In the offseason, we will all be focused on the JPP drama. And the anticipated cuts/salary reductions for guys like Cruz, Vereen, JT Thomas, etc. Of course, we will be looking at free agents, trade market, and the draft.
But one of the biggest decisions for the Giants will be what to do with Hankins. If you followed the Reese plan around DTs the past few years, his motto has been to draft a DT to trail behind starting DT who is approaching free agency. He did it with Barry Cofield, where he first tried (and almost) traded him to the Saints, only to leave as a free agent and swap in Lindval Joseph. Similarly, as Joseph approached free agency, the Giants had Hankins in the wings ready to take his position.
Now we have the similar set up, Hankins, who turns 25 in March, and was healthy for a full season, hitting free agency. Behind him was Jay Bromley, who after an embarassing off-season scandal, seemed to play pretty well when he was called upon. The entire DL played much better in 2016, as we all know. So the question is, do the Giants think the Hankins' play in 2016, where he was very active, including playing at DE on some pass rush formations, a result of the other talent around him, specifically a space eater like Snacks next to him, or did he hold his own and the Giants are looking at someone ready to take the next step in his prime.
And how much did the play of Bromley factor into their decision. I don't have the PFF grades available on him (and yes, we crap on PFF, but teams do use it), but I recall seeing his name up there in the higher graded groups after a few games this year. And by the eye test, he looked to play much better this year when called upon.
So the question is, do the Giants look to retain Hankins and give him a fairly sizable contract, or do they let him go and slot in Bromley and look to draft another DT this year and prepare for the cycle to repeat again.
I think ending that bumpy cycle of rotating DTs in an out (i.e., Cofield to Joseph to Hank -- and wasn't C Griffin part of that to begin with?) is worth paying some $ for. Another poster was exactly right -- these transitions haven't been seamless, and we got ripped up the got before we got both of Snacks and Hank down in front. (We are or should be in 'win-now' mode for the next 2 years, IMO.)
Hell, if I had to choose between keeping Hank or JPP, I would probably let JPP walk -- he's 3 years older and still hindered at least a bit by that mangled hand. I would love to get DE DeMarcus Walker in the 2nd Rd this year.
Cofield as well. Giants ended up signing Canty to big money bc of it.
Quote:
that it took 3 years to replace Linval Joseph. They got slaughtered up the middle for 2 years until they admitted defeat and signed Snacks.
Thats because Hankins never replaced Linval..
Uh, wrong. It''s because they had Markus Kuhn types playing next to Hankins. You can't play a 4-3 with just 1 viable DT
Quote:
is the Giants could slap a transition tag on Hankins. Basically tell him that they are interested in keeping him, but go ahead and shop for your best offer and we will decide if we should match it or not. The Giants haven't used this tag since 1996, when they put it on Rodney Hampton and he was signed by the 49ers, but the Giants ultimately matched it (and in hindsight, should have just let him go). Vernon had the transition tag applied to him, but the Giants just waited it out for it to get removed when Miami signed Mario Williams.
.
If you slap the franchise tag on him, he can't 'shop it around'...he can't go anywhere that year.
If you remove the tag for some reason, he becomes an UFA.
You are describing a RFA scenario, where a team
signs a player to an offer sheet, and the original team
can match it or not.
He's a UFA anyway..Perhaps I'm missing the point
If he gets paid like a mid-tier FA DT, then you run as fast as you can to bust out your checkbook to retain him. If he gets paid top dollar, the conversation becomes a lot harder.
Personally, I like Hankins, and it would take an almost ridiculous offer from someone else to pass on him. He's young, he's been healthy for the most part, and plays well on this line. I think you keep him and hope he continues to improve.
Define "mid-tier FA DT"? Despite signing last season, Snacks is only the 7th highest paid DT and makes less (AAV) then Geno Atkins who signed his extension after the 2013 season (IIRC). The 'top' DTs (Suh, Cox, Malik Jackson, Dareus) also make >$14M per season compared to Snacks at "only" $9.25M per, though the top guys are also more penetrating DTs.
There's also a huge drop-off from Snacks/Crawford making $9M per year to the next highest paid DT (Linval) making only $6.25M per year. I view Hankins as a poor man's Snacks, so I think he's likely to earn somewhere between the $6.25M Linval got and the $9.25M that Snacks got.
So, would you take Hankins on a 5 yr, $37.5M deal with ~$17.5M guaranteed?
Quote:
is the Giants could slap a transition tag on Hankins. Basically tell him that they are interested in keeping him, but go ahead and shop for your best offer and we will decide if we should match it or not. The Giants haven't used this tag since 1996, when they put it on Rodney Hampton and he was signed by the 49ers, but the Giants ultimately matched it (and in hindsight, should have just let him go). Vernon had the transition tag applied to him, but the Giants just waited it out for it to get removed when Miami signed Mario Williams.
.
If you slap the franchise tag on him, he can't 'shop it around'...he can't go anywhere that year.
If you remove the tag for some reason, he becomes an UFA.
You are describing a RFA scenario, where a team
signs a player to an offer sheet, and the original team
can match it or not.
There are 2 types of tags, Franchise and Transition. Franchise carries a 2 first round pick cost for teams trying to sign a player (ie- he's not going anywhere). Transition tag allows a team a chance to match
Olivier Vernon was given a transition tag by Miami last year, but they pulled it when they signed Williams.
Quote:
In comment 13332741 Victor in CT said:
Quote:
that it took 3 years to replace Linval Joseph. They got slaughtered up the middle for 2 years until they admitted defeat and signed Snacks.
Thats because Hankins never replaced Linval..
Uh, wrong. It''s because they had Markus Kuhn types playing next to Hankins. You can't play a 4-3 with just 1 viable DT
True.. But I still don't think Hankins is as good as Linval and he is definetely not as good as Snacks.. and Both him and snacks get stonewalled in pass rushing situations.. As we saw in the GB game there was no pressure on Rodgers.. We need someone in the middle that can put pressure.. As long as Snacks is there he can work with a JAG and still control the LoS and stuff the runs.. Overall we need DE more than we need a run stuffing DT.. (we have the best one in the game already).. Even if we sign JPP, I'd rather use the money and sign a DE to give some relief to OV and JPP.. Both were playing enormous number of snaps to be effectively all year long..
Quote:
is the Giants could slap a transition tag on Hankins. Basically tell him that they are interested in keeping him, but go ahead and shop for your best offer and we will decide if we should match it or not. The Giants haven't used this tag since 1996, when they put it on Rodney Hampton and he was signed by the 49ers, but the Giants ultimately matched it (and in hindsight, should have just let him go). Vernon had the transition tag applied to him, but the Giants just waited it out for it to get removed when Miami signed Mario Williams.
.
If you slap the franchise tag on him, he can't 'shop it around'...he can't go anywhere that year.
If you remove the tag for some reason, he becomes an UFA.
You are describing a RFA scenario, where a team
signs a player to an offer sheet, and the original team
can match it or not.
There are actually two types of franchise tags now:
1. Exclusive franchise tag: IIRC, Von Miller was given this tag and it prohibits the player from even fielding offers from other teams. This comes with a slightly higher guaranteed salary for the player than the non-exclusive tag.
2. Non-exclusive FT: The player is allowed to look for other offers, but the original team can match any offer. If they elect not to match the offer, the team receives two first round picks as compensation.
There is also the 'transition tag' which gives the team a right to match any offer the player receives, but if they elect not to match, then they do not receive compensation.
Teams can use one franchise tag (exclusive or non-exclusive) and one transition tag each year.
- Griffin played very well as a rookie but then plateau'd or regressed. I think the perception was that he was sort of a pretty boy and when Coughlin came, I don't think he was thought of as a Coughlin guy so they didn't resign him that year.
- Cofield was a 4th round pick I believe (maybe 3rd). He played very well but then got hurt and had microsurgery. They had to make a decision and they decided to get rid of him.
- Joseph was a number 2. They had some cap problems and made a decision to let him go and spend the money on Beason. Big mistake. He had some good years and some bad. People need to remember that while he was here, there were many years that people ran on us. He was a good player, not a great one.
- Hankins is similar to Joseph. There was one year where he had about 6 sacks but hasn't approached it. For a clogger who is not elite, it may be time to move on if someone wants to break the bank.
Onto Bromley and Thomas. They obviously see something in Thomas even if only a rotational 3. I thought some games, he got more time than Bromley. I can see one of these guys starting in run downs but I think you would really like to add a 3gap penetrator in the draft early if at all possible. I think our linebackers are somewhat serviceable but to be elite, we would need another pass rusher. Hankins isn't the guy.
Yeah...my leaning as well. They were at their strongest with the 3 nice DT in rotation, stuffing Run while creating Pressure out of the Scheme. I'd prefer JPP along with Hank, but I want Hank to remain.
This is somewhat uncharted territory with the DT position. There are some obvious parallels to what happened back in 2010-2011 but the Giants have always had two LEGIT starting DTs locked down when they let that DT walk. In 2011 they still boasted Canty, Bernard and 2nd year 2nd rounder Joseph. That's a lot more than what the depth chart would show now if Hank were to depart. But, the Giants could always replace Hank in FA this season with a cheaper option.
This.
Bromley is essentially the very essence of what a JAG is. He was, at best, a 4th or 5th round talent when drafted and hasn't distinguished himself at all. Not too far behind him is another 3rd rounder who has disappointed: Owa.
I think the Vikings would beg to differ.
My order is JPP as a must-sign, Hankins as desireable but you place a value on him and do not go above it.
I agree that JPP is a necessity and Hankins is desired. Yes, we would like to keep all of our players. Part of our run defense was also the improved play of our linebackers. That is a chicken an egg scenario though. Did our LBs play better because of our DL? Yes. Did our DL benefit from having better LB play? Maybe.
Still, going back to what I mentioned earlier, our push up the middle was gone for long stretches throughout games. A lot of our sacks were coverage sacks. So, not only do I believe that we need JPP, I also feel that we need another true pass rusher on the edge. Getting that Villanova kid in the second would be great. It doesn't have to be him but someone like him. Let him develop under Vernon and JPP on a cost controlled contract. When it is time for him to get paid then one of JPP and Vernon's contracts will be up if not both. This would allow us to really just pressure with 4 with having a nice rotation to keep our DEs fresh. JPP and Vernon are going break down real fast if they play as many snaps as they played this year. They need help.
With that in mind, Hankins cannot get big money. I think like all of out other DTs that have left they. Need to have a price and they need to stick to that. However, unlike some of our other DTs, I don't think the market will be that great for Hankins. I hope I am right.
Another poster brings up a good point about Snacks and his backup. Who would it be? Well, as much as I agree that Hankijs would be that guy I still dont 5hink that warrants a huge contract. We can say the same about Manning's backup, Beckham's backup, etc. If that happens you just have to roll with the bodies you have.
I would say JPP is priority number 1 and Hankins would be number 2B at a certain price range while being able to upgrade our OL as 2A. We don't have to go after the big fish in FA along the OL but we need an upgrade.
What do the Giants want out of the DT position? I am not in the front office but I assume that the number 1 goal is stop the run and to get a push up the middle versus the pass and in this regards, the Giants had two reliable DT's that accomplished this.
I wouldn't overpay for Hankins, but I believe Hankins has the attributes desired by the Giants and those attributes may be hard to replace. Snacks cost a lot for a reason.
I also want to throw out there that Snacks has said on at least two occasions that Hanks hasn't reached his potential AND that his physical potential is much higher than Snacks himself. He said something to the effect of 'I'm jealous of Hanks and want him to get better because he has more innate talent than me.' That makes me hesitant to just drop him in lieu of JPP.
Joseph was never as good as snacks and never will be as good as snacks.
Cmon. Move on already the guy left the Giants three years ago.
I would be OK with thathe although I would prefer to franchise Jpp vs. A long term deal. I don't love this most recent I jury and he has a long history of injuries now.
That's the thing that bothered me all season. I was fully expecting to see a return of the 2014 version of Big Hank but for whatever reason he had issue with rushing the passer in 2016 like he did in 2015. But like someone mentioned maybe that's what Spags wanted since under Perry he rushed a lot more. I don't really want to see him walk though. Giants have to pay to keep them both.
Wow - someone actually watches the games and comes up with an accurate assessment. Nice job - and I'll throw Mason in there too for agreeing.
The frustrating thing is that 2014 season: that's his upside. But he was known as a lazy player with weight issues at OSU and for whatever reason, he was unable to duplicate the '14 season in a contract year playing between 2 All Pros. Personally, I'd rather get a pass rusher at the 3 - nobody's running the ball with OV/Snacks/JPP up front. I don't really care who the other DT is.
I'd be willing to bet he gets at least 8. He will likely get somewhere between 8 and 9 imv.
Hankins is more replaceable than JPP. I'm expecting someone to overpay Hankins, I just don't see the Giants matching the market with so much cash tied up in the DL already.
JPP gets paid, Hankins leaves imo.
Quote:
The dominant players. OV did next to nothing when JPP went down. Hankins had a subpar and injury ridden 2015. In 2016 with a dominant DT next to him he still never regained 2014 form. Giants should pay a ton for him.
That's the thing that bothered me all season. I was fully expecting to see a return of the 2014 version of Big Hank but for whatever reason he had issue with rushing the passer in 2016 like he did in 2015. But like someone mentioned maybe that's what Spags wanted since under Perry he rushed a lot more. I don't really want to see him walk though. Giants have to pay to keep them both.
Both of you are spot on. Hankins is severely overrated around here. Good player, but he only has 1 very good season under his belt. Disappeared without JPP last year, and he was talking big this year about getting 16 sacks. JPP's are much harder to come by, and those are the guys you pay. Hankins is still important to what we do, but we've had a lot of success in refilling the cupboard at the DT position.
This. I don't know what Reese will do, but re-signing Hankins would be my first priority.
Reese would put that at risk for what?
If Bromley was good enough then you would have seen a real rotation in there at some point last season, and we didn't...
But we do know he does a good job, in area we just fixed...