Talk:Joey Harrington

Removed Criticism

I removed criticism of Harrington for not showing tough leadership because it can't be shown that guys who chew out their receivers win in the NFL. Manning, McNabb, Favre, Gannon and Marino have won only won SuperBowl between them while guys like Montana, Elway and Brady have won more each then those four combined, without being hard on receivers. In fact Favre is the most mellow of the five guys listed and is the only one who has a ring. --MJR 18:51, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

The back half of this article reads as if it was written by an angry Lions' fan. Examples of POV:

• "Harrington's career statistics to date are not sparkling"
• "If at a point in the season losses become solely his fault due to inaccurate passes and poor decision making"
• "Harrington has been known to be inconsistent with his footwork which greatly effects a quarterbacks accuracy and often misses many open receivers as a result of what has appeared to be a inability to effectively perceive the circumstances generating on the feild during play"
• "caused by poorly timed and over-excited throws."

I think the article should be stripped down to a brief bio and a summary of his college & pro careers, with no "analysis." The last two paragraphs should be deleted entirely. | Keithlaw 14:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

• • "The back half of this article reads as if it was written by an angry Lions' fan... Is there any other kind of Lions fan?--Isotope23 19:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

To Kiethlaw

Although the analysis is not perfect I beleive it is relevant to his professional careeer, he does stay on one receiver for too long, often times never making his checks properly, just deciding which receiver he wants to go to before the ball is snapped and following him with his eyes until the receover is either open or he's flushed from the pocket or sacked, its not speculation that he does that and it is effecting his professional career. Its generaly called "feild awareness", harrington has very poor feild "awareness".

If it has nothing to do with his professional career you could remove ""Harrington has been known to be inconsistent with his footwork which greatly effects a quarterbacks accuracy and often misses many open receivers as a result of what has appeared to be a inability to effectively perceive the circumstances generating on the feild during play"" However I beleive it does, but probably could be scripted better. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.10.17.198 (talk • contribs) 08:37, 8 October 2005.

• These are just opinions on the player in question rather than statements of fact. How can you prove that Harrington has poor "field awareness?" I believe that you can't - it's a matter of opinion. It's NPOV unless it can be backed up by something tangible. | Keithlaw 14:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

• Its not a opinion, he admits it, coaches know it, fans see it, it's been demonstrated on ea sports quarterback challenge which was aired on july 16/17th on espn. If you don't know what you're talking about, than just stop. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.10.17.198 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 9 October 2005.

• • First of all, personal attacks are not acceptable on Wikipedia. Second, you need to sign your posts on talk pages - or better yet, create a Wikipedia account. As for the question at hand, all you keep doing is repeating your opinion. That doesn't make it fact. The bulk of this article is NPOV and it needs to be removed. | Keithlaw 14:07, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• • • You still think its a opinion? how did i personaly attack you? do you want sources? if you want to delete it, delete it, i'll re-write it eventualy and include sources... have to sign? or else what? gonna get banned? :-\ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.10.17.198 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 9 October 2005.

• • • • Oh and "third of all" you sound like a insecure uppity tight ass, that was a personal attack, but you do. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.10.17.198 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 9 October 2005.

• • • • • You won't be banned for failing to sign talk pages, but you will be banned for making personal attacks. In the meantime, check out the page on avoiding bias in Wikipedia articles to see why this page doesn't fit. | Keithlaw 23:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• • • • • • "The neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree" in this case that would be impossible, hence the never ending debate, however his weaknesses posted in this article are FACT, disputable only by people with little to no knowledge of it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.10.17.198 (talk • contribs) 03:44, 12 October 2005.

NPOV resolution

In the absence of any constructive suggestions on reducing the POV in the article, I deleted the final two paragraphs and replaced them with a summary of Harrington's statistics over the last three years relative to the league. I also removed the {{npov}} tag. | Keithlaw 04:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• now you sound like the angry lions fan, arent the receivers and coaches equaly responsible for his statistical failures? he doesen't call his own plays and its his receiving corps that have ranked in the top 5 in dropped passes in his first three seasons, we're in his fourth. if anything his career is sabotaged, by the time these hot-shot young receivers finaly start running their routes with some consistency and effectiveness he'll most likely be replaced by a quarterback that would have as much sucess as he would likely have had, had he been there in that position.

you critisized me saying that what i wrote was impartial and biased then took out everything relevant to the cause of his statistical failures, then you just highlighted the statistical failures as to shift blame solely on him. you are a hypocrite, if you're a mod and i'm not then i'm just not even going to deal with this page, this is what i hate about wikipedia - having to deal with morons. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mithotyn (talk • contribs) 10:40, 16 October 2005.

I'm replacing "performance" with "statistics". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mithotyn (talk • contribs) 10:40, 16 October 2005.

• Mithotyn and 71.10.17.198 are one and the same. | Keithlaw 13:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Removed the "controversial move", firstly it wasent a move on his part and wasen't unexpected, it was the intention to start harrington eventualy as he learned from the experienced mike mcmahon (i'm guessing you don't know anything about football and are just a wiki guy, so i'll let you know this is normal and usualy always done, for instance kurt warner/eli manning, tommy maddox/ben rothlisberger (went ahead of schedule) and a countless number of others) the only controversy was that it came so quick (the "move") and harrington was hyped to the media as having the potential to be the next brett favre , amazing how things work out, "aye miyate" ? .

Please go back to your soccer articles, if you consider this a personal attack then you need to get your head checked, i don't even know you all i know is you have poor logic, if you consider that a personal attack perhaps you should look up the word criticism, if that doesen't help or if your logic is so poor, and i beleive it is, that you would consider "criticism" a personal attack "weapon" then please get off the planet for the sake of mankind. - signed, anonymous - despite a IP adress and acct name. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mithotyn (talk • contribs) 21:26, 16 October 2005.

• So far, you've called me a "moron," a "hypocrite," and an "insecure uppity tightass." You've said I need to get my "head checked." You've also accused me of not knowing anything about football, which I guess is because I won't agree with whatever you say. These are all personal attacks, and that's not acceptable on Wikipedia. Perhaps you should learn to discuss questions like this without resorting to ad hominem arguments against your adversary, the way that normal people conduct themselves in the world - and the way that Wikipedians conduct themselves on this site. If you want to tell me that you think I'm wrong, go right ahead, but you need to do it without insults. | Keithlaw 22:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

All in the eye of the beholder, for instance I could consider your disagreement with me a personal attack, if i FELT that it was and became effected by it, which is why "rules" and "etiquite" on the internet make me laugh, its a moronic concept, How can i personaly attack somebody i do not even know? with text supplementing vocal words? logicaly, is it even possible? only on your side, bud. - unsigned

FWIW, calling other editors "morons" is not acceptable. The issue isn't how you feel when someone disagrees within the acceptable parameters. The issue is how each of you behaves. As a rule you should discuss the content, not the person. If it is getting to where you feel the issue is the person rather than the content, it may be time to start an RfC. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I must apologize for my n00bish behavior, which is what it was. I've been taking the time to read more discussions and have now read wikipedia's policies to get a better understanding of how I should present myself in discussions and overall conduct at wikipedia. Mithotyn 00:19, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks, Mithotyn. I'd love to get your help in keeping an eye out for vandals; there seem to be a couple of knuckleheads who hit this page after each Lions' game. Maybe that'll stop now that he's on the bench. | Keithlaw 03:44, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

"Joey is also a gifted piano player; while he has yet to appear on a regular season Monday Night Football telecast as a football player, he competed in "Monday Night at the Mic" in 2003." I think talented is a more accurate definition and I beleive "yet to appear" is suggestive and should be replaced with "has not appeared". when he appears on a monday night football telecast, it can be changed. Mithotyn 08:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Recent contribution

I know it reads like news, but i can change it sunday or monday. When the seasons all over we can wrap it all together. Mithotyn 19:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• You read my mind! I was going to suggest the same thing about a season-end wrap-up. For now, I think it's fair to treat this as a current events page - unlike a lot of players, Harrington is seeing big changes in his status each week. What you wrote this week was fine; I just wanted to bring the date links into line with Wikipedia standards. | Keithlaw 20:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

New "controversy" section

I added a section on the controversy surrounding Harrington. I tried to represent the three viewpoints (blame Joey, blame the team, blame management) as fairly as I could, but in the interest of openness, I must confess that I prefer to blame the team and management.--DavemanDeluxe 21:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Daveman: This looks to me like it violates the policy on no original research. | Klaw ¡digame! 22:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Please explain to me how it violates the NOR policy and I'll do my best to fix it up. I personally don't see it, but if you can show me some problems, I'll be happy to improve it. | DavemanDeluxe 01:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Sure. Let me start with the overarching problem I see, which is the existence of the controversy. Is there really one? What's the nature of it - why Harrington hasn't been better, or why he plays so much, or something else? It looks to me like this is your opinion of the controversy, which may be a good analysis of the situation, but seems to violate WP:NOR. It's not a criticism of you at all. I'm just not sure this is the place for it. Sourcing is always key for matters like this. I hope that helps a little. | Klaw ¡digame! 02:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Incidentally, I apologize for making the prior comment w/o providing specifics - my error. | Klaw ¡digame! 02:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

No problem at all. The "controversy" (and maybe that's not the right word for it after all) regards why Harrington is playing poorly--opinions vary on that subject. I think it's a useful section because somebody interested in why Harrington is doing poorly might be interested in the various opinions regarding why this is. After reading your comments, I do realize that it needs some re-writing and sourcing to properly fit the style of Wikipedia. I'll sleep on it and work on some editing over the next couple of days. | DavemanDeluxe 02:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll leave it alone. I'm not a big football fan, so I can't suggest much in the way of sources, but I would say find reputable analysts who offer specifics on Harrington, rather than the usual "he's not tough enough" sort of blathering. As you fill it out, then I'll look at editing it. | Klaw ¡digame! 02:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Some of the controversy section is POV in my opinion --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• Wow. The "Controversy" section really needs to be cleaned up as far as POV goes. The whole section is also worded really poorly. I will try to get around to it when I get a chance, but if someone else wants to start making changes go ahead. I will agree that there SHOULD be a controversy section, as controversy has practically plagued Joey's professional career. However, making general cites like "field awareness" might not be up to the par for Wikipedia. Also, there should probably be some reference to Jeff Tedford, as there has been considerable criticism of Tedford-coached QBs succeeding in the NFL (see: Dilfer, Smith, Boller, and others). NRK 02:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

"Harrington regained the starting role the week after Garcia threw a game ending interception returned for a touchdown in overtime against Chicago."

I cited a source straight from the lions themselves that Harrington got the starting role back because Garcia made the decision not to play after downplaying injuries. So why did somebody change that, to this especialy? 71.10.17.198 06:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Controversy Section restored - after it seems one of the Detroit faithful had changed the title to "Bust". It is interesting that Harrington has again found controversy on his new team the Atlanta Falcons. He is set to replace a very popular QB, Michael Vick, and is ahead of local favorite D.J. Shockley the Georgia Bulldogs star. Last year, he gets thrust in as starter for Miami, a team with no Offense. This was prior to coach Nick Saban's sudden departure. A pretty good article last week: Harrington in Middle of another Muddle - Digdog9 20:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This most recent comment contributes nothing to the article and is too much like a forum post.►Chris Nelson 20:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Professional Career

Personally, I don't see what's so POV about this section. But this (along with other things perhaps) needs to be updated and expanded (with your help.) Much of the info is from the middle of last season, for god's sake!! It's as though everyone's given up on him... Perhaps they have... :-( Grandmasterka^{Impart wisdom} 06:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

"05:38, 17 March 2006 Grandmasterka (Adding a couple tags and new news. Someone with better knowledge update the "professional career" section and cite sources, please.)"

The information there, aside from the POV added in place of my factual (with source) explanation surrounding Harrington regaining the starting role, is accurate. The only thing I would dispute is the fact that what replaced what I wrote, which was that garcia was never benched, that it was his decision to not play, a decision made after admitting to downplaying injuries, which was public and linked from the article, was changed to suggest that the overtime interception had something to do with Harrington starting again, that is conjecture.

As for your template, if it's the accuracy of the article section that you are disputing then use a factual accuracy section template, not a NPOV template. 71.10.17.198 10:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I used an update tag and a current event tag at the top of the article, that's what I'm talking about. The information in that section is from last year!! Grandmasterka 04:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I finally just removed the really bad part of the old info myself. Grandmasterka 20:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Nobody? or Somebody?

Should this guy even have an article this big? If not for a few months of controversy this would still be a stub, the guy will be spending the rest of his short career on the bench and really didn't do anything good with the Lions, seemingly nothing worth remembering at all. Couldn't we just trim it down to a personal bio? Or can I make a large wiki about myself? :p 71.10.17.28 10:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No?Chris Nelson 12:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, every NFL quarterback who was a high 1st round Draft pick has an article this big. If you're a losing Detroit Lions fan and you don't like that, tough. He's now basically a Journeyman NFL player. The comment above has already been proven wrong, he came back and "punked" Detroit with 3 TD's and MVP performance on Thanksgiving 2006. Digdog9 20:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed Vandalism

Just removed "Joey Harrington is a faggot." Someone should put this page on limited edit becuase I dont know how to. The Collector 02:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Joey Harrington. 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/20070417021748/http://lcb.uoregon.edu/enews/030102/harrington-schmid.html to http://www.lcb.uoregon.edu/enews/030102/harrington-schmid.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080922092629/http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3597637 to http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3597637
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604072626/http://www.sportsnetwork.com/merge/tsnform.aspx?c=sportsnetwork&page=nfl%2Fnews%2Fnews.aspx%3Fid%3D4181719 to http://www.sportsnetwork.com/merge/tsnform.aspx?c=sportsnetwork&page=nfl%2Fnews%2Fnews.aspx%3Fid%3D4181719
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080920043128/http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playerpages/player_main.aspx?sport=NFL&id=1850 to http://rotoworld.com/content/playerpages/player_main.aspx?sport=NFL&id=1850
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080328135355/http://www.sportingnews.com/exclusives/20050929/654803.html to http://www.sportingnews.com/exclusives/20050929/654803.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929111843/http://blogs.sun-sentinel.com/sports_football_dolphins/2006/10/simms_sounds_of.html to http://blogs.sun-sentinel.com/sports_football_dolphins/2006/10/simms_sounds_of.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100822004237/http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page3/story?page=pressman%2F040826 to http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page3/story?page=pressman%2F040826

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 08:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)