My case for James Starks over Alex Green· Page 5

Announcement PH Beta → Check it out! Click Me! (you might be see "unsafe", but it is safe)

gbguy20
Veteran Member

12 years ago

#41

IDC what the numbers say, I was happier with Starks running the ball.

BAD EMAIL because the address couldn ot be found, or is unable to receive mail.

Zero2Cool
Elite Member Topic Starter

12 years ago

#42

During the game the announcers said Mike McCarthy was planning on using James Starks on 1st and 2nd down and then Alex Green on 3rd. Where did we hear that before? I think Mike is stalking our little website! haha.

James Starks was by far the better runner yesterday, no question. But Green is worlds better on 3rd and long and pass blocking. The only time I'd want Starks in on 3rd is if it's 3rd and 3 or less to go. I feel Green has tons more potential to break one 50+, where I think the longest we'll see from Starks is 30'ish. However, I think Starks makes more out of nothing than Green and that's why I prefer Starks.

PackFanWithTwins
Veteran Member

12 years ago

#43

I don't think either overall is better than the other. Like any back Both are dependent on the Oline blocking.

For a break down
Starks had 1 negative run, 1 No gain, 7 0-3 yards, 6 4-9, and 1 >10.
Green had 0 Negative runs, 1 No gain, 5 0-3 yards, 4 4-9, and 1 >10.

The key for the run success this week, was running up the middle more. The line can run block when they are allowed to plow forward.

I like the day Green had, the only bad run he had was the no gainer which there was nothing he could do. the only hole opened had an unbloced DT and LB waiting for him. When you add his screen play on top of his rushes.

The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!

zombieslayer
Registered

12 years ago

#44

Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins

Sort of agreed on your first point. There is one thing that I'm sure 🇲🇲 will take into consideration is that there aren't too many DBs in the NFL who Starks will get away from in the open field. Green on the other hand is capable of busting big ones. Plus, Green is a better receiver and better blocker. Starks may be tougher to tackle, but right now, I give a slight nod to Green.

By the end of the season, if Starks proves me wrong, so be it. I'll support whomever we're playing.

My man Donald Driver

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

SINCITYCHEEZE
Senior Member

12 years ago

#45

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool

I agree.It would be nice to be able to run it on 3rd-short instead passing.

Wisconsin Born, Packer Bred

TheKanataThrilla
Veteran Member

12 years ago

#46

IDC what the numbers say, I was happier with Starks running the ball.

Originally Posted by: gbguy20

Me too until he fumbled the ball. This seems like a risk/reward type of situation. Starks provides more talent, but is more likely to cause the negative play.

doddpower
Veteran Member

12 years ago

#47

Me too until he fumbled the ball. This seems like a risk/reward type of situation. Starks provides more talent, but is more likely to cause the negative play.

Originally Posted by: TheKanataThrilla

Yeah, I'd rather 2.5ish yards per carry average on 20 attempts and no fumbles than than a 4.0 ypc average and a fumble or two, at least I'm pretty sure I would. This offense has and will continue to run through Aaron Rodgers and the passing game. The running game is there for the attempts and hopefully enough yardage to keep the defense honest and allow the offensive line to tee off on the defense a bit. Obviously a better average is ideal, but most important, don't turn the damn ball over. Even if there is no running game, with the ball in Aaron Rodgers hands, the Packers always have a chance. Allow Starks or Green to fumble the ball away and the opposing team to keep Rodgers off the field for extended periods of time is a recipe for disaster for the packers.

Zero2Cool
Elite Member Topic Starter

12 years ago

#48

"McCarthy said the Packers will let “next week tell us the story” about how the team will proceed with platooning running backs James Starks and Alex Green in the backfield, but it sounded promising that Starks will continue to see an expanded role on offense."

James Starks, hasn't had ball security issues before, so hopefully it doesn't become one now and it looks like he'll get more playing time. Of course, unless he puts the ball on the turf again.

nerdmann
Premier Member

12 years ago

#49

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool

One of them will get injured.

Meantime, the Packers will platoon them based on matchups.

If one of them gets injured too badly, they might even make Grant a lowball offer.

“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.”

Pack93z
Select Member

12 years ago

#50

Well, if Starks doesn't have the motivation to stay on the field and produce with Green nipping at his heals.. then this might be the last stand he has in Green Bay.
Mike McCarthy has done all but color him a picture... want reps stay on the field you candy ass.

"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"

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 (2h) : I was rooting for the Bears to win and hurt their draft pick status

Zero2Cool (2h) : Forgot there was even a game last night haha

TheKanataThrilla (2h) : That was terrible.

TheKanataThrilla (2h) : Watching that game in its entirety yesterday is proof positive that I am a football addict.

beast (2h) : And horrible time management multiple times... and not being able to score more than 3 points on a team with talent

beast (2h) : Realizing the Bears didn't fix it from the previous week and do the same thing, getting the game to overtime

beast (2h) : They probably are not tanking, but they've absolutely mismanagement some things, such as Vikings seeing the Packers blocked FG and realizing

Zero2Cool (3h) : Crazy of Bears to have that mindset that is

Zero2Cool (4h) : Hail Mary stop away from 5 - 2. Not sure how that flips to tanking. Crazy mindset if true

beast (4h) : I've quietly questioned if Bears are tanking on purpose... they suddenly got a lot worse with some simple concepts like 101 clock management

wpr (6h) : Watching bares fans melt down over how putrid their team is, so enjoyable. It's the gift that keeps on giving.

Mucky Tundra (14h) : The Seattle Seahawks defeat the Chicago Bears 6-3. Jason Myers had 6 RBIs for Seattle while Cairo Santos had 3 RBI for Chicago

beast (15h) : Not nessarily, he might of been injured either way. He's playing about 50% of the games the last 4 years

Zero2Cool (21h) : 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 (21h) : well this is his last season with the PAck, book it

beast (22h) : Sounds like no Alexander (again), I'm wondering if his time with the Packers is done

Zero2Cool (26-Dec) : 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

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

34 - 0

Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM

Vikings

Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM

BEARS