I agree with that. In this case at least Hankins was basically signed to a 1 year contract with 2 team options. I suspect Ballard considered it a one year deal.

1) Freeney would've worked in a 3-4, Justin Houston does.

2) I don't understand why they released Hankins and kept Woods. I'd think Hankins would be the better 4-3 NT.

Then trade him for a 5th at worst

Yes, yes he would've. That is the point I'm making.

This was the beginning of me hating fucking Pagano. Freeney is a HOF and Pagano was the POS that let him go way too damn early.

Fuck Suh. He wouldn't make any difference on this team right now anyway. No way I pay that MF what he thinks he is worth.

A 4 time first team All Pro on the DL wouldn't make a difference to a bad defense? That's just a bad argument. As far as spending the money, they HAVE to spend some. They're at like 60% of cap right now.

I have a feeling your mind would change if he was on the colts

Or you trade the talent for an asset, but I guess they were worried about the guarantee kicking in. :confused:

Which we're not hurting money-wise, so it's confusing.

Maybe Irsay is after paying Pagano to go away? Maybe he told Ballard tofree up some cash this year if he was given permission to axe the albatross. I really don't know.

I love this move. Not because Hankins wasn’t any good (he was) but because Ballard has a plan for what kind of player he wants and appears to be sticking to it. I think in a year or two we have a chance for a great team with this guy in charge. He has balls AND a plan. It’s gonna be fine and fun to watch this team take shape

That's the confusing thing on this. If we needed any sort of cap space whatsoever then maybe the move makes sense.

The only thing I can think of is Hankins asked to be released and Ballard granted that wish.

The Tweeter-in-Chief is saying this release was due to scheme change.

https://twitter.com/jimirsay


Reporting in IndyStar is suggesting the same thing:

But in 2018, the switch to a speed-based defense appears to have changed the team’s view of Hankins’ fit. The major emphasis on speed and quickness would, theoretically, limit Hankins’ effectiveness in the new scheme.

Sure I would have been a lot happier with that, but it takes 2 to tango and we don't know if he tried.

Agreed.........again from IndyStar on question of why no trade:

It's not clear whether the Colts tried to trade Hankins. But that effort likely would have been undermined by a trigger in his contract that would have guaranteed $4.5 million of his 2018 base salary if he was still on the roster by Sunday. Because other teams knew the Colts were facing a deadline to make a decision on Hankins, they would have had little leverage in any trade talks because Hankins being cut was the likeliest outcome.

I call bullshit on the doesn't fit the new scheme, the reason is all about the Benjamins. The Colt's saved 4.5m on his roster bonus so the could pay Luck his 6m roster bonus that is due today!

They have to spend approx 90% over a 4 year average.... we are in yr two of the period and have averaged 89%. so I dont think we are in too much trouble with 2 years to go

They're at 60% now, will need serious spending to get to 90%.

I honestly don't know what Ballard is doing.

I am willing to give him a chance and give him time. It seems he wants to build through the draft.

But I stated elsewhere, at some point you have to sign some free agents just to field a team. AT the current rate of releasing players and signing only one, I don't see how we'll even have enough to fill the roster.

Next season is going to be another rough one.

60 over the four year period of just this yr?

Cap casualties open up another wave of free agents that we may pursue after all the other teams have blown their wad on the first wave.

This year.

and we get scraps... yeahhh!!!!!!:confused:

Hankins was a cap casualty and most on here would not call him a "scrap"

Hankins isn't a "cap casualty".

So a 6 time first or second team All Pro is a scrap?

I think he meant when the Giants let him go

No he wasn't a "cap casualty"

I agree, we discard a serviceable players like Melvin and Hankins for other teams scraps... TEs that can't catch as an example. He's a great athlete though I hear. Lot's of potential in the Darrius Heyward-Bey mold

Y'all need to read slower....

Cap casualty means you release the player to save cap. Hankins was just a standard unrestricted free agent.

give up the melvin rhetoric, he wanted an unrealistic contract from us. we were not getting him for what OAK did.

He was cut the day before guaranteed money was to kick in, so in a way, he is a cap casualty. Someone will sign him and get a good player. That someone may opt on him instead of another DL, leaving us another option (maybe Suh?) that you all will applaud. So, no, I did not mean when he left the Giants.

Hankins would be a much better fit for the Rams, who need a NT and already have Donald and Brockers as outstanding DEs in their 3-4 (which is also what Suh would be in their 3-4).