Grant wasn't a stud in college. "Injuries prevented him from dominating." Then, when he was with the Giants, he got drunk and fell into a glass table, nearly severing nerves in his arm. Yet it's Starks, who really only had one serious injury, albeit at an inopportune time, who everyone around here says is "injury prone." Double standard?
Originally Posted by: nerdmann
Grant missed 3 games his Senior year due to a hamstring injury after playing his entire Sophomore and Junior years. He played in only 5 games his Freshman year but I could find no reference to any injuries that season. Contrast that to Starks who missed his ENTIRE Senior season due to a shoulder injury.
Grant then had his freak club accident where someone ran into him while he was drinking and last year missed the season because of an ankle injury. Starks came in still recovering from a shoulder injury he sustained a year and a half before the start of the season and then had a hamstring injury keep him out for 12 weeks (one of which was a bye).
So if we look at their college careers and their regular season careers in the NFL, look at the number of games they were available for (including those in which they did not play because they were backups) and the games they missed due to injury we come up with the following numbers:
Ryan Grant:
College Games Missed: 3
Professional Games Missed: 32 (two seasons)
Total Games Missed: 35
College Games Available: 46
Professional Games Available: 48 (the other three seasons)
Total Games Available: 94
Missing 27% of his games (35/(35+94))
James Starks:
College Games Missed: 12
Professional Games Missed: 11
Total Games Missed: 23
College Games Available: 36
Professional Games Available: 5
Total Games Available: 41
Missing 36% of his games (23/(23+41))
Of course, you could argue that if they are backups they don't get a chance to play in the game and be hurt so we could pull those games and these numbers don't include the postseason. They also don't take into consideration that 16 of the games Ryan Grant missed were for his club accident--an injury that in no way, shape or form could ever be recreated or re-aggravated on a football field unless Goodell and the owners decide putting glass tables on the pitch would make for some entertaining, and lucrative viewing. The same could not be said about any of the other injuries these two backs suffered from. They also don't take into account the fact that Ryan Grant was healthy enough to play towards the end of the year but could not because of the IR rules and that James Starks was a quarterback his Freshman year at Buffalo where he would have been less likely to get hurt due to the nature of the position.
The bottom line is Ryan Grant has missed a statistically smaller amount of his time as a running back from college to the present than has James Starks. Starks injuries have also been far more recent and more likely to reoccur on a football field. So no, calling Starks injury prone while not labeling Grant as such would not have to be a double standard depending on where you make the cutoff for such distinction.
Sources:
Nfl.com
Profootballreference.com
Wikipedia.org
Born and bred a cheesehead