Saints use of Mark Ingram borders on criminal (1 Viewer)

[shader]

Look, maybe the guy just flat out sucks. But it absolutely amazes me to see such astounding stupidity on the part of the coaching staff, when it comes to Ingram. Why?

In 2012, Pierre Thomas had 105 rushes. Mark Ingram had 156. So it seems that Ingram was a much bigger part of the offense, right?

No. Pierre Thomas was on the field for 385 snaps in 2012. So 27% of the time Pierre was in the game, they ran the ball.

However, Mark Ingram received only 266 snaps in 2012. Less snaps than Lex Hilliard, William Powell and Donald Brown. Yet in 266 snaps, Ingram received 156 carries. Meaning 59% of the time Ingram was in the game they ran the ball!!!



This makes absolutely no sense to me. Why would you ever give the defense such a clear advantage? "Hey Ingram is in the game, there is a 60% chance they are running here". How easy it must be for defensive coordinators.

I watched all Ingram's carries during week 1. He seems ok to me. Nothing super special, but I still don't see reason why he can't be a solid 1100 yard back on someone's roster. Unfortunately it won't be on the Saints. I get the need to give Sproles and Pierre touches. I get that Ingram hasn't made much of his opportunities. The Saints also won and seem to be doing fine offensively without Ingram.

I dare say Ingram has the highest percentage of runs per snap of any rb in the league with a comparable number of touches. Yet, he still churned out almost 4 ypc.

I don't own him in any leagues, and only care about my him due to two factors:

1. I'm a Bama homer

2. I'm the idiot that said he's make the HOF

But I still am astounded to see such a smart team trot Ingram out there when it's time to run, then bring in Thomas and Sproles when it's time to pass. If they are going to telegraph things so badly, and if Ingram stinks in passing situations, then cut your losses and keep Thomas out there full-time. At least defenses won't know what's coming.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

There's a long Ingram thread, I'm guessing you've seen.

As to the use issue.... sigh.

Well I was very happy when they got Ingram, just what they needed.

In your defense, maybe the worst play of the ATL game, which was nearly all good, was the 4th down play where they lined up with Ingram in the backfield. On the one hand, this is why they got Ingram, for just this play. On the other they communicated what they were doing. The feeling is a QB sneak would have worked (it often has); the feeling before the play was Ingram was in as a decoy. - And of course he badly failed to make the 1st. This was a big play. We have seen this before, dating to Ingram's first game as a rookie; 4th down, game on the line, and he fails to punch it in or leap it over the top vs the Packers. Saints lose instead of winning.

Ingram has to do two things to get playing time: 1. catch the screen and make it work, this is a big part of what the Saints do, and 2. get large running gains, big plays. Until he does one or both of those things there will be no justification for taking Pierre or Sproles out the game. Pierre may still have the franchise all time leading average yards per rush, and Sproles has the NFL total single season combined yards record. These are exellent RBs.

 

[fruity pebbles]

He's a very average runner who gets exactly what is given him so why give him the ball in a high powered offense? It doesn't surprise me they are one dimensional with him in the game, they have better options in the passing game. For the Saints he's the ultimate drive killer. I'm convinced they'd be a better team if they cut him tomorrow. If he had an A+ line and he was fed the ball 25 times a game, he probably could be a decent option but so could any number of guys if they fell into that situation.

 

[Avery]

Is he terrible at pass blocking?

 

[GroveDiesel]

Their usage IS criminal. He should be getting zero carries. He's terrible. Thomas and Sproles are MUCH more dynamic and well rounded backs. Ingram is a plodder with no burst and who is terrible at short yardage work. He's basically BenJarvis-GreenEllis. Any team that would be foolish enough to give him a ton of carries so that he could average 3.5ypc for 1100 yards would deserve to be at the bottom of their standings, which they would be.

 

[Breesisdaman]

For what ever reason whether it be his own fault or that of his blockers when he is in there drives die. He has done nothing with the opportunities he has had. I think he lacks vision and some breakaway speed but he does have power to make up for what he doesn't have in speed. With the same amount of carries Sproles and Thomas are actually producing yards and when push comes to shove thats what matters to the Saints coaching staff. They really couldn't care less about fantasy numbers of Mark Ingram. Personally I think Ingram is a good back but a bad fit for the system the Saints run. Put him in Houston and he would tear it up. The thing that kills me is that the Saints spent two #1 draft picks to acquire him in the draft.

 

[JMJ]

This makes absolutely no sense to me. Why would you ever give the defense such a clear advantage? "Hey Ingram is in the game, there is a 60% chance they are running here". How easy it must be for defensive coordinators.

I bet you this makes play action passes extremely effective when he is in the game, and Drew Brees is still how their bread gets buttered.

 

[lod01]

square peg meets round hole. It will never work for Ingram in N.O.

 

[zed2283]

This is the same coaching staff that criminally misused Reggie Bush for years too, so no surprise.

 

[GroveDiesel]

For what ever reason whether it be his own fault or that of his blockers when he is in there drives die. He has done nothing with the opportunities he has had. I think he lacks vision and some breakaway speed but he does have power to make up for what he doesn't have in speed. With the same amount of carries Sproles and Thomas are actually producing yards and when push comes to shove thats what matters to the Saints coaching staff. They really couldn't care less about fantasy numbers of Mark Ingram. Personally I think Ingram is a good back but a bad fit for the system the Saints run. Put him in Houston and he would tear it up. The thing that kills me is that the Saints spent two #1 draft picks to acquire him in the draft.

If he lacks vision, he would be terrible in Houston. That zone blocking scheme requires great vision to be able to find the cut back lane.

 

[EBF]

Knowshon Ingram

 

[Time Kibitzer]

Your 59% statistic doesn't mean a tonne without context. It needs to be compared to the same statistic of other RBs to have much relevance.

 

[Papa Georgio]

I don't own Ingram and you are going to get a lot of grief from people saying you are trying to justify his poor performances. I however find the way the RB's in general are done in NO is a disservice to the position but especially to Ingram. When he is in, you know what 3-4 plays are coming. Like you said maybe he sucks, maybe his skill set only allows for that but if so just don't play him at all. It's almost like at the end of the game when a team is in clock killing mode. "OK we are going to run here, lets see if you can stop us"

I would love to see a game or 2 where the play calling was more creative with him in and he would be in for several series in a row just so once an for all everyone would know if it's him or the system. I tend to think it's a bit of both.

 

[fruity pebbles]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujIDbn2mwtc&feature=youtu.be

Here's all of his carries yesterday. Take from it what you will. The last carry is particularly troubling for me. Nice wide lane, most good rbs score on that play. Safety comes out of nowhere and runs Ingram down with ease.

 

[pollardsvision]

The solution is to give Pierre almost all of Ingram's snaps and carries.

 

[shader]

Their usage IS criminal. He should be getting zero carries. He's terrible. Thomas and Sproles are MUCH more dynamic and well rounded backs. Ingram is a plodder with no burst and who is terrible at short yardage work. He's basically BenJarvis-GreenEllis. Any team that would be foolish enough to give him a ton of carries so that he could average 3.5ypc for 1100 yards would deserve to be at the bottom of their standings, which they would be.

Considering he has 3.9 ypc in his career playing on obvious running downs, I'd make the case that he could do much better if he had all the looks on passing and running downs.

 

[gzilla]

Look, maybe the guy just flat out sucks. But it absolutely amazes me to see such astounding stupidity on the part of the coaching staff, when it comes to Ingram. Why?

In 2012, Pierre Thomas had 105 rushes. Mark Ingram had 156. So it seems that Ingram was a much bigger part of the offense, right?

No. Pierre Thomas was on the field for 385 snaps in 2012. So 27% of the time Pierre was in the game, they ran the ball.

However, Mark Ingram received only 266 snaps in 2012. Less snaps than Lex Hilliard, William Powell and Donald Brown. Yet in 266 snaps, Ingram received 156 carries. Meaning 59% of the time Ingram was in the game they ran the ball!!!



This makes absolutely no sense to me. Why would you ever give the defense such a clear advantage? "Hey Ingram is in the game, there is a 60% chance they are running here". How easy it must be for defensive coordinators.

I watched all Ingram's carries during week 1. He seems ok to me. Nothing super special, but I still don't see reason why he can't be a solid 1100 yard back on someone's roster. Unfortunately it won't be on the Saints. I get the need to give Sproles and Pierre touches. I get that Ingram hasn't made much of his opportunities. The Saints also won and seem to be doing fine offensively without Ingram.

I dare say Ingram has the highest percentage of runs per snap of any rb in the league with a comparable number of touches. Yet, he still churned out almost 4 ypc.

I don't own him in any leagues, and only care about my him due to two factors:

1. I'm a Bama homer

2. I'm the idiot that said he's make the HOF

But I still am astounded to see such a smart team trot Ingram out there when it's time to run, then bring in Thomas and Sproles when it's time to pass. If they are going to telegraph things so badly, and if Ingram stinks in passing situations, then cut your losses and keep Thomas out there full-time. At least defenses won't know what's coming.

He has below average vision. That should tell you everything you need to know.

Given the same number of carries, Pierre Thomas will outperform him consistently.

The only reason Ingram is on the team is because of the investment the Saints made to acquire him. He is a bust.

 

[SameSongNDance]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujIDbn2mwtc&feature=youtu.be

Here's all of his carries yesterday. Take from it what you will. The last carry is particularly troubling for me. Nice wide lane, most good rbs score on that play. Safety comes out of nowhere and runs Ingram down with ease.

ATL was getting pretty decent penetration and Ingram looked rather mediocre per usual. Add them together and you get a 9/11/0 stat line.

 

[ponchsox]

What did you expect? Too many mouths to feed on a passing team. Sproles has always been the only RB with true value. Thomas was good for a year or two maybe.

 

[shader]

Your 59% statistic doesn't mean a tonne without context. It needs to be compared to the same statistic of other RBs to have much relevance.

Good point. Perhaps I'll do that tomorrow. But I did show the difference in him an Pierre. I'd say the difference is a huge reason why he doesn't find running room. Defenses know he's going to run.

 

[EBF]

He can be a Shonn Greene/Cedric Benson/BJGE on the right team. Don't think it will ever happen for him in NO though.

 

[LargeMouthBass]

If you want to go few years back, I thought they miss used Reggie Bush.

 

[gzilla]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujIDbn2mwtc&feature=youtu.be

Here's all of his carries yesterday. Take from it what you will. The last carry is particularly troubling for me. Nice wide lane, most good rbs score on that play. Safety comes out of nowhere and runs Ingram down with ease.

Watch his footwork in the backfield. He takes a stutter step even on plays where there is a defined cutback lane. That is death in the NFL. You have to be able to put your foot down and transition into a cut without taking that extra half step.

It is not physical. He doesn't see the hole until it is too late. It cannot be fixed.

Maybe he would do better in a system that consistently utilized a fullback. But, in the Saints offense, he's worthless.

 

[stbugs]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujIDbn2mwtc&feature=youtu.be

Here's all of his carries yesterday. Take from it what you will. The last carry is particularly troubling for me. Nice wide lane, most good rbs score on that play. Safety comes out of nowhere and runs Ingram down with ease.

Watch his footwork in the backfield. He takes a stutter step even on plays where there is a defined cutback lane. That is death in the NFL. You have to be able to put your foot down and transition into a cut without taking that extra half step.

It is not physical. He doesn't see the hole until it is too late. It cannot be fixed.

Maybe he would do better in a system that consistently utilized a fullback. But, in the Saints offense, he's worthless.

Yeah, he only had 1 carry where he got hit in the backfield and made a guy miss. He had at least 3 good sized holes where he ran into his lineman, tripped and somehow went 3 yards before getting hit by a safety 10-15 yards off the ball. I didn't see a single carry where it looked like he hit a hole hard and too advantage of an opportunity or made something out of nothing.

Also, you mention a fullback, he had one on at least one carry. I didn't see pay attention to the others, but most plays I counted 7 in the box and even when there were 8, it was obvious that the 8th guy was over the TE and going to cover the TE if it was a pass.

As stated above, I think they should never give him the ball. I think giving all his carries to a split of Thomas and Sproles would be the best for their offense. It reminded me of Lacy (who already looks light years better on a pass first offense, even though he wasn't great) yesterday on a drive where GB tried to force two runs in and then they didn't convert on a 3rd and long. All 9 for 11 did was kill drives for NO and help keep the Falcons within a TD at the end.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujIDbn2mwtc&feature=youtu.be

Here's all of his carries yesterday. Take from it what you will. The last carry is particularly troubling for me. Nice wide lane, most good rbs score on that play. Safety comes out of nowhere and runs Ingram down with ease.

The most disappointing is at 1:10 as he finally seems to have a seam ... and he trips.

Also a good cutback on that play could have been very productive.

On the 4th down play, which was nearly the difference in the game, at about 00:08, it looks to me like the FB Jed Collins should have been helping out Jahri Evans on his block, and if he had done that Ingram could have sprung for the 1st down. Now maybe what Collins did was his assignment, but then I have complaints about the FB blocking even though Collins is pretty popular generally. I think Collins is there more for his receving skills than his blocking ability.

 

[Keith Lewis]

Ingram is a poor mans Beanie Wells. I'd cut Ingram pronto and bring in the Beanie.

 

[jmo87usc]

Look, maybe the guy just flat out sucks. But it absolutely amazes me to see such astounding stupidity on the part of the coaching staff, when it comes to Ingram. Why?

In 2012, Pierre Thomas had 105 rushes. Mark Ingram had 156. So it seems that Ingram was a much bigger part of the offense, right?

No. Pierre Thomas was on the field for 385 snaps in 2012. So 27% of the time Pierre was in the game, they ran the ball.

However, Mark Ingram received only 266 snaps in 2012. Less snaps than Lex Hilliard, William Powell and Donald Brown. Yet in 266 snaps, Ingram received 156 carries. Meaning 59% of the time Ingram was in the game they ran the ball!!!



This makes absolutely no sense to me. Why would you ever give the defense such a clear advantage? "Hey Ingram is in the game, there is a 60% chance they are running here". How easy it must be for defensive coordinators.

I watched all Ingram's carries during week 1. He seems ok to me. Nothing super special, but I still don't see reason why he can't be a solid 1100 yard back on someone's roster. Unfortunately it won't be on the Saints. I get the need to give Sproles and Pierre touches. I get that Ingram hasn't made much of his opportunities. The Saints also won and seem to be doing fine offensively without Ingram.

I dare say Ingram has the highest percentage of runs per snap of any rb in the league with a comparable number of touches. Yet, he still churned out almost 4 ypc.

I don't own him in any leagues, and only care about my him due to two factors:

1. I'm a Bama homer

2. I'm the idiot that said he's make the HOF

But I still am astounded to see such a smart team trot Ingram out there when it's time to run, then bring in Thomas and Sproles when it's time to pass. If they are going to telegraph things so badly, and if Ingram stinks in passing situations, then cut your losses and keep Thomas out there full-time. At least defenses won't know what's coming.

If the defense knows there is a 59% chance of a run with Ingram, doesn't that also mean there is a 41% chance of a pass? With Drew Brees at QB, that doesn't sound like defenses are able to just stack the box every time Ingram is in.

Without analyzing game film or knowing that much about Ingram, I see Thomas got 48 yards out of his 9 carries yesterday and Ingram got 11 out of his 9 carries. Even if the defense brings all 11 guys at you every play, a starting NFL RB should be able to avg at least 2 yards per carry.

And the Saints won the game which I am sure is what Sean Payton really cares about. Doesn't seem like game planning around Ingram is a concern.

 

[Craig_MiamiFL]

He's improved as a runner. Still not as good as Thomas.

JMO They should have already dealt him. Cedric Benson is good comp in right situation that'll give him 15+ carries/game.

 

[mbuehner]

About time somebody told the Saints how to run an offense. Theyre never gonna beat the Falcons playing like that...

 

[Hoosier16]

However, Mark Ingram received only 266 snaps in 2012. Less snaps than Lex Hilliard, William Powell and Donald Brown. Yet in 266 snaps, Ingram received 156 carries. Meaning 59% of the time Ingram was in the game they ran the ball!!!

You left out the 10 times he was run blocking so it's actually 63%.

 

[GregR]

Look, maybe the guy just flat out sucks. But it absolutely amazes me to see such astounding stupidity on the part of the coaching staff, when it comes to Ingram. Why?

In 2012, Pierre Thomas had 105 rushes. Mark Ingram had 156. So it seems that Ingram was a much bigger part of the offense, right?

No. Pierre Thomas was on the field for 385 snaps in 2012. So 27% of the time Pierre was in the game, they ran the ball.

However, Mark Ingram received only 266 snaps in 2012. Less snaps than Lex Hilliard, William Powell and Donald Brown. Yet in 266 snaps, Ingram received 156 carries. Meaning 59% of the time Ingram was in the game they ran the ball!!!

...

I didn't watch the Saints closely enough to speak of his usage from direct observation.

But just skimming his and the team stats... 70% of his carries came on first down. 75% of them came on 7 yards or more to go. He only had 12 carries on 3rd down, and all but one of them were 3rd and 1 carries.

The team ran the ball 52% of the time on first down. They only ran it 26% of the time on second down.

Suggests to me that he didn't fit into their passing game very much, so I'd expect he's probably going to be in on plays that are running down and distance and the defense would expect a run to be more likely whether he's in or not.

 

[Hoosier16]

Your 59% statistic doesn't mean a tonne without context. It needs to be compared to the same statistic of other RBs to have much relevance.

Good point. Perhaps I'll do that tomorrow. But I did show the difference in him an Pierre. I'd say the difference is a huge reason why he doesn't find running room. Defenses know he's going to run.

The percentage for Ivory was nearly 70% over the last 2 years.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Your 59% statistic doesn't mean a tonne without context. It needs to be compared to the same statistic of other RBs to have much relevance.

Good point. Perhaps I'll do that tomorrow. But I did show the difference in him an Pierre. I'd say the difference is a huge reason why he doesn't find running room. Defenses know he's going to run.

As someone mentioned, 60/40 when Drew Brees is back there isn't going to allow defenses to sell out run. I'm sure they'd rather defend a 3ypc plodder with 6 in the box 60% of the time than try and cover the pass against Brees with no safeties 40% of the time.

And as someone else already mentioned as well, the run % was even higher when Ivory was in there and he didn't have any of the same struggles.

Ingram is just not an above average runner. Pierre Thomas is better at blocking, catching, and running.

 

[fruity pebbles]

Your 59% statistic doesn't mean a tonne without context. It needs to be compared to the same statistic of other RBs to have much relevance.

Good point. Perhaps I'll do that tomorrow. But I did show the difference in him an Pierre. I'd say the difference is a huge reason why he doesn't find running room. Defenses know he's going to run.

As someone mentioned, 60/40 when Drew Brees is back there isn't going to allow defenses to sell out run. I'm sure they'd rather defend a 3ypc plodder with 6 in the box 60% of the time than try and cover the pass against Brees with no safeties 40% of the time.

And as someone else already mentioned as well, the run % was even higher when Ivory was in there and he didn't have any of the same struggles.

Ingram is just not an above average runner. Pierre Thomas is better at blocking, catching, and running.

Seriously. Nobody is game planning for Ingram. Nobody is stacking the line when he's in there because the Saints have a highly probability of running. I'm sure teams love to see him in the backfield.

 

[az_prof]

square peg meets round hole. It will never work for Ingram in N.O.

They should move him to NYG or Pitt for a 4th or 5th round pick.

 

[ILUVBEER99]

Your 59% statistic doesn't mean a tonne without context. It needs to be compared to the same statistic of other RBs to have much relevance.

Good point. Perhaps I'll do that tomorrow. But I did show the difference in him an Pierre. I'd say the difference is a huge reason why he doesn't find running room. Defenses know he's going to run.

As someone mentioned, 60/40 when Drew Brees is back there isn't going to allow defenses to sell out run. I'm sure they'd rather defend a 3ypc plodder with 6 in the box 60% of the time than try and cover the pass against Brees with no safeties 40% of the time.

And as someone else already mentioned as well, the run % was even higher when Ivory was in there and he didn't have any of the same struggles.

Ingram is just not an above average runner. Pierre Thomas is better at blocking, catching, and running.

Seriously. Nobody is game planning for Ingram. Nobody is stacking the line when he's in there because the Saints have a highly probability of running. I'm sure teams love to see him in the backfield.

It blows my mind that some people think defenses sell out to stop the almighty Ingram.

He is not good, he's not even adequate.

 

[Breesisdaman]

square peg meets round hole. It will never work for Ingram in N.O.

They should move him to NYG or Pitt for a 4th or 5th round pick.

I would be thrilled to get a 4th for Ingram at this point.

 

[PatsWillWin]

Your 59% statistic doesn't mean a tonne without context. It needs to be compared to the same statistic of other RBs to have much relevance.

Good point. Perhaps I'll do that tomorrow. But I did show the difference in him an Pierre. I'd say the difference is a huge reason why he doesn't find running room. Defenses know he's going to run.

I don't get your premise. They run 60% of the time when he's in the game. Okay. So what? That still leaves a 40% chance that they pass. Do you think defenses sell out and put 8 in the box when Ingram comes on the field? Against Drew Brees?

Plus, as the other poster said, I have no idea if 59% is supposed to be high or low. It's lower than Thomas, which makes sense, since Thomas is a much better receiver. These numbers are just floating around with no context.

Using my eyes, Ingram is an average runner, at best.

 

[shader]

Your 59% statistic doesn't mean a tonne without context. It needs to be compared to the same statistic of other RBs to have much relevance.

Good point. Perhaps I'll do that tomorrow. But I did show the difference in him an Pierre. I'd say the difference is a huge reason why he doesn't find running room. Defenses know he's going to run.

I don't get your premise. They run 60% of the time when he's in the game. Okay. So what? That still leaves a 40% chance that they pass. Do you think defenses sell out and put 8 in the box when Ingram comes on the field? Against Drew Brees?

Plus, as the other poster said, I have no idea if 59% is supposed to be high or low. It's lower than Thomas, which makes sense, since Thomas is a much better receiver. These numbers are just floating around with no context.

Using my eyes, Ingram is an average runner, at best.

The point is not that his presence makes teams go 8 in the box. But the Saints telegraph what they are going to do when putting Ingram in the game. If you notice, the point of the original post is that not only is this bad for Ingram, but non-sensical for the Saints.

I think they would actually be better off just leaving Thomas and Sproles out there full-time, which would keep defenses off balance the entire game.

 

[Statorama]

Watch his footwork in the backfield. He takes a stutter step even on plays where there is a defined cutback lane. That is death in the NFL. You have to be able to put your foot down and transition into a cut without taking that extra half step.

It is not physical. He doesn't see the hole until it is too late. It cannot be fixed.

Maybe he would do better in a system that consistently utilized a fullback. But, in the Saints offense, he's worthless.

This is a pretty accurate assessment.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Your 59% statistic doesn't mean a tonne without context. It needs to be compared to the same statistic of other RBs to have much relevance.

Good point. Perhaps I'll do that tomorrow. But I did show the difference in him an Pierre. I'd say the difference is a huge reason why he doesn't find running room. Defenses know he's going to run.

I don't get your premise. They run 60% of the time when he's in the game. Okay. So what? That still leaves a 40% chance that they pass. Do you think defenses sell out and put 8 in the box when Ingram comes on the field? Against Drew Brees?

Plus, as the other poster said, I have no idea if 59% is supposed to be high or low. It's lower than Thomas, which makes sense, since Thomas is a much better receiver. These numbers are just floating around with no context.

Using my eyes, Ingram is an average runner, at best.

The point is not that his presence makes teams go 8 in the box. But the Saints telegraph what they are going to do when putting Ingram in the game. If you notice, the point of the original post is that not only is this bad for Ingram, but non-sensical for the Saints.

I think they would actually be better off just leaving Thomas and Sproles out there full-time, which would keep defenses off balance the entire game.

The point is that no, they don't. No competent defensive coordinator is going to put 8 in the box to stop a guy that can't gain any yards anyway when there's a 40% chance that they're going to end up stuck with 8 in the box on a play where Drew Brees is passing.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

Look, maybe the guy just flat out sucks. But it absolutely amazes me to see such astounding stupidity on the part of the coaching staff, when it comes to Ingram. Why?

In 2012, Pierre Thomas had 105 rushes. Mark Ingram had 156. So it seems that Ingram was a much bigger part of the offense, right?

No. Pierre Thomas was on the field for 385 snaps in 2012. So 27% of the time Pierre was in the game, they ran the ball.

However, Mark Ingram received only 266 snaps in 2012. Less snaps than Lex Hilliard, William Powell and Donald Brown. Yet in 266 snaps, Ingram received 156 carries. Meaning 59% of the time Ingram was in the game they ran the ball!!!



This makes absolutely no sense to me. Why would you ever give the defense such a clear advantage? "Hey Ingram is in the game, there is a 60% chance they are running here". How easy it must be for defensive coordinators.

I watched all Ingram's carries during week 1. He seems ok to me. Nothing super special, but I still don't see reason why he can't be a solid 1100 yard back on someone's roster. Unfortunately it won't be on the Saints. I get the need to give Sproles and Pierre touches. I get that Ingram hasn't made much of his opportunities. The Saints also won and seem to be doing fine offensively without Ingram.

I dare say Ingram has the highest percentage of runs per snap of any rb in the league with a comparable number of touches. Yet, he still churned out almost 4 ypc.

I don't own him in any leagues, and only care about my him due to two factors:

1. I'm a Bama homer

2. I'm the idiot that said he's make the HOF

But I still am astounded to see such a smart team trot Ingram out there when it's time to run, then bring in Thomas and Sproles when it's time to pass. If they are going to telegraph things so badly, and if Ingram stinks in passing situations, then cut your losses and keep Thomas out there full-time. At least defenses won't know what's coming.

 

[Zigg]

Just a horrible draft pick. A pass oriented team which benefits from dual threat backs, trades up to pick a power back. Even if he turned out to be a great player, it still doesn't make sense. Not to mention the desperate need at other positions, and their ability to find undrafted gems(Thomas, Bell, Ivory), it just made no sense at the time, and no sense now.

 

[ThePittbully]

For what ever reason whether it be his own fault or that of his blockers when he is in there drives die. He has done nothing with the opportunities he has had. I think he lacks vision and some breakaway speed but he does have power to make up for what he doesn't have in speed. With the same amount of carries Sproles and Thomas are actually producing yards and when push comes to shove thats what matters to the Saints coaching staff. They really couldn't care less about fantasy numbers of Mark Ingram. Personally I think Ingram is a good back but a bad fit for the system the Saints run. Put him in Houston and he would tear it up. The thing that kills me is that the Saints spent two #1 draft picks to acquire him in the draft.

If he lacks vision, he would be terrible in Houston. That zone blocking scheme requires great vision to be able to find the cut back lane.

Saints now run a zone block run scheme. It was painful to watch him from the stands Sunday, their were definitely a few plays where the cut back lane was there and he just never took it.

 

[ThePittbully]

Watch his footwork in the backfield. He takes a stutter step even on plays where there is a defined cutback lane. That is death in the NFL. You have to be able to put your foot down and transition into a cut without taking that extra half step.

It is not physical. He doesn't see the hole until it is too late. It cannot be fixed.

Maybe he would do better in a system that consistently utilized a fullback. But, in the Saints offense, he's worthless.

This is a pretty accurate assessment.

Dead on

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Fwiw, in 2012 the Saints rank 6th in carries down the middle (center & guards). They actually ranked 3rd in power running, that's % success on 3rd-4th down gaining 1st down or TD, and runs of 1st/2nd & goal gaining TD. (FO). This is what they want him for.

There's more here than the obvious I guess, big picture stuff. However the bottom line is Ingram has never had the cutback ability since day 1, ZBS or no. Some of his runs to the outside remind me of the same sort of thing that used to happen to the much faster Bush, just getting strung out. People said the same thing about Bush, too much stuttering, no decisiveness. Polar opposite kinds of rushers but the same problems. Like Bush Ingram is serving a purpose, like Bush he may go on to other teams that draw out his (FF) skill set in different ways. But the Saints wouldn't have him in there if he wasn't helping them win. It would be nice to think of what a truly great RB would do in this offense, who knows what would be possible, but then that would probably take two 1st round picks to get someone like that.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Your 59% statistic doesn't mean a tonne without context. It needs to be compared to the same statistic of other RBs to have much relevance.

Good point. Perhaps I'll do that tomorrow. But I did show the difference in him an Pierre. I'd say the difference is a huge reason why he doesn't find running room. Defenses know he's going to run.

I don't get your premise. They run 60% of the time when he's in the game. Okay. So what? That still leaves a 40% chance that they pass. Do you think defenses sell out and put 8 in the box when Ingram comes on the field? Against Drew Brees?

Plus, as the other poster said, I have no idea if 59% is supposed to be high or low. It's lower than Thomas, which makes sense, since Thomas is a much better receiver. These numbers are just floating around with no context.

Using my eyes, Ingram is an average runner, at best.

The point is not that his presence makes teams go 8 in the box. But the Saints telegraph what they are going to do when putting Ingram in the game. If you notice, the point of the original post is that not only is this bad for Ingram, but non-sensical for the Saints.

I think they would actually be better off just leaving Thomas and Sproles out there full-time, which would keep defenses off balance the entire game.

59% v. 41% - doesn't seem to be quite the tip off that you keep stubbornly trying to make it out to be.

 

[Hybrid]

I don't understand why the word average is being thrown around so much. For a starting running back, he's bad.

 

[shader]

Just a horrible draft pick. A pass oriented team which benefits from dual threat backs, trades up to pick a power back. Even if he turned out to be a great player, it still doesn't make sense. Not to mention the desperate need at other positions, and their ability to find undrafted gems(Thomas, Bell, Ivory), it just made no sense at the time, and no sense now.

I agree...It was a horrible draft pick

 

[DocHolliday]

I cannot believe anyone actually thinks Ingram is good and would be defending him. No stats can back up that claim. None.