Talk:2006 NFL draft

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured list2006 NFL draft is a former featured list. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page and why it was removed. If it has improved again to featured list standard, you may renominate the article to become a featured list.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 16, 2006Featured list candidatePromoted
January 19, 2008Featured list removal candidateDemoted
Current status: Former featured list

Coin flip[edit]

The AP story that said S.F. and Oakland had already had the coin flip was incorrect.

The flip will happen after the Super Bowl. Flip already happened. Frisco won. 66.80.212.78 03:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Texans[edit]

However, some experts suggest that with solid running back Domanick Davis, the Texans may pass on Reggie Bush and go for a quarterback. Oh, come on! The Texans want Bush, and everyone knows it. Those experts just want to say something and get more air-time. (It's staying anyways.) --Jjjsixsix 05:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marques Colston[edit]

The draft listing shows Marques Colston (7th round supplemental, New Orleans Saints) highlighted as a Pro-Bowler. He has not been to the Pro-Bowl as of yet. Striker64 (talk) 19:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Positional Breakdown Incorrect[edit]

"The 255 players chosen in the draft were composed of:" ...it then goes to list the breakdown by postion, but this sums to 258 players rather than 255. Some double counting maybe at G/T DT/DE or OLB/DE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.204.88.178 (talk) 22:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eligible players[edit]

The current list only lists early entires... I think if we want to have this section we need it to include all eligible draftees... which is a lot (over 300). I think we can still have a list, but I think it might need to be a separate article if we include. KramarDanIkabu 21:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Orleans Saints/Leinart[edit]

If they just signed Drew Brees for $60M today, then they're probably not using the #2 pick to draft a quarterback. Either that or they may be shopping it around, so all mock projections are likely subject to change very quickly.

Yes, but apparently websites like about.com haven't updated their mock drafts because they still think Leinart is going #2, which now seems very, very doubtful. Cheesehead Fan 22:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leinart has gotten a ton of bad reviews from scouts ranging from his dedication, personality and of course his weak arm and poor ball placement accuracy. Don't be surprised if he drops out of the top 10. AntiG

Some people are calling Leinart the next Broadway Joe for the Jets while others (like AntiG said) have given Leinart bad reviews. I still believe that Leinart will go in the top 7 because no matter what critics say, it's hard to see him drop down that much. Also, while talking about QB's, look for Vanderbilt QB Jay Cutler to head to Arizona or St. Louis around picks 10-13. Cheesehead Fan

Draft day[edit]

Until the first pick is made, the projections should stay up, though as soon as that pick is made the Projections section, along with all of the links to mock drafts in the References section should be deleted. As the links in the References section become unnecessary, they too will be deleted. Tonight I will update the selection order based on NFL.com's order to make it easy for updating throughout the draft. I have no regards as to whether this page should be updated with each pick or should be given a daily update. KramarDanIkabu 03:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC) ADDENDUM: As on the 2005 NFL Draft page, the tables should look something like this:[reply]

Pick # Team Player Position School
1 Houston Texans Mario Williams Defensive end N. Carolina St.

If the updating is throughout the draft, it will probably be best to separate (in the first round) the table of already-selecteds from left to selects. 04:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to add this table now, seeing as how Williams is guaranteed to be the first pick? --Maxamegalon2000 02:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

Could someone please block the user vandalising this page and help restore it. I can't remember all the players' names so can someone please help. Fableheroesguild 21:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page Status[edit]

Someone please make it so that only an administrator can edit the page. It has been sunject to vandalism today.CubsFan2006 21:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that only an admisitrator should to stop vandalism, go for it. I'm sick of editing it and missing the joke edits, so I look like the perpetrator. How about making it to where only user and not anonymous users can edit it since the two I caught and tried to block were both anonymous. Fableheroesguild 21:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should definitely be restriced, as it had just become. These unregistered users are messing everything up. --Wizardman 22:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can registered users that aren't admin. still edit it? Fableheroesguild 22:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it appears as if the semi-protection has dissapeared. --D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?) 23:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems as if I just found this thread. Nonetheless, as I am the admin who removed the semi-protection, let me go ahead and explain. Semi-protection prohibits anonymous users and users who recently created user names from editing. Looking at the history of this page, there were many users who fit in one of those two categories that were editing this page. As this is a wiki, the concept is for everyone to be able to edit. Now, I can understand your frustration. It is rather annoying when there are people constantly blanking the page or adding nonsense to the article. But well, for every person who vandalized this article, there seemed to be a good edit. Nonetheless, blocking out every good edit made by those anonymous editors would likely be a bad message to send, and the likelihood of those editors sticking around on Wikipedia would be quite low. A first impression is key, and thus, it is important that Wikipedia continues to gain new users. Pepsidrinka 04:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linking school names[edit]

Can we make it a convention for this page that a school name is linked only for the first player to get drafted from it? Especially since the pages don't link to the respective programs' athletic pages or anything at all relevant like that, it seems like a lot of unnecessary links.70.81.4.74 16:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles[edit]

We should limit the articles created for people in the middle forth round and later as they have less of a chance of making it into the pros. Create when they make the roster. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 17:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should we move the U. of Miami trivia below the actual rounds?[edit]

While it's notable sports trivia, it doesn't really seem to have the gravity or importance to be listed above the actual draft rounds (which are the meat of this encyclopedic article). Actually, I think the Miami comment should be reduced to a bullet in a new "trivia" section. -- Bobak 18:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome[edit]

I just wanna say how awesome it is that once in a while, we beat NFL.com and ESPN.com! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brun8 (talk • contribs) .

Actually, Mr. "I'm too cool to sign my comments", this page was almost always updated before either of those or Yahoo! Sports was. Very well done to the men and women who took on this task. Danthemankhan 04:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, it's over. I second Danthemankhan's compliments. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 04:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seperated Days[edit]

I seperated the two days (Rounds 1 through 3 on Saturday and Rounds 4 through 7 on Sunday) and added a note on Herman Edwards' compansation of the 4th round pick from the Chiefs to the Jets to allow him to join the Chiefs as head coach. NoseNuggets 5:18 PM US EDT Apr 30 2006.

I eliminated the notation for the two days -- I found it not necessary, and proved for another uneccessary heading. If readers really want to find out how the draft operates (how many days, where it's held, etc.) in general, they should see NFL Draft. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 04:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations![edit]

Great job everyone for making this article a featured list! Give yourself a pat on the back. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 19:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Highlighting Pro Bowlers?[edit]

What do you guys think of the idea of highlighting (with a color box) players that ended up being pro bowlers? Chaldean 02:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting idea, and I like it. If no one else objects for the next couple of days, then I say we should implement it, and probably apply to 2007 NFL Draft. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well 2007 NFL Draft wont be appliable until another year :D Chaldean 03:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For now, I think it's a pretty good idea, so long as they're all complete (which I can help on if necessary, i've done tedious nfl draft tasks before).--Wizardman 03:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well what I've done is gone to the 2007 Pro Bowl page and have noted every player and highlighted then in their respective drafts. If we follow this method - pro bowl by pro bowl - then we should get the vast majority of them. Chaldean 04:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2007 NFL Draft is well on its way to becoming a FL -- well sourced (*cough* thanks to me) and very detailed. The shading will be something to look forward to and complement the rest of the FL. Until then, it's time to get some sleep or something, and prepare for tomorrow! If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done This suggestion has long since been implemented (not necessarily by me). — DeeJayK (talk) 19:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NFL Team Names[edit]

Every other draft's page has each team's names in every round, and not just the first. Right now, the second round on merely reads "Denver" or "Seattle" and so on. The other pages, like this year's (2009 NFL Draft) would include "Broncos" or "Seahawks" beyond just the first round. Shouldn't this be uniform? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.232.95.188 (talk) 07:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should, but that's the problem with systemic bias -- the whims of editors usually guide what gets done where. That being said, if you're that interested by it, you should edit the page and make it so! While that's probably not the answer you want to hear, the only way for it to get done is if someone does it. Good luck! If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 09:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


 Done This suggestion was implemented when we switched this article to the new format (using templates). — DeeJayK (talk) 18:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Implementing change to draft table[edit]

I am currently working in my sandbox on implementing the changes I've made to the 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 draft articles. The changes consist primarily of replacing the existing tables with a single table supported by 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) 21:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The change described is (finally) complete and re-integrated into this article. Please let me know if you have any concerns about the changes that were made.— DeeJayK (talk) 14:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2006 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:

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) 17:22, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2006_NFL_draft&oldid=1204843532"