From listening/ reading the sports talking heads it seems we will be able to keep JPP or Hankins but not afford to keep both. The problem is we really do need both. I think JR should try to find a way to make that happen. If not, I'd hate to have to make a choice between JPP or Hankins though I'll guess the majority would keep JPP.
What do you think? Do you think there is a way to keep both without bankrupting our other important needs? If not, which of these two do you think we should keep and why?
You don't give a DE with 7 fingers and who has previously had a bad back 50 million dollar contracts.
You are assuming that's what his cost will be. He can also play with 7 fingers, did you watch the games this year?
Until we know what the actual offers are we are all just guessing on what JPP's pricetag will be.
You don't give a DE with 7 fingers and who has previously had a bad back 50 million dollar contracts - Bill Belichik
^^^Fixed this^^^
draft 'the ideal O of the future, '
re-sign the whole D.
I believe they'll find a way to keep both, but both will need to compromise in order to stay.
DE as well - look for a DT that can get a bit more penetration on passing downs
by round draftees:
1. G
2. DT
3. G
if we keep Hank, by round:
1. G
2. G
3. TE
4. TE
5. WR
6. WR
7. RB
!
I agree. I thought Hankins would be a better pass rusher.
Hankins isn't that much younger than JPP. 25 vs. 28. And the injury JPP got this year was a fluke. It can happen to anyone. And it doesn't predispose him to the same injury in the future. It's not like a knee injury.
Quote:
and we know they're probably willing to roll the dice at DT with Snacks entrenched at one spot.
I believe they'll find a way to keep both, but both will need to compromise in order to stay.
DE as well - look for a DT that can get a bit more penetration on passing downs
Malik McDowell from Michigan State looks like a perfect guy to bring in if they move on from Hanks, whether they bring back JPP or not.
Keep JPP. Replace Hankins in FA or in the first three rounds. I'd sign JPP and Calais Campbell and a decent upgrade on the OL, fix the rest in the draft. We will have around about 40 million to spend, it is entirely possible.
JPP is critical to our defense and on his good days he can be a real monster out there. But he is prone to injuries and a lineman with back problems scare me.
I think Hankins does such a great job stopping the run and getting to the QB sometimes that I'd hate to lose him. Plus I like that he is younger and cheaper.
I also have to agree with those saying it's probably easier to replace Hankins than JPP and that may be the deciding factor for Jerry if he can't find a way to keep both.
The Giants can not have the best defense in the league next year without him.
Hankins is a good DT, nothing more. He helps Snacks but he's a player whose loss we can overcome far easier than JPP.
Hankins is a good DT, nothing more. He helps Snacks but he's a player whose loss we can overcome far easier than JPP.
I think it's even more than that. We can improve Hankins spot by investing in the draft. There's zero chance we improve upon JPP's spot by replacing him.
We already have a run-stopping DT.
Give JPP the money and replace big Hank, just like we've replaced the other good (but not great) DTs.
Unless you think his replacement is already on the roster, you keep Hankins as well.
It's mortgage the farm time in order to make a run now.
Injury is a legit concern with JPP as some have noted. Also, Hankins could still take a step forward. He had 7 sacks a few years ago.
So I would like to see both back, even if it means not signing a TE. However, I think the OL is a higher priority and if you need to sacrifice one of them to sign a LT, sacrifice Hankins.
Quote:
people who only focus on his sack numbers coming against poor teams are nuts. He was an impact player all year.
Hankins is a good DT, nothing more. He helps Snacks but he's a player whose loss we can overcome far easier than JPP.
I think it's even more than that. We can improve Hankins spot by investing in the draft. There's zero chance we improve upon JPP's spot by replacing him.
I'm with you guys on this.
I was going to post these exact thoughts so instead just count me in with you both.
I am going to guess that Reese wants JPP back and will find a way to pay him. I am expecting Reese to find a B level FA DT and maybe draft one.
Unless you think his replacement is already on the roster, you keep Hankins as well.
It's mortgage the farm time in order to make a run now.
Guarantee 66%-75% of his salary??? JPP is a guy you pay big money too but just not guaranteed money. I like the 4-60 but we can't guarantee him more than half of that or it would be a major risk. OV got his because we were in a bidding war and he doesn't miss games. JPP will get tagged hence no bidding war and fact remains he has less fingers and is more injury prone and older.....
As far as allocation of resources, the Giants have essentially the minimum tied up at LB. I'd bet the money tied up in their front 7 as a whole isn't that bad compared to other teams.
Hankins/JPP are known commodities. They were key players on one of the best if not the best defense in the league last year. The wise move is to keep the band together if possible.
JPP 4-62 22M SB 42G
Hankins 5-40 12M SB 20G could go 4-32
Pugh 5-42 15M SB 24G
SB allocation is 11M - you can give each 3M salary for 2017 and still have absolute minimum 17M left.
As far as allocation of resources, the Giants have essentially the minimum tied up at LB. I'd bet the money tied up in their front 7 as a whole isn't that bad compared to other teams.
Hankins/JPP are known commodities. They were key players on one of the best if not the best defense in the league last year. The wise move is to keep the band together if possible.
You might create a hole by not signing Hankins, but you can improve that spot and fill another hole with the same amount of money.
If Hanks is set to get 6-8 mill, we can get a top FA OL for that money, and spend a draft pick on a top 3 tech and kill two birds with one stone. We're likelier to get a game changing starting 3 tech than a starting OL in the draft.
A lot of people want to draft OL, but we can go young FA OL (Reiff and Zeitler/Warford e.g.) and draft some defensive studs (Malik McDowell/Caleb Brantley in the first or Chris Wormley in the second), mitigating our asymmetric allocation of resources of having 3 big DL contracts while adding talent on the offensive side of the ball and staying with the theme of going young and healthy.
Quote:
For those complaining about other holes to fill, you're creating more if the Giants let either or both walk.
As far as allocation of resources, the Giants have essentially the minimum tied up at LB. I'd bet the money tied up in their front 7 as a whole isn't that bad compared to other teams.
Hankins/JPP are known commodities. They were key players on one of the best if not the best defense in the league last year. The wise move is to keep the band together if possible.
You might create a hole by not signing Hankins, but you can improve that spot and fill another hole with the same amount of money.
If Hanks is set to get 6-8 mill, we can get a top FA OL for that money, and spend a draft pick on a top 3 tech and kill two birds with one stone. We're likelier to get a game changing starting 3 tech than a starting OL in the draft.
A lot of people want to draft OL, but we can go young FA OL (Reiff and Zeitler/Warford e.g.) and draft some defensive studs (Malik McDowell/Caleb Brantley in the first or Chris Wormley in the second), mitigating our asymmetric allocation of resources of having 3 big DL contracts while adding talent on the offensive side of the ball and staying with the theme of going young and healthy.
1.There's no guarantee we get the best OL in FA, let alone for 6-8 mil per.
2. Most of the OL in FA have issues -- whether it's age, injuries, or under performance.
3. DT has one of the highest bust rates in the draft. There's no guarantee we'd get a starter out of a 1st or 2nd rounder, let alone an upgrade.
And tag Hankins for ??9-10 million. Draft a tackle next year that is not a run stopper but a penetrating tackle
Although one highly regarded poster here pointed out that the Giants hadn't kept either 1 technique defensive tackles Griffin and Joseph although Griffin was a 2nd round pick 12.5 sacks in four years and Joseph a 1st rounder with 9 sacks in four years.
A blessing? Such a dumb comment on so many levels.
With our offensive tackle situation?
With our replacements behind him?
Want me to go on?
You continually make a fool of yourself on JPP threads.
Since we are comparing OV and JPP.. OV does not have the serious injuries like JPP has in his career(back, hernia), OV is younger, OV was 2nd team all pro last year and JPP didn't finish the season, and most importantly OV has 2 and 1/2 more fingers... If JPP tops OV in salary it is a mistake by a desperate team with more cap than they know what to do with... this is why I advocate us tagging JPP in the hopes it forces him to agree to a 'reasonable' long term deal.
All that matters is that JPP is the best DE on the market and last year the best DE on the market got 5/85 and there are teams with insane amounts of cap space. There are like 5 teams with over 70m in cap space. JPP is going to get paid what OV got last year if not more, IMO.
elsewhere than the giants can or would pay him
also need to somehow manage to resign robinson and hall out of the remaining FA list
Totally disagree. Games are still won and lost in the trenches. I wouldn't have 2 top paid WRs or 2 top paid CBs but I would stack my Oline and Dline with top tier talent if given the chance. These 5 year deals OV and Snacks got are easily 3 year deals if need be. Same can be done to JPP and Hank, shit I want to aim bigger I want JPP and Calais Campbell, imagine that Dline over the next 2 years...
The Giants have done so not once but twice with two different DL units. Worked out well for them.