Sharing: Are Grant & Starks really about the same?

[Fritz]

Grant's carries - 4, 5, 10, 3, 4, 2, 8, 3, 1
Starks, carries - 0, 5, 10, (-2), 17, 4, 2, 3, 9, 3, 2, 4.

There is a consistency to Grant that is comforting (positve yardage on every carry).
There is a big play potential with Starks that is exciting (17 yard burst for a TD).
All-in-all, an awful lot of their runs produce about the same results, even if they look different getting it.

Well, I like the way Starks looks better than I like the way Grant looks when he runs. Because Starks looks better to me, he therefore is better. Stop with this numbers stuff.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Plus feel free to throw them screens occasionally as well.

In all the years we've seen Grant in G.B., how often does he get a screen pass? Once in a while. And never passes downfield.

I'm calling BS on Packers4Glory's claim that Grant is a superior blitz blocker and receiver. (Did he say that? If not, lets pretend he did.)

If Grant had those skills, he would be mentioned as a candidate to play on third downs. But no, the one constant from McCarthy's sets is you won't see Grant on the field on third down.

[Harlan Huckleby]

split the carries up, keep them both fresh

agreed. split the carries 60-30-10 (Starks, Grant, Green) and let the good times roll


BTW, for Badger fans:
Starks= Monty Ball
Grant= James White

They aren't that far apart, but Monty Ball has a little more shake than White, a little more power

[MJZiggy]

The one thing I did notice last night (and this is just in last night's game) is that when Starks hit the pile, the pile fell forward. Not as much with Grant.

[mission]

The one thing I did notice last night (and this is just in last night's game) is that when Starks hit the pile, the pile fell forward. Not as much with Grant.

The pile falls on Grant.

A couple of Starks' negative plays involved missed assignments on the line. It didn't happen often, I thought the OL played great, but only so much you can do with a guy in your face when you're taking the handoff.

[3irty1]

Sheesh you are such a RB troll Harlan.

Grant is everything you need at RB and asking for more is greedy. He'll never fumble and will always get every yard that's there. When a defense makes mistakes, they won't be able to catch him from behind.

Starks gets some yards that aren't there. He also doesn't look as fast as his college highlights show. Really good player but nobody is THAT much better than Ryan Grant without bringing some receiving skills to the table. Didn't watching Sproles and Ingram make all those nice catches out of the backfield wonder why our guys never do that? Especially since Starks is supposed to be a border-line WR in his ability to run routes and catch balls. If I don't see Starks get used as a receiver soon I'm going to call bullshit. Same with that new kickass arkansas tight end we've got. Prove it on TV or it didn't happen.

[King Friday]

Starks, Starks, and more Starks.

It's a young man's game...especially at RB.

[MJZiggy]

Starks, Starks, and more Starks.

It's a young man's game...especially at RB.

Depends. If what they say is true and it's more about the number of touches than pure age, then let Grant do some of the work and take some of the punishment. Extend Starks's career a little that way.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Sheesh you are such a RB troll Harlan.

You rang? OK, here's some more.

Cliff Chrystl & Eric Baranczyk weigh in: http://packersnews.greenbaypressgaze...etic-abilities
James Starks showed some explosion, and he did well as a pass blocker. That was a question about him coming in. On that play-action fake in the fourth quarter, the Saints’ defender was coming so hard off the edge, there wasn’t much Starks could do. And, on the flip side, he had some hustle plays where he deflected rushers just enough for Rodgers to get the ball off.

The big difference between Starks and Ryan Grant is that Starks has some burst out of a cut.

[rbaloha1]

Sheesh you are such a RB troll Harlan.

Grant is everything you need at RB and asking for more is greedy. He'll never fumble and will always get every yard that's there. When a defense makes mistakes, they won't be able to catch him from behind.

Starks gets some yards that aren't there. He also doesn't look as fast as his college highlights show. Really good player but nobody is THAT much better than Ryan Grant without bringing some receiving skills to the table. Didn't watching Sproles and Ingram make all those nice catches out of the backfield wonder why our guys never do that? Especially since Starks is supposed to be a border-line WR in his ability to run routes and catch balls. If I don't see Starks get used as a receiver soon I'm going to call bullshit. Same with that new kickass arkansas tight end we've got. Prove it on TV or it didn't happen.

Starks looks fast in college because the players are slower.

IMO Starks is better after initial contact. Powerfully built with big upside.

[Brandon494]

Starks is the more complete back but both will average around the same yards per carry. I like how they are starting with Grant then letting Starks finish them off, his TD run was a thing of beauty.

[Harlan Huckleby]

http://www.jsonline.com/packerinsider/129571968.html

Bob McGinn has his say:

Grant started and played eight of the first 10 snaps when a RB was on the field. From that point, Starks had 43 snaps to Grant's eight. The final 45-16 tally for Starks was reflective of their relative performances all summer. Grant is in great shape and seemed a little quicker than he did a month ago, but his run vision still isn't all the way back. Starks' bruising burst was evident when he ran through safeties Malcolm Jenkins and Harper on his TD run. Equally as impressive were the hard cuts that he made on two runs to escape when defenders suddenly appeared in his face. On the other hand, his lack of reliability in blitz pickup will wear thin if it continues. On the sack by Harper, Starks has to abort his fake and pick him up.

[bobblehead]

I think Starks' vision is EXCELLENT, he is an instinctive runner and Grant is limited to one cut. I see this as Stark's big edge between the two.

But that second move is why Starks gets negative or no gainers while Grant steadily gets positive yardage. As JH said, Grant makes manageable down/distances for Rodgers, while Starks sometimes doesn't. Ok, you can attack me as a Grant lover now.

[KalamazooPackerFan]

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.

[Harlan Huckleby]

But that second move is why Starks gets negative or no gainers while Grant steadily gets positive yardage. As JH said, Grant makes manageable down/distances for Rodgers, while Starks sometimes doesn't. Ok, you can attack me as a Grant lover now.

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.