Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Malik Hookers 5th year option Declined


Recommended Posts

5 hours 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. 

 

Why are you even asking that question? It wasn't pertinent to the conversation. I've never said I "like" the Rivers signing, nor have I said I agree with not resigning Mack. It's just you using whataboutism. 

 

You called out posters for not providing "facts", off the back of one cherry picked fact. I added some very basic context with stats to try and move the conversation into a more constructive one.
 

I suggest that if you're going to hold other posters to high standards for "facts" and "talking football" then you should apply them to your own posting. You rile people up with your style as it's very hard to discern what is the actual point you're making, but are quick to attack others. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
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

On 5/6/2020 at 12:38 AM, Rackeen305 said:

7 INTs from the FS position in 3 years while yet missing (+/-) 1/4  of team games says he's out of position on deep balls. yep. Some folks just want to talk without any facts. 

 

I got a better one for you. Hooker playing all over the field (his asked responsibility for his first 3 years) was the reason for him getting hurt by friendly fire. Thanks Matthias Farley.

Your first post in this thread. 

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

But it was a bad pick, at least it still looks that way as it did from day one;

What was the better pick at 15? You complain about how bad the pick was. Who should we have taken instead?

 

Even with the benefit of hindsight, I don't see anyone else that at that time that provided the perceived value and upside that Hooker did. He was considered a consensus top 10 pick that fell to 15. He was an insanely high ceiling prospect with a relatively high floor. There weren't any players taken after him that were viewed by most draft experts as that high potential of a player.

 

7 hours ago, Myles said:

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.

I think that was absolutely part of it. His on-field performance at OSU with such limited play experience was why he was viewed as such a high potential prospect.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Shive said:

What was the better pick at 15? You complain about how bad the pick was. Who should we have taken instead?

 

Even with the benefit of hindsight, I don't see anyone else that at that time that provided the perceived value and upside that Hooker did. He was considered a consensus top 10 pick that fell to 15 and was a prospect that was considered slightly raw, yet put up high numbers at OSU. He was an insanely high ceiling prospect with a relatively high floor. There weren't any players taken after him that were viewed by most draft experts as that high potential of a player.

 

 

I wouldn't characterize my statements as being so extreme as to dramatically describe them as "complaining about how bad the pick was".  I've made reference to my thoughts at the time, and at the time, hindsight had nothing to do with it.  I've mentioned it in this thread already, but go look up the predraft analysis of Hooker and Marlon Humphrey that was out there at the time, not the consensus of what was thought about the analysis, but the actual information and profile; then compare that information with our needs and basic positional value, and you'll have a better understanding of my thinking at the time.

 

That's just one pick in one draft.  Some work out the way we think and others do not.

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

I wouldn't characterize my statements as being so extreme as to dramatically describe them as "complaining about how bad the pick was".  I've made reference to my thoughts at the time, and at the time, hindsight had nothing to do with it.  I've mentioned it in this thread already, but go look up the predraft analysis of Hooker and Marlon Humphrey that was out there at the time, not the consensus of what was thought about the analysis, but the actual information and profile; then compare that information with our needs and basic positional value, and you'll have a better understanding of my thinking at the time.

 

That's just one pick in one draft.  Some work out the way we think and others do not.

Dude, your post history is littered with posts critical of the Hooker pick on threads that aren't even necessarily about Hooker. I would absolutely categorize a negative take that you feel the need to consistently post about as complaining. You didn't like the pick then, you still don't like it. Cool.

 

By your above post, I take it that Marlon Humphrey was your pick instead. At that time, Humphrey was viewed as a "traits" guy that had the size, speed, and athleticism but needed a lot of work on technique. He was good playing anything in front of him, but was atrocious on deep balls. There were also concerns about any CB coming out of Alabama at that time as well with both Dre Kirkpatrick & Dee Milliner being seen as a product of the system and flopping.

 

Humphrey is a good CB, but hasn't done really any better than Hooker has done for us (injuries aside).

 

At the time, we didn't have a quality FS and our slated starter was TJ Green. We had Vontae and Rashaan Melvin at CB, who both played very well. Hooker was widely viewed as the best player available at 15 and we took him. I didn't see anyone (aside from you) that thought Hooker was a bad pick and I still don't think he was a bad pick. The first round of the 2017 draft was really bad and to get an average to above average starter out of that is in itself a win.

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

Dude, your post history is littered with posts critical of the Hooker pick on threads that aren't even necessarily about Hooker. I would absolutely categorize a negative take that you feel the need to consistently post about as complaining. You didn't like the pick then, you still don't like it. Cool.

 

By your above post, I take it that Marlon Humphrey was your pick instead. At that time, Humphrey was viewed as a "traits" guy that had the size, speed, and athleticism but needed a lot of work on technique. He was good playing anything in front of him, but was atrocious on deep balls. There were also concerns about any CB coming out of Alabama at that time as well with both Dre Kirkpatrick & Dee Milliner being seen as a product of the system and flopping.

 

Humphrey is a good CB, but hasn't done really any better than Hooker has done for us (injuries aside).

 

At the time, we didn't have a quality FS and our slated starter was TJ Green. We had Vontae and Rashaan Melvin at CB, who both played very well. Hooker was widely viewed as the best player available at 15 and we took him. I didn't see anyone (aside from you) that thought Hooker was a bad pick and I still don't think he was a bad pick. The first round of the 2017 draft was really bad and to get an average to above average starter out of that is in itself a win.

Not going to back and forth about this other than my posts about Hooker has been confined to either draft threads or Hooker threads.  I'm simply not obsessed with the pick nor would I feel an obsession to defend Ballard's first pick if I had the opposite opinion.  If there are a lot of Hooker posts in those threads, its because people like you swoop in and confront me, and I rarely back off from a stupid confrontation out of forum decorum.

 

Vontae was starting to break down, and a potential shut down corner is always harder to find than a FS who plays prevent defense.  The rest about skills or traits is opinion.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/5/2020 at 9:15 PM, BornHoosier said:

DEFENSE, are you saying that for a players only strength being the deep ball but far too many times is seen on Sundays getting burnt for a td is simply out of position??  Could it be that Chris Ballard sees the same player constantly out of position that we both have seen but some here dont?  Could it be that his only yr playing the position in college was too big of a gamble to take with the 2nd rd pick and we should have seen this coming from the beginning?  Could it be the lack of instincts it takes to succeed at this level be the end of his career at this level?  Could it be his lack of interest in tackling validate everything I just said?  Just checking to see if I'm really STUPID or have that 6th sense of seeing dead people that some might not see!

he just didnt live up to the hype

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/5/2020 at 8:29 PM, Colts_Fan12 said:

his play has literally NEVER looked like he will be out of the league so yeah what you said was indeed stupid lol

if hooker was even average we would not be having this discussion

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Colts_Fan12 said:

you sir also like to say stupid things lol

Dear GOD, we still on this STUPID conversation???  I'm not gonna go down this road tonight so lets just all let HISTORY answer who the STUPID actually is!  I'll gladly eat crow for what its worth.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, BornHoosier said:

Dear GOD, we still on this STUPID conversation???  I'm not gonna go down this road tonight so lets just all let HISTORY answer who the STUPID actually is!  I'll gladly eat crow for what its worth.

well you two have both gone on record saying that Hooker isn't even average and that is clearly not true and very very stupid to say so history clearly doesn't back up either dumb statement lol

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Colts_Fan12 said:

well you two have both gone on record saying that Hooker isn't even average and that is clearly not true and very very stupid to say so history clearly doesn't back up either dumb statement lol

At this point, I can't argue any further with a fan that has "12" in their belief!  I guess that statement is STUPID too 12?  How did that number work out for you Sir?  Are you as disappointed all around as I am or you willing to forget the past and root for the future??  In "17" I TRUST 12!  Let's talk about players that are actually RELEVANT to this team today & in the near future which 12 & 29 have NONE!  STUPID

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/7/2020 at 7:29 AM, 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:

 

Here's the thing. Ballard is a huge fan of Theo Epstein, the President of the Cubs. In fact, he was reading the book "The Cubs Way" shortly after he was hired in 2017. This is what (in part) influenced his focus on culture and character.

 

But baseball fans (especially Cubs fans) are also familiar with the strategy that Theo employed to rebuild the roster. While there are differences in how MLB and NFL teams can acquire young talent...one thing that is constant is the benefit of having top draft picks.

 

And the Cubs weren't the only team to employ this type of strategy. The Astros did as well...and most would argue they did it better (aside from the cheating). 

 

Guess who Ballard's favorite MLB team is? Here's a hint...he's from Galveston, TX.

 

So you have Ballard, a huge fan of Theo Epstein and the Astros, starting out in his first year as GM. His franchise QB just had shoulder surgery to repair an injury that had lingered for years. Not to rehash the Luck injury debates about how much they knew and when they knew it...but they at least had a good idea of what the rehab would entail...and that it was likely Luck might not play for a long time. So I think it's very likely that Ballard (and Irsay) were fine using that first year as a rebuilding year...to evaluate the current players...but to also knowing they would likely be positioned very well in the draft...which they had not been since Luck was drafted. I mean...had BB not offered up JB at the last minute...the Colts were ready to enter the first few weeks (at least) with Scott Tolzien as the starter...lol. And the decision to retain Pagano and give him influence would certainly falls in line with all of that...as they knew that season would be written off anyways...which it has.

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

 

Here's the thing. Ballard is a huge fan of Theo Epstein, the President of the Cubs. In fact, he was reading the book "The Cubs Way" shortly after he was hired in 2017. This is what (in part) influenced his focus on culture and character.

 

But baseball fans (especially Cubs fans) are also familiar with the strategy that Theo employed to rebuild the roster. While there are differences in how MLB and NFL teams can acquire young talent...one thing that is constant is the benefit of having top draft picks.

 

And the Cubs weren't the only team to employ this type of strategy. The Astros did as well...and most would argue they did it better (aside from the cheating). 

 

Guess who Ballard's favorite MLB team is? Here's a hint...he's from Galveston, TX.

 

So you have Ballard, a huge fan of Theo Epstein and the Astros, starting out in his first year as GM. His franchise QB just had shoulder surgery to repair an injury that had lingered for years. Not to rehash the Luck injury debates about how much they knew and when they knew it...but they at least had a good idea of what the rehab would entail...and that it was likely Luck might not play for a long time. So I think it's very likely that Ballard (and Irsay) were fine using that first year as a rebuilding year...to evaluate the current players...but to also knowing they would likely be positioned very well in the draft...which they had not been since Luck was drafted. I mean...had BB not offered up JB at the last minute...the Colts were ready to enter the first few weeks (at least) with Scott Tolzien as the starter...lol. And the decision to retain Pagano and give him influence would certainly falls in line with all of that...as they knew that season would be written off anyways...which it has.

I'm not sure I totally follow all of your points. 

 

I understand the notion of writing off the 2018 season as a rebuilding year, but Ballard made attempts to acquire defensive players for the 34, Simon, Hankins come to mind.  And Hooker was much more of a FS that would fit into a man-scheme than a 43 zone, as was Quincy Wilson.  Basham seemed like a strictly 43 end and not an OLB, but Pagano used his bigger OLBs as 43 ends in offset alignments so he was a Pagano fit too.  And Banner was reported to have been wanted by Philbin.  That just seems like a lot of moves to make to specifically fit Pagano's staff than would be made if they thought they were definitely going to can him at some point. At least at the time they were going into the draft it seems they were preparing to carry on with Pagano unless he showed that they shouldn't, and were not looking for players with an eye towards an ensuing scheme.

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

I'm not sure I totally follow all of your points. 

 

I understand the notion of writing off the 2018 season as a rebuilding year, but Ballard made attempts to acquire defensive players for the 34, Simon, Hankins come to mind.  And Hooker was much more of a FS that would fit into a man-scheme than a 43 zone, as was Quincy Wilson.  Basham seemed like a strictly 43 end and not an OLB, but Pagano used his bigger OLBs as 43 ends in offset alignments so he was a Pagano fit too.  And Banner was reported to have been wanted by Philbin.  That just seems like a lot of moves to make to specifically fit Pagano's staff than would be made if they thought they were definitely going to can him at some point. At least at the time they were going into the draft it seems they were preparing to carry on with Pagano unless he showed that they shouldn't, and were not looking for players with an eye towards an ensuing scheme.

 

I am just saying that I think they kept Pagano around for one more season because they knew they were rebuilding and 2017 was not as important to the long term goal of that rebuild. The players did fit Pagano's scheme...but even if they fired Pagano...Ballard still might have planned on keeping the 3-4. The entire time Ballard was in KC...they ran a 3-4 defense under Bob Sutton. And they had some very good defensive teams.

 

That would explain the FA pickups and picks. Ballard might have envisioned a guy like Wilson as a Marcus Peters...or a guy like Basham as a Tamba Hali type. We really don't know.

 

I just think they knew that year would be a transitional/rebuilding/down year...what you want to call it...that would likely end with them moving on from Pagano and having a high draft pick. And that's exactly what happened. And 2018 was also on its way to being like that...until Luck started playing like an MVP and the schedule got real soft.

 

Ballard did sign a few players...but the Colts spent less cash that year than all but one team that year. They spent less cash than any other team for Ballard's first two years. The Cubs cut spending during the early Theo years...and HOU had the lowest payroll for several seasons while rebuilding. There are just a lot of parallels to be drawn.

 

 

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

 

Here's the thing. Ballard is a huge fan of Theo Epstein, the President of the Cubs. In fact, he was reading the book "The Cubs Way" shortly after he was hired in 2017. This is what (in part) influenced his focus on culture and character.

 

But baseball fans (especially Cubs fans) are also familiar with the strategy that Theo employed to rebuild the roster. While there are differences in how MLB and NFL teams can acquire young talent...one thing that is constant is the benefit of having top draft picks.

 

And the Cubs weren't the only team to employ this type of strategy. The Astros did as well...and most would argue they did it better (aside from the cheating). 

 

 

I love this.  The Cubs are to blame for Brissett.   Ballard should have followed the Cardinals way.

:thmup:

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Myles said:

I love this.  The Cubs are to blame for Brissett.   Ballard should have followed the Cardinals way.

:thmup:

 

The Cardinals Way...yuck. Fortunately...Ballard doesn't seem like a neck tattoo guy.

 

But in a way...you aren't wrong. JB is definitely an example of a team valuing culture to a fault and putting too much importance on character.

 

Unfortunately...as good as that book is...it rings hollow now. Here's a quote from Theo:

 

Quote

"We're not going to compromise character for talent. We're the Cubs. We're going to have both talent and character."

 

The same guy that said that not traded for Chapman at the TDL during a WS win....but he also tendered a contract to Addison Russell despite him facing a huge suspension for publicly-known DV issues...thus doing the opposite of what he said he wouldn't. 

 

 

 

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

 

I am just saying that I think they kept Pagano around for one more season because they knew they were rebuilding and 2017 was not as important to the long term goal of that rebuild. The players did fit Pagano's scheme...but even if they fired Pagano...Ballard still might have planned on keeping the 3-4. The entire time Ballard was in KC...they ran a 3-4 defense under Bob Sutton. And they had some very good defensive teams.

 

That would explain the FA pickups and picks. Ballard might have envisioned a guy like Wilson as a Marcus Peters...or a guy like Basham as a Tamba Hali type. We really don't know.

 

I just think they knew that year would be a transitional/rebuilding/down year...what you want to call it...that would likely end with them moving on from Pagano and having a high draft pick. And that's exactly what happened. And 2018 was also on its way to being like that...until Luck started playing like an MVP and the schedule got real soft.

 

Ballard did sign a few players...but the Colts spent less cash that year than all but one team that year. They spent less cash than any other team for Ballard's first two years. The Cubs cut spending during the early Theo years...and HOU had the lowest payroll for several seasons while rebuilding. There are just a lot of parallels to be drawn.

 

 

 

Ballard should've kept the 3-4 because Pagano used it?

 

And Ballard should've kept the 3-4 because it was used at KC when John Dorsey was the GM?

 

Is that you're argument?     Seriously?

 

I think someone has been quarantined way, WAY too long.....  :peek:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Ballard should've kept the 3-4 because Pagano used it?

 

And Ballard should've kept the 3-4 because it was used at KC when John Dorsey was the GM?

 

Is that you're argument?     Seriously?

 

I think someone has been quarantined way, WAY too long.....  :peek:

 

Based on what you bolded, he said that Ballard might have, not that he should have. I think it was more speculation, than what he thought we should have done, to help make sense of some of the draft picks that year.

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

 

I am just saying that I think they kept Pagano around for one more season because they knew they were rebuilding and 2017 was not as important to the long term goal of that rebuild. The players did fit Pagano's scheme...but even if they fired Pagano...Ballard still might have planned on keeping the 3-4. The entire time Ballard was in KC...they ran a 3-4 defense under Bob Sutton. And they had some very good defensive teams.

 

That would explain the FA pickups and picks. Ballard might have envisioned a guy like Wilson as a Marcus Peters...or a guy like Basham as a Tamba Hali type. We really don't know.

 

I just think they knew that year would be a transitional/rebuilding/down year...what you want to call it...that would likely end with them moving on from Pagano and having a high draft pick. And that's exactly what happened. And 2018 was also on its way to being like that...until Luck started playing like an MVP and the schedule got real soft.

 

Ballard did sign a few players...but the Colts spent less cash that year than all but one team that year. They spent less cash than any other team for Ballard's first two years. The Cubs cut spending during the early Theo years...and HOU had the lowest payroll for several seasons while rebuilding. There are just a lot of parallels to be drawn.

 

 

Ok I see your points more clearly, but not sure I agree with all of your parallels.

 

Yeah, it would have been difficult to bring in a new HC with Luck's status.  Therefore, the FO kinda had to roll with Chuck for that year regardless of what they thought about him.

 

The 2016 year and the 2017 draft was a confusing mess.  I don't think it was clear, nor right, for a new GM to come into an organization and look for players that fit the scheme he wants to implement and that the current coach doesn't coach.  I think it was more about seeing what Chuck could do with as much help as reasonably possible for the next season, and Ballard not creating obstacles on top of the Luck situation by drafting players Pagano could not use.  

 

But that was three years ago and speculating on what was going through Ballard's mind upon just arriving and having to draft players in a few weeks is beyond my abilities.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The name that I haven't seen on this thread is Matt Eberflus.  I think Ballard listens to him, and I suspect he's a big reason Hooker didn't get the 5th yr, as Ballard is filling the D with sound-tackling, effort guys that Eberflus loves, like Buckner.

 

"I think he (DeForest Buckner) played with the best effort on the D-line, which really shows on tape when you see somebody that big sprinting to the ball every play and making those tackles downfield"- Nick Bosa on how much he'll miss DB.  Buckner epitomizes what Eberflus wants, no "loafs."

 

Hooker has range and can make jaw-dropping interceptions, (traits Pagano wanted) but IMO, ME has different desires for his safeties (and actually all his players): hustling, physical guys who consistently take good angles/make open-field tackles and makes the interceptions that come from being in the right position. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think some of you are way over thinking this.

It's real simple. Ballard don't want to pick up Hookers 5th year option. .

I'm sure it wasn't Ballard's decision alone and he had input from the coaches as well. 

12 pages long? It's sure has been a very long off season. :thinking:

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Really doesn't matter now.... 

 

He plays up to his draft position, he'll likely get a nice new contract offer after the season.

 

If he plays the same, he'll likely get a team friendly offer, and a chance to explore FA.... 

 

I personally expect him to have a much better year. Ball is in his court. Contract year......

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fat Clemenza said:

The name that I haven't seen on this thread is Matt Eberflus.  I think Ballard listens to him, and I suspect he's a big reason Hooker didn't get the 5th yr, as Ballard is filling the D with sound-tackling, effort guys that Eberflus loves, like Buckner.

 

"I think he (DeForest Buckner) played with the best effort on the D-line, which really shows on tape when you see somebody that big sprinting to the ball every play and making those tackles downfield"- Nick Bosa on how much he'll miss DB.  Buckner epitomizes what Eberflus wants, no "loafs."

 

Hooker has range and can make jaw-dropping interceptions, (traits Pagano wanted) but IMO, ME has different desires for his safeties (and actually all his players): hustling, physical guys who consistently take good angles/make open-field tackles and makes the interceptions that come from being in the right position. 

 

While I agree 100% that FR listens to ME, I think it's much simpler. Why lock in a 5th at 6.7M when Hooker didn't play up to 6.7M standards last year. He did in 2018 if you want to use PFF as a guideline. He didn't though last year for whatever reason.

 

I personally think he's been impacted by the crappy pass rush / pressure %, as well as ME's Charmin soft zone the past two years. ME said we'd see more man last season, but I sure didn't notice. One of the worst pressure %s in the league, combined with a soft zone simply is not good for a FS. This year SHOULD be different in both areas.

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

Really doesn't matter now.... 

 

He plays up to his draft position, he'll likely get a nice new contract offer after the season.

 

If he plays the same, he'll likely get a team friendly offer, and a chance to explore FA.... 

 

I personally expect him to have a much better year. Ball is in his court. Contract year......

IMO with the addition of Buckner and his presence on the field, it will make all the D backs look better. (hopefully anyway) 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

IMO with the addition of Buckner and his presence on the field, it will make all the D backs look better. (hopefully anyway) 

I agree 1000%. IMO, the LBs will also benefit big time. The DBs (all of them), but especially Rock and Hooker should benefit the most. ME said he was going to play more man last season, but didn't (as far as I could see). I'm guessing it had to do with having a bad pass rush, a rook CB (Rock) who had to fill in for an injured CB1, and Willis who also had play a big role. 

 

This year, I think Rock takes a nice step forward. He was playing very very well the last half of the year (his PFF rating jumped a bunch), and he should be even better this year. He's built to play man too. Kid has great measurables. If Rhodes returns to form, all the better. If we improve both pass rush AND our CBs can man up, that's an awesome recipe for a FS.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/8/2020 at 10:52 PM, crazycolt1 said:

IMO with the addition of Buckner and his presence on the field, it will make all the D backs look better. (hopefully anyway) 

I promote this sentence!!!  Forget history and lets focus on the future as we all have seen certain players struggle early on only to become All Pro in the right situation.  If Buckner can make all the difference to this pass rush and make Hooker to be All Pro, congrats as this young man will get paid!  Either way, I apologize for bashing this young man before his Colts career has come to an end which isn't fair.  I hope 29 is ELITE in 2020.

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...