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.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

I recall Starks having poor practice habits in the past. Someone may want to check me on that, but I think it was just after his debut against San Francisco in 2010, and he received poor reviews this training camp. In fact, his lack of progress is what prompted Green Bay to go and sign Cedric Benson. Perhaps Starks is just game day player with a poor practice routine. Regardless, Alex Green isn't getting it done and it wouldn't hurt to work Starks into the game plan more.

Originally Posted by: porky88 

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.

Originally Posted by: Pack93z