Template talk:New England Patriots roster

Alphabetical order
Before editing, please note that the roster is in alphabetical order by last name. it is not grouped by position.--Alhutch 05:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * If you have not noticed, there currently seems to be two versions (and therefore no consensus) of NFL team roster templates on the NFL team pages. For an example of the other version, see on Template:Miami Dolphins roster. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Somebody put a second link to Doug Flutie on this one, I guess not realizing it was in alphabetical order, because they put the second one up next to Tom Brady.--Alhutch 07:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Rodney Harrison Designation...
I'm not certain what the correct designation for Harrison should be right now. But, considering that he's going to be playing this weekend against Cleveland, he should probably be taken off the "Reserve Lists" list. Bjewiki 14:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If I'm not mistaken, the team has to make a roster move to add him to the active roster. I believe the exemption goes away once he's going to play. But Pats1 probably knows better than me.► Chris Nelson Holla! 16:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, someone definitely has to be released. But, considering we know Harrison was practicing with the Pats this week, and is playing on Sunday, we do know that he's back on the active roster and off of the reserve list.  So, he should probably be moved. Bjewiki 17:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If no one has been released, he's not on the active roster.► Chris Nelson Holla! 17:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't believe you can be practicing if you're on the "Reserve List". Bjewiki 17:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Just checked Patriots web site. It shows 54 players on the "Active Roster", so I guess that means that Harrison still falls under the special exemption?  But still, they list him on the active roster. Bjewiki 17:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Right, the Patriots (technically the commissioner) will lift his exemption if they choose for Sunday's game. This isn't anything new, just a technicality most people aren't aware of. Check out all the suspended players coming back (Dominic Rhodes, Torrie Cox, Anthony Hargrove, Ryan Tucker, Fakhir Brown, Jared Allen, and Obafemi Ayanbadejo -- if he wasn't released). They all have exemptions - that's procedure. If the Pats choose to have Harrison activated for Sunday, then they'll have to make a roster move. But for now he is under a 1-game exemption. End of subject.  Pats 1  T / C  17:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right! It's the 1-game roster exemption that allows them to have 54 active players. See here, he's off the reserve/suspended list, he's no longer on a "reserve list". As i pointed out above, even the Patriots web site currently lists 54 players on the "Active" roster (which is correct, 53 + the exemption). Bjewiki 19:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * An "exempted" player is NOT on the active roster. Larry Johnson, after he signed his extension, was granted an exemption and was NOT on the active roster. If Harrison CAN be activated in time for Sunday's game, but he HAS NOT yet. You're preempting that. I also don't know why you're not arguing this point on any other of the roster templates for the other 6 or so players that were reinstated this week. Does WP:POINT have anything to do with it? Honestly, this isn't complicated. Harrison is currently on the Commissioner's Exemption list. Not the Active Roster. That is a fact. And as far as the Pats' website goes, I've never seen them list a player under an exemption list, and the last player to be suspended was Cloud in 2003. Do I need to get into my whole "why official team websites' rosters aren't always right?" rant again?  Pats 1  T / C  20:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah the exemption means the Patriots can keep him off the active roster for a game if they don't feel he's ready. If they want him to play, a move must be made. Therefore he's not active until that happens. And Pats1 is right - team websites don't know jack. I guarantee you Pats1 and I both know more about the NFL than the 32 people editing NFL team website rosters.► Chris Nelson Holla! 20:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * First off, there was no WP:POINT stuff going on. I'm sure there were other players coming back from 4-game suspensions last week, but to be honest, I can't name one of them, so I'm guessing that they are pretty low profile.  Considering he's not listed on the NFL.com roster page, I'm okay with not adding him to the regular roster.  It's just I don't like him being on the reserve list.  He's actually kind of in an in-between limbo right now.  Not on the reserve list, not on the active roster, just by himself in a special Commissioners Exemption state.  If this state was going to last any more than the next two days, I would probably make a suggestion that it be it's own category, but seeing as it's about to expire, that's kind of a moot point.  Seeing as he has been practicing this week, it's pretty clear he's not on the "Reserve list"...


 * Secondly, I find it ironic that this morning the two of you were defending reverting that newbie's revision (Tank's #), because neither of you could find it on the team or league websites. Now this afternoon you are both saying that those websites suck, and are not really that accurate.  So, which is it?  Bjewiki 20:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I'm glad you're "fine" with the correct way of doing things...


 * To clarify on team websites - they are often not quickly updated, missing people, don't have guys in the right place, etc. However, if they DO have a new guy and they have his new number, almost 99% of the time it will be correct. They had to get that info directly from somewhere - they didn't just make it up. So unless a guy chooses a number then switches immediately, if the team has it, it's safe to assume it's right. We have shitloads of experience with every NFL team website, and I bet each of use could list the strengths and weaknesses of each. How thorough they are, how quick they are updating, how accurate, etc.► Chris Nelson Holla! 21:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * So, basically the team websites and the NFL websites are good sources, when you say they are? That sounds like it makes the Wiki Roster Templates very hard to pass WP:VERIFY criteria.  Bjewiki 21:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

No, if you'd listen you'd understand. I didn't say they are good when I decide, I said they are good at certain thing and bad at certain things. Let's try this again:


 * Team websites are good about being accurate on jersey numbers they recently add. Practically never wrong once they add it.
 * Team websites are bad at being thorough and quick in updating, among other things.

This is not rocket science, and stop trying to turn it around like there's a hole in our reasoning because, quite frankly, there isn't. I know every team website like the back of my hand; I could list for you all the team sites that don't keep a list of transactions in a second. When it comes to team websites, I've been to them all enough to know what they do well and what they don't do well, what they can be trusted on and what they cannot.► Chris Nelson Holla! 21:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What he said...  Pats 1  T / C  21:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Am I the only person who thinks that "updating jersey numbers" and "updating everything" are the same thing? Last time I checked, the jersey numbers classifies under "everything".  This sounds completely contradictory.  You say they are good at updating jersey numbers, but they are bad at updating everything.  They can't be both.  Ksy92003  (talk)  21:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "Everything else..."  Pats 1  T / C  21:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Last comment on the issue at either talk page, because I don't really care what anyone else thinks and it's not going to alter my behavior.


 * What I said is NOT contradictory, and if you believe it is you didn't not understand it. I said they are good at being accurate on jersey numbers WHEN THEY ADD THEM. I did not say they always have them updated quickly. So some teams suck at adding jersey numbers - some practice squad players have no had them listed all year. But WHEN they are added to the team site, you can pretty much assume they are right. That's WHEN they add them. But they don't always and they don't always add players in a timely manner.


 * You guys seem incapable of understanding. So what I'm going to do is this - ignore you and continue what I've always done. Sound good? Ready, break!► Chris Nelson Holla! 21:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, then on the Tank Johnson jersey number issue, did you ever consider that the Cowboys team website just hadn't gotten around to updating the jersey numbers, since you say that they take a long time? Did you ever consider that Ppw1148 got the number from another source?  Ksy92003  (talk)  21:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course I considered it. I've said I looked for it.► Chris Nelson Holla! 21:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * How many websites have you checked? The timestamps suggest that you spent nearly no time (only a couple minutes difference, which isn't enough time).  Don't you think you were at least a bit too quick in reverting?  Probably not.  Ksy92003  (talk)  21:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As I said before, if you ever made a habit of reading what people say and interpreting it correctly, I checked the Cowboys' website for any change, but before that I had checked many places for such info on my own.► Chris Nelson Holla! 21:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as Sasha Callahan's latest edit goes, keep in mind that when Harrison IS activated, there will have to be a corresponding roster move. And when that happens, the Patriots will most likely announce that Harrison has been activated. But placing him on the active roster before that happens means that he is "activated," which is not accurate.  Pats 1  T / C  21:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Have you even looked at the Pats website? If not, here's the link.  Ksy92003  (talk)  22:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Gotta love a couple of editors undoing correct edits because they don't understand how things work in the NFL. Very productive, Ksy.► Chris Nelson Holla! 22:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, because I'm brain dead and for some reason, I can see Rodney Harrison's name under the active roster. Oh well, I'll try to find help for the psychological issue I apparently have because I, for some reason, see his name under "Active".  Ksy92003  (talk)  22:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

...as you prove my point of "not knowing how things work." Exactly what I mean.► Chris Nelson Holla! 22:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * So apparently you're denying that his name is under "Active". I don't see the difference between his name being listed under the Active roster and him being on the active roster.  Ksy92003  (talk)  22:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not denying what the page says. But I have a knowledge of how the NFL works, so I know it's not really accurate. The Patriots' website is just choosing to not be thorough and completely accurate. We are, or were, until you reverted a correct edit.► Chris Nelson Holla! 22:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you implying that the Patriot's official website is wrong then? If that's the case, then we can't use them as a source for these templates.  Ksy92003  (talk)  22:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Dude, you don't know what you're talking about and I'm not going to hold your hand through any education. You arguing on a subject of which you basically have little knowledge, and the only reason you aren't in complete understanding and agreement with myself is your lack of knowledge. It's not a personal flaw, you just have not put in the time to understand it all, and that's fine. But Pats1 and I acquired our knowledge on the subject by ourselves, you can too.► Chris Nelson Holla! 22:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Chris (and my extension me, I suppose) is right here, ksy92003, and you need to stop denying it. Almost every team website is going to know that Harrison served a 4-game suspension, and, on the Monday after the 4th game, put him back on the active roster. If you polled the average beat writer or PR director on the average NFL team, they wouldn't have A CLUE that ALL suspended players get a 1-game roster exemption the week they come back. So your average NFL team website roster (like the Pats') is just going to put the previously suspended player back under the active roster for the sake of not confusing themselves or their readers ("what is a commissioner's exemption"). However, good roster sites that know what they're talking about (like, uh, Wikipedia and a very good one at http://www.localsports.ca/nfl_rosters/) will put the player under the exempted list.


 * Oh, and by the way. Under Article XXII, Section 6 of the National Football League/National Football League Players Association Collective Bargaining Agreement, "Rosters shall consist of the following categories of players: Active; Inactive; Reserve Injured; Reserve Physically Unable to Perform; Exempt Commissioner Permission; Non Football Illness/Injury; Practice Squad." Notice how "Active" and "Exempt Commissioner Permission" are listed separately.


 * The prosecution rests its case.  Pats 1  T / C  00:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll add that under Article XXXVIII, Section 7, players on the Commissioner's Exemption list do NOT receive credit towards an Accredited Season (i.e., what determines a player's minimum base salary), more proof as to why Exempt Commissioner's Permission players aren't "active" players.  Pats 1  T / C  02:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Anyone!?!?  Pats 1  T / C  16:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is some simple logic which even you should understand: The team site says Harrison is on the active roster. You say that your knowledge says that he can't be on the roster right now. Therefore, you're saying that the site is wrong. If it's wrong, then it isn't right, which means it shouldn't be used as a source. But you use the team sites for all 30 teams for their rosters, meaning you feel it is trustworthy. It's like for you, these websites are only good when you say they are. The official website has him on the active roster, so are you saying that they are lying? Ksy92003 (talk)  22:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Forget it. You don't want to try to understand, then I won't help you. I don't care enough about the issue anyway. He'll probably be active Sunday, so I can deal with the Patriots' roster template being slightly inaccurate for two days.► Chris Nelson Holla! 22:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm just telling you what the Pats website says. You've used it for all the 30 templates, and you say they're perfectly accurate.  Now, you come out and say that it isn't.  Earlier here, you said that the websites are good at this kind of information.  I don't know why now, you say that it is wrong.  Hypocritical again.  You seem to think that it's only right when you say it is and is wrong the rest of the time.  Ksy92003  (talk)  22:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * And you seem to be incapable of reading comprehension. I've explained what team websites are good at and what they are not. I've explained that they are reliable in certain aspects and unreliable in others, in my experience. It's not my fault if you can't understand something clear as day and easy as basic addition. I feel like I'm trying to teach Japanese to a monkey.► Chris Nelson Holla! 22:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Because what you say doesn't make sense. You're saying that the website can only be partially trusted.  At first, you said that the website was good at this kind of stuff.  You said that it is good at updating this kind of stuff, albeit not that quick.  The only thing you said was a problem was the speed at which they make the changes to the roster on those websites, saying that they do it too slow.  You never said that they were inaccurate.  The only bad think you said about the website was that they update it too slowly.  It's updated now, and you said that it's accurate when updated, except for this instance right now.  Ksy92003  (talk)  22:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What Chris said wasn't difficult to comprehend at all. With things such as Waived/Injured, Reserve/NFL Europa Non-Football Injury, and other roster technicalities, official websites usually don't get them right (I could go into a bunch more, but I've had myriad discussions about this, the most recent I can remember being from the Seahawks). This is when team websites aren't good sources and others are. However, when a team lists a player as having a certain number, it can be trusted. There's nothing complicated about a number.  Pats 1  T / C  00:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If you're saying that the official websites don't always get them right, then how come Chris was eager to revert somebody's edit when the website didn't say so? Ksy92003  (talk)  01:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not even going to attempt to answer this one. I don't know how else to explain it to you. This is ridiculous.  Pats 1  T / C  01:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It only makes sense because you simply don't get it, even though it's right in front of your face just waiting to be comprehended. It is my opinion, based on this discussion, that you are currently incapable of comprehending reality on this matter. For that reason, I am dropping out of the conversation because it's a road to nowhere. I wish you the best of luck in your pursuit of better NFL knowledge or, perhaps, an epiphany.► Chris Nelson Holla! 23:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Lucky for you, I don't know the meaning of "epiphany" but it sounds like a personal attack.


 * I'm sorry that you feel that I don't have a clue about anything. But hey, nothing I can do about that.  I'm sorry that you feel that you can say that a website is only valid when you say it is.  Ksy92003  (talk)  23:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You should go report me for it.► Chris Nelson Holla! 23:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, quite a lot of conversation going on here. A quick response to Chris' statement, "But I have a knowledge of how the NFL works, so I know it's not really accurate." - The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Bjewiki 00:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm gonna report you for making what I thought sounded like a personal attack when you said a word to me that I don't know what it means. Nice try.  What, are you trying to get me into trouble by asking me to make false accusations?


 * You've been eager to report Chris in the past.  Pats 1  T / C  00:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've reported him in the past when I've seen that he's violated rules. Somebody does something wrong, I report them, I'm doing my job as a Wikipedian.  Ksy92003  (talk)  01:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Most certainly. But I think it's become clear you've taken it a step beyond and are constantly monitoring Chris (hell, you even asked him if you could do it) and searching for anything incriminating. A casual observer would probably say you want him to be punished further, but that's another story for another day...  Pats 1  T / C  01:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * And Chris, some of your statements give the impression that you think you're God, that because you know how the NFL works that you can' dictate what the rest of us does. News flash: you're not omnipotent.  Ksy92003  (talk)  00:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I just think that you have no idea what Chris was saying, for whatever reason. And it wasn't hard to comprehend, but you insisted on continuing on with "you don't know everything Chris" or "why are you being hypocritical Chris" or "why are you contradicting yourself Chris."  Pats 1  T / C  00:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I know what Chris is saying. He's saying that the team's official website is wrong.  He, and you, have said that the team's official website isn't always accurate.  How come Chris was very quick in reverting somebody else's edit because it didn't say so on the team's official website?  I thought it could be wrong sometimes, or at least that's what you and Chris have continuously been saying.  Ksy92003  (talk)  01:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Like I said before, you've proven to be unable to comprehend the logic behind what he/I am saying, so I'm not going to even attempt to explain it to you for a third time. Just read what I've said before and maybe your epiphany will come.  Pats 1  T / C  01:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Man, it's amazing how long a discussion we can have in 12 hours. Pats1, if you don't want to try to explain it, then I get the impression that you agree with me then. Again, I understand what you and Chris are saying. But what I'm saying is that how come all of a sudden the team's website is wrong according to Chris, when earlier, he was saying that if that website doesn't say it, then it isn't true? It really seems like the website is correct whenever Chris says it is because it seems like he dictates when it is accurate and when it isn't. Ksy92003  (talk)  01:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "I don't want to try and explain it." Uh, I have. Chris has. Multiple times. The same thing. Over. And over. And over. Again. However, you've disregarded it (or just genuinely not understood it), just as you have to the first three paragraphs in these edits. Care to weigh in on those?  Pats 1  T / C  01:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Tom Brady
http://blogs.nfl.com/2008/09/08/brady-out-for-season-placed-on-injured-reserve/

Also A video on www.patriots.com has stated that Tom was placed on team IR. Don't change his status back to Active because it simply isn't true

Talking to you Pats1, You clueless Prick who feels like he must beat everybody to the punch, because you feel like you are the biggest pats fan, LIKE EVER, which you clearly are not. More Clueless and Arrogant than anything.--98.196.194.103 (talk) 23:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright, both of you should stop the edit-warring. The Patriots own website says "Brady on I.R."  Plus, every news outlet is reporting the same thing.  This would not be the first (nor last) time that a change is made to the roster based on what is being reported (I have seen specific instances of Adam Shefter reports driving roster changes before anything became "official").  Whether or not the official paper work is filed yet, Brady is "on" the IR  Bjewiki (Talk) 00:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The statement says "will be placed on the IR." Does that mean tomorrow? Probably. Could that mean in a few days? Possibly. But as of right now there are 53 players on the roster, Brady is one of them, and Faulk isn't. It's that simple. Based on WP:V and WP:CRYSTAL there should be no argument. As such, I'm not going to waste any more of my time dealing with this. Nor should you. There's no reason to jump the gun, all that's required is some patience and I'm sure by this time tomorrow night everything will be done and the roster template would have been accurate both today and tomorrow. That's my only concern.  Pats 1  T / C  00:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Every sports site has the same report. Brady's season is over, he's on the IR or being placed on the IR, etc.  You (Pats1) and Chris gave up on "Verifyability" a long time ago with the rosters.  You constantly speculate on the positions of players and status of players because you both "know better than the team website" and/or "news articles".  Again, every sports resource on the intertubes right now is reporting the same thing.  It's perfectly acceptable (under your own standards) to list Brady as on the I.R. Bjewiki (Talk) 00:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * And we've fucked up more than a few times and paid the price. Tons of reports had Sepulveda placed on IR sometime in July or early August, yet we slowly realized that the move never actually happened and we reversed it just in time for Sepulveda to actually on go IR at the 75-man cutdown. Or just back last week, when we both bit on the "agreed to terms" thing w/ Bouman and Harrington and eventually both ended up being wrong (until one was right). The thing is, these types of things can royally screw the good accuracy that we do have going on these templates and it also saves us a lot of time down the road when some numbers don't work out or something only to find that we screwed up on some move before. I'm not saying that Brady isn't going on IR - we all know that he will, but the simple fact of the matter is that he hasn't yet. We'll most likely see the move happen tomorrow, as the media has reported, but the reports that Brady has already gone on the IR are a blatant misrepresentation of the sole release the Pats have provided. But quite frankly Bjewiki, we both have better things to do than argue over this. Seriously, please just find something else to do until tomorrow, because I have other things to do as well. This is a pointless argument and I'm already sick of wasting time on it.  Pats 1  T / C  00:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Addtionally, (i'm not going to report you), but it would look like you're in violation of the 3RR. You should be setting an example as an admin. Bjewiki (Talk) 00:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Wonderful. Your additional revert was an excellent way to settle the situation down too. .  Pats 1  T / C  00:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

BEJEWKI IS THE WINNAR, and rightfully so, he actually knows what he is talking about--98.196.194.103 (talk) 20:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Adalius Thomas
Seriously, he is out for the season. Do the 12 hours really matter? 
 * Seriously, yes.  Pats 1  T / C  01:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What is the point of having this be a wiki if the only person who is deemed fit to edit the page is you?

''SURGERY TEAM, SYNCHRONIZE WATCHES. WE NEED TO BE ABSOLUTELY SURE THAT THE WIKI PAGE IS UPDATED AT THE EXACT MOMENT YOU BEGIN THE OPERATION! IT IS A MATTER OF NATIONAL SECURITY!!111''
 * He's not on IR yet. He wasn't placed on IR today. Get over it. Ty Law and Matt Light both went down with "season-ending injuries" in 2004 and 2005, respectively, but neither was placed on IR for weeks. You can't just assume that Thomas will be placed on IR. That's like updating Obama's article to say he's the current president and updating Bush's to say he's the former. It just hasn't happened yet. Why are you in such a rush to move him? Is it that important? Besides, you didn't even do it right; you just threw him at the bottom of the reserve list column without adding the necessary information and updating the necessary counts. And you wonder why I edit the template the most?  Pats 1  T / C  01:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I just assumed that since a story on NFL.com and ESPN both said he's out for the year that he was on IR. Iamawesome 800 Hey! 03:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Did you forget to login for the IP posts above or was that someone else?  Pats 1  T / C  03:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You may want to fix your signature.  Pats 1  T / C  03:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No that was someone else, I always login before editing.--Iamawesome800 (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Tedy Bruschi retirement
Bruschi should be taken of the roster list? it is already announced in both NFL.com and NEPatriots.com but I still don't know if he have filled the proper documents to make the retirement official (like Jake Plummer). --Octa62 (talk) 21:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * When they place him on Reserve/Retired he'll be removed until then he stays.-- Giants27 ( c  |  s ) 21:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Question about safeties
I was told that I can't put the specific type of safety (FS or SS) on this roster template. Why? Every other team does. RevanFan (talk) 13:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Because the Patriots use players at the positions interchangeably. Meriweather, Sanders, McGowan, and Chung have all played both positions in games.  Pats 1  T / C  21:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Another question
Why aren't we listing the Reserve/Military players in the reserve list any more? RevanFan (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Because they're not in the NFLPA database anymore, so we can't really verify that they're still on the team that way. It may be years before they are reinstated.  Pats 1  T / C  22:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * They're still listed on the official team site roster. RevanFan (talk) 22:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Doesn't make them valid. That's just someone in media relations giving their best guess.  Pats 1  T / C  23:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 70.54.35.228, 30 July 2011
On the roster for the team, under "Tight Ends," Aaron Hernandez has been left out. He is definitely still a member of the team, he was present at the teams training camp today, wearing shorts with the number 81 on them. Here is the official NFL article with proof (Third paragraph): http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d821151a1/article/ochocinco-receives-warm-reception-right-at-home-as-no-85?module=HP11_headline_stack

70.54.35.228 (talk) 00:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Look to the right side of the template. He is on the Active/PUP list. The # that he wears on his shorts isn't exactly official.  Pats 1  T / C  00:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Marking as answered as information is all in the template now. Jnorton7558 (talk) 04:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

since youre such a pro editor why dont u include Matt Light, seeing as how he has just signed a new 2 year contract? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.140.7 (talk) 05:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Reserve/Retired
Is there a reason for Reserve/Retired players to not be included in the reserve list section?--75.226.91.237 (talk) 03:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A Reserve/Retired player is a player who has officially filed their retirement papers, meaning most likely they will never play football again. Why include a player who will never play football again? RevanFan (talk) 04:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Reserve/Retired count against the 90 man roster, and a good number do go back to playing. --Conor Fallon (talk) 01:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request 11 May 2012
The template shows up funny on all the active players' websites. Can someone fix it?

Safeties
The Patriots do not officially have free safeties and strong safeties. That being said, why do people keep switching pretty much every safety on the roster from FS to SS or vice-versa so often? I propose that all of the safeties just get "S". If, for some reason, nobody wants to do this, then the "coverage" safeties should be FS and the others should be SS. Wilson and Williams would obviously be more of the coverage type, considering that they played some corner in college, but both are currently listed as SS on the template.

Additionally, I have never seen Malcolm Williams play safety ever. I'm fairly sure he only played corner in college. I'd like to see some proof of him being a safety.

I'm going to make the FS/SS changes I just suggested and if you disagree, post here and explain why. I'm still advocating changing them all to just "S" but that's probably too extreme for me to do without a discussion.

Thank you, 71.192.28.80 (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * On every NFL template, whether or not they actually designate between positions, we always place either SS or FS down, based on the online depth chart, and what we see them play most often. If a player starts at, or plays most of his snaps at SS, he will be listed as SS, even though he is officially both. I say we only list them as "S" if they play both equally, or close enough to equally. RevanFan (talk) 22:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Britt Davis
We'll see soon enough, but I have seen conflicting reports on whether Davis was released with an injury settlement or waived/injured. I've seen more reports of injury settlement, but he's listed as waived/injured here. It's probably not worth trying to figure out because if he was waived then he'll revert to IR in just a few hours. VeniUbique (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hix/White
KYLE HIX IS NOT UNDER CONTRACT. SHUN WHITE IS. PLEASE FIX THIS ASAP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.118.51.136 (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hix was waived/injured and, by rule, reverts to injured reserve. White indeed is under contract, but we don't include players on reserve/military (or reserve/left squad, reserve/did not report (past the current season), reserve/suspended, or reserve/retired), because their timetable for return is indefinite.  Pats 1  T / C  16:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/redskins/patriots-release-ol-kyle-hix-after-full-season-on-injured-reserve/2012/08/20/7d63c7e2-eb23-11e1-866f-60a00f604425_story.html

No, you are wrong. He was on IR all of last year. He was cut, not waived. Remove him please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriotsfan2821 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Shun White/Kyle Hix
Hix is not under contract while Shun White is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriotsfan2821 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ...would it be possible to read the response to what you posted a few hours ago, right above this?  Pats 1  T / C  18:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Sources for positions/numbers
It would appear there is no standard for what is a valid source for things like positions and jersey numbers. Many will point to the team's website "official roster" as the be-all, end-all of this information, but anyone who pays attention to the technicalities of football will point out quickly that the position designations on every team's website are not perfect and in all probability written by interns with no connection to the front office. As for jersey numbers, my edit for Chris Hogan having #15 was reverted per the "official roster", yet my justification for the edit is exactly the same as Terrance Knighton's #96, which was not reverted (I did not make that edit, however). If there is an explicit jersey number mentioned in the player's official Twitter account, along with a Photoshop of them wearing that number in the new uniform, what more evidence do we need? I think the editing of this page suffers from lack of context among some contributors. 143.229.237.46 (talk) 15:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The numbers are not official until announced by the team. That's sometimes with a press release, sometimes with just an update on a web page. But the *team* decides the numbers. A picture of a player wearing a jersey does not mean the player has been assigned that number. A player tweeting that he has a particular number does also not mean it has been assigned - it means the player wants the number and may mean he thinks he has it, but it does not mean it has been assigned. Reverting the edit again. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I should mention that the rationale behind reverting these isn't arbitrary - some people make a game out of assigning numbers made up out of whole cloth. I sometimes wonder if they think they are going to win bets with the hacked Wikipedia information, somehow. Distinguishing between the complete fabrications and the good-faith edits is next to impossible, the only solution is to rely on the team's official announcements. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * So why did you not remove Knighton's number either time? Seems like you're more concerned with winning some debate on the internet than actually being consistent. 143.229.237.46 (talk) 19:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to mention besides Knighton, there have been numerous other examples of Twitter being a "good enough" source for jersey numbers. Off the top of my head, no one had a problem with LaFell in 2014 or Chandler Jones on the Cardinals right now (I don't know if the team put it up yet but it was definitely accepted after he tweeted). But because some random IP comes in and does this, we have to revert it. I see. 143.229.237.46 (talk) 19:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Finally, on the topic of consistency: If you and the other editors who revert these edits really cared about staying consistent with the official roster, you'd keep the positions perfectly aligned too. This would entail some stray DTs/DEs being "DL" with no real pattern. But the rosters here don't reflect that, and there's a reason...it's clear the official roster has garbage position data. Why do we blindly trust the numbers but not the positions? 143.229.237.46 (talk) 19:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The issue of consistency is indeed a problem, not unique to this page. All I can tell you is that Wikipedia policy requires WP:RS (reliable sources), and prohibits WP:COI (conflict of interest). Using player's tweets of their own unannounced jersey numbers violates both. But more importantly, since it has evidently become a game (elsewhere) to make up numbers out of whole cloth and assign them to players without any sources whatsoever, the only possible answer is to clamp down and require a verifiable citation. Note, by the way, that the most recent change, LeGarrett Blount, originated in a tweet (insufficient), but now has been widely reported by reliable sources (sufficient). The removal of Knighton's number seems to make sense, I don't see any evidence that the Patriots have announced a number for him. Note that the Patriots website roster is not definitive, but is the first place to look - announcements from the team are what would be definitive. As for the positions, if you have a better source than the web-posted roster, by all means cite it. Regards, Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't specifically have any opinion about which sources should be used for this template, but I just noticed your comment, and wanted to say that I think what you are saying about WP:RS and WP:COI is wrong. WP:RS has a section, WP:SELFSOURCE, specifically allowing people to be used as sources about themselves, and with Twitter specifically listed as an example where that section of the policy applies.  Someone's own Twitter account is generally considered a reliable source for claims about themself, provided that the claims aren't extraordinary or particularly self-serving.  WP:COI is about editor behavior, specifically that you shouldn't write articles about yourself or anyone or anything you have a personal association with.  Unless you think the players are the ones editing this template, it has no relation to what is going on here.  While there might be other reasons not to use Twitter as a source for jersey numbers (such as thinking the players are posting jersey numbers they want, not ones they have been assigned), neither WP:RS nor WP:COI prohibits using Twitter as a source. Calathan (talk) 21:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There appear to have been cases where players have tweeted their ownership of numbers when they didn't have them. Since the players don't assign the numbers, they aren't reliable sources on that subject. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 21:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Allow me to nuance my statement somewhat - I'm not directly opposed to players declaring their own numbers. But we need some way to determine the validity of the source. And more importantly, some way to determine that there *IS* a source, not just pulled out of the air by the editor who added it. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 22:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with what you are saying about needing to know what the source is for the information, and I think waiting for the official roster to be updated is probably best (since that is the source linked in the template). I was just posting because I thought what you were saying about Wikipedia policy was wrong, and wanted to correct that so that other people wouldn't get the wrong idea about what the policy says. Calathan (talk) 22:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll take the blame for the Hogan/Knighton discrepancy. The reason I was quicker to accept Knighton's number than Hogan's is the context of his tweet, plus it's a different number than he wore in Washington. Knighton was the only one of Hogan, Chris Long, and himself to post a Photoshop of him in a different number than his last; in contrast, Long posted his while adding he wasn't wearing 91 (Jamie Collins). He also said he's gotten permission from Chandler Jones to wear 95, but hasn't officially said that's what he's wearing. The numbers in Twitter bios aren't always accurate either; Shaq Mason after being drafted left "#70" in his bio, but is wearing #69.
 * However, I understand that neither of these is a blanket "this is what I'm wearing" statement, so I won't change Knighton's back unless it's outright confirmed, either by himself or by the team roster. The Patriots are usually one of the later teams to announce numbers.
 * And no, I don't get why people decide to make up numbers. Always take those out. DNOMN8R3.14 (talk) 13:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Meaning of "unsigned"
Due to a couple edit flip-flops, I realize there's a question about the meaning of "unsigned" on the template. Does it refer to unsigned free agents or unsigned draft picks? DNOMN8R3.14 (talk) 00:33, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure it means unsigned draft picks, since there is a different parameter in the template for the number of free agents. Calathan (talk) 06:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2018
change Jeremy Hill's # to 33 cuz thats his new profile pic on insta like the #33 jersey number in his pats uni so KipperD (talk) 02:37, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Not Done. His past numbers aren't necessarily his future numbers, and the Patriots roster lists him with no number (and they will until training camp). Tarl N. ( discuss ) 03:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, see Patriot's roster for what numbers have been assigned to players. Unless you have a reliable source that says a number has been assigned (contrary to their published roster), please don't even try. We go through this every year where some people have a drive to publish fictitious numbers for players, and it gets tiresome. Tarl N. ( discuss ) 03:52, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Just adding to this. I was part of this discussion a couple years ago as the one trying to add the numbers. While Hill's number is likely correct, we don't update the roster here unless a reliable source, either the team website or a reporter, announces it. DNOMN8R3.14 (talk) 20:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Unpublished sources
I know we don't make edits based on unpublished sources, but I thought it might be an idea to keep an update on unconfirmed numbers in the talk, both to help us get an idea of what the final numbers might be and to be able to test the reliability of those sources when the official roster comes out. Right now we have unofficial numbers from two players' Twitter profile pics: Jeremy Hill's (33) and Jordan Matthews' (80). DNOMN8R3.14 (talk) 11:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If a player says "the patriots have told me this is going to be my number", we can take that as reliable. In the case of Hill, his profile has a number 33 on it, as best I know, he hasn't actually said that the patriots agreed. One thing that seems to be going on is attempts to influence number selection by pre-emptive claim. We don't want Wikipedia to be part of that. Tarl N. ( discuss ) 15:12, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Right; I'm agreeing that we shouldn't make the change until it's official. Speaking of which, Matthews wearing 80 is indeed official; beat writer Zack Cox confirmed it. DNOMN8R3.14 (talk) 17:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * here? I don't see it. Tarl N. ( discuss ) 22:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * On his Twitter. But a few of the beat guys have written about it now. DNOMN8R3.14 (talk) 23:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah. Interestingly, he doesn't say the Patriots have agreed to give him number 80. Just that Amendola (who isn't on the team any more) agreed to it. Hopefully the coaching staff doesn't have a different opinion than he does. Tarl N. ( discuss ) 01:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Here's another unofficial number: Braxton Berrios, 10. DNOMN8R3.14 (talk) 18:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Do we want to use that in Wikipedia? That's getting towards WP:CRYSTALBALL. He doesn't say he has number 10, just that he's going to ask for it. Tarl N. ( discuss ) 21:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm listing it here as unofficial right now, and not suggesting adding it to the roster until it becomes official. That's why I put it in the Talk page instead of on the roster. DNOMN8R3.14 (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Brandon King position
Just spotted this article from November. Is King to remain listed as SS or should he be moved to linebacker? DNOMN8R3.14 (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep him at safety. Freefalling660 (talk) 00:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The team website now lists him as a linebacker. I'm going to move him on the template. DNOMN8R3.14 (talk) 14:44, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

2018 rookie "oddball" numbers
So the Patriots website now on their roster page has updated everyone's number. The rookies are listed with the apositional numbers they wore during spring practices. Should we add those numbers to the template? DNOMN8R3.14 (talk) 12:09, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I noticed that they were included and are now removed. I think we should include them for the sake of being able to identify the players by number in training camp and preseason games. Elijah (talk) 15:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Jordan Matthews
Yes, there have been a lot of conflicting reports over Matthews' roster status. Fortunately, ESPN Patriots writer Mike Reiss cleared it up this morning, writing: "Because he was injured, the Patriots first placed Matthews on injured reserve and then reached an injury settlement with the receiver that allows him to play again later this season, if healthy." Thus, Matthews was on IR briefly, but is now off the roster entirely. DNOMN8R3.14 (talk) 02:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Emboldening bold boldness?
I noticed that all the uniform numbers are suddenly bold. Why the change? (And it's thrown off the spacing - players with double-digit numbers are now indented further than single-digit players, even with the spacing in the number field.) DNOMN8R3.14 (talk) 21:53, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Someone had changed Template:NFLplayer. There was no edit summary given, and a (very short) look on other sports roster templates showed it wasn't consistent with the rest of Wikipedia either, so I reverted it. Elijah (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks Elijah. That was a sudden moment of weirdness. DNOMN8R3.14 (talk) 22:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Weird rookie numbers again
The Patriots are doing the weird rookie numbers thing again during spring practices. Should they be added to the template? (They're not on the roster page, but other numbers for new Patriots revealed in pictures and videos on the team site have been added here.) DNOMN8R3.14 (talk) 19:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

The number font is different
and it's the same on all NFL team templates, but not other sports team templates. Is this an approved change? DNOMN8R3.14 (talk) 19:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the purpose of using the Courier font for numbers here is so each character is the same width for consistency. If we changed the number font to the same font as the names they would appear jumbled. NBA roster templates use one column for all players, which is easy since there's only 17 players on a roster during the season. MLB roster templates have the same format as NFL roster templates.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  19:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, User:DNOMN8R3.14 won't have received your ping. They are processed at the time the ~ is converted into a signature, so changing the name after the fact has no effect. My reference to him in this paragraph should notify him, however. Tarl N. ( discuss ) 19:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Interesting! Thanks for the help.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  21:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not referring to the Courier font - the font as I'm seeing it right now is not Courier, but a font styled more like a jersey that is unevenly spaced. DNOMN8R3.14 (talk) 23:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2020
Cam Newton QB Lyioi (talk) 21:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  08:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)