Players will be replacing him, Thomas and Bromley will form a rotation, and they will add a DT besides, you can bank on that, so people crying now may see the upside later this season. Hankins was not sacking the QB the last two seasons. Adding another DE and DT that could help out the pass rush would be a real good way of spending that money, or they could add a Tuck clone, and he may be available when we pick.
RE: RE: RE: RE: I guarantee you Terps would be bitching had we re-signed Hank Â
What I don't get is why are the Giants choosing NOW to be fiscally conservative?
I advocated for that BEFORE we decided to make JPP and OV among the highest paid DEs in the NFL. But now that that option is history, now that we have been willing to overpay (a word used by everyone, not just me) on the defensive line, why are we picking now to be conservative?
The whole approach seems like a half measure.
They set a price for the player based most likely on market and value to the team, then refused to exceed that. That's normally the kind of thing you love. Based on what he eventually got, it's not like they disrespected him with their offer. They might be "overpaying" those other 3 guys, but JPP, Snacks, and Vernon have all been 1st or 2nd team All-Pros in their career.
If the Giants were being "fiscally conservative", it's because Hank is nice player, but not someone who would make overpaying an even remotely palatable decision. That's not a half measure... it's smart finances in a cap restricted league, which is once again, normally the kind of thing you love.
I understand - he's on the team. But Robert Thomas was the first DT off the bench and filled in for Hankins in the starting line-up last year. let's pay attention, i'm assuming people follow the line-ups???
Robert Thomas - at $540K - looked pretty decent last year too
Its just like you've been saying all along too!
Guys, liten area junc, he really knows his shit. Hankins signing with Indy was eminence, Robert Thomas' value was imminent and our improvement on D was ambulance.
I was actually hoping we would be frugal and not offer a lot of money for Hankins services. I was never a big fan of Hank. He has always kept a sloppy weight and took way more plays off then many put on. It is obvious he does not value a shot at playing for a championship, I mean the Colts? Just for a couple mil more minus a year? I have no problem with a player wanting to get paid but the difference between what the Giants offered him and what he got is not enough to pass on returning to a top flight organization with the chance to be something special on defense. This is nothing like when we lost Linval. He got life changing money from Min and we weren't half the team we are now talent or cap wise. That loss really hurt. Hank can't sniff Linval's jock on the field. I think the Giants were/are very prepared to cover this loss and I have faith we will find someone to match his slightly above mediocre play.
I understand - he's on the team. But Robert Thomas was the first DT off the bench and filled in for Hankins in the starting line-up last year. let's pay attention, i'm assuming people follow the line-ups???
Robert Thomas - at $540K - looked pretty decent last year too
Well, according to these folks, Bromley played 247 defensive snaps in 2016 (22.25%), while Thomas played 68 (6.13%). Special teams snaps were 17 and 5, respectively.
So, maybe Thomas was the first guy off the bench - I don't know - but clearly Bromley got more playing time.
he was looking for great player money poe/snacks/jj watt type pay day was never worth that,would have liked him back to free up draft pick for a DE in the middle of this draft but get a DE/DT tweener type might even work out better interior rush as this wasnt hankins strength
as for the backbone argument the backbone of the defence was thru the middle snacks-kennard-collins this forced teams to go out wide rather than up the gut of the defence where they then came up against drc and jenkins which limited the big plays they had been giving up in previous years
snacks was the strength of the run defence not hankins,he is far easier to replace than snacks would be,would like to know how the money colts paid stacks up against the giants offer?
The same website has Hankins and Harrison each starting all 16 games. Bromley appeared in 15 with no starts, and Thomas appeared in 8, with no starts. Now, maybe they're wrong, but if they are, in which game (or games) did Thomas replace Hankins in the starting lineup?
I like the idea of signing Odrick and then drafting a DT in the later rounds for development, if we can somehow find a way of developing him with the coaches we have...
A good NT. The Giants signed an All Pro NT and it kicked Hankins to a spot not really suited for.
W JPP. Vernon And Snacks even an average 3 Tech tackle will be adequate. The held onto Thomas so they like him And Bromley needs to step it up or may be out of the NFL in a year or two.
Add a better LB via the draft or a DT and a another year of Spangs w only one loss in Hankins And this D should be as good or better bab last year barring injuries of course
Jared Odrick has been an excellent NFL player, until he was injured.Odrick led the Jaguars in sacks in 2015,and he has 23 career sacks.
What? The guy was injured early in his rookie season. He's never even approached anything near "excellent" and now he's also coming off shoulder surgery. I think signing him would be nearly pointless, roll with the available guys and draft someone. Odrick is not an answer in any way, shape, or form.
Prior to 2016 Odrick had started in 80+ consecutive games(5+ seasons) and averaged 5+ sacks from the DT position in four of those.
So contrary to your opinion he was both durable and productive. He isn't a 'star' player but that's what Snacks is for. To make other guys better.
Now no one, at least not me, is saying pay the man 'whatever it takes' to sign him or any craziness. But if the contract is palatable he'd be a solid add to this defense.
but hardly a "huge loss". I hate to say it but Hankins has been severely overrated by Giants fans for a couple years now, very badly actually. Remember the posters calling for the Giants to open up their wallets for this jackass and let JPP walk?
At the right price I'd have kept him, but Hankins is very replacable.
There is always one stupid team that hurts us by Â
The same website has Hankins and Harrison each starting all 16 games. Bromley appeared in 15 with no starts, and Thomas appeared in 8, with no starts. Now, maybe they're wrong, but if they are, in which game (or games) did Thomas replace Hankins in the starting lineup?
Wait. Junk was off again? Making shit up you say? I don't buy it.
The same website has Hankins and Harrison each starting all 16 games. Bromley appeared in 15 with no starts, and Thomas appeared in 8, with no starts. Now, maybe they're wrong, but if they are, in which game (or games) did Thomas replace Hankins in the starting lineup?
Wait. Junk was off again? Making shit up you say? I don't buy it.
@Patricia_Traina 10m10 minutes ago
More
A name to keep an eye on in the draft: Chris Wormley.
That's been the MO with JR, when they lose one,
draft one in 2nd....I am glad the mystery is over, I thought
Hank would get about 12 mill. GTD., if the Giants kept him.
I don't think I would have went as high as Indy did on AAV.
Gives him enough money over the next three years to be set for life and another chance to cash in since its relatively short term and he is still young. Good for him but we will be fine, maybe better off if his replacement is a pass rushing DT.
He out with an unannounced illness the first half of the year.
When he returned, he leap-frogged Bromley when both were healthy.
These aren't really debatable or controversial statements. All you have to do is pay attention.
No, all you have to do is know how to do simple math.
In the final eight games of the season, Bromley averaged 15.7 defensive snaps per game. Thomas averaged 8.5.
As for Thomas being the first DT off the bench, maybe he was, but considering your track record, forgive me for doubting you (Ha! Doubting Thomas!) Once again, your penchant for making claims that are impossible to prove or disprove (without going back and watching the eight games in which both played) rears its ugly head.
Regardless, Thomas clearly spent more time on the bench than Bromley did, and the stats also show that when Bromley was in he was much more productive than Thomas.
We have to be careful with that stat if Bromley played more games because Thomas was injured and then both players annual play totals were divided by 16.
Imho, i hope we get a DT that helps us stop the run game of Dallas ( we often have to get by them at least one time in the regular season) and then getting more pass rush out of a drafted LB or Safety or CB or third DE
We have to be careful with that stat if Bromley played more games because Thomas was injured and then both players annual play totals were divided by 16.
Imho, i hope we get a DT that helps us stop the run game of Dallas ( we often have to get by them at least one time in the regular season) and then getting more pass rush out of a drafted LB or Safety or CB or third DE
Bill, Thomas missed the first five games with his illness, but he was a healthy scratch in three of the next eleven games - LA, CHI, DET. Bromley did not get in the Cleveland game. Regardless, there's no evidence - at least none that junc provided - that Thomas was the first DT off the bench, which was his first claim - or that Thomas started in place of Hankins, his second, even more dubious claim.
That said, I agree with the 'he's a good not great DT' comment and was almost already bulked up to a NT(which I thought actually hurt his rush ability).
Does this take Njoku out as a likely #23 if he was available, or might there be one at #55 that is decent to swing with Odrick? Bromley, and Thomas?
per game and per carry are being given up, and then this really bright guy named Hindsight will tell us whether Reese made the right call or not.
I have this feeling that when we get a close look at his contract we'll find that if you take away the incentives and conditions that he has to meet, there won't be much difference between the two contract offers.
RE: Halfway through next season we'll look at the average yards Â
Prior to 2016 Odrick had started in 80+ consecutive games(5+ seasons) and averaged 5+ sacks from the DT position in four of those.
So contrary to your opinion he was both durable and productive. He isn't a 'star' player but that's what Snacks is for. To make other guys better.
Now no one, at least not me, is saying pay the man 'whatever it takes' to sign him or any craziness. But if the contract is palatable he'd be a solid add to this defense.
Not sure where your numbers are coming from, but he hadnt started 80 consecutive games prior to last year. He missed 5 starts in '13, 4 in '12,, and 9 in '11. Throughout 2011-2015 he averaged over just 4 sacks a year and half of those came in 2011 and 2012. He has 7.5 in his last 38 starts. He's also now coming off shoulder surgery. He's not awful but he's not Hankins, either. He's just a guy and IMO not really worth signing. I'd rather let the current depth and a rookie do the jobs than a soon to be 30 year old with an injury history who is looking for hisn3rd team in 4 years.
the gentlemen w the bright ideas that Hankins 3 sacks and overall play was mediocre you are off. Don't look at his sacks. He did a decent job collapsing the pocket and is really really good against the run. He is way above mediocre. That being said, we couldn't pay another d lineman big money. We almost had him at 7 mil a year. As far as Hankins decision.... That's tough. 7 mil vs 10 mil a year. I think slightly more guaranteed. NFL careers are short man. I can't blame him but I do think he will regret it.
Hankins couldn't sniff linval Joseph's jock? Linvall is awesome but hank was really good. Line am better but hank certainly in jock sniffing range. Lol. How about having some respect for a good giant who was a near all pro and not relegate him to jock sniffing, or in the one posters poor disrespectful choice of words, non jock sniffing talent. Good luck hank. You should have stayed here. Not easy to replacev
The Colts aren't in the business of throwing away money so I'm not going to claim he is a JAG (I said that before and got hammered). He is being paid like a "plus player" and that's probably what he is, although my guess is that he comes under the heading of "ascending player" (which is what the Giants referred to William Beatty as when they gave him the big contract). He is young and has talent so the potential is there. It's a different kind of potential than a rookie's potential (because the baseline is higher), but it's still very much about the expectation of continued improvement.
But that potential was something for the Colts to gamble on, not the Giants. Unlike the Colts, the Giants have a strong DL even without him and didn't need to gamble "veteran dollars" on potential. They can pursue the cheaper variety that comes from the draft pool.
I'm happy for Hankins and happy for the Giants because I think the cap room that would've been devoted to him is best served in other places. The downside is that it means using a draft pick to replace him, probably somewhere between rounds 2 through 4, and with only a few names in the mix (Adams, J.Johnson, Kpassagnon, Tomlinson) they may come out of it empty handed.
As for a free agent replacement, I think they should go the veteran minimum route. Some 30+ year old whose better days are behind him but still has enough left in the tank to take advantage of his years of experience and be an asset, not a liability. Like Leon Hall last year.
RE: RE: RE: Well, there goes another DT that the Giants didn't sign to a second Â
contract?! All of the guys that we didn't re-sign were all pretty darn good, as well (Joseph, Coefield, and now Hankins). At least Reese has been damn good at picking DTs, 2nd round and later. Let's just hope that continues as we need another starter now alongside Snacks. I don't have confidence in Bromley starting?! For depth he's fine IMO.
You can add Cornelius Griffin to the list.
Look I am not a huge Reese fan, but not resigning Hankins for 10M @ season is smart on his part
I agree with you. I don't see it as a criticism of Jerry so much as pointing out a pattern. As a GM you have to know when a deal has the potential to create unfavorable cap situations in the future, and certainly don't want to overpay on a position that you've proven repeatedly can be replaced with equal talent. Its kinda of like what the Pats do, only the Pats do it on a much bigger scale.
the Giants didn't see Hankins as much of a core player to bring back after his rookie deal. They placed a value on him, made him and offer and basically said take it or leave it for something better. It's the same situation that they did with Cofield and Lindval Joseph. Like it or not, Bromley was always drafted with the eye towards being in position to replace Hankins if he didn't come back. Factor in that Snacks is one of the most dominant DTs in the NFL, Hankins value further slipped for the Giants and also made teams question Hankins' true impact with the players around him.
I wanted him to come back, but the Giants overall depth on the DL will cover for his loss. I'd imagine the Giants will sign a veteran stopgap guy and draft a DT while giving Bromley and Robert Thomas snaps.
I don't think this is as big a loss as Joseph. But it's a loss.
I agree. I just hope it's not a loss we end up regretting as much as Joseph. I remember the Giants gave BBI a lot of reasons to bitch about letting Joseph walk a year after Reese let him go.
You can't keep everyone and it's not like the giants just threw the guy away without trying. Hankins has been a good to very good player here late in his rookie season through 2016. Anyone saying he's mediocre is crazy. He's a true pro DT capable of greatness but likely is what he is at this point.
I think we would miss Robinson more even though hank got the bigger and longer payday.
Did anyone seriously think the Giants were going to pay their 4 starting defensive linemen 10-17 million dollars a year long term?
2017 cap hits
Vernon at 16
JPP at 7.2, (jumps to 17.5m in 2018)
Harrison at 10.6
It was always a 50/50 proposition at best that he'd be back, and his agent ended up getting what he wanted in the end. You can't keep all your players. It's exactly what the salary cap was meant to do.
the Giants got solid DT help by rotating in some ex-Eagle older DT veterans and that worked pretty well. After the draft they probably will sign at least 1 veteran run stuffer.
What I don't get is why are the Giants choosing NOW to be fiscally conservative?
I advocated for that BEFORE we decided to make JPP and OV among the highest paid DEs in the NFL. But now that that option is history, now that we have been willing to overpay (a word used by everyone, not just me) on the defensive line, why are we picking now to be conservative?
The whole approach seems like a half measure.
They set a price for the player based most likely on market and value to the team, then refused to exceed that. That's normally the kind of thing you love. Based on what he eventually got, it's not like they disrespected him with their offer. They might be "overpaying" those other 3 guys, but JPP, Snacks, and Vernon have all been 1st or 2nd team All-Pros in their career.
If the Giants were being "fiscally conservative", it's because Hank is nice player, but not someone who would make overpaying an even remotely palatable decision. That's not a half measure... it's smart finances in a cap restricted league, which is once again, normally the kind of thing you love.
Robert Thomas - at $540K - looked pretty decent last year too
Its just like you've been saying all along too!
Guys, liten area junc, he really knows his shit. Hankins signing with Indy was eminence, Robert Thomas' value was imminent and our improvement on D was ambulance.
Robert Thomas - at $540K - looked pretty decent last year too
Well, according to these folks, Bromley played 247 defensive snaps in 2016 (22.25%), while Thomas played 68 (6.13%). Special teams snaps were 17 and 5, respectively.
So, maybe Thomas was the first guy off the bench - I don't know - but clearly Bromley got more playing time.
as for the backbone argument the backbone of the defence was thru the middle snacks-kennard-collins this forced teams to go out wide rather than up the gut of the defence where they then came up against drc and jenkins which limited the big plays they had been giving up in previous years
snacks was the strength of the run defence not hankins,he is far easier to replace than snacks would be,would like to know how the money colts paid stacks up against the giants offer?
I like the idea of signing Odrick and then drafting a DT in the later rounds for development, if we can somehow find a way of developing him with the coaches we have...
W JPP. Vernon And Snacks even an average 3 Tech tackle will be adequate. The held onto Thomas so they like him And Bromley needs to step it up or may be out of the NFL in a year or two.
Add a better LB via the draft or a DT and a another year of Spangs w only one loss in Hankins And this D should be as good or better bab last year barring injuries of course
What? The guy was injured early in his rookie season. He's never even approached anything near "excellent" and now he's also coming off shoulder surgery. I think signing him would be nearly pointless, roll with the available guys and draft someone. Odrick is not an answer in any way, shape, or form.
So contrary to your opinion he was both durable and productive. He isn't a 'star' player but that's what Snacks is for. To make other guys better.
Now no one, at least not me, is saying pay the man 'whatever it takes' to sign him or any craziness. But if the contract is palatable he'd be a solid add to this defense.
At the right price I'd have kept him, but Hankins is very replacable.
Irsay is a fool, but far worse deals than this get handed out by teams every offseason.
Wait. Junk was off again? Making shit up you say? I don't buy it.
Quote:
The same website has Hankins and Harrison each starting all 16 games. Bromley appeared in 15 with no starts, and Thomas appeared in 8, with no starts. Now, maybe they're wrong, but if they are, in which game (or games) did Thomas replace Hankins in the starting lineup?
Wait. Junk was off again? Making shit up you say? I don't buy it.
As incredible as it sounds, B, I think he was.
lol
More
A name to keep an eye on in the draft: Chris Wormley.
That's been the MO with JR, when they lose one,
draft one in 2nd....I am glad the mystery is over, I thought
Hank would get about 12 mill. GTD., if the Giants kept him.
I don't think I would have went as high as Indy did on AAV.
I would sign one on the cheap now, and draft one.
2. Caleb Brantley, Florida
3. Malik McDowell, Michigan State
4. Larry Ogunjobi, Charlotte
5. Chris Wormley, Michigan
He out with an unannounced illness the first half of the year.
When he returned, he leap-frogged Bromley when both were healthy.
These aren't really debatable or controversial statements. All you have to do is pay attention.
He out with an unannounced illness the first half of the year.
When he returned, he leap-frogged Bromley when both were healthy.
These aren't really debatable or controversial statements. All you have to do is pay attention.
You should really have statistics to back up your argument. Your credibility is rather low around here
He out with an unannounced illness the first half of the year.
When he returned, he leap-frogged Bromley when both were healthy.
These aren't really debatable or controversial statements. All you have to do is pay attention.
No, all you have to do is know how to do simple math.
In the final eight games of the season, Bromley averaged 15.7 defensive snaps per game. Thomas averaged 8.5.
As for Thomas being the first DT off the bench, maybe he was, but considering your track record, forgive me for doubting you (Ha! Doubting Thomas!) Once again, your penchant for making claims that are impossible to prove or disprove (without going back and watching the eight games in which both played) rears its ugly head.
Regardless, Thomas clearly spent more time on the bench than Bromley did, and the stats also show that when Bromley was in he was much more productive than Thomas.
The numbers don't lie. As for you, well...
Imho, i hope we get a DT that helps us stop the run game of Dallas ( we often have to get by them at least one time in the regular season) and then getting more pass rush out of a drafted LB or Safety or CB or third DE
So if Thomas got more snaps than him late in teh season - it is pure bullshit.
By the way, anyone else find the irony in Thomas making up shit about Thomas?
Not only are they debatable or controversial, they are false.
He out with an unannounced illness the first half of the year.
When he returned, he leap-frogged Bromley when both were healthy.
These aren't really debatable or controversial statements. All you have to do is pay attention.
You are eternally full of shit.
Imho, i hope we get a DT that helps us stop the run game of Dallas ( we often have to get by them at least one time in the regular season) and then getting more pass rush out of a drafted LB or Safety or CB or third DE
Bill, Thomas missed the first five games with his illness, but he was a healthy scratch in three of the next eleven games - LA, CHI, DET. Bromley did not get in the Cleveland game. Regardless, there's no evidence - at least none that junc provided - that Thomas was the first DT off the bench, which was his first claim - or that Thomas started in place of Hankins, his second, even more dubious claim.
Does this take Njoku out as a likely #23 if he was available, or might there be one at #55 that is decent to swing with Odrick? Bromley, and Thomas?
I have this feeling that when we get a close look at his contract we'll find that if you take away the incentives and conditions that he has to meet, there won't be much difference between the two contract offers.
Exactly... I think some people forget how bad we were against the run not too long ago. If we cannot stop the run, we are dead.... period
I hope Bromley can be a great NASCAR​ 4th.....we get a great edge rusher and JPP moves inside.....
Does Snacks stay on the field on 3rd?
So contrary to your opinion he was both durable and productive. He isn't a 'star' player but that's what Snacks is for. To make other guys better.
Now no one, at least not me, is saying pay the man 'whatever it takes' to sign him or any craziness. But if the contract is palatable he'd be a solid add to this defense.
Not sure where your numbers are coming from, but he hadnt started 80 consecutive games prior to last year. He missed 5 starts in '13, 4 in '12,, and 9 in '11. Throughout 2011-2015 he averaged over just 4 sacks a year and half of those came in 2011 and 2012. He has 7.5 in his last 38 starts. He's also now coming off shoulder surgery. He's not awful but he's not Hankins, either. He's just a guy and IMO not really worth signing. I'd rather let the current depth and a rookie do the jobs than a soon to be 30 year old with an injury history who is looking for hisn3rd team in 4 years.
Hankins couldn't sniff linval Joseph's jock? Linvall is awesome but hank was really good. Line am better but hank certainly in jock sniffing range. Lol. How about having some respect for a good giant who was a near all pro and not relegate him to jock sniffing, or in the one posters poor disrespectful choice of words, non jock sniffing talent. Good luck hank. You should have stayed here. Not easy to replacev
But that potential was something for the Colts to gamble on, not the Giants. Unlike the Colts, the Giants have a strong DL even without him and didn't need to gamble "veteran dollars" on potential. They can pursue the cheaper variety that comes from the draft pool.
I'm happy for Hankins and happy for the Giants because I think the cap room that would've been devoted to him is best served in other places. The downside is that it means using a draft pick to replace him, probably somewhere between rounds 2 through 4, and with only a few names in the mix (Adams, J.Johnson, Kpassagnon, Tomlinson) they may come out of it empty handed.
As for a free agent replacement, I think they should go the veteran minimum route. Some 30+ year old whose better days are behind him but still has enough left in the tank to take advantage of his years of experience and be an asset, not a liability. Like Leon Hall last year.
Quote:
In comment 13427171 Simms11 said:
Quote:
contract?! All of the guys that we didn't re-sign were all pretty darn good, as well (Joseph, Coefield, and now Hankins). At least Reese has been damn good at picking DTs, 2nd round and later. Let's just hope that continues as we need another starter now alongside Snacks. I don't have confidence in Bromley starting?! For depth he's fine IMO.
You can add Cornelius Griffin to the list.
Look I am not a huge Reese fan, but not resigning Hankins for 10M @ season is smart on his part
Quote:
the Giants didn't see Hankins as much of a core player to bring back after his rookie deal. They placed a value on him, made him and offer and basically said take it or leave it for something better. It's the same situation that they did with Cofield and Lindval Joseph. Like it or not, Bromley was always drafted with the eye towards being in position to replace Hankins if he didn't come back. Factor in that Snacks is one of the most dominant DTs in the NFL, Hankins value further slipped for the Giants and also made teams question Hankins' true impact with the players around him.
I wanted him to come back, but the Giants overall depth on the DL will cover for his loss. I'd imagine the Giants will sign a veteran stopgap guy and draft a DT while giving Bromley and Robert Thomas snaps.
I don't think this is as big a loss as Joseph. But it's a loss.
I agree. I just hope it's not a loss we end up regretting as much as Joseph. I remember the Giants gave BBI a lot of reasons to bitch about letting Joseph walk a year after Reese let him go.
I think we would miss Robinson more even though hank got the bigger and longer payday.
Need a vet DT.
2017 cap hits
Vernon at 16
JPP at 7.2, (jumps to 17.5m in 2018)
Harrison at 10.6
It was always a 50/50 proposition at best that he'd be back, and his agent ended up getting what he wanted in the end. You can't keep all your players. It's exactly what the salary cap was meant to do.