Talk:2015 NFL season

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

Inclusion of Dick LeBeau[edit]

I do agree with Zzyzx11 in that it could set a dangerous precedent, and most coordinators shouldn't be listed. But I do think somewhere there should be some mention of Dick LeBeau being forced out of the Steelers due to his many contributions to the team and the NFL in general. Honestly, not a lot of coordinators in today's NFL log in 13 seasons with one team, the last 11 continuously. Any thoughts on this? Jgera5 (talk) 04:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, IMO with that arbitrary criteria you're just inviting other editors to add every other coordinator that resigns or is fired, no matter how "greater in notability" you think LeBeau was. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I am going to also agree that he should not be listed. It not only sets a precedent, but by the end of the week, there could be a ton of editors adding not only coordinators, but assistant coaches, etc. Chambr (talk) 19:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the information to the Steelers 2015 season page, hopefully that's a good compromise for everyone involved. Jgera5 (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beware of NFL schedule leaks[edit]

April is usually the month that the NFL releases the schedule for an upcoming season. However, more often than not, there will be articles that either speculate on or reveal schedule leaks that turn out to be erroneous.

BEWARE of schedule leaks — DON'T even waste your time reading articles that come from forum/blogger sites or unreliable sources, including Bleacher Report, Huffington Post and SB Nation.

NFL spokesman Greg Aiello, ProFootballTalk's Mike Florio and NFL insider Adam Schefter often have accurate and trustworthy information, however, it's better to just wait until an OFFICIAL schedule release announcement is made on NFL.com, which we can expect sometime within the bottom half of April. Last year's schedule (2014) was released on April 23. The regular season schedule is usually released one week before the draft, so we can expect the schedule to be unveiled by no later than the week of April 20–24. DPH1110 (talk) 18:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)DPH1110[reply]

Definitely, DPH1110. Those unreliable sources are a waste of time. When the schedule is officially released, I will work hard into getting that filled in to this article. Feel free to help me out also. Fresh Sullivan (talk) 01:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Fresh Sullivan: I am definitely planning that, though it is A LOT of time-consuming and mentally-exhausting work. It's not just the schedules tables, there are also hidden weekly game capsules on all 32 teams season articles — I plan to fill in the networks, dates and times, as well as arrange them in the order of which they appear on the schedule, once the schedule is unveiled, though the weekly game capsules will remain hidden until the season begins. It was about three years ago, that a schedule that we all thought was leaked early turned out to be phony. I have to admit that I got duped into thinking that the schedule had been leaked, until NFL spokesman Greg Aiello stated that it was phony. Since then, I will ONLY go to NFL.com for an official schedule release announcement (later this month). DPH1110 (talk) 06:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)DPH1110[reply]

Controversies[edit]

Surprisingly, there is no mention of the controversies involving the New England Patriots (Deflategate), Cleveland Browns (sideline texting) or Atlanta Falcons (artificial crowd noise). DPH1110 (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)DPH1110[reply]

Would this be the right article for them, or would 2014 be more appropriate, since that is when the events actually occurred? Frank AnchorTalk 19:24, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that since the punishments for these were meted out in 2015 some mention of them is definitely appropriate to this article. I've added a short synopsis of the Deflategate scandal in the "Notable events" section. Please feel free to add info on the other controversies here as well. — DeeJayK (talk) 15:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of controversies (particularly in light of CTE in NFL players), I'm wondering if the subject of Case Keenum getting a concussion during the Week 11 game, and being left in to play despite the NFL's new concussion protocols. Swilliamrex (talk) 01:58, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Standings templates[edit]

Is there a particular reason we're not using the 2015 NFC West standings, 2015 AFC North standings, etc. templates in the Standings section?  — TORTOISEWRATH 03:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this was corrected.  — TORTOISEWRATH 03:48, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chancellor holdout in "Notable events" section[edit]

A short paragraph I recently added regarding the 2-game holdout of Kam Chancellor was stuck from the article by another editor with an explanation that the holdout is "not really notable" for this article. Obviously, I disagree with this assessment, but I'd like to solicit some feedback on the matter from other editors. The reasons I feel this holdout bears mentioning are:

  1. Chancellor is a key member of the Seahawks defense and one can argue that his absence has been felt in their first two games
  2. The Seahawks were regarded by most as a preseason favorite and so the fact that they currently have an 0–2 record may end up being significant
  3. Holdouts extending into the regular season are rare events (which rareness adds to their notability) — the last one I can recall off the top of my head is Sean Gilbert's way back in 1997.

Given all that, do you feel a brief (2-3 sentence) mention of this holdout is relevant to this article?

EDIT: For clarity in the discussion, here is the content I had added to the "Notable events" section (along with a citation):

Kam Chancellor holdout

Seattle Seahawks Pro Bowl strong safety Kam Chancellor failed to report to the team for off-season activities and training camp due to dissatisfaction with his compensation. The team was unwilling to renegotiate his contract which has three years remaining, through the 2017 season. The holdout extended into the regular season with Chancellor missing the team's first two games, both Seahawks losses. Chancellor agreed to rejoin the team prior to the season's third week.

— DeeJayK (talk) 17:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a holdout concerning the National Football League. It was a holdout concerning the Seattle Seahawks. It belongs on their 2015 article, not the NFL's 2015 article. Unless Roger Goodell hands down a suspension or whatever against Kam Chancellor, it's not something that counts as an NFL notable event.--Nascar king 17:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's an arbitrary standard. The Seahawks are a part of the NFL, so if it's notable for the team it's potentially notable for the league. — DeeJayK (talk) 17:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We don't list other holdouts. Why is this one special?--Nascar king 18:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What "other holdouts" are you referring to? It's special because there are no other holdouts. — DeeJayK (talk) 18:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about past holdouts in past years. We've never documented those.--Nascar king 18:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In case you haven't noticed the scope of this series of articles has been expanded significantly over the past few years. The "Notable events" section in which this sort of item naturally falls was introduced only with the 2013 NFL season article. Since that time, there have been NO holdouts which extended into the regular season to my knowledge and certainly none that involved a player of Chancellor's stature. Simply because previous articles are lacking in detail should not be a valid argument to exclude this relevant (IMHO) detail from this article. — DeeJayK (talk) 18:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A player holdout only affects the team for which he plays. It doesn't affect the NFL as a whole.--Nascar king 18:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That logic makes NO sense. A team is a sub-set of the NFL, so anything that impacts a team also impacts the NFL. Also, Chancellor was absent for two games in which the Seahawks played other teams and to the extent that his absence had an impact on the outcomes of those games, it impact the records of those other two teams. — DeeJayK (talk) 18:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kam Chancellor's absence only affected the Seattle Seahawks. It didn't affect the St. Louis Rams or the Green Bay Packers. If one player's holdout affects a team for whom he doesn't play, then we might as well say Jordy Nelson's IR listing affected the Chicago Bears and the Seahawks.--Nascar king 18:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jordy Nelson's absence absolutely had a potential impact on the outcome of the Packers games and to the extent it did it certainly impacted the Packers' opponents. And to the extent that Nelson's injury (or Dez Bryant's, or Romo's) impacts the outcome of the standings I would argue that it is notable to the NFL season. To that end, I would be supportive of including a brief list of major season-impacting injuries in this article as well. Similarly, to the extent that Chancellor's holdout impacted the result of the Seahawks' games, it most certainly impacted the seasons' (or at least the records) of their opponents. To argue otherwise is ridiculous on its face. To me, the primary point of this article is to serve as a snapshot that captures the major events in this season. I imagine a reader consulting this article 10 or more years in the future to try to glean the major storylines of the day. IMHO the holdout into the season of a Pro Bowl-caliber player would be significant and if the reader thinks otherwise, he can skim right past the paragraph. However, we're not really resolving anything here, so I'll disengage as I wait for other editors to offer their opinions. — DeeJayK (talk) 19:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We can't include "major" injuries either. What would make them major is if that team was expected to be good this season. That line of reasoning violates WP:CRYSTALBALL. This would also apply to Kam Chancellor's holdout. There's no way to know if him being with the team during their first two games would've changed the outcome because that's not what happened.--Nascar king 19:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In order to avoid sidetracking this discussion I want to make it clear that I am not advocating the addition of a list of injuries. However, I'm confused as to why you are asserting that such a list would necessarily be limited to players from "good" teams. I certainly never implied such a limit would be imposed or welcomed. If such a list were to be appended, my suggestion would be that there would be specific guidelines for inclusion (e.g. any starting player who missed over eight games) which would NOT include the team's record or any projection of what that team's record might have been absent the injury. So, please, lets put aside this discussion of an injury list and refocus back on the Chancellor holdout. I'm not arguing that this information is relevant to this article primarily because of any speculation regarding the team's chances of success this season, but merely that the holdout is relevant beyond the scope of the Seahawks and notable due to the rarity of player holdouts in the recent past. — DeeJayK (talk) 20:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I just think the Kam Chancellor holdout pertains to just the Seahawks and not the NFL.--Nascar king 20:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To remain consistent with your logic, it seems as though you would advocate removing the entire section covering coaching changes since those also impact only a single team. Similarly, to apply your logic consistently we should also remove the New uniforms and patches section. And then there's the NFL relocation candidates section, surely we should excise that as well, since those items pertain only to one particular team. Looks like your work here is just beginning. — DeeJayK (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since a franchise relocation can't take place without the approval of 28 of the 31 other NFL franchise owners and it could affect division alignment, that's something that affects the entire NFL. NFL coaches often go from one franchise to another, so that does directly affect more than one team. I can agree that uniforms and patches – unless it's something directly related to something the NFL is doing – probably don't belong on the main page here. We've obviously reached a stasis with this argument. So let's just leave it here and wait for others to chime in.--Nascar king 21:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let's say if Tom Brady held out, we'd most definitely add him here without controversy. On the other hand, if he only held out 2 games, that's pretty minor, and one player on a team of 53 doesn't hold that much weight (Pats went 11-5 without Brady in 2008). I guess I agree with Nascarking, this is more of a Seahawk event than a league wide one. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

standings & tiebreakers[edit]

I don't think whoever is updating the conference standings has a 100% understanding of the tiebreaker rules, specifically the rule which states that when several teams are tied, the tie is broken first within the division then across the conference. For example the week 5 AFC standings as I write this... Everything in footnote b is correct, however there is no comment as to what order Pittsburgh and San Diego are in. I believe it should be based on conference record which places San Diego 8th & Pittsburgh 9th. It appears as if whoever made that edit believes that because the division tiebreaker left Buffalo, Oakland, and Pittsburgh tied for 6th that those 3 teams must be 6-8 and anyone else must be 9 or below, but that is not correct. As soon as Oakland is slotted into 8thSan Diego is back in the mix for 9th. Similarly, as soon as Baltimore is slotted into 12th, Cleveland is back in the mix for 13th. I understand this may seem like a minor thing here, but if we're trying to be factually correct we should be 100% correct. NFL.com has the [correct standings], this page does not. I would go ahead and make the corrections myself, but the use of templates has me a bit confused. I can only assume that since the data isn't in the page that the template is pulling it from wikidata, but I'm not familiar enough yet to attempt to mess with that (or edit templates) outside the sandbox, especially on such popular pages.--John, AF4JM (talk) 17:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of points out the folly of trying to apply complex tiebreaker rules when the season is less than a quarter complete. Why not wait to implement the conference standings in this article until the information is actually relevant, i.e. when the season is 80+% complete? Just my two cents. — DeeJayK (talk) 17:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who is ahead in the NFC North? (Vikings and Packers are both 6-2.) The division standings table says it's Minnesota. The conference table says it's Green Bay, but with no explanation of why (which tiebreaker is used). Edit: looks to me like Green Bay should be ahead based on common games (they beat the 49ers, while Minnesota lost to the 49ers). But I'm not 100% confident this is right. Akwdb (talk) 20:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, what difference does it make who is "ahead" at this point? (see my previous comment immediately above). However, if you really want to start applying tie-breakers with just half the season complete, then you are probably correct that the Packers are "ahead" of the Vikings. This is because the two teams have yet to play head-to-head (the 1st tiebreaker), they are both undefeated within the division (the second tie-breaker) and the Packers have a better record in common games (5–1 for the Packers, vs. 4–2 for the Vikings). — DeeJayK (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New York Giants 97th victory over Washington[edit]

According to footballdb.com, Green Bay currently has 97 victories over Detroit: http://www.footballdb.com/teams/nfl/green-bay-packers/opponents

I think this line should be removed. 24.140.233.111 (talk) 02:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AFC Conference Standings Template[edit]

There is some of error with the AFC conference standings template that is causing it to bleed all the way down toward the bottom of all 2015 AFC teams' season articles. There's no issue with the NFC conference standings template or any 2015 NFC team season articles, but there is something odd going on with the AFC conference standings template. DPH1110 (talk) 18:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)DPH1110[reply]

I'm not seeing this on 2015 Pittsburgh Steelers season. Has this been fixed? If not, can you provide an example? I'm not sure I know what you mean by "bleed all the way down toward the bottom." Thanks! — DeeJayK (talk) 20:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's been fixed. Jdavi333 (talk) 20:33, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Standings section is wrong[edit]

All the totals W/L add up to 10 games. That's not right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.26.156 (talk) 23:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Every team has now played 10 games since the bye weeks are done. Sounds right to me. — DeeJayK (talk) 23:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Idea for the NFC/AFC weekly awards section[edit]

Idea some condescending people will dismiss right away for unconstructive reasons: The AFC/NFC weekly awards table has a reference note over each winning player on each column. That reference note leads to either the AFC or the NFC award announcement. It would be more economic and potentially easier (demanding less work), to place the reference to the official nfl announcement in the week column. This way we can save 4 lines every week, make it look cleaner, and less messy in the editing section. I know this isn't a "super" important issue, and I am aware of the work that would have to be done to get the current page (and previous seasons potentially) up to speed. I do offer myself up to do it, or at least the 2015 page. I just feel it is a thing that implemented would increase efficiency in the future. Efficiency, and memory space. I leave this to your consideration and hope you do not dismiss it for any of the reasons mentioned above. - Palantek — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palantek (talk • contribs) 17:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • The problem with this is that the press release from NFL Communications is a different page every week. Jdavi333 (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, well I dont think I specified it correctly then - What I mean is to put both communicates (AFC/NFC) in the week column once per week. To in a way transfer the 6 references from next to the players names to the left and their correspondent week number in the form of 2 references per week, saving 4 lines of text per week. Palantek

Scenarios error[edit]

The play-off scenarios currently state that CIN can still get 1 seed with a win and losses by DEN and NE, but then later says that NE will get 1 seed if DEN lose. These can't both be correct, and I don't want to be the one to use OR to work out common games etc tiebreakers. 2.222.71.129 (talk) 19:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, the Bengals can no longer get the number one seed. I don't know who entered that info, but I've deleted it. Thanks for being on the lookout. Jdavi333 (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Bengals CANNOT clinch the No. 1 seed. Even if the Patriots and Bengals both finish 12–4, their conference records will be equal (each 9–3), but the Patriots will have the better record vs. common opponents — the Patriots went 4–1 vs. BUF, PIT, HOU & DEN, while the Bengals went 2–3 vs. the same four teams. If the Broncos, Patriots and Bengals finish in a three-way tie at 12–4, the Broncos own the head-to-head sweep over the Patriots and Bengals. DPH1110 (talk) 20:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)DPH1110[reply]

Can the Chiefs possibly clinch a first-round bye? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:D3C0:9D00:290C:6EE4:9776:A3F2 (talk) 21:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. If the Chiefs win this week and the Broncos and Bengals both lose, all three will be 11-5. The Chiefs would be the division champion based on division record tiebreaker (5-1 to Denver's 3-3, the two teams split head-to-head). The Bengals beat the Chiefs head-to-head in Week 4, so the Bengals would still be the 2-seed while the Chiefs would be the 3-seed.

Should this article list the regular season results?[edit]

I cannot quite believe I have to even ask this, but apparently there is some doubt as to whether or not listing the regular season results in this article offers "encyclopedic value". I have no idea what that is supposed to mean, but if the question is, does it aid readers in understanding the subject of the article? Then surely the answer is obviously, yes, since the subject is the season. It is baffling to me that the actual results would somehow be considered unimportant, but when compared against some of the utterly trivial minutia that is already included here (in excruciating detail), then the omission of basic information like this is a jarring and glaringly obvious error. But according to Jdavi333, including them breaks some kind of established precedent which would somehow damage Wikipedia if it isn't discussed before including it. Who might have created that precedent or why, I cannot say, and they didn't either. It has also been suggested by Frank Anchor that because the results are listed in the individual team pages, then listing them here is somehow redundant. All I can say to that is, he must have a hell of a lot of time on his hands, as there's no way in hell I, as a reader wanting that information, would waste my time to open 32 individual pages and cross check them all, if all I wanted to know was what happened in Week 5, or whatever. It should be noted that most casual visitors to this page probably wouldn't even be aware that there are individual pages for each team's season, but it is precisely because of that, that my proposed list included a handy link to each game section in those team-season pages, should readers want to know more than just the date and final score for an individual game. You can see the proposed version of the list under "Results" in the old version of the page here [1]. Ricard62 (talk) 20:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC) — Ricard62 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I would very strongly say no. Not only is posting the results of all 256 games an excruciatingly large addition to an already long page, but all of the results can be found on the respective teams' season pages already. And nobody uses Wikipedia to look up results from a given week. The season page should list standings, playoff results, and major news events surrounding the league. I believe that half of this page could be eliminated but this isn't the place for that discussion. Frank AnchorTalk 02:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Records and milestones[edit]

Please stop deleting the records or milestones that will be set on Super Bowl weekend. It's very annoying - Joshua Haralson

Please do not post content without a reliable source, or it will continue to be deleted. Frank AnchorTalk 02:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No one has done that with Wild Card Weekend, Divisional Weekend, or Conference Championship Weekend, so that's inconsistent. So stop eliminating info on just Super Bowl 50 or delete all of the Wild Card, Divisional, and Conference Championship stuff as well. That's your choice - Joshua Haralson

You are welcome to delete unsourced content if you see fit. Frank AnchorTalk 02:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you deleted some stuff so that no records from Wild Card or Conference Championship Weekend show. Fine if you want to have things your way. I tried to give a source of info for all of the Super Bowl Weekend record notes so that you don't delete them anymore. - Joshua Haralson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.108.196.236 (talk) 05:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, I haven't deleted anything that is sourced. With the exception of things that will happen if Carolina wins or if Denver wins. Wikipedia is not a place for speculation. Frank AnchorTalk 13:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on 2015 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: 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) 09:29, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2015 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: 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) 23:32, 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:2015_NFL_season&oldid=1196690084"