Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

The Film Room: Malik Hooker


Ricky Spanish

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Leeroy Jenkins PhD said:

So we draft Hooker.  That means we are shifting Coleman back to SS.  I don't hate this.  But, he is going to need to add a touch of weight. 

95 percent of the guys that come into the professional sports (not just the NFL) need to add weight. I don't know why people act like weight is such big deal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mr. Miagi said:

95 percent of the guys that come into the professional sports (not just the NFL) need to add weight. I don't know why people act like weight is such big deal. 

Oh, my bad, I meant Coleman. He is under 200 lbs.  Usually SS's average between 200-220. When Coleman was forced into the SS role, he was definitely a little light for the position.  If that was to be his full-time position I would expect he would put on a little weight. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, caatfan said:

He's in need of some coaching on tackling, but big time potential in pass D. Don't see him being available at 8. Chargers seem to really like him, assuming he doesn't get grabbed before the 7th pick.

We don't use a FS as a tackler. We need a FS who is a ball hawk that has range. He fits the bill.

16 minutes ago, Leeroy Jenkins PhD said:

So we draft Hooker.  That means we are shifting Coleman back to SS.  I don't hate this.  But, he is going to need to add a touch of weight. 

Coleman did well last year at SS and as he ages he will need to be there. The biggest problem with Colman at SS was he wasn't at FS.

11 minutes ago, CWORS said:

I really like his ball skills but his raw in my opinion. I don't think he provides much more of an impact than what Coleman already provides for us so I would pass on him at No.8. 

You obviously have never watched him play. Dude has way more range than Colman. Better hands too.

8 minutes ago, Mr. Miagi said:

Hooker needs to be a better tackler but he is probably the closest thing to Earl Thomas.

Tackling is not a huge deal in our system at FS. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that you guys think Hooker will get anywhere near us is funny. Right now it looks like zero QBs are going to be taken top 5, if that happens all the prospects we are eyeing will probably be gone. We will most likely be looking at Barnett, Foster, Davis, Williams. Maybe Thomas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Daeavorn said:

The fact that you guys think Hooker will get anywhere near us is funny. Right now it looks like zero QBs are going to be taken top 5, if that happens all the prospects we are eyeing will probably be gone. We will most likely be looking at Barnett, Foster, Davis, Williams. Maybe Thomas.

There is always a wildcard team that takes someone unexpected or another team that trades into the top 10 to get a QB. It's not completely out of question he could be there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, XClown1986 said:

There is always a wildcard team that takes someone unexpected or another team that trades into the top 10 to get a QB. It's not completely out of question he could be there.

No its not, but we shouldn't expect it. He is a high value safety with incredible range and safety is the hardest position to fill. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, ChuckWag78 said:

Just hypothetical, if both Hooker and Adams were available, I would rather have Adams/Colman at SS/FS than Colman/Hooker at SS/FS.

Colman has proven he is capable of being a difference maker at the FS position.

Thoughts?

I would take Adams over just about anyone other than Garrett

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...