This template 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
This template 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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jacksonville, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.JacksonvilleWikipedia:WikiProject JacksonvilleTemplate:WikiProject JacksonvilleJacksonville articles
NA
This article has been rated as NA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
I'm sorry, but I disagree with User:Armchair QB on the matter of how or where Mel Tucker should be listed. I don't think he's wrong; there's certainly good reason for what he's done. But I think on balance my version ([1]) is slightly better. Here's why:
Tucker is clearly, undeniably a member of the defensive coaching staff. AQB's version ([2]) muddies this fact.
More to the point above, Tucker is the leader of the defensive coaching staff. Yet he's not listed there.
AQB's version changes the heading "Head Coach" to "Head Coaches". This is not accurate. There is only one head coach. Unless an explicit arrangement were to exist to the contrary, the term "Head Coaches" would constitute an oxymoron.
Finally, in a point that I acknowledge is mere speculation, but explains why I feel this way, I think that Tucker's "Assistant Head Coach" strikes me as largely a titular position, one intended to reward him for a job well done in the team's final games, as well as incentive to get him to stay on as defensive coordinator.
They are all valid thoughts. I don't think one way is necessarily better than the other. Since they do have the title of AHC, some would argue they deserve to be separated from the rest, and would fit under the "head coaches" heading (which is why it's plural). Then there's others who argue that they should be separated or duplicated. I remember with the Bears template two years ago, with Marinelli specifically, that someone wanted to put him as AHC in the HC section, and DC in the defensive coaches section. Since the way you changed it from is the way that all the other templates are, and the way they've all been on historical team articles (i.e. 2007 New England Patriots season), then it would probably create less work (and would be more consistent) if I reverted what your changes. But again, I don't think either way is necessarily better. Pats1T/C 17:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your genuine consideration of my point of view. If you'd prefer, the duplication option (noting Tucker both in the Head Coaches and Defensive categories is okay by me. 98.82.34.127 (talk) 20:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I actually wasn't a fan of that idea back when it was proposed for the Bears' page. Just think it creates too much confusion. Also, as far as the head caoch(es) thing goes, I think it's worth keeping it as-is. Teams like the Redskins under Gibbs (more recently) had dedicated assistant head coaches who fell under that heading. And likewise, we still keep it as "special teams coaches" or "strength and conditioning coaches" even if there's only one of each. Pats1T/C 21:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
