ColtFreaks.com - Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

ColtFreaks.com - Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum (http://www.coltfreaks.com/forum/index.php)
-   Indianapolis Colts Discussion (http://www.coltfreaks.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   Henry Anderson traded to the Jets (http://www.coltfreaks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=41933)

Chaka 04-28-2018 09:15 PM

Disappointed as well to be honest. However, Anderson’s rookie contract is set to expire after this season. If they didn’t view him as a long term contributor, perhaps the thinking was that they might as well let another player learn and grow in the system.

rm1369 04-28-2018 09:43 PM

If they want to create competition they should have made players beat out Hankins and Anderson. If they did, so be it - cut them. But they got next to nothing for releasing them (cash and a 7th rd pick) and I find it hard to believe they wouldn’t make this D better.

Spike 04-28-2018 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rm1369 (Post 65787)
If they want to create competition they should have made players beat out Hankins and Anderson. If they did, so be it - cut them. But they got next to nothing for releasing them (cash and a 7th rd pick) and I find it hard to believe they wouldn’t make this D better.

Just curious, but did anyone sign Hankins yet? I haven't been able to find anything on him.

Chaka 04-28-2018 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spike (Post 65788)
Just curious, but did anyone sign Hankins yet? I haven't been able to find anything on him.

Still out of work. What I’ve read is that he’s insisting on a lot of money, so it’s turned a few teams off. If I recall correctly, he lasted quite a while on the FA market for the same reason before we signed him. He’ll find a team eventually

Chaka 04-28-2018 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rm1369 (Post 65787)
If they want to create competition they should have made players beat out Hankins and Anderson. If they did, so be it - cut them. But they got next to nothing for releasing them (cash and a 7th rd pick) and I find it hard to believe they wouldn’t make this D better.

I agree much more with you on Anderson ($2 million salary/rookie contract) than Hankins ($8.5 million/$4.5 million guaranteed on 3/18).

Butter 04-28-2018 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaka (Post 65793)
I agree much more with you on Anderson ($2 million salary/rookie contract) than Hankins ($8.5 million/$4.5 million guaranteed on 3/18).

I agree. I dislike the Hankins cut, but I get that if they are certain he does not fit, push the money forward. Anderson was cheap as chips and seemed to be doing everything to fit the system, why not give him a chance vs a 7th round throw away pick.

Chromeburn 04-28-2018 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Butter (Post 65802)
I agree. I dislike the Hankins cut, but I get that if they are certain he does not fit, push the money forward. Anderson was cheap as chips and seemed to be doing everything to fit the system, why not give him a chance vs a 7th round throw away pick.

I suspect they watched him during mini camp and thought it just wasn't going to work. If we cut him we get nothing. I don't know if they would keep him over a guy who they thought had a future on the team. Also it gives him a chance to go to a team where he can show what he has got before his contract is up. Just speculating, but I suspect they would have cut him if they are talking a group of 8 linemen.

Butter 04-29-2018 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chromeburn (Post 65804)
I suspect they watched him during mini camp and thought it just wasn't going to work. If we cut him we get nothing. I don't know if they would keep him over a guy who they thought had a future on the team. Also it gives him a chance to go to a team where he can show what he has got before his contract is up. Just speculating, but I suspect they would have cut him if they are talking a group of 8 linemen.

maybe, but it is still pretty Meh.

FatDT 04-29-2018 12:02 AM

All I see in this move is scheme inflexibilitity. It's the exact opposite of what I wanted. It's what made the Colts get rid of Dwight Freeney because they somehow couldn't figure out how to use an all-time great pass rusher. If you can't figure out how to use Hankins and Anderson in your scheme, your scheme sucks.

Butter 04-29-2018 12:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FatDT (Post 65806)
All I see in this move is scheme inflexibilitity. It's the exact opposite of what I wanted. It's what made the Colts get rid of Dwight Freeney because they somehow couldn't figure out how to use an all-time great pass rusher. If you can't figure out how to use Hankins and Anderson in your scheme, your scheme sucks.

I agree I am not ready to give up on the new regime, but I was hoping for a flexible maximize what you have while getting what you want kind of team.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:56 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
ColtFreaks.com is in no way affiliated with the Indianapolis Colts, the NFL, or any of their subsidiaries.