Qualities/Skills that make an NFL coach great

[Riggo-toni]

One of the things I love most about the NFL is that more than any other sport, it is a coach's game. New schemes are constantly introduced (or in the case of the wildcat, re-introduced), the league goes through a copycat phase, and then adjustments are discovered to offset any advantage. This is not to say that there haven't been some mediocre coaches who achieved great results because of a dominating roster, or great coaches who had terrible seasons because of a bad roster or freak circumstances (ie 95 Browns).

 

Qualities of Great Coaches.

 

1. Tactician - coming up with game plans to maximize personnel, and exploit opponent's weaknesses. Gameplans, halftime adjustments, clock management, and playcalling instincts.  Norv Turner managed to peddle his brilliance as a game planner into 3 head coaching hires, but his demonstrable deficiencies in nearly all other areas left a trail of disappointment, and the justified label of being only suited to be a coordinator.

 

 

2. Motivator - Everyone does it differently. Some great ones, like Gibbs or Parcells, even did it quite differently for different players. A balance between cheerleader and disciplinarian. Energizing your players without burning them out. Norv was incomparably incompetent at this, allowing the infamous club med atmosphere. Coughlin started out at the other extreme in NY, but found success after showing more flexibility to avoid alienating his players.

 

 

3. Hiring Great Staff - Gibbs, Walsh, and Parcells had this in spades. Bugel, Petitbon, Hanifan...Ray Rhodes, Holmgren...Belichik, Sean Payton.

 

And this is something Norv, our current HC, and Mike Shanahan all suck at - big time. Norv simply had no eye for talent; Shanahan was a control freak who wanted lackeys to do his bidding, and Jay G...well he passed over Wade Phillips to hire his buddy Joe Barry. His only great hire was Sean McVay, who as head coach has assembled the best coaching staff in the NFL. Consider the following - the Rams have the second highest scoring offense in the league, and McVay STILL offered a job on his offensive staff a couple weeks ago to an innovative college coach. 

 

4. Teacher/Talent development - Zorn got the job here because in his interview he presented a thorough case for developing Jason Campbell, but you can't polish a turd. Under Fisher, Goff put up worse numbers than Jamarcus Russell, but McVay has him playing like an all-pro. Schotferbrains didn't have a tactical bone in his body, but managed to teach mediocre talents to play solid football - it's why he finished his career with a respectable regular season record, but was pathetic in the postseason. Is Gruden good at this? Dalton turned out relatively well despite minimal talent, but is there any other evidence?

 

Adaptability - Similar to tactician, but encompasses more. Some coaches can be great playcallers, but still cling to their favorite system, rather than adapting to the strengths of their roster or keeping up with changes in the league. This is what sunk McCarthy in Green Bay, who is still mired in a traditional WCO. It also limited Andy Reid for much of his time in Philly, but he has since embraced new concepts like a spread offense.

 

So how does our current coach rate on these qualities. I would say he is a bit better than average as a motivator, far below average when it comes to hiring staff...and just plain average at everything else.

[BraveWarrior]

As a tactician - I'd say he isn't the worst HC in the league right now, but he is far from the best. The team rarely seems to play to the opponent's weaknesses. He never seems to make good adjustments at halftime, something Gibbs excelled at. 

 

As a motivator - I don't see a lot of guys stepping up with their best efforts in the toughest, most critical situations. But then again, a pro football player shouldn't need a coach to get the best out of him in the biggest games.

 

Hiring staff - the failure of Jay to bring in a top DC is something that constantly annoys me. What did he see in Joe Barry, who had an 0-16 season on his resume? That was a huge red flag, but he brought him in anyway. Manusky seems like a cool guy, and obviously has a link to the team, but he's nothing special. 

 

Teacher/talent developer - I think Jay has the ability to do this, but not as a HC. HIs star was on the rise in Cincy as the OC, and I think he's best suited for that. He could be a QB guru, but he can't spend enough time on it whilst running the whole team. 

 

Adaptability - There's been times where he seems to get this right, but other times where he seems stuck on one thing and can't change. He seemed to want Cousins over RG3 because Cousins was more the type of QB he preferred. And I think he's tried to make all his RBs play the same, even though they have been very different players. AP has been good this year, but IIRC, he often had a fullback in the backfield with him in Minnesota. But the Redskins never use a lead blocker in the backfield. Would they benefit from maybe finding an H-back type guy - a TE who could line up as a FB at times? And with all the injuries along the line, maybe he could incorporate more of a zone blocking approach, as the backups don't seem to be the road grader type. 

 

[Wildbunny]

1 - Have a HoF QB.

2 - Have a good GM to feed you with good players.

3 - Spy the opponent with cameras for sign codes and stuff

4 - Do not work for Bruce Allen

6 - Do not work for Dan Snyder

7 - Bribe the referees.

8 - Bribe the cheerleaders so they run naked on the opponents' side.

9 - Deflate balls.

[Gibbs828791]

1.Time management on and off the field

2. Task master, paying attention to every detail, being a little paranoid

2. Adaptation

3. Be confident enough in your ability to pick staff for the right reasons, not based on you fearing they could take your job or they are a friend!

 

Your so right about Barry, what was that all about? I am sure he didnt have talent with the Lions but why take the chance with so many other options...didnt Greg come from his staff...mind boggling..makes me wonder what other screwed up decisions are being made we dont know about.

[Csup]

Not being named Jay Gruden

[Voice_of_Reason]

@Riggo-toni that's a good list.  I'll take a slightly different approach and order, but a lot of the same concepts:

 

1. Be a good manager.  (Please note, manager and leader are 2 different things).  This means being able to put together a good structure for the coaching staff, assign roles and responsibilities, give the staff the right authority to accomplish their jobs, and then hold them accountable.  Define the structure of the organization first.

 

A head coach can't do everything themselves, so they need to make sure that everybody around them is doing their jobs in concert.

 

2. Hire the right people to fill the roles he created in #1.  This is called organizational management, and something football teams, and particularly Dan Snyder struggle with.  There are 2 philosophies:  1. get all the best players on the bus, then figure out who does what, and 2. figure out what you need, then get the players.  The best organizations in the world go with the second option. 

 

3. Make sure the team is prepared.  This means making sure the coaches come up with an excellent plan, and that they can teach the players what that plan is.  I think a lot of time motivation and preparation are confused in the NFL.  If a team is well prepared, you don't need the "win one for the gipper" type of ra-ra foolishness.  I can't see Bill Bellichick standing on a table rousing the troops. 

 

Preparation is key. If the plan is sound and well taught, then the players can play freely, and they will look more motivated.

 

4. Manage the game well.  In my opinion, unless you are a genius prodigy, a HC should not be calling plays, on offense or defense.  There are SO few examples of that working out well. In a few cases, it did.  Currently, the only two HCs who call plays succesfully are McVay and Reid.  So delegate the game planning and play calling to somebody else, and the HC manages the game. 

 

The HC does NOT have to be a master tactician.  Jimmy Johnson wasn't a great tactician.  But he had Norv and Dave Wannstedt,  But they have to know when to call a TO, when to go hurry up, etc. Just manage the game.

 

5. They have to have attention to detail.  I think if you go back through the list of every great coach in NFL history, that's the one thing they will have in common.  They pay attention to the details. Details of the rules, details of the play, just all the details.  We've already heard out of Rams' camp that McVay just really sweats the details.  If players are out of position by 6 inches, he corrects them.  Routes have to be run at the correct depths. There cannot be mis-communications.  Players and coaches have to expect to do the small things right so the big things are possible.

 

FWIW, and not to turn this into a Gruden thread, but he has about none of these traits, which is why he's always destined to fail until he learns them.  His coaching staff is a mess, he hires bad people (Joe Barry anybody?), the team is constantly not prepared, he doesn't manage the game well, and he's allergic to the details.  He's a good guy that guys like playing for, and he can scheme up a pass offense a bit, but those are offensive coordinator (at best) traits.  He lacks ALL of the traits necessary to be a good HC. 

 

He could learn them. But it's been 5 years, and he hasn't yet. 

 

 

[skins island connection]

 

 There are always OCs and DCs around the league who are great at their jobs, but when they're given / promoted to a HC job, they don't know **** from wild honey.

 Jay Gruden falls into this category. His brother John, for those who propped him up, had a great team assembled before he got there and got lucky 1 time, then fell apart.

 

A good HC must have assistants who are on the same page, who understand the philosophy and build of the team. These assistants also have to be good teachers as well, as I have always stood by my saying of " A good HC makes great players, a group of great players do not make a coach good ".  We see players go up to NE for example, and these guys all of a sudden will be willing to run through a wall for Belichek, but when they were with another team they were meh guys. He has expectations, his QB has expectations, and it always works, as much as I hate to see it.

 

Gibbs always went against tendencies in situational downs. Back in 83', we had th' Hogs, the biggest and largest o-line in the league, and every one of them worked fluently as a unit, and gave Riggins the space he needed to run and also gave good blocking to 'X' QB in passing downs. By the time the 91' season came, the Redskins had the 3rd LIGHTEST o-line in the league, and STILL worked about as good as the 83' unit. WHY? HOW?  Coaching. Teaching. Understanding. Scheming.

 

The problems with this team go far beyond coaches; most of the FO personnel are not worthy; the scouting staff has been less than desirable; Hirings today, especially with the Redskins, are all about how many friends and family they can hire onto their team. This didn't happen back in Gibbs era. He hired the BEST personnel for the job.

[JSSkinz]

Train, motivate, develop, innovate, it's that simple.

[Warhead36]

The most important trait is flexibility/adaptability. You can't be wed to a system or scheme. The best coaches are all willing to design their systems around the talent they have because you never know what kind of players you'll end up with or how certain guys will develop. You also want to be flexible in your weekly game plan designs to attack specific opponents.

 

Look at Bellicheck in New England. When they had someone like Randy Moss at WR, Brady was flinging it 50 yards downfield constantly. But now its more short passing. When they had Corey Dillon they ran it a bunch, now its more RB by committee, until this year when they drafted Sony Michel and have made him a workhorse. They go from 3-4 D to 4-3 regularly depending on their personnel and the weaknesses of the opponent.

 

This is one thing about Gruden that aggravates me. He insists on putting square pegs through round holes. We have Adrian Peterson, a Hall of Fame RB at his best running behind a FB in straight up power I formation. What does Gruden do? Constantly run him out of shotgun. If an opponent has a weak outside CB we refuse to try to match him up with someone like Jordan Reed. If they have opposing WRs that are weak to press coverage, well we still play soft zone because "that's what we do."

 

Beyond that, successful head coaches require the same traits that successful leaders have. The ability to manage, delegate, handle egos, accept responsibility, hold others accountable, etc.

 

 

[skins island connection]

 

 One thing I forgot to mention [ probably one of many ] and is probably one of the most telling aspects.

 

 A good head coach has to learn from his mistakes. It goes along with Warhead36 about adaptability. One particular strength an offense may have but for whatever reason its not working against a certain opponent; scheme a different play/direction out of the same formation.

We see this in many opponents, they will run a play numerous times against our defense and it mostly doesn't do anything, but late 4th qtr in a close game, they will alter their route running out of the same formation and for whatever reason it seems to get that offense a big play. Why? The defense was caught expecting the same play as they've seen over and over, and usually they try to undercut the route to get a turnover,  but all they did was take themselves out of the play, as the route runner is 15 yds away.  So frustrating.

 

It wouldn't surprise me to see Gruden peeking in this thread taking notes...

[Mooka]

"Winning is not a sometime thing; it's an all the time thing. You don't win once in a while; you don't do things right once in a while; you do them right all of the time. Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing.

There is no room for second place. There is only one place in my game, and that's first place. I have finished second twice in my time at Green Bay, and I don't ever want to finish second again. There is a second place bowl game, but it is a game for losers played by losers. It is and always has been an American zeal to be first in anything we do, and to win, and to win, and to win.

Every time a football player goes to ply his trade he's got to play from the ground up - from the soles of his feet right up to his head. Every inch of him has to play. Some guys play with their heads. That's O.K. You've got to be smart to be number one in any business. But more importantly, you've got to play with your heart, with every fiber of your body. If you're lucky enough to find a guy with a lot of head and a lot of heart, he's never going to come off the field second.

Running a football team is no different than running any other kind of organization - an army, a political party or a business. The principles are the same. The object is to win - to beat the other guy. Maybe that sounds hard or cruel. I don't think it is.

It is a reality of life that men are competitive and the most competitive games draw the most competitive men. That's why they are there - to compete. The object is to win fairly, squarely, by the rules - but to win.

And in truth, I've never known a man worth his salt who in the long run, deep down in his heart, didn't appreciate the grind, the discipline. There is something in good men that really yearns for discipline and the harsh reality of head to head combat.

I don't say these things because I believe in the ‘brute' nature of men or that men must be brutalized to be combative. I believe in God, and I believe in human decency. But I firmly believe that any man's finest hour -- his greatest fulfillment to all he holds dear -- is that moment when he has worked his heart out in a good cause and lies exhausted on the field of battle - victorious."

- Coach Vincent T. Lombardi

 

 

These are the 2 factors I try to gauge when analyzing a coach:

 

1. Is the coach a winner?

2. Do the players play for the coach?

 

I feel like the players respond to Jay for the most part and play for him. (compared to say Spurrier or Zorn) Jay is not a winning head coach though, he needs a GM above him managing the structure of the team. 

[FrFan]

A Harley, ask Jerry

 

 

The coach must know how to deal with big Egos, he is the Boss and no player must be allowed to undermine his job.

Creativity, innovation are also a good qualities imo. The ability to take your opponents off guard.

In the end besides the trophies building a successful coaching tree is the ultimate trademark

[Bishop Hammer]

Great list.  And I love the quote from Coach Lombardi.