Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
I think it's close and personal preference at this point. Ingram probably has a higher ceiling with the drafting of Wilson, but Bradshaw has certainly proven more to this point. Both are obviously pretty big injury risks, though Ingram's may be a bit more concerning.
cool story bro
If Ingram has a good year you won't be buying him for a "decent" price you will be paying "Ryan Mathews this off season" type price
Well, next to having said player rot on your bench and get absolutely nothing in return.
I thought it was clear from the parts you edited out of my post that we were not talking just about any player you own, but obviously not. Yes, as a general rule, if you know nothing else, then getting something is better than holding a player and getting nothing.However, this specifically has to do with a player you invested a high 1st round pick and whether you give him away for a marginal player or trust your original instincts and keep him. If you trade him for peanuts and then he shows the potential you believed he had, then, to me, that definitely is worse than having him rot on the bench and get nothing in return. You have to trust your instincts like I did with DMC. People were offering me 2nd round picks after his 2nd year in the league, but despite the injuries, I didn't see a reason to doubt that my initial evaluation of his talent had been incorrect. I kept him and in his 3rd year he helped me win two league championships.Ingram has defintely been a disappointment, but it is not even close that I would swap him for Jacquizz Rogers. If he turns that he rots on my bench and ends up worthless, fine with me and preferable to giving him away for nothing.'dickey moe said:
The difference is that DMC looked good his rookie year on a terrible team. Despite getting hurt you could see the potential there. Ingram played bad on a great offense and his YPC was still well below all the other RB's on the team.
EBF and Az_Prof (among others) would both disagree with you on that. Seems to me that I can remember threads at that time with them both saying something to the effect of "See I told you so, he was overrated." And I owned him in two leagues and my recollection was that he was not that impressive in his rookie year - I am pretty certain that in trades following his first year he was going about for what Ingram is now. Hard to remember exactly but it seems to me that all the so called dynasty experts on this forum were saying "Sell! Sell!" not "He really looked good his rookie year."I could be wrong on this, but I don't think so.
And I don't feel like waiting through old threads to prove it either way.
Yeah i wouldnt exactly call 4.4 and 3.4 ypc in his first two seasons with 7 fumbles in 200 attempts as looking good.EBF and Az_Prof (among others) would both disagree with you on that. Seems to me that I can remember threads at that time with them both saying something to the effect of "See I told you so, he was overrated." And I owned him in two leagues and my recollection was that he was not that impressive in his rookie year - I am pretty certain that in trades following his first year he was going about for what Ingram is now. Hard to remember exactly but it seems to me that all the so called dynasty experts on this forum were saying "Sell! Sell!" not "He really looked good his rookie year."I could be wrong on this, but I don't think so.
He looked much better than Ingram(DMC didn't look like a stud). I remember he had a blow up game versus a bad KC defense...but Ingram didn't have any blow up games.I remember being down on DMC after his rookie year...but he didn't average 3.9 a carry on a good run blocking OL.EBF and Az_Prof (among others) would both disagree with you on that. Seems to me that I can remember threads at that time with them both saying something to the effect of "See I told you so, he was overrated." And I owned him in two leagues and my recollection was that he was not that impressive in his rookie year - I am pretty certain that in trades following his first year he was going about for what Ingram is now. Hard to remember exactly but it seems to me that all the so called dynasty experts on this forum were saying "Sell! Sell!" not "He really looked good his rookie year."I could be wrong on this, but I don't think so.
Not sure about that. Playing devils advocate here but.......yes DMAC ran for 21/164 against the chiefs. Ingram had games of 14/91 and 13/80. Both of those games were better rushing numbers than any other game for DMAC in his first 2 years. Also Ingram had a stinker against the Falcons coming back from injury of 8/11. Yake that game out of the equation and he was at 4.1 YPC for the season.He looked much better than Ingram(DMC didn't look like a stud). I remember he had a blow up game versus a bad KC defense...but Ingram didn't have any blow up games.I remember being down on DMC after his rookie year...but he didn't average 3.9 a carry on a good run blocking OL.EBF and Az_Prof (among others) would both disagree with you on that. Seems to me that I can remember threads at that time with them both saying something to the effect of "See I told you so, he was overrated." And I owned him in two leagues and my recollection was that he was not that impressive in his rookie year - I am pretty certain that in trades following his first year he was going about for what Ingram is now. Hard to remember exactly but it seems to me that all the so called dynasty experts on this forum were saying "Sell! Sell!" not "He really looked good his rookie year."I could be wrong on this, but I don't think so.
The other issue with comparing the two is that DMC is a superior athlete to Ingram.
I actually don't disagree with your point(this is why I enjoy debating). DMC didn't show much else his first two years outside of that game. The one thing that everybody could cling to was his production versus SEC defenses and he's very athletic(but yet not little). Ingram didn't have 2 years of dominating the SEC, he isn't a freak athletically, and didn't have any blow up games...just a couple of solid games. Then now another knee injury.Not sure about that. Playing devils advocate here but.......yes DMAC ran for 21/164 against the chiefs. Ingram had games of 14/91 and 13/80. Both of those games were better rushing numbers than any other game for DMAC in his first 2 years. Also Ingram had a stinker against the Falcons coming back from injury of 8/11. Yake that game out of the equation and he was at 4.1 YPC for the season.He looked much better than Ingram(DMC didn't look like a stud). I remember he had a blow up game versus a bad KC defense...but Ingram didn't have any blow up games.I remember being down on DMC after his rookie year...but he didn't average 3.9 a carry on a good run blocking OL.EBF and Az_Prof (among others) would both disagree with you on that. Seems to me that I can remember threads at that time with them both saying something to the effect of "See I told you so, he was overrated." And I owned him in two leagues and my recollection was that he was not that impressive in his rookie year - I am pretty certain that in trades following his first year he was going about for what Ingram is now. Hard to remember exactly but it seems to me that all the so called dynasty experts on this forum were saying "Sell! Sell!" not "He really looked good his rookie year."I could be wrong on this, but I don't think so.
The other issue with comparing the two is that DMC is a superior athlete to Ingram.
Was there ever any proof that his knee was arthritic? I don't remember seeing anything besides draft rumors and we all know how on the up and up those are. Last i remember was him sending out a letter from Dr. Andrews saying his knee was 100%.
That is the problem with these unsubstantiated rumors (which I am pretty sure this is, but I will stand corrected if a link is provided) is that they are remembered by people as gospel. When Ahman Green was early in his career with the Packers I kept seeing on message boards that he had a degenerative condition in his knees, but he played for years after that. And remember the reports of Priest Holmes degenerative hip in 2003 that caused his stock to fall in drafts? The below is from staffer Chris Smith in the preseason of 2003 - which was the year Holmes played 16 games, had 320 rushes for 1420 yards and 27 TDs, plus 74 receptions for another 690 yards. He played for several years after that and it was a neck injury, not his hip that eventually led to his retirement.
http://www.footballguys.com/rookierb.htm
He almost never fell down in the open field with no one around him.'Craig_MiamiFL said:How exactly does one do that? Lower body strength is typically demonstrated in a pile.
I agree. My one negative thought is how the saints use a RBBC. That said, fewer touches could work to the advantage of someone in his position and they do sometimes ride the hot hand. I think a lot of people often give up on rookies far too early.
unless you think that Ingram is the third best back in the RBBC behind Thomas and Sproles
Agree, and I think people with guys like decker and Tamme (who I think is going to have a great Fantasy year) have to realize that they are much more tied in value to Manning than Thomas is. So, at his age and given the recent neck concerns, I think Decker is a bit risky in this trade. He might have great value for the next 12 months, but he could just as easily be way down a year and a half from now. barring injury, I can't see Ingram being lower valued over the next few seasons than what he currently is.
well Decker was averaging 5-75-1 with Orton at QB, i don't think he's totally dependent on Manning like Tamme is. unlike Tamme, I think Decker is a good talent
I agree; he's fine. I'm just saying that we have seen a huge spike in his asking price since Manning got there so it only makes sense that, sans Manning, his value would drop back. And to be honest, IMO, Orton is a lot better than what he gets credit for. He can play. His problem has always seemed to be consistency. So its worth considering that if manning left, you know you wouldn't get a guy as good as Manning to replace him but you may also not get a guy as good as Orton (I think that's the part that people could easily miss). You get a guy that is TJAX or Gabbert and you have to rethink it some. but, yes, decker has his own level of ability.
DMC looked overwhelmed his rookie season. He had a decent 4.4 ypc, but one carry accounted for .4 of that. He looked even worse his second season when he averaged 3.4 ypc. He was tentative, went down with first contact, and looked like a speedster incorrectly cast as a RB. He had a few nice plays, but his collective body of work was pretty much dreadful. In redrafts before his third season, he was going in round 9-10, after Michael Bush. I'm not going to go through all the threads, but I'm sure there were plenty about him being a bust. Personally, I don't see any reason to sell Ingram for a bag of peanuts, unless you have some ridiculously small roster limit. I'm not targetting him as a trade option by any stretch, but I wouldn't trade him away unless I got a decent player in return.
