Personally, what bothers me is when people assume that you are "influenced" by a particular person b/c you may share some of their insights.
I think that the danger lies within being dogmatic-i.e. being married to a particular coach's philosophy.
Dan will be the first person to tell you that. He was HEAVILY influenced by Tellez (Dan will tell you that in a heartbeat), but if you compare Dan's stuff with Tellez', they couldn't be more different. What Dan did was he learned from one of the best, but also brought in new ideas to the mix.
I think the great coaches can appreciate what makes certain philosophies successful, but can also discard that which they don't agree with.
At the risk of inserting the key and pushing the big red button, I have to respectfully disagree with 2belite's sentiment re: (pfaff, John, Tellez, Korchemny). I don't know if you can completely polarize Francis from Pfaff. True, Dan doesn't do tempo, and Charlie does, but in reality their philosophies are extremely similar. They just diverge on certain details, but not ones that would create a significant difference in philosophy.
No matter how much one might dislike a particular training system, if the coach has had success with it, he is doing SOMETHING right. The challenge as a student of the sport is to figure out what that something is, evaluate it, and determine if it has a place in your program.
Do I agree with everything Charlie does? No. Do I agree with everything Dan does? No. Do I agree with everything Tellez did? No. Yet, ALL of them have been huge influences on me as I've developed my coaching philosophy.
Regardless of philosophy/system, the key is this: Know YOUR system better than anyone knows theirs. Why? Because anyone can implement an annual plan that is well-thought out in advance. But the coaching starts when adjustments need to be made. If you OWN what you do, you'll be able to make the adjustments, if not, pick up a dart, close your eyes, and fire away.