Hankins Released

[Dark Superman]

Hankins has agreed to terms with the Colts on a three-year contract worth up to $30 million, NFL Network Insider Ian Rapoport reported, via a source informed of the situation. The new pact includes $15.9 million guaranteed and $10.5 million in the first year.

 

So Hankins made over $26 million off the Colts in just one season. Smh.

[krunk]

2 hours ago, Sumo63 said:

I'm struggling to understand this move.  We're already talent deficient.  We haven't been active in FA.  We're flush with cash.  Why create more holes to fill during a rebuild?  Hank is young, talented, effective, and the biggest contract the colts put together last offseason......can anybody help me wrap my brain around this?

They said scheme fit issues. Basically they want DL that are quick and can penetrate to get sacks. Especially at the 3 tech which is what he played. Hankins is not that type but I thought there was still room for him based on guys like Marcel Dareus and the other guy from Alabama that plays for Seattle of which neither are sack artists. Thought wed employ him differently in another role.

[Dark Superman]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DYjQOLIXUAUcQTH.jpg

 

What? Lol.

[Dark Superman]

Smh.

[Shadow_Creek]

9 hours ago, #12. said:

For starters, they thought Luck was playing last year, so it's not as though the #3 pick was part of some grand plan, and generally, I think you missed my point.  We wasted a season signing and drafting players for the old regime - Simon, Hankins, Banner for Philbin, etc.  If you change coaches and schemes last year, who knows what last offseason looks like.  You're a year behind where you could be, and any coach could have gone 4-12 or worse with Brissett or Tolzien, putting you in the same position you are currently in.

hey when you see jimmy tell him thanks for putting us in this messy situation smh

[rock8591]

4 hours ago, DarkSuperman said:

Hankins has agreed to terms with the Colts on a three-year contract worth up to $30 million, NFL Network Insider Ian Rapoport reported, via a source informed of the situation. The new pact includes $15.9 million guaranteed and $10.5 million in the first year.

 

So Hankins made over $26 million off the Colts in just one season. Smh.

 

LOL no.

 

Rest was probably a signing bonus.

[DaveA1102]

[coltsfan77]

Do not see Suh coming here even if CB wanted him. We are not competing for any thing real soon. He is getting up in age and most likely want to go to a contender. As far as JH  goes, hate to see him go, but have to trust the process. Also we have to remember that our new DC was Mcdirtbags choice! So not sure if Ballard was completely thinking of moving to a 43 when we signed JH. 

[NewColtsFan]

11 hours ago, DarkSuperman said:

Hankins has agreed to terms with the Colts on a three-year contract worth up to $30 million, NFL Network Insider Ian Rapoport reported, via a source informed of the situation. The new pact includes $15.9 million guaranteed and $10.5 million in the first year.

 

So Hankins made over $26 million off the Colts in just one season. Smh.

 

No....    in essence it was a one year, 10.5 million deal.

 

That's it.    Really.

[NewColtsFan]

4 hours ago, DaveA1102 said:

 

Thanks for posting this.

 

Some of us were posting this yesterday.  

 

Others just didn't want to believe it.   They just want to blame Ballard for everything they don't like.

[ColtJ82]

20 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

If we were hot for the money wouldn't we have cut him loose BEFORE free agency?

 

We would have had more $$$ when the big names were available.

Even if we had the additional cap, I don't think we were planning to spend it.Those contracts are going to bite if not structured properly. I am surprised about the cut though. We literally have zero plans to field a competitive team next year. I can understand why. The division is strong. It isn't likely we are catching up to anyone. Andrew is going to take a season to get back in to form. Why saddle yourself with salary and take reps away from your developmental talent.

[NewColtsFan]

19 minutes ago, ColtJ82 said:

Even if we had the additional cap, I don't think we were planning to spend it.Those contracts are going to bite if not structured properly. I am surprised about the cut though. We literally have zero plans to field a competitive team next year. I can understand why. The division is strong. It isn't likely we are catching up to anyone. Andrew is going to take a season to get back in to form. Why saddle yourself with salary and take reps away from your developmental talent.

 

I'm sorry, but the idea that we have zero plans to field a competitive team is false.   100 percent incorrect.   It may not be your plan or even my plan but I have no doubt that there IS a plan.

[Smonroe]

31 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Thanks for posting this.

 

Some of us were posting this yesterday.  

 

Others just didn't want to believe it.   They just want to blame Ballard for everything they don't like.

 

I'm not going to go back and read 9 pages of complaints or justifications, so I'll just add mine.

 

Hankins played in a 4-3 most of his career, so scheme was not the issue.  It's been reported that he's not a pass rush threat.  But he is a known proven run stopper that clogs and pushes the middle.  That allows for pressure from the outside.  And we all know QBs hate the pressure up the middle more than anything.

 

Bottom line - every move by Ballard should be to improve the team.  I just don't see how replacing him with an unproven player improves the team.  Even if we draft an interior lineman in the first round, it's a wash at that position IMO, and costs us a draft pick.

 

Sorry for the rant, I just don't get it.  

[OLD FAN MAN]

5 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

 

I'm not going to go back and read 9 pages of complaints or justifications, so I'll just add mine.

 

Hankins played in a 4-3 most of his career, so scheme was not the issue.  It's been reported that he's not a pass rush threat.  But he is a known proven run stopper that clogs and pushes the middle.  That allows for pressure from the outside.  And we all know QBs hate the pressure up the middle more than anything.

 

Bottom line - every move by Ballard should be to improve the team.  I just don't see how replacing him with an unproven player improves the team.  Even if we draft an interior lineman in the first round, it's a wash at that position IMO, and costs us a draft pick.

 

Sorry for the rant, I just don't get it.  

i concur

[NewColtsFan]

1 hour ago, Smonroe said:

 

I'm not going to go back and read 9 pages of complaints or justifications, so I'll just add mine.

 

Hankins played in a 4-3 most of his career, so scheme was not the issue.  It's been reported that he's not a pass rush threat.  But he is a known proven run stopper that clogs and pushes the middle.  That allows for pressure from the outside.  And we all know QBs hate the pressure up the middle more than anything.

 

Bottom line - every move by Ballard should be to improve the team.  I just don't see how replacing him with an unproven player improves the team.  Even if we draft an interior lineman in the first round, it's a wash at that position IMO, and costs us a draft pick.

 

Sorry for the rant, I just don't get it.  

 

Huh?

 

The owner of the team makes a public comment to explain the move..,.    And you say,  no,  that's not it.

 

I shared yesterday that Hankins didn't like the 4-3 when he played it in New York....   and still you say....   no,  that's not it.

 

I don't know what more you need to be convinced?    There's no other reason for this move.    Sometimes the most simple straight forward reason REALLY IS the answer you're looking for.  

 

There doesn't have to be a Bad Guy in every move you don't like.

 

[OLD FAN MAN]

57 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

 

I'm not going to go back and read 9 pages of complaints or justifications, so I'll just add mine.

 

Hankins played in a 4-3 most of his career, so scheme was not the issue.  It's been reported that he's not a pass rush threat.  But he is a known proven run stopper that clogs and pushes the middle.  That allows for pressure from the outside.  And we all know QBs hate the pressure up the middle more than anything.

 

Bottom line - every move by Ballard should be to improve the team.  I just don't see how replacing him with an unproven player improves the team.  Even if we draft an interior lineman in the first round, it's a wash at that position IMO, and costs us a draft pick.

 

Sorry for the rant, I just don't get it.  

we let go our best up the gut run stopper, does ballard want other teams to run up the gut on us so we wont give up big pass plays on third down?

[NewColtsFan]

4 minutes ago, OLD FAN MAN said:

we let go our best up the gut run stopper, does ballard want other teams to run up the gut on us so we wont give up big pass plays on third down?

 

Do we play games tomorrow?    Is free agency over?     Are there no other players on the roster?     Has the draft been canceled and I missed that announcement?

 

[aaron11]

• half the team is going to be rookies next year, when we had 70 mil to spend and no one on the roster due for a big payday 

 

 

 

 

[Four2itus]

24 minutes ago, OLD FAN MAN said:

we let go our best up the gut run stopper, does ballard want other teams to run up the gut on us so we wont give up big pass plays on third down?

Yep. You figured it out. 

[Four2itus]

1 hour ago, Smonroe said:

Hankins played in a 4-3 most of his career, so scheme was not the issue. What....you've never worked a job you didn't want trying to get one more to your liking? Com'n. He was drafted by the Giants, showed promise as a pass rusher in a 4/3, and then he may have very well have been licking his chops at the idea of moving to a 3/4. We gave him the shot and he loved it. Then asked if was all in on a scheme change and he is at the point in his career (he is now sitting on 10 large), and he wants to stay in a 3/4. To say its not the issue is just searching for a strawman. It's been reported that he's not a pass rush threat.  But he is a known proven run stopper that clogs and pushes the middle.  That allows for pressure from the outside.  And we all know QBs hate the pressure up the middle more than anything.

 

Bottom line - every move by Ballard should be to improve the team. Yes, but just because it doesn't show instant results, doesn't mean that it is headed there, or was unavoidable because of the players desire and another 5 million dollars. I just don't see how replacing him with an unproven player improves the team. We drafted Peyton Manning and went 3-13. Did that improve the team. Sorry but the logic doesn't hold water. Even if we draft an interior lineman in the first round, it's a wash at that position IMO, and costs us a draft pick.

 

Sorry for the rant, I just don't get it.  

Response in red.

[Smonroe]

4 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Huh?

 

The owner of the team makes a public comment to explain the move..,.    And you say,  no,  that's not it.

 

I shared yesterday that Hankins didn't like the 4-3 when he played it in New York....   and still you say....   no,  that's not it.

 

I don't know what more you need to be convinced?    There's no other reason for this move.    Sometimes the most simple straight forward reason REALLY IS the answer you're looking for.  

 

There doesn't have to be a Bad Guy in every move you don't like.

 

 

Look, I'm not one of those guys who thinks Irsay is a liar, in this case I think he's echoing Ballard.

 

Hankins EXCELLED in the 4-3 at OSU, well enough to be a high second rounder.  He EXCELLED in the 4-3 with the Giants, even as a pass rusher until he got hurt.  He played the 3 technique for them and for us, which is an easy fit for a 4-3.

 

So, I'm sorry, but if one more person parrots "scheme", I'm going to ... calm myself down.  

 

@NewColtsFan, you're a bright guy, so tell me, what specifically is the 'scheme' issue with him?  If they said they were releasing Woods because of scheme, I'd have no problem.

 

@Four2itus Usually I agree with your posts, but that Manning analogy made no sense.  First of all, I never said anything about records.  I fully understand that it's not an overnight process.  Manning obviously improved the team.  Who is going to replace Hankins and improve the team?  It's not money, it's not scheme, it's not a locker room issue.

 

I'm a Ballard fan, but this one stumped me.  I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop.  There has to be more to this than 'scheme'.  

[Jason_]

20 hours ago, Smonroe said:

 

Look, I'm not one of those guys who thinks Irsay is a liar, in this case I think he's echoing Ballard.

 

Hankins EXCELLED in the 4-3 at OSU, well enough to be a high second rounder.  He EXCELLED in the 4-3 with the Giants, even as a pass rusher until he got hurt.  He played the 3 technique for them and for us, which is an easy fit for a 4-3.

 

So, I'm sorry, but if one more person parrots "scheme", I'm going to ... calm myself down.  

 

@NewColtsFan, you're a bright guy, so tell me, what specifically is the 'scheme' issue with him?  If they said they were releasing Woods because of scheme, I'd have no problem.

 

@Four2itus Usually I agree with your posts, but that Manning analogy made no sense.  First of all, I never said anything about records.  I fully understand that it's not an overnight process.  Manning obviously improved the team.  Who is going to replace Hankins and improve the team?  It's not money, it's not scheme, it's not a locker room issue.

 

I'm a Ballard fan, but this one stumped me.  I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop.  There has to be more to this than 'scheme'.  

 

did either OSU or the Giants specifically run a Tampa 2 style defense?  There are multiple types of 4-3 so it's entirely possible a player could fit one type of 4-3 without being a great fit for another.  

[JColts72]

On ‎3‎/‎18‎/‎2018 at 1:06 PM, NewColtsFan said:

 

Do we play games tomorrow?    Is free agency over?     Are there no other players on the roster?     Has the draft been canceled and I missed that announcement?

 

Did u not know the season has been played and we are drafting Number 1 in 2019. joke, but could happen)

[Smonroe]

1 hour ago, J@son said:

 

did either OSU or the Giants specifically run a Tampa 2 style defense?  There are multiple types of 4-3 so it's entirely possible a player could fit one type of 4-3 without being a great fit for another.  

 

Shouldn’t make a difference for the DTs.  They’re assigned a gap and Hankins has played 1,3, and even the 5 as well as in the 2 gap system.  

 

I don’t want to sound like a complainer, I just want to understand why we’d let a proven commodity go.  

 

I get what theyre trying to do with the faster DTs as a concept.  Makes sense in theory, as long as you have them. I’m more of the ‘give me guys who can play’ kind of guy.  

[Four2itus]

22 hours ago, Smonroe said:

 

@Four2itus Usually I agree with your posts, but that Manning analogy made no sense.  First of all, I never said anything about records.  I fully understand that it's not an overnight process.  Manning obviously improved the team.  Who is going to replace Hankins and improve the team?  It's not money, it's not scheme, it's not a locker room issue.

 

I'm a Ballard fan, but this one stumped me.  I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop.  There has to be more to this than 'scheme'.  

I don't know how we can say whether or not a replacement won't be as good or better with development. Getting younger is a constant necessity in the NFL. Yes....this should have happened 4 years ago, but we were too good too soon, and Grigson started swinging for fences. I really don't think this decision was any more than Hankins telling Ballard he didn't want to be part of a scheme change, and Ballard didn't want his likely bad attitude if he did pay the bonus in the locker room. Thats all. 

[Freenyfan102]

Lets sign david Perry

[SteelCityColt]

2 minutes ago, Freenyfan102 said:

Lets sign david Perry

 

I know a lot of people seem to think the NFL works like Madden but signing a game developer might be taking things too far...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Perry_(game_developer)

[Freenyfan102]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Parry_(American_football)

 

Sorry this guy

 

[SteelCityColt]

2 minutes ago, Freenyfan102 said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Parry_(American_football)

 

Sorry this guy

 

 

No.. would still rather have the first guy.

[DraftMaster]

On 3/17/2018 at 5:10 PM, MFT5 said:

 

feel like he was giving Chick what he needed while structurally enabling a out.

 

so no Ballards’ still the GOAT

Chris Baaaaaaaalard (the GOAT):

[Jason_]

23 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

 

Shouldn’t make a difference for the DTs.  They’re assigned a gap and Hankins has played 1,3, and even the 5 as well as in the 2 gap system.  

 

I don’t want to sound like a complainer, I just want to understand why we’d let a proven commodity go.  

 

I get what theyre trying to do with the faster DTs as a concept.  Makes sense in theory, as long as you have them. I’m more of the ‘give me guys who can play’ kind of guy.  

 

Now that I'd disagree with. Most 43 still use a 1 gap NT. Traditionally I don't think the Tampa 2 does. I think they're looking for guys with more penetration skills... Being able to shoot gaps so someone with more quickness and agility than a guy like Hankins. Then again they appear to be modeling after Seattle and Dallas so who knows. 

[BleedBlu8792]

22 hours ago, Smonroe said:

 

Look, I'm not one of those guys who thinks Irsay is a liar, in this case I think he's echoing Ballard.

 

Hankins EXCELLED in the 4-3 at OSU, well enough to be a high second rounder.  He EXCELLED in the 4-3 with the Giants, even as a pass rusher until he got hurt.  He played the 3 technique for them and for us, which is an easy fit for a 4-3.

 

So, I'm sorry, but if one more person parrots "scheme", I'm going to ... calm myself down.  

 

@NewColtsFan, you're a bright guy, so tell me, what specifically is the 'scheme' issue with him?  If they said they were releasing Woods because of scheme, I'd have no problem.

 

@Four2itus Usually I agree with your posts, but that Manning analogy made no sense.  First of all, I never said anything about records.  I fully understand that it's not an overnight process.  Manning obviously improved the team.  Who is going to replace Hankins and improve the team?  It's not money, it's not scheme, it's not a locker room issue.

 

I'm a Ballard fan, but this one stumped me.  I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop.  There has to be more to this than 'scheme'.  

I agree with what you've said, but I think Big Hank wanted out more so than Ballard wanting to let him go. They just kept the publicity part simple, IMO.

Again, agreeing with you, Hankins can play in any front, and I find it hard to believe Ballard wants to outright move on from a guy like that without Hankins asking to be released. 

 

[esmort]

I can't believe so many people are so critical of releasing Hankins. Do all the people critical of this move just think Ballard randomly decided to release Hankins on a whim or just to save some money? .. Come on now!!

 

Either they (Ballard and the new coaching staff) really don't think he is a fit (regardless if posters think he is) ... OR ... Hankins didn't want to play in a 4/3 and wanted to be in a 3/4 and Ballard honored his wishes, and if that is the case word of it will get around (even if we don't hear about it) and may pay dividends in future player negotiations.

 

I believe it really is this simple and many are just over-analyzing.

[jameszeigler834]

On ‎3‎/‎17‎/‎2018 at 3:44 PM, Pelt said:

Yep. And you can blame Jimmy for that one.

Agreed if it was up to CB he would have been gone last year.

[Smonroe]

44 minutes ago, BleedBlu8792 said:

I agree with what you've said, but I think Big Hank wanted out more so than Ballard wanting to let him go. They just kept the publicity part simple, IMO.

Again, agreeing with you, Hankins can play in any front, and I find it hard to believe Ballard wants to outright move on from a guy like that without Hankins asking to be released. 

 

 

That may be the case, others have said the same.  If someone would confirm that it would answer my questions.  

[Four2itus]

On 3/17/2018 at 11:19 AM, Flash7 said:

We couldn’t have traded him? 

 

On 3/17/2018 at 11:20 AM, Happy2BeHere said:

I’m floored we didn’t at least trade him to someone for something 

 

On 3/17/2018 at 11:20 AM, Flash7 said:

He’s actually very good and graded out really well. Among the best at his position. That’s why I’m surprised he wasn’t traded.

 

On 3/17/2018 at 11:55 AM, superrep1967 said:

Why not trade him?

 

On 3/17/2018 at 2:42 PM, BProland85 said:

Why didn't we try to trade him first before just outright releasing him? He has good value being that he was one of our better defensive players and is only 26.

 

On 3/17/2018 at 4:12 PM, throwing BBZ said:

So you would have gotten a 4th for him if nothing else, and Ballard couldn't get even a 5th, 6th, or 7th.
I know the light will never come on.

From Ballard on releasing Hankins.....

 

"That was a very difficult decision. We'd been trying to move him here for the last two weeks," Ballard said. "He's a great kid, but at the end of the day, he didn't make sense in (the new scheme). ....

 

 

Try and realize that if you thought it....an NFL GM probably did too.