Started By
Message

re: Listen, Saintards, Mark Ingram is not that valuable

Posted on 4/28/11 at 11:00 pm to
Posted by SlowFlowPro
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
452344 posts
Posted on 4/28/11 at 11:00 pm to
quote:

So, the previous 2 24th picks in the draft signed for THIRTY THREE PERCENT LESS than Thomas makes right now, but we're investing too fricking much?

where did i say thomas doesn't make too much money?
Posted by THRILLHO
Metry, LA
Member since Apr 2006
49978 posts
Posted on 4/28/11 at 11:03 pm to
PT is making about $3.5m a year. In a vacuum he doesn't make too much money. PT on a team with, now, 3 RBs that compliment each other perfectly (pass catcher, all arounder, bruiser) and a frickload of great players they need every penny to keep, is making $3.5m too much.
Posted by GFunk
Denham Springs
Member since Feb 2011
14969 posts
Posted on 4/28/11 at 11:04 pm to
quote:


where did i say thomas doesn't make too much money?

quote:


SlowFlowCapologist


You've already been excused due to an acute lack of anything resembling a coherent thought on this subject.

Throw back another drink & push away from the keyboard, douche. The big kids are talking, now.
This post was edited on 4/28/11 at 11:04 pm
Posted by GeauxWarTigers
Auburn
Member since Oct 2010
18046 posts
Posted on 4/28/11 at 11:05 pm to
24-20 Seattle at halftime.

quote:

Oh, wait...You mean we had to throw our way back in it? You mean, we had to throw our modus operandi out of the window in order to come back and not only tie, but take the lead?

Thanks for playing the, "I didn't really think this through, but I'm way too attached to my opinion and my own interest in it to admit I don't know what I'm talking about." We've got some nice parting gifts for you.


Better luck next time asshat.
Posted by SlowFlowPro
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
452344 posts
Posted on 4/28/11 at 11:05 pm to
if PT was more healthy he'd be worth $3.5M
Posted by GFunk
Denham Springs
Member since Feb 2011
14969 posts
Posted on 4/28/11 at 11:06 pm to
quote:

Better luck next time asshat.


He was fricking talking about the rushing yards we had at the half of the Super Bowl, douchefag.
Posted by Powerman
Member since Jan 2004
165649 posts
Posted on 4/28/11 at 11:06 pm to
quote:


You don't know shite.

The Saints had DeShawn effing Wynn in there with Julius Jones at the end of it this year.

Year before? They had two decent tailbacks for 1st & 2nd down, and won a SuperBowl.

Teams have to have MULTIPLE tailbacks and they don't last as long. You have to CONSTANTLY prospect for 'em.

The tailback situation was the key to the Saints getting blitzed 49 times in Atlanta. We simply couldn't run the ball. We won, but Brees got his arse lit up continually.

Without tailbacks, you see Brees' eyes go into Silver Dollar mode all night.

Get a clue. Oh, I know, you're some popular poster here. WGAF. Weak take, brochacho.


You do realize of course that your entire post doesn't really counter the fact that you can get good RBs later in the draft right?

I think Mark will do well but he is an unproven commodity in the NFL. He might not be any better than Wynn for all you know.
Posted by SlowFlowPro
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
452344 posts
Posted on 4/28/11 at 11:06 pm to
quote:

You've already been excused due to an acute lack of anything resembling a coherent thought on this subject.



says the guy who has no idea what i'm saying by his comments

value is more than dollars and cents (don't get me wrong, they're a big part of it)

ingram makes 1/3 of what PT makes

a 5th round back makes 1/2-2/3 of what ingram makes. it all devolves back
Posted by GFunk
Denham Springs
Member since Feb 2011
14969 posts
Posted on 4/28/11 at 11:08 pm to
quote:

You do realize of course that your entire post doesn't really counter the fact that you can get good RBs later in the draft right?

I think Mark will do well but he is an unproven commodity in the NFL. He might not be any better than Wynn for all you know.


Your entire thought process is basically that our discussion is pointless, because prsopecting for talent in the early rounds is for the most part complete random chance, based on previous examples of late-round value like a Colston, Brady, etc?

Your theory-should we follow it to its logical end-is that we should probably trade every single 1st & 2nd round pick we're ever awarded, and just beat up the 3rd-7th to find our players?

It's an interesting take. I don't agree with it.
Posted by THRILLHO
Metry, LA
Member since Apr 2006
49978 posts
Posted on 4/28/11 at 11:08 pm to
Ingram's cap hit will be pretty insignificant. I don't think that should come into the conversation when it comes to the problems with the trade.
Posted by whodatfan
Member since Mar 2008
21711 posts
Posted on 4/28/11 at 11:10 pm to
quote:

I think Mark will do well but he is an unproven commodity in the NFL. He might not be any better than Wynn for all you know.


While this is true, it holds no weight since it can be applied to every player In the draft.
Posted by GFunk
Denham Springs
Member since Feb 2011
14969 posts
Posted on 4/28/11 at 11:11 pm to
quote:

value is more than dollars and cents (don't get me wrong, they're a big part of it)


So now we're into your Sister Timah routine? This value is now more intangible, and in this case, specifically, its esoteric, with you being the best and most finely attuned to this nebulous value that's not about dollars & cents?

Find my money line on my palm next, bitch. I don't give a shite about my love line or my life line. It's ALL about dollars & cents for me.
Posted by SlowFlowPro
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
452344 posts
Posted on 4/28/11 at 11:13 pm to
quote:

Ingram's cap hit will be pretty insignificant. I don't think that should come into the conversation when it comes to the problems with the trade.

that's why i'm not really discussing it

in terms of salary, late 1st round picks are cheap
Posted by GeauxWarTigers
Auburn
Member since Oct 2010
18046 posts
Posted on 4/28/11 at 11:13 pm to
quote:

He was fricking talking about the rushing yards we had at the half of the Super Bowl, douchefag.


1) that was me talking and replying to you.
2) That was total rushing yards, not at half. 51 the entire fricking game against the colts.
3) your "argument" was that we were behind in the superbowl. 10-6 at halftime with the colts leading. This means the saints are down by 4. Guess how many points the Saints were down by against Seattle? Down 24-20 at halftime: 4 points.


So: Down 4 points at half in both games. Similar rush totals in both games (51 in Superbowl/77 against Seattle). We won the game against the good team, but lost to the 7-9 team. Guess what was different? Oh, that's right. Our Defense played well in 2009.


Saints-Colts

Saints-Seahawks

Hell, the saints even had a better ypc against the seahawks than they did against the Colts.

Better luck next time "douchefag"
Posted by SlowFlowPro
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
452344 posts
Posted on 4/28/11 at 11:14 pm to
quote:

Your theory-should we follow it to its logical end-is that we should probably trade every single 1st & 2nd round pick we're ever awarded, and just beat up the 3rd-7th to find our players?

there are certain positions that produce fewer quality players, and are more "rare"

these are your valuable positions

QB, LT, pass rushers, and CBs

then MLBs, 2-way DTs, OGs, and coverage FS

i don't know if i'd pick a 1st rounder that wasn't one of these positions right now
Posted by SlowFlowPro
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
452344 posts
Posted on 4/28/11 at 11:15 pm to
quote:

So now we're into your Sister Timah routine? This value is now more intangible, and in this case, specifically, its esoteric, with you being the best and most finely attuned to this nebulous value that's not about dollars & cents?

i didn't create rarity of position in the NFL. god did

Posted by goatmilker
Castle Anthrax
Member since Feb 2009
71005 posts
Posted on 4/28/11 at 11:16 pm to
there are certain positions that produce fewer quality players, and are more "rare"

Some may argue that the best R.B. in any year @28 is rare.
Posted by GFunk
Denham Springs
Member since Feb 2011
14969 posts
Posted on 4/28/11 at 11:17 pm to
quote:

i didn't create rarity of position in the NFL. god did


I don't care WTF you say is in the room & possessing your spirit right now, I ain't doing the whole Ghost routine with you.

At the end of the day, everybody forgets that Patrick Swayze was banging Whoppi Goldberg in Ghost. NOT Demi Moore.

Dude, you know not of what you speak. I'm like the cat that's toying around with the mouse that's already dead. You aren't even moving around anymore. No sign of life. I'm about to go bring you to the backdoor and cop a squat in some kitty litter.

Stop. Typing. Dammit.
Posted by DrSteveBrule
Baton Rouge
Member since Sep 2009
12211 posts
Posted on 4/28/11 at 11:18 pm to
quote:

he was one of the best QB prospects ever. great college career, smart, accurate QB with top 5 all time physical tools


When the frick was Jafailus Shitsel ever considered smart?
Posted by SlowFlowPro
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
452344 posts
Posted on 4/28/11 at 11:19 pm to
quote:

Some may argue that the best R.B. in any year @28 is rare.

no, it means he's not an elite RB talent, the RB crop was weak, and RBs aren't worth that much
first pageprev pagePage 5 of 6Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram