One of the big problems with playing 3 games in 10 days is that injuries are that much more devastating. In particular, having only 3 days to get healthy for Packers such as Greg Jennings and James Starks will be a particularly difficult task. In my opinion, there’s no huge rush to push Jennings if he isn’t a 100% ready.
Jordy Nelson (who happens to be white) has had a career year and Jermichael Finley is a near lock to be the focal point of the defense even if he isn’t targeted all that much. After that, there is always Donald Driver, James Jones, Randall Cobb or maybe even Andrew Quarless who is capable of having a fantastic game in Jennings’ absence.
Not so much with James Starks. While still technically the backup to Ryan Grant, anyone who has watched a Packers game (save perhaps the Bears game) understands that Grant is really backing up Starks. The difference between the two can be summed up pretty easily; Starks is the better performer but Grant is the more dependable of the two.
| Totals | ||
| Grant | Starks | |
| ATT | 73 | 120 |
| YDS | 267 | 545 |
| AVR | 3.65 | 4.54 |
| STD | 3.69 | 6.34 |
| STOP | 16. | 25 |
| ATT/STOP | 4.56 | 4.8 |
As you can see, Starks has outperformed Grant in attempts given (though I admit that its probably more based on the coaches and Aaron Rodgers’ play calling), total yards and yards per attempt. Grant on the other hand has outperformed Starks based on variance (or standard deviation), total number of “bad plays” (here defined as running plays that resulted in no gain or loss of yards) and bad plays per attempt. The summary here is that Starks is the big play back, who can rip off huge runs but is also more prone to getting stuffed behind the line while Grant is the consistent back who almost always gets some yardage but also almost never gets the big run.
It should also be noted that there really isn’t any comparison between the two running backs’ ability as receivers. Grant has only had 8 receptions for 69 yards this season while Starks has caught the ball 28 times for 210 yards. Grant has never really had the softest hands and even fullback/folk-hero John Kuhn has more receptions than Grant this season.
Based on this information it would appear to make the most sense to start Starks out in the beginning of the game and close the game out with Grant. The reasoning is that at the beginning of the game where the Packers want to score points, having a runner who can pull out a big run and catch the ball would allow your offense to put itself in the best position to score. On the other hand, near the end of the game (especially if you are the Packers and ahead), a runner who can grind out consistent first downs (even when the defense knows its going to be a running play) and kill the clock is the most advantageous. In essence, being able to rip a 30 yard run doesn’t help as much since near the end of the game, the Packers aren’t playing against the team, they are playing against the clock.
Ironically this seems to be the exact opposite of what’s happening. Grant is heavily featured in the first quarter of the game but then is phased out by Starks who has 50 attempts in the 4th quarter compared to 17 for Grant. Perhaps the reason is that in the 4th quarter Grant has an average of 2.29 yards per attempt, which is far below the 3.5 yards that most coaches strive for to get the first down.
I will mention that this simply might be due to the small number of attempts that Grant has been given during the 4th quarter. Also one other factor is that Grant has always been the type of back that gets better as the game and season wears on; one of Grants best assets is that he’s like Rocky and can outlast the defense until they start to give him more yards. If this is more of a function of the defense than Grant, again you would think that Grant would be better in the 4th quarter, but that isn’t happening.
Going back to Starks injury, which while gruesome to look at apparently isn’t all that bad as he participated in individual drills on Tuesday, will be an interesting factor going into the Thanksgiving game against the Lions. The Lions are well known to have a very strong defensive line built to rush the quarterback. One of the most effective methods of slowing down the pass rush is forcing the defense to stay honest in run defense. Ironically one of the reasons why the Lions have had issues on offense is their inability to even have the façade of a running game, especially on 3rd downs (which they apparently rank dead last in terms of efficiency)
I think everyone assumes that this is going to be a shootout, but who ever has the lead at the end is going to have to be able to ice the clock; I’m pretty confident in saying that the Lions don’t have that ability, but without Starks do the Packers?
——————
Thomas Hobbes is a staff writer for Jersey Al’s AllGreenBayPackers.com.
——————
The stronger RB is Starks.
The better pass catcher is Starks.
MM uses Grant first to instill the concept of keeping a defense honest to a degree toward the run.
Simply,Starks is exactly what B.Jackson was supposed to be but actually has become what Grant was but,Grant isn’t and cannot be what Starks is or Jackson was supposed to be,so he is what he is,the set up RB to get and keep a level of honesty from a defense early.
If Starks is a no-go,the Lions get a huge boost as they know Grant alone won’t hurt them but help them in late game defense.
wow… that was confusing. Try again Taryn?
Having Grant as the clock killer doesn’t work as he cannot guarantee the gains of 6+yds like Starks does and has shown.Grant will only put us in the 3rd and long and that is what a defense wants late and we have shown to often not to complete.
Hence,even though stats may dictate the reverse in the use of Grant,using him early as MM has done is correct for the purpose of getting an defensive honesty and having the grader RB late.
Too many coffees before,sorry.
If the purpose of running the ball early is to force defenses to keep honest about run defense, wouldn’t you want your big play back to be in? I would argue that Grant is likely to get the defense at 3rd and decent, even if he gets just 3 yards a carry (and his average is higher than that) that results in 3rd and 4, which is very manageable.
If the main part of your offense was the run yes.But it isn’t with the Packers,so why use your better back early in lieu of closing the game.As for Grant averaging 3 yds a carry,doesn’t mean he gets them every carry.MM not using Grant as the clock killer as would be expected based on stats,but who can get them when they need them,and it isn’t Grant at the end.
3.65 yards is an average, which doesn’t mean he can’t get more every carry. Again I would argue that Grant isn’t necessarily less effective than Starks, only that their games are slightly different. Grant is low risk-low reward, Starks is high risk-high reward. And when it comes to the end of a game, if the Packers are ahead, the logical thing to do would be to go with the low risk option, provided that it gets you in 3rd and favorable.
The stats do tell a story and Starks has definitely displayed better burst. He seems better when he just blasts into the line. When he tries to turn the corner or put on a move, he often looks indecisive and gets stuffed.
That said, Grant does seem to get better through a game and has shown the ability to grind a defense down i the past. I’d like to see a game with Grant getting 20 touches.
You might very well see Grant see his most extensive action since the Bears game. Even if Starks is active for the Lions game I wouldn’t be surprised if they put him on a pitch count or sat him if the Packers were well ahead.
Grant will start (as always)? with the intent to see how he does. If Grant can be (fired up) and hold his own than Starks will rest his knee. If grant proves ineffective than Starks will be in the game.
I almost think that Grant is a slow starter, more often than not he used to get better as the game wore on, so this might actually be counter productive for him as Grant isn’t giving the carries to test out the defense or tire them out.
I like that McCarthy is keeping Starks fresh for the playoffs and not overworking him too much yet. I imagine he will get more work the last 3-4 weeks of the year to get ready for January. I am also very impressed with Ryan Grant, from a teammate perspective. He took a pay cut before the season started to remain a Packer, and has never complained about his role or his limited carries. His words this week were supportive of Starks getting the ball if healthy. He always puts the team first – a true professional!
I would argue that the Packers offense is built where no running back should need to be “kept fresh” for the playoffs. Starks is running an average of 12 times a game, which is about half of the 20-25 attempts that run first teams usually strive for.
I think that’s the point. 200 carries a year vs 350 to 400 carries a year is a big difference. We’ve all seen what happens to backs that have a 400 carry season. Keeping Starks around 200 carries will make sure that he has fresh legs for the Playoffs.
Well my argument was that at their current pace, Starks shouldn’t need to be rested since he isn’t anywhere close to the dreaded “370” attempt mark. Nor would I say that Starks attempts is being limited on the basis of needing to get rest. The Packers offense just doesn’t run the ball all that much.
Good point, SCS, and one that is often overlooked (at least by us, I’m sure MM/TT are very cognizant of it)
GRANT IS HORRIBLE.
He seemed pretty good against the Bears
I think it’s also important to point out that, since many of Starks’ runs come in the 4th quarter with the Packers ahead, defenses know that the Packers are intending to run it with him to kill the clock. Therefore, they sell out to stop the run on those drives. This might explain how Starks’ deviation is higher. I’m not arguing he doesn’t get stopped for a loss/no gain on other plays as well, but it seems defenses really expect McCarthy to take his foot off the gas at the end of the game while leading and they play consistent with that.
Strangely enough, Starks has the least amount of negative plays in the 4th quarter (not really significant though). Starks has 6 bad plays in the 1st and 2nd, 8 in the 3rd and 5 in the 4th. Overall, I would say that there isn’t a trend in terms of Starks having a bad play
I think the most important thing is that we all have long bangs and they enable us to predict future occurrences!
Long bangs?
Did I stutter?