Jump to content

Talk:Josh McCown

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

Untitled

[edit]

Thanks, Josh. You deserve much better. An Arizona Cardinals Fan.

Thanks, Josh. You deserved much better. -A Chicago Bears fan. ZappaOMati 00:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article about Josh McCown or Daunte Culpepper?

[edit]

The following makes the distinction unclear:

Veteran quarterback Daunte Culpepper was signed by the Raiders prior to the start of the 2007 season, and was used as a back-up quarterback to Josh McCown when McCown was active. But when McCown was unable to play, Culpepper was the starting quarterback for the Raiders, playing in 7 games, winning 3 games, and losing 4 games. Daunte Culpepper was questionable for the Raiders game against the Denver Broncos on December 2 after missing practice on November 30 with sore quadriceps.

Bonehed (talk) 08:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you think there's too much Culpepper, by all means go ahead and edit it. Snowfire51 (talk) 08:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This can't be right can it?

[edit]

The part about Josh McCown playing the slot position can't be right can it? There is no way on this earth you will ever convince me that a professional, NFL team could somehow be unable to find a better reciever to play the slot then Josh McCown. Did all the local high school recievers say "Meh, its the Lions, we'll hold out for a better opportunity"? 184.166.5.191 (talk) 22:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's true, according to the Lions website:
Odd? Yes, but that's what they did. Zappa24Mati 22:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow OK, yeah I still don't believe you, well I believe you, in that I believe you found that article, I don't believe you are lying or anything, I just still don't believe it happened. You could link to video and I still wouldn't believe.

In fact the only way I would ever believe it is if you built a time machine, took me back in time to the game, and I went to the game and saw it with my own eyeballs.

Aaaand actually I still wouldn't believe it, I would just assume you accidentally built a some kind of alternate realty machine instead of a time machine and we were in some odd alternate universe.

I just don't get it, I don't care how athletic he seemed at the combine there had to be at least 1000 possible recievers they could sign that would be a better option. Jerry Rice today, would be better then Josh McCown on his best day ever. Granted Rice would probably need a month in an ice bath to recover, but for one game he would still be better. 184.166.5.191 (talk) 22:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Think about it from the standpoint of a GM. Normally, players that get signed to one-game contracts tend to struggle because they don't know the playbook well and are already being thrown to the wolves, especially if they never played under that system before. Apparently, Rod Marinelli decided that McCown is a good call, since he already knew the playbook beforehand. Zappa24Mati 00:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah Rod Marinelli made that decision you shoulda said, that explains everything. The reason it doesn't make any sense is cause it doesn't make any sense.184.166.5.191 (talk) 09:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Josh McCown. 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}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 22:33, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Josh McCown. 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) 15:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Josh McCown. 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) 06:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Josh McCown. 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) 14:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Josh McCown/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wizardman (talk · contribs) 02:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


I'll give this a review. Given the size and detail of the article though, it's gonna take a week or two for me to go through all of it. Granted we've been through a whole season since the nomination. Wizardman 02:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images are good. Lead is good, but one thing that irks me is five sentences in a row beginning with "He" in the third paragraph. Tweak a bit to avoid that scale of repetition. Wizardman 15:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start knocking out the other sections too, but to chime in on the latest thing, I don't see "fifth alternate" for the Pro Bowl really being worth mentioning. Selected of course, first alternate maybe, beyond that seems kinda silly. We're definitely not lacking for content on this one. Wizardman 03:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the Pro Bowl as an All-Star game, at least in recent years, has been kind of questionable. Take a look at the recent Pro Bowl rosters, and all the QBs who made it. There are also alternates not listed on those rosters that turned down the invite for whatever reason (injury, etc.). For example, last year it seemed like every QB in the AFC had a shot at the Pro Bowl. See this article. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 02:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Early years and college career sections look fine. Only minor issue I'd have is that with the "impressive performance" at the Senior Bowl, but the refs don't give any further modifiers to that either, so I'm ok with it as is if you can't find anything to expand on that with. I did jump down to Statistics from there, and while it's fine, the NYJ alongside the rest of the cities spelled out does look kinda odd (though i kinda understand why that's being done). My goal is to have this done by year's end since I'm planning a break in January, hopefully I can do so. Wizardman 17:54, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At this time, Im not going to be able to finish the review unfortunately, so I will place it back in the queue. If it still hasn't been picked up when I return then I'll resume from where I left off. Wizardman 22:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 23:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Back from the much-needed vacation, so I'll continue where I left off. Wizardman 02:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Next up, did Cardinals and Lions sections:

  • "Coincidentally, McCown's future offensive coordinator and coach with the Bears Mike Tice was the head coach of that Vikings team." Not really needed, I'd just scrap it.
  • "His agent said that "Josh sees himself as a starting quarterback, and I agree with him." Adding the name of the agent would probably help.

Wizardman 03:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And here's the rest (almost):

  • I feel like the Raiders section is overkill for one year. I can't really point to any sentence in particular, but for example we don't really need the coach's gameplay leading in to every matchup every week.
  • Going off the above, in the Dolphins section the depth chart discussion and quote seem entirely unnecesary beyond just noting him as the starter at that time.
  • "Despite a 35–21 loss, McCown had a somewhat decent game," rm superfluous (i've thankfully seen very little of that in the article)
  • Same Bears paragraph, this setion is mostly fine but stiff like talking about Jared Allen's near sack record feel too tangential.
  • "From Week 6 to Week 12 in the 2013 NFL season, McCown had the highest passer rating of any quarterback in the league.[citation needed] " Address the cite needed
  • "McCown was eventually named" don't really like the 'evantually there', doesnt fit. reword.
  • For the immense detail that's gone into for the raiders/bears/cardinals, the buccaneers section almost feels a little underdeveloped in comparison given he started most of the season.

Through the Buccaneers now, next pass should finish the review finally, though from a skim the Browns and Jets sections may also need a bit of trimming. Wizardman 03:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And the rest (finally):

  • "but he (helicopter) fumbled inches away from the goal line and was taken out of the game due to a concussion." i know what you mean, but id remove the helicopter part as lay readers are going to be lost.
  • "Coincidentally, they also both threw game-ending interceptions in Week 3" Not really necessary imo, stuff like that here and elsewhere is getting into overdetail, as is i'm borderline on the preceding sentence.
  • While there's little gramatically wrong with these two sections, as mentioned above they get a little overdetailed, so trim where you can.

I'll put this on hold and when everything's addressed I'll give it a second run through to make sure I didn't miss anything glaringly obvious. Wizardman 16:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any updates on this? I know this waited forever to get a review so i dont mind waiting a little while for things to be addressed. Wizardman 20:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to finish it up in the next few days. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiOriginal-9 and Wizardman: This review has been open for quite some time now. Any updates? --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I actually will finish this in the next few days this time, lol. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 09:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I read what has been fixed and it looks good, was just letting him wrap up what's remaining. Given that it took a year to get reviewed just about I'm being lax on my usually tight deadlines. Wizardman 23:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • With regards to "For the immense detail that's gone into for the raiders/bears/cardinals, the buccaneers section almost feels a little underdeveloped in comparison given he started most of the season", the reason the other sections are bigger is because there were more injuries, benchings, etc. and I was trying to explain them. Those things didn't really happen during his Bucs season. He just started the first three games, missed three due to injury and started the rest of the year. He didn't really have any great games either. Thanks. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 09:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I trimmed stuff. Thoughts? WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 03:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Finally had time to look through all the changes made, and everything looks good. The Raiders in particular is definitely a cleaner read. As such, I'll pass the article. Wizardman 00:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 01:29, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Josh_McCown&oldid=1259926870"