The Giants and DT Cullen Jenkins agreed to restructure his contract, clearing $825,000 against the salary cap.
Jenkins, 34, was originally scheduled to count $2.917 million against the cap and was in danger of potentially losing his roster spot. He started 11 games this past season as the pocket-pushing interior lineman next to NT Johnathan Hankins. Jenkins is a part-time rotational player at this stage of his career. Feb. 15 - 10:40 am et
Source: Jason Fitzgerald on Twitter
Link - (
New Window )
Jenkins is ok as a rotational DT. We still need a legit live body at DT.
Jenkins is ok as a rotational DT. We still need a legit live body at DT.
This. The run defense was horrible. Jenkins was part of that problem. We need a big run stuffing DT to pair with Hankins. I probably would have cut him, but with Patterson not likely to be resigned, and Kuhn JAG, keeping Jenkins for depth, at least through camp, is understandable. But we need a lot more beef up front.
We start DE Moore, DT Hankins, DT Shelton, and DE JPP (re-signed) and have DE Ayers, DT Jenkins, and DT Bromley as the game-day backups. DT Kuhn is the odd man out on gameday but makes the roster.
Now, because Jenkins can play DE in a pinch we have rotational depth. I'm not sure who the 7th lineman will be on game-day but may be Kuhn due to special teams.
Ah, the scenario's! I can't wait until the combine is done and we can really look at the true possblities!
SGMen-Linval Joseph, Big Hank, and Bromley were all high picks that basically sat the bench their first year. For that and a few other reasons, I just don't see the Giants having any interest in Shelton at # 9.
But in this case, it wouldn't surprise me because the Giants are desperate at that position...
Wishful thinking on JPP, but it would make Spag's job quite a bit easier.....however, if not signed, this defensive line could be a huge mess, mainly because of inexperience, and lack of playing time together....
Quote:
And not a restructure that pushes the cap costs further on down the line.
Jenkins is ok as a rotational DT. We still need a legit live body at DT.
This. The run defense was horrible. Jenkins was part of that problem. We need a big run stuffing DT to pair with Hankins. I probably would have cut him, but with Patterson not likely to be resigned, and Kuhn JAG, keeping Jenkins for depth, at least through camp, is understandable. But we need a lot more beef up front.
The main problem on the run defense was the edge. I thought the interior was fairly stout. Hankins and guys like McClain did an admirable job. Patterson was active in his starts. But, like you said, he's just a JAG right now, like Kuhn. Jenkins can be a viable rotational DT in pass downs, so keeping him isn't a bad idea, necessarily.
I do agree, however, that they should still look into adding another piece. We don't know zip about Bromley.
Jenkins is ok as a rotational DT. We still need a legit live body at DT.
It can't be a "typical" restructure unless they gave him an extension since 2015 is the last year of his current deal. Comparing Spotrac and Overthecap, it looks like OTC already updated the details. So it looks like Jenkins cut his 2015 base by $1.2M in exchange for a $375k (guaranteed) roster bonus. ($1.2M - $375k = $825k cap savings). Good deal for both sides.
I like the move as I think Jenkins can still be productive for 25-30 snaps/game and they can hopefully increase Bromley's snaps to fill the void. A solid improvement from Bromley and continued development from Hankins and they could be pretty solid inside.
I think this raises questions about the other starting DT spot. Is Bromley ready to be a full time starter in his 2nd year. The honest answer is we don't know, the cynical answer is probably not. Hopefully he surprises.
Still fully expect the Giants to take DL within the first 3 rounds. Probably within the 1st 2. The Cupboard is bare after the starters.
Jenkins is a solid rotational guy who didn't have a great year last year. We definitely need to get tougher in the front 7 but a lot of the run defense blame could be attributed to Fewell's schemes. He had fundamentally bad schemes in playing the option and utilizing 3 safeties often in non passing downs make it difficult to play the run.
I forgot that they hired Fangio. In all depends on if they believe Paea can play 3-4 DE or not. They will probably target Dan Williams since he is among the league's best nose tackles.
Perhaps I'm thinking of someone else
This is a tiresome and largely inaccurate assumption about TC's use of the rookies
redshirting rookies like OBJ, Kennard, Richburgh, Pugh, Andre Williams and Jaquan Williams? Kiwanuka, Bradshaw, and Steve Smith all played significant snaps as rookies too. I think it's fair to say if the young player is ready to play he will play under TC. They have to show it in practice and earn the coaches confidence.
Adding Paea would be nice Plug in 3 Tech DT.
I don't think his play has slipped much, but you just have to hope he isn't at the age where his body is totally broken down causing he to not be able to stay healthy.
Doesn't need to drop lbs to do that. He's been doing that since he got here.
Jenkins is a solid rotational guy who didn't have a great year last year. We definitely need to get tougher in the front 7 but a lot of the run defense blame could be attributed to Fewell's schemes. He had fundamentally bad schemes in playing the option and utilizing 3 safeties often in non passing downs make it difficult to play the run.
Not a Fewell fan in the slightest, but to be fair we didn't exactly have the best options at LB.
How can anyone still make this argument after a Giants rookie just had one of the top 2-3 rookie seasons ever for a WR and arguably the best season ever by a Giants WR?
Not too mention guys like Pugh, Richburg, Williams, and Kennard all seeing significant starts in the rookie seasons.
Adding Paea would be nice Plug in 3 Tech DT.
Beason needs a paycut, not a restructure.
Kiwi should be an outright cut.
Hosley will be a camp invite as cutting him saves nothing.
I could see Walton getting a similar "restructure" deal to Jenkins, though I wouldn't give him anywhere close to the $325k roster bonus. But I think $100k in exchange for Walton slashing his base salary would work for the Giants. Basically it'd cost them an extra $100k in that scenario to bring him to camp for backup OL competition (hopefully Richburg wins OC outright)
Why are you surprised? He's a solid vet and even at last years level (if you don't give him a partial pass for being banged up), he's valuable as a 3rd/4th DT and as a big body that can slide out to DE in goalline/short yardage packages.
If he comes to camp and looks toast, they can still cut him. It'll cost $375k more than it would've but it's still a viable option.
Quote:
very surprised at this. he has become a coughlin guy in the lockerroom though. some veteran leadership
Why are you surprised? He's a solid vet and even at last years level (if you don't give him a partial pass for being banged up), he's valuable as a 3rd/4th DT and as a big body that can slide out to DE in goalline/short yardage packages.
If he comes to camp and looks toast, they can still cut him. It'll cost $375k more than it would've but it's still a viable option.
Im surprised because the restructure barely saves any $$$ and cutting him outright would have saved a lot more - both real + cap $$$.
They are still paying him as a starter. If u study the contracts they give to their #3 vet DT its what they paid mike patterson , vet min
This move tells me they still see jenkins ss a starter which, yes, surprises me considering his age and play last year
Emil : 12:59 pm : link : reply
In comment 12137300 arniefez said:
Quote:
And business disadvantage with a coaching staff that wants to red shirt rookies. Under the current CBA young cheap labor is the life blood of good NFL teams. Wasting a year or more of the rookie contract so that Vets feel like the rookies haven't been given anything or because the rookies are being asked to study so long they can't play is horrible business in every way. If a DT is the BPA and the Giants pass because they know the coach won't dress a rookie DT that's a real problem.
redshirting rookies like OBJ, Kennard, Richburgh, Pugh, Andre Williams and Jaquan Williams? Kiwanuka, Bradshaw, and Steve Smith all played significant snaps as rookies too. I think it's fair to say if the young player is ready to play he will play under TC. They have to show it in practice and earn the coaches confidence.
Do you or do you not, expect you #12 draft choice to start, when your #1 has just left?
Why did Richburg start? Because of an injury....
Why did Kennard play? Because of an injury....
Why did JW play? because of an injury....
Why did Williams get so much playing time? Because of two injuries...
Why did Pugh start his first year? Because of an injury....
These guys, outside of Beckham, we not pencilled in to be starters.....they were out the more or less because TC was forced to use them due to injuries...
Too early to say what this means for Jay Bromley, because we don't know what kind of move the Giants have in mind for the space they are freeing up. If there isn't a significant UFA signing at DT, we can assume Bromley is penciled in as a starter next to Hankins, no matter what happens in the draft.
Emil : 12:59 pm : link : reply
In comment 12137300 arniefez said:
Quote:
And business disadvantage with a coaching staff that wants to red shirt rookies. Under the current CBA young cheap labor is the life blood of good NFL teams. Wasting a year or more of the rookie contract so that Vets feel like the rookies haven't been given anything or because the rookies are being asked to study so long they can't play is horrible business in every way. If a DT is the BPA and the Giants pass because they know the coach won't dress a rookie DT that's a real problem.
redshirting rookies like OBJ, Kennard, Richburgh, Pugh, Andre Williams and Jaquan Williams? Kiwanuka, Bradshaw, and Steve Smith all played significant snaps as rookies too. I think it's fair to say if the young player is ready to play he will play under TC. They have to show it in practice and earn the coaches confidence.
Do you or do you not, expect you #12 draft choice to start, when your #1 has just left?
Why did Richburg start? Because of an injury....
Why did Kennard play? Because of an injury....
Why did JW play? because of an injury....
Why did Williams get so much playing time? Because of two injuries...
Why did Pugh start his first year? Because of an injury....
These guys, outside of Beckham, we not pencilled in to be starters.....they were out the more or less because TC was forced to use them due to injuries...
I don't recall JW playing because of injury. He was one of the few 3 down LBs on the team. Even with all that he is still above average at best.
Pugh started because Diehl retired and he started from week 1.
Kennard was hurt half the season and then came on. So the injury comment works both ways.
Just because OBJ was drafted #12 didn't mean he was going to get a starting job. Draft position doesn't mean anything if you can't win the job. Luckily he was more than up to the task.
I notice you didn't mention Andre Williams who was a big part of the run game plan from day 1.
Rookies have to earn it and they get a fair shake under TC. I think some fans expect rookies to come in and be given the upper hand in the competition. That's not how it works. Veterans know the system which gives them a huge leg up on the rookies. Most rookies don't make an impact until 6+ weeks into the season.
We should've paid for Linval.
We should've paid for Linval.
Yes we are, but we did last year too.
Linval has done very little in Minnesota to justify the contract they gave him. 47 tackles, 3 sacks
Very happy with Hankins, who I think is the better player.
51 tackles 7 sacks
Hosley has done nothing to warrant being around. His $600,000 in salary can be put to better use. I bet Bennett Jackson will provide more next year than Hosley will. A waste of a 3rd round pick.
Emil : 5:18 pm : link : reply
In comment 12137576 spike said:
Quote:
this year.. yet again.
We should've paid for Linval.
Yes we are, but we did last year too.
Linval has done very little in Minnesota to justify the contract they gave him. 47 tackles, 3 sacks
Very happy with Hankins, who I think is the better player.
51 tackles 7 sacks......
Those were Linval's lowest stats for the last three years....think playing for a different team/system had anything to do with it? The question is, how much did he want and what was the Giants offer? If the difference was around 1M per, should they have bit the bullet and been set for the next four years, and not have had to use that 3rd round pick on a DT? Should they have cut Jenkins and used that money on LJ? Would Linval be more of a gamble at 6M or JPP at 14-15M?
We knew we would have to overpay for LJ, or else have a plan in place....it wasn't much of a plan....
Emil : 5:18 pm : link : reply
In comment 12137576 spike said:
Quote:
this year.. yet again.
We should've paid for Linval.
Yes we are, but we did last year too.
Linval has done very little in Minnesota to justify the contract they gave him. 47 tackles, 3 sacks
Very happy with Hankins, who I think is the better player.
51 tackles 7 sacks......
Those were Linval's lowest stats for the last three years....think playing for a different team/system had anything to do with it? The question is, how much did he want and what was the Giants offer? If the difference was around 1M per, should they have bit the bullet and been set for the next four years, and not have had to use that 3rd round pick on a DT? Should they have cut Jenkins and used that money on LJ? Would Linval be more of a gamble at 6M or JPP at 14-15M?
We knew we would have to overpay for LJ, or else have a plan in place....it wasn't much of a plan....
You call Jonathan Hankins not much of plan? Cheaper, younger, and better. Sounds like a damn good plan to me.
At his reduced price, CJ provides relatively cheap insurance against things not breaking the Giants' way in other areas:
- Free agency;
- The draft;
- Bromley's development;
- Injuries.
The small amount of up-front/guaranteed money is a trivial price to pay. In order for Jenkins to get bumped off the roster (taking into account his cheap salary), so many other things will have to go right that the Giants will be happy to send him off with a six-figure parting gift.
You call Jonathan Hankins not much of plan? Cheaper, younger, and better. Sounds like a damn good plan to me.
Their plan was to have Hankins team up with the aging duo of Jenkins/Patterson.....the better plan would have been LJ and Hankins.......and use that 3rd round pick elsewhere...
This draft is also pretty deep at the DT spot and the Giants will take advantage of that.
It's technically a "restructure" only because they gave him a slight bump in new guaranteed money in terms of a $375k roster bonus. But for all intents and purposes this was a paycut.
The typical restructurings are bad because they'll take make higher base salaries, convert a decent chunk to a guaranteed bonus, and then spread that over the remaining years of the deal rather than just biting the bullet and cutting the player sooner. So you reduce the current years hit, but if the player is really declining (e.g. Diehl), you make it more painful in the out-years.
Emil : 8:05 am : link : reply
How do you afford LJ, Hankins, and JPP on the front 4. Especially when you sign DRC and want to lock Prince up long term. You have to take risk somewhere and spending a 3rd round pick on 3 Tech DT is smart money. I might be in the minority but I have zero issue with the Giants approach to the DT position. I wouldn't have given Joseph the contract Minnesota gave him either. You can't have well paid players at every position.
This draft is also pretty deep at the DT spot and the Giants will take advantage of that.
I have no idea what the Giants offered LJ or how close they were...fact is they weakened the DL with the loss of Tuck and LJ....They overpaid Beason, who had a questionable history of staying on the field.....Teams ran on the Giants this year because of this week defensive line....Picking Bromley in the 3rd is not the answer to fixing the line....and having to use another draft pick for another DT is a waste when you had one on your team to begin with...
Of all the free agent players we signed or resigned last year, how many made big contributions this season? The same front office is in place making the same decisions again....
Again, The Giants have fielded some of the greatest rookie performances of ALL TIME under Coughlin. Beckham broke new ground on NFL WR rookie play. The entire 2007 class is forever etched in NFL lore....and there is plenty more...JFC for the love of everything holy shut the fuck up already.
Just because a 2nd year player emerges after being benched his rookie year doesn't mean the guy was ready to play during that rookie year. Maybe a few guys would have swam rather than sank early on but all in all Coughlin had proven to be more than worthy in terms of identifying which players should and shouldn't play.
Find another thing to complain about with Coughlin.
IF Reese signs a plugger type at DT for anything close to what Joseph signed for i'd be shocked. Reese would have just kept Joseph here.
I think he's gonna make a strong play for a guy like McPhee. Comes from a good organization that builds strong players and he's a disruptive player that can line up all over the DL. McPhee doesn't have the prototypical size so I am not sure if the Giants would view him as a legit player for this defense but if they do in fact think he can slide into this defense, I think he's gonna get a big offer from Reese.
I don't know much about him but from what I have read here Paea is a plugger...
We aren't spending big money on a lesser version of Linval Joseph.
I read the history the same way you do: if Cofield or Joseph had become a significant factor in the pass rush, the Giants would have done everything possible to retain them. The player Cofield was in 2011, and Joseph in 2014, was simply worth more to teams that put a higher value on two-gap DTs. So they got more money elsewhere than it made sense for NYG to pay. Hankins is on track to become a more diverse asset, and one Reese will probably pay up to retain.
I read the history the same way you do: if Cofield or Joseph had become a significant factor in the pass rush, the Giants would have done everything possible to retain them. The player Cofield was in 2011, and Joseph in 2014, was simply worth more to teams that put a higher value on two-gap DTs. So they got more money elsewhere than it made sense for NYG to pay. Hankins is on track to become a more diverse asset, and one Reese will probably pay up to retain.
B3, agreed
I wonder if they look at Melton. He was pretty solid in the pass pressure dept for Dallas last year. Though that would (on paper) appear to create a log jam with Jenkins, Bromley, and Melton having similar styles and no true backup for Hankins.
I'd heard at the time two doctors red flagged Paea's knee, so Reese changed gears and swung at Marvin Austin instead.
2. He would juice up the pass rush. He struggles (according to PFF at least) against the run though.
That's why I question whether they'd be interested in Melton. Had Jenkins been cut I think Melton would've been a big target.
He's an awesome guy, and still looks like a football player in his street clothes.
I wished him the best of luck for the next season, and asked him to kill the Eagles! He smiled, and said he'll do his best!