The Main Reason Mark Ingram Will NOT Be Successful This Season. (1 Viewer)

[Bongzilla]

Ingram gets his yard and PT and sproles get stopped for losses, what exactly is your point here? that ingram is doing more than the others the last few weeks?

The point is that Ingram will ALWAYS get 1-3 yards. Period.

Sproles, and Pierre get big gains. Pierre had two plays in which contact was made in the backfield. 1 play where he tried to bounce instead of just taking the 1 yard that was there and it cost him negative 3 yards.

I am not trying to take away plays to make a case. I am saying, yes Pierre's average was lower than Ingram, but pierre MADE Plays. 6 rushes of 4 yards are better. That is putting the team in a GOOD DOWN AND DISTANCE.

Ingram had 7 carries. ,0,1,2,2,3,3,10 --- Only ONE TIME did he win the battle. ONLY ONE TIME OUT OF 7 ATTEMPTS WAS HE AHEAD OF THE CHAINS.

Conversely, SIX out of Pierre's 13 carries HE WAS AHEAD OF THE CHAINS.

You guys can look at all the stats you want. But if you want to talk about helping the team. Pierre put us in a good situation, 47% of his touches. Ingram did it 14% of the time.

How can you guys continue to blindly defend this guy? BTW, this is his SECOND season. This is not ONE BAD GAME that we are calling for his head over. This is a CAREER OF 166 carries.

Honest question, how many of you MI apologists were calling for Reggie's head at the 1.5 year mark in his career?

Reggie through October of 2nd year:
251 carries for 965 yards for 3.84 YPC

Ingram through October of 2nd year:
166 carries for 601 yards for 3.6 YPC

Their stats are not that far off. Of course, you then need to factor in Reggies 131 catches to Ingrams 12, etc. etc.

I am not trying to compare the two, moreover I am just wondering, why at this point in each RB's career, the fans had already turned on Reggie and were calling him a bust etc. etc. When it is clear that Reggie had a MUCH larger impact (didnt even add TD's) than Ingram at this point.... why are so many defending Ingram??

In Reggie's rookie season, his 3.6 was not that far behind Deuce's 4.3. --- That is a (-.7) delta versus the greatest Saints running back of all time.
In Ingram's rookie season, his 3.9 is VERY FAR from Sproles's 6.9, Pierre's 5.1, and Ivory's 4.7 -- that is a (-3.0), (-1.2), and (-.8) delta.

A #2 pick and a 1st and 3rd are not THAT FAR OFF in draft value.

MI apologists... were you calling for Reggie's head at this time? and if so... why not Ingrams?

 

[NPs6724]

At this point, I'd love to see each of the 3 backs (PT, Ivory, and Ingram) each get a game that is theirs. Leaves Sproles in his current role but all other plays involving RBs go to The Guy for that game. It's not like our running game can get any worse. And maybe we catch lightning in a bottle and something gets going.

For years, we've pretty much been the only team in the NFL who didn't have a true #1 RB. And for the most part, I think our run game has suffered because of it.

 

[HayBear]

The Main Reason Mark Ingram Will NOT Be Successful This Season.

Plain and simple. He fails to make the most of his opportunities.

 

[NaJ88]

Mark Ingram strikes me as a running back that needs about 20 touches in order to break the appropriate amount of runs off for big gains, thus levelling his yards per carry out. All the best running backs in the league are given 20+ attempts per game and usually break off 4-5 big runs off of these, which ultimately make up for a 2-3 ypc average on the other 15 or so attempts.

The OP has a legitimate point in that we are not actually giving a running back "chances" if they only come in the form of 7 carries in a game in which we are playing the 3rd ranked run defense in the league...

Overall, none of our running backs are doing exceptionally well, and you'd be a fool to not notice the trend and place at least some of the blame on the blocking or playcalling instead of solely on the backs (who are all very talented).

On another note, I wonder if part of the reason for Mark Ingram's predictable utilization is an attempt to make our play action passes that much more effective. It seems to me that Carmichael is only putting him in on 1st down, or short yardage. Defenses have clued into this... and they prepare to crowd the box when he's in the game. (Let's not get into the effect that this has on his YPC... ) I will say though, that this is usually the perfect time for Drew to toss the play action pass downfield.

I'd love to see statistics on how many of our play action passes have come with Mark in the game vs Pierre or Darren, and how effective the passes are in these circumstances. Anyone know where I could find that sort of info?

 

[BIGBronson]

The point is that Ingram will ALWAYS get 1-3 yards. Period.

I'm not going to be getting into this debate, because I don't care like some of you, but I will try to guide some of the arguments so this doesn't turn into a 20 page circus like the others seem too.

Being a professor of philosophy at a VERY PRESTIGIOUS community college, I can assure you that if I read this first line in any one of my students papers, I would not read a single line more. The absolute last thing you want to do in establishing an argument is to start off with an opinion, or in this case being flat out incorrect. If this was an in person debate instead of online, I guarantee you that your opponent (of any intelligence whatsoever) would already have you dead in the water.

I haven't read this whole thread to see if this is common, but my intuition tells me that it is absolutely a problem, especially at page 11. Arguments and insights based on fact cannot be disputed, so a logic oriented thread would last 4 pages, max.

Again, I don't want to offend anybody, especially bongzilla (lol) who I was just using as an example. But I trust that everyone here would be very appreciative of factual arguments to be able to decide on a logical conclusion, not snippets of assumption led by bias and opinion.

Thanks guys

 

[blasian]

^^^Philosophy was by far my favorite elective in college.

 

[BIGBronson]

^^^Philosophy was by far my favorite elective in college.

That's awesome! Philosophy often gets dismissed as being an inept, unnecessary, or slack major, but the ability to think (active thinking) and establish a sound argument is becoming very important as these skills decline in society. Plus, Phil professors love their job and always keep the class fun!

 

[Bongzilla]

I'm not going to be getting into this debate, because I don't care like some of you, but I will try to guide some of the arguments so this doesn't turn into a 20 page circus like the others seem too.

Being a professor of philosophy at a VERY PRESTIGIOUS community college, I can assure you that if I read this first line in any one of my students papers, I would not read a single line more. The absolute last thing you want to do in establishing an argument is to start off with an opinion, or in this case being flat out incorrect. If this was an in person debate instead of online, I guarantee you that your opponent (of any intelligence whatsoever) would already have you dead in the water.

I haven't read this whole thread to see if this is common, but my intuition tells me that it is absolutely a problem, especially at page 11. Arguments and insights based on fact cannot be disputed, so a logic oriented thread would last 4 pages, max.

Again, I don't want to offend anybody, especially bongzilla (lol) who I was just using as an example. But I trust that everyone here would be very appreciative of factual arguments to be able to decide on a logical conclusion, not snippets of assumption led by bias and opinion.

Thanks guys

Well thank you for your insight Don Quixote,

But my opening statement was not an opinion, it is backed by fact. Yes, I should probably take the "always" out of there, as there are exceptions to every rule. I don't feel like wasting the time, but I would wager that north of 80% of Ingram's carries go for less than 4 yards. That actually may be undershooting it to be honest.

Allow me to reissue my opening statement so that the great professor will read the rest of my post....

The point is that Ingram will get 1-3 yards on over 80% of his carries.

That make it better for you Saint Thomas Aquinas??

You must be new to internet forums, the majority of posters will state their opinions as fact. My opinions, however, are backed by facts.

 

[blasian]

But my opening statement was not an opinion, it is backed by fact.

The point is that Ingram will get 1-3 yards on over 80% of his carries.

All != 80%

fact: a thing that is indisputably the case.

Sounds like an opinion.

 

[BIGBronson]

Well thank you for your insight Don Quixote,

But my opening statement was not an opinion, it is backed by fact. Yes, I should probably take the "always" out of there, as there are exceptions to every rule. I don't feel like wasting the time, but I would wager that north of 80% of Ingram's carries go for less than 4 yards. That actually may be undershooting it to be honest.

Allow me to reissue my opening statement so that the great professor will read the rest of my post....

The point is that Ingram will get 1-3 yards on over 80% of his carries.

That make it better for you Saint Thomas Aquinas??

You must be new to internet forums, the majority of posters will state their opinions as fact. My opinions, however, are backed by facts.

I was afraid you would be offended, but I already explained myself. I am nowhere close to new to internet forums, as reading these threads is almost like homework when you are a philosophy instructor.

Also your earthy and imprecise wit reflects you as Don Quixote more than me, so no offense taken, but since I get your point anyway.. I'll respond with another one of my potential alias's..

"Blows are sarcasm turned stupid." - George Eliot

 

[Rod-138]

Well thank you for your insight Don Quixote,

But my opening statement was not an opinion, it is backed by fact. Yes, I should probably take the "always" out of there, as there are exceptions to every rule. I don't feel like wasting the time, but I would wager that north of 80% of Ingram's carries go for less than 4 yards. That actually may be undershooting it to be honest.

Allow me to reissue my opening statement so that the great professor will read the rest of my post....

The point is that Ingram will get 1-3 yards on over 80% of his carries.

That make it better for you Saint Thomas Aquinas??

You must be new to internet forums, the majority of posters will state their opinions as fact. My opinions, however, are backed by facts.

Calculating Ingrim's history may support a 1-3 yard run 80% of the time, but predicting the future is never a factual statement. (mark ingrim will get etc)

I agree with your direction, though, and expect Ingrim to be what he appears to be, but you never know what's going to happen.

 

[willkro]

I thought it was because he was slow and went down to easily.