Starks out for the year?!?

[Brando19]

http://www.espnmilwaukee.com/common/more.php?m=49&post_id=16161

Oh great......the injuries keep piling up. TT has to address RB in the offseason!

[digitaldean]

Just saw that as well. WTF!?!? Just when we get some SEMBLANCE of a running game.

Green has been OK, but Starks was doing better in the MINNY game.

[Brando19]

http://www.espnmilwaukee.com/common/...&post_id=16161

GREEN BAY – James Starks has to have some of the worst injury luck in Green Bay Packers history.

When Mike McCarthy said on Monday that the medical staff was still evaluating a handful of players – and thus he was unable to deliver a full injury report – apparently one of the players the Packers coach was talking about was the oft-injured running back.

According to an NFL source, Starks was later diagnosed with a knee injury, suffered during Sunday’s 23-14 victory over the Minnesota Vikings, and it’s serious enough that he might not play again the rest of the season. The source said the Packers are mulling placing Starks on injured reserve.

“It’s not an ACL,” the source said, adding that the early evaluation was that the injury would not require surgery. But with only four regular-season games left, the Packers likely will want Starks’ roster spot for a healthy player for the stretch run.

Starks carried 15 times for 66 yards, including a 22-yard touchdown – only the Packers’ third rushing touchdown of the season – against the Vikings. With 5 minutes 22 seconds left in the fourth quarter, Vikings cornerback Josh Robinson hit him flush on the right knee and upended him on a run during the Packers’ 11-minute field-goal drive to seal the game.

Starks limped off the field and came out of the game after that, but he returned for the Packers’ final possession and ran three times, for back-to-back-to-back 3-yard gains.

On Monday, McCarthy said to open his press briefing: “In regards to injuries, we’re still working through our injury report. There’s some more information being gathered so we haven’t released, (Trainer) Pepper Burruss has not concluded our injury report for today.”

Later, McCarthy added that the team had “a couple guys that are being evaluated. Nothing of serious nature. We’ll have it for you Wednesday.”

Starks’ agent, Dave Butz, declined comment when reached Tuesday evening.

Starks’ injury history before this season was well-documented: He missed senior year at the University of Buffalo with a shoulder injury; missed the first half of his rookie season in the NFL with a torn hamstring; and missed much of the second half of last season with nagging knee and ankle problems. But he entered training camp healthy and at the top of the running back depth chart, with his position coach, Alex Van Pelt, talking excitedly about Starks being able to stay healthy for all 16 games.

Instead, he suffered a turf toe injury in the Aug. 9 preseason opener at San Diego, the Packers signed veteran free-agent running back Cedric Benson three days later and Starks was inactive for the season’s first five games. And yet, he kept a positive attitude throughout.

Starks carried five times for 11 yards during the team’s Oct. 14 victory at Houston, then dressed but did not play against St. Louis on Oct. 21 and carried one time for 8 yards against Jacksonville on Oct. 28.

Starks then got an opportunity at extensive playing time and rushed 17 times for 61 yards against Arizona on Nov. 4, then had 25 carries for 74 yards at Detroit on Nov. 18. He had only eight carries for 35 yards against the New York Giants on Nov. 25, but he drew praise from McCarthy for his performance against the Vikings on Sunday.

“I liked what James Starks did. I thought he stepped up,” McCarthy said after the game. “I thought Alex (Green) ran well, I thought John Kuhn played tough like he always does. (But) I thought James was a little cut above today, and that’s why I went with him in the fourth quarter.”

If Starks is done for the year, it leaves Green, Kuhn, and practice-squad call-up DuJuan Harris, a first-year player from Troy, on the roster. Harris played in five games last season as a rookie with Jacksonville, rushing nine times for 42 yards.

The Packers lost Benson to a Lisfranc foot sprain on Oct. 7, and despite being placed on IR with the designation to return, Benson will not play again this season after undergoing surgery last week.

[red]

you have got to be fucking kidding me

[Upnorth]

Seriously??? Does anyone know how many starts we have lost to injury this year? Wow.

[mission]

Shitty.

I guess we'll get to see Harris; at least he has a 4+ ypg (huge sample).

[Guiness]

you have got to be fucking kidding me

or ffs - for fuck sakes

Four years in a row now, back to his senior year of college

[KYPack]

Man oh man.

I was hoping this post was a rib.

We got buzzard luck this year for sure.

[Lurker64]

Bring on DaJuan Harris and Johnny White!

[Joemailman]

Bring on DaJuan Harris and Johnny White!

Johnny White was out last week with a concussion. Hell, guys I didn't even know were on the roster are hurt!

[Bossman641]

This is fucking ridiculous. Can this team ever catch a break?

[Joemailman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQ5ob9B9yD4

[mraynrand]

That must have been from the play where he propellered and got hit on the same leg twice. Looked like he was going to have a pretty good contusion at least. looking at it again, his leg kinda whips sideways, too. MCL, LCL???

BRING BLACK GRANT!!!

[OS PA]

We should just say screw the running game and line up 6 linemen, 4 wide receivers, and Rodgers. Rotate Finley and Jones depending on the field. Bring Cobb into the backfield every now and then to pretend to run. Jumbo package all the time.

[gbgary]

wow

[Kiwon]

"Starks out for the year?!?" :whaa:

You're kidding me......

[Patler]

This is neither surprising nor much of a concern to me. It has been one injury after another with Starks, I was expecting something sooner or later. For the last two seasons, Starks gives the illusion of accomplishing something as a RB because of an occasional run here and there, but when you look at the entire performance in a game or season, he has been no better than Grant or Green.

The Packers running game is bad with Starks and isn't likely to be any worse without him.

[pittstang5]

Just when I finally can cope with the injuries, this happens. Are we losing 1 player a game? Sure feels like it.

[Fritz]

This is neither surprising nor much of a concern to me. It has been one injury after another with Starks, I was expecting something sooner or later. For the last two seasons, Starks gives the illusion of accomplishing something as a RB because of an occasional run here and there, but when you look at the entire performance in a game or season, he has been no better than Grant or Green.

The Packers running game is bad with Starks and isn't likely to be any worse without him.

I am not sure how you can say it isn't likely to be any worse. The guy was not a world-beater, but he ran hard and seemed better at reading holes than Green. On top of that, he is very likely more assignment-sure than a DeJuan Harris, who has not played for this team at all and is raw.

This reminds me of 2010. The injuries are fucking relentless. It's pissing me off.

[Patler]

I am not sure how you can say it isn't likely to be any worse. The guy was not a world-beater, but he ran hard and seemed better at reading holes than Green. On top of that, he is very likely more assignment-sure than a DeJuan Harris, who has not played for this team at all and is raw.

This reminds me of 2010. The injuries are fucking relentless. It's pissing me off.

That's just it, he "seemed" better than Green, and last year he "seemed" better than Grant, but when all is in, his performance has been no better than theirs. He runs hard and breaks a few tackles on a couple plays, or gets a 22 yard TD, and everyone forgets all the other plays in which he lost 1 or 2. Remember last year when I did the carry by carry comparisons for games in which both Grant and Starks played? Starks usually had one bigger run, but a lot more negative plays than Grant. Same this year. On Sunday, even with his 22 yard TD, Starks had a lower per carry average on 15 carries than Green did on his 12 carries. If you take out his three carries for 9 yards in the Packers last clock-killing possession, Starks was 12/57 including the 22 yarder, and Green was 12/58 with a long of 11.

Starks as a runner is more of an an illusion than reality. Running behind the same blockers in the same games, overall he has done no better than Grant or Green, even though at times he looks like he is.

As for being more assignment sure than others, when Starks became healthy a few weeks ago, yet was playing very little, several writers reported that Starks wasn't being given more opportunities because he is still too shaky in his assignments, even with more experience than Green.

[sheepshead]

Ok Patler, I feel a little better. I guess we need our offensive line to st....oh wait

[mraynrand]

This is neither surprising nor much of a concern to me. It has been one injury after another with Starks, I was expecting something sooner or later.

Injury Prone!!

[pittstang5]

That's just it, he "seemed" better than Green, and last year he "seemed" better than Grant, but when all is in, his performance has been no better than theirs. He runs hard and breaks a few tackles on a couple plays, or gets a 22 yard TD, and everyone forgets all the other plays in which he lost 1 or 2. Remember last year when I did the carry by carry comparisons for games in which both Grant and Starks played? Starks usually had one bigger run, but a lot more negative plays than Grant. Same this year. On Sunday, even with his 22 yard TD, Starks had a lower per carry average on 15 carries than Green did on his 12 carries. If you take out his three carries for 9 yards in the Packers last clock-killing possession, Starks was 12/57 including the 22 yarder, and Green was 12/58 with a long of 11.

Starks as a runner is more of an an illusion than reality. Running behind the same blockers in the same games, overall he has done no better than Grant or Green, even though at times he looks like he is.

As for being more assignment sure than others, when Starks became healthy a few weeks ago, yet was playing very little, several writers reported that Starks wasn't being given more opportunities because he is still too shaky in his assignments, even with more experience than Green.

Patler, again to the rescue with meaningless stats. :-D

However, up until Sunday, I noticed Starks ran with more authority than Green had in the past. Sunday, the times I saw Green run, he looked like Starks.

Still, another injury to this team just hurts.

[Tony Oday]

Can we get Grant back now? I have a jersey and everything!

[mraynrand]

Just when I finally can cope with the injuries, this happens. Are we losing 1 player a game? Sure feels like it.

typically it has been about three.

[mmmdk]

Can we get Grant back now? I have a jersey and everything!

:lol: :tup:

[sheepshead]

Injury Prone!!


That term along with 'elite' need never be used again.

[run pMc]

I wonder what De'Mond Parker is doing these days.

[run pMc]

Bring on DaJuan Harris and Johnny White!

If you're TT, do you hope Starks can make it back in a couple weeks, go with Harris/White, call Ryan Grant or Marc Tyler, or sign someone else?

My guess is TT stands pat.

I don't think Starks falls into the "quick healer" category, so I wouldn't be surprised if he goes on IR. I doubt it's a huge loss, but it still matters.

[Cheesehead Craig]

We gotta find whomever has that injury voodoo doll and take it from them.

[pbmax]

Its probably foolish to count on him due to his inability to stay healthy.

But an occasional 22 yard TD is PRECISELY why he was the best option for this offense given current choices. 6 points and a threatening run game are precisely what the O needs versus Cover 2. He did make poorer decisions in holes than Grant but far less frequently than Green. Stark's negative runs not withstanding, he has a burst that Grant used to have and Green only has begun to show. Last year it seemed that Starks was battling something nagging every other week.

Running for 3.5 yards per carry and no negative runs is fine, but its not going to help pull a team out of Cover 2, though it can help with down and distance.

I was hoping for a return to the regular bursts we saw in 2010, but as I said initially, expecting that to last is foolish at this point.

[Pugger]

This is neither surprising nor much of a concern to me. It has been one injury after another with Starks, I was expecting something sooner or later. For the last two seasons, Starks gives the illusion of accomplishing something as a RB because of an occasional run here and there, but when you look at the entire performance in a game or season, he has been no better than Grant or Green.

The Packers running game is bad with Starks and isn't likely to be any worse without him.

I was thinking the same thing. That poor young man just can't stay healthy.

We just resigned Grant but you have to wonder why teams are passing on Tim Hightower who is 3 years younger.

[Guiness]

I wonder what De'Mond Parker is doing these days.

Dunno, but Kregg Lumpkin is playing for the Giants, I heard his name when we played them. Oddly though, his profile page at nfl.com doesn't have anything, doesn't even list it as a game he played in. I don't know why he was mentioned and if he was even on the field.

[Patler]

But an occasional 22 yard TD is PRECISELY why he was the best option for this offense given current choices. 6 points and a threatening run game are precisely what the O needs versus Cover 2. He did make poorer decisions in holes than Grant but far less frequently than Green. Stark's negative runs not withstanding, he has a burst that Grant used to have and Green only has begun to show. Last year it seemed that Starks was battling something nagging every other week.

Running for 3.5 yards per carry and no negative runs is fine, but its not going to help pull a team out of Cover 2, though it can help with down and distance.


Maybe, but a 21 yard TD every 4, 5, or 6 games isn't likely to concern DCs all that much either, when the rest of his runs are 4 yards or less and many are for no yards or negative yardage. Green can break an occasional long one too. He had a 40 yarder early in the year, and a 20 yarder a few weeks ago. That's pretty much my point, Starks doesn't make a difference, either positive or negative. Just another back similar to all the others they have had since Ahman Green. On a particularly good day he can have a nice game, but alone he does not elevate the running game from mediocrity.

Starks/Green, six of one, half-a-dozen of the other.

[mmmdk]

What's In-Saine up to?

[Guiness]

What's In-Saine up to?

IR. Like most of our other RB's.

[Bossman641]

IR. Like most of our other players.

Fixed :-(

[woodbuck27]

Can we get Grant back now? I have a jersey and everything!

Number 25 ! As far as I can see. That number has been kept back and maybe waiting for the call to Ryan Grant?

http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/67882/ryan-grant-can-be-part-of-packers-solution

Ryan Grant can be part of Packers' solution.

December, 5, 2012

Dec 5, 2012 ... 10:09AM ET ... By: Kevin Seifert ESPN.com

" ..... the Packers tried to move on from Grant this season, and I get why they are going to re-sign him. This is an emergency move, one that relied on the good character of both sides to avoid burning bridges. Grant isn't the player the Packers envisioned in their backfield during the stretch run, but he might well prove to be their best option." Fr. LINK

GO PACKERS !

[woodbuck27]

Maybe, but a 21 yard TD every 4, 5, or 6 games isn't likely to concern DCs all that much either, when the rest of his runs are 4 yards or less and many are for no yards or negative yardage. Green can break an occasional long one too. He had a 40 yarder early in the year, and a 20 yarder a few weeks ago. That's pretty much my point, Starks doesn't make a difference, either positive or negative. Just another back similar to all the others they have had since Ahman Green. On a particularly good day he can have a nice game, but alone he does not elevate the running game from mediocrity.

Starks/Green, six of one, half-a-dozen of the other.

I appreciate your candor mmmm .... sure.

I appreciate your compassion mmmm... maybe!?... you need some work there. Food for thought!?

No ....... YOUR >>>> 'YOU'.

Patler 'just for you'... Life is part observation. One thing I've learned from life is when you get down to the brass tacks RE: people. They seldom change.

Another....that's what makes the world spin Patler. The differences we discover in one another. It's all very interesting. :-?

We've one thing in common here though, for the most part. The best interests and welfare of the Green Bay Packers.


GO PACK GO !

[pbmax]

Johnny White went to IR to make room for Grant, Starks still on roster. Sure sounds like an MCL/PCL kinda deal.

[Pugger]

We gotta find whomever has that injury voodoo doll and take it from them.

Lovie Smith?

[LEWCWA]

That's just it, he "seemed" better than Green, and last year he "seemed" better than Grant, but when all is in, his performance has been no better than theirs. He runs hard and breaks a few tackles on a couple plays, or gets a 22 yard TD, and everyone forgets all the other plays in which he lost 1 or 2. Remember last year when I did the carry by carry comparisons for games in which both Grant and Starks played? Starks usually had one bigger run, but a lot more negative plays than Grant. Same this year. On Sunday, even with his 22 yard TD, Starks had a lower per carry average on 15 carries than Green did on his 12 carries. If you take out his three carries for 9 yards in the Packers last clock-killing possession, Starks was 12/57 including the 22 yarder, and Green was 12/58 with a long of 11.

Starks as a runner is more of an an illusion than reality. Running behind the same blockers in the same games, overall he has done no better than Grant or Green, even though at times he looks like he is.

As for being more assignment sure than others, when Starks became healthy a few weeks ago, yet was playing very little, several writers reported that Starks wasn't being given more opportunities because he is still too shaky in his assignments, even with more experience than Green.

I always get a kick outta this, if you take away his big run, then he wasn't very good. Well damn if you take away AP's 3 big runs he wasn't very good either! Thing is he did have the big run and that factors in!

[sharpe1027]

The difference between Starks and Green is not much because neither is that good.

[mraynrand]

I always get a kick outta this, if you take away his big run, then he wasn't very good. Well damn if you take away AP's 3 big runs he wasn't very good either! Thing is he did have the big run and that factors in!

I see your point, and this happens, but Patler isn't really doing that here; in fact to compare Green and Starks more fairly, he took away the clock killing runs, which are typically shorter because, well, you're just killing the clock. Still, I like the comparisons where all their runs are listed. Hell, Barry Sanders sometimes looked like -1, -3, 2, 64, -1, 3, 18, etc. etc.

No matter, Green and Grant will be adequate, the fault for the poor running game will be squarely on the O-line; specifically, I will place all the blame on EDS.

[swede]

...specifically, I will place all the blame on EDS.

Way to kick a guy when he's down.

[Smidgeon]

Way to kick a guy when he's down.

:rs:

[Patler]

I always get a kick outta this, if you take away his big run, then he wasn't very good. Well damn if you take away AP's 3 big runs he wasn't very good either! Thing is he did have the big run and that factors in!

Who took away a big run?

[Patler]

I see your point, and this happens, but Patler isn't really doing that here; in fact to compare Green and Starks more fairly, he took away the clock killing runs, which are typically shorter because, well, you're just killing the clock. Still, I like the comparisons where all their runs are listed. Hell, Barry Sanders sometimes looked like -1, -3, 2, 64, -1, 3, 18, etc. etc.

No matter, Green and Grant will be adequate, the fault for the poor running game will be squarely on the O-line; specifically, I will place all the blame on EDS.

Exactly. As I said, EVEN WITH his long run, on 15 carries Starks had a lower per-carry average than Green.
While I didn't state it, you correctly hit the reason I also gave his stats without the 3 carries at the end. People often complain about those, because the defense is stacked to stop the run, and as I said, he got just 9 yards on the three carries. In effect, I was trying to compare apples to apples, and in this case each had 12 carries under "normal" situations. Even with a 22 yard run, Starks was a yard short of Green on their 12 carries each.

[mraynrand]

Way to kick a guy when he's down.

You seem fit to be tied

[mission]

Even more shitty thing here is that usually when a team has this many injuries, they have a poor record and end up with a top draft pick... really tipping the talent scales. Like we were picking #9 and took Raji. Now I never want this team to lose, but they have so much talent, that even with all these injuries, they're still in the driver's seat to win the division.

Part of me already has written this year's team off at least from a Super Bowl perspective. I enjoy the team and I'm not really down on them, but it's tough with so much talent on the sideline. Doesn't seem like anything is going in our favor... don't even get me started on officiating.

[Pugger]

The difference between Starks and Green is not much because neither is that good.

Starks is a tad better than Green but that isn't saying much...

[Zool]

Starks is a tad better than Green but that isn't saying much...

He is better at absorbing initial contact. I'd take Green on screens and wheel routes over Starks. It's really a wash IMO.

[HarveyWallbangers]

YPC is a stat you can use to analyze RBs, but I usually rely on what my eyes tell me. (I think there was a year when Ryan Grant's YPC were close or better than Adrian Peterson's YPC.) Benson's YPC was nothing to write home about, but he was the most impressive RB on the roster this year IMHO. He also faced some tough run defenses early in the year. Grant was a solid runner, but I think a healthy Starks (which is the problem) was better last year. I think Starks is a tad better than Green at this point, but I was impressed by the way Green ran last week. Perhaps "the light has gone on" for him, but RBs usually have it or they don't.

[LEWCWA]

I agree with the eye test....I watched AP put up 200 yards last weekend, but I never got the feeling he was dominating the game. He had 3 impressive runs, because Pack D couldn't tackle, but never really took over the game. I guess had Ponder done anything that may have changed,lol.

[mraynrand]

I agree with the eye test....I watched AP put up 200 yards last weekend, but I never got the feeling he was dominating the game. He had 3 impressive runs, because Pack D couldn't tackle, but never really took over the game. I guess had Ponder done anything that may have changed,lol.

I respectfully disagree in the strongest terms. Peterman took over as much as a RB can take over on an offense with no other weapons whatsoever. Guys missed tackles? Perhaps, but perhaps it was because AP steamrolled them. If he wasn't impressive at times, it was because the Packers had nine guys on the LOS and a single safety. My eye test said the AP was absolutely beasting it out there and that the Vikings might have pulled out a highly improbable win had their QB just kept feeding him the ball instead of feeding it to Burnett.

[Pugger]

Yes, we are lucky MN's "brain trust" decided to put the ball and the game into the hands of Ponder instead of their best player (and they wonder why they can't win?). Of course not having 2 of our better tacklers in CM3 and Woodson out of that game contributed to AP's monster game.

[woodbuck27]

Next UP !

http://espnwisconsin.com/common/page.php?feed=2&id=5311&is_corp=1

(DuJuan) Harris may get chance to shine

By SARAH BARSHOP ... packers@espnwisconsin.com

GO PACKERS !

[denverYooper]

Next UP !

http://espnwisconsin.com/common/page.php?feed=2&id=5311&is_corp=1

(DuJuan) Harris may get chance to shine

By SARAH BARSHOP ... packers@espnwisconsin.com

GO PACKERS !

Nice of M3 to rip on Harris's height: “He’s a young man who has a lot of abilities,” McCarthy said. “He’s 5-foot-7, but other than that we like everything about him."

[mraynrand]

Nice of M3 to rip on Harris's height: “He’s a young man who has a lot of abilities,” McCarthy said. “He’s 5-foot-7, but other than that we like everything about him."

Hate those little guys!


http://media.nola.com/saints_impact/photo/10118845-large.jpg