Did you want Mark Ingram in the draft?

[TheSolderKing]

Might as well start it b/c someone will eventually...

I want to know who was for or against him being a Patriot.

I personally did not want to waste a rd. 1 pick on a RB b/c there is great value in later rounds. There is no question he has immense talent, but did we play it right? After the Maroney catastrophe I have been against RB's in rd. 1. here is my stance... how do you feel about the Ingram situation?

 

[ausbacker]

One game into a player's career is not a long enough observation period.

 

[supafly]

I won't lie. I wanted him, and was an advocate of the NEP's 'perceived' interest in him. (which may/may not have been a smokescreen)

But the value was obviously there in later rounds, as we all knew. Hopefully one of the two we picked up will contribute just fine, although only time will tell whether or not passing on Ingram was the right move.

I don't mind the added high pick, that's for sure.

 

[livinginthe past]

I love the justification for this thread.

"Oh well, its 'inevitable' so I might aswell do it myself".

Its inevitable, but only because you appear to have the attention span of a goldfish.

 

[TheSolderKing]

One game into a player's career is not a long enough observation period.

*sigh

I love the justification for this thread.

"Oh well, its 'inevitable' so I might aswell do it myself".

Its inevitable, but only because you appear to have the attention span of a goldfish.

you do NOT need a huge sample of games to answer this question.

you either wanted him or not and please explain why you chose your move


what is a better time to start this thread than at the start of the season?

don't hate. jeez

 

[ausbacker]

*sigh


you do NOT need a huge sample of games to answer this question.

you either wanted him or not and please explain why you chose your move

I'm fairly certain you do.

 

[Kid~Brady]

Well, he played against one of the top defenses in the league his first game and ran the ball well. I think that speaks for itself.

 

[TheSolderKing]

Well, he played against one of the top defenses in the league his first game and ran the ball well. I think that speaks for itself.

I agree. I do realize for us to surmise a true evaluation of Ingram it will take time (years) perhaps, but this thread is a simple yes or no on Ingram being drafted by us.

I found a lot of value in the later rounds and many of the solid RB's do not need to be drafted in the 1st rd. We for the most part carry 2 1's to maximize value of future drafts when we trade it for a future 1 and some more.

 

[The-Hooded-One]

I think it looks like Ridley can be just as good if not better.

 

[Uncle Rico]

I think it looks like Ridley can be just as good if not better.

Hey -- no fair jumping the gun on the inevitable Tuesday thread.

 

[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]

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.

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]

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.

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?

 

[supafly]

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.

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.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

Re: OT- (The inevitable Mark Ingram thread)

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.

 

[Timbo717]

Re: OT- (The inevitable Mark Ingram thread)

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.

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.

 

[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.