Starks v Grant - Who starts next year for the Packers? (1 Viewer)

[smackdaddies]

Personally, very tired of all the Grant haters, Stark Man Love society.

Here is the deal -

Opening Day (1st Game, regular season, 2011) for the Packers - who do they list as #1 on the RB? Starks or Grant?

I take Grant.

You disagree? Fine - Sig bet time.

If it's Grant, I win

If it's Stark, you win

If it is someone else, season cancelled, or either is out with injury (PUP or IR), then it is a push.

Pay Off - first 4 games of the regular season, your sig tag is provided by the winner. Only requirement is the sig has to be w/o profanity, actual or implied and otherwise complies with FBG site rules. All else is fair game.

 

[smackdaddies]

Offer is good through the end of February, 2011.

 

[belljr]

Are you Ryan Grant?

 

[CentralPA]

I think it's Grant but I wouldn't be surprised if this just became a commitee RB situation with Starks and Grant splitting carries.

 

[jojoh07]

Grant is the better RB

 

[duaneok66]

Starks looks like just another back . . .

 

[harryhood]

Nothing screams that this guy(starks) is going to be Elite, or even a fantasy first rounder. But I do think he made a couple good runs in big spots yesterday. Nothing jaw dropping, but being so young and raw, I think Starks could grow into a solid option for GB down the road here.

If Grant is back with the team next year I fully expect him to be the starting RB.

 

[Reepicheep]

Zero doubt in my mind that Grant is the #1 on the depth chart in week 1 next year. I think a better bet would be who gets the most totes over the first eight weeks. Still not something I'd be willing to wager on though.

 

[s&m]

Add me to firmly in the Grant as starter line. It was very telling how little the Packers trusted Starks in the second half of the Super Bowl. What did he have 2-3 carries the whole second half? You know they would have loved to been able to run the ball the second half and get the clock on their side, and/or to buy the defense a little more time to rest with all the injuries. If Starks was all that, trust me they would have run the ball much more. If only to keep the Steelers honest.

 

[Football Jones]

Who knows who will start the first game. Depends on if Grant is back & what happens in training camp.

Longterm (say 2012), I absolutely like Starks as Green Bay's starter (with the choices being Grant or Starks).

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Add me to firmly in the Grant as starter line. It was very telling how little the Packers trusted Starks in the second half of the Super Bowl. What did he have 2-3 carries the whole second half? You know they would have loved to been able to run the ball the second half and get the clock on their side, and/or to buy the defense a little more time to rest with all the injuries. If Starks was all that, trust me they would have run the ball much more. If only to keep the Steelers honest.

Starks was averaging close to 5 yards per carry, why would it be a matter of not trusting him?

 

[Steed]

This seems like a silly bet. Wouldn't a better bet for an FF board be who has the better season or takes us to the promised land?

Even if Grant starts, what if it's 60/40 split in Starks favor? We could have done the same thing for Thomas Jones\Jamaal Charles last February. Jones got the start out veteran respect but it was Jamaal that mattered the most.

 

[Shtaym Syek]

I'm in. This better be real.

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

Starks wont be an every down back until he learns to pick up a blitz. He looked absolutely horrible.

 

[Warhogs]

Pretty silly to place a signature bet on anyone's best guess here.

I know Grant is due a roster bonus I believe in March. I think there is a good chance Green Bay asks Grant to renegotiate his contract or get cut. My gut feeling says Grant will need to do a renegotiated contract to stick around. What happens if this is how things play out is tough to say.

 

[Shtaym Syek]

Pretty silly to place a signature bet on anyone's best guess here.I know Grant is due a roster bonus I believe in March. I think there is a good chance Green Bay asks Grant to renegotiate his contract or get cut. My gut feeling says Grant will need to do a renegotiated contract to stick around. What happens if this is how things play out is tough to say.

He put it out there. I accepted.Not silly at all.

 

[blackbird001]

Starks wont be an every down back until he learns to pick up a blitz. He looked absolutely horrible.

"Starks' best sequence came in the second quarter. Fox color commentator Troy Aikman also lauded Starks' ability to pick up the blitz on a 16-yard pass completion from Rodgers to Nelson. The very next play, Starks ripped off a run of 12 yards, taking the Packers down to the Steelers' 21-yard line."http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/bills-nf...ticle333560.ece

 

[Kitrick Taylor]

Starks wont be an every down back until he learns to pick up a blitz. He looked absolutely horrible.

"Starks' best sequence came in the second quarter. Fox color commentator Troy Aikman also lauded Starks' ability to pick up the blitz on a 16-yard pass completion from Rodgers to Nelson. The very next play, Starks ripped off a run of 12 yards, taking the Packers down to the Steelers' 21-yard line."http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/bills-nf...ticle333560.ece

I certainly didn't see anything that made me think Starks is horrible at blitz pickup.

I believe Starks is actually a little bit better instinctual runner than Grant is. Grant is not going to get cut, and this will be RBBC next year barring injury to one of those two. Book it.

 

[s&m]

Add me to firmly in the Grant as starter line. It was very telling how little the Packers trusted Starks in the second half of the Super Bowl. What did he have 2-3 carries the whole second half? You know they would have loved to been able to run the ball the second half and get the clock on their side, and/or to buy the defense a little more time to rest with all the injuries. If Starks was all that, trust me they would have run the ball much more. If only to keep the Steelers honest.

Starks was averaging close to 5 yards per carry, why would it be a matter of not trusting him?

Did the Packers have Starks run the ball in the second half? Do you think that the Packers game plan was to have to throw the ball every play in the second half of the Super Bowl? The only reason they would abandon the run game is if they didn't trust the run game or the running back. No team would risk throwing the ball every play when they have the lead in the Super Bowl if they felt they had any other choice. So my instinct and logic tells me they didn't trust Starks with the ball. Not sure what your instinct and logic tells you about the Packer decision not to run the ball.

 

[Shtaym Syek]

Add me to firmly in the Grant as starter line. It was very telling how little the Packers trusted Starks in the second half of the Super Bowl. What did he have 2-3 carries the whole second half? You know they would have loved to been able to run the ball the second half and get the clock on their side, and/or to buy the defense a little more time to rest with all the injuries. If Starks was all that, trust me they would have run the ball much more. If only to keep the Steelers honest.

Starks was averaging close to 5 yards per carry, why would it be a matter of not trusting him?

The only reason they would abandon the run game is if they didn't trust the run game or the running back.

FYI - You're starting with a false premise here.

 

[Steed]

Add me to firmly in the Grant as starter line. It was very telling how little the Packers trusted Starks in the second half of the Super Bowl. What did he have 2-3 carries the whole second half? You know they would have loved to been able to run the ball the second half and get the clock on their side, and/or to buy the defense a little more time to rest with all the injuries. If Starks was all that, trust me they would have run the ball much more. If only to keep the Steelers honest.

Starks was averaging close to 5 yards per carry, why would it be a matter of not trusting him?

Did the Packers have Starks run the ball in the second half? Do you think that the Packers game plan was to have to throw the ball every play in the second half of the Super Bowl? The only reason they would abandon the run game is if they didn't trust the run game or the running back. No team would risk throwing the ball every play when they have the lead in the Super Bowl if they felt they had any other choice. So my instinct and logic tells me they didn't trust Starks with the ball. Not sure what your instinct and logic tells you about the Packer decision not to run the ball.

Actually, it was mcCarthy's gameplan all along to keep the foot on the gas pedal the whole time. Had nothing to do with his trust in Starks.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Starks wont be an every down back until he learns to pick up a blitz. He looked absolutely horrible.

This. Grant is good in blitz pickup, Starks isn't. Unless that changes, there is zero doubt that Grant is the starter. My money is on Grant -- for 2011. Beyond that, he's done.

 

[DepthCharts]

Starks looks like just another back . . .

who falls forward every time he touches the ball it appears. A talent that is often overlooked.

 

[Illegal Pants Downfield]

Add me to firmly in the Grant as starter line. It was very telling how little the Packers trusted Starks in the second half of the Super Bowl. What did he have 2-3 carries the whole second half? You know they would have loved to been able to run the ball the second half and get the clock on their side, and/or to buy the defense a little more time to rest with all the injuries. If Starks was all that, trust me they would have run the ball much more. If only to keep the Steelers honest.

Starks was averaging close to 5 yards per carry, why would it be a matter of not trusting him?

The only reason they would abandon the run game is if they didn't trust the run game or the running back.

FYI - You're starting with a false premise here.

They ran Starks 5 times in the 2nd half, by my count. They also had at least 2 series in the 2nd half that had early penalties/sacks that put them in unfavorable down-distance situations for running the ball, especially against a run defense like the Steelers, especially when you have a passing game with Rodgers/Jordy/Jones/Jennings doing what they were doing.Further, 2 of those 5 carriers were in the Packers' final drive for the field goal to make the lead 6 points. Pretty crucial time in the game to be giving carries to a 'guy you don't trust'?

 

[Go deep]

Add me to firmly in the Grant as starter line. It was very telling how little the Packers trusted Starks in the second half of the Super Bowl. What did he have 2-3 carries the whole second half? You know they would have loved to been able to run the ball the second half and get the clock on their side, and/or to buy the defense a little more time to rest with all the injuries. If Starks was all that, trust me they would have run the ball much more. If only to keep the Steelers honest.

Starks was averaging close to 5 yards per carry, why would it be a matter of not trusting him?

Did the Packers have Starks run the ball in the second half? Do you think that the Packers game plan was to have to throw the ball every play in the second half of the Super Bowl? The only reason they would abandon the run game is if they didn't trust the run game or the running back. No team would risk throwing the ball every play when they have the lead in the Super Bowl if they felt they had any other choice. So my instinct and logic tells me they didn't trust Starks with the ball. Not sure what your instinct and logic tells you about the Packer decision not to run the ball.

There is probably some truth to this. Actually though, i do think the game plan was to put the ball in Rodgers hands, not to take it out of Starks. The Steelers are the best team against the run, and only an average against the pass. With the way Rodgers was playing, i would have kept throwing until the Steelers proved they could stop him....which they never did. On a side note, now that the Grant fans have this thread maybe you could stop the arguing/bickering everytime someone points out something positive about Starks in the Starks thread? TIA

 

[qimqam]

Grant is an average back coming off a major injury.

Starks is a potential stud

 

[duaneok66]

Grant is an average back coming off a major injury.Starks is a potential stud

any young player is a "potential stud" . . .

 

[Warhogs]

I really view this as a toss up at this point. One observation I have is that Starks seems sort of long legged or something when I see him play. He just doesn't seem to me to have the body makeup of most RB who always seem to look short legged to me.

 

[Bri]

Not betting-

I didn't think the Packers showed enough confidence when it mattered in Starks. I'm guessing he's future potential guy while Grant is now. Contracts probably tell the story here too.

Grant had some eh games that seem to have stuck in some people's memories.

 

[smackdaddies]

I'm in. This better be real.

At least someone is willing to man up

 

[smackdaddies]

Grant is an average back coming off a major injury.Starks is a potential stud

Grant = top 10 rusher in the nflJackson - Better than Brandon JacksonAlso, as to the blitz - Starks did a good job picking up a blitz where Rodgers pushed him over to the right side and he blocked a linebacker coming in from the edge. He completley blew chunks when he had to pick up a blitz up the center, twice that I remember (and commented on the game thread). I mean not even in the same zip code.

 

[smackdaddies]

I'm in. This better be real.

So far, Shtaym gets a pass on any man love he shares about Stark. He's wrong, but at least he put it down.The rest of you - you talk about Starks being the starter next year - I am calling

 

[RoboQB]

Follow the money...

Grant is due to make a huge amount of $$$ and is coming off injury.

Starks is a 6th round pick that showed he can do well in the GB system.

I didn't look it up but, if Grant is in the last year of his contract and is

due to make something like 10 million, I bet GB cuts him.

 

[Slevin Kelevra]

Grant = top 10 rusher in the nfl

Really ?Top 10 RB right now ?

 

[Eric Stratton]

Grant is an average back coming off a major injury.Starks is a potential stud

Grant = top 10 rusher in the nflJackson - Better than Brandon JacksonAlso, as to the blitz - Starks did a good job picking up a blitz where Rodgers pushed him over to the right side and he blocked a linebacker coming in from the edge. He completley blew chunks when he had to pick up a blitz up the center, twice that I remember (and commented on the game thread). I mean not even in the same zip code.

Do you know how many times Grant has finished in the top 10 for rushing in the NFL....twice.(9th and 7th)And yes, Steven Jackson is better than Brandon Jackson.

 

[identikit]

IIRC, Grant's $$ for 2011 isn't all that high.

 

[smackdaddies]

Grant is an average back coming off a major injury.

Starks is a potential stud

Grant = top 10 rusher in the nflJackson - Better than Brandon Jackson

Also, as to the blitz - Starks did a good job picking up a blitz where Rodgers pushed him over to the right side and he blocked a linebacker coming in from the edge.

He completley blew chunks when he had to pick up a blitz up the center, twice that I remember (and commented on the game thread). I mean not even in the same zip code.

Do you know how many times Grant has finished in the top 10 for rushing in the NFL....twice.And yes, Steven Jackson is better than Brandon Jackson.

You don't, obviously

For you others of the terminally clueless, the answer is two years (here is the other)

Plus, in 07, he nailed 900 yards in nine games? Which also put him in the top 10 for the games he started.

So yes, every season he has started, he has been a top 10 RB - that's three years out of three.

Talking to some of you is just , but please, get a clue.

 

[smackdaddies]

Grant = top 10 rusher in the nfl

Really ?Top 10 RB right now ?

 

[Eric Stratton]

Some interesting stats from the postseason....

Starks had the most rushing yards

Starks had a higher YPC than Mendenhall, Forte, Ray Rice and LeSean McCoy and he tied with Michael Turner.

He didn't fumble the ball.

He had a 20+ yard run. Mendenhall had one too. Matt Forte, LeSean McCoy and Michael Turner...none.

He averaged over 20 carries per game.

His rushing yards per game of 78.8 was second overall.

 

[Eric Stratton]

Grant is an average back coming off a major injury.

Starks is a potential stud

Grant = top 10 rusher in the nflJackson - Better than Brandon Jackson

Also, as to the blitz - Starks did a good job picking up a blitz where Rodgers pushed him over to the right side and he blocked a linebacker coming in from the edge.

He completley blew chunks when he had to pick up a blitz up the center, twice that I remember (and commented on the game thread). I mean not even in the same zip code.

Do you know how many times Grant has finished in the top 10 for rushing in the NFL....twice.And yes, Steven Jackson is better than Brandon Jackson.

You don't, obviously

For you others of the terminally clueless, the answer is two years (here is the other)

Plus, in 07, he nailed 900 yards in nine games? Which also put him in the top 10 for the games he started.

So yes, every season he has started, he has been a top 10 RB - that's three years out of three.

Talking to some of you is just , but please, get a clue.

Well using that logic than James Starks is a top 10 RB for the games he started in the postseason.

 

[Eric Stratton]

Grant is an average back coming off a major injury.

Starks is a potential stud

Grant = top 10 rusher in the nflJackson - Better than Brandon Jackson

Also, as to the blitz - Starks did a good job picking up a blitz where Rodgers pushed him over to the right side and he blocked a linebacker coming in from the edge.

He completley blew chunks when he had to pick up a blitz up the center, twice that I remember (and commented on the game thread). I mean not even in the same zip code.

Do you know how many times Grant has finished in the top 10 for rushing in the NFL....twice.And yes, Steven Jackson is better than Brandon Jackson.

You don't, obviously

For you others of the terminally clueless, the answer is two years (here is the other)

See above..you said the answer is two years and that is what I wrote. Now you are looking like Sabertooth.

 

[smackdaddies]

Follow the money...

Grant is due to make a huge amount of $$$ and is coming off injury.

Starks is a 6th round pick that showed he can do well in the GB system.

I didn't look it up but, if Grant is in the last year of his contract and is

due to make something like 10 million, I bet GB cuts him.

$1.75m bonus, 3.5 base, $500k other bonus.

 

[smackdaddies]

Grant is an average back coming off a major injury.

Starks is a potential stud

Grant = top 10 rusher in the nflJackson - Better than Brandon Jackson

Also, as to the blitz - Starks did a good job picking up a blitz where Rodgers pushed him over to the right side and he blocked a linebacker coming in from the edge.

He completley blew chunks when he had to pick up a blitz up the center, twice that I remember (and commented on the game thread). I mean not even in the same zip code.

Do you know how many times Grant has finished in the top 10 for rushing in the NFL....twice.And yes, Steven Jackson is better than Brandon Jackson.

You don't, obviously

For you others of the terminally clueless, the answer is two years (here is the other)

See above..you said the answer is two years and that is what I wrote. Now you are looking like Sabertooth.

The answer is - every year that he has started, he has been top 10 rushing. True, you have to prorate the first year. But it is every freaking year he has performed at that level.Starks has .... NOTHING.

 

[Eric Stratton]

The answer is - every year that he has started, he has been top 10 rushing. True, you have to prorate the first year. But it is every freaking year he has performed at that level.Starks has .... NOTHING.

So you are prorating seasons to help your argument. So using your logic one can state that Starks is a top 5 back based on his starts in the postseason.

 

[Stinger Ray]

Starks has .... NOTHING.

Ok..we know you don't like Starks but that comment is absurd.

 

[sho nuff]

While I don't share smack's dismissive attitude towards Starks...I agree to an extent that some are forgetting about what Grant has done in this offense.

As he showed, his contract is not all that big...and they know what happens if they let him go and go in with just Starks and Jackson (if they resign him) and a rookie.

The best and most likely scenario IMO is to keep Grant and Starks to use as a 1/2 punch with Jackson as the 3rd down back. Then still have Kuhn if they want to use him some too.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Add me to firmly in the Grant as starter line. It was very telling how little the Packers trusted Starks in the second half of the Super Bowl. What did he have 2-3 carries the whole second half? You know they would have loved to been able to run the ball the second half and get the clock on their side, and/or to buy the defense a little more time to rest with all the injuries. If Starks was all that, trust me they would have run the ball much more. If only to keep the Steelers honest.

Starks was averaging close to 5 yards per carry, why would it be a matter of not trusting him?

Did the Packers have Starks run the ball in the second half? Do you think that the Packers game plan was to have to throw the ball every play in the second half of the Super Bowl? The only reason they would abandon the run game is if they didn't trust the run game or the running back. No team would risk throwing the ball every play when they have the lead in the Super Bowl if they felt they had any other choice. So my instinct and logic tells me they didn't trust Starks with the ball. Not sure what your instinct and logic tells you about the Packer decision not to run the ball.

It tells me that the Steelers were the No. 1 defense against the run this year and their achillies heal was defending the pass, especially when teams spread them out.Since Starks ran well when he did get carries and didn't fumble (and is not known to be a fumbler) I don't see it as a lack of trust and think that interpretation is a real stretch.

 

[two_dollars]

Finely will be the starting RB AND the starting TE.

 

[Tau837]

As I have posted in other threads recently, IMO Grant is currently underrated and Starks is currently overrated. IMO Grant will not be cut and will open the 2011 season as the starter. IMO Starks will be the backup and will get some carries, but not as many as a lot of people around here seem to think (assuming Grant is healthy, and right now there is no reason to think he won't be).

 

[Kitrick Taylor]

As I have posted in other threads recently, IMO Grant is currently underrated and Starks is currently overrated. IMO Grant will not be cut and will open the 2011 season as the starter. IMO Starks will be the backup and will get some carries, but not as many as a lot of people around here seem to think (assuming Grant is healthy, and right now there is no reason to think he won't be).

I know you've been a Grant backer for some time. I agree that Grant will most likely be the starter going into 2011. I think people that are dismissing Starks are sticking their head in the sand though. Look around the league at other teams that have two capable backs. By and large they share carries. I have no idea what the percentage breakdown may be, but I think both will get a solid amount of work in the interest of keeping both fresh for the playoffs. Knowing McCarthy, it may also be a "hot hand' type approach, which obviously would be the worst case scenario for fantasy purposes.