Rousseau v. Hobbes on Human Nature

I have an essay on this topic which I have rewritten about 5 times - consistently getting a C. This is what I have so far. Correct, elaborate, elucidate please.  (H=Hobbes, R=Rousseau)

H: people driven by their passions
R: ???

H: human nature is a problem to be solved with a proper government
R: human nature is good; government should not restrain it

H: restrict man's passions
R: preserve natural freedom

I am so lost in how to compare. If there is a knowledgeable gentleman who is willing to dedicate some time to this, I will reward you in some way.

That is a reasonable argument. I think realistically it's true, but Hobbes was speaking in theory. To him, the sovereign was incapable of error - because this would be against the collective will that he was supposedly manifesting. But yeah, if you ask 'well what if the king was a turd?' there really is no answer.


Now who the shit is going to tell me what's rousseau's reasoning for creating the social contract in the first place?
if everything is just dandy with natural man, why the need for a rule of administration?