![]() |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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.
__________________
"Well, at least our players kept their helmets on, so that showed some intelligence"-BobMcNair |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
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. |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
|
|