Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
ukcolt12

Malik Hookers 5th year option Declined

Recommended Posts

 

35 minutes ago, TomDiggs said:

I see this decision as being a lot simpler than most of our fans are reading into:

 

1) Hooker was drafted for his ability to create turnovers. He has not done that well enough or consistently. Not worth rewarding him in any way when he hasn't.

Hooker is the player who has created the most turnovers on this team and he's missed about a season worth of games due to injururies. And this is while playing in a system that doesn't suit his talents. 

 

Quote

2) Hooker has missed a good amount of games. Rewarding a guy that misses over 1/4 of your games is not a practice you want to make a habit of. Especially when as another poster mentioned, the locker room is taking note of who gets paid and what they've done.

I agree here. Serious injury concerns are one of the reasons I would understand for not tying him up for long term contract... but here we're not talking about long-term contract. We are talking about a relatively cheap single year option. 

 

Quote

3) It has been mentioned, but that $6.7M is guaranteed for injury only.  With his injury history the question probably became "is it a bigger risk to pay him $7M next year when he might be injured and we are on the hook for that or is it a bigger risk that he actually plays well and we have to pay an extra $4M above (~$11M) that to tag him if he proves worth it?'

To be fair to Hooker, he's missed a lot of time, but he has also played every year. Even last year he chose to have the procedure that is WORSE for his personal long-term health so he can return and play the same season, instead of having the surgery that would have required him to sit out the rest of the season. Instead he returned after 4 weeks and finished the season. 

 

Quote

I will also say that Hooker missed three games last year against the Raiders, Chiefs and Texans. We went 2-1 and averaged 63% completion percentage and about 273 yards per game with a 4-2 TD to Int ratio in his absence. That is not bad at all considering the QBs and offenses faced.

 

And in trying to ignore his lost rookie year, he has missed 5 games the last two years and we are 4-1 in games he missed.

 

So I do not see the sky as falling if he walks. May be better to invest that money elsewhere regardless, unless he ends up creating 5+ turnovers this year and looks like a true difference-maker.

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

Those are really small samples and get skewed by one weird game(the Chiefs game for example) with injuries to opposing key offensive players. Those stats also don't answer the counter-factual.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

3) It has been mentioned, but that $6.7M is guaranteed for injury only.  With his injury history the question probably became "is it a bigger risk to pay him $7M next year when he might be injured and we are on the hook for that or is it a bigger risk that he actually plays well and we have to pay an extra $4M above (~$11M) that to tag him if he proves worth it?'

 

I will say, we have what, $58.2M invested in QBs right now? Next year that is going to go waaaaaay down. Even with all the upcoming extensions for guys we deem worthy and even with needing to lock in a QB, we will have money to pay Hooker if he is worth it. I am all for making him prove he is worth it and having to dish out extra if he proves it. At least if he doesn't prove it (which he so far has not) we will not be on the hook for $7M for him, especially if he does end up hurt and that would be guaranteed.

 

Declining the option AND then extending him one year later does not track. He's not some player that is currently recovering from a surgery or injury that has created some uncertainty that could eventually go away...or someone they traded for a couple years into his rookie deal. He is a player they drafted that has missed some games...but mostly hasn't lived up to his potential when on the field.

 

From 2012-2016...nearly 60 guys didn't get their options picked up. A handful remained with the team the declined it. Of those handful...only 4 got big extensions from their teams...Barron (who the LAR traded for and had only been on the team for half a season when they had to decide on his option)...Kyle Fuller (who had missed the entire season and was recovering from knee surgery when CHI had to decide)...Nick Perry (who signed a one-year extension after his rookie deal was up and then blew up that year and got a big extension)...and Mercilus (who got an extension at the same time his option was declined).

 

Hooker doesn't really fit any of those circumstances...except for maybe Perry...so I could see him possibly getting a one-year deal if his market isn't there.

 

I just don't think it's likely at all that they give Hooker a big extension. Ballard is a shrewd person...and he understands the value of that option at the negotiating table. Declining it gives Hooker more leverage...and less reason to stick around. So it would have to be Hooker coming back to the Colts...not Ballard coming back to Hooker.

 

As for the injury concerns...they are likely either residual (from the previous injury) or latent...or both. And that's an inherent risk that isn't going away with one healthy season. So if they aren't willing to risk losing $6.7M...why would they risk losing 3-4x that amount (of gtd money) in a big extension?

 

Ballard is certainly not averse to a little risk...after all he signed a 30 year-old Justin Houston to a fairly large two-year deal after he had missed 1/3 of his games over the past three seasons...and just drafted a S in the 3rd round who tore his ACL less than 5 months ago.

 

But Houston had a track record, upside and fit what they were trying to do...and apparently Blackmon does as well. IF they felt Hooker had the track record, upside and fit...they would have no problem risking that option. 

 

So ultimately...I just don't think it's about injuries...or even the money. I think it's the player and scheme fit...and they are moving on rather than drawing it out.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, shastamasta said:

 

I just don't think it's about injuries...or even the money. I think it's the player and scheme fit...and they are moving on. 

Yup. Never say always, but its probably that.

Share this post


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

Yup. Never say always, but its probably that.

 

Yeah...at the end of the day...we are all just speculating. 

 

Interestingly...it seems that declining the option might actually be a net positive for his trade value. I was looking at the players traded...and the teams that traded for them...often declined the option anyways. Seems counter-intuitive...but then again...it's not like they invested much in the player.

 

I still think a trade is a decent possibility.

Share this post


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

So ultimately...I just don't think it's about injuries...or even the money. I think it's the player and scheme fit...and they are moving on rather than drawing it out.

I think that's the answer. I think he knows Hooker cannot be maximized in that system and he doesn't seem willing to budge on that system so... the value of Hooker for the Colts suffers a blow here + Hooker didn't do himself any favors with his play that last season and especially the last month or so. Ultimately it feels like Ballard has just moved on already. He has cut ties with good players due to scheme fit several times already - Melvin, Hankins, Simon, Henry Anderson, etc. It feels like he's decided to use him for this year because he's super cheap, but is not willing to give anything more than the minimum for him and will just let him go. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, shastamasta said:

 

Yeah...at the end of the day...we are all just speculating. 

 

Interestingly...it seems that declining the option might actually be a net positive for his trade value. I was looking at the players traded...and the teams that traded for them...often declined the option anyways. Seems counter-intuitive...but then again...it's not like they invested much in the player.

 

I still think a trade is a decent possibility.

We'd be thin at FS, unless Ballard doesn't mind rolling with Odum and Tell or a vet FA he picks up prior to preseason.  That wouldn't be horrible, since the D really didn't seem to drop off much if at all w/o Hooker playing.

 

I think he plays out his current contract.  It benefits him to play well.  I assume that if Blackmon isn't ready, Ballard will find other short term security to bridge the gap between Hooker leaving and Blackmon being ready.

 

I think some are looking at this as a referendum on Hooker.  I think its a simple matter that he has shown not to be a special player that Ballard would consider a core member of the team.  Even if he plays well and another team signs him to a nice long term contract, that doesn't mean that Ballard made a mistake by not executing the 5th, which some will likely make it out to be. 

 

Non core players are allowed to leave, and we encourage them to get the highest contact from another team as possible.  Win-win as far as I'm concerned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rackeen305 said:

Thanks for bringing up the Chargers INT by Hooker. The poster pointed out something about believing Colts org over a fan. I never said anything towards another fan but rather reaffirm the need to speak football players which I've done (Hooker @$6.7 Ms vs Philip @25 Ms) and what should come or warrant the signing of Philip (at least pass the 1st round in the playoffs).

 

What should be the measuring stick for Philip since some believe Hooker hasn't lived up to $ 6.7Ms as a 24 yo FS in a league where the salary cap increases yearly?

 

@SteelCityColt or @crazycolt1.

 

Since you won't answer that. Then (watch this) what about AV? What warrants his return this year? This will tell me alot about your rational. 

 

I'll even give you the only acceptable answer. If you are saying not signing Hooker pass this year is based on health, then np. 

When someone answers you it turns into an argument if it's a different opinion or point of view to yours. 

@SteelCityColtput up the graph to show you why Hooker is not worth the option.

Now you want to drag Rivers and AV into this and hi jack the thread? 

No thanks, I will pass. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

We'd be thin at FS, unless Ballard doesn't mind rolling with Odum and Tell or a vet FA he picks up prior to preseason.  That wouldn't be horrible, since the D really didn't seem to drop off much if at all w/o Hooker playing.

 

I think he plays out his current contract.  It benefits him to play well.  I assume that if Blackmon isn't ready, Ballard will find other short term security to bridge the gap between Hooker leaving and Blackmon being ready.

 

I think some are looking at this as a referendum on Hooker.  I think its a simple matter that he has shown not to be a special player that Ballard would consider a core member of the team.  Even if he plays well and another team signs him to a nice long term contract, that doesn't mean that Ballard made a mistake by not executing the 5th, which some will likely make it out to be. 

 

Non core players are allowed to leave, and we encourage them to get the highest contact from another team as possible.  Win-win as far as I'm concerned.

This is exactly right. I heard them talk about this on move the sticks podcast. If it isn’t a player you feel you can’t live without and you don’t think is someone you see in the future you decline the option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, stitches said:

I think that's the answer. I think he knows Hooker cannot be maximized in that system and he doesn't seem willing to budge on that system so... the value of Hooker for the Colts suffers a blow here + Hooker didn't do himself any favors with his play that last season and especially the last month or so. Ultimately it feels like Ballard has just moved on already. He has cut ties with good players due to scheme fit several times already - Melvin, Hankins, Simon, Henry Anderson, etc. It feels like he's decided to use him for this year because he's super cheap, but is not willing to give anything more than the minimum for him and will just let him go. 

 

Great point...there's definitely a precedent here. The Simon, Hankins and Anderson moves all took us by surprise to some degree...as did not re-signing Melvin. But they just weren't fits...for some reason or another...and Ballard doesn't mess around.

 

I think Hooker has had these concerns as well...but his overall talent and potential bought him more time than those players...but eventually enough time has passed...and it's time to move on.

 

I am sticking by my prediction that he is dealt before the season starts...provided they can make another move or two. I am sure teams probably want a bit more in-depth physical now that the Colts declined the option...and that can't happen anytime soon...so it would probably be closer to the start of the season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, crazycolt1 said:

When someone answers you it turns into an argument if it's a different opinion or point of view to yours. 

@SteelCityColtput up the graph to show you why Hooker is not worth the option.

Now you want to drag Rivers and AV into this and hi jack the thread? 

No thanks, I will pass. 

 

Huh? SteeCityColt posted a customized stat. Np with that. You mentioned colts org vs fan...and then play the victim. If you tune into 1070 the fan "Will the colts have a top 15 offense". Which is why I asked before hand, whats the expectation for Philip if we dont want to lock-in Hooker pasted this year. Im talking football and you are playing victim. 

Share this post


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

 

Declining the option AND then extending him one year later does not track.

 

 

I just don't think it's likely at all that they give Hooker a big extension.

 

 

So if they aren't willing to risk losing $6.7M...why would they risk losing 3-4x that amount (of gtd money) in a big extension?

 

 

 

I think your focus here is on long term extension which is 100% NOT what my focus was.

 

My focus as i stated was on "tagging" him.

 

I would rather not have the potential to be on the hook for $7M in 2021 if he gets hurt (which has has at some point every year) and would rather he have to prove it and if he does in fact prove it then we lose out on roughly $4M. Period.

 

We would have to tag him to keep him that extra year (or trade him or whatever the heck we do w that 5th year) instead of the $7M fifth year option.

 

To me this becomes "tag him and possibly guarantee him $7M if he is hurt or not tag him and if he proves he was what we originally thought he was then we lose $4M to keep him that additional year compared to if we exercised the option"

 

That is all i was getting at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, stitches said:

 

Hooker is the player who has created the most turnovers on this team and he's missed about a season worth of games due to injururies.

 

I agree here. Serious injury concerns are one of the reasons I would understand for not tying him up for long term contract... but here we're not talking about long-term contract. We are talking about a relatively cheap single year option. 

 

 

Those are really small samples and get skewed by one weird game(the Chiefs game for example) with injuries to opposing key offensive players. Those stats also don't answer the counter-factual.  

 

I'll play along and address a few for arguments sake. Though I do not explicitly disagree with some of the points made:

 

1) Hooker 100% has not created the most turnovers. That would be ignoring the fact that Leonard has equalled his number of INTs in 2 seasons and that Leonard has also caused 6 fumbles all in one year less of time. Kenny Moore has also generated one less int and two more forced fumbles in the same time frame. Pierre Desir had the same stats as Moore.  All I am getting at is that I think they envisioned Hooker doing a lot more than he has. And to your point, if I say that the Colts signed player X to sack the QB and player X sacked a QB 4 times a year and that led the team, that does not mean that because he did the best at it that he accomplished what the Colts envisioned for him. I simply am saying I do not think Hooker has not created turnovers well enough. Which was my original point.

 

2) I mentioned this in reply to Shasta's comment, but i still think this isn't about long term contracts here. It is about "do i want to tie up $7M in Hooker if he has been hurt every single year at some point for all 3 years and if he is hurt to end this season i may be on the hook for that $7M for 2021" I think the Colts said No to that and what it will cost them is that if Hooker plays lights out, they have to tag him and spend an extra $4M or so for that extra year. If he doesn't play well he is gone just like he would have been w the option anyhow. And if he gets hurt we dodged the $7M bullet.

 

3) All I am getting at here is that you can make stats say whatever narrative you want. One narrative is that we faired well in games he has missed over the last two years. Is that a small sample size? Absolutely. Is it also true? Yes it is. Want to know another small sample size similarly? The Colts are 1-9 in games without TY Hilton since he was drafted. That is 10 games out of a possible 128. Yet that small sample size is clearly enough to show the impact his absence has. My point is that small sample size or not, Hooker's absence the past two years has not been a huge deal.

 

At the end of the day all I am saying is that I was both surprised and also OK with the Colts not exercising the option.

 

We did not lose any flexibility. We simply lost somewhere on the order of $4M for 2021 if he plays well and we are stuck tagging him.

 

As others have stated there is a very good chance he is gone now anyhow.

 

With how we value our lines, maybe we are realizing that investing heavy $ at Safety in general is not wise. So maybe Hooker was never going to get a big extension and we are simply saying we don't anticipate contributing even $7M to the safety position going forward. If so, I am OK w that.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rackeen305 said:

Im talking football

 

Are you though?

 

You keep using this phrase, but...

 

i-do-not-think-it-means-what-you-think-i

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

 

I'll play along and address a few for arguments sake. Though I do not explicitly disagree with some of the points made:

 

1) Hooker 100% has not created the most turnovers. That would be ignoring the fact that Leonard has equalled his number of INTs in 2 seasons and that Leonard has also caused 6 fumbles all in one year less of time. Kenny Moore has also generated one less int and two more forced fumbles in the same time frame. Pierre Desir had the same stats as Moore.  All I am getting at is that I think they envisioned Hooker doing a lot more than he has. And to your point, if I say that the Colts signed player X to sack the QB and player X sacked a QB 4 times a year and that led the team, that does not mean that because he did the best at it that he accomplished what the Colts envisioned for him. I simply am saying I do not think Hooker has not created turnovers well enough. Which was my original point.

Good catch on the forced fumbles(although, they are only good if you recover them). Still my point stands - Hooker has 9 takeaways(7INT, 2 recovered fumbles) in 34 games. This is not like having a leading sacker with 4 sacks. He has done his job and created turnovers at a very good clip...  now if they expected him to be 9 turnoevers a season safety, that's a completelydifferent story and a benchmark no safety in the league can cover. Just an example - Earl Thomas has created 36 turnovers in 10 seasons in the league(about 0.257 per game). Hooker is turning the ball over at (0.265) per game, So... better than the benchmark of all benchmarks at his position. IMO expecting him to turn the ball over more is unrealistic and unfair expectation. If they wanted turnoevers, he's delivering. If they wanted tackling... they should have drafted someone else most probably. 

 

 

Quote

2) I mentioned this in reply to Shasta's comment, but i still think this isn't about long term contracts here. It is about "do i want to tie up $7M in Hooker if he has been hurt every single year at some point for all 3 years and if he is hurt to end this season i may be on the hook for that $7M for 2021" I think the Colts said No to that and what it will cost them is that if Hooker plays lights out, they have to tag him and spend an extra $4M or so for that extra year. If he doesn't play well he is gone just like he would have been w the option anyhow. And if he gets hurt we dodged the $7M bullet.

That's a good way to look at it only if you have no future plans for Hooker. Because by declining that option you are cutting your chances of keeping him long-term whether he performs or not, whether he stays healthy or not. Also the franchise tag for S will be about 12M next year. IMO, Ballard has just decided to rip the bandaid off rather than prolong the agony knowing he won't be willing to outbid other teams long-term, because they will be willing to pay for what Hooker is good at, rather than what we are making him do in our system.

 

Quote

3) All I am getting at here is that you can make stats say whatever narrative you want. One narrative is that we faired well in games he has missed over the last two years. Is that a small sample size? Absolutely. Is it also true? Yes it is. Want to know another small sample size similarly? The Colts are 1-9 in games without TY Hilton since he was drafted. That is 10 games out of a possible 128. Yet that small sample size is clearly enough to show the impact his absence has. My point is that small sample size or not, Hooker's absence the past two years has not been a huge deal.

The point is the sample is so small that we cannot really make any conclusions about how the absence of Hooker affects this team. Especially when there is a huge aberration of a game among that already small sample. 

 

Quote

 

At the end of the day all I am saying is that I was both surprised and also OK with the Colts not exercising the option.

 

We did not lose any flexibility. We simply lost somewhere on the order of $4M for 2021 if he plays well and we are stuck tagging him.

I think we lost the chance to keep him long term and we very likely lost his cheap 5th year. Ballard will not pay 12M for Hooker. 

Quote

As others have stated there is a very good chance he is gone now anyhow.

 

With how we value our lines, maybe we are realizing that investing heavy $ at Safety in general is not wise. So maybe Hooker was never going to get a big extension and we are simply saying we don't anticipate contributing even $7M to the safety position going forward. If so, I am OK w that.

 

Agree here, seems like that's the most likely outcome - he plays out this year and then leaves. Although on the second part... just wait for it... Ballard will pay for a safety at some point and will very likely pay more for a less talented player than Hooker. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, stitches said:

he won't be willing to outbid other teams long-term, because they will be willing to pay for what Hooker is good at, rather than what we are making him do in our system.

Bingo 

 

15 minutes ago, stitches said:

Ballard will pay for a safety at some point and will very likely pay more for a less talented player than Hooker, but who fits our system better than Hooker does.

Another bingo, with a slight edit for clarity

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the first time, I was seriously scratching my head at a Ballard move with this one.  But as I read the comments and think on it more, it may be the best move.  If Hooker struggles, we let him walk & receive compensatory pick right?  Not bad. Better than nothing. 

But let’s say he BALLS OUT.   Pro bowl or all pro worthy.  I’m talking like how he was looking as a rookie before injury.  In that case, we can franchise tag him & work on an extension to keep him or even work an extension & trade him while we hold him with the tag right?

 

I know this ship has sailed but, with way this worked out, I really believe Hooker was gonna be moved to the Seahawks with a pick for their late first to take Love.  Packers jacked the plan up so Ballard went to Plan B. And I’m loving it so far.

 

Anyway Hooker, the ball is in your court now. Let’s get it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

Are you though?

 

You keep using this phrase, but...

 

i-do-not-think-it-means-what-you-think-i

Kid what are you talking about? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally have a hard time accepting that scheme fit is the reason for not taking the 5th year option. 
 

Let me explain:

Ballard was hired in January. Pagano was kept but his contract expired at the end of the upcoming season, making him a lame duck coach. I believe Irsay probably requested/told Ballard that Pagano had the year to prove himself, but it’s not really relevant because it was too late to start a coaching search anyhow. IMO there was always a 90-95% chance that they would be looking for a new head coach after the season, barring an extraordinary coaching job by Pagano and deep play off run. 
 

Even still, I think there is a chance Ballard moves on because I feel

he had a plan for what he wanted this team to look like, and this defense is part of it and I assume Pagano wouldn’t have been willing to change D’s. I just remember listening to Ballard talk about this defense when making the switch and it always seemed to me that this was his vision, and he was going to have a coach willing to run it.
 

I can’t bring myself to believe that Ballard would spend the 15th overall pick on a player a) to appease a coach who more than likely wouldn’t be there the following season and b) wouldn’t fit the scheme that he knew he wanted the team to run. Signing a free agent to come in and play for a year knowing he wouldn’t fit the scheme the following year (Hankins), fine, but  spending pick 15...I don’t think so.

 

If he did, that too me is a bigger blimish on his record than drafting an incredible athlete who was projected to be a top ten pick at 15 and getting 4 average to above average years out of him. 
 

In my opinion they are either worried about his injury history or there is something behind the scenes going on (attitude, maturity, work ethic, something).


Just my $0.02 that isn’t worth much. 
 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But when you don’t have coaches helping the GM pick players that they want it can make a difference. Ballard also didn’t have Ed Dodd’s or Brian Decker. Ballard east basically flying blind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chloe6124 said:

But when you don’t have coaches helping the GM pick players that they want it can make a difference. Ballard also didn’t have Ed Dodd’s or Brian Decker. Ballard east basically flying blind.

This is true. I guess that’s kind of my point. Yes he had a late jump on scouting players, at least with his newly acquired team. Yes he was getting input from coaches he may or may not have known wouldn’t be with the team the following year. Yes he was drafting for a different scheme, at least for that year. Yes I believe Pagano loved the player, he more than said so, and was pounding the table for him. I don’t buy that he was Pagano’s pick.

 

I just don’t see Ballard using pick 15 on a player if there was even the slightest possibility he would only be a scheme fit for 1 year. I think Ballard loved the player, thought he had amazing potential to be a top safety and foundational part of the defense and his skill set could be utilized in both schemes. Obviously something has changed...besides the D scheme.

 

I still don’t think he was a bad pick. I wouldn’t label him a bust, although I know some will. And there are plenty of excuses one could make to defend Ballard for that draft, which I don’t think need to be made either, it was still a good draft. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Rackeen305 said:

Huh? SteeCityColt posted a customized stat. Np with that. You mentioned colts org vs fan...and then play the victim. If you tune into 1070 the fan "Will the colts have a top 15 offense". Which is why I asked before hand, whats the expectation for Philip if we dont want to lock-in Hooker pasted this year. Im talking football and you are playing victim. 

What are you even talking about? 

I said I was not interested in arguing with you. I am also not interested with anything you have to say. 

How many different ways do I have to tell you to let me be? 

Share this post


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

This is true. I guess that’s kind of my point. Yes he had a late jump on scouting players, at least with his newly acquired team. Yes he was getting input from coaches he may or may not have known wouldn’t be with the team the following year. Yes he was drafting for a different scheme, at least for that year. Yes I believe Pagano loved the player, he more than said so, and was pounding the table for him. I don’t buy that he was Pagano’s pick.

 

I just don’t see Ballard using pick 15 on a player if there was even the slightest possibility he would only be a scheme fit for 1 year. I think Ballard loved the player, thought he had amazing potential to be a top safety and foundational part of the defense and his skill set could be utilized in both schemes. Obviously something has changed...besides the D scheme.

 

I still don’t think he was a bad pick. I wouldn’t label him a bust, although I know some will. And there are plenty of excuses one could make to defend Ballard for that draft, which I don’t think need to be made either, it was still a good draft. 

Agreed.   I think Ballard was completely on board with the pick.  I don’t think he simply let Pagano select who he wanted.

 

At the time, that night in fact, Ballard said the most important aspect for his defense was creating turnovers.  Hooker, who played more basketball than football in high school, and learned more at Ohio State, led the Nation in interceptions with 7.   His best football should be in front of him.  
 

For a variety of reasons, it hasn’t worked out either for Hooker or the Colts.   But that doesn’t mean it still can’t.   I believe if Hooker has a very good season Ballard will make a good faith effort to retain him.   I don’t think the last chapter of the Hooker story has been written yet.....

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, stitches said:

Good catch on the forced fumbles(although, they are only good if you recover them). Still my point stands - Hooker has 9 takeaways(7INT, 2 recovered fumbles) in 34 games. This is not like having a leading sacker with 4 sacks. He has done his job and created turnovers at a very good clip...  now if they expected him to be 9 turnoevers a season safety, that's a completelydifferent story and a benchmark no safety in the league can cover. Just an example - Earl Thomas has created 36 turnovers in 10 seasons in the league(about 0.257 per game). Hooker is turning the ball over at (0.265) per game, So... better than the benchmark of all benchmarks at his position. IMO expecting him to turn the ball over more is unrealistic and unfair expectation. If they wanted turnoevers, he's delivering. If they wanted tackling... they should have drafted someone else most probably. 

 

 

That's a good way to look at it only if you have no future plans for Hooker. Because by declining that option you are cutting your chances of keeping him long-term whether he performs or not, whether he stays healthy or not. Also the franchise tag for S will be about 12M next year. IMO, Ballard has just decided to rip the bandaid off rather than prolong the agony knowing he won't be willing to outbid other teams long-term, because they will be willing to pay for what Hooker is good at, rather than what we are making him do in our system.

 

The point is the sample is so small that we cannot really make any conclusions about how the absence of Hooker affects this team. Especially when there is a huge aberration of a game among that already small sample. 

 

I think we lost the chance to keep him long term and we very likely lost his cheap 5th year. Ballard will not pay 12M for Hooker. 

 

Agree here, seems like that's the most likely outcome - he plays out this year and then leaves. Although on the second part... just wait for it... Ballard will pay for a safety at some point and will very likely pay more for a less talented player than Hooker. 


He won’t franchise tag him. All that would do is cost Ballard more money and likely exacerbate the situation further.

 

Something I hadn’t thought about. IF they picked up the option...it would fully guarantee on the 1st day of the league year. So unless you move on during the offseason...that money becomes gtd.

 

BUT...and here’s the rub...IF they decided that they won’t to pay it...they can’t trade him until the new league year starts (the same day the option becomes fully gtd)...so they would actually have to release him since they have already picked up the option...which would nullify any comp pick since he technically wasn’t an UFA.
 

So if a comp pick is part of the angle here (and I am sure it’s part of the consideration)...there was no way they could pick up that option. 
 

Picking up the option meant paying/keeping him, trading him with a $6.7M cap hit for whatever they could get (probably not much)...or losing him and getting nothing back.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Btown_Colt said:

This is true. I guess that’s kind of my point. Yes he had a late jump on scouting players, at least with his newly acquired team. Yes he was getting input from coaches he may or may not have known wouldn’t be with the team the following year. Yes he was drafting for a different scheme, at least for that year. Yes I believe Pagano loved the player, he more than said so, and was pounding the table for him. I don’t buy that he was Pagano’s pick.

 

I just don’t see Ballard using pick 15 on a player if there was even the slightest possibility he would only be a scheme fit for 1 year. I think Ballard loved the player, thought he had amazing potential to be a top safety and foundational part of the defense and his skill set could be utilized in both schemes. Obviously something has changed...besides the D scheme.

 

I still don’t think he was a bad pick. I wouldn’t label him a bust, although I know some will. And there are plenty of excuses one could make to defend Ballard for that draft, which I don’t think need to be made either, it was still a good draft. 

Sarcasm alert.

 

But it was a bad pick, at least it still looks that way as it did from day one; even though some still will say it was not...some will still say it out of shear bullheadedness...and some will laugh at my comment because that's just what some do. 

 

It doesn't matter about Pagano's scheme or Eberflus' scheme, when you admit that a FS is only a fit for 1 scheme and not any other, then that FS is simply not worth the 15th pick.  Nelson, Smith, and Leonard can play in several schemes, and YaSin probably can too.  Kelly, AC, Pittman. Those are the players you pick in the top 45, IMO.

 

I don't have any scouts, and I saw it right off, so I'm sure Ballard did too.  I think Ballard was probably just in the mode of letting Pagano sink with his own decisions without being able to claim it was the GMs influence that contributed to it, which was the narrative for years, so he gave him the players he wanted in that draft, for the most part.  Its what I would have done coming into a situation where my bad HC was being defended by 50% of the fan base and 95% of the media as being a good HC having to work under a domineering doofus. 

 

"No chance that's gonna happen with me Chuck....here ya go...here's the guys you told me you wanted....coach them well"  Make yourself look like  genius.:thmup:

Share this post


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

Sarcasm alert.

 

But it was a bad pick, at least it still looks that way as it did from day one; even though some still will say it was not...some will still say it out of shear bullheadedness...and some will laugh at my comment because that's just what some do. 

 

It doesn't matter about Pagano's scheme or Eberflus' scheme, when you admit that a FS is only a fit for 1 scheme and not any other, then that FS is simply not worth the 15th pick.  Nelson, Smith, and Leonard can play in several schemes, and YaSin probably can too.  Kelly, AC, Pittman. Those are the players you pick in the top 45, IMO.

 

I don't have any scouts, and I saw it right off, so I'm sure Ballard did too.  I think Ballard was probably just in the mode of letting Pagano sink with his own decisions without being able to claim it was the GMs influence that contributed to it, which was the narrative for years, so he gave him the players he wanted in that draft, for the most part.  Its what I would have done coming into a situation where my bad HC was being defended by 50% of the fan base and 95% of the media as being a good HC having to work under a domineering doofus. 

 

"No chance that's gonna happen with me Chuck....here ya go...here's the guys you told me you wanted....coach them well"  Make yourself look like  genius.:thmup:

I’m not sure which part of that was sarcasm. I know you never liked the pick, and good on you for sticking to your guns. 

 

I don’t  think Hooker can only play in one scheme, I don’t  think Ballard feels that way either, which is why he took him. Leonard could probably play in multiple schemes, but he is best suited in this one, imo. 
 

It’s your last 2 paragraphs that I struggle with. So a brand new GM, who is trying to rebuild a roster and who I assume wanted to remain the GM for several years, is willing to waste his first ever draft pick on a player he didn’t even like, just to prove to the fans and the media that the head coach didn’t make good decisions in regards to scouting players for his system? That’s a lot to digest. 
 


 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Sarcasm alert.

 

But it was a bad pick, at least it still looks that way as it did from day one; even though some still will say it was not...some will still say it out of shear bullheadedness...and some will laugh at my comment because that's just what some do. 

 

It doesn't matter about Pagano's scheme or Eberflus' scheme, when you admit that a FS is only a fit for 1 scheme and not any other, then that FS is simply not worth the 15th pick.  Nelson, Smith, and Leonard can play in several schemes, and YaSin probably can too.  Kelly, AC, Pittman. Those are the players you pick in the top 45, IMO.

 

I would add another wrinkle that may have been an influence.  He only played football for 2 years in high school and 2 years in college.  Perhaps they thought he could improve.

 

Oh well, water under the bridge now.  We get him for this season.

 

Maybe this was discussed, but I'll ask anyway.  If the Colts would have done the 5th year option, how much could that have increased his trade value.   I don't think Ballard plans to lose him this season, but when the season is over would it have made sense.  Maybe not.  The compensation pick might be more than we could have got for him.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Sarcasm alert.

 

But it was a bad pick, at least it still looks that way as it did from day one; even though some still will say it was not...some will still say it out of shear bullheadedness...and some will laugh at my comment because that's just what some do. 

 

It doesn't matter about Pagano's scheme or Eberflus' scheme, when you admit that a FS is only a fit for 1 scheme and not any other, then that FS is simply not worth the 15th pick.  Nelson, Smith, and Leonard can play in several schemes, and YaSin probably can too.  Kelly, AC, Pittman. Those are the players you pick in the top 45, IMO.

 

I don't have any scouts, and I saw it right off, so I'm sure Ballard did too.  I think Ballard was probably just in the mode of letting Pagano sink with his own decisions without being able to claim it was the GMs influence that contributed to it, which was the narrative for years, so he gave him the players he wanted in that draft, for the most part.  Its what I would have done coming into a situation where my bad HC was being defended by 50% of the fan base and 95% of the media as being a good HC having to work under a domineering doofus. 

 

"No chance that's gonna happen with me Chuck....here ya go...here's the guys you told me you wanted....coach them well"  Make yourself look like  genius.:thmup:

Also, if it was truly Pagano’s pick, and Ballard didn’t like him and he wasn’t going to fit the new scheme, why not try to start trading him after his first season? Yes he got injured, but he was playing really well before injury. Surely they could have got something for him, no?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Btown_Colt said:

I’m not sure which part of that was sarcasm. I know you never liked the pick, and good on you for sticking to your guns. 

 

I don’t  think Hooker can only play in one scheme, I don’t  think Ballard feels that way either, which is why he took him. Leonard could probably play in multiple schemes, but he is best suited in this one, imo. 
 

It’s your last 2 paragraphs that I struggle with. So a brand new GM, who is trying to rebuild a roster and who I assume wanted to remain the GM for several years, is willing to waste his first ever draft pick on a player he didn’t even like, just to prove to the fans and the media that the head coach didn’t make good decisions in regards to scouting players for his system? That’s a lot to digest. 
 


 

 

I don't think its fair to blame any single person, the GM or scouts or HC, for any draft pick.  I think it is the result of a discussion.  And while the GM has the final say, I'm sure that he considers all information and opinions gleaned from the discussion.  After a while, he probably learns that some folks in the room give him incompetent advice that he may have previously followed.  

 

Who knows what Ballard was thinking.  I assume that he had his opinions of Pagano and the staff going in, as well as the difficulties of finding players for a 34 defense compared to a 43 defense.  But yes, under the circumstances he just walked into, he's NOT going to impose his solely held opinions onto a group of people that he has to manage for at least a year.  Starting off with that dominating doofus approach sets the org. back farther than making a ho-hum hold your nose and pick the guy anyway selection.  JMO.  And Hooker was projected to have the traits to develop inot a more all around player...and he may still....but its possible that Ballard always had more than the normal degree of doubt.

 

The first draft is going to be a collaborative effort simply because of the environment he was walking into, so who knows what Ballard really thought of the scheme or of Hooker.  Well....we kind of know what his opinion of Hooker is now.

 

But the hypothetical argument that says that Hooker can only play in one scheme actually supports the notion that he was never worthy of that 15th pick.  I'm only attributing that opinion of Hooker to Ballard out of sarcasm to make that point.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Chloe6124 said:

But when you don’t have coaches helping the GM pick players that they want it can make a difference. Ballard also didn’t have Ed Dodd’s or Brian Decker. Ballard east basically flying blind.

LOL.  You honestly believe the GM wasn't in real-time communication with his FO team?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Dingus McGirt said:

LOL.  You honestly believe the GM wasn't in real-time communication with his FO team?

What are you talking about. Reich and Eberflus didn’t come to the colts until the year after and he hadn’t hired Dodd’s or Decker. It’s kind of hard to draft when you don’t even have your coaches and team in place yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Dingus McGirt said:

LOL.  You honestly believe the GM wasn't in real-time communication with his FO team?

Looking back that is exactly what I think. 

You look at the changes Ballard made his first two years it's not hard to imagine he wasn't on the same page. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

Looking back that is exactly what I think. 

You look at the changes Ballard made his first two years it's not hard to imagine he wasn't on the same page. 

I could easily see Ballard planning to trade that #15 down for more picks but when hooker fell Pagano pleading for him because he fit so well in his Defense.   This is all supposition by me but i could see it.  And if so Pags wasnt' wrong.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Malik likely isnt coming back after next season, the writing is on the wall. 

 

if he doesnt have a great year the team wont want him. if he does have a decent year he will use that leverage to find a scheme that suits him better where he can make more money

 

he probably wont earn a big contract playing cover 2 and he has to know that

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

article-0-0B74BFCE00000578-533_1024x615_

So I'm here mentioning current Colts players (Hooker and Philip), How much they earn ($6.7 Ms v $25 Ms), and expectations based on what they are earning and you decide to spam me with childish rhetoric? Where are the admins when you need them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Rackeen305 said:

So I'm here mentioning current Colts players (Hooker and Philip), How much they earn ($6.7 Ms v $25 Ms), and expectations based on what they are earning and you decide to spam me with childish rhetoric? Where are the admins when you need them?


You’re mentioning this much without really stating the point you’re trying to make. As I said, you often devolve to this circular rambling argument accusing people of “not talking football”, without really offering a coherent argument yourself. 
 

To entertain it however, one is a QB with a career of playing at a “Franchise” level, one is a safety still on set scale from his Rookie deal that has flashed but not exactly made me feel we’re getting a bargain. 
 

For contacting moderation please use the report post functionality embedded into every post.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Rackeen305 said:

So I'm here mentioning current Colts players (Hooker and Philip), How much they earn ($6.7 Ms v $25 Ms), and expectations based on what they are earning and you decide to spam me with childish rhetoric? Where are the admins when you need them?

 

You reference a few names and numbers, and then act like you're "talking football" better than everyone else...

 

You're not really giving any sort of in-depth analysis.  You're just giving a vague correlation between what a FS is paid, what a QB is paid, and the team success next year to justify either paycheck.

 

Besides, isn't this discussion more about "roster management" than the actual Xs and Os of the game of football?  No offense, but there's only a handful of posters on this forum that really know their stuff about roster management, and you ain't one of 'em.  :hat:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Chloe6124 said:

What are you talking about. Reich and Eberflus didn’t come to the colts until the year after and he hadn’t hired Dodd’s or Decker. It’s kind of hard to draft when you don’t even have your coaches and team in place yet.

Oops.  For some reason, I was thinking of the recent draft.  Apologies!

  • Like 1

Share this post


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


You’re mentioning this much without really stating the point you’re trying to make. As I said, you often devolve to this circular rambling argument accusing people of “not talking football”, without really offering a coherent argument yourself. 
 

To entertain it however, one is a QB with a career of playing at a “Franchise” level, one is a safety still on set scale from his Rookie deal that has flashed but not exactly made me feel we’re getting a bargain. 
 

For contacting moderation please use the report post functionality embedded into every post.

 

1 hour ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

You reference a few names and numbers, and then act like you're "talking football" better than everyone else...

 

You're not really giving any sort of in-depth analysis.  You're just giving a vague correlation between what a FS is paid, what a QB is paid, and the team success next year to justify either paycheck.

 

Besides, isn't this discussion more about "roster management" than the actual Xs and Os of the game of football?  No offense, but there's only a handful of posters on this forum that really know their stuff about roster management, and you ain't one of 'em.  :hat:

Ok let me spell it out for you. Why is it hard fo anyone to answer my question? No fancy wording. If Malik isn't worth 6-7 Ms then what is the expectation for Philip at $25 million.

 

Why does every Colt fan that likes the Philip signing find it so hard to put any kind of expectation on him but equally as quick to not resign Mack, Hooker, JB. Those who oppose the resigning of these 3 guys definitely have an expectation tied to their names. Where is the expectation tied to Philip at $25 million, who you so confidently support?

 

Playoffs/1st round exit/conference championship/Superbowl? It's just a question. And notice, I haven't called anyone out (w/insults, colorful pictures, etc, etc, etc,) No need to get mad that you like other poster's post over another. If you cant answer then leave it alone. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Rackeen305 said:

Ok let me spell it out for you. Why is it hard fo anyone to answer my question? No fancy wording. If Malik isn't worth 6-7 Ms then what is the expectation for Philip at $25 million.

 

Why does every Colt fan that likes the Philip signing find it so hard to put any kind of expectation on him but equally as quick to not resign Mack, Hooker, JB. Those who oppose the resigning of these 3 guys definitely have an expectation tied to their names. Where is the expectation tied to Philip at $25 million, who you so confidently support?

 

Playoffs/1st round exit/conference championship/Superbowl? It's just a question. And notice, I haven't called anyone out (w/insults, colorful pictures, etc, etc, etc,) No need to get mad that you like other poster's post over another. If you cant answer then leave it alone. 

 

I'm ambivalent when it comes to all 4.  I like all 4 as Colts, but I don't expect any of the 4 to still be Colts 4 years from now.  I DO expect this TEAM will make the playoffs this year, regardless of what any player is being paid or whether or not they are re-signed when their current contract is up.  I'll be excited if we make it past the first round, but I don't expect it.

 

It's hard to parse out any sort of specific aspect of your posts to discuss, because you're rolling player pay, individual performance, and TEAM performance all up into one thing.  And that was before you threw Mack and JB into the discussion as well.  :scratch:

 

If there's any distinction when it comes to Hooker specifically, it's that he doesn't seem to be the same level of "locker room guy" as Mack, JB, and Rivers.  Guys that vent their frustrations on social media don't seem to be "Horseshoe guys".  :dunno:  Which is disappointing, because I've been really high on Hooker since we drafted him.  I really like his talent and still hope he becomes a great Colt.  :thmup:

Share this post


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...