run the ball more, I think he says that after every game. When it comes down to what he actually does though he normally sticks with the passing game. Actions > Words

He didn't say 'run more'. He said he should have given it to Starks more. Didn't say that about Finley. Or Cobb. He said it about Starks. Sometimes, reading between the lines on coachspeak is tough.I don't think this is one of those times.

Starks is clearly the back to own in GB.

 

[dagwood]

McCarthy always says he wants to run the ball more, I think he says that after every game. When it comes down to what he actually does though he normally sticks with the passing game. Actions > Words

He didn't say 'run more'. He said he should have given it to Starks more. Didn't say that about Finley. Or Cobb. He said it about Starks. Sometimes, reading between the lines on coachspeak is tough.I don't think this is one of those times.

Starks is clearly the back to own in GB.

In fact, givenn his stats were not stellar, now would be a great time to acquire Starks if you weren't savvy enough to grab him in the draft several rounds after some poor owner picked Ryan Grant as his RB2.

 

[ready5]

ITT letting your QB get sacked is too small a sample size, but a single game somehow isn't.

starks will always get 74% of the snaps in all packer games because he did it once. i'll let canton know he's coming.

 

[BigJim®]

How many TD did Starks have last year? FYI, less than Kuhns.

 

[zoonation]

Grant owners clearly reeing in here. Grasping at straws that aren't there.

 

[massraider]

ITT letting your QB get sacked is too small a sample size, but a single game somehow isn't.starks will always get 74% of the snaps in all packer games because he did it once. i'll let canton know he's coming.

You are taking it to the extreme, now. I think the point is, moving forward, which GB back is the one to own? Once Grant was brought back, there was a lot of cold water thrown on the Starks bandwagon. The game last night, and it WAS just one game, suggests Starks might be the 1A, and not Grant. That's an interesting development, and Grant owners should be scared ####less, and Starks owners have a reason to perk up. Well, except for the league that I get 12 points for every good blitz pick-up. in that league, I am thinking about dropping Starks.

 

[geoff8695]

How many TD did Starks have last year? FYI, less than Kuhns.

6.9 on "floor routine", up next "uneven bars"...

 

[pantherclub]

Grant owners clearly reeing in here. Grasping at straws that aren't there.

I think you are right to a degree but at this point I dont think either running backs are startable (FF wise) at this point. Clearly Starks was the favorite last night but it should be interesting to see how GB uses them going forward.

 

[⚡DEADHEAD⚡]

Grant owners clearly reeing in here. Grasping at straws that aren't there.

Spot on.Keep fooling yourselves, Grant owners, as you watch your fantasy season die a slow death.

 

[⚡DEADHEAD⚡]

Grant owners clearly reeing in here. Grasping at straws that aren't there.

I think you are right to a degree but at this point I dont think either running backs are startable (FF wise) at this point. Clearly Starks was the favorite last night but it should be interesting to see how GB uses them going forward.

Right but Starks wasn't drafted to be startable in most leagues. Grant was. That has to piss some people off.

 

[sho nuff]

Grant owners clearly reeing in here. Grasping at straws that aren't there.

I think you are right to a degree but at this point I dont think either running backs are startable (FF wise) at this point. Clearly Starks was the favorite last night but it should be interesting to see how GB uses them going forward.

Right but Starks wasn't drafted to be startable in most leagues. Grant was. That has to piss some people off.

Agreed there.I laughed at a buddy who took him pretty early...he wondered why.A while later when Starks went (right before me) I told him that was why I laughed.Starks will end up the better play...but I don't think you will see the split of PT the way it was last night all year...more towards the end, but not all year.Grant looked solid and was good in the few chances he had to pick up the blitz...including a nice pickup on Vilma.

 

[massraider]

Ha. They are replaying the game on NFLN now, as I turned it on, the play in question happened. Rodgers faked to Starks, who them lunged at a blitzing Roman Harper.

That's the play? That's the indictment of Starks inability to pick up blitzers? Absurd. If Starks had been able to make that play, the Packers should move him to freaking right tackle. That's a long way from Starks being in the backfield, and missing a guy, or not seeing him. His job was to pretend to dive into the line. Harper was coming off the edge, and Starks was in the middle of the line. Kind of a tough pick up.

 

[blackbird001]

The carries where not off by much, Starks 12 and Grant 9, and the ypc was not much different with Starts at 4.8 and Grants at 4.4.... but if you watched the game, the Packers clearly feel comfortable having Starks in there on 3rd down and passing downs (even though he missed his block and was responsible for a sack). Think this says a lot about Starks role on this offense.

Did he really miss this block? At first I thought so, but Starks took the first guy through the hole and another one came free right after. I'm not the best X's and O's guy, so I can't really tell what should have been the play versus what actually happened. But this wasn't a case where Starks was standing around with no engagement (ala Gronkowski last year allowing Romo to get flattened), he picked up the first guy. Casillas simply saw an opportunity and came through right after Starks became entangled. Honestly, it looked like a huge hole and I would have put this more on Rodgers looking downfield as opposed to who was crashing through the front door.

 

[pantherclub]

Grant owners clearly reeing in here. Grasping at straws that aren't there.

I think you are right to a degree but at this point I dont think either running backs are startable (FF wise) at this point. Clearly Starks was the favorite last night but it should be interesting to see how GB uses them going forward.

Right but Starks wasn't drafted to be startable in most leagues. Grant was. That has to piss some people off.

Good point but I doubt anyone is "pissed" off about it. They (and I) included just miscalculated as I am sure you did as well somewhere in your draft. Lucky for us though its early and we can now adjust. Luckily I didnt start Grant last night and opted for Tate instead. A small gamble that I hope pays off. Given both of these guys past injuries I wouldnt be beating my chest just yet on who won the war. Starks was basically out for over a 2 years and his style of running probably doesnt do his surgically repaired shoulder any favors. That said if I was drafting again I would take starks but these things as you know are quite fluid.

 

[BroncoFreak_2K3]

Grant owners clearly reeing in here. Grasping at straws that aren't there.

Spot on.Keep fooling yourselves, Grant owners, as you watch your fantasy season die a slow death.

 

[sho nuff]

Ha. They are replaying the game on NFLN now, as I turned it on, the play in question happened. Rodgers faked to Starks, who them lunged at a blitzing Roman Harper.That's the play? That's the indictment of Starks inability to pick up blitzers? Absurd. If Starks had been able to make that play, the Packers should move him to freaking right tackle. That's a long way from Starks being in the backfield, and missing a guy, or not seeing him. His job was to pretend to dive into the line. Harper was coming off the edge, and Starks was in the middle of the line. Kind of a tough pick up.

His job is also to recognize the blitz and break off the fake to get to the guy.THey mentioned it on the broadcast and its been talked about by others today.

 

[⚡DEADHEAD⚡]

Grant owners clearly reeing in here. Grasping at straws that aren't there.

Spot on.Keep fooling yourselves, Grant owners, as you watch your fantasy season die a slow death.

What, too dramatic?

 

[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.

How many TD did Starks have last year? FYI, less than Kuhns. They both had one yesterday, and in the fourth quarter it was Kuhns doing the short yardage work. Kuhns will pull from whomever is running the ball

what does last year have to do with anything? Starks was out for 4/5 of the year..he played in 3 games and the playoffs...Kuhn also got the work he did because they had no RBs since Grant and Starks were both hurt. Your statement makes it seems as if this is some kind of 3 headed monster. Every team has more than 1 or 2 guys that get touches and GB is no different. Short yardage work? he had 2 carries...they snuck him in for one on some trickery from the goal line (which every single team in the NFL does throughout the year) and he had 1 other carry. What is your point? How many carries do you project Kuhn to get this year? Are you seriously saying/implying that Kuhn is a guy that fantasy owners should worry about or have on their radar because he's going to be a vulture or significantly cut into their production in a meaningful way?I'm not trying to be a jerk but did you even watch the game?

 

[⚡DEADHEAD⚡]

Grant owners clearly reeing in here. Grasping at straws that aren't there.

I think you are right to a degree but at this point I dont think either running backs are startable (FF wise) at this point. Clearly Starks was the favorite last night but it should be interesting to see how GB uses them going forward.

Right but Starks wasn't drafted to be startable in most leagues. Grant was. That has to piss some people off.

Good point but I doubt anyone is "pissed" off about it. They (and I) included just miscalculated as I am sure you did as well somewhere in your draft. Lucky for us though its early and we can now adjust. Luckily I didnt start Grant last night and opted for Tate instead. A small gamble that I hope pays off. Given both of these guys past injuries I wouldnt be beating my chest just yet on who won the war. Starks was basically out for over a 2 years and his style of running probably doesnt do his surgically repaired shoulder any favors. That said if I was drafting again I would take starks but these things as you know are quite fluid.

I have Wayne and Mojo. My season will die a slow death too.

 

[massraider]

Ha. They are replaying the game on NFLN now, as I turned it on, the play in question happened. Rodgers faked to Starks, who them lunged at a blitzing Roman Harper.That's the play? That's the indictment of Starks inability to pick up blitzers? Absurd. If Starks had been able to make that play, the Packers should move him to freaking right tackle. That's a long way from Starks being in the backfield, and missing a guy, or not seeing him. His job was to pretend to dive into the line. Harper was coming off the edge, and Starks was in the middle of the line. Kind of a tough pick up.

His job is also to recognize the blitz and break off the fake to get to the guy.THey mentioned it on the broadcast and its been talked about by others today.

yes, they did, and I heard Collinsworth talk about it, and I am sure Starks could have made a better play. But this wasn't a guy whiffing or getting run over by a cornerback. Even if Starks had broken off earlier, he probably wasn't going to make the play.My only point is, the missed 'assignemnt' wasn't nearly as bad as reading it here would indicate. Not even close.

 

[Banger]

Ha. They are replaying the game on NFLN now, as I turned it on, the play in question happened. Rodgers faked to Starks, who them lunged at a blitzing Roman Harper.That's the play? That's the indictment of Starks inability to pick up blitzers? Absurd. If Starks had been able to make that play, the Packers should move him to freaking right tackle. That's a long way from Starks being in the backfield, and missing a guy, or not seeing him. His job was to pretend to dive into the line. Harper was coming off the edge, and Starks was in the middle of the line. Kind of a tough pick up.

His job is also to recognize the blitz and break off the fake to get to the guy.THey mentioned it on the broadcast and its been talked about by others today.

yes, they did, and I heard Collinsworth talk about it, and I am sure Starks could have made a better play. But this wasn't a guy whiffing or getting run over by a cornerback. Even if Starks had broken off earlier, he probably wasn't going to make the play.My only point is, the missed 'assignemnt' wasn't nearly as bad as reading it here would indicate. Not even close.

it's not even worth debating...the coach was talking about how they need to get him more touches, not less. He missed a block, it happens....he missed some in the playoffs too and he's still getting the ball. They'll go over the film, talk to him and teach him. It's not as is they benched him over it, on the contrary he was on the field on their final drive.

 

[BroncoFreak_2K3]

Grant owners clearly reeing in here. Grasping at straws that aren't there.

Spot on.Keep fooling yourselves, Grant owners, as you watch your fantasy season die a slow death.

What, too dramatic?

love it man...ha