2011 Starks v Grant: week 1· Page 2

nerdmann
Premier Member Topic Starter

13 years ago

Starks looked great running the ball tonight. I'm really liking the rotation we have. It was particularly fantasmic to see us converting on 2nd/3rd and short situations. That said, Starks was bad in pass protection. That is clearly the biggest weakness to his game and he needs to improve.

P.S. in what universe is 40/9 = 4?

Originally Posted by: evad04

I didn't calculate, I just transcribed from nfl.com
http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2011090800/2011/REG1/saints@packers#menu=gamepass&tab=recap
Now it says
Starks 4.8
Grant 4.4

“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”

zombieslayer
Registered

13 years ago

#12

I thought Starks did well in pass pro. He's not a Bjack who just specializes in that, and he's quite young yet too. In a way, he's still a rookie, because he hasn't been activated for a full 16 games yet. Plus he missed this offseason due to the lockout. He's doing fine, and he's just gonna get better at that stuff.
Nice to see those FB dive plays with Kuhn work. Now that we actually have threats at RB, they gotta cover other shit, they can't just assume Kuhn's gonna get it.

Originally Posted by: nerdmann

Vat? Starks was awful in pass protection. Absolutely awful. Unless of course you think giving up 2 sacks is a good thing.

Now his running kicked ass and I'm very happy with it. But if Starks doesn't improve in pass protection, I don't want him protecting Aaron.

My man Donald Driver

(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷

nerdmann
Premier Member Topic Starter

13 years ago

#13

Originally Posted by: zombieslayer

He's not gonna make the pro bowl for his pass pro, but I think he's adequate. He'll get better. I think he's probably the best we've got.

“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”

evad04
Member

13 years ago

#14

I wanna see if you can put "Ergo" AND "pass pro" in a single post. Go:

William Henderson didn't have to run people over. His preferred method was levitation.
"I'm a reasonable man, get off my case."

Silentio
Registered

13 years ago

#15

I wanna see if you can put "Ergo" AND "pass pro" in a single post. Go:

Originally Posted by: evad04

Unfortunate rhyme.

blank

nerdmann
Premier Member Topic Starter

13 years ago

#16

I wanna see if you can put "Ergo" AND "pass pro" in a single post. Go:

Originally Posted by: evad04

I think Starks is pretty decent, not great at pass pro. He's just gonna get better. We don't have anyone better, ergo he's the guy until Green gets up to speed.

“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”

Silentio
Registered

13 years ago

#17

He's not gonna make the pro bowl for his pass pro, but I think he's adequate. He'll get better. I think he's probably the best we've got.

Originally Posted by: nerdmann

Did you see Grant demolish a blitzing defender tonight? I did. How is Starks allowing sacks the best we've got?

blank

nerdmann
Premier Member Topic Starter

13 years ago

#18

Did you see Grant demolish a blitzing defender tonight? I did. How is Starks allowing sacks the best we've got?

Originally Posted by: Silentio

I saw Starks pick up blitzers too. If Grant was better he'd be that guy. They didn't even try him there in TC.

“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”

evad04
Member

13 years ago

#19

I saw Starks pick up blitzers too. If Grant was better he'd be that guy. They didn't even try him there in TC.

Originally Posted by: nerdmann

Starks is a better receiver than Grant. At least, I think most folks would agree with that. However, that doesn't mean that Starks' role on 3rd down is due to his superior pass blocking skills. Ergo, you only apply the evidence that fits your argument.

William Henderson didn't have to run people over. His preferred method was levitation.
"I'm a reasonable man, get off my case."

Silentio
Registered

13 years ago

#20

I think that over the next three or four weeks there is a pretty good possibility that we'll see that Starks is a better back than Grant.

There's no way you can argue right now that he's the best back in pass protection on the Packers' roster.

blank

Important Information:

The PACKERSHOME uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More Details Close

Fan Shout

beast (4m) : I agree that it's BS for fans planning on going to the game. But how does it bring in more money? I'm guessing indirectly?

packerfanoutwest (16m) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans

Zero2Cool (1h) : I see what you did there Mucky

Zero2Cool (1h) : dammit. 3:25pm

Zero2Cool (1h) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm

Mucky Tundra (1h) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground

Mucky Tundra (1h) : Yeah baby!

Zero2Cool (1h) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah

Zero2Cool (2h) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.

beast (2h) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue

Zero2Cool (3h) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's

Zero2Cool (3h) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.

packerfanoutwest (3h) : ok I stand corrected

Zero2Cool (3h) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th

Zero2Cool (3h) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?

beast (3h) : Saying no to the 6th lock.

beast (3h) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out

Zero2Cool (3h) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.

beast (3h) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games

beast (3h) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality

beast (3h) : We already have told you... if Packers lose all their games (they won't, but if they did), and Buccaneers and Falcons win all theirs

Zero2Cool (4h) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread

Zero2Cool (4h) : I literally just said it.

packerfanoutwest (4h) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't

Zero2Cool (4h) : Falcons, Buccaneers would need to win final two games.

Zero2Cool (4h) : Yes, if they win one of three, they are lock. If they lose out, they can be eliminated.

packerfanoutwest (4h) : as I just said,,gtheyh are in no matter what

Zero2Cool (4h) : Packers should get in. I just hope it's not 7th seed. Feels dirty.

packerfanoutwest (4h) : If packers lose out, no matter what, they are in

packerfanoutwest (4h) : both teams can not male the playoffs....falcon hold the tie breaker

packerfanoutwest (4h) : if bucs win out they win their division

beast (4h) : Fine, Buccaneers and Falcons can get ahead of us

packerfanoutwest (4h) : falcons are already ahead of us

beast (4h) : Packers will get in

beast (4h) : If Packers lose the rest of their games and Falcons win the rest of theirs, they could pass us... but not gonna happen

packerfanoutwest (4h) : they still are in the playoffs

packerfanoutwest (4h) : If Packers lose the remaining games,,,,at 10-7

Zero2Cool (6h) : We can say it. We don't play.

Mucky Tundra (7h) : But to say they are in is looking past the Saints

Mucky Tundra (7h) : That said, their odds are very favorable with a >99% chance of making the playoffs entering this week's games

Mucky Tundra (7h) : Packers are not in and have not clinched a playoff spot.

buckeyepackfan (8h) : Packers are in, they need to keep winning to improve their seed#.

Mucky Tundra (17h) : Getting help would have been nice, but helping ourselves should always be the plan

beast (17h) : Too bad Seahawks couldn't beat Vikings

bboystyle (18h) : We just need to win Monday night and were in

Mucky Tundra (21h) : Or ties, but let's be real here

Mucky Tundra (21h) : Other scenario was Falcons+Rams losses

Mucky Tundra (21h) : Needed a Falcons loss for a Seahawk loss to clinch

buckeyepackfan (21h) : Am I wring in saying if Tge Vikings beat The Seahawks, The Packers clinch?

Mucky Tundra (21-Dec) : Agreed; you stinks

Please sign in to use Fan Shout

2024 Packers Schedule

Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM

Eagles

29 - 34

Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM

COLTS

16 - 10

Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM

Titans

30 - 14

Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM

VIKINGS

29 - 31

Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM

Rams

24 - 19

Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM

CARDINALS

34 - 13

Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM

TEXANS

24 - 22

Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM

Jaguars

30 - 27

Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM

LIONS

14 - 24

Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM

Bears

20 - 19

Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM

49ERS

38 - 10

Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM

DOLPHINS

30 - 17

Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM

Lions

31 - 34

Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM

Seahawks

30 - 13

Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM

SAINTS

Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM

Vikings

Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM

BEARS