# Talk:Don Coryell

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)

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

given that his defenses were one of the ten worst in points seven out of his eight years including ranking last once and were one of the ten worst in yards in four different seasons ranking in the bottom three in three of those years. The only two times San Diego advanced to the AFC Championship game were in the 1979 season and the 1981 season when their defense ranked in the top ten. 
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)

 Detractors of Coryell point to his team's defensive shortcomings given that they ranked near the bottom of the league nine out his thirteen years as an NFL coach with the Cardinals and Chargers
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)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Don Coryell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

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.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

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)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Don Coryell/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 00:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

The source links to File:Don Coryell 1968.png and File:Don Coryell 1968.png do not work for me
Other images appropriately licensed
Link World War II, 86th Infantry Regiment, Potato Bowl,
60–0 home defeat against an inter-state rival I think by would be better than against
Nicely done--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
With regard to the images (I think the second one should be File:Dennis Shaw with Don Coryell.png), I'm pinging in @Bagumba:, who uploaded those two pictures, as I'm not confident on the rules for images myself.
Yes, silly of me. Let me know whenever that happens as you'll have to remove them if they don't have valid sourcing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
I've done the first two links, however the Potato Bowl referred to here is not the current bowl by that name, but a less-well-known one that's been defunct since 2006. It doesn't have its own page, so I've added an explanatory note.
I've amended "against" to "by".
Thanks, this one was a lot of work!
Harper J. Cole (talk) 23:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
I've updated the URLs on those images.  Always annoying when websites move things around without redirecting, and that URL was only a few months old since I uploaded. Regards. —Bagumba (talk) 11:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Appreciate it--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)