RIP Ryan Grant (1 Viewer)

[Carter_Can_Fly]

This is one situation where I am happy to not own either RB for this year as it appears to be set up for a frustrating year whereas you will be left hoping a guy like Starks receives more touches than he is getting.

This team is good but not great at running the ball. If one player was the bell cow guy which I don't think GB is going to do then I would change my mind.

I mean Starks looked good, but Grant did not look bad.

Starks is not an elite talent either. He is not good enough to produce elite numbers on limited touches. I do think he could shoulder a larger load however it probably won't happen this year.

GB had a lead all game and many times a 2 score lead yet elected to only run the ball 23 times which in a time share is not ideal for fantasy rb's.

Count me as one that was happy to stay away.

 

[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.

You are taking it to the extreme, now.

so you got the hyperbole, but missed the sarcasm? i'm just trying to suggest that people who think last night was an anointing need to shoulder the burden of proof a little. if you think starks won't get 74% of all packer snaps, then welcome to the club -- but what's your reason? mine is that starks isn't a complete back yet and every game is different.

I think the point is, moving forward, which GB back is the one to own?

starks, obviously. but the real question is at what cost? just because starks is an emerging back with great upside doesn't mean he needs to be on every roster, let alone the starting lineup. obviously this depends on one's team/league/opponent/etc, but banking on 12/57/1 for no other reason than it happened once before is bad thinking.

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.

i haven't seen too many people claim that grant will hold off starks indefinitely. i know this is the 'RIP Grant' thread, but just because someone is cautiously optimistic doesn't mean they're anti-starks or pro-grant. if it's a question of when, let's answer that question -- when will starks overtake grant? after the bye? next year? before green becomes the next backup darling? let's have some actual reasons here, not just stuff about starks being so talented it doesn't matter if he blows a blitz pickup.

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.

and i dropped finley for cobb in my 'first game hysterical overreaction' league.

 

[BigJim®]

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?

Oh my this thread is a treasure trove for a Friday.

 

[massraider]

starks, obviously. but the real question is at what cost?

Are we at that question already? I think the point of the thread was that Grant will not be holding off Starks for too long. based on last night, that looks sooner than we thought. I think you are five steps ahead, already anticipating Starks being overrated, and too expensive.

 

[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?

Oh my this thread is a treasure trove for a Friday.

Que? He was in 70% of the plays. I wanted to see what McCarthy was referring to.

 

[profit]

GB has too many receiving weapons to be able to have a week in week out RB stud IMO. Maybe that changes, but for now I'm not trying to buy any of them. Will Starks outplay his ADP, oh I think so. But that doesn't mean I want to lean on any of these guys right now. I'm looking for more run based scheme RB's, would only use one of those guys as a bye week\flex as it stands now.

Like I said, maybe that changes, but their passing attack is looking even more outrageous that last year.

 

[ready5]

starks, obviously. but the real question is at what cost?

Are we at that question already? I think the point of the thread was that Grant will not be holding off Starks for too long. based on last night, that looks sooner than we thought. I think you are five steps ahead, already anticipating Starks being overrated, and too expensive.

i thought i was challenging the sentiment bolded above.

 

[degenerate]

GB has too many receiving weapons to be able to have a week in week out RB stud IMO. Maybe that changes, but for now I'm not trying to buy any of them. Will Starks outplay his ADP, oh I think so. But that doesn't mean I want to lean on any of these guys right now. I'm looking for more run based scheme RB's, would only use one of those guys as a bye week\flex as it stands now.

Like I said, maybe that changes, but their passing attack is looking even more outrageous that last year.

those drafting him should know going in that his upside was a rb2 at best. a rb2/flex is all we want or could ask for out of this guy. that's good upside for your 4th/5th rb drafted. getting guys cheap that will have upside and opportunity to break out is what strengthens your roster.

 

[cr8f]

This is one situation where I am happy to not own either RB for this year as it appears to be set up for a frustrating year whereas you will be left hoping a guy like Starks receives more touches than he is getting.This team is good but not great at running the ball. If one player was the bell cow guy which I don't think GB is going to do then I would change my mind.I mean Starks looked good, but Grant did not look bad.Starks is not an elite talent either. He is not good enough to produce elite numbers on limited touches. I do think he could shoulder a larger load however it probably won't happen this year.GB had a lead all game and many times a 2 score lead yet elected to only run the ball 23 times which in a time share is not ideal for fantasy rb's.Count me as one that was happy to stay away.

When catching the ball out of the backfield Starks is very good. Keep Grant in there and feed Starks the ball more.

 

[BigJim®]

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?

Oh my this thread is a treasure trove for a Friday.

Que? He was in 70% of the plays. I wanted to see what McCarthy was referring to.

What does number of plays have to do with not getting the "attempts that he deserved"? The statement requires no context. It's a statement, and attempts means exactly what he intended it to mean. If he said I wish I had Starks on the field more, then yes, got you.

 

[cvnpoka]

starks, obviously. but the real question is at what cost?

for most of us, it was 10-12th round pick. lookin like a great investment aorn.

 

[Avery]

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.

Well, even if Starks is a top 20 RB, a mid to low RB2 (depending on league size), with an ADP in the 9th round according to the VBD spreadsheet he could sure as Hell well help me win my league.

 

[manny]

I feel sorry for the Grant owners who were fooled by clueless "gurus" who acted like Grant was some sort of shark play. Those with a keen eye have been able to observe that Starks was clearly the superior runner, and only Grant's seniority, leadership and experience were keeping him afloat. If Starks improves his blitz pickup, he will be the main guy, probably getting 2 series for every 1 for Grant.

 

[Sam Quentin]

Ryan Grant = Julius Jones only better

Starks = Marion Barber

 

[[scooter]]

Ryan Grant = Julius Jones only better

Starks = Marion Barber

I'll take 1100 yards and 5 TDs.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

I own grant and/or starks across various leagues.

With both healthy, they really limit the others upside.

 

[BigJim®]

Ryan Grant = Julius Jones only betterStarks = Marion Barber

This would be humorously ironic anti-endorsement of Grant. That is, if there was any resemblance at all in these comparisons.

 

[Sam Quentin]

Just watrcing that 17 yard TD on NFL.com, and it really doesn't look all that impressive...huge hole, full head of steam and a couple of arm tackles by the DBs...I could have scored it

 

[munchkin]

Just watrcing that 17 yard TD on NFL.com, and it really doesn't look all that impressive...huge hole, full head of steam and a couple of arm tackles by the DBs...I could have scored it

I didn't see every play in the game but what I saw of Starks was he ook what was there. He lowered his shoulder and hit the crease for a couple when NO's O-line put up a fight, which wasn't often,and weaved his way through gaping holes when they were there. Solid but not spectacular night for Starks. Good Fantasy numbers.

 

[The Dude]

Just watrcing that 17 yard TD on NFL.com, and it really doesn't look all that impressive...huge hole, full head of steam and a couple of arm tackles by the DBs...I could have scored it

Grant would have been slow to the hole and brought down with an arm tackle

 

[griff321]

Just watrcing that 17 yard TD on NFL.com, and it really doesn't look all that impressive...huge hole, full head of steam and a couple of arm tackles by the DBs...I could have scored it

I'd like to think that maybe you have a valid point so I had to go and watch the play about 15 times thinking I may see something different from my initial take, but you don't and you're wrong. About the only thing you got right is he did have good blocks at the first two levels. Just stop. TIA.

 

[InmanRoshi]

This is one situation where I am happy to not own either RB for this year as it appears to be set up for a frustrating year whereas you will be left hoping a guy like Starks receives more touches than he is getting.This team is good but not great at running the ball. If one player was the bell cow guy which I don't think GB is going to do then I would change my mind.I mean Starks looked good, but Grant did not look bad.Starks is not an elite talent either. He is not good enough to produce elite numbers on limited touches. I do think he could shoulder a larger load however it probably won't happen this year.GB had a lead all game and many times a 2 score lead yet elected to only run the ball 23 times which in a time share is not ideal for fantasy rb's.Count me as one that was happy to stay away.

As a Starks owner, I couldn't be happier. I got a RB who is getting 75% of snaps in what will be a Top 3 offense in the NFL in the 9th round, and barring catastrohic injury I have no doubt he'll vastly outperform many, if not most, of the RBs other owners were taking 2-3 rounds ahead of him while I was solidifying other positions. To read too much into the touch count of a sample size of one game is always a mistake, and particularly this one game because it is an outlier. New Orleans is one of the very few offenses who can keep up with Green Bay in a shoot out. Unless McCarthy wants to go 2007 Patriots/Belichick running up the score/flipping the middle finger to the league mode, for most weeks there is going to be a ton of garbage time for Green Bay running backs in the 2nd half against defenses who have already been mentally and physically beaten. At the very least Starks is going to be a good bye fill in starting RB and flex play to pair with two stud RBs taken in the early rounds, and I'll certainly take that for a 9th rounder.

 

[InmanRoshi]

To me the signature play in the Grant/Starks split happened within the first 5 minutes of the game, and would go unnoticed if you only pay attention to boxscores or not watching the game behind the game. It happened when Green Bay threw a perfectly timed screen pass to Grant. Grant had 3 offensive linemen in front of him to take on 2 Saint defenders and nothing but open space. It should have been a play that broke for 20+ yards. Grant caught the ball, showed absolutely no accelartion and got ankle tackled after 5 yards by the first defender who merely dove at his feet and got an arm on his foot. That's called yardage left on the field, and that's what coaches evaluate RBs on when they evaluate game tape, while fans just look at boxscores.

 

[Reepicheep]

This is one situation where I am happy to not own either RB for this year as it appears to be set up for a frustrating year whereas you will be left hoping a guy like Starks receives more touches than he is getting.This team is good but not great at running the ball. If one player was the bell cow guy which I don't think GB is going to do then I would change my mind.I mean Starks looked good, but Grant did not look bad.Starks is not an elite talent either. He is not good enough to produce elite numbers on limited touches. I do think he could shoulder a larger load however it probably won't happen this year.GB had a lead all game and many times a 2 score lead yet elected to only run the ball 23 times which in a time share is not ideal for fantasy rb's.Count me as one that was happy to stay away.

As a Starks owner, I couldn't be happier. I got a RB who is getting 75% of snaps in what will be a Top 3 offense in the NFL in the 9th round, and barring catastrohic injury I have no doubt he'll vastly outperform many, if not most, of the RBs other owners were taking 2-3 rounds ahead of him while I was solidifying other positions. To read too much into the touch count of a sample size of one game is always a mistake, and particularly this one game because it is an outlier. New Orleans is one of the very few offenses who can keep up with Green Bay in a shoot out. Unless McCarthy wants to go 2007 Patriots/Belichick running up the score/flipping the middle finger to the league mode, for most weeks there is going to be a ton of garbage time for Green Bay running backs on defenses who have raised the white flag. At the very least Starks is going to be a good bye fill in/flex, and I'll take that for a 9th rounder.

So far Starks owners are getting exactly what they expected. His floor is a backup/flex play, with low-end RB1 upside if Grant goes down.

 

[Joe Summer]

So what is the play for those of us "stuck" with Grant? He's only my #3 RB but I already feel like he is dead weight. Here are some possibilities:

1. keep him and pray.

2. cut him and use the roster spot for a WW player with more promise.

3. try to trade for Starks.

4. try to trade him to the Starks owner.

I suppose I could pry away a #3 WR from the Starks owner, but I could probably acquire the same level of talent on the waiver wire (i.e. Meachem).

 

[identikit]

To me the signature play in the Grant/Starks split happened within the first 5 minutes of the game, and would go unnoticed if you only pay attention to boxscores or not watching the game behind the game. It happened when Green Bay threw a perfectly timed screen pass to Grant. Grant had 3 offensive linemen in front of him to take on 2 Saint defenders and nothing but open space. It should have been a play that broke for 20+ yards. Grant caught the ball, showed absolutely no accelartion and got ankle tackled after 5 yards by the first defender who merely dove at his feet and got an arm on his foot. That's called yardage left on the field, and that's what coaches evaluate RBs on when they evaluate game tape, while fans just look at boxscores.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

To me the signature play in the Grant/Starks split happened within the first 5 minutes of the game, and would go unnoticed if you only pay attention to boxscores or not watching the game behind the game. It happened when Green Bay threw a perfectly timed screen pass to Grant. Grant had 3 offensive linemen in front of him to take on 2 Saint defenders and nothing but open space. It should have been a play that broke for 20+ yards. Grant caught the ball, showed absolutely no accelartion and got ankle tackled after 5 yards by the first defender who merely dove at his feet and got an arm on his foot. That's called yardage left on the field, and that's what coaches evaluate RBs on when they evaluate game tape, while fans just look at boxscores.

looks to me like 2 Olinemen totally whiffed their blocks on that play

 

[geoff8695]

So what is the play for those of us "stuck" with Grant? He's only my #3 RB but I already feel like he is dead weight. Here are some possibilities:1. keep him and pray.2. cut him and use the roster spot for a WW player with more promise.3. try to trade for Starks.4. try to trade him to the Starks owner.I suppose I could pry away a #3 WR from the Starks owner, but I could probably acquire the same level of talent on the waiver wire (i.e. Meachem).

I wouldn't expect Grant to disappear, and I would still expect Grant to have weeks where he outscores Starks. I guess if you're looking for a RB2 I wouldn't consider either very safe in that role after week 1. However, either could be a decent flex or 3rd RB for awhile, until this situation develops and/or one back becomes the clear-cut starter. Although they are more of a passing offense, the Packers should have some games where they run the ball more. And they are sure to have some big leads against teams that aren't as offensively talented as the Saints. So both of these guys should get some opportunities unless one gets hurt or the Packers demote one out of the RBBC. Grant may not run quite as decisively as Starks, but he still performed well enough to continue to earn a portion of the workload. Not sure whether that constitutes "dead weight" or not in your particular league/roster/lineup/scoring system.

 

[Ron_Mexico]

To me the signature play in the Grant/Starks split happened within the first 5 minutes of the game, and would go unnoticed if you only pay attention to boxscores or not watching the game behind the game. It happened when Green Bay threw a perfectly timed screen pass to Grant. Grant had 3 offensive linemen in front of him to take on 2 Saint defenders and nothing but open space. It should have been a play that broke for 20+ yards. Grant caught the ball, showed absolutely no accelartion and got ankle tackled after 5 yards by the first defender who merely dove at his feet and got an arm on his foot. That's called yardage left on the field, and that's what coaches evaluate RBs on when they evaluate game tape, while fans just look at boxscores.

I saw the play. It did not come off quite that way, Inman.There was definitely one and possibly two missed blocksafter Grant caught the screen which which ultimately hindered the play.

 

[cr8f]

Ryan Grant = Julius Jones only better

Starks = Marion Barber

Naah you must not have watching him catch out of the backfield.

Just saw thia at Rotoworld

James Starks was on the field for 45 snaps in Thursday night's season opener.

Ryan Grant played only 16. It's just another sign Starks has supplanted Grant as the main man in Green Bay's backfield, even if he still struggles in pass protection. Starks is a good bet to surpass his 12 Week 1 carries when the Packers take on the Panthers next Sunday.

I still believe they are keeping Grant to help Starks learn to run in their system. I think eventually Grant will be phased out. Starks is already running with more lean and catches the ball well. In a few weeks he may be start-able.

 

[InmanRoshi]

To me the signature play in the Grant/Starks split happened within the first 5 minutes of the game, and would go unnoticed if you only pay attention to boxscores or not watching the game behind the game. It happened when Green Bay threw a perfectly timed screen pass to Grant. Grant had 3 offensive linemen in front of him to take on 2 Saint defenders and nothing but open space. It should have been a play that broke for 20+ yards. Grant caught the ball, showed absolutely no accelartion and got ankle tackled after 5 yards by the first defender who merely dove at his feet and got an arm on his foot. That's called yardage left on the field, and that's what coaches evaluate RBs on when they evaluate game tape, while fans just look at boxscores.

I saw the play. It did not come off quite that way, Inman.There was definitely one and possibly two missed blocksafter Grant caught the screen which which ultimately hindered the play.

They didn't miss their blocks, the defenders ran around them, which typically the offense will take because it essentially takes the defender out of the play as the ball carrier runs by them. However, Grant was so plodding that the first defender (and first defender should be stressed here) ran around the block and still had time to trip Grant up by the shoes as Grant was getting into 3rd gear like a cement truck. It was an obvious sign of the lack of burst that the Packers beatwriters have been talking about for the last 4 weeks watching him in camp.

 

[Bankerguy]

To me the signature play in the Grant/Starks split happened within the first 5 minutes of the game, and would go unnoticed if you only pay attention to boxscores or not watching the game behind the game. It happened when Green Bay threw a perfectly timed screen pass to Grant. Grant had 3 offensive linemen in front of him to take on 2 Saint defenders and nothing but open space. It should have been a play that broke for 20+ yards. Grant caught the ball, showed absolutely no accelartion and got ankle tackled after 5 yards by the first defender who merely dove at his feet and got an arm on his foot. That's called yardage left on the field, and that's what coaches evaluate RBs on when they evaluate game tape, while fans just look at boxscores.

I saw the play. It did not come off quite that way, Inman.There was definitely one and possibly two missed blocksafter Grant caught the screen which which ultimately hindered the play.

You post over at Cowboys Zone?They didn't miss their blocks, the defenders ran around them. Typically this would be the equivalent of a block, because it essentially takes the defender out of the play as the ball carrier runs by them. However, Grant was so plodding that the first defender (and first defender should be stressed here) ran around the block and still had time to trip Grant up by the shoes as Grant was getting into 3rd gear like a cement truck.

 

[ready5]

Just saw thia at Rotoworld

James Starks was on the field for 45 snaps in Thursday night's season opener.

Ryan Grant played only 16. It's just another sign Starks has supplanted Grant as the main man in Green Bay's backfield, even if he still struggles in pass protection. Starks is a good bet to surpass his 12 Week 1 carries when the Packers take on the Panthers next Sunday.

i love rotoworld and their paper-thin analysis.starks may be "a good bet" for more carries, but let's have a better argument than 'most snaps last week equals more carries next week' as if the reverse has never been true before.

i'm still waiting for someone to explain what it is about the panthers that allows us to predict how the packers will execute their rushing attack. i could see starks outproducing grant on equal touches, but i could also see mccarthy running a vanilla gameplan and saving his starks stuff for a tougher opponent. anyone have a guess how many rushing yards green bay will pile up next week? if the line was 100 yards, who wants to take the over? if you're taking the under, now you're banking on rushing TDs for fantasy points -- and note that it took a half-dozen packer touchdowns to get one for starks. who thinks the packers need to roll up 42 points to edge out carolina next week? who is convinced that green bay will even score a rushing TD next week?

yes, starks is the best back in green bay. yes, he should outproduce grant this season. if he's available in your league for cheap, then buy buy buy. but if he cracks your starting lineup next week, it's because you're out of options or need the upside or love his matchup for damn good reason. and if you have that damn good reason, please share it here, because all i've seen so far is coachspeak and rose-colored glasses and bad arguments.

 

[sho nuff]

To me the signature play in the Grant/Starks split happened within the first 5 minutes of the game, and would go unnoticed if you only pay attention to boxscores or not watching the game behind the game. It happened when Green Bay threw a perfectly timed screen pass to Grant. Grant had 3 offensive linemen in front of him to take on 2 Saint defenders and nothing but open space. It should have been a play that broke for 20+ yards. Grant caught the ball, showed absolutely no accelartion and got ankle tackled after 5 yards by the first defender who merely dove at his feet and got an arm on his foot. That's called yardage left on the field, and that's what coaches evaluate RBs on when they evaluate game tape, while fans just look at boxscores.

looks to me like 2 Olinemen totally whiffed their blocks on that play

Pretty much.

 

[sho nuff]

To me the signature play in the Grant/Starks split happened within the first 5 minutes of the game, and would go unnoticed if you only pay attention to boxscores or not watching the game behind the game. It happened when Green Bay threw a perfectly timed screen pass to Grant. Grant had 3 offensive linemen in front of him to take on 2 Saint defenders and nothing but open space. It should have been a play that broke for 20+ yards. Grant caught the ball, showed absolutely no accelartion and got ankle tackled after 5 yards by the first defender who merely dove at his feet and got an arm on his foot. That's called yardage left on the field, and that's what coaches evaluate RBs on when they evaluate game tape, while fans just look at boxscores.

I saw the play. It did not come off quite that way, Inman.There was definitely one and possibly two missed blocksafter Grant caught the screen which which ultimately hindered the play.

They didn't miss their blocks, the defenders ran around them, which typically the offense will take because it essentially takes the defender out of the play as the ball carrier runs by them. However, Grant was so plodding that the first defender (and first defender should be stressed here) ran around the block and still had time to trip Grant up by the shoes as Grant was getting into 3rd gear like a cement truck. It was an obvious sign of the lack of burst that the Packers beatwriters have been talking about for the last 4 weeks watching him in camp.

Not sure you have watched the same play as everyone else.

 

[Reepicheep]

Just saw thia at Rotoworld

James Starks was on the field for 45 snaps in Thursday night's season opener.

Ryan Grant played only 16. It's just another sign Starks has supplanted Grant as the main man in Green Bay's backfield, even if he still struggles in pass protection. Starks is a good bet to surpass his 12 Week 1 carries when the Packers take on the Panthers next Sunday.

i love rotoworld and their paper-thin analysis.starks may be "a good bet" for more carries, but let's have a better argument than 'most snaps last week equals more carries next week' as if the reverse has never been true before.

i'm still waiting for someone to explain what it is about the panthers that allows us to predict how the packers will execute their rushing attack. i could see starks outproducing grant on equal touches, but i could also see mccarthy running a vanilla gameplan and saving his starks stuff for a tougher opponent. anyone have a guess how many rushing yards green bay will pile up next week? if the line was 100 yards, who wants to take the over? if you're taking the under, now you're banking on rushing TDs for fantasy points -- and note that it took a half-dozen packer touchdowns to get one for starks. who thinks the packers need to roll up 42 points to edge out carolina next week? who is convinced that green bay will even score a rushing TD next week?

yes, starks is the best back in green bay. yes, he should outproduce grant this season. if he's available in your league for cheap, then buy buy buy. but if he cracks your starting lineup next week, it's because you're out of options or need the upside or love his matchup for damn good reason. and if you have that damn good reason, please share it here, because all i've seen so far is coachspeak and rose-colored glasses and bad arguments.

I think the idea is the Packers will get up big then ride the running game. IF that happens it would be interesting to see who gets the totes. The Packers did not run well with a lead last year, but they also didn't have Grant OR Starks for the vast majority of the season. I would take the over on the rushing yards here.Said the Packers fan with his head in the clouds.

 

[degenerate]

Just saw thia at Rotoworld

James Starks was on the field for 45 snaps in Thursday night's season opener.

Ryan Grant played only 16. It's just another sign Starks has supplanted Grant as the main man in Green Bay's backfield, even if he still struggles in pass protection. Starks is a good bet to surpass his 12 Week 1 carries when the Packers take on the Panthers next Sunday.

i love rotoworld and their paper-thin analysis.starks may be "a good bet" for more carries, but let's have a better argument than 'most snaps last week equals more carries next week' as if the reverse has never been true before.

i'm still waiting for someone to explain what it is about the panthers that allows us to predict how the packers will execute their rushing attack. i could see starks outproducing grant on equal touches, but i could also see mccarthy running a vanilla gameplan and saving his starks stuff for a tougher opponent. anyone have a guess how many rushing yards green bay will pile up next week? if the line was 100 yards, who wants to take the over? if you're taking the under, now you're banking on rushing TDs for fantasy points -- and note that it took a half-dozen packer touchdowns to get one for starks. who thinks the packers need to roll up 42 points to edge out carolina next week? who is convinced that green bay will even score a rushing TD next week?

yes, starks is the best back in green bay. yes, he should outproduce grant this season. if he's available in your league for cheap, then buy buy buy. but if he cracks your starting lineup next week, it's because you're out of options or need the upside or love his matchup for damn good reason. and if you have that damn good reason, please share it here, because all i've seen so far is coachspeak and rose-colored glasses and bad arguments.

relax man its been one game. the idea is that starks becomes the lead back as the weeks go on. i agree he may not be an auto start at flex right now, but as previously mentioned, when they are running out the clock with big leads, i'd love to be rakin in starks points. i want him in my lineup eventually, maybe even next week. because of the packers' offense, most of starks td's should come in garbage time late in 2nd half. coffin nailers baby

 

[massraider]

i love rotoworld and their paper-thin analysis.

starks may be "a good bet" for more carries, but let's have a better argument than 'most snaps last week equals more carries next week' as if the reverse has never been true before.

You mean like the coach saying he wanted to give the guy (that had more carries) more carries? Something like that?

i'm still waiting for someone to explain what it is about the panthers that allows us to predict how the packers will execute their rushing attack. i could see starks outproducing grant on equal touches, but i could also see mccarthy running a vanilla gameplan and saving his starks stuff for a tougher opponent. anyone have a guess how many rushing yards green bay will pile up next week? if the line was 100 yards, who wants to take the over? if you're taking the under, now you're banking on rushing TDs for fantasy points -- and note that it took a half-dozen packer touchdowns to get one for starks. who thinks the packers need to roll up 42 points to edge out carolina next week? who is convinced that green bay will even score a rushing TD next week?

yes, starks is the best back in green bay. yes, he should outproduce grant this season. if he's available in your league for cheap, then buy buy buy. but if he cracks your starting lineup next week, it's because you're out of options or need the upside or love his matchup for damn good reason. and if you have that damn good reason, please share it here, because all i've seen so far is coachspeak and rose-colored glasses and bad arguments.

I think that's all you have seen because that's what you have been looking for. Look at the pro-Starks stuff in here. It's still pretty reserved. Where's the wild predictions of 1500 yards, and RB1 status? It isn't there.You have created a strawman.

 

[cr8f]

Just saw thia at Rotoworld

James Starks was on the field for 45 snaps in Thursday night's season opener.

Ryan Grant played only 16. It's just another sign Starks has supplanted Grant as the main man in Green Bay's backfield, even if he still struggles in pass protection. Starks is a good bet to surpass his 12 Week 1 carries when the Packers take on the Panthers next Sunday.

i love rotoworld and their paper-thin analysis.starks may be "a good bet" for more carries, but let's have a better argument than 'most snaps last week equals more carries next week' as if the reverse has never been true before.

i'm still waiting for someone to explain what it is about the panthers that allows us to predict how the packers will execute their rushing attack. i could see starks outproducing grant on equal touches, but i could also see mccarthy running a vanilla gameplan and saving his starks stuff for a tougher opponent. anyone have a guess how many rushing yards green bay will pile up next week? if the line was 100 yards, who wants to take the over? if you're taking the under, now you're banking on rushing TDs for fantasy points -- and note that it took a half-dozen packer touchdowns to get one for starks. who thinks the packers need to roll up 42 points to edge out carolina next week? who is convinced that green bay will even score a rushing TD next week?

yes, starks is the best back in green bay. yes, he should outproduce grant this season. if he's available in your league for cheap, then buy buy buy. but if he cracks your starting lineup next week, it's because you're out of options or need the upside or love his matchup for damn good reason. and if you have that damn good reason, please share it here, because all i've seen so far is coachspeak and rose-colored glasses and bad arguments.

I wouldn't count snaps per se but 45-16 is a huge disparity. I take what they say with a grain of salt but Grant being on the field that little says something. So far that something is Starks deserving more carries.

 

[pack66]

The one thing Grant does well is protect the franchise (Rodgers). Similar to the resigning of John Kuhn, Grant is more there for Rodgers in pass protection as than as a threat to run. If and when Starks learns to pass protect better (ergo the missed block on a fake on Thursday night), you'll see more and more of Starks. Until that time, Grant is and will continue to be in the mix.

 

[cvnpoka]

The one thing Grant does well is protect the franchise (Rodgers). Similar to the resigning of John Kuhn, Grant is more there for Rodgers in pass protection as than as a threat to run. If and when Starks learns to pass protect better (ergo the missed block on a fake on Thursday night), you'll see more and more of Starks. Until that time, Grant is and will continue to be in the mix.

starks playing more snaps 45-16 indicates the coaching staff indeed feels he is competent in pass blocking, perhaps even better than grant.

 

[zoonation]

The one thing Grant does well is protect the franchise (Rodgers). Similar to the resigning of John Kuhn, Grant is more there for Rodgers in pass protection as than as a threat to run. If and when Starks learns to pass protect better (ergo the missed block on a fake on Thursday night), you'll see more and more of Starks. Until that time, Grant is and will continue to be in the mix.

You obviously didn't watch the game.Starks is the RB in when the Pack are throwing. Grant barely saw the field in the second half.People just make stuff up around here. The Pack clearly have complete faith in Starks as a pass blocker. He helped them win a Superbowl as a pass blocker.

 

[AmosMoses]

The one thing Grant does well is protect the franchise (Rodgers). Similar to the resigning of John Kuhn, Grant is more there for Rodgers in pass protection as than as a threat to run. If and when Starks learns to pass protect better (ergo the missed block on a fake on Thursday night), you'll see more and more of Starks. Until that time, Grant is and will continue to be in the mix.

You obviously didn't watch the game.Starks is the RB in when the Pack are throwing. Grant barely saw the field in the second half.People just make stuff up around here. The Pack clearly have complete faith in Starks as a pass blocker. He helped them win a Superbowl as a pass blocker.

People have been going overboard with the "young RBs cannot pass block" garbage. Starks played well in all facets last game. He got something like 75% of the offensive snaps.

 

[The Dude]

Pretty much comes down to this -

If you are happy with what you saw - regardless of what anyone else thinks about who did - keep your guy and hope for the best.

This thread should die until news from Packer camp or game 2.

 

[faulkfan]

Pretty much comes down to this - If you are happy with what you saw - regardless of what anyone else thinks about who did - keep your guy and hope for the best.This thread should die until news from Packer camp or game 2.

I agree dude.I am astounded by how passionate folks are with so little evidence to support a position one way or the other. We have Grant retiring and Starks as the next Ahman Green based on 9 and 12 carries respectively.Perhaps the sample size is a bit too small to make a determination. Starks scored from 17 yds out and you can't take that away from him, but he missed a block that exposed one of the top QBs in the game to a pretty solid shot. Grant may not have scored, but he also seemed to do as well as Starks in the whole production department. However, he also didn't see as many plays either, which creates some questions.I have Starks and certainly hope he comes out as the "man" in the GB backfield, but I don't expect that to happen unless Grant goes down with an injury. If you invested an early pick in Grant you might be a little concerned and if you got Starks late (I got him in round 11) you are feeling pretty good because there is a chance to see some solid ROI. Either way, we might all be wise to temper our reactions to the first game of the season.

 

[ready5]

Just saw thia at Rotoworld

James Starks was on the field for 45 snaps in Thursday night's season opener.

Ryan Grant played only 16. It's just another sign Starks has supplanted Grant as the main man in Green Bay's backfield, even if he still struggles in pass protection. Starks is a good bet to surpass his 12 Week 1 carries when the Packers take on the Panthers next Sunday.

i love rotoworld and their paper-thin analysis.starks may be "a good bet" for more carries, but let's have a better argument than 'most snaps last week equals more carries next week' as if the reverse has never been true before.

i'm still waiting for someone to explain what it is about the panthers that allows us to predict how the packers will execute their rushing attack. i could see starks outproducing grant on equal touches, but i could also see mccarthy running a vanilla gameplan and saving his starks stuff for a tougher opponent. anyone have a guess how many rushing yards green bay will pile up next week? if the line was 100 yards, who wants to take the over? if you're taking the under, now you're banking on rushing TDs for fantasy points -- and note that it took a half-dozen packer touchdowns to get one for starks. who thinks the packers need to roll up 42 points to edge out carolina next week? who is convinced that green bay will even score a rushing TD next week?

yes, starks is the best back in green bay. yes, he should outproduce grant this season. if he's available in your league for cheap, then buy buy buy. but if he cracks your starting lineup next week, it's because you're out of options or need the upside or love his matchup for damn good reason. and if you have that damn good reason, please share it here, because all i've seen so far is coachspeak and rose-colored glasses and bad arguments.

I think the idea is the Packers will get up big then ride the running game. IF that happens it would be interesting to see who gets the totes. The Packers did not run well with a lead last year, but they also didn't have Grant OR Starks for the vast majority of the season. I would take the over on the rushing yards here.Said the Packers fan with his head in the clouds.

i would agree with this.but what it means is that GB@CAR is going to look more like the last couple drives of NO@GB as opposed to the whole game, which means this 74% of total snaps stuff is completely missing the mark. the penultimate drive was starks, starks, grant, grant, grant, sack, jones, punt. it's interesting that grant's lack of positive yardage on first down prompted a play-action pass on second down, and that starks' missed blitz pickup on second down is what led to another passing play on third down. the final drive was starks, starks, kuhn, punt. will green bay's ball control be that inept against carolina? probably not, but it's interesting that mccarthy was juggling backs during each drive instead of alternating drives per back. and in green bay's final scoring drive, we also saw a mix of backs, with starks opening, then giving way to grant and kuhn -- and note that it was kuhn who got the goalline carry.

this is why i keep asking the thread for their opinion of how green bay will handle ball control versus carolina. i could see starks being so effective that he never leaves the field, but i could also see starks and grant alternating drives (only some of which will end in rushing TDs, good luck predicting which) or kuhn getting some crucial goalline work or there being an absolute carousel at RB during each drive (making it a complete crapshoot to guess who is going to be on the field in the red zone, etc).

where are the packer homers? i'd love to hear a good argument for what specifically green bay will do on the ground next week and how specifically that will track to personnel/etc. i know everyone's all excited about green jesus getting tons of work against new orleans, but that means squat to me until someone draws a line from the saints to the panthers and backs it with a good argument. still waiting.

 

[ready5]

relax man its been one game.

eh? that's my argument. i'm the one advocating caution to everyone who thinks thursday's game was a coronation.

the idea is that starks becomes the lead back as the weeks go on.

no, the debate is when will that occur? i think most everyone buys the idea that starks will supplant grant at some point, but when? i keep seeing people claim "based on last night, that looks sooner than we thought" without any supporting argumentation to explain why that's the case. certainly thursday's game was a good sign for starks (his blitz pickup failure notwithstanding), but most of the exuberance in this thread seems a bit irrational. yes, starks poops rainbows and cures cancer, but how does that track to fantasy production?

i agree he may not be an auto start at flex right now, but as previously mentioned, when they are running out the clock with big leads, i'd love to be rakin in starks points. i want him in my lineup eventually, maybe even next week. because of the packers' offense, most of starks td's should come in garbage time late in 2nd half. coffin nailers baby

i would agree that the packers should leap to an early lead and protect it easily, especially since carolina will be hard-pressed to put up more than a score or two against green bay's defense. so now we need an argument for why it'll be starks performing the ball control duties, including an argument for why he'll be so effective that he keeps grant/kuhn off the field.

 

[ready5]

i love rotoworld and their paper-thin analysis.

starks may be "a good bet" for more carries, but let's have a better argument than 'most snaps last week equals more carries next week' as if the reverse has never been true before.

You mean like the coach saying he wanted to give the guy (that had more carries) more carries? Something like that?

no, i already stated that i'm looking for more than coachspeak. or can you contextualize his remarks?

i'm still waiting for someone to explain what it is about the panthers that allows us to predict how the packers will execute their rushing attack. i could see starks outproducing grant on equal touches, but i could also see mccarthy running a vanilla gameplan and saving his starks stuff for a tougher opponent. anyone have a guess how many rushing yards green bay will pile up next week? if the line was 100 yards, who wants to take the over? if you're taking the under, now you're banking on rushing TDs for fantasy points -- and note that it took a half-dozen packer touchdowns to get one for starks. who thinks the packers need to roll up 42 points to edge out carolina next week? who is convinced that green bay will even score a rushing TD next week?

yes, starks is the best back in green bay. yes, he should outproduce grant this season. if he's available in your league for cheap, then buy buy buy. but if he cracks your starting lineup next week, it's because you're out of options or need the upside or love his matchup for damn good reason. and if you have that damn good reason, please share it here, because all i've seen so far is coachspeak and rose-colored glasses and bad arguments.

I think that's all you have seen because that's what you have been looking for.

no, i keep seeing coachspeak because people like you keep quoting it like gospel. if you see a good argument that i missed, please link me to it. sounds like you have one in mind?

Look at the pro-Starks stuff in here. It's still pretty reserved. Where's the wild predictions of 1500 yards, and RB1 status? It isn't there.

of course it isn't. no one ever said it was, certainly not me. you sure you understand my position? because you continue to misrepresent it, making your next sentence hilarious --

You have created a strawman.

lol, no. that would be you. keep in mind that i'm pro-starks, i'm just cautiously optimistic instead of rabidly optimistic. what you're misunderstanding here is something i've already explained to you -- "i'm just trying to suggest that people who think last night was an anointing need to shoulder the burden of proof a little. if you think starks won't get 74% of all packer snaps, then welcome to the club -- but what's your reason? mine is that starks isn't a complete back yet and every game is different."do you understand what i'm saying? i'm not making any predictions here, i'm asking people for the reasons for their predictions. you probably know more about football than me, so i don't think i'm out of line asking you to flesh out your opinion a little. is it just a gut feel? or do you have something objective to offer?

 

[Aabye]

Just watrcing that 17 yard TD on NFL.com, and it really doesn't look all that impressive...huge hole, full head of steam and a couple of arm tackles by the DBs...I could have scored it

I'd like to think that maybe you have a valid point so I had to go and watch the play about 15 times thinking I may see something different from my initial take, but you don't and you're wrong. About the only thing you got right is he did have good blocks at the first two levels. Just stop. TIA.

If only there was some explanation for this disparity.

 

[griff321]

Just watrcing that 17 yard TD on NFL.com, and it really doesn't look all that impressive...huge hole, full head of steam and a couple of arm tackles by the DBs...I could have scored it

I'd like to think that maybe you have a valid point so I had to go and watch the play about 15 times thinking I may see something different from my initial take, but you don't and you're wrong. About the only thing you got right is he did have good blocks at the first two levels. Just stop. TIA.

If only there was some explanation for this disparity.

Figures. Sick notebook skills my friend.