Mark Ingram Tied for 1st in NFL with 5.3 YPC (backs with over 100 carries) (1 Viewer)

[LombardiGras]

I implied those games were his "greatest" because of two long runs. And on those two long runs he was not touched for 60+ yards, if you go untouched that is the oline and play calling. I also stated that he has performed at the same level as he has last season. Meaning his Performances has NOT changed. My logic was sound, and it didn't need to be repeated. But apparently you needed that to be explained like you were 5 years old as your "yes" response indicated.

So you're saying it's pure coincidence that he is peeling off long runs now. Well that's a tough point to argue so I don't blame you for not being able to construct a logically sound argument.

 

[LetsGetWaffles]

The dude broke 2 long runs on plays that he didn't get touched on until 60+ yards down the field. That was play calling and oline play. I don't think the benching really had anything to do with those runs. That is what made those games "the best of this career." His burst has always been there when healthy. And the guy is always on fire when it comes to being motivated. That has been his personality his entire career.

He has been performing at this level all season and last season for that matter, besides his two huge fumbles. When the oline is playing well and we commit to the run Ingram gets to shine. Same for Hightower.

the only thing the benching did imo was make him run angrier like he was frustrated and had a point to prove. I think he channeled that fristration into outrunning the SF defenders on that one long run. thats the only thing i think really changed w him.

 

[Bartyboy]

The running game is working. SP will call more running plays when it works. I heard a comment that the Saints use the pass to set up the run. Drew has been over 70 % completion has to help. I think the whole offense is getting better and its helped the running game.

 

[kcirdor]

So you're saying it's pure coincidence that he is peeling off long runs now. Well that's a tough point to argue so I don't blame you for not being able to construct a logically sound argument.

You can pretend he magically learned how to run through holes as wide as the grand canyon because he got benched for fumbling, but that doesn't make it true. I've present my facts supporting my opinion that his performance hasn't changed over the last two seasons since he has fully taken over the passing scheme as the Running Back. That his burst has always been present when healthy and that he plays with the same fire every down of his career.


2014

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rsn9pkHJQaw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

2013

Mark Ingram: Best of 2013

 

[Nightshade]

What is this, kindergarten?

He's a millenial so ........

 

[IceHot]

The dude broke 2 long runs on plays that he didn't get touched on until 60+ yards down the field. That was play calling and oline play.

While I agree the bench had little to do with it, that wasnt simply play calling and blocking.

Over the last 2 years he has drastically improved in balance at speed and acceleration into the secondary.

On those long runs I also credit his vision, his familiarity with the OLine, and his persistent will.

 

[LombardiGras]

He's a millenial so ........

Go ahead, finish the thought! I'd love to hear it. The other poster and I are separated by 4 years in age and therefore part of the same generation, but that's not even the most ironic part about your comment. In your glee to play the "son" card you've attacked the poster with a personal insult instead of addressing the post. Do you find it all funny how a so-called "millennial" is able to follow TOS while you are not?

You can pretend he magically learned how to run through holes as wide as the grand canyon because he got benched for fumbling, but that doesn't make it true. I've present my facts supporting my opinion that his performance hasn't changed over the last two seasons since he has fully taken over the passing scheme as the Running Back. That his burst has always been present when healthy and that he plays with the same fire every down of his career.

Ingram didn't have just 1 long run. He's had several. His two best career games have come in the short time following his benching. These are all facts. The closest you've come to explaining it is to say all of sudden magical holes have appeared for Ingram the likes of which he's never seen before in the other 5 and half seasons he's been with the Saints. It's not a very compelling explanation.

Also, I've been an Ingram supporter on here during his previous seasons so you don't need convince me about his running style.

 

[kcirdor]

Your claim is that his performance suddenly improved because of his benching. That it lit a fire under him and he suddenly became better. I have stated that is not accurate, and he has been performing at this level all the way back to last year and further. And that he has always played with the same fire. Your claim was in direct response to my comment.

That is so over played, the benching did not "do him wonders". The oline was not 100% at the beginning of the year and we had Peat moving around. Now the oline is still not 100%, but they have gotten better as a group.

Ingram still averaged ~4.5 yards per carry before being benched for fumbling. The Saints just continually failed to commit to the run until 5 games ago. Ingram is a beast, and I'm glad he is shutting up all the haters this season.

I don't know why I have to repeat myself. The last time the Saints committed to the run we won the Super Bowl.

http://saintsreport.com/forums/atta...-celebrated-saints-09-1st-half-play-count.xls

Further Context

Consider this, after we let Carl Nicks go, our oline has been suspect at best. It's interesting that the Primary back to compare Ingram with in the past few seasons, the averages are almost identical.

People are saying Ingram hasn't been a receiver until now. We had Pierre Thomas, that was Pierre Thomas's PRIMARY role on this team. It is amazing as soon as Pierre leaves, that role is picked up by Mark. It wasn't as if he couldn't do it. He didn't have to do it. Ingram was a run first back, and in my opinion, and this is really the key to this whole argument, When Ingram was on the field people KNEW THE SAINTS WERE RUNNING THE BALL. It is no coincidence that when Ingram was finally allowed be a part of the passing game that his numbers sharply increased. This same sentiment shines brightly in Khiry's numbers during that same time frame. When Khiry was on the field THE SAINTS WERE RUNNING THE BALL.

The sentiment people also like to bring up is... Ingram runs into the backs of his blockers. If Ingram didn't run into the backs of his blockers he would be worse than Reggie Bush, you don't bounce the ball just because your hole isn't there. If you run up and push through your blockers when your hole isn't there, you gain yardage. That is one thing Ingram has always gotten right, don't lose yards bouncing when you can push through the pile and get 1 or 2 yards. That is what makes him a reliable runner, you may end up with 2nd and 8 or even 9, but you normally won't end up at 2nd and 12 or 14 when he runs.

There are a few particular members that frequently post on SSF that tend to believe they are NFL scouts and know more than the coaches and the numbers. While I enjoy most of their posts, I'll take the numbers and the coaches over our resident message board scouts. When you look beyond the margin of victory splits and look more into the situational numbers. As well as having a simple understanding of how Payton designs specific roles for each particular running back, which feeds into opposing teams game plans, Ingram has respectable numbers. If we can only commit fully to running at minimum a 60/40 split regardless of the score, the defense will benefit tremendously as well as the Oline's ability to protect Drew.

We all hated Carl Smith for his conservative play calling, but it's that play calling that helped the Dome Patrol be so dominant. Carl's offense didn't allow those points late in the games. Prevent Defense did. If Sean can channel just 10% of Carl Smith into his play calling, we are going 10 and 0 to finish the season. I don't care who is running the ball.

 

[Goatman Saint]

First thing is I'm a big supporter of Ingram and have been for a while. But we need to look at the line. At the beginning of the year with a new OLine coach, and some transition with injuries, the first thing was pass protection for Brees. Now that there is consistency with Peat becoming what he can at either tackle or guard, and with Armstead or Kelemente at the other place, this line is now developing and working as a unit. It's sweet to see. Armstead we know is good, but the driving power of Peat has been what's been amazing to me. You almost have to wonder if he will stay at guard with how open those holes are.

No longer do you see Ingram getting nailed behind the line or dragging guys hanging on him as he goes past the LOS. Now he's got a head of steam going and you see the power and aging speed he has


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[THE TRUTH26]

Ingram has always been a beast. SP commits to running the ball. Scary team

 

[Usmfan84]

I honestly can't believe there is still a debate about how viable Ingram is to us after last year and this year.

I get it. In somes mind eye a player is trash if he isn't getting 100 yards or if he only makes it back to the LoS on some plays. I mean I've actually seen people say we are so much better without Ingram because of our record when he was injured but that is absurd and the two don't correlate.

However his ypc the last couple seasons tell a different story.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

 

[Pick]

I agree. I really dislike the tendency of fans to reduce a player's results to desire and fear. It's just silly.

In Mark's case, I respectfully disagree. I can remember when he was nearly run out of town 3 years ago(?) for being a bust and he began to run angry and became the back we all thought he could be. I do think he was getting a little sluggish until he was benched and it indeed DID help him when he got back on the field.

 

[Brennan77]

In Mark's case, I respectfully disagree. I can remember when he was nearly run out of town 3 years ago(?) for being a bust and he began to run angry and became the back we all thought he could be. I do think he was getting a little sluggish until he was benched and it indeed DID help him when he got back on the field.

I think you're assigning emotional and psychological value to the results on the field rather than looking at the execution and scheme. It's rather obvious that there are giant holes allowing Ingram to get to the second level that we haven't seen in years. When your running back isn't trying to break tackles behind the line of scrimmage, it tends to make things look different. I attribute that to execution and coaching/playcalling. In my opinion, that's a much more reasonable answer than saying a professional football player wasn't motivated.

Also consider the possibility that we are looking at the difference between cause and effect. Is it possible that excited body language and intensity follows success? And is it possible that frustration seems to follow lack of execution? Ingram is going to look happier and more excited when running for 180 yards than he will when running for 60 because he's constantly hit behind the backs of his blockers.

 

[BreesHOF2024]

Ingram is probably better at triggering the Saints Super Forum than toting the rock on Sundays. And that is freakin' IMPRESSIVE

 

[Twenty]

Tiger Baiters have such a short memory when it comes to Ingram. If he doesn't have a monster game every few games, he's a no good bum. And every time a different back stumbles forward for 7 yards, he should be our new starter and we should trade Ingram.

Nevermind, that he's always had breakaway speed, power, and good vision.