• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

DT Johnathan "Big Hank" Hankins (Seattle Seahawks)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
heisman;1479325; said:
Why haven't they offered? His pulse alone should qualify him.
Click to expand...

I've read that they question his motor and had concerns about him getting through their strength and conditioning program because of his weight.....So they wanted to see him at camp. Michigan has like 4 DTs on the entire roster and one of those was a fullback last year. That alone shows they are skeptical about something. To be fair, neither instate was expected to offer until after camp. I don't know if MSU ever offered.
 
Upvote 0
If Hankins and Gholston want to go to the same college, yet Hankins doesn't get the MSU offer that Gholston has... does that leave Ohio State the odds on favorite? It sounds like they REALLY want to, but it also sounds like Gholston is headed to Michigan State... we'll see I guess.
 
Upvote 0
Justin;1480339; said:
I've read that they question his motor and had concerns about him getting through their strength and conditioning program because of his weight.....So they wanted to see him at camp. Michigan has like 4 DTs on the entire roster and one of those was a fullback last year. That alone shows they are skeptical about something. To be fair, neither instate was expected to offer until after camp. I don't know if MSU ever offered.
Click to expand...

How many DT's has UM offered so far over Hankins this year, any clue?
 
Upvote 0
Justin;1480339; said:
I've read that they question his motor and had concerns about him getting through their strength and conditioning program because of his weight.....So they wanted to see him at camp. Michigan has like 4 DTs on the entire roster and one of those was a fullback last year. That alone shows they are skeptical about something. To be fair, neither instate was expected to offer until after camp. I don't know if MSU ever offered.
Click to expand...

Maybe Rich Rodriguez didn't know about him. He does play IN Michigan, and not Florida or Texas, you know. So they are concerned with him getting Barwis!!!!!11!1!!'ed?

BigJim;1480356; said:
How many DT's has UM offered so far over Hankins this year, any clue?
Click to expand...

Silly post. Michigan doesn't offer defensive players.


He seems like a big body that the fans (and to some extent, the staff) has wanted. He seems like a good guy to make plays, eat up space, and free up linebackers.
 
Upvote 0
TheIronColonel;1480421; said:
Yeah, a powerful nose tackle is overrated in the 3-4. :shake:
Click to expand...

Haha, indeed. A powerful NT in a 3-4 changes game plans. Shaun Rogers and the Browns are a great example. Horrible DE's but Rogers up the middle allowed the ILB's to shade more.

But OSU won't be running a real 3-4, more of just an odd front.
 
Upvote 0
BigJim;1480356; said:
How many DT's has UM offered so far over Hankins this year, any clue?
Click to expand...

Last I heard it was around five. Whenever I pose the question on a board, they always say the crop is thin this year. Hopefully someone will emerge throughout the season. I?ve never heard of a team taking four DTs into a season, one of which is a freshman and another was a fullback. They will probably have to flip one or two of the OL to the other side. Either that or Rodriguez is one step closer to fulfilling his dream of having 22 starting slot receivers on the field.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
goblue15;1480465; said:
Putting words in mouth eh... I said the need for defensive tackles is not as big since we will only be putting one on the field.
Click to expand...

I actually read it twice and realized what you meant. At first I too thought you were claiming a big DT is not needed in the 3-4. Yet it's the need that is not big per your claim, not the player.

To that...DT is just as big a need in the 3-4 since all 3 players have to have DT skills. Semantics if you call the other 2 on the line big DE (sort of like 2 strong side DE's) or smaller/agile DT's. As far as recruiting goes, DT's are needed just as much in the 3-4 vs. the 4-3. It's the type of DT that changes.
 
Upvote 0
bigdog3300;1480431; said:
Haha, indeed. A powerful NT in a 3-4 changes game plans. Shaun Rogers and the Browns are a great example. Horrible DE's but Rogers up the middle allowed the ILB's to shade more.

But OSU won't be running a real 3-4, more of just an odd front.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure of that regarding the future. I think we are seeing much more of a tilt towards the 3-4 in recruiting.
 
Upvote 0
MaxBuck;1480775; said:
Buckeyes really haven't presented an "odd front" since Alonzo Spellman was on campus.
Click to expand...

They've been showing it in practice and in the spring game with Heyward in the middle

I also would think eventually Baldwin could help fill that role, and I still have my fingers crossed to see what Goebel can bring. But Heyward is the type of guy that will allow us to be able to run an odd front, I'm intrigued by it, hey at least it's something "new".
 
Upvote 0
DontHateOState;1480702; said:
I'm not so sure of that regarding the future. I think we are seeing much more of a tilt towards the 3-4 in recruiting.
Click to expand...

Yeah by recruiting small linebackers like Dorian Bell, Jermale Hines, Brian Rolle, Andrew Sweat, and Jordan Hicks, right? And smaller DTs like Simon, Mobley, Bellamy, etc.? I disagree - We're going for a faster defense and cutting out on size to a degree. If we were going for more of a 3-4 we'd be going after big ILBs who can shed blocks and big space eater DTs. The DEs we recruit are good fits in a 3-4 defense though as 'tweener OLBs/DEs, add versatility and make zone blitzes more effective. I wouldn't expect a 3-4 anytime soon. Odd fronts and versatile lineups yes (DE/OLBs, S/OLBs, DE/DTs).
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top