Malik Hooker S Ohio State

Shannahan saying the defense starts with the secondary. Really leading me to believe we could go with Hooker, Adams, or Lattimore in the first.

I totally disagree with the approach. I have always heard it starts with the pass rush and run stop

Originally posted by JustinNiner:

Shannahan saying the defense starts with the secondary. Really leading me to believe we could go with Hooker, Adams, or Lattimore in the first.

I totally disagree with the approach. I have always heard it starts with the pass rush and run stop

I wouldn't read into those comments. Especially because he was talking about Seattle specifically.

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by JustinNiner:

Shannahan saying the defense starts with the secondary. Really leading me to believe we could go with Hooker, Adams, or Lattimore in the first.

I totally disagree with the approach. I have always heard it starts with the pass rush and run stop

I wouldn't read into those comments. Especially because he was talking about Seattle specifically.

Agree. Additionally, I think we may want to entice the Titans to trade up for Hooker. I doubt they'd give up both 1st round picks, but we can get some 2017 and 2018 picks for them to move up 3 spots, that'd be a dream scenario. Bears and Jags could use a FS. It's still a need for the Titans.

Originally posted by JustinNiner:

Shannahan saying the defense starts with the secondary. Really leading me to believe we could go with Hooker, Adams, or Lattimore in the first.

I totally disagree with the approach. I have always heard it starts with the pass rush and run stop

This scheme starts and ends with a deep safety who is able to cover sideline to sideline allowing the SS to be the 8th man in the box essentially helping our run D, pressure and man coverage.

Lattimore is the best man to man cover corner to come out in a long time. I think he will be better than Patrick Peterson. And Hooker is that safety with the awareness that cannot be taught. He is raw though which leads me to believe that Lattimore is the safest pick in the draft for us.

Another data point for the "Hooker thought about quitting" crowd: Steve Young thought about quitting the sport after his USFL contract. So glad the 9ers didn't waste two picks trading for him.

http://www.ninersnation.com/2017/3/26/15066208/steve-young-interview-childrens-miracle-network-end-zone-celebrations-college-quarterbacks

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by JustinNiner:
Shannahan saying the defense starts with the secondary. Really leading me to believe we could go with Hooker, Adams, or Lattimore in the first.

I totally disagree with the approach. I have always heard it starts with the pass rush and run stop

I wouldn't read into those comments. Especially because he was talking about Seattle specifically.

Nope. No, he wasn't.

MURPH: "So, that Seattle, Dan-Quinn stuff. Physical DBs, huh? A lot of man-to-man, physical DBs — is that kind of the deal?"

SHANAHAN: "Yes, and to me it's physical everybody. You want violent people. You want to run and hit people, make that field smaller for everybody, especially the receivers, and that starts with the safeties and the corners, being able to hit. And it's not just about hitting. You've got to be able to cover. You've got to be smart. You're trying to get everything. We look for certain traits in people. Usually if you have one of those traits, we can make it work. If you have all three of those traits, then you have a special guy. And those are the guys you want to keep a hold of."

Originally posted by Lobo49er:
Nope. No, he wasn't.

MURPH: "So, that Seattle, Dan-Quinn stuff. Physical DBs, huh? A lot of man-to-man, physical DBs — is that kind of the deal?"

SHANAHAN: "Yes, and to me it's physical everybody. You want violent people. You want to run and hit people, make that field smaller for everybody, especially the receivers, and that starts with the safeties and the corners, being able to hit. And it's not just about hitting. You've got to be able to cover. You've got to be smart. You're trying to get everything. We look for certain traits in people. Usually if you have one of those traits, we can make it work. If you have all three of those traits, then you have a special guy. And those are the guys you want to keep a hold of."

Am I missing something? He didn't say the d starts with the secondary there he said the secondary starts with physical players. And Hooker has a lot to be desired there.

Originally posted by tjd808185:

Originally posted by Lobo49er:
Nope. No, he wasn't.

MURPH: "So, that Seattle, Dan-Quinn stuff. Physical DBs, huh? A lot of man-to-man, physical DBs — is that kind of the deal?"

SHANAHAN: "Yes, and to me it's physical everybody. You want violent people. You want to run and hit people, make that field smaller for everybody, especially the receivers, and that starts with the safeties and the corners, being able to hit. And it's not just about hitting. You've got to be able to cover. You've got to be smart. You're trying to get everything. We look for certain traits in people. Usually if you have one of those traits, we can make it work. If you have all three of those traits, then you have a special guy. And those are the guys you want to keep a hold of."

Am I missing something? He didn't say the d starts with the secondary there he said the secondary starts with physical players. And Hooker has a lot to be desired there.

Read the quote chain above.

genus said: (as I quoted above): Shanny was talking about "Seattle specifically."

No, he wasn't.

And yes, Cohn took it out of context to boost up Cohn's need to make Cohn seem smart. It's clear what Shanny was saying (and it was not talking specifically about Seattle). It's a menu of what he wants:

I want violent people.
I want to run and hit people.
I want to make that field smaller for everybody, especially the receivers, and that starts with the safeties and the corners, being able to hit.
And it's not just about hitting.
I want my players to be able to cover
I want my players to be smart.
I'm trying to get everything.
We look for certain traits in people.
Usually if a player has one of those traits, we can make it work.
If the player has three of those traits, then I have a special guy.
And those are the guys I want to keep a hold of.

So he wants violence, speed, physicality, coverage ability, intelligence. (Who doesn't?) But this is what he was saying. Cohn gonna Cohn.

Does Hooker have 3 of these traits?

Originally posted by PopeyeJonesing:
Another data point for the "Hooker thought about quitting" crowd: Steve Young thought about quitting the sport after his USFL contract. So glad the 9ers didn't waste two picks trading for him.

http://www.ninersnation.com/2017/3/26/15066208/steve-young-interview-childrens-miracle-network-end-zone-celebrations-college-quarterbacks

So did You don"'t say.

Originally posted by PopeyeJonesing:
Another data point for the "Hooker thought about quitting" crowd: Steve Young thought about quitting the sport after his USFL contract. So glad the 9ers didn't waste two picks trading for him.

http://www.ninersnation.com/2017/3/26/15066208/steve-young-interview-childrens-miracle-network-end-zone-celebrations-college-quarterbacks

How is that even remotely close?

There is a big difference in wanting to quit because you're not getting your way or don't have the passion for the sport vs thinking "maybe this isn't for me" after you're playing like crap.

And once again I'm not saying it's a sure thing this guy will retire early, i'm just saying that's a definite concern for me and one I don't want to have in a guy we're drafting at #2 overall.

Originally posted by Lobo49er:
Read the quote chain above.

genus said: (as I quoted above): Shanny was talking about "Seattle specifically."

No, he wasn't.

And yes, Cohn took it out of context to boost up Cohn's need to make Cohn seem smart. It's clear what Shanny was saying (and it was not talking specifically about Seattle). It's a menu of what he wants:

I want violent people.
I want to run and hit people.
I want to make that field smaller for everybody, especially the receivers, and that starts with the safeties and the corners, being able to hit.
And it's not just about hitting.
I want my players to be able to cover
I want my players to be smart.
I'm trying to get everything.
We look for certain traits in people.
Usually if a player has one of those traits, we can make it work.
If the player has three of those traits, then I have a special guy.
And those are the guys I want to keep a hold of.

So he wants violence, speed, physicality, coverage ability, intelligence. (Who doesn't?) But this is what he was saying. Cohn gonna Cohn.

Does Hooker have 3 of these traits?

Yeah I was looking at different comments, I think it still shouldn't be read much into. But i actually agree with tjd here, he led off with the most important thing which is you want your DBs to be physical and get thsoe receivers all off their game. That's not Hooker's forte.

Originally posted by Lobo49er:
Read the quote chain above.

genus said: (as I quoted above): Shanny was talking about "Seattle specifically."

No, he wasn't.

And yes, Cohn took it out of context to boost up Cohn's need to make Cohn seem smart. It's clear what Shanny was saying (and it was not talking specifically about Seattle). It's a menu of what he wants:

I want violent people.
I want to run and hit people.
I want to make that field smaller for everybody, especially the receivers, and that starts with the safeties and the corners, being able to hit.
And it's not just about hitting.
I want my players to be able to cover
I want my players to be smart.
I'm trying to get everything.
We look for certain traits in people.
Usually if a player has one of those traits, we can make it work.
If the player has three of those traits, then I have a special guy.
And those are the guys I want to keep a hold of.

So he wants violence, speed, physicality, coverage ability, intelligence. (Who doesn't?) But this is what he was saying. Cohn gonna Cohn.

Does Hooker have 3 of these traits?

He can cover, his instincts in the passing game are top notch but less so in the run game. For a top 10 pick I'm not impressed. To me he's a good from 20-32.

Originally posted by tjd808185:

Originally posted by Lobo49er:

Read the quote chain above.

genus said: (as I quoted above): Shanny was talking about "Seattle specifically."

No, he wasn't.

And yes, Cohn took it out of context to boost up Cohn's need to make Cohn seem smart. It's clear what Shanny was saying (and it was not talking specifically about Seattle). It's a menu of what he wants:

I want violent people.
I want to run and hit people.
I want to make that field smaller for everybody, especially the receivers, and that starts with the safeties and the corners, being able to hit.
And it's not just about hitting.
I want my players to be able to cover
I want my players to be smart.
I'm trying to get everything.
We look for certain traits in people.
Usually if a player has one of those traits, we can make it work.
If the player has three of those traits, then I have a special guy.
And those are the guys I want to keep a hold of.

So he wants violence, speed, physicality, coverage ability, intelligence. (Who doesn't?) But this is what he was saying. Cohn gonna Cohn.

Does Hooker have 3 of these traits?

He can cover, his instincts in the passing game are top notch but less so in the run game. For a top 10 pick I'm not impressed. To me he's a good from 20-32.

Hookers elite talent is his range and ball skills from a single High Free Safety spot. In this scheme, The physicality usually comes from the box safety (Chancellor, Tartt?, Adams?) and the corners (run support, pressing).

But If Shanny wants someone who will appear out of nowhere and blow up the receiver, then Hooker doesn't look like the best fit. Hooker will appear out of nowhere and get picks, PBUs, and can hit, but he's not a physical intimidator.

Originally posted by genus49:
How is that even remotely close?

There is a big difference in wanting to quit because you're not getting your way or don't have the passion for the sport vs thinking "maybe this isn't for me" after you're playing like crap.

I definitely see a big difference, but it's absolutely not the big difference you see.

When he was 18 Hooker thought about quitting because he was new to the sport and frustrated that he wasn't getting any playing time.

Steve Young, Curtis Martin, and John Riggins are three hall of famers who not only never had a passion for the sport, but never even liked football at all.

Young thought about quitting while playing, Brent Jones has talked about how Young had absolutely zero interest in thinking or talking about football even at his peak, and Young is still talking about how football is just a job for him and he still doesn't care about it.

Those three hall of famers who never liked the sport ARE a far cry from an 18 year old kid in a new sport who isn't getting PT. Totally agreed.

Originally posted by Lobo49er:

Originally posted by blizzuntz:

I like this Hooker

What's not to like about this Hooker?

Single.

High.

Free.

Safe.

How much does this Hooker cost?