Talk:Don Coryell

Playbook
There was some nonsense about Coryell not using a playbook. A coaches' reference site sellsplaybooks: http://www.footballtools.com/products/football_playbooks.php

Vytal (talk) 08:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Chargers' Defense
On 04:40, 4 July 2010, the following was added

The reference given to http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/sdg/ do not back up the exact claims on points and yards, and the team made the AFC championship in 1980 and 1981. In 1981, the team was 26th and 27th in points and yard allowed, respectively.

Bagumba (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Need a reference to back up this edit. "near the bottom" is subjective, and "nine out of his thirteen" needs a reference or clarification. Previous wording was quantiaitive in referring instead to "bottom ten league-wide." Also the edits are in a specific San Diego Chargers section and St Louis Cardinals' comments, if substantatied, could be relocated.

Bagumba (talk) 02:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The statement about the Championship game is incorrect because of a confusion of years, however the statement about their defense ranks in points and yards is accurate. From 1976 to 2002, there were 28 teams in the league. Out of 28 teams, their defense ranks in points from 1978 to 1986 were: 21,2,18,26,24,28,24,25,24 according to Pro-Football-Reference. The fifth worst would be a ranking of 23. The tenth worst would be a ranking of 18. In yards, their ranks were 8,5,6,27,25,26,26,28,23. At St. Louis, the defense ranks in points were 23,8,11,16,23. In yards they were 26,17,18,12,24. It should be noted that in 1973 and 1974 there were only 26 teams in the league. So, his first year in St. Louis, they were ranked last in yards and one could argue that a ranking of 17 in his second year is also in the bottom third depending on how you do your rounding. Ignoring that for the moment, it is clear that his St. Louis teams ranked in the bottom third 3/5 years in yards. Combined with his SD record, that means 9/13 seasons, Coryell's defenses were in the bottom third in yards. In points, 10/13 seasons were in the bottom third, 7/8 in San Diego. The Pro-Football-Reference link does in fact back up the exact claims in yards and points and the claim that 9/13 (being kind) of Coryell's years were spent in the bottom third of the league in defense.

T (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC):


 * Out of 28 teams, bottom 5 would actually be 24-28, and bottom 10 would be 19-28. Also Coryell coached in NFL for 14 years (STL, 5 years, 1973-1977; SD, 9 years, 1978-1986) with his first and last years in San Diego being partial years, so it's not clear which year is not being counted with the 13.  It would be clearer if the article would quantify "bottom". Bottom ten is a common standard, otherwise it should be specified.  Also should qualify whether it is points or yards which is the measurement.  It might be less debatable if only years in which the defense was in the bottom ten in both categories were considered.  From 1981-1986, the Chargers were in the bottom ten in both points and yards.


 * The current reference in the article points to Pro-Football-Reference's Chargers page. If making a reference to St Louis, a link to the Cardinal's page would be approporiate to add.  That being said, the article should be reorganized if this was to be included and not be in the San Diego Chargers section while mentioning Coryell's St Louis career.  It might be sufficient to deal only with the Chargers, for that is what Coryell is most remembered.


 * Bagumba (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Even by the measure that the bottom 10 is 19 and lower (or 17 and lower in 1973 and 1974) and including the end point years (a mistake on my part), that makes for 7/9 years in the bottom 10 in San Diego in points, and 3/5 years in St. Louis for 10/14 years in the bottom 10 in points over his career as a NFL coach and 9/14 years in the bottom 10 in yards over his career. Pick your measure with respect to yards or points or, to actually be accurate, mention both. The argument with respect to his defenses is valid and substantiated and should be included and enumerated. Further, the entire paragraph regarding detractions to Coryell's Hall of Fame admittance and the two teams he fielded with quality defenses does not belong in the San Diego section at all but rather in the Hall of Fame Consideration section. Stating that he had two very good years and leaving out that he had 12 average or horrid years in defense ignores a major, if not the significant reason against his admittance which is that he displayed a general pattern, as a head coach, of ignoring defense.

T (talk) 03:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 8/14 years where his teams were bottom 10 in both yards and points would be the best IMHO http://www.pro-football-reference.com/coaches/CoryDo0.htm. The bad defenses are undeniable, the article just needs to be clear on the points of measurement.  Not sure if bad defense is a detractor of his HOF as much as not winning a Super Bowl.  Referencable detractors would be good to avoid introducing original content.


 * Bagumba (talk) 05:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Looking at the current HoF coaches that do not have championship wins, the typical profile is either a very high winning percentage over a long period of time (e.g. George Allen) or a good winning percentage combined with numerous appearances in the Super Bowl (e.g. Grant and Levy). Even Madden, the most recent coach to be inducted, who has a single Super Bowl win, did not get in for years even though he took Oakland to seven AFC championship games in ten years and had a +70% winning percentage. If a coach doesn't have a Super Bowl win (or even appearance), the next logical question is why this HoF candidate coach did not win championships. In Coryell's case, that is when his consistently poor defenses will come into the discussion.

76.79.231.138 (talk) 15:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Most of the support for Coyell to be in HOF seem to be on his lasting contributions to the game. As the criteria to get in are subjective, and there are few if any discussions from voters on why a person does not get in, it's hard to find sources aside from blogs and discussion boards on reasons Coryell has not been voted in.  I found one on the lack of Super Bowls and added it.   Analysis of past inductees offer a prediction of what the HOF critieria are, but do not necessarily preclude Coryell from eventually making it in.  At any rate, I think a reference would be needed to allow entry into the article to avoid orginal research.


 * Bagumba (talk) 01:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Don Coryell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100705103227/http://nbcsports.msnbc.com:80/id/38049693/from/ET to http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/38049693/from/ET

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Don Coryell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120415093414/http://www.ubcsportshalloffame.com/cgi-bin/search.cgi?person_id=52&searchall=1 to http://www.ubcsportshalloffame.com/cgi-bin/search.cgi?person_id=52&searchall=1
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6Mw0A3OuQ?url=http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/Jun/05/chargers-deacon-jones-fred-dean/ to http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/Jun/05/chargers-deacon-jones-fred-dean/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100429234945/http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/chargers/20020201-9999_1s1super.html to http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/chargers/20020201-9999_1s1super.html
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130105022052/http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/story/10917526 to http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/story/10917526
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090308183917/http://www.nfl.com/halloffame/story?id=09000d5d809a866c&template=with-video&confirm=true to http://www.nfl.com/halloffame/story?id=09000d5d809a866c&template=with-video&confirm=true
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100710170548/http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/jul/04/coryells-legacy-was-more-than-a-passing-fancy/sports-bucs/ to http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/jul/04/coryells-legacy-was-more-than-a-passing-fancy/sports-bucs/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

He's in the Hall of Fame now. So can we prune that section?
As of today he is in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. In the article we have nine - count them, nine - paragraphs devoted to speculation about whether he will be inducted and why he should be and what a shame it is that he hasn't been. Doesn't that seem excessive? I'm not a regular at this page, but I would think now that he is finally IN, we could get rid of an awful lot of the commentary about why he should be. MelanieN (talk) 21:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree with that. I'm working through this article and will eventually get to that bit if no-one else does. Harper J. Cole (talk) 00:19, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps morph it into a "Legacy" section, retaining—but summarizing—his impact and innovations, while condensing the initial resistance towards his election. —Bagumba (talk) 01:22, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I've had a go at re-organising and streamlining it a bit. There's a separate Air Coryell page, so I thought the more technical aspects of his offense would be better discussed there. I'll see if I can tweak it a bit more. Harper J. Cole (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)