Talk:2009 NFL draft/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Pacman Jones

What is the pick the Cowboys will give the Titans if Jones plays next year. I have not heard anything specific as to when it will be. Jones' article said sixth, but I did not see anything about it in the source attached to it (which I also placed on this article) Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} (R-OH) 20:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The article sounded as if one of the two results (DAL 6 to TEN or TEN 4 to DAL) has to happen; the source material seems to imply that it is possible neither happens (b/c the extra DAL pick is, per the article, contingent on playing time). Samer (talk) 13:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Removed statement

I removed the description of the SOS being determined by the number of wins. If two teams had the same number of opponent wins, but one had opponent ties, that team would have a stronger SOS.--2008Olympian^chitchat 19:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

The page on the NFL Draft itself has an updated version that correctly explains how ties factor in. In any case, the order listed is so badly wrong that I just deleted the entire section. After the Chargers game is over, I'll post a corrected table. Samer (talk) 02:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Order changing based on playoffs

I think someone should double-check that the Chargers could move further back in the draft. They finished the year 8-8. Since they made the playoffs, they are at the end of the 8-8 group (16th overall). I do not believe their seed will change if they change. Last year, the Chargers went 11-5 and made it all the way to the AFC Championship game. Along the way, they beat the Colts (who went 13-3). However, the Colts' position was 29th (they later traded it to San Francisco) and the Chargers was 27th. I believe your seed would only change if you went further in the playoffs than another team in your grouping. So, if Miami goes further than Baltimore, they would switch places. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.242.207 (talk) 06:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Replying to myself - I suppose it might hold up if go on the assumption that the seeding could change if the Chargers make the Super Bowl. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.242.207 (talk) 06:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep. If they reach the SB, they move to 31 or 32, and everyone below them moves up one spot. Otherwise, they're at 16. Samer (talk) 05:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I updated after the Miami-Baltimore game. Correct my edit if/when needed. signed, Guest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.234.101 (talk) 21:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of the current draft order table

The main purpose of that table--and the reason why we bother with the shading, etc., is to give people an indication of where their team will be picking in every round, not just the first round. Once the playoffs are over, the other tables will show the actual draft order, and this table will be superfluous. But, until then, please don't switch it around. Samer (talk) 05:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

References in the tables or not?

There was discussion and implicit agreement to have a section for pre- and post- draft trades this year, to avoid the textual explanations of the trades from being buried in small text in the refs. That is accomplished. But the references themselves can easily be cited in the tables as well as in the new sections. I would point out that the featured lists 2001 NFL Draft and 2007 NFL Draft both had the references in the table.--2008Olympian^chitchat 05:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Sortable Table

Can someone make this table sortable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.61.222.82 (talk) 15:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Draft picks in round 2

If what is in the lead is correct:

Additionally, the teams are divided into groups, indicated by shading. Within each group, the team that selects first in one round will select last in the next round. For example, St. Louis selects before Kansas City in round one, Kansas City before St. Louis in round two, and so on.

Then Washington, for example, which selects second in its group, would select fourth in round two instead. Therefore, instead of selecting 45th, they select 47th. (That pick has been traded to Miami)--2008Olympian^chitchat 07:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, but I know see that if San Diego gets into the Super Bowl, then the group would shrink by one, and then the pick would be No. 46 instead.--2008Olympian^chitchat 07:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't go forward, backward, forward, etc.; it cycles. For example, the order in round one is DEN-WAS-NO-HOU-(SD); the order in round two, therefore, must be WAS-NO-HOU-(SD)-DEN. So Washington's pick in round 2 is #44 overall, regardless of what happens to San Diego. Samer (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

That should be made clear in the article. And do we have a reference anywhere for this?--2008Olympian^chitchat 06:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

NFL.com explains it, but, unfortunately, screws up the listing of playoff teams. I added it (with an explanatory note). I already updated the page to make it clearer. Samer (talk) 14:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Including 2008 details

Do we really need to include exactly what happened with every (prior) pick involved in a trade?

For example:

"San Diego to New England. San Diego traded their second-round selection in 2009 and fifth-round selection in 2008 (No. 160: traded to Tampa Bay and used to select quarterback Josh Johnson) to New England for the third-round selection of New England in 2008 (No. 69: used to select running back Jacob Hester).[4]"

Do we really need to specify here that New England traded #160 in 2008? (Or, for that matter, whom the Chargers picked with the pick they got, although I would say that's significantly more relevant.) If people really want to, we could link to the relative trades on the 2008 page. Samer (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

First, what's the harm? It's not like these little bits of info make the article too big.

Second, and most important, it gives the reader an accurate picture of whom the team got for the pick, or whom they gave up for that pick. The reader may want to know that the above trade was for whomever is picked this year and Josh Johnson for Jacob Hester: was that a fair trade or did one side get ripped off? Too many of these trade notes just regurgitate pick numbers swapped without actually stating which players those trades eventually represented, and that is the true measure of the picks' values.

Third, it's accurate and verifiable so there is no reason not to include it. If the trade in 2008 gives the 2009 draft info, why wouldn't it work in reverse?

Two things here--(1) we haven't traditionally gone back to the previous years' pages to indicate the results of future drafts. For example, the 2007 NFL Draft page doesn't say that the Patriots used SF's first-rounder to get Jerod Mayo. (2) The comparison you talk about isn't really a valid one. This is what really happened here:

New England's #69 + San Diego's 2008 5th + Tampa Bay's 2008 5th + New England's 2008 6th -> Whatever New England gets with SD's 2009 2nd + New England gets Matt Slater + Tampa Bay gets Josh Johnson + Tampa Bay gets whomever they picked with New England's 6th

It gets even worse when you realize that the #69 pick NE traded was actually one they received from Oakland in 2007.

There has to be a line here somewhere. Personally, after a little consideration, I agree that stating who got picked is worth mentioning, but I'd say that once a pick is traded away (e.g. #160 here), what happens to that pick afterward is irrelevant to the trade at hand. Samer (talk) 14:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I think if the info is kept simple, it's worthy of inclusion. Who they used to pick should be the extent of it.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 14:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the info shouldn't go beyond the picks immediately at hand in that trade. That's a pretty good line to draw. If a pick gets traded away as a part of some other trade, then the details of that trade shouldn't be included. So here, Tampa's trade details should be omitted. Who the pick turns out to be, no matter who drafts them, is, however, a pretty good indication of the value of that pick, so that info would be included, just not what else Tampa did with the pick in terms of the involvement of it in their trade.

And there wouldn't be anything wrong with going back to previous years and updating who those draft picks turned out to be. If an editor wanted to take the time to do so, I say more power to them. It would improve those articles, and I'd give em a barnstar.--2008Olympian^chitchat 10:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

So now, six weeks later, Samer, you decide to remove this info again? We discussed this and agreed that if kept simple, the info was useful. Please don't make others have to monitor the page to ensure that an agreement will be followed weeks later, it's a waste of time.--2008Olympian^chitchat 06:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Season pages

While this page is about 2009, how the teams ended up where they are in the draft is part of the 2008 season.

Regardless of that fact, though, it makes no sense whatsoever for one of the 32 links to point to 2009 while all the rest point to 2008. Samer (talk) 16:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Correction needed

I tried to correct this error myself, but kept getting an error! The trade involving the Bears & Buccaneers is wrong. It is listed as Tampa trading the 191st pick for Brian Griese which is correct & the Bears trading the 190 pick for Dan Buenning which is incorrect. The Bears actually traded back the 191st pick plus their 7th round pick 229th overall for Dan Buenning. This can be verified by looking at the official draft order on the NFL website (http://www.nfl.com/draft/story?id=09000d5d80eef17e&template=without-video-with-comments&confirm=true) with an explanation available at this website (http://www.prosportstransactions.com/football/DraftTrades/2009.htm).

So three picks need correcting 190 Chicago Bears 191 Tampa Bay Buccaneers (from Tampa Bay through Chicago) 229 Tampa Bay Buccaneers (from Chicago)

Hope someone can help!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.218.138.244 (talk) 22:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

2009 Draft page

The 2009 draft page should be here. Although the draft order is certainly not in place, there have already been several trades affecting teams' '09 picks.

Furthermore, it is a place to not top players in college ball. 128.118.239.188 (talk) 18:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC) -wtk

I agree, the page is necessary. For now, all that needs to be included are pre-draft trades and prospects. NewYork483 (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.0.90 (talk) 01:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Prospects

Should this acticle have a section for top draft prospects like the NHL Draft article does? 64.141.133.22 (talk) 13:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

i dont think so way to many players AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Nested references

I've started adding references within the table. The code for it is as follows:

{{#tag:ref|insert all relevant trade information here|group="pre-draft trade"|name="whateveryouwant"}}

Notes on usage:

1. The "group" variable will display next to each endnote reference in the table.
2. The "name" variable is only necessary if the reference needs to be used more than once.
3. You can "nest" references. This means that the <ref> tags can be used in these.

Let me know what you think of them! If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 12:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I took them out, at least temporarily, because I think it makes the article less useful: with these in-table refs, it becomes much harder to find the specifics of a given trade (because first you have to find it in the table). Before, it was broken down by round, with specific references next to each trade. [Also, it's not necessary to distinguish pre-draft from post-draft trades in the references, because the boldface in the table accomplishes that.]

That said, if the consensus is that the newer way is better, then I'll go with the group. Samer (talk) 13:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree it makes it less useful. First, the refs can be edited to specify the teams and/or picks traded to aid in navigation. Second, if you were to scroll down to the "Trades" section, you could click on the "^" link or the individual links to jump up to the pick it refers to. In the event you selected the wrong link, users could click on the trade link again to jump back down to the trades section. Third, the refs could be edited to include the appropriate rounds along with each ref or, alternatively, the refs can be grouped according to round. Fourth, the refs are sorted from first occurrence in the article, so a first-round trade would be displayed first. Other rounds are mentioned in the reference and could be clicked on by a user to jump up to the table. Finally, each reference mentions all picks traded within a specific trade, so a user wouldn't have to "find" the trade in the table, they could merely look at the trade list, then if they wished, they could jump into the table. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 00:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

If all of those things can be done, that might very well be an improvement (I'd still have to see what it looks like, though). Personally, I'd say let's wait until after this weekend; once everything is more or less sorted out, we can make a final decision (since the page will be relatively stable after next Monday).

As for my objection, here's an example of what I mean: the Patriots traded their fifth-round pick for Eagles receiver Greg Lewis. To find the details of that trade, you'd have to find Philadelphia Eagles ^{(from New England)} in that trade list, and it could end up as something like Chicago Bears ^{(from New England via Philadelphia and Baltimore)} by the time it's done. You'd then also have to figure out which of the three associated links corresponds to the NE/PHI trade. There are other examples that would involve similar difficulties. Samer (talk) 04:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

What about using {{Note}} or creating a table to accomplish this? If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, with regards to the objection, I feel that since the refs will be chronological (or at least in display order), it will be intuitive which to click on. But if you're still concerned, the ref link could be right next to each team. Using the example above, it would read like Chicago Bears^{(from New England [trade 1] via Philadelphia [trade 2] and Baltimore [trade 3])}. I think it'd look much better if it was Chicago Bears^{(from New England via Philadelphia and Baltimore) [trade 1] [trade 2] [trade 3]} -- users will most likely click on the first link to see the first part, the second link to see the second part, etc.

And again, these links have jump-back links to get back up to the table. Also, we could also nest a reference to the other levels of the trade (e.g. in the [trade 1] link, there could be a link to [trade 2]) to further aid navigation.

I think this change needs to be made by the beginning of the draft, so as the article moves along, the article can be updated along with whatever style we choose, as opposed to a massive major edit at the end. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 08:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Stafford on Lions

Why is the media saying the Lions signed Stafford? Has it been officially announced by the team or did someone leak it to the media? TomCat4680 (talk) 15:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Its official - nfl.com have allready announced it here 84.114.6.11 (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay I added it. Should I hide it and wait til 4 pm when the draft officially starts instead? TomCat4680 (talk) 19:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Its official! TomCat4680 (talk) 20:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Confusing Lions trades help request

Can someone please fact check 2009_Detroit_Lions_season#2009_NFL_Draft. I'm confused about how they acquired pick 115. Thanks. TomCat4680 (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

To answer your question, though, the Jets traded up in the third round, giving the Lions third, fourth and seventh round picks (#76, #115, #228, respectively) in return.

Here's a list of draft day trades. Feel free to start fixing the references to reflect that. I'll be gradually adding them into the article when I find time, but if you have the time, by all means, add them!

Also, on a related note, I just want to say thanks to everyone who chipped in during this year's draft. Whether it be adding players, trades, or references, your contributions were appreciated. Now let's get this thing reference-ized! If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 09:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Position

Here is a table I have been working on for this page. I am not sure how to bold the work "total". Let me know what you think.

64.141.133.22 (talk) 19:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Position	#
Quarterback	11
Running back	20
Fullback	2
Wide receiver	34
Tight End	21
Offensive tackle	20
Offensive Guard	12
Center	7
Defensive tackle	20
Defensive end	19
Inside Lineback	8
Outside Linebacker	19
Cornerback	38
Safety	19
Long Snapper	1
Kicker	3
Punter	2
TOTAL	256

Notable Undrafted Free Agents

QB Brian Hoyer-Patriots TE J'Nathan Bullock-Jets QB Drew Willy-Ravens QB Graham Harrell-Cowboys DE Tim Jamison-Texans DE Mitch King-Titans QB Chase Daniel-Redskins OT Alex Boone-49ers RB Ian Johnson-Vikings QB Mitch King-Panthers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.108.94.225 (talk) 20:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• Harrell and Daniel are no brainers and might as well be added now – they had indisputably notable college careers. J'Nathan Bullock might be notable as his situation is kind of unusual, having played on an NCAA tournament basketball team. But why do you consider the others as notable UDFAs (at this point)? Surely, any one of them could go on to have careers in the NFL, and in retrospect unquestionably be included on that list, but to add someone now, I think they have to either have been widely projected as an early-round draftee or had an exceptional college career. I remember this topic was discussed at great length somewhere, but don't know what the final consensus was. What has been the standard in the past for the "notable undrafted" lists? Strikehold (talk) 04:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The general consensus was a guy had to have appeared in some games for a team. Right now, we shouldn't put anyone.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Conference table

I was working on something else and made this table, which ranks the college conferences by number of players drafted. Might not be appropriate for use here, but I thought I would let the editors of this page decide. Here is the source for the information.^[1] Strikehold (talk) 04:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

#	Conference	Players selected	Division
1	Southeastern Conference	37	I FBS
2	Atlantic Coast Conference	32	I FBS
3	Big 12 Conference	28	I FBS
3	Big Ten Conference	28	I FBS
5	Big East Conference	27	I FBS
6	Pac-10 Conference	23	I FBS
7	Mountain West Conference	16	I FBS
8	Conference USA	10	I FBS
8	Mid-American Conference	10	I FBS
8	Western Athletic Conference	10	I FBS
11	Southland Conference	4	I FCS
12	Lone Star Conference	4	II
13	Colonial Athletic Association	2	I FCS
13	Sun Belt Conference	2	I FBS
15	Big South Conference	1	I FCS
15	Big Sky Conference	1	I FCS
15	Central Intercollegiate Athletic Association	1	II
15	Great West Conference	1	I FCS
15	Independent	1	I FBS
15	Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference	1	I FCS
15	Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association	1	III
15	Missouri Valley Conference	1	I FCS
15	Ohio Valley Conference	1	I FCS
15	Southern Intercollegiate Athletic Conference	1	II
15	Southern Conference	1	I FCS
15	Ontario University Athletics	1	CIS

Good work--2008Olympian^chitchat 06:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Featured list?

Is this ready for a FL nomination?--2008Olympian^chitchat 03:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Getting there, but not quite. All trades need to be referenced, trade links need to be cross-referenced and matched, and the language in the trade explanations needs to be unified across all explanations. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 08:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, as far as I can see, there are now references for every trade, and the ones that don't have citations are cross-referenced to a trade that does. I am unsure to which language in the trade explanations you are referring.--2008Olympian^chitchat 04:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to look through the list entirely (I'll do so later today). When I'm done, I'll mention any fixes we need to make before nominating it for FA. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 08:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

We have to determine consensus on the format of trade details. Should there be a "D" or "PD" after each trade? Should each trade description be on the same line as the title of the trade? By this I mean, should the description following each trade be on the same line, or should the details follow on a second line? If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 18:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I see. Well, if we are going to have the D-PD designator on one, it needs to be on all. And I would vote for details on the same line.--2008Olympian^chitchat 06:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I really don't like the "PD/D" distinction... I don't know if it is helpful -- in my opinion, it clutters the trade details section, and is a bit confusing to the people who just clicked on a link in the main selections section. I'm all for removing it. Also, some other fixes need to be made, such as linking each trade to one another (such as linking to a different trade when a pick was traded: "a fourth round pick, [[which was traded to ____]], who selected _____"). There's some inconsistencies with trades linking to each other, as well as some trades not even having a link from the main selection table. Also, the listings in the trade details section should have the same style. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 07:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

vandalism

96.254.146.122 vandalized the list a lot, and i think i reverted it all, but i'm not 100% sure, so somebody might want to check it. -- Austin512 (talk • contribs 23:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

definately screwed up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.99.74.189 (talk) 07:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association from list of confereces drafted from

I read through the entire page and read all the schools drafted from, and not one was in either the MIAA or even in Division III. 69.142.11.129 (talk) 02:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Implementing change to draft table

I am currently working in my sandbox on implementing the changes I made on the 2010 page. The changes consist of replacing the existing table with a collection of templates. Once I've completed the conversion in my sandbox, I'll implement it into the page. Please let me know if you have any problems with these changes. — DeeJayK (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done — DeeJayK (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)