Jump to content

Talk:2013 NFL season

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

Fraudulent schedule leaks

[edit]

It was at about this time last year, that a "fabricated" regular-season schedule was unveiled. I have to admit, I was duped into thinking that the regular-season schedule was leaked ahead of time, until reports from Pro Football Talk indicated that it was deemed phony by league spokesman Greg Aiello. Additionally, I noticed that there were some unusual errors in the "fake schedule," and the "blogger" who unveiled the fake schedule later came clean regarding the errors.

BEWARE of any websites that reveal schedule leaks — if you see any schedule leaks from sites like Bleacher Report, SB Nation, Huffington Post or other forum/blogger sites, DON'T EVEN WASTE YOUR TIME READING THEM, let alone get headstarts on teams' season pages. There is WAY TOO MUCH speculation on those sites, and it's better to just wait until an OFFICIAL schedule release announcement is made on ESPN.com, NFL.com, ProFootballTalk.com or ProFootballWeekly.com.

Over the past three years, the official schedule has been unveiled on April 20 (2010), April 19 (2011) and April 17 (2012), with each date falling on a Tuesday. Assuming that the same pattern continues, April 16 would be the release date of the 2013 schedule. In the past, TVGuide.com has indicated a two-hour window regarding the NFL schedule release up to two weeks in advance, and each time, they have been right on target. DPH1110 (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)DPH1110[reply]

Using templates in Standings section

[edit]

Is there a previously established reason we re-create the entire division standings tables in this article instead of just using the templates? LarryJeff (talk) 19:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering the same thing. I think it's better to just use the division standings templates until the end of the season, then the division tables can be used. DPH1110 (talk) 19:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)DPH1110[reply]

Are ALL the 'records' really needed?

[edit]

In previous seasons, the records section has been relatively small - and usually only actual 'records' [eg 'broke the record for ...'] not milestones [eg 'became the xth player to get...'] - so how many of the current list are really needed? 188.221.79.22 (talk) 12:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just wait until the season ends. If the list is too long by season's end, the milestones will most likely be removed. ZappaOMati 13:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the harm in adding the records as long as they are properly cited. To me they are relevant to the topic at least while the topic is current. Once the season is over, I agree it will make sense to edit this section to pare down those items that no longer seem relevant. — DeeJayK (talk) 14:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ye - I'm not objecting to the section, I just feel that some of the things in the section aren't really 'records' 188.221.79.22 (talk) 10:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. I just feel that while this article is "current" it may be appropriate to include more of these types of milestones as they can give the reader a way to place the current season into an historical context. As time moves forward and the season covered by this article recedes into the "past", then it will be appropriate to re-examine these items and pare down those that no longer seem as relevant. I've taken the liberty of renaming this section of the article from "Records" to "Records and milestones" as this better reflects the current state of its contents. If you feel that it's appropriate to further edit the article, please describe specific bullet points that you don't feel merit inclusion. Thanks! — DeeJayK (talk) 15:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also you need to be careful even with milestones being cited by random websites because some of them are complete crap. I removed this one, which had a citation, because it was just completely wrong and obviously so:

2-54: Record of NFL teams with a minus-4 turnover margin. The Lions turned the ball over four times without forcing a single turnover, still they became just the second team in NFL history to win a game with a minus-4 turnover margin. They defeated the Cowboys 31-30 in the last minute of play. Previously, only the "perfect" Patriots of 2007 had earned a victory that way, beating the 1-14 Dolphins, 28-7.

A search at pro-football-reference provides EIGHTY-NINE examples of teams winning with -4 or worse turnover margin. I am not really sure what the cited website was thinking, but it was entirely wrong. Jonpin (talk) 23:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Records and milestones section is too long. I believe we should remove all franchise records and put them on each team's own article. Plus, a lot of whats in that section is just copy and paste of the ESPN Elias Sports Bureau. Is that permitted? Coltsfan (talk) 15:38, 24 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanmarcantonio (talk • contribs) [reply]

My opinion for the past few years has always been to only include the league records posted on either http://www.nfl.com/history or listed in the official NFL Record and Fact Book that is published every year. The categories and stats from the Elias Sports Bureau start to get very trivial. Will anyone care ten-years from now that a game had a final score of 28–2? Will anyone care that a team won despite 20 or more penalties? What about a team going 8–0 during their first year with a new head coach and quarterback? Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do and I think that they should be there. posty (talk) 01:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The issue seems to be that each week was given its own records and milestones instead of in past years where everything was lumped together and messy. It seems that with order, every section needed its own facts, which is why the section is neat, but way too long. (Though, I think that with time, the section will shrink on its own.) --Super Goku V (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Though, I think that this is a good time to split off the milestones and keep the records on this page. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the records discussed here have been moved to a new page, List of 2013 NFL records and milestones, which was created to shorten this article. If further discussion is warranted, it makes sense to move this discussion to the new page. — DeeJayK (talk) 21:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once the regular season is over (standings)...

[edit]
  • Will the standings be changed to remove the "x", "y", "z", etc. and make it similar to all the previous years for consistency?

Week by Week Records

[edit]

You know when I saw that "94.193.96.26" had deleted a bunch of the records from week to week citing it wasn't notable, at first I was against it, but then after reading exactly what they had taken out, I completely agree with the removal. Just about everything that they removed is, well, stupid. There are a million different statistics in the NFL, "these 4 QB's threw for over 300 yards twice in two weeks" or "there were this amount of passing yards in the first 2 weeks", and so on. Just because a statistic exists, doesn't mean it is notable or worth adding. I might apply those changes back to the page unless anyone has any objections. Zdawg1029 (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ye - I just chose a line. May have not been as consistent as I had intended [did it quickly, so may have deleted some things accidentally] - but there's too much rubbish in there just now. 1) league records set or tied only, no franchise records. 2) reduce "reached this milestone" to 1st to do so, or fastest to do so. 3)No "most x in a week span [the week span is usually arbitrary]". 4) reduce "most TDs of a certain distance" [the distance is usually arbitrary]. 5) cut down "most x ever in one day/one week" to the really key ones. 94.193.96.26 (talk) 11:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I agree. I mean just like I said before, just because it is a statistic doesn't mean it is notable. So I'll give it a couple more days and if no one has any objections I'm going to put it back to your version. If you want to do something with it however I say go for it.Zdawg1029 (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've tried again, this time hoping to be more consistent. 94.193.96.26 (talk) 12:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there has been too much removed from the records... Yes there might be some that are suspect, but I think if the NFL releases them (NFLCommunications.com and nfllabor.files.wordpress.com), they should definitely stay... posty (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I object on milestone records (for example: third to 60,000 passing yards; youngest to 800 catches, there are probably more that were deleted) being removed... Those are notable events even if you don't think so... Most of the information did come NFL reports... Yes some of the Elias ones could be removed, but they are the official stats of the NFL... Just my two cents but I think a case could be made for most of them to stay (especially the NFLCommunications and nfllabor ones) and could be discussed at length... posty (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I only added back 14 items I think were worthy (reaching milestones like 60,000 yards, 1,000 catches, etc.) is important since these numbers aren't reached often... posty (talk) 17:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Final edit... Removed a couple that I had previously added... Hopefully you are okay with the additions... posty (talk) 18:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ye - had a look through. As I said above, I wanted to reduce "reached certain milestone" - but I'll agree to the round number ones [which covers most of what's been re-added]. The only change since mine I'd argue with is the Week 14 Denver mark - which as I said in my edit summary is practically identical to the week 17. 94.193.96.26 (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC) [edit to add: week 14 "first to have 4 ...", week 17 "first to have 5 ..." 94.193.96.26 (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)][reply]
Also - the Alshon Jeffery/Josh Gordon one. Okay, it's a first - but it seems a bit of a random one [x catches, y yards, z TDs] 94.193.96.26 (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I took a further pass through this list of records and milestones as part of a general polish of this article. I've moved all of the season-long awards (e.g. Manning's passing yardage and TD records) to the top of the list (rather than having them listed under "Week 17" near the bottom). I've also validated that everything is properly referenced. While the list is extensive I feel that all of the records included at this point are sufficiently "notable" for inclusion here. In anyone else wants to validate (or dispute) that, it would welcome the input. Thanks! — DeeJayK (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citation name issue from templates

[edit]

There's an issue with the templates "2013 AFC standings" and "2013 NFC standings" having the same references with the same names, which gives a redefined reference error when both templates are included here. I can't work out how to fix this: can someone more familiar with these things work on this? Thanks. Suelru (talk) 02:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Suelru: the problem was that when two refs use the same name, they must be letter-for-letter identical (even whitespace matters, I think), so I made the refs have the same access date in each template so they would coalesce in this article. It's a minor fudge, but it looks like the dates weren't accurate to begin with so I doubt it matters. Cheers. —Laoris (talk) 17:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Laoris: Good to know, thanks. Looks good now! Suelru (talk) 18:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 79 external links on 2013 NFL season. 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) 10:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2013 NFL season. 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) 18:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 26 external links on 2013 NFL season. 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) 19:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:1970 NFL season which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2013_NFL_season&oldid=1217501160"