SirLK26
03-31-2014, 06:03 PM
unequivocally yes. bottomline, if we get Jackson, Hank is the 4th best receiver on our team - at best more likely the 5th behind Moss. That's AFTER 3years in the league. I would have been fine if they cut him last season but everyone said 2013 was his 3rd year, that's the year for receivers. Well it wasn't Hank's year. AND, if we bring a guy from the 4th round in, in this deep receiver draft, then he would need 2-3 years to get ready (or just about the time you would be ready to say see ya to either Garcon or DJackson if either wants to make a salary dispute).
Let Hank go somewhere else and prove me wrong, I don't see that his value for his payrate is greater then a cheap 4th round rookie.
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. :Smoker:
Let Hank go somewhere else and prove me wrong, I don't see that his value for his payrate is greater then a cheap 4th round rookie.
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. :Smoker: