Sharing: Are Grant & Starks really about the same?

[Harlan Huckleby]

I'm stealing some quotes from the other threads to get this tar ball rolling.

I think Grant looks like doo-doo out there, he is not making the right cuts, he has lost a step and never outruns linebackers when he goes latteral, and a knock to his hips sends him spralling on his ass. Starks is making people miss and dragging people for extra yardage.

The only way to settle this question is with the manly act of conducting a poll.


Starks and Grant are going to form a great tandem. Both averaged over 4.5 yards a carry and later in the year both should still be fresh. Starks was the hot hand in the second half, he has a great feel for the zone scheme and picks his lane and is up the field. He is tall but he has great body lean and seems to always fall foward. Grant will make more of an impact as the season grows, but he had a decent game, needs to play faster, he had openings that he needs to take advantage of for larger gains .


Ryan Grant just does not look like as good a runner as Starks.



Starks and Grant look like they could be a good tandem, especially when the o-line gets it done.


Someone posted that Grant and Starks were closer than generally realized in delivering a blow in the running game. Bull feathers. Starks may not be a 60 yd TD back, but he runs like he is 20 lbs heavier. I like the combo though, and hope M3 continues to run and pass with both in the game.

[sheepshead]

If Ryan Grant gets his game back, Ill be happy. I like watching him when he's in top form. Hope it happens. We saw glimmers.

[Harlan Huckleby]

ya know, I saw Grant in an interview last week, and he really is such an intelligent and likeable guy. I feel a little guilty about trashing him, but guess that's what I do.

[Harlan Huckleby]

If Ryan Grant gets his game back, Ill be happy. I like watching him when he's in top form. Hope it happens. We saw glimmers.


He wasn't so bad last night, I am exaggerating. But it was not the peak Ryan Grant.

[pbmax]

I think like a game, Grant will get better with use as the season goes on. Each guy had a run or two that went nowhere, but I did not think Grant was making poor decisions or moving slower.

[Patler]

Grant's carries - 4, 5, 10, 3, 4, 2, 8, 3, 1
Starks, carries - 0, 5, 10, (-2), 17, 4, 2, 3, 9, 3, 2, 4.

There is a consistency to Grant that is comforting (positve yardage on every carry).
There is a big play potential with Starks that is exciting (17 yard burst for a TD).
All-in-all, an awful lot of their runs produce about the same results, even if they look different getting it.

[RashanGary]

Grant is sneaky good. Looks like he gets a yard, but it's 4. Starks breaks tackles, looks better to the eye, probably bigger threat to break one because he doesn't go down.

Grant gets his yards though. He's always moving forward. He keeps AR in manageable down and distances.


Starks has a little better talent IMO. Grant closer than it looks IMO. Grant never fumbles and can handle the load. Starks was a fumbler in college and has had injury issues.

I'm glad we have both. I think Grant finishes his career with more yards than Starks and an equal YPC. Grant is just sneaky effective, reliable and durable.

With our new OL and these two backs, we're going to be finishers on offense.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Right now, Starks is better because I don't think Grant is back to what he was. I think if/when Grant gets back to his old self, they are comparable.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I don't think Grant could have scored that touchdown that Starks made. He would have been brought down by a hit somewhere. Starks keeps the D a little more nervous. I do agree with JH that Grant is sneaky good, he makes a cut and gets 4 when not much is there.

As a fan, Starks is more exciting and athletic, and I want him to clearly separate himself as a stud back. So I'm probably not being objective.

[pbmax]

Grant's carries - 4, 5, 10, 3, 4, 2, 8, 3, 1
Starks, carries - 0, 5, 10, (-2), 17, 4, 2, 3, 9, 3, 2, 4.

There is a consistency to Grant that is comforting (positve yardage on every carry).
There is a big play potential with Starks that is exciting (17 yard burst for a TD).
All-in-all, an awful lot of their runs produce about the same results, even if they look different getting it.

You can always count on Patler to put it into perspective.

Starks is Barry Sanders.

:bclap::bclap::bclap::bclap::bclap:

[RashanGary]

Grant is proven to never fumble too. In our offense, with our weapons. . . . 2nd and 6, 3rd and 3. . . . . That keeps the chains moving and gives AR more chances. Starks inconsistency actually leads to more 3 and outs, ie 2nd and 10, 3rd and 8. I like AR's chances of a big play better than Starks. Grant is in the perfect situation for him. Starks might have more talent, but sometimes the total is greater than the sum of the parts. Grant is that. He's less talented, but he gives AR more chances.

[Packers4Glory]

i still think Grant is the one who is more likely to break a big run. I remember a couple when he first came on a few yrs ago. IIRC they happened in 1 back sets w/ the field spread. I'd like to see more runs w/ 4 WR and 1 back. I think there is potential for a lot of yards w/ the defense trying to stop one of our 6 monster receivers....

[Upnorth]

I think they are better as a combo. Give me a Grant in his prime and I answer different, but right now the work well toghether. Also by splitting carries they should both have better legs at the end of the season.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Starks adds dimension as a pass receiver.

Starks missed a blitz pickup yesterday, but it was because he went through with a play fake. Maybe a more experienced back would have known to break out of the play and block.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I think they are better as a combo. Give me a Grant in his prime and I answer different, but right now the work well toghether. Also by splitting carries they should both have better legs at the end of the season.
Well ya, I think almost every NFL team runs two backs. Maybe Peterson gets 90% of carries in MN. I expect Starks will get 2/3 of the carries if he continues to show ability to get 10 yard gains.

[Pugger]

Good grief. Grant had a nice catch on a screen from Rodgers so I don't know why you say he can't catch the ball. Plus Grant picked up blitzers better than Starks last night. What is wrong with having these 2 platoon anyway? They are both good and will stay fresher all season by sharing the load.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Starks blocks better than Grant and catches much better.

Nobody is calling for a single back to get all the carries

edit: I have zero idea who blocks better between the two, but saying something sorta makes it true because it is written

[Pugger]

Starks blocks better than Grant and catches much better.

Nobody is calling for a single back to get all the carries

edit: I have zero idea who blocks better between the two, but saying something is true sorta makes it so because it is written

If you are near a TV the game is being replayed right now on the NFL Network. Starks missed picking up blitzers twice. I do hope that part of his game improves.

[mraynrand]

If you are near a TV the game is being replayed right now on the NFL Network. Starks missed picking up blitzers twice. I do hope that part of his game improves.

One of those has to be on Finley. He was totally in the wrong place on one sack.

[mraynrand]

Good grief. Grant had a nice catch on a screen from Rodgers so I don't know why you say he can't catch the ball. Plus Grant picked up blitzers better than Starks last night. What is wrong with having these 2 platoon anyway? They are both good and will stay fresher all season by sharing the load.

Grant did a poor job following his blockers on one screen. His vision is so-so. How does that compared to the Stark-plug? I don't know yet. Need more info.

[Harlan Huckleby]

They usually have Starks flairing-out into the flat on pass plays.

Honestly, I've seen Starks doing a good job of pass blocking when he is called on to do so. But its possible that he has some flubs, like the one I mentioned.

[mraynrand]

edit: I have zero idea who blocks better between the two, but saying something sorta makes it true because it is written

We always knew this is how you operate.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Grant did a poor job following his blockers on one screen. His vision is so-so. How does that compared to the Stark-plug? I think Starks' vision is EXCELLENT, he is an instinctive runner and Grant is limited to one cut. I see this as Stark's big edge between the two.

[Packers4Glory]

I think Starks' vision is EXCELLENT, he is an instinctive runner and Grant is limited to one cut. I see this as Stark's big edge between the two. Grant has good vision. He's steady. More likely to break a big play, and not lose yards on blocking break downs...oh and he's much better blocker and picking up the blitz. I think Grant is clearly the better and more reliable back....I think it will show more in the coming weeks as he gets back into the swing of things coming off the injury.

Buuuuuut...I love me some Starks!

[Harlan Huckleby]

It will be fun to see how it plays out. nothing wrong with a little competition

[Pugger]

We should be thrilled to have these 2 great backs to call on. This might end up being Levens and Bennett revisited.

[red]

even if starks does turn out to be the main back or the starter, grant is still a damn good second back to have on your team

split the carries up, keep them both fresh, and we can pound our way through the playoffs if we have to

[pbmax]

even if starks does turn out to be the main back or the starter, grant is still a damn good second back to have on your team

split the carries up, keep them both fresh, and we can pound our way through the playoffs if we have to

Yes. Listen to this man.

Plus feel free to throw them screens occasionally as well.

[red]

Yes. Listen to this man.

Plus feel free to throw them screens occasionally as well.

you people should listen to this guy

he's wise beyond all our years

[Bossman641]

Was green active last night?

[Fritz]

Grant's carries - 4, 5, 10, 3, 4, 2, 8, 3, 1
Starks, carries - 0, 5, 10, (-2), 17, 4, 2, 3, 9, 3, 2, 4.

There is a consistency to Grant that is comforting (positve yardage on every carry).
There is a big play potential with Starks that is exciting (17 yard burst for a TD).
All-in-all, an awful lot of their runs produce about the same results, even if they look different getting it.

Well, I like the way Starks looks better than I like the way Grant looks when he runs. Because Starks looks better to me, he therefore is better. Stop with this numbers stuff.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Plus feel free to throw them screens occasionally as well.

In all the years we've seen Grant in G.B., how often does he get a screen pass? Once in a while. And never passes downfield.

I'm calling BS on Packers4Glory's claim that Grant is a superior blitz blocker and receiver. (Did he say that? If not, lets pretend he did.)

If Grant had those skills, he would be mentioned as a candidate to play on third downs. But no, the one constant from McCarthy's sets is you won't see Grant on the field on third down.

[Harlan Huckleby]

split the carries up, keep them both fresh

agreed. split the carries 60-30-10 (Starks, Grant, Green) and let the good times roll


BTW, for Badger fans:
Starks= Monty Ball
Grant= James White

They aren't that far apart, but Monty Ball has a little more shake than White, a little more power

[MJZiggy]

The one thing I did notice last night (and this is just in last night's game) is that when Starks hit the pile, the pile fell forward. Not as much with Grant.

[mission]

The one thing I did notice last night (and this is just in last night's game) is that when Starks hit the pile, the pile fell forward. Not as much with Grant.

The pile falls on Grant.

A couple of Starks' negative plays involved missed assignments on the line. It didn't happen often, I thought the OL played great, but only so much you can do with a guy in your face when you're taking the handoff.

[3irty1]

Sheesh you are such a RB troll Harlan.

Grant is everything you need at RB and asking for more is greedy. He'll never fumble and will always get every yard that's there. When a defense makes mistakes, they won't be able to catch him from behind.

Starks gets some yards that aren't there. He also doesn't look as fast as his college highlights show. Really good player but nobody is THAT much better than Ryan Grant without bringing some receiving skills to the table. Didn't watching Sproles and Ingram make all those nice catches out of the backfield wonder why our guys never do that? Especially since Starks is supposed to be a border-line WR in his ability to run routes and catch balls. If I don't see Starks get used as a receiver soon I'm going to call bullshit. Same with that new kickass arkansas tight end we've got. Prove it on TV or it didn't happen.

[King Friday]

Starks, Starks, and more Starks.

It's a young man's game...especially at RB.

[MJZiggy]

Starks, Starks, and more Starks.

It's a young man's game...especially at RB.
Depends. If what they say is true and it's more about the number of touches than pure age, then let Grant do some of the work and take some of the punishment. Extend Starks's career a little that way.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Sheesh you are such a RB troll Harlan. You rang? OK, here's some more.

Cliff Chrystl & Eric Baranczyk weigh in: http://packersnews.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20110909/PKR07/110909154/Baranczyk-Christl-column-O-line-shows-off-athletic-abilities
James Starks showed some explosion, and he did well as a pass blocker. That was a question about him coming in. On that play-action fake in the fourth quarter, the Saints’ defender was coming so hard off the edge, there wasn’t much Starks could do. And, on the flip side, he had some hustle plays where he deflected rushers just enough for Rodgers to get the ball off.

The big difference between Starks and Ryan Grant is that Starks has some burst out of a cut.

[rbaloha1]

Sheesh you are such a RB troll Harlan.

Grant is everything you need at RB and asking for more is greedy. He'll never fumble and will always get every yard that's there. When a defense makes mistakes, they won't be able to catch him from behind.

Starks gets some yards that aren't there. He also doesn't look as fast as his college highlights show. Really good player but nobody is THAT much better than Ryan Grant without bringing some receiving skills to the table. Didn't watching Sproles and Ingram make all those nice catches out of the backfield wonder why our guys never do that? Especially since Starks is supposed to be a border-line WR in his ability to run routes and catch balls. If I don't see Starks get used as a receiver soon I'm going to call bullshit. Same with that new kickass arkansas tight end we've got. Prove it on TV or it didn't happen.

Starks looks fast in college because the players are slower.

IMO Starks is better after initial contact. Powerfully built with big upside.

[Brandon494]

Starks is the more complete back but both will average around the same yards per carry. I like how they are starting with Grant then letting Starks finish them off, his TD run was a thing of beauty.

[Harlan Huckleby]

http://www.jsonline.com/packerinsider/129571968.html

Bob McGinn has his say:

Grant started and played eight of the first 10 snaps when a RB was on the field. From that point, Starks had 43 snaps to Grant's eight. The final 45-16 tally for Starks was reflective of their relative performances all summer. Grant is in great shape and seemed a little quicker than he did a month ago, but his run vision still isn't all the way back. Starks' bruising burst was evident when he ran through safeties Malcolm Jenkins and Harper on his TD run. Equally as impressive were the hard cuts that he made on two runs to escape when defenders suddenly appeared in his face. On the other hand, his lack of reliability in blitz pickup will wear thin if it continues. On the sack by Harper, Starks has to abort his fake and pick him up.

[bobblehead]

I think Starks' vision is EXCELLENT, he is an instinctive runner and Grant is limited to one cut. I see this as Stark's big edge between the two.

But that second move is why Starks gets negative or no gainers while Grant steadily gets positive yardage. As JH said, Grant makes manageable down/distances for Rodgers, while Starks sometimes doesn't. Ok, you can attack me as a Grant lover now.

[KalamazooPackerFan]

Starks' TD run showed the things he can do better then Grant (keep his feet after being hit, multiple cuts within one run) but even the smallest unreliability picking up blitzes could have distasterous results for the season. Starks is a man right now. Time will will tell if he is THE man.

[Harlan Huckleby]

But that second move is why Starks gets negative or no gainers while Grant steadily gets positive yardage. As JH said, Grant makes manageable down/distances for Rodgers, while Starks sometimes doesn't. Ok, you can attack me as a Grant lover now.
I don't see this at all. Starks, like Grant, loses yardage when the run blitz smothers them in the backfield. Starks falls forward and gets positive yardage. I think JH made a head-scratching comparison to Barry Sanders, who often lost yards with his fancy footwork. Just because Starks has some wiggle doesn't mean he is an East-West guy. To paraphrase "Helter Skelter", Starks may be a lover but he ain't no dancer.

[RashanGary]

Grant gets the quick, dirty yards. He doesn't break as many tackles, but he makes the right decision and gets his 4.4 per carry for the last 790 carries of his career.

Starks moves forward too, makes good decisions too, but Grant is one of the best in the league at putting his pads down and getting those first 4 yards. He's as steady as they come, keeps the ball in AR's hands.

[MadtownPacker]

Starks' TD run showed the things he can do better then Grant (keep his feet after being hit, multiple cuts within one run) but even the smallest unreliability picking up blitzes could have distasterous results for the season. Starks is a man right now. Time will will tell if he is THE man.
Whats up man, welcome to the forum.

[MadtownPacker]

Grant gets the quick, dirty yards. He doesn't break as many tackles, but he makes the right decision and gets his 4.4 per carry for the last 790 carries of his career.

Starks moves forward too, makes good decisions too, but Grant is one of the best in the league at putting his pads down and getting those first 4 yards. He's as steady as they come, keeps the ball in AR's hands.
Seems like Starks did good enough keeping the ball in Rodgers hands last year.

[Upnorth]

So with great blocking by our O line they got very similar numbers overall. I am suprised that Starks was on the field so much more than Grant, MM must have seen something he liked in the way Starks was playing that he got over twice the snaps that Grant did. In the end these two look similar right now, and that is a good thing. We are going to be a front runner team all year so we will need reliable and fresh running backs to finish games. That looks to be what we have with these two. Go packers.

[pbmax]

So with great blocking by our O line they got very similar numbers overall. I am suprised that Starks was on the field so much more than Grant, MM must have seen something he liked in the way Starks was playing that he got over twice the snaps that Grant did. In the end these two look similar right now, and that is a good thing. We are going to be a front runner team all year so we will need reliable and fresh running backs to finish games. That looks to be what we have with these two. Go packers.

Those numbers are a little skewed. If Starks is the main 3rd down back (which also means a lot of single back shotgun on other downs) and he trades drives with Grant, then his numbers will be higher. But Starks clearly warrants more run game touches than say Brandon Jackson did.

[Smeefers]

I say they're damn near the same. I think you're going to see either one getting more touches depending on who's hot. We've seen time and again McCarthy run the hot hand (Jones or Jordy) and I have no doubt he'll do the same with this RB tandom. Right now, Starks looks better, but I don't think for a second that Grant doesn't have some serious skills.

[RashanGary]

I say they're damn near the same. I think you're going to see either one getting more touches depending on who's hot. We've seen time and again McCarthy run the hot hand (Jones or Jordy) and I have no doubt he'll do the same with this RB tandom. Right now, Starks looks better, but I don't think for a second that Grant doesn't have some serious skills.

That's pretty much what I see. Starks seems like he has a little more talent. Grant though, we all complain (and I do too) about him not breaking tackles. . . . But he's averaged 4.4 yards per carry his whole career and has only had 5 runs in his career over 40. It's not like he's getting a bunch of zeros and then bringing his average up with huge runs. He keeps churning out 3-4 yards every carry. And he never fumbles.

Starks will probably break a few tackles, make a couple guys miss . . . . Make some more 10 - 15 yard runs and make them in kinda flashy style. Let's see if he takes more zeros and losses. Sure, he looked like Mr steady after watching Brandon retard Jackson run. I'm not sure if there is a perception skew there or not. If Starks comes in, fumbles here and there, breaks a few more tackles, makes a few more guys miss. . . I don't know, I'm not so certain, in our big play offense, the trade off would be worth it and I'm not so certain there isn't some trade off with Starks.

[RashanGary]

In 2007 we averaged 24 PPG until Grant was inserted. After Grant was put in, we put up 30 PPG. In 2008 and 2009 we averaged 27.5 PPG with Grant (Rodgers first two years). In 2010, we average 24 PPG with BJ until Starks was inserted. Then we averaged over 30 again, through the playoffs (and Starks wasn't ripping off big runs either.)

I do think Grant and Starks are similar backs, with Starks showing a little more talent with space. I'm not convinced he gets the quick steady yards quite as well as Grant does. I doubt he's going to average more than the 4.4 Grant has and is still averaging. To me, if Starks breaks a few tackles but isn't quite as steady as Grant. . . . I don't know, I'm not so certain it's this big jolt. I think they do similar things. If Starks turns into a fumbler like he was in college, it's a no brainer for me. If he starts beating Grant's 4.4 and doesn't take more zeros or negatives. . . . Hell yeah, I'm all in. For now, I'm wait and see on those two. I don't think people realize what it means to be significantly better than Grant. The runners significantly better than Grant are averaging 4.7-5.0 yards a carry and are superstars.

Starks long term. Both for now. Starks is no superstar IMO. He's not much better than Grant, if at all, especially in our offense where I think Grant is an excellent fit.

Glad to have both for now. I'd be fine moving on from Grant with Green stepping in next year and another TT young guy sliding into the developmental slot.

[bobblehead]

I don't see this at all. Starks, like Grant, loses yardage when the run blitz smothers them in the backfield. Starks falls forward and gets positive yardage. I think JH made a head-scratching comparison to Barry Sanders, who often lost yards with his fancy footwork. Just because Starks has some wiggle doesn't mean he is an East-West guy. To paraphrase "Helter Skelter", Starks may be a lover but he ain't no dancer.

I don't know that he meant it as a direct comparison, more like an example to his point. I agree with your post here overall, but Grant is a one cut SLAM runner. When the hole opens he might go all the way....when not he gets a yard. Starks does have a wierd ability to fall forward at almost all times, which is cool as well.

I am on record as preferring the younger starks, but I don't mind having both at the price we have them at....good issue to have.

[rbaloha1]

IMO Starks is effective in all situations. Grant needs space to utilize vision and cutback abilities.

[wist43]

I have to admit that Starks clearly looked like the better player on Thursday. I went into the season backing Grant to be the starter in a 65/35 split, but after seeing each of them against New Orleans I think that should be reversed.

Don't know if the ankle is a problem for Grant, but he doesn't look like the same player; while Starks has shown good vision and instincts. Regardless, if both stay healthy, I like our RB situation for the most part.

[sharpe1027]

Starks falls forward more often because he doesn't often let tacklers hit him head on. More often than not, they are hitting him low and somewhat from the side. I think that is because he is able to see the tackle coming and change his angle just enough. Grant generally picks a hole and hits it at full speed. Grant has more chance of hitting a crease before the LBers and sometimes even the safeties can get there, but the defenders also can get a good bead on him once he makes his decision.

So, while Starks looks slower than Grant sometimes, that might be a trade-off for running under control and being able to change directions. AT the end of the day they are different backs with different styles, but similar results.

[Deputy Nutz]

I am sick of Harlan posting threads about subject(football) that he knows nothing about.

I think it is too early in the season to speculate which running back is going to be the dominate work horse out of the backfileld this season. I think having two capable backs makes it a long season for the opposition. come week 14 the Packers are going to have a running back with fresh legs regardless if it is Grant or Starks. Neither one of them is an All Pro, but they are good enough to get the job done.

Grant can catch the ball out of the backfield just fine, he might not be Edgar Bennett, but he is adequate.

Starks scares me in pass pro, he needs to be way more consistent in his blitz pickup and blocking.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I think it is too early in the season to speculate which running back is going to be the dominate work horse out of the backfileld this season .

Excellent point. If you wait for the future to happen, then you know for sure. Takes the guess work out.

[hoosier]

I have a question about the poll, or maybe it is more like a criticism. Supposing we feel that Starks and Grant are "really about the same" but we also suspect one or both of them are not that into "sharing." Two equals who don't play well with others: the poll does not allow for that possibility.

[Deputy Nutz]

Excellent point. If you wait for the future to happen, then you know for sure. Takes the guess work out.

If you want me to hypothesize, I will. I think Starks is going to get the bulk of the carries, until he fumbles too many times, or messes up on pass pro, or can't find a hole to run through. Then Grant will be the back, and it will they will rotate through on adequate preformance after another.

It really doesn't matter who is running the football. This offense rolls on by Rodgers throwing the ball down field. The run is diversion in this offense.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I have a question about the poll, or maybe it is more like a criticism. Supposing we feel that Starks and Grant are "really about the same" but we also suspect one or both of them are not that into "sharing." Two equals who don't play well with others: the poll does not allow for that possibility.

That possibility is covered by the "fuck you" portion of the last option.

[swede]

Grants best runs are lyrical and sweet and are finished with him as untouched as a virgin.
Clean pants and six points.
Violins and flutes.

Some Grant Highlights without violins and flutes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vH5cPoyWLSI)

Starks runs are punishing, violent and probing.
Humbuckers and Marshall amps.

Ted Created a Monster (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mt3wnvA5lVA)

[Harlan Huckleby]

so you're saying you like it rough? me too!

[Joemailman]

Starks looked very good today, although I did not think he looked very fast once he broke into the clear on his 40 yard run.

[rbaloha1]

Needs to improve open field vision. Also must realize secondary players can only tackle him low. Learn to vary speed in the open field.

On the verge of becoming a beast.

[Patler]

Grant's carries - 4, 5, 10, 3, 4, 2, 8, 3, 1
Starks, carries - 0, 5, 10, (-2), 17, 4, 2, 3, 9, 3, 2, 4.

There is a consistency to Grant that is comforting (positve yardage on every carry).
There is a big play potential with Starks that is exciting (17 yard burst for a TD).
All-in-all, an awful lot of their runs produce about the same results, even if they look different getting it.

Week 1
Grant's carries - 4, 5, 10, 3, 4, 2, 8, 3, 1
Starks, carries - 0, 5, 10, (-2), 17, 4, 2, 3, 9, 3, 2, 4.

Week 2
Grant - 1, 9, 4, 6, 3, 2
Starks - 6, 8, 1, 14, 40, 0, 6, (-2), 12

[Fritz]

I wonder if Ryan Grant is a little unhappy with the number of touches.

[vince]

I think that's the right distribution. Perhaps they could have run it more today, but Starks is more explosive while Grant remains reliable. You could argue that they should ride Starks more, but I think the RB by Committee approach will serve them both (in terms of health and strength) and the team well as the season continues.

[red]

when you watch the two run right now its clear that starks is the better back. he hits the hole harder and seems more sturdy or something

i thought grant ran good today too, but he looks more jerky and flimsy if you know what i mean

[Harlan Huckleby]

Starks looked very good today, although I did not think he looked very fast once he broke into the clear on his 40 yard run. ya, but that's what he is. He's a guy who can get an 8 to 12 yard run several times a game.

Maybe I'm biased, but Grant looks slower to me this year. No hard cut. I would like Starks to get a higher percentage of carries.

[Packers4Glory]

Grant still is getting into it. I don't think we've seen the best Ryan Grant yet. That will come. It's really not fair to compare them apples to apples. You have to take into consideration down, formation, and distance. I really feel you can plug either one into the same situation and get almost the same result.

Having 2 backs to split time is good for us. Hopefully they will stay fresh and healthy.

[MJZiggy]

I wonder if Ryan Grant is a little unhappy with the number of touches.

I think he's probably happy to still have a job.

[rbaloha1]

when you watch the two run right now its clear that starks is the better back. he hits the hole harder and seems more sturdy or something

i thought grant ran good today too, but he looks more jerky and flimsy if you know what i mean

IMO Grant is more fluid in the passing game since he is operating in more space.

[rbaloha1]

I think he's probably happy to still have a job.

Yup -- million dollar pay cut was wise.

[rbaloha1]

I think he's probably happy to still have a job.

Just for this season. Next year its Alex Green.

[red]

i do think that they should swap spots right now. starks looks like the RB1 and grant like the guy thet should come in to keep him fresh

[mmmdk]

Man, I love our RBs - just awesome, blue-collar guys. Starks, Kuhn, Grant & soon Green!

[Harlan Huckleby]

Grant still is getting into it. I don't think we've seen the best Ryan Grant yet. That will come . The old Ryan Grant is not coming back, he is up in heaven with God, Timmy.

Way back in November 2010 Grant said that he was completely recovered, he was upset that he had been placed on IR. His injury was not devestating. And now Grant has had 6 games to shake off any rust.

What you see is what you get.

[Gunakor]

The old Ryan Grant is not coming back, he is up in heaven with God, Timmy.

Way back in November 2010 Grant said that he was completely recovered, he was upset that he had been placed on IR. His injury was not devestating. And now Grant has had 6 games to shake off any rust.

What you see is what you get.

I see 4 yards per carry. I saw 4 yards per carry before he got hurt last year too. The only difference I see is that Grant now has another 4+ yard per carry back splitting the carries with him, which means we no longer have a lone workhorse. Well that, and I saw Grant catch a pass and run 9 yards with it today - didn't see that very often in years past.

I guess I don't see this rust you speak of. Grant wasn't Adrian Peterson before his ankle got rolled up on last season. What did you see from the 2009 Grant that he hasn't yet shown in 2011 other than the ability to carry the rock 20 times per game?

[smuggler]

If Grant is indeed healthy, he is the explosive 6threat and Starks is the bruiser.

[Deputy Nutz]

The difference in Ryan Grant right now is that he is hesitant at the second level and he isn't make a his cuts quick enough when he gets into space. He has to either make the first guy miss, or he needs to truck him.

[CaptainD]

I just posted this in the haters thread, Starks keeps messing up in his pass blocking . Until such time as he gets that fixed you won't see him full time. He MUST protect #12.

[smuggler]

Alex Green is secretly better than both. Hurrrrr.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I just posted this in the haters thread, Starks keeps messing up in his pass blocking .

I don't see that. There was one play last week where STarks stuck with a play fake instead of peeling off. In yesterday's game, Starks rarely had blocking responsibilities, they sent him into the flat.

Last week, Cliff Crystl and Eric B. watched the game tapes closely and said Starks did a good job pass blocking.

I'm not exactly sure what the truth is. I suspect that fans that repeat "Starks messes up pass blocking" are just parrotting a dubious rumor.

[Pugger]

I just posted this in the haters thread, Starks keeps messing up in his pass blocking . Until such time as he gets that fixed you won't see him full time. He MUST protect #12.

This.

If Starks is the better pass blocker and runner why his he not the starter?

[Harlan Huckleby]

If Starks is the better pass blocker and runner why his he not the starter?

That's a damn good question. My guess is that the coaches want to keep both players motivated, and making Grant the honorary starter keeps Starks fighting to prove himself and keeps Grant from feeling unwanted. Might have to do with the egos/personalities/careers of the players.

[pbmax]

Has anyone seen a highlight of the block Starks was reported to have missed yesterday? I don't remember it.

[Pugger]

Has anyone seen a highlight of the block Starks was reported to have missed yesterday? I don't remember it.

No, but I can think of 2 occasions last week when he missed.

[Smeefers]

Well, After this week, I think Starks is a better running back than Grant. When Grant was the only running back we had, he was a 80 yard a game back. Starks is a 80 yard a game back when he's sharing time.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Has anyone seen a highlight of the block Starks was reported to have missed yesterday? I don't remember it.
Where was it reported that he missed a block yesterday?

[Harlan Huckleby]

No, but I can think of 2 occasions last week when he missed.
There was the debatable play where Starks stuck with play action. And the second play was ...... I didn't see anything. Nothing mentioned by analysts.


Starks is the victim of a smear campaign by disgruntled Grant loyalists. I want Pugger placed on a lie detector machine.

[pbmax]

Where was it reported that he missed a block yesterday?

I thought pugger was confirming what CaptainD said he posted previously.

[pbmax]

Where was it reported that he missed a block yesterday?

Its apparently a one man newswire agency about Starks blown pass blocking assignments.

http://packerrats.com/showthread.php?22770-A-Hater-s-Take-Part-II&p=615839&viewfull=1#post615839

[3irty1]

I made my decision on how I'll decide who I like better.

If a Starks fumble happens first, I'm a Grant fan. I love Grant's ball security and feel its a severely underrated aspect of his game.

If Starks catches a ball more than 10 yards down the field first, I'm a Starks fan. I love a versatile weapon.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I thought pugger was confirming what CaptainD said he posted previously.

CaptainD was repeating what pugger posted concerning a memory he had after reading a CaptainD post

[pbmax]

I made my decision on how I'll decide who I like better.

If a Starks fumble happens first, I'm a Grant fan. I love Grant's ball security and feel its a severely underrated aspect of his game.

If Starks catches a ball more than 10 yards down the field first, I'm a Starks fan. I love a versatile weapon.

The Game Day thread and I are behind this sound reasoning 100%.

[pbmax]

CaptainD was repeating what pugger posted concerning a memory he had after reading a CaptainD post

But I thought Pugger was a she? Or do I have him confused with someone else?

[Harlan Huckleby]

I say hey babe, take a walk on the wild side,
I say hey mama, take a walk on the wild side

And the colored girls go, "Doo dee dooo, dooo dooo dee dooo dooo"

[Pugger]

But I thought Pugger was a she? Or do I have him confused with someone else?

Yes, I'm a she. :smile: I remember a couple of times against NO when Starks whiffed on a blitzer and Rodgers got nailed. But I don't know if it really matters who the starter is here. Both guys bring good stuff to the table and they can spell each other and keep each other fresh. :pack:

[pbmax]

This is just a manifestation of being a fan. Too much depth to name a starter? Bad.

Too little depth to replace Collins? Bad.

The right amount of depth is a tricky thing.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Bob McGinn:

Starks has entrenched himself as the shotgun-spread formation back. Because of it, he more than doubled the snap count of Ryan Grant (36-17) for the second week in a row. Starks didn't have any obvious poor plays in protection, and he seems to have a better feel when to leak out as a last-ditch receiver. For such a young player, Starks is exhibiting more patience. He is developing cutback eyes as he presses the line. As one of the two or three tallest backs in the league, Starks is able to see over things that the now-prototypical shorter backs cannot. He showed burst cutting to daylight when his blockers washed down the back side. On screens, he is letting things come to him. There's nothing wrong with Grant. He's running hard and generally getting what's blocked. Now he needs to start making the safety miss.

[swede]

But I thought Pugger was a she? Or do I have him confused with someone else?

Pugger is the girl and LEWCA (with the pretty flower avatar) is the guy. They are both pretty good posters and tend to maintain gender neutrality. As do I in real life.

[Packgator]

2011 NFL Leaders

RB Yards Per Attempt (min. 20 attempts)

1. Michael Turner.............. 6.9
2. James Starks ............... 6.8
3. LeSean McCoy............... 6.6
4. Fred Jackson................. 6.5
5. Beanie Wells ................ 5.7
6. Darren McFadden .......... 5.3
6. Adrian Peterson .............5.3

[Pugger]

Pugger is the girl and LEWCA (with the pretty flower avatar) is the guy. They are both pretty good posters and tend to maintain gender neutrality. As do I in real life.

Its been a while since I've been called a girl. :oops: :lol:

[Harlan Huckleby]

There's nothing wrong with Grant. He's running hard and generally getting what's blocked. Now he needs to start making the safety miss. I love how McGinn damns Grant with faint praise and then slips the knife in. I want to be an asshole like McGinn when I grow up.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I must say I thought they'd be about even, but Starks looks considerably better. Grant doesn't look terrible, but he looks average and isn't quite to the form pre-injury. Starks looks like what I saw on his college highlights. I think he was hindered by his injury last year. He still runs too damn upright though. He takes a lot of big hits.

[pbmax]

I must say I thought they'd be about even, but Starks looks considerably better. Grant doesn't look terrible, but he looks average and isn't quite to the form pre-injury. Starks looks like what I saw on his college highlights. I think he was hindered by his injury last year. He still runs too damn upright though. He takes a lot of big hits.

Six-two always looks upright when the rest of the league is filled with five-ten RBs who resemble fire hydrants.

[Pugger]

Grant looked very good today. Unless the bare's run D is lousy rumors of Grant's demise are premature. I felt bad for Starks. He had a poor day and fumbled the ball.

[Iron Mike]

2011 NFL Leaders

RB Yards Per Attempt (min. 20 attempts)

1. Michael Turner.............. 6.9
2. James Starks ............... 6.8
3. LeSean McCoy............... 6.6
4. Fred Jackson................. 6.5
5. Beanie Wells ................ 5.7
6. Darren McFadden .......... 5.3
6. Adrian Peterson .............5.3

Yeah, that'll change this week......

[Joemailman]

Grant's cutbacks were right on today. Maybe he was just rusty.

[Smeefers]

I say they're damn near the same. I think you're going to see either one getting more touches depending on who's hot. We've seen time and again McCarthy run the hot hand (Jones or Jordy) and I have no doubt he'll do the same with this RB tandom. Right now, Starks looks better, but I don't think for a second that Grant doesn't have some serious skills.

Man I'm good.

[red]

this is exactly why you don't cut grant. you keep both good running backs and if one has a lousy game there's a chance the other will step up

now we just need to learn how to stay with the back with the hot hand during the game

[Patler]

Week 1
Grant's (9/40) 4, 5, 10, 3, 4, 2, 8, 3, 1
Starks (12/57) 0, 5, 10, (-2), 17, 4, 2, 3, 9, 3, 2, 4.

Week 2
Grant (6/25) 1, 9, 4, 6, 3, 2
Starks (9/85) 6, 8, 1, 14, 40, 0, 6, (-2), 12

Week 3
Grant (17/92) 13, 2, 9, (-1), 9, 5, 13, 14, 11, 10, (-1), 0, 1, 4, 0, 0, 3 (
Starks (11/5) 3, 2, 1, (-1), (-1), 8, (-1), 0, 1, (-5 and fumble), 1

Grant - 32 carries for 157 yards
Starks - 32 carries for 147 yards

[bobblehead]

Grant's cutbacks were right on today. Maybe he was just rusty.

Grant has always run well against the bears from my memory. He looked very good today.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Grant has always run well against the bears from my memory. He looked very good today.

Agreed. Grant has seemed to run well against two very good run defenses in Chicago and Minnesota. I think no nonsense works against those guys. Hit your hole and get what you can. Starks didn't have a ton of room, but he didn't hit it up their hard. He looked Brandon Jackson.

[mraynrand]

now we just need to learn how to stay with the back with the hot hand during the game

QFT. why they changed up the hot hand was beyond me (well, I suppose Grant got winded), but they were only having luck inside and pretty much only with grant.

Those continued runs to Starks were classic Stubby calls.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Grant not only got winded. I think he got injured. Word is that he will be okay but was taken to a Chicago hospital afterwards to take a look at his ribs.

[mraynrand]

Grant not only got winded. I think he got injured. Word is that he will be okay but was taken to a Chicago hospital afterwards to take a look at his ribs.

Fair enough. But Starks wasn't fellin' it and those runs to the outside weren't happening. Maybe just run the T-bone with Starks in there- there are all sorts of options off that formation too.

[pbmax]

Starks is still the 3rd down and shotgun back. Grant doesn't block blitzers much. Both Kuhn and Green practiced it, but not Grant. He isn't playing much on 3rd down.

Hot hand is for 1st and 2nd down. 3rd down is like nickel and its a trained personnel grouping; not the hot hand.

[rbaloha1]

RG looked good today due to the numerous gaps created by the line.

The Bears seemed more keyed-up to stop Starks -- textbook lower body tackling. Starks went down too easily today.

[pbmax]

Its easier to tackle someone with good form when they are going sideways.

But Starks might need to learn to just stick his nose in there and press it, hoping some crease or room forms.

[KalamazooPackerFan]

Agreed. Grant has seemed to run well against two very good run defenses in Chicago and Minnesota. I think no nonsense works against those guys. Hit your hole and get what you can. Starks didn't have a ton of room, but he didn't hit it up their hard. He looked Brandon Jackson.

Exactly what I was thinking. Seemed he'd get the the line, head one way and then try to make another cut. Not the running style that works for our offense and especially not against the Bears.

[rbaloha1]

Its easier to tackle someone with good form when they are going sideways.

But Starks might need to learn to just stick his nose in there and press it, hoping some crease or room forms.

True like dat. In the open field, Starks was unable to juke Briggs. Briggs textbook tackled him straight-on. Starks still needs to understand how to dodge defenders.

[3irty1]

I made my decision on how I'll decide who I like better.

If a Starks fumble happens first, I'm a Grant fan. I love Grant's ball security and feel its a severely underrated aspect of his game.

If Starks catches a ball more than 10 yards down the field first, I'm a Starks fan. I love a versatile weapon.

Well its official, I prefer Ryan Grant.

[vince]

Week 1
Grant's (9/40) 4, 5, 10, 3, 4, 2, 8, 3, 1
Starks (12/57) 0, 5, 10, (-2), 17, 4, 2, 3, 9, 3, 2, 4.

Week 2
Grant (6/25) 1, 9, 4, 6, 3, 2
Starks (9/85) 6, 8, 1, 14, 40, 0, 6, (-2), 12

Week 3
Grant (17/92) 13, 2, 9, (-1), 9, 5, 13, 14, 11, 10, (-1), 0, 1, 4, 0, 0, 3 (
Starks (11/5) 3, 2, 1, (-1), (-1), 8, (-1), 0, 1, (-5 and fumble), 1

Grant - 32 carries for 157 yards
Starks - 32 carries for 147 yards
Thanks for compiling that Patler.

101 yds. a game, 4.75 yds. a carry by the two-headed tandem. Throw that together with an epic QB with about a 120 QB rating. That's gonna be tough to beat if they can keep it up. Grant stepped it up today with some sharp cutbacks. Looks like he's getting his old form back. This team can get a lot better yet.

[pbmax]

I knew we shouldn't have cut Grant.

[channtheman]

Grant looked great yesterday, Starks looked like crap. Everyone is going to have bad games though. I just wish this team would stick with the hot hand like they have said they would. I understand Starks is the 3rd down and shotgun back, but why was he running on 1st down late in the game yesterday when he fumbled? With him having such a crappy game, I'm keeping him out of there as much as possible.

[pbmax]

Grant looked great yesterday, Starks looked like crap. Everyone is going to have bad games though. I just wish this team would stick with the hot hand like they have said they would. I understand Starks is the 3rd down and shotgun back, but why was he running on 1st down late in the game yesterday when he fumbled? With him having such a crappy game, I'm keeping him out of there as much as possible.

Someone at JSO saif Newhouse, while doing many good things, didn't help much on Starks outside runs to the right. At least one of those Briggs nearly decapitated him. But that wasn't his only struggle.

[rbaloha1]

IMO part of Starks poor performance was due to the poor field conditions. It seemed Starks was stuck in mud.

[Pugger]

Soldier Field's grass is a disgrace.

[Joemailman]

IMO part of Starks poor performance was due to the poor field conditions. It seemed Starks was stuck in mud.

i didn't see a lot of mud and it didn't seem to bother Grant. Starks just had a bad game.

[pbmax]

I blame an irrational fear of sprinkler plumbing.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Grant looked great yesterday, Starks looked like crap . That pretty well sums it up. I'm not sure if Grant looked great, that's a bridge too far for me to cross, but he was back to his top form, which I never expected. Starks looked like he lost his confidence, turned very hesitant.
Hopefully he'll get the mojo back.

[pbmax]

Someone at JSO saif Newhouse, while doing many good things, didn't help much on Starks outside runs to the right. At least one of those Briggs nearly decapitated him. But that wasn't his only struggle.

We now have visual evidence of how Lance Briggs was so effective stopping outside runs.

From GBPG: (http://packersnews.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20110926/PKR01/110926185/Newhouse-shows-he-s-ready-play-offensive-line?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE)

http://cmsimg.greenbaypressgazette.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=U0&Date=20110926&Category=PKR01&ArtNo=110926185&Ref=AR&MaxW=640&Border=0&Green-Bay-Packers-RT-Marshall-Newhouse-shows-he-s-ready

And its small things like this, technique and experience of an O lineman, that can cause RBs to look so good one week and completely pathetic the next.

[Harlan Huckleby]

glad that a tackle went down rather than center or guard

[rbaloha1]

i didn't see a lot of mud and it didn't seem to bother Grant. Starks just had a bad game.

I did not mean that literally -- the footing was bad. Watch this week at Lambeau.