Talk:Mike McCarthy

"Dyslexia"
In the bottom paragraph titled "personal life" it mentions that Mike McCarthy suffers from severe dyslexia yet doesn't list a reference. I did some searching and was not able to confirm this bit of information. I feel that it should be removed until we can verify it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djcubez (talk • contribs) 21:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

"Metrics"
When I rewrote the article, I referenced the "yards gained" and "points scored" metrics. Inasmuch as the term "metrics" has been thrice edited out, I won't reinsert it, but I should like to observe here that my formulation, whilst perhaps atypical of an NFL article, was, technically, superior grammatically and syntactically to the version with which we are now left. I understand the reasons for which the change was repeatedly made, but I think that, as a general rule, we needn't to choose between preferred structure and readability, and I think my version balanced concerns about each well. It's no big deal, though, and if the changes make the article "better" (in the meta-sense of the word), who am I to object? Joe 20:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that nearly everyone who reads the article will have no idea what the word "metrics" means in this sense; the word is never used to refer to such NFL statistics and therefore, in my opinion, is inappropriate for the article. I'm not sure that anyone familiar with the NFL would contend that said versions were grammatically and syntactically superior. --Maxamegalon2000 20:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not that nobody understands the word metrics, it's a simple, common term. Technically, it is appropriate as well. However, nobody uses "metrics" when discussing sports statistics, ever... it sounds sterile and snobby, for lack of a better explanation.

Even as I am but a soft prescriptivist, I can't abide one's asserting that the syntactic and grammatical propriety of a particular usage depends exclusively on the identity of the prospective visitor, see, e.g., Maxamegalon's asserting that "[no one] familiar with the NFL would contend that [Joe's versions] were grammatically and syntactically superior". Notwithstanding, though, the grave doubts I have about his formulation of a proper calculus by which to adjudge a given usage (objecting, notably, to the false dilemma he seems to construct betwixt encyclopedic language and comprehensbility; were such dilemma exists, in any case, it should always be resolved in favor of a "more encyclopedic" if less generally understood version), the contention "metrics" is not used when discussing sports statistics is wholly incorrect. Many uses are found when one combs the archives of Sports Illustrated and ESPN: The Magazine, for example, here, where the term is used in reference to Michael Vick's statistics, or here, where the term is used in reference to an uber evaluation of hockey players; the latter usage concerns fantasy sports, of which practitioners, amongst whose number I count myself, frequently use the locution "metrics". Even the relatively lower-brow The Sporting News features the term, to-wit, in this interview with Theo Epstein, who, when queried as to the most overrated statistic in baseball says, in pertinent part, "Batting average is not as indicative of run-scoring as on-base percentage or a series of other metrics". Notably, even USA Today Sports Weekly, which seems reticent ever to use a word likely to be found in the vocabulary of any but one having completed an education to no more than the third grade, appears to use the term with some frequency. Even assuming arguendo that those who visit the McCarthy biography are likely only to be familiar with such terms as might readily be found in one of the sports mags enumerated supra, the contention that such readers would be unfamiliar with "metrics" (in the sense used here) seems rather unsubstantiated. One final reference, this to an article in SI apropos of the life of Paul Tagliabue: in the second sentence of the article, which appears, IIRC, as bold, oversized text in the print version, Karl Greenfeld writes, "No matter which metric you employ--revenue, ratings, attendance, merchandise--the NFL's statute..."; though not used in reference to a sports stat, the term is still used in a sports periodical and in the same sense as it was used here. In sum, irrespective of the question as to whether one should prefer readability to grammatical correctness, it seems that the usage I essayed was indeed readable and at the very least in the mainstream of usage throughout the sports media (I should note that, when in past times I was a sportswriter for a newspaper, I frequently employed the "metrics" construction, which perhaps explains my strident defense of the use). And, with respect to the unsigned comment above, which I think is accurate as far as it goes, I don't particularly find sterility and snobbishness in an encyclopedia to be off-putting; after all, an encyclopedia, while it needn't to be bland, is, to be sure, clinical. Joe 04:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Summer of 2008 paragraph
I removed the following:


 * In the summer of 2008, coach McCarthy along with GM Ted Thompson made a controversial decision to remain with Aaron Rodgers as the starting quarterback for the Packers, even after Brett Favre announced his will to play and after he was reinstated. On August 6th, 2008, Brett Favre was traded to the New York Jets in the AFC East.  It is unknown how this will impact both teams in the 2008 NFL Season.  They do not play each other in 2008; the only possible meeting would be Super Bowl XLIII on February 1st, 2009 at Raymond James Stadium in Tampa, Florida.

it's a grammatical mess and unsourced. I'm not even sure it's noteworthy. Sure, it's been in the news, but will it be notable in 5 years?

Let's hash it out here. &mdash; Zaui (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear in light of how the current season is shaking out that it is very notable and could quite possibly end up being the defining moment of his coaching career. Regardless, he's in his fourth season as the Packers' head coach. Why is the entire focus of the article on his lone (thus far) winning season? He's been 8-8, 13-3, 6-10, and (thus far) 4-4. The head coaching section should be broken down year by year much like Ted Thompson's has. Acknowledging his success in 2007 is approrpiate, but this isn't a public relations release. His failures and controversies should also be noted. --Carbondate (talk) 06:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation notice should follow Wikipedia style
Shouldn't the disambiguation (italicized at the top of the article) be written according to standard Wikipedia format? In particular, it seems like poor form to use the second person ("You may have been looking....") when writing for an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.246.169 (talk) 22:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Head Coaching Record in Infobox
I was just looking at his Head Coaching Record in the infobox and noticed a problem. His overall record is 68–35–0 with a regular season record of 63-33-0 and a post season record of 5-3. The numbers do not add up right, It is probably the overall record that wasn't updated after that sham of a game Monday night. GB fan 04:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Mike McCarthy (American football). 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/20080516151953/http://www.packers.com/news/releases/2007/11/16/2/ to http://www.packers.com/news/releases/2007/11/16/2/

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 03:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Coaching Career
The statement "In March 2015, at the annual owners' meetings, Bill Belichick stated that McCarthy is "one of the best coaches in the league" cries out for attribution. Considering that as of this writing, McCarthy is by many accounts in danger of losing his job, it would be good to cite a source for this quote before the vultures come out. Rmanski2002 (talk) 22:04, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. I found the quote from an ESPN article . The actual quote was "Belichick took the opportunity to share the respect he has for McCarthy by saying, “He’s one of the best coaches I’ve ever gone up against.” so I tweaked that as well. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 23:04, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2018
Alter references to the firing of Mike McCarthy. https://twitter.com/BleacherReport/status/1069381718237306880 for reference Ectweak (talk) 00:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Twitter is not a reliable source. - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 00:19, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Dallas Cowboys
Discuss issue here before reverting again. This situation is the same as a free agent signing. Literally zero difference. We may hold off on a free agent signing until we see more than one reliable source reporting it, but when quite literally every single major sports news source is reporting it, as well as NFL.com reporting he’s already signed his contract there is absolutely no reason to not include the new team. Josh McDaniels was a one off situation. Additionally he hadn’t signed a contract yet.-- Rockchalk 717 22:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Why is this an issue for you literally? When I constantly reverted the Ron Rivera hiring on his page (before the official announcement has been made), It wasn't a problem for any other editors?. But now why do you care if it's confirmed by multiple reports and not officially confirmed by the Dallas Cowboys themselves I don't understand that? TheBigMan720 (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * All but 1 of those editors were inexperienced editors so that’s not a very good example. I’m not trying to flex my edit count or years I’ve been editing so please don’t take it that way, but my point with that I’ve seen over the years on players and coach articles, as soon as multiple reliable sources are reporting the hiring or signing, we go ahead and edit the article. NBA articles you wait, but not NFL. That’s always been the case. I have trouble understanding why you are wanting to change what has always been what we’ve done here with NFL pages. If he pulls a Josh McDaniels (which is unlikely because he could open himself up to a lawsuit from the Cowboys since he’s under contract), then we can change the article to whatever teams he goes to instead.-- Rockchalk 717 00:30, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * He’s already building his coaching staff too . With all the information coming out about this, there is literally zero reason to not update his article.-- Rockchalk 717 00:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I also have trouble understanding why you rely on random reports but not the actually team themselves. There was no lawsuit from the Colts when Josh McDaniels announced that her stayed with the Patriots. Some reports can be wrong once again. I don't understand why you put he's on the Cowboys when 1. No official announcement has been made. and 2. the 2019 league year is still ongoing. TheBigMan720 (talk) 00:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There wasn’t a lawsuit with Josh McDaniel’s because he wasn’t under contract yet. The league year is irrelevant in scenario because when a new coach is hired they are under contract immediately after signing it. I’m relying on reports instead of the team itself because these same people putting out these reports are the same ones putting out reports that a player has a signed a contract. Why I keep bringing this up is because with players we don’t wait until the official announcement. A hiring or signing can be official for several days before it’s officially announced by a team. We wait until it’s official. It became official when he signed his contract. He already has a defensive coordinator as well. The so called “official announcement” from the team at this point is a formality. He is the Dallas Cowboys head coach regardless of when the he official announcement takes place.-- Rockchalk 717 03:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 13 January 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Moved - Mike McCarthy (American football) → Mike McCarthy and Mike McCarthy (gridiron football) → Mike McCarthy (gridiron football executive). Per comment by Gonzo fan 2007 below, and unanimous agreement so far in the RM, this looks uncontroversial. So even though I'm the nominator I will WP:IAR and close the discussion. If anyone disagrees and wants to discuss it further, then please let me know and I can reopen it. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

– Something seems amiss here... "gridiron football" is a term which covers "American football", as well as Canadian football. So arguably both these names can refer to both of the two men. I don't have a specific proposal for where the two articles should go - maybe something involving "coach" and "executive" or "scout", but I'll leave that open for the discussion. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Mike McCarthy (American football) → ?
 * Mike McCarthy (gridiron football) → ?
 * I'm inclined to think Mike McCarthy (American football) is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Mike McCarthy. Of the 7 Mike McCarthys on Wikipedia, his page is the most viewed by a country mile, and he's a Super Bowl champion. For Mike McCarthy (gridiron football), I would think a proper disambiguator would be (gridiron football executive), along the lines of Dan Reeves (American football executive), Mike Brown (American football executive), and David Caldwell (American football executive). Nohomersryan (talk) 02:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Nohomersryan that the first should be moved back to Mike McCarthy per overwhelming primary usage. That will just revert an undiscussed move from 2010. With that done, the second can stay where he is with a hatnote, although I have no strong objection to adding "executive". Station1 (talk) 08:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support the move of Mike McCarthy (American football) → Mike McCarthy and Mike McCarthy (gridiron football) → Mike McCarthy (gridiron football executive). « Gonzo fan2007  (talk)  @ 15:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * As nominator, I support this proposal. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , it would appear that and  would support the proposal above as well. If this is the case, I would support you or someone else closing this discussion and just making the move. It doesn't appear to be that controversial. Cheers,  « Gonzo fan2007  (talk)  @ 15:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

POV
This article suffers from the fallacy of implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) attributing the team's success to the Head Coach (or the quarterback's success to the quarterback coach or OC), while excusing poor records by the team he coached on various grounds, such as injuries to key players. It also appears to cherry-pick statistics to favor McCarthy--to take one example, while the fact that his QBs had a low number of interceptions during the four years he was quarterback coach for the Kansas City Chiefs is interesting, is that the only metric that matters? Did those QBs have fewer INTs during these years than they did otherwise? And how much does that statistic depend on the QB coach, as opposed to the sort of offense that the OC drew up?

Those questions illustrate the problem. Football is a complex undertaking; we outsiders usually don't know or understand most of what is going on over the course of a season as teams' fortunes rise and fall as players get injured, or their skills improve, or particular units mesh or fall apart or the schedule gets harder or easier. But we nonetheless act as if we do and tend to attribute team performance, good or bad, to the coach.

I don't have a solution for this problem. I left in some sentences that seemed to give McCarthy's strategies credit for team success, but tried to balance them with discussion of those occasions where he was criticized for his team's failures. But that sort of balancing act still depends on the oversimplification that results, whether good or bad, are still somehow the fault of the coach. All I can suggest is that we need to be vigilant on this score. --Zeno Cosini — Preceding undated comment added 11:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

"Coach McCarthy" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coach_McCarthy&redirect=no Coach McCarthy] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)