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

[identikit]

from Rotoworld:

Jason Wilde of ESPNMilwaukee.com expects the Packers to retain Ryan Grant for the 2011 season. Analysis: There has been speculation that the Packers could balk at Grant's $1.75 million roster bonus. Green Bay's litany of injuries was a good reminder that depth is important, however, and Grant could form a nice 1-2 punch with James Starks. Grant remains the favorite to start in Week 1, but his fantasy value takes a severe blow with Starks looming.

 

[qimqam]

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

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

Really? Even a slow , weak one, with a bad work ethic and no field vision? Now you tell me !!!

 

[duaneok66]

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

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

Really? Even a slow , weak one, with a bad work ethic and no field vision? Now you tell me !!!

sorry - it was meant as sarcasm . . .

 

[blackbird001]

From NFP, report on rookie performances in the super bowl:

As he has done all during the playoffs, Starks played a very consistent game. Running the ball was not a big part of the Green Bay game plan so he carried the ball only 11 times for 52 yards. As I have said before, he is a very physical runner who consistently gets yards after contact. He is always attacking his tacklers yet still has the body control and quick feet to make a defender miss. The part of his game that was impressive on Sunday was his pass blocking. Except for one play when he took a bad angle after play action, he was excellent. He’s a face up pass blocker with pop and anchor and also has good hands. Overall, the more Starks plays the more complete he is becoming and next season he will be one of the better backs in the NFC. He gets a B+

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/The-Su...kie-Report.html

 

[smackdaddies]

Well, no matter all the big words and man love for Starks, only one poster had the balls to back it up and take my bet from back in Feb.

That would be Shtaym Syek

And just who have the Packers named as their starting RB? Why, Ryan Grant.

Now technically the bet is as of game day, first game. So I might still lose, and yes, I will pay off.

But Shtaym? Are you still willing to pay off the bet? Answer your PM please

 

[geoff8695]

Well, no matter all the big words and man love for Starks, only one poster had the balls to back it up and take my bet from back in Feb.

That would be Shtaym Syek

And just who have the Packers named as their starting RB? Why, Ryan Grant.

Now technically the bet is as of game day, first game. So I might still lose, and yes, I will pay off.

But Shtaym? Are you still willing to pay off the bet? Answer your PM please

I don't know who either of you two are, and have no rooting interest in the Packers (Bears fan here). But this bet feels like a hollow victory for you, as it appears that McCarthy will be going with the hot hand this season regardless of the named opening day "starter". If Grant has less carries/receptions/yards/TDs what difference does it really make who took the opening series? Wasn't the spirit of the bet centered around which back was more important/talented/valuable for the 2011 season, or at least for the start of the 2011 season?

You argued earlier in this thread that Grant is a top 10 RB in the NFL. Surely a top 10 NFL RB isn't going to be in a full blown RBBC, or yielding the majority of the workload to the backup RB that you argued "blew chunks" in pass protection way back in post #31, right?

Why don't you two go double or nothing on which back scores the most fantasy points this season, or at least make it which back scores more fantasy points in the opening game since the essence of the bet was your argument that Grant was far more valuable than Starks going into 2011.

 

[Tat]

Looks like they will be getting equal carries Thursday night:

My link

 

[Zab]

Starks looks like the superior RB. Grant just has no burst. I think Starks will end up taking over sooner rather than later.

 

[zoonation]

Starks looks like the superior RB. Grant just has no burst. I think Starks will end up taking over sooner rather than later.

It has happened. Starks is clearly RB1

 

[qimqam]

Starks looks like the superior RB. Grant just has no burst. I think Starks will end up taking over sooner rather than later.

I own Starks and I think he looks good but I think Grant looks pretty good to.Starks has been in for probably 3/4 of the offensive plays ... but their touches are about equal.

 

[Clifford]

Starks clear winner here

 

[fatmnkypants]

Starks looks stronger and more explosive IMO-- excellant pass blocker too though Grant seems to be too..

My only suprise with Starks though was no looks in the passing game.. I was thinking he'd be a 3-5 catch guy, but maybe it's just the game plan tonight.

Telling sign also Packers are trusting him to run out the clock and not Grant. I think Starks will be the main back soon.

 

[johnnyboy8102]

Drop Grant for Starks?

 

[bulger2holt]

It's a 2 horse combo in a passing system. Neither will be all that great.