Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hankins was seen as a first rounder..

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by gmen0820 View Post
    I don't mind the pick, and like the OL/DL combo, I just disagree with the order -- especially with Floyd having been on the board yesterday.
    I'm not a draftnik by any means, but do you think there is a bigger drop off between Pugh and the next crop of OL than there is between Floyd and Hankins?

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by gmen0820 View Post
      I don't mind the pick, and like the OL/DL combo, I just disagree with the order -- especially with Floyd having been on the board yesterday.
      Was there an OL worth taking over Hankins, though?

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by TheEnigma View Post
        Hankins doesn't really match up well with the likes of a Chip Kelly offense. That has me concerned a little.
        Because we play a Chip Kelly offense every week? Not to mention we have no idea what Kelly's offense is going to look like in the NFL.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Drez View Post
          I'm not a draftnik by any means, but do you think there is a bigger drop off between Pugh and the next crop of OL than there is between Floyd and Hankins?
          I personally don't. I'd say San Jose State's David Quessenberry offered the same versatility as Justin Pugh with slightly better measureables though he is a little more raw.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by ALLnygIN View Post
            yeah, okay. That guy couldn't even stay out there for 4 downs. How the hell do you expect him to stay on the field as long as our defense does!?! not gonna happen which is why he wasn't picked in the 1st round by anyone else.
            He was a 3 down guy in college, which seems to contribute to his being winded late in games. With the way we rotate guys and bring in specialized pass rush packages, he won't need to be a 70 snap guy.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Drez View Post
              How many DTs don't have the con: takes plays off?
              I hope Hankins:

              1) Maintains his weight
              2) Can play more downs
              3) Doesn't take plays off.

              Also, I hope he can occupy 4 blockers....because none of the 3 guys we have starting at LB can shed a blocker.
              "I like linebackers. I collect 'em. You can't have too many good ones." - Bill Parcells

              "Name the starting linebackers from 2007." - Jerry Reese

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by gmen0820 View Post
                I don't mind the pick, and like the OL/DL combo, I just disagree with the order -- especially with Floyd having been on the board yesterday.
                ditto

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Harooni View Post
                  ditto
                  Disagree, Giants aren't finding an OT with the versatility and technique of Pughs caliber in 2nd rd. Hankins has the ability to be everything Floyd is if not more. I think the draft is going fine. If you are expecting an impact player for next year it's not happening under TC. Most of these kids will sit or be situational players until hopefully late in the season when they finally demonstrate an idea of the schemes.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by VegasGmen View Post
                    Disagree, Giants aren't finding an OT with the versatility and technique of Pughs caliber in 2nd rd. Hankins has the ability to be everything Floyd is if not more. I think the draft is going fine. If you are expecting an impact player for next year it's not happening under TC. Most of these kids will sit or be situational players until hopefully late in the season when they finally demonstrate an idea of the schemes.
                    Pugh has a very good shot at being a day 1 starter. Hankins should see plenty of time as a rotational guy, saying he has a good camp and all that j***.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Flip Empty View Post
                      Was there an OL worth taking over Hankins, though?
                      No, but I don't think there was an OL worth taking over Floyd yesterday, either. I've settled a little more on the Pugh pick, but I never thought or implied that he would be a ****ty player. I just don't like the value we got with Floyd/Werner/Rhodes etc. still on the board.

                      I would assume that the gap between Pugh and whoever was the Giants highest ranked OL when they took Hankins was steep. The Giants are probably right -- their track record is excellent -- but since everything is a wait-and-see game as of this point, I'm not ecstatic with the prospects themselves.
                      My body was sculpted to the proportions of Michelangelo's David.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Drez View Post
                        It's part of the position. It's nearly impossible to give 100% effort on every play as a DT.
                        Taking plays off from laziness isn't good.
                        Mood: WOOF!

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Rudyy View Post
                          Taking plays off from laziness isn't good.
                          It isn't just laziness. You get beat the **** up playing DT. Not to mention DTs are generally the biggest guys on the field. It's just nearly impossible to give 100% effort on every play at DT.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Drez View Post
                            It isn't just laziness. You get beat the **** up playing DT. Not to mention DTs are generally the biggest guys on the field. It's just nearly impossible to give 100% effort on every play at DT.
                            OK, but a con is that he is LAZY.
                            Mood: WOOF!

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Drez View Post
                              He was a 3 down guy in college, which seems to contribute to his being winded late in games. With the way we rotate guys and bring in specialized pass rush packages, he won't need to be a 70 snap guy.
                              Finally someone who knows what they are talking about! He did not come off the field at OS! He chased plays downfield and sideline to sideline! He ate up and beat doubles! Of course he's gonna get fatigued! Wilfork is a rare breed! Most DT's would get fatigued! That is not laziness! Laziness is laying on the ground after plays like Haynesworth!

                              Does he look lazy?

                              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TK-mCCWRNHg

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Rudyy View Post
                                OK, but a con is that he is LAZY.
                                I'm trying to explain to you that it isn't laziness (or not completely so), seeing as every DT has that knock against them.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X