Quote:
Originally Posted by SirLK26
See, the bold is the biggest beef I have with you. It doesn't matter where a guy was drafted, or how many years he's been in the league; if he's at least good depth and cheap, you keep him. You don't cut Hankerson because he hasn't lived up to his draft status, or because he hasn't developed into A.J. Green yet; it just doesn't make sense. If you go by that, do you want Helu cut too? Because he hasn't exactly developed into Jamaal Charles...
And if we do sign Jackson and draft a WR high(no to the former, yes to the latter), we could still keep Hankerson. With Jackson, Roberts, and the rookie on board, Hankerson would probably be the #4 at best, but considering his insignificant salary, why wouldn't you keep him around and at least let him compete in camp? If we had 5 WRs entrenched in front of him on the depth chart, and then drafted a WR or two, then I'd understand cutting him. But as of right now, the WR spot opposite Garcon is Hankerson's to lose.
Eh...I suppose it really doesn't matter. And this is a DeSean Jackson thread, not a Hankerson thread.  |
1) you say he's cheap, but he's not. Hankerson's cap number is 29th on our roster, a 4th round rookie - in the 50's.
2) I am not saying cut him because of where he was drafted. I agree with you, where he was drafted is inconsequential. If he adds value to the team relative to team needs keep him. In my opinion he does not.
3) IF we sign Jackson, Hankerson is at best the 5th best receiver - Garcon, Jackson, Roberts, Moss, then Hankerson or Robinson depending on what you want from the 5th receiver.
4) IF we don't sign Jackson then you draft a guy high, and hope he can develop to a number 2, but we are left with a 1 in Garcon, low 2 or high 3 in Roberts, a backup for Roberts in Moss, and a 3a/3b in Hankerson/Robinson.
So we have to hit on whatever receiver we pick.
Cutting Hankerson saves $121K on the cap based on rule of 51, yeah it's chump change, but Hankerson doesn't even bring that value at this point.