Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Per Michael Lombardi Malik Hooker available for trade


PeterBowman

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, krunk said:

I like Hooker but it probably wouldn't happen that way for the reasons I listed.  Earl Thomas can do all the things that I mentioned Hooker isn't good at or hasn't shown thus far to be good at.

I think he has more than enough talent to be a ball hawking stud if we would just use him as a single high safety and stop utilizing him wrong he isn't gonna be a game changer in our boring Tampa 2 we need to make changes and modify our D if we want to get the most out of Malik

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 136
  • Created
  • Last Reply
56 minutes ago, Dr. T said:

Hooker was Ballard's first draft pick and he was just following his board. If you all remember, Malik unexpectedly fell about 10 spots and Ballard could not believe he was still available. Maybe the other teams knew something that we didn't. Remember that CB was hamstrung working with Grigson's old crew.

My guess is he fell about 10 spots because he had injury issues at Ohio State.  Therefore teams passed and Ballard took a chance.  Ironically both of our Ohio State backs could be available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Colts_Fan12 said:

I think he has more than enough talent to be a ball hawking stud if we would just use him as a single high safety and stop utilizing him wrong he isn't gonna be a game changer in our boring Tampa 2 we need to make changes and modify our D if we want to get the most out of Malik

The trade rumors are there for a reason.  I think a trade would happen before any hope of the scheme changing up much. As long as Eberflus is here and Ballard wants us running the Tampa 2 defense then I wouldn't bet on the scheme changing a whole bunch.   For right now they are probably just seeing what they can fetch for him.  They'll probably end up keeping him and then drafting a safety with some real skill who can sit behind him but provide stiff competition.  I'm looking at this small school kid Kyle Dugger right now who could fit a description like that.  That would give them leverage against extending Hooker if they weren't comfortable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, boo2202 said:

Then I’d have to question Ballard for using a high pick on a player that you dump 3 years later for a 4th round pick or so. It doesn’t make any sense. Malik hasn’t been great but has shown flashes. Don’t feel like restarting at another position when we already need playmakers on offense. 

I wouldn't  it was the guy pagano  wanted

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, runthepost said:

OJ Howard should be cheap now

I don't think acquiring a TE, even Gronk, would make them take less for Howard.  They will be looking for a good return for him just like Ballard would be doing for Hooker.  Both 1st rd picks in the same year.  The Gronk trade might actually bring in more suitors for Howard which is to their benefit.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

I don't think acquiring a TE, even Gronk, would make them take less for Howard.  They will be looking for a good return for him just like Ballard would be doing for Hooker.  Both 1st rd picks in the same year.  The Gronk trade might actually bring in more suitors for Howard which is to their benefit.  

 

It would seem to make Brate more expendable. But I do think they will trade Howard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Moosejawcolt said:

What u want and what u get r 2 different things. Remember the Colts r trading him for a reason. By opening him up for a trade,they r basically telling the league he has not met their expectations. It is not because of salary or attitude, as far as we know.  The league doesn't care if he was drafted #1. It is his current value that they r considering. Plus, he struggled last year and Ballard basically said he wasn't happy with his play.  Now all that considered, those factors rarely garner a 2nd rounder.  2107 first three picks: Hooker, Wilson and Basham.

 

   Ed Dodds wasn't hired until AFTER that 2017 draft.  Just a coincidence that 

   CB has drafted much more successfully since ? 

 

   I doubt it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, indykmj said:

 

   Ed Dodds wasn't hired until AFTER that 2017 draft.  Just a coincidence that 

   CB has drafted much more successfully since ? 

 

   I doubt it...

Much more successful?? That’s TBD for me. The 2017 class is a disaster. 2018 class great. 2019 class has a lot of questions. I’ve stated before without the Leonard pick, everything would look different. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, ThinBlueLineColts said:

That’s the point. Hooker hasn’t been healthy in the NFL. May have an impact on the decision to keep him long term or not. 

You can't blame him for tearing his ACL. You remember the hit right?! 

I kinda get your point and some other durability issues are valid but 85% of his missed game allocation is due to this 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Superfly said:

That 2017 draft is slowly, losing it’s luster. Down to Mack, Grover and Walker. 

 

Well Walker had over 100 tackles last year and has, for the most part, played very well for us.  Stewart (as expected being a project pick) took a couple years to develop, but he looked like he finally started turning the corner last year.  The addition of Buckner should help him out a lot.  Mack has >1,000 on the ground last year, which was nice to see after all our running game struggles with Grigs/Pagano.  Wilson and Hooker aren't gone yet and Hairston, Banner and Basham are still in the NFL.  It really wasn't a terrible draft in terms of the talent brought in.  Everyone's still around the NFL somewhere.  Some just didn't fit with us (could be that Ballard and Pagano have fundamentally different philosophies in terms of defenses they want to run).

 

18 hours ago, Superman said:

 

He didn't have his staff in place, and was drafting for a different coach/defense. I still think Hooker can play in Eberflus' defense, and he's still a big time playmaker when healthy, but it doesn't make sense to hold that pick over the staff's head given all the changes that have taken place since then.

 

I wholeheartedly agree with this post.  It seemed like Pagano was very, very high on Hooker.  Don't forget, Pagano was the DB coach and Def. Coordinator in Baltimore with Ed Reed.  When Hooker was drafted, that's who Pagano was comparing him to.

 

18 hours ago, Dogg63 said:

Local media talking heads are all reporting the rumor is somewhat true. The Colts have NOT shopped Hooker, but they have had other teams inquire about his availability.

 

In addition, only 2 of the 1st round draftees from 2017 have had their 5th year option picked up thus far. The deadline to do that is May 4, so obviously most teams are waiting. 

 

As to keeping him, he's only a ~4 million cap hit this year and the 5th year option would be in the ~6.5-7 million range. Not expensive at all.

 

I think we keep him and see what happens with 1) him getting healed up (and hopefully staying healthy for a change), 2) another year of experience under his belt, and 3) some pressure from Buckner affecting the entire defense in good ways.

 

Yes, improved DL play should help him.  Our secondary last year was not very good all around (in part due to injury, probably early in the season due to youth).  For a FS to thrive, a solid pass rush plus solid play from your other DBs really helps.  

 

Also, the knee injury he suffered as a rookie typically takes about a full year or more to really fully recover from (both in strength/mobility and in mentally trusting oneself that it's OK).  Chances are his second year that knee was getting stronger as the season went by.  So yes, it'd be nice to see if he's fully recovered from various injuries this year.. but it kind of makes sense not to option him right now and wait to see if he can actually play a full 16 games next year.  I know Ballard seems to really like Geathers, but we haven't resigned him yet and I think that's mainly due to his inability to stay on the field and the fact that he hasn't seemed the same since his neck injury.

 

18 hours ago, ukcolt12 said:

They finally have an interior pash rush (Buckner) and improving exterior pass rush which plays into Hooker's core strengths. Yet they look to get rid? 

Makes no sense to me. He wasn't great last season but frankly none of the DB's were. 

He has the skillset to take away the ball which outside of Moore, no other DB possesses 

 

I think Ya-Sin and potentially Tell can possess the take-away trait.  But you're right, Ya-Sin had his growing pains early on, Moore was injured a few games, Wilson didn't show up last year, for the most part his partner in crime at SS was a rookie, Desir's play fell off, etc. etc.  The pass rush certainly helps all DBs.. but the FS also requires the other DBs to perform well to help him out.

 

17 hours ago, Chloe6124 said:

It looks like teams are the one contacting the colts and the colts aren’t shopping him. Who knows maybe a team will give them something that is to good to pass up.

 

Any idea which teams?

 

17 hours ago, DougDew said:

Buckner and an improved pass rush could make Odum and/or Tell more effective than they other wise would be.  It helps all safeties and DBs, not just one.

 

I would wager that everybody involved believes that Hooker could benefit from being in another defense.  Ballard, other GMs, and maybe even Hooker himself.  Since everybody sees it, maybe that's why Ballard is getting phone calls. 

 

As someone has said, its a matter of thinking if he is a core player or not.  If not, then its comes down to what the value would be in terms of a pick this year compared to a comp pick two years from now if he signs elsewhere after next season or three years from now if he signs elsewhere after his 5th season.   If I've got my timeline correct.  

 

 

I think they are set on keeping Tell at CB.  I could be wrong, but he's got all the traits Ballard wants for CB and I was fairly impressed with him later last season.  Also, if we ship Hooker, I think we definitely need to address S in the draft or hope we can get lucky in FA -- I'd not be very optimistic if going into the season our S group was Odum, Milligan, Willis (and maybe Tell).

 

17 hours ago, BluHorzhu said:

IMO this is just due diligence and Ballard being prepared as possible for draft day.

 

Malik Hooker is a good player who's also good at taking the ball away.  I said good there twice because at no time has he truly lived up to the original billing.  Maybe it's scheme, maybe it's something else.  Either way, he's probably more valuable as a high-potential trade option at this point.  There will be a few teams out there who think he's a great fit and that's all it takes.

 

I've done over 100 OTC mocks and one thing I consistently see is Safety talent available particularly at the top of the 2nd round and through the 3rd.  There's plenty of talent right in our 2nd round wheelhouse and it would be very easy to take a guy like McKinney, Winfield, or Chinn as the BPA.  Chinn is more of a box safety, which would not affect Hooker... but that's beside the point.  

 

I think at this point you may be more likely to get better draft capital than better play from Malik... and this would be the draft to do it.  One of the posters here made a good point about uncertainty with the 2020 College FB season.  Right now every GM knows what they've got coming out of the college ranks.  Smoke 'em if ya got 'em.  

 

 

I'd say his rookie year he was living up to the billing.  He had 3 picks in 7 games before getting hurt.  I may be wrong, but I think he was top 5 in the league in that category (may have even been leading it) at that point in the year.  I watched A Football Life: Sean Taylor recently and Ryan Clark raved about how impressive/rare it was that Taylor had 5 picks in 8 games.. Hooker wasn't too far off there.  I suspect, if he didn't get hurt and kept the pace he was on, he would've had a good shot at making a pro-bowl as a rookie.

 

16 hours ago, boo2202 said:

 

Exactly... eberflus was already hired. Ballard knew that pags wasn’t the man for the job. I don’t like the idea of trading away hooker, we don’t have any depth behind him. We basically still got him for two years on the cheap. The other big issue is he wouldn’t return much. If CB is wanting draft capital this badly, he should’ve just kept pick 13 and traded down from there. 

 

@Superman already addressed this - but Eberflus wasn't already hired.  And Pags was kept around because Irsay wanted to see what he could do w/o Grigson.  Understandably, Pags (3-4) and Ballard (4-3) have different defensive philosophies... but if Pags had more success (which he likely would have with a healthy Luck), I think Irsay would have pushed for him to stick around.

 

15 hours ago, richard pallo said:

My guess is he fell about 10 spots because he had injury issues at Ohio State.  Therefore teams passed and Ballard took a chance.  Ironically both of our Ohio State backs could be available.

 

Every draft of Ballard's he has taken a player from OH State.  I wonder if he or a scout knows somebody on the coaching staff there.  I remember in the 'With the Next Pick' series last year they had a clip of a scout saying 'talking to one of the coaches, they said if they had a son, they'd hope that he'd be the type of young man as this player." After Campbell was drafted, Ballard said to the media almost the same exact quote.... could be a coincidence, but it doesn't seem uncommon in the NFL for GM's to trust certain college coaches/programs more than others (e.g., Polian always spoke highly of Kirk Ferentz and Iowa's program and drafted Dallas Clark and Bob Sanders in consecutive years).  

 

13 hours ago, indyagent17 said:

This story is growing legs and must be legit, One writer said this should be an exiting week with all the trades that could take place very soon

 

Because one unnamed write said trades could take place soon, this is legit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, ukcolt12 said:

You can't blame him for tearing his ACL. You remember the hit right?! 

I kinda get your point and some other durability issues are valid but 85% of his missed game allocation is due to this 

I’m not saying I blame him, just that I get the speculation of Ballard may not be ready to commit to Hooker and therefore maybe shop him. 

Let’s be real, Hooker has been average when you consider where he was drafted  and is not a real ideal fit in current scheme. Maybe that’s why he’s been pretty average? Who knows. Combine that with the fact he’s missed games each year and it’s not completely surprising to hear Ballard’s comment about the 5th year and now see his name being asked about.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CurBeatElite said:

I wholeheartedly agree with this post.  It seemed like Pagano was very, very high on Hooker.  Don't forget, Pagano was the DB coach and Def. Coordinator in Baltimore with Ed Reed.  When Hooker was drafted, that's who Pagano was comparing him to.

 

 

Yes, improved DL play should help him.  Our secondary last year was not very good all around (in part due to injury, probably early in the season due to youth).  For a FS to thrive, a solid pass rush plus solid play from your other DBs really helps.  

 

Also, the knee injury he suffered as a rookie typically takes about a full year or more to really fully recover from (both in strength/mobility and in mentally trusting oneself that it's OK).  Chances are his second year that knee was getting stronger as the season went by.  So yes, it'd be nice to see if he's fully recovered from various injuries this year.. but it kind of makes sense not to option him right now and wait to see if he can actually play a full 16 games next year.  I know Ballard seems to really like Geathers, but we haven't resigned him yet and I think that's mainly due to his inability to stay on the field and the fact that he hasn't seemed the same since his neck injury.

 

I think they are set on keeping Tell at CB.  I could be wrong, but he's got all the traits Ballard wants for CB and I was fairly impressed with him later last season.  Also, if we ship Hooker, I think we definitely need to address S in the draft or hope we can get lucky in FA -- I'd not be very optimistic if going into the season our S group was Odum, Milligan, Willis (and maybe Tell).

 

A few things. 

 

Lets not look for excuses to give Ballard a pass on the 2017 draft or drafting Hooker at 15 by blaming it on Pagano.  What are you prepared to do, blame all of Grigson's drafting on Pagano too, or was that all RGs fault simply because we think he is a jerk of a personality?   Either the GM is responsible or he isn't.  (My personal opinion is that the HC has A LOT to do with the drafting, so I have given RG a pass on a lot of things more than most people here).  

 

Whether it was CP or CB, Hooker was drafted high because he was traitsy with a high ceiling more than he was an established football player.  When the traits don't develop into a well rounded football player, this is what you get.

 

Ballard said that Hooker's performance tailed off.  That's not continually blaming it on injury.  Its acknowledging that he simply is not a great player.

 

I think that we can get by with our safety group for one season.  We're not "winning now" anyway, so we have some time to find our long term answer or fill it with a series of Mike Adams type of stop gaps.  Besides, the SS is the more important S position of the two, IMO.  Unless you want the FS to turn and run with a WR frequently, which we don't very often.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, DougDew said:

...

 

I think that we can get by with our safety group for one season.  We're not "winning now" anyway, so we have some time to find our long term answer or fill it with a series of Mike Adams type of stop gaps.  Besides, the SS is the more important S position of the two, IMO.  Unless you want the FS to turn and run with a WR frequently, which we don't very often.

 

I'm not sure the front office would agree with that statement.  I know I don't.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

 

I'm not sure the front office would agree with that statement.  I know I don't.  

Players are still too young for us to be a serious contender this year, IMO.

 

Rivers isn't really about loading up to win this season, IMO.  CB had to put a competent QB in there.  Couldn't go with JB or an untested rookie QB that wasn't going to be elite (drafting too low)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DougDew said:

Players are still too young for us to be a serious contender this year, IMO.

 

Rivers isn't really about loading up to win now, IMO.  CB had to put a competent QB in there.  Couldn't go with JB or an untested rookie QB that wasn't going to be elite (drafting too low)

 

I respect your opinion but I don't agree.  I think Rivers really is about winning now, and so it CB.  I don't think Rivers came here to make money or for a change of scenery.

 

We have a strong team, with a great core.  Of course, injuries always make the difference to any team and no one can predict that.  But I truly believe we can win now with this team and what we add in the draft and free agency.  Just MHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There have been a few mocks that had the Colts trading into the 1st with the Seahawks, so I think there may be some smoke here.  Seattle needs a safety... a few actually, and they are known for trading down, so I could see the Colts trading Hooker and 44 (hopefully most likely 34) to Seattle to move back into the first round if there is someone there they covet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

 

I respect your opinion but I don't agree.  I think Rivers really is about winning now, and so it CB.  I don't think Rivers came here to make money or for a change of scenery.

 

We have a strong team, with a great core.  Of course, injuries always make the difference to any team and no one can predict that.  But I truly believe we can win now with this team and what we add in the draft and free agency.  Just MHO.

Maybe its semantics.  Yes, we can go all of the way now, but its unlikely due to the composition of the roster.  I doubt that Rivers views himself as a rent-a-QB, needing to win this year,  and probably sees this year more like a stepping stone to escalation next year or the year after.  

 

Lets put it this way,  I don't think Ballard is going to make a decision about Hooker based upon how far he thinks we can go this year.  Jeopardizing a good decision for the future in order to win immediately is how I view the "winning now" comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Maybe its semantics.  Yes, we can go all of the way now, but its unlikely due to the composition of the roster.  I doubt that Rivers views himself as a rent-a-QB, needing to win this year,  and probably sees this year more like a stepping stone to escalation next year or the year after.  

 

Lets put it this way,  I don't think Ballard is going to make a decision about Hooker based upon how far he thinks we can go this year.  Jeopardizing a good decision for the future in order to win immediately is how I view the "winning now" comments.

 

As they said on the Locked Down podcast, every team will listen to offers and has a price for every player.  When teams saw that Hooker's 5th year option hasn't been enabled, and that he's not really a good (or perfect fit) for the Tampa 2/3, they posed the question.

 

We know Ballard loves draft picks and he'd probably move Hooker if the price was right.  I hate to see him go (not just because he's a Buckeye).  When he's healthy, very few teams throw his way. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

 

As they said on the Locked Down podcast, every team will listen to offers and has a price for every player.  When teams saw that Hooker's 5th year option hasn't been enabled, and that he's not really a good (or perfect fit) for the Tampa 2/3, they posed the question.

 

We know Ballard loves draft picks and he'd probably move Hooker if the price was right.  I hate to see him go (not just because he's a Buckeye).  When he's healthy, very few teams throw his way. 

 

 

Yeah, I don't know that any of this Hooker talk stems from Ballard not wanting him around. 

 

He probably just made an off the cuff accurate statement that one week before the draft is not really the time to talk about any one player's contract.

 

Then the other GMs smell blood in the water and start a feeding frenzy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

A few things. 

 

Lets not look for excuses to give Ballard a pass on the 2017 draft or drafting Hooker at 15 by blaming it on Pagano.  What are you prepared to do, blame all of Grigson's drafting on Pagano too, or was that all RGs fault simply because we think he is a jerk of a personality?   Either the GM is responsible or he isn't.  (My personal opinion is that the HC has A LOT to do with the drafting, so I have given RG a pass on a lot of things more than most people here).  

 

Whether it was CP or CB, Hooker was drafted high because he was traitsy with a high ceiling more than he was an established football player.  When the traits don't develop into a well rounded football player, this is what you get.

 

Ballard said that Hooker's performance tailed off.  That's not continually blaming it on injury.  Its acknowledging that he simply is not a great player.

 

I think that we can get by with our safety group for one season.  We're not "winning now" anyway, so we have some time to find our long term answer or fill it with a series of Mike Adams type of stop gaps.  Besides, the SS is the more important S position of the two, IMO.  Unless you want the FS to turn and run with a WR frequently, which we don't very often.

 

 

 

A few things.

 

First off, I'm not looking to give Ballard any excuses.  Your first point makes little sense -- "Let's not look for excuses to give Ballard a pass ... by blaming it on Pagano. What are you prepared to blame all Grigson's drafting on Pagano, too? ... "Either the GM is responsible or he isn't.  (My personal opinion is that the HC has A LOT to do with the drafting, so I have given RG a pass on a lot of things.)"  ***So you're saying it's the GM is responsible or he's not, but you give RG a pass because Pagano had A LOT to do with his decisions?  I don't disagree that the head coach has a lot to do with players being drafted.  Pagano was huge on Hooker, no doubt about that.  Many had Hooker going top 10 and he fell to us.  Ballard ultimately pulled the trigger.  Was he influenced by Pagano some in doing so?  I would wager he was.

 

Your second point.... Hooker was having a terrific rookie year.  Leading the league or being right up there in INTs as a rookie through 7 games is fantastic.  Prior to injury many pundits had him ranked very high in terms of DROY and many were talking about a probable pro-bowl.  Yes, everyone knows he was very new to football and he had to turn his athletic traits into being a sound football player.  He was doing pretty darn good until he got hurt.  Very few players come back from that injury and are fully recovered in under a year.  Pretty safe to say it probably took him a good chunk of year 2 to be close to back to his normal self and he missed some time due to injury that year, as well.  Both Reich and Hooker stated they thought his 'burst' was better in this past training camp than in 2018.

 

Your third point... Ballard said "Malik was solid.  He had some moments of being really good. And I thought he tailed off a little bit there at the end.”  Our whole team kinda tailed off at the end, after a 5-2 start going 2-7 on the back 9.  I never said Hooker is a 'great' player.  And, Hooker did miss time mid-season due to a meniscus injury, so I highly doubt he was 100% the entire way after he came back.  Sure, he did tail off a bit later in the year, and I never once said it was 100% due to injury... I said " So yes, it'd be nice to see if he's fully recovered from various injuries this year.. but it kind of makes sense not to option him right now and wait to see if he can actually play a full 16 games next year. " -- meaning, I don't necessarily think the reason why he hasn't gotten a 5th year option is reason to jump to conclusions that he's on the trading block... it means, if he can actually stay healthy a full year and play at/near full health all year (keep in mind he should have a better defense surrounding him), and play well, Ballard may want to negotiate with him after next year... if he is injured again, his price tag goes way down and a lot of teams will be cautious wanting to sign him.

 

Finally, we are most definitely in the 'win now' mode.  You don't sign Rivers to a one year deal, you don't trade your first round pick for an all-pro 3-tech DT (the most important position on this D), you don't sign Xavier Rhodes to a 1 year deal, etc. if you aren't trying to 'win now.'  If we do wind up trading Hooker, unless they have big plans of moving Tell to S, I think we have to go for a FS in the draft or find one in FA.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, CurBeatElite said:

 

A few things.

 

First off, I'm not looking to give Ballard any excuses.  Your first point makes little sense -- "Let's not look for excuses to give Ballard a pass ... by blaming it on Pagano. What are you prepared to blame all Grigson's drafting on Pagano, too? ... "Either the GM is responsible or he isn't.  (My personal opinion is that the HC has A LOT to do with the drafting, so I have given RG a pass on a lot of things.)"  ***So you're saying it's the GM is responsible or he's not, but you give RG a pass because Pagano had A LOT to do with his decisions?  I don't disagree that the head coach has a lot to do with players being drafted.  Pagano was huge on Hooker, no doubt about that.  Many had Hooker going top 10 and he fell to us.  Ballard ultimately pulled the trigger.  Was he influenced by Pagano some in doing so?  I would wager he was.

 

Your second point.... Hooker was having a terrific rookie year.  Leading the league or being right up there in INTs as a rookie through 7 games is fantastic.  Prior to injury many pundits had him ranked very high in terms of DROY and many were talking about a probable pro-bowl.  Yes, everyone knows he was very new to football and he had to turn his athletic traits into being a sound football player.  He was doing pretty darn good until he got hurt.  Very few players come back from that injury and are fully recovered in under a year.  Pretty safe to say it probably took him a good chunk of year 2 to be close to back to his normal self and he missed some time due to injury that year, as well.  Both Reich and Hooker stated they thought his 'burst' was better in this past training camp than in 2018.

 

Your third point... Ballard said "Malik was solid.  He had some moments of being really good. And I thought he tailed off a little bit there at the end.”  Our whole team kinda tailed off at the end, after a 5-2 start going 2-7 on the back 9.  I never said Hooker is a 'great' player.  And, Hooker did miss time mid-season due to a meniscus injury, so I highly doubt he was 100% the entire way after he came back.  Sure, he did tail off a bit later in the year, and I never once said it was 100% due to injury... I said " So yes, it'd be nice to see if he's fully recovered from various injuries this year.. but it kind of makes sense not to option him right now and wait to see if he can actually play a full 16 games next year. " -- meaning, I don't necessarily think the reason why he hasn't gotten a 5th year option is reason to jump to conclusions that he's on the trading block... it means, if he can actually stay healthy a full year and play at/near full health all year (keep in mind he should have a better defense surrounding him), and play well, Ballard may want to negotiate with him after next year... if he is injured again, his price tag goes way down and a lot of teams will be cautious wanting to sign him.

 

Finally, we are most definitely in the 'win now' mode.  You don't sign Rivers to a one year deal, you don't trade your first round pick for an all-pro 3-tech DT (the most important position on this D), you don't sign Xavier Rhodes to a 1 year deal, etc. if you aren't trying to 'win now.'  If we do wind up trading Hooker, unless they have big plans of moving Tell to S, I think we have to go for a FS in the draft or find one in FA.

 

 

Why does it matter if Hooker had a great few games into his rookie season if in his 3rd year he still plays out of position with bad instincts when he's playing anything else other than deep zone?  Speed has nothing to do with that, and I wonder how much his actual 40 time has dropped off two years after the injury...if at all.

 

No doubt that Pagano had influence into the Hooker pick and the entire 2017 draft, just like he would have had influence in all drafts prior, especially at the defensive positions.  

 

Rivers is not a rent-a-slinger, a hired arm going to whichever team he thinks has the best chance of winning a SB in any given year.  He's not stupid and realizes this is his best team with which to fit into and work at going to a SB in the next three years is with Reich.  

 

.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

Why does it matter if Hooker had a great few games into his rookie season if in his 3rd year he still plays out of position with bad instincts when he's playing anything else other than deep zone?  Speed has nothing to do with that, and I wonder how much his actual 40 time has dropped off two years after the injury...if at all.

 

No doubt that Pagano had influence into the Hooker pick and the entire 2017 draft, just like he would have had influence in all drafts prior, especially at the defensive positions.  

 

Rivers is not a rent-a-slinger, a paid hired arm going to whichever team he thinks has the best chance of winning a SB in any given year.  He's not stupid and realizes this is his best team with which to fit into and work at going to a SB in the next three years is with Reich.  

 

.

 

 

 

Rivers signed a 1 year contract, pal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, CurBeatElite said:

 

Rivers signed a 1 year contract, pal.

Yes, but that's a business settlement of a negotiation between two sides.  It doesn't necessarily reflect attitude.  I doubt that the attitude is that he signed a one year contract with what ever team he thinks has the best shot at going to the SB this year, so that he would have the freedom to then look around next year for whichever team has the best chance then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, CurBeatElite said:

 

A few things.

 

First off, I'm not looking to give Ballard any excuses.  Your first point makes little sense -- "Let's not look for excuses to give Ballard a pass ... by blaming it on Pagano. What are you prepared to blame all Grigson's drafting on Pagano, too? ... "Either the GM is responsible or he isn't.  (My personal opinion is that the HC has A LOT to do with the drafting, so I have given RG a pass on a lot of things.)"  ***So you're saying it's the GM is responsible or he's not, but you give RG a pass because Pagano had A LOT to do with his decisions?  I don't disagree that the head coach has a lot to do with players being drafted.  Pagano was huge on Hooker, no doubt about that.  Many had Hooker going top 10 and he fell to us.  Ballard ultimately pulled the trigger.  Was he influenced by Pagano some in doing so?  I would wager he was.

 

Your second point.... Hooker was having a terrific rookie year.  Leading the league or being right up there in INTs as a rookie through 7 games is fantastic.  Prior to injury many pundits had him ranked very high in terms of DROY and many were talking about a probable pro-bowl.  Yes, everyone knows he was very new to football and he had to turn his athletic traits into being a sound football player.  He was doing pretty darn good until he got hurt.  Very few players come back from that injury and are fully recovered in under a year.  Pretty safe to say it probably took him a good chunk of year 2 to be close to back to his normal self and he missed some time due to injury that year, as well.  Both Reich and Hooker stated they thought his 'burst' was better in this past training camp than in 2018.

 

Your third point... Ballard said "Malik was solid.  He had some moments of being really good. And I thought he tailed off a little bit there at the end.”  Our whole team kinda tailed off at the end, after a 5-2 start going 2-7 on the back 9.  I never said Hooker is a 'great' player.  And, Hooker did miss time mid-season due to a meniscus injury, so I highly doubt he was 100% the entire way after he came back.  Sure, he did tail off a bit later in the year, and I never once said it was 100% due to injury... I said " So yes, it'd be nice to see if he's fully recovered from various injuries this year.. but it kind of makes sense not to option him right now and wait to see if he can actually play a full 16 games next year. " -- meaning, I don't necessarily think the reason why he hasn't gotten a 5th year option is reason to jump to conclusions that he's on the trading block... it means, if he can actually stay healthy a full year and play at/near full health all year (keep in mind he should have a better defense surrounding him), and play well, Ballard may want to negotiate with him after next year... if he is injured again, his price tag goes way down and a lot of teams will be cautious wanting to sign him.

 

Finally, we are most definitely in the 'win now' mode.  You don't sign Rivers to a one year deal, you don't trade your first round pick for an all-pro 3-tech DT (the most important position on this D), you don't sign Xavier Rhodes to a 1 year deal, etc. if you aren't trying to 'win now.'  If we do wind up trading Hooker, unless they have big plans of moving Tell to S, I think we have to go for a FS in the draft or find one in FA.

 

 

 

It's not worth your time Cur, you might as well be talking to a brick wall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/21/2020 at 8:47 AM, shastamasta said:

 

That is excellent point about Tell. I have been very vocal about wanting Tell in a S role long-term. Given his height, length and range...he should be patrolling somewhere...it's his best fit. However...he's not a SS...the so his S spot is currently ocupado by Hooker.

 

So IF they did in fact move Hooker...it would open up that spot. He might not be as talented as Hooker...but he's as tall and long...and likely even more of an athlete.

 

And moving Tell to S would also open up a CB spot...which could be addressed in the draft.

 

I could see Tell moving to S.  Ballard said after he drafted him that Tell has all the measurables he wants from a CB in the system we run... but he also said he liked Tell because he was very versatile and could play multiple positions in the secondary.  My guess is they'll still try him at CB, but who knows?

 

22 hours ago, Chloe6124 said:

It looks like teams are the one contacting the colts and the colts aren’t shopping him. Who knows maybe a team will give them something that is to good to pass up.

 

Don't know who is calling the Colts... but I just did notice that the Bears don't have a first round pick and one of their top 3 biggest needs (according to NFL.com) is S.  I wonder if Pagano wants Hooker back in the D he initially drafted him to be in?

 

19 hours ago, krunk said:

The trade rumors are there for a reason.  I think a trade would happen before any hope of the scheme changing up much. As long as Eberflus is here and Ballard wants us running the Tampa 2 defense then I wouldn't bet on the scheme changing a whole bunch.   For right now they are probably just seeing what they can fetch for him.  They'll probably end up keeping him and then drafting a safety with some real skill who can sit behind him but provide stiff competition.  I'm looking at this small school kid Kyle Dugger right now who could fit a description like that.  That would give them leverage against extending Hooker if they weren't comfortable.

 

I don't see the scheme changing a whole bunch with 'Flus and Ballard still in Indy.  That said, almost all Tampa 2 defenses that really thrived relied on a very solid 3tech and good pass rush.  'Flus hasn't had (IMO) the tools he has needed to really make this D into what he wants it to be.  It's been fairly vanilla so far, and I think that's in large part due to poor DL play overall (the addition of Buckner, return of Turay, growth of Banogu and Stewart should all help there).  Also, our secondary play as a whole was not great last year.  Ya-Sin improved as the year went on but had some rough spots, Moore missed some time, Desir took a step back, Wilson took a step back, Willis played well but was still a rookie, etc.... I think they'll have the ability to make minor tweaks with the D and how they use Hooker if they can get a consistent pass-rush, if Buckner's what he's cracked up to be and if we see continued development from some of our young secondary.

 

On a side note,  I was looking at Dugger recently, too.  He seems to have the physical tools, though hard to judge against his competition.  Another guy I like is Jeremy Chinn, also from a small school (Southern Illinois University).  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, CurBeatElite said:

 

I could see Tell moving to S.  Ballard said after he drafted him that Tell has all the measurables he wants from a CB in the system we run... but he also said he liked Tell because he was very versatile and could play multiple positions in the secondary.  My guess is they'll still try him at CB, but who knows?

 

 

Don't know who is calling the Colts... but I just did notice that the Bears don't have a first round pick and one of their top 3 biggest needs (according to NFL.com) is S.  I wonder if Pagano wants Hooker back in the D he initially drafted him to be in?

 

 

I don't see the scheme changing a whole bunch with 'Flus and Ballard still in Indy.  That said, almost all Tampa 2 defenses that really thrived relied on a very solid 3tech and good pass rush.  'Flus hasn't had (IMO) the tools he has needed to really make this D into what he wants it to be.  It's been fairly vanilla so far, and I think that's in large part due to poor DL play overall (the addition of Buckner, return of Turay, growth of Banogu and Stewart should all help there).  Also, our secondary play as a whole was not great last year.  Ya-Sin improved as the year went on but had some rough spots, Moore missed some time, Desir took a step back, Wilson took a step back, Willis played well but was still a rookie, etc.... I think they'll have the ability to make minor tweaks with the D and how they use Hooker if they can get a consistent pass-rush, if Buckner's what he's cracked up to be and if we see continued development from some of our young secondary.

 

On a side note,  I was looking at Dugger recently, too.  He seems to have the physical tools, though hard to judge against his competition.  Another guy I like is Jeremy Chinn, also from a small school (Southern Illinois University).  

Dugger had a pretty good senior bowl

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DougDew said:

Lets not look for excuses to give Ballard a pass on the 2017 draft or drafting Hooker at 15 by blaming it on Pagano.  What are you prepared to do, blame all of Grigson's drafting on Pagano too, or was that all RGs fault simply because we think he is a jerk of a personality?   Either the GM is responsible or he isn't.  (My personal opinion is that the HC has A LOT to do with the drafting, so I have given RG a pass on a lot of things more than most people here).  

 

I don't think it's necessary to make excuses for the 2017 draft. We got at least four good players out of that draft. Even if Hooker isn't turning into the next Ed Reed, he's still a good player. Mack, Walker and Stewart are good players. 

 

But when a GM takes over in late January, he's not running his full operation. Just like a director taking over mid-production because the original director got fired. He's trying to salvage whatever he can, with a crew he didn't hire and doesn't normally work with, in a limited amount of time. It's still his movie, but not really. 

 

So to say 'if you're willing to trade him now, you shouldn't have drafted him three years ago' is silly. It ignores the fact that, since then, the Colts changed front offices (almost entirely), changed scouting staffs (pretty significantly), and changed the coaching staff and schemes (completely). Pointing that out isn't "blaming it" on anyone, it's just acknowledging that things are different, and it stands to reason that a different process, run by different people, would have yielded a different result.

 

By the way, Ryan Grigson was a jerk. No reason to dance around it. He was also a bad GM. Whether being a jerk made him a bad GM or not isn't certain, but it definitely didn't make him a good one.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CurBeatElite said:

 

A few things.

 

First off, I'm not looking to give Ballard any excuses.  Your first point makes little sense -- "Let's not look for excuses to give Ballard a pass ... by blaming it on Pagano. What are you prepared to blame all Grigson's drafting on Pagano, too? ... "Either the GM is responsible or he isn't.  (My personal opinion is that the HC has A LOT to do with the drafting, so I have given RG a pass on a lot of things.)"  ***So you're saying it's the GM is responsible or he's not, but you give RG a pass because Pagano had A LOT to do with his decisions?  I don't disagree that the head coach has a lot to do with players being drafted.  Pagano was huge on Hooker, no doubt about that.  Many had Hooker going top 10 and he fell to us.  Ballard ultimately pulled the trigger.  Was he influenced by Pagano some in doing so?  I would wager he was.

 

Your second point.... Hooker was having a terrific rookie year.  Leading the league or being right up there in INTs as a rookie through 7 games is fantastic.  Prior to injury many pundits had him ranked very high in terms of DROY and many were talking about a probable pro-bowl.  Yes, everyone knows he was very new to football and he had to turn his athletic traits into being a sound football player.  He was doing pretty darn good until he got hurt.  Very few players come back from that injury and are fully recovered in under a year.  Pretty safe to say it probably took him a good chunk of year 2 to be close to back to his normal self and he missed some time due to injury that year, as well.  Both Reich and Hooker stated they thought his 'burst' was better in this past training camp than in 2018.

 

Your third point... Ballard said "Malik was solid.  He had some moments of being really good. And I thought he tailed off a little bit there at the end.”  Our whole team kinda tailed off at the end, after a 5-2 start going 2-7 on the back 9.  I never said Hooker is a 'great' player.  And, Hooker did miss time mid-season due to a meniscus injury, so I highly doubt he was 100% the entire way after he came back.  Sure, he did tail off a bit later in the year, and I never once said it was 100% due to injury... I said " So yes, it'd be nice to see if he's fully recovered from various injuries this year.. but it kind of makes sense not to option him right now and wait to see if he can actually play a full 16 games next year. " -- meaning, I don't necessarily think the reason why he hasn't gotten a 5th year option is reason to jump to conclusions that he's on the trading block... it means, if he can actually stay healthy a full year and play at/near full health all year (keep in mind he should have a better defense surrounding him), and play well, Ballard may want to negotiate with him after next year... if he is injured again, his price tag goes way down and a lot of teams will be cautious wanting to sign him.

 

Finally, we are most definitely in the 'win now' mode.  You don't sign Rivers to a one year deal, you don't trade your first round pick for an all-pro 3-tech DT (the most important position on this D), you don't sign Xavier Rhodes to a 1 year deal, etc. if you aren't trying to 'win now.'  If we do wind up trading Hooker, unless they have big plans of moving Tell to S, I think we have to go for a FS in the draft or find one in FA.

 

 

I can't tell if your confused emoji is sincere or is just an attempt at being a smart * like @Cynjin, so I'll go into more point by point at the expense of the rest of the forum who would rather not read a book about it.

 

1.  Pointing out that Pagano influenced the Hooker pick adds no useful information to this thread.  It's all about trying to sneak in an excuse to someone who might question why Ballard might trade his first player ever chosen.  It happens.  Things change after three years.  

 

2. Since things change over three years, what Hooker did his first 5 games as a rookie matters nothing to what he can or can't do now, and what his value might be.  

 

3. Your third point is making an excuse for Hooker, when Ballard himself made none.  You took Ballard's words that he specifically made about Hooker and added to them to make an excuse for Hooker tailing off this season.  

 

4.  You sign an old but competent QB when your starting QB sucks.  You sign an old CB when your current CB sucks.  You trade pick 13 for a DT because your current DT sucks, but you sign him for five years because you're looking for the future. 

 

Replacing the three biggest holes on your team with immediate upgrades does not mean that we are in a "win now" mode.  It probably means that we are merely in a "lets not suck as bad next year like we did this year" mode.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I can't tell if your confused emoji is sincere or is just an attempt at being a smart * like @Cynjin, so I'll go into more point by point at the expense of the rest of the forum who would rather not read a book about it.

 

1.  Pointing out that Pagano influenced the Hooker pick adds no useful information to this thread.  It's all about trying to sneak in an excuse to someone who might question why Ballard might trade his first player ever chosen.  It happens.  Things change after three years.  

 

2. Since things change over three years, what Hooker did his first 5 games as a rookie matters nothing to what he can or can't do now, and what his value might be.  

 

3. Your third point is making an excuse for Hooker, when Ballard himself made none.  You took Ballard's words that he specifically made about Hooker and added to them to make an excuse for Hooker tailing off this season.  

 

4.  You sign an old but competent QB when your starting QB sucks.  You sign an old CB when your current CB sucks.  You trade pick 13 for a DT because your current DT sucks, but you sign him for five years because you're looking for the future. 

 

Replacing the three biggest holes on your team with immediate upgrades does not mean that we are in a "win now" mode.  It probably means that we are merely in a "lets not suck as bad next year like we did this year" mode.

 

Not really worth arguing with you.  Only thing I will say is, we're in win now mode and that's very obvious.  Ballard's smart about it, setting us up to be able to win in the future with cap space, etc... but you don't go sign a future HOF QB to a 1 year deal if you're not interested in winning now.  We can stop there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...