The running game

PackersRS

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
8,450
Reaction score
969
Location
Porto Alegre, Brazil
Welcome to the forum man!

Don't take it as personal, but we have already a 10+ page thread discussing the running game, so I'm gonna merge this thread.
 

Incubes12

Bay Harbor Butcher?
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
1,757
Reaction score
316
Location
Buffalo, NY
I don't think we should draft a RB. Grant will be back and we've got 3 other RBs on the roster who could compliment him quite well. I don't see why we wouldn't go with an OL 1st.
 

2411t

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 10, 2010
Messages
686
Reaction score
94
Nobody notices Starks potential as much as Packer fans.

Did u see that play where he got hit at the line and still came up with 5 yards? I looooooved that
 

PackersRS

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
8,450
Reaction score
969
Location
Porto Alegre, Brazil
Starks is the starter then. I liked it.

Jackson is much better at his 3rd down role, he's very good running the screens and blocking.

And it helps that Rodgers is back. With him, the D doesn't have to play as well (I'm worried, BTW), and the running game doesn't need to work as well.

Rodgers and Jennings are the best solution for our running game.
 

maxlives

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
229
Reaction score
61
Location
Baltimore, MD
It's just nice to see a Packers RB run north and south and not hesitate when he hits the hole or always look for the cut back. This is a liability that I think they have found an answer for. Starks isn't the second coming of Paul Hornung (did I just age myself?), but he is the best I've seen in a long time.
 

profile_removed

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 19, 2010
Messages
608
Reaction score
20
Not having a quality backup at RB "in case" Grant went down was Ted's 2010 version of the Favre trade. I.e. dumbest move of the year.
 

ilovemypackers

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
294
Reaction score
123
Location
San Antonio
MM's reasoning for not using Starks in the past few games makes my head spin... Nance has won out the job due to his "special teams" efforts.. MM said Starks still has work to do there and he evaluates them both each week to determine who gets the start.

Having an RB who can also do ST is great.. but really? Sacrifice your running game due to ST's? I don't get it.
 

Wood Chipper

Fantasy Football Guru
Joined
Sep 30, 2010
Messages
4,180
Reaction score
1,028
Location
Virginia
MM's reasoning for not using Starks in the past few games makes my head spin... Nance has won out the job due to his "special teams" efforts.. MM said Starks still has work to do there and he evaluates them both each week to determine who gets the start.

Having an RB who can also do ST is great.. but really? Sacrifice your running game due to ST's? I don't get it.

with how **** poor our running game is i can see where he is coming from
 

Rutnstrut

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 27, 2010
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
MM's reasoning for not using Starks in the past few games makes my head spin... Nance has won out the job due to his "special teams" efforts.. MM said Starks still has work to do there and he evaluates them both each week to determine who gets the start.

Having an RB who can also do ST is great.. but really? Sacrifice your running game due to ST's? I don't get it.

The whole contribution on ST has always been a big MM thing that has driven me crazy. Starks is waaay better than Nance, and they both are 10 times the back jackson will ever be. MM doesn't seem to care that a one dimensional team is not good, especially in the post season.
 

Members online

Latest posts

Top