OCSkins Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 (edited) In their final pre-draft rankings, The Huddle ranks Alex Green #52RB and Starks #57RB. As a Grant owner, I've been grabbing Starks as his handcuff. All preseason long all the chatter was about if Starks would be the starter, and now he's the #3 guy to own in Green Bay? Am I missing something? Is Starks hurt? Should I drop Starks and pick up Green? Edited September 4, 2011 by OCSkins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 Green is not ready yet. I have been picking Starks ahead of Green. But be aware that the Packers are a passing team first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCSkins Posted September 4, 2011 Author Share Posted September 4, 2011 Green is not ready yet. I have been picking Starks ahead of Green. But be aware that the Packers are a passing team first. Right, I know the Packers love to chuck it. My questions stems from the fact that Starks has been ranked ahead of Green on all the cheatsheets until this one. So I'm wondering what's changed that made them rank Green ahead of Starks now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 Right, I know the Packers love to chuck it. My questions stems from the fact that Starks has been ranked ahead of Green on all the cheatsheets until this one. So I'm wondering what's changed that made them rank Green ahead of Starks now? Maybe DMD is getting older and thought it was Ahman Green. It happens to us all . . . dont get too worked up about it . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 Hugh mistake There's not a whole lot to support Green being anything other than a once-in-a-while change. Starks has been catching more passes out of the backfield this preseason, while Grant has been getting more carries. IMO, this needs to be taken with a very large grain of salt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCSkins Posted September 4, 2011 Author Share Posted September 4, 2011 (edited) Hugh mistake There's not a whole lot to support Green being anything other than a once-in-a-while change. Starks has been catching more passes out of the backfield this preseason, while Grant has been getting more carries. IMO, this needs to be taken with a very large grain of salt. So....Green being ranked higher is some kind of typo? Ok. I'm not panicking or anything if it appears that way. The new ranking just took me by complete surprise and I thought maybe some bad news came out on Starks, or GB released a new depth chart with Green over Starks, so I thought I'd float out a post to the Huddle community to get the real scoop. FYI, Grant rides my bench as a bye-week filler/match-up opportunist anyway. Regardless, I'd like to have the GB backfield pinned down on my roster so I know I have a definite starter sitting on my bench when I need him. You guys know what I mean, what with Grant coming back from serious injury. Edited September 4, 2011 by OCSkins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 (edited) Like BB said, take it with a grain of salt, but if you read what the descriptions are saying on the RB rankings page, they seem to be saying that as long as Grant is starting, Starks is risky to be a steady performer, whereas they seem to see Green's third-down role as much safer... Whether or not that will hold true, I'm not sure, but when you have a guy who needs the beat out the starter or an injury to have real worth, then it makes sense why a guy who has a defined role on that offense regardless might have more current value... Now whether he's in fact secured that third-down role is my question... Edited September 4, 2011 by delusions of granduer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcheese Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 Ranking is not the same as depth chart. Huddles depth charts still has Starks ahead of Green. However, maybe Huddle just thinks that over the course of the season Green will provide more value. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCSkins Posted September 4, 2011 Author Share Posted September 4, 2011 (edited) Like BB said, take it with a grain of salt, but if you read what the descriptions are saying on the RB rankings page, they seem to be saying that as long as Grant is starting, Starks is risky to be a steady performer, whereas they seem to see Green's third-down role as much safer... Whether or not that will hold true, I'm not sure, but when you have a guy who needs the beat out the starter or an injury to have real worth, then it makes sense why a guy who has a defined role on that offense regardless might have more current value... Now whether he's in fact secured that third-down role is my question... Ah, good point about Green being the 3rd down back. Understand the logic of him being ranked higher since he has a "more defined role". However, it appears that you, like me, are unsure if Green truly has that 3rd down role locked down. I just want the guy who will be the featured back if Grant got hurt. Based on what you said, it seems that it would still be Starks since Green is the supposed 3rd down back, not a 1st/2nd down RB. Thanks. Edited September 4, 2011 by OCSkins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditkaless Wonders Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 Green is not ready yet. I have been picking Starks ahead of Green. But be aware that the Packers are a passing team first. Certainly true that the Packers pass the ball. Still, even last year when the running game was devastated through injury McCarthy showed a dogged determination to keep some offensive balance and to run the ball some. He is not Andy Reed who will abandon the run at the drop of a hat. This year, with Sitton, the Balaga Whale, and Lang up front, and with a healthy Grant, Starks healthy and with some needed experience, and of course Kuuuuuuuuhhhhnnn, I anticipate a return to a somewhat more balanced offense than last year. McCarthy was willing to ride Grant pretty hard when he was healthy, particularly late in the year in bad weather. Or so I remember. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMD Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 It depends on the scoring rules you are using. If we did not have to tie rankings to projections, you would not see that. The projections reflect what I think of Green being a third down back. His projection is about his ceiling. Starks is the one that is the #2 to Grant and would step up to be the #1 if needed and his projections would go way higher if that happened. I do think the entire group is a mess to determine and rely on because they will rotate players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 I do think the entire group is a mess to determine and rely on because they will rotate players. This is the right answer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 Furthermore, I'm not sure I would "handcuff" Grant. That's something one does to a top FF RB who owes part of his value to the system he plays in. Thus, should he go down, even his back-up should produce nice numbers. For instance, Arian Foster. If he goes down, and the team decides to go with Ben Tate, it's reasonable to expect pretty nice numbers from him. If you watched any Packer football last year, you will have noticed that it wasn't one of those offenses where you could just plug any RB in and expect nice numbers. Grant is, himself, a guy surrounded by a ton of question marks and someone I could see supplanted by another back this season regardless of his health. Or, as DMD says, it could just be a cluster cuff. Which makes him, Starks, and Green are pretty useless. 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.