Per Michael Lombardi Malik Hooker available for trade

[DougDew]

16 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

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.

 

There's hardly anybody on this forum who goes into much level of detail when it comes to judging a GM.  And any trade of Hooker doesn't even speak to that, IMO.

 

There's nuance to everything.  Its just a matter of how hard somebody wants to go looking for it. 

 

I don't think that I've ever said that because of what's going on now means that we should have never drafted Hooker.  Not sure who you're talking to with that statement.

[superrep1967]

On 4/21/2020 at 10:21 AM, shastamasta said:

Curious if they are looking for a pick OR a player. Probably won't get much of a pick back...maybe 3rd rounder.

I’d take a third rounder.

[BProland85]

1 minute ago, superrep1967 said:

I’d take a third rounder.

Not near enough value for Hooker. Might as well keep him for another year. 

[DougDew]

15 minutes ago, CurBeatElite said:

 

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.

I think its obvious that he replaced two of his worse positions with the best old guys he could find because he knew he had to upgrade in order to not repeat the second half of this season and go 3 and 13 next season.

 

[Superman]

16 minutes ago, DougDew said:

There's hardly anybody on this forum who goes into much level of detail when it comes to judging a GM.  And any trade of Hooker doesn't even speak to that, IMO.

 

There's nuance to everything.  Its just a matter of how hard somebody wants to go looking for it. 

 

I don't think that I've ever said that because of what's going on now means that we should have never drafted Hooker.  Not sure who you're talking to with that statement.

 

That's what the entire conversation has been about.

 

'If we trade Hooker, it means Ballard messed up his first pick with the Colts!' You didn't say it, but that's what this discussion has been centered around.

 

I'll also add that Ballard doesn't strike me as the kind of person to get caught up in what it might look like if he were to trade the first guy he drafted as a GM. 

[CurBeatElite]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

That's what the entire conversation has been about.

 

'If we trade Hooker, it means Ballard messed up his first pick with the Colts!' You didn't say it, but that's what this discussion has been centered around.

 

I'll also add that Ballard doesn't strike me as the kind of person to get caught up in what it might look like if he were to trade the first guy he drafted as a GM. 

 

One of Grigs' worst qualities.

[BigQandTheManiac]

Absolutely no way I'd give up on Hooker so soon. 

[DougDew]

13 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

That's what the entire conversation has been about.

 

'If we trade Hooker, it means Ballard messed up his first pick with the Colts!' You didn't say it, but that's what this discussion has been centered around.

 

I'll also add that Ballard doesn't strike me as the kind of person to get caught up in what it might look like if he were to trade the first guy he drafted as a GM. 

Its not the conversation I'm having.  10 seconds after Hooker was drafted, I said the pick should have been Marlon Humphrey. What is going on with Hooker now has nothing to do with that.  I'm not interested in talking about what I said three years ago.  Even I don't care what I said three years ago, because it was three years ago.

 

And I've never advocated trading him or not resigning him.  Its always about what he costs relative to what he does, compared to any other player and their cost.  The best move might be, and will likely be, to resign him and hope that he develops or that the rest of the secondary can mask his weaknesses.

 

I think Ballard made a sincere assessment of Hooker when he said he tailed off during the season.  I don't see Ballard making any excuses for anything.

[Barrdaddy]

I loved the pick at the time and thought Hooker had some real potential, however he hasn't developed as much as I would've hoped. I don't think it was a bad pick or that a trade is necessary, we had an extremely poor D-line with little to no pass rush to help our secondary out. It's been that way for quite a few years now...yes we have a handful of games it shows up, but we ask a lot out of a soft cover 2 secondary. I think unless we get a 2nd rounder for him it's not worth trading him just yet. 

[MTC]

A bit late on this topic (I've been super busy this week), but I'm indifferent on Hooker. Yes, there are durability issues, but he still has ball-hawk capabilities, but I also think if we can net a 2nd or 3rd round pick, it might be worth it.

 

[BCoop]

Seems criminal to give up on Hooker at this point unless you're positive he's going to demand a lot of $ and you're getting killer offers for him (1st or early 2nd). He's finally going to be playing behind a front that should be able to be able to provide consistent pressure. We should see what kind of impact he can make when QB's have less time to make decisions. 

Trading him for a 3rd or worse seems like a waste given he could net a comp pick in the 3rd if unsigned anyway.

[DougDew]

31 minutes ago, BCoop said:

Seems criminal to give up on Hooker at this point unless you're positive he's going to demand a lot of $ and you're getting killer offers for him (1st or early 2nd). He's finally going to be playing behind a front that should be able to be able to provide consistent pressure. We should see what kind of impact he can make when QB's have less time to make decisions. 

Trading him for a 3rd or worse seems like a waste given he could net a comp pick in the 3rd if unsigned anyway.

He's under contract for next season, and possibly the season after that if we pick up his option.  So comp picks won't happen for another two years or another three years depending upon when we re-sign him.  And a 3rd is difficult to achieve.  

 

This may be about the time we have to resign Leonard and Nelson.  Maybe Kelly next offseason?  I'm assuming that those three players are considered more core than Hooker at this point.  And what about Braden Smith?  Starting RTs aren't cheap if that's his resting position.

 

So what will he sign for and what will the potential comp pick be in two years?  It just seems like its a situation where he might be the odd man out, so you figure a 3rd or 4th now is better than a 4th or 5th comp pick two years from now. (or three)

[boo2202]

I think his fifth year option will cost us 7mil, that’s cheap for a safety of hookers ability. Pickup the 5th year option since it’s so cheap and see how he plays this year with hopefully more pressure on the QB. No need to create more roster problems right now. I understand that we’ve got some expensive pieces to resign coming up but we also will probably have our future QB on a cheap rookie contract. 

[richard pallo]

26 minutes ago, boo2202 said:

I think his fifth year option will cost us 7mil, that’s cheap for a safety of hookers ability. Pickup the 5th year option since it’s so cheap and see how he plays this year with hopefully more pressure on the QB. No need to create more roster problems right now. I understand that we’ve got some expensive pieces to resign coming up but we also will probably have our future QB on a cheap rookie contract. 

He is currently under contract for this year for around 4M.  Picking up the option is for next year at around 7M.  If you pick it up you are committing for two years.  If he plays poorly this year you are stuck with the option year.  If you don't pick it up he's a FA after this year or you can sign him to an extension.  Teams want to be sure and it looks like he would be a 50/50 proposition right now.  Not picking it up is pretty much putting him on notice.  Maybe that's why is name is now out there as possibly being available.  

[Coltsman1788]

On 4/21/2020 at 10:30 AM, DougDew said:

Ballard said that he wants more picks. That could mean several things.   He may want an extra pick to use to trade up and get Love.  It would take a 3rd to move up to SFs 31.  Trading Hooker to get everybody's beloved QB of the future might be the price to pay.

 

Its easier to replace a top 15 safety in the next few drafts than it will be to find a QB, IMO.

If you are hoping Ballard trades up for Love then I think you will be disappointed.  I don’t think Ballard is as high on Love as some Colts fans want him to be.  In fact, Ballard may not even address QB in the first 3 rounds or even at all.  And if he does...don’t be surprised if it is a developmental project type who projects as a backup rather than potential franchise guy.   He isn’t going to force a QB.  By signing Rivers and keeping Jacoby, Ballard feels he has bought himself some time to address this concern in a year or two, if need be.  You have to listen to what the man is saying in his press conferences and read between the lines.   Expect an offensive or defensive lineman to be taken within the Colts first two picks.  

[Rally5]

On 4/21/2020 at 9:42 AM, PeterBowman said:

got a notice on Instagram about that....cold be interesting. 

if I recall the final game of the year in Jacksonville, you couldn't find a grass stain on him...

[Dobbinblitz]

Hooker yes he plays centerfield and covers a lot of ground, but after watching every Colts since Hooker was drafted he is just not “In Frame” enough. He is just not around the ball enough.  I agree with the previous poster his Jersey tends to be too clean at the end of games.