RickInAZ
Cheesehead
Just went and voted on the NLF.com Pro Bowl ballot, and was surprised to note that Starks wasn't listed as an option. Anyone have any idea why not?
James Starks not on Pro Bowl ballot
- Thread starter RickInAZ
- Start date
Forget Favre
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,115
- Reaction score
- 1,807
Because they are expecting him in the Super Bowl. 
Because he wasn't the opening day "starter". Ryan Grant was.
OP
OP
RickInAZ
Cheesehead
Hrm. That seems odd, considering a bunch of other teams have two Running Backs on the ballot.
CarolinaPackerFan
Packers fan in Panthers country
I also noticed that. Doesn't make much sense to me either.
bozz_2006
Cheesehead
Good. Help him stay grounded.
TJV
Lifelong Packers Fanatic
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2011
- Messages
- 5,389
- Reaction score
- 954
IMO neither Grant nor Starks are serious Pro Bowl candidates. If either should be listed it should be Starks but my point is it really doesn't matter. Starks, who has superior stats than Grant is 26th in yards per game at about 53 and 24th in yards gained rushing. He's tied for 42nd in average per attempt at 4.5 (the ranking of this stat on nfl.com is not a good one because they don't screen for number of attempts but there are a lot of "real" RBs ahead of him). He's 30th in attempts per game. He's scored one TD rushing. Those aren't Pro Bowl numbers.
I really like Starks. Last year I was worried his upright style would lead to injuries and if I remember correctly he didn't secure the ball well in college so I worried about fumbling. He also hadn't played football in over a year because he was injured at the beginning of his senior year. It turned out none of that was a problem and Thompson and staff were correct in thinking he would "save" the running game (no need for a FA). But the Packers don't have a Pro Bowl RB and that's OK because they have an All World passing attack and just need to run the ball well enough to keep Ds honest.
I really like Starks. Last year I was worried his upright style would lead to injuries and if I remember correctly he didn't secure the ball well in college so I worried about fumbling. He also hadn't played football in over a year because he was injured at the beginning of his senior year. It turned out none of that was a problem and Thompson and staff were correct in thinking he would "save" the running game (no need for a FA). But the Packers don't have a Pro Bowl RB and that's OK because they have an All World passing attack and just need to run the ball well enough to keep Ds honest.
Big E
Cheesehead
It doesn't make sense to me that he's not on it, but it really doesn't matter that much. Unless he explodes for the next 9 games, he shouldn't make it.
Probably because Green Bay doesn't have a full time starter at running back. Starks and Grant split carries almost down the middle.
Kitten
Feline Cheesehead
That bothered me that he wasn't on it. He may not of made it in (fan vote), but I at least thought he is worthy of being nominated. He's also going against Forte (Bears) and McCoy (Eagles), both are having phenomenal years. I would still like to see him on the ballot. I would vote for him! 
To be honest, I wouldn't consider Starks a pro bowler at all. He's good don't get it twisted. He can pick up the tough yards when we need them, but he's far from a world beater. So far he's really only had 1 breakout game and that was against the Eagles last year who were ranked around the bottom of the barrel in run defense.
We pass the ball so much around here it's not like Starks will probably have a whole lot of games where he looks like a pro bowler either.
McCoy, S. Jackson, Peterson, Forte even Turner would get into the Pro Bowl before Starks
We pass the ball so much around here it's not like Starks will probably have a whole lot of games where he looks like a pro bowler either.
McCoy, S. Jackson, Peterson, Forte even Turner would get into the Pro Bowl before Starks
Kitten
Feline Cheesehead
I may not like this very much because I'm a huge fan of Starks, but you have a very valid point Southpaw. It's true and kind of a byproduct of the pass heavy offense that doesn't really utilize a run game the way it did 10 years ago. The Starks fan in me sits in a corner and cries, but there is no escaping the truth of this. It is what it is.
Wood Chipper
Fantasy Football Guru
Because he has rushed for all of 1 td
OP
OP
RickInAZ
Cheesehead
There's no criteria for being on the Pro Bowl ballot other than being a starter, as far as I know. Starks should have been on there. Granted, I didn't intend to vote for him. He's not really having a break-out season. However, with the nifty new comparison tool on NFL.com, I wanted to see how he stacked up against other RBs.
Forte, McCoy, and Peterson are locks anyway. Starks has 1 rushing TD and 0 receiving TDs
DevilDon
Inclement Weather Fan
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2010
- Messages
- 1,393
- Reaction score
- 268
I remember when they drafted him I dug and dug on the internet because his numbers and performance in college seems so good. It was injuries when taken in context of his age weren't that time consuming but he missed alot of football.
I've been excited about his drafting since I did that research. It seems alot of people didn't like the "style" or method of his ways but the guy is productive. The NFL is littered with guys who didn't have the measureables or style and have done well despite it because they are terrific athletes.
I think James Starks is one of those guys. He's not the second coming of Barry Sanders but I think he is a steal as a franchise back for what the Packers need at where they got him. Imagine if you had an Adrian Peterson and an Aaron Rodgers.... who do you give the ball to? How would JerMike and all the other receivers feel? As they say, there's only one ball.
