Talk:2008 NFL draft/Archive 1

Number of Players
Why is this saying that there are 252 picks? Every draft since 2004 has had 255. I believe it's included in the collective bargaining agreement. Bonus compensatory picks are allocated to the worst teams to get up to 255. The only thing I'm not sure about is whether that includes the picks the NFL forfeited (from New England and San Francisco) as punishment. Even so, that would be 253.67.53.85.231 (talk) 17:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems to me it should actually be 251: 2008 NFL Draft.► Chris Nelson Holla! 17:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No, supplemental picks happen every year. Ahmad Brooks was drafted in the supplemental draft by the Bengals in 2006. They forfeited the pick in 2007, and the draft was still 255 picks long.Zhinz (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Update, I figured this out. According to, The Draft shall consist of seven rounds, with each round consisting of the same number of selection choices as there will be Clubs in the NFL the following League Year, plus a maximum number of additional Compensatory Draft Selections equal to the number of Clubs then in the League , with such Compensatory Draft Selections reserved for Clubs losing certain Unrestricted Free Agents. So that's a maximum of 32 compensatory picks. So that's 256 picks minus the 4 that have been forfeited.Zhinz (talk) 00:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's 252 this year (as of 4/1/08). It's 7x32 + 32 - whatever picks are forfeited; it just happens that 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 each had exactly one pick forfeited, which is why it was 255 in each of those years. Samer (talk) 13:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Tiebreaker Draft Order
Also, can someone explain what's going on with the teams tied with the same record in the later rounds? If I'm reading it correctly, the team that picks first among tied teams moves to the end of the tie in the next round. So in the first round it goes Atlanta, Oakland, Kansas City, New York Jets; in the second it goes Oakland, Kansas City, New York Jets, Atlanta; in the third it's Kansas City, New York Jets, Atlanta, Oakland. That seems to be what it's doing. But what's going on with the 10-6 teams? Not counting trades, they go Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Tennessee, Seattle, Jacksonville in the first round. So it seems like the 2nd round should go Pittsburgh, Tennessee, Seattle, Jacksonville, Cleveland. Instead, you've got Pittsburgh, Tennessee, Seattle, Cleveland, San Diego, Jacksonville. First off, why would San Diego be in there? They finished 11-5. Second, the order doesn't match. I can't find any official source that lists the 2nd (or later) draft order, but maybe I'm understanding it wrong.Zhinz (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Jacksonville was 11-5, not 10-6. Samer (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Prospects
This page deserves a prospect list to showcase athletes that will be available for this draft. While several prospects could be speculated by fans of that school, I have provided several prospects that are consensus 2008 draft picks by various media sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WildManKY (talk • contribs) 09:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Draft table
I'm including below the "draft order" table that appears post-season, pre-draft. Figure it would make sense to get it ready to go. (Again, the point is that this lists the original, pre-trade, pre-modification list (i.e., all 32 teams are listed, exactly once each). Samer (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Determining the draft order
The draft order is generally based on each team's regular season record, as follows:


 * 1) The winners of Super Bowl XLII will pick last; the losers will pick second to last (#31).
 * 2) Remaining teams are sorted by regular season record, with worse records picking first, regardless of playoff status.
 * 3) For teams with the same record, teams that fail to make the playoffs always pick before teams that earned playoff berths.
 * 4) For teams that failed to make the playoffs, remaining ties are broken by strength of schedule. (In the NFL, a team's strength of schedule is the combined records of its 16 opponents, including games played against the team in question, and counting teams against which the team played two games twice.  Because of this, each team's opponents' combined wins and losses will add up to 256, so a team whose opponents had more combined wins has a better strength of schedule.  For draft order, a lower strength of schedule results in an earlier pick.) If strength of schedule does not resolve a tie, records within a division and/or conference may be used. If the tie still cannot be broken, a coin toss is used to determine draft order.
 * 5) For teams that make the playoffs, ties are broken by the order in which teams lost in the playoffs. If teams lost in the same round, strength of schedule is applied.

The table below is divided into "bands." In subsequent rounds, the picks will cycle within each band, the relative order within each band remaining the same as it did in the first round. For example, in the 8-8 band, the order for the second round is Minnesota, Houston, Philadelphia, and then Arizona.

Please note this table does not give the actual current order of the first round; see below for that list.

Original research
IanManka, I think it was very improper of you to delete most of the article. While it was not properly cited, it would have been better to issue a warning that citations were necessary. A large portion of what you deleted was not original research, it just wasn't properly cited.

A further debate is if your changes do go forward, what is permitted to be a proper source? Limiting the options to news services will make this article practically void of content, while permitting soucing of NFL draft-themed sites will allow the previous version of this page to practically reappear in its entiredy. -PopePeterII

STOP REMOVING JACOB TAMME FROM THE TIGHT END POSITION!!! Just take a look at the videos here on the 2008 ESPN Draft page: http://sports-ak.espn.go.com/nfl/draft08/index. Also, here's an article from Scout, one of the most respectable college and professional sites out there: http://nflexperts.scout.com/2/671677.html. Mel Kiper has him in his Top 5 for the tight end position, but you can't see that because it's premium content! WildManKY 05:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Alphabetical Order - Prospects
What happened to alphabetical order? The article states that the prospects will be presented as such, which they clearly are not. --209.12.46.2 14:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This article is a mess of unsourced claims and statements. As soon as I get a chance, I will clean up the mess of players that have been added without consensus. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 07:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

First round order--why I deleted it
Basically, the information is still significantly in flux, AND much of the information that was presented was incorrect. (For example, the claim that the Buffalo/Denver tie was resolvable is just plain wrong.)

Once the Titans-Colts game is over, it will be possible to cut and paste the appropriate tables above. Samer (talk) 02:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Picks for SB winner/loser
I worded the sentence the way I did so that it will NOT need constant re-editing. Saying "The SB winner picks #31 and the loser picks #30" is not necessarily correct, since, if the Pats reach the Super Bowl, the NFC representative, win or lose, picks #31. Similarly, if Indy reaches the SB, the 49ers "have" the last/second to last pick. Samer (talk) 12:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Kickers
Where are the kickers coming from? I looked through the references and couldn't find them mentioned. Last year, 3 kickers and 3 punters were taken. The prior year, 2 of each were taken. The article currently lists 12 kickers and 10 punters. Where are all of the names coming from? --B (talk) 05:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Draft order as of ...
Well, we were down this road last year, and I really think that showing the selection order before the conclusion of the playoffs is misleading. Yes, there is a hatnote that says it's contingent on the playoffs, but our table (to the reader) seems to contradict that. A table, by design, draws the reader's attention first, so even though there is a six-paragraph disclaimer at the beginning, an editor shouldn't expect the reader to wade through that first. Plus, showing the teams ranked as they are is too CBALLish, as it presumes to know where teams are finishing, based on skipping ahead to tiebreaker step #2. It is just as troublesome as the "if the season ended today" playoff seedings&mdash;well, that if would never happen, so you are eliminating significant factors from that scenario. I think TBD would suffice, especially since they are ordered based on the second tiebreak. Or as we did last year, show ranges to illustrate the potential variance in order.&mdash;Twigboy (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's really WP:CBALL; even the NFL uses the fiction that Indy and NE currently have the last two picks in each round. In any case, I added a note to that effect, but put the #s back in. Samer (talk) 06:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Fourth round order
I really don't care for the arguments over when the fourth round should be added, etc. In any case, this should be the order. Samer (talk) 14:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Boldface
Someone removed the boldfacing of playoff teams from the first table. I restored it, since using bold to indicate 'winning' teams has become a WP standard (see the NFL season pages, for example). It seems the simplest way to highlight those teams, rather than introduce additional symbols, add an unnecessary column to the table, or add additional colors. Samer (talk) 14:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Pick sources
I don't think it's necessary to source every single pick, but I do think it's reasonable to provide sources for any picks made prior to the official start of the draft. Samer (talk) 18:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Trades: pre-draft v. in-draft
Given how many trades have happened this year before the draft, I think it'd be useful to differentiate between trades that happen prior to the start of the draft, and ones that happen during the draft itself. I don't have any particular method in mind of indicating it, but I'd like it to not involve saying the same thing over and over again. For example, we could use boldface (or asterisks, or something) to indicate the team that held a traded pick at the start of the draft (especially since some picks may change hands both before the draft and during).

To use an example from last year:

Samer (talk) 17:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Sounds good to me.  RC-0722 247.5/ 1  17:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Trade citation links
PFT is not considered a reputable source for WP purposes; moreover, the links do not provide the information they purport to provide (i.e., details of the indicated trades), and there is no reason not to just cite the thing once. Samer (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Jake Long
He has not officially been drafted yet. Should we remove him from the list until then? Or would WP:SNOW kick in as they have officially signed him? Smartyllama (talk) 13:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ya, this qualifies under WP:SNOW.  Grsz  talk  17:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought. but now, ESPN is reporting that Chris Long will go 2nd, and McFadden 4th. Should we add those before it is official?
 * Those certainly aren't official. While the Rams could sign Long in the next 90 minutes, we have no guarantee they'll take him now.  Grsz  talk  17:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * They can't sign him until he's drafted.  Pats 1  T / C  18:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Prospect table
Should we include when they're drafted?  Grsz  talk  17:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter; the table will be deleted after anyways.  Pats 1  T / C  17:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is true.  Grsz  talk  17:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Though --> via
All of the other sports use 'via' when a team trades a future pick, or a player pick to another team that passes it along as well, when featured in a draft page such as this, so why is it "though" here, not "via?" Basketball110 My story/Tell me yours 01:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Featured list?
Anyone up for making this article a featured list? Have there already been any plans to make it one? If we are interested in making it a FL, I suggest we follow as much as possible the format of 2007 NFL Draft, which is already one. BlueAg09 (Talk) 23:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That may be true, but I think (as noted above) there are improvements that can be made to the format; slavish imitation for consistency's sake is not a good thing. Samer (talk) 14:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Kudos
Kudos to all who had a hand in creating/updating the 2008 NFL draft page; it's very clean, informative and overall impressive. Overboard (talk) 18:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Fewest punters drafted?
With only Durant Brooks drafted, is this the year where there has the least number of punters drafted, or has there been a year where no kicker or punter got drafted?TimHowardII (talk) 10:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:National Football League 2008.svg
The image Image:National Football League 2008.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --01:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)