Sharing: Are Grant & Starks really about the same?

[RashanGary]

Grant gets the quick, dirty yards. He doesn't break as many tackles, but he makes the right decision and gets his 4.4 per carry for the last 790 carries of his career.

Starks moves forward too, makes good decisions too, but Grant is one of the best in the league at putting his pads down and getting those first 4 yards. He's as steady as they come, keeps the ball in AR's hands.

[MadtownPacker]

Starks' TD run showed the things he can do better then Grant (keep his feet after being hit, multiple cuts within one run) but even the smallest unreliability picking up blitzes could have distasterous results for the season. Starks is a man right now. Time will will tell if he is THE man.

Whats up man, welcome to the forum.

[MadtownPacker]

Grant gets the quick, dirty yards. He doesn't break as many tackles, but he makes the right decision and gets his 4.4 per carry for the last 790 carries of his career.

Starks moves forward too, makes good decisions too, but Grant is one of the best in the league at putting his pads down and getting those first 4 yards. He's as steady as they come, keeps the ball in AR's hands.

Seems like Starks did good enough keeping the ball in Rodgers hands last year.

[Upnorth]

So with great blocking by our O line they got very similar numbers overall. I am suprised that Starks was on the field so much more than Grant, MM must have seen something he liked in the way Starks was playing that he got over twice the snaps that Grant did. In the end these two look similar right now, and that is a good thing. We are going to be a front runner team all year so we will need reliable and fresh running backs to finish games. That looks to be what we have with these two. Go packers.

[pbmax]

So with great blocking by our O line they got very similar numbers overall. I am suprised that Starks was on the field so much more than Grant, MM must have seen something he liked in the way Starks was playing that he got over twice the snaps that Grant did. In the end these two look similar right now, and that is a good thing. We are going to be a front runner team all year so we will need reliable and fresh running backs to finish games. That looks to be what we have with these two. Go packers.

Those numbers are a little skewed. If Starks is the main 3rd down back (which also means a lot of single back shotgun on other downs) and he trades drives with Grant, then his numbers will be higher. But Starks clearly warrants more run game touches than say Brandon Jackson did.

[Smeefers]

I say they're damn near the same. I think you're going to see either one getting more touches depending on who's hot. We've seen time and again McCarthy run the hot hand (Jones or Jordy) and I have no doubt he'll do the same with this RB tandom. Right now, Starks looks better, but I don't think for a second that Grant doesn't have some serious skills.

[RashanGary]

I say they're damn near the same. I think you're going to see either one getting more touches depending on who's hot. We've seen time and again McCarthy run the hot hand (Jones or Jordy) and I have no doubt he'll do the same with this RB tandom. Right now, Starks looks better, but I don't think for a second that Grant doesn't have some serious skills.

That's pretty much what I see. Starks seems like he has a little more talent. Grant though, we all complain (and I do too) about him not breaking tackles. . . . But he's averaged 4.4 yards per carry his whole career and has only had 5 runs in his career over 40. It's not like he's getting a bunch of zeros and then bringing his average up with huge runs. He keeps churning out 3-4 yards every carry. And he never fumbles.

Starks will probably break a few tackles, make a couple guys miss . . . . Make some more 10 - 15 yard runs and make them in kinda flashy style. Let's see if he takes more zeros and losses. Sure, he looked like Mr steady after watching Brandon retard Jackson run. I'm not sure if there is a perception skew there or not. If Starks comes in, fumbles here and there, breaks a few more tackles, makes a few more guys miss. . . I don't know, I'm not so certain, in our big play offense, the trade off would be worth it and I'm not so certain there isn't some trade off with Starks.

[RashanGary]

In 2007 we averaged 24 PPG until Grant was inserted. After Grant was put in, we put up 30 PPG. In 2008 and 2009 we averaged 27.5 PPG with Grant (Rodgers first two years). In 2010, we average 24 PPG with BJ until Starks was inserted. Then we averaged over 30 again, through the playoffs (and Starks wasn't ripping off big runs either.)

I do think Grant and Starks are similar backs, with Starks showing a little more talent with space. I'm not convinced he gets the quick steady yards quite as well as Grant does. I doubt he's going to average more than the 4.4 Grant has and is still averaging. To me, if Starks breaks a few tackles but isn't quite as steady as Grant. . . . I don't know, I'm not so certain it's this big jolt. I think they do similar things. If Starks turns into a fumbler like he was in college, it's a no brainer for me. If he starts beating Grant's 4.4 and doesn't take more zeros or negatives. . . . Hell yeah, I'm all in. For now, I'm wait and see on those two. I don't think people realize what it means to be significantly better than Grant. The runners significantly better than Grant are averaging 4.7-5.0 yards a carry and are superstars.

Starks long term. Both for now. Starks is no superstar IMO. He's not much better than Grant, if at all, especially in our offense where I think Grant is an excellent fit.

Glad to have both for now. I'd be fine moving on from Grant with Green stepping in next year and another TT young guy sliding into the developmental slot.

[bobblehead]

I don't see this at all. Starks, like Grant, loses yardage when the run blitz smothers them in the backfield. Starks falls forward and gets positive yardage. I think JH made a head-scratching comparison to Barry Sanders, who often lost yards with his fancy footwork. Just because Starks has some wiggle doesn't mean he is an East-West guy. To paraphrase "Helter Skelter", Starks may be a lover but he ain't no dancer.

I don't know that he meant it as a direct comparison, more like an example to his point. I agree with your post here overall, but Grant is a one cut SLAM runner. When the hole opens he might go all the way....when not he gets a yard. Starks does have a wierd ability to fall forward at almost all times, which is cool as well.

I am on record as preferring the younger starks, but I don't mind having both at the price we have them at....good issue to have.

[rbaloha1]

IMO Starks is effective in all situations. Grant needs space to utilize vision and cutback abilities.

[wist43]

I have to admit that Starks clearly looked like the better player on Thursday. I went into the season backing Grant to be the starter in a 65/35 split, but after seeing each of them against New Orleans I think that should be reversed.

Don't know if the ankle is a problem for Grant, but he doesn't look like the same player; while Starks has shown good vision and instincts. Regardless, if both stay healthy, I like our RB situation for the most part.

[sharpe1027]

Starks falls forward more often because he doesn't often let tacklers hit him head on. More often than not, they are hitting him low and somewhat from the side. I think that is because he is able to see the tackle coming and change his angle just enough. Grant generally picks a hole and hits it at full speed. Grant has more chance of hitting a crease before the LBers and sometimes even the safeties can get there, but the defenders also can get a good bead on him once he makes his decision.

So, while Starks looks slower than Grant sometimes, that might be a trade-off for running under control and being able to change directions. AT the end of the day they are different backs with different styles, but similar results.

[Deputy Nutz]

I am sick of Harlan posting threads about subject(football) that he knows nothing about.

I think it is too early in the season to speculate which running back is going to be the dominate work horse out of the backfileld this season. I think having two capable backs makes it a long season for the opposition. come week 14 the Packers are going to have a running back with fresh legs regardless if it is Grant or Starks. Neither one of them is an All Pro, but they are good enough to get the job done.

Grant can catch the ball out of the backfield just fine, he might not be Edgar Bennett, but he is adequate.

Starks scares me in pass pro, he needs to be way more consistent in his blitz pickup and blocking.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I think it is too early in the season to speculate which running back is going to be the dominate work horse out of the backfileld this season .

Excellent point. If you wait for the future to happen, then you know for sure. Takes the guess work out.

[hoosier]

I have a question about the poll, or maybe it is more like a criticism. Supposing we feel that Starks and Grant are "really about the same" but we also suspect one or both of them are not that into "sharing." Two equals who don't play well with others: the poll does not allow for that possibility.