Mark Ingram Won't Be at OTA's

jeanpierre · 05-29-2018, 09:13 AM

Originally Posted by AsylumGuido

To be fair, JP, much of that lack of rushing production was on Payton and his pass intensive and RB by committee approach. It reminds me of the story of the only man that could hold Michael Jordan to under 20 points ... Dean Smith.

It's a good point, and you're right, that's part of it...

And it's one of my biggest critiques of Bad-Sean/Mickster trading a first and a second round pick to acquire him - Why not use him?

But Ingram shares the criticism in this as well as he didn't even hit 4 RuYds/carry in his first two years; and while not exclusive, he had ample carries...

Ingram's first four years he was among the league's worst going down on initial contact; some on him, some was his exclusivity on short yardage...

He must've rode the short bus at Bama because it took him nearly five years to break out and he didn't even scrape over 1000 RuYds till his sixth year...

When his rookie contract period matured, so had his game and his greatest value was to the team that developed him, especially in that market year...

But I just don't see extending him when he's turning 29yo in December and we'll be severely thin or non-existent at some positions when contracts expire...

Built to win now, this year, just don't see moving Ingram unless Kamara and our RBs stay fresh and are giving us as good offensive balance as last season...

And only then, I'd trade him to a desperate contender, preferably in the other conference and it likely be for a Day 2 pick...

But, at the end of the season, I'm moving on to a younger runner and I'm taking that money and using it to extend other players...

AsylumGuido · 05-29-2018, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by dizzle88

I'd say most of the reason for Ingram's rookie year was that he seemed to run with his eyes closed. Right into the back of his own lineman.

Developed into a great player, but in a year where we are loaded up for a SB run, he's definitely hampered it.

How so? The suspension? If we can't go at least 3-1 over those games without him we shouldn't be going to the Super Bowl anyway. I think we'll go 4-0 and a couple of RB's will get lots of experience and Ingram comes back fresh and strong right when we need him. It could work out for the best.

darksoul35 · 05-29-2018, 04:49 PM

Originally Posted by dizzle88

I'd say most of the reason for Ingram's rookie year was that he seemed to run with his eyes closed. Right into the back of his own lineman.

Developed into a great player, but in a year where we are loaded up for a SB run, he's definitely hampered it.

The silver lining is that he should come in fresh.

dizzle88 · 05-29-2018, 04:50 PM

Originally Posted by AsylumGuido

How so? The suspension? If we can't go at least 3-1 over those games without him we shouldn't be going to the Super Bowl anyway. I think we'll go 4-0 and a couple of RB's will get lots of experience and Ingram comes back fresh and strong right when we need him. It could work out for the best.

It "could" work out for the best, but losing one of your best players for something that was in his reasonable control i.e not injury related, is certainly not a good way to start a season where we finally looked to be serious contenders.

AsylumGuido · 05-29-2018, 05:23 PM

Originally Posted by dizzle88

It "could" work out for the best, but losing one of your best players for something that was in his reasonable control i.e not injury related, is certainly not a good way to start a season where we finally looked to be serious contenders.

I'm not sure how much it was in his control. What percentage of NFL players do think use supplements that are approved by the league? 80%? 90%? It sounds like he was a victim of the Russian roulette game of approved supplements where a batch here or there gets tainted AND he happened to get a bottle of that batch AND he happens to get randomly tested, To date four different current and former Saints players implied that is what happened to Ingram. I believe them. Although, to acknowledge your point, he could have avoided all supplements like that 10-20% of players.

05-29-2018, 09:13 AM	#21
jeanpierre Site Donor 2018 Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Thibodaux Posts: 43,543 Blog Entries: 39	Re: Mark Ingram Won't Be at OTA's Originally Posted by AsylumGuido To be fair, JP, much of that lack of rushing production was on Payton and his pass intensive and RB by committee approach. It reminds me of the story of the only man that could hold Michael Jordan to under 20 points ... Dean Smith. It's a good point, and you're right, that's part of it... And it's one of my biggest critiques of Bad-Sean/Mickster trading a first and a second round pick to acquire him - Why not use him? But Ingram shares the criticism in this as well as he didn't even hit 4 RuYds/carry in his first two years; and while not exclusive, he had ample carries... Ingram's first four years he was among the league's worst going down on initial contact; some on him, some was his exclusivity on short yardage... He must've rode the short bus at Bama because it took him nearly five years to break out and he didn't even scrape over 1000 RuYds till his sixth year... When his rookie contract period matured, so had his game and his greatest value was to the team that developed him, especially in that market year... But I just don't see extending him when he's turning 29yo in December and we'll be severely thin or non-existent at some positions when contracts expire... Built to win now, this year, just don't see moving Ingram unless Kamara and our RBs stay fresh and are giving us as good offensive balance as last season... And only then, I'd trade him to a desperate contender, preferably in the other conference and it likely be for a Day 2 pick... But, at the end of the season, I'm moving on to a younger runner and I'm taking that money and using it to extend other players... SmashMouth likes this.
	It's not that my way is the right way, I just make the right way my way...

05-29-2018, 03:59 PM	#22
AsylumGuido 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Bossier City, LA Posts: 26,274	Re: Mark Ingram Won't Be at OTA's Originally Posted by dizzle88 I'd say most of the reason for Ingram's rookie year was that he seemed to run with his eyes closed. Right into the back of his own lineman. Developed into a great player, but in a year where we are loaded up for a SB run, he's definitely hampered it. How so? The suspension? If we can't go at least 3-1 over those games without him we shouldn't be going to the Super Bowl anyway. I think we'll go 4-0 and a couple of RB's will get lots of experience and Ingram comes back fresh and strong right when we need him. It could work out for the best. darksoul35 likes this.

05-29-2018, 04:49 PM	#23
darksoul35 1000 Posts + Join Date: Sep 2012 Posts: 1,041	Re: Mark Ingram Won't Be at OTA's Originally Posted by dizzle88 I'd say most of the reason for Ingram's rookie year was that he seemed to run with his eyes closed. Right into the back of his own lineman. Developed into a great player, but in a year where we are loaded up for a SB run, he's definitely hampered it. The silver lining is that he should come in fresh.
darksoul35 1000 Posts + Join Date: Sep 2012 Posts: 1,041

05-29-2018, 04:50 PM	#24
dizzle88 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 11,358	Re: Mark Ingram Won't Be at OTA's Originally Posted by AsylumGuido How so? The suspension? If we can't go at least 3-1 over those games without him we shouldn't be going to the Super Bowl anyway. I think we'll go 4-0 and a couple of RB's will get lots of experience and Ingram comes back fresh and strong right when we need him. It could work out for the best. It "could" work out for the best, but losing one of your best players for something that was in his reasonable control i.e not injury related, is certainly not a good way to start a season where we finally looked to be serious contenders.

05-29-2018, 05:23 PM	#25
AsylumGuido 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Bossier City, LA Posts: 26,274	Re: Mark Ingram Won't Be at OTA's Originally Posted by dizzle88 It "could" work out for the best, but losing one of your best players for something that was in his reasonable control i.e not injury related, is certainly not a good way to start a season where we finally looked to be serious contenders. I'm not sure how much it was in his control. What percentage of NFL players do think use supplements that are approved by the league? 80%? 90%? It sounds like he was a victim of the Russian roulette game of approved supplements where a batch here or there gets tainted AND he happened to get a bottle of that batch AND he happens to get randomly tested, To date four different current and former Saints players implied that is what happened to Ingram. I believe them. Although, to acknowledge your point, he could have avoided all supplements like that 10-20% of players.
	“The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.” — Winston Churchill

Latest Blogs
2023 New Orleans Saints: Training Camp Last Blog: 08-01-2023 By: MarchingOn Puck the Fro Browl! Last Blog: 02-05-2023 By: neugey CFP: "Just Keep Doing What You're Doing" Last Blog: 12-08-2022 By: neugey

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: https://blackandgold.com/saints/88967-mark-ingram-wont-otas.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date	Hits
The Latest New Orleans Saints News \| SportSpyder	This thread	Refback	05-24-2018 10:05 PM	2
Mark Ingram Won't Be at OTA's	This thread	Refback	05-24-2018 09:18 PM	2