Talk:List of first overall National Football League draft picks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject National Football League (Rated List-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Football League, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the NFL on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cross symbols in list[edit]

Most draft pages have Hall of Famers marked with a yellow background. This page uses both a yellow background and a cross symbol. May I propose that we remove the cross from the Hall of Famers, and use it instead for the rookies of the year?GuySperanza (talk) 18:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

First overall pick in 2010[edit]

It has the rams as making the first overall pick in 2010. Shouldnt we leave it blank incase they trade down? (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


Not Signed, Signed for x amount, Signed for y years (talk) 12:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for major changes to this article[edit]

A WP user known only by the IP address has proposed some major additions to the information included in this article. I would urge anyone interested in this article to check out the description and discussion of this proposed overhaul at User talk: of first overall National Football League draft picks. — DeeJayK (talk) 17:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Generally speaking, the rule of thumb is to follow the money. That being said, I am an admittedly, notorious (there's probably no one worse than me) culprit of including off topic stuff in articles.

When a number one pick signs a contract in the NFL, nowadays, please list in order of what you think is notable?

  1. guaranteed number of years his contract exists for? (I would go for this)
  2. amount of salary the first year and subsequent year? (I would combine this with the previous thingie)
  3. his position he played in?
  4. the college he came from?
  5. the persona, character, name?
  6. what titles he led his team to?

If you look at National Football League Draft, then you see there is an editor who put in about certain positional playerers getting more money than other positional players; it is uncited, but I take it at face-value. Most editors just do not like to cite stuff.

The personal, character, and name, well, the Tim Tebow article is locked on Wikipedia now. I do not know why. But, generally speaking, my experiences leads me to believe there is some kind of contraversy there.

Titles players led their team to, well, everyone wants to draft a winner.

The college he came from, well, I will just say I am not knowledgeable about Joe Paterno in his heyday and let it go at that. He certainly has a strong base of support.

Bottom line is that I do not have that info available about salaries and length of contract presently. Secondly, there is a plethora of information out there on Sports law, good job by the editors of that article on including Wong and Weller as sources. Maybe this does need to be broken up. However, sometimes its not wrong to put wrong info in wikipedia articles, they grow, and then they split off. I certainly would not like to take on an article as sophisticated as sports law head on; it would require an expert, which I am not.

Clutter??? Look at Bert Bell, I have like 15 editors that can't figure out his real name, his dob, and the day of his passing. Now that is clutter. :)

What is important when a number 1 pick is signed besides if he plays for the team you follow?

BTW, take a long view of this, the economic times being what they are, it could alter any NPOV. I mean what is important in the last 75 years (since the draft was implemented in 1936) and not in the last 3 years. (talk) 21:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I also neglected to mention that the first overall pick in the NFL draft did not come from an Historically black college or university until very late, I forget when though. So where a player came from can not easily be dismissed as inconsequential.

What's important? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Per AcuteAccusation on my talk page, this point is now moot. He came up with an elegant solution to this problem. (talk) 22:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
This was AcuteAccusation's suggestion/solution: "I believe the addition of salary and benifits would make this page more interesting. However I see how the title would then become miscontrued, I propose a seperate page be created under a different title, such as salary and benefits of top nfl draft picks." Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC))

Pre-draft trades[edit]

If somebody has time to do some information-gathering, it'd be nice if this article indicated which #1 picks were involved in pre-draft trades. All I can think of off the top of my head is 2001, when the Falcons traded up for Vick, but I assume that's far from the only time it's happened. Jwsinclair (talk) 02:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

"The Cleveland Browns have had the most first overall draft picks, with 8."[edit]

False. According to this article (including the Cleveland Rams), they only have had (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The Cleveland Rams are counted as the St. Louis Rams, not the Cleveland Browns, so it is accurate.Zdawg1029 (talk) 15:46, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Added Table of Team Totals[edit]

So I added a table that details how many times each team has possessed the number one overall pick. I thought it was useful and interesting and worth adding. I did not add any sources because all I did was count how many each team had it based off of the list above it on the page. If anyone thinks we should not include this, explain why here. If anyone has any way of improving it or making it look better then go for it.Zdawg1029 (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I like the table, but I'm concerned that without sources it can be construed as original research. — DeeJayK (talk) 14:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I was actually pretty surprised that this table wasn't already on here. Other similar pages always do that. It is relevant and can be telling, with the total they have and years listed. But I guess we can source if we need to, but we would just be doubling the sources that were already listed above. I haven't read all the rules on that, but the content in that table literally all came from the above listed information. But if you think it is necessary to source it then let me know. As for the look of it, I don't want to undo your edits, I like the "total number" column being centered, but I king of thought the "year" column looked better at the left and bullet points in the "notes" part. For the "year" column, is there a way to make it maybe 4 or 5 spaces from the left, like an indentation, as opposed to all the way left or centered?Zdawg1029 (talk) 15:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
DeeJayK, I like the table by position, I was actually thinking the same thing, yet another table I was surprised not to see on here. Interesting.Zdawg1029 (talk) 16:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
The biggest impediment to having more of those sorts of tables is simply finding good sources, so that they are not considered original research. Even just counting up the number of mentions of each team in an existing table can constitute OR by some editor's definitions. Due to the likelihood that someone will challenge such an addition, I never add it unless I have a good source. I actually happened across the breakdown by position while I was looking for a reference for the breakdown by team, so I added it. Unfortunately I didn't find such a clean and simple single source for the team breakdown, so I added refs for each individual team. I'd still like to see some additional sources for some of the assertions in the opening paragraph. For example, it would be nice to find a clean source that states the list of teams which have never had a #1 pick. Also you cited a source that shows how many #1 picks the Yanks had, but that doesn't necessarily uphold the assertion that they are the only defunct team with a #1 pick. I'm not disputing the assertion (based on the full list of #1 picks), but generally any statement of fact requires a source. — DeeJayK (talk) 17:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
As regards the formatting questions, I don't have a strong preference either way on the centering. If you like it a different way, feel free to make the change. However, I don't like the look of the bullets in the "Notes" column. I'm not aware of any precedence for that type of presentation and it just doesn't look right to me. Again though, feel free to make the change and others can weigh in. I'm sure there is some elegant way to add an indention or padding to cells, but I'm not aware of it...I'd direct you to look at Help:TableDeeJayK (talk) 17:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 35 external links on List of first overall National Football League draft picks. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)