Zero2Cool
11 years ago
James Starks has only carried the ball 20+ times three times in his career.


Carries, Yards, YPC and Long.
23 	123 	5.3 	27
25 	66 	2.6 	13
22 	74 	3.4 	16

Three consecutive games with an explosive run against playoff teams (Eagles, Falcons, Bears) while getting 3.75 yards per carry while totaling 263 yards and a touchdown.


Alex Green vs Texans, Rams and Jaguars
22	54	2.5	7
20	35	1.8	15
22	65	3.0	10

Over the course of the last three games, Green has rushed for 154 yards at 2.4 per carry and only one explosive run.


I don't think James Starks is the answer to the running game, however, I'd like to see him get 20+ carries a game and maybe he can bridge the gap to when Cedric Benson comes back.

And until Benson comes back, I think this is the best fluid down/RB setup.

1st down - James Starks
2nd down - James Starks
3rd down - Alex Green
UserPostedImage
Pack93z
11 years ago
Here is my thought on the topic.. why not Starks.

This is with the premise that we are marching forward with the stable we have.

Starks has not been a model of durability in college nor the pros.. but he has playoff experience under his belt. So he provides value as the playoff push and run draw closer, hence his still being on the roster.

But I think the Packers are trying to protect him somewhat so he is fresh towards the end of the year and in the push. Benson is a maybe on his return at best, that injury is just that unpredictable. Increasing Starks value in the postseason.

So the Packers are feeding Green the ball currently with hopes that experience leads to performance improvement. Green was a one cut hole reading back in college, to write his vision off already is premature in my eyes. He isn't going to improve on the sidelines.. so feeding him the rock now is going to tell the Packers what they have in him.

My opinion as runners, I like Green better as a pure runner, he runs behind his pads and low. Starks on the other hand is more vertical, and although he runs with some power, he takes a beating in the process.

Summary, I think the Packers are better off with Green as option 1 and Starks as the overflow for the above mention reasons at this point. Starks will get to knock the rust off and yet is protected as a back can be in terms of injury risks. Benson's progress will then dictate the roles moving forward, if he comes back, Starks will move more towards the feature back and Green will overtake the role the serves him and the Packers best.. 3rd down and change of pace.
"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"
Gaycandybacon
11 years ago
I still think it comes down to fumbles. I think that's what Mike McCarthy likes about Green more than anything. He can carrie 20 times a game holding that ball tight.

IMO the Packers should use a 2 back system. Half snaps to Green Half to Starks.

Use the hot hand if one performs better than the other.

So...

1st Down: Green
2nd Down: Starks
3rd Down: Green/Kuhn
beast
11 years ago
I those numbers are an unfair comparison. Because the Packers had their top WRs healthy, hot and going full stream in the 2010 playoffs run where Starks got his.


I do feel that a healthy Starks would be better than Green right now, because while Green does try hard to be physical and make room when sometimes when their isn't, he just doesn't seem to have the power to finish. Where (a fully healthy) Starks and Benson do seem to have that power to make a 2 yard run into a 4 or 5 yard run. I feel Green needs room to get going.


I think they should mix Green and Stark both in.

Use Starks for the power run/power blocking

Use Green for the zone running, spread offense where he should have more room to work with and get going.

Use BOTH in the passing game.


And make sure to mix it up and keep the offense balance with both backs in, so they might be able to figure out Starks goes with power and Green goes with zone, they still won't know weather it's a run or a pass.

I remember a couple years ago, Grant was coming off an injury, so they limited his snaps. When ever they put Grant in, every knew it was going to be a run, because they weren't doing pass plays with him in there. Point is they got to keep it balanced with both.

UserPostedImage
Zero2Cool
11 years ago

I still think it comes down to fumbles. I think that's what Mike McCarthy likes about Green more than anything. He can carrie 20 times a game holding that ball tight.

Originally Posted by: Gaycandybacon 



This doesn't make any sense at all. James Starks has only lost one fumble his entire NFL career. I still believe Starks is lacking repetitions because of his work ethic practicing and also part of me feels they are wanting to "save" him for later part of the season when running the ball is more required because of weather.
UserPostedImage
PackFanWithTwins
11 years ago
I'll see you and raise you a

Green receiving
1-8
4-29
4-28

Starks receiving
2-9
0-0
1-6

Really I don't have a preference because the neither will do any better without the oline blocking better and better run plays being called. Enough with the shotgun.
The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!
beast
11 years ago

A bit off the subject, but I think Mike McCarthy should break out some of the tricks he used for B-Jack for Green. Like the spread offense, shotgun run on 3rd down. I think it'd work a lot better with Green than it did with Jackson.

Then again I think he did something like that with Cobb... but when Cobb is in the backfield teams have learned to target him. They're not going to be targeting Green at first in that, also with Jennings and Nelson out, they need Cobb at WR.
UserPostedImage
Gaycandybacon
11 years ago

This doesn't make any sense at all. James Starks has only lost one fumble his entire NFL career.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 



I understand that, but Mike McCarthy must not like something about Starks. He struggled in the preseason then got hurt.. I don't wanna rely on someone who is some might say inconsistant and coming off an injurie to start over Green that we've ran 76 times with in sum odd 4 games..


Reguarding your first post, our team is different from 2 years ago when we ran behind a better line. Clifton, Wells, and Colledge. Probably why we ran better to the left doncha think.

I honestly can say Starks won't be anything greater than Green behind this line.. Really.., i'd like to use them both equally and sees if that works btter to our advantage. I just don't see a change unless Green gets hurt or catches fumblitis.
Zero2Cool
11 years ago

I understand that, but Mike McCarthy must not like something about Starks. He struggled in the preseason then got hurt.. I don't wanna rely on someone who is some might say inconsistant and coming off an injurie to start over Green that we've ran 76 times with in sum odd 4 games..


Reguarding your first post, our team is different from 2 years ago when we ran behind a better line. Clifton, Wells, and Colledge. Probably why we ran better to the left doncha think.

I honestly can say Starks won't be anything greater than Green behind this line.. Really.., i'd like to use them both equally and sees if that works btter to our advantage. I just don't see a change unless Green gets hurt or catches fumblitis.

Originally Posted by: Gaycandybacon 



I can honestly say James Starks would provide better carries than Alex Green. Green has the Ryan Grant syndrome. Head down, into OL. You are right, Mike McCarthy doesn't like something about James Starks, his practicing habits, or lack thereof. This was documented a year or so ago and I feel it has persisted. Also, Starks is made out of glass so I think they figure they have X amount of carries with him and prefer to use them when it counts. Kinda like having a six shooter, you don't take wild shots, you wait until the most opportune time to hit the trigger.

Alex Green is superior receiving threat, hence why I said he should be the 3rd down back, which obviously the person who came back with the "I'll see you and raise you a" with receiving stats failed to comprehend. I'd rather the carries split between them while waiting for Cedric Benson to return. You get the best of both worlds in the meantime.

That's not going to happen, so I'm putting my eggs in the Alex Green basket and hope he gets 25 carries and 125 yards rushing against the Cardinals.


UserPostedImage
nyrpack
11 years ago
all for starks if a trade isnt made, ive seen enough of alex green and he isnt more then a 3rd down back at best !!
jimmy b.
Fan Shout
dfosterf (18h) : Maybe
Mucky Tundra (18h) : Yes
Zero2Cool (19h) : No.
Mucky Tundra (21h) : End of a Degu-era
dhazer (22h) : Steelers sign Patterson because of new kickoff rule interesting
Zero2Cool (28-Mar) : Former #Packers TE Josiah Deguara is signing a 1-year deal with the Jaguars, per source.
Zero2Cool (28-Mar) : They do not do it for "content sake".
dfosterf (28-Mar) : For the record, I enjoy Beast and Mucky drafts
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Haha
Mucky Tundra (27-Mar) : No time for talking! Back to work beast!
beast (27-Mar) : You saw only 4,201 of my mocks? 🥺 I think that means you missed more than half of them 😢
dfosterf (27-Mar) : Does anyone know what Lambeau field improvements got put on hold? My guess would be for the 2025 draft
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : It's like listen, you made 4,201 mocks, no shit.
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Cuz during the draft "I had them mocked there!" as if it's amazing.
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : They're fun to do once in awhile. It's people who think they are "content" that annoy me.
dfosterf (27-Mar) : Against tbd
dfosterf (27-Mar) : Answer to your question is yes, it's a Thursday, will be the Chiefs aga
dfosterf (27-Mar) : Luckily for all concerned, I don't post them. I did one, but that was like 25 mocks ago
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : NFL 2024 gonna start Sept 5th isn't it???
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Ugh... kids these days!
dfosterf (27-Mar) : I'm gonna go do some more mock draft hell instead 🤪
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Did we do one of those prediction threads yet for 2024 season?
dfosterf (27-Mar) : In my city, they are playing the nimby game, in order to keep some railroad tracks vs. 2 professional sports teams and a concert venue.
dfosterf (27-Mar) : And/Or a city council, of which I haven't seen a good one in a very long time
dfosterf (27-Mar) : That sounds like a Mayor, not a city.
buckeyepackfan (26-Mar) : Packers halt scheduled 80mil upgrade of stadium until lease agreement talks are restarted
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : City of Green Bay puts Packers' Lambeau Field lease talks on hold
buckeyepackfan (26-Mar) : Packers 1 of 3 teams to vote no on new kickoff rule.
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Packers sign another Kicker
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Lengthy explanation at PFF if you click the link
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Kickoff rules officially changed.ngthy explan
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : lol
Cheesey (26-Mar) : 2009? No thanks! One open heart surgery is enough!
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Good for you!
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Yes. That's the one.
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Is that "Lady Dugan" per chance?
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Crystal?
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Please refresh my memory
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Alan posts. Crystal back in my life. It's 2009 all over again! Lol
Mucky Tundra (26-Mar) : BAH GAWD! THAT'S CHEESEYS MUSIC!
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Gutekunst said early stages of Jordan Love contract being discussed.
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Shouldn't be penalized cuz official screwed up
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Yeah, challenge until you are incorrect twice.
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Fining them is the goal, per the people who made the rule anyway.
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Still waiting on the kickoff rule changes. Did hear yesterday that the touchback proposal will now be the 30 yard line, not the 35
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Probably speed of game issues with your proposal
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Hopefully the refs don't get in the habit of throwing flags on this
beast (25-Mar) : I think when it comes to Challenges should get two strikes, so unlimited challenges as long as they keep winning them, but 2 wrong then done
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Still subject to the fines etc
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Yes, I should have been more specific. Also, they are now saying it would be a 15 yard penalty. That makes more sense .
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2023 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 10 @ 3:25 PM
Bears
Sunday, Sep 17 @ 12:00 PM
Falcons
Sunday, Sep 24 @ 12:00 PM
SAINTS
Thursday, Sep 28 @ 7:15 PM
LIONS
Monday, Oct 9 @ 7:15 PM
Raiders
Sunday, Oct 22 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Sunday, Oct 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Nov 5 @ 12:00 PM
RAMS
Sunday, Nov 12 @ 12:00 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 19 @ 12:00 PM
CHARGERS
Thursday, Nov 23 @ 11:30 AM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 3 @ 7:20 PM
CHIEFS
Monday, Dec 11 @ 7:15 PM
Giants
Sunday, Dec 17 @ 12:00 PM
BUCCANEERS
Sunday, Dec 24 @ 12:00 PM
Panthers
Sunday, Dec 31 @ 7:20 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Jan 7 @ 3:25 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Jan 14 @ 3:30 PM
Cowboys
Saturday, Jan 20 @ 7:15 PM
49ers
Recent Topics
5m / Around The NFL / beast

18h / Green Bay Packers Talk / buckeyepackfan

28-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

28-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

27-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

27-Mar / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

27-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

24-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

24-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

22-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.