DGDB&D: a Texans blog.

Dancing With the ‘Tards

Nov 28, 2007 Curious Coaching, Dan The Assassin, Dancing With the 'Tards, DeMeco Ryans, Dunta Robinson, Houston Chronicle, I really dig my readers, McTard, Morlon Greenwood, Secondary issues are primary, The Fred, Von, Weak-ass arguments

It wasn’t all that long ago–four days, actually–that I said, “[a]s of now, unless one of the stories over there mentions me or this blog by name, I will not comment on or link to anything written by paid employees of the Houston Chronicle.” I meant it. However, I realized today that I needed to expand the exception slightly. We all know they are never going to link to me or BRB–we are beneath them, of course. So, I am expanding the exception to read “as of now, unless one of the stories over there mentions me or this blog by name, or is clearly referencing/replying to something I wrote, I will not comment on or link to anything written by paid employees of the Houston Chronicle.”

Which brings me to my actual post. It seems that John McClain’s latest missive attempts to answer the questions “why don’t we blitz” and, tangentially, “why Richard Smith is not a horrid coach.” Hmm. Interesting approach, General. Whatever made you think to approach that issue as answering a question? Because, correct me if I am wrong, but your article kind of reads like an attempt to respond to “how does a person who ignores the basic fundamental tenets of defense–things like ‘increasing QB pressure makes a shaky secondary better’ and ‘blitzing a linebacker will keep your pass-rushing DE from being routinely sodomized by two or three men’–seem less-capable at performing his job than any number of fans walking down the street?” by attacking the underlying assumptions about blitzing. But, then, you would never deign to read something as lowbrow and mindless as a–gasp!–blog written by a fan, would you? Of course not.

Just for a laugh and because I have nothing to do here at work, let’s examine your response a little more closely and see what, if anything, we can learn from it.

I’ve known defensive coordinator Richard Smith since he entered the NFL as an assistant under Jerry Glanville in 1988.

Congrats. I’m not really sure what that has to do with anything, but whatever.

If a psychiatrist put Smith on his couch and analyzed him, here’s what he would learn: Smith would blitz most of the time if he thought it would work. He’s a Glanville disciple. His nature is to attack, attack and attack some more.

He “would blitz more often if he thought it would work?” He hasn’t blitzed enough with this year’s team to have any idea whether it works. So, if he is just basing his decision on what he thinks of blitzing in general, I’m not sure you can call him aggressive.

So why doesn’t he do that with the Texans? Well, it’s simple. Blitzing for the sake of blitzing is bad coaching.

True, but blitzing for the sake of taking pressure of your young and/or below average secondary is good coaching. You should probably establish that we would be blitzing just for the sake of blitzing before you give your conclusory statements.

Fans who complain the Texans don’t blitz enough must not remember how many times it didn’t work or they got burned.

Ooooooooh, snap! You are talking about me, aren’t you, John? You showed me; after all, the lack of success of Texans teams in previous years certainly has a ton of bearing on whether this current unit would succeed. What’s that? Oh, I just received message from Captain Obvious that, no, it really doesn’t matter how previous Texans teams did. Interesting. You almost had me convinced, though.

Rushing more than four — usually one or two linebackers and sometimes a safety — is foolish if they don’t have the speed to pull it off.

John McClain, bringing the truisms today! Of course, the converse of that, that it is NOT foolish if they DO have the speed, is also true. And when I look at our LB corps, the one thing I see (especially out of DeMeco Ryans and Morlon Greenwood) is speed. Even Danny Clark is fast enough to blitz. You are making it sound like someone needs to run a 4.4 in order to be an effective pass rusher. Also, you conveniently overlook the possibility of working in some zone blitzes, which would allow us to create pressure through confusion while not leaving wide open holes underneath the secondary. In that scheme, the speed issue is negated somewhat (to the extent that it even exists) because you are still only sending four rushers. Now, of course we can’t solely run the zone blitz, but you can’t sit there and pretend that our linebackers are simply too slow and, thus, we have no options when it comes to pass rushing.

The coaches watch film of every game and practice over and over and over. They know what they get and don’t get with a four-man rush. They also know what they get and don’t get when they blitz.

It is good that they are watching game and practice tape. I’d be worried if they didn’t. But, saying they know what they get and don’t get when they blitz is nothing more than bit of sophistry. They don’t blitz enough to know what they get when they blitz. And, on the rare occasion that they do blitz, they have shown some success. DeMeco’s sack and a run stop for a loss against Atlanta came on a blitz. DeMeco’s sack, forced fumble, and first career TD against Tennessee came on a blitz. And, since you were the one who broached the subject of what past season’s blitzes have yielded, all 4 of Dunta’s career sacks came on blitzes. If anything, knowing what they get when they blitz should equate to “man, we’re having a little success when we mix that in.”

Right now, blitzing a safety could be disastrous. Rookie cornerback Fred Bennett has made three career starts. Veteran cornerback Von Hutchins has made three starts at his position. Leaving them in man coverage at this point in their careers is asking for trouble.

I don’t know why we would choose to blitz one of our safeties when we have ample speed/size/strength in the linebacking corps. Still, while your initial premise is fine, your reasoning is obtuse and idiotic. “Leaving them in man coverage…is asking for trouble?” Seriously? Well, then, why the hell do we keep leaving them in man coverage when we aren’t blitzing? It’s not like we are strictly playing zone; there is plenty of man coverage going on. Just look at the repeated immolation of Petey Faggins, especially in the Atlanta game. Most of that has been in man situations. So, I ask you, which is better–to leave them in man coverage for 2.5-3.5 seconds during a blitz or for 3.5-5 seconds without the blitz?

Think about this: Cleveland quarterback Derek Anderson’s strength is throwing down the field. The Texans determined that rushing four and dropping seven, forcing Anderson to throw underneath the coverage, made more sense than blitzing and leaving their defensive backs in man coverage against tight end Kellen Winslow and receiver Braylon Edwards.

What the hell? You did watch that game, right? Winslow had 10 catches for 107 yards and a TD. THAT is your proof that the existing plan is somehow better than forcing the QB to make throws more quickly? And, besides, like I keep screaming about, a zone blitz would not necessitate much of a deviation from the zone coverage that you seem to think is working wonders.

The Texans’ defense played well enough to beat Cleveland. All three Browns touchdowns came after mistakes — two interceptions and a missed field goal.

OK. So, aside from when they messed up, they played well enough to win. Fair enough. But what does that have to do with whether they should also have been blitzing? Nothing. You are simply trying to confuse the issue here. “They played well enough to win” does not equal “there is no need to blitz because this system works just fine.” Some of your sycophant cabana boys might buy into this sort of “logic,” but I don’t. Nor does anyone with half a brain.

Now, if the Texans are going to blitz and leave their corners in man coverage, it makes sense to do it against the Titans because they don’t have receivers like Cleveland’s, right? Oops! They did that in the first game against Tennessee, and Roydell Williams caught a 46-yard pass against Dunta Robinson to set up the winning field goal.

First, I was at that game and saw the play with my own eyes. There was a safety in the area who, for whatever reason, did not roll over the top and help Dunta. This is not pure man coverage you are talking about. Second, Dunta played that route as well as humanly possible, but simply missed when he stuck his hand up, so I am not clear on what this completion “proves” with respect to the blitz. Third, whether you are blitzing, rushing four, or rushing none, that route unfolds exactly the same way; it’s not like Morlon Greenwood covering in the flat would have changed the direction of that ball. Fourth, why do you keep trying to make it sound like the options are only “blitz with man coverage” and “don’t blitz with zone coverage?” Why do you ignore zone blitzing or even sending one linebacker and still playing a two-deep zone? Finally, stop pretending like we are not already leaving these guys in man coverage from time to time and consider whether those situations would be easier for the corners if they were covering for a shorter period of time.

You are making no sense here, John. If the problem is that the secondary is shaky (it is), then blitzing slightly more often is going to alleviate that problem somewhat. Note: no one is suggesting that we need to play like the Eagles and bring some kind of blitz on nearly every play. What we are suggesting is that Richard Smith’s approach to the game suggests that either he is too timid in his play-calling as a matter of course, that he is deathly afraid of getting yelled at if a play fails, or that he simply doesn’t see the flaws in his/your reasoning clearly enough to understand how to fix them. None of those scenarios is an acceptable answer, however. As Stephanie pointed out in her comment:

I cannot think of a single reason why the Texans should keep Richard Smith.

You know, I really try to be fair to people. But really, I can’t think of a reason to keep him. He wasn’t the Texans first choice, and if there are options out there to replace him, I’d like them to do it.

Here’s some additional reasons against:

1. He has no defensive philosophy other than “Don’t do the thing that sucked really bad in last weeks game.”

2. He has no record as a solo defensive coordinator before coming to the Texans.

3. He previously was the co-defensive coordinator of a 3-4. But only in name only because Saban really ran that defense and ran all the meetings.

4. Last year, he put pictures of rocks in the defensive players’ lockers to tell them that they are part of a rock. Yeah, that’s inspiring to the younger generation. Rocks don’t bring much of a pass rush either because well, they are rocks.

5. He’s a yell at the players guy. I don’t like yell at the players guy unless they are the best at what they do. If you yell all the time, and you don’t have the respect of the guys you are coaching because you’ve never accomplished anything, well then, you are just annoying.

6. If the players for the other offense call your defense “vanilla” before you have even played them (Winslow), it means they have no respect for it at all.

7. There is no 7.

8. I am thinking of burning an old 8 jersey as part of an anti-jinx against that number for a Texans QB.

9. It makes me physically ill to see 3rd and longs just wasted by the Texans defense. You know, “Great it’s 3rd and 8.” And then “@#$%, they just completed a pass for 24 yards.”

10. Did you have the thought when watching the Eagles play the Patriots the other night that Smith could have ten years with the Texans, and never bring the sort of stuff on D that the Eagles were doing to the Patriots? I get the same sort of training wheels feeling watching the Texans defense as I did when I watched Pendry’s offense in 2005. Very simple to avoid big mistakes. I know the Texans have a lot of injuries on defense, but it’s hard to watch.

Basically, why should ANYONE have confidence in what Smith is doing? There’s nothing in his background that should convince fans or the players that he knows what the hades he is doing and that it is going to get better.

Funny, John, it seems like everyone who is writing about this issue has a solid understanding of the little things, like “logic” and “reasoning” and “coherent arguments” and “basic tenets of football defense.” Maybe you should give that a shot.

I realize I am being flippant and kind of a jerk here. That is intentional, as it is the same approach John and the others like to take when they are forced to slum it and respond to people who disagree with them. The only difference here is that I also attempted to offer a counter-argument in between jabs at McClain.

(Ironically enough, in the comments to the post about blitzing, Will asked how long it would be before the Chron picked up on the idea and had a story about our lack of blitzing. Apparently, the answer is two days.)