WP: NFL playoffs - James Starks gives Green Bay Packers an extra dimension on offense

[Mark The Homer]

This is in the Wash Post this morning - thought it was a good read:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/12/AR2011011205449.html

James Starks's route to becoming perhaps the most significant X-factor in Saturday night's NFC semifinal against the Atlanta Falcons goes like this: One scholarship offer out of high school; a record-setting career at the University of Buffalo; an injury that cost him his entire senior season; a hamstring injury suffered in training camp with the Green Bay Packers; a subsequent trip to the physically-unable-to-perform list that delayed his rookie debut until December; a splash onto the scene with 73 yards in his first NFL game; then a pair of games in which Packers coaches left him inactive.

Somehow that meandering path led him to a breakout, 23-carry, 123-yard performance in Green Bay's wild-card victory last Sunday in Philadelphia. Somehow, in a week's time, Starks - who had appeared in just three NFL games and had 29 NFL carries prior to facing the Eagles - has filled a void that has plagued the Packers since marquee back Ryan Grant went down with a season-ending ankle injury in the opener.

"You're expected to produce when your number is called," Starks said after the 21-16 win over the Eagles, when Starks ran for more yards than any Packer gained during a game in the 2010 regular season. "This season was a process that I had to go through, and I'm doing better with it."

...

"You know how he handled it?" said Danny Barrett, then Buffalo's offensive coordinator. "He showed up every day. He wanted to be around, be around the huddle, around his teammates in pregame and at practice. He was still one of the leaders on our football team. It meant a lot as a coach there. He didn't really have to do what he did, but he did it anyway, because he's an unselfish kid that really wanted what was best for the team."

...

[pointyfootball]

He had a nice game, but let's not get crazy, their run game isn't going to be remarkably improved. Eagles game planned to stop/slow down Aaron & Jennings/co., with the run game being one of their last worries. McCarthy wisely took what was given. Yes, he put up numbers, but I predict he will be back to relative obscurity after this weekend.

[Mahons21]

He had a nice game, but let's not get crazy, their run game isn't going to be remarkably improved. Eagles game planned to stop/slow down Aaron & Jennings/co., with the run game being one of their last worries. McCarthy wisely took what was given. Yes, he put up numbers, but I predict he will be back to relative obscurity after this weekend.

Why do you believe he'll go back to obscurity? I'd argue that the Falcons just like the Eagles will gameplan to stop Rodgers not Starks, creating many of the same opportunities as last week.

If the Falcons actually do gameplan for starks, then Rodgers will have more opportunities, which is probably ideal for GB. In this circumstance, Starks wouldn't be irrelevant, because he would be opening up the game for Rodgers. Though in such a circumstance Starks stats might go back to relative obscurity.

[PokerPacker]

I said in another thread before the Eagles game that Starks was our most explosive back. Just watch him run and don't worry so much about the results and you'll see the game against the Eagles wasn't a fluke. He keeps his legs moving and he falls forward to get the extra couple yards. Won't get 100 yards every game, but he is a player opposing teams have to account for or they'll get burned. We don't need him to carry the team, we just need him to be a factor and make teams worry about the run and open up the play-action and slow the pass rush.

Little fun-fact about Starks. The Bears GM initially selected Starks, had a representative call him up and his agent, and already came to an informal agreement about a contract, and while still oh the phone with him, the Bears GM changed his mind and sent in his selection for LeFevour. LeFevour was cut before the season and Starks looks like he could be Ryan Grant's successor.

[Hiro]

I said in another thread before the Eagles game that Starks was our most explosive back. Just watch him run and don't worry so much about the results and you'll see the game against the Eagles wasn't a fluke. He keeps his legs moving and he falls forward to get the extra couple yards. Won't get 100 yards every game, but he is a player opposing teams have to account for or they'll get burned. We don't need him to carry the team, we just need him to be a factor and make teams worry about the run and open up the play-action and slow the pass rush.

Little fun-fact about Starks. The Bears GM initially selected Starks, had a representative call him up and his agent, and already came to an informal agreement about a contract, and while still oh the phone with him, the Bears GM changed his mind and sent in his selection for LeFevour. LeFevour was cut before the season and Starks looks like he could be Ryan Grant's successor.

That is pretty funny. To be fair though, the Bears' GM and FO isn't exactly the best in the business. Not terrible, but Ted Thompson is one of the best in the biz.

[pointyfootball]

Why do you believe he'll go back to obscurity? I'd argue that the Falcons just like the Eagles will gameplan to stop Rodgers not Starks, creating many of the same opportunities as last week.

If the Falcons actually do gameplan for starks, then Rodgers will have more opportunities, which is probably ideal for GB. In this circumstance, Starks wouldn't be irrelevant, because he would be opening up the game for Rodgers. Though in such a circumstance Starks stats might go back to relative obscurity.

Falcons are much more balanced on defense than the Eagles and aren't going to totally sell out to only stop AR. Eagles had no choice, as they know/knew only way they win the game is by slowing Aaron down. Starks might do well again, but I think at this stage of the season a team is what it is, and the Packers are a passing team.

[PokerPacker]

Falcons are much more balanced on defense than the Eagles and aren't going to totally sell out to only stop AR. Eagles had no choice, as they know/knew only way they win the game is by slowing Aaron down. Starks might do well again, but I think at this stage of the season a team is what it is, and the Packers are a passing team.

Falcons would do well to focus in on Rodgers, 'cause he burned them for over 400 yards earlier in the season. Only reason the falcons won was because of a fumble on the 1 yard line and a facemask on the final kick return of the game setting ATL up to only need one 1st down to hit the game winning field goal.

[No_Pressure]

If 1 game, even in the playoffs is indicative of what a player's total ability is, Timmy Smith would be in the hall of fame right now.

[BlueinBuf]

Watched him at Buffalo, was really happy to see him do so well last weekend and hope he can repeat.

[Hitman21ST]

If 1 game, even in the playoffs is indicative of what a player's total ability is, Timmy Smith would be in the hall of fame right now.

As would Doug Williams, and probably Mark Rypien. But Starks does look lilke a quality pick for GB.