So J.Starks is basically useless

[dreen626 17]

No Grant today and Rodgers scores two rushing TDs?!?

 

Terrible week for me.

 

Hopefully Starks gets at least a cheap TD before its over.

 

[Busted by the Feds 9]

He's good if you already have a big lead and just want to stick it to your opponent. But to win a game for you, ehh.

[SNZ11 5]

I think so. It seems like he has had a few chances to prove that he can be the guy, but he looks pretty bad to me.

[dreen626 17]

Another passing TD...no Starks.

 

wow.

[p00h 85]

Another passing TD...no Starks.

 

wow.

 

 

you're saying wow as if the pack is known to run the ball into the ground as opposed to passing...

 

I don't think he's worthless at all. Doesn't have a lot of carries or a monster yard per average, but he's got a good deal of touches running and passing. That's best you can ask for. He hasn't done much with the touches but if given them consistently I can see him doing his thing. I'd temper marshall faulkesque expectations though if that's what you mean...

[dreen626 17]

^^Well i thought he may get 1 TD today being Grant was out.

 

GB scores 49 pts and its unreasonable for me to think Grant could get at least one TD?

[gocolts 300]

^^Well i thought he may get 1 TD today being Grant was out.

 

GB scores 49 pts and its unreasonable for me to think Grant could get at least one TD?

Well, kinda hard to score when he is not on the field.

[p00h 85]

^^Well i thought he may get 1 TD today being Grant was out.

 

GB scores 49 pts and its unreasonable for me to think Grant could get at least one TD?

 

so anything less of a TD and 100 yards and you're gonna deem him a failure. Check.

 

Because packer rbs consistently break 100 yards and always score a TD, every game...

 

 

[p00h 85]

not particularly. I just think that it makes you look dumb, thats all...

[MDC 7,977]

Got 9 points sobfar at my flex spot. He was a 9th rounder in my 14-team league, WTF did you expect?

[p00h 85]

Got 9 points sobfar at my flex spot. He was a 9th rounder in my 14-team league, WTF did you expect?

 

 

100 total yards, but you know, packer rbs average 1.8 rushing tds a game, so people were expecting starks to get his share of that action. He sucks...

[dreen626 17]

not particularly. I just think that it makes you look dumb, thats all...

 

FU biatch, that's all.

[dreen626 17]

Got 9 points sobfar at my flex spot. He was a 9th rounder in my 14-team league, WTF did you expect?

 

More than 9 pts today.

 

WTF did you expect?

[WR Guru 31]

18 touches for 100+ total yards. That seems pretty solid to me. Other than that abortion last week, he's averaging 91 yards a game. I guess it all depends on your expectations. He was a a #3 RB with upside coming in to the week and that's what he still is.

[MDC 7,977]

More than 9 pts today.

 

WTF did you expect?

 

About what I got out of a 3rd RB / flex I drafted in the 9th round of a 14-team league.

[KSB2424 3,174]

About what I got out of a 3rd RB / flex I drafted in the 9th round of a 14-team league.

You can't bring up where somebody was drafted over a month ago and somehow link that to their expectation today. If the draft was held yesterday (with Grant OUT) Starks woulda been drafted in the 4th round with RB2 expectations. That's what people expected from him today and why he was started in a whole lot of leagues.

[MDC 7,977]

You can't bring up where somebody was drafted over a month ago and somehow link that to their expectation today. If the draft was held yesterday (with Grant OUT) Starks woulda been drafted in the 4th round with RB2 expectations. That's what people expected from him today and why he was started in a whole lot of leagues.

 

If you needed RB 2 numbers out of Starks today you mostly blew it on draft day and he's the least of your worries, hth.

[KSB2424 3,174]

If you needed RB 2 numbers out of Starks today you mostly blew it on draft day and he's the least of your worries, hth.

My RB's to start the season.

 

Jamaal Charles

Frank Gore

Felix Jones

James Starks

 

One is out with a torn ACL and the other two were banged up. When Grant went down, Starks all the sudden became my second best option going into this week as my other guys were banged up too.

 

You see, this isn't week one. Injures happen. Players dissapoint, underachieve, overachieve, etc. The fantasy football landscape is not even close to the same as it is a month ago. Stafford is a top five QB and his expectation this week was higher than week one. It changes for every player.

 

Thats why its stupid to say "Well I drafted him in the X round so that's what should be expected" That's akin to the scmhoe who won't trade a guy beause he was drafted in the 3rd round and your guy in the 5th. Who focking cares where they were drafted over a month ago? It's their value today!

[MDC 7,977]

My RB's to start the season.

 

Jamaal Charles

Frank Gore

Felix Jones

James Starks

 

One is out with a torn ACL and the other two were banged up. When Grant went down, Starks all the sudden became my second best option going into this week as my other guys were banged up too.

 

You see, this isn't week one. Injures happen. Players dissapoint, underachieve, overachieve, etc. The fantasy football landscape is not even close to the same as it is a month ago. Stafford is a top five QB and his expectation this week was higher than week one. It changes for every player.

 

Thats why its stupid to say "Well I drafted him in the X round so that's what should be expected" That's akin to the scmhoe who won't trade a guy beause he was drafted in the 3rd round and your guy in the 5th. Who focking cares where they were drafted over a month ago? It's their value today!

 

As a guy with Foster and Blount at RB - along with Starks, Tolbert, Stewart and Lynch - I'm not relying on Starks for much and 100 total yards is great for a flex spot. Your expectations ate too high.

[jerryskids 7,143]

My RB's to start the season.

 

Jamaal Charles

Frank Gore

Felix Jones

James Starks

 

One is out with a torn ACL and the other two were banged up. When Grant went down, Starks all the sudden became my second best option going into this week as my other guys were banged up too.

 

You see, this isn't week one. Injures happen. Players dissapoint, underachieve, overachieve, etc. The fantasy football landscape is not even close to the same as it is a month ago. Stafford is a top five QB and his expectation this week was higher than week one. It changes for every player.

 

Thats why its stupid to say "Well I drafted him in the X round so that's what should be expected" That's akin to the scmhoe who won't trade a guy beause he was drafted in the 3rd round and your guy in the 5th. Who focking cares where they were drafted over a month ago? It's their value today!

MDC quits his drafts after he gets his starters, because none of his players get hurt and they all perform as he expected.

[WR Guru 31]

Green Bay is as much of a pass-first team as there is in the NFL. Thus, production from any Packers RB is unreliable. Be happy with 18/101, because it could just as easily have been 10/50 if the game had developed differently.

[MDC 7,977]

MDC quits his drafts after he gets his starters, because none of his players get hurt and they all perform as he expected.

 

Starks was a 9th or later pick in every draft. If you need more than 100 total yards out of Starks to win, the problem isn't Starks - it's bad drafting or bad luck.

 

You 2 should do like Michael Jackson and start with the man in the mirror.

[jerryskids 7,143]

Starks was a 9th or later pick in every draft. If you need more than 100 total yards out of Starks to win, the problem isn't Starks - it's bad drafting or bad luck.

 

You 2 should do like Michael Jackson and start with the man in the mirror.

 

I don't own Starks, but nice try. I do have Rodgers in one league though.

 

I was just pointing out the idiocy of your statement. HTH.

[MDC 7,977]

I was just pointing out the idiocy of your statement. HTH.

 

I was pointing out the idiocy of counting on huge games from relative late round sleepers and getting angry when they don't come through, no rebuttal yet but you tools will come up with something. Meanwhile I won huge today with Starks at my flex because I didn't need my 9th rounder to put up 150 or more yards and multiple TDa. Who's the idiot here?

[donhaas 19]

I thought Starks played well...

Obviously, Denver's failure to stop anything Rodgers did all day hurt Starks as did Rodgers running it in twice.... But you can't really be upset with a guy whose team scored 7 times.... I think it was a bit unlucky that Starks wasn't one of them...

 

He's hardly useless.... especially with Grant on the shelf...

[MDC 7,977]

I thought Starks played well...

Obviously, Denver's failure to stop anything Rodgers did all day hurt Starks as did Rodgers running it in twice.... But you can't really be upset with a guy whose team scored 7 times.... I think it was a bit unlucky that Starks wasn't one of them...

 

He's hardly useless.... especially with Grant on the shelf...

 

Wrong, he's garbage. If Starks only put up 200 yards and 3 TDs I would've won!

[jerryskids 7,143]

I was pointing out the idiocy of counting on huge games from relative late round sleepers and getting angry when they don't come through, no rebuttal yet but you tools will come up with something. Meanwhile I won huge today with Starks at my flex because I didn't need my 9th rounder to put up 150 or more yards and multiple TDa. Who's the idiot here?

 

There have been plenty of rebuttals, you are just too ignorant to acknowledge them. You said you are in a 14-team league, and that it is unreasonable to expect RB2 numbers from Starks based solely on your observation that you got him in the 9th round. So in your opinion, Starks was not one of the top 28 RBs playing this weekend, for a juggernaut offense with his primary competitor (Grant) inactive and playing against a crappy team? I presume also that his draft position was not affected by Grant's then-status of being the starter?

 

Then again, you are a liberal, so you probably play in a league which progressively taxes players who perform well and gives their points to players who underperform.

[MDC 7,977]

There have been plenty of rebuttals, you are just too ignorant to acknowledge them. You said you are in a 14-team league, and that it is unreasonable to expect RB2 numbers from Starks based solely on your observation that you got him in the 9th round. So in your opinion, Starks was not one of the top 28 RBs playing this weekend, for a juggernaut offense with his primary competitor (Grant) inactive and playing against a crappy team? I presume also that his draft position was not affected by Grant's then-status of being the starter?

 

Then again, you are a liberal, so you probably play in a league which progressively taxes players who perform well and gives their points to players who underperform.

 

Starks had 100 total yards today as the lead back on a team that passes the ball a lot more than it runs it, and tends to run a RBBC regardless. A TD would've been gravy but his yardage numbers were fine as a flex start. Anyone who lost because Starks didn't end up with a cheap TD plunge has injuries or underperforming players at other positions to blame.

 

I'm in a league that rewards good drafting and team management, not panty-pissing little girls who whine about the 3rd or 4th RB on their team "only" getting 100 total yards. Go cry to Oprah, biznitch. Nobody cares about your stupid fvcking problems.

[nearbyatom 1]

If Starks is useless, then what would u call Ryan grant?

[MDC 7,977]

If Starks is useless, then what would u call Ryan grant?

 

Even more useless? He went 3 rounds earlier in my league.

[jerryskids 7,143]

Starks had 100 total yards today as the lead back on a team that passes the ball a lot more than it runs it, and tends to run a RBBC regardless. A TD would've been gravy but his yardage numbers were fine as a flex start. Anyone who lost because Starks didn't end up with a cheap TD plunge has injuries or underperforming players at other positions to blame.

 

I'm in a league that rewards good drafting and team management, not panty-pissing little girls who whine about the 3rd or 4th RB on their team "only" getting 100 total yards. Go cry to Oprah, biznitch. Nobody cares about your stupid fvcking problems.

 

I already told you that I don't own Starks; is English your first language? My initial response was to your statement:

If you needed RB 2 numbers out of Starks today you mostly blew it on draft day and he's the least of your worries, hth.

 

I pointed out why RB2 numbers were not unreasonable. You are making shotgun blasts as you backtrack from that position. You really should stop now.

[jgcrawfish 232]

I was pointing out the idiocy of counting on huge games from relative late round sleepers and getting angry when they don't come through, no rebuttal yet but you tools will come up with something. Meanwhile I won huge today with Starks at my flex because I didn't need my 9th rounder to put up 150 or more yards and multiple TDa. Who's the idiot here?

 

um, you're the idiot here...regardless of how your fantasy football team did.

[Ray_T 792]

I dont know about everyone here, but I did not draft Starks to be a fantasy starter. I expected a quality backup who could possibly start on bye weeks and has a chance to start to put up some numbers by year end.

 

I dont think he played particularly bad today. he just didnt get a TD. That will happen sometimes. What matters is that the offense itself did well with him in the lineup. This bodes well for his long term fantasy value even if his fantasy numbers weren't huge.

 

The real reason he didnt put up numbers is that the pass game was so dominant that they did not need to run the ball often to balance things out.

 

ie. when you find a way to beat a team, you keep doing what you are doing until they show they can stop you. In this case, the pass game couldnt be stopped, so why run the ball?

 

either way, to jump on and off the bandwagon for the results of one game can be.... not good for your fantasy team.

[nobody 2,910]

I don't know what kind of leagues you guys play in, but in my leagues 100 total yards is a respectable day from a RB2. Not great by any means, but respectable.

 

Besides, all he did was outscore Adrian Peterson, Maurice Jones Drew, Felix Jones, Reshard Mendenhall, and Peyton Hillis. And not to mention, he basically matched Chris Johnson's production.

 

By the way, Kuhn is the Packers goalline runningabck anyway, and Grant hasn't put up a 100 total yard day or a TD this year, so what esactly is there to whine about?

[Giants Fan 85]

The fans love Kuhn.

[MDC 7,977]

I already told you that I don't own Starks; is English your first language? My initial response was to your statement:

 

 

I pointed out why RB2 numbers were not unreasonable. You are making shotgun blasts as you backtrack from that position. You really should stop now.

 

Who's backtracking? Starks put up good yardage numbers.. He's a RB on a pass first team that favors a RBBC. Was it possible for Starks to give you a TD? Sure. It's possible for any RB who gets touches to score. But you probably shouldn't expect it. I think 1,000 or sonyards and 7-8 TDs is pretty much his ceiling in that O and owners should be delighted with that production given where they likely drafted him.

 

You're arguing just to argue and making no point.

[Man_of_Leisure 0]

I drafted Starks late in a 14 man league because I was hoping he would become the lead back for the team.

I agree that he is on a pass happy team, but it has been repeated that he is in a RBBC which simply wasn't the case yesterday.

That's where the arguement breaks down in regards to draft position versus expectations this weekend.

Sure, I drafted him late, but not because I was expecting RB4 numbers. I took a chance on RB2 numbers. He showed some flashs at the end of last season and you had to wonder how Grant would come back from his injury.

Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't (see Foster, Arian).

[p00h 85]

you guys are getting caught up in semantics. Here's the bottom line, TDs are arbitrary. He could very well have ended up with 3 tds, as he did with 0. You can't gauge his performance on how many TDs he got. If he gets the same number of touches every game, he'd be on pace for 1600 total yards, and with their high powered offense, I'd say there's 10 tds sprinkled in there. So 1600 and 10, does that sound like a bad RB2??? Expecting him to just start and get 150 and 2 is stupid and immature, but that's kind of the norm for this board. Very much in line with the 'Where is megatron, is he even playing today?!?!?!?!' threads that are started 10 minutes into a game.

 

Bottom line is this, if he takes over as the starter there and averages 15-20 touches a game, best believe he'll be a high end RB2 moving forward, if not creep into RB1 territory...

[jerryskids 7,143]

I don't know what kind of leagues you guys play in, but in my leagues 100 total yards is a respectable day from a RB2. Not great by any means, but respectable.

 

Besides, all he did was outscore Adrian Peterson, Maurice Jones Drew, Felix Jones, Reshard Mendenhall, and Peyton Hillis. And not to mention, he basically matched Chris Johnson's production.

 

By the way, Kuhn is the Packers goalline runningabck anyway, and Grant hasn't put up a 100 total yard day or a TD this year, so what esactly is there to whine about?

 

As an owner of MJD and Hillis who played against Starks and lost by one point, I am well aware of these performances.

 

My initial comment was in response to MDC's asinine comment that anyone who relied on RB2 numbers from Starks had a crappy draft. I and others have pointed out multiple reasons for his asininity. He then changed it to "well, 100 total yards really isn't that bad," with which I happen to agree. I also agree however with the premise of this thread, which is that it is reasonable to be disappointed that Rodgers ran in two, the Pack got seven, and Starks didn't get a single one.

[MDC 7,977]

As an owner of MJD and Hillis who played against Starks and lost by one point, I am well aware of these performances.

 

My initial comment was in response to MDC's asinine comment that anyone who relied on RB2 numbers from Starks had a crappy draft. I and others have pointed out multiple reasons for his asininity. He then changed it to "well, 100 total yards really isn't that bad," with which I happen to agree. I also agree however with the premise of this thread, which is that it is reasonable to be disappointed that Rodgers ran in two, the Pack got seven, and Starks didn't get a single one.

 

Look buddy, obviously somebody's got a case of the Mondays so this will be my last post to you, since you seem dead set on missing the point:

 

Like pooh said, TDs are unreliable for most players and that's especially true for the RB on a team like the Packers, who throw the ball much more than they run it. I don't see the logic in getting pissed at a player who put up 100 total simply because he didn't cross the plane, especially when that player was a low pick who was starting either as a flex or because of injuries.

 

This is not like getting 50 yards and a goose egg from AP, and it wasn't a worthless performance. So if you lost yesterday because Starks failed to score I'd suggest there are bigger holes on your roster and more valid targets for disappointment.

 

You may continue to be a pigheaded ass by parsing my comments and taking them wildly out of context, won't change the fact that I'm a winner and you're a loser.

 

Buh bye now.