Colts sign Hankins

[#12.]

1 minute ago, bababooey said:

Don't know what happened in this thread but it's been reported we spoke to Hankins and he will play NT in our 3-4 scheme

If at NT he returns to his 2013-2015 form, he's probably currently the third best player on this team.

 

 

[Everyone]

 

[Everyone]

 

[Everyone]

 

[Everyone]

 

[Everyone]

 

[Everyone]

 

[shasta519]

8 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

It's called depth and signing players who are better that what was on the roster last season.

 

If he's better than Parry, it's probably a minimal amount. And there are other ways to acquire depth. 

 

I don't really care...I just think it just seems like a curious and pointless signing when it's all said and done. And honestly, I hope he never sees the field now that Hankins is here.

[Mr. Irrelevant]

I will tell you what; I think Pagano and Monachino slept a lot better this night after the deal was done. Maybe even with a smile on their face.

[krunk]

23 minutes ago, shastamasta said:

 

If he's better than Parry, it's probably a minimal amount. And there are other ways to acquire depth. 

 

I don't really care...I just think it just seems like a curious and pointless signing when it's all said and done. And honestly, I hope he never sees the field now that Hankins is here.

Have you ever taken out the time to even watch Al Woods play?  Woods is fairly stout on his own and he's a bigger body than Parry with pass rush ability.    Good player to pick up for depth.  Wouldn't be surprised if he beat out Parry and that's good because it means we got a better player.

[stitches]

Here's 2016 Johnatan Hankins video posted by Matt Danely from the Locked on Colts podcast:

 

 

[Mr. Irrelevant]

9 minutes ago, krunk said:

Have you ever taken out the time to even watch Al Woods play?  Woods is fairly stout on his own and his a bigger body than Parry with pass rush ability.    Good player to pick up for depth.  Wouldn't be surprised if he beat out Parry and that's good because it means we got a better player.

 

Hmm, how about stacking the box with both Hankins and Woods on a one yard to goal line defense? Could we do that?

[krunk]

1 minute ago, Mr Clueless said:

 

Hmm, how about stacking the box with both Hankins and Woods and a one yard to goal line defense? Could we do that?

Possible.  We'll see in the end after the preseason is over who is left standing.

[Everyone]

 

[OLD FAN MAN]

16 hours ago, COLTS449 said:

We aren't far away, a lot of posters are just too patient, and are actually content with not winning for 2-3 years. pft. Screw that. When you have a franchise QB you can contend every year, and fill basically every hole in one offseason with SMART moves. If we can just knock this draft outta the park and get 3-4 day 1 starters/contributors then we're probably gonna win 10-11 games and win the south. People think I'm crazy for expecting "too much".  I just expect us to NOT waste 12's career away and this was a big step.

I agree, prepare for and play every season as if it the only one

[CR91]

Hankins said he spoke to Colts coaches about playing both nose tackle and three-technique defensive tackle. He can do it all, and he plans to do just that.

 

interesting

[COLTS449]

4 minutes ago, OLD FAN MAN said:

I agree, prepare for and play every season as if it the only one

^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 1000% agree when you have a top tier, young, franchise QB.

 

Everyone. Put this man in the HOF NOW.

[Myles]

This is a GREAT signing.     I really like what Ballard has done this offseason.   The Colts went from the team with the least depth to a team that now has good depth in LB and D-line.  

The defense has gotten bigger, stronger and better.  

[Fluke_33]

10 hours ago, colts52761 said:

Now at NT we have  Hankins and Woods, we can cut Parry. Maybe pickup a UDFA NT.

Why cut Parry?  He's may not be the greatest but he's a solid backup at least.  

[Valpo2004]

4 hours ago, Major_Adobe said:

I am in agreeance with your concept but the scenario is a little dramatic. 

 

Overly dramatic scenario to make a point.  

[krunk]

23 hours ago, krunk said:

I think they have plans to bring in one or two more Ohio State guys from this draft too.

I forgot about John Simon too.   Ohio State has been producing some good guys.

[stitches]

23 hours ago, krunk said:

I think they have plans to bring in one or two more Ohio State guys from this draft too.

1: R1P15

CB GAREON CONLEY

OHIO STATE

2: R2P14

LB RAEKWON MCMILLAN

OHIO STATE

3: R3P16

C PAT ELFLEIN

OHIO STATE

4: R4P14

WR NOAH BROWN

OHIO STATE

 

 

?

[krunk]

Just now, stitches said:

1: R1P15

CB GAREON CONLEY

OHIO STATE

2: R2P14

LB RAEKWON MCMILLAN

OHIO STATE

3: R3P16

C PAT ELFLEIN

OHIO STATE

4: R4P14

WR NOAH BROWN

OHIO STATE

 

 

?

#1 and #2 is who I'm talking about!

[HBA2]

I don't understand the criticism for this signing. 30 mil is a big contract but the bulk of the gauranteed money is in the first year. He's a young player with upside and a proven (recent) history as a quality starter. You're not going to sign anyone worth anything for peanuts in free agency. NYG wanted him back and offered similar money stretched out over 4 years. I think this is a calculated risk we had to take. NT has long been an issue for this team and if we didn't attempt to address it in free agency, it would only create another draft need. You can't run any variation of the 3-4 front without an adequate NT in the middle. This wasn't an Albert Haynesworth level overpay, and depending how successful he is in our system, it might turn out to be a steal. Good signing, in my opinion 

[Superman]

50 minutes ago, HBA2 said:

I don't understand the criticism for this signing. 30 mil is a big contract but the bulk of the gauranteed money is in the first year. He's a young player with upside and a proven (recent) history as a quality starter. You're not going to sign anyone worth anything for peanuts in free agency. NYG wanted him back and offered similar money stretched out over 4 years. I think this is a calculated risk we had to take. NT has long been an issue for this team and if we didn't attempt to address it in free agency, it would only create another draft need. You can't run any variation of the 3-4 front without an adequate NT in the middle. This wasn't an Albert Haynesworth level overpay, and depending how successful he is in our system, it might turn out to be a steal. Good signing, in my opinion 

 

That doesn't make it any better. Just because you might be able to get out of a bad contract doesn't mean it isn't a bad contract.

 

I'm not super critical, I just don't think a NT is worth $10m/year. If Hankins is more than just a two down run stuffer for us, then I'm good with it. 

[Dark Superman]

I apologize to everyone on this forum. For weeks I told everyone there was no chance in hell that the Colts were going to sign Hankins because he doesn't fit our scheme. I was wrong, and I clearly know nothing.

 

 

[HBA2]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

That doesn't make it any better. Just because you might be able to get out of a bad contract doesn't mean it isn't a bad contract.

 

I'm not super critical, I just don't think a NT is worth $10m/year. If Hankins is more than just a two down run stuffer for us, then I'm good with it. 

 

 

I guess that's a matter of opinion. I feel like the option of a quick out is the difference between an ok contract and a horrible contract. 10 mil locked over 3 years is way worse than 10 mil up front in one year with the option to abort. There's no such thing as a bargain signing in free agency for starting caliber talent. Is 10 mil for one year really that much more egregious than 8 mil? That's what Poe got, and you could argue he's got more red flags than Hankins did, plus Hankins is 2 years younger. 2 million dollars difference amounts to one mid level free agency signing. That's not even Greg Toler money (who was horrible here)

[Superman]

20 minutes ago, HBA2 said:

I guess that's a matter of opinion. I feel like the option of a quick out is the difference between an ok contract and a horrible contract. 10 mil locked over 3 years is way worse than 10 mil up front in one year with the option to abort. There's no such thing as a bargain signing in free agency for starting caliber talent. Is 10 mil for one year really that much more egregious than 8 mil? That's what Poe got, and you could argue he's got more red flags than Hankins did, plus Hankins is 2 years younger. 2 million dollars difference amounts to one mid level free agency signing. That's not even Greg Toler money (who was horrible here)

 

These are all good points, but that's not what I'm talking about.

 

There's a common perception that if you can get out of a contract without too much dead money, it's well structured. But commonly, cash is frontloaded, meaning you're paying a player 40-50% of the value of the contract within the first year-plus. If you cut him, you just overpaid a player for one year, and now not only is the player gone and not helping your team, that money is also gone, and never coming back. 

 

His relative value in the market place is another story, but as someone who I don't think is much more than a traditional NT -- and I could be wrong, easily -- I don't like the idea of paying him $10m/year. I wasn't exactly dancing in the streets about Poe, but I felt like a one year deal for him had the potential to help the Colts secure a good comp pick in a couple years. Hankins has the same potential, but that's several years down the line.

[throwing BBZ]

31 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

That doesn't make it any better. Just because you might be able to get out of a bad contract doesn't mean it isn't a bad contract.

 

I'm not super critical, I just don't think a NT is worth $10m/year. If Hankins is more than just a two down run stuffer for us, then I'm good with it. 

 

 He will be our best 3rd and short/goal line run stuffer! That can be a great plus.
 Won`t we keep 7 d-lineman?  I suspect our average salary for the group will be in the mid-lower range over the next couple years. Sometimes you might have a little extra in the budget to spend on a GUY.
 That can be a factor as to team building.
  And his price ($27M + incentives) is a reasonable going rate for his skill set so it can`t be a bad contract.

 Not even if he gets hurt. It`s football.    JMO of course.

[Superman]

1 minute ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

 He will be our best 3rd and short/goal line run stuffer! That can be a great plus.
 Won`t we keep 7 d-lineman?  I suspect our average salary for the group will be in the mid-lower range over the next couple years. Sometimes you might have a little extra in the budget to spend on a GUY.
 That can be a factor as to team building.
  And his price ($27M + incentives) is a reasonable going rate for his skill set so it can`t be a bad contract.

 Not even if he gets hurt. It`s football.    JMO of course.

 

If he is "a GUY" and not "just a guy," I'm good. But that means he has a tremendous impact in run situations, and generates a solid rate of pressure on the QB. I'm not writing off his potential to prove his worth, just saying his contract is higher than I thought it would/should be. 

[HBA2]

11 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

These are all good points, but that's not what I'm talking about.

 

There's a common perception that if you can get out of a contract without too much dead money, it's well structured. But commonly, cash is frontloaded, meaning you're paying a player 40-50% of the value of the contract within the first year-plus. If you cut him, you just overpaid a player for one year, and now not only is the player gone and not helping your team, that money is also gone, and never coming back. 

 

His relative value in the market place is another story, but as someone who I don't think is much more than a traditional NT -- and I could be wrong, easily -- I don't like the idea of paying him $10m/year. I wasn't exactly dancing in the streets about Poe, but I felt like a one year deal for him had the potential to help the Colts secure a good comp pick in a couple years. Hankins has the same potential, but that's several years down the line.

 

What it boils down to is what you think he's capable of, and that is honestly anyone's guess. I don't think he's being brought here to be just a situational run stuffer. He's even said as much in his first address to Colts media. We run a hybrid and he has played in a 4-3 front most of his career, which means he has versatility at the very least. We're not paying him 30 mil over 3 years if Ballard thinks he's just a situational run stuffer. 

 

I'm being cautiously optimistic about it. For what the Colts think he's capable of, I don't think this was a bad contract. That all comes down to our ability to scout players for our scheme and the coaches to utilize the player correctly. If anything, I'm more worried whether or not this coaching staff can get the most out of any of the players Ballard brings in

[throwing BBZ]

5 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

If he is "a GUY" and not "just a guy," I'm good. But that means he has a tremendous impact in run situations, and generates a solid rate of pressure on the QB. I'm not writing off his potential to prove his worth, just saying his contract is higher than I thought it would/should be. 

 

 With Sheard, Simon, Langford, Ridgeway, Anderson i see lots of rush potential.
 And M Hunt, McGill, Ayers may be Our slouches, but they should also contribute ok playing with these guys.   I`m seeing nothing but sunshine today. Haha!

  Monachino likes to blitz his ILB`ers and Big Hank should be solid at tying up his nemesis successfully.

 I picture the versatile 250LB Takk McKinley playing ILB on 3rd and LONG, shadowing the middle, and blitzing often.
 The guy has some serious closing speed.
 

[#12.]

29 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

If he is "a GUY" and not "just a guy," I'm good. But that means he has a tremendous impact in run situations, and generates a solid rate of pressure on the QB. I'm not writing off his potential to prove his worth, just saying his contract is higher than I thought it would/should be. 

Already being spurned by Poe probably had something to do with it.  

 

He might have overpaid, but after two 8-8 seasons and given the state of this roster, perhaps it was the only way.  

 

 

[joeb]

Living in Giants country and watching him weekly I think this a great signing. Expensive ,but you get what you pay for.

[chrisfarley]

On ‎4‎/‎13‎/‎2017 at 1:39 PM, 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. 

It's a lot of dough, but we had it to blow.   for a little while I was wondering if he was going to spend it.  We still have plenty to pay for the drafted players fortunately.

[Fluke_33]

8 hours ago, stitches said:

1: R1P15

CB GAREON CONLEY

OHIO STATE

2: R2P14

LB RAEKWON MCMILLAN

OHIO STATE

3: R3P16

C PAT ELFLEIN

OHIO STATE

4: R4P14

WR NOAH BROWN

OHIO STATE

 

 

?

First two are great.  Gotta get a rpass usher in the first 3 though. 

[bababooey]

6 hours ago, joeb said:

Living in Giants country and watching him weekly I think this a great signing. Expensive ,but you get what you pay for.

Same sentiment from my giant fan friends

[NewColtsFan]

9 hours ago, I'm Negan said:

I apologize to everyone on this forum. For weeks I told everyone there was no chance in hell that the Colts were going to sign Hankins because he doesn't fit our scheme. I was wrong, and I clearly know nothing.

 

 

 

Nice sentiment,  but it's really not necessary to apologize over this.....    we're ALL wrong about one thing or another....

 

We're all operating in the dark more times than we realize.....    this place is just for fun...   keep posting your opinions and enjoy yourself....

 

[RockThatBlue]

Big fan of this signing. Hankins is really good.

[RockThatBlue]

21 hours ago, I'm Negan said:

I apologize to everyone on this forum. For weeks I told everyone there was no chance in hell that the Colts were going to sign Hankins because he doesn't fit our scheme. I was wrong, and I clearly know nothing.

 

 

No apology needed. We all are wrong sometimes lol