Talk:2010 NFL draft

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

Grammar note[edit]

Just a minor thing I've noted on other draft pages: in American English, when you refer to a team by the location, use "its"; when you refer to a team by the team name, use "their." For example, "New England traded its . . .", but "The New England Patriots traded their . . ." Samer (talk) 01:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In a move that raises many questions, the Jets acquired second-year quarterback Kevin O'Connell from the Lions Sunday in exchange for an undisclosed draft pick.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/jets/2009/09/06/2009-09-06_jets_oconnell.html#ixzz0Z3q26BT7

I believe there is an error[edit]

This is my understanding:

The Jets, not the Rams, own the pick in the fifth round originally belonging to the Eagles, as part of the deal that also sent Lito Sheppard to the Jets.

The Eagles, as noted, did indeed send a fifth round pick to the Rams as part of the Witherspoon deal, but not the one shown. The Rams now own the pick belonging originally to the Saints (The Eagles are shown as still owning this pick in the article).

The Eagles do not currently own a fifth round selection.

InsultComicDog (talk) 12:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From what was on this page in the "Pre-draft trades" section, I saw that the Saintsgave the Eagles a fifth-rounder, and the Eagles giving the Rams a fifth-rounder. I assumed it to be Philly's original selection but it may be the one they got from New Orleans. As far as the Lito Sheppard trade is concerned, I thought it was Sheppard to the Jets for a fifth rounder last year and a fourth rounder this year to the Eagles. Thats what it had in the pre-draft trade section; I don't follow the Eagles or the Jets too closely so I could be wrong. Also, on the 2010 Philadelphia Eagles season page, the Eagles are listed as having one pick in the fifth round (the one from the Saints), maybe someone working on that page follows the Eagles more closely and could be of better assistance than I am. Frank AnchorTalk 17:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On draft day last year, the Eagles traded with the Saints. The Saints got a 2009 5th round pick (used on Thomas Morstead, and the Eagles got a 2009 7th round pick (later traded to IND) and a 2010 5th round pick. In the Lito Sheppard trade, the Eagles got a 2009 5th round pick (used on Cornelius Ingram) and a 2010 4th round pick. The Jets got Sheppard. In the Will Witherspoon trade, the Eagles got Witherspoon, and the Rams got Brandon Gibson and the Eagles' 2010 5th round pick, not the Saints'. Basically, Frank is correct. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But in the Lito Sheppard deal, the Eagles also gave back a 2010 5th round pick. I thought that was their own and the 5th traded in the Witherspoon deal was originally from the Saints, but it is possible I have them reversed; either way, the Eagles do not own a 5th round pick: one went to the Rams and the other went to the Jets. InsultComicDog (talk) 08:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See http://www.philadelphiaeagles.com/news/2010NFLDraftCentral.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by InsultComicDog (talk • contribs) 09:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct then. As of yesterday, the wesite had the 5th round pick on there. There must have been a clause in the trade that if the Jets released Sheppard before March 5, the Eagles would owe the Jets that 5th round pick. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trades section looks screwed up[edit]

The Trades section doesn't look to be organized right. It lists rounds 3-7, followed by conditional trades, followed by rounds 1-5. If there is a reason for this it should be explained. 96.238.136.233 (talk) 01:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the middle of changing the formatting. I will be finished within a few days. Pats1 T/C 16:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems unnecessary/silly to have pairs of hotlinks linking trades of the same pick. Samer (talk) 04:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? Pats1 T/C 07:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an example (highlighted in green):

#85: New England → Oakland (PD). New England traded this selection (85th overall, traded to Cleveland) and its fourth-round selection (because New England did not have a fifth-round selection at the time, when they acquired one, this fourth-round selection was traded back to New England) to Oakland for defensive end Derrick Burgess.
#85: Oakland → Cleveland (PD). Oakland traded this selection it acquired from New England to Cleveland for defensive end Kamerion Wimbley.

It doesn't seem useful to have links that cause the page to jump, only to find that it was the previous (or next) paragraph. Samer (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's for consistency. Other notes that link to different picks have the same format. Pats1 T/C 21:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The NFL has released the full draft order including compensatory picks[edit]

See http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcwest/post/_/id/16040/download-2010-nfl-draft-order InsultComicDog (talk) 21:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jets sent 2010 5th to Steelers[edit]

[1] Enigmamsg 04:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List comments[edit]

I work a lot with lists, and there were a few issues in this list that pop out to me. So, rather than making the changes myself and disrupting the editors that have worked on this list a lot (and will continue to work on it a lot as the draft progresses), I thought I'd make my comments here.

  • Per WP:REPEATLINK, all items in the table should be wikilinked, even repeated ones. The reason for this is because once your sort a table, the item you have linked may no longer be the first instance of it in that list.
  • While I don't believe it violates any specific MoS requirement, I wonder why this list is split into multiple tables per round. Why can't this list be combined into one list with Round # being merely another column in the table? That way, a viewer can sort by, let's say, College, and see all players from that college that were drafted. That is impossible with the current layout. Or, if a viewer wanted to see all Quarterbacks taken or all the players taken by the Lions.
  • Why is the table set to 100% width instead of letting the columns autosize themselves based on the content? My PC is 1920x1080 and these higher resolution monitors are only getting more popular. The table looks ridiculously stretched out on my PC.
  • A minor complaint, the color for "Pro Bowler" seems a bit too extreme while the colors for "compensatory selection" and "supplemental compensatory selection" are almost too similar. Can a more subtle color be used for Pro Bowler like #FFE6DB and maybe a different color used for one of the compensatory selections like #D0E7FF?

Looking back at previous NFL Draft lists, it seems this list is fashioned like those. But just because that is the way it was done in the past doesn't make it right. Just some suggestions. Hopefully someone takes them into consideration.—NMajdan•talk 14:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I use the Wikipedia draft pages very heavily, and while I can appreciate someone wanting to sort by say, school, if you really NEED to find out how many or who was drafted from what school, your browser has a functional "Find" feature under the Edit menu. Use that to sort through and get the info you are after. The current format has worked extremely well for many years for a lot of people who use the Wikipedia draft pages to research articles and players in the various drafts. NO one format is going to please everyone, but the one that exists does so for good reasons - it works, and works pretty damn well. I, for one, cast my vote to retain the current formatting that stretches back to gawd knows when on the individual NFL Draft (bv year) pages. If some people want to sort using an excel type rearrangement, then ffs copy the entire draft over to your own computer and do your homework there. It's not like Ctrl+C/Ctrl+V is THAT complicated to operate on an access db or an excel spreadsheet. IdioT.SavanT.i4 (talk) 09:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that the browser "find" functionality is a reasonable alternative to replace sorting. Also, the way the list was broken up previously, the sorting functionality was all but useless — it's much more likely that someone would want to use sorting to see, for example, all of the players selected by a given team rather than just which players were selected by a team in a single round. When it comes right down to it, breaking up the table by round is really fairly arbitrary. I'm also not swayed by an argument that the former formatting should be retained simply because it has always been that way — unless it's combined with a cogent description of which functionality is delivered by the old format that is lost with the new look. Further, I don't see why you would want to force people to copy-and-paste from WP to a spreadsheet if that functionality can be delivered within WP itself. — DeeJayK (talk) 17:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:Stismail would be the one to talk to about those. He has done a lot of work on these articles over the past few years. Pats1 T/C 16:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I left a note on his talk page pointing him here, although he doesn't appear to be particularly active anymore (around 50 edits this year). So, I would again ask those of you that are actively editing this list for your opinions. My aim here is to make this list better and I think my suggestions would help with that. Is there any hope of nominating this for FL in the future? Because, if so, I would expect these same points to be made (by me if no one else).—NMajdan•talk 20:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not completely inactive, just very busy. :) :(
In any case, a lot of the things you suggest are ones that predate any work I've done on the NFL Draft pages (e.g., the colors for Pro Bowlers, etc.). Links: I don't have any preference. Widths: I don't know how much of a difference it might end up making (thanks to the issue of picks being traded multiple times). Compensatory picks: I like the idea that the colors are relatively similar; in fact, I'd have no problem with making them the same color (and just using different symbols to indicate supplemental picks).
One big table: The pro: as you said, it makes it much more sortable (e.g., by position and school). The con: you lose the ability to easily jump down to the round that most interests you. That said, on the whole, I think the former outweighs the latter. Samer (talk) 22:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point on the page navigation limitation of making it a single table. I wonder if we can come up with some workaround for that functionality? I agree with you that it's a relatively minor concern, though. — DeeJayK (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One possibility, if there is an INSISTENCE on making a modification to a single table format, would be to at the very least offset the individual rounds with double space blanks between rounds. Right now I get dizzy just scrolling down the page - it turns into one nasty blur and I can't tell where I am without taking my eyes off what I'm scanning for. Then the counting aspect of how many of these or that is much harder to keep track of too. In the old format, you counted the number of OTs by round, and moved on to the next round, now, you sorta have to just keep counting and pray you don't lose count and have to start over again. Like I meantioned earlier, in a different set of words, Wikipedia is a resource, it's not a working substitute for people's own computer worksheets. If the information is important enough that a person needs to do sorting, then I believe they should do that work on their own machines rather than wreck what has become a standard format so many users are comfortable with already. I am all for improvements, but not for the sake of change for change's sake. If a way can be found to sort more effectively then make it effectively sort using the old separate tables look. It CAN be done, sorting multiple tables by alpha, say, so that each round's selections are alpha in nature for whichever column a user wants sorted.IdioT.SavanT.i4 (talk) 09:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The idea of adding extra blank rows to visually demarcate rounds would look odd when the table is sorted, so I would be against that. Perhaps we can figure out a way to just add something like a thick border to the top of the first pick in each round. I've done this in the template-ized sample of the page in my sandbox. Also, there's the "Jump to:" functionality if you want to go to a particular round without getting dizzy. I don't believe the changes made here represent "change for change's sake", they actually make the list more functional. I'm not sure I understand what has been "wrecked" by these edits. As far as the suggestion of sorting information across multiple tables, I don't see how that could be implemented — if you can provide an example of something like that, I'd love to see it. — DeeJayK (talk) 17:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've also implemented the thick borders between rows in the main article. I don't love it, since it looks a bit odd when you use the sorting, but I'm okay with it if people feel there's a need for a visual distinction between rounds. If someone has a better suggestion, I'm open to it. — DeeJayK (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um, yeah. I really dislike the border. As you said, it looks ridiculous when sorted by anything other than round or pick. I don't get the confusion. The round # is the very first column. Why would another indicator be needed. This change does more harm than good.—NMajdan•talk 00:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say I disagree that this "solution" is far from optimal, but it's preferable to either of the alternatives that were suggested — reverting back to individual tables for each round or adding "double space blanks between rounds" (which I took to mean blank rows between rounds). Let's see if anyone else weighs in with an opinion over the next couple of days. — DeeJayK (talk) 20:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with going back to the old tables. That's kind of what sections are for, no? I've already found it cumbersome to edit/copy code from inside the draft table section when it's twice the size of some articles. Pats1 T/C 20:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree strongly with going back to separate tables. I really don't understand the issues with the list as is. Rest assured, if this list is nominated for FL, the same concerns I'm bringing up here will be brought up again if the changes are reverted. The benefits far outweigh the costs.—NMajdan•talk 13:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100% with NMajdan that this list is vastly improved with the recent changes and reverting them would not be productive. I do see Pats1's concern re: the unwieldiness of the single huge table, but I don't think that concern should trump the tremendous usability improvements delivered by the change. The change was made with an eye toward making the page more useful to the reader, not the editors (which are vastly fewer in number). I also agree that a FLC review is likely to look favorably on the enhanced usability of the page. The fact is that once the draft is initially documented (granted a huge undertaking — thanks Pats1!) the number of future edits required is pretty minimal (update Pro Bowlers and HoF inductees once each year, and maybe update the results of some conditional pick trades), so inconvenience to the editing community is relatively minimal going forward. I've also added some HTML comments within the markup to visually separate the individual rounds in the editing window, if that helps. I'm wondering how best to resolve this discussion? Should we raise this to a higher level of visibility (e.g. NFL WikiProject) to get a wider array of points of view and then take some sort of vote?— DeeJayK (talk) 14:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The NFL WikiProject would be a good place to get input. As would the Lists WikiProject. The college football WikiProject might also have some suggestions.—NMajdan•talk 14:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These are all great suggestions — especially the one concerning a single table for the entire draft. That would really make the sorting functionality much more powerful and useful. Obviously this article is going to go through quite a few edits over the next few days, so right now is probably not the ideal to implement these changes. I'll take a swing at implementing them in the next couple of week unless someone expresses a powerful argument against the suggestions in this space. — DeeJayK (talk) 22:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, I'd hold off on any major changes until after the draft. It would be preferable if I get as few edit conflicts as possible during the next few days. Pats1 T/C 22:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the responses. Let me respond to some of the comments. Links: Well, this one is a MoS guideline, so it needs to be fixed on these lists. Width: Granted, the NFL Team column would indeed be large, but the other columns would be smaller. Again, this is based on what I'm seeing on my high resolution monitor. Compensatory picks: I'll leave the overall classification to you guys to decide, but I think as long as you do have separate categories, the colors need to be a bit more distinguishable. One big table: Some of you voiced concerns about losing the ability to jump to certain rounds. Well, take a look at what I did with one of the Featured Lists I created, List of Oklahoma Sooners in the NFL Draft. I used {{CompactTOC8}} along with {{anchor}} to create jump points. This list is longer than any of the NFL Draft lists so jumping to parts of the list was important to me as well. This allowed me to create links to the beginning of each decade. Timing of change: I agree, you should wait until the end of the draft before making any large scale changes, however, I don't think you need to wait to begin making the wikilink and color changes. I'm glad to see the responses! I really hope to see this list at WP:FLC soon.—NMajdan•talk 02:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the MoS says that articles should adhere to it, (paraphrasing here) unless there is some compelling reason not to. I'm not saying there's anything compelling here, merely that there could be. Samer (talk) 02:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I put last year's draft in my userspace and made the most of the suggested changes to the table. See how you like it. I know actually seeing how something looks is a lot different than simply discussing it User:Frank Anchor/2009 NFL Draft. Frank AnchorTalk 02:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That looks great! I removed the width settings to it auto sizes. You'll also need to use {{sortname}} so the name column sorts by the players' last name.—NMajdan•talk 03:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sortname done. Thanks for the width change. Frank AnchorTalk 00:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've implemented the suggestions discussed here into the article, based on the example created by Frank Anchor. Please take a look and let me know if there's anything I've missed. — DeeJayK (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its the biggest pain with these sortable lists, but you'll need to use the {{sortname}} template so the names sort by Last, First.—NMajdan•talk 21:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch...I had a feeling I was missing something. I'll work on that piece. — DeeJayK (talk) 21:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've just finished implementing {{sortname}} into this table. I think that most of what has been discussed here is now complete.
One final concern I have is the way the "NFL team" column sorting is thrown off by the asterisks, carets and notes that are appended to this column. I would suggest that we move the asterisks and carets (denoting compensatory selections) to the "Pick #" column and that a new "Notes" column be created to include the trade information. Any thoughts? — DeeJayK (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely agree. It's always a pain when you implement something across the board and then you find out more changes are needed. Perfect this article first and then the others. Pats1 T/C 18:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For an example of one way to address the sorting issue, see this example of an implementation of this page using templates. — DeeJayK (talk) 20:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've come up with a few more random suggestions to perhaps improve this list, but I'd like to get some feedback:

  1. Link to NFL team's season page (e.g. 2010 St. Louis Rams season) instead of the franchise article (e.g. St. Louis Rams) — with the link piped for display (e.g. St. Louis Rams)
  2. Link to college team's season page (e.g. 2009 Oklahoma Sooners football team), if available, instead of the team's general page (e.g. Oklahoma Sooners football) — again piping the link appropriately (e.g. Oklahoma)
  3. Add a column for college conference.

I'm not really sold on any of these, but just wanted to throw the ideas out there to see how the hive mind feels about them. — DeeJayK (talk) 21:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad suggestions at all. Seeing all the draftees from each conference would be a nice touch, unless we're starting to cram too much into a page. Regarding #2, check out {{Cfb link}}. It allows you to link to either the college's specific yearly article if it exists and drills down to the football, general athletic or university article until it finds one that exists. If a yearly article does exist, a bot will eventually replace the template with a regular link to reduce the possibility of hitting template limits.—NMajdan•talk 21:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, {{Cfb link}} is pretty powerful stuff; I love it. It would be great to create something similar for the NFL. I share your concerns re: adding conferences and screen real estate. I would think that we would want to use abbreviations to minimize the column width. — DeeJayK (talk) 22:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I dont mind the changes as long as they are all done this way. The only disagreement I have is there is no seperation between rounds.--Yankees10 17:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing that any blank row or bold underline will be thrown off once a different sort is used, what do you propose? I guess I still don't understand why the number in the first column isn't enough of an indication of round change.—NMajdan•talk 17:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4th round error(s)[edit]

Looks like you missed at least one team trade in the middle of editing, Pick #104 got traded to the Titans for example. 70.112.126.227 (talk) 15:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Pats1 T/C 15:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Skelton[edit]

Links to the wrong John Skelton's page. Someone needs to make a page for the football player out of Fordham Theswissarmy (talk) 17:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The link has been corrected. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 18:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5th Round Error[edit]

Pick #159 in the 5th round still lists The San Diego Chargers as drafting Riley Cooper. They actually traded that pick to The Philadelphia Eagles, who selected him with that pick.

Creating a template for the draft table?[edit]

Now that we've made the changes suggested in the List comments discussion, the next step is to update all the previous articles similarly. However, before we tackle that, I wonder if it makes sense to create a template for the draft table? The benefits I can see would be:

  1. future changes could be made more simply by just changing a single template
  2. the code of the article would be simpler to understand

What I'm envisioning is a set of templates — one for the table header, another for the data rows and a simple table footer. We could also create templates for the "Jump to:" table and the little key.

Does anyone else feel this makes sense? — DeeJayK (talk) 16:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're wanting to create something like this:
{{NFL Draft Table Header}}
{{NFL Draft Table Entry | round=1 | pick=1 | team=[[St. Louis Ram]] | player_first=Sam | player_last=Bradford | player_link= | position=[[Quarterback]] | college=[[Oklahoma Sooners football|Oklahoma]] | compensatory=no | supp_compensatory=no | probowler=no | trade_info=}}
{{NFL Draft Table Entry | round=1 | pick=14 | team=[[Seattle Seahawks]] | player_first=Earl | player_last=Thomas | player_link=Earl Thomas (defensive back) | position=[[Safety (American football)|Safety]] | college=[[Texas Longhorns football|Texas]] | compensatory=no | supp_compensatory=no | probowler=no | trade_info=<sup>(from San Francisco via Denver)</sup> <ref group="R1 trade">'''#13: San Francisco ? Denver (D).''' ''See [[#ADavis|'''#11: Denver ? San Francisco''']] above.''</ref> {{#tag:ref|{{Anchor|BGraham}}'''#13: Denver ? Philadelphia (D).''' Denver traded this selection it [[#ADavis|acquired from San Francisco]] to Philadelphia for a first-round selection (24th overall; after all trades, Dallas selected [[Dez Bryant]]), a third-round selection it [[#SeattlePhilly|acquired from Seattle]] (70th overall; [[#Tebow|traded to Baltimore]], who selected [[Ed Dickson]]), and a third-round selection (87th overall; Denver selected [[Eric Decker]]).<ref group="source">{{cite web|url=http://www.nfl.com/draft/story?id=09000d5d817b4621&template=with-video-with-comments&confirm=true|title=Draft trade tracker: Let's make a deal: Broncos move down again|work=NFL.com|publisher=National Football League|date=April 22, 2010|accessdate=April 22, 2010}}</ref>|group="R1 trade"}} || [[Brandon Graham (American football)|Brandon Graham]] || [[Defensive end]] || [[Michigan Wolverines football|Michigan]]}}
{{NFL Draft Table Footer}}
This way you can streamline all NFL Draft lists. I think it is a good idea. However, might I suggest you work on getting this least to Featured status. Might be worth getting the feedback of the list reviewers and see what other suggestions they have before you expend the effort on creating these templates (I can help with the templates if needed).—NMajdan•talk 17:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's exactly what I had in mind. I've created a quick-and-dirty example of what I have in mind. This example also addresses the sorting concerns with the NFL team column. — DeeJayK (talk) 19:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a good start. Again, let me again emphasize that it might be worthwhile to get this article through the WP:FLC process so those reviewers can point out any other issues with the article that you may want to make with these templates. I took the liberty of superscripting the daggers (its something that has come up during several of my FLCs). Also, might I suggest leaving the brackets out of the template so you don't have do a {{!}} template call? Seems like that would make things confusing.—NMajdan•talk 20:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that I'm probably getting ahead of the process here, but I just wanted to put something out there to encourage discussion of the topic.
I also agree that the syntax of some of the elements (e.g. college and position) of my template is pretty tortured as it currently exists and would need to be improved prior to implementation. Thanks for your feedback. — DeeJayK (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the further I get toward a working implementation of the draft table as a set of templates, the more I feel like I'm not getting ahead of the process. The template design just makes it so much easier to make changes to the format of the entire table...any suggestions raised during an FLC review could be implemented that much more quickly. I've now got my design so that it uses {{cfb link}} as well as a new template I created {{AmFootball positions}} for the position links. Next step is to add a column for college conference. — DeeJayK (talk) 03:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Formerly there was a heading with how many of each position were drafted in the particular draft. 13 Quarterbacks, 20 Running Backs, 26 Linebackers, etc. That was a VERY useful feature for quick reference and eliminated a LOT of counting up of individual listings even using the "Find" Edit option in my browser. I would hope that is restored here in any template.
    • A second suggestion I would make is to BOLD only the first listing of a given trade in the draft trade notes on the bottom of the page, then UNbold those for the second reference to a given trade.

PHI->CLE BOLD, then
CLE->PHI *See PHI->CLE in Rd 3 UNbolded
so that users can tell at a glance it is a second listing of a trade already mentioned earlier.IdioT.SavanT.i4 (talk) 10:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the requested table of draftees by position for the 2010 draft. — DeeJayK (talk) 19:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed new table layout[edit]

I've completed a mock-up of the draft table from this article using a newly created set of templates. This layout also includes a few other functional changes which have been discussed in other threads on this page:

  1. separated notes into their own column for clarity and to facilitate sorting
  2. added a column to display the college conference (using newly created {{cfb conf}})
  3. college team links to a more specific page (using {{cfb link}})
  4. use abbreviations for position and add position key below table

The advantages of these changes are:

  • template makes the data easier to identify in the edit view
  • templates make any future changes to the layout of the table (e.g. moving columns around, changing colors, etc.) much simpler

Please let me know what you think about the changes I'm proposing. — DeeJayK (talk) 11:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like the changes and I agree that making templates would be easier than editing it the way it is now. My only concern is that on low-resolution monitors (like mine) most of the team and player names are going on two rows. But thats minor and I would get used to it... Frank AnchorTalk 23:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the concern. I've set the width of the "Notes" column in an attempt to keep that column from running wide at the expense of the others. It's a tricky balance between supporting those with low-res monitors and small netbook screens while also making the table look good on high-res wide screens. Maybe the width I chose for the Notes column can be tweaked. What resolution are you viewing the page in? — DeeJayK (talk) 13:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are we going to keep the repetitive links or just link once to each individual wiki page (Pro teams, position and colleges). --Octa62 (talk) 06:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since the table is sortable, there's no way to insure which is the first link. Because of this, the standard is to link each item, even those that repeat. — DeeJayK (talk) 13:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Although, I would again say the thicker lines between rounds is not needed as it means nothing once the table is sorted some other way.»NMajdan·talk 13:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've come to think of the thick lines as a bit of a necessary evil in order to satisfy those who grew really attached to the previous layout. I feel like they look okay (and admittedly add some visual value) when the page is in it's default sort order. They do look pretty wonky once the table is sorted by anything other than numerical order. However, I would guess that only a small minority of the visitors to this page (1–5% maybe?) ever uses the sorting functionality, and those that do sort the page are probably more sophisticated users who won't be thrown off by some odd borders. In short, I don't love it, but I haven't thought of a better alternative to achieve the same ends. I continue to be open to suggestions. — DeeJayK (talk) 14:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: I've implemented my changes into the article. Feel free to make changes or suggest improvements. Thanks. — DeeJayK (talk) 15:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Armanti Edwards[edit]

Armanti Edwards was the QB for Appalachian State. However, he was drafted as a WR. Which should be reflected in the list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.230.4 (talk) 13:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two suggestions for modifications[edit]

(1) To get around the "ugly border" issue, perhaps we can do what is done on TV show season pages, and use a different color for the round #s in each row (e.g., something like ROYGBIV)?Samer (talk) 18:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although as I've stated previously I don't really mind the "ugly borders" between the rounds, I agree that they are not the most elegant solution. I think your suggestion has some merit. I've mocked up a version of the table that implements this suggestion in my sandbox. I'd welcome any feedback on what you think of the look. — DeeJayK (talk) 17:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One concern I have about this approach is what you do when you have more than seven rounds (as there were in previous drafts). My initial solution would be just to recycle the same color pallete (e.g. round 8 would be color-coded the same as round 1). Since the colors' primary purpose is to visually differentiate the rounds when the draft is sorted in pick order, re-use of the colors doesn't seem like a big deal. Agree or disagree?— DeeJayK (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(2) In terms of the trades, I would suggest two things to improve readability: When there are multiple trades, put the appropriate tags after each trade (e.g., from X[tag 1] via Y[tag 2] and Z[tag 3]), and change the arrows to "to"; when the text is small, the arrows are difficult to see. Samer (talk) 18:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree with your suggestion (#2) on tagging multiple trades in-line. I've implemented this suggestion in the preliminary 2011 NFL Draft article and will go back and move references for the other drafts as I have time. However, I'm not sure I see the problem with the arrows. It seems to me that they do a decent job of conveying the fact that a pick is moving from one team to another, and I'm not sure that replacing them with the word "to" really accomplishes anything.— DeeJayK (talk) 17:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since I've not gotten much feedback here on my proposed changes, I've decided to "be bold" and implement them into the templates. These changes can now be seen on all of the draft articles back to 2004. Any feedback, feel free to let me know.— DeeJayK (talk) 12:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After implementing this idea to tag each trade in-line in the 2011 NFL Draft article, I'm not sure that I like the functionality or aesthetics of this solution. I think a better option might be to bundle citation for multiple trades of a single pick. I've taken this approach with the 2003 draft article. Please take a look and let me know what you think of this bundling idea.— DeeJayK (talk) 05:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undrafted free agents[edit]

Does this section seem unnecessarily large to anyone else? 68.44.116.199 (talk) 02:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the "Notable undrafted players" list does seem to be a bit bloated. That said, it's pretty difficult to judge notability of undrafted players so early in their careers — it can take several years before some of these guys get an opportunity. IMHO it should be revisited in a few years once we see which guys from this draft class make a lasting impact. Of those listed, most have played in either 2010 or 2011, with some exceptions (e.g. Kackert, Green). In short, if you feel the list needs trimming, it's fine by me if you want to cut it down, but I really don't think the length of this section detracts from the article. — DeeJayK (talk) 17:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jermaine Gresham[edit]

Jermaine Gresham is a pro-bowler. Change it.

143.236.171.202 (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Next time, how about a "please". — DeeJayK (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 43 external links on 2010 NFL Draft. 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) 22:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notable undrafted players[edit]

The objective of this section is not just to put any undrafted free agent, but the players that had a productive career that made a difference to their team and in the league. I've had a disagreement with an anonymous user, so I would like your feedback in regards to which list of players should remain.Makers267 (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_NFL_draft&oldid=1204843563"