The only starter we miss (kind of) is Finley

Periodically I find myself thinking what this team could do with Finley and Grant suiting up, I try to think of something else fast when that happens. Usually it's how great they've played without them.

This is where we have to thank Ted Thompson, and the Packer scouts. What an amazing job they have done at building the depth that will win this team a championship, if not this year, then very soon.

I like Starks a lot, but if we had Grant with Starks and Bjax on 3rd down, we are a much better team. Perhaps two more big games from Starks will make me think differently, but I like Grant with this offense. And if we had Tausch (performing like last season), it is possible that Bulaga is at LG and the overall OL is better. I don't think we miss Barnett much with Bishop. I like Peprah over Burnett and Walden over Jones.

I am sorry but Starks is not a wash from Grant. Grant was proven and could do it all. The fact that they got to this point without him is pretty amazing. Grant in there and the team would have been playing this game at home.

We would have been playing at home if we had Starks from the get go. Thank god we have him now.

There was a stat at the start of this season, something like since starting in week 7 (?) of 2007, only Adrian Peterson has had more rushing over yards the same span.

Ryan Grant is a great back. Not flashy, but after fumbling twice against Seattle in the playoffs, and then going off for 200 yards...the man earned my respect. I look forward to having him back and healthy. He brings a lot to the table, and he's a good man. Packer people!

Finley: Obviously missed. He's a special player.
Grant: He's better than Starks right now. Grant was very underrated by fans and media.
Neal: I liked him a lot when he played. I think DE is a bit thin right now.
Jones and Zombo: Walden might be a better pass rusher, but Jones and Zombo are more well rounded. What they give up as pass rushers they make up for in run defense and coverage.

Other than that, they haven't missed anyone.

I have a feeling that Burnett would have made big strides had he been healthy all year. He has a lot of natural ability, he just needed time to improve. It seems like having Woodson on the team helps to speed up the learning curve for our young secondary players.

quote:

Originally posted by CHEEZE:
I am sorry but Starks is not a wash from Grant. Grant was proven and could do it all. The fact that they got to this point without him is pretty amazing. Grant in there and the team would have been playing this game at home.

From Cristl GBPG:

Replacing Grant should have been easy. It was laughable to hear or read that he had provided a consistent running game. Last year, against the Packers’ six opponents that finished with a winning record, Grants rushing totals were 46, 51, 30, 79, 41, 37 and 51 yards.

Starks tonight: 66 yards.

I know Grant is Packer people and an above average back but he doesn't break man tackles and doesn't have much "swivel" in the hips.

Grant is a good back, not great. We haven't seen enough of Starks to really know how good he is or isn't. I like what I see so far though.

If they'd have had Finley I have to believe at the very least they'd have won at the very least one of these games:

Redskins
Dolphins
Lions
Falcons

Those games all had critical turnovers or failed TD drives inside the 10 yard line. They also struggled mightily against that cover 2 crap the Bears run and he's torn them up in the last 2 games against them.

Does not matter much now though, the only difference is they've got to play on the road to get to the Bowl instead of Lambeau.

quote:

Originally posted by packerboi:
Starks tonight: 66 yards.

Not a tremendous amount of yards or a good average, but I really liked what Starks did last night. He kept the defense honest, ran extremely hard and when there wasn't anything there he almost always plowed ahead for some positive yardage.

I think Crusher's post is pretty spot on.

I think Finley may have the best hands on the team and the work he does over the middle and in the red zone very possibly was a difference maker in some of the games the Pack lost when he was missing. Heck, you could see the difference in the 2 times the Pack played the Bears how much more difficult it was for the Pack to move the ball without Finley than it was the 1st time those 2 teams played.

I'm also in the camp that Grant was an above average starting RB, but not a great RB. I think Pro Football Weekly (rankings done by a consensus of NFL scouts and other front office personnel) had him ranked #9 or 10 coming into the season and that sounded about right to me. He was above average, but not an elite RB.

Bishop put his money where his mouth was. Definitely like seeing him in there.
Bulaga may have a future, but he's had some pretty poor games, pass protecting and penalties. Wouldn't bother me a bit to see an old but healthy Tausher still protecting the right side.
Burnett was looking good, never had a chance to strut his stuff. Peprah overcame his own previous lack of production. Just love looking forward to both next year.
If someone just showed you last night's line for Starks, 25/66, how would you evaluate him? Definite upgrade from TJax, not so much from Grant.
Jones was adequate last year, ESPECIALLY for a 7th round pick, but that's about it. I don't think anyone was touting him as the answer opposite CMIII.
Certainly do agree on the chance for all the guys to get experience.

Next years' battle in training camp for positions are going to be awesome. I really hope the rosters expand 3-4 spots. That would allow Green Bay to protect alot of these guys.

All that talent coming back next year will be like having two draft classes. Hopefully TT can trade some for draft picks. Keep the talent pipeline going...

This thread is ridiculous. They miss every one of those starters because they were starters OVER the guys that replaced them for a reason. They don't miss them as much because the very same coaches that chose them as starters have made tremendous adjustments (especially on defense) and they're able to keep winning and play well but writing those guys off just because the team is playing well is rather.....illogical. That's a pretty good list of players.

Assuming those players would not have also settled in to the system more when the guys playing now did is a bit misguided, no?

When the Packers came out of the tunnel, my wife made the comment that they had alot of players wearing 'sideline' clothing. I told her it was because we had so many players on IR and they were probably all there. On that note, did we see Tausch there? Didn't know if he was traveling with the team during playoffs or not.

I saw Tauscher during the game a number of times. He's hard to miss!

Tauscher was shown several times.

I guess I don't pay that much attention when they show the sidelines

Tauscher was also at the Philly game. I'm not certain, but I think he's traveled to several away games after being IRed.

quote:

Originally posted by Pakrz:
Grant is a good back, not great. We haven't seen enough of Starks to really know how good he is or isn't. I like what I see so far though.

I'm going on the record right now. I don't know what "it" is but this kid had "it". If he stays healthy and out of trouble he will be very good if not great.

quote:

Originally posted by packerboi:

quote:

Originally posted by CHEEZE:
I am sorry but Starks is not a wash from Grant. Grant was proven and could do it all. The fact that they got to this point without him is pretty amazing. Grant in there and the team would have been playing this game at home.

From Cristl GBPG:

Replacing Grant should have been easy. It was laughable to hear or read that he had provided a consistent running game. Last year, against the Packers’ six opponents that finished with a winning record, Grants rushing totals were 46, 51, 30, 79, 41, 37 and 51 yards.

Starks tonight: 66 yards.

Is that because of scheme or because of Grant? It is a bit of both. Easy for him to say that it should have been easy. He gets to write about it not actually execute on the field. Being a sports reporter or columnist is a lot like being a weatherman. You get to make statements like that which are impossible to prove or disprove.

I think there's a chance they may have lost another game or two if Burnett was still the safety. He had some iffy plays that are to be expected from a rookie and there would have been more, imo. Peprah has stepped up in a huge way and kept the back end tidy. Can't say enough about what he's done.

I like Nick Barnett, but the demeanor of the defense is a lot more serious without all his goofy antics out there.

Shields is the real find and a lot of the credit goes to him for taking his opportunity and putting the work in. You'd think opposing teams would try to pick on him, some have tried but he rises up almost every time. Credit also goes to Perry for getting him ready and the personnel staff for making sure there are a bunch of high character, hard working guys on the team. There wasn't a band of knuckleheads on the team for Shields to get caught up in.

Diito on Shields. As I and others have noted, his emergence has transformed the entire D. Allows them to use Woody in the slot and do it all, plus limiting 21's coverage resonsibilities. The sky is the limit for this kid.

Walden missed a tackle on Turner's 13 yard TD run. He should of had him.

Still puzzled by the lack of apprieciation of Ryan Grant. We may have missed Finley a lot during the season, but if Grant was available Finley would have been missed less.

quote:

Originally posted by ammo:
Still puzzled by the lack of apprieciation of Ryan Grant.

I think it's kind of ponderous too. Always got tough yards. Had breakaway potential, played hurt, never fumbled, high character guy. He's a tremendous player. Not flashy, but reliable and trustworthy.

quote:

Originally posted by Herschel:
This thread is ridiculous. They miss every one of those starters because they were starters OVER the guys that replaced them for a reason.

The reason is that the coaches made the decision to keep the injured guys as starters. Maybe good, maybe not. If Barnett was healthy, he'd be starting over Bishop because Bishop wouldn't have had a chance to show what he could do for real. What would have happened to Brady if Bledsoe hadn't gone down? For that matter, touchy subject that it is, how about Majik/Favre? The point is, just because someone is annointed as the starter doesn't make him the better player.

I value Grant but Starks is adequately filling his shoes. Starks is tougher to bring down and breaks more tackles. Starks made something out of virtually nothing yesterday. Our OL did not create much of anything for him to run through last night. I am not knocking Grant and I am excited to get him back but although it's early, Starks makes people miss, has good hands, and runs over people. Grant hits the hole harder and has break away speed but I've always been a bit frustrated with his production, not his attitude or work ethic. Either way, our backfield will be in good shape for next year.

I don't care if I'm right or wrong because it's win/win, but I think Starks is going to end up being better than Grant.

I am likely in the minority, but I think the Packers' offense didn't really show improvement until Finley went down. I think Rodgers keyed onto Finley too often, overlooking the wide receivers. Once Finley got injured, Rodgers was forced to spread the ball around a little bit more and the offense finally showed life.

Don't get me wrong - Finley is a great player to have. I just think the Packers losses had more to do with the injuries to Matthews and Rodgers than to the other players.

I agree Point. Rodgers was focusing on J Fin to much in the first couple games. What makes him great is his ability to go through his progressions and find the open guy (on top of having ability to keep a play alive and throw with accuracy on the move). He was counting to much on J Fins play making ability instead of playing within the offense.

Perhaps somewhat like the Sterling Sharpe era.

I read through the entire thread and was going to post exactly what the last three posts just said.

Hopefully MM has learned the value of not building an entire offense around 1 guy and that Finley will have a bigger impact when the rest of the offense has success. Can't double or triple Finely if you're worrying about 4 or 5 other guys getting open.

And on Starks/Grant - anybody saying Grant has "breakaway speed", implying Starks doesn't, is just wrong. Starks has plenty of speed per his workout numbers and the burst he has shown in a couple of his longer runs. He hasn't had a ton of carries yet and just because he hasn't yet broken one doesn't mean he can't.

Starks has come close to breaking some long runs. It's going to happen. He can reach full speed in a blink and that makes him very dangerous.