2013 FA Thread (Updates on OP) New: Merling, Brace, Pashos, Trueblood, EJBig, Tapp, White, Williams, MATTHEWS; Re-up: Rex, Hall, Davis, Paulsen, DY, RJax, Lich, Sundberg, Baker, Sav, Golston, Kehl, Polumbus; Paycuts: Carriker, Moss, BMeri, J. Wilson

[DC9]

I expect this to be a very dry and dull off season for the Skill and I'll be happy.

What makes you say that? And what do you define as a skill?

[SWFLSkins]

I don't know the separation during the first season between him and the field was pretty huge.

That was pretty funny, man.

But just know... the "Stopwatch" is not to be ****ed with when he is making prognastications! #Kingkeim

I just think the knock on Hank is not grounded in logic. First he played in what 4 games the first year? Then consider he is coming back from an injury this year yet still posted third best numbers in a group that seemed pretty much even in most categories. I think he continues to develop, he works hard at it.

WR 88 Garcon, Pierre ACT REC 44 YDS 633 AVG 14.4 TDS 4 WAS
WR 85 Hankerson, Leonard ACT REC 38 YDS 543 AVG 14.3 TDS 3 WAS
WR 15 Morgan, Josh ACT REC 48 YDS 510 AVG 10.6 TDS 2 WAS
WR 89 Moss, Santana ACT REC 41 YDS 573 AVG 14.0 TDS 8 WAS

---------- Post added January-26th-2013 at 09:51 AM ----------

Agree but for me 2 things that make me wonder if he emerges: 1. for a relatively big guy he seems to play with some fear of being hit and seems ginger going up the middle. Compare him in that department to lets say Josh Morgan who seems to play tough and fearless. 2. He seems awkward when they've tried him as a deep threat, doesn't always stretch his hands, has a hard time separating, etc.

He has a different kind of gait first off. He never had the rep of being afraid to go over the middle. Hands were a factor early on, but he steadily worked on it and improved.

http://www.nfl.com/combine/profiles/...son?id=2495158

VERVIEW
Hankerson steadily improved from his sophomore through senior seasons when he became one of the most productive wideouts in college football. Has the size you like to see and enough speed but is a gradual builder who does not possess quick-twitched athleticism. Idles down at his stem and must rely on getting himself in between the ball and defenders more than gaining separation. Flashes the ability to go up, extend, and get the ball but also suffers from bouts of inconsistency with his hands. Tough kid with good intangibles who isn't afraid to go over the middle.
ANALYSIS
STRENGTHS Hankerson's a nice blend of good size and speed. Boxes out defenders. Can locate and sit in openings when running through zone. Extends his hands away from his body and really goes after the football. Steadily builds speed, which coupled with his height allows him to make some plays vertically. Tough and hard-working.
WEAKNESSES Fails to bring in too many catchable balls. Won't reel in the highlight catch too often. Is not an explosive player. Doesn't burst off the line, eat up cushions, or get in and out of his breaks quickly. Won't take short passes for big gains. Not a candidate to make defenders miss in the open field.

[Skinsinparadise]

He has a different kind of gait first off. He never had the rep of being afraid to go over the middle. Hands were a factor early on, but he steadily worked on it and improved.

I think at this point we can make observations about him as an NFL player as opposed to rely on college tape. The bigger and more athletic safeties and linebackers for starters can level Wrs crossing the middle much more so in the NFL versus college. I am not the only guy who has made this observation but it seems like he plays soft sometimes, I could be wrong just an opinion. Conversely, I am not a big Josh Morgan person but its clear to say that he's a tough WR who isn't afraid of contact. Actually I'd even say the same about Santana Moss, he's small but tough.

I recall Travis Matich who watched camp practices a season ago talked on air about how unimpressed he was with Hankerson specifically about how he practiced with little intensity and didn't seem to have the habits that made him feel good about his future. I am not ruling out Hankerson, I was at his one really only big NFL game, the one against Miami last year. I just am not sold yet that he's poised to become a major difference maker in terms of emerging as a high end #2 type WR as opposed to decent 3rd wideout.

[SWFLSkins]

[/COLOR]

I think at this point we can make observations about him as an NFL player as opposed to rely on college tape. The bigger and more athletic safeties and linebackers for starters can level Wrs crossing the middle much more so in the NFL versus college. I am not the only guy who has made this observation but it seems like he plays soft sometimes, I could be wrong just an opinion. Conversely, I am not a big Josh Morgan person but its clear to say that he's a tough WR who isn't afraid of contact. Actually I'd even say the same about Santana Moss, he's small but tough.

I recall Travis Matich who watched camp practices a season ago talked on air about how unimpressed he was with Hankerson specifically about how he practiced with little intensity and didn't seem to have the habits that made him feel good about his future. I am not ruling out Hankerson, I was at his one really only big NFL game, the one against Miami last year. I just am not sold yet that he's poised to become a major difference maker in terms of emerging as a high end #2 type WR as opposed to decent 3rd wideout.

For the record though as for that article, he has played one full season coming off an injury, that is all. I am not saying he is going to be a no. 1 WR or a high end #2 eventually, he may always be a good no. 3. I just don't see any reason to commit assets to replace a player who has performed well. He is not terrible or bad and shows some promise. You are less off base than the article which started this path. Can you admit he had a decent year coming off an injury?[COLOR="Gold"]

[RWJ]

Since this thread contains Post Title with the Hillard news I will post/comment about that here. I am surprised we haven't heard anything about this yet. You would think some names would have come up by now about potential candidates via the team. I know Bates name was mentioned.

[MartinC]

Since this thread contains Post Title with the Hillard news I will post/comment about that here. I am surprised we haven't heard anything about this yet. You would think some names would have come up by now about potential candidates via the team. I know Bates name was mentioned.

I think it was Rich Tandler who blogged that it might be a while before that WR coach position is filled. He was saying we view it as an entry level position on the coaching staff and that Kyle is very hands on with the receivers in practice.

[Skinsinparadise]

[/COLOR]

For the record though as for that article, he has played one full season coming off an injury, that is all. I am not saying he is going to be a no. 1 WR or a high end #2 eventually, he may always be a good no. 3. I just don't see any reason to commit assets to replace a player who has performed well. He is not terrible or bad and shows some promise. You are less off base than the article which started this path. Can you admit he had a decent year coming off an injury?

you have multiple points about him in your posts so I'll separate them:

1. Does that fact that he played only partly in his rookie season, influence me as to my specific criticism? No. My criticism pertains mostly to his style of play -- experience to me really isn't much of a factor in that one way or another.

2. Does John Keim's criticism, posted here, coming from the team about them being unimpressed with his ability to separate -- might be solved with experience. Sure, maybe.

3. Do I think they should commit assets to replace him, a #3 WR. Definitely not. As a #3 Wr he's fine.

4. Did he have a decent year coming off injury? yeah as a #3 sure. But I have had higher hopes for him when drafted, thought he could emerge as a #1 or high end #2. So far it doesn't look like that's happening. I am looking for the team to find that elusive top receiver in the draft to complement Garcon -- Shanny did it with a 4th rounder for Brandon Marshall, plenty of examples, Cruz, Colston, etc where you don't have to expend a high pick. Doesn't seem too hard to find decent #3 Wrs in the league -- heck with all this teams struggles at WR over the years we've had our share of decent low end #2 or 3 types -- what's escaped us is finding WRs that are game breakers.

[RWJ]

I think it was Rich Tandler who blogged that it might be a while before that WR coach position is filled. He was saying we view it as an entry level position on the coaching staff and that Kyle is very hands on with the receivers in practice.

Thanks for the info, MartinC.

[rk3025]

Hank's hip should be ready to go this year and would like to take TE Bennett from the Mara's Giants to help our QB's

[SkinsTillIDie]

2. Does John Keim's criticism, posted here, coming from the team about them being unimpressed with his ability to separate -- might be solved with experience. Sure, maybe.

It wasn't John Keim's criticism. It was one line in his article, quoted below:

Some NFL defensive coaches did not like his ability to separate. His best work seemed to come vs. zone coverages.

An article that also featured:

Receivers often take a few years to mature so it’s too soon to say Hankerson and Robinson, for example, are finished products. Of the two I’ll strongly bet on Hankerson as the one who keeps progressing. How much so? Depends on who you ask. I’ve talked to defensive coaches who aren’t that sold on him, but the Redskins’ offensive coaches still seem to be. Hankerson did a solid job getting open vs. zone coverage; can he do the same if facing man on a consistent basis?

It’s debatable as to what Hankerson can become: Can he become a No. 2 as the coaches say? Or is he a solid No. 3 as others say?

It's not the team that's unimpressed, it's opposing coaches. The coaches actually believe the opposite, that he can develop into a starter.


If Pierre Garcon is our #1, and Fred Davis is our #2, then we're not in a bad position at the moment with Hankerson, Morgan, and Moss as #3's.

My belief is this: we don't have the resources to invest in wide receivers this offseason with so many glaring weaknesses and holes on defense. We had the highest YPA in the league last season, a top-5 offense, and I would like to give Morgan (with 1 year left on his contract), Hankerson and Robinson (entering their 3rd seasons - the 'make or break' year) another chance to see if any can take that jump to the next level.

If not, we have a priority heading into the 2014 season, having find solutions to some of the other more pressing needs to the team in 2013.

[Skinsinparadise]

It wasn't John Keim's criticism. It was one line in his article, quoted below: .

Keim has been critical of him in his Q & A's that he does every week, which I always participate in, he has his doubts that he will emerge as a big time receiver. If I find some time, I'll see if I can dig up some of these Q and A's. As for between him and Robinson bet on Hankerson of the two of them -- yeah I can go with that, Robinson is a 6th round pick whose career so far is about catching 2 deep balls.

As to your post responding to me, you mostly aren't really arguing my points, you are arguing the article and other people's points. My points were he seems to play at times soft, he doesn't seem like Morgan who is willing to catch one up the middle regardless if he takes a big hit, and he seems awkward going for the deep ball, couple of times where he didn't even stretch hands where if he did so looked like he'd have had em. Keim says that what coaches have told him is he has improved tremendously is with blocking.

Am a bit of a media junkie with the team, I try to read everything and watch as many interviews as possible, it could be I missed it but of the things I've caught -- I've never encountered anything praising Hankerson's work ethic (did catch one critique of it which I mentioned) or how tough he is, or poised for greatness. I've heard Shanny praise Moss, Garcon, and Morgan.

I never said he was a bust or we should go fishing for Wrs as a top need this off season. Yeah if the argument is Hankerson can be at least a serviceable 2nd Wr or a decent 3rd wideout, I'd agree with that and I said so. But as I said, if that's where Hankerson ends up, it will be dissapointing to me -- this team over the years didn't have a hard time finding via FA or the draft a Rod Gardner, Albert Connell, Randle El type -- what has eluded us is finding a bonafide #1 or high end #2 Wr in the draft and our division rivals have not had problems with it. I was hoping Hankerson would break that trend -- not looking likely -- but yeah IMO he's not a bust, I don't mind having him on our team, just disappointed that he likely won't be our Victor Cruz.

[NLC1054]

In my opinion, Hank's injury changed his mentality a little. Injuries like that are a mental hurdle young guys have to get over. People say he doesn't have the heart or the will or whatever, but that's not what I saw in his playing time in 2011. He looked every bit as fearless going over the middle as he did at Miami. I know, I know, limited sample size, and this is the part where someone says he should get over it because if he's playing scared he's just more likely to hurt himself, blahblahblah, eaiser said than done.

Just like Jarvis Jenkins started to come on a little bit when he stopped worrying about getting hurt and just started playing, that's the next step with Hank. Until the playoff game, it seemed like the guy came up with some clutch catches when we needed them, versus the Ravens, versus the Giants, versus the Cowboys. I don't think it's a matter of heart, or how much he cares. He just has to be reasonably assured that hip injury isn't going to come back to haunt him.

[DC9]

Fast forward this video to 2:53. Watch the reciever at the top of the screen. The one that breaks wide open and then continues to run the line in the back of the endzone only to see Garcon get the look and the TD from Cousins. This happened quite a bit to Hankerson, but this was one of the grossest instances of it. Good thing it didn't bite us in the ass on this play.



I honestly think it's a trust issue. Once he get's more consistent, he will be a fine contributor.

[Skinsinparadise]

In my opinion, Hank's injury changed his mentality a little. Injuries like that are a mental hurdle young guys have to get over. People say he doesn't have the heart or the will or whatever, but that's not what I saw in his playing time in 2011. He looked every bit as fearless going over the middle as he did at Miami. I know, I know, limited sample size, and this is the part where someone says he should get over it because if he's playing scared he's just more likely to hurt himself, blahblahblah, eaiser said than done.

I liked it when we drafted Hank, I got nothing against him. And i am not even hitting him on what many do which is dropping balls some argue for example his non catch of a decently thrown ball by RG III against Seattle was one of the critical turning points in that game. My main issue with Hank is does he have the intangibles to become a bonafide difference maker as opposed to complementary player. If you see him as a fearless player, cool. I simply don't. I am not charting his plays so maybe am missing it. As said am not a big Josh Morgan guy but watching him i get the vibe that he's one tough dude who almost welcomes contact, Garcon ditto, Santana most of the time ditto -- i don't get that same vibe watching Hank play and i am not the only guy who has voiced this.

You don't really hear about Hank's intangibles, this dude is tough as nails or he's a really smart player, or this dude is a workout or practice fiend and as mentioned the only thing i've heard about his work ethic is a critique of it, though that was when he was a rookie. In July when RG 3 wanted to throw the ball to his Wrs to gain rhythm with them, noticed who didn't go or at least wasn't mentioned and that was Hank:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ATCW_blog.html

Again, I don't think Hank is a bust, as a 3rd Wr he's more than fine. But I think if he really works it he can be a bonafide #1 but am gathering he might not work it enough. You hear stuff about certain players here and there ala Kirk Cousins is always studying the playbook, RG III is a relentless studier and gym rat, London studies like crazy, Santana works hard to get in shape and flew to Texas to practice with RG 3, I can go on about other players -- Hank never seems to be in that mix unless am missing it.

Edit: Googled Hank just now, I did find one article in the Washington Times about him during rookie season staying after practice to work on technique. My thoughts on Hankerson in a way are more positive than the typical post about him. I don't have any issue with him as a #3 WR or as a complementary guy to Garcon. I don't see him as a Devin Thomas type where he is a bust, far from it. i just think this dude is talented enough to emerge as a bonafide #1 type and I just wonder if he pulls it off. When you hear about people talking about RG III before the season, they weren't just high on his ability, they said he wants it so bad and will do whatever it takes that its impossible for him to fail. Reading about Hank and watching him, i don't get that same vibe, but who knows.

[NLC1054]

Again, I don't think Hank is a bust, as a 3rd Wr he's more than fine. But I think if he really works it he can be a bonafide #1 but am gathering he might not work it enough. You hear stuff about certain players here and there ala Kirk Cousins is always studying the playbook, RG III is a relentless studier and gym rat, London studies like crazy, Santana works hard to get in shape and flew to Texas to practice with RG 3, I can go on about other players -- Hank never seems to be in that mix unless am missing it.

It might just be that Hank's a quiet dude. He seems like it. He doesn't go out and club as far as I can remember. Usually he's home with his kids. It might just be that he's a quiet guy. You don't judge a book by it's cover. Just because you don't hear about it all the time doesn't make it true.