Mark Ingram 2013
When will the first round crap stop. I'm sick of seeing Ingram carry the ball. I throw up in my mouth everytime. Coaches won't seallow their pride and bench him. He's relatively slow with no strength and explosion. Don't try and argue otherwise because you can't.
Instead of attacking me, why don't you try and argue otherwise. Do you really think Ingram is a good back? Why? Do you think he was worth a first rounder? Why?
In all due respect, do you think your post merits an informative and insightful response? You argue that "Inside Job" has made an ad hominem attack against you. I will admit, he did. But when I look at your post above, you do the same. Where are your arguments? He's slow is opinion, speculation. Back that up with an example. For instance, you might say, I remember on this third and one play, he tried to get outside and could not beat Grady Jackson around the corner; then we might be able to question his speed. When people say that Roman Harper is slow, they usually talk about Sam Bradford chasing him down. Or, further, beyond just analyzing his speed as an indictment, you might discuss his vision or pass-blocking or catching ability or other aspects of his game that make him, in your opinion, a bad player.
Here's what I think. Ingram is not a bad player. It is not his fault that we traded up to get him. It is also not his fault that we have not given him the carries based on our offensive approach. When you cite players like Peterson or Rice, keep in mind the touches they are able to get. Ingram started off this season very slow. He struggled out of the gate, and really never seem to perform up to the level expected of him. A part of his struggles had to do with trying to get himself into good playing shape. He missed the offseason while recovering from offseason surgery, and did not participate in all of the preseason practices/games. As he got healthy, however, we saw marked improvement. In the final 9 games, he rushed 109 times for 468 yards and a 4.3 yard-per-carry average. In fact, he raised his overall per-carry-average a yard from 2.9 in the first seven games to 3.9 by season's end. And let us keep in mind that he did so while running in a predictable scheme where most of the plays were designed up the middle into the teeth of the defense. He also did so while not being an integral part of the passing game, which meant that his appearance on the field usually indicated a run. Pete Carmichael began to use him as a part of play-action more as the season went on, and we had some big plays, especially to Joe Morgan, because of it. But we did not offer enough versatility to keep defenses from keying on the run.
The point is, with his legs underneath him, he ran the ball better. He was also potent as a short-yardage back throughout the entire season. And even in the final 9 games, his average actually dropped in some games where we would use him at the end to run out the clock. I do not see a back who is a bust; instead, I see a back who is scratching the surface. Ingram has good hands and the few passes he has gotten out of the backfield shows that he can be a part of our passing game. But we have to use him in that respect. And we have to stay committed to him and our running game. I think Payton has a plan heading into this off-season for making our rushing more effective, and I think Ingram will be a major part of those plans. If you choose to see him as a bust, fine. But recognize that this bust will likely be the guy we ride early and often next season.
Lastly, let me just point out that swapping out backs every play is counterproductive. There are some backs who have to get a feel of things. Deuce was that way. Then you have runners who are change-of-pace backs. The thing about a change-of-pace back is that he "changes the pace." But you cannot expect a Sproles or Thomas to be there to shoulder the load every down. Some question whether Ingram is that guy? He looked the part toward the end of the season but will have to prove that he can be that guy. Nevertheless, we know Sproles is not that guy, we know that Pierre Thomas is not that guy and we know that Ivory is not that guy. That's not a knock on any of them. Thomas can do everything in an offense and can give you solid rushing when called upon; but he has also not shown the ability to mother the load each week without getting nicked up. He's a guy, however, who can give you 6-10 really effective touches in the running game. With Ivory, he's a bigger back who runs so violently that he cannot stay on the field. He's a good one to have but his style of running negates his effectiveness since he will inevitably miss some games here and there. Ingram is probably our best bet at locating a guy who can carry the load each week. So, when I look at him, I try to analyze him honestly as possible without the ad hominem "oh, he's slow and a bust" attacks while also recognizing the areas where he has shown tremendous improvement. Because if he can continue to improve on the things we saw from him over the second half of last season, albeit against some tough defenses, and if we can improve our scheme and run-blocking, he can be a very effective runner for us. Not Adrian Peterson but certainly a 1300-1400 yard back.