Jump to content

To what extent should quarterbacks (or players in general) be allowed to influence head coach hires


Recommended Posts

If you're a franchise cornerstone with plenty of time left and a HC/OC opening (Rodgers and Watson being the two most recent examples), I see no problem getting input from you. I'm a HUGE Rodgers fan as a NorCal native myself, but when questions arose about a potential power struggle between him and LeFleur, I had LeFleur's back (or would have, but it wound up a relative non-issue), so there's a line. QBs are paid royally, so of they're going to cause a real stink about a candidate, that candidate had better have punched the QB's wife or something. Short of that, collect your paycheck, make your desires heard, and back off. Request a trade later if you're truly unhappy and can't make it work. 

If you're a QB on the verge of failure like Wentz and haven't proven a thing in the NFL, I don't want to hear a peep from you. 

Same tends to go with other positions. Some guys are revered locker room and team leaders on top of being really good on the field. They often have some valuable input on behalf of the 50-something other people on the roster. Other guys are just really good players but that's it. They're not leaders, they're out for them. And that's ok, it's a business. But their input probably isn't valuable in the grand scheme (OBJ, Randy Moss, T.O., Antonio Brown come to mind immediately but it's not just WRs). 

But, as @Forge says, it's certainly not a "right" either which way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really think this one is a complicated issue and question, and really the only way to approach this is on a very case by case basis. I think the Watson/Houston situation is honestly a very rare one, because I can't think of many times in recent history, or history at all, where you've had a clear franchise defining, great, young QB, paired with a front office in complete disarray. Like, you think of Peyton, Brees, Brady, Wilson, even going back to Favre, Montana, Young, etc., all have either had one coach, or a change in the coaching staff only came from a coach resigning or retiring, not from termination due to poor performance. Definitely not this poor of performance. Even in a case of like, Mike McCarthy, McCarthy bottomed out at 7-9, and even that was with Brett Hundley starting games. I genuinely can't think of an example of a team with a QB as good as Watson, healthy, going 4-12. And  so I think you have a rare case, where you have a young, elite QB, signed to a huge long term deal, with an FO and coaching staff that is getting turned over for failing. Not sleep walking to a ho hum 8-8 year, but stink out loud failing. And so you have a face of the franchise, that very reasonably has no reason to trust the franchise, and I think that makes it a rare case where it is reasonable to expect that they get involved. Not that they make the decision, not even that they can say yay or nay to candidates, but just in the sense that they be involved in the dialogue, and be part of the communication about why the decisions being made are being made.

 

In the vast majority of cases, I don't think there's any reason to involve a player. A lower tier QB, nah. Any non-QB just isn't that invaluable. A team like the Pats or the Steelers or the Ravens with decades of successful leadership don't have a reason to change their current processes. But just that combination of Watson's value to the franchise, the utter failures of that front office, and the complete lack of trust that clearly exists between those players and the people above them, I think there HAS to be some involvement and communication there. Like, if Andy Reid retires in two years, I don't think Mahomes would need to be involved (though he 100% still could be), because if the ship stays the course there's implicit trust there between him and those above him. But that was earned, and continues to be earned. The same isn't true for Houston. If I were Watson, I would have no reason to believe anyone at the top of that franchise is doing the right thing for the team. And they have to fix that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion, preferred scheme is where I draw the line. If a guy KNOWS he isn't a good Option QB why hire a coach who believes in it til his eyes bleed? I do understand that is a coordinator thing but coordinator hires are typically made by Head Coaches who already have a philosophy in mind

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're throwing a $100+ mil deal at the QB then he is your biggest investment and should be involved. The decision is still up to the FO, but when your QB is the face of your franchise and someone who you will be allotting over 15% of your cap to you should be trying to maximize your return from that deal. They need to mesh well enough and play to the QBs strengths.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean franchise QBs are a 10 year investment so you would think you'd talk to them to get an idea of not only what they specifically think, but the timbre of the locker room as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct me if I'm wrong (or Cowherd, coz I got it from him....) but Baker was the factor in getting Kitchens as HC? I agree with Forge. Individual basis. But you probably have to acknowledge the opinion will be heavily biased of course

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...