Mark Ingram's Woes

burningmetal · 09-28-2012, 05:10 PM

Originally Posted by SaintsBro

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

Originally Posted by burningmetal

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.

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

Originally Posted by Danno

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.

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

Originally Posted by burningmetal

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.

burningmetal · 09-30-2012, 05:49 AM

Originally Posted by Danno

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.

09-28-2012, 05:10 PM	#1
burningmetal 1000 Posts + Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 3,923 Blog Entries: 3	Re: Mark Ingram's Woes Originally Posted by SaintsBro 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.

09-28-2012, 05:52 PM	#2
Danno Truth Addict Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Spanish Fort, AL (via NO and B/R) Posts: 24,748	Re: Mark Ingram's Woes Originally Posted by burningmetal 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. 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.

09-28-2012, 06:04 PM	#3
burningmetal 1000 Posts + Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 3,923 Blog Entries: 3	Re: Mark Ingram's Woes Originally Posted by Danno 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. 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.
	If I had a nickel for every time I heard that, the NFL would fine and suspend me.

09-28-2012, 06:22 PM	#4
Danno Truth Addict Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Spanish Fort, AL (via NO and B/R) Posts: 24,748	Re: Mark Ingram's Woes Originally Posted by burningmetal 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.

09-30-2012, 05:49 AM	#5
burningmetal 1000 Posts + Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 3,923 Blog Entries: 3	Re: Mark Ingram's Woes Originally Posted by Danno 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.
	If I had a nickel for every time I heard that, the NFL would fine and suspend me.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: https://blackandgold.com/saints/51017-mark-ingrams-woes.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date	Hits
Mark Ingram's Woes	This thread	Refback	09-27-2012 08:22 AM	5