New Orleans Saints Forums - blackandgold.com

New Orleans Saints Forums - blackandgold.com (https://blackandgold.com/community/)
-   Saints (https://blackandgold.com/saints/)
-   -   Article: Mark Ingram's role becoming clear (https://blackandgold.com/saints/53148-mark-ingrams-role-becoming-clear.html)

WhoDat!656 11-23-2012 06:23 PM

Mark Ingram's role becoming clear
 
In his second NFL season, running back Mark Ingram’s role with the New Orleans Saints is starting to become more defined.

Ingram has had a season-high 67 rushing yards in each of the last two games. That’s silenced some critics who were skeptical about Ingram after a rookie season that was far from spectacular. If critics still remain, they might want to consider some other numbers that go beyond Ingram’s rushing totals.

Although Ingram isn’t as much of a receiving threat as Darren Sproles, or even Pierre Thomas, he’s making a very positive impact on the passing game. Ingram has played in a rotation with Sproles, Thomas and Chris Ivory.

According to ESPN Stats & Information, the Saints have only dropped back to pass 39.4 percent of the time when Ingram has been on the field. Compare that to 72.8 percent when the other running backs have been on the field.

But the Saints have been far more effective in the play-action passing game when Ingram has been in the game than they have when Thomas, Sproles and Ivory have been in the game.

With Ingram on the field, Drew Brees has completed 69.7 percent of his play-action passes and averaged 11.2 yards per attempt. The numbers aren’t even close with the other three running backs.

With Thomas in the game, Brees has completed 58.3 percent of his play-action passes and averaged 7.8 yards per attempt. With Sproles on the field, Brees has completed 57.1 percent and averaged 7.2 yards per attempt. When Ivory has been on the field, Brees has completed 50 percent of his play-action passes and averaged 4.3 yards per attempt.

Mark Ingram's role becoming clear - NFC South Blog - ESPN

Jamessr 11-23-2012 06:39 PM

Re: Mark Ingram's role becoming clear
 
Yup looks clear to me... Get some stock value this year to be traded next year...

burningmetal 11-23-2012 06:55 PM

Re: Mark Ingram's role becoming clear
 
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm a little tired of people shoving Mark Ingram down our throats. I'll stop being skeptical when I damn well please. If he does anything positive at all, these articles show up telling us how wrong we were... Find something else to write about. He's been a little better, but still not up to his billing. And if you haven't noticed, he is still our 3rd or 4th best back. That's not what you spend a 1st round pick on. Of course I'm gonna pull for him because he's on our team, but he hasn't silenced my doubts yet.

WhoDat!656 11-23-2012 07:10 PM

Re: Mark Ingram's role becoming clear
 
What player did the Saints not get by drafting Ingram?

halloween 65 11-23-2012 07:45 PM

Re: Mark Ingram's role becoming clear
 
Ingram wasn't a bad pick but I would have went with LeShoure in the 2nd round over the picks we gave to the Patriots. Still not a bad pick but LeShoure to me is a better runner.

AlaskaSaints 11-23-2012 08:05 PM

Re: Mark Ingram's role becoming clear
 
:YAWN:

But thanks for sharing, 656!

I hope Ingram gets a 100-yard-game, however. I don't care how we do it, but yeah, it does seem a little "forced".

Alaska

burningmetal 11-23-2012 10:29 PM

Re: Mark Ingram's role becoming clear
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by WhoDat!656 (Post 459150)
What player did the Saints not get by drafting Ingram?

This isn't a debate about who we DIDN'T get. The point is we got Ingram and he hasn't lived up to anything yet. Therefore, I don't take back my expressions of disappointment towards him, at this time. I'm somewhat encouraged by what I've seen lately, but I'm also aware that we haven't been playing defensive juggernauts. It's progress and I'll gladly take it, but the jury is still out.

MatthewT 11-24-2012 01:53 AM

Re: Mark Ingram's role becoming clear
 
Ingram indeed is a worthy 1st round draft pick, and true he hasn't lived up to it. I completely blame the system he is in as the core reason. There are simply not enough plays in a game to keep everyone happy and rolling, especially the talented running backs the Saints have. A guy like Ingram really needs that 20-25 carries per game, but if the Saints do that then they are seriously limiting other contributers like Chris Ivory and Pierre Thomas. Yes, this is a good problem to have, but it does get awkward at times.

Yes, if we had the Saints had a crystal ball and could see into the future, then Ingram would have never been drafted by the Saints. When he was drafted, it was fresh coming off a year that the Saints got so messed up with injuries at the position. Remember the Julius Jones and Ladell Betts experiments? That experiment is why Ingram was drafted by the Saints.

burningmetal 11-24-2012 03:15 AM

Re: Mark Ingram's role becoming clear
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MatthewT (Post 459207)
Ingram indeed is a worthy 1st round draft pick, and true he hasn't lived up to it. I completely blame the system he is in as the core reason. There are simply not enough plays in a game to keep everyone happy and rolling, especially the talented running backs the Saints have. A guy like Ingram really needs that 20-25 carries per game, but if the Saints do that then they are seriously limiting other contributers like Chris Ivory and Pierre Thomas. Yes, this is a good problem to have, but it does get awkward at times.

Yes, if we had the Saints had a crystal ball and could see into the future, then Ingram would have never been drafted by the Saints. When he was drafted, it was fresh coming off a year that the Saints got so messed up with injuries at the position. Remember the Julius Jones and Ladell Betts experiments? That experiment is why Ingram was drafted by the Saints.

I have a number of disagreements here. How is he worthy of a 1st round pick if he hasn't lived up to it? I guess that makes Tim Couch, David Carr, Jamarcus Russell, and countless other 1st overall picks who never amounted to anything in the NFL worthy of their selections. Ingram was the 28th pick and hasn't even lived up to that.

Secondly, if it's the fault of the system, then why have the other guys been effective in the same system, with basically the same amount of touches? You're not going to get 100 yards on 10 carries very often, but the idea is to play well when you DO get chances. Until recently, he hadn't done that. If his problems are in fact because of the system, then he's useless, wouldn't you say? We won a super bowl using the RB by committee, so why draft a guy who supposedly HAS to have 20-25 carries to be effective?

And as for Julius Jones and Ladell Betts, that was not an experiment. They just happened to be the best available rb's after the injuries. I've been arguing this all year, that none of those guys blew out a knee or an Achilles tendon. There wasn't much reason to believe they wouldn't all be back. If a setback occurred, deal with it in free agency (which they later did anyway, with the signing of Sproles).

Frankly, if you have a good offensive line, anyone can be a good RB. Remember all the 1,000 yard no names for Denver in the Shanahan days? How do we explain the sudden resurgence in our running game this year? It helped that we got Ivory back out there, but what about the other backs who had been there all year, who are now putting up good numbers? The line woke up and starting opening some holes. You know the old cliche, it all starts up front.

Stealthman 11-24-2012 07:05 PM

Re: Mark Ingram's role becoming clear
 
In fairness, Ingram was injured earlier this season, and has been getting healthier. His corresponding play has been in lock-step with his being closer to 100%. Well, sort of.

In reality, I believe Ivory's performance has lit a fire under Ingram's butt (jus' keepin' it real, homies).

But in the last 3 games (Eagles, Falcons, Raiders), Ingram has 35 carries for 178 yds (5.1 ypc).

During that same stretch (Eagles, Falcons, Raiders), Ivory has 25 carries for 157 yds (6.3 ypc).

Ivory is OBVIOUSLY more productive (by comparison) than Ingram. However, we have to be fair in calling it that Ingram has not been a "slacker" in those 3 games either.

:bng:

jnormand 11-24-2012 07:34 PM

Re: Mark Ingram's role becoming clear
 
I like Ingram. I truly believe his lack of numbers is because of his lack of snaps and sharing the backfield with 3 other backs. I hope he makes everyone eat crow. No disrespect to anyone ofcourse. I'm just a believer.

AlaskaSaints 11-24-2012 08:12 PM

Re: Mark Ingram's role becoming clear
 
"I'm a believer"

Translation - He's on my Fantasy Team. :wink:

I want all of them to succeed, but it will be hard for any single back to get over 100 yards within our offensive scheme unless he breaks long runs. The backs we have now know what it feels like to be one of our receivers.

Far more than we need a single back to succeed, we need to be unpredictable and balanced.

I'm with you, jnormand. I, too am a believer, but until recently a skeptical one.

Alaska

Tobias-Reiper 11-25-2012 01:21 AM

Re: Mark Ingram's role becoming clear
 
Ingram's role is very clear. It is whipping boy for fans who see Ivory as the love child of Larry Czonka and Barry Sanders. One can come up to a lot of conclusions based on averages,4.1, 5.6, 3.7, blah blah blah. And I can play with stats too. For example, Ivory:

VS Philly: 10 attempts, 48 yards, average 4.8 Very good average. But wait! Longest run was 22 yards. So let's subtract 22 out of 48, and you get 26. Divide 26 by the other 9 attempts and you get 2.89. Not so good.

VS the Clowns: 7 attempts, 72 yards, 10.3 average. Fantastic! But wait! Longest run was 56 yards. Subtract 56 from 72, you get 16. Divide 16 by the other 6 attempts and you get 2.67. Ugh!

VS Oakland: 8 attempts, 37 yards, 4.6 average. But wait! Longest run was 25. Same exercise as before, we get 1.71. That-is-fu-gly!

We can also go back to the SF playoff game: 9 carries, 23 yards, 2.6. Let's just leave it at that.

Of course, let's see Ingram.

VS Philly: 7 for 44, 6.3/per. Longest of 23, 44-23=21. 21/6=3.5. 3.5 > 2.89
VS Clowns: 16 for 67, 4.2 per. Longest of 8, 67-8=59. 59/15=3.9. 3.9 > 2.67
VS Oak: 12 for 57, 5.6/per. Longest run of 27, 57-27=30. 30/11=2.72. 2.72 > 1.71

So, what have we learned about Ivory vs Ingram? That we can wait and wait for the 1 beast run from Ivory, but in the meantime, we have no running game that's consistently moving the chains and maintaining ball possession with him on the field. Whereas with Ingram, we have a more consistent running game that gets the Saints the tough yards and maintains possession of the ball, not to mention a better blocker, receiver, and is even willing to play on special teams.

So there.

Oh, almost forgot:
Fumbles.
Career fumbles: Ingram 1 out of 204 runs, Ivory 4 out of 241 runs.

So there, too.

Tobias-Reiper 11-25-2012 01:35 AM

Re: Mark Ingram's role becoming clear
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Stealthman (Post 459309)
In fairness, Ingram was injured earlier this season, and has been getting healthier. His corresponding play has been in lock-step with his being closer to 100%. Well, sort of.

In reality, I believe Ivory's performance has lit a fire under Ingram's butt (jus' keepin' it real, homies).

But in the last 3 games (Eagles, Falcons, Raiders), Ingram has 35 carries for 178 yds (5.1 ypc).

During that same stretch (Eagles, Falcons, Raiders), Ivory has 25 carries for 157 yds (6.3 ypc).

Ivory is OBVIOUSLY more productive (by comparison) than Ingram. However, we have to be fair in calling it that Ingram has not been a "slacker" in those 3 games either.

:bng:

See my post above :)

TheOak 11-25-2012 03:40 AM

Yet another poorly written article from Pat. Title "roll defined".

Article tells me we drafted a 1st Round play action decoy..... That is not a roll you draft for.

burningmetal 11-25-2012 03:58 AM

Re: Mark Ingram's role becoming clear
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tobias-Reiper (Post 459340)
Ingram's role is very clear. It is whipping boy for fans who see Ivory as the love child of Larry Czonka and Barry Sanders. One can come up to a lot of conclusions based on averages,4.1, 5.6, 3.7, blah blah blah. And I can play with stats too. For example, Ivory:

VS Philly: 10 attempts, 48 yards, average 4.8 Very good average. But wait! Longest run was 22 yards. So let's subtract 22 out of 48, and you get 26. Divide 26 by the other 9 attempts and you get 2.89. Not so good.

VS the Clowns: 7 attempts, 72 yards, 10.3 average. Fantastic! But wait! Longest run was 56 yards. Subtract 56 from 72, you get 16. Divide 16 by the other 6 attempts and you get 2.67. Ugh!

VS Oakland: 8 attempts, 37 yards, 4.6 average. But wait! Longest run was 25. Same exercise as before, we get 1.71. That-is-fu-gly!

We can also go back to the SF playoff game: 9 carries, 23 yards, 2.6. Let's just leave it at that.

Of course, let's see Ingram.

VS Philly: 7 for 44, 6.3/per. Longest of 23, 44-23=21. 21/6=3.5. 3.5 > 2.89
VS Clowns: 16 for 67, 4.2 per. Longest of 8, 67-8=59. 59/15=3.9. 3.9 > 2.67
VS Oak: 12 for 57, 5.6/per. Longest run of 27, 57-27=30. 30/11=2.72. 2.72 > 1.71

So, what have we learned about Ivory vs Ingram? That we can wait and wait for the 1 beast run from Ivory, but in the meantime, we have no running game that's consistently moving the chains and maintaining ball possession with him on the field. Whereas with Ingram, we have a more consistent running game that gets the Saints the tough yards and maintains possession of the ball, not to mention a better blocker, receiver, and is even willing to play on special teams.

So there.

Oh, almost forgot:
Fumbles.
Career fumbles: Ingram 1 out of 204 runs, Ivory 4 out of 241 runs.

So there, too.

Yet another tactful masterpiece by you. I'm kidding of course.

This is not a thread about Chris Ivory. It's about Mark Ingram, and his production relative to ALL of our backs. Ingram has been out produced in every category by all three of our other backs. He is playing better of late, and we're all glad for it, but the point myself, and I think a lot of other people are trying to make is that we need to see more before we start praising him.

Since you did bring up Ivory as the focal point of your argument, let me just ask you this: are you saying that because Ivory breaks a couple long runs to help his average, that he is not a good back? Are you suggesting that you don't like 56 yard runs? Do you know anyone who averaged over 10 yards per carry in a game, without a long run or two? You'd rather a guy who was averaging 3.7 a carry and getting less than that on most of his carries? What is this about Ingram consistently moving the chains? where has that been? I'll take the home run hitter any day, over what we were previously getting out of Mark. But Ivory is just as effective as anyone else we have when he isn't breaking the long runs. Add to that the breakaway ability, and you have a pretty good player.

We also have Sproles and Thomas who have been highly productive in their careers, so no one is a feature back, but they get it done. Now, has Ivory had fumbling problems in the past? Yes, and I pointed this out a couple weeks ago. I said I know he has had issues with ball security, but as bad as we were playing earlier in the year, I couldn't believe we wouldn't just put him out there and see if he could provide a spark. Well, he did just that as soon as he came back, and our running game has taken off. Credit goes to some good run blocking too, but Ivory brought some explosiveness that had been missing, and it seems to have ignited everyone. Plus, he hasn't fumbled so far this year. And you know what else? Though he had limited playing time, in 79 carries he did not fumble last year either. Anything to say to that? Or are you simply going to hold 2010 against him for the rest of his life?

Lack of carries is something all the backs could complain about, but they don't. So why should Mark Ingram have an excuse? Let's see him continue his recent play, and sustain it against some better defenses, and I'll bet you people will be singing his praises. I'm happy to see improvement, but I'm tired of being told to eat crow every time Mark Ingram successfully wipes his butt.

And by the way, I didn't predict Ingram would take so long to be decent. I wasn't thrilled at all about the pick, but I had hopes that he would do ok. For the first year and a half of his career, I have simply called it like it is. He was stinking it up. If he has truly turned the corner, good, but it doesn't change the fact that he sucked miserably until now. That hardly qualifies any of us to eat crow. Does this help you understand my perspective, and that of many others in here?

Tobias-Reiper 11-25-2012 08:48 AM

Re: Mark Ingram's role becoming clear
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by burningmetal (Post 459348)
Yet another tactful masterpiece by you. I'm kidding of course.

This is not a thread about Chris Ivory. It's about Mark Ingram, and his production relative to ALL of our backs. Ingram has been out produced in every category by all three of our other backs. He is playing better of late, and we're all glad for it, but the point myself, and I think a lot of other people are trying to make is that we need to see more before we start praising him.

Since you did bring up Ivory as the focal point of your argument, let me just ask you this: are you saying that because Ivory breaks a couple long runs to help his average, that he is not a good back? Are you suggesting that you don't like 56 yard runs? Do you know anyone who averaged over 10 yards per carry in a game, without a long run or two? You'd rather a guy who was averaging 3.7 a carry and getting less than that on most of his carries? What is this about Ingram consistently moving the chains? where has that been? I'll take the home run hitter any day, over what we were previously getting out of Mark. But Ivory is just as effective as anyone else we have when he isn't breaking the long runs. Add to that the breakaway ability, and you have a pretty good player.

We also have Sproles and Thomas who have been highly productive in their careers, so no one is a feature back, but they get it done. Now, has Ivory had fumbling problems in the past? Yes, and I pointed this out a couple weeks ago. I said I know he has had issues with ball security, but as bad as we were playing earlier in the year, I couldn't believe we wouldn't just put him out there and see if he could provide a spark. Well, he did just that as soon as he came back, and our running game has taken off. Credit goes to some good run blocking too, but Ivory brought some explosiveness that had been missing, and it seems to have ignited everyone. Plus, he hasn't fumbled so far this year. And you know what else? Though he had limited playing time, in 79 carries he did not fumble last year either. Anything to say to that? Or are you simply going to hold 2010 against him for the rest of his life?

Lack of carries is something all the backs could complain about, but they don't. So why should Mark Ingram have an excuse? Let's see him continue his recent play, and sustain it against some better defenses, and I'll bet you people will be singing his praises. I'm happy to see improvement, but I'm tired of being told to eat crow every time Mark Ingram successfully wipes his butt.

And by the way, I didn't predict Ingram would take so long to be decent. I wasn't thrilled at all about the pick, but I had hopes that he would do ok. For the first year and a half of his career, I have simply called it like it is. He was stinking it up. If he has truly turned the corner, good, but it doesn't change the fact that he sucked miserably until now. That hardly qualifies any of us to eat crow. Does this help you understand my perspective, and that of many others in here?

Are you really this much of my ***** now? Cool.

I was replying to Stealhman, just FYI.
Asterisks hint: Lassie.

Jamessr 11-25-2012 12:04 PM

Re: Mark Ingram's role becoming clear
 
I wonder hwo well Ivory would have done if he had been given the same chance as Ingram...

Danno 11-25-2012 12:08 PM

Re: Mark Ingram's role becoming clear
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jamessr (Post 459403)
I wonder hwo well Ivory would have done if he had been given the same chance as Ingram...

He was given the same chance, and fumbled too much in practice and sucked at pass protection.

But since we're playing the hypothetical Ingram vs Ivory nonsense...

He'd probably have been placed on IR by week 6, have 3 fumbles, and Brees may have suffered a serious injury because of a missed block by Ivory, and we'd probably still be 5-5 heading into this game.

burningmetal 11-25-2012 08:30 PM

Re: Mark Ingram's role becoming clear
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tobias-Reiper (Post 459372)
Are you really this much of my ***** now? Cool.

I was replying to Stealhman, just FYI.
Asterisks hint: Lassie.

I know who you were replying to. I can still respond to a post I see as being idiotic, can't I? Yes, yes I can. And where is your reply in defense of what I laid out? No where. Get a life dude. I've been on you for weeks about ill informed posts, and have yet to get anything close to a real response. If you can't do that, your opinion is meaningless.

AlaskaSaints 11-25-2012 08:35 PM

Re: Mark Ingram's role becoming clear
 
Hello, Danno.

Ingram still your Fantasy go-to guy? LOL

Sit him.

Alaska

Danno 11-25-2012 08:36 PM

Re: Mark Ingram's role becoming clear
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AlaskaSaints (Post 459730)
Hello, Danno.

Ingram still your Fantasy go-to guy? LOL

Sit him.

Alaska

I don't play fantasy football anymore, and he was never my go-to guy.

Over-react much?

burningmetal 11-25-2012 08:37 PM

Re: Mark Ingram's role becoming clear
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Danno (Post 459404)
He was given the same chance, and fumbled too much in practice and sucked at pass protection.

But since we're playing the hypothetical Ingram vs Ivory nonsense...

He'd probably have been placed on IR by week 6, have 3 fumbles, and Brees may have suffered a serious injury because of a missed block by Ivory, and we'd probably still be 5-5 heading into this game.

I've noticed that you always defend Roman Harper and Mark Ingram. I have since become aware that you are a fan of their alma mater. Is this why you hate to see these guys criticized? Ivory hasn't fumbled in a game in two years, meanwhile Ingram couldn't pick up a first down 80 percent of the time. Who the hell cares about practice? This is getting ridiculous. The guy comes in and is our leading rusher since coming back, hasn't fumbled, and people criticize him. As for pass protection, where was Ingram today? where was anyone? I don't think any of our backs are exactly great in that department.

AlaskaSaints 11-25-2012 08:44 PM

Re: Mark Ingram's role becoming clear
 
Ingram got the start tonight and he still sucks.

Because he sucked, our fearless wizard of an offensive coordinator decided to only run Ivory a couple times up the middle to confirm the the RUN GAME IS FUTILE.

Pass. Pass. Pass.

FAIL

Alaska

Danno 11-25-2012 08:45 PM

Re: Mark Ingram's role becoming clear
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by burningmetal (Post 459732)
I've noticed that you always defend Roman Harper and Mark Ingram. I have since become aware that you are a fan of their alma mater. Is this why you hate to see these guys criticized? Ivory hasn't fumbled in a game in two years, meanwhile Ingram couldn't pick up a first down 80 percent of the time. Who the hell cares about practice? This is getting ridiculous. The guy comes in and is our leading rusher since coming back, hasn't fumbled, and people criticize him. As for pass protection, where was Ingram today? where was anyone? I don't think any of our backs are exactly great in that department.

I dislike unfair criticism. The Harper criticism is ridiculous. The Ingram hate is over the top.

I responded about Ivory in kind. I like Ivory, I like him a lot. But I'm not dumb enough to think he didn't have any weaknesses coming into this season. Our coach even said so.

Anyone with any football knowledge knows as the O-line goes, so do the RBs. Did you notice how much better the O-line started playing when Kromer went back to his O-line coaching position?

The Ingram haters refuse to see that. Just because Ivory is our best pure runner doesn't mean Ingram sucks. I just have to keep remembering there are a lot of young uninformed posters around here that just want to vent. So its all good I guess.

Was PT hurt? He had 1 carry for 0 yards. Why didn't he see the ball more?

AlaskaSaints 11-25-2012 08:50 PM

Re: Mark Ingram's role becoming clear
 
:YAWN:

Alaska

Danno 11-25-2012 08:52 PM

Re: Mark Ingram's role becoming clear
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AlaskaSaints (Post 459738)
:YAWN:

Alaska

Need a nap?

AlaskaSaints 11-25-2012 08:53 PM

Re: Mark Ingram's role becoming clear
 
Im exhausted waiting for Ingram to produce.

Exhausted. He only runs well when he runs BEHIND Ivory. However, somehow, Ivory has his foot UP Ingram's azz.

Roll Tide

Alaska

burningmetal 11-25-2012 09:05 PM

Re: Mark Ingram's role becoming clear
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Danno (Post 459734)
I dislike unfair criticism. The Harper criticism is ridiculous. The Ingram hate is over the top.

I responded about Ivory in kind. I like Ivory, I like him a lot. But I'm not dumb enough to think he didn't have any weaknesses coming into this season. Our coach even said so.

Anyone with any football knowledge knows as the O-line goes, so do the RBs. Did you notice how much better the O-line started playing when Kromer went back to his O-line coaching position?

The Ingram haters refuse to see that. Just because Ivory is our best pure runner doesn't mean Ingram sucks. I just have to keep remembering there are a lot of young uninformed posters around here that just want to vent. So its all good I guess.

Was PT hurt? He had 1 carry for 0 yards. Why didn't he see the ball more?

No friend, that is not unfair criticism. Remember last year when we ran the ball so well? Ingram was putrid. And our backs weren't playing awful early in the year, we were just constantly way behind. Like today. Now I said myself in another post that the line woke up, and that helped. But Thomas was playing ok when he WAS getting the ball, whereas Ingram wasn't. I agree that Ingram has been playing better, but all this stuff about eating crow that I keep hearing some people say, is BS. He was awful until very recently, and still isn't lighting it up. And who said Ivory had no weakness? They all have weaknesses. But Ivory, Thomas and Sproles have simply outplayed Ingram the majority of the time. I'll start giving Ingram credit when he shows more consistency.

As for Harper, his play is indefensible. He is almost always getting burned. Safeties are called safeties for a reason. they are supposed to keep everything in front of them. But both our safeties always seem to be behind.

As for PT today? Beats me. I have no idea what happened to him.

bobdog86 11-25-2012 09:26 PM

Re: Mark Ingram's role becoming clear
 
Let's take the emotion out of it. Ivory deserves more work based on recent performances period. Ingram, PT less, Sproles less to a certain degree and Ivory more. Having four running backs involved in the offense to the extent that we rotate them is futile.

Danno 11-25-2012 10:08 PM

Re: Mark Ingram's role becoming clear
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by burningmetal (Post 459745)
Now I said myself in another post that the line woke up, and that helped. But Thomas was playing ok when he WAS getting the ball, whereas Ingram wasn't.

No PT wasn't.

burningmetal 11-26-2012 01:15 AM

Re: Mark Ingram's role becoming clear
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Danno (Post 459762)
No PT wasn't.

Yes, he most certainly was. He was grinding out every possible yard, where no one else was getting anything. Go back and watch some of these games. Or just decide in advance that you won't agree with anything I have to say, which seems to be the case. I could care less at this point. I'm not biased to any particular player, or players. I'm going by what I see. I don't care how old you are, or how much longer you think you've been watching football, I know what I see when I see it.

It has become futile to try to make a point around here, without some agenda getting in the way of facts. So before I blow up needlessly, let me just agree to disagree.

Crusader 11-26-2012 03:29 AM

Re: Mark Ingram's role becoming clear
 
I was really excited about Ingram when we picked him but right now he needs to sit. Ain't much happening when he gets the ball. I'd prefer to see Ivory get 20-25 touches in a game and se what that would do to our offense.

Danno 11-26-2012 08:13 AM

Re: Mark Ingram's role becoming clear
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by burningmetal (Post 459778)
Yes, he most certainly was. He was grinding out every possible yard, where no one else was getting anything.

KC - 1.8 yards per carry
GB - 1.6 yards per carry
SD - 3.3 yards per carry
TB - 2.5 yards per carry
ATL- 2.0 yards per carry
SF - 0.0 yards per carry

Those don't look like he was tearing it up.

TheOak 11-26-2012 08:23 AM

Re: Mark Ingram's role becoming clear
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by burningmetal (Post 459778)
Yes, he most certainly was. He was grinding out every possible yard, where no one else was getting anything. Go back and watch some of these games. Or just decide in advance that you won't agree with anything I have to say, which seems to be the case. I could care less at this point. I'm not biased to any particular player, or players. I'm going by what I see. I don't care how old you are, or how much longer you think you've been watching football, I know what I see when I see it.

It has become futile to try to make a point around here, without some agenda getting in the way of facts. So before I blow up needlessly, let me just agree to disagree.

You are letting your passion distort the facts. Numbers are facts and PT had 1 good game where be broke a long run...

His specialty has been abandoned... When is the last time we ran a screen?

Danno 11-26-2012 08:38 AM

Re: Mark Ingram's role becoming clear
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TheOak (Post 459867)
You are letting your passion distort the facts. Numbers are facts and PT had 1 good game where be broke a long run...

His specialty has been abandoned... When is the last time we ran a screen?

Great point. Lost in all the Ivory/Ingram discussions is the fact that our best running back isn't getting many carries. Why?

As running backs go, neither Ivory nr Ingram hold a candle to PT's talents and skills.

Mardigras9 11-26-2012 08:58 AM

Re: Mark Ingram's role becoming clear
 
And the screen game seems to have disappeared.

Jamessr 11-26-2012 09:17 AM

Re: Mark Ingram's role becoming clear
 
My opinion on our running backs
1. PT
2. Sproles
3. Ivory
4. Cadet
5. Collins
10. Ingram = Showcase for trade

burningmetal 11-26-2012 04:43 PM

Re: Mark Ingram's role becoming clear
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Danno (Post 459861)
KC - 1.8 yards per carry
GB - 1.6 yards per carry
SD - 3.3 yards per carry
TB - 2.5 yards per carry
ATL- 2.0 yards per carry
SF - 0.0 yards per carry

Those don't look like he was tearing it up.

I didn't say he was tearing it up. He was getting the only guy picking up the tough yards when we had to have a first down. And he was the only guy to have a 100 yard game, which was against carolina. Where was your man Mark Ingram at? The line was playing horrible, but who was the one guy doing anything? It was Thomas. If Ingram got the ball needing a yard, he got -1.

burningmetal 11-26-2012 04:59 PM

Re: Mark Ingram's role becoming clear
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TheOak (Post 459867)
You are letting your passion distort the facts. Numbers are facts and PT had 1 good game where be broke a long run...

His specialty has been abandoned... When is the last time we ran a screen?

Only one long run? And this matters why? Chris Ivory and Darren Sproles are the home run hitters. Of course Ivory has some power too, but Pierre is a grinder, and yes, a specialist in the screen game. Pierre is the one guy who seems to more often than not get what you need out of him. Couldn't say that about the other guys when things were bad.

I keep hearing Ingram apologists gripe about his amount of touches, but here's what they fail to realize. He leads the team in carries! He has 17 more carries than the second place guy, PT, yet Pierre has two more yards for the season. PT is averaging 4.5 a carry, and Ingram is averaging 3.7 YPC. Who does it sound like needs more carries?

And don't BS me. They've both benefited from better blocking of late, and yet Pierre still averages almost a full yard per carry more than Mark. Now again, I appreciate the improvements he at least seems to be making, but I'm going on the first year and a half of what he did. This thread started as a discussion about how people expect us to apologize to Ingram after just a couple of good games. If you're not trying to get me to kiss his butt, and you just simply ask what I think of his play in the last few weeks, I say it's been a lot better. But as far as saying that he has legitimized his being selected in the first round, I have to see more. Yesterday, nobody ran the ball very well.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:27 AM.


Copyright 1997 - 2020 - BlackandGold.com