This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
.
I really don't know. Saw the blurb and thought it may be relevant here. Perhaps some NO homers can shed more light. I do expect all the RBs to be involved but to what extent I haven't a clue. It seems to me Ingram will get first crack and probably be the most fantasy relevant.
Hell, grab all three. The price is low, and odds are good you're walking away with at least one fantasy starter and one decent flex.
sure, why not -- it's only 3 roster spots and 3 picks, and then all I have to do is figure out which one to play on which week.
Clarity on which one to play should emerge pretty early in the season. And is burning three (late) draft picks and three roster spots in order to get two startable fantasy backs really a bad success rate? By FBGs' last ADP update, Thomas/Khiry/Ingram are being drafted 80th, 115th, and 143rd. That's a 7th, a 10th, and a 12th. If I used those three picks and they yielded, say, RB18 and RB26, I'd be pretty happy with that outcome.
I did this last year... And it worked. Why not do it again!
Thomas is signed for $2.2M and $2.1M in 2015/16. Next year's salary is 90% guaranteed so he should be on the team.
This is pretty solid analysis that shows the sum of the NO backfield contributions adds up to quite a lot. But the average of 1.5 top 24 RBs - I feel like that's a list that includes Bush, Sproles, Thomas, Bush again, Thomas again, Sproles again, etc.
No worries, just pointing out that he's not in the under-valued RB40+ range anymore.guys who run like their pissed and who also happen to be pedigreed heisman trophy winning national champions and 1st round picks whom they (NO mgmt) MUST see what they got = guy i target in offseason. Im actually cooking up a evans/ingram for cobb counter now for you CSTU, just haven't decided if i want to hit submit yet
I posted somewhere that Thomas was a top 10 RB over a period of about a year and a half when he was healthy and before they drafted Ingram. It's a big reason why I'm high on Khiry if Ingram leaves next year.
It's a great strategy in a draft masters format but a lot less appealing to me in leagues you've got to submit a lineup.
This sounds great on paper, but I can't help but think that by employing this strategy will leave me banging my head on my keyboard each week trying to decide whom to start, at least until injury/attrition strikes.
It's the price you pay for loading up on stud WR's and TE's. No roster is perfect. You choose your weaknesses and hope to win despite them.
It's probably not also a coincidence that McAllister (and Stecker in 2007) were the last two backs who didn't split time with two different receiving backs (Pierre and Bush at first, Pierre and Sproles later). I don't know if that's a coincidence or not. I guess it comes down to a chicken-or-egg question- did New Orleans throw a ton of passes to its RBs because Sproles, Thomas, and Bush were such superlative receivers they demanded the targets, or did New Orleans' offense call for a ton of passes to RBs and those guys were just the primary beneficiaries. If it's the former, then there's a decent chance the New Orleans RBs disappoint this year (or, alternately, that Thomas thrives because of the lack of competition for receptions and puts up another 70+ catches). If it's the latter, then Ingram and Robinson will naturally see their targets rise, and their fantasy value along with it.
I think Bush and Bell are both every week starts unless and until we receiving information to the contrary, and I think clarity will probably emerge from New Orleans' backfield pretty early on. We'll know within a couple of weeks whether Ingram and/or Robinson are seeing their targets rise, or whether Pierre is still gobbling up all of the receptions.
I also can foresee the problem where you take the first NO back and then your leaguemates jump on at least one of the other two before you pick again. Then if you picked the wrong one, you're out of luck...
This unfortunately is the truth, Payton is RBBC all day long on a whim. Last year "seemed: like a great year for Ingram too, guess who got burnt on that one
. If you got a RB4 spot open and hes sitting there then I'd pull the trigger for the upside but thats about it.
They might not emphasize the run, but they sure as heck emphasize passing to RBs. Since 2002, only two coaches have given 180 targets to their RBs. Andy Reid did it once. Sean Payton did it five times.
I counted 10, but I was counting by hand and probably missed some, so I defer to you on the target total.
This would be completely contrary to every other year of Ingram in a Saints uniform. Not saying you're absolutely wrong, but history isn't on your side.
It's premised on the idea that they have to for the reason you state, because being predictable cost them last year, falling to 10th in scoring and what happened in some key losses. They were not one dimensional in the past with Bush and McAllister, and I believe they want to get back to that. Ingram is likely going to be the "starter" to the extent that means he is going to be the primary back. I just think something has to change there. If he's going to be in for 1st and 2nd downs more they will be throwing to him more, and I don't believe Payton will allow the offense to fall into the situation of being predictable. See the PHI and SEA playoff games last year as examples. Now one problem with Ingram is that he doesn't catch the ball particularly well or do many things in the way of patterns. In any event the basic premise here is that everyone is expecting a lot of Ingram and Robinson in there on 1st and 2nd downs this year and though he may do less of it Payton isn't going to abandon the RB passing game, which historically he has heavily relied upon since the beginning. So if Ingram is indeed going to be in there he is going to be getting some targets.
yeah, and how many balls do you expect ingram to catch?
It is true that Mark Ingram has not been very involved in the passing game in the past. Is this because Mark Ingram is a bad receiver? Or is this because, with two exceptional receiving backs already on the roster in Pierre Thomas and Darren Sproles, New Orleans didn't really need Ingram to be involved in the passing game? If it's the former, then Ingram's probably not going to be a top-24 RB in PPR leagues this year. If it's the latter, then it means Ingram probably will be a top-24 RB in PPR leagues this year. Like I said, the sample is tiny, but it's encouraging that Ingram got 6 targets in the playoffs with Pierre Thomas out. It's encouraging that New Orleans threw a ton to its RBs in the first preseason game with Sproles gone and Thomas out. Mark Ingram had 60 receptions in college at 11.2 yards per reception. There's reason to believe that Ingram might well be more involved in the passing game this year. If he is, he's a steal at his current ADP. If he's not... well, his current ADP is pretty dang cheap, and most of the guys in that range are going to be big disappointments. I think Ingram represents strong value at his current cost.
Probably for the same reason that people believe that Khiry Robinson will be the main beneficiary (even though he has zero receptions in the NFL and we know very little about him from college) because they want to see that.
If he blows up, probably low. I don't think they're willing to commit big dollars to the position.
In preseason last year and in highlight reels, I thought Khiry looked good catching the ball. I've never thought that about Ingram. I may be way off base, but my eye test tells me Khiry is the better receiver. Possibly much better.
I'm not unrealistic. One part of reality is that a 10th place in scoring is the suck for this team.
This.
why?
