NOSaint237 Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 Is it just me or does Grant look slow while Starks seems to be running with authority and purpose? I currently have Starks pegged as a sleeper. Anyone with any additional insight? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 (edited) Bottom of page 1 Your contributions are welcome. Feel free to add your opinions. Edited August 29, 2011 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 (edited) So it looks like this week we should either have more clarification, more confusion, or the threat of a dreaded timeshare in that pass-first offense: According to offensive coordinator Joe Philbin and RBs coach Jerry Fontenot, the Packers' plan for Thursday night's opener is to give James Starks and Ryan Grant an equal amount of rushing attempts. "I'm certainly going try to get each one of those guys an equal amount of opportunities," said Philbin. Added Fontenot, "It's just a matter of getting them comfortable and making sure they've gotten enough reps ... The only way I see them doing that is getting them as equal of work as I possibly can." The Packers spoke all offseason of discovering the "hot hand," and they'll open the season giving both Grant and Starks a chance to establish it. Our long-run money is on Starks. Just don't expect either back to top 15 touches against New Orleans. Ryan Grant owners, it might be time to be worried, and Starks owners, be careful what you wish for, because he's still gotta be ready to seize the opportunity when he gets it... Should be interesting... Edited September 6, 2011 by delusions of granduer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearBroncos Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 I still can't read much into what coaches are saying right now. They are preparing to play their opposition so they are throwing all kind of crap out there. We just need to wait and see. If Grant gets the rock and performs, he will continue to get throughout the season with Starks getting 3rd down and change of pace duties. If Grant struggles and Starks goes nutz, then the opposite applies. I think there is less chance for time share here than people are thinking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 I still can't read much into what coaches are saying right now. They are preparing to play their opposition so they are throwing all kind of crap out there. We just need to wait and see. If Grant gets the rock and performs, he will continue to get throughout the season with Starks getting 3rd down and change of pace duties. If Grant struggles and Starks goes nutz, then the opposite applies. I think there is less chance for time share here than people are thinking. I don't think you need to read anymore into it than what you and they said... It appears they want to see how both of them do before leaning in either direction... It did also say they're looking for the "hot-hand", which is what most people have expected, given how they usually roll with a feature back, but I'm just saying that if neither seperates themselves, then a time-share might be yet another (albeit unlikely) possibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 Starks is going to outplay Grant and get the job, barring fumbles and/or injury. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 Starks is going to outplay Grant and get the job, barring fumbles and/or injury. I concur with this statement....Starks is the younger talent and probably a lot more explosive than Grant is right now... the only question that comes into play is pass protection...can he be at least serviceable?...I think that if they get equal carries in week one that by week 4 we'll see Starks toting the rock at least 3/4 of the backfield carries... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 I don't understand the love-affair with GB RBs. They don't run that much. One of them will need to get 70% of all RB carries to even be relevant. To be a stud, one will need to get 80%. Does it seem likely that one will step up so much as to get 80%? they are in an explosive offense that throws to the RB's as well and the RB will have plenty of chances to get a RZ TD.....I have starks...but I also have Mendenhall, Blount, Ingram, McGahee and Hightower....so Starks is nothing but an opportunity to make a trade in my case...I wouldn't take him as anything higher than 3rd RB....and even that is pushing it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 (edited) I don't understand the love-affair with GB RBs. They don't run that much. One of them will need to get 70% of all RB carries to even be relevant. To be a stud, one will need to get 80%. Does it seem likely that one will step up so much as to get 80%? In 2009, this was Grant's line: 282 att, 1,253 yds, 4.4 YPC, 11 TD, 25 rec, 197 yds 0 TD. Last year, without Grant, or any viable RB for most of the season, they HAD to abandon the running game. They simply didn't have a choice. In the playoffs, once they found a back, they became much more balanced again. I don't think McCarthy is against running the ball if he has a back. I don't think this is a Colts spread type situation. Both backs he has this year should be a huge upgrade from the two he had last year, and I expect them to be much more balanced than last season. If they do become more balanced, a fantasy RB could look pretty darn good in that high-powered offense. Heck, I'd happily take those numbers from 2009 on any of my fantasy teams. Edited September 6, 2011 by Seahawks21 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 GB running back coach wants to split their carries http://forums.thehuddle.com/index.php?s=&a...t&p=3497728 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 Runs by RBs:2010 : 347 2009 : 374 2008 : 374 I'd happily take Grant's 2009 numbers again, but that means that ONE guy is the bellcow. Is that Starks or Grant or even the rookie? as good as Grant looks now "as good as he did before injury"....I was never a big fan of his to begin with and if Starks starts looking like the back who played in the superbowl....I think the decision is easy....Starks...and then the rookie will come out and be the hot hand to finish the season Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 You might not be a fan of Grant's but your post demonstrates that this RB group is over-valued. They don't run a lot and as you said, it could be any of them. and as Keg's post points out, they want a RBBC. If Grant and Starks got 45% and Green got 10%, on less than 400 carries, that's not good. I don't think they are over-valued....Starks can be had for too late a pick to be over-valued...Grant is not on my radar and I think starks is the back to have.....what I said in the other post was from my gut based on what I've seen watching football and following however much of the Packers that I do.... Starks is worth having imo, he just won't realize his value until October... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 I'd like to add that I think Starks getting half the carries week 1 says a lot....and I would expect more going forward.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 I don't understand the love-affair with GB RBs. They don't run that much. One of them will need to get 70% of all RB carries to even be relevant. To be a stud, one will need to get 80%. Does it seem likely that one will step up so much as to get 80%? GB ran 421 times last year - 20th in the NFL. But add just 1 more rushing attempt per game - say because they have a healthy and stronger backfield than last year - and they suddenly become #12 in the NFL. Then you add the wider seams created as the 2nd level is forced further from the LoS because the passing O is so potent, and that a lot of teams will be playing nickel or dime Ds against them all game so that RBs will be meeting fewer LBs and more CBs at the 2nd level, and you've got the recipe for some very strong rushing numbers - not to mention the dump offs/screens to RBs as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 and as Keg's post points out, they want a RBBC. As I said in the beginning of the thread, there does seem to be a chance that we could see a dreaded RBBC there, but I didn't really get any more indication from the article Keg posted that the split was was for more than just this game: The goal is for Green Bay running backs Ryan Grant and James Starks to get an equal amount of rushing attempts Thursday night against New Orleans. That's the plan for now, anyway. Seems like they just want to see how both of them look in regular season action before they make any drastic calls, to me anyway... And as for GB backs being over-valued, not if they keep it with a featured "hot-hand"... Grant was freaking money in '09 as my RB2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCSkins Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 I think people are putting too much stock into Starks' performance in the playoffs last year. Here are the numbers: In his 3 non-playoff games, he had 29 carries for 101 yards, which is a 3.5 avg. He had 2 catches for 15 yards, a 7.5 avg. ZERO total TDs. In his 4 playoff games, he had 81 carries for 315 yds, a 3.88 avg. He had 3 catches for 15 yds, a 5.0 avg. ONE total TD. Combined, that is 110 carries for 416 yds, a 3.78 avg. He had 5 catches for 30 yards, a 6.0 avg. ONE total TD from 115 total touches. ONE game of more than 80 combined yards. Yuck. These numbers are incredibly mediocre. Yes, Starks showed some promise, but I think the timeshare/RBBC coachspeak is simply part of the process of determining if Grant is fully recovered from last-year's season-ending injury. It's simply too early to discern if Grant is still capable to fill the role of a featured back, the results of which nobody will truly know until a few games into the season. By comparison, Grant's career yds per carry is 4.8, and his career yds per catch is 6.27. I think it should also be pointed out that 3 of Starks' "best" games were when he had 20+ carries. If you go to Grant's player page on this site, you will see that he puts up extremely good numbers when he gets 20+ carries. To me, it's Grant's job to lose. He just needs to prove that he's fully healthy first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowboutthemCowboys Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 I think people are putting too much stock into Starks' performance in the playoffs last year. Here are the numbers: In his 3 non-playoff games, he had 29 carries for 101 yards, which is a 3.5 avg. He had 2 catches for 15 yards, a 7.5 avg. ZERO total TDs. In his 4 playoff games, he had 81 carries for 315 yds, a 3.88 avg. He had 3 catches for 15 yds, a 5.0 avg. ONE total TD. Combined, that is 110 carries for 416 yds, a 3.78 avg. He had 5 catches for 30 yards, a 6.0 avg. ONE total TD from 115 total touches. ONE game of more than 80 combined yards. Yuck. These numbers are incredibly mediocre. Yes, Starks showed some promise, but I think the timeshare/RBBC coachspeak is simply part of the process of determining if Grant is fully recovered from last-year's season-ending injury. It's simply too early to discern if Grant is still capable to fill the role of a featured back, the results of which nobody will truly know until a few games into the season. By comparison, Grant's career yds per carry is 4.8, and his career yds per catch is 6.27. I think it should also be pointed out that 3 of Starks' "best" games were when he had 20+ carries. If you go to Grant's player page on this site, you will see that he puts up extremely good numbers when he gets 20+ carries. To me, it's Grant's job to lose. He just needs to prove that he's fully healthy first. This plus Starks needs to prove he can stay healthy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturphy Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 This plus Starks needs to prove he can stay healthy Yes. I don't think Grant OR Starks is the long term solution in GB. The Starks hype is predicated on the utter mediocrity of Brandon Jackson as the starter last year. Simply put, he looked like a star after coming in as the starter over Jackson, but that ain't sayin much. As far as this year, I'm on record as saying that Grant will have more value, but I don't think either would put up huge numbers if they were the bell-cow lone starter. IMHO! Now... when we draft Trent Richardson next season... 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.