Should superstars have a say in running a team?

[salmar80]

A lot of good discussion...

I personally think star QBs can have a role in designing "their" O in partnership with the HC/OC, since any O must suit the QB anyways. But it must be made clear to the player (and the public) that the coaches are the ones making ALL final decisions, and thus bear responsibility for those play designs and calls (right or wrong). The exact way this partnership works obviously depends on the situation. I did like how LaFleur and AR handled it last season, but that formula may not work for others.

And I'd keep even the smartest QB faaaar away from the realm of personnel decisions, except in very specific situations. Again, main reason is that you don't want anyone on the roster thinking your QB has any responsibility in personnel decisions, since about half of those decisions are cuts. There's a reason most GMs don't develop close relationships with the players.

If the QB starts meddling with situations of certain players, what would that mean for the other players? For example, if a QB pulls off some power play to get his favorite WR a raise, but doesn't do the same favor for any other player, that can hurt the locker room. That raise likely means someone else in the room is soon outta a job.

Now, what Brady did with him bringing his personal star buddies to the roster is so rare, it can't really be made into a model. If the stars aligned and AR were able talk a friend to take a discount to come to the Packers, I wouldn't mind. But almost all players make their decisions based on business, so I don't really expect that to ever happen.

[RingoCStarrQB]

Sure. Running the team 'on the field' is fine. Off the field not so much. The front office and coaching staff are paid to run the team 'off the field'.

29 Razor in Super Bowl 31, and the 31 Wedge in the Ice Bowl are excellent examples of superstars successfully running a team "on the field". Defensive players can call audibles or suggest defensive fronts/alignments as well (randomly blitz for example, i.e. Dave Robinson in the 1966 NFLCG versus Dallas at the Cotton Bowl).

GO PACK GO !!

[TheSkeptic]

A lot of good discussion...

I personally think star QBs can have a role in designing "their" O in partnership with the HC/OC, since any O must suit the QB anyways. But it must be made clear to the player (and the public) that the coaches are the ones making ALL final decisions, and thus bear responsibility for those play designs and calls (right or wrong). The exact way this partnership works obviously depends on the situation. I did like how LaFleur and AR handled it last season, but that formula may not work for others.

And I'd keep even the smartest QB faaaar away from the realm of personnel decisions, except in very specific situations. Again, main reason is that you don't want anyone on the roster thinking your QB has any responsibility in personnel decisions, since about half of those decisions are cuts. There's a reason most GMs don't develop close relationships with the players.

If the QB starts meddling with situations of certain players, what would that mean for the other players? For example, if a QB pulls off some power play to get his favorite WR a raise, but doesn't do the same favor for any other player, that can hurt the locker room. That raise likely means someone else in the room is soon outta a job.

Now, what Brady did with him bringing his personal star buddies to the roster is so rare, it can't really be made into a model. If the stars aligned and AR were able talk a friend to take a discount to come to the Packers, I wouldn't mind. But almost all players make their decisions based on business, so I don't really expect that to ever happen.

And suppose the QB were to have a say in which Olineman should be resigned and that lineman is lined up against Suh on a pass play and thinks that the QB thinks he is overpaid and should be cut?

[Yoop]

A lot of good discussion...

I personally think star QBs can have a role in designing "their" O in partnership with the HC/OC, since any O must suit the QB anyways. But it must be made clear to the player (and the public) that the coaches are the ones making ALL final decisions, and thus bear responsibility for those play designs and calls (right or wrong). The exact way this partnership works obviously depends on the situation. I did like how LaFleur and AR handled it last season, but that formula may not work for others.

And I'd keep even the smartest QB faaaar away from the realm of personnel decisions, except in very specific situations. Again, main reason is that you don't want anyone on the roster thinking your QB has any responsibility in personnel decisions, since about half of those decisions are cuts. There's a reason most GMs don't develop close relationships with the players.

If the QB starts meddling with situations of certain players, what would that mean for the other players? For example, if a QB pulls off some power play to get his favorite WR a raise, but doesn't do the same favor for any other player, that can hurt the locker room. That raise likely means someone else in the room is soon outta a job.

Now, what Brady did with him bringing his personal star buddies to the roster is so rare, it can't really be made into a model. If the stars aligned and AR were able talk a friend to take a discount to come to the Packers, I wouldn't mind. But almost all players make their decisions based on business, so I don't really expect that to ever happen.

I'll never forget Favre telling that receiver (Walker) who was holding out with a year left on his rookie deal to honor it, the receiver told him to shut up and mind his own business, I think we traded him a couple days later, Fav're had clout actually though I think the receiver was half way out the door anyway.

[Yoop]

A lot of good discussion...

I personally think star QBs can have a role in designing "their" O in partnership with the HC/OC, since any O must suit the QB anyways. But it must be made clear to the player (and the public) that the coaches are the ones making ALL final decisions, and thus bear responsibility for those play designs and calls (right or wrong). The exact way this partnership works obviously depends on the situation. I did like how LaFleur and AR handled it last season, but that formula may not work for others.

And I'd keep even the smartest QB faaaar away from the realm of personnel decisions, except in very specific situations. Again, main reason is that you don't want anyone on the roster thinking your QB has any responsibility in personnel decisions, since about half of those decisions are cuts. There's a reason most GMs don't develop close relationships with the players.

If the QB starts meddling with situations of certain players, what would that mean for the other players? For example, if a QB pulls off some power play to get his favorite WR a raise, but doesn't do the same favor for any other player, that can hurt the locker room. That raise likely means someone else in the room is soon outta a job.

Now, what Brady did with him bringing his personal star buddies to the roster is so rare, it can't really be made into a model. If the stars aligned and AR were able talk a friend to take a discount to come to the Packers, I wouldn't mind. But almost all players make their decisions based on business, so I don't really expect that to ever happen.

And suppose the QB were to have a say in which Olineman should be resigned and that lineman is lined up against Suh on a pass play and thinks that the QB thinks he is overpaid and should be cut?

never happen, QB's never say bad stuff about lineman, it's a rule I think, maybe even a un written LAW

[TheSkeptic]

And suppose the QB were to have a say in which Olineman should be resigned and that lineman is lined up against Suh on a pass play and thinks that the QB thinks he is overpaid and should be cut?

never happen, QB's never say bad stuff about lineman, it's a rule I think, maybe even a un written LAW

The same would apply, though to a lesser extent, to TE's and RB's. In fact it applies to the entire team because the players must protect each other.

[Cdragon]

And suppose the QB were to have a say in which Olineman should be resigned and that lineman is lined up against Suh on a pass play and thinks that the QB thinks he is overpaid and should be cut?

never happen, QB's never say bad stuff about lineman, it's a rule I think, maybe even a un written LAW

The same would apply, though to a lesser extent, to TE's and RB's. In fact it applies to the entire team because the players must protect each other.

If you're having a one on one with the GM you should be able to say what you believe is the truth. Calling out guys in the press is something else. but if I'm the GM or the HC behind closed doors asking for opinions I want honest answers. Do I immediately act on those answers? 99.9% of time, no. But it gets filed away and added to everything else these guys are graded on. And they are graded on just about everything. And if you are facing Suh are you going lay down and prove the QB's point or are you going to fight? Anyone worthy is going to fight whether they have the skill to win or not. There aren't too many Lomas Brown's out there and they aren't laying down to send messages to MVPs.

[Yoop]

And suppose the QB were to have a say in which Olineman should be resigned and that lineman is lined up against Suh on a pass play and thinks that the QB thinks he is overpaid and should be cut?

never happen, QB's never say bad stuff about lineman, it's a rule I think, maybe even a un written LAW

when have you seen Rodgers or any other QB call out a player that didn't deserve it, thats insane cause it very rarely has ever happened that I can remember, the only time Rodgers has done it is when the player didn't prepare mentally for the job he's suppose to do, and we should be glad he did it, your just trying to create something that didn't happen.

Mod Edit/Disclaimer: Portions of this post (and previous) were edited due to misplaced quotes from a multiple quote string. Quotes, and their proper attribution, have been fixed.