Talk:2006 NFL season

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

Untitled[edit]

anyone know what espns commenator arrangement is going to be? —This unsigned comment was added by Levineps (talk • contribs) .

  • They just announced the September 11 ESPN Monday night doubleheader a few hours ago, so I doubt the network has immediately decided which game will Tirico, Theismann, and Kornheiser do, and who would work the other game. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bye weeks[edit]

I've noticed that there are only 7 bye weeks in 2006 (weeks 3-9). Previous seasons had bye weeks in week numbers 3-10. Does anyone know the the last time the number of bye weeks changed, and what that schedule was? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Esfaessler (talk • contribs) .

  • Well, I know that the bye week schedule was different during the 1999-2001 seasons because the league had only 31 teams. With an odd number of clubs in the league, at least one team had a bye every week. during the 2001 season, three clubs had byes during weeks 3-4 and 6-9. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 13:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There were probably only seven bye weeks in 2006 because the flex scheduling began in Week 10 this year. I think that the NFL wanted as many teams as possible available for a Sunday night matchup. Next year, the flex scheduling will begin in Week 11 (as there will be a Sunday night game in Week 16, unlike this year).209.244.43.4 11:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New NFL Football[edit]

Could some one please find a picture of the new NFL football with Roger Goodell's name on it

Regular Season 2006[edit]

As a FR and EN contributor, my impression when I see standings of the regular seasin is that we miss a lot of information, they could be added in another article dedicated to the Regular season 2006, as in this example. Any opinion ? Dingy 02:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Field Goal, Week 7[edit]

Even though it's not a milestone, should Matt Bryant's 62-yard field goal that helped the Tampa Bay Buccaneers beat the Philadelphia Eagles 23-21 be included in the season article? I think a 60+ yard field goal is notable enough for annual mention. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 20:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There should probably be a notable-but-not-record-breaking events section in the article for things like this, and Rex Grossman's victory with a 10.2 QB Rating. If we put our heads together, can we come up with enough to justify a section? Adam613 21:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scheduling Flaws[edit]

This section is compleatly one persons opinion, it has no merit and should be eliminated.

In the scheduling flaws, there is a line about the Indy/Philly game being a one-sided blowout. While this may be true (I certainly agree), it isn't very NPOV. But I'm not sure how to improve it. Can we think of a better way to say it? Does it need to be said at all? The flaw in flex scheduling is exposed by the matchup, regardless of the result; if the Eagles had pulled off a stunning upset, that wouldn't have made the game any more worthy of Sunday Night Football than, say, Chicago-New England.Adam613 06:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, the Bears/Pats game was protected for Fox. I'm guessing that the NFL doesn't want to totally screw Fox and CBS with the flex scheduling.209.244.43.4 11:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have removed it, and I can't understand why there was any debate on the matter. The section was not encyclopedic. Darcyj 13:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page too long[edit]

I just got a warning that the page has grown to 33k. This is most likely a result of how big the standings section got (which is partly my fault). Is it worth doing anything about now, or should we wait to see what happens in two weeks when there is no "So-and-so could clinch a playoff berth if these 4 other teams lose next week" section? Adam613 23:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should tone down a bit once the playoff scenarios are gone. Jonpin 00:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Playoff scenarios[edit]

Speaking of which, I don't know if this would technically be considered "original research" but in any event it's incomplete. In case someone wants to put it in. Jonpin 00:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC) Here are the scenarios for AFC playoff seeding:[reply]

AFC homefield advantage and the #1 seed would go to
San Diego with any of the following
  • two wins
  • win AND BAL loss
  • win AND two IND wins
  • IND loss AND two BAL losses
  • IND loss AND IND win AND BAL loss
  • IND loss AND BAL loss AND two NE wins
Indianapolis with two wins AND two SD losses
Baltimore with either of the following:
  • two wins AND SD loss AND IND loss
  • win AND two SD losses AND two IND losses AND NE loss
The #2 seed would go to
San Diego with any of the following:
  • loss AND IND loss AND two BAL wins
  • two losses AND two IND wins AND BAL loss
  • two losses AND two NE wins AND BAL win AND two IND losses
Indianapolis with any of the following:
  • two wins AND SD win
  • win AND loss AND BAL loss
  • loss AND two BAL losses AND NE loss
Baltimore with any of the following:
  • two wins AND IND loss AND two SD wins
  • win AND loss AND two IND losses AND SD win
  • two wins AND two SD losses AND two IND wins
  • win AND loss AND two IND losses AND two NE wins
New England with two wins AND two IND losses AND two BAL losses
A first-round bye would be awarded to
San Diego with win OR BAL loss OR IND loss
Indianapolis with any of the following:
  • two wins
  • win AND BAL loss
  • two BAL losses AND NE loss
Baltimore with any of the following:
  • two wins AND IND loss
  • win AND two IND losses
  • two wins AND two SD losses

Deletion[edit]

I oppose the deletion of the playoff scenario section. I like it, it is useful, and it is NPOV factual. Yeah, it may be changing week-to-week, but many current events have entries. I don't see a strong justification for deletion (other than mooting by the resolution of playoff teams). Aardhart 18:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

62-yard field goal[edit]

I made a section about Matt Bryant's field goal, and noted how it effected the Eagles' seasonDoorknob123 02:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coaching changes[edit]

Shouldn't this section go on the 2007 NFL season article? It is technically the offseason for those teams. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. These coaching changes reflect on the 2007 season far far more than the 2006 season. KyuuA4 23:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lamar Hunt[edit]

OK, I know it's short, but here's an alternative Hunt section. It'll somewhat shorten things and it's not an obituary.

On December 13, 2006, Lamar Hunt, founder of the Kansas City Chiefs and the driving force behind the AFL, died at the age of 74 from prostate cancer.

(Yeah, I know I really chopped it, but that's why I put it up for discussion.) Tell me what you think! Fleetflame (talk) 02:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this whole article needs to be rewritten. See WP:RECENT. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to the whole article as recentism, or my section? What about summarizing or at least changing tables into lists....this is under style, jsyk. Fleetflame (talk) 02:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of it. Look at this compared to 2005 NFL season and 2004 NFL season. I do not think we need extensive coverage on the television contracts when most of this is on NFL on television, or extensive coverage of records in the milestones section that are not found in either the NFL Record and Fact book or http://www.nfl.com/history/randf. Or subsections in the news and notes section that only consist of 2-3 sentences. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:New NFL Officials Uni.jpg[edit]

File:New NFL Officials Uni.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot report : Found duplicate references ![edit]

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "nfl" :
    • http://www.nfl.com/news/story/9655817
    • http://www.nfl.com/news/story/9810580 All games sold out for 11th consecutive week<ref>,{{Dead link|url=http://www.nfl.com/news/story/9810580|date=December 2007}} ''NFL.com'', [[17 November]] [[2006]].

DumZiBoT (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 05:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 2[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 05:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 3[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 05:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2006 NFL season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2006 NFL season. 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) 17:22, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:1970 NFL season which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2006_NFL_season&oldid=1196485749"