Dexter_Sinister
13 years ago
Grant's best quarter is the second.

Get them tired of chasing Starks around in the 1st and 3rd, then run them over with Grant in the 2nd and 4th.
I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
DakotaT
13 years ago

You got quite a double standard. If Grant was on a performance based contract he wouldn't get paid millions just because he was a stud in college and is as cute as hell.

Originally Posted by: wpr 



Double standard my lilly white ass. I already said why Grant got paid. To me Ryan Grant is mediocre at best and by your philosophy is the epidomy of what a minimum based player + incentives should be paid. But he took advantage of Brandon Jackson sucking ass and got paid instead, and that is the way it should be. But now that there is competition breathing down his neck, we'll see what he's made of.
UserPostedImage
Dexter_Sinister
13 years ago

Double standard my lilly white ass. I already said why Grant got paid. To me Ryan Grant is mediocre at best and by your philosophy is the epidomy of what a minimum based player + incentives should be paid. But he took advantage of Brandon Jackson sucking ass and got paid instead, and that is the way it should be. But now that there is competition breathing down his neck, we'll see what he's made of.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 


That's weird, I though it was the 1200 yards a year he put up. Not being average.
I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
nerdmann
13 years ago

You got quite a double standard. If Grant was on a performance based contract he wouldn't get paid millions just because he was a stud in college and is as cute as hell.

Originally Posted by: wpr 




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?
“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”
wpr
  • wpr
  • Preferred Member Topic Starter
13 years ago

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 



1. It was a tongue in cheek comment about about Grant being a college stud. A vague reference to something DT had said about college football players being worthy of huge sums of money when they make it to the pros because they played football while in college. Evidently too deep for you to catch. My bad.
2. I have never ever ever called Starks injury prone. So don't bring that around me.
UserPostedImage
mi_keys
13 years ago

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
Greg C.
13 years ago
Nice work, mi_keys. You did a way better job answering that than I would have.

Getting back to the main issue, I think it will be like the preseason, at least at the beginning. Grant will start, but Starks will be mixed in a lot, and I think Starks will get the bulk of the third down snaps because he looks better at receiving out of the backfield. If one or the other player stands out, he will get more and more snaps as the season goes on. Alex Green will not get much time early in the season (and may even be inactive for some games) but will start getting some third down snaps as the season goes on.
blank
Fan Shout
beast (23m) : If we win tonight the game is still relative in terms of 5th, 6th or 7th seed... win and it's 5th or 6th, lose and it's 6th or 7th
beast (24m) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly
Zero2Cool (34m) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.
bboystyle (46m) : i mean game becomes irrelevant if we win tonight. Just a game where we are trying to play spoilers to Vikings chance at the #1 seed
Mucky Tundra (55m) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv
Zero2Cool (1h) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno
beast (1h) : I agree that it's BS for fans planning on going to the game. But how does it bring in more money? I'm guessing indirectly?
packerfanoutwest (1h) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans
Zero2Cool (2h) : I see what you did there Mucky
Zero2Cool (2h) : dammit. 3:25pm
Zero2Cool (2h) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm
Mucky Tundra (2h) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground
Mucky Tundra (2h) : Yeah baby!
Zero2Cool (2h) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah
Zero2Cool (4h) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.
beast (4h) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue
Zero2Cool (4h) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's
Zero2Cool (4h) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.
packerfanoutwest (5h) : ok I stand corrected
Zero2Cool (5h) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th
Zero2Cool (5h) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?
beast (5h) : Saying no to the 6th lock.
beast (5h) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out
Zero2Cool (5h) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.
beast (5h) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games
beast (5h) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality
beast (5h) : We already have told you... if Packers lose all their games (they won't, but if they did), and Buccaneers and Falcons win all theirs
Zero2Cool (5h) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread
Zero2Cool (5h) : I literally just said it.
packerfanoutwest (5h) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't
Zero2Cool (5h) : Falcons, Buccaneers would need to win final two games.
Zero2Cool (5h) : Yes, if they win one of three, they are lock. If they lose out, they can be eliminated.
packerfanoutwest (5h) : as I just said,,gtheyh are in no matter what
Zero2Cool (5h) : Packers should get in. I just hope it's not 7th seed. Feels dirty.
packerfanoutwest (5h) : If packers lose out, no matter what, they are in
packerfanoutwest (5h) : both teams can not male the playoffs....falcon hold the tie breaker
packerfanoutwest (5h) : if bucs win out they win their division
beast (5h) : Fine, Buccaneers and Falcons can get ahead of us
packerfanoutwest (6h) : falcons are already ahead of us
beast (6h) : Packers will get in
beast (6h) : If Packers lose the rest of their games and Falcons win the rest of theirs, they could pass us... but not gonna happen
packerfanoutwest (6h) : they still are in the playoffs
packerfanoutwest (6h) : If Packers lose the remaining games,,,,at 10-7
Zero2Cool (7h) : We can say it. We don't play.
Mucky Tundra (9h) : But to say they are in is looking past the Saints
Mucky Tundra (9h) : That said, their odds are very favorable with a >99% chance of making the playoffs entering this week's games
Mucky Tundra (9h) : Packers are not in and have not clinched a playoff spot.
buckeyepackfan (9h) : Packers are in, they need to keep winning to improve their seed#.
Mucky Tundra (18h) : Getting help would have been nice, but helping ourselves should always be the plan
beast (19h) : Too bad Seahawks couldn't beat Vikings
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
45m / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

4h / Random Babble / Martha Careful

22-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / packerfanoutwest

19-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

19-Dec / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

18-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

17-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

17-Dec / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

16-Dec / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Mucky Tundra

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.