Page 22 of 27
Re: Game 8: Jags at Pack
Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 12:20 am
by Bernman
GrendonJennings wrote:Marley2Hendrix wrote:GrendonJennings wrote:What's Alex Green up to now, 3 yards per carry?
ftfy
You probably missed the conversation with Bernman, where he was saying that Starks was miles better than Green because he's like 15-0 when he starts.
Packers are 4-1 after today's crappy performance when receiving a carry and Rodgers finishes. Starks is 18-0 regular season, 22-1 overall, with there maybe being a couple lackluster team performances among the wins. I don't understand the backlash for that partial argument. The more extreme the correlation the harder it should logically become to ignore. What gives a player value is how he contributes to a team's chances of winning. The record with him in the lineup vs. without is a general indirect measure of that. If you're looking for something more direct that can be attributed to him, what about the fact he averaged 4.3 ypc last year, which was a little higher than Grant running behind the same line, in spite of Starks being the one w/ short yardage responsibilities while Grant got the garbage draw yards. Green I think is down down under 3 ypc with the only difference in the line being Jeff Saturday. Today in one opportunity Starks ran for 8 yards and 1st down. I don't get the reasoning behind changing what worked from just about every angle to something which hasn't. All I can figure is we lost the last game we used him from the beginning for the first time in 21 games, he had a couple bad preseason games, got injured, and was forgotten about. Wilde alluded to this very situation in post game saying the NFL is very fickle. Is it ever in this situation. He should be given the chance to help the team again as Alex Green has not.
Re: Game 8: Jags at Pack
Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 12:25 am
by Marley2Hendrix
Bernman wrote:GrendonJennings wrote:
You probably missed the conversation with Bernman, where he was saying that Starks was miles better than Green because he's like 15-0 when he starts.
Packers are 4-1 after today's crappy performance when receiving a carry and Rodgers finishes. Starks is 18-0 regular season, 22-1 overall, with there maybe being a couple lackluster team performances among the wins. I don't understand the backlash for that partial argument. The more extreme the correlation the harder it should logically become to ignore. What gives a player value is how he contributes to a team's chances of winning. The record with him in the lineup vs. without is a general indirect measure of that. If you're looking for something more direct that can be attributed to him, what about the fact he averaged 4.3 ypc last year, which was a little higher than Grant running behind the same line, in spite of Starks being the one w/ short yardage responsibilities while Grant got the garbage draw yards. Green I think is down down under 3 ypc with the only difference in the line being Jeff Saturday. Today in one opportunity Starks ran for 8 yards and 1st down. I don't get the reasoning behind changing what worked from just about every angle to something which hasn't. All I can figure is we lost the last game we used him from the beginning for the first time in 21 games, he had a couple bad preseason games, and he fell a few spots down the depth chart. Wilde alluded to this very situation in post game saying the NFL is very fickle. Is it ever in this situation. He should be given the chance to help the team again as Alex Green has not.
I'm with you all the way on Starks, but his one preseason showing was terrible. Played about as bad as he possibly could have in the very limited snaps he got; no clue what happened there, but after that performance I was clamoring for a running back change just days before the benson signing.
Green has displayed absolutely zero vision and isn't working. I asked Wes Hod about Starks last week and he pretty much said the same thing as you suggest Wilde alluded to, that is, the Packers pride themselves on loyalty. For whatever reason, they strongly believe starks blew his chance and now it is green's turn. Green will get a fair shake before looking elsewhere (starks, kuhn, who knows). I don't know what the GB brass will consider a fair shake, but, at present, I'm willing to say Green is nothing but a 3rd down back for the foreseeable future and it is time to move on.
Re: Game 8: Jags at Pack
Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 12:26 am
by Bernman
Godgers wrote:People forget that running the ball starts with the offensive line. I bet a better center would make a bigger impact than a better RB.
If a running back's traits like vision, speed, power, agility, decisiveness, etc. didn't matter then we shouldn't draft any, take them off the streets, and pay them minimum salaries. There were holes today that Green didn't hit with authority and missed cutback lanes off.
Re: Game 8: Jags at Pack
Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 12:27 am
by Marley2Hendrix
Godgers wrote:People forget that running the ball starts with the offensive line. I bet a better center would make a bigger impact than a better RB.
There is no denying that green left a ton of yardage on the field. There were two plays in particular where green had an enormous cutback lane. To me, this is no different than Finley's drops, only I have the slight hope Green learns from these mistakes..
Re: Game 8: Jags at Pack
Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 12:28 am
by LUKE23
Getting through next week with a win and no more injuries is all I'm concerned about right now.
And yes, Starks is without question better between the tackles than Green.
Re: Game 8: Jags at Pack
Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 1:12 am
by crkone
The thing with Green is he can't cut back to the other side of the line when the strong side blocking is getting destroyed. That is something Cobb has done this year and Starks did in the past. With the way Shields played in preseason, I have to take exhibition play with a grain of salt in regards to Starks.
Re: Game 8: Jags at Pack
Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 1:19 am
by Flames24Rulz
It must be said that Jermichael Finley kind of sucks. Nice contribution today with Nelson and Jennings both being out, by only grabbing two receptions.
Re: Game 8: Jags at Pack
Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 1:31 am
by humanrefutation
So, yeah. Other than the erratic play of the team, my first Packers game was beyond my expectations. I am not one to be blown away by much, but that stadium is just a - for lack of a better word - holy place to watch football. There is something so intimate about the bowl seating and the blue skies over the field that makes it just an amazing experience. It's like Field of Dreams, it really is. The fans were all really nice and welcoming, which made it even better. You can tell that everyone pretty much knows one another, but I didn't feel left out because they were so nice.
And a random observation- pretty much everyone had personal seat cushions with back rests, which is something I never would've thought about until I saw that my friends brought me one.
The win was icing on the cake.
Re: Game 8: Jags at Pack
Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 1:35 am
by El Duderino
DrugBust wrote:I like Green in space and out of the backfield, but he's useless when he's handed the ball.
He's not even that great out in space.
I hadn't heard of Green at all before Ted picked him, but after watching the highlight videos, i thought Green would be a great fit for the offense. Wow was i and Ted wrong. In the NFL where Green doesn't have huge holes to run though, unlike at Hawaii, he's mostly worthless. His vision is even worse than Brandon Jackson had.
Ted is a fabulous GM, but his eye for running backs hasn't been good. Granted, this is a below average run blocking line also, but with as much coverage first defense most teams play against the Packers and with Rodgers at quarterback, it's pathetic just how anemic the running game is.
Hell, i'd rather have Ryan Grant in there instead of Green. Grant certainly had his share of faults, but at least he'd get his share of long runs off cutbacks when the defense was playing coverage. Green just runs to a set area, regardless if anything is there.
Re: Game 8: Jags at Pack
Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 1:48 am
by humanrefutation
Ryan Grant did just get cut by the Redskins...
Re: Game 8: Jags at Pack
Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 1:51 am
by El Duderino
MickeyDavis wrote:"You saw the fans out there today , it was all the way around," LB Clay Matthews said. "The stadium had a lack of energy, we had a lack of energy. It was just one of those things where you've been part of the atmosphere where there's a more electric feel.
"Maybe that's time of the day, who we're playing, the record or where we're at. Obviously, it's good that we were able to get this victory at this time and understand we're coming into the same type of situation next week. You could see at times we picked it up, but it's still too much up and down."
Yea the team didn't play well overall, but i agree with Matthews, Packer fans are overrated when it comes to home games and making noise, unless it's a night game or playing day the Vikes/Bears.
I've been to about a dozen Packers games over the last 7-8 years and almost without fail during noon games, i thought the stadium lacked a lot of noise. It was sad how often the majority of the crowd mainly just sat there not making noise unless it was third down on defense and/or defensive players kept throwing their arms up begging the crowd to make some noise.
Hell, it sometimes sounds louder on TV for road games where excited Packer fans consistently make noise. My only guess is that there are so many older long time season ticket holders that aren't the type to get rowdy. All i know is that i've started to pass on attending most noon games because IMO it isn't worth the money, especially when i've been stuck in sections of the stadium where a lot of crowd only makes noise on big plays and third down.
Re: Game 8: Jags at Pack
Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 1:59 am
by Kerb Hohl
Bern, where's our loss with Green? The Colts game? I like how you pick and choose where to add numbers.
Honestly ridiculous logic. Aaron Rodgers put up the best 18 games in NFL history when "Starks went 18-0" and I even showed you stats to prove your "he's good on 3rd and 1" was a myth.
Re: Game 8: Jags at Pack
Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 2:11 am
by El Duderino
Bernman wrote:Godgers wrote:People forget that running the ball starts with the offensive line. I bet a better center would make a bigger impact than a better RB.
If a running back's traits like vision, speed, power, agility, decisiveness, etc. didn't matter then we shouldn't draft any, take them off the streets, and pay them minimum salaries. There were holes today that Green didn't hit with authority and missed cutback lanes off.
I think you've been overstating just how good Starks is and how important he's been to previous team success, but he definitely is better than Green at simply running the ball on handoffs. Starks at least has some vision to find seems on cutbacks and holes which weren't the set design of the called play. Green has worse vision than Brandon Jackson and that's hard to do. The line though is a bad run blocking unit overall and center isn't the sole problem on the line.
Hopefully come next week, McCarthy has Starks on the field more often. He watches tons of film and has to see Green has no ability to create plays via his eyes and instincts.
Re: Game 8: Jags at Pack
Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 2:13 am
by Kerb Hohl
Bernman wrote:
Packers are 4-1 after today's crappy performance when receiving a carry and Rodgers finishes. Starks is 18-0 regular season, 22-1 overall, with there maybe being a couple lackluster team performances among the wins. I don't understand the backlash for that partial argument.
How about the Lions loss in 2010? Brandon Jackson ran 7 times, Starks ran 6 for 8 yards. Starks I believe started that game but was so ineffective they stopped using him. You counted that as a James Starks win. LAWLZ.
I'm assuming that you're giving Starks credit for the Bears win last season @Chicago, where Grant ran 17 times for 92 yards and Starks ran 11 times for 18.
I'll bet you're giving Starks credit for a Lions win last year midseason when Grant outran him again and Starks did almost nothing.
Your picking and choosing of stats is hilarious. Meanwhile, you told us that Starks was the major difference in beating Atlanta in the playoffs instead of losing in the regular season because he was good on 3rd and 1. However, he never even carried a 3rd an 1, then you reached for like 2 or 3 2nd and 1s, which I would assume any old RB could get (Alex Green was good on them today). Starks ran for 2.8 YPC that game.
Are you giving him credit for the Giants win in the regular season last year? Starks ran 3 times for 5 yards.
I'm counting 10-0 in regular season when Starks is the leading rusher (hey, he's gotta beat Aaron Rodgers' 32 yards in a game to be counted, right?). That would put him at 14-1, and there are still plenty of games in there were he ran for about 40 yards ineffectively.But keep picking and choosing random stuff to support your handpicked argument.
If you try to defend this again, I'm going to be a at a loss for words. There is no way you can stretch that Starks is 22-1 in there. You're giving him credit for games where he got like 4 carries for 8 yards.
Re: Game 8: Jags at Pack
Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 2:16 am
by Bernman
GrendonJennings wrote:Bern, where's our loss with Green? The Colts game? I like how you pick and choose where to add numbers.
He had 10 carries and was the primary back when the Colts mounted their comeback. It seems appropriate to count that game as a result. Who technically starts a game is more arbitrary.
Honestly ridiculous logic. Aaron Rodgers put up the best 18 games in NFL history when "Starks went 18-0" and I even showed you stats to prove your "he's good on 3rd and 1" was a myth.
Rodgers hasn't been quite as good this season, wasn't quite as good last season in the games Starks didn't play, and same thing the season before. Rodgers sported his 2 lowest QB ratings of the season in the games Starks didn't play but he did. Hey how bout that? It's another coincidence. Are you new to the game of football to not know that a good running game lends to a good passing game and vice versa?
As far as the 3rd and 1 point, you got me on a technicality. He got it done in the short yardage situations on 2nd down so there was no 3rd down.
Re: Game 8: Jags at Pack
Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 2:18 am
by Kerb Hohl
Bernman wrote:GrendonJennings wrote:Bern, where's our loss with Green? The Colts game? I like how you pick and choose where to add numbers.
He had 10 carries and was the primary back when the Colts mounted their comeback. It seems appropriate to count that game as a result. Who technically starts a game is more arbitrary.
Honestly ridiculous logic. Aaron Rodgers put up the best 18 games in NFL history when "Starks went 18-0" and I even showed you stats to prove your "he's good on 3rd and 1" was a myth.
Rodgers hasn't been quite as good this season, wasn't quite as good last season in the games Starks didn't play, and same thing the season before. Rodgers sported his 2 lowest QB ratings of the season in the games Starks didn't play but he did. Hey how bout that? It's another coincidence. Are you new to the game of football to not know that a good running game lends to a good passing game and vice versa?
As far as the 3rd and 1 point, you got me on a technicality. He got it done in the short yardage situations on 2nd down so there was no 3rd down.
Read my post above. If you want to credit Green for a loss when he got 10 carries (and did well), then you can't pad Starks' stats in games where he did absolutely nothing. Your stupid argument has been outed by statistics.
Re: Game 8: Jags at Pack
Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 2:18 am
by El Duderino
GrendonJennings wrote:Bern, where's our loss with Green? The Colts game? I like how you pick and choose where to add numbers.
Honestly ridiculous logic. Aaron Rodgers put up the best 18 games in NFL history when "Starks went 18-0" and I even showed you stats to prove your "he's good on 3rd and 1" was a myth.
Bern is definitely overstating how good Starks his and his importance in why Green Bay has such a good record over the previous year plus games, but watching Green constantly run up the back of his offensive lineman, it's hard to see why Starks isn't taking more carries from Green. Outside of that one 41 yard run, Green has really been atrocious.
Re: Game 8: Jags at Pack
Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 2:20 am
by Kerb Hohl
I honestly don't even like Green much, I just think Bern is making the most hilarious argument ever. Sure, a healthy Starks gives us a better chance to win. Apparently Starks running 4 times for 8 yards is counted in a key Starks win in many of those arguments.
I am counting 10-0 in games where Starks is our leading rusher. There were about 4-5 times where Starks was ineffective, and the other times, nobody ran well or Starks did nothing but Bern is counting that as a win for James Starks.
Re: Game 8: Jags at Pack
Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 2:25 am
by Bernman
GrendonJennings wrote:Bernman wrote:
Packers are 4-1 after today's crappy performance when receiving a carry and Rodgers finishes. Starks is 18-0 regular season, 22-1 overall, with there maybe being a couple lackluster team performances among the wins. I don't understand the backlash for that partial argument.
How about the Lions loss in 2010? Brandon Jackson ran 7 times, Starks ran 6 for 8 yards. Starks I believe started that game but was so ineffective they stopped using him. You counted that as a James Starks win. LAWLZ.
I'm assuming that you're giving Starks credit for the Bears win last season @Chicago, where Grant ran 17 times for 92 yards and Starks ran 11 times for 18.
I'll bet you're giving Starks credit for a Lions win last year midseason when Grant outran him again and Starks did almost nothing.
Your picking and choosing of stats is hilarious. Meanwhile, you told us that Starks was the major difference in beating Atlanta in the playoffs instead of losing in the regular season because he was good on 3rd and 1. However, he never even carried a 3rd an 1, then you reached for like 2 or 3 2nd and 1s, which I would assume any old RB could get (Alex Green was good on them today). Starks ran for 2.8 YPC that game.
Are you giving him credit for the Giants win in the regular season last year? Starks ran 3 times for 5 yards.
I'm counting 10-0 in regular season when Starks is the leading rusher (hey, he's gotta beat Aaron Rodgers' 32 yards in a game to be counted, right?). That would put him at 14-1, and there are still plenty of games in there were he ran for about 40 yards ineffectively.But keep picking and choosing random stuff to support your handpicked argument.
If you try to defend this again, I'm going to be a at a loss for words. There is no way you can stretch that Starks is 22-1 in there. You're giving him credit for games where he got like 4 carries for 8 yards.
I didn't count the Lions game at all because Rodgers got knocked out in the 2nd quarter when the game was tied. Didn't get a chance to see it out.
You're the one picking and choosing here. Everyone knows we need Aaron to win. Nobody disputes that. And I'm using all the games he was in with Aaron, not where stats in that particular game would make it appear he played well or poorly. Overall he ran for 4.3 yards per carry last year while getting short yardage responsibilities. Better than the alternative that year and we'd kill for it this year. He was way better than Jackson in 2010 with the same line. He hasn't had a chance this year to show he's better than the alternatives with the typical crap Packers' run blocking. He's a physical running back. Opponents have to commit some defenders to stop him.
Re: Game 8: Jags at Pack
Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 2:32 am
by Bernman
The dumb thing about your carries argument is you should know in plenty of games in the past McCarthy has only used the run as a decoy and to gain short yardage. So to say automatically he was a negative because his numbers didn't jump off the page is superficial.
Rodgers' QB rating in games Starks didn't play last season: 80.1, 96.7
Triple digits in every other one, with the low being 106.
It helps a QB to have a running THREAT and his QB ratings TO MOVE THE STICKS so he's in position to rack up more TD's.