The impediment to sensible discussion is often the inability to think about a topic like this without creating artificial dichotomies. We constantly have these threads here where people want to argue "intensity vs. volume." It's not a matter of "vs." You cannot replace one with the other. It's a matter of blending the two and Coe became the poster boy for the "intensity" people to such an extent that decades after he was done they ignore aspects of his training that have been well documented but that contradict what they want to believe.
At the height of Coe's career Kenny Moore visited him for a Sports Illustrated article. They did one run together, a 14 mile run at 5:30 pace. It was not one of Snell's 22 milers but it was a fairly long run and suggested that not everything Coe did was short, hard stuff on a track.
In 1991 I was visiting Lydiard near his home. He told me that both Coes had visited him fairly recently and shown him Seb's training logs. Seb was, Arthur told me, getting as high as 90 mile weeks at particular times of the year. I mentioned that here on a thread about Coe and several people essentially said that of course Lydiard would say that because it made Coe's training look like Arthur's.
Several years later Peter Coe sent a letter to Track and Field News saying that people had misunderstood what he and his son had been doing. Specifically he said they did much more mileage to develop aerobic fitness than people recognized. Essentially he confirmed what Arthur had said. Some time after that letter appeared, there was yet another "Coe" thread here and a British guy posted that he'd been at a dinner with Coe and had a pretty good discussion with him about how he'd trained. The discussion confirmed Peter Coe's letter to Track and Field News, i.e., he did a lot of hard, fast running but at times he did a respectable number of miles and longish runs.
The one extensive piece of writing about training that Peter Coe did produce was "Better Training for Distance Runners" co-authored with Dave Martin. I've never read the book but if anyone not surnamed "Coe" should know how Coe trained it should be Martin. A friend and I were visiting him a few years back and we got into discussing what Coe actually did and how it compared to the popular perception. Martin's comment was that Coe's training was pretty similar to Lydiard's.
That really should not surprise anyone. You need to do a lot of miles. "Lot" can be different from one runner to another, but you rarely get good at doing anything without doing a lot of it. You need to do some running at race pace or thereabouts. How much is optimal and what form it will take also can vary from runner to runner but you're not going to get to your potential without doing a lot of running or without doing a reasonable amount of it at something approximating racing efforts.
To the original point of this thread, one of the main ramifications of Coe's training philosophy on American runners is that there is ONE aspect of it that many found appealing and they tried to model their own training, or that of athletes they coached, on an appealing but incomplete model of what Coe did.