Talk:2017 NFL season

Free agency moves
I am suggesting reformatting the free agency moves paragraph into table format to make it more readable. Any views:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Legis (talk • contribs) 20:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose – The current format has been working fine for years. No need to change it now. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 20:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, the ship has sailed on this one now, but I am not sure "we have always done it the other way in the past" is necessarily a sound argument. That is just an argument for never trying to improve anything. Advantages of a table format are, firstly, tables are a much less cumbersome way to present the data. And secondly, it allows the data to be sorted quickly by either (i) position, (ii) free agents lost by a team, or (iii) free agents signed by a team. On any view that has to be an improvement in functionality for the article. A solid paragraph of continuous prose (like we have now) with the same information is just unhelpful. But let's discuss again ahead of time for the 2018 season. --Legis (talk - contribs) 16:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Please keep this article at High importance
Throughout the season, I've seen IPs change the importance of this page to "Top" without edit summary, and I'd like to clarify the assessment the WikiProject uses for those not in the know:
 * High importance - Articles that fall just short of being vital in the understanding of the subject as a whole. This should include articles on individual league seasons; articles on individual Super Bowls, league championship games and playoff years, defunct franchises and general articles on topics central to the league.
 * Top importance - Reserved exclusively for articles that are vital to the understanding of the National Football League. This should include any articles or lists on the general topic of the league, articles on current franchises and articles that cover topics that are central to the history of the league.

With that in mind, the 2017 season is not vital to the understanding of the league as a whole. Please do not change this without discussion. I'd also like to ask that regular users of the page keep an eye out for this behavior in the future. Thanks.jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk &bull;&#32;contribs) 00:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Colin Kaepernick
There's no source yet to indicate Kaepernick retired. Please stop adding it in! jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk &bull;&#32;contribs) 23:59, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Question about 2017 playoff seedings
2607:FCC8:8D01:C800:B922:BB62:1046:8A3 (talk) 05:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)Hi, I have a question about playoff seedings. If Kansas City and Jacksonville both finish with 10-6 records, which team will get the AFC’s Number 3 seed?2607:FCC8:8D01:C800:B922:BB62:1046:8A3 (talk) 05:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Jacksonville and Kansas City are your 3 and 4 seeds, respectively, no matter what. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetsarivan iv (talk • contribs) 05:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That doesn't answer anything!!!--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 09:34, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

This must mean that Jacksonville already must hold a tiebreaker over Kansas City. Since the two teams did not play head to head this season, what tiebreaker would give Jacksonville the #3 seed?2607:FCC8:8D01:C800:DCCA:CEC5:7026:3A43 (talk) 07:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thetsarivan iv could not answer, why Jacksonville is number 3, so I do: Jac has a better conference record than KC.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 09:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Question about Minnesota clinching first round bye scenarios
Wouldn’t Minnesota be guaranteed a first round bye if they lost but the Saints lost, not won, their game? I think someone made a mistake.2607:FCC8:8D01:C800:DCCA:CEC5:7026:3A43 (talk) 07:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No, that's correct, because Minnesota have beaten New Orleans and LA Rams, but have lost to Carolina.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 09:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

- it seems to me, the IP is right, this is not in the NFL-source, so we cannot write it in the article, but let's think about it anyway. If the Rams win and Carolina wins, the head-to-head-results of Minnesota against Carolina and LA would not count, because Carolina did not play LA. So the conference records will decide and Minnesota will have the best record here!--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 13:32, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * - ah, yes :-) --Anaxagoras13 (talk) 20:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
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 23:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)