Talk:2016 NFL draft

Question about forfeited picks

In the section of this article on forfeited picks each entry includes some variation of "If Atlanta receives multiple fifth-round selections, the team will forfeit its first fifth-round selection." Can someone explain why a team might be awarded multiple picks in a single round (besides compensatory picks, which are inserted at the end of the round)? It seems logical that the team would simply forfeit the pick in whatever round the penalty applies to that would have been their pick in the normal order. Say the Patriots acquire the selection of the team that has the first overall selection in the draft — would they really have to forfeit that pick rather than their selection (based on the Patriots record in 2015)? That wouldn't make a lot of sense to me. It looks like this caveat may have come from the ESPN article which is the reference for the Atlanta forfeiture, but I'm failing to see the logic. Unless someone can explain it, I would consider removing it. — DeeJayK (talk) 20:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with removal. Teams are penalized their original pick only. I'm guessing the comment was just clarifying that the Falcons could not elect to forfeit a compensatory pick. Dabullzrule (talk) 01:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done — DeeJayK (talk) 19:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the comment is directed at the possibility of pre-draft Trades: Atlanta could make deals until then that might net the two, three or more fifth round picks. In such a case, the ruling made clear that the highest fifth round pick will be forfeited, whether it be it's original pick or not. --Wiesengrund (talk) 17:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe trades play any part in it. If Atlanta was going to penalized any 5th round pick, why wouldn't they traded back several times so acquire later round picks and then forfeit the last pick of the fifth round. The picks forfeited have to be the teams original pick.00:55, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

First selection

Why is there a first selection on there already. Even though the individual has been widely mocked to the Titans it is speculative and misleading to have that in a Wikipedia article a month before the event takes place. 87.112.19.85 (talk) 11:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Texans seventh-round pick

One of these has to be wrong. The Texans can't have traded their seventh-round pick to both Denver and New England. I assume one of the picks they traded was the seventh-round pick they previously got from the Rams. This should be clarified.

• Houston → Denver (PD). Houston traded this selection to Denver in exchange for offensive tackle Chris Clark.[source 24]
• Houston → New England (PD). Houston traded their seventh–round selection in the 2016 draft to New England in exchange for quarterback Ryan Mallett.

That is correct. When Houston traded Keenum to St. Louis, it left them with two seventh-round picks. When Mallett and Clark were traded, it did not stipulate which pick was for which trade HOWEVER the Mallett trade would have had to include the Texans original seventh-round selection (that could have become their sixth-round) because that trade was done in 2014 so they wouldn't have had the seventh-round selection from St. Louis yet. Dabullzrule (talk) 23:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Early Entrants

When do the early entrants get moved to a separate article? I'm just getting a little overwhelmed by all this info. Jdavi333 (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

To be honest we could probably do it right now.—  dainomite   21:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Players must declare by January 18th. In my opinion we could wait another week or just do it now being the vast majority of this article is now focusing on selection order. Dabullzrule (talk) 02:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Protection

Mods can we protect this page for auto-confirmed users? It's clogged up right now. (Volman92 (talk) 01:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC))

Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Seahawks Trade

Seahawks also received the 94th pick. The trade with the Broncos is not currently reflected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShaneHaughey (talk • contribs) 04:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Bears and Seahawks 2nd Round Trade

Bears trade #49 pick to Seahawks for 56th pick (2nd Round) and 124th pick (4th Round). DickButka (talk) 00:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 30 April 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moving this and similar "20xx NFL Draft" pages — JFG ^talk 16:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

---

2016 NFL draft → 2016 NFL Draft – This was boldly changed across many draft articles a while back without discussion. The NFL, which actually hosts the event, capitalizes the name and treats it as a proper noun. See NFL.com. Search results are about evenly split, so there was no clear reason to change the capitalization without discussion in the first place. Given no clear "winner" using search results, we should default to the name given to this event by the organization holding it. ~ Rob^Talk 03:27, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. I think these results are actually in favor of the capital D. Also, some of the recent results might be using a lowercase d as a result of copying Wikipedia. It was changed in 2014. I googled 2013 NFL draft and the capital seems to be significantly more common. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 03:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support. The NFL Draft is a proper noun, and has been WP:COMMONNAME for years. The draft articles were all moved by a user who didn't have consensus for it. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support. This is an official (NFL-designated), proper name title of a specific, not generic, event, and thus should be capitalized. This is a title, not a description, and thus should be capitalized. —Lowellian (reply) 06:07, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
• Procedural oppose It doesnt make sense to just change this to uppercase without including into this RM the parent article NFL draft, and every other year's draft at Category:National Football League draft.—Bagumba (talk) 10:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  • As per WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, this consensus would obviously apply to all NFL draft articles. No editor acting in good faith could interpret otherwise, and I see no reason to waste editor time listing them all. ~ Rob^Talk 15:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• I would think this would apply to all draft articles, not just the NFL ones. I can't think of a league that wouldn't regard their draft as a proper noun (but maybe I'm just getting ahead of myself). -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

• No, you're not getting ahead of yourself. I was thinking of leaving a comment along the lines of "why not move the NBA draft while we're at it too". WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 14:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support this and upper-casing across the pages as suggested by Bagumba, proper names. Randy Kryn 12:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support if only because it was moved to lowercase without consensus. And it appears consensus would have been to keep caps. I don't really mind either way. Lizard (talk) 16:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support moving all draft articles, to make my comment from above "official." -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
• Good grief, this is going to be a lot of work. Off the top of my head, the NBA, MLB and AFL (the Australian one, not your Yank nonsense) drafts were all decap'd around the same time. Jenks24 (talk) 17:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support moving all North American draft articles. Unsure on the Australian stuff, as I'm unfamiliar with Australian sport.  ONR  (talk)  23:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

I'm very sorry I missed the above discussion. Looking at source stats, these capitalizations seem inappropriate in the extreme. Dicklyon (talk) 01:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Those source stats could be very misleading. We need to look at the sources themselves to see the context it's used in. It may be the case that the general draft (not specific to a year) is not treated as a proper noun while the individual events are treated as proper nouns (i.e. president (generic noun) vs. President Obama (proper noun)). ~ Rob^Talk 10:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

These NGRAM results are wholly flawed evidence, because it includes descriptive rather than titular mentions. For example, compare the NGRAM results for Space Shuttle [1], which show that lowercase "space shuttle" is more widely used than capitalized "Space Shuttle", but the Wikipedia article is at capitalized "Space Shuttle", because that is the official name of the vehicle; that is a similar case showing the difference between a descriptive phrase and an official title. Sources that use lowercase are referring to it descriptively (referring to it as an "NFL draft" in the sense that it is a "draft sponsored by the NFL," in the same way that the "space shuttle" is a "shuttle used in space," but there is also an official "Space Shuttle," the formal term for it designated by NASA), but that does not change that event itself is a proper name title. —Lowellian (reply) 17:05, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: @Dicklyon: I agree with Dicklyon. The above move request was made using faulty logic. We don't "default to the name given to this event by the organization holding it" for matters pertaining purely to capitalization, instead we apply WP:NCCAPS and see whether sources treat it as a proper name or not. If they are mixed 50/50, our house style demands that we lower case it. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Data: [2]. That's why they were moved to lowercase before. This one-article move on a new unwatched article being applied to the whole lot is a real problem. All that work for nothing. Dicklyon (talk) 05:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

• I strongly oppose this reversion to an innappropriate capping. Tony (talk) 05:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13, WikiOriginal-9, Lowellian, Tavix, Randy Kryn, Lizard the Wizard, Jenks24, and Old Naval Rooftops: You participate in this RM, but you may or may not have been aware of the Move Review at Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2016_July#2016_NFL_Draft, where you have not left any comments. Feel free to do so if you have any input.—Bagumba (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

@Dissident93: Oops, left you out of above MR notification.—Bagumba (talk) 17:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

So what's the plan for this? Are we gonna wait another three months for someone to re-list it? Lizard (talk) 00:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

At least. Dicklyon (talk) 05:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Least amount of picks

No big deal and you guys may want to wait until the end, but with the Saints moving back into the second they are now tied for least amount of picks with 5 for right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.252.121.91 (talk) 09:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2016

Here are some picks that have gone by in the draft.

NYG- B.J. Goodson LB-Clemson LA- Tyler Higbee TE-Western Kentucky DET- Miles Killebrew S-Southern Utah NE- Malcolm Mitchell WR-Georgia 2605:6000:3F05:2800:EC80:DABF:91AE:EF19 (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

 Already done ~ Rob^Talk 17:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Bears and Rams 4th Round Trade

The Bears traded a fourth-round selection (No. 117 overall) and a sixth-round selection (No. 206 overall) to the Los Angeles Rams for a fourth-round selection (No. 113 overall). DickButka (talk) 17:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2016

Bengals drafted Deon Bush CB-Miami (FL) 2605:6000:3F05:2800:44F5:8B7:71F0:3CE4 (talk) 17:27, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Please include a reliable source for your suggested change. ~ Rob^Talk 22:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

North Carolina Central is in the MEAC

Pick #108 listed as an D2 Independent, but NCCU is actually a MEAC school. Jhn31 (talk) 18:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I've put in a request for this at Template talk:Cfb conf which is where this has to be fixed. But me and another user who tried to fix it can't figure out how to change the template without breaking it and thus this page. -Drdisque (talk) 21:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2016

Under PLAYER SELECTIONS: 1 – New England Patriots Selection forfeited as punishment for the team's involvement in the Deflategate scandal[Forfeited 1] <---------- should be changed to "New England Patriots Selection forfeited as punishment for the team's alleged involvement in the Deflategate scandal."

This is still an ongoing court case and nothing has been proven thus far. The dispute is most likely going to be appealed at the Supreme Court level. It is unfair to paint this picture of them until the legal process is completely over. Logan182 (talk) 19:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

don't you think the supreme court has a few more important issues ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.49.221 (talk) 21:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

If you're convicted of a crime, you are considered guilty of it, even if appeal is pending. Red Jay (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

 Partly done I'm about to slightly reword this to "forfeited as a result of the Deflategate scandal". We don't need the wording under debate here at all to convey the point. ~ Rob^Talk 22:49, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Too many templates

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This page (and just about every other draft page, apparently) is now completely broken because there are so many templates that the software can't render it. It really needs to be redone as a table without so many templates so that readers can access it. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

okay who screwed it up?

table is all screwed up — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.49.221 (talk) 21:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Please see the section above. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why on Earth was this capped?

It starts: "The 2016 NFL Draft was the 81st annual meeting of National Football League (NFL) franchises to select newly eligible football players. As in 2015, the draft took place at ...". So even the opening sentence gives it away. It needs to be downcased, according to the rules of most style guides, including our own. Tony (talk) 02:00, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

See my comments below the RM above. Nom said "Given no clear 'winner' using search results, we should default to the name given to this event by the organization holding it." This is completely wrong on two counts. First, lowercase is the clear winner in sources. Second. when there's no clear winner, per MOS:CAPS we default to lowercase. So I agree with your "Why on earth" sentiment. Too bad you and I were asleep at the switch, as now it will be harder to fix again. Last time I fixed it there was not push-back (for a few years), and then this RM on a new article, not on my watchlist, got applied to tons of other articles without notification of any. Bad move all around. Dicklyon (talk) 02:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Ultimately, it will have to be fixed. Tony (talk) 08:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

This article is capitalized per WP:NCCAPS, which states that "Do not capitalize the second or subsequent words in an article title, unless the title is a proper name", which this is. The NFL Draft is an official, NFL-designated, proper name title of a specific event. The NGRAM results being used to support lowercase are wholly flawed evidence, because it includes descriptive rather than titular mentions. For example, compare the NGRAM results for Space Shuttle, which show that lowercase "space shuttle" is more widely used than capitalized "Space Shuttle", but the Wikipedia article is at capitalized "Space Shuttle", because that is the official name of the vehicle; that is a similar case showing the difference between a descriptive phrase and an official title. Sources that use lowercase are referring to it descriptively (referring to it as an "NFL draft" in the sense that it is a "draft sponsored by the NFL", in the same way that the "space shuttle" is a "shuttle used in space", but there is also an official "Space Shuttle", the formal term for it designated by NASA), but that does not change that event itself is a proper name title. —Lowellian (reply) 17:24, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2016 NFL Draft. 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/20150906151039/http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/09/05/chiefs-get-down-to-53-trade-safety-kelcie-mccray-to-seahawks/ to http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/09/05/chiefs-get-down-to-53-trade-safety-kelcie-mccray-to-seahawks/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 22:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Notable Undrafted Players

Should we add Brian Poole of the Atlanta Falcons to the list of notable undrafted players? Here's his profile on NFL.com: http://www.nfl.com/player/brianpoole/2556445/profile — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.191.95 (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)