Several days ago it was pointed out on the board and in blogs that the Pats have the smallest coaching staff in the league (11 coaches I think - not including the mysterious tape guru E. Adams). Reading T. Brady's Q & A today I was struck with how much he sounded like J. McDaniels equal. They share ideas and how it feels as if Brady is an extension of the OC on the field. I then began to think about other positions with almost player/coaches on the field: I came up with DB (Harrison), LB (Vrabel, Bruschi and maybe Rosey), DL (Seymour is getting there), Special Teams (Izzo, Davis and T. Jones now), WR (T.Brown), and OL (a case could be made for Koppen and Light). Even with the huge losses of Willie, Adam V. and before that many others (Phifer, TJ, etc.), this team still has many acting coaches on the field. My question is: do you think the smaller coaching staff is by design to give the on-field leaders more input? Many other teams have seemed to have the coaches saying "my way or the highway" to the players on the sidelines (the Rams come to mind with Martz in particular). With the Pats it seems that there is a little more give and take between selected players and the coaches, with the playing leaders being an extension of the coaches on the field and in the action. Thoughts?