Grant or Starks - Who's better?

[bobblehead]

Not even close... Grant.

Grant is a superior runner, but isn't much of a recieving threat. Far superior? Hardly. Starks picked up the protection really well, I gotta believe that every back we have being such good pass protectors is a reflection on Edgar Bennet. Grant was very good as well.

My hunch is that with Grant set to make 5 million plus we end up releasing him unless he is 100% healthy (which I don't think he will be). Starks becomes the every down back and Kuhn or Jackson are the main 3rd down guy. One of them leaves in FA and we draft another RB 5th-7th round. All hunches.

[RashanGary]

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.

No, this isn't a fact. Grant is more proven, but that does not mean he's better. There are dozens of unproven players in the league much better than their proven counter parts. Proven is what happens when talent and skill meet opportunity. Starks may have more talent and skill (making him better) but be lacking the extended opportunity (making him less proven).

People often times mistake how good a player is with how proven he is. That's why Ted shocks people. He's concerned with how good they are.

[retailguy]

Grant.

[retailguy]

Who has more potential? - starks

[RashanGary]

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.

I had this same post written up as a new thread a couple days ago. Decided not to post.

I agree though.

Jermichael is a star and is versatile (block or catch)
Kuhn is good and versatile (block, run or catch)
Jordy is very good and versatile (great blocker and can catch)
Jennings is not versatile, but he's an elite pure WR who stays on the field in all but goalline

Quarless and Starks are two wildcards. If Starks and Quarless pan out, we have a lot of very versatile weapons. Like you said, teams will be damned if they do, damned if they don't. With MM drawing up the playbook, I have little doubt that they'll find ways to attack defenses weak points with these types of packages.

[RashanGary]

Grant.

We don't know that, retail. Grant is more proven. Time will tell who is better. Starks does have more potential. He might be just plain better too. We haven't seen enough.

[retailguy]

We don't know that, retail. Grant is more proven. Time will tell who is better. Starks does have more potential. He might be just plain better too. We haven't seen enough.

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

[Bossman641]

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

X 1. Although I would be happy to be proven wrong.

[get louder at lambeau]

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

Today? Today Grant is rehabbing his knee and hasn't seen the field in 5 months. I'd take Starks today, based on health alone.

[pbmax]

Better healthy, right now? Grant barely.

Better by the end of next season? Starks. The only thing that worries me would be that he could have had several better cutbacks. But he also did well sticking his foot in the ground rather than running wide when a play was getting blown up. Those balance out for me and I think his reads will get better.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Grant is underrated by some. He's not Adrian Peterson, but he's a really solid one cut back that has speed to go the distance. I've seen acceleration from Starks, but I haven't seen the breakaway speed.

[sharpe1027]

y. Starks picked up the protection really well, I gotta believe that every back we have being such good pass protectors is a reflection on Edgar Bennet.

I can remember a several of times that Starks completely missed a pickup. It was especially bad when he was involved in play action. It was like he completely forgot that he had to block after the fake handoff.

[King Friday]

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.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I think Grant has better speed than people give him credit for. I also think he's decisive, has a little wiggle for a bigger RB, and is a solid blocker. He doesn't have great hands and he doesn't break a lot of open field tackles. That keeps him from being elite.

[Lurker64]

Today? Today Grant is rehabbing his knee and hasn't seen the field in 5 months. I'd take Starks today, based on health alone.

It's an ankle, not a knee... and by all accounts Grant was 100% by the playoffs.