Did Kamara prove he is a lead back? (1 Viewer)

[Whodat GT]

Fairly straightforward question. With the four week sample to start the season as a baseline, do you think Kamara is ready to take on exclusive lead back duties whenever the team moves on from Ingram?

 

[St.Dan]

Neither Kamara nor Ingram needs to be "ready" to be a lead back because Payton hasn't employed a "lead back" system in his 12 seasons as coach. It's been by committee just about the entire time. And more often than not, it's worked.

 

[meily]

He filled in because the other backs didn't produce, but he only proved what we already know but Payton is not going to run him into the ground.

 

[Infoman]

He will always be in a committee-style duo here under Payton... and I am in the minority... but I think he can be Todd Gurley... and I think he's proven that he can be that type of player.... (given the workload) So... in short... Yes.

 

[St.Fury]

Sean Payton, during his entire HC career with the Saints, has been extremely consistent with his use of RB by committee. It’s not that any particular back can’t be a lead, 3-down back. That’s just now how SP likes to utilize his backs. In fact, SP was doing this several years before it became the norm around the league. I don’t anticipate him changing anytime soon, unless he sees a strategic advantage in doing so.

 

[dutar76]

If needed, yes. Kamara could be a lead back. The chances of that happening (on purpose) in New Orleans is zero. As St.Dan said, SP has never gone with a one back system and likely never will. Those systems are rare in the NFL these days and the few who still go that route are taking a big chance.

 

[Whodat GT]

Neither Kamara nor Ingram needs to be "ready" to be a lead back because Payton hasn't employed a "lead back" system in his 12 seasons as coach. It's been by committee just about the entire time.

He will always be in a committee-style duo here under Payton.../QUOTE]

Sean Payton, during his entire HC career with the Saints, has been extremely consistent with his use of RB by committee.

If needed, yes. Kamara could be a lead back. The chances of that happening (on purpose) in New Orleans is zero. As St.Dan said, SP has never gone with a one back system and likely never will.

Well the Saints have changed their MO since last year. I agree that the team used a committee approach when they had at least three backs playing separate roles (Sproles, PT, Ingram being I guess, the standard), but the Kamara Ingram tandem is definitely different than what we saw in previous years. So let me rephrase: what are the chances of seeing them maintain a 1A and 1B type of running scheme? Does it depend on them keeping Ingram?
Can they build a running game centered around Kamara's abilities if Ingram is not retained?

 

[lapaz]

I think Ingram has gotten better every year because he wasn't used as a lead back, so he hasn't taken the pounding, and yet has learned to become a better back. I recently heard a commentator say how unusual it is to see a RB improve so much later in his career. That will also help Kamara have a much longer career. Add that to Kamara's slippery style which prevents him from taking many big hits, and I can imagine Kamara playing till well past 30.

 

[dutar76]

Well the Saints have changed their MO since last year. I agree that the team used a committee approach when they had at least three backs playing separate roles (Sproles, PT, Ingram being I guess, the standard), but the Kamara Ingram tandem is definitely different than what we saw in previous years. So let me rephrase: what are the chances of seeing them maintain a 1A and 1B type of running scheme? Does it depend on them keeping Ingram?

That's a much better question. Ingram could easily be an every down back on most teams. Kamara could be an every down back on a team with an offense designed around him. That's not taking away from what Kamara can do. It's just that if you pigeon-hole Kamara into a do-everything back, you actually limit what he can do for you.

As for us? We saw SP tailor our offense to maximize Kamara and our offense as a whole for the first 4 games. Could that happen over a whole season? Sure, but you risk over-using Kamara. And if he's all you got, then you're left using guys like Gillislee, J. Williams, D. Washington, etc... if your lead back goes down. Can you imagine us having to do that? Drew would have to throw for 600 yards per game.
Ingram? He's more built to be an every down back. His game is power/speed where as Kamara is elusive/speed. Your every-down backs in the league are power/speed guys like Gurley, M. Ingram, etc... Ingram actually gives you a heck of a receiver out of the backfield like those two guys as well. Still, with ONLY Ingram, you're likely to over-use him and wind up in the same pickle you would be in if you had only Kamara and he went down. That's why I said in the earlier post that the teams that do that are taking a heck of a risk.

Now, we've always had a committee until we realized we didn't need one a few games into last season. If you gave Sean Payton two blank pieces of paper and asked him to draw up 2 RBs that would perfectly fit his vision for his style of NFL offense... He would draw you a picture of #'s 41 and 22. With those two guys, you need absolutely nothing that any other RB could offer you. Your playbook is unlimited. And in MOST situations, the two are interchangeable. There isn't many plays that either could run that the other couldn't.

It's popular theory that we'll walk away from Ingram after this year. I don't think so... or at least I sure hope not. I love the 2 RB system with the 2 RBs we have, and barring a guy like Sequan Barkley falling in our lap... Our offense needs both of these guys. If one goes down, you have the other for a few games which we proved is fine this year. With only one... we're one injury away from being in trouble.

Can we keep Ingram? I think so. Yeah, RBs capable of the the one-all end-all are going at a premium price these days. But not 30 year olds. Ingram will turn 30 next season. He IS a low-miles RB, so it's possible somebody offers him a lot. But I like our chances offering him a little more than we'd like to of retaining his services. He will undoubtedly play the field. But I think his age will keep him in affordable range for us, and that he's important enough to this team for us to give that extra bit to keep him.

 

[Swimmer]

Wouldn't trade Kamara for any other back. But Gurley is a different beast and built to stand heavy repetitive hitting. Gurley is much more in the mold of Ingram than Kamara.

 

[Swimmer]

That's a much better question. Ingram could easily be an every down back on most teams. Kamara could be an every down back on a team with an offense designed around him. That's not taking away from what Kamara can do. It's just that if you pigeon-hole Kamara into a do-everything back, you actually limit what he can do for you.

As for us? We saw SP tailor our offense to maximize Kamara and our offense as a whole for the first 4 games. Could that happen over a whole season? Sure, but you risk over-using Kamara. And if he's all you got, then you're left using guys like Gillislee, J. Williams, D. Washington, etc... if your lead back goes down. Can you imagine us having to do that? Drew would have to throw for 600 yards per game.
Ingram? He's more built to be an every down back. His game is power/speed where as Kamara is elusive/speed. Your every-down backs in the league are power/speed guys like Gurley, M. Ingram, etc... Ingram actually gives you a heck of a receiver out of the backfield like those two guys as well. Still, with ONLY Ingram, you're likely to over-use him and wind up in the same pickle you would be in if you had only Kamara and he went down. That's why I said in the earlier post that the teams that do that are taking a heck of a risk.

Now, we've always had a committee until we realized we didn't need one a few games into last season. If you gave Sean Payton two blank pieces of paper and asked him to draw up 2 RBs that would perfectly fit his vision for his style of NFL offense... He would draw you a picture of #'s 41 and 22. With those two guys, you need absolutely nothing that any other RB could offer you. Your playbook is unlimited. And in MOST situations, the two are interchangeable. There isn't many plays that either could run that the other couldn't.

It's popular theory that we'll walk away from Ingram after this year. I don't think so... or at least I sure hope not. I love the 2 RB system with the 2 RBs we have, and barring a guy like Sequan Barkley falling in our lap... Our offense needs both of these guys. If one goes down, you have the other for a few games which we proved is fine this year. With only one... we're one injury away from being in trouble.

Can we keep Ingram? I think so. Yeah, RBs capable of the the one-all end-all are going at a premium price these days. But not 30 year olds. Ingram will turn 30 next season. He IS a low-miles RB, so it's possible somebody offers him a lot. But I like our chances offering him a little more than we'd like to of retaining his services. He will undoubtedly play the field. But I think his age will keep him in affordable range for us, and that he's important enough to this team for us to give that extra bit to keep him.

Gotta feeling that as long as Brees is here, Ingram will be here also. And as we saw by him meeting the team getting off the plane, he is a top notch team guy. And SP used a borrowed #1 to get him.

 

[Whodat GT]

I think Ingram has gotten better every year because he wasn't used as a lead back, so he hasn't taken the pounding, and yet has learned to become a better back. I recently heard a commentator say how unusual it is to see a RB improve so much later in his career. That will also help Kamara have a much longer career. Add that to Kamara's slippery style which prevents him from taking many big hits, and I can imagine Kamara playing till well past 30.

That´s because the team was patient with him and developped him slowly. It´s another reason why it would be a shame to see him finish his career elsewhere, but I think it still is 50/50 at best he stays next year. I mean, the team got rid of Sproles because he was costing them something like 2 mil and they wanted to clear cap space. That tells you a lot about how much they've valued the position in the past.

 

[SaintsThinker]

Is he a 300 plus rushing carry running back? No. But he definitly could be a Marshall Faulk 250 Rushes/80 Catches running back very easily. Actually Faulk is a great example because they are/were listed at the same height and weight.

 

[Whodat GT]

Is he a 300 plus rushing carry running back? No. But he definitly could be a Marshall Faulk 250 Rushes/80 Catches running back very easily. Actually Faulk is a great example because they are/were listed at the same height and weight.

That´s an interesting thought. Although I guess the team would have to be much more pass oriented for it to work.

 

[Bartyboy]

I'll take the 3000 yards from scrimmage they had last year.
Can you improve on that?
Keep them fresh enough but in the flow of the game.
If it ain't broke don't fix it.