- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Wednesday Mark Ingram
Posted on 8/11/11 at 9:44 am to Sophandros
Posted on 8/11/11 at 9:44 am to Sophandros
quote:
Would that satisfy you?
for a rookie? yes
i'd hope that would inch up to 1200-1300 in years 2-3
1
Posted on 8/11/11 at 9:44 am to Chad504boy
There's no point in arguing with SFP, I think he likes to post to the contrary of most people so that he can generate topics and debate, and therefore more posts.
He's almost always offering a different view than most people. Nothing really wrong with that, but when it happens as often as it does, may as well stop arguing with him because he seems to argue for the sake of argument.
He's almost always offering a different view than most people. Nothing really wrong with that, but when it happens as often as it does, may as well stop arguing with him because he seems to argue for the sake of argument.
Posted on 8/11/11 at 9:45 am to Hulkklogan
quote:
so that he can generate topics and debate, and therefore more posts.
i don't give a frick about my post count
i've asked chicken to move it to 0 many times, and he won't
quote:
He's almost always offering a different view than most people
you just notice more when i do
This post was edited on 8/11/11 at 9:45 am
Posted on 8/11/11 at 9:47 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
you just notice more when i do
I don't know about that. Seems like every time I see you post, it's to the contrary of the "flow" of the thread. (cwutididthar?)
Posted on 8/11/11 at 9:50 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
i'd hope that would inch up to 1200-1300 in years 2-3
If he gets over 5 yards per carry with the same workload (which is doubtful to have that confluence in our system), then that's possible.
Posted on 8/11/11 at 9:51 am to Sophandros
fwiw, i think if ingram does show up as advertised, pierre may be gone next year
Posted on 8/11/11 at 9:57 am to Hulkklogan
quote:
There's no point in arguing with SFP, I think he likes to post to the contrary of most people so that he can generate topics and debate, and therefore more posts. He's almost always offering a different view than most people. Nothing really wrong with that, but when it happens as often as it does, may as well stop arguing with him because he seems to argue for the sake of argument.
All of this.
Posted on 8/11/11 at 10:08 am to whodatfan
He may do that, but at least he doesn't name call or insult. Its usually good conversation, although it may get annoying when he just won't see it my way.
Posted on 8/11/11 at 10:09 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
pierre may be gone next year
PT is a great 2nd back to have on the roster. Ingram's success does not mean shite to PT coming or going. PT just needs to stay healthy and keep contributing.
Posted on 8/11/11 at 10:11 am to Chad504boy
quote:
quote:
pierre may be gone next year
PT is a great 2nd back to have on the roster. Ingram's success does not mean shite to PT coming or going. PT just needs to stay healthy and keep contributing.
Yeah..I disagree with SFP. I think PT is fine. Ingram, PT, and Sproles will be in the backfield for at least 4 years.
Posted on 8/11/11 at 10:12 am to Chad504boy
quote:
PT is a great 2nd back to have on the roster. Ingram's success does not mean shite to PT coming or going
salary implications are what matters
we still haven't re-signed brees or nicks. porter/greer are coming up. colston wants a new deal.
pierre may not be worth his % of the cap next year, considering the money we'll have to spend
Posted on 8/11/11 at 10:17 am to SlowFlowPro
Giving up a 2nd this year and the 32nd next year is not too much a gamble for a complete back.
Posted on 8/11/11 at 1:00 pm to Adam
The picture of ingram in the first post of the thread.....
Ingram's calves look like hyraulic pistons attached to his legs.
He is a MACHEEEEEEEN.
Ingram's calves look like hyraulic pistons attached to his legs.
He is a MACHEEEEEEEN.
Posted on 8/11/11 at 1:06 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
salary implications are what matters
we still haven't re-signed brees or nicks. porter/greer are coming up. colston wants a new deal.
pierre may not be worth his % of the cap next year, considering the money we'll have to spend
PT has a fairly modest contract especially considering we have Ingram ON THE CHEAP the next 4 years. Basically we have Sproles, PT, and Ingram less the cost of Reggae Bush.
Posted on 8/11/11 at 2:31 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
nothing i said was incorrect
Here are your comments once again: "Ingram isn't really the dominating big/power back that you're making him out to be. He's not a 240 lb grinder. RB is just not a value position in the league anymore."
You are correct. Ingram is not a "big" back height-wise or "240 lbs" weight-wise. In technicalities, that's all you got right.
You said Ingram isn't "dominating" or a "power back" or a "grinder". Actual Super Bowl winning Saints defenders said Ingram is a "machine" who "breaks tackles" & "doesn't let up" and "finishes his runs", that he is "very powerful" with "strong legs" and "hits the pile with force" and "keeps the pile moving" where defenders will get the "worst of the hit", and that he's "dangerous" because of his "speed around the edge" & "cut-back abilty" and that he's "the real deal" because he is "powerful", "agile", with "advanced vision" and "great balance" and will routinely "break arm tackles". If that doesn't describe a dominating & grinding power back who plays bigger than his measurables, I don't know what does.
You said "RB is just not a value position". The Super Bowl run '09 proved the value of the RB position for the Saints offense. They finally had a running game, and it was the major factor in their success. Just look at the disappointing 2010 Saints results, with an improved defense but with no consistent running game, the RB position has proved itself even more valuble to the Saints for a successful season than it is arguably for any other team in the league.
So "nothing" you said was incorrect? I would say you hardly got anything right.
Posted on 8/11/11 at 2:36 pm to LSUFreek
quote:
240 lb grinder. RB is just not a value position in the league anymore."
You are correct. Ingram is not a "big" back height-wise or "240 lbs" weight-wise. In technicalities, that's all you got right.
You said Ingram isn't "dominating" or a "power back" or a "grinder". Actual Super Bowl winning Saints defenders said Ingram is a "machine" who "breaks tackles" & "doesn't let up" and "finishes his runs", that he is "very powerful" with "strong legs" and "hits the pile with force" and "keeps the pile moving" where defenders will get the "worst of the hit", and that he's "dangerous" because of his "speed around the edge" & "cut-back abilty" and that he's "the real deal" because he is "powerful", "agile", with "advanced vision" and "great balance" and will routinely "break arm tackles". If that doesn't describe a dominating & grinding power back who plays bigger than his measurables, I don't know what does.
You said "RB is just not a value position". The Super Bowl run '09 proved the value of the RB position for the Saints offense. They finally had a running game, and it was the major factor in their success. Just look at the disappointing 2010 Saints results, with an improved defense but with no consistent running game, the RB position has proved itself even more valuble to the Saints for a successful season than it is arguably for any other team in the league.
So "nothing" you said was incorrect? I would say you hardly got anything right.
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!!!!!!!!'DAYUM
LEGIT BOOM
Posted on 8/11/11 at 2:53 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
enkins failed at CB like i said he would. all i did was point out that he wasn't going to be a good CB, and saintards flipped out and tried to tell me 4.55 speed was fine at man CB
i think about just everyone know that if he couldnt make it as a CB, he could be moved to safety and do well there. Payton said that the day we drafted him.
and it wasnt even that he failed at CB. There was more of a need at safety, especially with Sharper being hurt last year and on the PUP list when the seaosn started.
Page 6 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News