What about Mr. Starks?
by Strohman on Dec 5, 2010 4:49 PM CST
Email
PrintSomebody tell me how good that kid looked?! I've been an unapologetic Starks fan for a long time (since training camp) and have been waiting for the kid to get a chance. Well today Packer fans, James Starks got his chance... And what did he do w/ that chance? Nothing really special, but something pretty impressive nonetheless! 18 carries for 78 yds doesn't sound like much, but when you consider almost half came on a long, game ending FG drive to ice the game you suddenly need to take notice!
Starks is a 6'2 218 pd RB from Buffalo. You would think being that tall as a RB is a disadvantage, but if you look at him, he is mostly upper body height, not long legged. That is something that make a Huge difference... Compare Starks to Grant, they are very similar ht and wt, but Starks has much shorter legs, which allows him to be much more elusive and maneuverable! Whereas Grant, looking at him is really long legged, which makes it much more difficulty for him to make sudden cuts and change of direction. So while Grant looks like an upright RB when he hits the Line of Scrimmage, Starks looks more like a 6'0 RB, who when he hits the hole can still make a sudden cut in the hole andon the second level! Can you say Greenesque?!!
Look for James Starks to take over the majority of carries on 1st and 2nd downs, leaving Jackson in the role he was more destined for as a 3rd down RB! Not saying Starks is definitely the answer, but IMO, he will be... James Starks the GB Packers new Stud RB of the future, and quite possibly the present! Give it up to the Kid!!!
244 comments
|
3 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I'll eat some crow on this
I know I didn’t want to pass judgment till I saw him on the field, take some hits, see what he could do at an NFL level. Frankly he looked the best out of all the of the RB’s out there today. There are also not many better run defenses than SF right now, so I’m starting to get excited about Starks.
If he can help us balance out some of our offense then we could be in pretty good shape.
I am excited!
I think this was a big confidence builder for starks. Going up against the pretty solid run defense of the 49ers and being able to do what he did in his first game action in almost 2 years is huge. I think this will give him the confidence to know that he can play at this level and be successful. He even had some good plays on special teams with those short kicks the 49ers were using.
I was impressed, and if he can improve on what he did today I think it could take our offense to another level. I like him, and look forward to seeing how he develops. It looks like the coaches like him a lot, too.
Gotta give you props here Mr. Stroh
You probably stood in his corner as long as McCarthy did, and longer than anyone here. Waiting ever so patiently. It was only one game, but it was enough for me to see a noticeable difference from Grant, Jackson, and Kuhn. Starks looks like our future. Very powerful runner with a good burst and very good balance. He didn’t go down easy and ran hard. I was very impressed with him!
"No player is greater than a team."
-Vince Lombardi
Thanx...
Much appreciated. Been waiting ever so patiently for Starks to get his chance and it finally came! Just in time for some December home games at Lambeau too… Very impressed w/ his powerful running style, that was one of my worries w/ him seeing as he hadn’t played in almost 2 yrs. But he brought it tough and ran hard!! I always liked his running style and elusiveness and cutting ability.
I’m trying not to get too excited, but finding it difficult! Next week we have the porous Lions run D, so Starks could have another good game, before seeing the tough NE run D!
You've been Stroh'd™!!!
Look at you all posting a fanpost. :-)
You were definitely his biggest fan all season, I’ll give ya that, though you are also Jones’ biggest fan and he was a HUGE disappointment yesterday. I need to see him put up two in a row here…soon, if he want to get his big deal.
Starks was a breath of fresh air though…
The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010
James Jones = streaky WR
He’ll have a great game or two, then get shut down completely/fumble in gut-wrenching fashion in crunch time.
Wisconsin, Big Ten Champions for the first time since 1999...
Can Abbrederis shoot the long three and effectively distribute the ball to his big men?
by OBrienSchofieldismyHero on Dec 6, 2010 11:40 PM CST up reply actions
I must have missed something here.
BCB free since 8/24/10 and happier for it.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Dec 5, 2010 8:15 PM CST up reply actions
And, as McCarthy mentioned
in his post-game today, Starks tends to gain an extra yard or three at the end of his runs, by falling forward!
Everybody is going to talk about how high he is, just because of his particular build. But he’s a talented young man and when he comes off the back end, you better watch out, it’s going to the end zone. He has that kind of ability. He falls forward and the bigger backs have that ability. And that’s the difference. That’s the difference between second-and-7 and second-and-4.
McCarthy loves him some big backs! :)
TT bashers - turning my stomach since 2005!
The glass is way more than half-full!
Love that excerpt. I like that Starks seemed to finish most of his runs by falling forward too. I always thought that, that was one of the problems with Grant. It seemed like he always lost at the point of attack, and would fall either backwards or sideways much more then forwards. Starks definitely looks like the real deal.
by packallday555 on Dec 6, 2010 11:18 AM CST up reply actions
poor man's adrian peterson
I really liked what I saw from him (and the offensive line) today! I was pretty high on Starks coming into the season too and I don’t think anyone can be disappointed. The biggest difference between him and Bjax is the ability to fight for a couple extra yards and fall forward. Also, he hits the line of scrimmage faster than Jackson.
I like how the coaches gave him a chance… as I was a little worried he would get only a few carries for the rest of the year.
I am a little worried of going overboard though. I think teams now know what kind of player he is and wouldn’t be too surprised if he doesn’t have as good of a game next week. But for this week… he was great!
Now I am curious what they will do with the roster, keep starks, jackson, and kuhn? or keep starks, jackson, and nance? I would like to see kuhn moving back to fullback and nance taking the #3 spot. I prefer Johnson over Hall as the other FB.
That's kind of a good thing in a way too though
as it will open up the playaction game for Rodgers now.
"No player is greater than a team."
-Vince Lombardi
And BJax
can get back to being the third down back, which is what he’s suited for – 4 catches for 63 yards today.
Son, when you participate in sporting events, it's not whether you win or lose : it's how drunk you get.
keep starks, jackson, and nance? I would like to see kuhn moving back to fullback and nance taking the #3 spot. I prefer Johnson over Hall as the other FB.
Yes please.
Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"
But he's our best run blocking FB
You have your Pros and Cons with Johnson. With Korey Hall, you just have an average overall player that makes the team because of Special Teams. Johnson is a below average ST contributor, has poor hands, but is an amazing run blocker. His value will likely increase as we enter the month of December and January as our running game picks up.
"No player is greater than a team."
-Vince Lombardi
Exactly. Even if all his worth is, is run blocking I’ll stick take it because having a FB who can blow someone can help our running game (which needs all the help it can get). Hall is basically the same player as Kuhn but probably not as good running. I’d much rather keep Johnson, cut Hall, and then use that spot for another LB who can play special teams.
by packallday555 on Dec 6, 2010 11:21 AM CST up reply actions
no. I'd rather keep all the above except Nance, Hall is just too good on ST
The only glove he needs is a batting glove. - RWShow on Adam Dunn signing.
So you would prefer keeping 3 FB on the roster?
Just for the sake of ST? That just seems silly to me.
Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"
Especially when it doesn’t really seem to be helping our STs. If we’re going to overload at a position for STs purposes, it seems like we’d be better off doing so with LB’s or DB’s. Both are probably better tacklers, and probably have more speed.
by packallday555 on Dec 6, 2010 11:19 AM CST up reply actions
Im fine with that, I'd just rather not cut Hall, who is good on ST for Nance
The only glove he needs is a batting glove. - RWShow on Adam Dunn signing.
...That's exactly what PAD is advocating
Unless I’m reading him completely wrong.
Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"
I know. Im agreeing with him.
The only glove he needs is a batting glove. - RWShow on Adam Dunn signing.
PAD is advocating cutting Hall for Nance
That is what you agree with?
Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"
no then thats not what I want
Im ok with cutting hall for say a linebacker, but not nance
The only glove he needs is a batting glove. - RWShow on Adam Dunn signing.
That’s actually what I was saying. Though, I think Nance will be cut too with the emergence of Starks.
by packallday555 on Dec 7, 2010 9:34 AM CST up reply actions
I don’t see what Nance brings to the equation…I haven’t seen anything to get too excited about from him in (admittedly) limited action.
The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010
Agree
Nance is at best a decent backup. But he doesn’t have anything that he does better than anyone else… So I really don’t see the point of hanging onto him beyond this season! Unless the Packers aren’t going to bring Grant back at 5.5M next year, then Nance has no place, no role!
You've been Stroh'd™!!!
The Grant thing is interesting to think about. What if Starks breaks out here late in the season? If he were to do so, I could kind of see Thompson cutting Grant loose. I’ve felt for a while now that we need something then Grant. Too me, he hasn’t really been anything but average since the 2007 season. I had been holding out some hope that he’d regain that form after dealing with a hamstring in 2008 but he didn’t look much different in 2009.
by packallday555 on Dec 7, 2010 12:28 PM CST up reply actions
I'm not TT
but I would keep Grant and see how a 1-2 punch of Grant/Starks goes next season.
Wisconsin, Big Ten Champions for the first time since 1999...
Can Abbrederis shoot the long three and effectively distribute the ball to his big men?
by OBrienSchofieldismyHero on Dec 7, 2010 1:41 PM CST up reply actions
Thats what I expect...
However, I think they may be a little too alike for it to succeed as much as you’d like… With a 1-2 punch, you generally want the RB to be much different in style to force the D to adapt or to catch them unable to adapt! That said, I kinda expect a Grant/Starks sharing at RB…
You've been Stroh'd™!!!
I wish we'd trade Grant
For starters, Grant isn’t better than average as PAD mentioned. Now he’s coming off an ACL tear, so will he have the ability to even make that 1 cut anymore? In the process, we’ll be paying him 5.5 million if not more due to incentives. I’d like to trade him and get something out of him, even if that is only a 6th round draft pick. It’s a combination of his ACL tear and finances for my reason in trading Grant. I don’t think it would be a dominating 1-2 punch considering they play a very similar running style.
"No player is greater than a team."
-Vince Lombardi
Grant had an ankle injury...
Not an ACL… Trading him would be fine, but I don’t know what you would get for him. He’s a system RB, IMO… In another scheme, I don’t think he’s nearly as effective.
You've been Stroh'd™!!!
Probably not much, if anything. Like you said, he’s a system guy. Stick him in another scheme, or really on a team that doesn’t rely almost solely on it’s passing game and I doubt he’s successful.
by packallday555 on Dec 7, 2010 6:44 PM CST up reply actions
Trade him to Denver
Lord knows he’d fit in that running scheme.
Wisconsin, Big Ten Champions for the first time since 1999...
"What's your formula for the corner?" -Doctor Sheldon Cooper from The Big Bang Theory
by OBrienSchofieldismyHero on Dec 7, 2010 7:13 PM CST up reply actions
Who knows what they'll implement now with McDaniels fired
Maybe you mean Washington to be in Shanny’s system?
Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"
That might actually be something they’d be interested in. Portis looks like he’s done, and while Torain’s got talent, he seems really injury prone.
by packallday555 on Dec 8, 2010 10:13 AM CST up reply actions
Denver's running game suffered under McDaniels
I dont know why, but I’m assuming because he went away from the zone blocking scheme that was so successfull there for so many years.
"No player is greater than a team."
-Vince Lombardi
My bad. Ankle injury
Like I said though, trade him for whatever we can get. I’m cool with a 6th Round pick if that’s all we can get for him. I don’t feel comfortable paying him 5.5 or 5.7 Million Dollars a year if not more. He’ll only play part time with Starks being available. That and trading AJ Hawk can free up a lot of cash flow and be used to help resign guys like Desmond Bishop and maybe even Cullen Jenkins.
"No player is greater than a team."
-Vince Lombardi
I think the real interesting question is what happens next year when Grant is healthy
Does TT pick 5 of the following or go with more? Grant, Starks, Jackson, Nance, Kuhn, Hall, Johnson. Of the 7 I think you have to get rid of Hall. Beyond that I’m not sure.
Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"
and Nance IMO
Nance doesn’t really have any trait that one of the others doesn’t do better.
You've been Stroh'd™!!!
You're probably right
In a perfect world, I think I’d like the Packers to get rid of Jackson. I think we know exactly what he is capable of now and outside of 3rd down that doesn’t appear to be much, but that essentially puts Starks in the third-down back role. If either Nance or Starks is able to show that they can handle 3rd down, I wouldn’t be sad to see Jackson go is what I’m saying I guess, but that probably makes Nance redundant.
Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"
I wouldn't underestimate the role of 3rd down backs
This role is getting more and more important every year. Jackson is more important to this team than you think. Certainly he can’t carry the rock like everyone else, but he is our best pass blocking HB and has the best hands of them all. He’s shifty and will get 1st downs as a receiving back. He’s very important to this offense as we rely so much on the pass. Cutting Jackson would be like the Vikings cutting Chester Taylor. It would hurt.
"No player is greater than a team."
-Vince Lombardi
Fair enough points
I think I’m just frustrated with Jackson’s lack of production as a traditional RB this year. I suppose it wasn’t long ago that I was wishing Jackson would get more carries because he looked good playing the third down role.
Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"
I don't see Jackson going anywhere, anytime soon!
Losing him would hurt in much the way Taylor hurt vikes… Favre got hit alot more cuz of Taylor being gone and they lost a guy that converts 3rd downs. Rodgers would suffer Jackson being gone!!!
You've been Stroh'd™!!!
I think the Chester Taylor comp is pretty fair
He’s a guy that the casual fan probably wouldn’t care is off the team, but you sure do miss him when he’s gone. Alright, you guys have convinced me otherwise.
Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"
Agreed. I think we’ll see Thompson keep Grant, Starks, and Jackson. Though, isn’t Grant scheduled to make a lump sum of money next season, or is it the year after? Either way, I don’t really see Thompson paying him that big increase.
by packallday555 on Dec 6, 2010 6:07 PM CST up reply actions
Not sure now...
Alot of Grants extra money was tied to production. He needed to hit like 4000 yds in 3 seasons to get the extra $$$ tacked onto his contract! He will still get paid like 4 or 5M, but it won’t be 7M like it might have been… His injury prevented him reaching those incentive levels, I think! And his contract might be up after the ‘11 season so he likely won’t be a Packer in ‘12. As usual it seems Thompson was planning ahead in drafting Starks… At least thats how I’ve always seen him approaching things!!!
You've been Stroh'd™!!!
His contract is up after 2011
It looks like he’s due $3.5 million in salary and $2.25 million in roster bonuses in 2011.
Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"
But if he had been healthy and hit a certain production level the roster bonus would have been much larger!
And he would be another 2.5M on top of what he’s already getting.
You've been Stroh'd™!!!
Big Game for Starks
I’ve been on the bandwagon since we drafted him, and am happy for the other Starks fans that noticed his contributions today. He was better than anyone expected, and even got a chance to pass protect. That opportunity is important because MM likes the every down back, and the fact that they have faith in the kid to protect Rodgers out there in his first start proves that they plan to get him involved this season.
I agree with you guys, I hope to see him emerge into the 1st and 2nd down runner we need for cold football.
Thanks for the write-up
I couldn’t see the game where I live. (Although I did get to see Favre knocked out, so that was some small consolation)
Love that picture with Starks and Edgar Bennett...
I’m sold on Starks. NEarly 2 year layoff and he comes out of nowhere against the 8th ranked rushing defense and looks THAT good? And you know he can only improve. It’s really amazing, but he has the speed of a Jackson and the power of a Kuhn maybe? Maybe not that powerful , but he was certainly hitting people and making them go backwards!
Like I said, I’ve drank the Kool-aid — I’m sold on Starks!
Starks speed
Go watch the highlight tape. They show a highlight of Buffalo vs Georgia Tech. In the tape you can see Starks break a big run and he turns on the jets. He’s got great top speed! How do I know? Because in this highlight you see him outrun Georgia Tech safety Morgan Burnett. Not only does he out run Burnett, but he creates separation. Burnett speed was discussed in camp and compared to Tramon Williams (commonly known to be the fastest guy on our roster until Sam Shields got here) So if, Tramon was the fastest guy on our squad, and Burnett is just as fast as he is, and Starks burned Burnett, then James Starks has excellent breakaway speed that we should get to see pretty soon if he continues to get carries.
So there’s my algebra, hope if makes sense.
Starks isn't that fast!
Don’t get me wrong, he’s plenty fast, but he isn’t a sprinter speed kinda guy like Sheilds! Starks ran a 4.5 40 at the combine/pro day. He has really good game speed though. He might be fast enough to outrun some angles? Yeah… But not enough to outrun a Shields for sure and Burnett maybe… Also Tramon nearly in Shields speed. Williams in alot of quick, but top speed not as much!
You've been Stroh'd™!!!
Game speed is all that matters on game day.
and I think he is a little faster than you are giving him credit for. Also, a 40 time can be misleading at times.
good thing you did, too.
I wonder how many Detroit fans wish they’d taken Anquan Boldin 2nd overall instead of Charles Rogers…
Really, game speed is underrated and 40 time is overrated. How’ve all the speed picks Al Davis made worked out? When he picks a guy like Rolando McClain, he looks like a genius.
Wisconsin, Big Ten Champions for the first time since 1999...
Can Abbrederis shoot the long three and effectively distribute the ball to his big men?
by OBrienSchofieldismyHero on Dec 6, 2010 11:44 PM CST up reply actions
The tape don't lie
I don’t know what specific kind, or classification his speed goes under, but the he seems to have that instinctive quickness and balance.
(CAUTION: I’m about to make a statement that could be mistaken for comparing Starks to Vick as equals, but I in no way believe they are equals in just about anything)
Vick has a special quickness about him, he can just react faster than other players. That is the type of quickness were taking about. Whether its call “game quickness” or “instinctive quickness”.
WHAT!!?!? You think Starks could do exactly what Vick is doing in Philly!?!!?!
:D
The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010
…hmmm… big, talented, change-of-pace back wearing #44…
Keep him away from the laundry room!
by Curly Lambeau on Dec 5, 2010 7:36 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
Watcha wanna bet
Starks’ stay in Green Bay is longer than Davenport’s?
TT bashers - turning my stomach since 2005!
The glass is way more than half-full!
Starks should not be on ST...
especially not as someone who is an up-back.
by Bush League All Star on Dec 5, 2010 10:16 PM CST reply actions
i'm assuming nance will take his spot when he gets healthy (that is... if he sticks around)
but it was nice to have someone who could run it a little, because they were avoiding shields.
by Chief Oshkosh on Dec 5, 2010 10:18 PM CST up reply actions
Darn.
Disappointed I missed this game now.
Anthony Tolliver says "Get that weak stuff outta here!"
EXTEND JASON RICHARDSON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sweetness…I’ve wanted to see him get his chance! I loved what I saw on youtube of this kid, was just concerned if he’d actually get to see the field ever. What makes me even MORE excited is that it puts Bjax on 3rd downs again. Jackson is so much more effective as a 3rd down back. Hopefully this is a sign of things to come, the 9ers are a decent run d so this is a good sign in my book!
The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010
Stroh has proved his point!!
I have been screaming for a while that we needed a running game and I really feel that we may have found it! Stroh good for you for sticking with your gut on this one! After yesterdays game I am definitely on the Starks bandwagon I hate being a bandwagon jumper but this is one that I feel is worth jumping on! I will admit that I was a skeptic just cause I hate to get all excited and then have to deal with the disappointment but now that I have seen what he can do against a solid run D it will be fun to watch him finish out the season.
DREB
by Packer-fan-atic77 on Dec 6, 2010 10:00 AM CST reply actions
Good start
Good call so far Stroh.
If this kid is the real deal, I’ll be that much more impressed with TT.
Sometimes nothin is a real cool hand.
Still green
The guy is almost as green a Shields, another stud who is early in development.
To start out so well and, as Cartman would say, running with such author-rit-tay makes things exciting.
Got to love the magic acts this team pulls off. They turn green into gold.
Now, just make the playoffs please.
They = TT
And it’s not magic or luck. Ted catches a ton of flak for the way he runs this team, but all of these young promising players who are filling in wonderfully were hand picked by Ted with draft picks he had because he did not trade those draft picks for some of the FAs that some fans covet so dearly.
by StephanL on Dec 6, 2010 11:41 AM CST up reply actions 4 recs
+!
And a rec’d coming your way!!! Don’t know about your stance on Thompson from the beginning, but if nothing else you’ve seen the lite!
Draft picks = young up and coming players = alof of depth = lower salary cap = better team chemistry!!!
You've been Stroh'd™!!!
Faith in the Organization. Period.
This is the greatest franchise in professional sports, so I expect and have faith that the guys running the show know their business. When Ted ended the Favre era, it polarized the Packer Nation/Family. I stood by the move and have been a sort of TT advocate and defender since. A-Rod is a massive success and TT is a genius. True story. People who complain about him and rally for FA acquisitions miss one of the best things about this organization. We make talent, we don’t wish for luck in the draft or pay premiums for FAs that rarely pan out.
Everyone is throwing down the credit to you my friend, for being a Starks bandwagon pioneer. I will too. I’ll add that I’ve been there with you since we drafted him.
Nice to be vindicated, eh, Stroh?
Three / four years ago, you and I were part of a pretty vocal minority defending TT over at PackersNews, weren’t we?
(Wonder if Loft King and K-bro ever came around. Laughin’ MAO!!!)
TT bashers - turning my stomach since 2005!
The glass is way more than half-full!
BOOM! REC'D!
Wisconsin, Big Ten Champions for the first time since 1999...
Can Abbrederis shoot the long three and effectively distribute the ball to his big men?
by OBrienSchofieldismyHero on Dec 7, 2010 1:42 PM CST up reply actions
Hey, I hear you...
You and I had our share of arguments/discussion w/ others over the move to go w/ Rodgers. We’ve come out vindicated on the other side! LOL at LoftKing!!!
You've been Stroh'd™!!!
A character at work
I used to do security work at SC Johnson in Racine. I worked there when we went through the Favre divorce.
Anyway, there was a guy at work who was so offended and appalled by TT’s move, he said he couldn’t be a Packer fan anymore, or some nonsense like that.
Ever since going through those arguments with the TT hater, I became a TT advocate.
I love the TT way. I know from time to time I whine about a FA we passed on but in the end I fully trust that TT is doing the right thing. You can’t argue with the results. Heck, look how “just a third rounder” turned out for the Vikes this year! ;-)
The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010
Couldn't agree more!
The drafting, and just as important is the development of that talent.
Just look at our division..Detroit drafts, but doesn’t develop (and has bad injury luck). Minnesota nd Chicago draft ok, but Chicago can’t develop and Minny throws away picks.
TT’s way works best for a consistent contender.
Sometimes nothin is a real cool hand.
Detroit has been better since Millen left
Their past two drafts have been pretty solid.
Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"
Yeah, I think Detroit has done a tremendous job drafting lately. Stafford, Pettigrew, the linebacker out of UW, Best, Johnson, Delmas, Suh. All of those guys provide a pretty good core group of guys for them. Call me crazy but if Stafford hadn’t gone down, I seriously think they could have 3 or 4 more wins. I mean how many games have they had that have come down to the wire, where they’ve basically beaten themselves?
Assuming Stafford is healthy next season, I wouldn’t be surprised if they were contending for a wildcard.
by packallday555 on Dec 6, 2010 6:12 PM CST up reply actions
Thats my prediction...
Be close to a playoff spot next year and contend w/ Packers the next year… In a way Stafford being hurt could help them! Higher draft pick, better talent than had he been healthy…
You've been Stroh'd™!!!
Yeah, I was actually a conversation pretty similar to this one with my pops a few weeks ago. It really sucks that they’re going to have another really, really high pick.
by packallday555 on Dec 6, 2010 8:01 PM CST up reply actions
Pretty much what I have been saying, as well.
close to a playoff spot next year and contend w/ Packers the next year…
TT bashers - turning my stomach since 2005!
The glass is way more than half-full!
McCarthy picks his assistants,
and TT picked McCarthy, so, ultimately TT is responsible; therefore, it still boils down to
‘They’ = TT!
TT bashers - turning my stomach since 2005!
The glass is way more than half-full!
That's a false description of the opposing argument.
No one I’ve ever seen here has ever suggested you don’t build a team primarily through the draft. The position is that mixing in free agents and yes, trade acquisitions increases the margin for error when TT goofs on a pick, as every GM (even the great ones) do. Suggesting that Starks proves you right and them wrong is just nonsense.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Dec 8, 2010 7:14 AM CST up reply actions
Sometimes that can be helpful
I don’t think we need any free agents this upcoming offseason though. I’m now glad we didn’t waste a 3rd Round Pick on Marshawn Lynch, who’s having a dissapointing season overall. For the most part though, the Packers don’t have many holes. Anything that deems a thought of upgrading can be addressed in 1 draft. Afterall, we are talking about upgrading the ROLB position. Is that a serious need? It isn’t in my opinion the way our pass rush is. But our pass rush most certainly could go from good to great. For the most part though, it’s hard to find Free Agents that we should consider bringing in. Had Joey Porter demanded a far less pay roll, I would have loved to bring him in to be a pass rush specialist. That was last year though, and I wouldn’t feel comfortable paying him the salary the Cardinals are right now. Unfortunately, that’s the way Free Agency works a lot of times. I’m not hopeful for free agents this offseason though because we don’t have many needs. Do you have anybody on mind that you specifically want? I’m not opposed to the idea 100%, but don’t feel we need any at this point either.
"No player is greater than a team."
-Vince Lombardi
Yeah, the Lynch deal always gets thrown out there.
And it’s easy to point out his struggles in Seattle. Maybe he would have been bad here too, but maybe not. Would we have lost to Miami and/or Washington with a better option at RB than Jackson? It sure would have helped, and Starks, who many have been curious about since he was drafted, wasn’t available to play.
I’ll tell you one thing, I sure would rather be 9-3 right now than 8-4. The road to the playoffs would be a lot clearer and a bye and a home game in the playoffs (maybe more than one) would look a lot more likely.
I don’t know enough about the pending free agency class to have any names in mind right now. They need help at OG, OT, CB, DE, OLB, RB (yeah, I still think they need an RB) and a return guy too, maybe even a punter. The depth of the team has been shown by the fact that in a disastrous season injury-wise they’re still more than competitive, and yeah, that speaks very well of Thompson’s drafts. But this team is close to being the best team in the league. It’ll be hard to find new starters at LT or RT (depending on what Bulaga is actually capable of), OLB, DE (assuming Jenkins is on the way out, which looks likely), a guy to rush opposite Matthews (I like Zombo as much as the next guy, but they need more push than he’s provided so far), OG (for Colledge, who’s barely adequate and part of the problem in the ground game) through a single draft, but they might have to do exactly that if they want to get over the top and win a title. Unless a handful of guys really develop from this year to next OR if Thompson has the greatest draft of his career, looking outside the organization might be necessary.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Dec 8, 2010 8:28 PM CST up reply actions
I would like to see how you rank the importance of the listed positions...
[…They need help at OG, OT, CB, DE, OLB, RB (yeah, I still think they need an RB) and a return guy too, maybe even a punter. The depth of the team has been shown by the fact that in a disastrous season injury-wise they’re still more than competitive, and yeah, that speaks very well of Thompson’s drafts…]
Mine would go:
1. OLB
2. OL
3. DE
4. CB
5. KR
6. P (I hate to put this last, because I think P’s are undervalued)
Don’t necessarily have to answer these in the draft, but TT probably will try. I would have to look at the free agent market to see if any guy has TT potential.
by Bush League All Star on Dec 9, 2010 1:12 AM CST up reply actions
I'd probably flip the top two...
… and split the OTs from the OGs.
1. OT
2. OLB
3. DE
4. OG
5. KR
6. CB
There are guys on the roster that might resolve the issue at OG, and if they sign Jenkins, DE becomes less of a concern with Jolly coming back (and I do think they’ll take him back and keep him if he’s committed to resuming his career). They’ve got to get Williams off of PR and I’d like to see them get Shields off of KR too.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Dec 9, 2010 6:59 AM CST up reply actions
I think we are alright at OG, but could use a late draft pick for depth after Colledge leaves
I’m thinking TJ Lang can move over to LG. I think he’s more than ready to start. You could throw Jason Spitz in for an open competition at LG or move Spitz to Center if we don’t draft one. I firmly believe Scott Wells is the weak link in our Offensive Line. If we can get an upgrade there, I would be exstatic!
If somehow Costanzo or Carimi fall to us in the draft, I’m all for it. Otherwise, I say stick with what we have and continue to develop Marshall Newhouse at OT.
I think an upgrade at CB is more ideal than DE. If Jenkins leaves, we have Neal to take over. All we would need is a late pick for someone to add depth. I think you said it best “if they sign Jenkins.” Although, Jenkins and Jolly played 2 very different roles. The RE in a 3-4 is usually the pass rushing defensive lineman. The LE usually is just another space filler or someone to take up blockers and stop the run.
I’m starting to like Shields on KR. I certainly don’t trust him at PR, but he’s doing good so far returning kicks. So I think we do need to bring in a Punt Returner for sure.
Top Needs:
1. OT
2. C
3. OLB
4. PR
5. CB
"No player is greater than a team."
-Vince Lombardi
First, Lynch wasn’t acquired for a third.
Second its not safe to assume that his success or lack thereof would be the same from one team to another. Seattle has a terrible oline and was without one of their best linemen for almost the entire time he was there. Okung is back now and its made a big difference in how he’s done.
His running style would have still been a very nice complement to Jackson.
The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010
He was aquired for a 4th Round draft pick by Seattle, so it would have costed us a 3rd Round pick to better the offer
it would have taken a pick higher than that in order to get Lynch. Therefore, it would have costed us a 3rd Round pick. There’s no way Buffalo in its right mind would choose Green Bay’s 4th Round pick over Seattle’s 4th Round pick.
Seattle does have a poor OL. I won’t argue that, but so does Green Bay. They both have average at best OL’s, so trading 1 bad line for another doesn’t exactly cure any problems.
"No player is greater than a team."
-Vince Lombardi
Still doesn’t mean we have to give up a 3rd. 4th and 6th or 7th might have been plenty. At the time of the trade, our records were almost the same and our team wasn’t playing all that well so the value of our picks weren’t THAT far off.
Seattle’s Oline is worse. and the Okung injury made them REALLY bad. He got hurt on Oct 24 and just returned last week. On top of that, they haven’t exactly been able to commit to the run much due to having a team that hasn’t been able to keep up with the competition. Between those two games he had 9,11,13,7,7 carries. In two of the games he averaged over 4.5 yds per carry. I’d take our line over theirs ANY day of the week.
The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010
Records were about the same
But Green Bay was still expected to have a better season. More importantly, Buffalo knew Green Bay was in greater demand for a RB. You could be right, but the logical thing would be to keep demanding more when GB is desperate. 2 draft picks for him though? IDK if i like that idea since he would only help us up until the Falcons game and there’s no way of telling what our record would be. Green Bay’s Offensive Line is just as bad as Seattle’s. I guess that’s an opinion though. Plus Lynch had no experience behind a ZBS, which both GB and Seattle runs. Maybe it’s because Lynch isn’t finding the holes. IDK. Maybe he could have helped, maybe he wouldn’t have. The truth is, we don’t know. At least we have a RB now though and can move forward.
"No player is greater than a team."
-Vince Lombardi
So your conceding I was right about Lynch now?
I would have been OK w/ him for a 4th at the time, but defended Thompson for not geting the deal done… I noticed you dropped him from your fantasy team!
You've been Stroh'd™!!!
It wasn't me, if that's what you're asking.
Part of the reason why I thought that was a move they should have made was the unavailability of alternatives like Starks that were already on the roster.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Dec 9, 2010 6:54 AM CST up reply actions
While I agree Kinda...
Yeah part of the reason for the need was the lack of availability of Starks. But if we’ve learned anything its that McCarthy isn’t going to put a RB on the field until he is reasonably sure that he won’t get Rodgers killed! Unless they know their blocking assignments and can execute them McCarthy wouldn’t let them on the field. So in that regard McCarthy couldn’t trust Lynch and it was always my position that by the time he knew the Offense well enough we would have had Starks back!
You've been Stroh'd™!!!
It's true that McCarthy is reluctant to put RBs out there until they know their blitz pickups...
… but it’s not like Lynch hasn’t done that before. My guess is that the learning curve for him would have been a lot flatter than it was for Starks, who hadn’t played in 2 years before Sunday. And I don’t think they would have left Lynch on the sidelines for the two months between the date of his trade to Seattle and Starks’s debut.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Dec 9, 2010 10:48 AM CST up reply actions
No maybe not 2 months but 1 anyway...
But then your trading away draft picks for a short term fix w/ Lynch for about a 1 month period! How did that work out for Minn? Oh thats right it got the HC fired… at least partially! LOL
Thompson and McCarthy gambled a little that Starks would be able to contribute late in the season (probably made it clear to him he would be needed and to get in his playbook), so they didn’t do the trade for a band aid situation!
You've been Stroh'd™!!!
I'm not sure that was their thought process...
… though that may be the way it works out. But even if they did it to avoid the “band aid”, that decision might also be why we end up playing another game in Atlanta this January instead of one in Lambeau, and it might cost them the chance to have any home playoff games at all if they don’t catch Chicago.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Dec 9, 2010 5:52 PM CST up reply actions
by that logic
(and I mean this tongue in cheek) why is McCarthy putting Colledge on the field. He’s more likely to get Rodgers killed than Starks.
by gern blanston on Dec 9, 2010 7:08 PM CST up reply actions
That must've been Trevor
I’m not in any fantasy football league this year, so I know I wasn’t talking fantasy football.
My stance before was I wasn’t opposed to the idea, but I wasn’t all for it either. I was only in if we could get a great deal on it. He’s certainly worth a 4th Round pick, but Buffalo knew we’d be picking later than Seattle. So, it would have costed us a 3rd Round pick to get Lynch. I didn’t and still don’t believe Lynch is worth a 3rd Round pick. Therefore, I wanted to stick with what we had. I thought Jackson would improve and I had my fingers crossed that Starks would help out.
"No player is greater than a team."
-Vince Lombardi
Its au-thor-i-tah
as in YOU WILL RESPECT MY AU-THOR-I-TAH!!!! :-)
The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010
I hate to say it but
some of you guys are kind of reminding me of Cubs and Bears fans. He has played one game against a suspect defense at home. I will admit that he did induce some oohs and aahs from me, but let’s not anoint him Jesus just yet. I am looking forward to seeing him in these next few games, if he keeps it up, then I will be a more excited about him. I am rooting for him though, the thought of having a good RB going into December and beyond with fresh legs is exciting.
"I've got sizzle"-Legendary GM Ted Thompson
by Prince Fielder is Skinny on Dec 6, 2010 6:59 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
to be fair, many of us were high on him coming out of the draft so its not like came out of nowhere. I don’t think many are crowning him anything yet…just impressed with what they’ve seen. I wouldn’t call SF a suspect D by ANY means though. They are definitely above average, far from top notch though…
The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010
Right! I think it’s just obvious that the talent is there with him, and it’s obvious that McCarthy and co. obviously have a lot of confidence giving him 18 carries in one game compared to Nance’s what, 18 carries in 5 games? That might be the thing that stood out to me most about the game yesterday. Normally, McCarthy only runs the ball like around 20 times and usually spreads it among a few guys. All of the sudden Starks, who hasn’t played a game in two years, is active and he gets 18 carries? That’s not even mentioning the fact that he’s a rookie too.
I actually think it shows that McCarthy might actually STICK to a running game as long as he has a guy back there who he really trusts and believes in.
by packallday555 on Dec 6, 2010 8:08 PM CST up reply actions
+2
None of us are appointing him the next Adrian Peterson, we just know we have a RB capable of producing for this offense. That’s what is exciting! It was 1 game, but they way he played it proved to very good. I’m not saying he’ll ever be a Pro Bowler, I’m saying Starks can and should be our starting RB next year and maybe the year after that. It’s exciting because we waited all season for consistent production from a RB. Starks didn’t exactly light it up with any flashy runs, but he did consistently get 4 YPC. That is consistency and something I want out of my RB. The difference between him and Grant, is I trust Starks will get the 1st Down on 3rd and Short the way Starks is always falling forward and doesn’t give up.
"No player is greater than a team."
-Vince Lombardi
Wait what?!?
You saw him play in one game at home against a poor team and you would rather have Starks than a healthy Ryan Grant? Wow, I’m sorta amazed by your viewpoint. Everyone has their own opinions and I respect that. I hope you are right and he turns out to be an above average running back (which Grant is) and him and Grant fight for the starting spot next year. You can never have too many Escalade’s in the garage.
"I've got sizzle"-Legendary GM Ted Thompson
by Prince Fielder is Skinny on Dec 7, 2010 7:03 PM CST up reply actions
Grant
I and most other Packer fans think Grant is a system RB. He’s good in the zbs where he can be a one cut RB, but I don’t think he succeeds in most other systems! I think Starks definitely has more potential as a RB in any scheme than Grant! But hey thats just me…
You've been Stroh'd™!!!
System QB?
You sound like you are judging a college QB. Grant would be the same anywhere he went, above average but not great.
"I've got sizzle"-Legendary GM Ted Thompson
by Prince Fielder is Skinny on Dec 7, 2010 8:31 PM CST up reply actions
You really think so? He just doesn’t impress me much. He doesn’t really do anything really well, and his vision leaves something to be desired. I think once he gets going he has some decent break away speed but it takes a while for him to get going, which is a problem because of our offensive line.
by packallday555 on Dec 7, 2010 9:14 PM CST up reply actions
Add in not very elusive...
OK, but not better finisher and poor to worse reciever and yeah that sounds like Grant!
You've been Stroh'd™!!!
I didn’t wanna rag on him too much haha!!
by packallday555 on Dec 7, 2010 10:17 PM CST up reply actions
Grant is a home run threat.
But you have to be content with his average 3 yards per carry. He’s not like P.J. Hill (who was RIDICULOUSLY dinged up and was sidelined by the tiniest issues, ugh); he runs hard, but he’ll hit the backs of the OL (who probably are undersized for run blocking) and drive forward for about 2. That’s good on 3rd and 1, but it’s frustrating as hell on 1st and 10.
Wisconsin, Big Ten Champions for the first time since 1999...
"What's your formula for the corner?" -Doctor Sheldon Cooper from The Big Bang Theory
by OBrienSchofieldismyHero on Dec 8, 2010 4:26 PM CST up reply actions
I'll concede Grant is a better home run threat than Starks
Problem is Grant needs a huge hole to get into the open field! Starks is more elusive and a better cutback runner, so he should be able to get into the secondary more often than Grant. Which should translate into more big runs… Even tho Starks may not quite reach the end zone, he creates more explosive ruins.. Defined by the Packers as runs over 12 yds?….
You've been Stroh'd™!!!
12 YPC?
We should trade for Jamaal Charles in that case.
Wisconsin, Big Ten Champions for the first time since 1999...
"What's your formula for the corner?" -Doctor Sheldon Cooper from The Big Bang Theory
by OBrienSchofieldismyHero on Dec 8, 2010 9:56 PM CST up reply actions
I think we'll revisit this comment one day
My money is on Starks explosiveness over Grants as a home run threat.
Remember 2007 when Ryan Grant would bust off a 70-yard run every couple of games. That terrified defensive coordinators and forced them to play eight-men in the box. In talking to running backs coach Edgar Bennett this week he mentioned that he would like to see Starks get into the secondary because he could take those all the way. I sort of raised my eyebrow because I question whether Starks is that kind of runner. Bennett was adamant. “He’s sub-4.4,” Bennett said. “Trust me, he is.”
Where did you get that from?
Got a link? Would really like to read it… I never read anything saying he was that fast!
You've been Stroh'd™!!!
found it on NFLcom Packers page.
A little surprised that Bennett has him for a sub 4.4 40…. If he had said sub 4.5 it wouldn’t be a big deal, but theres a big difference between his 4.5 combine and sub 4.4 they have him at!! Either way it shows that the Packers think Starks has top end speed!
You've been Stroh'd™!!!
I haven't been impressed with Grant since 2007
And even then I was hardly impressed. Grant does indeed run hard, but he doesn’t break tackles. Starks was breaking tackles left and right and even ran over Patrick Willis on a 10 yard run! Again, it’s only 1 game, so we can’t crown him as a future Pro Bowl running back just yet. What we can conclude on though, is this guy is a workhorse and will fight for every extra yard. Grant was just ok and really just looked average with the help of a potent passing attack. Grant isn’t bad nor good in any way, and he likely will only last in a Zone Blocking Scheme.
"No player is greater than a team."
-Vince Lombardi
Yeah, I’m pretty much over watching him run into our OL’s backs. The guy really has no vision at all. He cuts it up when he should take it outside, and then goes outside when he should cut it up. And for being a bigger back, he sure doesn’t run like it. Seems like he gets lit up much more than he is delivering the blow and falling forward for yards. Just average. (imo)
by packallday555 on Dec 8, 2010 10:16 AM CST up reply actions
makes me wonder
why we kept him out for so long? Surely one week of sitting on the bench couldn’t have made that much difference, could it? Think how different the Atlanta game becomes with even a dozen carries for Starks.
Of course this is a hind sight comment and who knew Nance would get a concussion on like his first carry. Woulda coulda shoulda never gets it done. That doesn’t dismiss the validity of the comment. One loss could potentially mean the difference between a post season home game, or a wild card, or missing the playoffs entirely.
I'd wager that's because Atlanta > SF
It’s one thing to plan on using Starks in a game against a mediocre SF team (not mediocre defense, the whole team) versus against the best record in the conference. I’m sure the game plan was to get Stark’s feet wet this past week, give him a few carries early in the game for sure, and if it ended up being close late in the game stay with the “veterans” (using that term loosely), and if it was a blow out, keep giving it to Starks, which is basically what happened.
So to answer your question, I’d imagine one additional week on the bench had little impact. I think it had more to do with the quality of the opponent.
Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"
Starks got carried Early
He saw time in the first quarter, even the first drive if I’m not mistaken. He was more of a part of the game plan than we’re aware of, but his performance prompted added opportunities too.
Got 2 carries on first drive...
And according to McCarthy, they planned on getting him 8-10 carries vs SF. They got him alot more cuz of the lopsided score and wanting to run the clock out!
You've been Stroh'd™!!!
Eh, maybe but probably more so because the game was out of hand.
by packallday555 on Dec 10, 2010 10:09 AM CST up reply actions
Do you think he'd have gotten that many carries
If it was a one-score game in the the fourth quarter? I tend to think not.
Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"
I think his point is that the carries were there and they went to Starks and not someone else. I am sure they didn’t intend for him to approach 20 carries in the game but his style of running was more conducive to running down the clock.
The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010
I understand that's his point
But if the score had been closer I think any coach would have a hard time giving the ball to a rookie in his first game versus a more veteran runner who you know what you’re getting out of. I’m of the opinion that he may have gotten some of the late game carries, but not as many as he did receive. I just don’t see how the score doesn’t affect how you utilize a rookie running back late in the game.
Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"
+1
Exactly my opinion as well. Without a doubt he looked good in the game. I’m not trying to argue that. Just simply pointing out that with a 18 point lead, things were pretty much in the bag. Had the game been closer, and had we needed to pass a little more, I’m pretty positive we would have seen less carries out of Starks.
I don’t think it’s weird that he was the one getting the carries over Jackson either. It should be obvious to McCarthy by now that Jackson just isn’t a very good runner, and secondly, and more importantly, what better time to see what you have in a young guy with the game out of hand?
41-44
by packallday555 on Dec 10, 2010 2:35 PM CST up reply actions
I think its a combo platter. He was running well between the tackles so as the game was becoming more and more in the bag, someone had to get the carries and Starks did because of his success of running between the tackles. I think you are both wrong…or both right I guess! haha It wasn’t just the score as he thinks you are saying and it wasn’t just his success as you think he is saying.
The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010
He did something with his oppertunity thats why he got the carries
Today no carries the reason being BAD play calling
Yeah...
I’m pretty sure the reason was the offensive line being unable to block, and the general ineptitude of the Packers running game.
Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"
General Ineptitude
Isn’t Gen. Ineptitude our O-line coach?
53 Bears, 1 Cup
by I voted for Kodos on Dec 13, 2010 6:36 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
You don't want to risk anything, especially if you already waited so long
If McCarthy asked Starks, “How do you feel” the week prior to the Atlanta game and Starks replied, “I think I’m ok to go.” McCarthy might get the feeling that maybe he should wait another week to be sure. Maybe Starks clearly said he wasn’t ready. None of us know. What we do know is we wanted to be 100% sure he was ready to go when he finally went in. Had he been rushed too soon, even by a week, that 1 week could be more of a difference than you think. You never know what can happen with a player coming off a big injury.
"No player is greater than a team."
-Vince Lombardi
variety of things…needed more time practicing, not knowing blocking schemes, still getting up to game speed, etc.
The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010
Thats the reason...
More practice, knowing the blocking schemes and getting into game shape all played a part… They weren’t going to put him in game action till he had proven to them that the injury wouldn’t recur, and he proved he knew the blocking assignments!
He can’t just come in the game when he is getting the ball. Team will know exactly whats coming… Even vs SF, he got like 23 snaps and carried the ball on 18 of them. So from now on he’s got to be on the field when the Packers throw to force opponents to play them straight up, not favoring the run when he’s on the field or pass when he’s not!!!
You've been Stroh'd™!!!
I was eagerly awaiting Stark's..
…debut, for one thing our running attack sucked and our third down efficiancy was bad also.
I didn’t know a whole lot about his back ground except he hasn’t seen action in two years. It was nice to see the Pack grind it out on the ground when they had the lead and eating up the clock. I know I’m like everybody else when we saw his first game and said wow this could be something special. I especially liked the yards after contact. Lets just hope this isn’t an anomally.
It was ONE game.
i will admit he did look good. but it was also one game. im not saying he isn’t the real deal but im not saying he is either. lets see a few more games
How excited is everyone to watch Starks run against the Lions?!
Do we think they’ll try to feature the kid and give him a real shot to make an splash, or do they quietly work him in (leaving us fans a little disappointed after the game)?
I’d put my money on the later, but in the long run, it’s probably what’s best for all parties.
I would expect the same as with SF
He’ll provide balance with another 18-20 carries, but we’ll pass it too to take advantage of being indoors. I’m sure they don’t want to go overboard by giving too many carries for 2 reasons: to risk injurying him again and to expose too much to New England.
"No player is greater than a team."
-Vince Lombardi
except
He can’t just come in the game when he is getting the ball. Team will know exactly whats coming… Even vs SF, he got like 23 snaps and carried the ball on 18 of them. So from now on he’s got to be on the field when the Packers throw to force opponents to play them straight up, not favoring the run when he’s on the field or pass when he’s not!!!
My guess is they gradually keep getting him more snaps! Jackson is still the starter…
You've been Stroh'd™!!!
hmmm
your comment strikes me as part of the chess match that goes on. I always watch that with interest. Knowing that when Starks is in the game would incline one to lean towards the run would cause me, if I were calling plays, to put him in as a decoy, or as a receiving threat out of the backfield. So, while I don’t disagree with your post, i think it doesn’t tell the whole story.
by gern blanston on Dec 8, 2010 9:22 PM CST up reply actions
It'll depend on McCarthy
and how comfortable he feels w/ Starks as a blocker if we pass w/ him in the game! He has to be able to pick up blitzs if he’s gonna be in the game alot more! If he is in the game alot more, it indicates he’s comfortable w/ Starks protecting Rodgers! Thats why Jackson will likely continue as the starter for now!
You've been Stroh'd™!!!
Pass TO him
not with him in pass pro….absolutely agree that Rodgers health is more important.
by gern blanston on Dec 9, 2010 7:10 PM CST up reply actions
MM is pretty smart
What better way to help Starks breakout than to give him surprise 18 carries, establish his reputation as a runner, than the next week use him as a receiver and catch the defense keying in or game planning against the run?
My guess
MM either goes straight to a pass when Starks enters the game, or he goes run-pass. Show them what they expect, let them feel comfortable, then throw the pass.
Either way, if MM plans to get Starks involved this week, I expect they pass early to address the issue we’ve been discussing here.
let them game play for the run!
Then its play action time! Set up that beautiful screen we saw last week. This is going to help our pass game out A LOT! Starks is an obvious upgrade and B Jak is back to being a third down back.
I think the Packers pass to get the lead and run to keep it
So if they can work this kid into the mix some how great. I like Kuhn on 3rd and short.
And Brandon Jackson in the screen play. I believe Starks is good at recieving also.
I think it’s a fine mix.
Sounds about right, and it normally doesn’t work for us. (Or at least against the better teams.)
by packallday555 on Dec 7, 2010 6:45 PM CST up reply actions
too early
It’s too early to annoint Starks the second coming. Need more then 18 carries to see what answers he may provide. While I hope he is the next great one, I’ll just have to see more evidence.
and he needs to stay healthy. The guy has missed almost two years of football due to injuries. I would not be surprised if he got hurt again. I hope he doesn’t, but…..
by gern blanston on Dec 8, 2010 9:24 PM CST up reply actions
This ones for all you... "It's just one game" -ers out there.
So now that James Starks is pretty much awesome and has been crowned champion, I’d like to focus on the next RB I’m pushing for playing time the Packers backfield: 
John Clay
Are you serious?
John Clay????
"No player is greater than a team."
-Vince Lombardi
by Jabooty on Dec 8, 2010 4:54 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
I'm serious
… as serious as a blogger who just loves to talk football with people. Not as a professional football decision maker. :)
Ok
Well, we have discussed the possibility of essentially all the Badger RB’s. Keep in mind that every Badger RB that has played this year has been ridiculously good. So I would go as far as crediting the OL before any RB’s. 2nd, what Badger RB has ever been good? The only one I can think of that comes close is Micheal Bennett. So, I’m definately not in favor of getting PJ Hill, John Clay, Ball, Bennett, or even Ron Dayne for that matter. I will say this though, I’d be in favor of getting any offensive lineman that played for Wisconsin! I don’t care if we are drafting linemen in the 7th Round. If they come from Wisconsin, they outta be GOOD!!!!!!
"No player is greater than a team."
-Vince Lombardi
Cmon
Just because PJ and Dayne, or any WI back didn’t do well doesn’t mean the school won’t put out a quality runningback. That really isn’t a good argument.
You keep talking about the OL, but Clay was great last season, and none of the other backs were. They all ran behind that line.
True
I suppose your right, but it’s kind of like drafting Florida State players. I cringe. I just don’t think Clay will be breaking tackles in the NFL the way he does in college. He may make a serviceable backup behind a good OL though. That’s about it though. He’s not that fast, but he does have good speed for his size. It’s just too difficult to say he’s so good the way WI produces offensive linemen. I wouldn’t say none of the other RB’s weren’t great last year though. I thought they all did alright. I like John Clay, I just don’t think he’ll amount to much in the NFL. I certainly don’t trust his abilities behind our OL.
"No player is greater than a team."
-Vince Lombardi
Well, Clay was the Offensive Player of the Big 10
And none of the other backs were close.
But I agree with you that it would be a risky pick and that our line needs to be upgraded. I hope we get some big hogs, then I’d like to see Clay in the role that Jacobs has in NY right now. I’d like to see him as a #2 guy. I don’t see him as a feature back in the NFL, but he’s still a powerful runner. A RBBC with Grant as the all purpose back, Starks as the shifty change of pace back, and Clay as the power back for 3 & 1. John Kuhn is good in that role right now, but he can’t turn the rumble and bumble into a big play. He just doesn’t have that home run ability. Clay has that. Clay is bigger, faster, and has better feet than Kuhn.
I’m just imagining.
Comparing Kuhn and Clay seems a little silly, but I think the skillset is similar.
Clay has home run ability?
He has a whopping total of 5 games with a run over 40 yards in three years at Wisconsin. I don’t think he’s outrunning many defenses in the NFL.
Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"
And he's got 5
How many would you expect from a power back? I guess I meant, that he had more home run ability than a typical power guy (Kuhn). He did break one for 72 yds last year. Rumbling 3/4 without getting caught is pretty impressive for someone the size of a typical MLB in the NFL. (he roughly the same size as Ray Lewis)
Here’s the part that matters: 5.3 yards carry (09&10). 18 TDs last season, 13 TDs this year.
Rumbling 3/4 of the field with a power back?
That is not going to happen, unless you have a REALLY young Eddie George. And even then, it’s highly unlikely.
Wisconsin, Big Ten Champions for the first time since 1999...
"What's your formula for the corner?" -Doctor Sheldon Cooper from The Big Bang Theory
by OBrienSchofieldismyHero on Dec 9, 2010 12:00 PM CST up reply actions
NFL
and the last time I saw Clay do something like that was 2009 against Fresno. That play changed the entire game.
Wisconsin, Big Ten Champions for the first time since 1999...
"What's your formula for the corner?" -Doctor Sheldon Cooper from The Big Bang Theory
by OBrienSchofieldismyHero on Dec 11, 2010 3:49 PM CST up reply actions
If John comes out this year, which I haven’t heard anything on but I’ll get the scoop pretty soon, I’d love to see the Packers draft him behind a pair of hogs for the OL. Clay was looking to be a high draft pick, but injuries and a quieter season have dropped his projected draft position to as late as the 4th round. (maybe later)
Not sure what you think, but I love hometown heroes. I’d love to see the Packers develop a power run game with some big hogs and big strong backs.
We have big strong backs
That’s what Grant and Starks are. I want no part of Clay. Those ankles are a ticking-time bomb supporting that load, and I feel he is a product of Wisconsin’s offensive line. Honestly, I think he’s the third most talented RB on that team.
Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"
+!!!!
Ball and White are both better than Clay, IMO… Next year Ball starts over Clay w/ White being the change of pace guy! Clay might want to consider coming out this year, being behind Ball all next year won’t do his draft status any good!
You've been Stroh'd™!!!
Montee Ball will be a much better NFL RB than Clay!!!
Nearly as powerful and much better quickness, feet and speed!
You've been Stroh'd™!!!
Better speed
And maybe better foot speed, but Clay has some good feet for a big man.
And you’re kidding youself if you think Ball has anywhere near the power Clay’s got.
I think his struggles with this injury this year are making us forget about the good John Clay. Maybe.
You guys might be right, but I’m a big Clay fan because he’s from Racine and his Uncle was my boss and brought him around to meet the staff. He’s a great kid.
And Hey
Starks was a longshot, and if he can live up to the hype than, HEY, let me have pipe dreams about Clay in the 4th or 5th round. :)
Starks would have been a 2nd rd pick
If not for the injury his Sr. season!
Power = mass x acceleration, so if they are similar size and its only 10 lbs or so, and Ball is faster then by definition he has more power!
You've been Stroh'd™!!!
That's really not all power is a football sense
Speed != Power necessarily. For a RB it’s got a heck of a lot more to do with upper body strength. Are you going to run through more guys if you’re going fast? Sure, but that’s not the end-all-be-all to power.
Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"
Power comes from the Lower body!!!
Its generated by ground reactionary forces developed by the legs pushing into the ground. Not much at all to do w/ upper body… When your running into someone the winner is the guy who is lower (more leverage) and has more leg drive! Leg drive is going to largely determine the winner… And leg drive also largely equates to speed!
Your talking to a former Strength and Conditioning coach!
You've been Stroh'd™!!!
Fine
You’re talking to an engineer, Power != mass x acceleration.
Also, guys like Brandon Jacobs are not power guys because they are fast.
Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"
What does an engineer have to do w/ a discussion of power as it relates to Football?
No much, while being a Strength and Conditioning Coach has everything to do w/ that discussion!!!
Guy like Jacobs and Clay are powerful becuz of size and the speed they can generate. Remember mass x acceleration! Its a matter of both their mass and how fast they can move that mass! It certainly has almost nothing to do w/ upper body stregth…. And the fact that you mentioned it shows how little you know of the topic!
You've been Stroh'd™!!!
Psst, speed has nothing to do with acceleration
If you want a physics analysis, taking combine numbers:
Desean Jackson: 169 lb (76.66 kg), 4.35 s 40-yard dash (8.4 m/s)
Brandon Jacobs: 267 lb (121.1 kg), 4.56 s 40 yard dash (8.02 m/s)
If you’re talking about power, Power = Work/Time; with Work = 0.5*mass*speed^2 (in which case speed is a factor, but I don’t think this is how this should be measured)
Assuming both players unload that full amount of energy in the same amount of time, we only have to look at the energy of each player.
Desean Jackson = 2704.5 J
Brandon Jacobs = 3894.9 J
So by your logic, Desean Jackson has roughly 70% of Brandon Jacob’s power. I really doubt that. You keep using the equation for Force=mass*acceleration, which I agree with, but speed has nothing to do with acceleration.
Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"
by GoGregGo on Dec 9, 2010 12:19 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
AS it relates to this discussion it does!
So you know more overall physics, I know the physics as it related to the human body and human performance! And yes using your calculations I would say that Jackson is70% of the power of Jacobs. Try it for Chris Johnson… He’s only 200 but I would be willing to bet that he’s almost as powerful as Jacobs on the field and by your calculations! Adding in that Jackson and Johnson have a huge leverage advantage, in that Jacobs is 6’4 as compared to 5’11 or so for both of the other and then their relative power (as it relates to football) is nearly as good as Jacobs who runs so upright that he loses all of his Mass advantage! I think Johnson runs w/ as much or more power than Jacobs, simply becuz of his speed and HUGE leverage advantage!
You've been Stroh'd™!!!
I guess the problem with this
Is that there’s really no true measurement of a guy’s on field “power” outside of observation. I feel like you’re overstating Jackson’s and Johnson’s on field power (FWIW Johnson is 87% of Jacobs’ Power by combine numbers), and you feel that I’m understating it.
The leverage argument is also something that I apparently (legitimately) missed in your previous posts. There’s obviously a lot of technique involved. I just don’t feel that there’s as clear a correlation between speed and on-field “power” as you make it out to be.
Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"
I've been thinking about this (and am apparently going to reply to myself)
But I think I’m going about this all wrong. I what I’m actually comparing is the POTENTIAL power of each player, in which case I think you’re right Stroh in that it is dependent on the player’s speed. To convert to onfield “power”, the player has to use proper technique, and I’m probably letting my bias get the best of me thinking that a big rumbling guy like Jacobs is going to have significantly better technique than Jackson or Johnson, when I really have no idea how much those guys work on it.
I think I flew off the handle at you a little bit when I saw incorrect formulas (my math side getting the best of me), and didn’t bother to think very closely about what you were trying to say.
Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"
BTW
Just saw an ESPN SprotsScience piece on Chris Johnson talking about alot of these things! Don’t know if it’ll get posted online, but if it does you should check it out! Pretty interesting.
Admit the formulas aren’t my strong suit! I can do math but haven’t memorized the formula’s as good as maybe I should!
You've been Stroh'd™!!!
They are NOT similar size
Not even close. Ball is looking pretty beefy on his frame, probably about as thick as you want a guy his stature. Clay is built THICK. He operates around 250, Ball around 235.
Ball doesn’t have more power because he’s quicker, those 15 account for a lot of muscle, but it’s the frame that the muscle is built on that is so different.
Ball is 5'11 to Clays 6'1
And probably closer to 240 than 235, to Clay’s 250, but whatever. Ball is alot faster than Clay so that coupled w/ nearly equal size makes him more powerful… Quickness is a function of Power! So if Ball is alot quicker and only slightly lighter then Ball wins.
Look I get your a big fan of Clay, but when it comes to football Ball is going to be a much better NFL player!
You've been Stroh'd™!!!
I can accept that.
But listen, take it from someone who’s seen the men, Clay is much bigger than Ball. 250 is a gracious weight for him to be list as, he’s been as big as 265. He’s a tall 6’1’’, and a Wide “250”. Watch next time you see them standing next to each other.
Yeah, he probably is really 265 or so. I think Clay could be an NFL back but in order to do so he’d have to be healthy, which seems like a problem for him. When he’s healthy, he’s actually got pretty quick feet and can find a hole and accelerate through it pretty well. The only problem is, his ankles have seemed to bother him for almost this entire season, and when they are you can just tell that he’s not quite the same. I kind of doubt that he’ll be able to shake off the ankle problems too because guys are going to keep hitting him low because of his size and strength.
by packallday555 on Dec 9, 2010 12:26 PM CST up reply actions
You've gotta think
A guy with his size, speed, feet, patience, and balance will find work in the NFL.
I wonder how much his injury history will scare teams away
I’m sure he’ll find work in the NFL. I’d just prefer that it wasn’t with the Packers.
Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"
Looks kinda fat and overweight to me...
Maybe its just a bad picture, I don’t know…
You've been Stroh'd™!!!
Brent Moss
has the wrong jersey on in that picture………
by Glenn'sYank13 on Dec 9, 2010 10:31 PM CST up reply actions
I'm only 23
So I had no idea who Moss was, but I checked him out. Wow. Park kid who led the Badgers to a Rose Bowl. But Moss was 5’9’’ 205, Clay doesn’t do crack either, he’s commonly known as humble and down to earth. He’s a family boy with great work ethic and values.
You missed it...
Brent Moss and Terrell Fletcher were awesome! I remember them really well and between the 2 of them they had about 2500 yd rushing! That was shortly after Alverez arrived in Madtown!
You've been Stroh'd™!!!
Clays ht works against him too...
being 6’1 as compared to 5’11 actually costs him an advantage in terms of power. Means he can’t accelerate as fast and he also loses out on leverage. In football leverage means the lower man wins! So Clays 6’1 costs him a large leverage advantage.. Clay runs too upright whereas Ball runs alot lower!
You've been Stroh'd™!!!
I will say this about Clay...
If he wants to be as big as he is, then he must run like that. A big man (think early Brandon Jacobs pre-injury or Dayne Rose Bowl era) must run the tackler over and THEN go off for 50 more yards. He won’t lose much momentum doing that with the big size, but he will lose all the force and momentum when he tries to juke. It is hard to put all that weight back into motion.
by Bush League All Star on Dec 9, 2010 1:23 AM CST up reply actions
Right
Maybe he’d be best served to drop some weight and work on footwork. In talking to his Uncle it seems like he’s been bulking up for the past couple years. Maybe he’s too big and bulky now huh?
Or like you said, maybe he needs to just embrace the big man running style.
Exactly! These big guys need to learn that in the pros they won’t be fast. They might be fast in college and HS but at the pro level they are not going to be fast. If they want to make it, they are going to have to learn to run hard between the tackles and get the tough yards or its going to be tough sledding in the pros!
The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010
If Clay want to be a good NFL RB
He has to learn to ATTACK the defenders! Patience is OK to find a hole, but when its there and even when its not, if he wants to be successful he has to play w/ the attitude that he is going ot absolutely punish every defender that he comes across. ANd I haven’t really seen that from him at UW. Seems to me he waits for a hole and kinda is indecisive about where to go until its too late, unless there is a hole immediately. I just don’t see what would translate to the NFL for him… Of course I don’t think much of Brandon Jacobs either! They seem to much alike. Big plodders, but not forceful enough in personality to match what should be their asset in size to just utterly attack a defender or even the entire defense for that matter!
You've been Stroh'd™!!!
Rodgers seems to be calling out Starks and some of the other young guys
for their work ethic here in the last part of this article:
http://packersnews.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20101208/PKR01/101208179/Will-Rodger-s-recent-hot-streak-end-with-MVP-award-
All is vanity.
Nice catch
I hope he was just tryin to light a fire under the kid. Maybe he was just commenting on the lack practice time Starks has had in general. Let hope. :/
Message
I think Rodgers was letting Starks and Quarless know that if they want to see the ball on Sunday, it starts w/ getting it done during the week! That and letting them know this team still has alot it can accomplish and its gonna take everyone picking up their practice habits to translate to Sundays! I like what he said…
You've been Stroh'd™!!!
Same here, especially about the mental mistakes. I like that he’s making it known that those are unacceptable because they are. Nothing used to make me more mad than my teammates making a stupid mental mistake that could have/should have been avoided.
by packallday555 on Dec 9, 2010 9:13 AM CST up reply actions
It's one game....
you guys are sounding like Cubs fans… Wait until January to anoint him the next Grant
He will only get better
Yeah Starks is doing good. I wrote a fan post on him when he entered training camp and most of the response was that there was no way he could make a difference this year. Well looks like he already has. You know who you are.
wasn’t me! :-)
…and where have you been?
The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010
Stroh
I can’t imagine you were impressed by his play today. But when your offensive line plays so badly, these things tend to happen.
Wisconsin, Big Ten Champions for the first time since 1999...
You'll notice NCAA has no letter for the incompetence within...
by OBrienSchofieldismyHero on Dec 12, 2010 3:35 PM CST reply actions
That might have been the worst OL play I've seen in a long time!!!
Starks didn’t look very good either, but I think the OL has to take the blame for this game! Couldn’t run the ball and the OL didn’t give Rodgers/Flynn time to throw either! Just a pathetic performance!!!
You've been Stroh'd™!!!
What happened to them?!?!? Geez…just when you think they have things figured out!!!
The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010
Bad offensive line
will kill an offense with Tom Brady at QB and Barry Sanders at RB…
Wisconsin, Big Ten Champions for the first time since 1999...
You'll notice NCAA has no letter for the incompetence within...
by OBrienSchofieldismyHero on Dec 13, 2010 1:33 PM CST up reply actions
again im not going to call out Starks on being a bad RB or a good RB
he has one good game and one bad game (albiet the o line did nothing to help him) so really i would like to see ,more carries from him these last 3 games.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Matthew Stafford spends $15,000 to win auction package, then gives it to a young fan’s family
- Tim Tebow allegedly asked Broadway actress to remove scantily-clad Twitter photo
- Erin Andrews reportedly dating ‘Gossip Girl’ actor Chace Crawford, who also happens to be Tony Romo’s brother-in-law
- Madden ’13 will include ‘Tebowing’
- Deep Posts: Winslow not wanted in Tampa Bay?
