PDA

View Full Version : Why Has Mark Ingram Become So Underrated?


TheFinisher
02-07-2011, 11:10 AM
Ingram is one of my favorite players in this class, despite a lack of elite speed he has everything else you look for in a prototypical back. His stock has dropped to the point where some are questioning if he's still a first round lock. This is football, not track. Didn't we learn our lesson from another #22 from the SEC nearly 20 years ago?

FUNBUNCHER
02-07-2011, 11:16 AM
I don't think he's underrated, Ingram's draft status hasn't really changed since Sept. 2010.
IMO he still will be the first RB drafted, if he checks out healthy at the combine.

killxswitch
02-07-2011, 11:17 AM
I think the RB position becomes less and less valued every year.

SimonRath
02-07-2011, 11:19 AM
I think the RB position becomes less and less valued every year.

yeah and the Packers who like never run winning it all didnt help either.

descendency
02-07-2011, 11:25 AM
yeah and the Packers who like never run winning it all didnt help either.

Neither did the Colts run last year. Or teams like the Patriots manufacturing good running games without a highly touted prospect.

SimonRath
02-07-2011, 11:28 AM
Neither did the Colts run last year. Or teams like the Patriots manufacturing good running games without a highly touted prospect.

yeah its not a good time to be a RB haha

BroadwayJoe10
02-07-2011, 11:31 AM
He's going to make some team very happy if he falls towards the end of the first round. I know it goes against recent history and their running game was pretty solid with lawfirm, but I just keep getting this feeling that he fits perfectly in new england. Nick Saban, Bill Belichick...it's possible.


I know conventional wisdom will say that their offense is elite and all picks should go towards the defense, which has it's merits. However, I feel that after their recent playoff woes and one-and-dones, the Pats are gonna go back to what won them games, and that isn't an elite offense; it's a team with a great running game that can milk out their lead and a good defense.

ElectricEye
02-07-2011, 11:31 AM
The 300+ carry a year back is largely dead. The prevailing thought right now is that unless there's an absolutely special runner(Adrian Peterson) then the value is not there until the late first round. Ingram is a good runningback and a long term starter for someone, but he's not a special back at the NFL level. Potentially a great back and the best one in the draft in all likelihood....but not a special one.

gpngc
02-07-2011, 11:59 AM
St. Louis Rams.

PossibleCabbage
02-07-2011, 12:04 PM
Running backs who get a lot of carries take so many hits from defensive players, that a guy just can't get 300+ touches and be successful year after year, so you basically need multiple RBs to succeed in this league. And unlike other positions where you need more than one, your tandem of RBs don't really help each other since they're not generally on the field together. Or at least, they're not generally on the field together where both will have their rushing skills utilized.

Combine that with the fact that teams have had so much success with later round or other bargain guys, and that we've recently had a string of first round undewhelming RBs (C.J. Spiller, Ryan Matthews, Jahvid Best, Knowshon Moreno, Donald Brown, Beanie Wells I'm looking at you) that the perception is that the value of the position is depressed.

Personally, I'm of the mind that to justify taking a running back in the top 20, he needs to be special at something. RBs who are "not elite, but pretty good at everything" are not worth top 20 picks IMO.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
02-07-2011, 12:09 PM
Running backs who get a lot of carries take so many hits from defensive players, that a guy just can't get 300+ touches and be successful year after year, so you basically need multiple RBs to succeed in this league. And unlike other positions where you need more than one, your tandem of RBs don't really help each other since they're not generally on the field together. Or at least, they're not generally on the field together where both will have their rushing skills utilized.

Combine that with the fact that teams have had so much success with later round or other bargain guys, and that we've recently had a string of first round undewhelming RBs (C.J. Spiller, Ryan Matthews, Jahvid Best, Knowshon Moreno, Donald Brown, Beanie Wells I'm looking at you) that the perception is that the value of the position is depressed.

Personally, I'm of the mind that to justify taking a running back in the top 20, he needs to be special at something. RBs who are "not elite, but pretty good at everything" are not worth top 20 picks IMO.

That's the opinion of draftniks, but it's been the opinion of draftniks for a few years now. But teams still take runners in the first round who are nowhere near AD as a prospect.

Nebula
02-07-2011, 12:37 PM
People are forgetting that he had knee surgery during the season which played a huge role in his down year. Some people question his burst and speed but I'd say it is very good (but not elite)

You can't downplay Ingram's best asset -- his balance and body control. He runs extremely similar to maurice jones drew and emmit smith. His balance is amazing and that's what makes him special. I think he will be a terrifc back

kalbears13
02-07-2011, 12:43 PM
Premier runningbacks are going relatively extinct. A #2 or #3 receiver is almost just as important as a runningback nowadays.

Halsey
02-07-2011, 12:48 PM
There were people who argued that Knowshon Moreno's speed didn't matter. Moreno's speed isn't great and I would argue that's what's holding him back from being a special NFL back. Maybe Ingram will be a star, but I'm not convinced he's the next Emmitt Smith yet. He ran behind some good O-lines at Alabama and had guys like Julio Jones to keep defenses from focusing too much on stopping the run.

TACKLE
02-07-2011, 12:53 PM
I was a little down on Ingram for a bit but my opinion of him is steadily rising as of late. There used to be a bit of question if he was the top back in the class but now there's little doubt in my mind.

But there's two reasons he's become underrated by some (I like him a lot but I don't think he's SO UNDERRATED). One is he has no outstanding physical tools and isn't a flashy prospect. He's not a freak athlete and he's not really going to be a home run hitter at the next level. Secondly, his production. His 2010 season was underwhelming statistically, for a potential top 15 pick. Though he missed two games, he only had 875 yards (down 783 from last year), 5.5 ypc (down 0.5), 13 TD's (still impressive) and only two 100 yard games (7 less than the previous year). I gotta think the answer to the OP's question has a lot to do with these two things.

TheFinisher
02-07-2011, 12:57 PM
There were people who argued that Knowshon Moreno's speed didn't matter. Moreno's speed isn't great and I would argue that's what's holding him back from being a special NFL back. Maybe Ingram will be a star, but I'm not convinced he's the next Emmitt Smith yet. He ran behind some good O-lines at Alabama and had guys like Julio Jones to keep defenses from focusing too much on stopping the run.

I think Ingram is more of the total package that Moreno was coming out. He has elite vision/balance and a great initial burst to the hole which IMO are far more important to a RBs success than something like top end speed. Ingram isn't the homerun threat like Peterson but as far as everything else he does I'd say it's equal to or better than AD.

I think top end speed is way down on the list for what makes a runner good.

wonderbredd24
02-07-2011, 01:00 PM
Because people are drooling over Trent Richardson, which is perfectly fine, but Mark Ingram is good at everything and has an incredible drive for the game and great attitude, which is the elite tool he has.

Go back and read through threads where everyone assumed Richardson would be the man this year. He wasn't. Then Mark Ingram got hurt. Of course, now, Richardson would be the man. Ingram recovered and took his job back.

Every time people doubt Ingram, he comes back and shows why he is such a great player. It will not happen, but I would absolutely love to see Ingram end up on the Browns with Peyton Hillis and have a John Riggins/Emmitt Smith type backfield.

People dog his speed, but I'll take Ingram over your DB when it comes to tackling him because of his power and that vicious stiff arm. He's a good receiver out of the backfield so he can contribute all 3 downs. He's just a competitor and the type of guy you would hate to have your defense try to tackle in the 4th quarter. He's a Bowling Ball of Butcher Knives type player to borrow from Warren Sapp or whomever actually coined that phrase.

killxswitch
02-07-2011, 01:00 PM
That's the opinion of draftniks, but it's been the opinion of draftniks for a few years now. But teams still take runners in the first round who are nowhere near AD as a prospect.

And look what that's gotten them recently.

'05

Ronnie Brown - solid production but too often injured, not worth a 1st
Cedric Benson - motivation problems, not worth a 1st
Caddy Williams - horrible injury-riddled career, not worth a 1st

'06

Reggie Bush - solid contributor but not a normal between-the-tackles RB, not worth an early 1st
Laurence Maroney - cut from Pats, not at all worth a 1st
Joseph Addai - solid production and great intangibles, probably worth a late 1st

'07

Adrian Peterson - undoubtedly worth a 1st
Marshawn Lynch - cut from Bills, still has time but so far not worth a mid-1st

'08

Darren McFadden - jury is still out but probably not worth the #4 pick in the draft
Jonathan Stewart - lots of nagging injuries but has also played well, borderline worth a mid-1st
Felix Jones - hasn't been worth a 1st so far
Rashard Mendenhall - worth a mid/late 1st
Chris Johnson - probably worth it but how long will he stay a top RB?

'09

Knowshon Moreno - lol
Donald Brown - lol
Beanie Wells - lol

'10

CJ Spiller - still has time but unimpressive so far
Ryan Matthews - same as above
Jahvid Best - same as above


Meanwhile the top 5 rushers this year were:

Arian Foster - 1616 yards - undrafted in 09
Jamaal Charles - 1467 yards - 3rd round pick in 08
Michael Turner - 1371 yards - 5th round pick in 04
Chris Johnson - 1364 yards - 1st rounder in 08
Maurice Jones-Drew - 1324 yards - late 2nd round pick in 06

Halsey
02-07-2011, 01:01 PM
I think Ingram is more of the total package that Moreno was coming out. He has elite vision/balance and a great initial burst to the hole which IMO are far more important to a RBs success than something like top end speed. Ingram isn't the homerun threat like Peterson but as far as everything else he does I'd say it's equal to or better than AD.

I think top end speed is way down on the list for what makes a runner good.

All those positive things you said about Ingram were said about Moreno. Look at the top RBs in the league. Most of them are really fast. Name your top 5 backs in the league and I bet most, if not all, of them run in the 4.4s or faster.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
02-07-2011, 01:02 PM
Initial burst to the hole is definitely the most important speed factor for a RB. It's also what Knowshon lacks the most.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
02-07-2011, 01:03 PM
And look what that's gotten them recently.

'05

Ronnie Brown - solid production but too often injured, not worth a 1st
Cedric Benson - motivation problems, not worth a 1st
Caddy Williams - horrible injury-riddled career, not worth a 1st

'06

Reggie Bush - solid contributor but not a normal between-the-tackles RB, not worth an early 1st
Laurence Maroney - cut from Pats, not at all worth a 1st
Joseph Addai - solid production and great intangibles, probably worth a late 1st

'07

Adrian Peterson - undoubtedly worth a 1st
Marshawn Lynch - cut from Bills, still has time but so far not worth a mid-1st

'08

Darren McFadden - jury is still out but probably not worth the #4 pick in the draft
Jonathan Stewart - lots of nagging injuries but has also played well, borderline worth a mid-1st
Felix Jones - hasn't been worth a 1st so far
Rashard Mendenhall - worth a mid/late 1st
Chris Johnson - probably worth it but how long will he stay a top RB?

'09

Knowshon Moreno - lol
Donald Brown - lol
Beanie Wells - lol

'10

CJ Spiller - still has time but unimpressive so far
Ryan Matthews - same as above
Jahvid Best - same as above


Meanwhile the top 5 rushers this year were:

Arian Foster - 1616 yards - undrafted in 09
Jamaal Charles - 1467 yards - 3rd round pick in 08
Michael Turner - 1371 yards - 5th round pick in 04
Chris Johnson - 1364 yards - 1st rounder in 08
Maurice Jones-Drew - 1324 yards - late 2nd round pick in 06

You could have made this post any year, but it wouldn't have stopped teams from taking RBs high in the draft.

TheFinisher
02-07-2011, 01:05 PM
I was a little down on Ingram for a bit but my opinion of him is steadily rising as of late. There used to be a bit of question if he was the top back in the class but now there's little doubt in my mind.

But there's two reasons he's become underrated by some (I like him a lot but I don't think he's SO UNDERRATED). One is he has no outstanding physical tools and isn't a flashy prospect. He's not a freak athlete and he's not really going to be a home run hitter at the next level. Secondly, his production. His 2010 season was underwhelming statistically, for a potential top 15 pick. Though he missed two games, he only had 875 yards (down 783 from last year), 5.5 ypc (down 0.5), 13 TD's (still impressive) and only two 100 yard games (7 less than the previous year). I gotta think the answer to the OP's question has a lot to do with these two things.

I just don't agree with putting so much stock in the freak athlete attribute, which to my understanding is the sole reason he's not viewed as a consensus top 10 guy.

Those stats, although down from last year, are still pretty solid and we have to keep in mind he split carries. Guys like Ingram will never have eye-popping Reggie Bush YPC because he's not the homerun type of back. But as an every down grind it out type of runner, where we have to sort of look past the stats, he's top notch.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
02-07-2011, 01:07 PM
Ingram has great vision, and unless we're talking about Peterson or Johnson level speed, that's how you're going to get most of your long runs.

TheFinisher
02-07-2011, 01:07 PM
Because people are drooling over Trent Richardson, which is perfectly fine, but Mark Ingram is good at everything and has an incredible drive for the game and great attitude, which is the elite tool he has.

Go back and read through threads where everyone assumed Richardson would be the man this year. He wasn't. Then Mark Ingram got hurt. Of course, now, Richardson would be the man. Ingram recovered and took his job back.

Every time people doubt Ingram, he comes back and shows why he is such a great player. It will not happen, but I would absolutely love to see Ingram end up on the Browns with Peyton Hillis and have a John Riggins/Emmitt Smith type backfield.

People dog his speed, but I'll take Ingram over your DB when it comes to tackling him because of his power and that vicious stiff arm. He's a good receiver out of the backfield so he can contribute all 3 downs. He's just a competitor and the type of guy you would hate to have your defense try to tackle in the 4th quarter. He's a Bowling Ball of Butcher Knives type player to borrow from Warren Sapp or whomever actually coined that phrase.


This, this and this. Great post.

killxswitch
02-07-2011, 01:08 PM
You could have made this post any year, but it wouldn't have stopped teams from taking RBs high in the draft.

Which tells me teams aren't as full of talent geniuses as they get credit for.

Don Vito
02-07-2011, 01:13 PM
Ingram is a very good running back. There are several reasons why people are down on him including his injury, lower production, and Trent Richardson. Bama's 2010 line was nothing like what they had in 2008 and 2009, and that caused Ingram to suffer.

Ingram is a very good back, but the fact of the matter is running backs usually don't get drafted very high anymore unless they are out of this world talents. As others have said most teams don't need a back to carry the ball 25 times a game to win anymore, and the Packers just won the Super Bowl with pretty much no rushing attack. Ingram could be an All-Pro if he lands in the right situation and I'm sure the consensus among teams is that he is a very good back, but I still can't see him going in the top 15.

PossibleCabbage
02-07-2011, 01:14 PM
That's the opinion of draftniks, but it's been the opinion of draftniks for a few years now. But teams still take runners in the first round who are nowhere near AD as a prospect.

I'm not entirely sure what your point is. Certainly teams are going to continue to make mistakes in the draft, and taking a running back (or other skill position player) high when there is a player at a less glamorous position who will help your team more is a fairly common one.

But generally, when thinking about the draft, I don't really care about where a player *will* go as much as where he *should* go. Doing the former requires me to try to get inside the heads of 32 different general managers, and it's just not worth my time to try to figure out what Al Davis (among others) is thinking.

Halsey
02-07-2011, 01:20 PM
This doesn't seem like a case of people being down on him. I think it's more of a case of people questioning if he's the top 15 lock that many may have thought he was after 2009. Being picked somewhere between mid first and early second seems right where Ingram belongs.

D-Unit
02-07-2011, 01:40 PM
Ingram is the consensus pick as the Top RB in the draft right??? Has that changed? lol.

Green Bay just won the SB with James Starks and Brandon Jackson. There's a reason why RB values in the draft have gone down. To be successful in the NFL you need to pass and stop the pass.

wonderbredd24
02-07-2011, 01:47 PM
Ingram is the consensus pick as the Top RB in the draft right??? Has that changed? lol.

Green Bay just won the SB with James Starks and Brandon Jackson. There's a reason why RB values in the draft have gone down. To be successful in the NFL you need to pass and stop the pass.
This is so painfully simplistic and ignorant...

The bottom line with football is and will always be the ability run the football and stop the run first. Pittsburgh was the #1 rush defense in the league. The Jets were 3rd and the Bears were 2nd.

I'm sure it is just a coincidence that they they were in the conference title games.

PossibleCabbage
02-07-2011, 01:53 PM
Ingram is the consensus pick as the Top RB in the draft right??? Has that changed? lol.

At this point he's still the consensus top RB, but it's conceivable that by the end of the process LeShoure will jump him, due to the perception that a specialist back may be more useful to an NFL team in this day and age than an every down back.

I honestly think that if any back is underrated at this point in the process it's LeShoure, just due to lack of exposure. On the other hand, winning the BCS Championship and the Heisman trophy in the same year has given Ingram as much exposure as he could possibly want.

Halsey
02-07-2011, 01:53 PM
The 'run first vs pass first' arguments are really kind of irrelevant. NFL teams have to be able to do both. Teams that can't do it all well enough will be exploited by teams that can. There's no one right formula. Teams have to be able to score and stop the other team from scoring more.

TheFinisher
02-07-2011, 02:03 PM
Ingram is the consensus pick as the Top RB in the draft right??? Has that changed? lol.



No, but he went from a top 10-15 lock to a late 1st-mid 2nd value.

PossibleCabbage
02-07-2011, 02:04 PM
This is so painfully simplistic and ignorant...

The bottom line with football is and will always be the ability run the football and stop the run first. Pittsburgh was the #1 rush defense in the league. The Jets were 3rd and the Bears were 2nd.

I'm sure it is just a coincidence that they they were in the conference title games.

And yet, the Green Bay Packers were the #16 rushing defense (DVOA: -1.8%), yet the #2 overall defense by virtue of being the #1 pass defense (DVOA: -17.9%).

The theory of the Packers defense this season (which apparently worked out well for them) was that if their offense is sufficiently competent, you couldn't beat them by running the ball. So in most games they played to stop the pass at virtually all times and just hoped to play the run well enough to prevent first downs with 1st or 2nd down rushes (75.1% of the defensive snaps this season they lined up in a 2-4-5 defense).

So the Packers are an interesting case. They neither ran the ball, nor stopped the run... and yet, they won the championship. It'll be interesting to see if anybody decides to copy Capers' strategy for neglecting the run defense on most downs.

D-Unit
02-07-2011, 02:25 PM
This is so painfully simplistic and ignorant...

The bottom line with football is and will always be the ability run the football and stop the run first. Pittsburgh was the #1 rush defense in the league. The Jets were 3rd and the Bears were 2nd.

I'm sure it is just a coincidence that they they were in the conference title games.
The league is changing. Ever since the league decided that WRs can't be touched beyond 5 yards, it has opened up the passing game by leaps and bounds. Stopping the run isn't nearly as important as being able to stop the pass. That's not saying if you have a good run defense then you won't be good. But ultimately, you need to pass and stop the pass. Those teams you listed didn't have both of those qualities.

ThePudge
02-07-2011, 02:27 PM
Ryan Matthews and Knowshon Moreno should act as proof that you don't have to be an absolute athletic marvel to go Top 15 at the position. The demand is rather low for full-time, starting backs... that's what will push Ingram down the board. Most teams are set with a back or two. Only Miami in the Top 15 stands out as a team that could look to go RB high.

D-Unit
02-07-2011, 02:29 PM
Ryan Matthews and Knowshon Moreno should act as proof that you don't have to be an absolute athletic marvel to go Top 15 at the position. The demand is rather low for full-time, starting backs... that's what will push Ingram down the board. Most teams are set with a back or two. Only Miami in the Top 15 stands out as a team that could look to go RB high.
Demand. That's the perfect answer right there. Good one Pudge.

xxxxxxxx
02-07-2011, 02:33 PM
This is so painfully simplistic and ignorant...

The bottom line with football is and will always be the ability run the football and stop the run first. Pittsburgh was the #1 rush defense in the league. The Jets were 3rd and the Bears were 2nd.

I'm sure it is just a coincidence that they they were in the conference title games.

And yet, the team with not the best run defense, and the team that goes 5 wide 90% of the time and hucks the ball everywhere won the superbowl, and pretty convincingly at that. Sure it was 6 points, but the Packers dominated that game.

Got em.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
02-07-2011, 02:45 PM
Ingram is the consensus pick as the Top RB in the draft right??? Has that changed? lol.

Green Bay just won the SB with James Starks and Brandon Jackson. There's a reason why RB values in the draft have gone down. To be successful in the NFL you need to pass and stop the pass.

Yes, but Green Bay also won last night with Aaron Rodgers. Not every team can be so lucky as to have a dominant franchise QB. Just look at the teams that narrowly lost the championship games. Both of those were dominant defenses with good, but not great QBs, and a solid running game. Both of those teams lost, yes, but they were competitive. It's no reason to simply throw out that model for building a team. A bounce here, a bounce there and it could have been Jets-Bears last night. QB is still the most important member of a team, but not having an all-pro type doesn't mean you can't achieve success.

As for stopping the run, I think it's still as important as ever. It's running the ball that isn't quite as important anymore. But if you have a team that can't stop the run, it's going to be extremely difficult to win. Look at the Colts when they won. They couldn't stop the run during the season, and they got shredded. When Sanders came back, they stopped the run and voila. Super Bowl. Eagles couldn't stop the run, and Starks shredded them to bits. When you can't run the ball, it weakens your team a bit, but it isn't as big a deal anymore because the rules are so pro-passing it's almost disgusting. Teams can't even counter with all kinds of pressure anymore because nothing kills momentum quite like a touching the passer penalty on an otherwise successful 3rd down stop.

I know that's not exactly the best endorsement for Ingram, but the thing is that even if it isn't necessary to have a good running back to win games, it's certainly beneficial. Runningbacks DO have an effect on the win column. People like to point to the Vikings and the way their season was so great with good Favre and so awful without him. Peterson was the constant there. However, is that season 2 years ago so great or good Favre good without Peterson? Of course not. The Titans two seasons ago went from 0-6 to 8-8 because of a QB change. But Chris Johnson was HUGE in those last 10 games. Do they win 8 of those without CJ going off? Of course not.

FUNBUNCHER
02-07-2011, 03:09 PM
If you like Frank Gore, you'll love Mark Ingram.
That's his best physical comparison currently in the NFL.

NFL offenses all strive for balance between the run/pass so that neither can be keyed on by opposing defenses.
If your opponent isn't forced to adjust to the run threat, your offense becomes one dimensional. Without an elite QB and WR corps like GB has, it's hard to win big in the pros by only passing the ball well.

Even the Colts have been at least mildly efficient running the football even though their offense has always been built around their passing attack.
(It's almost criminal that Peyton Manning couldn't will the Colts to multiple SB titles when Edgerrin James was in his prime.)

Drafting Ingram allows a football team to control the clock and wear down a defense late in games. And I bet most coaches would prefer to be able to effectively run the football in the redzone instead of being forced to pass.

The most devastating play on offense is still the play action pass, but to really sell it you have to be able to run the football.

D-Unit
02-07-2011, 03:39 PM
Yes, but Green Bay also won last night with Aaron Rodgers. Not every team can be so lucky as to have a dominant franchise QB. Just look at the teams that narrowly lost the championship games. Both of those were dominant defenses with good, but not great QBs, and a solid running game. Both of those teams lost, yes, but they were competitive. It's no reason to simply throw out that model for building a team. A bounce here, a bounce there and it could have been Jets-Bears last night. QB is still the most important member of a team, but not having an all-pro type doesn't mean you can't achieve success.

As for stopping the run, I think it's still as important as ever. It's running the ball that isn't quite as important anymore. But if you have a team that can't stop the run, it's going to be extremely difficult to win. Look at the Colts when they won. They couldn't stop the run during the season, and they got shredded. When Sanders came back, they stopped the run and voila. Super Bowl. Eagles couldn't stop the run, and Starks shredded them to bits. When you can't run the ball, it weakens your team a bit, but it isn't as big a deal anymore because the rules are so pro-passing it's almost disgusting. Teams can't even counter with all kinds of pressure anymore because nothing kills momentum quite like a touching the passer penalty on an otherwise successful 3rd down stop.

I know that's not exactly the best endorsement for Ingram, but the thing is that even if it isn't necessary to have a good running back to win games, it's certainly beneficial. Runningbacks DO have an effect on the win column. People like to point to the Vikings and the way their season was so great with good Favre and so awful without him. Peterson was the constant there. However, is that season 2 years ago so great or good Favre good without Peterson? Of course not. The Titans two seasons ago went from 0-6 to 8-8 because of a QB change. But Chris Johnson was HUGE in those last 10 games. Do they win 8 of those without CJ going off? Of course not.
Don't jump off the deep end. I didn't say you could win if you can't stop the run. Of course you can't be bad at it. You can't be bad at anything and expect to be champs. You don't have to be great, but you have to be somewhat capable. Vice being a great run stuffing team that isn't somewhat capable at stopping the pass... you have no chance.

...and yeah, you need a good QB for sure. Thus, the statement... You need to pass and stop the pass.

PossibleCabbage
02-07-2011, 03:40 PM
As for stopping the run, I think it's still as important as ever. It's running the ball that isn't quite as important anymore. But if you have a team that can't stop the run, it's going to be extremely difficult to win. Look at the Colts when they won. They couldn't stop the run during the season, and they got shredded. When Sanders came back, they stopped the run and voila. Super Bowl. Eagles couldn't stop the run, and Starks shredded them to bits. When you can't run the ball, it weakens your team a bit, but it isn't as big a deal anymore because the rules are so pro-passing it's almost disgusting. Teams can't even counter with all kinds of pressure anymore because nothing kills momentum quite like a touching the passer penalty on an otherwise successful 3rd down stop.

I think what's really happening is that the definition of "stopping the run" is changing. it used to be something like "holding a running back to 3 yards or less on first and second down runs" but in the modern NFL, you can absolutely get away with giving up 4 yard runs on first and second down, as long as you can stop the other team on 3rd and 2. So if you can hold a team to less than 5 yards per carry on 1st and second down, and stop the other team on third and short, you can consider yourself as "stopping the run" even though statistically you don't look so good. I mean, after all the other team isn't necessarily going to keep running the ball after you've demonstrated that they can't reliably get first downs doing so.

So I think, potentially, the metric we should be looking at for "stopping the run" are "first downs gained by rushing" (plus number of big play runs) not necessarily "rushing yards."

It's a lot easier for an NFL defense to convince the other team that "you will not reliably get first downs running the ball" than to convince the other team that "you will not reliably gain significant yardage by running the ball."

Nebula
02-07-2011, 04:05 PM
If you like Frank Gore, you'll love Mark Ingram.
That's his best physical comparison currently in the NFL.



Disagree. Different runners, unless you're making the correlation of them being both work loads in a power scheme. Gore has elite burst and power but has average speed, average vision, and doesn't get many yards after contact. Ingram doesn't have elite speed but its pretty good. A better comparison for Ingram is Maurice Jones Drew or Tiki Barber, his balance is absolutely amazing.

Saints-Tigers
02-07-2011, 04:43 PM
People are acting like there is a huge difference between being a top 10-15 pick and a late first rounder.

Ingram is the definition of a good back that looks GREAT because of talent around him.

descendency
02-07-2011, 06:51 PM
This is so painfully simplistic and ignorant...

The bottom line with football is and will always be the ability run the football

The need to run the ball is so so so over-rated. You need the ability to control the clock and have low risk for turnovers. Which is why the past 4 teams to make the past two super bowls have been average at best at halving elite talented RBs.

The passing teams are far more prominant in the past few years than rushing teams having success.

Teams are far more willing to take a guard over a running back because you can draft a first round guard who will improve the passing game and running game whereas a top tier running back only basically improves your running game. (or Center for that matter).

NY+Giants=NYG
02-07-2011, 06:55 PM
It all starts with a sick system and trench players. Then you can plug and play anyone. We did that when our OL was healthier with Jacobs, Ward and Bradshaw. Denver did it with their RBs, and I think the Texans are doing with Foster. That zone scheme is an impressive one.

wogitalia
02-07-2011, 07:58 PM
The value of running backs is just at an all time low. Too many teams taking late round/undrafted running backs and plugging them in with great success.

Teams seem to finally be comprehending the idea that it starts in the trenches and that having a great line will create a great running back.

Guys like Peterson, Johnson and the Saints committee have shown this year that the OL is far more important to the running game. All of those 3 teams had a decline in their line play and it resulted in poor seasons for the backs but the backs basically didn't chance, they weren't doing anything different. As a result of this teams are investing in their lines and defense far more and grabbing backs if they fall to a point of value.

Ingram as a result is being graded fairly. Personally I just about wouldn't take a RB in the first round anymore, outside of the truly special talent like Peterson there really isn't any justification to draft a RB in the first round. Look at guys like Grant, Parker, Foster and Lawfirm over the past several years, undrafted guys that have produced more than 1st rounders.

Colts are another great example, their line has gotten a lot worse over the past few years. Now their first round talents look ordinary, Addai was great as a rookie but now all their backs don't look any better than Dominic Rhodes did a few years ago behind a much stronger line.

I think the trenches have actually become more important, you need to be able to block more complex defensive fronts in the pass game and the running game has always been more about the line than the back. It's why I really want the Vikes to use 3 or 4 picks this year on linemen.

LonghornsLegend
02-07-2011, 08:13 PM
The 300+ carry a year back is largely dead. The prevailing thought right now is that unless there's an absolutely special runner(Adrian Peterson) then the value is not there until the late first round. Ingram is a good runningback and a long term starter for someone, but he's not a special back at the NFL level. Potentially a great back and the best one in the draft in all likelihood....but not a special one.


This is all true. Yet guys like Moreno, Ryan Mathews, Marshawn Lynch, and even in 2005 with the big 3, all ended up top 15 picks. No matter how true that may be teams still take RB's in the top 10 or 15 that aren't of the "special" group, and often times end up with just a solid RB.


Ingram is the guy people don't fall in love with this time of year, it always happens. It'll be some workout warrior RB and people will like him more. Ingram is just good when he puts his pads on, if you waited until now to form an opinion of Ingram then your not gonna be impressed. Sometimes vision, and instincts can be more important then the physical attributes.

Nebula
02-07-2011, 08:14 PM
The value of running backs is just at an all time low. Too many teams taking late round/undrafted running backs and plugging them in with great success.

Teams seem to finally be comprehending the idea that it starts in the trenches and that having a great line will create a great running back.

Guys like Peterson, Johnson and the Saints committee have shown this year that the OL is far more important to the running game. All of those 3 teams had a decline in their line play and it resulted in poor seasons for the backs but the backs basically didn't chance, they weren't doing anything different. As a result of this teams are investing in their lines and defense far more and grabbing backs if they fall to a point of value.

Ingram as a result is being graded fairly. Personally I just about wouldn't take a RB in the first round anymore, outside of the truly special talent like Peterson there really isn't any justification to draft a RB in the first round. Look at guys like Grant, Parker, Foster and Lawfirm over the past several years, undrafted guys that have produced more than 1st rounders.

Colts are another great example, their line has gotten a lot worse over the past few years. Now their first round talents look ordinary, Addai was great as a rookie but now all their backs don't look any better than Dominic Rhodes did a few years ago behind a much stronger line.

I think the trenches have actually become more important, you need to be able to block more complex defensive fronts in the pass game and the running game has always been more about the line than the back. It's why I really want the Vikes to use 3 or 4 picks this year on linemen.

Problem is, higher rounded backs are more talented (i know, obviously). They all have special qualities whether its creating their own yardage by being shifty or elusive, getting yards afrer first contact, making something out of nothing, having exceptional vision, elite burst great vision, etc. They do things great and special as oppose to simply following your blockers and running through the hole (and the success of this is on the offensive line). Great backs can compensate for a lack of a great offensive line (Adrian peterson and chris johnson) whereas late rounders probably can't. Plus I'd take the whole undrafted/late round RB thing with a grain of salt, some of those prospects (such as James Starks or Ahmad Bradshaw for instance) were injured or had character concerns that made them fall in the draft when they were probably top 50 talent.

holt_bruce81
02-07-2011, 11:28 PM
St. Louis Rams.

I'm surprised more people don't suggest this. Steven Jackson will be 28-years old next season and with the load he has taken over the past seven seasons, you just have to wonder how much he has left.

gpngc
02-07-2011, 11:59 PM
It's a natural fit.

Similar to the SJax selection when they had Faulk.

They need a 3DB as well and Ingram can catch/block as well as anyone.

Not to mention how it will help SJax by lightening his load a little bit.

And it's Spags. Everyone thinks WR but I doubt he wants Bradford throwing it 50 times a game every year...

Caulibflower
02-08-2011, 12:00 AM
I'm feeling the need to rebut those who say Mark Ingram doesn't have "standout physical tools." I'd bet that even if he doesn't necessarily have the top measurements in a given category, he's going to be near the top in all of them. I don't know where this idea is coming from that he's something other than a fantastic athlete. He has incredible coordination and balance. Those are athletic traits. A very coordinated person can easily and often be "more athletic" than a person who is very fast. It's about body control. The way Mark Ingram runs, he stays square to the defense and always seems to be prepared for the imminent contact; when he's one-on-one, he has the ability to either make a guy miss, or simply square him up and run him over. So what if he runs... You know, I'm about to write "so what if he runs a 4.50..." but it's ridiculous to have to be defending someone's athleticism if they're running a 4.5, and I think he could easily run in the mid-4.4s. Frankly, I don't care if he doesn't. He's been running away from SEC defenses his entire career. He's fast enough for the NFL, and that's the end of that.

The best thing about Mark Ingram is his ability to break tackles and get going again quickly. It's really not simply about long speed with NFL running backs, it's about how quickly a player gets downfield. When I'm looking at running backs, I'm watching the 5-yard markers and seeing how fast the running back gets to and passes each one. Reggie Bush sucks because he spends so much time dancing around and making people miss, he can only manage to get three yards down the field before there are too many defenders for him to shake. Mark Ingram is an extremely decisive runner, and he always tries to get everything he can out of every run. That's probably my favorite thing about the way he runs. He simply doesn't stop trying to get another yard, another yard, another yard. I was going through YouTube trying to find footage I could use to demonstrate things like his balance, or his ability to shed tackles, and came across his first collegiate game, against Clemson (they were #9 at the time). I happened to watch that game, and never having seen or heard of him before, I left it thinking, "I can't wait until that Ingram kid is draft-eligible."

Check it out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJjSRyFMVcQ&feature=related

PossibleCabbage
02-08-2011, 01:06 AM
I'm surprised more people don't suggest this. Steven Jackson will be 28-years old next season and with the load he has taken over the past seven seasons, you just have to wonder how much he has left.

Don't the Rams say, desperately need a wide receiver, rather than spending their top pick on an RB that will split carries with the guy they've already got who has a couple of good years left?

Saints-Tigers
02-08-2011, 01:12 AM
Teams seem to finally be comprehending the idea that it starts in the trenches and that having a great line will create a great running back.

Guys like Peterson, Johnson and the Saints committee have shown this year that the OL is far more important to the running game. All of those 3 teams had a decline in their line play and it resulted in poor seasons for the backs but the backs basically didn't chance, they weren't doing anything different. As a result of this teams are investing in their lines and defense far more and grabbing backs if they fall to a point of value.





Chicken parm dinner, right there +1

holt_bruce81
02-08-2011, 01:17 AM
Don't the Rams say, desperately need a wide receiver, rather than spending their top pick on an RB that will split carries with the guy they've already got who has a couple of good years left?

Not necessarily.

Is Receiver a need? sure Is it a top need? I'm not so sure about that. How different does the Rams receiving core look with Mark Clayton and Donnie Avery back healthy?

Mark Clayton looked great before he got injured and I think Donnie Avery is on the verge of becoming a very good Receiver. I don't think people remember how explosive he looked his Rookie season. Playing with Sam Bradford will only make those guys better.

Not saying Running back is a top need, or if Julio Jones is available the Rams should pass him, I'm just saying Receiver isn't a huge need like some people think it is In my opinion.

LizardState
02-08-2011, 10:33 AM
Most of the mocks have him going to the Fins in the 1st, I think they need an impact rookie franchise QB more. Miami has a long history of a real fetish for Bama players dating back to the Don Shula yrs.

Kind of hard to be underrated or under the radar or under anything when you win the Heisman, the 1st Heisman winner in your program's history, etc.

Clarkw267
02-08-2011, 10:42 AM
Not necessarily.

Is Receiver a need? sure Is it a top need? I'm not so sure about that. How different does the Rams receiving core look with Mark Clayton and Donnie Avery back healthy?

Mark Clayton looked great before he got injured and I think Donnie Avery is on the verge of becoming a very good Receiver. I don't think people remember how explosive he looked his Rookie season. Playing with Sam Bradford will only make those guys better.

Not saying Running back is a top need, or if Julio Jones is available the Rams should pass him, I'm just saying Receiver isn't a huge need like some people think it is In my opinion.

WR is certainly a huge need for the Rams. Clayton and Avery are nice pieces
(#2 and #3 type guys), but they aren't the type of go you can trust to go to while covered. Before anyone goes and pulls the "New England doesn't have anyone like that either" 1)It cost them this year 2)They have very good redzone targets with their TEs.

yourfavestoner
02-08-2011, 01:03 PM
All those positive things you said about Ingram were said about Moreno. Look at the top RBs in the league. Most of them are really fast. Name your top 5 backs in the league and I bet most, if not all, of them run in the 4.4s or faster.

Moreno's problem is that he's both slow AND small. I'm almost positive that Ingram will show up at least 10 lbs heavier than Moreno did coming out and will run a faster time in both the speed and change of direction drills.

I'm feeling the need to rebut those who say Mark Ingram doesn't have "standout physical tools." I'd bet that even if he doesn't necessarily have the top measurements in a given category, he's going to be near the top in all of them. I don't know where this idea is coming from that he's something other than a fantastic athlete. He has incredible coordination and balance. Those are athletic traits. A very coordinated person can easily and often be "more athletic" than a person who is very fast. It's about body control. The way Mark Ingram runs, he stays square to the defense and always seems to be prepared for the imminent contact; when he's one-on-one, he has the ability to either make a guy miss, or simply square him up and run him over. So what if he runs... You know, I'm about to write "so what if he runs a 4.50..." but it's ridiculous to have to be defending someone's athleticism if they're running a 4.5, and I think he could easily run in the mid-4.4s. Frankly, I don't care if he doesn't. He's been running away from SEC defenses his entire career. He's fast enough for the NFL, and that's the end of that.

The best thing about Mark Ingram is his ability to break tackles and get going again quickly. It's really not simply about long speed with NFL running backs, it's about how quickly a player gets downfield. When I'm looking at running backs, I'm watching the 5-yard markers and seeing how fast the running back gets to and passes each one. Reggie Bush sucks because he spends so much time dancing around and making people miss, he can only manage to get three yards down the field before there are too many defenders for him to shake. Mark Ingram is an extremely decisive runner, and he always tries to get everything he can out of every run. That's probably my favorite thing about the way he runs. He simply doesn't stop trying to get another yard, another yard, another yard. I was going through YouTube trying to find footage I could use to demonstrate things like his balance, or his ability to shed tackles, and came across his first collegiate game, against Clemson (they were #9 at the time). I happened to watch that game, and never having seen or heard of him before, I left it thinking, "I can't wait until that Ingram kid is draft-eligible."

Check it out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJjSRyFMVcQ&feature=related

Co-sign this.

Saints-Tigers
02-08-2011, 01:10 PM
Reggie Bush sucks because he spends so much time dancing around and making people miss, he can only manage to get three yards down the field before there are too many defenders for him to shake. Mark Ingram is an extremely decisive runner, and he always tries to get everything he can out of every run.



It's funny what a good o-line play can do for you. Anyone that watched Reggie Bush last year thought he transformed into a different runner, he was decisive, and was averaging 5.6 yards per carry.

Mark Ingram will look a lot less decisive if he's getting forced outside by faster defenders, or blown up in the backfield.

O-line>RBs

Caulibflower
02-08-2011, 02:14 PM
It's funny what a good o-line play can do for you. Anyone that watched Reggie Bush last year thought he transformed into a different runner, he was decisive, and was averaging 5.6 yards per carry.

Mark Ingram will look a lot less decisive if he's getting forced outside by faster defenders, or blown up in the backfield.

O-line>RBs

I don't think you want to start saying Reggie Bush was the victim of a bad O-line "until last year." He's spent his entire career getting outplayed by UDFAs. Pierre Thomas was more effective running behind the same line, and this year it was Chris Ivory. Also, Bush's average went up when his carries per game were cut in half. I stand by my original point. It's the runner in this case, not the line.

Saints-Tigers
02-08-2011, 02:46 PM
Pierre Thomas and Chris Ivory(this is a 4.4 guy at 226) are both extremely talented runners, who haven't put up better yards per carry or touchdown numbers (per attempt) than Bush has the last two years.

I like how Thomas and Ivory are always used as evidence against Bush, like they are scrubs, hahaa.

Even with an injury plagued '10 season, he's over 5 yards per carry, over 5.2 if you count the playoffs.

Running really hasn't been an issue with over the past few years, running and not getting broken has, haha.

Either way, Reggie went from 5.6 yards to 4.2 with the drop in line production, and Thomas went from 5.3 to 3.2(battling injuries too).

Ivory got hurt a lot, but never enough to miss any games. He is fumble prone, and a total non factor as a blocker and receiver, but oh boy can he run.

Mark Ingram is a lot like Pierre Thomas tbh, shiftier though, Thomas would probably be hurt a lot less if he didn't take so many shots cleanly.

wonderbredd24
02-08-2011, 03:07 PM
Pierre Thomas and Chris Ivory(this is a 4.4 guy at 226) are both extremely talented runners, who haven't put up better yards per carry or touchdown numbers (per attempt) than Bush has the last two years.

I like how Thomas and Ivory are always used as evidence against Bush, like they are scrubs, hahaa.

Even with an injury plagued '10 season, he's over 5 yards per carry, over 5.2 if you count the playoffs.

Running really hasn't been an issue with over the past few years, running and not getting broken has, haha.

Either way, Reggie went from 5.6 yards to 4.2 with the drop in line production, and Thomas went from 5.3 to 3.2(battling injuries too).

Ivory got hurt a lot, but never enough to miss any games. He is fumble prone, and a total non factor as a blocker and receiver, but oh boy can he run.

Mark Ingram is a lot like Pierre Thomas tbh, shiftier though, Thomas would probably be hurt a lot less if he didn't take so many shots cleanly.
Reggie Bush is a bust. He is nothing more than a glorified Eric Metcalf. If they could do it over again, Reggie Bush would not have been the #2 overall pick. Bush is going to have to take a serious pay cut if he has any intention of being on the Saints roster next season.

Reggie Bush could have and may still be able to be the player everyone thought he could be, but he has not had the heart. He is easily strong enough, fast enough, and shifty enough to be a tremendous threat, but he is soft, especially when asked to run between the tackles.

Feel free to spin it in Bush's favor however you want. That's the reality of the situation.

As for Mark Ingram being basically labeled nothing more than a cog in a system. Do the people who feel this way also feel the same way about Trent Richardson, because if Richardson is the man and Ingram is not, then why was Ingram able to get so many carries? Nick Saban would have to be a fool to keep the far superior back on the bench, wouldn't he?

Mark Ingram may never blow anyone away in shorts or with a stopwatch or anything other than when he's on the field, he is a beast and a winner. You will win a lot of football games with Mark Ingram on your team.

Saints-Tigers
02-08-2011, 03:14 PM
There is absolutely no way to spin it, he's brittle as all hell. Even if he wasn't taking carries or catches, he's been hurt on multiple punt returns.

He is going to take a serious paycut, no matter where he goes, and he definitely hasn't played up to number 2 status, and I'm not sure he'll ever be healthy enough to put it together like he's capable of.

I think before he's 30, we'll get one fully healthy season as a teaser, but the injuries are really starting to pile up fast on those legs.

What seperates great RB prospects from great RBs is the ability to stay healthy and take a ton of touches. The more times you touch the ball, the more chances you have to break the game open.

Caulibflower
02-08-2011, 04:12 PM
... Either way, Reggie went from 5.6 yards to 4.2 with the drop in line production, and Thomas went from 5.3 to 3.2(battling injuries too).

And... Chris Ivory goes for 5.2 a pop behind the same line. But I'm sure you've watched more Saints games than I have; I'm really not talking about the line anyways. I'm just pointing out that the guy who's known for flash and 4.3 speed has not been as effective over the course of his career as guys who simply put their shoulders down and run. I'm not questioning the athleticism of Ivory of Pierre Thomas either; I like both of them. I actually think Pierre Thomas is a pretty good comparison for Mark Ingram, but with Mark Ingram getting better marks from me all across the board. A "Better Pierre Thomas," if you will. Ingram's more physical and has more pure talent, but the fact that they both have good size, hands and balanced skillsets does make them comparable.

Anyways, I was just trying to make a point that there is such a thing as having an efficient running style, and was using Reggie Bush as an easy example of a guy who's got all the natural elusiveness in the world, but hasn't been all that productive because he takes too long getting down the field. And I think that holds true regardless of how his line is playing; that's an aspect of his game that needs improvement.

Nebula
02-08-2011, 04:16 PM
He has incredible coordination and balance. Those are athletic traits.

Don't bother explaining. People think the elite running backs in the nfl are today are great the way they are because they have elite speed. Little do they know that balance and burst play a huge part in those backs success.

Mark Ingram has absolutely amazing balance. He runs EXACTLY like Maurice Jones Drew. He probably has the best balance of any back to come out of the draft since Adrian Peterson. Rashard Mendenhall and Lesean mccoy had great balance coming out but Ingram's balance is just special. That alone will make him a successful NFL back. His ability to spin, bounce off, and shed tackles is nothing short of amazing. His skill sets absolutely project as being a playmaker in the NFL compared to other backs

To those that believe drafting Ingram would be a waste of a pick because he won't have any better production than a late rounder will greatly regret their words in the near future. Bank on it.

Saints-Tigers
02-08-2011, 05:03 PM
I follow.

I do think Mark Ingram is a much better option if you don't have a stellar line, but my point was that even guys that run like Reggie shine behind a great line(and can you really have a great running game without great line play? I don't think so).

Pierre Thomas is a great comparison, if Mark Ingram is a healthy version of Thomas, he'll be a stud, Pierre's only issue in his career has been injuries, dude can do it all.

nepg
02-08-2011, 05:18 PM
I came to the Tomlinson comparison with Ingram early in the season and I think it still applies. But the position isn't that important and teams have other needs. You have to be an Adrian Peterson, Bo Jackson, or Herschel Walker type of prospect to get a Top 10 grade anymore.

wonderbredd24
02-08-2011, 06:30 PM
I follow.

I do think Mark Ingram is a much better option if you don't have a stellar line, but my point was that even guys that run like Reggie shine behind a great line(and can you really have a great running game without great line play? I don't think so).

Pierre Thomas is a great comparison, if Mark Ingram is a healthy version of Thomas, he'll be a stud, Pierre's only issue in his career has been injuries, dude can do it all.
Barry Sanders and LaDainian Tomlinson when he first got to San Diego made their look substantially better than they actually were... it certainly was not the other way around.

Saints-Tigers
02-08-2011, 06:37 PM
LDT's pure running numbers weren't anything super special up until age 25, he was a horse though, and his carries and TDs were evident that you could just pound it into him.

Barry Sanders is the anomaly, no point comparing anyone to him, especially not in a Mark Ingram thread.

descendency
02-08-2011, 06:39 PM
As I said before, RB are free-falling down the positional value ladder.

All of the following are more important than a RB (in almost every scheme): QB, DE, OT, CB, DT, WR, OG, OC, (M)LB

Halsey
02-08-2011, 08:43 PM
I don't think the reason for RBs 'falling' is all about them having less value. I think it's also about being able to find quality backs late in the Draft and undrafted. Rb is not a position like QB. With QBs your chances of finding a franchise QB are much lower after the first round. With RBs it seems like the likelihood of finding a stud RB don't drop off much after the first round.

FUNBUNCHER
02-08-2011, 09:23 PM
I don't think the reason for RBs 'falling' is all about them having less value. I think it's also about being able to find quality backs late in the Draft and undrafted. Rb is not a position like QB. With QBs your chances of finding a franchise QB are much lower after the first round. With RBs it seems like the likelihood of finding a stud RB don't drop off much after the first round.

Yeah, I still believe there's simply more RB talent available to NFL teams than ever before. 20-25 years ago, IMO it was harder to find guys who could fill in adequately if your main guy went down.

Now, if you look at a team like the Titans, they have Chris Johnson and a backup who rarely sees the field in Javon Ringer, who I think is an easy 1200-1400 yard rusher as a starter for another team( please Shanny find a way to steal this guy from the Titans!!).

And Tennessee isn't the only team that has this kind of depth at RB.

It's almost like how TE has become a playmaking position for most NFL teams, there's been an evolution in the degree of talent at RB.

Caulibflower
02-09-2011, 12:31 AM
It's almost like how TE has become a playmaking position for most NFL teams, there's been an evolution in the degree of talent at RB.

As the NFL has become a passing league, defenses have to focus more on receivers than ever before. When it was easier to defend receivers, defenses would simply key in on running backs, because at that point running the ball was the more important aspect of the game. This being the case, a guy had to be a pretty special athlete to take 25 handoff a game into the heart of a defense that knew he was coming. We simply don't really see that in the NFL anymore, and consequently, it's more likely that you can get a guy off the free agent wire to run a thousand yards for you, because defenses simply aren't as hard, relative to the passing game, to run on anymore. That said, a running back who is really good still ought to be drafted high, simply because it's good to have positional advantages over your opponent. It seems like YPCs are getting higher and higher every year, too, right in step with the ever-expanding rulebook on how you can't touch receivers.

LizardState
02-09-2011, 08:13 PM
As I said before, RB are free-falling down the positional value ladder.

All of the following are more important than a RB (in almost every scheme): QB, DE, OT, CB, DT, WR, OG, OC, (M)LB

Could the fact that RB is the top position regarding most frequently injured & 1st to go on IR have anything to do with that?

Too big an investment with too little a return for the bottom-line MBA types who run NFL teams, that whole risk - reward thing you know.....

Somewhere in the 1st rd. will be a team who has RB injuries or losing them to back-loaded contracts with FA & will take Ingram.

OhioJB
02-13-2011, 12:37 PM
Anyone who doesn't believe Ingram is a top prospect should watch 'Ultimate Mark Ingram highlights' on youtube. Might change a few minds. The last couple of minutes of the video especially are impressive.

SimonRath
02-13-2011, 12:51 PM
Anyone who doesn't believe Ingram is a top prospect should watch 'Ultimate Mark Ingram highlights' on youtube. Might change a few minds. The last couple of minutes of the video especially are impressive.

CqxBcLOsPsU
same coulda been said about Cedric.

A Perfect Score
02-13-2011, 12:55 PM
Ive said it before and Ill say it again, Benson at Texas is one of my favorite running backs ever. The guy was a god damned bowling ball, he just kept rolling.

PACKmanN
02-13-2011, 01:03 PM
adding a solid running back in the first should be a reason that only completes your offense and not someone who you rely on, or build upon. That's the reason why teams see less of a value in a back, without the outside help, stopping the running game has become easier in today's nfl.

WiSeIVIaN
02-13-2011, 03:32 PM
If you look at the HBs from '05 to '09, the history of 1st down HBs really isn't that bad.

Of the 16 HBs picked in the 1st round...

3 elite back studs: AP, CJ2k, and Mendenhall is getting up there

3 HBs still worth a 1st. Bush when properly used in '09 was a huge part of the Saint superbowl run in the playoffs. Stewart has been a beast when healthy and looks to be a keeper with upside. McFadden after struggling (injuries+line play) his first 2 years looks to have broken out as a stud.

3 HBs who are solid starters but not worth a 1st: Addai, Benson, and Marshawn Lynch

2 HBs that got killed from injuries, and could have been something special: Ronnie Brown had elite physical attributes, though Caddy had a great rookie year and had the potential to be an elite back if not for the injuries

5 busts: Maroney, Flex Jones, and the 3 HB's drafted in '08. Imo each of these backs besides Maroney still have some chances ahead of them to get carries and establish a good career, but I imagine they won't.


So from that sample size, you have a....

19% chance of find an elite HB in the 1st
19% chance of finding a good HB in the 1st (though not quite elite)
19% chance of finding a solid starter in the 1st
13% chance at having your 1st round picks career murdered by injuries (I imagine this percentage (whatever the true percentage is) is true for all HBs regardless of round taken.

31% chance of a bust. Keep in mind this number might be lower since some I listed as busts have time. And even so, I can't imagine 31% is much worse than other positions 1st round bust-factor (after taking out injuries)

==========

Is an elite HB needed to win a superbowl? No, but by that same token neither is an elite defense or an elite QB. With that said, it definitely helps and anyone who thinks that HB is not the 2nd most important single position in football is simply insane.

And its not too hard to see that all 6 of the backs I listed as worth being 1sts, have elite athletic skill-sets. As such I stand strongly behind the stance that if a back is not what you'd consider to be "special" then they should not be picked in the 1st round. Period.

People who get excited enough about elusive runners than run 4.6 40's like Knowshon enough to take them pick 12 overall are named Josh McDaniels and get fired after 2 seasons.

LonghornsLegend
02-13-2011, 03:38 PM
Ingram is a much bigger student of the game then Benson was, Benson was always and still is a knucklehead. He never spent much time in the film room, and if you look at his stint with Chicago it was almost like he pretty much didn't care. When he went to Cincy you saw some glimpses of what he could have been from the start had he put in the work but there is an enormous difference in intangibles between those two.


Not only that but Ingram has much better vision & patience, which are probably my favorite traits about him. Knowing Benson went #5 overall, I see a ton of value for whoever takes Ingram since he's likely going outside of the top 10.

WiSeIVIaN
02-13-2011, 03:38 PM
Its also worth noting the the '08 draft was a phenominal HB draft (which we knew at the time), while the '09 draft was god awful and reeked of reaches.

McFadden, Stewart, Mendenhall, CJ2k, Forte, Ray Rice, Jamaal Charles. Out of the 7 HBs picked in the 1st two rounds, 6 are above average starters in this league, and Jamaal Charles isn't too bad as a tack on.

Put even the 2nd round guys like Forte and Ray Rice in the '09 draft, and they are legitimate 1st round picks as prospects.

OhioJB
02-20-2011, 07:01 AM
CqxBcLOsPsU
same coulda been said about Cedric.

Talent-wise I really liked Benson coming out of college. I didn't realize he had emotional issues though until draft day. Should have been the one of happiest days of his life, but instead he was ticked off he wasn't drafted higher. The Bears found out he didn't have it together mentally. Even though he eventually signed with the Bengals it was nice to see he matured enough to be a productive back in the league.

Ingram is a tough football player. He seems to have the mentality a player needs to have to be siuccessful in the NFL. And the talent to make it happen for himself.

The team that gets him will likely get one of the steals of the 2011 draft, if he's selected outside of the top 10.

OhioJB
02-20-2011, 07:26 AM
adding a solid running back in the first should be a reason that only completes your offense and not someone who you rely on, or build upon. That's the reason why teams see less of a value in a back, without the outside help, stopping the running game has become easier in today's nfl.

Interesting observation, and I'm not saying I totally disagree with it. I just think a team has to take the opportunities that present themselves. To give you an example with another position, the Lions drafted Stafford. Should they have given their O-line sucked (and still does)? I'd argue they had to draft him and improve the O-line ASAP to help prevent him from getting hurt the way he has been. They obviously failed to realize the importance of getting a LT in the 1st round last year when they had the opportunity. They went with BPA, rather than doing the wise thing in protecting their franchise QB with the top LT in the draft.

So I'd suggest drafting a top QB or RB when a team has the opportunity isn't the problem, it's not recognising the importance of building a solid O-line as well. We've all heard it said by people who have either coached or played in the NFL, that it all starts with the O-line.

Fortunately, my Browns have built a decent O-line, although still have work to do on the right side of the line. Imagine the pressure that would be taken off Colt McCoy with Hillis and Ingram lined up in the backfield behind him. If Vickers signs with another team, Hillis would be a threat blocking, carrying the ball, or catching short passes out of the backfield. Ingram would complete that one-two punch. Something Hardesty may or may not be capable of after hurting his knee last pre-season. He hurt the other one in college. A couple of years down the road Ingram would be the feature back right when the Browns are ready to truly compete for a title. And if Hardesty is healthy enough to contribute, and Hillis is still around, they'll have an absolutely incredible backfield.

With a deep DL class, and Bowers unlikely to be available, considering Ingram should at least be discussed by the top men in the organization.

jth1331
02-21-2011, 10:38 AM
It still makes me want to punch McDaniels in the throat for taking Moreno at pick 12 in 2009.
Moreno is actually a decent 3rd down back and all, but he has no burst, no speed, dances and was a freakin horrible pick for where he was drafted.

SimonRath
02-21-2011, 11:19 AM
Interesting observation, and I'm not saying I totally disagree with it. I just think a team has to take the opportunities that present themselves. To give you an example with another position, the Lions drafted Stafford. Should they have given their O-line sucked (and still does)? I'd argue they had to draft him and improve the O-line ASAP to help prevent him from getting hurt the way he has been. They obviously failed to realize the importance of getting a LT in the 1st round last year when they had the opportunity. They went with BPA, rather than doing the wise thing in protecting their franchise QB with the top LT in the draft.

So I'd suggest drafting a top QB or RB when a team has the opportunity isn't the problem, it's not recognising the importance of building a solid O-line as well. We've all heard it said by people who have either coached or played in the NFL, that it all starts with the O-line.

Fortunately, my Browns have built a decent O-line, although still have work to do on the right side of the line. Imagine the pressure that would be taken off Colt McCoy with Hillis and Ingram lined up in the backfield behind him. If Vickers signs with another team, Hillis would be a threat blocking, carrying the ball, or catching short passes out of the backfield. Ingram would complete that one-two punch. Something Hardesty may or may not be capable of after hurting his knee last pre-season. He hurt the other one in college. A couple of years down the road Ingram would be the feature back right when the Browns are ready to truly compete for a title. And if Hardesty is healthy enough to contribute, and Hillis is still around, they'll have an absolutely incredible backfield.

With a deep DL class, and Bowers unlikely to be available, considering Ingram should at least be discussed by the top men in the organization.

Ingram will never be the browns 1st rounder. nope, never.

Caulibflower
02-21-2011, 01:58 PM
I'm fairly certain that Mike Holmgren is not ********.

SRogers92
02-23-2011, 11:54 AM
And look what that's gotten them recently.

'05

Ronnie Brown - solid production but too often injured, not worth a 1st ... He was worth the pick, when he was healthy. You can't project future injuries, Brown was very good when healthy playing on teams that mainly had no other threats or a passing game. Complete back, good reciever, runner, and blocker.
Cedric Benson - motivation problems, not worth a 1st
Caddy Williams - horrible injury-riddled career, not worth a 1st ...

'06

Reggie Bush - solid contributor but not a normal between-the-tackles RB, not worth an early 1st
Laurence Maroney - cut from Pats, not at all worth a 1st
Joseph Addai - solid production and great intangibles, probably worth a late 1st

'07

Adrian Peterson - undoubtedly worth a 1st
Marshawn Lynch - cut from Bills, still has time but so far not worth a mid-1st

'08

Darren McFadden - jury is still out but probably not worth the #4 pick in the draft ... Jury was shut up last season, I think. The only thing that held him back previously was injuries and again, hard to project.
Jonathan Stewart - lots of nagging injuries but has also played well, borderline worth a mid-1st ... Not borderline ... hindsight is always 20/20 but, without the injuries, Stewart was a beast ... if he could stay healthy he's a top back in the league.
Felix Jones - hasn't been worth a 1st so far
Rashard Mendenhall - worth a mid/late 1st ...
Chris Johnson - probably worth it but how long will he stay a top RB? ... Probably? Lol ... you're nitpicking now, friend.

'09

Knowshon Moreno - lol ... why the lol? Was having a very good season until the injuries came back ... AGAIN - hard to predict which guys get hurt a lot, but was having a very nice year. Had a strong YPC until he got hurt against Raiders and suffered two miserable back to back games because of that... also awesome receiver.
Donald Brown - lol
Beanie Wells - lol

'10
Won't even justify rating players after one year, it's stupid.
CJ Spiller - still has time but unimpressive so far
Ryan Matthews - same as above
Jahvid Best - same as above


Meanwhile the top 5 rushers this year were:

Arian Foster - 1616 yards - undrafted in 09
Jamaal Charles - 1467 yards - 3rd round pick in 08
Michael Turner - 1371 yards - 5th round pick in 04
Chris Johnson - 1364 yards - 1st rounder in 08
Maurice Jones-Drew - 1324 yards - late 2nd round pick in 06




Basically -- I see a lot of nitpicking to try and make your point ... I don't think the RB position is devalued at all, look how many went in Round 1 last year even though none of them were "elite" talents ... There's a reason why you'll continue to see RBs get drafted high in the draft ... the issue with Ingram is people just don't know really how good he is ... besides -- all of his banter means jack**** if he has a good combine we could be talking about in the top 15-20 picks anyway.

Bob Sanders Dreadlock
04-05-2011, 11:41 AM
If he were to go to the dolphins can he run the wildcat?

jrdrylie
04-05-2011, 11:42 AM
If he were to go to the dolphins can he run the wildcat?

He ran the Wildcat at Alabama so there is no reason why he couldn't do it in Miami

Iamcanadian
04-05-2011, 12:00 PM
The issue with Ingram has a lot to do with his knees. There are reports that Ingram's knees may have some arthritis already in them and that is a huge red light for teams.
This has nothing to do with talent, it is a health issue, prospects will all undergo a doctors physical this week which is extremely thorough and if as rumoured, they find Ingram's knees aren't completely solid, he will drop on draft boards, how far is anybodies guess. If they are found to be sound, then he won't drop at all.

GoRavens
04-05-2011, 01:37 PM
Exactly, it's only a question about his long term value and durability. RBs take a beating, so no GM wants to rush into drafting an injury prone player.