Hooker didn't if make a tackle

[aaron11]

2 minutes ago, indyagent17 said:

QB's do not throw his way very often

16 targets this year according to pff which is low

 

i guess the problem is teams dont even need to test him to beat us, they should use him differently imo

[DougDew]

Maybe I'm wrong about this, but how exactly does an offense "target" a FS who is playing the prevent zone?  

 

He's the DB we see on TV coming over the top coverage to help the CB who has slightly trailing coverage.  The FSs job is to get over in time to break up the play.  Or in Hooker's billed ability, to get there way ahead of time to intercept the ball.

 

In a pass situation like that, is it the FS or the CB who is being targeted?  Do the stats double count as both being targeted?

 

I think there are schemes where the FS is actually responsible for covering a receiver one on one.  That would be where a target is more accurately measured, IMO.

[Shive]

Generally speaking, a FS racking up a lot of tackles in a games is not a great thing. That means your DL and LB's aren't making the plays they should and the ballcarrier is getting to your last line of defense consistently.

 

I see Hooker's lack of tackles in this game more of a product of his role in the scheme playing the deep FS role and everyone else racking up the tackles (Walker with 16, Leonard with 6, Geathers with 6).

 

I'm not saying any criticism of Hooker is unwarranted (he's definitely not playing up to his potential this season, due to scheme or otherwise), but the reason for this thread is just silly.

[aaron11]

20 hours ago, DougDew said:

Maybe I'm wrong about this, but how exactly does an offense "target" a FS who is playing the prevent zone? 

its when they throw to someone in his zone which is rather big.  there are free safeties that see a lot more targets than hooker does

 

personally i dont like how the are using him either, the free safety gets more chances when your team plays man or cover 3

[DougDew]

Just now, aaron11 said:

its when they throw to someone in his zone which is rather big.  there are free safeties that see a lot more targets than hooker does

 

personally i dont like how the are using him either, the free safety gets more chances when your team plays man or cover 3

So in cover 2 on a deep route, does the CB break off his coverage to follow a more shallow route and Hooker picks up the deep receiver by himself?

 

So he would be covering one half of the deep zone.  And he doesn't get targeted because he's a really good safety or because the other one is the easier target?

 

I'm not sure what targeting has to do with it.  I assume offenses pick on the weakest link, and Hooker is not that in our secondary, that's probably true.

[The Fish]

22 hours ago, Pacergeek said:

Hooker is one of the most overrated Indianapolis Colts I can remember

 

 

nonsense. (hint: i didn't say nonsense)

He's not Ed Reed, but he's not bad- at all. Watch what happens in the secondary when he's not there.

And what's with this mangled thread title? 

[aaron11]

4 minutes ago, DougDew said:

So in cover 2 on a deep route, does the CB break off his coverage to follow a more shallow route and Hooker picks up the deep receiver by himself?

 

yeah but sometimes the corner can double the deep receiver if there is no one else

[DougDew]

Just now, aaron11 said:

 

yeah but sometimes the corner can double the deep receiver if there is no one else

Yeah, I would think that he would just run with the receiver into the deep zone if there is no other receiver heading into his shallow zone.

 

I'm just wondering how targets on a free safety is measured since there could be times when the corner is providing double coverage. 

 

It seems clearer to use targets as a way to measure a CBs coverage skills, especially in a man scheme.  It seem more fuzzy to do it with a safety in a zone scheme. 

[aaron11]

3 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Yeah, I would think that he would just run with the receiver into the deep zone if there is no other receiver heading into his shallow zone.

 

I'm just wondering how targets on a free safety is measured since there could be times when the corner is providing double coverage. 

 

It seems clearer to use targets as a way to measure a CBs coverage skills, especially in a man scheme.  It seem more fuzzy to do it with a safety in a zone scheme. 

 

yeah target numbers certainly are not the end all be all.   cover 2 is meant to take away deep passes but we didnt score enough to force many deep throws

 

last year we did and it made hooker more valuable imo 

 

 

[Pacergeek]

53 minutes ago, The Fish said:

 

 

nonsense. (hint: i didn't say nonsense)

He's not Ed Reed, but he's not bad- at all. Watch what happens in the secondary when he's not there.

And what's with this mangled thread title? 

When he does not play, the secondary is awful. When he does play, the secondary is awful. Hooker should be called "The Ghost" instead of Hilton because he's usually invisible. 

[Mr.NotSoCreative]

23 hours ago, DougDew said:

An elite player.....maybe even simply a good football player...should be able to contribute in a meaningful way no matter what scheme is being played.  Some players are better at some things than other things, but still....

 

If you have to tailor the play calls to accommodate a player who can only contribute in one way, that player pretty much stifles the ability to do anything else. 

 

So he's great at playing prevent zone defense, and only when he lines up far enough away from the LOS.  I would think that it would open up the underneath pretty widely and forces the other players to be exceptionally good.  We don't have the elite underneath players to keep offenses from moving the ball at will.  And it will be tough to accumulate that many underneath players and still afford a QB, IMO.

Elite underneath players? I actually think that our lb core is our strength on d right now. Add in Moore and Willis. Our d is bend but dont break and protect the red zone. Gives up yardage but minimize points. I cant figure why we make other qbs look all pro, other than scheme. Think we held rbs under 100 yds for like a 1.5 seasons or close to it. Also held most offenses to respectable numbers. Our O is not carrying their weight, poor field position, etc.

[The Fish]

29 minutes ago, Pacergeek said:

When he does not play, the secondary is awful. When he does play, the secondary is awful. Hooker should be called "The Ghost" instead of Hilton because he's usually invisible. 

Oversimplification is overly simple.

The secondary has been terrible because of it's insistence of using the most basic, Jr. High cover two principals with the idea being that it's plug and play and the young guys won't blow assignments, a smaller cog in the bend don't break approach that Eberflus is going for. When the pass rush isn't on point, guys like Drew Brees are going to be perfect against it. 

It's my opinion that a secondary with Kenny Moore, Piere Desire and Malik Hooker isn't short on guys who can play. So what we're watching is a by product of other things. If you wanted to trash a guy, I probably wouldn't bother with responding to an overreaction to Rock. Ok tackler, didn't mind his general competitiveness, but he didn't cover very well and got caught up in his fair share of PI calls.

[Four2itus]

Classic. A roasting thread about a player and the OP didn't even spell it right. 

 

Seems folks just do what they do best.....find a punching bag and go for it. Damned if the logic fits or not, just punch away. Hey, but it makes us all feel better if we put a player or coach down, I mean after all, I'm suffering here!

 

Lol.

[hoosierhawk]

On 12/29/2019 at 11:50 PM, Thunderbolt said:

You win some and you lose some.  I think Ballard needs fire his scouts and hire new ones.

Another TJ Green clone....

My good God. Let's just knock every player on the team because we are real Colt fans and we know everyone's coverage on every play and know better than the coaches. 

I believe it was the Texan game Hooker got roasted on here unmercifully for a TD down the right sideline that appeared to be a blown coverage by Hooker. Later in the week Desir apologized for blowing the coverage. They were in man and he played zone and let his man blow by him uncontested. Hooker got blamed big time. 

Hooker isn't pro bowl caliber yet but is damn good.  I know I am in the minority but will stand by my contention that he is a good safety on a pass rush hungry team. Till we start putting pressure on the QB all of our secondary will continue to look bad.

[MFT5]

On 12/29/2019 at 11:43 PM, Jdubu said:

Yeah, Hooker has been pretty much a non factor this season. Again, you just have to ask, is it the players or is it the scheme? Either it’s the scheme or Hooker has continued to decline throughout this season along with several others 

 

Scheme ... we dont ask any of out defenders to do much of anything but be there to make a tackle smh

[Moosejawcolt]

On 12/29/2019 at 11:02 PM, Chloe6124 said:

Let’s be fair hooker was drafted before any of the current coaches were here. He may not be the guy to fit the coaches schemes.

Rubbish.  I could cut and paste u what Ballard said in a video bout Hooker after they drafted him.  He thought he was by far the best player at 15. Couldn't wait to turn the card.  He viewed him as a game changer regardless of the scheme he played in.  Another free pass for Ballard. 

[Thunderbolt]

Neither one is effective, Hooker or Geathers.  They don't seem to even come close to any balls thrown much.  I'm hoping it wasn't a draft bust by Ballard...

[Ep3]

Seems like teams don't have to throw it deep on us very often because we couldn't put up more than 20 points a game. Alot of deep throws were off play action. He seemed fine last year's when we were burrying teams. He isn't a tackling specialist. Willis is tho. If you want to see him shine then our offense is gonna have to put more than 10 points on the board in the first half.

[Coltsman1788]

On 12/30/2019 at 12:10 AM, CR91 said:

Guys I'm telling you it's the scheme. If the colts wanna play like the 2013 Seahawks, they need to play cover 1 not cover 2. Yes that is more aggressive and requires more man coverage, but we need to do something to help our dline. They were a complete liability since the first game of the season

I hate the soft zone coverage schemes that the Colts play.  Any defense that knowingly has “no coverage zones” as an accepted part of the scheme is a big problem.  Hooker has been disappointing as he is not the ball hawk that many thought he would be but our scheme is horrible. 

[CR91]

5 minutes ago, Coltsman1788 said:

I hate the soft zone coverage schemes that the Colts play.  Any defense that knowingly has “no coverage zones” as an accepted part of the scheme is a big problem.  Hooker has been disappointing as he is not the ball hawk that many thought he would be but our scheme is horrible. 

 

hooker's problem is not his coverage. Imo, he doesn't trust his eyes. I feel like if he took a few more chances, he'd be in better position to make a play on the ball