Re: Mark Ingram's Woes
 

Dude, I've addressed that at least two or three times in this thread. I'm not talking to myself. I intend for you to read my posts if you're going to reply.

I don't mean to be an a**, but it would really help me out to not have to keep answering the same questions. Some people seemed to think those guys weren't coming back, and some, such as myself, thought they'd be back. They did come back. I made this point months ago about Pierre: The Saints would not have given him a four year deal if they thought he wasn't healthy. So if you're one of those who like to say that we don't know anything as fans, then just look at that contract.

The thing about running backs is that they do get hurt. The only thing that was unusual about that year is that they all got hurt at the same time. But to think that all of those guys would all get hurt again at the same time is far too unlikely to justify drafting a RB in the 1st round in a year where we clearly needed defense. We lost 42-36 to Seattle. I would love to have some good offensive tackles, but unless we're gonna draft someone like that, then we need, and have long needed defense.

Re: Mark Ingram's Woes
 

I'm not taking a side on all the medical stuff, but ya'll are forgetting that in 2010 at the time of his injury, the Seattle loss and the Ingram pick, Pierre was also in a contract year so it was completely uncertain whether he WOULD be back or not. His agent at the time was definitely making a bit of noise about wanting Pierre to get paid, so at the time of Bush leaving and the Ingram pick, there was no telling what would happen with Pierre's contract, even if his injury healed. Because you can never KNOW if you can resign someone until they sign. Just thought ya'll should include that in your discussion/argument, LOL.

Also Ivory had and still has a reputation for fumbling, so you can't put too many eggs in that basket in late 2010 when looking at the team's position needs, or running back vs. defensive picks. He's never quite "stuck" with the coaches, and been considered a reliable or go-to guy, for whatever reason.

Contine, as you were!

Re: Mark Ingram's Woes
 

True. It could be said that one of our biggest "needs" going into 2011 was a RB, especially knowing that Reggie was a goner. deShawn Wynn? Julius Jones? Really?

And its not like we didn't spend picks on defense. Every other pick in that draft was defense.

Re: Mark Ingram's Woes
 

Ingram will never be big with us. Though I'm confident if we shipped him away he'd perform near Reggie. We're just not a team for running backs to be great. We give PT and Sproles screens and such which doesn't help him either. You have to get the ball a lot to become a top running back.

Re: Mark Ingram's Woes
 

After the 2010 season 2011 was a big transition in our back field.

We got rid of 4 and added a 4th with Ingram

Kept:
PT
Ivory

Added:
Sproles
Ingram

Got rid of:
Bush
Hamilton
Jones
Betts

Re: Mark Ingram's Woes
 

ankle injury it happen during the falcons game he got folded

Re: Mark Ingram's Woes
 

Maybe our need was a RB but we didnt have to spend a 1st round on Ingram Cowboys got Demarco Murray in the whaat?...2-3 round It wasn't the position we weren't thrilled with it was the player "my bad if I spelled his name wrong"

Re: Mark Ingram's Woes
 

I don't really agree with this. This is the same argument that was ongoing when Bush was here. You could say "we are not a running team" if NONE of our backs did well. PT consistently gets yards. He can run any route, up the gut off tackle, pitch or sweep. Sprloes can do the same as well. The problem is Ingram needs more time. Some RB's take more time to aclimated to the speed of the NFL. Bush is prime example.

Re: Mark Ingram's Woes
 

Ingram is a beast.We have good gaurds and everyone else sucks.The O line is giving up penetration on every play.Not just Ingram but Brees is getting beat up.I do think we will get it together this week though.

Re: Mark Ingram's Woes
 

I like Mark Ingram, but I'm not sure he's a perfect fit for what the Saints are doing offensively. I almost wanna say he'd be a better fit in a zone-blocking scheme, that "one-cut" stuff Gary Kubiak and Mike Shanahan are famous for.

You can make the case that we need a short-yardage thumper - and I guess every team does - but we most-often pass in goal-line situations. I believe Ingram is a talented RB, but it's true he may never manifest that in NOLA ... but I hope he does ...

Re: Mark Ingram's Woes
 

I'm afraid you missed something huge that I already pointed out. Before the draft, the Saints had already signed Pierre to a 4 year deal. There was no uncertainty whatsoever. Plus, it was pretty obvious that he was healing just fine considering the deal they gave him.

Re: Mark Ingram's Woes
 

We didn't miss your point, we just disagree that he was a sure thing to play in 2011. And even so that gave us ONE RB to depend on, and there was no guarantee that he'd be fully healed.

So again, RB was a need.

Re: Mark Ingram's Woes
 

Did you read the post I was replying to? He said we should discuss the fact that Pierre was in a contract year, but I had already mentioned that Pierre was signed before the draft. I was speaking directly to him.

Now you can disagree with me all you want, but look at the results. I said it then, and I'm still saying that he was a bad choice. The Saints under Sean Payton will always be a RB by committee, because that's how his system works. You don't waste a first round pick on a committee player when you are starving for a pass rusher or a linebacker who can actually run with TE's and RB's, as the Saints were.

That is my opinion, and I see nothing to suggest it isn't a valid one, but say what you will.

Re: Mark Ingram's Woes
 

Results have nothing to do with the fact that RB was a need when we picked him, but say what you will.

Re: Mark Ingram's Woes
 

That's what I'm saying :P

Re: Mark Ingram's Woes
 

The results show that we didn't need any RB's. You assumed it was a need. There were greater needs, it's very simple.

And don't misunderstand me, I totally get the whole 'you can never have too many RB's' line in theory. I get that there was at least a chance that these guys wouldn't come back fully healthy. But unfortunately there are only so many roster spots to be had, and we needed to upgrade the weakness of our team. Even with no RB's, our offense is better than most, usually. Not as good obviously, but still good enough to win if we could ever have a solid defense.

Right now we have all of our weapons and we still can't beat anybody because the whole team is in a funk. But that's a whole different story.

Re: Mark Ingram's Woes
 

Personally I wanted LeShoure out of Illinoise but Ingram is not a bad pick , if he could line up with Ivory they would keep the D in tight and send our recievers seeing alot of one on one action and each time the D loosened up send Ivory or Ingram to smash it down their throat. We are a pass happy team there is no doubt about that but at 0-3 or 4 we may need to become a manage team for the rest of the season until Payton gets back and fixes this mess that we have become. Bet he is getting a good look at this mess and looking at college players for the draft alreasdy. The Packers had Laumbardi way back when, we have Payton which I feel is todays Packs old coach. This season is a good wake up call for all to see who actually is the face of this team.

Re: Mark Ingram's Woes
 

Fumbles, versatility, and pass protection.

Mark is better than Ivory at all 3.

Re: Mark Ingram's Woes
 

Bottom line is he came out of college overrated and we bought high. Now is the time to sell before he gets too low. The guy is our 4th best back and cost us a rd 1 pick