What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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!

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

My original post was never meant to defend Ingram's mediocrity. I haven't touched him in fantasy football for 2 years, as I quickly saw the writing on the wall from a fantasy perspective after his rookie season.

However, I think many of you are severely downplaying the bad results that come from Ingram's usage, and the affect that it may have on the Saints and on Ingram as a runner.

When Pierre is in the game, again, there is only a 27% chance that the Saints will run the ball.

When Ingram is in the game, that percentage skyrockets to 59%. I'm shocked that so many of you think this is a non-issue.

No, teams aren't going to put 8 in the box to stop Ingram, so he should be able to do better than his career 3.9ypc average.

BUT, that doesn't mean that teams aren't more prepared for the run. Putting 8 in the box is not the only way a defense prepares for the run.

The NFL is all about tendencies. When defenses can find a tendency, they try to exploit it.

It would appear to me that the Saints would be better off lowering the run to pass ratio when Ingram is in the game, and raising it when Pierre is in the game. When Pierre is in the game, defenses can sell out to stop the pass, and maybe that was part of the reason Brees had so many int's last year, and the offense didn't click at it's usual rate, who knows.

Maybe the Saints don't care if teams know whether it's a pass or a run. I'll be interested to see if these numbers change much with SP running the show.

 
My original post was never meant to defend Ingram's mediocrity. I haven't touched him in fantasy football for 2 years, as I quickly saw the writing on the wall from a fantasy perspective after his rookie season.

However, I think many of you are severely downplaying the bad results that come from Ingram's usage, and the affect that it may have on the Saints and on Ingram as a runner.

When Pierre is in the game, again, there is only a 27% chance that the Saints will run the ball.

When Ingram is in the game, that percentage skyrockets to 59%. I'm shocked that so many of you think this is a non-issue.

No, teams aren't going to put 8 in the box to stop Ingram, so he should be able to do better than his career 3.9ypc average.

BUT, that doesn't mean that teams aren't more prepared for the run. Putting 8 in the box is not the only way a defense prepares for the run.

The NFL is all about tendencies. When defenses can find a tendency, they try to exploit it.

It would appear to me that the Saints would be better off lowering the run to pass ratio when Ingram is in the game, and raising it when Pierre is in the game. When Pierre is in the game, defenses can sell out to stop the pass, and maybe that was part of the reason Brees had so many int's last year, and the offense didn't click at it's usual rate, who knows.

Maybe the Saints don't care if teams know whether it's a pass or a run. I'll be interested to see if these numbers change much with SP running the show.
How do you explain how Ivory was still very successful when they were running 70% of the time he was in the game?I agree they should throw more when he's in the game simply because I'd rather have 8y/a rather than 4ypc.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
My original post was never meant to defend Ingram's mediocrity. I haven't touched him in fantasy football for 2 years, as I quickly saw the writing on the wall from a fantasy perspective after his rookie season.

However, I think many of you are severely downplaying the bad results that come from Ingram's usage, and the affect that it may have on the Saints and on Ingram as a runner.

When Pierre is in the game, again, there is only a 27% chance that the Saints will run the ball.

When Ingram is in the game, that percentage skyrockets to 59%. I'm shocked that so many of you think this is a non-issue.

No, teams aren't going to put 8 in the box to stop Ingram, so he should be able to do better than his career 3.9ypc average.

BUT, that doesn't mean that teams aren't more prepared for the run. Putting 8 in the box is not the only way a defense prepares for the run.

The NFL is all about tendencies. When defenses can find a tendency, they try to exploit it.

It would appear to me that the Saints would be better off lowering the run to pass ratio when Ingram is in the game, and raising it when Pierre is in the game. When Pierre is in the game, defenses can sell out to stop the pass, and maybe that was part of the reason Brees had so many int's last year, and the offense didn't click at it's usual rate, who knows.

Maybe the Saints don't care if teams know whether it's a pass or a run. I'll be interested to see if these numbers change much with SP running the show.
How do you explain how Ivory was still very successful when they were running 70% of the time he was in the game?I agree they should throw more when he's in the game simply because I'd rather have 8y/a rather than 4ypc.
he can get 4 ypc?

 
After last night, I think Mathews might rival him for this title. I suspect he was pretty close to 60%.

But I agree. I think this is significant. People act like this shouldn't matter, but this is probably the biggest tip of the hand in the NFL. I mean, if you watch the clip below, he's got 8 in the box every time and he's often hit in the backfield. Pierre Thomas absolutely does not deal with that. Most RBs in the NFL don't deal with that. The Knowshon Ingram comment was about the dumbest thing I've ever seen. I mean, comparing the guy facing the most nickel package defenses to the guy facing the most men in the box in the league is the worst comparison you could make...

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.
First off, wtf on the bolded? Try watching that again. Nobody is scoring on that play.

Second, yeah, the trip was really bad but where was he going to go? Not getting hit in the backfield for once is not the same as having a seam. There were defenders waiting for him. That trip probably cost him 2-3 yards. But still disappointing.

 
After last night, I think Mathews might rival him for this title. I suspect he was pretty close to 60%.

But I agree. I think this is significant. People act like this shouldn't matter, but this is probably the biggest tip of the hand in the NFL. I mean, if you watch the clip below, he's got 8 in the box every time and he's often hit in the backfield. Pierre Thomas absolutely does not deal with that. Most RBs in the NFL don't deal with that. The Knowshon Ingram comment was about the dumbest thing I've ever seen. I mean, comparing the guy facing the most nickel package defenses to the guy facing the most men in the box in the league is the worst comparison you could make...

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.
First off, wtf on the bolded? Try watching that again. Nobody is scoring on that play.

Second, yeah, the trip was really bad but where was he going to go? Not getting hit in the backfield for once is not the same as having a seam. There were defenders waiting for him. That trip probably cost him 2-3 yards. But still disappointing.
Have to agree with this - what I saw from that clip was play after play of defenders just swarming around and waiting for him. I know the o-line isn't that bad, as other rb's there get yards, but man, it's hard not to notice the D getting serious penetration when Ingram is in there.

I would like to see what he does with real 3-down work and 25 carries. I think we'd see a big difference.

 
After last night, I think Mathews might rival him for this title. I suspect he was pretty close to 60%.

But I agree. I think this is significant. People act like this shouldn't matter, but this is probably the biggest tip of the hand in the NFL. I mean, if you watch the clip below, he's got 8 in the box every time and he's often hit in the backfield. Pierre Thomas absolutely does not deal with that. Most RBs in the NFL don't deal with that. The Knowshon Ingram comment was about the dumbest thing I've ever seen. I mean, comparing the guy facing the most nickel package defenses to the guy facing the most men in the box in the league is the worst comparison you could make...

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.
First off, wtf on the bolded? Try watching that again. Nobody is scoring on that play.

Second, yeah, the trip was really bad but where was he going to go? Not getting hit in the backfield for once is not the same as having a seam. There were defenders waiting for him. That trip probably cost him 2-3 yards. But still disappointing.
Have to agree with this - what I saw from that clip was play after play of defenders just swarming around and waiting for him. I know the o-line isn't that bad, as other rb's there get yards, but man, it's hard not to notice the D getting serious penetration when Ingram is in there.

I would like to see what he does with real 3-down work and 25 carries. I think we'd see a big difference.
Hell, even if he was just in a Michael Turner role it would be awesome. Turner at least played every 1st and 2nd down and they mixed it up. He didn't see a lot of targets, but defenses had to respect the pass so he didn't always see 8 in the box. I got excited after Ingram saw some screen plays in the preseason. Given the swarm of defenders, a screen play or two would be so freaking awesome. Maybe the Saints are just doing a slow play. They'll get Ingram crushed for 16 games and then release the screen play in the post season...

 
My original post was never meant to defend Ingram's mediocrity. I haven't touched him in fantasy football for 2 years, as I quickly saw the writing on the wall from a fantasy perspective after his rookie season.

However, I think many of you are severely downplaying the bad results that come from Ingram's usage, and the affect that it may have on the Saints and on Ingram as a runner.

When Pierre is in the game, again, there is only a 27% chance that the Saints will run the ball.

When Ingram is in the game, that percentage skyrockets to 59%. I'm shocked that so many of you think this is a non-issue.

No, teams aren't going to put 8 in the box to stop Ingram, so he should be able to do better than his career 3.9ypc average.

BUT, that doesn't mean that teams aren't more prepared for the run. Putting 8 in the box is not the only way a defense prepares for the run.

The NFL is all about tendencies. When defenses can find a tendency, they try to exploit it.

It would appear to me that the Saints would be better off lowering the run to pass ratio when Ingram is in the game, and raising it when Pierre is in the game. When Pierre is in the game, defenses can sell out to stop the pass, and maybe that was part of the reason Brees had so many int's last year, and the offense didn't click at it's usual rate, who knows.

Maybe the Saints don't care if teams know whether it's a pass or a run. I'll be interested to see if these numbers change much with SP running the show.
How do you explain how Ivory was still very successful when they were running 70% of the time he was in the game?
hopefully, we'll get an answer for this

 
Who writes the game write ups for FBG? This is a joke:

Mark Ingram had a dismal day running the ball. He tied Thomas for a team high nine carries, but managed only 11 yards. It should be pointed out that his long run on the day was for seven yards, meaning that the other eight carries only added four yards. His lack of vision was obvious and he had three carries that resulted in lost yardage. Coach Payton did trust Ingram enough to call his number in the second quarter, when the Saints faced a 4th down and one. Ingram ran into his blocker in the backfield on that play and lost a yard, turning the ball over to the Falcons. Ingram was not targeted on the day.
"His lack of vision was obvious." Yeah, ok :rolleyes: I keep watching this and I don't see where he was supposed to go even with the benefit of perspective and a pause button. And on 4th down his blocker, already 3 yards behind the LOS, got pushed into him as he was trying to squeeze by his right tackle (4 yards behind the LOS).

 
Who writes the game write ups for FBG? This is a joke:

Mark Ingram had a dismal day running the ball. He tied Thomas for a team high nine carries, but managed only 11 yards. It should be pointed out that his long run on the day was for seven yards, meaning that the other eight carries only added four yards. His lack of vision was obvious and he had three carries that resulted in lost yardage. Coach Payton did trust Ingram enough to call his number in the second quarter, when the Saints faced a 4th down and one. Ingram ran into his blocker in the backfield on that play and lost a yard, turning the ball over to the Falcons. Ingram was not targeted on the day.
"His lack of vision was obvious." Yeah, ok :rolleyes: I keep watching this and I don't see where he was supposed to go even with the benefit of perspective and a pause button. And on 4th down his blocker, already 3 yards behind the LOS, got pushed into him as he was trying to squeeze by his right tackle (4 yards behind the LOS).
You're wrong, FBG is right. I saw 3 or 4 runs where he missed the cutback lane and just plowed into the giant crowd. He has horrible vision.

 
Who writes the game write ups for FBG? This is a joke:

Mark Ingram had a dismal day running the ball. He tied Thomas for a team high nine carries, but managed only 11 yards. It should be pointed out that his long run on the day was for seven yards, meaning that the other eight carries only added four yards. His lack of vision was obvious and he had three carries that resulted in lost yardage. Coach Payton did trust Ingram enough to call his number in the second quarter, when the Saints faced a 4th down and one. Ingram ran into his blocker in the backfield on that play and lost a yard, turning the ball over to the Falcons. Ingram was not targeted on the day.
"His lack of vision was obvious." Yeah, ok :rolleyes: I keep watching this and I don't see where he was supposed to go even with the benefit of perspective and a pause button. And on 4th down his blocker, already 3 yards behind the LOS, got pushed into him as he was trying to squeeze by his right tackle (4 yards behind the LOS).
You're wrong, FBG is right. I saw 3 or 4 runs where he missed the cutback lane and just plowed into the giant crowd. He has horrible vision.
Ok, I know you don't have a clue what you are talking about because there are only 9 runs (all in that clip) and there is no feasible way to make a case that there were 3 cut back lanes he missed.

1st run - met by defender 2 yards behind LOS, has to bounce it farther outside

2nd run - 4th and inches, met 3 yards behind LOS, absolutely nowhere to go

3rd run - he went through the only hole for his only decent gain of the day

4th run - met by defender 4 yards behind LOS, has to bounce it to the outside where more defenders are waiting

5th run - I see a gap to his right but his feet are grabbed at the LOS by a DL

6th run - he trips at the LOS with 5 Falcons a couple yards away

7th run - a designed outside run, no cutback intended or possible

8th run - met 4 yards behind the LOS by essentially unblocked #99, eludes then 3 more swarm

9th run - designed run inside LT with a safety coming right at him in what I guess you thought was a cutback?

Seriously. Curious wtf you think you are talking about here. I'm not sure if Ingram has horrible vision, but I'm certain you do.

 
FF Ninja said:
GroveDiesel said:
FF Ninja said:
Who writes the game write ups for FBG? This is a joke:

Mark Ingram had a dismal day running the ball. He tied Thomas for a team high nine carries, but managed only 11 yards. It should be pointed out that his long run on the day was for seven yards, meaning that the other eight carries only added four yards. His lack of vision was obvious and he had three carries that resulted in lost yardage. Coach Payton did trust Ingram enough to call his number in the second quarter, when the Saints faced a 4th down and one. Ingram ran into his blocker in the backfield on that play and lost a yard, turning the ball over to the Falcons. Ingram was not targeted on the day.
"His lack of vision was obvious." Yeah, ok :rolleyes: I keep watching this and I don't see where he was supposed to go even with the benefit of perspective and a pause button. And on 4th down his blocker, already 3 yards behind the LOS, got pushed into him as he was trying to squeeze by his right tackle (4 yards behind the LOS).
You're wrong, FBG is right. I saw 3 or 4 runs where he missed the cutback lane and just plowed into the giant crowd. He has horrible vision.
Ok, I know you don't have a clue what you are talking about because there are only 9 runs (all in that clip) and there is no feasible way to make a case that there were 3 cut back lanes he missed.

1st run - met by defender 2 yards behind LOS, has to bounce it farther outside

91 had him dead to rights in the backfield, he made a move and picked up about as much yardage as I could imagine would be possible. Showed good power too.

2nd run - 4th and inches, met 3 yards behind LOS, absolutely nowhere to go

By the time Ingram got the ball there were four Falcon defenders two yards behind LOS. He actually put up a good fight

3rd run - he went through the only hole for his only decent gain of the day

1st and 10, 8 in the box...I thought he hit the hole pretty quick, though perhaps he could have avoided the shoestring tackle. Still, solid run

4th run - met by defender 4 yards behind LOS, has to bounce it to the outside where more defenders are waiting

Again, 3 defenders are 3-4 yards behind the LOS immediately.

5th run - I see a gap to his right but his feet are grabbed at the LOS by a DL

Possibly could have squeezed another yard or two out of this one, maybe...

6th run - he trips at the LOS with 5 Falcons a couple yards away

Tripped on his own feet. Perhaps with a powerful run, he could have made it for a 4-6 yard gain. Certainly a poor play by Ingram

7th run - a designed outside run, no cutback intended or possible

yeah, this one was going outside, and again, defenders were all over it

8th run - met 4 yards behind the LOS by essentially unblocked #99, eludes then 3 more swarm

SIX GUYS on line of scrimmage, despite it being 1st and 10. 95 blew this play up from the start, and everyone else piled on

9th run - designed run inside LT with a safety coming right at him in what I guess you thought was a cutback?

Moore just lit him up. Moore basically ran full speed for ten yards and nailed him. I watched this play about 5 times, and couldn't find any cutback lanes, and honestly couldn't find anywhere else for Ingram to run. If anything, he could have gotten down and tried to hit Moore, but Moore had all the momentum.

Seriously. Curious wtf you think you are talking about here. I'm not sure if Ingram has horrible vision, but I'm certain you do.
Game Rewind is just amazing. With the benefit of that, here are my thoughts. I pretty much agree with you on most everything. I challenge anyone to re-watch any of those runs and come up with something different.

I see a guy who had little to no room to run and had few opportunities. He possibly could have turned the trip into a good solid gain, but that's about it.

It's ok for people to say "Square peg, round hole", because that is quite obviously the case. But being lazy and saying "he's terrible, he has no vision", just doesn't seem to be an accurate assessment of what I've seen thus far.

 
You guys are wrong on both the 2nd and 4th runs. There was a cutback lane immediately to the left of the center on run #2 that he never even looked for. With the OL and defense all flowing to the right, that could have been a big gain. Instead, he runs right into the defense. My guess is he doesn't have the agility to even make that cut.

On run #4 there is a lane that opens between the center and right guard. It probably would have been good for just 2-3 yards, but it was a much better option than running to where all the defenders were, parallel to the LoS, and trying to voice it outside. If he had turned it upfield and cut back towards the RG he easily plows forward for a small gain.

 
I really can't comprehend why people are making excuses for a guy that has been (basically) nothing but ordinary in his NFL career.

 
You guys are wrong on both the 2nd and 4th runs. There was a cutback lane immediately to the left of the center on run #2 that he never even looked for. With the OL and defense all flowing to the right, that could have been a big gain. Instead, he runs right into the defense. My guess is he doesn't have the agility to even make that cut.

On run #4 there is a lane that opens between the center and right guard. It probably would have been good for just 2-3 yards, but it was a much better option than running to where all the defenders were, parallel to the LoS, and trying to voice it outside. If he had turned it upfield and cut back towards the RG he easily plows forward for a small gain.
I'm not seeing this at all, especially on the 4th run- there were several defenders in the backfield by the time he got the ball, including one completely unblocked right where you said would have been a "much better option" for him to run.

The bottom line is that it was 9 carries, most of which were blown up by the defense. Hard to take much away from it either way.

 
After last night, I think Mathews might rival him for this title. I suspect he was pretty close to 60%.
I came here wondering if anyone had posted about Mathews. His number was 70%. Ronnie Brown was a comfortable 24% and Woodhead was 10%. Is it any wonder that Mathews had a tough time running the ball?

The funny part is that Mathews graded out better (by PFF) on both the run and pass than either Brown or Woodhead.

 
I see a really bad offensive line for run blocking that he is running behind and a lot of missed blocks in the game footage for Ingram above.

 
Guys off the street rush for 5.0 a carry in his situation: Thomas, Ivory, and Sproles. Ingram struggles to get over 4.0. He's sub-replacement level.

But because the staff mistakenly used a first and second round pick on him, they have spent 3 years trying to justify their move. These two factors make him probably on the 5 most harmful offensive players in the league.

 
Guys off the street rush for 5.0 a carry in his situation: Thomas, Ivory, and Sproles. Ingram struggles to get over 4.0. He's sub-replacement level.

But because the staff mistakenly used a first and second round pick on him, they have spent 3 years trying to justify their move. These two factors make him probably on the 5 most harmful offensive players in the league.
Justify it with just 9 carries a game?

Your right, good call. :rolleyes:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Guys off the street rush for 5.0 a carry in his situation: Thomas, Ivory, and Sproles. Ingram struggles to get over 4.0. He's sub-replacement level.

But because the staff mistakenly used a first and second round pick on him, they have spent 3 years trying to justify their move. These two factors make him probably on the 5 most harmful offensive players in the league.
Justify it with just 9 carries a game?

Your right, good call. :rolleyes:
He's averaged 11 carries per game at 3.8 y/carry and 17 rec at 4.4 y/rec. I think they've tried more than enough for the production they've received in return.
 
Not a pretty picture... top 10 carries/snaps for RB with more than 18 snaps + Ingram @ 18

Code:
	        Snaps	Carries	PCT	YPCmathews	        20	13	 0.650 	2.5cj2k	        43	25	 0.581 	2.8williams	31	17	 0.548 	5.1f jax	        26	13	 0.500 	5.2ingram	        18	9	 0.500 	1.2mccoy	        65	31	 0.477 	5.9spiller	        37	17	 0.459 	2.4mendenhall	35	16	 0.457 	3.8tate	        20	9	 0.450 	6.1charles	        36	16	 0.444 	4.8
 
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.
I don't see how running 59% of the time Ingram is in there is "telegraphing" what they are going to do. That's pretty close to a 50/50 split of run vs. pass. You're acting like it's 89%, not 59%/

 
Not a pretty picture... top 10 carries/snaps for RB with more than 18 snaps + Ingram @ 18

Snaps Carries PCT YPCmathews 20 13 0.650 2.5

cj2k 43 25 0.581 2.8

williams 31 17 0.548 5.1

f jax 26 13 0.500 5.2

ingram 18 9 0.500 1.2

mccoy 65 31 0.477 5.9

spiller 37 17 0.459 2.4

mendenhall 35 16 0.457 3.8

tate 20 9 0.450 6.1

charles 36 16 0.444 4.8
I don't think that says what you think it says... Obviously a lot of those guys are in the game for just about every snap (McCoy, CJ) and a lot of them are in on every 1st and 2nd down (DeAngelo). You had to go down to 18 to get Ingram because he pretty much only comes in when it is a running situation. He doesn't play nearly as many snaps as the others. Also, one game can skew these numbers. Over a season it doesn't play out like that... except for Ingram. The Titans and Eagles led the whole game, so it's not surprising they ran the ball a lot. Also, I think it gives the RB an advantage in a hurry up. Ingram is most certainly not in a hurry up offense. He never gets a rhythm.

Last year Chris Johnson played 815 snaps with 276 rushes for 34%

McCoy was 200/696 = 29%

As far as I know, Mathews was the closest last year at 184/402 = 46%

I don't see how running 59% of the time Ingram is in there is "telegraphing" what they are going to do. That's pretty close to a 50/50 split of run vs. pass. You're acting like it's 89%, not 59%/
I challenge you to find one player who played more than 200 snaps that came close to 59% last year. Ingram's 59% stands out in the NFL as the most obvious hand tipping.

 
PatsWillWin said:
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.
I don't see how running 59% of the time Ingram is in there is "telegraphing" what they are going to do. That's pretty close to a 50/50 split of run vs. pass. You're acting like it's 89%, not 59%/
You aren't seeing the point. Some teams run the ball 50/50. The Saints don't.

Last year, it looks like they threw it 671 times and ran it 370 times. They are the definiton of a pass-first team, passing it 64% of the time.

Except when Ingram is in the game. Then they revert to a 60% run-first team...in 2012. It will be interesting to see if SP changes things this year.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
FF Ninja said:
kardplayer said:
Not a pretty picture... top 10 carries/snaps for RB with more than 18 snaps + Ingram @ 18

Snaps Carries PCT YPC

mathews 20 13 0.650 2.5

cj2k 43 25 0.581 2.8

williams 31 17 0.548 5.1

f jax 26 13 0.500 5.2

ingram 18 9 0.500 1.2

mccoy 65 31 0.477 5.9

spiller 37 17 0.459 2.4

mendenhall 35 16 0.457 3.8

tate 20 9 0.450 6.1

charles 36 16 0.444 4.8
I don't think that says what you think it says... Obviously a lot of those guys are in the game for just about every snap (McCoy, CJ) and a lot of them are in on every 1st and 2nd down (DeAngelo). You had to go down to 18 to get Ingram because he pretty much only comes in when it is a running situation. He doesn't play nearly as many snaps as the others. Also, one game can skew these numbers. Over a season it doesn't play out like that... except for Ingram. The Titans and Eagles led the whole game, so it's not surprising they ran the ball a lot. Also, I think it gives the RB an advantage in a hurry up. Ingram is most certainly not in a hurry up offense. He never gets a rhythm.

Last year Chris Johnson played 815 snaps with 276 rushes for 34%

McCoy was 200/696 = 29%

As far as I know, Mathews was the closest last year at 184/402 = 46%

PatsWillWin said:
I don't see how running 59% of the time Ingram is in there is "telegraphing" what they are going to do. That's pretty close to a 50/50 split of run vs. pass. You're acting like it's 89%, not 59%/
I challenge you to find one player who played more than 200 snaps that came close to 59% last year. Ingram's 59% stands out in the NFL as the most obvious hand tipping.
Again, what was the excuse for how Ivory was successful at 70%?
 
You guys are wrong on both the 2nd and 4th runs. There was a cutback lane immediately to the left of the center on run #2 that he never even looked for. With the OL and defense all flowing to the right, that could have been a big gain. Instead, he runs right into the defense. My guess is he doesn't have the agility to even make that cut.

On run #4 there is a lane that opens between the center and right guard. It probably would have been good for just 2-3 yards, but it was a much better option than running to where all the defenders were, parallel to the LoS, and trying to voice it outside. If he had turned it upfield and cut back towards the RG he easily plows forward for a small gain.
:no:

This is awesome. So clueless. On the 2nd run, Ingram was obviously supposed to follow his fullback between the RG and RT. Just because you see what looks like maybe a crease near the center from this camera angle doesn't mean that was even remotely feasible for him to do, much less a legitimate cutback lane. For him to even have a chance to hit that crease he would have had to IMMEDIATELY deviate from the designed play as soon as he touched the ball. The only question is, is this a dumber suggestion than what you made about run #4? Let's look at that one now...

Again, the play designed to go the opposite direction of what you suggest. If he was going to go right he would have had to deviate from the play immediately upon receiving the ball. What makes this even better is that you seem to miss the fact that #94 is actually standing there unblocked right where you are saying Ingram should go. Wtf man? We are watching the same thing. You have to know you are just making s*** up. No one could possibly believe these are legitimate paths Ingram should have taken.

Even with these asinine suggestions, you only came up with two whereas you had mentioned previously there were 3-4 plays where Ingram missed a cutback :rollseyes:

 
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.
But in Ingram's defense, Sproles and Thomas aren't getting their touches when the defense is pretty sure (60% likely) it's coming to them. That is a pretty significant disadvantage to overcome.

 
Again, what was the excuse for how Ivory was successful at 70%?
I don't have his snap count. If you can verify that Ivory ran the ball on 70% of his snaps then the topic might be worth addressing. So far this is purely conjecture.
I'm still trying to find the data for 2011 as just 2012 is admittedly a small sample size (I think I might need a ProFootballFocus account, which I don't have), but last year Ivory played 67 snaps and had 40 carries, which works out to 60%. Someone else mentioned over the last two years Ivory was at 70%, haven't found the data yet to back that up.

 
Run2

The left side of the offensive line is either at the LoS or has a yard or two of push downfield. The entire right side of the line is caved in. The linebackers are all flowing to the right side of the offensive line. If he cuts back to the left hash mark, he has a decent chance of powering in for the first down. If he cuts it all the way outside, he actually has a shot at getting around the corner for a big gain. Instead, he runs directly into the back of his FB as the FB is getting blown up and gets knocked down. He had no shot at the first down on the right side. The outside defensive player had contain and outside leverage while the interior D-line caved in the right side of the offensive line. Further, there were 3 LBers to the right of the center at that point poised to fill and make a play.

Run4

I'm willing to give him a little more leeway on this run. He did have a blocker in front, but the problem is that the right DE still had outside leverage on the LT. That means that to get outside, the LT had to either pancake the DE or Ingram had to be fast enough to make it moot. He definitely isn't fast enough so he was relying on his LT to put the DE on his back. What you DO see is that both offensive linemen at this point on the left have inside leverage on their men. The Center has inside leverage to the left of his man. That leaves a nifty little lane straight up the middle of the field. There is a LB crashing down into that area, but that is the man that the FB is assigned to and who ends up making the play anyway. If Ingram takes that straight up field at the point in that picture, he at least has a chance to make it back to the LoS. If the FB can get a hat on the LBer or Ingram can break a tackle, then it's a nice 3-4 yard gain. It's certainly a less risky play than trying to bounce it outside with his lack of speed.

 
Again, what was the excuse for how Ivory was successful at 70%?
I don't have his snap count. If you can verify that Ivory ran the ball on 70% of his snaps then the topic might be worth addressing. So far this is purely conjecture.
I'm still trying to find the data for 2011 as just 2012 is admittedly a small sample size (I think I might need a ProFootballFocus account, which I don't have), but last year Ivory played 67 snaps and had 40 carries, which works out to 60%. Someone else mentioned over the last two years Ivory was at 70%, haven't found the data yet to back that up.
Found the data on snap counts for Ivory

http://www.cincyjungle.com/2013/2/9/3970464/under-the-radar-free-agent-running-back-chris-ivory

"With Pierre Thomas, Darren Sproles, Mark Ingram and Travaris Cadet on the roster, Ivory was limited to 68 snaps this year, down from the 156 he managed in 2011 and 195 as a rookie. He's clearly not a big part of what the Saints do, yet that doesn't mean he couldn't (or wouldn't) contribute in a big way for someone else.

For his career, Ivory is averaging an astonishing 5.1 yards per carry (compared to the 3.9 of Ingram) despite the fact that when he's in the game it's a telltale sign the Saints are running (74.9 percent of his snaps were on running plays), letting the offense key in on him."

 
Again, what was the excuse for how Ivory was successful at 70%?
I don't have his snap count. If you can verify that Ivory ran the ball on 70% of his snaps then the topic might be worth addressing. So far this is purely conjecture.
I'm still trying to find the data for 2011 as just 2012 is admittedly a small sample size (I think I might need a ProFootballFocus account, which I don't have), but last year Ivory played 67 snaps and had 40 carries, which works out to 60%. Someone else mentioned over the last two years Ivory was at 70%, haven't found the data yet to back that up.
Well, I just looked at his 2012 highlights and it's pretty easy to notice that he's not facing 8 in the box. Often you see the linebackers leaning backwards planning to backpeddle into coverage rather than cheating forward as the ball is about to be snapped. So the easy explanation is that even if Ivory did run on most of his snaps the defenses didn't take notice and stack the box like they do with Ingram. We obviously don't have a nice youtube video of every single one of his runs like we do for Ingram week 1, but from the highlights I only saw a couple snaps with 8 in the box.

I don't have a PFF account, either, but I'm beginning to think it might be a good idea.

 
FF Ninja said:
PatsWillWin said:
I don't see how running 59% of the time Ingram is in there is "telegraphing" what they are going to do. That's pretty close to a 50/50 split of run vs. pass. You're acting like it's 89%, not 59%/
I challenge you to find one player who played more than 200 snaps that came close to 59% last year. Ingram's 59% stands out in the NFL as the most obvious hand tipping.
Yet they still pass 41% of the time with Ingram on the field. I just don't get what you think defenses actually do. Do the defensive tackles know that they're probably run stuffing rather than pass rushing? Sure, maybe. Is that why Ingram sucks? I doubt it.

And as someone said earlier, the Saints ran 70% of the time with Chris Ivory on the field, yet he produced better. Why?

ETA: I saw some Ivory comments. So when the Saints run 59% of the time with Ingram on the field, it's the biggest hand tipping in the NFL. When they run 75% of the time with Ivory on the field, defenses don't react at all, and still play the pass. Okie dokie.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
But in Ingram's defense, Sproles and Thomas aren't getting their touches when the defense is pretty sure (60% likely) it's coming to them. That is a pretty significant disadvantage to overcome.
It's funny that Ingram supporters keep trotting out this 60% thing like it's some kind of indictment against the Saints when it's fully possible that it's an indictment against Ingram and a GIFT from the Saints. Ingram has been a terrible receiver and a mediocre at best pass blocker. When he's in the game, the offense has one less pass option and it puts Brees in more danger when he drops back to pass. I would love to know what their pass efficiency is when Ingram is in the game. My bet is that it's not good. So the fact that the Saints mainly run the ball when Ingram is in the game can probably be largely attributed to his own failings. That he is being put into the game at all is more of a gift from the Saints (and a poor choice IMO) than anything.

To blame the Saints for not passing more when Ingram is in the game seems silly when you consider that Ingram is a net negative in the passing game.

 
Run2

The left side of the offensive line is either at the LoS or has a yard or two of push downfield. The entire right side of the line is caved in. The linebackers are all flowing to the right side of the offensive line. If he cuts back to the left hash mark, he has a decent chance of powering in for the first down. If he cuts it all the way outside, he actually has a shot at getting around the corner for a big gain. Instead, he runs directly into the back of his FB as the FB is getting blown up and gets knocked down. He had no shot at the first down on the right side. The outside defensive player had contain and outside leverage while the interior D-line caved in the right side of the offensive line. Further, there were 3 LBers to the right of the center at that point poised to fill and make a play.

Run4

I'm willing to give him a little more leeway on this run. He did have a blocker in front, but the problem is that the right DE still had outside leverage on the LT. That means that to get outside, the LT had to either pancake the DE or Ingram had to be fast enough to make it moot. He definitely isn't fast enough so he was relying on his LT to put the DE on his back. What you DO see is that both offensive linemen at this point on the left have inside leverage on their men. The Center has inside leverage to the left of his man. That leaves a nifty little lane straight up the middle of the field. There is a LB crashing down into that area, but that is the man that the FB is assigned to and who ends up making the play anyway. If Ingram takes that straight up field at the point in that picture, he at least has a chance to make it back to the LoS. If the FB can get a hat on the LBer or Ingram can break a tackle, then it's a nice 3-4 yard gain. It's certainly a less risky play than trying to bounce it outside with his lack of speed.
Run 2 - again you ignore that the play is designed for him to follow his fullback. If his RG blocks his man and the FB blocks #52 then Ingram gets the first down. Instead the FB blocks the guy who the RG is getting owned by and Ingram is tackled by #52. Also, how the hell was he supposed to cut it all the way outside with #71 blocking the path? Or are you saying cut it all the way to the outside to the left?

Run 4 - So which side of his LG are you suggesting he goes on? If he goes on his right then #94 is there. If he goes on his left then #56 is there.

So at this point, you've basically conceded that there were only 2 plays you disagree with his path and you've made very poor arguments for what he should've done. And it is a given that the designed play completely broke down on both plays and he would've had to deviate from the play immediately to salvage an outside shot at gaining yards.

...yet people are claiming he sucks because he only got 11 yards on 9 carries.

 
Found the data on snap counts for Ivory

http://www.cincyjungle.com/2013/2/9/3970464/under-the-radar-free-agent-running-back-chris-ivory

"With Pierre Thomas, Darren Sproles, Mark Ingram and Travaris Cadet on the roster, Ivory was limited to 68 snaps this year, down from the 156 he managed in 2011 and 195 as a rookie. He's clearly not a big part of what the Saints do, yet that doesn't mean he couldn't (or wouldn't) contribute in a big way for someone else.

For his career, Ivory is averaging an astonishing 5.1 yards per carry (compared to the 3.9 of Ingram) despite the fact that when he's in the game it's a telltale sign the Saints are running (74.9 percent of his snaps were on running plays), letting the offense key in on him."
That article has some bad information.Ivory had: 195 snaps in 2010, 156 in 2011, and 68 in 2012, so 419 snaps; he had a total of 256 carries over those 3 years. That isn't 75%, that's 61%.

 
Found the data on snap counts for Ivory

http://www.cincyjungle.com/2013/2/9/3970464/under-the-radar-free-agent-running-back-chris-ivory

"With Pierre Thomas, Darren Sproles, Mark Ingram and Travaris Cadet on the roster, Ivory was limited to 68 snaps this year, down from the 156 he managed in 2011 and 195 as a rookie. He's clearly not a big part of what the Saints do, yet that doesn't mean he couldn't (or wouldn't) contribute in a big way for someone else.

For his career, Ivory is averaging an astonishing 5.1 yards per carry (compared to the 3.9 of Ingram) despite the fact that when he's in the game it's a telltale sign the Saints are running (74.9 percent of his snaps were on running plays), letting the offense key in on him."
That article has some bad information.Ivory had: 195 snaps in 2010, 156 in 2011, and 68 in 2012, so 419 snaps; he had a total of 256 carries over those 3 years. That isn't 75%, that's 61%.
I think the article is saying 75% of the time there was a running play, not Ivory necessarily getting the carry (where Ivory was blocking). Ivory carried the ball himself on 61% of the plays. Was the 59% for Ingram referring to running plays or Ingram carries? Either way, using the 61% comparing to 59%, Ivory was much more successful than Ingram when it was even more of a giveaway they were running when Ivory was in the game.

 
Run2

The left side of the offensive line is either at the LoS or has a yard or two of push downfield. The entire right side of the line is caved in. The linebackers are all flowing to the right side of the offensive line. If he cuts back to the left hash mark, he has a decent chance of powering in for the first down. If he cuts it all the way outside, he actually has a shot at getting around the corner for a big gain. Instead, he runs directly into the back of his FB as the FB is getting blown up and gets knocked down. He had no shot at the first down on the right side. The outside defensive player had contain and outside leverage while the interior D-line caved in the right side of the offensive line. Further, there were 3 LBers to the right of the center at that point poised to fill and make a play.
In short-yardage plays, RBs are taught to run the play the way it's called. You need a yard (or inches), not a big play. He ran the play the way it was called, the D blew up the O-line where the play was called. Sure, if he could have seen the future and known that the O-linemen where the play was going would not do their jobs, he could have improvised, but (as far as I know) he can't see the future.
Run4

I'm willing to give him a little more leeway on this run. He did have a blocker in front, but the problem is that the right DE still had outside leverage on the LT. That means that to get outside, the LT had to either pancake the DE or Ingram had to be fast enough to make it moot. He definitely isn't fast enough so he was relying on his LT to put the DE on his back. What you DO see is that both offensive linemen at this point on the left have inside leverage on their men. The Center has inside leverage to the left of his man. That leaves a nifty little lane straight up the middle of the field. There is a LB crashing down into that area, but that is the man that the FB is assigned to and who ends up making the play anyway. If Ingram takes that straight up field at the point in that picture, he at least has a chance to make it back to the LoS. If the FB can get a hat on the LBer or Ingram can break a tackle, then it's a nice 3-4 yard gain. It's certainly a less risky play than trying to bounce it outside with his lack of speed.
That's an interesting take on this play. However, you point out that the FB picked up the LB crashing down, but you fail to mention that the FB was already past a point where he could have blocked that LB in the "cutback" lane you think you see. If Ingram had cut back, the LB would have crashed the cut-back lane, not the outside hole where the play was designed to go. Since the FB is already outside the O-lineman, he couldn't have gotten to the cutback lane to block the LB. Looking at something in super-slo-mo, and freezing frames may make sense to you, but what you think you see isn't always accurate, especially if you are looking for something to criticize.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Found the data on snap counts for Ivory

http://www.cincyjungle.com/2013/2/9/3970464/under-the-radar-free-agent-running-back-chris-ivory

"With Pierre Thomas, Darren Sproles, Mark Ingram and Travaris Cadet on the roster, Ivory was limited to 68 snaps this year, down from the 156 he managed in 2011 and 195 as a rookie. He's clearly not a big part of what the Saints do, yet that doesn't mean he couldn't (or wouldn't) contribute in a big way for someone else.

For his career, Ivory is averaging an astonishing 5.1 yards per carry (compared to the 3.9 of Ingram) despite the fact that when he's in the game it's a telltale sign the Saints are running (74.9 percent of his snaps were on running plays), letting the offense key in on him."
That article has some bad information.Ivory had: 195 snaps in 2010, 156 in 2011, and 68 in 2012, so 419 snaps; he had a total of 256 carries over those 3 years. That isn't 75%, that's 61%.
I'm sick of the silly Ivory comparisons. I didn't start the thread to compare Ingram and Ivory, nor to suggest that Ingram is some pro bowler being held down by ridiculous play-calling by the Saints.

I simply made the observation that the Saints completely change their tendencies when Ingram is in the game, versus when Pierre is in the game. This seems to me to be a bad decision by the Saints, as it tips their hand.

It also could be seen as something that harms Ingram, as defenses know if he's in the game, then the Saints offense is now a "run-first" offense.

 
It's funny that Ingram supporters keep trotting out this 60% thing like it's some kind of indictment against the Saints when it's fully possible that it's an indictment against Ingram and a GIFT from the Saints. Ingram has been a terrible receiver and a mediocre at best pass blocker. When he's in the game, the offense has one less pass option and it puts Brees in more danger when he drops back to pass. I would love to know what their pass efficiency is when Ingram is in the game. My bet is that it's not good. So the fact that the Saints mainly run the ball when Ingram is in the game can probably be largely attributed to his own failings. That he is being put into the game at all is more of a gift from the Saints (and a poor choice IMO) than anything.

To blame the Saints for not passing more when Ingram is in the game seems silly when you consider that Ingram is a net negative in the passing game.
He's a terrible receiver because they don't throw him the ball?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
FF Ninja said:
PatsWillWin said:
I don't see how running 59% of the time Ingram is in there is "telegraphing" what they are going to do. That's pretty close to a 50/50 split of run vs. pass. You're acting like it's 89%, not 59%/
I challenge you to find one player who played more than 200 snaps that came close to 59% last year. Ingram's 59% stands out in the NFL as the most obvious hand tipping.
Yet they still pass 41% of the time with Ingram on the field. I just don't get what you think defenses actually do. Do the defensive tackles know that they're probably run stuffing rather than pass rushing? Sure, maybe. Is that why Ingram sucks? I doubt it.

And as someone said earlier, the Saints ran 70% of the time with Chris Ivory on the field, yet he produced better. Why?

ETA: I saw some Ivory comments. So when the Saints run 59% of the time with Ingram on the field, it's the biggest hand tipping in the NFL. When they run 75% of the time with Ivory on the field, defenses don't react at all, and still play the pass. Okie dokie.
It's not complicated. Look at the film. The Falcons stacked the box every time Ingram ran. Almost all of Ivory's highlights are against 6 men in the box. In some of them all the linebackers start to fall back in coverage! I saw a goal line play (0:48) with five defensive backs! That's not much respect for Ivory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7Bg_7oapMs

0:35 - only 5 guys playing the run

0:43 - only 5 guys playing the run

0:55 - only 6 guys playing the run

I'm not going to go on, but these are not the defensive fronts that Ingram usually faces. Any Ingram highlights you'll find probably aren't against 8 man fronts, either, but he simply didn't have any of those opportunities in week 1.

 
Found the data on snap counts for Ivory

http://www.cincyjungle.com/2013/2/9/3970464/under-the-radar-free-agent-running-back-chris-ivory

"With Pierre Thomas, Darren Sproles, Mark Ingram and Travaris Cadet on the roster, Ivory was limited to 68 snaps this year, down from the 156 he managed in 2011 and 195 as a rookie. He's clearly not a big part of what the Saints do, yet that doesn't mean he couldn't (or wouldn't) contribute in a big way for someone else.

For his career, Ivory is averaging an astonishing 5.1 yards per carry (compared to the 3.9 of Ingram) despite the fact that when he's in the game it's a telltale sign the Saints are running (74.9 percent of his snaps were on running plays), letting the offense key in on him."
That article has some bad information.Ivory had: 195 snaps in 2010, 156 in 2011, and 68 in 2012, so 419 snaps; he had a total of 256 carries over those 3 years. That isn't 75%, that's 61%.
I think the article is saying 75% of the time there was a running play, not Ivory necessarily getting the carry (where Ivory was blocking). Ivory carried the ball himself on 61% of the plays. Was the 59% for Ingram referring to running plays or Ingram carries? Either way, using the 61% comparing to 59%, Ivory was much more successful than Ingram when it was even more of a giveaway they were running when Ivory was in the game.
Ingram's numbers refer to 2012 only (I think), and they refer to plays where he ran the ball, not when it was a running play. Ingram had 266 snaps in 2012, and 156 rushes, so 59%.
 
Found the data on snap counts for Ivory

http://www.cincyjungle.com/2013/2/9/3970464/under-the-radar-free-agent-running-back-chris-ivory

"With Pierre Thomas, Darren Sproles, Mark Ingram and Travaris Cadet on the roster, Ivory was limited to 68 snaps this year, down from the 156 he managed in 2011 and 195 as a rookie. He's clearly not a big part of what the Saints do, yet that doesn't mean he couldn't (or wouldn't) contribute in a big way for someone else.

For his career, Ivory is averaging an astonishing 5.1 yards per carry (compared to the 3.9 of Ingram) despite the fact that when he's in the game it's a telltale sign the Saints are running (74.9 percent of his snaps were on running plays), letting the offense key in on him."
That article has some bad information.Ivory had: 195 snaps in 2010, 156 in 2011, and 68 in 2012, so 419 snaps; he had a total of 256 carries over those 3 years. That isn't 75%, that's 61%.
I'm sick of the silly Ivory comparisons. I didn't start the thread to compare Ingram and Ivory, nor to suggest that Ingram is some pro bowler being held down by ridiculous play-calling by the Saints.

I simply made the observation that the Saints completely change their tendencies when Ingram is in the game, versus when Pierre is in the game. This seems to me to be a bad decision by the Saints, as it tips their hand.

It also could be seen as something that harms Ingram, as defenses know if he's in the game, then the Saints offense is now a "run-first" offense.
You're sick of the silly Ivory comparisons? YOU started a thread suggesting that the way the Saints use Ingram is part of the reason he isn't as successful. Others point out that the Saints used Ivory in a similar fashion, but he's successful, and you don't like that? Seems like you just want to be right, damn any facts/evidence/information to the contrary.
 
You're sick of the silly Ivory comparisons? YOU started a thread suggesting that the way the Saints use Ingram is part of the reason he isn't as successful. Others point out that the Saints used Ivory in a similar fashion, but he's successful, and you don't like that? Seems like you just want to be right, damn any facts/evidence/information to the contrary.
Ivory had 40 carries last year. I don't see how his limited snaps at the end of the year, have much to do with this conversation.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top