- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Why haven’t we brought in Hankins?
Posted on 3/26/18 at 8:38 am
Posted on 3/26/18 at 8:38 am
I know we want Suh, but with all this delay and another quality FA DT available, why haven’t the Saints brought Hankins in for a visit?
5
Posted on 3/26/18 at 8:40 am to Neauxla
Hankins ain’t signing until he sees what Suh gets, we risk Suh thinking we’re not interested anymore if we have a meeting with Hankins....
Hankins will be there for a visit after Suh decides.
Hankins will be there for a visit after Suh decides.
Posted on 3/26/18 at 8:53 am to Neauxla
No need at this point. Teams that are in the DT market and available DTs are waiting to see what happens with Suh. I would imagine that teams have been in contact with his agent and other available DTs, and all parties are willing to wait to see what happens with Suh first.
Just because a player has not been in for a visit does not mean that they aren't in contact with teams. A lot of moves are setup behind the scenes.
Just because a player has not been in for a visit does not mean that they aren't in contact with teams. A lot of moves are setup behind the scenes.
Posted on 3/26/18 at 8:55 am to Seeker
I also think he's more of a 3-4 NT than a 4-3 DT. I truly don't know if he fits our scheme. He's talented, but you need guys that fit.
Posted on 3/26/18 at 9:08 am to BallHawk
He can easily slide in as a 43 NT.
Posted on 3/26/18 at 9:10 am to BallHawk
quote:
I also think he's more of a 3-4 NT than a 4-3 DT. I truly don't know if he fits our scheme. He's talented, but you need guys that fit.
You didn't see him in NY then. Man was a monster with Snacks next to him.
Posted on 3/26/18 at 9:41 am to Spelt it rong
Hankins is slightly above average. I would rather roll with who we have then pay him a large salary.
Suh is special, Hankins is not.
Suh is special, Hankins is not.
Posted on 3/26/18 at 9:45 am to VA LSU fan
quote:
Suh is special, Hankins is not
No disagreement here. He's really productive in the run game and would eat up double-teams for Rankins. I think we'd see better play from the entire line when he's out there.
Posted on 3/26/18 at 9:50 am to VA LSU fan
I’d rather add Bennie Logan than Hankins
Posted on 3/26/18 at 9:51 am to SlowurRole
quote:
I’d rather add Bennie Logan than Hankins
Why?
Posted on 3/26/18 at 11:02 am to TwoDatBait
Suh has already named the Rams his leader. Better to cut ties now and bring Hankins in
Posted on 3/26/18 at 11:03 am to VA LSU fan
Hankins is not Suh but he’s better than above average. He’s an elite run stuffer and can be just as good as Rankins against the pass. He would make us better
Posted on 3/26/18 at 11:05 am to WicKed WayZ
quote:When did Suh name them as his leader? Link? I know Rapaport claimed that, but he also claimed we were trading Sean Payton to the Colts and that Payton was getting out of his contract to coach the 49ers.
Suh has already named the Rams his leader.
Posted on 3/26/18 at 11:08 am to Neauxla
Deuce was talking about Hankins a couple weeks ago. Said he was a great run stopper but doesn’t give you much as a pass rusher, so he doubts the Saints would commit big money to someone that’s coming off the field on passing downs.
Posted on 3/26/18 at 11:10 am to Neauxla
I totally agree. It puts us one leg up in the competition to get Hankins, who may actually be a better fit for our defense.
If we are truly handling this as a business decision, the right play is to keep all of our options open and let Hankins know that we are most definitely interested in his services.
Is this really a thing where we are worried about Suh getting offended if we speak to Hankins while he drags this on for weeks?
If we are truly handling this as a business decision, the right play is to keep all of our options open and let Hankins know that we are most definitely interested in his services.
Is this really a thing where we are worried about Suh getting offended if we speak to Hankins while he drags this on for weeks?
Posted on 3/26/18 at 11:12 am to WB504
quote:
he doubts the Saints would commit big money to someone that’s coming off the field on passing downs.
Exactly. Why would you commit serious money for someone that gets yanked for Onyemata on passing downs?
Posted on 3/26/18 at 11:31 am to Spelt it rong
quote:
You didn't see him in NY then. Man was a monster with Snacks next to him
Moving off NT when Harrison arrived actually resulted in Hankins worst season. His best work was playing over the center
2016 with Harrison
quote:
Hankins generated just 22 QB pressures in 398 pass-rushing snaps in 2016 (4.5 pass-rushing productivity, 39th among DTs) and finished with the lowest PFF overall grade of his career (47.1, see image above).
A once-emerging young player (Hankins turned 25 years old on March 29) was taken out of his best position in 2016 and forced to play a spot that does not tailor to his strengths
Posted on 3/26/18 at 11:43 am to GynoSandberg
Don't forget that they acquired Vernon that year who undoubtedly took a few sacks away from everyone. Hankins moved over to the 3 technique when Vernon and Snacks arrived which doesn't suit his play style. He was also still nasty in run defense.
At any rate, I think having Rankins in the 3 tech and Hankins at the 1 tech would amount to a pretty nasty defense.
Plus, Hankins and Rankins will be fun to say.
At any rate, I think having Rankins in the 3 tech and Hankins at the 1 tech would amount to a pretty nasty defense.
Plus, Hankins and Rankins will be fun to say.
Posted on 3/26/18 at 1:31 pm to Spelt it rong
If we ran mostly 3-4 give me Hankins but we don’t. Bennie Logan in our 4-3 scheme would be stout, like his Eagles days
Posted on 3/26/18 at 3:37 pm to SlowurRole
quote:
If we ran mostly 3-4 give me Hankins but we don’t.
His most productive season was in a 4-3. He was the #69 overall players according to PFF in 2014. He had a good 2015, but his 2016 was down after moving to the 3-technique with the addition of Harrison. I actually don't understand why the Colts let him leave when he's suited to play in a 4-3.
quote:
Bennie Logan in our 4-3 scheme would be stout, like his Eagles days
It's like you don't even watch teams outside of the Saints. Logan is a stop-gap signing at best (this is coming from an LSU fan btw.) If he were signed, I'd expect the FO to go get another DT unlike if they signed Hankins or Suh.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News