cobalt_27
Footballguy
If you have to use theRight, 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).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.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 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![]()

Way to basically plagiarize the post above. Nice re-ordering of the names to make it look like you had an original thought.
Exceptions exist amidst the massive sea of true busts. If you're clinging to the hope that he might turn into Garrison Hearst, by all means, don't let any of us interfere with the dream.