- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: So wait, we traded our 2nd this year and 1st next year?
Posted on 4/28/11 at 10:31 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 4/28/11 at 10:31 pm to SlowFlowPro
Ernest...what would make you happier right now:
1. convincing the internet you're right about this
2. having sex.....with a woman
1. convincing the internet you're right about this
2. having sex.....with a woman
0
Posted on 4/28/11 at 10:31 pm to Choctaw
I'll trust the fo and say they understand relative value especially considering they used fa to fill the position the last 3 years. Perhaps they see Ingram as a 1500 yd back in this offense
Posted on 4/28/11 at 10:32 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
what badass RB did the packers have this year?
what badass RB did the saints have in 2009?
What logic are you using here? Are you saying any team can win without a RB?
Teams can win without several things. We've seen teams win with weak offenses, weak defenses, weak QBs, etc etc. But you would have to be dumb if you dont think all of those teams wish they had a stronger offense or defense or QB.
Can the Saints win without Ingram? I'm sure they could. But the question should be will the Saints be better with Ingram?
Posted on 4/28/11 at 10:32 pm to Turbeauxdog
0-16 here we come
Posted on 4/28/11 at 10:32 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
like thomas jones last year
or Julius Jones
Posted on 4/28/11 at 10:32 pm to BayouBengals03
quote:
An improved running game means and improved Brees.
i don't disagree at all
i want to improve the running game in the best economical way. that means finding a cheap RB. which is easy b/c there is a ton of supply
quote:
We addressed a need on defense (whether you agree with the player picked or not), and we grabbed more depth at a position that we were completely depleted in last year.
i think ingram is a safer bet to produce than our DE, but DE is a lot more valuable
Posted on 4/28/11 at 10:33 pm to Turbeauxdog
quote:
Perhaps they see Ingram as a 1500 yd back in this offense
if ingram rushes for 1500 yards next year i'll eat crow and say i was wrong
anybody want to take that bet? i'll put it at 1300 yards
Posted on 4/28/11 at 10:34 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
i wouldn't have picked a back in the 2nd round
i would have waited until the 4th-5th round to see what was availalbe
if nothing, go to FA and try to find a back who gets cut, like thomas jones last year
so you dont have a better pick than Ingram? You just dont like taking a running back because youre under the impression that every year you can find a sleeper. Which has obviously worked for the Saints considering where our running game has been.
Posted on 4/28/11 at 10:34 pm to SlowFlowPro
I got 50 on it
Posted on 4/28/11 at 10:34 pm to LSUSOBEAST1
quote:
What logic are you using here? Are you saying any team can win without a RB?
i'm saying that is the way the NFL is moving, b/c the RB position has so many guys out there who are decent, it has almost no value
again, look at thomas jones
runs for 1200 yards, gets a 2 year, $5M deal in the offseason. runs as a power back and gets 900 yards.
THAT is the kind of acquisition i hoped the saints would make
Posted on 4/28/11 at 10:35 pm to 3HourTour
Theres a reason your not a GM for the Saints or involved with sports in anyway. IT's cause your opinions are terrible.
Posted on 4/28/11 at 10:36 pm to Swagga
quote:
so you dont have a better pick than Ingram?
if you restrict my choice to what RB would i pick in the late 20s in the draft, then yes, i'd pick ingram
quote:
You just dont like taking a running back because youre under the impression that every year you can find a sleeper.
i'm not saying find a sleeper at all. sign some cheap vet who can get 700 yards to help us out
Posted on 4/28/11 at 10:36 pm to rondo
quote:
I got 50 on it
so you got over 1300 rushing yards?
i'll take the under
Posted on 4/28/11 at 10:36 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
if ingram rushes for 1500 yards next year i'll eat crow and say i was wrong
I doubt that. You'll say his production was nice but you're still not a fan of trading up when we could have found similar production from a later round pick. Then you'll point to a 3rd round RB that rushed for close to 1000 yards
Posted on 4/28/11 at 10:37 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
i'm not saying find a sleeper at all. sign some cheap vet who can get 700 yards to help us out
like who?
Posted on 4/28/11 at 10:37 pm to SlowFlowPro
You are a whiny bitch tonight
Posted on 4/28/11 at 10:37 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
i'll eat crow and say i was wrong
No you won't. I've owned you six or seven times. You've never admitted you were wrong. Ever. You're a giant flaming douche who doesnt ever say anything positive. Pretty sure you were negative through out the superbowl thread
Posted on 4/28/11 at 10:37 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
i want to improve the running game in the best economical way. that means finding a cheap RB. which is easy b/c there is a ton of supply
I agree. There is no doubt we gave up a lot, but who knows what the plans are for Bush. That's what I am waiting to see next.
No matter what, we added depth to the backfield next year. Ingram is a 1st round talent. We got 2 first round talents this year, as opposed to one this year and one next year. I don't think it's that big of a deal. Plus we still have two 3rd round picks left this year.
I just want more depth at running back. We can't have what happened last year happen again. I know Ingram has had injuries too, but the more guys you have, the less likely you get as depleted in the backfield as last year.
The Saints must really, really like Ingram. If that's the case, the only thing we can do is let it all play out and see how things go in the backfield the next couple of years.
Posted on 4/28/11 at 10:38 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
$5M deal in the offseason.
Of course he was cheap, HES frickING 32!
Was he decent last year? Yes. But the Chiefs also have to realize he has little to no future.
Posted on 4/28/11 at 10:38 pm to Lsuhoohoo
quote:
I doubt that. You'll say his production was nice but you're still not a fan of trading up when we could have found similar production from a later round pick.
naw a 1500 yard rusher is extremely rare and worth that trade. if ingram is that guy, he was worth it
Page 6 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News