Anyone disappointed with Ingram?

Budsdrinker · 11-09-2011, 10:17 PM

Ingram is doing fine considering we don't commit to the run enough. We had to take a RB in the draft because of the uncertainty of both PT and Ivory coming off of their injuries. Ivory's Lis franc injury is a difficult one to come back from and PT's return from ankle surgery wasn't a sure thing either. And Sproles was picked up after the draft and everybody knew Reggie wouldn't restructure so it wasn't a wasted pick. It was needed.

jeanpierre · 11-09-2011, 10:29 PM

Originally Posted by Budsdrinker

We had to take a RB in the draft because of the uncertainty of both PT and Ivory coming off of their injuries. Ivory's Lis franc injury is a difficult one to come back from and PT's return from ankle surgery wasn't a sure thing either. And Sproles was picked up after the draft and everybody knew Reggie wouldn't restructure so it wasn't a wasted pick. It was needed.

Good Point - We literally ran out of running backs in the playoff game by the second half...

Memnoch_TP · 11-10-2011, 02:30 AM

Originally Posted by Budsdrinker

Ingram is doing fine considering we don't commit to the run enough. We had to take a RB in the draft because of the uncertainty of both PT and Ivory coming off of their injuries. Ivory's Lis franc injury is a difficult one to come back from and PT's return from ankle surgery wasn't a sure thing either. And Sproles was picked up after the draft and everybody knew Reggie wouldn't restructure so it wasn't a wasted pick. It was needed.

As I said, I don't think it was a stupid pick given the circumstances. It does seem like a wasted pick though, in hindsight. Ivory's injury COULD have been insurmountable, and 23's ankle COULD have been insurmountable. No one knew we were getting Sproles, and the front office couldn't negotiate with him anyway because of the lockout. All very true, but they were not, they were not, and we did. It seemed like it was needed, but it in all actuality it was not needed.

If we hadn't picked Ingram, the way things turned out, we wouldn't miss him in the least. Just look at the last game. We lose our 1st round rookie stud Heisman trophy winning running back to injury, no one in the fan base or the organization bat an eye, and we go on to rush for almost 200 yards without him. It wasn't a bad decision, but I don't think it ended up being the right decision.

Having Ingram does greatly improve our depth, but we wouldn't be a worse team without him, and we could be a better team with a top notch 1st round rookie stud LB or OL. So I'm not disappointed in him, or in the FO, but I am disappointed in the way the situation ended up because we have a 1st round RB who is 3rd on the depth chart and may not even be better than the 4th stringer.

jeanpierre · 11-10-2011, 06:51 AM

Originally Posted by Memnoch_TP

As I said, I don't think it was a stupid pick given the circumstances. It does seem like a wasted pick though, in hindsight. Ivory's injury COULD have been insurmountable, and 23's ankle COULD have been insurmountable. No one knew we were getting Sproles, and the front office couldn't negotiate with him anyway because of the lockout. All very true, but they were not, they were not, and we did. It seemed like it was needed, but it in all actuality it was not needed.

If we hadn't picked Ingram, the way things turned out, we wouldn't miss him in the least. Just look at the last game. We lose our 1st round rookie stud Heisman trophy winning running back to injury, no one in the fan base or the organization bat an eye, and we go on to rush for almost 200 yards without him. It wasn't a bad decision, but I don't think it ended up being the right decision.

Having Ingram does greatly improve our depth, but we wouldn't be a worse team without him, and we could be a better team with a top notch 1st round rookie stud LB or OL. So I'm not disappointed in him, or in the FO, but I am disappointed in the way the situation ended up because we have a 1st round RB who is 3rd on the depth chart and may not even be better than the 4th stringer.

Dude, you made a great point about the Saints needing a running back in the draft - don't back down...

The topic of Ingram being a disappointment is one that is getting debated; I took the position that his production and numbers are disappointing...

As one poster pointed out - he has lead the league in 3/4 down conversions which has been critical to their success...

It's just that with the opportunities as a rookie he's had and in a prolific offense like this, where no teams are really stacking the box, you'd expect a few more scores and more yards in the stat columns...

As a first round+ pick, he's starting and producing albeit slowly, which is what I expect a first round pick to do...

Until his injury, I did see him start to make adjustments during plays to get those extra yards; I believe he'll get better...

Memnoch_TP · 11-10-2011, 06:47 PM

Originally Posted by jeanpierre

Dude, you made a great point about the Saints needing a running back in the draft - don't back down...

I'm not backing down. Taking Ingram in the draft was the smart thing to do. It just didn't end up being the right thing to do.

The dealer was showing 6, we doubled down on a 10. We drew an 8 and the dealer flipped a king and drew a 4.

Originally Posted by papz

From a fantasy perspective, he's been disappointing only for those who overrated and over drafted him. I saw people take him as early as the end of the 3rd round and his ranking was right around the 5th round... which was absurd. As you pointed out, in the type of offense we run and the constant rotation of personnel, he was a big gamble and risk to produce anywhere close to tier 2 RB production. If one was thinking with his head on straight, that's not where you gamble that early in a fantasy draft.

That is exactly what I'm saying Papz. Really, the only reason to draft Ingram in a fantasy league would be as a late round flier in a keeper league.

Originally Posted by Euphoria

I just think its really stupid to judge a rookie.

You have to give them time to learn and adjust to the faster game. RB is maybe the one of the easiest to adapt to but sometimes its harder to see the field early on because so much is being thrown at you that you have tunnel vision when you are running the play.

Give him 2-3 years before we start talking about this.

No.

11-09-2011, 10:29 PM	#2
jeanpierre Site Donor 2018 Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Thibodaux Posts: 43,543 Blog Entries: 39	Originally Posted by Budsdrinker We had to take a RB in the draft because of the uncertainty of both PT and Ivory coming off of their injuries. Ivory's Lis franc injury is a difficult one to come back from and PT's return from ankle surgery wasn't a sure thing either. And Sproles was picked up after the draft and everybody knew Reggie wouldn't restructure so it wasn't a wasted pick. It was needed. Good Point - We literally ran out of running backs in the playoff game by the second half...

11-10-2011, 02:30 AM	#3
Memnoch_TP Logic Troll Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Southern Louisiana Posts: 565	Originally Posted by Budsdrinker Ingram is doing fine considering we don't commit to the run enough. We had to take a RB in the draft because of the uncertainty of both PT and Ivory coming off of their injuries. Ivory's Lis franc injury is a difficult one to come back from and PT's return from ankle surgery wasn't a sure thing either. And Sproles was picked up after the draft and everybody knew Reggie wouldn't restructure so it wasn't a wasted pick. It was needed. As I said, I don't think it was a stupid pick given the circumstances. It does seem like a wasted pick though, in hindsight. Ivory's injury COULD have been insurmountable, and 23's ankle COULD have been insurmountable. No one knew we were getting Sproles, and the front office couldn't negotiate with him anyway because of the lockout. All very true, but they were not, they were not, and we did. It seemed like it was needed, but it in all actuality it was not needed. If we hadn't picked Ingram, the way things turned out, we wouldn't miss him in the least. Just look at the last game. We lose our 1st round rookie stud Heisman trophy winning running back to injury, no one in the fan base or the organization bat an eye, and we go on to rush for almost 200 yards without him. It wasn't a bad decision, but I don't think it ended up being the right decision. Having Ingram does greatly improve our depth, but we wouldn't be a worse team without him, and we could be a better team with a top notch 1st round rookie stud LB or OL. So I'm not disappointed in him, or in the FO, but I am disappointed in the way the situation ended up because we have a 1st round RB who is 3rd on the depth chart and may not even be better than the 4th stringer.
	"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." -- Douglas Adams.

11-10-2011, 06:51 AM	#4
jeanpierre Site Donor 2018 Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Thibodaux Posts: 43,543 Blog Entries: 39	Originally Posted by Memnoch_TP As I said, I don't think it was a stupid pick given the circumstances. It does seem like a wasted pick though, in hindsight. Ivory's injury COULD have been insurmountable, and 23's ankle COULD have been insurmountable. No one knew we were getting Sproles, and the front office couldn't negotiate with him anyway because of the lockout. All very true, but they were not, they were not, and we did. It seemed like it was needed, but it in all actuality it was not needed. If we hadn't picked Ingram, the way things turned out, we wouldn't miss him in the least. Just look at the last game. We lose our 1st round rookie stud Heisman trophy winning running back to injury, no one in the fan base or the organization bat an eye, and we go on to rush for almost 200 yards without him. It wasn't a bad decision, but I don't think it ended up being the right decision. Having Ingram does greatly improve our depth, but we wouldn't be a worse team without him, and we could be a better team with a top notch 1st round rookie stud LB or OL. So I'm not disappointed in him, or in the FO, but I am disappointed in the way the situation ended up because we have a 1st round RB who is 3rd on the depth chart and may not even be better than the 4th stringer. Dude, you made a great point about the Saints needing a running back in the draft - don't back down... The topic of Ingram being a disappointment is one that is getting debated; I took the position that his production and numbers are disappointing... As one poster pointed out - he has lead the league in 3/4 down conversions which has been critical to their success... It's just that with the opportunities as a rookie he's had and in a prolific offense like this, where no teams are really stacking the box, you'd expect a few more scores and more yards in the stat columns... As a first round+ pick, he's starting and producing albeit slowly, which is what I expect a first round pick to do... Until his injury, I did see him start to make adjustments during plays to get those extra yards; I believe he'll get better...
	It's not that my way is the right way, I just make the right way my way...

11-10-2011, 06:47 PM	#5
Memnoch_TP Logic Troll Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Southern Louisiana Posts: 565	Originally Posted by jeanpierre Dude, you made a great point about the Saints needing a running back in the draft - don't back down... I'm not backing down. Taking Ingram in the draft was the smart thing to do. It just didn't end up being the right thing to do. The dealer was showing 6, we doubled down on a 10. We drew an 8 and the dealer flipped a king and drew a 4. Originally Posted by papz From a fantasy perspective, he's been disappointing only for those who overrated and over drafted him. I saw people take him as early as the end of the 3rd round and his ranking was right around the 5th round... which was absurd. As you pointed out, in the type of offense we run and the constant rotation of personnel, he was a big gamble and risk to produce anywhere close to tier 2 RB production. If one was thinking with his head on straight, that's not where you gamble that early in a fantasy draft. That is exactly what I'm saying Papz. Really, the only reason to draft Ingram in a fantasy league would be as a late round flier in a keeper league. Originally Posted by Euphoria I just think its really stupid to judge a rookie. You have to give them time to learn and adjust to the faster game. RB is maybe the one of the easiest to adapt to but sometimes its harder to see the field early on because so much is being thrown at you that you have tunnel vision when you are running the play. Give him 2-3 years before we start talking about this. No.

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: https://blackandgold.com/saints/37957-anyone-disappointed-ingram.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date	Hits
Anyone disappointed with Ingram?	This thread	Refback	11-09-2011 05:05 PM	3

11-09-2011, 10:17 PM	#1
Budsdrinker A Cajun Transforming TX Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: The Woodlands, Texas Posts: 2,787	Ingram is doing fine considering we don't commit to the run enough. We had to take a RB in the draft because of the uncertainty of both PT and Ivory coming off of their injuries. Ivory's Lis franc injury is a difficult one to come back from and PT's return from ankle surgery wasn't a sure thing either. And Sproles was picked up after the draft and everybody knew Reggie wouldn't restructure so it wasn't a wasted pick. It was needed.