Starks out for the year?!?

[pbmax]

Its probably foolish to count on him due to his inability to stay healthy.

But an occasional 22 yard TD is PRECISELY why he was the best option for this offense given current choices. 6 points and a threatening run game are precisely what the O needs versus Cover 2. He did make poorer decisions in holes than Grant but far less frequently than Green. Stark's negative runs not withstanding, he has a burst that Grant used to have and Green only has begun to show. Last year it seemed that Starks was battling something nagging every other week.

Running for 3.5 yards per carry and no negative runs is fine, but its not going to help pull a team out of Cover 2, though it can help with down and distance.

I was hoping for a return to the regular bursts we saw in 2010, but as I said initially, expecting that to last is foolish at this point.

[Pugger]

This is neither surprising nor much of a concern to me. It has been one injury after another with Starks, I was expecting something sooner or later. For the last two seasons, Starks gives the illusion of accomplishing something as a RB because of an occasional run here and there, but when you look at the entire performance in a game or season, he has been no better than Grant or Green.

The Packers running game is bad with Starks and isn't likely to be any worse without him.

I was thinking the same thing. That poor young man just can't stay healthy.

We just resigned Grant but you have to wonder why teams are passing on Tim Hightower who is 3 years younger.

[Guiness]

I wonder what De'Mond Parker is doing these days.

Dunno, but Kregg Lumpkin is playing for the Giants, I heard his name when we played them. Oddly though, his profile page at nfl.com doesn't have anything, doesn't even list it as a game he played in. I don't know why he was mentioned and if he was even on the field.

[Patler]

But an occasional 22 yard TD is PRECISELY why he was the best option for this offense given current choices. 6 points and a threatening run game are precisely what the O needs versus Cover 2. He did make poorer decisions in holes than Grant but far less frequently than Green. Stark's negative runs not withstanding, he has a burst that Grant used to have and Green only has begun to show. Last year it seemed that Starks was battling something nagging every other week.

Running for 3.5 yards per carry and no negative runs is fine, but its not going to help pull a team out of Cover 2, though it can help with down and distance.

Maybe, but a 21 yard TD every 4, 5, or 6 games isn't likely to concern DCs all that much either, when the rest of his runs are 4 yards or less and many are for no yards or negative yardage. Green can break an occasional long one too. He had a 40 yarder early in the year, and a 20 yarder a few weeks ago. That's pretty much my point, Starks doesn't make a difference, either positive or negative. Just another back similar to all the others they have had since Ahman Green. On a particularly good day he can have a nice game, but alone he does not elevate the running game from mediocrity.

Starks/Green, six of one, half-a-dozen of the other.

[mmmdk]

What's In-Saine up to?

[Guiness]

What's In-Saine up to?

IR. Like most of our other RB's.

[Bossman641]

IR. Like most of our other players.

Fixed

[woodbuck27]

Can we get Grant back now? I have a jersey and everything!

Number 25 ! As far as I can see. That number has been kept back and maybe waiting for the call to Ryan Grant?

http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/67882/ryan-grant-can-be-part-of-packers-solution

Ryan Grant can be part of Packers' solution.

December, 5, 2012

Dec 5, 2012 ... 10:09AM ET ... By: Kevin Seifert ESPN.com

" ..... the Packers tried to move on from Grant this season, and I get why they are going to re-sign him. This is an emergency move, one that relied on the good character of both sides to avoid burning bridges. Grant isn't the player the Packers envisioned in their backfield during the stretch run, but he might well prove to be their best option." Fr. LINK

GO PACKERS !

[woodbuck27]

Maybe, but a 21 yard TD every 4, 5, or 6 games isn't likely to concern DCs all that much either, when the rest of his runs are 4 yards or less and many are for no yards or negative yardage. Green can break an occasional long one too. He had a 40 yarder early in the year, and a 20 yarder a few weeks ago. That's pretty much my point, Starks doesn't make a difference, either positive or negative. Just another back similar to all the others they have had since Ahman Green. On a particularly good day he can have a nice game, but alone he does not elevate the running game from mediocrity.

Starks/Green, six of one, half-a-dozen of the other.

I appreciate your candor mmmm .... sure.

I appreciate your compassion mmmm... maybe!?... you need some work there. Food for thought!?

No ....... YOUR >>>> 'YOU'.

Patler 'just for you'... Life is part observation. One thing I've learned from life is when you get down to the brass tacks RE: people. They seldom change.

Another....that's what makes the world spin Patler. The differences we discover in one another. It's all very interesting.

We've one thing in common here though, for the most part. The best interests and welfare of the Green Bay Packers.


GO PACK GO !

[pbmax]

Johnny White went to IR to make room for Grant, Starks still on roster. Sure sounds like an MCL/PCL kinda deal.

[Pugger]

We gotta find whomever has that injury voodoo doll and take it from them.

Lovie Smith?

[LEWCWA]

That's just it, he "seemed" better than Green, and last year he "seemed" better than Grant, but when all is in, his performance has been no better than theirs. He runs hard and breaks a few tackles on a couple plays, or gets a 22 yard TD, and everyone forgets all the other plays in which he lost 1 or 2. Remember last year when I did the carry by carry comparisons for games in which both Grant and Starks played? Starks usually had one bigger run, but a lot more negative plays than Grant. Same this year. On Sunday, even with his 22 yard TD, Starks had a lower per carry average on 15 carries than Green did on his 12 carries. If you take out his three carries for 9 yards in the Packers last clock-killing possession, Starks was 12/57 including the 22 yarder, and Green was 12/58 with a long of 11.

Starks as a runner is more of an an illusion than reality. Running behind the same blockers in the same games, overall he has done no better than Grant or Green, even though at times he looks like he is.

As for being more assignment sure than others, when Starks became healthy a few weeks ago, yet was playing very little, several writers reported that Starks wasn't being given more opportunities because he is still too shaky in his assignments, even with more experience than Green.

I always get a kick outta this, if you take away his big run, then he wasn't very good. Well damn if you take away AP's 3 big runs he wasn't very good either! Thing is he did have the big run and that factors in!

[sharpe1027]

The difference between Starks and Green is not much because neither is that good.

[mraynrand]

I always get a kick outta this, if you take away his big run, then he wasn't very good. Well damn if you take away AP's 3 big runs he wasn't very good either! Thing is he did have the big run and that factors in!

I see your point, and this happens, but Patler isn't really doing that here; in fact to compare Green and Starks more fairly, he took away the clock killing runs, which are typically shorter because, well, you're just killing the clock. Still, I like the comparisons where all their runs are listed. Hell, Barry Sanders sometimes looked like -1, -3, 2, 64, -1, 3, 18, etc. etc.

No matter, Green and Grant will be adequate, the fault for the poor running game will be squarely on the O-line; specifically, I will place all the blame on EDS.

[swede]

...specifically, I will place all the blame on EDS.

Way to kick a guy when he's down.