PDA

View Full Version : Dale Robertson article on the Texans' Defense ...or lack of


ObsiWan
09-01-2008, 12:37 PM
Here's the link (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/5976860.html)

this gives you a flavor of the article on the whole...

A review of their depth chart suggests a lack of draft-day parity between the offense and the defense over the years. It also explains why no assistant on third-year coach Gary Kubiak’s staff squirms on a hotter seat than defensive coordinator Richard Smith.


but this speaks volumes to the nature of our defensive issues...

“It takes time,” Smith said. “Would we like to be the No. 1 defense in the league? Yes, we would. Right now we’ve got a ways to go to get there, but that’s what we’re working toward. I don’t look at where (players are) drafted or how many we’ve drafted on defense versus offense. My philosophy is I’ll never make an excuse. It’s our job to coach these players we have, to make them execute well enough for us to win ballgames.

“I’ll leave (the draft-day decision-making) up to the personnel department.


How can Richard Smith get the "studs" you guys say he needs to be successful if he doesn't care who we draft??

To steal from Bill Parcells, how can we expect Smith "to cook the meal" if he doesn't care where the groceries come from or help pick them out??

Marcus
09-01-2008, 01:01 PM
I think you are misinterpreting what he is saying.

He saying that (the draft-day decision-making) is up to the personnel department, as in Rick Smith. The article implies that the reasons why the defense hasn't panned out, is due to draft day misfires, which have been discussed over and over again, but still is accurate.

Smith being on the proverbial "hot seat" is natural, I suppose. But if you were to fire him today, it still wouldn't make one bit of difference in how the defense will perform this season. The players they got going in, are the ones they have to go with. I think the premise of the article is pretty accurate as to where the problem really lies.

You can point your finger at Richard Smith if it makes you feel better, but if the defense sucks this season, they are going to suck whether he's here or not.

And this idea of 'Well, if couldn't hurt" is just a copout.

ObsiWan
09-01-2008, 01:22 PM
I think you are misinterpreting what he is saying.

He saying that (the draft-day decision-making) is up to the personnel department, as in Rick Smith. The article "implies" that the reasons why the defense hasn't panned out, is due to draft day misfires, which have been discussed over and over again.

Smith being on the proverbial "hot seat" is natural, I suppose. But if you were to fire him today, it still wouldn't make one bit of difference in how the defense will perform this season. The players they got going in, are the ones they have to go with. I think the premise of the article is pretty accurate as to where the problem really lies.

You can point your finger at Richard Smith if it makes you feel better, but if the defense sucks this season, they are going to suck whether he's here or not.

And this idea of 'Well, if couldn't hurt" is just a copout.

I agree that its too late to make a move that would have an impact on the '08 season. If we were going to fire Smith, that should have been done before the draft.

Alex Gibbs brought in Duane Brown
Kubiak brought in Schaub (albeit after the failed YKN experiment)
for better or worse, Sherman brought in guys he was familiar with

My question remains unanswered: Who are the Richard Smith picks?

That quote from his own mouth implies that he has none and just takes whoever they toss his way.

If you were defensive coordinator, wouldn't you provide input on the type of guys you want on your unit??

TexansSeminole
09-01-2008, 01:26 PM
My question remains unanswered: Who are the Richard Smith picks?

That quote from his own mouth implies that he has none and just takes whoever they toss his way.

If you were defensive coordinator, wouldn't you provide input on the type of guys you want on your unit??

Well I don't know about that. He seemed to be very happy with the Okoye selection. He was talking alot about how Okoye was their #1 rated defensive player on the board and I remember his happiness in the press conference. I don't know if that means he was a Richard Smith selection though.

Corrosion
09-01-2008, 01:27 PM
I think you are misinterpreting what he is saying.

He saying that (the draft-day decision-making) is up to the personnel department, as in Rick Smith. The article implies that the reasons why the defense hasn't panned out, is due to draft day misfires, which have been discussed over and over again, but still is accurate.

Smith being on the proverbial "hot seat" is natural, I suppose. But if you were to fire him today, it still wouldn't make one bit of difference in how the defense will perform this season. The players they got going in, are the ones they have to go with. I think the premise of the article is pretty accurate as to where the problem really lies.

You can point your finger at Richard Smith if it makes you feel better, but if the defense sucks this season, they are going to suck whether he's here or not.

And this idea of 'Well, if couldn't hurt" is just a copout.

I'm not so sure about that , this guy's defense just doesnt have any teeth from a scheme perspective . They seldom overload one side of the defense to create situations where there arent enough blockers to handle the number of rushers . (when he does send a LB he drops the damn DE into coverage) It seems to me over last season and this preseason that he is going to live and die with what the front four do and in a league where success and failure is measured in microns that just doesnt seem prudent. The players are too equal in skill .... His job is to give them an advantage with his scheme . Thus far I think he's failed at the task. :cool:

HJam72
09-01-2008, 01:40 PM
Our GM is probably not as perfect as many of us have thought, but he has shown us something positive. Our DC, on the other hand, has never shown squat in terms of positive production. As far as premium D picks verses premium O picks, I have wanted to spend some of those premium picks on CBs almost every year; however, BPA still stands as the generally best way to do things. If that means taking more offensive players, then we're just going to have to make some trades down the road. I always tend to want the best player that fills a need, but BPA still rules.

I have a bigger question about this teams tendency to say we need tweeners at the safety positions. Not letting the offense know which safety is going to play how sounds great in theory, BUT IT DOESN'T SEEM TO FREAKING WORK, IMHO. Let's get a real FS next year and stop outsmarting ourselves.

Marcus
09-01-2008, 01:41 PM
I'm not so sure about that , this guy's defense just doesnt have any teeth from a scheme perspective . They seldom overload one side of the defense to create situations where there arent enough blockers to handle the number of rushers . (when he does send a LB he drops the damn DE into coverage) It seems to me over last season and this preseason that he is going to live and die with what the front four do and in a league where success and failure is measured in microns that just doesnt seem prudent. The players are too equal in skill .... His job is to give them an advantage with his scheme . Thus far I think he's failed at the task. :cool:

In other words, he's failed because he doesn't blitz as much as you want him to to?

beerlover
09-01-2008, 01:50 PM
My question remains unanswered: Who are the Richard Smith picks?

That quote from his own mouth implies that he has none and just takes whoever they toss his way.

If you were defensive coordinator, wouldn't you provide input on the type of guys you want on your unit??

your kidding me right? you want Richard Smith to make the defensive selections not the GM Rick Smith.......:spit:

he hasn't even proved he can utilize the talent, which is above average if you ask me & you want him to call the shots come draft day, now thats a recipe for disaster :stirpot:

seriously you should now they have meetings all the time where he can voice his concerns/dissapointments, he can describe excatley what he needs or wants then its the up to the scouting department to gather the information so the GM can sift through & sort out the prospects & then present the options/choices possibly available. same with free agency, although these sometimes have to be moved on quickly, as the case recently with McClover. Still I'll bet a consensus was reached on addressing needs in meetings with Richard having some input.

disaacks3
09-01-2008, 01:54 PM
In other words, he's failed because he doesn't blitz as much as you want him to to?
That may be part of it. I just don't see any point in a well-telegraphed blitz and then giving a 9-yd. cushion on the outside when it's 3rd and 6.

If you're going to concede the underneath play for the first, why bother with the blitz? If you're rolling the dice, roll em both! I like our DBs chances better in the first 6-7 steps than I do giving the receivers time to find /exploit gaps.

I'd like to see, before his tenure is done, a full-bore gap-shooting blitz w/ PRESS coverage at the same time.

Corrosion
09-01-2008, 01:55 PM
In other words, he's failed because he doesn't blitz as much as you want him to to?

Not at all , what I mean is that he doesnt create situations where he has a numbers advantage .... that can be done other ways such as with line stunts as well as the blitz.

Marcus
09-01-2008, 01:56 PM
I keep reading this line from the "Fire Richard Smith" crowd . . . "We have way too much talent . . . "

Really? Where?

Other than Mario, Demeco, and maybe Amobi, where is all this exceptional talent that's being referred to?

ObsiWan
09-01-2008, 02:00 PM
your kidding me right? you want Richard Smith to make the defensive selections not the GM Rick Smith.......:spit:

he hasn't even proved he can utilize the talent, which is above average if you ask me & you want him to call the shots come draft day, now thats a recipe for disaster :stirpot:

BL, I have to confess, you had me going...
LOL

seriously you should know they have meetings all the time where he can voice his concerns/dissapointments, he can describe excatley what he needs or wants then its the up to the scouting department to gather the information so the GM can sift through & sort out the prospects & then present the options/choices possibly available. same with free agency, although these sometimes have to be moved on quickly, as the case recently with McClover. Still I'll bet a consensus was reached on addressing needs in meetings with Richard having some input.

I sure would hope thats how the process works.
Its just not as obvious as say, Alex Gibbs' stamp on the O-line or Sherman bringing in (for better or worse) his ex-Packer guys to run his power offense.

<sips more Kool-ade>
maybe this is the year when it all comes together on D.
...and no, that ain't sarcasm

Second Honeymoon
09-01-2008, 02:03 PM
i still can't believe Richard Smith kept his job after his first 2 horrible seasons...
...dude has to have pictures of McNair in women's clothing or something

the guy just sucks

Corrosion
09-01-2008, 02:05 PM
I keep reading this line from the "Fire Richard Smith" crowd . . . "We have way too much talent . . . "

Really? Where?

Other than Mario, Demeco, and maybe Amobi, where is all this exceptional talent that's being referred to?

I'm saying exactly the opposite , they are not that much if at all better (or worse) than the guy's they line up against .... Therefor they have to create an advantage via scheme. Smith has failed to put them into situations where they have an advantage.


disaacks3's example explains that well....

just don't see any point in a well-telegraphed blitz and then giving a 9-yd. cushion on the outside when it's 3rd and 6.


There is no advantage to a large cushion when the offense can take what you give and advance the chains .... All he is doing is waiting for the offense to make a mistake , problem is that the players dont have the ball skills / experience to take advantage of these mistakes the majority of the time.

They need to Force the opposition into making mistakes that they can capitalize upon :cowboy1:

Marcus
09-01-2008, 02:23 PM
They need to Force the opposition into making mistakes that they can capitalize upon :cowboy1:

This sentiment reflects what I read from a lot of people when they don't get pressure on the quarterback.

The thinking is "Instead of giving the QB all day long to throw, send the house and press cover the WRs, and try to force mistakes, even though we might get burned for for long TDs."

The problem with that is, if we never, not even once in awhile, ever get pressure with just the front four, we'll get burned, and burned, and burned, way more often than disrupting their plays.

Fess up, guys! You want a 'damn the torpedos, full speed ahead' DC that will put a QB on his back, even though he might throw 6 long bombs for TDs.

HJam72
09-01-2008, 02:42 PM
You know what, I mainly just can't stand seeing D-Linemen drop back into pass coverage. Mario is the only one that has any skill at that at all, and he wasn't picked #1 overall just for that. He needs to have his ears pinned back on every play and going for the man with the ball. That surely goes for all the other D-Linemen who couldn't catch a basketball in slow motion. D-Linemen should NEVER go backwards on purpose. If all Weaver can do is take up a single blocker, then that's just all he can do. He's not a freaking DB.

Corrosion
09-01-2008, 02:49 PM
This sentiment reflects what I read from a lot of people when they don't get pressure on the quarterback.

The thinking is "Instead of giving the QB all day long to throw, send the house and press cover the WRs, and try to force mistakes, even though we might get burned for for long TDs."

The problem with that is, if we never, not even once in awhile, ever get pressure with just the front four, we'll get burned, and burned, and burned, way more often than disrupting their plays.

Fess up, guys! You want a 'damn the torpedos, full speed ahead' DC that will put a QB on his back, even though he might throw 6 long bombs for TDs.

I like how you take one line from my post and make it into ... "You want a damn the torpedos" take.


Thats far from the truth , what I want to see is a more imaginative defense where they can bring pressure from multiple angles rather than just the front four , line stunts , even dropping a DE on one side into coverage allow for more pressure from the opposite side.

This is the third season we will get to watch Smith's defense , if the last two were any indication its not going to be a lot different from the perspective of getting to the QB. We have got no production from a straight four man rush , few teams do , you have to put some wrinkles in the system to gain an advantage.

Goldensilence
09-01-2008, 02:51 PM
I keep reading this line from the "Fire Richard Smith" crowd . . . "We have way too much talent . . . "

Really? Where?

Other than Mario, Demeco, and maybe Amobi, where is all this exceptional talent that's being referred to?

I don't recall anywhere in the "fire richard smith" crowd saying we have an abundance of talent. What I see from most of the people in the "fire Richard Smith crowd" is we know we don't have an abundance of talent so you put what talent you have in a situation where they can succeed as a squad. Do we really need Pro bowl caliber type talent across the board to see what Richard wants to do? Most defenses don't have that luxury so you take a core of players like the three you mentioned and build AROUND them with role players.

We have smaller DT's why not play a more gap penetrating line that attacks gaps instead of trying to hold linemen up clearly when they don't have a size or strength advantage. What seems like defense 101 on creating mismatches with your personnel or overloading one side of the line to get to the QB seems to escape Smith. I'm not saying fire him because he's not utilizing this amazing amount of talent we think we have. At this point I'm wondering what exactly he wants to do with this defense and where it is going down the line with his tenure at DC.

There might be a parity but what is the point of going out and getting guys if Rick Smith and what looks like the players in pre-season have no clue what you want to do. How about another DE to drop back in coverage?

CloakNNNdagger
09-01-2008, 02:53 PM
This sentiment reflects what I read from a lot of people when they don't get pressure on the quarterback.

The thinking is "Instead of giving the QB all day long to throw, send the house and press cover the WRs, and try to force mistakes, even though we might get burned for for long TDs."

The problem with that is, if we never, not even once in awhile, ever get pressure with just the front four, we'll get burned, and burned, and burned, way more often than disrupting their plays.

Fess up, guys! You want a 'damn the torpedos, full speed ahead' DC that will put a QB on his back, even though he might throw 6 long bombs for TDs.

Well, I guess I would like to see more than 2 sacks in 4 games to let us know our D-rush men are awake and possibly responding to basic neurologic stimulation......a good sign that they may still be alive. Our course, this would be impossible if the brain, in this case Smith, is dead.:thud:

aj.
09-01-2008, 02:56 PM
You know what, I mainly just can't stand seeing D-Linemen drop back into pass coverage.

That's it!

All the bad karma of Fangio is still in the DC's office and it's affecting Smith's play calling. Someone needs to head over to Two Reliant Park with some chicken bones and incense.

Lucky
09-01-2008, 03:07 PM
Fess up, guys! You want a 'damn the torpedos, full speed ahead' DC that will put a QB on his back, even though he might throw 6 long bombs for TDs.
Which is odd, because when Smith was hired many were concerned about a blitz crazy scheme due to a supposed Glanville influence. I don't see any Jerry Glanville in Richard Smith's defense. That's not necessarily a complement.

ObsiWan
09-01-2008, 03:15 PM
I keep reading this line from the "Fire Richard Smith" crowd . . . "We have way too much talent . . . "

Really? Where?

Other than Mario, Demeco, and maybe Amobi, where is all this exceptional talent that's being referred to?

Let me flip that question around on you...
on offense, outside of Andre Johnson, where is the "exceptional talent"?
before last season, all the talking heads all said we have none, yet the offense produced. .

I suppose my problem is that I see the offense producing without loads of "exceptional talent" and its because of the scheme. ....is it too much to ask that the defense employ a scheme that gets max use out of what we have?

Specnatz
09-01-2008, 03:19 PM
It is not just about blitz's. In most schemes you have options where you blitz and not drop the other DE into coverage or you use a zone because you think your front 4 can get to the QB. I am not sure I have ever seen where we blitz a safety or CB or LB and not drop Weaver into pass coverage.

No one is just meaning blitzing like a crazy person but something that you see and say wow I did not see that coming that was a great change of action on the D side and we stopped them. Most of the time you know exactly what is going on and are not fooled the slighest bit.

ObsiWan
09-01-2008, 03:36 PM
how about this...?
we've put the opposition in 3rd & long.
Perfect time for their offense to use a draw or a screen. So we should be ready, right.
Yet how many times have we seen a screen pass go against us for big yds?
Most teams use a LB or DE to tie up the RB so that the screen will not work.
Not us. Why is that? ...is that just because we don't have "exceptional talent"?

Texanmike02
09-01-2008, 04:22 PM
That may be part of it. I just don't see any point in a well-telegraphed blitz and then giving a 9-yd. cushion on the outside when it's 3rd and 6.

If you're going to concede the underneath play for the first, why bother with the blitz? If you're rolling the dice, roll em both! I like our DBs chances better in the first 6-7 steps than I do giving the receivers time to find /exploit gaps.

I'd like to see, before his tenure is done, a full-bore gap-shooting blitz w/ PRESS coverage at the same time.

If you want to argue that he's telegraphing his blitzes, the I can go with that. But we don't have enough speed on the field to disguise them really well. You want Molasses Greenwood blitzing? If he starts on 2nd down he might get to the QB on 3rd down.

There is a serious lack of talent on the defense at 3 key areas. (I've already gone over that extensively in another thread). Remember Petey giving up those two bombs to Evans? The same play and our safety failed to support on either play. How do you press cover, take the chance that someone doesn't get there in time and leave a young corner (in Bennett) or a bad cover guy (in Reeves) out there to dry? Our offensive production will however, go up, and our time of possession will be insane since it will only take the opposing team 30 seconds every time they get the ball. With our defense in its current state we really need to try to limit possessions. If I was an opposing offense I'd have an outlet on greenwood's side every play. If someone got close enough to my QB I'd have him dump it and watch as Greenwood finally got out of his stance in time to watch the hb barrel past him. I bet even Ron Dayne would look good running a screen against our defense. And it has nothing to do with scheme. We seriously lack team speed.

Mike

Texanmike02
09-01-2008, 04:31 PM
Let me flip that question around on you...
on offense, outside of Andre Johnson, where is the "exceptional talent"?
before last season, all the talking heads all said we have none, yet the offense produced. .

I suppose my problem is that I see the offense producing without loads of "exceptional talent" and its because of the scheme. ....is it too much to ask that the defense employ a scheme that gets max use out of what we have?

OK. We ran a vanilla offense in the offseason. Not much about scheme. We were still impressive. That's because we HAVE talent. Take the "scheme" out of it. We were running pretty basic plays for the most part. They were going against pretty basic defenses. We moved the ball. Even against Dallas, Schaub recovered to have a pretty good game. That tells me there is TALENT on this team. That wasn't about trickery, or surprise... very plain.

Now look at defense. Dallas wasn't doing anything unusual. They were pretty vanilla. Our defense was pretty vanilla. Our defense got their asses handed to them. The DL was bad, the LBs were bad and the DBs were bad. Could we try a different scheme? Sure. But its fine to draw up a play for someone to get to the QB. But if that guy is too small, too slow, doesn't shed blocks well... it doesn't matter. You're not (to my knowledge) allowed to line up Greenwood between the center and the QB. I think he might be able to disrupt the passing game that way. We have two (maybe 3) play makers on this defense. Tell me. Pick any defensive coordinator in the league. Tell me who would actually make this defense significantly better?

I'm not saying Smith is the right guy for the job. But I'll be pissed, if next offseason, we change DCs and don't make significant upgrades to the defense.

Mike

buddyboy
09-01-2008, 05:29 PM
Here's the link (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/5976860.html)

this gives you a flavor of the article on the whole...


but this speaks volumes to the nature of our defensive issues...


How can Richard Smith get the "studs" you guys say he needs to be successful if he doesn't care who we draft??

To steal from Bill Parcells, how can we expect Smith "to cook the meal" if he doesn't care where the groceries come from or help pick them out??

Just my 2 cents, when Richard Smith said that "he doesnt care who we draft", I think he was mostly saying that he *should* be able to put together a servicable defense with the players he is given, without throwing Rick Smith or Kubiak under the bus. Obviously, he's not going to say, "Hey, they aren't giving me any premium players, how can I succeed?" This is pretty classic where rather than playing the blame game, the person being interviewed instead blames themselves. Again, just my 2 cents.

Rex King
09-01-2008, 06:43 PM
If you want to argue that he's telegraphing his blitzes, the I can go with that. But we don't have enough speed on the field to disguise them really well. You want Molasses Greenwood blitzing? If he starts on 2nd down he might get to the QB on 3rd down.

There is a serious lack of talent on the defense at 3 key areas. (I've already gone over that extensively in another thread). Remember Petey giving up those two bombs to Evans? The same play and our safety failed to support on either play. How do you press cover, take the chance that someone doesn't get there in time and leave a young corner (in Bennett) or a bad cover guy (in Reeves) out there to dry? Our offensive production will however, go up, and our time of possession will be insane since it will only take the opposing team 30 seconds every time they get the ball. With our defense in its current state we really need to try to limit possessions. If I was an opposing offense I'd have an outlet on greenwood's side every play. If someone got close enough to my QB I'd have him dump it and watch as Greenwood finally got out of his stance in time to watch the hb barrel past him. I bet even Ron Dayne would look good running a screen against our defense. And it has nothing to do with scheme. We seriously lack team speed.

Mike

I also remember them changing coverage against the Bills at Kubiak's prompting. And blitzing after the disastrous first three games of 06 at Kubiak's prompting. Despite what he says about being "aggressive," everything about Richard Smith's defense is reactionary. I don't doubt that a part of this has been to cover up deficiencies due to injuries and talent level, but as I said before, isn't a predictable defense with poor talent worse than an unpredictable defense with poor talent? Sure the defense has been vanilla in pre-season, but there nothing in the history of Smith's tenure to suggest that will change in the regular season.

Just as an example, most teams have difficulty rushing the passer with just the front four - at least one, if not two are going to be double-teamed at all times, and even the best DE's will "lose" the battle one-on-one against an average OT the majority of the time. Even against the Titans, we had the most problems when they overloaded one side with a corner or safety blitz. I don't remember seeing that once since Smith took over, even when Dunta was healthy. DeMeco hasn't blitzed since 06.

That said, I agree there's not a whole lot else Smith can currently do with Weaver, Greenwood, Reeves, and an undersized DT pairing starting. We've wiped the bad contracts on the offensive side. Why haven't we been able to do so on the other side? The way Kubiak has talked about how he's going to run the ball to increase time of possession to help the whole team suggest he knows there are serious deficiencies on defense that can't be papered over by a change in scheme.

I guess I'm saying there's plenty of blame to go around to everyone.

ObsiWan
09-01-2008, 06:57 PM
Just my 2 cents, when Richard Smith said that "he doesnt care who we draft", I think he was mostly saying that he *should* be able to put together a servicable defense with the players he is given, without throwing Rick Smith or Kubiak under the bus. Obviously, he's not going to say, "Hey, they aren't giving me any premium players, how can I succeed?" This is pretty classic where rather than playing the blame game, the person being interviewed instead blames themselves. Again, just my 2 cents.

okay. so Richard Smith takes one in the press for the bossman. I can sorta see that happening. I'm not totally sure I believe it, but its not unreasonable...

Lucky
09-01-2008, 07:10 PM
Even against the Titans, we had the most problems when they overloaded one side with a corner or safety blitz. I don't remember seeing that once since Smith took over, even when Dunta was healthy. DeMeco hasn't blitzed since 06.
Didn't Ryans blitz, sack Collins, force a fumble, recover the fumble, and score a TD in that same Titans game?

http://blog.kir.com/archives/images/DeMeco%20Ryans%20on%20Collins.jpg

http://assets.houstontexans.com/assets/gameday/TEN-Ryans-TD-800.jpg

Hervoyel
09-01-2008, 07:20 PM
It takes time,” Smith said. “Would we like to be the No. 1 defense in the league? Yes, we would. Right now we’ve got a ways to go to get there, but that’s what we’re working toward.

Why doesn't someone follow that statement up with the observation that in his quest to become the #1 defense he's still sitting at 24th in yards allowed and has improved from 25th to 22nd in points allowed. We're very nearly going nowhere following this guys "plan".

Corrosion
09-01-2008, 07:26 PM
Just my 2 cents, when Richard Smith said that "he doesnt care who we draft", I think he was mostly saying that he *should* be able to put together a servicable defense with the players he is given, without throwing Rick Smith or Kubiak under the bus. Obviously, he's not going to say, "Hey, they aren't giving me any premium players, how can I succeed?" This is pretty classic where rather than playing the blame game, the person being interviewed instead blames themselves. Again, just my 2 cents


Hmmm , by my account the Texans spent four #1's on DL in consecutive years Mario Williams , Travis Johnson , Jason Babin and Amobe Okoye.
Throw in Dunta as a #1 and Demeco in the second , thats quite a bit invested in the defense. This years draft is the first I can recall them taking an offensive player in the first round since AJ . I dont think he can get by with the "I wasnt given premium players excuse" .... :mcnugget:

Corrosion
09-01-2008, 07:39 PM
To re-enforce my above post ....


Link (http://www.nfl.com/draft/history/fulldraft?teamId=2120&type=team)


2008 draft

rd 3 Antwaun Molden CB

rd 4 Xavier Adibi OLB

rd 5 Frank Okam DT

rd 6 Dominique Barber FS


2007 draft

rd 1 Amobi Okoye DT

rd 4 Fred Bennett CB

rd 5 Brandon Harrison DB

rd 7 Zach Diles LB


2006 draft

rd 1 Mario Williams DE

rd 2 DeMeco Ryans MLB

2005 draft

rd 1 Travis Johnson DT

rd 6 C.C. Brown SS

rd 7 Kenneth Pettway LB

2004 draft

rd 1 Dunta Robinson CB

rd 1 Jason Babin OLB

rd 4 Glenn Earl SS

rd 6 Vontez Duff CB

rd 6 Jammal Lord DB (QB in college)

rd 6 Charlie Anderson LB

rd 7 Raheem Orr DE

2003 draft

rd 1 Andre Johnson WR

Looks to me as if the defensive side of the ball was afforded some premium picks . Even with the ommission of the 04 draft when Smith wasnt a part of the staff .

CloakNNNdagger
09-01-2008, 07:42 PM
I know that we can't fix every position in one year. But one thing bothers me alot, and that is the fact that do you realize with all the secondary we've mixed and matched, we don't have ONE true free safety (rookie, veteran or otherwise) on the roster. You can try to use a strong safety and dress him up........and you still have a strong safety........and a frying waiting to happen........as has repeatedly happened.

Texans_Chick
09-01-2008, 07:43 PM
First off, bravo to Dale Robertson for writing an article that wasn't just rehash.

I believe it is the first time that any reporter has acknowledged that Richard Smith might be in trouble:

A review of their depth chart suggests a lack of draft-day parity between the offense and the defense over the years. It also explains why no assistant on third-year coach Gary Kubiak’s staff squirms on a hotter seat than defensive coordinator Richard Smith.

“It takes time,” Smith said. “Would we like to be the No. 1 defense in the league? Yes, we would. Right now we’ve got a ways to go to get there, but that’s what we’re working toward. I don’t look at where (players are) drafted or how many we’ve drafted on defense versus offense. My philosophy is I’ll never make an excuse. It’s our job to coach these players we have, to make them execute well enough for us to win ballgames.

Various thoughts:

How much time? The team will be young next year too, and Smith will be acquring more defensive players to develop for whatever the heck 4-3 the Texans are running.

He should feel happy that the Chronicle didn't use the Football Outsider stats that look much much worse.

How many top picks do the Colts spend on defense? Lots of teams in the league put together defenses with players who fit what they do, who aren't necessarily top picks.

Robertson's article does make a good point. The switch to the 4-3 and the squandering of picks during Casserly's time with the team means that the Texans are missing a lot of defensive players who should be in the primes of their career.

I am guessing that the average age of the Texans defensive starters is at the bottom of the league. And the older starters on the team are liabilities at their respective positions.

Youngish Players + Defensive Coordinator Who Is a First Timer in Charge= Ugly defense, and not in the good way.

Marcus
09-01-2008, 08:04 PM
There is a serious lack of talent on the defense at 3 key areas. (I've already gone over that extensively in another thread). Remember Petey giving up those two bombs to Evans? The same play and our safety failed to support on either play. How do you press cover, take the chance that someone doesn't get there in time and leave a young corner (in Bennett) or a bad cover guy (in Reeves) out there to dry? Our offensive production will however, go up, and our time of possession will be insane since it will only take the opposing team 30 seconds every time they get the ball. With our defense in its current state we really need to try to limit possessions. If I was an opposing offense I'd have an outlet on greenwood's side every play. If someone got close enough to my QB I'd have him dump it and watch as Greenwood finally got out of his stance in time to watch the hb barrel past him. I bet even Ron Dayne would look good running a screen against our defense. And it has nothing to do with scheme. We seriously lack team speed.

Mike

OK. We ran a vanilla offense in the offseason. Not much about scheme. We were still impressive. That's because we HAVE talent. Take the "scheme" out of it. We were running pretty basic plays for the most part. They were going against pretty basic defenses. We moved the ball. Even against Dallas, Schaub recovered to have a pretty good game. That tells me there is TALENT on this team. That wasn't about trickery, or surprise... very plain.

Now look at defense. Dallas wasn't doing anything unusual. They were pretty vanilla. Our defense was pretty vanilla. Our defense got their asses handed to them. The DL was bad, the LBs were bad and the DBs were bad. Could we try a different scheme? Sure. But its fine to draw up a play for someone to get to the QB. But if that guy is too small, too slow, doesn't shed blocks well... it doesn't matter. You're not (to my knowledge) allowed to line up Greenwood between the center and the QB. I think he might be able to disrupt the passing game that way. We have two (maybe 3) play makers on this defense. Tell me. Pick any defensive coordinator in the league. Tell me who would actually make this defense significantly better?

I'm not saying Smith is the right guy for the job. But I'll be pissed, if next offseason, we change DCs and don't make significant upgrades to the defense.

Mike

Some serious rep coming your way.

:perfect10:

ObsiWan
09-01-2008, 09:19 PM
our problems are solved!
ESPN says (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/preview08/news/story?id=3559627) we DO have a scheme


Houston Texans (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/clubhouse?team=hou)

Offensive scheme: Coach Gary Kubiak has appropriated the stretch-zone running scheme from Denver, where he once served as an assistant. He has hired former Broncos colleague and famed offensive line guru Alex Gibbs. He added coordinator to the duties of quarterbacks coach Kyle Shanahan, whose father is … Mike Shanahan. So why don't the Texans run as effectively as the Broncos? They still are looking for the running back and linemen to execute the scheme to its specifications. Houston's passing game is controlled, yet surprisingly explosive. But Kubiak, who will call plays, wants a run-first approach that sets up the passing game. Short and intermediate passing routes are designed to promote production after the catch and keep QB Matt Schaub from taking too many hits.



Defensive scheme: The Texans have invested heavily in their defensive line and have the makings of a productive front four, led by DE Mario Williams and DT Amobi Okoye. Coordinator Richard Smith (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?playerId=5937) expects pass-rush pressure from that group and tries to stay away from the blitz. But the concern is that Houston's secondary lacks adequate depth, speed and cover ability. If the line doesn't squeeze the pocket quickly enough and if opposing passers get enough time to throw, this unit can be exploited. Count on the Texans rolling out a lot of zones and off coverages to protect themselves.


Its all very clear to me now... in order for Richard Smith's defense to succeed we need three more Marios, two more DeMecos and three more Duntas or Fred Bennetts.

Hey, no problem.

CloakNNNdagger
09-01-2008, 09:21 PM
First off, bravo to Dale Robertson for writing an article that wasn't just rehash.

“It takes time,” Smith said. “Would we like to be the No. 1 defense in the league? Yes, we would. Right now we’ve got a ways to go to get there, but that’s what we’re working toward. I don’t look at where (players are) drafted or how many we’ve drafted on defense versus offense. My philosophy is I’ll never make an excuse. It’s our job to coach these players we have, to make them execute well enough for us to win ballgames.

How much time? The team will be young next year too, and Smith will be acquring more defensive players to develop for whatever the heck 4-3 the Texans are running.




Somehow, I believe the problem might be that in his "enthusiasm" Smith has gotten caught in some sort of time warp. Maybe, he should have invested in a more expensive model.


http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/images/c0/c321.jpg

Texans_Chick
09-01-2008, 09:48 PM
our problems are solved!
ESPN says (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/preview08/news/story?id=3559627) we DO have a scheme



Its all very clear to me now... in order for Richard Smith's defense to succeed we need three more Marios, two more DeMecos and three more Duntas or Fred Bennetts.

Hey, no problem.

That was the most depressing link ever.

Compare the write ups on different teams' defenses to ours. Or who different team's coordinators are. It is sad.

It's like getting coal in your stocking or rocks in your Halloween sack or this (http://www.fanhouse.com/category/texans/2006/08/25/the-texans-defense-got-rocks-in-their-lockers/).

ObsiWan
09-01-2008, 10:30 PM
That was the most depressing link ever.

Compare the write ups on different teams' defenses to ours. Or who different team's coordinators are. It is sad.

It's like getting coal in your stocking or rocks in your Halloween sack or this (http://www.fanhouse.com/category/texans/2006/08/25/the-texans-defense-got-rocks-in-their-lockers/).

:worm:
now I feel guilty for posting it...
:(

threetoedpete
09-02-2008, 12:04 AM
Hmmm , by my account the Texans spent four #1's on DL in consecutive years Mario Williams , Travis Johnson , Jason Babin and Amobe Okoye.
Throw in Dunta as a #1 and Demeco in the second , thats quite a bit invested in the defense. This years draft is the first I can recall them taking an offensive player in the first round since AJ . I dont think he can get by with the "I wasnt given premium players excuse" .... :mcnugget:

I see this arguement all of the time....and look if they throw the DC to the mob to appease them...whatever... But don't be so disingenuous in your argument. Babins was a 3-4 tweener experiment that went terrible wrong. And T.J. is T.J.
T.J. is a prime example of the sum of the Florida State defensive line being greater than the sum of it's parts. So he's had two scouting misses....may I use the term bust now with T.J. ? Because that is what those two first round picks represent in terms of their production. And any time you bust a frist round pick it sets the club back in terms of years...not a season. You can root out the Tennessee DC if ya wanna...bring back a Glanville young guy. But even after you do the guy is still going to have the same talent at his disposal. If I were Kubes I send the house this Sunday just to shut you Smith basher guys TFU. They have what they have. They are going to play an eighty yard field and stop them at the goal line. It ain't pretty but it gives them a chance.

Texans_Chick
09-02-2008, 10:59 AM
:worm:
now I feel guilty for posting it...
:(


Nah, sometimes you have to put up links, no matter how depressing.

Señor Stan
09-02-2008, 11:09 AM
That was the most depressing link ever.

Compare the write ups on different teams' defenses to ours. Or who different team's coordinators are. It is sad.

It's like getting coal in your stocking or rocks in your Halloween sack or this (http://www.fanhouse.com/category/texans/2006/08/25/the-texans-defense-got-rocks-in-their-lockers/).

http://helium.lunarpages.com/~funky4/pictures/igotarock.jpg

The Cornhuskers have the "black shirts" on defense. Maybe Richard Smith will put these t-shirts in his players lockers...

http://images.t-shirts.com/printed/jpegs/LOG001/medium/PN162.jpg

Texans_Chick
09-02-2008, 11:36 AM
http://helium.lunarpages.com/~funky4/pictures/igotarock.jpg

The Cornhuskers have the "black shirts" on defense. Maybe Richard Smith will put these t-shirts in his players lockers...

http://images.t-shirts.com/printed/jpegs/LOG001/medium/PN162.jpg

No, he would put PICTURES of those t-shirts in the lockers.

Pictures of rocks in the lockers is very very lame.

Defensive player: "What's this in my locker?"

Coach: "A picture of a rock. It is suppose to symbolize the cohesiveness of our unit."

Defensive player: "Al-right. Thanks coach."

What does player think to himself?

<Parcells wouldn't do this sort of thing>
<YAY! A picture of a rock. I will decorate my house>
<How long is my contract here? This guy is a cheeseball>

ChampionTexan
09-02-2008, 12:03 PM
No, he would put PICTURES of those t-shirts in the lockers.

Pictures of rocks in the lockers is very very lame.

Defensive player: "What's this in my locker?"

Coach: "A picture of a rock. It is suppose to symbolize the cohesiveness of our unit."

Defensive player: "Al-right. Thanks coach."

What does player think to himself?

<Parcells wouldn't do this sort of thing>
<YAY! A picture of a rock. I will decorate my house>
<How long is my contract here? This guy is a cheeseball>

Probably a liability thing.

Just think - if Jack Del Rio had only put a picture of a tree stump and an axe in the Jaguar locker room in '03, they wouldn't have had to replace their punter mid-season.

hobie
09-02-2008, 12:10 PM
Pictures of rocks in the lockers is very very lame.

Defensive player: "What's this in my locker?"

Coach: "A picture of a rock. It is suppose to symbolize the cohesiveness of our unit."

Defensive player: "Al-right. Thanks coach."

What does player think to himself?

<Parcells wouldn't do this sort of thing>
< >

Well it depends on the actual picture of the rock..I mean if it was a crack rock like LT was used to, Parcells might have done it to fire his boy up to get even more out of him....
:shades:

TexansSeminole
09-02-2008, 03:46 PM
T.J. is a prime example of the sum of the Florida State defensive line being greater than the sum of it's parts.

That's always true with any Florida State defense. It's true with any successful defense. You know, synergy.

That synergy shouldn't confuse you in thinking that FSU d-lineman aren't talented, or aren't successful NFL players.

Peter Boulware, Greg Spires, Corey Simon, Darnell Dockett, Broderick Bunkley, and Kamerion Wimbley all had or are having good/great NFL careers.

There's a DE (Everette Brown) on the team now that will likely be a 1st rounder when he enters the draft.

TJ is a prime example of a lazy football player.

utahmark
09-02-2008, 10:21 PM
I keep reading this line from the "Fire Richard Smith" crowd . . . "We have way too much talent . . . "

Really? Where?

Other than Mario, Demeco, and maybe Amobi, where is all this exceptional talent that's being referred to?

well thats three. then you add daunta and you got 4. next is bennett who is supposedly one of the top young corners in the league. next is molden who is a rookie but they seem to think highley of him, thats 6. and both safties, i dont know how many times we have drafted the same type safety we already have so apparently these are the type of guys our team wants at that position, thats 8. you could add weaver, maybe he hasnt been tearing it up here but his previous coaches seemed to know how to use him, 9. travis johnson is at least an average lineman, 10.

im not sure but i feel that if you asked kube's he would tell you that aside from getting another pass rusher this defense is pretty much set.

i guess the glass half empty side could say we need 2 safeties, both outside linebackers. 2 more lineman, maybe another corner and we might be ready in 3 more years. i hope thats not the case.

ObsiWan
09-02-2008, 10:28 PM
Originally Posted by threetoedpete http://home.austin.rr.com/khari/images/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.texanstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=987738#post987738)
T.J. is a prime example of the sum of the Florida State defensive line being greater than the sum of it's parts.

That's always true with any Florida State defense. It's true with any successful defense. You know, synergy.


Thank you for making my argument for me.

Why isn't OUR defense greater than the sum of its parts?
Where's the "synergy"??
Isn't the defense coordinator supposed to make that happen??