Grant or Starks - Who's better?

[RashanGary]

I disagree. Grant is better. Starks could get better, but today, Grant is better.

We'll see how it pans out. I like Grant but I hope Starks is better.

[RashanGary]

IMO, Grant is better than Starks strictly from an experience standpoint.

Grant is generally secure with the football and makes reasonable decisions on his running lanes, but he tends to go down easier than most starting caliber RBs and doesn't have great speed or hands. He's a decent back for our system because of the ball security and decisiveness when hitting the hole.

Starks is a stronger runner than Grant, and doesn't go down as easily. Obviously, he hasn't played enough for us to really determine the extent of his skill set. He is still very raw...the guy hasn't seen a football field very often in the last 2 years. In terms of a pure runner, I think the guys are comparable...Grant might be a little faster, but Starks is a stronger runner.

The only way I see Starks becoming CLEARLY better than Grant is if he develops into a capable receiver out of the backfield, as it doesn't seem that will happen for Grant at this point.

Well said. I buy this. Grant is darn good player. If Starks turns out better, Packer fans are going to be pretty fruckin happy.

[3irty1]

I like the burst and ball security of both but I'd give the edge to Grant as a runner. From what I've seen running backs don't make huge gains as runners once they hit the NFL and I'm think people who expect Starks to improve will be a little disappointed. For me Grant just has slightly better vision and has made an NFL career on punishing defenders who over pursue with his ability to explode upfield out of a cut. Starks looks really good in his own right and could be the better overall weapon once he gets a little more involved in the passing game. He could also hit a few more homeruns than Grant but IMO he'll leave more yards on the field over the course of the season.

[Lurker64]

I honestly don't care that much, to be honest.

Here's what I want from the running game this year (or any year):
1) The ability to keep defenses honest, and enable the play-action passing game by occasionally running for 8-10 yards.
2) The ability to convert on 3rd and short by running the ball
3) The ability to kill clock in a four minute drill situation.

I think if you can do that, in the modern NFL, that's as good of a running game as you need.

[VegasPackFan]

One thing I have been thinking about is this: Have we seen Starks rip off a long one yet? I remember last season when Grant ripped off a 70-80 yd TD run against the Bears - it was SWEET! As good as Starks seeems to be, I would like to see him run to daylight and rip off a long one. Then I would be on his wagon big time. But right now I cant think of any play that he went for more than maybe 20 yds....

[HarveyWallbangers]

I like the burst and ball security of both but I'd give the edge to Grant as a runner. From what I've seen running backs don't make huge gains as runners once they hit the NFL and I'm think people who expect Starks to improve will be a little disappointed. For me Grant just has slightly better vision and has made an NFL career on punishing defenders who over pursue with his ability to explode upfield out of a cut. Starks looks really good in his own right and could be the better overall weapon once he gets a little more involved in the passing game. He could also hit a few more homeruns than Grant but IMO he'll leave more yards on the field over the course of the season.

I think Starks will improve mostly because he'll be healthy (hopefully) for the first time in two years. The guy basically came back from being inactive for two years to carrying the load for us in the playoffs.

[packerbacker1234]

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.

Starks is a better WR? Lets see some NFL proof first. Just because he did great in college doesn't mean it will translate.

Grant was rarely given the opportunities to catch the ball, but he averages about 25 catches a season. Pretty standard given how our offense works. He also doesn't fumble the football.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Grant

People always talk about how 2009 was a down season for Grant, but he actually improved over 2008 in big ways. Less carries, more yards, a hell of a lot more TD's. Higher per carry average - up there with the elite.

Sure, 2009 didn't compare to 2007 in a favorable way, but keep in mind that what Grant did in 2007 was things that only the best in the game do. 200 yards in a playoff game, 5.1 ypc average on the season, setting packer records for single game achievements. That's just a special, special year, and you don't expect anyone to ever repeat that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Peterson

Outside of pure TD numbers, Grant's 2009 surpringly compares well to AP's 2009 and 2010 seasons. Yet most agree he may be the best back in the league.

Grant is a solid RB. He may not be a beast like AP, or have the break away speed like CJ2k, or even the savvy of a LT who has great vision. But he does the little things very well. He always gets a positive result - very rarely does he run for negative yards. He makes excellent initial cut reads. He does have NFL speed - we've seen him have too many long runs that show he is a bit faster than people give him credit for. His longest is a 66 yarder in 2007. In 2009 his long was 62. He isn't the best grinder - he doesn't tend to wear a defense down, but that also isn't the style of offense we play. We are a finesse pass first offense, and Grant is a pro bowl type compliment to that sort of offense. As much of a dream as it would be to have AP in a packers offense, bottom line is that you don't actually want someone "that" good, because your forced to pound the rock. In fact, the vikings need to find a game managing QB and pound AP, but chances are they will go for the next "elite" guy and waste the remaining years with AP.

So who's better? Grant. He has better post season stats than starks (blah blah, most rushing yards this year in the post season when no one even ran the ball, woo), and assuming he is back to 100%, and with the same wear and tear he had coming in to this past season (his body essentially got an entire season off) - Grant is going to be hungry. A hungry, possibly angry Grant (he was upset being on IR, since he would of been back in time fo rhte playoffs) is going to be a lot better than what Starks is right now.

The benefit of having starks is he is at least someone we can look to in order to lessen Grant's carries. I think, assuming no further injury occurse, you'll see grant getting 2/3rds of the carries in 2011 with Starks role diminishing a bit more as the season wears on. His big role may be taking over for Brandon Jackson, who previously with grant was the 3rd down back. However, until starks improves his pass blocking skills, he may not be ready for that big of a role... yet.

[3irty1]

I think Starks will improve mostly because he'll be healthy (hopefully) for the first time in two years. The guy basically came back from being inactive for two years to carrying the load for us in the playoffs.

That does make you wonder with a guy like Starks. He didn't play much this year and is just getting his football legs back under him. Even if he doesn't actually improve though I'm sure we'll perceive it that way as he's assimilated into the passing game. Supposedly that's an area he has serious talent.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

I personally think Starks is already a little better. Grant is a good player but other than 07 his average yards per carry was never really that high. He usually averages around 4 YPC. Starks has also proven he can average at least 4 YPC and he was going up against playoff teams with great defenses in almost all those games. He became the starter in the wild card round against the Eagles, then the Falcons, then the BEARS, and finally the STEELERS. Those are four of the best teams in the nfl and the Bears and Steelers probably have the best run defenses in the NFL. I think that given the teams that Starks went up against and pressure of the situation that he was put in are only indications that he will be dominate as a starter.

When you factor in lesser teams that Starks never got to see I believe his YPC average would be a lot higher had he been the starter all season. Look what he did against the Eagles who only have an average run defense. If he starts 16 games (not including playoffs ) he is going to face a lot more teams who don’t have run defenses like the Bears and Steelers.

Also, you have to factor in age. Starks in 24 and Grant in 28 and if I’m not mistaken will be 29 during the season. Almost all backs regardless if they are LT, Ahman Green, or who ever usually drop off significantly around this time. But you have you to keep Grant still for many reasons though. 1) You can never have enough good backs. 2) While he is getting up there in age he is not that old and only has one year remaining anyways. 3) You can tell he is a team player and that he loves being a packer.

I hope we re-sign Jackson as well. I think Grant, Starks, and Jackson would really complement each other very well. Grant and Starks can split carries when running between the tackles and Jackson will be strictly a 3rd down back. Jackson if I’m not mistaken was pretty good on st. teams a few years back before he had a big role in the offense.

So basically I don’t think there will be a big difference between Grant and Starks this year but I think Starks is already at his level or probably a little better. And given his age, I think Starks will have fresher legs by seasons’ end and will clearly be the better option IMO.

[pbmax]

I think simply watching Grant is possible to determine that he is not a natural catching the ball. He seems to have a classic case of fighting the ball, rather than letting it come to him. His hands are always too busy and usually early, even when he secures the ball it never seems clean. I think he has improved but its still not second nature to him.

Starks by contrast seems to have more patience to wait for the ball to come to him, then tuck and run.

[RUnuts]

Samkon Gado in 2011 bet on it.

[gbgary]

I honestly don't care that much, to be honest.

Here's what I want from the running game this year (or any year):
1) The ability to keep defenses honest, and enable the play-action passing game by occasionally running for 8-10 yards.
2) The ability to convert on 4th and 1 by running the ball
3) The ability to kill clock in a four minute drill situation with at least a two touchdown lead.

I think if you can do that, in the modern NFL, that's as good of a running game as you need.

fixed!

[Iron Mike]

Grant is underrated by some. He's not Adrian Peterson.

You can take Purple Jesus with fumbling and shitting the bed in the NFC Title game, and I'll take Grant/Starks and winning the SB any day of the week.

[woodbuck27]

Grant.

Yup. Right now if we consider that Grant will return fully up to snuff. He's more valuable or should produce more that the sopomore Starks.

[woodbuck27]

Who has more potential? - starks

We need to see Starks play a full schedule to really determine what he adds to our 'O'.

GO PACK GO!