They can, does not mean they will.

I thought the rule was not head coach but a promotion. So if his the secondary coach, then a d-coordinator is a promotion. But if he has the title of secondary coach/assistant head coach, then only head coach would be a promotion.

But I could be wrong.

Since he is already under contract for next season with the Eagles they could block him interviewing with anyone for any job, much like the Cards did with Frank Bush a few years ago.

I know you guys are sold on the styles of defense you have been talking about but I personally wish we would quit screwing around and just go to 6 - 4, but let's just call it the 10 - 1.

Right, which is why I used "can" and not "will." Just pointing out that he may not be an option even if the Texans like him and he likes them. The Eagles may want to keep him as heir apparent to the veteran Jim Johnson.

That used to be the rule. Each team could designate one offensive and one defensive assistant position as "supervisory." A non-supervisory assistant under contract could interview for supervisory-level openings because it would be a promotion. This prevented teams from trying to block their non-coordinator assistants from interviewing by giving them titles like assistant head coach, passing game coordinator, senior assistant, etc. Then the NFL changed the rule and said no interviewing if you're under contract unless it's for a head coaching job.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure that Kubiak and Sherman worked together at ATM, and they have been friends ever since.

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.

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?

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!

Personally, if you really felt that Bush was the answer, I don't know why they didn't just fire Smith in the middle of last year and hand the reigns to Bush. That way you get a chance to test drive the guy before you have to make a decision in the off season. As it is, we have no way of knowing how good Bush could possibly be, because he was in the background all season long. If he had any answers, Kubiak should have turned to him much sooner than now.

Maybe he turns out great and the defense looks prepared and energized next year...but I'm betting we get a whole lot of what we have seen so far, and that ain't great.

There's only one coach who can make the calls before each snap on what defense to employ, what personnel to have in, etc. If Bush wasn't the guy, he deserves a fresh start. Maybe his philosophy differed than Smith's but he let Smith have control because it's in the job description.

However, we need somebody on the defense who can teach players how to tackle and how to blitz effectively. If that's not Bush's forte, we need to get somebody in here who can because we won't improve on that side of the ball until we do.

What's in a DC's job description?
1) Develop overall defensive strategy game-to-game.
2) Call defensive plays during game.
3) Manage all assistants under him
4) Advise head coach on all things defense.

Just like in the corporate world, this a a managerial, "big-picture" type role that requires totally different skills than, say, a position coach.

While most would understandably want some "new blood" in as DC, I don't really mind the hiring of Bush since he probably knows better than anyone what worked and what didn't work with scheming and play-calling from last season.

They coached at TAMU together, Sherman was the OL guy and Kubiak was in charge of the RBs.

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:

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.

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 ?

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....

That was my argument all along. Bush was the guy Kubiak wanted all along. When he knew that Smith was not the guy and was going to fire him, he should have had the stones to do it during the season. Give Bush a test drive down the stretch.

So, let me get this straight, we "interviewed" Rod Marinelli and Frank Bush, and decided then that Bush was the guy. Maybe entertained the notion of a 3-4 guy who may be able to employ a 4-3 before scrapping that idea altogether.

I hope for the Texans' sake, we go to the Playoffs in '09, or Kubiak is out of options and we'll be looking for a new HC.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

[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.

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.

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.

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.