Originally Posted by AndyJohnson
Everything I have ever seen says that BB is absolutely a control freak, totally a micromanager, and involved in everything. You suggest the opposite, do you have any sources or evidence?
Your Parcells comment rings hollow as well because Parcells definitely was a guy who delegated especially to BB.
Well, you could read the Education of a Coach, or other books about BB.
Pretty much everything I have ever heard or read about BB is that the central characteristic of his personality is that he tries to know everything about everything and leave no stone unturned.
I would imagine the stories of how he met with Brady every day his first season as a starter, to teach him how to read a defense would be a good starting point. Perhaps Vrabels comment I mentioned before.
Maybe the stories describing how we arrived in NE will a playbook that listed exactly what skillsets and qualities they were looking for in each position on the field, and so much detail that it even diagrammed and described in great detail how to huddle. I kind of thought anyone who had read anything about BB knew he was in control of everything.
I have read everything there is on the Patriots and BB, including the crap Holley wrote ("Moving the Chain" which was so watered down you coudn't get drunk on even if you drank it by the gallon), and I've read "Education" twice..
Now, the first thing that comes to my mind when you bring up the concept of BB micro-managing and being a control freak, is the famous principle that goes by the name of the two minute drill (for lack of a better term to apply to what I am about to discuss) that has won us so many games and gave us 2 out of 3 Lombardi's.
It is virtually impossible to micro-manage the two-minute drill. That is the one thing that the quarterback is in complete control of. There is just no time to audible him, and if you try to you are just asking for information overload. That is the clearest evidence that BB does delegate something- otherwise if he were a true micro-manager/control freak, he would not have entertained the two minute drill as a game tool.
Also let us examine a famous well known and proven control freak and micro-manager: Napoleon Bonaparte, who micromanaged to such an extent that he designed the stamp on the uniform buttons for his grenadiers.
His brilliant grasp of tactics and battlefield geography was second to none and propelled him to such height that he was able to expand the French Revolution outside of France to the point where it no longer was a 'revolution' but became the infamous 'total war' of Europe, and a crusade in imitation of Alexander the Great, that took him as far as Egypt (also where Alexander went, and is ironically buried). However his two defeats were both a fatal result of his micromanaging, in Russia (refusing to manumit the Russian Serfs which led to their deadly assault on his retreat), and more importantly at Waterloo where he had engaged in a war of attrition with Wellington and did not see the crushing flank assault by the Prussians that destroyed his army, because of desire to assume the classic battle posture "Central Position" which you use to beat a larger foe by splitting it in half or preventing it from unifying (in this case, England unifying with Prussia). However, his love of the "Central Position" was also a byproduct of his desire to see the battlefield from a vantage point so he could micromanage it. Had he allowed Marquis de Grouchy (commander of the Army of the North) any semblance of autonomy, Grouchy would have taken the initiative to head off the Prussian front before it reached Waterloo to open up another ill-afforded front against Napoleon. Instead, Grouchy followed orders to pursue the Prussian Army , over the famous "march towards the sounds of the guns" alternative that so many military historians have advocated would have had won for Napoleon, the battle of Waterloo.
In summary, he had a brilliant, but short career. From the day he became Emperor of France to the day he fell at Waterloo, just a little over a decade passed. This is a very short period of time where nations, warfare, and conquests are concerned.
Part of the reason I love the game of football is that its dynamics, in real-time, evolves pretty much faster than any human mind is able to minutely analyze it, and only in retrospect or extensive video analysis, is one able to break down the game into its many thousands of elements, and even then as this forum has proved, you can argue these elements to no end (thus one never gets tired of loving the game). And this is professional football. You absolutely just cannot micromanage or be a control freak and expect to last long, because the game evolves so fast, from year to year and on many levels, and not even the most brilliant mind, as Napoleon has proved, can keep up, if it is micro-managing or being a control freak.
By psychological definition, a micro-manager and/or control freak is rigid, static, and non-evolving, because those are byproducts of, and the mechanism with which one deals with anxiety, self-doubt, or low self-esteem, and you cannot evolve, or grow, or learn if you have the anxiety, self-doubt, or low self-esteem that contribute to the dysfunctional behavior in the first place.
We have seen time and again that BB is not afraid to throw concepts out the window, trade away major players that most still think are in their primes, and judge players not on their pedigree but on how they perform here and now, all in order to remain competitive. These elements are not hallmarks of a control freak or micro-managers, because those are dabbling in unknown qualitatives.
He may have micro-managed at an early point in his career, but to say that he still does, is an anomaly because then by logic, he would not have been able to evolve, he would not have been able to stay on top and be competitive for so long.
Also, if you study the psychological byproducts of a micro-managing superior in a workplace, you will see he or she is surrounded by enablers who are too, suffering from low self-esteem (the enablerism serves the dual-reciprocal relationship) to the point of allowing themselves to be micro-managed. Now if you look at Tom Brady, you would imagine he is the farthest thing from someone who has a low-self esteem. I really don't think he would subject himself to being micro-managed, year in, year out, especially if he were not able to completely take over in critical moments of the game and shine in the spotlight. That would be too much for his personal pride, hunger, and love of the game. I imagine the same is true, to a lesser extent and applicative to the rest of the players.
I know this homily is long-winded and will try not to do this again. Now this is not a criticism or refutation to what Andy says, it is just a series of suggestion why I think otherwise.
One reason I love discussing and analyzing this is that many of the elements we are discussing here are applicative to real life for a lot of us and we can actually make use of the many ideas, philosophies, and doctrines of pro football.
