Jump to content

Talk:Mike Sherman

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Issue

[edit]

What happened to this article? The whole part about his General Manager career has disappeared? Who removed it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.143.117.158 (talk) 13:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slight NPOV problem?

[edit]

In the discussion of Sherman's tenure with the Green Bay Packers it says "In spite of... " so many winning records he was fired after one 4-12 season that had many injuries, it may be worthy to point out that the Packers did not have but one win against teams with winning records by season's end for nearly 2.5 years and that was the overtime win in the Playoffs against Seattle. The only other two wins against teams with winning records were against teams that sat their starters since they were in and had nothing to play for. Of course needs to be winnowed down to be concise, but the gist is that Sherman's record was padded due to easy schedules and when they faced tough teams, during the regular season or playoffs, they lost habitually. So either include some modifying language to this effect or take out the "In spite of..." type language.

--12.28.101.34 21:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I agree with this. The worst is the line: "Injuries were to blame for the poor season" (no cite). In addition to the apparent bias, this is also original research. Originalname37 (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unfortunately it puts the author posting in the position of being an arbitrator of something like "teams with a winning season". Facts are facts but stats lie all the time. If a team WAS winning until the final 5 weeks of the season and lost a few close games because they lost their starting QB in Week 12, that doesn't invalidate a win against them in Week 9 when they were hotter than a pistol WITH their starting QB. WHEN a team plays another team is almost as important as playing them at all. Who is to be judge and jury over these matters?

    Case in point. The Packers WERE the better team in the divisional game in PHI in 2003. But for one stupid gutless mistake in not going for a 4th and a foot in regulation, that game was the Packers easily. Instead Sherman decided to punt and the Packers eventually lost. One bad decision ruined a highly probable Super Bowl title for GB in 2003's post season as Carolina would have been a cake-walk for GB and New England has always played GB poorly.
    Problem here, it's MY OPINION that it's true. It also happens to be the consensus of Packers fans and even Eagles players called Packers after the game questioning why Sherman did not go for it when they were powerless to stop GB's rushing game once in the 4th quarter and were puking their guts out on the field. Apparently even PHI knew, but that little tidbit will be lost over time and it will only be remembered as a loss to a team with a winning record, 40 years from now. It's true today, while memories are fresh enough to remember it with some clarity, but in 40 years it will be highly disputed by PHI fans who prefer a different OPINION.
    The stats lie today, but in 40 years New England fans will call THAT a lie & the stats the truth, as THEY eventually won the 2003 season's Super Bowl.

    Qualitative and subjective OPINIONS will always be just that - OPINIONS. It doesn't make them any more or less true but they are inherently open to dispute, controversy, and the vagaries of public opinion as one opinion gains ascendancy over a previous one. It is best to avoid using anything that can be viewed AS an opinion, completely, and editors should be mindful of that whenever they happen across it.

    Sometimes less IS more, and deleting OPINION statements can actually improve the accuracy of an article and preserve the truth as best as it can be known without being subjected to the bending of memory. The further we get from an event, the harder it is to preserve the truth if an untruth has gotten a foothold and gone unchallenged simply because it was deemed "harmless" fluff. Eventually that harmless inaccurate fluff BECOMES the truth, just because it has persevered over time.     IdioT.SavanT.i4 (talk) 10:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article protected

[edit]

This article was protected to prevent changes being made regarding the Texas A&M head coaching job speculation. It is currently set to expire on Dec 3. I believe that is too long. I am going to unlock following the 11am press conference today as these rumors should be confirmed or denied by then. This will allow all editors to make the appropriate changes to the article. If inappropriate vandalism begins, then another WP:RFPP can be made.↔NMajdan•talk 16:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the locking admin, that's perfectly fine by me. I was not aware of the particular date, and was merely leaving it till the end of the week, as requested. Have fun editing! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Period as GM

[edit]

Sherman was the head coach of the Packers from 2000-2005, but he was GM too from 2001-2004.--12.28.101.34 (talk) 18:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I keep seeing the same problem cropping up in these NFL bios on GMs. People want to attribute the drafting of certain players to a GM, and I'm sure it's well-intentioned and meant as being helpful, but the FACT is, unless you are privy to insider knowledge of a draft team, you have NO idea who drafted any given player.
    In Indy it was publicly known & verifiable fact that the owner, the GM, and the HC all shared the responsibility for drafting players, but without knowing positively that Tony Dungy drafted player X and Polian drafted player Y, it's ill-advised to be assigning credit or blame for the selection of a given player.

    In this particular case Sherman was the GM from 2001-2004, but he was the GM in waiting in 2000. You cannot possibly make a logical construction out of Wolf drafting players Sherman wouldn't have wanted when he took over in 2001 or NOT drafting players Sherman wanted badly, even though he was only HC in title. A person especially cannot make the leap that Wolf drafted players in 2001 without consulting and getting approval from Sherman, who already WAS the GM in fact and title, with Wolf handling the draft and acting only as a consultant.

    Since there are ZERO citations, I recommend removing ANY assertions that a GM was responsible for drafting a player unless it can be verified by an outside source and a linky to that sourcing is provided to substantiate a claim that any player was drafted, coached up, or turned from a pumpkin into solid gold cheese by some guy listed as the GM in a transition period where a HC became a GM, or a HC/GM lost his GM title, as Holmgren did in Seattle after 2002.
    Sherman/Wolf, together, drafted the Green Bay Packers draft classes of 2000 & 2001, regardless of who actually turned in a slip of paper officially. Ditto for the Thompson/Sherman draft class of 2005.

    Unfortunately Wikipedia is left with the problem of NEUTRAL sourcing for living biography pages. Much information can be gleaned from a corporate web site, but that web site is often under the control of the very subject and cannot be trusted as being either neutral or accurate as web sites often exist to CREATE favorable impressions for the public consumption. Even an NFL team's web site cannot be trusted on this because the GM will often direct the PR department to polish his bio and make his history look better than it deserves. This happened in Thompson's case in Green Bay. His bio reads like a love-fest and all but credits him with every great move made since Wolf gave him the gopher intern job in 1992. It's BS, PR at it's most disingenuous, and has no place on Wikipedia even IF it's on packers.com or whichever organization is controlled by the bio subject in question - UNLESS it can be independently verified by a NEUTRAL 3rd party source.

    That in itself can become problematic when outside sources depend on and transcribe exactly what was written for public consumption by the subject or someone under the subject's control. Wikipedia should be mindful of INDEPENDENT verification, or note the information in such a way as to inform the reader it is lacking independent verification.
    I recommend the removal of any reference of that sort from not only this article, but ANY article crediting the subject with UNVERIFIED actions, until such time as proper citation is provided. Knowledge is good and all, but perpetrating fallacious history is exactly the sort of thing Wikipedia is supposed to assist in preventing.     IdioT.SavanT.i4 (talk) 09:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Personal History

[edit]

Too much mindless banter about his children. This is an encyclopedia. Everything should be referenced. Frivolous facts should be deleted. Do we need to know that daughter Selena enjoys running, among other things? Would this be in the En. Britannica? I believe this is part of the POV problem discussed above. Mwinog2777 (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Mike Sherman/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)Press [show] to view →
I am not an expert on Mike Sherman (that's why I looked him up) but I believe there are certain inaccuracies here: There is a sub-heading in the article called "Giants Coach", but nothing under the subheading mentions Mike Sherman coaching any team by the name of "Giants". I initially changed the lowercase "g" in Giants to a capital one on instinct, but as I read on, nothing about any "Giants" team was mentioned, which led me to believe that the sub-heading was an error. Again, I'm not basing that assumption on the premise that I'm any kind of expert on Mike Sherman, only on the fact that the sub-heading was not related to the content that followed. There was also some other minor problems with the article, (for example, someone's name was inserted into the article in a way that caused the ensuing sentence to make no sense; I did not remove the name however, as I was unsure if the name in question was relevant to the article in some way, and perhaps just misplaced.) I would say this article would be best cleaned up by someone with much more knowledge of Mike Sherman than myself.

Last edited at 16:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 00:03, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Mike Sherman. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 04:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mike Sherman. 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:

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) 19:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mike_Sherman&oldid=1207837525"