"peteralan71"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.

MM 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.

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?

"peteralan71"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.

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?

Cute.

"peteralan71"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.

"zombieslayer"

"peteralan71"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.

"pack93z"

"zombieslayer"

"peteralan71"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?

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.

"pack93z"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.