Talk:Jon Gruden

Coaching Tree

It lists Jim Harbaugh under Gruden's coaching tree, but I can't tell when Harbaugh would have been an assistant under Gruden. It lists Harbaugh as a Raiders assistant in 2002, but Gruden had left already. Is there a source to back this up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.26.98.211 (talk) 00:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Untitled

I'd like to see something about how he is known for having a complex play calling system. It was funny to see video clips of Chris Simms struggling to say "Flex right Y short 72 X bingo Z corner on 1", and that's an easy one for Gruden's system. Andrew zot 12:26, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Non-neutral Article

"In the two years following Gruden's Super Bowl win, the Bucs went 7–9 and 5–11 respectively, implying to many Dungy supporters that Gruden had simply taken over a strong team and then driven it into the ground. However, the high draft picks sacrificed by the team to acquire Gruden, along with salary-cap issues and failed draft choices forced upon him by the now-departed Rich McKay (with whom Gruden had an bitter relationship) limited Gruden's ability to field the teams he wanted after that successful Super Bowl-winning season. With no emerging talent in the fold and no money to afford replacements, the team was decimated by injuries to many of the Super Bowl stars, including Joe Jurevicius, Mike Alstott, Greg Spires, Shelton Quarles, Ken Dilger and Brian Kelly, as well as acrimony with highly-paid veterans such as Sapp, Keyshawn Johnson and Keenan McCardell.

When former Raiders general manager Bruce Allen joined the Bucs in 2004, Gruden finally had the general manager–head coach partnership he desired, and their 2004 and 2005 drafts yielded a number of impact players, including 2005 Offensive NFL Rookie of the Year Award winner Carnell "Cadillac" Williams."

This is just an example. The article reads more like a profile in People Magazine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatkin (talk • contribs) 03:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

"Chuckie"

How can an article about Jon Gruden not have a single reference to the nickname "Chuckie"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.147.190 (talk) 23:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

POV in lead

The lead section really needs to be free of editorial comments. By saying he won the Super Bowl with Tony Dungy's roster you are implying he is not a very good coach. Those types of statements are fine in the main text when properly sourced, but please keep them out of the lead. It would be akin to putting in the lead of the Peyton Manning article that he won a Super Bowl, but only against a weak Chicago Bears team. Also, when undoing changes, please be sure there are not undisputed changes that are being reverted at the same time, like punctuation fixes. If so, please undo the contentious changes manually. –CWenger (talk) 19:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

That is not my intent at all. George Siefert was an excellent coach, in my opinion, but it merits noting that his first SB victory was with a team that he inherited, as opposed to built himself. Isn't this a significant fact? 98.71.252.133 (talk) 20:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree that it merits noting, I am just opposed to it being stated in the lead of the article. It is hinting that his SB victory doesn't really count. As another analogy, it would be like putting in the lead of the Ben Roethlisberger article that he won two Super Bowls, but largely due to the Steelers defense. –CWenger (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Aren't these all just inferences that a reader himself can and should make for himself? The facts are laid out: he won a SB in his first year with a team. Any inference from that is on the reader... so it shouldn't be said. I mean... this is supposed to be an encyclopedic article about facts, not inferences or opinions, right? Jatkins679 (talk) 00:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, do you support keeping or removing the phrase "with a roster built by fired coach Tony Dungy" in the lead? Of course we should just present the facts, but the question becomes what facts should we present, in which section of the article, and in what context. –CWenger (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think that phrase should be left in the lead. There is an obvious insinuation there that isn't appropriate. Jatkins679 (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Photo

The photo of Gruden is a photoshop job. He never coached at Arkansas and it is a little misleading. Also the photo is pretty clearly photoshopped and it just looks unprofessional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.239.188.249 (talk) 03:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Do You Love Football?!

Gruden co-wrote a book with Vic Carucci titled Do You Love Football?!: winning with heart, passion, and not much sleep It was first published by HarperCollins in 2003, ISBN 978-0-06-057944-9, 246 pages. There's a 2004 reprint by Perennial (ISBN 978-0-06-057945-6, 246 pages).

Unfortunately, I don't see a good place to insert this in the article. It would have been during his time at Tampa Bay but as it's not a Tampa Bay story I suspect it should be in a different section. I learned about the book from http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2636358-inside-jon-grudens-maniacal-obsession-with-football which could be used to populate a personal life section as it mentions his family background, his wife, and children. It also mentions the Fired Football Coaches Association which likely could get its own article. I don't have the time to put together a new section though and so am posting here that the data is available from at least one WP:RS. --Marc Kupper|talk 09:04, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Personal life

Here is a good link for that: [1].