#1 WW Position....

[BrockForBroglio]

My starters are not doing bad, a little inconsistent.....RG3, Martin, Gore(C'mon Man!), J. Jones, Decker, A. Roberts...

My bench pretty much sucks:....Ingram, Ivory, L. Moore, Streator, Heyward-Bey, Baldwin

Top WW guys will be Eddie Royal, and Starks...I know my RB's are weaker than my WR's, but I think Royal will be a more consistent producer than Starks.

Won't know for sure until tomorrow how other WW guys are doing. If it stays as is, would Royal be the no brainer, or do ya'll think Starks will continue to see a good number of carries?

Thanks....

 

[FaCe-LeE-uS]

The jury is out on Starks. I think it was a fluke performance. Don't expect him to go into Cincy next week and have the same amount of production. Then he has a week 5 bye, so by that time Lacy will probably take the starting position back. Starks is not a great WW move in my book.

I'd go with Royal.

 

[BrockForBroglio]

Good Point on Lacy.....

 

[tlance]

I am not so sure about Royal. He has only been targeted 14 times and he has 5 TDs. That is ridiculous. I know the Chargers are hurting at WR, but this guy is far from your typical red zone target. I would not be surprised if doesn't get 3 more TDs the rest of the season. I can't see him as a fantasy difference maker. Those 5 TDs are the definition of flukey.

Starks will start while Lacy is out, and who knows how long that will be? He had his bell rung pretty good. If Starks plays well, he might be looking at split time when Lacy comes back.

I think it is quite possible that there may be someone even better than either of these guys in terms of long term production.

 

[TREFF]

Wouldn't be the first time Royal has teased the fantasy world, only to disappear the rest of the season.
Still, 5 TD's is dam hard to ignore. . Wes Welker is the prototypical red zone target either, but how many 5 yard TD's have we seem him score? I'm torn on Royal, but Starks is a definite no.

 

[TREFF]

I've thing to consider on Royal...
The newest Charger RB could very easily have coached the coaches, and Royal himself, on the way they used Welker, and Royal is a very similar type of player. .. just food for thought.

 

[wilwhite]

There are a lot of guys like Royal out there (WR who might go off a few weeks but who on the whole are questionable starts), and very few guys who would have the opportunity Starks has as long as Lacy is out. Royal has been around the block plenty of times already; we know who he is.

It may look like neither is a long-term solution, but concussions can sometimes cost serious time (dark side of football).

 

[Sam Sportboy]

Wouldn't be the first time Royal has teased the fantasy world, only to disappear the rest of the season.
Still, 5 TD's is dam hard to ignore. . Wes Welker is the prototypical red zone target either, but how many 5 yard TD's have we seem him score? I'm torn on Royal, but Starks is a definite no.

Well, I agree with these guys as they are probably not the long term solution to any problems..............me, I'll be watching to see who is dropped in order to pick these guys up.................

 

[FaCe-LeE-uS]

Well, I agree with these guys as they are probably not the long term solution to any problems..............me, I'll be watching to see who is dropped in order to pick these guys up.................

I'm with this guy...

 

[TREFF]

Well, I agree with these guys as they are probably not the long term solution to any problems..............me, I'll be watching to see who is dropped in order to pick these guys up.................

That probably the most prudent suggestion for anyone not in need of an emergency replacement

 

[TKOSpikes]

I agree there's nothing spectacular there, but I would add Starks when I'm rostering Baldwin.

 

[Xponentialchaos]

Low risk, high reward. They both have issues that are going to deter fantasy owners, but imo it's definitely worth taking a shot on them. Given their long-term situations, I'd rather go with Royal, but I like them both. Especially compared to guys like Streater and Heyward-Bey.

 

[SmokingMonkey]

yea, if your league is active on waivers, and people tend to pick up a few guys each go round, I'd take the gamble on Starks, considering your bench. You have guys not worth keeping, and if you can get back to one of the top couple waiver spots within the next few weeks, I'd do it.

Im only in 1 league where people sit on their waiver picks waiting for 'The Big One' in order to pull the trigger. Rest of my leagues are pretty fluid, so I usually follow suit and grab a guy once every couple weeks off waivers

 

[Yellow Fuzzies]

I think you need to burn your WW#1 for Starks. The coaching staff said he was in the game plan even before the Lacy injury. Starks has shown signs of fantasy relevance in the past and he looked like he is ready to run hard. Very well he could be a decent RB2 or bye/injury RB for the rest of the year. I wouldn't count on many of these developing the rest of the year.

 

[Money]

If you have Lacy, by all means burn it to pick up his handcuff (now that it's been established Starks is definitely the guy). Otherwise...waste of a WW move in my opinion. You would get one start out of it and it's not a good matchup against the Bengals. GB's bye is week 4 and Lacy will be back week 5. Hell...I have Lacy in a league and I'm not going after Starks.

 

[SmokingMonkey]

If you have Lacy, by all means burn it to pick up his handcuff (now that it's been established Starks is definitely the guy). Otherwise...waste of a WW move in my opinion. You would get one start out of it and it's not a good matchup against the Bengals. GB's bye is week 4 and Lacy will be back week 5. Hell...I have Lacy in a league and I'm not going after Starks.

concussions are a whole new animal nowadays though. No guarantee Lacy comes back week 5. If you can, wait and see if any news comes out on Lacy's concussion later tonight, before setting your waiver. Unfortunately, NBC pro football talk is saying we wont get any updates until tomorrow. here's what CBS has:

September 17, 2013 10:24 am
Eddie Lacy, James Starks to share reps when Lacy is healthy
by Michael Hurcomb | CBSSports.com
Although Packers running back Eddie Lacy might miss Sunday's game against the Bengals with a concussion, offensive coordinator Tom Clements pretty much echoed coach Mike McCarthy's statements Monday about Lacy and James Starks sharing carries once Lacy is healthy.

"We’re going to use both backs," Clements said, per the Green Bay Press Gazette. "When Eddie’s healthy he’s going to get his reps and James will be ready to get his reps.

"If one guy gets (the ball) and we’re effective, I’m happy. If two guys split the reps and we’re effective, that’s fine. I don’t know that there’s a preferred way. There are some individual guys who seem to get better the more they’re used. We have to have that initial success to continue to call their number."

I'd still take the gamble and grab Starks, with or without Lacy on my bench.