Mark Ingram (5 Viewers)

[shadyridr]

It has no impact on ingram

 

[humpback]

Sounds familiar to those saying Ridley being out would have no impact on Vereen.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

Some really killer statistical analysis happening in here.

Cliffs:

Getting hit in the backfield is bad for RB performance.

Getting 10 carries in a game is bad for fantasy RB performance.

The DET rush defense is very good.

My supposition:

Sean Payton is overrated and I think it's funny as hell that they lost, arguably, because he had them throwing the ball with a <7 point lead late in the game and it was picked off.

Dead on.

 

[meatwad1]

Sounds familiar to those saying Ridley being out would have no impact on Vereen.

Saints are going to have to run the ball this week if they want to beat the Packers. I would think Ingram would be a big part of the plan. I am excited to maybe slot Ingram into my flex. Ingram certainly isn't the only player who threw up a stinker this week.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I never, ever drafted this guy. Ever. Did I say never? I meant ever. I've never had him on my team.

eta* Because normally, you want to draft small, slow guys with "exceptional vision" into terrible FF situations.

Don't believe that you have never owned him for a second. You're too butt hurt about this guy to pretend to be impartial on this.

And small, slow guys don't average over 4.7 YPC over two seasons. If you see slow and small (5'9" and 215) then you need new glasses. He may have played slow and small his first two seasons, but something is different from the end of last year, through training camp and into this year.

did he get bigger?

Is 5'9" 215 small? Marshawn Lynch is 215 and Peterson is 217. Lynch is 5'11" and Peterson is 6'1". He's actually thicker than the two of them. He's not tall, but he's not small either.

Never. Ever. And I meant small in height. Small and plodding and thick. Laughed when the Patriots passed on him and they traded down for Vereen and Ridley. They were desperate for an RB at the time, everybody had them picking Ingram, and they traded out of their spot to avoid him.

But I've done this in other threads. IIRC, my top picks in one mock "prove it" were Vereen and Ridley over Ingram. Hey, if Ingram makes your fantasy team work, he makes it work. He's been a crappy back so far.

Does that mean anything at all? Does it hurt his rebounding?

 

[rockaction]

I never, ever drafted this guy. Ever. Did I say never? I meant ever. I've never had him on my team.

eta* Because normally, you want to draft small, slow guys with "exceptional vision" into terrible FF situations.

Don't believe that you have never owned him for a second. You're too butt hurt about this guy to pretend to be impartial on this.

And small, slow guys don't average over 4.7 YPC over two seasons. If you see slow and small (5'9" and 215) then you need new glasses. He may have played slow and small his first two seasons, but something is different from the end of last year, through training camp and into this year.

did he get bigger?

Is 5'9" 215 small? Marshawn Lynch is 215 and Peterson is 217. Lynch is 5'11" and Peterson is 6'1". He's actually thicker than the two of them. He's not tall, but he's not small either.

Never. Ever. And I meant small in height. Small and plodding and thick. Laughed when the Patriots passed on him and they traded down for Vereen and Ridley. They were desperate for an RB at the time, everybody had them picking Ingram, and they traded out of their spot to avoid him.

But I've done this in other threads. IIRC, my top picks in one mock "prove it" were Vereen and Ridley over Ingram. Hey, if Ingram makes your fantasy team work, he makes it work. He's been a crappy back so far.

Does that mean anything at all? Does it hurt his rebounding?

Funny, but small and slow aren't a great combination. Your point is taken. That said, why do they measure running backs' heights at the combine if it means nothing but rebounding?

This was interesting, from a quick Google search. https://www.bsports.com/statsinsights/nfl/why-have-nfl-running-backs-gotten-shorter-a-statistical-investigation#.VEZ21bSlhFI

 

[Shutout]

Sounds familiar to those saying Ridley being out would have no impact on Vereen.

Saints are going to have to run the ball this week if they want to beat the Packers. I would think Ingram would be a big part of the plan. I am excited to maybe slot Ingram into my flex. Ingram certainly isn't the only player who threw up a stinker this week.

Mistake. THis game will be an air show until Green Bay exposes the Saints for what they are (not very good).

If its a back and forth game, both teams are throwing. If the Packers are beating them down, the Saints are throwing. If the Saints somehow are winning (and nursing a lead)...apparently the Saints are throwing. As it has been for the past 6 years, the Saints RB scenario is generally not aligned with logic in trying to figure out when it is a good play. Look not further than Sunday night. you would THINK the Niners would have run Gore's legs off in that one, just like this game coming up with the Saints/Pack. But they never got the chance and the Saints either won't or won't choose to.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I never, ever drafted this guy. Ever. Did I say never? I meant ever. I've never had him on my team.

eta* Because normally, you want to draft small, slow guys with "exceptional vision" into terrible FF situations.

Don't believe that you have never owned him for a second. You're too butt hurt about this guy to pretend to be impartial on this.

And small, slow guys don't average over 4.7 YPC over two seasons. If you see slow and small (5'9" and 215) then you need new glasses. He may have played slow and small his first two seasons, but something is different from the end of last year, through training camp and into this year.

did he get bigger?

Is 5'9" 215 small? Marshawn Lynch is 215 and Peterson is 217. Lynch is 5'11" and Peterson is 6'1". He's actually thicker than the two of them. He's not tall, but he's not small either.

Never. Ever. And I meant small in height. Small and plodding and thick. Laughed when the Patriots passed on him and they traded down for Vereen and Ridley. They were desperate for an RB at the time, everybody had them picking Ingram, and they traded out of their spot to avoid him.

But I've done this in other threads. IIRC, my top picks in one mock "prove it" were Vereen and Ridley over Ingram. Hey, if Ingram makes your fantasy team work, he makes it work. He's been a crappy back so far.

Does that mean anything at all? Does it hurt his rebounding?

Funny, but small and slow aren't a great combination. Your point is taken. That said, why do they measure running backs' heights at the combine if it means nothing but rebounding?

This was interesting, from a quick Google search. https://www.bsports.com/statsinsights/nfl/why-have-nfl-running-backs-gotten-shorter-a-statistical-investigation#.VEZ21bSlhFI

I think they measure height to put the weight in a little more perspective. Ingram at 5'9" 215 wouldn't be considered small for a RB, but most objective (or subjective) measures.

Why would you think height matters for a RB?

 

[Air Stich]

Sounds familiar to those saying Ridley being out would have no impact on Vereen.

Sounds exactly the same.

 

[Soulfly3]

How would PIerre's injury NOT benefit INgram... seriuusly?

 

[joffer]

SP version of the ebola thread

 

[cstu]

Funny, but small and slow aren't a great combination. Your point is taken. That said, why do they measure running backs' heights at the combine if it means nothing but rebounding?

This was interesting, from a quick Google search. https://www.bsports.com/statsinsights/nfl/why-have-nfl-running-backs-gotten-shorter-a-statistical-investigation#.VEZ21bSlhFI

The main point of the article is that backs are getting shorter because there's more emphasis on passing. Frank Gore is the same height/weight as Ingram and isn't fast either.

 

[cstu]

How would PIerre's injury NOT benefit INgram... seriuusly?

I'm starting Robinson this week and think they both should be started.

 

[TheFanatic]

Funny, but small and slow aren't a great combination. Your point is taken. That said, why do they measure running backs' heights at the combine if it means nothing but rebounding?

This was interesting, from a quick Google search. https://www.bsports.com/statsinsights/nfl/why-have-nfl-running-backs-gotten-shorter-a-statistical-investigation#.VEZ21bSlhFI

The main point of the article is that backs are getting shorter because there's more emphasis on passing. Frank Gore is the same height/weight as Ingram and isn't fast either.

Gore had a 4.58 40 yard and Ingram had a 4.62. Very similar comps.

Too bad for Gore he's so short and slow. He might've had a nice career if he was taller and faster...

 

[shadyridr]

How would PIerre's injury NOT benefit INgram... seriuusly?

cadet

 

[rockaction]

Funny, but small and slow aren't a great combination. Your point is taken. That said, why do they measure running backs' heights at the combine if it means nothing but rebounding?

This was interesting, from a quick Google search. https://www.bsports.com/statsinsights/nfl/why-have-nfl-running-backs-gotten-shorter-a-statistical-investigation#.VEZ21bSlhFI

The main point of the article is that backs are getting shorter because there's more emphasis on passing. Frank Gore is the same height/weight as Ingram and isn't fast either.

Yeah, I know. I read it. I wouldn't have posted if I didn't read it. That was my point. If Ingram isn't used in the passing game, and is more of a plodding-type back, where does that leave him, both in terms of football utilization and fantasy utilization?

Funny, but small and slow aren't a great combination. Your point is taken. That said, why do they measure running backs' heights at the combine if it means nothing but rebounding?

This was interesting, from a quick Google search. https://www.bsports.com/statsinsights/nfl/why-have-nfl-running-backs-gotten-shorter-a-statistical-investigation#.VEZ21bSlhFI

The main point of the article is that backs are getting shorter because there's more emphasis on passing. Frank Gore is the same height/weight as Ingram and isn't fast either.

Gore had a 4.58 40 yard and Ingram had a 4.62. Very similar comps.

Too bad for Gore he's so short and slow. He might've had a nice career if he was taller and faster...

Exceptions don't disprove the rule. Whatever Frank Gore has -- and I'd already prepared for this argument -- is uncommon. Just like Barry. Uncommon.

 

[humpback]

How would PIerre's injury NOT benefit INgram... seriuusly?

cadet

Cadet has 4 career carries and zero last week after Thomas went out. He'll get some receptions, but isn't going to take over all of Thomas' role.

 

[Soulfly3]

How would PIerre's injury NOT benefit INgram... seriuusly?

cadet

Cadet has 4 career carries and zero last week after Thomas went out. He'll get some receptions, but isn't going to take over all of Thomas' role.

agreed.

if cadet becomes a serious threat to ingram, ingram needs to retire

 

[TheFanatic]

Funny, but small and slow aren't a great combination. Your point is taken. That said, why do they measure running backs' heights at the combine if it means nothing but rebounding?

This was interesting, from a quick Google search. https://www.bsports.com/statsinsights/nfl/why-have-nfl-running-backs-gotten-shorter-a-statistical-investigation#.VEZ21bSlhFI

The main point of the article is that backs are getting shorter because there's more emphasis on passing. Frank Gore is the same height/weight as Ingram and isn't fast either.

Yeah, I know. I read it. I wouldn't have posted if I didn't read it. That was my point. If Ingram isn't used in the passing game, and is more of a plodding-type back, where does that leave him, both in terms of football utilization and fantasy utilization?

Funny, but small and slow aren't a great combination. Your point is taken. That said, why do they measure running backs' heights at the combine if it means nothing but rebounding?

This was interesting, from a quick Google search. https://www.bsports.com/statsinsights/nfl/why-have-nfl-running-backs-gotten-shorter-a-statistical-investigation#.VEZ21bSlhFI

The main point of the article is that backs are getting shorter because there's more emphasis on passing. Frank Gore is the same height/weight as Ingram and isn't fast either.

Gore had a 4.58 40 yard and Ingram had a 4.62. Very similar comps.

Too bad for Gore he's so short and slow. He might've had a nice career if he was taller and faster...

Exceptions don't disprove the rule. Whatever Frank Gore has -- and I'd already prepared for this argument -- is uncommon. Just like Barry. Uncommon.

And what rule is that, exactly?

 

[rockaction]

Funny, but small and slow aren't a great combination. Your point is taken. That said, why do they measure running backs' heights at the combine if it means nothing but rebounding?

This was interesting, from a quick Google search. https://www.bsports.com/statsinsights/nfl/why-have-nfl-running-backs-gotten-shorter-a-statistical-investigation#.VEZ21bSlhFI

The main point of the article is that backs are getting shorter because there's more emphasis on passing. Frank Gore is the same height/weight as Ingram and isn't fast either.

Yeah, I know. I read it. I wouldn't have posted if I didn't read it. That was my point. If Ingram isn't used in the passing game, and is more of a plodding-type back, where does that leave him, both in terms of football utilization and fantasy utilization?

Funny, but small and slow aren't a great combination. Your point is taken. That said, why do they measure running backs' heights at the combine if it means nothing but rebounding?

This was interesting, from a quick Google search. https://www.bsports.com/statsinsights/nfl/why-have-nfl-running-backs-gotten-shorter-a-statistical-investigation#.VEZ21bSlhFI

The main point of the article is that backs are getting shorter because there's more emphasis on passing. Frank Gore is the same height/weight as Ingram and isn't fast either.

Gore had a 4.58 40 yard and Ingram had a 4.62. Very similar comps.

Too bad for Gore he's so short and slow. He might've had a nice career if he was taller and faster...

Exceptions don't disprove the rule. Whatever Frank Gore has -- and I'd already prepared for this argument -- is uncommon. Just like Barry. Uncommon.

And what rule is that, exactly?

That almost all the HoF backs besides Emmitt and Barry were over 5'9", and that the leading rushers in the sample provided in the article were generally also the same height (the average was probably 5'11"), even though heights for running backs are declining as the years go by and NFL teams are more concerned with receiving backs than pure rushers.

Look, if you want a small, slow guy with "exceptional vision," go ahead. Pick him up and use him accordingly. He looked better this year. I already explained my motive, I'm just not sure that he's that good.

 

[TheFanatic]

Funny, but small and slow aren't a great combination. Your point is taken. That said, why do they measure running backs' heights at the combine if it means nothing but rebounding?

This was interesting, from a quick Google search. https://www.bsports.com/statsinsights/nfl/why-have-nfl-running-backs-gotten-shorter-a-statistical-investigation#.VEZ21bSlhFI

The main point of the article is that backs are getting shorter because there's more emphasis on passing. Frank Gore is the same height/weight as Ingram and isn't fast either.

Yeah, I know. I read it. I wouldn't have posted if I didn't read it. That was my point. If Ingram isn't used in the passing game, and is more of a plodding-type back, where does that leave him, both in terms of football utilization and fantasy utilization?

Funny, but small and slow aren't a great combination. Your point is taken. That said, why do they measure running backs' heights at the combine if it means nothing but rebounding?

This was interesting, from a quick Google search. https://www.bsports.com/statsinsights/nfl/why-have-nfl-running-backs-gotten-shorter-a-statistical-investigation#.VEZ21bSlhFI

The main point of the article is that backs are getting shorter because there's more emphasis on passing. Frank Gore is the same height/weight as Ingram and isn't fast either.

Gore had a 4.58 40 yard and Ingram had a 4.62. Very similar comps.

Too bad for Gore he's so short and slow. He might've had a nice career if he was taller and faster...

Exceptions don't disprove the rule. Whatever Frank Gore has -- and I'd already prepared for this argument -- is uncommon. Just like Barry. Uncommon.

And what rule is that, exactly?

That almost all the HoF backs besides Emmitt and Barry were over 5'9", and that the leading rushers in the sample provided in the article were generally also the same height (the average was probably 5'11"), even though heights for running backs are declining as the years go by and NFL teams are more concerned with receiving backs than pure rushers.

Look, if you want a small, slow guy with "exceptional vision," go ahead. Pick him up and use him accordingly. He looked better this year. I already explained my motive, I'm just not sure that he's that good.

He might not be. But he's better than Toby Gerhart who I traded for him. Even with the injury, I like the trade. And if he's not good, I have Robinson behind him, both for the next three years at the league minimum (salary cap league)

 

[rockaction]

He might not be. But he's better than Toby Gerhart who I traded for him. Even with the injury, I like the trade. And if he's not good, I have Robinson behind him, both for the next three years at the league minimum (salary cap league)

Yes. Yes he is. I like your trade, too. Take my Ingram bashing with a grain of salt. He had started to look better this year. I'm not going to let an intemperate thread bump on my end ruin what could be a nice story for a lot of people.

 

[TheFanatic]

He might not be. But he's better than Toby Gerhart who I traded for him. Even with the injury, I like the trade. And if he's not good, I have Robinson behind him, both for the next three years at the league minimum (salary cap league)

Yes. Yes he is. I like your trade, too. Take my Ingram bashing with a grain of salt. He had started to look better this year. I'm not going to let an intemperate thread bump on my end ruin what could be a nice story for a lot of people.

I like the trade straight up. I gave up a 1st rounder this year and got two 1sts back in the next two years. So I'm happy as a clam.

I was going to drop him into my flex this week, but am going to leave him on the bench. Worried about GB going up big and him relegated to 9 carries or some such.

 

[Big Score]

I don't put a whole lot of stock in the "He's too small to be a good RB" theory ....

Joe Morris - 5'7" - 2 time Pro Bowler & 1 time First-Team All-Pro

Warrick Dunn - 5'9" - 3 time Pro Bowler

Maurice Jones-Drew - 5'8" - 3 time Pro Bowler & 1 time First-Team All-Pro

Stump Mitchell - 5'9"

Ray Rice - 5'9" - 3 time Pro Bowler

Priest Holmes - 5'9" - 3 time Pro Bowler & 3 time First-Team All-Pro

That's some pretty good names and the list goes on....

 

[Otis]

How would PIerre's injury NOT benefit INgram... seriuusly?

Seriously. Really weird speculation in here. Of course it helps Ingram.

 

[Otis]

How would PIerre's injury NOT benefit INgram... seriuusly?

cadet

lol

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

It has no impact on ingram

seemed to have an impact on ingram in the playoffs last year, which is when all this talk about lightbulbs going on and angry running started.

 

[Area51Inhabitant]

I don't put a whole lot of stock in the "He's too small to be a good RB" theory ....

Joe Morris - 5'7" - 2 time Pro Bowler & 1 time First-Team All-Pro

Warrick Dunn - 5'9" - 3 time Pro Bowler

Maurice Jones-Drew - 5'8" - 3 time Pro Bowler & 1 time First-Team All-Pro

Stump Mitchell - 5'9"

Ray Rice - 5'9" - 3 time Pro Bowler

Priest Holmes - 5'9" - 3 time Pro Bowler & 3 time First-Team All-Pro

That's some pretty good names and the list goes on....

Also there's no way that Barry was 5'9" or Thurman was 6'0". Barry was much closer to 5'7" than he was to 5'9" and Thurman might have been 5'10" in cleats.

 

[humpback]

It has no impact on ingram

seemed to have an impact on ingram in the playoffs last year, which is when all this talk about lightbulbs going on and angry running started.

Or just last week, when Ingram had 3 carries in the first 2/3rds of the game with Thomas, and 7 in the last 1/3rd without.

 

[Shutout]

I never, ever drafted this guy. Ever. Did I say never? I meant ever. I've never had him on my team.

eta* Because normally, you want to draft small, slow guys with "exceptional vision" into terrible FF situations.

Don't believe that you have never owned him for a second. You're too butt hurt about this guy to pretend to be impartial on this.

And small, slow guys don't average over 4.7 YPC over two seasons. If you see slow and small (5'9" and 215) then you need new glasses. He may have played slow and small his first two seasons, but something is different from the end of last year, through training camp and into this year.

did he get bigger?

Is 5'9" 215 small? Marshawn Lynch is 215 and Peterson is 217. Lynch is 5'11" and Peterson is 6'1". He's actually thicker than the two of them. He's not tall, but he's not small either.

Never. Ever. And I meant small in height. Small and plodding and thick. Laughed when the Patriots passed on him and they traded down for Vereen and Ridley. They were desperate for an RB at the time, everybody had them picking Ingram, and they traded out of their spot to avoid him.

But I've done this in other threads. IIRC, my top picks in one mock "prove it" were Vereen and Ridley over Ingram. Hey, if Ingram makes your fantasy team work, he makes it work. He's been a crappy back so far.

Does that mean anything at all? Does it hurt his rebounding?

Funny, but small and slow aren't a great combination. Your point is taken. That said, why do they measure running backs' heights at the combine if it means nothing but rebounding?

This was interesting, from a quick Google search. https://www.bsports.com/statsinsights/nfl/why-have-nfl-running-backs-gotten-shorter-a-statistical-investigation#.VEZ21bSlhFI

I think they measure height to put the weight in a little more perspective. Ingram at 5'9" 215 wouldn't be considered small for a RB, but most objective (or subjective) measures.

Why would you think height matters for a RB?

I could see someone making an argument for height mattering in terms of pad level and the ability for the defense to actually see the runner (or conversely, for the runner to actually see the lane or defender).

This probably would be one of those Sports Center science things but I think there absolutely is a sweet spot for height in Rbs in terms of if they are too tall that is obvious and if they are too short, there are problems with leverage as the large men literally snuff you out. But at that right range of height, when a player gets his pad level down in proportion to his angle of his thighs, I think they become much stronger in the push and hard to collapse.

 

[shader]

The assumption that some are using is that Cadet is going to directly replace Thomas 100%. To some degree this has merit. I don't think Ingram is all of a sudden going to get 20 carries a game here. Thomas had 30 carries in 6 games for an average of 5 carries a game. Thomas also has 29 targets in the passing game for an average of 5 per game as well.

I think it's quite fair to think that Cadet will get 5 targets a game. If the Saints decide to give Ingram more carries, it likely will only be 1-3 extra.

If anything, Ingram may be on the field more in the redzone, which may increase his opportunities.

 

[Macdaddy_2004]

The saints aren't winning games - it's time for them to unleash Ingram and a power running attack.

 

[Chaka]

How would PIerre's injury NOT benefit INgram... seriuusly?

I'm starting Robinson this week and think they both should be started.

Not seeing that at all. Robinson is an even more suspect receiver then Ingram.

How would PIerre's injury NOT benefit INgram... seriuusly?

cadet

Gotta agree. Cadet will most likely get the biggest bump. At best I see 2-3 additional touches for Ingram.

 

[rockaction]

I never, ever drafted this guy. Ever. Did I say never? I meant ever. I've never had him on my team.

eta* Because normally, you want to draft small, slow guys with "exceptional vision" into terrible FF situations.

Don't believe that you have never owned him for a second. You're too butt hurt about this guy to pretend to be impartial on this.

And small, slow guys don't average over 4.7 YPC over two seasons. If you see slow and small (5'9" and 215) then you need new glasses. He may have played slow and small his first two seasons, but something is different from the end of last year, through training camp and into this year.

did he get bigger?

Is 5'9" 215 small? Marshawn Lynch is 215 and Peterson is 217. Lynch is 5'11" and Peterson is 6'1". He's actually thicker than the two of them. He's not tall, but he's not small either.

Never. Ever. And I meant small in height. Small and plodding and thick. Laughed when the Patriots passed on him and they traded down for Vereen and Ridley. They were desperate for an RB at the time, everybody had them picking Ingram, and they traded out of their spot to avoid him.

But I've done this in other threads. IIRC, my top picks in one mock "prove it" were Vereen and Ridley over Ingram. Hey, if Ingram makes your fantasy team work, he makes it work. He's been a crappy back so far.

Does that mean anything at all? Does it hurt his rebounding?

Funny, but small and slow aren't a great combination. Your point is taken. That said, why do they measure running backs' heights at the combine if it means nothing but rebounding?

This was interesting, from a quick Google search. https://www.bsports.com/statsinsights/nfl/why-have-nfl-running-backs-gotten-shorter-a-statistical-investigation#.VEZ21bSlhFI

I think they measure height to put the weight in a little more perspective. Ingram at 5'9" 215 wouldn't be considered small for a RB, but most objective (or subjective) measures.

Why would you think height matters for a RB?

You're probably right. But there's also probably a sweet spot for height in running backs, which Shutout seems to have referred to. It certainly seems that most of the top RBs are around that 5'11" mark. That was also my original assumption. And there's not much on the height end that isn't exception. But belaboring this point on my end isn't going to do any good. The proof will be in the pudding, as they say.

 

[Buck Bradcanon]

Feel like we are still chasing ghosts but I keep looking at Car, Chi, and Atl in FF playoffs and hoping something shakes out for Ingram.

 

[cstu]

How would PIerre's injury NOT benefit INgram... seriuusly?

I'm starting Robinson this week and think they both should be started.

Not seeing that at all. Robinson is an even more suspect receiver then Ingram.

Robinson has had 6 targets - he caught 3 of them for 26 yards, two were uncatchable (thrown out of bounds and another hit the ground) and one went through his hands week 1.

 

[humpback]

How would PIerre's injury NOT benefit INgram... seriuusly?

cadet

Gotta agree. Cadet will most likely get the biggest bump. At best I see 2-3 additional touches for Ingram.

Anything's possible, but what is this based on?

 

[Milkman]

How would PIerre's injury NOT benefit INgram... seriuusly?

cadet

Gotta agree. Cadet will most likely get the biggest bump. At best I see 2-3 additional touches for Ingram.

Anything's possible, but what is this based on?

It's based on PT's role in the offense not having much to do with Ingrams + Cadet's targets the last 3 games (20!) + Ingram's lack of involvement in the passing game + the possibility that the Saints are down 21-0 quickly.

 

[Big Score]

It certainly seems that most of the top RBs are around that 5'11" mark. That was also my original assumption. And there's not much on the height end that isn't exception. But belaboring this point on my end isn't going to do any good. The proof will be in the pudding, as they say.

Again

I don't put a whole lot of stock in the "He's too small to be a good RB" theory ....

Joe Morris - 5'7" - 2 time Pro Bowler & 1 time First-Team All-Pro

Warrick Dunn - 5'9" - 3 time Pro Bowler

Maurice Jones-Drew - 5'8" - 3 time Pro Bowler & 1 time First-Team All-Pro

Stump Mitchell - 5'9"

Ray Rice - 5'9" - 3 time Pro Bowler

Priest Holmes - 5'9" - 3 time Pro Bowler & 3 time First-Team All-Pro

That's some pretty good names and the list goes on....

Also there's no way that Barry was 5'9" or Thurman was 6'0". Barry was much closer to 5'7" than he was to 5'9" and Thurman might have been 5'10" in cleats.

 

[humpback]

How would PIerre's injury NOT benefit INgram... seriuusly?

cadet

Gotta agree. Cadet will most likely get the biggest bump. At best I see 2-3 additional touches for Ingram.

Anything's possible, but what is this based on?

It's based on PT's role in the offense not having much to do with Ingrams + Cadet's targets the last 3 games (20!) + Ingram's lack of involvement in the passing game + the possibility that the Saints are down 21-0 quickly.

Pierre has his own role in the offense, but it's basically equal parts Ingram and Cadet. Cadet's already been heavily targeted, and his usage didn't change after Thomas went out while Ingram's did. I agree if they're playing catch up mode, but that's just a guess on how the game goes.

Thomas had 10 touches in ~2/3rd's of a game last week- you think Cadet gets more of those than Ingram?

 

[Milkman]

Ingram is a two down back. Always has been really. Cadet is going to get all the passing down work. Ingram will get 2/3rd of PT's carries and Khiry will get the other 1/3rd. Not sure if Cadet will get any carries or not though maybe a couple.

 

[Chaka]

How would PIerre's injury NOT benefit INgram... seriuusly?

cadet

Gotta agree. Cadet will most likely get the biggest bump. At best I see 2-3 additional touches for Ingram.

Anything's possible, but what is this based on?

It's based on PT's role in the offense not having much to do with Ingrams + Cadet's targets the last 3 games (20!) + Ingram's lack of involvement in the passing game + the possibility that the Saints are down 21-0 quickly.

Pierre has his own role in the offense, but it's basically equal parts Ingram and Cadet. Cadet's already been heavily targeted, and his usage didn't change after Thomas went out while Ingram's did. I agree if they're playing catch up mode, but that's just a guess on how the game goes.

Thomas had 10 touches in ~2/3rd's of a game last week- you think Cadet gets more of those than Ingram?

I think he gets most of the targets and if they want to not be entirely obvious on offense (no guarantee) he'll probably get 2-3 carries as well.

ETA: I might have to upwardly revise my projections for Ingram. He may get 4-6 more opportunites and not 2-3 as I originally said.

 

[Chaka]

Ingram is a two down back. Always has been really. Cadet is going to get all the passing down work. Ingram will get 2/3rd of PT's carries and Khiry will get the other 1/3rd. Not sure if Cadet will get any carries or not though maybe a couple.

I understand that perception but I am not entirely convinced it reflects reality, I don't think he has been anything special as a receiver with a meager 5.9 ypr but he has caught 71% of his targets (30 of 42) which suggests his hands aren't terrible.

 

[Milkman]

I own Ingram and I desperately need him to be a 3 down back for the saints. I mean if he gets 4-5 targets a game and catches 2-3 of them he's a solid RB2 moving forward but the saints have never used him like that. It might be because they have had some really good/elite pass catching RB on the roster ahead of Ingram or it could mean he's just not very good at it. We all have to decide that for ourselves.

GB up big early this week and Cadet's a sneaky start because of it.

 

[Buck Bradcanon]

Khiry Robinson had a hand/forearm something or other Sunday (minor) and missed practice on Wednesday.

 

[Buck Bradcanon]

Unrelated but in today's Top 200 fwd (PPR) Ingram is listed in the top 20 RBs.

 

[Craig_MiamiFL]

Yeah he definitely should be in the Top 20 if healthy. He's one of most talented 10 IMO right now.

Rotation isn't going away, but the Saints backfield as a whole is an underrated fantasy commodity. If the team goes anywhere this season, it'll be on the backs of the RBs and keeping that D off the field. Lucky for them 2-4 in that division still has them in 2nd

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Making his return from a broken hand against the Lions last week, Ingram managed just 16 yards on ten carries. Owners shouldn't have been expecting much against Detroit's second-ranked run defense. Ingram now gets Green Bay's 31st-ranked run D. In addition to the fine matchup, Ingram is likely to see an uptick in carries. Pierre Thomas is expected to miss 2-3 weeks with shoulder and ribs injuries, and Khiry Robinson hurt his finger and forearm against the Lions, forcing him to sit out practice Wednesday. Robinson also lost a fumble in Week 7. The Packers have already given up over 1,000 yards rushing to go along with seven touchdowns. The Green Bay at New Orleans matchup has the highest over-under of the week. Ingram is a top-20 back, yet has the 31st-highest salary at the position on FanDuel.

 

[valhallan]

As mentioned earlier, this totally boils down to whether the Saints can get Green Bay off the field at all early on. Given how atrocious Corey White has been, I'm guessing Rodgers will have him spun around like a top pretty quickly. That's when the Sean Payton passing party will begin.

The Saints need to get the ball first and have a long, methodical run-heavy drive.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

Starting Ingram and Cadet in a two start RB league.

I'm gambling on on a Sunday Night Shootout, in the New Orleans dome where they are always tough, and with their backs to the wall at 2-4. I expect them to come guns blazing.

I figure one of these backs is bound to have a great night and the other maybe not so much. But I can live with the average. Geaux Saints!