Would Malik Hooker Really Be A Bad Selection at 8?

[Soul Rebel]

I know FS is not our biggest need, but here me out for a moment. Let's say the top players are off the board that we desire (Garrett, Allen, Adams, Fournette, Barnett).  

Kurt Coleman is much better as our FS and adding a SS is more important, now. 

However, let's look at Coleman and where he fits beyond '17.  

He turns 29 in July and is under contract until 2019.  After that, we will have a 31 year old FS that isn't getting any younger and SS would be a natural move at that point anyway. I also wonder if Coleman would be fine at SS for his remaining years here if he didn't have inferior talent next to him like he did last year. Yes, he would be a better FS, but he played SS in Philly and KC.  I wonder if the reason we saw a less impactful Coleman in 2016 was due to having 3 rookie corners and a weak Tre Boston as his partner. 

Which brings me finally to - Malik Hooker. 

The kid is a beast. He's the FS version of Jamal Adams and has been compared to Ed Reed and Earl Thomas. Yes, he needs improvement on his tackling, something that is a pet peeve of mine for our recent safeties, sans Kurt Coleman.  But Hooker's abilities are numerous and tremendous.  He is most comfortable in cover 1, 2 and 3 schemes.  Dude is lightning fast and has a perfect 6'2, 205 pound frame.  He is rangy, has big hands, a nose for the ball, and his reaction speed/time is incredible to watch vids of.  His athleticism and vertical are off the charts and his instincts are amazing for a 21-year old prospect. His recovery and break on the ball/angles he takes are a beautiful thing to watch as well. I've even seen him creep in the box and support the run and get after the QB nicely.  I don't like his tackling mechanics as a strength, but he has definitely shown the willingness to be physical and get into the backfield and up against the LOS in run support. He does make some big hits and isn't scared, but he does also miss more than I'd like, but we're not asking him to be a SS.  I do also feel like a DB coach, turned DC like Steve Wilks can take the tools and willingness to be physical that Hooker has, and polish his tackling technique.

For now, if DG wants BPA, and Hooker is available, he would fit that mold.  Thinking down the line, we could have an Ed Reed on our hands and I'd hate to pass on that because of Kurt Coleman.  Coleman is one of my overall favorite players on this team and I love what he brings, but I wonder just how bad off he would be at SS with an improving set of CBs and a player like Hooker next to him.  

It would take several players to be off the board in order for this to be a good move, but let's say the players we like are indeed off the board at 8. Between OJ Howard, or reaches like Cook, Ramczyzk, etc. or a bonafide stud FS like Malik Hooker, I'm definitely leaning towards Hooker. 

I usually am not a fan of YouTube 'highlight' vids, but the 2nd one I posted below showcases his pure athleticism and overall love for sports. The opening minute shows him playing b-ball in HS and his vert then was insane. He just screams 'ballhawking, playmaking, leader' of a defense. Jamal Adams is a better fit, but man, Malik Hooker is a helluva consolation prize for our defense. 

 

 

 

[OldNorthPowell]

To me it would be. I can understand passing offense to take Adams but not Hooker.

[Daddy_Uncle]

we are taking that TE from Alabama 

[Cary Kollins]

I wouldn't be mad. Tackling can be taught. Instincts and athleticism cannot.

[XClown1986]

No it wouldn't be. Rivera really wanted a coverage safety bad years ago and pushed San Diego to trade up to get Eric Weddle. Worked out well. Hooker would function in the same role as Weddle did for Rivera.

Jamal Adams would be more of a Mike Brown for the Bears in terms of utilization for those trying to understand the difference within the scheme.

[motocross_cat]

The only reason i dont see hooker being the pick is because of coleman.  He already does for us what hooker would do at FS.  I stood up for boston but damn...he cannot start another game at SS.  I dont think hooker is fit for SS in our scheme and neither is coleman.  If you get a safety you get the pure strong safety in adams.

[motocross_cat]

1 minute ago, motocross_cat said:

.

 

[Cyberjag]

Hooker would be a great pick for us.  So would Adams.  So would Fournette.

We're going to get a pretty good player this year, and I'm looking forward to that.

[XClown1986]

5 minutes ago, motocross_cat said:

The only reason i dont see hooker being the pick is because of coleman.  He already does for us what hooker would do at FS.  I stood up for boston but damn...he cannot start another game at SS.  I dont think hooker is fit for SS in our scheme and neither is coleman.  If you get a safety you get the pure strong safety in adams.

Coleman would move to SS. Coleman could play SS. The problem last year was we didn't have another player that could play FS. Our system has thrived with mediocre/fading talent at SS as long as FS is solid. Drafting Hooker would upgrade 2 starting positions. Hooker has rare coverage ability for a safety. His sideline-to-sideline ability would open up the playbook on defense to try new formations and attack offenses in new ways.

[CPF4LIFE]

3 minutes ago, Cyberjag said:

Hooker would be a great pick for us.  So would Adams.  So would Fournette.

We're going to get a pretty good player this year, and I'm looking forward to that.

Exactly, I would be happy with any of those guys and i honestly havent been able to say that in the last couple drafts. 

[motocross_cat]

Just now, XClown1986 said:

Coleman would move to SS. Coleman could play SS. The problem last year was we didn't have another player that could play FS. Our system has thrived with mediocre/fading talent at SS as long as FS is solid. Drafting Hooker would upgrade 2 starting positions. Hooker has rare coverage ability for a safety. His sideline-to-sideline ability would open up the playbook on defense to try new formations and attack offenses in new ways.

Totally see what you are saying.  However too many times i have seen coleman crash down from SS only to get demolished by a blocker or the RB himself.  I understand its a passing league but you still need someone to get down and dirty from the safety spot, i think adams brings more of that.  Trust me i wont be mad at either pick.  Really this year i dont see how anyone can be upset with any prospect we take at 8.  We will have a day 1 starter out of it.

[Saca312]

If he falls to the point Adams gets picked before him, I'd be surprised.

If Adams and Fournette are off, I'd go for him next though. Wouldn't hurt to have a next once-in-a-generation safety in either Adams or Hooker.

[GoobyPls]

I want a veteran safety, so imo yes it would be a bad pick 

[Soul Rebel]

Yeah, I don't think we can go wrong at 8. We will have a selection that crosses a major need off our roster for sure. I am just of the opinion that Adams will be gone, and TBH, both of these talented SAF could be gone by 8. Two different types of SAF, two crazy athletes and leaders of a defense. 

Coleman will be 30 when the season starts next year, and though SAF isn't like RB or CB, Coleman's clock is ticking in the wrong direction of value.  He will still be a solid player over his contract, but I could see him being moved to SS as he becomes less impactful. 

I just think an argument could be made that Hooker is on equal grounds of Adams as far as stud talent at their respective positions. It's like, would you like Ed Reed/Earl Thomas or Eric Berry/Troy Polamalu?