I tend to believe that the best nfl coaches prospects are the ones that were average players at best. You know the ones that never had the raw athleticism and intangibles that a lot of these future HOF players have (Peppers comes to mind). My explanation for this theory is simple.... these were the players that had to be meticulous with their technique in order to compete or stand a chance against other nfl players that were a lot better athletes than them etc.
One clear example comes to mind
Ricky proehl-- never a #1 wr but man could he run routes. His crip technique is probably the only reason he lasted in the nfl so long. Hence why I think he'll be a great wr coach moving forward.
On the flip side, I think that's why a great player like Mike Singletary turned out me be a less than average coach. He wasn't the most athletic but he had great "instinct", and that's something that Cannot be tought. He was a great instinctive player since day 1 (Sound familiar?)
Which brings me to my last point/opinion. I believe our very own Luke Kuechley would NOT be a very good coach if he pursued that venture.
But that's just my humble observation and analysis.
Yeah, coaches are usually guys that master the why's of your technique needs to be a certain way. They're also more patient with teaching and learning though. HoFamer's types are more obsessive, I think this may have been the knock on a guy like Singletary.
They're are lots of other traits you need to be a coach though.
Have to be able to motivate and inspire men, have to be somewhat of a politician, have to be a psychologist, a mentor, a leader, all that too. They are rare breeds.