- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
I desire for our team to use a feature Running Back
Posted on 1/15/13 at 9:50 am
Posted on 1/15/13 at 9:50 am
I love the depth and don't want to rid ourselves of that but I'd like to have our team limit the use of the number of backs and let 1 get get a majority of the carries and go from there. It'd be nice to have a guy be in the top rushing echelon of the league again. I'd like it if we used our best back. It's ashamed Ingram hasn't progressed a bit more than what he has cause obviously the Saints would love for him to be that guy. I don't think they'd do this with PT or Ivory. I'd be okay with Ingram being that guy if he performed better than the rest of the competition.
10
Posted on 1/15/13 at 9:54 am to Chad504boy
He's already the featured back. He gets the bulk of the carries. Am I missing something here?
Posted on 1/15/13 at 9:57 am to whodatfan
quote:Ingram got 156 carries past season, avg top 10-15ish back in carries gets closer to 250-275 carries. Part of that is due to us not rushing a lot but also more in part to us sharing the load amongst 3-4 backs.
He's already the featured back. He gets the bulk of the carries. Am I missing something here?
Patriots is a nice example with Stevan Ridley. He got 290 carries, RB2 got 76 carries. Ingram got 156 and PT got like 106 or so.
This post was edited on 1/15/13 at 10:00 am
Posted on 1/15/13 at 10:04 am to Chad504boy
Our offense is most efficient with RBBC, and has shown that over the last seven years.
Posted on 1/15/13 at 10:11 am to Sophandros
quote:
Our offense is most efficient with RBBC, and has shown that over the last seven years.
I don't think its by committee that makes the difference more so than just committing to the run no matter who's is getting it done.
Posted on 1/15/13 at 10:13 am to Chad504boy
I agree, I miss the Deuce 1,600 yard years
Posted on 1/15/13 at 10:14 am to BarbeTiger
2006 was last year we had a 1000 yard back w/ deuce. Since then, PT has the highest yards in season with like 793. I think he got 700 yards another season as well as Ivory.
Posted on 1/15/13 at 10:14 am to Chad504boy
I'm starting to lean this way as hell. I'm getting pretty tired of the "great problem to have" BS. I really wish we would stick with a main back, a change of pace back, and then a sledgehammer like Ivory to come in late in games.
It just sucks that at that point you have to choose between Thomas, Ingram, Ivory, Sproles, and Cadet. Although I haven't really garnered too much of an attachment to him so he'd th first to go IMO
It just sucks that at that point you have to choose between Thomas, Ingram, Ivory, Sproles, and Cadet. Although I haven't really garnered too much of an attachment to him so he'd th first to go IMO
Posted on 1/15/13 at 10:15 am to Chad504boy
quote:
I don't think its by committee that makes the difference more so than just committing to the run no matter who's is getting it done.
Dis right here
Posted on 1/15/13 at 10:15 am to Chad504boy
quote:
I desire for our team to use a feature Running Back
Id be okay with this if we didnt have Sproles. He needs touches.
Posted on 1/15/13 at 10:17 am to BobBoucher
quote:
Id be okay with this if we didnt have Sproles. He needs touches.
There's room for him to get his 50-70 touches rushing still. Really it would be PT getting phased out and brought in here and there spot duty.
Posted on 1/15/13 at 10:18 am to BobBoucher
quote:
Id be okay with this if we didnt have Sproles. He needs touches.
I feel like we always try to force things with Sproles
Posted on 1/15/13 at 10:23 am to Chad504boy
I really do think Ingram will be our feature back soon.
PT can come in for screens and change of pace.
But yeah, Sproles really complicates things.
He's too talented to just have returning balls or something.
PT can come in for screens and change of pace.
But yeah, Sproles really complicates things.
He's too talented to just have returning balls or something.
Posted on 1/15/13 at 10:23 am to BarbeTiger
Honestly, you can still feature a pounder like Ingram and have Sproles on the field at the same time. He's a pretty great slot/out of the backfield receiver. As he gets older hell probably transition more to that IMO.
I think this is honestly about how you want it. Ingram the focus, Pierre you're change of pace, and have Sproles on the field at the same time as a receiver and let him run it every once in awhile.
It just complicates things when you have a talented guy like Ivory begging for touches.
quote:
I really do think Ingram will be our feature back soon. PT can come in for screens and change of pace. But yeah, Sproles really complicates things. He's too talented to just have returning balls or something.
I think this is honestly about how you want it. Ingram the focus, Pierre you're change of pace, and have Sproles on the field at the same time as a receiver and let him run it every once in awhile.
It just complicates things when you have a talented guy like Ivory begging for touches.
This post was edited on 1/15/13 at 10:25 am
Posted on 1/15/13 at 10:23 am to Chad504boy
I'm not against having a featured back, but it will be pointless if we don't get more creative with our runs.
Posted on 1/15/13 at 10:28 am to Patrick O Rly
quote:
I'm not against having a featured back, but it will be pointless if we don't get more creative with our runs.
Having a versatile feature back almost makes us less predicatable imo than having different guys that teams know do different things. But play design and calls is not here nor there when it comes to rb touches.
Also, i'm not talking about (lets say ingram) giving Ingram 90% of our rushes and give him 300+ carries and run him into the ground. 250-270 is reasonable, 300 plus gets absurd with some of these teams.
Posted on 1/15/13 at 10:44 am to Chad504boy
we worked well with a 3 back rotation in '09: pierre was the hammer and all purpose, reggie was the change of pace, and mike bell was the short yardage.
we shouldn't be splitting carries 1:1 or 3:2 though, 2:1 or 5:2 is better
we shouldn't be splitting carries 1:1 or 3:2 though, 2:1 or 5:2 is better
Posted on 1/15/13 at 10:47 am to Chad504boy
I agree, but I am not in the group that thinks Ingram should be our featured back 
PT is easily our best all-around back but I'm not sure he could handle a full load.
PT is easily our best all-around back but I'm not sure he could handle a full load.
Posted on 1/15/13 at 10:54 am to htran90
quote:
we worked well with a 3 back rotation in '09: pierre was the hammer and all purpose, reggie was the change of pace, and mike bell was the short yardage.
It also worked incredibly well in 2011 when we were 4th in rushing. If all of the backs had the same style then I'd be fine with just giving it to 1 guy, but they all bring a different dynamic to the offense. They are chess pieces that the complex scheme utilizes to confuse defense with different looks.
The one back that wasn't used right in 11 was Ingram, but I believe this year Payton will have a better idea of how exactly to use him. Nonetheless, Sproles, Ingram, and PT, all have completely different styles and can do different things. I am all for whatever will give the team and edge, and if complicating different ways to use all the back is what works, I am all for it.
Not sure what exactly the organization plans to do with The Kraken going forward.
This post was edited on 1/15/13 at 11:03 am
Posted on 1/15/13 at 10:57 am to CocoLoco
quote:
The one back that wasn't used right in 09 was Ingram,
Page 1 of 2
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News