Super Bowl prop

That is generally the case with any running back. When you have the favored team's running back with a number this small, you have to try to figure out why the line is set so low. The reason is because of the perception of the Pittsburgh run defense. With that in mind, it makes it an easy pick to go over the total.

[QUOTE=Justin1820;38719]Packers have been in front the last 3 games and have had every opportunity to give Starks the ball. They have yet to trail for a significant amount of time in the playoffs. If they get up on Pitt then yes this probably wins, but if they go down he may not get 10 carries, imo.[/QUOTE] Seeing they haven't trailed by more than seven points at any time all year it is unlikely they will get down by much in this game. The defense is very solid and the offense can be explosive or at least do enough to keep them in games.

I think Teddy Covers is reading LVA....his touting of OVER on Starks OVER 16 read almost identical to DC's original post...

[QUOTE=burger;38762]I think Teddy Covers is reading LVA....his touting of OVER on Starks OVER 16 read almost identical to DC's original post...[/QUOTE] I don't know if you listen to Bill Simmons podcasts on ESPN, but Chad Millman was amazed how Teddy Covers came up with the same analysis on Heath Miller in the super bowl that Aaron Schatz from FootballOutsiders had (Green Bay being susceptible to TE's). They never even thought of the idea that maybe Teddy and other sports bettors read football outsiders. Funny stuff.

Tom Silverstein, the Packers beat writer for the Milwaukee Journal, was asked during an online chat about the number of carries Starks could expect to have against the Steelers. This is what he said: A: Tom Silverstein - "... I think you're going to see a lot of Brandon Jackson and not so much Starks. I think you'll see the Packers spread the field early and see how the Steelers react. One thing that sticks in my mind is the first two plays of the last Steelers-Packers game when the Packers went three wides and the Steelers blitzed right up the middle both times, knocking Rodgers on his back both times. The back was Ryan Grant and he didn't do a good job of picking up the blitz. That's why I think you'll see a lot of Jackson."

I think Jackson may be a good play in receiving yards because they will screen to him. He is a much better pass blocker than Starks. I have Starks over in carries and I think Jackson over in receiving yards and/or rushing yards (via draws) is a good play, especially hedging against the Starks play. Starks will get his carries but Jackson's numbers are so low that one or two attempts could get him over the number.

[QUOTE=Sixth Sense;38834]I think Jackson may be a good play in receiving yards because they will screen to him. He is a much better pass blocker than Starks. I have Starks over in carries and I think Jackson over in receiving yards and/or rushing yards (via draws) is a good play, especially hedging against the Starks play. Starks will get his carries but Jackson's numbers are so low that one or two attempts could get him over the number.[/QUOTE] I have the same set of plays Sixth Sense...For both our sakes, I hope this plays out per your insight...

[QUOTE=johnnetto;39001]I have the same set of plays Sixth Sense...For both our sakes, I hope this plays out per your insight...[/QUOTE] McCarthy came out this week and said Stark will play a vital role in this game so hopefully he' ll get his attempts. GL.

Wow!! [QUOTE=Snover;38795]Tom Silverstein, the Packers beat writer for the Milwaukee Journal, was asked during an online chat about the number of carries Starks could expect to have against the Steelers. This is what he said: A: Tom Silverstein - "... I think you're going to see a lot of Brandon Jackson and not so much Starks. I think you'll see the Packers spread the field early and see how the Steelers react. One thing that sticks in my mind is the first two plays of the last Steelers-Packers game when the Packers went three wides and the Steelers blitzed right up the middle both times, knocking Rodgers on his back both times. The back was Ryan Grant and he didn't do a good job of picking up the blitz. That's why I think you'll see a lot of Jackson."[/QUOTE] Perhaps the worst insight of the game. Idiot beat writer!!

Every time Jackson was in there it was to block. Green Bay had a pretty elementary gameplan, and either Tomlin is a worse coach than I thought or it didn't matter because of Roethlisberger's turnovers.