Time to stash James Starks? (1 Viewer)

[Fantasy Man]

So far this year, Jackson has been awful:

18-63 3.5ypc

11-29 2.6ypc

7-12 1.7ypc

9-33 3.7ypc

Kuhn has been effective with limited carries, but he is not the answer, whether solo or in platoon:

2-15 7.5

9-36 4.0

6-31 5.2

9-39 4.3

James Starks was getting some rave reviews in minicamps, but he hasn't played in a game that counts in almost two years. The Packers offense is clearly one that can produce RB1 production and has for the past couple years with a marginally talented RB (IMO). I wonder if Starks is going to get a chance after he comes of PUP.

Any GB homers know his progress? I think I read a blurb somewhere that he is running full speed now and should be 100% by the time he is eligible to be activated.

 

[moderated]

I think now that 3 weeks are up they can cut nance opening up a roster spot to possibly trade for a rb.

There is no way they are going to bank on a rookie coming off the PUP who hasn't played football in over a year. He might get a chance to contribute but to bank on him would be suicide.

The Pack have had some time now to see what jackson and kuhn can do and they both suck as far as being guys who can be relied upon. Jackson needs to return to his 3rd down role and they need a solid bellcow type, which kuhn isn't and starks might not even be playable.

The trade avenue wasn't gonna happen with nance taking up a rosteer spot, now that they can open it up a trade is likely IMO.

 

[Tigerbot Hesh]

If you've got the room on the bench, why not take a chance with Starks? The trade deadline is usually about Week 10 (I think), so GB would have a couple weeks to see what Starks offers them before trying to make a deal for another team's RB.

 

[emge]

can they start John Clay????

 

[Thanatos]

If you've got the room on the bench, why not take a chance with Starks? The trade deadline is usually about Week 10 (I think), so GB would have a couple weeks to see what Starks offers them before trying to make a deal for another team's RB.

I could be wrong, but I believe the trade deadline in the NFL is actually week 6 or week 7 as I seem to recall it always being in mid October.

 

[Tigerbot Hesh]

If you've got the room on the bench, why not take a chance with Starks? The trade deadline is usually about Week 10 (I think), so GB would have a couple weeks to see what Starks offers them before trying to make a deal for another team's RB.

I could be wrong, but I believe the trade deadline in the NFL is actually week 6 or week 7 as I seem to recall it always being in mid October.

You're probably right. I think Week 10 is my league's deadline.

 

[Steeler Bräu]

I would recommend this:

1) Acquire Lynch (I think GB will trade for him)

2) Add Nance instead.

 

[K8!]

I don't understand the kuhn hate. He runs with conviction and power and has been very productive.

I do understand the jackson hate. He hesitates, dances, and shys from contact turning three yard gains into two yard loses far too often.

 

[sho nuff]

I think now that 3 weeks are up they can cut nance opening up a roster spot to possibly trade for a rb.There is no way they are going to bank on a rookie coming off the PUP who hasn't played football in over a year. He might get a chance to contribute but to bank on him would be suicide.The Pack have had some time now to see what jackson and kuhn can do and they both suck as far as being guys who can be relied upon. Jackson needs to return to his 3rd down role and they need a solid bellcow type, which kuhn isn't and starks might not even be playable.The trade avenue wasn't gonna happen with nance taking up a rosteer spot, now that they can open it up a trade is likely IMO.

Its bad when I agree with moderated. Said as much about the Nance thing.Where I disagree to an extent is saying Kuhn can't be relied upon.I think hs showed he can be in a role (like trying to bruise their way to run out the clock). He is not a 15+ carry guy. I think 15 is about all I would ever give him. But he could have a nice niche in this offense.Jackson is what he is...a decent 3rd down back/receiving back.

 

[Warhogs]

I'm a Packer fan and I believe they will acquire a RB via trade before the deadline. Lynch seems to be a strong possibility but discount them finding someone else if the Lynch asking price is not to their liking. I could see them look at a guy like Brandon Jacobs too. I think they are seeing that Jackson can not get it done for them on the ground so they will have to acquire someone.

 

[That Little Voice]

Was Nance active yesterday?Maybe it does ultimately become Lynch via trade, but I'm loving James Starks right now.

The Bills are planning on keeping Marshawn Lynch past the Oct. 19 trading deadline, according to ESPN's Adam Schefter.Schefter says the Bills "seriously contemplated" trading Lynch last week, but ultimately decided to stand pat. Teams like the Packers will keep calling about Lynch, so a trade remains possible if the ante is raised. Schefter hints that the Bills could end up trading Lynch this offseason, before the running back heads into his contract year.

 

[sho nuff]

They almost seem intent on giving Starks an opportunity as Nance has not seen anything.

I still don't want to trust someone who has not played football in over a year now. Just can't do it.

 

[Ariakis]

Nance is the next guy to stash as I'd think his time is coming soon and if it's not it's almost time to cut bait. Starks now if you've got room otherwise give it another week or two but be quick on the trigger if you are letting him float on waivers. He is on a dynasty roster of course but in redrafts he's generally available.

 

[zamboni]

Nance is the next guy to stash as I'd think his time is coming soon and if it's not it's almost time to cut bait.

Do any homers have any insight as to why Nance isn't getting any carries?Not up to speed yet/pass protection issues, etc? Maybe he's just not plain good, but hard to see when he's not playing.

 

[Dos46]

Nance is the next guy to stash as I'd think his time is coming soon and if it's not it's almost time to cut bait. Starks now if you've got room otherwise give it another week or two but be quick on the trigger if you are letting him float on waivers. He is on a dynasty roster of course but in redrafts he's generally available.

Based on what?

 

[Insein]

I don't understand the kuhn hate. He runs with conviction and power and has been very productive.I do understand the jackson hate. He hesitates, dances, and shys from contact turning three yard gains into two yard loses far too often.

There's no hate for kuhn. He's just not a starting RB. He's the short yardage guy. 3rd and 1, 3rd and 2, he's your man. They need a feature back. Grant was that guy. Green Bay's inability to eat clock by running the ball enarly cost them yesterday against the Lions. If thats not a wake up call, I don't know what is. It may not be this week but I think the Lynch deal gets done before the deadline.

 

[One]

Nance is the next guy to stash as I'd think his time is coming soon and if it's not it's almost time to cut bait.

Do any homers have any insight as to why Nance isn't getting any carries?

Not up to speed yet/pass protection issues, etc? Maybe he's just not plain good, but hard to see when he's not playing.

Not a homer, but I think it's about learning the offense.Take a look at Ryan Grant's '07 game log. Took until week 8 before he was given more than 3 carries.

 

[sho nuff]

I don't understand the kuhn hate. He runs with conviction and power and has been very productive.I do understand the jackson hate. He hesitates, dances, and shys from contact turning three yard gains into two yard loses far too often.

There's no hate for kuhn. He's just not a starting RB. He's the short yardage guy. 3rd and 1, 3rd and 2, he's your man. They need a feature back. Grant was that guy. Green Bay's inability to eat clock by running the ball enarly cost them yesterday against the Lions. If thats not a wake up call, I don't know what is. It may not be this week but I think the Lynch deal gets done before the deadline.

I don't think it had anything to do with an inability to eat the clock by running the ball. They did that on the last drive.I dont' think they were going for that all that much...in addition, they can do it by using the quick short passing game and spreading a team out...Rodgers seemed pissed after the game that they did not do that more in the 2nd half to give the defense a rest.

 

[K8!]

Kuhn's yards per carry intrigue me, as does his ratio of positive yard plays to negative yard plays. His sample size is small, but it also comes when teams are anticipating the run, so that is a positive.

I don't think he is an ultimate answer, but he is a heck of a lot closer to the answer than is Jackson who reminds me of Ron Dayne, but with less toughness and less conviction, and as we remember Ron Dayne more or less sucked for most of his career. If I have to see jackson carry on first down again and yet again leave the Packers in 2nd and 13 I am going to hurl.

 

[zamboni]

Nance is the next guy to stash as I'd think his time is coming soon and if it's not it's almost time to cut bait.

Do any homers have any insight as to why Nance isn't getting any carries?

Not up to speed yet/pass protection issues, etc? Maybe he's just not plain good, but hard to see when he's not playing.

Not a homer, but I think it's about learning the offense.Take a look at Ryan Grant's '07 game log. Took until week 8 before he was given more than 3 carries.

Fair point, but IIRC it took a bunch of injuries to the guys ahead of him for Grant to get his shot. If Jackson and Kuhn remain healthy, Nance may never see much playing time.

 

[BallparkFrank]

What are the odds of GB picking up Keiland Williams? If this is the first week they can cut Nance, it might be a decent fit.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Kuhn proved that he is reasonably effective at running clock at the end of a game (a relief, with Quinn Johnson inactive). He is definitely not going to be the guy to establish an effective running game in the first three quarters.

As for Starks, I actually stashed him with an eye to next season in a keeper league, but don't have high expectations and would cut him if I needed a fill-in. He missed the entire training camp and has never (as far as I am aware) run in pads for the Packer coaches. I could see them perhaps hoping he can help at KR after Nelson's horrible performance yesterday. It would be an amazing story IMO if he were to come in and meaningfully contribute from scrimmage this season. Small school guy, no senior season, sixth round pick, no training camp and can't even practice with the team for the first six weeks; gets activated and becomes a competent pro after a few weeks in pads? Extremely long odds here. I would be very surprised if Starks is a key element in the Thompson/McCarthy plan to fix the running game.

 

[hotlanta]

There is no way they are going to bank on a rookie coming off the PUP who hasn't played football in over a year. He might get a chance to contribute but to bank on him would be suicide

You're probably right, but didn't Shanny do the exact same thing with Torain? He seems to be doing pretty good.

 

[KingPrawn]

Kuhn's yards per carry intrigue me, as does his ratio of positive yard plays to negative yard plays. His sample size is small, but it also comes when teams are anticipating the run, so that is a positive.I don't think he is an ultimate answer, but he is a heck of a lot closer to the answer than is Jackson who reminds me of Ron Dayne, but with less toughness and less conviction, and as we remember Ron Dayne more or less sucked for most of his career. If I have to see jackson carry on first down again and yet again leave the Packers in 2nd and 13 I am going to hurl.

I like Kuhn as well as a short yardage guy, but the problem with him is when the holes are there whereas a normal RB would get 20-30 yards, he gets 8 yards. Packers seem to be fine with that but there is no homerun threat.

 

[steelwind]

This whole topic does not even belong in the Shark Pool. The Shark Pool is for football insiders. It's for those who would like to learn the game of football and gain an advantage over those with true FACTS. The mod obviously overreacted to a 9 carry 33 yard performance by Brandon Jackson. But if you saw the game you would have noticed that Brandon Jackson actually ran very well. If you are a subscriber you can also see that the FBG staff also saw the game and broke it down in their game recap section. The Packers do not need to trade for a RB. They need to trade for better offensive linemen.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

This whole topic does not even belong in the Shark Pool. The Shark Pool is for football insiders. It's for those who would like to learn the game of football and gain an advantage over those with true FACTS. The mod obviously overreacted to a 9 carry 33 yard performance by Brandon Jackson. But if you saw the game you would have noticed that Brandon Jackson actually ran very well. If you are a subscriber you can also see that the FBG staff also saw the game and broke it down in their game recap section. The Packers do not need to trade for a RB. They need to trade for better offensive linemen.

Did you watch the game or just read the fantasy football summary?The O-line was excellent on Sunday - easily their best performance this season and probably the best I've seen going back over a year or more. John Hall and TE Tom Crabtree were also excellent blockers on Sunday. Jackson, Kuhn and Hall all did a great job with blitz pickup, which is their most important role in McCarthy's offense (Hall's pancake on Vanden Bosch brought a huge belly laugh from me sitting at home). One sack, maybe one or two knockdowns and a few hurries against an excellent front four tells the story.It was great to see Kuhn close out the game on the ground - ripping off 6 and 7 yard runs and a huge first down run on 3rd and 7 to end the game behind excellent blocking across the line. But the fact is the most important role of the Packer RB's (only 3 active for the second straight week) is to block for Rodgers and the passing game. If the Packers wanted to control the game on the ground (which is not the case and won't be for the foreseeable future), they will most definitely need a better running back.

 

[sho nuff]

Any thought to them going to more of a power run game as they ran to run the clock out?

I think Sitton is certainly capable...and I think at this point Tauscher would probably rather try power run blocking to the zone. Just seems they could use the talent they have in the FBs and the style of runners they currently have with Kuhn and jackson who don't seem to fit that one cut zone scheme at all.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Any thought to them going to more of a power run game as they ran to run the clock out?I think Sitton is certainly capable...and I think at this point Tauscher would probably rather try power run blocking to the zone. Just seems they could use the talent they have in the FBs and the style of runners they currently have with Kuhn and jackson who don't seem to fit that one cut zone scheme at all.

They have no chance going wide. None of the RB's can get the corner. The Packers will make their hay on the ground running up the middle - primarily behind Sitton.

 

[gethugefast1]

Oct 3, 2010

The answer to the Packers running game could already be on their roster. With all the rumors swirling about the potential acquisition of Marshawn Lynch or *DeAngelo Williams you should be stashing James Starks on your roster. Starks has been nursing a hamstring injury and is due to come off the PUP list in week 7. Pick him up now just in case the Pack decides against making a trade.

*First time I heard/read this

Jim Bukowski is a staff writer for FantasySharks.com

http://www.fantasysharks.com/artman2/publi...om_Thoughts.htm

 

[Teef]

Oct 3, 2010

The answer to the Packers running game could already be on their roster. With all the rumors swirling about the potential acquisition of Marshawn Lynch or *DeAngelo Williams you should be stashing James Starks on your roster. Starks has been nursing a hamstring injury and is due to come off the PUP list in week 7. Pick him up now just in case the Pack decides against making a trade.

*First time I heard/read this

Jim Bukowski is a staff writer for FantasySharks.com

http://www.fantasysharks.com/artman2/publi...om_Thoughts.htm

Good stuff, Jim Bukowski has a myriad of inside sources at his disposal.

 

[gethugefast1]

Oct 3, 2010

The answer to the Packers running game could already be on their roster. With all the rumors swirling about the potential acquisition of Marshawn Lynch or *DeAngelo Williams you should be stashing James Starks on your roster. Starks has been nursing a hamstring injury and is due to come off the PUP list in week 7. Pick him up now just in case the Pack decides against making a trade.

*First time I heard/read this

Jim Bukowski is a staff writer for FantasySharks.com

http://www.fantasysharks.com/artman2/publi...om_Thoughts.htm

Good stuff, Jim Bukowski has a myriad of inside sources at his disposal.

GB schedule next 5 weeks from week 7...MIN @NYJ DAL Bye @MIN

 

[FavreCo]

I think McCarthy said something about getting Nance some reps.

 

[zamboni]

I think McCarthy said something about getting Nance some reps.

I think he meant rest, not reps.

 

[GManiac]

I think McCarthy said something about getting Nance some reps. :(

I think he meant rest, not reps.

I think the odds on Nance being "the answer" are worse than the odds on Starks being the guy. Neither has done much of anything, but at least Starks has some "assumed" talent and is liked by the coaching staff. Nance has done what exactly aside from being released by Atlanta and taking forever to pick up the playbook?

 

[zamboni]

I think McCarthy said something about getting Nance some reps.

I think he meant rest, not reps.

I think the odds on Nance being "the answer" are worse than the odds on Starks being the guy. Neither has done much of anything, but at least Starks has some "assumed" talent and is liked by the coaching staff. Nance has done what exactly aside from being released by Atlanta and taking forever to pick up the playbook?

To be fair, we don't know that Nance's omission from the running game is still due to his inability to pick up the play book. While the running game has not produced big numbers, nothing that McCarthy has said indicates that he's unhappy with what Jackson and Kuhn are doing for the overall offense in real NFL terms.

 

[GManiac]

I think McCarthy said something about getting Nance some reps.

I think he meant rest, not reps.

I think the odds on Nance being "the answer" are worse than the odds on Starks being the guy. Neither has done much of anything, but at least Starks has some "assumed" talent and is liked by the coaching staff. Nance has done what exactly aside from being released by Atlanta and taking forever to pick up the playbook?

To be fair, we don't know that Nance's omission from the running game is still due to his inability to pick up the play book. While the running game has not produced big numbers, nothing that McCarthy has said indicates that he's unhappy with what Jackson and Kuhn are doing for the overall offense in real NFL terms.

Yes its true, but to be fair, in their current state, what good would it do for McCarthy to come out and say he's unhappy with BJ and Khun? There would be no reason to say anything "negative" unless they had another solution in the works, or in place. Since that isn't the case, I would not expect McCarthy to say come out and state what seems to be the case, that BJ and Khun arnt getting the job done. If he did at this point, it could only hurt the team as he will have to stick with the two of them for the forseeable future.

 

[zamboni]

I think McCarthy said something about getting Nance some reps.

I think he meant rest, not reps.

I think the odds on Nance being "the answer" are worse than the odds on Starks being the guy. Neither has done much of anything, but at least Starks has some "assumed" talent and is liked by the coaching staff. Nance has done what exactly aside from being released by Atlanta and taking forever to pick up the playbook?

To be fair, we don't know that Nance's omission from the running game is still due to his inability to pick up the play book. While the running game has not produced big numbers, nothing that McCarthy has said indicates that he's unhappy with what Jackson and Kuhn are doing for the overall offense in real NFL terms.

Yes its true, but to be fair, in their current state, what good would it do for McCarthy to come out and say he's unhappy with BJ and Khun? There would be no reason to say anything "negative" unless they had another solution in the works, or in place. Since that isn't the case, I would not expect McCarthy to say come out and state what seems to be the case, that BJ and Khun arnt getting the job done. If he did at this point, it could only hurt the team as he will have to stick with the two of them for the forseeable future.

Coaches call their players out all the time, so I don't think that McCarthy is protecting anyone.That said, I could see that if they are really looking to trade for someone, McCarthy wouldn't want to show his hand about being needy.

At the end of the day, the team is 3-1 so the immediacy of making a change at RB is probably not there - at least right now. If they make a change, there are probably guys out there that can fill in - RB is often a plug-and-play spot.

Enough digression though - this thread is really about Starks not Nance.

 

[One]

I think McCarthy said something about getting Nance some reps.

I think he meant rest, not reps.

I think the odds on Nance being "the answer" are worse than the odds on Starks being the guy. Neither has done much of anything, but at least Starks has some "assumed" talent and is liked by the coaching staff. Nance has done what exactly aside from being released by Atlanta and taking forever to pick up the playbook?

To be fair, we don't know that Nance's omission from the running game is still due to his inability to pick up the play book. While the running game has not produced big numbers, nothing that McCarthy has said indicates that he's unhappy with what Jackson and Kuhn are doing for the overall offense in real NFL terms.

+1. I've still yet to see anything telling me to write off neither Starks nor Nance. First order of business in Green Bay if you're a running back should be to learn to protect Aaron Rodgers, 2nd seems like it'd be to know how to run the offense and not disturb what is already there.

Nance not getting many touches tells me he's either not very good or hasn't learned the offense yet. I tend to think it's more of the latter at this point. IMO he'll get some garbage time carries in the next few weeks and we'll eventually know whether to cut bait or not. (I'm talking about deeeper leagues. Wouldn't touch either in an 8-12 man)

I know it's lame to compare these two guys to Grant, but he didn't get his shot to get more than carries until week 8 when he came to the Pack in '07. (after the bye)

 

[GManiac]

[\quote]



I think the odds on Nance being "the answer" are worse than the odds on Starks being the guy. Neither has done much of anything, but at least Starks has some "assumed" talent and is liked by the coaching staff. Nance has done what exactly aside from being released by Atlanta and taking forever to pick up the playbook?

To be fair, we don't know that Nance's omission from the running game is still due to his inability to pick up the play book. While the running game has not produced big numbers, nothing that McCarthy has said indicates that he's unhappy with what Jackson and Kuhn are doing for the overall offense in real NFL terms.

Yes its true, but to be fair, in their current state, what good would it do for McCarthy to come out and say he's unhappy with BJ and Khun? There would be no reason to say anything "negative" unless they had another solution in the works, or in place. Since that isn't the case, I would not expect McCarthy to say come out and state what seems to be the case, that BJ and Khun arnt getting the job done. If he did at this point, it could only hurt the team as he will have to stick with the two of them for the forseeable future.

Coaches call their players out all the time, so I don't think that McCarthy is protecting anyone.

That said, I could see that if they are really looking to trade for someone, McCarthy wouldn't want to show his hand about being needy.

At the end of the day, the team is 3-1 so the immediacy of making a change at RB is probably not there - at least right now. If they make a change, there are probably guys out there that can fill in - RB is often a plug-and-play spot.

Enough digression though - this thread is really about Starks not Nance.

I agree with this to an extent. But coaches usually call out their players when they are trying to get more out of them, not when they A. Dont believe they can get more out of them or B. As you say, they don't want to show their hand.

All though in this situation I would think that A logically leads to B. With that said, I see no reason for McCarthy to call out his RB at this time. I think he want's to show faith in both of them until either a move is made or someone proves a reliable option.

 

[That Little Voice]

Marshawn trade to Seattle takes an RB out of the equation for GB.

I have waiver spot 1 this week. Welcome aboard, Mr. Starks.

 

[gethugefast1]

Marshawn trade to Seattle takes an RB out of the equation for GB.

I have waiver spot 1 this week. Welcome aboard, Mr. Starks.

Not so sure...Oct 3, 2010

The answer to the Packers running game could already be on their roster. With all the rumors swirling about the potential acquisition of Marshawn Lynch or *DeAngelo Williams you should be stashing James Starks on your roster. Starks has been nursing a hamstring injury and is due to come off the PUP list in week 7. Pick him up now just in case the Pack decides against making a trade.

*First time I heard/read this

Jim Bukowski is a staff writer for FantasySharks.com

http://www.fantasysharks.com/artman2/publi...om_Thoughts.htm

 

[That Little Voice]

Marshawn trade to Seattle takes an RB out of the equation for GB.

I have waiver spot 1 this week. Welcome aboard, Mr. Starks.

Not so sure...Oct 3, 2010

The answer to the Packers running game could already be on their roster. With all the rumors swirling about the potential acquisition of Marshawn Lynch or *DeAngelo Williams you should be stashing James Starks on your roster. Starks has been nursing a hamstring injury and is due to come off the PUP list in week 7. Pick him up now just in case the Pack decides against making a trade.

*First time I heard/read this

Jim Bukowski is a staff writer for FantasySharks.com

http://www.fantasysharks.com/artman2/publi...om_Thoughts.htm

You are refuting my decision to roster James Starks with an opinion piece that suggests rostering James Starks.

 

[werdnoynek]

Marshawn trade to Seattle takes an RB out of the equation for GB.

I have waiver spot 1 this week. Welcome aboard, Mr. Starks.

Not so sure...Oct 3, 2010

The answer to the Packers running game could already be on their roster. With all the rumors swirling about the potential acquisition of Marshawn Lynch or *DeAngelo Williams you should be stashing James Starks on your roster. Starks has been nursing a hamstring injury and is due to come off the PUP list in week 7. Pick him up now just in case the Pack decides against making a trade.

*First time I heard/read this

Jim Bukowski is a staff writer for FantasySharks.com

http://www.fantasysharks.com/artman2/publi...om_Thoughts.htm

You are refuting my decision to roster James Starks with an opinion piece that suggests rostering James Starks.

 

[HoTnickZ]

This is a mess. I don't even think the Packers know who's worth stashing at this point. Can we even rule out Nance yet?

And will they even take over, Mccarthy seems to like Kuhn for short yardage, and Jackson.. for.. who knows what reason.

 

[ROBOPUNTER]

Marshawn trade to Seattle takes an RB out of the equation for GB.

I have waiver spot 1 this week. Welcome aboard, Mr. Starks.

Not so sure...Oct 3, 2010

The answer to the Packers running game could already be on their roster. With all the rumors swirling about the potential acquisition of Marshawn Lynch or *DeAngelo Williams you should be stashing James Starks on your roster. Starks has been nursing a hamstring injury and is due to come off the PUP list in week 7. Pick him up now just in case the Pack decides against making a trade.

*First time I heard/read this

Jim Bukowski is a staff writer for FantasySharks.com

http://www.fantasysharks.com/artman2/publi...om_Thoughts.htm

You are refuting my decision to roster James Starks with an opinion piece that suggests rostering James Starks.

 

[Sammy Traveller]

Marshawn trade to Seattle takes an RB out of the equation for GB.

I have waiver spot 1 this week. Welcome aboard, Mr. Starks.

Not so sure...Oct 3, 2010

The answer to the Packers running game could already be on their roster. With all the rumors swirling about the potential acquisition of Marshawn Lynch or *DeAngelo Williams you should be stashing James Starks on your roster. Starks has been nursing a hamstring injury and is due to come off the PUP list in week 7. Pick him up now just in case the Pack decides against making a trade.

*First time I heard/read this

Jim Bukowski is a staff writer for FantasySharks.com

http://www.fantasysharks.com/artman2/publi...om_Thoughts.htm

You are refuting my decision to roster James Starks with an opinion piece that suggests rostering James Starks.

As someone said over on the Lynch-to-Seattle thread, Ted Thomson likes to promote guys from within. So I doubt DeAngelo goes to GB. And if that went down, there will be rioting in Charlotte, NC. Not going to happen.

 

[majarrek]

Marshawn trade to Seattle takes an RB out of the equation for GB.

I have waiver spot 1 this week. Welcome aboard, Mr. Starks.

Not so sure...Oct 3, 2010

The answer to the Packers running game could already be on their roster. With all the rumors swirling about the potential acquisition of Marshawn Lynch or *DeAngelo Williams you should be stashing James Starks on your roster. Starks has been nursing a hamstring injury and is due to come off the PUP list in week 7. Pick him up now just in case the Pack decides against making a trade.

*First time I heard/read this

Jim Bukowski is a staff writer for FantasySharks.com

http://www.fantasysharks.com/artman2/publi...om_Thoughts.htm

You are refuting my decision to roster James Starks with an opinion piece that suggests rostering James Starks.

As someone said over on the Lynch-to-Seattle thread, Ted Thomson likes to promote guys from within. So I doubt DeAngelo goes to GB. And if that went down, there will be rioting in Charlotte, NC. Not going to happen.

Yeah, because Charlotte is known for its riots

 

[gradin123]

I just think some of this Stark talk is laughable. Packer fans grasping at straws.

Here is what I know about Stark.

1. Is he talented? Judging by the film on him from college it looks like it but you have to take that footage with a grain of salt when you realize he was playing in the division 1A Subdivision. These weren't elite defenses he was going against in college.

2. He is built like a receiver. I have heard he has put on some weight but he is still slight. If you look at his highlights at Buffalo you will see he does not have a RB's build. Not even close.

3. Besides being slight he has an upright running style which will make him very prone to injury. Which is obvious since injuries dogged him throughout his college career.

4. He hasn't played competitive football since 2008 at any level and he last played at Division 1A Subdivision level. Quite the step up in class.

5. He basically hasn't practiced with the Pack yet. Just offseason workouts.

6. He is not a good blocker. All reports say he needs a lot of work in that aspect.

Btw, he is 24. That is the same age as Marshawn Lynch. Lynch is actually 2 months younger.

I just don't see this kid being ready to challenge for the starting job this year. Maybe next year if he has a solid training camp and good preseason but to expect him to jump in there and contribute significantly right away seems a bit silly. Especially with blocking issues on a pass happy team.

 

[sho nuff]

I just think some of this Stark talk is laughable. Packer fans grasping at straws. Here is what I know about Stark.1. Is he talented? Judging by the film on him from college it looks like it but you have to take that footage with a grain of salt when you realize he was playing in the division 1A Subdivision. These weren't elite defenses he was going against in college.2. He is built like a receiver. I have heard he has put on some weight but he is still slight. If you look at his highlights at Buffalo you will see he does not have a RB's build. Not even close.3. Besides being slight he has an upright running style which will make him very prone to injury. Which is obvious since injuries dogged him throughout his college career.4. He hasn't played competitive football since 2008 at any level and he last played at Division 1A Subdivision level. Quite the step up in class.5. He basically hasn't practiced with the Pack yet. Just offseason workouts.6. He is not a good blocker. All reports say he needs a lot of work in that aspect.Btw, he is 24. That is the same age as Marshawn Lynch. Lynch is actually 2 months younger.I just don't see this kid being ready to challenge for the starting job this year. Maybe next year if he has a solid training camp and good preseason but to expect him to jump in there and contribute significantly right away seems a bit silly. Especially with blocking issues on a pass happy team.

Packer fans grasping at straws? Care to tell me which Packer fans are doing this about Starks? It seems 90% (at least) of Packer fans have stated they would not think he would be ready to step right in. That we see they seem willing to possibly give it a try...but nobody knows. I don't see any packer fan just going on about how valuable this guy is.On 6...I have no idea at this level if he can block. But your reasoning is similar to what many Packer fans have said.

 

[That Little Voice]

These sleeper threads always tend to follow an arc like this. Look those who are adding the guy are not predicting top 5 numbers and trading Ray Rice to acquire him. We have a thread about him and are talking about stashing him at the end of the bench for only the price of a waiver add (in most cases). He's a lottery ticket. But one I plan on purchasing.