PDA

View Full Version : Smith's defense vs. Bush defense


Mr. White
11-12-2010, 10:52 PM
From an X's and O's standpoint, has anything really changed schematically? Can anyone really even tell?

Do we really know anything about the defense at all except it's still a 4-3 with undersized linemen?

HJam72
11-12-2010, 11:52 PM
From an X's and O's standpoint, has anything really changed schematically? Can anyone really even tell?

Do we really know anything about the defense at all except it's still a 4-3 with undersized linemen?

It would sure help this D if we could just hold, and maybe even get a little pressure, at the DT spots.

I think that's the whole problem, other than FSs that aren't REALLY FSs, is an entire coaching staff that doesn't recognize the significance of strong (even if they are a little slow) interior linemen.

ArlingtonTexan
11-13-2010, 12:01 AM
They are very different, while neither very effective. Smith was a read and react defense which attempted to have a variety of coverages etc. It was more completed in manyways, but the players always seemed confused as to what to do. It made it look like the Texans did not have a real "style."

Bush's defense is much more aggressive calling for players to run to the ball and in theory be physical and gang tackle. This is why you see so much misdirection work against the Texans, bootlegs, cutback runs, throwbacks, play action, etc. This is simple see ball, go get ball, but Texans are about a half a step to step slow overall to make this defense work.

b0ng
11-13-2010, 01:08 AM
They are very different, while neither very effective. Smith was a read and react defense which attempted to have a variety of coverages etc. It was more completed in manyways, but the players always seemed confused as to what to do. It made it look like the Texans did not have a real "style."

Bush's defense is much more aggressive calling for players to run to the ball and in theory be physical and gang tackle. This is why you see so much misdirection work against the Texans, bootlegs, cutback runs, throwbacks, play action, etc. This is simple see ball, go get ball, but Texans are about a half a step to step slow overall to make this defense work.

On top of this, it seems that our players who were great last year have seemingly forgotten how to tackle a ball carrier. When that happens you can pretty much expect any defense to break down because not getting the ball carrier down is a major major problem.

beerlover
11-13-2010, 01:26 AM
They are very different, while neither very effective. Smith was a read and react defense which attempted to have a variety of coverages etc. It was more completed in manyways, but the players always seemed confused as to what to do. It made it look like the Texans did not have a real "style."

Bush's defense is much more aggressive calling for players to run to the ball and in theory be physical and gang tackle. This is why you see so much misdirection work against the Texans, bootlegs, cutback runs, throwbacks, play action, etc. This is simple see ball, go get ball, but Texans are about a half a step to step slow overall to make this defense work.

your dancing close to the target. going along those lines it seems film study & gameplanning is seriously lacking. you can make up those steps by reading cues & understanding tendancies. plus does anyone else notice the Texans wait until halftime to make defensive adjustments?

playa465
11-13-2010, 01:58 AM
plus does anyone else notice the Texans wait until halftime to make defensive adjustments?

Unfortunately this is old news with this coaching staff. Its like our coaches are so zoned into what they are trying to do...they refuse to think their plan cant work at times...even when it is clearly not working to everyone on the planet

Rey
11-13-2010, 10:35 AM
The fact that Bush's defense is being compared to Smith's is pretty sad....

infantrycak
11-13-2010, 10:58 AM
They are very different, while neither very effective. Smith was a read and react defense which attempted to have a variety of coverages etc. It was more completed in manyways, but the players always seemed confused as to what to do. It made it look like the Texans did not have a real "style."

Bush's defense is much more aggressive calling for players to run to the ball and in theory be physical and gang tackle. This is why you see so much misdirection work against the Texans, bootlegs, cutback runs, throwbacks, play action, etc. This is simple see ball, go get ball, but Texans are about a half a step to step slow overall to make this defense work.

Exactly. The result of a poor defense may be the same but the theoretical D is not similar.

jaayteetx
11-13-2010, 11:27 AM
To answer the question, no, not really.

76Texan
11-13-2010, 12:25 PM
Richard Smith's is a base 4-3 defense in which you normally see only 4 defenders on the LOS (it's pretty much the same as Jimmy Johnson's 4-3 Miami defense, but the Texans don't blitz as often.)

Bush bring more men to the LOS (or very close to the LOS) on a much more frequent basis, whether with 4 or 3 DL-men (or 2 on a few occasions.)

This create more opportunities for TFLs or tackle near the LOS.
The downside is if one guy loses gap integretity, the opponent can bust for long yardage.
In the passing game, it means more guys closer to get after the QB.
The downside is that the defenders (the LBs or an occasional safety playing up close) have further to drop back into coverage.
There's more room in the middle.

Also a CB can be found on an island more often since Bush also bring a safety up more often. (That safety being Pollard, who looks bad in cover 2 anyway, except for the times when they have him attack the ball instead of waiting to break on the ball; ie. anticipating the throw instead of waiting for the QB to get set and ready to throw.)

In this scheme, if the players aren't on the same page, it hurts deeper since you don't have as many defenders in the middle to deep areas.

Mr. White
11-13-2010, 03:06 PM
Another question....

What's the theory behind our undersized DT's? What's the advantage to having smaller, lighter guys as opposed to the "space eaters?"

Texan4Ever
11-13-2010, 03:12 PM
Another question....

What's the theory behind our undersized DT's? What's the advantage to having smaller, lighter guys as opposed to the "space eaters?"


I was always under the impression that teams should have a speedy DT who can shoot the gaps and a space eater who took on double teams to ensure that the speedy DT could do what was required.

HJam72
11-13-2010, 03:20 PM
I was always under the impression that teams should have a speedy DT who can shoot the gaps and a space eater who took on double teams to ensure that the speedy DT could do what was required.

I thought that's what LBs were for...

I remember during the Cowboys' heyday with Jimmy Johnson, the play-by-play guys would brag about the speed of their DLs, even on the inside. I also know that the 4-3 calls for quicker guys than the 3-4, BUT I'm sick of seeing the 2 DTs go or get pushed around to the outside, like they are following the DEs, and letting the QB step up and have all day to throw....or VY, who will just run it for about 40 yds.

thunderkyss
11-13-2010, 03:39 PM
your dancing close to the target. going along those lines it seems film study & gameplanning is seriously lacking. you can make up those steps by reading cues & understanding tendancies. plus does anyone else notice the Texans wait until halftime to make defensive adjustments?

I don't know that film study is lacking, but it is clear whoever is running that film study is not I repeat Not effectively identifying tendencies, formations, or anything that would go into an affective game plan.

Neither does it appear those studies are held to determine what our mistakes were & how we should go about fixing those mistakes.

I can imagine our film study, "Okay guys.... did you see how he caught that ball over the middle & turned it into a big play? We have to watch for that & not let that happen. On the next play, you see the RB gets a big gain going right up the middle..... we can't let that happen either. On the last play, you'll see the QB get sacked. We want to do that as many times as we can.

OK, I think we're ready for Sunday, now let's hit the showers. last one there is a rotten egg..... "

FirstTexansFan
11-13-2010, 04:40 PM
There is no defense for the defense either of these guys have put on the field :)

Hagar
11-13-2010, 07:09 PM
I don't see a difference between Smith's defense and Bush's defense.

Kubes brought in Smith because he couldn't get Bush. Then, when Bush was available, he went out hired him as the Assistant to the Head Coach Defense. This position gave Bush indirect responsibility for the defense. So, its not suprising that the defenses are similar.

Hervoyel
11-13-2010, 09:52 PM
I'm thinking it's a "douche vs turd sandwich" where Smith's defense vs Bush's defense is concerned

Rey
11-13-2010, 09:58 PM
Another question....

What's the theory behind our undersized DT's? What's the advantage to having smaller, lighter guys as opposed to the "space eaters?"

Our DT's haven't been all that light compared to DT's in other 4-3's. With the exception of Amobi losing a lot of weight this year, our D-line is actually pretty big if you look at other 4-3 D-linemen. Our DT's are average, and our DE's are big.

Our LB's are big as well.

Compared to other 4-3's our front seven is actually bigger than normal.


Space eating DT's are normally found in 3-4's. Check around...It's been a big mis-conception for a while, but our DT's are not light, comparatively speaking...

And I'm glad people are actually wising up to the fact that Demeco isn't small...

Seems like if stuff gets repeated often enough it starts to become fact...

TEXANRED
11-13-2010, 10:00 PM
It's more like comparing a big steaming bowl of turd to a big steaming bowl of turd.

Thorn
11-14-2010, 09:47 AM
Who cares what the difference is, neither defense from those two coaches works anyway.

HJam72
11-14-2010, 09:52 AM
We just need one MORE player on the field. That's all. :)

hradhak
11-14-2010, 09:59 AM
We just need one MORE player on the field. That's all. :)

And if that guy could line up in the offense's back field that'd be freakin sweet too.:chef:

KA4Texan
11-14-2010, 11:30 AM
And if that guy could line up in the offense's back field that'd be freakin sweet too.:chef:


Also allowing "substances", so they could do daily administering of roids for any and all:pissed:, would be helpful.

hot pickle
11-14-2010, 11:34 AM
do you guys think that cushing would be an absolute beast in a 3-4 system? random question lol

texanhead08
11-14-2010, 11:50 AM
I think when its all said and done its really Kubiak's defense. I just don't see us fielding a good defense until we get some legit DT's and some legit safeties. It will just be more of the same until then. If we get some legit DT's I believe Mario would become the 15 sack terror that everyone envisioned when he was drafted and improved safety play would make the secondary look functional.

We have all seen the same results with 2 different DC's the only common thing with both is Kubes.

thunderkyss
11-14-2010, 01:04 PM
I think when its all said and done its really Kubiak's defense. I just don't see us fielding a good defense until we get some legit DT's and some legit safeties. It will just be more of the same until then. If we get some legit DT's I believe Mario would become the 15 sack terror that everyone envisioned when he was drafted and improved safety play would make the secondary look functional.

We have all seen the same results with 2 different DC's the only common thing with both is Kubes.

What did you think about the Texans' D over the last 13 games of 2009?