Rob0729

Well, he only rushed 40 yards on 13 carries last night so that is a definitive answer that he is clearly a bust. Let's move on.

We also learned last night that the Packers are so good that they will go 19-0. So we can cancel the season.

Trying to draw any type of conclusions from week 1 is an exercise in futility. In 2003, you would have thought the Pats were going nowhere and the Bills were Super Bowl bound after week 1.

tombonneau

Wow, a-holes out in force this morning. Dude just wants to talk about the debut of Ingram which is relevant on a Pats board given the draft day trade and team need a the time.

I'd personally rather talk about Cobb since I was praying they'd take that kid but we opted for the Corpse of Ocho instead ...

Re: Ingram I could have gone either way on draft day but was happy with the trade at the time and am even moreso after getting a look at Ridley. Economics of the draft are such I think you only go RB if it's a special talent and think Ingram will be just very good which can be just as easily found in later rounds.

xmarkd400x

What would you rather have? 1st rd OL & 4th rd RB, or 1st rd RB & 4th rd OL. I'd go with the first round line talent. Every day. Of course unless it's a once in a lifetime talent, but there's no way to know that in draft day.

I do think Ingram looks good, but I'm happy with our OL selection.

Rob0729

Sorry. I just think it is a little useless to talk draft picks at this point especially since they are all working on a little over a month's experience in the NFL. There was no offseason for these guys to acclimated to their team and the NFL. Most rookies will struggle this season because of it.

patchick

Everybody, the OP didn't ask you to judge Ingram based on his performance last night! He asked whether you wanted the Pats to draft Ingram at the time, rather than trading the pick to the Saints. Totally reasonable question.

FWIW I was on record in the draft forum as having no interest in Ingram in the first round, and thinking Shane Vereen was the best fit at RB in terms of 3-down versatility (including blitz pickup) and draft capital. We'll see.

I also think Ridley is a lot like Ingram: a sturdily built back with little breakaway speed but exceptional balance and active feet that make him hard to tackle, plus soft hands for the reception. Ingram obviously has a far more impressive track record...but Ridley has 2 healthy knees, and only cost a 3rd vs. a 1st + 2nd.

supafly

Cobb...Yes, I wanted him badly and watched him tear it up time and time again every Sat. at Kentucky.

The problem was that most perceived him as 'another' slot WR here, and with Welker/Edelman many thought we'd never take him. Personally, I thought his versatility as a WR/RB/ST ace was great.

I still am not sure that he would've lined up on the outside here, but I really don't know the answer to that question. I didn't get a chance to watch too much of the game last night, did he line up in the slot or on the outside?

__________________
Patiently waiting to defend the next "bubble" player in this summer's training camp.....

supafly

That's really what it's all about, especially for a drafting ace like Belichick. I think he goes the better value route just about every time (sans the CJackson trade).

With multiple RB's coming up and a decent pick for nx yr on the table, it was pretty much a no-brainer.

I do think that there was consideration re: Ingram though, as much as most downplayed the rumors. Of course that's just my opinion though.

__________________
Patiently waiting to defend the next "bubble" player in this summer's training camp.....

Palm Beach Pats Fan

I am happy with who we drafted and when we drafted them.

I think Ingram may be a very good NFL back, and I would not have minded at all if we had picked him. My concern then, though, was that the shelf life for even a very good back is often so short (5 years?) that a first round pick is more of a gamble than, say, a stud O-lineman who you may last twice as long in his prime.

That concern remains, and wasn't affected one way or another by one game's results.

__________________
It is what it is, so just go out there and do your job!

Timbo717

It's not really about the 1st round OL pick though in regards to Ingram, though unless I'm missing something in what you're saying. They had already picked Solder with their earlier first round pick and could've grabbed Ingram with the 1st round pick they traded to NO. They essentially could've had 1st round OL and 1st round RB.

In this case, isn't it "What would you rather have: Mark Ingram or Shane Vereen(who they picked at the 56th pick they got from NO) + New Orleans 2012 1st round pick". We don't know what that NO 2012 first rounder will be but I still don't mind not getting Ingram especially when you consider we drafted other capable RBs and get another 1st rounder next year.

Although I will admit at the time I was kind of hoping for Cam Heyward to be picked at that spot by the Pats so Ingram wasn't really who I wanted to see drafted anyway. Like others who have brought up good points, I think a RB who may end up with a shelf life of approx. 5 years just isn't as safe a move in the first round as some of the other positions that will be around longer.

__________________
"People respond to the natural grass, Stan....says you're a renegade, can't be tamed. Dan Fouts, Abe Lincoln, the guy on the paper towel wrappah....all winnahs."

ProudestRyno

It's my opinion that drafting a RB in the early rounds is a mistake unless it's someone of Adrian Peterson caliber, but even then....RB is probably the easiest position to find good players at the end of the draft or even as undrafted FA. It's much tougher to hit on other positions late in the draft...

So to answer the original question, no, I did not want Ingram. He's a solid RB, but not a game changer IMO. And to be a RB drafted in the first round IMO, you need to be a big time game changer.