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 Â
contract?! All of the guys that we didn't re-sign were all pretty darn good, as well (Joseph, Coefield, and now Hankins). At least Reese has been damn good at picking DTs, 2nd round and later. Let's just hope that continues as we need another starter now alongside Snacks. I don't have confidence in Bromley starting?! For depth he's fine IMO.
You can add Cornelius Griffin to the list.
Look I am not a huge Reese fan, but not resigning Hankins for 10M @ season is smart on his part
RE: RE: I guarantee you Terps would be bitching had we re-signed Hank Â
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 Â
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 Â
What I don't get is why are the Giants choosing NOW to be fiscally conservative?
I advocated for that BEFORE we decided to make JPP and OV among the highest paid DEs in the NFL. But now that that option is history, now that we have been willing to overpay (a word used by everyone, not just me) on the defensive line, why are we picking now to be conservative?
The whole approach seems like a half measure.
They set a price for the player based most likely on market and value to the team, then refused to exceed that. That's normally the kind of thing you love. Based on what he eventually got, it's not like they disrespected him with their offer. They might be "overpaying" those other 3 guys, but JPP, Snacks, and Vernon have all been 1st or 2nd team All-Pros in their career.
If the Giants were being "fiscally conservative", it's because Hank is nice player, but not someone who would make overpaying an even remotely palatable decision. That's not a half measure... it's smart finances in a cap restricted league, which is once again, normally the kind of thing you love.
I understand - he's on the team. But Robert Thomas was the first DT off the bench and filled in for Hankins in the starting line-up last year. let's pay attention, i'm assuming people follow the line-ups???
Robert Thomas - at $540K - looked pretty decent last year too
Its just like you've been saying all along too!
Guys, liten area junc, he really knows his shit. Hankins signing with Indy was eminence, Robert Thomas' value was imminent and our improvement on D was ambulance.
I was actually hoping we would be frugal and not offer a lot of money for Hankins services. I was never a big fan of Hank. He has always kept a sloppy weight and took way more plays off then many put on. It is obvious he does not value a shot at playing for a championship, I mean the Colts? Just for a couple mil more minus a year? I have no problem with a player wanting to get paid but the difference between what the Giants offered him and what he got is not enough to pass on returning to a top flight organization with the chance to be something special on defense. This is nothing like when we lost Linval. He got life changing money from Min and we weren't half the team we are now talent or cap wise. That loss really hurt. Hank can't sniff Linval's jock on the field. I think the Giants were/are very prepared to cover this loss and I have faith we will find someone to match his slightly above mediocre play.
I understand - he's on the team. But Robert Thomas was the first DT off the bench and filled in for Hankins in the starting line-up last year. let's pay attention, i'm assuming people follow the line-ups???
Robert Thomas - at $540K - looked pretty decent last year too
Well, according to these folks, Bromley played 247 defensive snaps in 2016 (22.25%), while Thomas played 68 (6.13%). Special teams snaps were 17 and 5, respectively.
So, maybe Thomas was the first guy off the bench - I don't know - but clearly Bromley got more playing time.
he was looking for great player money poe/snacks/jj watt type pay day was never worth that,would have liked him back to free up draft pick for a DE in the middle of this draft but get a DE/DT tweener type might even work out better interior rush as this wasnt hankins strength
as for the backbone argument the backbone of the defence was thru the middle snacks-kennard-collins this forced teams to go out wide rather than up the gut of the defence where they then came up against drc and jenkins which limited the big plays they had been giving up in previous years
snacks was the strength of the run defence not hankins,he is far easier to replace than snacks would be,would like to know how the money colts paid stacks up against the giants offer?
The same website has Hankins and Harrison each starting all 16 games. Bromley appeared in 15 with no starts, and Thomas appeared in 8, with no starts. Now, maybe they're wrong, but if they are, in which game (or games) did Thomas replace Hankins in the starting lineup?
I like the idea of signing Odrick and then drafting a DT in the later rounds for development, if we can somehow find a way of developing him with the coaches we have...
A good NT. The Giants signed an All Pro NT and it kicked Hankins to a spot not really suited for.
W JPP. Vernon And Snacks even an average 3 Tech tackle will be adequate. The held onto Thomas so they like him And Bromley needs to step it up or may be out of the NFL in a year or two.
Add a better LB via the draft or a DT and a another year of Spangs w only one loss in Hankins And this D should be as good or better bab last year barring injuries of course
Jared Odrick has been an excellent NFL player, until he was injured.Odrick led the Jaguars in sacks in 2015,and he has 23 career sacks.
What? The guy was injured early in his rookie season. He's never even approached anything near "excellent" and now he's also coming off shoulder surgery. I think signing him would be nearly pointless, roll with the available guys and draft someone. Odrick is not an answer in any way, shape, or form.
Prior to 2016 Odrick had started in 80+ consecutive games(5+ seasons) and averaged 5+ sacks from the DT position in four of those.
So contrary to your opinion he was both durable and productive. He isn't a 'star' player but that's what Snacks is for. To make other guys better.
Now no one, at least not me, is saying pay the man 'whatever it takes' to sign him or any craziness. But if the contract is palatable he'd be a solid add to this defense.
but hardly a "huge loss". I hate to say it but Hankins has been severely overrated by Giants fans for a couple years now, very badly actually. Remember the posters calling for the Giants to open up their wallets for this jackass and let JPP walk?
At the right price I'd have kept him, but Hankins is very replacable.
There is always one stupid team that hurts us by Â
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.