Starks?

[Noodle]

Given that conditions (wind & cold) might hurt the passing game, a running/screen game will likely be crucial. The running part falls on the OL and Starks. Yeah, the kid had a great game against the Iggles, but against the Falcons, not so much, ripping off 2.6 per carry.

Worse, of his 25 carries, nearly half were for a yard or less -- 4 for minus yardage, 4 for no gain, and 4 for only a yard. That will not move the chains.

I'm hoping he plays to prove that the Iggles game was no fluke and really punishes people. But I have to admit I'm worried. Which was the aberration, Iggles or Falcons?

[mission]

Given that conditions (wind & cold) might hurt the passing game, a running/screen game will likely be crucial. The running part falls on the OL and Starks. Yeah, the kid had a great game against the Iggles, but against the Falcons, not so much, ripping off 2.6 per carry.

Worse, of his 25 carries, nearly half were for a yard or less -- 4 for minus yardage, 4 for no gain, and 4 for only a yard. That will not move the chains.

I'm hoping he plays to prove that the Iggles game was no fluke and really punishes people. But I have to admit I'm worried. Which was the aberration, Iggles or Falcons?

they had 8 guys in the box the whole game and AR had a career day

if starks has the exact same game and forces the bears to change their defense to account then im fine with it.

[HarveyWallbangers]

A lot of his carries were late. He had fewer than 10 carries in the first half, so I'm thinking there were a lot of runs where the Falcons were geared up to stop him.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Apparently the Falcons had a shortage of DBs and had to play with a lot of LBs so they simply had more big bodies on the field, thus it was more difficult to run against them.

[denverYooper]

Don't you mean Sparks?

He looked good against the 49ers and not so good against the Lions. Then was inactive, inactive, and ok in only 5 carries (20 yards) against the Bears. I also thought that vs. the Eagles, they brought out the 2 FB set more and against the Falcons he was running more out of single back or I-formation so he had the luxury of added blockers in the Iggles game.

I'm pretty sure he'll play against the Bears and feel that he will have some success against them partly because they'll be willing to let him have some yards in order to shackle the passing game and partly because I still have visions of Grant having success against them. Sparks brings a similar style and as long as the guys up front don't let Ndamakong Suh get in the backfield so quickly, he'll be alright.

I think that in the long run he will be a better than average back for the Packers.

[Packers4Glory]

he had nice runs in the game..he got shut down late as one might expect. Starks makes good reads and hits holes well, but you can only do so much w/o blocking.

[vince]

he had nice runs in the game..he got shut down late as one might expect. Starks makes good reads and hits holes well, but you can only do so much w/o blocking.

Yup. The Falcons were penetrating the backfield with regularity on running plays and Starks actually made something out of nothing a few times. I love how he gets going downhill and finishes. He put some linebackers on their back Saturday night.

[Noodle]

I didn't get to see the game, just heard it and read the stats, so it's encouraging to hear that Starks didn't regress in some way.

I read a post-game interview with Starks, and he sounded p.o.ed about his performance. So I'm guessing he plays wicked hungry against the Bears, sort of the way JJones wiped off the stink of his Iggles drop with some great catches against the Falcons.

That is, if the OL does a decent job, dag nabbit!

[denverYooper]

I liked Sparks's 25/66 better than Jackson's 10/26 against the Falcons, that's for sure.

[mraynrand]

I liked Sparks's 25/66 better than Jackson's 10/26 against the Falcons, that's for sure.

If Jackson had run 25 times, with that average, he would run for 65 yards.

[bobblehead]

Most of the running game is dictated by the line. My personal feeling is that you shouldn't pay a RB too much money and keep a fresh young stable rotating through town. Meanwhile pay your OL well, build the foundation and let other teams overpay RB's which are by and large a dime a dozen if you have good blocking. I like starks just fine, he is better than BJack, but given a choice of Starks with little blocking, or BJack with great blocking.....no brainer.

[swede]

Most of the running game is dictated by the line. My personal feeling is that you shouldn't pay a RB too much money and keep a fresh young stable rotating through town. Meanwhile pay your OL well, build the foundation and let other teams overpay RB's which are by and large a dime a dozen if you have good blocking. I like starks just fine, he is better than BJack, but given a choice of Starks with little blocking, or BJack with great blocking.....no brainer.

+1 Good post.

[mmmdk]

+1 Good post.

I give you 5 points; Swedes are cheap!

[denverYooper]

If Jackson had run 25 times, with that average, he would run for 65 yards.

It doesn't matter who's doing it but if GB gives one guy 25 carries, even at 2.6 ypc, they're probably winning.

[mraynrand]

Most of the running game is dictated by the line. My personal feeling is that you shouldn't pay a RB too much money and keep a fresh young stable rotating through town. Meanwhile pay your OL well, build the foundation and let other teams overpay RB's which are by and large a dime a dozen if you have good blocking. I like starks just fine, he is better than BJack, but given a choice of Starks with little blocking, or BJack with great blocking.....no brainer.

Welcome to Mike Shanahan's Denver