- 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
re: Saints re-sign Ingram to 4yr/$16m deal
Posted on 3/8/15 at 10:22 am to geauxtigers87
Posted on 3/8/15 at 10:22 am to geauxtigers87
Best section in the Dome. Unlike those quiet little mouse fans in 601
1
Posted on 3/8/15 at 10:23 am to Breesus
602 doesn't have shite on 504
Posted on 3/8/15 at 10:26 am to geauxtigers87
504- best area code, worst section.
Posted on 3/8/15 at 10:27 am to Breesus
Posted on 3/8/15 at 10:31 am to geauxtigers87
Posted on 3/8/15 at 10:35 am to tunechi
Very happy we re-signed Ingram. He has only gotten better each season and last year really turned it on. $4 million/year to keep a young back and consistency at the position is good in my book.
Sad that many "fans" here are bemoaning this signing due to Bama-related feelings.
Sad that many "fans" here are bemoaning this signing due to Bama-related feelings.
Posted on 3/8/15 at 10:37 am to LSUZombie
quote:
$4 million/year to keep a young back and consistency at the position is good in my book.
Dis.
Posted on 3/8/15 at 12:56 pm to LSUZombie
quote:
Sad that many "fans" here are bemoaning this signing due to Bama-related feelings.
That is part of it, I guess, but he did himself no favors for his first few seasons in New Orleans. Kid got booed in the dome because he looked lethargic out there, not because he played for Nick Saban. First impressions are strong...
On top of that, he has been a little injury prone.
2014, boom, a totally different Ingram. He ran with fire and passion. If we get the 2014 Ingram and not the other guy, this is very good deal for the Saints. But let's not act like there is no reason for any skepticism about Ingram.
This post was edited on 3/8/15 at 3:52 pm
Posted on 3/8/15 at 1:26 pm to Big EZ Tiger
Excuses to you, but it's consistent. If another rb had better production in those games then I'd agree it's Ingram. The fact is, the rb group all played piss poor against solid dts. How many times have we seen dts in the backfield the second our rbs touched the ball,often.
He's solid, and has played solid the past 1.5yrs, he is consistency for this offense along with improvement in every aspect of his game: running, catching, and blocking. That consistency is important to an oline that is a shell of what we used to field.
He's solid, and has played solid the past 1.5yrs, he is consistency for this offense along with improvement in every aspect of his game: running, catching, and blocking. That consistency is important to an oline that is a shell of what we used to field.
Posted on 3/8/15 at 1:45 pm to BasilBogomil
See now this is a logical and well thought response to why your are skeptical. It's fair and I concede the point.
It's also not a OMG front office sucks. Saints are going to lose everything post. Those people are just being silly.
It's also not a OMG front office sucks. Saints are going to lose everything post. Those people are just being silly.
Posted on 3/8/15 at 2:15 pm to mindbreaker
i am glad with the resigning - dude will be great for us.
Posted on 3/8/15 at 2:28 pm to Thracken13
re-signing Ingram boils down to us trading up to draft him in 2011. Kinda like the Pelicans had to do with Eric gordon in the CP3 trade. They had to have something to show for each respective deal. Re-signing both is how they did that.
Not a terrible deal, but i think we've proven we can find RBs anywhere. Trading up for Ingram was out of character to begin with, and i almost feel like this new deal is the next step in talking themselves into that being the right move.
On a team strapped for money, with some big holes across the defense and OL, I think we could have used this money elsewhere.
Not a terrible deal, but i think we've proven we can find RBs anywhere. Trading up for Ingram was out of character to begin with, and i almost feel like this new deal is the next step in talking themselves into that being the right move.
On a team strapped for money, with some big holes across the defense and OL, I think we could have used this money elsewhere.
Posted on 3/8/15 at 2:39 pm to Lester Earl
If your saying you know for sure that a RB would be there in the draft when we pick and perform as well or better than MI the next four years I would say great who are you so sure of?
If your saying you know a FA RB that would do as well or better the next four years and for cheaper then great who?
If they had thrown a ton of money at him I could see your point. All I see is a young RB who knows our system and was one of the highest rated FA RB's out there and we got him for a fair deal.
If your saying you know a FA RB that would do as well or better the next four years and for cheaper then great who?
If they had thrown a ton of money at him I could see your point. All I see is a young RB who knows our system and was one of the highest rated FA RB's out there and we got him for a fair deal.
Posted on 3/8/15 at 2:46 pm to goatmilker
We don't go to this season with our only experienced backs being Robinson and Cadet. After cutting PT, singing Ingram was a must. And if our line improves at all, he'll have a good to great year.
Posted on 3/8/15 at 2:55 pm to goatmilker
you keep Pierre instead of cutting him to use his money for Ingram.
Draft or bring in another guy. pretty sure we still might.
Khiry, Pierre, Cadet, FA RB, drafted RB
Draft or bring in another guy. pretty sure we still might.
Khiry, Pierre, Cadet, FA RB, drafted RB
Posted on 3/8/15 at 2:58 pm to Lester Earl
Like most I don't understand or agree with letting PT go.
I pray they have a plan for those screens.
I pray it means making MI the work horse and thus not showing our hand with the RB rotations we could all see from our lazy boys.
I pray they have a plan for those screens.
I pray it means making MI the work horse and thus not showing our hand with the RB rotations we could all see from our lazy boys.
Posted on 3/8/15 at 3:01 pm to tunechi
4m a year... meh he's worth 3 but thank god we didn't sign him for more.
The real question is if we can get 2k yards out of him over the next 4 years
The real question is if we can get 2k yards out of him over the next 4 years
Posted on 3/8/15 at 3:02 pm to Lester Earl
We didn't cut PT for the money to keep Ingram. It's not a one to one like that. We didn't have to cut PT at all as we are projected to be between $10-20 mil under with all the rumored moves (before Ingram's contract).
We cut PT because we were ready to move on (and were last year before the pay cut). They decided the value wasn't there and they money would be better used elsewhere. I disagree but that's what it is.
And as of now Cadet is a FA.
We cut PT because we were ready to move on (and were last year before the pay cut). They decided the value wasn't there and they money would be better used elsewhere. I disagree but that's what it is.
And as of now Cadet is a FA.
Posted on 3/8/15 at 3:05 pm to Lester Earl
quote:
you keep Pierre instead of cutting him to use his money for Ingram.
for one more year as opposed to ingram for 4. Did some of you not notice, he's breaking down. He can't sustain being anything more than a situational back.
quote:
Draft or bring in another guy. pretty sure we still might.
Pierre was 2.565mil cap hit (2.1mil base salary); 2.0mil average
Ingram is 4.0mil average
So for 2.0mil more, who could we have brought in that had similar production to Ingram, decent age, and no major injuries (i.e. knee).
along with spending another pick in round 3-7? When we have holes at ILB, OLB, #2CB, DT, G, C, and maybe DE if we let Galette go.
RB was a position that was solidified that costed 4mil/144.5mil, literally 2.77% of the total cap.
This post was edited on 3/8/15 at 3:07 pm
Posted on 3/8/15 at 3:16 pm to htran90
Yeah sadly PT has been getting banged up a lot despite limited snaps and I'm sure that, with his age factored in and Ingram showing he can be an every down back, was the reason for the release. The money was secondary.
Page 10 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News