Started By
Message
Ingram vs. Tate
Posted on 11/22/09 at 7:08 pm
Posted on 11/22/09 at 7:08 pm
Since all the Auburn fans disappeared from the other thread, I wanted to make sure the complete stats were shown.
For this season, 2009, so far....
Ingram:
Rushing: 205 att, 1399 yd., 12 TD's
Receiving: 25 for 225 yds, 3 TD's (long 31 yds)
Total: 1624 yds for 15 TD's
Tate:
Rushing: 225 att, 1209 yd., 8 TD's
Receiving: 16 for 88 yds, 0 TD's (long 19 yds)
Total: 1297 yds for 8 TD's
Alrighty, any input?
For this season, 2009, so far....
Ingram:
Rushing: 205 att, 1399 yd., 12 TD's
Receiving: 25 for 225 yds, 3 TD's (long 31 yds)
Total: 1624 yds for 15 TD's
Tate:
Rushing: 225 att, 1209 yd., 8 TD's
Receiving: 16 for 88 yds, 0 TD's (long 19 yds)
Total: 1297 yds for 8 TD's
Alrighty, any input?
6
Posted on 11/22/09 at 7:10 pm to jatebe
Tate cries better than Ingram.
Posted on 11/22/09 at 7:12 pm to jatebe
Both are awesome backs but obviously Ingram > Tate.
Posted on 11/22/09 at 7:24 pm to jatebe
I was always brought up to never raise peoples expectations by running my mouth on HOW GOOD I AM. Logic is simple, Be bad at what you do, then there was never any lofty expectations for you to begin with, and you do not have to eat crow later. Be good at what you do, then people will notice your production if warranted. With this being said, Tate is a fine running back. Better than ingram? I think not. Tate will get his yards against Bama, BUUUUUUT if he does'nt, let the crow eating on his part begin. Bama wins this game 45 to 13. Roll Tide Roll 
This post was edited on 11/22/09 at 7:26 pm
Posted on 11/22/09 at 7:29 pm to jatebe
What's your point?.... that's why one's up for the Heisman and the other's up for All-SEC honors...
Both are good backs, but Ingram is better (and younger)
Both are good backs, but Ingram is better (and younger)
Posted on 11/22/09 at 7:48 pm to lowspark12
quote:
What's your point?.
There was a discussion in two other threads about Ingram. One AU fan said a few things that indicated that Ingram wasn't really that good and that Tate was just as good. And I do believe that Tate is a very good back, I just believe that Ingram is better this year.
A lot of stats showing both their rushing yards were thrown out, but when I posted asking about Tate's total yards, noboby wanted to answer. So, I just wanted everyone to see the total yardage and TD's. That's all.
Posted on 11/22/09 at 8:00 pm to jatebe
I saw your point and good post
Posted on 11/22/09 at 8:16 pm to jatebe
I don't think anyone who is being objective can say Tate > Ingram... at least for 2009.
Tate has been a workhorse and has had a solid career at Auburn... he's durable and has good speed for his size... I wish he'd break more tackles, but all i all I have no complaint on his play this season.
Ingram, on the other hand, is much more of a game-changer... he's a serious threat out of the backfield and has shown the ability to put an offense on is shoulders and deliver.
Tate has been a workhorse and has had a solid career at Auburn... he's durable and has good speed for his size... I wish he'd break more tackles, but all i all I have no complaint on his play this season.
Ingram, on the other hand, is much more of a game-changer... he's a serious threat out of the backfield and has shown the ability to put an offense on is shoulders and deliver.
Posted on 11/22/09 at 8:23 pm to lowspark12
Good point big dog 
Posted on 11/22/09 at 8:27 pm to lowspark12
quote:
I don't think anyone who is being objective can say Tate > Ingram... at least for 2009.
Tate has been a workhorse and has had a solid career at Auburn... he's durable and has good speed for his size... I wish he'd break more tackles, but all i all I have no complaint on his play this season.
Ingram, on the other hand, is much more of a game-changer... he's a serious threat out of the backfield and has shown the ability to put an offense on is shoulders and deliver.
I think Tate is a good back. We can argue all day on the my RB can beat up your RB, etc.
There are a lot of good backs in the SEC.
Hardesty and Dixon have both been awesome this year. McCluster is used all over the field but he's been insane as well.
I wouldn't mind any of those guys lining up in the backfield for Bama.
Posted on 11/22/09 at 8:33 pm to arwicklu
Considering Dixon has more yards rushing than Tate, more touchdowns than Tate, averages more yards a carry than Tate, averages more yards a game than Tate, has the same amount of receptions with more receiving yards than Tate and Tate has played in more games this year than Dixon....I would say Dixon would be a better comparison with Ingram than Tate would be.
Posted on 11/22/09 at 9:33 pm to jatebe
if you were to ask every player in the SEC who the better back is (between Ingram and Tate) the majority vote getter would be Tate. (per Tate).
Posted on 11/22/09 at 9:38 pm to partsman103
quote:
if you were to ask every player in the SEC who the better back is (between Ingram and Tate) the majority vote getter would be Tate. (per Tate).
Well he's a good back but not a smart man.
Posted on 11/23/09 at 6:58 am to jatebe
Ingram. Next.
Posted on 11/23/09 at 7:54 am to Wildcat
The way I read what Tate is saying is that his offensive line sucks and if he had a line he would have better stats. But obviously he can't come out and say that.
Posted on 11/23/09 at 8:21 am to bbvdd
quote:
The way I read what Tate is saying is that his offensive line sucks and if he had a line he would have better stats. But obviously he can't come out and say that.
He's probably thinking, "Quit trying to blow out opponent's knees and just open me up some running lanes."
Page 1 of 1
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News