Zero2Cool
12 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
12 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
12 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
12 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
12 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
12 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
12 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
12 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
12 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
12 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
Zero2Cool (5h) : If they'd been more patient with him, he'd be back already. Putting him out there vs Bears caused him to tweak it and here we are.
packerfanoutwest (5h) : well this is his last season with the PAck, book it
beast (7h) : Sounds like no Alexander (again), I'm wondering if his time with the Packers is done
Zero2Cool (13h) : Could ban beast and I still don't think anyone catches him.
Mucky Tundra (26-Dec) : Houston getting dog walked by Baltimore
packerfanoutwest (25-Dec) : Feliz Navidad!
Zero2Cool (25-Dec) : Merry Christmas!
beast (25-Dec) : Merry Christmas 🎄🎁
beast (24-Dec) : Sounds like no serious injuries from the Saints game and Jacobs and Watson should play in the Vikings game
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : both games Watson missed, Packers won
Martha Careful (24-Dec) : I hope all of you have a Merry Christmas!
Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Oh I know about Jacobs, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to mimic Zero lol
buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : Jacobs was just sat down, Watson re-injured that knee that kept him out 1 game earlier
buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : I needed .14 that's. .14 points for the whole 4th quarter to win and go to the SB. Lol
Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Jacobs gonna be OK???
Zero2Cool (24-Dec) : Watson gonna be OK???
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : Inactives tonight for the Pack: Alexander- knee Bullard - ankle Williams - quad Walker -ankle Monk Heath
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : No Jaire, but hopefully the front 7 destroys the line of scrimmage & forces Rattler into a few passes to McKinney.
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : minny could be #1 seed and the Lions #5 seed
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I just checked. What tie breaker?
bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ahh, ok.
bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes due to tie breaker
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?
bboystyle (23-Dec) : Minny isnt going to lose out so 5th seed is out of the equation. We are playing for the 6th or 7th seed which makes no difference
Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network
beast (23-Dec) : If we win tonight the game is still relative in terms of 5th, 6th or 7th seed... win and it's 5th or 6th, lose and it's 6th or 7th
beast (23-Dec) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.
bboystyle (23-Dec) : i mean game becomes irrelevant if we win tonight. Just a game where we are trying to play spoilers to Vikings chance at the #1 seed
Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno
beast (23-Dec) : 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 (23-Dec) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I see what you did there Mucky
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : dammit. 3:25pm
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm
Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground
Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Yeah baby!
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.
beast (23-Dec) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.
packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : ok I stand corrected
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?
beast (23-Dec) : Saying no to the 6th lock.
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

10h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

25-Dec / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

25-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

25-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

25-Dec / GameDay Threads / bboystyle

24-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

24-Dec / Random Babble / beast

24-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

23-Dec / Random Babble / Martha Careful

22-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / packerfanoutwest

19-Dec / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

18-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

17-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

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