Now that JPP's extension is on the books and we have some wiggle room in the cap.
First: I hope they sign Hankins to a long term deal. I think he is a perfect #2 DT. I don't think we replace let alone augment his production in the draft, even if we draft someone in the early rounds. Hankins himself wasn't a starter in his rookie year. Also, I think because of how solid Harrison is and his infectious personality, Hankins gets lost in the fray at times. He's much more unassuming. But, he was a big part of several game changing plays last year, for example, he got the sack in the CLE game that caused the fumble return for a TD by JPP. He also blocked the field goal that Jackrabbit returned for a TD in the NO game. He is a disruptive player. Lastly, re-signing him should increase morale not only for the D line who all seem pumped up to stay together as a unit, but also down the line, showing our FO has loyalty to guys who perform.
Second: I hope they extend Pugh. We have some space now. Extending Pugh would enable us to structure his contract in an advantageous way, in order to free up some room either next year to re-sign Richburg and Kennard or down the line with Beckham and Collins all while securing our best piece on the line. I see a lot of people say things like, "Pugh is our best OL but that doesn't mean much given its mediocrity". I don't think that's a fair assessment of our line. But it also diminishes Pugh's impact. The game Pugh came back from injury, the line seemed to elevate its play in the same way the Eagles line did when Lane Johnson came back. Those runs on Pugh's side started going for yards more than they seemed to without him.
If Reese could do those two things in the next few weeks, I'd feel really good about our team going into the draft and even into next offseason.
They should also wait on Pugh. Given what the guards got this offseason, it would take a lot to sign him, even if they have the cap room. That is not a good use of limited cap dollars right now.
I'd be happy to bring him back at $6m per, and he might well take that on April 1 when he realizes he's not seeing much interest elsewhere.
They should also wait on Pugh. Given what the guards got this offseason, it would take a lot to sign him, even if they have the cap room. That is not a good use of limited cap dollars right now.
I think it's at least worth considering that maybe the Giants' current scheme doesn't call for a traditional 3T. It's at least possible that they actually favor two big bodies that stop the run (along with two of the best run-stopping DEs in the league) to dictate down and distance and allow Spags to get crafty with blitz packages on 3rd and long.
I understand that the traditional formula calls for a penetrating 3T next to a stout NT, but that doesn't mean that it's the only way to skin the cat. That said, it's equally possible that the Giants would prefer a penetrating 3T and just played Hankins in that spot out of necessity, but I think it's at least worth noting that all of their DTs fit the same sort of archetype - none of which is a traditional 3T. That spot gets filled by a DE sliding inside on passing downs anyway.
Having said all that, I don't think the Giants will meet Hankins' demands if they are as aggressive as has been reported. But demands tend to soften over time - there's a lot of dollars between what Hank is supposedly asking for and the zero dollars he's currently slated to earn.
Hankins, IMO, is not a better player than Linval was when he left, and this same FO let Linval leave so i dont expect their way of thinking to change but you never know. Plus Snacks presence decreases Hankins value to OUR team. But Hank is a good player and we can always use those but the price still has to be right.
Also, I think at this point in the offseason, as far as needs go, despite our wanting a bigger name on the O line, O line isn't as big a need as a DT opposite Harrison, a WLB, and a RB. In my opinion, DT is the most important piece to secure, in light of the fact that JT is still on the books and wouldn't be as huge a drop off from Robinson as Bromley would be from Hanks.
Lastly, despite Hankins in some ways duplicating the skills of Harrison, that's not a bad thing for two very important reasons I can think of: 1) like was said, he potentially is a major factor in our success against the Cowboys rushing attack and the rushing attacks all across the league, 2) if Snacks were to go down, it won't nearly be as devastating if we have Hankins there to plug in. Bromley has value as the third DT. Hankins has tremendous value as the 2.
My biggest worry is that if we put our hopes in the draft that draft pick isn't likely to come in and contribute right away, also, I really think the morale of bringing back both JPP and Hanks to multiyear deals would send a good message to the team.
It's too late. He hurt my feelings. Now I don't even want him back.]
We need a penetrating DT, a guy who can push the pocket, and pass rush effectively, that player can be found in this draft, the Giants would be nuts to put any more money into the defensive line, it makes no sense at all, unless Hankins wants to play on a 1 year 3-4 mil contract, which is still too much money to spend on that position now. We have paid Vernon, Harrison, and JPP huge contracts, they would be fools to put any more money into it.
Don't see how this is not obvious.
We think that the defense will play just as well without him, but we won't know until we try it.
If halfway through the season we are 12th in the league in average yards per carry, everyone will say that we should have kept Hankins.
Jerry can't give him a one year "prove-it" because if Hankins proves it he'll go back out into free agency and sign with another team. We already went through that with Martellus Bennett.
A three year contract, for a reasonable six to eight million, would let Hankins "prove it" for three years and when the contract is up he'll still be young enough to get another big payday.
Don't disagree that you usually don't put all your money into one position, but if the best player available, the playmaker, the impact player, one of those guys I've heard some players referring to as "Dukes," is there for you, you take that kind of player wherever he plays. LT is the clearest example of this.
Hankins hasn't shown that he's one of those players yet.
He's only made it to 16 games his rookie season and had to play through some injuries then, IIRC.
Exactly, PFF killed the Giants for getting Bromley to become a 1DT by adding bulk. I always felt that PFF likes Bromley better than Hankins. And then the Giants turn around and ask Hankins to become a 3-DT when they acquire Snacks. Makes no sense.
At this point they shouldn't be comfortable committing to him. He has been ok, but not great, and he has had some injuries.
They shouldn't ink him long term just to save $2 million on the cap this year.
That's how you get in cap hell.
You have to ask yourself what happened between those two seasons and you might find your answer.
The other move to make is re-signing Robinson.
OG's that miss games with concussion syndrome are replaceable.