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.