PDA

View Full Version : Case for Ingram


kcbubb
04-05-2012, 03:49 PM
High school QB. Great athlete and football player. Very physical. Played a lot DT, but is also on the hands team. Spin move reminds me of Freeney. Great closing speed on QB or ball carrier. Athletic enough to play a variety of positions. Rare to see a guy who could play DT on passing downs or ILB and OLB. Had 21.5 sacks in college.

Heck, with his arm, maybe he could compete with Cassel!

The problem with Ingram is reportedly his short arms.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/F5dkwPHQJXk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/kRfmcRCgOrQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Mayock on Ingram:

“Melvin Ingram, for me, is a really fun puzzle to try to figure out,” Mayock said. “At 272 pounds, short arms, where do you play him? At South Carolina they did a great job moving him around. He played defensive end, outside linebacker, he played defensive tackle in their sub package. and I think that’s what you need to do in the NFL.”

Mayock compared the role Ingram can play in an NFL defense to what James Harrison and LaMarr Woodley have done for the Steelers.

“For me, he’s a first-round pick, he’s a Top 15 player, and I think the 3-4 teams are really going to like him,” Mayock said of Ingram. “Very similar to Harrison and Woodley.”

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/5UuL8H2U-SA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/LKPpjctGhBo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/aJ6seARCh3Y" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Combine results:

http://www.nfl.com/combine/profiles/melvin-ingram?id=2532870

Direckshun
04-05-2012, 05:21 PM
His spin move is not reminiscent of Freeney.

Freeney's spin move is like Kareem Abdul Jabbar's sky hook. It is such an astounding display of physical gifts and technical mastery that there is no other contemporary at that particular skill.

Tribal Warfare
04-05-2012, 06:08 PM
His spin move is not reminiscent of Freeney.

Freeney's spin move is like Kareem Abdul Jabbar's sky hook. It is such an astounding display of physical gifts and technical mastery that there is no other contemporary at that particular skill.

Pat Swiling

philfree
04-05-2012, 11:33 PM
He's a little like Hali.

I read that Ingram could maybe even play some ILB. He's versatility along with his pass rush is intriguing.

milkshock
04-06-2012, 05:43 AM
Yes to Ingram - my absolute top choice at this point.

Direckshun
04-06-2012, 08:00 AM
He's a little like Hali.

I read that Ingram could maybe even play some ILB. He's versatility along with his pass rush is intriguing.

From his tape, there really isn't a position in the front seven he couldn't play, situationally. With the exception of nose guard.

He was a 1-tech in some of his tape.

the Talking Can
04-06-2012, 08:04 AM
the problem is, assuming we let dorsey go, who can be a full time DE?

not sure Bailey is an every down guy...i think they think Bailey is already our gadget guy

philfree
04-06-2012, 08:09 AM
I guess Ingram would take Gilberry's snaps.

Pestilence
04-06-2012, 09:39 AM
So....could with Ingram....we could put Hali, Houston and Ingram on the field at the same time. You could move Ingram to ILB and put Hali/Houston on the outside. In the nickle packages....you could put him at DE or DT.

What's the knock on him? Just his short arms?

Direckshun
04-06-2012, 09:54 AM
What's the knock on him? Just his short arms?

That's about it.

Historically, short-armed passrushers fall in the draft, and they do not end up being Top 15 passrushers in the NFL.

Hali is a massive exception, apparently, but Hali had to essentially become a black belt in karate to get as good as he did.

Pestilence
04-06-2012, 09:58 AM
So...whats to say that Hali doesn't take him under his tutelage and teach him the ways of the ninja?

Pestilence
04-06-2012, 09:59 AM
I mean at this point.....what player out there in the 1st round would be worth taking over Ingram?

DeCastro?

Richardson isn't falling and I don't think Tannehill is making it to us. I hope to God we don't take Poe. So unless we can't trade down....I wouldn't have a problem taking Ingram.

Direckshun
04-06-2012, 10:06 AM
So...whats to say that Hali doesn't take him under his tutelage and teach him the ways of the ninja?

Fair point.

DJ's left nut
04-06-2012, 10:06 AM
I like Ingram, but I don't think he'll make it to us. He's a fantastic fit for Carolina and their hybrid fronts, especially with their lack of a pass rush.

He's a perfect fit for Romeo's defense in that he's a hybrid player that can also put his hand on the ground and be a monster of a pass-rusher on 3rd down sub packages where we're likely to have 4-down linemen.

The problem becomes what you do with Houston at that point. Houston is a high value asset that will only get better, IMO. He's a guy you really want on the field. Are we okay with burying his ass? Does anyone think he could shift to the middle? He seems to have the attitude and athleticism for it.

We'd have to start moving folks around quite a bit for Ingram and as young as those guys are, it doesn't seem like the greatest idea.

I think I'd still prefer Brockers.

Direckshun
04-06-2012, 10:08 AM
I mean at this point.....what player out there in the 1st round would be worth taking over Ingram?

DeCastro?

Richardson isn't falling and I don't think Tannehill is making it to us. I hope to God we don't take Poe. So unless we can't trade down....I wouldn't have a problem taking Ingram.

I can think of several players I'd take over him.

DeCastro
Kuechly
Cox
Floyd
Still
Barron
Kirkpatrick
Jenkins
Perry

(Not in order.)

tyton75
04-06-2012, 10:26 AM
He might be a very good player in the league, but I'm not seeing the "flash" of a player you take at the 11th pick

Cave Johnson
04-06-2012, 11:10 AM
I like Ingram, but I don't think he'll make it to us. He's a fantastic fit for Carolina and their hybrid fronts, especially with their lack of a pass rush.

He's a perfect fit for Romeo's defense in that he's a hybrid player that can also put his hand on the ground and be a monster of a pass-rusher on 3rd down sub packages where we're likely to have 4-down linemen.

The problem becomes what you do with Houston at that point. Houston is a high value asset that will only get better, IMO. He's a guy you really want on the field. Are we okay with burying his ass? Does anyone think he could shift to the middle? He seems to have the attitude and athleticism for it.

We'd have to start moving folks around quite a bit for Ingram and as young as those guys are, it doesn't seem like the greatest idea.

I think I'd still prefer Brockers.

Rationally, a replacement for Dorsey or Jackson makes sense. But I'm personally sick of drafting non-impact 5 techs. You can get those guys later in the draft.

I'd much rather go for a big play guy like Ingram.

Nightfyre
04-06-2012, 11:17 AM
Rationally, a replacement for Dorsey or Jackson makes sense. But I'm personally sick of drafting non-impact 5 techs. You can get those guy later in the draft.

I'd much rather go for a big play guy like Ingram.

Brockers might be a low-impact player in year one, but once he figures it out and you have him and Bailey collapsing the pocket on passing plays so the QB can't step up and avoid Hali and Houston on the outside, maybe you won't think of him as low-impact anymore. Or maybe when he bats down those critical third down passes after pushing the pocket back.

Write this shit down: PIOLI AND CRENNEL LOVE BROCKERS.

He is prototype-plus-some 5-tech with Richard Seymour upside and a motor to boot.

Direckshun
04-06-2012, 11:22 AM
Brockers will be a low-impact player in year one, but once we give him the requisite time on the field and Bailey collapsing the pocket while Brockers just slapfights, you'll notice how he has no impact on the QB stepping up to avoid Hali and Houston on the outside, so you're absolutely right he's low-impact. Or maybe when he bats down two field goal attempts his rookie year, we'll forget about how he fails to bring another dimension to our defense.

Write this shit down: PIOLI AND CRENNEL ACTUALLY PROBABLY DO LOVE BROCKERS.

He is prototype-plus-some 5-tech with Glenn Dorsey upside and a motor for special teams.

Fixed your post. Just a little.

Nightfyre
04-06-2012, 11:23 AM
Fixed your post. Just a little.

You can't even appropriately assess his film, so I don't know why you post about it.

SNR
04-06-2012, 01:30 PM
the problem is, assuming we let dorsey go, who can be a full time DE?

not sure Bailey is an every down guy...i think they think Bailey is already our gadget guyI'll be pissed if we took Allen Bailey just to be a glorified Wallace Gilberry.

I'm convinced Bailey has the skill to play all three downs. You might switch him around a bit, but he's got adequate size and is (of course) country strong.

DJ's left nut
04-06-2012, 02:35 PM
You really think he has the size and bulk to be a 3-down lineman in this scheme?

He could be a 4-3 end, but I don't see him holding up against 300+ lb tackles and 325+lb guards mauling him on every play. He's giving up 50 lbs to a lot of the guys that will be doubling him and being charged with trying to simply manhandle them.

In some schemes he's a legit starter. In this one, he is a glorified Wallace Gilberry.

Nightfyre
04-06-2012, 03:49 PM
I think he lacks the length to play the OLB'er in our scheme.

SNR
04-06-2012, 05:32 PM
You really think he has the size and bulk to be a 3-down lineman in this scheme?

He could be a 4-3 end, but I don't see him holding up against 300+ lb tackles and 325+lb guards mauling him on every play. He's giving up 50 lbs to a lot of the guys that will be doubling him and being charged with trying to simply manhandle them.

In some schemes he's a legit starter. In this one, he is a glorified Wallace Gilberry.He's 290. Gilberry struggled to stay above 260, and his great "bulk up" in the offseason really didn't add much weight to him. Bailey is hardly Wallace Gilberry.

Bailey's really not all that much lighter than Dorsey (only about 10 lbs), and possesses a completely different skill set for pressuring the QB.

Saccopoo
04-06-2012, 08:30 PM
Bailey is the same weight as Dorsey and carries it as a 34 defensive end should, maybe better. He's got length and mass - most of which is muscle. However, he's not a true 34 end.

Bailey will be the third down end and special teams destroyer. Exactly what he should be for this team.

kcbubb
04-08-2012, 12:56 AM
I like Ingram, but I don't think he'll make it to us. He's a fantastic fit for Carolina and their hybrid fronts, especially with their lack of a pass rush.

He's a perfect fit for Romeo's defense in that he's a hybrid player that can also put his hand on the ground and be a monster of a pass-rusher on 3rd down sub packages where we're likely to have 4-down linemen.

The problem becomes what you do with Houston at that point. Houston is a high value asset that will only get better, IMO. He's a guy you really want on the field. Are we okay with burying his ass? Does anyone think he could shift to the middle? He seems to have the attitude and athleticism for it.

We'd have to start moving folks around quite a bit for Ingram and as young as those guys are, it doesn't seem like the greatest idea.

I think I'd still prefer Brockers.

One thing we have to learn from the Giants is that you have to have pass rushers. They had one of the best pass rushing defensive lines and took JP Paul in the first round. And they get to the QB just as good as anybody on third down because they put there best rushers on the field on the money down. We need depth with our pass rushers especially if we ever want to go to the playoffs with Manning in the division.

Ingram also provides flexibility. He can play ILB. He can play OLB. And he can play DT on passing downs. Houston and Ingram can be on the field at the same time. He is a perfect fit scheme wise for what we do in the 3-4. He also has great big play instincts. Scored 3 TDs last season. And interceptions.

I really like Brockers. He is a great fit. Great run stuffer and foundational piece for your D. But talented pass rushers like Ingram that also are extremely physical and athletic don't come around often and are much more valuable than 5 techs. There is no other pass rusher that fits our scheme that has the movement ability and change of direction that Ingram has.

Positional value is high for QB, OT, CB and pass rushers (DE & OLB). You take those positions when they are good because they are hard to find.

Possible landing spots are Carolina and Jacksonville. Jacksonville will hopefully go wideout or want a bigger DE like coples. And I hope Carolina takes a DT bc there rush d was terrible.

I didn't mock Ingram to us because I didn't think he would be there but I am starting to think that he may fall because I don't think he fits the 4-3 very well for a top 10 pick because of his size and arm length. I agree with mayock that he is more like Woodley or Harrison and fits the 3-4 much better.

kcbubb
04-08-2012, 01:16 AM
I think he lacks the length to play the OLB'er in our scheme.

When you think of the best pass rushers in our scheme, they are not long guys. They are guys like Tamba, Harrison and Woodley. Cameron wake is another guy. Quick, physical and athletic.

Nightfyre
04-08-2012, 06:53 AM
I like Nick Perry as a pass rusher in our scheme better than Melvin Ingram. He is bigger, longer and more explosive. Just my opinion, though.

milkman
04-08-2012, 06:59 AM
I like Nick Perry as a pass rusher in our scheme better than Melvin Ingram. He is bigger, longer and more explosive. Just my opinion, though.

You draft Perry because of his ability to rush the passer from the edge.

You draft Ingram because of his versatility.

He can make an impact from the outside, from the inside, and along the line.

His scheme versatility makes him a more impactful player.

Nightfyre
04-08-2012, 07:08 AM
You draft Perry because of his ability to rush the passer from the edge.

You draft Ingram because of his versatility.

He can make an impact from the outside, from the inside, and along the line.

His scheme versatility makes him a more impactful player.

Ingram won't make it on the defensive line in the nfl. Write that shit down.

milkman
04-08-2012, 07:12 AM
Ingram won't make it on the defensive line in the nfl. Write that shit down.

Not as an every down player.

In sub packages, he can be a effective pass rusher on the line.

Nightfyre
04-08-2012, 07:18 AM
Not as an every down player.

In sub packages, he can be a effective pass rusher on the line.

This will be ingram on the line:

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR1dTNmYOeW0HOdOBayvqKlHLRjjDwy7Xonfpon_xkmX5YBJYYlgA

milkshock
04-08-2012, 07:19 AM
Not as an every down player.

In sub packages, he can be a effective pass rusher on the line.

Yes.

milkman
04-08-2012, 07:20 AM
This will be ingram on the line:

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR1dTNmYOeW0HOdOBayvqKlHLRjjDwy7Xonfpon_xkmX5YBJYYlgA

Time will tell.

Nightfyre
04-08-2012, 07:24 AM
He has 31" arms. That is a HUGE red flag.

milkshock
04-08-2012, 07:25 AM
He has 31" arms. That is a HUGE red flag.

not necessarily

Dmello12
04-08-2012, 09:54 AM
so youre wanting to use our first round pick on a guy that has a chance of coming in and playing in our sub packages?

whoman69
04-08-2012, 10:55 AM
so youre wanting to use our first round pick on a guy that has a chance of coming in and playing in our sub packages?

point and match

penchief
04-08-2012, 10:57 AM
He might be a very good player in the league, but I'm not seeing the "flash" of a player you take at the 11th pick

Agree. He looked good in the highlight film but looked like he got handled pretty well in that Nebraska game. Looked better in the latter parts of the Clemson game but the defense was pinning its ears back and going after the quarterback.

He's versatile. But he seems to be completely out of a lot plays. And when he does streak to the ball or get in the backfield he seems to whiff a lot. It like he's easily juked.

Just my humble observation from the two game highlights posted.

milkman
04-08-2012, 02:18 PM
so youre wanting to use our first round pick on a guy that has a chance of coming in and playing in our sub packages?

You do realize that the Chiefs were in sub-packages on nearly 60% of defensive snaps, right?

whoman69
04-08-2012, 03:18 PM
You do realize that the Chiefs were in sub-packages on nearly 60% of defensive snaps, right?

Then why was Belcher in on so many passing plays?

milkman
04-08-2012, 03:44 PM
Then why was Belcher in on so many passing plays?

JFC, you a fucking idiot.

Not every fucking pass is thrown on third down plays, or second and long.

Do the fucking math.

Teams average roughly 60 plays per game on defense.

Figure that out, and those 200 passes you keep spouting off about are less than 25% of snaps.

whoman69
04-08-2012, 04:56 PM
JFC, you a ****ing idiot.

Not every ****ing pass is thrown on third down plays, or second and long.

Do the ****ing math.

Teams average roughly 60 plays per game on defense.

Figure that out, and those 200 passes you keep spouting off about are less than 25% of snaps.

I'm going to have to call you dumbass back. The 200 snaps are the passing downs that Belcher is in for. That's about 45% of passing plays he was on the field for. What percentage of the 508 run plays was he on the field for? If he's only in there for half the run downs, that's more than the 40% of plays that you say we're not in sub packages that he shouldn't even be on the field for.

milkman
04-08-2012, 05:02 PM
I'm going to have to call you dumbass back. The 200 snaps are the passing downs that Belcher is in for. That's about 45% of passing plays he was on the field for. What percentage of the 508 run plays was he on the field for? If he's only in there for half the run downs, that's more than the 40% of plays that you say we're not in sub packages that he shouldn't even be on the field for.

You're not getting it.

There are third and short situations in which you still keep a run defender in as part of the sub package, even though teams are throwing the ball more and more.

Ingram is a guy that can replace Belcher in those situations.

whoman69
04-08-2012, 05:40 PM
You're not getting it.

There are third and short situations in which you still keep a run defender in as part of the sub package, even though teams are throwing the ball more and more.

Ingram is a guy that can replace Belcher in those situations.

Ok so Ingram can come in and replace Belcher on 3rd and short so that he can rush the pass, which Belcher can't do. But the scouting reports say he is average at best against the run and if he does drop into coverage can only handle short zone. Sounds like one of those tweeners that Pederson and Vermeil loved.

milkman
04-08-2012, 05:49 PM
Ok so Ingram can come in and replace Belcher on 3rd and short so that he can rush the pass, which Belcher can't do. But the scouting reports say he is average at best against the run and if he does drop into coverage can only handle short zone. Sounds like one of those tweeners that Pederson and Vermeil loved.

He's versatile.

He can be used in a number of different spots on the defense in different packages.

The Tweeners that Dick and Carl liked were guys who had no real spot, who they were simply trying to plug in somewhere.

You are just being obtuse because you have a hard on for teh next Donnie Edwards.

Ride 'em Cowboy!

whoman69
04-08-2012, 06:34 PM
He's versatile.

He can be used in a number of different spots on the defense in different packages.

The Tweeners that Dick and Carl liked were guys who had no real spot, who they were simply trying to plug in somewhere.

You are just being obtuse because you have a hard on for teh next Donnie Edwards.

Ride 'em Cowboy!

I guess that's better than having a hard on for the next Kawika Mitchell.

milkman
04-08-2012, 06:43 PM
I guess that's better than having a hard on for the next Kawika Mitchell.

Only a fucking idiot would make that comparison.

whoman69
04-08-2012, 07:14 PM
Only a ****ing idiot would make that comparison.

I guess we're even then.

kcbubb
04-09-2012, 06:48 PM
I love this spin move! I'm telling you, this guy dominates. I'm not a Gamecock fan, but I do watch a lot of SEC football. Ask any Gamecock fan about Ingram.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ynAqwKvAK1s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

kcbubb
04-09-2012, 06:50 PM
I would also love to see him playing inside with Houston & Hali rushing on the outside on 3rd & long.

kcbubb
04-09-2012, 06:56 PM
Check out the bull rush at 2:58 against auburn.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/8TVXsDwUq3A" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

kcbubb
04-09-2012, 07:27 PM
This will be ingram on the line:

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR1dTNmYOeW0HOdOBayvqKlHLRjjDwy7Xonfpon_xkmX5YBJYYlgA

You do realize that he has a lot of sacks playing alot of plays at DT in the SEC. Ingram has made plays against the best talent in the country on the INSIDE! Those short arms haven't hurt him there and he should be even more effective in our scheme. He has proven that he can make plays on the inside in tight spaces and in space on the outside and even in coverage.

I would agree with your claim if he was from a smaller conference and we really didn't know what he could do against NFL talent, but this guy plays against NFL talent almost every week and makes plays.

Sorter
04-09-2012, 07:50 PM
Think I would rather have Mercilus or Brockers (not a flashy pick, I realize that). Do think the Ingram will be solid despite his short arms.

beach tribe
04-09-2012, 11:38 PM
the problem is, assuming we let dorsey go, who can be a full time DE?

not sure Bailey is an every down guy...i think they think Bailey is already our gadget guy

I have no idea what you see when looking at Bailey, but it's not what I see.

beach tribe
04-09-2012, 11:40 PM
No ?? in my mind. If He's there, you take him.

beach tribe
04-09-2012, 11:45 PM
Bailey is the same weight as Dorsey and carries it as a 34 defensive end should, maybe better. He's got length and mass - most of which is muscle. However, he's not a true 34 end.

Bailey will be the third down end and special teams destroyer. Exactly what he should be for this team.

Bailey would have ZERO trouble being a 34 end.

milkshock
04-10-2012, 02:40 AM
he has to be the pick if available

saphojunkie
04-12-2012, 12:02 PM
1. Yes, if he fell to us, he should be the pick. Versatility on the defensive front + pass rush = absolutely our best bet.

2. He will not fall to us.

The question is only...would you trade up with Jacksonville for Ingram? Because I think that is what it would take.

buddha
04-12-2012, 12:09 PM
Great pass rushers rely on their legs. Short arms are more of a concern for OTs.

kcbubb
04-13-2012, 04:27 PM
1. Yes, if he fell to us, he should be the pick. Versatility on the defensive front + pass rush = absolutely our best bet.

2. He will not fall to us.

The question is only...would you trade up with Jacksonville for Ingram? Because I think that is what it would take.

I think Ingram will be a much better player in the 3-4 than in the 4-3. I think he has more value there. And most of the teams would consider drafting him are 4-3 teams. I think there is a good shot that he might be there. I could see Jacksonville taking Floyd because they don't have much at WR and there some bigger guys that could play the 4-3 end spot for them in the 2nd, somebody like Vinny Curry.

If that happens, then the Panthers might take Fletcher Cox. And let's say the Fins take Tannehill and Bills don't need a pass rusher with Mario Williams.

I think there is a good possibility that Ingram falls to us, but it really hinges on Floyd & Cox going in the top 10.

I think that is has a good chance with the value that WR's are bringing now. Falcons gave a lot for Julio Jones and the Lions just paid Calvin Johnson over $130,000,000.00.

milkman
04-14-2012, 08:54 AM
Great pass rushers rely on their legs. Short arms are more of a concern for OTs.

Pay attention, moron.