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.