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? Â
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 Â
contract?! All of the guys that we didn't re-sign were all pretty darn good, as well (Joseph, Coefield, and now Hankins). At least Reese has been damn good at picking DTs, 2nd round and later. Let's just hope that continues as we need another starter now alongside Snacks. I don't have confidence in Bromley starting?! For depth he's fine IMO.
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. Â
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.
The giants very easily could have found the money Â
"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.
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.