Mark Ingram to visit Saints on wednesday

Danno · 04-14-2011, 11:16 AM

Originally Posted by strato

Hey Ivory will be fine..look at Ricky Williams..he was hurt a lot ..and he did just fine...you guys wanting O..should go be falcon fans...lol

I don't want O necessarily, but if an A-plus offensive player is there at 24, and nothing but B-minus defensive players, we'd be idiots to pick defense.

Teams that reach usually end up picking very high in the draft year after year.

foreverfan · 04-14-2011, 11:59 AM

Originally Posted by Danno

I don't want O necessarily, but if an A-plus offensive player is there at 24, and nothing but B-minus defensive players, we'd be idiots to pick defense.

Teams that reach usually end up picking very high in the draft year after year.

He would be the best player available for sure.

papz · 04-14-2011, 11:17 AM

Originally Posted by foreverfan

Let's look at our RB situation....
Bush can't finish a run much less a season.

Ivory injury history goes back to college.

PT's injury may have been a fluke last year.

Answer this question... are any of the RBs tradable? Didn't think so.

My answer to that would be yes. The Patriots were interested in PT last season... and with the reasonable(cheap in my opinion) contract he signed last season, it shouldn't deter any team from trading for him. Though fragile, Ivory is cheap and productive. So yes... he absolutely is tradeable. Bush at a reduced rate around 3 million a year, should garner interest also. Discounting whether or not he's produces the field, his name generates a lot of revenue.

So yea... all three have value and are tradeable.

Adding Ingram to this group is a no brainer.

Taking a Von Miller, Dareus, Robert Quinn at 24 would be a no-brainer. If Ingram is there at 24, it's only a discussion.

Ingram makes every player on the offense better.

Not if he doesn't get the snaps... which personally is my main sticking point for not taking him there at 24.

A healthy running game keeps the defense off the field.
We would have never won the SB without a healthy PT & Bush.
You can never have enough RBs. Last year proved that.

Let's not forget Ingram has his own question marks and concerns about his health... and the knee being the culprit. I agree you can never have enough running backs but with that said, there are other avenues that we can explore finding another back... not regulated to our first round pick.

I'd love a DL or LB but are we going to pass on Eddie George for Alex Molden again?

If we're going to pass on Mark Ingram, then we would be passing on Mark Ingram. Not Eddie George... not Emmitt Smith. Let's not give the kid that much credit just yet.

I bet if we don't take him, the Pats aren't stupid to pass on him.

Given that the two backs on their roster now is BGE and Danny Woodhead, it would be pretty stupid to not take a back in the draft. That doesn't necessarily mean it has to be with their first pick or that it has to be Mark Ingram. Guys like Mikel Leshoure and Ryan Williams are both quite talented that could be better value for them if they want to address their need at OLB and DE.

foreverfan · 04-14-2011, 12:03 PM

Heck of a post Paz...

What do you think you could get for any of the Saints RBs? A 5th maybe?

I'm kind of with Strato on this one... he'll be gone.

papz · 04-14-2011, 12:31 PM

Initial 5th round value sounds about right... but there's always those booster clauses increasing it's value. Now while I do find them all of value and tradeable, I don't see why we would given their production and the fact we re-signed(or going to) them... no point in trading them afterwards.

Now if we threw a curveball and decided not to restructure Reggie, then I'd be more open to the idea of drafting Ingram early. But for me right now... it just doesn't make much sense drafting a guy while giving him less than 10 touches a game with the stable of backs we have on the roster. I'd rather draft a guy that will give us 30-40 snaps on defense immediately.

But hell... we're the Saints. We're probably going to do something none of us thought and take a quarterback anyways. So it's all hypotheticals.

foreverfan · 04-14-2011, 07:45 PM

Originally Posted by papz

But for me right now... it just doesn't make much sense drafting a guy while giving him less than 10 touches a game with the stable of backs we have on the roster. I'd rather draft a guy that will give us 30-40 snaps on defense immediately.

But hell... we're the Saints. We're probably going to do something none of us thought and take a quarterback anyways. So it's all hypotheticals.

I just remember the end of last season and Bush can't finish a play much less a season. I don't consider him a viable option at RB. In fact given how injury prone Ivory is, we really only have one RB besides unproven Halminton.

Regardless... We win with Brees and I want him to have all the tools he needs.
The draft could go defense and I still be ok.

Cory9289 · 04-14-2011, 04:34 PM

In my opinion, I'd go with Ingram over any D. I remember a year or so ago watching Ingram and was like, that's the perfect RB right there...

It's not just he's good, but defense in my opinion relies less on just "good" players. Williams could make one of us do okay in the defense. But a RB has to be good, in my opinion.

QBREES9 · 04-16-2011, 11:02 PM

Yeah Papz great post

04-14-2011, 11:16 AM	#1
Danno Truth Addict Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Spanish Fort, AL (via NO and B/R) Posts: 24,751	Originally Posted by strato Hey Ivory will be fine..look at Ricky Williams..he was hurt a lot ..and he did just fine...you guys wanting O..should go be falcon fans...lol I don't want O necessarily, but if an A-plus offensive player is there at 24, and nothing but B-minus defensive players, we'd be idiots to pick defense. Teams that reach usually end up picking very high in the draft year after year.

04-14-2011, 11:59 AM	#2
foreverfan 12,000 BS Posts Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Metairie, LA Posts: 13,457 Blog Entries: 5	Originally Posted by Danno I don't want O necessarily, but if an A-plus offensive player is there at 24, and nothing but B-minus defensive players, we'd be idiots to pick defense. Teams that reach usually end up picking very high in the draft year after year. He would be the best player available for sure.

04-14-2011, 11:17 AM	#3
papz Problem? Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: New Orleans Posts: 11,774	Originally Posted by foreverfan Let's look at our RB situation.... Bush can't finish a run much less a season. Ivory injury history goes back to college. PT's injury may have been a fluke last year. Answer this question... are any of the RBs tradable? Didn't think so. My answer to that would be yes. The Patriots were interested in PT last season... and with the reasonable(cheap in my opinion) contract he signed last season, it shouldn't deter any team from trading for him. Though fragile, Ivory is cheap and productive. So yes... he absolutely is tradeable. Bush at a reduced rate around 3 million a year, should garner interest also. Discounting whether or not he's produces the field, his name generates a lot of revenue. So yea... all three have value and are tradeable. Adding Ingram to this group is a no brainer. Taking a Von Miller, Dareus, Robert Quinn at 24 would be a no-brainer. If Ingram is there at 24, it's only a discussion. Ingram makes every player on the offense better. Not if he doesn't get the snaps... which personally is my main sticking point for not taking him there at 24. A healthy running game keeps the defense off the field. We would have never won the SB without a healthy PT & Bush. You can never have enough RBs. Last year proved that. Let's not forget Ingram has his own question marks and concerns about his health... and the knee being the culprit. I agree you can never have enough running backs but with that said, there are other avenues that we can explore finding another back... not regulated to our first round pick. I'd love a DL or LB but are we going to pass on Eddie George for Alex Molden again? If we're going to pass on Mark Ingram, then we would be passing on Mark Ingram. Not Eddie George... not Emmitt Smith. Let's not give the kid that much credit just yet. I bet if we don't take him, the Pats aren't stupid to pass on him. Given that the two backs on their roster now is BGE and Danny Woodhead, it would be pretty stupid to not take a back in the draft. That doesn't necessarily mean it has to be with their first pick or that it has to be Mark Ingram. Guys like Mikel Leshoure and Ryan Williams are both quite talented that could be better value for them if they want to address their need at OLB and DE.
	Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege. All little common sense goes a long way.

04-14-2011, 12:31 PM	#5
papz Problem? Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: New Orleans Posts: 11,774	Initial 5th round value sounds about right... but there's always those booster clauses increasing it's value. Now while I do find them all of value and tradeable, I don't see why we would given their production and the fact we re-signed(or going to) them... no point in trading them afterwards. Now if we threw a curveball and decided not to restructure Reggie, then I'd be more open to the idea of drafting Ingram early. But for me right now... it just doesn't make much sense drafting a guy while giving him less than 10 touches a game with the stable of backs we have on the roster. I'd rather draft a guy that will give us 30-40 snaps on defense immediately. But hell... we're the Saints. We're probably going to do something none of us thought and take a quarterback anyways. So it's all hypotheticals.
	Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege. All little common sense goes a long way.

04-14-2011, 07:45 PM	#6
foreverfan 12,000 BS Posts Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Metairie, LA Posts: 13,457 Blog Entries: 5	Originally Posted by papz But for me right now... it just doesn't make much sense drafting a guy while giving him less than 10 touches a game with the stable of backs we have on the roster. I'd rather draft a guy that will give us 30-40 snaps on defense immediately. But hell... we're the Saints. We're probably going to do something none of us thought and take a quarterback anyways. So it's all hypotheticals. I just remember the end of last season and Bush can't finish a play much less a season. I don't consider him a viable option at RB. In fact given how injury prone Ivory is, we really only have one RB besides unproven Halminton. Regardless... We win with Brees and I want him to have all the tools he needs. The draft could go defense and I still be ok.

04-14-2011, 12:03 PM	#4
foreverfan 12,000 BS Posts Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Metairie, LA Posts: 13,457 Blog Entries: 5	Heck of a post Paz... What do you think you could get for any of the Saints RBs? A 5th maybe? I'm kind of with Strato on this one... he'll be gone.

04-14-2011, 04:34 PM	#7
Cory9289 100th Post Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 275	In my opinion, I'd go with Ingram over any D. I remember a year or so ago watching Ingram and was like, that's the perfect RB right there... It's not just he's good, but defense in my opinion relies less on just "good" players. Williams could make one of us do okay in the defense. But a RB has to be good, in my opinion.
Cory9289 100th Post Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 275

04-16-2011, 11:02 PM	#8
QBREES9 Moderator Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: New Haven Ct Posts: 23,989	Yeah Papz great post