Mike McDaniel and the future of big time football coaches

The Bears tried it with Marc Trestman. It did not go well.

It apparently didn't go well in Baltimore for him either.

I've never really looked at it this way, but I can see where you're getting that. I wonder if it has more to do with the types of coaches who figure out how to best motivate, develop, and manage players in this new age of CTE awareness, mental health awareness, technology, handling modern and shifting social norms and practices, etc.

The Shanahan tree in particular seems to handle these new norms well, and they appear to have an amazing bond with each other. I feel that's one way that they're developing so many good, young coaches, and there seems to be a general eagerness from that tree of coaches to uplift and push coaches under them to reach higher. Most of these young "nerds" taking over the NFL are from that tree, including Mike McDaniel.

Not to mention the Shanahan offense has a reputation for making average QB's good, and good QB's great. Whether it's statistically proven or not, anyone from the Shanahan tree is going to be a juicy coaching candidate for the coming years.  Their offenses are fun to watch as well.  While the WCO mastered throwing the ball to all eligible receivers, this Shanahan offense does a great job of running the ball to all its athletes.  They use a pretty simple formula for beating defenses, and attacking the entire field with just a few different calls (less is more), which is also enticing.  If you watch some of McVay's teams, you'd almost think they were a Wing-T offense at times with how they set up their packages and use formations and motions.  Only difference is they're zone blocking rather than gap blocking.  

It may be more of a getting someone whose game management and play calling theories fall in line with what the analytics say. I know, I know, statistics are not the tell all in football as they are in baseball (or even basketball for that matter). But there are a lot of times that the way that things have always been done doesnt jibe with what the analytics say should be done. 

I think of it like this: Post WWII the military academies were dominant, and people like to think of football as a form of combat anyways, so the thought was have coaches who are like drill sergeants.  Do the whole Junction Boys thing, toughen up, deny them water, and thats how you win. This leads to the Lombardi types, or as the OP stated the rough and gruff coaches. 
Coming after this time, most new coaches were just former players, the thought being that if you were a good player you must have the secret to get others to be good players. So former players get hired and most just do the same thing, in general, as those before them.

Obviously there are changes, evolutions, etc. We are all coaches and know he history of the game, I'm sure most have read "Blood, Sweat, and Chalk". But that mostly speaks to the schematics, I think the psychology of the game changed first, and as people began to realize that connecting with players and relating to them can create a winning culture we get these young-energetic coaches that the OP deemed "hollywood".

Still, there has been a reluctance to bring the "nerdy guy" into the coaches box. For the longest time a coach needed to be a leader. You know how we tend to vote for the taller candidate in an election....well same with coaches- we see big strong guys as the leader. Also, they need to teach technique, and an NFL locker room aint always the place for the meek. I had a buddy who coached in the NFL in the late 90s, his first day with his position group an all-pro player bowed up and tried to intimidate him that 'he had forgot more football than this new coach' (and this guy was a former d1 player). That being written, we have had recent HCs who never even played HS ball, so that has become less of an issue. 

And as eluded to earlier, the analytics aspect. I know it bothers some people, but more often than not, the numbers are right. And the "nerdy" guys may tend to trust the right numbers (whether they be statistical models on play calling, GPS measurements of player movement, or evidence based training regiments). 

Besides the fact you have to know someone to get in the NFL.

The biggest reason guys do or don’t make it in the league is because they have to know ball at the highest level. Rah rah guys, salesman/recruiters, those types can’t cut it. You have to know what you’re talking about or you provide no value.

Nerdy types fit that build more so than tough/outwork everyone guys.

The style in the end doesn’t matter. It’s all about how well you know and can teach the game.

Don’t really have a strong opinion on this guy, but funny to me that the media narrative about him being a savant took off when he explained why they liked to tag interior runs with a toss. I’m sure he is incredibly knowledgeable about the game, but just like with Brandon Staley being lauded as a genius for explaining why running the ball is important a few months ago, people are much more inclined to read intelligence into the words of people that look and speak like what they imagine intelligent people to look and speak like.

I agree with all of this.

I also think there’s are changing cultural ideas of masculinity and how coaches are expected to behave at work here.

Remember: the whole reason HS football began was as a way to toughen up boys and “turn them into men” because people in the early 20th century were afraid of boys growing up soft and “effeminate.” The USA needed guys who were ready for military service and exhausting manual labor jobs. The fear was that they’d graduate from school unable to hack it in society or serve their country.

The culture itself was different. A lot of what would now be considered “abuse” was considered an important crucible to develop the mental toughness required of men. A lot of what now gets labeled “toxic masculinity” were considered the acceptable by-products of “manly virtues” back then.

Nowadays the crusty old coach who believes in grueling practices, “coaching hard,” and acting like he’s the baddest man on the planet and the players all need to follow his example and to follow orders without hesitation is an anachronism at best and a potential legal liability at worst.

Back then, people wanted coaches who were more like drill sergeants. Now people want coaches who are more like tech executives: smart, innovative, data-focused, and well-educated on the game and how to use the current legal, political, and social climate to their advantage rather than banging their head against it.

Also, it’s worth pointing out that the guy this post was originally written about is a well-spoken Ivy League graduate who happens to be biracial. It’s also worth noting that he was hired to replace the guy who is suing the NFL in a bombshell racial discrimination lawsuit that is going to drag on and haunt the team (and league) for years. Part of Mike McDaniel’s job is going to be dealing with questions about that and trying to rehab the franchise’s image.

I'm just amazed that Shanahan and his magical tree became so adored since he was looking at potentially getting fired mid season.

This wave of fervor of a "type" will pass, just as they all do.

In the NFL, "culture", analytics, RPOs, whatever the hot term is, only takes you as far as your talent. Guys suddenly become "gurus" or "see the game pass them by" correlative to their talent levels. It's amazing.

Matt LaFleur is not a big guy-commanding physical presence, although I wouldn't say he looks like a "nerd."

Played D-II CFB.

Seems to be doing okay.

I hate the "point out what talent is on the team to negate a coach's ability" argument, BUT having a first ballot HOFer and 4 time MVP helps.

It is also helpful to have 6 wins basically written in stone because of a horrible division every year.

Well, this is his owner....


I think some of this may be related to feeling familiar with your employees 

Think about this:

Belichick and Saban are the best ever at their respective levels. That said, reverse their levels, would they have the same level of success? We have already seen how Saban did at the NFL level as an HC (might have got it right on a second shot). Can you imagine Belichick trying to recruit at the college level? "We'd love to have you here, our guys are tremendous football players, in all three phases of the game" 😄 He might do better than i give him credit for off the top of my head, but, I dont think he would do as good at Alabama as Saban has. They are each well-suited for the level they coach at.

1. Where are you getting this version of the evolution of football.
2. How are you linking it to some desire to train people for the military?

I've read that book. I have never seen this football to war notion your espousing here.