PDA

View Full Version : Richard Smith....A Good Defensive Coordinator?


TexansFanatic
12-17-2007, 02:33 PM
The defense has looked a lot better the past couple of games and seems like it might have turned the proverbial corner. The players seem to have a better understanding of what is expected of them and where they need to be during any given play. And, obviously, Mario Williams seems to have had a light go on over his head.

Does this mean Richard Smith is a good defensive coordinator? Does he deserve to keep his job? Can we expect the defense to make further improvements?

Errant Hothy
12-17-2007, 02:40 PM
Remember that the D looked good at the end of last year as well.

As for Richard Smith...I don't know on all accounts. When the D plays well does he deserve the credit? Same for when they play bad?

GP
12-17-2007, 02:43 PM
He did the same thing last year, IIRC: Started off slow and then led the defense into about a rank of 10th in the league by the end of the season. We were all thinking the same thing, last season at this point, that you're saying now:"Looks like we've turned the corner..."

He basically has done the same thing again this season: Started off slow with few blitz packages and lots of zone (soft) defense, and has begun to let the guys get after it.

I don't understand why this happens this way. It's almost as if he starts off conservatively and then he figures, "Well, we might as well take some risks now..." since we seem to be so far behind by mid-season. What else can it be? Perhaps the offense last season ALSO picked up toward the end of the year, helping out the defense a lot?

Strange stuff.

TEXANS84
12-17-2007, 02:49 PM
I don't think it's so much Richard Smith, as it is the play of the defensive line and their coaching from Jethro Franklin.

I remember hearing on the radio over the summer, they were talking to retired DL Santana Dotson and asking him "how is Mario going to get better?". He stated "Jethro will find a way, that guy is the best defensive line coach in the business".

A secondary will always look shut down if there is pressure applied by the front four. The more pressure, the more mistakes.

austintexanite
12-17-2007, 02:55 PM
Whatever has been working the past two weeks is fine with me. I am still a bit skeptical on Richard Smith but it seems that he has finally gotten the idea that pressure works.

prostock101
12-17-2007, 03:21 PM
I have to admit I have not been a fan of Richard Smith, but lately I've been impressed with the progress of the defense.

I think we all need to understand that both the offensive and defensive game plan is predicated on how they practice during the week. With all the injuries and having to add rookies and guys off the street to play in the secondary, it appears RS was not comfortable giving these guys complex assignments early on.

The last two games it appears he's been more ready to allow them to play more man coverage and add some blitz packages. Again, if he sees them accomplish the assignments in practice well enough, then he probably feels he can add it to the game plan. Demps, Bennett and the rest must have really showed him something in practice for him to line them up in man coverage.

The same is true of the offensive side. Kubiak waited on Walker to put him in when he felt, after watching him practice, he was ready to make all of his assignments.

It's also interesting that he asks Mario to pick 5 plays for the defensive game plan that he thinks will be effective. And Mario seems excited that he's asked and even more excited when his suggested plays are actually called on the field. Good move by RS to get Mario more involved in the game planning.

:mario: :mario: :mario: :fireball:

wolf123
12-17-2007, 03:59 PM
People were calling for his head while he was trying to figure out who to play and now that he has I think your seeing the defense he wants to run.

Hagar
12-17-2007, 04:20 PM
Smith isn't a flashy play caller. Itís basically, a bend but don't break defense without a lot of blitzing. If you have the manpower to pull this off, great, but if the front four can't put pressure on the QB, it can be a long afternoon.

Personally, I prefer more aggressive play calling. Particularly when you consider the strength of our defense, which is our front seven. The longer a pass play goes on, the more advantage swings to the offense. If you blitz more and don't give the QB time to read the defense and set up properly for a pass, you limit the exposure of the weakest part of the team, the defensive backs.

:twocents:

Second Honeymoon
12-17-2007, 04:35 PM
Smith is still 2nd rate assistant coach. he has actually blitzed more lately but after the season was already lost. i just think we could find a better coordinator to help bring this defense to championship level. There is talent there. We even have some depth on defense to boot. If they can win one of the final two games, maybe you keep Smith for another year but if they lose their last two games, I say its time to find a replacement for Smith.

Double Barrel
12-17-2007, 05:07 PM
What exactly is a "Richard Smith defense"?

I know it's a form of the 4-3, but beyond that description, there seems to be a lack of a clear scheme. :um:

Maybe it's a "Magic Eightball defense", where Smith asks his magic globe if he should blitz the next play or not. Early in the season he was getting a lot of "ask again later" answers, so we lacked direction.

Ole Miss Texan
12-17-2007, 05:09 PM
Not to get anything startere here, but we do need to realize he's working with (1) some sub bar players (2) some very young players with lots of potential (3) a ton of secondary players on IR (which was a weakness before the season and arguably our best defensive player in Dunta out)

I expect our defense to be very very good next season and especially the season after. How much of this can we attribute to scouting, drafting, coaching- Richard Smith...is up for question.

All I know is that i personally am not calling for anyone's head right now.

TexansFanatic
12-17-2007, 06:15 PM
Smith isn't a flashy play caller. It’s basically, a bend but don't break defense without a lot of blitzing. If you have the manpower to pull this off, great, but if the front four can't put pressure on the QB, it can be a long afternoon.

Personally, I prefer more aggressive play calling. Particularly when you consider the strength of our defense, which is our front seven. The longer a pass play goes on, the more advantage swings to the offense. If you blitz more and don't give the QB time to read the defense and set up properly for a pass, you limit the exposure of the weakest part of the team, the defensive backs.

:twocents:

I agree with you. I also prefer more aggressive play calling. I loved the Buddy Ryan defenses. And, while I'm not proud of it, I liked Jerry Glanville's defenses.

However, you can't simply blitz for the sake of blitzing. As much as I wish they'd blitz on every play, you can't do it if the players aren't cut out for it. If you send an extra guy or two after the quarterback and they can't get to him, you're basically dropping your pants.

It seems like maybe the players and coaches are starting to figure out how to get more pressure on the QB without leaving themselves exposed.

And I agree with Ole Miss Texan as well We've got some talent on the defense, but this isn't exactly the '85 Bears roster....

Marcus
12-17-2007, 07:03 PM
What exactly is a "Richard Smith defense"?

I know it's a form of the 4-3, but beyond that description, there seems to be a lack of a clear scheme. :um:

Maybe it's a "Magic Eightball defense", where Smith asks his magic globe if he should blitz the next play or not. Early in the season he was getting a lot of "ask again later" answers, so we lacked direction.

What the ... :confused:

What exactly is a "clear scheme" anyways?

. . . you can't simply blitz for the sake of blitzing. As much as I wish they'd blitz on every play, you can't do it if the players aren't cut out for it. If you send an extra guy or two after the quarterback and they can't get to him, you're basically dropping your pants.

It seems like maybe the players and coaches are starting to figure out how to get more pressure on the QB without leaving themselves exposed.

And I agree with Ole Miss Texan as well We've got some talent on the defense, but this isn't exactly the '85 Bears roster....

Rex King
12-17-2007, 08:16 PM
What the ... :confused:

What exactly is a "clear scheme" anyways?

I think it'd be something like Tampa 2, or 4-6, or even blitz-happy, something you can hang your hat on. Smith has never articulated what kind of defense he wants to run, besides a 4-3 that stops the run and gets pressure on the QB and creates turnovers and hits hard...hmmm. So we don't know with the game plan and scheme changing from week to week if it's Smith or those personnel issues.

But with the personnel we have, I'd agree with this assessment:

Smith isn't a flashy play caller. Itís basically, a bend but don't break defense without a lot of blitzing.


He did the same thing last year, IIRC: Started off slow and then led the defense into about a rank of 10th in the league by the end of the season. We were all thinking the same thing, last season at this point, that you're saying now:"Looks like we've turned the corner..."

He basically has done the same thing again this season: Started off slow with few blitz packages and lots of zone (soft) defense, and has begun to let the guys get after it.

I don't understand why this happens this way. It's almost as if he starts off conservatively and then he figures, "Well, we might as well take some risks now..." since we seem to be so far behind by mid-season. What else can it be? Perhaps the offense last season ALSO picked up toward the end of the year, helping out the defense a lot?

Strange stuff.

Both years it seems the defense became more aggressive at Kubiak's prompting. Smith is fairly inexperienced as a DC, and he's probably still learning on the fly.

HOU-TEX
12-18-2007, 09:02 AM
No, he is not a good DC. He was never a DC to begin with and we've got to bring somebody in or move Bush up. We need somebody with the nads to be aggressive with their playcalling.

:texflag:

threetoedpete
12-18-2007, 10:05 AM
I agree with you. I also prefer more aggressive play calling. I loved the Buddy Ryan defenses. And, while I'm not proud of it, I liked Jerry Glanville's defenses.

That is where he got his start in the NFL. As JG's special teams coach. And Richard Smith got to see it all under Jerry Glnville.

There is only one captian on this ship. Up to you to figure out who's who and what is what.

Double Barrel
12-18-2007, 11:39 AM
What exactly is a "clear scheme" anyways?

I think it'd be something like Tampa 2, or 4-6, or even blitz-happy, something you can hang your hat on. Smith has never articulated what kind of defense he wants to run, besides a 4-3 that stops the run and gets pressure on the QB and creates turnovers and hits hard...hmmm. So we don't know with the game plan and scheme changing from week to week if it's Smith or those personnel issues.

Rex elaborated my question with a nice answer. Thanks.

TexansFanatic
12-24-2007, 11:28 AM
I thought I'd revive this thread after yesterday's performance.

Granted, it was the Super Bowl champs on their home field. But still...

Does giving up 458 yards and 33 first downs mean Richard Smith's job might not be waiting for him next season?

brakos82
12-24-2007, 11:31 AM
Fire Casserly! :wild:

Oh wait, we already did.

Second Honeymoon
12-24-2007, 11:32 AM
I thought I'd revive this thread after yesterday's performance.

Granted, it was the Super Bowl champs on their home field. But still...

Does giving up 458 yards and 33 first downs mean Richard Smith's job might not be waiting for him next season?


It better not be waiting for him. If I have to suffer through another season of defenses playing scared and not lose and not being prepared, I may cry. To be outcoached on a weekly basis is just pathetic and a product of our inability to attract real coaching talent.

OUR COACHES SUCK. Kubiak is the only won even halfway decent but the fact that he can't assemble a decent staff dooms him to ultimate failure.

joedinkle
12-24-2007, 02:02 PM
I'm starting to believe that our Up and down performances is a result of coaching. Our team has some talent, especially on the defense. The offense isn't as talented, but we play a ball control offense that relies on not making mistakes. It seems we should be alot more steady. This loss was embarassing.

Pantherstang84
12-24-2007, 08:38 PM
Does this mean Richard Smith is a good defensive coordinator?

No.

Does he deserve to keep his job?

No.

Can we expect the defense to make further improvements?

No.

Goldensilence
12-25-2007, 10:20 AM
I think there's some good answers here in the thread. It's no coincidence that when prompted both years to get more agressive in play calling our defense looks better. We have a lot of young emerging talent on this team and it's time we got a D coord. who will utilize the pieces that are being put together.

If we manage to win this weekend...it'll really give us a catapult going into the off-season. We have a chance to overhaul the staff withg Sherman to A&M and Kubiak needs to sit and think real hard about keeping Smith. I think it Kubiak wants to be here long term it really is in his best interest to take over the offense and mold it into what he wants. It slowly looks like he's bringing in the right guys on the OL to fit his ZB roots. No more too many cooks in the kitchen this is HIS offense now. Bring someone on board with what you want do Kubiak.

Defensively I'd love to see someone taken from the Philly staff from the Jim Johnson School. Hell.....pay the money to take Jim away.There might be a few names available and i'd love to wrap up Marvin Lewis if he gets fired. Might not have worked out in Cinci Defensively as a HC but even now we've got better all around talent on our D. This next game will be very telling IMO what direction we head going into the offseason.

joedinkle
12-25-2007, 10:26 AM
There is no way Jim Johnson leaves Philly for another DC position, but I love their defense. I would'n't mind their line backers coach, etc. I think we have the peices to put together a defense similar to theirs. We just need more speed in from the linebackers and the secondary.

The1ApplePie
12-25-2007, 03:12 PM
"For me to poop on" should be the next line in the topic title

threetoedpete
12-26-2007, 12:41 PM
Smith isn't a flashy play caller. It’s basically, a bend but don't break defense without a lot of blitzing. If you have the manpower to pull this off, great, but if the front four can't put pressure on the QB, it can be a long afternoon.

Personally, I prefer more aggressive play calling. Particularly when you consider the strength of our defense, which is our front seven. The longer a pass play goes on, the more advantage swings to the offense. If you blitz more and don't give the QB time to read the defense and set up properly for a pass, you limit the exposure of the weakest part of the team, the defensive backs.

:twocents:

Agreed. I believe but do not know for fact that Richard Smith does exacatly what this head coach wants him to do. If I'm wrong, Kubes will toss him under the bus this off season. From My tree he doesn't have enough pieces to bring what most on this board would like to see him bring. Further, he cut his teeth under Glanville. Either he's prety dense or he knows how to bring it. I think dumping RS would only accomplish one thing. Trade one guy who can't bring pressure with mediocre tallent for another guy who can't bring pressure with medocre tallent. RS can't play for them. But what ever makes the board feel better .....fire the guy

Seems to be common theme here for sure. They match up healthy against a beat up team or simular tallent they have a most excellent chance to win. Up to you to figure out who is who and what is what. When they don't match up, they get stomped.