Jump to content

Talk:List of first overall NFL draft picks

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

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)[reply]

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? 66.41.166.72 (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Needed

[edit]

Not Signed, Signed for x amount, Signed for y years 66.234.33.8 (talk) 12:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for major changes to this article

[edit]

A WP user known only by the IP address 66.234.33.8 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:66.234.33.8#List of first overall National Football League draft picks. — DeeJayK (talk) 17:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per AcuteAccusation on my talk page, this point is now moot. He came up with an elegant solution to this problem. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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))[reply]

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)[reply]

"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 4.66.6.167.227 (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:Table — DeeJayK (talk) 17:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[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.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 13:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:36, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page rework

[edit]

Would there be objections if I were to seriously rework the article to be more similar to some of the first-round pick lists? Some examples include;

My intention would be to improve the list and nominated it for featured list status. I would be replacing the current notes column with the details of whether a team traded for the pick and relevant information to go along with that. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the notes column somewhat duplicates the color coding. Still, I think the pick origin is somewhat trivial to the average reader, perhaps more relevant to a team-specific article, and is fine as just a footnote. —Bagumba (talk) 23:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bagumba: Do you view the accolades as more relevant? I feel as though it ends up ballooning up in a lot of cases and I'm kind of just interested in whether they made the hall or not with further details available on their page of course. Personally, I'm very interested in whether someone traded up for #1 or not (a very common topic of discussion in news from my POV) and the cost they paid to do so. I respect that not everyone may be as interested in that aspect of things as I am. The footnotes of course would contain the bulk of the information, as with the team articles. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think readers would primarily want to know if the player was worthy of being the first pick, and accomplishments are one indicator. A team moving up only indicates the demand at the time, which seems secondary to the player's legacy. Perhaps the college highlights (seems only to be Heisman) can be removed?—Bagumba (talk) 06:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After some thought, as much as I'd like to get this list promoted to featured list status to go with the 32 teams' featured lists for first-round picks, I'm unfortunately not interested in doing so if the focus is going to be on the accolades. The inclusion criteria is often difficult to agree upon and I'd rather style it similarly to that of the other lists in the series. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do keep coming back to the idea of wanting to do this, but I struggle with the idea of listing a player's accolades (Pro Bowls are currently listed but All-Pros are not). Bagumba isn't necessarily wrong, but I feel strongly that the details of the trades are also relevant given how often trading for the first oveall pick is discussed. Maybe some day. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_first_overall_NFL_draft_picks&oldid=1258779542"