He was looking for a payday, we valued him (and rightly so) at a lot less. So, he signed elsewhere. That's the system. If we didn't draft a DT we had to sign one. Either way, it was a position needing to be addresssed. The combination of Hankins signing elsewhere and replacing him via draft gives us flexibility with the cap.
but I agree. I wanted Zach Cunningham there badly. 3 down LB and athletic freak flying around. But Obi Melifonwu, Ethan Pocic, Kpassagnon, Awuzie - even Moton - could've had one of these guys too if Hank re-signed.
But you've got to love the wrestling background with DT. Snacks is a cerebral guy too - I think these guys are going to like stuffing the run together.
The problem is people expect all our holes to be filled with one pick. Â
So, when that doesn't happen there is always a reason to complain.
If we signed snacks to that deal that could prevent us from re-signing Pugh, Richburg, Fluker, or some other OL. We can play this game all day long of "what if?".
Why not just enjoy the fact that we got another beast in the middle of our defense for at least the next 4 years?
I was one of the biggest Hankins fans on the board. Â
Tomlinson is an upgrade over Hankins at a cost saving value
I agree with Gidie on this one. With that said it is obvious the Giants do not covet DT's like many here and around the NFL.
The Hankins deal was f’ed up period it’s not like they were bidding on him from a large amount of interest he was just waiting for the highest bid and took it ASAP. He IMO is not worth the money he got and happy the Giants didn’t overpay an average player. I was disappointed in regards to losing Cofield & Linval both players were much better players than Hankins and more effort to keep them should have been made IMO.
Is no joke. Cheaper option than hank and very capable. Unique skill set. I think he could be an upgrade over Hankins and there were times he outplayed Jon Allen at bama. We have not one, but two brick walls in the middle now. Anyone that thinks bromley would get it done for us is dreaming.
They value them high enough to keep spending #2 picks on them and give Harrison the highest DT contract in history.
Kind of a conundrum don’t you think?
I agree they put value in drafting them but when it comes time to pay them they don’t? I do believe at least from this point forward they may change that philosophy with the Snack’s signing but only with worthy players?
Hindsight being 20/20 they pay Linval his money IMO. Big Hank didn’t deserve nor warrant the money he left for in my view with what he has done on the field. I guess only time will tell if my opinion holds true or not.
we can take the money that we saved and us it on something else. Personally would like to see Blount or maybe Joe Thomas type of player. Maybe even both.
Tomlinson is an upgrade over Hankins at a cost saving value
and if he's a bust? You're then expending more resources down the line to replace the player. I'm not going to kill Reese for sticking to his guns and not overpaying to keep Hankins. But the decision would have been easier to take if the replacement was already on the roster (e.g. if Bromley had showed something by now).
Hankins hasn't been on the roster since the beginning of March. They've known for about 8 weeks DT was potentially a need. That's more than enough time to prepare.
Shit out is was what screwed us. Tomlinson is a pure need pick. Reese likes to fill in as many holes before the draft as possible so picks in positions of need aren't forced.
We need a good 3rd DE pass rusher and or a CB. Our defense falls apart if DRC gets nicked up and out of the lineup. There was no great OL prospect to pick there, but we could have picked someone that could have put the defense over the edge, but instead we are just replacing.
Shit out is was what screwed us. Tomlinson is a pure need pick. Reese likes to fill in as many holes before the draft as possible so picks in positions of need aren't forced.
We need a good 3rd DE pass rusher and or a CB. Our defense falls apart if DRC gets nicked up and out of the lineup. There was no great OL prospect to pick there, but we could have picked someone that could have put the defense over the edge, but instead we are just replacing.
This is still a wrong and warped view of the situation. Hankins is under no obligation to accept an offer that he doesn't agree with. And the Giants still could have replaced him with a veteran DT before the draft.
screwed. Give your head a shake folks. The draft system demands that in a violent, dangerous sport with whole life risks, draftees play for 4-5 years for far less than their real value, for the entertainment of us fans. If they survive and prosper, and are able to demand something near their real value, should we howl out in indignation that it is we that have been "screwed".
I don't have a problem with any of this actually. I was more satisfied JPP was locked up last month than I cared about Hankins. I knew they'd get a replacement sooner than later (in this draft). Giants have done a great job with their rotation of fresh DTs over the years. Not much to worry about here. Goodbye.
If Hankins screwed the Giants by leaving, and forcing them to draft a DT, then Ellison and Marshall did the opposite of screwing them, freeing them to draft a receiving TE instead of a big flanker.
Everybody loses free agents, everybody signs free agents. Everybody has to fill holes left by free agents, everybody fills holes with free agents. It's just part of the game.
but the facts are you can't pay the entire line on both sides of the ball top dollars -- some of them have to be value players
frankly the Giants have been very adept at finding good DT value in the draft --- and none of them were ever as good as Snacks -- none of them
Sooo - the Giants paid for Snacks and he proved to be a game-changing signing -- and they have gone from Coffield to Joseph to Hankins over a 12 year run -- and if Tomlinson = Coffield/Joseph/Hankins -- that's actually very good value.... and
If he's better (because he plays five different techniques and has shown he can be an impact player at all of them - unlike Coffield/Joseph/Hankins) he may actually be a huge cost controlled value at a position the Giants scheme places a premium value.
I like the Tomlinson pick a lot -- I didn't like losing Hankins, but it's not like he wasn't expendable, and he also chose to go to a team purely for the dollars and were instead of being a complimentary piece - he's going to be relied on to be the man -- and this may not be an ideal situation for him even though he got his money deal - it may actually shorten his career
What else can you do but what the Giants did -- should the Giants have paid him 10 million/year for Hankins? -- For less than the difference between what the Giants offered and the Colts paid -- the Giants landed what looks like an upgrade ---
For all the crap Reese gets -- this is one of those underappreciated moves that really upgraded the defence - and the defence was pretty d@mned good to begin with - and this also makes the Snacks contract look like a huge value
is them not having a guy they liked already to replace him, so that they didn't need to grab a guy in the 2nd. Bromley was supposed to be that guy, but thos pick indicates they don't see him having a significant role next year.
I didn't want to pay Hank $10M/year, but clearly he's a player they valued. and they value DT, where they keep hitting on Rd2 picks (maybe they think they can hit on them forever)?
Thing is, teams always have holes now. The cap doesn't let teams sign or keep players enough with the price of FA contracts. And no one nails every draft pick, goes always flame out due to injury or work ethic or off-field or just plain not being good enough. Teams sort of need to pick where they spend resources, and hope the big resources (lower round draft picks and big FA contracts) pan out. The Giants have done a fairly good job with both draft picks and FA for 2 years, which got us to playoffs. There's so many reasons holes open up tho (look at OT - we thought we'd be OK for a few years with Beatty, then spent a top 10 pick and still have a hole because neither panned out), even doing a good job of planning and hitting picks can leave soft areas.
The economics and team make up are too variable to draw any conclusion other than coincidence. We acquire and lose players at every position, every year.
Snacks is orders of magnitude better than Griffin, Cofield, Hankins. He's a 1st team all pro. The only departure in the conversation is Joseph. And Snacks is better.
You pay big money for big time players in their second contract, and let shitty franchises pay big time for lesser players.
I'd much, much rather have a revolving door of picks than pay what the Colts did for Hankins.
It's the nature of the cap era, guys. Situations like this are literally impossible to avoid. You can't keep everyone and you have to replace players with less costly options via the draft. This is just how the league works. Every team has to do stuff like this.
screwed us. 3rd rounder should be adequate starter by year 4. Not a stud necessarily, but decent enough that we don't feel it an imperative to spend a 2nd rounder on someone else. It's like they know there's no shot Bromley can do the job.
By all accounts, we "overspent" last year for our free agency acquisitions to win now. We hit a home run with that short term goal in mind. Instead we lose a player in his prime and have to spend a premium pick to replace him. I think we were an offensive lineman (G or T) away from making a serious leap.
Tomlinson is an upgrade over Hankins at a cost saving value
Good point. This pick is an upgrade over Hankins and brings quickness to the interior pass rush. Never a big fan of Hankins...just a slow fat guy..we will do much better with Tomlinson with the newer mobile QBs that can evade rush and buy time.
RE: I just don't get why we're penny pinching now Â
By all accounts, we "overspent" last year for our free agency acquisitions to win now. We hit a home run with that short term goal in mind. Instead we lose a player in his prime and have to spend a premium pick to replace him. I think we were an offensive lineman (G or T) away from making a serious leap.
The guys we signed last year were all young-ish and intended to be the nucleus of our defense for years to come, it was not just about the short term. And fact is we paid a lot for those guys so if we wanted to have any flexibility going forward, we could not pay Hankins what Indy gave him.
By all accounts, we "overspent" last year for our free agency acquisitions to win now. We hit a home run with that short term goal in mind. Instead we lose a player in his prime and have to spend a premium pick to replace him. I think we were an offensive lineman (G or T) away from making a serious leap.
There are years where they have lots of money to spend and years where they don't. You can't spend like crazy every year.
not that Hankins screwed us. Hankins did what was best for him. He owed the Giants nothing.
The Hankins SITUATION "screwed us."
It didn't scratch anything. It's simply the nature of the business.
And when you think about it,it actually helped. We got a better,younger player at a lower cost.
Yeah they had to draft a replacement DT but now they the money to sign a free agent at another position like OL
That won't be until next year so you could say Hankins screeed Giants this year. But it was their decision to try and wait him out rather than sign an OT or some other position. So all you can really complain about is that the Giants miscalculated
But I'm glad they will have the extra money to spend next yeat
Jerry overpaid, my most accounts, Vernon, Harrison and JPP. They had the cap room and they had the cash. Did Jerry draw the line at Hankins?
The Giants saved money by letting Hankins walk. They gave it back by using a second rounder to replace him. A mid 2nd round pick has great value. If a team could buy one the price would be in the millions. That's what they gave up by not signing Hankins, or the better choice. replacing Hankins with a player of lesser value than the 2nd round pick.
The other concern is that everyone is assuming that Tomlinson will replace Hankins and very possibly surpass him. We all know that a significant number of players drafted in the 2nd half of the 2nd round turn out to be busts, and it's real hard to tell which in advance.
Tomlinson is an upgrade over Hankins at a cost saving value
I would agree with this argument. It hurts to spend a 2nd round pick at a position that could've been solved in free agency, but not if Tomlinson adds more to the defense than Hankins could and not if they spend that $9M/year in cap room wisely (re-signing Pugh and Richburg would be a start given their lack of competition at OL).
RE: Was there ego involved in not re-signing Hankins? Â
I agree.
It's the way the system works, but if Hankins re-signs (like many of us thought he might), the Giants don't take Tomlinson in round two.
Same thing with Linval Joseph when Cofield left, and Hankins with Joseph left.
I despise losing premium picks after their first contract is over. You are basically losing the player in their prime.
But you've got to love the wrestling background with DT. Snacks is a cerebral guy too - I think these guys are going to like stuffing the run together.
If we signed snacks to that deal that could prevent us from re-signing Pugh, Richburg, Fluker, or some other OL. We can play this game all day long of "what if?".
Why not just enjoy the fact that we got another beast in the middle of our defense for at least the next 4 years?
The Hankins deal was f’ed up period it’s not like they were bidding on him from a large amount of interest he was just waiting for the highest bid and took it ASAP. He IMO is not worth the money he got and happy the Giants didn’t overpay an average player. I was disappointed in regards to losing Cofield & Linval both players were much better players than Hankins and more effort to keep them should have been made IMO.
Sucks.
Cornelius Griffin before that. This is like a dance step. 1-2-3-4 release.
The Hankins SITUATION "screwed us."
I agree they put value in drafting them but when it comes time to pay them they don’t? I do believe at least from this point forward they may change that philosophy with the Snack’s signing but only with worthy players?
Hindsight being 20/20 they pay Linval his money IMO. Big Hank didn’t deserve nor warrant the money he left for in my view with what he has done on the field. I guess only time will tell if my opinion holds true or not.
He provided no push ...good ridence
and if he's a bust? You're then expending more resources down the line to replace the player. I'm not going to kill Reese for sticking to his guns and not overpaying to keep Hankins. But the decision would have been easier to take if the replacement was already on the roster (e.g. if Bromley had showed something by now).
We need a good 3rd DE pass rusher and or a CB. Our defense falls apart if DRC gets nicked up and out of the lineup. There was no great OL prospect to pick there, but we could have picked someone that could have put the defense over the edge, but instead we are just replacing.
We need a good 3rd DE pass rusher and or a CB. Our defense falls apart if DRC gets nicked up and out of the lineup. There was no great OL prospect to pick there, but we could have picked someone that could have put the defense over the edge, but instead we are just replacing.
This is still a wrong and warped view of the situation. Hankins is under no obligation to accept an offer that he doesn't agree with. And the Giants still could have replaced him with a veteran DT before the draft.
Joseph has shown more in Minnesota than he ever showed here. Letting him walk was a gamble that ultimately lost.
Everybody loses free agents, everybody signs free agents. Everybody has to fill holes left by free agents, everybody fills holes with free agents. It's just part of the game.
frankly the Giants have been very adept at finding good DT value in the draft --- and none of them were ever as good as Snacks -- none of them
Sooo - the Giants paid for Snacks and he proved to be a game-changing signing -- and they have gone from Coffield to Joseph to Hankins over a 12 year run -- and if Tomlinson = Coffield/Joseph/Hankins -- that's actually very good value.... and
If he's better (because he plays five different techniques and has shown he can be an impact player at all of them - unlike Coffield/Joseph/Hankins) he may actually be a huge cost controlled value at a position the Giants scheme places a premium value.
I like the Tomlinson pick a lot -- I didn't like losing Hankins, but it's not like he wasn't expendable, and he also chose to go to a team purely for the dollars and were instead of being a complimentary piece - he's going to be relied on to be the man -- and this may not be an ideal situation for him even though he got his money deal - it may actually shorten his career
What else can you do but what the Giants did -- should the Giants have paid him 10 million/year for Hankins? -- For less than the difference between what the Giants offered and the Colts paid -- the Giants landed what looks like an upgrade ---
For all the crap Reese gets -- this is one of those underappreciated moves that really upgraded the defence - and the defence was pretty d@mned good to begin with - and this also makes the Snacks contract look like a huge value
I didn't want to pay Hank $10M/year, but clearly he's a player they valued. and they value DT, where they keep hitting on Rd2 picks (maybe they think they can hit on them forever)?
Thing is, teams always have holes now. The cap doesn't let teams sign or keep players enough with the price of FA contracts. And no one nails every draft pick, goes always flame out due to injury or work ethic or off-field or just plain not being good enough. Teams sort of need to pick where they spend resources, and hope the big resources (lower round draft picks and big FA contracts) pan out. The Giants have done a fairly good job with both draft picks and FA for 2 years, which got us to playoffs. There's so many reasons holes open up tho (look at OT - we thought we'd be OK for a few years with Beatty, then spent a top 10 pick and still have a hole because neither panned out), even doing a good job of planning and hitting picks can leave soft areas.
Snacks is orders of magnitude better than Griffin, Cofield, Hankins. He's a 1st team all pro. The only departure in the conversation is Joseph. And Snacks is better.
You pay big money for big time players in their second contract, and let shitty franchises pay big time for lesser players.
I'd much, much rather have a revolving door of picks than pay what the Colts did for Hankins.
Good point. This pick is an upgrade over Hankins and brings quickness to the interior pass rush. Never a big fan of Hankins...just a slow fat guy..we will do much better with Tomlinson with the newer mobile QBs that can evade rush and buy time.
The guys we signed last year were all young-ish and intended to be the nucleus of our defense for years to come, it was not just about the short term. And fact is we paid a lot for those guys so if we wanted to have any flexibility going forward, we could not pay Hankins what Indy gave him.
You want to give Hankins the money IND gave him? Cool, then we have to make cuts elsewhere to accommodate.
There are years where they have lots of money to spend and years where they don't. You can't spend like crazy every year.
The Hankins SITUATION "screwed us."
It didn't scratch anything. It's simply the nature of the business.
And when you think about it,it actually helped. We got a better,younger player at a lower cost.
That won't be until next year so you could say Hankins screeed Giants this year. But it was their decision to try and wait him out rather than sign an OT or some other position. So all you can really complain about is that the Giants miscalculated
But I'm glad they will have the extra money to spend next yeat
The Snee resigning turned out to be a cap killer. And Snee was a way better player than Pugh and unlike Pugh he had no injury history
So, i think giving Pugh a lot of guaranteed money would not be good from a risk/reward standpoint
The Giants saved money by letting Hankins walk. They gave it back by using a second rounder to replace him. A mid 2nd round pick has great value. If a team could buy one the price would be in the millions. That's what they gave up by not signing Hankins, or the better choice. replacing Hankins with a player of lesser value than the 2nd round pick.
The other concern is that everyone is assuming that Tomlinson will replace Hankins and very possibly surpass him. We all know that a significant number of players drafted in the 2nd half of the 2nd round turn out to be busts, and it's real hard to tell which in advance.
Quote:
The cost of modern UFA.
The Snee resigning turned out to be a cap killer. And Snee was a way better player than Pugh and unlike Pugh he had no injury history
So, i think giving Pugh a lot of guaranteed money would not be good from a risk/reward standpoint
I'd be fine not spending $10 M per on him.