Problems with the Texans Coaching Staff

[Keith]

Originally Posted by papabear

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'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.

[papabear]

Originally Posted by Keith

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?

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.

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?

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.

[barrett]

Originally Posted by papabear

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.

[popanot]

Originally Posted by Keith

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.

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".

[papabear]

Originally Posted by popanot

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. .

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.

[Keith]

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

Originally Posted by papabear

Robinson's injury makes it hard to say, but I would say he regressed as well even before the injury and Rhodes arrival

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?

Originally Posted by barrett

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.

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).

Originally Posted by papabear

I'm not convinced that just elevating Bush would make that big of a difference.

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?

[papabear]

Originally Posted by Keith

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?

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?

[popanot]

Originally Posted by Keith

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?

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.

[papabear]

Originally Posted by popanot

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.

[kravix]

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

[Keith]

Originally Posted by Keith

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).

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

Originally Posted by popanot

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.

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.

Originally Posted by papabear

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.

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.