Smith's defense vs. Bush defense

Discussion in 'Texans Talk' started by Mr. White, Nov 12, 2010.

  1. Mr. White

    Mr. White H-Town Beatdown

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Messages:
    6,020
    Likes Received:
    422
    Location:
    Sugar Land
    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?
     
  2. HJam72

    HJam72 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2004
    Messages:
    11,614
    Likes Received:
    653
    Location:
    Over here.
    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.
     
  3. ArlingtonTexan

    ArlingtonTexan Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Messages:
    6,159
    Likes Received:
    465
    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.
     
    Wolf likes this.
  4. b0ng

    b0ng Ooops

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2007
    Messages:
    7,888
    Likes Received:
    613
    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.
     
  5. beerlover

    beerlover Site Contributor

    Joined:
    May 1, 2004
    Messages:
    12,963
    Likes Received:
    546
    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?
     
  6. playa465

    playa465 Site Contributor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2006
    Messages:
    1,095
    Likes Received:
    49
    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
     
  7. Rey

    Rey Guest

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2010
    Messages:
    14,475
    Likes Received:
    671
    The fact that Bush's defense is being compared to Smith's is pretty sad....
     
  8. infantrycak

    infantrycak Mod. Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Messages:
    54,082
    Likes Received:
    2,469
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Exactly. The result of a poor defense may be the same but the theoretical D is not similar.
     
  9. jaayteetx

    jaayteetx Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    3,583
    Likes Received:
    240
    Location:
    Albuquerque,NM
    To answer the question, no, not really.
     
  10. 76Texan

    76Texan Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2006
    Messages:
    13,582
    Likes Received:
    528
    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.
     
  11. Mr. White

    Mr. White H-Town Beatdown

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Messages:
    6,020
    Likes Received:
    422
    Location:
    Sugar Land
    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?"
     
  12. Texan4Ever

    Texan4Ever Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2009
    Messages:
    4,143
    Likes Received:
    257
    Location:
    The Great State of Texas

    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.
     
  13. HJam72

    HJam72 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2004
    Messages:
    11,614
    Likes Received:
    653
    Location:
    Over here.
    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.
     
  14. thunderkyss

    thunderkyss Salem Poor

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2005
    Messages:
    38,592
    Likes Received:
    1,682
    Location:
    Texas
    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..... "
     
    Yankee_In_TX likes this.
  15. FirstTexansFan

    FirstTexansFan The Unknown Fan

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2004
    Messages:
    2,321
    Likes Received:
    381
    Location:
    New Braunfels, Tx.
    There is no defense for the defense either of these guys have put on the field :)
     
  16. Hagar

    Hagar Drink up yall, its the Texans!

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2007
    Messages:
    2,066
    Likes Received:
    195
    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.
     
  17. Hervoyel

    Hervoyel The Right Track

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2004
    Messages:
    15,472
    Likes Received:
    2,294
    I'm thinking it's a "douche vs turd sandwich" where Smith's defense vs Bush's defense is concerned
     
  18. Rey

    Rey Guest

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2010
    Messages:
    14,475
    Likes Received:
    671
    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...
     
  19. TEXANRED

    TEXANRED Texan-American

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2005
    Messages:
    7,918
    Likes Received:
    694
    It's more like comparing a big steaming bowl of turd to a big steaming bowl of turd.
     
  20. Thorn

    Thorn Dirty Old Man

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2007
    Messages:
    24,115
    Likes Received:
    1,819
    Location:
    Houston
    Who cares what the difference is, neither defense from those two coaches works anyway.
     

Share This Page