Grant or Starks - Who's better?

[RashanGary]

Grant does a great job moving forward. He's tough, fast and good job reading his zone runs. If you have to go through a list of running backs who can do some things but not others (like Grant is), he's the ideal fit for our offense. He never breaks tackles or makes anybody miss so his medium to long runs are way down. He always falls forward and rarely takes bad steps so he usually picks up between 3 and 5 yards. In our offense where we have weapons galore all over the perimeter, a running back that always gets yards has a lot of value because it keeps AR in good good down and distances and keeps the chains moving. He's also a good short yardage back with his move forward approach.


Starks does a good job with this zone reads. Not as good as Grant, but he does a nice job moving forward and getting yards on most runs. He made some obvious mistakes through the playoff run where he sort of stuttered and danced too much, but if Jackson is a 0 and Grant is 9, Starks is probably about a 6 or 7 right out of the gate. Unlike Grant, Starks has shown the ability to break tackles and he also has shown the ability to make one guy miss so his medium runs were up. They did not throw to him very often, but there is tape of him at Buffalo playing WR and he made some great highlight catches you can watch on youtube. On the simple dump offs he looks very smooth and natural bending back for the ball, then running with it.



At the end of the day, Grant is the more proven commodity. You can trust him to get positive yards and not fumble. Starks, while he showed talent, you're probably not as sure of him as you are Grant.


I think Grant is going to be here. He's a great fit for us and most teams want two good RB's if they don't have a great one. I even think Grant will start on week one, but as the season goes on, like when Finley overtook Lee, I could see Starks eating into Grants snaps and by playoff time Starks would be playing over 50% of the snaps.

[vince]

Great question.

Grant, assuming he's his old self, is a little faster than Starks, but I have to say I like Starks a bit more too because he's a tad more elusive and is tougher to tackle. He can pack a punch that I haven't seen from Grant. I also think his receiving skills are completely untapped at this point and could be a significant part of his game in the future.

I think they'll make a great tandem.

[RashanGary]

I think they'll make a great tandem.

I think so too. Grant does all short yardage and goalline. Starks does all 3rd down. They can split carries somehow in the base downs. Maybe Starks is in certain packages and Grant others. Would be nice to keep them both fresh rather than beating down one.

[Smidgeon]

Grant does a great job moving forward. He's tough, fast and good job reading his zone runs. If you have to go through a list of running backs who can do some things but not others (like Grant is), he's the ideal fit for our offense. He never breaks tackles or makes anybody miss so his medium to long runs are way down. He always falls forward and rarely takes bad steps so he usually picks up between 3 and 5 yards. In our offense where we have weapons galore all over the perimeter, a running back that always gets yards has a lot of value because it keeps AR in good good down and distances and keeps the chains moving. He's also a good short yardage back with his move forward approach.


Starks does a good job with this zone reads. Not as good as Grant, but he does a nice job moving forward and getting yards on most runs. He made some obvious mistakes through the playoff run where he sort of stuttered and danced too much, but if Jackson is a 0 and Grant is 9, Starks is probably about a 6 or 7 right out of the gate. Unlike Grant, Starks has shown the ability to break tackles and he also has shown the ability to make one guy miss so his medium runs were up. They did not throw to him very often, but there is tape of him at Buffalo playing WR and he made some great highlight catches you can watch on youtube. On the simple dump offs he looks very smooth and natural bending back for the ball, then running with it.



At the end of the day, Grant is the more proven commodity. You can trust him to get positive yards and not fumble. Starks, while he showed talent, you're probably not as sure of him as you are Grant.


I think Grant is going to be here. He's a great fit for us and most teams want two good RB's if they don't have a great one. I even think Grant will start on week one, but as the season goes on, like when Finley overtook Lee, I could see Starks eating into Grants snaps and by playoff time Starks would be playing over 50% of the snaps.

Remember, right out of the gate, Grant was pretty good at this too. It only seemed to be the 2009 season where he was doing poorly. His 2007 season was rife with great running plays. All I'm saying is don't be too sure Starks is better than Grant at this. I'd like to see a couple more seasons of it first.

[swede]

Remember, right out of the gate, Grant was pretty good at this too. It only seemed to be the 2009 season where he was doing poorly. His 2007 season was rife with great running plays. All I'm saying is don't be too sure Starks is better than Grant at this. I'd like to see a couple more seasons of it first.

I mentioned before that the NFL Network ran the Pittsburgh/Green Bay game from the prior season and I saw Ryan Grant score a very pretty touchdown against the Steelers. He may not get much on most of the running snaps but when Ryan Grant scores those long TD's they are very beautiful to behold. He looks graceful, swift and elusive. I find that I doubt Ryan Grant because he doesn't smash into the opposition relentlessly grinding them down. He just goes along looking like a very average running back for play after play and then he snaps off a long and beautiful run that makes him look very, very special. That leaves me unwilling to take sides in a fight over whether or not he is average or special because I frankly don't know if the long TD's are the result of his talent or simply the manifestation of a well-designed, well-executed run play that any number of running backs could have run with similar results.

[sharpe1027]

Starks is a rookie, but he needs a lot of work picking up the blitzes. I expect MM to "get that cleaned up."

Grant has had some nice long runs, showing his speed, but it has been some time since we've seen one of those.

Starks is without question a better WR.

Unless we see both of them running behind the same line, against the same team, it is tough to be certain. Grant has a more proven track record, but Starks has done plenty with his limited time.

[gbgary]

who's better? starks is basically still an unknown (haven't really seen enough of him. what we have seen shows potential though). grant is proven. so...grant is better.

[Smidgeon]

Starks is a rookie, but he needs a lot of work picking up the blitzes. I expect MM to "get that cleaned up."

Grant has had some nice long runs, showing his speed, but it has been some time since we've seen one of those.

Starks is without question a better WR.

Unless we see both of them running behind the same line, against the same team, it is tough to be certain. Grant has a more proven track record, but Starks has done plenty with his limited time.

It has. A little over a year, towards the end of the 2009 season. ;)

[Scott Campbell]

Timeshare.

[Fred's Slacks]

...but there is tape of him at Buffalo playing WR and he made some great highlight catches you can watch on youtube.

Something popped into my mind about this a few weeks back. Imagine our base set of 2 wrs, Jermicheal, Starks and Kuhn. With that personel, we could line up in the I formation and run right at you or we could split Starks and Jermicheal out and spread you out with 4 wides. Does the defense use base or nickel? Whichever they choose, they are wrong.

[get louder at lambeau]

Something popped into my mind about this a few weeks back. Imagine our base set of 2 wrs, Jermicheal, Starks and Kuhn. With that personel, we could line up in the I formation and run right at you or we could split Starks and Jermicheal out and spread you out with 4 wides. Does the defense use base or nickel? Whichever they choose, they are wrong.

The way McCarthy uses TEs, they could go with 2 TEs and either split them both out wide, or have them both switch to a fullback position to do the reverse wishbone. Or anything in between. Pick your poison.

As far as Starks and Grant, I'd give Grant the chance to keep his job if he can, and it will force him to work extra hard to hold off Starks, with Starks working hard to unseat Grant. And give them both carries. RBBC is the way to go. If one goes down, you don't end up searching for another, because he's already playing regularly.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I like Grant, when healthy, a bit more. Starks looks solid, but I question his durability. With his running style I'd worry about him fumbling, but apparently it hasn't been a problem for him at any level. The only caveat is that Grant is what he is. Starks is likely to improve with an full offseason to train and get healthier.

[red]

i think grant is the better back, but i see a lot of grant in starks. i think if we get lucky starks will turn into a back as good as grant but maybe with the ability to catch the ball also

so i guess i see them as being the same player.

so i guess bottom line, we'll get 5 or 6 more years out of grant or a grant clone. not a bad thing for us

[wist43]

Not even close... Grant.

[bobblehead]

Something popped into my mind about this a few weeks back. Imagine our base set of 2 wrs, Jermicheal, Starks and Kuhn. With that personel, we could line up in the I formation and run right at you or we could split Starks and Jermicheal out and spread you out with 4 wides. Does the defense use base or nickel? Whichever they choose, they are wrong.

Or we could run 3 WR, TE and RB and split them both out to be 5 wide. I like being able to be unpredictable based on personnel.

[bobblehead]

Not even close... Grant.

Grant is a superior runner, but isn't much of a recieving threat. Far superior? Hardly. Starks picked up the protection really well, I gotta believe that every back we have being such good pass protectors is a reflection on Edgar Bennet. Grant was very good as well.

My hunch is that with Grant set to make 5 million plus we end up releasing him unless he is 100% healthy (which I don't think he will be). Starks becomes the every down back and Kuhn or Jackson are the main 3rd down guy. One of them leaves in FA and we draft another RB 5th-7th round. All hunches.

[RashanGary]

who's better? starks is basically still an unknown (haven't really seen enough of him. what we have seen shows potential though). grant is proven. so...grant is better.


No, this isn't a fact. Grant is more proven, but that does not mean he's better. There are dozens of unproven players in the league much better than their proven counter parts. Proven is what happens when talent and skill meet opportunity. Starks may have more talent and skill (making him better) but be lacking the extended opportunity (making him less proven).

People often times mistake how good a player is with how proven he is. That's why Ted shocks people. He's concerned with how good they are.

[retailguy]

Grant.

[retailguy]

Who has more potential? - starks

[RashanGary]

Something popped into my mind about this a few weeks back. Imagine our base set of 2 wrs, Jermicheal, Starks and Kuhn. With that personel, we could line up in the I formation and run right at you or we could split Starks and Jermicheal out and spread you out with 4 wides. Does the defense use base or nickel? Whichever they choose, they are wrong.

I had this same post written up as a new thread a couple days ago. Decided not to post.

I agree though.

Jermichael is a star and is versatile (block or catch)
Kuhn is good and versatile (block, run or catch)
Jordy is very good and versatile (great blocker and can catch)
Jennings is not versatile, but he's an elite pure WR who stays on the field in all but goalline

Quarless and Starks are two wildcards. If Starks and Quarless pan out, we have a lot of very versatile weapons. Like you said, teams will be damned if they do, damned if they don't. With MM drawing up the playbook, I have little doubt that they'll find ways to attack defenses weak points with these types of packages.

[RashanGary]

Grant.

We don't know that, retail. Grant is more proven. Time will tell who is better. Starks does have more potential. He might be just plain better too. We haven't seen enough.

[retailguy]

We don't know that, retail. Grant is more proven. Time will tell who is better. Starks does have more potential. He might be just plain better too. We haven't seen enough.

I disagree. Grant is better. Starks could get better, but today, Grant is better.

[Bossman641]

I disagree. Grant is better. Starks could get better, but today, Grant is better.

X 1. Although I would be happy to be proven wrong.

[get louder at lambeau]

I disagree. Grant is better. Starks could get better, but today, Grant is better.

Today? Today Grant is rehabbing his knee and hasn't seen the field in 5 months. I'd take Starks today, based on health alone.

[pbmax]

Better healthy, right now? Grant barely.

Better by the end of next season? Starks. The only thing that worries me would be that he could have had several better cutbacks. But he also did well sticking his foot in the ground rather than running wide when a play was getting blown up. Those balance out for me and I think his reads will get better.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Grant is underrated by some. He's not Adrian Peterson, but he's a really solid one cut back that has speed to go the distance. I've seen acceleration from Starks, but I haven't seen the breakaway speed.

[sharpe1027]

y. Starks picked up the protection really well, I gotta believe that every back we have being such good pass protectors is a reflection on Edgar Bennet.

I can remember a several of times that Starks completely missed a pickup. It was especially bad when he was involved in play action. It was like he completely forgot that he had to block after the fake handoff.

[King Friday]

IMO, Grant is better than Starks strictly from an experience standpoint.

Grant is generally secure with the football and makes reasonable decisions on his running lanes, but he tends to go down easier than most starting caliber RBs and doesn't have great speed or hands. He's a decent back for our system because of the ball security and decisiveness when hitting the hole.

Starks is a stronger runner than Grant, and doesn't go down as easily. Obviously, he hasn't played enough for us to really determine the extent of his skill set. He is still very raw...the guy hasn't seen a football field very often in the last 2 years. In terms of a pure runner, I think the guys are comparable...Grant might be a little faster, but Starks is a stronger runner.

The only way I see Starks becoming CLEARLY better than Grant is if he develops into a capable receiver out of the backfield, as it doesn't seem that will happen for Grant at this point.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I think Grant has better speed than people give him credit for. I also think he's decisive, has a little wiggle for a bigger RB, and is a solid blocker. He doesn't have great hands and he doesn't break a lot of open field tackles. That keeps him from being elite.

[Lurker64]

Today? Today Grant is rehabbing his knee and hasn't seen the field in 5 months. I'd take Starks today, based on health alone.

It's an ankle, not a knee... and by all accounts Grant was 100% by the playoffs.

[RashanGary]

I disagree. Grant is better. Starks could get better, but today, Grant is better.


We'll see how it pans out. I like Grant but I hope Starks is better.

[RashanGary]

IMO, Grant is better than Starks strictly from an experience standpoint.

Grant is generally secure with the football and makes reasonable decisions on his running lanes, but he tends to go down easier than most starting caliber RBs and doesn't have great speed or hands. He's a decent back for our system because of the ball security and decisiveness when hitting the hole.

Starks is a stronger runner than Grant, and doesn't go down as easily. Obviously, he hasn't played enough for us to really determine the extent of his skill set. He is still very raw...the guy hasn't seen a football field very often in the last 2 years. In terms of a pure runner, I think the guys are comparable...Grant might be a little faster, but Starks is a stronger runner.

The only way I see Starks becoming CLEARLY better than Grant is if he develops into a capable receiver out of the backfield, as it doesn't seem that will happen for Grant at this point.

Well said. I buy this. Grant is darn good player. If Starks turns out better, Packer fans are going to be pretty fruckin happy.

[3irty1]

I like the burst and ball security of both but I'd give the edge to Grant as a runner. From what I've seen running backs don't make huge gains as runners once they hit the NFL and I'm think people who expect Starks to improve will be a little disappointed. For me Grant just has slightly better vision and has made an NFL career on punishing defenders who over pursue with his ability to explode upfield out of a cut. Starks looks really good in his own right and could be the better overall weapon once he gets a little more involved in the passing game. He could also hit a few more homeruns than Grant but IMO he'll leave more yards on the field over the course of the season.

[Lurker64]

I honestly don't care that much, to be honest.

Here's what I want from the running game this year (or any year):
1) The ability to keep defenses honest, and enable the play-action passing game by occasionally running for 8-10 yards.
2) The ability to convert on 3rd and short by running the ball
3) The ability to kill clock in a four minute drill situation.

I think if you can do that, in the modern NFL, that's as good of a running game as you need.

[VegasPackFan]

One thing I have been thinking about is this: Have we seen Starks rip off a long one yet? I remember last season when Grant ripped off a 70-80 yd TD run against the Bears - it was SWEET! As good as Starks seeems to be, I would like to see him run to daylight and rip off a long one. Then I would be on his wagon big time. But right now I cant think of any play that he went for more than maybe 20 yds....

[HarveyWallbangers]

I like the burst and ball security of both but I'd give the edge to Grant as a runner. From what I've seen running backs don't make huge gains as runners once they hit the NFL and I'm think people who expect Starks to improve will be a little disappointed. For me Grant just has slightly better vision and has made an NFL career on punishing defenders who over pursue with his ability to explode upfield out of a cut. Starks looks really good in his own right and could be the better overall weapon once he gets a little more involved in the passing game. He could also hit a few more homeruns than Grant but IMO he'll leave more yards on the field over the course of the season.

I think Starks will improve mostly because he'll be healthy (hopefully) for the first time in two years. The guy basically came back from being inactive for two years to carrying the load for us in the playoffs.

[packerbacker1234]

Starks is a rookie, but he needs a lot of work picking up the blitzes. I expect MM to "get that cleaned up."

Grant has had some nice long runs, showing his speed, but it has been some time since we've seen one of those.

Starks is without question a better WR.

Unless we see both of them running behind the same line, against the same team, it is tough to be certain. Grant has a more proven track record, but Starks has done plenty with his limited time.

Starks is a better WR? Lets see some NFL proof first. Just because he did great in college doesn't mean it will translate.

Grant was rarely given the opportunities to catch the ball, but he averages about 25 catches a season. Pretty standard given how our offense works. He also doesn't fumble the football.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Grant

People always talk about how 2009 was a down season for Grant, but he actually improved over 2008 in big ways. Less carries, more yards, a hell of a lot more TD's. Higher per carry average - up there with the elite.

Sure, 2009 didn't compare to 2007 in a favorable way, but keep in mind that what Grant did in 2007 was things that only the best in the game do. 200 yards in a playoff game, 5.1 ypc average on the season, setting packer records for single game achievements. That's just a special, special year, and you don't expect anyone to ever repeat that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Peterson

Outside of pure TD numbers, Grant's 2009 surpringly compares well to AP's 2009 and 2010 seasons. Yet most agree he may be the best back in the league.

Grant is a solid RB. He may not be a beast like AP, or have the break away speed like CJ2k, or even the savvy of a LT who has great vision. But he does the little things very well. He always gets a positive result - very rarely does he run for negative yards. He makes excellent initial cut reads. He does have NFL speed - we've seen him have too many long runs that show he is a bit faster than people give him credit for. His longest is a 66 yarder in 2007. In 2009 his long was 62. He isn't the best grinder - he doesn't tend to wear a defense down, but that also isn't the style of offense we play. We are a finesse pass first offense, and Grant is a pro bowl type compliment to that sort of offense. As much of a dream as it would be to have AP in a packers offense, bottom line is that you don't actually want someone "that" good, because your forced to pound the rock. In fact, the vikings need to find a game managing QB and pound AP, but chances are they will go for the next "elite" guy and waste the remaining years with AP.

So who's better? Grant. He has better post season stats than starks (blah blah, most rushing yards this year in the post season when no one even ran the ball, woo), and assuming he is back to 100%, and with the same wear and tear he had coming in to this past season (his body essentially got an entire season off) - Grant is going to be hungry. A hungry, possibly angry Grant (he was upset being on IR, since he would of been back in time fo rhte playoffs) is going to be a lot better than what Starks is right now.

The benefit of having starks is he is at least someone we can look to in order to lessen Grant's carries. I think, assuming no further injury occurse, you'll see grant getting 2/3rds of the carries in 2011 with Starks role diminishing a bit more as the season wears on. His big role may be taking over for Brandon Jackson, who previously with grant was the 3rd down back. However, until starks improves his pass blocking skills, he may not be ready for that big of a role... yet.

[3irty1]

I think Starks will improve mostly because he'll be healthy (hopefully) for the first time in two years. The guy basically came back from being inactive for two years to carrying the load for us in the playoffs.

That does make you wonder with a guy like Starks. He didn't play much this year and is just getting his football legs back under him. Even if he doesn't actually improve though I'm sure we'll perceive it that way as he's assimilated into the passing game. Supposedly that's an area he has serious talent.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

I personally think Starks is already a little better. Grant is a good player but other than 07 his average yards per carry was never really that high. He usually averages around 4 YPC. Starks has also proven he can average at least 4 YPC and he was going up against playoff teams with great defenses in almost all those games. He became the starter in the wild card round against the Eagles, then the Falcons, then the BEARS, and finally the STEELERS. Those are four of the best teams in the nfl and the Bears and Steelers probably have the best run defenses in the NFL. I think that given the teams that Starks went up against and pressure of the situation that he was put in are only indications that he will be dominate as a starter.

When you factor in lesser teams that Starks never got to see I believe his YPC average would be a lot higher had he been the starter all season. Look what he did against the Eagles who only have an average run defense. If he starts 16 games (not including playoffs ) he is going to face a lot more teams who don’t have run defenses like the Bears and Steelers.

Also, you have to factor in age. Starks in 24 and Grant in 28 and if I’m not mistaken will be 29 during the season. Almost all backs regardless if they are LT, Ahman Green, or who ever usually drop off significantly around this time. But you have you to keep Grant still for many reasons though. 1) You can never have enough good backs. 2) While he is getting up there in age he is not that old and only has one year remaining anyways. 3) You can tell he is a team player and that he loves being a packer.

I hope we re-sign Jackson as well. I think Grant, Starks, and Jackson would really complement each other very well. Grant and Starks can split carries when running between the tackles and Jackson will be strictly a 3rd down back. Jackson if I’m not mistaken was pretty good on st. teams a few years back before he had a big role in the offense.

So basically I don’t think there will be a big difference between Grant and Starks this year but I think Starks is already at his level or probably a little better. And given his age, I think Starks will have fresher legs by seasons’ end and will clearly be the better option IMO.

[pbmax]

I think simply watching Grant is possible to determine that he is not a natural catching the ball. He seems to have a classic case of fighting the ball, rather than letting it come to him. His hands are always too busy and usually early, even when he secures the ball it never seems clean. I think he has improved but its still not second nature to him.

Starks by contrast seems to have more patience to wait for the ball to come to him, then tuck and run.

[RUnuts]

Samkon Gado in 2011 bet on it.

[gbgary]

I honestly don't care that much, to be honest.

Here's what I want from the running game this year (or any year):
1) The ability to keep defenses honest, and enable the play-action passing game by occasionally running for 8-10 yards.
2) The ability to convert on 4th and 1 by running the ball
3) The ability to kill clock in a four minute drill situation with at least a two touchdown lead.

I think if you can do that, in the modern NFL, that's as good of a running game as you need.


fixed!

[Iron Mike]

Grant is underrated by some. He's not Adrian Peterson.

You can take Purple Jesus with fumbling and shitting the bed in the NFC Title game, and I'll take Grant/Starks and winning the SB any day of the week.

[woodbuck27]

Grant.

Yup. Right now if we consider that Grant will return fully up to snuff. He's more valuable or should produce more that the sopomore Starks.

[woodbuck27]

Who has more potential? - starks

We need to see Starks play a full schedule to really determine what he adds to our 'O'.

GO PACK GO!

[HarveyWallbangers]

I personally think Starks is already a little better. Grant is a good player but other than 07 his average yards per carry was never really that high. He usually averages around 4 YPC. Starks has also proven he can average at least 4 YPC and he was going up against playoff teams with great defenses in almost all those games. He became the starter in the wild card round against the Eagles, then the Falcons, then the BEARS, and finally the STEELERS. Those are four of the best teams in the nfl and the Bears and Steelers probably have the best run defenses in the NFL. I think that given the teams that Starks went up against and pressure of the situation that he was put in are only indications that he will be dominate as a starter.

When you factor in lesser teams that Starks never got to see I believe his YPC average would be a lot higher had he been the starter all season. Look what he did against the Eagles who only have an average run defense. If he starts 16 games (not including playoffs ) he is going to face a lot more teams who don’t have run defenses like the Bears and Steelers.

Also, you have to factor in age. Starks in 24 and Grant in 28 and if I’m not mistaken will be 29 during the season. Almost all backs regardless if they are LT, Ahman Green, or who ever usually drop off significantly around this time. But you have you to keep Grant still for many reasons though. 1) You can never have enough good backs. 2) While he is getting up there in age he is not that old and only has one year remaining anyways. 3) You can tell he is a team player and that he loves being a packer.

I hope we re-sign Jackson as well. I think Grant, Starks, and Jackson would really complement each other very well. Grant and Starks can split carries when running between the tackles and Jackson will be strictly a 3rd down back. Jackson if I’m not mistaken was pretty good on st. teams a few years back before he had a big role in the offense.

So basically I don’t think there will be a big difference between Grant and Starks this year but I think Starks is already at his level or probably a little better. And given his age, I think Starks will have fresher legs by seasons’ end and will clearly be the better option IMO.

1) We're talking about who is better right now. Not in 1 1/2 years when Grant will be 30. He turns 29 in December.
2) Grant has a pretty good 4.4 ypc with the Packers--which is good behind our OL. Starks averaged 3.5 this year. Outside of the year that Grant was nicked up, his ypc has been pretty impressive considering our run blocking. 5.1 in 2007, played injured in 2008, 4.4 in 2009, 5.6 in his first 8 carries in 2010. :) Grant has far outpaced the average of Starks (3.5), Jackson (3.8), Kuhn (3.3), Nance (2.6).

He could fall of the map, not come back from his injury, etc. However, I think where Grant was before he was injured is better than where Starks is at right now. That could easily change though.

[Brandon494]

What a great problem to have!

I love having a two running back system as long as Brandon Jackson isnt one of them.

To answer your question Grant is the better running back. Starks had a few nice games but he was no where close to the impact Grant had in 07. Starks had one game rushing over 100 yards and averaged less than 4 yards per carry. Starks is a good running back but I think our running game was so bad that it made him look that much better. To be fair to Starks thought he was out of football for quite a long time.

[The Weasel]

Grant. Starks is an explosive player and runs the ball very well. I think my judgment of him being close to Grant's caliber is that he followed up Jackson's poor performance.

That being said, it would be awesome to have that duo next season.