In fairness, Ingram was injured earlier this season, and has been getting healthier. His corresponding play has been in lock-step with his being closer to 100%. Well, sort of.

In reality, I believe Ivory's performance has lit a fire under Ingram's butt (jus' keepin' it real, homies).

But in the last 3 games (Eagles, Falcons, Raiders), Ingram has 35 carries for 178 yds (5.1 ypc).

During that same stretch (Eagles, Falcons, Raiders), Ivory has 25 carries for 157 yds (6.3 ypc).

Ivory is OBVIOUSLY more productive (by comparison) than Ingram. However, we have to be fair in calling it that Ingram has not been a "slacker" in those 3 games either.

Ingram's role is very clear. It is whipping boy for fans who see Ivory as the love child of Larry Czonka and Barry Sanders. One can come up to a lot of conclusions based on averages,4.1, 5.6, 3.7, blah blah blah. And I can play with stats too. For example, Ivory:

VS Philly: 10 attempts, 48 yards, average 4.8 Very good average. But wait! Longest run was 22 yards. So let's subtract 22 out of 48, and you get 26. Divide 26 by the other 9 attempts and you get 2.89. Not so good.

VS the Clowns: 7 attempts, 72 yards, 10.3 average. Fantastic! But wait! Longest run was 56 yards. Subtract 56 from 72, you get 16. Divide 16 by the other 6 attempts and you get 2.67. Ugh!

VS Oakland: 8 attempts, 37 yards, 4.6 average. But wait! Longest run was 25. Same exercise as before, we get 1.71. That-is-fu-gly!

We can also go back to the SF playoff game: 9 carries, 23 yards, 2.6. Let's just leave it at that.

Of course, let's see Ingram.

VS Philly: 7 for 44, 6.3/per. Longest of 23, 44-23=21. 21/6=3.5. 3.5 > 2.89
VS Clowns: 16 for 67, 4.2 per. Longest of 8, 67-8=59. 59/15=3.9. 3.9 > 2.67
VS Oak: 12 for 57, 5.6/per. Longest run of 27, 57-27=30. 30/11=2.72. 2.72 > 1.71

So, what have we learned about Ivory vs Ingram? That we can wait and wait for the 1 beast run from Ivory, but in the meantime, we have no running game that's consistently moving the chains and maintaining ball possession with him on the field. Whereas with Ingram, we have a more consistent running game that gets the Saints the tough yards and maintains possession of the ball, not to mention a better blocker, receiver, and is even willing to play on special teams.

So there.

Oh, almost forgot:
Fumbles.
Career fumbles: Ingram 1 out of 204 runs, Ivory 4 out of 241 runs.

So there, too.

Yet another tactful masterpiece by you. I'm kidding of course.

This is not a thread about Chris Ivory. It's about Mark Ingram, and his production relative to ALL of our backs. Ingram has been out produced in every category by all three of our other backs. He is playing better of late, and we're all glad for it, but the point myself, and I think a lot of other people are trying to make is that we need to see more before we start praising him.

Since you did bring up Ivory as the focal point of your argument, let me just ask you this: are you saying that because Ivory breaks a couple long runs to help his average, that he is not a good back? Are you suggesting that you don't like 56 yard runs? Do you know anyone who averaged over 10 yards per carry in a game, without a long run or two? You'd rather a guy who was averaging 3.7 a carry and getting less than that on most of his carries? What is this about Ingram consistently moving the chains? where has that been? I'll take the home run hitter any day, over what we were previously getting out of Mark. But Ivory is just as effective as anyone else we have when he isn't breaking the long runs. Add to that the breakaway ability, and you have a pretty good player.

We also have Sproles and Thomas who have been highly productive in their careers, so no one is a feature back, but they get it done. Now, has Ivory had fumbling problems in the past? Yes, and I pointed this out a couple weeks ago. I said I know he has had issues with ball security, but as bad as we were playing earlier in the year, I couldn't believe we wouldn't just put him out there and see if he could provide a spark. Well, he did just that as soon as he came back, and our running game has taken off. Credit goes to some good run blocking too, but Ivory brought some explosiveness that had been missing, and it seems to have ignited everyone. Plus, he hasn't fumbled so far this year. And you know what else? Though he had limited playing time, in 79 carries he did not fumble last year either. Anything to say to that? Or are you simply going to hold 2010 against him for the rest of his life?

Lack of carries is something all the backs could complain about, but they don't. So why should Mark Ingram have an excuse? Let's see him continue his recent play, and sustain it against some better defenses, and I'll bet you people will be singing his praises. I'm happy to see improvement, but I'm tired of being told to eat crow every time Mark Ingram successfully wipes his butt.

And by the way, I didn't predict Ingram would take so long to be decent. I wasn't thrilled at all about the pick, but I had hopes that he would do ok. For the first year and a half of his career, I have simply called it like it is. He was stinking it up. If he has truly turned the corner, good, but it doesn't change the fact that he sucked miserably until now. That hardly qualifies any of us to eat crow. Does this help you understand my perspective, and that of many others in here?

I wonder hwo well Ivory would have done if he had been given the same chance as Ingram...

Are you really this much of my ***** now? Cool.

I was replying to Stealhman, just FYI.
Asterisks hint: Lassie.