Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Malik Hookers 5th year option Declined


Recommended Posts

"Yeah, we got a little time (on that). When we get through the draft, we’ll sit down and we’ll talk about the direction we’re going to go there.”

 

What is people's take on this? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 471
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

You are no doubt the dumbest poster on this board. Maybe dumber than anyone on the internet.   Please do us a favor ... either find a new team or keep your stupid opinions to yourself.

Why is this so hard to fathom? He is a solid player, who has struggled some to stay on the field. By declining the option, he now has to prove that he can be available. If he does, and truly balls out

I definitely would have hit Hooker with the option. I stated all the reasons earlier, but the biggest one is that the value was for half of what top tier safeties are making in FA right now. And it's

Posted Images

Within the last couple of days Hooker has removed all Colts affiliation information from his instagram.  My take is he's on the trade block and he knows it.  In December Gil Brandt did a take on what teams should do with the fifth year option for their players.  He has the Bucs "on the fence" with Howard but thinks his option would be around 6M for the 19th pick.  No estimate on Hookers dollar value with the 15th pick but he recommends " pick up the option".  I think Hooker is a player who could be moved in the near future.   For a pick or a player?  It just might happen.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

He's shown flashes with a pretty lackluster pass rush. The improved pass rush (Buckner, et al) will allow the secondary to shine. I think we pick up his 5th and watch him ball out this year.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Superfly said:

Decent safety, but hasn’t played up to being selected 15th overall in 2017. 
 

 

This would be my take. He’s had some highlight plays(see the Chargers game) but for every highlight play I could point out two or three where he’s out of position or takes a bad angle on a tackle and we give up a big gain or score. I’d probably pick it up to give him this season and next to really develop and show some consistency. If not, nobody can say the Colts didn’t give him a chance. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, UKColt13 said:

No reason why not. For me he’s shown enough to be kept around.

they might be able to sign him for less than option price.  i dont for sure if thats true, it would help if we knew what the option is

 

its usually fairly high but better than paying top 10 player money 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

they might be able to sign him for less than option price.  i dont for sure if thats true, it would help if we knew what the option is

 

its usually fairly high but better than paying top 10 player money 


Possibly. If I’m Malik then I’m not going to be lowballed and sign a new deal when I’ve got an option on a higher wage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

With what should be a new and improved pass rush, it's to his benefit to wait to sign any extension. If he is who he thinks he is, he should look much better this year, and have more leverage. If he doesn't want to bet on himself, and prefers early security, then... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be a matter of price.  He's definitely replaceable with a 2nd or 3rd round pick if he gets too expensive.  The 5th year option is a simple decision but there may be some thinking about the future beyond next year and that's where the pricing and discussions might be headed.

 

Interesting that he removed all Colts affiliations from his media account, if that's true.

 

Frankly, my opinion that he was overdrafted at the moment he was drafted still holds, and I think he would perform better in the original defensive scheme he was drafted for. 

 

He seems to actually be an average to below average safety for playing anything other than deep zone, and we can't do that every play.

  • Like 4
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

To all the conspiracy folks.....

 

He's still got Colts stuff on his Twitter... I didn't even think he was active on Instagram, and just checked... Says "no posts yet"... Not an Instagram person, but if he has no posts.... 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, UKColt13 said:

If I’m Malik then I’m not going to be lowballed and sign a new deal when I’ve got an option on a higher wage.

its not up to him its a team option.  if they decline then he wont get it

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, 1959Colts said:

To me he's been a bust


I wouldn’t say he’s a bust, but drafting a safety with a top 15 pick, you expect “ a lot more “ from the player. 
 

Safety is kinda the defensive version of selecting a RB in Rd 1. They better be top 5 at the position, Hooker is not. 
 

At this point, I’d probably still pickup the 5th year and draft a FS in 2020, middle Rd. 
 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, DougDew said:

It would be a matter of price.  He's definitely replaceable with a 2nd or 3rd round pick if he gets too expensive.  The 5th year option is a simple decision but there may be some thinking about the future beyond next year and that's where the pricing and discussions might be headed.

 

Interesting that he removed all Colts affiliations from his media account, if that's true.

 

Frankly, my opinion that he was overdrafted at the moment he was drafted still holds, and I think he would perform better in the original defensive scheme he was drafted for. 

 

He seems to actually be an average to below average safety for playing anything other than deep zone, and we can't do that every play.

A 5th year option is just standard discussion for any 1st round guy going into his forth year (must be declared between end of season and start of 4th). 

 

You really think teams look for starting FSs in the 3rd lol.. Maybe a box S in middle rounds, but FS is a position you normally look for mid 1st to top half of the 2nd. 

 

Without a pass rush, it's really hard for any FS to look exceptional. And with terrible Os in 17 and 19, opposing teams are giving FSs a lot less opportunity to look good and ball hawk.

 

Our average pass rush rating/grade for the DL is 27th over 3 years (17/18/19). That's bottom 6 average... During those years, he's had PFF grades of 65.3, 79.1, 69.5. Pretty interesting his best grade was in the year we had a decent offense, and opposing teams were playing from behind more. 

 

Not saying Hooker is an all pro guy, but it's hard for a FS to look good in our scheme without a pass rush, and to an extent if we also have a bad O...

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, throwing BBZ said:

 

 I would like to see him moved as part of CB acquiring more picks.
For me Walker and Glow are expendable also.

Walker and Glow are cheap for us, and won't garner a lot of capital. It would be foolish to part with either given Walker is highly productive, and the OL already lacks depth. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Superfly said:


I wouldn’t say he’s a bust, but drafting a safety with a top 15 pick, you expect “ a lot more “ from the player. 
 

Safety is kinda the defensive version of selecting a RB in Rd 1. They better be top 5 at the position, Hooker is not. 
 

At this point, I’d probably still pickup the 5th year and draft a FS in 2020, middle Rd. 
 

 


Sure yeah. But there is a lot of difference between ‘not worth a 1st round pick‘ and ‘is a bad player’.

 

He’s good enough to be kept around. He’s still a legit starter. With an improved pass rush and improvements in the secondary he can regain his form.

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Superfly said:


I wouldn’t say he’s a bust, but drafting a safety with a top 15 pick, you expect “ a lot more “ from the player. 
 

Safety is kinda the defensive version of selecting a RB in Rd 1. They better be top 5 at the position, Hooker is not. 
 

At this point, I’d probably still pickup the 5th year and draft a FS in 2020, middle Rd. 
 

 

 Just seems to me, that when Hooker has been out due to injury, the backup players (many of which are undrafted types)  mostly do just as well, with little drop-off. and sometimes there is actually an improvement in tackling from the backups.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, UKColt13 said:


Sure yeah. But there is a lot of difference between ‘not worth a 1st round pick‘ and ‘is a bad player’.

 

He’s good enough to be kept around. He’s still a legit starter. With an improved pass rush and improvements in the secondary he can regain his form.


Like I said, I think the Colts should keep him, but he hasn’t lived up to his draft status.

 

Do elite FS’s require an above average pass rush to be top 5 at their respective position?

 

Who Knows Idk GIF by Dolly Parton

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Superfly said:

Decent safety, but hasn’t played up to being selected 15th overall in 2017. 

I agree, he hasn’t played up to the 15th slot. However, that doesn’t matter anymore. Now, the only part of that statement that matters is that he is a decent safety. If you want to draft someone highly to replace him, then do it, but he isn’t bad and certainly isn’t hurting the team. He’s a guy you can replace with a luxury pick, not a guy who absolutely needs to be replaced

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they don’t know yet because you can make a case either way depending on which way you lean.  He’s shown flashes but he’s also had some injuries and disappeared at times.  

20 minutes ago, WarGhost21 said:

I agree, he hasn’t played up to the 15th slot. However, that doesn’t matter anymore. Now, the only part of that statement that matters is that he is a decent safety. If you want to draft someone highly to replace him, then do it, but he isn’t bad and certainly isn’t hurting the team. He’s a guy you can replace with a luxury pick, not a guy who absolutely needs to be replaced

You can also flip that and say he’s not a guy you have to absolutely keep either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

You can also flip that and say he’s not a guy you have to absolutely keep either.

You can, but no matter what anyone says, Hooker is nowhere near the weak link on the team. We have other, bigger holes that need filled before he becomes a must-replace

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, EastStreet said:

A 5th year option is just standard discussion for any 1st round guy going into his forth year (must be declared between end of season and start of 4th). 

 

You really think teams look for starting FSs in the 3rd lol.. Maybe a box S in middle rounds, but FS is a position you normally look for mid 1st to top half of the 2nd. 

 

Without a pass rush, it's really hard for any FS to look exceptional. And with terrible Os in 17 and 19, opposing teams are giving FSs a lot less opportunity to look good and ball hawk.

 

Our average pass rush rating/grade for the DL is 27th over 3 years (17/18/19). That's bottom 6 average... During those years, he's had PFF grades of 65.3, 79.1, 69.5. Pretty interesting his best grade was in the year we had a decent offense, and opposing teams were playing from behind more. 

 

Not saying Hooker is an all pro guy, but it's hard for a FS to look good in our scheme without a pass rush, and to an extent if we also have a bad O...

 

I doubted that Hooker would have played his hand by jettisoning Colts affiliation at this time, which is why I said "if true".

 

I think that in order to get a FS with the talent it would take to replace Hooker's contribution thus far, we would select that player at 44 or 75.  I'm not advocating that, just saying that's where I see Hooker's value at the moment.  So if I'm Ballard and I can upgrade with someone who is more of a complete FS (possibly Winfield from U Minnesota?) it impacts what I want to do with Hooker.  Its natural for a GM to not talk about extending a player this close to the draft, but he may also be looking at the talent too.

 

An improved pass rush and run defense is going to help any safety, not just Malik.

 

A little write up on Winfield.  Not the ball hawk that Hooker was made out to be, but way better instincts and versatility.  Seems like a better fit for contributing in our D no matter what coverage we're playing.  Compares to TJ Ward.

 

https://www.nfl.com/prospects/antoine-winfieldjr.?id=32195749-4e15-9348-98c8-23be07463b71

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Superfly said:

Decent safety, but hasn’t played up to being selected 15th overall in 2017. 
 

 

If Ballard picks up his 5th year option it is only to save face and to legitimize Ballard's decsion to pick him 15th over all. He is not worth it.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

You all don't realize how important Hooker is to the team. He probably hasn't been a top-15 pick kind of safety, but he is a top 15 FS Imo. Ballard could have meant they wanted to wait and extend him after the year rather than pick up the fifth year option OR they haven't had time to really focus on that issue yet. 
 

I would be surprised to see him go anywhere. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I doubted that Hooker would have played his hand by jettisoning Colts affiliation at this time, which is why I said "if true".

 

I think that in order to get a FS with the talent it would take to replace Hooker's contribution thus far, we would select that player at 44 or 75.  I'm not advocating that, just saying that's where I see Hooker's value at the moment.  So if I'm Ballard and I can upgrade with someone who is more of a complete FS (possibly Winfield from U Minnesota?) it impacts what I want to do with Hooker.  Its natural for a GM to not talk about extending a player this close to the draft, but he may also be looking at the talent too.

 

An improved pass rush and run defense is going to help any safety, not just Malik.

 

A little write up on Winfield.  Not the ball hawk that Hooker was made out to be, but way better instincts and versatility.  Seems like a better fit for contributing in our D no matter what coverage we're playing.

 

https://www.nfl.com/prospects/antoine-winfieldjr.?id=32195749-4e15-9348-98c8-23be07463b71

 

There's not really one FS in this year's draft that to me is worth a 1st or 2nd round pick, or capable of being an obvious upgrade/replacement for Hooker.

 

The best Ss this year are strong or box IMO. The only FS prospect I like is Dugger, and he's absolutely a raw dice roll given his small school background. I'd take a shot at him at 75 though, and think at worst he'd be a flexible depth guy that could play any S position. He's totally the type of guy though I can see Ballard taking a liking too.

 

Winfield is way too short IMO for what CB looks for in a FS. Purely my opinion, but think he'd be looked at more as a SS or box safety. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

There's not really one FS in this year's draft that to me is worth a 1st or 2nd round pick, or capable of being an obvious upgrade/replacement for Hooker.

 

The best Ss this year are strong or box IMO. The only FS prospect I like is Dugger, and he's absolutely a raw dice roll given his small school background. I'd take a shot at him at 75 though, and think at worst he'd be a flexible depth guy that could play any S position. He's totally the type of guy though I can see Ballard taking a liking too.

 

Winfield is way too short IMO for what CB looks for in a FS. Purely my opinion, but think he'd be looked at more as a SS or box safety. 

Agreed. 

 

The thing about our secondary tho is that they seem to have certain athletic or physical traits as the number one priority.  It seems that each has the "traits" attribute placed higher than overall football experience or aptitude.  I think that's ok to have players like that, but if every players in the secondary has that same set of attributes stacked the same way, there is an overweighting of it.  Hooker was a former basketball player with limited football experience, but has athletic traits with which to develop into more than just a deep zone ball hawk, and I just don't see that development yet.

 

Winfield is highly instinctive.  He's probably more of a true genuine football player than anybody in our secondary.  So what he gives up in being able to play the deep ball, I think he could act as the captain of the secondary.  A trait that is currently missing among our DBs.

 

And Hooker got beat plenty of times on deep balls last year when he wasn't playing deep.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought Hooker was possible having his best year last year early, then the team played poorly late and I felt he was part of the problem. Colts secondary was TORCHED late in the year, he got beat plenty. Was it his fault, don't know it appeared to be, but hes the guy whos got to keep it together back there. Honestly he has not lived up to the Ed Reed comparison, not even close. If he was moved, traded, let go, It wouldn't bother me. Having played safety I watch the position closely, and although he been acceptable, he hasn't been great. Maybe this year, thats why Ballard going to give it some time. My bet is hes not given 5th year and if he balls out this year Ballard will try to resign him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DougDew said:

Agreed. 

 

The thing about our secondary tho is that they seem to have certain athletic or physical traits as the number one priority.  It seems that each has the "traits" attribute placed higher than overall football experience or aptitude.  I think that's ok to have players like that, but if every players in the secondary has that same set of attributes stacked the same way, there is an overweighting of it.  Hooker was a former basketball player with limited football experience, but has athletic traits with which to develop into more than just a deep zone ball hawk, and I just don't see that development yet.

 

Winfield is highly instinctive.  He's probably more of a true genuine football player than anybody in our secondary.  So what he gives up in being able to play the deep ball, I think he could act as the captain of the secondary.  A trait that is currently missing among our DBs.

 

And Hooker got beat plenty of times on deep balls last year when he wasn't playing deep.

Our DL was one of the worst in terms into Time to Throw allowed last year, so honestly it's hard to judge any of our DBs, especially a FS. A FS simply can't "ball hawk" when QBs have all day for coverage to break down. And it only is worse in a C2 for a FS when that happens.

 

Hooker took a very nice step forward in his second year as his PFF ratings showed, but last year took a step back. He wasn't horrible by any means, but didn't live up to a 15th pick. He'll have a pass rush this year, so deserves a shot to rebound. I'll bet right now he has an all time high PFF rating, and is at minimum in the 80s.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, WarGhost21 said:

You can, but no matter what anyone says, Hooker is nowhere near the weak link on the team. We have other, bigger holes that need filled before he becomes a must-replace

I agree with that.  Like I said I can see the legit arguments for both sides in terms of keep or let him walk.  That’s what makes it hard call.  There are strong cases for both.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Dogg63 said:

He's shown flashes with a pretty lackluster pass rush. The improved pass rush (Buckner, et al) will allow the secondary to shine. I think we pick up his 5th and watch him ball out this year.

My big question here would be, say we give him the 5th year option and he plays really well, is it him shining or is it the improvement up front with all the money we’ve invested in the line? Secondly to that question, if it’s because of the improved line, can we get similar production from a new draft pick after this year or do we go ahead and pay for a new high level contract on a guy who only showed that production with a new dline? I say by placing all that money in the Dline, you have a product that makes the backend always look better and can be replaced with cheaper, younger players instead of bets playing for near max type contracts. Hard to say. Chicken or the egg argument. 

4 hours ago, EastStreet said:

A 5th year option is just standard discussion for any 1st round guy going into his forth year (must be declared between end of season and start of 4th). 

 

You really think teams look for starting FSs in the 3rd lol.. Maybe a box S in middle rounds, but FS is a position you normally look for mid 1st to top half of the 2nd. 

 

Without a pass rush, it's really hard for any FS to look exceptional. And with terrible Os in 17 and 19, opposing teams are giving FSs a lot less opportunity to look good and ball hawk.

 

Our average pass rush rating/grade for the DL is 27th over 3 years (17/18/19). That's bottom 6 average... During those years, he's had PFF grades of 65.3, 79.1, 69.5. Pretty interesting his best grade was in the year we had a decent offense, and opposing teams were playing from behind more. 

 

Not saying Hooker is an all pro guy, but it's hard for a FS to look good in our scheme without a pass rush, and to an extent if we also have a bad O...

 

You are pointing out my concern. It’s hard for any safety to look good without having a good dline. We now have, on paper, a very nicely shaped Dline but Hooker is going to want top 5 FS money if he finally plays like we’ve all thought he would. Does CB put capital more so in the Dline or into the backfield? He can’t do both and keep an offense that’s high powered either. You have to find areas you are gonna choose to pay big money to and skimp on the others, using youth over vets at certain spots. Safety is gonna be one of those imho. 

4 hours ago, EastStreet said:

Walker and Glow are cheap for us, and won't garner a lot of capital. It would be foolish to part with either given Walker is highly productive, and the OL already lacks depth. 

It’s possible that Walker could garner us a higher draft pick or package a move up if needed. We can put Okareke in that spot and move forward. That’s not a diss or desire to get rid of Walker, rather a desire to keep fresh talent in the pipelines while having replacement plans in place after getting something of value back for a young talent. I’m also not replacing Glow for a 3rd round guy and he would garner that imho but he fills in just good enough. The nice thing is, we have choices and solid options. Don’t have to be desperate to do anything. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Superfly said:


I wouldn’t say he’s a bust, but drafting a safety with a top 15 pick, you expect “ a lot more “ from the player. 
 

Safety is kinda the defensive version of selecting a RB in Rd 1. They better be top 5 at the position, Hooker is not. 
 

At this point, I’d probably still pickup the 5th year and draft a FS in 2020, middle Rd. 
 

 

Remember they have options. I like Tell a lot and they could even slide him over safety

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Jdubu said:

 

You are pointing out my concern. It’s hard for any safety to look good without having a good dline. We now have, on paper, a very nicely shaped Dline but Hooker is going to want top 5 FS money if he finally plays like we’ve all thought he would. Does CB put capital more so in the Dline or into the backfield? He can’t do both and keep an offense that’s high powered either. You have to find areas you are gonna choose to pay big money to and skimp on the others, using youth over vets at certain spots. Safety is gonna be one of those imho. 

In the DB, you pay your FS and CB1. And sometimes your slot CB (Moore) depending on scheme. You don't overpay your SS, Box S, or CB2. You can do that AND pay your DL, typically one stud DE and one stud 3T. And you can pay you O as well. It's all a mix of high paid vet studs, low rookie contract studs, and a mix of FAs. Paying a FS doesn't keep you from doing all the other things, and it's pretty common. And Hooker isn't getting top 5 money unless he's squarely top 5 at FS, which right now, he's not close to that.

Quote

It’s possible that Walker could garner us a higher draft pick or package a move up if needed. We can put Okareke in that spot and move forward. That’s not a diss or desire to get rid of Walker, rather a desire to keep fresh talent in the pipelines while having replacement plans in place after getting something of value back for a young talent. I’m also not replacing Glow for a 3rd round guy and he would garner that imho but he fills in just good enough. The nice thing is, we have choices and solid options. Don’t have to be desperate to do anything. 

Oke sucks in the middle vs the run in traffic. He's great in coverage in the middle, and on the outside. There's a reason they moved him to SAM and played him less at Mike on early downs as the year went along. Walker isn't a legit 3 down LB. He's a legit run stopping 2 down LB. In general, LB is a devalued position, and even more so when you piece part a crew like we do. In short, giving up a 2 down tackling machine like Walker in the middle isn't going to get us much, and would cost us a lot more in production. We have a good system now with Walker playing early downs at Mike, and Oke playing passing down Mike and SAM (which we don't use a lot anyway). It would be silly to upset that apple cart when it's cheap to keep it in tact. It's exactly the right thing to keep in place as long as we can (only having to "pay" Leonard).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...