I would put the Saints in with a whole bunch of teams like the Texans.... New Orleans, Houston, Denver, NYJ, Buffalo, San Francisco.... - a bunch of 7-9 to 9-7 teams with good offenses that could use better defenses. I think you could make a case for 6-10 Green Bay to belong in that group, too, as they lost a bunch of close games...

fyi - I renamed this thread to better encompass the conversation.

I think we can read this two ways. Either Marinelli is kicking our tires for a salary number he can take elsewhere to get more money from another team or the Texans are inclined to completely remake this into a cover-2 defense.

Regardless, I'm happy the team is talking to him, even if he isn't my first choice hire. It is a sign of progress, and a sign that Kubiak is willing to bring in a former HC to own that side of the ball here (assuming he's here to talk about the DC position... not sure why Kubiak would talk to DL candidates before DC ones).

Darn. Now I can't wait to see who else is interviewed next. :D

I think him coming in for the d-line position is a bunch of bull for 2 reasons:
1. He's already talked to 2 other teams that he has connections with (Chicago and Seattle) about a D-Line position

2. It's unlikely we would hire a d-line coach without our future DC's consent

So, in those ways, it wouldn't make sense for us to bring him in for a d-line position and it wouldn't make sense for him to come here for a d-line position.

Regarding our defense being remade to a Tampa-2, we're not far off are we? I was under the impression that our personnel on that side was due for a huge makeover regardless of who claims the DC post, but what do we really need to field a starting 11 for a Tampa-2? A speed rushing DE, another LB or 2 and another safety to pair with Wilson? Anything else? We have the penetrating DTs, we have Mario, we have the undersized LBs, we have the press CBs, and we have one safety with range and pop. Anything else?

Im hoping Philli looses this week because I really want McDormott.

He makes sense for the D-Line to me...especially if Bush is going to be the next DC. Our line fits a tampa 2 pretty well. The DT's are more of the quick pentrating type, think Sapp, than the big hogs in the middle. I don't think we're going to switch, but Marinelli should be able to work with what we have along the D-line. I don't know if I want Demeco to have to haul but down field on every snap, and we definitely don't have the safeties for it, but I think certain elements of that system could mesh with what we have.

I think it would be a huge hire if it'w the D-Line, and I would be OK with him as DC....as long as he's willing to tailor things to what we have and not be a slave to "his" system. I think that will be a factor with any coach we hire. Kubiak's going to want someone who can work with what we have right now. Not someone who needs to overhaul a lot of things before it could work. In other words, I really think it's going to be Bush at DC.

You do know they do not just run one type of defense, right? The Tampa 2 is just one of the coverages they all run.

The main thing is he coaches 4-3 as opposed to 3-4.

This is the D I want.


2. The MLB is freed to roam and ad-lib to make plays, allowing us to take full advantage of DeMeco’s range/instincts. (Seriously, DeMeco was born to play in this system.)

3. Rather than read-and-react at the line when fulfilling gap responsibilities, the initial responsibility for the D-line in this system is to get 1.5 to 2 yards up field, then flow to the ball.

4. The D-line is freed to stunt and twist more than in a standard 4-3.

I think you misunderstood me. I agree that our personnel is a better fit than some may think. What I'm saying is that it doesn't make sense for either us, nor Marinelli, for him to come in and interview for the d-line position.

If Bush was the DC-in-waiting, as you suggest, why wait to announce so until after his position coaches are hired? Do you think we are trying to be deceptive and lure potential position coaches in under the supposition that they have a shot at the DC spot? Also, if Bush is the DC-in-waiting, why even give the notion that Marinelli has the opportunity at the DC spot?

For Marinelli, it makes no sense to come to Houston to interview for a D-line job when he has two teams that he is connected with who have already interviewed him for the same position. Granted, money is a consideration, as is the talent he would have to work with here in Houston. But, you'd have to think that his next tenure at d-line coach (if there is one in his future) will be a short one. So, I think it'd be more advantageous for him to work with his guys and his system to have quick success and to facilitate connections that could blossom into a DC gig faster than a semi-rebuilding job here in Houston.

And, I keep coming back to the sticking point that a team looking for a coordinator generally looks for the coordinator first and then lets him fill in his positional vacancies. To do otherwise would undermine your chances at landing a quality coordinator.

I just don't think it makes sense for us to bring him in for the d-line position.

um yea.....In my world Tampa 2 refers to a "system" and a cover 2 refers to a basic type of coverage that everyone runs. I also realize that the term "Tampa 2" is almost as overused as "west coast offense". When I say Tampa 2 I am referring to a system that emphasizes speed over size from the front 7, 2 safeties covering the deep half (hence the 2), CB's who generally press at the LOS on WR's without being asked to play man coverage. In this system the MLB is often asked to get a very deep drop to protect the middle. Yes, I understand that there is literally thousands of different things so-called Tampa 2 teams can do within this scheme.

My point is that I see elements of that that match our personnel and others that don't. Regardless of who we hire I just want someone who will figure out what our personnel does best and fit his scheme to match that. Not just use the same things that worked for him on another team.

I didn't misunderstand you as much as just got off on a rambling tangent. After looking at the article I don't think the Chronicle knows anything more than he is here. I suspect he's here for the DC, but it could be nothing more than they just asked him to come to town and talk. He has nothing to lose by interviewing for either position or both if for no other reason than leverage.

Garrett interviewed for the Cowboys head coaching name and then was named the OC....not that I want to model things on the way Jerrah does it.

We have nothing to lose either by interviewing him. Nobody knows what may be gleened from the interview. Perhaps during the course of the interview, the Texans may be persuaded that the Tampa-2 is or is not the best system to utilize for our roster.

I'm imagining one of those HGTV shows where a couple of designers show what they want to do on a project. The family then decides that one of the options is closer to their tastes. It is sometimes easier to determine what you like by seeing what you don't like.

I'm thinking about the Colts and Bucs and trying to contemplate a John Lynch or Bob Sanders on our roster.

Anybody watch what Charlie Strong is doing to Oklahoma? I wonder if he'd like a shot at an NFL Defensive Coordinator position.

The Gators were tough weren't they? I was hoping for Big 12 but ...

well well well...

the chron has updated their article online to say that Marinelli is in fact interested in being a DL coach again.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/6200476.html

I have no beefs with Marinelli coaching the DL here... I think he might be the man to get the most out of Okoye's skillset. But talking to a DL coach candidate without a DC named is a little strange.

ETA - Looks like Berman tracked Marinelli down at the IAH baggage claim. :D
http://www.myfoxhouston.com/myfox/pa...Y&pageId=6.1.1

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 ?

I really hope they, at the very least, bring in McDermott to interview for the job.

As long as the Iggles are still playing, then they cannot contact him. Once they are done, then they can request permission to interview him.

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.

My opinion is that there is a whole lot of undercurrent that never shows up in the chronicle. As several have said...there's only 32 head coaches, 32 D-Coordinators, etc. and plenty of opportunity for them to chat. I don't think Kubiak, Smith, and McNair go in to this process with a 'let's just see what happens mentality.'

My guess is that before the firing they had already settled on an itemized DC list, and I would venture to guess that those coaches agents have already been...umm...nudged--regardless of league rules.

I would love to see DC: Sean McDermott along with DL: Ron Marinelli. I just can't imagine a better combination of defensive styles, position focus, and aggressiveness.

Aww man, after writing the above post I happened across a post by AJ: http://www.examiner.com/x-778-Housto...coach-position

Turns out he has a similar take...and he posted it earlier...which makes me appear to be a take-stealer....*poubt*

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.

That's definitely a possibility. I guess I just don't understand the whole "DC search" charade if they have already settled on Bush as the DC.

That's OK. That about somes up my "take" as well....even though I hate that term because Jim Rome is a D-bag.

Well, I will submit that when Sapp was doing his thing, he had the benefit of Booger McFarland. When Tommie Harris was healthy and playing like a Pro-Bowler, he had Tank Johnson beside him. I don't consider Travis Johnson to be either to allow Okoye to become "Baby Sapp" by any stretch of the imagination.

As for our CBs, Fred Bennett and Molden would be ideal in terms of size. However, I'm not convinced that playing zone with them is their strong suit. Generally, Cover-2 CBs are big, slow, and excel in Zone coverage. This year's draft has an ideal candidate in Victor Harris from Va Tech.Bennett, Molden, Robinson, and Reeves were not brought here for that. Could they do it? Possibly, but I'm not thinking that is using your players' strengths.

The FS position is generally a large college CB who is converted to play S. Dunta Robinson might be moved to that position, but he does lack the typical size.

DeMeco running down the middle of the field with Dallas Clark worries me considerably.

Other than that, we'd fit like a hand in a glove running the Tampa-2. :rolleyes:

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.

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. .

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.

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.

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.

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.

Hopefully he is the main target and that is why talk has been scarce. We are just waiting for him to get eliminated. Cmon Giants kick some ass this week.

Thanks for the insight gentlemen. I like Bush but was on the fence about his DC ascension. I do not know his chemistry in the locker room and I wonder if by hiring him we are sending the right signals to our D. We need drastic improvement from that side of the ball. I dont know if that change can come from someone associated with the old D. While the choice of Bush is wrought with danger, wholesale changes to the staff is also risky.

I had a Sgt. Major who always said " If you are going to be a bear, Be a grizzly bear." So my choice would be someone outside the circle. Obviously someone who employs a defense that can utilize the players we have. As we have seen, They can be effective when the are aggressive.

Whomever is selected had better be aggressive, starting in the draft. A rock in the middle of our D-line would do wonders for the rest of it. As would a Taylor Mays type Safety. IMHO.

Thanks again.

I dunno, but it also seems like perverse logic to me to modify the composition of the defensive personnel to conform to the philosophy of assistant coachs instead of vice versa and supplimenting what we've got thru the Draft.
BTW I like the jarhead expression about the bear, but why can't we find a grizz within the circle ?

I feel if we would have had a real grizz on that staff he would have bitten someone. At least he would have raised more sand than anyone did.

The other side of the coin is perhaps we go after one of the Giants assistants. Perhaps someone has had Spags rub off on them.

Andre Curtis - Def QC (Young guy)
http://www.giants.com/team/coach.asp?coach_id=21

Peter Giunta - Secondary/Cornerbacks (Previous DC of Rams SuperBowl team)
http://www.giants.com/team/coach.asp?coach_id=20

David Merritt - Secondary/Safeties (Young guy)
http://www.giants.com/team/coach.asp?coach_id=12

Bill Sheridan - Linebackers (Lots of college experience)
http://www.giants.com/team/coach.asp?coach_id=11

Mike Waufle - DLine (Tuck, Osi, Kiwi, Strahan, Cofield productive under him)
http://www.giants.com/team/coach.asp?coach_id=14

I'd consider any of these guys as legitimate candidates.

Just to brush up on league rules, could we have asked for permission to speak with any of these guys during the bye week? I thought I saw where a couple teams asked for permission to speak with Spags during the bye week and my recollection is that you can do this if it would be a promotion. I also seem to remember that it had to be one of the teams with a bye (thus, we couldn't ask to speak with McDermott). Anybody know the rules on this?

I really don't like any of those guys for dc except for maybe Merritt. Sean McDermott is really about the only position coach I could see coming in as dc at this time besides our own Bush who I really don't want either. Other than that I think they will go with a proven dc.

Curtis is way too inexperienced for the jump to dc.

Giunta is probably the most qualified of the bunch but do the Rams really conjur up memories of an aggressive and good defense

Merritt is interesting but I would still take McDermott over him just because of his long tenure under Jim Johnson.

Sheridan needs a little more NFL experience before making the jump to dc imo.

Waufle looks like from his resume he is a dl coach for life. We don't want another Marinelli.

It's being reported that Marinelli decided to join the Bears. Not a big surprise, but the Texans can scratch him off.

No surprise due to his ties with Lovie.

Here's LZ's take on the personnel for a Tampa-2

For those eyeing McDermott, ProFootballTalk.com is reporting that he's being mentioned for the Broncos DC opening. They also point out that since he's under contract through the '09 season the Eagles can deny any team permission to talk to him unless they"re looking at him as a head coach.