Discussion Board
Welcome Guest! You can login or register. Login or Register.

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
zombieslayer  
#1 Posted : Monday, December 6, 2010 6:01:07 AM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
Too bad he can't play at home against the Lions, being one of the worst running D's in the NFL, so he could get a few "Leaps" in.


Heh. Yeah, the Leaps will be nice but I'm strongly predicting Starks will get you double digit fantasy points. In all honesty, I see 20 carries for 80 yards and a TD.
Mike McCarthy loves to exploit other teams' weaknesses. If they can't defend the pass, he'll pass, pass, then pass some more. if they can't defend the run, then we'll be a primarily running team.

I'm predicting we actually run more than we pass against the Lions and I'm hoping Starks gets most of the carries.
peteralan71  
#2 Posted : Monday, December 6, 2010 6:08:26 AM(UTC)
OK so I just added Starks. You have certainly convinced me that he will play a big part next week. NOW, who do I start alongside Starks? Peyton Hillis, Ahmad Bradshaw, or Mike Tobert?
zombieslayer  
#3 Posted : Monday, December 6, 2010 6:21:01 AM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
OK so I just added Starks. You have certainly convinced me that he will play a big part next week. NOW, who do I start alongside Starks? Peyton Hillis, Ahmad Bradshaw, or Mike Tobert?


You can't go wrong with Hillis or Bradshaw. With Bradshaw, the Giants are so injured they're forced to run more than they want to. Both their top WRs were out of last game so their RBs got a lot of carries.

Tolbert looked bad today. I watched the Raiders destroy the Chargers. That may be a fluke though as the Chargers are a much better team than they played today and Tolbert was good the previous games.

Also make sure who they're playing against. What I do is checked how good the teams are against the run and when you have closely matched players, you start the ones who are playing the team with the bad run Ds.
peteralan71  
#4 Posted : Monday, December 6, 2010 6:28:18 AM(UTC)
Bradshaw at Minnesota and Hillis at Buffalo. I like Hillis at Buffalo. And we'll what Starks can do. Is it weird that I wish he wasn't #44? Wished that he had a little more 'flashy' of a number?
Zero2Cool  
#5 Posted : Monday, December 6, 2010 6:38:13 AM(UTC)
Cute.
zombieslayer  
#6 Posted : Monday, December 6, 2010 8:17:41 PM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
Bradshaw at Minnesota and Hillis at Buffalo. I like Hillis at Buffalo. And we'll what Starks can do. Is it weird that I wish he wasn't #44? Wished that he had a little more 'flashy' of a number?


34 is available. Yeah, 44 is weird.
Pack93z  
#7 Posted : Monday, December 6, 2010 8:21:19 PM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
" said: Go to Quoted Post
Bradshaw at Minnesota and Hillis at Buffalo. I like Hillis at Buffalo. And we'll what Starks can do. Is it weird that I wish he wasn't #44? Wished that he had a little more 'flashy' of a number?


34 is available. Yeah, 44 is weird.


Jim Brown and Ernie Davis would disagree.
Rockmolder  
#8 Posted : Monday, December 6, 2010 8:27:07 PM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
" said: Go to Quoted Post
" said: Go to Quoted Post
Bradshaw at Minnesota and Hillis at Buffalo. I like Hillis at Buffalo. And we'll what Starks can do. Is it weird that I wish he wasn't #44? Wished that he had a little more 'flashy' of a number?


34 is available. Yeah, 44 is weird.


Jim Brown and Ernie Davis would disagree.


You're still wearing Tie Dye shirts?
Pack93z  
#9 Posted : Monday, December 6, 2010 8:29:48 PM(UTC)
I could throw in John Riggins and Floyd Little..

Tie Dye's.. I have never donned one. Way to damn loud for my clothing tastes.. lol.

Nothing wrong with being different and going old school.
Rockmolder  
#10 Posted : Monday, December 6, 2010 8:33:11 PM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
I could throw in John Riggins and Floyd Little..

Tie Dye's.. I have never donned one. Way to damn loud for my clothing tastes.. lol.

Nothing wrong with being different and going old school.


Point is, those guys played quite a while ago.

40s go great with stocky players and with players who played before the 70s. Perfect number for Riggins, Brown and Nevers.

Not so perfect for a speedy back like Starks.

I would've preferend a number in the 30s. Maybe in the 20s. I hate watching Jahvid Best with his nr. 44, as well.

Yes, this is a big deal.
zombieslayer  
#11 Posted : Monday, December 6, 2010 8:34:44 PM(UTC)
I'm with Rock. I'm just surprised Rock hasn't willed it so.
Pack93z  
#12 Posted : Monday, December 6, 2010 8:38:01 PM(UTC)
LOL.. okay then.. get rid of the damn receiver numbers in the single digits and teens..

While your at it.. eliminate anyone but linebackers wearing the 50's.. lol.

Stocky backs = Davis.. ouch..

Looky here.. Starks is a spitting image of Davis. upright style and the whole jazz.

[youtube]ExxbEw4yigU[/youtube]
Rockmolder  
#13 Posted : Monday, December 6, 2010 9:09:14 PM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
LOL.. okay then.. get rid of the damn receiver numbers in the single digits and teens..

While your at it.. eliminate anyone but linebackers wearing the 50's.. lol.

Stocky backs = Davis.. ouch..

Looky here.. Starks is a spitting image of Davis. upright style and the whole jazz.


" said: Go to Quoted Post
40s go great with stocky players and with players who played before the 70s.


Ernie Nevers - 19591961

Numbers are just a huge pet peeve for me.

QBs - Nr. 1 a horrible numbers. Moon being the exception. Also, I'd never go higher than 13. Sorry Starr.

RBs - 20s and 30s are fine. 40s are for FBs and stocky backs.

OTs - They need numbers in the 70s. Hate seeing Tauscher line up at RT with number 65.

D-linemen. No numbers in the 60s. 70s and 90s are fine.

ILB/MLB. 50s. Always.

3-4 OLBs. 90s preferably, 50s ok.

4-3 OLBs. 50s preferably, 90s ok.

CBs. 21-24 and 31-34, preferably. Anything in the 20s and 30s is better than numbers in the 40s, though.

Ss. 20s or 30s, preferably, but 41-44 is acceptable.

Of course, I could pinpoint my favorite numbers, put out some more pet peeves and all, but this should be enough to declare me crazy, already.
zombieslayer  
#14 Posted : Monday, December 6, 2010 9:14:50 PM(UTC)
Crazy? Nah. Just OCD.

Pack93z - not at all. That guy always ran outside. I wasn't counting, but I only remember once when Starks ran outside and it was for a no gain. He almost always runs up the middle.

Starks should be 34. Hopefully Mike McCarthy will correct this mistake in the offseason.
Pack93z  
#15 Posted : Monday, December 6, 2010 9:15:56 PM(UTC)
There Zombie.. I think he just declared the rules.. I expect the subliminal transmission to be received by Goodell shortly.. with an announcement shortly thereafter declaring all teams met this mandate by the end of the week. lol.

I don't have the same obsession over the numbers as some.. but will agree some things appear simply odd.. however Starks number is not one of them.. the unis yesterday.. no numbers looked "right". ;)
zombieslayer  
#16 Posted : Monday, December 6, 2010 9:19:41 PM(UTC)
I think evad04 is the only person here who likes those hideous uniforms. I think he should be tested for color-blindness. Definitely showed he's a Kinsey 0 though. That's fo shizzle.

FYI - Goodell is a creation of Rockmolder as well. There is no spoon.
Pack93z  
#17 Posted : Monday, December 6, 2010 9:20:58 PM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post

Pack93z - not at all. That guy always ran outside. I wasn't counting, but I only remember once when Starks ran outside and it was for a no gain. He almost always runs up the middle..


Our line can barely run block up inside.. now you expect them to hold them for edge runs and god forbid pull and kick.. lol.

In running style.. upright.. close
Cuts.. decisive but not necessarily quick.. close
Power.. What I seen yesterday.. off to a good start.

Long and lengthy.. Davis 6'2 212lbs. 6'2 1/8" 218 pounds..

They are similar in a ton of ways.. including the number.
Rss Feed
Users browsing this topic
Guest (3)
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Notification

Icon
Error

Fan Shout
wpr (45m) : looks great.
Zero2Cool (6h) : avatars aren't displaying
Zero2Cool (7h) : plain look
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2016 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 11 @ 12:00 PM
at Jaguars
Sunday, Sep 18 @ 7:30 PM
at Vikings
Sunday, Sep 25 @ 12:00 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Oct 2 @ 12:00 AM
BYE
Sunday, Oct 9 @ 7:30 PM
GIANTS
Sunday, Oct 16 @ 3:25 PM
COWBOYS
Thursday, Oct 20 @ 7:25 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Oct 30 @ 3:25 PM
at Falcons
Sunday, Nov 6 @ 3:25 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Nov 13 @ 12:00 PM
at Titans
Sunday, Nov 20 @ 7:30 PM
at Redskins
Monday, Nov 28 @ 7:30 PM
at Eagles
Sunday, Dec 4 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Dec 11 @ 3:25 PM
SEAHAWKS
Sunday, Dec 18 @ 12:00 PM
at Bears
Saturday, Dec 24 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Jan 1 @ 7:30 PM
at Lions
Think About It
Think About It
Recent Topics
47m / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

2h / Announcements / dhazer

6h / Green Bay Packers Talk / DoddPower

22-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

21-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / shield4life

21-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / PackFanWithTwins

21-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

19-Feb / Community Welcome! / wpr

19-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / uffda udfa

19-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / uffda udfa

19-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

19-Feb / Around The NFL / uffda udfa

18-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Barfarn

17-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / sschind

17-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / warhawk

Headlines