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 Â
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 Â
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 Â
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 Â
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.