James Starks (RB) Set for NFL Debut

[SnakeLH2006]

http://www.wivb.com/dpp/sports/ub_bulls/starks-set-for-nfl-debut

Starks Set for NFL Debut
Packers RB Expected to Play vs. SF

GREEN BAY, WI (WIVB) - James Starks hasn't played a game since January of 2009, when he suited up for the U.B. Bulls in the International Bowl. That streak appears set to end on Sunday, when the Niagara Falls native is set to make his NFL debut for the Packers against San Francisco.

Starks is likely to dress as a backup to starting running back Brandon Jackson. Regular backkup Dmitri Nance says he will likely be held out after suffering a concussion last week. Starks told reporters he is ready to contribute on special teams and on offense.

“I should be playing, from what I know, special teams and everything. I should be good to go,” Starks said after practice Friday. “I’m excited. I can’t wait.”

A 6th round pick, Starks has been out for most of the season after injuring his hamstring in training camp. He was activaded off the PUP list two weeks ago, but has been inactive for his first two games. He missed his senior season at U.B. after injuring his shoulder. So if Starks plays, it will be his first football action in almost two years.

He is one of 10 native WNYers playing right now in the NFL.

-------------------------------------------

So, Snake, just got back on here on PackerRats. I haven't had time to read what you Rats have been saying, but you know I'm not shy from stating opinions.

Brandon Jackson is not a good NFL running back. He's a great 3rd down back (catching the ball) and sealing some blocks, but this guy is not worthy of carrying an elite team, or even a 32nd rated team as the starting RB.

Why?

1) His physicality is garbage. I've never seen an NFL RB get tackled BEHIND the line of scrimmage as much as BJack does. Snake used to rip on Grant for that, but I was SO wrong. Grant was a very good NFL RB for getting yards vs. BJack. Not even close.

2) For a little guy, he should have some speed. I don't have stats (check Waldo or Patler if they are still here) but BJack can't get a big run even if he gets past the line of scrimmage. My nephew could arm-tackle him and he's 12 playing Pop-Warner football. He runs a 4.6 (scouting reports) and that seems generous given the time it takes to get him going.

3) The GB Packers are statistically the worst team in 2010 for getting running first downs on 3rd and 1 or 3rd and 2. Why? See BJack. It's gotten so bad that we have to risk the health of our elite QB (Rodgers) in goalline and short yardage situations to get that first down running the ball.

Give Starks a chance.....or Nance....or bring back the brain-surgeon Samkon Gado. Hell, I'd take min. wage to run the ball on 3rd and 1 with a pretty good OL in 2010 with the Packers.

Snake's Take:

Our D is very stout. Our O if very good, too, but the thing separating us from elite is proven over and over. We can't run the ball consistently. It's hard to change over the whole OL, but easier to switch RB's. BJack has failed (great 3rd down back, though), so give Nance, and esp. Starks a chance to run the ball.

It's doesn't take a brain surgeon with recent NFL history to see that sometimes a new RB is all it takes to jolt an offense in the NFL. Gado was great in spurts. But look deeper and see that Terrell Davis came out of nowhere, as have many great NFL backs. I'm not saying Nance or Starks would be great, but really, that is the only real weakness with the Packers in 2010. BJack is abysmal. Surely, any other option would be good. It's getting colder, too, as I don't want to see BJack go for 12 carries and 22 yards and ARod go for 12 carries 56 yards and get carted off the field with an injury in week 17 with the NFC North title on the line vs. the Bears.

[Joemailman]

Welcome back Snake. Pretty much agree about Jackson. Had his chance and didn't take advantage of it. Hard to know what to expect from Starks, but as long as he doesn't do the Jackson stutter-step, he should be an improvement. It's that time of year (High of 20 tomorrow with NW winds at 20 MPH) where you want to be able to run the ball.

[gex]

Hey Snake , Where the hell you been?

[SnakeLH2006]

Hey Joe...hey Gex, buddy! I missed you guys! Life is pretty good and am glad to be back on the Rats. What the hell you guys been up to?

I don't want my first topic back to be negative, but I had to post it, cuz as a HUGE Packer fan...this bugs the shit out of me.......I mean is BJack even worthy as our starter? He was a great 3rd down back with secure pass-protection blocking, and maybe a catch for 4-5 yards on 3rd down, but this guy is just so damn abysmal as a starting RB.

Have you EVER seen a starting NFL RB (not even Packer players) get caught behind the line of scrimmage like this guy? I've been off Rats for some time and don't know what you guys have been talking about in the forums, but I just got back and this was my biggest gripe (ONLY gripe) with the Packers, but a huge one. I don't see ANY downside to getting anyone else on first and second down to run the ball (keep BJack for protection and maybe a 4 yard catch on 3rd down).....but hell BJack is really poor when you need a yard. Why even bother with BJack....it looks like MM sees the same and risks ARod doing QB dives for a yard. That's crap and embarrassing.

I need to start a thread about draft picks (get a RB). Are Patler and Waldo still here? I haven't been following this forum obviously, or stats, but I remember Waldo being all over Beanie Wells. Is he doing well? Either way, RB's are a dime a dozen unless you are elite (Chris Johnson, AP), but would like us (GB) to look at a RB in the 24-28 range in the 2011 draft. BJack is wack!

[pbmax]

I am stunned that McCarthy hasn't gone back to Kuhn recently. Even though Kuhn's best plays were getting blasted earlier this season, I am surprised M3 hasn't revisited him in short yardage, even with a different set of plays. Its not like him to give up an idea after one set of failures.

I am excited to see what Starks can do, but I would not predict he shows much against a stout 49er run D. I think Nance would seem to be the best natural short yardage back.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

I really hope Starks gets between 5-10 carries. I don't really care about the yards as much as I care to to see his running style. I want to see him hit the hole hard and fast.

[Fritz]

Well, you don't want Starks, untested rook, to be given too much responsibility too soon. One missed block, and Doh! Or one fumble. Doh!

I to am surprised that Kuhn has disappeared. He wasn't God's gift to running backs, but he seemed to often get the short yardage stuff.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

I just want Jackson gone! I would rather risk fumbling with Starks than watching Jackson run anymore. Other than pass blocking he offers nothing. I would rather Kuhn start, and don't like Kuhn at Rb. I like him at Fb.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

That reminds me........Remember the years when Favre used to throw it to henderson out of the back field. I wish the packers would line Kuhn up at Fb and send him out in the flat b/c the guy has really good hands.

Starks may surprise a lot of people!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJ3dPkL0pr4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHKvKBmp2F8&feature=related

[Packers4Glory]

be interesting to see if he plays. Despite the lackluster run game MM has been slow to let a guy like Nance even show what he can do.

[MJZiggy]

be interesting to see if he plays. Despite the lackluster run game MM has been slow to let a guy like Nance even show what he can do.
I think the minute he tried, Nance got hurt.

[Patler]

In the highlights, Starks carried the ball awful loosely even early on plays when running through the lines. Running down the left sideline, with defenders around him, he still has the ball in his right arm. Anyone know if he fumbled much in college?

[rbaloha1]

Starks displays RG type cutting ability minus the speed. At this point the Packers have no either choices -- Kuhn is not anywhere near the white Browns rb lighting it up.

[Packers4Glory]

IDK but I sure would have liked to see more of Nance. Too bad he went and got himself hurt.

[Joemailman]

In the highlights, Starks carried the ball awful loosely even early on plays when running through the lines. Running down the left sideline, with defenders around him, he still has the ball in his right arm. Anyone know if he fumbled much in college?

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/players/1123431

Inside: Tall, lanky runner who looks like a former quarterback - but doesn't run like one. Shifty runner with good vision through traffic. Lowers his pads to power through defenders when he smells the first down or goal line. Usually falls forward for the extra yard. Will stutter-step to avoid initial tackler in the hole. Secure with the ball inside.

Outside: Perfect for offense using zone or stretch plays. Lets blocks develop and picks out holes or cut-back lanes to explode through. Long strider who lacks lateral quickness, but will explode vertically once in the open field. Carries the ball in his right hand and doesn't switch when running left. Adequate at getting the corner within the offense, but doesn't change directions fast enough to reverse a play on his own.

Breaking tackles: Will go through arm tackles and runs with some lean, but has troubles keeping his feet (looks a bit out of control at times). Keeps feet moving after first contact at the second level, but struggles to push the pile in the middle. Must show his shoulder injury has not lessened his effectiveness as a power runner.

Blocking: Not very physical. Liability as a pass protector, although it's not for a lack of effort. Likes to hit defenders but is just not strong enough to anchor or sustain against them. Hesitates to pick up linebackers on plays where the pocket is moving. Doesn't pick up defenders to aid teammates on the second level.

Receiving: Well-practiced receiver who physically looks the part. Used on swing passes, circle routes and in the slot from motion. Snatches the ball with his hands, adjusting to low and high throws. Will hold the ball loosely when trying to make a move in the open field. Some elusiveness after the catch, but is better running north-south than east-west. May be tried as a kickoff returner at the next level.

Intangibles: No major character issues. Soft-spoken young man who is well-liked by coaches, teachers and teammates. Gives more credit to his linemen than himself. Successful rehab of knee and shoulder injuries will gives scouts reason to like his work ethic.

[RashanGary]

I'm the resident Nance fan. Starks is a wildcard, but I like Nance. I think he'll be a good runner for us.

[denverYooper]

I agree with ya Snake. This team is a running back away from being dominant. They're already good. They would have thrashed the Falcons if they had someone who could have gotten it done on those short goal-to-go situations.

It'll be interesting to see what Starks has going for him. I hope he shows something promising. At this point I'm not holdinig out too much hope but the guy's gotta have fresh legs, at the least!

I still think Nance has a chance to be a pretty good mudder. I can see his running style being effective in slop especially with some reps to get in a rhythm with that line. Whatever the case may be, they need a guy who will just head up the field and at the least get back to the LOS. I love BJack in that 3rd down role but they need a different guy who can reliably head upfield on 1st and 2nd down.

[Willard]

Our fullback play has also been disappointing. Whatever happened to the high hopes for Quinn "Battering Ram" Johnson. That guy does not appear to have developed into anything beyond mediocrity. A great RB may be able to make his own holes, but a better lead blocker would make our pedestrian RBs better.

[Packers4Glory]

I agree with ya Snake. This team is a running back away from being dominant. They're already good. They would have thrashed the Falcons if they had someone who could have gotten it done on those short goal-to-go situations.

It'll be interesting to see what Starks has going for him. I hope he shows something promising. At this point I'm not holdinig out too much hope but the guy's gotta have fresh legs, at the least!

I still think Nance has a chance to be a pretty good mudder. I can see his running style being effective in slop especially with some reps to get in a rhythm with that line. Whatever the case may be, they need a guy who will just head up the field and at the least get back to the LOS. I love BJack in that 3rd down role but they need a different guy who can reliably head upfield on 1st and 2nd down.

I guess in the context of this season yeah. However in the grand scheme, this team is a Finley away from being unstoppable on offense. Finley was a much bigger loss to this offense.

[ND72]

http://www.wivb.com/dpp/sports/ub_bulls/starks-set-for-nfl-debut

Starks Set for NFL Debut

Brandon Jackson is not a good NFL running back. He's a great 3rd down back...

kind of contradicted yourself didn't you??? :)

[RashanGary]

Nance = Edgar Bennett

[gabe]

First half down, he got more carries then Jackson. I was impressed with the way he hit the holes and he looked a little rough to bring down. I think we may have something here, Mr. Jackson, welcome back to third down back.

[gabe]

Plus with Jeff Reeds terrible kickoffs, he has looked pretty good on both kick offs he has snagged.

[mission]

Starks is just what we need right now!!

[Iron Mike]

It's nice to see a RB fall forward for positive yardage. Just sayin'.

[denverYooper]

Starks is just what we need right now!!

He sure fit the bill today. His style looked like pretty good fit with this O! 18 carries for 73 yards. Not a shabby debut.

[3irty1]

Most important thing about Starks is that he didn't leave any yards on the field. This guy is going to take us to the next level this year.

[rbaloha1]

Impressive. Nice leg drive between the tackles. Wonder how he looks running to the outside.

[Brandon494]

I'm the resident Nance fan. Starks is a wildcard, but I like Nance. I think he'll be a good runner for us.

Nance is garbage

Starks is the next Ryan Grant with better hands

[gbgary]

not a bad beginning for the youngster.

[Joemailman]

Impressive. Nice leg drive between the tackles. Wonder how he looks running to the outside.

He broke one outside. He got to the corner, but didn't look particularly fast. I don't think that will ever be his strong point.

[gbgary]

Nance = Edgar Bennett


not even close. edger>nance

[vince]

Can't wait to see him more in space in the passing game. He's going to break some before the year's out.

[Packers4Glory]

he looked fresh. Nice start. Lets see repeat performances.

[steve823]

Nance is garbage

Starks is the next Ryan Grant with better hands

Since you brought Grant up, if Starks turns out to be the real deal McCarthy will have a decision to make. Hard to keep them both sine they are both so similar.

[Joemailman]

Starks is the next Ryan Grant with better hands

I think this is about right. I really like the Packers RB situation in the future.

[vince]

I'd like to see Nance up instead of Quinn Johnson personally. I think his punishing style could be a good complement to Starks and Jackson.

[PA Pack Fan]

I think this is about right. I really like the Packers RB situation in the future.

What drugs are you on?

[Fred's Slacks]

With Starks starting to contribute, how big has this draft class been? Every single one of them has contributed to this season and they all look like quality (some star quality) nfl players.

[vince]

Except Newhouse.

[Joemailman]

What drugs are you on?Thank you for your monthly post. Have a Happy New Year.

[Fred's Slacks]

Except Newhouse.
Oh yeah. I thought I was missing someone. Sheilds more than makes up for that though.

[Brandon494]

Since you brought Grant up, if Starks turns out to be the real deal McCarthy will have a decision to make. Hard to keep them both sine they are both so similar.

I think you have to keep both just for insurance. We already saw how much of a drop off our running game is without Grant. Also have to keep in mind that Grant has gotten a ton of carries since becoming the starter, nothing wrong with giving Starks some of those carries to keep Grant fresh. Starks also shows good ability on kick returns.

[pbmax]

I think you have to keep both just for insurance. We already saw how much of a drop off our running game is without Grant. Also have to keep in mind that Grant has gotten a ton of carries since becoming the starter, nothing wrong with giving Starks some of those carries to keep Grant fresh. Starks also shows good ability on kick returns.

Yes, you keep the three TBs and force a decision about two FBs. Unless TE numbers come down from four.

[pbmax]

I am stunned that McCarthy hasn't gone back to Kuhn recently. Even though Kuhn's best plays were getting blasted earlier this season, I am surprised M3 hasn't revisited him in short yardage, even with a different set of plays. Its not like him to give up an idea after one set of failures.

I am excited to see what Starks can do, but I would not predict he shows much against a stout 49er run D. I think Nance would seem to be the best natural short yardage back.

So much for my prognostication skills. One for two.

[Patler]

With Starks starting to contribute, how big has this draft class been? Every single one of them has contributed to this season and they all look like quality (some star quality) nfl players.

Mike Neal didn't do much. 2 games, 3 tackles.

[denverYooper]

From Packers.com

According to Elias, James Starks' 73 rushing yards were the most by a Packers rookie RB in his first game since Ralph Earhart (78, 9/17/48).

[Fritz]

Starks contributed - it was evident in contrast when Jackson got carries - the damn stuter-stepping in the backfield. Starks seemed to just go. He looks like he could be a consistent, Grant-type guy. Good game to get him started. I wonder what he'll do on the rug in Detroit.

[Patler]

Yes, you keep the three TBs and force a decision about two FBs. Unless TE numbers come down from four.

I think the Packers were in a bit of a bind with 4 TEs. They liked both rookies, but may have felt the need to keep a vet, too; maybe in part because Finley was only a year removed from a pretty immature rookie season. Quarless and Crabtree have gotten a lot of playing time this year, Lee has disappeared. Probably no need for 4 next year.

[Brandon494]

Mike Neal didn't do much. 2 games, 3 tackles.

He didnt do much but when you have to admit he was showing a lot of promise before he got injuried.

Another great draft by TT

[Joemailman]

Neal would have been very valuable once Pickett was injured. He has a bright future if he stays healthy.

[Patler]

He didnt do much but when you have to admit he was showing a lot of promise before he got injuried.

Another great draft by TT

Ya, maybe. We saw him against Washington and Detroit after all! :lol:

Realistically, I'm not going to get too excited until he plays a bit more. The Packers got nothing more from him than they did from Justin Harrell as a rookie.

[pbmax]

Mike Neal didn't do much. 2 games, 3 tackles.

Which is its own small irony, as once it was clear Jolly would not be available, he looked like the most likely contributor behind Burnett.

[pbmax]

Ya, maybe. We saw him against Washington and Detroit after all! :lol:

Realistically, I'm not going to get too excited until he plays a bit more. The Packers got nothing more from him than they did from Justin Harrell as a rookie.

Less, actually.

[Patler]

Ya, maybe. We saw him against Washington and Detroit after all! :lol:

Realistically, I'm not going to get too excited until he plays a bit more. The Packers got nothing more from him than they did from Justin Harrell as a rookie.


Less, actually.

Ya, I almost said "less". They got more games and a few more tackles out of Harrell as a rookie; but Neal did give them a sack! :lol:

[packrulz]

From Packers.com
Ahhh, good ol' Ralph Earhart, he was a beast!

[Patler]

Anyone else find themselves wondering what might have been, if Starks had been active last week?

[mmmdk]

Anyone else find themselves wondering what might have been, if Starks had been active last week?

Are you a mind reader?; thought about it post game but was occupied getting cuffnit thing.

[denverYooper]

Anyone else find themselves wondering what might have been, if Starks had been active last week?

yes

[sheepshead]

Anyone else find themselves wondering what might have been, if Starks had been active last week?

Makes me crabby

[Tony Oday]

F it we have him now!

[RashanGary]

Well, we found our runner. Go STARKS!

[MJZiggy]

Keeping in mind that Samkon had some good games for us, we MAY HAVE found our runner...

[Tony Oday]

He reminds me of Grant a little bit in the fact that I cant remember a negative carry...2 I think 0 yard gains but no losses...I like that

[MJZiggy]

He reminds me of Grant a little bit in the fact that I cant remember a negative carry...2 I think 0 yard gains but no losses...I like that

That's what happens when you get the ball and immediately run toward the LOS (that means you, Mr. Jackson!)

[denverYooper]

James Starks just might save GBs running game and ST!

[Fred's Slacks]

I was sure I remember Neal getting a sack in one of the few games he played in.

Yes, his contribution has been minimal but he was the number 4 DL when the season started, and the coaches seemed prepared to put him in a role where he was going to play a lot. He showed up with plays from time to time which is difficult for rookie DL.

[Lurker64]

As much as we may wish to rip Brandon Jackson, he'll stick with this team as he is an awfully good third down back in terms of his ability to pickup blitzes and catch the ball (and he's reasonably nifty in the open field). We just need a 1st and 2nd down back who is good for consistent yardage and will occasionally break one. That was Grant, maybe that will be Starks.

[Fred's Slacks]

I was sure I remember Neal getting a sack in one of the few games he played in.

Yes, his contribution has been minimal but he was the number 4 DL when the season started, and the coaches seemed prepared to put him in a role where he was going to play a lot. He showed up with plays from time to time which is difficult for rookie DL.

In fact, he had a sack and a forced fumble according to JSO stats.

[pbmax]

As much as we may wish to rip Brandon Jackson, he'll stick with this team as he is an awfully good third down back in terms of his ability to pickup blitzes and catch the ball (and he's reasonably nifty in the open field). We just need a 1st and 2nd down back who is good for consistent yardage and will occasionally break one. That was Grant, maybe that will be Starks.

No complaints about Brandon in his usual role. But I don't think you can count on him as TB #2 anymore. Start for a game or two? OK. But not a long term starter. You need a more viable long term TB option at #2 to start the season.

[Patler]

I was sure I remember Neal getting a sack in one of the few games he played in.

Yes, his contribution has been minimal but he was the number 4 DL when the season started, and the coaches seemed prepared to put him in a role where he was going to play a lot. He showed up with plays from time to time which is difficult for rookie DL.

No, he wasn't the 4th lineman when the season started because he was inactive the first three weeks due to an injury at the end of camp. He finally made it to be active on game day for two weeks, then was lost for the season. He played just two games.

[Joemailman]

No complaints about Brandon in his usual role. But I don't think you can count on him as TB #2 anymore. Start for a game or two? OK. But not a long term starter. You need a more viable long term TB option at #2 to start the season.

Agree. Jackson is what he is. A very good 3rd down back. He had 4 receptions for 63 yards today. It will be interesting next year with Grant, Starks, Jackson and Nance all here.

[digitaldean]

As much as we may wish to rip Brandon Jackson, he'll stick with this team as he is an awfully good third down back in terms of his ability to pickup blitzes and catch the ball (and he's reasonably nifty in the open field). We just need a 1st and 2nd down back who is good for consistent yardage and will occasionally break one. That was Grant, maybe that will be Starks.

I have felt all along that BJack is like Rodney Harmon for the Chargers back in the 90s. A good 3rd down back for either change of pace or screen passes, but THAT'S IT. He tends to revert back to the overjuking crap that is absolutely useless. If Starks can continue to progress, what a complement can he be to Grant in 2011 (barring any labor BS).

[Guiness]

Ya, maybe. We saw him against Washington and Detroit after all! :lol:

Realistically, I'm not going to get too excited until he plays a bit more. The Packers got nothing more from him than they did from Justin Harrell as a rookie.

Holy jinx the guy! I'm not the superstitious type, but would still never lay a label like that on someone!

[swede]

I was sure I remember Neal getting a sack in one of the few games he played in.

Yes, his contribution has been minimal but he was the number 4 DL when the season started, and the coaches seemed prepared to put him in a role where he was going to play a lot. He showed up with plays from time to time which is difficult for rookie DL.

I agree with you, but impressions such as these hurt us five years from now when we argue that Neal looked great as a rookie and Patler slaps a post that says "2 games, 3 tackles!" onto our foreheads.

[Fosco33]

Starks should be primary back - 12-14 carries a game.
Jackson should be targeted out of the backfield - 3-4 times a game (screens, checkdowns, etc.)
Kuhn on short yardage and the occasional handoff

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

I want to see Starks get 15-20 carries a game. We need that balance on offense. Our passing game would be so much better if we could run the ball and bring back the play action pass. I really enjoyed watching the offense today. If we run the ball with talent we have in the passing game we could be very good on offense.

[Patler]

Ya, maybe. We saw him against Washington and Detroit after all! :lol:

Realistically, I'm not going to get too excited until he plays a bit more. The Packers got nothing more from him than they did from Justin Harrell as a rookie.


Holy jinx the guy! I'm not the superstitious type, but would still never lay a label like that on someone!

No label. Someone mentioned about how much everyone in this draft class has contributed. I don't believe Neal contributed much at all. Not saying anything about his future. But for his rookie year......

[Packgator]

It will be interesting next year with Grant, Starks, Jackson and Nance all here.

And a rookie from the draft.

[Lurker64]

And a rookie from the draft.

Maybe, maybe not. Last March I would have bet my shoes that we would have picked up an OLB in the first three rounds and here I am in the Winter with my feet both warm and dry.

[SlimPickens]

He reminds me of Grant a little bit in the fact that I cant remember a negative carry...2 I think 0 yard gains but no losses...I like that

That was what stood out to me.

[Fred's Slacks]

No, he wasn't the 4th lineman when the season started because he was inactive the first three weeks due to an injury at the end of camp. He finally made it to be active on game day for two weeks, then was lost for the season. He played just two games.

He was the 4th DL on the depth chart, active or not.

Only active for 2 games and notches a sack and a forced fumble. For a position that typically takes time before a player does anything, that's pretty impressive.

I'm sorry, I'll stop talking about Neal in a Starks thread now.

[Scott Campbell]

And a rookie from the draft.

I'm in the same camp. Starks had a great debut, but there are some things about his running style that leave me wondering. He's tall, and runs very upright. Those guys tend to get hurt in the NFL. He's also a long strider, so there's no lateral quickness. He might be just what we need to finish out this year. But I'm not as encouraged long term.

[vince]

Starks isn't quite as fast as Grant, but from what I've seen has far better lateral quickness. I think the upright argument is overplayed. People said the same thing about Adrian Peterson and Eric Dickerson when they came into the league. I'm not comparing Starks to either of those guys except to say they - along with Grant - all have/had an upright running style. Robert Smith was another.

Can anyone cite an upright runner whose career was negatively impacted by it? I can't really think of one...

[VermontPackFan]

How about the Vikings RB (George?) Foreman. Great all around back but I think he ran upright. I know he took a pounding and probably cost him a few years at the end of his career?

[Cheesehead Craig]

The whole running style thing really doesn't bother me. We've all seen back who have their style questioned that do just fine.

[Patler]

He was the 4th DL on the depth chart, active or not.

Only active for 2 games and notches a sack and a forced fumble. For a position that typically takes time before a player does anything, that's pretty impressive.

I'm sorry, I'll stop talking about Neal in a Starks thread now.

You can't be the 4th D-lineman if you aren't practicing or active for games. He was listed as second string at one position, just as Harrell was at another position. I will agree Neal made a couple plays. I will agree that he looks like he has potential. But that isn't what the comment was about. His overall actual contribution this season was negligible. His impact on this season is virtually nothing.

[Scott Campbell]

Starks isn't quite as fast as Grant, but from what I've seen has far better lateral quickness. I think the upright argument is overplayed. People said the same thing about Adrian Peterson and Eric Dickerson when they came into the league. I'm not comparing Starks to either of those guys except to say they - along with Grant - all have/had an upright running style. Robert Smith was another.

Can anyone cite an upright runner whose career was negatively impacted by it? I can't really think of one...


I don't even remember him making a cut yesterday. But I didn't record it.

[Patler]

I think the upright argument is overplayed. People said the same thing about Adrian Peterson and Eric Dickerson when they came into the league. I'm not comparing Starks to either of those guys except to say they - along with Grant - all have/had an upright running style. Robert Smith was another.

Can anyone cite an upright runner whose career was negatively impacted by it? I can't really think of one...

How can you even tell if it was their upright running style that affected their career, or if it was the fact they ran into and over people, or if it was just plain luck? To me, the only way the argument would make any sense is if virtually all upright runners have very short careers, and that just isn't the case. The average running back has a short career expectancy anyway, regardless of style. Some of all styles have lasted long, including upright runners.

To me, its as much of a concern as the O-lineman who has arms that are too short, simply because they are 1/2 inch shorter than the prospect who has "acceptable" arm length. In the end, most players have "deficiencies" from the ideal for their position. It all comes down to what they do with the way they are.

[pbmax]

I don't even remember him making a cut yesterday. But I didn't record it.

He had at least 2 cutbacks on zone plays. One was a fantastic read by him. He would seem to have enough lateral quickness to run zone plays.

[pbmax]

Starks isn't quite as fast as Grant, but from what I've seen has far better lateral quickness. I think the upright argument is overplayed. People said the same thing about Adrian Peterson and Eric Dickerson when they came into the league. I'm not comparing Starks to either of those guys except to say they - along with Grant - all have/had an upright running style. Robert Smith was another.

Can anyone cite an upright runner whose career was negatively impacted by it? I can't really think of one...

I don't know if it is tied directly to shorter careers, but it is often associated with fumbles. Adrian Peterson, Laurence Maroney for instance. Brandon Jacobs is mentioned, but he might be the only current player a wear down argument could be made that I am aware of.

Dickerson had trouble with fumbles. Often this description is applied to tall running backs. The point is also made that running this way makes the back slower to change direction. It used to be these backs would be slotted to fit best in an I formation backfield.

[mmmdk]

I don't know if it is tied directly to shorter careers, but it is often associated with fumbles. Adrian Peterson, Laurence Maroney for instance. Brandon Jacobs is mentioned, but he might be the only current player a wear down argument could be made that I am aware of.

Dickerson had trouble with fumbles. Often this description is applied to tall running backs. The point is also made that running this way makes the back slower to change direction. It used to be these backs would be slotted to fit best in an I formation backfield.

I hear ya but I couldn't believe what I read; Starks had no fumbles in 3 years at Buffalo!? That's according to ESPN.

[rbaloha1]

I'm in the same camp. Starks had a great debut, but there are some things about his running style that leave me wondering. He's tall, and runs very upright. Those guys tend to get hurt in the NFL. He's also a long strider, so there's no lateral quickness. He might be just what we need to finish out this year. But I'm not as encouraged long term.

Good observations. While being encouraged by Starks performance my concern is how effective Starks is outside of the front five.

[rbaloha1]

He had at least 2 cutbacks on zone plays. One was a fantastic read by him. He would seem to have enough lateral quickness to run zone plays.

Yes. Does Starks have homerun ability?

[mmmdk]

Yes. Does Starks have homerun ability?

In college: YES! I recall a 92 yard monster run I watched on Utube.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Starks looks like he's better than the guys we have on 1st and 2nd down, but I was slightly disappointed on how he looked. He did a good job finding holes and gaining extra yards, but he looked a little stiffer and slower than I thought he'd look (e.g. compared to his youtube video). I'm also concerned with his running style. It's his first game though. I'll be interested to see how fast he looks on the turf in Detroit.

[Packgator]

I read that Starks 73 yards....... are the most rushing yards by a Packer rookie in his first game since 1948. Is that possible?

[mmmdk]

Starks looks like he's better than the guys we have on 1st and 2nd down, but I was slightly disappointed on how he looked. He did a good job finding holes and gaining extra yards, but he looked a little stiffer and slower than I thought he'd look (e.g. compared to his youtube video). I'm also concerned with his running style. It's his first game though. I'll be interested to see how fast he looks on the turf in Detroit.

I thought his thighs looked a wee bit too slim - add muscle in offseason? He hasn't played in nearly 2 years and I was baffled that he as well as he did.

[Patler]

Starks looks like he's better than the guys we have on 1st and 2nd down, but I was slightly disappointed on how he looked. He did a good job finding holes and gaining extra yards, but he looked a little stiffer and slower than I thought he'd look (e.g. compared to his youtube video). I'm also concerned with his running style. It's his first game though. I'll be interested to see how fast he looks on the turf in Detroit.

In the minicamps before he hurt his hamstring, a couple observers mentioned that he looked a little stiff, too.

Watching him run yesterday, he reminded me of someone from quite a while ago. I can't think of his name or even who he played for. But he was a tall, lean, but well-built athlete who also looked a bit stiff, but hammered away at the 3 and 4 yard runs, busting one for 10-15 now and then. Only rarely anything longer. But at the end of the game he piled up yardage and a decent average.

[Joemailman]

Yes. Does Starks have homerun ability?

I don't know. But Bryan Bulaga does.
http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/host.madison.com/content/tncms/assets/editorial/8/25/c93/825c939e-7e62-11df-a0fb-001cc4c03286-revisions/4c215c5698a7f.image.jpg

[vince]

Starks looks like he's better than the guys we have on 1st and 2nd down, but I was slightly disappointed on how he looked. He did a good job finding holes and gaining extra yards, but he looked a little stiffer and slower than I thought he'd look (e.g. compared to his youtube video). I'm also concerned with his running style. It's his first game though. I'll be interested to see how fast he looks on the turf in Detroit.
I had to watch the game online, so the resolution wasn't the greatest and there were instances of choppiness in the feed, but I thought he looked good. Very reminiscent of Grant with more shake. He's not a speedster like Chris Johnson, but neither were/are most running backs. I think he has homerun ability from what I saw. He just needed a tad more space to get going than he had yesterday. I'm waiting to download the game on TenYardTorrents and watch it again in higher resolution.

I think the concern about his ball security is legitimate and hopefully Edgard can get that solidified and get him to run with a bit more lean. He'll always be more upright though because of his size. A year of offseason to thicken up more could do wonders as well.

[denverYooper]

In the minicamps before he hurt his hamstring, a couple observers mentioned that he looked a little stiff, too.

Watching him run yesterday, he reminded me of someone from quite a while ago. I can't think of his name or even who he played for. But he was a tall, lean, but well-built athlete who also looked a bit stiff, but hammered away at the 3 and 4 yard runs, busting one for 10-15 now and then. Only rarely anything longer. But at the end of the game he piled up yardage and a decent average.

IMO, the part in bold is very much what the Packers offense needs a RB to do in the run game.

[Cheesehead Craig]

If he can keep running how he did yesterday and get 18-20 carries/game, the offense just got quite a bit better.

[swede]

In the minicamps before he hurt his hamstring, a couple observers mentioned that he looked a little stiff, too.

Watching him run yesterday, he reminded me of someone from quite a while ago. I can't think of his name or even who he played for. But he was a tall, lean, but well-built athlete who also looked a bit stiff, but hammered away at the 3 and 4 yard runs, busting one for 10-15 now and then. Only rarely anything longer. But at the end of the game he piled up yardage and a decent average.
If he were a bit stouter, I'd compare him to Eddie George.

Eddie listed at 6' 3" and 235--which sounds about right since he always looked something like a tight end minus an inch of height and 10 pounds.

James is listed at 6' 2" and 211--and he could benefit from another ten pounds of muscle in his legs and butt.

With his shoulder needing a good couple of years to heal properly I would have thought Starks would have put some effort into doing just that, and if that's all he has to show for all the squats and lunges he may be stuck being a skinny-ass upright runner.

[Joemailman]

If he can keep running how he did yesterday and get 18-20 carries/game, the offense just got quite a bit better.

Not only is he better than Jackson at running the ball, but it allows Jackson to concentrate on what he does best, which is being the 3rd down back. Kuhn is fine as a short yardage guy. The situation at RB did get a lot better if Starks can repeat what he did yesterday.

[Kiwon]

Yeah, it's nice to start talking about a semi-effective run game again. Hopefully things will shape up in December and get primed to do something during the playoffs.

[mmmdk]

Starks had no fumbles at Buffalo - go figure
YEAR ATT YDS AVG LNG TD REC YDS AVG LNG TD FUM LST
2006 175 704 4.0 54 6 34 226 6.6 30 0 0 0
2007 251 1103 4.4 92 12 43 3 11 7.6 74 2 0 0
2008 272 1333 4.9 66 16 52 361 6.9 65 1 0 0

[Tony Oday]

Not only is he better than Jackson at running the ball, but it allows Jackson to concentrate on what he does best, which is being the 3rd down back. Kuhn is fine as a short yardage guy. The situation at RB did get a lot better if Starks can repeat what he did yesterday.

Dont forget that play action will actually WORK now if he can repeat what he did against the 9ers

[pbmax]

Starks looks like he's better than the guys we have on 1st and 2nd down, but I was slightly disappointed on how he looked. He did a good job finding holes and gaining extra yards, but he looked a little stiffer and slower than I thought he'd look (e.g. compared to his youtube video). I'm also concerned with his running style. It's his first game though. I'll be interested to see how fast he looks on the turf in Detroit.

I don't know about stiff, but I did notice the overall speed. I suppose that is natural, as his competition in college was not top notch, not to mention NFL fast.

[vince]

Starks commented after the game that he was focused on ball security (which he needs to obviously). That combined with not playing and being hit in almost two years probably made him run a bit stiffer than he will as he gains experience and comfort - so long as he continues to hold onto the ball.

It's interesting how different people seem to have seen different things with him. For his first game and under his circumstances, I thought he was a great success. I guess it depends on whether you're comparing him to Brandon Jackson or Adrian Peterson.

[Guiness]

Not only is he better than Jackson at running the ball, but it allows Jackson to concentrate on what he does best, which is being the 3rd down back. Kuhn is fine as a short yardage guy. The situation at RB did get a lot better if Starks can repeat what he did yesterday.

+1 - if we can expect that kind of a performance from Starks on a regular basis, a major piece of the puzzle for this team just fell into place.

[RashanGary]

I had to watch the game online, so the resolution wasn't the greatest and there were instances of choppiness in the feed, but I thought he looked good. Very reminiscent of Grant with more shake. He's not a speedster like Chris Johnson, but neither were/are most running backs. I think he has homerun ability from what I saw. He just needed a tad more space to get going than he had yesterday. I'm waiting to download the game on TenYardTorrents and watch it again in higher resolution.

I think the concern about his ball security is legitimate and hopefully Edgard can get that solidified and get him to run with a bit more lean. He'll always be more upright though because of his size. A year of offseason to thicken up more could do wonders as well.


That's what I saw. I was very surprised. I did not expect him to look so good so early. Anyone who's seen Stark's youtube highlights. . . . The guy could play WR, I believe that. He ran WR routes in college. His hands are natural and his whole approach with the ball in the air is effortless and smooth.

Watching him run now in the NFL, he can be a respectable RB. But I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts, next year or maybe even this year, you'll seem MM slide him out wide to force nasty WR/LB matchups. I did not think he'd be this good of a runner. Starks has the makings of a unique weapon.

Stay base and we'll spread you out and torch you. Go nickle and we'll run.

[denverYooper]

Starks commented after the game that he was focused on ball security (which he needs to obviously). That combined with not playing and being hit in almost two years probably made him run a bit stiffer than he will as he gains experience and comfort - so long as he continues to hold onto the ball.

It's interesting how different people seem to have seen different things with him. For his first game and under his circumstances, I thought he was a great success. I guess it depends on whether you're comparing him to Brandon Jackson or Adrian Peterson.

It'll be interesting to see how this situation shakes out for Starks. He's coming in with fresh legs at the end of the season so as long as he can avoid injury, he's in a great position to succeed.

[Fritz]

In the minicamps before he hurt his hamstring, a couple observers mentioned that he looked a little stiff, too.

Watching him run yesterday, he reminded me of someone from quite a while ago. I can't think of his name or even who he played for. But he was a tall, lean, but well-built athlete who also looked a bit stiff, but hammered away at the 3 and 4 yard runs, busting one for 10-15 now and then. Only rarely anything longer. But at the end of the game he piled up yardage and a decent average.

John Brockington? Probably not who you're thinking of - I know you know him - but that's who your description reminded me of.

[sharpe1027]

His ability to fall forward, even on clear short yardage situations, was encouraging. He also seemed to be able to use his length well by having just enough shift and angle to not get stopped cold and fall forward. Instead of hitting a tackler head-on, he seemed to consistently force them to one side and use his momentum to carry the tackler forward. Given what I've seen since Grant went out, I am more than happy with just that aspect.

[Cheesehead Craig]

James is listed at 6' 2" and 211--and he could benefit from another ten pounds of muscle in his legs and butt.


Swede likes the butt!

[Scott Campbell]

In the minicamps before he hurt his hamstring, a couple observers mentioned that he looked a little stiff, too.

Watching him run yesterday, he reminded me of someone from quite a while ago. I can't think of his name or even who he played for. But he was a tall, lean, but well-built athlete who also looked a bit stiff, but hammered away at the 3 and 4 yard runs, busting one for 10-15 now and then. Only rarely anything longer. But at the end of the game he piled up yardage and a decent average.


Beggars can't be choosers at this time of year. I'm thrilled with his contribution.

[Smidgeon]

There were three things I liked about Starks:

1) He didn't hesitate attacking a hole. He saw something and went for it.
2) One time that the blocking was set up towards the middle right, he took it all the way outside. He gained, I think, one yard. As soon as he stood up, he started tapping himself and saying that was his fault. He knew as soon as he broke away from the blocking that he shouldn't have. He'll get better there.
3) He didn't give up and go down. He fought for yards. Jackson doesn't seem to do that at all, and Grant doesn't seem to do it much either. Of course, that probably means he'll either fumble more (a la Adrian Peterson) or get injured more, but I'll take what I can get.

[pbmax]

McCarthy said Jackson is still the guy and they need to work on diversifying the play calls when Starks is in the game. He said yesterday that if Starks was in, it was obvious it would be a run. If I were McCarthy, I would yell at Wilde and refuse to answer. :)

[Patler]

John Brockington? Probably not who you're thinking of - I know you know him - but that's who your description reminded me of.

It wasn't a Packer I was thinking of. I don't remember Brockington being stiff, and he got his body down down with his knees up, at least for the three years or so that he was actually an effective runner.

[SnakeLH2006]

Starks was quite a breath of fresh air yesterday. He really hits the hole with speed and tenacity (something we've been lacking at RB this year).

I'm glad to see that he had 52 catches in 2008, mmmdk, as he'll need to be able to catch the ball some. Most of the time he was in there yesterday, he ran the ball. Most of the time BJ was in there, he was used as a handoff decoy, a blocker, or pass-catcher. I like that setup, but it won't take long for the rest of the league to take notice and clamp down on Starks, unless he can catch a few balls or show he can pass protect.

[3irty1]

Ok so here are my full thoughts on Mr. Starks:

First thing you really notice when seeing him in HD is that the guy is Wesley Snipes black. I hear was Harvey is saying, he didn't look totally comfortable yesterday and ran kind of choppy and out of control. He's got some of those stutter step and head fake moves that you usually see from a running back who knows he's got speed. He also seems to like to spin off of contact for the extra yard. It's already apparent that he has much more under the hood than Jackson. The area where he stands to separate himself from the Packer's other running backs the most is his vision and there is reason to think he will do so after just one game where he didn't leave many yards on the field. He's powerful the way a futon mattress is heavy as opposed to the way a 5-gallon bucket full of wet sand is heavy. He reminds me a lot of Mike Gooden of the Panthers the way he spins out of tackles and wiggles his way North and South. I have a feeling that youtube home-run speed will show itself when he gets the ball out in space and as they start using him on stretch and zone plays with cutback lanes for him to burst through. I saw him pick up a rusher in pass pro yesterday where he ran up and popped the guy right in the chest. The Packers obviously put a premium on this part of a running back's game so it'll be important to see how he does.

[RashanGary]

Interesting post, 31. I never noticed the head-fake thing, but i did see Sam Shields do it and have success with it. That's a hard move to pull off when everyone is fast. Shields did it and it worked.

Everyone's fast and Shields is faster than everyone. Whatever that means.

[mission]

Here's the video of his 16 yard run... I just watched it a bunch of times. ;)


http://www.nfl.com/videos/green-bay-packers/09000d5d81ca9243/RB-Starks-16-yd-run

As much as I like Ryan Grant, we've all seen him go down from a lot less than that leg pop by a dude like Willis. It's awesome to see a GBP RB bouncing off guys like that.

[3irty1]

Its weird to see a Packer RB run past the OL and into uncharted territory.

[Zool]

I'd like to see the guy do it more than once before I declare the RB situation solved. Definitely showed some hard running and decisiveness, but too many times he was slapping his own helmet after the play. Get outa your head rook and just do what you do.

[MichiganPackerFan]

Here's the video of his 16 yard run... I just watched it a bunch of times. ;)


http://www.nfl.com/videos/green-bay-packers/09000d5d81ca9243/RB-Starks-16-yd-run

As much as I like Ryan Grant, we've all seen him go down from a lot less than that leg pop by a dude like Willis. It's awesome to see a GBP RB bouncing off guys like that.


Its weird to see a Packer RB run past the OL and into uncharted territory.

Its funny how fast time flies: 2003, Ahman Green and Clifton/Wahle/Flanagan/Rivera/Tauscher/Henderson seem SO long ago.

It was a nice debut for Starks, but I certainly want to see a lot more before anointing him as the second coming.

[RashanGary]

Here's the video of his 16 yard run... I just watched it a bunch of times. ;)


http://www.nfl.com/videos/green-bay-packers/09000d5d81ca9243/RB-Starks-16-yd-run

As much as I like Ryan Grant, we've all seen him go down from a lot less than that leg pop by a dude like Willis. It's awesome to see a GBP RB bouncing off guys like that.

That's an awesome run. He shows really good balance. Reminds me of a guy I really like that the Chargers drafted, Ryan Matthews.

[Pugger]

I just want Jackson gone! I would rather risk fumbling with Starks than watching Jackson run anymore. Other than pass blocking he offers nothing. I would rather Kuhn start, and don't like Kuhn at Rb. I like him at Fb.

Jackson ain't a feature RB but he isn't too bad catching out of the backfield and picks up the blitz pretty well so he's fine as a 3rd round back.

[hoosier]

That's an awesome run. He shows really good balance. Reminds me of a guy I really like that the Chargers drafted, Ryan Matthews.

Don't you dare make that comparison! The only thing Matthews has shown so far is that he is brittle. You better hope you didn't just jinx Starks and make him the nineteenth name on the Packers's ever expanding IR list.

[Pugger]

His ability to fall forward, even on clear short yardage situations, was encouraging. He also seemed to be able to use his length well by having just enough shift and angle to not get stopped cold and fall forward. Instead of hitting a tackler head-on, he seemed to consistently force them to one side and use his momentum to carry the tackler forward. Given what I've seen since Grant went out, I am more than happy with just that aspect.

I didn't get to see the game :-( but if he was falling forward and getting something out of nothing that can be a huge lift for our offense. I truly think we lost in Atlanta and in a couple of our other loses because we couldn't convert on 3rd and short to keep drives alive. :-|

[SnakeLH2006]

Bottom Line: Starks is spades above ANYTHING BJack can do. BJack gets tackled all the time behind the line of scrimmage. He's small, has no change of ability moves, and makes Ryan Grant (who I previously used to rip on for not breaking tackles) look like Jim Brown.

Starks is a young, fast RB. He's upright, but that's ok cuz he really fights for yards (much like Grant did). I like him in the same mold. With an ace QB like ARod, the odds are stacked we will NEVER have an ace RB, but Starks is pretty damn exciting as I watched EVERY carry he had last week and he's nothing like Kuhn (slow plodder) or BJack (indecisive slow smallish RB with NO moves). Starks is an upgrade and then some. I like this young cat. He fights and even if he's almost tackled he still fights and gets 2 more yards....reminds me of a better Tony Fisher (maybe a bad comparison but Fisher could get some yards, but didn't have the speed Starks does as an upright runner). Anything is better than BJack....and this is why we are gonna be unbeatable till the SB now. We found our RB. Starks is legit. Snake came back and started his first topic on Starks and now we win the SBowl. Thank Snake.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I wouldn't say Jackson has no moves. He's a nice back in space on those screens and dumpoffs. His problem is trying to make those moves at the LOS... dancing around looking for a hole. One cut it and get it up in there.

[OS PA]

Its weird to see a Packer RB run past the OL and into uncharted territory.

Colledge looked like he was in uncharted territory too. Had he kicked out to his left and blocked the safety that hit Starks, Starks could have broken that one. Instead, Colledge assisted Wells in knocking the DT down and then ran himself to the right out of the play. Somebody who knows more than I do - How has Colledge been lately on the second level? How are our other linemen at the second level?

This seems important now that we have an RB who is willing to stick his nose in and break into the linebackers and secondary. If any of our lineman are capable of getting off combo blocks and blocking that second level, I have a feeling we could see Starks breaking some runs.

I'm still hesitant to call him our "savior", but I do feel a bit more confidence in him after seeing how hard the kid runs.

[SnakeLH2006]

So Snake just got back on here, but I see I can't edit shit from the past or even hilite your reply with an edit of your post...? WTF, Joe? Snake is legendary with his own edits, but I can't even hilite a guy and short-edit his post for a reply?

Damn this new site does suck then.

With what OS PA said...Collegde sucks, but offered enough to keep Starks happy with runs. Is this site so messed up I cant't even edit the dude I wanna reply to? Whatever...Snake is 110x better than any lacky wanting to make his name a point on here.

[RashanGary]

I wouldn't say Jackson has no moves. He's a nice back in space on those screens and dumpoffs. His problem is trying to make those moves at the LOS... dancing around looking for a hole. One cut it and get it up in there.


Yup. When Jackson is in open space and he's just using his instincts, he has moves and they work. He took that little shovel pass, maybe it was against Atlanta at about the 10 yard line and made some nice moves on his way to score.

This is the NFL. You don't have time to dance in the backfield or before the hole, especially in this zone scheme. You have to get forward, hope you clear the lineman and then make a guy miss or run through him after that.

Jackson seems like a guy who's not running on instinct. He's trying to read the play as it unfolds and he's really bad at it. He sits there and studders and delays until he's nailed behind the line. Starks came in and immediately ran it up the shoot. Our running game just took off and maybe Jackson learns to just go because he lost his job. Maybe now he'll just pick a crease and run. I doubt it though. He doesn't seem to learn. But now I don't really care. Starks is our guy and Nance might be our short yardage guy.

[pbmax]

Colledge looked like he was in uncharted territory too. Had he kicked out to his left and blocked the safety that hit Starks, Starks could have broken that one. Instead, Colledge assisted Wells in knocking the DT down and then ran himself to the right out of the play. Somebody who knows more than I do - How has Colledge been lately on the second level? How are our other linemen at the second level?

This seems important now that we have an RB who is willing to stick his nose in and break into the linebackers and secondary. If any of our lineman are capable of getting off combo blocks and blocking that second level, I have a feeling we could see Starks breaking some runs.

I'm still hesitant to call him our "savior", but I do feel a bit more confidence in him after seeing how hard the kid runs.

As I remember it, Colledge was the guy who did get a block on a LB/DB in space. Wells went too far wide and had no one to block when Jackson took it upfield inside the numbers.

Colledge seems to still be having trouble hitting the DT and then getting to the LB. When Wells can go it alone, he does fine. But something about the dual job just slows him down. McGinn has given up and has called him everything but immobile.

[Little Whiskey]

So Snake just got back on here, but I see I can't edit shit from the past or even hilite your reply with an edit of your post...? WTF, Joe? Snake is legendary with his own edits, but I can't even hilite a guy and short-edit his post for a reply?

Damn this new site does suck then.

.

snake, just click (reply with quote) below the post you want to quote. then you can edit it how ever you want. if you want to insert a quote. click on the quote balloon above the text box once you are in quick reply. then add the text you want to quote. help?

[3irty1]

Colledge looked like he was in uncharted territory too. Had he kicked out to his left and blocked the safety that hit Starks, Starks could have broken that one. Instead, Colledge assisted Wells in knocking the DT down and then ran himself to the right out of the play. Somebody who knows more than I do - How has Colledge been lately on the second level? How are our other linemen at the second level?

This seems important now that we have an RB who is willing to stick his nose in and break into the linebackers and secondary. If any of our lineman are capable of getting off combo blocks and blocking that second level, I have a feeling we could see Starks breaking some runs.

I'm still hesitant to call him our "savior", but I do feel a bit more confidence in him after seeing how hard the kid runs.

It's really tough to say how they've been doing at the second level because with Jackson back there blocks needed to be sustained at the first level just to ensure some success in the power running game. When things have worked out, Sitton has been a wrecking ball downfield and almost always takes two or three guys out of the play. Hitting the moving target and blocking downfield is historically one of Colledge's strong points but he's pretty quick to throw a chop block and take himself out of the play and for whatever reason ball carriers running behind him seem to get caught in pursuit before they ever get a chance to get past Colledge, like Colledge just isn't aware of where the play is breaking down. Wells seems to get help with a double team to start nearly every running play which is common for a center but at the same time, Wells isn't going to move anybody off the ball on his own. He's a good positional blocker and can wall off a DT from making the play but its rare that he has much of a presence down the field. Bulaga doesn't seem like much of a mauler at this point but still gets a little push and has the awareness to know when its time to head to the second level. The most I've ever seen Clifton do at the second level is throw a chop block this year.

I can't help but wonder if Colledge is part of the Packers long term plans. Not because he's bad although he may be the weakest link, but because Lang would likely take his job next training camp barring another injury. The real exciting battle on the OL that should start as early as 2011 is the battle between McDonald and Wells. McCarthy and co. have shown in their promotion of Spitz to center that they very much buy into the league trend of bigger centers who can better take on nose tackles from the 3-4 which is also a growing trend. McDonald would make a monster center and since he got here McCarthy has raved about his footwork and style of play. Should McDonald eventually supplant Wells like Spitz once did, we could have an interior line of Lang-McDonald-Sitton which could be a force in the running game.

[wootah]

I know this is OT, but since this has turned into a DC discussion...


I can't help but wonder if Colledge is part of the Packers long term plans.

I've asked this in the 'Interesting comment on TJ Lang from MM' thread, but I'll do it here again; does anyone know why there hasn't been a 'Colledge experience' this year? Who took the initiative on this? DC after being frustrated for not getting a new contract? Or the FO?

I tried to look it up, but didn't find any info on it. Via google, you can see that they used to mention it in his profile on packers.com, but when I search for it now, that info has been removed.

[SnakeLH2006]

I've been gone for a bit....What is the "Colledge experience"? Sounds intriguing.

[vince]

It's really tough to say how they've been doing at the second level because with Jackson back there blocks needed to be sustained at the first level just to ensure some success in the power running game. When things have worked out, Sitton has been a wrecking ball downfield and almost always takes two or three guys out of the play. Hitting the moving target and blocking downfield is historically one of Colledge's strong points but he's pretty quick to throw a chop block and take himself out of the play and for whatever reason ball carriers running behind him seem to get caught in pursuit before they ever get a chance to get past Colledge, like Colledge just isn't aware of where the play is breaking down. Wells seems to get help with a double team to start nearly every running play which is common for a center but at the same time, Wells isn't going to move anybody off the ball on his own. He's a good positional blocker and can wall off a DT from making the play but its rare that he has much of a presence down the field. Bulaga doesn't seem like much of a mauler at this point but still gets a little push and has the awareness to know when its time to head to the second level. The most I've ever seen Clifton do at the second level is throw a chop block this year.

I can't help but wonder if Colledge is part of the Packers long term plans. Not because he's bad although he may be the weakest link, but because Lang would likely take his job next training camp barring another injury. The real exciting battle on the OL that should start as early as 2011 is the battle between McDonald and Wells. McCarthy and co. have shown in their promotion of Spitz to center that they very much buy into the league trend of bigger centers who can better take on nose tackles from the 3-4 which is also a growing trend. McDonald would make a monster center and since he got here McCarthy has raved about his footwork and style of play. Should McDonald eventually supplant Wells like Spitz once did, we could have an interior line of Lang-McDonald-Sitton which could be a force in the running game.
Agree with every word of this. Thanks for the good detailed post 3irty1.

[vince]

I've been gone for a bit....What is the "Colledge experience"? Sounds intriguing.
Unfortunately it's not like when you are at an after-bar party and a hot little freshman swears she gives the best head in the world and wants to prove it to you.

This Colledge experience is more like when you have a serious case of the munchies and you hit the QuikStop dreamin' about diving into a killer hot beef burrito, but they're out so you have to settle for a shitty cold sub.

[RashanGary]

I ♥ James Starks

[BobDobbs]

I've seen the James Stark's man love flowing fast and fierce and I've been thinking its has more to do with how horrible our run game has been to watch than anything else. But then I read this.

"He's sub-4.4," Bennett said. "Trust me, he is."
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/111734799.html

Maybe it's time to board the love train for the oldest 21 year old since Greg Oden.

[gbgary]

I've seen the James Stark's man love flowing fast and fierce and I've been thinking its has more to do with how horrible our run game has been to watch than anything else. But then I read this.

"He's sub-4.4," Bennett said. "Trust me, he is."
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/111734799.html

Maybe it's time to board the love train for the oldest 21 year old since Greg Oden.


good one! lol

[Packers4Glory]

well be prepared for him to suck or get hurt. I picked him up for my playoff run in my money fantasy Lg. I managed 1st place so far even w/ Losing Grant but I need an upside play at my Flex spot. Starks it is.

[bobblehead]

BUMP-

Anyone wish to reassess their evaluation of Mr. Starks? Bottom line remains the same; no one can run if the blocking isn't their.

[Guiness]

Not really BH. I wish, in such a close, low scoring game, we'd run more, and given the ball to Starks. Yes, they are stout up front, but everyone wears down. We had 37 passes, 15 runs (not including the 5 QB runs). Greater than a 2:1 ratio - no wonder their DLine was able to unload on our OL.

During the game, I didn't get the impression that Starks was losing ground on his carries. A look at the play by play shows his carries went for 2, 7, -1, 2, -2 and 0. Not what you want, of course, but not like he always going backwards.

[bobblehead]

Not really BH. I wish, in such a close, low scoring game, we'd run more, and given the ball to Starks. Yes, they are stout up front, but everyone wears down. We had 37 passes, 15 runs (not including the 5 QB runs). Greater than a 2:1 ratio - no wonder their DLine was able to unload on our OL.

During the game, I didn't get the impression that Starks was losing ground on his carries. A look at the play by play shows his carries went for 2, 7, -1, 2, -2 and 0. Not what you want, of course, but not like he always going backwards.

I of course agree with you. I was more being facetious about people thinking its all on the RB, and not the OL. In the San Fran game Starks had holes BJack would have died for this year, and BJack has been effective when the blocking is there. In a one score game you drop back to pass over 40 times and call 15 runs. If no one has an issue with that, well.....

[3irty1]

I of course agree with you. I was more being facetious about people thinking its all on the RB, and not the OL. In the San Fran game Starks had holes BJack would have died for this year, and BJack has been effective when the blocking is there. In a one score game you drop back to pass over 40 times and call 15 runs. If no one has an issue with that, well.....

I mostly agree with this. A good RB can make a usable running game good but can't make a useless running game useful. Clifton might be the worst run-blocker in the NFL. Colledge, Wells, and Bulaga can be driven backwards.

[RashanGary]

I hate James Starks

[Freak Out]

I hate James Starks

What you're saying is you have a love hate relationship with James Starks.

[SnakeLH2006]

I really don't think last week was indicative of Starks' running ability considering (Campen said every OL had a negative grade against the Lions) that. I still see toughness and speed. I'm sure we find out more tomorrow given the fact Flynn flat out sucks as a QB. Starks might not be Jim Brown...or even Ryan Grant, but hell, he's tough and fast to the hole....2 things Snake has always been good at....and respects in other professions you get PAID to do that.