New Orleans Saints Forums - blackandgold.com

New Orleans Saints Forums - blackandgold.com (https://blackandgold.com/community/)
-   Saints (https://blackandgold.com/saints/)
-   -   Does anyone think if Ingram had played, the outcome would have been different? (https://blackandgold.com/saints/37743-does-anyone-think-if-ingram-had-played-outcome-would-have-been-different.html)

WhoDat!656 11-01-2011 04:03 PM

Does anyone think if Ingram had played, the outcome would have been different?
 
Having 4 healthy RBs may have been too much for the Rams. Of course that is a moot point if the Mighty Wizard doesn't run the ball.

I keep wondering why was Ingram even in the game at the point where he got injuried.

Last year Malcolm Jenkins and Jimmy Graham were injuried in a meaningless game against the Bucs; this year Mark Ingram gets injuried in a game that was already won.

CharityMike 11-01-2011 04:06 PM

To answer the question of the topic, NO. We could have AP in there and it wouldn't have mattered. Our staff hates running the ball.

I don't really mind that Ingram was still in there. It was good for him to get more than one run at a time like usual. To me, it seems like it would be hard to adjust to the NFL level when you only touch the ball maybe 10 times a game.

WhoDat!656 11-01-2011 04:09 PM

I understand your point that as a rookie he needs the carries, but I have to question it in the game he was hurt.

Danno 11-01-2011 04:18 PM

I do, he's a leader.

strato 11-01-2011 04:21 PM

No..we would have passed anyway. we missed Payton more on the sideline

saintfan 11-01-2011 04:32 PM

nope.

FinSaint 11-01-2011 04:36 PM

I don't think it would've, and as far as 4 RBs instead of "just" 3 of them... what the Saints needed was quality not quantity.

Euphoria 11-01-2011 04:38 PM

The only way the outcome would have been different is if the Rams D didn't play and we could have used LSU's Defense.

halloween 65 11-01-2011 04:42 PM

I say no, but we should have run more. Also where were the screen passes. As aggressive as their DE's were that would have slowed them down alot.

FinSaint 11-01-2011 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by halloween 65 (Post 344866)
I say no, but we should have run more. Also where were the screen passes. As aggressive as their DE's were that would have slowed them down alot.


I seem to remember them trying to get the screen game going, but at least one such pass got patted down by the rusher from the outside and on another one PT got chased down for a loss by a linebacker.

Danno 11-01-2011 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FinSaint (Post 344880)
I seem to remember them trying to get the screen game going, but at least one such pass got patted down by the rusher from the outside and on another one PT got chased down for a loss by a linebacker.

And as Tim Ryan pointed out, screens, draws and wide runs don't typically work well against soft cover zones.

strato 11-01-2011 05:02 PM

Seems like we just didnt take what the Lambs were giving us..or did we with no lube..No really Drew was forcing it to Graham in triple coverage ..and i know i saw WRs open and Sproles out of the backfield ...anyway...enough of that dam game ..we have a MUST win coming up..

B005TED 11-01-2011 05:19 PM

Nope, O line didn't show up. Even if he would have played, the outcome would be the same.

Euphoria 11-01-2011 05:29 PM

I love that some people think we don't need a defense at all.

strato 11-01-2011 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Euphoria (Post 344900)
I love that some people think we don't need a defense at all.


We discuss that to man...look at the boards...now we have issues on O..thats been our money all year..BELIEVE me i think we know about our D.. :)

CharityMike 11-01-2011 05:33 PM

What is your deal? Nothing I have read on this board states we don't need a defense. I don't know where your getting your info.

SaintFanQ 11-01-2011 05:33 PM

No, I don't think so! We were just flat as a team that day and the Rams wanted it more!

Danno 11-01-2011 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Euphoria (Post 344900)
I love that some people think we don't need a defense at all.

Name one.

SaintsBro 11-01-2011 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhoDat!656 (Post 344846)
Having 4 healthy RBs may have been too much for the Rams. Of course that is a moot point if the Mighty Wizard doesn't run the ball.

I keep wondering why was Ingram even in the game at the point where he got injuried.

Last year Malcolm Jenkins and Jimmy Graham were injuried in a meaningless game against the Bucs; this year Mark Ingram gets injuried in a game that was already won.


The Mighty Wizard was not calling the plays, Pete Carmichael was. Just FYI

The Saints came out flat, uninspired, and even looked a little fatigued, no question about it.

Also, I don't remember exactly about Graham, but when Jenkins was injured in the Bucs game last year it was definitely still a meaningful game at that point, as the Atlanta/Carolina game was still up in the air. By the 3rd quarter the game was meaningless but not at the very beginning.

strato 11-01-2011 05:49 PM

I read where Carmichael called the first half and Payton the second?..geez here i am again posting about that dam game..lol..must back away....

jnormand 11-01-2011 05:56 PM

I think it would have made a difference but I'm not sure it would have turned the game.

|Mitch| 11-01-2011 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strato (Post 344913)
I read where Carmichael called the first half and Payton the second?..geez here i am again posting about that dam game..lol..must back away....

So does that mean running in the 4th quarter was Sean's fault? :doh:

Mardigras9 11-01-2011 07:33 PM

NOPE, woudln't have mattered who was in there.

saintsfan1976 11-01-2011 08:00 PM

Told ya - "I bet Carmichael called the game"

jcp026 11-01-2011 08:13 PM

It wouldn't have made a difference...unless it made the team more determined and changed the way we called offensive plays.

saintsfan1976 11-01-2011 08:14 PM

Not unless he coached.

Ashley 11-01-2011 11:13 PM

no

Marlboro Man 11-02-2011 07:14 PM

Absolutely not.

JoanieNTX 11-03-2011 02:28 PM

I say yes. I think Ingram is a workhorse, and we needed that during that stupid game. We needed to rotate some finesse running and some "in your face" running. And, of course, it would have helped if Jackson were not on 'roids. :)

CharityMike 11-03-2011 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoanieNTX (Post 345358)
I say yes. I think Ingram is a workhorse, and we needed that during that stupid game. We needed to rotate some finesse running and some "in your face" running. And, of course, it would have helped if Jackson were not on 'roids. :)

Chris Ivory could have filled that role. They were to scared he would hurt himself again. It was a failure from the top down. We need to win any way possible and they blew it by not using our top pounder. You can't expect much when the guy runs 1 time and goes to the sideline.

Budsdrinker 11-03-2011 02:48 PM

Don't think it would have mattered because OL didn't show up. Play calling was very questionable. With zone coverage and the way the DE's were flying in we needed to go with at lest 4 wide maybe 5 wide and throw some quick slants to slow up the pass rush. None of it matters now but whomever calls the plays this week needs to be ready to make corrections on the fly and not just beat their head in the wall by trying to run something that isn't working. Go back and look at the 4th qtr of the Texans game. That's what we should have done coming out in the second half.

UK_WhoDat 11-04-2011 08:05 AM

No difference.
It's like having loadsa money and keeping it in the bank.
Use it or lose it.

NOS2SB 11-04-2011 08:33 AM

No way. Offensive line wouldn't have blocked any different. Rams had no problem stuffing the run no matter who.

Saint_LB 11-04-2011 10:21 AM

You can't really answer that question. If I would have gone to the game would the outcome have been different?

Kryptonite 11-04-2011 10:46 AM

No difference what so ever. Rams had our number...911. HA!

Don't think I have lost my love for this team by the way I've been expressing myself lately. It's just the way I'm dealing with the dissappointment at this time. Just allow me to keep punching holes in the wall until I hit a stud. I promise I'll quit then.

Danno 11-04-2011 11:17 AM

It may have. We were flat, and there are probably numerous circumstances that given a do-over may have changed the outcome.

If Bradford played we may have taken them more seriously.
If Ingram played we may have practiced the running game more during the week.
If Payton was on the sideline he may have "inspired" a few players to step it up a notch.

Nothing matters now, but I know if we played the Rams again this year we'd humiliate them.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:26 AM.


Copyright 1997 - 2020 - BlackandGold.com