Just thought I’d chime in on something that was brought up by Colin Cowherd today: being a control freak isn’t such a bad thing – at least when referring to sports. Some names that come to mind are Belichick, Saban, the late George Steinbrenner, and George Karl. When management lets one guy rule with an iron fist, it tends to work out better than when everyone gets to help shape a team philosophy. Don’t get me wrong, I hate communism as much as the next guy, but when we’re talking about building a team, you need clear direction and having a group of people calling the shots instead of one definite leader can complicate things.
Back when (a younger and less senile) George Steinbrenner was running the Yankees, everyone was kept on a short leash. Sure, this lack of freedom wasn’t the most fun way to do things, but obviously it worked. Same goes for Bill Belichick’s Pats; if a player doesn’t fit into his system perfectly, he doesn’t compromise his beliefs to make them fit – think Ochocinco. It seems harsh and perhaps illogical at the time (like when they cut Randy Moss), but it’s hard to argue with the results of his no-nonsense approach.
When an organization trusts one man’s vision of how he wants to build a team and they don’t interrupt the process, they allow him to do what he was hired to do without having to look over his shoulder. For example, Gregg Popovich – the longest tenured coach in the NBA – has been in control of the Spurs since 1996 and hasn’t had to worry about his job security too much. Ask the Spurs how this approach has treated them.
It may take time for an appointed leader to implement his system, but growing pains in the early stages are to be expected – regardless of how good he is. Belichick’s first few years in New England were not pretty, but Robert Kraft trusted that he was leading the team in the right direction and again, look how well the Patriots have been doing under his reign. However, many times management becomes impatient and decides to blow everything up before the previous rebuilding process had a chance to finish.
This is where Jerry Jones of the Cowboys fits in.
Jones isn’t quite a control freak, because he is never completely in control – at least not anymore. Yes he does have the final say about who stays and who goes in Dallas, but he isn’t calling all the shots. He brings in guys like Parcells, Phillips, and Garrett and lets them believe that they are allowed to develop a squad the way they want for a time – then he pulls out the carpet from under them, voicing his dissatisfaction with the team and calling for change. Back to square one. It pains me as a Yankees fan to say it, but I’d be lying if I said that George Steinbrenner didn’t do something similar in his later years. Al Davis was the same way, too. These are all guys who were great control freaks when they were mentally intact, but refused to let somebody else call the shots when they should have – becoming more of a freak than a controller, if you will.
So for the most part, I’d say that when an organization picks a coach and lets him mold the team to his style of play with limited interruption, the results will be much better than they would if the team was run as a democracy.
