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.

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.

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

I do, he's a leader.

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

nope.

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.

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.

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.