Why QBs rarely ever become HCs, especially starters or stars

[74_75_78_79_]

You'd think being that it's a leadership position, 'coach-on-the-field', it could translate into more of them eventually becoming HCs. Peyton has been a coach-on-the-field his whole career and Brady has done more than his share of going over pre-game strategies with Hoodie. However, it's likely enough that neither one will ever be a HC as with the long line of former-QBs who never were either. Thoughts?

[mwald]

Great question. A couple theories:

The Larry Bird theory: probably a misnomer since Bird was a good coach. But any QB that became a coach was probably a good or great QB. And great athletes often make bad coaches because they expect people to have the same traits they did. This theory has been espoused many times, but it makes sense.

Economics: if you were an NFL QB and teams want your services as a coach, you were probably a great QB. Great QBs made a lot of money, not just from playing but also from endorsements. By the time they retired they likely had a steady diet of the finer things in life. Why coach?

Post reminds me of Frank Reich, former Bills backup QB and engineer of one of the greatest NFL comebacks. Scuttlebut has it that Reich is getting noticed as a good coach, and his firing by the Chargers was probably political. Think the Eagles quickly picked him up. Hope he does well.

[Reaser]

Junes Jones wasn't a great NFL QB and he was a NFL HC (currently OC at a Hawaii HS, he coached the West team in the East West Shrine Game today) ...

Ty Detmer was awesome in college but not "great" as an NFL QB, he's coached HS football and is BYU's OC.

Doug Pederson wasn't a great NFL QB and he's the Eagles new HC - he was a very good QB and arguably even a better DB while playing high school football in the Great State of Washington.

Since he was mentioned, Frank Reich I personally believe is a very good coach.

Brett Favre even was OC at a HS.

So QB's do in fact coach, and become HC's. It seems like the question is more about the Brady/Manning types (though Graham and Baugh were both HC's. Bart Starr, etc ... )

... which I think was explained well - at least partially - by mwald. People like Manning and Brady are perfectionists.

Though I could see Manning still working with young QB's at the Manning Passing Academy camp and down the line possibly wanting to run a HS offense or something, instead of sitting around all day (if he doesn't go the TV analyst route.)

[74_75_78_79_]

Great question. A couple theories:

The Larry Bird theory: probably a misnomer since Bird was a good coach. But any QB that became a coach was probably a good or great QB. And great athletes often make bad coaches because they expect people to have the same traits they did. This theory has been espoused many times, but it makes sense.

Economics: if you were an NFL QB and teams want your services as a coach, you were probably a great QB. Great QBs made a lot of money, not just from playing but also from endorsements. By the time they retired they likely had a steady diet of the finer things in life. Why coach?

Post reminds me of Frank Reich, former Bills backup QB and engineer of one of the greatest NFL comebacks. Scuttlebut has it that Reich is getting noticed as a good coach, and his firing by the Chargers was probably political. Think the Eagles quickly picked him up. Hope he does well.

Junes Jones wasn't a great NFL QB and he was a NFL HC (currently OC at a Hawaii HS, he coached the West team in the East West Shrine Game today) ...

Ty Detmer was awesome in college but not "great" as an NFL QB, he's coached HS football and is BYU's OC.

Doug Pederson wasn't a great NFL QB and he's the Eagles new HC - he was a very good QB and arguably even a better DB while playing high school football in the Great State of Washington.

Since he was mentioned, Frank Reich I personally believe is a very good coach.

Brett Favre even was OC at a HS.

So QB's do in fact coach, and become HC's. It seems like the question is more about the Brady/Manning types (though Graham and Baugh were both HC's. Bart Starr, etc ... )

... which I think was explained well - at least partially - by mwald. People like Manning and Brady are perfectionists.

Though I could see Manning still working with young QB's at the Manning Passing Academy camp and down the line possibly wanting to run a HS offense or something, instead of sitting around all day (if he doesn't go the TV analyst route.)

Great points and examples, guys! It seems like QBs who didn't start may make better HCs if only because they first-hand know what it takes to have to work harder than those who are more gifted and can translate their experiences into coaching their players to try to be better. Let's throw in Kubiak and Garrett while we're at it. Of course it doesn't only go for QBs but any position, and Bill Cowher is an excellent example. Being that 'Any Given Sunday' is just a movie, I guess Baugh, Graham, and Starr are the best ever QBs to also become HCs. As for best ever HC who was at least a starting QB...Jim Harbaugh?

[Bob Gill]

... I guess Baugh, Graham, and Starr are the best ever QBs to also become HCs. As for best ever HC who was at least a starting QB...Jim Harbaugh?

Van Brocklin might not have been QUITE as good as those three, but he was way up there, and I think he had the longest career as a head coach for a great QB. In actual practice, though, he was probably an excellent example of what mwald called the Larry Bird theory. And since Bird, as noted, was actually a good coach, maybe it should be called the Norm Van Brocklin theory. A better name for football, anyway.

[mwald]

And since Bird, as noted, was actually a good coach, maybe it should be called the Norm Van Brocklin theory. A better name for football, anyway.

Sounds good to me. It's all relative, anyway. Only the names change.

[oldecapecod11]

by mwald » Sat Jan 23, 2016 8:21 pm

"Great question. A couple theories..."

It is a good question - not necessarily great; and, for the record, it was about a two-page tangent in the old forum.
It must be said that it is a better question than the usual "Castor or Pollux - Thoughts?"

"The Larry Bird theory"
(See later)

"...Economics: if you were an NFL QB and teams want your services as a coach, you were probably a great QB. Great QBs made a lot of money, not just from playing but also from endorsements. By the time they retired they likely had a steady diet of the finer things in life. Why coach?"

Why Broadcast or Analyze? Those who go that route are seemingly more affluent than those who have coached.
It is probably the limelight syndrome - keep that spotlight shinim' - and the money ain't too shabby.
Plus, you don't have to win - just entertain.

---

by Reaser » Sat Jan 23, 2016 8:38 pm

"... which I think was explained well - at least partially - by mwald. People like Manning and Brady are perfectionists..."

Others are and have been perfectionists. Some guy named Lombardi was such? Raymond Berry was another.
There are two good examples. One could encourage that perfection in his players; the other could not.

---

by Bob Gill » Sat Jan 23, 2016 9:21 pm

"...Van Brocklin might not have been QUITE as good as those three, but he was way up there, and I think he had the longest career as a head coach for a great QB. In actual practice, though, he was probably an excellent example of what mwald called the Larry Bird theory. And since Bird, as noted, was actually a good coach, maybe it should be called the Norm Van Brocklin theory. A better name for football, anyway..."

(and mwald again)

Call that the "Celtic theory."
Bird was one of many beginning perhaps with Cousy, Russell, Heinsohn and Jones and even Cowens and Satch - Celtics all,
who learned their teamwork at the knee of the master - maybe the best professional sports coach ever.
(Although McGraw and McCarthy and Stengel weren't too shabby.)

[Reaser]

"... which I think was explained well - at least partially - by mwald. People like Manning and Brady are perfectionists..."

Others are and have been perfectionists. Some guy named Lombardi was such? Raymond Berry was another.
There are two good examples. One could encourage that perfection in his players; the other could not.

That's a good point.

It's conjecture but I can't really see Brady coaching, at all. Manning I can, but seems much more like a high school coach than NFL HC. Both, and in my opinion slightly more Brady, I could envision having a real problem with not being able to do it themselves - along the perfectionists line. Repeatedly coaching a player to do one thing and he's not doing it and just standing there thinking "if I could just go out there and do it myself" ...

[JuggernautJ]

The previous posters said just about everything I was going to mention.
Van Brocklin, Baugh, Starr and Harbaugh came to mind as exceptions.

The current pay scale probably restricts many great QBs from becoming HCs (why take the pay cut?).

Thew only thing I have to add is to mention John Elway and the job he has been doing with the Broncos at the helm.
Perhaps super-rich, super-control freaks like Brady or Manning might be more tempted to own/run a franchise than to "merely" coach.
At least it is a possibility now-a-days.

[BD Sullivan]

by mwald » Sat Jan 23, 2016 8:21 pm
Why Broadcast or Analyze? Those who go that route are seemingly more affluent than those who have coached.
It is probably the limelight syndrome - keep that spotlight shinim' - and the money ain't too shabby.

I've noted the Bob Griese quote before, but it seems relevant to mention it again: he was a Dolphins' assistant the year after he retired, then went into broadcasting. When asked why, his comment was along the lines of, "If you want to fall of the face of the earth, become an assistant coach."