New Orleans Saints Forums - blackandgold.com

Page 6 of 6

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

New Orleans Saints Forums - blackandgold.com (https://blackandgold.com/community/)

- Saints (https://blackandgold.com/saints/)

- - Mark Ingram's Woes (https://blackandgold.com/saints/51017-mark-ingrams-woes.html)

burningmetal

09-28-2012 05:10 PM

Re: Mark Ingram's Woes

Quote:

Originally Posted by SaintsBro (Post 444085)

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!

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.

Danno

09-28-2012 05:52 PM

Re: Mark Ingram's Woes

Quote:

Originally Posted by burningmetal (Post 444284)

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.

burningmetal

09-28-2012 06:04 PM

Re: Mark Ingram's Woes

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danno (Post 444299)

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.

Danno

09-28-2012 06:22 PM

Re: Mark Ingram's Woes

Quote:

Originally Posted by burningmetal (Post 444303)

Now you can disagree with me all you want, but look at the results.

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

Cory9289

09-29-2012 02:13 AM

Re: Mark Ingram's Woes

Quote:

Originally Posted by CharityMike (Post 444126)

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.

That's what I'm saying :P

burningmetal

09-30-2012 05:49 AM

Re: Mark Ingram's Woes

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danno (Post 444306)

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

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.

halloween 65

09-30-2012 07:31 AM

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.

Danno

09-30-2012 08:18 AM

Re: Mark Ingram's Woes

Fumbles, versatility, and pass protection.

Mark is better than Ivory at all 3.

voodooido

09-30-2012 08:35 AM

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

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:22 AM.

Page 6 of 6

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page