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)

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.
I hesitate to go as far as you, because I can't watch all the carries that Ivory faced vs Ingram.

However, what you are saying makes sense. Ingram came into the league with a reputation as someone who was going to be a physical presence that made defenses pay. So while people in this thread have said things like "there's no way team's are putting 8 in the box to stop Mark Ingram", they would be completely wrong. Teams DID put 8 in the box to stop Ingram, and while I only have 10 carries to look at this season, it appears that is still the case.

Ivory is an UDFA, and so you'd expect he would demand less respect. But again, Ivory barely played last year and isn't on the team this year, so I don't understand the Ivory comparisons.

 
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.
You don't see how Ivory's (A NO RB) carries from last year have to do with a conversation about Ingram (a NO RB) and his carries from last year? Specifically about how NO utilized these RBs? When they appear to possibly have been utilized in a similar manner?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lol. You Ingram supporters see what you want to see. We go from "he was being hit 4 yards in the backfield as soon as he got he ball" to "if these 2 guys just made the blocks they weren't making" to "it doesn't matter that he was doomed to failure the coaches made him run into a clearly hopeless situation."

And now it's also New Orleans's fault that Ingram can't catch and can't pass protect. What else are they supposed to do with a one dimensional back besides run the ball? If there were evidence that he was good in pass protection in the NFL then maybe there'd be some argument for passing more with him in, but everything I've read says that it's an area he needs to improve.

Maybe NO is just a bad fit, but I can't think of too many teams in today's NFL that would use a guy on 60-70% of snaps that can't catch and doesn't pass protect well. The only teams I can really think of that would do that are Pittsburgh and the Bengals.

 
Lol. You Ingram supporters see what you want to see. We go from "he was being hit 4 yards in the backfield as soon as he got he ball" to "if these 2 guys just made the blocks they weren't making" to "it doesn't matter that he was doomed to failure the coaches made him run into a clearly hopeless situation."

And now it's also New Orleans's fault that Ingram can't catch and can't pass protect. What else are they supposed to do with a one dimensional back besides run the ball? If there were evidence that he was good in pass protection in the NFL then maybe there'd be some argument for passing more with him in, but everything I've read says that it's an area he needs to improve.

Maybe NO is just a bad fit, but I can't think of too many teams in today's NFL that would use a guy on 60-70% of snaps that can't catch and doesn't pass protect well. The only teams I can really think of that would do that are Pittsburgh and the Bengals.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but this is rich coming from you.

 
You don't see how Ivory's (A NO RB) carries from last year have to do with a conversation about Ingram (a NO RB) and his carries from last year? Specifically about how NO utilized these RBs? When they appear to possibly have been utilized in a similar manner?
Ivory got 40 carries at the end of the year. There was no "book" on how the Saints were going to use Ivory towards the end of the year because it hadn't been written yet. Yes, they could potentially go back and look at 2010 and 2011 stats, but it was a completely different offensive playcaller last year, so I doubt they would have done that.

40 carries is far different than the number of carries Pierre and Ingram received. Surely you understand the concept of "small sample size" and how 40 carries is likely too insignificant to amount to much.

 
Lol. You Ingram supporters see what you want to see. We go from "he was being hit 4 yards in the backfield as soon as he got he ball" to "if these 2 guys just made the blocks they weren't making" to "it doesn't matter that he was doomed to failure the coaches made him run into a clearly hopeless situation."

And now it's also New Orleans's fault that Ingram can't catch and can't pass protect. What else are they supposed to do with a one dimensional back besides run the ball? If there were evidence that he was good in pass protection in the NFL then maybe there'd be some argument for passing more with him in, but everything I've read says that it's an area he needs to improve.

Maybe NO is just a bad fit, but I can't think of too many teams in today's NFL that would use a guy on 60-70% of snaps that can't catch and doesn't pass protect well. The only teams I can really think of that would do that are Pittsburgh and the Bengals.
In all seriousness, is he a poor pass protector? If that's the case, it further solidifies the argument that Pierre needs to get the ball full-time and Ingram needs to be benched.

 
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.
I hesitate to go as far as you, because I can't watch all the carries that Ivory faced vs Ingram.

However, what you are saying makes sense. Ingram came into the league with a reputation as someone who was going to be a physical presence that made defenses pay. So while people in this thread have said things like "there's no way team's are putting 8 in the box to stop Mark Ingram", they would be completely wrong. Teams DID put 8 in the box to stop Ingram, and while I only have 10 carries to look at this season, it appears that is still the case.

Ivory is an UDFA, and so you'd expect he would demand less respect. But again, Ivory barely played last year and isn't on the team this year, so I don't understand the Ivory comparisons.
Really? You don't understand the Ivory comparisons? Looking at the last few years, not just last year, they both were pretty much equal in carries/snap at 60%. Ivory was much more successful, yet you claim that Ingram isn't successful because it was a giveaway they were running.

Ingram isn't good in pass protection, isn't a good receiver (4.4 yards/rec, almost half of Thomas's), isn't good on running plays, so why exactly would they even give him snaps?

 
You don't see how Ivory's (A NO RB) carries from last year have to do with a conversation about Ingram (a NO RB) and his carries from last year? Specifically about how NO utilized these RBs? When they appear to possibly have been utilized in a similar manner?
Ivory got 40 carries at the end of the year. There was no "book" on how the Saints were going to use Ivory towards the end of the year because it hadn't been written yet. Yes, they could potentially go back and look at 2010 and 2011 stats, but it was a completely different offensive playcaller last year, so I doubt they would have done that.

40 carries is far different than the number of carries Pierre and Ingram received. Surely you understand the concept of "small sample size" and how 40 carries is likely too insignificant to amount to much.
I understand the concept of sample size. However, for you to suggest that Ivory's usage in '10 & '11 didn't provide a "book" on how Ivory would be used because of a different offensive playcaller last year in the exact same thread that you suggest that Ingrams usage last year, (WITH A DIFFERENT OFFENSIVE PLAYCALLER) indicates that the Saints are using Ingram "wrong" seems illogical.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just to show the importance of not cherry-picking data, I looked at Ingram's stats from the 6 games Ivory played last year.

Game 1, Philadelphia

Ivory 10 carries for 48 yards

Ingram 7 carries for 44 yards

Game 2, Atlanta

Ivory 7 carries for 72 yards

Ingram 16 for 67 yards

Game 3, OAKLAND

Ivory 8 carries for 37 yards

Ingram 12 carries for 67 yards

Game 4, SF

Ivory 8 carries for 34 yards

Ingram 10 carries for 27 yards

Game 5, ATL

Ivory 3 carries for 4 yards

Ingram 6 carries for 13 yards

Game 6 CAR

Ivory 4 carries for 22 yards

Ingram 10 carries for 39 yards

Ingram did have a 4.2 ypc average in those 6 games, so we have to factor that in as well. Numbers still aren't as good as Ivory's, but Ivory was receiving spot duty in most of those games, and did have one long run that skewed his ypc, imo. I don't like "taking out" a long run, but a long run skews averages, especially when you are dealing with such a limited set of data.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just to show the importance of not cherry-picking data, I looked at Ingram's stats from the 6 games Ivory played last year.

Game 1, Philadelphia

Ivory 10 carries for 48 yards

Ingram 7 carries for 44 yards

Game 2, Atlanta

Ivory 7 carries for 72 yards

Ingram 16 for 67 yards

Game 3, OAKLAND

Ivory 8 carries for 37 yards

Ingram 12 carries for 67 yards

Game 4, SF

Ivory 8 carries for 34 yards

Ingram 10 carries for 27 yards

Game 5, ATL

Ivory 3 carries for 4 yards

Ingram 6 carries for 13 yards

Game 6 CAR

Ivory 4 carries for 22 yards

Ingram 10 carries for 39 yards

Ingram did have a 4.2 ypc average in those 6 games, so we have to factor that in as well. Numbers still aren't as good as Ivory's, but Ivory did have a 56 yard TD in those 40 carries too....
To be clear, I agree with your premise that NO is telegraphing their play-calling when they run more frequently when Ingram is in the game. However, when you just dismiss the fact that another RB fares better when the Saints do the same to him, it makes your position look weaker.
 
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?
Yes, that's all it takes for most to assume. However, I think he looked good in the preseason catching the ball, although I only saw three instances.

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

4:15 - nice hands catch for 10 yards

4:34 - another nice hands catch but for 23 yards this time

5:06 - ball thrown high and behind, but he catches it with his hands

So from that limited sample, I don't think his hands are a problem.

 
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.
You are a trip, you really get defensive and are kind of an ### when you reply, but that is 3 plays. How about the first two runs at :22 and :28 where he faced 9 and 10 guys in the box? The first one is 1st and 10 and the LB gets 3 yards behind the LOS where Ivory is going and he still gets over 10 yards and a 1st down. Second one is short yardage and he gets around 10 yards. Even on the :43 one, Seattle gets three guys behind the LOS where he is running.

I have never seen much from Ingram and getting him the ball 25 times in a game is going to make NO's a lot worse. I think people think of Reggie Bush and his misuse and think that that could be Ingram in Miami and Detroit. Problem is that Bush may have been misused, but he damn sure showed flashes of brilliance. I think it took Bush a few years to learn how to be a RB instead of a playmaker and use the playmaker skills when he breaks free, not at the start of the run. I have never seen those flashes of brilliance from Ingram. Everyone has some good runs, even Ingram, but Bush looked special on many plays.

For anyone that watched the Eagles-Redskins game, look at Alfred Morris' touchdown. Morris had a terrible game and because they fell down 33-7 only got 12 carries, but that one TD was awesome. Philly blew up the direction of the run, but Morris set it all up, just to cutback untouched. Philly knew Washington was running and had Morris stayed to the left on a short yardage/goal line type of run, he loses yardage. Instead, he has the vision to let the play progress and cut it back for a TD. That, is what Ingram does not appear to have IMHO. All the Ingram supporters keep pointing to stacked fronts and penetration, well, Morris's TD is exactly that where Philly knew it was a run and knew Griffin wasn't going to run it himself (maybe next time they play that will worry them). Ingram trips or runs into his lineman or tries to dance his way out. I don't recall seeing consistency where he knew where to go when people got penetration.

 
Ffninja, did you just say teams stack the box on Ingram??? Defenses fear Ingram more than Brees?????

Pass that pipe.
watch the clip, smart guy
So you're saying Ingram > Brees.

Man, turn your shark card in.
It's almost silly. For Ingram supporters, people stay in the box, for other RBs they peel out almost immediately so they really weren't in the box. LBs may be in the box, but they are covering the TE, which means even in the box, the Saints have an extra blocker. See the post above, pretty much 11 in the box from the 5 yard line on Morris' TD, the Eagles got a ton of penetration, yet he scores untouched because he knew what to do if that hole was gone.

 
FWIW, last week Ingram had 18 snaps, 50% pass / 50% run. Maybe they are trying to mix it up when he's in?

 
It's almost silly. For Ingram supporters, people stay in the box, for other RBs they peel out almost immediately so they really weren't in the box. LBs may be in the box, but they are covering the TE, which means even in the box, the Saints have an extra blocker. See the post above, pretty much 11 in the box from the 5 yard line on Morris' TD, the Eagles got a ton of penetration, yet he scores untouched because he knew what to do if that hole was gone.
Here's the video- where do you see "a ton of penetration"? They had one guy go unblocked, who went after RGIII, one guy in the backfield who was double-teamed, and the rest were blocked nicely by the line. It was a decent run, but there was no one out to the right. A pretty far cry from the run the bashers are criticizing Ingram for.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ffninja, did you just say teams stack the box on Ingram??? Defenses fear Ingram more than Brees?????

Pass that pipe.
watch the clip, smart guy
So you're saying Ingram > Brees.

Man, turn your shark card in.
:rolleyes: No, what I'm saying... is literally what I said... watch the clip of every one of his week 1 runs.
I can see how that might be interpreted as Ingram>Brees. :sarcasm:

 
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.
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.
So 60% of his plays are rushes? Is that high or low for obvious rushing downs?

 
I didn't read the entire thread so I apologize if this has been :deadhorse: . Saints fan here that has seen every snap Ingram has taken as a Saint. Ingram lacks 2 major components to his game. First and foremost he really lacks vision (something P. Thomas has in spades). Secondly, he goes down way too easy for his size. As a Saints fan I wish they would give Pierre the ball 25 times a game; he's the best pure running back on the team and has been for years.

 
Ffninja, did you just say teams stack the box on Ingram??? Defenses fear Ingram more than Brees?????

Pass that pipe.
watch the clip, smart guy
So you're saying Ingram > Brees.

Man, turn your shark card in.
:rolleyes: No, what I'm saying... is literally what I said... watch the clip of every one of his week 1 runs.
This sounds like the kind of logic my wife uses

 
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.
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.
So 60% of his plays are rushes? Is that high or low for obvious rushing downs?
I see your point, but it works both ways. For instance, if Ingram gets all the short yardage, then obviously his ypc is going to be lower than Pierre Thomas, who may get 3rd down draws and runs on obvious passing downs.

 
FWIW, last week Ingram had 18 snaps, 50% pass / 50% run. Maybe they are trying to mix it up when he's in?
I anticipate that this the head coach sees this problem and will fix it. One way or the other, even if it just means turning Ingram into strictly a goalline back.

 
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.
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.
So 60% of his plays are rushes? Is that high or low for obvious rushing downs?
I see your point, but it works both ways. For instance, if Ingram gets all the short yardage, then obviously his ypc is going to be lower than Pierre Thomas, who may get 3rd down draws and runs on obvious passing downs.
Ingram has had the worst success rate of all NO backs each year too.

 
It's almost silly. For Ingram supporters, people stay in the box, for other RBs they peel out almost immediately so they really weren't in the box. LBs may be in the box, but they are covering the TE, which means even in the box, the Saints have an extra blocker. See the post above, pretty much 11 in the box from the 5 yard line on Morris' TD, the Eagles got a ton of penetration, yet he scores untouched because he knew what to do if that hole was gone.
Here's the video- where do you see "a ton of penetration"? They had one guy go unblocked, who went after RGIII, one guy in the backfield who was double-teamed, and the rest were blocked nicely by the line. It was a decent run, but there was no one out to the right. A pretty far cry from the run the bashers are criticizing Ingram for.
You are correct, the view I saw was just the one from behind the end zone which looked more than just Trent Cole. I was just trying to point to a run that was fresh in my mind where the RB already had in his mind what to do if he couldn't go left and how to make it look like he was going there until the last possible second. I just don't see Ingram setting up plays like that.

 
It's almost silly. For Ingram supporters, people stay in the box, for other RBs they peel out almost immediately so they really weren't in the box. LBs may be in the box, but they are covering the TE, which means even in the box, the Saints have an extra blocker. See the post above, pretty much 11 in the box from the 5 yard line on Morris' TD, the Eagles got a ton of penetration, yet he scores untouched because he knew what to do if that hole was gone.
Here's the video- where do you see "a ton of penetration"? They had one guy go unblocked, who went after RGIII, one guy in the backfield who was double-teamed, and the rest were blocked nicely by the line. It was a decent run, but there was no one out to the right. A pretty far cry from the run the bashers are criticizing Ingram for.
You are correct, the view I saw was just the one from behind the end zone which looked more than just Trent Cole. I was just trying to point to a run that was fresh in my mind where the RB already had in his mind what to do if he couldn't go left and how to make it look like he was going there until the last possible second. I just don't see Ingram setting up plays like that.
I don't know, I see a designed run to the left, when it wasn't there he sees a wide open field to the right and takes it. I don't think he already had it in his mind or was faking everyone out by going left first. :shrug:

Ingram obviously didn't have a good night, but the blocking was dreadful on the majority of his runs.

 
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.
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.
So 60% of his plays are rushes? Is that high or low for obvious rushing downs?
I see your point, but it works both ways. For instance, if Ingram gets all the short yardage, then obviously his ypc is going to be lower than Pierre Thomas, who may get 3rd down draws and runs on obvious passing downs.
That isn't a valid point. I wish I could find the article or previous post, but Ingram didn't have that many short yardage attempts that it would really affect his ypc. Having Brees as his QB, who often throws at the goal line more than offsets that. In fact, you would think he would have more opportunities to break long runs like Ivory did on that short yardage play in the links on previous pages.

Sproles had more receiving TDs than Ingram had rushing TDs in 2012, so I don't believe his ypc was affected as negatively as you think. 5 of Sproles 7 TDs were from within the 10 yard line and 2 of Ingram's 5 TDs were from outside the 10 yard line. Not much of a goal line back with 2 TDs from within the 5 yard line. Even Thomas had 2 TDs (1 rushing and 1 receiving) from the 5 yard line. Graham had 4 TDs from within the 10 including 3 from the 1 yard line. Colston had 5 TDs from within the 10 and 2 from within the 5. Moore had 3 TDs from within the 10. Jed Collins had 2 receiving from within the 10 and 1 from within the 5. David Thomas had 3 from within the 10 and 1 from within 5.

So, when Sproles, Graham, Colston, Moore, Collins, DThomas and PThomas all had more or at least the same number of TDs from within the 10 yard line (24 TDs to 2 TDs overall) then I don't think you can accurately say that Ingram's ypc suffered because of short yardage. 24 to 2 would tell the defense that you shouldn't care about Ingram at the goal line, you care about Brees.

 
It's almost silly. For Ingram supporters, people stay in the box, for other RBs they peel out almost immediately so they really weren't in the box. LBs may be in the box, but they are covering the TE, which means even in the box, the Saints have an extra blocker. See the post above, pretty much 11 in the box from the 5 yard line on Morris' TD, the Eagles got a ton of penetration, yet he scores untouched because he knew what to do if that hole was gone.
Here's the video- where do you see "a ton of penetration"? They had one guy go unblocked, who went after RGIII, one guy in the backfield who was double-teamed, and the rest were blocked nicely by the line. It was a decent run, but there was no one out to the right. A pretty far cry from the run the bashers are criticizing Ingram for.
You are correct, the view I saw was just the one from behind the end zone which looked more than just Trent Cole. I was just trying to point to a run that was fresh in my mind where the RB already had in his mind what to do if he couldn't go left and how to make it look like he was going there until the last possible second. I just don't see Ingram setting up plays like that.
I don't know, I see a designed run to the left, when it wasn't there he sees a wide open field to the right and takes it. I don't think he already had it in his mind or was faking everyone out by going left first. :shrug:

Ingram obviously didn't have a good night, but the blocking was dreadful on the majority of his runs.
I didn't mean he was faking it, I meant that he was decisive, i.e. not falling down or running into a spot out of which there is no escape. He let the play develop and I would bet 100% that Morris already knew what he was going to do if the left wasn't open before the play. There was no thinking on his part, no dancing, just see opening and go. While it was open, I think his decisiveness led to the fact that he went untouched. While Ingram escaped some tackles in the video, not many, he was more bouncing off things than "seeing" the hole/escape route.

 
It's almost silly. For Ingram supporters, people stay in the box, for other RBs they peel out almost immediately so they really weren't in the box. LBs may be in the box, but they are covering the TE, which means even in the box, the Saints have an extra blocker. See the post above, pretty much 11 in the box from the 5 yard line on Morris' TD, the Eagles got a ton of penetration, yet he scores untouched because he knew what to do if that hole was gone.
Here's the video- where do you see "a ton of penetration"? They had one guy go unblocked, who went after RGIII, one guy in the backfield who was double-teamed, and the rest were blocked nicely by the line. It was a decent run, but there was no one out to the right. A pretty far cry from the run the bashers are criticizing Ingram for.
You are correct, the view I saw was just the one from behind the end zone which looked more than just Trent Cole. I was just trying to point to a run that was fresh in my mind where the RB already had in his mind what to do if he couldn't go left and how to make it look like he was going there until the last possible second. I just don't see Ingram setting up plays like that.
I don't know, I see a designed run to the left, when it wasn't there he sees a wide open field to the right and takes it. I don't think he already had it in his mind or was faking everyone out by going left first. :shrug:

Ingram obviously didn't have a good night, but the blocking was dreadful on the majority of his runs.
I didn't mean he was faking it, I meant that he was decisive, i.e. not falling down or running into a spot out of which there is no escape. He let the play develop and I would bet 100% that Morris already knew what he was going to do if the left wasn't open before the play. There was no thinking on his part, no dancing, just see opening and go. While it was open, I think his decisiveness led to the fact that he went untouched. While Ingram escaped some tackles in the video, not many, he was more bouncing off things than "seeing" the hole/escape route.
Ingram didn't have that hole/escape route, so I don't see the point in comparing the runs when the circumstances were so different. Morris did "bounce off things" just like Ingram, the difference was there were no defenders sitting there waiting for him like there were for Ingram.

Oh well, let's move on.

 
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.
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.
So 60% of his plays are rushes? Is that high or low for obvious rushing downs?
I see your point, but it works both ways. For instance, if Ingram gets all the short yardage, then obviously his ypc is going to be lower than Pierre Thomas, who may get 3rd down draws and runs on obvious passing downs.
That isn't a valid point. I wish I could find the article or previous post, but Ingram didn't have that many short yardage attempts that it would really affect his ypc. Having Brees as his QB, who often throws at the goal line more than offsets that. In fact, you would think he would have more opportunities to break long runs like Ivory did on that short yardage play in the links on previous pages.Sproles had more receiving TDs than Ingram had rushing TDs in 2012, so I don't believe his ypc was affected as negatively as you think. 5 of Sproles 7 TDs were from within the 10 yard line and 2 of Ingram's 5 TDs were from outside the 10 yard line. Not much of a goal line back with 2 TDs from within the 5 yard line. Even Thomas had 2 TDs (1 rushing and 1 receiving) from the 5 yard line. Graham had 4 TDs from within the 10 including 3 from the 1 yard line. Colston had 5 TDs from within the 10 and 2 from within the 5. Moore had 3 TDs from within the 10. Jed Collins had 2 receiving from within the 10 and 1 from within the 5. David Thomas had 3 from within the 10 and 1 from within 5.

So, when Sproles, Graham, Colston, Moore, Collins, DThomas and PThomas all had more or at least the same number of TDs from within the 10 yard line (24 TDs to 2 TDs overall) then I don't think you can accurately say that Ingram's ypc suffered because of short yardage. 24 to 2 would tell the defense that you shouldn't care about Ingram at the goal line, you care about Brees.
I'm not sure what to make of this post. What correlation do you think exists between Moore, Colston, Graham, Sproles, et al receiving TDs and Ingram's rushing TD's?As far as Ingram not having enough short yardage carries; he had 25 carries for 66 yards in short yardage (3 yards or less to go) plays in 2012. Take those out, and he averages 4.1 YPC.

 
It's almost silly. For Ingram supporters, people stay in the box, for other RBs they peel out almost immediately so they really weren't in the box. LBs may be in the box, but they are covering the TE, which means even in the box, the Saints have an extra blocker. See the post above, pretty much 11 in the box from the 5 yard line on Morris' TD, the Eagles got a ton of penetration, yet he scores untouched because he knew what to do if that hole was gone.
Here's the video- where do you see "a ton of penetration"? They had one guy go unblocked, who went after RGIII, one guy in the backfield who was double-teamed, and the rest were blocked nicely by the line. It was a decent run, but there was no one out to the right. A pretty far cry from the run the bashers are criticizing Ingram for.
You are correct, the view I saw was just the one from behind the end zone which looked more than just Trent Cole. I was just trying to point to a run that was fresh in my mind where the RB already had in his mind what to do if he couldn't go left and how to make it look like he was going there until the last possible second. I just don't see Ingram setting up plays like that.
I don't know, I see a designed run to the left, when it wasn't there he sees a wide open field to the right and takes it. I don't think he already had it in his mind or was faking everyone out by going left first. :shrug: Ingram obviously didn't have a good night, but the blocking was dreadful on the majority of his runs.
I didn't mean he was faking it, I meant that he was decisive, i.e. not falling down or running into a spot out of which there is no escape. He let the play develop and I would bet 100% that Morris already knew what he was going to do if the left wasn't open before the play. There was no thinking on his part, no dancing, just see opening and go. While it was open, I think his decisiveness led to the fact that he went untouched. While Ingram escaped some tackles in the video, not many, he was more bouncing off things than "seeing" the hole/escape route.
Washington runs a ZBS; runners are taught/expected to look for cut backs. NO doesn't; one would expect their RBs to run plays towards the hole they were deigned for.
 
I found this article informative. Basically, the blocking on his runs was bad. Really bad.

And the team did fine with Ingram in when they passed, partly because the play action worked well. This guy on the same link, further down, breaks down the pass plays with Ingram in the game. Brees completed five passes, one incomplete, one sack, and two kneel downs. So of the 9 plays where they didn't run when he was in the game, two are not even relevant. Of the other seven, 5 were successful.

The Nine Plays of Mark Ingram (non-rushing)1 – Q1 @ 13.24. 1st play of 1st possession: fake to Ingram, 16 yard pass to Moore

2 – Q1 @ 8.28. 1st play after Falcons TD: ATL bites hard on fake to Ingram; successful pass to Watson

Q1 @ 1.28. 1st play after Falcons FG: Falcons expect pass; PT gets 8 yards straight up the middle

3 – Q2 @ 15.00. 1st play of 2nd quarter: ATL bites on fake to Ingram, long pass to Stills broken up by McClain

Q2 @ 12.01: After 5yd Sproles run and 6yd PT screen, Ingram successful with 7yd run, then stuffed for -4 on next play

4 – 3rd Quarter @ 2.56: Ingram blocking for Drew in end zone, catch by Colston

5 – 4th Quarter @ 14.21: ATL bites on fake to Ingram, 14 yard catch by Colston

followed by 3 yard Ingram carry

6 – 4th Quarter @ 9.24, first play of drive: Fake to Ingram (he trips at line), 16 yard catch by Watson

followed by -3 yard Ingram carry

7 – 4th Quarter @ 6.48: fake to Ingram, Brees sacked

8&9 – Ingram was in for both kneel-downs at the end of the game.

  • Ingram was in for all kickoffs (Sproles to receive), but no punts.
 
I got to this thread late and skimmed through it. I remembered an article that pretty much sums up what many of you on here have said regarding Ingram's substandard lack of productivity in the Saints offense:

http://www.4for4.com/fantasy-football/2013/preseason/sleeper-alert-saints-rb-pierre-thomas
Yeah, that article isn't very good analysis. The Saints run on 27% of Thomas' snaps vs. 59% for Ingram's. You really think they are facing the same defenses? Only if the defensive coordinator isn't doing his job.

 
I found this article informative. Basically, the blocking on his runs was bad. Really bad.

And the team did fine with Ingram in when they passed, partly because the play action worked well. This guy on the same link, further down, breaks down the pass plays with Ingram in the game. Brees completed five passes, one incomplete, one sack, and two kneel downs. So of the 9 plays where they didn't run when he was in the game, two are not even relevant. Of the other seven, 5 were successful.

The Nine Plays of Mark Ingram (non-rushing)1 – Q1 @ 13.24. 1st play of 1st possession: fake to Ingram, 16 yard pass to Moore

2 – Q1 @ 8.28. 1st play after Falcons TD: ATL bites hard on fake to Ingram; successful pass to Watson

Q1 @ 1.28. 1st play after Falcons FG: Falcons expect pass; PT gets 8 yards straight up the middle

3 – Q2 @ 15.00. 1st play of 2nd quarter: ATL bites on fake to Ingram, long pass to Stills broken up by McClain

Q2 @ 12.01: After 5yd Sproles run and 6yd PT screen, Ingram successful with 7yd run, then stuffed for -4 on next play

4 – 3rd Quarter @ 2.56: Ingram blocking for Drew in end zone, catch by Colston

5 – 4th Quarter @ 14.21: ATL bites on fake to Ingram, 14 yard catch by Colston

followed by 3 yard Ingram carry

6 – 4th Quarter @ 9.24, first play of drive: Fake to Ingram (he trips at line), 16 yard catch by Watson

followed by -3 yard Ingram carry

7 – 4th Quarter @ 6.48: fake to Ingram, Brees sacked

8&9 – Ingram was in for both kneel-downs at the end of the game.

  • Ingram was in for all kickoffs (Sproles to receive), but no punts.
Thanks. That's good stuff. I didn't realize that two of his snaps were kneel-downs... so really they ran on 9 out of 16 of his snaps - 56%. Right in line with last year. Ugh.

 
Thomas is really good back. He does have a tendency to get dinged.

From the game 1 highlights posted, it does look like Ingram was getting swamped behind the LOS. You almost need to give him a mulligan for that one.

Let's see what happens in game 2 and if the 9 for 11 causes DC's to let him have a little more space

 
Summary of FF Ninja thoughts on football

1. Ingram>>>>>> Brees

2. Kaepernick is a D-bag, Thug, Scumbag

SMH

 
Summary of FF Ninja thoughts on football

1. Ingram>>>>>> Brees
Are you, um, special? Or are you just doing some really weird trolling? I'm not the only one who thinks your logic is a bit looney on this one:

Ffninja, did you just say teams stack the box on Ingram??? Defenses fear Ingram more than Brees?????

Pass that pipe.
watch the clip, smart guy
So you're saying Ingram > Brees.

Man, turn your shark card in.
:rolleyes: No, what I'm saying... is literally what I said... watch the clip of every one of his week 1 runs.
I can see how that might be interpreted as Ingram>Brees. :sarcasm:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I got to this thread late and skimmed through it. I remembered an article that pretty much sums up what many of you on here have said regarding Ingram's substandard lack of productivity in the Saints offense:

http://www.4for4.com/fantasy-football/2013/preseason/sleeper-alert-saints-rb-pierre-thomas
Yeah, that article isn't very good analysis. The Saints run on 27% of Thomas' snaps vs. 59% for Ingram's. You really think they are facing the same defenses? Only if the defensive coordinator isn't doing his job.
By now, if Ingram were any good, any good at all, he would be able to do his job better than the defense does its job. At least some of the time. That hasn't happened and it's not going to happen because Ingram is just not a good RB at the pro level. He doesn't make enough people miss, he doesn't break enough tackles. This was an epic fail by the Saints, but it happens all the time. Player valuations in college often tend to over- and under-estimate translation to the pro level. In Ingram's case, it's a done deal. There was a vast over-estimation of his talent level. Some are slower than others to pick up on this, for sure.Can we move on from Mark Ingram now? He's irrelevant.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's almost silly. For Ingram supporters, people stay in the box, for other RBs they peel out almost immediately so they really weren't in the box. LBs may be in the box, but they are covering the TE, which means even in the box, the Saints have an extra blocker. See the post above, pretty much 11 in the box from the 5 yard line on Morris' TD, the Eagles got a ton of penetration, yet he scores untouched because he knew what to do if that hole was gone.
Here's the video- where do you see "a ton of penetration"? They had one guy go unblocked, who went after RGIII, one guy in the backfield who was double-teamed, and the rest were blocked nicely by the line. It was a decent run, but there was no one out to the right. A pretty far cry from the run the bashers are criticizing Ingram for.
You are correct, the view I saw was just the one from behind the end zone which looked more than just Trent Cole. I was just trying to point to a run that was fresh in my mind where the RB already had in his mind what to do if he couldn't go left and how to make it look like he was going there until the last possible second. I just don't see Ingram setting up plays like that.
I don't know, I see a designed run to the left, when it wasn't there he sees a wide open field to the right and takes it. I don't think he already had it in his mind or was faking everyone out by going left first. :shrug:

Ingram obviously didn't have a good night, but the blocking was dreadful on the majority of his runs.
I didn't mean he was faking it, I meant that he was decisive, i.e. not falling down or running into a spot out of which there is no escape. He let the play develop and I would bet 100% that Morris already knew what he was going to do if the left wasn't open before the play. There was no thinking on his part, no dancing, just see opening and go. While it was open, I think his decisiveness led to the fact that he went untouched. While Ingram escaped some tackles in the video, not many, he was more bouncing off things than "seeing" the hole/escape route.
Dude, Morris didn't already know what he was going to do if the blocking isn't there. You think he's psychic? Blocking is a completely fluid situation, which is the very reason that vision IS so important.

What we call "vision" is the RB reading what is happening, analyzing it (which includes a certain amount of anticipation for what is about to happen as well), deciding how to react and then reacting. We use the cliche' that they stop thinking and just start doing, but it's actually that they learn to read and react faster and faster. We're talking milliseconds here but that is enough to be the difference in getting tackled and breaking through an arm tackle.

But as in all things, everyone is unique. So some RB's can process the info much faster than others. And some RB's can react faster than others. So a RB with faster processing ability and faster reaction times will perform better than a RB that has neither and RB's that are only good at one or the other. The combine wonders are the guys that have the physical ability but lack the processing speed to make that ability useful. The flipside is a guy like Daniel Thomas who probably sees what to do but lacks the ability at the pro level to capitalize on it like he could in the college game.

That's why some guys have to re-learn how to run in the pros because one of the two abilities hasn't translated as well so they have to change their method.

Ingram may be lacking in vision, but he was actually noted for it coming out of college. But it could be that the speed of the pro game is simply too fast for him to process and he was actually operating at 100% of his capacity in college. Or it may be that Ingram isn't quick enough at the pro level to create on his own so he doggedly sticks to the plan to get what's there. Hard to say since it's so chock full of intangibles.

 
I got to this thread late and skimmed through it. I remembered an article that pretty much sums up what many of you on here have said regarding Ingram's substandard lack of productivity in the Saints offense:

http://www.4for4.com/fantasy-football/2013/preseason/sleeper-alert-saints-rb-pierre-thomas
Yeah, that article isn't very good analysis. The Saints run on 27% of Thomas' snaps vs. 59% for Ingram's. You really think they are facing the same defenses? Only if the defensive coordinator isn't doing his job.
By now, if Ingram were any good, any good at all, he would be able to do his job better than the defense does its job. At least some of the time. That hasn't happened and it's not going to happen because Ingram is just not a good RB at the pro level. He doesn't make enough people miss, he doesn't break enough tackles. This was an epic fail by the Saints, but it happens all the time. Player valuations in college often tend to over- and under-estimate translation to the pro level. In Ingram's case, it's a done deal. There was a vast over-estimation of his talent level. Some are slower than others to pick up on this, for sure.Can we move on from Mark Ingram now? He's irrelevant.
I'm sure the same things were written about Garrion Hearst, Thomas Jones and Reggie Bush at a certain point in their careers...

even Cedric Benson a a good year or so in himj...

 
Bayhawks said:
It's almost silly. For Ingram supporters, people stay in the box, for other RBs they peel out almost immediately so they really weren't in the box. LBs may be in the box, but they are covering the TE, which means even in the box, the Saints have an extra blocker. See the post above, pretty much 11 in the box from the 5 yard line on Morris' TD, the Eagles got a ton of penetration, yet he scores untouched because he knew what to do if that hole was gone.
Here's the video- where do you see "a ton of penetration"? They had one guy go unblocked, who went after RGIII, one guy in the backfield who was double-teamed, and the rest were blocked nicely by the line. It was a decent run, but there was no one out to the right. A pretty far cry from the run the bashers are criticizing Ingram for.
You are correct, the view I saw was just the one from behind the end zone which looked more than just Trent Cole. I was just trying to point to a run that was fresh in my mind where the RB already had in his mind what to do if he couldn't go left and how to make it look like he was going there until the last possible second. I just don't see Ingram setting up plays like that.
I don't know, I see a designed run to the left, when it wasn't there he sees a wide open field to the right and takes it. I don't think he already had it in his mind or was faking everyone out by going left first. :shrug: Ingram obviously didn't have a good night, but the blocking was dreadful on the majority of his runs.
I didn't mean he was faking it, I meant that he was decisive, i.e. not falling down or running into a spot out of which there is no escape. He let the play develop and I would bet 100% that Morris already knew what he was going to do if the left wasn't open before the play. There was no thinking on his part, no dancing, just see opening and go. While it was open, I think his decisiveness led to the fact that he went untouched. While Ingram escaped some tackles in the video, not many, he was more bouncing off things than "seeing" the hole/escape route.
Washington runs a ZBS; runners are taught/expected to look for cut backs. NO doesn't; one would expect their RBs to run plays towards the hole they were deigned for.
That's part of it. But even if you aren't in a ZBS, a RB with good vision and reaction time can still exploit an opportunity if it presents itself.

And I'd suggest that if you are running behind an o-line that isn't great, you are effectively in a ZBS anyway because of your linemen's inability to win those battles. You learn to run for where the daylight is because you can't trust your blockers.

 
I got to this thread late and skimmed through it. I remembered an article that pretty much sums up what many of you on here have said regarding Ingram's substandard lack of productivity in the Saints offense:

http://www.4for4.com/fantasy-football/2013/preseason/sleeper-alert-saints-rb-pierre-thomas
Yeah, that article isn't very good analysis. The Saints run on 27% of Thomas' snaps vs. 59% for Ingram's. You really think they are facing the same defenses? Only if the defensive coordinator isn't doing his job.
By now, if Ingram were any good, any good at all, he would be able to do his job better than the defense does its job. At least some of the time. That hasn't happened and it's not going to happen because Ingram is just not a good RB at the pro level. He doesn't make enough people miss, he doesn't break enough tackles. This was an epic fail by the Saints, but it happens all the time. Player valuations in college often tend to over- and under-estimate translation to the pro level. In Ingram's case, it's a done deal. There was a vast over-estimation of his talent level. Some are slower than others to pick up on this, for sure.Can we move on from Mark Ingram now? He's irrelevant.
Right, because no NFL RB has ever taken more than 2 years to perform at the pro level (T Jones, C Benson, T Barber, R Bush). :sarcasm:

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top