ColtFreaks.com - Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum   ColtFreaks.com Home Page

Go Back   ColtFreaks.com - Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum > Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum > Indianapolis Colts Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 04-28-2018, 09:15 PM
Chaka's Avatar
Chaka Chaka is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 859
Thanks: 337
Thanked 667 Times in 286 Posts
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Chaka For This Useful Post:
Chromeburn (04-28-2018)
  #22  
Old 04-28-2018, 09:43 PM
rm1369 rm1369 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 1,074
Thanks: 287
Thanked 730 Times in 404 Posts
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-28-2018, 09:50 PM
Spike's Avatar
Spike Spike is offline
Post whore
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: USA
Posts: 7,710
Thanks: 8,123
Thanked 4,793 Times in 2,672 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rm1369 View Post
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.
__________________
Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-28-2018, 10:06 PM
Chaka's Avatar
Chaka Chaka is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 859
Thanks: 337
Thanked 667 Times in 286 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike View Post
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
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Chaka For This Useful Post:
Spike (04-28-2018)
  #25  
Old 04-28-2018, 10:09 PM
Chaka's Avatar
Chaka Chaka is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 859
Thanks: 337
Thanked 667 Times in 286 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rm1369 View Post
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).
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 04-28-2018, 10:44 PM
Butter's Avatar
Butter Butter is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 6,200
Thanks: 991
Thanked 2,234 Times in 1,167 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaka View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Butter For This Useful Post:
Spike (04-30-2018)
  #27  
Old 04-28-2018, 11:55 PM
Chromeburn's Avatar
Chromeburn Chromeburn is offline
Post whore
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 5,253
Thanks: 1,407
Thanked 3,582 Times in 2,004 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Butter View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 04-29-2018, 12:00 AM
Butter's Avatar
Butter Butter is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 6,200
Thanks: 991
Thanked 2,234 Times in 1,167 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chromeburn View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 04-29-2018, 12:02 AM
FatDT's Avatar
FatDT FatDT is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 4,252
Thanks: 314
Thanked 1,099 Times in 497 Posts
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to FatDT For This Useful Post:
Maniac (04-29-2018), Oldcolt (04-29-2018), omahacolt (04-29-2018), rm1369 (04-29-2018), Spike (04-30-2018)
  #30  
Old 04-29-2018, 12:08 AM
Butter's Avatar
Butter Butter is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 6,200
Thanks: 991
Thanked 2,234 Times in 1,167 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FatDT View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Butter For This Useful Post:
Oldcolt (04-29-2018)
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
ColtFreaks.com is in no way affiliated with the Indianapolis Colts, the NFL, or any of their subsidiaries.