Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

2018 Free Agency Database - (Signed: WILLIAMS - McPhee - Scandrick - P-Rich) - (Lauvao, Bergstrom, Nsehke, Taylor, Z. Brown and Quick re-signed)

DC9

By DC9
in The Stadium

Recommended Posts

carex

carex

Posted
Posted
31 minutes ago, Fat Stupid Loser said:

I don't know. I guess if we're not going to upgrade the position, what is the point? Keep who you have. 

 

we're not cutting Galette.  He is a free agent, so we don't actually have him, he has to choose to sign here

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TSO

TSO

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, MartinC said:

 

Hankins and Vita Vea would both play the same 1 or 3 tech role in base and neither guy is known as a great pass rusher (though Vea has the potential/athletic ability to develop into one). Unlikely they would be on the field at the same time apart from in short yardage defense.

 

Last year NFL offenses were in 11 personnel (1 back, 1 TE, 3 WR) on over 60% of snaps league wide. That means defenses were in sub package as base. If you factor in short yardage, goal line, dime etc teams are in base 3-4 or 4-3 only around 10% - 15% of snaps.

 

We are mainly a 1 gap defense (that might change but I doubt it). When people talk of run stuffing defenders they are normally thinking 2 gap - we dont run that. What you do want though is a guy who can disrupt a blocking scheme and who commands a double team. Allen did that to some extent and we saw the impact of losing him when he was hurt. 

 

So the question in deciding if you draft Vea high and how much you offer a guy like Hankins is what do they offer as a 1 gap defender in sub? Can they give you quality pass rush reps from a 3 tech rotation in a 4 man line in sub? Are they the kind of guy who teams need to double when they run?

 

Always nice to be reminded of this. It also is depressing knowing we gave up Fuller, who was truly a key cog when recognizing the above. :( 

 

As for your questions pertaining to Hankins... I might be wrong because I haven’t really studied him diligently, but from what I’ve heard and read about him the answers to those questions are positives. I do believe in 2016 the Giants, after signing Harrison, moved him from his mostly 1 tech role into almost exclusively a 3 tech, and PFF graded him low. 

 

But watching the tape tells a different story from what I’ve seen, so I’m not sure I agree with them. That Giants Dline was deadly in general that year... hard to believe he was this legitimately weak point there. 

 

But, yeah, he’s a NT. Ideally he’s lining up as a 1 tech or 0 mostly. And I think you can still line him up there even in 4 man sub situations to help collapse the pocket for Allen/Ioannidis, Kerrigan and Smith (odd front with one of Kerrigan or Smith playing as a down lineman). It can help give Allen/Ioannidis even more rest where they’re not playing all three downs and you bring in another OLB to play on the edge. You’ll have the big guy collapsing the pocket with 3 other pass rushers closing in quickly. Me likey. 

 

He’s not going to be as good lining up as a 3 tech. But I don’t think it’s a significant downfall, and I believe the boost he provides to stuffing the run is so important to this team it’s ok to overpay a little just for that. It’s such a massive weakness and teams recognize it and exploit it. I wonder if the above stats you posted related to personnel groupings are significantly different against us because of that. 

 

That’s interesting to take a look at. Anyone know where you can find that? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NickyJ

NickyJ

Posted
Posted
38 minutes ago, markmills67 said:

I'm not bothered how big his hands are mate as long as them hands are putting a Washington Redskins jersey on with them. Getting anxious now.

 

HTTR 

If his hands are big enough, we've got the answer to both our D-Line problem and Jordan Reed problem. Next time Reed gets injured, we just put Handkins out there without missing a beat.

 

Move over Vernon Davis, Jonathan Handkins is coming to town!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
skinsfan212689

skinsfan212689

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, actorguy1 said:

So, what is the cutoff for you on how much per year to pay Hankins? $10 mil, $12 mil or is $8mil plenty?

 

For me $10 mil per year is the cutoff. If Redskins won't go that high and he walks i would be disappointed 

Year 1 I'd do no more than12mil. I know thats a lot but we may have to overpay. With NT being one of our biggest needs I'd be ok with 12mil for this yr then something like 9, 9, 6 on a 4 yr deal

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jericho

Jericho

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, actorguy1 said:

So, what is the cutoff for you on how much per year to pay Hankins? $10 mil, $12 mil or is $8mil plenty?

 

For me $10 mil per year is the cutoff. If Redskins won't go that high and he walks i would be disappointed 

 

He only had $15.5 million left on his deal with the Colts, I believe. The Colts just cut him for nothing. If anyone really wanted, they could have traded for him for much, much less than $10 million per year. And it probably would have cost a 7th rounder

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HigSkin

HigSkin

Posted
Posted

Hankins Colts contract info...

 

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/indianapolis-colts/johnathan-hankins-12330/

 

Johnathan Hankins signed a 3 year, $27,000,000 contract with the Indianapolis Colts, including $14,500,000 guaranteed, and an average annual salary of $9,000,000. In 2018, Hankins will earn a base salary of $8,000,000 and a roster bonus of $468,750, while carrying a cap hit of $8,468,750.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sjinhan

sjinhan

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, thesubmittedone said:

 

 

 

He’s not going to be as good lining up as a 3 tech. But I don’t think it’s a significant downfall, and I believe the boost he provides to stuffing the run is so important to this team it’s ok to overpay a little just for that. It’s such a massive weakness and teams recognize it and exploit it. I wonder if the above stats you posted related to personnel groupings are significantly different against us because of that. 

 

That’s interesting to take a look at. Anyone know where you can find that? 

 

Hankins in most part have been a DT in a 4-3 scheme at OSU and NYC... I think he almost played more of DE role in a 3-4 with the colts but I can be wrong....

 

so Hankins is not a natural NT by his background but I think everyone agrees that he can play the position due to his size and skill sets.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Skinsinparadise

Skinsinparadise

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

I may have said this in the past, but I doubt I ever gave Bruce a full vote of confidence because I am not a fan of how Scot was handled. That said, I have said all along that there is a lot that we don't know and I judge Bruce on what he's doing for the team and he has returned us to a team that focuses on the daraft and we're doing well with that.

 

 

OK, cool enough. The idea that you've said this in the past is what I gather confused me.  If you are backing off of those statements -- I get it, then. 

 

11 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

This is not about me being right or wrong. Its about me saying that they haven't tied themselves into a hole by their comments. You may be right, but I'm just saying that just like their only option wasn't Richardson, their only option isn't Hankins.

 

It seemed like you were going deeper than they weren't tying themselves into a hole.  I agree with you there, nothing puts you in a hole.  But you were outright questioning the idea of doing it period -- explaining how you prefer to develop in house and maybe that's how they really see it.  Similar discussion between us a week ago about WR. 

 

My focus is on their statements. The statements (just like they did in WR) gave a STRONG indication that upgrading DT a priority. And the kicker is this -- their arranged visits seem to dovetail off of those statements. 

 

15 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

I'm not trying to debate a point. Its why I didn't respond to your earlier point. It seems you want to "win" and all I'm saying is that we may sign the guy and we may not sign the guy. We have guys on our roster who are good and who we can develop. If they choose to sign the guy it doesn't make me wrong (or maybe it does, I don't really care), I just think that your statements that make the offseason a failure (or things of that nature, I don't feel like going back for exact wording) if we don't make move X or move Y,

 

As for just wanting to "win".   We are debating the D line issue the other day.  And you summarize it as I am saying we have the worst D line in the world.  That's ridiculous.  You liked a post that includes people will abandon the team if they don't sign Hankins.   If you don't like extreme positions as you pointed out the other day to everyone -- it should cut on both sides of an argument not just one side. 

 

We've had some good discussions so am not trying to slam you. You got a strong point of view on things.  So do I.  

 

30 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

 I think you're calling our team a lot worse than it is. 

 

Based on what?  I've said to death its an average team with an average FO.  I'd like to elevate it to above that.  IMO that would start with adding an impact D lineman.  Is that so extreme?  

 

And its not some new fangled idea I came up with because of last years FA crop.  I've have made points about D line that go back before Bruce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
markmills67

markmills67

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, actorguy1 said:

So, what is the cutoff for you on how much per year to pay Hankins? $10 mil, $12 mil or is $8mil plenty?

 

For me $10 mil per year is the cutoff. If Redskins won't go that high and he walks i would be disappointed 

I would definitely go 4 year 38m with $20m guaranteed. Hopefully keeping him at 7/8m cap hit for 2018. Which should leave us with enough room to sign DRC and Mcphee.

 

HTTR 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MartinC

MartinC

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, sjinhan said:

 

Hankins in most part have been a DT in a 4-3 scheme at OSU and NYC...

 

 

A DT in a 4-3 normally plays as a 1, 3 or 5 tech. Typically you have a guy who lines up as a 1 or 3 and a guy who lines up as a 5. Hankins was the 1/3 tech. 

 

16 minutes ago, sjinhan said:

I think he almost played more of DE role in a 3-4 with the colts but I can be wrong....

 

He played mainly 0/1 tech with the Colts (NT) but did slide out to 5 on occasion.

 

16 minutes ago, sjinhan said:

 

so Hankins is not a natural NT by his background but I think everyone agrees that he can play the position due to his size and skill sets.

 

 

 

He is a natural 0/1 tech who can play 3 tech and 5 tech. But the further away from the centre you play him the less effective he becomes would be the way I look at him.

 

I know not everyone gets the D'line positions by technique but its much better to think in those terms than NT, DT, DE because those labels mean different things in different teams and different schemes. Which is why coaches etc talk about techniques.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Skinsinparadise

Skinsinparadise

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Long n Left said:

Cravens to Denver if they'll give us a third rounder back. Probably trying to get him for a seventh or sixth. Have no problem with the FO holding out for a bit more.

 

I agree to hold out.  I'd be stunned though if they get a third -- and thrilled so hope that's possible.  My guess is Keim was right when he wrote about this a week or two back, at best a 5th.  I'd take it though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
volsmet

volsmet

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, MartinC said:

 

I know not everyone gets the D'line positions by technique but its much better to think in those terms than NT, DT, DE because those labels mean different things in different teams and different schemes. Which is why coaches etc talk about techniques.

 

It makes more sense until you get to 7 & 6 or try to find the 8. ?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Skinsinparadise

Skinsinparadise

Posted
Posted

Linebacker Zach Brown's contract includes a $4.5 million signing bonus and a $1 million base salary in 2018. In 2019, he has a $6.7 million base salary, with $4.5 million guaranteed for injury only. And his third year has a $7.5 million base salary. He has a roster bonus in 2017 up to $250,000; it goes up to 500,000 in each of the last two years. The Redskins could cut him after one year with only a $3 penalty -- that could be spread over two years with a post-June 1 release.

i?img=%2Fi%2Fcolumnists%2Ffull%2Fkeim_john.png&w=80&h=80&scale=cropJohn Keim, ESPN Staff Writer
Link to comment
Share on other sites
volsmet

volsmet

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I agree to hold out.  I'd be stunned though if they get a third -- and thrilled so hope that's possible.  My guess is Keim was right when he wrote about this a week or two back, at best a 5th.  I'd take it though.

 

Id hope the team sits with Cravens on Dr Phil before settling for a 5th. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...