Problems with the Texans Coaching Staff
 

What does it take to motivate a big guy like Okam who has all the tools, but just doesn't use them? TJ is another example of one who has it but doesn't use it often enough. If it is bad coaching do something about the coaches.

I will get criticized again, but I don't think Kubiak relates all that well with some of his players.

I think you could be right about Kubiak, but that's one of those things that's hard to tell unless you seeit from behind closed doors. As a general rule things like "doesn't relate to the players" always comes up when a team is losing. Matt Ryan has been getting praised because of his cool demeanor, but if they were losing it would be seen as a sign that he lacks the passion to lead the team.

I know some people don't like his gee-whiz we're just going to have to go back to work and get better attitude, but he was screaming something along the lines of "what the F was that" when Choppa threw the int. His demeanor was completely different in the post game quotes from what it was at the end of the game. Count me as someone who thinks Kubiak is a little more fiery in the locker room than he is with the media. Either way I think there's a chance the defense has turned on Smith.

I'm also starting to seriously question John Hoke. He has been our DB coach from the beginning...and we seem to be having the same problems there over and over again. Robinson's best season was his rookie year. I'm not basing that on interceptions number, or anything like that I just don't think he has gotten any better since he got here. Fred Bennet looks to be on the same path. Kubiak has some culpability here too because Hoke's on his staff. I've heard before what a great coach Hoke is, but why hasn't anyone tried to hire him away, or the Texans given him some meaningless title to keep him around? There may be nothing there, but it's just curious to me.


I feel like I'm always standing up for TJ, even though I don't think he's that good, but I thought he played decent up until he got hurt. When he came back he didn't seem to be as active as he was before. I think his effort has been great all season. I've seen him chasing plays all over the field. Obviously the results aren't there, but I think his effort level has been as good as anyone's.

I'd actually been mulling about Hoke's performance as well in recent weeks, especially in light of how Fred Bennett has done versus expectations this year. It doesn't speak well to Hoke, and pointing the finger at him seems appropriate at first glace. (fyi, Hoke had been pursued for college jobs during his tenure with the Texans. Not sure if anyone tried to hire him from another NFL team though.)

But a couple things... Bennett probably over-achieved in the second half of 2007, setting the bar higher than it should have been this year. Also, Hoke is sharing a significant portion of his responsibilities with Ray Rhodes. Is Rhodes cramping his style?

It's something to consider for the defense as a whole since Richard Smith has had Frank Bush around (breathing down his neck?) as a "senior defensive assistant". Is there not enough unilateral authority here for key defensive coaches?

And if Hoke and Smith are not getting the job done, having Rhodes and Bush at the ready seems to make it easier for Kubiak to make a change midseason if he wanted to.

Fred most definitely overachieved last year. If he was only average this year I would be OK. He has just been terrible though. I expected him to come back down to earth, but not to make a huge flaming crater when he did it.

Molden aparently hasn't developed enough in the coaches eyes to get some time at corner (though he's been good on the coverage teams). Robinson's injury makes it hard to say, but I would say he regressed as well even before the injury and Rhodes arrival. Hell, even Petey played his best early on in his career. There was actually a time when everyone liked Faggins, but the longer he' been here the worse he's got. I'm not even going to get into the consistently bad play of our safeties.

There could be absolutely nothing there. It just might be that guys like Robinson and Bennett played so well early that my expectations became too great. Whatever it is I have this feeling that our DB's played better on raw instincts than they do once they have supposedly been coached up. Maybe they can't handle the mental aspect the position in the NFL and there's not a coach that can fix it, but the one constant is Hoke.

I have considered the too many chiefs and not enough Indians theory. I can see it on defensive side, although you would think with Rhodes limited role it wouldn't be much of an issue with him....unless what he's teaching and what Smith wants done don't mesh. I think Rhodes has been around long enough to tailor what he's working with the DB's on to what Smith is doing. Franklin could be undermining Smith's authority a little, but there's just no way to know what's really going on in the meeting room. The defense does seem to have a scatter shot approach to it though. AS opposed to saying "this is what we want our defense to do " and sticking with it...it seems like they keep trying different things every week.

You have Gibbs on the offensive side and that doesn't seem to causing a problem...although with Baby Shan already under Kubiak's wing and just the general respect level I would guess baby Shan has towards Gibbs I don't see as much room for a problem there.

I think it is more likely that it works on offense because we move the ball and have success on that side of the ball. It fails on defense because we are awful on defense.

As I said before, Kubiak is either too stubborn to make a change, afraid to make a difficult change, or, he doesn't have the confidence that Bush or anyone else will be any better than Smith. My assumption is the latter and Bush wasn't all he was cracked up to be. It's perplexing that a change wasn't made long ago, and I feel it's not going to be made now - or at least until the end of the season.

On offense, I get the feeling baby Shanny doesn't have much power and merely has the title of "OC".

I'm not convinced that just elevating Bush would make that big of a difference. While I don't like the way the defense has been run there are just as many examples of players being in a position to make a play and not doing it as there are WTF kind of defense are we running moments. That's one of the reasons I brought up Hoke not doing a good enough job of improving the secondary. While we are at it even Demeco's play seems to have fallen off. His best asset was always how quickly he read and reacted to the play. This year he just seems hesitant. Maybe it's because he's battling injuries (one reason I'm warming to the idea of moving him to WLB where he's not caught up in as much trash, although I like Adibi in that spot too). It could also be a symptom of the system (whatever that it is) that Smith is trying to run....or that Demeco doesn't believe in it.

I think Bush would likely keep much of the staff in place even if he was retained next year. I think that if they are going to make a change there needs to be a complete overhaul in the off season. Of course, any change just leads to the built in excuse of learning a new system.

I think a new DC is needed, but there's not much reason to do it now IMO other than to placate the fans.

FYI - I split this thread from the other since the convo on rookies playing evolved into this discussion on the coaching staff.


I think Dunta might have regressed somewhere in there, but I seem to recall him having a Pro Bowl-caliber season in 2007 before it was cut short by injury. Maybe I'm remembering wrong?

That, and there is a clearer vision for what they want to accomplish on offense. I don't think there is anything nearly as clear for a direction on defense, which is one of the reasons why they lack an "identity" (though yes, lacking talent is another reason).

I agree with this entire post... it's one of the points I'm making in an article for the site I had written earlier today and yesterday that related to the Hoke comments above (and well hell, most of the other points have already been stated in this thread, too).

Aside from clarifying the authority on the defensive coaching staff, I don't see any dramatic changes in elevating Bush. And, tell me what D-Coord worth his salt would want to jump on this grenade next year, knowing that Kubiak might have just one year left?

No I think he was having a good year too, but I still think we haven't seen much in the way of improviement from anyone in the secondary. Dunta's a guy that was pretty good right out of the gate, but never really taken the next step. I may be overstating the regression some too, but I still think it's a valid point that the DB's aren't getting any better.

One other note on Kubiak. He came from a place where they have had the same head coach for a long time. A coach that showed him a lot of loyalty as well. I don't know the reasons, but Kubiak has shown that he will bring in guys with the same basic function of the guys already on staff. Rhodes to work with the DB's while Hoke's still here. Gibbs for the O line, but keeping Benton on staff. Bush and Smith. Karmelowicz and Franklin.


I give credit to McNair for paying all of those salaries, but the question is is Kubiak bringing in coaches who seem to be redundant because he thinks they make the team better....or because he doesn't have the heart to fire guys who he doesn't think are cutting it?

The coaches at Texas could not motivate Okam. He has first round potential with a 5th round head and desire. Two staffs could not get anything out of TJ. I think TJ plays hard, but it not a good player.

I've seen you say this about Okam before.

Okam was a fifth round pick for a reason. He was a 5th round pick because he lacked the motor and motivation in the weight room and on the field. Kubiak may or may not be a bad motivational coach, but using a player that has historically had bad work ethic is a bad evidence.

Like they say, money talks. But I would think guys like Wade Phillips and Marvin Lewis are cocky enough to think they'd be able to turnaround this D' and would be interested (if they get fired from their current gig, of course). It's a gamble, but being on the inside may give them a better shot at the HC job if Kubiak got canned. Certainly on an interim basis if it happened during the season.

I would love for Wade to coach here, and I know he would be interested in coming to Houston. He prefers a 3-4, and I don't want to go through that transition again. I don't think our personnel translates very well at all.

I would guess he could use a 4-3, but I would hate to hire a coach and tell him not to do what he's most comfortable with.

I dont know much about Wade as a DC, but he would be an emotional hire for the city.

As promised, the article, much of it a reboot of this thread though.

McNair would probably have to pay someone like that as a HC. Not saying McNair would be unwilling, but his track record with assistant coach salaries suggests he probably would be unwilling. And put yourself in McNair's shoes... would you want to commit HC money to an assistant that may or may not be here in more than a year? I don't follow assistant coach pay as closely as I do player pay, but I would think someone like Phillips or Lewis would negotiate multi-year deals.

And I wonder what effect doing that would have on Kubiak. Kubes has brought in more experienced guys (Sherman, for example), but that has been at his own doing. Not sure he'd be gung ho to hire someone he isn't already 'friends' with.

It's a horrible translation. Okoye as a 3-4 end? Hmmm, sounds greek to me. We already saw Travis fail in a 3-4. I think Mario's skills aren't nearly as effective as a 3-4 OLB (not to mention he'd probably be in coverage more than he already is), and as an end, he might have trouble finding room. We have no nose tackle, and Okam isn't ready to wear those daddy pants yet, if ever. He seems more like a 4-3 DT to me anyway.

DeMeco is probably good in any system, and Diles if he returns 100% might be alright, too. I'd have real questions though about the other LBs, though outside of Adibi, none of them might be on the roster next year anyway.

ETA - Cochran would have to become an OLB. Bulman might be okay as an end. In either system, we are desperate for competent safeties. Still, yuck. I think we'd have fewer holes to fill if we kept moving forward with the 4-3.

If we want an NFL quality DC with NFL experience, we're going to have to find one from a current staff or one that is available now. There's only 2 that I can think of that are available now that coach a 4-3. That's Jim Bates and Mike Nolan. The other top candidates are HC's that come from teams likely to fire the HC this year - Cowpies/Phillips, Bengals/Lewis, Browns/Crennel - but those are 3-4 guys. The other candidates are DC's on other teams that could possibly (some likely) fire the HC - Raiders, Vikings, Chiefs, Chargers, Jags(?), 49ers (?), Bills (?). Other than Singletary or Williams (Jags), I doubt I'd want anyone from those teams.

I'd pounce on Jauron if the Bills made a move, but that's unlikely this year. If we wanted to stick with the 4-3, I'd go Nolan, Williams (if he's available), then Bates. 3-4 my list would be Lewis, Phillips, with Crennel coming in a long distance 3rd. Another potential option is if Philly gets sick of Reid and Jimmy Johnson becomes available. I'd hire him in a heartbeat as well.

For whatever reason, McNair is not getting comensurate return for the money he has invested in either coaches or players.

I'd keep Jerry Gray on your radar as well for possible DCs. He interviewed here against Kubiak for the HC job. He took the secondary job with the Redskins after he missed out. I'd also have Gray on a REAL short list of possible HCs to replace Kubiak, either as interim (if Kubiak were to be fired mid-season, which is very doubtful) or full-time in 2010.

Nolan's interesting to me, too. He coached d-line at Rice for a year, didn't know that. He also has the Broncos on his resume (LBs '87-'92), also interesting. Nolan is a big Dan Reeves guy, a big plus if McNair asks for his input again.

Okaye and Travis both definitely not fits as DLineman in the 3-4, but many people feel Mario is the prototype 3-4 DE and that's what Weaver played before coming over here, but I think its been established that Weaver is too expensive at any position with his present cap. But Bullman looks like a real
fit as a 3-4 end, but we'd still need a NT ?
You were joking about Cochran as an OLB ?

I had forgotten about Gray, I like him a lot. He is a Gregg Williams protege, having coached with him for years. The question about Gray will be can he succeed with out Gregg Williams? BTW Gray comes from a 4-3 background.

Mike Nolan was running a 4-3 in San Fran. I like his aggressive play calling on the defense.

I have seen some ask why would a top coach commit to a lame duck HC team. Because they see it as a win win for themselves. If the team succeeds they can get their names back on the HC short list, or if the team continues to flounder they maybe considered the next HC.

Guys like Nolan, Marvin Lewis, Romeo Crennel, Rod Marinelli, Wade Phillips fit the above criteria.

Personally I think the players are 70% of the problem and that coaching is 30% of the problem. Coaches do not miss tackles or not locate the ball in the air. We do not have defensive playmakers on this team.

hard for demeco to make a play when manning throws at reeves all day.

i don't think the switch to 3/4 would be all that bad. jeez, i mean it can't get much worse. what exactly would we be back tracking from?

PK-"Personally I think the players are 70% of the problem and that coaching is 30% of the problem. Coaches do not miss tackles or not locate the ball in the air. We do not have defensive playmakers on this team."

How about the percentage that could be considered bad game planning, game management, etc.? Who's fault is that?

I think Mario could play DE in a 3-4, but I think you are limiting on of your best players by having him play there. The 3-4 is set up for the OLB. I think your wasting some of Mario's talents by moving to that scheme. Remember one of the arguments for the Weaver signing was that he would be much more productive than his 14.5 sacks in 57 games once he moved to the 4-3. Weaver might be a bad example because he hasn't been productive in a 4-3 either, but the point remains the same. Why take your best player and put him in a role that is not designed to make plays.

I've heard others say Mario could be an OLB in a 3-4. That would be fine on rushing downs, but as good an athelete as he is he simply isn't going to hav the skillset he needs in coverage. He would be a beast if they could make it work, but I think we'd end up giving up the element of surprise the 3-4 relies on and just end up sending Mario as the fourth rusher every play.

It's all academic anyway, because if you don't have the right NT in a 3-4 nothing else matters.

30% of the trouble with the defense is coaching, IMO.

We are not in the meetings with the players, so we do not see Kubiak and Co. get on the players for the same mistakes over and over again. But I did see Kubiak say What the F**K was that on Sunday. So I know he chews the players and coaches out. He has the passion and he has the back of the players and coaches in public.

I know you all want a break down and he getting mad, but that is not going to happen until he looses this team, and then it's over.

Changing coaches mid year is a stupid move, it only leads to more second guessing.

Yup, in most cases. I might be persuaded to do it and put Bush at the controls to see if it makes a difference at this point.

Problems with our coaching staff? Kubiak's insistence on going with the old Denver system of using a smaller OL will be a problem. We already are seeing the results of a smaller OC, NT can be disruptive. I want to scream everytime I read someone's complaint about Myers being pushed back in pass blocking. Go watch the Denver games from a last years of Elway. They had same trouble. BTW, Shanahan has dropped the smaller OL in Denver the last few years. He is now looking at going with a larger OL but still using a ZBS.

Another one to chew on, our defense is utilizing a smaller front 7. Every one of the guys we have in the front 7 is undersized for his position, a 305 NT and a 290 DT. But they are not being asked to penetrate on every play. Penetration disrupts offenses more than anything else you can do. So shot a gap on everyplay and have every gap covered.

The Zone system in Denver was successful early on because it was different. Once teams had a chance to figure it out it lost some of it's effectiveness. Penetration will disrupt any scheme you can come up with though. I still think the zone system can be effective, but your right in that Kubiak will have to learn to adjust with it. I think that all offensive lineman these days are more "athletic" than they were 20 years ago so I think there are plenty of O-lineman today who could work in ZB system that don't fall into that undersized lineman mold. It goes beyond personnel though, Kubiak/Gibbs have to be willing to throw in a few wrinkles in the scheme. I actually liked that we mixed in some of Sherman's "power" scheme last year and was hoping we would at least keep an element or two of it in place. We're running the ball better than last year, but that has a lot to do with Slaton.

I've always wondered why we seem to have our DT's playing with so much two gap responsibility instead of letting them penetrate. I suppose it's in an effort to keep Demeco clean, but Okoye and Travis Johnson are both both better suited as one gap players who penetrate. I prefer to have a mammoth NT and then let the other guys on the line be the quicker penetrating types. That mammoth NT-type will never be TJ, and Okam isn't that guy yet so I they might as well turn'em loose.

I have no problem with undersized LB's....especially with the amount of coverage they have to do, but if your LB's and D-Line are both undersized then your going to have problems against the run. See Indianapolis. Right now we have all the disadvantages of an undersized front 7 without any of the advantages in the pass rushing department. One reason for that is not using the personnel we have properly IMO, but it's not the only one.

When there is a problem, at least 70% or better is going to be the players fault, because they play the games. BUT if the coaching staff gives them a B.S. gameplan, then that is the time when 30% is greater than 70%, at least in my mind. Trains won't run well without good tracks.

Well, Hoke must really suck because now Richard Justice is endorsing him as the new DC in his blog.
http://blogs.chron.com/sportsjustice...rown_buil.html

About three years ago, I would have agreed with Justice. Maybe Hoke is not much of a Kubiak guy? Dunno.

Richard Justice don't know squat!