Talk:1976 Tampa Bay Buccaneers season

‹ The template below (WikiProject National Football League) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

National Football League: Buccaneers Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Football League, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the NFL on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Football LeagueWikipedia:WikiProject National Football LeagueTemplate:WikiProject National Football LeagueNational Football League articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Buccaneers task force.

Florida Low‑importance

	Florida portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Florida. If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.FloridaWikipedia:WikiProject FloridaTemplate:WikiProject FloridaFlorida articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tampa Bay (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tampa Bay, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Tampa BayWikipedia:WikiProject Tampa BayTemplate:WikiProject Tampa BayTampa Bay articles

1976 Tampa Bay Buccaneers season has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 20, 2010	Good article nominee	Not listed
April 6, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed

Current status: Good article

Untitled

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I removed a reference to the 2006 Miami Dolphins' losing streak. It's definitely a significant losing streak, but it never reached the 14 games that the Buccaneers achieved in 1976.GuySperanza (talk) 14:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

1944 Cardinals/Steelers

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm going to rephrase the following sentence: "....and the 1944 Brooklyn Tigers, Chicago Cardinals and Pittsburgh Steelers, all 0-10." As written, it implies the Cardinals and Steelers operated seperately, each going winless. But they actually merged as a single entity for the 1944 season, and most references I've seen refer to them as "Card-Pitt". Elsquared (talk) 04:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion

This review is transcluded from Talk:1976 Tampa Bay Buccaneers season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wizardman 14:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

The article is pretty good, but I did notice a lot of issues:

The lead definitely needs expansion. Should be two good paragraphs given the amount of prose.
In the McKay quotes section, all the quotes have to be cited.

All material here, including quotes, is cited. There may be intervening material before the citation appears, but all of it will come from the same citation. Thus, if you see three quotes here, every quote until the next citation comes from the same source. The same goes for quotes appearing later in the article.

I'd combine the quotes and coaching comments into a section on coach McKay.

He's got his own page, but I'll see how I can do this without duplicating that.

"Under the pressure of a long losing streak, Coach McKay became known for issuing notable, often hilarious, statements." Feels POV.
Since it was their first season, a note of the players they got in the expansion draft (just some notable ones, no need to list every single one since then it'd duplicate the roster) in the summary section would be helpful.

That's a good idea, I'll run that down a little bit. Obviously, they didn't get very many notable players; partly because of the way the draft was run, and partly because of McKay's conscious decision to lose with youth. But Spurrier was pretty notable, and a couple of the others developed into stars.

I put together a little list of some of the more notable names, but I don't have any citations with it. How much detail should this section have? And what needs to be provided as references?

"As an expansion team, the Buccaneers were given extra picks in the 2nd-5th rounds." I'm confused. In the table above this you show them, yet further on you mention that they traded all four of them to get assorted players. Was this after they chose the players, and which pick number goes to each trade?

My mistake, they actually got two extra picks each round. It's corrected.

"The team started out with solid defensive play, but they began to wear out as the Buccaneers' offensive ineptitude meant that the defense spent a lot of time on the field." cite needed (namely for the last part)
Rick Jennings only spent two days with the Bucs; that would make a nice addition in the season article (further shows futility I guess)

I thought I had something about that; I don't know what happened. IIRC, he actually returned the next season for a similar length of time. I'll work that back in.

Found the article referencing that; it was one that I already had cited for the uniform number fiasco. Since you're clearly a Rick Jennings fan, that reminded me of another thing I'd forgotten to add; which was that when the Raiders got Manfred Moore from the Bucs late in the season, it was as an injury replacement for Jennings. And, yes, Jennings was the 45th player on the Bucs' 45-man roster at the start of 1977, although he doesn't seem to have played in a game for them.

"Chargers players and coaches praised the Buccaneers' defense, who held them to 9 points until the final three minutes of the game, saying that they played the equivalent of five quarters." Cite needed.

See above

"We're at rock bottom now...but if we start pointing a finger, we'll go 0-14" All quotes need citations.

See above

I believe in the Colts game, McGriff completed a pass totaling more yards than either of the two QBs had on the day; might be a nice addition.

I'll recheck the sources, but I don't recall having seen anything about that.

I found where he led the Bucs in passing and added that (again, an already-cited article), but Bert Jones threw at least one longer pass than he did in this game.

Defensive tackle Pat Toomay complained that "the officials made us look like a bunch of idiots". All quotes need cites.

See above

"The Buccaneers were mistake-prone and ineffective throughout the first three quarters." Specifics or citation needed.
"He later referred to Ralston as a "horse's ass" and said, "I don't like any part of him. His day is coming". quotes need cites.

See above

Refs #35 and #39 (buccaneers.com) aren't working, need replacement.

I assume that these are the links that have been renumbered as #33 and #35. Buccaneers.com has been restructured since the article was written, these are now correct.

The other two awards/records need citations.

See above: the last three entries are all covered by citation #83.

I'll put the article on hold, and give you a week to fix all this. Wizardman 02:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Note that I will be holding to this; if no progress occurs by the end of Dec. 3rd I'll fail it. Wizardman 17:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

No progress, so unfortunately the article fails this GAN. Wizardman 03:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Missed deadline

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I didn't see where this article was getting reviewed, so I missed the chance to address the concerns of the reviewer. I'll be renominating the article; in the meantime, I've started addressing the issues that were raised and have responded to some of them above. GuySperanza (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Progress

Here's where I stand on these suggestions as of 1-12-10:

The lead definitely needs expansion. Should be two good paragraphs given the amount of prose.
I'd combine the quotes and coaching comments into a section on coach McKay.

Expanding the lead would effectively give three season overview sections, so I'm going to roll the "Season Highlights" section into the lead once I finish expanding the section on coach McKay.

In the McKay quotes section, all the quotes have to be cited.
"Chargers players and coaches praised the Buccaneers' defense, who held them to 9 points until the final three minutes of the game, saying that they played the equivalent of five quarters." Cite needed.
"We're at rock bottom now...but if we start pointing a finger, we'll go 0-14" All quotes need citations.
Defensive tackle Pat Toomay complained that "the officials made us look like a bunch of idiots". All quotes need cites.
"He later referred to Ralston as a "horse's ass" and said, "I don't like any part of him. His day is coming". quotes need cites.
The other two awards/records need citations.

All material here, including quotes, is cited. There might be three quotes in a row, or a quote followed by some non-quote material, but they will all be covered by the following citation. The only exception is where material from several sources is combined in the same section, then the section is followed by all citations. I don't think I have any quotes in such a section, though. Let me know if you need me to do something to make that more explicit, like pasting the citation to follow each quote; though I'm concerned that it might lead to a cluttered appearance.

"The Buccaneers were mistake-prone and ineffective throughout the first three quarters." Specifics or citation needed.

Specifics added

"Under the pressure of a long losing streak, Coach McKay became known for issuing notable, often hilarious, statements." Feels POV.

Changed.

Since it was their first season, a note of the players they got in the expansion draft (just some notable ones, no need to list every single one since then it'd duplicate the roster) in the summary section would be helpful.

Done. The expansion draft turns out not to have been that significant a source of talent, as most of their starters were obtained from trades and few of their expansion draftees stayed with the team for longer than one season, so I'll be expanding the offseason/preseason sections to better reflect how the team was put together. I'll see what I can put together on the coaching staff, too; they had some pretty good names on that staff.

This suggestion alerted me to the idea that there should be a little more to show how the team was assembled, so I added a short rundown of the coaching staff, and I'm adding sections for the offseason and preseason. A number of their really important players came via trades and waivers late in the preseason, as they were able to pick up the overflow from more-talented teams that didn't have enough roster space for all their players. There were also some positions, notably quarterback, that they were not able to satisfactorily address through either of the drafts, so I'd like the article to reflect how the team was put together.

"As an expansion team, the Buccaneers were given extra picks in the 2nd-5th rounds." I'm confused. In the table above this you show them, yet further on you mention that they traded all four of them to get assorted players. Was this after they chose the players, and which pick number goes to each trade?

Corrected.

"The team started out with solid defensive play, but they began to wear out as the Buccaneers' offensive ineptitude meant that the defense spent a lot of time on the field." cite needed (namely for the last part)

That was more of a summation, so I'll be looking either for a citation from some kind of "year in review" article, or further examples to back it up.

Rick Jennings only spent two days with the Bucs; that would make a nice addition in the season article (further shows futility I guess)

Added. I think it's a good reflection of the apparent circus atmosphere surrounding the team; that was my rationale for including the McKay quotes. There's actually an even better story of how they claimed a player off waivers from Dallas and then waived him the next week, he wound up traveling with the team and going so many thousand miles just to ultimately get from Dallas to home. In reality, I doubt that it's so unusual for players to do such short stints with teams, but Jennings' story is cool because he went from the Bucs to the Super Bowl Raiders, then played with two more teams before returning to the Bucs the next preseason as the last man on their roster, and apparently spent about the same amount of time with them that season. IIRC, he then returned to the Raiders, all of which is giving me a headache just to think about.

I believe in the Colts game, McGriff completed a pass totaling more yards than either of the two QBs had on the day; might be a nice addition.

I guess you meant the longest of all Buccaneers quarterbacks; it wasn't the longest of all quarterbacks in the game. Added.

Refs #35 and #39 (buccaneers.com) aren't working, need replacement.

Refs are renumbered since the review, but the buccaneers.com links are repaired.

As of 1-19, complete and awaiting further review. GuySperanza (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

Latest comment: 14 years ago17 comments2 people in discussion

This review is transcluded from Talk:1976 Tampa Bay Buccaneers season/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 05:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Since Wizardman is a better reviewer than I am, and since this is my fifth GA review in the last two weeks, and since this is a rather large article, I'm not planning to fine-tooth every word and phrase. We'll see how it goes, but I'm going to base my evaluation on Wizardman's, and the progress since then. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 08:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

The article was pretty long, and it got maybe 50% longer after I got done with Wizardman's suggestions. But it's an NFL team's inaugural season, as well as a record-setting winless season, so it's very significant. This will help you check references: most or all of the newspaper references will be available at news.google.com, just enter the article title into an Advanced Archive Search and you should have little trouble finding the original article. GuySperanza (talk) 03:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm starting to see what you mean. One of Wizardman's critiques was that the lead was short – it seems long to me now.

The tone was set for the season as the team got lost in the Houston Astrodome when leaving the locker room to take the field for their opening game. They spent 20 minutes trying to find their way out, and barely made it to the field in time for the opening kickoff Seems like too much detail for the lead. Certainly, this would be suitable for the section on that particular game.

The team did not score a touchdown until cornerback Danny Reece returned a fumble 44 yards in the fourth game. Running back Louis Carter threw their first touchdown pass in an "Expansion Bowl" loss to the Seattle Seahawks The first paragraph of the lead already refers to this, without giving these details (which I don't think are necessary in the lead).

in which the two teams combined for 310 yards in penalties Another detail which seems suitable below, but sounds a bit much up top.

I really would advise against having quotations in the lead. I think there might even be a cofidied guideline against that.

Here's how I might revise the lead. The first paragraph is good as is. What do you think of this for the rest:

The expansion draft was largely made up of aging veterans, giving the Buccaneers little basis for success. They were last in the league in points scored, touchdowns, and rushing touchdowns.[2] They were outscored 412–125, allowed 6.7 yards per play, and allowed an average of 183 rushing yards per game.[3] After a 19-point 4th-quarter performance brought them within striking distance of a victory in week 9 against the Kansas City Chiefs, they were blown out of every game the rest of the season.

By the time the season ended, only four starters from the first game were still on the roster, and 17 players were on injured reserve. The injury problems were at least partly the result of the teams having only been given hours to prepare for the expansion draft, with no medical information provided on the players.[5] The defense was hit particularly hard by injuries. Having been on the field for upward of 90 plays per game, they played the equivalent of two seasons in one.[6][7]

The 2008 NFL Network program "10 Worst Teams of All Time" (produced prior to the 2008 Detroit Lions season) recognized the 1976 Buccaneers as the worst NFL team ever. Subsequent expansion teams were given a more generous allotment of draft picks and expansion draft opportunities, in part to avoid a repeat of the Buccaneers' difficulties.[8]

Four shortish paragraphs, in the lead anyway, give a better aesthetic a blob of text. I'd also remove the sentence about conflicts between McKay and Steve Spurrier, as it doesn't seem to be addressed later in the article (certainly not to the depth that a mention in the lead would seem to merit). Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 07:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I understand what you're saying about the aesthetic, but I don't feel comfortable with a five-paragraph lead. The original lead, the one that Wizardman felt was too short, is the first paragraph. The second paragraph was a "Season Overview" section. I looked at the article, and saw that there was a lead, a "Season Overview", and a "Regular Season" section. This effectively made three season overviews, so I eliminated the "Season Overview" by rolling the entire thing into the lead. By your suggestions, it might be better to add a short second paragraph to the lead, and reinstate the "Season Overview". I like your idea of breaking it up into the shorter paragraphs, but I'm hesitant to remove too much material from that section. It functions as a summation of What Went Wrong, and there's not another section that does that. Come to think of it, this really is very different from what's in the "Regular Season" section. I'd prefer to do something with restructuring the article rather than cutting that section up too much, but I don't have many good ideas at this second. Is "brain-deadness" a word? I'll look at this more tomorrow. GuySperanza (talk) 04:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well, my idea is four paragraphs for the lead, not five. The first paragraph as it currently is in the article, plus the three in italics above. I just think the current lead gives disproportionate detail to what's in the article. If you want to reinstate it as a separate section or add to an existent one, that would be fine. Understand, the lead (and the quotes) are really the only problems I have with this article. Once it's ironed out, it'll be an easy GA pass. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 05:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

My mistake, I saw your three paragraphs as four. I'm going to go for a lead of two paragraphs balanced in size, and I've got some time today to figure out how to restructure this. I'll do a local save first, so I can roll it back if you don't like the changes I make. BTW, when you say that there might be a guideline against quotations in the lead, do you know where I can verify that? Not that I'm disputing, and I'm following your advice for this article, but I have other articles that have quotes in the lead, and I want to make sure that they're meeting the guidelines. GuySperanza (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

(outdent) Hmm. Call it a personal preference and nothing more, then, because WP:LEAD actually says the exact opposite of what I thought it did: Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although specific facts, such as birthdates, titles, or scientific designations will often appear in the lead only, as may certain quotations. If you'd like to reinsert them into the lead, go ahead. This article passes GA now. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 21:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I think it's ready, tell me what you think. GuySperanza (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

To what does McKay's only promise was that he would deliver a championship ahead of Pittsburgh's 41-year timetable. refer?

I'm not wild about the bulleted list of McKay's little malapropisms, but I'll defer to Wizardman's review and the fact that he didn't object to it. However, as Wizardman noted, all quotations need conspicuous citations. I have appended {{fact}} to those that lack them. I don't think the quotes from the assistant coach and from Ira Gordon are really applicable to that section (it is, after all, headed "McKay quotes"). Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 08:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

To what does McKay's only promise was that he would deliver a championship ahead of Pittsburgh's 41-year timetable. refer?

That was McKay's smartalecky way of saying that the Buccaneers wouldn't need 41 years to win their first NFL championship, like the Steelers did.

Then that needs to be explicitly said. It's meaningless as currently worded. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 02:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'll deal with that tomorrow, when I'm not so tired. The source article breaks up McKay's words in such a way that they can't be presented as a direct quote, and it's difficult to paraphrase them without plagiarizing the article:

McKay promised Tampa Bay only that he would "beat Pittsburgh's timetable" in winning a first N.F.L. championship. "The Steelers did it in 41 years," he said.

I think I did the best I could with that. Do you have any suggestions? GuySperanza (talk) 03:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ok, what about now? GuySperanza (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

McKay had a reputation for accurate predictions, and that's another one he got right, although he wasn't around to see it happen. BTW, the McKay quotes are not malapropisms, which are misspoken words such as "misconscrewed". The idea behind including those is to reflect some of the circus-like atmosphere that is frequently attributed to this team, which is why I included the two miscellaneous quotes in that section. I think they convey that well and so belong in the article, but they don't fit well into another section, so I would have to cut them from the article if you object to them. There was one fact that Wizardman wanted included, with the idea that it might demonstrate the team's futility that season; by the same token, the lines from Gordon and Fryzell seem to reflect a mental state that doesn't quite click, and might say a lot about a winless team. I was careful, however, to exclude any of McKay's one-liners from USC or later Buccaneer seasons.

I disagree with you about the sentence about the conflicts between McKay and Spurrier. It seems to have had an impact on the team's offensive performance. It is referenced by a citation, which IIRC was a recent one. Press reports of the time seemed to downplay the problems, other than to mention that Spurrier was unhappy about being unable to call his own plays. The more recent reference was from a 30th anniverary retrospective article, written by a journalist who had covered the team in 1976. That he singled that fact out for mention in a very short article suggests that it was pretty significant, and it appears that the press was being "nice" by keeping these conficts under wraps. One might expect the press to want to dig for that kind of dirt, but that was a different day, and there's a clear pattern through at least the Bucs' first several seasons of the Bay Area press burying players' conflicts and personal issues. It's appropriate to mention in a section that's concentrating on the team's offensive woes, but I'll take a look at reorganizing that whole bit into a different section. GuySperanza (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

There is no discussion of conflicts between McKay and Spurrier in the body of the article. Only The Buccaneers' 338 yards of offense, a great improvement over their previous two games, coincided with coach McKay's relenting to Steve Spurrier's demands that he be able to call his own plays. That's the only time McKay and Spurrier are referred to in the same sentence. So I'd hardly ~~call~~ say that merits being mentioned in the lead. Or that their conflicts marked the season. If that's actually verifiably true, though, then yes, it does need greater mention in the body of the article. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 02:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have appended {{fact}} to all quotes lacking citations – they all need conspicuous citations. If they are cited by the citation that next appears in the article, then duplicate it. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 19:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Done. You may want to double-check, to make sure that I got them all. GuySperanza (talk) 03:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply