Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Malik Hookers 5th year option Declined


Recommended Posts

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, we might already have his replacement on the team, and get compensation for a first round pick if he goes elsewhere. 

 

I like the way the team is handling this. 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
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

Pro football focus Player Grading Scale:
100-90  Elite
89-85    Pro Bowler
84-70    Starter
69-60    Backup 
59-0       Replaceable
 

Hooker was rated a 65 in 2017, 79 in 2018 and 70 in 2019.... Overall, a marginal starter, hardly worth an upper first round pick.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing - if you are betting he won't have a good year, then who is your best alternative option for a team that wants to win now? Blackmon is coming off ACL and we don't even know if he will be healthy enough to play at all this year, Odom is bleh... who do you expect to take step forward and man up the second safety spot?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone can complain but I stick to what I said before. This defense was better when he missed the three games with a knee injury. Let’s not forget there is FA and another draft next season.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Think about who we have to re sign also. Maybe they wanted to save that money in 2021. We have Kelly to sign yet. Walker is up after this season. Who knows Mack’s value might not be as much as we think and they might want to bring him back. Houston is a FA. Maybe they think they 6.7 million in 2021 will be better spent.

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

I don't see us declining his 5th year option as a sign we're done with him. Hooker is now in a contract year and I can see us working on an extension if he stays healthy and plays well.

 

He was literally never on the trade block (as far as any public reporting). Teams calling you about a player isn't being on the trade block. Calling other teams making it known that the player is available for the right price is being on the trade block.

 

If they had any intention on extending him...they would have just picked up the option to at least buy time and gain a year of control. It's only $6.7M...and it's only gtd for injury. If they are that concerned that he might get hurt and cost them $6.7M...I doubt they plan on extending him for even more money in the future.

 

I think the fact that they declined his option pretty much confirms that he was available for trade in some capacity. Doesn't mean that Ballard was actively calling multiple teams to trade him...but I am sure he was fielding offers heading into the draft. If they don't want to pick up his option...then why would he not be available for trade?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, stitches said:

Another thing - if you are betting he won't have a good year, then who is your best alternative option for a team that wants to win now? Blackmon is coming off ACL and we don't even know if he will be healthy enough to play at all this year, Odom is bleh... who do you expect to take step forward and man up the second safety spot?

A lot can happen between now and the start of the season.  Maybe they are betting this decision will light a fire under him and he has a good season.  If he does it could still work out.  They could still trade him or use one of the tags on him if they want to make sure.  Maybe they like Odom more than you do and they have confidence in him stepping in and being his replacement  this year and Blackmon eventually wins the job the following year.  Maybe they still trade him this year.  This tells me they clearly are not convinced he's the long term answer and they don't want to commit.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 1959Colts said:

Why would they want to extend his contract? 

It was reported recently, he was on the trading block... and even if he's not traded, he is under contract for either one or two years (it they exercise option)

Yeah.  I didn't get that either.

 

He's under contract for next season.  And if they would have granted the option now, he would have been under contract for two seasons.  So why renegotiate and extend a contract for beyond two years when you only have to do one move to have him play two years relatively cheaply?

 

He has not proven that he is worth having on the team beyond two more seasons, if that, so why would they do an extension now?

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

Out of curiosity......in general do players usually always move on when their 5th year is declined after the rookie contract ends or is there ample examples of players working out a contract and staying on? 

 

That's a great question. I just looked at the 2015 draft class (since that is the most recent class whose contracts would have ended)...and there were 12 players who didn't have their options exercised. NONE of them re-signed with their respective teams.

 

I think HALF were traded (Fowler, Shelton, Erving, Dorsett, Tomlinson, Anthony)...ranging from a 3rd - 5th round pick...and the rest were either released or not re-signed.

 

Small sample size...but I don't think it's common at all for that to happen.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, stitches said:

In essence they are betting that he won't have a good season. 

 

And if he does, it makes it really hard to retain him. Do you think he will be in the mood to give the team a hometeam discount after this? No way in hell... he will milk the Colts for every last penny he thinks he can get if we want him back, or he will just leave...

 

I just don't feel like this is a smart move.

 

   Home town discount, who are you kidding.
  He played a lot of single high and never made plays on the ball. He showed NO intuition.
  I wouldn't bet much he is on the roster come training camp.
    He is what some here think he is. Not as good as we need.

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

The colts value tackling. Hooker isn’t that good and doesn’t like to do it. 

If they value tackling why did they draft him in the 1st place. He was not a good tackler in college. The 2017 draft was not a good one

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, stitches said:

In essence they are betting that he won't have a good season. 

 

And if he does, it makes it really hard to retain him. Do you think he will be in the mood to give the team a hometeam discount after this? No way in hell... he will milk the Colts for every last penny he thinks he can get if we want him back, or he will just leave...

 

I just don't feel like this is a smart move.

 

I don't think they are going to retain him. I looked at the 2013-15 players that had their options declined....and only ONE was retained...and that was Kyle Fuller. But Fuller had the missed the entire season prior and had knee surgery...so naturally they aren't picking a (gtd against injury) 5th year option when they don't even know if he will come back.

 

I think Hooker is either going to be traded (soon) or will leave after next season...I don't really see a scenario where he is back. IF they had any intention of extending him...they would have picked up the paltry $6.7M option.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

A lot can happen between now and the start of the season.  Maybe they are betting this decision will light a fire under him and he has a good season.  If he does it could still work out.  They could still trade him or use one of the tags on him if they want to make sure.  Maybe they like Odom more than you do and they have confidence in him stepping in and being his replacement  this year and Blackmon eventually wins the job the following year.  Maybe they still trade him this year.  This tells me they clearly are not convinced he's the long term answer and they don't want to commit.  

Picking his option does not mean they are committing to long term contract. It just means you have a young starting safety who's had some really good moments under team control for one more year at a reasonable price. This is good assett management... even if you have doubts about his long-term future with the Colts... well... unless you think he's not good at all and he's not only not worth the 6.7M now, but he's also not very likely to be worth it after this coming season(i.e. you are really betting he will be straight up flop this coming season). 

7 minutes ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

 Home town discount, who are you kidding.
  He played a lot of single high and never made plays on the ball. He showed NO intuition.
  I wouldn't bet much he is on the roster come training camp.

This is demonstrably false. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, BigO said:

If they value tackling why did they draft him in the 1st place. He was not a good tackler in college. The 2017 draft was not a good one

I give ballard a pass on the 2017 draft. He had a lame duck coach and didn’t have his coaches in place yet. 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, shastamasta said:

 

I don't think they are going to retain him. I looked at the 2013-15 players that had their options declined....and only ONE was retained...and that was Kyle Fuller. But Fuller had the missed the entire season prior and had knee surgery...so naturally they aren't picking a (gtd against injury) 5th year option when they don't even know if he will come back.

 

I think Hooker is either going to be traded or will leave after next season...I can't really see a scenario where he is back. IF they had any intention of extending him...they would have picked up the paltry $6.7M option.

I agree. At this point the only reasonable conclusion is that the Colts don't really believe Hooker is very good at all AND that he's not really likely to become good after this season. There are multiple levels to a decision like this pointing to a likely departure after this current season(or even earlier?) - first it means the team is not sold on him, and second it means the player knows the team doesn't like him so... even if he breaks out, he will likely be looking elsewhere to find a team that actually believes in his talent.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, BigO said:

If they value tackling why did they draft him in the 1st place. He was not a good tackler in college. The 2017 draft was not a good one

The weirdest thing is - his tackling actually was the one thing that improved a lot with him this last season. He had other issues (more important ones) that I think appeared in his game this last season. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said in various threads over the last couple months that Hooker is probably the most expendable FA next year. Even more than Mack IMO. As of now I actually am torn on who I think is most important we bring back. If Hilton returns to form, then him for sure, but if he struggles again with injuries this year, I think we should consider letting him walk, as much as that pains me to say. We drafted Pinter who could ideally play guard or center, but we have no reason to believe he'll be an upgrade over Kelly, but Kelly also had an injury concern. And then Walker has bee highly productive for us. We also have multiple d-line guys like Stewart, Autry, Muhammed, and Day becoming FAs. 

 

That said I think we're number one in cap space next season right? We could probably bring back all the key guys mentioned, 1 or two d-line guys, and spend the rest elsewhere, possibly extending contracts, and of course re-signing Rivers if applicable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

Can someone explain to me this is even about. 

 

 

Lol. I have no idea. I see it as a snarky way of saying "okay, got it.". His way of showing he's not pleased. But that's speculation. We get so many cryptic tweets in the sports world and never get explanations for more than half of them.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

All I remember is being really ticked when hooker hurt his knee last year because we had some really good teams coming up. We ended up playing really good defense without him.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, stitches said:

I agree. At this point the only reasonable conclusion is that the Colts don't really believe Hooker is very good at all AND that he's not really likely to become good after this season. There are multiple levels to a decision like this pointing to a likely departure after this current season(or even earlier?) - first it means the team is not sold on him, and second it means the player knows the team doesn't like him so... even if he breaks out, he will likely be looking elsewhere to find a team that actually believes in his talent.

 

 

 

That's why I think he gets traded pretty soon...but who knows. Doesn't seem like there is much reason for him to be here if he doesn't fit the defense and if he knows they don't want him here long-term.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, dw49 said:

 

 

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.

 

Hey man...chill. He left himself some wiggle room on saying 90%.

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

Think about who we have to re sign also. Maybe they wanted to save that money in 2021. We have Kelly to sign yet. Walker is up after this season. Who knows Mack’s value might not be as much as we think and they might want to bring him back. Houston is a FA. Maybe they think they 6.7 million in 2021 will be better spent.

 

ehhh.. what's the big deal if we have 4 years of Malik Hooker or 5 years ? I would have taken the option but it;s not like he's a great player. Thus I'm not upset and have no problem accepting Ballard's decision. 

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

I'm sorry but this makes no sense to me. I want to hear Ballard talk about this one. Short of serious injury concerns, I cannot imagine he will be able to give me a convincing answer as to why not guarantee his option. This is a cheap option for a player of Hooker's talent. Even if you are not sure he's worth it, chances are there is one of the other 31 teams that would think he is worth and give you compensation for him. Now we are very likely losing him after this year not just as a player, but as an asset too. 

 

Anyone know the CBA well? Will he count toward the compensatory pick formula if he leaves next year? 

 

Convincing answer? Probably not.

 

I have been saying for a long time that Ballard is going to have to be selective about who he retains. I think people have boxed Ballard into this prescriptive methodology...and this offseason is proving that was misguided. And the literal "keep your own" mindset is part of that.

 

However...in this case...not exercising that option is strange.

 

Ballard gave JB a $28M extension...with $20M gtd when he was heading into the final year of his contract. And all I heard from the FO and coaches is that JB was the guy...and from other fan that this was a great move to give JB confidence and show they have faith in him...and that it was great for the Colture and a sign to the locker room, etc, etc.

 

And one year later, Ballard's won't commit a one-year $6.7M extension (that isn't even gtd except for injury) to Hooker...and people are like "hmmm...makes sense."

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

Pro football focus Player Grading Scale:
100-90  Elite
89-85    Pro Bowler
84-70    Starter
69-60    Backup 
59-0       Replaceable
 

Hooker was rated a 65 in 2017, 79 in 2018 and 70 in 2019.... Overall, a marginal starter, hardly worth an upper first round pick.

Not many first round picks in 2017 were worthy of being first round picks it turns out ... Something like four of the top six picks ended up not having their options picked up

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

In essence they are betting that he won't have a good season. 

 

And if he does, it makes it really hard to retain him. Do you think he will be in the mood to give the team a hometeam discount after this? No way in hell... he will milk the Colts for every last penny he thinks he can get if we want him back, or he will just leave...

 

I just don't feel like this is a smart move.

Blackmon  is the future 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, shastamasta said:

 

Hey man...chill. He left himself some wiggle room on saying 90%.

 

You are too kind ... thank you.

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

 

Convincing answer? Probably not.

 

I have been saying for a long time that Ballard is going to have to be selective about who he retains. I think people have boxed Ballard into this prescriptive methodology...and this offseason is proving that was misguided. And the literal "keep your own" mindset is part of that.

 

However...in this case...not exercising that option is strange.

 

Ballard gave JB a $28M extension...with $20M gtd when he was heading into the final year of his contract. And all I heard from the FO and coaches is that JB was the guy...and from other fan that this was a great move to give JB confidence and show they have faith in him...and that it was great for the Colture and a sign to the locker room, etc, etc.

 

And one year later, Ballard's won't commit a one-year $6.7M extension (that isn't even gtd except for injury) to Hooker...and people are like "hmmm...makes sense."

Apples and oranges. JB got the contract because Andrew Luck put the Colts in an impossible position two weeks before the start of the season. They gambled that JB would be worth the money and it didn’t work out. They aren’t in that position with Hooker. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hindsight Ballard probably should of only given Jacoby around the 8 million range. Enough to reward him for being the starter but not starter money. It’s silly that Jacobys cap hit is almost as much as rivers.

 

We are going to be losing a lot of fan favorites because like the above says we can’t keep everyone. We need to keep the stars and keep some good middle of the road foundation pieces. Ballard will let you go if he feels he can get the same production out of a cheaper player.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I expect an extension if he stays healthy and plays at a high level. If we don’t keep he’ll be a Bear the following season. 

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

 

That's a great question. I just looked at the 2015 draft class (since that is the most recent class whose contracts would have ended)...and there were 12 players who didn't have their options exercised. NONE of them re-signed with their respective teams.

 

I think HALF were traded (Fowler, Shelton, Erving, Dorsett, Tomlinson, Anthony)...ranging from a 3rd - 5th round pick...and the rest were either released or not re-signed.

 

Small sample size...but I don't think it's common at all for that to happen.

Thanks for that.....I didn't think it would be. I find it interesting mentally how different players would handle that.... essentially they're being told they're not good enough to earn another year....as a player you can either take it as an I'm gonna prove you wrong, play well and earn more money by getting a bigger extension or I'm gonna prove you wrong and play well then move on no matter what the offer is! 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think the colts will extend Hooker, but to a cheaper number then the option. Something like 2 year 10-12 mil

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I intuitively felt that we would not sign him for a 5th year, because Ballard's standard requires that player effort is a key determinant. He gave Geather's another year when he was always hurt because the guy gave it all on the field and that rubbed off well in the locker room. Malik may not be wired that way. Malik projects as a hightly talented player "Ed Reed" potential without the heart. Heart is really important to be on the team. 

 

If tomorrow, Darius Leonard starts to slack off, Ballard will see it and give him a chance to readjust his attitude. If that does not happen, he is gone.

 

Ballard has always said that this is about the TEAM and not about one player, including Andrew Luck. Reason we love Ballard is because he means what he says. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, CR91 said:

I still think the colts will extend Hooker, but to a cheaper number then the option. Something like 2 year 10-12 mil

I would be surprised.  He's making 4M this year.  2 year 10-12 M is not that significant to me.  If I'm him I'm betting on myself to have a great year and doing much better on the open market.  

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.


  • Popular Now

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • A major factor in pressure numbers was MN didn't emplooy the short passing game Jax did last week so you would expect more hits, etc.   It looked like to me that the D line was playing on the opposition side of the ball more than before.  That is what you want from Buckner.  If he makes tackles and sacks, that's gravy.  He was a wrecking ball, and would have still been a wrecking ball if he didn't record a sack.
    • Rivers should’ve had 2 TD’s yesterday. He starting to finally feel comfortable. Glad to see he also didn’t make those forced throws.
    • People have said it over and over: Cover 2 needs a D-Line that forces a QB to make quick reads and poor decisions.  We got that yesterday from our D-Line.  CB's didn't have to spend all day covering guys and, to their (and Flus') credit, they played up instead of back.
    • In our D, what Ballard has been looking for is a 3T who can hit the opposing QB.  Buckner's that guy, and he can also eat up blockers and play the run.   If we're blitzing LBs or DBs and Buckner is eating up blockers and allowing them to get to the QB (or opening space for them to attack a running back), he's doing a good job.  If he's drawing double teams and allowing our edge guys to get easier match-ups, he's also doing a good job.     Last week we had 4 sacks, this week  we had 3.  Last week we also only had 4 QB hits (all of them were sacks).  This week, even though we had one less sack, we also had 7 QB hits (4 of them were Buckner, who recorded 1.5 sacks).  By having our DL have sacks and QB hits, it allows for more LBs or DBs to stay in coverage.  It also startles the QB.  There is not a single QB in the league who would enjoy being hit by Buckner.... let alone getting hit 4 times.  That type of pressure forces QBs to release the ball quicker and in some instances make worse decisions which improve the backend of our defense's chance of intercepting the ball and creating turnovers.     None of Cousins' 3 INTs yesterday came when we had more than the DL rushing the QB - Willis' pick had 4 DL rushing the QB and Cousins (though he didn't get hit on the play) was forced to move around in the pocket and make somewhat of a rushed throw/underthrow which Blackmon made a nice play on breaking it up and Willis happened to be in a nice position to intercept.  The Carrie INT we had 3 DL rushing (Leonard was kinda playing a rover and they got pressure on Cousins, he had to step up in the pocket to make that throw and he underthrew it -- granted it wajs a Hail Mary at the end of the first half, we were still able to keep everyone in our secondary in coverage and the DL was able to get some pressure on Cousins.  Then Moore's interception we kept everyone but the DL in coverage, and though Cousins wasn't necessarily under much pressure on that given play, he did throw that ball very quickly and behind his intended WR.   So, ultimately, the defense's job is to not give up points and to get our offense on the field.  Our offense's job is to score points and keep our defense off the field.  While there are ways for our D to avoid giving up points that may not include the DL pressuring the QB, it certainly helps if they can for a variety of reasons including (1) it forces the QB to throw faster, typically resulting in worse decisions, (2) it makes the opposing QB to play more timidly than he probably would if he wasn't getting hit, (3) it allows our LBs and DBs to stay in coverage which therefore is likely to reduce easy checkdown passes, (4) a sack is a loss of yards, meaning our D is keeping the other team from moving down the field and likely helping provide better field position for the O and potentially setting up more favorable opportunities for our STs, (5) when a sack results in a safety, not only does it prevent the other team from scoring, but it gives us points and more likely than not fairly good field position to our offense when they get the ball back, (6) aside from helping lead to worse throws/more interception opportunity, a sack which results in a fumble also gives the D a better chance at a turnover (most QB fumbles are the result of being hit behind their own OL), and (7) if the DL shows they can hit the QB or make tackles for loss, it likely leads to the opposing OL to use more double teams or require a TE/RB to help block (not only does that take away one or several offensive weapons, but if the DL is requiring double teams, it allows for more gaps for our LBs and DBs to get through regardless of it is a drawn blitz play to get to the QB or if it frees up a lane to get to the RB).  
    • Gordon is OK.  he wasn't worth what he thought he was worth.  He only averaged more than  3.9 ypc once in his career though.  He was valuable because of his contributions in the passing game.   James White has been a decent player but almost exclusively in the passing game.   Ball is an unknown.  No doubt. Showed some potential, but it's impossible to say either way.   I don't think it's a secret that Wisco backs tend to bust though.
  • Members

    • #12.

      #12. 1,827

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Chloe6124

      Chloe6124 7,902

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • FRW

      FRW 121

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • buccolts

      buccolts 4,759

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Coffeedrinker

      Coffeedrinker 8,083

      Senior Members
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • GoColts8818

      GoColts8818 10,029

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Nadine

      Nadine 10,346

      Administrators
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • jvan1973

      jvan1973 18,273

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • nfatta

      nfatta 0

      Rookie
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • ColtsBlueFL

      ColtsBlueFL 7,508

      Moderators
      Joined:
      Last active:
×
×
  • Create New...