Talk:2009 NFL season

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

2009 to 2009-10[edit]

I beleave that every 2009 NFL teams season page be re-named to 2009-10 do to that the regular season runs to 2010 as well making chnages to items that link to the teams season page. If this action will be processed please give me a heads up.

--Mr. Unknown (talk) 21:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. A precedent has already been set to just use the single year in seasons that extend into January, such as 2004 and 2005. Also, the season is usually referred to as 2009, not 2009-10. Frank AnchorTalk 00:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The NFL has always gone one single year, ie 2009, not 2, 2009-2010. This is true for regular season and yes playoffs. This has always been set this way by the NFL. So instead of renaming the season, it's the playoff pages that need to be renamed. It's not 2008-2009 playoffs that the Steelers won. Super Bowl 43 = 2008 season, 2008 playoffs, 2008 NFL Championship.Mjhammerle123 (talk) 10:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is about FACT not opinion. It should go by what the NFL goes by. NFL goes one year in the name of the season and playoffs, not 2 years with a dash. It is the 2009 season. Upcoming playoffs is 2009 playoffs. Mjhammerle123 (talk) 05:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mjhammerle12, I can answer your question as to why the playoff articles are currently named in the XXXX-YY format. It all started back in early 2005. At the time the NFL season articles did not exist, and all the content for the playoffs were included in the Super Bowl articles. When the content for the playoff games were split into their own articles, it was done by casual fans who were unfamiliar with the official NFL conventions and instead went by the literal year they were played in January. And thus, for example, the person who split the playoffs section from Super Bowl XXXIX put it on a new page called NFL playoffs, 2005 instead of NFL playoffs, 2004. I also was noticing at the time many pages listed on Google like this one that used "2005 NFL Playoffs" instead of "2004 NFL Playoffs" too.
Wanting to avoid any edit war or naming conflicts between casual and die hard fans, I made a proposal on Talk:National Football League playoffs#Renaming playoff articles to rename them in the XXXX-YY format as a compromise. There was no objection at the time, so I was bold and moved the playoff articles to that convention.
The playoff articles have stayed in this format since then. Unfortunately, with the league playing all its postseason games in January and February for the past two decades, it is only natural for many casual fans and new Wikipedia users to come here thinking the upcoming postseason leading to Super Bowl XLIV is the 2010 playoffs instead of the 2009 playoffs. In other words, there are two common terms for one official name. I'll admit I'd prefer the official NFL format, but the current one on Wikipedia seems to have prevented edit wars for the past four years ... especially when you still see pages like like this article on msnbc that includes both "2009 NFL playoffs" in a navigation box header and a link to "MORE ON SUPER BOWL XLIII". Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to start an edit war. I haven't changed any site on this matter. I was just giving a statement on how the NFL views it. Mjhammerle123 (talk) 16:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply any notion of accusing you of anything. I was merely trying to point out why the articles are named this way. As I said, I'd prefer the official NFL view, but when you're dealing with something that can confuse the average casual fan, something has to give. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Error on main page[edit]

There is an error in the following statement: "Ironically, the Rams cut ties with its last two remaining offensive players from the Greatest Show on Turf era during the offseason by releasing Orlando Pace and Torry Holt for both salary cap reasons as well as the team opting for a rebuilding mode after a 2-14 season in 2008 (second only to the Lions historic 0-16 season) and no trips to the postseason since the 2004 season" - this statement seems to imply that a 2-14 season by an NFL team would rank as the second worst in NFL history - not true, as several teams have gone 1-15 (Cowboys c.1989 and Panthers c.2001 are two I can recall from memory). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.77.142.112 (talk) 17:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regular season standings[edit]

The conference standings for both should also be listed. It is possible even after 1 week to do full tiebreakers for all 8 divisions and both conferences. The full standings should be listed. Mjhammerle123 (talk) 15:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But it would be a waste of time if we did it now. We really don't need to send time setting up something that doesn't mean much. Perhaps by week 10 or something we can set something up. But now is unnecessary (plus, most can figure it out in their heads). –túrianpatois 15:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NFL Records[edit]

Not tracking NFL records broken this time around? KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 06:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Streak[edit]

There is no need for the "Streak" column in the standings. It takes up valuable lateral space that could allow more of the team names to fit on just one line, but does not express information that is very appropriate for Wikipedia. MrArticleOne (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lateral space is not an issue. And streaks are always included in standings, no matter where you see a table about the stats. –túrianpatois 16:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lateral space is a significant issue, as several team names run over onto a second line. And not only are streaks not always included, they are not even usually included; see 2009 MLB season, 2008-09 NBA season, 2008-09 NHL season, etc. MrArticleOne (talk) 17:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an issue of resolution, not inclusion –túrianpatois 17:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the resolution concern was not present, there is no reason for an encyclopedia to indicate the team's winning streak, which is not not relevant for any purpose other than a rough assessment of the teams' relative present ability. It has nothing to do with anything of historic interest, such as who wins the Division Championship or qualifies for the playoffs, which is what the encyclopedia appropriately records. MrArticleOne (talk) 17:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, streak should go. Streaks are not used to determine standing of each team; I'd rather retain Division and Conference records since they are used to break ties. –Howard the Duck 13:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You'd get no argument from me on that. MrArticleOne (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which is not to say I think we should include every single category that factors into the tiebreakers; there's room for editorial judgment on that. But something as basic as the division or conference record (and PF/PA, for that matter) seems quite logical to include. MrArticleOne (talk) 21:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So anyone would remove "STK"?...... –Howard the Duck 13:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support removing it but I have not because I don't care to fight the revert fight. MrArticleOne (talk) 04:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have entered this discussion earlier in the season. Anyway, I suggest you all wait until the season ends when the "normal" standings tables for the NFL season articles get put back on. What you see currently posted are the eight individual standings templates that are also used on the individual team season articles (e.g. Template:2009 AFC East standings is used on 2009 New England Patriots season, 2009 Miami Dolphins season, etc.) Looks like someone thought it would be best to replace the regular tables with these templates to "make life simpler for everyone" when they are updated each week during the season.[1] In any case, the "STK" column is one of those things under WP:RECENTISM that can be kept for now while the event (in our case, season) is in progress, but should be removed later after it all ends because it will be insignificant 10 years from now. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My concern with the STK column is that it consumes lateral space, which, on my display (with a conventional resolution) leaves some of the team names running onto a 2nd line. I don't like that and think it makes the whole table look sloppy. Hence my desire to eliminate it. MrArticleOne (talk) 13:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, let's wait for the season to end. –Howard the Duck 11:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Playoff scenarios[edit]

I believe that New Orleans, now 10-0, can clinch the division title in Week 12 with a win against New England Monday night and an Atlanta loss to Tampa Bay on Sunday - the Saints would then have a 6-game lead with 5 to go. Do we wait until the NFL announces its playoff scenarios, or could it be added now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.35.86 (talk) 21:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


on this topic i dont think its clinched as the second placed team can currently tie. same for the colts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.64.211.103 (talk) 16:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Colts have indeed clinched the AFC South. ~Richmond96 t • c 19:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There can be a 3 way tie for the NFC East title at 10-6. It's possible that this tie could go to strength of victory. They would be tied 2-2 on head to head, 4-2 division, 7-3 common games and 8-4 conference record. I would love to see this. Mjhammerle123 (talk) 02:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not anymore, but there can still be another 3-way tie that goes to strength of victory. The Seahawks (or Cardinals, if they lose 3 straight and the 49ers win 3 straight), Cowboys and Falcons could tie at 8-8 for the 6th seed. They could each have a 6-6 conference record. There would be no head-to-head sweep and fewer than 4 common games. Tomblikebomb (talk) 15:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it still can be a 3 way NFC East tie at 10-6 that goes to strength of victory. Giants win out. Cowboys lose to Saints and win last 2. Eagles lose to 49ers, Cowboys and beat the Broncos. This would tie all 3 at 2-2 head to head, 4-2 division, 7-3 common games, and 8-4 conference. Mjhammerle123 (talk) 04:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who keeps clinching via strength of victory? Clinching is about certainty, not likelihood. That one team leads another in point differential after 15 games does not imply they'll lead after 16 games. Tomblikebomb (talk) 16:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego's clinching scenarios in Week 15[edit]

I made 2 changes to San Diego's clinching scenarios in Week 15. One of the changes I made conflicts with what I found on NFL.com so I'm questioning whether I've correctly interpreted the situation. I welcome others' opinions either in support or contradiction of my changes.

The first change is due simply to Jacksonville's Thursday loss to Indianapolis. The original scenarios for the Chargers to clinch "a playoff spot" included 3 situations: (1) loss or tie by New England, Baltimore, and Miami; OR (2) loss or tie by New England, Baltimore, and New York; OR (3) loss or tie by any 3 of Miami, New York, Baltimore, and Jacksonville. Since Jacksonville did lose, that changed the 3rd one to loss or tie by any 2 of Miami, New York, and Baltimore. Since the 1st and 2nd both include loss or tie by 2 of these 3 teams, it no longer matters what New England does, so I took out those 2.

Here is the change I made that conflicts with NFL.com's official list (which I copied to make the original entries). The official list states San Diego will clinch a 1st round bye if they win or tie AND Denver ties AND New England loses or ties. I think there are 2 things wrong with this. 1st, if San Diego ties Cincinatti this week then loses their last 2 games they'll have a 10-5-1 record, while cincinatti could win their last 2 and finish 11-4-1, therefore leaving San Diego out of the top 2 seeds (Colts already have #1 clinched). 2nd, why is it just "Denver ties"? Why isn't "Denver loses" included? So, I changed what San Diego needs to clinch a 1st round bye to "they win AND Denver loses or ties AND New England loses or ties. LarryJeff (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ravens play-off spot[edit]

Ok - figured out that Ravens can make the play-offs next week as said in this edit. Based on the National Football League playoffs#Breaking ties - it's conference first, then common opponents. So Ravens win against Steelers - overall record is 9-6, conference 7-4. IF they lose there last game it's 9-7 and 7-5, so which teams can get to 9-7 with a better conference record. The Dolphins, Jets, Jaguars and Broncos. There are two spots, so they just need two of those to be lower. Next tiebreaker is common opponents - Dolphins would have this lower than Ravens if both got to 9-7, so if Jaguars and Jets lose then Ravens will be in the play-offs. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 15:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Is there a reason why the NFL Logo is not included in the infobox? ~Richmond96 t • c 02:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#Policy rule #8: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.". It is only on the 2008 NFL season article because there is a section about that being the first season that the league used that new, updated logo. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The second reason is that my original preference was to put the AFL 50th Anniversary logo in the infobox instead, since it is sort of treated as a de facto logo for the 2009 season.[2] But alas, others wanted to move it into the AFL 50th season section instead, but did not add a replacement. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Homefield Advantage[edit]

The first seed symbol (1) implies homefield advantage, which only the first seed has. Thus, the homefield advantage z will be superfluous as long as it indicates such. It separates the division winners into 2 categories numbering 1 and 3. A more useful z would be the far more advantageous bye week, which NFL.com now uses. They still indicate homefield advantage but use an * for it. Then again, they don't indicate seed, so their symbol is not redundant like Wikipedia's has been. So I'm changing z to bye week for the second and final time, and I hope whatever psycopath changed it back can defend himself here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomblikebomb (talk • contribs) 16:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes - I agree, i think first round bye is the more useful note - and then you can have a star or something else for home field advantage. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 20:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually NFL.com does not mark the first round bye Frank AnchorTalk 21:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're looking at the "By Division" standings. The "Playoff Picture" standings use z for first round bye (which I'm happy to call it if that's the issue). Note that neither page includes the (1)+[homefield advantage mark] redundancy you seem to prefer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomblikebomb (talk • contribs) 22:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I stand corrected. Thank you for pointing that out Frank AnchorTalk 00:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On a related note, would it be better if the seeding would be indicated after the team name, and in smaller font? Like "y-New Orleans Saints (1)" –Howard the Duck 14:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Common games tiebreaker[edit]

Does anyone know how the common games tiebreaker works between teams from different divisions? Specifically, in the case where one of the tied teams has played the common opponent twice (i.e., a team in their division)--do both games against that common opponent count? For example, if New England wins their last 2 and San Diego loses their last 2, creating a 11-5 tie. They have 4 common opponents: Tennessee, Baltimore, Denver, and Miami. New England played Miami twice (split) and San Diego played Denver twice (also split). Do all the games count, giving the Patriots the common games tiebreaker (3-2 to 2-3)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LarryJeff (talk • contribs) 22:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both games count. It happened in the '07 season between Tennessee and Cleveland. Tomblikebomb (talk) 22:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! LarryJeff (talk) 01:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How the Jets have tiebreaker over Denver[edit]

Potential tiebreakers between the Broncos and Jets depend on (1) they have the same result (win, loss, or tie) in Week 17 and (2) what that result is. The key is the Jets game vs the Bengals and how it will affect the common games tiebreaker. 1. Head to head does not apply. 2. Conference record is the same (currently both 6-5) 3. Common games; currently Denver has a 3-2 record to New York's 3-1. This will change in Week 17; with a tie or a win against Cincinnati the Jets would have a better record in common games. That is why I removed "Denver does not tie Kansas City" from the Jets clinching scenario. LarryJeff (talk) 14:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, one would think New York already has the edge (3-1 is a better percentage containing fewer losses than 3-2; even if it goes by wins and they tie, New York leads in strength of victory). My mistake for trusting NFL.com's Playoff Picture. I noticed the networks have Jets then Ravens too, so I guess the website's just wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomblikebomb (talk • contribs) 14:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And Cincinnati was a win for Denver, so it can't be just that games don't become common until they're played by both teams. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomblikebomb (talk • contribs) 15:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eagles vs Cowboys match again?[edit]

Can someone put a special mention of the Eagles vs Cowboys match will be played again in back to back weeks at the same stadium? 115.64.53.181 (talk) 06:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is some discussion to put it on the 2009–10 NFL playoffs article instead. See Talk:2009–10 NFL playoffs#Rematches. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dolphin Stadium vs. Landshark Stadium[edit]

I'm curious why this was changed. Doc Quintana (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One reason is that the naming right deal with Land Shark Lager only lasts for eight months, and expires prior to the Pro Bowl and the Super Bowl.[3] Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notable events[edit]

Can we start a table or something? There is no reason to have a sub-section that last a sentence or two for every topic.--Levineps (talk) 19:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be a good idea. ~Richmond96 t • c 00:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about adding a Template:TOC limit? ~Richmond96 t • c 00:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Play-offs start date[edit]

Could someone please fix the |play-offs_start= parameter of the infobox so it will dispaly properly? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The correct spelling is |playoffs_start=, using the common American English spelling of "playoffs" without the hyphen. Apparently, one of the recent script-assisted edits today made several edits in violation of WP:ENGVAR, blindly changing American English spelling and format conventions to British English ones. Please be careful when using any script. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 16:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding this. I'll notify the editor who ran the script about the problem he caused. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 21:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2009 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 to let others know.

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 02:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2009 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}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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 16:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 25 external links on 2009 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 11:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2009 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) 17:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on 2009 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) 06:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2009 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) 12:57, 18 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:2009_NFL_season&oldid=1196547693"