Big Turk Posted December 29, 2016 Posted December 29, 2016 And why so many coordinators make poor ones. You go from basically being in charge of your group of guys to being in charge of EVERYTHING. Totally different skill sets. Head Coach is busy putting out fires a lot of the time and has to see the big picture of what needs to be accomplished while a coordinator is kind of self-contained in their own world... It's not any wonder so many good coordinators make poor head coaches, it's a totally different skill set and one I think teams need to be looking for instead of how good did this guy rank on offense or defense. What they accomplished as coordinators is largely irrelevant to the bigger picture of how they will handle the much more in depth responsibility of being a head coach.
BringBackFergy Posted December 29, 2016 Posted December 29, 2016 And why so many coordinators make poor ones. You go from basically being in charge of your group of guys to being in charge of EVERYTHING. Totally different skill sets. Head Coach is busy putting out fires a lot of the time and has to see the big picture of what needs to be accomplished while a coordinator is kind of self-contained in their own world... It's not any wonder so many good coordinators make poor head coaches, it's a totally different skill set and one I think teams need to be looking for instead of how good did this guy rank on offense or defense. What they accomplished as coordinators is largely irrelevant to the bigger picture of how they will handle the much more in depth responsibility of being a head coach. Add respect of players and experience in time/game management, and you hit the nail on the head. (Enter: Frank Reich, Coughlin, Matt Patricia for example).
Captain_Quint Posted December 29, 2016 Posted December 29, 2016 Matt Rhule from Temple (just took the Baylor job). A leader of men.
swnybillsfan Posted December 29, 2016 Posted December 29, 2016 the be a coordinator, you have a set unit and set strategy and personnel to plan for. as a head coach you have to be an overseer, a diplomat, a referee, a go between, a philosopher, the bad guy, the face of the franchise, the scapegoat, a clock manager. and you will be micromanaged for every decision you make. you will be thrown under the bus by players, and the media will be looking to feast off your carcass. and let us not forget the wrath of the fans...
Samwell Tarly Posted December 29, 2016 Posted December 29, 2016 You're definitely right. However, in this world we promote people beyond their skill level for any number of reasons, then tear them down when they fail.I believe they call it the Peter principle, but for the sake of this argument we can call it Wade Phillips syndrome.
Hapless Bills Fan Posted December 29, 2016 Posted December 29, 2016 And why so many coordinators make poor ones. You go from basically being in charge of your group of guys to being in charge of EVERYTHING. Totally different skill sets. Head Coach is busy putting out fires a lot of the time and has to see the big picture of what needs to be accomplished while a coordinator is kind of self-contained in their own world... It's not any wonder so many good coordinators make poor head coaches, it's a totally different skill set and one I think teams need to be looking for instead of how good did this guy rank on offense or defense. What they accomplished as coordinators is largely irrelevant to the bigger picture of how they will handle the much more in depth responsibility of being a head coach. Excellent point. And that's where the risk/reward of hiring a HC comes in. A team can take a risk on a HC candidate - a OC, DC or ST coordinator who has never held a HC position - with no guarantee he will have that skill set, maybe not totally different skill set but certainly enough different aspects that it isn't a sure bet. Or, they can hire a retread coach who has already bombed and been fired from one or more HC positions, and hope for a different result this time around. the be a coordinator, you have a set unit and set strategy and personnel to plan for. as a head coach you have to be an overseer, a diplomat, a referee, a go between, a philosopher, the bad guy, the face of the franchise, the scapegoat, a clock manager. and you will be micromanaged for every decision you make. you will be thrown under the bus by players, and the media will be looking to feast off your carcass. and let us not forget the wrath of the fans... You make the gig sound just irresistably attractive
filthymcnasty08 Posted December 29, 2016 Posted December 29, 2016 I cannot stand when a great coordinator becomes a HC and keeps his play calling duties. That is a conflict of interests if you ask me. Something else will suffer from the lack of attention or the disproportionate amount of preparation.
Kelly the Dog Posted December 29, 2016 Posted December 29, 2016 It's like being President. There is no apprenticeship whatsoever for it. Nothing you could possibly have done before would thoroughly prepare you for the job. You know and may even understand all of the responsibilities, but until you are in charge of all 30 of them at once, and have to make split second in game decisions while you are thinking of 12 other things at the same time, no one knows whether you will be good at it or not. Or learn to be good at it over time.
Saxum Posted December 29, 2016 Posted December 29, 2016 A good head coach should not bring in his "guys" but coaches whose opinions he respects and willing to disagree when he believes decision is wrong. Now the head coach makes the decisions but needs to leave each coach make his own decisions except when he believes very strongly in different direction. Same philosophy should apply to owners - not overriding coaches (Wilson and Browns on QB decision are good examples).
Original Byrd Man Posted December 29, 2016 Posted December 29, 2016 True, but thats not to say a coordinator can't make the transition. That is the reason they look for candidates with a strong emphasis on organizational skills.
dave mcbride Posted December 29, 2016 Posted December 29, 2016 You're definitely right. However, in this world we promote people beyond their skill level for any number of reasons, then tear them down when they fail.I believe they call it the Peter principle, but for the sake of this argument we can call it Wade Phillips syndrome. Wade was 30-18 after taking over a 6-10 Bills team. He also had a playoff victory, at least in my book.
The Wiz Posted December 29, 2016 Posted December 29, 2016 And why so many coordinators make poor ones. You go from basically being in charge of your group of guys to being in charge of EVERYTHING. Totally different skill sets. Head Coach is busy putting out fires a lot of the time and has to see the big picture of what needs to be accomplished while a coordinator is kind of self-contained in their own world... It's not any wonder so many good coordinators make poor head coaches, it's a totally different skill set and one I think teams need to be looking for instead of how good did this guy rank on offense or defense. What they accomplished as coordinators is largely irrelevant to the bigger picture of how they will handle the much more in depth responsibility of being a head coach. I don't argue any point that you made at all but the question is how do you quantify it? You can look at OC's and DC's that made their respective units great and think "maybe they can be a HC" and fall on their face (Pettine/Schwartz as HC's). Then you can look at guys like Marrone,Kelly that are already HC's at a different level but are unable to perform the task at a higher level. There have been OC's and DC's that have been able to make the transition to HC sucessfully. It just seems like they are a diamond in the rough. The one thing I never understood is why a HC is also the OC or DC of a team when the position is there for someone else but you decided to do the work yourself(that someone else is already doing and you agree with or ignore) and ignore other aspects of the game.
MAJBobby Posted December 29, 2016 Posted December 29, 2016 (edited) Its really no different than being a Commander. You lead. Set your philosophy to accomplish mission (Commander's Intent) Pick and Instruct staff of philosophy (Platoon Leaders) Ensure postion coaches train and develop Skills (NCOs) Then you empower those subordinates to do thier jobs within the left and right limits of your Philosophy (Commanders intent again) It really isnt that big of a stretch the best ever coach BB studies the crap out of the military and always is going to the Academies for key role players. Edited December 29, 2016 by MAJBobby
Saxum Posted December 29, 2016 Posted December 29, 2016 Wade needed better coaches on his staff. I think if he was offered job and told that to get job he needed OC/DC/ST coaches the GM approved of and had authority to fire on his own (no Ronnie Jones) he could do a good job now.
Hapless Bills Fan Posted December 29, 2016 Posted December 29, 2016 I cannot stand when a great coordinator becomes a HC and keeps his play calling duties. That is a conflict of interests if you ask me. Something else will suffer from the lack of attention or the disproportionate amount of preparation. I have actually been mocked and criticized here for expressing just this view (expressed it about Chan Gailey and about Rex Ryan), but I still believe it to be true. I think it's just common sense, if Team A has a full-time guy drawing up the D plan, a 2nd full-time guy drawing up the O plan, and a third full-time guy looking at the opponent's tendencies and scrutinizing both plans.... But Team B has a full time guy drawing up the D but only 1 guy drawing up both the O plan and overseeing both...there are only so many hours in the day, something has got to give.
Saxum Posted December 29, 2016 Posted December 29, 2016 I have actually been mocked and criticized here for expressing just this view (expressed it about Chan Gailey and about Rex Ryan), but I still believe it to be true. I think it's just common sense, if Team A has a full-time guy drawing up the D plan, a 2nd full-time guy drawing up the O plan, and a third full-time guy looking at the opponent's tendencies and scrutinizing both plans.... But Team B has a full time guy drawing up the D but only 1 guy drawing up both the O plan and overseeing both...there are only so many hours in the day, something has got to give. Yes and Rex tried to fix it by adding bigger coaching staff but unfortunately it failed.
The Wiz Posted December 29, 2016 Posted December 29, 2016 (edited) I have actually been mocked and criticized here for expressing just this view (expressed it about Chan Gailey and about Rex Ryan), but I still believe it to be true. I think it's just common sense, if Team A has a full-time guy drawing up the D plan, a 2nd full-time guy drawing up the O plan, and a third full-time guy looking at the opponent's tendencies and scrutinizing both plans.... But Team B has a full time guy drawing up the D but only 1 guy drawing up both the O plan and overseeing both...there are only so many hours in the day, something has got to give. Hurt my head but I think I agree. EDIT: I read it again and yea, I do agree. Basically the logic is "I made a plan and I am the only one who could say this plan is wrong" (for team B anyways). Yes and Rex tried to fix it by adding bigger coaching staff but unfortunately it failed. The problem wasn't the size of the staff but the fact that the defense was his and his brothers. They schemed and then let everyone else know the plan they had to implement. Doesn't work well unless you are the pulse of the team. Even some of the players stated after he was fired that the D staff had "too many cooks in the kitchen". Edited December 29, 2016 by The Wiz
BigBuff423 Posted December 29, 2016 Posted December 29, 2016 Have to agree in principle with OP's general statement and begs the question: what do all of the great HCs have in common? Is there some way with careful consideration to history, that one can reasonably predict future success? I don't have the answer but what does strike me is, many of the successful HCs "came out of nowhere" until they started to win and got noticed. That alone tells me, while a GM / Owner need to identify a man who can do the job, they also need to be willing to take the risk of a relatively unknown commodity. An unpopular path to take in these times.
Recommended Posts