What's up with the Malik Hooker bashing?

[DougDew]

43 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

In all my projections, I had Hooker as the first safety off the board, somewhere in the top ten. I never expected him to last until #15, and once Barnett went at #14, it was a no brainer, IMO.

 

I'm concerned about his ability to stay on the field, and that's about it. He's a playmaker who finds the ball, he has elite range, and if he can get and stay healthy, he'll be a really good player for us. But that's a big "IF" at this point.

During the Grigson/Pagano playoff years, you continually made the observation that the D was getting burned by underneath crossing routes against LBs like DQ Jackson et al.  I saw the same things too and while Hooker may have been clearly the best safety in the draft, the ball hawking skills he excelled at were really not the thing the Colts needed to improve the defense.  

 

And playoff caliber offenses were moving away from throwing a lot of deep balls anyway.

 

Given that Vontae Davis missed his first game as a Colt the season before (or he had some durability streak that was broken), I thought selecting Marlon Humphrey to be #2 CB until Davis left was the obvious pick.  (He was selected #16 by Baltimore, right after Hooker).

 

While I didn't mind the Hooker pick I thought, hey ok, we need a safety too since Adams won't be around much longer.  My meh attitude was in vibrant contrast to the sheer euphoria the forum expressed for the pick, which I couldn't understand considering the vulnerabilities our D had at the time how coverage was just going to get worse since VD was probably breaking down. 

 

Couldn't see the logic of it at the time and still don't.  And I still think our D right now would be better with Humphrey at CB and Fairly at FS.

 

I also read where Quincy Wilson's size and speed made him a decent look at FS too.  A FS with actual coverage skills and experience in coverage.  And I think he was regarded as a good tackler.

 

 

[Superman]

20 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Absolutely.  I think he is a complete unknown.  There is no all-pro form to return to, like some have said at times.  

 

Like Werner and Philip Dorset, I would give him time to show us what he's got, and certainly its common sense to think the knee has held him back.

 

However, I also don't think he was drafted to play in a zone defense per se, and his "Ed Reed" like ball hawking skills were more suited to Pagano's 34.

 

I certainly don't think he is a liability, and he's been just fine considering the circumstances.

 

Good post.

 

To the bolded, I think this becomes a cop out a lot of the time. You mentioned Werner, who everyone will swear didn't work out because we tried to convert a 4-3 DE to a 3-4 OLB, as if that's never happened before (when it literally happens every season, with success; same story with Basham, by the way). Truth is, Werner didn't work out because he wasn't a good athlete, and that's it.

 

There are some players who need to be in a specific scheme. Some corners don't have the technique and foot speed/quickness to play man coverage, but have good awareness and ball skills, and will fit well in a zone based defense. Some OL can't pull, some DL can't shoot gaps. That's fine.

 

But there's nothing about Hooker's skill set that inherently doesn't work in a zone defense. He's a deep safety who can range and track the ball all over the field. He's not a man coverage DB, he isn't going to match up on TEs and slot receivers, and he's not at his best in the box because he doesn't bring that kind of physicality. He belongs on the weak side and in the middle of the field. He'll fit just fine in this new defense.

 

What I will say is that this new defense has been more passive in coverage than I think they would like to be, moving forward, which kind of keeps Hooker away from a lot of action. But he's doing his job in not letting the ball get past him (until Moncrief last week, and that was a missed tackle, not a blown assignment). Once the defense gets a little more aggressive underneath and maybe starts getting after the QB more consistently, I think Hooker will have more chances to make plays. I'm still not convinced this defense will remain as conservative as it's been most of the season, especially once they get better corner play.

[Colts_Fan12]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Good post.

 

To the bolded, I think this becomes a cop out a lot of the time. You mentioned Werner, who everyone will swear didn't work out because we tried to convert a 4-3 DE to a 3-4 OLB, as if that's never happened before (when it literally happens every season, with success; same story with Basham, by the way). Truth is, Werner didn't work out because he wasn't a good athlete, and that's it.

 

There are some players who need to be in a specific scheme. Some corners don't have the technique and foot speed/quickness to play man coverage, but have good awareness and ball skills, and will fit well in a zone based defense. Some OL can't pull, some DL can't shoot gaps. That's fine.

 

But there's nothing about Hooker's skill set that inherently doesn't work in a zone defense. He's a deep safety who can range and track the ball all over the field. He's not a man coverage DB, he isn't going to match up on TEs and slot receivers, and he's not at his best in the box because he doesn't bring that kind of physicality. He belongs on the weak side and in the middle of the field. He'll fit just fine in this new defense.

 

What I will say is that this new defense has been more passive in coverage than I think they would like to be, moving forward, which kind of keeps Hooker away from a lot of action. But he's doing his job in not letting the ball get past him (until Moncrief last week, and that was a missed tackle, not a blown assignment). Once the defense gets a little more aggressive underneath and maybe starts getting after the QB more consistently, I think Hooker will have more chances to make plays. I'm still not convinced this defense will remain as conservative as it's been most of the season, especially once they get better corner play.

The corner play is what really is hurting us imo with better coverage there it will help Hooker alot. I also really hope we can get some good D linemen that can consistently penetrate the pocket in the next draft supposed to be real heavy with D line talent hope that's true lol

[Superman]

11 minutes ago, DougDew said:

During the Grigson/Pagano playoff years, you continually made the observation that the D was getting burned by underneath crossing routes against LBs like DQ Jackson et al.  I saw the same things too and while Hooker may have been clearly the best safety in the draft, the ball hawking skills he excelled at were really not the thing the Colts needed to improve the defense.  

 

And playoff caliber offenses were moving away from throwing a lot of deep balls anyway.

 

Given that Vontae Davis missed his first game as a Colt the season before (or he had some durability streak that was broken), I thought selecting Marlon Humphrey to be #2 CB until Davis left was the obvious pick.  (He was selected #16 by Baltimore, right after Hooker).

 

While I didn't mind the Hooker pick I thought, hey ok, we need a safety too since Adams won't be around much longer.  My meh attitude was in vibrant contrast to the sheer euphoria the forum expressed for the pick, which I couldn't understand considering the vulnerabilities our D had at the time how coverage was just going to get worse since VD was probably breaking down. 

 

Couldn't see the logic of it at the time and still don't.  And I still think our D right now would be better with Humphrey at CB and Fairly at FS.

 

I also read where Quincy Wilson's size and speed made him a decent look at FS too.  A FS with actual coverage skills and experience in coverage.  And I think he was regarded as a good tackler.

 

You probably also know that I am not a supporter of needs-based drafting, and I definitely had Hooker ahead of Humphrey. 

[DougDew]

8 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Good post.

 

To the bolded, I think this becomes a cop out a lot of the time. You mentioned Werner, who everyone will swear didn't work out because we tried to convert a 4-3 DE to a 3-4 OLB, as if that's never happened before (when it literally happens every season, with success; same story with Basham, by the way). Truth is, Werner didn't work out because he wasn't a good athlete, and that's it.

 

There are some players who need to be in a specific scheme. Some corners don't have the technique and foot speed/quickness to play man coverage, but have good awareness and ball skills, and will fit well in a zone based defense. Some OL can't pull, some DL can't shoot gaps. That's fine.

 

But there's nothing about Hooker's skill set that inherently doesn't work in a zone defense. He's a deep safety who can range and track the ball all over the field. He's not a man coverage DB, he isn't going to match up on TEs and slot receivers, and he's not at his best in the box because he doesn't bring that kind of physicality. He belongs on the weak side and in the middle of the field. He'll fit just fine in this new defense.

 

What I will say is that this new defense has been more passive in coverage than I think they would like to be, moving forward, which kind of keeps Hooker away from a lot of action. But he's doing his job in not letting the ball get past him (until Moncrief last week, and that was a missed tackle, not a blown assignment). Once the defense gets a little more aggressive underneath and maybe starts getting after the QB more consistently, I think Hooker will have more chances to make plays. I'm still not convinced this defense will remain as conservative as it's been most of the season, especially once they get better corner play.

I agree with that. 

 

I haven't been able to watch the secondary play or read much about it, and I don't know how much cover 2 we play (probably not much), but just recalling my Polian/Dungy statements, cover 2 safties tend to play left right halves of the field mores on than front back halves.  So the body types and skills are more the same, like a Bethea/Sanders.  The Hooker/Geathers (or Landon Collins) have the deep ball/in the box skills and body type that I don't know is suited as well for the cover 2.  So I don't know that the skills Hooker supposedly brings to the field is going to be schemed away by our own philosophy and play calling.

[Boiler_Colt]

It's hard for a deep saftey to make plays when the ball is thrown short into "No cover zones" 80% of the time.

 

The dude did just have the game sealing fumble recovery just one week ago. He realistically shouldnt even be fully recovered from the ACL until just now, one year out. Patience people.

[DougDew]

19 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

You probably also know that I am not a supporter of needs-based drafting, and I definitely had Hooker ahead of Humphrey. 

My concern is that Hooker's skill was overvalued considering the lack of eliteness at other things, so I thought Humphrey was the better fit and the safer pick at the time.  And I thought positional value mattered in terms of which player would be more expensive to find via free agency.

 

Of course he is a press man corner that's starting for the Ravens and I was unaware of any scheme change Ballard may have been thinking about.  Considering the scheme change, Humphrey's man corner skills may now have been overvalued if he was here.  

[Superman]

14 minutes ago, DougDew said:

My concern is that Hooker's skill was overvalued considering the lack of eliteness at other things, so I thought Humphrey was the better fit and the safer pick at the time.

 

Of course he is a press man corner that's starting for the Ravens and I was unaware of any scheme change Ballard may have been thinking about.  Considering the scheme change, Humphrey's man corner skills may now have been overvalued if he was here.  

 

Agreed there as well, in this new defense corner isn't a premium position. Still need good players there, but I doubt Ballard is eager to spend a first rounder on one. Safety is a more important position, to me.

 

17 minutes ago, Boiler_Colt said:

It's hard for a deep saftey to make plays when the ball is thrown short into "No cover zones" 80% of the time.

 

I got really concerned about Eberflus when he said that. He called a great game yesterday, so I'm over it.

[Superman]

18 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I agree with that. 

 

I haven't been able to watch the secondary play or read much about it, and I don't know how much cover 2 we play (probably not much), but just recalling my Polian/Dungy statements, cover 2 safties tend to play left right halves of the field mores on than front back halves.  So the body types and skills are more the same, like a Bethea/Sanders.  The Hooker/Geathers (or Landon Collins) have the deep ball/in the box skills and body type that I don't know is suited as well for the cover 2.  So I don't know that the skills Hooker supposedly brings to the field is going to be schemed away by our own philosophy and play calling.

 

We play a lot of Cover 2, but I get the feeling they want to play some Cover 3 and even some Cover 1 at times, and we play quarters and other coverages also. I don't think we play any of these coverages well, but I get the impression they want to play multiple coverages moving forward, we just don't have the personnel outside right now, and we haven't been pressuring the QB lately.

 

If I'm right, we'll make good use of a ball-hawking free safety moving forward.

[DougDew]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

Agreed there as well, in this new defense corner isn't a premium position. Still need good players there, but I doubt Ballard is eager to spend a first rounder on one. Safety is a more important position, to me.

Polian/Dungy has said that safety definitely is more important than corner in a zone D.  Knowing we play zone now and having kept that in mind, I have no issues not devoting a first rounder to corner at any point the past few years.

[DougDew]

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

We play a lot of Cover 2, but I get the feeling they want to play some Cover 3 and even some Cover 1 at times, and we play quarters and other coverages also. I don't think we play any of these coverages well, but I get the impression they want to play multiple coverages moving forward, we just don't have the personnel outside right now, and we haven't been pressuring the QB lately.

 

If I'm right, we'll make good use of a ball-hawking free safety moving forward.

His maybe diva attitude aside, do you think Quincy Wilson could play safety?

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, DougDew said:

His maybe diva attitude aside, do you think Quincy Wilson could play safety?

 

Yup, might be better for him than out on the boundary. 

 

As for his diva attitude, at some point I'm going to need to know exactly what the deal is with Wilson. His public persona and bravado do not bother me at all. But there's obviously something going on with him and now two coaching staffs. I don't know if it's a personality deal, a lack of professionalism, or him not knowing how to prepare or stay in shape, or what, but there's something happening.

[Surge89]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

In all my projections, I had Hooker as the first safety off the board, somewhere in the top ten. I never expected him to last until #15, and once Barnett went at #14, it was a no brainer, IMO.

 

I'm concerned about his ability to stay on the field, and that's about it. He's a playmaker who finds the ball, he has elite range, and if he can get and stay healthy, he'll be a really good player for us. But that's a big "IF" at this point.

 

This.

 

I had one word for him special.  He can cover so much ground so fast with immaculate ball awareness. Traits you just can't teach. But of course injuries haunt him....

[Defjamz26]

I think the criticism is unjust. He came in as a rookie and had 4 INTs in just a handful of games. So that’s the bar people set for him. That he had to come in and get a bunch of INTs. 

 

He has 1 in the season so far, but he’s doing his job. Nothing is getting pass him. He’s only had 1 or 2 bad plays this season IMO. People need to look at more than just stats smh

[Colts_Fan12]

2 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

I think the criticism is unjust. He came in as a rookie and had 4 INTs in just a handful of games. So that’s the bar people set for him. That he had to come in and get a bunch of INTs. 

 

He has 1 in the season so far, but he’s doing his job. Nothing is getting pass him. He’s only had 1 or 2 bad plays this season IMO. People need to look at more than just stats smh

I've said it numerous times hes doing his job guess that's just not good enough lol

[ProblChld32]

7 hours ago, Colts_Fan12 said:

Seeing more and more dumb posts about moving on from him or how hes not living up to his draft position. He's in basically his rookie freaking year coming off a torn ACL abd not even playing bad as far as I've seen. What's the deal?? Its getting old I guess since we are winning and look to be improving they had to find something new to complain about! Lol 

 

I haven’t seen much disdain for him here. I like Hooker but I feel like he is better suited in a different scheme, I don’t think Cover 2 is his niche. He is better as a high cover safety. He excels in single high looks. 

[strt182]

6 hours ago, PrincetonTiger said:

 It is called ArmChair GM

 

     

In a RIGHT NOW society. I finished it for ya seeings how you only posted exactly half of what I was thinking.

[NorthernBlue]

Hooker was touted as a ball hawk and centre field interception machine coming out of college. We saw that a bit in his rookie year (had like 3 or 4 picks in a few games).

 

He hasn’t really made that many plays like that this season.  But like some have said, he’s coming off an ACL, and that takes time. He’s only played 15 games so far in his career. 

 

And has anyone noticed the colts being beat deep much this season? Even in the games like NYJ, or JAX where we gave up some yards and points, it was mostly dink and dunk plays, nothing over the middle. The one game where we WERE beat deep in the middle a lot, was the Oakland game. Hooker didn’t play that day. So while it hasn’t been great, I don’t think he’s doing bad at all.

[aaron11]

i think hes a good player, but it fair to question his value too.  he hasnt been special if teams force him to move off of his spot and make tackles, so thats what most teams are doing to him.

 

the acl recovery period is expected, but a two year long hip injury is a concern 

[stitches]

Secondary play is extremely hard to evaluate especially when you don't have the all 22 tape(and I would guess about 99.99% of the people trashing Hooker don't have it). That's why people resort to forming opinions based on either raw stats(INT, Tackles, etc. and Hooker doesn't have many INT this year) or single plays that get stuck in their minds(the Hooker missed tackle vs Moncrief), without taking into account his overall play on the 100s of other plays you don't see because the QB doesn't throw the ball his way because he's got the coverage nailed. 

 

Love it or hate it, PFF is ranking Hooker as a no. 12 safety in the league at grade 79.2... this is all safeties... free and strong put together. He's our second highest ranked defensive player behind Leonard. Now I have some issues with their grading sometimes, but I think they are good if you want to see general ranges of performance. 

 

Hooker is doing well... especially when you consider how bad the rest of our secondary is and how much he has to cover for all of them and the fact that he's a young player returning from a serious injury. I expect him to get even better next year. As others have said, what's more concerning is that he cannot seem to shake off the injury bug, rather than his play when he actually plays in the games. 

[stitches]

9 hours ago, Superman said:

 

We play a lot of Cover 2, but I get the feeling they want to play some Cover 3 and even some Cover 1 at times, and we play quarters and other coverages also. I don't think we play any of these coverages well, but I get the impression they want to play multiple coverages moving forward, we just don't have the personnel outside right now, and we haven't been pressuring the QB lately.

 

If I'm right, we'll make good use of a ball-hawking free safety moving forward.

I think the same too... I think they are itching to play more cover 3... but the problem is our personnel is incredibly young and inexperienced... and... kind of below par overall and there have been multiple times when this has bitten us in the butt this season when we switch to man coverage in cover 3... we get a ton of miscommunication issues(the Jets game comes to mind). In fact... if I had to guess a disproportionately high amount of the worst chink plays against our defense have been when we switch to cover 3 press man. I think Ballard wants more cover 3 but Eberflus probably knows he doesn't have the high end talent and cohesion(+experience) of the secondary in order to successfully play it.

 

That's actually why I'm harboring some hopes that Ballard would actually invest in high end corner talent and that it's the general lack of talent that's actually dictating us using this outdated Tampa 2 scheme, which is good at prefenting chunk plays, but gets absolutely abused by good QBs in the short to intermediate range. 

[lollygagger8]

It's entirely possible that Hooker came back too soon from his injury. 

 

I think he'll be good again if he can stay on the field. 

[DougDew]

9 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

I think the criticism is unjust. He came in as a rookie and had 4 INTs in just a handful of games. So that’s the bar people set for him. That he had to come in and get a bunch of INTs. 

 

He has 1 in the season so far, but he’s doing his job. Nothing is getting pass him. He’s only had 1 or 2 bad plays this season IMO. People need to look at more than just stats smh

It depends upon what the criticism is, but yes, actual criticism seems unjust to me. 

 

Are people disappointed with his overall play, or is it that he's not living up to #15 draft status? 

 

Personally, I think the scheme is now going to make it hard for him to live up to that status, but if he consistently plays at what I would call a 2nd or 3rd round level, that's fine with me.

[fatboy]

So some people tired of hearing ”potential” and tired of Hooker being injured.  If he were placed on waivers there would be claims made by 31 teams.  Now no one is saying release him, but him on our teams is clearly an asset that 31 other teams would love to have.  It’s time to stop Hooker bashing - it makes our fan base sound moronic.

[ColtV]

15 hours ago, DougDew said:

No.  Its just what many say if you don't salute vigorously enough.  They have a hard time telling the difference.

That is part of an epidemic around here recently

 

[Defjamz26]

36 minutes ago, fatboy said:

So some people tired of hearing ”potential” and tired of Hooker being injured.  If he were placed on waivers there would be claims made by 31 teams.  Now no one is saying release him, but him on our teams is clearly an asset that 31 other teams would love to have.  It’s time to stop Hooker bashing - it makes our fan base sound moronic.

I don’t want to hear anyone here saying they’re tired about hearing about the potential of Hooker and want to move on from him. Because I’d be willing to bet that a bunch of those same people were the ones who wanted to keep TJ Green (the king of “but he has so much potential”) and swore Clark would become a starting caliber tackle. Or how about when Dwayne Allen was supposed to regain his rookie year form?

 

People want to give up on a legit talent who is doing his job coming off an ACL tear, but wanted the team to waste resources on project players. Makes zero sense

[DougDew]

18 minutes ago, Defjamz26 said:

I don’t want to hear anyone here saying they’re tired about hearing about the potential of Hooker and want to move on from him. Because I’d be willing to bet that a bunch of those same people were the ones who wanted to keep TJ Green (the king of “but he has so much potential”) and swore Clark would become a starting caliber tackle. Or how about when Dwayne Allen was supposed to regain his rookie year form?

 

People want to give up on a legit talent who is doing his job coming off an ACL tear, but wanted the team to waste resources on project players. Makes zero sense

That's interesting. 

 

For the record, I hated the TJ Green pick from the beginning and was never willing to let him develop; I think Clark has shown backup T capabilities at best and should be thought of in that vain; and I never thought much of D Allen, wanted both him and Fleener gone after I heard their contract demands, and hated the contract Grigson gave Allen which was the straw the broke the camels back for me on him.

[Four2itus]

Making any kind of reaction to Wilson, or Hooker...other than continue to develop them and get them valuable playing time, is the exact kind of overreaction that some NFL teams make, and they remain perpetually in the bottom 16. 

 

It is my opinion that injuries and needed development of young players, make it necessary for coaches to both play to win every game, yet infuse players, plays, and patterns that that gets guys crucial playing time. 

 

It is akin to fans complaining that we keep using a run play that only nets 2.5 yards, yet fail to understand that they are creating a pattern, or the lack of a pattern, that helps the future. 

 

Let's give Hooker time to BOTH totally heal from his injury, and develop. Let's give Wilson the time for the light to come on. I think both will be great players for us. It does bother me some when we support a player too long. However, it makes me sick to see a player go somewhere else and thrive. Remember that corner we let go who went to Chicago and led the league in picks? There were fans then saying get him out of here. 

[Superman]

4 hours ago, stitches said:

I think the same too... I think they are itching to play more cover 3... but the problem is our personnel is incredibly young and inexperienced... and... kind of below par overall and there have been multiple times when this has bitten us in the butt this season when we switch to man coverage in cover 3... we get a ton of miscommunication issues(the Jets game comes to mind). In fact... if I had to guess a disproportionately high amount of the worst chink plays against our defense have been when we switch to cover 3 press man. I think Ballard wants more cover 3 but Eberflus probably knows he doesn't have the high end talent and cohesion(+experience) of the secondary in order to successfully play it.

 

That's actually why I'm harboring some hopes that Ballard would actually invest in high end corner talent and that it's the general lack of talent that's actually dictating us using this outdated Tampa 2 scheme, which is good at prefenting chunk plays, but gets absolutely abused by good QBs in the short to intermediate range. 

 

Good points here. I keep saying the technique is bad in coverage, and at times we don't even line up right (that Texans/Pats/Jets stretch was brutal). There are a lot of things contributing to this, but youth and inexperience are part of it. I feel like coaching needs to step it up with some of the fundamental matters -- lining up properly against bunched receivers is as fundamental as it gets, IMO. 

 

But the lack of talent is a big part of it as well. I thought we could get by with our replacement level players on the outside, but that hasn't been the case. I thought Hairston and Wilson would contribute more, but at this point we just don't have good enough corners. 

 

I'm fine with signing a good corner before next season, but my positional value still says a first round corner in a primarily zone based defense isn't a good investment. I still think more impact will come from better pass rush, and being better up the middle -- strong safety and Mike backer. Mike Mitchell had an almost immediate impact, just from knowing what he's supposed to do.

 

But yeah, the defense needs talent almost everywhere. We have a Will and a FS (assuming he's healthy), but every other position is still a question mark, at best.

[dgambill]

I've got no problem with Malik. He is a little more banged up then I'd like but the guy doesn't let anything get behind him...and if a pass is not put in the right spot..he will make a play on it. I think he has good hands and tracking for a DB. I'm perfectly happy letting him play out his contract and have no reason to try to replace him at this point. I would much prefer to go out and get a SS ala Landon Collins of NY than spend to replace Hooker. I think they would compliment each other well akin to Earl Thomas and Cam Chancellor. Looking back on that draft it was pretty strong at the Corner position. We did land Wilson in the second and there was some decent value still there when we took him. I want us to continue to address the secondary but I see no reason to throw first rd picks at it. Football games are won up front in the trenches. OL/DL affect the QB much more than the secondary. In todays NFL the coverage sack is basically extinct unless it's like a 1 man or 2 man route. Most teams with time will still beat a great secondary. We have an additional high 2nd round pick this year. We will easily be able to get another impact player in the top 5 picks of the second round....or we can use one of our 2nd's to move up in the first to target a playmaker...either way we are in a great spot because of what Ballard has done. We secured our OL with Nelson and Smith...we added a stud LB and possibly two decent pass rushers by making that one move back with the Jets and it is still paying off for us. I can see us coming away with another playmaking WR and DL early next year. The guys he added to our roster this year have all contributed at different times or another. Even the RBs.....on top of all that we have a ton of cap space to fill in the holes we have. We are a team on the way up in this division and Jax and I think Houston both have aging guys at key positions and more cap restraints moving forward. We are in a good place moving forward.

[Colts_Fan12]

4 minutes ago, dgambill said:

I've got no problem with Malik. He is a little more banged up then I'd like but the guy doesn't let anything get behind him...and if a pass is not put in the right spot..he will make a play on it. I think he has good hands and tracking for a DB. I'm perfectly happy letting him play out his contract and have no reason to try to replace him at this point. I would much prefer to go out and get a SS ala Landon Collins of NY than spend to replace Hooker. I think they would compliment each other well akin to Earl Thomas and Cam Chancellor. Looking back on that draft it was pretty strong at the Corner position. We did land Wilson in the second and there was some decent value still there when we took him. I want us to continue to address the secondary but I see no reason to throw first rd picks at it. Football games are won up front in the trenches. OL/DL affect the QB much more than the secondary. In todays NFL the coverage sack is basically extinct unless it's like a 1 man or 2 man route. Most teams with time will still beat a great secondary. We have an additional high 2nd round pick this year. We will easily be able to get another impact player in the top 5 picks of the second round....or we can use one of our 2nd's to move up in the first to target a playmaker...either way we are in a great spot because of what Ballard has done. We secured our OL with Nelson and Smith...we added a stud LB and possibly two decent pass rushers by making that one move back with the Jets and it is still paying off for us. I can see us coming away with another playmaking WR and DL early next year. The guys he added to our roster this year have all contributed at different times or another. Even the RBs.....on top of all that we have a ton of cap space to fill in the holes we have. We are a team on the way up in this division and Jax and I think Houston both have aging guys at key positions and more cap restraints moving forward. We are in a good place moving forward.

I also think collins would be great next to hooker but I have a feeling hes getting tagged by NY sadly. 

[dgambill]

1 hour ago, Colts_Fan12 said:

I also think collins would be great next to hooker but I have a feeling hes getting tagged by NY sadly. 

I think NY tears it down....they let Eli go and their expensive pieces and start the rebuild....heck they may even trade OBJ. Watch and see if they talk to say SF or Cleveland or somebody to get a high first for him. That team just needs to tear it all down except Barkley and start from scratch. I don't think they tag Collins...they may try to re-sign him but I can see him just moving on...even for less money to get out of that mess. The goal for a rebuilding team should be like Ballard has been doing. Make some painful yet purposeful cuts...gather as many draft picks as possible...save cap space for a few years until those young picks develop then use it in FA. To me Collins may not fit their time line....they may be too far out from competing to keep him.

[Mr.NotSoCreative]

Why is it unfair for a fan to expect one of their teams 1st rd draft picks to play well and often? Injuries happen, sure. Getting roasted over the top by AJ Green and Moncrief happen to a lot of guys too. I am not a fan of OSU so I knew little about him but the words potential, hype, talents were all around the guy. He hasnt even played a full seasons worth of games so we should be patient, just appears that the reults are trending in a negative direction opening the door to criticism. 

[Colts_Fan12]

40 minutes ago, dgambill said:

I think NY tears it down....they let Eli go and their expensive pieces and start the rebuild....heck they may even trade OBJ. Watch and see if they talk to say SF or Cleveland or somebody to get a high first for him. That team just needs to tear it all down except Barkley and start from scratch. I don't think they tag Collins...they may try to re-sign him but I can see him just moving on...even for less money to get out of that mess. The goal for a rebuilding team should be like Ballard has been doing. Make some painful yet purposeful cuts...gather as many draft picks as possible...save cap space for a few years until those young picks develop then use it in FA. To me Collins may not fit their time line....they may be too far out from competing to keep him.

I hope you are right I'd love to bring him here he's awesome I agree they should tear it down but I just don't know if they will 

[csmopar]

 

[VaAllDay757]

22 minutes ago, csmopar said:

 

Great

[Valpo2004]

I think it's going to take him a year to get back to 100%