Cullen Jenkins and New York Giants Reportedly Agree on Multi-Year Deal
NYG have signed DT Cullen Jenkins to a three-year deal for $8 million, $3 million guaranteed. Nice pickup.— Kimberly Jones (@KimJonesSports) March 10, 2013
The New York Giants saw the value in the veteran defensive lineman and swooped in. The Giants will be Jenkins' third NFL team, and he has always played in the NFC.
Next chapter beginning??? I think so.— Cullen Jenkins (@CullenJenkins) March 10, 2013
Jenkins, 32, has played in both 3-4 and 4-3 schemes over the years with the Green Bay Packers and Philadelphia, respectively. He will no doubt show that versatility for the Giants, who once again have a very dominant defensive line heading into the 2013 NFL draft.
There are some concerns about his health, as foot and ankle injuries hindered his production last season (per Mike Sando, ESPN). Nevertheless, the veteran started all 16 games and showed he can still mix it up with the best in the league, as evidenced by his four sacks.
Jenkins is also a considerably cheaper alternative to Chris Canty, who was due to make $6 million in 2013 before his release early February.
Whether or not he regains the form and dominance that he had with the Packers—where he won a Super Bowl ring and tallied 29 sacks from 2004 to 2010—remains to be seen. But even if he doesn't, his very presence in New York will give the team's other established pass-rushers a better chance of getting to the quarterback.
Jenkins will force offensive linemen to give him attention, which frees up the likes of Jason Pierre-Paul and Justin Tuck on the outside. It will also be helpful for the Giants come the draft if they choose to bring in a new defensive lineman.
Just how good it will be for New York still remains to be seen, but it's hard to see too many faults here.
It should be a nice deal for both sides.
How will Cullen Jenkins perform for the Giants this season?
Comment below or hit me up on Twitter: Follow @dantalintyre
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?