James Starks or Ryan Grant?

[Bogart]

Who would you take as the starter?

Personally I'm going with Starks.

He's young and fresh and the games we ran the ball in we got good results, including the playoffs. The lowest rushing yards we had in the post season was 96 yards vs Atlanta, and 96 to me is a good number.

I would like to see them used as a dual attack next year. Run the ball with Grant, then bring out Starks or something such as that.

 

[SoCalPacker]

I'll take a 1,2 punch from the Grant/Starks combo I like both of them

 

[jamie97520]

For me watchin Starks run was exciting and he makes the first guy miss and heads up field. I always felt as though Grant was good for 3 yards but never had much faith he was going to pick up the first down when we needed it. I say use them both and give Starks the chance to earn his #1 spot.

 

[PackCrazed4]

Grant has been such a dedicated member of this football team, it would be unjust to give up his spot to the playoff rookie. We have them both, though, so why not just use both? We'll be dangerous on all fronts, that's for sure.

 

[brett2520]

I think Grant earns it by being a proven RB. once a 1200 yard rusher, he has proven he can do it. If he is healthy, let him have it. If they are both healthy, let starks learn the ropes from the vet. he still has alot to learn before he is our "featured back."

 

[Packerstud]

I'll take a 1,2 punch from the Grant/Starks combo I like both of them

Yep

 

[rawalabhay]

It will be a 1,2 punch next year! Most of the teams are headed in that direction!

 

[LAG]

I like them both. Just one of the attributes I liked about Starks was his ball control. He didn't fumble the ball.

 

[fettpett]

we'll probably have a 1, 2, 3 punch with Grant, Starks and Nance in that order...

 

[ivo610]

seems like MM hates using multiple backs but I hope he does use both this year.

 

[PackersATW]

I'd start Ryan Grant. I think a 70/30 ratio would be about right for divying up the carries. 3rd down back will be Brandon Jackson if he signs for a contract favorable to the Packers. Otherwise wouldn't be suprised to see Thompson spend one of his picks on a 3rd down back/return specialist. Thompson works the scrap heap pretty well so might see another undrafted free agent in the backfield rotation next season.

 

[NelsonsLongCatch]

If this season has taught us anything, it would be that two running backs are better than one. Use em both. The more weapons the better.

 

[hansel13]

I'm more curious to see what happens with Jackson. He'll probably want some more carries then what he was getting near the end of this season. And right now, Grant and Starks IMO are quite a bit better than him right now.

But definitely, we can utilize both Grant and Starks. Having two backs to mix it up is always a plus. If one is having a bad game, plug in the other.

 

[Croak]

Grant is good for about a thousand yards a season. In '07 he had 956 in 7 games. In '08 he had 1203 in 14 games. In '09 he had 1253 in 16 games. Then he got hurt this year. Grant should be the starter with Starks giving him plays off. Jackson should go to some other team for some good draft picks.

 

[Aaron rodgers is god]

I'd start Ryan Grant. I think a 70/30 ratio would be about right for divying up the carries. 3rd down back will be Brandon Jackson if he signs for a contract favorable to the Packers. Otherwise wouldn't be suprised to see Thompson spend one of his picks on a 3rd down back/return specialist. Thompson works the scrap heap pretty well so might see another undrafted free agent in the backfield rotation next season.

Very nicely said. The point is Grant is the main back not starks. Although I love starks, grant has showed for 2 years in a row he can be a good back. Grant was averaging about 80 yards a game. He did that very consistently. Not like some backs where they would get 150 then 50 the next game. One of the most important things about grant is that he does not fumble often.

 

[JJP41]

I would have to go with both. Less wear and tear on Grant that way.

 

[Croak]

Bleacher Report says there are good reasons to think Grant has played his last game as a Packer.

 

[Wood Chipper]

i like both but as most of us know running backs peak in their first few years so the chances of grant getting better are slim. i like them being a 1,2 punch tho

 

[Kitten]

Use both! Can you imagine what our running game is going to be like next year with both Grant and Starks?! To be technical, Grant should be given the #1 string with Starks second in command. I was very very impressed with Starks this year, but it is not to eclipse Grant. Our running game is going to be tight next year. Hopefully M.M. runs them both, they are going to be looking to defend the championship next year, I have faith they will use every weapon they have to its fullest potential.

 

[Calhoun Lambeau]

I would like to see a 70/30 split, with Ryan Grant being the obvious starter. I wouldn't expect Starks comes in and gets the majority of the carries. He had some nice runs, but Grant has to be the guy assuming he's alright coming off injury.

 

[missinghoagies]

To me Grant has more home run potential, several times this year Starks was in the secondary and failed to make one more guy miss to rip off a really big run, Granf had a knack of ripping off huge runs, having said that I like Starks much better in short yardage, so utilize both.

 

[Bogart]

Grant won't last forever, and in the playoff games I think Starks did more than he could have.

I like Grant, don't get me wrong but there's a cold fear in me that after he comes back he's not going to be the same.

 

[Packers80]

Both.

 

[Jess]

Both.

And then draft a speedy kick returning type as a changeup style of runner.

 

[brett2520]

If Ingram lasts to #32, i say take him - BPA.... anyone disagree?