Grant or Starks - Who's better?

[HarveyWallbangers]

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.

1) We're talking about who is better right now. Not in 1 1/2 years when Grant will be 30. He turns 29 in December.
2) Grant has a pretty good 4.4 ypc with the Packers--which is good behind our OL. Starks averaged 3.5 this year. Outside of the year that Grant was nicked up, his ypc has been pretty impressive considering our run blocking. 5.1 in 2007, played injured in 2008, 4.4 in 2009, 5.6 in his first 8 carries in 2010. Grant has far outpaced the average of Starks (3.5), Jackson (3.8), Kuhn (3.3), Nance (2.6).

He could fall of the map, not come back from his injury, etc. However, I think where Grant was before he was injured is better than where Starks is at right now. That could easily change though.

[Brandon494]

What a great problem to have!

I love having a two running back system as long as Brandon Jackson isnt one of them.

To answer your question Grant is the better running back. Starks had a few nice games but he was no where close to the impact Grant had in 07. Starks had one game rushing over 100 yards and averaged less than 4 yards per carry. Starks is a good running back but I think our running game was so bad that it made him look that much better. To be fair to Starks thought he was out of football for quite a long time.

[The Weasel]

Grant. Starks is an explosive player and runs the ball very well. I think my judgment of him being close to Grant's caliber is that he followed up Jackson's poor performance.

That being said, it would be awesome to have that duo next season.