1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!
    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers.

    You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
  2. Announcement is LIVE: Read the Forum Post

Mark Ingram drafted to the Packers?

Discussion in '2011 Draft Archive' started by packattack10, Jan 12, 2011.

  1. packattack10

    packattack10 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    20
    Ratings:
    +4
    What do you guys think?
     
  2. packerswin96

    packerswin96 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2010
    Messages:
    66
    Ratings:
    +18
    I seriously doubt he will still be there @32 to draft.
     
  3. brett2520

    brett2520 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2011
    Messages:
    192
    Ratings:
    +32
    The more I think about this the more I like it, but where would that put starks? do they see him as our #1 running back next year? whats gonna happen with Grant?
     
  4. Wood Chipper

    Wood Chipper Fantasy Football Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2010
    Messages:
    4,058
    Ratings:
    +1,405
    well honestly we should stick with the draft the best available for our first round pick like we did when we drafted rodgers tho we didnt start him till 3 years later. if ingram is available then take him. there is always trade value if we have too many starting rbs
     
  5. 2411t

    2411t Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2010
    Messages:
    679
    Ratings:
    +119
    Play Starks out the rest of the post. See how he grades. Grant is on his way out (not be sound inhuman, but it's a business). If we like Starks, I say we go OLB/WR first round. This is me speaking as a fan, not an owner. Fans will not be happy picking up an OLmen in the first round, twice in the draft. And we don't have to go CB right away. We can all agree that our CB/S tandem is set for at least next year. If Nnamdi wants to join the party, then put Burnett on the bench for a year or two.

    In regards to where he'll go in the draft, I think it's up in the air. Mid-late first round just bc his production has decreased this year. It's a possibility, but not a sure thing.
     
  6. NelsonsLongCatch

    NelsonsLongCatch Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    2,216
    Ratings:
    +626
    Ingram would give the Packers a great change of pace back. He'd be amazing in short yardage and goal line situations, not to mention insurance against injuries. Ingram is a workhorse. He would give the Packers one more option for defensive coordinators to game plan against.
     
  7. Favre4Ever

    Favre4Ever Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    51
    Ratings:
    +2
    RB first round? I will have to pass... lol. And I would probably laugh if we did that.

    Ryan Grant, James Starks, and probably Dimitri Nance are our guys going into next year. Brandon Jackson is a free agent, and I pray to God we don't resign him. I like the above names. And Nance is replaceable... So if we pick up somebody else to play in that 3rd RB spot, so be it. But it definitely won't be a RB in Round 1.

    Definitely not drafting a WR in the 1st either. Our scouting department can find great talent at the WR position without spending a 1st round pick. Probably in the 2-4th rounds is where we get another WR.
     
  8. Wood Chipper

    Wood Chipper Fantasy Football Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2010
    Messages:
    4,058
    Ratings:
    +1,405
    if we get ingram we can work on setting up a 2 back system with him and starks
    Starks being our explosive back and Ingram being our power back. Grant in the next two years is gonna start slowing down cuz thats how rbs work so we give starks and ingram a year or two to develop. plus thats great insurance in case grant goes down again for a game or more. then we can put kuhn back at fb
     
  9. Favre4Ever

    Favre4Ever Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    51
    Ratings:
    +2
    Eh. Sounds good, but the Packers aren't known for getting fancy with the running game. I know it is a copycat league and all... But I don't dig the hardcore two back system.

    I do like having Starks spell Grant next season, it will prolong his career. But I don't think it will be a true RBBC kinda thing.
     
  10. hokiefan768

    hokiefan768 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    3
    Ratings:
    +0
    Starks hasnt been consistant. He needs more time to develop. And Grant is coming back from a serious injury and he might not be able to run like he did last season. I like the idea of a two back set though. But i dont think ingram would last to the 32 pick. I thnk Ryan Williams wold be a better pick
     
  11. Jess

    Jess Movement!

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2009
    Messages:
    3,118
    Ratings:
    +471
    I used to be very pro-taking a running back, but I think a Grant/Starks backfield could be great next year.

    And given Noel Devine's slide lately, if we could get him in the 3rd or later, I'd take him as the Darren Sproles type back/return specialist.
     
  12. Aaron rodgers is god

    Aaron rodgers is god Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Messages:
    786
    Ratings:
    +154
    WHy are you guys so quick to give up on grant. The guy has only started three years and they were all with us. So he still has gas left in the tank and he is not too old. Disappointing seeing all you packers fans give up on him after 1 injury.
     
  13. 98Redbird

    98Redbird Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2010
    Messages:
    799
    Ratings:
    +234
    I don't like Ingram. I think he will end up mediocre as an NFL back... JMO

    I like Starks, I like Grant. I want them both next season and feel like they could be a good duo. Both of those guys run very hard, and run right at defenders. Both are tall backs, very strong. Starks seems to have more wiggle, and I'd like to see him more involved in the passing game, as it seems like he has soft hands, unlike Grant.

    I'd be interesting to see them both out there, maybe use Starks in more of a pass catcher role, like Forte, as well as pounding him, bring Grant in when Starks is resting.

    Nance, I think is a waste of time.
     
  14. Number1 PackerFan in Indy

    Number1 PackerFan in Indy Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    19
    Ratings:
    +0
    Grant is on his way out? Are you high? Haha dude Grant is a monster, he has had one major injury (this year), he is the Pack's franchise back for years to come
     
  15. lancer84

    lancer84 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2010
    Messages:
    276
    Ratings:
    +9
    Let me just say...I LOVE! the thought of us having TOO many Rb's...but i think we need to address other areas. CB OLB or O line..
     
  16. Chop0Suey

    Chop0Suey Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2010
    Messages:
    89
    Ratings:
    +16
    As others have said, running back is far from our top priority. Grant is a good back, and his injury isn't THAT serious. A partially torn ankle ligament is much better than torn knee ligaments, and it was was even speculated early in the year (before he was placed on IR) that he'd be ready to go late in the season, or in the playoffs.

    Also, I think Starks is almost at the level Grant is at. He runs hard, doesn't fumble, blocks fairly well, and is a much better receiver than Grant. The only thing he needs to work on his hitting the holes, and finding his cut-back lanes.
     
  17. brett2520

    brett2520 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2011
    Messages:
    192
    Ratings:
    +32
    The Grant/Starks combo is a good one to use this year and allow grant to teach Starks. I do not trust Starks by himself. I like BJax for two reasons: he can block in passing plays and he knows our system. Starks cannot be relied on yet in either. Grant could do both with more talent than BJax. I am for drafting a RB if we can get him to be a LOCK to do returns. But our third string should be used not just a roster spot.
     
  18. setemupknockem

    setemupknockem Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2011
    Messages:
    6
    Ratings:
    +1
  19. Iowapacker

    Iowapacker Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2011
    Messages:
    4
    Ratings:
    +0
    We have what, 8 backs now, with grant on reserve. We never really had a true #1 back most the year and still won the big one with a nice rotation of backs. Add ingram in the mix, let Hall or Jackson or Nance go(love them all), use Grant, Starks, and Ingram rotate or double back! We use our fulls just like running backs most of the time. I think think this would be Huge if Ingram made it to 32.
     
  20. JJP41

    JJP41 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2006
    Messages:
    938
    Ratings:
    +215
    I don't see Ingram going to the Packers.

    I think he goes in the top 15-20.
     
  21. DevilDon

    DevilDon Inclement Weather Fan

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    1,391
    Ratings:
    +445
    I don't care if Ingram falls that far, I'm making a prediction. The Packers are not going to draft a running back in the first round. No way, no how. You read it here. We have two RBs that fit our system perfectly. People don't know, but Starks is also a very, very good receiving back. Grant will be fine and he was very productive in this system, he'll only be better with Starks to spell him.
    Absolutely no chance the Packers feel they need a running back.
     
  22. Calhoun Lambeau

    Calhoun Lambeau Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2011
    Messages:
    93
    Ratings:
    +12
    As much as I love Mark Ingram (pretty much a perfect pure runner, similar to Emmitt Smith), it's just not a logical selection for us. We're a passing team, it makes no sense when we're paying Grant, and have Starks, to put that much emphasis on a part of our team that's not a big priority.
     
  23. Iowapacker

    Iowapacker Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2011
    Messages:
    4
    Ratings:
    +0
    Obviously you guys have forgotten Ted Thompson's logic in the draft, we draft the most valuable player at that time . we do not draft positions that we need. if we end up not needing some players they are worth more on a trade being a high value pick. He wont make it to 32 and I do love starks to death. I predicted starks to be our guy during training camp.
     
  24. Calhoun Lambeau

    Calhoun Lambeau Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2011
    Messages:
    93
    Ratings:
    +12
    So what you're saying is that Ted Thompson ignores team needs and drafts the best overall player? How would you know? Ted Thompson doesn't care how you, I, or Mel Kiper ranks players.

    In 2009 B.J. Raji was better than Michael Crabtree in Thompson's eyes, but EVERYONE else had Michael Crabtree ranked higher. You said Thompson doesn't draft for need, but he did, we desperately needed a NT for our new scheme. Had Thompson followed the philosophy you think he follows, he would have picked Michael Crabtree.

    Also in 2009, we traded for the 28th pick. The best players available there according to everyone was Chris Wells and Rey Maualuga, not Clay Matthews. In 2009 we didn't need a RB, or ILB, but again, according to your thinking Thompson doesn't draft for need, and he passed on the RB/ILB for a need, a pass-rushing OLB in Matthews.

    So yeah, it's clear your opinion on Thompson's philosophy is off the reservation, Thompson draft's to fill needs, always has. From Aaron Rodgers, to Nick Collins, to Justin Harrell, to Bryan Bulaga, to Morgan Burnett, to Mike Neal, to AJ Hawk, to Jordy Nelson, to Brian Brohm, to Brandon Jackson, to James Jones.

    We as fans think we have our team needs pegged, but i'm sure if we sat Thompson down he would have differing opinions on who we should draft because he drives the car, he knows how it works, we just watch from a distance.
     
  25. Poppa San

    Poppa San SB I trophy First of four Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2010
    Messages:
    4,384
    Ratings:
    +1,022
    No matter the position TT drafts this year, it can be justified as a need. Wr - DD is older, Jones may not be back and Swain is unproven. CB - Woodson is getting long of tooth and we need a decent dime back to learn. Safety - Peprah one year wonder? and is Burnett going to be OK? Bigby is probably gone. LB - Hawke $$$, Barnett becoming injury prone, and good but nothing special at OLB opp Clay. DL for depth across because injuries seem to happen. OL - Tauscher and Clifton near the end, Colledge the FA does not wow anyone and Bulaga is unproven at LT. The bench is mostly unproven or found lacking. RB will need a 3rd down back w/out Bjax. TE after Finley is a work in progress. FB is a tough nut I'll admit. QB needs a trainee so Flynn can be traded. The kicker is a FA, and the punter had one good year. Long snapper looks to be in Goode hands. I would be very surprised if TT drafts one of the last three positions though.
     

Share This Page