Frank Bush named New Texans DC

[GP]

I don't know why not. They didn't implement an entirely different system ("Frank Bush's System"). They edited Smith's system down to the stuff that worked and told him not to deviate from that subset of his defense. In short we saw Richard Smith's defense with all the looney bits removed. What remained was still his and will probably bear some resemblance to whatever Frank Bush implements which is fine. It worked.

They always talk about simplifying things to make them faster and to get players moving instead of standing there trying to work everything out. They pared Smith's defense down to only that (arguably making it so generic it was hardly attributable to anyone) and it worked... at least better than what he'd been doing. Compared to the full package "Richard Smith Simplified" looked like we'd suddenly become the 85' Bears.

Frank Bush's system will have to be a damn sight better than that for him to be considered a successful hire.

I can't envision a grown man actually allowing someone to hand him a sheet of paper that says "You can do a, b, c but not x, y, z."

That's the lowest of lows. If you're Richard Smith and you get told you can and cannot do certain things, how do you smile and eat that like it's delicious? Heck, if he WAS calling his own defense but with certain boundaries...and he sees the effects of it, wouldn't that be like a major wake-up call of some sorts?

You have to be a special sort of person to keep getting things wrong, being shown how to do something right, and yet still revert to your wrong ways at the end of the day. Maybe it's an overboard issue of pride or something.

I personally could not continue running the show if someone behind the scenes hands me a sheet of paper and says "This is what you do, got it?" (1) I'm wasting my time. (2) I'm wasting other people's time, and (3) There's something else I need to go and do, something I can put my hands to and do an OK job at.

Maybe I won't set the world on fire when I move on to something else, but at least I won't wake up and live a lie. If Richard Smith was running his defense, but couldn't see the faults of certain parts of it nor could he see the successful parts of it and that he needs to do more of the successful things...then I say "Wow, how in the heck did he get a job with the Texans in the first place?"

And if people think the Texans didn't 'try' hard enough by naming Bush d-coord, then all I can say is they must have drawn Richard's name out of a hat during a golf game three years ago or something.

 

[infantrycak]

I can't envision a grown man actually allowing someone to hand him a sheet of paper that says "You can do a, b, c but not x, y, z."

That's the lowest of lows. If you're Richard Smith and you get told you can and cannot do certain things, how do you smile and eat that like it's delicious? Heck, if he WAS calling his own defense but with certain boundaries...and he sees the effects of it, wouldn't that be like a major wake-up call of some sorts?

FWIW - the report on the limited play-calling came from a MB member as a direct conversation with Bush.

 

[GP]

FWIW - the report on the limited play-calling came from a MB member as a direct conversation with Bush.

Correct. I was aware of that information, but I am trying to say that here's the leader (the defensive coordinator) whose role it is to call the plays and guide the defense...and he's being lorded over by Frank Bush. I suppose he had more authority than I had perceived him having.

Does someone tap Jim Johnson or Rex Ryan on the shoulder and say, "Excuse me, we need to sit down and go over some guidelines..."

No. They handle their business. Nobody has to come up with a cheat sheet for those guys, but yet we have Frank Bush and Gary Kubiak basically holding Richard's hand through a chunk of the season.

I can see why some people are not trusting this hiring. If Frank had THAT much power, to call down a defensive coordinator and order him to do certain things, then why not fire RS on the spot and install Frank as interim d-coord for the rest of the season?

We had a lame duck d-coord, in essence. If RS had been told that there are things he could/couldn't do, throughout the course of a game, what in the wide, wide world of sports is RS doing even showing up at practices and games for? Not only was he permitted to remain, the guy continued to show up and pretend to be d-coord. Yeah, yeah...I know...it was still Richard calling the defense--But it was not him doing what he was itching to do.

The entire point of a person being a d-coord is that they run what they want to run as the game situations come at them. I'd go so far as to ask why Richard Smith even began the season at all.

This organization seems to do things in the strangest manner. What a sad statement that you went three years with a d-coord who essentially wasn't fit to do the job. That's a lot of patience as far as NFL timelines go.

This move should have happened last off-season. Period.

 

[infantrycak]

Correct. I was aware of that information, but I am trying to say that here's the leader (the defensive coordinator) whose role it is to call the plays and guide the defense...and he's being lorded over by Frank Bush. I suppose he had more authority than I had perceived him having.

Frank Bush having the authority or having made the decision is not what was reported and is not a necessary part of the story. Kubiak obviously has the authority and may have gone to Bush with a list of his own ideas on how to tweak the D and asked Bush for his input. See, no Bush lording over Smith or having the authority to yank the reins from his hands.

Yes I would have preferred if the move was made last year.

 

[BigBull17]

i have never spoken the word Sean McDermott, ever. I wanted just about ANYONE as long as they weren't already on our staff and preferably not part of the Bronco Cartel.

Williams and Haslett were who I had considered...but that would have been impossible because they wouldn't be cheap and they don't have Bronco ties....so no deal.

the only things I like about Bush are that he played in Houston and that he is an African-American. his experience is nil and he hasn't even called plays much less coordinated a defense....but the Texans selected so he has to be good....after all, the Texans never make bad moves.

While I may not agree with your canidates, I do agree that they rushed a decision when they didnt need to. I always hope for the best, but damn. An assistant from a bottom 3rd ranked D, WOOHOO...

 

[The Pencil Neck]

Correct. I was aware of that information, but I am trying to say that here's the leader (the defensive coordinator) whose role it is to call the plays and guide the defense...and he's being lorded over by Frank Bush. I suppose he had more authority than I had perceived him having.

That's not the way I understood it. I didn't read it that Bush was dictating anything to Smith. To me (and I could be wrong), it seemed that Kubiak went to Smith and said, "Dude. This isn't working. Here's what we're going to do to fix it." And that's the head coach's job.

Midway through the season, I started hearing people say how the defensive staff would meet and how everyone had input and Smith wasn't telling people what to do but rather that he was taking suggestions, blah, blah. I think that's the point that Kubes came in, gathered everyone together, and said, "This isn't working. Does anyone have any suggestions or ideas?" And that's the point that Smith was effectively fired and became a lame duck. I think that's close to the point where our defense started to improve, as well.

I don't think it was Kubes and Bush restricting Smith's playcalling, I think it was Kubes, Bush, Rhodes, Holland, etc.

 

[bckey]

ESPN is reporting that New Orleans has hired Greg Williams to be their dc. Just putting it here because people talked about him even though we didn't interview him as far as we know. It caught my eye that he had top 10 defenses 5 out of 9 years and 3 of those years they were in the top 3.




In five of the last nine years, however, Williams' defenses have ranked in the top 10 in the league -- including three top 3s.

"A lot has gone into this decision, and we targeted Gregg as the coach we'd like to hire after our first interview because he was so impressive and prepared," Payton said. "As an offensive coach, I have game-planned against his defenses in the past, and I know the problems they create. He's an aggressive coach, but his units are always sound fundamentally. We have some pieces in place for him to work with, and I know he's excited to get started."


http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3834953

 

[cuppacoffee]

If you want to see me criticize the Texan organization, all that would have to happen is for them to hire freakin' Haslett for DC. Thank God that didn't happen!

I don't think anyone is saying that this will definitely be a great move. Instead, we're hopeful. You, however, can't see the difference. Neither you or I have any real ability to know right now if this is a good move or not. You, on one hand, choose to attack the selection. I choose to give the organization the benefit of the doubt and am eager to see if it works out well.
Believe me, I'll turn on the pick with vengeance once there is enough evidence that it's a bad one. I just don't see any reason to anticipate that happening. By the way, I think Kubiak's track record with major decisions for this organization is pretty good. Perhaps he's earned the benefit of the doubt?

you know, I'm sure you spoke out against all of these moves:
1. Mario over Reggie and Vince
2. trading for MSchaub
3. bringing Rick Smith in as GM
4. promoting Shanahan to OC
5. starting DBrown all season
6. Kevin Walter trade and insertion into the starting lineup

Well?.......

 

[GP]

Frank Bush having the authority or having made the decision is not what was reported and is not a necessary part of the story. Kubiak obviously has the authority and may have gone to Bush with a list of his own ideas on how to tweak the D and asked Bush for his input. See, no Bush lording over Smith or having the authority to yank the reins from his hands.

Yes I would have preferred if the move was made last year.

The person said that both he AND Kubiak did it.

That was what shocked me, was that the guy said Bush threw his name in there during the description of what happened, as if it were not only a joint decision...but also implies Bush had a role in keeping Smith accountable. From reading the story, that's what it looked like to me.

I haven't gone back to the thread, but I am pretty sure the story went the way of Bush throwing his name in there as if it was a tag-team deal. Maybe I'm wrong. Unlikely, but possible....

 

[infantrycak]

The person said that both he AND Kubiak did it.

Close but other way around:

he did say that "Coach and I" (I assume Kubiak) banned certain plays by Smith

Not that it matters much. Some of this stuff gets ridiculous. If he is included then he must have had authority over Smith. If he is not included then we would be having a discussion about Kubiak not trusting him.

I'm going to sit back and see what happens when Bush designs the D.

 

[Dan B.]

I was the guy who talked to Bush. Bush may not have said the word "banned." He may have said something along the lines of "Coach and I took certain plays out of Coach Smith's playbook." Or "Coach and I altered the playbook and let Coach Smith call his own game otherwise." I don't remember the exact phrasing. I do know that he didn't identify the first coach by name. I assumed he was referring to Kubiak because he called Smith "Coach Smith" both when making that statement and throughout the conversation. He also simply referred to Kubiak as "Coach" every time we discussed the head coach. But he may have been saying that he and Coach Smith jointly altered the playbook and that Kubiak had nothing to do with it.

 

[Grams]

I reallly don't understand some of you people.

You guys wanted Smith gone. Most of you would have been extremely happy if this had happened in mid-sesaon and Bush named DC then.

Now that it has happened you have to complain or be very negative about the whole thing.

You wanted someone that was an experienced DC. What experienced DC was available to make a lateral move to another DC position? Williams? - Only because he was fired from the Jags. Would you want him seeing what their defense did/did not do this past year?Someone else that was fired? If they were fired they were probably not doing a very good job - just like Smith.

Not I.

All the other DC's out there are looking/interviewing for the Head Coach position.

We would have gotten an unexperienced line/position coach. Isn't that what we got?
At least the one we have knows the players, the scheme, the system, what we need, who does what best, etc. Anybody new coming in would have to learn all that.

There is little point in continuing to complain or be negative till you see this defense actually play in real games. After about 3-4 games you can all start to pat yourselves on the back and make the rest of us eat crow or vice versa.

 

[Specnatz]

I reallly don't understand some of you people.

You guys wanted Smith gone. Most of you would have been extremely happy if this had happened in mid-sesaon and Bush named DC then.

Now that it has happened you have to complain or be very negative about the whole thing.

You wanted someone that was an experienced DC. What experienced DC was available to make a lateral move to another DC position? Williams? - Only because he was fired from the Jags. Would you want him seeing what their defense did/did not do this past year?Someone else that was fired? If they were fired they were probably not doing a very good job - just like Smith.

Not I.

All the other DC's out there are looking/interviewing for the Head Coach position.

We would have gotten an unexperienced line/position coach. Isn't that what we got?
At least the one we have knows the players, the scheme, the system, what we need, who does what best, etc. Anybody new coming in would have to learn all that.

There is little point in continuing to complain or be negative till you see this defense actually play in real games. After about 3-4 games you can all start to pat yourselves on the back and make the rest of us eat crow or vice versa.

But Grams that is not what certain people do around here. I mean look at how a lot of people acted right after drafting Mario, hell there is one person who post on this board who said before week #1 of this years season that he still would prefer vy over Mario. Go back and look at how people reacted to D Brown being drafted and calling him a bust, a reach, and our GM and coaches morons for drafting a 4th rounder in the first round (OK they said third, I was exaggerating). Watching, even a preseason game and making a decision is not what a lot of people do around here.

I will be the first person to say I wanted someone else (Sean McDermott). While I am not jumping up and down and saying Woo'freakin'Hoo look who we got I am not going to piss and moan about this because it serves no purpose. If after the third game of the season I see the same back off 10 yards on a 3rd and 5, get me a straight-jacket because I am going to go bonkers. I will wait until then to do so. Now I will sit back and wait to see who our new DL guy is and our S&C coaches are and keep reading and getting ready for the draft (So I can whatch these same folks throw a huge sissy fit all over again).

I always like it when a person stands up and claims himself the smartest person in a room, because then I know who the dumbest one is.

 

[GP]

I was the guy who talked to Bush. Bush may not have said the word "banned." He may have said something along the lines of "Coach and I took certain plays out of Coach Smith's playbook." Or "Coach and I altered the playbook and let Coach Smith call his own game otherwise." I don't remember the exact phrasing. I do know that he didn't identify the first coach by name. I assumed he was referring to Kubiak because he called Smith "Coach Smith" both when making that statement and throughout the conversation. He also simply referred to Kubiak as "Coach" every time we discussed the head coach. But he may have been saying that he and Coach Smith jointly altered the playbook and that Kubiak had nothing to do with it.

Thanks for the addition to the conversation, Dan B.

Either way we slice it, it still comes out that Frank Bush played a role in the restriction or alteration of the playbook. Interference by Bush, to me, indicates he had authority over Richard Smith. Which means that somewhere before week 11, Kubiak must have decided to let Richard know that the gig was up and he'd be permitted to stay on and run parts of his defense that jived with what Frank felt would be better for our guys.

Would love to have been a fly on the walls back then.

 

[The Pencil Neck]

Thanks for the addition to the conversation, Dan B.

Either way we slice it, it still comes out that Frank Bush played a role in the restriction or alteration of the playbook. Interference by Bush, to me, indicates he had authority over Richard Smith. Which means that somewhere before week 11, Kubiak must have decided to let Richard know that the gig was up and he'd be permitted to stay on and run parts of his defense that jived with what Frank felt would be better for our guys.

Would love to have been a fly on the walls back then.

Yeah, I disagreed with you about Bush having any power over Smith. But after reading that makes me think that maybe you're right.

 

[D-ReK]

Yeah, I disagreed with you about Bush having any power over Smith. But after reading that makes me think that maybe you're right.

That brings up a good question (which may have already been asked), but what exactly did Frank Bush do for us before being named DC? His title was "Senior Defensive Assistant", which is a bit cryptic. Upon doing a quick search, I didn't see any other NFL team with someone in this position. Was he a consultant like Dan Reeves, who was able to attend practice, meetings, and games while giving his input to the players and coaches? I'd be interested if anyone could shed some light on this.

I mean I know he worked closely with the DL in 2007, when Mario broke out and Amobi was pretty good, then shifted his focus to the LBs in 2008, but did his position give him power over Smith and the other defensive coaches? Hmm...

 

[Second Honeymoon]

1. Mario over Reggie and Vince
2. trading for MSchaub
3. bringing Rick Smith in as GM
4. promoting Shanahan to OC
5. starting DBrown all season
6. Kevin Walter trade and insertion into the starting lineup

1. Vince made the most sense because that would have meant no more Carr and no Carr resigning which has hurt our franchise greatly. Obviously Vince has had problems so I will call a mulligan on that one but I still think things may have been different for him in Houston, as he would have had a better offense and at least one playmaker in AJ. Disagree if you wish, but we would have 2 2nd Round picks and no Carr money on the past 3 years salary cap. Granted, no Mario but I think things would have turned out different for Vince if drafted by Houston and not the cheapskate Titans.
2. I liked the Schaub trade if only for the fact that it meant Carr's sorry act was over but I liked Schaub too. He doesn't take 1/2 the sacks that Carr used to.
3. I liked Rick Smith's signing from Day One. I am a huge proponent of there being more African-Americans in coaching and front office.
4. Shanahan's promotion to OC meant little to me as I knew that Gary was in charge of the Offense still.
5. I thought starting Duane Brown AND drafting Duane Brown were both dubious moves and to be honest, I still do to an extent. The offense made strides but I am not sure Brown is our Franchise LT of the future. I would rather have Kenny Phillips.
6. I liked the Walter signing and I liked the initial Andre Davis signing. I just didn't like the Andre Davis resigning because I felt he may take a step back after getting his huge payday....and I was right.

I am honest and have takes. You don't have to like them or agree with them...I don't just parrot the party line like some people do. I give my heart, soul, weekends, and lots of money to the Texans. I just want them to be committed to winning and building a championship contender. I don't feel they are doing everything it takes to put that together. If you feel they are, that is fine. I disagree. Inexperienced coaching and 3rd Tier free agents haven't worked since Day One, so excuse me if I don't have a lot of faith sticking to the same gameplan. And I am not alone in feeling that way and no amount of badgering me is going to change my opinion or make me a member of the sheeple.

At least some of you admit that you didn't want Bush and that he wasn't the most qualified candidate in your eyes...because anything else would be totally fake and dishonest. Bush may be a good fit and may keep some continuity but after 3 years of pathetic defense, do we really need continuity.

take care everyone and have a great 2008,
SH - a real and honest trueblue fan

 

[The Pencil Neck]

I am honest and have takes. You don't have to like them or agree with them...I don't just parrot the party line like some people do.

I don't have a problem with your honesty or the fact that you have opinions.

My problem is how you voice your opinion. I've been on the verge of putting you on my ignore list several times because you don't just state your opinion. You over-react. You get nasty when it's not even close to being acceptable. You go off on things like whatever-it-is just killed your family and raped your girlfriend.

For example, we draft Duane Brown. I could understand saying something about how you think it's a huge mistake and that we reached for a player. I could understand with pointing out all the other guys we could have had and all that. But your reaction to that was totally over the top and fo me, really inappropriate. IIRC, you were acting like it was the worst pick that any team had ever made and was just further verification that every person in our front office should be fired immediately. You were ready to never watch another Texans game again.

If you had just reacted like that on one occasion, I'd be OK with it but it seems to me like you react like this to almost anything the Texans do.

And on the issue of "honesty", sometimes people tell themselves that they're just being honest when they say things that other people don't like. But frequently, they're not really being honest. They may be saying things that are the truth (or are true for them) but they use the camoflage of honesty to be overly brutal and mean. Being honest doesn't mean being obnoxious. And stating your opinion in an over-the-top confrontation manner isn't being honest, that's just being confrontational for confrontation's sake.

At least, that's the way I see it. And I don't necessarily disagree with everything you write but I do frequently disagree with how you communicate how you feel about things.

 

[thunderkyss]

1. Vince made the most sense because that would have meant no more Carr and no Carr resigning which has hurt our franchise greatly. Obviously Vince has had problems so I will call a mulligan on that one but I still think things may have been different for him in Houston, as he would have had a better offense and at least one playmaker in AJ. Disagree if you wish, but we would have 2 2nd Round picks and no Carr money on the past 3 years salary cap. Granted, no Mario but I think things would have turned out different for Vince if drafted by Houston and not the cheapskate Titans.

While we can squable about details, SecondH, you(& I ) were right about this one. It wasn't so much a Vince vs Mario, for people like us. It was a David Carr can't cut it in this league, and we need another QB.

It's great, that this organization knew the same thing, yet tried to make it work with Carr from a "it's the right thing to do" perspective.

It's great that we did get Mario, and not overspend on that scat back(which would have been the wrong foot for this regime to start on, and something we never would have lived down).

But the fact is. We were in desperate need of a QB, and the one we spent a lot of money on is a back-up in the league for another team.

2. I liked the Schaub trade if only for the fact that it meant Carr's sorry act was over but I liked Schaub too. He doesn't take 1/2 the sacks that Carr used to.

IMHO, I think we moved too soon on finding Carr's replacement. It was an expensive move, and while Sage isn't in the same league as Schaub, I think we'd have been just fine offensively. Imagine if we used that first 2nd on a Safety, and the other on a Corner.... Or a Right Guard...

This is after Sage played extensively in '06, and we knew what we had there. Not the Franchise, but a stop gap.

3. I liked Rick Smith's signing from Day One. I am a huge proponent of there being more African-Americans in coaching and front office.

With all due respect, let's hope that's not the only reason you liked the hire.

4. Shanahan's promotion to OC meant little to me as I knew that Gary was in charge of the Offense still.
5. I thought starting Duane Brown AND drafting Duane Brown were both dubious moves and to be honest, I still do to an extent. The offense made strides but I am not sure Brown is our Franchise LT of the future. I would rather have Kenny Phillips.

I don't think the evidence supports starting Brown from day one was the right move. He is still spelled often by Salaam.

6. I liked the Walter signing and I liked the initial Andre Davis signing. I just didn't like the Andre Davis resigning because I felt he may take a step back after getting his huge payday....and I was right.

IMHO, I don't think it's because of the payday. How often does AD actually get on the field.

At least some of you admit that you didn't want Bush and that he wasn't the most qualified candidate in your eyes...because anything else would be totally fake and dishonest. Bush may be a good fit and may keep some continuity but after 3 years of pathetic defense, do we really need continuity.

the whole Frank Bush thing baffles me.

Coach Bush was the man Kubiak wanted. He couldn't get him in 2006. We get Bush in 2007....... we give him a title which makes it sound like he'll have a lot of influence on the defense.

Senior Defensive assistant

But all the blame for our defensive failure, seems to be layed on Richard Smith.

If Coach Bush was the man Kubiak had faith in, why wasn't Smith a figure head, a paper tiger?? Why wasn't he asked to resign?? What kind of experiment were we running?? "Let's see what Richard Smith can really do, with his future replacement handcuffing him"

The move should have been made last year. Would have made more sense. Wouldn't have been fair to Richard Smith, but it would have been more fair to the palyers, and the fans.

 

[Maddict5]

While we can squable about details, SecondH, you(& I ) were right about this one. It wasn't so much a Vince vs Mario, for people like us. It was a David Carr can't cut it in this league, and we need another QB.

didnt stop you predicting the david carr led texans having a 12-4 (or was that 13-3?) season in 2006 did it?

 

[HoustonFrog]

. Perhaps he's earned the benefit of the doubt?

you know, I'm sure you spoke out against all of these moves:
1. Mario over Reggie and Vince
2. trading for MSchaub
3. bringing Rick Smith in as GM
4. promoting Shanahan to OC
5. starting DBrown all season
6. Kevin Walter trade and insertion into the starting lineup

Except these "brilliant moves" have only added up to two 8-8 seasons. So maybe the moves aren't bad but they in no way make up for Ahman Green, Chris Brown and bad game decisions, challenges, and time management. I'm not anti-Kubes but there is another side to the track record and you can make good moves and still do nothing with it. Just saying. I really just wanted some new blood.

 

[dalemurphy]

Except these "brilliant moves" have only added up to two 8-8 seasons. So maybe the moves aren't bad but they in no way make up for Ahman Green, Chris Brown and bad game decisions, challenges, and time management. I'm not anti-Kubes but there is another side to the track record and you can make good moves and still do nothing with it. Just saying. I really just wanted some new blood.

Those are decisions that took the worst NFL franchise in football and has turned them into a very young and promising team. I don't recall arguing that he hasn't made mistakes. My point was that he has proven to be a pretty good decision-maker and deserves the benefit of the doubt- Of course he's proven to be fallible. I'm not here to hero worship!

The AGreen and Chris Brown decisions are largely irrelevant and more the result of the previous' regime and the talent and salary cap predicament they put us in. I'd rather have $5 million of dead money from AGreen's contract and a dirt-cheap Chris Brown on the IR along with Mario, MSchaub, and an Alex Gibbs' coached Oline... rather than neither of those RBs and Reggie Bush without Mario or Vince Young without Matt Schuab or Mario. Hey, but that's just me.

I've been fairly outspoken about frustrations with Kubes' game management. However, that's not what I was talking about. And, I think that is just part of a new head coaches' growing pains. I've got a Steeler fan friend that can't stand Tomlin because of "all the bonehead calls".

 

[Maddict5]

Except these "brilliant moves" have only added up to two 8-8 seasons. So maybe the moves aren't bad but they in no way make up for Ahman Green, Chris Brown and bad game decisions, challenges, and time management. I'm not anti-Kubes but there is another side to the track record and you can make good moves and still do nothing with it. Just saying. I really just wanted some new blood.

lol chris brown please.... you forgot dexter wynn.. hes not around anymore- another crucisl error in judgement

hes hit on nearly every big decision hes had to make. weaver being the exception imo. green possibly too- played well when healthy but... (big enough but- not a huge contract though)

 

[Lucky]

hes hit on nearly every big decision hes had to make. weaver being the exception imo. green possibly too- played well when healthy but... (big enough but- not a huge contract though)

If Kubiak had "hit" on the defensive coordinator the first time, this thread wouldn't exist. 1st round picks qualify as "big decisions". And it's too early to suggest that Kubiak has gotten it right on the last two.

Here's an interesting quote from Lance Zierlein's Z Report, concerning the Bush hiring.

While I'm okay with Kubiak hiring Frank Bush, I am curious as to how many friends around the league Kubiak has. He doesn't seem to reach out to very many coaches who he doesn't have a background with and I don't think he even interviewed any other defensive coordinator candidates other than Bush.


Most coaches network since they have to move from job to job, but Kubiak played and coached in Denver so I don't know about how many coaches around the league who he knows well or even trusts other than his Denver posse.

On the flip side, how many assistant coaches know Kubiak well enough to want to coach under him? Being able to pull together a coaching staff is a very important aspect of being a NFL head coach. Kubiak's decision making in this regard has been dubious, thus far.

 

[Specnatz]

While we can squable about details, SecondH, you(& I ) were right about this one. It wasn't so much a Vince vs Mario, for people like us. It was a David Carr can't cut it in this league, and we need another QB.

This makes as much sense as saying you would be ok with Lorena Bobbit because it is anyone other than your current wife.

If vy had not attended UT most of the people would not have wanted him and would have looked closer at his mechanics and the fact Mack Brown had to dummy down his offense for him and also would have looked at his wonderlic score (or lack there of).

Oh and by the way, you can say you were right about Carr but you were dead wrong about vy. So three years later the Texans would again be in the same situation, a crappy QB who can't read defenses and looking for a new one and a new coach and gm as well.

 

[Maddict5]

If Kubiak had "hit" on the defensive coordinator the first time, this thread wouldn't exist. 1st round picks qualify as "big decisions". And it's too early to suggest that Kubiak has gotten it right on the last two.

no coach is perfect and gets EVERY decision/hire right. your success depends on the frequency of those wrong decisions. i think kubiak (despite all the bad doing he gets on here sometimes) has a pretty good success rate

we're going to find out if his first-choice D co-ordinator is a hit over the next year or 2.. and its too early to say hes missed too. i think both will come good but thats jmo

 

[thunderkyss]

This makes as much sense as saying you would be ok with Lorena Bobbit because it is anyone other than your current wife.

I'd have been fine with a "trade down and get Lienart" movement, or a "trade down and get Cutler" movement, but neither of those presented themselves.

If vy had not attended UT most of the people would not have wanted him and would have looked closer at his mechanics and the fact Mack Brown had to dummy down his offense for him and also would have looked at his wonderlic score (or lack there of).

That may be, but he did win the Rose Bowl, and a National Championship

Oh and by the way, you can say you were right about Carr but you were dead wrong about vy. So three years later the Texans would again be in the same situation, a crappy QB who can't read defenses and looking for a new one and a new coach and gm as well.

More than likely.

If this is a me or Kubiak poll, I'd vote for Kubiak myself.

What's your point.

My point is that SecondHoneymoon had/has cause to be critical of this regime, just like you've got cause to be critical of my opinion.

 

[HoustonFrog]

lol chris brown please.... you forgot dexter wynn.. hes not around anymore- another crucisl error in judgement

hes hit on nearly every big decision hes had to make. weaver being the exception imo. green possibly too- played well when healthy but... (big enough but- not a huge contract though)

Scoff if you will but you fail to explain the biggets moves of all...gametime ones. Again, I like the guy, good man and think he has done well with some personnel but that doesn't mean he can coach or can handle the pressure. You act like the Green move isn't a big deal but they kept sticking with him despite age, salary and the fact that he proved undependable. At times the excuses got deep. But what do I know I just watch people continuously make excuses for each regime despite nothing to show.

 

[GP]

I just ate some leftover BBQ at 1:20 a.m.

 

[The Pencil Neck]

Scoff if you will but you fail to explain the biggets moves of all...gametime ones. Again, I like the guy, good man and think he has done well with some personnel but that doesn't mean he can coach or can handle the pressure.

I think those bad game-time decisions really need to be taken with a grain of salt.

Even the 'great' coaches make decisions that make us arm-chair QB's scratch our heads but sometimes (not every time) they're doing it because of some strategy that they're aware of that we aren't.

Kubiak's approach to 2 minutes drives me crazy. He'll run conservative plays to see if he can get a first down and if he DOES get a first down, then he'll go into aggressive mode. If we're inside our own 30 or so, he doesn't try to get the ball down the field. And to me, that seems like a questionable strategy... but watching other games this year, I noticed a couple of other successful coaches taking the same strategy.

Kubiak has a bad record with challenges. But iirc, coaches as a whole run at less than 50% with their challenges. I think I heard in one of the games at the end of the season that Andy Reid's challenge percentage was similar to Kubiak's (like 1 successful challenge all season or something like that.) So, that doesn't seem like something to castigate a coach over.

The last game-time thing that Kubiak does that has irritated me is calling the time out before a half-ending field goal with too much time left on the clock. He habitually calls his time out at about 10-12 seconds when he should take it down to 3 or 4. At 10 seconds, that means we're going to have to kick off again and that's dangerous and unnecessary. I'm not sure why he does that but it drives me crazy.

BUT... I don't see any of those things as a sign of a "bad" coach... because you see good coaches like Reid and Fisher doing the same things.

 

[dalemurphy]

I think those bad game-time decisions really need to be taken with a grain of salt.

Even the 'great' coaches make decisions that make us arm-chair QB's scratch our heads but sometimes (not every time) they're doing it because of some strategy that they're aware of that we aren't.

Kubiak's approach to 2 minutes drives me crazy. He'll run conservative plays to see if he can get a first down and if he DOES get a first down, then he'll go into aggressive mode. If we're inside our own 30 or so, he doesn't try to get the ball down the field. And to me, that seems like a questionable strategy... but watching other games this year, I noticed a couple of other successful coaches taking the same strategy.

Kubiak has a bad record with challenges. But iirc, coaches as a whole run at less than 50% with their challenges. I think I heard in one of the games at the end of the season that Andy Reid's challenge percentage was similar to Kubiak's (like 1 successful challenge all season or something like that.) So, that doesn't seem like something to castigate a coach over.

The last game-time thing that Kubiak does that has irritated me is calling the time out before a half-ending field goal with too much time left on the clock. He habitually calls his time out at about 10-12 seconds when he should take it down to 3 or 4. At 10 seconds, that means we're going to have to kick off again and that's dangerous and unnecessary. I'm not sure why he does that but it drives me crazy.

BUT... I don't see any of those things as a sign of a "bad" coach... because you see good coaches like Reid and Fisher doing the same things.

You guys are right to have some problems with his game management. That being said, complaining about the two minute offense at halftime or in a tie game at the end is nuts. It's a simple risk-reward issue. First, we've been pretty successful in those situations: Green Bay, Miami '08, Miami '07... You have to run clock in a tie game with 2:00 to go if you're inside your own 20. Otherwise, if you throw 3 incompletions and punt, you've positioned the opposing team for a game-winning field goal without even creating difficult decisions or circumstances for them. Look at it this way: "What Would Martz Do?" As a fan, if you find yourself thinking like Mike Martz realize that you have no business criticizing game management decisions.

 

[Texan_Bill]

Some funny stuff...