Why do the Patriots have so few assistant coaches when compared to the rest of the NFL?

The question is topical today after Bill Belichick's announcement that the coaching staff is essentially set for 2010 -- with 13 total coaches. There might be a few tweaks in the weeks to come (a tight ends coach still must be named; a few lower-level coaching assistants might be added), but the basis of the announcement was that there isn't anything major to come.

One thought is that the Patriots coaching staff is so small, and no official coordinators have been named, because of salary considerations.

I think that is well off the mark. I believe the Patriots' coaching payroll, despite the small numbers, ranks in the top third of the NFL.

As for the actual number of coaches, having a smaller coaching staff has been Belichick's preference since he came to New England in 2000.

Judy Battista, who covers the NFL for the New York Times, wrote a piece on the expanding size of coaching staffs on July 12, 2006. It is timely to revisit that piece to better understand why Belichick prefers a smaller coaching staff. The main reason is clarity of message.

Belichick has talked about this in the past, how when he first came into the NFL in 1975 with the Baltimore Colts, Ted Marchibroda's staff only had a handful of assistants. Coaching staffs grew as the size of rosters did over the years, but he always preferred to be as small as possible.

Patriots owner Robert Kraft has endorsed that line of thinking. In the Times piece, Kraft explained the approach by saying: "When you want to get a message through, you want accountability. It's like middle management: If you have a lot, it's hard to get through.''