Mark Ingram at #10?
 

[quote]While Mike Shanahan has a reputation for finding unheralded running backs, I have a hunch that he’ll have a hard time passing on Alabama’s Mark Ingram with the No. 10 pick if Ingram is available. The Redskins don’t have third- and fourth-round picks, and I could envision a first-round scenario in which that leads them to Ingram.

[URL="http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-england-patriots/post/_/id/4694305/quick-hit-thoughts-around-nfl-pats-50"]Quick-hit thoughts around NFL & Pats - New England Patriots Blog - ESPN Boston[/URL][/quote]

Thoughts on this possibility?

The guy is a stud and we definitely need another RB, but at #10 I think we have other more pressing needs.

Re: Mark Ingram at #10?
 

Can't see it happening. Doesn't fit Shanahan's pattern with RBs anyway. I think they're going D (still think Robert Quinn) if they stay at #10

Re: Mark Ingram at #10?
 

I'm in no way saying our RB's we have now are studs especially after one year, but I personally think the RB's we have now can get the job done and be beasts if given the chance. However it all starts up front. The teams OL didn't block well. Mybe because it was the first year in a zone blocking scheme or the team just doesn't have the players right now for a zone blocking scheme but the blocking could have been better for both the run and the passing.

I'd rather see the team drop out of the 10th pick to aquire more picks. I've started picking up all the "Draft" magazines and honestly I don't like any one of their ideas 100% but each one brings about some good ideas.

For whatever reason when I hear "we need a RB" or "I hope they take (whoever) at RB" I cringe. I think we can survive with what we have,and pick up: QB, NT, OL, WR, LB/DE, CB. I forget how many picks we have. Hopefully they bring in a ton of UDFA's.

Re: Mark Ingram at #10?
 

we have to go Paea or Phil Taylor this is a big need to plug the defensive middle.

Re: Mark Ingram at #10?
 

[quote=Eknox;790914]we have to go Paea or Phil Taylor this is a big need to plug the defensive middle.[/quote]

At #10?

Re: Mark Ingram at #10?
 

I have heard Ingram compared to Emmit Smith...although Smith was obviously a great player if i am going to spend the #10 pick on a RB Smith is not the comparison I want that RB to have. Basically I would want a homerun threat in the Adrian Peterson or Chris Johnson mold for that high of a pick.

I agree the pick is probably defense but i would also spend it on a QB if there was one on the board with a high enough Shanny grade on him.

Re: Mark Ingram at #10?
 

THat would be the worst move ever for us. Paea or Taylor at 10 would be just as bad. There is no chance any of those three go at #10. Mods are free to go ahead and lock this thread, lol.... all done here.

Re: Mark Ingram at #10?
 

[quote=Mattyk;790915]At #10?[/quote] If we don't get a capable tackle, our defense will be swiss cheese again. I say do like Jacksonville did last year, get the guy that will help your team the most and get the most out of the 1st pick. Just curious, do you like the Ingram pick better? If were going to reach at 10 take the tackle.

Re: Mark Ingram at #10?
 

[quote=SkinzWin;790922]THat would be the worst move ever for us. Paea or Taylor at 10 would be just as bad. There is no chance any of those three go at #10. Mods are free to go ahead and lock this thread, lol.... all done here.[/quote]
Oh yeah Von Miller will be there at 10....NOT!

Re: Mark Ingram at #10?
 

Ingram at 10, no way...needs/best player available for us at ten is not Ingram

Re: Mark Ingram at #10?
 

[quote=SmootSmack;790909]Can't see it happening. Doesn't fit Shanahan's pattern with RBs anyway. I think they're going D (still think Robert Quinn) if they stay at #10[/quote]

I agree that it doesn't fit his patterns with RB's. I do not think we will draft a RB in the 1st at all. But I do think Shanny is capable of doing it. Supposedly if Cutler wasn't available he was going to draft Maroney.

Re: Mark Ingram at #10?
 

This is my opinion every year they say, this is too high to pick this guy or that guy, only to see guys that played very well and have the skills slide to the good teams at the bottom and produce more than a lot of the top picks. Tom Brady was a 6th round pick remember? So I say if we like a guy **** a draft grade, especially if we are running a 3-4 with no NT.

Re: Mark Ingram at #10?
 

[quote=Eknox;790923]If we don't get a capable tackle, our defense will be swiss cheese again. I say do like Jacksonville did last year, get the guy that will help your team the most and get the most out of the 1st pick. Just curious, do you like the Ingram pick better? If were going to reach at 10 take the tackle.[/quote]

I just don't like Taylor at #10. Not when we have other needs and there will be better players on the board there. Along with a NT we need another pass rusher to really make the 3-4 work. I'd rather take a LB/DE at #10.

Re: Mark Ingram at #10?
 

My dream draft would be Von Miller at 10 and Dalton in the 2nd.

Imagine Orakpo and Miller on the outside -- sick.

Re: Mark Ingram at #10?
 

[quote=Eknox;790923]If we don't get a capable tackle, our defense will be swiss cheese again. I say do like Jacksonville did last year, get the guy that will help your team the most and get the most out of the 1st pick. Just curious, do you like the Ingram pick better? [B]If were going to reach at 10[/B] take the tackle.[/quote]

Don't reach at #10. We have enough other holes to fill we can get someone who is a good pick at #10. Reaching is the worst thing we could possibly do.

Re: Mark Ingram at #10?
 

[quote=Eknox;790923]If we don't get a capable tackle, our defense will be swiss cheese again. I say do like Jacksonville did last year, get the guy that will help your team the most and get the most out of the 1st pick. Just curious, do you like the Ingram pick better? If were going to reach at 10 take the tackle.[/quote]

I agree about the NT need. The thing is, if we played our cards right we might be able to get a player at #10 AND still get Taylor or Paea.

As to the question of the thread, I would love to have Ingram. But at #10 I'd rather feed the front.

Re: Mark Ingram at #10?
 

Ingram is good value at 10th still, there's no need for a stud RB without an OL.

Re: Mark Ingram at #10?
 

[quote]While Mike Shanahan has a reputation for finding unheralded running backs, I have a hunch that he’ll have a hard time passing on Alabama’s Mark Ingram with the No. 10 pick if Ingram is available.[/quote]
Wait, what?

Mike Shanahan has success with mid to late round RBs therefore he'll draft a RB at 10 even though Kyle ,the OC, is a pass first coordinator with a 60/40 pass run ration and a WR will likely be available at 10?

Re: Mark Ingram at #10?
 

If anything they've been looking at both 2nd round and 4th round prospects at Running Back. Looking at Ingram seems like nothing more then due diligence if that. I mean he would be nice to have but I wouldn't think we'd be ready for a championship run before we wear him down. Funny thing is if this was the 70's or early 80's Ingram would be a lock to be the number one pick.

Re: Mark Ingram at #10?
 

[quote=SkinzWin;790922]THat would be the worst move ever for us. Paea or Taylor at 10 would be just as bad. There is no chance any of those three go at #10. Mods are free to go ahead and lock this thread, lol.... all done here.[/quote]

Considering that the owner/admin started the thread...

Re: Mark Ingram at #10?
 

[quote=SkinzWin;790922]THat would be the worst move ever for us. Paea or Taylor at 10 would be just as bad. There is no chance any of those three go at #10. Mods are free to go ahead and lock this thread, lol.... all done here.[/quote]

Because there are soooo many other things to discuss this off season right now right?

I actually would not object to the idea of taking a stud RB at 10. The way I see it is, if we can score more, then we need less of a dominate defense.

Plus it would add more action to our losses.

Re: Mark Ingram at #10?
 

[quote=Mattyk;790908]Thoughts on this possibility?

The guy is a stud and we definitely need another RB, but at #10 I think we have other more pressing needs.[/quote]

I would rather try to snag Kendall from OKst in the 2nd or 3rd. I dont think picking a RB at #10 will make the most impact on the field for us. I don't think a QB at 10 will be there that is worth the pick either (I see busts people, EVERYWHERE)... I would hope for a dynamic pass rusher or corner, maybe a WR if Jones or Green was available.

Re: Mark Ingram at #10?
 

[quote=44ever;790988]Because there are soooo many other things to discuss this off season right now right?

I actually would not object to the idea of taking a stud RB at 10. The way I see it is, if we can score more, then we need less of a dominate defense.

Plus it would add more action to our losses.[/quote]

Watch it 44ever, you're starting to sound like a Big10 man. Heh, heh-- I knew you would come around. The ole 3 yards and a cloud of dust play.

Re: Mark Ingram at #10?
 

Ingram is a great player, I thought of E. Smith too as somebody mentioned earlier. That said, he's a good prospect but not a once in a decade rb. For us to take a rb at 10 he'd have to be special. I see Ingram as a good, potentially great nfl player, but not a great enough prospect for this team to take at 10 given the defensive talent in the draft.

Re: Mark Ingram at #10?
 

NO chance for Ingram at 10, that would be the worst case scenario for us.. ATV and K.W can carry the load for another season

Re: Mark Ingram at #10?
 

We have 4 bigger needs on offense than RB at QB, WR, RG and C. I'm content with Torrain/Williams unless we pick up a speed back in the 5th or so. I'd love for a Miami or NE to trade up with us for the #10 to grab Ingram but would be pretty annoyed if we made a move for him there.

Re: Mark Ingram at #10?
 

Shanny never takes a RB in the first

Re: Mark Ingram at #10?
 

[quote=BuckSkin;790992]Watch it 44ever, you're starting to sound like a Big10 man. Heh, heh-- I knew you would come around. The ole 3 yards and a cloud of dust play.[/quote]

LOL, at this point I'm just hoping to see football played. I also am not totally convinced our "needs" are as desperate as they seem. What I think is if our current team sees a spark anywhere the team as a whole will step up. Until now all we have seen is drama, drama, drama.

Big names like DM have let us down, Haynesworth, Portis "injuries" switch to 3-4, another new coach(s) , ect... I say we have great talent on this team. what we need is time to adapt and settle in.

Do we have some holes to fill? yes but not as many as some have suggested. IMO.

A solid QB,WR,RB combo can do amazing things for team. Even ignite a defense.

Re: Mark Ingram at #10?
 

[quote=tryfuhl;790986]Considering that the owner/admin started the thread...[/quote]

LOL... That was my "playful ribbing" line I could have said this thread sounds like it'd be started by Ace...

Re: Mark Ingram at #10?
 

Even if you did pick him with the #10 spot, who the hell would open the running lanes up in between the tackles? A RB at the #10 spot is a horrible choice for a team with so many needs. Our DL needs some serious upgrades.

Re: Mark Ingram at #10?
 

[quote=freddyg12;790995]Ingram is a great player, I thought of E. Smith too as somebody mentioned earlier. That said, he's a good prospect but not a once in a decade rb. For us to take a rb at 10 he'd have to be special. I see Ingram as a good, potentially great nfl player, but not a great enough prospect for this team to take at 10 given the defensive talent in the draft.[/quote]

I think Ingram is a definite talent, and I would enjoy anointing him the heir to Portis. freddyg12 is right though... he is not a once a decade back. There were several experts that even questioned if he was even the best back at Georgia this past season. So.... to answer the original question of this thread, regrettably "no".

Re: Mark Ingram at #10?
 

[quote=NC_Skins;791029]Even if you did pick him with the #10 spot, who the hell would open the running lanes up in between the tackles? A RB at the #10 spot is a horrible choice for a team with so many needs. Our DL needs some serious upgrades.[/quote]

I could start a list of RB's that got it done without a great O-line. Lets say we upgrade the D-Line, what do we do about a QB, RB, WR? Either way we need both. Personally, I would rather start on the O side of the ball.

Get me AJ Green at WR, Ingram at RB, Newton or Locker at QB to start.

Re: Mark Ingram at #10?
 

[quote=44ever;791037]I could start a list of RB's that got it done without a great O-line. Lets say we upgrade the D-Line, what do we do about a QB, RB, WR? Either way we need both. Personally, I would rather start on the O side of the ball.

Get me AJ Green at WR, Ingram at RB, Newton or Locker at QB to start.[/quote]

Start that list and chances are it doesn't go past 3 names. (sanders, campbell, dickerson are the only three that come to mind)

So you are going to remotely compare this kid to those 3 I mentioned?...lol




Also, I don't feel there is a QB worth a 1st round selection this year. It's bad when Mel Kiper even says he doesn't feel any of these QBs in the draft are "franchise QBs". LOL @ your Cam Newton. If anything, I think I've shown enough material to prove my point about red flags, and this kid has a shit ton of them. I'll say it again, the team that drafts Cam Newton expecting this kid to play in the first 2 years are going to be set back 4-5 years. Let's hope it's not this franchise, we know all too well what having a lame QB can do for your franchise. (shuler, ramsey, campbell, brunell)

Re: Mark Ingram at #10?
 

[quote=NC_Skins;791041]Start that list and chances are it doesn't go past 3 names. (sanders, campbell, dickerson are the only three that come to mind)

So you are going to remotely compare this kid to those 3 I mentioned?...lol[/quote]
Portis can go on that list. that makes 4 :)

Guess we watch it play out and see.

BTW, I would rather Locker than Newton but we got to get started somewhere...

Re: Mark Ingram at #10?
 

[quote=44ever;791042]Portis can go on that list. that makes 4 :)

Guess we watch it play out and see.[/quote]

Wrong. We had a good offensive line (Samuels, Kendal, Thomas, and Jansen ring a bell??) We see what happened to Portis once that OL started to falter. (Remember 2009 season??)



[quote=44ever;791042]BTW, I would rather Locker than Newton but we got to get started somewhere...[/quote]

I think Locker fits our system better than Newton (or any other one for that matter), but I wouldn't value him as a 1st rounder either.

Re: Mark Ingram at #10?
 

[quote=SkinzWin;791026]LOL... That was my "playful ribbing" line I could have said this thread sounds like it'd be started by Ace...[/quote]

I was just tossing it out there to discuss... Not much else going on right now

Re: Mark Ingram at #10?
 

[quote=NC_Skins;791043]Wrong. We had a good offensive line (Samuels, Kendal, Thomas, and Jansen ring a bell??) We see what happened to Portis once that OL started to falter. (Remember 2009 season??)
[/quote]
Portis degenerated because he was overworked. But even this past season the few games he played injured and all, he was able to make yardage with our current front. Now imagine what a fresh kid can do. Torain is "good" but he is a injury magnet already.

As far as the 4 you mentioned, they were good but nothing great and we were bitching back then to. I am still convinced we have what we need to get the job done. +/- a few. Without a good/great QB,RB,WR core, we go nowhere fast.

Re: Mark Ingram at #10?
 

[quote=BuckSkin;791035]I think Ingram is a definite talent, and I would enjoy anointing him the heir to Portis. freddyg12 is right though... he is not a once a decade back. There were several experts that even questioned if he was even the best back at Georgia this past season. So.... to answer the original question of this thread, regrettably "no".[/quote]

WOW! I'm amazed that no one slammed me on that one. I know that Ingram played at Alabama. Some said he may not even be the best back for 'Bama. I'll accept "dumb a$$" of the day.

Re: Mark Ingram at #10?
 

[quote=BuckSkin;791035]I think Ingram is a definite talent, and I would enjoy anointing him the heir to Portis. freddyg12 is right though... he is not a once a decade back. There were several experts that even questioned if he was even the best back at Georgia this past season. So.... to answer the original question of this thread, regrettably "no".[/quote]

Ummmmmmmmm. Ingram didn't go to UGA.

Re: Mark Ingram at #10?
 

[quote=EARTHQUAKE2689;791123]Ummmmmmmmm. Ingram didn't go to UGA.[/quote]


HEY! It's all da same down herrrr in da souf budi