Should We Trade Up For South Carolina DE Melvin Ingram?? - Page 3 - New England Patriots Forums

UK_Pat37 · 03-26-2012, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsderoer

Because you say so? Sorry to confuse you with FACTS.

Bequette had better production in college, better size.

Anyone who watches Ingram highlights sees that what I have said is true, Ingram did get a lot of his sacks playing DT and overmatching slow footed OGs with his burst. That wont fly much in the NFL

Stats are for losers. Watch some tape and analyse their techniques, versatility etc.

There's a reason Bequette is projected mid-round and Ingram the top ten by a lot of NFL scouts. Who are much the wiser than you or more as well might I add. Bequette has potential...potential is the key word there.,

When you analyse a player you look for the tools to master the pro game. The college game is ten times different tot hat of college and half the guys these guys play at college will never set foot in the NFL.

What people see in Ingram is a versatile player and IMO, if you watch the tape and break down this guys ability, his versatility and then match it with his production you have a better player than Bequette.

You seem to just be basing this on college production...and that's a dangerous game when scouting.

So no, not because I said so. Because tonnes of scouts and analysts have rated Ingram as better than Bequette and, from what I have watched as an amateur, I tend to agree with that analysis.

patsderoer · 03-26-2012, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UK_Pat37

You seem to just be basing this on college production...and that's a dangerous game when scouting.

LOL. That is your conclusion after you read that post of mine? Here is the important part again

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsderoer

Anyone who watches Ingram highlights sees that what I have said is true, Ingram did get a lot of his sacks playing DT and overmatching slow footed OGs with his burst. That wont fly much in the NFL

If you were a little smarter, you would have noticed that I did not base my conclusion only on college production, I specifically mentioned and analyzed Ingram's tape.

You should follow you own advice and watch some damn tape.

UK_Pat37 · 03-26-2012, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsderoer

LOL. That is your conclusion after you read that post of mine? Here is the important part again

If you were a little smarter, you would have noticed that I did not base my conclusion only on college production, I specifically mentioned and analyzed Ingram's tape.

You should follow you own advice and watch some damn tape.

No, but you have not even mentioned once what he can and can't do to justify why Bequette will be a better pro than Ingram. Talk about his pad level, his use of hands, his explosiveness, his acceleration, his lateral movement, his variety of pass rush moves, his strength, his ability to command and control double teams...

These are the tools (which I'll bold up again) that scouts look at and, on tape, Ingram better displays the tools. Now I'm not saying Bequette has no shot at being a better pro...but you go on what you see on tape. All I;'ve heard you mention is some stats at a semi-professional standard level and some numbers he put up in shorts and T-Shirt.

NinjaZX6R · 03-26-2012, 06:38 PM

I wonder if Wolfe knows that Patsodear (or whatever his name is) is cheating on Wolfe with Bequette.

Why?PJ · 03-26-2012, 07:28 PM

Ok I cannot believe you people are trying to compare these two. Really?

Ingram played on a D full of play makers that won most of the games South Carolina won. That defense was a monster, if the Pats could take anyone from that team, they should. South Carolina wanted to start Clowney over Ingram. Only Ingram's play kept him on the field.

Bequette played on the one SEC team that actually had a good consistent offense. That helped him and his defense.

Now I hope both have great NFL careers, but right now Ingram earned every accolade he is getting. He has the talent and ability to excel in the NFL.

Bequette could. That is really the only difference between 1st round picks and others. One is everything but guaranteed, and the other is more like 50/50.

***DaBruinz*** · 03-26-2012, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joey007

Let's make a scenario here. Let's say we decide to do trade for a guy like Asante Samuel let's say...... 2nd-3rd round pick?? And instead of drafting a safety in the high rounds, we move McCourty or Dowling to Safety and draft a safety a little later (maybe a George Iloka, Trumaine Johnson) I would think we could trade both 1st's for a pick around, say in the upper top 10, and Ingram's still on the board. Would you guys think Bill would consider doing this?

No. The fact is that Ingram is only 6'1 and has short arms at 31 1/2". Not sure about his lower body strength. He had a broad jump of 9'1 (mediocre) and a vertical of 34.5" (which is good).

I think that the Pats are looking at a safety in the 2-3 round anyways..

I don't see any benefit as he doesn't fit the system and is, possibly, a liability against the run..

manxman2601 · 03-26-2012, 08:43 PM

I know ESPN's Sports Science like to accentuate the positive, but that spin move of Ingram's is sick

Sport Science: Melvin Ingram - ESPN Video - ESPN