Talk:2006–07 NFL playoffs

Seattle thrashed the Giants, hence they would have the higher seeding in playoffs. NoseNuggets 12:47 PM US EST Nov 22 2006.

Seedings...

 * Since Kansas City Chiefs split the head-to-head with Denver Broncos, the division record determines who is better in the division. Since Kansas City has a better division record, they go up against the other 3 division 7-5 teams to determine Wild Card. Since Kansas City comes in last out of the 4, that puts Denver behind Kansas City, even though Denver has a 4-2 Conference record. Figgie123 14:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Until all teams are officially Mathematically eliminated they should all be included in still alive. Thus I added the AFC teams at 6-7, who could still finish 9-7, while current wild cards could flop to 8-8, It's happened 1996 Jacksonville was 4-7, finished 9-7 and then went all the way to the AFC Championship game losing to New England.  I also added San Francisco at 5-8, they could finish 8-8 and current NFC wildcard teams can still finish 7-9.Vinnyxvincent 05:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Important Games
What is the criteria for determining "important games" for the last few weeks of the season? Unless you cite some sources from news sites, it look more like original research. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thats Because it is Original Resource from NFL.com. Don't think about deleting the section as which it greatly helps the article. Since it will change every week, I'll add the template that says It will change fast over the next weeks.-Kings bibby win 22:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If that is the case, please actually cite the links to the specific news articles from NFL.com listing these important games. Without any citations to references, it looks like it is original research on your part. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Otherwise, I am going to modify the list so that it shows "remaining games in which both teams are still in playoff contention". Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It's already on their. -Kings bibby win 05:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, who's reverting?
Please stop. I'm trying to update as fast as I can, and I see someone's reverting them. NoseNuggets 8:09 PM US EST Dec. 17 2006.

Standings
Who keeps changing the tables in the Standings section? They are a lot less attractive and clean than the tables that were there before, and they are very inconsistent with the current tables that are on articles pertaining to previous NFL seasons. Please change them back the way they were. Thank you. Manningmbd 05:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

NFC Bracket is Wrong /So is AFC
It states that the current winner of the Dallas Seattle game would play New Orleans, when that winner would in fact play Chicago.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.98.134.66 (talk) 17:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC).


 * Actually, the winner of the Dallas vs Seattle game doesn't automatically play either New Orleans or Chicago. It's based on both wild card game winners to determine who plays. It's the 3 vs 6 game that is more determined. If the 3 seeds wins, they play New Orleans, if the 6 seed wins, they play Chicago. Based on that, Dallas/Seattle plays the other team. Figgie123 16:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The AFC bracket is wrong too. I added a note that explains this.  After Wild Card Weekend is over, we can fix the brackets if the home teams in the key games win, and remove my note.  It occurs to me that something is broken in the bracket template itself to have gotten both of these wrong -- in a normal tournament, the seeding would show the 3/6 winner going to the 2 seed, and the 4/5 winner facing #1.  The Monster 01:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If possible it would be clearer to remove the lines "tying" the bye teams to their hypothetical opponent.  But the note is a good addition. - PhilipR 01:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The bracket template on this article is used on other topics besides NFL playoffs articles, so that would not be a good option unless you are willing to modify templates tagged with esoteric. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's sort of what I thought. If I were more literate in MediaWiki syntax I might try adding a parameter for it. - Regards, ~`
 * But the template isn't even accurate for those other topics - it's got the 3 seed paired against 1, and 2 against 4, which is not how tournaments are normally seeded. The Monster 18:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Couldn't we rejigger NHLBracket for six teams instead of eight? The first round is disconnected from the second round to allow the "crossover" if the 6th seed wins. It is even color coded consistent with the AFC and NFC. Refer to 2006 Stanley Cup Playoffs for a finished bracket. Although not important, it would create a consistent look. Not that I'm volunteering; I'm just sayin' :) &mdash;Twigboy 20:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I see someone arbitrarily threw Seattle against New Orleans. I changed it to show both possibilities that are open until the NYG/PHI game tomorrow.  Once that game's done, we can assign the right place in the bracket for Seattle, and take out the explanation below. The Monster 04:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Now I see that an unsigned editor completely changed the bracket, making it look nothing like recent years' brackets. I have reverted it back to the condition it was in before.  Before anyone changes it back again, please look at recent years' playoff brackets.  There is a certain style that was used in them, using the city names of the teams (except for NYJ and NYG).  The discussion we've been having here is helping to refine how we present the bracket for this 're-seeded' format.  The Template:NFLBracket that Zzyzx11 so thoughtfully created is a great start. Following the suggestions above, I've been playing in my own sandbox with trying to make it even better.  Going back to a generic '4-round' bracket undoes the work we've done here. The Monster 04:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

CHIEFS ARE GOING TO PLAYOFF
Broncos lost against 49ers. I tried to change, but I couldn't.. Holy crap hurry up and change
 * And they're out before anyone noticed. Good run though. :P 75.34.23.204 20:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's keep the idiocy off this site.
Whoever changed Chargers to Losers. Get a life and stay off the site.

Casino17 23:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Giants & Jets
Looks like it's going to be a sleepnes night for NY Football fans, both teams are out. BuickCenturyDriver 07:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent vandalism
Based on recent vandalism from various anonymous IP addresses, I removed all instances of Template:Linescore Amfootball from yet-to-be-played games. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Bracket Needs to be Changed
Someone please flip the bracket around so that the AFC is on the bottom and the NFC is on the top. The Super Bowl is being played in an AFC stadium, so the team representing the AFC will be the home team. Thanks. Manningmbd 04:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The Super Bowl is played at a neutral site every year, as evidenced by the fact that one end zone is painted for each team. It's been hard work getting the bracket template customized for the NFL as it is, without having to have separate templates for alternate years.  For what it's worth, the NFC champion this year is technically considered to be the 'home' team for the purposes of uniform choice and coin toss.  The Monster 04:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Since the AFC was the home team in Super Bowl XL (although the Steelers did choose to wear white), I flipped the bracket on NFL playoffs, 2005-06 instead. We do not need separate templates, just use Meta:ParserFunctions#if Zzyzx11 (Talk) 12:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see any '#if' in that template, but the technique you used certainly works with the named parameters, without having to resort to the #if. As you know, I've been trying to learn from what you did with the template so far, with an eye toward mitigating some of the resizing of other rounds' boxes when the date/location overflows a line.  Thanks for the pointer; it's really going to help me learn how to make intelligent templates.The Monster 17:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I've updated Zzyzx11's Template:NFLBracket to address the confusion we had here during the Wild Card weekend. Now the lines between the wild card and divisional games will be solid once a visiting seed number is filled in for at least one divisional game in the conference, and dotted if not, and does some space optimizations. See the talk page there for details.The Monster 14:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

SfD: "See also (team season pages)"
This is superfluous. All 12 teams have links on the page already to the team pages, whence one additional click gets to the season page for that team. None of the other NFL playoff pages have this. Unless there's an objection to it, I'll remove the section. If there's some consensus for keeping the links around in some format, I'd rather see either the links in the Bracket changed to point to the season rather than the team, or the Seed table at the top of the page could be modified to do so. The latter would also require changing the template that the 8-division playoffs have been based on the last few years, and therefore those yearly pages. I've done a test on my user pages to confirm how this can be done with the addition of one parameter to the template, and volunteer to implement it across all of the 8-division playoff articles if that's the consensus.The Monster 05:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Modifying Template:NFL seeds 2002- currently will not work entirely since every single possible team season page has not been created yet. When someone creates 2002 Oakland Raiders season, 2002 Atlanta Falcons season, 2002 San Francisco 49ers season, 2003 Dallas Cowboys season etc. maybe we'll talk. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 12:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Then that option is off the table. Any preferences on changing the bracket links to point to the teams' seasons rather than the team pages?The Monster 17:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Research/ Citing Sources
This page sites sources at the bottom but is lacking specific citations. As you write entries, put your sources with it. Add sources as needed to past entries.Benje309 23:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Some of those look like sources I added, but someone else decided to remove. At this point I'm not going to bother trying to add them back and get in a revert war.The Monster 03:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Images uploaded 2007-01-15
I saw that three images (Image:NFL-PO_6510.gif,Image:NFL-PO_6511.gif, and Image:NFL-PO_6512.gif) were uploaded and added to this article, by the same user. In each case, an existing image, occupying roughly a third the space of the new image, was already on the servers. I have replaced the references here to point to the smaller images, but frankly I'm not sure enough of the fair use rules to know whether they should be here at all. The Monster 03:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Those images do not comply with rule #3 of WP:FUC since these images have a higher resolution than the existing ones. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

2007 NFL Draft
Should Baltimore be 27 and San Diego be 28 since they're eliminated? Kingjeff 04:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No, except for the Super Bowl participants, everyone gets their draft picks by record. Whammies Were Here (PYLrulz) 18:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Bracket
Who screwed up the bracket? Whoever did, please fix it. Manningmbd 15:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Manningmbd 13:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

scores
WOW! whoever predicted those scores while the colts-pats game was going on, must be a pretty good predictor! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thejedi3 (talk • contribs) 04:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Starting Quarterbacks...

 * Why do we need the starting quarterbacks as statistics? Can we add starting nose-tackle too? How about opening kick kicker? Looks like 64.30.84.199 (contribs) has added them to all playoff articles back to 1971. Way more than half of this IP's edits have been for starting quarterbacks, and all over the span of 2 days. Figgie123 22:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Sectioned dates on Conference Championship
Are they really needed to be a level higher the score? Can't they be placed on one level 2 header? -- Howard  the   Duck  14:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)