What type of personalities do you prefer in a coach or team leader? What works best?

[TruBlueCowboy]

This thread is a little experiment to get some interesting debate going during the slow part of the offseason. This could die a quick death or spark some good discussions.

My question to you is, based on your own experiences in sports (and in regular life), and what you've seen since you've followed the NFL or college sports, what type of personalities do you believe make the best coaches or team leaders at certain positions?

I think it's interesting because every personality out there has won a Super Bowl one time or the other, but different strokes for different folks. I realize I'll be stereotyping some personalities, and folks are too complex to label with just one term, but work with me.

• For a head coach, what do you think works best? A pain in the arse yeller like Bill Parcells or Jimmy Johnson? Someone who will put the fear of god in players to make them do their job. Or do you prefer a player's coach like Dick Vermeil or Joe Gibbs who may expect his players to act like grown men instead of forcing them. Someone who may, like Vermeil, emotionally inspire his players because he treats them like family or friends.

• At quarterback, do you prefer a laid back, one of the fellas QB like Brett Favre, Joe Montana or Don Meredith to lead your team? Or with the game on the line, would you rather have someone more like Troy Aikman or Roger Staubach who some would say were more emotionally detached, rigid, leaders?

• At any position, would you rather have: a talker or a quiet type? Would you rather have a Warren Sapp or Michael Irvin who tries to get in the face of players, play mind games with opponents and vocally inspire teammates. Or would you rather have a quiet player who isn't about talk, and just gets the job done like an Emmitt Smith or Curtis Martin?

What personalities do you believe are key for certain positions and/or team chemistry? Or do they matter to you at all? Maybe some of you current coaches can give us an interesting perspective.

 

[AsthmaField]

For Head coach: I like the dicsiplinarian type like Johnson or Parcells. I've seen enough of the "treat you like a man" type in Switzer, Gailey and Campo. The players always say they appreciate being treated like a man... and then they proceed to run the asylum. Of course it has worked for Vermeil and a few others... but I would think that your odds of success... great success, mind you... go down if you aren't strict with the players.


For QB: I think teams respond better to the Favre and Montana types that really enjoy what they're doing and play the game like a kid in the park. They make the game fun for the teammates and generally make it more fun to watch as a fan. I do think you can be successful with either type, I just personally would prefer the kind who loves to play the game best. I see Bledsoe and Henson as the Aikman type of detatched QB who runs the show with little emotion. Romo, I see as a fun-loving, Favre type who'll have fun. Unfortunately... he has the least talent of the three.

As far as other positions... I feel like you need a mix of some talkers and some quiet workers. I tend to like the quiet workers like Emmitt or Russell Maryland, but I don't want the painfully shy types like Leon Lett, if I could help it. I think the boisterous types like Irvin definately have their place on a team though, and if they do it right, can inspire the whole unit like Irvin did. I suppose reality is that you're going to have all types on a team... and that's a good thing.

 

[TruBlueCowboy]

For Head coach: I like the dicsiplinarian type like Johnson or Parcells. I've seen enough of the "treat you like a man" type in Switzer, Gailey and Campo. The players always say they appreciate being treated like a man... and then they proceed to run the asylum. Of course it has worked for Vermeil and a few others... but I would think that your odds of success... great success, mind you... go down if you aren't strict with the players.

I think ideally, I prefer screamers when I'm young, and player's coaches when I'm older. I admit, I was a slacker and a half when I was a kid. I needed coaches like that to whip my butt and keep me going. But when you get older, and you've learned lessons, and (hopefully) you are a wiser young man, you have a hard time dealing with the screamers. They annoy you more than inspire you. I think the Cowboys are a great example. When they were all young fellas, Jimmy Johnson was a perfect fit and they grew with him. But once they were all vets, they didn't need Jimmy around the locker room and could still win a Super Bowl even with Barry Switzer, who is about as playa a playa's coach as you're going to get. LOL

If I had to pick one or the other, I'd go with the player's coach just because I think screamers can only get it right sometimes. I remember too many screamers who were just terrible fricking coaches and it was made all the worse by their attitude. I think great coaches are great coaches regardless of personality, but I think the good screamers get further than the good player's coaches. I'd also say that the screamers go further with high school athletes than they do with pro athletes, when they can still intimidate kids.

 

[LaTunaNostra]

NICE post, TBC. I for one will try to 'work with you'...as you say, the personalities are too complex to really label, (Tuna being a prime example of both stick and carrot button pusher..for every time he calls a player an SOB, he is soothing another with a SINCERE "son"), but the archetypes you gave us certainly do exist. I can't answer from a player's viewpoint as high school field hockey was my ultimate team sport experience, but from long time NFL couch AND coach potatoing, here goes..

For a head coach, what do you think works best? A pain in the arse yeller like Bill Parcells or Jimmy Johnson? Someone who will put the fear of god in players to make them do their job. Or do you prefer a player's coach like Dick Vermeil or Joe Gibbs who may expect his players to act like grown men instead of forcing them. Someone who may, like Vermeil, emotionally inspire his players because he treats them like family or friends.

I want BOTH, in the same persona, BUT with a heavier dose of Bear Bryant than Tony Dungy. A "player's coach" tag can be misleading. Marv Levy, for example, was the stereotype of one, but he had the rep for planting you in a Jimmy Johnson asthma field pretty fast if you crossed him. Cry Me a River Vermeil is the same way.

I want both the wrath and the compassion, but any teacher can tell you, you have to go drill sargeant FIRST and then slowly you can infuse some Mother Theresa. Pete Carroll could tell us the opposite approach is doomed to failure..you cannot start off soft then get tough. By then you've lost the team and it's the classic example of too little, too late.

I want a coach tho, who inspires true affection and life long devotion.. who reaches a man on a level that goes well beyond the playing field. I always liked Jimmuh a lot, but I have noticed his ex-players do not speak of him as Tuna's "guys" do of him. With all that success in Dallas, it appears the bonding process was not the same. I could be dead wrong, but until the Irvins and lesser lights of the era start sounding like the Bavaros and Meggets, I just don't see where the lifelong influence exists.

Any teacher (and that's what a coach is) knows the ultimate success is the impact you had on a life. That's what I see in Bill that assauges the Bobby Knight charcteristics (tho Knight himself makes some converts for life...), an influence that maxes not just the player potential, but the man's ability to work under a strong leadership and thrive under it.

I prefer the military model of leadership, over all, and that builds off a core
of respect and even fear.The bonding based on team and sense of responsibility for it. When a player buys into this discipline, the possibility for true affection for his coach (and teammates) is increased. Self-esteem is a by product of competence, not some prime objective.

At quarterback, do you prefer a laid back, one of the fellas QB like Brett Favre, Joe Montana or Don Meredith to lead your team? Or with the game on the line, would you rather have someone more like Troy Aikman or Roger Staubach who some would say were more emotionally detached, rigid, leaders?

Tho there are all types of leaders (even unassuming, mild-personalitied Vinny T was an acknowledged effective one in NY), my ideal is Favre. When I think about who I want to be "led by" on any "team effort", it's someone with even more passion than I have. I think with men, that desire is even more pronounced. They do not take to being led by someone they see as not as strong as they themselves are. The fiery personalities seem to get better responses, but of course, we all know if a QB wins, he inspires automatic confidence, and if he doesn't, no combination of leardership abilities will compensate.

At any position, would you rather have: a talker or a quiet type? Would you rather have a Warren Sapp or Michael Irvin who tries to get in the face of players, play mind games with opponents and vocally inspire teammates. Or would you rather have a quiet player who isn't about talk, and just gets the job done like an Emmitt Smith or Curtis Martin?

I like Key AND Terry type personalities (happy birthday to both, btw, Key is today I think, T tomorrow). I LOVE the-in-your-face psyching up of teammates of a Mike Irvin, but the bottomline is a player has to be true to his own self..sincerety is the key component, I think, and everyone has the capability to be inspired by both types of demeanor. You need a healthy mix of both types to max team chemistry...it's the HC's job to find that successful ratio.

As for the personalities of certain positions...I want mean, mean, MEAN SOBS in the trenches, but on oline I want them crafty as they come as well, cunning, in fact. Dbs and receivers I want supreme confidence, (and a memory short enough to "'forget",) but short of the overweening ego we often see today in wide outs. Running backs I DO want Smith/Martin personas..guys who are work horse, take tremendous punishment, and realize the whole team looks to them for an example of both courage and perseverance. I do NOT want a smart arse personality at rb..Portis, James, you can have them. That position requires less vocalized ego and more consistent performance..an even natured approach, but tough as nails. That's the only position I am adamant about when it comes to personality - tailback, and NOTHING makes me happier than seeing it in Julis Jones. At tight end, we've got two perfect examples of what you want tempermentally.

So much for that novella, but you asked for it, TBC.

 

[TruBlueCowboy]

Running backs I DO want Smith/Martin personas..guys who are work horse, take tremendous punishment, and realize the whole team looks to them for an example of both courage and perseverance. I do NOT want a smart arse personality at rb..Portis, James, you can have them. That position requires less vocalized ego and more consistent performance..an even natured approach, but tough as nails. That's the only position I am adamant about when it comes to personality - tailback, and NOTHING makes me happier than seeing it in Julis Jones.

Ya know, it's hard for me to think of a highly successful pro player who ran the ball and had the mouth of a Michael Irvin. Eric Dickerson? You're right, those quiet courageous players always have more successful at the position.

 

[LaTunaNostra]

Ya know, it's hard for me to think of a highly successful pro player who ran the ball and had the mouth of a Michael Irvin. Eric Dickerson? You're right, those quiet courageous players always have more successful at the position.

The prototype to my mind is Jim Brown. Proud and persevering.

I loved Duane Thomas as a kid, he was the first NFL player who caught my imagination, even more so than Joe Namath. I was from a very young age attracted to anti-hero personas.

I have often wondered if he could have 'lasted longer' had he played another position.

Tail back is my 'favorite' position, not just because of the physical skills. My dad played semi pro tail and taught us early how to watch a runner, and how to evalute him. The very nature of the feature back role, the combination of punishment he takes and the responsibility of run opening up pass, (pre wco especially), and the absence of clear cut individual match-ups like a receiver gets to shine in...it takes a special personality to shine there.

Tuna has been very adept at recognizing/defining that personality type.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

It's hard for me to look further then Landry when you talk about coaches but I if I'm building one from the floor up, I think a combination of X's and O's along with discipline is the key. I think you would have to be able to interact with the players a bit more then you did in days gone by so. Nature of the beast I suppose. Paul Brown is the best IMO but I'm not sure he could interact with players in this day and age. If I had to pick one now, it would probably be Fox. I think he's exactly the right mix for todays NFL.


QBs, well, I would say that I like a guy who has ice water in his vaines but also has steel in his personality. IMO, the best leader at QB, ever, was Johnny Unitas. "Talk is cheap, let's go play." That says it all for me.

Personalities vary at different positions. A type personalities or B type personalities will gravitate twords certain areas on the football field. At WR and CB, I like a guy who talks a bit. At OL or RB, I like a guy who makes you pay but doesn't really talk a lot. Not saying you have to be one or the other to be succesful. Certainly, there have been many who have found success that don't meet my criteria. When it's all said and done with, I want an guy who won't quit. I want a guy who is intelligent. I want a guy who has mental toughness. Doesn't have to be the best athlete on the field but he's got to be able to play.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Ya know, it's hard for me to think of a highly successful pro player who ran the ball and had the mouth of a Michael Irvin. Eric Dickerson? You're right, those quiet courageous players always have more successful at the position.

Gail Sayers talked a little bit. Ricky Waters talked a lot. Tony Dorsett talked a lot, as did Eric Dickerson. This kid Portis talks a lot too.

Brown, Emmitt, Sweetness, Sanders, they never talked.

Earl Campbell never talked, but every body heard what he was saying.

 

[TruBlueCowboy]

Earl Campbell never talked, but every body heard what he was saying.

:money:

 

[LaTunaNostra]

Gail Sayers talked a little bit. Ricky Waters talked a lot. Tony Dorsett talked a lot, as did Eric Dickerson. This kid Portis talks a lot too.

There's a whole bunch of talkers out there now, all across the continuum from Alexander to Henry to Tham.

Maybe the new breed will hold up, but whatever combination of qualities that revolve around 'durability', I kinda doubt grumbling, chest-thumping, or trash talking are among them.

I realize a 'talker' can have character, but the discipline it takes to survive and thrive year in, year out, at tailback seems to preclude wasting unnecessary energy.

 

[Chief]

The prototype to my mind is Jim Brown. Proud and persevering.

I loved Duane Thomas as a kid, he was the first NFL player who caught my imagination, even more so than Joe Namath. I was from a very young age attracted to anti-hero personas.

I have often wondered if he could have 'lasted longer' had he played another position.

I think Duane Thomas' running style was the most beautiful thing I've ever seen on a football field. He moved like water in a mountain stream.

I used to drive a four-wheel drive tractor (a Steiger for implement people) and the tractors had a pivot in the middle ... it enabled you to make tight turns in this monstrous piece of machinery. That reminds me of Duane Thomas. He was a big running back (6-3, 225), and he could twist the middle of his body ... he upper torso, arms and head would be leaning one way and his legs and feet would be leaning the other way.

The Cowboys scouts had him rated as the No. 3 prospect in that draft. The concern obviously was Duane's personality and his pot-smoking. Dallas had Calvin Hill who had been rookie of the year just the season before, but the scouts told Landry that Thomas was better. They also warned of the problems that come with him. Landry wanted to try to "handle" him.

My dad is a Cowboy fan and very, very critical one ... he didn't think most of the players measured up, etc. ... yet he loved Duane Thomas as a RB. When Duane tried to make a comeback with Dallas in the late 1970s, my Dad was really pulling for him.

Like I've posted before, I had the opportunity to spend an hour with Duane back in the early 1990s. He looked like a million bucks, but he was certainly an unusual character.

After he had been in the office for a little while, one of my co-workers came in, who also happened to be an NFL fan from way back. I introduced him to Duane and the first thing Duane said was, "Where are you going?" My co-worker is confused now and said, "What do you mean?" Duane says, "Where are you going?" and says, "You have a travel voucher on your desk over there ... I was just wondering where you were going." :laugh2:

He talked non-stop for an hour about this program he was trying to do ... asked me a thousand questions. He was blown away that I had a hard-back copy of his book and he wrote in it, "Always remember and bear in mind that a real, true friend is hard to find."

He was living up in Taos, N.M. at the time and I lost track of him.

If he would have had his head together, he could have been better than any Dallas RB, IMO.

 

[junk]

Interesting thread. Here is my take.

Coaching:
I think you can need a coach that can do both. Obviously screaming all of the time does you no good. Neither does trying to be someone's buddy all the time. A good coach will know what buttons to push with which players. Some players need to be yelled at and prodded to succeed while others wilt and die under the pressure. I think with a good coach you always know that the explosion is lurking just under the surface and the threat alone is often enough to motivate players to do the right thing.

To me, its all about knowing which buttons to press and when. Its been my experience that coaches that scream all the time usually aren't very good. A well timed tirade can certainly motivate even the most professional and hard working players. I always played better when angry and even if you are playing well, if you get chastized, you tend to kick it up a notch.

Players:
Once again, each player is unique and I think you could succeed with either type. Joe Montana's John Candy spotting is stuff of legend. Would that work every time? Nope, but it did that time. To me, a good QB is going to be brimming with confidence. He has exude that to the team.

Talker/Quiet Type:
I have always preferred the quiet types who just went out and took care of business. However, I have no doubt you need the talkers as well. These guys are usually pretty good in the locker room too. I still laugh out loud thinking about some of the pregame locker room discussions that have been led by the talkers. Certainly helped ease the tension. If you are going to talk though, you better be able to back it up.

 

[Mike 1967]

If I am a player then I would want a players coach.

If I am a fan then I want a coach in the mold of Jimmy or Parcells :- )

 

[Chief]

Interesting thread. Here is my take.

Coaching:
I think you can need a coach that can do both. Obviously screaming all of the time does you no good. Neither does trying to be someone's buddy all the time. A good coach will know what buttons to push with which players. Some players need to be yelled at and prodded to succeed while others wilt and die under the pressure. I think with a good coach you always know that the explosion is lurking just under the surface and the threat alone is often enough to motivate players to do the right thing.

To me, its all about knowing which buttons to press and when. Its been my experience that coaches that scream all the time usually aren't very good. A well timed tirade can certainly motivate even the most professional and hard working players. I always played better when angry and even if you are playing well, if you get chastized, you tend to kick it up a notch.

Players:
Once again, each player is unique and I think you could succeed with either type. Joe Montana's John Candy spotting is stuff of legend. Would that work every time? Nope, but it did that time. To me, a good QB is going to be brimming with confidence. He has exude that to the team.

Talker/Quiet Type:
I have always preferred the quiet types who just went out and took care of business. However, I have no doubt you need the talkers as well. These guys are usually pretty good in the locker room too. I still laugh out loud thinking about some of the pregame locker room discussions that have been led by the talkers. Certainly helped ease the tension. If you are going to talk though, you better be able to back it up.

My thoughts exactly. Great post.

A good coach is intuitive and knows how to get the most out of each individual player. Psychology is very important, which is why I think Parcells and Jimmy were both so successful. I also place value on a leader's charisma.

Regarding the players, you need a good mix of personalities. One thing you have to have is a group of ultra-competitive leaders who puke at the mere thought of losing (Emmitt, Irvin, Staubach, etc.) You have to have a few of them.

 

[LaTunaNostra]

He moved like water in a mountain stream.

With the sunlight sparkling through it here and there.

Beautiful story, Chief.

I have had a copy of Thomas' book with Dr Z since it came out in '88, and re-read it every now and again.

I think he was ahead of his time in many ways, but did not have the emotional makeup to thrive as an iconoclast in the early seventies social upheaval, as Namath did, and later, John Riggins. Perhaps if he had not been playing the so punishing tailback position, his dissatisfaction with his salary would not have been so strong. Or perhaps he was fated to clash with Tom Landry, regardless; just an inevitable intergenerational tension that came to be viewed as a microcosm of rapid social change.

Ironically, he has his place in the history of the NFL, not just the Cowboys.

Kinda amazing he matured into the spiritual, community-oriented person he has been for so many years, because he could have gone either way. I guess the word "mercurial" sums Duane Thomas up both on and off the field.

To watch the "two halves" of the running back is a great pasttime, and on ESPN Classic everyone can get the occasional look at what Thomas's lower half was doing, shifting, stepping, reversing, cutting...but the eye would direct to the upper hips, not the legs. He was so fluid an athlete it appeared he changed direction from his waist, no lower. I didn't know fully appreciate what made him special til I watched with an adult's eyes, but it was the epitome of 'gifted'. I doubt any runner who preceded him had the degree of body control.

So many runners have had more pronounced abilities..power, elusiveness, speed. But really, ONLY Barry Sanders' shifts appeared more magical (the one runner we would 'carve' into thirds, not halves, when watching), only Sweetness as fluid, and to my mind, Thomas had the most powerful grace of the three.

If there is ONE player in NFL history that makes 'what might have been' painfully bittersweet, it is Duane Thomas.

 

[dwmyers]

When you talk about coaches personalities, I can't help but think of Theodore Roosevelt's famous quotation, "Talk softly but carry a big stick." Beyond that, I think smarts and cleverness go a long way. I never saw the 1950 Rams but wouldn't it have been a hoot to play for them?

In terms of quarterbacks, I think the ability to avoid the rush is important (some running ability even better) and then the ability to think clearly and make good decisions in crunch time helps. Quiet or loud doesn't matter here much. Getting the job done does.

In terms of team personality, you want a compatible mix, not a bunch of jealous back biters.

 

[JackMagist]

For a head coach, what do you think works best? A pain in the arse yeller like Bill Parcells or Jimmy Johnson? Someone who will put the fear of god in players to make them do their job. Or do you prefer a player's coach like Dick Vermeil or Joe Gibbs who may expect his players to act like grown men instead of forcing them. Someone who may, like Vermeil, emotionally inspire his players because he treats them like family or friends.

Tom Landry...no nonsense, no headgames, no BS. With Tom you got straight up solid coaching with strong discipline; the epitome of professionalism. No need for all the idiotic headgames that Parcells likes to play. BTW I consider Jimmy Johnson to be somewhat of the same mold but he was more flamboyant and more of a yeller than Tom.

At quarterback, do you prefer a laid back, one of the fellas QB like Brett Favre, Joe Montana or Don Meredith to lead your team? Or with the game on the line, would you rather have someone more like Troy Aikman or Roger Staubach who some would say were more emotionally detached, rigid, leaders?

No hesitation on this one...I want Roger Staubach. The game was never over until the final whistle with Roger in there. He had the ability to elevate his team more so than any QB I can recall...Montana was close though I hate to say it; so did Elway and Favre shows some of that too...but Roger was the best. Aikman’s accuracy and Merideth’s hardnosed toughness mixed with Staubach’s mobility and intangibles would be the consummate QB.

At any position, would you rather have: a talker or a quiet type? Would you rather have a Warren Sapp or Michael Irvin who tries to get in the face of players, play mind games with opponents and vocally inspire teammates. Or would you rather have a quiet player who isn't about talk, and just gets the job done like an Emmitt Smith or Curtis Martin?

I want the Emmitt Smith, Moose Johnston...even Larry Allen types. I suppose the loudmouths have a place but I'm not fond of them I'd rather have the tough guys that lead by example. Swagger is ok...swagger is important...but you can have swagger without all the trash talkin' and mouthing off; true swagger comes from confidence not trash talk. I do NOT want a Warren Sapp type cheap-shot artist.