Originally Posted by Maddict5
just a question for everybody: IF the D continues to play really well for the rest of the season and it turns out smith was the reason behind it (ie control hadnt been turned over to bush etc), is he still gone?
im not a richard smith fan or anything and id gladly send him packing (esp after dunta's comments) if it turned out frank bush had assumed control lately but i was talking to a jags fan i know and he said that jags fans didnt really like Mike Smith eventhough their D usually ranked pretty well because he was 'too conservative' so once he leaves for atlanta they bring in super-duper defensive coordinator Gregg Williams and the D goes to crap this yr
my point is that sometimes a big name d-coordinator isnt the solution. players need time to get to know schemes etc... so even if richard smith has the D playing very well by the end of the season, was the delay in the change of attitude criminal enough to send him packing? (assuming the reasoning behind that delay was the return of dunta allowed them to become aggressive and man up on wrs in the backend)
this is kind of my thinking as well. my question is similar to yours, if the defense continues to play well throughout the remainder of the season, i wouldn't be surprised if he remains our DC. honestly, i wouldn't be opposed either. all i want is to win football games. if the defense improves and develop some consistency and we stop turning the ball over and win some football games then i'm perfectly happy with smith as the DC. but consistency has to happen. in my eyes he's still on probation. so long as the defense continues to improve. every game since detroit they have looked better except for the Minnisota game and the Indy game. and in those games they looked good for a half. that's progress in my book. i'm not saying keep him. i'm saying i wouldn't be surprised if we do.