Dudes... Hankins has been told by many to fire his agent...
Slade : 1:06 pm : link : reply
Indy laughed at him. For some reason he is still holding on to the bum.
Looks like they held their ground and got better offer than what the Giants had out there. Same guaranteed money, higher AAV, and a chance to be an FA again sooner (he'll only be 27 after this deal ends).
Would've loved to keep him here but seems like he wasn't willing to give even a single dollar of a hometown discount for us.
and I am glad we didn't pay him $6+ million per year. We are better off even though most on here will think I am crazy.
I'm glad he got his money but would've been ok with paying him 6 per.
Don't understand the animosity some are showing towards him though.
I have no animosity toward him. I just don't think he is a great player. He had one good year and that was like 3 years ago on a horrendous team. We can put that money to better use imo.
Glad we can all move on now. Honestly am not grinding teeth about losing him. But a FA and/or early draft pick at DT is now a priority. The good thing is, this draft is very deep at DT. The Giants should have their pick at several good options in both the 1st and 2nd round, at least.
to have lost more FAs than we have signed. So, who have we lost and who have we signed. I don't think we are eligible for a comp pick yet are we? We lost Hankins but signed Ellison who else have we lost? Newhouse? Maybe we are eligible.
for him, and despite all the criticism towards them, his agents did a great job. That's a lot more than I thought he'd get.
We'll draft a run stuffing DT on day three at the least. DeAngelo Brown from Louisville would be a nice pick. No need to panic, especially since Thomas looked good in his limited snaps.
The Arthur Jones experiment didn't work out well in Indy, and David Parry is in trouble with the law. They recently signed journeyman Al Woods, but Hankins is much better than Woods or the other mediocre DTs on their roster.
was projecting a 10 mil a season contract for Hankins would land the Giants a 4th round comp pick. If we turn around and sign Odrick since he was cut, he would not count against the compensatory formula so the likelihood of getting a 4th would stay high. Link - ( New Window )
for him, and despite all the criticism towards them, his agents did a great job. That's a lot more than I thought he'd get.
We'll draft a run stuffing DT on day three at the least. DeAngelo Brown from Louisville would be a nice pick. No need to panic, especially since Thomas looked good in his limited snaps.
That is because he got Irsay drunk before they started throwing numbers around and the Postons did the old Bugs Bunny routine where he tricks Elmer Fudd.
was projecting a 10 mil a season contract for Hankins would land the Giants a 4th round comp pick. If we turn around and sign Odrick since he was cut, he would not count against the compensatory formula so the likelihood of getting a 4th would stay high. Link - ( New Window )
for him, and despite all the criticism towards them, his agents did a great job. That's a lot more than I thought he'd get.
We'll draft a run stuffing DT on day three at the least. DeAngelo Brown from Louisville would be a nice pick. No need to panic, especially since Thomas looked good in his limited snaps.
That is because he got Irsay drunk before they started throwing numbers around and the Postons did the old Bugs Bunny routine where he tricks Elmer Fudd.
and I am glad we didn't pay him $6+ million per year. We are better off even though most on here will think I am crazy.
I'm glad he got his money but would've been ok with paying him 6 per.
Don't understand the animosity some are showing towards him though.
I have no animosity toward him. I just don't think he is a great player. He had one good year and that was like 3 years ago on a horrendous team. We can put that money to better use imo.
I actually wasn't referring to you but the first post on this thread and similar ones to that.
Why? He got a market rate deal. It some killing. The 10 million per year is meaningless. He's a young guy. If he plays really well they will rip it up and redo it in two years. If not he's cut and most likely won't ever average 10'million per.
If I'd agent was so great he'd have gotten a deal like the one the Ravens gave their NT. 14.5 guaranteed is nothing compared to that deal.
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.
that some here feel stark acrimony toward a guy who was simply seeking max value for his talents. Prime age, he could as we know get irreparably injured in any game...this could very well be the only big contract he gets.
Good player and a reliable starter (i.e. no "nagging" injuries, only the 1 legit one he fully recovered from).
I loved when NY drafted him and am disappointed he's gone, but such is the reality of a cap league (which I support).
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.
If Snacks got hurt we could always move Hank over and still be pretty stout against the run. We'll probably have to use a roster spot on someone who is strictly an NT backup.
If Snacks got hurt we could always move Hank over and still be pretty stout against the run. We'll probably have to use a roster spot on someone who is strictly an NT backup.
On paper next year's defense is worse than 2016, but more expensive.
Did our defense get worse in 2008 when we lost Strahan?
Not sure what one has to do with the other, but I'd say that it did given how worn down it was at the end of the season.
But again, a strange comparison that has no bearing on today.
My point is that it is way too early to say that it is worse. Having another year in the system accounts for a lot. Collins can improve. Vernon can play better. Maybe we get more production out of our 3 tech. Maybe Apple gets better. Hankins has a value to you that the Giants disagree with. That doesn't mean they are wrong nor does it mean we are worse on paper.
If Snacks got hurt we could always move Hank over and still be pretty stout against the run. We'll probably have to use a roster spot on someone who is strictly an NT backup.
If Snacks gets hurt the run D would take a serious nose dive. No one is on the roster that can do what Snacks does. Hanks wasn't that guy.
I hope we target Eddie Vanderdoes. I also wouldn't mind Jaleel Johnson or Montravius Adams but I don't think those guys can step in and start right away.
I agree with Pollaro and Robbie. I think we should look at Jared Odrick and Sen'Derrick Marks.
On paper next year's defense is worse than 2016, but more expensive.
So you would've preferred they pay Hank what Indy is paying him?
Given that they've already gone crazy spending on the DL, I would either have paid Hankins or signed a suitable replacement earlier on in the FA period. Whomever the replacement now is at that position - Bromley, Thomas, and/or a rookie - it would take a significant rationalization to say we are better off in that spot.
Now I'm not in favor of overpaying any player, but the front office has gone all in and then some on the defensive line. Once they spent a billion dollars on Snacks/JPP/Vernon to me it doesn't make sense to now make one of the four DL positions a question mark.
Does Hankins walking make life easier for any of JPP/Vernon/Snacks? I don't think so.
On paper next year's defense is worse than 2016, but more expensive.
Did our defense get worse in 2008 when we lost Strahan?
It's pretty obvious that the Giants prioritized JPP, OV, and Snacks, but then again, you are one miserable piece of work that will never let it go that the Giants didn't go about their offseason in a manner that suits you.
Why do people care if we only have 1 guy left from a draft class
at 3-tech once Snacks took the 1-tech spot and made it his own. Indy could be a better scheme fit allowing him to play more to his strengths. I'm still disappointed to see him go. But the Giants placed a value on what he provides and held firm, I'd say that's pretty good business. Just because it's not the path you prefer to take doesn't mean it's not sound logic on the part of our front office.
No? USA Today gave the DT draft class a B+, and CBS/DraftScout has about a dozen with projections from rounds one to three. Sounds pretty good to me.
The only sure round 1 pick is Allen. And he may end up being a 3-4 end. Same with McDowell.
That's a far cry from saying it's not a good draft class for DTs. What are you expecting, a half-dozen or more with 1st round grades?
More than 1. Who played 3-4 end in college.
But there haven't been may good DT classes in recent years.
And yet, there's USA Today with their B+ grade, which is good. Not excellent, not outstanding, not stellar. Good. Which is all we need to find a suitable replacement for Hankins.
It's no secret I haven't agreed with some of their moves...specifically the OV and JPP contracts. But for better or worse those moves are made...OV, JPP, and Snacks are critical players to this team. Cornerstone players. I think we've got to do everything we can to get the most we can out of them.
To me the approach with Hankins, in light of how "all in" we were on the defensive line, represents a half measure.
I didn't agree with the initial approach, that's true. But once that choice is made, do it. Don't half ass it.
four words for people who are saying good riddance:
barry cofield linval joseph
these were also high draft pick nose tackles who performed well for us and when we lost them they continued to play at our high level while we lamented our porous run defense and BBIers whined.
hankins may not have been a productive pass rusher last year, but he is stout against the run.
reese has made a big bet on JPP and against Hankins. We will see if that was the right call.
I don't get the anger directed at the guy, and the position definitely took a hit. Anyone who thinks Hankins can be replaced by Odrick or Marks is kidding themselves, they're the epitome of JAGs. Maybe they'll hit on someone in the draft but odds are the DL definitely took a step back, at least on 1st and 2nd down.
I guarantee you Terps would be bitching had we re-signed Hank
unless we're talking about #23 and then I agree he's at least in the discussion.
He'll go before Brantley and McDowell, in that order.
Not sure. Brantley interviewed poorly at the combine, and McDowell is considered inconsistent. Wormley has the size the Giants crave, and his character is beyond question. Team captain. Did tear an ACL, but that was in 2012.
The problem is do we really want to take Wormley at #23? I don't. But he'll likely be gone by #55. If he is, then the Giants should consider DeMarcus Walker. Same type of player, although not quite as good. But 25 sacks and 35 TFL the last two seasons. 4-3 DE on run downs, who can "stack and shed," but can't "run the arc," or "bend the edge" very well. But a very good 3T DT on passing downs. Very good swim move. Batted 8-10 passes IIRC.
Not so sure. At least with respect to McDowell.
RE: I guarantee you Terps would be bitching had we re-signed Hank
I don't get the anger directed at the guy, and the position definitely took a hit. Anyone who thinks Hankins can be replaced by Odrick or Marks is kidding themselves, they're the epitome of JAGs. Maybe they'll hit on someone in the draft but odds are the DL definitely took a step back, at least on 1st and 2nd down.
Of course. Odrick and Marks have sucked for the last couple of years, but there's no one else available and this is a very weak DT class. It's worth kicking the tires on one or the other.
I like the idea of a slimmed down, healthy Eddie Vanderdoes though. I think that he could POTENTIALLY start year one. MAYBE. Wormley too. Jaleel Johnson and Montravius I see as guys who could be starters down the line but would be better served as rotational guys early on.
unless we're talking about #23 and then I agree he's at least in the discussion.
He'll go before Brantley and McDowell, in that order.
Not sure. Brantley interviewed poorly at the combine, and McDowell is considered inconsistent. Wormley has the size the Giants crave, and his character is beyond question. Team captain. Did tear an ACL, but that was in 2012.
The problem is do we really want to take Wormley at #23? I don't. But he'll likely be gone by #55. If he is, then the Giants should consider DeMarcus Walker. Same type of player, although not quite as good. But 25 sacks and 35 TFL the last two seasons. 4-3 DE on run downs, who can "stack and shed," but can't "run the arc," or "bend the edge" very well. But a very good 3T DT on passing downs. Very good swim move. Batted 8-10 passes IIRC.
Not so sure. At least with respect to McDowell.
Not sure. Brantley interviewed poorly at the combine, and McDowell is considered inconsistent. Wormley has the size the Giants crave, and his character is beyond question. Team captain. Did tear an ACL, but that was in 2012.
The problem is do we really want to take Wormley at #23? I don't. But he'll likely be gone by #55. If he is, then the Giants should consider DeMarcus Walker. Same type of player, although not quite as good. But 25 sacks and 35 TFL the last two seasons. 4-3 DE on run downs, who can "stack and shed," but can't "run the arc," or "bend the edge" very well. But a very good 3T DT on passing downs. Very good swim move. Batted 8-10 passes IIRC.
many people here really started to put Hankins down as not that good of a player and not worth it.
He's been a very good Giant - then he held out as long as he could to get the best FA contract possible. Turns out it wasn't with us.
Kinda bummed, but I trust our ability to fill the position. But I also don't understand the animosity to Hankins for doing what he did. Leaving was always a strong possibility.
Chock full of nuts is that favorite coffee, better
On paper next year's defense is worse than 2016, but more expensive.
So you would've preferred they pay Hank what Indy is paying him?
Given that they've already gone crazy spending on the DL, I would either have paid Hankins or signed a suitable replacement earlier on in the FA period. Whomever the replacement now is at that position - Bromley, Thomas, and/or a rookie - it would take a significant rationalization to say we are better off in that spot.
Now I'm not in favor of overpaying any player, but the front office has gone all in and then some on the defensive line. Once they spent a billion dollars on Snacks/JPP/Vernon to me it doesn't make sense to now make one of the four DL positions a question mark.
Does Hankins walking make life easier for any of JPP/Vernon/Snacks? I don't think so.
But, as you know, you can't pay everyone and Hank was the player who the team believed was the 'weak link' out of the starting four and thus he was going to receive the least amount of money. They tried to 'keep the band together' by offering Hank a decent contract (if you believe the reports) and it seems like it was a respectable effort. It's not like they were low-balling the guy.
It's no secret I haven't agreed with some of their moves...specifically the OV and JPP contracts. But for better or worse those moves are made...OV, JPP, and Snacks are critical players to this team. Cornerstone players. I think we've got to do everything we can to get the most we can out of them.
To me the approach with Hankins, in light of how "all in" we were on the defensive line, represents a half measure.
I didn't agree with the initial approach, that's true. But once that choice is made, do it. Don't half ass it.
You don't think he's replaceable, though? Hankins isn't a cornerstone player - he's more of a supplemental player. I don't think he played particularly well this past season, either.
I feel we can get similar production @ less cost from one of the remaining guys on the market or a draft pick.
If Hankins had gone to IND cheaper, I would probably have been more opposed. But cap dollars are finite and it's important to try and place certain values on certain players that work within the overall structure of the team and it appears that NYG simply didn't feel that JH was worth what IND was willing to pay him.
I'd like Hankins back on a team friendly deal, but he's not a necessity. JPP was a necessity and I'm glad that got done. We still have two of the best all around 4-3 ends and a massive space eater in snacks. I think Hankins role can be filled fairly easily.
Giants defense will be lightyears better this year. Last year the first half of the season was a feel out process. They progressed as teh season wore on and they were elite towards the end of the season. The Giants defense will be elite from game 1 this year.
at the % of cap allocation per position on the roster. According to the link below, the Giants have allocated over $40 million to the DL in 2017. It's by far the biggest amount of $$ for a group on the roster and is the 4th most in the NFL (behind Tampa, Jax, and Miami). Next year, it's much of the same. At some point, you have to draw a line. The money spent on JPP, Vernon, and Snacks was going to hurt Hankins. The Giants had a threshold. http://overthecap.com/positional-spending/ - ( New Window )
a 4 man rush with our current defensive line? Had to many resources tied up in a non-elite unit? Now we're getting cheap because we didn't match an offer that was larger than ours to one of the players that was one of the biggest liabilities in that area?
I wish Hank the best, but I'm glad the decision has been made one way or the other so they can move on. It's not like the Giants low-balled so there's nothing for me to be upset about.
I don't know the Colts well enough to say, but my guess is that yeah they probably did. In a vacuum I wouldn't pay Hankins this much.
But the Giants are a different story. They had that vacuum after 2015 when they had all that cap space and could have gone in any of several directions with it. What I'm saying is that once they chose to do what they chose to do I would have rather they just stuck to that course (i.e. spending on ALL of the defensive line including Hankins).
Now we have three very expensive defensive linemen who may be less productive because they're picking up the slack for a lesser player in Hankins's spot.
Sucks that he left but how much $$ do we tie up on the DL?
Every starter cannot be making double digit millions of dollars when we have better players on the team fast approaching new deals, namely Collins and Beckham. If you want to add in Pugh, who I fear we are going to grossly overpay, and Richburg you can. And don't forget, Eli's earning a pretty penny too. DT has been a disposable position for the NYG over the years. They'll find someone in the draft most likely. The fate of the 2017 NYG never was reliant on whether or not a serviceable Johnathan Hankins returned.
I don't think he's replaceable with what's out there right now, no.
I said many times I thought that he and Snacks were the backbone of the defense. Much of the success that the rest of the defense enjoyed started there, because running up the middle simply wasn't an option. I think the trickle down effect was enormous.
And hey maybe they draft a guy that works out and it's moot
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.
I kept hearing that there had not been a 28 million dollar offer on the table for Hankins for weeks. The Giants current offer was closer to 2 for 14-15. The word I heard was consistent on that for a while now.
I think that story plant with Ranaan was Giants throwing it out there after word came out that Hank was likely going to the Colts.
Giants did not value Hankins as a 10 mil a year player.
I don't know the Colts well enough to say, but my guess is that yeah they probably did. In a vacuum I wouldn't pay Hankins this much.
But the Giants are a different story. They had that vacuum after 2015 when they had all that cap space and could have gone in any of several directions with it. What I'm saying is that once they chose to do what they chose to do I would have rather they just stuck to that course (i.e. spending on ALL of the defensive line including Hankins).
Now we have three very expensive defensive linemen who may be less productive because they're picking up the slack for a lesser player in Hankins's spot.
All three of those guys have performed well even when the talent around them wasn't as superb as our current situation.. if anything OV is the only one thats lacking long term solid performance. Hankins on the other hand is average DT who by the way plays the same position as snacks.. it would be great to have someone like Hankins but not at 10M/year.. Lets get a 3-tech DT in this draft (which is very deep in spite of what some geniuses say on BBI) The 3 Tech will have some very good players he can learn from and he will complement these guys better in pass rushing situations..
They had that vacuum after 2015 when they had all that cap space and could have gone in any of several directions with it. What I'm saying is that once they chose to do what they chose to do I would have rather they just stuck to that course (i.e. spending on ALL of the defensive line including Hankins).
It appears to me that what you believe Hank's value to this team may be higher than what the Giants believe to be the case. As a few posters have been saying, Snacks was a good player but he wasn't in the top three of most impact players on the D-line. Therefore, just by the very nature of that statement, he wasn't going to get the type of high-end money that he was looking for... at least not from the team. I'm not going to go so far as to say it's going to be easy to replace him... because he is a good player... but out of the four of them, he was easily the most replaceable based on their play to date.
Paying top dollar for him means that we'd be unable to pay some of the upcoming FAs (including a few I know you're not all that interested in resigning anyway) and then what?
I still think the D will be just fine this season.
Hankins' is alittle bit of a loss, yes. But when you have Snacks and Vernon on the very same OLine; I'm not all that worried. Put it that way. Hopefully, Bromley can step in and have a decent season. Would certainly be nice if he could contribute something.
he's no doubt talented and no doubt inconsistent, does getting paid impact him in the positive or negative? Impossible to know right now, but most of the time inconsistent players don't ascend after landing the big contract. Based on our current situation I may have done this deal or something similar, but I can understand why they wouldn't want to give him more money per year than Snacks.
As far as replacing him, that's a tough question. Day 1 of FA there were certainly many other ways to spend $10M, not as much now. Odrick and Marks are somewhat interesting. Robert Thomas and Bromley have somwhat flashed at times. There's obviously the draft. Guess we just need to see who comes in because I doubt they do nothing.
"Paying top dollar for him means that we'd be unable to pay some of the upcoming FAs (including a few I know you're not all that interested in resigning anyway) and then what?"
That is already the case due to the substantially richer contracts given out elsewhere on the defensive line.
I can't blame him for chasing the $$. Hopefully his first 3 years of losing here are still fresh in his memory because that Colt team, especially on defense, is devoid of talent.
I liked Hankins a lot. Felt he was underrated after this past season but if we can bring in an odrick or vet FA for less money i can live with this I guess. Hankins is a very solid player make no mistake. We need a replacement.
Mcdowell-If he drops into the twenties we have a shot at a guy who can become an all pro on this dline. His game with proper coaching, development = Richard Seymour type disruption.
Id be happy with Wormley as a consolation prize, guy plays hard, gets consistent penetration and doesn't get rocked off the line of scrimmage. Either of these two bring the penetration and quickness lacking with Big Hank at the 3.
He had 22 pressures in 398 snaps last year. Not worth 7 mil a yr let alone 10 mil a yr. Good for him but Giants dodged a bullet by not having him on their cap space when they need it for much bigger and better players down the line.
RE: Well, there goes another DT that the Giants didn't sign to a second
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.
RE: RE: Well, there goes another DT that the Giants didn't sign to a second
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
RE: RE: I guarantee you Terps would be bitching had we re-signed Hank
I liked Hankins a lot. Felt he was underrated after this past season but if we can bring in an odrick or vet FA for less money i can live with this I guess. Hankins is a very solid player make no mistake. We need a replacement.
I like Go Terps, but his stance on this is odd to say the least. This is the same guy who whenever Belichick decides not to pay someone (or draws a line in the sand) acts like it's further proof of the greatest decision maker in sports history.
I don't think he's replaceable with what's out there right now, no.
I said many times I thought that he and Snacks were the backbone of the defense. Much of the success that the rest of the defense enjoyed started there, because running up the middle simply wasn't an option. I think the trickle down effect was enormous.
I think Snacks had a far greater impact than Hankins did so I would be hesitant to pair them as the backbone of the defense.
Harrison would have been a much more difficult player to replace.
I don't mean to diminish Hankins because I think a lot of fans do it as a coping mechanism when a player leaves - but I do think we can get similar (or close enough) production from a different player. There aren't any DT's on the market right now who are as good, but sometimes you have to play the value game in a capped league.
This just seemed to come down to the Giants not believing he was a 10M/per player. I can't fault them for placing a value on him and holding firm. A lot of times when a team plays this game, they wind up getting the player back at a discounted rate and it works out for the better.
it didn't happen that way in this instance, but I'm not sure I'd have felt all that comfortable paying this player what the Colts are.
...you were half right. Snacks was the key guy and as long as we acquire a competent running mate this defense will do more than succeed, it will excel.
Odrick is still available and would foot the bill nicely. There are also numerous players in this draft class that could contribute.
but it's the right call. He's not worth 10 mil a year.
Some want to bitch about the OV/JPP/Snacks contracts but the reality is they're impact players. Hankins is a nice complimentary guy certainly not worth 10 mil a year. But Indy had the money to spend so that's that.
Ramcyk in 1 and Wormley in 2 and we'll be on our way.
now his production will go down without Snacks or a top defense while playing for a bottom feeder. The Giants can replace him via draft and/or FA. Get someone in here who's hungry. This is a good non-move by the Giants.
not sure how anybody can complain about Reese not resigning Hankins for that kind of contract. We'll draft another run stuffing DT, and he'll be gone after his rookie contract. That is certainly a constant.
I like Go Terps, but his stance on this is odd to say the least. This is the same guy who whenever Belichick decides not to pay someone (or draws a line in the sand) acts like it's further proof of the greatest decision maker in sports history.
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?
But now we have to waste another draft pick to fill a void instead of addressing an existing one. I'm not a fan of drafting DTs. There is a high bust factor at DT and many aren't ready to start. We weren't going to pay him $10 million a year but let's not pretend this is inconsequential. The run defense probably will take a step back making it even more important to get the offense scoring more than 20 points a game.
not even a top 6 guy on our entire defense when you factor in Landon Collins, JR, and DRC. They're not all of a sudden changing course and getting cheap, they needed to get cornerstone pieces in place last year to establish a foundation.
Hank was a good Giant, his best season was 3 years ago, he's very young but not a 3 technique DT and with huge contracts to JPP, OV and Snacks the Giants played this the right way. Now that he's gone I don't want to see is the Giants use one of their top picks replacing him. As others have said this is a deep DT draft and they should be able to get a good one like Carlos Watkins or Ryan Glasgow in the fourth round or later. Additionally they've got Bromley who profiles as more of a pass rushing DT than Hankins, is only 24 and already has 3 years of NFL experience. In other words replenish but do it the smart way.
that some here feel stark acrimony toward a guy who was simply seeking max value for his talents. Prime age, he could as we know get irreparably injured in any game...this could very well be the only big contract he gets.
Good player and a reliable starter (i.e. no "nagging" injuries, only the 1 legit one he fully recovered from).
I loved when NY drafted him and am disappointed he's gone, but such is the reality of a cap league (which I support).
Good luck in Indy. That team sucks.
These are my exact feelings. People so mad because he took time with the process and his agents suck that they're saying he had no value to the team. I think he'll be missed.
For every Cofield, Joseph and Hankins there are underperformers like Alford or Bromley. But it's not just the Giants it's league wide. DTs are hard to project.
cap the deal is more likely front loaded so if he does not make an impact in that 2nd yr he can be cut in yr 3 yr ... can see the 1st 2 yrs being most of the guaranteed money and the last a hedge bet in case he never blossoms pass a role player on the DL
Giants did what they had to do, can not sign Hankins for that money, its a good draft for DT's, and the Giants have a couple of players in Thomas and Bromley that should be ready to take the next step, I think they can fill the void Hankins leaves. If the Giants can add a good DT that can penetrate up the middle and add a dimension they did not have with Hankins, this could work out fine.
RE: RE: RE: RE: I guarantee you Terps would be bitching had we re-signed Hank
I like Go Terps, but his stance on this is odd to say the least. This is the same guy who whenever Belichick decides not to pay someone (or draws a line in the sand) acts like it's further proof of the greatest decision maker in sports history.
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.
Why does it have to be all or nothing? His impact is the least of the 4 lineman and "overpaying" for the other 3 that make game changing plays at a much higher rate seems more plausible than paying $10 million to a guy who they think they can adequately replace.
I wouldn't chalk that up to a half measure. I'd consider it making premium players a priority over an underwhelming player who's commanding way too much money.
Not as hard as it used to be though. I think we will be fine, the problem comes if you want to add a player in the latter rounds, that makes it tough, but the Giants were able to strike gold in the 2nd round with Hankins and Joseph, those were the last two DT's drafted that high, Bromley is a three, and that pick is not a good one so far, but he has an opportunity this season and may be ready now. Let's wait and see what happens.
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
Slade : 1:06 pm : link : reply
Indy laughed at him. For some reason he is still holding on to the bum.
Did he have any?
Half a mil more than the Giants offered on a 4 year deal.
I'd rather have Marks.
I'm glad he got his money but would've been ok with paying him 6 per.
Don't understand the animosity some are showing towards him though.
That's a lot of money for a run stuffing DT with little to no pass rush ability.
Would've loved to keep him here but seems like he wasn't willing to give even a single dollar of a hometown discount for us.
Quote:
and I am glad we didn't pay him $6+ million per year. We are better off even though most on here will think I am crazy.
I'm glad he got his money but would've been ok with paying him 6 per.
Don't understand the animosity some are showing towards him though.
I have no animosity toward him. I just don't think he is a great player. He had one good year and that was like 3 years ago on a horrendous team. We can put that money to better use imo.
All of the above?
Good call. We'll have a shot at a comp pick for once.
Glad it is settled and the Giants can move forward.
Why good riddance? He wasn't any sort of gaping liability or cancer.
Slade is right on the ball!!!
Link - ( New Window )
The #Colts agreed to terms with DT Jonathan Hankins on a 3-year deal worth up to $30M, source said. $10.5M the first year. $15.9M guaranteed
This is not a good draft for DT's
We'll draft a run stuffing DT on day three at the least. DeAngelo Brown from Louisville would be a nice pick. No need to panic, especially since Thomas looked good in his limited snaps.
No, it's not that great a DT draft. But wouldn't mind if Caleb Brantley were there at 55.
Link - ( New Window )
We'll draft a run stuffing DT on day three at the least. DeAngelo Brown from Louisville would be a nice pick. No need to panic, especially since Thomas looked good in his limited snaps.
That is because he got Irsay drunk before they started throwing numbers around and the Postons did the old Bugs Bunny routine where he tricks Elmer Fudd.
Marks was released too.
I hope this was a joke.
More
A name to keep an eye on in the draft: Chris Wormley.
Quote:
for him, and despite all the criticism towards them, his agents did a great job. That's a lot more than I thought he'd get.
We'll draft a run stuffing DT on day three at the least. DeAngelo Brown from Louisville would be a nice pick. No need to panic, especially since Thomas looked good in his limited snaps.
That is because he got Irsay drunk before they started throwing numbers around and the Postons did the old Bugs Bunny routine where he tricks Elmer Fudd.
Can't keep those Postons down.
That said - this was always Hank's highest value - a 34 team desperate for a NT.
Yeah, Wormley would be good too at 55.
He'll go before Brantley and McDowell, in that order.
Snacks had a good year....Having a good guy next to you (and Hankins was good) helps
Quote:
In comment 13426925 robbieballs2003 said:
Quote:
and I am glad we didn't pay him $6+ million per year. We are better off even though most on here will think I am crazy.
I'm glad he got his money but would've been ok with paying him 6 per.
Don't understand the animosity some are showing towards him though.
I have no animosity toward him. I just don't think he is a great player. He had one good year and that was like 3 years ago on a horrendous team. We can put that money to better use imo.
I actually wasn't referring to you but the first post on this thread and similar ones to that.
Shhhhhh, you dint want to offend him. Otherwise he might leave and there will be noboduy to lie to us.
Quote:
Of better quality DTs. Don't count out Thomas too.
This is not a good draft for DT's
No? USA Today gave the DT draft class a B+, and CBS/DraftScout has about a dozen with projections from rounds one to three. Sounds pretty good to me.
Me too. Wouldn't have minded him as a pick even if Hankins had resigned.
Nothing like replacing a Buckeye with a Wolverine.
Quote:
Snacks had a good year....Having a good guy next to you (and Hankins was good) helps
Go look at the Jets D with and without Snacks. Go look at our defense 2 years ago to last year. Yeah, we still don't know who Snacks is. Got it.
He'll go before Brantley and McDowell, in that order.
Not so sure. At least with respect to McDowell.
Quote:
In comment 13426970 shelovesnycsports said:
Quote:
Of better quality DTs. Don't count out Thomas too.
This is not a good draft for DT's
No? USA Today gave the DT draft class a B+, and CBS/DraftScout has about a dozen with projections from rounds one to three. Sounds pretty good to me.
The only sure round 1 pick is Allen. And he may end up being a 3-4 end. Same with McDowell.
Why? He got a market rate deal. It some killing. The 10 million per year is meaningless. He's a young guy. If he plays really well they will rip it up and redo it in two years. If not he's cut and most likely won't ever average 10'million per.
If I'd agent was so great he'd have gotten a deal like the one the Ravens gave their NT. 14.5 guaranteed is nothing compared to that deal.
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.
Good player and a reliable starter (i.e. no "nagging" injuries, only the 1 legit one he fully recovered from).
I loved when NY drafted him and am disappointed he's gone, but such is the reality of a cap league (which I support).
Good luck in Indy. That team sucks.
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.
Did our defense get worse in 2008 when we lost Strahan?
Quote:
On paper next year's defense is worse than 2016, but more expensive.
Did our defense get worse in 2008 when we lost Strahan?
Not sure what one has to do with the other, but I'd say that it did given how worn down it was at the end of the season.
But again, a strange comparison that has no bearing on today.
That's probably Thomas.
This is not a good draft for DT's
No? USA Today gave the DT draft class a B+, and CBS/DraftScout has about a dozen with projections from rounds one to three. Sounds pretty good to me.
The only sure round 1 pick is Allen. And he may end up being a 3-4 end. Same with McDowell.
That's a far cry from saying it's not a good draft class for DTs. What are you expecting, a half-dozen or more with 1st round grades?
Thought he would be a great pick even if NYG signed Hankins.
Quote:
In comment 13427032 Go Terps said:
Quote:
On paper next year's defense is worse than 2016, but more expensive.
Did our defense get worse in 2008 when we lost Strahan?
Not sure what one has to do with the other, but I'd say that it did given how worn down it was at the end of the season.
But again, a strange comparison that has no bearing on today.
My point is that it is way too early to say that it is worse. Having another year in the system accounts for a lot. Collins can improve. Vernon can play better. Maybe we get more production out of our 3 tech. Maybe Apple gets better. Hankins has a value to you that the Giants disagree with. That doesn't mean they are wrong nor does it mean we are worse on paper.
If Snacks gets hurt the run D would take a serious nose dive. No one is on the roster that can do what Snacks does. Hanks wasn't that guy.
So you would've preferred they pay Hank what Indy is paying him?
I agree with Pollaro and Robbie. I think we should look at Jared Odrick and Sen'Derrick Marks.
Quote:
This is not a good draft for DT's
No? USA Today gave the DT draft class a B+, and CBS/DraftScout has about a dozen with projections from rounds one to three. Sounds pretty good to me.
The only sure round 1 pick is Allen. And he may end up being a 3-4 end. Same with McDowell.
That's a far cry from saying it's not a good draft class for DTs. What are you expecting, a half-dozen or more with 1st round grades?
More than 1. Who played 3-4 end in college.
But there haven't been may good DT classes in recent years.
Then, when we pass on paying top-dollar for players who aren't quite worth it, we're getting "cheap."
There are still a couple of FA options who may provide better value and we haven't drafted yet, either.
Quote:
On paper next year's defense is worse than 2016, but more expensive.
So you would've preferred they pay Hank what Indy is paying him?
Given that they've already gone crazy spending on the DL, I would either have paid Hankins or signed a suitable replacement earlier on in the FA period. Whomever the replacement now is at that position - Bromley, Thomas, and/or a rookie - it would take a significant rationalization to say we are better off in that spot.
Now I'm not in favor of overpaying any player, but the front office has gone all in and then some on the defensive line. Once they spent a billion dollars on Snacks/JPP/Vernon to me it doesn't make sense to now make one of the four DL positions a question mark.
Does Hankins walking make life easier for any of JPP/Vernon/Snacks? I don't think so.
Quote:
On paper next year's defense is worse than 2016, but more expensive.
Did our defense get worse in 2008 when we lost Strahan?
It's pretty obvious that the Giants prioritized JPP, OV, and Snacks, but then again, you are one miserable piece of work that will never let it go that the Giants didn't go about their offseason in a manner that suits you.
Quote:
In comment 13427026 jeff57 said:
Quote:
This is not a good draft for DT's
No? USA Today gave the DT draft class a B+, and CBS/DraftScout has about a dozen with projections from rounds one to three. Sounds pretty good to me.
The only sure round 1 pick is Allen. And he may end up being a 3-4 end. Same with McDowell.
That's a far cry from saying it's not a good draft class for DTs. What are you expecting, a half-dozen or more with 1st round grades?
More than 1. Who played 3-4 end in college.
But there haven't been may good DT classes in recent years.
And yet, there's USA Today with their B+ grade, which is good. Not excellent, not outstanding, not stellar. Good. Which is all we need to find a suitable replacement for Hankins.
To me the approach with Hankins, in light of how "all in" we were on the defensive line, represents a half measure.
I didn't agree with the initial approach, that's true. But once that choice is made, do it. Don't half ass it.
barry cofield linval joseph
these were also high draft pick nose tackles who performed well for us and when we lost them they continued to play at our high level while we lamented our porous run defense and BBIers whined.
hankins may not have been a productive pass rusher last year, but he is stout against the run.
reese has made a big bet on JPP and against Hankins. We will see if that was the right call.
Quote:
unless we're talking about #23 and then I agree he's at least in the discussion.
He'll go before Brantley and McDowell, in that order.
Not sure. Brantley interviewed poorly at the combine, and McDowell is considered inconsistent. Wormley has the size the Giants crave, and his character is beyond question. Team captain. Did tear an ACL, but that was in 2012.
The problem is do we really want to take Wormley at #23? I don't. But he'll likely be gone by #55. If he is, then the Giants should consider DeMarcus Walker. Same type of player, although not quite as good. But 25 sacks and 35 TFL the last two seasons. 4-3 DE on run downs, who can "stack and shed," but can't "run the arc," or "bend the edge" very well. But a very good 3T DT on passing downs. Very good swim move. Batted 8-10 passes IIRC.
Not so sure. At least with respect to McDowell.
Wrong. At the start of the offseason I said we should prioritize him as the Snacks/Hankins combo was the backbone of the defense.
People read and remember just what they want, it seems.
Of course. Odrick and Marks have sucked for the last couple of years, but there's no one else available and this is a very weak DT class. It's worth kicking the tires on one or the other.
I like the idea of a slimmed down, healthy Eddie Vanderdoes though. I think that he could POTENTIALLY start year one. MAYBE. Wormley too. Jaleel Johnson and Montravius I see as guys who could be starters down the line but would be better served as rotational guys early on.
Quote:
In comment 13427005 area junc said:
Quote:
unless we're talking about #23 and then I agree he's at least in the discussion.
He'll go before Brantley and McDowell, in that order.
Not sure. Brantley interviewed poorly at the combine, and McDowell is considered inconsistent. Wormley has the size the Giants crave, and his character is beyond question. Team captain. Did tear an ACL, but that was in 2012.
The problem is do we really want to take Wormley at #23? I don't. But he'll likely be gone by #55. If he is, then the Giants should consider DeMarcus Walker. Same type of player, although not quite as good. But 25 sacks and 35 TFL the last two seasons. 4-3 DE on run downs, who can "stack and shed," but can't "run the arc," or "bend the edge" very well. But a very good 3T DT on passing downs. Very good swim move. Batted 8-10 passes IIRC.
Not so sure. At least with respect to McDowell.
Not sure. Brantley interviewed poorly at the combine, and McDowell is considered inconsistent. Wormley has the size the Giants crave, and his character is beyond question. Team captain. Did tear an ACL, but that was in 2012.
The problem is do we really want to take Wormley at #23? I don't. But he'll likely be gone by #55. If he is, then the Giants should consider DeMarcus Walker. Same type of player, although not quite as good. But 25 sacks and 35 TFL the last two seasons. 4-3 DE on run downs, who can "stack and shed," but can't "run the arc," or "bend the edge" very well. But a very good 3T DT on passing downs. Very good swim move. Batted 8-10 passes IIRC.
He's been a very good Giant - then he held out as long as he could to get the best FA contract possible. Turns out it wasn't with us.
Kinda bummed, but I trust our ability to fill the position. But I also don't understand the animosity to Hankins for doing what he did. Leaving was always a strong possibility.
Quote:
In comment 13427032 Go Terps said:
Quote:
On paper next year's defense is worse than 2016, but more expensive.
So you would've preferred they pay Hank what Indy is paying him?
Given that they've already gone crazy spending on the DL, I would either have paid Hankins or signed a suitable replacement earlier on in the FA period. Whomever the replacement now is at that position - Bromley, Thomas, and/or a rookie - it would take a significant rationalization to say we are better off in that spot.
Now I'm not in favor of overpaying any player, but the front office has gone all in and then some on the defensive line. Once they spent a billion dollars on Snacks/JPP/Vernon to me it doesn't make sense to now make one of the four DL positions a question mark.
Does Hankins walking make life easier for any of JPP/Vernon/Snacks? I don't think so.
But, as you know, you can't pay everyone and Hank was the player who the team believed was the 'weak link' out of the starting four and thus he was going to receive the least amount of money. They tried to 'keep the band together' by offering Hank a decent contract (if you believe the reports) and it seems like it was a respectable effort. It's not like they were low-balling the guy.
Do you think the Colts overpayed for Hank?
To me the approach with Hankins, in light of how "all in" we were on the defensive line, represents a half measure.
I didn't agree with the initial approach, that's true. But once that choice is made, do it. Don't half ass it.
You don't think he's replaceable, though? Hankins isn't a cornerstone player - he's more of a supplemental player. I don't think he played particularly well this past season, either.
I feel we can get similar production @ less cost from one of the remaining guys on the market or a draft pick.
If Hankins had gone to IND cheaper, I would probably have been more opposed. But cap dollars are finite and it's important to try and place certain values on certain players that work within the overall structure of the team and it appears that NYG simply didn't feel that JH was worth what IND was willing to pay him.
Giants defense will be lightyears better this year. Last year the first half of the season was a feel out process. They progressed as teh season wore on and they were elite towards the end of the season. The Giants defense will be elite from game 1 this year.
http://overthecap.com/positional-spending/ - ( New Window )
Weird dude
But the Giants are a different story. They had that vacuum after 2015 when they had all that cap space and could have gone in any of several directions with it. What I'm saying is that once they chose to do what they chose to do I would have rather they just stuck to that course (i.e. spending on ALL of the defensive line including Hankins).
Now we have three very expensive defensive linemen who may be less productive because they're picking up the slack for a lesser player in Hankins's spot.
What about him? He'll probably go undrafted. You want to start an undrafted guy?
I said many times I thought that he and Snacks were the backbone of the defense. Much of the success that the rest of the defense enjoyed started there, because running up the middle simply wasn't an option. I think the trickle down effect was enormous.
It's not. DE yes, but not DT.
But on a serious note,never was a fan of this pick.Solid player,but always thought he was overrated.
I think that story plant with Ranaan was Giants throwing it out there after word came out that Hank was likely going to the Colts.
Giants did not value Hankins as a 10 mil a year player.
Quote:
i want too give him an opportunity, I never made a comment about starting. I think he will be a better pro player
.
What about him? He'll probably go undrafted. You want to start an undrafted guy?
But the Giants are a different story. They had that vacuum after 2015 when they had all that cap space and could have gone in any of several directions with it. What I'm saying is that once they chose to do what they chose to do I would have rather they just stuck to that course (i.e. spending on ALL of the defensive line including Hankins).
Now we have three very expensive defensive linemen who may be less productive because they're picking up the slack for a lesser player in Hankins's spot.
All three of those guys have performed well even when the talent around them wasn't as superb as our current situation.. if anything OV is the only one thats lacking long term solid performance. Hankins on the other hand is average DT who by the way plays the same position as snacks.. it would be great to have someone like Hankins but not at 10M/year.. Lets get a 3-tech DT in this draft (which is very deep in spite of what some geniuses say on BBI) The 3 Tech will have some very good players he can learn from and he will complement these guys better in pass rushing situations..
It appears to me that what you believe Hank's value to this team may be higher than what the Giants believe to be the case. As a few posters have been saying, Snacks was a good player but he wasn't in the top three of most impact players on the D-line. Therefore, just by the very nature of that statement, he wasn't going to get the type of high-end money that he was looking for... at least not from the team. I'm not going to go so far as to say it's going to be easy to replace him... because he is a good player... but out of the four of them, he was easily the most replaceable based on their play to date.
Paying top dollar for him means that we'd be unable to pay some of the upcoming FAs (including a few I know you're not all that interested in resigning anyway) and then what?
As far as replacing him, that's a tough question. Day 1 of FA there were certainly many other ways to spend $10M, not as much now. Odrick and Marks are somewhat interesting. Robert Thomas and Bromley have somwhat flashed at times. There's obviously the draft. Guess we just need to see who comes in because I doubt they do nothing.
Giants defense will be elite next year.
That is already the case due to the substantially richer contracts given out elsewhere on the defensive line.
Link - ( New Window )
No chance. I would be shocked if it happened. If you look beyond the NYG/NYJ rivalry, Richardson has way too much baggage.
I'll never get people who get mad at a player for trying to get the best deal they can.
didnt he have issues with Brandon Marshall? dont think we'd do that
Lol. You are a piece of work.
I can't blame him for chasing the $$. Hopefully his first 3 years of losing here are still fresh in his memory because that Colt team, especially on defense, is devoid of talent.
Quote:
Could we possibly look at trading for Sheldon Richardson? Talented but tons of off-the-field issues and is due for 8 million this year.
didnt he have issues with Brandon Marshall? dont think we'd do that
Yeah, they don't like each other
You think?!?!??
"All that money on the DL and still no pass rush"
Take it to the fucking bank.
I liked Hankins a lot. Felt he was underrated after this past season but if we can bring in an odrick or vet FA for less money i can live with this I guess. Hankins is a very solid player make no mistake. We need a replacement.
Smart job by Giants not matching
More like Robert Thomas
It's up to Eli to step up his game.
Id be happy with Wormley as a consolation prize, guy plays hard, gets consistent penetration and doesn't get rocked off the line of scrimmage. Either of these two bring the penetration and quickness lacking with Big Hank at the 3.
It's up to Eli to step up his game.
He had 22 pressures in 398 snaps last year. Not worth 7 mil a yr let alone 10 mil a yr. Good for him but Giants dodged a bullet by not having him on their cap space when they need it for much bigger and better players down the line.
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
You think?!?!??
"All that money on the DL and still no pass rush"
Take it to the fucking bank.
I liked Hankins a lot. Felt he was underrated after this past season but if we can bring in an odrick or vet FA for less money i can live with this I guess. Hankins is a very solid player make no mistake. We need a replacement.
I like Go Terps, but his stance on this is odd to say the least. This is the same guy who whenever Belichick decides not to pay someone (or draws a line in the sand) acts like it's further proof of the greatest decision maker in sports history.
I said many times I thought that he and Snacks were the backbone of the defense. Much of the success that the rest of the defense enjoyed started there, because running up the middle simply wasn't an option. I think the trickle down effect was enormous.
I think Snacks had a far greater impact than Hankins did so I would be hesitant to pair them as the backbone of the defense.
Harrison would have been a much more difficult player to replace.
I don't mean to diminish Hankins because I think a lot of fans do it as a coping mechanism when a player leaves - but I do think we can get similar (or close enough) production from a different player. There aren't any DT's on the market right now who are as good, but sometimes you have to play the value game in a capped league.
This just seemed to come down to the Giants not believing he was a 10M/per player. I can't fault them for placing a value on him and holding firm. A lot of times when a team plays this game, they wind up getting the player back at a discounted rate and it works out for the better.
it didn't happen that way in this instance, but I'm not sure I'd have felt all that comfortable paying this player what the Colts are.
Continuity's a great thing, but you can't have it all when there's a salary cap.
Odrick is still available and would foot the bill nicely. There are also numerous players in this draft class that could contribute.
Some want to bitch about the OV/JPP/Snacks contracts but the reality is they're impact players. Hankins is a nice complimentary guy certainly not worth 10 mil a year. But Indy had the money to spend so that's that.
Ramcyk in 1 and Wormley in 2 and we'll be on our way.
Hankins.
The Giants are great at drafting DT's which makes me less nervous about letting him go.
I like Go Terps, but his stance on this is odd to say the least. This is the same guy who whenever Belichick decides not to pay someone (or draws a line in the sand) acts like it's further proof of the greatest decision maker in sports history.
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.
Giants spend a lot of early draft choices at DT and let them go after the first contract.
I like Odrick or Jones in FA. Go get a 2 - 5th round DT with Pass Rush ability.
Good player and a reliable starter (i.e. no "nagging" injuries, only the 1 legit one he fully recovered from).
I loved when NY drafted him and am disappointed he's gone, but such is the reality of a cap league (which I support).
Good luck in Indy. That team sucks.
These are my exact feelings. People so mad because he took time with the process and his agents suck that they're saying he had no value to the team. I think he'll be missed.
On our side, we need to pick and choose where we spend our money. I don't think spending $10M, for us, would have been the right move.
Quote:
I like Go Terps, but his stance on this is odd to say the least. This is the same guy who whenever Belichick decides not to pay someone (or draws a line in the sand) acts like it's further proof of the greatest decision maker in sports history.
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.
Why does it have to be all or nothing? His impact is the least of the 4 lineman and "overpaying" for the other 3 that make game changing plays at a much higher rate seems more plausible than paying $10 million to a guy who they think they can adequately replace.
I wouldn't chalk that up to a half measure. I'd consider it making premium players a priority over an underwhelming player who's commanding way too much money.
Robert Thomas - at $540K - looked pretty decent last year too
Signing is imminent! Balke on the horn!
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.