BearBroncos Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 LOL, just saw their peg on Grant and Stark. First comes this about Starks. James Starks - RB - Packers Packers RB James Starks went on a gluten-free offseason diet and has bulked up to 225 pounds. Starks played in the low-210s at Buffalo and weighed 218 at the 2010 Scouting Combine. The Packers view him as a physical, between-the-tackles back, so Starks isn't going to be much of a "change-of-pace" for Ryan Grant, who's a similar player. We're wary of pegging Starks as more than an RB4 this season. He'll likely need another Grant injury to be start-worthy in fantasy leagues. Source: Rob Demovsky on Twitter Aug 5, 2:28 PM And then right after, this comes out about Grant but with a byline on Starks. Ryan Grant - RB - Packers The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel confirms that Ryan Grant has been the Packers' first-team tailback throughout camp so far. A heavier James Starks is running with the twos. The Journal-Sentinel expects the Packers to ride the "hot hand," but there's little reason to believe it won't be Grant when he's healthy and already locked in as the starter in one of football's most explosive offenses. Starks is shaping up as more of a handcuff pick for Grant, who would offer terrific value as an RB3. Source: Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel Aug 5, 2:37 PM Can we say contradiction.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 Why is it a contradiction? RB1 typically refers to a top 12 RB, and more often a consensus top 12 RB. there are 32 teams....that means there are at least 8 starters that will be RB3. Grant's been injury prone, he'll share carries with Starks, and the Packers feature a passing game much more than a running game. calling them a target RB3 and RB4 respectively is not that far off base. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 (edited) Why is it a contradiction? The Grant one was just poorly worded to where it almost sounded like they were referring to Starks as a RB3 there... Bear, their saying that Grant offers good value as at least a RB3, and Starks as a RB4 target. That said, I tend to rely on Rotoworld for the latest breaking news, not really as a source of insightful fantasy information... Edited August 5, 2011 by delusions of granduer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturphy Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 I tend to rely on Rotoworld for the latest breaking news, not really as a source of insightful fantasy information... Totally this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tosberg34 Posted August 6, 2011 Share Posted August 6, 2011 That said, I tend to rely on Rotoworld for the latest breaking news, not really as a source of insightful fantasy information... Agreed. That's what we pay DMD for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearBroncos Posted August 6, 2011 Author Share Posted August 6, 2011 Trust me, I only use Roto for the updates. Just the wording was flawed and appeared as a contradiction. Or at least to me it did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.