New Orleans Saints Forums - blackandgold.com - Interesting stats on Mark Ingram

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

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

- - Interesting stats on Mark Ingram (https://blackandgold.com/saints/82748-interesting-stats-mark-ingram.html)

Re: Interesting stats on Mark Ingram

Mark is top half of the league - borderline top 10 based on production, skills, salary etc. Not really sure why the debate on MI at this point. Maybe his initial struggles or the Alabama angle ??

Meanwhile, I'll continue to post Happy Gifs of Mark doing his thing enroute to the end zone and helping our team win :cool: .

https://media4.giphy.com/media/l4Jzi....webp#17-grid1
https://media1.giphy.com/media/3oz8x...0.webp#8-grid1

Re: Interesting stats on Mark Ingram

I thought it was a good move. He dropped fairly far from where he was projected. He did struggle early on but that had more to do with play calling and turf toe. We kept sending him on dive runs and he said after drafted he is not that kind of RB but that is what we did anyway. Never understood why Payton forces players into roles like that but he is fairly consistent doing it.

Re: Interesting stats on Mark Ingram

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeanpierre (Post 749838)

When you get down to it, you can argue the Ingram selection cost this team four draft picks... (updated for clarity ;))

There was the 2011 second round pick we packaged to get the 2011 first round pick we used...

There was the 2012 first round pick was the other half of the package...

Because we didn't have a 2012 first round pick, Goodell looking for severe punishment, instead took our 2012 and 2013 second round picks...

Now I'm not speaking for every fan, but, for me, that's too much draft capital, especially when I didn't like the pick. Why?

First, he wasn't a first round pick no matter what the color the sky is in your respective universe...

Second, his selection cost us a first AND second round pick, and I'm rarely like Payton/Loomis two-for-ones...

Third, with the extremely rare players of this past 2017 draft, you don't spend a first round pick on Rbs...

Fourth, we had clear, better need/value intersects in that draft way beyond taking a RB, much less Ingram...

Fifth, in what dimension will Sean Payton pound the rock 30 Att/game with Drew Brees as his QB?

Now, until Ingram's extension he was a disappointment of 3 yards and a cloud of dust with missed big play opportunities, conversions...

Despite this, I favored retaining him after the investment in developing him and RB market conditions with a lack of options...

Maybe he's a slow-learner, but somehow he's become a very complementary RB to Payton's offense...

...and his loss would bear strain on what the Saints are trying to do offensively not having an honest RB option...

I'm glad we have him, now. But you'll never hear me say poor Mark as he's been compensated and overly invested...

Jeanpierre, are you saying Bama players are all slow learners? :confused: :p

Re: Interesting stats on Mark Ingram

I think I'm tougher on him cause I really expect a lot out of him. He's getting there though, I think he'll have a nice year if Payton doesn't get the fever and abandon the run game

Re: Interesting stats on Mark Ingram

Quote:

Originally Posted by jnormand (Post 749836)

Tell me a game when Brees hasn't played well that MI had a chance to play well in. If Brees throws pics and has a bad game, we are losing and Payton doesn't run the ball very often.

If you're expecting him to rattle off 20 yard gains with limited touches then you're crazy man.

Secondly, you want him to show you he's a "good alternative to the passing game?". How the hell is he going to do that in a system that typically passes first and runs second?

Have you lost your mind?

And last season and the season before he showed he's very effective and a quality back AT THE VERY LEAST.

There are teams that run the ball playing from behind. We did it against Carolina and Atlanta behind last year. First off going down 10-0 is no reason to start throwing. That's why we put ourselves in the holes we do. But in the game against the lions, Ingram fell down in the redzone. So in other words if Brees struggles, the whole offense has to suck? Brees was literally ineffective that entire game, and Ingram did not help at all. The game against the giants, where was Ingram in that low scoring game? Or how about the fumbling at KC? The fumbling against Seattle? What did he do against Carolina when Brees was having a hard time? At TB week 14? All of those games were early on within reach where there was plenty of time to run the ball. Ingram attempted runs and he was terrible with them in THOSE games.

We can have our opinion of him and we get attacked for it? Why? because we're attacking the saints apparently? Ingram just hasn't done what PT and Deuce have done. We will see what he's all about week 1 at Minnesota?

Re: Interesting stats on Mark Ingram

I'll give you a better back.........Chris Ivory. Imagine if he was still a saint.

Re: Interesting stats on Mark Ingram

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillSaints81 (Post 750005)

I'll give you a better back.........Chris Ivory. Imagine if he was still a saint.

Wasn't a better back. History proves it.

Re: Interesting stats on Mark Ingram

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillSaints81 (Post 750005)

I'll give you a better back.........Chris Ivory. Imagine if he was still a saint.

That's absurd. You can't possibly believe that.

Re: Interesting stats on Mark Ingram

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillSaints81 (Post 750005)

I'll give you a better back.........Chris Ivory. Imagine if he was still a saint.

Are you kidding me? Last year Ivory played in 11 games and didn't sniff 450 yards rushing.

How in the hell is Ivory a better back?

You've got some seriously misguided logic man. I just don't understand.

Re: Interesting stats on Mark Ingram

I'm convinced he's either a troll, or a dumbass.

Either way he's off to Ignoreville. He's not even entertaining enough to ridicule anymore.