Pretty Sure The Saints Only Listed Mark Ingram And Adrian Peterson As Co-Starters To Troll Their Own Fans
Why? Just...why? Was getting recognized as a starter regardless of his performance one of the dozens of incentives included in Adrian Peterson's contract? Did the Saints take note that Mark Ingram played his best game of season after being sat for Tim Hightower last year, and wanted to pressure him into coming out of the gates with a chip on his shoulder this season? Those are literally the only two reasons I can think of for listing the incumbent 1,000 yard runner who has been the standout back at training camp and the 32 year old shot in the dark who has only gotten limited looks as equals.
Now, I know that preseason depth charts mean less than nothing and I have been watching Sean Payton's offense for about a decade longer than is necessary to realize that the "starter" label is about as loose as his commitment to running the football. That's why I really have to question why the most impassioned hater of stupid questions basically begged to be asked more stupid questions by making it seem like the fictional running back race was at a dead heat.
As if overreactive fans didn't have enough to argue about after seeing seeing Ken Crawley and P.J. Williams listed as starting corners, now it will be impossible to avoid the bickering about a position that will be fluent when the season starts anyway. Great, can't wait to read - for the umpteenth time - why Mark Ingram can't be your lead back despite having numbers that show the exact opposite. Definitely looking forward to seeing someone claim that Adrian Peterson hasn't shown enough to earn his workload before we even has a workload to worry about. Ultimately it doesn't matter, because - if healthy - both will get their due touches, but Sean Payton should keep in mind that some of us have to wade through the internet riff raff when he unnecessarily creates fake controversies.