Mark this one down, because I'll be referring back to it for the next couple of years

[YosemiteSam]

Sometimes you have to pass on a player even if he is really good. This is one of them.

 

[dbair1967]

Like Ingram and I could see Garrett and Houck watching tape of him and seeing some easy to see similarities to Emmitt, but we have other more pressing issues I think.

I do think he'll be a good NFL RB, if he stays healthy though.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I think this running back by committee idea is a bit of a misnomer. I mean, it's true that you don't see 25 to 30 carry backs much anymore but, you do see backs with 20 touches or more, per game. in fact, there are at least 13 starting backs that averaged 20 touches or more, per game. Would have been more had some of those backs not sustained injuries.

That's about 40% of all starting backs in the NFL. Anybody who thinks that it's not important to have a staple back in your backfield is not paying attention IMO. A back that can stay in the backfield regardless of situation is VERY valuable. It's not just the number of carries but what each back can do. If you know that one back is short yardage, or one is a pass catching specialist or one is strictly a blocking back, then you tip your hand offensively and you limit yourself. It's very important to have the kind of back that can give you 20 or more good touches, can pick up the blitz, can get out into the pattern and make the defense respect his ability to catch the football. If you don't have this, then your creating problems for yourself.

 

[Doomsday101]

If you look at the carries for the entire season and then look back to 1993 there is not much of a differance. I think the notion that some how running means less is non sense.

In 1993 you had 2 RB that carried the ball over 300 times in the season.
Jump ahead to 2010 you 7 RB who had 300 more more carries.

I keep hearing some of the same people say RB are a dime a dozen now days and all I would say is any avg player is a dime a dozen no matter what position you play but elite players are not a dime a dozen including RB

 

[KingintheNorth]

In a word, no.

Too many needs to take a luxury pick this year.

Besides, if the Felix/Choice tandem don't come through this year there is a much better option out of Tuscaloosa in 2012.

His name is Trent Richardson.

 

[Doomsday101]

In a word, no.

Too many needs to take a luxury pick this year.

Besides, if the Felix/Choice tandem don't come through this year there is a much better option out of Tuscaloosa in 2012.

His name is Trent Richardson.

I would agree that getting Ingram would come as a shock to me. I like him and think he is a very good RB but I just don't see Dallas moving on him. I also agree that Richardson looks every bit as good as Ingram which says allot about both men but also says allot about the horses on the front line for Bama

 

[MarionBarberThe4th]

Indianpolis Colts 1st round draft picks
2006: Joseph Addai
2009: Donnald Brown

Carolina Panthers 1st round draft picks
2006: DeAngelo Williams
2008: Jonathan Stewart

Buffalo Bills 1st round draft picks
2007: Marshawn Lynch
2010: CJ Spiller

just in the modern era.

If researched before that ( old school ), there's plenty of examples, including your own Dallas Cowboys doing a back to back ( 1969: Calvin Hill, 1970: Duane Thomas ).

Bills suck, Panthers suck, and the Colts are totally regretting those picks.

Peyton Hillis is terrible and a good O-line made him look good for a chunk of the season.

 

[Dmoore Esq]

If you look at the carries for the entire season and then look back to 1993 there is not much of a differance. I think the notion that some how running means less is non sense.

In 1993 you had 2 RB that carried the ball over 300 times in the season.
Jump ahead to 2010 you 7 RB who had 300 more more carries.

I keep hearing some of the same people say RB are a dime a dozen now days and all I would say is any avg player is a dime a dozen no matter what position you play but elite players are not a dime a dozen including RB

It's not that RBs are less important, it's just that they've become almost disposable. You have backs that carry the ball 300 times, but then they're basically washed up a year or two later. And if you look where these backs are coming from, more and more are from the mid to late rounds. I don't think this means that you can just grab any bum and expect him to run for 1000 yards, but you have to find the guy that's right for your system. I'd rather find a gem in the fourth then draft a guy high in the first. If he does end up to be a productive back, the odds are he won't be for very long. It just has become a position that I wouldn't use a premium pick on (Top 15 or so) unless I think the guy is a very special talent. Even if you get a guy who isn't a bust, the chance that he burns out early is just so high.

I like Ingram, but no way would I take him with our pick in the 1st, or even trade down for him. Too many other needs and I don't think he has a special upside.

 

[realtick]

I think this running back by committee idea is a bit of a misnomer. I mean, it's true that you don't see 25 to 30 carry backs much anymore but, you do see backs with 20 touches or more, per game. in fact, there are at least 13 starting backs that averaged 20 touches or more, per game. Would have been more had some of those backs not sustained injuries.

Are you just making stuff up again?

First, where are you getting your numbers from?

I show six running backs in the entire league that averaged 20+ carries last season. The #1 being Maurice Jones-Drew with just 21.4 carries per game.

For comparison, let's look back 5-6 years (2005 season): You have 11 RBs averaging 20+ carries. The top RB (Ed James) averaged 24 carries per game

Going back 10 season (year 2000) and you have eight RBs averaging 20+ carries, but the top 3 averaged 25.2, 24.8, and 24.2.

The trend is clearly going downwards; teams are using RB by committee nowadays.

 

[DFWJC]

I think Ingram will be fine as a Pro.
There is debate, howver, that he was not even the best back on his college team.

 

[DFWJC]

Are you just making stuff up again?

First, where are you getting your numbers from?

I show six running backs in the entire league that averaged 20+ carries last season. The #1 being Maurice Jones-Drew with just 21.4 carries per game.

For comparison, let's look back 5-6 years (2005 season): You have 11 RBs averaging 20+ carries. The top RB (Ed James) averaged 24 carries per game

Going back 10 season (year 2000) and you have eight RBs averaging 20+ carries, but the top 3 averaged 25.2, 24.8, and 24.2.

The trend is clearly going downwards; teams are using RB by committee nowadays.

He said "touches", not carries.

 

[Doomsday101]

It's not that RBs are less important, it's just that they've become almost disposable. You have backs that carry the ball 300 times, but then they're basically washed up a year or two later. And if you look where these backs are coming from, more and more are from the mid to late rounds. I don't think this means that you can just grab any bum and expect him to run for 1000 yards, but you have to find the guy that's right for your system. I'd rather find a gem in the fourth then draft a guy high in the first. If he does end up to be a productive back, the odds are he won't be for very long. It just has become a position that I wouldn't use a premium pick on (Top 15 or so) unless I think the guy is a very special talent. Even if you get a guy who isn't a bust, the chance that he burns out early is just so high.

I like Ingram, but no way would I take him with our pick in the 1st, or even trade down for him. Too many other needs and I don't think he has a special upside.

That is not true that they are washed up in a year or 2 there are backs who have been in the league who have surpassed 300 carries more than once and have been in the league more than just 2 or 3 years. Steven Jackson is one example and Michael Turner is another. Fact is the numbers from the 90's are not much different. As for Ingram I'm not expecting to get him either and would rather go for another player who at least helps fill a need and yet would not be a reach. But as far as the importantce of top RB that has not changed.

 

[realtick]

He said "touches", not carries.

Irregardless, the numbers I provided show a clear trend downwards for running backs and carries per game.

And if he did mean touches and not carries, he's muddling the issue. A running back's primary duty is to run the ball and the point is less and less teams are utilizing a sole "feature" back to do that.

I think Mark Ingram has the potential to be a good/very good NFL running back. I think he's the best back in this year's draft class. However, saying that doesn't mean he'll be one of the best RBs in the league.

I don't think he's the next Emmitt Smith as some would suppose. I don't think he's the next great NFL. His college numbers aren't even that impressive.

 

[DFWJC]

Irregardless, the numbers I provided show a clear trend downwards for running backs and carries per game.

And if he did mean touches and not carries, he's muddling the issue. A running back's primary duty is to run the ball and the point is less and less teams are utilizing a sole "feature" back to do that.

I think Mark Ingram has the potential to be a good/very good NFL running back. I think he's the best back in this year's draft class. However, saying that doesn't mean he'll be one of the best RBs in the league.

I don't think he's the next Emmitt Smith as some would suppose. I don't think he's the next great NFL. His college numbers aren't even that impressive.

I agree with you overall about the importance of running backs now vs in the past. I also agree regarding Ingram.

Just pointing out that he was probably not referring to carries but to receptions and carries. RBs are move involved in the passing game now than ever before. Total to touches is a key stat and makes guys like Ray Rice more valuable than their purely rushing stats may indicate.

I'm not sure if there were 20 that averaged 20 touches though...have not looked it up. Seriously doubt there were 20 though.

 

[ChooChoo73]

I respect the post and love Ingram. However, the last handful of super bowls show you that a premium RB is not important at all and actually, QB play and defense is the ticket.

Here is the last 11 Super Bowls:
GB vs Pitt
Saints vs Colts
Pitt vs. Ariz
G-nats vs. Pats
Colts vs. Bears
Steelers vs. Seattle
Pats vs. Eagles
Pats vs. Carolina
Bucs vs. Raiders
Pats vs. Rams
Ravens vs. G-nats

 

[Rhubarb]

Wait... if the OP is going to be referring back to this thread in the next couple of years, do I still need to mark it down? I mean really, he'll link it and flaunt it if he's right, so I have no need to mark it, correct? Confused here...

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Irregardless, the numbers I provided show a clear trend downwards for running backs and carries per game.

And if he did mean touches and not carries, he's muddling the issue. A running back's primary duty is to run the ball and the point is less and less teams are utilizing a sole "feature" back to do that.

I think Mark Ingram has the potential to be a good/very good NFL running back. I think he's the best back in this year's draft class. However, saying that doesn't mean he'll be one of the best RBs in the league.

I don't think he's the next Emmitt Smith as some would suppose. I don't think he's the next great NFL. His college numbers aren't even that impressive.

Previous poster is correct, I did say touches and you are nobody to decide what is muddled or not. You are entitled to your own opinion but that's it. You don't agree? It's OK if you don't but it won't change anything. RBs run the ball, catch the ball, block. That's what RBs do in the modern NFL. Sorry you don't agree. I guess you can just move along.

 

[Doomsday101]

Previous poster is correct, I did say touches and you are nobody to decide what is muddled or not. You are entitled to your own opinion but that's it. You don't agree? It's OK if you don't but it won't change anything. RBs run the ball, catch the ball, block. That's what RBs do in the modern NFL. Sorry you don't agree. I guess you can just move along.

It is what they have done on and off throughout the history. TD was hell in our backfield as a runner but he got it done in the passing game just as well. Having premier players be it a WR or a RB or a TE is the difference makers.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I agree with you overall about the importance of running backs now vs in the past. I also agree regarding Ingram.

Just pointing out that he was probably not referring to carries but to receptions and carries. RBs are move involved in the passing game now than ever before. Total to touches is a key stat and makes guys like Ray Rice more valuable than their purely rushing stats may indicate.

I'm not sure if there were 20 that averaged 20 touches though...have not looked it up. Seriously doubt there were 20 though.

There were not 20 backs who averaged 20 touches in the NFL last year but there were 13.

Turner 20.9
Jackson 23.5
Foster 24.6
Mendenhall 21.7
Benson 21.8
Johnson 22.5
Rice 23.1
Drew 23.8
Peterson 21.3
Bradshaw 20.2
Hillis 20.7
McFadden 20.8
Gore 22.6

32 teams in the NFL. That works out to 40.6% or so.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

It is what they have done on and off throughout the history. TD was hell in our backfield as a runner but he got it done in the passing game just as well. Having premier players be it a WR or a RB or a TE is the difference makers.

I agree Dooms. We have a rich history of RBs catching the ball, blocking and running.