re: Get rid of Mark Ingram now!

did you hear his potty mouf walking by the sound mic?

quote:

---

Do you understand what the word "rate" means?

That literally means that it is adjusted for the number of carries.

---

I understand that everyone is excited over Ingram's performance, I was too. It was against the worst run defense in the league. He and Hightower should have a repeat performance this weekend as well....now let's give the o-line their props (154 yards before contact).

Do you understand that wear and tear is a factor along with more carries would likely increase your precious fumble rate. In the season he had his most carries Ingram had 3 fumbles. Add another 100 or more carries with those variables it could go either way. You act as if Fumble rates are written in stone. It's a stat that will change with certain factors. When Ingram runs he carries the ball loosely when he's in his groove. But, you keep looking at a back that has 150 carries or less a year and claiming his ball security is as good or better than any back that carries the ball 2x's as much.

quote:

---

But, you keep looking at a back that has 150 carries or less a year

---

I've basically demolished you on every single comment you've pulled out of your arse, including this lie, in multiple threads at this point.

But man do those cheeks keep flapping no matter how many facts I respond with to dispute your crap.

You're obviously Mensa member, I'm done. Roll Ingram.

quote:

---

I've basically demolished you on every single comment you've pulled out of your arse, including this lie, in multiple threads at this point.

---

Apparently you don't know what the meaning of a is lie either, Ingram is not a machine that is programmed to maintain your regurgitated fumble rate example. You've only repeated one OPINION over and over again, fumble rate has no standing with a back that doesn't get the carries to qualify with the big boys. The only thing you've demolished is your ability to look beyond your own way of thinking. If Ingram gets the carries and maintains your great fumble rate then your point is made. Until then keep dreaming...

quote:

---

But, you keep looking at a back that has 150 carries or less a year

---

The point that you came to realize that your OPINION actually doesn't have enough facts (carries) to stand on its own. I guess that struck that final nerve, huh?

quote:

---

You're obviously a Mensa member

---

Resulting to insults always makes the insecure feel better. The foolish part of this is that you took my Marshall Faulk comparison and ran with it. You were than informed that I was referring to the HoFer's Rams years, where even the television announcers raved about his lack of fumbling, not just fumbles that became turnovers. To convey my own OPINION, I gave you a better example of Tomlinson the record holder for most carries without a fumble and you bring up the samething again. You stick to a fumble rate argument (that you bandwagoned on from another poster) for a back that averages almost 100-200 touches less a season than two backs that had their respective offenses ran through them for the majority of their careers. Yeah, you really demolished a point here, that would be your own.

To finish, I like Ingram, he's been frustrating to watch the last 6 years. People on here act like saying anything negative about the guy has to be more anti-bama talk. He's an average back until he consistently plays above average. When he consistently finds the running lanes, goes north and south the coaches will give him the ball more. That's what happens for above average play. It's not just Payton's system, he will feed the ball to the hot man. Oh and by the way Marshall never fumbled in the playoffs.

quote:

---

fumble rate has no standing with a back that doesn't get the carries to qualify with the big boys.

---

quote:

---

You stick to a fumble rate argument (that you bandwagoned on from another poster) f

---

You're the one who made this comment on fumble rate:

quote:

---

Ingram almost never tucks the ball in traffic, that's why he's fumbling at the rate he does.\

---

Then, when I posted his fumble rates from last year in comparison with the rest of the NFL, you changed your argument and pulled this firmly out of that arse:

quote:

---

Over his career he has fumble when we've gained momentum several times. We were driving to go up by a td or fg. He doesnt do it All the time but it's happened.

---

quote:

---

The point that you came to realize that your OPINION actually doesn't have enough facts (carries) to stand on its own. I guess that struck that final nerve, huh?

---

Nope. It was just a flat out lie and incorrect. Feel free to look it up yourself.

Have you even posted a fact yet. The "fact" that you posted in your last post isn't even correct as Ingram has gone over 150 carries in 3 of the last 4 seasons (and will do it this year too). Not to mention the list of NFL carriers who have doubled his attempts every year is almost non-existent.

quote:

---

here even the television announcers raved about his lack of fumbling,

---

You mean like the announcers that were saying he hasn't had a fumbling issue in his entire career the last few weeks? Nice fallacy though.

quote:

---

The foolish part of this is that you took my Marshall Faulk comparison and ran with it. You were than informed that I was referring to the HoFer's Rams years, where even the television announcers raved about his lack of fumbling, not just fumbles that became turnovers. To convey my own OPINION, I gave you a better example of Tomlinson the record holder for most carries without a fumble and you bring up the samething again. You stick to a fumble rate argument (that you bandwagoned on from another poster) for a back that averages almost 100-200 touches less a season than two backs that had their respective offenses ran through them for the majority of their careers. Yeah, you really demolished a point here, that would be your own.

---

Holy shite. Yea, that is EXACTLY what happened. No, you brought LT and Faulk as examples AFTER saying:

quote:

---

he had 3 alone (which is ALOT).

---

and

quote:

---

If you don't think 3 fumbles in one season is a lot from one person you have to be arguing for the sake of arguing.

---

And I used them as examples of all time greats, the ones that you brought up, that AVERAGED 3 fumbles/season.

I also used the following CURRENT players here in response.

quote:

---

It actually appears to be pretty damn common for running backs.

Lynch had 18 from 2010-2015.
Gurley has 5 in 20 games
Johnson has 5 in 24 games
Elliot has 2 already
Martin had 5 last year alone
Charles routinely had 5+
McCoy has 3+ years too, etc. etc. etc.

---

So back to your absolutely retarded point:

quote:

---

If he averaged 300-325 carries a year with that "fumble rate" then I'd be impressed.

---

2015: 1 rusher had 300 carries
2014: 2 rushers had 300 carries
2013: 2 rushers had 300 carries

DERP

So basically, you won't be impressed until he leads the NFL in carries. Brilliant logic once again.

Do you realize that every time that your compare him to a back that has had more carries you are making my point?

quote:

---

quote: Ingram almost never tucks the ball in traffic, that's why he's fumbling at the rate he does.\

---

I didn't bring up fumble rate, htran90 did.

quote:

---

Then, when I posted his fumble rates from last year in comparison with the rest of the NFL, you changed your argument and pulled this firmly out of that arse:

quote:

---

Have you even posted a fact yet. The "fact" that you posted in your last post isn't even correct as Ingram has gone over 150 carries in 3 of the last 4 seasons (and will do it this year too). Not to mention the list of NFL carriers who have doubled his attempts every year is almost non-existent.

---

Did I say "never went over 150 or did I say average 150? Facts, huh?
quote:
Over his career he has fumble when we've gained momentum several times. We were driving to go up by a td or fg. He doesnt do it All the time but it's happened.

---

It's still the same point, nice try...read instead of arguing just to argue, but that seems to be your M.O.

quote:

---

Nope. It was just a flat out lie and incorrect. Feel free to look it up yourself.

---

Yet again apparently you don't know what a lie is.

quote:

---

Holy shite. Yea, that is EXACTLY what happened. No, you brought LT and Faulk as examples AFTER saying:

---

So now you're denying the fact that you compared a back that is averaging 149.6 carries a season and 21 catches to RBs that did 2 to 3 times the work and equated the fumble rates to be on an equal plane? I get it now....lie until I believe it's true, got ya.

quote:

---

2015: 1 rusher had 300 carries 2014: 2 rushers had 300 carries 2013: 2 rushers had 300 carries

---

Diversion tactics yet again, stick to the big picture. More touches equals more opportunities to lose the ball. Our boy doesn't measure up by sample size.

Someone didn't take statistics in school....

Some folks don't even know what the word means. And no...its not a punk band from the eighties

quote:

---

You do understand that's why there's a thing called rate...if a rb fumbles two times in 200 touches, if he were to carry it 100 more times the likelihood is he will fumble it one more time

---

The fact that he lost 2 fumbles in back to back games should illustrate that the law of averages is both informal by nature and pure generalization. Which is something that every good statistics professor would teach/convey.

quote:

---

Add another 100 or more carries with those variables it could go either way. You act as if Fumble rates are written in stone. It's a stat that will change with certain factors.

---

I believe this is my post from earlier....

You cannot say that his fumble rate would be that same with more carries per year. It would most like spike in the negative direction. All I'm saying is that, right now with his limited amount of carries where he's at currently isn't such a big deal.