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

[markmills67]

14 minutes ago, WelshSkinsFan said:

 

Or draft Vea and sign Hankins to a 3 year deal and watch them team up with Allen to eat Wentz's lunch for the next few years.

What a seven man DL we could have if we got the 2 players.

 

Hankins, Vea, Loannidis, Francis, Allen, McGee and Lanier.

 

Yes Please.

 

HTTR 

[tchrpe1]

At the point the Skins are in full draft mode.  Pre- draft visits having ended yesterday.  Hankins at this point probably is a post draft signing.  The longer he waits the less leverage he has.  Probably will end up with a deal slightly better then the one Logan got from the Titans. 

[skinny21]

51 minutes ago, bowhunter said:

That's pretty much how I feel. Depending on who's doing the projections, it's not only a possibility that Vea isn't the BPA at pick 13, in fact it's doubtful. So we should be attempting to draft the BPA (with slight emphasis on position of need) and give the team an improvement in overall talent. Reaching to fill a need due to glaring holes is a wasted opportunity.  I get that renting Hank for a year might allow us to grab a late round pick to develop, but it might also FORCE us to. I'm not a pure BPA draft guy by any means, but for us to bypass Edmunds or Minkah (or losing the value of trading that pick) because we HAVE to draft a DT is not maximizing use of resources.

Sort of related, McGlouhan said he went BPA in the first few rounds, and then switched to more heavily weighing need in the later rounds.  It will be interesting to see if Allen and Co. stick to this (if we can even tell).  

 

Might be extra hard to judge this (short of them spelling it out, as Scot did) because we have multiple positions where we either need depth or future starters.  We need to seriously think about replacements for Norman, Brown (his contract balloons), Reed and Davis, McClain and Hood, Nicholson (injury concerns), Scherff, Smith and Crowder (future FAs), etc.  

 

Son of a... I somehow convinced myself the draft was starting this week.  Ugh.  

[HTTRDynasty]

1 hour ago, Califan007 said:

 

Yep. Good-very good players don't get their growth stunted by having other good players at their position on the roster. Drafting Scherff didn't stunt Moses' growth. having Garcon and Jackson on the roster didn't stunt Crowder's growth (no wisecracks about how short Crowder is lol)...

 

That is not an apples to apples comparison.  Scherff and Moses play two different positions.  Garcon and Jackson played outside WR while Crowder was the slot.  Vea would play NT for us.  So would Hankins.  Neither one is a good enough pass rusher to consistently generate interior pressure like a Matt Ionidis or Jonathan Allen.  So one or the other would be coming off the bench.  Also, using premium capital (1st round draft capital and high cap $) for two NTs on the DL is unwise.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

2 minutes ago, HTTRDynasty said:

 

That is not an apples to apples comparison.  Scherff and Moses play two different positions.  Garcon and Jackson played outside WR while Crowder was the slot.  Vea would play NT for us.  So would Hankins.  Neither one is a good enough pass rusher to consistently generate interior pressure like a Matt Ionidis or Jonathan Allen.  So one or the other would be coming off the bench.  Also, using premium capital (1st round draft capital and high cap $) for two NTs on the DL is unwise.

 

Scherff was drafted to play RT, but Moses' progress made it damn near impossible to keep him on the bench in favor of developing Scherff as a tackle, so they moved him to guard which he excelled at.

[HTTRDynasty]

Just now, Califan007 said:

 

Scherff was drafted to play RT, but Moses' progress made it damn near impossible to keep him on the bench in favor of developing Scherff at a tackle, so they moved him to guard which he excelled at.

 

I am aware.  They ended up playing two different positions and it worked out great for us.  That would not be the case if you're expecting to start two NTs.

[skinny21]

2 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

Scherff was drafted to play RT, but Moses' progress made it damn near impossible to keep him on the bench in favor of developing Scherff as a tackle, so they moved him to guard which he excelled at.

To further your point, Vea/Hankins both have played a lot of DE/DT.  At least in the case of Hankins, he’s played a lot more at those two spots than at NT.  

[Califan007 The Constipated]

2 minutes ago, HTTRDynasty said:

 

I am aware.  They ended up playing two different positions and it worked out great for us.  That would not be the case if you're expecting to start two NTs.

 

Just now, skinny21 said:

To further your point, Vea/Hankins both have played a lot of DE/DT.  At least in the case of Hankins, he’s played a lot more at those two spots than at NT.  

 

I'll just bow out now lol....

[NickyJ]

19 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

 We need to seriously think about replacements for Norman, Brown (his contract balloons), Reed and Davis, McClain and Hood, Nicholson (injury concerns), Scherff, Smith and Crowder (future FAs), etc.

What? We just signed Zach Brown to a three year contract. What's the point of a three year contract if we're going to cut him after one year? And why would we let our best OG in years walk? Yes, we'll need to replace at least some of those players, but you're making it out to be that we'll have to replace just about every single player who's contract year comes up.

[Die Hard]

1 hour ago, tchrpe1 said:

Hankins at this point probably is a post draft signing.  The longer he waits the less leverage he has. 

 

I understand the logic. I’m not certain it’s actually true though. Teams may be low-balling because the possibility remains they can still address the position in the draft. Either a better upgrade or a cheaper solution to the problem. However, if the draft doesn’t provide the solution, he may be the only option for a team that is desperate enough. Or suffers an injury in OTAs or camp.

 

Ive seen it play out a number of ways ?

[HTTRDynasty]

2 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

To further your point, Vea/Hankins both have played a lot of DE/DT.  At least in the case of Hankins, he’s played a lot more at those two spots than at NT.  

 

First, I would love to see some proof that he's played more DE in a 3-4 defense than NT. 

Second, the role of a DT in a 4-3 is not necessarily the same as the role of a DE in a 3-4.  Where he lined up and what he was asked to do matter a lot more. 

 

The only time in his career that I can recall that Hankins did not play the 0- or 1-tech role in a 4-3 or NT in a 3-4 is when Snacks Harrison teamed up with him in 2016.  Hankins played a lot of 3-tech that year in a 4-3, but he did not get enough pressure on opposing QBs that year for the Giants to bring him back.

 

11 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

 

I'll just bow out now lol....

 

Why?

[skinny21]

28 minutes ago, NickyJ said:

What? We just signed Zach Brown to a three year contract. What's the point of a three year contract if we're going to cut him after one year? And why would we let our best OG in years walk? Yes, we'll need to replace at least some of those players, but you're making it out to be that we'll have to replace just about every single player who's contract year comes up.

That’s why I said we need to seriously think about it.  Brown’s cap hit is great this year, but jumps big time after that.  I’m happy to roll with him for the next 3 years, but if we find a late round gem (particularly if they are a more balanced player), the ability to use that cap elsewhere could be really useful.  

Scherff is obviously an automatic re-sign, but... if he doesn’t want to sign here or wants to be paid 15 per year?  I’m just saying there are things to consider.  

 

You are right though that those guys are further down the list list of future concerns than the other guys I mentioned.  

 

Look at it this way... our tackles are both the 3rd highest paid at their positions (purely off yearly average, which ain’t the best metric)... so looking at drafting an early round tackle in the next couple years might make some sense.  Doesn’t mean we’re ready, or anxious to move on from either, it’s just about opening up your personnel and financial options, and adding insurance/depth for the future.  

[Califan007 The Constipated]

34 minutes ago, HTTRDynasty said:

Why?

 

 

Because his response to me could have been my response to you lol...

[kingdaddy]

1 hour ago, markmills67 said:

What a seven man DL we could have if we got the 2 players.

 

Hankins, Vea, Loannidis, Francis, Allen, McGee and Lanier.

 

Yes Please.

 

HTTR 

With a pro bowl edge rusher and another one not far behind in rushing the passer (Smith). 

[markmills67]

1 minute ago, kingdaddy said:

With a pro bowl edge rusher and another one not far behind in rushing the passer (Smith). 

Then draft best ILB in 1st round and away we go.

 

HTTR 

[HTTRDynasty]

2 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

Because his response to me could have been my response to you lol...

 

And the response was both inaccurate (in the case of saying Hankins played more DE than NT in a 3-4) and/or pointless (in the case of Hankins playing 4-3 DT).  So go ahead and stand behind that response if it makes you feel better lol...

[Califan007 The Constipated]

6 minutes ago, HTTRDynasty said:

 

And the response was both inaccurate (in the case of saying Hankins played more DE than NT in a 3-4) and/or pointless (in the case of Hankins playing 4-3 DT).  So go ahead and stand behind that response if it makes you feel better lol...

 

had to go find an example lol...but I remember reading a lot of DE talk concerning Hankins:

 

"Tomlinson will play the new 3-technique defensive end position in new defensive coordinator James Bettcher's defensive scheme. This is also the position the Giants would likely envision for Hankins should they pursue re-signing him. However, if the Giants and Bettcher feel Hankins can fit as the 5-technique defensive end, opposite Tomlinson, there is a great chance he will re-sign with his former team who drafted him."

 

I also don't remember the other guy specifically saying Hankins played more DE in a 3-4, just that combined he played more DT/DE (regardless of scheme) than he did NT.

[HTTRDynasty]

7 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

had to go find an example lol...but I remember reading a lot of DE talk concerning Hankins:

 

"Tomlinson will play the new 3-technique defensive end position in new defensive coordinator James Bettcher's defensive scheme. This is also the position the Giants would likely envision for Hankins should they pursue re-signing him. However, if the Giants and Bettcher feel Hankins can fit as the 5-technique defensive end, opposite Tomlinson, there is a great chance he will re-sign with his former team who drafted him."

 

I also don't remember the other guy specifically saying Hankins played more DE in a 3-4, just that combined he played more DT/DE (regardless of scheme) than he did NT.

 

EDIT:  I misread the quote.  They're not even talking about what actual positions Hankins has ever played.  They're speculating on what he could play in Bettcher's 3-4 defense if they were to sign him this offseason.  This isn't even close to proving what the other poster claimed.  And obviously, they decided not to sign him, which further proves that no team is looking at Hankins as a 3-4 DE that can rush the passer like Matty I or J. Allen.  They are looking at him as a run stuffing NT.

 

The other guy said Hankins played more DE/DT than NT.  I really hope he didn't mean DE in a 4-3.  That would completely discredit his football knowledge.  So I assumed he meant DE in a 3-4, which has never been Hankin's role.  And again, just saying he played "DT" in a 4-3 is completely pointless unless you specify which technique he played on the line.

[skinny21]

48 minutes ago, HTTRDynasty said:

 

First, I would love to see some proof that he's played more DE in a 3-4 defense than NT. 

Second, the role of a DT in a 4-3 is not necessarily the same as the role of a DE in a 3-4.  Where he lined up and what he was asked to do matter a lot more. 

 

The only time in his career that I can recall that Hankins did not play the 0- or 1-tech role in a 4-3 or NT in a 3-4 is when Snacks Harrison teamed up with him in 2016.  Hankins played a lot of 3-tech that year in a 4-3, but he did not get enough pressure on opposing QBs that year for the Giants to bring him back.

 

 

Why?

He played more DE/DT than NT... not more DE than NT and more DT than NT.  Pretty sure he played more as a DE with Al Woods as the NT in Indy (in the 34), and otherwise as a DT.  In New York, he played DT.  In essence, my impression is he played a lot of 1 tech, a good amount of 3 tech, and little to no 0 tech.  

 

If you want to consider a 1 tech DT as a NT, that’s fine.  It’s not how I look at it, but there’s a lot I don’t know.  

 

Bottom line, considering the low number of true 3-4 snaps we play, IMO we’d be signing Hankins and/or drafting Vea because they play DT...and can play some NT/DE too.  So I don’t really see a great deal of overlap.  We can essentially use Vea and Hankins as our rotational DTs and so split the dline snaps roughly equally between the 4.  Added to that, as I said, Vea and Hankins can both play DE and NT, so they could both be on the field for those 10-15 snaps in the 34.  

 

3 talented dlinemen is nice, 4 is great.  

[MisterPinstripe]

11 minutes ago, HTTRDynasty said:

 

EDIT:  I misread the quote.  They're not even talking about what actual positions Hankins has ever played.  They're speculating on what he could play in Bettcher's 3-4 defense if they were to sign him this offseason.  This isn't even close to proving what the other poster claimed.  And obviously, they decided not to sign him, which further proves that no team is looking at Hankins as a 3-4 DE that can rush the passer like Matty I or J. Allen.  They are looking at him as a run stuffing NT.

 

The other guy said Hankins played more DE/DT than NT.  I really hope he didn't mean DE in a 4-3.  That would completely discredit his football knowledge.  So I assumed he meant DE in a 3-4, which has never been Hankin's role.  And again, just saying he played "DT" in a 4-3 is completely pointless unless you specify which technique he played on the line.

We play in a 4-3 WAY more than we do in a 3-4, so he would in fact play as a DT a lot with us.

[HTTRDynasty]

6 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

Bottom line, considering the low number of true 3-4 snaps we play, IMO we’d be signing Hankins and/or drafting Vea because they play DT...and can play some NT/DE too.  So I don’t really see a great deal of overlap.  We can essentially use Vea and Hankins as our rotational DTs and so split the dline snaps roughly equally between the 4.  Added to that, as I said, Vea and Hankins can both play DE and NT, so they could both be on the field for those 10-15 snaps in the 34.  

 

3 talented dlinemen is nice, 4 is great.  

 

There is an overlap because neither one of them is above average at rushing the passer compared to other interior DEs (or 4-3 DTs) in the NFL.  They are probably both better at rushing the passer than other NFL NTs, but that would not be who we compare them against if one of them play DE or both play 3-tech DT.

6 minutes ago, MisterPinstripe said:

We play in a 4-3 WAY more than we do in a 3-4, so he would in fact play as a DT a lot with us.

 

We play in Nickel WAY more than we do in 3-4, which also has 4 down linemen, but is not a "4-3".  And when we line up in Nickel, it because we are intent on stopping the pass by getting after the QB.  Having both Hankins and Vea lined up at DT would impede our efforts of generating enough interior pressure to negatively affect the QB.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

19 minutes ago, HTTRDynasty said:

 

EDIT:  I misread the quote.  They're not even talking about what actual positions Hankins has ever played.  They're speculating on what he could play in Bettcher's 3-4 defense if they were to sign him this offseason.  This isn't even close to proving what the other poster claimed.

 

 

 

My original response was going to be that, if the Giants could legitimately consider him as a DE if they brought him back, why can't the Skins do the same if they brought him on board? Would we need to change up our defensive scheme some to accommodate both Hankins and Vea? Definitely...but you had made it seem like if we had both then both would be NTs and rarely-if ever-anything else. My thought was, noooo lol...it had already been discussed about how Hankins could be used elsewhere along the DLine, not just NT.

 

Then I saw skinny21's response and thought, ok, cool, and left his response instead lol..

[Burgold]

I think I'm beginning to turn against signing Hankins. Here's why.

 

I think he's a good player, even a very good player, but I don't think he's a good enough player to be the difference between whatever the Redskins' record would be without him and the Superbowl... and if we're only looking at a one year contract that's too rich a price for not reaching the mountain top. The longer Hankins remains unsigned by everybody, the more I think that his demands are unreasonable or that there's something buried that we're not seeing. Mostly though, I think the Redskins are better off being weaker this year and husbanding their resources. After all, we need to reserve cap next year for Crowder, Scherff, and maybe Daniels.They may all be core and Hankins isn't.  If we could sign him to a five or even three year deal I might feel differently, but if we believe the reports that we only want him for a one year I just don't see the point. I mean what's the point of spending big on a player who won't be there when you actually need them to contend?

 

...Unless 2018 turns out to be a magical year.

 

Disclaimer: It's my belief that at this point pretty much every team has shelved their offers until after the draft. That could mean that its not Hankins balking, but that he played chicken too long and now while he might sign an offer previously extended there isn't one available for him to sign.

[skinny21]

1 hour ago, HTTRDynasty said:

 

There is an overlap because neither one of them is above average at rushing the passer compared to other interior DEs (or 4-3 DTs) in the NFL.  They are probably both better at rushing the passer than other NFL NTs, but that would not be who we compare them against if one of them play DE or both play 3-tech DT.

 

We play in Nickel WAY more than we do in 3-4, which also has 4 down linemen, but is not a "4-3".  And when we line up in Nickel, it because we are intent on stopping the pass by getting after the QB.  Having both Hankins and Vea lined up at DT would impede our efforts of generating enough interior pressure to negatively affect the QB.

There are options there of course.  In the 34, you’d play some combo of Hankins, Vea, Allen and Io.  In our nickel, same setup, but maybe you generally avoid Hankins and Vea playing at the same time.  OTOH, Hankins can push the pocket, and there’s a pretty good chance Vea can too.  Combine that with talented OLBs/end in Smith and Kerrigan, and we should be able to get solid pressure that way.  I mean, look at the snaps McGee and Hood got, and yet we still ranked 7th in pass rush.  But now we’re also far stouter against the run.  

 

Add in Lanier coming in on passing downs (or Smith/Anderson moving inside), and you’ve set yourself up with a group of versatile dlinemen... you just have to be at least semi smart about how you use them.  

 

 

With all of this said, the argument stemmed from the idea that Hankins and Vea are redundant because they’re both NTs.  I disagree with that point, but... if we signed Hankins in the next week to a LTD, I’d rather use our first pick on a different position - RB, db (if a blue chip falls), ILB (if one drops), an interior lineman, etc.  My guess is that that is your major point - maximizing resources - and if so, we’re in agreement there.  

[markmills67]

Giants to release Brandon Marshall, so hopefully that means we are out of the Des Bryant stakes.

 

HTTR