Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Colts sign Hankins


Everyone

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 379
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 minute ago, Boiler_Colt said:

Well, isn't that something. A little rich, but only 14.5 guaranteed. The local media (Holder) is wrong again.

 

Holder is soooo bad...

 

I will admit, I was wrong on this one. I didn't see Ballard dropping this kind of coin on Hankins. I'm kind of concerned, I don't really think Hankins is the kind of player you pay $10m/year, but there's no question he's going to be one of our best DL and will help the defensive front significantly. Good add, questionable contract, IMO. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Superman said:

 

Holder is soooo bad...

 

I will admit, I was wrong on this one. I didn't see Ballard dropping this kind of coin on Hankins. I'm kind of concerned, I don't really think Hankins is the kind of player you pay $10m/year, but there's no question he's going to be one of our best DL and will help the defensive front significantly. Good add, questionable contract, IMO. 

I like Holder as a dude but his reporting is suspect. I hope its a maximum of 30, with incentives and all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

Holder is soooo bad...

 

I will admit, I was wrong on this one. I didn't see Ballard dropping this kind of coin on Hankins. I'm kind of concerned, I don't really think Hankins is the kind of player you pay $10m/year, but there's no question he's going to be one of our best DL and will help the defensive front significantly. Good add, questionable contract, IMO. 

I am hoping he structured the contract to be beneficial if things do not pan out after a year or so.  A great upgrade at NT though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

Holder is soooo bad...

 

I will admit, I was wrong on this one. I didn't see Ballard dropping this kind of coin on Hankins. I'm kind of concerned, I don't really think Hankins is the kind of player you pay $10m/year, but there's no question he's going to be one of our best DL and will help the defensive front significantly. Good add, questionable contract, IMO. 

He was a stud in 2015, played out of position last season. With the cap consistently rising, I'm more than happy with this contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great signing IMO!  He fills a LARGE need...pun intended.  He actually brings a little pass rush and is a gigantic upgrade over Perry or the others we have.  I also like that he had an up year last year rather than Poe who we all liked who had a down year....we had the cap space, and next year we still have a ton with the structuring of the contracts, so I am pleased with this move!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I will admit, I was wrong on this one. I didn't see Ballard dropping this kind of coin on Hankins. I'm kind of concerned, I don't really think Hankins is the kind of player you pay $10m/year, but there's no question he's going to be one of our best DL and will help the defensive front significantly. Good add, questionable contract, IMO. 

 

There was rumors that we would pay Poe handsomely too, so I think Ballard see a quality NT as fixing more than one position, like taking a bit of run stopping stress of the ILBs. I also think that they didn't want to use a draft pick on a NT, they wanted a proven anchor, and price was secondary because an anchor has that trickle down effect. 

 

But very interesting and telling deal. I personally like it despite being rich.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Holder is soooo bad...

 

I will admit, I was wrong on this one. I didn't see Ballard dropping this kind of coin on Hankins. I'm kind of concerned, I don't really think Hankins is the kind of player you pay $10m/year, but there's no question he's going to be one of our best DL and will help the defensive front significantly. Good add, questionable contract, IMO. 

I disagree . NT is critically important against the run. When the Colts have been good on D the last many years it was because they had a stud like Siragusa or McFarland in the middle. Now they might not be quite at top half of the league level yet but with some shrewd picks and a year or two we could be in position to be a SB contender again. They aren't good enough yet  to think your not going to have to pay up to get impact players yet. This is a good move, be happy. I didn't like Poe anyway, his performance has declined . This guy is young. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Everyone said:

He was a stud in 2015, played out of position last season. With the cap consistently rising, I'm more than happy with this contract.

 

I know he got moved out of position. I think I know how good he is, no question he's a really good player. I just never thought he was worthy of $10m/year. If we deploy him in a way that allows him to get pressure on the QB, then we can maximize his value to us. If he's just a two down guy anchoring against the run, then it's not worth it, IMO. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Superman said:

 

I know he got moved out of position. I think I know how good he is, no question he's a really good player. I just never thought he was worthy of $10m/year. If we deploy him in a way that allows him to get pressure on the QB, then we can maximize his value to us. If he's just a two down guy anchoring against the run, then it's not worth it, IMO. 

Yeah, also this signing doesn't really go along with what Ballard has been saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • we risk losing Paye and company in the next year or two… Right? 
    • Thats easy. Having great coverage. If noone is open the rush will get there.    Or, I wish we blitzed more like Spaignola does as QB's are considerably less accurate under duress.    The best offenses have QB's that get rid of the ball quickly which negates to a degree the pass rush.  Scholars here are buzzing madly about pressures. Joey Bosa had a crazy number of pressures but how many resulted in incompletions? He had 2 more sacks than Kwity and played roughly 175 more snaps.  Detroit's Hutchinson, in their playoff loss, had no pressures, no sacks, and 1 tackle as I recall. And a heckuva player. Truth is you better have really good ability at both, including highly intelligent fast players in the back seven.
    • Any news on the attempted talks with Blackmon?   Worst case scenario:  we don't sign Blackmon, or any other safety FA, miss out on what few guys there are in this very non-deep safety draft, and wind up going into the season with Cross and Thomas as our best two guys.  Ewwww.
    • My follow up is about what you think is the most cost-efficient way to acquire the needed players to make the defense work as designed.    As to your point about risk, I guess... If you think specific DE prospects just aren't that good, that's one thing. I'm definitely against propping up a prospect just because he plays a position of perceived need. But I would think that if the Colts take a DE at #15, they see him as a potential game changing pass rusher, and the expectation is for him to exceed what the guys on the roster have shown so far. No one can know for sure, but that's the nature of the draft.   At corner, I just think that a fundamental reason why the Colts prefer their zone heavy scheme is because it's easier to find corners who can excel at zone coverage. So there's less of a premium on the position in this scheme, and that's by design. I also don't think the top 4-5 corners in this class fit Ballard's preferred profile. (Side point: This is not conventional thinking, but I think the order of importance in this defense is 3T, Edge, Will, FS, then CB. I think the objective is to take away big plays, funnel routes to the middle, and have rangy playmakers at Will and FS who can create turnovers. I'm not saying that's how I would build a defense, but I think that's the intention. Which also influences my thinking on Ballard's preferences in the draft.)    The scheme element doesn't necessarily apply at WR, but I think the value at WR favors taking one on Day 2, and I think Ballard's appetite for second round WRs is well established. I'd be open to drafting a WR at #15, but I don't think the Colts will do it.   So if I was an oddsmaker, I'd favor the Colts going DE or DT at #15, just based on how I think the top of the draft will fall, and the players available. I think most fans prefer corner or WR, mostly because of perceived need, but I don't see that happening. Nothing would shock me, though.
    • Ballard on Free Agency:   “No doubt we looked into free agency in totality,” Ballard said. “I mean, we looked at everybody. It kind of worked out where it ended up being a lot of our own guys, which are all good players.”
  • Members

×
×
  • Create New...