Greg Bishop of the New York Times wrote a fantastic article today on Bill Callahan and his attention to detail, you can read the article here. Bishop in my opinion is one of the better football writers out there today, and the Times run more in depth, analytical pieces than say the Post or Daily News which always interests me a little more.
He became what he had always envisioned, only instead of teaching history, he taught linemen. He loved the "schematics" involved, the "variables," the way pure strength hinged on leverage and angles. He likened it to solving a crossword puzzle and he called himself a fundamentalist, in the football sense.
His current players describe him as a technician, concerned with the tiniest details, from precisely where a foot should land to the degree it should be turned.
One area that always interests me is that some coaches are designed more for 'lesser' roles, not to say they are not as important, but that they don't get quite the notoriety. Some coaches are more at home in a basement watching film, devises schemes like a mad scientist than they are out on the podium. Attention to detail in one area with little responsibilities to other areas of the team. I seem to get that impression with Callahan, head coaching is just not right for some people, perhaps he is one of them.