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

[kravix]

Originally Posted by Joshua

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.

[Joshua]

Originally Posted by kravix

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.

So what do senior defensive coordinators do? That's kind of my point. The only thing people are able to do is apologize for him and speculate that he wasn't at fault for our terrible defense. Contrast this with Alex Gibbs, he was brought in to work with the O line and we saw the results as the season went on. If Bush is the guy, why didn't any of his teachings over the last 2 years translate into something we could point to on the field? His Texan bio says that he primarily worked with Franklin with the D line. Somehow, their work together got him the DC job and Franklin fired. That makes me go "Huh?" As for Ray Rhodes, if Kubiak had just named him DC, I would feel somewhat the same way to some extent, but Rhodes' resume would help his case a little more. Doesn't mean he sucks, but "not suck" is hopefully not the criteria for our D coordinator position.

Again, I'm not trying to just stir the pot. I would like someone, anyone, to give me any concrete, objective reason why Bush deserved the job other than he was Kubiak's first choice. I appreciate Warren's info on the Arizona D at the time and they clearly played better than I remember (not that I watched them much). But that alone doesn't seem like enough of a track record to warrant the job.

I don't have any idea what sort of defense he wants to run (I don't care about the press conference crap where he said he wants to run a more aggressive defense. Every new D coordinator says this. There's $20 in it for anyone who can find a quote from an incoming D coordinator who says he wants to play it safe, play prevent and be less aggressive.) Who did he learn under and who is his mentor? If he has one, is he still a disciple of his mentor's scheme and wants to run it? What sort of players does he look for to play his D?

I know it sounds like I'm being hard on Bush, but it's really not Bush that I'm upset with, it's Kubiak. I hope Bush works out and we'll see if he does, but I've yet to see anything concrete on why he deserved the job without even considering any other candidates (except for Gray). While it may all work out in the end, I don't see how you can look at the process the Texans just went through to hire their new D coordinator and say, "Yep, that's how it's done. The way they handled that tells me this regime knows what they're doing and I'm confident we're heading in the right direction." I'm honestly asking, does anyone feel this way?

[HPF Bob]

Any time a new coach is hired, they tell the media they plan for the team to be "more aggressive". When have you ever heard a coach say he wants his team to be less aggressive? Or perhaps "more passive"? What is it that takes a coach from being "more aggressive" to being replaced by someone who swears to be "more aggressive"? At what point does one become too aggressive? Kyle Turley? Jared Allen?

[papabear]

Originally Posted by HPF Bob

Any time a new coach is hired, they tell the media they plan for the team to be "more aggressive". When have you ever heard a coach say he wants his team to be less aggressive? Or perhaps "more passive"? What is it that takes a coach from being "more aggressive" to being replaced by someone who swears to be "more aggressive"? At what point does one become too aggressive? Kyle Turley? Jared Allen?

I agree with this completely....and any time a team's defense performs poorly the fans almost always scream that they need to be more aggressive. I heard poeple say they wanted Rhodes to be defensive co-ordinator becasue he would have a more "agressive" style. Yet when I looked at what Seahawk fans said about him his last year or two there the consensus seemed to be that his defense was to passive and that Rhodes keep everything in front of you approach wouldn't work. It takes more than a mean streak to play defense well.

I do think we need to have a more attacking style. If we had two huge hogs at DT who could clog things up then letting them clog things up in the middle while the others players made there reads might work better. Our personell just doesn't fit.

If Bush is super aggressive and blitzes a ton and it results in a few big plays, then I'm sure we will start to hear complaints because Bush blitzes too much, or that his defense is reckless. I don't really care if our defense is considered aggressive as long as it works.

[barrett]

Originally Posted by Joshua

So what do senior defensive coordinators do? That's kind of my point. The only thing people are able to do is apologize for him and speculate that he wasn't at fault for our terrible defense. Contrast this with Alex Gibbs, he was brought in to work with the O line and we saw the results as the season went on. If Bush is the guy, why didn't any of his teachings over the last 2 years translate into something we could point to on the field? His Texan bio says that he primarily worked with Franklin with the D line. Somehow, their work together got him the DC job and Franklin fired. That makes me go "Huh?" As for Ray Rhodes, if Kubiak had just named him DC, I would feel somewhat the same way to some extent, but Rhodes' resume would help his case a little more. Doesn't mean he sucks, but "not suck" is hopefully not the criteria for our D coordinator position.

Again, I'm not trying to just stir the pot. I would like someone, anyone, to give me any concrete, objective reason why Bush deserved the job other than he was Kubiak's first choice. I appreciate Warren's info on the Arizona D at the time and they clearly played better than I remember (not that I watched them much). But that alone doesn't seem like enough of a track record to warrant the job.

I don't have any idea what sort of defense he wants to run (I don't care about the press conference crap where he said he wants to run a more aggressive defense. Every new D coordinator says this. There's $20 in it for anyone who can find a quote from an incoming D coordinator who says he wants to play it safe, play prevent and be less aggressive.) Who did he learn under and who is his mentor? If he has one, is he still a disciple of his mentor's scheme and wants to run it? What sort of players does he look for to play his D?

I know it sounds like I'm being hard on Bush, but it's really not Bush that I'm upset with, it's Kubiak. I hope Bush works out and we'll see if he does, but I've yet to see anything concrete on why he deserved the job without even considering any other candidates (except for Gray). While it may all work out in the end, I don't see how you can look at the process the Texans just went through to hire their new D coordinator and say, "Yep, that's how it's done. The way they handled that tells me this regime knows what they're doing and I'm confident we're heading in the right direction." I'm honestly asking, does anyone feel this way?

Amazing how we are all aware of what other candidates were considered. Also amazing how we all know the inner-workings of a football staff. We pretend to know WAY more on stuff like this than we do. The truth is we don't have nearly enough info to evaluate a coordinator let alone a position coach, because we have no idea how a particular team is run. Nobody knows the percent of the blame that lies where, or the percent of the credit for the positives we saw towards the end of the year. Or at least nobody knows who's talking.

What we do know is that Gary Kubiak has worked with Bush for years and wants him as his DC. The players have worked with him for years and have come out in support of the hire. Anything else is specualtion. A year from now we will either see this as a smart move or the reason Kubiak was fired, but right now any judgement of this hire is blind conjecture.

[papabear]

Originally Posted by barrett

A year from now we will either see this as a smart move or the reason Kubiak was fired, but right now any judgement of this hire is blind conjecture.

I think Kubiak has either been told, or is smart enough to know, that it's playoffs or else next year. I think that was a big reason it was Bush. If he thought he had a couple of years to re-tool the defense he would have been more likely to bring in someone from the outside. I suspect, with absolutely no proof, that McDermott was on the radar screen. With the iggles going deeper than most probably thought I think Kubiak just went ahead and made the call that he was most comfortable with and got this settled early. Now they can seamlessly transition to the off season without any kind of learning period between HC and DC.

Kubiak is probably all to aware that this hire will make or break him. He had a lot more riding on this than any of us.

[cadams]

Originally Posted by barrett

Amazing how we are all aware of what other candidates were considered. Also amazing how we all know the inner-workings of a football staff. We pretend to know WAY more on stuff like this than we do. The truth is we don't have nearly enough info to evaluate a coordinator let alone a position coach, because we have no idea how a particular team is run. Nobody knows the percent of the blame that lies where, or the percent of the credit for the positives we saw towards the end of the year. Or at least nobody knows who's talking.

What we do know is that Gary Kubiak has worked with Bush for years and wants him as his DC. The players have worked with him for years and have come out in support of the hire. Anything else is specualtion. A year from now we will either see this as a smart move or the reason Kubiak was fired, but right now any judgement of this hire is blind conjecture.

Ummmmm, that is what 90% of message boards are. People giving thier opinions on the situations. Of course we don't know the inner workings of the team, but I think it is pretty safe to say that coaching prospects are reported on, and I also think that the fact that 90% of the posters on this board called the Bush hiring as soon as he was retained and Smith was released is a telling sign. I don't think Joshua is doing anything other than voicing concerns and asking someone for more information so he can get his head around the decision rather than just having blind faith (which was all used up with the casserly/capers regime)

[barrett]

Originally Posted by cadams

Ummmmm, that is what 90% of message boards are. People giving thier opinions on the situations. Of course we don't know the inner workings of the team, but I think it is pretty safe to say that coaching prospects are reported on, and I also think that the fact that 90% of the posters on this board called the Bush hiring as soon as he was retained and Smith was released is a telling sign. I don't think Joshua is doing anything other than voicing concerns and asking someone for more information so he can get his head around the decision rather than just having blind faith (which was all used up with the casserly/capers regime)

My problem is simply people pretending they KNOW what happens on the inside. Because they don't. Message boards may be a great place for guesses, I just think it's funny when people make authoritative statements when they have no knowledge. Things like we didn't "even consider any other candidates except for Gray." Where does anyone get the idea that Kubiak didn't consider other candidates. We KNOW that Marinelli was interviewed. As for who was considered I bet it was a lot longer list than Gray and Bush.

It was like when somebody posted last week they heard Kubiak was taking a week off and then putting together a list of candidates and we got a page of replies about how Kubiak was taking a vacation. This stuff is all made up. Someone hears a quote about Kubiak taking his time on the hire, relates it the best he remembers it, and someone twists it to suit a preconceived idea until Kubiak is in club med while all the good hires get snatched up.

As for blind faith, I would say the perfect definition is listening to message board rants while ignoring the words of a guy like Demeco Ryans.

Now, if you want to argue that message boards are a great place for wild guesses, blind conjecture, half truths, directionless rants, and the like. I can't argue with you. Nor can you argue with me going after it if I don't like it.

[Joshua]

Originally Posted by barrett

My problem is simply people pretending they KNOW what happens on the inside. Because they don't. Message boards may be a great place for guesses, I just think it's funny when people make authoritative statements when they have no knowledge. Things like we didn't "even consider any other candidates except for Gray." Where does anyone get the idea that Kubiak didn't consider other candidates. We KNOW that Marinelli was interviewed. As for who was considered I bet it was a lot longer list than Gray and Bush.

Don't recall if I wrote the Texans "didn't consider any other candidates except Gray." If I did, you're right that this is probably incorrect (at least none of us can say either way). However, the Chron did report that Gray was the only other candidate who the Texans sought an interview with. They also reported that Marinelli was brought in to interview solely for the D line job. This is what I was referring to and if I botched it, my apologies.

[Joshua]

Originally Posted by barrett

Amazing how we are all aware of what other candidates were considered. Also amazing how we all know the inner-workings of a football staff. We pretend to know WAY more on stuff like this than we do. The truth is we don't have nearly enough info to evaluate a coordinator let alone a position coach, because we have no idea how a particular team is run. Nobody knows the percent of the blame that lies where, or the percent of the credit for the positives we saw towards the end of the year. Or at least nobody knows who's talking.

What we do know is that Gary Kubiak has worked with Bush for years and wants him as his DC. The players have worked with him for years and have come out in support of the hire. Anything else is specualtion. A year from now we will either see this as a smart move or the reason Kubiak was fired, but right now any judgement of this hire is blind conjecture.

All good points and I don't disagree that much here is speculation. Only time will tell. But isn't speculation pretty much what these types of boards are? Also, I don't think you need complete knowledge to gather a few nuggets here and there. None of us knows exactly how much the improved offensive line is the result of Alex Gibbs but I don't think it's unreasonable to assign some of the credit to him. I'm just looking for similar nuggets on Bush. I haven't seen many yet and the D line, the one thing I know he was in charge of (at least in part), was below average despite the resources given it (I realize there is an argument here over why that is (bad personnel decisions, etc.)). The players coming out in support is a decent sign but that seems pretty standard (they also came out against the firing of Franklin).

As for Kubiak's first choice, I give this little thought. As great as Kubiak has been with the offense, he's been equally disasterous with the defense. I simply don't afford him the same benefit of the doubt on the defensive side of the ball.

Finally, I think I've also been clear that my primary complaint has been the process. Like everyone else here, I just want the Texans to succeed and hopefully this will be a step in that direction. I've been vocal that I'm concerned it is not. With any luck, you all will get to throw this back in my face this time next year.

[barrett]

Originally Posted by Joshua

All good points and I don't disagree that much here is speculation. Only time will tell. But isn't speculation pretty much what these types of boards are? Also, I don't think you need complete knowledge to gather a few nuggets here and there. None of us knows exactly how much the improved offensive line is the result of Alex Gibbs but I don't think it's unreasonable to assign some of the credit to him. I'm just looking for similar nuggets on Bush. I haven't seen many yet and the D line, the one thing I know he was in charge of (at least in part), was below average despite the resources given it (I realize there is an argument here over why that is (bad personnel decisions, etc.)). The players coming out in support is a decent sign but that seems pretty standard (they also came out against the firing of Franklin).

As for Kubiak's first choice, I give this little thought. As great as Kubiak has been with the offense, he's been equally disasterous with the defense. I simply don't afford him the same benefit of the doubt on the defensive side of the ball.

Finally, I think I've also been clear that my primary complaint has been the process. Like everyone else here, I just want the Texans to succeed and hopefully this will be a step in that direction. I've been vocal that I'm concerned it is not. With any luck, you all will get to throw this back in my face this time next year.

My reply was not against you in particular Joshua. Your post was very reasonable. My post was just stating that we honestly don't know certain things about a football team and never will. How the coaching staff works is number one on this list. We sometimes get a "legend" of a position coach like Joe Gibbs who has articles written and praise heaped on him. But most of the time we don't hear anything.

I never heard a single good word about Kyle Shanahan as a position coach, and then he was hired as OC. many of the threads on the old HPF ripped the hiring, and yet this past year, our offense was at its best ever. And the truth is we still don't know how much was him. We never see these guys on the field, we just see a product that they were in some indefinable way responsible for. I've been on football staffs and it is not like any other coaching staff. There are so many coaches that a bum can be hidden and a star can be snuffed out.

So regarding this hire, we honestly know almost nothing directly about Bush other than his Boss and his players are big fans. And as for the hiring process we know just as little. The number of public interviews shows a handful were considered. The talk shows they considered additional 3-4 guys, and the number of people on the original list that were considered is something we'll never know.

With all this in play I will take a wait and see approach. If anyone claims to know more, they are welcome to do so, but they have nothing to back up that claim.

[Mike]

[QUOTE=Joshua;7259]
I don't have any idea what sort of defense he wants to run (I don't care about the press conference crap where he said he wants to run a more aggressive defense. Every new D coordinator says this. There's $20 in it for anyone who can find a quote from an incoming D coordinator who says he wants to play it safe, play prevent and be less aggressive.) Who did he learn under and who is his mentor? If he has one, is he still a disciple of his mentor's scheme and wants to run it? What sort of players does he look for to play his D? QUOTE]

Watch his press conference video on the teams site. He learned from Gregg Robinson Jerry Glanville and buddy Ryan. He runs the 4-3.

[nunusguy]

Originally Posted by kravix

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.

I dunno if Kubiak would have survived this season (his third) if he had ended up 4-12 and I think its even more unlikely he would in one of the next 2 seasons with that record unless the Texans were to incur a huge number of injuries.

[Mike]

In his presser yesterday, Bush said he wants the players playing fast and physical, will simplify things and wants to create turnovers. I know, all the typical coaching cliches'.

He wants to be aggressive and react, play north and south. I think that might be a statement on the play of the DT's. I wonder if that means more gap shooting vs read then react. Should suit Omobi better.

I can give my boss all kind of ideas. It is up to him to use them. it is possible that this is what happened between Bush/Smith. Just speculating on my part. At some point in his career, he coached LB's, DL and secondary in addition to scouting. He is a former player. I bet he he can identify talent, or lack thereof.

Demeco is happy with the pick. He indicates that when Frank talks, people are focused on him. I'll roll with what he says vs drivel on the board. I choose looking for positives over dwelling on possible negatives.

The proof will be in the product, and I'll base judgement on those results, vs superficial arguements about why he should not have been the choice or will fail. He might not have better results than Smith, but he certainly should not do worse, and we all know we will be drafting and spending FA money on the defense.

[popanot]

It's becoming increasingly apparent that Kubiak doesn't have the nads to make the difficult decision based on his failure to fire/demote Smith when he had the man he wanted all along on his staff for the past 2 years. All this while watching his defense get torched beyond recognition for the most part. Sweet... We waisted two years on the Smith experiment.

Personally, I don't have problem with Bush if that's who Kubiak wants and feels is the best man for the job. I do have a problem with Kubiak not making the move sooner, however. This would concern me greatly if I were Bob McNair.

[papabear]

Originally Posted by popanot

It's becoming increasingly apparent that Kubiak doesn't have the nads to make the difficult decision based on his failure to fire/demote Smith when he had the man he wanted all along on his staff for the past 2 years. All this while watching his defense get torched beyond recognition for the most part. Sweet... We waisted two years on the Smith experiment.

Personally, I don't have problem with Bush if that's who Kubiak wants and feels is the best man for the job. I do have a problem with Kubiak not making the move sooner, however. This would concern me greatly if I were Bob McNair.

I think it's pretty unfair to say that Kubiak can't make a tough decision because he lt Smith hae a full season. Hypothetically speaking, if Kubiak held onto Smith and the defense was above average next year, maybe bordering on top ten or better, then all the talk would be about how much courage it took for Kubiak to have the necessary patience to let Smith get the right players in and his scheme going. Dungy was too nice and Coughlin was too mean...until they both won Super Bowls.

We had an unually large number of injuries on the defense Smith's first year. He was given the benefit of the doubt. The defense was poor again the next year, but actually finished strong over the last part of the season. That improvement late in the season probably saved his job. Another poor year and he gets the ax. I'm sure that Smith knew his job was on the line, and have no problem with Kubiak letting him go the whole season to try and save it.

There's not enough time mid-season to make dramatic changes to a defense. Sure, they could have let Bush call a couple of games late, but we still wouldn't have seen what he brings because he would only have time to make minor changes to Smith's framework late in the season. Besides, it's entirely possible that Bush was given a little more control over the defense for the last few games...and the fact that the defense seemed to play a little better could be part of the reason he was hired (total speculation on my part though).

I think a new coordinator is better off coming in clean in the off season anyway. Players are more likely to buy in in the off season then they are trying to adjust mid-stream.

[cland]

I've read and watched quite a bit about this coaching decision, based on all that this is my opinion on how the whole decision came down:

-Somewhere in the mid-season--after dropping the game against Minnesota in particular--the players lost faith in Richard's defense. A couple comments from Dunta, DeMeco, and Wilson speak to this, criticizing the game plan and the lack of aggression. Mario gets in the act also, his proclamation of 'I'm going to go then react to the play, rather than read first.' after having his most productive game.

-Kubiak takes a much closer look at the defense, and uses his sounding board and original choice for DC more than ever. He definitely relies on Bush's influence and the defense takes a turn that was obvious to all of us. My guess is that Bush's opinion in forming the defensive gameplan suddenly outranked Smith's. Whether Bush called the plays or not, the gameplan was his and Kubiak enforced it.

-Kubiak is very pleased with the turn-around on defense...and game score. After a few impressive games, Kubiak has already made his mind up: "Frank Bush is my new DC."

-That being said he has two reasons for not implementing this change during the season. First, Richard Smith is his friend, he brought him into this franchise, gave him the position, and feels somewhat responsible for the eventual outcome. He decides to make the change in a classier fashion. Second, as John Mclain mentioned in one of his video's, "the McNairs'" wanted to interview more than one candidate.

-After talking to all of his players his decision is reinforced, Kubiak makes the call and terminates Richard Smith. He also lets go of Hoke--likely due to Dunta's comments--and Jethro Franklin...Mario's handiwork.

-So Bob and Cal aren't ready to just hand over the DC crown to anyone, but in typical fashion they do listen to their coach. When he announced Richard Smith's firing, Kubiak has a bit of a sly grin when he was asked if Frank Bush would be interviewed for the DC position. I thought the slyness was just out of respect for both Smith and Bush, but I now think this was due to the McNairs' request/boss's demand.

-So Kubiak--mind already made up--calls some coaches he would like to interview and accepts some additional coaches thought up by Rick and the McNairs. Frank Bush says in a video that he was "one of many" who interviewed. I'm sure that Jerry Gray originally agreed to come in to interview, but I'm betting they talked to several others who had other plans. Once Jerry Gray's interview was denied, the McNair's discovery period was satisfied and Kubiak was free to make the announcement.

-This explains why position coaches continued to be interviewed without an official DC. In my opinion, David Gibbs is already hired we'll probably hear that tommorow. My guess is that they have a target on the DL coach as well and I'm betting that person is in the playoffs right now. Kubiak made the comment in his most recent video..."It could take awhile. [team wins] It could happen in the next day or so. [team loses] I’ll keep you up to date."

[edo783]

Originally Posted by cland

I've read and watched quite a bit about this coaching decision, based on all that this is my opinion on how the whole decision came down:

-Somewhere in the mid-season--after dropping the game against Minnesota in particular--the players lost faith in Richard's defense. A couple comments from Dunta, DeMeco, and Wilson speak to this, criticizing the game plan and the lack of aggression. Mario gets in the act also, his proclamation of 'I'm going to go then react to the play, rather than read first.' after having his most productive game.

-Kubiak takes a much closer look at the defense, and uses his sounding board and original choice for DC more than ever. He definitely relies on Bush's influence and the defense takes a turn that was obvious to all of us. My guess is that Bush's opinion in forming the defensive gameplan suddenly outranked Smith's. Whether Bush called the plays or not, the gameplan was his and Kubiak enforced it.

-Kubiak is very pleased with the turn-around on defense...and game score. After a few impressive games, Kubiak has already made his mind up: "Frank Bush is my new DC."

-That being said he has two reasons for not implementing this change during the season. First, Richard Smith is his friend, he brought him into this franchise, gave him the position, and feels somewhat responsible for the eventual outcome. He decides to make the change in a classier fashion. Second, as John Mclain mentioned in one of his video's, "the McNairs'" wanted to interview more than one candidate.

-After talking to all of his players his decision is reinforced, Kubiak makes the call and terminates Richard Smith. He also lets go of Hoke--likely due to Dunta's comments--and Jethro Franklin...Mario's handiwork.

-So Bob and Cal aren't ready to just hand over the DC crown to anyone, but in typical fashion they do listen to their coach. When he announced Richard Smith's firing, Kubiak has a bit of a sly grin when he was asked if Frank Bush would be interviewed for the DC position. I thought the slyness was just out of respect for both Smith and Bush, but I now think this was due to the McNairs' request/boss's demand.

-So Kubiak--mind already made up--calls some coaches he would like to interview and accepts some additional coaches thought up by Rick and the McNairs. Frank Bush says in a video that he was "one of many" who interviewed. I'm sure that Jerry Gray originally agreed to come in to interview, but I'm betting they talked to several others who had other plans. Once Jerry Gray's interview was denied, the McNair's discovery period was satisfied and Kubiak was free to make the announcement.

-This explains why position coaches continued to be interviewed without an official DC. In my opinion, David Gibbs is already hired we'll probably hear that tommorow. My guess is that they have a target on the DL coach as well and I'm betting that person is in the playoffs right now. Kubiak made the comment in his most recent video..."It could take awhile. [team wins] It could happen in the next day or so. [team loses] I’ll keep you up to date."

Nice job. Good analysis and the only nit I would pick would be in regards to Franklin's firing being somehow tied to Mario. My take is that it was likely tied to a lack of development by several players and possibly he was a supporter of the read-react mindset group.

[cadams]

Originally Posted by Mike

In his presser yesterday, Bush said he wants the players playing fast and physical, will simplify things and wants to create turnovers. I know, all the typical coaching cliches'.

He wants to be aggressive and react, play north and south. I think that might be a statement on the play of the DT's. I wonder if that means more gap shooting vs read then react. Should suit Omobi better.

I can give my boss all kind of ideas. It is up to him to use them. it is possible that this is what happened between Bush/Smith. Just speculating on my part. At some point in his career, he coached LB's, DL and secondary in addition to scouting. He is a former player. I bet he he can identify talent, or lack thereof.

Demeco is happy with the pick. He indicates that when Frank talks, people are focused on him. I'll roll with what he says vs drivel on the board. I choose looking for positives over dwelling on possible negatives.

The proof will be in the product, and I'll base judgement on those results, vs superficial arguements about why he should not have been the choice or will fail. He might not have better results than Smith, but he certainly should not do worse, and we all know we will be drafting and spending FA money on the defense.

Maybe I missed something, but I don't recall anyone saying he was the wrong choice, or that he will fail. I think the comments were more focused on the hiring process that was used and requesting information on the guy. I may have come the closest when i said I was concerned about keeping anyone from the previous defensive staff, but I think I clearly said I hoped I was wrong.