IntheBullseye.com  

Go Back   IntheBullseye.com > Hot Reads ...In the Bullseye > The Texans

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-13-2009, 01:30 PM
painekiller painekiller is offline
All-Pro
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Near the Galleria
Posts: 2,852
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nunusguy View Post
The Texans hired their senior defensive assistant, Frank Bush, as defensive coordinator today.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/6208713.html
In the article it said they tried to interview Jerry Gray but the Redskins blocked them.

So as most of us had said, Bush is the guy.
__________________
There is no failure, only feedback.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-13-2009, 02:01 PM
bckey bckey is offline
Drafted Rookie
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 97
Default

It just looks like Kubiak is afraid to hire anyone he hasn't had a past relationship with. It is gonna make or break him this year. I personally think it will turn out good but I do think they should have interviewed some other candidates.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-13-2009, 02:28 PM
jppaul jppaul is offline
Regular Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 343
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bckey View Post
It just looks like Kubiak is afraid to hire anyone he hasn't had a past relationship with. It is gonna make or break him this year. I personally think it will turn out good but I do think they should have interviewed some other candidates.
I don't really think thats true. Kubiak has shown quite a but of confidence in his hires IMO. He hired Sherman, a former HC, a move that reflects quite of bit of confidence.

I don't think that he had ever worked with Sherman before either.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-13-2009, 02:59 PM
Joshua Joshua is offline
Regular Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 549
Default

I hope the hiring works out, but I'm not terribly optimistic. There's no getting around the fact that Bush was part of the staff that put last year's D on the field.

I'm also disappointed that we didn't interview a single other candidate for the job. I realize that they weren't granted permission to interview Gray, but you can't tell me Bush's resume is so good that there isn't a single guy in the NFL that didn't warrant an interview.

It's been said before, but I really think this is probably the most important decision in Texans history. If we can get the D straightened out, I think we are in position to compete. However, if the D doesn't come around, Kubiak is gone and we're starting all over again. I don't believe this monumental decision was given the due diligence it deserved.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-13-2009, 03:14 PM
papabear papabear is offline
Regular Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Houston
Posts: 838
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua View Post

I'm also disappointed that we didn't interview a single other candidate for the job. I realize that they weren't granted permission to interview Gray, but you can't tell me Bush's resume is so good that there isn't a single guy in the NFL that didn't warrant an interview.
I feel a little bit the same way, even though I'm fine with the hire. The way I look at it though, NFL coaches are a relatively small group. They have a pretty good idea of who someone is and what they do before they bring them in for an interview. I would have liked to have seen them talk to some more people, but chances are there wasn't much anyone could say in an interview that is going to change their opinion drastically.

I think the thought behind Bush is he will have the shortest transition period because he already knows the players (and they know him), and the changes he will make will be more of a tune-up than a overhaul.
__________________
"Well, at least our players kept their helmets on, so that showed some intelligence"-BobMcNair
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-13-2009, 03:48 PM
Mike Mike is offline
Regular Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 512
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua View Post
I hope the hiring works out, but I'm not terribly optimistic. There's no getting around the fact that Bush was part of the staff that put last year's D on the field.


It's been said before, but I really think this is probably the most important decision in Texans history. If we can get the D straightened out, I think we are in position to compete. However, if the D doesn't come around, Kubiak is gone and we're starting all over again. I don't believe this monumental decision was given the due diligence it deserved.
Just because your boss is an incompetent boob, that does that mean that you are? or that you cannot do that job better? Or you may have different ideas and philosophy? That answer is no, no and no. Frank Bush has a solid resume, and every person did not instantly become a DC, you had to learn and pay dues to get there. Frank has held down a ton of different defensive jobs. He is as good a choice as any other position coach somewhere else in the NFL who might have interviewed. As for available DC's most of them are available for a reason.

Hypothetically, if you were a Jets fan, and your new HC hires Richard Smith. You would be pissed. Poor track record. But if they hired Bush, you say, hmm, solid resume, held a bunch of different coaching positions. Let's see how he does. I think that this situation deserves to see how the results shake out.
__________________
Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for You are with me; Your rod and Your staff, they comfort me. PS 23:4
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-13-2009, 04:33 PM
Joshua Joshua is offline
Regular Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike View Post
Just because your boss is an incompetent boob, that does that mean that you are? or that you cannot do that job better? Or you may have different ideas and philosophy? That answer is no, no and no. Frank Bush has a solid resume, and every person did not instantly become a DC, you had to learn and pay dues to get there. Frank has held down a ton of different defensive jobs. He is as good a choice as any other position coach somewhere else in the NFL who might have interviewed. As for available DC's most of them are available for a reason.

Hypothetically, if you were a Jets fan, and your new HC hires Richard Smith. You would be pissed. Poor track record. But if they hired Bush, you say, hmm, solid resume, held a bunch of different coaching positions. Let's see how he does. I think that this situation deserves to see how the results shake out.
So despite being senior defensive assistant for the last 2 years, Bush is absolved of any responsibility? And if he had so little impact/responsibility/whatever else you want to call it on this team in those 2 years, why again should he be promoted right now?

As for his "solid" resume consisting of a "ton of different jobs," here it is straight from the Texans website -

Frank Bush enters his third season with the Texans and his first year as the team's defensive coordinator after being promoted to the position on Jan. 13, 2009. He spent the previous two seasons as the Texans' senior defensive assistant.

Before joining Dennis Green in Arizona in 2004, Bush worked as an assistant with the Denver Broncos (1995–03).

By my count, that's 3 jobs. I can point to nothing during his 3 years here that suggests he deserves this job and apparently neither can you because the only thing you've suggested we do is give him a pass for it. Faint praise, indeed.

As for his time with the Cards, maybe my memory is hazy, but I don't recall anyone shaking in fear of the vaunted Cardinal defenses of 2003 and '04. As for Denver, I admit that I have no idea how he performed there.

Again, I'm not saying the guy is going to be a failure. I certainly hope he is not. First and foremost, I'm a Texan fan. However, I'm not a blind Texan fan and nothing in his background says he is so qualified as to not interview another candidate. Thus, I'm concerned the Texans may not be making the best decision possible. At the very least, I don't think they did their due diligence.

Finally, if I was a Jets fan and they hired a guy who was one of the senior coaches for one of the worst defenses in the league for the last 2 years, I most certainly would not be going "hmm, solid resume." I'm not trying to be a smartass, I'm really curious why you think he has as good a resume as, say, McDermott in Philly, etc. What do you see on his resume that you like?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-13-2009, 04:47 PM
WMH WMH is offline
Pro Bowler
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,795
Default

Well, I think we all saw this coming, whether we wanted to or not. Kubiak is on his last leg in HOU, so hopefully, it will work out for both of them. We have been "rebuilding" for what.....SEVEN years now?

Personally, I figured we would have someone with no DC experience, as to me, that only makes sense. Why we would hire someone who just got fired? Another regurgitated coach anyone? My two main guesses were Bush or McDermott. I don't understand why McDermott wasn't at least interviewed.....That just doesn't make sense to me.

But if it was my a$$ on the line, then I would put someone in place that I believe in. If Kubiak thinks this guy can do it, so be it.

BRING ON 2009!
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-13-2009, 06:22 PM
Warren Warren is offline
Regular Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 623
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua View Post
As for his time with the Cards, maybe my memory is hazy, but I don't recall anyone shaking in fear of the vaunted Cardinal defenses of 2003 and '04.
Here's how the Cardinals' website describes the team's '04-'06 defenses (Bush was in Denver in '03) in DC Clancy Pendergast's bio:
Quote:
His 2006 defense was highlighted by strong safety Adrian Wilson’s first trip to the Pro Bowl. Wilson recorded four interceptions to tie a career-high set in 2002 and also scored on a pair of 99-yard TD’s (fumble and interception return) to become the first player in NFL history with two defensive touchdowns of 99 yards. Pendergast’s unit forced 33 turnovers (17 fumble recoveries, 16 interceptions) in 2006, the most for a Cardinals defense since 1998 and the second time in the past three years the defense finished with 30+ takeaways. Linebacker Gerald Hayes led the team with a career high 111 stops in his first season as the starting middle linebacker and the team’s redzone defense was 4th best in the NFC and 11th best in the NFL.

Pendergast’s defensive unit improved from 26th to 12th in his first season as coordinator and then jumped from 12th to 8th in 2005. Even with missing four regular starters for most of the 2005 season (DE Bertrand Berry, DT Russell Davis, Hayes, CB Antrel Rolle) and having his defensive players miss a combined 101 games due to injury, the Cardinals defense finished the season with the 10th best rush defense and the 12th best pass defense in 2005. The 8th overall ranking was the best finish for the Cardinals defense since 1994 when they finished 3rd overall. The 2005 defense also finished 7th in the NFL in first downs allowed (272) and 4th in third-down efficiency (34.2%). Wilson, a Pro Bowl alternate and 16-game starter in 2005, led the team with a career high 112 tackles and eight sacks. The 8.0 sacks were the most in the NFL by a defensive back since sacks became an official statistic in 1982. Wilson also became the first defensive back in Cardinals history to lead the team in sacks. Outside linebacker Karlos Dansby finished third on the team with 103 tackles and collected 4.0 sacks and 3 interceptions, becoming one of only six NFL players in 2005 to collect more than three sacks and three interceptions.

In 2004, Pendergast’s defense improved its overall rank from 26th at the end of ’03 to 12th. His unit was particularly tough in the red zone where its 45.0 TD percentage ranked second-best in the NFL (up from 60.7 in ’03). Other key categories of defensive improvement were in third down defense (fourth in ’04 and 32nd in ’03); total sacks were up from 20 to 38; total touchdowns allowed dropped from 55 to 35; and total takeaways improved from 23 to 30. Overall, the Cards plus-minus improved from minus-13 in 2003 to plus-1 in ’04 and the team allowed 130 fewer total points (452 to 322) which moved them from last in the NFL in 2003 to 12th in the league. Passing yards per game dropped from 224.4 in ’03 to 189.8 in ’04 (29th in ’03 to 9th in ’04) and first downs allowed dropped from 326 in ’03 to 282 in ’04. The defense didn’t allow a touchdown in three games (Rams, Falcons and Saints) and allowed just one TD in three others (Rams, Jets and Bucs). Linebacker James Darling set a career and team high with 104 tackles and defensive end Bertrand Berry earned his first Pro Bowl berth with an NFC leading 14.5 sacks.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-13-2009, 11:09 PM
kravix kravix is offline
Regular Starter
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 285
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua View Post
So despite being senior defensive assistant for the last 2 years, Bush is absolved of any responsibility? And if he had so little impact/responsibility/whatever else you want to call it on this team in those 2 years, why again should he be promoted right now?
Last I checked Senior Defensive Coordinators dont create schemes or call plays.

Ray Rhodes may not have the "Senior" or "Assistant Head Coach" in his title but obviously he sucks too because he was part of a bad defense and bad secondary. You cannot tell me that he had no input what so ever, especially after Kubiak said in a press conference that he talks to Rhodes all the time and relies on him for input.

Bush was the guy Kubiak wanted from the get go. He just couldnt get him. I think Smith was put into a position he just wasnt equiped for. I dont know how good of a LB coach he would have been. Look at Marinelli, awesome DL coach, BAD HC...

No one knows how much input Bush had the second half of the season. We do know that there were plays which Smith was banned from calling. Continuity is one of the most important aspects of football, and firing coaches mid season is typically not a good idea, and usually reeks of desperation. Which is a BAD thing!

This is a decision that has the potential to break Kubiak, but there is way more room for impovment on the def side of the ball than there is room to fall.

I will go out on a limb here, and hope to hell that I never have to find out, but I am willing to bet even any season wtih 4 or more wins guantees Kubiak his 5th year. Bob is a patient man, I think he understands what it means to really cook something rather than drive through McD's for shut up the overweight spoiled kids in the back seat.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01-13-2009, 03:30 PM
cadams cadams is offline
Regular Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 461
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jppaul View Post
I don't really think thats true. Kubiak has shown quite a but of confidence in his hires IMO. He hired Sherman, a former HC, a move that reflects quite of bit of confidence.

I don't think that he had ever worked with Sherman before either.
I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure that Kubiak and Sherman worked together at ATM, and they have been friends ever since.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-13-2009, 03:32 PM
cadams cadams is offline
Regular Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 461
Default

I really hope Bush works out, but since the beginning when they didn't release him as well I have pretty much figured Bush was getting the job. My bigger problem is that if Bush deserved to be a DC, then why wasn't he promoted sooner given how bad the defense was under Smith? This is the part that worries me the most.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-13-2009, 05:26 PM
painekiller painekiller is offline
All-Pro
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Near the Galleria
Posts: 2,852
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jppaul View Post
I don't really think thats true. Kubiak has shown quite a but of confidence in his hires IMO. He hired Sherman, a former HC, a move that reflects quite of bit of confidence.

I don't think that he had ever worked with Sherman before either.
They coached at TAMU together, Sherman was the OL guy and Kubiak was in charge of the RBs.
__________________
There is no failure, only feedback.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-13-2009, 06:53 PM
Keith Keith is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,761
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by painekiller View Post
In the article it said they tried to interview Jerry Gray but the Redskins blocked them.
Guess my sniffer on Gray was pretty good. I think he would have been a terrific hire had he been given a fair shake with Bush up against him. Too bad the Skins wouldn't let him interview. I wonder how much that pisses off Gray, being denied a promotion (at least in title if not pay) and an opportunity to return to Texas.
__________________
Support ...IntheBullseye.com and follow us on Twitter
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-13-2009, 06:56 PM
cadams cadams is offline
Regular Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 461
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith View Post
Guess my sniffer on Gray was pretty good. I think he would have been a terrific hire had he been given a fair shake with Bush up against him. Too bad the Skins wouldn't let him interview. I wonder how much that pisses off Gray, being denied a promotion (at least in title if not pay) and an opportunity to return to Texas.
I really think that is a sh*tty move by a team not to let a position coach interview for a coordinator position.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-13-2009, 07:19 PM
nunusguy nunusguy is offline
All-Pro
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Houston
Posts: 2,399
Default

FWIW, on Channel 13 tonight Kubiak commented that one of his reasons for the DC decision was a preference for not venturing away from the 4-3.
I dunno if that suggestss they had a another strong prospect for DC but they decided against him because he was a 3-4 guy ?
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-13-2009, 07:48 PM
Arky Arky is offline
Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 9,291
Default

Meh, I'm OK with it (Bush hiring). The coachspeak went "We're gonna find the best guy that can help the Houston Texans".... So, they've made their choice and everyone will have to live with it....

If it is any consolation, I heard Bush speak on the radio today after his promotion. He promises to be more aggressive on defense and I think the players responded positively - it was mentioned DeMeco was very supportive of the move.

At any rate, 2009 will be a bad year for the Kubiak regime to take a step backward - anything less than a winning season (or maybe 8-8) and some will call for heads to roll....
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.