re: Assuming Mark Ingram has a great year, what are contract ramifications?

Bunkley and Hawthorne definitely make too much for being part time players(Bunkley especially). I've been down on Grubbs in the run game but he's a solid pass protector. Definitely overpaid but at least he plays every snap.

I'd also feel comfortable with Humber taking Hawthorne's spot, but he'll be an UFA again next year. Bunkley is more on thin ice because we have Jenkins for 2 more years(after this one).

There are always options. Remember, the way the rookie salaries are now set up, a drafted player is pretty cheap, and you have his rights for 4 years or so.
That player can either be someone you plan to develop and keep around a long time for a lot more money, or someone you want to keep just those 4 years.

Drafting a really good running back in a high round might not be a bad idea; someone like Todd Gurley (as an example) should be able to fit right in, presuming there are no injury problems. You then get him 4 yrs, or or what might be at least half his productive career. He wouldn't cost nearly as much as Ingram will, once he hits the open market.
"But that's wasting a high draft choice on a diminished position"... not necessarily. You can find plenty of guys in the 2nd-5th rds that you can develop at other, more valuable positions; they just won't play right away. Look at most starters in the league, that's where they were drafted. Look at Stanley Jean-Baptiste, he likely won't be ready for 2-3 years.

For once, it would make sense to draft a RB high, as he'd be an immediate need (if Ingram does produce, and then go free agent). If Gurley does drop to us late in the first, he'd be a gift- at least a potential equal (if not upgrade) at RB, for a lot cheaper.