Mark Ingram Injury: Updates on Saints RB's Toe
The Saints confirm Mark Ingram is active for Week 9:
Mark Ingram will not play in Week 8, the Saints confirmed.
UPDATE: Sunday, Oct. 6
Mark Ingram is inactive for Week 5, the New Orleans Saints confirmed.
Ian Rapoport of the NFL Network was first to report that Mark Ingram wouldn't play prior to Week 3:
Seems two banged up RBs -- Eddie Lacy and Mark Ingram -- are both unlikely to play. Lacy does have a glimmer of hope tho.— Ian Rapoport (@RapSheet) September 22, 2013
The Saints confirmed Ingram is inactive for Week 3:
Ingram struggled mightily to find running room throughout the first two weeks. He's averaging less than two yards per carry, which is downright dreadful, and hasn't had a single carry over more than eight yards in 17 attempts.
In other words, he's been more of a liability than anything else in the early going. Perhaps sitting out and getting him back to full strength will allow him to return as an actual asset for the Saints.
He had 10 touchdowns over 26 games during his first two seasons after getting drafted in the 2011 first round, so he's brought value in the past. He just wasn't showing it so far.
While he's sidelined, there should be more opportunities in the backfield for both Pierre Thomas and Darren Sproles. Both have been more productive than Ingram.
Thomas should handle the early-down and short-yardage situations. He's been overlooked throughout his career with the Saints, but has developed into a solid, reliable back.
Sproles will likely get to play on passing downs and serve as the change-of-pace option on the ground. He's at his best when they can get him the ball in space, which could lead to a lot of screens for the Saints.
So the Saints' backfield should be in good shape despite Ingram's absence. He wasn't bringing anything to the table and the depth gives New Orleans the flexibility to sit him out until his toe is no longer a concern.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?