As pointed out by some other insightful Packer fans, TT stole both Morgan Burnett and James Starks from Da Bears in last years' draft
Good read! We'll need another year or so to see if he's another Terrell Davis, but he's off to a good start.
"I felt that if he was able to play in 2009 and had a season similar to 2008 he may have been a second to third-round type pick. The talent was there, durability issues had to be answered."
No reason at all to wait a bit to see what he could do, right?
No reason at all to wait a bit to see what he could do, right?
I remember reading about that after the Pack selected him. Here's hoping he continues making the playoffs his coming out party
Aside from a few Bears fans, you'll find no disagreement here.
Damn Angelo! How could he not draft this year's Samkon Gado.... 
Don't worry, we can all smell the schit in your pants.
Pray for the Falcons...it's your only shot (assuming you beat Seattle, of course).
Pray for the Falcons...it's your only shot (assuming you beat Seattle, of course).
BearBite, all I hope is that your overpaid free agents and whiny QB can get by worthless, POS Lynch and company and hopefully get a trimatch with my favorite team. It really is amazing that poorly coached mismanaged team like the Bears are a two seed. Wait...injuries....
quote:After Starks went 1 and -1 in the most crucial drive of the game? Nary a peep. Not a one.
Rightly so, I might add. Those were the right calls, the OL blocking was poor those plays, and maybe a misdirection or less predictable run by MM may have been a good idea.
I think many of us were calling for a play-action throw on the 2nd down and 9- a safe one but one designed to gain 1st down yardage, would have been a good call here. It would have been better at that stage with a run/pass down and distance (especially considering the stage of the game) to treat the drive the same as any other. It would obvious the Eagles were keying the run- MM is a smart enough playcaller to know that you don't need much of a flinch from a LB on a play fake to get a sliver of room for your best player to deliver a knock-out blow.
It was ultra conservative and ultimately counter-productive playcalling. That Rodgers was sacked on the next play suggests they were banking on run-run-spread out. It's exacly what they got. MM got out-coached in that moment, and he said so himself after the game. The D bailed them out.
quote:Originally posted by chickenboy:
BearBite, all I hope is that your overpaid free agents and whiny QB can get by worthless, POS Lynch and company and hopefully get a trimatch with my favorite team. It really is amazing that poorly coached mismanaged team like the Bears are a two seed. Wait...injuries....
If the Johnson TD in week 1 stands, that 2 seed does not make the playoffs. Tiebreaker goes to G-men.
quote:It was ultra conservative and ultimately counter-productive playcalling.
Conservative, yes.. Counter productive, no way.
The fact that Phlly had no TO's plaed a big part in Vick making a rushed play call and poor throw. Go look at his teammates now wondering why he didnt clock it and settle down.
I say counter-productive because you still have one of the best QBs in the NFL and you took the ball out of his hands in a moment where the other team was banking on you being conservative. It was a situation that screamed for Rodgers to attack with a play fake, and it to me was a missed opportunity to hammer a nail in the coffin right there.
I'll bet in the same situation, they don't run the ball next time.
I'll bet in the same situation, they don't run the ball next time.
quote:Originally posted by BrainDed:
Conservative, yes.. Counter productive, no way.
agree
I know there has been the question, Is he a one-hit wonder? These are just 3 examples, IMO, why he is not. He shows very good vision and the instinct you want in a RB.
Watch at 0:47 of this first clip - @35 yard line Starks dips his shoulders and gets small to hit the hole. Love that.
Packer@Eagles hi-lights
Starks run vs SFO - Wayne and Larry get wood. Again he dips his shoulders at the hole/hit and makes the defender miss
Starks 92 yarder in college - enough speed and nice burst at the hole.
I think they have something with this guy.
Watch at 0:47 of this first clip - @35 yard line Starks dips his shoulders and gets small to hit the hole. Love that.
Packer@Eagles hi-lights
Starks run vs SFO - Wayne and Larry get wood. Again he dips his shoulders at the hole/hit and makes the defender miss
Starks 92 yarder in college - enough speed and nice burst at the hole.
I think they have something with this guy.
quote:Originally posted by CAPackFan95:
Hmm, I thought the Vikings missed the playoffs.
With that veteran backup QB of theirs?
You Can Not Be Serious
quote:Originally posted by Tdog:
I
just can't believe
this "debate"
is happening
again.
Tell me please, which came first, the chicken or the egg?
You and me both.
I just want to be clear. Are we moving the proverbial goalposts again by saying "Now that the Packers have Starks anything less than the Superbowl is a failure"? Because that's the stank wafting past my nostrils at the moment.
quote:Originally posted by Hungry5:
I know there has been the question, Is he a one-hit wonder? These are just 3 examples, IMO, why he is not. He shows very good vision and the instinct you want in a RB.
Watch at 0:47 of this first clip - @35 yard line Starks dips his shoulders and gets small to hit the hole. Love that.
Packer@Eagles hi-lights
Starks run vs SFO - Wayne and Larry get wood. Again he dips his shoulders at the hole/hit and makes the defender miss
Starks 92 yarder in college - enough speed and nice burst at the hole.
I think they have something with this guy.
I agree. If it was as easy as some people seem to think, Jackson would have been tearing off 120-yard games all season. Starks piled up those yards because he's got ability. It's not as though the Eagles were standing around going, "Hey, what's that? Some guy's running past me with the football! Oh, well, someone else will tackle him; I'm busy rushing the quarterback."
I'm not calling him the second coming of Barry Sanders - or even Ryan Grant - but it seems clear he's a legitimate NFL running back. Good enough to give us a credible running threat that other teams will have to account for, and that's something very important that we really haven't had all year.
quote:Originally posted by Henry:
I just want to be clear. Are we moving the proverbial goalposts again by saying "Now that the Packers have Starks anything less than the Superbowl is a failure"? Because that's the stank wafting past my nostrils at the moment.
I think many are happy to have a pulse in the backfield. That pretty much sums it up. YPC be damned.
@Salmon Dave... as I mentioned earlier in this thread... "that if the holes were there for Jackson like what we saw for Starks, Brandon would have had closer to 80-90 yards:..."Did Starks show a bit more spark and vision than Jackson? Clearly."
I just like the little extra that Starks has compared to Jackson.
I just like the little extra that Starks has compared to Jackson.
Here's your hand out for the day pusscake. Make it last.
quote:Originally posted by chickenboy:
If the Packers end up with anything less than a ring and one would have to make a list of reasons why,
quote:Originally posted by CAPackFan95:
What's in the box?
Twitter and it sux ...
I'd hate to be twittered like a fool. VaJayJay what say you?
Hmmm. This author claims that Starks has in fact not improved the Packers running game. At all.
quote:On a per-play basis, Starks has not been an improvement on the combination of Jackson and Kuhn. Those two backs led a rushing attack that produced a DVOA of 1.1% during the regular season. Starks has those 332 rushing yards, but it's taken him 70 carries to get there. He's been an inefficient back, producing just 11 first downs and one touchdown on those carries, yielding a Success Rate of just 33 percent. That would be the worst rate in the league for a qualifying running back if Starks had produced those figures during the regular season. Combine those figures, and Starks's rushing DVOA during the postseason is at -7.8%. He's produced a total of just 2 DYAR.
I tend to appreciate statistics, but it's stuff like this that makes the purists laugh at these nerdy calculations. It's entirely possible that Starks isn't doing much more statistically with the extra carries, but his ability to pop the 8-15 yarders simply wasn't there with BJax and Kuhn. Not to mention the 20+ runs he's rattled off. Plus, I'm sure his attempts during grind out time of all three games definitely hurt this particular number.
I don't think anyone who's watched all 19 games like we have could argue his value to the offense.
I don't think anyone who's watched all 19 games like we have could argue his value to the offense.
woahwoahwoahwoahwoahwoahwoah...................we were told all year the Pack's running game was fine due to YPC.
quote:woahwoahwoahwoahwoahwoahwoah
We were also told we couldn't get to the Super Bowl with our running game.
Quit while you're way behind
quote:Originally posted by Boris:quote:woahwoahwoahwoahwoahwoahwoah
We were also told we couldn't get to the Super Bowl with our running game.
Quit while you're way behind
I would love for you to show me a post where I said this team couldn't get to the bowl with that crap running game they had before Starks. If I said that, I'll be happy to eat a buffet of crow.
quote:Originally posted by chickenboy:
woahwoahwoahwoahwoahwoahwoah...................we were told all year the Pack's running game was fine due to YPC.
And that article supports exactly that belief.
Reading comprehension is hard!
So you agree with it then. Great. It's a load of crap like the stupid YPC thing was all year. Pwned.
Well that was quite the well thought out argument backed by data and experience.
Well done.
Debate on the level of a 6 year old child. So, you're moving up! Good on ya vikingboy.
Well done.
Debate on the level of a 6 year old child. So, you're moving up! Good on ya vikingboy.