Official Search for a New Defensive Coordinator Thread - Bush Hired!

[papabear]

Originally Posted by nunusguy

I dunno, what are the implications personnel wise in a conversion to Tampa-2/Cover-2 ? One thing I'm aware of is a team does not require as much man coverage by its corners, so the search for premiere cover CBs is no longer required since they routinely get help from a safety. Of course this may just shift the needs of the Def-Backfield to acquiring more versitale, competant safeties ?
What about the personnel requirements for the front 7 in the Cover-2 , or is that independant of the DB schemes ?

Based on my understanding of the Tampa 2 system, which is probably wrong, our front seven would fit. It emphasizes speed over size, and needs penetrating interior lineman. I think our CB's are better suited to man coverage. Reeves was better here, relatively speaking, than in Dallas where he was asked to play more zone. Robinson is on record saying that he prefers man. I think our corners would be OK in this system, but the safeties is what worry me. I'm also not sure if the Tampa 2 would be the best system for Demeco....everybody has a little different flavor of the scheme, like the "west coast offense", so it's really hard to say. I know Urlacher is often asked to take a deep drop to the middle of the field in the bears scheme. I would like Demeco to have a little freedom though.

[barrett]

Originally Posted by papabear

Based on my understanding of the Tampa 2 system, which is probably wrong, our front seven would fit. It emphasizes speed over size, and needs penetrating interior lineman. I think our CB's are better suited to man coverage. Reeves was better here, relatively speaking, than in Dallas where he was asked to play more zone. Robinson is on record saying that he prefers man. I think our corners would be OK in this system, but the safeties is what worry me. I'm also not sure if the Tampa 2 would be the best system for Demeco....everybody has a little different flavor of the scheme, like the "west coast offense", so it's really hard to say. I know Urlacher is often asked to take a deep drop to the middle of the field in the bears scheme. I would like Demeco to have a little freedom though.

For Tampa 2 personell...

The only thing we lack in the front 7 is a speed rushing DE who I hope we aquire regardless of what defense we run next year.

As for the secondary, our CBs fit ok. Dunta is WAY better in zone regardless of what he might have said. Any time he plays man and has to turn and run with a WR he goes from a defensive leader to a liability. He is far better in zone with eyes on the QB. Plus, one of the keys for a cover 2 CB is the ability to close and tackle, and Dunta is as good as any CB in the NFL at that.

The biggest hole in any effort to run a cover 2 system is our safeties. Is anyone comfortable with 2 of our safeties each plyaing half the field and ending up in 1 on 1 battles when a WR goes deep down the sideline? We would need to scrap the hybrid SSs we use for guys with cover skills who play with eyes on the QB. eugene Wilson would not be bad, but starting harrison/brown/earl/etc.. in a cover 2 would be brutal.

[papabear]

Originally Posted by barrett

For Tampa 2 personell...

The only thing we lack in the front 7 is a speed rushing DE who I hope we aquire regardless of what defense we run next year.

Agreed. Although, if we turn our DT's loose to penetrate upfield Okoye and Johnson's effectiveness should go up, slightly lessening the need for a speed rusher. Still a need though.

As for the secondary, our CBs fit ok. Dunta is WAY better in zone regardless of what he might have said. Any time he plays man and has to turn and run with a WR he goes from a defensive leader to a liability. He is far better in zone with eyes on the QB. Plus, one of the keys for a cover 2 CB is the ability to close and tackle, and Dunta is as good as any CB in the NFL at that.

I agree with this on Dunta too. The Tampa 2 would let him get on the line and jam the WR. I think he would be more effective than he realizes. He can struggle when he's left alone. Even before the injury, but with the rules these days that's all corners. The key is he actually has to trust the safeties behind him. .

The biggest hole in any effort to run a cover 2 system is our safeties. Is anyone comfortable with 2 of our safeties each plyaing half the field and ending up in 1 on 1 battles when a WR goes deep down the sideline? We would need to scrap the hybrid SSs we use for guys with cover skills who play with eyes on the QB. eugene Wilson would not be bad, but starting harrison/brown/earl/etc.. in a cover 2 would be brutal

My fear as well.


My hope is that we end up wth a defense that's comfortable in a lot of different schemes. We have a young defense (team actually) but hopefully our next D-Coordinator+more experience for the players will mean that we can mix things up and be effective doing a lot of different things in the years to come. I think that was Smith's biggest fault. He tried to do a lot of differnt things without getting his guys very good at any of them.

[teufelhunden]

Hello all I am new to the board and I have been reading this thread in hopes of getting everyones opinion. I am left with a few questions.


How do the candidates that have been mentioned fit with the coaches that we have? What are we going to do with Rhodes, Bush, et.al when we hire these guys?

What hand did the coaches that remain on our staff have in the abysmal defensive performance that we witnessed this year? I know that Bush was the first choice when we hired Smith, What has changed?

I would appreciate anyones insight or opinion.

[Roy P]

Originally Posted by teufelhunden

Hello all I am new to the board and I have been reading this thread in hopes of getting everyones opinion. I am left with a few questions.


How do the candidates that have been mentioned fit with the coaches that we have? What are we going to do with Rhodes, Bush, et.al when we hire these guys?

What hand did the coaches that remain on our staff have in the abysmal defensive performance that we witnessed this year? I know that Bush was the first choice when we hired Smith, What has changed?

I would appreciate anyones insight or opinion.

Welcome, Devildog.

My personal opinion is that Rhodes and Bush were simply implementing Smith's game plan. They probably broke down film, looked at tendencies, and coached the players just like most assistants do in the league.

I'm not really sure how much of a hand they had in the "identity" of this defense. Were they making defensive calls? I doubt it.

Now, both coaches are esteemed by Kubiak so they will definitely get the benefit of the doubt. Should they be held accountable? I would have to say yes. Just as should most of the players on the defense.

We don't really need to blow up the entire defense and staff. There are some things we do well. We just need the right leadership to reinforce success and play to our strengths.

[kravix]

OOHRAH!! And god bless our fellow Marines!

Personaly, I think that the job is Bush's. Rhodes was the DC in Denver when Bush was the LB coach there. I think that Bush getting the DC job here, like Kubiak wanted origonaly, makes sense. Especially when you look moves like bringing in Gibbs to help Shanny. It makes sense to bring in Rhodes to help Bush.

If Kubiak doesnt hire Bush as the DC and picks someone completly outside of his circle, then it is possible that Bush and Rhodes are gone. However, if Kubiak trends like he usually does and hires people he knows from the Broncos organization they both have a shot at sticking.

As for arguments about giving Bush authority of Smtih later in the season if he was truely the next candidate, it doesnt make sense. Why keep a DC all season that has basically been fired? Bush may have had input later in the season, but to ponder why he wasnt given full reign over Smith and the Def is crazy. No organization works that way, it breeds discontent among the staff and players.

I see alot of people wishing for a speedy edge rusher, and I disagree. I would prefer not to turn into the Colts. A perverbial playoff team that cannot advance becasue their run def is a joke. I want a team that can stop the run and be creative enough to rush the passer with 4 or 4+1. An edge rusher would be nice in nickle, but the premium some are putting on that role is way to high.

Which leads me to the Tampa 2 style def. I am not a big fan. Although up front our players seem to fit that mold I would prefer something with bit of meat on the back end.

[Bigtinylittle]

Originally Posted by teufelhunden

Hello all I am new to the board and I have been reading this thread in hopes of getting everyones opinion. I am left with a few questions.


How do the candidates that have been mentioned fit with the coaches that we have? What are we going to do with Rhodes, Bush, et.al when we hire these guys?

What hand did the coaches that remain on our staff have in the abysmal defensive performance that we witnessed this year? I know that Bush was the first choice when we hired Smith, What has changed?

I would appreciate anyones insight or opinion.

Welcome to the board. There aren't many posters here, but the quality is very high. Not a lot of mindless ranters here. Hope you like it.

I personally suspect Bush is going to be the man, and if he isn't he will still stick around because Kubiak wants him here. If the new guy wants a job he will have to be OK with that.

As far as who to blame for the failure, to me one of the hardest things in football is figuring out who to blame when things don't work out. I think a lot of times head coaches and owners go more by gut feeling than anything else.

I'm glad to see Smith gone, though. Not because I know he wasn't qualified, but more because I think it makes it more likely that we will have a more risk-taking, agressive style next year.