James Starks (RB) Set for NFL Debut

[Kiwon]

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

[mmmdk]

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

[Tony Oday]

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

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

[pbmax]

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

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

[vince]

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

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

[Guiness]

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

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

[RashanGary]

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

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

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

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

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

[denverYooper]

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

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

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

[Fritz]

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

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

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

[sharpe1027]

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

[Cheesehead Craig]

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

Swede likes the butt!

[Scott Campbell]

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

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

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

[Smidgeon]

There were three things I liked about Starks:

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

[pbmax]

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

[Patler]

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

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