lawofmurphy Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 /troublemaking bump?? So, I was impressed by Ingram this year. He ranks somewhere around 3rd for RB success % depending on how you define success. It's a good stat, it just varies in parameters depending on the site/tracker. Anyway...I like the talent. The problem from a fantasy perspective is Pierre Thomas is there for a few more years and the Saints obviously have no trouble using other weapons depending on the game. I assume Ingram will assume Thomas' role while Thomas assumes Ingram's role at some point. But I just don't see him as a safe week-in week-out option in the next year. I worry about a little Jonathan Stewart thing here...good talent, but not given the carries... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hooknladder Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hooknladder Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 (edited) /troublemaking bump?? So, I was impressed by Ingram this year. He ranks somewhere around 3rd for RB success % depending on how you define success. It's a good stat, it just varies in parameters depending on the site/tracker. Anyway...I like the talent. The problem from a fantasy perspective is Pierre Thomas is there for a few more years and the Saints obviously have no trouble using other weapons depending on the game. I assume Ingram will assume Thomas' role while Thomas assumes Ingram's role at some point. But I just don't see him as a safe week-in week-out option in the next year. I worry about a little Jonathan Stewart thing here...good talent, but not given the carries... 122/474 (3.9 avg.) 5TD 11/46 0 ...........@ play-off time. -not very impressive. ranked right around 40th i believe. Edited December 13, 2011 by hooknladder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lawofmurphy Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 Yes, the idea that he would be a top 20 fantasy back was ambitious. And from a fantasy perspective, I don't like that Thomas is signed through 2014 or whatever...and Sproles isn't going away any time soon. And the injury this year isn't good news. But I still saw a bit more from him than I expected. The advanced metrics like him. Again, a 3 yard run on 1st and 10 sucks but a 3 yard run on 3rd and 1 is a success. So he's been put in situations where success is a different definition than what it is for other backs. Good in the NFL, bad in fantasy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 an injury w(or two) will obviously skew his final projections. And no one (not even those who felt he'd be just average0 said they predicted an injury. His stats extrapolated over 13 games would put him in the low 20's right now, borderline RB2, with what many people felt the best yet to come as he got cozier in the offense during the 2nd half of the year. Injuries never allowed that to happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 an injury w(or two) will obviously skew his final projections. And no one (not even those who felt he'd be just average0 said they predicted an injury. His stats extrapolated over 13 games would put him in the low 20's right now, borderline RB2, with what many people felt the best yet to come as he got cozier in the offense during the 2nd half of the year. Injuries never allowed that to happen. Agreed. I liked how Ingram was getting more comfortable as the season wore on, and look forward to next year . . I bet people also had Jamaal Charles as a top 10 back this year . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
montster Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 122/474 (3.9 avg.) 5TD11/46 0 ...........@ play-off time. -not very impressive. ranked right around 40th i believe. I was high on him and took him at the 4.04 of a 12-team PPR redraft. Admittedly, I wish he had done more, but I'm not sure what the point is in saying that a rookie RB who has missed several games due to injury has been "not very impressive." In my league, he has scored one fewer point than Andre Johnson. I guess the guys who took Jamaal Charles were dumb for not foreseeing his season-ending injury. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hooknladder Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 (edited) I was high on him and took him at the 4.04 of a 12-team PPR redraft. Admittedly, I wish he had done more, but I'm not sure what the point is in saying that a rookie RB who has missed several games due to injury has been "not very impressive." In my league, he has scored one fewer point than Andre Johnson. I guess the guys who took Jamaal Charles were dumb for not foreseeing his season-ending injury. ..yeah, you're right. it is definitely comparable to the Charles situation. Edited December 13, 2011 by hooknladder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
montster Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 ..yeah, you're right. it is definitely comparable to the Charles situation. Next August, please share with us your projections for redraft leagues, accounting for injuries that occur during the 2012 season. TIA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hooknladder Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 Next August, please share with us your projections for redraft leagues, accounting for injuries that occur during the 2012 season. TIA. ....-i usually do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hooknladder Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 (edited) My argument was that he would be a viable RB2 or RB3 with upside, projected that he would get over 1000 combined yards and push just over double-digit TDs. From what I've seen, most of the other posters in this thread promoting Ingram are pretty much in line with that thought & a couple think he could possibly do a little better. But I don't remember seeing anyone here say he was worthy of a 1st round pick. ..................... -ALL ABOARD! Edited December 15, 2011 by hooknladder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hooknladder Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 Ingram had little value BEFORE he got hurt. your prediction was overly optimistic as i stated in the pre-season. alot of the pertinent posts were deleted. the Saints have'nt changed their offensive RB approach at all...you just got caught up in the emotion of the draft and now have a tough time admitting you were wrong. i will attempt to refresh your memory with the following quote as best i can considering the posts that were inexplicably deleted. -(see Ingram thread) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hooknladder Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 .........-that's right Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hooknladder Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 (edited) an injury w(or two) will obviously skew his final projections. And no one (not even those who felt he'd be just average0 said they predicted an injury. His stats extrapolated over 13 games would put him in the low 20's right now, borderline RB2, with what many people felt the best yet to come as he got cozier in the offense during the 2nd half of the year. Injuries never allowed that to happen. "extrapolate" all the excrement you want...it's a three back system, (and he failed to produce, ((even before he got injured))), just like i've been telling you guys since August....can you freak'n guys EVER give a little credit? -weak sauce. .......-this is the same bag-o-dicks that disagreed with me about Portis a couple years ago. Edited December 15, 2011 by hooknladder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hooknladder Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 I think he will be. Clearly Peterson, Foster, Charles, Chris Johnson and Ray Rice, along with Lesean McCoy are in a higher tier, but I see no reason why he can't be right up there with MJD, Steven Jackson or Michael Turner. After those top 6 every back has question marks. I think Ingram will be somewhere between the 8-14th RB at the end of the season. He has everything you want... Three down ability, excellent vision, goal line monster, and he's on a potent offense. MJD is coming off a significant knee injury Steven Jackson is wearing down. Michael Turner looks like he's about to fall off a cliff to me. So yeah, why not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hooknladder Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 I bet people also had Jamaal Charles as a top 10 back this year . . . not comparable. Ingram played. -you were wrong about him...-but i know you cannot admit that BP.(weak) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hooknladder Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 it's interesting to me that none of the Ingram enthusiasts have the nuts to admit they were wrong........-weak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lawofmurphy Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 I find it interesting that both sides were probably wrong and I am the only person on either side that is willing to meet in the middle about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 (edited) it's interesting to me that none of the Ingram enthusiasts have the nuts to admit they were wrong........-weak. Maybe because you continue to be ass about it and can't even be bothered to wait until the end of the season before throwing it in everyone's face? Congratulations, I was wrong. Hope that makes you feel better about yourself. Edited December 15, 2011 by rajncajn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hooknladder Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 Maybe because you continue to be ass about it and can't even be bothered to wait until the end of the season before throwing it in everyone's face? Congratulations, I was wrong. Hope that makes you feel better about yourself. hey, you started it right from the begining. you called me a "silly man" in your first post to me just for having a different opinion than you. not trying to put it in everyones face....just not that surprised @ the outcome. no need to wait until the end of the season, if you took Ingram early and did'nt make the play-offs it IS the end of the season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 hey, you started it right from the begining. you called me a "silly man" in your first post to me just for having a different opinion than you. not trying to put it in everyones face....just not that surprised @ the outcome. no need to wait until the end of the season, if you took Ingram early and did'nt make the play-offs it IS the end of the season. Would you like to go back to the reason why I called you that? Because it had very little to do with Ingram himself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hooknladder Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 (edited) Would you like to go back to the reason why I called you that? Because it had very little to do with Ingram himself. it was'nt warrented. that's the kinda stuff that makes a thread become personel. you continued with your diatribe (some of which was deleted). --and all because i did not think Ingram would live up to your expectations. i even went so far as to compliment you for a good call years ago once the thread started getting testy, however, expectedly, the gesture was lost to you. anyway, good luck with Ingram, and good luck the rest of the way in the ff play-offs,..........-if you're in them. Edited December 15, 2011 by hooknladder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 Rookie RBs are like a box of chocolates. We can all make pre-season predictions that work or not work out. No big deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 .......alot of bannter over a team that runs the ball very little. This is what you said Silly man... During the 2009 Superbowl season, the Saints had 544 passing attempts (378 completions) to 468 rushing attempts. That included 108 receptions by a RB. the Saints got away from that last year more due to injury at the RB position than anything else, hence the Ingram draft pick at a position that was seemingly already deep. This is what my reply was... You said something that was basically untrue and did it in a very condescending manner when we were trying to have a good conversation with opinions on both sides weighing in. So if you got your feelings hurt by me calling you "silly" then I apologize. I doubt it, but maybe I & most of the other folks in this thread completely misunderstood your intent. Below is the quote where I posted how I thought the RB situation would pan out. I still think that was the intent of the offense this year & yes, I agree, I overestimated Ingram a bit and underestimated the usage of PT a bit. Overall, I still think they've gotten the production out of the RBs that they were looking for and are playing with a more balanced offense like I expected. What I didn't expect was the Saints to use PT as much between the tackles early on as they did and I think that could be a result of Payton just being more comfortable with PT to start the season (Payton did say that he was the only one keeping Ingram from winning ROY). However, I have noticed a trend over the last few games using Ingram & now Ivory more in that role & with good results as evidenced in the 80/1 in week 12, 54/1 in week 13 by Ingram and again the 53 by Ivory last week. Pretty sure this is untrue. It's just when things start getting silly I'd rather just bow out. You're saying here that people in this thread were trying to argue the Ingram was a top 10 pick. Several people have asked you to quote where someone said that. Nobody here thinks he will be top 10 OVERALL. Some think it's possible he could break top 10 AT HIS POSITION. I think you misunderstood that from the start. Personally, I somewhat agree. I think it's a bit of a stretch that he'll produce those numbers in the first year or two of his career, but I won't say that it's not possible. Personally I'd place him between the 15-20 range at his position, but I do think the competition for touches will limit him some. In a 12-team league that I would project his draft position around mid 3rd round, making him a low RB2 or high RB3 with great upside. No way would I take him as my RB1. Where I do see the big potential for him though is towards the end of the fantasy season when people are pushing for spots in their fantasy playoffs & then helping to carry them within the playoffs. He may not be a stud out of the gate & may give you inconsistent scoring in the beginning, but as the season rolls on I think he could very well prove his worth. As for how the rest of the backs pan out, I think PT owners are going to be sorely disappointed. He's still going to get a fair amount of carries & play a significant role in the Saints offense, I'm certain of that. But that's not necessarily something that is going to project into viable fantasy statistics. Ivory, unfortunately, with his injury and Ingram's arrival, will likely end up an afterthought. Even worse for him is the recent performance of Joique Bell. Where I think Ingram will take the biggest hit in touches though is Sproles. Payton has made no bones about it that he'd really had plans for Bush in the offense. Bush just decided it wasn't enough for him and wanted a feature role. Since Sproles hit camp though, I think they're more excited about his versatility than they were Bush. It's too bad we didn't get to see any of the offense with him in it during the SF game and now with the Saints closing practice to the public we'll know even less. And I'm not impossible... I'm just right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.