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.

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

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..

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

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.. :)

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.

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

Name one.

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.

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....

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

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

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

Told ya - "I bet Carmichael called the game"

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

Not unless he coached.

no

Absolutely not.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.