I just don't see him as being that close to Snacks in contract value. He is not nearly as good on the field either. He is not as good as Joseph either, but close.
I'd say less than $40 mill over 5 years - maybe $37.5 for % yrs with $18 guaranteed...
I think it's a mistake to invest too high a percentage of our cap in
Same way many did with Joseph while he was here. And neither Bromley and Thomas in there limited playing time have played anywhere near the level of Hankins.
Hankins graded out below average. Yet, our run D was fantastic. Snacks was, by far, the best run stuffing DT in football by the same metrics. He's the straw that stirs the drink. I really do think the NYG can survive a year with Thomas and Bromley lining up next to Harrison and still be a top run defense. To me, Hank is replaceable. The priority here in FA is JPP. I think with Okwara, Odi, Wynn, and (likely) draft pick and not JPP, we will not only get run on wide, but our sacks/pressures will be way down. The defense then takes a major step back.
think there's a real chance we lose both JPP and Hankins. I agree that Hankins is underrated, but somebody may well overpay to the point where we can't justify paying him that amount. Same for JPP. I do agree that we won't invest in a FA DT. If Hankins goes, then I'd look for a day three run stuffing DT at the least.
In Harrison who already has a huge contract(well deserved) but offers no pass rush on 3rd downs. I don't understand why Giants would give Hankins a big contract who is another 1tech DT who doesn't offer any pass rush. Do a better job of finding a 3tech DT.
its weird to try to attribute, but it seems that around draft time fans like to think about what so and so and such and such 'skinny skills players' could do, how things might go soon if we got such and such free agents and devalue the building blocks.
I forget which FA's we got with all the money saved from not signing Joseph, but am fairly sure not one of them panned out that year.
Spagnulo, indeed the league, is mixing things up more and more visa vis the gap assignments.
Most fans here attribute improved LB play to having two larger DTs in the line, and DT has got to be the one position that wears on a player the most of all NFL positions.
'If it aint broke, don't fix it.'
That said, if you also want to add a legit (and very hard to find) 'rush, quick, low,one gapping DT' for the 3 spot as well? By all means, you could make a strong argument towards drafting one.
Put it this way, as the roster is exactly right now, if either Hank or Snacks goes down, this entire team is exceedingly mediocre . 8-8 at best.
to sign Hank. Having two fat guys plugging up the middle of the line greatly improved the run defense last year, and is a big reason the Giants beat the Cowboys twice.
But spending $18-19m of cap allocation at DT and still needing to add an interior pass rushing element on top of that doesn't seem like a tenable strategy.
Would you want Hankins 8-10 million per year next 5 years
know I'm in the minority, but I'd rather have Hankins than JPP. Younger, cheaper, and healthier. We also need a lot of beef to deal with the Dallas OL for years. Get a pass rushing DE in the draft, and platoon that player with Okwara and Wynn.
whereas for ten years BBI whined about quality of LBs,
know I'm in the minority, but I'd rather have Hankins than JPP. Younger, cheaper, and healthier. We also need a lot of beef to deal with the Dallas OL for years. Get a pass rushing DE in the draft, and platoon that player with Okwara and Wynn.
I don't know that i'd rather have hank than jpp - but that's a very good point about dallas and having hank rerturn
What about the freakin' offense that could only score one td, in 4 of it's last 5 games?
Would this defense be better, without JPP and Hankins, but with a stud at LB, FS, and another CB? You make that qb hold onto the ball just a little longer, and this line can get to him...
What about the freakin' offense that could only score one td, in 4 of it's last 5 games?
Would this defense be better, without JPP and Hankins, but with a stud at LB, FS, and another CB? You make that qb hold onto the ball just a little longer, and this line can get to him...
The LBs et al were helped enormously by Hankins AND Snacks
But the more I think about it, the more that it's not even a discussion for me between him and JPP. Pierre-Paul was a game-breaking player at the time of his injury. We need him back.
When you're talking about letting JPP go, you have to think about
Vernon had 8.5 sacks last season. Exactly one sack in the first 7 weeks of the season, but the whole DL was struggling.
Then in the next 5 games, Eagles through Steelers, Vernon caught fire and had seven sacks in those games, finishing up with two against the Steelers.
JPP was out after the Steeler game. How many sacks did Vernon have in the last 5 games (including the playoff game)?
One half sack. That's all.
IMHO, Giants would be crazy to break up a young group of defenders that was 2nd in the league in points given up. They don't have any cap problem; they're 30 to 35 million under now with 5 to 10 million more to come when the leagues states the annual cap increase.
They can re-sign both and still have plenty left to dive into the FA market for offense help.
I just don't see them keeping both JPP and Hankins.
As important as the defensive line is, that is one expensive unit. Generally, its not a good idea to have so much money tied up in one spot.
It will most likely be one or the other and if its me - I'm taking the player that is hardest to replace at the higher value position. Thats JPP at defensive end. And since the Giants have failed to draft his successor, they will need to pay up for now if they want the defense to continue being dominant.
Its difficult to quantify defensive line play, especially at the tackle position. Hankins is no doubt a good player. And we're tired of seeing the Giants draft defensive tackles and watching them leave for successful careers with other teams. But you can find big DT's like him for half of what he will command.
you lose JPP and/or Hank there's no guarantee you are going to be able to secure the services of another "cheaper but near equal" player. And even if you do find that perfect player, which rarely even exists by the way, you don't know how that player will adjust to a new team and city.
This is a now team. Don't mess with success. The Front four was every bit as responsible for the D's overall success and in all likely hood is more important than the secondary.
I'm not saying to blow Hankins away but you have to make a fair offer to both Hank and JPP. This team deserves that. And it has the money.
The O doesn't have to be elite and probably won't ever be that good anyway as you can't expect this franchise to reset the entire offense save for Beckham, Shep and Eli anyway. It is what it is at this point. Just add enough to help the O emerge from the bog it sank into last year.
Elite D plus opportunistic and gritty offense = NYG Super bowl title #5.
Good but flawed D plus good but flawed O equals one and done.
why the people touting Hankins' run-stuffing ability are the very same posters that tell me we can replace JPP with a "pass rush specialist" via the draft?
Apparently run-stuffing ability is important, but not at DE?
So he didn't have to be THE guy this year. Going into next year, I could see him transforming into a bigger disrupter as far as pushing into the pocket goes. He can lose some weight and work on pass rushing. With Snacks, he can put all his energy into being a 3 tech. There aren't middling talents like Cullen Jenkins around forcing him to do too much.
Same way many did with Joseph while he was here. And neither Bromley and Thomas in there limited playing time have played anywhere near the level of Hankins.
Completely agree with this statement and we could be headed back to where we were when we let Joseph go the last time.
And there are alot....
I'd say less than $40 mill over 5 years - maybe $37.5 for % yrs with $18 guaranteed...
if not -- it means the Giants think one or both of those guys can take over -- I don't see them spending on a DT from outside the team this year
I forget which FA's we got with all the money saved from not signing Joseph, but am fairly sure not one of them panned out that year.
Some JAG or injured OLers, some aging RBs maybe.
Most fans here attribute improved LB play to having two larger DTs in the line, and DT has got to be the one position that wears on a player the most of all NFL positions.
'If it aint broke, don't fix it.'
That said, if you also want to add a legit (and very hard to find) 'rush, quick, low,one gapping DT' for the 3 spot as well? By all means, you could make a strong argument towards drafting one.
Put it this way, as the roster is exactly right now, if either Hank or Snacks goes down, this entire team is exceedingly mediocre . 8-8 at best.
that said, we all would love the short rush DT specialist, however, that is a rotational type typically, you need both for what this team is doing.
Thanks to snacks and hank
I don't know that i'd rather have hank than jpp - but that's a very good point about dallas and having hank rerturn
Would this defense be better, without JPP and Hankins, but with a stud at LB, FS, and another CB? You make that qb hold onto the ball just a little longer, and this line can get to him...
Would this defense be better, without JPP and Hankins, but with a stud at LB, FS, and another CB? You make that qb hold onto the ball just a little longer, and this line can get to him...
The LBs et al were helped enormously by Hankins AND Snacks
Vernon had 8.5 sacks last season. Exactly one sack in the first 7 weeks of the season, but the whole DL was struggling.
Then in the next 5 games, Eagles through Steelers, Vernon caught fire and had seven sacks in those games, finishing up with two against the Steelers.
JPP was out after the Steeler game. How many sacks did Vernon have in the last 5 games (including the playoff game)?
One half sack. That's all.
IMHO, Giants would be crazy to break up a young group of defenders that was 2nd in the league in points given up. They don't have any cap problem; they're 30 to 35 million under now with 5 to 10 million more to come when the leagues states the annual cap increase.
They can re-sign both and still have plenty left to dive into the FA market for offense help.
It will most likely be one or the other and if its me - I'm taking the player that is hardest to replace at the higher value position. Thats JPP at defensive end. And since the Giants have failed to draft his successor, they will need to pay up for now if they want the defense to continue being dominant.
Its difficult to quantify defensive line play, especially at the tackle position. Hankins is no doubt a good player. And we're tired of seeing the Giants draft defensive tackles and watching them leave for successful careers with other teams. But you can find big DT's like him for half of what he will command.
This is a now team. Don't mess with success. The Front four was every bit as responsible for the D's overall success and in all likely hood is more important than the secondary.
I'm not saying to blow Hankins away but you have to make a fair offer to both Hank and JPP. This team deserves that. And it has the money.
The O doesn't have to be elite and probably won't ever be that good anyway as you can't expect this franchise to reset the entire offense save for Beckham, Shep and Eli anyway. It is what it is at this point. Just add enough to help the O emerge from the bog it sank into last year.
Elite D plus opportunistic and gritty offense = NYG Super bowl title #5.
Good but flawed D plus good but flawed O equals one and done.
Holding the center against fast drop QB throwing down the seam and two games: Dallas. Massive OL. Great RB. Two games we have to win.
Apparently run-stuffing ability is important, but not at DE?
If the JPP contract is done as rumored, I wonder if the numbers are palatable to keep the band together for one more set with a Hankins tag.
Not necessarily advocating it sight unseen, but if year 1 cap hit of a JPP deal were, say, $10M or a little less, it may be something to consider.