Co-Quarterbacks Like Co-Presidents: Not Such a Bad Idea if One Pauses……
Some time ago, I wrote a piece or two and gave some talks/had conversations as I recall on the possibility of co-presidencies in the educational context. It has worked in some business settings and makes lots of sense when one considers the depth and quantity of skills needed to succeed in today’s ever growingly complex, changing, ambiguous and unsafe world. And it has been tried (in different forms) in education. And it is not as if university presidents are doing so stellar a job at the moment.
Here’s a link to one piece I wrote:
What got me thinking about this again was the number of NFL quarterbacks who have started this NFL season — 48 by my count and the season isn’t over yet. Some teams have used 4 quarterbacks. There is much lamenting over the injuries to the star quarterbacks (think Aaron Rodgers). There has been sharp drop offs between the star leader and the substitutes — second and third and fourth stringer QBs although there have been some surprise successes (short and longer term).
Now I know a thing or two about football (many reasons) and I’ve known an NFL quarterback. Here’s the idea. We substitute players in many sports all the time. There are players who are better at the run game than the pass game (on both sides of the line). In basketball, there are better defenders and better 3 point shooters. There are hitters who are better against lefties. And so it goes.
Instead of one star quarterback, what if teams prepared two quarterbacks and used both in the game? One could specialize in run plays and short passes; the other could specialize in long throws and red zone plays. But both could do everything if needed. Any combinations are possible — depending on the personnel. And, the idea is to switch these QBs in and out — each quarter perhaps or something.
This wouldn’t be easy. There is the “flow” question and the “in the zone” issue. There would need to be lots of practice and coordination and cooperation — and flexibility based on personnel and the opponents and the day and the weather and the moment. There would have to be team buy in for sure and QBs whose egos could withstand this dual leadership role and see it as a benefit.
And the benefits abound. If there were an injury, the one remaining QB could compensate more easily. The opposing team would need to be better prepared and yes, they would know which quarterback is better at what plays but one could switch it up from time to time. So, this would make a team with two playing QBs more complex and hard to read. And, it would address injuries before the fact. And as to compensation, there could be some formula and it is not as if the current financial approach is so good. We pay the lead QB a ton and the next tiers down don’t get that much (OK, they still are well paid compared to the rest of the world).
Now this is a novel idea generally in leadership and it is not easy. But it happens. And, something like this happens in sports already. Let’s put it this way. With 48 QBs starting this season, there has to be a better way. Why not try this?
And, for the record, it might just produce better results — in terms of winning, in terms of injuries, in terms of money, in terms of teamwork, in terms of collegiality. Ponder the idea. It isn’t so far fetched. Or, put another way, it is no more far fetched than needing 48 starting QB’s in one season.
Note: A special thanks to DM for his NFL guidance.
