My thoughts on the Giants write-up
1- Agree
2- Agree
3- I get the age and injury concerns of JPP, but Barnwell makes it seem like Hankins is a very comparable player. Obviously from a value perspective he may make more sense as he'll command less but I think he overhypes Hankins just a bit.
4- Disagree that Richburg is a "star." He had a great breakout season in 2015 but definitely regressed n 2016. Whether that was due to injury or not, we'll see. But I wouldn't resign him until seeing how he does this year.
5- Makes sense. I guess he is assuming that Flowers stays at LT
Link - (
New Window )
Hankins, 24, is younger and wildly underrated, particularly as an interior penetrator. He knocked down opposing quarterbacks 10 times in 2016 and had a seven-sack season as recently as 2014. Hankins is a better bet to age well over his next deal than Pierre-Paul.
I'd also tag JPP; I think that's the only way to work out a long term extension, he's going to be looking for maximum money, but the tag is available to us and one year older next year, if he happens to suffer another injury this year, his market value would plummet. I think if we tag him we find a happy middle ground that works for both team and player.
Also think too many are underrating Hankins - he's young, has played well, and is part of a stifling defensive line. Unless someone offers him stupid money, this is a no-brainer.
1 - Hank or JPP (it won't be both) or I guess it could be neither
and
2 - the OL
Also, don't be surprised if they hang onto Jennings at least until camp starts. They'd only save $2.5M by releasing him which isn't likely to make or break any deal, and unlike some others (Cruz, Vereen) he does not have a large roster bonus due at the start of the league year. Cutting Vereen now would save ~$3.6M whereas cutting him in camp (for whatever reason) would only save ~$3.1M in cap dollars. Jennings is the same $2.5M savings either way.
Richburg had a bit of a slump and Pugh is having trouble staying on the field.
That fact that Pugh hasn't been extended already supports the notion that the Gmen are still unsure.
If they both breakout next season the Gmen can at least franchise 1 and give the better of the 2 a nice contract.
DL Currently on roster:
Snacks - $10.6M
Vernon - $16M
Others (Owa, Bromley, Okwara, etc) - $3.2M
Total - $29.8M
Total Cap ~= $170M
DL (Current) Cap Allocation: 17.5%
Add in JPP at ~$17M and it would be 27.6% of the total cap on the DL. Throw in Hankins at ~$8M on top of that and you're looking at spending over 32% of the cap on the DL.
I think re-signing both would leave them with too few resources to address other needs (notably OL).
FWIW, these are the teams that spent over $30M on their DL in 2016:
Dolphins - $39M (25.6% of cap)
Jags - $35M (23.4%)
Rams - $33.6M (22.3%)
Giants - $33.3M (21.5%)
Bucs - $32.4M (20.8%)
Bengals - $30.7M (19.7%)
Even if you can extend both for less than the estimates above, you'd be looking at the Giants spending significantly more on the DL than any other team.
Even with all the cap space teams have available, I don't see how anyone could give Hankins more than what Snacks earned last season. Hankins is basically a poor-man's Snacks and as you pointed out, only disruptive DTs (McCoy, Cox, Suh, Short) get $15M+.
Hankins is more run plugger than disruptive force.
Richburg had a bit of a slump and Pugh is having trouble staying on the field.
That fact that Pugh hasn't been extended already supports the notion that the Gmen are still unsure.
If they both breakout next season the Gmen can at least franchise 1 and give the better of the 2 a nice contract.
I'd argue that now is the time to extend Richburg. If he was coming off a pro-bowl season, he'd cost a lot more. Extend him now when his cost is (potentially) suppressed.
There was no need to discuss an extension with Pugh until now. I can see them extending him this year or waiting until next year and forcing him to prove he can play 16 games.
And you can apply the same rationale to Beckham. I'd be stunned if he's extended before next offseason. I doubt either side is in a rush. Giants because he's dirt cheap and one of the best values in the NFL for 2017 and Beckham's side because a few big time WRs (Hopkins and Brown at least) are UFAs after this season and will set the bar for Beckham's deal.
If the Giants get rid of a few bad contracts they'll have enough to re-sign Hankins, tag JPP, and make a move or two in FA.
Re: Richburg - I'd love for them to extend him following this past season, but Richburg might not want to do that seeing as his stock would be lower than it might have been in years past, and what it might be after this season.
It's Easy to say, cut Cruz, Jennings, and Thomas to save money.....but it isn't all saved, you need most of it, to replace these players, too....
2. Duh is correct, unless he wants to sign a very cap friendly deal....
3. Yes, you "try" to sign JPP and/or Hankins, but you don't break the bank doing it......
4. I think the Giants will use the option on Pugh because the want to see what he does, health-wise over the course of the season.....they are not extending Richburg, either, I think, until they see if his play improves this upcoming season....
5. Upgrade the right side of the line but no mention of Flowers? That is a head scratcher....
Depending on how they structure it they can get it down, look at how they set up Vernon's. Might just be down to 13 or 14m, but that 3m will count somewhere.
http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/new-york-giants/olivier-vernon-9882/ - ( New Window )
I can certainly be wrong though.
Tend to agree, although I'd prefer him to JPP because he's younger, cheaper, and healthier. Good run stuffing DT, but how much should we pay for that?
I can certainly be wrong though.
Two things - one, they invest more in DL because they almost completely ignore the LB position from a cap perspective.
Two - right now, the D is working well. Re-sign those two, and you have your defensive core under contract (and most of them are fairly young) for some time. Barring injury, you should be set defensively for the next few years. This allows you to resume building via the draft, which should restore long term cap stability as well.
I can certainly be wrong though.
The Giants believe it starts up front and you have to win in the trenches. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if they signed both JPP and Hankins while investing around a third of their cap on the D line.
Quote:
in the DL, so the pressure on him to step up was much less than last year, when he did nothing, and was counted on to be the guy, with JPP out....but, I did not see him step up this year....don't tell me the OL was concentrating on him, because they couldn't with the other three.....he just did not step up his game, and is replaceable, if he is looking for big bucks...
Tend to agree, although I'd prefer him to JPP because he's younger, cheaper, and healthier. Good run stuffing DT, but how much should we pay for that?
I try not to get caught up in figures, but invariably I do, so I'll say WHATEVER Abrams thinks we can afford and still make much needed moves
AAV has no correlation to cap value in the NFL. Typically, year one of a multi-year contract is especially cap-friendly because the initial signing bonus offsets any need for a significant base salary.
Quote:
I'm not convinced his AAV or cap number will be significantly below $17M for the 2017 season. I can easily see him getting 4 yrs/$65M+ from somebody. He's arguably the best DL available in a year with several teams have enormous amounts of cap space.
AAV has no correlation to cap value in the NFL. Typically, year one of a multi-year contract is especially cap-friendly because the initial signing bonus offsets any need for a significant base salary.
While year 1 is typically lower than AAV, I wouldn't say there is no correlation. You're not giving a player $85M over 5 years with only a $5M cap hit in year 1.
And I think players and their agents have gotten smarter about contract structures in the last few years. Contracts don't seem as backloaded as they were, say, 5 years ago (though my perception could be wrong here).
Do you feel comfortable saying that you know enough about the Giants' defensive scheme and gameplans that you can tell with absolutely certainty that Hankins wasn't asked to anchor and stay home at the POA?
I'm just not so sure why any Giants fan would want to break up the Hankins & Harrison pairing in the middle. No question that Harrison was the more valuable of the two, but football is such an interconnected sport that it's not so easy to isolate one player's value in a vacuum. The Giants' ability to stop the run on early downs is what makes the blitz packages work on obvious passing downs.
We saw the Giants down the stretch without JPP and that was still a championship-caliber defense. I'm not saying that I don't want him back; I'm just throwing out there that we might know more about his marginal value than we do about Hank's. And given their respective expected contract values, I think Hank is the better choice if you can only choose one to re-sign.
Quote:
in the DL, so the pressure on him to step up was much less than last year, when he did nothing, and was counted on to be the guy, with JPP out....but, I did not see him step up this year....don't tell me the OL was concentrating on him, because they couldn't with the other three.....he just did not step up his game, and is replaceable, if he is looking for big bucks...
Do you feel comfortable saying that you know enough about the Giants' defensive scheme and gameplans that you can tell with absolutely certainty that Hankins wasn't asked to anchor and stay home at the POA?
I'm just not so sure why any Giants fan would want to break up the Hankins & Harrison pairing in the middle. No question that Harrison was the more valuable of the two, but football is such an interconnected sport that it's not so easy to isolate one player's value in a vacuum. The Giants' ability to stop the run on early downs is what makes the blitz packages work on obvious passing downs.
We saw the Giants down the stretch without JPP and that was still a championship-caliber defense. I'm not saying that I don't want him back; I'm just throwing out there that we might know more about his marginal value than we do about Hank's. And given their respective expected contract values, I think Hank is the better choice if you can only choose one to re-sign.
Agree, but there may be 10 other people who are with us on this
They both play premium positions, but Hank is big, effective, still very young and on the upside of his career. Some team will likely throw crazy money at him.
The market for one-handed DE's isn't as hot, and it may be worth more to both he and the Giants for him to remain here. He's still effective, though not what he was, knows the Giants' system and functions very well within it. And he's settled into the NY scene as part of his life.
Quote:
In comment 13359044 giants#1 said:
Quote:
I'm not convinced his AAV or cap number will be significantly below $17M for the 2017 season. I can easily see him getting 4 yrs/$65M+ from somebody. He's arguably the best DL available in a year with several teams have enormous amounts of cap space.
AAV has no correlation to cap value in the NFL. Typically, year one of a multi-year contract is especially cap-friendly because the initial signing bonus offsets any need for a significant base salary.
While year 1 is typically lower than AAV, I wouldn't say there is no correlation. You're not giving a player $85M over 5 years with only a $5M cap hit in year 1.
And I think players and their agents have gotten smarter about contract structures in the last few years. Contracts don't seem as backloaded as they were, say, 5 years ago (though my perception could be wrong here).
It's not likely, but it's certainly doable. Give the player a $20M signing bonus and $1M base in year 1 and then spread another $20M (or however much) across some or all of the remaining 4 years and you've just gotten yourself an $85M/5yr contract with a $5M hit in year 1, and it's not really that outlandish of a scenario.
Quote:
In comment 13358999 Doomster said:
Quote:
in the DL, so the pressure on him to step up was much less than last year, when he did nothing, and was counted on to be the guy, with JPP out....but, I did not see him step up this year....don't tell me the OL was concentrating on him, because they couldn't with the other three.....he just did not step up his game, and is replaceable, if he is looking for big bucks...
Do you feel comfortable saying that you know enough about the Giants' defensive scheme and gameplans that you can tell with absolutely certainty that Hankins wasn't asked to anchor and stay home at the POA?
I'm just not so sure why any Giants fan would want to break up the Hankins & Harrison pairing in the middle. No question that Harrison was the more valuable of the two, but football is such an interconnected sport that it's not so easy to isolate one player's value in a vacuum. The Giants' ability to stop the run on early downs is what makes the blitz packages work on obvious passing downs.
We saw the Giants down the stretch without JPP and that was still a championship-caliber defense. I'm not saying that I don't want him back; I'm just throwing out there that we might know more about his marginal value than we do about Hank's. And given their respective expected contract values, I think Hank is the better choice if you can only choose one to re-sign.
Agree, but there may be 10 other people who are with us on this
As long as it's the right 10, we'll be fine, Fiddy!
To me, Hankins will get overpaid. I'd let him hit the market and only consider bringing him back on a very team friendly deal. If not, you can fill his role fairly easily. We'd have 3 stud guys on the line around that player.
You factor that in with their age, consistency and cost...I'm leaning towards signing Hank and addressing DE early in the draft. There's a chance we haven't seen the best of Hankins yet, while the same can't be said of JPP.
Of course there's a correlation insofar as a higher AAV comes with a higher contract in general, and a higher contract will include higher cap values overall. My point was (and is) that AAV is not at all included in cap calculations (unlike MLB or NHL), so any mention of it is unnecessary.
I'll guess JPP gets his deal. Hank leaves for greener pastures. But neither is coming cheap. Don't kid yourself. And Reese knows the lyrics from The Band: "If I don't do it, somebody else will." DEs and corners. That's why I think the DRC speculation is nuts .
As for Pugh, he's their best lineman. He provides the peace of mind that comes with his versatility. If whoever is the LOT in 17 goes out, Pugh can do at least an adequate job there. Some of us think he can be very good there. So getting him done long-term is a striking glimpse of the obvious.
To be fair, it's the team making that choice, not the player that's about to be a free agent.