I actually liked watching Ingram a lot. He seems so consistent. Richardson doesn't strike me the same way. He seems like a freak athlete who can light up some teams but doesn't seem like he has the consistency of Ingram. Just my opinion.
And that was the essence of Fulmer's legacy post 1998. We had the jimmy's and joe's to go on a nice little 3-4 year run at the top with perhaps 1 more NC or at least playing for a couple. Those opportunities only come around a program once or so in a lifetime unless you're the modern Florida or Alabama or Ohio State. Fulmer just wasn't big enough for that task. He caught lightning in a bottle in the run up to 1998 and once the reality set in that we were a top program with the Florida States, Alabamas, Miamis, Ohio States, Nebraskas, etc., Fulmer just wasn't prepared and didn't have the make-up to handle it. Plus the margins of great vs. good at the level are slim and he wasn't willing or able to surround himself with a top staff to keep us at the top, cough, cough Randy Sanders, cough, cough. Just too many holes on his staff.
I think Ingram is better as well. Richardson almost certainly has some better physical attributes, but Ingram had an innate RB sense about him. He had the ability to make cuts, but there were no wasted cuts. Just enough to get him past the defender and further downhill.